i just tell them that i'm a reasonable and logical person and that i find religion to be unreasonable and illogical. they can take that how they want. but i've found that those that i've replied to with this usually accept it and move on.
2007-12-07 04:32:38
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
5⤊
3⤋
It seems pretty clear to me that everyone, when pondering creation and existence must choose between the theological explanation and the evolutionary explanation. And what can a person do except believe the explanation that seems to them to make the most sense? (any one who "chooses" what they believe is kidding themselves)
I'm puzzled by those who think that the theological explanation makes the most sense. I suspect that some, anyway, are kidding themselves, but that's of no matter.
But if it makes the best sense to them, then I'm ok with that. Once again, I'm puzzled. But I have no other feeling about it.
To condense my answer; the non-deity explanation of creation makes by far the best sense to me. It always has and I have very little doubt that it always will. There is no free will for me in this matter. I am not able to decide what I perceive to be fact.
edit: isn't it awful? Someone gives a concise, excellent answer such as "The simple explanation is that I have never found evidence for a god." and someone comes along and thumbs-down it.
Are they too dumb to realize that they're making themselves and their friends look bad?
2007-12-07 04:39:12
·
answer #2
·
answered by Robert K 5
·
2⤊
0⤋
"Because, there are a lot of religions, and there is no reason why I would think that one of them is right over the others. There is no reason why I can be sure that Christianity is right and Islam is wrong; or that Hinduism is right and Buddhism is wrong. And, just as any particular religion's view of god is just as likely as another's, it also just as likely that a god does exist is at is to exist at all. But, seeing as how I have no particular inclination be a member of every religion known to man in order to cover my bases, I just take the stance that I cannot know which religion is, or even if there is a god, and leave it at that."
2007-12-07 04:46:16
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
For me It Is Imposable to believe In a GOD when there Is no evidence. The only thing we have to go on Is a 2000 year old storey book that Is filled with nothing to prove It.
Science has already proved the BIG BANG and EVOLUTION, we are all natural, from years and years of natural selection. Not Devinne will.
It Is just pure common seance to us.
2007-12-07 05:07:57
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
History shows that all civilizations have had their religious beliefs. You are atheist to all of those religions. I took it one god further than you. (Thanks Dawkins).
There is no proof of god(s). 2000 year old books that were written and then compiled by men and are riddled with inaccuracies is not enough to convince me.
"You just have to have faith" is not a compelling reason to believe.
Science has explained many things the religion used to explain. Religion always fights against science when it comes up with a new explanations. It seems counterproductive to choose to belief in religion when it can't stand up against scientific proof.
2007-12-07 04:47:55
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
I am not an atheists, but I think atheists have it wrong when they say the Bible is full of contradictions. You probably have never seen a Bible. You know what is full of contradictions? Atheism....
Answer this: How many Atheists help the poor and hungry? How many atheist have love in their heart for the world? Atheism is void and black, no life no love. A lack of faith that is sad, lifeless, and doomed. Merry CHRISTmas!
2007-12-07 04:39:04
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
2⤋
Either tell them your reasons or tell them you prefer to not discuss it. I don't get asked because most people do not know that I am an atheist. It is not something I can easily disclose, as my work life would (ironically) be made a living hell.
2007-12-07 04:32:03
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
0⤋
enable me get this in the present day,you're asking questions of atheists and complaining as quickly as we answer? would a while no longer be extra effective spent complaining with regard to the religious no longer answering once you ask questions of them? faith is backwards. i think of eighteen is your lot extra or much less
2016-11-14 18:48:57
·
answer #8
·
answered by ? 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
I'm atheist because I do not share the theist's belief in God nor do I accept the theist's claim that there is a God ...total lack of evidence for God is a sound reason to be an atheist.
2007-12-07 04:33:41
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
5⤊
2⤋
That I was allowed to make my own decisions about my personal beliefs growing up, and as a result I have not been indoctrinated into any particular religion. I have an ability to look at religion from an objective standpoint and have decided its not for me.
/agnostic
2007-12-07 04:32:52
·
answer #10
·
answered by justin_I 4
·
4⤊
1⤋
I tell them that if they want a full explanation then they'll have to give me some time.
Or, I just answer with "Bayesian Epistemology" (which is basically the system by which I choose my beliefs.)
2007-12-07 04:31:58
·
answer #11
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
0⤋