i don't believe in gods or in supernatural beings. my reason is simple: there isn't any tangible evidence to believe in such creatures.


what's your argument/reason when people ask you why you don't in believe in gods.

Ooops. Flawed question. Just wait. You'll see.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/15/2011 01:58AM by thingsithink.

Agreed. No empirical evidence. No logical proofs. No personal experience that can't be explained.

There are no good reasons to pretend that any such thing as a god exists.

"Because throughout history....every mystery....has turned out to be....'not magic.'" - Tim Minchin



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/15/2011 02:30AM by kolobian.

I just finished reading "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins (great book). Near the beginning, he distinguishes between the personal, supernatural God that most people believe in and Einstein's God, who is more of a rhetorical device describing the Universe or the forces of nature. I think I believe in this second version of god. In Dawkins' view, Einstein's god is essentially another name for atheism. I don't like to call myself an atheist, though, for the simple reason that I prefer to make a positive claim of what I do believe in (the forces of nature) as opposed to making a negative claim of what I do not believe in (God).
Dawkins goes on to "disprove" the personal, supernatural God, with the disclaimer that you can't prove a negative and the burden of proof is on the one making the positive claim. However, even if God can't be disproved, it is possible to make judgements about the probability of a supernatural interventionist God existing, which Dawkins does very effectively. The most convincing point, to me, was the simple fact that explaining the creation of the world by means of God doesn't explain anything. If God created everything, then you have to explain how God came to be, which just makes the situation more complicated. Dawkins explains it much better, but that's the basic idea.

Ooops. Another false post. It's not a claim. Sorry.


But on a personal note, I relate to your view.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/15/2011 02:25AM by thingsithink.

OK, if you really want to argue semantics.

claim/klām/ Noun: An assertion of the truth of something, typically one that is disputed or in doubt.

A negative claim, then, would be an assertion of the untruth of something, especially something that is disputed or in doubt. If I say that God is not real, I would be asserting the untruth of the concept of "God", which is currently being disputed.

I was just kidding. I've been schooled by the atheists when I misspeak about atheist terms. They get touchy about the "lack of belief" versus denial of God or making a claim.

I like your post - that's how I think. Sorry.

That made me laugh so hard!

For some reason this post reminds me of the movie (based on the play) Angels in America. When the guy w/aids ends up where the angels meet and finds out that god has deserted them... he tells them to just be ready to sue him when/if he comes back ;)

I've been told, in so many words, that I'm an atheist in some regards.

My reason for not believing in a loving personal god that answers prayers and has a plan for our life is that no god would put us through this crazy experience and selectively punish people for no reason. If anything, the evidence is there for a wicked, cruel personal god. I know - but how do you explain all the good in the world?

I'm not sure why some atheists are so averse to expressing an opinion that god does not exist. They really seem hung up on the "I can't even entertain crazy ideas." However, we do live in a mind-blowing world. Even the minuscule understanding we have of our universe is mind-boggling. There are plenty of questions I don't think we can ever answer. The possibility that something (god) - dare I say energy or intelligence or higher power - exists would be no more bizarre than the insane circumstance we find ourselves in. No sillier, no stranger, no more ridiculous, no more of a paradox.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/15/2011 03:31AM by thingsithink.

"but how do you explain all the good in the world?"

interesting question.



i believe people can turn good or evil based on their own choices and perceptions of reality. people can do that on their own without the gods' influence.



on choices:
these are really good books.
http://www.amazon.com/Lucifer-Effect-Understanding-Good-People/dp/0812974441/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1323974524&sr=1-1

you can also read about the "Stanford Prison Experiment" from 1971.


on perceptions of reality:
the wars we are in right now. are they good? are they evil? ask a nato jet fighter. ask a kid on the ground that lost his mother due to a drone attack. what is good? what is evil?



ultimately, in my humble opinion, goodness in the world is not evidence that the gods exist. for the same reason that evil is not evidence that the gods do not exist.

To me it is the large amount of evidence that god was invented by humans.

You can look back and see the evolution of the concept of god and how what the concept of what god is is a product of the culture, needs, etc. not the other way around.

You can easily understand how the evolutionary needs to survive - working as a tight knit group following an authoritarian leader play is very well to religion.

You can easily see the psychology of why people believe what they believe and how they think and understand why they would come up with god. Dealing with the fear of death. Superstition, etc. all point towards people being naturally wired to come up with and believe in god concepts.

For me it is all about the question: "Is it more likely that man created god or that god created man?"

All the evidence I've ever seen points strongly towards man creating god.

The point I'm trying to make is that it's not so much the lack of evidence for god, but the evidence that god is exactly the sort of thing that humans would come up with that convinces me.

Because "God" definitely exists, at the very least as:

1. a word
2. some sort of concept

How about this definition:

A super-being who creates discord, mischief, doubt and insecurity among humans.

?

I can't feel his thoughts, either.

I don't see any evidence that He/She exists.

Most of the stories about God involved miracles, things that are generally considered to be impossible. But they are unverifiable stories.

So why should I believe?

As soon as James Randi hands out a million dollars, I'll have reason to consider the existence of a God.

Of course, I'm more than willing to entertain any evidence to the contrary.

Timothy

If evidence ever shows up I'll reconsider my conclusion that there's no deity.

I used to have a proof of the non-existence of god that used quantum mechanics.

Of course, it was more of a joke than a proof.

And, you had to know the Copenhagen interpretation of Quantum Mechanics to get it.

and then you would have to prove non-existence. Which I think is impossible. We have not even come close to understanding the nature of the universe.
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
Arthur C. Clarke, "Profiles of The Future", 1961 (Clarke's third law)
English physicist & science fiction author (1917 - )

We know a little, but it's a candle in the dark.

well at first glance anyway... he posits that the universe just popped into existence... without breaking known physical laws... sounds like magic to me! :)
so Stephen Hawking believes in magic!! :)

hey just having some fun... i am sure he has mathematical proofs right?

:)


i agree. i don't think the wave function collapses just by observing the particle passing by. i don't think humans come to be just because some big consciousness is observing us.


..and that's why I prefer the everett interpretation over the copenhagen interpretation.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/16/2011 08:52AM by bignevermo.

I don't need to make an argument for the non-existence of God. Nobody has made a valid argument FOR the existence of such an entity and I'm not going to assume anything without justification.

Theists haven't proven their case. It's up to them. I see no reason to assume that their god exists.

Also, I've seen people try to say that God is "self-existent." That's pure sophistry. A definition doesn't prove existence, even if you call it "self-existence." That's just confusion.

It's up to believers to prove it.

It's foolish to consider the possibility of something that cannot be proven.

my sarcastic meter just went off things...

"It's foolish to consider the possibility of something that cannot be proven."

i dont think it is foolish to consider the possibility of something that cannot be proven.

consider...:)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/16/2011 08:53AM by bignevermo.

It is, however, somewhat foolish to simply accept something that cannot be objectively proven. :)

I Am- therefore I think-

If He created Me, why am I designed like most other mammals, but walk upright and have a bad back as a result?

Owwww, where's the Motrin!?

Everything I know, or have learned about god, or any of his attributes came to me straight out of the mouth of another man.

There is not a single solid proof by any religion of the existence of their god or gods.

No one so far had been to the other side and comeback to talk about it.

In fact out of the billions of people who have since passed on none have returned to talk about it.

If god exists then what is he hiding from? Whats he so afraid of? Why is he so mysterious and arrogant?

If god so loved the world, he would surely be here when Hitler slaughtered millions, or on sept 11 2001.... or when diseases ravished men.....

"No one so far had been to the other side and comeback to talk about it.

In fact out of the billions of people who have since passed on none have returned to talk about it."

well Christians say one has!!
just sayin!