The validity of religions is Belief and Faith.

You're not going to come to an equal/sensible/logical conclusion because stuff like science requires the tangible stuff (proof) that faith and belief does not.

I don't need to see, hear, touch, smell, or taste proof in order to understand that a thing exists.

Things such as:

Morality
Irony
Coincidence
Serendipity

The actuality or...the factuality these things aren't generally understood with something tangible. Similar is so with God and or religions. You don't base your belief of them on a tangible fact of their existence. The fact of their existence is the belief of them. The only proof you're going to get is if you feel it = have faith in the fact/feeling that they exists.

That's exactly why alot of folks trying to prove the validity of God/religion don't get it. They're too busy using the intellectual aspect of their character. So smart that you're stupid. lol

deleted

I love you death Predator, but that's just not true. There are numerous arguments for the existence of God which were utilized by historical thinkers. It wasn't until the 1800s that Christians were all like "Faith or Bust!" and decided they didn't need the arguments anymore. All the classical Christians utilized reason to support their faith.

The original idea was faith and reason had a body/soul relationship. When the idea of a purely belief-based salvation became status quo, the arguments went out of style.

I've been lurking around in this thread since it first started, and I'm very pleased with how well you all have responded. It's nice to have civil discussions, isn't it?

I just wanted to address a few topics that came up as I was reading through replies.


Good. Quite often I hear the phrase "the Universe was created from nothing" being thrown around as an attempt to undermine the Big Bang Model by distorting its hypotheses. A common setup for a straw man, but it's obvious that was not FlamingTP's intention.


A reason one would have for not providing a decent response to the argument is that the premises are not entirely sound.

We do not currently know how the Universe began, or whether it had a beginning at all. As the most accepted cosmological model of the early history of the Universe, the Big Bang Model does not address this question. General Relativity may predict that a singularity existed prior to cosmic inflation, but this singularity marks the break down of General Relativity. Not only this, but current theories limit just how far back in time we can make reasonable predictions of the early Universe. Predicting the state of the Universe prior to the Planck epoch (10^-43 seconds) is nothing more than speculation. To break this threshold we need new theories.

So the nature of the Universe (hence, space and time) prior to the Big Bang is still a very hot topic that has not been completely resolved. To say that space and time are, with certainty, contingent is a bit of a stretch. This claim is currently beyond our understanding. Maybe string theory will shed some light in the future.

If we assume that we do know that space and time is contingent, and that the existence of space and time has a cause, how does one prove that this cause must be a supernatural entity? I guess the idea comes from the concept of existing "outside" space and time. If we say that time had a beginning, how could there be a cause that existed before time began? Since this is beyond our understanding, we could claim that the only possible cause would be a supernatural one. I argue that the original premise is based off a "God of the Gaps" fallacy in which a supernatural cause is used as an explanation for an observation or prediction of limited knowledge.

People need to understand that the Universe is an environment that challenges our interpretation of the natural world. If I say that the Universe is isotropic and homogeneous with no boundaries or center, most people will have trouble conceptualizing it. I have trouble conceptualizing it, but the Universe is what it is. It's not valid to assume that the gaps of our knowledge of the cosmos should be filled with supernatural explanations.

No one is calling the religious idiots, or at least I'm not. I don't claim that a supernatural entity does not exist. I recognize that there is no evidence to disprove this claim. However, the absence of evidence is not empirical evidence. We are all free to believe in what we want, but we need to exercise caution if we plan on proving the validity of said beliefs. If I misunderstood your claims, please let me know.

I want to know why you chose atheism and what would have to happen to make you a believer?

A universe with no beginning requires a mathematical impossibility. You can't have an infinite set of past moments because if you did, that would mean any point in the set would require an infinite amount of increments before you reached the present moment. The infinite past just doesn't work when you bring real numbers into the picture.


If the space-time contingency isn't working for you, that's fine. Honestly, I don't think special relativity has the final word on time myself. But the original problem stands: an infinite past just mathematically doesn't work.


In this context, there really is no use for the term "supernatural." We're speaking purely of agents at this point. The gaps fallacy doesn't apply because the creator of space-time HAS to be transcendent of space-time. That's not a guess; that's just analytically true. From there, the atheist really only has two options:

A) explain how the cause of space-time can occur within time, or

B) explain how the transcendent agent still does not qualify as God.

Option A isn't going go far, and option B tends to be uncomfortable for most secular thinkers, mostly because conceding such an agent means that material monism (the belief that all existing entities are material in essence) is false. No atheist wants to concede that, yet they can't say an entity transcendent of space is material (material needs space to exist).

I'll admit that speaking of pre-time entities is murkey territory, but it's still more reasonable than saying the universe ignited for without any cause or reason. Not only does that just seem intuitively wrong, but that violates the principle of sufficient reason (PSR). Some of my friends just flat out deny PSR, but that's intellectual suicide if you ask me.


We have to go where logic takes us. Logic tells us that events must have causes; it tells us that a cause and effect cannot be the same entity; it tells us that agents of a cause cannot be ontologically dependent on the event or item which they bring into existence. If we define God as an entity with the attributes of timelessness, omnipotence, and omniscience, then none of this is really a stretch. He's only supernatural in the sense that he's transcendent of nature. Other than that, he's completely in line with reason.


Without rational knowledge (knowledge not based in empiricism), empirical knowledge isn't even possible because empirical knowledge ultimately relies on rational principles. No one has OBSERVED logical axioms; we just know them based on intuition. You can't verify the scientific method with the scientific method.

There's also things like moral knowledge which clearly are not empirical (this is kind of what predator was getting at earlier), but no one is going to deny it's wrong to torture babies.

In all honesty, I must ask: Does it really matter?

That is one of the questions often unasked and more often unanswered.

deleted

I don't know any better way to word this, but you're a dick.

Live and let live anyone?

Can't we just let people believe what they want? I would like that, but we always have to attack each other if someone disagrees with our way of thinking. If someone wants to believe in an almighty creator good for them. If someone wants to believe that there is no god more power to them. Hell if someone wants to believe in the Elder Gods why the hell not? If they aren't bothering you and are just minding their own business what do you really care about what they believe?

Society, any society abhors divergence.

Striving for homogenuity is a biological part: animals kill or abandon deformed or unnecessary offspring. Humanity and society does the same. Votings etc. all show how when given the opportunity people will enforce the will of the majority which in itself is the most powerful homogene characteristic of the given society at the time.

If Bezou wishes to believe that we are biological accidents, good for him. If he wishes to berate others for not, pay him and his efforts no heed. If people get violent about it, you fight back.

I stopped to wonder why people have a particular urge ot convince others or lash out instinctively to berate others because of their own insecurities. These people deserve no attention, and there is no difference between evangelizing and someone trying to convert you to atheism. Fundamentally they are the same, only towards different principles.

I sometimes however still wonder what drives people to continually reassure their allegiances infront of others and call them out on their divergence.

This is the most mature and most beneficial approach to take. I find people worrying about things that don't personally impact them in any way shape or form.

I don't care what any of you believe in --

So long as you're moral, courteous, and use your ability to reason; I think that you're fine.

I've never been religious, I'm more-so spiritual: I meditate, and I believe that there's some form of "energy" manifested in a higher-power, but this higher power is not a diety.

(I'm not sure if that makes sense?)

Simply put, the concept of "God" doesn't really do it for me. I've never been able to be blindly-obedient.

'shit don't fly.

I'll answer it for you: it matters because it explains the meaning behind your existence. If they're is a God, then that dictates your purpose in reality. If there's not a God, then there is no meaning.

How could this possibly not matter?


(This techincally a response to both you guys)

You can't say it doesn't impact you unless you already know the truth of the matter. Otherwise, you're wagering between annihilation and infinite happiness.

I agree that you shouldn't coerce people into your own belief system, but if you were truly convinced that the Christian mythology was true, you'd be dumb not to preach it.

As a matter of fact, unless you just think truth is ultimately irrelevant (well, it is if you're an atheist), then you should preach whatever the truth happens to ultimately be. Even if you don't have absolute certainty, there will always be a more educated theory.


And we're back to the old problem: what is moral? You need a moral theory to answer that question: which one do you choose? Truth is that in order to correct moral theory, you need a correct understanding of what reality is. The only thing this neutrality ends up doing is sending us back to square one.

It matters to me. I just wanted to know the reasoning behind his answers. Why he has what seems to have Hatred toward faith, hope and religion of any kind. I also believe his answer was a lie. I think there is something else in his past that made him hate religion. Bezou comes across to me as very intelligent but also very sarcastic and angry. If he gave me a true answer instead of bullshit I would know why he is the way he is. Simple as that.

I can tell by your answer you did not read the post I replied to, with that said:

Why Bezou is an Atheist has nothing to do with the possibility of any deity existing.




Bezou's answer is Bezou's answer.

Whether or not you choose to believe it is entirely up to you. In then end, the only person who will ever truly know the truth is Bezou. If he feels his reasons are best left within him not saying he does that is his choice. Instead of trying to pry open Pandora's Box, just accept the fact that he is an atheist, and let him live his life as such.

Because in the end, it really doesn't matter.

deleted

Okay, I reread the post, and you're right. I somehow confused the context of your post with Espios. Specifically, I thought the meaning of the word "it" in the statement "why does IT really matter" referred to the overall topic, and not specifically Bezou's atheism.
Brain fart. My bad.

That's right Bezou because any belief other than your own is delusion. Am I right?

Perhaps you could delegate meaning. You could say "this portrait I painted has value to me," or "this sports championship defines who I am," but that's nothing special. Children do that with their toys. Serial killers do that with corpses.

The minute your own being exits the picture, none of that stuff has any significance. With theism, your life is progressing towards a defined goal that exists with or without your delegation. It's more than just a large set of preferences that immediately expire once you die.

Because it's easier to be a dick who lashes out everything that's not from his/her sty and blindly believe in what he/she sees fit, rather than try to understand the multitude and depth of other aspects of view on life. Love for divergence is difficult, as well as positive. The other related factor is fear. A dogmatic, though he/she may never admit or show it, intensely fears the "other one's" likings, motto and appearance. The fear, then, lest it should mentally ruin its bearer, transforms into aggression, eventually "adorned" by its rational justifications (e.g. "their religion and ways are impure, their ancestors were the Messiah's killers", etc...)

The dilemma that is tormenting me is related to the principle that the aforementioned psychological profile is typical of the three most widespread and powerful religions. Why nurse fear and inferiority complex within your mind if you are well aware of the global success and adaptation of your religion in the modern world?

To riyakou: It's a simple question asked to a user on the other side of the spectrum. I'm going to let Bezou live his life the way he wants it. What harm can come from my question? I simply believed he lied do to the fact he went straight for the reason route some atheists lean to. Most atheists don't start out saying I chose reason and thought over religion. They choose it because they don't like religions treatment of homosexuality or How they can't believe God would allow all this suffering or maybe their parents were atheists. But later they need to argue their points so they lean toward scientific reasoning.

deleted

No Bezou I don't know you. I just think that your not giving me a straight answer. But don't worry cuz I won't ask you anything else.

deleted