Atheists...

[andykelly]

Originally Posted by SantaMonica1369

Just to play devil's advocate, because I agree completely, there's no proof that God doesn't exist...
Whats up with that?

If someone believes something and there's no proof against it, does that make it real?

Interesting idea

I'm all for people wishing to claim to be athiests - its supposedly a free world. Inherently my issue with their stance though is that its an arrogant premise. Who the hell is anyone to say that their isn't a God.

Athiests are comically guilty of the same arrogance that many of them direct at believers in stating this belief (or lack of a belief) ie how can they claim to believe in God when theres no proof.

Conversely how can an Athiest state that theres no God when there is no proof God doesnt exist.

Agnostics always made much more sense.

Who the hell is anyone to say that there is no God

Personally I do believe in God, my main question is what is the true nature of God.

[Holiday20310401]

Somebody should write a book about a soul or spirit (whatever you call it) resurrecting every death as a new random person in the world in a different body. And each life they have they advocate for a different religion. One life they are Christian and another they are Islam, but always the same soul.

It would be a fine example of how if religion relies so heavily on faith and how you can't rationalize alone for that faith. It merely corresponds to the environment of the life of that soul. In the end they are all the same, we all die inevitably.

The difference between an atheist and a theist would simply be that an atheist's means to an end is not in what the inevitable has to offer, being transcendence; faith, God; rather life is the only importance. A theist requires faith in order to come to agreement with the end, the end must be meaningful, when they should realise that life is meaning, and transcendence is without potential.

[midas77]

Originally Posted by andykelly

Interesting idea

I'm all for people wishing to claim to be athiests - its supposedly a free world. Inherently my issue with their stance though is that its an arrogant premise. Who the hell is anyone to say that their isn't a God.

Athiests are comically guilty of the same arrogance that many of them direct at believers in stating this belief (or lack of a belief) ie how can they claim to believe in God when theres no proof.

Conversely how can an Athiest state that theres no God when there is no proof God doesnt exist.

Agnostics always made much more sense.

Who the hell is anyone to say that there is no God

Personally I do believe in God, my main question is what is the true nature of God.

The burden or proof is on the believer. He is the one making the claim. If the proof is based on personal faith, he must keep it to himself and to other believers. Faith is no proof, it is the absence of proof. Theist are the one that tends to proselytize. Did it not occur to you that atheist most of the times wonder why so many people claim belief in God while he can not. It is a matter of a psychological need. maybe atheist wish to be conviced. If you think of them as arrogant when they demand proofs of something that they can not see while you claim to be clearly seeing them, then it seems to me you are pretty ambiguous too in your conviction.

[andykelly]

Surely an athiest also has a burden of proof? As an athiest is stating they have a belief system - the choice to totally refute God's existance.
I'm not a bible basher - far from it. Historically religion has kept man in the dark on many levels. I'm much more scientifically based.
In fact I totally understand many peoples athiestic and agnostic stances re God and religion.

In fact the whole thing is an over simplification.

I have days where I'm agnositc, hell I have days when I feel athiestic lol
but I always revert sooner or later to my personal faith eventually.

Do I have a faith - yes to some degree, am I totally convinced? hell no

I stand by my statement re arrogance - interpret that how you will, all I was trying to say was who the hell is anyone to claim that God doesn't exist - surely it's sensible to take an agnostic stance - as we all are pretty much in a state of ignorance - so much to learn as theres so much we don't know.

In an infinite universe are we (mankind) in a postition to say we know it all? I'm a fan of science - I've read a lot of dawkins and applaud his brain but disagree with him on some fundamental levels - can we reduce everything to the propagation of the selfish gene?

Originally Posted by midas77

The burden or proof is on the believer. He is the one making the claim. If the proof is based on personal faith, he must keep it to himself and to other believers. Faith is no proof, it is the absence of proof. Theist are the one that tends to proselytize. Did it not occur to you that atheist most of the times wonder why so many people claim belief in God while he can not. It is a matter of a psychological need. maybe atheist wish to be conviced. If you think of them as arrogant when they demand proofs of something that they can not see while you claim to be clearly seeing them, then it seems to me you are pretty ambiguous too in your conviction.

[one-philosophy]

every religion is potentially a wrong religion yet all are potentially right. Only one religion can truelly be "right" though.
I can't be a christian and a muslim. I cannot be a hindu and a sikh. Unless a new religion emerges I cannot be part of two religions as for the most part it is contradictary. If I choose to be muslim, but the catholics are right= I go to hell. If I go hindu and the muslims are right= I go to hell. If I go anglican and the mormons are right=I go to hell. Of most religions, I can only be part of that one religion and no other. If I choose the false religion, I'l busted, so God has to provide us with some help so we can have some form of justification as to what the true religion is

[boagie]

Funny, very funny!!! This is a take on who's on first, what's on second!!!

[stalker]

Originally Posted by SantaMonica1369

Just to play devil's advocate, because I agree completely, there's no proof that God doesn't exist...
Whats up with that?

If someone believes something and there's no proof against it, does that make it real?

Don't you think that it is more difficult to prove that God doesn't exist than to prove that God exists?

[one-philosophy]

Originally Posted by boagie

Funny, very funny!!! This is a take on who's on first, what's on second!!!

huh? explain...
please

whats on first who's on second?

[boagie]

Originally Posted by one-philosophy

huh? explain...
please

whats on first who's on second?

One philosophy,

It is just that from an unbelievers perspective it is such a silly dialogue, the who's on first, what's on second is a referance to an Abott an Castello comedy routine, that was basically nonesense, yet very funny.


"every religion is potentially a wrong religion yet all are potentially right. Only one religion can truelly be "right" though.
I can't be a christian and a muslim. I cannot be a hindu and a sikh. Unless a new religion emerges I cannot be part of two religions as for the most part it is contradictary. If I choose to be muslim, but the catholics are right= I go to hell. If I go hindu and the muslims are right= I go to hell. If I go anglican and the mormons are right=I go to hell. Of most religions, I can only be part of that one religion and no other. If I choose the false religion, I'l busted, so God has to provide us with some help so we can have some form of justification as to what the true religion is."

This has potential for a great comedy routine, seriously, stand outside it and consider it, it is funny, very funny!!! I think I am going to print this dialogue out and go on the road with it!! I could call it, "Who's Going To Hell, What's On Second," OR "Choosing A Religon, The Shell Game!"

[Didymos Thomas]

Only one religion can truelly be "right" though.

I don't see how. Even your own faith tradition, Islam, has a rich history of accepting other faith traditions as valid and spiritually productive. Mohamed was keenly interested in Judaism and Christianity and learned a great deal from practicing Jews about spirituality.

I can't be a christian and a muslim. I cannot be a hindu and a sikh.

Sure you can. It would be strange, but I do not see any problem. The Baha'i faith considers all of the faith traditions to be the same spiritual path expressed in different social contexts.

If I choose to be muslim, but the catholics are right= I go to hell. If I go hindu and the muslims are right= I go to hell. If I go anglican and the mormons are right=I go to hell.

I've heard this before, and what you suggest here seems to be the common opinion. But I disagree entirely. They may differ in ceremony and language, but the goal is the same. Methods are remarkably similar.

Of most religions, I can only be part of that one religion and no other.

It makes more sense to be part of a particular spiritual community, depending on your own situation - culture, location, ect. But if a Buddhist can take communion with Catholics and feel the Holy Spirit in the process, I think that's a good thing.

If I choose the false religion, I'l busted, so God has to provide us with some help so we can have some form of justification as to what the true religion is

Which tradition did not come from God? As a Muslim, don't you have reverence for the God of Moses? For the God of Jesus? And for the God of Mohamed?