WWSD

If you take the bible literally, then you would believe that the world is flat based upon the scriptures that
JenniferD provided.

Which brings up another point. you stated that you beleive the bible is symbolic. Oddly, no one seems to agree fully about what parts are symbolic, and what parts are literal. That is another objection I have.

Further, I do believe the age of the earth is biblically based in the lineages reaching back to the "beginning."
In any case, I do not agree with the creation story as presented.

Additionally, the flood story is inconsitant with reality, and the exodus story is seriously doubtful to me.

Calling some of these things "sybolism" is, IMO, tantamount to hand waving.

There are a lot of other inconsistancies, and contradicitons, that lead to me believe that the bible is just another book. I'm not going to list them as I am sure there are a multitude of links that do it for me that one could easily look up if one wanted.

Etcetera is etc. or "more of the same", if you prefer to have definitions.

Other reasons that I have for lacking a belief, well, there are many. And many of them are interconnected in certian ways.

I have no problem with jesus or god, and I am not angry, because I really think these things are constructs of the human mind anyway.

I doubt the existence of a god for many of the reasons that were already listed. I can not reconcile the idea of an omniscient, omnipotent god and the state of the universe and theology as it stands.

If there is a god, or a creator of some sort, that being created the universe and then left, never to return. I certainly do not think there is some benevolant creature watching over us for any reason.

I would say that another one of the glaring problems I have is free will, right behind scientific knowledge filling in many of the gaps in which a god used to reside. I myself am a biologist, and I see nothing in biology which really suggests a creator at all.
I don't think that science is reconcilable with many mainstream theologies. And I sincerely doubt the validity of the claims that the bible contains modern scientific knowledge.

If this didn't really answer your questions, I would suggest that you go back and reread the thread and look for reasons that I didn't state here. I'd say that many of them probably represent the way I feel as well.

Have fun!

Ensign Steve

This is a common definition of atheist, and it is faulty and biased, in that it presupposes an existence of god, and it is the action of the atheist to "deny" that existence.

If you break down the word, you can come up with a better, less biased, definition. "a-" meaning not, and "theist" meaning theist. That's it. We are not theists.

AzJeff

I'm not superstitious and don't believe in the supernatural.

Abacus

Why can't I say both?

I consider myself an agnostic and an atheist. When I say I'm an agnostic, I'm making a statement about my knowledge. I don't have all the information. When I say I'm an atheist, I'm making a statement about my beliefs. I don't believe in any gods.

luvluv

Mageth:

I'm no scholar, and Kenny or Tercel might be better able to comment on this, but I don't think Aquinas used the first cause argument. His cosmological argument was a first cause as an originator of motion, not as an originator of existence. He saw God as the unmoved mover, like a spring which causes all of the other mechanisms in the cosmic watch to move.

Unless I am mistaken (and I could very easily be) Aquinas was operating under the assumption that the universe was eternal.

I'd just like to throw my two cents in about the cosmological argument. I have two reasons for believing that the cosmological argument explains more about the existence of the universe than does the notion of a universe which simply exists.

1) Neither matter nor energy in isolation appears to have the potential for self-existence. I therefore see no reason why all matter an energy as a whole should somehow have the emergent property of self-existence.

2) Our current universe not only exists inexplicably, it is also inexplicably ordered by laws. All questions of the operation of laws, unless answered by a willing cause, involve an infinite regress. (why does the ball fall when I drop it.... because gravity pulls it down, how does gravity pull the ball down... gravity exerts a force because of the curvature of space... why does space curve? etc, ad infinitum).

Ultimately a willing cause simply makes more sense than an unconcious one. If infinite regress is really impossible, then there must be a necessary being of some sort and there must be a necessary cause of the laws of the universe being the way they are. For the non-theist, it seems to me that this already calls for perhaps two self-existent causes (The necessary cause of existence and the necessary cause of order).

To me, and to millions of other people, these are good arguments, if not totally logically sound ones. I heard an atheist on this site say a few days ago that the fact that the problem of evil cannot yield an explicit contradiction does not bother him, because to him the evidence is weighty enough to cause him to believe that God does not exist, even if he cannot prove it. I feel similarly towards the cosmological and teleological arguments. Neither are sound proofs, but they are strong evidence.

I'd also like to know exactly what you folks consider to be a "good argument" for the existence of God. An explicity sound proof? Can any of you display an explicitly sound proof for anything ? For example, I'd like to see those atheists who are objective moralists present a sound proof for the existence of objective morality. If we concede that 100% sound, unquestionable logical proof is impossible to produce for anything then what would be sufficient proof to believe in God?

Ensign Steve

I love this argument. Well, if we can pick and choose which parts of the Bible we want to take literally, then I choose to take the entire thing figuratively. It is one old work of fiction, and not even a very good one at that, especially given that all the best parts were ripped off from older myths.

Quote:

This verse goes for a round earth. "Circle of the earth" seems to imply the earth being round.

If he "sitteth above" it, it implies a top and a bottom, more like a disk. Don't give me that the authors were really talking about a sphere, given that they had no idea it was a sphere.

Quote:

Matthew 4:8 Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor. This might be just refering to the world that Jesus knew. I'd have to say this is the most legitimate one. Will take a little more time to think about and explore.

And how is it that Jesus the Lord, Son of God, does not know the nature of the entire world as it actually is?

Not really, but I didn't come to this thread looking for help.

Jen

Mageth

Thanks for all telling me why you don't believe in a diety. Almost every atheist doesn't believe in a god because there is no eviednce that has lead you to believe in one(or that's what most of you said). But I have a major problem with that answer.
Here it is:

The very word atheist means "one who denies the existence of God." Many here from what I've heard have said they just have a lack of belief in a god. But a lack in belief of something is saying that you don't believe in it. It can either be one way or the other.

Some dictionaries define "atheist" that way, it's true. Many atheists, including myself, have problems with that definition. Other dictionaries define "atheism" in other ways, some that better fit the way we've defined it here, if you'd bother to look. But I don't base my definition of "atheist" on any particular dictionary.

There's a difference in saying "I lack belief in god", or even "I don't believe in god", than in saying "I deny the existence of a god". One doesn't have to claim the latter to be an atheist.

When deciding about deities there are three major choices to start with:
One, not to belief in one at all (Atheism)
Two, don't make a desion on the subject (Agnosism)
Third, Belief in a higher power or powers (Theism)

If you think the evidence doesn't show that there is a god/gods, then you either have to say that you do not believe in one or that you have not made a desion becasue you don't have all the information.

OK, I do not believe in any god(s). Therefore, I'm an atheist.

As for as the "information", what I say is, based on the information I do have, belief in a god is not justified. I do not know, nor do you, if there is any more information to be had that would indicate the existence or non-existence of god. Therefore I lack belief in god(s).

And when you say you lack faith in a god, you are saying that you don't believe in one.

I don't say I lack "faith" in a god. I've never heard another atheist say that, either. How can I have any opinion of "faith" about something I lack belief in?

I don't really understand what your point is. Is it that you want us all to become, or call ourselves, "agnostics"? What difference should it make to you how we define ourselves, or what we call ourselves?

Mageth

I'm no scholar, and Kenny or Tercel might be better able to comment on this, but I don't think Aquinas used the first cause argument. His cosmological argument was a first cause as an originator of motion, not as an originator of existence. He saw God as the unmoved mover, like a spring which causes all of the other mechanisms in the cosmic watch to move.

Unless I am mistaken (and I could very easily be) Aquinas was operating under the assumption that the universe was eternal.

That's interesting, and I don't doubt that it's probably the case, but it doesn't change the fact that the First Cause argument is used today in regards to the origination of existence.

Magus55

JenniferD,

there are other scriptural statements in the bible about science a thousand years ahead of its time - so yes i do believe they knew it was spherical - hence one of the reasons i believe the Bible is true.

Ensign Steve

Good for you. If the argument "they were right about some things, therefore they were right about everything" is a sound enough argument for you, then go with it. I prefer arguments that are actually logically sound.