Brahma's atheist

This website comes mainly from an x-tian viewpoint. Only x-tians seem to reply(someone will point out that this is wrong). It's obvious that if you argue about the pro's and cons of one religion and its god you can argue forever. I am guilty of this myself being in an 'x-tian' country and having been taught in an 'x-tian' culture (even though my parents are lapsed Hindus) but I know there are hundreds and hundreds of gods out there(like I said I'm Hindu by birth).
If you look at the world as a whole you can dismiss gods as anthropolgical phenomena. They really don't exist except as cultural icons. All societies have gods of some kind or another therefore either all gods exist or none exist.

phlebas

Honest engine, we're all aware there are bunches of gods out there, not just the boring Christian one.

Every non-theist here could bellow loudly about how there is no Ganesh or Shiva. We could all argue that there is no proof, and that their existences are largely contradictory with reality, etc., etc.

And, since we're primarily dealing with either non-theists or Christians, there would be no dissent, and the discussion would die within five posts.

Also, there are many of us who are careful to emphasize there is no reason to believe in any gods at all. Not a one. None of the ones that people worship now, or any of the ones that no one believes in anymore, and probably not any that'll get invented later.

But when the response comes back filled with Bible quotes, whaddaya do?

But you raise a point that the Christians here seem to forget: we're equal opportunity disbelievers, we're not "angry at God." I'm no more angry at the Christian God than I am angry at Ra or Apollo.

Jobar

Brahma's atheist, we also have a non-Abrahamic forum, where discussion of gods other than the Judaeo-Christian-Muslim one (ones?) are found. (Well, except for my own discussions of pantheism, but those do usually try to relate to monotheism.)

I Am Not This Body

I have seen & heard this "no reason to believe" statement repeated over & over & over for years. It is reminiscent of mantra chanting done by those who HAVE reason to believe. The problem I see is that by saying there is no reason to believe in a Supreme Being, one is also saying there is no reason to believe he himself (the subordinate being) has a reason for existence.

It is possible to find out your immediate reason for being, that is your father & mother. And you can search out their parents & their parents & so on until you hit a wall. Since life is always coming from life, how is it possible that at the very beginning of this chain there is not also life?

There is a reason for every single action. You insist there is no reason to accept that there is a Supreme Creator, even though there is not one good scientific theory to explain creation. So there is no reason to believe in deficient theories at all. Not a one. And there will not be any theories worth belief in which will be invented later, either. God plays dice, & the imperfect senses & mind of the human scientist will never understand the nature of this dice game when attempting to view it inductively.

The theory that life comes from matter is still just a theory, a guess which may be completely false, yet it is accepted as truth. Since no scientist can demonstrate life coming from chemicals, I see no reason to believe in that theory.

One may argue that all that I hold in my head is "my theory", which can also be false. This is true & I admit it, the only difference is I do see a reason to believe what I do.

phlebas

To be more precise, I meant there is no evidence that there are any gods.

If you have a reason (or evidence) by all means share. If you simply have faith, then don't sweat the sharing part.

Much depends on your definition of the word "reason." I apologize for using it.

I have evidence that I exist. I do not have evidence that any gods exist.

However, if you are saying that I don't believe I have a *purpose* for existing, I may agree with you. I don't think there is some grand scheme that involves us.

You may want to double-check that.

Ummm... huh?

However, non-scientists who take the Bible or other holy books at face value have a better clue as to how things really are?

Ignoring the tired "just a theory" line, even this theory has more supporting data than your invisible sky pixie.

You may want to read it a little closer. I recommend asking some of the exceptionally bright people in the Evolution/Creation forum.

I wouldn't call that a theory. I respect theories too much

Faith again?

wade-w

OK, I'll bite. What is the reason for God?

All you have done is slap a label on an unexplained phenomenon, and claim that you have explained it. Instead of asking "Where did the universe come from?", we are stuck with the question "Where did God come from?".

I Am Not This Body

I mistakenly assumed you would see the inference, I realize now how explicit every morsel of data must be for it to be interpreted by your superior mind.
How exactly am I supposed to give evidence of my coutless hearing & seeing "no reason to believe in God(s)", and evidence of seeing & hearing mantra chanting? I have observed them both & I see a similarity. I hope this sharing is sufficient.
And what is this evidence based on? Your ability to reason & understand. So what is the REASON for your ability to reason? Where is this propensity coming from? I say it is present in you because it is present in God. You say there is no reason to believe in God.

So if there exists NO reason (God) in existence, how is it possible that your REASON has come about? Where in your life have you ever witnessed something coming from nothing?
I understand, you believe you don't have a *purpose* for existing, nor a *reason* for being created. You are inconsequential & existential, an isolationist.
I've triple checked it.
All knowledge is contained in books, where is your authority to declare any book "better" than another?
Exactly, you conveniently ignore the most glaring inconsistency in the basic theory of evolution. If life begins by chemical interactions, why can not one scientist combine the necessary chemicals & produce life? If life is simply chemical interaction, why can the scientist not inject a recently deceased person with a chemical & bring life back? It is because Life is infinitely more complex than our most complex chemicals, yet the theory rests on the notion that these basic elements we do know about are what brought us into our current condition. There is no scientific explanation for the step from no consciousness to consciousness.

You don't even know the data about my "sky pixie", yet you declare your theory is superior. Is this the manner in which you utilize your reasoning capacity? I hope you aren't one of those people who call themselves "freethinkers", as that would be an obvious contradiction.
I've read it quite closely, and will probably discuss it with the good folks in those forums.
I don't call it a theory either, theories are for those who don't know.
And what is it that you place in your theory?

[ September 14, 2002: Message edited by: I Am Not This Body ]</p>

Mageth

The problem I see is that by saying there is no reason to believe in a Supreme Being, one is also saying there is no reason to believe he himself (the subordinate being) has a reason for existence.

There is so much wrong there.

I don't see how the second follows from the first. Care to elaborate? I lack belief in god(s), and I find ample "reasons to exist." To enjoy life while I can: to love and care for my family, and receive their love in return; to learn as much about the universe as I can; to cast a dry fly to rising rainbows on Abrams Creek at sunset; to take a nap; to sit with my brother on a porch by Caddo Lake during an evening thunderstorm, enjoying a fine single-malt scotch and smoking my pipe...

I personally find no need to hierarchically classify extant beings, and especially not to put a human-created imaginary being at the top of the hierarchy.

You're perhaps conflating "reason to exist" with "Reason for existence," BTW (note the capital R). As I said, I can find "reasons to exist." As far as there being any Reason for existence, I can find none, and I can and do live with that. I have no desire to create or believe in artificial Reasons such as god(s).

Since life is always coming from life, how is it possible that at the very beginning of this chain there is not also life?

It is possible that life self-organized from what was there before (call it nature, the universe, inanimate matter...). Matter+time+self-organizing principles = life. Life is an emergent property of the universe. I believe this is not only possible but is the explanation to why life exists. Study up on topics such as self-organizing systems, emergent phenomenon, complexity theory, chaos theory, autocatalysis, etc. to enlighten yourself on possibilities for abiogenisis.

Edited to add: Vorkosigan reminded me that I should have included self-replicating systems in my list. Autocatalytic systems may be classified as a special type or example of self-replicating systems.

[ September 14, 2002: Message edited by: Mageth ]

[ September 14, 2002: Message edited by: Mageth ]</p>

I Am Not This Body

God exists eternally, without beginning or ending. We can not properly understand this, so the first question we ask is "Who created God?".

This is not a logical question, as God is Absolute. God is transcendental to birth & death, He exists independently of any circumstances including the need for a creator.

K

But you can't get God from not-God. That's nonsensical. Who created God. If nobody created Him, He has no reason for existence. Just as you claim that we have no reason for existence if we weren't created by God.