Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
    I just call it non-existence. After all, how can something be hellish if you can't experience it, it's like what it was like before birth.
    I see the points made on either side. I think what he is alluding to is annihilationism. Which is just to say that people aren't raised at all instead of experiencing hell for an Eternity. But it isn't really hell, it's an alternative idea.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tahira__)
    Just want people serious answers I am just curious
    Why do atheists not believe in God? What do they then believe in?
    Because I see no logical reason to believe in God
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    I am not poor, I do not live in a third world country, and I have a bright future; so why would I believe in God if this life is fulfilling? There is a strong correlation between poverty and religion. For example, Somalia is one of the most religious countries in the world but also one of the poorest. I believe that, ultimately, most people believe in God because of the possibility of the afterlife, and with it, a better life than the one they are living currently.

    Beside that, the existence of a God raises so many complicated questions. Most notably, why must there be a God? The Earth is like an atom when compared to the size of the universe, so what makes us special to have a God of sorts? And I also don't understand the comfort that accompanies the afterlife. Living eternally, whether it be in heaven or hell, would eventually become torture. I reckon that, once we die, we just cease to exist and that is in a way more comforting. We all have the experience of what if feels to be dead anyway since we were all born at some point, and that wasn't so bad was it.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by john_jomcy98)
    I have often quarrelled with this issue myself. I dont claim to know everything but from the basic knowledge I have, to claim there is not God is absurd. Yes, we can't experimentally prove the exisitence of God but that doesn't entirely mean there is no God. To say there is a supernatural being out there, does seems unlogical at first but I pondered whether anything in this universe is logical. Human beigns have invented ideas and concepts to make the universe understandable but are those ideas correct methods?
    For example, lets looks at the area of quantum physics, where crazy unimaginable things happen, but that doesn't necessarily mean it doesnt happen.

    I think to say 'I'm an atheist' is foolish but to say 'I'm agnostic' is more wiser, imo.
    Google 'agnostic atheist'.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TurboCretin)
    Google 'agnostic atheist'.
    ahh I see, thanks! I didn't know there was such a term
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Study Helper
    (Original post by Lord Kitchener)
    I don't think a discovery in necessary, after a while people will see how far religion has backtracked from just medieval times that eventually it's use will be obsolete. Just look at the anglican church with gay marriage, their beliefs are just out of touch, their lack of opinion on IVF and their bigotry toward homosexuals. It will no longer be a 'must' to be religious but a choice that people choose to make, and not many of those who are educated will pick it. It ties in with tradition and upbringing that will be the cause of it lasting so long. I think it was Dawkins who said that if you brought up a child with no religion and just facts then there would be no doubt it would grow up an Athiest, it's the same on the opposite side with religious groups like Mormons, except for the fact that facts are true not just opinion or 'belief' with no supporting evidence. That's why I think it will fail, they are grasping at straws so hard.
    The first chapter of the Old Testament shows that the authors were very clearly concerned with the challenges to their authority that an educated population would pose.

    I don't think it is coincidence that original sin is written as a dire warning conceived around Adam and Eve eating the apple from the 'tree of knowledge'. It's a not so diplomatic euphemism for restraining education other than that of orthodox scripture.

    The educated and intelligent people who wrote this book clearly knew what they were doing and phrased it in such a way to close off all avenues of challenge based on the very limited understanding of life and the universe at that time.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Alexion)
    Couldn't have put it better myself :lol:



    Yes, there could be a god, but I still find it seriously unlikely. After all, it's all just ideas dreamt up by random humans over the centuries.

    Oh, and Quantum Physics actually makes a hell of a lot of sense. It's not 'crazy unimaginable', it's rational and experimentally sound.
    Fair enough, you got some good rational points. Existence of God is such a complex matter which no human can resolve. Yes, there could be a God and equally there couldn't be. Science has helped us understand, our own the workings of the universe without the need of a God.

    No matter what I say or do, I won't be able to change your mind, nor anyone who shares your views. Not because you are arrogant or fail to accept ideas, but simply because this issue has strong opinions which has been soldified to us over the many years, as we understand the world more and more (same applies to myself).

    I personally am a believer of God (Christian God, if you're curious :P), and it's not because I had a godly experience, but simply I cant understand how entire universe so close to perfect by random chance. No one has ever come back from the dead to tell the world, there is a God, likewise, no one has every come back to tell us there isn't one. So I thought the wisest thing to do is to believe in a creator, then not believing in one and end up in 'hell'. Conversely if I believe in God and there doesn't end up being one, then I'll never know to be disappointed because I'll be dead and undergoing the natural process of decomposition without any awareness or consciousness....or so I think.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by john_jomcy98)
    I thought the wisest thing to do is to believe in a creator, then not believing in one and end up in 'hell'.
    You have good points too, and it's nice to see a good attitude unlike some of the close-minded people on here :lol:

    But this point is the one I fail to understand. If there really is a benevolent creator, then surely the last thing he would do is banish the non-believers to 'hell' when they've been given no reason to believe in him?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
    I just call it non-existence. After all, how can something be hellish if you can't experience it, it's like what it was like before birth.
    not so much the thing itself but the idea of it.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JavaScriptMaster)
    Who says we need a creator? If god created everyone, then who created god? if everyone needs a creator like the religious people say.


    As for human life, we all started as single-celled organisms, then after a few million years there was a mutation in the genetic code and the organisms became multi-celled and eventually grew appendages for swimming... The Earth was nearly covered in water at this time so in the beginning, we were all fish. Then when land started rising more, there developed more terrestrials (land animals) and birds and now we have millions of different living animals and humans aren't really that special, the only reason we are smarter than the animals is because we were the first to stand up and look at the world in front of us, as opposed to the floor which is what most animals are constantly looking at. Then we started to look at the sky and ask questions about our existence and developed intelligence... we aren't the only species that has developed intelligence but we have gone furthest with it.
    Really?? How did this single called organism start off??
    If you believe that we came from fish, then I guess that's your belief
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Because in 11 years of believing I never felt him and he **** on me
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    I think atheists don't believe in God for a whole variety of reasons.

    A couple of the reasons is that they've seen no evidence of God and also when they look at people who do profess their faith in God they don't like what they see.

    A person will meet with God when the time is right and they are open to Him. Once they do the blinkers are removed they will experience the undeniable presence of God in their lives.
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Study Helper
    (Original post by Tahira__)
    Really?? How did this single called organism start off??
    If you believe that we came from fish, then I guess that's your belief
    The same way all atomic elements formed: atoms coalescing from the binding and repulsing atomic forces.

    As an aside, it's pretty pointless theists arguing with atheists (even agnostic atheists) over who is right and who is wrong. The viewpoints are equally intransigent although one is based in nothing but faith and the other built on logic and a complete lack of evidence for a God.

    Theists have to wait until judgement day (ironically stated as until 'kingdom come') and when God choses to reveal himself in order to be proven correct.

    Until then, atheists will continue to accrue knowledge supporting the truth.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by XcitingStuart)
    Circular logic there.

    Atheists do not believe in God because they're atheists.
    They're atheists because they don't believe in God.

    Bit of a silly answer.
    It wasn't exactly a serious answer...
    Spoiler:
    Show
    Lighten up
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tahira__)
    Really?? How did this single called organism start off??
    If you believe that we came from fish, then I guess that's your belief
    Single celled: It's really simple and has been redone by scientists, all it takes is Nitrogen, Carbon, Oxygen and Hydrogen.... the most abundant elements in the universe so it's not a big surprise that Earth developed life considering it's usual temperature is less than 100 and more than 1 degree so we can have water... If an environment can have water it can develop life.. But one thing I can't stress enough is that we live in a crazy world, terrible things happen every day even though this "God" fellow is supposed to be in control of everything, if he's in control of people starving and getting murdered then I don't want to believe in him even if he's real. Watch this:

    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by john_jomcy98)
    the wisest thing to do is to believe in a creator, then not believing in one and end up in 'hell'. .
    why should this hypothetical creator send you to "hell" for not believing in him ?

    does not sound like a nice thing to do
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jonbass3)
    not so much the thing itself but the idea of it.
    I'm not going to lie, I do hope there is some kind of life after death (as long as I'm not being sent to any hell that is), but I'm fine with there not being any, I will just return to non-existence and nothing will bother me or affect me, sounds quite peaceful.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Supermonkey92)
    I have a question for atheists.
    I have little knowledge of contemporary philosophy and philosophical arguments + definitions. So I hope you can accept my answer from an average Joe pov, even though it might be academically unrigorous.

    (Original post by Supermonkey92)
    Its a very common claim from atheists that the universe exists inexplicably - there just is no explanation for why the universe exists.
    If you are talking about empirical scientific method (which btw is not atheists' only justification but your question seems to based around that), that is not it does. Science does not explain about purposeful causes and first causes, if you throw a rock it doesn't go down because it has a purpose to go down. Surely, you're judging a hammer for its ability to screw a nail.
    Regardless, there is an explanation in terms of the anthropic principle, which is the universe exists, and exists the way it does, because we are here to question its existence. It is a futile question, as its like asking why is there such an abundance of C-12 isotopes (we are Carbon based lifeforms) and yet if we were Silicon based ones, we would have asked why there is an abundance of Silicon. Or asking, why does our universe made out of matter and not anti-matter... Anthropic principles is also largely used in cosmology.

    (Original post by Supermonkey92)
    However, in every corner of science and philosophy, arguments from explicability are used (or EA's).

    For example, a common argument from physicists regarding the reality of consciousness, is that if it isn't reduced to physical systems it is essentially inexplicable.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mind. "Physical systems" can be a loose term.

    (Original post by Supermonkey92)
    We argue things are likely false because they are inexplicable.
    Classical mechanics failed to explain how light acts a particle, yet that does not mean Classical Mechanics is false. If it was, you wouldn't be here to type your question. Godel's incompleteness theorems and Heisenberg's uncertainty principle suggests that some things in science (and mathematics) are inevitably inexplicable. That does not mean they are "false"... In terms of empiricism (and the scientific method), we reject hypothesis based on mainly likelihoods and falsifiability, not purely inexplicably.

    (Original post by Supermonkey92)
    Now, suppose we apply an EA to the question: why do things exist? Well that would seem to rule out the common claim by atheists that the universe is a brute fact or the laws of nature are brute facts. Because an EA implicitly entails that these options are false, that an inexplicable options is false.
    "Purpose" is very subjective, how can you define "explicability" based on "purpose"... what is "purpose" for one is not "purpose" for another.

    (Original post by Supermonkey92)
    Ofcourse, atheists may say: well it's meaningless to apply and Explicability argument to that question. Fair enough.
    It's meaningless to invoke a layer of significantly more unknowing complex system on top of the current system which does not answer anything, yet asks more question i.e. god.

    [QUOTE=Supermonkey92;63408629]But this seems to leave us 3 options with how to use EA'S.


    (Original post by Supermonkey92)
    1) some EA'S are legitimate forms of argument. Others - like for why things exist - are not.
    In this model, if you want to determine whether god exists or not, you have to test for all the hypothesis that suggests his existence. Yet, no hypothesis that are presented are remotely testifiable which is not based confirmation bias and you can't objectively define the success.

    (Original post by Supermonkey92)
    2) no EA'S for a conclusion are legitimate.
    If we get rid of EA's then we are left with the fact that everything must have a "purpose", but then what caused god? It adds a completely useless layer of complexity that is not needed. Not to mention noone can objectively define "god" without it being a confirmation bias to one's favourite god.

    (Original post by Supermonkey92)
    3) all EA'S are legitimate forms of argument. Even for why things exist.



    If you are atheist who thinks the universe and/or the laws of nature are brute facts, you cannot take option 3.
    Yet you don't have to think they are mere explainable "brute facts", they may have a reason/cause... but that doesn't mean "purpose". If one adds "purpose", then the complexity begins, no?

    (Original post by Supermonkey92)
    It seem option 2 is ruled out by anyone who uses an EA in other contexts, scientific or philosophical. Almost all atheists?
    Well, if scientists only used "inexplicability" as their primary source of whether a cause is related to effect, then scientific theories would not get improved, built-on or changed. Psychology, Economics and other social science will not exist. Probability and Statistics would fail. Engineers would not be able to work. Just because something is explainable does not mean the said thing has to be accurate. I can explain in great details why the universe was held up by a giant turtle, doesn't mean its true. Same goes for an inexplicable entity, I can't explain the origin of life, doesn't mean god.


    (Original post by Supermonkey92)
    So that leaves 1.* The trouble, though, is that there doesn’t seem to be any non-question-begging way of defending option 1.* For why should we believe that EAs are legitimate in other cases, but not when giving some account of the sheer existence of things?* It seems arbitrary to allow the one sort of EA but not the other sort.* The atheist cannot respond by saying that it is just a brute fact that some kinds of EAs are legitimate and others are not, because this would beg the question against 3, which denies that there are any brute facts.
    Because you can't define your "why" or your "purpose". So you can't accuse "the atheist" of being arbitrary when you haven't defined your terms.

    (Original post by Supermonkey92)
    Interested to know how far explicability arguments go.
    Depends on how much an un-knowable, un-detectable, un-falsifiable, un-explainable entity is willing to interfere with natural universe and affect reality.
    Why can't these principles be used for invisible rainbow-coloured skittles breathing dragons?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Alexion)
    You have good points too, and it's nice to see a good attitude unlike some of the close-minded people on here :lol:

    But this point is the one I fail to understand. If there really is a benevolent creator, then surely the last thing he would do is banish the non-believers to 'hell' when they've been given no reason to believe in him?
    Yes you are right and it's a fair question, surely an all-loving God wouldn't allow people to go to hell. However the major misconception we have is that people only know God to be a 'benevolent, caring god'. You must understand the biblical god, is also a God of justice and God of wrath. He has set a requirement/rule for people to follow, and that is to simply believe in him. If people fail to obey this 'rule/law' then he must show 'justice', otherwise he wouldn't be god.

    One good example which may explain this is: imagine a son/daugther standing before court over the case of murder (or any other crime your can think of :P). The judge happens to be the father of this criminal. Surely the father loves the child dearly, but he is a judge so must exercise his duty and declare the punishment that is fitting to the crime. No matter how loving, or caring the father is, he is a judge and cannot give a special treatment for his children. The law is set by God and those who break it, deserve the punishment given by God himself (of course, you can be redeemed... but thatt's a whole another story :P)

    Evidently, belief in God is entirely faith and I think that is the hardest thing to do, since we have been taught to crtically think and use evidence-based approach to problems. So what I'm trying to say is, I will never be able to tell you "there is god and this is the evidience". Sure many of my arugments so far may have plenty of flaws, but I'm not trying to prove the existence of God. As I mentioned before, it will be difficult to change either one of our opinions on this issue, but it is fun to discuss and understand other your viewpoints
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    I don't believe in god because I don't believe in god. An invisible magical entity in the sky that watches you sleep at night... just no. Nor do I believe that a book written by humans over 2000 years ago is relevant or a good thing to base your life upon. Going by the bible most women should be stoned because they weren't a virgin on their wedding night... so yeah, not gonna happen.

    Honestly I just hate the idea of religion as a whole. It's basically millions of people brainwashing their kids into believing what they were brainwashed to believe. All due to a book some dudes wrote back in the day. It's insanity, it's good that people question such poppycock. It's a boring read too.

    Plus the evidence that supports evolution helps us to further disprove the creationist theory. Really, all of us and everything around us was "made" by some invisible entity and placed on the earth. Ridiculous really, it makes no logical sense but when you consider the likely intelligence of those that wrote it, most likely from hearsay and rumour... well, it's not surprising some of the crap included. It reads more like a badly written fiction story than an instructional guide to life.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: June 24, 2018
Poll
Is the Big Bang theory correct?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.