Why is the number of atheist increasing day by day?

Scroll to see replies

I replied please look online or in the Quran for proof

I have read the Quran (along with classical tafsir and related hadith) and it is clearly the work of 7th century Arabs, not god.

Name me one passage in the Quran that makes more sense as the work of an omniscient, omnipotent, omni-everything infallible god revealing the final and perfect guide for all humanity, than as the work of 7th century Arabs, writing for 7th century Arabs, attempting to establish a new socio-religious system.

Reply 181

QE2

Original post by JustStudy

The evidence I'd give is the same in the Quran, you're an ex Muslim and you seemed to have read the Quran so you should know

So you accept that the followers of any other religion pointing to their holy book as "proof" is just as valid as your "proof" of Islam?

Reply 182

QE2

Original post by JustStudy

I'm impressed that you finished it, I'm not done yet.

It's a short book, and while it is pretty turgid and repetitive, it doesn't take long to read. I read it the first time in less than a week.
So you are a Muslim and you still haven't read the Quran after several years?

Serious question: If you haven't read a book, how can you claim to believe what it says? You don't even know what it says! (Nothing to be ashamed of BTW, many Muslims do not know everything in the Quran. It seems that you are often only taught selected passages)

Reply 183

QE2

Original post by Greywolftwo

God exists outside of human ideas and thinking

How would you know?

Reply 184

xoxAngel_Kxox

In a world where science is now so advanced, Christians make me angry when they try to convince me (not all of them, obviously) that God is real.

How is it logical, at all, to believe in something that there isn't the slightest bit of evidence for? Why would you even do that? And yet I'm wrong because I can't prove he doesn't exist? You can't prove anything doesn't exist, but that doesn't make it sodding real! It just seems childish to me.

"Prove God exists."
"Prove he doesn't!!!!!!"

Wow.

Reply 185

QE2

Original post by Greywolftwo

If your agnostic then your in between believing there is a god or not,

Incorrect. agnosticism is a measure of certainty. You can have agnostic atheists who believe there is no god but do not claim any certainty, and you can have gnostic atheists who claim certainty. Same with theists.
Personally, I am a gnostic atheist (certain the gods of religion do not exist) and an agnostic adeist (believe there is no supernatural power of any description, but not with certainty).

the definitive answer is the Bible and the countless evidence to back up the Bible to show that the events that occurred in the New Testament did actually occur

There is no evidence that the supernatural events in the Bible actually occurred.
There are a few contemporary, or near-contemporary references to Jesus in ancient texts other than the Bible. None of them mention anything supernatural. The man was supposed to have risen from the dead and performed other widely witnessed miracles, yet no one thought to mention them, only the mundane. It would be like someone writing Ben Stokes' autobiography and not mentioning the cricket!

One of the ancient writers who mentioned Jesus (Josephus? ) had an interest in reincarnation/resurrection and mentions the subject in many of his writings - yet he doesn't mention it in connection with Jesus!

Reply 186

QE2

Original post by DR.DOOM

You're being a bit deterministic. For example, sure there are many quotes in some religions which tell people to kill gays but this is not the case. No one is practising those beliefs unless you're in Iran where being gay is capital punishment. I've said this before and I'll say this again, that is all because of religious fundamentalism. Sharia law in many Islamic middle eastern countries practise Islam seriously which leads to a slippery slope of human rights abuses. In Israel, where Judaism is taken seriously, we do not punish gays at all and women's rights are equal. It is in the ultra-orthodox communities where women's rights and gay rights aren't equal. The problem is fundamentalism which has caused terrorist attacks such as 9/11 as well as the Christchurch shootings this year.

This isn't to say all Muslims are like this as many are accepting gay rights and all this progressive stuff, especially in some areas of London as well as in Israel and the United States. Therefore, unless they are a fundamentalist, you should respect their beliefs and I respect your atheist beliefs just not when you decide its time to bomb buildings or shoot people for your beliefs.

So it isn't that religions don't promote or command violent and intolerant behaviour. They clearly do, as you just admitted.
It is that most followers of religions have a superior moral framework than the one they would have if they derived it entirely from their religion.
Or to put it another way, most religionists are better than the religion they have been brought up to believe.

Reply 187

AlwaysBroke.

haha QE2 still roaming the threads on TSR I see? You have been doing your work for 5 years now sir!

Reply 188

Meltboy7778

Original post by nanachan123

Has life changed for you after you stop believing that there is a creator? did it make you a better person?

Life didn't change, I think most Anglicans realise from a relatively young age that it's all bull**** and just don't mention it or are evasive because it's impolite and generally irrelevant. Don't think it changes people as a person. May reduce likelihood of lynching people or being generally religiously nasty.
Maybe the Flynn effect has something to do with rising Atheism :^)

Reply 189

QE2

Original post by AlwaysBroke.

haha QE2 still roaming the threads on TSR I see? You have been doing your work for 5 years now sir!

It's like a drug. I sometimes get myself clean for a few days or even a couple of weeks, but the need for that high always pulls me back in.
Or something.

Reply 190

Mil99

Original post by QE2

Also, it is repeatedly demonstrated that no version of god is required for any known explanation for any observable phenomenon to work.

Has it? Do you mind "demonstrating" how God was not, in any way, involved in the development of the universe?

As an example : how can you demonstrate that the observable phenomenon aren't dependent on God (since He could ensure the consistent nature of natural laws which allow the existence and observation of said phenomenon)?

Nonsense. It is entirely reasonable that the singularity that led to the Big Bang was caused by some natural process.
The point is, we don't know. However, we do know two important things:
1. There is mountains of hard evidence for natural processes being responsible for observable phenomena
2. There is zero evidence for the supernatural even existing, let alone being responsible for observable phenomena.
Therefore it is more reasonable to favour a natural explanation over a supernatural one.

I'm not really sure how this answers anything I wrote.

If you disagree with my post, then provide another alternative position (other than the one that I described) for someone who doesn't believe that God was ever involved.

Reply 191

Vinny C

Because the Bible keeps promising the return of Jesus but it never seems to happen. My buddy is so desperate to believe literally in the Bible that he even subscribes to the theory that man and dinosaurs co-existed around 6,000 yrs ago.

(edited 4 years ago)

Reply 192

QE2

Original post by Mil99

Has it? Do you mind "demonstrating" how God was not, in any way, involved in the development of the universe?

Read my comment properly... "no version of god is required for any known explanation for any observable phenomenon to work".
If you want to challenge this, you need to show a known explanation for an observable phenomenon that requires a god for that explanation to work.
Yes, there are aspects of the universe that we do not have a known explanation for, but none of the ones we do have require a god. Merely invoking the god of the gaps is not sufficient.

As an example : how can you demonstrate that the observable phenomenon aren't dependent on God (since He could ensure the consistent nature of natural laws which allow the existence and observation of said phenomenon)?

Ah, so your argument is to point at the known explanation for rain or tides or oxygenation or earthquakes and say "god did that". How does that make god necessary? How will removing god make the explanation no longer work?

I'm not really sure how this answers anything I wrote.

You claimed that without god, the universe must have always existed in its current form and that there is no process by which change can occur in the pre-universe except by god. I was pointing out why you were wrong.

If you disagree with my post, then provide another alternative position (other than the one that I described) for someone who doesn't believe that God was ever involved.

Some spontaneous natural process. Or the means for universes to exist has always existed. Basically replace "god" with "natural process". There are a number of alternatives that do not require a conscious, sentient, interventionist supernatural being - which, BTW, is still merely a fantastical assertion with zero supporting evidence. At least there is evidence for "natural processes".

Reply 193

Mil99

Original post by QE2

Your comment was this : "it is repeatedly demonstrated that no version of god is required for any known explanation for any observable phenomenon to work.".

I am simply asking you to substantiate and back up your claim (I'm sure you understand the concept of 'burden of proof')

Yes, there are aspects of the universe that we do not have a known explanation for, but none of the ones we do have require a god. Merely invoking the god of the gaps is not sufficient.

By the very fact that we do not know everything about natural phenomenon and use axioms along with other incompletely understood concepts as starting points, I don't think it's logical to make your claim.

No - I haven't made an argument on this issue. I'm simply asking you to substantiate your claim (I gave an example to help explain what I meant).

Some spontaneous natural process. Or the means for universes to exist has always existed.

When you say "natural process", do you therefore believe that the same natural laws that we currently understand were present before the universe existed?

(edited 4 years ago)

Reply 194

Ogh123

Original post by Fuego1

rubbish. If you cannot even prove the existence of a God, how can u even suggest that a God created science????

I am a Christian myself and it is still possible that God created the universe(even with science). For example the universe started with a hot dense state but where did that come from(Big Bang theory) according to science everything has to come from something. However this state simply is impossible to explain ( for humans) like God.

Reply 195

nanachan123

Original post by xoxAngel_Kxox

Point noted, then can I ask you how is it logical to believe that humans were created because a bunch of molecules decided to randomly collide?

Reply 196

username4920716

Original post by nanachan123

Point noted, then can I ask you how is it logical to believe that humans were created because a bunch of molecules decided to randomly collide?

You mean as opposed to a deity waving a magic wand?

Reply 197

xoxAngel_Kxox

Original post by nanachan123

Point noted, then can I ask you how is it logical to believe that humans were created because a bunch of molecules decided to randomly collide?

You make it sound as though humans and all life just suddenly arrived into being with a massive molecular collision. That's not the case. We, the planet, and everything on it, evolved very very very very slowly, over a huge number of years, right from the simplest molecule. It's thought that the very first life on earth was at least 3.5 billion years ago. Do you realise just how long that is, and how slow the process has been? Compare that to the 2.8 million years ago that the very earliest form of human life is thought to have evolved, and you'll see just how long we had in between to get to this point.

You know how evolution works. Species evolve even now, it's been shown in scientific experiments and studies countless times. Humans have been on earth for an incredibly short space of time when you consider the age of the planet, and there will come a time where humans are no longer the main life form on the planet. Eventually, we will die.

When you say "a bunch of molecules" it was most probably very few to start with, that have gradually come to be what we know today. We're talking billions of years here, not a magic miracle that's completely improbable. "The Big Bang" may be what created the universe and its orbits - and why not? That did not create human life or any other, that developed very very slowly once we had a planet that was the right distance from the sun to sustain the life that developed here.

I don't see how you believe that the very understandable and scientific explanation is less reasonable than Mr Magic that so many still believe in.

Reply 198

Plantagenet Crown

Original post by nanachan123

Point noted, then can I ask you how is it logical to believe that humans were created because a bunch of molecules decided to randomly collide?

It's not necessarily about logic, but about evidence. We weren't created, we evolved from earlier life forms, and this is now indisputable.

Reply 199

QE2

Original post by Mil99

*sigh*
Yes. Every time we look at a known explanation for an observable phenomenon that does not require god for it to work, it is demonstrated. There are thousands of such explanations - therefore it is "repeatedly demonstrated".

I wasn't making any claims about phenomena that do not have fully understood explanations.

No - I haven't made an argument on this issue. I'm simply asking you to substantiate your claim (I gave an example to help explain what I meant).

I have. You made the claim that you could insert god into any known explanation - which is obvious nonsense.

When you say "natural process", do you therefore believe that the same natural laws that we currently understand were present before the universe existed?