Atheists, come on, really, stop and think for a minute..

[Psalm23]

Hello Happy Atheists Forum,

I have something on my mind, and I want to share it with you.

I have run across thousands of skeptics and atheists on the internet that like to claim,
"God cannot be proven due to lack of evidence."

Ok, let's take that argument in the other direction, shall we?

The entire Universe cannot be explored by any mortal man. That is a guaranteed fact of life. Even the greatest minds throughout history; such as Albert Einstein, Lord Kelvin William Thompson and Isaac Newton could not figure out what "Mysterious Force" moves our Constellation. So in reality, what makes an atheist so positive that it is not God? How can you know for 100% fact that is it not God?

Keep in mind while you think about this, folks.

The entire universe cannot be explored. As a matter of fact.. mankind has not even scratched the surface of the Universe, so how can anyone say with sheer confidence that God does not exist?

That is by far the most absurd argument ever displayed.

Atheism is nothing more than a guess, at best.

Thanks for your time,
Psalm 23.

[curiosityandthecat]

[Ihateyoumike]

picture of zoidberg

lol curio.

Welcome to the forum, Psalm23. Good luck converting us.  

[MariaEvri]

stop and think for a minute...

we have
that's why we are atheists

[pedricero matao]

yeah that makes perfect sense. Just because there are things that I don't know I'd be better off if i just made up some supernatural tales that contradict among others the principles of thermodynamics and all kind of non-determinism (well that's a good side of it cos i always felt that quantum mechanics was too weird for me).

so how can anyone say with sheer confidence that God does not exist?

Because is the most reasonable proposal. I'd rather sitck to the facts than "believe" in something i cannot measure or demonstrate.
Also one could invert the question, how can anyone say with sheer confidence that god exists....

Why believe in something that is not constricted to our physical universe and define it with "manly" parameters (such as benevolence, judgement, wrath, etc) if that thing is supposedly "outside" spacetime and therefore cannot be related to anything that applies in our universe?
(bah I screwed it up again with my English, sorry about that)

Sounds like that guy Occam with the razor would have something to say about this.

But hey I understand believing in a god could be useful for some kind of people. As Karl Marx said, religion is the heart of a heartless world...

[Will]

I have run across thousands of skeptics and atheists on the internet that like to claim,
"God cannot be proven due to lack of evidence."

This is an agnostic statement intended to demonstrate that anyone that states conclusively that god does exist is wrong. It's not a statement of pure atheism, but agnosticism. Of course, the vast majority of self-proclaimed atheists are in fact agnostic atheists like myself. We believe that because there is no evidence for god, there's no reason to believe in god. Atheism is not "god does not exist", it's "you're wrong to say that god does exist." As that's the case, it is in fact people who are certain, mostly theists, that you should be questioning about their certainty. How can anyone say with sheer confidence that God does exist?

[dr.zalost]

psalm23

The entire universe cannot be explored. As a matter of fact.. mankind has not even scratched the surface of the Universe, so how can anyone say with sheer confidence that God does not exist?

Have you actually sat down and considered the implications of your argument?
-That god is out there somewhere...

hiding?!?!

[Tom62]

As Karl Marx said, religion is the heart of a heartless world...

Karl Marx also said that religion is the opium of the masses.

To get back to the thread, I find it very hard to believe in things for which there isn't ever a slightest thread of evidence. Even if there would be a creator somewhere out there in the universe (which I doubt) then the likelihood that this creator would resemble any of one of our imaginary human gods (whether it is God, Allah, Shiva, Apollo or whatever) is practically 0%. The universe however seems to be running quite well without gods in the "control room".

[curiosityandthecat]

[LARA]

Psalm23, are you suggesting space aliens here?  Now that would be fascinating.  I'm trying to make the connection between the Judeo-Christian concept of a creator and the fact the universe has not been fully explored.

Also could you thoroughly describe this possibly alien Creator person for me?  Is it humanoid, male, female?  Does the Creator have arms and legs?  What sort of abilities does said being possess?  Please go into detail.

[Ihateyoumike]

Why believe in something that is not constricted to our physical universe and define it with "manly" parameters (such as benevolence, judgement, wrath, etc) if that thing is supposedly "outside" spacetime and therefore cannot be related to anything that applies in our universe?

I agree 100% with the point you are making here. I've wondered that myself. How can we use our universe's laws on "god" if "god" supposedly exists outside of our universe?

(bah I screwed it up again with my English, sorry about that)

Your english is just fine. I rather enjoy reading your posts.  


edit: screwed up quoting somehow. oops.

[Twiddler]

Explain to me why god should be the first explanation for the stuff that we do not understand and the space that we haven't explored at this point in time?  Seriously, its ok that we don't understand absolutely everything at this point in time.  And another thing, no one is 100% certain, or at least they shouldn't be.  Someone can be very very convinced in their belief, but to say that this issue has some absolute position is ignorance on the side saying it.  

Another thing, is it just me or do other people hate when scientists from years and years ago get dragged into debates like this?  I'm not saying that guys  like Lord Kelvin and Issac Newton aren't smart, because they were brilliant minds who contributed a ton to science, but scientific understanding has astronomically progressed in recent history and it just seems counter-productive to bring old ideas into the debate.  That would be like me using Lord Kelvin's plum pudding model of the atom to explain chemistry to someone today, in 2009.

[Whitney]

Pslam23,

First of all, I know it is not the Biblical god because the Bible God is logically inconsistent and therefore incoherent.

Second, are you saying that because we cannot explore the entire universe (and that is assuming that the universe has an edge) that we should assume a god exists?  Talk about guessing...  Please see:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps

To me, and this is why I'm an atheist, it makes more sense to no make claims about something for which we have no knowledge.  God is a made up answer to an unanswerable question that a lot of people like because it satisfies our natural desire to want to have answers.  

Some like to call the universe god, but to me that is just  renaming something since there is no reason to worship the universe.  Others believe in a deist god, which is fine, but I don't see a reason to think one exists other than to satisfy concerns about a first cause (and I think the first cause could be the universe or some other natural event prior to the universe...or maybe a first cause is unnecessary).  Of course, if a deist god exists I don't think anyone will ever find out alive or dead since a deist god is not involved.

That said....even if it were illogical to not believe in a god for some reason; that still wouldn't change the fact that there isn't any reliable evidence for a god let alone your God.

[maestroanth]

F

[maestroanth]

F