Why I'm an atheist

[Lambowei]

So you really think that there has to be peer-reviewed stuff for there to be scientific proof, right. Do you believe that you exist and are alive? (Of course, maybe you aren't and don't.)

Well if it's such a marvellous proof on the existence of god, I'm sure the author would be delighted to get it peer-reviewed. Otherwise, it shows the lack of confidence on the merits of his arguments, or shall I say blabber.

[BADecker]

So you really think that there has to be peer-reviewed stuff for there to be scientific proof, right. Do you believe that you exist and are alive? (Of course, maybe you aren't and don't.)

Well if it's such a marvellous proof on the existence of god, I'm sure the author would be delighted to get it peer-reviewed. Otherwise, it shows the lack of confidence on the merits of his arguments, or shall I say blabber.

How can you be sure of what the authors of any proof would do? You can't even seem to think through the fact that you know that you aren't an atheist. If you were a bit smarter, you might realize that authors of proofs are simply observers of proof, who are writing down what they observed. If you understood this, you might be smart enough to think through the observations, yourself, to see that God is real.

[Lambowei]

You can't even seem to think through the fact that you know that you aren't an atheist.

There are different kinds of atheists, I'm an atheist that is also agnostic. I'm a negative atheist, basically. I don't believe that anything exists except when there's convincing proof that it actually exists. So, by default, things don't exist, and if you want me to think that something exists, you have to prove it to me.

If you were a bit smarter, you might realize that authors of proofs are simply observers of proof, who are writing down what they observed. If you understood this, you might be smart enough to think through the observations, yourself, to see that God is real.

It's a curious thing that you talk about "if you were a bit smarter" when obviously you're lacking in that aspect. I mean, I've read the "proof" you linked and it's really not convincing. The only thing it convinced me of is that the author and anyone that believes in that "proof" is so full of bullshit that they can't see through it. There are so many contradictions and fallacies in the "proof" that I have serious doubts on your intelligence and sanity.

[BADecker]

You can't even seem to think through the fact that you know that you aren't an atheist.

There are different kinds of atheists, I'm an atheist that is also agnostic. I'm a negative atheist, basically. I don't believe that anything exists except when there's convincing proof that it actually exists. So, by default, things don't exist, and if you want me to think that something exists, you have to prove it to me.

Where do you live? A house? An apartment? Take a look at the wall. If it is painted, maybe nothing exists behind the surface of the paint, because that's all you can see, right? What you can see is all there is convincing proof of, right? The rest of it is a guess, right?

I'm not interested in convincing you of anything. You have talked yourself out of being an atheist. All I have shown you is that you have done this. If you don't like the idea, talk yourself back into the idea that you are an atheist.

If you were a bit smarter, you might realize that authors of proofs are simply observers of proof, who are writing down what they observed. If you understood this, you might be smart enough to think through the observations, yourself, to see that God is real.

It's a curious thing that you talk about "if you were a bit smarter" when obviously you're lacking in that aspect. I mean, I've read the "proof" you linked and it's really not convincing. The only thing it convinced me of is that the author and anyone that believes in that "proof" is so full of bullshit that they can't see through it. There are so many contradictions and fallacies in the "proof" that I have serious doubts on your intelligence and sanity.

You have to have a foundation somewhere. It can't be the idea that the only things you believe are things that have convincing proof behind them. Why not? Because most of this would doesn't have any convincing proof behind it. You saw it the first time, and that's all you think you need, to know it exists.

You hop into the car, turn the key, move the shifting lever, stomp on a couple of pedals, and drive away. Is that really proof of a car? The engineers and mechanics who built the thing will tell you a proof way different than yours. Whose is more substantial, yours or theirs?

If you can't even open your mind enough to realize that the universe is a machine, and that machines are built by someone, no wonder that you can't find any proof for God. If you can't think about combining cause-and-effect with complexity and with entropy, how in the world are you ever going to realize that they can't exist like they do in the universe without Something making them? And the Something fits the description of the thing we call God.

Continue on in your ignorance. It's okay. People aren't made to know everything about everything.

[Lambowei]

It's sad that now you've convinced yourself that you've convinced me to change my mind on atheism. I've never changed my mind. I see how you can get to believe basically anything as you're unable to follow logic arguments and spot errors in your logic.

[BADecker]

It's sad that now you've convinced yourself that you've convinced me to change my mind on atheism. I've never changed my mind. I see how you can get to believe basically anything as you're unable to follow logic arguments and spot errors in your logic.

Actually, I'm kinda happy that you are so self-contradictory.

[BADecker]

It's sad that now you've convinced yourself that you've convinced me to change my mind on atheism. I've never changed my mind. I see how you can get to believe basically anything as you're unable to follow logic arguments and spot errors in your logic.

Actually, I'm kinda happy that you are so self-contradictory.

Are you sure?

You religious imbeciles think that God was the cause of the BB.

And ignore the fact that before the BB there was no time for any cause to exist in, including your 'God'.

If you were born in Pakistan or Saudi Arabia you would be a Muslim and would hate Jews (Jesus included) and anything related to Judaism.

Get this simple fact through your thick skull.

Why go to Pakistan or Saudi Arabia? At least the Muslim religion makes some kinds of earthly sense. The atheism religion won't even allow people to capitalize its own name.

[Lambowei]

Why go to Pakistan or Saudi Arabia? At least the Muslim religion makes some kinds of earthly sense. The atheism religion won't even allow people to capitalize its own name.

Perhaps because atheism is not a religion 

[BADecker]

Why go to Pakistan or Saudi Arabia? At least the Muslim religion makes some kinds of earthly sense. The atheism religion won't even allow people to capitalize its own name.

Perhaps because atheism is not a religion 

Actually, it's the other way around. When you look at the complete definition of the word "religion," you find that everything that everybody does in life is involved with his personal religion. One of the best, simple places to look at religion is https://www.dictionary.com/browse/religion?s=t.

But even if this were NOT the case (a boy religiously fixes his bike), the way atheists treat atheism is the way that all people treat the religion of their choice, except that atheists don't call atheism a religion.

If this weren't enough, the fact that atheists try to convince themselves that there isn't any God, when they know for a fact that they don't know enough to say with any kind of certainty that God doesn't exist, shows that they are doing the same thing regarding God as other religions might.

This makes the beginning of a right religion to be one that recognizes that God exists, simply by recognizing the machinery of nature, that nobody can build nature machinery, and so the Guy Who did it absolutely has to be God.

[Lambowei]

If this weren't enough, the fact that atheists try to convince themselves that there isn't any God, when they know for a fact that they don't know enough to say with any kind of certainty that God doesn't exist, shows that they are doing the same thing regarding God as other religions might.

First of all, not all atheists believe that god doesn't exist, that's just your ignorance speaking.

Second, your argument also goes against you: if no one knows enough to say that god doesn't exist, it's because also no one knows enough to say that god exists.

This makes the beginning of a right religion to be one that recognizes that God exists

No religion is true, because truth is knowledge and religions are not based on truth but their opposite: beliefs.

simply by recognizing the machinery of nature, that nobody can build nature machinery

You don't know that, that's your belief.

, and so the Guy Who did it absolutely has to be God.

You also don't know that, that's your belief.

[BADecker]

If this weren't enough, the fact that atheists try to convince themselves that there isn't any God, when they know for a fact that they don't know enough to say with any kind of certainty that God doesn't exist, shows that they are doing the same thing regarding God as other religions might.

First of all, not all atheists believe that god doesn't exist, that's just your ignorance speaking.

Second, your argument also goes against you: if no one knows enough to say that god doesn't exist, it's because also no one knows enough to say that god exists.

This makes the beginning of a right religion to be one that recognizes that God exists

No religion is true, because truth is knowledge and religions are not based on truth but their opposite: beliefs.

simply by recognizing the machinery of nature, that nobody can build nature machinery

You don't know that, that's your belief.

, and so the Guy Who did it absolutely has to be God.

You also don't know that, that's your belief.

An atheist who doesn't attempt to believe that God doesn't exist, isn't an atheist by definition.

Second, science shows that God exists through cause-and-effect, combined with entropy, combined with complexity. There is no other way for this universe to exist without God... because of these 3 things. There is also that machines have makers. Atheism absolutely opposes God. So there is no way that one can truthfully say that God doesn't exist.

The true religion is the one that recognizes some of the things that are known facts - like the existence of God - and recognizes that there are things other than known facts that exist.

Machine nature is an absolutely proven fact. Our own experience with our own machines shows us that machines have makers. No belief necessary.

[Lambowei]

An atheist who doesn't attempt to believe that God doesn't exist, isn't an atheist by definition.

That's your ignorance speaking. There are different kinds of atheism.

Machine nature is an absolutely proven fact. Our own experience with our own machines shows us that machines have makers. No belief necessary.

Human machines have human makers, but not human machines don't necessarily need to have any makers. Your argument is a non-sequitur fallacy. The fact you're basing your whole "god exists according to science" in a simple non-sequitur fallacy demonstrates how much bullshit you eat to rest easy in your beliefs. Which are just that, simple, run-out of the mill religious beliefs.

[josephsonand]

I agree with you and I understand you. When you don’t feel God, you don’t need to specifically believe in Him or, on the contrary, not to believe.
Everything is much simpler. God is Love, this is good, joy, this is all the best and sincere that is in this world. When you feel this Love for everything that surrounds you, then in this way you communicate with God. When you meditate (when you succeed), you also communicate with God.
God is not a mythical creature. In religions, He is represented in the form of a man in order to somehow explain to people what they do not understand yet.
And, besides, it doesn’t matter what you call God - the Creator, Nature, the Universe or just Love. These are all the names of one.

[Lambowei]

God is not a mythical creature.

god is just an idea, like unicorns. It would be nice if it existed but so would be unicorns.

[Vod]

God is not a mythical creature.

god is just an idea, like unicorns. It would be nice if it existed but so would be unicorns.

god is going to take a nap while humanity destroys itself, just like he passed out during the holocaust.   god needs to take a walk and check out the planet he made, instead of drinking so much.  :/

[BADecker]

An atheist who doesn't attempt to believe that God doesn't exist, isn't an atheist by definition.

That's your ignorance speaking. There are different kinds of atheism.

Machine nature is an absolutely proven fact. Our own experience with our own machines shows us that machines have makers. No belief necessary.

Human machines have human makers, but not human machines don't necessarily need to have any makers. Your argument is a non-sequitur fallacy. The fact you're basing your whole "god exists according to science" in a simple non-sequitur fallacy demonstrates how much bullshit you eat to rest easy in your beliefs. Which are just that, simple, run-out of the mill religious beliefs.

We have no other observations regarding machines. Machines are designed and built. Just because we don't know who the designer of a particular machine is, doesn't mean the machine wasn't designed and built.

For something to exist without a designer, it would have to exist spontaneously. We have no example in nature of spontaneous existence of anything. But we have "zillions' of examples of things that were brought about by something else. Why would anybody think that the whole universe came about spontaneously, when we have no example of anything that did such? The odds alone - number of designed and built things vs nothing that wasn't designed and built that we know of - scientifically prove that there is a Maker for the universe.

Further. Even in the face perfect perpetual motion, there still needs to be a maker for a machine. But the universe is declining via entropy. Stars burn out. They get old and die. New stars are made from operations that are set in place. The entropy of it is the dissipation, the dispersal, the diffusion of complexity into continually expanding and growing simplicity.

All of this shows us that God exists to have made this whole universe in the first place.

[BADecker]

God is not a mythical creature.

god is just an idea, like unicorns. It would be nice if it existed but so would be unicorns.

People can't make their idea of unicorns into reality. But God made His idea of people into reality... or don't we exist.

[Lambowei]

People can't make their idea of unicorns into reality. But God made His idea of people into reality... or don't we exist.

Another of your non-sequitur fallacies again?

[BADecker]

People can't make their idea of unicorns into reality. But God made His idea of people into reality... or don't we exist.

Another of your non-sequitur fallacies again?

Sounds like you are starting to realize that God exists... but at least that you don't know that He doesn't, and that you should probably be looking for Him.

[Lambowei]

Sounds like you are starting to realize that God exists... but at least that you don't know that He doesn't, and that you should probably be looking for Him.

Sounds like you're dreaming. One day you'll wake up and realise you've been praying to a f'ing unicorn