Atheist's biggest problems with GOD and religion in general

[Upisoft]

The idea of god is dead. It was killed by modern society. If you cant understand this statement you need to take some logic classes.

No, it wasn't killed. Logic does not disprove existence of God.

 

[ExistencePrecedesEssence]

No, it wasn't killed. Logic does not disprove existence of God.

Its a metaphorical statement. Read Thus Spake Zarthustra, and understand its deeper confines. I dont wish to argue on a computer where emotion and retort with possiblity is impossible

 

[Upisoft]

Its a metaphorical statement. Read Thus Spake Zarthustra, and understand its deeper confines. I dont wish to argue on a computer where emotion and retort with possiblity is impossible

Then don't post in the Discussion & Debate forum. We do argue here.

 

[ExistencePrecedesEssence]

Then don't post in the Discussion & Debate forum. We do argue here.

Touche what i meant in other terms is that i dont wish to compose a statement on something that is already composed somewhere else, theres a copy of Thus Spake Zarathustra on the internet, google it youll find it. Its a fascinating book even if you are christian.

 

[Upisoft]

Touche what i meant in other terms is that i dont wish to compose a statement on something that is already composed somewhere else, theres a copy of Thus Spake Zarathustra on the internet, google it youll find it. Its a fascinating book even if you are christian.

I'm not christian. I may read the book. Perhaps it would be at least interesting.
But, of course, you have your own thoughts about the subject. I don't see any sense to post someone other's opinion and then tell the people to search the net for his book.

 

[ExistencePrecedesEssence]

I'm not christian. I may read the book. Perhaps it would be at least interesting.
But, of course, you have your own thoughts about the subject. I don't see any sense to post someone other's opinion and then tell the people to search the net for his book.

Who said it was his opinion? I subjegated his intention into my own analysis of his opinion therefore creating an entirely new opinion.

 

[Upisoft]

Who said it was his opinion? I subjegated his intention into my own analysis of his opinion therefore creating an entirely new opinion.

Giving me reference to a book suggests that at least your opinion and his opinion closely match.

 

[ExistencePrecedesEssence]

Giving me reference to a book suggests that at least your opinion and his opinion closely match.

Reference does not imply a totality of identification. I may for instance say i have an opinion of something, and then read a book and see the book condences the same opinion into a near same perspective, it does not for instance mean they are identifiable between each other. I could being the viewer of my opinion and then of the books may think they represent totally opposite points of view while the person (me) who has created the opinion see's a near identical simularity between them.

You have my arguing now =( Where in bulgaria do you live, i someone who lived in bulgaria about a year ago....not that it means much.

 

[Upisoft]

Reference does not imply a totality of identification. I may for instance say i have an opinion of something, and then read a book and see the book condences the same opinion into a near same perspective, it does not for instance mean they are identifiable between each other. I could being the viewer of my opinion and then of the books may think they represent totally opposite points of view while the person (me) who has created the opinion see's a near identical simularity between them.

Yeah, I agree. agreement != identification. we're still different people.

You have my arguing now =( Where in bulgaria do you live, i someone who lived in bulgaria about a year ago....not that it means much.

Sofia

 

[ExistencePrecedesEssence]

Yeah, I agree. agreement != identification. we're still different people.


Sofia

I dont understand what you mean by "agreement != identification".

He also said he lived near Pernik or something like that, hopefully i didnt mispell it. These forums were more then i expected, especially because of you. Maybe ill have good discussions with you and others. Cute kid by the way.

 

[Upisoft]

I dont understand what you mean by "agreement != identification".

!= means "not equal" in Java, C and other computer languages. I used it without thinking that others may have no that knowledge. Sorry.

He also said he lived near Pernik or something like that, hopefully i didnt mispell it.

It's spelled OK in latin alphabet. Pernik is near Sofia.

These forums were more then i expected, especially because of you. Maybe ill have good discussions with you and others.

I'm kind of exception
Fortunately we'll have interesting discussions. I have some "weird" ideas and no one agree with me, but they can't show me why I'm wrong.

Cute kid by the way.

Thanks. That's my son.

 

[ExistencePrecedesEssence]

!= means "not equal" in Java, C and other computer languages. I used it without thinking that others may have no that knowledge. Sorry.


It's spelled OK in latin alphabet. Pernik is near Sofia.


I'm kind of exception
Fortunately we'll have interesting discussions. I have some "weird" ideas and no one agree with me, but they can't show me why I'm wrong.

Thanks. That's my son.

I have understanding ideas, that i can bring onto people. I dont actually care about religion, i just found it interesting about these forums and ill be on here on nights when im not out with the lady or my friends which are primarily weekdays. I still dont understand what you mean by !=identification, but thats cool.


He said it was called pernik, he is only half Bulgarian hes from italy and bulgarian descent.

I believe happiness is the only thing life is for, so if religion brings happiness why should i challenge it and try and convert people, you know? I dont know i mean i want to convince people who have wrong perspectives. I dont delve into much religious discussion in my essays and thesis' i do when im not hanging out doing high school shinanigans.

Happiness and the human condition are my primary concerns. Existentialism(which is primarily angst, and despaired full) is used along with ontology to bring about your own destiny that you create. Your own ethics, morals, and perspectives are created. Its a atheistic view though. Ask and i can give you some of it . "Existence precedes and governs essence" was sartre's slogan, ive taken it as my own also since it sums up my philosophy, but is very differant then his.

I also like defining the consciousness, and ive actually found a way to eliminate the standing freaudian(spelling?)subconscious and created a more existential, epistemelogical, and ontological definition that fits my philosophy. It makes sense and is well written, you might like it.

Sorry for the errors and sloppy writing, im tired and ready to pass out, fun night last night.

 

[Upisoft]

I have understanding ideas, that i can bring onto people. I dont actually care about religion, i just found it interesting about these forums and ill be on here on nights when im not out with the lady or my friends which are primarily weekdays. I still dont understand what you mean by !=identification, but thats cool.

I wanted to say that agreement is not identification, therefore people can share the same idea but be different.

I believe happiness is the only thing life is for, so if religion brings happiness why should i challenge it and try and convert people, you know?

Well, your life is for anything you decide about it. If you decide that the meaning of life is happiness, then the happines becomes your meaning of life.

I dont know i mean i want to convince people who have wrong perspectives.

No wrong perspectives exist. Only wrong logic.

I dont delve into much religious discussion in my essays and thesis' i do when im not hanging out doing high school shinanigans.

I'm theist but I'm not religious. That means I believe there is God, but don't think that is of much importance as Christians and other religions put in it.

Happiness and the human condition are my primary concerns.

And mine, but in the context of my son's happines and condition

Existentialism(which is primarily angst, and despaired full) is used along with ontology to bring about your own destiny that you create. Your own ethics, morals, and perspectives are created. Its a atheistic view though.

I don't think it's incompatible with theism. I don't have problems with those ideas.

"Existence precedes and governs essence"

That philosophy requires succession. The succession is a property of the space-time. And in the beginning there was no space-time.

I also like defining the consciousness, and ive actually found a way to eliminate the standing freaudian(spelling?)subconscious and created a more existential, epistemelogical, and ontological definition that fits my philosophy. It makes sense and is well written, you might like it.

That will be interesting to hear. You may start new thread about it.

Sorry for the errors and sloppy writing, im tired and ready to pass out, fun night last night.

No problems. I'm not brilliant either

Edit: It's getting very late here and I'm almost sleeping while writting this. I wish you good night.
CU

 

[ExistencePrecedesEssence]

The meaning of life is based off the existence of no nature, existence precedes essence for example. I exist in this world rise up and find purpose or the meaning later after existing. I find my "essence" or meaning to existence after i have existed. Its one of the primary challenges to religion existentialism has concured and contradicted.

And existence precedes essence is a succession involving only the human identity persona. Your individual existence exists before your individual essence for life can be found. Since there is no universal naturality to life you create your own with the despair of realization of being the only being in control and that you are the only backbone to your life. Existentialism is very depressing and sad, but it gives a good message and once you get passed the "existential angst" you can create purpose. Though many who read the novels and books written by existential authors and post-modern absurdists misinterpret its concepts which leads to dolts.

 

[psychedelicist]

Ok... I know in my heart that this thread will be completely in vain because of people's uncany ability to copletely ignore requests from the thread starter, but here goes. In this thread I'd like all Atheists to list their biggest reasons or reasons for not believing in GOD and religion in general. That's it, just tell me ur buggest beef with realigion. I'm doing this to collect information on the atheist's point of view on religion. Now here come's the tricky part that I'm sure will be the undoing of this thread: I'm begging all christians that read this please please pretty please with sugar on top DO NOT POST ANYTHING ON THIS THREAD. I'm collecting information on reasons why people dont like christianity. There is one exception, if a christian that reads this does happen to have a problem with a particular part of the christian religion, please feel free to post it. Well that's it, thnx for taking the time to read this unbearably long preface.

My issue never really was with the religions themselves, the intent behind religions is good of course but in the end they usually cause more trouble than they fix. This applies to EVERY religion, not just abrahamic religions. As much as I appreciate the vedic religions they caused some pretty big problems of their own and if they had become the dominant religions on the planet the human race probably would not be much better off.

My issue was instead with the concept of a god in general. It makes no logical sense and I simply cannot believe in something that makes no logical sense. I have no capacity for 'faith' it seems, I can barely bring myself to trust another person to do a job or task for me, much less say 'oh well this doesnt make sense but I'm sure it's true anyways'. Perhaps this is a flaw on my part though.

In specific one concept behind a monotheistic god does not make sense to me, and this is the concept that an all powerful deity would feel the need or drive to create anything. An all powerful deity would not have needs or wants so there would be no logical reason for this deity to create or DO anything, except simply exist.

For example, we as humans only create things for 2 reasons (that I can see): either we create objects as tools to aid ourselves, or we create objects as art to express ourselves. I already explained why the first of those 2 options can't apply to a deity, and it would seem to me that we express ourselves through art and whatnot to better understand ourselves. 'The mind is not simply a box to be opened' and so on causes us to have to express ourselves in abstract ways then analyze our creation, find a way of explaining it, then applying what we come up with to our own psyche's. But an all powerful deity would also have the ability to do all of this on his own, to him it could be just as simple as opening the box instead of analyzing abstract expressions. Sort of like the old 'god can't create a rock so big he cant lift it' arguement, guess.

 

[m9lc]

My main problems are:

-Jesus went through temporary suffering to retribute billions of Christians from infinite suffering. Doesn't make any sense.
-Christianity assumes I have a choice over what I believe, which is ridiculous.
-No one deserves the infinite punishment of Hell.

 

[ExistencePrecedesEssence]

Jesus died for about 500 million people in his day. >.>

The difference between faith and its understatements is faith is a form of knowledge, or atleast a totem to knowledge by which it stands firm even before a flood and rain, or even when its pushed on to its full capacity. Only a great push can topple it and let loose the possiblity to break faith.

Knowledge on the other hand can be dealt with in any sort of way that it wishes to be dealt with. Its like atoms(i guess) and when combined with certain things it can create differant things. I can gain differant intepretations of certain things from the same knowledge depending on what other "thing" i am observing.

If i read the bible and if i were a christian i would thus have knowledge of reading, i am reading the book and thus gaining and understanding of that book. I then (if i were christian) would gain a sense of faith from the book, through the knowledge that i had just recieved through reading it. This faith then sticks because the bible is something that cannot be altered. I cant exactly say "no jesus wasnt crucified, he was impailed" and expect it to be accepted by the others who believe and follow the faith of the bible.

If i were to read "Thoughts from the Underground" by Dostoevsky i gain knowledge of the the ideas that are contained within the book...instead of set rules, or a set religious text that i must abide by to be apart of that religion(I cant just say god is a women, or man and get away with it.) I could say that "the underground man is someone who hates his life" or that "the underground man can be someone who loves being spiteful" and get away with it. This is because it was not meant as a book for "faith" instead as a book for "interpretation of knowledge." My atoms(self) thus combine with the atoms of the book and become something like water, while when your atoms(self) combine with the bible they create something solid, and sturdy. I can flow and sort through everything open minded and can be swayed by anything. While you are strong with your knowledge and your trust in that knowledge. My mind is open with knowledge while yours is closed by faith.

 

[Tormac]

To the Op:

I would not say that I have anything against Cristianity, or their notion of the Triune God in general.

The reason why I don't believe is most of what I understand of the claims and beliefs of the differing sects of Chrisitanity are not compatible with how the universe works.

As many others have already said, the lack of evidence keeps from from accepting that the Christian cosmology is correct.

 

[jeff992]

To the Op:

I would not say that I have anything against Cristianity, or their notion of the Triune God in general.

The reason why I don't believe is most of what I understand of the claims and beliefs of the differing sects of Chrisitanity are not compatible with how the universe works.

As many others have already said, the lack of evidence keeps from from accepting that the Christian cosmology is correct.

are you saying that you don't believe in Christianity because there are so many different beliefs? Do you believe in any kind of god?

 

[Nectar]

Well, lets see,

Years of my parents favouring my over achieving brother coupled with my constant moving schools turned me into brooding teenager who women think is 'hot' until they realize I don't give a **** (say the word in your head) about them I only wanted the company and an occasional make out session, this led to self harm and an eventual premature drinking problem. Which, made me the sinical, sarcastic realist I am now (at 15). Please don't 'pray' for me, I'm having way too much fun. Honestly.

Jasper.