Atheism

Yes i used to be a christian until i told the priest it wasn't fair that the good people that didn't follow this god went to hell… he told me i asked too many questions.

i just noticed this: why is the darwin-icthus thing on the atheism page? atheism and evolution aren't mutually exclusive, unless you're one of those silly fundamentalists who takes genesis literally but metaphorizes the rest.

good point. didn't notice that. science and religion aren't opposite

1 person believes in something without proof they are labelled insane.

1 hundred people believe in something without proof they are labelled a cult.

1 thousand people believe in something without proof they are labelled a religion.

 1 million people believe in something without proof and they declare it the truth.

i like that

Sadly it's true.

I was born atheist. I've ventured into religion, and I can honestly say I chose my atheism... but I still respect those who really trully believe in their religion, because having that amount of faith in something is amazing.

i quite agree.  though not religious, i have great respect (with a touch of envy) for the deeply religious.  for those hypocrits (is that how you spell it?) who proclaim christianity and then get wasted on weekends and smoke in the school bathrooms…not so.

Hypocrites Silthilar, Yes i too envy those with a religion because they are so naive… i felt a tad happier when i believed in something with a higher power… although i always questioned it and worried about being sinful i felt more at peace.

true dat

But on the other hand i can live by the moment without worrying about sin. ^^

did anyone beside me notice how the secret-door-in-library thing got three pages of comments before this one did?  i think it's the longest non-philosophical thing on this site.

My problem is that I don't like when people pose foreign ideas to me that rock the foundation of my life. That's because then I start questioning myself and doubting myself.

When there's noone to talk to, "God" is a better explanation than "Talking to myself".

I don't want to live forever, just long enough.

I know what you mean Vano, besides everyone will run out of reasons to live anyway.

"...When your deepest thoughts are broken,
Keep on dreaming boy, cause when you stop dreamin' it's time to die."

-Shannon Hoon 

Love it,

           where do you come up with all of these sayings?

Well that was from a Blind Melon song. I just remember things I want to remember for times I want to have remembered them.

Firstly, according to science, the universe has a beginning (the Big Bang). If the universe has a beginning and hasn’t always existed, then what the fuck caused it to come into being, to explode out of nothing? What force, other than some higher being, could have caused that?

For all you people who don't believe my suggestion would be to pray with an open heart for the truth. That might sound silly (especially if you’re Atheist!) but do it as an experiment. But if you do so while truely seeking for the truth, if there IS a God who willingly communicates with people, then you will get some sort of answer to that prayer. It doesn’t have to be a booming voice or anything, but something that will open itself up to allow you to explore the subject more and discover the truth.

I think that would be good advice for anyone, even Atheists. You have nothing to lose really. Who doesn’t want to know the “meaning of life” so to speak, so it shouldn’t be difficult to say, “If there is a higher being, I want to talk to you and know the truth” and mean it, right? You don’t have to confirm anything in your own beliefs, as long as you seek with an open heart. If the answer never comes, then you can just keep going on as you have been, and it will be no skin from your nose.

Just a suggestion.

Okay, I have a thirdly. lol!

I’m a very logical person, so all my deductions have been based on logic, not faith. I find it so silly that someone is Atheist because they don’t have faith! I recently began leaning toward Christianity because my logic wouldn’t allow me to be Deist (which was the religion I WANTED to be true) anymore. There is too much historical and personal evidence in favor of Christianity, and absolutely no evidence in favor of Atheism or Deism. So which one should you believe? The one you want to be true because it makes you have less guilt or it’s the one you want? Or the one that is the most provable?

And believe me, I’m no Bible thumper! I still have many issues with the ideals of Christianity, including the thought that good people can’t go to heaven if they don’t repent and accept Jesus. But I also think it’s quite egotistical to sit there and say you don’t believe it’s true because it clashes with your personal opinion or you don’t understand it.

As an atheist I still want there to be an afterlife, and I don't mind the idea of a great father/mother figure (not the Christian one). The reality there has not been any testable evidence of an afterlife or god.

The historical evidence for Christianity is actually weak at best. Personal evidence is just cognitive assonance, it's meaningless. You can pretty much logically deduct anything - it's all word play. Saying there is no evidence for Atheism is a bit weird. I can prove to you that there are people who don't believe in God.

I don't think its an ego thing to say, "um sorry, you believe in this powerful entity, who you know the mind of (depending on religion), and you want me to believe in the same, even though you have no proof. That's nice, I'll just stand over here - thanks"

Forgetting Christianity, step one would be to show that there is a God. Science points directly to a higher being with the Big Bang Theory.

Not believing in God takes more faith than believing in God. You’re believing that somehow nothing turned into something. You have no way of explaining this. You believe that randomly a bunch of molecules got together and eventually created existence. The existence of life on earth is highly improbable at best. In fact, so improbable, that it’s almost impossible without someone to make all the circumstances perfect. Either that, or it’s incredible, improbable luck.

Then there’s the evidence of having an outer consciousness seperate from the brain. That a person can react not based on instinct, but on some individual personality. That there is an “I” that controls the brain. What’s the “I”? The soul?

It’s funny that Atheists want to believe that the most complicated things in the world popped up out of nowhere, almost magically without any help.

But seriously, if someone who doesn’t believe in God can explain to me how the universe could manifest itself on its own, please do. Understand, that I am more than willing to be convinced, as I use logic to come to my decisions, not personal belief or desires.

If there IS a god he has a really sick cruel sense of humor.

I'd rather believe in nothing.

AJMcFly you seem like a nice enough bloke - and I say that without any sarcasm. I'll do my best to reciprocate without any arseholeness, but the reality is - I am.

Science points directly to a higher being with the Big Bang Theory

Actually it doesn't. It doesn't point to anything. Just because there is a hole, doesn't mean we have to fill it with God.

The existence of life on earth is highly improbable at best.

Um no. The earth supports life, no problemo. You might be asking how did we get to this point? There was this scientist called Charles Darwin - he had a crazy theory that eventually gained much evidence and support behind it.

What evidence has there been for conscienceness separated from the brain? Richard Dawkins mentioned something about that a while ago - we think that it is separate, but are actually one of the same system.

It’s funny that Atheists want to believe that the most complicated things in the world popped up out of nowhere, almost magically without any help.

No, we generally believe in evolution is the best theory to date. We don't believe that those complicated things popped out of nowhere with help. (That theory is pretty crazy). Hey I want to believe in what you believe - it would much a whole bunch of things easier.

if someone who doesn’t believe in God can explain to me how the universe could manifest itself on its own

We don't have to explain anything. You've put the onus on yourself. You believe god created everything - that's a grand statement. The way you have framed your arguement means that you will come to certain "logical" conclusions in your own defined space. It's your space, and not mine to argue in.

If there is a God, then I have explained how the earth could explode from nothing into something. To me, it would require such a higher being.

Like I said, you are believing something based on personal preference, not on facts. You don’t like the idea of God. That’s fine, but it’s quite illogical, and no better than people who believe in the idea of the Bible blindly just because. You have to have an incredible amount of faith to believe that the world came into its existence on its own with no possible way of explaining it. It’s like, if you saw a room of highly advanced computers, by your theory, over millions of years they eventually put themselves together by random hap and circumstance, when the most obvious explanation is someone built them and set them to work. But because you don’t want to believe in that person, you’d rather think that the computers somehow created themselves.

When it comes to the earth sustaining life, the earth is incredibly improbable. If it wasn’t in this exact location, relative to the sun, the galaxy and the universe, life could not exist. Even then, the atmosphere has to be perfect to support carbon lifeforms.

Evolution still doesn’t explain how the universe came to exist. Even then, there is no evidence at all that all existence can be traced back to a single source. The Cambrian Explosion proves that evolution doesn’t work the way Darwin thought it did, since that shows that it’s not a slow and arduous process, but a sudden explosion of life. Also, there has not been any way to explain how life could form from earth’s early atmospheres. In fact, it’s not possible if what scientists now believe about earth’s early atmospheres is correct.

The thing with the brain and consciousness, you can’t stimulate parts of the brain to think a certain way, but you can to make them act a certain way. People have had out of body experiences as well.

And to answer Darth, I understand that view. That’s why I was a Deist, which means that you believe God created the earth and then abandoned it. That’s at least much more logical to me than Atheism, which explains nothing and is more about people not wanting to believe in a higher being. People want to believe in nothing but a physical reality, but there’s evidence even directly within us, of something beyond that, everywhere every day. If you agree that there is, then you would have to believe in God, because physical properties couldn’t create that. Something non-physical would have to.

...the earth is incredibly improbable.

Yeah, it is.  But the universe is really big.  Big enough that even an infinitismal likelyhood amounts to near certainty.  Even if the odds of life are a google to one, it's bound to happen somewhere.

Evolution still doesn’t explain how the universe came to exist.

Who said it did?

 Even then, there is no evidence at all that all existence can be traced back to a single source.

Entirely false.  There's tons of evidence pointing at that.  All you need is adaptive radiation and voila!  A theory explaining how one species could turn into many.

The last time I saw you on the forums, jojo, was I think about a month after I joined.  Where've you been? 

I don't think there's any proof that life is "bound to happen" and there's still no explanation why it did happen on earth.

Entirely false. There's tons of evidence pointing at that. All you need is adaptive radiation and voila! A theory explaining how one species could turn into many.

Not that I know anything about adaptive radiation, but how is that evidence? It's a theory, and that doesn't prove that life came from a single source. There is really no evidence that there is evolution between species. But even if you took everything Darwin said as fact (which is blind faith in something that has many holes) that doesn't explain how the universe itself was created.

Being an Atheist requires as much blind faith as being Christian, except that Chrisianity actually has historical documents to back it up, while Atheism is based purely on hope and a not single shred of evidence.

And I am still waiting for someone to explain how the universe could exist without some sort of higher consciousness to bring it into existence. I don't understand why so many people insist on believing in something when all they have is blind faith to support them.

Consider this:

Universe goes boom
Universe expands as matter is created
From matter comes light, life, gravity, and other stuff
Universe gets too big and can't expand anymore
Universe collapses
Universe goes boom again

Lather rinse repeat.

"The Wheel of Time turns, and Ages come and pass, leaving memories that become legend.  Legend fades to myth, and even myth is long forgotten when the Age that gave it birth comes again."
Robert Jordan, 1948 - 2007

^ Then you’re insinuating that the universe has existed forever and has no starting point. I’m not sure if that’s physically possible. Wouldn’t there have to be an intitial explosion?

If there is a God, then I have explained how the earth could explode from nothing into something. To me, it would require such a higher being.

But why? Who is this god? A christian god? Zeus? There's lots of gods. There is no explanation - how did god do it? There is shiet load of theories that explain that - and definately better than the idea of a super natural being.

Like I said, you are believing something based on personal preference, not on facts. You don’t like the idea of God.

I'm not arrogant enough to say god is the best theory for the things we can't answer at this point. As I mentioned from the start, I don't mind an idea of a great mother/father figure - there's just no evidence for 'em.

That’s fine, but it’s quite illogical, and no better than people who believe in the idea of the Bible blindly just because.

Being skeptical is not illogical - it's quite healthy.

You have to have an incredible amount of faith to believe that the world came into its existence on its own with no possible way of explaining it.

I didn't say that at all. I don't know - just skeptical of the whole god thing. If we say a super natural being did this - it leaves no room for scientific inquiry. Screw that.

It’s like, if you saw a room of highly advanced computers, by your theory, over millions of years they eventually put themselves together by random hap and circumstance, when the most obvious explanation is someone built them and set them to work. But because you don’t want to believe in that person, you’d rather think that the computers somehow created themselves.

Natural Selection is not random.

-- snip other things answered --

The Cambrian Explosion proves that evolution doesn’t work the way Darwin thought it did, since that shows that it’s not a slow and arduous process, but a sudden explosion of life.

There has been new discoveries of pre-cambrian fossils to show that there was a bit more to that. Considering Darwin's theory had buckets loads of evidence to support it, so far it is way more robust than the god theory - there has been absolutely nothing to prove god. Leave it to the scientists to debate, not the creationists.

The thing with the brain and consciousness, you can’t stimulate parts of the brain to think a certain way, but you can to make them act a certain way. People have had out of body experiences as well.

Doesn't really say either way. And have people really had out of body experiences? Has there been verifiable reports?

What made physical matter exist? It baffles my mind. If there was one time nothing, and then physical matter came into existence, how? There is nothing in this universe that can do that. That, to me, points to something outside the universe. I really can't change someone's mind if it's their preference to not want to believe in God, but I feel if you base it solely on logic and facts, I can't really see any other way to believe, but I'm willing to hear a logical argument.

It's ok for there to be a bunch of stuff that neither of us can understand. As I said - does shoving the god hypothesis in there allow for real scientific inquiry? At some point we may just find those answers. If there is a god at the end of it and we create a radio to talk to him, fucking brilliant. But there are probably a few million bloody good theories that sound more plausable than a god.

The last time I saw you on the forums, jojo, was I think about a month after I joined. Where've you been?

I've been lurking.

There is really no evidence that there is evolution between species.

Fossil records.

That doesn't explain how the universe itself was created.

Already has been.

Being an Atheist requires as much blind faith as being Christian

Skepticism is the opposite of faith.

except that Chrisianity actually has historical documents to back it up

Cripes. Here's a good one: why are the historical records of Jesus outside of the bible pretty murky? Why is there no historical evidence outside the bible of Jeses' miracles? Why where the gospels written 70 years after his death and not by his disciples then? The bible is so erroneous, it would be easier to write it off. If you need life guidance, there is much better contemporary literature.

While Atheism is based purely on hope and a not single shred of evidence.

Um no. Fuck is this 1984?

Then you’re insinuating that the universe has existed forever and has no starting point. I’m not sure if that’s physically possible. Wouldn’t there have to be an intitial explosion?

And if it was a creator, who created this creator?

AJMcfly, your argument has many fallacies, you're taking what people are saying and making assumptions. The belief of God is an assumption. God is something that is taught, not proven or initially felt, even. If that were the case, remote tribes in 3rd world countries would know about God and be worshipping him. I mean really, if God does exist, he's one arrogant person, saying that by denying him we go directly to hell. Well, fuck, "he" gave us the minds, the concept of a reason and logic, and he expects us not to deny or at least question? Bull. Makes no sense. The only thing that has actually been proven is that Jesus existed. (not that he made miracles happen or anything of that stuff, just that he was an actual person)

I really don't see how you expect to be able to argue Christianity against Atheism when you're clearly not educated in all the facts about either. Not saying I am, but you might want to tread carefully.

I just find it funny that people say there is no evidence for God, yet there is no evidence for no God. It’s cocky intellectual bullshit. As if an intelligent, logical, scientific person can’t believe in God.

Not that I exactly wanted to get into Christianity, but the argument that the New Testament isn’t reliable is ridiculous. It’s the most valid of all ancient texts. In comparison to how things are documented today it doesn’t hold up, but that’s an unfair comparsion. Those days people were illiterate. They passed on stories through speech. Also, Christianity was heavily persecuted. It's amazing that it survived.

As said, there is mention of Jesus’ miracles outside the Bible. Also, the letters within the New Testament that were written to people who were direct witnesses of Jesus claim that those people saw the resurrected Jesus – a claim that could not be made without the writer losing all credibility, unless it was true.

I’m not going to try to convince anyone to convert. My point is that the only reason to be Atheist is on belief and faith, not on logic or historical data, because logic and history points toward God and not away from it.

Also, I was not arguing from a Christian perspective. I’m not trying to prove a Christian God, but just the need for a God. But I think the Christian God has the most proof behind it.

Again, there is no proof for the non-existance of God. It requires faith.

Also, the acceptance of God does not prevent scientific enquiry. Even if a scientist believes in Genesis, don’t you think he’d want to find a way to prove it? There are some people who use faith and some people who use logic in their beliefs, and that goes for both Atheism and Christianity/religous-beliefs. It is not the belief that stops scientific study, but the individual.

I just find it funny that people say there is no evidence for God, yet there is no evidence for no God.

No evidence for something (God, no God, etc) doesn't mean that said something is false.

Those days people were illiterate.

Right. Then how did they write, say, the Bible? Dead Sea scrolls? Epic of Gilgamesh? How did civilization advance that far without literacy?

...just the need for a God.

Not being able to explain something does not necessitate a higher being. It just means that we can't explain it.

Even if a scientist believes in Genesis, don’t you think he’d want to find a way to prove it?

What you just described is a lack of objective scientific inquiry.  A scientist needs to go into an experiment ready to doubt what he finds, to double check it.  Faith excludes doubt.  There is no room for doubt in faith.  Science is founded on doubt.  I'm not saying religion and science can't coexist, I'm saying they can't overlap without one or the other greatly suffering.

The Bible is not the word of God. It's an interpretation of events by Man. Not only that, but it's been translated from Hebrew to Latin to German to English etc etc. It's even been censored. Exactly how trustworthy is it?

Of course.  Religion is completely subjective.  If I believed in a god, he or she would be different from person to person.

And I'd say this conversation is pointless, but in the same way sports are.

I’m quite educated in the story of Genesis, thankyouverymuch.

Scientific enquiry isn’t without bias going in. If you don’t believe, you want to prove that the world happened on its own. If you do, you want to prove it didn’t. Every theory is shaded in personal bias. But the ones with evidence behind them survive. A scientist can’t just say Genesis is real because the Bible told me so. He’d have to prove it.

There were a few literate people back then. Most people didn’t write. Two of the apostles, I believe, wrote two of the 4 gospels. These documents were painstakenly reproduced through the years, to be nearly identical to the originals.

The Bible isn’t interpretation. It’s history. The people who wrote it considered it thus. Read beyond the four gospels. Letters written to people of the time who were there when Jesus died state that they saw the resurrected Christ. A bold claim that should have lost the author all credibility if not true.

Anyway, I feel trying to prove a Christian God is silly, as there’s such a strong bias against it. Rather, allow me to first try to prove a Deistic God, a God that abandoned the universe after he created it. He set in motion and then left it. IMO, considering Big Bang, this is as believable as Atheism, and also gives a rational explanation to how Big Bang happened, and how human consciousness exists. Atheism is without answers to these questions, can’t even begin answering them.

I thought Christianity called the Bible an interpretation of God's word?

I believe Christianity takes the Bible as quite literal. It does use a lot of symbols to explain things sometimes, I think, but the narrative is not to be taken as interpretive as far as I know. At least, it’s pretty clear that the four gospels were written as historical documentation of the teachings, death, and resurrection of Jesus. It’s up to the individual to look at those documents and decide for themselves why they should believe they are fiction posed as fact. Personally, I don’t really see any reason to doubt their veracity unless I want to throw out all ancient historical documents as untrusworthy, which is ludicrous, imho.

Boomstam, I'm cool with your experiences, and I think you might be saying the bible is a metaphor - and I'm fine with that.

" God is something that is taught"  now that is bullshit. christity grows here in my country  in people that are raised atheist. how is that tauhgt?

What is trying to be said here is that Christianity doesn't exist in a vacuum. It would be doubtful to land on an alien planet and find Christians among the native population.

I just find it funny that people say there is no evidence for God, yet there is no evidence for no God. It’s cocky intellectual bullshit. As if an intelligent, logical, scientific person can’t believe in God.

There is no evidence for no Zeus. There is no evidence for no Flying Spaghetti monster. It's not the job of the skeptic to prove something doesn't exist - its yours to prove it. 

Not that I exactly wanted to get into Christianity, but the argument that the New Testament isn’t reliable is ridiculous. It’s the most valid of all ancient texts. In comparison to how things are documented today it doesn’t hold up, but that’s an unfair comparsion.

Is this because you say so? 

Those days people were illiterate. They passed on stories through speech. Also, Christianity was heavily persecuted. It's amazing that it survived.

I doubt it did survive in its original form. Christianity is a bunch of brilliant memes. Culled much like evolution to perfectly fit our psyche. 

As said, there is mention of Jesus’ miracles outside the Bible. Also, the letters within the New Testament that were written to people who were direct witnesses of Jesus claim that those people saw the resurrected Jesus – a claim that could not be made without the writer losing all credibility, unless it was true.

Sure - point me to some credible historical sources. I'm sure there is.

I’m not going to try to convince anyone to convert. My point is that the only reason to be Atheist is on belief and faith, not on logic or historical data, because logic and history points toward God and not away from it.

The atheistic point of view is based on scepticism, and as I said being skeptical is the opposite of belief and faith.

Also, I was not arguing from a Christian perspective. I’m not trying to prove a Christian God, but just the need for a God.

I wouldn't doubt we all need god. I want God. I want to know that when I die that there is an afterlife. Death is really fucking scary. It's scary for everyone, and it makes sense for the human psyche to invent an after life and god. It's extremely attractive. I'm just not going to lie to myself. (Check out the book The Denial of Death. It is one of the most authoritive books on this)

the bible is trustworthy in those translations. Not only are there very strict rules to copyt them. but also the oldest complete bible is the st peterusburg version from 1038 i believed. And i say: A complete versions. The bibles of nowadays are coppied from that one with exeptions of the US Churches bibles.

I don't think something from 1038 is good enough - it should be accurate from day 1.

Non the less doesnt it really matter, genesis is written by people with little understanding of life.

True - I agree that genisis is a nice metaphor. 

Light takes 10.000 years from stars to earth.

It's dependant on the distance from each star to the earth. But yes the Milky Way Galaxy is 10,000 light years across. 

days arnt days as written in the bible, and i have to say AJ and jojo arnt really educated in both parts of the story, scientific way, and religious way.

I don't think there is a scientific way. 

But you people doenst seem to understand that a fact for one perosns doenst have to be fact for a other person. Thats why this conversation is useless.

I know, but somethings need to be set straight when someone spouts things that are jut plain wrong.

Scientific enquiry isn’t without bias going in.

Not true. From Wikipedia: Scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. It is based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning, the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.

Basically anything biased is eventually corrected. It's a process, not absolutes.

If you don’t believe, you want to prove that the world happened on its own. If you do, you want to prove it didn’t. Every theory is shaded in personal bias. But the ones with evidence behind them survive. A scientist can’t just say Genesis is real because the Bible told me so. He’d have to prove it.

I don't get you.

There were a few literate people back then. Most people didn’t write. Two of the apostles, I believe, wrote two of the 4 gospels. These documents were painstakenly reproduced through the years, to be nearly identical to the originals.

Can you show me that? URLs?

Anyway, I feel trying to prove a Christian God is silly, as there’s such a strong bias against it.

That's because you can't prove something with word play. And well you can't, there is nothing there. 

Rather, allow me to first try to prove a Deistic God, a God that abandoned the universe after he created it.

How did you prove it then?

Atheism is without answers to these questions, can’t even begin answering them.

It's already begun. Give it time - it's a big question. We're not taking the lazy way out and sticking god in it. 

The Bible isn’t interpretation. It’s history.

Oops we have a fundamentalist. Game over. Sorry but your credibility just died.

its upon some points metaphorical. Not all, not non, offcourse there is historical text in it, and offcourse things are written in the point of view of the writters. As christian im courious about the text with facts and storys. But i will never depend my life and choises on them. For a couple of senteces are enough to live my life. Have God love about all, have other people as much love as yourself, Jesus died for my sins so that i can live. thats about all we need to know. Luckely i can read more in the bible, but if the text are a contradiction of the ones i said, its not the truth. simple it is.

oh and i forgot to mention, people start to believe and then read the bible. not the other way around, misinterpretation would be 100% then

jojo, no offense, but you're acting like a narrowminded dickhead.

You know NOTHING about me or my beliefs. But whatever they are is irrelative to the point of Atheism being an unimaginative, self-serving point-of-view. You want proof for God, yet you won’t except any of the proof that is given. There are countless subjective experiences, but those won’t do for scientific enquiry. There are historical documents. The New Testament IS a history, or at least written as one. If you think it was written as a metaphor please give me a reason for that. I don’t even want to consider the Old Testament, nor the fable-like stories seen in its begining, as whoever wrote it wasn’t there to see those events, therefore it is unreliable. I am talking about the people who wrote the New Testament 50 – 100 years after Jesus’ death, who were witnesses to the events. What reason is there to believe that those are fables or stories? Because they don’t seem real?

Atheism will never explain the important questions. THAT’S what’s lazy. Saying I’m right and your wrong and I’ll be proven so after I’ve died.

The reason I’m not interested in proving a Christian God at this moment is because the topic at hand isn’t really Christianity. It’s God, not the Christian God, or the Muslim God, etc, just the need for a higher consciousness. However, if you ask for historical proof, I would have to point to the Bible. I don’t really think there is any other historical proof (meaning documentation of God’s actions in history) but please correct me if I’m wrong. I may very well be.

BTW, I’m not interested in personal attacks. All I want to do is put forth logical ideas and proof. It’s easier to argue against a Christian God than God, so that’s why so many are intent on bringing Christianity into the Atheism debate. But I am just interested in hearing Atheists point-of-view on why they feel there is no need for God. Not need as in desire, but need as in an explanation for all things, for life, thoughts, and consciousness. I would like a counter-argument for that.

But whatever they are is irrelative to the point of Atheism being an unimaginative, self-serving point-of-view.

How is it unimaginative? How is it self-serving? I could see an argument that saying "there's no God" and leaving it at that is unimaginative, but atheism also leaves room for people to figure out how the universe was created, and it doesn't give them a "Well, God did that" option to fall back on if they get stuck. And self-serving? How do you get that?

You want proof for God, yet you won't accept any of the proof that is given.

What proof? That we don't know how the universe began? That life is extremely improbable?

The New Testament IS a history, or at least written as one.

The Silmarillion (Tolkien) is written as a history, too. Your point?

I am talking about the people who wrote the New Testament 50 - 100 years after Jesus' death, who were witnesses to the events.

If the New Testament was written 50-100 years after Jesus' death, the witnesses to the events would have been 20, 30, 40 years dead. The average life expectancy in that period was about thirty years.

Atheism will never explain the important questions. THAT'S what's lazy. Saying I'm right and you're wrong and I'll be proven so after I've died.

What? Trying to answer important questions is lazy? Or saying I'm right and you're wrong is lazy? I'm not following you.

You seem awfully confidant that atheism (I assume you mean science; the two are not and have never been synonymous) won't answer any important questions.

I don’t really think there is any other historical proof

I'm pretty sure you'll find that all major religions have holy texts if you look. Like here.

BTW, I’m not interested in personal attacks.

Who attacked you personally? jojo called you a fundamentalist, but frankly, in this context that's highly relevant.

Also. AJMcFly: jojo, no offense, but you're acting like a narrowminded dickhead.

Who's giving personal attacks now?

But I am just interested in hearing Atheists point-of-view on why they feel there is no need for God.

"God"? I thought we weren't limiting this to the Christian God. Shouldn't be "no need for a god"?

But I digress. I don't feel a need for a god because I believe that the universe can and did happen without one. Also, I was raised without the concept of a god, so my understanding of the universe simply doesn't have one in it. It's as hard for me to imagine some higher being as it is for you to imagine no higher being. I can't speak for anyone else, but that's my take on things.

Not need as in desire, but need as in an explanation for all things, for life, thoughts, and consciousness. I would like a counter-argument for that.

You're saying that not being able to explain something means that it's divine in origin? Five hundred years ago, people couldn't grasp the concept that the earth was mobile, nor could they explain the tides, nor could they explain light, nor could they explain a hundred other concepts that we can now explain. If we can't explain something now, there's no reason to assume that we can't explain it ever, or that it's simply inexplicable.

(And the Milky Way is 100,000 light years across)

eh, the gospels are written about 70 a.d. not after Jesus death.  with exception of john that one is a bit younger. the letters from paul are older, so more near the death to Christ. Intressting thing is, Luke was a journalist, he interviewed the witnesses because they notice all witnesses were gettign really old. The destruction of jerusalem(70ad) is most likely a trigger too. john was a witness himself and mathew was one of the followers. Marc was a diciple of petrus.

After the first version of the original writter the text were written following jews rules, since most christans where still jews. Jews have strict rules concerning copying text. If in a page 1 fault occure the page has to be deleted totally. if there is 3 faults in a total book, the whole book have to be deleted. If 1 fault occur concering God's name the whole book has to be deleted too. You see that there would be non erros.

If people really want to doubt the text in the gospels. Doubt it about 325 ad where emperor constatine desided with priest what the bible is, and what not...... It was for example here that the triology of God became a written fact.

oh whatever about spelling you guys will figure it out :P

Yep, Silthilar summed it up pretty well.

Ouch. Seems like pointing the fundie finger, really got you peeved. I guess it is pretty nasty to call someone a fundamentalist. Does New Testament Fundamentalist swing?

I'm wondering McFly - should we say god created the universe, and leave it at that. Lets just stop all scientific inquiry pertaining to it. Actually, why don't we stop all inquiry, and when we come along to the next mystery - lets just say its god.

Yep Milky Way is 100,000 light years across (well 70,000 to 100,000) - I left a zero out.

the gospels are written about 70 a.d. not after Jesus death. with exception of john that one is a bit younger. the letters from paul are older, so more near the death to Christ. Intressting thing is, Luke was a journalist, he interviewed the witnesses because they notice all witnesses were gettign really old. The destruction of jerusalem(70ad) is most likely a trigger too. john was a witness himself and mathew was one of the followers. Marc was a diciple of petrus.

I've always been curious about this - considering the average life span back then. I really want the facts on this - because that period seems ambiguous.

After the first version of the original writter the text were written following jews rules, since most christans where still jews. Jews have strict rules concerning copying text. If in a page 1 fault occure the page has to be deleted totally. if there is 3 faults in a total book, the whole book have to be deleted. If 1 fault occur concering God's name the whole book has to be deleted too. You see that there would be non erros.

Also curious about this - any urls? But then, would it matter if Constatine went the hack?

If people really want to doubt the text in the gospels. Doubt it about 325 ad where emperor constatine desided with priest what the bible is, and what not...... It was for example here that the triology of God became a written fact.

What I've read is that Constatine wanted to bring Christianity and Paganism together at the time. Consider the overlap of Christian and Pagan holidays. The question is what did he change? Even that is enough to give me doubts on the complete validity of the new testament. And how about the whole King James thing - what are the differences there? Can you guys be honest enough with yourselves to really get at the truth?