When in history did atheism become the only choice? - Page 2

OtisTheMarsupial · #11 07-21-2005, 04:03 AM

[ QUOTE ]
there always been atheists who didn't have the answers, but suspected the 'all powerful Superdaddy/Sky Fairy' theory wasn't it?

[/ QUOTE ] yes.

spoohunter · #12 07-21-2005, 04:09 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Any thinking, rational person of today has to admit that in the year 2005, God is an absurb hypothesis.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am an atheist, but I would not be incredibly surprised if there was a God. I just think it unlikely.

Nytecaster · #13 07-21-2005, 06:39 AM

God is difficult to put into concrete or even abstract thought. It is as difficult as explaining to a rock what feelings are. To say it must be comprehendable on our level of existence does not mean He is not there, but rather beyond our comprehension. Those that fail to see this are trying to prove that rocks know what feelings are. Until you prove that a rock can do this, I stand by my arguement.

#14 07-21-2005, 06:56 AM

I must agree with my friend Albert "I don't try to imagine a God; it suffices to stand in awe of the structure of the world, insofar as it allows our inadequate senses to appreciate it"

Dov · #15 07-21-2005, 11:19 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Those that fail to see this are trying to prove that rocks know what feelings are.

[/ QUOTE ]

Rocks have had feelings for years.

ACPlayer · #16 07-21-2005, 11:38 AM

One is truly in awe of the structure of the world.

Standing in the middle of canyonlands, the rock structures of Bryce, the animals roaming the Serengeti, the Okavango delta disappearing into the middle of Botswana, the snow covered slopes of Kashmir, the underwater life in the Andaman Sea -- these are all awe inspiring structures of the world.

When in the midst of these grand sights you realize that God is within not without.

Religion however sucks.

coolhandluke · #17 07-21-2005, 11:40 AM

this is amusing, I was just on another board I frequent, and a poster started with a very similiar idea, but argued that the more we learn, the more it demands we believe in a higher being.

Both sides have some holes in there argument, but it does crack me up that I read the same starting position arguing 2 totally different conclusions back to back.

mslif · #18 07-21-2005, 12:02 PM

It is hard to be rational when it comes to religion. Religion is about your faith, what you believe in, not about what science can prove or not.

I have a dilemna though, maybe some of you can answer that..
To make a long story short, I was raised catholic but lost my faith years ago. I was involved in a very bad car accident a few years back and almost died. The first thing I did when I realized I was in bad shape was pray to God to live. Remind you that at that time, I did not believe in God.
Since then I have done an intership in a hospital for almost a year. Almost all the people I saw coming in always pray to God to get better!

Do you think the faith in God is in us no matter what our rational thinking is? Do you think it is the way God shows us that he is present? I am curious to know what you guys think?

Zygote · #19 07-21-2005, 12:19 PM

[ QUOTE ]
It is hard to be rational when it comes to religion. Religion is about your faith, what you believe in, not about what science can prove or not.

I have a dilemna though, maybe some of you can answer that..
To make a long story short, I was raised catholic but lost my faith years ago. I was involved in a very bad car accident a few years back and almost died. The first thing I did when I realized I was in bad shape was pray to God to live. Remind you that at that time, I did not believe in God.
Since then I have done an intership in a hospital for almost a year. Almost all the people I saw coming in always pray to God to get better!

Do you think the faith in God is in us no matter what our rational thinking is? Do you think it is the way God shows us that he is present? I am curious to know what you guys think?

[/ QUOTE ]

We've had lots of threads discussing this. The best way to answer your question is to search for those threads. I think most won't deny the possibility of god(s), in various forms, but thats as far as the thinking goes. Trying to define that god is generally where people run into problems.

The Absurdist · #20 07-21-2005, 12:22 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I think the only thing fallacious is not in your reasoning, but in people who try to limit God's nature by attributing to him material or limited conceptual characteristics.

[/ QUOTE ]

--Yeah, how dare you attempt to use logic to analyze unsubstantiated claims about the existence of a non-entity. Don't you realize God will not have himself pigeon-holed this way?!

[ QUOTE ]
The understanding of God as pure essence cannot be disproven by any means, even in abstract human thought. It would be like trying to say that we don't exist.

[/ QUOTE ]

--Oh, this old canard again. First off, a statement like "the understanding of God as pure essence" is almost entirely meaningless. It's just a bunch of vague words thrown together. And the issue isn't whether or not it can be disproven (whatever that statement means), it is whether or not there is any reason to believe that it is true. If you can't offer any credible evidence, your assertion fails. It is not the disbeliever's job to demonstrate negative affirmation. Your second sentence above is entirely absurd.