• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Why did you pick atheism?

Genesis is not objective fact. It is a religious fable. Human behavior has natural reasons and causes.

I answered in context of my beliefs. Surely that is no surprise?
 
Is your conclusion that God doesn't exist at all?
Is your conclusion that God exists but isn't fair?
Is your conclusion that God is fair but humans don't understand how?
I think it's unlikely that God exists, but I also don't think it's possible to disprove (or prove) his existence. But if he does exist, I feel like it's more likely that he created the physical laws that led to the formation of the universe and eventually earth and humans. I doubt he has ever had any direct involvement in our creation, and I feel like calling God fair or unfair makes about as much sense as calling something like gravity fair on unfair.
 
Instead of assigning a book report, could you summarize his claims?
Krauss claims that since the Universe came from nothingness there is no need for God. Yet if you read the book, the majority of it is spent explaining what the nothingness was.
Let's give Krauss the benefit of the doubt and consider that the Universe came from nothingness (even though he proved just the opposite). There would have had to have been the potential, probability or possibility for the Universe to spring from nothingness. None of those three things are nothing in scientific terms or in any other context. Books have been written about nothingness and they all draw the same conclusion. Nothing is impossible.
Where Krauss's book made his fatal mistake is when he injected so much emotion into his science. Don't get me wrong. The science was great. It was just corrupted by his passionate campaign to disprove God. Unless you are Mr. Spock it is impossible to keep emotions out of science but a serious effort should be put in to do so. Krauss's hatred of God is so strong that he failed his readers, both the ones who were looking for good science and the ones looking to have their atheism backed up. He is not the only one who has failed at this. This explains why an increasing number of cosmologists are starting to accept the idea of something that is eternal.
 
Last edited:
Animals simply live according to their programming. They can't imagine or attempt to do anything but be what they are.

Humans have free will, intelligence, and self-awareness. We have the freedom to choose, and sometimes we choose evil. Blame that on humanity, not God.

Would you rather be a finger puppet who was incapable of doing anything but God's will? I doubt it.
I don't worry about that because there is no God.
 
The forum is not based on the Judeo Christian God and neither is this thread. The thread has been hijacked by atheists who have a weak stance and see Christianity as an easy target.....
This thread was hijacked by atheists? The title of the thread is "Why did you pick Atheism?" You asked for the atheist point of view. You just didn't like it when you got it because you didn't really want it. You just wanted to preach. And we see Christianity as an easy target because Christianity is an easy target.
likely because most of them know more about Christianity than other religions.
Yes, that's likely. So?
Plus they know a religious person who did something bad so that is all the proof they need to be convinced that a God or gods can't exist.
Not at all. You missed the point.
 
The thread has been hijacked by atheists who have a weak stance

Hijacked?? What complete bullshit that is. What were you expecting when you started this thread?

Weak stance??? Now that's epic bullshit there. What's weak about any DP atheist's stance?
 
I wouldn't say that non belief requires no effort. Facing death as they get older, a lot of atheists have to put a lot of effort in to maintain their atheism. Many of them fail. I've heard it can also be tough to maintain your atheism in a foxhole with bullets flying over your head and bombs exploding all around.
Silliness. When I die I'll be in the same place I was before I was a born. We all just get this one shot at life. No evidence suggests otherwise. Sure, there is alot of fantasy, mythology, and imagination, but none of that is evidence. Might as well embrace the possibility of becoming a vampire since it too is imaginary.
 
The forum is not based on the Judeo Christian God and neither is this thread.
That may not have been your intent in creating it but is there subconsciously all the same, with references to capital-G God and concepts like and after-life or meaning to the universe. You're clearly coming at this from a Christian view of atheism rather than something more abstract or impartial, even if you're not consciously aware of it.

I think you're still working on the flawed idea that atheism is the opposite of religion rather than the opposite of theism. Atheist and theist aren't things people do, they're things people are, labels for simple characteristics that make up just one tiny aspect of who we are. Nobody is atheist or theist in isolation, both terms implicitly link to wider ideas and concepts. You can't just believe in "some kind of deity", theists will all believe in a particular god or gods, mostly in relation to a specific sect/denomination or a specific religion.

Neither atheism or theism are chosen, they're just elements of the much deeper socio-philosophical conclusions we all reach about existence and, in practice, both are relatively minor and meaningless in and of themselves. Your OP question remains fundamentally flawed.
 
We don't know that there should be verifiable evidence of something? Why don't we know that?
You claimed that "If there are things other than natural, there should be verifiable evidence of such things". To paraphrase you, "if supernatural things exist, we should be able to verify (supposedly naturally) those things".

That's like saying, if a parallel universe exists, we should be able to verify it with this one.

No, we don't know that to be true.
 
Neither atheism or theism are chosen, they're just elements of the much deeper socio-philosophical conclusions
No, atheism and agnosticism most often line up with science while theism is more about myth.

Big difference.
 
I think it's unlikely that God exists, but I also don't think it's possible to disprove (or prove) his existence. But if he does exist, I feel like it's more likely that he created the physical laws that led to the formation of the universe and eventually earth and humans. I doubt he has ever had any direct involvement in our creation, and I feel like calling God fair or unfair makes about as much sense as calling something like gravity fair on unfair.
Yours is a fair conclusion IMO, I would change the word god to a first cause ..some sort of an entity that preceded the big bang.

This thing, if it exist, would care no more for us than it would a rock on the moon.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AJG
Silliness. When I die I'll be in the same place I was before I was a born.
Yup, nothingness, some people simply don't have the courage ..the solution, a crutch.
 
I've heard this old song and dance. There is no free will. Everything we do and everything we are, is a result of everything that happened to us and everything that influenced us, before we make any involuntary "decision". Good luck selling that.
Its possible, choices might only be an illusion ..read up on the topic of free will vs determinism and learn what scientist have to say.

 
A lot of atheists on their death bed become theists. Party because of fear but partly because they have nothing to lose if they start believing in God and end up being wrong.
I think dying is relatively easy if we live a long life, we just kind of fade away naturally..

My sister died at 49 from cancer, it was horrible for her, she suffered immensely for almost 2 years.

I'm not sure if she bought into god during time, what stood out more than anything was her anger.
 
I like my religion.

It is free theater, performance art, steeped with cultural relevance.
It takes place in great architectural spaces with wonderful choral music.
There is even wonderful art throughout the theater (church) . Statues, wall reliefs, beautiful stained glass.

And as if all that were not enough, it offers a sense of community and space for meditation with wonderful smells (incence).

Flowers generally abound too.
That's an honest statement, I can't argue with it.

It can be like that for some and it is a good thing.

However, the history of Western Religion in Europe overtime paints an oh so ugly picture.
 
You could be a theist and have hope that something is out there besides a cold dark eternal death.
You could be an agnostic and admit the truth; that neither theism nor atheism can be shown to be correct with our current knowledge.
But you made the bold choice of atheism and used the evidence (and lack of evidence) available to you, to Iive out the rest of your days, confident that when your life is over it's over, and it didn't matter that you didn't matter.....and it didn't matter that the Universe itself didn't matter. Why is that more appealing to you than the other two choices?
Because I'm not required to entertain ideas there is no evidence for. Deism can certainly qualify for thought experiments, but not as a credible idea in and of itself.
 
You don't know that, no one does.
My usual response is to smack someone and say there's your proof, I chose to smack you for no reason. 😄
 
This thread was hijacked by atheists? The title of the thread is "Why did you pick Atheism?" You asked for the atheist point of view.
Speaking of missing a point.
Of course I wanted atheists to give opinions but I was hoping they would give opinions about the question that was asked.....not get off topic. But, like I said, deflection is what you do when you get in trouble. The next thing you know they'll be debating the designated hitter controversy in baseball here.
 
However, the history of Western Religion in Europe overtime paints an oh so ugly picture.[/I]
I see. More of the argument: Since humans do bad things, nothing greater than humans can possibly exist.
 
You're clearly coming at this from a Christian view of atheism rather than something more abstract or impartial, even if you're not consciously aware of it.
Interesting debate strategy. Let me play this game:
There is a God but you atheists are not consciously aware of it.
Yes! Another debate win for me.
 
Back
Top Bottom