Atheism

admin: Like in his book, The God Delusion, he uses what I call the complexity argument for the non-existence of God. However, it fails to understand the nature of the God he is referring to. Also, Lawrence Krauss said in a debate with William Lane Craig that morality comes from science, which is total nonsense, and you can tell he misunderstands what morality is. These are just a couple examples. The real issue is that the atheists misunderstand the arguments for God's existence, so they don't respond to them correctly. Do you know of any atheists that provide a powerful case against God's existence?

Bi0Hazard: The "nature of God" is kinda a little unspecific though, as I pointed out before. All arguments against God, and for God for that matter, presume certain qualities of God. The only arguments that don't really fall victim to this are inductive and even there, there are basic assumptions of logic etc.

I thought Armstrong had a compelling point along that line though, that God isn't *meant* to be a logical concept to be analyzed, but rather an emotional one.

As for Krauss' branch of naturalism, I can't speak to it. I vaguely remember the debate but I remember Krauss being terrible at debating mostly lol. Even worse than Hitchens.

I know lots of theists who are a powerful case against God's existence!
Seriously though, I can't think of any off the top of my head who write books. Singer, Krauss and Pinker aren't TERRIBLE. A few more philosophically minded ones are good though.

admin: I think if you wanted to get into terrible atheists though, I'm surprised you didn't bring up Sam Harris. XD

Bi0Hazard: I support the notion that God does not exist. So I'm an atheist.

Atheism is not a religion because a religion is defined as: the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.

I am an atheist due to the lack of evidence in support of the existence of a deity. The arguments that are usually posed are generally unconvincing and easy to refute.

Famousdebater: Atheism is not a religion because a religion is defined as:
the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
The word "religion" is hard to define and has no universally agreed definition. The definition you provided excludes other religions that are atheistic.
I agree that atheism is not a religion.

I am an atheist due to the lack of evidence in support of the existence of a deity. The arguments that are usually posed are generally unconvincing and easy to refute.
Your looking at it the wrong way, Gods existence would be outside of our universe, so there can be no evidence.

Famousdebater: I am an atheist due to the lack of evidence in support of the existence of a deity.

This shit is always so stupid.

So I suppose you disbelieve in the Roman Empire, because there is more individual testimonies and inexplicable miracles attributed to Jesus alone.

Know that little voice inside your head that makes you self-aware that you are being a prick? Supposedly that is maintained to both be God and his kingdom in man.

Denial and disbelief are distinguished.

Philosophy 101 is being open minded, and not supporting conclusions without inquiry, logic, and deduction.

Bi0Hazard: Your looking at it the wrong way, Gods existence would be outside of our universe, so there can be no evidence.

Technically all that exists is in the universe.

Most people do not understand that Christianity is basically an affirmation of stoic metaphysics. The holy spirit (soul) is the kingdom of God, and the soul leaves the body after death.

Educated thought on Abrahamic religion became more pantheistic, arguing God as the universe itself or something beyond that understanding, Definitely not an anthropomorphic father figure up in a magical sky kingdom way up above space.

Crow: *Going to clarify that this post was not meant to label you as a prick. I meant to say when you are.

Crow: Technically all that exists is in the universe.
Physical existence, yes, but God doesn't exist in the same way we do.

Definitely not an anthropomorphic father figure up in a magical sky kingdom way up above space.
That is not what I am referring to.

Bi0Hazard: I suppose that I subjectively believe that atheism isn't a religion. Though I do agree that the term 'religion' is ambiguous.

God can either be immanent or transcendent. The former means that he has a personal relationship with humanity and exists within the universe. The latter means that he is outside of the universe.

I believe in the inflation cosmological model of the Big Bang - meaning that the existence of a transcendent God is negated. I then negate the existence of an immanent God based on the lack of evidence (as stated above).

Crow: I should probably clarify by extending upon my original post. I also find there to be 'greater' evidence in support of other theories regarding the origins of the universe than God being its creator.

Famousdebater: What theories are those?

The latter means that he is outside of the universe.

No it doesn't.

Transcendence is a state of existence above normalized human observation.

Nothing can be outside the universe. Absolutely nothing. If you say God exists outside the fabric of the universe, then that is practically saying God exists but doesn't exist.

I believe in the inflation cosmological model of the Big Bang - meaning that the existence of a transcendent God is negated

A kooky theory with insufficient evidence.

Disproved by default, since that seems to be your way of arguing.

Crow: Actually things CAN be outside of the universe if you believe in multiple theories OR you believe in an omnipresent/omnipotent God.

I'm not attempting to debate or argue with you over the creation of the universe (which is why I didn't provide justification for the theory). The OP asked why I'm an atheist and I've stated why.

Famousdebater: God can either be immanent or transcendent. The former means that he has a personal relationship with humanity and exists within the universe. The latter means that he is outside of the universe.
Agree, however I don't think that being outside the universe means you can't have a personal relationship.
I believe in the inflation cosmological model of the Big Bang - meaning that the existence of a transcendent God is negated.
Not at all, the inflation cosmological model doesn't negate a transcendent God. Unless there is some hidden assumption your making.

Crow: Nothing can be outside the universe. Absolutely nothing. If you say God exists outside the fabric of the universe, then that is practically saying God exists but doesn't exist.
The universe is where time, space, and matter(and energy) all exist. Something can exist outside of the universe if it is immaterial, timeless, and spaceless. Your thinking narrowly in materialistic terms. God transcends space, time, and matter.

Bi0Hazard: Not sure about that..

If the universe encompasses all of space and everything in it, then what could possibly exist outside the boundaries of everything? The logical conclusion is that nothing could exist.

If you use that argument, you are making a huge stretch outside the laws of established thinking.

Crow: If the universe encompasses all of space and everything in it, then what could possibly exist outside the boundaries of everything?
Something not bound by space, time, and the laws of physics.

Bi0Hazard: Which is something that is a logical impossibility.

Laws exist for a reason. They do not automatically go away when discussing the existence of divinity.

Crow: Which is something that is a logical impossibility.
Nope, physically impossible, but not logically.
Laws exist for a reason. They do not automatically go away when discussing the existence of divinity.
They don't exist outside of the universe.