A question for the atheists

[demoniac93]

Here's a question [I hope] is simple enough for this thread:
Why do some atheists argue about God, even though they do not acknowledge his existence? Why waste so much time trying to prove [In vain] that something does NOT exist?

[homerofgods]

Here's a question [I hope] is simple enough for this thread:
Why do atheists argue about God, even though they do not acknowledge his existence? Why waste so much time trying to prove [In vain] that something does NOT exist?

It's allready proven that there is no God. I'm just curious about the stupidness of humans.

[{LAW} Gamer_2k4]

Here's a question [I hope] is simple enough for this thread:
Why do atheists argue about God, even though they do not acknowledge his existence? Why waste so much time trying to prove [In vain] that something does NOT exist?

It's allready proven that there is no God. I'm just curious about the stupidness of humans.

How exactly do you prove that something doesn't exist?

[homerofgods]

Here's a question [I hope] is simple enough for this thread:
Why do atheists argue about God, even though they do not acknowledge his existence? Why waste so much time trying to prove [In vain] that something does NOT exist?

It's allready proven that there is no God. I'm just curious about the stupidness of humans.

How exactly do you prove that something doesn't exist?

When ther's under 0,001 % chance of it, it's called proof of the opposite.

[Jerkington XIII]

Here's a question [I hope] is simple enough for this thread:
Why do atheists argue about God, even though they do not acknowledge his existence? Why waste so much time trying to prove [In vain] that something does NOT exist?

It's allready proven that there is no God. I'm just curious about the stupidness of humans.

How exactly do you prove that something doesn't exist?

When ther's under 0,001 % chance of it, it's called proof of the opposite.

Really, we have no evidence to prove that there is one (or more) god(s), and we have no evidence to prove that there is not. So, while I personally doubt that there is, anybody who says they know anything certain about this subject is making some pretty heavy assumptions.

[demoniac93]

Here's a question [I hope] is simple enough for this thread:
Why do atheists argue about God, even though they do not acknowledge his existence? Why waste so much time trying to prove [In vain] that something does NOT exist?

It's allready proven that there is no God. I'm just curious about the stupidness of humans.

How exactly do you prove that something doesn't exist?

When ther's under 0,001 % chance of it, it's called proof of the opposite.

OK, so tell me then, what are the chances of an entire universe, and even life, coming out of nowhere, just like that?

Homer: It's called stupidity, not stupidness.

[{LAW} Gamer_2k4]

When ther's under 0,001 % chance of it, it's called proof of the opposite.

How do you arrive at that number?

[iDante]

Here's a question [I hope] is simple enough for this thread:
Why do atheists argue about God, even though they do not acknowledge his existence? Why waste so much time trying to prove [In vain] that something does NOT exist?

Because so many people believe that it does exist (without proof) and we hold ourselves to higher standards than that.

[Mittsu]

Here's a question [I hope] is simple enough for this thread:
Why do atheists argue about God, even though they do not acknowledge his existence? Why waste so much time trying to prove [In vain] that something does NOT exist?

because it makes impact on the world that's mostly unpleasant. It doesn't really matter whether god exists, what matters is if people change their (and others) lives because of the beliefs. If god exists then no one knows what it's like, the religions are complete bullshit, and people determining their lives because of the existance they technically have no idea about, following only what they make up or get told, change the world. World based on fiction is a pretty bad idea, so trying to change theists minds makes sense.

oh and it's always fun to prove people how wrong they are

[demoniac93]

Here's a question [I hope] is simple enough for this thread:
Why do atheists argue about God, even though they do not acknowledge his existence? Why waste so much time trying to prove [In vain] that something does NOT exist?

Because so many people believe that it does exist (without proof) and we hold ourselves to higher standards than that.

Well the same thing applies to the majority of the "educated" atheists, who believe that the universe just came to be, out of nothing, which, in my mind, is a more ridiculous claim than the rapture, or resurrection. In my own opinion, life is more than proof enough that God exists.

because it makes impact on the world that's mostly unpleasant. It doesn't really matter whether god exists, what matters is if people change their (and others) lives because of the beliefs. If god exists then no one knows what it's like, the religions are complete bulls**t, and people determining their lives because of the existance they technically have no idea about, following only what they make up or get told, change the world. World based on fiction is a pretty bad idea, so trying to change theists minds makes sense.

oh and it's always fun to prove people how wrong they are

As far as I'm aware, Christianity, Islam, and Judaism, all discourage their followers from forcing their beliefs unto people, and to some extent, bring out some of the best qualities in society as a whole, and the individual himself. What's wrong isn't the written law [The Bible, Quran, and Torah], but the mistranslation on the followers' part.

[iDante]

Here's a question [I hope] is simple enough for this thread:
Why do atheists argue about God, even though they do not acknowledge his existence? Why waste so much time trying to prove [In vain] that something does NOT exist?

Because so many people believe that it does exist (without proof) and we hold ourselves to higher standards than that.

Well the same thing applies to the majority of the "educated" atheists, who believe that the universe just came to be, out of nothing, which, in my mind, is a more ridiculous claim than the rapture, or resurrection. In my own opinion, life is more than proof enough that God exists.

Nobody believes the universe just came to be, out of nothing.

[demoniac93]

Here's a question [I hope] is simple enough for this thread:
Why do atheists argue about God, even though they do not acknowledge his existence? Why waste so much time trying to prove [In vain] that something does NOT exist?

Because so many people believe that it does exist (without proof) and we hold ourselves to higher standards than that.

Well the same thing applies to the majority of the "educated" atheists, who believe that the universe just came to be, out of nothing, which, in my mind, is a more ridiculous claim than the rapture, or resurrection. In my own opinion, life is more than proof enough that God exists.

Nobody believes the universe just came to be, out of nothing.

The big bang, the big bounce, the M theory, etc etc...
All of those theories can NOT be traced back to one single event, or let's just call it a beginning, which means that the universe as we know it is either infinite, or beyond our current definition of time, OR, and this one I find rather ironic, every single one of those theories is wrong just because sanity says so.

[iDante]

The big bang, the big bounce, the M theory, etc etc...
All of those theories can NOT be traced back to one single event, or let's just call it a beginning, which means that the universe as we know it is either infinite, or beyond our current definition of time, OR, and this one I find rather ironic, every single one of those theories is wrong just because sanity says so.

What does this mean: "All of those theories can NOT be traced back to one single event," and why?

[PANZERCATWAGON]

Here's a question [I hope] is simple enough for this thread:
Why do atheists argue about God, even though they do not acknowledge his existence? Why waste so much time trying to prove [In vain] that something does NOT exist?

i think rather than asking why others are wasting their time you should be asking yourself why you think they are wasting their time

[VijchtiDoodah]

Why do atheists argue about God, even though they do not acknowledge his existence? Why waste so much time trying to prove [In vain] that something does NOT exist?

There are plenty of reasons why:

1. Many atheists became atheists principally because of their interest in religion. The trouble with reading holy books is that many people tend to strongly disagree with the teachings, find contradictions, or remain unsatisfied with the supposed proof with which they are presented. Even after losing one's faith, most of those previously religiously-interested people remain interested in religion. It's a fascinating subject from either side of the fence. It's a bit like people who spend their lives diving into any other ancient myth or literary fiction -- being interested in a subject does not require belief in it.

2. Many atheists genuinely want to help theists live their lives to the fullest and they often feel that living a life of service to a fictitious deity is a waste. So they work their hardest to try to convince people of the truth as they see it. Imagine if you had a friend who worshiped shoe gnomes for hours upon hours every day and if that friend believed that the shoe gnomes would punish them with eternal torment if they did not comply. Wouldn't you try to dissuade them from worshiping something so clearly false, emotionally manipulative, and potentially useless?

3. Many atheists are worried about the power that the religious wield in the world. Did you know that many countries and several states in the United States prohibit atheists from holding government office? There are people in my own country who would enjoy seeing all atheists expelled from our borders and some who would have those atheists harmed. Atheists are often prevented from posting their personal beliefs in public based on the "offensiveness" of the idea. There is a wide sense of persecution among atheists as a minority and, though there is the political route towards equality which has worked in the past, there is also the attempt to get people to change their beliefs so that theists and non-believers can live together peacefully. Furthermore, much domestic and international policy is decided by the religious. In the US, the Christian majority is often wielded as a political tool, which is frightening from any point of view. And even worse, the religious power in this country has been conspiring to change scientific education from one that is evidence-based to one that is faith-based, which would not only be disastrous socially and economically but would also weaken the country intellectually. So it is often in the interests of atheists and other believers alike to argue against all or certain aspects of religion.

Finally, I object to your absolutism. Some atheists argue about gods, many just live and let live.

Well the same thing applies to the majority of the "educated" atheists, who believe that the universe just came to be, out of nothing, which, in my mind, is a more ridiculous claim than the rapture, or resurrection. In my own opinion, life is more than proof enough that God exists.

Scientific ideas like the Big Bang or evolution are not limited to atheists. In fact, even the Catholic Church officially recognizes evolution as a valid scientific theory and, historically at least, Islam has been very friendly to any new scientific ideas.

That being said, the Big Bang is not a statement about where everything came from but rather an explanation about the origins of our current universe for as far back as we can mathematically extrapolate.

...every single one of those theories is wrong just because sanity says so.

And this here illustrates a gross misunderstanding of science. The practice of science, at least according to the current philosophy of the best possible scientific method, specifically avoids using human observation or judgement as a measure of the validity of scientific theories. This is the same reason why we don't trust uneducated desert tribesmen from two millennia ago to tell us how the world came to be -- humans are simply unreliable sources of information.

The recognized uselessness of your "sanity test" is the exact reason why science has progress so far in the past few hundred years. In fact, people thought that the idea of tiny organisms causing diseases was a ridiculous idea, but the evidence was there and so we've had revolutions in health care and sanitation. Quantum Theory has long been called insane, but it's providing insights into computing that are just beginning to provide exponential returns information technology and physics. And, perhaps the most memorable example of all, the Geocentric Theory was once declared wrong because it went against basic sanity and religious doctrine -- but now we know that it is a perfectly valid theory.

As far as I'm aware, Christianity, Islam, and Judaism, all discourage their followers from forcing their beliefs unto people, and to some extent, bring out some of the best qualities in society as a whole, and the individual himself. What's wrong isn't the written law [The Bible, Quran, and Torah], but the mistranslation on the followers' part.

It's both, actually. There are plenty of examples of unfortunate passages in all of those books, but the real issue is that those book are so imperfect that they can be translated in any number of ways, often with logically justifiable, violent results. What does it say about a religious book (or series of books) when that book can support any number of conflicting understandings of the underlying text -- such diverse understandings that followers of a single book will fight themselves to the death because they disagree with the other side's interpretation? And who are you to say which interpretation is the correct one?

Even if we accept that those heinous acts throughout history were caused by mistranslations of religious texts, where lies the blame? Is it the people who were so confused by their holy text that they misunderstood it who are to blame or is it a religious text so convoluted that it is prone to alternative interpretations that is to blame?

Remember, if we talk about religious people as a whole, we have to accept that they were responsible for some of the most disturbing acts of inhumanity ever witnessed on this planet: genocidal wars, theft of children, religious persecution, tortures and executions. And they're responsible for quite a bit of emotional guilt for what we now understand are perfectly natural urges, such as the urge to have sex or to lust after other adults, or, on the more ridiculous side, to wear clothing made of more than one material and to cut the corners of our beards whenever we feel like it.

If you accept that religion is responsible for these atrocities then you cannot also logically believe that religion brings out the best in society. It very well might do that to some people some of the time, but it certainly doesn't do it all the time and it doesn't make up for the grand acts of widespread evil committed in the name of religion.

[demoniac93]

OK, so they want those people to believe that the universe came to be, because some shit out of nowhere expanded and blew up, and that no matter what we do in life, we eventually die, and that's it?
Wow, way to keep the morals up.
Sometimes, my friend, ignorance is bliss, and that's the greatest favor an atheist could do to anyone, let them live in their ignorance, if they truly believe God doesn't exist.

[iDante]

OK, so they want those people to believe that the universe came to be, because some s**t out of nowhere expanded and blew up

It doesn't matter what we want you to believe, that's just how it is. I honestly don't care if you disagree with the big bang theory, but don't try to scientifically disprove it.

Wow, way to keep the morals up.

You're right, we only get one life and that's it. I prefer to spend my time enjoying life than preparing for a probably nonexistent afterlife.

Sometimes, my friend, ignorance is bliss, and that's the greatest favor an atheist could do to anyone, let them live in their ignorance

But science is so cool!

[demoniac93]

OK, so they want those people to believe that the universe came to be, because some s**t out of nowhere expanded and blew up

It doesn't matter what we want you to believe, that's just how it is. I honestly don't care if you disagree with the big bang theory, but don't try to scientifically disprove it.

Wow, way to keep the morals up.

You're right, we only get one life and that's it. I prefer to spend my time enjoying life than preparing for a probably nonexistent afterlife.

Sometimes, my friend, ignorance is bliss, and that's the greatest favor an atheist could do to anyone, let them live in their ignorance

But science is so cool!

Uno: I can disprove it, easy as pie, really. Matter doesn't come from nothing, therefore the big bang could not have occurred because there was nothing that could go "bang".

Dos: Actually, being a Christian's made me a better person, and not only am I an idol in half of my city, but it's also taught me that happiness is even easier to find than in drugs, booze, sex, and all of that short-lived shit.

Tres: Not really. There's a reason geeks are treated like outcasts.

[Espadon]

Just because a question is of few words does not make it a simple question. Thread split, have fun Mangled.

Tres: Not really. There's a reason geeks are treated like outcasts.

Science being cool does not equate to geekdom.

[chutem]

Uno: I can disprove it, easy as pie, really. Matter doesn't come from nothing, therefore the big bang could not have occurred because there was nothing that could go "bang".

Energy can change into matter. Besides, who told you in the beginning there was nothing? your god?