The question of the Atheist, so what is an atheist? Is it just a person who does not believe in a God, any God if there is such a being, or maybe believes a little in God but not the one out of the bible, or do they have their own private god as many people have such as the god for greed, for power, for control? Do they simple deny or is it a question, they cannot simply be bother with it. Actual it is a life style, a life style that makes them stand out from the others. They stand out just as gay people because they want to be different. They are not that is obvious but by creating this life style, this feeling of being different makes them feel great. And why not it is their life and they have to live it.
He/she denies the existence of God and his/her views are based on what can be found by using science. There are other atheists who don’t deny the existence of God outright but claim that anyone’s belief can be true for that person, but they doesn’t believe in God themselves. So an atheist is a person who believes in atheism, the lack of belief in God or any other deity, and not lack of a religion as many put it. There are many religions which do not have gods such as Buddhism. They have no need for a belief in a deity, and claim that the belief in one is associated with bringing order to people’s lives as they think they cannot find it on their own. However that is the purpose from Buddhism, to bring order in chaos, so this vision does not fit.
Fact is that the One God belief as they have in Jewish, Christianity, (actual a trinity) Islam and Hinduism, was created for the purpose of control and with this power. Hinduism created far away in the dark history so that nobody even know who created it with one god of thousands of names who are by the more simple souls or fanatics of other religions indicated as different gods but is in reality the one and only. The Hebrew god was created only a mere 2500 years ago, this God was also the base for the Christian and the Islam. But all were created for the for the matter of control and with that the power, the two pillars of greed, the same principle of control and power as God-Kings took so many times in History with the latest well known one the WW2 Emperor of Japan who had to denounce his God being in 1946 as part of the surrender protocol. Does all this mean that God just was created for control and power and that for this reason a God cannot be in existence, no actual not. God is!
We do not want to go in on the latest craze of the Neurologists who say that religion is just a state of mind, in which people just looking for something to belong, and that in time science will finds a way to stop people from having a belief. It would stop many wars, aggression and violence they say. However, not all atheists denounce God, a popular belief among religious theists is that God creates or establishes objects of any gods existing or not? Those who disclaim knowledge of gods or even that such knowledge is possible are said to be agnostics. There are many misconceptions about agnosticism, agnostics, and the reasons why anyone would adopt agnosticism in the first place. This is unfortunate, because as proven it provide standards against which they can measure beliefs, behaviours, etc. This means that, without their god, they can't imagine how others can differentiate truth from falsehoods, morality from immorality, etc. They then insist that since atheists don't believe in any gods, much less the "true" god, they are capable of any sort of immoral or criminal behaviour.
This one has always puzzled me. Most Atheists don’t believe in god because they are sceptical of claims not supported by evidence. People who require evidence is the ones least likely to “believe in anything.” Some atheist say they o not believe in a God because there is no proof, but that is the easy way out. It is understandable and begins to make sense if you calculate the factor of “everyone has to believe in something” view that many theists have. Therefore, if not god, atheists will be so desperate to fill that hole with something that they’ll believe in anything to do so. So the “I cannot see it” is a good excuse. It all strikes me as similar to that stupid, “I don’t have enough faith to be an atheist,” line. The people who spout that probably don’t have enough INTELLIGENCE to be atheist either.
Religions, in general, throw the concepts of reason and evidence right out the window. The only basis for the beliefs of religious people is faith and obedience to their religion that can’t even be shown to exist, although that is the point of religion a being that protect loves and cares but is not visible it would miss the point, so say the atheists. However as the past has proven something that is visible can be corrupted, so invisibility is therefore a must. While there may be traditional rules or set beliefs within specific religions that promote social stability and might thus appear to be reasonable or true out of habituation, there is no real limit to what a believer can be convinced of once they accept the premise of an unquestionable authority doling out absolute truth. The truth so simple that it forms much of our daily life’s acting, as set out in the Law’s of God in the Bible, regardless of you believe or not, you live already to His laws. It is here where the danger for the religions is encountered, the Creationist mainly active because of the money they can make out of the many publications they spread (against payment) to launches an idea what is logic and known for thousands of years, but is used to stop science from progression by making it a joke! A danger what is used by many organisations who are working in the religion industry where the so-called creationist are at sometimes even a real pest. The variety of specific beliefs, tales of miracles, articles of faith, etc and the variety of actions justified by these beliefs is clear evidence that belief in God means nothing at all in relation to how true or reasonable the beliefs are themselves, or how reasonable the people holding those beliefs are.
Atheism by itself is only a lack of belief in gods and “I cannot see so it therefore does not exist”, they cannot see the air they breathe in or the thought that are going around - it isn't a philosophy or a religion, as some may claim its actual a buffer to stand out.. Atheism can, however, be a part of or associated with a wide variety of philosophies and philosophers. A popular objection to atheists' arguments and critiques of theism is to insist that one's preferred god cannot be disproven - indeed, that science itself is unable to prove that God does not exist. This position depends upon a mistaken understanding of the nature of science and how science operates. In a very real and important sense, it is...
Closely associated with taking action that should be considered immoral is the fact that there is so much evil in the world today. If there are any gods, why don't they act to eliminate it? The absence of substantive action against evil would be consistent with the existence of evil or at least indifferent gods, which is not impossible, it the primitive thoughts of people who simple do not understand life. The fear of many is that if there is a God why he not eliminates evil. Here is the problem, what is evil and if why should God interfere, he creates it all but the running of the pace is for the people who live in it. We are responsible for what we do and how we do it, and blaming God if it goes wrong is about the same as when you crash your10 year old car and then blame the car maker, as with God it could be but it is highly unlikely, it’s a question of what you want to belief. However God is the Creator why should he also be the maintainer?
Perhaps the basic reason for not believing in any gods is the absence of good reasons for doing so. Since the burden of support lies first and foremost with those making the positive the claim — the theistic, religious believers who say their God exists — non-believers don't need reasons not to believe but they need reasons to believe, visual belief. God’s are not visual it would help it may help, but they aren't particularly necessary. Instead, what are required are reasons to believe.
Most religions say that life is much more than the flesh and matter we see around us. In addition, there is supposed to be some sort of spiritual or supernatural realm behind it all and that our "true selves" is spiritual, not material. All evidence, though, points to life being a purely natural phenomenon. All evidence indicates that what we really are — ourselves — is material and dependent upon the workings of the brain and the brain was given to us by birth creation. If this is so, religious and theistic doctrines are right.
A common characteristic of both theism and religion is their reliance on faith: belief in the existence of a god and in the truth of religious doctrines is neither founded upon nor defended by logic, reason, evidence, or science. Instead, people are supposed to have faith — a position they wouldn’t consciously adopt with just about any other issue. However there are situations between heaven and earth that cannot be explained by Faith alone, hence there has to be another explanation that explanation is not to be found yet and as such it must be a Higher Being, a God. Though, is an unreliable guide to reality or means for acquiring the faith and knowledge? Users of a Faith will be using it for all kind of purposes it can be used to defend anything and everything equally.
In most religions, gods are supposed to be the source of all morality. For most believers, their religion represents an institution for promoting an ideal model of morality. In reality, though, the leaders of religions are responsible for widespread immorality violence and wars, which are than blamed on the God by the same leaders. As such Gods are allocated characteristics or histories which make them worse than the vilest human serial criminal. However, no religion is perfectly consistent when it comes to doctrines, ideas, and history. Every ideology, philosophy, and cultural tradition has inconsistencies and contradictions, so this shouldn't be surprising — but other ideologies and traditions aren't alleged to be divinely created or divinely sanctioned systems for following the wishes of a god. The state of religion in the world today is more consistent with the premise that they are man-made institutions, and in many cases they are.
It is difficult to credit any one religion as being True or any one god as being True when there have been so many throughout human history. None appears to have any greater claim to being more credible or reliable than any other. Why Christianity and not Judaism? Why Islam and not Hinduism? Why monotheism and not polytheism? Every position has had its defenders, all as ardent as those in other traditions. They can't all be right, but they can all be wrong. The concept of 'god' can mean many different things - or perhaps it can mean anything, given the apparent limitless number of characteristics which various believers assign to their gods. Any time someone asks you why you don't believe in any gods, make sure you ask them what they mean by 'god' in the first place. Chances are it's simply not something which requires belief, as God is all around us and does not explanations, special services, special clothing or churches. God is!
It is common to argue that because everything we experience appears to have a cause for its existence, then the totality of everything (the universe) must also have a cause for its existence. It is assumed that the universe cannot be self-caused, so therefore the cause must be outside the universe - God, in other words. Is this a legitimate argument, or is there another explanation. As the Pope just said, Atheist are going to heaven as we all do if we live our life in love and respect for life and nature. An important objection against the existence of the God of the Bible focuses on this God's character. The God of the Bible isn't simply an ideal abstraction; in Western religious traditions we find many stories about what God has done or commanded believers to do. Often such actions are contrary to basic moral principles, then we have to realise that the stories in the Old Testament where written by humans, translating the Laws and the words of God and not always or actual most of the time not as God had intended.
The God traditionally believed in under philosophical theism must be all-virtuous. If God is perfect, then God can also be virtuous as God can be what Humans cannot it is here where the Atheist goes wrong he measures God on the realities of Human beings but God is virtuous, God is also be perfect.
Two qualities often attributed to God are perfection and being the ‘Creator‘of the universe. Are these qualities compatible or incompatible? They are again as the Atheist does he compares God with humans with all the Human mistakes and habits. Therefore God is perfect as the Creator of the Universe. A Human would not be but as God is perfect he can. The Atheist argument that creation and perfection are incompatible; and to the degree that they are valid, the existence of such a god is improbable at the very least, they say and again they have measured God with human qualities and that is impossible. God is all Powerful, if he can create the universe the earth and all that is on and in it and above it then why should he be attributed with human qualities?
What are the principle arguments in favour of atheism? Why is atheism more reasonable or rational than theism? Among the arguments raised are those from evil, from non-belief, from cosmology, from incoherence and more. Who Made God? According to some, nothing as complex as the universe could exist without having been designed by a creator. But where does that leave the traditional concept of God? Isn't God more complex than the universe? Doesn't God require a creator? A common argument for the existence of God is one based upon personal, often mystical, experiences. A person claims they have had direct and immediate experiences of God and, therefore, belief in God is not only reasonable but even necessary. It is difficult to argue against personal religious experiences - how easy is it to criticize what a...
Non cognitivesm is a position on religious language and religious words like 'God' which says that they have no cognitive content - i.e., that they are meaningless. Non cognitivesm says that the word 'God' is a placeholder that isn't holding a place for anything in particular; that because 'God' is supposed to be "metaphysical," it refers to...Christians like to link their god with love - indeed, they will go so far as to insist that their god is love, making the link as absolute as possible. Its one thing to claim that a god is loving or even that it is love, but quite another to have good reasons for doing so. It is here were the Atheist makes the same mistake again, it humanises God again. God is love, but it are the humans we in their inept vision blame God for all what occurs on earth, the humans run the earth and if it goes wrong blame it on God. God did create the earth, but gave the responsibility to the humans it seems that atheist cannot handle that responsibility and takes the easy way out, we cannot handle the responsibility so we cannot see, we cannot hear and we do not listen.
This is the text-only version of this page. Click here to see this page with graphics.
Edit this page | Manage website
Make Your Own Website: 2-Minute-Website.com