Why Don't Atheists Believe In God?

Jump to Last Post 1-50 of 50 discussions (289 posts)

68
PhoenixVposted 8 years ago
Why Don't Atheists Believe In God?
reply report
1. 82
  Slarty O'Brianposted 6 years agoin reply to this
  An atheist these days don't believe a god exists, but also don't believe it doesn't exist. It's something that can't be tested either way. Can't be falsified or proven true. So belief either way is illogical and useless to the quest for knowledge.
  
  Hence if such a thing exists there is no one that can know a single thing about it. What ever is said about it comes down to someone's wild guess.
  reply report
2. 56
  The0NatureBoyposted 6 years agoin reply to this
  I thought I had once answered this question but I don't find it so here is my reasoning.
  
  There are two kinds of Atheists, the most common ones are those apposing the concept of god because they don't believe in "the dogma of, especially the Christian, religion." That is what usually causes many to reject the notion go god, and I wonder if they also reject the concept of devil since they are two sides of the same coin.
  
  I am "an atheist" because I realized there never was a creation of existence, it is a never ending set of cycles being reproduced by fragments of energy manifesting as every seeable object of every size. Also, I have overcame accepting of the multitude of "judgmental adjectives" man use which require one producer of what they approve of, god, and another, devil, to produce the disapproved evil.
  
  By my living in the joining point of all opposites I see both sides of them are integrated in the whole. It's like the darkness which appears doing morning hours (usually called day light) man tend to call shadows because it isn't completely engulfing the light: nor does the light found during the shadowed hours (generally called night) produced by the moon and stars because man can't see all details by their light reduce the dark to the extent of the morning hours. Thus, everything appears and disappears appearing to be the same age time and time again with the only thing changing is the fragment of energy producing each entity.
  reply report
  79
  Kathryn L Hillposted 6 years agoin reply to this
  I was an atheist until I contemplated the energy of a tree. God is the energy of a tree and the energy of ourselves and everything that exists. Consciousness is what we are dealing with ultimately.
  
  Q. Who is sitting in his kingdom on a throne in the sky?
  A. A figment of one's imagination.
  
  A. 'What is the force which created and animates everything that exists on the material plane, the astral realms and the causal realm?"
  Q. Why not just call that force "God?" The force is a mystery. But some have identified it as Father, (creator) Son (the God-created/designed human) Holy ghost, (omnipresent, omniscient and omnipotent spirit.)
  reply report
  56
  The0NatureBoyposted 6 years agoin reply to this
  We are opposite. I was theist until following the teachings of the Bible, especially Isaiah 7:14-22 which suggests the Christ is atheist, and how it says man are god while implying there was never a creation. You were atheist and became theist because you can't comprehend "an ever-present existence with it's energy manifesting itself in all of it's components appearing separated."
  
  I see existence's energy as a never-ending but appearing broken line held together by "a silver thread" between each of the different manifestations, thus everything is god and god is everything with each of the components having their time to be the overall life-force.
  reply report
  88
  wildernessposted 6 years agoin reply to this
  Or we could stop trying to mysticize it, and just tell it like it is. The forces of gravity, followed by the forces of basic chemistry (as in full electron orbitals are more stable than partially full ones) are what "created" and animated everything we see around us.
  reply report
61
FatFreddysCatposted 8 years ago
Because if they did, they wouldn't be atheists, would they?
reply report
1. 84
  Venkatachari Mposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  Very right answer. If they are Atheist, it itself means they do not believe.
  reply report
2. 0
  PeterStipposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  best answer
  reply report
3. 92
  Nathanvilleposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  Spot on.
  reply report
4. 73
  tsadjatkoposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  So from your answer Keith I can infer you are in agreement with my answer.That is they don't believe in God,not because of anything except that they want to deny his existence so they can be atheists,in other words to live a Godless life.
  reply report
5. 56
  JJ McHaleposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  I'm curious. What in UR opinion is a "Godless life?" It may require U write a complete hub to explain this. Have U done an in-depth study into the lives of non-believers 2 describe a godless life? Can U realistically compare godless vs. godly lives?
  reply report
6. 56
  JJ McHaleposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  I can only imagine the comments U will get from both the godless & the godly. Especially if U boldly & erroneously try to claim godless lives are useless, immoral, non-productive. Both believers & Non have both neg & pos aspects to t
  reply report
7. 56
  JJ McHaleposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  It's clear the godly spend half their lives judging, preaching, shaming, damning, & playing the high & mighty game. UR no better, no more positive, no more successful, no more loved nor loving than any other human being who can be all of thes
  reply report
8. 73
  tsadjatkoposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  What do I mean by Godless life? Really, that is a question you can' answer yourself in this context? Well I'll spell it out for you, it is quite simple, a life without God. Any God, or being or entity greater than themselves. Get it?
  reply report
9. 56
  JJ McHaleposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  I get it in terms of my opinion, which I stated. I asked 4 ur opinion. U gave it. I get ur opinion too. Thanks. Asked & answered.
  reply report
10. 73
  tsadjatkoposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  You tried to project onto me when I made no such comparisons but my point(godless)fits exactly with my Q&Aanswer,most atheists simply don't want to answer to a higher power for anything&so they make up,look for,any excuse that there is no God
  reply report
11. 92
  Nathanvilleposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  TSAD, I don’t try to make up excuses or reasons for not believing, I just don’t believe. I am who I am. I have respect for other people’s beliefs; so I get on well with people of all religions and faiths who are tolerant of other people's beliefs.
  reply report
12. 73
  tsadjatkoposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  If you just don't believe for no reason but you don't "want" to believe you still fit the bill of my answer to this Q&A.Having respect for other people’s beliefs has nothing to do with why you don't believe but your "want" does. Case closed.
  reply report
13. 92
  Nathanvilleposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  Who says I ‘want ‘, or ‘don want’ to believe, certainly not me. Any thoughts, feelings or desires to believe in some mythical being are as remote to me as me wanting to believe in fairies. And does it really matter what you or I believe.
  reply report
14. 73
  tsadjatkoposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  OK,u cannot be reasoned with.You say"I just don’t believe"which means you don't want to believe also-no difference then you say"does it really matter what u or I believe?"U r hopeless if it doesn't matter to u if u believe truth or lies.
  reply report
15. 92
  Nathanvilleposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  TSAD, in my mind atheism is the truth; but that is my personal opinion. Everybody is entitled to their own views on religion, which I respect. So I don’t try to shove my opinions down their throats or preach to them.
  reply report
16. 73
  tsadjatkoposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  In your mind something is the truth?What about reality my friend.Would you tell a schizophrenic to only trust what is in his mind?Sounds like you would.You are playing a dangerous game of denial,just an excuse to be accountable to no one.
  reply report
17. 92
  Nathanvilleposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  Why are you so insistent that everyone believes what you believe?
  
  Are other people not entitled to their own views, if those views are different to what you believe?
  reply report
18. 61
  MichaelMcNabbposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  First thing that came to my mind as well. Oh and "why do some people believe in god?" Was the next thing that came to mind.
  reply report
19. 83
  gmwilliamsposted 6 years agoin reply to this
  Great succinct answer.
  reply report
81
junksellerposted 8 years ago
There are a few thousand gods that you don't believe in (e.g. Zeus or Ra). Why not? Answering that will answer your question.
reply report
73
tsadjatkoposted 8 years ago

There are a a multitude of various reasons (really excuses), and if you ask every atheist why they don't believe in God you will likely get as many different answers as there are atheists ranging from no God would allow my baby to die to the inconsistency of world religions or the lack of solid evidence for God's existence.

Since even an atheist has to face the fact they can not prove God does not exist it is amazing the lengths to which atheists will go to assert that there is no evidence to believe in God all the while rejecting and demeaning, lying about and refusing the study the one pre-eminent proof of God that exists on earth, The Word of God, the Bible, (or Believers' Instructions before Leaving Earth). Then there are those who, having rejected the true God, the God of the Bible, have gone looking for a god that does not exist, and, having failed to find him (and how could they?), have declared that god does not exist.

Close examination of the way an atheist cherry picks "reasons" from science and society (while totally ignoring study of the Bible) to not believe demonstrates how he actually understands the Bible just well enough to know that he wants to reject its redemptive message.

Two well known Bible apologists who have debated atheists for much of their lives shed light in this brief interview about exactly why many, possibly most atheists choose to make up or find any excuses they can to not believe in God. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wjBZIv4CH8o

Now I have one for you Dwight. Did you know Scientists have discovered that atheists might not exist? Cognitive scientists are becoming increasingly aware that a metaphysical outlook may be so deeply ingrained in human thought processes that it cannot be expunged. Your fundamental beliefs are decided by much deeper levels of consciousness. Read all about it http://www.science20.com/writer_on_the_ … A.facebook
reply report
1. 79
  Misfit Chickposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  Many people say variations of this: "it is amazing the lengths to which atheists will go to assert..." The flip side is same for Christians; and Atheists are responding to religious dogmatic people who insist that the lies to enslave them are true.
  reply report
2. 73
  tsadjatkoposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  SO atheists are responding not to what they believe to be fact, God does not exist, but you are agreeing that they are responding in a desire to reject the message of redemption (christianity), exactly what is said in the 1st link above link
  reply report
3. 90
  Sam Shepardsposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  So because people are systembuilders to feel comfortable and secure in the world proves your belief is the right one? Because people are pattern seekers doesn't make every pattern as valid as the next. We are talking to ourselves here.
  reply report
84
Venkatachari Mposted 8 years ago
I think Atheists do not want to accept God. They strive till their last bit of energy to disprove the existence of God. But, personally, they are unable to do anything when some disaster takes place in their own family or place and prithee the Superior Power to save them.So, they are not permanently Atheist till their end.
reply report
1. 81
  junksellerposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  Sorry, but not everyone has a cowardly heart.
  reply report
2. 79
  Misfit Chickposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  Several misconceptions: they don't 'stive' to disprove the existence of God - responses are usually to pushy Christian know-it-alls. Atheists don't need a higher a higher power to save them. Yeah, pretty big discrepancies & judgements - what a sh
  reply report
3. 73
  tsadjatkoposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  So you say atheists don't believe in God because they don't need a higher power to save them?They tell me they doesn't exist, not because even if he does they don;t need him. That's new, never heard an atheist say that.
  reply report
4. 90
  Sam Shepardsposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  Lol
  reply report
5. 70
  Lucifergusonposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  Not all Atheists seek to disprove the existence of a God. And when some disaster takes place they use other methods to deal with the issue and feel they can find resolution without reaching out to an omnipotent being.
  reply report
57
JohnHJamesposted 8 years ago
If you ask the question “why do religious people believe in their gods” you’ll get as many different answers as people you ask. You’ll find a lot of different answers here too. Many fall into one of two categories; either experience with science or experience with religion.

The scientific method is based on formulating an idea then testing it. Scientists take the ideas that seem to work and build models to explain our world. These models are used to develop solutions. For example, germs started off as a hypothesis. Experimentation showed that they seemed to be real. This lead to germ theory. So we developed ways to reduce illness based on what we were learning. Further models and tests have lead us to everything from lifesaving vaccines to knowing that we should wash our hands.
Religion doesn’t work in a scientific model. Double blind studies on prayer have shown no correlation to reality. Models built on religion can’t be used to describe the natural world or our understanding of it. Scientifically, modern religions are no more valid than Ra commanding a chariot to carry the sun across the sky. Ignoring gods seems to have no impact on the natural world either. So, some atheists reject gods based on scientific principles.

The other reason is experience with religion. This is sometimes learning more about their current religion or learning more about others. A common saying in atheist circles is that a sure fire way to make an atheist is to have someone read the Bible. That’s because the more you learn about multiple religions the less likely you will be religious. If you read any religious text from start to finish you can identify things that are silly, outdated, and obviously don’t apply. This can lead people to see less validity in the rest of it. Once you start to compare those ideas with each other, trace their histories and origins you can see how they evolved over time and where they really came from.

For someone that was raised in a non-religious environment and then is exposed to religion later in life, religion will seem bizarre. Like a belief in magic. To anyone exposed to religion after their teenage years the supernatural parts of religion will seem no more valid than any other mythology, or Star Wars for that matter.

Most atheists don’t feel they have a reason to accept that any god is real. They’re all equally valid in a modern world. That’s why they ask questions like “why don’t you accept that Zeus is real?”
reply report
1. 73
  tsadjatkoposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  Are you a scientist John?Another thing atheists do,they lie about science&the Bible as you have done.Just search youtube for"Scientists become christian"(63,400results).Watch &then explain how Christianity doesn’t work in scientific model.
  reply report
2. 92
  Nathanvilleposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  I like your detailed analysis of the question John, its well thought out and expressed very methodically.
  reply report
3. 73
  tsadjatkoposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  You would like that answer, but seems john has no answers for my question because it refutes everything he believes.
  reply report
4. 57
  JohnHJamesposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  Thank you, Arthur. It was definitely written for the more analytically minded. If I ever learn to write something convincing for both analytical and intuitive people at the same time I'll switch to being a lawyer.
  reply report
5. 79
  Misfit Chickposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  "how Christianity doesn’t work in scientific model" - really, TSAD? Try Googling all the many ways Christiantiy has FAILED the masses since the inception of it. How many people is it responsible for harming? It is not a religion that 'God' created.
  reply report
6. 73
  tsadjatkoposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  People are sinners. What they do in the name of a "religion" they may call Christianity is not reflective of the Gospel of Jesus Christ(God reaching down to man),or his Word.Christianity is a relationship with Jesus Christ not a religion.
  reply report
92
Nathanvilleposted 8 years ago
In the UK (United Kingdom) the question of whether people believe in a religion or not is not an issue; statistically Britain is one of the least religious countries in the world, and since the 1960s the trend has been continuously increasing towards British people either having no religion or being atheists.

In the 2001 census 76.82% of British people identified themselves with a religion; in the 2011 census (10 years later) this had dropped to 67.16%. A YouGov Poll of the same year (2011) showed that of those identifying themselves with a religion, 35% were either very or fairly religious, while 63% considered themselves not very religious or not religious at all.

In Britain, when it comes to the question of religion, what answer you get in a survey or poll depends on how you phrase the question. In Britain, if you ask a person what religion they are most will say Church of England, whereas if you ask them whether they are religious most will say no; as indicated in the ‘British Social Attitudes Survey’ of 2012 when 48% of British people said that they were non-religious compared to 46% who stated they were Christians. For clarity, the vast majority of religious people in Britain identify themselves as being Christians (59.49% in the 2011 census), with Muslim being 2nd, at just 4.41%.

I myself am an atheist, as most of my friends are (including a Hindu who is an atheist), although my closest friend is a Priest. For a number of years my wife (an agnostic) worked as ‘Admin’ in a multi faith church, and on taking up the post, her boss (a chaplain) reassured her that being religious was not a requirement of the job. It was through that multi faith church that I came to learn a lot about and respect the main stream Muslim faith; a peaceful religion that has its roots in Christianity and the old testament.

Although my maternal grandparents were Salvationists, and great grandparents Quakers, my main reason for being an atheist is simply I have no reason to believe (and never have had any reason); and I have more faith in science.
reply report
1. 73
  tsadjatkoposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  So it doesn't bother you that science is known for fitting scientific evidence into preconceived notions, many "scientific theories" have eventually been proven wrong, & it takes more faith to be an atheist than to believe the Bible?
  reply report
2. 92
  Nathanvilleposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  I can’t believe in something that I don’t believe in; so atheism is my only choice, and my personal right.
  
  Science has nothing to do with religion; if you were scientifically minded you would know your statements dissing science are misconceived.
  reply report
3. 73
  tsadjatkoposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  If you knew anything about science,a scientist you are not,obviously,you would not be dissing me and my statements.
  
  Science obviously has nothing to do with religion,I never said it did,but Christianity has everything to do with science.
  reply report
4. 92
  Nathanvilleposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  I do have science qualifications, and quantum physics is my forte. Being a scientist doesn’t exclude you from being religious, and being religious doesn’t exclude you from being a scientist; unless you feel insecure about your faith or beliefs.
  reply report
5. 73
  tsadjatkoposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  Really?What degree do you have?Then you must be familiar with FRANK J TIPLER & the Physics of Christianity? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6APhNSBrRA or how about Astrophysicist, SARAH SALVIANDER and her journey to Christianity?
  reply report
6. 92
  Nathanvilleposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  Well actually I have academic qualifications in Astronomy and Human Biology, and I’ve also studied Newtonian Physics, but my main interest is in Quantum physics. And no I haven’t read those books because I’m not interested in religion.
  reply report
7. 73
  tsadjatkoposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  So what degrees do you hold? Academic qualifications? What does that mean you went to college for a year and dropped out? Really. You don;t fool anyone, you are making this all up.
  reply report
8. 92
  Nathanvilleposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  I did 3 years at college to get specific ‘A’ level qualifications I needed for my job (which I passed), and while there I took the opportunity to also study Quantum physics as a hobby, borrowing the books from a friend who was doing it as a degree.
  reply report
9. 73
  tsadjatkoposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  So you have no degrees in any field of science,a hobby you call quantum physics&you consider that to be"science qualifications"?Sorry, what you offer qualifies u for nothing in the fields of science which is obvious by your every word.
  reply report
10. 92
  Nathanvilleposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  I never said I had a degree. Besides you obviously don’t know what ‘A’ (Advanced Subject) levels are in the UK; they are a 90 minute pre-degree exam taken after two years of study in what you call ‘Higher Education’ and qualifies you for university
  reply report
11. 70
  AshtonFireflyposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  TSAD, you just expressed your belief several posts ago, that scientists distort data. So of what merit is it to you whether or not someone has qualifications in science, since if you believe that scientists distort data anyway?
  reply report
12. 73
  tsadjatkoposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  Put words in my mouth to raise a straw man and argue against it, nice try.I never said scientists distort data although even that has occurred making my point was that there are good reasons for Arthur not to put all his faith in science.
  reply report
13. 70
  AshtonFireflyposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  Your quote: "So it doesn't bother you that science is known for fitting scientific evidence into preconceived notions , many "scientific theories" have eventually been proven wrong, & it takes more faith to be an atheist than to believe the Bible
  reply report
14. 73
  tsadjatkoposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  Where in that quote do I say they distort data?Qualified scientists who respect science don't do that nor do what I said,all the more reason to point out Arthur has no basis to claim scientific credentials and his statements prove it.
  reply report
15. 70
  AshtonFireflyposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  "Fitting scientific evidence into preconceived notions" is not a distortion?The problem is that at it's core, ALL science is "technically" theory, so I understand your faith comment. However most do their best to be as open to accuracy as possible.
  reply report
16. 73
  tsadjatkoposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  No,if you understood science you'd know that distorting data refers to changing or providing false data.What I said"Fitting scientific evidence into preconceived notions"has nothing to do with distorting data but the conclusions from data.
  reply report
17. 92
  Nathanvilleposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  TSAD, I recognised myself as an atheist 5 years before I became interested in science, so science did not influence my atheism. I never said I put ALL my faith in science, your ignorance of Scientific Methodology suggests you have no science degree
  reply report
18. 73
  tsadjatkoposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  Wrong again.I got my degrees before you were born,4.0 average in both my majors,worked as a specialist in biotech stocks for16 years&taught Science.So what else do u put ur faith in if not all in science?You said"morefaith",more than what?
  reply report
19. 92
  Nathanvilleposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  Well you don’t talk like a scientist; you show ignorance in the significance of double blind tests for example. FYI I put more faith in science because I have NO FAITH in Religion. And why are you so insistent that others have to agree with you?
  reply report
20. 70
  AshtonFireflyposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  TSAD, what kind of preconceived notions do you think exist in science?
  reply report
21. 73
  tsadjatkoposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  AR u putting words in my mouth?Because you have already lost this debate.I said nothing about double blind studies& everything I have said is facts scientists know.Ashton,you r kidding right?Stress theory of ulcers,Static universe,google it!
  reply report
22. 92
  Nathanvilleposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  TSAD. I’m just stating what I believe, you are the one insisting you’re right and everyone else is wrong - WHY. If you're a scientist then you will understand the significance of ‘falsifiable predictions’; which I doubt from the statements you make
  reply report
23. 70
  AshtonFireflyposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  What you call preconceived notion is part of the process of scientific theory. Science is by nature, theory, and scientists recognize that fact and recognize that they are subject to change should further experimentation and info require it.
  reply report
24. 73
  tsadjatkoposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  AF, so you think you understand science and the scientific method?Tell me is it scientific to theorize that life arose spontaneously on earth? Simple answer, yes or no, is it that a scientific conclusion, theory or fact? Which is it?
  reply report
25. 92
  Nathanvilleposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  Simple answer ‘No’, you need the right conditions, and time. It’s a ‘Theory’ (in fact several valid Theories). If you understood how science works a ‘Theory’ is always a ‘Theory’, even when it becomes generally accepted as correct.
  reply report
26. 73
  tsadjatkoposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  I asked Ashton the question,when she answers I'll be glad to demonstrate how your answer totally shows you do not even know what science is or what scientific method is.Maybe after try to say something without misstating everything I say
  reply report
27. 79
  Misfit Chickposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  SCREW SCIENCE, TSAD - lets talk about the social injustices, lets talk about fanatics, lets talk about cruelty, lets talk about historical evidences, and what about plain 'ol reason? Believe or not - this question is only a big deal to Christians.
  reply report
28. 73
  tsadjatkoposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  Let's?
  How about U get your facts straight.Nothing in history has caused more social injustices, fanatics, and cruelty than the atrocities committed by atheists&atheist regimes.Sorry misfit, you can't delete comments showing u wrong here.
  reply report
29. 92
  Nathanvilleposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  TSAD, your reply above proves you’re no scientist (as you falsely claimed further up) e.g. a scientist would know that a Scientific Theory is always classified as a Theory, even when it’s passes the ‘falsifiable predictions’ and becomes well proven.
  reply report
30. 90
  Sam Shepardsposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  TSAD, that is what science has going for it best theory until proven false. Something can only be scientific if it is falsifiable. That is how you improve instead of stating non-sensical dogma.
  reply report
31. 73
  tsadjatkoposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  Arthur again u put words in my mouth,I said NOTHING like what you just said I said,u have cognitive problems or like to lie.My point was since many scientific theories have been proven wrong(a fact)why would u put such faith in science.
  reply report
32. 70
  AshtonFireflyposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  Of course that is a theory, as I've been saying. Scientific "facts" are recognized as theories and are subject to correction of course. No scientific theory is ever presented as an unchanging, absolute truth.
  reply report
33. 73
  tsadjatkoposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  Thanks Ashton for your answer.I hope u are willing to listen & learn(obviously Arthur is incapable of honest discourse).To start with a"scientific theory"can not be called a fact. Fact's are irrefutable and as "Arthur" & u have already
  reply report
34. 73
  tsadjatkoposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  said theory's can be proven wrong, in which case they could never have been FACT.Make sense? It is true a theory may actually be a fact but that does not make all scientific theories facts.I put my faith in facts,not "theories" even if they
  reply report
35. 73
  tsadjatkoposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  are called"scientific theories".For example many think evolution is a scientific fact when the theory of evolution doesn't even qualify as a scientific theory.1st there’s no direct,observable experiment that can ever be performed.They can
  reply report
36. 73
  tsadjatkoposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  never test evolutionary events in the past.Evolution misses the mark as a theory because all the supposed“tests”to confirm Darwinism don't necessarily&distinctively correspond to the idea,each has an alternate&equally viable explanation
  reply report
37. 73
  tsadjatkoposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  A theory requires that the confirming experiments correspond to one specific hypothesis.Otherwise,the experiment cannot establish legitimacy.Evolution has no such legitimacy.Now as to abiogenesis.Scientific investigation of origin of life
  reply report
38. 73
  tsadjatkoposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  presents us with at least two problems.First,since life began before people were around,we hardly can observe the process. 2nd,since the origin of life appears to have been a unique event,we hardly can repeat it &NO ONE has.Scientificmethod
  reply report
39. 73
  tsadjatkoposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  is defined as probing only things that we can detect with our five senses and Science also must be repeatable,abiogenesis has never been observed.To the contrary,it has been shown numerous times that biogenesis is true,that only livingthings
  reply report
40. 73
  tsadjatkoposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  give rise to living things.That is,abiogenesis has been scientifically disproved.To persist in belief in abiogenesis,one must believe in something that clearly is unscientific.Aston& Arthur,ur ideas of what is science are far from accurate
  reply report
41. 92
  Nathanvilleposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  TSAD, ref. to your comment 10 replies above; in an earlier reply you stated “I got my degrees before you were born, 4.0 average in both my majors”, yet your ignorance on how science progresses it understanding suggests you are telly porky pies.
  reply report
42. 70
  AshtonFireflyposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  Yes. As I've been saying, scientific theory never claims to be indisputable fact and should not be accepted as such.Asto whether or not scientific theories such as evolution and abiogenesis are TRUE theories, I'd need more space than this tiny box
  reply report
67
Dr Pran Ranganposted 8 years ago
This question has always intrigued me, as a couple of times I also tried to find an answer to it.

So many people try to find out about the existence of God or an Almighty Power. But they were unable to do so because they were seeking to find His existence as something material. But, as a matter of fact, the existence of God can only be experienced perceptually, for which an individual has to have a specific mindset that tries to explore Him.

Personally, I perceptually find His existence everywhere in the Universe. I believe in His Vishwa Rupam or Universal Form.

Two most important reasons why atheists don't believe in God are: First, they are unable to prove the existence of God and second, as there are so many religions in the world that many people are developing increasing bigotry towards those following other religions. As a result, one is likely to find them sources of social discord.

Thanks for giving me a chance to express my views.
reply report
1. 70
  Lucifergusonposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  I think this is an interesting point that is very prevalent today. Seeking God, and finding a religious path that speaks to you and is right for you brings many social implications with regards to the religion you turn to. This can create a barrier.
  reply report
60
bdn9385posted 8 years ago
Because the Devil who is the current ruler of this world has so corrupted the image of God and infiltrated all government and religions to perpetrate lies about God and in so doing, dismay all the honest and righteous people out there called the atheists. The rebelling angels has done a good job in deceiving all mankind exactly as it was written by God.
Remember, the serpent could not deceive Adam so he turned to the frail Eve instead. Hmmm, let me right a hub about this.
reply report
1. 90
  Sam Shepardsposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  Seriously?
  reply report
60
Tarunpondersposted 8 years ago
I feel probably because they believe in themselves. And God if he were God would never want you to believe in God but believe in yourself and carry out his work with utmost sincerity.
reply report
1. 73
  tsadjatkoposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  How do you carry out his work if you don't believe in him, if you believe he doesn't exist? Really Tarun, your words make NO sense.
  reply report
2. 60
  Tarunpondersposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  Hi TSAD
  
  I think so
  reply report
3. 92
  Nathanvilleposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  I think Tarun makes perfect sense. As an atheist I believe in myself, and I’ve known Christians who hold similar views to Tarun in the belief that you should have ‘Free Will’ to choose what you believe rather than be influenced by ‘proof positive’.
  reply report
4. 60
  fpherj48posted 8 years agoin reply to this
  OK..Today's lesson in jibberish? I'll bite. Tarun, "God would never want us 2 believe in Him?"A.R, "choose what we believe rather than be influenced by PROOF POSITIVE??" Scuse me. Time 4 heavy dose of meds & a long, long nap. I've hallucinated?
  reply report
5. 73
  tsadjatkoposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  lol
  reply report
6. 79
  Misfit Chickposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  God can exist WITHOUT a religion - and thrives in non-religious attmospheres. Dogma makes it a question. People who believe in themselves are putting ALL of their trust in 'whatever is'. There is no greater compliment to a creator than that.
  reply report
7. 73
  tsadjatkoposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  The one thing you have said that is right,God does exist without religion.Christianity is not a religion https://philippians1v21.wordpress.com/w … -religion/ Read and learn.
  reply report
86
Stella Kayeposted 8 years ago
Atheists live their lives quite happily without the need for some higher entity or suchlike to direct their lives. They act according to their own conscience without the constraints of a particular belief structure and this suits them just fine. Perhaps certain personality types are more likely to become atheists than others; to illustrate this, if people were all actors rehearsing for a play then some of them might feel the need for the director's assistance while others would perform quite well without it.
reply report
1. 73
  tsadjatkoposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  Any1 who asserts atheism leads to a bright future is either gravely mistaken or a charlatan.Atheism has it's own belief structure which when analyzed requires more faith to believe than to believe in God who created them.See2ndlink in my A.
  reply report
2. 92
  Nathanvilleposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  TSAD, as an atheist I don’t have my own belief structure to justify it, I just don’t believe in a creator; it’s as simple as that. And I’ve had a fulfilling and rewarding life without religion, and now enjoying retirement on a good pension.
  reply report
3. 73
  tsadjatkoposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  Again u put words in my mouth.What is it with u?I never said u have a belief structure to justify atheism.What I said is not believing(in anything) provides a basis for a belief structure which requires more faith to believe than in God.
  reply report
4. 73
  tsadjatkoposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  e.g. if 1 doesn't believe the earth is round,1 could structure a belief system from "flat earth" that u can fall off the edge.As an atheist you can form the(false)belief structure of abiogenesis and evolution as almost all atheists do.
  reply report
5. 67
  Dr Pran Ranganposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  Our conscience is a real guiding lighthouse of our life. If an atheist listens to his or her conscience, he or she contributes equally to the welfare of society. In fact, it is our personal choice whether we follow a religion or not.
  reply report
6. 73
  tsadjatkoposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  Define conscience, what is it, how do we get it, why do we have it, does everyone have the same conscience?
  reply report
7. 67
  Dr Pran Ranganposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  Conscience is our ability to differentiate bad from good. What is good for the welfare of most of people should be generally considered good. We all have conscience but to fulfill our selfish motives, we tend to ignore it.
  reply report
8. 73
  tsadjatkoposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  U haven't answered all my Qs&how can u prove what you just said is true or just ur opinion.I assume you don't believe in God or a creator so where do u think it comes from?Do u believe it evolved?Do animals have a conscience?Really,answers?
  reply report
9. 79
  Misfit Chickposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  "not believing(in anything) provides a basis for a belief structure which requires more faith to believe than in God." How so, TSAD? Conscience is an expression of the Universe (or God). Religions are not required, nor necessary for morals or joy.
  reply report
10. 73
  tsadjatkoposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  You can't prove anything you just said which actually makes NO sense at all. Conscience is an expression of the universe which is God. God is the universe? Never heard an atheist say that either.
  reply report
11. 92
  Nathanvilleposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  TSAD, for at least the 3rd time of asking you, and still no answer from you:- Why do you keep insisting that people who don’t agree with you are wrong in their views. Why not just accept that atheists are perfectly entitled to their own opinions.
  reply report
12. 73
  tsadjatkoposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  Again you put words in my mouth to try to change the topic to about me.Nowhere have I insisted ur wrong because u disagree with me,u disagree with the facts which I present and u can't stand being shown wrong so u try to make this about me
  reply report
13. 92
  Nathanvilleposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  TSAD, no, you put words into my mouth e.g. in earlier comments here, I said “I just don’t believe”, you said in reply “which means you don’t want to believe”. ‘Want’ has nothing to do with it; I just don’t believe, end story.
  reply report
92
Susan Hambidgeposted 8 years ago
Simple reason - I just don't feel the need to .....
reply report
1. 59
  GeniusLightposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  See five reasons why atheists hold their stance here: http://inspiresavvy.blogspot.com.ng/201 … e.html?m=1
  reply report
2. 57
  Bethany Rhodesposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  thats great
  reply report
67
rolaabboudposted 8 years ago
They simply can't imagine that there is a creator for the world, whom knows -literally- every single thing happened in the past, is happening in the present and will happen in the future. They like to think LOGICALLY, everything happens for a purpose; I need to discover this purpose and to see this purpose and not to believe in a thing without seeing it.
reply report
1. 90
  Sam Shepardsposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  Purpose do you mean everything happens in relation to other things. Or do you mean purpose in the sense of meaning for people? Because not everything has meaning or purpose in and of itself in that sense.
  reply report
2. 67
  rolaabboudposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  What I meant is the first one "everything happens in relation to other things".
  reply report
61
MichaelMcNabbposted 8 years ago
Because, unlike believers, we aren't afraid of being punished by any god who insists on having people believe in him. In short your God or god is so pathetic that he must resort to threats in order to have a following. Sure doesn't sound like the perfect creator they speak about in church. God is more ridiculous than the man behind the curtain in the Wizard of Oz.
reply report
72
Aime Fposted 8 years ago
I just don't. I once did, but as I got older and thought more critically about things, it didn't make sense to me anymore. Everyone comes to their own conclusions based on a multitude of factors. I'm not completely closed off to the possibility and maybe someday something will change my mind again, but for now I cannot grasp it. I'm sure just as people who do believe in God feel that it's just what makes sense to them and what they feel to be true, atheism is what makes sense to me and what I feel to be true.
reply report
1. 90
  Sam Shepardsposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  I like this answer. Feels open and honest! I also think these internet discussion put most of us on the defensive.
  reply report
70
dashingscorpioposted 8 years ago

No one comes into world believing in God.
Essentially we all start off as atheists!
Many of us are indoctrinated with religious teachings during our early formative years where we tend to accept whatever adults tell us. Hell, most of us believed in Santa Claus when they told us he was real too.
In fact many atheists believe God is Santa Claus for adults.
Having faith means one does not require proof. They just believe.
For a lot of folks that's quite a jump to make. If something does not make any logical sense and it can't be proven they tend to dismiss it.
Examples of what atheists consider far fetched in the bible
God made the world in 6 days and took the 7th day off.
Adam lived to be 937 years old
Noah had his first child after he was 500 years old
Samson killed 1000 men with the jawbone of a donkey
God created foreign languages due to the Tower of Babel
The walls of Jericho fell after Joshua's army marched around the city 7 times blowing their trumpets...
God and the Devil {had a bet} on how Job would react if God took off his protection and let the Devil ruin his life....etc
The immaculate conception....
And then there are some inconsistences - Below is one example
Exodus 20:13 - {Thy shall not kill} - per The 10 Commandments
followed by Exodus 32:27 (The same book in a later chapter)
"Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side, and go in and out from gate to gate throughout the camp, and {slay} every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbour....and there fell of the people that day about three thousand men."
reply report
85
QuoteAmberposted 8 years ago
Well, there are lots of ways I can answer this, but I will give you my top three.

1: The World is a Terrible Place
There isn't a day that goes by where you don't see murder and abuse in the news, and that is some of the kinder things you see. Then there are the kind of people who murder a baby dolphin so they can take a selfie with it, sexually abuse children and pets, use children as suicide bombers, club seals to death. Of course, Christians say that's because those people don't have god in their life, or god gave us free will. Well, Christians also say god is omnipotent and all knowing. Therefore, he knew the human race was going to turn out to be mostly composed of horrible people. That doesn't make him this wonderful being, that makes him a jerk.
2: The religion
Even if I could accept condition 1, I can't accept the religion as a whole. Most Christians I know are constantly trying to force their religion on other people, even when they think they are not. If I wanted to be a Christian, I would be, so stop forcing your ideals on me. Most also use the parts of the Bible they agree with, and just ignore the parts they don't. Worse, many obsess over trivial issues instead of real ones. Did you know 44% of all bee populations died off last year? The human population cannot survive without bees, but most people look the other way. These same people also look the other way at massive oil spills, the fact that 90% of the coral reefs are dead, that there is more plastic in the ocean than life, war, poverty, and the fact that our planet is basically dying around us, but yes let's focus instead on discriminating against the LGBT community, because that's what's really important here. It's completely idiotic that people would fight LGBT rights to the death, but completely ignore all the real horrible things that happen on this planet.
On that same note, I cannot and will not accept a God that discriminates against people. There's more I could say on the hypocrisy of the Christian religion, but I'm running out of characters.
3. Science
Just because most Christians don't believe science applies to them, or ignore it when it's not convenient for them, doesn't mean it isn't true. That applies to evolution, and the fact that he universe is billions of years old, and not thousands. Both could coexist, but most clearly aren't willing to accept that.
Religion is fine for other people, but I refuse to believe.
reply report
1. 92
  Nathanvilleposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  I enjoyed reading your views. I just wish people would be more tolerant, too often violence has been in the name of religion e.g. Christians, puritans, ISIS. Although I’m an atheist my best friend is a Priest because we respect each other’s views.
  reply report
79
The Indexerposted 8 years ago
Possibly because they have realised that religion is something that belongs to the dim and distant past, when people sought explanations for everything that they couldn't explain for themselves - why there were seasons, or what caused lightning bolts, for example. As mankind became more knowledgable, gods were only invoked to fill in the gaps in their knowledge, so that now the "creator god" is only required to be the lighter of the fuse of the Big Bang. In other words, God is no longer necessary.

Gods also acquired a moral dimension, as the arbiter of human conduct with the power to punish wrongdoers. This became a very useful tool for rulers when controlling the ruled - you might not fear me but there's a guy up there with an even bigger stick. Atheists have seen through this trick and recognise it for the sham that it is.

A true Atheist does not seek to convert others to their point of view. If you want to have religious belief, and if it helps you to live your life, that's fine by me. But please, religious person, don't expend quite so much effort in trying to make me see things the way you do.

It is the religious person's conviction that the world is disgusting and evil that has made it disgusting and evil.
reply report
1. 58
  Edge Valmondposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  So true
  reply report
68
Penelope Arrowposted 8 years ago
Some people give up due to heartbreak. The only thing they know to do in that instance is to blame God. This sometimes means forgetting Him, casting aside your beliefs and not looking back. My brother is a hardened soldier. I fully believe that he has become an atheist in order to get past the things he has had to do while in the military. He knows he should't have done those things and is afraid on how God may see him.

My best friend is a strong, silent woman. She lost the love of her life years ago. Not to a tragic accident but to a mistake that she made. She does not want to blame herself, so she blames God.

There are many reasons. I believe, and hope, that each person goes through what they must in order to ultimately come to God.
reply report
59
Prashanthi Menonposted 8 years ago
Well, when I asked this question to my atheist friend, the answer was "If god existed the world wouldn't be the way it is. If he does exist, he should be ashamed of himself"
reply report
1. 68
  PhoenixVposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  Atheists tend to have a negative view of reality.
  reply report
2. 92
  Nathanvilleposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  I and most atheists I know have a very positive view of reality; it’s just that we don’t believe in a creator. You can’t generalise (stereotype) peoples views and attitudes as everyone is different; regardless to whether they are religious or not.
  reply report
3. 68
  PhoenixVposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  Ok. Tell us how if there is a God how great reality is and thank Him for your life and freewill, the juxtaposition of a couple of atheist "god should be ashamed" etc
  reply report
4. 92
  Nathanvilleposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  As an atheist I see suffering and joy in nature e.g. prey in the food chain and birth of new life; and I see good and bad in humanity. I choose to appreciate the positives in nature and people, and help others when I can, because it makes me happy.
  reply report
5. 68
  PhoenixVposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  The most commendable attributes or virtues that can be attained by mankind are only possible because they are achieved by overcoming adversity. Why should a hypothetical God be ashamed at the pure genius of this?
  reply report
6. 92
  Nathanvilleposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  I don’t disagree with you e.g. I’m not one of the atheists who made that statement about being ashamed; that question should be aimed at them. As far as I am concerned there is a lot of good in the world (it’s not all doom and gloom).
  reply report
61
The Examiner-1posted 8 years ago
It seems to be complicated. First of all, there are negative and positive atheists. The negative atheists seem to point out that there is no evidence of the existence of god(s). So they do not believe they exist and are set in their ways.
Then there are positive atheists who also tell you that no evidence exists but they seem to be willing to change their mind if evidence is found.
The real explanation is much more complicated than that. I tried to make it as easy to understand as possible. Hopefully I have not left anything out of it.
reply report
74
word55posted 8 years ago
With all due respect, an atheist should answer that question.
reply report
58
Edge Valmondposted 8 years ago
Everything has a reason. Though this can go on forever so I will try and make it short as possible. Athiests are more scientifically challenged. Meaning they will not accept anything without evidence to support it. Naturally there have been no records of God actually making an effect in our lives. So the faith will naturally cease. Instead of clinging to false hope,they aim to dissect the truth bit by bit. In short they need hard evidence. Since there is actually evidence of human beings evolving to reach their current standing in today,that is more believable than taking the word of someone who does not provide in the least any scientific evidence. Note I am not trying to be harsh,just giving an answer. God gives believers hope. Which can stem to many things. Though the most important reasoning is that no one wants to believe they will fade away once they have past away. Which in turn is more or less paranoia. The belief allows many to actually deal with their day to day life rather than avoid it. So in short the belief is actually a good thing. Usually others who have the belief tend to stay away from horrible decision. Getting off track,anyway,Aethiests merely seek scientific evidence.
reply report
75
Mae Hansonposted 8 years ago
Because they have no reason to. Many people follow a religion because they have "spiritual" needs that they need to fulfill within themselves. Everybody has these needs, but atheists satisfy it through a way that makes sense to them. For religious people, that often means going to church, praying, attending religious ceremonies, acting through the words and commandments of that religion, etc. Atheists don't find fulfillment in that. If people don't get anything out of something, they begin to lose faith in it. That's just human nature.
By "spiritual needs," I don't at all mean, religious needs, but more internal, emotional needs, such as self-discovery, empowerment, connection, etc. Atheists find ways to meet these needs in ways outside religion. They have found no need for a god.
reply report
77
randslamposted 8 years ago
Well, if we didn't have atheists...who wouldn't believe in God?

ON a more sensitive note...god really doesn't exist...it's more of an all encom assing energy field. This is god...cuz this force causes things to ha en as they must...occur as they must. )
reply report
79
PDXBuysposted 8 years ago
Atheists do not believe in God for the same reason they do not believe in Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy -- insufficient evidence.
reply report
70
Michael Tuposted 8 years ago
Being an atheist or rather an agnostic I just haven't seen the light, so to speak. It's not so much as I can disprove the existence of a god, but rather haven't seen any proof. Also, I don't fall under any religion, as do more than a billion other Asians, so I didn't get raised under a doctrine from birth. Belief can stem from experience, if you are raised from birth under going religious ceremony and people who all follow the same religion, what other reality is there, but to accept it?
reply report
89
Virginia Allainposted 8 years ago
I grew up in a religious family. In my 60s, I started questioning how God could be real if so many bad things happen. So many people put their faith in the power of prayer, but if it worked, Christians would never get sick and die.

I just began realizing that organized religion is just a crutch that people use. Without it, my life goes on just fine. If something happens, I won't blame God or ask God to fix it. Life is what it is.
reply report
91
RachaelLeflerposted 8 years ago
I just have not seen evidence or a reasonable enough argument to prove all the claims religions make about God. I'm agnostic so I acknowledge that there could be a God, but all of the religions ask you to believe in things without sufficient evidence. And, in no other area of life is that considered a good thing (investment for example).
reply report
51
frumpletonposted 8 years ago
They think somehow, the whole universe "just happened" all by itself. God doesn't answer their prayers so they think there's no one there. I'm not religious, but I think people are fools to think you can, for instance, take a jar, stick some dirt in it, some water and all the elements on earth and create human beings, animals and plant life. Seal the jar air tight. Nothing will happen except maybe some bacteria from the unsterilized soil might arise. Maybe god only looks at us as flesh and blood toys or robots. If you die, maybe he doesn't care because more will be born anyway. Maybe god is selfish. He wants to have fun and watch what's going on, just like if you like watching your garden grow. Next year, you have to replant the veggies, but it doesn't matter. I think people are getting tired of waiting for god to do something and since he hasn't done a very good job of it, they dismiss him, just like they feel he is dismissing them. But something a lot smarter than we are created everything.
reply report
1. 79
  PDXBuysposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  Did God "just happen" all by Himself? How is that possible?
  reply report
79
Kathryn L Hillposted 6 years ago
One perceives God with the heart and soul via ESP.
Atheists don't even believe in ESP or intuition
reply report
1. 82
  Slarty O'Brianposted 6 years agoin reply to this
  Most of us don't believe in souls either. Nor that they don't exist. I can't know with certainty either way. Should someone prove it or prove it false, I'd accept that, Hence not requiring belief.
  
  Belief is useless. It's a fact, or it isn't. Belief in a fact is redundant. Belief in speculation dangerous at worst, foolish at best.
  
  No belief required.
  reply report
  88
  wildernessposted 6 years agoin reply to this
  One may choose to live in the cold, hard world of science and reason, or one may choose to wrap themselves in the warm, fuzzy blanket of belief and faith. In that manner belief provides a great deal of comfort to a great many people; it is far from useless.
  
  Besides, it provides a living (a very plush on in many cases) to the priesthood - the top of the largest industry in the world.
  reply report
  82
  Slarty O'Brianposted 6 years agoin reply to this
  Well, I'm only interested in truth. So for me belief is useless. Sure, it can be a coping mechanism for those who need one. And frankly, most people want instant answers and knowing they can't have them, they make them up from their own biases and imagination. Others are so confused by life and how to find answers, that they follow others who convince them they have all the answers. And frankly, many people don't want to do the work to find their own answers. If you're born into a belief, it's just true. No thinking about is needed. Makes life easier for some, and good for them
  
  These answers are, as you say, feel good answers. So they are appealing. But are they true?
  
  A belief in a higher power is easy to come to. Life is so amazing. At first we thought everything was alive. There was life in wind, water, rocks, everything. There was nothing but life. Hence life was beyond the material. Everything was spirit, or soul. Though we go to sleep every night and consciousness disappears, we can't imagine being gone, even after death.
  
  But reality is, we don't, and can't have all the answers by imagination, or intuition. Science has shown that some truths are completely counter intuitive.
  
  So yes, I've chosen not to guess. That's science minded, yes. But it's a method for me to be sure the answers I have are facts, not just good intuitive guesses I happen to like. In fact, some of reality I don't like. But that's irrelevant. Liking truth or not doesn't accomplish anything or change anything.
  
  So if you want truth, belief is worthless. If you can't wait, I suppose it has value to you if you don't mind not actually knowing with justified certainty.
  reply report
  88
  wildernessposted 6 years agoin reply to this
  Like you, I choose fact whenever possible, and I'm with "I don't know". But mankind has an almost endless curiosity (must be related to cats! ) and for some, ignorance is just not acceptable.
  
  I WILL use intuition to provide tentative answers; intuition that is rooted in past experiences and observations, just ones that are so buried or complex/extensive that we can't or don't make the effort to sort them out. But there is nothing "intuitive" about an extra-universal ET that created man from dust, and when we assign this ET attributes and desires that are common to just one of the millions of species we know, well, there is nothing whatsoever in our experiences that would ever justify such a thing.
  reply report
  82
  Slarty O'Brianposted 6 years agoin reply to this
  We seem to agree; even about cats.
  reply report
  56
  The0NatureBoyposted 6 years agoin reply to this
  I'm a "ignorance is just not acceptable" kind of boy, that is why I keep a head full with "to be proven" files. That is the first key, don't believe nor reject on first experiences, seek our others with similar and wait to see if you have other similar.
  reply report
  58
  Live to Learnposted 6 years agoin reply to this
  I think most who believe live in amazement of all that reason has shown them to be true. Each new discovery of how our world works is, to them, a celebration of God....not a denial. Reason and faith are not mutually exclusive.
  reply report
  88
  wildernessposted 6 years agoin reply to this
  "Reason and faith are not mutually exclusive."
  
  I'm not following the "reasoning" () here. If there is an unanswered question (where did we come from) one may use either reason or faith to provide an answer, but not both. They would seem to be exclusive of each other, although both may certainly exist in one person as long as they aren't both applied to the same question.
  reply report
  58
  Live to Learnposted 6 years agoin reply to this
  Think about it. How close are we to the answer of ' where did we come from?' ?
  
  No answers, thus far, have negated the involvement of God. Ask me again when we get to that point. Until then, it's all incredibly inspiring.
  
  Nothing about belief prohibits the search of how. Much about non belief prohibits the search for why. So, which view presents more obstacles? Which view allows for more close mindedness?
  reply report
  88
  wildernessposted 6 years agoin reply to this
  Not very close, if we include the universe with the "we" - applying the label of "singularity" does no more than saying "goddunit". If we don't include that then we're still only baby steps, but a whole lot closer than belief systems are, whatever the belief might be. But making up an answer isn't the way to go, thus separating reason from belief quite well.
  
  Absolutely inspiring. And wonderful and fascinating and all the rest. But once more that does not give any indication that belief and reason work together. Instead it indicates that if we wish answers, answers we are reasonably confidant are true, then belief must be set aside.
  
  But much of belief prohibits the search of how or even what - Galileo's experience, Darwins, almost anything found that shows belief is wrong is virtually prohibited. Non belief does prohibit the why, but only because it infers a god, which reason cannot verify. Until that is done it is not possible to have any realistic discussion of why.
  
  In the end I have to give the close mindedness to belief; it has been that way since time immemorial.
  reply report
  58
  Live to Learnposted 6 years agoin reply to this
  Belief did not prohibit anything we have today, in the ways we have advanced and developed. I know atheists love to pretend it is so, but it isn't. Organized religion may have been constricting, but individual belief was not. I think that is probably where we differ. You blame belief. I blame organization.
  reply report
  88
  wildernessposted 6 years agoin reply to this
  No, it did not "Prohibit" it, at not in the long term. Knowledge does have a way of winning out.
  
  It does seem just a little disingenuous to blame it on organization rather than belief - after all, a single person cannot prohibit someone else from learning for long. But the organization that grew out of belief, that requires belief to continue to exist, that grows and defines that belief for millions or even whole societies...well, to separate those two in which one prohibited learning new things doesn't seem right. Yes, it was the priesthood convincing the government to take action, and yes the priesthood does not always hold the same belief as their subjects, but without the belief of the masses the government would not have acted as it did.
  reply report
  58
  Live to Learnposted 6 years agoin reply to this
  I don't see it as disingenuous to point out that power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. It doesn't matter what form it takes.
  
  Do you blame the individual North Korean for its government's policies? Are you responsible for slavery? Am I responsible for the disparity in pay between the sexes? If not, then why is the individual believer responsible for the actions of those historically in control of organized religion?
  reply report
  56
  The0NatureBoyposted 6 years agoin reply to this
  I concur.
  reply report
  56
  The0NatureBoyposted 6 years agoin reply to this
  The term faith means "finding evidence and substance to give proof of" and includes reasoning,
  reply report
  82
  Slarty O'Brianposted 6 years agoin reply to this
  That's not religious faith. Faith is the feeling of knowing with certainty without actually having the ability to know.
  
  Faith is the end of reason.
  reply report
  56
  The0NatureBoyposted 6 years agoin reply to this
  What you described is "what the religious consider as faith" because in several sources of religious doctrines I've found it to be the essence of the Bible's "the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."
  reply report
  56
  The0NatureBoyposted 6 years agoin reply to this
  Salty O'Brian,
  
  I agree, "belief is not required" but "objective minds" accepting and approaching experiences with cautious learning is. What does that mean? When one has an experience that doesn't fit their conscious mindset they should not immediately reject it, put it in a "to be proven" fine in their mind and seek other sources suggesting it it possible, be it written or said by someone you respect. The only true thing is what we are willing to accept, be they actual or imaginary.
  reply report
  82
  Slarty O'Brianposted 6 years agoin reply to this
  Imaginary things are not facts, though they may eventually prove to be, if they actually exist and are not, in fact, just imaginary.
  
  No, one shouldn't believe positively nor negatively. One should only accept facts. But not any interpretation of what those facts mean beyond the self evident.
  
  What I mean is: QM has a dozen divergent scientific interpretations of why it works so well predicting quantum activity. Multi universes, holographic universes, bifurcating universes, even the Copenhagen interpretation. They can't all be right, and most can't be proven or falsified by any means we know of. So no use believing any of them.
  
  And QM doesn't require any of them in it's mathematics or its use.
  
  So, we have a tool that gives repeatable facts, but none of the interpretations of why it does so are fact.
  
  I try to live my life only accepting facts. I know I can't trust my imagination. Not that I don't use it, one has to to discover new questions. But not on its own to discover new factual answers. Answers from imagination or intuition are only tentative hypothesis until proven or falsified. .
  
  Spiritual or supernatural experience can not be trusted to reflect the reality of the experience. The mind is an amazing thing. One can experience anything one wants. And I'm talking as one with a great deal of experience in this matter
  reply report
  56
  The0NatureBoyposted 6 years agoin reply to this
  Imagination are not facts but more times than not a metaphor of a or some facts. By maintaining the metaphors, as most in scripture are,and reasoning with them the facts will prove themselves one way or the other. That is why I accept nothing as fact until I am consciously able to justify it as such but without complete assurance.
  
  There is nothing outside of natural, if it is then it is natural. Many a man have had many experiences in many matters but are they rational is the question. Many matters I held as rational later proved not to be literally but when observed as a metaphor its facts became clear, and even then it may later change through logical reasoning with things one had not realized before. Because of that I everything in, theoretically, a rotating ball.
  reply report
2. 56
  The0NatureBoyposted 6 years agoin reply to this
  KLH,
  
  I have to disagree with "Atheists don't even believe in ESP or intuition" since I am atheist with those and other similar attributes.
  
  My reasoning is because of my study of many "sages" imply they don't recognize god although the term is often in their mouths. They seem to use is with a different meaning than "the creator and knower of everything." Another reason is "man" is defined as "having the ab slitty to comprehend all things" which suggest man [not as a gender but the specie] are god.
  reply report
58
Live to Learnposted 6 years ago
Atheists don't believe in God for as many reasons as theists do. Sometimes, they are the exact same reasons.
reply report
79
Kathryn L Hillposted 6 years ago
Belief in God also means people are more likely to follow moral principles/values which ultimately lead to happiness for both individuals and society. In fact without the boundaries provided by moral law, democracies are impossible.
reply report
1. 72
  Aime Fposted 6 years agoin reply to this
  Which “moral principles” would those be?
  reply report
  79
  Kathryn L Hillposted 6 years agoin reply to this
  Repeating
  These moral principles, which are based on The Golden Rule:
  
  There is only One God/Creator and maintainer of all that Exists.
  Stone images of God are not God or gods, as they have no life force.
  Don't be frivolous or disrespectful when addressing God.
  "Worship" or meditate with devotion to God on a day set aside for study and contemplation of Metaphysical Reality. (- taking a break from Material Delusion.)
  Honor your father and mother who love you dearly no matter what has happened in your lives.
  (If they brought you through the first three years, that's saying something.)
  Don't steal, commit adultery or covet that which is not yours such as houses, wives, husbands, pets or possessions.
  reply report
  72
  Aime Fposted 6 years agoin reply to this
  The first bunch are specific to god so of course atheists don’t partake, and I’d argue those are strictly rules and not “morals”.
  
  Do you have any evidence whatsoever to suggest that atheists steal, commit adultery, etc.
  more often than religious folk?
  reply report
  79
  Kathryn L Hillposted 6 years agoin reply to this
  Morals are based on the love of God.
  Morals are rules and boundaries for the sake of promoting happiness.
  
  "2 morals, noun:
  moral code, code of ethics, (moral) values, principles, standards, (sense of) morality, scruples."
  on line thesaurus
  
  "Do you have any evidence whatsoever to suggest that atheists steal, commit adultery, etc. more often than religious folk?"
  
  An atheist might not do these things for fear of consequences such as going to jail, or ruining one's reputation or hurting others. But the law is based on love. Without a sense of love and God's love for us, we might not have laws, neither moral nor legal.
  reply report
  88
  wildernessposted 6 years agoin reply to this
  "An atheist might not do these things for fear of consequences such as going to jail, or ruining one's reputation or hurting others."
  
  Or they might not do it because it is simply wrong, while the believer does not do because they fear Hell.
  
  "Without a sense of love and God's love for us, we might not have laws, neither moral nor legal."
  
  Or, without that perceived love we might have never had the laws that violate what we now call basic, civilized, moral laws. Slavery might not have existed, women's suffrage might not have been necessary and gays might not have suffered discrimination for decades if we didn't have "God's love" telling us how to behave.
  
  There are two sides to every coin.
  reply report
  88
  wildernessposted 6 years agoin reply to this
  Umm...You do know that the Golden Rule was not delivered by the Christian (or any other) god? That is was made by man, over and over and over in nearly every culture on earth? That only your final sentence has anything at all to do with the Golden Rule?
  reply report
  79
  Kathryn L Hillposted 6 years agoin reply to this
  1 John 4/21 "And this commandment have we from him, That he who loveth God love his brother also."
  
  “Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.”
  
  https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Matthew-7-12/
  reply report
  88
  wildernessposted 6 years agoin reply to this
  "Avoid doing what you would blame others for doing." – Thales[16] (c. 624–546 BC) <ancient Greece>
  
  The Pahlavi Texts of Zoroastrianism (c. 300 BC–1000 AD) were an early source for the Golden Rule: "That nature alone is good which refrains from doing to another whatsoever is not good for itself." Dadisten-I-dinik, 94,5, and "Whatever is disagreeable to yourself do not do unto others." Shayast-na-Shayast 13:29[20] <Persia>
  
  A Late Period (c. 664–323 BC) papyrus contains an early negative affirmation of the Golden Rule: "That which you hate to be done to you, do not do to another."[15] <Egypt>
  
  What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow: this is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation; go and learn.— Shabbath folio:31a, Babylonian Talmud <Judaism>
  
  Prophet said: "As you would have people do to you, do to them; and what you dislike to be done to you, don't do to them.<Islam>
  
  One should never do that to another which one regards as injurious to one’s own self. This, in brief, is the rule of dharma. Other behavior is due to selfish desires.— Brihaspati, Mahabharata (Anusasana Parva, Section CXIII, Verse 8)[49]<Hindu>
  
  Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful.— Udanavarga 5:18<Buddhism>
  
  Zi gong (a disciple of Confucius) asked: "Is there any one word that could guide a person throughout life?" The Master replied: "How about 'shu' [reciprocity]: never impose on others what you would not choose for yourself?"--Confucius, Analects XV.24,<Confucianism>
  
  Here ye these words and heed them well, the words of Dea, thy Mother Goddess, "I command thee thus, O children of the Earth, that that which ye deem harmful unto thyself, the very same shall ye be forbidden from doing unto another... <Wicca>
  
  19. Try not to do things to others that you would not like them to do to you.— The Way to Happiness, Precept 19[58][59] <Scientology>
  
  All versions of the same Golden Rule. Some far predating the bible, some after. All from other religions or philosophies all over the world. If the Christian god instituted all these He was busy indeed, travelling to very nearly all societies that ever existed, and inserting His commands in very nearly all religions that have happened. No, the Golden Rule comes straight from man, even the words Matthew reports the man called "Jesus" said.
  
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule#Ancient_Egypt
  reply report
  79
  Kathryn L Hillposted 6 years agoin reply to this
  From the wikipedia link above: "The Arabian peninsula was known to not practice the golden rule prior to the advent of Islam. "Pre-Islamic Arabs regarded the survival of the tribe, as most essential and to be ensured by the ancient rite of blood vengeance". My brother recommended a book called The Moral Animal. Have you read it?
  reply report
  83
  gmwilliamsposted 6 years agoin reply to this
  +1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000!
  reply report
2. 56
  The0NatureBoyposted 6 years agoin reply to this
  I don't believe belief in god "lead to happiness", "a state of ignorant elation" as I defend it, for neither individuals nor society. Because it isn't "an elation" based on any known [that does not include belief] it is impossible to sustain.
  reply report
79
Kathryn L Hillposted 6 years ago
There is only One God/Creator and maintainer of of all that Exists.
Stone images of God are not God or gods, as they have no life force.
Don't be frivolous or disrespectful when addressing God.
Worship God on a day which you set aside for study and contemplation of Metaphysical Reality, (… taking a break from Material Delusion.)
Honor your father and mother who love you dearly no matter what has happened in your lives.
(If they brought you through the first three years, that's saying something.)
Don't steal, commit adultery, or covet what is not yours such as houses, wives, husbands, pets or any possessions owned by others.
reply report
76
psycheskinnerposted 6 years ago
Or... people can just believe whatever they believe.
reply report
1. 79
  Kathryn L Hillposted 6 years agoin reply to this
  no. They are obligated to live according to reality for benefit of themselves and those around them.
  reply report
  76
  psycheskinnerposted 6 years agoin reply to this
  Nope. That limits what you can do to each other, not what you believe. And oddly some of the most horrible behavior seems to come from the most righteous people.
  reply report
79
Kathryn L Hillposted 6 years ago
Evidence of God is everywhere. God is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent whether one senses it or not.
reply report
1. 82
  Slarty O'Brianposted 6 years agoin reply to this
  Can you provide evidence of these claims? If not, you're just guessing. That's fine as long as you don't try to sell it as fact, but just as your best guess.
  reply report
  79
  Kathryn L Hillposted 6 years agoin reply to this
  … everything is evidence of God.
  reply report
  82
  Slarty O'Brianposted 6 years agoin reply to this
  Well ok. Now you have to show how that's true. Give us a few examples of everything, and how they prove a god.
  reply report
2. 56
  The0NatureBoyposted 6 years agoin reply to this
  With god being "everywhere" means god is in you, so, unless you are calling yourself god god isn't everywhere.
  reply report
  79
  Kathryn L Hillposted 6 years agoin reply to this
  I am. I am a small portion of the whole. It comes down to consciousness.
  reply report
  56
  The0NatureBoyposted 6 years agoin reply to this
  Our lack of consciousness is because we are in the process of being educated into consciousness, that's why there are so many different personalities. When our individual life-forces entered earth it was to learn every attribute of the material plane, then as man we must experience every attribute of man individually and in all combination of the 2 genders and variations,the 4 ethnics and combinations, 12 Western and 12 Eastern individually and multiplied, then we will be rewarded with the higher consciousness.
  reply report
  88
  wildernessposted 6 years agoin reply to this
  What is a "higher consciousness"? Smarter, with more intelligence? Better reasoning skills (the prefrontal cortex doubles in size, maybe)? What does the term refer to?
  reply report
  83
  gmwilliamsposted 6 years agoin reply to this
  Higher consciousness is when a person reaches a higher spiritual level of understanding God or a Supreme Presence.
  
  In some cases, higher consciousness is when a person merges spiritually w/the Godhead.
  reply report
  88
  wildernessposted 6 years agoin reply to this
  Begging the question, aren't you? What is a "higher spiritual level"? I won't go into the "understanding God" except to say we haven't found it in well over 2,000 years of searching - it most definitely appears to be missing from anything but our imagination.
  reply report
  73
  lovetherainposted 6 years agoin reply to this
  Maybe you haven't found God. Plenty of others have.
  reply report
  60
  Randy Godwinposted 6 years agoin reply to this
  But which one? I consider myself an agnostic because I don't for sure how many gods may or may not exist. In my experience most people inherit their beliefs from their parents and never truly examine whether they are based on truth at all. How did you come to your beliefs? Did you research which religion seemed right for you, or how did it come about?
  reply report
  73
  lovetherainposted 6 years agoin reply to this
  Personal experience. I was an atheist,and then I met God.
  
  Or I lost my mind. Which is a distinct possibility.
  reply report
  60
  Randy Godwinposted 6 years agoin reply to this
  I assume you worship the Xtian god. What other gods did you consider?
  reply report
  73
  lovetherainposted 6 years agoin reply to this
  No, no God in particular. Certainly not the Christian God.
  reply report
  60
  Randy Godwinposted 6 years agoin reply to this
  Good for you! It's a terrible religion. You have to judge everyone else against what you think is right....or whatever the preacher of the moment tells you. The handbook isn't too clear with all of its contradictions.
  report
  58
  Live to Learnposted 6 years agoin reply to this
  Sounds creepily like a description of atheism.
  report
  79
  Kathryn L Hillposted 6 years agoin reply to this
  You have to rely on those who know. If you can't find any sources which reveal the way to God, then, so be it. I love reading about Jesus. His birth was prophesied four hundred years before he was born. Thats saying something if you ask me. But then the Jewish people do not believe that he was the one prophesied to appear. Maybe it comes down to willingness.
  reply report
  60
  Randy Godwinposted 6 years agoin reply to this
  No Kate, it comes down to what you convince yourself of. There's no actual records of Jesus being real even though the Romans kept meticulous records, and contemporaries, including Pliny the Elder and Josephus, never recorded the miracles--day turning to night, the dead arising after the crucifixion. etc.--during his supposed life. But if it makes you feel better to believe in old tales, then so be it.
  reply report
  56
  The0NatureBoyposted 6 years agoin reply to this
  What the Jew's Christ taught he got during his travels during his 18 years years not accounted for in the Bible. He isn't the only virgin born person, it has been done in recent years but when the girl was questioned she had began to mate and stopped the boy who seeped to cause it.
  
  Also, most of the prophecies the NT say he fulfilled have parts he didn't, others announce another along with him and there are more he didn't fulfill that the "latter sign" is supposed to fulfill.
  
  So I say to you read on without obeying what that Christ commanded us and keep your belief in god, that's your destiny.
  reply report
  56
  The0NatureBoyposted 6 years agoin reply to this
  Definitely true, Randy, until your last sentence.
  
  Regarding "Did you research which religion seemed right for you, or how did it come about" I say; they are to be objectively studied and compared for integrating NONE CULTURALLY related similarities with the things seen in the self-reproducing environment.
  reply report
  56
  The0NatureBoyposted 6 years agoin reply to this
  And the reason is, Wilderness, because man-en-mass hasn't found it since the foundation of this civilization is because of looking outward rather than inward where most sages say god is.
  reply report
  56
  The0NatureBoyposted 6 years agoin reply to this
  GMWilliams,
  I agree with "when a person reaches a higher spiritual level of understanding" but do not recognize anything as "God or a Supreme Presence" since all manifestations are to be experienced by every spot of existence's life-force, what most human call god.
  
  I somewhat agree with "higher consciousness is when a person merges spiritually w/the godhead" but would rather say "when a man has reached their place via reincarnation they began to see the cause, effects and consequences of everything on their plane and lesser planes through the eyes of what is called god.
  
  We are somewhat on but with man's definition being defined "mind ABLE to comprehend all things" and god being all knowing suggests we are god or, as scripture often call them, children of god.
  
  Aloha
  reply report
  56
  The0NatureBoyposted 6 years agoin reply to this
  Higher Consciousness, Wilderness, the consciousness that is not blinded by the emotions human's deep belief in and use of judgmental adjectives produces. It is what give man the ability to see things objectively, see the interconnection between all beings and their equality regardless of their specie.
  reply report
79
Kathryn L Hillposted 6 years ago
But yes: God is a personal matter and should be left up to the individual.
reply report
79
Kathryn L Hillposted 6 years ago
By intuition I mean direct perception of God. True belief comes after knowing God.
Its something you can't argue.

… sorry about that.
reply report
79
Kathryn L Hillposted 6 years ago
Wilderness: "...You do know that the Golden Rule was not delivered by the Christian (or any other) god? That it was made by man, over and over and over in nearly every culture on earth?

Yes, Wilderness: And furthermore:

"The Golden Rule (which can be considered a law of reciprocity in some religions) is the principle of treating others as one would wish to be treated. It is a maxim of altruism that is found in many religions and cultures. The maxim may appear as either a positive or negative injunction governing conduct:
One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself (positive or directive form).
One should not treat others in ways that one would not like to be treated (negative or prohibitive form).
What you wish upon others, you wish upon yourself (empathic or responsive form).

The Golden Rule differs from the maxim of reciprocity captured in do ut des—"I give so that you will give in return"—and is rather a unilateral moral commitment to the well-being of the other without the expectation of anything in return.

The concept occurs in some form in nearly every religion and ethical tradition. It can also be explained from the perspectives of psychology, philosophy, sociology, human evolution, and economics. Psychologically, it involves a person empathizing with others. Philosophically, it involves a person perceiving their neighbor also as "I" or "self". Sociologically, "love your neighbor as yourself" is applicable between individuals, between groups, and also between individuals and groups. In evolution, "reciprocal altruism" is seen as a distinctive advance in the capacity of human groups to survive and reproduce, as their exceptional brains demanded exceptionally long childhoods and ongoing provision and protection even beyond that of the immediate family. In economics, Richard Swift, referring to ideas from David Graeber, suggests that "without some kind of reciprocity society would no longer be able to exist." Wikipedia
reply report
79
Kathryn L Hillposted 6 years ago
it may be, that to love others as oneself, we need to love God first.
reply report
79
Kathryn L Hillposted 6 years ago
The best time to instill values is when a child is young and in touch with the love of his heart. That love comes from God. Children are very receptive to God who created everything. Knowing that God is their spiritual Father helps them to live according to their hearts and what is right.
For instance, I know a five year old who found something of someone else's on the ground: a necklace which had dropped out of a boy's backpack at school. She wanted it, so kept it. She had no reason to give it back, (although she knew who had brought it to school.) All she knew was, she wanted it. Luckily, another child saw her with it and reported it to the teacher. The necklace was returned to the owner. If the mother did not explain that we can't keep what is not ours and why, the five year old wouldn't have learned. I am not against atheists. I am not against religionists. I am for teaching morals and living according to them for the sake of individual happiness and the happiness of society.

I do not believe that morals, standards and values are natural. They must be taught during a child's fist six years and they must be based on truth/reality.
reply report
83
gmwilliamsposted 6 years ago
Atheists see God as an outgrowth of religion. They maintain that God is an invention of humans instead of the other way around. They further assert that the creation of God reduces humans to passive, infantile states. They contend that the belief of God takes the responsibility out of human decisions. They believe that humans have ownership over their lives, not God. Atheists aver that the belief in God is an outgrowth of parents & many people believe in God because they do not want to face being ultimately mature.
reply report
1. 79
  Kathryn L Hillposted 6 years agoin reply to this
  … but it is a relief to know that we are made by God. We don't have to grow the f up! Have at it, if you want, gmw, but I like being a child of God. I like that he knows way more than I ever could. Right now its all a mystery. I like the fog. Someday, I will intuit what he knows. But that takes work. Meditation, specifically.
  reply report
79
Kathryn L Hillposted 6 years ago
Atheists don't want to identify energy or consciousness as God.
Why not?
reply report
1. 72
  Aime Fposted 6 years agoin reply to this
  Why would we? I am perfectly content saying that I don’t know how we got here or what we’re doing here or how the intricacies of the universe work. I don’t need to give that mystery a name or a personality.
  
  It would be cool to know more from a provable, scientific perspective but I don’t see that happening in my lifetime, so it is what it is. I don’t feel that calling it “God” brings me any closer to the answers... so what would be the point?
  reply report
  79
  Kathryn L Hillposted 6 years agoin reply to this
  but why not?
  God = Goodness. If we, society as a whole, can identify God as the source of Goodness and be on the same page, I think it would be really cool.
  reply report
  73
  lovetherainposted 6 years agoin reply to this
  How do you know that? I mean really, how can anyone really know about God?
  reply report
  79
  Kathryn L Hillposted 6 years agoin reply to this
  I just know. I know. I know I know. I am not just guessing.
  reply report
  73
  lovetherainposted 6 years agoin reply to this
  OK.
  
  Have you had some kind of religious experience, or is it more like just a gut feeling?
  reply report
  79
  Kathryn L Hillposted 6 years agoin reply to this
  Perhaps it was instilled by a parent. I remember my mother saying you don't have to believe in Jesus, but there is a God. I felt her reverence. And in effect she passed it on to me. As an adult I have had so many miracles in surviving. I never had to work at surviving, it just seemed to be handed on a platter, even when It seemed there was no hope. The avenues leading to money, opportunities or people who could help just opened up. It seemed to operate and coordinate from beyond.
  
  My brother has many stories giving evidence of what I am saying. I never directly prayed, but he did. Many prayers were answered directly.
  
  For instance: My brother lives in CO. He wanted to go to California for a religious retreat event, but he felt it unwise to spend the money to go. He said God, If you want me to go to this event, make it happen. I'll leave it up to you. (Something to that effect) Well, his tenant who is renting his Condo in CA had a fire and he HAD to go to CA to figure out why the fire occurred and repair the damage. It turned out the fire was just a small little electrical fire. It happened two days before the event. He was able to go to the event. Some will say this is luck and coincidence. But when similar things happen over and over you start to realize there is a bigger force than just us running the show.
  reply report
  82
  Slarty O'Brianposted 6 years agoin reply to this
  But you are, you are, you are guessing. You can't, you can't, you can't know. You could be right. You could be wrong, but no one can know which. The mind is too easily fooled to be able to take intuition as fact.
  
  And it's a survival tool, believe it or not. Say you're walking around in the jungle and hear a noise. Is it a lion? or is it the wind? You run away, thinking its a lion. if it is, you saved yourself. If it isn't, you were fooled. But if you do nothing thinking it's the wind, and it's a lion, your lunch.
  
  You can't sit around deliberating waiting for evidence. So in cases where we just can't know we are evolved for positive belief even if we're wrong.
  reply report
  72
  Aime Fposted 6 years agoin reply to this
  Why not attribute it to Thor, or Rita the dancing unicorn from Mars?
  
  I think it would be cooler if people could recognize the goodness within themselves and make choices as individuals to be kind and respectful. God doesn’t need to be involved.
  reply report
  79
  Kathryn L Hillposted 6 years agoin reply to this
  You seem angry.
  reply report
  72
  Aime Fposted 6 years agoin reply to this
  I am genuinely confused as to how you got “angry” from that post. I promise you I am not angry, I just don’t think everyone needs to insert your version of God into their lives.
  reply report
2. 82
  Slarty O'Brianposted 6 years agoin reply to this
  Or, why would we? Some Pantheists( Rational Pantheists) identify energy as god because energy is the source of all this. According to Einstein "the energy tensor density momentum creates matter."
  In overly simplified terms: dense energy moving below light speed creates matter. Specifically quarks, which form protons and neutrons. Energy also produces the electromagnetic field. Together creating atoms.
  
  Specifically hydrogen atoms and some helium. The simplest forms. When clouds of hydrogen condense in volumes high enough to reach critical mass, stars are born, creating enough internal pressure and temperature to fuse hydrogen atoms together creating all but the most dense atoms we have. The most heavy atoms known are then created in the death of stars and all the atoms we have now are dispersed in to space, condensed again, and when new smaller stars form, their critical mass ignition pushes clouds of dust and gas away from themselves, which condense again, but don't reach critical mass and form planets and smaller bodies.
  
  But the pantheist god/energy/totality of existence isn't thought to be conscious. It is nature; or more specifically: the nature of energy, not conscious intent that creates. Consciousness is an emergent property or consequence of that nature, not its creator.
  
  Hence energy qualifies as that which created all this and what everything is. You can call it god if you define god as the creator of all things. But it certainly isn't the conscious christian god.
  
  While Pantheists are atheists, not all atheists are Pantheists, and the idea of calling anything god is repugnant to them. Yet the science minded materialist has the same view of origins as Rational, Naturalistic or Scientific Pantheists do. They just don't hold that process in reverence.
  
  Atheism means one thing: lack of belief in gods. Specifically defined as conscious super beings. It tells you nothing of an individual atheists actual world view.
  reply report
3. 0
  jonnycomelatelyposted 6 years agoin reply to this
  Energy is simply the result of a state of difference. With difference there is no energy.
  
  Difference is created by force and force is created by difference. So ... which came first? Difference or force?
  
  God is a construct of the human mind. Period.
  reply report
  82
  Slarty O'Brianposted 6 years agoin reply to this
  Well, that's an interesting definition of energy. Though I have to ask, a difference in what? And if you are right, no difference would still be potential energy, as in empty space.
  
  Really, there is nothing but energy, what ever it might be. And what ever it might be, it's not a result of some thing else, as far as we know.
  reply report
  56
  The0NatureBoyposted 6 years agoin reply to this
  Difference in "the direction and/or speed of flow."
  reply report
  82
  Slarty O'Brianposted 6 years agoin reply to this
  Right. In physics energy is described in two ways. In one way, the old way before Relativity, it's not a thing. But in the other E=mc squared it's defiantly a thing.
  
  But not a conventional thing.
  
  We know that is not a measure of matter, as we used to think, it's a measure of energy according to Einstein.
  
  Matter is created by energy flowing slower than light speed. Energy is slowed below this speed by the Higgs field. That's what also creates mass.
  
  A photon is pure energy and has no mass or matter. Energy exists without matter, but matter does not exist without energy, and E=mc squared tells us the energy in even small amounts of matter is enormous.
  
  Matter can be destroyed, but energy can't. And, matter can be completely converted to energy, and yes, as recent experiments show, photons/energy can be converted to matter.
  
  But defining what energy is, is very difficult, because it's the end of the line. We describe what something is by what it's made of. An apple is a fruit, it's made of cells. Those are made of chemicals, Those are made of atoms. Atoms are made of protons, neutrons and electrons. They are made of quarks and other subatomic "particles". Quarks are the result of energy tensor density momentum.
  
  What's energy made of? There's no farther back to go. No frame of reference. It's the source of what every "thing" is made of.
  
  That's why physicists like Lawrence Krouss tells us the universe came from nothing. The nothing he refers to is quantum fluctuation, which is where quarks spontaneously get created in absolutely empty space. As Einstein called it: the fabric of space. It's not nothing at all, it's potential energy.
  reply report
  0
  jonnycomelatelyposted 6 years agoin reply to this
  This for me is better discussion. Each putting forward a point of view, sharing, adding to knowledge. I am gaining different perspectives of the same infinite mountain.
  reply report
  56
  The0NatureBoyposted 6 years agoin reply to this
  In that case, "photons" are god, the source of and permeating all existence. So, unless something smaller than photons is later discovered, we now know the source of god is the manifestator of all things including intelligence. Let us believe [until it is proven that god is something else]!!!!!
  reply report
  0
  jonnycomelatelyposted 6 years agoin reply to this
  You are free to do that
  Someone might even rename them "Godons."
  I would prefer to keep the term Photon and think of them as "constructs of our human minds," in our attempts to explain what IS.
  The person happy with Godons might be attempting to explain who IS..
  Comes back to choices again, doesn't it? Nothing is absolute.
  reply report
  56
  The0NatureBoyposted 6 years agoin reply to this
  I'll accept that but I prefer it to remain photon.
  reply report
  82
  Slarty O'Brianposted 6 years agoin reply to this
  Were I to call anything god, and I wouldn't except metaphorically to make a point, defined strictly as that which produced all this, I'd say: The nature of energy is god. In other words: The laws of nature.
  
  But I would be hard pressed to worship it, Nor would I think it wanted worship. I am in awe of it all, of course.
  reply report
  56
  The0NatureBoyposted 6 years agoin reply to this
  In all actuality, god does not intend worship, it is human/woman who devised worshiping god as the way since the worship of anything blinds and god doesn't intend MAN to be blind - that's why I used human/woman ("minds unable to comprehend all things"), the biblical metaphor of Adam in the garden created beings who are parts of man and unable to "comprehend all things" as man means with none of the 3 a gender.
  reply report
  88
  wildernessposted 6 years agoin reply to this
  "In all actuality, god does not intend worship, it is human/woman who devised worshiping god as the way since the worship of anything blinds and god doesn't intend MAN to be blind..."
  
  How can you be sure? Certainly not from a book written by man, that is nearly 2,000 years old and written in a language and culture that is no longer is use today. Even if your interpretation is the correct one there is still no way of knowing that the words written were true or even if God lied when He told the writers what to say. We know the book is full of historical errors; to assume that the desires of God are true doesn't seem reasonable.
  reply report
  56
  The0NatureBoyposted 6 years agoin reply to this
  How can you not?
  reply report
  88
  wildernessposted 6 years agoin reply to this
  I've never spoken to God, never observed Him working, never read anything about Him or His deeds...outside of the bible and irrational claims from people that seem to attribute whatever they wish to Him but without every actually knowing He was anywhere around.
  
  Bottom line is that if there is a God we haven't the faintest notion of what He wants. We have the bible...but it is full of falsehoods and not to be believed in too many cases. We have logic...that cannot reasonably be applied to an extra-universal creature about whom we know absolutely nothing. We have personal reports of God...but always with nothing but an opinion that He was there at all. That doesn't leave much when trying to understand the entity. For all we know we're naught but a food source for it. Or entertainment.
  reply report
  83
  gmwilliamsposted 6 years agoin reply to this
  You demonstrate a fierce, analytical intelligence which I applaud you for. Why can't you demonstrate this intelligent, open-mindedness in OTHER subjects?! Hmmmm........Sometimes you ASTOUND me, other times you CONFOUND me........
  reply report
  88
  wildernessposted 6 years agoin reply to this
  Does "intelligent open-mindedness" mean make stories up and believe them as true without supporting evidence? Thanks, I'll stick with analysis of a question and if I don't have an answer then I don't have one. It's OK to be ignorant - neither any individual nor all of mankind has all the answers to all the questions.
  report
  83
  gmwilliamsposted 6 years agoin reply to this
  Forget it, it is an INSIDE joke. You don't get it......good bye.
  report
  83
  gmwilliamsposted 6 years agoin reply to this
  @ Wilderness, what I am saying that you are very astutely intelligent when it comes to analyzing religion for its fallacies. You are very open-minded in your analysis regarding the question of religion & God. I agree w/your analysis of the bible. You critique & reason. Your views on religion would be classified as liberal, even non-traditionalist.
  
  However, on OTHER subjects( you KNOW what subjects- I don't have to elucidate), you seem to be very conservative, even retrogressive. If you were only modern & progressive regarding family planning issues & small families- NOW YOU WOULD GET MY VOTE. For a modern-thinking person, your views on family are atavistic, if not retrogressive in scope. By the way, you are a GOOD person anyway.......
  report
  56
  The0NatureBoyposted 6 years agoin reply to this
  Ok, I now understand young will respect where you in your evolving through this world. You and I both are atheist but in different areas of the subject. You on one side and I am in the meetings of the two sides which means, "when one is at an extreme end what they see in the middle appears to them to be the opposite extreme." In turn that mens you see only 180 degrees of Atheist while I see 360 degrees in all directions around the ball. Thus, don't mind me, I will reply to you but am not intending to change you, by responding to you others may benefit is why I will continue to respond to you.
  
  Aloha
  reply report
  0
  jonnycomelatelyposted 6 years agoin reply to this
  By the way, sorry I omitted to address your question, “...difference in what?”
  
  Reply: any difference. In any sense, whether it be up or down; bigger or smaller; darker/lighter; louder/softer; etc.
  
  This, to my mind, gives understanding to finite and infinite. With the latter, i.e., not measureable, we who are finite cannot be aware of anything. There is nothing, no thing. Whereas it is the differences, the contrasts of the finite realm that not just allow, but create awareness, or consciousness.
  
  And, in my theorising, immediately there is a state of difference, the potential energy has arisen. Potentially, that energy will do work in order to alleviate the difference and arrive at equilibrium. It will only achieve that when any resistance to the Change has been sufficiently reduced or removed. That energy will flow.
  
  If such an equilibrium could be achieved completely, then it would result again in a state of zero consciousness. If I were in command, I would dictate that somehow an enormous alarm would go off automatically when I dropped into infinity. How about a BIG BANG?! That would set the Firmament on fire again and I would certainly be very much awake (conscious)!
  
  I trust this lightens the discussion and concept just a little. Can you still hear me?
  reply report
  82
  Slarty O'Brianposted 6 years agoin reply to this
  Lol... I think your idea is delightful. And in certain ways it has merit. As for the big bang, Roger Penrose thinks it's a recurring theme every time the universe reaches equilibrium. This from the study of background radiation which shows the very beginning of the universe was a state of equilibrium, or ultimate entropy, which came as a surprise to everyone in cosmology. No one else can explain why. So he may even be right.
  reply report
  56
  The0NatureBoyposted 6 years agoin reply to this
  That is why there is always motion, it maintains a standard of equilibrium which prevents actual equality.
  reply report
79
Kathryn L Hillposted 6 years ago
I am not worried. At some point we will all know. Its just a matter of time. Meanwhile, I'll be enjoying life. I wake up in the morning and see evidence of God all around me and within me. I say thanks for the gifts and for the trials. Its all great for increasing knowing, for becoming aware, and increasing awareness, for mastering our minds and overcoming our ignorances.
reply report
79
Kathryn L Hillposted 6 years ago
Knowing that God loves us is comforting. This knowledge brings happiness and trust. Its all about smiling within. Sensing God gives us a reason to smile.
reply report
1. 73
  lovetherainposted 6 years agoin reply to this
  I do know that God cares about our moral behavior.
  reply report
  79
  Kathryn L Hillposted 6 years agoin reply to this
  The laws were made for our benefit, not God's. He is perfect, pure consciousness. We are not pure consciousness and have many tricks up our sleeves. We need boundaries to the free will he gave us. How would it be if he didn't provide boundaries?
  "Oh, just do whatever you want!!!"
  reply report
  73
  lovetherainposted 6 years agoin reply to this
  What laws do you mean?
  reply report
2. 56
  The0NatureBoyposted 6 years agoin reply to this
  If one loves one-selves they love god otherwise they are loving something they are imagining.
  reply report
93
Kenna McHughposted 6 years ago
Whatever they know is what makes them believe what they want to believe.
reply report
1. 73
  lovetherainposted 6 years agoin reply to this
  Or what they think they know.
  reply report
79
Kathryn L Hillposted 6 years ago
… or what they perceive directly through intuition.
reply report
1. 73
  lovetherainposted 6 years agoin reply to this
  Or what they think they are perceiving.
  reply report
  79
  Kathryn L Hillposted 6 years agoin reply to this
  What comes through are forms, lights and sounds of the astral world. Not thoughts.
  reply report
  82
  Slarty O'Brianposted 6 years agoin reply to this
  Been there and many other places/states of mind written about. The mind is amazing. You can train it to experience anything you like.
  reply report
93
Kenna McHughposted 6 years ago
Energy can be a flow, dispersal, or ridge.
reply report
1. 0
  jonnycomelatelyposted 6 years agoin reply to this
  I can see the conundrum. When speaking of energy it is often referred to as "flowing," as like a liquid. This is simply a convenient analogy to describe what happens to energy.
  Yet really, energy is not a substance at all.
  Compare something "high" with something "low." A difference of position. Potential energy exists by virtue of that difference. There is a resistance to that difference being equalised.
  Remove some or all of that resistance and the difference can be reduced, even illiminated entirely. When there is no residual difference there is no energy.
  
  Also, our entire consciousness depends upon difference. Without difference there can be no awareness. Sameness, one-ness is an infinitely stable condition.
  
  Two-plane analogy: Imagine the surface of the sea; no wind, no movement, no boundary visible, no waves, nothing to tell you there is water. No awareness.
  
  A puff of air across the surface...suddenly a tiny difference of pressure on the surface. A wave. You are immediately aware of the water's presence.
  
  Difference in the height of water, having created energy, works on the water level in the attempt to equalise. Energy is expended in doing so.
  
  In order to perpetually create energy, there must be continuing change. Without change there is no awareness.
  
  Using energy, e.g., lifting a stone, giving that stone energy, throw it into the sea. Impart energy to the water. Water movement indicates dissipation of energy.
  
  All the way through, each action creates change, imparting energy to create further change. On-going change, change, change.
  
  The fundamental of awareness and existence is Change. Without change nothing is.
  reply report
  83
  gmwilliamsposted 6 years agoin reply to this
  I see God as the Highest Source of Energy & Spirit. I am not traditionally religious but am a nontraditional spiritualist. I am a New Ager. I was once a Roman Catholic but found that religion to be atavistically medieval, authoritarian, & oppressive beyond belief. I left that religion in my twenties but ceased to believe in it at sixteen.
  reply report
  0
  jonnycomelatelyposted 6 years agoin reply to this
  And I fully respect your choice of understanding.
  reply report
  83
  gmwilliamsposted 6 years agoin reply to this
  You're quite welcome indeed.
  reply report
  56
  The0NatureBoyposted 6 years agoin reply to this
  JC,
  I agree "The fundamental of awareness and existence is Change" but observing is required.
  reply report
  0
  jonnycomelatelyposted 6 years agoin reply to this
  Yes, so true! Then the $64,000 question: does any of it exist in the absense of our ("my") observation?
  
  Another one: was there a first, an original Quantum Choice to determine that Initial Difference in order to make the Finite measurable? This would equate with the "Word," or thought process, of some kind of over-arching mind.
  
  The answer to this question is subject to interpretation by every human mind in the world.
  reply report
  56
  The0NatureBoyposted 6 years agoin reply to this
  I still have that one in the "to be proven file" in my head and if I find out I will let you know although it is attempting to break through even now.
  
  There has never been a beginning nor end to anything since there is no end to infinity.
  reply report
  0
  jonnycomelatelyposted 6 years agoin reply to this
  I have enjoyed you poem. There follows more enlightenment in the comments and replies to your discourse.
  
  How the minds of others can be the windows to my own!
  
  "You're feeling your way,
  A long dark passage.
  Suddenly you see
  Or think you envisage
  A window to the outside world.
  'Who's that out there?!'
  But you realise it's only
  A dusty old mirror
  That's badly in need of repair."
  reply report
  56
  The0NatureBoyposted 6 years agoin reply to this
  Thanks, JC, you didn't leave note there expressing it although not as important there as it is here, you might encourage others to read it, so I also thank you for that.
  
  Well written poem, filled with truth concerning everyone following "the path least traveled" in its last stages before the actual breakthrough. However, one only need to brush the dust say from the mirror.
  reply report
68
PhoenixVposted 6 years ago
Reality is waiting for minds to perceive it. We perceive conceptually. We are perceiving concept. Reality is a projected concept of a mind or minds. Atheists are a gnarly filament of my imagination. Happy Valentine's Day!
reply report
1. 72
  Aime Fposted 6 years agoin reply to this
  I was just asking what happened to you a few weeks ago! Good to see ya.
  reply report
  68
  PhoenixVposted 6 years agoin reply to this
  Good to see you, as well and thanks. I work a lot and spend some time on The Twitter. In my spare time I have been Making America Great Again, mostly a hobby I guess. Do you still reside in the tundra? Hope you are having a good Valentine's Day.
  reply report
  72
  Aime Fposted 6 years agoin reply to this
  I do love The Twitter, I can understand why it’s taking up so much of your time. MAGA can wait.
  
  I’m actually currently in the future where it’s no longer Valentines Day, but thank you, I hope you’re having a good one too.
  reply report
2. 0
  jonnycomelatelyposted 6 years agoin reply to this
  Wow! Gnarly....that's an americanism I have not heard before. "difficult, dangerous, or challenging." Are you afraid of me and my atheism? Do I cause you annoyance? Or maybe you find my opinions or points of view a bit challenging. I admit to having a thick skull that finds difficulty accepting make-believe.
  reply report
  68
  PhoenixVposted 6 years agoin reply to this
  Is it not your philosophy of being an electrochemical, biological carbon unit? No ghost in the machine? A canvas , a sail, given to the deterministic wind and sea of physicalism? What difference is such a condition twixt a rock or a fish, man or Lamborghini? What is more challenging a squid or a tree? All a materialism soup. A wider range of, or a more elaborate sequence of on and off is still on or off. An entire idealogy based upon: it has to be observed. Its an inherent condition, of the condition; a loop, feedback, a trick. Observe what? Observation of a subjective, personally manufactured concept. Its sad. Its a looking glass with a fun house mirror in it and the wager is all in. Anywho, you still live on the upside down side of the world? Hope all is well.
  reply report
  0
  jonnycomelatelyposted 6 years agoin reply to this
  Oh, not all is well here down under....some is but not all. Thank you for your good wishes....they will surely make a big difference to any out come.
  Yes, we do have a lot to be thankful for, here in Australia. We can thank the scientists for explaining to us how it's possible to stand on our heads and not fall off the Globe. Yet in all my early years playing at the God thing, I never came across any such explanation in that Book.
  And there are quite a few of us who have retained the ability to observe things and think for our selves, instead of having to rely on the proclamations of someone who claims to be speaking for their god. You have many people of the same ilk in your country - on both sides of the debate.
  I am sure this is nothing new to your good Self, since you have a very active and widely interested mind.
  Wishing you a good day or night, in a favourably upright position. (Fortunately there are currently no ghosts or gremlins in this machine I'm using.)
  reply report
83
gmwilliamsposted 6 years ago
To really sum up the question, atheists have the right NOT TO BELIEVE in god as religionists have the right to BELIEVE in god. Atheists have the right to live their life as they choose. If they are happy in their belief system, more power to them. There is so much a preoccupation w/religion, especially in America where atheists are demonized, if not marginalize for their beliefs by society & even family members. There are atheists who have been disowned by their families when they professed their atheism. Religion or non-religion should be a personal matter. If a person chooses to be an atheist, it is NO ONE'S business but his/hers.
reply report
1. 56
  The0NatureBoyposted 6 years agoin reply to this
  True religion is, it is defined as "the way of life which teaches one the purpose for all things concerning life." It is not something anyone can teach another it is one's ability to view everything as objectively as the ability allows, participate for observing various outcomes, reasoning with them, preferably in comparison with the eco system, and being able to explain their findings to others who may inquire.
  
  I accept your "bottom line."
  reply report
  0
  jonnycomelatelyposted 6 years agoin reply to this
  Most interesting points.
  So, if a family rejects a member because he/she is atheist; gay; pagan; "liberal;" friendly with a person of different skin colour; .... why the rejection? What is going on in the collective mind of that family?
  I would reckon on the most basic of emotions - Fear.
  Afraid that long held and accepted religious principles will have to go into the re-think basket.
  Afraid that son will be getting into homosexual "life style," in particular anal sex.
  Afraid that the daughter will be dancing around a fire naked in the night with lots of other weirdos.
  Afraid that liberalism will lead to socialism, communism and collapse of the healthy profit motive.
  Full of Fear that "I" will not be able to cope with things if they get too far different from what "I" am familiar with.
  In each case, "What will the neighbours think?"
  Fear can only be dispelled when people are willing to open their minds to a little new knowledge, re-education, admit to the possibility of having been misinformed by, usually, others with big egos and ulterior motives.
  How much is Fear driving the minds of American people - and the world?
  reply report
  56
  The0NatureBoyposted 6 years agoin reply to this
  Yes, having a family member thinking differently makes the family emotionally "afraid" [see definition below] that they are "collectively" erring. I would ask first, why is the mind of the family collective, then how did they get it. For me that is what the Bible's "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh" is saying. Be brave enough to NOT live according to instructions of other man but find your own way independent of their instructions.
  
  Fear means "to approach with cautious learning" so the terms you should have used would be "afraid" and "scared" with both meaning "to become self-protecting from...".
  reply report
  0
  jonnycomelatelyposted 6 years agoin reply to this
  For me, the explanation goes deeper than that - to the roots of our evolutionary past. It goes beyond any perceived moral imperative.
  
  As a gregarious animal species we have evolved to react as a tight group in the face of a threat. Such a threat can be seen in something that is out of the ordinary. "Word gets around." People whisper and chat, share their worries, emotions run high, tending to believe some explanation over any rational evidence of fact. One who is perhaps more vocal and who seems prepared to fight for us, freeing us from having to put ourselves out there in harm's way, arises to take up leadership.
  
  Now that leader's view and opinion takes precedence. Whether his or her opinion is the best, the most valid, responsible or ethical, matters not. We can all just step back and watch from the side lines.
  
  The nature and identity of the enemy is made clear to us and all we need to do is dictated by the views (possibly erroneous) of our leader. We depend on that leader. He/she depends on the group mentality and its extreme in the form of hysteria. Any individual that is careless enough to get in the way risks being pushed aside or trampled on.
  
  I contend that getting to know and understand our instinctive, animal background allows us then to use our human mental abilities and work out better solutions.
  
  How about cultivating simple acts of kindness?
  reply report
  56
  The0NatureBoyposted 6 years agoin reply to this
  My observations and reasonings suggest man ["minds able to comprehend all things"] were not "gregarious" beings while living ecologically, that happened during the morph that caused man to become "human and woman" meaning minds unable to comprehend all things." That morph caused man to become "hu=cut from and wo=woven from man" which created the magnetic effect we call love [see my hub "Love aka Indifference].
  
  Therefore when we are seeking "the understanding of life" we choose to reject our gregariousness for understanding which is only for about 10% of man at any time. Then, leaders, especially the material social kinds, will not affect "truth seekers" or philosophies, "lover of wisdom", whose only love is the understanding of life called wisdom.
  
  How can we "understand our instinctive, animal background allows us then to use our human mental abilities" [or spiritual nature] when all we do is follow their leadership especially when it is erroneous. We must separate ourselves from man [our specie's name and not a gender] leaders and, biblically speaking, go through the flaming [for purifying our mind from good/evil and all judgmental adjectives] sword [for cutting us away from all attachments] and live environmentally while observing undomesticated and domesticated animals reasoning why they are so different then compare how we were raised.
  
  It tis most difficult to do acts of kindness when one doesn't know what is being kind to another. People always want to give me coats, shoes, shirts and all of the things which make me money dependent when I have the desire to be ecology dependent? How, then, can you perform for me a "random act of kindness"? It require knowing both sides for someone to do "random acts of kindness."
  
  IN ALL YOUR GETTING, GET UNDERSTANDING.
  reply report
  0
  jonnycomelatelyposted 6 years agoin reply to this
  I would not interpret "our human mental abilities" as "spiritual nature," but respect that you do.
  Your last sentence was written in upper case, a forceful emphasis. Could you please explain.
  reply report
  56
  The0NatureBoyposted 6 years agoin reply to this
  Human, with the definition of "cut from man" and man's definition "mind ablate comprehend all things" make it mean "mind unable to comprehend ll things because of not being complete", therefore, I agree human's mental ability is spiritual nature, that is why so few humans see things as wholes but at most only half. A "rebirthing" or morphing is what makes human into spiritual being.
  
  It is part of a quote of Solomon, suggesting don't get knowledge but any you get one should get the understanding of it. The process of getting understanding, also it's definition, is "begin on top the knowledge and road the outside and through the inside and end on the bottom with complete comprehension of the matter."
  reply report
  0
  jonnycomelatelyposted 6 years agoin reply to this
  Although as I have already stated I respect your views as being your choice of understanding, (as I hope you do of mine), your references to the bible and any implied acceptence of the existence of a god outside of the human mind is not helpful to me.
  No amount of argument or discussion is going to convince me that a supernatural being sits in judgment of me or my doings.
  The possibility of some entity instigating this physical, finite universe of which we are part - yes, I give to that possibility. We will never know the true explanation of that. But any judgment of me is done by fellow humans so it's only value is in the character and enlightened status of the judge. I in turn am free to make my judgment in return.
  reply report
  56
  The0NatureBoyposted 6 years agoin reply to this
  My reference to the Bible I can understand since I once felt that way but I have no acceptance of a god outside of me which I've been calling my "life-force" but believe "photons" may actually be it. And yes, I try much respect your views, they are very un-judgmental which I respect and attempt to be but fails sometimes.
  
  Being you called it "universe" I agree it is "finite" but because I see the interconnectedness and their mass presence in most things "photons" are, I am considering them to be "the god particle" someone was looking for. Being they are within, and I would suppose outside of, every manifested entity "We" may have found the answer to it unless we can determine something smaller within and without of them.
  
  I also respect your making your own judgments, The high cased sentence wasn't so much for you but for others who just may red it.
  reply report
  0
  jonnycomelatelyposted 6 years agoin reply to this
  All good reasoning from my perspective, although others might differ of course. Thank you.
  reply report

Post a Reply

jump to first post

Necessary
HubPages Device ID	This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
Login	This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google Recaptcha	This is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
Akismet	This is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google Analytics	This is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic Pixel	This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web Services	This is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
Cloudflare	This is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted Libraries	Javascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)

Features
Google Custom Search	This is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google Maps	Some articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google Charts	This is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host API	This service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTube	Some articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Vimeo	Some articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Paypal	This is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Login	You can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Maven	This supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)

Marketing
Google AdSense	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClick	Google provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index Exchange	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Sovrn	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Ads	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad Marketplace	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexus	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Openx	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon Project	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLift	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say Media	We partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing Pixels	We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking Pixels	We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.

Statistics
Author Google Analytics	This is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
Comscore	ComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking Pixel	Some articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
Clicksco	This is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)

Why Don't Atheists Believe In God?

Arts and Design

Autos

Books, Literature, and Writing

Business and Employment

Education and Science

Entertainment and Media

Family and Parenting

Fashion and Beauty

Food and Cooking

Games, Toys, and Hobbies

Gender and Relationships

Health

Holidays and Celebrations

Home and Garden

HubPages Tutorials and Community

Personal Finance

Pets and Animals

Politics and Social Issues

Religion and Philosophy

Sports and Recreation

Technology

Travel and Places

About Us

This website uses cookies

Why Don't Atheists Believe In God?

Related Discussions

This website uses cookies