athiests...

[matt5112]

You're upset that a tour guide said the world was shaped by the forces that exist here?

You're 19, assuming you went the last time when you were 19: When you're 9, the entire world is big.

Mostly because you were small. (relatively, still are. And I know how much theists love relativity.... If time is relative, then what isn't?)

But more on topic, you're saying that it wasn't the wind/water that shaped the land, but some omniscient figure did it via magic?

Isn't it more logical to assume that God used the forces of nature to shape the world?

Aren't you supposed to capitalize "God" since its a proper noun?

[RareGMFan]

I'll cede to you on both points. I really mulled over how to respond to you all afternoon and I'd say my first 10 possible responses didn't pass the aforementioned filter. I really didn't realize I was getting into debate territory, because that's not where I want to go.

Well...I realize you started the thread out of frustration at a particular situation. I understand that, and don't blame you for being ticked off at your roommate. However....you honestly started a thread targeted at atheists.....WITH a thumbs down icon next to the title....and engage in discussions consisting of typical misconceptions about atheists.....but didn't realize it would spark a debate?

To say that being an atheist doesn't take faith is just wrong. Here's how. To claim that there is no God, you must also claim that you have been to every corner of the universe, every plane of existence, that you are aware of everything, and that there is nothing you don't know and therefore can say that you've checked and there is no God.

But, since you're not omniscient nor omnipresent, to say %100 there is no God takes a leap of faith as well. Just follow the chain of logic.

I'm sorry, but there is no logic to follow here because you're making an argument based on a biased premise that LACKS pure logic. Your argument is based on the false premise that "the belief in a god is the default position we're born into". As I mentioned in my previous post, that is a fallacy. The only reason we don't see this or think of it that way is because humans have believed in deities for so long that it is a part of the fabric of our existence. However, that doesn't make it any more true. Think about it. We are born NEUTRAL, not believers. A blank slate if you will. We have no preconceived notions on ANY subject, not just theological ones. The ideas, theories, perspectives, beliefs, etc that come to shape our existence/who we become are then formed in us in infinite varying ways and degrees throughout our lives. So when the concept of a deity is introduced to us, at whatever age, and which ever one(s) they may be, it is merely just another concept that can shape who we become (taking us away from our original clean slate state of neutrality). However, should I chose not to accept/believe in this concept, I am simply rejecting the claim. I do not need to CLAIM that YOUR claim is not true, much less PROVE it isn't true. Rather, those introducing the claim to me need to prove that the claim is true in order to move me from a state of neutrality on the matter to one where I side with that claim. When you say you must prove god doesn't exist, this is literally what's happening:

Person 1 makes Claim A (the Bible is the truth)
Person 2 says I can't see Claim A being true
Person 1 now says by not believing in my Claim A, you are making a Claim yourself; Claim B (not believing Claim A = claiming Claim A is false)
Person 1 now asks Person 2 to prove his Claim B
Person 2 cannot prove Claim B because it is not actually a claim
Person 1 feels since Person 2 cannot prove Claim B, Claim A must be true
Now just imagine if we threw in a Person 3 into the mix making Claim C; Islamic faith. Since Person 2 can't prove Claim B (a lack of believing Claim A & Claim C), Person 1 states Claim A must be true AND Person 2 states Claim C must be true, making both the Bible and the Koran true.

....do people really not see or understand this, or what's wrong with this "logic"? The person stating s/he does not believe in ANY deity since there is not enough evidence to sway the person one way or the other is merely returning to the natural born state of neutrality. You do not need to "prove" anything to return to a state of neutrality.

I had a friend who claimed to be an atheist. Carl Sagan was his hero. I never insulted his beliefs, just shared mine with him. He would insult my beliefs all the time however. Thats always the way it is. Atheists will eventually resort to "you're crazy" or "you're stupid" and think that the scientific method lets them get away with that. A true follower of Christ will eventually, what, share his beliefs maybe?

Perhaps you don't see how many Christians react to atheists because it's not exactly common to run into one. To theists, it is a sharing of beliefs to discuss the differences in your common theism. But when someone who lacks any belief at all comes along, it's a whole other conversation. For example, I remember finally telling a part-time coworker I was atheist. I can't remember why I finally broke down and told him this. I only remember I did due to a reaction he actually had a few days later. We were having a conversation about something, and while I was talking, I noticed he looked kind of zoned out for a second. Figured I was boring him. Then out of no where while I was still talking, in a louder than usual voice, he says "HOW CAN YOU JUST STAND THERE AND NOT BELIEVE IN GOD?!" Initially, I was shocked and didn't know how to react. When I didn't say anything for a few seconds, he continued. "How can you see everything created around us, and not know god did it?!" After another few seconds, I calmly said I simply don't presume anything, including a creator created everything around us. "So all these saints and apostles died for nothing? They would have died for their belief if it wasn't true?!" I said people die for beliefs all the time, including the belief that they will be transported to the mother ship when they die, or that David Koresh is a prophet, etc. Someones level of devotion to their beliefs has nothing to do with how true or accurate those beliefs are. At this point, I didn't really want to continue the discussion because I could tell by his "logic" that the convo was going to turn ugly. Luckily, he dropped it there. However, he was weird with me for several weeks after that, until things slowly got back to how they were prior to that exchange. Unfortunately, he was laid off a few months later due to cutbacks.

Want some more logic? Lets take a run-of-the-mill atheist and myself for example. If there is no God and I die, nothing will happen I'll just rot. So will the atheist. Maybe I'll die without fear but thats it. Now, if there is a God and I die, I'll find out what Heaven is like. But for the atheist he'll end up in the "outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth". Now which, logically, would be the better choice? Rot or Afterlife?

Again, this is heavily flawed "logic". First of all, the above is what's known in theological circles as Pascal's Wager: The idea that it's better to believe and be wrong, rather than NOT believe and be wrong. The problem with this concept is that it relies on the arrogant assumption that god = YOUR god. Remember, there are a plethora of deities out there, past and present, and you are just as atheist as I am towards all of them save for one. I just happen to take it one deity further than you, so in essence, we have almost the same chance of suffering some kind of eternal punishment. Care to join me in Naraka?

Do you have empirical evidence that you'll wake up tomorrow? But you believe that you will.

That is a really, really poor example. For starters, no one makes the claim "I will wake up tomorrow", let alone "believes" in it. Most people just don't think about it. If you DO stop and think about it, you'd come to the natural realization that you have no control over whether you do or don't.

Secondly, what you're actually talking about is probabilities. We know through empirical evidence that if you are in good health, you stand a very good chance of waking up tomorrow. It would take a freak medical problem, or accident, or foul play, etc. in order not to, which is highly unlikely (unless you live in a really bad neighborhood). This differs greatly from the probability that words written in a book claiming to be about a person's life that was put together 300 years after the fact are factual and accurate.

And about Christ. He healed the sick, forgave people, exposed hypocrites for what they are, fed and cared for the poor, stood for the truth and what did those who didn't believe in him do? Crucifiy Him!

Many (if not all) of the following applied to Osiris, Mithra, Dionysus, etc. long before Jesus' suppose existence:

Born on or near December 25th to a virgin mother.
Promised salvation through belief in him.
Walked on water.
Made food appear from thin air.
Turned water into wine at a wedding.
Gave blind men sight again.
Died for our sins and rose from his grave a few days later.
Promised to return one day.

The 4 books Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Four eye-witnesses who are each testifying to what they saw and heard.

Wouldn't the testimony of 4 witnesses be convincing in court? Why do you doubt?

Because in order not to have doubt, you have to presume a LOT of things to be true, which I will briefly outline. Remember, the Bible was canonized 300 years after Christ's death. That leaves a LOT of leeway in there for doubt and foul play. First of all, you have to presume that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John even existed (if you want, I can go into detail as to why this is doubted). Secondly, you have to presume that Christ existed. Third, you have to presume that each one of these 4 men met him. Fourth, you have to presume that these 4 men accurately recorded their encounters with Christ with no bias, exaggerations, forgetting or leaving out something and with correct recollection of the events and details they have written. Fifth, you have to presume that those exact original records are what the church included in the Bible as the Gospels we know today without ANY kind of alterations when they canonized the Bible. And so on, and so on.

In other words, for all you know, the entire Bible could be a collection of fictitious stories and accounts written by the church under the name of some fictitious authors, and thrown into the Bible as "gospel". Just because the church SAYS these people existed, and that they met a man named Christ, and that this Christ was the son of god, and that these are records of the accounts of interactions with him doesn't make it true. In essence, what you have isn't faith in god. It's faith in the word of men claiming to be speaking/delivering a message on behalf of god 2000 years ago. The problem is, they're in competition with a bunch of other men making a bunch of other similar claims for OTHER gods. They all share the same evidence; word of men, or worse, but more accurate, the word of organizations claiming to be distributing the words of these men that supposedly existed, who are claiming to be speaking for a god they supposedly met.

.....why doubt?

[Big Dave]

Why didn't this die? Ok... In no particular order...
1: Claims... Claim A = god is yes... Claim B = you are wrong... Savvy? If claim B were more often posed in a different way your position would apply more often... The flaw, and what I was saying, was claim b is never posed as "Oh, I just don't know... Maybe you're wrong... I can't see it and I just can't feel the way you do..." By the laws of primitive language, telling someone they are wrong, or lying, or stupid is a CLAIM... See Claim - verb: to assert or maintain as a fact: She claimed that he was telling the truth.

2: The business of religion... Atheists seem to be everywhere because they desperately need the attention... As with any aspiring cult, or religion if they go far enough, exposure is everything... The chances of a bible thumper coming to your house and telling you all about the trip to hell you deserve are based on highly abrasive, be it brief and rare, contacts... But if you leave the house and talk to people, you would be had pressed to remember a day someone didn't think they were a genius because they felt all angsty and said there is no god...

3: Righteousness... Anyone touting the wager as high ground will be at your door soon... By definition atheists doubt their position... Either because they're just lying to seem deep, or their very position is the direct result of having no idea what's going on... God? Really? How are you so sure?? True atheists, of which there are very very few, are atheists due to a combination of lack of evidence and observed behavior... Anyone to crawl behind the "what if there is a god" pillar wants far more for you to be wrong than they want to be right... Not very christian...

4: God is perfect... Ask any religion rep and they will agree to this... Well... Or not... Seems no mater what the truth may be or what is written on any subject, people will constantly just decide it means whatever fits their agenda... But in all fairness, I think this one is had to screw up... This could mean, lead to you see, 2 thoughts... a: god must exist because to not would be imperfect... I think this one is awesome when anyone is around with faulty logic... And b: god can't punish an imperfect being for being imperfect... I like this one too... It hurts the sanctimonious... In no way is god going to punish all the non believers while god and you kick back with a cold one and laugh...

5: Own your position... There is no real need to lie or distort if you are, in fact, correct... Simply let the merits of your argument do the legwork... Going out of your way to distort others words, or just lie repeatedly weakens your position... Don't claim knowledge you don't have... And don't claim knowledge you don't possess must be invalid just because it is filled with math or logic... The only truth is what you experience... Except for me and my observations apparently...

6: Why do you so badly need to be right... Both sides of this argument will be driven to "win"... If you have no win condition, or worse see that no one does and this is a train wreck waiting to happen, give up any dream of progress... No ones mind will change... By my own personal observations, observing anything at all will result in 10 out of 10 angry freshmen philosophy students to bleat like sheep to the tune of Jack Kerouac or whatever hipster writes nickelback lyrics... Just don't bother... Be sarcastic, and make a point or two that address people, not god... Have those points totally missed, remit them in a sarcastic way, and wait for people to lie about your original position... Take it from me... This works...

7: Freedom... Whatever position you do take, know you are taking one and have the right to do so... You also have the right to take no position at all... As I did, despite what anyone says, read everything i've ever posted and find my claim... You won't... But be prepared for someone to give you a position so they can tell you your position is wrong... This happens like 10 out of 10 times! In what post did I first use that stat? I'll have to scroll back... Anyway... If you are free for whatever reason... Be it god, or country, or that millions and millions of people have pledged their very own lives to the defense of that freedom to the death if necessary... You must also acknowledge every one else is free too... Thanks to, you know...

8: You're a moron... Beware of this statement... It means "I'm angry, personally vested, and frustrated beyond thought... Nothing I say from this point on will inform or entertain me or anyone else..." Expect no whit, or back and forth from these people... Expect only angry one liners that make little to no sense... When pushed further these people just lie... Which I guess can be fun... But will also make it impossible to dig those people out of the spiral... Remember, any derivative of you're a moron basically means i'm going home to tell my mom you suck...

9: Prayer... Who's it hurting? Why would you do it? Doesn't it make you feel better? Doesn't it bother you no one's listening? Discuss...

p.s. Read in the Harry Plinkett voice... This is important so no one tells their mom on me in a boring way... Can't convey tone and all that...

[T0pwater]

Well...I realize you started the thread out of frustration at a particular situation. I understand that, and don't blame you for being ticked off at your roommate. However....you honestly started a thread targeted at atheists.....WITH a thumbs down icon next to the title....and engage in discussions consisting of typical misconceptions about atheists.....but didn't realize it would spark a debate?

Um.... I didn't start this thread. You've got me confused.

[Wotgtp]

In your format

OP: an atheist came down on me today...

What was her name?
























Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzing!

[SlowNA06]

Where did I claim all atheists are the same? All I said is that by definition, an a-theist lacks/is without belief in a deity, and that a lack of belief is not a belief in itself. In fact, if anything, the rest of what you quoted got into some detail about how different atheists can be because the term atheism doesn't define them any further than "I do not believe in any particular deity", so I'm not sure what you were getting at here.

From your later posts, I can see that I was feeling too specific about wording (edit: I re-read it and can't recall why I thought you might be confused... I think my reading skills are somewhat lacking) and that my post was unnecessary. Apologies.

So...if I claim the Flying Spaghetti Monster is the one true god, and you deny this, the burden of proof is on YOU to disprove my claim unless you're just a jerk? How does that make sense? Theological topics seem to be the only ones where "disprove my claim" is seen as an acceptable request by the person making the request.

Again, you mentioned later exactly the point I was driving (ineptly) at: That claims must be substantiated by the claim-maker, not the disputer. I'm 99% sure I read it all right now.

I'm not confusing the terms at all. It's the mass public that confuses the terms, and the way you defined them above is the stereotypical misconception. Theism is NOT some generic belief in a "superior force".

Sorry. "Supreme being."

Whether you are monotheist or polytheist, a theist by definition subscribes to one specific doctrine or another.

I refer to theism broadly, which is just as proper as specifically, as a belief that some deity exists (but not necessarily a particular one).

Believe me ( )

lol

To say that being an atheist doesn't take faith is just wrong. Here's how. To claim that there is no God, you must also claim that you have been to every corner of the universe, every plane of existence, that you are aware of everything, and that there is nothing you don't know and therefore can say that you've checked and there is no God.

But, since you're not omniscient nor omnipresent, to say %100 there is no God takes a leap of faith as well. Just follow the chain of logic.

If anyone here has claimed that there is no god, I must have missed it. I'll re-read the thread and edit this if I find it, though. Mind you, though, that inductive reasoning is not the be-all-end-all to arguing the existence or non-existence of a supreme being (or nobody would argue about it anymore); "Inductive reasoning certainly cannot be justified deductively, and so our only option is to justify it inductively. However, to justify induction inductively is circular. Therefore, it is impossible to justify induction."

Atheists will eventually resort to "you're crazy" or "you're stupid" and think that the scientific method lets them get away with that. A true follower of Christ will eventually, what, share his beliefs maybe?

My experience has been that this is more about personality than religious preference; The proportion of jerks in any group is likely to be equal across the board.

Want some more logic? Lets take a run-of-the-mill atheist and myself for example. If there is no God and I die, nothing will happen I'll just rot. So will the atheist. Maybe I'll die without fear but thats it. Now, if there is a God and I die, I'll find out what Heaven is like. But for the atheist he'll end up in the "outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth". Now which, logically, would be the better choice? Rot or Afterlife?

This argument itself supposes that the existence of the Christian God cannot be determined through reason. To simply call something logic does not make it so. Additionally, even after acknowledging the enormous benefit of betting in favor of God's existence, some people may not be willing to sincerely believe in God, who could surely tell the difference should they "fake" it, ensuring the futility of such efforts.

[gtpsleeper]

Again, this is heavily flawed "logic". First of all, the above is what's known in theological circles as Pascal's Wager: The idea that it's better to believe and be wrong, rather than NOT believe and be wrong. The problem with this concept is that it relies on the arrogant assumption that god = YOUR god.

Similar to Pascals Wager yes but doesn really explain it right. If we are going to the Philosophy part of this then there are many different types of theories to show logic in beleiving in God...

Pascals Wager pretty much says when we die 1 of 4 things happen

1 you do believe in God, there is no God, nothing happens
2 you dont believe in God, there is no God, nothing happens
3 you do believe in God, there is a God, afterlife (epic win)
4 you dont believe in God, there is a God, hell (epic fail)

denying the logic and saying its flawed is simply wrong, he is not specifying a certain religion in this Wager. He is simply using the beleif in God as a whole (even if you do bring in having the right religion or not, makes no difference in the logic anyway).... while this Wager does not prove Gods existance it does prove the logic in believing in such a God.

You can also look at Aquinas' 5 ways of proving Gods existance (spacifically the first 3)

(VERY basic)
1. involves motion ("agents" of change)... Things are constantly moving other things so there has to have been a first mover otherwise nothing would have started moving....
2.involves first cause... everything is created by something else because nothing can create itself therefore there had to be a first creator...
3. things have a near contingent existance (assuming time is lenier and not reaccuring)... things we see today are not necessary to exist but if nothing is necessary then nothing would exist...therefore something is necessary and that would be God

Then you could get into the arguement from design (Paley) saying (again VERY basic) that everything in the universe is too complicated and precise to just "happen"... that the universe and everything in it is engineered/designed so there has to be a designer...

I could keep going on and on but the point is that there is TONS of logic in beleiving and not nearly as much as not...

[T0pwater]

(Some of) the evidence that a Bible-believing Christian should be extremely cautious when considering debating in this manner:

1 Timothy 6:20:
Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to your care. Turn away from godless chatter and the opposing ideas of what is falsely called knowledge...

Colossians 2:8:
See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the elemental spiritual forces of this world rather than on Christ.

2 Timothy 2:22-26
Flee the evil desires of youth and pursue righteousness, faith, love and peace, along with those who call on the Lord out of a pure heart. Don’t have anything to do with foolish and stupid arguments, because you know they produce quarrels. And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful. Opponents must be gently instructed, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth, and that they will come to their senses and escape from the trap of the devil, who has taken them captive to do his will.

1 Corinthians 1:20-30
Where is the wise person? Where is the teacher of the law? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength. Brothers and sisters, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth. But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. God chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things—and the things that are not—to nullify the things that are, so that no one may boast before him. It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God—that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption. Therefore, as it is written: “Let the one who boasts boast in the Lord.”

1 Corinthians 2:1-10
And so it was with me, brothers and sisters. When I came to you, I did not come with eloquence or human wisdom as I proclaimed to you the testimony about God. For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. I came to you in weakness with great fear and trembling. My message and my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words, but with a demonstration of the Spirit’s power, so that your faith might not rest on human wisdom, but on God’s power. We do, however, speak a message of wisdom among the mature, but not the wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing. No, we declare God’s wisdom, a mystery that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began. None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. However, as it is written:
“What no eye has seen,
what no ear has heard,
and what no human mind has conceived”—
the things God has prepared for those who love him—
these are the things God has revealed to us by his Spirit.

[I800C0LLECT]

I'm not going to read any of this but I'd like to make a few points the bible teaches about communication...

1) Christian = the attempt to be christ like; it's in there, find it. It means you aren't ever going to be perfect but you strive to learn every day.

2) We aren't ever supposed to argue publicly. You can't have a healthy conversation inside a mob. Always hold each other accountable privately...that really applies to everything; not just faith.

3) You shouldn't ever provoke an individual who asks questions maliciously. You shouldn't ever attempt to hold accountable those who haven't asked. You shouldn't ever attempt to provoke those who aren't curious. You're only job is to be a good example; not talk.

4) Sin = the knowledge of what feels good. It's not an action. The more you experience in life, the more you sin. Acting on that knowledge is another issue...

5) You better know exactly what you're saying and how you're using it when you reproduce God's word for others. The bible states that one of the WORST things you could EVER do is misguide your brothers and sisters.

6) Close this thread please.

[RareGMFan]

Um.... I didn't start this thread. You've got me confused.

Oops, I apologize. Started that reply at 4 AM with a bunch of tabs open. I must have got mixed up and thought you were the OP.

Similar to Pascals Wager yes but doesn really explain it right. If we are going to the Philosophy part of this then there are many different types of theories to show logic in beleiving in God...

Pascals Wager pretty much says when we die 1 of 4 things happen

1 you do believe in God, there is no God, nothing happens
2 you dont believe in God, there is no God, nothing happens
3 you do believe in God, there is a God, afterlife (epic win)
4 you dont believe in God, there is a God, hell (epic fail)

denying the logic and saying its flawed is simply wrong, he is not specifying a certain religion in this Wager. He is simply using the beleif in God as a whole (even if you do bring in having the right religion or not, makes no difference in the logic anyway).... while this Wager does not prove Gods existance it does prove the logic in believing in such a God.

I'm saying his logic is flawed because it is incomplete. There is no such thing as a "belief in god as a whole" because there is no one universal god. Only specific deities, and those deities must all be accounted for in the equation since just about all those specific deities claim to be the one and only true god, and threaten to eternally punish anyone who believes in a false god (any god other than themselves). How can you NOT account for this within the premise if it is going to be logical? It can only "prove the logic in believing in such a god" if you are ignorant to the fact that there are many other gods to choose from out there. It should really go more like:

1 you do believe in the god of the Bible, there is no god of the Bible, nothing happens
2 you don't believe in any god, there is no god of the Bible, nothing happens
3 you do believe in the god of the Bible, there is a god of the Bible, afterlife
4 you don't believe in any god, there is a god of the Bible, hell
5 you do believe in the god of the Bible, but there is a god of the Koran, hell
6 you don't believe in any god, but there is a god of the Koran, hell
7 you do believe in the god of the Bible, but there is a god of the Vedas (Hinduism), Naraka (hell)
8 you don't believe any god, but there is a god of the Vedas (Hinduism), Naraka (hell)

....aaaaaand so on and so on. The premise that it's safer to believe in god so you run no risk of going to hell would ONLY be logically true if there were just one universal god the entire planet believed in. Since there isn't, and a form of hell exists for non-believers of almost ANY other deity claiming to be the one true god, you MUST account for ALL gods into the equation to determine just how much "safer" you are as a Christian, Muslim, Hindu, etc believer. Otherwise, it's not logic. It's wishful thinking.

You can also look at Aquinas' 5 ways of proving Gods existance (spacifically the first 3)

(VERY basic)
1. involves motion ("agents" of change)... Things are constantly moving other things so there has to have been a first mover otherwise nothing would have started moving....
2.involves first cause... everything is created by something else because nothing can create itself therefore there had to be a first creator...
3. things have a near contingent existance (assuming time is lenier and not reaccuring)... things we see today are not necessary to exist but if nothing is necessary then nothing would exist...therefore something is necessary and that would be God

All of the above will always raise the question "then what created god? And then what created the thing that created god, etc?" How can there ever be a first creator if nothing can create itself? It's a paradox. If nothing can create itself, then there can never be a first creator, including god. If god can create himself, then the statement nothing can create itself without a first creator is false.

Then you could get into the arguement from design (Paley) saying (again VERY basic) that everything in the universe is too complicated and precise to just "happen"... that the universe and everything in it is engineered/designed so there has to be a designer...

I could keep going on and on but the point is that there is TONS of logic in beleiving and not nearly as much as not...

There are tons of flawed arguments that you can try to pass off as logic. It doesn't make them logic. The biggest problem to me is this "if we can't explain it, it must be god" mentality. The concept that a god is the default for anything we don't know or understand. Let's suppose for a second that your "logic" is true. Everything had to be designed, there had to be a first creator, etc. Ok, fine. But how does this support your case? You are again presuming that if there IS a creator/designer, that this creator is not only a god (as most people think of a god), but more specifically, the god YOU just happen to believe in, which, BTW, was determined for you by the culture/nation/ethnicity you were born into. There is nothing in your argument above that makes these presumptions logical. You're making a huge leap here to get from point A to point B.


This is what it oil boils down to me: I do not know where we came from. I do not know how we got here. I do not know why we're here, and I don't know what happens to us when we die. Maybe we are play things for beings much more advanced than us. Maybe it's all been one elaborate dream. Maybe when we die, nothing happens. Maybe it's like hitting the restart button, and we start all over again. Maybe we've died several times already, and we continue where we left off, so we never notice. Maybe there is a god, and that specific god well send me to whatever respective form of hell he has planned for me for not believing in him. Hell, maybe we don't even exist, and we are a figment of the imagination of ourselves. The possibilities are endless, and that's JUST with the ones we can conceive. I do not know, and I'm comfortable with that. I live within the reality of the moment I'm in, and nothing else. What I will NOT do, however, is try to comfort myself from the "frightening" thought of not knowing by dwindling down this INFINITE ocean of possibilities as to who or what we are into one, tiny drop known as a belief in a deity, ESPECIALLY when that choice of a deity is determined by the culture/nation/ethnicity I just happened to be born into.