Atheist VS Believer

[Ifrenide]

Hello my friends .its really a very complicated topic, and when we want to get a result , we can't because we have to make many elements together in logic order to get a logic answer, and make our view 360° with a dynamic movement to cover and get every reason that prove just one of the two points of view "atheist or believer" because each one cancel the other this is very important thing "if not we can't get any result " we stay in and on the zero readout pointer of the balance and that's a bad situation I think. we can make a current equation to know which side is logic . We have also to give a rigth meaning to the key words of this topic, "to beleive require to believe first and we increase it with science,or we buid it from first with uncomplited scientific proofs;we can believe without sceitific basis and we can only folow science and to be atheist " but here we made choices without reason and we chose one part we don't know is it true or not . which one can give us a believe poofs list vs atheist proofs list and we will chek every single element for both and lets try to get a result. you can use text ,videos and recorded textslets do it together without limit our work by time. who will start this contest ? come on

[snoop]

I don't mean to be a Negative Nancy (not that I really care), but this topic is a hard one to have any fruitful discussion on. It boils down to believing in something entirely on faith. The reasons why someone does or doesn't might be kind of interesting to hear or read, but in the end there's nothing to really discuss. There's nothing to prove, to test, or to gain. Either you believe in God, or you don't. I think on top of that, you have limited the topic even more by limiting the discussion to atheists and believers. No room for agnostics? And does it count as being a believer if you are polytheistic, or are a member of a non-Abrahamic religion? Does it count if you aren't part of a religion at all, and your idea of God is strange, abstract, or even vague? Also, calling it a contest is kind of... I don't know, nonsensical? I guess that's the way to put it. In a way, it's actually making a mockery of what the debate of God's (in)existence is all about. There isn't a contest, it's not about winning per se. I know that humans by nature are competitive, and even if we don't acknowledge it, a lot of our motivations are based on the need to win or be right. It might be a "contest" for some, and it may be a contest in some ways, but it isn't meant to be a contest in itself. Kind of like all squares are rectangles but not all rectangles are squares. I think, in a sense, the thread exposes an idea that it seems like a lot of people have (not saying they do, only that it seems like it). And that's that we have to prove whether God exists or not. That we all need to be atheist, or that we all need to believe in God. I know there are several motivations behind these ideas, and I get it, a lot of them make sense to a degree. Many religions require or strongly suggests that believers try and convert non-believers. At the same time, many believers realize the difference between stuffing the shit down someone's throat and simply making someone aware of God's existence and giving them the choice to convert. Of course, just as many don't. Atheists on the other hand see the worst, most radical, and controversial religious people. It's easy to, they make themselves very well known. Because these well known groups don't know the difference between shoving shit down someone's throat and making someone aware of something and giving them a choice, and they actively try and force things upon people, many (not all) atheists think it would be better if religion were no longer a thing. Let's face it, religion causes a lot of debate, interferes with matters and makes things hard that should be easy, and even leads to a lot of violence and hate. Even though it's not everyone religious or even most of the people that are religious that are causing this problem, it's unavoidable that religion is what is causing the problem. So, even though I don't give two shits what anybody believes as long as they get out of my face about it if I tell them to, and don't cause harm (directly or indirectly) to others because of that belief, I find it understandable that some atheists would want to try and talk "reason" into believers and get religion out of society completely. I don't think there's a need for religion to be gone provided people could act right, but you can trust that there is never going to be a time that people are all going to act right. So, if it came right down to it, I would even support atheists in that prospect when speaking practically. To wrap things up, all of this is fanaticism and knee-jerk reactions from both groups. They just keep feeding each other reasons to keep going. I'm fine sitting on the sidelines because I don't care to get in anybody else's business as long as they stay out of mine. Unfortunately for everybody, a lot of people love getting in other people's business, and a lot of people want to tell others how to live their lives. I think anybody trying to tell somebody else how to live their life based on their beliefs is who I really oppose. By beliefs, I don't mean "well I believe murder is bad, so it should be outlawed". That's just playing semantics. Although, and I know this is off topic, it's really interesting to study religion and the history surrounding it. It's like a front row seat to watching the process man went through from being an animal without any real understanding of the world, into what we are now. It's a record of our own growth in intelligence, spirituality, and how we see and treat ourselves.

[Ifrenide]

I'm completelly with you but I didn't say that I'm beleiver you know what cause I'm atheist trying to get information about what people thinking about, when read your replay I got impression that you think that I'm beleiver. we are all free and we can't oblige persons to be Atheist .I want to play the role of contest viewer and see what happen . and when I say I'm atheist not with the very specific meaning I mean I'm passing my life that's all , I don't care about believers or Atheists I have many things to do and we can't stay thinking about things like that we have eat drink sleep ... thank you very much for your amazing point of view, the proof is :you're the only one who give his replay . really there is no contest we all pass our lives... good bye

[snoop]

I'm completelly with you but I didn't say that I'm beleiver you know what cause I'm atheist trying to get information about what people thinking about, when read your replay I got impression that you think that I'm beleiver. we are all free and we can't oblige persons to be Atheist .I want to play the role of contest viewer and see what happen . and when I say I'm atheist not with the very specific meaning I mean I'm passing my life that's all , I don't care about believers or Atheists I have many things to do and we can't stay thinking about things like that we have eat drink sleep ... thank you very much for your amazing point of view, the proof is :you're the only one who give his replay . really there is no contest we all pass our lives... good bye Sorry if I gave that impression to you, I actually figured you were an atheist believe it or not, lol. I'm agnostic myself, which is probably why it sounded like I was assuming you were a believer... in reality I was responding more to believers than non believers with my post.

[Ifrenide]

why? we are all humans . we share the same globe,air ,moon and the sun .good bye if you want ask me some questions about dreams I'm a very good in dream lucid

[Dom343]

Well I have come to the conclusion that reality defies all symbols and concepts about it. If we say there is a God then that that is a concept. If we say there is no God, then that is a concept too. Frankly atheists and believers are both under two very different illusions of a reality that is beyond both. I hope this spikes some thought

[Rothgar]

I think it all comes down to "faith" whichever side you fall on. You either have an apriori assumption that God exists, or He doesnt exist, and you formulate your philosophy around your assumption, not the other way around. The fundamental issue you have to deal with is infinity, with regard to time and space. The only solution is some force that acts outside space and time. This "supernatural" force can be personal or intelligent or operates by other unknown sets of rules. But then, where did those rules or that force come from? You end up with an infinite loop regardless, it seems. There has to be some other dimension or dimensions to resolve this. You can call it heaven, or the spirit realm, or dimension X, if you prefer. And you can call the force God, or "the force", or whatever else you prefer. Thats my analysis...perhaps someone else has a different slant on this.... I would welcome an alternative framework.

[m4ra]

I agree with you Rothgar in the sense that there are things the human mind can see as infinite and go beyond our understanding and we can call that "unknowing" God or the spirit realm etc. Yet I think we don't have to resort to thinking of something outside of space in time. I mean, we can have the concept of infinity without seeing a physical infinity, or have a perpetual conceptual loop without it having to lead to a physical infinity loop. As time goes by humanity might begin to develop a better picture of how infinity, in the mathematical sense, fits into the physical world. But I think that even now it poses no serious threat to having a coherent picture of the Universe. When it comes to questions about God, or the spirit world, or the "umami flavor" of existence, I think people want to answer it to give human life a very concrete and clear role. It arranges the world in a very particular way. This need I think it pretty deep down, and mostly unconscious, but nevertheless pretty important to almost everyone. I really agree with what snoop said above. It mostly goes the way that you have a belief that comes from somewhere and you work backwards to give it a basis. Strong atheists would argue that they don't actively have a disbelief in God, like most people don't actively disbelieve Santa Claus. Yet I can't help but sense that many people who actively talk about atheism and debate theists have a framework they believe in and want to promote. Everyone has a framework, even not having a framework is a framework. I'd agree with them on that point that the world is likely totally material with no "special sauce" somewhere in the ether. If there was, the only way we could know about it is if it interacted with the physical world. Then we could just study those interactions and create physical laws like we do with everything else. So in that sense there wouldn't be anything special about it. Yet I'm not so sure that I'd go and proclaim God is dead. In all honesty the question doesn't bother me. If there is a anthropomorphic God that talks to people, if He/She wants to talk to me, they can go about and do so. Hasn't happened yet so the question remains pretty unimportant to me.

[Amedee]

Hi all,I want to share an old story with you guys,my father was a professor ,a very intelligent person he excelled in Islamic studies but never a fanatic,we never wore veils he showed us how to practice Islam but never imposed it on us,we leaved freely .our direct neighbors were Jewish we leaved almost in each other's house we eat their foods they ate ours my older sister was practically their daughter till this day I cook recipes that I learned from them ,religion was never a problem for them nor for us I even their mother mama. Many years later I was leaving in Bryton England,I was on a train coming back from London when a young girl approached me she was my age we where nineteen , she heard me talking in French she thought I was like her French her name was Pierrette we became friends her boyfriend was with her I was with my husband I invited them over to my place,every weekend they would come over we party we drink we have fun ,it lasted for almost a period of six months,one weekend she came like with a sad face and she told me that she had a secret and that it was very important and she was crying for a moment I thought maybe my husband made a pass at her I asked her if it was that and she said no ,the thing is I'm Jewish she said and you are a Moslem we cannot be friends I laughed and hugged her and told her what our respective religion has to do with our friendship but she was adamant,I never cried in front of her she wanted to keep a correspondence between us and I said we better not ,we hugged we kissed and we said goodbye I cried for days cursing people not religions because I knew first hand that the holly books never mentioned frontiers all it said was Respect each other's faith and never be judgmental and the chaos we are in now is the work of fanatics from all religions.excuse me for using a French phrase...atheists ce la coule douce...it means in not so many words ..they are having a sweet time!

[snoop]

I think it all comes down to "faith" whichever side you fall on. You either have an apriori assumption that God exists, or He doesnt exist, and you formulate your philosophy around your assumption, not the other way around. The fundamental issue you have to deal with is infinity, with regard to time and space. The only solution is some force that acts outside space and time. This "supernatural" force can be personal or intelligent or operates by other unknown sets of rules. But then, where did those rules or that force come from? You end up with an infinite loop regardless, it seems. There has to be some other dimension or dimensions to resolve this. You can call it heaven, or the spirit realm, or dimension X, if you prefer. And you can call the force God, or "the force", or whatever else you prefer. Thats my analysis...perhaps someone else has a different slant on this.... I would welcome an alternative framework. I think it's a mistake to say one way or another than anything exists or acts outside of spacetime. There is nothing to say that other dimensions exist outside of spacetime, and there is nothing to say that there is a "supernatural" force that may or may not be intelligent or operates by an unknown set of rules. It's true that our current understanding of reality and our universe is highly incomplete, and very inaccurate, but our lack of knowledge and understanding should not immediately point to something other than the fact that we don't know. The more we learn, the more we are able to explain. There may be a limit to what we are able to explain, but because of that limit, our conclusion shouldn't be to make something up in its place. The reason many believers that post videos on youtube, for example, say that they simply believe in God because they can't wrap their head around the idea that we weren't created by intelligent design. Things don't make sense to them, so they choose to believe something that has no evidence supporting it because it explains what, to them, otherwise can't be explained. It makes no logical sense to come up with an idea that has no evidence supporting it when you run into a problem, and then to believe that it is truly the case and let that idea change your decision making in the future. In a lot of ways, if I am reading what you wrote correctly, you are suggesting exactly the same thing. Because we can't know something, it doesn't mean we should make something up that apparently explains (without evidence) what we are experiencing. It's fine if you are brainstorming or want to come up with some neat ideas to explain it, but to suggest that those ideas are in any way true, and to let these ideas influence your decision making and behavior is not a good idea. That's how you wind up with issues like we are dealing with today. It's how you wind up with cult of personalities, and things like the Hitler Youth. It has an immense potential for creating negative outcomes for humanity as a whole, and very little potential for creating anything positive. There is nothing wrong with accepting that you don't know something, and as a matter of fact, that is a much more mature stance that has far less potential for negative repercussions in regards to humanity as a whole (you don't start wars or discriminate against people and torture them or commit genocide because everybody accepts they don't know). Your fundamental issue, which I agree exists, should not lead anybody to any conclusions beyond what the issue itself implies: that we don't know everything and cannot explain everything. There is a difference between absolute faith, like believing in God because other people told you He exists in order to explain what they admittedly can't understand (lol, they offer an explanation they understand to explain what they can't understand, how the hell can that possibly be right? Usually the reasons they have for not understanding are based on faulty logic or a faulty understanding of something anyway), and faith that, even though we have to make certain assumptions about things, that being able to reproduce the results of a test that is highly controlled for is giving you a legitimate answer. There is a difference between explaining how human beings came to exist by saying God made us this way, and using a plethora of evidence and data to say that we most likely evolved to become human beings over a very long period of time. You can tout that it requires faith in both directions, but that does not make the arguments equally valid by any means.