23 votes

Why I'm Not an Atheist


http://youtu.be/d6aDoOzYN-U

To simply comment without watching this video is meaningless. This is long but hits the hard question many don't want to talk about. May peace find you on this Sunday.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Google

Google for videos or transcripts of debates between Mr. Zarcharias and an atheist - any atheist. You will not find any.

Ĵīɣȩ Ɖåđşŏń

"Fully half the quotations found on the internet are either mis-attributed, or outright fabrications." - Abraham Lincoln

The irony is you're not an

The irony is you're not an atheist because you are following your evolutionary programming where the human brain hates the unknown so it fills in the gaps with anything it can.

My brain also hates the unknown, but it hates making up stories even more. I don't know if there is or isn't a god. I just know I'm experiencing this consciousness and that's it.

"In reality, the Constitution itself is incapable of achieving what we would like in limiting government power, no matter how well written."

~ Ron Paul, End the Fed

so you are an agnostic? me

so you are an agnostic? me too

What else can any honest,

What else can any honest, logical, and rational thinker be?

If there is a god who gave me my faculties of logic and reason, that god would know the only logical conclusion I can come to is "I don't know." That god couldn't possibly plop me down on a planet with 10K different ideas about what that god is and expect me to happen upon the right choice if that god is just. If god isn't just, then what's the point anyway?

"In reality, the Constitution itself is incapable of achieving what we would like in limiting government power, no matter how well written."

~ Ron Paul, End the Fed

It's called FREE WILL.

And God is the author of it. Figure it out.

On a side note, while there were other battles, the very battle between the angels and demons over earth was about free will. Demons want to control. Angels were defending God's rule 1, protect earth from demonic interference of free will.

Phxarcher87's picture

I had to read that twice

it made me smile.

"Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect" - Mark Twain

Phxarcher87's picture

Really

Dr. Paul, Tom Woods, The Judge, Ben Swann, Lew Rockwell are all a bunch of irrational people leading us astray?

"Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect" - Mark Twain

They are otherwise rational

They are otherwise rational people with a compartmentalized irrational belief. Many otherwise rational people have similar compartmentalized irrational beliefs. It's just the way the brain works and I can accept that.

At the end of the day Ron Paul wants people to be free to believe whatever they want as long as they don't try to physically force their beliefs upon others. What another man believes does me no harm; only what a man does can cause me harm.

How can you argue with that?

"In reality, the Constitution itself is incapable of achieving what we would like in limiting government power, no matter how well written."

~ Ron Paul, End the Fed

Phxarcher87's picture

maybe..

Could your brain have evolved to where you can't, at this point, in your life see rational people as rational? could you ever overcome that if it happened to be true?

"Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect" - Mark Twain

Yeah, leading us astray by

Yeah, leading us astray by attempting to follow the Author of Liberty, lol. I am enjoying the video, thanks for posting it friend.

well put I am glad to have

well put I am glad to have found a, from my perspective, reasonable and logical peer here at the DP, they are few and far in between. May I even call you friend?

I am having something of a break-of discussion further up on the page about logical fallacies between christianity and liberty. If you have any input on this, maybe you have friends or family who are christian and they believe in liberty maybe you can relay their thought process to me there?

So that rights can be given by Government

Atheism exists .... so rights can be malleable. So that individual rights can be redefined based on the convenience of times.

What?

"Atheism exists .... so rights can be malleable"

Oh, bullshit! Rights are inviolable, and have nothing to do with how we got here. I like the model where we clawed our way up the evolutionary scale to the point where we grew a brain that can do logic and figure out how to feed us without having to work so hard for it. In any case, we have earned our inalienable right to self-preservation, just as much so as any other living thing.

In other words, "Gawd" is unnecessary to live a Free life, but it must be recognized that it is the responsibility of those who would be Free to secure their own rights to Life, Liberty, and Property.

As to "God," I am under no obligation to subjugate myself to anyone's personal infinite tyrant in the sky; Mother Nature knows better how to live than some Infinite Mind that's never even tried it, but thinks it's supposed to be supreme, barking orders and demanding abject obedience.

Here's another explanation of how I came to this conclusion.

Freedom is my Worship Word!

Phxarcher87's picture

Iv been in the

woods and desert and all over the land. I have never ran into anything in the wild named mother nature. I will take a picture of her, if i ever find her though.

"Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect" - Mark Twain

Why I Am An Atheist...

Because "god" remains undefined.

So you choose to oppose an

So you choose to oppose an undefined entity's existence?

Oppose?

In what way?

Atheism is the unfounded

Atheism is the unfounded belief that god is not real, just as many religions are a collection of unfounded beliefs about deities. Atheists are prepared to argue the idea that there is no god, most frequently against Christians, despite there being no evidence to support such a point. It often leads to a very lame debate, if you can even call it that when neither side has any legitimate points whatsoever.

That is incorrect

Wrong. Atheism is a position you find yourself in when you have never seen a single thing that convinced you of the theist proposition.

I would not call you a "UFO denier." You simply hold the default and rational position, because you have no evidence for them, even if your parents, family, and community speak often and speak emotionally about the "coming of the UFO's," yet you still see zero evidence for those UFO's.

You needn't join any club, visit any church, nor accept any title, to accept the default position that "there are no UFO's."

And your family may say "You have the most faith of all of us, you are the biggest believer there is; the belief in NO UFO's is the BIGGEST religion."

So I guess if you Telfire must say "Atheism is the unfounded belief that god is not real..." then also people must say "UFO denial is the unfounded belief that UFO's are not real..."

----

So I must be an "atheist" and a "UFO denier" and a "god denier."

Sorry, but you're mistaken.

Sorry, but you're mistaken. The position you find yourself in when you are not convinced of something is called agnosticism. Atheism, by its very definition, means you are convinced that there is no creator or afterlife. I believe that to be insane. Taking a position against UFOs due to your own lack of evidence would be similarly insane, if not more so, since I personally find the likelihood of us being alone rather far fetched, whereas the lack of an afterlife or creator seems quite plausible (though not so plausible as to make the alternative impossible).

Agnostic?

Agnostic means "doesn't know."

You can be a Christian and "be agnostic." If I say "is there an afterlife" and you answer "I think there is, but I don't know, I will not know until I am dead; I have faith and hope that there is, but not knowledge."

Then you would be an "agnostic theist."

So agnosticism is very vague and not exclusive to atheists.

So would you say you are "agnostic" on UFO's and unicorns and leprechauns?

----

And I am an atheist, so I CAN TELL YOU what my position is. I have seen no evidence of deities, and theist propositions have not convinced me.

NOW HOW EXACTLY WOULD YOU be convinced of THE ABSENCE OF SOMETHING? It is silly. How can you provide solid evidence for SOMETHING THAT IS NOT THERE?

How exactly would that work? Something that DOES NOT EXIST, has no physical evidence for you to collect.

----

So WHAT EVIDENCE is there "that bigfoot doesn't exist?" You gonna take a bunch of pictures of empty forests? Pictures of "no footprints?"

I don't follow how I can SHOW SOMEONE that NOTHING IS THERE.

----

As far as a definition of atheism; well first, just ask the atheists, don't TELL THEM what their position; I'm pretty certain they would know better than a dictionary or online reference lol.

----

Now for definitions presented (per google):

Theism: belief in the existence of a god or gods.

Atheism: disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

----

And even to derive the definition:

Theism: belief in the existence of a god or gods.

'A': means "without," or "lack of"

So 'A' + 'theism' = "without belief in the existence of a god or gods."

----

So I do not agree with your attempt to define: "Atheism, by its very definition, means you are convinced that there is no creator or afterlife."

That is incorrect. I am an atheist and that is not my position. And every atheist that I have spoken with does not hold that position either.

----

It seems trivial. But there is a difference between:

"I hold the belief... that no bigfoot exists" and
"I do not hold the belief... that bigfoot exists."

One is a positive assertion. The other is not.

Obviously, you can't prove a

Obviously, you can't prove a negative. But that really has nothing to do with what was being discussed.

You contradict yourself

But that really has nothing to do with what was being discussed.

But you said this just before:

Atheism, by its very definition, means you are convinced that there is no creator or afterlife.

So how can you be "convinced of a negative" if you cannot PROVE that proposition?

You would like to criticize, but you contradict even your own statements.

nice! short and to the point,

nice! short and to the point, i like it. One point to ponder might be if maybe you are an agnostic since only because something isn't defined doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Maybe, even, it is undefinable for humans.

Sure I am an agnostic

Agnostic atheist.

I don't arrogantly claim the absolute knowledge of such a thing.

But when I see something in the world, I "believe in it."

But when others ONLY TELL me about something in the world, and THOSE PEOPLE THEN SAY IT EXISTS, and I can't see the thing they are talking about, and I ask them "What is this thing you propose?"

Their response is an answer that does not fit into any definition. Their answers sound like "It or He is a Mind with no Brain, He exists everywhere and nowhere, he exists outside of time and space, he existed before time, he has existed for an infinite amount of time, he has infinite knowledge, he has infinite powers, he has infinite love, he has infinite..."

Mind without brain? We have no examples of such a thing. Every MIND that we have as an example has required a BRAIN. In fact, a mind IS DEFINED by the product of a brain.

So positing "a mind without a brain" is only fiction.

Does that mean such a thing does not exist? No. But that is not how logic works. There are infinite such unlikely and comic-book-style fictions that could be proposed.

Do I need to spend a second pondering those fictions? NO. That is not how logic works. We don't just dream things up and then go about discussing the reality of our fictional dreams, and then say "well it could be possible, it could be out there somewhere."

That is the biggest bastardization of the rational faculties that have given us our greatest progress.

Until we have an example of something, WE DON'T NEED TO SPEND A SECOND considering the existence of said thing.

That is how logic, and consequentially science, works. You see a phenomenon, that phenomenon is now known to exist, then we begin to discuss and study all aspects of that phenomenon.

Not the other way around!

Gods are a bunch of

Gods are a bunch of programers and we're living in a simulated game of life. There.

It is known as "Simulation Theory"

I would argue this is much more plausible explanation of our universe than stories from the worlds religions.

http://www.onbeing.org/sites/onbeing.org/files/gates-symbols...

http://disinfo.com/2013/05/physicist-discovers-computer-code...

That's every bit as plausible

That's every bit as plausible as any bible.

"In reality, the Constitution itself is incapable of achieving what we would like in limiting government power, no matter how well written."

~ Ron Paul, End the Fed

Why I am not an Athiest:

Because I saw Jesus in a tortilla the other day and it blew my @#$%ing mind.

off-topic disregard if you want

Sry for this off-topic, or semi-off-topic, question. But I guess we have people on this forum that believe in liberty, and this post will attract Christians, no doubt about it. I have a question for you, a Christian who believes in liberty, libertarianism, anarcho-capitalism or anarchy. People who believe in the above synonyms for self-ownership often like to claim that they see, or base, liberty off of their religion. Lets only talk about Christianity right now. The bible is a fairly large part of christianity and people often quote verses to give a further meaning to their argument with people of the same faith, or to try to justify their actions or beliefs. Within the bible there are quite a few verses that seem to counter the core belief of libertarianism. Even counter the core to such a degree that if you believe that the bible is infallible, or inspired, then I cannot understand how you can believe in liberty. Some even justify man-ownership of another man, like cattle or such.

So my question becomes, with those verses in mind how can christians justify for themselves their belief in liberty? Is there some internal dialog that I just cannot imagine because I do not come from a religious background? If so, can someone here, who is a christian and libertarian or similar, explain it to me?