# What is your reason to not believe in God?



## ysn

.


----------



## NoEgo




----------



## ysn

NoEgo said:


>


what does this pic depicts? I only understood one part that is that of theory of evolution, and it is a fact that it's just a theory and is not proved.


----------



## Paul

Occam's razor.

And for creationism to be true, we must necessarily be created by a deceptive creature which has done everything in its power to trick us by leaving clear records of 99.9% of the evolutionary process and then arbitrarily skipping a step somewhere it thinks we won't notice. Purposeful careful trickery by a being that doesn't want us to know it exists is the only possible explanation for creationism with all these intermediate forms we can see. That sounds like Descartes' hypothetical evil demon to me, not a god. I don't rule out the evil demon, but like any global skeptical hypothesis it's not worth thinking about too much because there can never really be any evidence for or against it.


----------



## a degree of freedom

ysn said:


> it is a fact that it's just a theory and is not proved.


_In everyday use, theory means a guess or a hunch, something that maybe needs proof. In science, a theory is not a guess, not a hunch. It's a well-substantiated, well-supported, well-documented explanation for our observations.2 It ties together all the facts about something, providing an explanation that fits all the observations and can be used to make predictions. In science, theory is the ultimate goal, the explanation. It's as close to proven as anything in science can be.

Some people think that in science, you have a theory, and once it's proven, it becomes a law. That's not how it works. In science, we collect facts, or observations, we use laws to describe them, and a theory to explain them. You don't promote a theory to a law by proving it. A theory never becomes a law.

This bears repeating. A theory never becomes a law. In fact, if there was a hierarchy of science, theories would be higher than laws. There is nothing higher, or better, than a theory. Laws describe things, theories explain them. An example will help you to understand this. There's a law of gravity, which is the description of gravity. It basically says that if you let go of something it'll fall. It doesn't say why. Then there's the theory of gravity, which is an attempt to explain why. Actually, Newton's Theory of Gravity did a pretty good job, but Einstein's Theory of Relativity does a better job of explaining it. These explanations are called theories, and will always be theories. They can't be changed into laws, because laws are different things. Laws describe, and theories explain.

Just because it's called a theory of gravity, doesn't mean that it's just a guess. It's been tested. All our observations are supported by it, as well as its predictions that we've tested. Also, gravity is real! You can observe it for yourself. Just because it's real doesn't mean that the explanation is a law. The explanation, in scientific terms, is called a theory.

Evolution is the same. There's the fact of evolution. Evolution (genetic change over generations)3 happens, just like gravity does. Don't take my word for it.4 Ask your science teacher, or google it. But that's not the issue we are addressing here. The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection is our best explanation for the fact of evolution. It has been tested and scrutinised for over 150 years, and is supported by all the relevant observations.

Next time someone tries to tell you that evolution is just a theory, as a way of dismissing it, as if it's just something someone guessed at, remember that they're using the non-scientific meaning of the word. If that person is a teacher, or minister, or some other figure of authority, they should know better. In fact, they probably do, and are trying to mislead you.5

Evolution is not just a theory, it's triumphantly a theory!_​
From http://notjustatheory.com/


----------



## a degree of freedom

ysn said:


> just a theory


I went ahead and googled that phrase for you ...

https://encrypted.google.com/search?q="just+a+theory"&tbm=isch


----------



## a degree of freedom

Also, believing in God DOESN'T mean you have to have a cold or even lukewarm relationship with science. *You can love science and God at the same time.*

It's simple really, just _stop interpreting the Bible literally and superficially_ and understand it for the deeper and more powerful metaphorical content it is.

If you start feeling a little uneasy, that maybe the devil is trying to mislead you in cherry picking what you will and won't believe, just remember that you are responsible for your personal relationship with God. It doesn't immediately matter what you will learn or believe: the framework is secondary to your faith. The former only exists for the latter.


----------



## ysn

senkora said:


> _In everyday use, theory means a guess or a hunch, something that maybe needs proof. In science, a theory is not a guess, not a hunch. It's a well-substantiated, well-supported, well-documented explanation for our observations.2 It ties together all the facts about something, providing an explanation that fits all the observations and can be used to make predictions. In science, theory is the ultimate goal, the explanation. It's as close to proven as anything in science can be.
> 
> Some people think that in science, you have a theory, and once it's proven, it becomes a law. That's not how it works. In science, we collect facts, or observations, we use laws to describe them, and a theory to explain them. You don't promote a theory to a law by proving it. A theory never becomes a law.
> 
> This bears repeating. A theory never becomes a law. In fact, if there was a hierarchy of science, theories would be higher than laws. There is nothing higher, or better, than a theory. Laws describe things, theories explain them. An example will help you to understand this. There's a law of gravity, which is the description of gravity. It basically says that if you let go of something it'll fall. It doesn't say why. Then there's the theory of gravity, which is an attempt to explain why. Actually, Newton's Theory of Gravity did a pretty good job, but Einstein's Theory of Relativity does a better job of explaining it. These explanations are called theories, and will always be theories. They can't be changed into laws, because laws are different things. Laws describe, and theories explain.
> 
> Just because it's called a theory of gravity, doesn't mean that it's just a guess. It's been tested. All our observations are supported by it, as well as its predictions that we've tested. Also, gravity is real! You can observe it for yourself. Just because it's real doesn't mean that the explanation is a law. The explanation, in scientific terms, is called a theory.
> 
> Evolution is the same. There's the fact of evolution. Evolution (genetic change over generations)3 happens, just like gravity does. Don't take my word for it.4 Ask your science teacher, or google it. But that's not the issue we are addressing here. The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection is our best explanation for the fact of evolution. It has been tested and scrutinised for over 150 years, and is supported by all the relevant observations.
> 
> Next time someone tries to tell you that evolution is just a theory, as a way of dismissing it, as if it's just something someone guessed at, remember that they're using the non-scientific meaning of the word. If that person is a teacher, or minister, or some other figure of authority, they should know better. In fact, they probably do, and are trying to mislead you.5
> 
> Evolution is not just a theory, it's triumphantly a theory!_​From http://notjustatheory.com/


Ok i must say i did not know that and thank you for telling me that a theory is there to explain a fact. Now tell me this, how do you know that evolution is a fact? If it would be a fact then i think all human today would not have been same, there would have been some creatures who were half human and half apes but we today only see human or apes and not a combination.


----------



## ysn

senkora said:


> Also, believing in God DOESN'T mean you have to have a cold or even lukewarm relationship with science. *You can love science and God at the same time.*
> 
> It's simple really, just _stop interpreting the Bible literally and superficially_ and understand it for the deeper and more powerful metaphorical content it is.
> 
> If you start feeling a little uneasy, that maybe the devil is trying to mislead you in cherry picking what you will and won't believe, just remember that you are responsible for your personal relationship with God. It doesn't immediately matter what you will learn or believe: the framework is secondary to your faith. The former only exists for the latter.


Thanks man but i'm Muslim and so far i'm reading Quran only and have'nt finished it yet.


----------



## a degree of freedom

ysn said:


> Ok i must say i did not know that and thank you for telling me that a theory is there to explain a fact. Now tell me this, how do you know that evolution is a fact? If it would be a fact then i think all human today would not have been same, there would have been some creatures who were half human and half apes but we today only see human or apes and not a combination.


The easy part of the answer is that you can watch it happen in your own lifetime. You can see it with your own eyes so it's reality isn't exactly a difficult conclusion to reach, although most of us mostly only come into contact with populations that change slow enough we wouldn't notice, and a lot of change doesn't necessarily lead to overt outward differences in what you see macroscopically anyway.

If you have heard of disease-causing microbes becoming increasingly resistant to antibiotics, what's happening there is evolution. Why isn't last year's flu shot effective this year? It's because the influenza virus has mutated and the immune system doesn't recognize the new strain. That means the virus gets a foothold before the immune system can take action. Why is it that HIV eventually turns into AIDS? It's because the body exhausts its ability to suppress mutation after mutation after mutation of the original infecting virus it can't fully get rid of and can only ever keep trying to suppress, each mutation of which requires resources to keep down. After some decade or two, the immune system collapses under the burden.

But evolution is more than mutations, it's about changes in populations. If you separate two populations of a certain species, mutations occur within members of each population. It's because DNA replication and preservation isn't perfect. It's very very good, but it's not perfect. So mutations can be eliminated if they are bad for the individual, but many can get passed around the interbreeding population and don't really cause any significant change by itself. This happens over some time though in each population and they simply become different from each other as a matter of course. Eventually they are different enough they can no longer interbreed if they were to find each other again, and viola, one species has become two. Those two populations can become as separate and different from each other as can be without there being any individual in the world that is some hybrid of the two. So it is with populations of primates as well as anything.

Were there speciation events during human evolution that would have lead to different near-modern-human populations? It seems there was. Where are they today? Apparently they were out-competed or simply destroyed. Humans are good at killing off other species after all. Why did monkeys remain monkeys and not become humans too? Well, first off all, evolution occurs with all species because mutations do within all populations. However, due to selection pressures, mutations that left individuals viable may have generally resulted in changes that overall left the population much as it originally was. Why? Because the environment and selection pressures stayed similar. But another population may not have the same selection pressures and a mutation which wouldn't work in one may be just fine in the other. Occasionally even the change may in fact be beneficial, and so over time the species becomes as the selection pressures allow or don't allow and it becomes optimized according to the environment, or perhaps is destroyed. Nature is blind after all. There is no plan. Just complex and very marvelous interactions in a complex natural world. There is as much plan in evolution as there is in which bubbles will be large and which small in the sea froth, but there are constraints on where you will find it and the range of sizes allowed. If you want examples of selection pressures changing populations of animals, think of breeds of dogs, which do change and come into being in the course of a lifetime as people deliberately select the features they want and don't want in a population. If you want examples of nature doing this by itself, let me know. I only omit them because I don't want to carry on so long.



ysn said:


> Thanks man but i'm Muslim and so far i'm reading Quran only and have'nt finished it yet.


Well, I think the comment applies regardless of the doctrine. The framework is secondary.


----------



## ysn

senkora said:


> The easy part of the answer is that you can watch it happen in your own lifetime. You can see it with your own eyes so it's reality isn't exactly a difficult conclusion to reach, although most of us mostly only come into contact with populations that change slow enough we wouldn't notice, and a lot of change doesn't necessarily lead to overt outward differences in what you see macroscopically anyway.
> 
> If you have heard of disease-causing microbes becoming increasingly resistant to antibiotics, what's happening there is evolution. Why isn't last year's flu shot effective this year? It's because the influenza virus has mutated and the immune system doesn't recognize the new strain. That means the virus gets a foothold before the immune system can take action. Why is it that HIV eventually turns into AIDS? It's because the body exhausts its ability to suppress mutation after mutation after mutation of the original infecting virus it can't fully get rid of and can only ever keep trying to suppress, each mutation of which requires resources to keep down. After some decade or two, the immune system collapses under the burden.
> 
> But evolution is more than mutations, it's about changes in populations. If you separate two populations of a certain species, mutations occur within members of each population. It's because DNA replication and preservation isn't perfect. It's very very good, but it's not perfect. So mutations can be eliminated if they are bad for the individual, but many can get passed around the interbreeding population and don't really cause any significant change by itself. This happens over some time though in each population and they simply become different from each other as a matter of course. Eventually they are different enough they can no longer interbreed if they were to find each other again, and viola, one species has become two. Those two populations can become as separate and different from each other as can be without there being any individual in the world that is some hybrid of the two. So it is with populations of primates as well as anything.
> 
> Were there speciation events during human evolution that would have lead to different near-modern-human populations? It seems there was. Where are they today? Apparently they were out-competed or simply destroyed. Humans are good at killing off other species after all. Why did monkeys remain monkeys and not become humans too? Well, first off all, evolution occurs with all species because mutations do within all populations. However, due to selection pressures, mutations that left individuals viable may have generally resulted in changes that overall left the population much as it originally was. Why? Because the environment and selection pressures stayed similar. But another population may not have the same selection pressures and a mutation which wouldn't work in one may be just fine in the other. Occasionally even the change may in fact be beneficial, and so over time the species becomes as the selection pressures allow or don't allow and it becomes optimized according to the environment, or perhaps is destroyed. Nature is blind after all. There is no plan. Just complex and very marvelous interactions in a complex natural world. There is as much plan in evolution as there is in which bubbles will be large and which small in the sea froth, but there are constraints on where you will find it and the range of sizes allowed. If you want examples of selection pressures changing populations of animals, think of breeds of dogs, which do change and come into being in the course of a lifetime as people deliberately select the features they want and don't want in a population. If you want examples of nature doing this by itself, let me know. I only omit them because I don't want to carry on so long.
> 
> Well, I think the comment applies regardless of the doctrine. The framework is secondary.


I did not understand your post completely but i think u did not give answer to my question that why do we not find some species today which is half monkey and half human and is in a process of evolving?

Sent from my SM-G531H using Tapatalk


----------



## a degree of freedom

ysn said:


> I did not understand your post completely but i think u did not give answer to my question that why do we not find some species today which is half monkey and half human and is in a process of evolving?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G531H using Tapatalk


Well, I did try to, so maybe re-read in particular the last paragraph. I'll add to it though that it's a bit of a mistake to think of humans or powerful brains as the logical outcome of evolution. Evolution occurs with every species because change is inevitable. Bigger and more complex brains can only be /allowed/ much less promoted if the resources required of the larger brain don't make it so that the animal is put at a disadvantage otherwise that the greater neural sophistication can't make up for, as brains are rather resource-intensive organs. So monkeys too are in the process of evolving and becoming, although because of a species' environment, an important part of which is its ecological niche, changes may more or less leave the species about the same as it was. One question to ask in response regarding why there are not more near-human species is "why should there be?" Why do you have this expectation? Cats and dogs had a common ancestor at one point but there are not cat-dog hybrids today--why should there be? Each species found a path that worked for it, and a hybrid isn't necessarily better. A hybrid may be at a significant disadvantage, just as two streams take separate ways around a mountain and don't go up and over it.


----------



## Wings of Amnesty

I just find religion and deities to be too ridiculous to believe in. Well, islam, judaism, and most branches of christianity are demonstrably false, and I'm sure other major religions are too but I haven't looked into them, so that really only leaves some generic, vague, deity concept, which still has no evidence behind it, so why bother.



ysn said:


> I did not understand your post completely but i think u did not give answer to my question that why do we not find some species today which is half monkey and half human and is in a process of evolving?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G531H using Tapatalk


1. Humans didn't come from monkeys and monkeys didn't turn into humans.

2. Humans are in the process of evolving, we are still changing. Humans are not a final outcome.


----------



## Haunty

I can't believe in things, I either know something or don't know something, there is no believing. I don't need to have an explanation for the unknown, I can live with not knowing. I believe in ideas and morals, but not existence of things.


----------



## AussiePea

It just makes absolutely no logical sense. There's hundreds of religions all with their own beliefs and "proofs" and there's scientific evidence which demolishes so many of these beliefs. It's no coincidence that pretty much every religion was formed when humans understanding of the world was very basic, religion was a way to attempt to explain what seemed impossible at the time. It's also no coincidence that the less educated a nation is, the more likely it's population will be religious. It's also no coincidence that as humans learn more about the world and the science behind it that religious numbers drop. 

It's honestly astounds me that people can look at the facts and still believe.


----------



## Tetragammon

Originally it was because I needed personal experience or concrete evidence to believe in anything, because that's just how my mind works. Throughout my childhood I went the whole nine yards with the religion I was born into -- praying, fasting, reading scriptures, attending church and other meetings every single week, "volunteering" for services -- and yet I never experienced anything remotely "spiritual" or "supernatural." I was lead to believe that it was all my fault, that I just wasn't trying hard enough even though I KNEW that I had truly given it my all. In the end I didn't receive any personal experience and of course there is no concrete evidence, so I reasoned that God simply didn't exist.

But following several decades of near-obsessive thought over the whole situation, I simply don't think that it matters. If God not only exists but requires constant worship and attention from us, as most monotheistic religions claim, then I'd gladly accept my place in "hell" because that's not the kind of being I'd want to be involved with anyway. The way I see it, if God really is omniscient and omnipotent then he'll know exactly how my mind works and exactly why "faith" never worked for me.


----------



## Red October

ysn said:


> .


I wasn't taken to any churches, mosques, synagogues, temples, shrines, or rituals by my parents while i was growing up; by the time I learned that there were religions, I had no reason to pick one over any of the others

I think this is basically true for the vast majority of people, that you believe what your parents or guardians taught you to believe. most christians will have christian kids, most muslims will have muslim kids, and so on


----------



## Milco

I just never believed. There's nothing to suggest god being true, so no reason to believe.
Christianity is embedded in the state here, though we're far more secular than most countries, but I just thought it was stories about morality, being good to others and some kind of personal comfort when struggling. I really didn't think anybody actually believed those things were factual and real.


----------



## Miach

Life and The Universe seems to be a product of natural selection, rather than creation by an intelligent, divine, super being. Although, I do consider myself an agnostic because I can not know if there is or isn't a God.


----------



## Friendonkey

I used to not believe in God because we cannot see him and there's no solid proof of his existence.

Now I believe because it's nice to believe in a higher being who could listen to my prayers... although I do think if there is a God, he is probably not exactly what religion says he is.


----------



## ysn

Friendonkey said:


> I used to not believe in God because we cannot see him and there's no solid proof of his existence.
> 
> Now I believe because it's nice to believe in a higher being who could listen to my prayers... although I do think if there is a God, he is probably not exactly what religion says he is.


What reli


Miach said:


> Life and The Universe seems to be a product of natural selection, rather than creation by an intelligent, divine, super being. Although, I do consider myself an agnostic because I can not know if there is or isn't a God.


Sent from my SM-G531H using Tapatalk


----------



## Terranaut

Except for the lore talked about and indoctrinated into people, there is no phenomenon that makes any kind of appearance or presence that we would need to treat it as a god. I usually answer this question by saying it's not that I don't believe in god, it's that I don't believe in believing. Since I had an epiphany in my teens I have ceased living a life of belief. Only tangible nature which reveals its own cause and effect exists and it is not only ludicrous, it is a waste of time and a potential reason for butting heads with people which I dislike intensely to theorize about ultimate questions we can't answer for sure. The popular god of western civilization reflects the beliefs of Caucasians as if there are no other groups of humans who may have their own god or gods. Why should they consider their view right and others wrong? No matter how you slice it, it still comes out baloney.


----------



## SplendidBob

Because there isn't any evidence for a god, at all, nothing. If I believed in something with such immense implications for my thinking without any evidence at all, then the chances of me being correct about _anything_ would be miniscule. All of my thinking would have, at its core, an assumption with zero evidence.

Give things with lots of evidence lots of trust, give things with little evidence little trust. This way you will more likely to be correct.


----------



## ysn

splendidbob said:


> Because there isn't any evidence for a god, at all, nothing. If I believed in something with such immense implications for my thinking without any evidence at all, then the chances of me being correct about _anything_ would be miniscule. All of my thinking would have, at its core, an assumption with zero evidence.
> 
> Give things with lots of evidence lots of trust, give things with little evidence little trust. This way you will more likely to be correct.


Dont u think there are some things in our life that do not need concrete evidence..they just require gut feeling?

Sent from my SM-G531H using Tapatalk


----------



## Red October

ysn said:


> Dont u think there are some things in our life that do not need concrete evidence..they just require gut feeling?


well, the thread is asking for a reason why people don't believe in god..

I guess I could just say I have a gut feeling that there isn't one


----------



## ysn

Red October said:


> well, the thread is asking for a reason why people don't believe in god..
> 
> I guess I could just say I have a gut feeling that there isn't one


You're saying that your gut feeling says there is no life purpose?

Sent from my SM-G531H using Tapatalk


----------



## Red October

ysn said:


> You're saying that your gut feeling says there is no life purpose?


pretty much, yes; I believe that the world/universe is ultimately purposeless and uncaring

I believe we can create short-term purpose for ourselves while we live, but ultimately it will amount to nothing in the long term

I know it's not the most cheerful outlook, but it's just what I think is true


----------



## Makenzie83

I really agree with Neil deGrasse Tyson on this one. "Any time someone describes their understanding of God, typically it involves some statement of benevolence or some kind of kindness. I look out to the universe and yes, it is filled with mysteries, but it's also filled with all manner of things that would just as soon have you dead. Like asteroid strikes, and hurricanes, and tornadoes, and tsunamis, and volcanoes, and disease, and pestilence. There are things that exist in the natural world that do not have your health or longevity as a priority. And so I cannot look at the universe and say that yes, there's a God, and this God cares about my life - at all. The evidence does not support this."

He goes on to say in regards to intelligent design, "What is the intelligence of which you speak? Once again, an asteroid comes and it takes out 70 percent of all the species of life on Earth. Is there some intelligence you're ascribing to it? I think of, like, the human body, and I look at what's going on between our legs. There's like a sewage system and entertainment complex intermingling. No engineer of any intelligence would have designed it that way.

Any time someone describes their understanding of God, typically it involves some statement of benevolence or some kind of kindness.
I look out to the universe and yes, it is filled with mysteries, but it's also filled with all manner of things that would just as soon have you dead. Like asteroid strikes, and hurricanes, and tornadoes, and tsunamis, and volcanoes, and disease, and pestilence.
There are things that exist in the natural world that do not have your health or longevity as a priority. And so *I cannot look at the universe and say that yes, there's a God, and this God cares about my life - at all. The evidence does not support this.*
- See more at: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/progre...-god-intelligent-design/#sthash.d2k2JGPu.dpuf
Any time someone describes their understanding of God, typically it involves some statement of benevolence or some kind of kindness.
I look out to the universe and yes, it is filled with mysteries, but it's also filled with all manner of things that would just as soon have you dead. Like asteroid strikes, and hurricanes, and tornadoes, and tsunamis, and volcanoes, and disease, and pestilence.
There are things that exist in the natural world that do not have your health or longevity as a priority. And so *I cannot look at the universe and say that yes, there's a God, and this God cares about my life - at all. The evidence does not support this.*
- See more at: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/progre...-god-intelligent-design/#sthash.d2k2JGPu.dpuf
Any time someone describes their understanding of God, typically it involves some statement of benevolence or some kind of kindness.
I look out to the universe and yes, it is filled with mysteries, but it's also filled with all manner of things that would just as soon have you dead. Like asteroid strikes, and hurricanes, and tornadoes, and tsunamis, and volcanoes, and disease, and pestilence.
There are things that exist in the natural world that do not have your health or longevity as a priority. And so *I cannot look at the universe and say that yes, there's a God, and this God cares about my life - at all. The evidence does not support this.*
- See more at: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/progre...-god-intelligent-design/#sthash.d2k2JGPu.dpuf


----------



## ysn

Red October said:


> pretty much, yes; I believe that the world/universe is ultimately purposeless and uncaring
> 
> I believe we can create short-term purpose for ourselves while we live, but ultimately it will amount to nothing in the long term
> 
> I know it's not the most cheerful outlook, but it's just what I think is true


Well, i am restless and not at peace when i think like that... i dont know why but i think that things are not random

Sent from my SM-G531H using Tapatalk


----------



## That Random Guy

*?*

This was supposed to be a forum for support.

Your thread will in one way or another cause a debate to occur.

Just saying.

- T.R.G.


----------



## ysn

That Random Guy said:


> This was supposed to be a forum for support.
> 
> Your thread will in one way or another cause a debate to occur.
> 
> Just saying.
> 
> - T.R.G.


I have questions in my mind..sometimes i share those questions here in hopes of finding solutions through discussion or debate...i have no bad intentions..

Sent from my SM-G531H using Tapatalk


----------



## SplendidBob

ysn said:


> Dont u think there are some things in our life that do not need *concrete evidence*


Of course, but I am not asking for concrete evidence, I am asking for _any_ evidence. To base the foundation of my entire belief structure on something with zero evidence would be absurd for me.


----------



## nubly

ysn said:


> You're saying that your gut feeling says there is no life purpose?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G531H using Tapatalk


What is your life's purpose?


----------



## ysn

nubly said:


> What is your life's purpose?


I'm still searching but im more inclined towards religion and the purpose it tells we have.

Sent from my SM-G531H using Tapatalk


----------



## eukz

Nowadays science and philosophy make more sense and provide more facts than religions. Simple as that.

Watch documentaries like Cosmos and read some History one of these days. You'll see that religion isn't as amazing as it was perceived some decades ago.

Understanding science and seeing how it makes sense provides a state of inner peace as well. You just have to get into it first.


----------



## Dreamwalker

I'm pretty much agnostic. I think that the behavior of most of the people that believe in a god is enough of a reason not to believe in one. 

I mean, even if I wanted to go to church, I don't think any the ones in my area would welcome me. Religion is so full of hatred. Why participate in hatred?


----------



## VanitysFiend

Makenzie83 said:


> I really agree with Neil deGrasse Tyson on this one. "Any time someone describes their understanding of God, typically it involves some statement of benevolence or some kind of kindness. I look out to the universe and yes, it is filled with mysteries, but it's also filled with all manner of things that would just as soon have you dead. Like asteroid strikes, and hurricanes, and tornadoes, and tsunamis, and volcanoes, and disease, and pestilence. There are things that exist in the natural world that do not have your health or longevity as a priority. And so I cannot look at the universe and say that yes, there's a God, and this God cares about my life - at all. The evidence does not support this."
> 
> He goes on to say in regards to intelligent design, "What is the intelligence of which you speak? Once again, an asteroid comes and it takes out 70 percent of all the species of life on Earth. Is there some intelligence you're ascribing to it? I think of, like, the human body, and I look at what's going on between our legs. There's like a sewage system and entertainment complex intermingling. No engineer of any intelligence would have designed it that way.
> 
> Any time someone describes their understanding of God, typically it involves some statement of benevolence or some kind of kindness.
> I look out to the universe and yes, it is filled with mysteries, but it's also filled with all manner of things that would just as soon have you dead. Like asteroid strikes, and hurricanes, and tornadoes, and tsunamis, and volcanoes, and disease, and pestilence.
> There are things that exist in the natural world that do not have your health or longevity as a priority. And so *I cannot look at the universe and say that yes, there's a God, and this God cares about my life - at all. The evidence does not support this.*
> - See more at: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/progre...-god-intelligent-design/#sthash.d2k2JGPu.dpuf
> Any time someone describes their understanding of God, typically it involves some statement of benevolence or some kind of kindness.
> I look out to the universe and yes, it is filled with mysteries, but it's also filled with all manner of things that would just as soon have you dead. Like asteroid strikes, and hurricanes, and tornadoes, and tsunamis, and volcanoes, and disease, and pestilence.
> There are things that exist in the natural world that do not have your health or longevity as a priority. And so *I cannot look at the universe and say that yes, there's a God, and this God cares about my life - at all. The evidence does not support this.*
> - See more at: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/progre...-god-intelligent-design/#sthash.d2k2JGPu.dpuf
> Any time someone describes their understanding of God, typically it involves some statement of benevolence or some kind of kindness.
> I look out to the universe and yes, it is filled with mysteries, but it's also filled with all manner of things that would just as soon have you dead. Like asteroid strikes, and hurricanes, and tornadoes, and tsunamis, and volcanoes, and disease, and pestilence.
> There are things that exist in the natural world that do not have your health or longevity as a priority. And so *I cannot look at the universe and say that yes, there's a God, and this God cares about my life - at all. The evidence does not support this.*
> - See more at: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/progre...-god-intelligent-design/#sthash.d2k2JGPu.dpuf


Don't know if it's the first time he talked about it, but here's  the first time I heard Tyson talk about what he called "stupid design" from all the way back in 2006.

Also, I read afew of the patheos blogs myself mostly Love, joy, feminism and daylight atheism.


----------



## TallDude

I believe there is possibly/probably a higher being or higher beings responsible for this reality but any mythology/religion written about who and what they are is simply that to me; Mythology.

Nobody knows and any books or mythology claiming to is a sham in my opinion.

Religion=Mythology that has been ingrained into people via multiple brainwashing techniques.


----------



## Foh_Teej

ysn said:


> *What is your reason to not believe in God?*


What god? Man has invented several thousand distinct gods, not to mention the various god concepts. You need to be more specific and define what a god is.


----------



## ysn

Foh_Teej said:


> What god? Man has invented several thousand distinct gods, not to mention the various god concepts. You need to be more specific and define what a god is.


can we agree on this definition?....God= One, omniscient , omnipotent, does'nt require food or drink to survive, Neither begets nor begotten and there is nothing like him in this universe.


----------



## Foh_Teej

ysn said:


> can we agree on this definition?....God= One, omniscient , omnipotent, does'nt require food or drink to survive, Neither begets nor begotten and there is nothing like him in this universe.


Well, that makes answering your question really easy. I have never experienced nor encountered any of these presupposed attributes you have assigned to this being. Why would I believe a being like this exists when I have never even encountered a single one of these attributes in all of my experience? Now it could be the case that I am mistaken -- but this does not change that I have no valid reason for believing such until demonstrated otherwise.


----------



## ysn

Foh_Teej said:


> Well, that makes answering your question really easy. I have never experienced nor encountered any of these presupposed attributes you have assigned to this being. Why would I believe a being like this exists when I have never even encountered a single one of these attributes in all of my experience? Now it could be the case that I am mistaken -- but this does not change that I have no valid reason for believing such until demonstrated otherwise.


Hmm. But

Sent from my SM-G531H using Tapatalk


----------



## zonebox

I hope there is something out there, I just don't have faith that there is. I am not sure if there is a reason, perhaps I am just not predisposed to have faith in the first place, I have tried in the past and it never worked out well for me because I need something I can grasp on to, to have faith in first place.

Of all of the religions I have studied, none of them make any sense. Most are to a point, ridiculous and ego driven. 

Religion provides really simple answers, that most people are okay with, it fills their need.. I am not okay with simple answers when it comes to something as significant as a higher power. It is not as though I am intelligent, or sophisticated, I just have an endless sense of curiosity about me. A "just because" answer does not fulfill that curiosity.

In addition, perhaps I don't have faith in God, because I really do not have very much faith in people. I don't believe what most people claim to be the "truth". 

As I said though, I hope there is some all loving higher power out there, that we will all be reunited with loved ones, and everything turns out perfect in the end. It would be amazing, but I have long since learned.. I don't always get what I want, and to appreciate what we do have.


----------



## Foh_Teej

ysn said:


> Hmm. But


Hmm but what?


----------



## ysn

Foh_Teej said:


> Hmm but what?


I was going to write something but then accidently pressed send button on my phone  now i dont remember what i intended to write.


----------



## rewired

Smiles at the question. Do I require a reason not to believe in a God? What reason is there to suggest there is a God?


----------



## ysn

rewired said:


> Smiles at the question. Do I require a reason not to believe in a God? What reason is there to suggest there is a God?


So your reason to not believe is that there is no reason to suggest there is a God?

Sent from my SM-G531H using Tapatalk


----------



## rewired

ysn said:


> So your reason to not believe is that there is no reason to suggest there is a God?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G531H using Tapatalk


In no way does my response allude to my own preference, but merely points out the arrogance that comes from such limiting beliefs. Why does one even need a reason? I am GOD - I need no reason to believe or nor do I need it to feed another's need. We can all be Gods, if not for this notion of being in need of reason. Hence ... limiting belief.


----------



## eukz

ysn said:


> So your reason to not believe is that there is no reason to suggest there is a God?


Well, objectively speaking, nowadays there's almost no reason to believe in a god. Science explains almost everything, astronomers have recognized the observable universe, physicists are discovering the mysteries of the matter, certain religions in the past have failed and died, you name it. You can see that pretty much the only reason why people still follow religions is tradition (or ignorance in some cases).


----------



## ysn

eukz said:


> Well, objectively speaking, nowadays there's almost no reason to believe in a god. Science explains almost everything, astronomers have recognized the observable universe, phycisists are discovering the mysteries of the matter, certain religions in the past have failed and died, you name it. You can see that pretty much the only reason why people still follow religions is tradition and/or ignorance.


Does science say anything about what happens to us after we die? How all this mass or energy was created? Etc. There are so many things science hasnt explained yet. Religion explains them(what happen after we die etc) but with out any proof. I am saying this not to emphasize that religion is better but to say that science hasnt explained everything and doesnt promises to explain all the questions in my or your life time. This reply may sound rude but the real reason is my weak english.

Sent from my SM-G531H using Tapatalk


----------



## eukz

ysn said:


> How all this mass or energy was created?


Science proposes the Big Bang model, and currently it has observational evidence backing it up. Claiming that science has 0 arguments here is false.



ysn said:


> There are so many things science hasnt explained yet.


Wrong. There aren't "so many things" science hasnt explained yet. Just some random questions (you barely named two).



> Religion explains them but without proof.


Which is why religion demands you to have faith. Remove the faith and you simply have nothing. Doesn't sound very convincing to me.



> Does science say anything about what happens to us after we die?


This is rather a philosophical question though, and right now you ideally need think this through. The huge problem with this question is that it was forcibly made after people assumed without proof the existence of the soul. It's exactly like asking 'do planets have feelings?' after assuming without proof the existence of a planet brain. See the similarity? What's the logical reason to make such question in the first place?

That being said, why would anything happen after we die? What happens to a tree after it dies? Or an animal? Or an AI machine? Likely nothing. If currently we are just neurons connected with each other, we likely become the same thing we were before we were conceived, which is a bunch of disconnected atoms.


----------



## ysn

eukz said:


> Science proposes the Big Bang model, and currently it has observational evidence backing it up. Claming that science has 0 arguments here is false.
> 
> Wrong. There aren't "so many things" science hasnt explained yet. Just some random questions (you barely named two).
> 
> Which is why religion demands you to have faith. Remove the faith and you simply have nothing. Doesn't sound very convincing to me.
> 
> This is rather a philosophical question though, and right now you ideally need think this through. The huge problem with this question is that it was forcibly made after people assumed without proof the existence of the soul. It's exactly like inventing the question 'do planets have feelings?' after assuming without proof the existence of a planet brain. See the similarity?
> 
> That being said, why would anything happen after we die? What happens to a tree after it dies? Or an animal? Or an AI machine? Likely nothing. If currently we are just neurons connected with each other, we likely become the same thing we were before we were conceived, which is a bunch of disconnected atoms.
> 
> What's the logical reason to make such question in the first place?


Look right now you are alive and thinking and feeling and hearing..my question is what do u feel, think, hear n see after heart stops (in other terms when u die).does science have any theory to explain this??..and about the big bang. Scientist say that universe is expanding( which i agree is a fact) and it all started from one thing exploding n creating other..my question is that from where, that one thing came into existence which exploded n made stars? I hope u understand my english 

Sent from my SM-G531H using Tapatalk


----------



## eukz

ysn said:


> my question is what do u feel, think, hear n see after heart stops (in other terms when u die).does science have any theory to explain this??


If you use the scientific method, the answer to that question is literally nothing. Simply because after the heart stops for good you stop having a brain, therefore you feel nothing, you think about nothing, you hear nothing, and you see nothing.



ysn said:


> my question is that from where, that one thing came into existence which exploded n made stars? I hope u understand my english


Like I said, it's simple, science will never answer a question made right after you assumed the existence of something without a scientific explanation. Not because it'll never be able to, but because it'll never be its job. If you think about it, the number of questions a human can think of is infinite (Do planets have feelings, what happens to trees after death, what created the big bang, are some of them). Neither science nor religion have the job to answer an infinite number of questions, do they?

That being said, even if science ever found the existence of something that triggered the Big Bang, then you could simply ask "and what created that thing?", and you'll be assuming the existence of something without a scientific explanation again. See how you can't ask science certain questions because it isn't its job? The same applies to religion, you can't ask religion in which day God created the dinosaurs, it wouldn't be its job.


----------



## ysn

eukz said:


> If you use the scientific method, the answer to that question is literally nothing. Simply because after the heart stops for good you stop having a brain, therefore you feel nothing, you think about nothing, you hear nothing, and you see nothing.
> 
> Like I said, it's simple, science will never answer a question made right after you assumed the existence of something without a scientific explanation. Not because it'll never be able to, but because it'll never be its job. If you think about it, the number of questions a human can think of is infinite (Do planets have feelings, what happens to trees after death, what created the big bang, are some of them). Neither science nor religion have the job to answer an infinite number of questions, do they?
> 
> That being said, even if science ever found the existence of something that triggered the Big Bang, then you could simply ask "and what created that thing?", and you'll be assuming the existence of something without a scientific explanation again. See how you can't ask science certain questions because it isn't its job? The same applies to religion, you can't ask religion in which day God created the dinosaurs, it wouldn't be its job.


What do mean by nothing..so u are thinking feeling hearing right now..once ur heart stops.us feel nothing?? I dont know what nothing feels like?? Science cant answer this coz science cannot step into ur shoes n know what happens after ur heart stops..but religion gives answer (without proof)..that is why today people believe in religion..coz science havent answered many questions which religion answers (without proof)...and science doesnt promise to answer these questions in ur n mine lifetime.

Sent from my SM-G531H using Tapatalk


----------



## eukz

ysn said:


> What do mean by nothing. I dont know what nothing feels like??


You feel the same way you felt before you were conceived (or before your brain was formed, being more specific), you sense nothing. How is it hard to understand? :?



ysn said:


> Science cant answer this coz science cannot step into ur shoes n know what happens after ur heart stops..


Science isn't obliged to explain what's happening in the mind of a stone either, because that mind doesn't exist 



> but religion gives answer (without proof)..


Well, if you think that a statement without proof can solve a problem, it's your life and your decision I guess, none has the authority to forbid it....



> that is why today people believe in religion..


And none's ever claimed that people have absolutely no reason to believe in religions. Science will never have a method to prove that fairies don't exist, which means that religion as a whole will never be proven 100% wrong.



> and science doesnt promise to answer these questions in ur n mine lifetime.


Now this is a different and interesting topic. Are you claiming that the fact that science won't solve our questions in our lifetimes is a solid reason to discard it? Which means that the future generations don't deserve to know the answers science will provide in the future? Explain to me how aren't you being selfish in this part


----------



## ysn

eukz said:


> You feel the same way you felt before you were conceived (or before your brain was formed, being more specific), you sense nothing. How is it hard to understand? :?
> 
> Science isn't obliged to explain what's happening in the mind of a stone either, because that mind doesn't exist
> 
> Well, if you think that a statement without proof can solve a problem, it's your life and your decision I guess, none has the authority to forbid it....
> 
> And none's ever claimed that people have absolutely no reason to believe in religions. Science will never have a method to prove that fairies don't exist, which means that religion as a whole will never be proven 100% wrong.
> 
> Now this is a different and interesting topic. Are you claiming that the fact that science won't solve our questions in our lifetimes is a solid reason to discard it? Which means that the future generations don't deserve to know the answers science will provide in the future? Explain to me how aren't you being selfish in this part


----------



## Foh_Teej

ysn said:


>


Why would you cite a video as anything other than people that clearly have no idea the difference between clinical death and brain death? If you think this is some kind of good argument for life after death, it's not. In fact, it's rather stupid. We already knew the brain does not die for SEVERAL MINUTES after cardiac arrest. Otherwise, CPR and resuscitation would be useless. Brain death is, however, currently irreversible. This topic and NDE/OBEs have been beaten to death (pun intended) on here and it comes out as nothing more than anecdotes and wishful thinking with no actual evidence.


----------



## Tetragammon

ysn said:


> What do mean by nothing..so u are thinking feeling hearing right now..once ur heart stops.us feel nothing?? I dont know what nothing feels like??


Isn't it funny how ARROGANT the human species is? Just because we have this capacity to think and feel and hear... Some of us cannot even imagine non-existence. Oblivion. Because, what, you're too "important" not to exist? I know you don't even want to consider it because it's "scary" or whatever to you, but it's not that hard to understand.

Everything we are -- our minds, our senses, our personalities -- is a product of the brain. We need the neurons firing in that organ to be able to "experience" anything... To be able to live. We know that after brain death, those neurons stop firing. So the most logical hypothesis is that, after death, our minds simply cease to exist. There is no fanciful "heaven" or terrifying "hell," no Eternal Life, Exaltation, 72 virgins or whatever other BS you ascribe to. In the singular moment of our death everything that we were dissolves and disappears.

There is no evidence whatsoever for a "soul" that lives on beyond death, unless you're seriously gullible enough to believe in what are essentially "ghost stories" told by the religious to keep themselves feeling safe and comfortable. Oblivion can be a scary thought, sure. But once you come to accept that it's simply a fact of life, it makes living that much more meaningful, don't you think? Why worry about myths and superstitions when we only have a limited time to exist? Why deny yourself the basic pleasures in this life simply because _someone else says so?_ And of course the influence we make on this world during our lives doesn't disappear so quickly -- those still alive may remember us. So it's really not all doom and gloom, like theists seem to think.


----------



## eukz

Tetragammon said:


> Isn't it funny how ARROGANT the human species is? Just because we have this capacity to think and feel and hear... Some of us cannot even imagine non-existence. Oblivion. Because, what, you're too "important" not to exist? I know you don't even want to consider it because it's "scary" or whatever to you, but it's not that hard to understand.
> 
> Everything we are -- our minds, our senses, our personalities -- is a product of the brain. We need the neurons firing in that organ to be able to "experience" anything... To be able to live. We know that after brain death, those neurons stop firing. So the most logical hypothesis is that, after death, our minds simply cease to exist. There is no fanciful "heaven" or terrifying "hell," no Eternal Life, Exaltation, 72 virgins or whatever other BS you ascribe to. In the singular moment of our death everything that we were dissolves and disappears.
> 
> There is no evidence whatsoever for a "soul" that lives on beyond death, unless you're seriously gullible enough to believe in what are essentially "ghost stories" told by the religious to keep themselves feeling safe and comfortable. Oblivion can be a scary thought, sure. But once you come to accept that it's simply a fact of life, it makes living that much more meaningful, don't you think? Why worry about myths and superstitions when we only have a limited time to exist? Why deny yourself the basic pleasures in this life simply because _someone else says so?_ And of course the influence we make on this world during our lives doesn't disappear so quickly -- those still alive may remember us. So it's really not all doom and gloom, like theists seem to think.


Well put. I think next time someone asks me how do they feel when they don't exist, I'll answer that they literally didn't exist for 13 billion years, so it's weird they don't remember that...


----------



## ysn

Tetragammon said:


> Isn't it funny how ARROGANT the human species is? Just because we have this capacity to think and feel and hear... Some of us cannot even imagine non-existence. Oblivion. Because, what, you're too "important" not to exist? I know you don't even want to consider it because it's "scary" or whatever to you, but it's not that hard to understand.
> 
> Everything we are -- our minds, our senses, our personalities -- is a product of the brain. We need the neurons firing in that organ to be able to "experience" anything... To be able to live. We know that after brain death, those neurons stop firing. So the most logical hypothesis is that, after death, our minds simply cease to exist. There is no fanciful "heaven" or terrifying "hell," no Eternal Life, Exaltation, 72 virgins or whatever other BS you ascribe to. In the singular moment of our death everything that we were dissolves and disappears.
> 
> There is no evidence whatsoever for a "soul" that lives on beyond death, unless you're seriously gullible enough to believe in what are essentially "ghost stories" told by the religious to keep themselves feeling safe and comfortable. Oblivion can be a scary thought, sure. But once you come to accept that it's simply a fact of life, it makes living that much more meaningful, don't you think? Why worry about myths and superstitions when we only have a limited time to exist? Why deny yourself the basic pleasures in this life simply because _someone else says so?_ And of course the influence we make on this world during our lives doesn't disappear so quickly -- those still alive may remember us. So it's really not all doom and gloom, like theists seem to think.


I am not being arrogant. I simply cant visualize nothingness.

Sent from my SM-G531H using Tapatalk


----------



## eukz

ysn said:


> I am not being arrogant. I simply cant visualize nothingness.


It actually seems you don't *want* to visualize it, because that'd mean that everything your parents told you would be a lie, which would probably make you panic or something. Even a 5 year old would understand it. Anyway, you're not only person in the world who doesn't want to understand something for personal convenience.


----------



## ysn

eukz said:


> It actually seems you don't *want* to visualize it, because that'd mean that everything your parents told you would be a lie, which would probably make you panic or something. Even a 5 year old would understand it. Anyway, you're not only person in the world who doesn't want to understand something for personal convenience.


Ok i thought about it today and i gotta say i understand it now. Its like when we wake up after sleep n dont realize what happened n where were we while we were sleeping.

Sent from my SM-G531H using Tapatalk


----------



## Overdrive

Because god knows everything and have answers to everything... 
Sounds very limited to me...


----------



## Overdrive

and because of this :


----------



## eukz

ysn said:


> Ok i thought about it today and i gotta say i understand it now. Its like when we wake up after sleep n dont realize what happened n where were we while we were sleeping.


Yeah, probably. Waking up and realising that you didn't dream about absolutely anything would be a close case. With the obvious exception that when you're dead you don't wake up again, so you never realise that you were dead/dreaming.

However if you accept this scientific approach, you'd also need to accept that there's no soul out there floating in the space or anything like that. The soul never existed, becasue your brain is currently just a bunch of atoms. If you get burried after your death, those atoms simply become part of the land, and then they'll likely get scattered, and the cycle continues. That's likely what's been happening for the last 13 billion years in this universe. The soul concept doesn't fit in this hypothesis.


----------



## ysn

eukz said:


> Yeah, probably. Waking up and realising that you didn't dream about absolutely anything would be a close case. With the obvious exception that when you're dead you don't wake up again, so you never realise that you were dead/dreaming.
> 
> However if you accept this scientific approach, you'd also need to accept that there's no soul out there floating in the space or anything like that. The soul never existed, becasue your brain is currently just a bunch of atoms. If you get burried after your death, those atoms simply become part of the land, and then they'll likely get scattered, and the cycle continues. That's likely what's been happening for the last 13 billion years in this universe. The soul concept doesn't fit in this hypothesis.


Well i do believe that we have a soul and it remains alive even after the body dies. But i get it that if someone doesnt believe in religion then logically 'nothingness' is what they think is their end.

Sent from my SM-G531H using Tapatalk


----------



## eukz

ysn said:


> But i get it that if someone doesnt believe in religion then logically 'nothingness' is what they think is their end.


It could be better that way. Have you thought about that? If souls hypothethically never existed, people would give the best of their lives while they're alive. They'd enjoy every second on this rock, and they'd focus on working to leave a better world for their children, who'll likely get to live better times, in which science will have provided more answers and improved the quality of life.

This is just one aspect of the irreligious philosophy. It suggests you to be relatively optimistic of the future of humanity, though it's not something mandatory either.


----------



## ysn

eukz said:


> It could be better that way. Have you thought about that? If souls hypothethically never existed, people would give the best of their lives while they're alive. They'd enjoy every second on this rock, and they'd focus on working to leave a better world for their children, who'll likely get to live better times, in which science will have provided more answers and improved the quality of life.
> 
> This is just one aspect of the irreligious philosophy. It suggests you to be relatively optimistic of the future of humanity, though it's not something mandatory either.


You say " if souls never existed hypothetically ". ..for me they exist just as for you the body exists so i take existance of soul as a fact..

Sent from my SM-G531H using Tapatalk


----------



## ysn

eukz said:


> It could be better that way. Have you thought about that? If souls hypothethically never existed, people would give the best of their lives while they're alive. They'd enjoy every second on this rock, and they'd focus on working to leave a better world for their children, who'll likely get to live better times, in which science will have provided more answers and improved the quality of life.
> 
> This is just one aspect of the irreligious philosophy. It suggests you to be relatively optimistic of the future of humanity, though it's not something mandatory either.


You say " if souls never existed hypothetically ". ..for me they exist just as for you the body exists so i take existance of soul as a fact..and i think that if someday i become an atheist (God forbid (sorry if tht offends u)) then the first thing i'll do is buy a sniper n start killing currupt n unjust leaders in my country..the only thing tht stops me nd many ppl frm doing tht is religion.

Sent from my SM-G531H using Tapatalk


----------



## eukz

ysn said:


> You say " if souls never existed hypothetically ". ..for me they exist just as for you the body exists so i take existance of soul as a fact..


You're clearly mistaking personal truth with fact. You have your own beliefs, I have mine, but the middle ground between them (facts) isn't affected by our personal truths. Souls definitely don't belong to the facts category (not yet at least), sorry to ruin your party...


----------



## naes

That Random Guy said:


> This was supposed to be a forum for support.
> 
> Your thread will in one way or another cause a debate to occur.
> 
> Just saying.
> 
> - T.R.G.


He posted his question in the correct section so it is fine. Everyone who visits this thread already knows what to expect and he isn't being unfriendly.


----------



## ysn

eukz said:


> You're clearly mistaking personal truth with fact. You have your own beliefs, I have mine, but the middle point between them (facts) isn't affected by our personal truths. Souls definitely don't belong to the facts category (not yet at least), sorry to ruin your party...


Yes soul may not belong to the fact category for u because u believe in things when u see them or u see some evidence of their existence...but i dont think like that..for me ,soul is a fact even though us humans cannot see it.

Sent from my SM-G531H using Tapatalk


----------



## ysn

naes said:


> He posted his question in the correct section so it is fine. Everyone who visits this thread already knows what to expect and he isn't being unfriendly.


Thanks bro 

Sent from my SM-G531H using Tapatalk


----------



## eukz

ysn said:


> and i think that if someday i become an atheist (God forbid (sorry if tht offends u)) then the first thing i'll do is buy a sniper n start killing currupt n unjust leaders in my country..the only thing tht stops me nd many ppl frm doing tht is religion.


This is a very different topic man. I'm very sorry if you apparently feel that religion is the only thing between your "state of inner peace" and your insanity, but FYI there are many other earthly ways for people to abstain themselves from killing. Although this totally applies to the Western world, honestly I couldn't speak on Pakistan's behalf.


----------



## ysn

eukz said:


> This is a very different topic man. I'm very sorry if you apparently feel that religion is the only thing between your "state of inner peace" and your insanity, but FYI there are many other earthly ways for people to abstain themselves from killing. Although this totally applies to the Western world, honestly I couldn't speak on Pakistan's behalf.


Well, in Pakistan..rules are not stricktly followed..nd one can break them easily if he/she has money or power..so its almost a CHOICE here to not commit crimes like giving bribe, lying to authorities etc...most of the people who choose not to do these things is bcoz of religion..n fear of Allah (God)

Sent from my SM-G531H using Tapatalk


----------



## naes

ysn said:


> Thanks bro
> 
> Sent from my SM-G531H using Tapatalk


No problem buddy. I feel like it is totally acceptable asking your question in this section. Just try to remain open-minded. Just because god might or might not exist doesn't diminish reason for living and it also doesn't mean that their isn't something greater that we don't know about.


----------



## ysn

naes said:


> No problem buddy. I feel like it is totally acceptable asking your question in this section. Just try to remain open-minded. Just because god might or might not exist doesn't diminish reason for living and it also doesn't mean that their isn't something greater that we don't know about.


Ok bro..i'll try my best 

Sent from my SM-G531H using Tapatalk


----------



## Foh_Teej

ysn said:


> Well i do believe that we have a soul


What is a soul? How would you detect one? How would you distinguish one absent a brain? How are they created? How exactly do they interact with matter and why is the brain absolutely necessary for a soul to do whatever souls do in our understanding of reality? If you can't reasonably and honestly answer these, I suspect you don't have very good reasons for this belief.



ysn said:


> and it remains alive even after the body dies.


How does it remain alive? What and/or where are souls before someone is born? Where do they go when a person is asleep, comatose, vegetative state, or otherwise unconscious? You'd need to answer these and compare/contrast how souls function in a given circumstance to determine what might happen after complete biolgical cell death.



ysn said:


> But i get it that if someone doesnt believe in religion then logically 'nothingness' is what they think is their end.


What do you mean "doesn't believe in religion"? There are atheistic religions that believe in life after death concepts. Moreover, there are many non religious athiests that believe in ghosts and paranormal. A god in a traditional religious sense isn't necessary for their to be life after death. However, while there is a correlation between those that identify as non religious atheists and the idea of consciousness ceasing to exist after death comes usually at the lack of substantive evidence for it rather than a disbelief in a god or any other motivation. Many athiests are driven by skepticism and other claims of paranormal, supernatural, and the extraordinary are met with the same standards of evidence instead of mere incredulity.


----------



## xxDark Horse

Prior to 9th grade, I was devoutly religious and felt like I had a genuine connection with God. 

But I started to lose my religion around 9th grade. It all started when I began to ask myself a simple question. If two different people with two different views spend their whole life believing their way is right and other is wrong, which way is truly right? I mean you can truly believe that your way and your religion is right, but what if it isn't? What if everything you once thought was real, and the way you see the world, is actually a giant lie?

I went to a Christian private school and the history teacher in 9th grade once said, I know there is a God and Jesus exists, I can feel him speaking with me and giving me guidance. So I responded with, what if a Muslim teacher said the exact same thing that he felt Muhammed guiding him? And the history teacher responded with, well the muslim is wrong he is following a false God. So I responded with, well what if you are following the false God and you don't even know it. I got kicked out of the history class because of questioning him.


Now I consider my self Agnostic. I'm not religious, I don't conform to a religion. But i'm not going to say there isn't a God but i'm not going to say there is one either. For all we know, we could all just be in a giant video game and this world we think we know, could all just be a giant lie.


----------



## ysn

Foh_Teej said:


> What is a soul? How would you detect one? How would you distinguish one absent a brain? How are they created? How exactly do they interact with matter and why is the brain absolutely necessary for a soul to do whatever souls do in our understanding of reality? If you can't reasonably and honestly answer these, I suspect you don't have very good reasons for this belief.
> 
> How does it remain alive? What and/or where are souls before someone is born? Where do they go when a person is asleep, comatose, vegetative state, or otherwise unconscious? You'd need to answer these and compare/contrast how souls function in a given circumstance to determine what might happen after complete biolgical cell death.
> 
> What do you mean "doesn't believe in religion"? There are atheistic religions that believe in life after death concepts. Moreover, there are many non religious athiests that believe in ghosts and paranormal. A god in a traditional religious sense isn't necessary for their to be life after death. However, while there is a correlation between those that identify as non religious atheists and the idea of consciousness ceasing to exist after death comes usually at the lack of substantive evidence for it rather than a disbelief in a god or any other motivation. Many athiests are driven by skepticism and other claims of paranormal, supernatural, and the extraordinary are met with the same standards of evidence instead of mere incredulity.


I think u didnt read my other reply...i said that i believe in the existense of soul even though today we cannot detect its presence by the devices or methods we have..

Sent from my SM-G531H using Tapatalk


----------



## eukz

ysn said:


> Yes soul may not belong to the fact category for u because u believe in things when u see them or u see some evidence of their existence...but i dont think like that..for me ,soul is a fact even though us humans cannot see it.


Actually for your information, on this world there aren't "different fact categories", there's only one: the things that everyone on the world can sense in some way. Simple as that.
-Scientists usually discover facts (laws), while they deal with hypotheses (not facts yet) at the same time.
-The judiciary organs in almost all countries must deal with facts all the times; when crimes are commited they must investigate using the scientific method in order to determinate the facts.
-If you casually witness a car crash then that's a fact too.

Get the difference? Therefore you can understand that the soul doesn't belong to the one fact category, not yet at least. The soul is just your own personal truth, and I don't think it's a bad thing. Many religious people would acknowledge this as well.



ysn said:


> Well, in Pakistan..rules are not stricktly followed..nd one can break them easily if he/she has money or power..so its almost a CHOICE here to not commit crimes like giving bribe, lying to authorities etc...most of the people who choose not to do these things is bcoz of religion..n fear of Allah (God)


Well, like I said, this is a different topic, and it's been dealt with here before. Atheism is something very difficult to promote in developing countries (I live in one too), since obviously the long list of ongoing social issues directly affects the optimism of people. It's no wonder that religion is the only effective method to provide inner peace in the population, and I don't think someone else would think it's wrong, since there are other urgent issues to deal with. History proves this too when you realise that many developed countries used to be highly religious too. So I agree with you in this part.


----------



## Foh_Teej

ysn said:


> I think u didnt read my other reply...i said that i believe in the existense of soul even though today we cannot detect its presence by the devices or methods we have..
> 
> Sent from my SM-G531H using Tapatalk


Then why would you believe in such a concept when you admit we cannot detect a soul? Do you also believe in fairies since we cannot detect them either?


----------



## nothing else

For me it's not really a matter of "not believing in God", it's more that I don't believe in religious doctrine. A lot of religion requires following a book and more often than not, what is written in the book does not reflect reality.


----------



## nothing else

ysn said:


> You say " if souls never existed hypothetically ". ..for me they exist just as for you the body exists so i take existance of soul as a fact..and i think that if someday i become an atheist (God forbid (sorry if tht offends u)) then the first thing i'll do is buy a sniper n start killing currupt n unjust leaders in my country..the only thing tht stops me nd many ppl frm doing tht is religion.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G531H using Tapatalk


Why would religion stop you from killing corrupt leaders? Most types of religions condone killing anyway so that shouldn't stop you. Just read the Koran or the Bible and there's many instances where God doesn't really care about killing, heck he even kills people himself when he wants to and when he sees fit.


----------



## ysn

Foh_Teej said:


> Then why would you believe in such a concept when you admit we cannot detect a soul? Do you also believe in fairies since we cannot detect them either?


No i do not believe in fairies as my religion dont tell me they exist or not. I believe in soul coz my religion tells me so..now i cannot force u to believe in soul or God etc ..u have ur own beliefs n i have mine..

Sent from my SM-G531H using Tapatalk


----------



## ysn

nothing else said:


> Why would religion stop you from killing corrupt leaders? Most types of religions condone killing anyway so that shouldn't stop you. Just read the Koran or the Bible and there's many instances where God doesn't really care about killing, heck he even kills people himself when he wants to and when he sees fit.


No. I'm a Muslim and we believe tht only authorities can decide whether to kill a corrupt person or not after court trial etc..individuals have no right to do so..

Sent from my SM-G531H using Tapatalk


----------



## sarah089

I was raised Catholic but I probably lost my faith around the beginning of high school. As I grew into a young adult, I started to form my own opinions and thoughts on religion. For the majority of my life, I just believed what I was told until I started to research stuff my own. 

I guess the main reason why I'm now agnostic is that there is really no scientific evidence backing up the existence of any God. I was sick of relying on my own "hope" that there was. I needed something more. For me, personally, I can't rely on a "gut feeling" alone. Also, I guess the other thing would be when my grandfather was dying a few years ago, I prayed and prayed that he would recover. It didn't work and he passed away shortly there after. I was already starting to question my religion back then so that kind of solidified it for me.


----------



## naes

sarah089 said:


> I was raised Catholic but I probably lost my faith around the beginning of high school. As I grew into a young adult, I started to form my own opinions and thoughts on religion. For the majority of my life, I just believed what I was told until I started to research stuff my own.
> 
> I guess the main reason why I'm now agnostic is that there is really no scientific evidence backing up the existence of any God. I was sick of relying on my own "hope" that there was. I needed something more. For me, personally, I can't rely on a "gut feeling" alone. Also, I guess the other thing would be when my grandfather was dying a few years ago, I prayed and prayed that he would recover. It didn't work and he passed away shortly there after. I was already starting to question my religion back then so that kind of solidified it for me.


Sorry to hear about your grandfather.. Off topic: When you were catholic did you have to wear a hot schoolgirl outfit xD?


----------



## sarah089

naes said:


> Sorry to hear about your grandfather.. Off topic: When you were catholic did you have to wear a hot schoolgirl outfit xD?


Nah lol. I actually didn't go to a Catholic high school but I was forced to go to an after school program until maybe sophomore year of HS. It was super boring and all we did was memorize prayers and recite passages from the Bible. My parents eventually told me that I was going to be an adult soon anyway and I could choose whether or not to continue going. The program also had a super strict dress code for girls. You couldn't wear shirts that expose your arms and stuff like that.

It's kind of funny to me that despite all the effort my family put in that I still turned out not religious.


----------



## naes

sarah089 said:


> Nah lol. I actually didn't go to a Catholic high school but I was forced to go to an after school program until maybe sophomore year of HS. It was super boring and all we did was memorize prayers and recite passages from the Bible. My parents eventually told me that I was going to be an adult soon anyway and I could choose whether or not to continue going. The program also had a super strict dress code for girls. You couldn't wear shirts that expose your arms and stuff like that.
> 
> It's kind of funny to me that despite all the effort my family put in that I still turned out not religious.


Aw...That's disappointing...about the schoolgirl outfit and all lol. I feel for you on the afterschool crap. Me and my brother back when we were kids had to go to a Jewish sunday school every week to learn Hebrew and other Jewish stuff because our dad was adamant on it (even though he isn't even a practicing jew, how ironic). I remember I actually failed a grade in their school lol. Eventually my brother got us kicked out of the school which was awesome. I think that was probably the first time I actually said thank you to god xD


----------



## ScorchedEarth

Being a paranoid cynic, the old adage applies here, as with everything else: ''I'll believe it when I see it.'' Faith isn't worth **** to me, I make choices based on verifiable data rather than dark-age scripture written at a time when people thought there was such a medical condition as ''having excess blood in your system''.


----------



## Cascades

Theres no religion in my family so I grew up never thinking about a God. Now Im older, I think maybe I should explore and do some of my own research and see how I go. Thing is, I guess when you havent believed in something your whole life, its hard to change that. Also, since we will never know whether God exists or not, just makes me not bother because its kind of like chasing an answer to something we will never know and I dont like that.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## BlueUpQuark

Simple: No evidence for his existence. 
I can actually take this further for some gods, depending on their properties. If a proposed god has free will and is all knowing, then he absolutely, 100%, does not exist, and I can prove it. 

If god is all-knowing, then he knows his future, which would mean that his future is already determined, which would mean he doesn't have free will. If he has free will, then he can't be all knowing, because then his future isn't determined, so he couldn't know it.


----------



## ugh1979

ysn said:


> Ok i must say i did not know that and thank you for telling me that a theory is there to explain a fact. Now tell me this, how do you know that evolution is a fact? If it would be a fact then i think all human today would not have been same, there would have been some creatures who were half human and half apes but we today only see human or apes and not a combination.


The fact is there were lots of species which were 'half ape/half human', (we are technically one of the great apes though). They are however all now extinct (we have fossil and archaeological evidence for many of them). You clearly just don't know about them.

'Transitional' species, to use a term only as required in this context, existed as a fact, as per the tangible empirical evidence we have for them.

I appreciate though that you are from a country which as state policy doesn't teach the truth on the matter so it's no wonder you are so ignorant (no offence intended). The facts are out there to learn via the internet rather than religiously dictated state curriculum though.


----------



## ysn

ugh1979 said:


> The fact is there were lots of species which were 'half ape/half human', (we are technically one of the great apes though). They are however all now extinct (we have fossil and archaeological evidence for many of them). You clearly just don't know about them.
> 
> 'Transitional' species, to use a term only as required in this context, existed as a fact, as per the tangible empirical evidence we have for them.
> 
> I appreciate though that you are from a country which as state policy doesn't teach the truth on the matter so it's no wonder you are so ignorant (no offence intended). The facts are out there to learn via the internet rather than religiously dictated state curriculum though.


Yes u r right..im ignorant n u r educated...my country lies to its citizens n ur does not lie at all..n also i actually live in a cave here..

Sent from my SM-G531H using Tapatalk


----------



## ugh1979

ysn said:


> Dont u think there are some things in our life that do not need concrete evidence..they just require gut feeling?


No, and that's a terrible way of thinking. It's responsible for much injustice and carnage in the world. See, when you abandon reason and just go with 'what you feel like is right' then anything goes and people start flying planes into buildings and strapping explosive to kids to blow themselves up in tourists spots etc.

Human intuition (aka gut feeling) is well established by psychological experiments as a terrible indication of truth. It's at best primitive and at worst dangerous to regard as the primary method of reasoning.

I think many people who are intuitive thinkers just aren't quite as cognitivly evolved as many who are more analytical thinkers, and it's funny that many of those those who are more intuitive thinkers tend to reject evolution. I wonder why? :roll


----------



## ugh1979

ysn said:


> Yes u r right..im ignorant n u r educated...my country lies to its citizens n ur does not lie at all..n also i actually live in a cave here..


You're being extremist there. There's no argument that Pakistan's education system has a high degree of dictated religious influence. Far far more than in the west, where it's no existent apart from in faith schools.

It's no wonder there are so few Nobel Laureate's from the Middle East for example, as local religious oppression largely suppresses the freedom of it's people do science. It's also no wonder the Middle East is so far behind the rest of the world. Islam largely suppresses the progress the rest of the world has been free to develop.

The Middle East is largely a hell hole of state endorsed lies compared with the West.


----------



## ysn

ugh1979 said:


> You're being extremist there. There's no argument that Pakistan's education system has a high degree of dictated religious influence. Far far more than in the west, where it's no existent apart from in faith schools.
> 
> It's no wonder there are so few Nobel Laureate's from the Middle East for example, as local religious oppression largely suppresses the freedom of it's people do science.
> 
> The Middle East is largely a hell hole of state endorsed lies compared with the West.


Yes Pakistan's education system (below university level) is somewhat biased towards religion. By biased i mean they teach you about evolution and science etc but they also teach religion and tell you that man is created not evolved (which is what religion says). But its 2016 and nowadays in Pakistan, kids have access to internet and have smartphones and they are not easily manipulated by people who tell them lies etc.

Sent from my SM-G531H using Tapatalk


----------



## ugh1979

ysn said:


> Look right now you are alive and thinking and feeling and hearing..my question is what do u feel, think, hear n see after heart stops (in other terms when u die). does science have any theory to explain this??


Why should you feel anything? For me the question is as illogical as asking what happens to the software process when the computers powers off. No power = (undoubtedly) no consciousness. It's pretty simple.



> ..and about the big bang. Scientist say that universe is expanding( which i agree is a fact) and it all started from one thing exploding n creating other..my question is that from where, that one thing came into existence which exploded n made stars? I hope u understand my english


There are many many hypotheses for how the universe started. The classic thing I see religious people making the mistake of though is asking how something can come from 'nothing'. Asking where the 'stuff' that made the universe came from probably doesn't make sense, as the 'stuff' is just different states energy that is everywhere. There is no such thing as true nothing as far as we know. All we can find is energy every where. Also, there probably isn't a 'where' or 'when' outside a universe, so that question probably doesn't apply. Space-time is probably generated by a universe, so it's like asking what's north of the north pole. Time and space in terms of this universes started with the Big Bang.

I appreciate there aren't intuitive answers (as per the ones many humans like to hold), but they are the best answers science offers in line with the best evidence and knowledge we have on the subjects.


----------



## ysn

ugh1979 said:


> No, and that's a terrible way of thinking. It's responsible for much injustice and carnage in the world. See, when you abandon reason and just go with 'what you feel like is right' then anything goes and people start flying planes into buildings and strapping explosive to kids to blow themselves up in tourists spots etc.
> 
> Human intuition (aka gut feeling) is well established by psychological experiments as a terrible indication of truth. It's at best primitive and at worst dangerous to regard as the primary method of reasoning.
> 
> I think many people who are intuitive thinkers just aren't quite as cognitivly evolved as many who are more analytical thinkers, and it's funny that many of those those who are more intuitive thinkers tend to reject evolution. I wonder why? :roll


I said when it comes to 'believing in God's existence' , only then one shouldnt only rely on concrete evidence and believe his gut feeling because science is maybe not that advanced yet to help us answer that God exists or not.

Sent from my SM-G531H using Tapatalk


----------



## ugh1979

ysn said:


> Yes Pakistan's education system (below university level) is somewhat biased towards religion. By biased i mean they teach you about evolution and science etc but they also teach religion and tell you that man is created not evolved (which is what religion says). But its 2016 and nowadays in Pakistan, kids have access to internet and have smartphones and they are not easily manipulated by people who tell them lies etc.


Indeed, and it's a great thing that people in Pakistan now have access to the truth rather than the doctrinal lies your people have been force fed for thousands of years.

The internet is full of bull**** as well as truths but it at least gives people the option to discover the truth if they want rather than it being hidden from them.


----------



## ugh1979

naes said:


> He posted his question in the correct section so it is fine. Everyone who visits this thread already knows what to expect and he isn't being unfriendly.


No, this is definitely not the forum to be posting this question. This topic in no way supports agnostics/atheists with SA. I've already reported it. It should be in the religious/agnostic/atheist discussion forum.


----------



## ysn

ugh1979 said:


> Indeed, and it's a great thing that people in Pakistan now have access to the truth rather than the doctrinal lies your people have been force fed for thousands of years.
> 
> The internet is full of bull**** as well as truths but it at least gives people the option to discover the truth if they want rather than it being hidden from them.


Can you tell me what are those lies that you think our people have been force fed for "thousands of years"?

Sent from my SM-G531H using Tapatalk


----------



## ysn

ugh1979 said:


> Why should you feel anything? For me the question is as illogical as asking what happens to the software process when the computers powers off. No power = (undoubtedly) no consciousness. It's pretty simple.
> 
> There are many many hypotheses for how the universe started. The classic thing I see religious people making the mistake of though is asking how something can come from 'nothing'. Asking where the 'stuff' that made the universe came from probably doesn't make sense, as the 'stuff' is just different states energy that is everywhere. There is no such thing as true nothing as far as we know. All we can find is energy every where. Also, there probably isn't a 'where' or 'when' outside a universe, so that question probably doesn't apply. Space-time is probably generated by a universe, so it's like asking what's north of the north pole. Time and space in terms of this universes started with the Big Bang.
> 
> I appreciate there aren't intuitive answers (as per the ones many humans like to hold), but they are the best answers science offers in line with the best evidence and knowledge we have on the subjects.


I think you havent read my earlier p

Sent from my SM-G531H using Tapatalk


----------



## ugh1979

ysn said:


> I said when it comes to 'believing in God's existence' , only then one shouldnt only rely on concrete evidence and believe his gut feeling because science is maybe not that advanced yet to help us answer that God exists or not.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G531H using Tapatalk


When you stoop to that level of credence then anything goes. Rejecting where evidence points and just believing what ever you want is as dangerous as it is fallacious.


----------



## ysn

ugh1979 said:


> When you stoop to that level of credence then anything goes. Rejecting where evidence points and just believing what ever you want is as dangerous as it is fallacious.


I only think like that when it comes to believing in God's existence and that is because there is no evidence that suggests that God shouldnt or must not exist.

Sent from my SM-G531H using Tapatalk


----------



## ugh1979

ysn said:


> Can you tell me what are those lies that you think our people have been force fed for "thousands of years"?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G531H using Tapatalk


The Qu'ran is full of lies, and unfortunately those lies are still pretty much dictated at a state level, never mind a social level.

Much of the West has moved well beyond the lies of it's societies traditional doctrine.


----------



## ugh1979

ysn said:


> I think you havent read my earlier p
> 
> Sent from my SM-G531H using Tapatalk


Can you summarise for me?


----------



## ysn

ugh1979 said:


> The Qu'ran is full of lies, and unfortunately those lies are still pretty much dictated at a state level, never mind a social level.
> 
> Much of the West has moved well beyond the lies of it's societies traditional doctrine.


Lies? Can you quote some of those lies here?

Sent from my SM-G531H using Tapatalk


----------



## ugh1979

ysn said:


> I only think like that when it comes to believing in God's existence and that is because there is no evidence that suggests that God shouldnt or must not exist.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G531H using Tapatalk


You're making a basic fallacy there in applying special pleading to one idea but not others. Why should the concept of god be true but not the concept of fairies for example? There is no more evidence for one than the other. You've just cherry picked a supernatural concept of the millions possible for no intellectually honest reason. I can appreciate that it's social conditioning, (aka brainwashing), that makes people have this double standard, but it doesn't make it right.


----------



## ysn

ugh1979 said:


> Can you summarise for me?


Yes. Here is it copy pasted :: "Ok i thought about it today and i gotta say i understand it now. Its like when we wake up after sleep n dont realize what happened n where were we while we were sleeping."

Sent from my SM-G531H using Tapatalk


----------



## ugh1979

ysn said:


> Lies? Can you quote some of those lies here?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G531H using Tapatalk


Wow where do I start. There is so many it's almost arbitrary to select any to post here.

Here for example is a source from ex-Muslims which discusses lies in the Qu'ran.

I could make posts all day which expose the fallacy of claims in the Qu'ran. (Just as I can the Bible, or any other scripture)


----------



## ysn

ugh1979 said:


> You're making a basic fallacy there in applying special pleading to one idea but not others. Why should the concept of god be true but not the concept of fairies for example? There is no more evidence for one than the other. You've just cherry picked a supernatural concept of the millions possible for no intellectually honest reason. I can appreciate that it's social conditioning, (aka brainwashing), that makes people have this double standard, but it doesn't make it right.


Yes. I believe in the existence of God and not fairies. And i think i dont have any obligation to explain to you that why i believe that.

Sent from my SM-G531H using Tapatalk


----------



## ugh1979

ysn said:


> Yes. Here is it copy pasted :: "Ok i thought about it today and i gotta say i understand it now. Its like when we wake up after sleep n dont realize what happened n where were we while we were sleeping."
> 
> Sent from my SM-G531H using Tapatalk


OK so you are just talking about the non-consciousness part of my post rather than the scientific section. Do you have any reply to the scientific part?

I'm glad you are beginning to understand what non-existence could be like though.


----------



## ysn

ugh1979 said:


> Wow where do I start. There is so many it's almost arbitrary to select any to post here.
> 
> Here for example is a source from ex-Muslims which discusses lies in the Qu'ran.
> 
> I could make posts all day which expose the fallacy of claims in the Qu'ran. (Just as I can the Bible, or any other scripture)


Its hard to read website posts as they are too long. Can you post here concisely the lies you are talking about?

Sent from my SM-G531H using Tapatalk


----------



## ugh1979

ysn said:


> Yes. I believe in the existence of God and not fairies. And i think i dont have any obligation to explain to you that why i believe that.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G531H using Tapatalk


No obligation no, but if you are unable to explaining why you believe in god for any credible reason, then why shouldn't your belief be dismissed as easily as someone claiming there are monsters under their bed or claims they are Napoleon? You are no different to them in the views of people who don't share your unsubstantiated belief. Belief in gods/fairies/unicorns etc is all the same to people who don't entertain that kind of nonsense, so your beliefs will be treated equally accordingly by them.


----------



## ugh1979

ysn said:


> Its hard to read website posts as they are too long. Can you post here concisely the lies you are talking about?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G531H using Tapatalk


I've already told you there are thousands. How can I make that concise? They are well documented at many many sources with full explanations why they are so.

I see no point in randomly selecting a few I already know you can't rebuke. I've dealt with many Islamic apologists in my time who are keen to get into deep and lengthy defences about the legitimacy of claims made in the Qu'ran, and I already know you aren't one of them so I won't waste my time.


----------



## ysn

ugh1979 said:


> No obligation no, but if you are unable to explaining why you believe in god for any credible reason, then why shouldn't your belief be dismissed as easily as someone claiming there are monsters under their bed or claims they are Napoleon? You are no different to them in the views of people who don't share your unsubstantiated belief. Belief in gods/fairies/unicorns etc is all the same to people who don't entertain that kind of nonsense, so your beliefs will be treated equally accordingly by them.


I'm Ok with people not believing in what i believe. I'm not here to convince anybody that my beliefs are correct or logical.

Sent from my SM-G531H using Tapatalk


----------



## ugh1979

ysn said:


> I'm Ok with people not believing in what i believe. I'm not here to convince anybody that my beliefs are correct or logical.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G531H using Tapatalk


I know, I didn't think you were. But you need to realise that when you express certain beliefs in progressive free societies they will be criticised.

Don't take my aggressive debating style personally btw. I know you aren't one of the religious extremists who are are worthy of properly chastising. You are clearly just a product of your society which has misled you, but you already admitted you know that to certain extents and modern Pakistani's can find the truth on the internet etc, and I very much respect that. That's a sure fire path to progressive development for your society. It's your society and the powers that be that I mainly hold accountable for your errant claims, not really you.


----------



## ysn

ugh1979 said:


> I've already told you there are thousands. How can I make that concise? They are well documented at many many sources with full explanations why they are so.
> 
> I see no point in randomly selecting a few I already know you can't rebuke. I've dealt with many Islamic apologists in my time who are keen to get into deep and lengthy defences about the legitimacy of claims made in the Qu'ran, and I already know you aren't one of them so I won't waste my time.


Ok no problem. If you believe there are lies in Quran and nobody on earth can prove that your claim is wrong then i think it will be a waste of time to argue with you on this matter.

Sent from my SM-G531H using Tapatalk


----------



## ysn

ugh1979 said:


> I know, I didn't think you were. But you need to realise that when you express certain beliefs in progressive free societies they will be criticised.
> 
> Don't take my aggressive debating style personally btw. I know you aren't one of the religious extremists who are are worthy of properly chastising. You are clearly just a product of your society which has misled you, but you already admitted you know that to certain extents and modern Pakistani's can find the truth on the internet etc, and I very much respect that. That's a sure fire path to progressive development for your society. It's your society and the powers that be that I mainly hold accountable for your errant claims, not really you.


I dont mind your debating style at all but problem is that this is an anxiety support forum and admin can ban us for debating aggresively and not expressing our opinions in a more peaceful manner.

Sent from my SM-G531H using Tapatalk


----------



## ugh1979

ysn said:


> Ok no problem. If you believe there are lies in Quran and nobody on earth can prove that your claim is wrong then i think it will be a waste of time to argue with you on this matter.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G531H using Tapatalk


I'm not saying nobody on earth can prove that my claim is wrong. I'm saying you don't seem like the type of person who would get into such a debate. I know I've had 10 page debates about the legitimacy of single passages in the Qu'ran with Muslim apologists. You just don't seem like that kind of person so i'll not waste my time citing and taking them apart. Am I wrong? If so i'd be happy to get properly into it with you.


----------



## ysn

ugh1979 said:


> I'm not saying nobody on earth can prove that my claim is wrong. I'm saying you don't seem like the type of person who would get into such a debate. I know I've had 10 page debates about the legitimacy of single passages in the Qu'ran with Muslim apologists. You just don't seem like that kind of person so i'll not waste my time citing and taking them apart. Am I wrong? If so i'd be happy to get properly into it with you.


Ok no problem. If u dont want to discuss it, We wont discuss it

Sent from my SM-G531H using Tapatalk


----------



## ugh1979

ysn said:


> I dont mind your debating style at all but problem is that this is an anxiety support forum and admin can ban us for debating aggresively and not expressing our opinions in a more peaceful manner.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G531H using Tapatalk


Actually the post you made will undoubtedly be moved to the religious/agnostic/atheist debate forum, (where it should have been in the first place), which doesn't have such rules. It's just discussion form, not an SA support forum. Don't try and hide behind the SA support forum claim when you clearly made an inflammatory post in an agnostic/atheist support forum. You are no agnostic/atheist and weren't looking for support relating to it. If an atheist had made similar claims in the religious support forum the thread would have been quickly deleted or moved.

There's nothing wrong with your question, it's just in the wrong forum, and nothing to do with SA support.


----------



## ysn

ugh1979 said:


> Actually the post you made will undoubtedly be moved to the religious/agnostic/atheist debate forum, (where it should have been in the first place), which doesn't have such rules. It's just discussion form, not an SA support forum. Don't try and hide behind the SA support forum claim when you clearly made an inflammatory post in an agnostic/atheist support forum. You are no agnostic/atheist and weren't looking for support relating to it. If an atheist had made similar claims in the religious support forum the thread would have been quickly deleted or moved.
> 
> There's nothing wrong with your question, it's just in the wrong forum, and nothing to do with SA support.


I dont think that this question "why do you not believe in God?" is inflammatory at all. My intention was to get ppl on the forum to share their reasons for their beliefs so that i can get to know them better, n what they believe nd why they believe what they believe.

Sent from my SM-G531H using Tapatalk


----------



## ugh1979

ysn said:


> I dont think that this question "why do you not believe in God?" is inflammatory at all. My intention was to get ppl on the forum to share their reasons for their beliefs so that i can get to know them better, n what they believe nd why they believe what they believe.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G531H using Tapatalk


You've totally missed my point. As I said, there is no problem with the question, it's just not suitable for the agnostic/atheist _support _forum. As I say, it's one for the religious/agnostic/atheist _discussion _forum. You were clearly looking for a _discussion _rather than looking for or to offer _support _to agnostics/atheists with SA weren't you?


----------



## ysn

ugh1979 said:


> You've totally missed my point. As I said, there is no problem with the question, it's just not suitable for the agnostic/atheist _support _forum. As I say, it's one for the religious/agnostic/atheist _discussion _forum. You were clearly looking for a _discussion _rather than looking for or to offer _support _to agnostics/atheists with SA weren't you?


Oh okay i get it now.

Sent from my SM-G531H using Tapatalk


----------



## cool user name

I hate to make the comparison to believing the tooth fairy because it's a hacky overused analogy.. But I can't think of a better way to describe it. 

I simply don't think that any God from popular religion is at all believable. 

I am open to the idea of 'higher beings' but I pretty much never spend anytime thinking about it


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Foh_Teej

ysn said:


> No i do not believe in fairies as my religion dont tell me they exist or not.


I was hoping for something along the lines of "no, as fairies have not been demonstrated to exist," as that would be a justified position, and not just because my religion tells me so. It sounds as if you would actually believe in them, if your religion told you to, despite having no other justified reason. Do you not see a problem here?



ysn said:


> I believe in soul coz my religion tells me so..


Accepting something just because someone or something informs you to do so is not a very good reason. I'm not sure how this would actually convince anyone but it seems to be a very popular reason. My mind simply doesn't allow me to believe things, -especially extraordinary claims or things seemingly inconsistent with my experience- to just believe because someone tells me to.



ysn said:


> now i cannot force u to believe in soul or God etc


Nope but you COULD convince me otherwise with rational arguments and evidence. This is the continual failure of all theists and theistic claims whether you're Muslim, Christian, or ****ing Scientology.



ysn said:


> ..u have ur own beliefs n i have mine.


Yes but I hold higher standards for justification than you apparently do.


----------



## ysn

Foh_Teej said:


> I was hoping for something along the lines of "no, as fairies have not been demonstrated to exist," as that would be a justified position, and not just because my religion tells me so. It sounds as if you would actually believe in them, if your religion told you to, despite having no other justified reason. Do you not see a problem here?
> 
> Accepting something just because someone or something informs you to do so is not a very good reason. I'm not sure how this would actually convince anyone but it seems to be a very popular reason. My mind simply doesn't allow me to believe things, -especially extraordinary claims or things seemingly inconsistent with my experience- to just believe because someone tells me to.
> 
> Nope but you COULD convince me otherwise with rational arguments and evidence. This is the continual failure of all theists and theistic claims whether you're Muslim, Christian, or ****ing Scientology.
> 
> Yes but I hold higher standards for justification than you apparently do.


I think you havent got my point yet. I am saying that i believe in religion and i cannot tell u logically why i believe in it and also i dont wanna convince you or anybody through arguements etc that God exists or not.

Sent from my SM-G531H using Tapatalk


----------



## naes

ugh1979 said:


> No, this is definitely not the forum to be posting this question. This topic in no way supports agnostics/atheists with SA. I've already reported it. It should be in the religious/agnostic/atheist discussion forum.


Ah, I didn't realize there was a debate and then a support section. You're right this is in the wrong section then, it will just be moved hopefully.


----------



## ugh1979

ysn said:


> I think you havent got my point yet. I am saying that i believe in religion and i cannot tell u logically why i believe in it and also i dont wanna convince you or anybody through arguements etc that God exists or not.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G531H using Tapatalk


I'm sure there's all sorts of well known psychological reasons why you believe in it. Humans are in general naturally prone to it, for understandable reasons, but humans are also prone to many cognitive biases and logical fallacies, especially those who are intuitive rather than analytical thinkers.


----------



## ysn

ugh1979 said:


> I'm sure there's all sorts of well known psychological reasons why you believe in it. Humans are in general naturally prone to it, for understandable reasons, but humans are also prone to many cognitive biases and logical fallacies, especially those who are intuitive rather than analytical thinkers.


Ok man i'm prone to logical fallacies and u r not coz u think critically. Are u happy now?

Sent from my SM-G531H using Tapatalk


----------



## ugh1979

ysn said:


> Ok man i'm prone to logical fallacies and u r not coz u think critically. Are u happy now?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G531H using Tapatalk


You're going to extremes again. Just because I talk about typical human tendencies doesn't mean i'm saying i'm not prone to any of them and you always display them. However, it seems you are more prone to them than me, at least on the topic of religion.

Do you admit you aren't much of a critical thinker on the subject and are prone to just going along with what your scripture says? As I said earlier, i'm not holding this personally against you, as I know how much Muslim culture forces this mindset on its societies.


----------



## ysn

ugh1979 said:


> You're going to extremes again. Just because I talk about typical human tendencies doesn't mean i'm saying i'm not prone to any of them and you always display them. However, it seems you are more prone to them than me, at least on the topic of religion.
> 
> Do you admit you aren't much of a critical thinker on the subject and are prone to just going along with what your scripture says? As I said earlier, i'm not holding this personally against you, as I know how much Muslim culture forces this mindset on its societies.


I already admit that. Just want u to be happy.

Sent from my SM-G531H using Tapatalk


----------



## ugh1979

ysn said:


> I already admit that.


OK, fair play you admit that. I respect that. Not everyone is an analytical thinker. In fact you're very normal if that's any consolidation after my challenging and criticism of your beliefs.


----------



## ysn

ugh1979 said:


> OK, fair play you admit that. I respect that. Not everyone is an analytical thinker. In fact you're very normal if that's any consolidation after my challenging and criticism of your beliefs.


Atleast now u r happy.

Sent from my SM-G531H using Tapatalk


----------



## Tetragammon

ysn said:


> You say " if souls never existed hypothetically ". ..for me they exist just as for you the body exists so i take existance of soul as a fact..and i think that if someday i become an atheist (God forbid (sorry if tht offends u)) then the first thing i'll do is buy a sniper n start killing currupt n unjust leaders in my country..the only thing tht stops me nd many ppl frm doing tht is religion.


See, THIS is what really shocks me about a lot of theists, and I've heard this kind of thing far too often. They have no true sense of morality or ethics if the only thing keeping them from committing atrocities is their myths. What a sad statement that makes about humanity! I assure you that the vast majority of atheists do NOT think or feel this way at all. I don't want to kill anyone just because I COULD. And I don't understand how someone could possibly get to that point.

"I would be a monstrous person if not for my religion." Sorry but that makes you a monstrous person to begin with.


----------



## ysn

Tetragammon said:


> See, THIS is what really shocks me about a lot of theists, and I've heard this kind of thing far too often. They have no true sense of morality or ethics if the only thing keeping them from committing atrocities is their myths. What a sad statement that makes about humanity! I assure you that the vast majority of atheists do NOT think or feel this way at all. I don't want to kill anyone just because I COULD. And I don't understand how someone could possibly get to that point.
> 
> "I would be a monstrous person if not for my religion." Sorry but that makes you a monstrous person to begin with.


Ok then give me a better reason why should i not kill or steal?

Sent from my SM-G531H using Tapatalk


----------



## Tetragammon

ysn said:


> Ok then give me a better reason why should i not kill or steal?


Well, maybe because you actually respect other people and their property, no matter who they are? Or because it just feels better to be kind and compassionate? Or because you'd like to leave a better world for your children and their children?

Let me put it this way: would it make you 'happy' to become a murderer, assuming there's no "divine punishment"? Would you feel good after taking someone else's life from them -- even if they 'deserve it' in your opinion? Keep in mind the atheist's worldview, that there is nothing at all after this life, so you've essentially robbed another person of the remainder of their existence. Would that make you feel good?

I'm frankly mortified that you would even need a "reason" not to murder or steal, sans 'God'. It's called "morality" and it's most certainly not limited to religion.


----------



## ysn

Tetragammon said:


> Well, maybe because you actually respect other people and their property, no matter who they are? Or because it just feels better to be kind and compassionate? Or because you'd like to leave a better world for your children and their children?
> 
> Let me put it this way: would it make you 'happy' to become a murderer, assuming there's no "divine punishment"? Would you feel good after taking someone else's life from them -- even if they 'deserve it' in your opinion? Keep in mind the atheist's worldview, that there is nothing at all after this life, so you've essentially robbed another person of the remainder of their existence. Would that make you feel good?
> 
> I'm frankly mortified that you would even need a "reason" not to murder or steal, sans 'God'. It's called "morality" and it's most certainly not limited to religion.


Well Why should i even care how others feel . If it makes me happy to kill ppl i dont like then i would do it for the sake of my happiness. Yes i would not do harm to ppl who do good to me because that doesnt FEEL right to me. I mean if this is the only life i have then why should i live as a poor person and work hard my entire life to fulfill my dreams, why not steal and go to LasVegas and play poker.

Sent from my SM-G531H using Tapatalk


----------



## Paul

ysn said:


> If it makes me happy to kill ppl i dont like then i would do it for the sake of my happiness.


If it makes you happy to kill people you don't like, then you're a monster, and I seriously doubt that the threat of going to hell will restrain you for long. Statistically we can see that it hasn't restrained many such monsters since religious people commit more crimes than atheists (granted there are some demographic reasons for that).

_Yes i would not do harm to ppl who do good to me because that doesnt FEEL right to me. _

Being nice to people who are nice to you is not what makes a decent civilized person. Being nice to people who are mean to you is what makes a decent civilized person.

_I mean if this is the only life i have then why should i live as a poor person and work hard my entire life to fulfill my dreams, why not steal and go to LasVegas and play poker._

If you have no conscience, and you care nothing for the world or anyone in it except yourself, and you have a method to steal without getting caught, then yeah you'll probably do that. Atheists tend to care about the world, because we don't think there's any supreme being looking after it -- we have to do it ourselves, and we only get once chance, with no prayer or miracles to save us from our mistakes.

It would be *much* easier to steal if, like most protestant christians, I figured I could go apologize to jesus for my sins and be forgiven and rewarded with eternal happiness purely on the basis of faith. I know you're not christian but most religions embrace the same idea that being a believer is more critical to getting into heaven than being a good person, to one extent or another.

Even more disturbingly, a whole lot of people believe we are all sinners and that salvation comes _only_ through faith -- and that degree of sin is essentially irrelevant and therefore the worst sinner can be saved through his faith and the most ethical person who picks the wrong faith will be tortured for eternity. I'd take an amoral person or maybe even a psychopath over someone who worships a god that operates like that.


----------



## ysn

Paul said:


> If it makes you happy to kill people you don't like, then you're a monster, and I seriously doubt that the threat of going to hell will restrain you for long. Statistically we can see that it hasn't restrained many such monsters since religious people commit more crimes than atheists (granted there are some demographic reasons for that).
> 
> _Yes i would not do harm to ppl who do good to me because that doesnt FEEL right to me. _
> 
> Being nice to people who are nice to you is not what makes a decent civilized person. Being nice to people who are mean to you is what makes a decent civilized person.
> 
> _I mean if this is the only life i have then why should i live as a poor person and work hard my entire life to fulfill my dreams, why not steal and go to LasVegas and play poker._
> 
> If you have no conscience, and you care nothing for the world or anyone in it except yourself, and you have a method to steal without getting caught, then yeah you'll probably do that. Atheists tend to care about the world, because we don't think there's any supreme being looking after it -- we have to do it ourselves, and we only get once chance, with no prayer or miracles to save us from our mistakes.
> 
> It would be *much* easier to steal if, like most protestant christians, I figured I could go apologize to jesus for my sins and be forgiven and rewarded with eternal happiness purely on the basis of faith. I know you're not christian but most religions embrace the same idea that being a believer is more critical to getting into heaven than being a good person, to one extent or another.
> 
> Even more disturbingly, a whole lot of people believe we are all sinners and that salvation comes _only_ through faith -- and that degree of sin is essentially irrelevant and therefore the worst sinner can be saved through his faith and the most ethical person who picks the wrong faith will be tortured for eternity. I'd take an amoral person over someone who believes in a god that operates like that.


Ok then give me a better reason to not be a monster, to follow ethics and not kill people who are harming ppl on this earth and why should i have a conscience.
Sent from my SM-G531H using Tapatalk


----------



## Paul

Utilitarianism, Kantian ethics and virtue ethics or social contract theory are the kinds of reasons you're probably looking for. Or, since you seem to be approaching everything from a purely self-interested perspective, you might like objectivism and other egocentric ethical theories better.

But personally I think if you don't already have a conscience (consciences are somewhat an innate product of evolution and somewhat a product of how you're raised, but there are indeed people who lack them, and that's a recognized psychological disorder), and you need a reason to not be a monster, you already are a monster. Likewise if your only reason for not acting like a monster is a fear of being caught and punished by authorities or gods. Best to just lock you up and throw away the key, because at some point you're going to believe that you've devised a way to get away with your nefarious desires (such as catholic confession or protestant faith-based-salvation or whatever rationale Islamic State members tell themselves).


----------



## ysn

Paul said:


> Utilitarianism, Kantian ethics and virtue ethics or social contract theory are the kinds of reasons you're probably looking for. Or, since you seem to be approaching everything from a purely self-interested perspective, you might like objectivism and other egocentric ethical theories better.
> 
> But personally I think if you don't already have a conscience (consciences are somewhat an innate product of evolution and somewhat a product of how you're raised, but there are indeed people who lack them, and that's a recognized psychological disorder), and you need a reason to not be a monster, you already are a monster. Likewise if your only reason for not acting like a monster is a fear of being caught and punished by authorities or gods. Best to just lock you up and throw away the key, because at some point you're going to believe that you've devised a way to get away with your nefarious desires (such as catholic confession or protestant faith-based-salvation or whatever rationale Islamic State members tell themselves).


Please state the reasons here rather than the names of theories. and what is your definition of a monster? . My point is that everything on this earth is relative even morals and ethics are relative. There are things that are unacceptable for some people but the same things are likeable for other people. Therefore i think religion is the thing we need to define morality and ethics otherwise everybody can do whatever they like.


----------



## ugh1979

ysn said:


> You say " if souls never existed hypothetically ". ..for me they exist just as for you the body exists so i take existance of soul as a fact..and i think that if someday i become an atheist (God forbid (sorry if tht offends u)) then the first thing i'll do is buy a sniper n start killing currupt n unjust leaders in my country..the only thing tht stops me nd many ppl frm doing tht is religion.


What absolute nonsense! Religiosity and criminality have no correlation. Worryingly though, if all that is stopping you from being a murderer is your faith then you need professional help! The fact you want to kill people but don't because of your faith is really messed up. You need to realise this. It's not normal, despite what you might think. Just look at the countries with the lowest levels of crime for example. They correlate with being the least religious.

See there is a thing called morality that many of us practice without the need for a supernatural threat to force us to abide by it. The most important facets of it are a natural part of humanity that we evolved and all societies, secular or religious promote. If you think being atheist means having no morality then you clearly aren't actually a moral person, since your morality is it seems only due to your faith, and you'd happily murder people without it. That's shocking. Shame on you. :|


----------



## ugh1979

ysn said:


> Ok then give me a better reason why should i not kill or steal?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G531H using Tapatalk


Wow. How about just being decent human being? Do you honestly not recognise or respect the negative ramifications of murder or theft in the absence of religious based moral guidance? :?


----------



## ugh1979

ysn said:


> Well Why should i even care how others feel . If it makes me happy to kill ppl i dont like then i would do it for the sake of my happiness. Yes i would not do harm to ppl who do good to me because that doesnt FEEL right to me. I mean if this is the only life i have then why should i live as a poor person and work hard my entire life to fulfill my dreams, why not steal and go to LasVegas and play poker.


Wow wow wow. You just keep getting worse. You seemed like an alight guy earlier but it's evident you are actually a really bad/immoral person. Shame on you. I'm glad you live half way around the world from me.

Is that how many people in Pakistan think IYO? If it's true, then it's an even worse country than I thought.


----------



## ugh1979

ysn said:


> Ok then give me a better reason to not be a monster, to follow ethics and not kill people who are harming ppl on this earth and why should i have a conscience.
> Sent from my SM-G531H using Tapatalk


Are you honestly asking somebody why murder is wrong?! :? Even if it is with regard to someone you deem to be harming people.


----------



## ysn

ugh1979 said:


> What absolute nonsense! Religiosity and criminality have no correlation. Worryingly though, if all that is stopping you from being a murderer is your faith then you need professional help! The fact you want to kill people but don't because of your faith is really messed up. You need to realise this. It's not normal, despite what you might think. Just look at the countries with the lowest levels of crime for example. They correlate with being the least religious.
> 
> See there is a thing called morality that many of us practice without the need for a supernatural threat to force us to abide by it. The most important facets of it are a natural part of humanity that we evolved and all societies, secular or religious promote. If you think being atheist means having no morality then you clearly aren't actually a moral person, since your morality is it seems only due to your faith, and you'd happily murder people without it. That's shocking. Shame on you. :|


You're a 37 years old person and i'm 21, you are older than me, so i expect you to be logical here and give me logic instead of just calling me senseless and trying to scold me. Here is my question, "Suppose i'm a very powerful and rich corrupt person in Pakistan, i control police, politicians and judges etc. I recruit people who steal and kill innocent people and in result of it i become richer and more powerful. Now instead of scolding me and telling me that i'm senseless, i ask you to be logical here give me a logic reason why i should stop being a corrupt person. Because i think if you believe that being a corrupt person is wrong then you must have some reason to think so as you earlier said that you are an analytical person and think logically rather than intuitively."


----------



## ugh1979

ysn said:


> Please state the reasons here rather than the names of theories. and what is your definition of a monster? . My point is that everything on this earth is relative even morals and ethics are relative. There are things that are unacceptable for some people but the same things are likeable for other people. Therefore i think religion is the thing we need to define morality and ethics otherwise everybody can do whatever they like.


Why should religion be the ideology that defines morality and ethics? In fact it's one of the worst sources for it, never mind the issue of what religions moral code is the 'right one', they are typically highly conservative and there fore favours archaic morality and ethics not in line with the modern world. Modern secular society is the best source of morality and ethics, as society naturally decides what is acceptable and what isn't, and is happy to evolve as we progress on certain subjects making for a fairer society based on reason rather than mindless stories that express hate for people that are different.

The fact you don't realise that there is a secular societal system which informs the modern world on morality just shows how ignorant you are. I can appreciate you being from Pakistan you probably know little of how developed progressive societies work, but to think in the absence of religion means anyone can do whatever they like is absurd. Never mind the legal system countries have which is secular, secular societies have no issue with realising right from wrong.

In fact, it's often why people are using religion as their justification do we see behaviour that amounts to "doing whatever they like", involving all sorts of abuse and atrocities.


----------



## ugh1979

ysn said:


> You're a 37 years old person and i'm 21, you are older than me, so i expect you to be logical here and give me logic instead of just calling me senseless and trying to scold me.


When someone says they want to kill people but don't only because they are scared of their local god i'm not going to ignore that and let it not be condemned for the horror it is. Are you saying you honestly don't know any other reasons why you shouldn't? I need to get a grasp on just how terrible a person you are before trying to offer any help.



> Here is my question, "Suppose i'm a very powerful and rich corrupt person in Pakistan, i control police, politicians and judges etc. I recruit people who steal and kill innocent people and in result of it i become richer and more powerful. Now instead of scolding me and telling me that i'm senseless, i ask you to be logical here give me a logic reason why i should stop being a corrupt person. Because i think if you believe that being a corrupt person is wrong then you must have some reason to think so as you earlier said that you are an analytical person and think logically rather than intuitively."


That's the same answer for just about any morality based question. The logical answer is you that need to understand how harmful to others that behaviour is. I don't need scripture to tell me that behaviour that harms others is wrong. Common society has been teaching us that forever. It's like 'good human behaviour 101'!


----------



## ysn

ugh1979 said:


> When someone says they want to kill people but don't only because they are scared of their local god i'm not going to ignore that and let it not be condemned for the horror it is. Are you saying you honestly don't know any other reasons why you shouldn't? I need to get a grasp on just how terrible a person you are before trying to offer any help.
> 
> That's the same answer for just about any morality based question. The logical answer is you that need to understand how harmful to others that behaviour is. I don't need scripture to tell me that behaviour that harms others is wrong. Common society has been teaching us that forever. It's like 'good human behaviour 101'!


Again you are telling me how terrible a person i am for thinking like that and how i need to care about the fact that my behaviour is harmful to others. I am asking you to give me a REASON that why should i care that others are harmed by my corruption. Give me a logical reason as to why should i care about others. Now please if you going to again tell me that i'm a terrible person for thinking like that and are not going to give me any convincing logic then refrain from replying because you are wasting time of mine and yours.


----------



## ugh1979

ysn said:


> Again you are telling me how terrible a person i am for thinking like that and how i need to care about the fact that my behaviour is harmful to others. I am asking you to give me a REASON that why should i care that others are harmed by my corruption. Give me a logical reason as to why should i care about others. Now please if you going to again tell me that i'm a terrible person for thinking like that and are not going to give me any convincing logic then refrain from replying because you are wasting time of mine and yours.


How you treat others in society inevitably leads to how others and society treats you. So if you are going to kill people (if you didn't have your faith), and you don't see a reason why you shouldn't then if you acted on it you would inevitably soon enough encounter the criminal justice system which will make _you _suffer for it. Do you care about yourself?

You also clearly ignored my question in the previous post, "Are you saying you honestly don't know any other reasons why you shouldn't [harm people]?" Answering that is important to me being able to answer your question, as if you are in fact a psychopath then appealing to the well being of others will be pointless.

Are you are psychopath? You certainly seem to be displaying the hallmarks of one, as any mental health professional would agree.


----------



## Red October

ysn said:


> Well Why should i even care how others feel . If it makes me happy to kill ppl i dont like then i would do it for the sake of my happiness. Yes i would not do harm to ppl who do good to me because that doesnt FEEL right to me. I mean if this is the only life i have then why should i live as a poor person and work hard my entire life to fulfill my dreams, why not steal and go to LasVegas and play poker.


If selfishness and a lust for violence and decadence is what's truly in your heart, do you think God will not see that? Will he not see your inner evil, and know that the only reason you did not act on it was because your fear of punishment was even greater?

Will you stand before your maker and seek entry to paradise on the grounds that your cowardice was greater than your wickedness?


----------



## ysn

ugh1979 said:


> How you treat others in society inevitably leads to how others and society treats you. So if you are going to kill people (if you didn't have your faith), and you don't see a reason why you shouldn't then if you acted on it you would inevitably soon enough encounter the criminal justice system which will make _you _suffer for it. Do you care about yourself?
> 
> You also clearly ignored my question in the previous post, "Are you saying you honestly don't know any other reasons why you shouldn't [harm people]?" Answering that is important to me being able to answer your question, as if you are in fact a psychopath then appealing to the well being of others will be pointless.
> 
> Are you are psychopath? You certainly seem to be displaying the hallmarks of one, as any mental health professional would agree.


Finally instead of scolding me for my question without giving me any logical reasons, you have give me a reason. Now you are telling me that i should not harm people because in return i will be harmed and i may face criminal justice system which will make me suffer. Now what if i told you that i do not care if i get caught. I just want more power and money no matter what. I want to control the whole country and spread as much corruption as i can and become as much powerful as i can. And now answering your question "Are you saying you honestly don't know any other reasons why you shouldn't [harm people]?", this is exactly what i'm asking from you. To give me convincing logical reason to not harm people.


----------



## ysn

Red October said:


> If selfishness and a lust for violence and decadence is what's truly in your heart, do you think God will not see that? Will he not see your inner evil, and know that the only reason you did not act on it was because your fear of punishment was even greater?
> 
> Will you stand before your maker and seek entry to paradise on the grounds that your cowardice was greater than your wickedness?


You completely missed my point. My point is that "why any person should care about others if he/she doesnt have any fear or love of God". Please give me some logical reason otherwise save your time and donot reply.


----------



## ugh1979

ysn said:


> Finally instead of scolding me for my question without giving me any logical reasons, you have give me a reason.


Oh yeah because I was so in the wrong to be criticising what appears to be psychopathic behaviour. :roll



> Now you are telling me that i should not harm people because in return i will be harmed and i may face criminal justice system which will make me suffer. Now what if i told you that i do not care if i get caught. I just want more power and money no matter what. I want to control the whole country and spread as much corruption as i can and become as much powerful as i can. And now answering your question "Are you saying you honestly don't know any other reasons why you shouldn't [harm people]?", this is exactly what i'm asking from you. To give me convincing logical reason to not harm people.


How are you going to have power and money if you get caught? The criminal justice system often largely takes that from criminals. If you don't care about your behaviour, and just do whatever you want, then you will be punished for it, often severely. If that's not a good reason, (albeit a selfish one), I don't know what is. :?

Are you saying you don't care about being punished?


----------



## ugh1979

ysn said:


> You completely missed my point. My point is that "why any person should care about others if he/she doesnt have any fear or love of God". Please give me some logical reason otherwise save your time and donot reply.


Wow. That's some abhorrent religious extremism there. It's a shockingly ignorant and dangerous mindset to hold.


----------



## Milco

ysn said:


> Again you are telling me how terrible a person i am for thinking like that and how i need to care about the fact that my behaviour is harmful to others. I am asking you to give me a REASON that why should i care that others are harmed by my corruption. Give me a logical reason as to why should i care about others. Now please if you going to again tell me that i'm a terrible person for thinking like that and are not going to give me any convincing logic then refrain from replying because you are wasting time of mine and yours.


This explains a lot about your obsession with killing and torturing people in brutal ways.



ysn said:


> You completely missed my point. My point is that "why any person should care about others if he/she doesnt have any fear or love of God". Please give me some logical reason otherwise save your time and donot reply.


Some people actually have compassion and care about the well-being of their fellow man.

How arrogant it is to wish to cause harm and pain in the world and claim it's making the world better, when really it's just part of wicked and sick self-pleasing.


----------



## Red October

ysn said:


> You completely missed my point. My point is that "why any person should care about others if he/she doesnt have any fear or love of God". Please give me some logical reason otherwise save your time and donot reply.


likewise you have missed mine

If you need a reason to have virtue, then you do not have virtue

Using love or fear of God as a 'reason' to care for others or practice goodness seems very much like a strategic move, an attempt to outplay God in order to recieve his reward

He will not be fooled


----------



## ysn

Red October said:


> likewise you have missed mine
> 
> If you need a reason to have virtue, then you do not have virtue
> 
> Using love or fear of God as a 'reason' to care for others or practice goodness seems very much like a strategic move, an attempt to outplay God in order to recieve his reward
> 
> He will not be fooled


The basic assumption of the question was that "if one does not believe in God" then what is it that can stop him from being cruel. and on a side note i must say that there are some acts which are hard for us to do but we do it because God said so for example if some one is suicidal then he refrains from suicide just because suicide is a sin according to religion. Now this is not hypocrisy. This is obedience, patience and love no matter how you feel from the inside.


----------



## ysn

ugh1979 said:


> Oh yeah because I was so in the wrong to be criticising what appears to be psychopathic behaviour. :roll
> 
> How are you going to have power and money if you get caught? The criminal justice system often largely takes that from criminals. If you don't care about your behaviour, and just do whatever you want, then you will be punished for it, often severely. If that's not a good reason, (albeit a selfish one), I don't know what is. :?
> 
> Are you saying you don't care about being punished?


''Oh yeah because I was so in the wrong to be criticising what appears to be psychopathic behaviour.'' ..You are again scolding without giving any genuine reason. 
and yes i'm saying that what if one does not care about being punished?


----------



## Red October

ysn said:


> The basic assumption of the question was that "if one does not believe in God" then what is it that can stop him from being cruel. and on a side note i must say that there are some acts which are hard for us to do but we do it because God said so for example if some one is suicidal then he refrains from suicide just because suicide is a sin according to religion. Now this is not hypocrisy. This is obedience, patience and love no matter how you feel from the inside.


That may be so, but any true human virtue must come from within in order to be genuine. Any person can act in any way if they fear the consequences of not doing so, wether those consequences are divine or not.

If we imagine a truly virtuous man with a pure heart, who observes his religious duties and follows God's commandments; but who, through no fault of his own suffers an injury to the head which causes him to lose his memories. - In those first moments after regaining consciousness, he cannot remember his name, where he is, he cannot recall the religious duties that he has been taught; but if his virtue is true, then it will survive and continue after his injury, even without the man being aware of God's commandments and judgement.

Therefore I believe that a man with no knowledge of God is still capable of goodness, and that some people who do have knowledge of God are still capable of wickedness


----------



## ugh1979

ysn said:


> ''Oh yeah because I was so in the wrong to be criticising what appears to be psychopathic behaviour.'' ..You are again scolding without giving any genuine reason.


I've given you many valid reasons. You just reject them, since you appear to be psychopath. If your mind is so warped that you can't understand why it's wrong to harm others or yourself for reasons other than to not be punished by your local deity then no reason I can give you will suffice.



> and yes i'm saying that what if one does not care about being punished?


Yeah i'll just add that destructive mental illness to your apparent list... :roll


----------



## ysn

ugh1979 said:


> I've given you many valid reasons. You just reject them, since you appear to be psychopath. If your mind is so warped that you can't understand why it's wrong to harm others or yourself for reasons other than to not be punished by your local deity then no reason I can give you will suffice.
> 
> Yeah i'll just add that destructive mental illness to your apparent list... :roll


I expected analytical thinking and logical answers from you but all you have to say is that i'm a psychopath.


----------



## ugh1979

ysn said:


> I expected analytical thinking and logical answers from you but all you have to say is that i'm a psychopath.


My analytical and logical answer is that you appear to be a psychopath. Hence why you haven't accepted any of the reasons for being moral/not harming others that I've given you.


----------



## ysn

Red October said:


> That may be so, but any true human virtue must come from within in order to be genuine. Any person can act in any way if they fear the consequences of not doing so, wether those consequences are divine or not.
> 
> If we imagine a truly virtuous man with a pure heart, who observes his religious duties and follows God's commandments; but who, through no fault of his own suffers an injury to the head which causes him to lose his memories. - In those first moments after regaining consciousness, he cannot remember his name, where he is, he cannot recall the religious duties that he has been taught; but if his virtue is true, then it will survive and continue after his injury, even without the man being aware of God's commandments and judgement.
> 
> Therefore I believe that a man with no knowledge of God is still capable of goodness, and that some people who do have knowledge of God are still capable of wickedness


I totally agree with you that there are people who remain ethical and moral and do not need any religion to do so. But my question was different, it was that "what if some one does not care about morality and does not believe in God, then how would you convince him to not be cruel by giving logical reasons".


----------



## ysn

ugh1979 said:


> My analytical and logical answer is that you appear to be a psychopath. Hence why you haven't accepted any of the reasons for being moral/not harming others that I've given you.


You gave me no logical or convincing reasons. All you said was that i should not harm people because some day authorities will arrest me and i will face punishment. and then when i said "what if i do not care about punishment", you again started scolding me and telling me that according to your analytical thinking i am a psychopath .


----------



## ugh1979

ysn said:


> I totally agree with you that there are people who remain ethical and moral and do not need any religion to do so. But my question was different, it was that "what if some one does not care about morality and does not believe in God, then how would you convince him to not be cruel by giving logical reasons".


By telling them they will personally suffer for their cruelty. That's a perfectly logical answer as the vast majority of people don't want to suffer/be punished/be incarcerated. It's only the mentally ill who say they don't care about that and will harm others anyway, and that makes them a true evil and menace in society.

Are you one of those people?


----------



## ugh1979

ysn said:


> You gave me no logical or convincing reasons. All you said was that i should not harm people because some day authorities will arrest me and i will face punishment. and then when i said "what if i do not care about punishment", you again started scolding me and telling me that i am a psychopath .


Only someone who was probably a psychopath would say they weren't logical or convincing reasons. The scary thing is you don't even seem to realise how psychopathic your answers make you appear. Maybe you are in fact just dangerously psychotic?


----------



## ysn

ugh1979 said:


> By telling them they will personally suffer for their cruelty. That's a perfectly logical answer as the vast majority of people don't want to suffer/be punished/be incarcerated. It's only the mentally ill who say they don't care about that and will harm others anyway, and that makes them a true evil and menace in society.
> 
> Are you one of those people?


So now you are saying that there is no way to convince a person who does not believe in God and is not afraid of authorities that cruelty is bad and he should not be cruel ?


----------



## ysn

ugh1979 said:


> Only someone who was probably a psychopath would say they weren't logical or convincing reasons. The scary thing is you don't even seem to realise how psychopathic your answers make you appear. Maybe you are in fact just dangerously psychotic?


I already told you that reply only if you have any logical reasons that can convince me. Otherwise do not try to scold or tell me how dangerous i am because you will only waste your and mine time in doing so.


----------



## ugh1979

ysn said:


> So now you are saying that there is no way to convince a person who does not believe in God and is not afraid of authorities that cruelty is bad and he should not be cruel ?


Yes, unfortunately some psychopathic people will resist any teaching. Society has no choice but to incarcerate these people indefinitely if they act on their desire to harm others and are untreatable/unreformable.


----------



## ugh1979

ysn said:


> I already told you that reply only if you have any logical reasons that can convince me. Otherwise do not try to scold or tell me how dangerous i am because you will only waste your and mine time in doing so.


How can I know what will convince you in order to reply with it? You're failing at basic theory of mind here, which actually makes sense if someone is potentially psychopathic.

I'll tell you how dangerous/phychopathic your mindset appears to be every time you speak about this. Do you really think you can tell me not to? :lol


----------



## ysn

ugh1979 said:


> How can I know what will convince you in order to reply with it? You're failing at basic theory of mind here, which actually makes sense if someone is potentially psychopathic.
> 
> I'll tell you how dangerous your mindset appears to be every time you speak about this. Do you really think you can tell me not to?


Again u r scolding without giving ny logical answer.

Sent from my SM-G531H using Tapatalk


----------



## ysn

ugh1979 said:


> Yes, unfortunately some psychopathic people will resist any teaching. Society has no choice but to incarcerate these people indefinitely if they act on their desire to harm others and are untreatable/unreformable.


Ok finally u agree that you have no logical reason to convine that type of mentality.

Sent from my SM-G531H using Tapatalk


----------



## Paul

ysn said:


> Please state the reasons here rather than the names of theories. and what is your definition of a monster? . My point is that everything on this earth is relative even morals and ethics are relative. There are things that are unacceptable for some people but the same things are likeable for other people. Therefore i think religion is the thing we need to define morality and ethics otherwise everybody can do whatever they like.


I studied philosophy for years to get a degree in it, and philosophers have been working on ethics for thousands of years. If you're not willing to read a few summary links you're not going to understand.

Everything is relative. Relative does not mean nonexistent. It does mean we have to account for context and try to understand why people may disagree with us, which by the way is also necessary for a religious person to understand a person of a different religion instead of trying to slaughter them in a holy war. Relative means you have to think and relate things to your goals and values. If somebody is incapable of complex thought, they may benefit from being told rules without explanation of why those rules are good. Normally, we call these people children. Religion treats adults like children, refusing to explain _why_ god says x is right and _why_ god says y is wrong and instead going with "because I said so", which is very harmful to an adult because such rigid non-relative rule-based understanding misses changing context (especially dreadful to major religions which are thousands of years old and continue to list rules that were written for very different ancient societies) and is easy to misappropriate. I think most of the moral rules of most religions (especially Judaism and Islam) actually made a lot of sense for their original context, but sadly some of them are very harmful in today's context, so it's a shame people continue obeying the rules instead of obeying the reasoning that created the rules. Of course, people in the ancient past were uneducated and had simplistic concepts of the world so it's possible that they weren't capable of understanding reasons.

So I do agree with you for certain people. But I'm optimistic enough to think that most people are smart enough to benefit greatly from understanding the reasons behind rules rather than be treated like children. Even a lot of children would be better-behaved if their parents would explain the reasoning instead of "because I said so".


----------



## ysn

Paul said:


> I studied philosophy for years to get a degree in it, and philosophers have been working on ethics for thousands of years. If you're not willing to read a few summary links you're not going to understand.
> 
> Everything is relative. Relative does not mean nonexistent. Relative means you have to think. If somebody is completely incapable of thinking, they may benefit from being told rules without explanation of why those rules are good. Normally, we call these people children. Religion treats adults like children, refusing to explain _why_ god says x is right and _why_ god says y is wrong, which is very harmful to an adult because such rigid non-relative rule-based understanding misses all of the corner cases and is easy to misappropriate.
> 
> So I do agree with you for certain people. But I'm optimistic enough to think that most people are smart enough to benefit greatly from understanding the reasons behind rules rather than be treated like children. Even a lot of children would be better-behaved if their parents would explain the reasoning instead of "because I said so".


Hey i dont want to be rude here. But as u have said that u have a degree in philosophy, i am asking you a question that "how can u convince a person to not be cruel to people if he does not believe in religion?". Please give me a simple answer with reasons.

Sent from my SM-G531H using Tapatalk


----------



## ugh1979

ysn said:


> Ok finally u agree that you have no logical reason to convine that type of mentality.


Do you think there is any reasoning with such a person regarding this then? If so, lets hear it. I'm eager to know what would convince a medically untreatable psychopath not to harm people.


----------



## ugh1979

ysn said:


> Hey i dont want to be rude here. But as u have said that u have a degree in philosophy, i am asking you a question that "how can u convince a person to not be cruel to people if he does not believe in religion?". Please give me a simple answer with reasons.


I've got a question for you, how can u convince a person to not be cruel to people if he does believe in religion?


----------



## ysn

ugh1979 said:


> I've got a question for you, how can u convince a person to not be cruel to people if he does believe in religion?


If there is a corrupt person so powerful that the justice system in his country cannot arrest or punish him in his life time and that person also fears physical punishment but knows that no body can punish him in his life time (we all know these kind of criminals exist in 3rd world countries and this is not a hypothetical case) then only the certainty that he will be punished in the life after death can stop him in my opinion.

Sent from my SM-G531H using Tapatalk


----------



## Foh_Teej

ysn said:


> I think you havent got my point yet.


That's an understatement.



ysn said:


> I am saying that i believe in religion and i cannot tell u logically why i believe in it and also i dont wanna convince you or anybody through arguements etc that God exists or not.


At this point, I'm not asking for much. Just give me any reason. After all, you started this thread asking the reason we do not believe. After exchanging with you now, I am seeing our reasoning is largely in agreement yet you drew the exact opposite conclusion about a god. Neither of us seemingly have a good reason to believe in one yet somehow you still do.


----------



## ysn

Foh_Teej said:


> That's an understatement.
> 
> At this point, I'm not asking for much. Just give me any reason. After all, you started this thread asking the reason we do not believe. After exchanging with you now, I am seeing our reasoning is largely in agreement yet you drew the exact opposite conclusion about a god. Neither of us seemingly have a good reason to believe in one yet somehow you still do.


I believe in God's existence due to several reasons. One of them is that science havent yet proved that God's existence is impossible or something like God, must not exist. I have many reasons but they may not seem logical or understandable to you.

Sent from my SM-G531H using Tapatalk


----------



## ugh1979

ysn said:


> If there is a corrupt person so powerful that the justice system in his country cannot arrest or punish him in his life time and that person also fears physical punishment but knows that no body can punish him in his life time (we all know these kind of criminals exist in 3rd world countries and this is not a hypothetical case) then only the certainty that he will be punished in the life after death can stop him in my opinion.


Yet it clearly doesn't. There are many corrupt powerful religious people who simply don't care that they will apparently be punished in an afterlife. Why does adding a deity in to the situation necessarily make it any different? If someone doesn't care about being punished then they don't care, god or no god, it doesn't make a difference. They are mentally deranged either way.


----------



## ugh1979

ysn said:


> I believe in God's existence due to several reasons. One of them is that science havent yet proved that God's existence is impossible or something like God, must not exist.


So one of your reasons is that science can't prove a negative. That's just terrible reasoning.



> I have many reasons but they may not seem logical or understandable to you.


Yeah I bet. I wonder why? :roll


----------



## ysn

ugh1979 said:


> Yet it clearly doesn't. There are many corrupt powerful religious people who simply don't care that they will apparently be punished in an afterlife. Why does adding a deity in to the situation necessarily make it any different? If someone doesn't care about being punished then they don't care, god or no god, it doesn't make a difference. They are mentally deranged either way.


There are so many examples here in pakistan where people who have power and full authority to do corruption choose not to so because of their religious beliefs.

Sent from my SM-G531H using Tapatalk


----------



## ysn

ugh1979 said:


> So one of your reasons is that science can't prove a negative. That's just terrible reasoning.
> 
> Yeah I bet. I wonder why? :roll


No need to bother. I already told u my reasons to believe may seem irrational to you and i cannot do nything about it.

Sent from my SM-G531H using Tapatalk


----------



## ugh1979

ysn said:


> There are so many examples here in pakistan where people who have power and full authority to do corruption choose not to so because of their religious beliefs.


So in other words you are saying Pakistan has many powerful psychopaths.


----------



## ysn

ugh1979 said:


> So in other words you are saying Pakistan has many powerful psychopaths.


Again you're trying to scold instead of giving reasons to support your argument.

Sent from my SM-G531H using Tapatalk


----------



## ugh1979

ysn said:


> Again you're trying to scold instead of giving reasons to support your argument.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G531H using Tapatalk


To the contrary, the reason those people are like that is because they are psychopaths, so there is no reasoning with them. This is a truth you obviously don't want to hear.

How about you try answering what i've directly asked you several times but you ignore. Are you a psychopath? Because if not you've done a very good job at convincing the audience here that you could be.


----------



## ysn

ugh1979 said:


> To the contrary, the reason those people are like that is because they are psychopaths, so there is no reasoning with them. This is a truth you obviously don't want to hear.
> 
> How about you try answering what i've directly asked you several times but you ignore. Are you a psychopath? Because if not you've done a very good job at convincing the audience here that you could be.


No i'm not a psychopath. I consider myself a peaceful person who just wants to ask hypothetical questions. And please do not reply or quote me again because u will waste ur time as im not going to reply to you again bcoz all u want to do is scold me for asking questions.

Sent from my SM-G531H using Tapatalk


----------



## ugh1979

ysn said:


> No i'm not a psychopath. I consider myself a peaceful person who just wants to ask hypothetical questions. And please do not reply or quote me again because u will waste ur time as im not going to reply to you again bcoz all u want to do is scold me for asking questions.


So have you learned that there are people that simply don't care about being punished by anything, even hypothetical gods? Therefore your underpinning point fails, plus simply highlights a tendency for psychopaths to hide behind religious covers.

I've given you many legitimate answers and counter points to your questions. If all you can see is me scolding you then you need to pay better attention to what's being said.


----------



## Paul

ysn said:


> Hey i dont want to be rude here. But as u have said that u have a degree in philosophy, i am asking you a question that "how can u convince a person to not be cruel to people if he does not believe in religion?". Please give me a simple answer with reasons.


I would not try to convince somebody to not be cruel until I found out why they want to be cruel. You can only argue with them once you understand how and why they reached their belief (in cruelty). It seems like many cruel people are cruel because people have been cruel to them and they think they're fighting to survive against a society full of enemies, but some may have other reasons.

The very simple answer is Bertrand Russell's answer: "The good life, as I conceive it, is a happy life. I do not mean that if you are good you will be happy -- I mean that if you are happy you will be good." Being cruel is not the natural state, it's a state people arrive at through trauma and twisted thinking and revenge cycles which need to be addressed but which are obviously not simple. Throughout nature, most advanced species display some form of moral consideration for others of their own kind -- often moreso for their own pack but frequently for their entire species (rarely for other species, humans are more unique there but not entirely). There's a lot of scientific research ongoing about altruism in nature.

An ethical citizen has should be raised to think for himself and form his own arguments for why he makes the judgments he makes. Perhaps he likes utilitiarianism and judges actions by their net benefit to society, but personally I'm not a utilitarian even though I believe it has generally positive results. Perhaps he favors objectivism as a purely self-interested argument for why people pursuing their own goals is ethical, but I dislike objectivism very much personally. Kant gives an account of ethics which is based purely on rationality and says that unethical positions are positions which one could not logically will to be universalized, and many people find that compelling, but I find Kantian ethics incomplete. I'm an ethical pluralist who likes to consider multiple arguments, but more than anything I lean toward intuitionism (conscience) and virtue ethics, in which an ethical action is one that develops your character closer to leading the "good life" for your society.

I also think Russell has a point when he says "If there were in the world today any large number of people who desired their own happiness more than they desired the unhappiness of others, we could have paradise in a few years." The problem with many people is that they only react to their emotion of the moment instead of thinking things through.


----------



## Tetragammon

ysn said:


> Well Why should i even care how others feel . If it makes me happy to kill ppl i dont like then i would do it for the sake of my happiness. Yes i would not do harm to ppl who do good to me because that doesnt FEEL right to me. I mean if this is the only life i have then why should i live as a poor person and work hard my entire life to fulfill my dreams, why not steal and go to LasVegas and play poker.


Well this thread got very disturbing, very fast. I'm glad that some other folks stepped in because I really didn't know how to reply to this without sounding like I was attacking you personally. I'd urge you to seek professional help though, in all seriousness. Such a lack of empathy and remorse is not "normal," even for social phobics.

Like I said I've heard this argument many times before, that the only thing holding theists back from raping, pillaging and murdering is their faith -- but I never really took it seriously. It always seemed like an overblown attempt at smearing atheism. But now I have to wonder just how many 'true believers' are also psychopaths whose destructive tendencies can only be 'reigned in' by religion. It's a terrifying thought... and yet it makes perfect sense.


----------



## ysn

Tetragammon said:


> Well this thread got very disturbing, very fast. I'm glad that some other folks stepped in because I really didn't know how to reply to this without sounding like I was attacking you personally. I'd urge you to seek professional help though, in all seriousness. Such a lack of empathy and remorse is not "normal," even for social phobics.
> 
> Like I said I've heard this argument many times before, that the only thing holding theists back from raping, pillaging and murdering is their faith -- but I never really took it seriously. It always seemed like an overblown attempt at smearing atheism. But now I have to wonder just how many 'true believers' are also psychopaths whose destructive tendencies can only be 'reigned in' by religion. It's a terrifying thought... and yet it makes perfect sense.


Please Go 2 or 3 pages back and read how this conversation started. I replied to a person here by telling him that if i were not a religious person then i would certainly have tried to kill the tyrants and corrupt people here in pakistan. (People who murder innocents on daily basis just to grab their land, corrupt politicians who spend health funds to buy supercars for their sons and in consequence many children and adults die everyday due to lack of basic facilities in hospitals, police officers who secretly support murderers..and justice system here does not punish there people becuase of their power and money etc). This is my opinion and you calling me mentally ill will not affect it. The only thing that will affect it is that if you convince me logically. 
And btw this what i wanted to say in this whole recent conversation wd ppl here.. "if there is a corrupt person so powerful that the justice system in his country cannot arrest or punish him in his life time and that person also fears physical punishment but knows that no body can punish him in his life time (we all know these kind of criminals exist in 3rd world countries and this is not a hypothetical case) then only the certainty that he will be punished in the life after death can stop him in my opinion.""

Sent from my SM-G531H using Tapatalk


----------



## Foh_Teej

ysn said:


> I believe in God's existence due to several reasons.


You haven't really given many.



ysn said:


> One of them is that science havent yet proved that God's existence is impossible or something like God, must not exist.


Science hasn't proven the non existence of pixies, either. But this is nothing more than an _argument from ignorance_. Declaring something true because it hasn't been proven false is the very definition of this fallacy.



ysn said:


> I have many reasons but they may not seem logical or understandable to you.


Why do you think that is? Since you are reluctant to list them all, I suppose that will remain an assumption.


----------



## ysn

Foh_Teej said:


> You haven't really given many.
> 
> Science hasn't proven the non existence of pixies, either. But this is nothing more than an _argument from ignorance_. Declaring something true because it hasn't been proven false is the very definition of this fallacy.
> 
> Why do you think that is? Since you are reluctant to list them all, I suppose that will remain an assumption.


Ok. Some more points.
1. Great scientists/ genius minds of one era used think that the earth was flat. If u can go back 400 years in time and tell people that the earth is not flat, there is a possibility that they can talk to others anywhere on earth even if they are miles apart (phone, internet), there can exist a bomb which can destroy half of the world ( tsar bomb), they can fly in the air (aeroplanes etc)..people of that era will think you are superstitious to believe all that. So i think there may come a time in future when science gets advanced enough to prove that something like God exists, but for now, i believe in God without any proof of his existence. This may sound illogical to you that i believe in God but not fairies but this how it is. Its more intuition, less logic.
2. There is Nothing in religion( in which i believe ) against science or unscientific. Science havent yet proved the existence of God, hell, paradise etc to be illogical or impossible. 
3. You may think i'm insane to say that but Birth process amazes me and i wonder how a completely new person can born by just the meeting of two cells. Its magical (to me). 
4. This argument => "if there is a corrupt person so powerful that the justice system in his country cannot arrest or punish him in his life time and that person also fears physical punishment but knows that no body can punish him in his life time (we all know these kind of criminals exist in 3rd world countries and this is not a hypothetical case) then only the certainty that he will be punished in the life after death can stop him in my opinion."
NOTE: All of this is my opinion and may seem superstitious or illogical to you and i fully understand that so no point in arguing. And also i want to make it clear that i dont have any feelings of hatred for atheists or any person here for not believing in what i believe infact i like this fact about atheists that they dont blindly follow the religion of their forefathers.

Sent from my SM-G531H using Tapatalk


----------



## ugh1979

ysn said:


> Please Go 2 or 3 pages back and read how this conversation started. I replied to a person here by telling him that if i were not a religious person then i would certainly have tried to kill the tyrants and corrupt people here in pakistan. (People who murder innocents on daily basis just to grab their land, corrupt politicians who spend health funds to buy supercars for their sons and in consequence many children and adults die everyday due to lack of basic facilities in hospitals, police officers who secretly support murderers..and justice system here does not punish there people becuase of their power and money etc). This is my opinion and you calling me mentally ill will not affect it. The only thing that will affect it is that if you convince me logically.


Psychopaths can't be convinced logically as i've told you many times but you ignore.



> And btw this what i wanted to say in this whole recent conversation wd ppl here.. "if there is a corrupt person so powerful that the justice system in his country cannot arrest or punish him in his life time and that person also fears physical punishment but knows that no body can punish him in his life time (we all know these kind of criminals exist in 3rd world countries and this is not a hypothetical case) then only the certainty that he will be punished in the life after death can stop him in my opinion.""


You said that earlier and I rebutted it, but also, how do you know it's only a fear of their god that is stopping them from doing it? Have you spoken to them personally or have they publicly admitted to that?

Either way as I say, if they want to harm people and don't care about being punished it means they are psychopaths, and why then should they care about any punishment, even a hypothetical gods? You skipped answering that question when I asked it earlier.


----------



## Comeatmebro

There's no proof. It's such a silly thing to worry about anyways. We really have no way of knowing if a God is out there or not


----------



## Foh_Teej

ysn said:


> Ok. Some more points.


None of them are particular good.



ysn said:


> 1. Great scientists/ genius minds of one era used think that the earth was flat. If u can go back 400 years in time and tell people that the earth is not flat, there is a possibility that they can talk to others anywhere on earth even if they are miles apart (phone, internet), there can exist a bomb which can destroy half of the world ( tsar bomb), they can fly in the air (aeroplanes etc)..people of that era will think you are superstitious to believe all that. So i think there may come a time in future when science gets advanced enough to prove that something like God exists, but for now, i believe in God without any proof of his existence. This may sound illogical to you that i believe in God but not fairies but this how it is. Its more intuition, less logic.


I already exposed your argument from ignorance. Not sure why you feel the need to continually justify the fallacy when you admittedly embrace it already.



ysn said:


> 2. There is Nothing in religion( in which i believe ) against science or unscientific. Science havent yet proved the existence of God, hell, paradise etc to be illogical or impossible.


Science hasn't yet proven pixies and mermaids illogical or impossible, either. I think you actually understand how ****ty these arguments are but refuse to accept reality into your mind.



ysn said:


> 3. You may think i'm insane to say that but Birth process amazes me and i wonder how a completely new person can born by just the meeting of two cells. Its magical (to me).


For once, no. I have twins. Birth is amazing. However, I see no reason to credit any of the several thousand gods and/or goddesses for the process. So just how does your amazement validate an argument for a god? I'm not trying to be a dick but when you ask why one doesn't believe in you god and you fail to give any good reasons, that's one good reason.



ysn said:


> 4. This argument => "if there is a corrupt person so powerful that the justice system in his country cannot arrest or punish him in his life time and that person also fears physical punishment but knows that no body can punish him in his life time (we all know these kind of criminals exist in 3rd world countries and this is not a hypothetical case) then only the certainty that he will be punished in the life after death can stop him in my opinion."


If your god can't do dick in this life, what the **** makes you think he exists to do a damn thing in an afterlife that isn't even established to exist? I'm still not trying to be a dick but I have to wonder just why you'd even make this argument.



ysn said:


> NOTE: All of this is my opinion and may seem superstitious or illogical to you and i fully understand that so no point in arguing.


**** yeah there is. If I can save just one person from delusional thinking, the point is WELL served. I understand that people that frequently deliver ****ty arguments tend to not like to argue but you posted in the wrong forum for that.



ysn said:


> And also i want to make it clear that i dont have any feelings of hatred for atheists or any person here for not believing in what i believe infact i like this fact about atheists that they dont blindly follow the religion of their forefathers.


I don't have any hatred for theists; I just think theists' arguments are really crappy.


----------



## ysn

Foh_Teej said:


> None of them are particular good.
> 
> I already exposed your argument from ignorance. Not sure why you feel the need to continually justify the fallacy when you admittedly embrace it already.
> 
> Science hasn't yet proven pixies and mermaids illogical or impossible, either. I think you actually understand how ****ty these arguments are but refuse to accept reality into your mind.
> 
> For once, no. I have twins. Birth is amazing. However, I see no reason to credit any of the several thousand gods and/or goddesses for the process. So just how does your amazement validate an argument for a god? I'm not trying to be a dick but when you ask why one doesn't believe in you god and you fail to give any good reasons, that's one good reason.
> 
> If your god can't do dick in this life, what the **** makes you think he exists to do a damn thing in an afterlife that isn't even established to exist? I'm still not trying to be a dick but I have to wonder just why you'd even make this argument.
> 
> **** yeah there is. If I can save just one person from delusional thinking, the point is WELL served. I understand that people that frequently deliver ****ty arguments tend to not like to argue but you posted in the wrong forum for that.
> 
> I don't have any hatred for theists; I just think theists' arguments are really crappy.


Woah man. Take it easy. Why so angry? I'm not forcing my ideas on you so believe whatever you want to believe.

Sent from my SM-G531H using Tapatalk


----------



## ysn

Foh_Teej said:


> None of them are particular good.
> 
> I already exposed your argument from ignorance. Not sure why you feel the need to continually justify the fallacy when you admittedly embrace it already.
> 
> Science hasn't yet proven pixies and mermaids illogical or impossible, either. I think you actually understand how ****ty these arguments are but refuse to accept reality into your mind.
> 
> For once, no. I have twins. Birth is amazing. However, I see no reason to credit any of the several thousand gods and/or goddesses for the process. So just how does your amazement validate an argument for a god? I'm not trying to be a dick but when you ask why one doesn't believe in you god and you fail to give any good reasons, that's one good reason.
> 
> If your god can't do dick in this life, what the **** makes you think he exists to do a damn thing in an afterlife that isn't even established to exist? I'm still not trying to be a dick but I have to wonder just why you'd even make this argument.
> 
> **** yeah there is. If I can save just one person from delusional thinking, the point is WELL served. I understand that people that frequently deliver ****ty arguments tend to not like to argue but you posted in the wrong forum for that.
> 
> I don't have any hatred for theists; I just think theists' arguments are really crappy.


Woah man. Take it easy. Why so angry? I'm not forcing my ideas on you so keep calm and know that not everyone on this earth think analytically, people think intuitively too.
PS : anger is not good for health 

Sent from my SM-G531H using Tapatalk


----------



## Foh_Teej

ysn said:


> Woah man. Take it easy. Why so angry? I'm not forcing my ideas on you so keep calm and know that not everyone on this earth think analytically, people think intuitively too.
> PS : anger is not good for health
> 
> Sent from my SM-G531H using Tapatalk


No anger here. Don't confuse my stern and direct abrasiveness for anger. I love religious discussion and debate. While this is the wrong forum for that, I don't candy coat and address posts accordingly. At any rate, there's nothing wrong with intuition. Intuition is a very handy faculty to possess when one doesn't have access to data and hard facts, or when a huge amount of consideration and deliberation is simply unnecessary. However, appealing to "feels" goes beyond mere intuition and frequently leads to wishful thinking and other logical fallacious reasoning. It's not the intuition that's the bad thing; it's the fallacies you're blaming on it.


----------



## springbreeze1

Understanding of science and understanding of religions. I mean religions have the obvious signs of being mam made.

The chance of these ancient man made world views happen to be ultimate truth is negligible.


----------



## Trooper

Because there is no 'God', and there is no way to prove otherwise.

This religious belief system was man-made through fear, insecurities and the lack of knowledge and understanding of the world humans being inhabited.

Man needed answers or explanations of the workings of the world as seen through the human eye, the sun rising, the rain falling, seasons changing, volcanoes erupting etc. But through the human mind being still very primitive at the time, man's only way to explain all of what was being seen and experienced was to attribute these to the workings of some 'superior being' or 'deity'. Whether man believed this to be true, or not, man was content to believe answers had been found for all the questions that needed answering. Primitive minds, primitive explanations.

Time has since moved on, man has evolved and gained so much more knowledge and understanding about the world now, since those primitive times, and has even explored beyond its boundaries. There is no longer a need to hold on to this ancient misunderstanding that man had created, when we can see the answers for a lot of the questions we once had, before our very eyes. This knowledge will only improve as we explore further and find even more answers to a lot more of the questions we still need to find answers for.


----------



## Tetragammon

Trooper said:


> Because there is no 'God', and there is no way to prove otherwise.
> 
> This religious belief system was man-made through fear, insecurities and the lack of knowledge and understanding of the world humans being inhabited.
> 
> Man needed answers or explanations of the workings of the world as seen through the human eye, the sun rising, the rain falling, seasons changing, volcanoes erupting etc. But through the human mind being still very primitive at the time, man's only way to explain all of what was being seen and experienced was to attribute these to the workings of some 'superior being' or 'deity'. Whether man believed this to be true, or not, man was content to believe answers had been found for all the questions that needed answering. Primitive minds, primitive explanations.
> 
> Time has since moved on, man has evolved and gained so much more knowledge and understanding about the world now, since those primitive times, and has even explored beyond its boundaries. There is no longer a need to hold on to this ancient misunderstanding that man had created, when we can see the answers for a lot of the questions we once had, before our very eyes. This knowledge will only improve as we explore further and find even more answers to a lot more of the questions we still need to find answers for.


I like this. Hear hear!


----------



## anono99

I was raised in a southern baptist culture, and was even baptized at 11 years of age; however, I did it because I felt it was expected of me. Over time I became agnostic. I'm naturally a skeptic, and I believe in the Scientific Method. So many "facts" in the Bible seem ridiculous to me. I feel that most people convince themselves to believe...out of fear and having a Pascal's Wager attitude.


----------



## AgnosticArab

Religion feeds of the fear of Man. Humans are afraid of death, and in order to quell this fear, they created the notion of the afterlife. Man's process of thoughts was something like that : "What if we don't really cease to exist, and we go instead to a better world ? ... But wait, I'm a better person than my neighbor, it's not fair that he gets to have a better life too ! ... But who gets to decide ? ... " and thus ladies and gentlemen God was created !

All weak minded people, that need to justify their existence and negate the notion of void after death or else they go crazy are deeply religious, but It's not a bijection as other factors (social, cultural, ..) come into the equation as well.

Anyway, I think that given enough time, and mostly information (as science continues to advance), humanity will slowly converge toward Atheism/Agnosticism 

Cheers

A.A


----------



## blue53669

Agnostic Arab & Trooper I very much agree... man-made fears and hopes. Lots of terrible things happen in this world that have no explanation or justice, and it's helpful for religious people to think at least the truth will be known in the end, the terrible people will have their punishment, the faithful will have their reward, etc. Also for some people to hold power over others and control them, that is any organized religion IMO. 

I like what Tetragammon said earlier in the thread, if there was a God I'd like to think he wouldn't be so needy/demanding/controlling and judge us on a silly checklist of what hoops we did not did not jump through. Oh yeah, and just for ****s and gigs, give different groups of people different versions of the checklist so they're not sure which were the real ones. (god: 'watch this, it's going to be hilarious!')


----------



## BourbonTea23

First and foremost, I haven't been given a reason to believe in God. The world is a horrible place.
Also, this might be controversial but it is just my opinion, I believe being religious is a form of mental illness. Not in terms that it is bad for you, just that I find that people use religion as an excuse to cope with their problems, and hide behind something they have created in their head. They then believe it so much that they can't see any other way. I also believe it feeds war and discontent.

I'm really not a big fan of religion at all, I actively avoid it.


----------



## mxgsmxni

Just found this website and this forum was the first that caught my eye.

My family is religious and I went along with it for many years until I was old enough to really think for myself. I suppose the reason I don't believe in God is simple because I don't see why I should. Science has come pretty far in explaining natural phenomena (and I know we have a long way to go) but I don't think it is necessary to use the idea of an all-powerful being or "creator", for which we have no concrete evidence, to explain things we don't yet know. Hopefully we will understand unexplained phenomena in our own time.

That being said, I don't know how I feel about religion. It can be a great thing if someone decides to live a good life in the name of their deity or deities. Sometimes faith is the only thing that keeps people going. On the other hand, when people start to commit crimes in the name of religion... not so good. (see ISIS)


----------

