The Atheism/Agnosticism Thread

Do you think God exists?


  • Total voters
    253

Bharatiya

New Member
Joined
Jun 2, 2022
Messages
8
Likes
47
Personally, I wouldn't even want to think about god.

Our ancestors, the rishis could think of Para Brahma and writes the great scriptures because India at that time was the richest, safest and arguably the best place to live in. A literal 'Swarga' on earth.

Now, we live in a country which went through lots and lots of brutal periods. I don't even need to list the problems we face coz we can all think of a dozen in a flash.

We can think of GOD after we set our country right.

Fix the world we're in before worrying about the world we go to after death and the creator of the entire thing.
 

HeinzGud

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2011
Messages
2,536
Likes
1,053
Country flag
Nice. Let me give you an analogy so you may understand-
If there's an empty room and no one's seen what's inside the room, you can't conclusively say "well, there's no dog in the room". When you have the entire universe figured out, get back to us.

Till then, keep it to yourself. Yeah?
This argument apply the same to the atheists as well as theists.

Would they concede to the idea that there is no dog in the room? Have they figured out the entire universe?
 

HeinzGud

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2011
Messages
2,536
Likes
1,053
Country flag
Completely vague and meaningless phrase. What do you mean precisely? The existence of the Universe, how it was created and came into being, the Big Bang theory? What exactly do you mean?
The universe behaves in a certain pattern. It's all about thermodynamics.

Human's can't understand anything beyond the three dimensional plane that we are in.

So what the heck the priests know? the monks know?
 

Tactical Doge

π•±π–”π–”π–‘π–˜ π–—π–šπ–˜π– 𝖆𝖓𝖉 π–†π–“π–Œπ–Šπ–‘π–˜ π–‹π–Šπ–†π–—
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2019
Messages
7,836
Likes
47,175
Country flag
The universe behaves in a certain pattern. It's all about thermodynamics.

Human's can't understand anything beyond the three dimensional plane that we are in.

So what the heck the priests know? the monks know?
Priests and monks back in the day might have know more than one would think

Screenshot_20220626-193535~2.png
 

Tactical Doge

π•±π–”π–”π–‘π–˜ π–—π–šπ–˜π– 𝖆𝖓𝖉 π–†π–“π–Œπ–Šπ–‘π–˜ π–‹π–Šπ–†π–—
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2019
Messages
7,836
Likes
47,175
Country flag
Really? How?

The Karma is the god... Don't you understand.... You have substitute the almighty with the Karma...
Read the second point you
Even if karma is denied and proceeds to say what exactly?
 

Love Charger

ΰ€šΰ€•ΰ₯ΰ€°ΰ€΅ΰ€°ΰ₯ΰ€€ΰ₯€
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2021
Messages
7,939
Likes
21,338
Really? How?

The Karma is the god... Don't you understand.... You have substitute the almighty with the Karma...
And who decides karma ?
Karma deva ?
 

cannonfodder

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2014
Messages
1,516
Likes
4,240
Country flag
Priests and monks back in the day might have know more than one would think

View attachment 161708
Interesting commentary: How did they reconcile between existence of "law of karma" and God Almighty(Brahman) then?

Also ++ to scholars who thought about this contradictions and wrote about it 1000 of years ago. We truly are degenerates if we remove some recent scientific accomplishments.
 
Last edited:

Two Minutes To Midnight

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Apr 30, 2022
Messages
302
Likes
1,869
Country flag
Human's can't understand anything beyond the three dimensional plane that we are in.
Really? Are you sure about this?

So on what basis do you appeal to immaterial universal laws like laws of logic or laws of mathematics? Laws such as those two are immaterial, universal, invariant, unchanging etc. They certainly are way beyond the three dimensional plane that we are in. So, according to you it's all bogus and we cannot understand it, and our present interpretation of it is all wrong?

What about objective moral truths? Like, β€œIt is wrong to cause suffering simply to increase suffering in the world” cannot be proven scientifically. These statements are also not true by definition like the statement β€œAll triangles have three sides.”

They are objective truths, but immaterial, universal and unchanging. Again not within the boundaries of this three-dimensional world. So, now that is false as well? Beyond our understanding?
 

tribendra bisoi.

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2022
Messages
258
Likes
1,091
Totally cool if some people worship God in some specific time and mind their business in other time . But when religion starts doing too much interference to day to day life problem starts . And if God says i am the only God others are false , either you worship me or i am going to burn you ... That is also a problem .
 

shade

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 28, 2016
Messages
9,659
Likes
56,552
Country flag
I came here expecting 400 IQ arguments how per Hinduism there is a certain school which even argues that there are no gods.

But then was dissapointed when I saw 60 IQ Lankjeet here

1656352985450.png


Perhaps he is :daru: and posting, which is why this burst of "enlightenment"
Like a wh*te pothead who takes a hit and suddenly "realizes" that "we're all living in a simulation"
 

Tactical Doge

π•±π–”π–”π–‘π–˜ π–—π–šπ–˜π– 𝖆𝖓𝖉 π–†π–“π–Œπ–Šπ–‘π–˜ π–‹π–Šπ–†π–—
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2019
Messages
7,836
Likes
47,175
Country flag
Interesting commentary: How did they reconcile between existence of "law of karma" and God Almighty(Brahman) then?

Also ++ to scholars who thought about this contradictions and wrote about it 1000 of years ago. We truly are degenerates if we remove some recent scientific accomplishments.
This is the Samkhya School of thought
Widely unpopular and almost extinct

There exists no reconciliation between karma and God because there is no God
This is probably How it Defers from Baudha and Jaina philosophy since both of them believe in Karma
 

Tactical Doge

π•±π–”π–”π–‘π–˜ π–—π–šπ–˜π– 𝖆𝖓𝖉 π–†π–“π–Œπ–Šπ–‘π–˜ π–‹π–Šπ–†π–—
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2019
Messages
7,836
Likes
47,175
Country flag
very interesting read.

if there is karma, Laws of Universe doesn't demand a god to exist for itself to exist

if there is no karma, then we have to assume God is the enforcer of causality, if so, why God is enforcing so much Suffering on the world, God is a (non?) altruistic entity? Then does God exist?
Fixed it for ya
 
Last edited:

Two Minutes To Midnight

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Apr 30, 2022
Messages
302
Likes
1,869
Country flag
Priests and monks back in the day might have know more than one would think

View attachment 161708
The "pointless suffering disproves God" argument does not make sense.

One problem with imagining God as one of us, but with super powers, is that he can affect every moral situation. Yes, you or I or a regular police officer would stop a rape from happening, because in our limited understanding we simply follow our moral obligation to stop evil as best we can. But when God acts, it is very different, because he could stop all evil if he chose.

If God were obligated to stop a woman’s rape, then wouldn’t he be obligated to stop all rape? And murder? And robbery? Hell, adultery, fraud, and even building code violations cause people harm. Suddenly we are faced with a genuine question: Would our world be better if God stopped every act of evil, both moral and natural? Even if we had free will, it would be useless if God made our choices trivial and sentenced us to life in a β€œtoyworld.”

Moreover, there is the problem of the sliding scale. Yes, the amount of evil in our world can be awful at times. But if God were to reduce it, would that make atheists happy and resolve the problem of evil? Imagine we lived in a world without malaria and rape but with every other evil we currently have. Would the problem of evil be gone? I suspect atheists would still complain that there was too much evil. But what if the greatest evil in the world were stubbed toes?

We don’t think stubbed toes are bad when we compare them to evils like rape and malaria. But without those great evils to compare it to, maybe a stubbed toe would be considered too much evil for God to allow. β€œPlease GOD!!, Just remove only chipped toenails!”).

Furthermore, there could certainly be a world in which the amount of evil was even greater than in our world; atheists in that world might say that if God existed he would at least remove these gratuitous evils. Atheists in such a hypothetical world might say they would believe in God if he just reduced evil to the level we currently observe in the actual world. If that happened, would these hypothetical atheists cease to mention the problem of evil?

Of course not, because then they would just become the atheists of this world who make the same complaint. The bottom line is that God may have good reasons to allow evil in the world, and the burden of proof is on the atheist to show that he doesn’t have any good reasons to allow such evil. One of those reasons may be that if he were obligated to remove some evils, then he would be obligated to remove all evils. But if he removed all evils, then God would deprive us of goods that often accompany evil, like free will or the opportunity to be our heroic best.

Also, how would an atheist even define evil or suffering? He might say evil is something that is bad or unpleasant. Well, then what is β€œbad” or β€œunpleasant”? It’s when things aren’t β€œgood.” Well, what is β€œgood”?

Is "good" the "way things are meant to be?" That would mean evil is "not the way things are meant to be."

But if everything is supposed to β€œbe a certain way,” then it follows there is a creator and designer of the world who has a plan for his creationβ€”in a word, God. In any case, all the other evidence for God’s existence (like the universe being designed to be a certain way) outweighs the evidence for atheism, and we can still be confident that God exists.

Atheists don’t have an easy solution to the problem of evil because their conclusionβ€”God does not exist collides with the equally mysterious problem of good. Why, if there is no God, is there so much love, goodness, and beauty in the world? Why do humans seem so valuable, even those who suffer greatly, when under atheism humans are just a collection of molecules and electrical impulses?

TL;DR: If God performed a miracle every time someone was in danger or suffering, then we could never be compassionate and help others, which is one reason I think God made us. And if you want him to end just one or a couple of evils or suffering, do you think, in all honesty, that you still wouldn’t be bothered by the other kinds of evils, even if things like cancer or murder didn’t exist? How much evil or suffering is too much for God to allow?
 

Tactical Doge

π•±π–”π–”π–‘π–˜ π–—π–šπ–˜π– 𝖆𝖓𝖉 π–†π–“π–Œπ–Šπ–‘π–˜ π–‹π–Šπ–†π–—
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2019
Messages
7,836
Likes
47,175
Country flag
The "pointless suffering disproves God" argument does not make sense.

One problem with imagining God as one of us, but with super powers, is that he can affect every moral situation. Yes, you or I or a regular police officer would stop a rape from happening, because in our limited understanding we simply follow our moral obligation to stop evil as best we can. But when God acts, it is very different, because he could stop all evil if he chose.

If God were obligated to stop a woman’s rape, then wouldn’t he be obligated to stop all rape? And murder? And robbery? Hell, adultery, fraud, and even building code violations cause people harm. Suddenly we are faced with a genuine question: Would our world be better if God stopped every act of evil, both moral and natural? Even if we had free will, it would be useless if God made our choices trivial and sentenced us to life in a β€œtoyworld.”

Moreover, there is the problem of the sliding scale. Yes, the amount of evil in our world can be awful at times. But if God were to reduce it, would that make atheists happy and resolve the problem of evil? Imagine we lived in a world without malaria and rape but with every other evil we currently have. Would the problem of evil be gone? I suspect atheists would still complain that there was too much evil. But what if the greatest evil in the world were stubbed toes?

We don’t think stubbed toes are bad when we compare them to evils like rape and malaria. But without those great evils to compare it to, maybe a stubbed toe would be considered too much evil for God to allow. β€œPlease GOD!!, Just remove only chipped toenails!”).

Furthermore, there could certainly be a world in which the amount of evil was even greater than in our world; atheists in that world might say that if God existed he would at least remove these gratuitous evils. Atheists in such a hypothetical world might say they would believe in God if he just reduced evil to the level we currently observe in the actual world. If that happened, would these hypothetical atheists cease to mention the problem of evil?

Of course not, because then they would just become the atheists of this world who make the same complaint. The bottom line is that God may have good reasons to allow evil in the world, and the burden of proof is on the atheist to show that he doesn’t have any good reasons to allow such evil. One of those reasons may be that if he were obligated to remove some evils, then he would be obligated to remove all evils. But if he removed all evils, then God would deprive us of goods that often accompany evil, like free will or the opportunity to be our heroic best.

Also, how would an atheist even define evil or suffering? He might say evil is something that is bad or unpleasant. Well, then what is β€œbad” or β€œunpleasant”? It’s when things aren’t β€œgood.” Well, what is β€œgood”?

Is "good" the "way things are meant to be?" That would mean evil is "not the way things are meant to be."

But if everything is supposed to β€œbe a certain way,” then it follows there is a creator and designer of the world who has a plan for his creationβ€”in a word, God. In any case, all the other evidence for God’s existence (like the universe being designed to be a certain way) outweighs the evidence for atheism, and we can still be confident that God exists.

Atheists don’t have an easy solution to the problem of evil because their conclusionβ€”God does not exist collides with the equally mysterious problem of good. Why, if there is no God, is there so much love, goodness, and beauty in the world? Why do humans seem so valuable, even those who suffer greatly, when under atheism humans are just a collection of molecules and electrical impulses?

TL;DR: If God performed a miracle every time someone was in danger or suffering, then we could never be compassionate and help others, which is one reason I think God made us. And if you want him to end just one or a couple of evils or suffering, do you think, in all honesty, that you still wouldn’t be bothered by the other kinds of evils, even if things like cancer or murder didn’t exist? How much evil or suffering is too much for God to allow?
It is a genuine Debate



Let me play the Devil's advocate here please bear with me
which is one reason I think God made us.
If God made us, What made him
Was He/it Pre existing?
Was he before creation or a Product of creation?

Or is the Universe itself is "God" and we are the stuff of his being?
Rather than Polytheism or Monotheism, is it "Pantheism", and this "Pan" being self aware entity?


how would an atheist even define evil or suffering? He might say evil is something that is bad or unpleasant. Well, then what is β€œbad” or β€œunpleasant”? It’s when things aren’t β€œgood.” Well, what is β€œgood”?
He would obviously define it in Relative Terms, isn't that a Given?
It is the only way we can define things which cannot be Quantified, it is by using relative reasoning
 

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top