Why Do They Question The Existence Of God?

[goodlife]

One leading cause of atheism is religion.
Or they may proclaim, ‘I only believe what I see, and I can’t see any invisible Creator.

[RATTER15]

Khandro and why do you think it is any less believable than the stories in the Bible? I find the two equally ridiculous!

Talking snakes, woman grown from a rib, Noah's ark, pink unicorns?

Really!!!!!

[modeller]

khandro Got under your skin did it ?
I wouldn't expect you to understand, or want to understand, because like goodlife you don't want to answer the question.

My belief in the IPU has as much validity as your fantasy world .
By being personal, all it shows is the weakness in your own belief .

However speaking from a science point of view we learn by putting our ideas to the test and repeatedly trying to prove them wrong.

Please prove me wrong in my believing in the IPU.
I sincerely welcome your explanations, that I can put to the test.

[vetuste_ennemi]

I refute your IPU cult, Modeller. In my sacred text the Magic Sandwich Recipe Book it specifically asserts that the Invisible Pink Unicorn is a false god. That's verse xiv in Chapter 11 (the one on chicken tikka fillings).

[Khandro]

modeller; If you are making a supposition that your personal belief in unicorns holds any significance outside of yourself, then I'd like to hear what that is, and furthermore, why you think I should attempt to disabuse you of it.

[modeller]

Khandro //why you think I should attempt to disabuse you of it. //

I would have thought you would want to fight for your belief, not give up at the first minor hurdle.

vetuste refutes my IPU and even quotes chapter and verse from his holy book asserting my god is false. We IPUs are a little upset at that but our doors are open to all and would gladly accept all MSRBs as affiliated members.

[Khandro]

modeller; You have fallen into trap of your own making, which Dawkins and his cohorts would never do, ie. stating something in which you BELIEVE. I would suggest (Imho) the 'correct' position for an atheist is to rebut religion, but avoid clarity on any other beliefs at all costs. When asked 'Do you believe in God?' Dawkins always replies something along the lines of 'I do not believe in God, and I do not believe in tooth fairies, Father Christmas, or (pink) unicorns. He would also not believe that the world would end in the next 30
minutes, but he leaves the magnitude of these disbeliefs uncategorised, though he did go so far in his Oxford debate with Rowan Williams to concede of a very remote possibility of God's existence, but he would never side with you in your belief in the existence of pink unicorns.

[modeller]

Good for you Khandro , an excellent answer , but nowhere did I say
in this thread I didn't believe in any god . I said I didn't believe in yours.

I also gave goodlife some advice I said in his position:
//I would use my OWN words to prove those atheists wrong. Look at those atheist posts . Answer them . Prove them wrong . Try it ! //

But I didn't say I was one of them . I said prove them wrong.

. Now at the moment we IPUs believe our IPU is the creator because no one has proved us wrong. So maybe now you will stop avoiding it and answer my question .
Which was :
// Please prove me wrong in my believing in the IPU.
I sincerely welcome your explanations, that I can put to the test. //

Richard Dawkins doesn't deny that something caused the creation of the universe. What he denies is that it was caused by some super intelligence which you call God.

Incidentlly it was Rowan Williams who conceded that Genesis was not necessarily literally true but that's another matter outside this thread.
.

[FredPuli43]

The question is the wrong way round. It begs the question of there being a god and asks why we question that. The onus is, logically, on the person who asserts the existence of something. Now , what evidence in the material world do you have for the existence of a god?

"I only believe what I see" is a good starting point. What do you see that proves,or tends to prove, the existence of God ?

[modeller]

khandro may I point out that RD's // , or (pink) unicorns.// does not refer to the Invisible Pink Unicorn cult . You no doubt agree that being invisible
is an essential attribute for a creator. Correct me if I'm wrong.

[modeller]

Fred //I only believe what I see" is a good starting point. What do you see that proves,or tends to prove, the existence of God ? //

That's right Fred but believers in the God of Abraham say if you saw their god it wouldn't be god, because god is everywhere and therefore if you saw him in one place he couldn't there and everywhere else at the same time.

[Khandro]

modeller; //but nowhere did I say
in this thread I didn't believe in any god . I said I didn't believe in yours.//
MINE!!! Under what misapprehension do you presume you know what that is?

[RATTER15]

Khandro, Modeller stated that he doesn't believe in any God, so clearly he doesn't believe in yours, you claim to be a. Buddhist so you have a belief in a God, it doesn't matter which God, like myself Modeller doesn't believe in any of them. Do you understand that?

[RATTER15]

I stand corrected, my apologies.

[Khandro]

Ratter; Briefly, the Buddhist position visa-vis God is that there may, or there may not be a God, but even if there is, God cannot help you here on earth on your personal quest for enlightenment and subsequently talk of God does not arise within the Buddhist canon.
This does not mean to say that as an individual one cannot have one's own view on the matter.

[modeller]

This thread has been surprisingly ( considering the question ) one of the best I have enjoyed. It has been entertaining which, for me anyway,
is a prerequsite for a discussion. Thank you all.

[vetuste_ennemi]

"I also gave goodlife some advice I said in his position:
//I would use my OWN words to prove those atheists wrong. Look at those atheist posts . Answer them . Prove them wrong . Try it ! //".
Are you sure Goodlife can do that, Modeller?
"I would suggest (Imho) the 'correct' position for an atheist is to rebut religion, but avoid clarity on any other beliefs at all costs." Oh dear, Khandro, we atheists will all have to try a lot harder.

[vetuste_ennemi]

I meant the "... own words", "look at.." and "answer.." bits, Modeller, not the proof bit.

[modeller]

I think the philosophy of some religions is plain common sense , it's when we get to the walking on water, heaven and hell fiction that it falls apart.

See my new post to see what I'm getting at.

No I don't think goodlife is capable of thought outside the Watch Tower.

[Khandro]

Nobody ever walked on water (unless it's frozen). It is one of many mis-translations from the Greek, and should be, walked 'by' the water.

[LazyGun]

Dawkins, like any responsible scientist, has always conceded the very remote possibility that their might be a deity. If you wish to be scientifically accurate, you have to concede that their might be a remote possibility - its just very very very very very very unlikely.

The Invisible Pink Unicorn that modeller describes is very like Bertrand Russells Teapot, or The Flying Spaghetti Monster and the religion of Pastafarianism described by Bobby Henderson. They serve to illustrate a philosophical point - that the burden of proof rests upon those who make unfalsifiable claims, not the sceptics or those that reject such claims.

The only difference between the well known religions - The abrahamic ones, buddhism. is quantitative - length of time they have been around, and the number of the faithful.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot