Re: the weak argument of atheism

Bigthink — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 22:09:17 +0100

: 02/27/200803:28 amthepondererI've read all fifteen pages of comments on this subject, looking for enlightenment. No such luck. It seems that people fall into three categories when it comes to God's existence: one) I need proof; 2) I don't need proof; 3) I don't believe proof exists.
Only the first option makes sense to me. To not require proof leaves you open to believing whatever nonsense wafts into your ears, and to deny the possibility goes against the scientific principle of testing hypotheses. Physical proof is absolutely necessary for any theory to be considered valid.
Quibble over the exact definitions and differences between atheism and agnosticism all you will, and you will not be one atom closer to proving the existence of God. This has been a war of semantics at best.
As for your original hypothesis, that atheism is not "the most logical conclusion", I would disagree. At this point in history, after many thousands of years of talking and writing about it, religion is no closer to proving the existence of God now than the day the first primitive human looked at the Earth and sky and asked "Where did all this come from?"
It is more logical to conclude that this is because no sentient "universe-creating" being exists than to conclude that a sentient universe-creating entity does exist and is hiding from us because it wants us to abandon reason and take other humans' word for its existence.

But then, I could be wrong.

How Can Eternal Damnation Be Justified?

Bigthink — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 07:34:12 +0100

People live for a finite period of time. No matter how badly they behave during their lifetime, how can infinite punishment be deemed appropriate by anyone but a raging, hate-filled entity? Take Adolf Hitler for example. He was a bad guy, responsible for the deaths of millions. If anybody deserves some serious retribution, it's him. But think about it: if he had to spend a century in the torturous lake of fire described in the Bible for each individual who died because of his actions, that would come out to somewhere around a billion years of agony. And yet, as measured against eternity, his punishment would have only begun. It doesn't sound like justice to me. It sounds like revenge on a monumental scale, and I can't fathom the level of malevolence that represents. Could a loving God really be that cruel? So how about us regular sinners? We get the same punishment as Hitler? It just doesnt seem reasonable.

Bigthink - User Ideas Feed

Re: the weak argument of atheism

How Can Eternal Damnation Be Justified?