Admin webmdave Posted February 4, 2007 Admin Share Posted February 4, 2007 By Hannah Naiditch Because I believe that the idea of a supreme being has its roots in prehistoric times, and it is outdated in an age of enlightenment and an age where science has made unprecedented progress in helping us understand the world we live in. Not only is there no need for God to explain physical events, but the concept of a supreme being raises too many questions that cannot be answered. Many books have been written on this subject. If there is an almighty God, why does he allow good people to suffer? How did he allow the Holocaust to happen without intervention? Some of the answers are that God acts in mysterious ways that are beyond man's understanding. For me this is a cop-out, essentially admitting that there is no answer. Others say that God gave man free will, and that, therefore, God does not interfere in human affairs. But does that still make him a just and benevolent God when he watches such tragedies without stopping the misery? Is he still an almighty and merciful God? Philosophers have spent their life trying to explore and explain such questions. But this is not my area of interest. No matter if there is or is not a God would make no difference whatsoever as to how I live my life. The beauty of scientific thinking is that beliefs require evidence. If this assumed evidence is ever contradicted by new scientific findings, such evidence will be discarded, and the search for answers goes on. Thomas Huxley said, "The deepest sin against the human mind is to believe things without evidence." I live my life based on my personal ethics to do good whenever possible, and I try to rationally weigh the moral choices we have in life. I feel no need for a supreme being that will punish me or reward me in life or in heaven. I can't prove that there is no God; the burden of proof is on those who claim there is a God. If they had any evidence, they would not need faith as a basis for their belief. I can't prove that there is no Santa Claus, no angels, no devils or any other product of human invention. You cannot ever prove a negative. Clarence Darrow said, "I don't believe in God, because I don't believe in Mother Goose." http://exchristian.net/exchristian/2007/02...-i-atheist.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R. S. Martin Posted February 5, 2007 Share Posted February 5, 2007 http://www.whittierdailynews.com/opinions/ci_5146842 I can't prove that there is no God; the burden of proof is on those who claim there is a God. If they had any evidence, they would not need faith as a basis for their belief. I can't prove that there is no Santa Claus, no angels, no devils or any other product of human invention. You cannot ever prove a negative. Clarence Darrow said, "I don't believe in God, because I don't believe in Mother Goose." http://exchristian.net/exchristian/2007/02...-i-atheist.html Can anyone explain? I keep reading on here that the burden of proof lies on people who claim god exists. More than one Christian has told me that it is not possible to prove that god exists. If nobody is claiming that god does not exist, why does anyone have to prove anything? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neverclear5 Posted February 6, 2007 Share Posted February 6, 2007 Can anyone explain? I keep reading on here that the burden of proof lies on people who claim god exists. More than one Christian has told me that it is not possible to prove that god exists. If nobody is claiming that god does not exist, why does anyone have to prove anything? Well, some of us are. More importantly we need it to be clear that they are accepting a stupid idea with no proof, and that this unproven idea is not equal to scientific ones which have excellent proofs, even if they are not absolutely certain. Basing political of scientific rulings on this rediculously ouside shot of god existing (at least in the form they describe) is not acceptable. Even discountiong any restriction on god and allowing him to have no morality or effect on the world makes disproving him impossible, but proving him more so. This is why we want them to prove their god. We must prove anything we say, and if they cannot even make a passable attempt then they do not deserve equal consideration of their ideas, or to be in positions of influence that affect millions of people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts