I Do Not Believe in God

dear mysummerro,
i understand ur confusion so please think about what i'll say,
God created life to all humans as a test, it may sound silly but if u think about it, why are u born? why are evil and good are made? why is it for u to choose? why warent u born to have fun? well alot lose faith and think that thats life, but u will die eventually, and u will not just die and thats it bcause there is a God and there s a judgement day where all what u did will be recorded on u and u will be accounted on it, so if u people also think about these questions and reply i will be grateful.
and sallam

Just something to wet your apetite on the topic  :

http://www.funnyfunpages.com/funny_joke_barber_shop2.htm


please scroll the entire length of the page

there is one problem with not seeing the hand of God

you got to believe he is, for whoever cometh to God must believe he is and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

so your unbelief in God is independent of the existence of God, seek and you shall find; seek not and you shall find not!

I Believe my God

God have mercy on your souls,

I believe God is grossly being misrepresented in the bible and other books , and my people does the definition of an atheist include anyone who does not believe in God as revealed in the bible and other books? 

@nferyn
Very well said!!! thanks for the clarification.
I believe in GOD, closest expression so far is by Spinoza.

"NATURE is everything. There is mass, energy, atoms, molecules, life, thought, people, societies, galaxies and perhaps even multiple universes (pure speculation). But there is nothing outside nature, including spiritual visions and other phenomena we don't yet understand. If they exist, they are part of nature.

Spinoza asserted that for a concept of god to make any sense at all, it must simply be nature. That is, god cannot be something outside nature that controls it, but must necessarily be part of it. According to Spinoza, God IS nature. While Spinoza was excommunicated from his Jewish community in Amsterdam and condemned by Christians as well for being an atheist, he was very devoutly religious. He saw the traditional anthropomorphic (man-like) god as an abomination, completely rejecting the wonder of nature, from which life comes. To Spinoza, nature is the true expression of God. And each of us is part of it. Unfortunately, his highly technical, mathematical style of writing limited widespread appreciation of his work"

http://home.netcom.com/~zeno7/spinoza.html

@nferyn

more of a pantheist, but religious atheist  i'D ponder that 

One cannot choose to believe in anything. Believing is not a matter of choice. It is consequence of exposure to information.

Actually, that is not true

Care to explain?

Where's the evidence?

Scientific laws are descriptive, not explanative. What about the Big bang Theory? And the creator still needs a cause in this framework. It adds absolutely nothing to our understanding of the universe to put a God at the beginning.

Even though evolution works cumulatively, it does not have a direction. Man is not the pinnacle of evolution.
Begining and end imply a linear perception of time. This is far from a given. It is not because it is true in our day to day experience that it must be true in all circumstances

No it isn't. The Theory of Evolution is perfectly capable of explaining our biodiversity without having to bring in any supernatural explanations. By the way, if that initiator thought through this scheme beforehand, than either he did a really lousy job or he is cruel and sadistic.

Actually, speed is a relative concept and the sun has changed considerably over those billions of years. Nature is far from perfect and the biological "designs" are even worse. Just think about he blind spot in the eyes of the vertebrates: bad design that can only be explained by the unguided force of evolution.

It seems that you do not have a proper understandig of what a scientific theory really entails. If you would understand, you wouldn't call the Big Bang Theory just a theory (in it's colloquial meaning)
Have a look at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory
the work of Popper is also very enlightning:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper

Anyway you still need to explain the creator.

Under the appropriate selective pressure that is very well possible, yes. But stil, it's not because man has an exceptionally large and powerful brain that he is no longer an ape. We are the third chimpanzee (or chimps and bonobo's are the second and third living species hominins if you prefer that)
There are many cases where the blind force of evolution worked 'backwards', blind cave fish and salamanders with eyes, whales and ostriches just to name a few.

Well, you're wrong here (see my profile). Skin color is an adaptation that we, hairless apes, underwent because it protects us from UV radiaton. Whites lost that adaptation because it was no longer beneficial in the climate of Europe

Professionally, I'm a project manager. I studied communication science at university, but I stil maintained a keen interest in the life sciences (I'D probably study biology if I could start over again).

What exactly do you mean with The seat of evolution in man has shifted from the physicals to the more granular levels of mind? Are you talking about memetics?

I'm a hard naturalist. I do not believe that the mind or the spiritual are separate from the physical, but only a manifestation of the material. It's obvious that this link is still very murky and not very well understood, but I have confidence that we will soon find the material basis for the immaterial mind and:or spirit.
I do believe -and there we're touching the thee of memes again - that information can evolve as well, as long as it has an appropriate medium to replicate in. Human brains are prime source material 

If you are agnostic, it actually means that you have no knowledge (or cannot obtain that knowledge) of the existence of God. It doesn't say anything about what you believe in.
You can either be a theist, beliving in a personal, active God (like the one from the Bible), a deist (believing in a impersonal God, that is no longer active in in the world) or an atheist (lacking the belief in a God) (I leave out the other  options for clarity)

Umm. . . there is a little known secretoutside of the world of those who study physics. . .

all laws of physicsare not exact.  Essentially, they describe what would happen on a probabilistic basis.

For example, if you toss a fair coin, you expect that over time, the ratio of heads to tails will approach 1:1.

Similarly, if you push an object a lot of times while it rests on a surface which imparts zero friction onto it and somehow manage to isolate it from all forces that don't act perpendicular to the plan of motion, you would probabilistically expect the object to remain in motion.

Just like it is actually impossible to "prove" the fair coin experiment - ie, you deform the coin each time you flip it and its contact with air, light waves, hitting the floor changes its composition and distribution so you'D never be flipping the exact same coin the exact same way,

neither can you really conduct an experiment that would definitively prove the law of inertia holds for all cases.

If this wasn't enough, there are alternate theories which can explain the effects that we currently observe (ie - if correct, it means that our concept of inertia is actually wrong) but those theories have not been proven beyond . . . a scientific doubt - or we don't have the technology or knowledge to observe effects which would prove this theory.

This is a basic . . .example in bayesian decision texts.  A man has a burglar alarm which goes off when a burglar is detected.  however, it also goes off if an earthquake is experience near his home.  When the alarm goes off, the man gets a message on his phone.   So, the man is at work one day and gets the message.  If there was a burglary, he should probably rush home.  However, if it was just an earthquake, then he can stay at work.  If the man turns on the radio, and hears that an earthquake occurred, then that can explain the alarm and decrease the man's belief that it was a burglar.

Right now, for "large" masses, newton's laws apply.  However, we already know that inertia does not apply to an electron or many other "small" molecules.  We have relativity and associated theories which seem to explain the effects we observe (to some degree), however, there are people who are working on new theories that can explain those effects and show newton and relativity to be wrong.

These new theories are like the man discovering he had rats in his basement which sometimes would cause the alarm to go off.  The rats would only move when an earthquake occurred.  So, now, while the alarm and the observations as to the cause remain correlated, there is a hidden link exposed between the two.