dan-cat
Registered User.
- Local time
- Today, 18:39
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2002
- Messages
- 3,433
Are you an atheist?
- Thread starter Alisa
- Start date
Pauldohert
Something in here
- Local time
- Today, 10:39
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2004
- Messages
- 2,101
Atheism was being touted as the choice of the more educated before - now its the belief of the unthinking?
dan-cat
Registered User.
- Local time
- Today, 18:39
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2002
- Messages
- 3,433
Atheism was being touted as the choice of the more educated before - now its the belief of the unthinking?
I think it is this unnecessary fear of being associated with 'belief' that has led some down this blind alley.
dan-cat
Registered User.
- Local time
- Today, 18:39
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2002
- Messages
- 3,433
The undeniable truth that everything works in a way that you can perceive but on a scale that you can't possibly fathom.
There are so many things in the world we haven't yet discovered. Do they not exist until we prove they do? The absence of evidence to substantiate the existence neither proves nor disproves its existence. There are people in the world who believe because they have been "touched" by God. Although that cannot be "proven" either, it is as real to them as anything you can put under a microscope.
It is arrogant to believe that you can test for God. What tool would you use? It wasn't so long ago that we used leeches and such barbaric means to "cure" people because our science was so advanced. Science constantly changes as we find new information to support theories. Science is only the strengthening of theories, not proving them. Once again, any good researcher will say that the evidence supports the theory, not that it proves it.
Your broken record of "prove it" gets old. I understand that lack of proof supports your idea of the world. That's fine. However, people's belief in a higher power is fine as well. Instead of arguing a point that is pointless, why not just agree to disagree and admit that both sides have nothing real to stand on. My belief is not able to be proven. I don't need proof. That's the beauty of a belief. You have so worn out the semantics of the definition of atheism. Pick up the dictionary and look at the word belief. It is the lack of proof that defines a belief. I don't need to believe that I am human as I've been well defined as such. Belief requires some level of being able to look past yourself and see that the universe is much bigger than any of us.
It is arrogant to believe that you can test for God. What tool would you use? It wasn't so long ago that we used leeches and such barbaric means to "cure" people because our science was so advanced. Science constantly changes as we find new information to support theories. Science is only the strengthening of theories, not proving them. Once again, any good researcher will say that the evidence supports the theory, not that it proves it.
Your broken record of "prove it" gets old. I understand that lack of proof supports your idea of the world. That's fine. However, people's belief in a higher power is fine as well. Instead of arguing a point that is pointless, why not just agree to disagree and admit that both sides have nothing real to stand on. My belief is not able to be proven. I don't need proof. That's the beauty of a belief. You have so worn out the semantics of the definition of atheism. Pick up the dictionary and look at the word belief. It is the lack of proof that defines a belief. I don't need to believe that I am human as I've been well defined as such. Belief requires some level of being able to look past yourself and see that the universe is much bigger than any of us.
It was a perfect comeback for a 3rd grader. It was merely taking the contrary.
The rest of this is really in reply to the idea (Alisa's) that you supported and not you specifically.
When I look at the world I see amazing things. As Alisa points out, I also see horrific (or mostly just crappy) things. However, the difference is that the creation of beauty and the state of the world have nothing to do with one another. Man creates war, poverty, murder, slavery and so many other atrocities. That was neither God’s design nor His plan.
Alisa likes to question why we give credit to God for the world's beauty and not for its flaws. Unfortunately, we are the cause of many of these flaws. Why doesn't God do something about it? Why should He? He created a world for us to live in and we mess it up... is it His job to make everything perfect for us every time we do something wrong? In that guise, we would merely be Barbie dolls for God to play with and not living, breathing, thinking creatures.
Should we blame the parents for every kid that turns out bad? Can a parent make a child behave no matter what? Short of locking them in the closet and electroshock therapy, they will do as they please. The only cure for a willful child is a frontal lobotomy. Perhaps that what you believe God should do to us in order to fix all of the problems we have caused on this planet.
A higher power is a possibility, whether you would like to admit it. It's just as plausible as the Big Bang as that is merely a theory (that has NO evidence either although you will quote it as gospel). I flipped the coin and came up heads and you chose tails. In the end I suppose we'll see who chose wisely.
I don't care what you believe, but the fact that you are so dogmatic about it is sad. A true thinker is open to any possibility. They will lean in a direction more often than not, but rarely closes the door to an idea. Do I think there is a chance that God does not exist? Sure. However, I like the idea of believing that there is something more than this. Thus, I lean to the side of belief.
The rest of this is really in reply to the idea (Alisa's) that you supported and not you specifically.
When I look at the world I see amazing things. As Alisa points out, I also see horrific (or mostly just crappy) things. However, the difference is that the creation of beauty and the state of the world have nothing to do with one another. Man creates war, poverty, murder, slavery and so many other atrocities. That was neither God’s design nor His plan.
Alisa likes to question why we give credit to God for the world's beauty and not for its flaws. Unfortunately, we are the cause of many of these flaws. Why doesn't God do something about it? Why should He? He created a world for us to live in and we mess it up... is it His job to make everything perfect for us every time we do something wrong? In that guise, we would merely be Barbie dolls for God to play with and not living, breathing, thinking creatures.
Should we blame the parents for every kid that turns out bad? Can a parent make a child behave no matter what? Short of locking them in the closet and electroshock therapy, they will do as they please. The only cure for a willful child is a frontal lobotomy. Perhaps that what you believe God should do to us in order to fix all of the problems we have caused on this planet.
A higher power is a possibility, whether you would like to admit it. It's just as plausible as the Big Bang as that is merely a theory (that has NO evidence either although you will quote it as gospel). I flipped the coin and came up heads and you chose tails. In the end I suppose we'll see who chose wisely.
I don't care what you believe, but the fact that you are so dogmatic about it is sad. A true thinker is open to any possibility. They will lean in a direction more often than not, but rarely closes the door to an idea. Do I think there is a chance that God does not exist? Sure. However, I like the idea of believing that there is something more than this. Thus, I lean to the side of belief.
*applauds*
perfect comeback
dan-cat
Registered User.
- Local time
- Today, 18:39
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2002
- Messages
- 3,433
Not enough. In this day and age people want proof. People are way too busy to cook their own dinner never mind investigate who made who. (unless you're a member of AC/DC that is).
Sounds like you're saying that people still need to believe in something.
Exactly my point. Now, which statement makes more sense?
There is no evidence that god exists. Therefore, it is likely that he doesn't exist.
OR
There is no evidence that god exists. Nonetheless, god definitely exists.
Your analogy is flawed. The theory of the big bang (and scientific theories in general) was developed to explain pieces of evidence we have collected about the universe, such as the fact that the universe is expanding, etc. Scientific theories are revised, refined, or even thrown out when new evidence is found that contradicts the theory.
Now contrast the process of scientific discovery with religious teachings. All religions, not just christianity, have stories about how the earth and people came to be. When new evidence is discovered, for instance, evidence that points to evolution, do they revise their story? Are they willing to start over and say, it looks like we got that one wrong? That was a rhetorical question. We know the answer is no. They cling to their creation story no matter the mountains of evidence showing that it can't be true.
Now who is dogmatic?
redneckgeek
New member
- Local time
- Today, 13:39
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2007
- Messages
- 464
I've been called plenty of things, but never dogmatic.
*checks dictionary.com*
heh... you a funny guy! I've done nothing here but state my opinions. I certainly haven't tried to push my beliefs (or lack thereof) off on you. I actually took your side, knowing full well I would be attacked for it.
Brianwarnock
Retired
- Local time
- Today, 18:39
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2003
- Messages
- 12,701
Man may create many atrocities, often due to religious differences, but he cannot control the weather, he cannot control Tsunami, whereas we are told that Jesus walked on water and stilled the waves, so why is God credited with all the good things but none of the bad?
Brian
Crazy is as crazy does.
I'm not sure who brought up the examples of Charles Manson and the
I'm not sure who brought up the examples of Charles Manson and the
Branch Davidian in Waco, TX.
First, you are not talking about people who believe in God as much as you are about people who believe they are a god. There are lots of people that did bad things saying that God told them to. However, there are people that said that Twinkees are the reason they did something. Crazy people that think the voices in their head are God are still crazy. They just have a certain definition to their crazy.
Second, you are talking about people with psychological issues and their "religion" would better be defined as a cult. These cults prey on a specific type of person who can be manipulated. The followers often find themselves trapped by the time they realize the true nature of the cult. This is how it differs from other religions. People don't go to church because they fear for their (earthly) lives and the lives of their families. In these cults, this is typically the case. Once again, it is about power. The people who have the most to gain are those that "believe" in the cult. It's funny how most of these cults center around two things: Money and sex. Give up all of your earthly possessions and let the leaders have sex with anyone in the cult.
One last thing... please do not mix up the belief in God with religion. There are plenty of people that believe in God but not in church. Religion is when you take people with the same beliefs and group them. You don't have to be in a group to believe in God. Thus, any argument about how the belief in God is dumb because of all religions have bad examples. All people have bad examples as we are defined by our own humanity. When you see someone that is religious doing something wrong, it has nothing to do with their belief in God (it is often despite their belief).
Flame on people.
Is the world so definable for you? Black and white is all there is? I live in a world of color where anything is possible.
First, I fail to see that there is NO evidence of God's existence. It is the absence of scientific evidence that we are talking about.
Second, as I have stated, I'd rather believe in God and in the end be wrong than the other way around. I find it narrow-minded to believe that I'm the end-al-be-all. Anything is possible.
Which statement makes more sense?
There is no scientific evidence that God exists. Therefore, it is likely that He may not exist.
OR
There are many people who have found a reason to believe. Although there is no scientific proof, there is anecdotal proof that opens the possibility that God exists.
The door (and mind) are not closed on either statement. No black and white in my world.
However, seeing how often you like to tell people they are WRONG for thinking the way they do, it seems that your world lacks color.
I believe there's a rock over here I could have the same conversation with.
First, I fail to see that there is NO evidence of God's existence. It is the absence of scientific evidence that we are talking about.
Second, as I have stated, I'd rather believe in God and in the end be wrong than the other way around. I find it narrow-minded to believe that I'm the end-al-be-all. Anything is possible.
Which statement makes more sense?
There is no scientific evidence that God exists. Therefore, it is likely that He may not exist.
OR
There are many people who have found a reason to believe. Although there is no scientific proof, there is anecdotal proof that opens the possibility that God exists.
The door (and mind) are not closed on either statement. No black and white in my world.
However, seeing how often you like to tell people they are WRONG for thinking the way they do, it seems that your world lacks color.
I believe there's a rock over here I could have the same conversation with.
You are aluding to the fact that many go to church for fear of hell in the after life. Seems to me that religion in general is quite similar to a cult - fear (whether it is fear of consequences in this life or fear of hell) is the motivation either way.
Thats cute. Could you define unscientific evidence for me please?
All I have ever said is that 1. There is no proof that god exists and 2. It is extremely unlikely that he exists. I have never said there is no possibility that he exists.
The door is not closed in my mind either, but given the two options, I choose the one that is plausible, while you choose the one that is fantastical. You are not wrong for thinking the way you do, I just don't agree, which is why we are having this discussion.
Wow, did god create magical talking rocks that don't believe in him too? I've never seen one of those before.
First, religion does tend to be dogmatic by design. It is an unwavering belief in something. Second, that is religion you are addressing, not a belief in God. For example, Intelligent Design is a theory put forth by those that believe in God. It begins with the idea that God created the Universe. However, it concedes that the world is ever changing and has evolved.
At times I think that (some) atheists are not always people who dismiss the idea that God exists and are truly set against religion. Taking the position that you dismiss theism does not make it your job to destroy or denounce it. When you go to that level, you are taking a position and spreading a belief. To merely reject the idea of God would mean that you have nothing at stake and could care less what others believe.
I would like all of you who insist on taking the counter position to me to remove me from the religion argument. I have not once promoted religion as the end-all-be-all. My position is merely that I believe in God and the possibility of His existence exists as well. I believe that he does exist, but I only argue that the possibility is there.
So, I'm not dogmatic in that sense. You are placing all the stereotypes of religion on my shoulder. In fact, you are stereotyping religion in general.
At times I think that (some) atheists are not always people who dismiss the idea that God exists and are truly set against religion. Taking the position that you dismiss theism does not make it your job to destroy or denounce it. When you go to that level, you are taking a position and spreading a belief. To merely reject the idea of God would mean that you have nothing at stake and could care less what others believe.
I would like all of you who insist on taking the counter position to me to remove me from the religion argument. I have not once promoted religion as the end-all-be-all. My position is merely that I believe in God and the possibility of His existence exists as well. I believe that he does exist, but I only argue that the possibility is there.
So, I'm not dogmatic in that sense. You are placing all the stereotypes of religion on my shoulder. In fact, you are stereotyping religion in general.
I've noted a lack of any evidence and so have been unable to weigh that non-existent evidence against anything. I haven't done nothing, I have been unable to do anything.
I wasn't talking about that subject. I was referring to my way of thinking about anything. At present, in order for me to believe something's true, I need to see some evidence of it. Belief in god would require me to change that way of thinking.
I bekieve that heating water to a high enough temperature makes it boil. If I had to suddenly factor in 'unless God decides it shouldn't' it would make a mockery of what I know to be a fact.
Not sure what the 'attacked' bit means, but as far as the rest is concerned, if I were to accept the idea of a magical being, it would mean that things happen in spite of what I know, as opposed to within what I accept as physical laws. I don't feel I could approach anything in the same way if I thought that there was any evidence that the universe and all in it just appeared at the whim of some being.
I've never sat down and thought about fairies. Does that mean I don't know whether or not they exist? Without having specifically thought about the existence a variety of things, I'm fairly sure whether they do or not.
The idea of a magical being creating everything is so far-fetched to me that it doesn't need any detailed thinking about.
Last edited:
I appreciate the fact that you took my side before. It was not overlooked. You seem to be reasonable and I certainly didn't mean that for you. If you look at my post, I stated that the rest was for Alisa. My reply to you was only that her comeback was not a zinger.
You're not so bad in my book (and no, I'm not talking about the Bible so all of you can stand down...LOL).
You're not so bad in my book (and no, I'm not talking about the Bible so all of you can stand down...LOL).
I've been called plenty of things, but never dogmatic.
*checks dictionary.com*
heh... you a funny guy! I've done nothing here but state my opinions. I certainly haven't tried to push my beliefs (or lack thereof) off on you. I actually took your side, knowing full well I would be attacked for it.
georgedwilkinson
AWF VIP
- Local time
- Today, 12:39
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2008
- Messages
- 3,856
I can't believe I've been sucked into this hell-hole of a thread again.
Your statements are the exact sentiment I had which caused me to abandon it before. It is truly pointless to argue with people who just want you to be wrong. And the reasonable people here who have opposite views (admittedly the majority of people here are reasonable) have made up their minds and don't personally attack colleagues because they have an opposing view.
Just use ignore on the unreasonable (aka personally abusive) ones (or one) and everything else just falls in place.
Who is handing out scores? "And God, once again, receives a perfect 10."
First, we do not have any idea what our presence on Earth has done to it. There are lots of theories about global warming (I consider it global climate change) and the footprint we have left on this world. Perhaps we are responsible for some of what has happened here.
Second, God has been "credited" with famine, flood and many other things in the past. In fact, He did them on purpose. Perhaps these are warnings. Of course, who are we to see the signs that we need to change our ways and do better in this world?
Finally, why can't forces of nature sometimes just be forces of nature? There is renewal in destruction. It is a cycle that has helped this world persist in the past. However, man has put themselves everywhere in the world and left no room for nature to perform the cycle without impacting us. Fires used to burn millions of acres of old trees in order to allow for new trees to take their place. I don't find it hard to believe that God (and or nature) has natural disasters for a reason. It's just hard for us to see because of the impact on humanity and life. However, all things must end in order for renewal. I don't think nature cares if we are in the way.
Brian[/quote]
First, we do not have any idea what our presence on Earth has done to it. There are lots of theories about global warming (I consider it global climate change) and the footprint we have left on this world. Perhaps we are responsible for some of what has happened here.
Second, God has been "credited" with famine, flood and many other things in the past. In fact, He did them on purpose. Perhaps these are warnings. Of course, who are we to see the signs that we need to change our ways and do better in this world?
Finally, why can't forces of nature sometimes just be forces of nature? There is renewal in destruction. It is a cycle that has helped this world persist in the past. However, man has put themselves everywhere in the world and left no room for nature to perform the cycle without impacting us. Fires used to burn millions of acres of old trees in order to allow for new trees to take their place. I don't find it hard to believe that God (and or nature) has natural disasters for a reason. It's just hard for us to see because of the impact on humanity and life. However, all things must end in order for renewal. I don't think nature cares if we are in the way.
Brian[/quote]
Similar threads
