Are you an atheist?

[oumahexi]

I'll be happy to transfer my beliefs to you. Nah, maybe you should make up your own mind. Back to work.

It's the only reason I keep coming back here Living in hope that one or the other group will be able to show me their truth. So far, nothing. I still stand on the fence ablet to see both sides and not wanting to choose either. Although, each and every time I treat someone I do feel myself leaning more to the "yes" side Perhaps I've just met too many "bad" Christians in my life that it's turned me, perhaps just reading the bible as a book doesn't help, I like to think of myself as an investigator through life and that's why my options are so open. But every now and then, something touches me, I don't know what it is, I can't see it but I can feel it, and often smell it, and it is so beautiful it brings tears to my eyes. Is it God? An Angel? (Reiki people believe in Angels), or is it my over sensitive subconscious working with another person, being? I have no idea. It's a great feeling though, addictive But I cannot give it a name, yet...

PS, this thing, what ever it is, certainly does not appear to want me to lose my sense of humour!

 

[Rich]

I guess you can if you want to but I would think it would be easier to refer to the over 6000 manuscripts that have already been dug up.

Nah, experts still can't agree on the translation, find me one written in English

 

[Rich]

Everyone's perception is their reality, so I read what people's perceptions are and tell myself that's their reality.

Well that's fine, but should these people be allowed to hold high office, surely those who base their perceptions on reality and the facts are far better suited than those who claim to have god on their side?

 

[Rich]

Many are believers...look at the survey. Just many of us are tired of the "conversation."

Well of course you could attend church were the conversation always changes eh

 

[Rabbie]

God to me is sacred. He is Holy. And when someone questions His existing or makes a joke about Him, I feel offended. I will make a joke about Buddha, but never in front of a Buddhist, simply because Buddha is holy to the Buddhist. Image saying to a mom: “Gee but your child must be the uuugliest kid I’ve ever seen!”. None of us will do that. We might think it, but we’ll never say it. It is easy for us to say diminishing things about someone else’s god – and I include myself here. I would just refrain from making a joke in front of the person. It can be said that I should actually not feel offended in this group if someone says something low about my God. And I suppose I should not. But it is extremely difficult for me as a Christian. And I think that is why many believers would rather leave. (Most people in this discussion do not believe, or am I wrong?)

I feel there is a huge difference between posting my atheist beliefs on a forum susch as this where the title indicates what is being discussed and for example going into a church and telling people there that their god does not exist. To be offended by the views on this forum is as silly as being shocked that you might see nude bodies in a strip club.

In a thread about atheism do not be surprised if some people admit to being atheist. Don't start complaining that some people are questioning the existence of God in this thread.

 

[Pauldohert]

I agree that it is not a perfect analogy, but I think you are purposfully refusing to see the parallel that exists, and that I have explained several times. In both cases, you have people that believe in their beliefs regardless of any evidence one way or another.

Who believes the sun goes round the earth now - virtually noone cos evidence exists - God on the other hand is very differnat no strong evidence exists either way.

So whats the point yiou are trying to make with it?


-----
It seems to me you are trying to liken those who beleive in God with those who believe the Sun goes round the earth, ie both are wrong, or at least both will be wrong when the evidence is stronger.


So its an attempt to slur believers, with inaccurate unproved paralels and analogies? I really can't see it as anything else, maybe I am missing your point?

 

[oumahexi]

Who believes the sun goes round the earth now - virtually noone cos evidence exists - God on the other hand is very differnat no strong evidence exists either way.

So whats the point yiou are trying to make with it?


-----
It seems to me you are trying to liken those who beleive in God with those who believe the Sun goes round the earth, ie both are wrong, or at least both will be wrong when the evidence is stronger.


So its an attempt to slur believers, with inaccurate unproved paralels and analogies? I really can't see it as anything else, maybe I am missing your point?

Maybe you are missing the point. I think what Alisa is trying to do is to show reasons why she doesn't believe. I don't think her intention is to slur anyone, simply to point out why she doesn't believe. If she feels that she needs solid proof in order to believe, then that's what she needs and in order to help you to understand that's what she needs, she makes these analogies. I don't think it's a slur on anyone. And I think that to take offence at someone that you probably don't even know because they don't have the same point of view is a bit of a shame. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and in this particular case there is no right and no wrong, just opinions...

 

[Pauldohert]

In both cases, you have people that believe in their beliefs regardless of any evidence one way or another.

So if Alisa is just explaining her belief - she must be talking about herself in the remarks above?

Otherwise she seems to be doing exactly what I said she was.

 

[oumahexi]

So if Alisa is just explaining her belief - she must be talking about herself in the remarks above?

Otherwise she seems to be doing exactly what I said she was.

It appears to me that what she is saying is that some people believe what they believe regardless of evidence, one way or the other. As she has already stated, she doesn't believe because she doesn't see any evidence to believe in.

Who knows, maybe a few years down the line, new evidence is unvieled to prove that God actually exists, but I very much doubt that will satisfy, because if we find an existing God, it loses it's mystique and we then start the search for it's God as well...

 

[dan-cat]

I'm sorry that you feel that I haven't been trying to understand your posts, but I assure you I am doing my best. In any case, I am sure you will be back later . . .

Because you skipped the entire point of the post and concentrated solely on a worthless point of who came up with the analogy in the first place.

'Championed' doesn't mean 'created', it means 'supported'. You and you alone have 'championed' this analogy in this thread meaning no-one else has forced you to do it, you came up with it for a specific reason. To make the belief in God seem absurd in comparision. It's the entire point of the analogy.

You are likening the concept of God, which is an integral part of some people, to pasta.

 

[Alisa]

It appears to me that what she is saying is that some people believe what they believe regardless of evidence, one way or the other. As she has already stated, she doesn't believe because she doesn't see any evidence to believe in.

Who knows, maybe a few years down the line, new evidence is unvieled to prove that God actually exists, but I very much doubt that will satisfy, because if we find an existing God, it loses it's mystique and we then start the search for it's God as well...

Thanks for the great responses!

About something you said the other day (too far back to go find it now), while I appreciate the joys of fence sitting, and while I agree that both sides are flawed, I don't agree that they are equally flawed.

On the atheist side of the fence, the flaw is that you have to accept not knowing, you have to be comfortable with the mystery of the thing. But in return there is always the comfort of knowing that there is a possibility that the origin of the universe will be explained someday, and that when that day comes, the explanation will be good and plausible. In the mean time, you get to live a perfectly satisfactory life, with whatever priorities you choose.

On the believer side of the fence, the flaw is that is that the idea of an all powerful god/creator is simply implausible. While the concept of god can be conveniently used to explain pretty much anything you want (after all, he is not around to contradict you), you are still left with the question of where did god come from? Of course, you are left with many other questions too, like why did god abandon us, if god cares about us, why doesn't he intervene before catastrophe strikes, if god cares so much about whether we believe in him, then why doesn't he show his face, etc, etc.

I find that it is an uncomfortable feeling when I think about the vastness and complexity of the universe, and how I have no idea how it all started or where it came from. But I find it even more uncomfortable to think of some god that apparently created himself and then everything else with the snap of his fingers, and then dissappeared never to be heard from again.

 

[Alisa]

Because you skipped the entire point of the post and concentrated solely on a worthless point of who came up with the analogy in the first place.

'Championed' doesn't mean 'created', it means 'supported'. You and you alone have 'championed' this analogy in this thread meaning no-one else has forced you to do it, you came up with it for a specific reason. To make the belief in God seem absurd in comparision. It's the entire point of the analogy.

You are likening the concept of God, which is an integral part of some people, to pasta.

Yep, I think that the idea of god is absurd, you got me. How dare I share my atheist perspective on a thread titled, "Are you an atheist"!

 

[Alisa]

Well, you guessed wrong. Firstly, the word “allow”. I believe there comes a time where you as a parent cannot “allow” or “disallow”. You can only accept or not accept.
Would I still love my son if he comes home with a boyfriend? Yes, I will. Would I accept it if my child comes home with someone from a different race than mine? Yes. (I’m from Namibia in Africa (I am white) and grew up in a segregated society. I was more scared of a black man than I was of hell! But things have changed dramatically over the last 25 years. We whities are now being told we don’t belong in Africa – ask Robert Mugabe!) Would I accept it if my child chose another religion or perhaps no religion at all? Yes, I would have to. I would probably cry my eyes out, and I will never stop praying for my child, but I will accept it, simply because I love my children. No one can force me to do anything, and I cannot force them !

Yes but my point was that by the time the child has gotten to the point that you cannot allow or disallow (18?) it is too late, you have already taken their choice away. You have already spent their whole life teaching them one thing, the religion will have already become part of their mental and emotional foundation. Add to that the fact that your children would most certainly be aware that you would be very upset and dissappointed should they not choose to follow your religion, and you see that they really are not allowed to choose their own way. Most children end up staying in or going back to the religion of their parents for this reason.

I came upon an interesting site: www.cosmicfingerprints.com/iidb.htm This guy, Perry Marshall, claims he has proof. He also extents an open challenge to anyone to proof him wrong.

That is complete garbage. Patterns, or "codes" as he calls them, exist all throughout nature. I defy you to walk outside for 1 minute without coming upon a pattern.

 

[dan-cat]

Yep, I think that the idea of god is absurd, you got me. How dare I share my atheist perspective on a thread titled, "Are you an atheist"!

Good grief

I've never said for you not to post anything or taken any offense by your arguments.

Just for you to acknowledge my points without side-stepping them with strawmans. I've had two in a row so far...

 

[Alisa]

Good grief

I've never said for you not to post anything or taken any offense by your arguments.

Just for you to acknowledge my points without side-stepping them with strawmans. I've had two in a row so far...

Two points in a row? What were they? I think one of them was that I think the idea of god is absurd. What was the other one?

 

[dan-cat]

It appears to me that what she is saying is that some people believe what they believe regardless of evidence, one way or the other. As she has already stated, she doesn't believe because she doesn't see any evidence to believe in.

No, not regardless of evidence, regardless of a proven truth.

The analogy of the sun orbiting around the earth to the existence of God is false because the existence of God, by Alisa's own admission, is not falsifiable.

 

[Alisa]

No, not regardless of evidence, regardless of a proven truth.

The analogy of the sun orbiting around the earth to the existence of God is false because the existence of God, by Alisa's own admission, is not falsifiable.

Yes, you are right about that part. But what about the rest of the analogy? The part where people prefer to believe whatever it is that they believe even when they have no evidence to back it up, and then feel upset when people challenge their beliefs?

 

[dan-cat]

Two points in a row? What were they? I think one of them was that I think the idea of god is absurd. What was the other one?

I'll spell it out for you.

Strawman 1:
1) I make a point about the fact that you are likening the concept of God which is an integral part of some people.,to pasta.
2) You respond with it's not just me. = Strawman1.

Strawman 2:
1) I reinforce the first point ignoring the strawman
2) You respond with the argument that I'm in some way saying you're not allowed to speak your opinion = Strawman2

Perhaps you'll come up with another irrelevant argument (strawman) or perhaps you'll just concede the point.

 

[Alisa]

I'll spell it out for you.

Strawman 1:
1) I make a point about the fact that you are likening the concept of God which is an integral part of some people.,to pasta.
2) You respond with it's not just me. = Strawman1.

Strawman 2:
1) I reinforce the first point ignoring the strawman
2) You respond with the argument that I'm in some way saying you're not allowed to speak your opinion = Strawman2

Perhaps you'll come up with another irrelevant argument (strawman) or perhaps you'll just concede the point.

Ummm, I think I already did. I just can't figure out why you are beating a dead horse.

 

[dan-cat]

Yes, you are right about that part. But what about the rest of the analogy? The part where people prefer to believe whatever it is that they believe even when they have no evidence to back it up, and then feel upset when people challenge their beliefs?

The entire analogy is grounded on comparing a believer to a group of individuals who deny that 2+2 = 4. The analogy is flawed. Throw it away and start again.