Are you an atheist? (4 Viewers)

[Alc]

Thanks for the offer, but I have plenty of those in my neighborhood already . . .

*sigh* Heathen

 

[dan-cat]

Most of my friends don't know. My wife IS a bible thumping, born-again christian and it would crush her if she knew, so I keep it to myself.

How do you do that? Just change the subject whenever it comes up ...

 

[dan-cat]

*sigh* Heathen

You two aren't being childish are you?

 

[Alc]

You two aren't being childish are you?

I don't recall either of us making claims about how intelligent our discussions are.

 

[fire2ice]

I hear they have cookies on the other side.

Alisa -

Someone is quite defensive. Why do you feel the need to directly attack the ideas I presented as though you are the defender of truth? I don't remember directly pointing at you and saying: "Heretic!"

I was merey stating my point of view as you had stated yours. We both have the equal right to do so. Perhaps I would be better served to go through your statements and direct quote you with my comments as well. This isn't an arguement that is meant for anyone to win as nobody will.

In the future please don't belittle me to TRY and prove your point.

I know pregnancy can be proven. My point was that there is no test for God. How do you actually go about and scientifically prove His existence? It is impossilbe to do so. That was my point.

However, there are many things that were believed in the past that couldn't be proven until much later. In addition, science has been so fallable that it often has to racant prior statements. So science doesn't prove anything. In fact, any good researcher will tell you to avoid saying that your results prove a conclusion. It's not proof, it's an indication to support the hypothesis.

When the world was proven to be round, there wasn't actaul proof at the time. It wasn't until we were able to get a view from space that we could technically support this fact.

Your argumentation skills are quite weak as you try to use the "poo poo" argument quite often. Your statement that you prefer to believe (and I stress believe because there is absolutely NO ture scientific evidence to support the Big Bang theory) that we were formed from sludge rather than God was merely smearing my idea rather than supporting your own.

By the way, my idea of God is that He doesn't hold our puppet strings and do everything for us. We have free will and can do terrible things DESPITE God. So pointing out how there are so many things wrong with the world does not prove the absence of God; it merely shows that through our own free will we can choose to behave poorly.

This leads me to your statement that "evil in the world has been perpetrated by people who 'believe' in the name of whichever god it is that they 'believe' in. This is not God's will, it is man. In addition, acts of great evil are perpetrated in the name of many things, not just religion. It is typically power that drives this evil, not religion. If you look closely at history, you will find that religion was a guise to hide the true purpose of the acts. People sought power and used religion as a tool to convince those that would not otherwise follow that the evil needed to be perpetrated. For someone that requires facts to define yourself, you sure do tend to overlook those that do not support your ideals.

On the opposite end of the spectrum you fail to discuss all of the good in the world done in the name of religion. Mother Theresa would not have been who she was without a deep belief in God. She may well have been a good person, but she would never have accomplished what she did without believing in something greater than herself. Much of the relief and aid that is given in times of need is derived from religion. So many humanitarian efforts are driven by religion.

However, I believe in God...not religion. I think that churches are misguided and have truly lost their way. There are so many divides between people with similar ideals because of the sectioning of religion. Don't place the idea of God and the system of religion in the same place because they are not the same. I believe in God; I do not go to church.

Your final statement in opposition to my statement of mathematical errors is once again a juxtaposition of personal belief and a closed minded approach as opposed to critical thinking. You say: “There is not one speck of evidence that people who do not believe in god suffer any consequences in this life (other than the grief we get from evangelicals), and there is no evidence whatsoever of an afterlife.” First, I’d like to know the scientific approach that has been used to quantify these statements. Is someone going around with a clipboard asking people if God has accosted them in some way? Perhaps they been looking for the door to the afterlife and due to the failure to find it they have concluded that it doesn’t exist. These are not things that will be proven, so get over it!!!

The error is to believe that something isn’t and it is. Thus, with this logic you live life without the belief in God and then you face Him upon your death. That is the true consequence of the error. In your argument, you’ve already determined that He doesn’t exist and therefore there is no consequence to this error. You can’t manipulate the error to justify yourself. It’s like saying “I don’t think this plant is poisonous. It can’t be poisonous because there is no evidence that proves it’s poisonous. Therefore this plant cannot be poisonous under any circumstances.” It’s not until you’re dead that the plant is proven poisonous. This logic doesn’t work. Don’t retort with the fact that you can test to see if the plant is poisonous. Consider that the toxin is an unknown toxin and there are no tests that exist to test for it. You just won’t know until you’re dead. That is the error.

Once again, I reiterate that I’m not a fire and brimstone believer! Hopefully people are behaving morally to win the love and praise of God as opposed to avoiding His wrath. I’m not sure where you get your evidence from about the world. You say you don’t believe in anything without empirical evidence, but you spout off things that are far from dogma. People are not moral creatures by nature. Show me evidence of this! I look out into the world and see moral decay. Stealing, raping, killing. Please explain the existence of the movie 1,000 Faces of Death (or whatever it is called). There are millions of examples that refute the inherent goodness of man. However, there certainly is goodness in man. I’ve seen many examples of this as well. My point is that it is not a natural instinct.

Religious people do tend to behave better than those that hold no belief. There are many examples of when people have given up on their beliefs, they have turned to less than respectable behaviors. In addition, there are many examples of people that have lived a life less than desirable that have found God and moved toward more moral virtues. Of course there are many examples of religious people that do immoral acts. However, the spectrum of belief is pretty wide open and there’s lots of room for sin in humanity as nobody is perfect. Priests molest children. This is immoral and certainly not Godly. But they are people and fallible. Of course, in the end they will answer for these acts in some way.

As for whether God turns His back on those that do not believe, I will reiterate the fact that I am not a Christian and do not believe that your ticket to heaven is merely in your belief. My faith and my ideals, tell me that we are judged on acts (our deeds). Those that are good will be judged so. There is a sliding scale in there somewhere I’m sure. A belief in God will certainly help those in the D- range.

​

In the future, please do not attack the ideas of others because they differ from yours. That’s one of the major issues with this world. Everybody feels they are more right than the next guy. To me, we’re both right. I’m right because I live my life as I believe and you are for the same reason. I’m just gonna laugh really hard if I’m on the inside and you are looking through the window when all things are said and done. If I’m wrong, well, my body will fertilize the earth equally well as yours.​

​

Given the incredibly small possibility that you will find your answer when you die, I feel very comfortable in your not believing.​

 

[dan-cat]

I’m just gonna laugh really hard if I’m on the inside and you are looking through the window when all things are said and done.

Sounds a bit mean to me...

 

[Alc]

Religious people do tend to behave better than those that hold no belief.

Evidence?

There are many examples of when people have given up on their beliefs, they have turned to less than respectable behaviors. In addition, there are many examples of people that have lived a life less than desirable that have found God and moved toward more moral virtues.

And there are no examples of people who's behaviour altered in the opposite way? People who have supposedly become religious then behaved more appallingly?

Priests molest children. This is immoral and certainly not Godly. But they are people and fallible.

So, when they're being loving and kind, it's because of the fact that they're religious and when they're being cruel and perverse it's in spite of the fact that they're religious?

 

[redneckgeek]

How do you do that? Just change the subject whenever it comes up ...

We've been married for going on 25 years. I just nod and smile, no matter what she says. It makes my life much easier.

 

[fire2ice]

I did not say a high percentage believe in ghosts. There is a difference.

I spoke of conspiracy theroists as they support things they have little credible proof about. It wasn't a statement about God; it was about believing in something that may or may not be true.

As for your statement about the planets. Perhaps you're right. It would be an unproven theory. However, it would be arrogant of us to believe that we are all that there is. Maybe all of the other planets were God's first attempts. Of course, in looking at those planets we would see that failure is not an option.

By the way, my statement of atheists believing in not believing was sarcastic humor (just like your play on words when you say that you "believe" I'm wrong).

I apoligize about my statement that athiests try to push their non-beliefs as that was an overgeneralization. It just funny that on practically every forum that exists, including one on Access, that this topic comes up. There's even an atheist booth at our local fair.

I'm just not happy with many of the rants I've seen. In fact, this poll is a biased poll and I did not participate as the only choice for those that believe in God was "My god is the only god and he definitely exists." That was a charged statement that makes people that choose to believe look like arrogant jerks. It should have merely read: "I believe in God."

Atheism is a choice and I don't judge people for that choice as I expect not to be judged for my choice to believe. It's when people start judging others for not being them that I get upset.

I find no fault in you for being athiest. However, I do find fault with religious wackos and atheist wackos. The extremes need to tone it down.

Where did you get that from? Why would a "good portion" of athiests believe in ghosts? I would expect the opposite to be true.
Conspiracy theorists? That has nothing to do with whether or not you believe in god. I imagine there are a lot of conspiracy theorists who are also bible-thumping whackos.

Personally - and as an athiest - I do think that there has to be other planets somewhere in the universe that is similar to ours, and has evolved life, just like ours. But even if there was a god, it could be possible that he created 10 planets that sustain life, just to see which one fared best - and he/she just chose not to tell each planet about the others.

I've been an athiest for years. If you choose to think that I "believe in not believing", that's entirely up to you. I "believe" you're wrong, though.

I don't go around pushing my athiesm off on others. Most of my friends don't know. My wife IS a bible thumping, born-again christian and it would crush her if she knew, so I keep it to myself. And, as Alisa said, just because I have no religion, doesn't mean I have a desire to rob a bank.

 

[fire2ice]

It was sarcastic.

Sounds a bit mean to me...

 

[redneckgeek]

[/font][/color]
Evidence?

Not to take fire2ice's side, but....

I'm much less likely to run into someone wanting to cause trouble at a church picnic than I am at the local strip club. Unless, of course, it's a Catholic church picnic with a beer tent

 

[Alisa]

Someone is quite defensive. Why do you feel the need to directly attack the ideas I presented as though you are the defender of truth? I don't remember directly pointing at you and saying: "Heretic!"

I was merely stating my point of view as you had stated yours. We both have the equal right to do so. Perhaps I would be better served to go through your statements and direct quote you with my comments as well. This isn't an arguement that is meant for anyone to win as nobody will.

In the future please don't belittle me to TRY and prove your point.

How did I attack and belittle you? I was merely stating MY point of view. If you see that as an attack, maybe we shouldn't be having this discussion.

I know pregnancy can be proven. My point was that there is no test for God. How do you actually go about and scientifically prove His existence? It is impossilbe to do so. That was my point.

And my point is that if he actually existed, you WOULD be able to scientifically prove his existence. The reason noone can devise an experiment to test for the existence of god is because there is not one shred of evidence on which to base a hypothesis that could be tested.

However, there are many things that were believed in the past that couldn't be proven until much later. In addition, science has been so fallable that it often has to racant prior statements. So science doesn't prove anything. In fact, any good researcher will tell you to avoid saying that your results prove a conclusion. It's not proof, it's an indication to support the hypothesis.

I agree completely, so why would you believe something that has not been proven and is not likely to ever be proven?

When the world was proven to be round, there wasn't actaul proof at the time. It wasn't until we were able to get a view from space that we could technically support this fact.

Yes, but what led people to think that the earth wasn't flat? It was because there was physical evidence (such as being able to sail around the world, the fact that a ship's mast dissappears from view as it sails away, etc, etc,) that was inconsistent with a flat earth.

In the case of god, we have NO physical evidence that is inconsistent with a godless world.

Your argumentation skills are quite weak as you try to use the "poo poo" argument quite often. Your statement that you prefer to believe (and I stress believe because there is absolutely NO ture scientific evidence to support the Big Bang theory) that we were formed from sludge rather than God was merely smearing my idea rather than supporting your own.

How did I smear your idea? All I did was contrast the two world views, if I misrepresented yours, feel free to clarify.

This leads me to your statement that "evil in the world has been perpetrated by people who 'believe' in the name of whichever god it is that they 'believe' in. This is not God's will, it is man. In addition, acts of great evil are perpetrated in the name of many things, not just religion. It is typically power that drives this evil, not religion. If you look closely at history, you will find that religion was a guise to hide the true purpose of the acts. People sought power and used religion as a tool to convince those that would not otherwise follow that the evil needed to be perpetrated. For someone that requires facts to define yourself, you sure do tend to overlook those that do not support your ideals.

Then how do explain the prevalence of suicide bombers today? The ones who freely admit their absolute belief that their terrible acts committed in the name of their god will gain them admission to heaven? Do they gain power through those acts?

You are correct that the leaders of horrific events are often motivated by power, and simply used religion to coax people along with them. But that doesn't change the fact that the actual foot soldiers in history have often justified their crimes useing their belief in god, and their belief that they are doing what god wants them to do.

On the opposite end of the spectrum you fail to discuss all of the good in the world done in the name of religion. Mother Theresa would not have been who she was without a deep belief in God. She may well have been a good person, but she would never have accomplished what she did without believing in something greater than herself. Much of the relief and aid that is given in times of need is derived from religion. So many humanitarian efforts are driven by religion.

You are implying that Mother Theresa would have done horrible things instead of good things with her life had she not believed in god. Is that truely what you believe? There are also many humanitarian efforts that are NOT driven by religion or belief in god. My point is that you don't need religion or belief in god to be a good person or to do good acts, and that the people who are out there saving the world would be doing that whether or not they believed in god.

Your final statement in opposition to my statement of mathematical errors is once again a juxtaposition of personal belief and a closed minded approach as opposed to critical thinking. You say: “There is not one speck of evidence that people who do not believe in god suffer any consequences in this life (other than the grief we get from evangelicals), and there is no evidence whatsoever of an afterlife.” First, I’d like to know the scientific approach that has been used to quantify these statements. Is someone going around with a clipboard asking people if God has accosted them in some way? Perhaps they been looking for the door to the afterlife and due to the failure to find it they have concluded that it doesn’t exist. These are not things that will be proven, so get over it!!!

Again, you can't prove that something doesn't exist. There will never be scientific proof that god doesn't exist. Currently, there is no evidence that he does exist either. If and when that changes, I will happily change my mind. Until then, I see no purpose in believing something that is incredibly unlikely to be true.

The error is to believe that something isn’t and it is. Thus, with this logic you live life without the belief in God and then you face Him upon your death. That is the true consequence of the error. In your argument, you’ve already determined that He doesn’t exist and therefore there is no consequence to this error. You can’t manipulate the error to justify yourself. It’s like saying “I don’t think this plant is poisonous. It can’t be poisonous because there is no evidence that proves it’s poisonous. Therefore this plant cannot be poisonous under any circumstances.” It’s not until you’re dead that the plant is proven poisonous. This logic doesn’t work. Don’t retort with the fact that you can test to see if the plant is poisonous. Consider that the toxin is an unknown toxin and there are no tests that exist to test for it. You just won’t know until you’re dead. That is the error.

That's cute, you are telling me not to point out the logical flaw in your argument, thereby admitting that you see the flaw yourself. So say I die and I come to face god because it turns out he does exist. Then what? Do you think he will send me to hell to punish me for not believing, despite the fact that I was a good person and lived a good life? What is the "consequence" of my choice? Don't you think that if it really was important to god that we believed in him, that he would show up every now and then?

Once again, I reiterate that I’m not a fire and brimstone believer! Hopefully people are behaving morally to win the love and praise of God as opposed to avoiding His wrath. I’m not sure where you get your evidence from about the world. You say you don’t believe in anything without empirical evidence, but you spout off things that are far from dogma. People are not moral creatures by nature. Show me evidence of this! I look out into the world and see moral decay. Stealing, raping, killing. Please explain the existence of the movie 1,000 Faces of Death (or whatever it is called). There are millions of examples that refute the inherent goodness of man. However, there certainly is goodness in man. I’ve seen many examples of this as well. My point is that it is not a natural instinct.

People are moral by nature. This is not the same as saying that all people are good, or that people always behave morally. The empirical evidence of this is that accross all cultures, all continents, and all religions, there is something of a moral consensus that it is wrong to kill and to steal, and that it is right to be kind and generous. These morals appear in every culture and every religion because they are HUMAN morals, not RELIGIOUS morals. From an evolutionary perspective, it makes sense that humans would evolve to have morals because they increase our chance of survival.

Religious people do tend to behave better than those that hold no belief.

That is an outright lie. Show me one study that proves it.

 

[fire2ice]

I didn't say it was empirical, just a tendency.

[/FONT][/COLOR]
Evidence??

There is evidence of anything you want evidence for. However, there are many more examples of those that I spoke of than the alternate. Some people can become wackos. However, this isn't necessarily a cause and effect. They are wackos to begin with most likely and choose religion as their vehicle. I'm not sure there are many examples of a really good person that finds God and goes out on a killing spree that probably wouldn't have picked up the gun before their religious moment. So, I'm not sure I get your point.

[/FONT][/COLOR]
And there are no examples of people who's behavior altered in the opposite way? People who have supposedly become religious then behaved more appallingly??

Hey, please get your words out of my mouth! People are who they are because of themselves. Priests that molest children do so because of their own personal state, not because of God. Some sociologists believe it is because of the conflict between their oath to God and their human desires. Whatever the reason, it is because they are human.

I would say that they are both in spite of each other. They are loving and kind in spite of the perversion and they are perverse in spite of their religion.

[/FONT][/COLOR]
So, when they're being loving and kind, it's because of the fact that they're religious and when they're being cruel and perverse it's in spite of the fact that they're religious?

 

[Alisa]

Not to take fire2ice's side, but....

I'm much less likely to run into someone wanting to cause trouble at a church picnic than I am at the local strip club. Unless, of course, it's a Catholic church picnic with a beer tent

You're also much less likely to run into trouble at an atheist picnic than at a local strip club.

Do you nod and smile when your wife asks what you've been doing at all those strip clubs?

 

[fire2ice]

Amen to that! Have you ever been to church on bingo night? I haven't either, but I imagine they get crazy. LOL

Not to take fire2ice's side, but....

I'm much less likely to run into someone wanting to cause trouble at a church picnic than I am at the local strip club. Unless, of course, it's a Catholic church picnic with a beer tent

 

[Alisa]

I apoligize about my statement that athiests try to push their non-beliefs as that was an overgeneralization. It just funny that on practically every forum that exists, including one on Access, that this topic comes up. There's even an atheist booth at our local fair.

The topic of religion comes up far more often than the topic of atheism. If there are atheists that want to express their views, why is that funny?

I'm just not happy with many of the rants I've seen. In fact, this poll is a biased poll and I did not participate as the only choice for those that believe in God was "My god is the only god and he definitely exists." That was a charged statement that makes people that choose to believe look like arrogant jerks. It should have merely read: "I believe in God."

Yes, you probably missed it, but a few hundred thousand pages back, I apologized for my insensitivity in picking the poll options.

Atheism is a choice and I don't judge people for that choice as I expect not to be judged for my choice to believe. It's when people start judging others for not being them that I get upset.

Who's judging? This is a discussion forum where we all get to spout off our opinions. If it is going to upset you when people disagree with you, you shouldn't be posting here.

 

[redneckgeek]

Do you nod and smile when your wife asks what you've been doing at all those strip clubs?

She tends to look the other way. I bring home good money on "amateur drag night", and she spends it on new shoes.

Wait, that's probably a little too much information.

 

[Alisa]

She tends to look the other way. I bring home good money on "amateur drag night", and she spends it on new shoes.

Wait, that's probably a little too much information.

Just a bit. You gave me a good laugh though.

 

[Rich]

They are loving and kind in spite of the perversion

Ask the poor sods who suffered at their hands if they share your sentiment, I think NOT!

 

[Rich]

It should have merely read: "I believe in God."

Which one?