Are you an atheist? (9 Viewers)

[oumahexi]

I meant uneducated in an older sense i.e. if you wanted to force your tribe to do something in particular, saying that god wanted it or he'd punish them with a plague, etc. would work as long as they weren't knowledgable enough to know better.

I see your point

Religion is a crutch for many people and consolation for many more. Anyone who only does good things because they think god wants it is more than a bit suspect, as it suggests they'd run amok if left to their own devices.

We all need something to motivate us though, whether it's the genuine release of serotonin or the belief that god will smile on us. Maybe atheists are just serotonin junkies.

 

[oumahexi]

It isn't about being right, it's about being evil. Regardless of who is right, there is a party that sees eating dogs as being evil, therefore there is an evil that exists.

Yes, but WHY is it evil? Just because that party says so! It's like saying God exists! or The Devil exists! Prove it! Just because the general concensus doesn't agree, why does it have to be evil? And why is it any more evil to eat a puppy than to eat a cow? It's all down to our perceptions, our comfort zones, not good and evil.

 

[Alc]

We all need something to motivate us though, whether it's the genuine release of serotonin or the belief that god will smile on us.

Absolutely.

However, couldn't it be argued that if someone is only behaving his or herself because they think an all-powerful being is watching them at all times, then that person is of questionable character to begin with?

 

[April15Hater]

Yes, but WHY is it evil? Just because that party says so! It's like saying God exists! or The Devil exists! Prove it! Just because the general concensus doesn't agree, why does it have to be evil? And why is it any more evil to eat a puppy than to eat a cow? It's all down to our perceptions, our comfort zones, not good and evil.

Even if evil has no criteria to become a necessary truth, that does not deny it's existence. That being said, your paradigm is the only way i've come remotely close to reconciling myself. I take the agnostic POV. However I can never give up an opportunity to play devil's advocate (no pun intended).

 

[Alisa]

As to the argument that religious people are just as educated as atheists, consider this:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/09/05/goat_sacrifice/

Are these the actions of educated people?

In case anyone objects to the source of the previous link:
http://www.reuters.com/article/oddlyEnoughNews/idUSEIC47086020070904

 

[oumahexi]

As to the argument that religious people are just as educated as atheists, consider this:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/09/05/goat_sacrifice/

Are these the actions of educated people?

In case anyone objects to the source of the previous link:
http://www.reuters.com/article/oddlyEnoughNews/idUSEIC47086020070904

Am I reading this wrong or are they saying that it worked? If it worked, then, hey, maybe there's something to that! I wonder what I'll get for sacraficing a ...

 

[Rabbie]

This is my view: I believe in God. I do think that there is a Supreme Being that has created us. I have not been convinced otherwise.

When I look at some of his believers I find it hard to understand why he bothered to do such a botched job

Some see a BIRD and claim that it's the result of evolution and not of creation...But if you tried to convince that same person that an airplane was the result of evolution they would laugh on your face.

Paling's argument from 1809. Still fallacious even if less elegantly put than the original

Some examin the EYE and claim that it's the result of evolution not of creation...But if you tried to convince that same person that a Hi resolution camera was the result of evolution they would laugh on your face.

Some examin the HUMAN and claim that it's the result of evolution not of creation...But if you tried to convince that same person that MIMO the Robot was the result of evolution they would laugh on your face.

Well let me tell you that if you can't accept that a PLANE, a CAMERA or a ROBOT have happened by chance that they all of a sudden became to exist, how could you believe that a BIRD, an EYE and the HUMAN being that are more complex from an engineering perspective than anything any human has created, could be the result of chance?

If you knew anything about the Theory of Evolution you would know it is NOT chance that drives it.

I'm an open minded person and I have heard many arguments that may humans have come up with to convince themselves that they don't have a creator (maybe to feel that they don't have any responsability to anyone) and they just don't make sense. They all crumble below their feet as they try to explain it.

As of today I have not heard any argument from the point of logic that has convince me otherwise, so I strongly believe that my body has been magnificiently Created!

IMHO The arguments for a god/gods/creator are less convincing than the arguments against. I do however recognise a mind that is not open to consider any arguments against their belif so I query your openness of mind.

As to the argument that as you get educated you become an atheist. Well consider this: You send young people that to a certain level are naive, and you wrap them up as a gift and send them to a university to a bunch of adults that have their own agenda. These professors don't stick to teaching the school materials. They take advantage of this audience of naive young minds and push all their personal/political/atheist/racist/etc/etc. load that they have been carring and unload them on these kids.
Sending these kind of naive kids to the university is in a lot of ways like opening a door into great knowledge. But in others in to so many ideas that as a parent you would not teach your kids but they (professors) will not think twice in stuffing it into their minds if it pleases his ideals.

It was not an atheist but a jesuit who said that given a child until he was 7 years old he would be his for life. Sounds like brainwashing to me!

 

[cookieduster]

There is no distinction to be made between atheists and theists as they both assert something that neither can prove.

Let’s hear for the agnostics!

 

[April15Hater]

ahhh yes...the beauty of being agnostic

 

[Rabbie]

There is no distinction to be made between atheists and theists as they both assert something that neither can prove.

Let’s hear for the agnostics!

Kindly desist from posting the same post on numerous threads. It gets boring and makes you look as if you don't understand how this forum works

 

[Dick7Access]

Can anybody recall any great philanthropy work done by a atheist?

 

[Lightwave]

The Human notion of benevolence is widely shared throughout society, and is very prevalent in the non profit sector and motivates many philanthropists.

Generally speaking we do not ask why a philanthropist is benevolent atheists are likely to keep quiet on their beliefs for fear of criticism.

 

[Galaxiom]

Can anybody recall any great philanthropy work done by a atheist?

Here are a few to get started.

Warren Buffett (~$40 Billion)
Bill and Melinda Gates (~$27 Billion)
George Soros (~$7 Billion)
Andrew Carnegie (~$390 Million from 1911 to 1919 ~ $5 Billion in today's equivalent)

Maybe someone could research this list.
http://www.businessweek.com/interactive_reports/philanthropy_individual_2008.html

 

[Alc]

Here are a few to get started.

Warren Buffett (~$40 Billion)
Bill and Melinda Gates (~$27 Billion)
George Soros (~$7 Billion)
Andrew Carnegie (~$390 Million from 1911 to 1919 ~ $5 Billion in today's equivalent)

Maybe someone could research this list.
http://www.businessweek.com/interactive_reports/philanthropy_individual_2008.html

Three out of the top four? Pretty good going.

 

[Lightwave]

Sounds like you are arguing for other evolved beings which I consider completely plausible.

The first thing intelligent things do is try to create.

 

[Lightwave]

Yes I suspect that evolution begets intelligence and intelligence seeks to create.

Unfortunately I don't think we'll find out in our lifetimes but I am sure that the truth is probably as wild and exciting as anything we can possibly imagine.

 

[Brianwarnock]

I think that you are supposed to find out when you are "dead", and then it's too late to use the info.

Brian

 

[Adam Caramon]

I think it would be interesting to see a study where accessibility of education is compared to levels or professed religious belief. In other related studies, there is a connection between low levels of education and high levels of religious belief.

As the internet is still relatively new, and provides a wealth of information, I imagine the more ubiquitous internet access becomes, the further levels of religious belief will be reduced.

 

[Brianwarnock]

Although education may reduce ones belief in religion that does not equate to one becoming an atheist.

The really intelligent position is agnostic as we do not know, but mankind has always wanted to believe, whether because it wants somebody to blame or because it doesn't understand, or just because it hopes that death is not the end, the reason doesn't matter, mankind wants to believe, but he doesn't know therefore agnostic is the default position.

Brian

 

[Vassago]

There absolutely could be a higher power running the show. I believe it's impossible to speak in absolutes about such things. To claim in absolute, that there definitely is a God or that there definitely is not, means you know. Obviously, it's impossible for any of us to truly know. Then there's this "faith" idea. You can't win when someone uses the "faith" card as their evidence of a God. Faith is an absolute. When I'm debating with someone on the existence of their version of "God," it almost always comes to that word, in which case, the debate is over. If someone is completely refusing to look or think outside of their "faith" bubble, there is no reason to discuss anything further.

Absolutes don't belong in society. Science doesn't have absolutes, so for science to say there is NO God is just as ignorant as someone who says their religion is the one true way and no one should believe anything else. The point of science is that it's constantly expanding. The requirements and definitions of life and thought are constantly expanding. 100 years ago, you would have believed it impossible for someone to live with lungs, hearts, or livers from another person, yet here we are, constantly improving the procedures. We are even on the verge of harvesting your own stem cells you have today to create perfect match organs for you in case something fails. It might be a long way off, but it's pretty well recognized as possible in the future.

I believe that if there is a God or some benevolent being, I believe we have no way of understanding it. I believe all religions of the Earth are completely made up. How can they not be? Their own religions texts, such as the Holy Bible, say that people are not perfect and God is. If people aren't perfect, maybe they misinterpreted the word of "God" when it was written? Who's to say that they didn't completely miss the point when God was talking to them? We already know the Bible has been altered with books and passages lost, added, removed, editted, etc... throughout the years. We know that religious holidays are a mashup of historical pagan holidays. We adapt and grow, which is how it should be. To think that the Bible is the one word and that's the way it always should be is just ignorant in itself. It's changed too many times over the years for us not to continue to change it to fit modern times, such as women rights, gay rights, etc...

I love studying religions. I especially love debating the topic in a professional and insultless manner. Unfortunately, people tend to get tricky when they have a closed mind. I welcome any thoughts on the matter.