Why Do You Believe in Atheism?

[white camellia]

The point is that science admits its fallibility. It's always ready to give way to better information.

Indeed, just as the philosophy of Karl Popper as he pointed out the nature of science, offering this model: P1→TT→EE→P2

[cuppajoe_9]

Indeed, just as the philosophy of Karl Popper as he pointed out the nature of science, offering this model: P1→TT→EE→P2

:confused: What do those things stand for?

[white camellia]

:confused: What do those things stand for?

To him, any scientific hypothesis is bound to be found certain false point that is hidden there. Through the process of offering a hypothesis, discovering its error that can be proved and then putting forward a new hypothesis, science attains its development. Its fallibility is not a weak point, rather a strong one as this is the very thing that improves it, with the falsification as its mark. On the contrary, others are less than it at this point.
P1: proposal1
TT: testing theory
EE: eliminate error
P2: proposal2
Just something like this! :)
Anyone knows more?

[blp]

Sounds similar to Hegelian dialectics: thesis meets antithesis, resulting in synthesis, which becomes a new thesis and meets a new antithesis. And so on, on and on. It's a sort of picture of truth as endlessly unfolding, which runs against religion's attachment to stable, absolute truths - except that Hegelians often posit a final synthesis. For Marx it was the dictatorship of the proletariat. For Francis Fukuyama, it was free market capitalism.

[white camellia]

Ahh, nice hit! I recently read Hegel's Lectures on Aesthetics. He talked about the special form of art and displayed its development, its three phases: symbolic form→classic form→romantic form. In the beginning, symbols are absolute unconscious and purely sensuous and then art reached its perfection with a harmonious relation between idea/spirit and its form which the spirit determined for itself in its own reality, but spirit could not just dwell in its form and finally it abandoned the external form and obtained its complete realization in its own world of consciousness. I just wondered, is romantic form the highest stage of art? and how does it, romanticism do with rationalism. It seems that religion appears more like a romantic form of art and atheism, or the human mind reflection of science, more like some other form?

[RobinHood3000]

Well, my brother, I've never tried to change you because if you have no desire to change then I would not try to change you. But I am far from wishy-washy in attempting to find middle ground. I refuse to let my faith in God blind me to the knowledge that science has discovered. I believe it will dovetail together at some point along the line. Man is ever courious, and searches for the who, what, when, where, why, and how. And sometimes, he finds them. Sometimes he cannot. Sometimes he reaches a point of plausibility-- this might be it. I try to weigh the results and see if I can believe them. That's all. The Bible says something about "trying the spirits to see if they be of God." I try the results to see if I can accept them. Some are correct without question. Some, I cannot see. It doesn't mean I'm always right. I could always be wrong myself. But I'm trying. God bless. :)Oh, Pen, I did not mean to offend - I didn't realize quite what I was saying. I think of the middle ground in the sense that one skips over the conflicts between religion and science, as opposed to reconciling them as you do. My humblest apologies.

[Redzeppelin]

I'm interested in this "middle ground" that's been tossed out a few posts ago (before the formulas came up and freaked my poor liberal-arts brain out :sick: ). I'm not sure I see religion and science as opposite ends of a continuum that one picks a position on: how can two systems of thought be on the same continuum when - at their basis - they completely contradict each other? Granted, I think there are times when they do line-up (so perhaps a Venn Diagram would be more appropriate a graphic organizer with which to conceptualize the relationship between the two?) - and I don't think it's wise for Christians to ignore science. I simply stand by the idea that science may or may not maintain the integrity of its claims/discoveries as time moves forward. What looks like "x" may turn out (upon implementation of whatever new technology we come up with) to be actually "a."

[blp]

Ahh, nice hit! I recently read Hegel's Lectures on Aesthetics. He talked about the special form of art and displayed its development, its three phases: symbolic form?classic form?romantic form. In the beginning, symbols are absolute unconscious and purely sensuous and then art reached its perfection with a harmonious relation between idea/spirit and its form which the spirit determined for itself in its own reality, but spirit could not just dwell in its form and finally it abandoned the external form and obtained its complete realization in its own world of consciousness. I just wondered, is romantic form the highest stage of art? and how does it, romanticism do with rationalism. It seems that religion appears more like a romantic form of art and atheism, or the human mind reflection of science, more like some other form?

This is all a bit beyond my ken and erudition, but I do know that Romanticism contains a strongly anti-rationalist tendency, which led some Romanticists to oppose Newton, claiming that his discoveries, notably about the colour spectrum, were against beauty in that they destroyed mystery.(Newton's own view was that his discoveries were a tiny scraping against a still gigantic mystery - he said he was like a child playing with the driftwood from a huge sea of mystery - something like that).

It's interesting that Enlightenment rationalism, which already sees itself as a sort of ne plus ultra of thought and aesthetics, starts unravelling in various ways almost as it comes into being. Leibniz had a long running debate with Newton that was crucial to Kant's Critique of Pure Reason - a more complex and considered questioning of our rational faculties than the rather phillistine Romantic refusal.

Kant begins a process of inquiry that continues in Hegel and on into the present as the underpinning of numerous strains of philosophical thought. Some of these, such as deconstruction/post-structuralism, can appear anti-rationalist. At their worst (their modishness has attracted some fairly shoddy thinkers, not to mention atrocious writers) the accusations may be just - but it's still misleading to lump the tradition as a whole in with New Age-ism, resurgent religious fundamentalism, political/economic millennarianism, management dead language and other assaults on enlightenment tradition, as Francis Wheen does in a recent book. The reason is that the western philosophical tradition is engaged in something similar to science - a constant questioning of even its most fundamental precepts - even, as the title of Kant's first great works shows - reason itself. Of course this means it must leave itself open to things that might appear to threaten it. But as this brief overview shows, this has been happening since the 'start'. It's like democracy - in a system where all voices, by definition, have a right to be heard, some voices will be heard that threaten democracy itself. The contrast is between openness on the englightenment side and the closedness of fixed belief in monolithic, 'objective' truths.

The picture is then not of the opposition between two different beliefs, but between a shifting multiplicity of debate and a comparatively proscribed and stagnant fixity of belief. Within the former, it would be absurd to hold up one tendency (Romanticism, Classicism, whatever) as the highest form of art or thought. Hegelian dialectics is a simple picture of the impossibility of doing this, but perhaps one's own sense of change and development, yours anyway, white camellia, gives a sense of the impossibility and the lack of need to do so. As your summary shows, Romanticism to some extent is not the pinnacle of a linear progression, but a pulling back from the Classicist idea that it is possible and desirable to achieve total mastery and understanding - a turning back to the unconscious, without understanding. I find something unappealing in this, but it's just theory - and, anyway, I also find something unappealing in the idea of mastery. In practice, Romanticists such as Wordsworth, Shelley and Delacroix can be searingly great, just as artists from any era, country or stream of thought can - though of course, thou shalt have no other Godard beyond Jean-Luc. ;) (now I'm just being subjective).

[Pendragon]

One thing is certain, regardless of what one believes: Man is possessed of an insatiable curiosity. Mankind will always be in search of the answers to the many questions of the mysteries of life. As science grows, many things once thought to be correct will have to change. It will have to change whether it was the scientist or religious that was in error. Science will never disprove God. How things work may have to be rethought, as the writers of the Bible could only interpret what they saw in their own limited way. Let me give an example. Say a prophet in the Bible saw a vision of an airplane. To him it would be a great bird. He never saw a plane before. It would be like when the first mammoths were discovered. They were hairy elephants, because that was what they looked like to us. We knew what an elephant was. This one had a lot of hair. They were frozen with food still in their mouths, so search was on for live ones. No such luck. They were then classified as extinct and given the name by which we know them.

[white camellia]

...some Romanticists to oppose Newton, claiming that his discoveries, notably about the colour spectrum, were against beauty in that they destroyed mystery.
It's Wordsworth, as I remember. Some, like him, tended to separate art from science, and some, like Flaubert and Einstein, did not view them as something that repel each other, but rather, something integrated at last.


The picture is then not of the opposition between two different beliefs, but between a shifting multiplicity of debate and a comparatively proscribed and stagnant fixity of belief...
I agree.


One thing is certain, regardless of what one believes: Man is possessed of an insatiable curiosity. Mankind will always be in search of the answers to the many questions of the mysteries of life.
Yes, and intuition too. Einstein emphasized the role of intuition which is exactly way to build a theory instead of a logic passage. And isn't that, intuition, the very thing that our judgement rely on, whether it's the judgement of an atheist or not? Then how we react to either judgement in their own right appears more important.

[Pendragon]

Yes, and intuition too. Einstein emphasized the role of intuition which is exactly way to build a theory instead of a logic passage. And isn't that, intuition, the very thing that our judgement rely on, whether it's the judgement of an atheist or not? Then how we react to either judgement in their own right appears more important.True. You will note that I said "regardless of what one believes." That includes the Atheist. Curiosity and intuition are hardly limited to those who believe or disbelieve in the existence of God. Both are human, and that makes them innately curious as to an explanation for everything, and gives them intuitions that they act upon. It also gives them a third trait: tenacity. They are willing to go to any length to endeavor to prove themselves correct. And there is where conflict begins to arise, because one is as sure of his belief as another, and neither wants to listen with a truly open mind, as in listening with any chance in the hot place of changing their mind in the least. It’s the old, “I’m listening, but bear in mind, I think it’s all hogwash.” This goes for both sides of the equation, and often as not for the man in the middle as well. No wonder differences never are settled! :idea:

[Ann Ganon]

I don't BELIEVE in atheism... It isn't a religion, at least not to me, which means the element of faith is completely removed.

I was 8 years old when I figured out that god couldn't possibly exist, because if he did, surely he'd DO something about all the awful things in the world. I still don't buy the Christian argument that he's testing us all.

As I grew older, I couldn't see any reason to start believing, and several awful encounters with Christian zealots certainly didn't help.

I know of no phenomenon that lacks a scientific explanation, I know of no actual experiences with deities (in older and less educated times they seemed to drop by to chat all the time, but they must have stopped that), and I don't need the comfort of belonging to a religious belief system. Actually, most religions I know of appear to create more problems than they solve.

You may deduce from the above that the closest I come to a belief is that in rational thinking.

Great! I know of few Christians who even believe in Rational thinking! They of all people should. But, what IS Rational thinking?
I know of a great philosopher that says he can prove that God exists by being rational. It's simple: There must be something eternal.
If nothing is eternal then all is temporal (law of non-contradiction.
If all is temporal, then all had a beginning.
So... how can something come from nothing?
It can't. Therefore, only God is eternal. It also can be proved, from reason, that He is all good and all powerful, which would bring us then to that nasty problem of evil. Then, and only then, should we switch from General to Special revelation.

[Ann Ganon]

I don't BELIEVE in atheism... It isn't a religion, at least not to me, which means the element of faith is completely removed.

I was 8 years old when I figured out that god couldn't possibly exist, because if he did, surely he'd DO something about all the awful things in the world. I still don't buy the Christian argument that he's testing us all.

As I grew older, I couldn't see any reason to start believing, and several awful encounters with Christian zealots certainly didn't help.

I know of no phenomenon that lacks a scientific explanation, I know of no actual experiences with deities (in older and less educated times they seemed to drop by to chat all the time, but they must have stopped that), and I don't need the comfort of belonging to a religious belief system. Actually, most religions I know of appear to create more problems than they solve.

You may deduce from the above that the closest I come to a belief is that in rational thinking.

Hey, there's plenty of things Science can't ever explain. For example, the mind is not the brain. Science can never explain why we think in terms of right and wrong or good and evil. But, more basically, it can't explain why we have this need for meaning. Otherwise, we live in meaninglessness, boredom and guilt.

[blp]

It's Wordsworth, as I remember. Some, like him, tended to separate art from science, and some, like Flaubert and Einstein, did not view them as something that repel each other, but rather, something integrated at last.

Are you saying that Flaubert and Einstein are Romanticists?

[Nimph]

First, before I explain my middle groung, I would like to point out the fact that you guys again stumbled upon my thoughts of tainted religion and science. Intuition is a very important part of discovery and understanding, but here is the funny thing. Science will not let intuition explain things unless there is proof! Religion, unless there is sense to it and it corresponds with belief! I am not good at explaining htings that I have thought offor a long time because they seem semi-obvious to me, but I guess you guys got to it before I could explain myself.
Now for the middle ground that Pendragon was curious about. I think that neither a continuum or a venn diagram describe the relationship between religion and science. Personally I don't know what the relationship is, I am refering to the middle ground in somewhat of a poetical sense. I would like to believe that both and neither are true! Umm, here is the bad explanation, tell me if it works! There are points on which science and religion agree, right? Well those points are part of the middle ground. Then come the points on which the two disagree, thats where it is a little copmlicated. The middle ground of those points is where each looses a part, and has a part in it. It is like a compromise, where both win a part and lose a part simultaneously. I will elaborate more on it if that didn't make sense, most likely it didn't! But thank you for reading anyway :)

[white camellia]

Are you saying that Flaubert and Einstein are Romanticists?
...not necessarily a romanticist,but probably the one who is influenced by it. I noticed that Einstein was born in Germany in 1879 and this was the subsequent time of Romanticism (dominant in the first half of 19th century)that had changed people's attitudes towards creativity. What romanticism advocated is originality and spontaneity. These elements could be found in his mode of thinking. And Flaubert was born in 1821, exactly in the first half of 19th century.


...Intuition is a very important part of discovery and understanding, but here is the funny thing. Science will not let intuition explain things unless there is proof! Religion, unless there is sense to it and it corresponds with belief!
Intuition is just the start of a hypothesis and helps to reach a proved theory. It appears, resonating with our experience or it depends much on experience.

Personally I don't know what the relationship is, I am refering to the middle ground in somewhat of a poetical sense. I would like to believe that both and neither are true!
...as Russell said, science is the right way for us to get close to truth and there is no absolute truth. And the practice draws energy from our will to be sceptic.

[blp]

...not necessarily a romanticist,but probably the one who is influenced by it. I noticed that Einstein was born in Germany in 1879 and this was the subsequent time of Romanticism (dominant in the first half of 19th century)that had changed people's attitudes towards creativity. What romanticism advocated is originality and spontaneity. These elements could be found in his mode of thinking. And Flaubert was born in 1821, exactly in the first half of 19th century.

Mmm...tenuous, if you don't mind my saying so. You could easily read Flaubert's Madame Bovary as an attack on, if not romanticism, at least a romanticist turn of mind. Baudelaire describes romanticism as the insistence on seeing yourself as the central character in a novel, un roman and Madame Bovary is a quintessential example of this - and look where it gets her!

Einstein does seem to have been a kind of visionary, but it would seem to diminish that to suggest that his leaps and intuitions are somehow culturally determined.

[white camellia]

;-) You raised that question to me which I did not know if they were really romanticists or not. I was not saying that both Flaubert and Einstein are romanticists. I was only quoting them by explaining their attitudes toward science and art. That one is influenced by romanticism does not necessarily refers to that he/she is beliving in it, may even against it. Some writers or artists at that times did oppose romanticism, but this could not deny the fact that they were influnced by it to some extent.


Mmm...tenuous, if you don't mind my saying so. You could easily read Flaubert's Madame Bovary as an attack on, if not romanticism, at least a romanticist turn of mind. Baudelaire describes romanticism as the insistence on seeing yourself as the central character in a novel, un roman and Madame Bovary is a quintessential example of this - and look where it gets her!
The question is, is it really romanticism that gets her to that point?


Einstein does seem to have been a kind of visionary, but it would seem to diminish that to suggest that his leaps and intuitions are somehow culturally determined.

Not culturally determined, but influenced?

[blp]

The question is, is it really romanticism that gets her to that point?

Yes! Oh, I don't know. She wouldn't say she was a romanticist, just hopeful. But it might be possible to argue that she's being used as a symbol/example to show the problems of romantic individualism - while also acknowledging the quotidian mundanity that gives rise to that.




Not culturally determined, but influenced?

I'd say no, that whatever it is in someone that makes them spontaneously construct scenarios visually - in visions - that then prove to have a basis in empirical fact, you can't explain it with anything as simple as influence. And that almost seems to be getting this conversation back on to questions of belief and scepticism...

[Ravenwing]

Alot of words for an arguement of "Emptiness".

[blazeofglory]

Atheism or theism are things that simply confounding things, and in both notions there are no elements of certainty and indeed we are uncertain abut the existence of God or consciousness or about scientists' hypotheses too.

[trippy star]

Atheism, for me, is a rejection established knowledge. Not only religious beliefs, but all thinking is subject to my skepticism.
No book or author really turned me onto these views; it was just how I was raised; and my parents have always advocated the pursuit of knowledge and critical thinking skills.
While books can help one find their path, one must ultimately disregard these stepping stones to find a truely individualistic paradise; which, to me, is the ideal I am always striving for, grasping at.

[andrew23]

Lend me thy ears, all of thee, and hear me once and for all.

"Why do you believe in Atheism?"

1. Regardless of whether someone believes in something, it doesn't mean that what he/she believes is true. Few people are aware of this, which is why few people also undergo to the process of analyzation.
2. What you choose to believe is determined by factors such as your family, your present knowledge disposition, the people around you, your environment, and etc.

What one believes, can be either true or false. It is true, when what you believe is in the universal truth set. It is false, when what you believe is in the universal false set.
3. If what you believe is only determined by such worldly factors, then no one is to blame in what believe. No one is to blame if what we believe is wrong. Infact, the act of blaming is time and energy wasting. Blaming is only a natural body reaction to as a result of misunderstanding. And that misunderstanding, is a result of people's knowldge differences.
4. If we are not responsible for our destiny, there is no test in the world. If there's no test, and since if test doesn't exist, then to say that there's a test in the bible is illogical, it simply does/can not exist. And if there's no test, the prophecy ain't true, if the prophecy ain't true, the bible ain't true. And if the bible ain't true, then there's no God. If there's no God, then i am destined to believe in atheism.
5. The universe only follow laws and rules. The one I described above is more known as "Causality". We human beings are only here in this world to follow universal rules. And yes, we are conscious of it, but being conscious of it doesn't mean you can change your destiny. We are conscious of what we are doing, but consciousness is completely irrelevant to our actions. Are actions are determined by universal laws and factors. And contrary to the saying that consciousnes is a tool for deciding our fate, well it isn't so. Consciousness is a way of viewing the world. But how the world goes around is left to the play of universal laws and factors.

"Why do you believe in Atheism?"
Because it's my destiny to believe in Atheism at this point of time in space...
Why did I believe it? Due to certain universal laws and factors such as my present knowledge disposal. And I must suggest, one need not to exert so much effort in finding certain answers. Sometimes you only need to scrutinize the basics. Let's be effective in doing things, but let's be efficient too. Let's save time and effort..hehe

[NikolaiI]

Lend me thy ears, all of thee, and hear me once and for all.

"Why do you believe in Atheism?"

1. Regardless of whether someone believes in something, it doesn't mean that what he/she believes is true. Few people are aware of this, which is why few people also undergo to the process of analyzation.
2. What you choose to believe is determined by factors such as your family, your present knowledge disposition, the people around you, your environment, and etc.

What believe, can be either true or false. It is true, when what you believe is in the universal truth set. It is false, when what you believe is in the universal false set.
3. If what believed is only determined by such worldly factors. Then no one is to blame in what believe. No one is to believe if what we believe is wrong. Infact, the act of blaming is non-sense. Blaming is only a natural body reaction.
4. If were not responsible for our destiny, there is no test in the world. If there's no test, and since if test doesn't exist, then the test in the bible is illogical, it simply does not exist. And if there's no test, the prophecy ain't true, if the prophecy ain't true, the bible ain't true. ANd the bible ain't true, then there's no God. IF there's no God, then i am destined to believe in atheism.

Atheism is a word and a concept but where is it reflected in nature? On what tree does atheism grow? It is devoid of identity, as are each of our terms. Everything that we think, in fact,
everything we sense, think about, have, create, destroy, it's all devoid of identity.
Atheism and all our terms will pass as we do.

[andrew23]

Atheism is a word and a concept but where is it reflected in nature? On what tree does atheism grow? It is devoid of identity, as are each of our terms. Everything that we think, in fact,
everything we sense, think about, have, create, destroy, it's all devoid of identity.
Atheism and all our terms will pass as we do.

1. Yes, it is a word and a concept, and it refects on the universe itself, which is void of supernatural interventions(Gods).
2. Who the hell cares on what tree does Atheism grows.
3. It is full of identity right now at the point of time. And so are words, there's so much existing words right now, and each one with a unique identity and description.
4. Everything that we think, sense, have, create, destroy, it all has identity. Duh:sick: If it's devoid of identity, then you shouldn't know those terms by now.
5. Atheism and all our terms will pass. Yes, all terms may pass but what those terms have described regarding nature will never pass. Such as the universal forces, they shall never pass. The strong nuclear force in the universe will never pass..:D

[NikolaiI]

1. Yes, it is a word and a concept, and it refects on the universe itself, which is void of supernatural interventions(Gods).
2. Who the hell cares on what tree does Atheism grows.
3. It is full of identity right now at the point of time. And so are words, there's so much existing words right now, and each one with a unique identity and description.
4. Everything that we think, sense, have, create, destroy, it all has identity. Duh:sick: If it's devoid of identity, then you shouldn't know those terms by now.
5. Atheism and all our terms will pass. Yes, all terms may pass but what those terms have described regarding nature will never pass. Such as the universal forces, they shall never pass. The strong nuclear force in the universe will never pass..:D

Every word is an illusion. Their nature is void, and without identity.

[andrew23]

If you think words are illusion, then you may say that it is the nature of it. Its an illusion of how nature is, it reflects nature itself. That is its nature and that is the identity of words in this world. Words help us communicate more effectively and efficiently, and words help us also to more easily describe nature.

However, even if the statement "Words are illusion" is true, it doesn't justify anything. More importantly, it doesn't invalidate any of those statements I have mentioned above.

And oh, by the way Nikolai, your quote of my post #293 which you posted on #294 has typographical errors. So I edited post #293.

[NikolaiI]

If you think words are illusion, then you may say that it is the nature of it. Its an illusion of how nature is, it reflects nature itself.

I would say that words reflect reality, and reality is illusion too. Rather; reality is real, it's the base, but things like trees, those are illusion. A word has flimsy walls, a tree is more essential, but they are still both unessential. After all sensations in the mind arise so powerfully they are thought to be real, but we usually see that our anger is not a physical force against us, it's just something in the mind. The same is true with other things which exist; they exist in our minds.


That is its nature and that is the identity of words in this world. Words help us communicate more effectively and efficiently, and words help us also to more easily describe nature.

Yes, and I want you to know; I don't mean to argue with you. I possibly wouldn't have mentioned anything had you not mentioned thinking analytically. Words are lacking identity, as is ego. Nietzsche and Schopenhaur were two of the first to challenge the supreme validity of language. Nietzsche said "there is no thing," "there is no 'I'". Schopenhaur's "The World as Will and Idea" is a great read to help explain...

Perhaps saying words are illusion is not true; perhaps there is nothing to say other than that they are unessential. Temporary. Anyway; if they are symbols which reflect a more essential reality, then understanding this is the way to understand words, and the same is true for things like Metaphysics. Human relationships. Human relationships are based on a lot of klitch, but if the klitch comes from a heart-mind that is connected to reality, then the relationship is more real.


However, even if the statement "Words are illusion" is true, it doesn't justify anything. More importantly, it doesn't invalidate any of those statements I have mentioned above.

No, no, it supports them. I mean all I want to do is analyze and understand. I don't think an honest inquiry leads to belief in God, it goes more to atheism, yet I see how fallacious it is to call anyone an atheist...

I mean a person is a person. And in fact, we only call them persons because of language. Soul and super soul are good metaphors for the God within us; and I don't disvalue metaphysics or anything, it's just the base of metaphysics is friendship, and it is all klitch, and is real if it's essential.

Ontology should be studied, it really should. :)

[blazeofglory]

Theism, atheism, metaphysics, spirituality, materiality, so on and so forth. All are illusive things, and muddling too. Of course we can not put an end to this limitless discussion. Both sides, theists and atheists too are armed with logic, points and reasons but they land nowhere and their ideas are fleetingly unreal and are like morning vapors in winter and they disappear in the thin air.

Forget all these gibberish ideas. The truth is you. And I revere you, and you individually and collectively in union or communion with the rest.

In this we are in this endless eddy and we can get no shore. Let him believe if anyone holds some faiths. for there you can not prove him wrong.

Let us respect all, and their beliefs or disbeliefs, theisms or atheisms. For all of us are simple human beings. Everything is mysterious. We know very little of th e root of everything.

[andrew23]

Theism, atheism, metaphysics, spirituality, materiality, so on and so forth. All are illusive things, and muddling too. Of course we can not put an end to this limitless discussion. Both sides, theists and atheists too are armed with logic, points and reasons but they land nowhere and their ideas are fleetingly unreal and are like morning vapors in winter and they disappear in the thin air.

Forget all these gibberish ideas. The truth is you. And I revere you, and you individually and collectively in union or communion with the rest.

In this we are in this endless eddy and we can get no shore. Let him believe if anyone holds some faiths. for there you can not prove him wrong.

Let us respect all, and their beliefs or disbeliefs, theisms or atheisms. For all of us are simple human beings. Everything is mysterious. We know very little of th e root of everything.

Noble words. I salute you. :thumbs_up

[blazeofglory]

Often I think deeply and profoundly of course ideas of theism and atheisms are nauseating and I simply despise the terms.

Indeed philosophies at time take us away from our own beingness or realties. We are what we are, and not what is philosophized, not of course what is idealized or things of ideation.

We are human beings and I respect simple facts and not rationalization.

If somebody believes in God it is totally his own belief system and to critique him is sheer gibberish. Nobody can say there is God or there is no God.

Personally I take God as something like truth, indistinguishably truth alone. People through images, at times through mythological images or scientific metaphors are trying to understand God or truth.

I respect everyone' belief. For we are all journeying and can not claim what is truth and what is not.

All philosophers and scientists seemingly voicing with the seeming degree of authority and their endeavors to negate others are bunk.

For all we are dusts flying in the eddy of this cosmic chaos.

[Remarkable]

You cannot believe in atheism since it is not a doctrine.Atheism is exactly the contrary of believing,the contrary of practicing something in the name of your belief.
My reasons to be an Atheist(not to believe in Atheism)are many and as such,I shall not reveal them all here.Well,for a start,there have been many crimes in the name of God,which the Lord himself wouldn't have allowed,no?Or are we just part of a test,where barriers are put in front of us and if we cross them,we deserve eternal happines?Than is another question,the afterlife.And then,it is a fact that many of what religion held for absolute true has turned to be absolute untrue and provable by sience.
However,I respect all beliefs,all religions and all believers.This is a choice of mine and it does not affect others,for the simple reasen that individuals are not affectable(masses are).

[NikolaiI]

Remarkable; you have a very liberated view!!!!

[Leaver]

i think the question should be "why do you believe in a God/religion?" instead of "Why Do You Believe in Atheism?" since not only atheism is not a religion and therefore not something to believe in but also because atheism is the normal human state.
i can't even find one valid reason to believe in a god, and i see religions as nothing more than "toxic mimics" of true spirituality.
Religions divide us, inflict fear on the believers, and through out history they were used as excuses to commit unforgivable murders and all types of atrocities. Religion was and is still used as a way to control others, to have and maintain unquestionable power.
i know we should respect everyone's believes and that what each person believes in is actually none of my buissnes but religions have stopped (decades a go) being a personal thing, i mean, they caused and are still causing wars.

[Emil Miller]

You cannot believe in atheism since it is not a doctrine.Atheism is exactly the contrary of believing,the contrary of practicing something in the name of your belief.
My reasons to be an Atheist(not to believe in Atheism)are many and as such,I shall not reveal them all here.Well,for a start,there have been many crimes in the name of God,which the Lord himself wouldn't have allowed,no?Or are we just part of a test,where barriers are put in front of us and if we cross them,we deserve eternal happines?Than is another question,the afterlife.And then,it is a fact that many of what religion held for absolute true has turned to be absolute untrue and provable by sience.
However,I respect all beliefs,all religions and all believers.This is a choice of mine and it does not affect others,for the simple reasen that individuals are not affectable(masses are).

Science has indeed demonstrated that former beliefs have turned out to be untrue but it isn't a question as to how the universe was created but WHY.
Until scientists can answer that, religions will persist.

[Trystan]

Yes - I believe in atheism.

Every Sunday I knock on doors and say: "Have you heard the bad news . . . ?".

[The Atheist]

Science has indeed demonstrated that former beliefs have turned out to be untrue but it isn't a question as to how the universe was created but WHY.
Until scientists can answer that, religions will persist.

Nah.

No matter what science can or can't prove will make no difference to people who believe in god/s.

[mmaria]

Are there more atheists or religious people in the world? Is the majority of the population in the world atheistic or religious? If such statistic exists.

[The Atheist]

Are there more atheists or religious people in the world? Is the majority of the population in the world atheistic or religious? If such statistic exists.

16% non-theist, the rest mostly christian, hindu or muslim with the balance smaller religions. (http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html)




.

[mmaria]

16% non-theist, the rest mostly christian, hindu or muslim with the balance smaller religions. (http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html)

.

According to this, people are either atheistic or religious. I wonder if there is something in between.

[The Atheist]

According to this, people are either atheistic or religious. I wonder if there is something in between.

The "non-theist" breaks down into many sub-groups, not all of which can accurately be described as atheist.

I have no idea on the accuracy of Adherents, but it feels about right - Europe has little god-belief, but the rest of the world is pretty devout.

A good guide only.

[backline]

According to this, people are either atheistic or religious. I wonder if there is something in between.


Welp, in my experience there are some people who observe a distinction between "religious" and "spiritual."

I personally know people who once catagorized themselves as religious, who now object to that and wish to proclaim themselves as spiritual, citing that religion is a set of rules and regulations, but spiritual matters are something else.

For instance, I know a Buddhist Practitioner who has a MA in Psychology. This person does hospice work. To my knowledge he subscribes to no supernatural knowledge, but has a somewhat mystical view of Truth, reality, etc.

I would not call him an atheist, but if the common meaning were closer to "of no particular theology," instead of the commonly accepted "non-believer in theism," I might think that's accurate.

Linguistics aside, this might be an example of something other than black or white catagorization.

[librarius_qui]

- or rather, what made you decide to be an Atheist? Was it a book that changed your belief that there is a God? And last question, what is your personal defenition of Atheism?

Quote:

Atheism is traditionally defined as disbelief in the existence of God. As such, atheism involves active rejection of belief in the existence of God. This definition does not capture the atheism of many atheists, which is based on an indifference to the issue of God's existence. There is a difference between disbelief in all gods and no belief in God. I'm not sure there is even any meaning to the former. Before one can disbelieve in something, that something must be intelligible and it must be understood. Since belief in new gods may appear in the future and it is impossible to know what will be meant by reference to those gods, it makes no sense to say one disbelieves in all gods. Likewise, some conceptions of God are so confusing as to be little more than gibberish. How can one disbelieve in the "ineffable ground of all being"? The expression has no meaning for me and I suspect that those who claim it is meaningful to them don't know what they're talking about.

However, since there are many concepts of god(s) and these concepts are usually rooted in some culture or tradition, atheism might be defined as the belief that a particular word used to refer to a particular god is a word that has no reference. Thus, there are as many different kinds of atheism as there are names of gods or groups of gods.

Some atheists may know of many gods and reject belief in the existence of all of them. Such a person might be called a polyatheist. All theists are atheists in the sense that they deny the existence of all other gods except theirs, but they don't consider themselves atheists. Most people today who consider themselves atheists probably mean that they do not believe in the existence of the local god. For example, most people who call themselves atheists in a culture where the Judeo-Christian or Islamic God (JCoIG or Jaycolgee) dominates would mean, at the very least, that they do not believe that there is an Omnipotent and Omniscient Providential Personal Creator of the universe. And, people who believe in the JCoIG would consider such disbelief tantamount to atheism.

This defenition I found here (http://skepdic.com/atheism.html) :




What are your thoughts on the quote above?


I was an atheist, once.

My atheism consisted in denying the being of a general god ("demiurge", one might try to name it ...).

I was raised as an atheist. My parents taught me atheism. (Not theoretically, but through their way of life.)

Their atheism used to be denial of their Catholic childhood religion.

I was inclining to agnosticism, when I stumbled on a god.

Atheism, as I understand, is denying the existence of a spiritual part of life. I understood everything as human aspects and creations, under a completely accidentally being world. It made perfect sense to me, and it does, in a way (for there is and there will be no proof of the being of a god or gods, that cannot be interpreted as a human literary and, or artistic creation).

As I began to grow up, and think about things around me, I turned to the thought that, as well as I could not prove that there was a god or gods, I couldn't either prove that there is none.

SOMETHING ELSE

The quote makes reference to people who believe in different gods, and deny the being of others (are atheists to other gods). It's an efficient argument, but it's only an argumentative stand. A religious person will not admit himself an atheist to other gods, if he has at least a bit of self criticism.

Faith is faith. The meaning of it is variable. Maybe "ineffable ground of all being" has no meaning to you, as a definition of (a) god, as well as it has no meaning to me, because my definition of a god is different than this, but this definition has meaning to whomever takes it seriously as a definition. We are different from each other. I can't despise another person's god, or how he defines him/it.

MY THOUGHT

It was a book that changed my concept of god. I stumbled on a book, and it happened to be a god.

I used to treat this matter as something "out of my vocabulary". Now, I don't deny that, if I open the dictionary, I'll find a word "god". I believe in a particular god.

All words in the dictionary are part of humanity, and we can deny none of them. Actually, we can, but it's a decision of each of us. I prefer not to. It's me, right? Anyway, I use a lot the dictionary, I am a graduated Classicist, and hope to become a philologist, some day ... So, I'm the kind of guy who makes dictionaries ... What would be of me if I started to choose words to be or not to be in a general dictionary? ...

god
religion
atheism
rite
sacred
heaven
hell
devil
goblin
elf
vacuum
space
moon
priesthood
sin
sacrifice
work
art
way
mountain
water
fire
breath
word
book
bird
music
light
night
home
past
future
world
imagination
pencil
hadkerchief
brush
honey
bitterness
behemoth
vegetable
food
saturday
astronomy
west
ocean
boat
lamp
storm
roof
lion
wood
statue
chess
life
death
dream
mare
run
walk
rest
peace

war

paganism

change

wind


computer


number


letter


write


read



travel



meet




friend





miss





you






her







and







a








day










will












come














stop

















:bawling:

[curlyqlink]

Atheism is traditionally defined as disbelief in the existence of God. As such, atheism involves active rejection of belief in the existence of God. This definition does not capture the atheism of many atheists, which is based on an indifference to the issue of God's existence.
I don't believe there is any real distinction here. It seems quite possible to be indifferent about something that one does not consider to be real. I also don't quite understand this business of "active rejection". Do I "actively reject" the existence of UFOs, or leprechauns, or Bigfoot? Or am I simply indifferent? To-ma-toe, To-mah-toe.


There is a difference between disbelief in all gods and no belief in God.
Not really, no.


I'm not sure there is even any meaning to the former. Before one can disbelieve in something, that something must be intelligible and it must be understood.
This seems to me a clever rhetorical device intended to prove that it's impossible to disbelieve in something unless one actually believes in it first. Clever nonsense, in other words. It attempts to confuse understanding with belief, two related but far from identical concepts.



Since belief in new gods may appear in the future and it is impossible to know what will be meant by reference to those gods, it makes no sense to say one disbelieves in all gods. Likewise, some conceptions of God are so confusing as to be little more than gibberish.

Referring back to UFOs and leprechauns clears this right up. I have no problem disbelieving in leprechauns, even though there are (I suppose) many varieties of leprechauns and I am not familiar with them all. There may even be whole families of leprechauns yet to be dreamed up-- I don't believe in them either.

Gibberish, indeed.

[backline]

...There may even be whole families of leprechauns yet to be dreamed up-- I don't believe in them either...



Ow.:bawling:
Don't hold back now.










.







.





:D

[Auriga]

I was an atheist, once.

My atheism consisted in denying the being of a general god ("demiurge", one might try to name it ...).

I was raised as an atheist. My parents taught me atheism. (Not theoretically, but through their way of life.)

Their atheism used to be denial of their Catholic childhood religion.

I was inclining to agnosticism, when I stumbled on a god.


I think this is the problem I have with most theistic arguments for the conversion towards a particular faith, or belief in god. They 'stumbled' onto god, or god revealed himself to them. How is that possible? How did you stumble onto god? Did he personally come to you and tell you that he was real, the creator of the universe who implemented a series of basic moral sanctions that you must follow as a way to live your life virtuously? I'm not trying to be degrading to your faith, but I'm just not entirely convinced that you know yourself what it means to stumble upon god. And if that's the case, then how can one in your situation truly go from an 'atheistic' upbringing towards a religious, or, dare I say, spiritual revelation. Also, you mention you were inclining towards agnosticism as well. What does that quite mean? A friend of mine has rightly pointed out that people who claim that they are not quite atheists, or theists, but that they are inclined towards agnosticism really don't quite understand the word. You were inclined to not knowing if you knew anything?

Again, I'm not attempting to degrade your 'spritiual' beliefs, I'm simply attempting to have you clarify these sort of vague impressions of religion that you're giving.

On a side note, in reference to a post on the first page of this incredibly long thread which has, apparantly, made it to nearly 3 years running, about:


"I know of no phenomenon that lacks a scientific explanation,"

What is the scientific explanation for love, or sorrow, or regret, or ...?.

This is often espoused as an argument against the disbelief in god, as if to say that god is the source of our notions of love, sorrow, regret; essentially suggesting that god is the source of all emotions.

Well, this link, I believe, is a pretty interesting scientific explanation regarding the biological and evolutionary nature of our understanding of love.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-ewvCNguug

[Virgil]

I think this is the problem I have with most theistic arguments for the conversion towards a particular faith, or belief in god. They 'stumbled' onto god, or god revealed himself to them. How is that possible? How did you stumble onto god? Did he personally come to you and tell you that he was real, the creator of the universe who implemented a series of basic moral sanctions that you must follow as a way to live your life virtuously?

It's quite possible, no quite evident, that you don't know what it means to stumble into belief. It's quite possible that people suddenly see God in every living thing, in every moving part, in every inanimate thing, in every molecule and sub atomic subsetance, in every biological and physical function. If you don't, then why do you deny what other people see?

[The Atheist]

It's quite possible that people suddenly see God in every living thing, in every moving part, in every inanimate thing, in every molecule and sub atomic subsetance, in every biological and physical function.

I think anyone who thinks they see a god in everything is actually a candidate for a jacket with ties at the back. That's religious mania, not religion.

[Virgil]

I think anyone who thinks they see a god in everything is actually a candidate for a jacket with ties at the back. That's religious mania, not religion.

Well, then I need a straight jacket. ;)

[Auriga]

It's quite possible, no quite evident, that you don't know what it means to stumble into belief. It's quite possible that people suddenly see God in every living thing, in every moving part, in every inanimate thing, in every molecule and sub atomic subsetance, in every biological and physical function. If you don't, then why do you deny what other people see?

Well that's just the thing. How do you see God, an otherwise inanimate force, in physical things? Not to mention sub atomic substance.. what does that even mean? You can't see the sub atomic by definition. And in any case, I don't deny that people 'see' god in these physical and biological functions. What I'm saying is that people WANT to see god in every day life, so they do. They ignore the scientific explanations and claim gods will. Or worse, they claim the scientific explanations themselves are gods will. At what point do we say to ourselves, isn't it good enough to understand how the universe works without wondering if there was some higher being out there who created it all for us and will guide us through it? I find that personally insulting to my own intelligence. I don't need some guy who's universally transcendental making decisions about my everyday life for me, not to mention he has complete control over my eternal 'soul' once I die.

[NickAdams]

I don't believe in a deity and saying I'm an atheist is a very simple way to express that, but I don't like the connotations. I suggest that my existence is based on the opposition of an established order. Like, and this is only an example which is familiar to most, evil exist only because good does. It can also suggest that I have an anger against theism and want to declare my stance against it. I don't wake up and tell my self there is no God. Being and "atheist" means that God has no relevance in my life, so defining myself as not believing in a deity would defeat the purpose.

The Atheist: I have to agree with Virgil, but not because I see God in everything but because I see art in everything. It's like a new romance in which you see that person in everything. Whatever you cherish in life finds itself in everything.

[Guinivere]

Well, then I need a straight jacket. ;)

Me too. Maybe we'll get a reduction if we buy them in pairs.

[Virgil]

Well that's just the thing. How do you see God, an otherwise inanimate force, in physical things? Not to mention sub atomic substance.. what does that even mean? You can't see the sub atomic by definition. And in any case, I don't deny that people 'see' god in these physical and biological functions.

Oh stop being coy Auriga, you know exactly what I mean. If you don't believe in any form of theism, that's fine. I understand. But don't play this game that you don't know what I mean.


They ignore the scientific explanations and claim gods will.
I don't know anything about you, but I'm willing to bet that between me or you one of us has a science degree at a college level. I know i do. I'm also willing to bet that one of us actually makes their living in science (I happen to be a mechanical engineer), dealing with physics every day and I bet it's me. If all you understand about theism is God's will, then you don't know anything about theism. Perhaps you should educate yourself like I have with science.

[NickAdams]

I can't say I agree with religion, but I'm definitely against people who denounce religion only to worship another social institution (i.e. political parties, government, etc.). We must also avoid judging a doctrine on those we perceive as their representatives. There are many who have perverted our perception of certain religions, but we shouldn't let their deviations define the doctrine. Even a non-believer like myself can enjoy the a good religious doctrine. They contain great tales and a lot of times very poetically and whether you believe in the deity or not, they still contain moral questions that should be pondered. Do we denounce Plato, or Socrates, because of their monotheistic belief? We can read them as philosophy and parable, so why not the Bible or the Bhagavad Gita? This is why I would rather not define myself as an athiest because it's "representatives" have come across as anti-belief and not non-belief.


I don't know anything about you, but I'm willing to bet that between me or you one of us has a science degree at a college level. I know i do. I'm also willing to bet that one of us actually makes their living in science (I happen to be a mechanical engineer), dealing with physics every day and I bet it's me. If all you understand about theism is God's will, then you don't know anything about theism. Perhaps you should educate yourself like I have with science.

Burn!:lol:

[Dr. Hill]

Having a degree in Physics doesn't exempt your beliefs from being ludicrous, Virgil. Plenty of great scientists have been theists, and plenty of them atheists. I still think the theists were incorrect and delusional in their beliefs, whether they were great thinkers otherwise or not.

[Virgil]

Having a degree in Physics doesn't exempt your beliefs from being ludicrous, Virgil. Plenty of great scientists have been theists, and plenty of them atheists. I still think the theists were incorrect and delusional in their beliefs, whether they were great thinkers otherwise or not.

I understand that. All I was commenting on was Auriga's reference that people should learn science and they would drop their beliefs.

[NickAdams]

I still think the theists were incorrect and delusional in their beliefs, whether they were great thinkers otherwise or not.

Everyone has at least one delusional belief. Who is exempt?

[Dr. Hill]

No one. That was my point. I have delusions as well, I just don't credit them to anything but my feeble mind. I didn't mean to attack anyone directly, just thought Virgil was using his science degree to negate anything being said about his beliefs.

[Virgil]

I didn't mean to attack anyone directly, just

I think you're doing a pretty good job of attacking people in a number of places. Give people the respect they are due. I don't see theists here insulting atheists, but I see it fairly regularly the other way. You have to realize, you're not going to convince anyone and no one is going to convince you.

[Dr. Hill]

I don't think I've attacked anyone. I can state my opinions, and they can then state theirs.

[Jozanny]

Since biology has not quite yet broken the coda of age killing most mammals off at a certain point, most of us are still going to die, at least those of us over 40. Death is a universal experience none of us can say anything about, to prove who is right or who is wrong, be it Christian, Jew, Muslim, three groups who essentially believe in one god but are highly intolerant of each other's coda, or eastern in faith, and eastern is, in a word, different, more polytheistic, and integrated to natural order, and honestly, I am bored by it, even though I tend to believe that the rise of atheistic advocacy in the West is essentially a progressive fight.

My mother wasn't a good Catholic, far from it, she was a troubled woman whose parents never got her adequate mental health services, which in turn spilled off on her children, who have their own issues. If my Catholic god really exists, he already put me in hell on earth, so I have no use for him or his hell in the hereafter. If he isn't Catholic, but Allah, or Hebrew, well, opps, I was born in the Roman Church; if he is none of these, well, why play games with humanity?

And if he isn't anything at all, these arguments are moot. I will sort of agree with Nick that the politic of studying religious traditions can be interesting, but for the most part members here don't really do that. We are merely advocates, and since we merely advocate, I fail to see the point--that is why I am increasingly inactive in Religious Texts.

Which is sometimes interchangeable with the equally weak Philosophical Literature... :) My boo boo.

[Auriga]

I understand that. All I was commenting on was Auriga's reference that people should learn science and they would drop their beliefs.

Though I like how you conveniently took my quote out of context and disregarded the following sentence which suggestes that, for those theists who make their living in science, and there are a substantial number, many of them simply chalk their scientific ideologies to being another extension of God's infinite plan. But I guess if we're going to resort to judging the validity of people's arguments based on their educational degrees, then what's the point of talking about religion, when most of us here don't have degrees in that field? Atheist scientists should just stop questioning the dogmas religion has set up over the thousands of years because they didn't go to school in theology? Because I'm working on a degree in English literature I shouldn't discuss what (little) science and theology I know? Please, give me a break. Somebody else in thsi thread said religious people deserve to be put in straight jackets, and nobody called him on it. I say religious people are selectively delusional and you try to tear me apart. A little consistency would be nice.

[librarius_qui]

I think this is the problem I have with most theistic arguments for the conversion towards a particular faith, or belief in god. They 'stumbled' onto god, or god revealed himself to them. How is that possible? How did you stumble onto god?

It's like (exactly like) to stumble onto E=mc2. Why do you trust that E=mc2?
(Do you?)
Anyway, until anyone presents you anything more eficient, you will believe that E=mc2.

To stumble onto a god means that something unexpected happened, and it simply happened, and it was accidental (to me) like stubling onto a stone. Faith is very related to accident, in a way.



Did he personally come to you and tell you that he was real, the creator of the universe who implemented a series of basic moral sanctions that you must follow as a way to live your life virtuously?

Wow! ... lots of questions in one ... let me try to do anything with it! :crash:

"Did he personally come to you and tell you that he was real?" Person is a very significant word for my undertanding of the god I stumbled onto. A relationship with a god is started by the god, not necessarily by a man. With me, it was entirely by the god, because I wasn't searching a got AT ALL. As I said, I was an atheist by bringing up, and was becoming an agnostic. (I'll talk about agnosticism below.)

"[Did he personally come to you and tell you that he was] the creator of the universe?" No, he simply presented, saying, "hello! there is a god!". This talk of creation is after you think about many other things. But he's, above all (the god I came around with) very humble. He didn't say "hello, I created the universe!". He said, "hello, ye know those things you were thinking about? ... Here they are: like this, this and this". It had nothing to do with explaination of the universe. It had to do with explaination and knowledge of myself, intimately. He simply knows me! He knew ev'rything about me! A bit scary, ye know? But, what to do?: undeniably true. I can do nothing, nor guarantee it may happen with everyone. Or with you. It happened with me. Full stop ~

"[Did he personally come to you and tell you that] it was he] who implemented a series of basic moral sanctions that you must follow as a way to live your life virtuously?"

No. And yes. It's a crazy thing. But my primary thought was to say that no (absolutely no!) because of the word you used: "must". He doesn't say anyone "must follow" what he says. He says some similar things, but not at all this way. Because he's humble, I think.



Also, you mention you were inclining towards agnosticism as well. What does that quite mean? A friend of mine has rightly pointed out that people who claim that they are not quite atheists, or theists, but that they are inclined towards agnosticism really don't quite understand the word. You were inclined to not knowing if you knew anything?

Agnosticism is the denial of gnosticism. gnosticism is the doctrine (speaking in very rough words ...) which teaches that god can be known through secret ways, and iniciation in rites. Agnosticism is a kind of a doctrine that says that god, if he ever exists, cannot be known, or reached, and doesn't care about reaching anyone (or making anyone stumble onto him ... :D )



I'm not trying to be degrading to your faith, but I'm just not entirely convinced that you know yourself what it means to stumble upon god. (...)

Again, I'm not attempting to degrade your 'spritiual' beliefs, I'm simply attempting to have you clarify these sort of vague impressions of religion that you're giving.



Nothing can convince you. It's a matter of respecting. If you respect that some people simply stumbled pon a god, it's something of their lives, and experiences with ... the universe! Respect it. That's all. A god rarely shows himself to those who search too much for him, because the search is usually too scientific and, or methodic. There's no method to stumble onto a stone. It's accident! It happens! and we usually avoid it!, but it happens, if it has to happen! If it didn't ever happen with you, hey! maybe you're lucky!

These impressions I'm giving aren't vague ... but to you. And to whomever never stumbled in their lives ... When you stumble, you fall, and you get hurt. When it hurts, you don't forget.

You tell twice you aren't trying to "degrate" a man's faith ... I see that you truly make such effort! So, mate, you're making it right. Never mind! don't worry! Stop searching! If you walk looking to the ground all the time, you never get sight of the sky, the blue above, or the stars! Walk looking upwards! It doesn't mean you'll stumble, but it'll certainly be a more pleasant walk! ~


:crash:

[Auriga]

It had nothing to do with explaination of the universe. It had to do with explaination and knowledge of myself, intimately. He simply knows me! He knew ev'rything about me! A bit scary, ye know? But, what to do?: undeniably true. I can do nothing, nor guarantee it may happen with everyone. Or with you. It happened with me. Full stop ~

My reasoning for this is that, while you may believe it's god, have you ever wondered maybe it's just your subconscious telling you something about yourself, becasue, well.. you know.. it's your subconscious? It just seems like a more plausible to me to believe that you had a personal epiphony about your own existence which was independent of a supernatural being. If this god that you stumbled on didn't reveal any knowledge about the universe, its purpose, how it got created, why we are here, where we go when we die, but only revealed to you things about yourself that you would presumably, if you are any bit as sane as you sound from your posts, know about yourself readily, then why automatically make the jump to assuming it's god?

My problem isn't necessarily with the belief or faith in god. It's the acceptance of this faith based on little to no evidence. I believe in E=MC2 because there is enough evidence to suggest its validity. Same thing with, say... Gravity. Or Earth revolving around the sun.

[The Atheist]

Well, then I need a straight jacket. ;)

Wouldn't that rather negate the "free will" concept, which is pretty important to all of christian theology?

And just one nit-pick from later on in your posts - while I agree that engineers use physics, they are not generally considered to "work in science".

Evidence. (http://www.google.co.nz/search?hl=en&q=difference+between+engineers+scientists&btnG=Google+Search&meta=)

[Jozanny]

I say religious people are selectively delusional and you try to tear me apart. A little consistency would be nice.

One quibble Auriga. I think we have to be careful with terms like "selectively delusional". People assert that the divine speaks to them or through them all the time, and their faith is formed on this emotive basis. I am not sure how different this is than the intensity of my own feelings, which include anxiety, pain, suffering, fear, as well as the more positive aspirational, which is why I was once a noted poet, and even now, a still forceful writer when I am not shredding myself to pieces.:p

I simply don't trust any feeling as evidence as something beyond the three dimentional space I inhabit. Others do--but this in itself is not evidence of delusion which needs to be corrected. Normal as a state doesn't have a definitive existence either. How well adjusted anyone is matters in degree, not in absolutes.

[Virgil]

Wouldn't that rather negate the "free will" concept, which is pretty important to all of christian theology?

No not at all.


And just one nit-pick from later on in your posts - while I agree that engineers use physics, they are not generally considered to "work in science".
According to who? We hire scientists to work along with us. We have a mix of both on a given team, if it so warrants. I guess it may depend on the type of engineering one does.

[librarius_qui]

A friend wrote:

"Dear friend;

"Good job. My only "disagreement" with you is your statement,


" 'A god rarely shows himself to those who search too much for him, because the search is usually too scientific and, or methodic. There's no method to stumble onto a stone. It's accident!'


"The Bible encourages people to search for God and a search which begins an an intellectual one is not necessarily a bad angle to approach knowledge of God. It is not just an accident or luck, but a heart searching for God which finds him. Acts 17:24-28 and Jeremiah 29:10-15 suggest that God is found by those whom God calls, but also those who search for him.

"Keep up the good work.

"Your friend"



:crash:

[Tecumseh]

Atheism, for me, is a lack of beliefs. They don't want to have faith put into something that might not be there.

I'm not an atheist, but I'm not religous either. I suppose 'agnostic' would be closest to what I am. At this time I'm leaning more torwards atheism, though.

[Mr. Vandemar]

Atheism is not the lack of belief. Atheism is the belief that there are no gods, and has slowly morphed into this widely accepted scientific method of thinking that we experience (at least in North America).

What you are thinking of is closer to nihilism than to atheism...

[billyjack]

lets call a spade a spade. atheism is an offshoot of christianity. rather than defining itself by the bible, it defines itself as in opposition to the bible.

similar to a colony, say the americas, pretending that its something completely different than its previous ruler (britain). its not. both countries have more in common than in difference. so goes with christianity and atheism. their structure is the same. one holds god holy, the other "truth."

[The Atheist]

Atheism is not the lack of belief. Atheism is the belief that there are no gods, ...

Sorry, but you're quite wrong - we've been over this many times now.

"I do not believe in god/s" = atheist.

Simple as that.

[Mr. Vandemar]

Atheism is the belief that there are no gods


"I do not believe in god/s" = atheist.

It seems to me that you are repeating exactly what I said. Maybe you should "go over it" again.

[The Atheist]

It seems to me that you are repeating exactly what I said. Maybe you should "go over it" again.

No, the two are subtly different.

[JacobF]

There was never one particular moment in my life that marked the "awakening" I had. My subscription to atheism was a gradual one. I was raised to have theistic beliefs: my family would go to Church every Sunday, pray every night, et cetera. These rituals never meant much to me, though. As I got older I began to realize that I didn't need the idea of God, nor religion, to live my life. The whole concept of a celestial body watching over our every action seemed silly to me, and I then transitioned from a state of indifference to a state of full rejection.

I no longer go to Church. I feel that we can find spirituality and guidance within ourselves, not from a vengeful, but at the same time loving, God. The same follow-the-leader mentality that governed the cavemen is the only thing that legitimizes the idea of a God and religion as a mainstream system of belief. That's not to say religion is completely useless. We can still take a little something from Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, et cetera. But it's the complete devotion to these religions that is, in my opinion, deplorable.

But anyways, I'm getting a bit off topic. I guess I hate the idea of religion more than I do of God.

[NikolaiI]

There was never one particular moment in my life that marked the "awakening" I had. My subscription to atheism was a gradual one. I was raised to have theistic beliefs: my family would go to Church every Sunday, pray every night, et cetera. These rituals never meant much to me, though. As I got older I began to realize that I didn't need the idea of God, nor religion, to live my life. The whole concept of a celestial body watching over our every action seemed silly to me, and I then transitioned from a state of indifference to a state of full rejection.

I no longer go to Church. I feel that we can find spirituality and guidance within ourselves, not from a vengeful, but at the same time loving, God. The same follow-the-leader mentality that governed the cavemen is the only thing that legitimizes the idea of a God and religion as a mainstream system of belief. That's not to say religion is completely useless. We can still take a little something from Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, et cetera. But it's the complete devotion to these religions that is, in my opinion, deplorable.

But anyways, I'm getting a bit off topic. I guess I hate the idea of religion more than I do of God.

Well for some loving God and loving creation must go hand in hand, and there is no difference. You can't have one without the other.

I was an atheist until a few years ago. I don't think any one way is absolutely better than others. I don't flip flop like some people though, and if I say I believe in God then I really mean I do. I was confident as an atheist and I'm confident as a believer. Though I don't think either is absolutely right over the other, currently I am a believer. I don't care if that word has negative connotations to others, because it has no negative connotations for me. Religion is corrupted by humans but human religions basically aren't religions. 99% of it is not. If you are slaughtering animals you cannot come to God.

[Mr. Vandemar]

The difference would be that you are referring to a believer and I am referring to the belief itself.

[andrew23]

#Why Do You Believe in Atheism?

#who cares what i believe. my answer to that question will be insignificant, unlike if an entire country full of atheists had this survey, now that would be different and worth wasting time.

#but then again, we are here upon the dark caves of internet, it's like some sort of hiding place for bored people around the world.

#so then, let me answer the question despite the insignificance of my answer.

What exactly does it mean, to "believe"?
If we say it is to "assume something to be true",
Then yes, I believe in Atheism. And Atheism holds that God does not exist. Therefore I assume that God does not exist."

Why believe in God?
Different people have believed in different Gods since ancient times up to the present. Various religions were created. Most of those religions were based on books. These books, including the funny/creepy stories in it which I'm not really fond of, despite the charade they bring to the world, are priceless..

Why?

THE PROS:
Apparently, religion is efficient and effective enough to aid human survival.
1. Most religion have laws that force people to be good. And if people are good and kind to each other, survival will happen.
2. It unifies people. (Although not everyone around the world)
3. It gives purpose to many people, and adds meaning and color to their
lives.

THE CONS:
1. There are many religions, some contradicting each other ending in debates, flying salivas, or worst..blood bath.

2. Many people do not completely abide the laws of their religion. And to compensate for the weakness of religion, countries now have their so called "government". Again, laws were invented to supplement the weakening force of religion. Yet, criminal rate is still troubling, and will be still unless we modify our current policies to a somewhat harsher figure. e.g. a world without privacy (cameras everywhere, even in the bathroom), a world in total control. Utopia starts with knowledge, knowledge starts dramatically near the end of religion, then politics and technology will pave the way to Utopia. Then after stability in earth, maybe we can evolve our civilization to the next level. (****! Sci-fi is closer than before. The spaceship and all that. Haha)
*But alas, I'm not really good at predicting things. haha, but anyway, good luck to mankind haha :D