Atheists....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

Criticism from intelligent, well-spoken, mature critics who thoughtfully consider their opponent's position and question the argument (rather than attack the arguer) with the intention of learning something are welcomed. Diatribes by out-of-control posters with negligible debating skills who attempt to insult, trivialize or mock the position of an opponent with condescension and patronizing attitudes are not; such "arguers" and "arguments" are unworthy of response because they seek not to understand but simply to annihilate.

---

And, again, that's just your personal reaction, your opinion, and your "interpretation". I think the problem is that you have no argument, you just have some serious major prejudices that make you happy and you sincerely believe that if others would just join you in your beliefs, then they could be happy just like you. I see that as just wrong-headed - and provably wrong-headed. That's my opinion - which I can back up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JGL57

And, again, that's just your personal reaction, your opinion, and your "interpretation". I think the problem is that you have no argument, you just have some serious major prejudices that make you happy and you sincerely believe that if others would just join you in your beliefs, then they could be happy just like you. I see that as just wrong-headed - and provably wrong-headed. That's my opinion - which I can back up.

---

Thanks for the diagnosis, Dr. Freud. The only person who really has no argument is the person who professes to know the content of someone else's heart and mind - which is precisely what you claim. You know neither, and your claim that you do is beyond absurd.

Mod note to all:

Please stop with the

'my faith/dogma/catma/religion/belief/argument/phrenology/philosophy/opinion/shoe-size/facts/proof etc etc is/are better/superior to/than yours' posts.

Stick to the topic and do not discuss each other or resort to hyperbole, ad hominem, or inflammatory posts, or Religious Texts forum time-outs will be issued.

Oh, boy...Lets stay outta trouble now...:(

OK, I'll play nice.:D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adelheid

Now, I'm NOT an atheist, but I've always wondered what exactly an atheist thinks or believes (now there's a contradiction if you've ever seen one!...Now what exactly does an atheist believe?? What is the definition you would give to describe an atheist?...

---

So, back to the OP:

The word atheist, like the word asatanist, is not a very informative word, intrinsically. One is stating what one does not believe (in), not what one does think is true. One does not believe in Satan - or a god - so now what? What does one positively believe about the nature of reality?

Technically, there can be as many personal philosophies as there are atheists. However, the word atheist is used by many as a synonym for one who assumes a naturalist, materialist, or rationalist world view. It has come to mean, then, looking at the negative side, that an atheist does not believe in the reality of so-called supernatural or paranormal claims. E.g., an atheist is generally not thought of *** someone who could be a deist, a pantheist, a believer in astrology, homeopathy, or believe in the reality of any entity, force, power,or "energy" or what have you that cannot be understood in scientific rationalist terminology.

This would describe me, for instance. However, it has come to my attention over the last 30 years (the time I have considered myself an atheist) that atheists can indeed believe in various crazy and/or unhealthy ideas. E.g., Marxism, Ayn Rand Objectavism, nihilism, escapist hedonism, anarchism, etc. Also, I have met atheists who were narcissistic - in the clinical sense of the word.

So, my view now is that being an atheist is a healthy start, but a person may still have a long way to go. Putting aside the socialist politics, which is a huge can of worms, I think the Humanist Manifesto II is a good philosophy of life. Albert Einstein, although thought to be a "mystic" by many, qualifies enough as an atheist for me to see him as a fellow atheist - certainly he was a non-theist. Einstein articulated a great many good precepts that could form the basis of a decent and rational lifestyle.

Which brings me to two final considerations - agnosticism and Buddhism.

This can be argued endlessly by those who wish to split hairs, but an agnostic is certainly not a believer in things that go bump in the night. The word was invented by Huxley to mean a person who does not claim certainty but who still rejects unsubstantiated claims, with the burden forever being on those making such unsubstantiated claims (e.g., Huxley rejected all second-hand revelations as being unsubstantiated).

So agnostic = non-absolutist atheist in my view (agnostics, if you wish to argue this start another thread rather than hijack this one - thanks).

Thus, agnostics such as Ingersoll, Russell, Huxley, Sagan, and many others have articulated a view of life that is rational, ethically uplifting, meaningful, productive of happiness and contentment, and all the other wonderful things in life that I could mention. Such people have articulated "something to believe in" that seems adequate to me and, really, the best we can do. So-called religious "faith" seems to work quite well for some - not so well for others. But that is someone else's ball game.

Now, to Buddhism - many westerners (Occidentals) have articulated a Buddhism that is agnostic in nature and is completely understandable, pragmatic, and morally uplifting. Esoteric Buddhism, not to mention Taoism and Hinduism, are non-supernaturalist in nature, and all can be informative to a sane, rational, moral, and happy life (really, reincarnation and karma belief are optional).

So, in a nutshell, atheists are radical individualists for the most part. They can disagree on the best positive philosophy in many ways. So, grouping them together and putting them in a box and thinking you now understand them, makes about as much sense and is as useful as grouping together things that are purple i.e., the commonality is overwhelmed by the variables.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kilted exile

That is pretty close to the point I was attempting to make, but it also included my belief that the divine law protestation only works with people who believe in that divine law/religion

---

I pretty much agree here, except I would add that it also "works" with people who are willing to change their beliefs to those of that religion.

One thing I was trying to point out was that, to someone who believes in that particular religion, this is all that is necessary. He has enough logical structure to prove to himself that he is right, and to prove to his fellow believers that he is right. Since he really believes that his religion is true, he doesn't need to be bothered by the fact that others reject it (he simply concludes that they are wrong).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

2. "One science"? "Science" is a broad category under which numerous sub-headings exist (do I really have to explain this?). Science consists of many branches - some more reliable than others.

Either way, your comparison is illogical and proves nothing.

---

Sorry, been out a while, don't mean to dredge up old stuff, just wanted to say this: the various sciences, unlike some (note the "some") religious denominations, do not contradict or differ from one another. A biologist doesn't believe an apple will fall up simply because he's not a physicist.

Of course, most denominations of numerous religions are in the same way capable of coexisting, but I just wanted to point out that the distinction between the sub-headings of science is more like the distinction between lawyers rather than the one between religious sects.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Neo_Sephiroth

Oh, boy...Lets stay outta trouble now...:(

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

OK, I'll play nice.:D

---

Thanks you guys :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RobinHood3000

Sorry, been out a while, don't mean to dredge up old stuff, just wanted to say this: the various sciences, unlike some (note the "some") religious denominations, do not contradict or differ from one another. A biologist doesn't believe an apple will fall up simply because he's not a physicist.

Of course, most denominations of numerous religions are in the same way capable of coexisting, but I just wanted to point out that the distinction between the sub-headings of science is more like the distinction between lawyers rather than the one between religious sects.

---

You are quite correct: religious systems are mutually exclusive because they all claim to have the truth. Scientific subdivisions complement each other - I get that. But, I think some of the branches of science may be easier to validate factually and provide evidence for than others (which must, by necessity, be more theoretical) - which was the point I was trying to make (but obviously not very clearly).

Good to see you back, Robin. I'd noticed your absence on the forums :)

Agered, and nice to know i was missed. :) How've you been, Red? Still haven't figured out how to put coffee in the microwave, eh?

I'm an atheist.

I believe in reincarnation. I believe in fate. And I even believe in the paranormal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dorian Gray

I'm an atheist.

I believe in reincarnation. I believe in fate. And I even believe in the paranormal.

---

Thanks, my friend, for proving my point. Atheism actually referred to non-belief in theism - nothing more, nothing less. The word has come to mean a lot more because of all the historical baggage, but I think we should just stick to the etymological definition to avoid confusion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RobinHood3000

Agered, and nice to know i was missed. :) How've you been, Red? Still haven't figured out how to put coffee in the microwave, eh?

---

The Sad Cafe does not use microwaves - it's harder to appear tragic and tortured ("in the middle of the tall drinks and the drama") if your coffee is hot and piping.

It'd be even sadder if it was decaf. :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RobinHood3000

It'd be even sadder if it was decaf. :p

---

Right - it's the Sad Cafe - not the Catastrophic Cafe.

Hmmm...perhaps you and I ought to get on to some sort of debating...but I'm tired (cold coffee doesn't have much "zip" in it - caffinated or not).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wintermute

Hi Lector,

What about a spontaneous divine creator? At some point, say a gazillion years ago, wouldn't the divine creator need to ... come into existance? I guess I dont see a difference.

---

I guess the differance would be that it seems to be impossible within the natural order of things for there to be an infinite regress of causality, there had to be something that had no cause to get tha ball rolling as it were. However, since the natural order of the universe we inhabit does not allow for something to happen without any cause than isn't it rational, at this point, to look at the possibily of something (or someone) opperating outside of the natural order of things? An infinite God

But a question I often hear after a statement like this is "who created God?" and although this seems to be a valid question, it is, in fatc, catagorically invalid. God is infinte, to ask for His beggining assumes that He had a beggining which is false; it is like asking how much red weighs. A color has no weight as much as an infinite being has no begining.

The Buddhists don't believe in a creator god. Hindus believe all is god.

Does anyone here accuse either or both of these traditions of being "illogical"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lector

But a question I often hear after a statement like this is "who created God?" and although this seems to be a valid question, it is, in fatc, catagorically invalid. God is infinte, to ask for His beggining assumes that He had a beggining which is false; it is like asking how much red weighs. A color has no weight as much as an infinite being has no begining.

---

Then, of course, you run into the question of, "If something can be infinite and therefore requires no beginning, what's wrong with making the universe infinite?"

Rather thorny, no?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RobinHood3000

Then, of course, you run into the question of, "If something can be infinite and therefore requires no beginning, what's wrong with making the universe infinite?"

Rather thorny, no?

---

Right...because the universe is infinitely expanding outwards, but from an origin point, well atleast a theory.

A very difficult question.

You also run into the even more 'thorny' question, in my opinion, of what was it doing for infinity? The current estimate for the age of the universe is around 13 billion years as I recall. That's not even a drop in an ocean compared to infinity. Was it just 'sitting' there in a void for infinity, then about 13 billion years ago had the idea to create a universe? It seems like the previous infinity would have been terribly boring.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wintermute

You also run into the even more 'thorny' question, in my opinion, of what was it doing for infinity? The current estimate for the age of the universe is around 13 billion years as I recall. That's not even a drop in an ocean compared to infinity. Was it just 'sitting' there in a void for infinity, then about 13 billion years ago had the idea to create a universe? It seems like the previous infinity would have been terribly boring.

---

One theory I've heard about what the Universe wa doing previously was that it's cyclical. By that I mean, the Universe will continue to expand until it collapses on itself into a singular point. After a time, a Big Bang and the process begins anew. However, that still doesn;t answer the question of infinity. God or no God, the whole concept is baffling. You think, there must have been a starting point, but if there was a starting point, what was before the staring point? This, in my opinion applies to both God and the Universe and neither atheists nor the pious have the market on this quandry cornered.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wintermute

You also run into the even more 'thorny' question, in my opinion, of what was it doing for infinity? The current estimate for the age of the universe is around 13 billion years as I recall. That's not even a drop in an ocean compared to infinity. Was it just 'sitting' there in a void for infinity, then about 13 billion years ago had the idea to create a universe? It seems like the previous infinity would have been terribly boring.

---

Well Infinity cannot be measured, so once something has ended, it can only be infint untill a definite start point has been determined.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by metal134

One theory I've heard about what the Universe wa doing previously was that it's cyclical. By that I mean, the Universe will continue to expand until it collapses on itself into a singular point. After a time, a Big Bang and the process begins anew. However, that still doesn;t answer the question of infinity. God or no God, the whole concept is baffling. You think, there must have been a starting point, but if there was a starting point, what was before the staring point? This, in my opinion applies to both God and the Universe and neither atheists nor the pious have the market on this quandry cornered.

---

kind of budhist for the circular. Have you checked it out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RobinHood3000

Then, of course, you run into the question of, "If something can be infinite and therefore requires no beginning, what's wrong with making the universe infinite?"

Rather thorny, no?

---

I suppose my (ridiculously simple) answer to this would be that the universe contains matter, and matter (at least in our experience) does not have infinite existence. I mean, the universe is a combination of matter and energy, and we know that both of those decay/entropy as time passes, right?

I can't resist.

Ok Matter and energy are inter-changable, yes? E=mC2. Time according to Einstein is also variable... dependent on proximity to C.. I can't remember exactly where Berkley came out on this, perception of time.... anyway.. I think .. and have always thought that you are arguing about two different things. Assuming that God is in fact not SUPERnatural but is in fact all that is natural (I am in he and he is in me) then you are in fact arguing about the mechanics of the problem..... does the car work this way or that way etc. To the extent that whatever you would refer to as the initiating or sustaining force is still inherent within the system. (cold and un-poetic scientific reference) If God is SUPERnatural and therefore outside the system then the natural world as we know it is then a system within a system and the complexity of that notion is well.... difficult. So far there is no F(x) in that domain. You choose and be happy! P.S. you will not find this in Genesis. You may however find it in Psalms. P.S.S. if you understood this would you please explain it to me!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Orionsbelt

I can't resist.

Ok Matter and energy are inter-changable, yes? E=mC2. Time according to Einstein is also variable... dependent on proximity to C.. I can't remember exactly where Berkley came out on this, perception of time.... anyway.. I think .. and have always thought that you are arguing about two different things. Assuming that God is in fact not SUPERnatural but is in fact all that is natural (I am in he and he is in me) then you are in fact arguing about the mechanics of the problem..... does the car work this way or that way etc. To the extent that whatever you would refer to as the initiating or sustaining force is still inherent within the system. (cold and un-poetic scientific reference) If God is SUPERnatural and therefore outside the system then the natural world as we know it is then a system within a system and the complexity of that notion is well.... difficult. So far there is no F(x) in that domain. You choose and be happy! P.S. you will not find this in Genesis. You may however find it in Psalms. P.S.S. if you understood this would you please explain it to me!

---

Holy cow - I don't think I could even begin to try.

I think the Bible contradicts pantheism (God is everything). I do agree though that nature is a system-within-a-system - and that miracles are the invasion of our system from the "outside" by God.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

Holy cow - I don't think I could even begin to try.

I think the Bible contradicts pantheism (God is everything). I do agree though that nature is a system-within-a-system - and that miracles are the invasion of our system from the "outside" by God.

---

The one issue with that is that God is not supposed to be distant but omnipresent, yet not pantheistic...its a bit of a contradiction, but that is my understanding.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stanislaw

The one issue with that is that God is not supposed to be distant but omnipresent, yet not pantheistic...its a bit of a contradiction, but that is my understanding.

---

Right. But I think "present everywhere" can be discriminated from "present in everything." Creation is flawed; it decays, it dies, it is damaged and imperfect. God is none of these things.

Athiests dislike me, we don't get along, they run from our conversations about religion, politics and philosophy and not only because i may be "Tenacious" or an avid christain. When they hear anything remotely close to the truth they shut their eyes and crawl under their bed. They hate anything that deals with creationism but tend to believe science is the answer for all the troubles in the world despite people that believe in science calling people with faith stupid while they blindly fill in science where they can't find the truth. Take the big bang theory for instance, a person can blow up a building an infinate amount of times but its never going to create something, there is too much order in things for there not to be a creator.

For my own peace of mind ive decided to accept Yeshuah and Christianity because ive researched it and found it to be the truth and ive since learned that hot topics like the meaning of hell and denomination debates have their purpose... anyone on here know what the word hell translates to in the hebrew language? It literaly means "seperation from god", that's right, hell isn't the burning lake of fire with countless souls being tortured for eternity, it's a boundary between someone and god, this someone was judged to be w/o faith and repentence.

I know all the questions disbelievers have; Why doesnt god just appear and all evil would end? What makes other religions wrong and christianity correct? How and at which point does ones soul become infused with the body? Why do things i do feel good to me but the bible says there wrong? People like murderers and criminals seem to have their conscience burned away and are unable to distinguish between right and wrong, how can they be held accountable for their crimes? How can a loving god create something like hell? I know there are valid answers to these questions but the simple answer is people need to trust in the character of god and come to realize he knows whats good for us and what isnt, i highly doubt god will judge people unjustly and if people dont truly see his message in the bible those people will be judged by their acts in life.

Athiesm is just a method of contradiction to disprove something that people think is used as a crutch to deal with the worlds and ones own problems. In todays world so many people truly waste their minds because they dont think, they just blindly go along with what the world tells them, they look at politics and religion and say "well i cant do anything about world events and religion so why bother thinking about it?" and they decieve themselves by thinking this, the majority of people that think this way are people living in poverty, they dont vote and they seem not to care so the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. This is a cycle that needs to be broken otherwise society as it is now will not work. I know this sounds like communism and equality, and i know what the nay sayers say, that communism is a good idea but just doesnt work based on their theory that people by default are not equal.

what a mess, i can see why people turn to satanism in a world where hypocrisy is made paramount and paranoia the law, the next 50 years will be interesting, i think it'll be a show down, with the truth or contradiction of religion the prize.

Read a book called:

God
The Failed Hypothesis

it destorys every single on of your arguements. of course every signle person who believes in science cant explain away all your arguements. every single person who believes in science doesnt understand particle physics, or any other kind of physics. they dont have the knowledge to attack your points. but read the book i named to you.

Please remember that the topic of this thread is atheism.

In accordance with the Forum Rules, any off topic posts or posts undermining others' beliefs (however much you disagree with them) will be deleted with or without any further notice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adelheid

Now, I'm NOT an atheist, but I've always wondered what exactly an atheist thinks or believes (now there's a contradiction if you've ever seen one!...athesist and believe might as well see if you have a believer who disbelieves...)

Now what exactly does an atheist believe?? What is the definition you would give to describe an atheist?

I don't know if this is going to a popular thread or not, but I'll give it a try...)

---

Certainly you can get some good information concerning your questions from atheists who would post here in reply.

However, here's a suggestion IF you really want to get into the head of the average atheist: Read Richard Dawkins's book "The God Delusion".

After reading that book, I would suggest you would have no serious questions left concerning what atheism is or isn't, or what atheists "believe" or don't.

(Please note: I'm not saying Dawkins can speak with certainly for all atheists - what Christian can speak for all Christians? - but I stand by the sentence above - if you read his book, you should have no more serious questions left.)

read:

God: The Failed Hypothesis by Victor J. Stenger too. it gives some good refutations of god and religious arguements as to god's existence.

I realised some time ago, why I've always dislicked philosophy. I'm a pragmatic, and don't find the longwinded and inconclusive statements of philosophy worthwhile. In the same pragmatic way i feel about religion. It's great that christianity preaches love and peace, and it's great that the qu'ran argued for female emancipation. that's all very good, but i don't feel that these good features require a religion. Being an athiest i still believe in love and peace and so forth, but i don't belive there should be a punishment on the other side of it, or for not believing in God.
So, from a pragmatist point of view it seems that religion has grown redundant in modern society.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JGL57

Certainly you can get some good information concerning your questions from atheists who would post here in reply.

However, here's a suggestion IF you really want to get into the head of the average atheist: Read Richard Dawkins's book "The God Delusion".

After reading that book, I would suggest you would have no serious questions left concerning what atheism is or isn't, or what atheists "believe" or don't.

(Please note: I'm not saying Dawkins can speak with certainly for all atheists - what Christian can speak for all Christians? - but I stand by the sentence above - if you read his book, you should have no more serious questions left.)

---

I thought this was interesting:http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/...ary/17.24.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chava

I realised some time ago, why I've always dislicked philosophy. I'm a pragmatic, and don't find the longwinded and inconclusive statements of philosophy worthwhile. In the same pragmatic way i feel about religion. It's great that christianity preaches love and peace, and it's great that the qu'ran argued for female emancipation. that's all very good, but i don't feel that these good features require a religion. Being an athiest i still believe in love and peace and so forth, but i don't belive there should be a punishment on the other side of it, or for not believing in God.
So, from a pragmatist point of view it seems that religion has grown redundant in modern society.

---

Exactly - one must be pragmatic and go with the theories, explanations and ideas that seem to best fit the evidence - accepting that all is subjective but that, nevertheless, that all ideas are not thereby equal. Indeed, the philosophical splitting of hairs can go on endlessly and serves no real purpose - claims without evidence about imaginary things are imaginary, failing new and exciting proof. Otherwise, get on with a rational life.

From a pragmatist viewpoint religion is indeed redundant in today's world. Too bad, though, there aren't more pragmatists - and fewer "believers".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JGL57

From a pragmatist viewpoint religion is indeed redundant in today's world.

---

As redundant as feet to someone who never intends to get out of bed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JGL57

Too bad, though, there aren't more pragmatists - and fewer "believers".

---

You'd think - since it's apparently so obvious how pathetic religion is -that we'd have abandoned it by now, wouldn't you? And yet - maddeningly - here we are, asking our annoying little questions. Perhaps we'll eventually "evolve" into pragmatists - right? You know: adapt from a lower to a higher life form - do I have that right?

Pragmatists? Ah yes 'Eats first morals later'

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ennison

Pragmatists? Ah yes 'Eats first morals later'

---

Well, you have to be alive in order to eat, obey the ten commandments or do anything else.

And you have to eat first in order to stay alive, along with getting enough water, sleep, protection from the elements, etc. - then you have time to figure out that only three of the ten commandments are of any serious import, all three of which have been stated before equally well by other religious traditions.

Yeah - that's pragmatism for you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JGL57

then you have time to figure out that only three of the ten commandments are of any serious import

---

Debatable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JGL57

all three of which have been stated before equally well by other religious traditions.

---

Which means that other religions also contain "truths" well worth considering.