Ateists are kind of rebellious in a way
Printable View
Ateists are kind of rebellious in a way
im sort of in the middle i dont really believe in anything i like to go with the flow and thats for after death also whatever happens will be only the dead knows and we never will, but i definently think evolution is bull besides most of science is based on theory
Eh? What's wrong with being based on theory? What else would science be based on? Pudding?
wtf do u believe in evolution? lolQuote:
Originally Posted by RobinHood3000
Seeing as it fits the topic of the thread, I'll tell you what this atheist believes in:Quote:
Originally Posted by anydazecoo
1) Doing your best not to be a complete and utter prat
2) Common courtesy
3) Using a reasonable amount of respect
4) Not trying to pick arguments (especially on an internet literature forum)
5) Attempting to make an intelligent point once in a while
6) Not eating my vegetables
I like vegetables so I would replace your #6 with "Use proper grammar and spelling." ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by kilted exile
Ill have to second all of those but 6(i like my veggies :D) and sometimes 4...i lose my self control sometimes and get a bit pedantic :pQuote:
Originally Posted by kilted exile
I believe in freedom of belief. Enough said?
ive gotten bored with the religion debate. its a waste of time. evnetually religion will fall and we arent speeding it up by arguing about it. give it time. thats what got us from the church threatening to torture Galileo to today.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
its actually interesting that if you look at the whole picture, atheists have the higher moral ground.
When I said that I found religion redundant I didn't mean it to be used offensively. I don't mind people having religion, so long as they don't preach it to others, it's the same for atheists.
I think that the core values of christianity are fine, but I don't think you have to be religious to follow them. and contrary to JGL57 I have no nedd to disprove the existance of religion to others. It's enough for me that I don't believe it.
do you see?
Maybe. Maybe not. Since some form of religion has existed throughout the recorded history of humanity, your prediction (prophecy?) is pretty bold. Perhaps religion does not persist because people are deluded, but because they realize the emptiness that a materialistic/naturalistic life ultimately contains.Quote:
Originally Posted by Matrim Cuathon
I would love to have you explain this statement - since many atheists would have a fit if a Christian claimed the same thing. Care to explain how this statement is true? What exactly is this "whole picture" that reveals this "truth"?Quote:
Originally Posted by Matrim Cuathon
I agree with you that religious debates tend toward the boring. But progress is made and I think the debates here and on other forums do serve some good purposes. I have debated religion and social issues on line now for about 6 years now and I do see some dogmatic types, both religious and atheists, move toward a more agnostic viewpoint (I consider myself an agnostic atheist).Quote:
Originally Posted by Matrim Cuathon
I think that, despite what you see in the media regarding absolutist/literalist types of religion, e.g., the unholy alliance between the Republican party and super nationalistic fanatical dogmatic (mainly) protestant "christians", I suspect in the fullness of time religion here in the west will move away from the more virulent types to more modern thinking types - more deistic and pantheistic, less theistic, and more toward a religion of love, empathy, mysticism, etc. and away from a religion of fear, hate, selfishness and radical ethnocentric sectarianism. It will take a few more decades to really see this trend. If I'm wrong, then I guess Planet of the Apes will eventually prove to be a documentary. :D
As to atheists having the "higher moral ground" I would say each individual atheist has the best chance at a rational moral perspective, if he or she puts in the effort to study the subject. Certainly, atheists who are, e.g., Marxists or Randians have missed the boat. ;)
I don’t even know what this means, if anything. Religion exists - I don’t think I could prove otherwise, nor have I ever tried, nor would I ever try – may as well try to prove that crab grass doesn’t exist.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chava
'that only three of the ten commandments are of any serious import'
ISD That's two too many. Let's scoff is the only one important as you said.
Reminds me. I'm hungry and a hungry man's a ......
I was referring to killing, stealing, and bearing false witness - prohibition of all which, in some form, seems to be a necessary part of societal laws, all the way back to Hammurabi's famous code. Christianity offered nothing startling new or needed re morality.Quote:
Originally Posted by ennison
The other commandments, so-called, are either silly, or just good rule-of-thumb suggestions at best. I mean, not coveting your neighbor's "donkey" - do you, e.g., really need celestial guidance in that particular area?
And you are hungry. And why should anyone care?
I BEG YOUR PARDON ..... My Donkey is highly covetable!! I would be offended if it was not.
But of course my definition of silly wont match yours but I often covet the ability of the truly absurd to be very silly
An atheist does not require any diety. An atheist can be ethical, spiritual and empathetic. Why do believers mostly think that atheists are anarchists or sociopaths? The Buhdists don't require a god; just a desire for enlightenment. RJS
'Christianity offered nothing startling new or needed re morality' Of course not. It's not about morality. Any old fool can be moral - Alexander Selkirk was a goody two-shoes. And if you reduce it all to .... whatever number suits yourself well shoot even I could be moral then even if I'm hungry enough to .....
Final Warning
To All Concerned> As Moderators we have been doing more than our fair share of editing in this thread.
Please remember that as users of this Forum, its your responsibility to familiarise yourselves with its Rules (with which you agreed when you signed up) and further posts ignoring these rules will lead to thread closure.
I apologize. Obviously Christianity has nothing to do with morality - one need only look at the overall record.Quote:
Originally Posted by ennison
So, then, since it is indeed not about morality, then what is it's use?
................. to eat a scabby horse
Even if it aint my own. Sure we were just having fun oh mighty one ---- leastways I was but I promise on the pantheistic throbbing soul of the universe to never mention donkeys 'orses or 'unger agin ok?
Use? Ah the pragmatic approach again. Well a carpenter uses a saw - in fact it's indispensible to him. Clerk's don't need it. And there you go - I trust I make myself obscure.
Well let's see hmm the righteous have no need of Christianity.
Still obscure?
Ach I aint got the vocabulary
Quote:
Originally Posted by ennison
I think I understand - but it would be simplier for you to just say "I have nothing new to add."
Sure I have indeed absolutely nothing new to add .... Thank goodness
Quote:
Originally Posted by kilted exile
wow i dont think this is my age group :alien: :lol:
*sighs* i'm not a atheist nor i'm in a religioin but i do respectfully know that we cant prove there is a god or not as well as heaven or hell if we did the world would be a different place..no joke
This works for all age groups, there are members here from 12 to over 70 and everything in between. Congratulations though 3 years and you are the first to find yourself on my ignore list.Quote:
Originally Posted by anydazecoo
Protagoras, the first sophist, and probably the first agnostic, writes that man is the measure of all things, and that because of divinity being unprovable, and impossible to disprove, all logical debate should not include god. He also goes on to write, that through the use of rhetoric, oratory, and vocabulary/grammar, one can make a weaker argument appear to be the stronger.
If we look at religions, we can see by looking at any that, assuming one is correct, the others must be somewhat incorrect. As an Atheist, I personally believe all religions are wrong. Through the use of rational thought, I realize that it is virtually impossible for any religion we know of to be correct (in my opinion), and for any religion we may come to believe in the future to be incorrect too. (science is not a religion. Science is based upon analyzing theories and trying to prove them using facts, whereas religion is based upon belief, and violates all rational thought). Because of this belief, I have come to accept that there is no answer to the great Enigma, and as a people we are so fascinated by the prospect of there being one that we ignorantly believe the doctrines of a false teacher.
Do I consider myself an Atheist? Yes I do. I strongly believe there is no god/divine being(s), and that there is no answer to the problem. Thereby I accept that there is no answer, and only worry about something that really concerns myself.
Like all things, religion is dynamic. As society, technology, science, and time change, religion is also subject to change. What we gather from this is that there never truly was an answer, and people have been looking for it since the begining of thought. By rejecting theism, we eliminate the problem of assuming that one is right, and remove all the regressive and oppressive laws indoctrinated into most religions, one can grow as a person, and can work with the free time, and the freedom created by this change to better society.
So do I consider myself an Atheist? Absolutely. Why? Because I have accepted that there is no answer. Just a question that man has obsessed over, trying to answer and to find meaning in this empty life, instead of working at making the best of what you have in this brief existence.
Did you ever study logic? I think both logic and atheism can be liberating but that they can cloud your emotions. Having been a R/catholic, repression of emotion and repression of re-evaluation were a learned behavior. It is good when one can overcome all that. RJS
it means peace and harmny i looked it up
'this empty life'
Well there y' go.
I'm sorry to interupt, but how exactly does atheism cloud your emotions? I understand logic, but...?Quote:
Originally Posted by quasimodo1
Atheists have been described as those who believe in no god, but you have to believe in something . That is saying that you don't choose something. You have still chosen, it's just that you have chosen to NoT choose. Truthfully, I think that atheists, since they choose to not believe in a god as a spiaritual being, they make themselves "their god"; they practically "worship" themselves (in a sense). It's not what God can do for them, it's what they can do for themselves. Atheists say that no one can prove God, or miracles, but all you have to do is look around you for proof. Do people actually believe that suddenly everything (when there is nothing) just wammed together, and ~poof~ there was a perfect world just the exact space from the sun so that it did not burn or freeze, and everything else just fell into place, including the human body and mind? Not to mention the fact that the human mind has calculated these chances, and they are so mathmatically and scientifically miniscule they are termed "impossible" by most scientists, yet they are simply to afraid to admit to the world that they cannot know and explain everything with their calculations. The truth is, people are afraid to acknowledge that there may be something greater in the world that they will have to answer to. People want to be in charge. I'm not trying to preachy or anything, I'm just stating the truth. In fact, if you talked to some philosophers and pychcyatrist people, I bet they would tell you that fact, that people want to run their own lives and be in charge. Just look at history to confirm it. Why did everybody try to conquer everything else? To rule the world. As humans, we can't face the fact that someone might rule us. I think that that is why atheists don't believe in a god. They don't want to have to submit. It's jsut human nature.
Do people actually believe that suddenly God (when there was nothing) just wammed together, and ~poof~ there was a perfect creator?Quote:
Originally Posted by Bookworm4Him
Same question, no?
As an agnostic, I'm fairly certain (but not 100%) that something amazing is going on. However I'm equally convinced that whatever it is could give a flying leap if we eat meat on Fridays or not.
Accepting the possibility that a universal creator exists is a far cry from accepting a human-constructed religion that would have it's omnicient God send down a 'son' in human form to get nailed to a cross knowing full well that it was going to do so when it first created the universe--why not just create the universe (and worlds) correctly in the first place?
If the ultimate goal is to get everyone into heaven or hell, and it already knows what those two 'places' will look and be like--why not just start there?
Science is a continually adapting and changing Truth. On the contrary, god provides a certainty that people enjoy. Science and scientific truths, as we know today, are quite different than what we knew fifty years ago, or what we will know in a year. The facts are always changing as technology changes and give humans a better understanding of what the universe and world around us has to offer.
However, religion remains pretty much the same. Of course if you focus on the Roman Catholic doctrine, there are certain amendments or affirmations the Vatican makes in regards to our world, and the more contact between different people must allow for Catholic believers to better orient themselves in this changing society, which is more and more intrinsically connected. Yet, the main question of what Roman Catholics believe has remained stable.
Bottom line is that religions provide certain truths that people can follow and be comfortable with. Certainties give people something to hold on to as the world around them shifts. No matter how absurd or how appealing any particular religion feels, it allows its followers to feel comfortable with the unpredictable nature of everything humans have to deal with.
Should people point out strange discrepancies in religions? If we try to make sense of what moral obligations religions give us, there is most always a message contained that will give that certain religion a sway over its members that helps it as time passes. Hinduism does not preach that its followers must convert people, it accepts all people, no matter what religion, as following a particular quest towards an end that Hindus already see. Therefore there is no clause that says that other people must be converted. However, if you look at the message of the New Testament, the bottom line is that people must be converted. In a time that Christianity was still fighting for a position of security, there had to be a means of preserving it. But then Hinduism used its caste system as a means for pushing the fault of poor people on themselves, their behavior in a past life was currently being punished. So when a peasant was unhappy with their lot, they could only behave in the ways suited for them if they wanted to ever have anything better for their soul.
===>It is rare to find a religion that does not have an afterlife. Religions, like governments, give rules to live by, but they promise a reward that governments cannot offer. Governments can only promise negative feedback for those who do not follow their laws. It is that promise of the great reward that makes people want to be part of something that they can feel sure about. If people feel comfortable with the message of a religion, they must be able to make certain mental consolidations, as in not questioning the word of their god. If people literally take the message that they are being offered, they can feel more secure in the reward they are promised. Once the questioning begins, they cannot be sure of the promises that they are seeking.
And does it matter if they are wrong in the story they believe in? If people want to live lives according to the morals offered by Greek myths, is that a bad thing? Can anyone actually tell them that they are wrong? No. No matter how you want to dissuade them from thinking that indeed Hera and Zeus are not real, if they really want it, they are not going to believe what anyone else says. Religions are a matter of opinion, and opinions can never be proved wrong. Which is why comparing religions and science just does not work. You can only consolidate them. But if someone believes the reason that the water in the Atlantic is blue is because it is the prison of the sapphire princess, who will one day rise again, you cannot make them admit they are wrong. If they want it that way, so it will remain in their minds.
This just made me remember the two part south park episode with Richard Dawkins. It really illustrated a good point of human nature that there is always something to make human society ridiculously divided, no matter what. If you have not seen it, I highly recommend it. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by JBI
If you don't believe in God, then you believe that humans and animals are the same, we are merely more evolved. However, I believe that the fact that we have consciousness and can philosophize seperates us from animals, which proves that we are endowed with something beyond animals, and therefore we must have been endowed by a higher being in a position to endow. We are the only animal that has members of our species who don't want to reproduce, we can question whether we are justified in destroying another for our own gains, and we cannot live in a socialistic society. We have concepts and moralities, we must be higher, which means that something must have decided that we should be higher.
No it doesn't, and no it doesn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dante Wodehouse
That's like an Atheist saying, "God can't make a rock so big that it can't lift it, therefore it is not omnipotent."
"I believe that the fact that we have consciousness. . ."
Are you saying that animals are unconcious? I'll bet my golden retriever Savanna would disagree with you!
". . .and can philosophize. . ."
Have you discovered a way of reading the minds of animals? How do you know these things?
". . . and we cannot live in a socialistic society."
What the heck does this mean? Do I need to call my friends in Norway and tell them to get out now?
Please, I beg you to consider these kinds of questions before making blanket statements of this nature. Your observations on the nature of humans in no way proves the existance of a 'higher being'. Nothing is certain. You may be right, but you may be wrong -- 50/50.
Hi Val,Quote:
Originally Posted by valiantiris
Very well thought out and written. Thank you.
It only matters to me if their beliefs have negative impact on others--banning stem cell reasearch being an example that comes to mind--the world trade center attacks would be another. When beliefs turn to zealotry, certainty, and intolerance that's when problems arise. Another tenant of most religions is the golden rule. But alas, many seem to have swept this under the rug when it comes to folks that disagree with their stories/beliefs.
Indeed. As long as beliefs or actions are not to the detriment of others, they are ok by me. :)
Allow me to digress and explain how one person arrived at atheism as a point of view. Like most people, religion was an integral part of upbringing, family life etc. You remember, back when fathers were around and mothers, well, before Gloria kind of lifestyle. If you believed, it was logical to go the distance. A roman catholic seminary in my case. After three years of that, atheism became a substitute for cynacism; you have to get way inside a religion to debunc it with any knowledge. Don't mean to offend or bait anybody. Just another road that doesn't get traveled that much. If jihadists, and christians are praying to the same deity, I guess that entity really has a conundrum on his/her/it's hands. Where is my spellcheck? whatever. RJS
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bookworm4Him
read the chapter in
God
The Failed Hypothesis
to see a theory that is equally if not more reasonbable than god that explains a way the universe was created.
[QUOTE=Wintermute;340677]
That's like an Atheist saying, "God can't make a rock so big that it can't lift it, therefore it is not omnipotent."
"I believe that the fact that we have consciousness. . ."
Are you saying that animals are unconcious? I'll bet my golden retriever Savanna would disagree with you!
Animals have attempted no forms of self-expression or for that matter existence outside of instinct. I am not talking about sleep-smelling salt type unconsciousness, but more of Awakening. I have a golden retriever too, and he has never tried to express anything more than barking and threat of bodily function in undesirable place.
". . .and can philosophize. . ."
Have you discovered a way of reading the minds of animals? How do you know these things?
Has an animal ever questioned whether it has the right to harm others for it's own benefit? Also, survival of the fittest applies to animals, while it doesn't to humans. From how things seem, the ugliest and poorest tend to have more children than the beautiful and wealthy.
". . . and we cannot live in a socialistic society."
What the heck does this mean? Do I need to call my friends in Norway and tell them to get out now?
I made a mistake in my phrasing. I meant Communist society. Norway, while having some socialistic policies in economics, still has elections and mostly free markets.