Sure I have indeed absolutely nothing new to add .... Thank goodness
Sure I have indeed absolutely nothing new to add .... Thank goodness
Originally Posted by kilted exile
wow i dont think this is my age group
*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
No Matter Whats In Your Way There is Always A Path Through It
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.wow i dont think this is my age group
There once was a scotsman named Drew
Who put too much wine in his stew
He felt a bit drunk
And fell off his bunk
And landed smack into his shoe ~(C) Ms Niamh Anne King
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...?
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?
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.
Last edited by valiantiris; 03-05-2007 at 06:39 PM.
No intelligent idea can gain general acceptance unless some stupidity is mixed in with it.
-Fernando Pessoa
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.
No intelligent idea can gain general acceptance unless some stupidity is mixed in with it.
-Fernando Pessoa
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.
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.
Posting Permissions
