Atheists....

[billyjack]

Everyone believes in something, as you stated. But not everyone who truly believes in something necessarily believes it blindly. I believe in God, the One True God, the God of the Bible, the Father of Jesus, one of the Trinity. (I could go on, but I'll stop there for the sake of time) That is what I believe in. And of course we have an inclination to protect what we believe in. If we didn't, then you wouldn't be on here. But I am open-minded, also. I have listened and considered other's evidence, and even tried proving Athiesm, and disproving God, to myself to see if it was possible. But no matter how much evidence I examined, no matter how many points of view I took, nothing else proved true, through and through. I find it worthy to be defended now. I realize that many people say that they believe something, and don't even research it, both Atheists and Christians. But I beseech you, try my way of view. Instead of building the fence against God, try proving God and seeing what you come up with.

why is it that mystics of every religion after studying scripture and digging deep into the way of things always renounce dogma and create a new idea of what god is? this new idea usually consist in coming to the conclusion that god is everyone of us, playing hide and seek with himself. so i have to wonder, if the universal trends amongst devote scholars with an open mind is to deviate from their scripture and conventional ideal of god, what would make an open minded person not fall into this same trend? did the mystics of lore overlook something or have you? i beseech you to ponder this.

[ennison]

Living forever through one's children? A short distance from me there lived an old woman who lost all her sons in the war. Around me are bachelors and spinsters without children. The couple in the trees behind have none. Immortal work in the public sector? Does that knock out most people - who are after all not in the public sector. The cemeteries are full of the indispensible, whose toils now seem most obscure. Civic participation sounds neat - a hobby for the chattering classes could be synonomous. Truthfully I do not have enough irrationality to believe any of these things constitute any kind of immortality.
If by immortality you mean some historical record of your existence well it seems the World will longer remember Hitler's Nazi state than the millions of its anonymous victims.

[Bookworm4Him]

why is it that mystics of every religion after studying scripture and digging deep into the way of things always renounce dogma and create a new idea of what god is? this new idea usually consist in coming to the conclusion that god is everyone of us, playing hide and seek with himself. so i have to wonder, if the universal trends amongst devote scholars with an open mind is to deviate from their scripture and conventional ideal of god, what would make an open minded person not fall into this same trend? did the mystics of lore overlook something or have you? i beseech you to ponder this.

I would try to ponder it... it's just that I have no idea what you are trying to say. You are the one that is sounding mystifying... Are you defending my side, or arguing against me? I will try to respond but I have no idea what you are trying to say, so if I am misguided, please tell me, and then say your post again in simpler sentences.
Are you saying that religious scholars, after studying thoroughly their religious texts, reject it, and come up with a whole new religion- which states, usually, that god is within us, and we are god. That is what most openminded scholars come up with.
Is that correct?

[billyjack]

I would try to ponder it... it's just that I have no idea what you are trying to say. You are the one that is sounding mystifying... Are you defending my side, or arguing against me? I will try to respond but I have no idea what you are trying to say, so if I am misguided, please tell me, and then say your post again in simpler sentences.
Are you saying that religious scholars, after studying thoroughly their religious texts, reject it, and come up with a whole new religion- which states, usually, that god is within us, and we are god. That is what most openminded scholars come up with.
Is that correct?

sorry if my last post was unclear...words have a tendency to put a vale over true meaning.

your interpretation was close, but it fell off somewhere. let me clarify: god is not within us like a liver or a brain. if that is what you mean by within us? we are god in that we, everyone of us, is the totality of existence. everything sensed outside of us is just as much us as everything thought inside of us. cause when you think about it, your sensing of a tree is really a state in your brain and your thoughts are really coming from outside of you, as in thoughts come from society, opionions, mores, conventions, tradition, schooling, ect... so the mystic conception of god is really a person's conception of themself turned inside out.

this is what mystics tend to come up with; they reject the idea of a personified, all consciously powerful god. instead, mystics see god as the entire universe and every person as an expression of the entire universe like waves are experssions of the ocean. mystics still call themselves members of a religion, but enlightened members.

does this help, i know that questioning the ideal of our traditional self can get foggy sometimes, and for that, my apologies, but that is the nature of language.

[Bookworm4Him]

I would try to ponder it... it's just that I have no idea what you are trying to say. You are the one that is sounding mystifying... Are you defending my side, or arguing against me? I will try to respond but I have no idea what you are trying to say, so if I am misguided, please tell me, and then say your post again in simpler sentences.
Are you saying that religious scholars, after thoroughly studying religious texts, reject it, and come up with a whole new religion- which states, usually, that god is within us, and we are god. That is what most openminded scholars come up with.
Is that correct?

If it is, then first, Which religious texts are they studying? Is it the whole Bible, the Koran, a different text, or a mix of both? Because only studying one at a time would work. I will not vouch for the Koran. I do not believe what I know of it, and don't trust the rest. There could be some truth in it, but I am sure not all of it is. As for other religions, I don't believe those either. If they say that we are all God, then where were we when created the world (and ourselves, may I add
Second, I don't believe that every scholar with an openmind, Christian or not, arrives at that conclusion in the first place. I know many who started out Athiest, or agnostic (if that's the word), or some other religion, went to school for theology, and after studying the Bible in depth, realized it had to be true. For example, Lee Strobel was an Athiestic Journalist, a very intellegent man, who decided that once and for all, he would prove Jesus, and the Bible, a fraud. He spent every minute when he was not on the job researching, and could not find any evidence against it. If you all are daring enough to try, read his book, The Case For Christ, and find on flaw in his arguement. (CS Lewis also has an amazing arguement, in Mere Christianity. It is amazing. Try to prove it wrong.) I have to say, most scholars who claim to read the Bible with an openmind usually had a side of bias against it. That is what I have found. And if someone really believes that they were fair but have evidence against it, then present it to me and I'll refute it! lol
If this wasn't your arguement in the first place, sorry. bye-bye!

[Dante Wodehouse]

If it is, then first, Which religious texts are they studying? Is it the whole Bible, the Koran, a different text, or a mix of both? Because only studying one at a time would work. I will not vouch for the Koran. I do not believe what I know of it, and don't trust the rest. There could be some truth in it, but I am sure not all of it is. As for other religions, I don't believe those either. If they say that we are all God, then where were we when created the world (and ourselves, may I add
Second, I don't believe that every scholar with an openmind, Christian or not, arrives at that conclusion in the first place. I know many who started out Athiest, or agnostic (if that's the word), or some other religion, went to school for theology, and after studying the Bible in depth, realized it had to be true. For example, Lee Strobel was an Athiestic Journalist, a very intellegent man, who decided that once and for all, he would prove Jesus, and the Bible, a fraud. He spent every minute when he was not on the job researching, and could not find any evidence against it. If you all are daring enough to try, read his book, The Case For Christ, and find on flaw in his arguement. (CS Lewis also has an amazing arguement, in Mere Christianity. It is amazing. Try to prove it wrong.) I have to say, most scholars who claim to read the Bible with an openmind usually had a side of bias against it. That is what I have found. And if someone really believes that they were fair but have evidence against it, then present it to me and I'll refute it! lol
If this wasn't your arguement in the first place, sorry. bye-bye!

C.S. Lewis did the same thing. He was born an atheist, studied theology, and then converted to christianity.

[Bookworm4Him]

sorry if my last post was unclear...words have a tendency to put a vale over true meaning.

your interpretation was close, but it fell off somewhere. let me clarify: god is not within us like a liver or a brain. if that is what you mean by within us? we are god in that we, everyone of us, is the totality of existence. everything sensed outside of us is just as much us as everything thought inside of us. cause when you think about it, your sensing of a tree is really a state in your brain and your thoughts are really coming from outside of you, as in thoughts come from society, opionions, mores, conventions, tradition, schooling, ect... so the mystic conception of god is really a person's conception of themself turned inside out.

this is what mystics tend to come up with; they reject the idea of a personified, all consciously powerful god. instead, mystics see god as the entire universe and every person as an expression of the entire universe like waves are experssions of the ocean. mystics still call themselves members of a religion, but enlightened members.

does this help, i know that questioning the ideal of our traditional self can get foggy sometimes, and for that, my apologies, but that is the nature of language.

lol. I was typing my response while you were typing your translation, but you posted it first. You are probably reading my post, and responding to it right now, but i will go ahead and respond to this, to see if it helps.
First, you said that god is not within us like a liver or a brain, but we still must have gotten the liver and the brain from somewhere. We still are missing the essential point that we must have come from somewhere. We can't be the "totality of existence, because we can't have existed without being made to exist. (if that makes sense.)
As for the "everything outside of us is the ideas of what is within us", and all that mumbo jumbo just convinces most people to believe it because it sounds confusing, and therefore people think it's right. (And before I get kicked off here, I can back that up with history and science. It's simply mob phsycology, or something like that. A perfect example is the lovely Friends, Romans, Countrymen speech. but enough of that) I will try to explain it with a little more detail oriented view, though I haven't studied this area of theology in particular. Earlier, I think starting on page 37, we talked about the neccesity for a supreme being. That was an awesome debate, and enough proof, I think, to tear the god within us belief apart; but i will continue anyway.
"everything sensed outside of us is just as much us as everything thought inside of us. cause when you think about it, your sensing of a tree is really a state in your brain and your thoughts are really coming from outside of you, as in thoughts come from society, opionions, mores, conventions, tradition, schooling, ect... so the mystic conception of god is really a person's conception of themself turned inside out. " You know, there are a bunch of theories about how the world is new everyday, and each day we are recreated with a new set of memories, and what I find amazing is the idea that people sit around thinking up, and trying to prove this stuff when, according to them, it won't make one ounce of difference because they think they will be a different person the next day! But back to the subject. I am not a master of any subject. I love my God, I love debate, and if you put the two together, you better have a defense. I did not major in, or spend the time studying, brain-senses-mind connections. My answer is not some profound scientific thing. It is simple.
I know what a tree is, because I have seen one, touched one, and learned what one is (not that all of those are neccesary. Someone from the desert could have it explained to them, and still know what it is) My point is, I know what a tree is, because it exists. This is where some people say that reality is different for each person, yada yada yada, but that is a different discussion. (One I would be glad to discuss, though. I don't know much about it, but would still try. Someone start a thread on that) There is proof of such a thing as a tree. I don't think that I know a tree because the "god within me" installed a knowledge of what a tree is.
One quick thing to add on to that is that if reality was based on everyone's opinions, etc, there wouldn't be a reality. Everyone has different opinions, and they can't all be true, despite what certain people say. I say that there is one true God, and Jesus is his Son. Atheists say there is no God. We can't both be true.
I have a bunch more to say, but this post is long enough. If you actually read all of this, then congrats!

[quasimodo1]

Believe, worship, pray or skoff; your prerogative. Evagelalize and you migrate to some degree or arrogance. My opinion. RJs

[aprildutcher]

I'm an athiest and beleive in myself. However, I dont knock other peoples religions, thats just not fair.

[aeroport]

Funny that I happened to encounter this thread just as a rerun of the Dawkins interview is being aired on NPR. Right now!

[watkinsguy]

gotta love NPR...totally unbiased and oh so exciting to listen to...lol

[.shuu.]

Athiest and for once, very proud of it. For such a long time, every time I told people I was athiest I would automatically apologize, which seemed so normal to me then. Athiest to me, is the 95-100% of non-belief. Chances are, it's hard to meet an athiest is is absolutely, all research done and checked, entirely sure there is no god for him or herself. Most athiests would fall into the "I'm almost positive there is no god, and I'm going to live my life assuming there isn't" type of deal. And if I did meet god after I died, and he asked why my faith was weak, I'd say "not enough evidence, God, just not enough evidance".

[cuppajoe_9]

And if I did meet god after I died, and he asked why my faith was weak, I'd say "not enough evidence, God, just not enough evidance".

And then God would say "Hey! Bertrand Russell already said that!".

[.shuu.]

And then God would say "Hey! Bertrand Russell already said that!".

He would too, and I might wonder why he didn't do something about it then....oh well. never question the "almighty" eh?

[JGL57]

Athiest and for once, very proud of it. For such a long time, every time I told people I was athiest I would automatically apologize, which seemed so normal to me then. Athiest to me, is the 95-100% of non-belief. Chances are, it's hard to meet an athiest is is absolutely, all research done and checked, entirely sure there is no god for him or herself. Most athiests would fall into the "I'm almost positive there is no god, and I'm going to live my life assuming there isn't" type of deal. And if I did meet god after I died, and he asked why my faith was weak, I'd say "not enough evidence, God, just not enough evidance".

I ran two polls about four months apart on the Internet Infidels forum last year regarding absolutist atheism vs. non-absolutist atheism. Both times there was a 20/80 split between absolutists and non-absolutists.

So, there, you have a definitive answer. As to religionists, I suspect the per centages would be reversed, if not completely then to a great degree.