Debate and Discussion

Does Atheism "make sense" to you?
ozoneocean at 1:46AM, March 14, 2007
(online)
posts: 24,963
joined: 1-2-2004
Is Atheism a philosophy that makes sense? Essentially the idea is that there are no gods or divine beings, or even the possibility of such things existing. Personally I think that's a little definite for something you can have no way of knowing about and ultimately requires as much faith as any religion since it concerns the unprovable. But it's a philosophical position like any other, and people have a right to their own belief systems when constructing their own personal notions of how the “world” works, or might work…

Some feel it's a “scientific” approach, but I feel that it's basically as antiscientific as a religious approach because with either one you close the question before you begin: you “know” the answer; the divine either definitely exists, or definitely can not exist.

-For me, such questions are simply outside of my ability to know, and I accept that. I don't have a belief in any religion, but equally I can't deny the possibility of the existence of the divine because the universe is virtually infinite and infinitely unknown.

Some religious people regard those who don't 't profess to be religious or people are anti a particular religion as being Atheist: this is of course without sense. Some Atheists regard religious people as deluded and weak minded: this is also rather nonsensical. Both will be true in specific instances, but as blanket notions they're as bankrupt as any other.

What are your thoughts on Atheism?
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:26PM
CorruptComics at 2:20AM, March 14, 2007
(offline)
posts: 191
joined: 1-16-2007
Not having faith in a deity makes sense.

Their childish war on belittling theist does not.
http://www.atheists.org/

I have no problem with them not having faith in a supernatural being. I myself do not believe there is proof in one but I also don't think “God” has been disprove by anyone either. If they stopped trying so damn hard to destroy the faiths of others I would take basically no issue with them. (It should be noted the same can be said for Christian and their constant crusade for conversion, trying is fine, finding ways to force it is not)

last edited on July 14, 2011 11:46AM
Neilsama at 6:50AM, March 14, 2007
(online)
posts: 430
joined: 1-2-2006
“Is Atheism a philosophy…”

Stop stop stop stop stop!!!!!!! Let me just speak as an atheist for one moment. My philosophical grounding comes from the objective real world. My atheism comes from that philosophical grounding. It's not the other way around.

To answer your question, “Is atheism a philosophy that makes sense?”: If atheism is being projected as a philosophy, I would say that no, it certainly does not make sense. I wouldn't even know where to go from such an arbitrarily selected foundation as “there are no deities”. To me, the disbelief is the conclusion; not the beginning.

I also have to say that calling it a “faith” is not fair either. Proving that there is no deity is not the point. It's saying that there is no REASON to believe. In other words, to even posit a god at all would be a non sequitur. Ozone, you even stated at the beginning of this topic, “you can have no way of knowing about and ultimately requires as much faith as any religion since it concerns the unprovable.” Well if it's unprovable and unknowable, then from an empirical standpoint, wouldn't it be fair to say that there's no reason to even raise the subject?

Remember, the same could be said for the Flying Spaghetti Monster. And yet, I don't see the world being locked at an eternal stalemate over the existence of something that never validated itself in the first place.

For me, it's not a matter of keeping the meme out. It's that I don't understand how it even gets in. It's like debating over whether or not our brains exist in jars, and if reality is simply a virtual world generated by some super computer.

I'm not saying that we of the purely secular world should go around heckling people for their religious beliefs. I have not the desire or the patience to do that. I do have some degree of empathy for people who are comfortable in their beliefs. However, I don't believe that tolerance is a virtue when it comes to destructive beliefs. When the leader of the so-called free world invades a country on the assumption that he's been commanded by God, or when I see sabotage of the education system, I think I'm justified in raising a red flag.

The only thing more evil than a destructive belief system is someone who is completely indifferent to it.

Oh, and if you ever actually meet an atheist who claims that his philosophy and/or worldview is atheism, just… slap them. Please.
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:10PM
ozoneocean at 7:13AM, March 14, 2007
(online)
posts: 24,963
joined: 1-2-2004
Now this is what I like to see Mr Niel! :)
We've had a lot of Christians, a Muslim or two and even the occasional Buddhist explaining their positions before, so it's nice to see the atheist side making it's position clear like this. NO need to call “stop!”, this is a discussion we should have and you can have centre stage man. ^_^

As to the usage of “philosophy” in the context of atheism, it's simply a word used to describe and attempt to conceptualise an idea that talks about the larger issues… belief, non-belief, whatever. I wasn't trying to define it so much as explain. You see? I'm limited by my vocabulary I'm afraid; I just couldn't find better words. :(

Hmm, reasons to believe? I have no reasons to believe in deities and I don't, but there are plenty of people who do believe that divine beings exist and I have no way of proving that they don't: So I allow for the possibility that they may indeed exist.

-eh, you added 45% extra with an edit… this was a reply to what you had before that. :)
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:26PM
Neilsama at 7:22AM, March 14, 2007
(online)
posts: 430
joined: 1-2-2006
I have a very bad habit of expanding on what I say after I already posted my initial response.

It's like I can't leave it the way it is. I have to add more stuff to explain what I mean.

I can't just wait until the next response. I have to clarify things IMMEDIATELY.

It's like I can't shut up!
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:10PM
kingofsnake at 7:41AM, March 14, 2007
(online)
posts: 1,374
joined: 9-27-2006
Neilsama
I also have to say that calling it a “faith” is not fair either. Proving that there is no deity is not the point. It's saying that there is no REASON to believe. In other words, to even posit a god at all would be a non sequitur. Ozone, you even stated at the beginning of this topic, “you can have no way of knowing about and ultimately requires as much faith as any religion since it concerns the unprovable.” Well if it's unprovable and unknowable, then from an empirical standpoint, wouldn't it be fair to say that there's no reason to even raise the subject?

What your describing is agnosticism, not atheism. Athiest = There is no God. Agnostic = Theres no way of knowing whether or not a God exists for certain so their is no sense in worshiping one. So, while you may personally be an agnostic who just didn't know the proper terminology, there are many very intelligent people who have strong arguments for athiesm, Nietzche, Camus, and Satre for example. Existentialist philosophy is based primarily around the notion that there is no God (which is odd considering it's founders were men of the cloth.) My problem with the majority of athiests (the average person who professes athiesm) is the same problem you have with Creationists. Their arguments for athiesm don't attempt to prove athiesm, they only attempt to disprove Christianity. I've never heard an athiest trying to argue against buddhism. Or even try to lock down a philosophical proof for the non-existance of God, outside of athiest philosophers and theologians.

Neilsama
When the leader of the so-called free world invades a country on the assumption that he's been commanded by God, or when I see sabotage of the education system, I think I'm justified in raising a red flag.

Thats a pretty oversimplified approach to the war in Iraq. I think if anything it's more politically motivated than religiously motivated, any religious comments Bush makes is a feeble attempt to secure the approval of bible belt states. I'm pretty sure everyone knows he's full of crap, look at his “worse than nixon during watergate” approval rating. This is really its own discussion topic though.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:15PM
Neilsama at 7:51AM, March 14, 2007
(online)
posts: 430
joined: 1-2-2006
kingofsnake
What your describing is agnosticism, not atheism. Athiest = There is no God. Agnostic = Theres no way of knowing whether or not a God exists for certain so their is no sense in worshiping one. So, while you may personally be an agnostic who just didn't know the proper terminology, there are many very intelligent people who have strong arguments for athiesm, Nietzche, Camus, and Satre for example.
Agnosticism is redundant. It's like saying I don't know what I don't know. Not to argue semantics or anything, but I don't like the way agnostics treat the issue of theism as if it's something that we should suspend our judgement as though it may be plausible. If it's unknowable, then how would you know if it's plausible?

I mean, are you agnostic to the flying spaghetti monster?

I may be coming at it from a point of view that you see as agnosticism, but at the end of the day, my conclusion is that there is no God.

kingofsnake
Existentialist philosophy is based primarily around the notion that there is no God (which is odd considering it's founders were men of the cloth.) My problem with the majority of athiests (the average person who professes athiesm) is the same problem you have with Creationists. Their arguments for athiesm don't attempt to prove athiesm, they only attempt to disprove Christianity. I've never heard an athiest trying to argue against buddhism. Or even try to lock down a philosophical proof for the non-existance of God, outside of athiest philosophers and theologians.
This is a burden-shifting fallacy. How would one go about proving the non-existence of an entity that is not even remotely definable in a temporal context?

Again, I wouldn't even know what to prove. I'm not trying to get the meme out. I'm simply curious as to how it gets in. From the admission of a believer, it's all faith, and so they basically admit from the start that they've abandoned reason as a potential origin for their belief system. If a belief can be shown to be paradoxical, then that alone is all the reason in the world to say that it's false.

Before we can argue the meme out, the meme has to first get in. And if the meme cannot get in via reason, then it can be politely excused.
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:10PM
kingofsnake at 8:10AM, March 14, 2007
(online)
posts: 1,374
joined: 9-27-2006
Neilsama
If it's unknowable, then how would you know if it's plausible?

If it's unknowable, then it's possible. And if its possible, than whether or not it's plausible is semantics.

Neilsama
I mean, are you agnostic to the flying spaghetti monster?

This is a big mistake alot of people make. Agnostic and athiest are not on a per-religion case by case basis. You're either entirely agnostic, entirely athiest, or entirely something else. I'm Catholic. Therefore I don't believe in the flying spaghetti monster, its part of the nature of my religion. You can't be athiest towards christianity and judaism, and agnostic towards buddhism. If that were the case then you'd just be an agnostic who's dismissed christianity and judaism. These terms describe a philosphical stance about the nature and existence of a god figure. They have nothing to do with specific religions, organized or otherwise.

Neilsama
I may be coming at it from a point of view that you see as agnosticism, but at the end of the day, my conclusion is that there is no God.

And this is the problem I find with many athiests. They're not basing their asertion that there is no God on any real beleifs or arguments, but rather the lack of desire to think about it. How are you concluding that there is no God? You're saying “I can't logically conclude whether or not there is a God, so I'm going to conclude that there is no God.”

last edited on July 14, 2011 1:15PM
Neilsama at 8:19AM, March 14, 2007
(online)
posts: 430
joined: 1-2-2006
You're saying “I can't logically conclude whether or not there is a God, so I'm going to conclude that there is no God.”
Burn the strawman! NO! I am saying that there is no logical basis for even bringing the God concept into a debate. You cannot demand disproof of a baseless supposition. It would be the same as me demanding that you disprove the flying spaghetti monster.

Speaking of which, I see that you didn't want to answer my question about the flying spaghetti monster and instead dove headfirst in a semantic retreat. Let me remove the word “agnostic” and ask the question more directly. Is the flying speghetti monster plausible, and if so, should we as a human race consider its viable existence? Should we suspend our disbelief of the flying spaghetti monster?
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:10PM
ozoneocean at 8:30AM, March 14, 2007
(online)
posts: 24,963
joined: 1-2-2004
Regarding the Flying Spaghetti Monster, it's not a serious belief or religion. But if there is indeed a divine aspect to the universe as we know it (or don't know it), I don't see a reason why it couldn't possibly take the form of a Flying Spaghetti Monster if it so chose. :)

Kingofsnake brings up many good points, semantics and how we define the unknown are a big part of this. In a real sense provable gods do exist: Prince Philip of the UK is a living god to the people of a certain pacific island. That doesn't mean he can walk on water and cause thunderstorms, but to those people he's still the living embodiment of their god and you can prove his existence. You can't disprove he's divine, because he's divine to them. -that doesn't always mean immortality, magic, and control over the elemental.

To others certain rivers, mountains and trees hold a divine dimension…

What if an intelligence from another star system or dimension visited us here? It could possibly seem like a god to most people if it had the power to transport itself from there to here and it would be so totally different from anything we knew. Would we be wrong to call it a god if it had all the trappings of godhood? I don't think we would. But you might say it's NOT a god because it has nothing to do with the bible, or the Koran, (or whatever), but what is divinity and what are gods really?
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:26PM
kingofsnake at 8:40AM, March 14, 2007
(online)
posts: 1,374
joined: 9-27-2006
Neilsama
You're saying “I can't logically conclude whether or not there is a God, so I'm going to conclude that there is no God.”
Burn the strawman! NO! I am saying that there is no logical basis for even bringing the God concept into a debate. You cannot demand disproof of a baseless supposition. It would be the same as me demanding that you disprove the flying spaghetti monster.

But this debate is ABOUT god and whether or not he exists. Theres no logical basis on bringing up god in a debate about something else, like trying to prove something by saying “because of god.” But the nature of THIS argument requires one to discuss god. Claiming god is a baseless supposition is short sighted at best. There is plenty of evidence that there *could* be a god. The amount of order within the cosmos if nothing else suggest the possibility of something that defines what that order would be. It doesn't *prove* there is a god, but it does show that there *could* be a god. Basing a position of atheism on the idea that god is a baseless supposition, is as close-minded as saying “there is nothing in this universe we don't already know.”

Neilsama
Speaking of which, I see that you didn't want to answer my question about the flying spaghetti monster and instead dove headfirst in a semantic retreat. Let me remove the word “agnostic” and ask the question more directly. Is the flying speghetti monster plausible, and if so, should we as a human race consider its viable existence? Should we suspend our disbelief of the flying spaghetti monster?

From a philosphical standpoint it is impossible to define any attributes about God. Therefore, except for wherein the flying spaghetti monster clearly divulges from historical and measurable fact, it can not be disproven. Once again, just because one dismisses a paticulary god as false, does not in anyway relate to any other god, or infact whatever god really is.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:15PM
Neilsama at 8:52AM, March 14, 2007
(online)
posts: 430
joined: 1-2-2006
kingofsnake
But this debate is ABOUT god and whether or not he exists. Theres no logical basis on bringing up god in a debate about something else, like trying to prove something by saying “because of god.” But the nature of THIS argument requires one to discuss god.
Yes, because of the confiscation of legitimacy that theists attempt to get away with. *WE* necessarily have to talk about God in a debate about God, because it is *YOU* who brings him into it. What reason do you have for supposing the existence of a God?

Do you get it? I'm not saying that the debate doesn't exist. I'm saying that YOU don't have REASON in your corner. Thus you smuggle this concept into a debate, as if there's some basis for legitimacy, which it has not earned.

kingofsnake
Claiming god is a baseless supposition is short sighted at best. There is plenty of evidence that there *could* be a god. The amount of order within the cosmos if nothing else suggest the possibility of something that defines what that order would be. It doesn't *prove* there is a god, but it does show that there *could* be a god. Basing a position of atheism on the idea that god is a baseless supposition, is as close-minded as saying “there is nothing in this universe we don't already know.”
AHEM!!! STRAWMAN!!!! MAN OF STRAW! STRAW! MAN!

I never once implied that there is nothing in the universe we do not know. That is YOUR caricature of an atheist. From my point-of-view, the lack of omniscience is an implied fact. It's implied by the very nature of debate that knowledge aquisition is still in progress, so your accusation is unfounded and sloppy.

Besides, your cosmological order argument is subject to a question-begging fallacy. You suggest that the order of the universe may be the result of an organized being. I don't even thing I need to explain why that refutes itself. That's an intelligent design argument.

The point I keep trying to bring to your attention is that lack of knowledge does not legitimize belief in God. All you've done is surrendered into the argument from ignorance, just like every other theistic argument. Just like creationism. Just like intelligent design.

Your cards are shown, and you have no hand.

kingofsnake
From a philosphical standpoint it is impossible to define any attributes about God. Therefore, except for wherein the flying spaghetti monster clearly divulges from historical and measurable fact, it can not be disproven. Once again, just because one dismisses a paticulary god as false, does not in anyway relate to any other god, or infact whatever god really is.
You still don't get it. Why do you presume the legitimacy of a belief that you admit is unprovable?

Would you like a lifeline.
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:10PM
kingofsnake at 9:22AM, March 14, 2007
(online)
posts: 1,374
joined: 9-27-2006
Neilsama
Yes, because of the confiscation of legitimacy that theists attempt to get away with. *WE* necessarily have to talk about God in a debate about God, because it is *YOU* who brings him into it. What reason do you have for supposing the existence of a God?

Do you get it? I'm not saying that the debate doesn't exist. I'm saying that YOU don't have REASON in your corner. Thus you smuggle this concept into a debate, as if there's some basis for legitimacy, which it has not earned.

There is no basis for illegitimacy, thereby, should one follow scientific meathod, it is legitimate until shown to be otherwise. What else do I have to prove exists before I can have a legitimate debate about it? Beauty? Truth? Evil? The Matrix? I'm going to to start saying that theres no such thing as dodo birds. Now we can't talk about them unless you prove their legitimacy first.

It doesn't matter whether god is legitimate. The concept of god is legitimate, thats enough.

Neilsama
AHEM!!! STRAWMAN!!!! MAN OF STRAW! STRAW! MAN!
this is immature. stick with the argument or don't argue.

Neilsama
I never once implied that there is nothing in the universe we do not know. That is YOUR caricature of an atheist. From my point-of-view, the lack of omniscience is an implied fact. It's implied by the very nature of debate that knowledge aquisition is still in progress, so your accusation is unfounded and sloppy.

I never said anything about omniscience. I'm talking about god. Not MY God. just god. The sooner you can see the difference the sooner you'll be able to follow my arguments rather than pick out specific points you disagree with instead of addressing the argument as a whole.

Neilsama
But the point I keep trying to bring to your attention is that lack of knowledge does not legitimize belief in God. All you've done is surrendered into the argument from ignorance, just like every other theistic argument. Just like creationism. Just like intelligent design.

Besides, your cosmological order argument is subject to a question-begging fallacy. You suggest that the order of the universe may be the result of an organized being. I don't even thing I need to explain why that refutes itself. That's an intelligent design argument.

And the point that I'm trying to bring to you is that lack of knowlegde equally does not legitimize the belief in no God.

Neilsama
You still don't get it. Why do you presume the legitimacy of a belief that you admit is unprovable?

Your suggestion that the fact that something is unprovable thereby makes it illegitimate is as much of a presumption as the opposite. The very nature of the fact that it's unprovable means that you can not make claims to it's legitimacy on an empirical basis alone. Your conclusions that there is no God become based on your belief that there is no God. The very nature of atheism is that it is an unprovable belief structure based on the rejection of having to accept something that is an unprovable belief structure, therby being hypocritical.

At least I claim to nothing other than that my belief that there is god is a belief and nothing more. You're trying to sugarcoat your beliefs with evidence that you don't have.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:15PM
nighthawk41 at 11:13AM, March 14, 2007
(online)
posts: 110
joined: 1-13-2006
It makes sense to me that people would believe in it. What I don't get is when they try to convert christians to atheism. It's annoying. Yes I know christians do the same thing, but they treat christianity as if the religion is the problem and not the people taking it too seriously.
If you want to believe in atheism, that's fine by me, just let me be protestant.
http://i138.photobucket.com/albums/q258/nighthawk41/BodomBeachTerrorsig.png Edited by Admin.
Please make your sig either 250 x 100 or 468 x 60 pixels. Thankyou.
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:16PM
subcultured at 11:59AM, March 14, 2007
(online)
posts: 5,392
joined: 1-7-2006
i beleive there would be more peace if people would stop converting other people.
let them decide and gravitate themselves to whatever belief they want.
J
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:01PM
7384395948urhfdjfrueruieieueue at 2:20PM, March 14, 2007
(offline)
posts: 6,921
joined: 8-5-2006
Spaghetti Monster=Lame-ass quote from South Park

The reason I believe in a God is if I'm lucky there may be one and I'll go to Heaven. If I were an Atheist and he existed (By Atheist I mean one who tries to disprove God, not one that doesn't care) I could end up in Hell. You're an Atheist, you pride yourself in understanding logic, can't you understand that? It's either take a chance or automatically fail.
i will also like to know you the more
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:03AM
kingofsnake at 2:27PM, March 14, 2007
(online)
posts: 1,374
joined: 9-27-2006
Atom Apple
(By Atheist I mean one who tries to disprove God, not one that doesn't care)

Thats an apathist :P
My best friend is an apathist. Just not giving a damn is one of the easiest routes to take.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:15PM
7384395948urhfdjfrueruieieueue at 2:47PM, March 14, 2007
(offline)
posts: 6,921
joined: 8-5-2006
From the earlier posts I felt I needed to clarify.

Apathy would be easier. But the words too emo.
i will also like to know you the more
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:03AM
Black_Kitty at 3:27PM, March 14, 2007
(online)
posts: 1,481
joined: 1-1-2006
Atom Apple
The reason I believe in a God is if I'm lucky there may be one and I'll go to Heaven. If I were an Atheist and he existed (By Atheist I mean one who tries to disprove God, not one that doesn't care) I could end up in Hell. You're an Atheist, you pride yourself in understanding logic, can't you understand that? It's either take a chance or automatically fail.

I personally don't see the logic in that and I'm Catholic. :S

Despite what people may say, Christianity does not guarantee you a ticket to heaven simply because you believe. This isn't the lottery or the horse race here. You can't bet on a winning team. If you believe, then you must act upon your belief and simply believing that God exists is not enough. (And no, acting upon your belief doesn't just mean going to mass every week and paying the tithe.)

Whether you believe, don't believe, or find no reason for belief…it's all a very personal “philosophy” (for lack of a better word.) So I see atheism, at least in a general sense, very much like theism.
  
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:24AM
CorruptComics at 3:31PM, March 14, 2007
(offline)
posts: 191
joined: 1-16-2007
That is where Catholics and Protestants disagree.

Ephesians 2:8-9
“For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.”

Titus 3:5
“Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;”

Salvation through faith or salvation through works? Ah, another topic is born.

last edited on July 14, 2011 11:46AM
Black_Kitty at 3:46PM, March 14, 2007
(online)
posts: 1,481
joined: 1-1-2006
You forgot the parts after it. ;) (I bolded the parts you quoted and if the wording is off, it's 'cause I looked it up through the New International Version.)

Ephesian 2:8-10
For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith-and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God-not by works, so that no one can boast. For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.

Titus 3:4-8
But when the kindness and love of God our Savior appeared, he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, whom he poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that, having been justified by his grace, we might become heirs having the hope of eternal life. This is a trustworthy saying. And I want you to stress these things, so that those who have trusted in God may be careful to devote themselves to doing what is good. These things are excellent and profitable for everyone.

But this isn't about Bible quotations so I'm going to stop hijacking this thread about atheism. :S
  
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:24AM
7384395948urhfdjfrueruieieueue at 3:54PM, March 14, 2007
(offline)
posts: 6,921
joined: 8-5-2006
I meant following it, not believing it.
i will also like to know you the more
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:03AM
Rich at 4:11PM, March 14, 2007
(online)
posts: 1,434
joined: 2-11-2006
Atheism has always struck me as more of a rejection of theism than anything else. Fine, so you lack a religion and you don't believe in a god. That doesn't mean that a god is logically impossible, it just means you don't believe in or worship one.

And because of the supposed nature of a god, we are in a position where we cannot prove or disprove their existence. We are at a spiritual stalemate. Without proof either way, claiming a god as nonexistend requires just as much faith as religion does.

But what about all that science that proves the universe relies entirely on logic?!? Take a look at science. How often does it change its theories and disprove scientifically proven things over and over? We are too stupid to even make any sense out of the observable physical world around us. What gives any of us a right to be so arrogant as to claim a god does or does not exist and that everyone else is wrong?
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:07PM
reconjsh at 4:36PM, March 14, 2007
(online)
posts: 663
joined: 12-18-2006
CorruptComics
That is where Catholics and Protestants disagree.

Ephesians 2:8-9
“For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.”

Titus 3:5
“Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;”

Salvation through faith or salvation through works? Ah, another topic is born.

For 1), that's not what Catholics and denominations disagree on.

For 2)… James 2:26
“For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.”
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:02PM
Jillers at 4:51PM, March 14, 2007
(offline)
posts: 236
joined: 3-7-2006
Atom Apple
Spaghetti Monster=Lame-ass quote from South Park

Actually the Flying Spaghetti Monster was started by Bobby Henderson in response to the debate of whether Intelligent Design should be taught in school.

Read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster
and
http://www.venganza.org/


Anywho, the whole atheist thing, does it “make sense” to me…

Well, I've spent a lot of time thinking about things, about what I believe about life and death, and I've talked to a few of my atheist friends about it.

I think that, yes, atheism does make sense to people who want it to make sense, in the same way that Christianity makes sense to the people that want it to make sense.

I'm not saying I see atheism as a religion, rather as a way to view how to live your life. Talking to my friends, they bring on the idea that their actions are their own - no omniscient being guiding your hand - and that the consequences are their own fault - you don't blame fate, or luck, or anyone else (well - you know, they blame other people like everyone else).

And another big point that they brought up to me is the idea of an afterlife - and that if there is an afterlife, doesn't that demean the importance of this life? Doesn't it stop you from enjoying yourself because of some obscure rules determining where your eternal soul is going to end up.

Personally - I'm pretty theistic, but atheism has its place too. While I don't subscribe to these ideas, I can see why a person would think them.

..don't know if all atheists think this way - just the few I know.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:08PM
subcultured at 6:43PM, March 14, 2007
(online)
posts: 5,392
joined: 1-7-2006
Someone
You're an Atheist, you pride yourself in understanding logic, can't you understand that? It's either take a chance or automatically fail.

see that's what i don't understand..why would an all powerful being care if you believe in him or not? does he need your belief to create supermassive blackholes and quasars?

i think religion has put that in as a way to keep giving to the church. i mean to believe in him is to give up money to the church…isn't it?
that's what all those holy wars was about, to tax people for their soul.

If God need you to believe in him to exist, then he's not really a very powerful being.

besides, hell is really a punishement from the church rather than from God.

If God created you, then he loves you…why would he create something that would he would hate and then be put through the fires of hell with eternal punishment.

religion is not God
and
God is not religion

that's what everyone need to understand
J
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:01PM
hpkomic at 7:00PM, March 14, 2007
(online)
posts: 943
joined: 1-1-2006
I've never understood the clash between religious ideals. I myself am an Atheist who follows the teachings of Buddha, but maybe I'm much more laid back and disconnected from everything though. I find any sort of religious debates to be a waste of time and effort, and wars around them to be even more so.

I myself follow science, however I am happy for people who follow a religion and allows them to make sense of the cosmos. It doesn't work for me however because the solution feels “too neat” and I am driven by curiosity and an attempt to find a scientific grounds for everything. Even though religion as a whole doesn't mesh with my view of the world (as cold, clinical and calculating as it is), I support a person's belief to do as they wish, all religions tend to have good points and good moral guidelines which I am all for the following of. Hence why I follow the ideals laid down by Siddhartha Gautama and the later Buddhas according to their texts.
Amongst all the religions out there, it makes the most sense to me, even though I still don't accept it as an answer and just follow it's guides as a code of conduct in my treatment of other and the world around me.

I guess with me, religions tend to feel a bit like an easy way out (this is my opinion, I am not insulting anyone who is religious, this is just based on my preference in education and knowledge and work towards understanding of the universe on a larger level) and I would much rather devote my life to finding a scientific answer to something.

I do enjoy writing papers on theology though, I was considering writing a book on the close ties of Hinduism and Buddhism through an analysis of their literature, but so far, I've just managed about a 10 page paper on the close ties of the monkey characters Hanuman and Sun Wukong, but it's always floating on the back of my mind to expand on it further.

Not sure if I went a bit off onto a tangent, but I hope I remained mostly on topic, I figured my stance may be an interesting one to look at though.
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:50PM
7384395948urhfdjfrueruieieueue at 7:11PM, March 14, 2007
(offline)
posts: 6,921
joined: 8-5-2006
@sub: That's what I used to think. Then I forgot it. Now I think it again. Thank you.
i will also like to know you the more
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:03AM
reconjsh at 7:48PM, March 14, 2007
(online)
posts: 663
joined: 12-18-2006
'Subcultured'
If God created you, then he loves you…why would he create something that would he would hate and then be put through the fires of hell with eternal punishment.
Just one small theological correction. Hell isn't about punishment for sins (though fire and brimstone preachers will tell you it is - a poor understand of Scripture is to blame - which is a debate for another thread). Hell is about choice. According to scripture, God loves His children SO much, that He allows them to choose a place where He is not. In Scripture, Hell isn't really a place of fire either. Hell's fire is man's literary creation to describe the horrific agony of life without God. In fact, in the Bible, fire is more often associated with Holy things than with evil things.



I really don't have anything to add to this discussion or debate though… sorry. If people want to be atheists, that's fine by me. If people want to be religious, that's fine by me too.

'Neilsama'
It's like debating over whether or not our brains exist in jars, and if reality is simply a virtual world generated by some super computer.
I remember this disctinctly from a book I read as a kid. It was an adult book and for the life of me I can't remember what it was or find it on the internet. Any ideas?
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:02PM
lothar at 5:52AM, March 15, 2007
(online)
posts: 1,299
joined: 1-3-2006
in response to the original question - what is a “god” anyway? if atheism is that i dont believe in the traditional human concept of some superbeing creating and watching over this planet than i am labeled an atheist!
all the gods and religions are just reflections of the human mind, that's not taking into account this whole universe that obviously exists outside our planet, we ar goldfish crackers that cant see outside of our box.
Theism vs Atheism is realy irrelevant to me , if there actually were gods they are either very week or dont care about us ! or cruel bastards that enjoy our suffering, i meen , seriously , who here would create this world and let it get so messed up as it is ? why would you do that?
Unless “god” is nuthing more than a highly advanced alien race that enjoys skrewing with other cultures, but is subject to the laws of reletivity and can't manage to watch this planet 24/7 and only visits every thousand years or so ?/?
sadly i dont think that is the case and humans have just made up all these gods to excuse for their own ignorance or feelings of weekness !

but its irellevant
what i am more concerned with is imortality and the existence of the soul, something that need not be related to any theism, and seems to be of much more importance to us!
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:45PM

Forgot Password
©2011 WOWIO, Inc. All Rights Reserved