Atheism Anyone?

[evilcloudst]

I grew up mormon and even went on a mission.

Religion is bullshit. 100% atheist and I nave never been happier.

 

[420God]

I was raised without any religious upbringing and stayed that way.

We live, we die, our bodies are recycled back into nature.

This video fits this thread.

[video=youtube;BNf-P_5u_Hw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNf-P_5u_Hw[/video]

 

[LJ6]

i think being an atheist is the dumbest religon you could possibly follow, yes atheism is a religon atleast by some definitions. religon-"a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects" in this case a fundamental set of beliefs that there is no higher power. i myself do not believe in religon but i do believe in god. as science doesnt do a good enough job of explaining the beginning of the beginning. so i feel the need to believe in god until science or something else offers something else moderately believable

 

[Chocolate Thia]

I guess I will put in my two cents. I read a book once. The author said this, and it stuck with me: If something is perfect it must reflect the perfection of the creator.

Often people use a watch to symbolize God. This is because a watch is a synchronized machine. It reflects the perfection of it's creator. When you really look at man, in it's entirety you must ask the question. Can chance become perfect? Can accident form something GREATER then itself?

Can chaos really become perfect order. It seems to conflict it self. No anarchy becomes a perfect government.

Now you can say natural disasters are a form of chaos? True. But never the less, to make Earth and man function, takes a great degree of precision. Evolutionist will have you believe it's easy if you throw in a billion years of trial and error. But even they have to admit there is no starting point to this theory. Evolution only works if you believe there was already something there.

You can't say there was NOTHING and suddenly there was something. While religion may seem a wild idea, I think the REAL turn off is mans interpretation of the Christian faith that is really the turn off.

True Christianity existed in Jesus Christ, but man through out the ages have taken the power out of the religion. Any one interested in the REAL Christians out there should talk to me some time. I have seen real healings. Dead raised, deaf healed.
It's real. And I can show you.

 

[soul11223]

Those are great movies. Cheers

 

[soul11223]

So you need to believe in something like that because you don’t be believe in evaluation and i’m not just talking about man from monkey shit. In the end in our life time we’ll probably not be able to say how we got here but no matter what god was still created by man.

 

[Chocolate Thia]

[video=youtube;xCxNyzlGiME]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xCxNyzlGiME&feature=related[/video]Witness a miracle. Or maybe instant shake and bake evolution minus the 1 billion years. This lady is sure glad she didn't have to wait that long to see.
Here is a very interesting video. Scientist get to investigate all they want. Fake or true?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xCxNyzlGiME&feature=related

 

[Padawanbater2]

the more interesting question and the more telling would be why we choose atheism.

We don't choose atheism.

the rational atheist must realize just how irrational it is to baldly claim "there is no god" in the face of overwhelming consensus.

I don't think it's irrational at all. People can be wrong, take for instance the Nazi's. How many of them were there at the peak of their power?

The consensus argument is weak at best.

more often than not it is a case such as your own, a rebellion against our upbringing and against the societal norm.

Only another atheist would understand why this makes absolutely no sense, so I don't expect you to understand the coming explanation, though I do expect you to continue making the claim anyway...

You think there are people out there that sit down and say to themselves "I don't think I believe in God.." and their reasoning behind that is because most of society does and they feel the need to be different or because they were raised whatever religion and it made them feel rebellious towards it?

This seems more likely to you than someone sitting down and thinking about the logical inconsistencies and paradox's, overall, most world religions are littered with, seeing the clear evidence supporting the real origins of our species and seeing side by side those same world religions touting truth as ultimate authority dismiss it because it doesn't agree with what they've already established to be true (because there's no way to say "God fucked up but everything else is right, trust me!)?

we may surround ourselves with a nearly unassailable wall of reason, but the heart of our disbelief remains emotional.

There is absolutely nothing emotional about my disbelief, no more than my disbelief towards Santa Clause or the Easter Bunny.

it is the authoritarian mythologies built up around the central creator myth that we most object to, a visceral reaction to blatant attempts at control.

No it isn't. You keep saying things as if you're speaking for atheists as a whole and everything I've read up until this point is confused logic.

It's not about this rebellious force inside me, it's not about having a central authoritarian figure to rally against. If that was the case, why aren't atheists as adamantly against the president or US gov.? It's about what is right, and teaching it, even if it's painful, because the pain is temporary and in the long run, we can learn from our mistakes instead of hide them and pretend they never happened.

without conclusive evidence, all we have is consensus.

No, we still have evidence that points towards a specific conclusion.. It isn't as if it's one theory vs. another and if there's no clear conclusion to which one is true, they're both useless and we just go by what most people think is true.. Confused logic. The evidence mounts when we discover new things. Evolution v. ID, do you know how many peer reviewed scientific papers I could cite about the theory of evolution? How many could you cite in support of ID? You can't honestly look at this example and say both theories hold the same amount of weight regarding credibility. One is clearly much more supported by the scientific community.

this doesn't mean that consensus is correct, but that any other conclusion is no more valid than tradition.

How did you reach that conclusion?

A well developed scientific theory based on evidence and observations couldn't be more valid than tradition or a general consensus among the population?

it is still little more than uninformed opinion. when such an overwhelming majority is so convinced of these mythologies, one must wonder if there are some truths hidden behind it all.

I've given you that every time you bring it up, but dude, I give you an inch and you take a MILE! YES, I openly admit that there are certain things within every single religion that are good. This does not make them more accurate, more credible, or more moral.

i think being an atheist is the dumbest religon you could possibly follow, yes atheism is a religon atleast by some definitions. religon-"a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects" in this case a fundamental set of beliefs that there is no higher power. i myself do not believe in religon but i do believe in god. as science doesnt do a good enough job of explaining the beginning of the beginning. so i feel the need to believe in god until science or something else offers something else moderately believable

K, so what's the "religion" called that denies Santa Clause as real? Asantaists...?

You feel the need to believe in God until something comes along and changes your mind...

G e t t h e f u c k o f f y o u r l a z y a s s a n d e d u c a t e y o u r s e l f p a s t y o u r c u r r e n t s t a t e o f r e t a r d a t i o n .

I guess I will put in my two cents. I read a book once. The author said this, and it stuck with me: If something is perfect it must reflect the perfection of the creator.

What exactly are you saying is "perfect"?

Often people use a watch to symbolize God. This is because a watch is a synchronized machine. It reflects the perfection of it's creator. When you really look at man, in it's entirety you must ask the question. Can chance become perfect? Can accident form something GREATER then itself?

Are you saying man is "perfect"?

Can chaos really become perfect order. It seems to conflict it self. No anarchy becomes a perfect government.

Apparently in the structure of the universe, from the large to the small, patters are beneficial to the organism, so yes, from chaos can come order and structure (if you could call it that, I wouldn't).

Evolutionist will have you believe it's easy if you throw in a billion years of trial and error. But even they have to admit there is no starting point to this theory. Evolution only works if you believe there was already something there.

Evolution doesn't touch on the origins of life, therefore the mystery of how life got started is independent of itself. Life evolves, that fact is irrefutable, we have over 150 years of evidence to support it.

While religion may seem a wild idea, I think the REAL turn off is mans interpretation of the Christian faith that is really the turn off.

What would the correct interpretation be?

True Christianity existed in Jesus Christ, but man through out the ages have taken the power out of the religion. Any one interested in the REAL Christians out there should talk to me some time. I have seen real healings. Dead raised, deaf healed.
It's real. And I can show you.

Show me?

 

[KOOdO]

u cant make an argument agasint GOD without assuming GOD. science cant tell us wher right and wronng come from .expplain morality and logic and uniformitarianism without the God of the bible!!! u cant! also evolution isnt science its a religoun...u dont test or demonstrate the big bang. u BELIEVE it happens . u dont test or see a dog evolve into something other than a dog u bellieve it happens over millions of years...if u want to rebuttle i extremely suggest watching the whole seminar on creation and evolution science at http://www.drdino.com/... this shit will blow ur mind people..

 

[KOOdO]

and i friggen hate this zietgiest shitt like cant people look at it the other way.if there all these religouns that mimic jesus aand his story.cant that also be proof of it being true and satan trying to decieve and copyed from it and made up all these other one from the one of the bibel!?? see makes total sense people...

 

[ChronicObsession]

As a firm believer of mankind's *Gubernments* conglomerizing into one giant Earth-eating juggernaut super system, the escalation of our human race in just the last 100 years should be alarming enough to anyone else that would bother to take a look at world history. IMO, the United Nations system is a joke. Powerful nations like YOUSA can manipulate little nations like amsterdam, so that at the end of this year (again) there is going to be a ban on selling marijuana to tourists. 100 years ago, communication as the layman knew it was pretty damn pathetic in comparison to today. BUT, just think about all the phone lines that are tapped everyday. The internet is being watched. The ISP providers are talking to the police. The police are paying ISPs. Once someone posts here, their neck is out. Today, satellites watch bridges and important sites on the ground like buildings, monitoring cars and people passing to and from. There exists 10000x more money (colorful paper that you can't use for rolling papers) than there ever was before, plus credit lending to anyone that can sign their name on a line. All the rats of the rat race are busy with credit and refinance and bankruptcy while the gubenment is looking more like a juicy old pig lying on its back, high on absynthe while the wolves eat up mr. piggy piggy until he's nothing but a skeleton of his former glory. HAha, stop eating yourself! Stop eating yourself! Stop eating yourself!

oh sorry, yea abut the religions yea o ney, I say yea for me. I like Jesus Christ, whether you think he is imaginary or not

oh yea, and ................ they say religion is for the poor, but that's BS. I'm not so poor, and I give nice stuff to the Priest's church all the time, like LEDs for their chapel. They don't own ipods or leather chair with built in butt warmer, the have an oath to living a life of not owning fancy, useless (in the divine way) posessions, just like the History of Mr. Christ, because Jesus didn't have posessions when he Died.

As an Athesit myself, I'm curious how many others are.
Basically my beliefs are - you're here, you're not..that's it. Like a fart and no more significant than one. I understand that some people find comfort and purpose in religion, I just think that you're not getting the most out of life if you never stop to consider other possibilities. A whole new world opened up for me as soon as I wasn't tethered by religion anymore. I felt a connection with the earth that I was never able to achive through "worship" because I no longer felt superior to other beings. I believe that we're all a part of a natural process that is no less remarkable than the concept of creation. WHY(?) isn't important to me. Any other thoughts/opinions?

 

[jesco51]

I'm not religious, I'm not atheist, I just am what I am. I know I'm a good person and I just want to live my life. IMO religious fanatics tend to be extremely judgmental which contradicts what they believe in in the first place. Also I tend to think religion is a defense mechanism humans have developed. Most humans can't deal with the fact that one day they will be gone so they take comfort in religion which basically means go to church praise the lord and you will go to heaven. I don't need religion to be a giving person or generous or any other good trait I have. I just am by nature. Don't get me wrong I'm definately not a saint I've done my share of stupid shit but geeeze Them born again Christians need to get off there high horse. ....wait am I starting to sound like an atheist?

 

[undertheice]

We don't choose atheism....

another rant that ends up being simply an attack on christianity, ho hum. you want us all to believe you are so rational, that there is some definitive proof that has led you to the inescapable conclusion that there is no god. you would like us all to see you as above emotional reaction and the pettiness of rebellion against the status quo, as believing that only the scientific method is capable of leading you to any conclusion. the problem is that there is no proof and you know it. there is no way to test for the existence of a god. you can rail against the fallibility of "common knowledge", even going so far as to compare the belief in god with the belief in nazi philosophy or the easter bunny, and even successfully refute many elements of religious dogma. you can pick apart the inconsistencies of scripture to your heart's content, but the god myth pre-dates modern religious doctrine. it is a pervasive mythology that has existed since mankind's infancy and refuses to go away.

what you so willfully ignore is that there is more to man than the rational. the limitations of our intellect combined with an insatiable thirst for answers demand we make leaps of faith into the unknown. the measured course may be the more prudent, but it is also the dreary path of the unimaginative. our arts, our religions, our charity and even many of our greatest innovations have been fueled by these leaps. this is the origin of the god myth and the reason it refuses to die, not simple fear or a clinging to ignorance. each rational argument made against the unknowable runs smack into this wall of man's irrational nature. without answers we invent them (not always such a bad thing) and without proof or an extremely compelling desire "common knowledge" will prevail.

your contention that only another atheist could understand your reasoning and that i am no atheist is a clear sign both of the conceit found in so many of the anti-religious and that you simply haven't been paying attention. this thread is about the atheist, not the irreligionist, and all of those anti-religious arguments become moot. while the skepticism of the god myth may be objective, any conclusion on the matter must be a subjective one. we choose to side with "common knowledge", to follow some other equally unprovable course, to refuse anything of which we have no personal knowledge or to simply remain in doubt and that choice is spurred by our biases and inclinations. what drives us to first stand against the vast majority of believers may be different for everyone, but the most obvious and most often stated reason for first bucking the tide is a frustration with the demands imposed on the individual by sustained faith. the rules and regulations, the necessary suspension of disbelief and the pressures of the increasingly impassioned secular forces of society provide ample reason to rebel against the values of the past. what follows that first blush of rebellion may very well include honest evaluation and a weighing of the probabilities, but it seldom starts with a rational examination of what has no rational basis.

 

[Heisenberg]

the more interesting question and the more telling would be why we choose atheism. the rational atheist must realize just how irrational it is to baldly claim "there is no god" in the face of overwhelming consensus. more often than not it is a case such as your own, a rebellion against our upbringing and against the societal norm. we may surround ourselves with a nearly unassailable wall of reason, but the heart of our disbelief remains emotional. it is the authoritarian mythologies built up around the central creator myth that we most object to, a visceral reaction to blatant attempts at control.

It is an interesting question. Why do atheists persist? But your remarks only pertains to those who claim God doesn't exist. Do atheist always need to make a claim? What do you call someone who simply finds no good reason to believe the claim of a god and therefore dismisses it? Does dismissal qualify as being certain God isn't real? If science is making a conclusion about god, aren't all scientific claims based only on current data, with the understanding that new evidence can always change things? You seem to be arguing about the certainty, a pitfall science is well aware of.

without conclusive evidence, all we have is consensus. this doesn't mean that consensus is correct, but that any other conclusion is no more valid than tradition. it is still little more than uninformed opinion. when such an overwhelming majority is so convinced of these mythologies, one must wonder if there are some truths hidden behind it all. not necessarily the TRUTH they embrace, but some truth nonetheless.

doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd.

Validity is not based on something as subjective as popular opinion. Perhaps I am misunderstanding you because you seem to be eloquently making an absurd point. One may indeed wonder if a consensus points to validity, but it would be foolish to draw any sort of conclusion simply from the fact that an opinion is popular.

upon just what "scientific evidence" have you based the conclusion that there is no god? i can understand that a great deal of religious doctrine may be refuted through the application of scientific methodology, but how does one prove that there is no god? just as a man, consigned to the furthest depths of some dark cavern, may may find it impossible to accept the existence of a warming sun hanging in the sky, so too might it be said that the limitations of our humanity make it impossible for to recognize the existence of a creature capable of creating that sun and everything else from nothingness. the truly rational mind must admit the limitations of human reason and understanding. in so doing we must also admit that everything which is beyond our understanding is possible. skepticism and doubt are understandable and can even be considered a necessary component of the rational mind, but the certainty of atheism falls into the realm of faith and leaves reason behind.

Again you argue against a strawman and assume a false dichotomy. That someone is either certain of god or certain of no god. Skeptics simply site the lack of evidence and the availability of less presumptuous explanations, and therefore dismiss the conclusion. This automatically qualifies us as atheists. Just as all newborns are atheists, and just as people who believe in a deity are atheist to every god but the one(s) they worship or fear.

 

[undertheice]

It is an interesting question. Why do atheists persist? But your remarks only pertains to those who claim God doesn't exist. Do atheist always need to make a claim? What do you call someone who simply finds no good reason to believe the claim of a god and therefore dismisses it? Does dismissal qualify as being certain God isn't real? If science is making a conclusion about god, aren't all scientific claims based only on current data, with the understanding that new evidence can always change things? You seem to be arguing about the certainty, a pitfall science is well aware of.

the question was never intended to be why atheism exists, but a case by case inquiry as to the reasons behind each individual's belief that there is no god. you may wish to get involved in the semantics of the word "claim" or to split hairs as to what exactly an atheist is, but this certainly isn't a constructive path. for all intents and purposes, the atheist is one who denies the existence of god. that stance alone is the claim. unless one has never even heard of the concept of god, the atheist has made the decision to dismiss the god myth and that dismissal is the claim. to be certain is absurd, but to take that stand might be considered a prerequisite for being considered an atheist.

considering the pervasive nature of the god myth, i find it hard to believe there are many who have no opinion at all. i have never met anyone who has never considered the question, but maybe you have. whether it is the conclusive decision of the believer and the atheist that god is either a reality or a fantasy or the ambivalence of the agnostic, it is still an opinion.

Validity is not based on something as subjective as popular opinion.

of course it isn't, but opinion is all we have when evidence is impossible to attain. my only point with this statement was that denying "common knowledge" without evidence is no more rational than the original proposition and we are forced to ask what was behind such a widespread belief. we can trace the histories of various religions to find the reasoning behind their growth, but the original concept of gods that we base these religions on remains hidden. though we may speculate and come to some relatively informed conclusion, there can be no true certainty and we must admit to the possibility of some glimmer of truth behind it all if we are to be at all honest.

Again you argue against a strawman and assume a false dichotomy. That someone is either certain of god or certain of no god. Skeptics simply cite the lack of evidence and the availability of less presumptuous explanations, and therefore dismiss the conclusion. This automatically qualifies us as atheists.

this false dichotomy is entirely of your own making and you have become trapped in the ludicrous idea of certainty. the mind of man is no simple binary switch, there are infinite degrees of skepticism before the line of denial is crossed. the skeptic is not necessarily an atheist until a decision is made, at which point he ceases to be simply the doubter and becomes the denier. it may seem an over-simplification, but there is some truth in the definition of the agnostic as one who has failed to come to any conclusion.

Just as all newborns are atheists, and just as people who believe in a deity are atheist to every god but the one they worship.

oh please. atheism implies disbelief and one cannot deny that which one is unaware of. an infant, being unaware of the question in the first place, is incapable of making that decision. as for your second bit of trite wisdom, one cannot be a theist and an atheist at the same time. the belief in any god gets you into the club. aside from the differences in dogma, the god myth is universal. well, universal may not be the best term to use, but you get the idea.

 

[Padawanbater2]

That is absurd man! It's not the "disbelief" of a claim. Do you "disbelieve" in Santa Clause? When you make claims like that, just replace "God" with "Santa Clause" and see how it fits, it will save you a lot of trouble!

You don't believe in Santa Clause because you know it doesn't make any sense, you CAN'T take the claim seriously, in your head, therefore, you are INCAPABLE of believing it.

...going to work, be back later with a response to your earlier post.

 

[Heisenberg]

the question was never intended to be why atheism exists, but a case by case inquiry as to the reasons behind each individual's belief that there is no god. you may wish to get involved in the semantics of the word "claim" or to split hairs as to what exactly an atheist is, but this certainly isn't a constructive path. for all intents and purposes, the atheist is one who denies the existence of god. that stance alone is the claim. unless one has never even heard of the concept of god, the atheist has made the decision to dismiss the god myth and that dismissal is the claim. to be certain is absurd, but to take that stand might be considered a prerequisite for being considered an atheist.

considering the pervasive nature of the god myth, i find it hard to believe there are many who have no opinion at all. i have never met anyone who has never considered the question, but maybe you have. whether it is the conclusive decision of the believer and the atheist that god is either a reality or a fantasy or the ambivalence of the agnostic, it is still an opinion.

of course it isn't, but opinion is all we have when evidence is impossible to attain. my only point with this statement was that denying "common knowledge" without evidence is no more rational than the original proposition and we are forced to ask what was behind such a widespread belief. we can trace the histories of various religions to find the reasoning behind their growth, but the original concept of gods that we base these religions on remains hidden. though we may speculate and come to some relatively informed conclusion, there can be no true certainty and we must admit to the possibility of some glimmer of truth behind it all if we are to be at all honest.

this false dichotomy is entirely of your own making and you have become trapped in the ludicrous idea of certainty. the mind of man is no simple binary switch, there are infinite degrees of skepticism before the line of denial is crossed. the skeptic is not necessarily an atheist until a decision is made, at which point he ceases to be simply the doubter and becomes the denier. it may seem an over-simplification, but there is some truth in the definition of the agnostic as one who has failed to come to any conclusion.

oh please. atheism implies disbelief and one cannot deny that which one is unaware of. an infant, being unaware of the question in the first place, is incapable of making that decision. as for your second bit of trite wisdom, one cannot be a theist and an atheist at the same time. the belief in any god gets you into the club. aside from the differences in dogma, the god myth is universal. well, universal may not be the best term to use, but you get the idea.

If we are operating under the definition that atheism asserts the claim that god isn't real, which is indeed the traditional and strict use of the word, most of what you say makes sense. I too take the position that certainty is unwise, and doubt is always warranted. I wonder, if someone grows up without ever being subjected to belief in gods, and the concept never occurs to them, what do you call them? Simply unaware I suppose.

We have a choice of whether or not to make a claim. In most cases, the choice to make a claim starts with observation and moves on to reason and evidence. Some people look at life and conclude that it has divine design. Some chose a systematic way of carefully and thoroughly observing nature while using consistent logic to evaluate the results. In which case we say, we do not feel the motivation to join everyone else and assert the claim that there is a god. It is possible that god designed reality in such a way as we can't find evidence and reason, or that we are just not capable of currently attaining that knowledge, but these are simply possibilities and in no way enforce belief. We must always be aware of our possible ignorance, but we can never count it as evidence. Based on all current evidence, observation and reasoning we are not comfortable claiming the existence of a god and therefore are not motivated to adopt a method of worship or study, and unless new knowledge comes along, we dismiss further contemplation.

If you see this as certainty then so be it. I simply see it as skepticism, and as an accurate reflection of those calling themselves atheists today.

 

[soul11223]

u cant make an argument agasint GOD without assuming GOD. science cant tell us wher right and wronng come from .expplain morality and logic and uniformitarianism without the God of the bible!!! u cant! also evolution isnt science its a religoun...u dont test or demonstrate the big bang. u BELIEVE it happens . u dont test or see a dog evolve into something other than a dog u bellieve it happens over millions of years...if u want to rebuttle i extremely suggest watching the whole seminar on creation and evolution science at http://www.drdino.com/... this shit will blow ur mind people..

ummm you don’t test for the big bang theory? Large Hadron Collider theres a start for you. GOD is a man made thing created to keep people in order now days religion has fallen off the map that there even studying up on science. An if your going to still say there is a god which one is the real one theres how many different types of religion whose to say which is the real one when there no PROOF everrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.

 

[cannabis420420]

not sure what i believe in don't have a religion

 

[Heisenberg]

u cant make an argument agasint GOD without assuming GOD.

Translation: You can't disbelieve in god without believing in god.

science cant tell us wher right and wronng come from .expplain morality and logic and uniformitarianism without the God of the bible!!! u cant!

Translation: Magic is a better explanation than evolutionary pressures, basic compassion and sympathy.

also evolution isnt science its a religoun...u dont test or demonstrate the big bang. u BELIEVE it happens . u dont test or see a dog evolve into something other than a dog u bellieve it happens over millions of years...

Translation: I don't understand evolution or the big bang enough to realize they are two independent theories. I lump them together and then pretend their support does not come from careful observation, reasoning and evidence.

if u want to rebuttle i extremely suggest watching the whole seminar on creation and evolution science at http://www.drdino.com/... this shit will blow ur mind people..

Translation: These tricks of logic coupled with my ignorance and inability to think critically fooled my brain so throughly that I am convinced they will fool yours.