Server Error in Forum Application An error has occurred while writing to the database. Please contact the Forum Administrator.
Support Error Code:- err_SQLServer_getSessionData()_save_new_session_data File Name:- functions_session_data.asp Forum Version:- 11.01
Error details:- Microsoft OLE DB Provider for SQL Server Violation of PRIMARY KEY constraint 'PK__tblSession__30CE2BBB'. Cannot insert duplicate key in object 'dbo.tblSession'. The duplicate key value is (33151908zcb1e21efb4143254a1df7316435185).
General discussions - The Atheist - Agnostic - Non religious thread
Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Topics not related to music
Forum Name: General discussions
Forum Description: Discuss any topic at all that is not music-related
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=58500 Printed Date: November 23 2024 at 17:33 Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: The Atheist - Agnostic - Non religious threadPosted By: The T
Subject: The Atheist - Agnostic - Non religious thread
Date Posted: June 03 2009 at 22:17
The purpose of this thread is to discuss the origins of your beliefs, or actually, lack thereof (in the case of Atheism) As I'm pretty sure that, unlike most cases with religion, atheism and similar secular school of thoughts are not imposed or taught by parents, it's more than likely that in most cases you will have reached ythe decision not to believe (or at least the decision to DOUBT) by your own free will (this doesn't mean ALL religious people haven't made their choice out of free will) How did that happen? When, how old where you? Are you happy about your choice or at times you long for the days when you had something to believe?
I'd also love to hear about people who have their own versions of God, not dependant of churches or holy books or prophets....
-------------
Replies: Posted By: JJLehto
Date Posted: June 03 2009 at 22:19
...What qualifies for non believer?
I am a Deist. Sooo, I believe in god but believe me I am NO fan of religion/church. Besides, my belief in what god is, is not the standard (if you know what Deism is you understand)
Posted By: The T
Date Posted: June 03 2009 at 22:21
Yes... so we could say my question would include your case....
I'll change the title... and first post a little...
-------------
Posted By: Alitare
Date Posted: June 03 2009 at 22:34
I strayed from Christianity not too long ago. It was a mixture of reflective self questioning, and perhaps not being able to find adequate answers to I suppose what you'd call the popular stipulations, such as suffering, the omnipotence paradox, lack of presence, etc.
I just can't feasibly believe in spiritual powers.
Posted By: JJLehto
Date Posted: June 03 2009 at 22:37
The T wrote:
Yes... so we could say my question would include your case....
I'll change the title... and first post a little...
Excellent. And Non-Religious is for sure. Quick background. I was born and raised Catholic but my family wasn't very "religious". I actually went to church every Sunday and did CCD. I went halfway through 8th grade, I remember since we were practicing for Confirmation. It was around here I just started losing touch with church. My mom always, "If I want to thank God for a beautiful day, or just experience him why do I have to be in that building with that 10 in my hand..."
She was Russian Orthodox. Anyway, through H.S. I was agnostic/didn't care and did the whole "Opiate of the Masses, organized religion keeps you down etc" In college I had a change in some beliefs obviously, (if you want later I'll talk about my change). But I still....(to be polite) disagree strongly with organized religion/church. I think faith is fine, but it should PERSONAL. Kept to yourself, and does not need to involve church. That IMHO gets in the way of faith and that church's become about making money/getting numbers/or just become corrupt.
Without going into a 5 page thing, I hope this gets as much about me across as I could. Again, I'll explain more later.
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: June 03 2009 at 22:39
whatever happened to personal spirituality?
Posted By: Logan
Date Posted: June 03 2009 at 22:45
I don't believe in free will, but then I'm a "non-believer" when it comes to a lot of things. I'd describe myself as agnostic, and pretty much always would have. I haven't much faith in God existing, nor faith that God does not exist in some form. At times I've "swing both ways" to whatever extent. I like to believe in something greater, but am unsure....( and don't wish to define God into existence according to my vague "feelings"). Don't know the origins of my non-beliefs, I've just not felt convinced either way despite spiritual desires.
------------- https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLXcp9fYc6K4IKuxIZkenfvukL_Y8VBqzK" rel="nofollow - Duos for fave acts
Posted By: KoS
Date Posted: June 03 2009 at 23:00
I was raised Catholic but religion never gelled with me. Always found it a bit odd to be told that god exists but Santa doesn't. In middle school, I read a lot about evolution(Started with reading Jurassic Park in 5th grade). In the beginning of high school, I read some Crowley and other Occultists and thought it was BS. I realized if these guys can write this sh*t, then the Bible isn't all that special.
What really made me an ardent atheist is taking anthropology courses and taking a course in early literature. The anthropology courses just opened my eyes more to our evolution and our state of affairs. As Hitchens like to say, we are not much more than self-aware primates. We are not perfect or unique, but that doesn't mean that I live an existentialist nightmare. It just means that humans, like the rest of the natural world came bout by evolution not by the guiding hand of a supernatural being. The literature course, made me realize of the absurdity of holding one particular and badly written book above all others. I mean, every damn culture has a creation tale suited for their needs.
Posted By: JJLehto
Date Posted: June 03 2009 at 23:20
^ Almost the exact sentiments of my Anthro prof! Funny, it was actually biology that tipped me from leaning "no higher power" to there is one
Posted By: Petrovsk Mizinski
Date Posted: June 04 2009 at 00:03
I have been an atheist for my whole life. I went to church one with my mum cos I was too young to stay home by myself at the time (well I probably was but my mum didn't trust me at any rate, lol, I must have been about 11 years old) and there was dude rambling about hell for 4 hours. It was the most boring sh*t ever. Absolutely no offense intended to anyone religious reading this, but I honestly don't get how people go to a church service and not fall asleep or bring their iPod to listen to for the entire time, lol.
-------------
Posted By: Queen By-Tor
Date Posted: June 04 2009 at 00:09
see "Faithless" or "Ghost Of A Chance" by Rush.
It so happens that Peart's beliefs mirror my own
Posted By: stonebeard
Date Posted: June 04 2009 at 00:25
I was confirmed as a Methodist (got me when I was young, as per usual), and slowly just stopped believing any of that. It took awhile to shake off the fear of Hell n such, but that's mostly gone now. Then probably around 17 I wandered in deism and began getting into philosophy. By 18 I think I was more or less fully agnostic, but practically atheist. Now I'm in a hilarious stage where I'm trying not to care. Ideally, I want to be an apathetic agnostic--God might be there, religions are silly, who knows so why bother? Also, everything the Christians said about God is necessary for morality is true...but there probably isn't a Christian God, so I don't think any objective morality is possible, though it may seem so. Oh the hilarity!
Currently, I'm an Existential Aspiring Apathetic Agnostic Hedonist Who Does Not Have Solid Ground to Stand On and Thus Does Not Wish to Make Rash Decisions That May Harm People.
It sux.
------------- http://soundcloud.com/drewagler" rel="nofollow - My soundcloud. Please give feedback if you want!
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: June 04 2009 at 00:34
King By-Tor wrote:
see "Faithless" or "Ghost Of A Chance" by Rush.
or 'Freewill'
Posted By: WaywardSon
Date Posted: June 04 2009 at 00:36
I was christened Anglican and moved to Methodist, then experimented with a lot of other religions
Now, I have come to the conclusion that religion is just a psychological crutch to get through life.
So now I am agnostic and will be a man and die with my boots on!!
Posted By: Queen By-Tor
Date Posted: June 04 2009 at 00:38
Atavachron wrote:
King By-Tor wrote:
see "Faithless" or "Ghost Of A Chance" by Rush.
or 'Freewill'
How could I forget that!?
I was so upset when I heard that Snakes and Arrows was going to be a "highly religious" album - that is - until I found out that they had the same thought pattern as me.
No one gets to their "heaven" without a fight.
Posted By: Failcore
Date Posted: June 04 2009 at 02:43
I haven't moved away from religion (yet at least, but I don't think I will.), but I started distancing myself from the Methodist church I was raised in when I was 17. Listening to some old guy ramble on about his beliefs is not the ideal way to discover truth, IMO. As far as music goes, I can listen to almost any type of lyrics (Christian, Atheist, occult) as long as they are not overly hateful or intolerant toward any other school of thought.
Here's one I bet you guys hear a lot? "What's the use in trying to be good or accomplish anything if there's no higher power?" That's the typical weak religious mainline argument against atheism. However, I think that an atheist point of view in some ways raises the stakes. You don't have any external source to rely on for meaning, instead you have to create your own meaning. Plus this being the only life you get, you've not got any afterlife to fall back on. No mulligans as per reincarnation either.
Posted By: Failcore
Date Posted: June 04 2009 at 02:49
WaywardSon wrote:
I was christened Anglican and moved to Methodist, then experimented with a lot of other religions
Now, I have come to the conclusion that religion is just a psychological crutch to get through life.
So now I am agnostic and will be a man and die with my boots on!!
Religion is a crutch for some, for other it isn't. For some it works the opposite way; they drive themselves to brink of suicide by creating impossibly high standards for themselves to live up to. That's kinda the way I go. I was the only kid I ever knew that gave up video games for lent b/c I thought they were probably immoral indulgences. But I have a lot of OCD issues in general, so it kinda depends on your personality I suppose.
Posted By: someone_else
Date Posted: June 04 2009 at 03:13
The T wrote:
I'll change the title... and first post a little...
Then may I be so bold to suggest that you change it once again? One can be a Christian without being religious, albeit hard for some to tell faith from religion. Moreover, Jesus hates religion.
-------------
Posted By: Jimbo
Date Posted: June 04 2009 at 03:30
Deathrabbit wrote:
Here's one I bet you guys hear a lot? "What's the use in trying to be good or accomplish anything if there's no higher power?" That's the typical weak religious mainline argument against atheism. However, I think that an atheist point of view in some ways raises the stakes. You don't have any external source to rely on for meaning, instead you have to create your own meaning. Plus this being the only life you get, you've not got any afterlife to fall back on. No mulligans as per reincarnation either.
Yes, I always found that one particularly funny. People who use such lines indirectly admit to being 'good' only because of fear of a higher power. Where's the moral in that, one might ask?
I have been an atheist for as long as I remember, although I don't believe children can be religious/non-religious as such. They do not have the means to grasp such things yet. Moreover, religion is completely irrelevant to the average 8-year old who's main concern is where to get his next dosage of ice-cream. I believe spirituality/religion is something you should learn about on your own. Preferably at a time when you feel ready to tackle such issues. Here in Finland, you are forced to choose between religion and ethics when you start school - I think it's absolutely ridiculous. Religion shouldn't be taught at that age, imo.
As for me, religion was a non-issue at our house. My parents are both atheists, but they didn't force their way onto me, instead, they strongly encouraged me 'to find my own way', so to speak.
-------------
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: June 04 2009 at 03:43
http://www.choosereality.org/real/">
http://www.choosereality.org/real/ - Click
Here to see if reality is a good fit for your life
Marc
Perkel's Church
http://www.churchofreality.org/">
If it's Real - we believe in it! http://www.churchofreality.org/mailman/listinfo/membership - Click on any of the logos above. I think you might find it interesting.
------------- Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
Posted By: Snow Dog
Date Posted: June 04 2009 at 04:38
Posted By: VanderGraafKommandöh
Date Posted: June 04 2009 at 05:08
Well I've also been an atheist all of my life. I've never once believed in God or had any religious views. My father is staunchly atheist (very much like myself) and my mother is too (I think; she never really discusses it. I think she's more agnostic if anything).
Neither of them (or my elder brother's) forced anything on me. I just have always thought the idea of God is complete rubbish. I guess it may partly be due to my interest in Dinosaurs when I was about 8 or so as well but even then, I do not think I had any views.
Having said this, I did find an old school book of mine earlier this year from when I was about 6 or 7 (perhaps younger) and in it, I do mention God. Very odd! At that age it must have been mentioned at school. I do remember once at school one of the teachers asking what was special about that day. Nobody knew except me. It was Epiphany. I think I had read it in a diary the day before.
-------------
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: June 04 2009 at 05:39
No real epiphany for me I just walked away.
I was raised a C of E christian, went to church and Sunday school, joined the campanologists (the only time I've ever been a member of a musical group) and rang the church bells every Sunday and at weddings and funerals, but never "got" that institutionalised form of worship - to me it seemed that "church" should be vehicle and not the be all and end all of a religion. So when I was 16 I joined an evangelical church, and regularly visited other baptist and pentecostal churches, (I even joined a catholic youth club), and went to prayer meetings, bible readings, joined discussion groups (that never really seemed to discuss anything) in several of those churches and read teenage pulp christian literature like "The cross and the switchblade". Through all that I got into christian rock, (which to a 16 year old seemed the perfect solution - god getting down with the kids), and attended several Greenbelt christian rock festivals. And I have to admit I was taken in by the whole thing - I saw the light and was born again, I was one of the chosen, speaking in tongues, laying on of hands, the works.
During this time I was approached by some members of a fundamentalist christian commune who invited me to stay with them for the a while, I had heard rumours of them before, but curiosity got the better of me - I wanted to experience first hand what they were about, so I went along. Now, as I said, no real epiphany - I was affected by what I saw there, so much so that if they had told me there and then that I could stay forever I would have done in an instant, except for two small events that planted the seed of doubt in my mind: the first occurred during a communal sing-a-long, we were sat around singing christian songs (even carols in the middle of summer) when one lad picked up a guitar that someone had left in an non-standard tuning and played a few bars of blues - everyone stopped and glared at him, he flushed an embarrassed look and quickly re-tuned the guitar; the second was the following day when another guy took me to one side and asked me about Pink Floyd and The Moody Blues as he as a big fan before joining the commune - I told him that Floyd had just released a new album (WYWH) that was dedicated to Syd Barrett and it was the most beautiful music I'd ever heard - his face was one of pure joy at this news, but his eyes told a different story - they were brimming with a deep sadness and loss. At that moment I knew I could never give up secular music, so I just walked away.
From then on I lost my faith - my overriding desire to question everything was not being answered to my satisfaction, 'speaking in tongues' was gibberish, creation was a being bent into a lie, no one was ever healed by the 'laying on of hands', 'prayers' were selfish, 'man in god's image' was a reflection of man's arogance, the bible was not "the word" but a bad translation... in the end I just walked away.
Later in life I tried Wiccian but could not reconcile the fact that it wasn't a real pagan religion, but a romantic victorian idea of what the true ancient religion may have been like. And I have read Le Vey's Satanic Bible and Satansism was not for me.
------------- What?
Posted By: VanderGraafKommandöh
Date Posted: June 04 2009 at 05:56
I'm just glad you've gotten out of that cycle, Dean. I'm not remotely religious, as you are aware but I can say that you do not find religion, religion finds you. You have to choose one and stick with it (or rather, it finds you and you stick with it, unless you completely lose faith, of course).
Of course, that also means non-beliefs, such as atheism and agnosticism.
Moving through different religions won't really help you.
Dean, was that the Children of God? I'm just curious.
-------------
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: June 04 2009 at 06:04
James wrote:
Dean, was that the Children of God? I'm just curious.
No, it was the jesus fellowship (later the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_Army - jesus army )
------------- What?
Posted By: VanderGraafKommandöh
Date Posted: June 04 2009 at 06:08
Oh right. I know some musicians joined The Children of God in the 1970s, so I thought it may have been that.
I also met a former Hare Krishna earlier this year. He's still a Christian though. Turns out he went to school with me. Small world!
-------------
Posted By: sleeper
Date Posted: June 04 2009 at 07:46
Never really thought about religeon when I was young (not exactly the most pressing subject for a 10 year old) but in my early to mid teens considered myself an atheist, I found the idea of God and creation from any religeon to be rather simplistic and silly if truth be told. Towards the end of my teenage years I questioned my own atheism and decided that since it is beyond the realms of human ability to either prove or disprove the eistence of God then there's no real point ot believe in either stance and at the end of the day it doesnt effect me in the slightest so I consider myself an agnostic because I just dont give a damn.
------------- Spending more than I should on Prog since 2005
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: June 04 2009 at 09:09
Parents and us kids went to a Methodist church when we were growing up. Had an aunt that was in the Worldwide Church Of God, which I followed for a while. Great place for free literature and I did their bible study course. They had a fairly logical approach to religion, if you can believe that. Didn't have churches and have a lot of beliefs contrary to mainstream Christianity and are considered a cult by some. Never joined though. They kind of lurched to the right as I was lurching to left. I guess I'll have to consider myself agnostic at this point. Still struggling the the question, if God created everything didn't something have to create God? And then why does anything exist anyway in the first place?
Posted By: Failcore
Date Posted: June 04 2009 at 09:16
Yeah, the whole human domino rally concept of time, doesn't jive well with the creation of the universe, no matter what religion (or lack thereof.) At some point, either something had to poof in from nothing, or something was always there. Either possibility will cook your noodle if you think about it too hard.
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: June 04 2009 at 10:07
Deathrabbit wrote:
Yeah, the whole human domino rally concept of time, doesn't jive well with the creation of the universe, no matter what religion (or lack thereof.) At some point, either something had to poof in from nothing, or something was always there. Either possibility will cook your noodle if you think about it too hard.
If you've read enough of my posts you've probably already surmised that my noodle has already been cooking waaay too long.
------------- Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
Posted By: Finnforest
Date Posted: June 04 2009 at 10:21
Good idea T, nice to see these expressions too. My story is similar to many I'm sure. Raised Christian, but eventually woke to the fact that people just believe what they are told without logic or fact....a book written does not make something so. The only one true answer to these questions is "I don't know" and I find it hard to take seriously any person who doesn't begin with the humble premise of "I might be wrong."
Posted By: Sean Trane
Date Posted: June 04 2009 at 10:27
Although my four grandparents were practising catholics, my father was always atheist and my mother more or less agnostic (although she went through the catholic rites to please her parents).
There wasnever anything enforced upon (except for baptism to calm the grandparents on this issue) us three kids and we never really discussed religio or godn between us until recently .... although wer always chuckled when the churches were taking a beating in political cartoons and stuff.
generally I consider that this Universe was created by a stroke of luck (big bang or somthing along that) and is uncontrollable and it was never the work of a "creator".
It always seemed so clear to me that man created " god " to appease their fears , much the same way the shaman use to get power from the tribe because he claimed the knew why the volcano was acting up angrily
At worst, I could even deal with the idea of a creator, but certainly not of the religion rites and the need to "adore " him..... Actually if there was a creator, 95% of ochances are that he'd probably hate religions adoring him and these doctrines and dogmas built by the clergies in order to gain a superioity on others believers....
I will try to stop here, in order not to offend those that would think that theirreligion is anything more than a power to control them and and a pure waste of time
------------- let's just stay above the moral melee prefer the sink to the gutter keep our sand-castle virtues content to be a doer as well as a thinker, prefer lifting our pen rather than un-sheath our sword
Posted By: Snow Dog
Date Posted: June 04 2009 at 10:34
Sean Trane wrote:
Although my four grandparents were practising catholics, my father was always atheist and my mother more or less agnostic (although she went through the catholic rites to please her parents).
There wasnever anything enforced upon (except for baptism to calm the grandparents on this issue) us three kids and we never really discussed religio or godn between us until recently .... although wer always chuckled when the churches were taking a beating in political cartoons and stuff.
generally I consider that this Universe was created by a stroke of luck (big bang or somthing along that) and is uncontrollable and it was never the work of a "creator".
It always seemed so clear to me that man created " god " to appease their fears , much the same way the shaman use to get power from the tribe because he claimed the knew why the volcano was acting up angrily
At worst, I could even deal with the idea of a creator, but certainly not of the religion rites and the need to "adore " him..... Actually if there was a creator, 95% of ochances are that he'd probably hate religions adoring him and these doctrines and dogmas built by the clergies in order to gain a superioity on others believers....
I will try to stop here, in order not to offend those that would think that theirreligion is anything more than a power to control them and and a pure waste of time
Posted By: JJLehto
Date Posted: June 04 2009 at 11:00
I am open minded, so while I do believe in "god" (I like higher power or grand architect of the universe better) I fully admit that may be a current explaination. For example, what was before the big bang? Nothing? Then it exploded? Was there already a universe "seedling" but WHY/HOW did the big bang happen? It just did? Even if the collapse of another universe occurred and the force tunneled through a wormhole, (which I heard once) what about THAT universe?
That's why I personally believe in a higher power. Why couldn't "god" have set things in motion...but it continues on from there without intervention. After all, god would not have to intervene, if everyhting is, indirectly, made due to him its perfect already. Animals and nature co-exist perfectly and we have the mental abilities to solve our own problems. So, god does not intervene in our world because there's no need.
All IMHO of course. I do agree with Sean Trane that god would probably hate "religion". I do think it is used as an escape/comfort for people. Some I know for a fact use it to hide from their shortcomings, and I do feel it has been used for control. Besides, as my mom always said, church gets in the way of faith.
Finally, the Bible. Just a book. A bunch of nice stories, maybe they're methaporical but regardless they are just stories. I also believe Jesus was an enlightened man, one who probably preached love, be good to each other but was just a man. Not divine. His words have been corrupted/used over time.
Posted By: The Pessimist
Date Posted: June 04 2009 at 12:58
In a nutshell, my faith in God died a long time ago. Although I do believe there is a higher power that I sometimes refer to as God, so I suppose I do still believe he exists. It's just there is so much carnage and disorientation in the world that I have strong doubts that he/she/it truly cares about us.
------------- "Market value is irrelevant to intrinsic value."
Arnold Schoenberg
Posted By: JJLehto
Date Posted: June 04 2009 at 13:01
^ That's why Deism seems like a good fit for my beliefs. That famous question, "How can God love us if he allows so much death and cruelty?"
Well that's God as it is traditionally thought of. "God" may have put everything in motion...a jump start (the Big Bang???) and from that point it's on its own. WE control our world not god
Posted By: VanderGraafKommandöh
Date Posted: June 04 2009 at 19:16
JJLehto wrote:
I am open minded, so while I do believe in "god" (I like higher power or grand architect of the universe better) I fully admit that may be a current explaination. For example, what was before the big bang? Nothing? Then it exploded? Was there already a universe "seedling" but WHY/HOW did the big bang happen? It just did? Even if the collapse of another universe occurred and the force tunneled through a wormhole, (which I heard once) what about THAT universe?
That's why I personally believe in a higher power. Why couldn't "god" have set things in motion...but it continues on from there without intervention. After all, god would not have to intervene, if everyhting is, indirectly, made due to him its perfect already. Animals and nature co-exist perfectly and we have the mental abilities to solve our own problems. So, god does not intervene in our world because there's no need.
All IMHO of course. I do agree with Sean Trane that god would probably hate "religion". I do think it is used as an escape/comfort for people. Some I know for a fact use it to hide from their shortcomings, and I do feel it has been used for control. Besides, as my mom always said, church gets in the way of faith.
Finally, the Bible. Just a book. A bunch of nice stories, maybe they're methaporical but regardless they are just stories. I also believe Jesus was an enlightened man, one who probably preached love, be good to each other but was just a man. Not divine. His words have been corrupted/used over time.
But who created this God you speak of?
-------------
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: June 04 2009 at 19:30
Snow Dog wrote:
Atavachron wrote:
whatever happened to personal spirituality?
Its a load of bollocks.
Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: June 04 2009 at 19:36
Deathrabbit wrote:
"What's the use in trying to be good or accomplish anything if there's no higher power?" That's the typical weak religious mainline argument against atheism.
I believe this is exactly the contrary to what any religion could accept (at least mine which is Catholicism).
If you don't act correctly by own conviction or you do good acts only for fear, then you are not being sincere, you can cheat people, you can even cheat yourself but you can't cheat God.
I am religious, I know my religion condemns murder, but I am not a murderer only because my religion says it's wrong, I'm not a murderer because I consider it's wrong, as a person with a code of moral values, as a lawyer and also as a Catholic.
But even if didn't was a religious person, I would still consider murder is wrong
Iván
-------------
Posted By: JJLehto
Date Posted: June 04 2009 at 20:34
James wrote:
JJLehto wrote:
I am open minded, so while I do believe in "god" (I like higher power or grand architect of the universe better) I fully admit that may be a current explaination. For example, what was before the big bang? Nothing? Then it exploded? Was there already a universe "seedling" but WHY/HOW did the big bang happen? It just did? Even if the collapse of another universe occurred and the force tunneled through a wormhole, (which I heard once) what about THAT universe?
That's why I personally believe in a higher power. Why couldn't "god" have set things in motion...but it continues on from there without intervention. After all, god would not have to intervene, if everyhting is, indirectly, made due to him its perfect already. Animals and nature co-exist perfectly and we have the mental abilities to solve our own problems. So, god does not intervene in our world because there's no need.
All IMHO of course. I do agree with Sean Trane that god would probably hate "religion". I do think it is used as an escape/comfort for people. Some I know for a fact use it to hide from their shortcomings, and I do feel it has been used for control. Besides, as my mom always said, church gets in the way of faith.
Finally, the Bible. Just a book. A bunch of nice stories, maybe they're methaporical but regardless they are just stories. I also believe Jesus was an enlightened man, one who probably preached love, be good to each other but was just a man. Not divine. His words have been corrupted/used over time.
But who created this God you speak of?
God created God naturally!
Seriously, I say god to make is understandable but I do not think its a big dude in the sky with a long white beard sitting on a chair of clouds. If so I hope he hangs out with Allah, Buddha, and Vishnu playing poker. Watch out for Vishnu though....he has a lot of arms.
Posted By: VanderGraafKommandöh
Date Posted: June 04 2009 at 20:36
It doesn't matter what God is. It had to be created. That includes the written and oral form of God, of course. The people who created him in their heads were created somehow too.
The same goes for Big Bang Theory, of course.
-------------
Posted By: KoS
Date Posted: June 04 2009 at 20:38
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: June 04 2009 at 20:54
James wrote:
The same goes for Big Bang Theory, of course.
I've been having some doubts about that one myself, could have been something far more gradual
Posted By: VanderGraafKommandöh
Date Posted: June 04 2009 at 20:58
Atavachron wrote:
James wrote:
The same goes for Big Bang Theory, of course.
I've been having some doubts about that one myself, could have been something far more gradual
Oh indeed.
Nobody is quite sure.
However, I still say something had to come before it. Whatever happened. Then of course something came before that.
How can something appear from nothing (unless you're Phil Collins)?
-------------
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: June 04 2009 at 21:01
the amount of matter/energy that would have to be in one tiny particle for the BB to happen seems almost impossible
Posted By: Padraic
Date Posted: June 04 2009 at 21:02
What's before the beginning of time? What's north of the North Pole?
(shamelessly ripped off from Stephen Hawking, I think)
Posted By: VanderGraafKommandöh
Date Posted: June 04 2009 at 21:04
What's North of the North Pole?
The South Pole.
-------------
Posted By: Padraic
Date Posted: June 04 2009 at 21:04
Atavachron wrote:
the amount of matter/energy that would have to be in one tiny particle for the BB to happen seems almost impossible
but other ridiculously dense things (black holes) exist
Posted By: Alitare
Date Posted: June 04 2009 at 21:07
Isn't the concept of time more a sphere than a line? I mean, does it even have a beginning?
Posted By: VanderGraafKommandöh
Date Posted: June 04 2009 at 21:09
If it has no beginning, then it has no end. Therefore we're not all doomed as we think we are.
Excellent.
-------------
Posted By: Epignosis
Date Posted: June 04 2009 at 21:10
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: June 04 2009 at 21:11
OK you are all dancing around the questions that if god created everything then something must have created god in order for god to create everything so what happened? And why does anything really exist anyway? If the mechanisms big bang, evolution, or whatever really happened ot doesn't really matter unless you can answer those fundamental questions.
Posted By: KoS
Date Posted: June 04 2009 at 21:13
The existence of God doesn't answer those questions either.
Posted By: Padraic
Date Posted: June 04 2009 at 21:14
Slartibartfast wrote:
OK you are all dancing around the questions that if god created everything then something must have created god in order for god to create everything so what happened?
Why is this a criterion? Can't God have just always existed and not been created?
And if you don't believe in God, it's what you believe for everything else, right? That all matter just "sort of happened"?
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: June 04 2009 at 21:15
Padraic wrote:
Atavachron wrote:
the amount of matter/energy that would have to be in one tiny particle for the BB to happen seems almost impossible
but other ridiculously dense things (black holes) exist
ridiculously dense yes, but the 'mother' particle would potentially contain all the black holes - or future dead stars - in it before they even existed.. that's some dense sh*t
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: June 04 2009 at 21:15
KoS wrote:
The existence of God doesn't answer those questions either.
Exactly and if that doesn't what does? Absolutely nothing. So what's the answer? 42?
Obviously I wasn't playing close enough attention to this thread, this is the answer:
Posted By: KoS
Date Posted: June 04 2009 at 21:23
^ See it all works out
Back to topic, I have found this to be very informative,
Posted By: Finnforest
Date Posted: June 04 2009 at 21:38
He was never one to shy away from a controversial quote................can only imagine the heat he got for saying stuff like this....
If you want to get
together in any exclusive situation and have people love
you, fine - but to hang all this desperate sociology on
the idea of The Cloud-Guy who has The Big Book, who knows
if you've been bad or good - and CARES about any of it -
to hang it all on that, folks, is the chimpanzee part of
the brain working.
Frank Zappa
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: June 04 2009 at 21:40
KoS wrote:
The existence of God doesn't answer those questions either.
The contrary of the existence of a God that has always existed explains everything that you want or need it to. The existence of the universe and lifeforms on Earth past and present just confuses things.
------------- Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
Posted By: VanderGraafKommandöh
Date Posted: June 04 2009 at 21:42
A God cannot possibly have always been there though. This is the point.
-------------
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: June 04 2009 at 21:47
James wrote:
A God cannot possibly have always been there though. This is the point.
Still where does anything come from? Isn't the existence of a god the only rational possibility?
------------- Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
Posted By: Epignosis
Date Posted: June 04 2009 at 21:48
I don't see how "I had a bad experience with religion" proves religion wrong. That's just as good as "I had a good experience with religion, so it's true."
I don't wish to stir anything up (thank you for those who popped into my Christian thread or stayed out if you felt you had to). If I am, feel free to boot me. I don't wish to cause any problems. My wife and I were actually moved by Dean's initial post- mainly because I wanted to scream, "Yeah, but those people were dicks!"
Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: June 04 2009 at 21:50
KoS wrote:
^ See it all works out
Back to topic, I have found this to be very informative,
Honestly I find Dawkins and Co. arrogant, with a self superiority feeling that they own the truth and are allowed to decide what we must think and believe in.
I believe in God but I don't find offensive that anybody doesn't believe, but this guys say they find our beliefs offensive, is their disbelief so weak that they are afraid of us?.
For the same reasons I dislike fundamentalists who want us to believe their truth, I dislike the guys who feel so superior to call our deep beliefs a superstition just because they don't share it.
They are doing the same evangelism of their disbelief that fundamentalists do of their beliefs and still they claim to be morally superior.
Iván
-------------
Posted By: VanderGraafKommandöh
Date Posted: June 04 2009 at 21:53
Slartibartfast wrote:
James wrote:
A God cannot possibly have always been there though. This is the point.
Still where does anything come from? Isn't the existence of a god the only rational possibility?
No, it's the silliest and least likely possibility.
I'm serious too.
It's much more feasible for particles and the like to form the Universe, than for some God to miraculously appear and be able to also create all life.
Evolution has made life on earth what it is over millions of years. God (however you imagine it) would also have to form over a hell of a long time if they were able to create life. If that is the case, then it would also have formed from particles and the like. It wouldn't just appear. Also, it cannot have been there forever either.
-------------
Posted By: stonebeard
Date Posted: June 04 2009 at 22:25
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
KoS wrote:
^ See it all works out
Back to topic, I have found this to be very informative,
Honestly I find Dawkins and Co. arrogant, with a self superiority feeling that they own the truth and are allowed to decide what we must think and believe in.
I believe in God but I don't find offensive that anybody doesn't believe, but this guys say they find our beliefs offensive, is their disbelief so weak that they are afraid of us?.
For the same reasons I dislike fundamentalists who want us to believe their truth, I dislike the guys who feel so superior to call our deep beliefs a superstition just because they don't share it.
They are doing the same evangelism of their disbelief that fundamentalists do of their beliefs and still they claim to be morally superior.
Iván
I think they are arrogant if they are because the empirical evidence is usually on their side, contrary to the stance of apologists, or worse, peddlers of Creationism and fundamentalists.
And when society is still being bombarded with people who love bathing in ignorance as if blind faith is a good thing, I can hardly blame them. Arrogant, perhaps, but they often have the evidence to back it up.
------------- http://soundcloud.com/drewagler" rel="nofollow - My soundcloud. Please give feedback if you want!
Posted By: JJLehto
Date Posted: June 04 2009 at 22:35
Epignosis wrote:
I don't see how "I had a bad experience with religion" proves religion wrong. That's just as good as "I had a good experience with religion, so it's true."
I don't wish to stir anything up (thank you for those who popped into my Christian thread or stayed out if you felt you had to). If I am, feel free to boot me. I don't wish to cause any problems. My wife and I were actually moved by Dean's initial post- mainly because I wanted to scream, "Yeah, but those people were dicks!"
Agreed. I hate that as well. I didn't turn away from religion because of one thing but just slowly over time. Though there were a few specific incidents that helped, but that was just with my family not anything about the whole Catholic Church.
Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: June 04 2009 at 22:50
stonebeard wrote:
I think they are arrogant if they are because the empirical evidence is usually on their side, contrary to the stance of apologists, or worse, peddlers of Creationism and fundamentalists.
And when society is still being bombarded with people who love bathing in ignorance as if blind faith is a good thing, I can hardly blame them. Arrogant, perhaps, but they often have the evidence to back it up.
Evidence?
Where is the evidence that proves beyond any doubt that God doesn't exist?
Iván
-------------
Posted By: Plankowner
Date Posted: June 05 2009 at 01:15
Iván and Robert, please don't take offense but I really don't think you guys should be part of this thread. From what I gather you both are very devout christians and personally I feel there's nothing that can be said by an atheist that could change your mind. So anything you post will be argumentative. Your mind has been made up and you have "faith." You have a very nice thread with very few interruptions, so personally I'd like to see the same here.
It's rather difficult to talk about atheism as it is, because of the pressure of society and its history. And I feel I understand the need to reach out to those you feel have lost their way and bring them back if you can. It has been taught to you since childhood.
If you truly respect what others believe then you won't post here.
Posted By: Alitare
Date Posted: June 05 2009 at 01:39
Plankowner wrote:
Iván and Robert, please don't take offense but I really don't think you guys should be part of this thread. From what I gather you both are very devout christians and personally I feel there's nothing that can be said by an atheist that could change your mind. So anything you post will be argumentative. Your mind has been made up and you have "faith." You have a very nice thread with very few interruptions, so personally I'd like to see the same here.
It's rather difficult to talk about atheism as it is, because of the pressure of society and its history. And I feel I understand the need to reach out to those you feel have lost their way and bring them back if you can. It has been taught to you since childhood.
If you truly respect what others believe then you won't post here.
I applaud this post.
Has anyone heard of Bart Ehrman?
Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: June 05 2009 at 01:39
Plankowner wrote:
Iván and Robert, please don't take offense but I really don't think you guys should be part of this thread. From what I gather you both are very devout christians and personally I feel there's nothing that can be said by an atheist that could change your mind. So anything you post will be argumentative. Your mind has been made up and you have "faith." You have a very nice thread with very few interruptions, so personally I'd like to see the same here.
What? Have you opened this forum to convince people?
I'm not part of any thread much less of any thread trying to convince people of anything.
But this forum is open, I see in the Christian thread many people questioning Epignosis, so any member is free to post in the Christian or any thread I feel the same in this case.
Atheists feel free to enter to any theological thread and say what they want, why can't we?
Plankowner wrote:
It's rather difficult to talk about atheism as it is, because of the pressure of society and its history. A
That's FALSE, in this forum the majority is Atheist or Agnostic, and everybody is free to say what they want.
Plankowner wrote:
And I feel I understand the need to reach out to those you feel have lost their way and bring them back if you can. It has been taught to you since childhood.
I been here since the forum started and everybody knows I never tried to convince any person of anything, never diid it and never will, as a fact I ALWAYS take the position against evangelism outside a church, even if it carries disagreements with Christians or whoever.
Plankowner wrote:
If you truly respect what others believe then you won't post here.
Respect and disagreement are different, as long as people feel free to enter to any thread and give their opinion, I will feel free to enter to any thread.
Iván
-------------
Posted By: Failcore
Date Posted: June 05 2009 at 01:41
For the love a lack of God, keep it clean guys!
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: June 05 2009 at 01:46
I see your point Dave but I don't know if it feels right-- it's true most non-Christians have stayed out of or been respectful when posting in the Christian thread, but conversely the Christian threaders have always been welcoming of non-religious members too as far as I know. Besides I don't think this site encourages [or even allows] exclusivity in threads, and considering the spirit of the President's speech today, perhaps we should welcome anyone here as long as they don't attack members.
Posted By: Plankowner
Date Posted: June 05 2009 at 02:14
Well I kind of wanted to talk about things without spiraling down the usual christian debates... is all.
Guess I can ignore certain posts.
Who's Bart Ehrman?
Since I don't watch TV I missed the President's speech, should find it and listen. Anything he said you feel like sharing?
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: June 05 2009 at 02:19
yeah I understand, me either
Posted By: Alitare
Date Posted: June 05 2009 at 02:42
Ehrman has written many books dealing with the Christian faith. I am currently reading his book "God's Problem" which is about how the bible fails to offer a truly adequate answer to the problem of suffering.
He is an agnostic who has been studying the bible for years. I think he has multiple degrees in testament study, and writes very well in an intellectual, yet terse manner. Not to mention, he raises some superb points.
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: June 05 2009 at 04:07
Epignosis wrote:
I don't see how "I had a bad experience with religion" proves religion wrong. That's just as good as "I had a good experience with religion, so it's true."
I don't wish to stir anything up (thank you for those who popped into my Christian thread or stayed out if you felt you had to). If I am, feel free to boot me. I don't wish to cause any problems. My wife and I were actually moved by Dean's initial post- mainly because I wanted to scream, "Yeah, but those people were dicks!"
Yes and no. Those people were not dicks, they were intently serious earnest people - the church they were a part of was similarly set up for all the right reasons and never went "off-message" like so many of the brainwash cults did. As I said more than once, it was not an epiphany, nor was it a bad experience. I just did not see myself fitting in to their rules-set (I could have returned to my old church and still kept my record collection ) - I wanted my religion to complement my life, not rule it, I wanted to question and discuss without receiving scripted answers or being fobbed off with "god made it so". My issue was not with them specifically, but with the whole Charismatic Movement which had swung to the opposite extreme of High Church and had effectively become just as constrained and restrictive, may be even more so. I also grew to realise that perhaps much of it was self-perpetuating and in some cases even a pretence in order to belong. I remained a christian for almost twenty years after that, but never again as a member of any organised religion. My personal view now is that man created god in his image, that the scriptures are the word of man and the holy trinity (something that occurs in several non-Abrahamic religions as well) is a projection of man trying to explain consciousness and free will as separate from, but a still part of, the corporeal body.
------------- What?
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: June 05 2009 at 04:38
James wrote:
Slartibartfast wrote:
James wrote:
A God cannot possibly have always been there though. This is the point.
Still where does anything come from? Isn't the existence of a god the only rational possibility?
No, it's the silliest and least likely possibility.
I'm serious too.
It's much more feasible for particles and the like to form the Universe, than for some God to miraculously appear and be able to also create all life.
Evolution has made life on earth what it is over millions of years. God (however you imagine it) would also have to form over a hell of a long time if they were able to create life. If that is the case, then it would also have formed from particles and the like. It wouldn't just appear. Also, it cannot have been there forever either.
Time began with the big bang (or when god split the firmament if you prefer), so nothing existed before then because time did not exist before then. Matter and energy are equivalents, the singularity at the beginning of time was one of infinite energy and zero mass - but energy is scalar, without "time" to give it dimension it cannot exist, therefore it also did not exist before because there was no "before".
------------- What?
Posted By: Snow Dog
Date Posted: June 05 2009 at 04:42
Why do we have to have a talk about religion in a specific non religous thread? Go back to your own thread!!!
Posted By: Chris S
Date Posted: June 05 2009 at 04:47
Dean wrote:
James wrote:
Slartibartfast wrote:
James wrote:
A God cannot possibly have always been there though. This is the point.
Still where does anything come from? Isn't the existence of a god the only rational possibility?
No, it's the silliest and least likely possibility.
I'm serious too.
It's much more feasible for particles and the like to form the Universe, than for some God to miraculously appear and be able to also create all life.
Evolution has made life on earth what it is over millions of years. God (however you imagine it) would also have to form over a hell of a long time if they were able to create life. If that is the case, then it would also have formed from particles and the like. It wouldn't just appear. Also, it cannot have been there forever either.
Time began with the big bang (or when god split the firmament if you prefer), so nothing existed before then because time did not exist before then. Matter and energy are equivalents, the singularity at the beginning of time was one of infinite energy and zero mass - but energy is scalar, without "time" to give it dimension it cannot exist, therefore it also did not exist before because there was no "before".
Now that's the best explanation I've seen in a long time......still if a God exists, it is as a lonesome and powerless or disinterested energy and I believe his/her dervish dance spiralled out of control a long time ago. The repeated lack of divine interventions within a universal collective consciousness proves it. " My God my mediator, may you flourishin your solitude....."
-------------
<font color=Brown>Music - The Sound Librarian
...As I venture through the slipstream, between the viaducts in your dreams...[/COLOR]
Posted By: stonebeard
Date Posted: June 05 2009 at 15:19
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
stonebeard wrote:
I think they are arrogant if they are because the empirical evidence is usually on their side, contrary to the stance of apologists, or worse, peddlers of Creationism and fundamentalists.
And when society is still being bombarded with people who love bathing in ignorance as if blind faith is a good thing, I can hardly blame them. Arrogant, perhaps, but they often have the evidence to back it up.
Evidence?
Where is the evidence that proves beyond any doubt that God doesn't exist?
Iván
Nowhere, of course. You'll never get beyond any doubt, likely. In my view, rational holes in religious texts and silly twisting of religious dogma is more important to counter than belief in God, even though I think there is enough evidence to make believing in a theist God less reasonable than not doing so. I doubt any of those guys would really care if someone is deist, agnostic, apathetic, atheist and so on because those types of belief are really inconsequential when you get down to it. Only an interventionist God matters in terms of practical, day-to-day beliefs. I mean this in the sense that the belif would counter scientific and rational outlooks, as an supernatural, interventionist God would be beyond the scope of science, I think, though I don't believe that. This riles a lot of those people.
------------- http://soundcloud.com/drewagler" rel="nofollow - My soundcloud. Please give feedback if you want!
Posted By: stonebeard
Date Posted: June 05 2009 at 15:22
Whether a God created the Big Bang or not is silly to debate. No one could possibly give any evidence for it (now, if not ever), so why even bother proposing it? Anyway, if the prospect of everything beginning with the Big Bang is odious enough to religious people, then I see no reason why an infinite God creating that Big Bang solves any of their problems with the logic of the previous scenario.
------------- http://soundcloud.com/drewagler" rel="nofollow - My soundcloud. Please give feedback if you want!
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: June 05 2009 at 18:19
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
stonebeard wrote:
I think they are arrogant if they are because the empirical evidence is usually on their side, contrary to the stance of apologists, or worse, peddlers of Creationism and fundamentalists.
And when society is still being bombarded with people who love bathing in ignorance as if blind faith is a good thing, I can hardly blame them. Arrogant, perhaps, but they often have the evidence to back it up.
Evidence?
Where is the evidence that proves beyond any doubt that God doesn't exist?
Iván
Douglas Adams proved it fairly convincingly: Now it is such a bizarrely improbably coincidence that
anything so mindbogglingly useful [the Babel fish] could have evolved
by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as a final and
clinching proof of the non-existence of God.
The argument goes something like this: "I refuse to prove that I
exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am
nothing."
"But," says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway isn't it? It
could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so
therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED"
"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.
-- Douglas Adams, The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy (book one of the Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy series), p 50 And now you're going to have to prove to me that the babel fish doesn't exist.
------------- Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: June 05 2009 at 18:28
stonebeard wrote:
Nowhere, of course. You'll never get beyond any doubt, likely. In my view, rational holes in religious texts and silly twisting of religious dogma is more important to counter than belief in God, even though I think there is enough evidence to make believing in a theist God less reasonable than not doing so.
Then your lack of faith is an act of faith equivalent to our's, you have no proves but you believe he doesn't exist.
Your position is as valid as our's, deserves all respect, but it's only a theory because it can't be proved.
Iván
-------------
Posted By: Epignosis
Date Posted: June 05 2009 at 18:40
Slartibartfast wrote:
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
stonebeard wrote:
I think they are arrogant if they are because the empirical evidence is usually on their side, contrary to the stance of apologists, or worse, peddlers of Creationism and fundamentalists.
And when society is still being bombarded with people who love bathing in ignorance as if blind faith is a good thing, I can hardly blame them. Arrogant, perhaps, but they often have the evidence to back it up.
Evidence?
Where is the evidence that proves beyond any doubt that God doesn't exist?
Iván
Douglas Adams proved it fairly convincingly: Now it is such a bizarrely improbably coincidence that
anything so mindbogglingly useful [the Babel fish] could have evolved
by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as a final and
clinching proof of the non-existence of God.
The argument goes something like this: "I refuse to prove that I
exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am
nothing."
"But," says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway isn't it? It
could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so
therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED"
"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.
-- Douglas Adams, The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy (book one of the Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy series), p 50 And now you're going to have to prove to me that the babel fish doesn't exist.
I appreciate the humor there, but of course, that notion requires a faulty understanding of what biblical faith is. Faith by definition cannot be blind (seriously). Faith (pistis) without evidence (in the Bible, that evidence is grace- charis) is pointless. See Seneca's On Benefits.
Posted By: The T
Date Posted: June 05 2009 at 20:32
^You're more than welcome Epignosis... in this thread, if we discussion is about the existence or no of god, it's ok.... if the discussion is more about certain christian beliefs, I guess the other thread would be better...
Great discussion so far... I have had much pleasure reading it... You can learn a lot from diverse opinions...If not cienticial knowledge, you can learn tolerance, how to look things from two perspectives...
-------------
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: June 05 2009 at 21:14
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
stonebeard wrote:
Nowhere, of course. You'll never get beyond any doubt, likely. In my view, rational holes in religious texts and silly twisting of religious dogma is more important to counter than belief in God, even though I think there is enough evidence to make believing in a theist God less reasonable than not doing so.
Then your lack of faith is an act of faith equivalent to our's, you have no proves but you believe he doesn't exist.
Your position is as valid as our's, deserves all respect, but it's only a theory because it can't be proved.
Iván
Belief in the existence of god is not the same as believing in god - no one would deny that satan (if he existed) would believe in the existence of god, though I doubt that he believes in god. So while atheism is not believing in god, it is also the absence of belief in the existence of a god, this is not the same as a belief in the non existence of god. Atheism is a non-belief, so cannot be an act faith, [I've rewritten this paragraph several times now and it is very difficult to explain] - a christian believes that god exists - an atheist does not have that belief.
An atheist does not need to prove the non-existence of a god by the same reasoning that a christian does not need to prove the non-existence of Apollo, Odin or Quetzalcoatl. There is no proof to the non-existence of Zeus, but asserting that he did not exist is not regarded as an act of faith.
Belief in the existence of a monotheistic god automatically denies the existence of all other god-like entities ("I am a jealous god, worship no other god but me" - is not a statement that other gods exist, but a warning against worshipping false gods - "I am the first and the last, there is no god beside me"). In principle if the existence of any non-Abrahamic god could be proved then that would essential prove the non-existence of Jehovah.
An atheist denies the existence of all gods, (not a belief, but an assertion; not a theory but an axiom), so would just add Jehovah and all the biblical angels and demons to the pantheon of mythical gods from other cultures.
(Theories actually require proof to be regarded as a theory - a theory without proof is a hypothesis, an idea that requires no proof is an axiom.)
------------- What?
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: June 05 2009 at 21:27
Dean wrote:
So while atheism is not believing in god, it is also the absence of belief in the existence of a god, this is not the same as a belief in the non existence of god.
wow that one took me a few tries to get it, subtle
Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: June 05 2009 at 23:40
Dean wrote:
Belief in the existence of god is not the same as believing in god - no one would deny that satan (if he existed) would believe in the existence of god, though I doubt that he believes in god. So while atheism is not believing in god, it is also the absence of belief in the existence of a god, this is not the same as a belief in the non existence of god.
Atheism is a non-belief, so cannot be an act faith, [I've rewritten this paragraph several times now and it is very difficult to explain] - a christian believes that god exists - an atheist does not have that belief.
Believing is different concept than worshiping, Im sure that Satan believes in God, because God created Satan.
BTW: Your definition af atheism is not exact, or beter said selective, you are ignoring POSITIVE ATHEISTS:
"positive" atheism refers to the specific belief that gods do not exist, and "negative" atheism refers merely to an absence of belief in gods.
So it's a fact that for some atheists (I believe the majority), Atheism is a system of beliefs.
Dean wrote:
An atheist does not need to prove the non-existence of a god by the same reasoning that a christian does not need to prove the non-existence of Apollo, Odin or Quetzalcoatl. There is no proof to the non-existence of Zeus, but asserting that he did not exist is not regarded as an act of faith.
Don't be so sure, for example the religious order, Forn Siðr (Odin worshipers) was granted permission to have an exclusively pagan burial ground in Denmark, so if there is people worshiping Odin and officially accepted by the Danish Government, why not Zeus?.
You can verify this at http://www.fornsidr.dk/dk/50#p1 - http://www.fornsidr.dk/dk/50#p1
And if I believe Jehova, Yaveh or the one with no name (Ego sum qui sum) is the true God, then I believe Odin is not God.
Dean wrote:
Belief in the existence of a monotheistic god automatically denies the existence of all other god-like entities ("I am a jealous god, worship no other god but me" - is not a statement that other gods exist, but a warning against worshipping false gods - "I am the first and the last, there is no god beside me"). In principle if the existence of any non-Abrahamic god could be proved then that would essential prove the non-existence of Jehovah.
The existence of an only God doesn't imply he is jealous, of who can he be jealous if the other gods don't exist?
And yes, we believe there's no other God, but some of us also believe that people see God in a different way than us, and that at the end all people worship the same God only that their perception of him is different.
As a fact on another thread i proved that Catholic Church admits salvation not only of Christians of other denominatioons, but also of non Christians who are faithful to their own moral code and search for God in a sincere way.
The fate of non-Catholics, as expressed at Vatican II:
5. The non-Christian may not be blamed for his ignorance of Christ and his Church; salvation is open to him also, if he seeks God sincerelyand if he follows the commands of his conscience, for through this means the Holy Ghost acts upon all men; this divine action is not confined within the limited boundaries of the visible Church."
In other words, we are not talking of a jealous God for everybody, and you can't blame God for the misinterpretations of the humans.
Dean wrote:
An atheist denies the existence of all gods, (not a belief, but an assertion; not a theory but an axiom), so would just add Jehovah and all the biblical angels and demons to the pantheon of mythical gods from other cultures
In other words
(Theories actually require proof to be regarded as a theory - a theory without proof is a hypothesis, an idea that requires no proof is an axiom.)
Atheism can't be an axiom, because an axiom by definition is self evident and is taken to be universally true.
A classical axiom is A = A doesn't need to be proved because it's self evident, but th eexistebnce or non existence of God is not elf evident neither universal, you don't prove God doesn't exist becauise is beyond your capacity.
Sorry but only 16% of the world inhabitants are Atheists or Agnostics ( http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html - http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html ), so hardly the non existence of God is taken as a universal truth, Atheists may believe it's an axiom, but it's only a theory or an act of faith if you want but in no way an axiom because doesn't fit the characteristic of being universally accepted as true, much less is self evident.
Iván
-------------
Posted By: progmetalhead
Date Posted: June 05 2009 at 23:50
Dean wrote:
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
stonebeard wrote:
Nowhere, of course. You'll never get beyond any doubt, likely. In my view, rational holes in religious texts and silly twisting of religious dogma is more important to counter than belief in God, even though I think there is enough evidence to make believing in a theist God less reasonable than not doing so.
Then your lack of faith is an act of faith equivalent to our's, you have no proves but you believe he doesn't exist.
Your position is as valid as our's, deserves all respect, but it's only a theory because it can't be proved.
Iván
Belief in the existence of god is not the same as believing in god - no one would deny that satan (if he existed) would believe in the existence of god, though I doubt that he believes in god. So while atheism is not believing in god, it is also the absence of belief in the existence of a god, this is not the same as a belief in the non existence of god. Atheism is a non-belief, so cannot be an act faith, [I've rewritten this paragraph several times now and it is very difficult to explain] - a christian believes that god exists - an atheist does not have that belief.
An atheist does not need to prove the non-existence of a god by the same reasoning that a christian does not need to prove the non-existence of Apollo, Odin or Quetzalcoatl. There is no proof to the non-existence of Zeus, but asserting that he did not exist is not regarded as an act of faith.
Belief in the existence of a monotheistic god automatically denies the existence of all other god-like entities ("I am a jealous god, worship no other god but me" - is not a statement that other gods exist, but a warning against worshipping false gods - "I am the first and the last, there is no god beside me"). In principle if the existence of any non-Abrahamic god could be proved then that would essential prove the non-existence of Jehovah.
An atheist denies the existence of all gods, (not a belief, but an assertion; not a theory but an axiom), so would just add Jehovah and all the biblical angels and demons to the pantheon of mythical gods from other cultures.
(Theories actually require proof to be regarded as a theory - a theory without proof is a hypothesis, an idea that requires no proof is an axiom.)
Thanks Dean for putting it so succinctly!
Something I miserably failed to do in another thread recently.
Posted By: VanderGraafKommandöh
Date Posted: June 05 2009 at 23:50
Weak and strong atheism?
I wish people wouldn't keep coming up with these crap and pointless terminologies.
Atheism isn't a series of beliefs either. Not to me, anyhow. I don't believe in the existence of God(s), therefore I cannot be adhering to a belief system. I know God doesn't exist. I cannot prove this but I know.
-------------
Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: June 05 2009 at 23:55
James wrote:
Weak and strong atheism?
I wish people wouldn't keep coming up with these crap and pointless terminologies.
Atheism isn't a series of beliefs either. Not to me, anyhow. I don't believe in the existence of God(s), therefore I cannot be adhering to a belief system. I know God doesn't exist. I cannot prove this but I know.
James, I'm not the one who created this terms, as a fact is a term created by an atheist named Gora if I'm not wrong, and the majority of them (almost sure of this) adopt the Posititive atheism, while Richard Dawkins adopts negative atheism.
And please, if you can't prove something, it's just a belief, only if you can prove it is a fact.
Iván
-------------
Posted By: VanderGraafKommandöh
Date Posted: June 06 2009 at 00:05
I don't need to prove it, therefore it's not a belief. It's fact to me. A belief is something I would be unsure about. My atheism does not waver and I do not doubt it. Therefore, to me, it's not a belief. Even if I did admit to it being a belief, it still does not make me adhere to a belief system, as you say.
I never said you were the one who created that term. I just think all these silly terms are pointless.
-------------
Posted By: progmetalhead
Date Posted: June 06 2009 at 00:08
With the utmost respect Ivan.
Seeing as you have quoted adherents, maybe you will let us have your views on the following (also from adherents)
Or as I expect we will see an atypical religious reply????
It's surprising how many people remark to me, "You're an Atheist? You must have no conscience about committing crime then." Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, if we examine the population of our prisons, we see a very different picture.
In "The New Criminology," Max D. Schlapp and Edward E. Smith say that two generations of statisticians found that the ratio of convicts without religious training is about 1/10th of 1%. W.T. Root, Professor of Psychology at the University of Pittsburgh, examined 1,916 prisoners and said, "Indifference to religion, due to thought, strengthens character," adding that Unitarians, Agnostics, Atheists and Free-Thinkers were absent from penitentiaries, or nearly so.
During 10 years in Sing-Sing, of those executed for murder 65% were Catholics, 26% Protestants, 6% Hebrew, 2% Pagan, and less than 1/3 of 1% non-religious.
Steiner and Swancara surveyed Canadian prisons and found 1,294 Catholics, 435 Anglicans, 241 Methodists, 135 Baptists, and 1 Unitarian.
Dr. Christian, Superintendent of the N.Y. State Reformatories, checked records of 22,000 prison inmates and found only 4 college graduates. In "Who's Who," 91% were college graduates; Christian commented that "intelligence and knowledge produce right living," and, "crime is the offspring of superstition and ignorance."
Surveyed Massachusetts reformatories found every inmate to be religious.
In Joliet Prison, there were 2,888 Catholics, 1,020 Baptists, 617 Methodists and no prisoners identified as non-religious.
Michigan had 82,000 Baptists and 83,000 Jews in the state population; but in the prisons, there were 22 times as many Baptists as Jews, and 18 times as many Methodists as Jews. In Sing-Sing, there were 1,553 inmates, 855 of them (over half) Catholics, 518 Protestants, 117 Jews, and 8 non-religious.
Steiner first surveyed 27 states and found 19,400 Christians, 5,000 with no preference and only 3 Agnostics (one each in Connecticut, New Hampshire, and Illinois). A later, more exhaustive survey found 60,605 Christians, 5,000 Jews, 131 Pagans, 4,000 "no preference," and only 3 Agnostics.
In one 19-state survey, Steiner found 15 non-believers, Spiritualists, Theosophists, Deists, Pantheists and 1 Agnostic among nearly 83,000 inmates. He labeled all 15 as "anti-christians." The Elmira, N.Y. reformatory system overshadowed all others, with nearly 31,000 inmates, including 15,694 Catholics (half) and 10,968 Protestants, 4,000 Jews, 325 refusing to answer, and 0 unbelievers.
In the East, over 64% of inmates are Roman Catholic. Throughout the national prison population, they average 50%. A national census of the general population found Catholics to be about 15% (and they count from the diaper up). Hardly 12% are old enough to commit a crime, and half of these are women. That leaves an adult Catholic population of 6% supplying 50% of the prison population.
Posted By: Failcore
Date Posted: June 06 2009 at 01:12
Atheism to me seems to be a belief if you ever thought about the concept of God or lack thereof. If you truly never pondered the question, only then would atheism not be a belief. I could pull out a nice existentialist argument, but I don't feel like it right now.
Posted By: Failcore
Date Posted: June 06 2009 at 01:23
progmetalhead wrote:
With the utmost respect Ivan.
Seeing as you have quoted adherents, maybe you will let us have your views on the following (also from adherents)
Or as I expect we will see an atypical religious reply????
It's surprising how many people remark to me, "You're an Atheist? You must have no conscience about committing crime then." Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, if we examine the population of our prisons, we see a very different picture.
In "The New Criminology," Max D. Schlapp and Edward E. Smith say that two generations of statisticians found that the ratio of convicts without religious training is about 1/10th of 1%. W.T. Root, Professor of Psychology at the University of Pittsburgh, examined 1,916 prisoners and said, "Indifference to religion, due to thought, strengthens character," adding that Unitarians, Agnostics, Atheists and Free-Thinkers were absent from penitentiaries, or nearly so.
During 10 years in Sing-Sing, of those executed for murder 65% were Catholics, 26% Protestants, 6% Hebrew, 2% Pagan, and less than 1/3 of 1% non-religious.
Steiner and Swancara surveyed Canadian prisons and found 1,294 Catholics, 435 Anglicans, 241 Methodists, 135 Baptists, and 1 Unitarian.
Dr. Christian, Superintendent of the N.Y. State Reformatories, checked records of 22,000 prison inmates and found only 4 college graduates. In "Who's Who," 91% were college graduates; Christian commented that "intelligence and knowledge produce right living," and, "crime is the offspring of superstition and ignorance."
Surveyed Massachusetts reformatories found every inmate to be religious.
In Joliet Prison, there were 2,888 Catholics, 1,020 Baptists, 617 Methodists and no prisoners identified as non-religious.
Michigan had 82,000 Baptists and 83,000 Jews in the state population; but in the prisons, there were 22 times as many Baptists as Jews, and 18 times as many Methodists as Jews. In Sing-Sing, there were 1,553 inmates, 855 of them (over half) Catholics, 518 Protestants, 117 Jews, and 8 non-religious.
Steiner first surveyed 27 states and found 19,400 Christians, 5,000 with no preference and only 3 Agnostics (one each in Connecticut, New Hampshire, and Illinois). A later, more exhaustive survey found 60,605 Christians, 5,000 Jews, 131 Pagans, 4,000 "no preference," and only 3 Agnostics.
In one 19-state survey, Steiner found 15 non-believers, Spiritualists, Theosophists, Deists, Pantheists and 1 Agnostic among nearly 83,000 inmates. He labeled all 15 as "anti-christians." The Elmira, N.Y. reformatory system overshadowed all others, with nearly 31,000 inmates, including 15,694 Catholics (half) and 10,968 Protestants, 4,000 Jews, 325 refusing to answer, and 0 unbelievers.
In the East, over 64% of inmates are Roman Catholic. Throughout the national prison population, they average 50%. A national census of the general population found Catholics to be about 15% (and they count from the diaper up). Hardly 12% are old enough to commit a crime, and half of these are women. That leaves an adult Catholic population of 6% supplying 50% of the prison population.
I'm sorry but most of this data is meaningless to prove anything either way. If I have a bag with 100 m&ms and only 2 are red, then I can draw out 5 at random and there's a still a 90% chance none are red. The only one of any use is the last paragraph, but even that is too flawed to make a conclusive statement a differing populace is used as the basis of comparison (IE: How are the Catholics geographically distributed?) I might very well be persuaded to thinking that religious beliefs can have a higher coincidence with crime, but this post isn't going to do it.
DISCLAIMER: I have no idea what percentage of the country are actually atheist, but in my experience, I don't think I've personally met many that weren't at least agnostic.
Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: June 06 2009 at 01:26
progmetalhead wrote:
With the utmost respect Ivan.
Seeing as you have quoted adherents, maybe you will let us have your views on the following (also from adherents)
Or as I expect we will see an atypical religious reply????
It's unnecessary to quote the letter, it's in your post
In first place: Haven't given any religious response, all my replies are based in logic, I'm not preaching, never did it in this forum and never will.
Now to that letter:
Any person who says Atheists can't be moral, is a bigot and a stupid, morality is independent of any religious belief.
I would have to check this statistics, but the posibilities are many
Almost every atheist was born and raised inside a religion,many of this people surely are in fact atheists or agnostics that only have a nominal link towards a religion.
What about the other states, and places in the world?
The people with no religious training (their words) are an infimous minority, almost every atheist was raised inside a religion
In countries were Catholics are minority, they can be harrased (As a fact Irish Catholics were harrassed in USA for a long time) as black people was harrassed and falsely arrested as in USA a few years ago.
Most prissoners claim to be religious as a way to receive indulgence
This data could be inacurate
Of course they are implying that religious people are inmoral and Atheists are the moral?
If that's the case, it's exactly the same bigotry and stupidity as saying Atheists are inmoral.
But please, I gave a few arguments in reply to Dean's post which you so enthusiatically congratulated...Is my reply wrong or acurate?
Iván
EDIT: I witnesed this, a huge number of Shinnig Path (Moisrt Pol potioan Movement) shouted "We cant be terrorists we are catholics"
We all know Maoists are atheists.
Of course this means nothing except many ctriminals clame to be religious to gain sympathy and credibillity from the naive fundamentalists who believe every person can be saved by religion, but his same people who proclaimentheir catholicism, marched inside the prisons with red flags and uniforms singing military songs..
-------------
Posted By: Failcore
Date Posted: June 06 2009 at 01:42
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
progmetalhead wrote:
With the utmost respect Ivan.
Seeing as you have quoted adherents, maybe you will let us have your views on the following (also from adherents)
Or as I expect we will see an atypical religious reply????
It's surprising how many people remark to me, "You're an Atheist? You must have no conscience about committing crime then." Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, if we examine the population of our prisons, we see a very different picture.
In "The New Criminology," Max D. Schlapp and Edward E. Smith say that two generations of statisticians found that the ratio of convicts without religious training is about 1/10th of 1%. W.T. Root, Professor of Psychology at the University of Pittsburgh, examined 1,916 prisoners and said, "Indifference to religion, due to thought, strengthens character," adding that Unitarians, Agnostics, Atheists and Free-Thinkers were absent from penitentiaries, or nearly so.
During 10 years in Sing-Sing, of those executed for murder 65% were Catholics, 26% Protestants, 6% Hebrew, 2% Pagan, and less than 1/3 of 1% non-religious.
Steiner and Swancara surveyed Canadian prisons and found 1,294 Catholics, 435 Anglicans, 241 Methodists, 135 Baptists, and 1 Unitarian.
Dr. Christian, Superintendent of the N.Y. State Reformatories, checked records of 22,000 prison inmates and found only 4 college graduates. In "Who's Who," 91% were college graduates; Christian commented that "intelligence and knowledge produce right living," and, "crime is the offspring of superstition and ignorance."
Surveyed Massachusetts reformatories found every inmate to be religious.
In Joliet Prison, there were 2,888 Catholics, 1,020 Baptists, 617 Methodists and no prisoners identified as non-religious.
Michigan had 82,000 Baptists and 83,000 Jews in the state population; but in the prisons, there were 22 times as many Baptists as Jews, and 18 times as many Methodists as Jews. In Sing-Sing, there were 1,553 inmates, 855 of them (over half) Catholics, 518 Protestants, 117 Jews, and 8 non-religious.
Steiner first surveyed 27 states and found 19,400 Christians, 5,000 with no preference and only 3 Agnostics (one each in Connecticut, New Hampshire, and Illinois). A later, more exhaustive survey found 60,605 Christians, 5,000 Jews, 131 Pagans, 4,000 "no preference," and only 3 Agnostics.
In one 19-state survey, Steiner found 15 non-believers, Spiritualists, Theosophists, Deists, Pantheists and 1 Agnostic among nearly 83,000 inmates. He labeled all 15 as "anti-christians." The Elmira, N.Y. reformatory system overshadowed all others, with nearly 31,000 inmates, including 15,694 Catholics (half) and 10,968 Protestants, 4,000 Jews, 325 refusing to answer, and 0 unbelievers.
In the East, over 64% of inmates are Roman Catholic. Throughout the national prison population, they average 50%. A national census of the general population found Catholics to be about 15% (and they count from the diaper up). Hardly 12% are old enough to commit a crime, and half of these are women. That leaves an adult Catholic population of 6% supplying 50% of the prison population.
In first place: Haven't given any religious response, all my replies are based in logic, I'm not preaching, never did it in this forum and never will.
Now to that letter:
Any person who says Atheists can't be moral, is a bigot and a stupid, morality is independent of any religious belief.
I would have to check this statistics, but the posibilities are many
Almost every atheist was born and raised inside a religion,many of this people surely are in fact atheists or agnostics that only have a nominal link towards a religion.
What about the other states, and places in the world?
The people with no religious training (their words) are an infimous minority, almost every atheist was raised inside a religion
In countries were Catholics are minority, they can be harrased (As a fact Irish Catholics were harrassed in USA for a long time) as black people was harrassed and falsely arrested as in USA a few years ago.
Most prissoners claim to be religious as a way to receive indulgence
This data could be inacurate
Of course they are implying that religious people are inmoral and Atheists are the moral?
If that's the case, it's exactly the same bigotry and stupidity as saying Atheists are inmoral.
But please, I gave a few arguments in reply to Dean's post which you so enthusiatically congratulated...Is my reply wrong or acurate?
Iván
Just a quick thing point it out it's not necessarily bigoted to say that people who follow philosophy X are more likely to commit crimes if the data supports it. What is bigoted is to say it's because of philosophy X that they commit more crimes. (w/o further proof, eliminating other factors, maybe philosophy X is more likely to manifest in groups with factor Y which actually causes violence) Correlation does not imply causation. It's even further bigoted to bring it down to the level where, one says "You believe in philosophy X, you immoral b*****d!"
Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: June 06 2009 at 01:45
Please check all the posibilities I gave you.
Iván
-------------
Posted By: Failcore
Date Posted: June 06 2009 at 01:48
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
Please chjeck all the posibilities I gave you.
Iván
I was just make a point about statistics, wasn't trying to indict you. There's a book I want to read called "How to Lie with Statistics." Addresses all sorts of issues. The base problem is that there are way too many people w/o solid math backgrounds tryign to run around doing statistics. Further, most statistics are not generated by a divested body.
Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: June 06 2009 at 02:24
Thanks deathrabbit, and i found some interesting data.
Most of the Catholics arrested and convicted in USA are:
Young Latino inmigrants
Most of them living in extreme poverty
Most of them members of violent gangs
A great percentage of them illegal
Most of them with poor defence in a trial.
Almost 90% of Latinos are Catholics (At least by name)
But you forget the real truth: Poor inmigrants, members of a violent gang will probably commit violent crimes and most surely be convicted because they aren't able to pay a decent defence.
Let me put another example:
All members of Maoist Shinning Path who killed 50,000 innocent Peruvianms are atheists
All members of the Kmer Rouge who killed almost a million Cambodians were atheists
Then Atheists have more chances to be criminal terrorists.
Of course this is BS, I'm leaving many facts behind, like that radical communists embrace Atheism for political interests.