# Atheism Anyone?



## Los Muertos (Jun 2, 2011)

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?


----------



## sync0s (Jun 2, 2011)

Los Muertos said:


> 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?


I'm with you. Some people have said that when you are atheist you have little or no morals but I greatly disagree. When you come upon the conclusion that this life is all you have, you gain the desire to improve it not only for yourself but for everyone around you. At least as far as I'm concerned. If you believe in a higher power that created everything we know that's fine, but you need to at the very least acknowledge the fact that it's not the end of the line. A paradigm still exists in the fact that something had to create that higher power, and something created that, and so on. Never ending circles that we always pursue, yet we laugh at dogs and cats when they chase their own tails....


----------



## karri0n (Jun 3, 2011)

Los Muertos said:


> 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.



FYI, There are religions completely based on the connection to the earth that you feel(Pretty much any pagan religion). People who ascribe to them don't think they are superior to anything Mother Nature creates.


----------



## Runbyhemp (Jun 3, 2011)

Atheist here too. I believe organized religion was invented as a means to control the masses. I can't understand why people fear there being nothing when we die, when you're dead you won't have to worry about it.


----------



## undertheice (Jun 3, 2011)

Los Muertos said:


> As an Atheist myself, I'm curious how many others are.


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.


----------



## Los Muertos (Jun 3, 2011)

karri0n said:


> FYI, There are religions completely based on the connection to the earth that you feel(Pretty much any pagan religion). People who ascribe to them don't think they are superior to anything Mother Nature creates.


 Absolutely. I certainly didn't mean to imply that all religions encourage that attitude.


----------



## guy incognito (Jun 3, 2011)

undertheice said:


> 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.


50 million elvis fans can't be wrong. clearly irrational to come to any conclusion that isn't shared with most of the population.


----------



## undertheice (Jun 3, 2011)

guy incognito said:


> clearly irrational to come to any conclusion that isn't shared with most of the population.


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._


----------



## Los Muertos (Jun 3, 2011)

Yeah, I consider my beliefs to be rooted more in scientific than emotional reasons.


----------



## BendBrewer (Jun 3, 2011)

Deism works for me.


----------



## undertheice (Jun 3, 2011)

Los Muertos said:


> Yeah, I consider my beliefs to be rooted more in scientific than emotional reasons.


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.


----------



## theDEEDO (Jun 3, 2011)




----------



## guy incognito (Jun 3, 2011)

undertheice said:


> 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.


Suppose I give you a book that details the existence of a fictional god that I make up. I make him up, and every detail that goes into the book. I then give you the book and tell you it's real. You read the book and notice not a single thing in it can be verified or used as positive evidence of this gods existence. Not only can none of it be used for his existence, but the book is rife with not only contradictions of itself, but with other things you KNOW to be false.

Just how unreasonable would it be to conclude that the work is entirely fiction and that god doesn't exist?


----------



## soul11223 (Jun 3, 2011)

Right here Atheist how could anyone believe in the invisible man in the sky with all the science out there and the only proof they have is faith.


----------



## Los Muertos (Jun 3, 2011)

undertheice said:


> 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.


I think maybe that was taken the wrong way. I never said there was scientific "proof", but you can have plenty of evidence without ever actually proving anything. Evidence is only enough for a theory which is exactly what religion is...nothing more. I'll be the first to admit that I might be wrong, but would someone on the other side ever do the same thing? Doubt it. Based on that, which is the "truly rational" mind. Refusing to admit that it's even remotely possible that you could be wrong about something based on a theory doesn't sound rational to me.


----------



## BendBrewer (Jun 3, 2011)

Any of you have time for a quick read? It's one of my favorite chapters of any book. Short and sweet.

http://dkeenan.com/PageiteWars.htm



> [FONT=New York,Times New Roman]_You are creatures of light, we read. From light have you come, in light shall you go, and surrounding you through every step is the light of your infinite being.
> _[/FONT][FONT=New York,Times New Roman]She turned a page.............[/FONT]
> 
> [FONT=New York,Times New Roman]The old man sighed his relief. "What a blessed evening!" he said. "How rarely are we given the chance to save the world from a new religion!"[/FONT]


----------



## mame (Jun 3, 2011)

Steven Hawking makes a pretty good case that there is no creator IMO.


----------



## undertheice (Jun 3, 2011)

guy incognito said:


> Suppose I give you a book that details the existence of a fictional god that I make up. I make him up, and every detail that goes into the book. I then give you the book and tell you it's real. You read the book and notice not a single thing in it can be verified or used as positive evidence of this gods existence. Not only can none of it be used for his existence, but the book is rife with not only contradictions of itself, but with other things you KNOW to be false.
> 
> Just how unreasonable would it be to conclude that the work is entirely fiction and that god doesn't exist?


why do you find it so hard to separate that original myth of a creator from the surrounding mythologies that go into creating a religion? you have provided a rudimentary example of the reasoning behind the skeptical view of religion, nothing more. you haven't touched on the concept of the universal god myth and the reasoning behind it, but i'll play along since you bothered to ask.

the first question to ask is the origin of the writings you are presenting to me. where are they from, by whom were they written and how did you acquire them, with all of your answers balanced against my own judgment concerning your intentions. without any direct evidence of your claims, my next step would be to seek out the opinions of others. though their opinions would be just as subjective as mine, a wider range of experience allows a better understanding and someone else might have an insight that i lack. my final test would be the ultimate in subjectivity, how relevant the message is to my life and the cost of altering my world view. if i felt that conversion might provide some benefit to myself or to society in general or that it fulfilled some need, i might even consider joining your little cult and try believing in your deity. at this point in my life i doubt i could make such a change, but it is possible to teach an old dog new tricks.

now let's compare your imaginary book to the sacred texts that really do exist and upon which the world's religions have been based. the first thing you'll notice is that our gods are seldom defined. popular culture has sought to describe these deities throughout history, but the writings themselves merely describe the powers they wield and the demands they make on their people. these are books of regulation and philosophy, not mere descriptive narratives. they are seldom the product of one author, but are more often than not the recreation of oral traditions. they are designed to create a way of life, the impetus for which is the perceived desire of this pervasive god myth, and not to define the force whose existence is nearly taken for granted. the identities of their authors are mostly lost in the mists of time, as are their true intentions. 

the greatest flaw in your little scenario, aside from the fact that you've missed the point entirely, is that you've asked _me_ what my reaction would be. i am someone whose world view has been purposefully constructed over the last fifty plus years to suit a rather perverse personality and who has a deep and abiding hatred of the god myth in all of its various forms, most specifically the christian version that i grew up surrounded by. what someone unaffected by the influences of this society, as a child or a primitive, would do is anyone's guess.


----------



## del66666 (Jun 3, 2011)

i have never ever and never will believe in religion.....................thank god...............


----------



## Los Muertos (Jun 3, 2011)

undertheice said:


> why do you find it so hard to separate that original myth of a creator from the surrounding mythologies that go into creating a religion? you have provided a rudimentary example of the reasoning behind the skeptical view of religion, nothing more. you haven't touched on the concept of the universal god myth and the reasoning behind it, but i'll play along since you bothered to ask.
> 
> the first question to ask is the origin of the writings you are presenting to me. where are they from, by whom were they written and how did you acquire them, with all of your answers balanced against my own judgment concerning your intentions. without any direct evidence of your claims, my next step would be to seek out the opinions of others. though their opinions would be just as subjective as mine, a wider range of experience allows a better understanding and someone else might have an insight that i lack. my final test would be the ultimate in subjectivity, how relevant the message is to my life and the cost of altering my world view. if i felt that conversion might provide some benefit to myself or to society in general or that it fulfilled some need, i might even consider joining your little cult and try believing in your deity. at this point in my life i doubt i could make such a change, but it is possible to teach an old dog new tricks.
> 
> ...


 Could I get some dressing on that greek salad? lol I'm just kidding.


----------



## evilcloudst (Jun 3, 2011)

I grew up mormon and even went on a mission.

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


----------



## 420God (Jun 3, 2011)

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 (Jun 3, 2011)

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 (Jun 3, 2011)

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 (Jun 3, 2011)

Those are great movies. Cheers


----------



## soul11223 (Jun 3, 2011)

So you need to believe in something like that because you don&#8217;t be believe in evaluation and i&#8217;m not just talking about man from monkey shit. In the end in our life time we&#8217;ll probably not be able to say how we got here but no matter what god was still created by man.


----------



## Chocolate Thia (Jun 3, 2011)

[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 (Jun 3, 2011)

undertheice said:


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


We don't _choose_ atheism. 



undertheice said:


> 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.



undertheice said:


> 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!)?



undertheice said:


> 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. 



undertheice said:


> 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. 
 


undertheice said:


> 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.  



undertheice said:


> 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? 



undertheice said:


> 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. 



LJ6 said:


> 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 . 
 


Chocolate Thia said:


> 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"?



Chocolate Thia said:


> 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"?



Chocolate Thia said:


> 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).



Chocolate Thia said:


> 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. 



Chocolate Thia said:


> 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?



Chocolate Thia said:


> 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 (Jun 3, 2011)

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 (Jun 3, 2011)

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 (Jun 3, 2011)

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.


Los Muertos said:


> 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 (Jun 3, 2011)

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 (Jun 4, 2011)

Padawanbater2 said:


> 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 (Jun 4, 2011)

undertheice said:


> 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.



undertheice said:


> 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. 



undertheice said:


> 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 (Jun 4, 2011)

Heisenberg said:


> 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 (Jun 4, 2011)

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 (Jun 4, 2011)

undertheice said:


> 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.
> 
> ...


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 (Jun 4, 2011)

KOOdO said:


> 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&#8217;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 (Jun 4, 2011)

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


----------



## Heisenberg (Jun 4, 2011)

KOOdO said:


> 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.


----------



## undertheice (Jun 4, 2011)

Heisenberg said:


> 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.


what we call certainty so often seems to come after our choices have already been made, especially when dealing with matters of faith. we may make our decisions based on faulty logic or no logic at all, but that's just the way it is. my own feelings on the subject are that we should at least be able to admit these lapses in reason for what they are and not hide behind the mask of incomplete science. using the excuse of absent evidence or a dislike for the actions and attitudes of the religious just seems to be such shallow reasoning when faced with the enormity of the god myth, that the feigned superiority seen in so many professed atheists really irks me. doubt on the subject would seem a natural and healthy reaction in an inquisitive mind, but outright denial would seem to require a far more compelling reason than simply inadequate information.


----------



## 0011StealTH (Jun 4, 2011)

i am no a atheist as i understand more of the world with IN us neither im a religious fanatic. all i believe is self responsibility and self forgiveness the rest can be flush.
I AM MY OWN CREATOR.


----------



## Brazko (Jun 4, 2011)

Pantheist would be closer to an accurate term for moi...- 

*"A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, *
*of the manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most *
*radiant beauty, which are only accessible to our reason *
*in their most elementary forms it is this knowledge and this *
*emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude; in this *
*sense, and in this alone, I am a deeply religious man."*
*- Albert Einstein*

Aside: since this is a gathering of Atheist, how did you all go about telling your family/friends that you are Atheist? I don't consider myself Atheist but technically I would be deemed one and find it quite complicated trying to explain this to somebody religious, in particular to people of the Judeo Christian faith. So I was wondering how did you all go about expressing your Atheism or do you keep it to yourselves?


----------



## karri0n (Jun 5, 2011)

Padawanbater said:


> *Only another atheist would understand why this makes absolutely no sense, *
> 
> 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 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!)?




Only someone with an understanding of spirituality would understand why all of this makes no sense.

You are arguing against Intelligent Design, and plot holes in fables.

Spirituality is not about dogma, it's not about explaining the origin of speciation. It's not about knowing how the earth was created. Spirituaity is about connecting and aligning yourself with divinity. Different religions have different means of doing this. Some have become quite corrupted. I do not deny that some seek for power and control and have little to do with spiituality themselves. 


The fact is, while maybe not all atheists are not simply antagonistic hotheads that are butthurt about christianty and mad at their parents, You, Pad, are one of these, at least for now. 

It's admirable that you turn to biology, cosmology, chemistry, etc. to learn and educate yourself about the world. It's also 100% fine to not believe in god. You excel in logic and reasoning. Maybe you also excel in music, maybe you do not. Where your faculties ARE lacking is in the existential/spiritual area. You don't feel any type of connection with the divine, and you don't understand why ayone would have a need of it. 

Someone else may not be good with numbers, but is exceptionally proficient in spiritual intelligence. They can pass in and out of meditation or prayer with ease, and have a very clear understanding of and deep connection with their particualar brand of god. 

It's not ok to accuse someone of being ignorant or unintelligent simply because their faculties differ from yours. It's not ok to antagonize someone because their worldview is different than yours. 

You would do well with some sort of non-denominational meditation practice, and a study of some philosophy. Perhaps meditate on a particular piece of philosophy that you enjoy.

Religious dogma and belief in deity in the sense you associate are not necessary for healthy spiritual practice, however a decent spiritual practice IS very necessary for a complete, happy, and psychologically healthy life. Seriously bro. It's as simple as toke up, sit comfortably somewhere silent and comfortable, close your eyes, and clear your mind. Just keep letting your thoughts pass away every time you notice yourself focusing on something, and clear your mind once again.

It'd probably be good for those anger issues as well 





Heisenberg said:


> 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?




It's called agnostic. Athiest, by definition, is denying the existence of god, regardless of whether modern atheists some want to change the word's meaning to reflect a less inflammatory position. In my mind, people who claim to be "atheist" but really take an agnostic stanpoint(we can't know or I don't feel the need to be religious) should just call themselves what they are - agnostic.



Heisenberg said:


> 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.



Once again, these that you are naming are agnostic. Either unaware or apathetic to the existence of a god. Atheism by definition is completely denying the possibility of the existence of a god.

As far as people being "atheist" to every god but the one they worship - I don't think I agree with this.

Christians believe any other "gods" are actually either demons, or satan in disguise.

Neopagans attribute just as much power to one god as any other - essentially the powers and domains given to that god in their mythology. Neptune would have power over the seas as based in his mythology, Jehovah would have power over everything, as is said in his own mythology. 

Buddhists recognize that all religions have worth and don't refute or deny them

In fact, the only group I see consistently denying all other gods except their own(which in this case becomes all of them) is atheism.


----------



## iNVESTIGATE (Jun 5, 2011)

Los Muertos said:


> ....
> Basically my beliefs are - you're here, you're not..that's it. Like a fart and no more significant than one....


hahha best line. Atheism representttttt! lol

https://www.rollitup.org/spirituality-sexuality-philosophy/430655-four-horsemen.html

A thread i made a bit ago w/ Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennett, Richard Dawkins, and Sam Harris having a little chat. Good shit. It is long though; make time!


----------



## Chocolate Thia (Jun 5, 2011)

Jesus said to his apostles: "you shall not only do these works, but greater works still"

Christianity in it's true form is a religion of doing, and of miracles. Most people don't have a camera rolling when a miracle occurs. But that doesn't mean there are no miracles. I suppose a witness of Gods power would convert some of you, but others would see it and doubt or make excuses as to the true meaning of the miracle.

It's the same with evolution. We have never seen it happen. We feel we have enough facts to support evolution because science shows us a very smart song and dance.

But the theory changes. So what is fact if fact changes? If you didn't have the facts ten years ago, or twenty years ago or thirty years ago to have an accurate belief in evolution now.....what about the next 30 years? Can you really say you have it figured out and this NEW theory will not change?

Here is a movie about miracle 

[video=youtube;bSiTnN3uU3g]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bSiTnN3uU3g[/video]


----------



## Chocolate Thia (Jun 5, 2011)

I'm just posting these to let people know what miracles are out there. Do your own searching for "Miracles Proven" and see for your self.

[video=youtube;RtoosvGIqYs]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RtoosvGIqYs[/video]


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Jun 5, 2011)

karri0n said:


> You are arguing against Intelligent Design, and plot holes in fables.
> 
> Spirituality is not about dogma, it's not about explaining the origin of speciation. It's not about knowing how the earth was created. Spirituaity is about connecting and aligning yourself with divinity. Different religions have different means of doing this. Some have become quite corrupted. I do not deny that some seek for power and control and have little to do with spiituality themselves.


Do me a favor and define these terms for me so I understand exactly what you're talking about;

-divinity
-spirituality

The religious insist on attacking the science, that's where my, and other atheists like me, adamant defense of it comes in. It's fine to believe whatever you want, in your own head, in your private time, but when you attack known knowledge it took, in some cases, centuries of work to obtain, that's when I have a problem. 

This upsets me more than words can express, it's like giving an illiterate person access to wikipedia. You do a little investigating and discover that the reason these people criticize or openly deny certain scientific theories is because they conflict with their preconceived religious worldview. 









karri0n said:


> The fact is, while maybe not all atheists are not simply antagonistic hotheads that are butthurt about christianty and mad at their parents, You, Pad, are one of these, at least for now.


Well that doesn't mean anything to me, you don't know me personally so I don't think you can make that kind of judgment. 

I'm an "antagonistic hothead who is butthurt about Christianity and mad at my parents"... allllright... lets assess that..

Antagonistic? Definitely. I encourage people to read the bullshit found in their Bibles, what better way to turn a person atheist? 

Butthurt about Christianity? In a sense, sure, it upsets me something so dangerous could completely overcome just about our whole species. It's upsetting that there are so many people out there who reinforce insane beliefs because they're scared of death, because they can't understand how their life could have any meaning without some grand design, some destiny for them to fulfill. That they could be so selfish to see the manipulation right in front of their faces and still let the herd mentality take control and justify it because everyone else does it too. 

Does it bother me Christianity keeps stupid people stupid? Yes, very much. 

Mad at my parents? Not in the least, love em both.
 


karri0n said:


> Where your faculties ARE lacking is in the existential/spiritual area. You don't feel any type of connection with the divine, and you don't understand why ayone would have a need of it.


I understand why people would feel like they need to believe in God.

How do you know what you might feel at any given moment is "the divine"? 
 


karri0n said:


> Someone else may not be good with numbers, but is exceptionally proficient in spiritual intelligence. They can pass in and out of meditation or prayer with ease, and have a very clear understanding of and deep connection with their particualar brand of god.


"spiritual intelligence"?

The "connection" they feel is a subjective opinion, nothing can be measured, tested analyzed or observed. It essentially comes down to what you THINK you are feeling, being a religious person, you would automatically THINK it's this connection with "the divine" so that's what you would conclude. Me being an atheist, I could sit down, clear my thoughts and meditate all day long, I would never reach the conclusion that I'm somehow sharpening my "spiritual intelligence". 
 


karri0n said:


> It's not ok to accuse someone of being ignorant or unintelligent simply because their faculties differ from yours. It's not ok to antagonize someone because their worldview is different than yours.


I call stupidity where I see it. It's STUPID for people to claim evolution doesn't happen. There is no more being nice about this stuff, you guys need to understand, these STUPID beliefs have implications that reach much farther than your doorstep. It is these STUPID beliefs millions of people have that are completely holding us back in just about every conceivable way. 

If you have a stupid opinion, I call you on it and you are unable to defend it, then you must admit you are wrong and change your opinion. This is how logic works. This is how debate works. Being nice and saying "oh it's your belief, you go ahead and have it, I'll think you're kinda silly for having it but yeah, just go ahead... so adorable..." doesn't work, you guys don't get it, it's wrong to send this stuff into the future for younger generations to face. 

You can't defend your stupid belief, sorry to be so blunt about it, but sit the fuck down and shut the fuck up.  If you can, stand proud and run through all the information you researched with me, show me how you came to your conclusion and you might just change my mind, the goal of science, to figure shit out, the right way, unbiased.


----------



## Chocolate Thia (Jun 5, 2011)

If you would like more information about miracles and also an in depth discussion on real Christianity I would be willing to chat some time. Not to convert you, but as a person who has seen the real thing.


----------



## Chocolate Thia (Jun 5, 2011)

What do you all think of this 

[video=youtube;EZx6KdCyQfc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZx6KdCyQfc&feature=related[/video]


----------



## cannaboy (Jun 5, 2011)

*Where is it written that the talking monkeys are supposed to find out the origin of the existance?- Terrence McKenna.*

*But in all reality, People should be able to believe what they want without someone superimposing thier belief onto them. *

*Nothings wrong with presenting someone with your take on things religious or other wise, but when people start to condemn and judge others based on thier beliefs, that's where the problems start...and that may just be a counterreaction from someone elses beliefs being pushed onto them so they do it to others subconciously. *

*Either way..We are still One collective conciousness on the same ride of life with totally different experiences..Let's have fun and work together..or not.*


----------



## Heisenberg (Jun 5, 2011)

Chocolate Thia said:


> Jesus said to his apostles: "you shall not only do these works, but greater works still"
> 
> Christianity in it's true form is a religion of doing, and of miracles. Most people don't have a camera rolling when a miracle occurs. But that doesn't mean there are no miracles. I suppose a witness of Gods power would convert some of you, but others would see it and doubt or make excuses as to the true meaning of the miracle.
> 
> ...


When we understand that there are rules about what can be considered evidence, and then levels to how reliable the type of evidence is, we realize that there is no real proof of miracles without the benefit of spin.

Spin becomes apparent in the second paragraph. We start with a strawman. 'Evolution has never been seen.' Micro evolution is witnessed quite often, and macro evolution happens too slowly to observe without examining historical data. Never the less that data is there and supported by many independent lines of study. Referring to evolution as a song and dance is an attempt to further poison the well.

The third paragraph makes an argument that we should never change our mind. We should come to a conclusion and then ignore all future evidence despite where it leads. Science makes no conclusions without the understanding that things can change if new data is introduced. Which attitude seems more prudent?

You don't think in 30 years we will have improved our ability to detect and interpret data? Somehow if those improvements shed new light on a subject, it makes the subject invalid? The fact that we have found better ways to support evolution than we had 30 years ago is somehow a bad thing?

Do you realize that a person can accept evolution without being an atheist? Do you think all atheists support evolution? Do you think the theory of evolution makes any claims about a creator what so ever? Do you think evolution attempts to explain the beginning of life? You seem to be asserting conclusions about a subject of which you are not informed. If you do not take the time to think critically about the things you say, how can we trust that you have given critical thought to miracles and evolution?

Once again we see at the heart of this argument the same we see with nearly every attack on evolution, a deep and unchallenged ignorance of the very claims evolution makes.


----------



## guy incognito (Jun 6, 2011)

I almost can't believe the sheer retardation this this thread. If I didn't know people like this in real life I don't think I would believe it; I would attribute it to being trolls. I mean, wow. Pad and Heis make all the relevant points that needed to be made.


----------



## karri0n (Jun 6, 2011)

Padawanbater2 said:


> Do me a favor and define these terms for me so I understand exactly what you're talking about;
> 
> -divinity
> -spirituality


Divinity - The creative force in the universe. Call it what you will - chaos and order, synchronicity, God, spirit, Mana, Prana, magic. It's what's responsible for the patterns that allow our universe to exist and harbor life.

Spirituality - One's connection with divinity



Padawanbater2 said:


> The religious insist on attacking the science, that's where my, and other atheists like me, adamant defense of it comes in. It's fine to believe whatever you want, in your own head, in your private time, but when you attack known knowledge it took, in some cases, centuries of work to obtain, that's when I have a problem.


You have a problem with religious people even if they make no claims regarding evolution or the origin of the world. 

A minority of people, from a single religion which is a minority in the world, deny essentially two theories that are put forth by science. Evolution and the big bang. The vast majority of people, religious or not, either accept these, are too stupid to understand what these theories entail. or too apathetic to give a shit. For the most part, it's far more important who got the most votes on this week's _Idol_. The beliefs of these people don't affect the advancement of knowledge. Someone who studies astrophysics and has the ability to make discoveries and further our knowledge, does not deny the big bang. Even if they do personally, on a professional level they cannot, as they need to work within the constrains of current evidence. A biologist does not deny evolution. As long as your paper towels get rung out successfully, why does it matter if the wal-mart cashier understands evolution? 

Never mind the trillions of dollars worth of humanitarian aid given to third world countries and disaster victims, never mind that agoraphobic aunt Delores wouldn't ever leave her house and would continue to spiral ever deeper into mental illness if she did not get the social interaction that her once a week trip to church on sunday brings her, THAT GUY OVER THERE MIGHT NOT KNOW ABOUT HOMO ERECTUS!11!1!!!1! BURN THE CHURCH DOWN!!







Padawanbater2 said:


> Butthurt about Christianity? In a sense, sure, it upsets me something so dangerous could completely overcome just about our whole species. It's upsetting that there are so many people out there who reinforce insane beliefs because they're scared of death, because they can't understand how their life could have any meaning without some grand design, some destiny for them to fulfill. That they could be so selfish to see the manipulation right in front of their faces and still let the herd mentality take control and justify it because everyone else does it too.


You, like many people who leave Christianity, have a bone to pick with Christianity. You assign qualities of fundamentalist Christianity to all forms of religion, simply because you were taught Christianity is the only way. You're so entrenched into the thought of "Christianity is the only religion" that you have flat out denied the possibility that someone(myself in this case) could have been raised atheist. You grasp onto things such as intelligent design and the desire for control that fundamentalist religions have as your scapegoat for your anger. You assign fundamentalist qualities to religions and schools of thought that contain no dogma whatsoever. You accuse religions that do not attempt to delve into the creation of the universe, or explain it in metaphor, of attempting to subvert what we know about evolution and astrophysics. Your extreme anti-christian prejudice clouds your vision of just what it is that you are rallying against. You're allowing your own anger to poison you, making you stray from logic and reason, and you lash out at others who have nothing to do with the organization that you're angry at.






Padawanbater2 said:


> Does it bother me Christianity keeps stupid people stupid? Yes, very much.




Stupid people do a damn fine job of that all by themselves, but I agree wholeheartedly that the "do not question" mentality put forth by many christian organizations is harmful.




Padawanbater2 said:


> I understand why people would feel like they need to believe in God.


No. You understand ONE reason of very, very many, and you think it's fear of the unknown. You don't understand why people are spiritual - even those who don't believe in any traditional form of deity.



Padawanbater2 said:


> How do you know what you might feel at any given moment is "the divine"?


Through experience. Through training. Through knowing what the fuck I'm talking about, knowing what I'm doing, and knowing what I'm seeing.



Padawanbater2 said:


> "spiritual intelligence"?
> 
> Me being an atheist, I could sit down, clear my thoughts and meditate all day long, I would never reach the conclusion that I'm somehow sharpening my "spiritual intelligence".


Yes I realize that. We have touched on your willful ignorance of the facts before.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_multiple_intelligences#Existential





Padawanbater2 said:


> I call stupidity where I see it. It's STUPID for people to claim evolution doesn't happen. There is no more being nice about this stuff, you guys need to understand, these STUPID beliefs have implications that reach much farther than your doorstep. It is these STUPID beliefs millions of people have that are completely holding us back in just about every conceivable way.




Can you tell me what "stupid beliefs" you are referencing? How exactly are they holding us back? Please note, as stated earlier, what some fundamentalist Christian in Alabama thinks has no bearing on the work of a student of astrophysics or biology. Even if it did, whatever was presented would be quickly debunked in peer review.




Padawanbater2 said:


> You can't defend your stupid belief, sorry to be so blunt about it, but sit the fuck down and shut the fuck up.  If you can, stand proud and run through all the information you researched with me, show me how you came to your conclusion and you might just change my mind, the goal of science, to figure shit out, the right way, unbiased.
> [/COLOR]


Let's be clear on this. I'm in no way spouting an opinion. I'm stating facts. If you had an unbiased opinion, and based your claims on evidence, we would be in agreement. 

My "Stupid belief": It's better to have some sort of spiritual practice than to not.


The research has been done. Psychologists and clinicians agree. From stress relief, to fighting fatigue, to lower blood pressure, to improved psychological stability and health, to people using meditation and prayer for weight loss, to just being generally happier - spirituality, prayer, and meditation are healthy lifestyle choices. Clinical studies have been done and the benefits are shown. Stupid belief or not, the evidence is on my side on this one.





Heisenberg said:


> Do you realize that a person can accept evolution without being an atheist? Do you think all atheists support evolution?


I realize you are talking to someone who is denying evolution, but do you think all people who are religious or spiritual do NOT accept it? Even the pope supports it...


----------



## guy incognito (Jun 6, 2011)

[video=youtube;c04EMCF9lyI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c04EMCF9lyI[/video]


----------



## guy incognito (Jun 6, 2011)

guy incognito said:


> [video=youtube;c04EMCF9lyI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c04EMCF9lyI[/video]


Looks like a lot of the people in this thread are ahead of the curve.


----------



## karri0n (Jun 6, 2011)

guy incognito said:


> Looks like a lot of the people in this thread are ahead of the curve.



Do you have any input?


----------



## guy incognito (Jun 6, 2011)

karri0n said:


> Do you have any input?


posts 8, 14, and 55


----------



## Heisenberg (Jun 6, 2011)

karri0n said:


> I realize you are talking to someone who is denying evolution, but do you think all people who are religious or spiritual do NOT accept it?


Of course not. I don't feel the two are mutually exclusive.


I found these conversations (podcasts) interesting

Evolution, skepticism and atheism

Marriage of science and religion


----------



## Omgwtfbbq Indicaman (Jun 7, 2011)

Im an atheist, im also a humanist. i find religion in the west and middle east to be humorous, and abhorrent at the same time. i became an atheist after i took home a bible from sunday school and read it when i was 7 years old. pretty much made me think about the content into which we read and why people believe what they do, turns out its pretty much left to conditioning. i believe every religion to spring up from the middle east is a long going ponzi scheme, where priests, rabbis and bishops/popes hold power over the masses, who are mostly uneducated. but that will change soon... very soon. it feeds off of fear, hysteria, ignorance and hope. i dont go around de-converting people, i just argue alot and point out hypocrisy, and i find it awful that people thank god for shit that OTHER people do, like getting out of a hospital alive, when surgeons and medical staff help them each step of the way. most just want to give thanks to something and the statement is meaningless, but others are true believers and think the hospital they paid 10-100,100k was a high paid vacation for masochists lol.


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Jun 7, 2011)

karri0n said:


> Divinity - The creative force in the universe. Call it what you will - chaos and order, synchronicity, God, spirit, Mana, Prana, magic. It's what's responsible for the patterns that allow our universe to exist and harbor life.


Hopefully you can recognize and understand why this line of reasoning isn't scientific. I asked you to define it because we need exact terms otherwise, how will we know what each other are talking about?

I don't accept your definition of "divinity", it still doesn't make any sense to me. By the second sentence in your definition it would sound to me like you're describing the laws of physics, are the laws of physics your definition of "divinity"?



karri0n said:


> Spirituality - One's connection with divinity


One's connection to _the laws of physics_?



karri0n said:


> You have a problem with religious people even if they make no claims regarding evolution or the origin of the world.


It would benefit you to avoid making personal claims, you're simply wrong. You don't know me, it makes you look foolish to claim such things. 99% of the people I know in my personal life are religious, both of my parents are Christian.

I have a problem with the stupid things people defend in the name of their religion. I have a problem with the indoctrination of young children, perpetuating the cycle of ignorance. I have a problem with the bigotry and prejudice that stems from religion. I have a problem with the condemnation of completely normal aspects of the human condition. I have a problem with people justifying inhuman actions in the name of their faith. And I have a problem with people who sit idly by and let it all happen because it's someones religion. 



karri0n said:


> A minority of people, from a single religion which is a minority in the world, deny essentially two theories that are put forth by science. Evolution and the big bang. The vast majority of people, religious or not, either accept these, are too stupid to understand what these theories entail. or too apathetic to give a shit. For the most part, it's far more important who got the most votes on this week's Idol. The beliefs of these people don't affect the advancement of knowledge.


You couldn't be more wrong. Like I said before, these beliefs reach much farther than your doorstep. And it's not so much the dismissal of beliefs, but the blind acceptance of certain beliefs that I think causes so much harm. 

The dismissal of the theories of evolution, the big bang, a-biogenesis, etc. have important implications that should be addressed, but I think it's more important to address the impact the acceptance of such dangerous faiths has on the population. 

Homophobia, racism, sexism, inequality, murder, mutilation, cruel and unusual punishment, the list goes on and on.. all of them not caused by, but definitely perpetuated by organized religions. 

Look back at the civil rights movement, whites justified their actions using the Bible, look back at the Nazi's, justified by religion, current Israeli/Palestinian conflict, justified by religion, Darfur - religion, random Middle Eastern civil wars/conflicts - religion.. IRA in the UK - religion, burning people alive - religion, stoning people, beheading people, burning people alive - religion. That's just off the top of my head, if I grabbed my history book right now, I could easily pull up 15 more examples, all of them justified by religion. 




karri0n said:


> As long as your paper towels get rung out successfully, why does it matter if the wal-mart cashier understands evolution?




The Wal-Mart cashier gets to cast a vote, and there are a lot more _Wal-Mart cashier's _than there are atheists on marijuana forums, I assure you... 




karri0n said:


> Never mind the trillions of dollars worth of humanitarian aid given to third world countries and disaster victims, never mind that agoraphobic aunt Delores wouldn't ever leave her house and would continue to spiral ever deeper into mental illness if she did not get the social interaction that her once a week trip to church on sunday brings her, THAT GUY OVER THERE MIGHT NOT KNOW ABOUT HOMO ERECTUS!11!1!!!1! BURN THE CHURCH DOWN!!




There are ways to attain the same level of comfort for life via a more humane process, this is the beauty of logic and critical thinking, you can think your way to comfort and happiness if you're willing to try. The road there is treacherous, but when you reach the destination (I still haven't), you will discover the trip was worth taking. 




karri0n said:


> No. You understand ONE reason of very, very many, and you think it's fear of the unknown. You don't understand why people are spiritual - even those who don't believe in any traditional form of deity.




Enlighten me.




karri0n said:


> Through experience. Through training. Through knowing what the fuck I'm talking about, knowing what I'm doing, and knowing what I'm seeing.




Anecdotal evidence ='s 0 in the game of science. Give me something to measure, test, observe...




karri0n said:


> Can you tell me what "stupid beliefs" you are referencing? How exactly are they holding us back? Please note, as stated earlier, what some fundamentalist Christian in Alabama thinks has no bearing on the work of a student of astrophysics or biology. Even if it did, whatever was presented would be quickly debunked in peer review.




-original sin
-Noah and his arc
-the entire account of Genesis
-life starts at the moment of conception
-chosen people
-chosen land
-inequality
-homophobia

Not to mention the process by which _these _beliefs are believed, that is completely by faith. A person who believes this stuff also thinks it's OK to believe other things without sufficient evidence in other aspects of their life... UFO's are aliens from another planet, Big Foot lurks in the woods, ghosts haunt their house, people can see into the future or talk to people's spirits who've died... that list goes on and on too. This process of acceptance of a belief without putting it through the test of what makes a fact a fact leads ignorant people to believe it's OK, it leads them to say things like "evolution isn't a _fact_, it's only a _THEORY!_", missing the irony of the statement completely, and looking foolish to everyone else whose thought about the process of establishing facts of reality for more than five seconds... It leads them to get conned into spending thousands of their hard earned dollars on tv preachers claiming they'll perform miracles... 

These beliefs make people ignorant and keep people ignorant under the guise of being what's moral. People who believe in them are already too ignorant to see or understand why.


----------



## medicalmaryjane (Jun 8, 2011)

i am agnostic but sort of athiest. it's easier to say agnostic, people don't have bad feelings towards agnostics, i think athiest gets a negative connotation even though it's really not negative, just realistic.


----------



## Icculus (Jun 8, 2011)

karri0n said:


> I realize you are talking to someone who is denying evolution, but do you think all people who are religious or spiritual do NOT accept it? Even the pope supports it...


I think that was exactly what he was saying...

And about your fact on the Pope, the Catholic Church has just relatively recently changed their stance on evolution and even now they believe their own "version" of it. The church sure does sound credible when for hundreds of years they believe one thing until they can no longer deny proof of contradicting facts. Only then they change what they have been teaching for centuries.


----------



## Derple (Jun 8, 2011)

I am technically an athiest, to be honest I just don't give a sh*t about religion. All it makes is problems.


----------



## karri0n (Jun 8, 2011)

Padawanbater2 said:


> Hopefully you can recognize and understand why this line of reasoning isn't scientific. I asked you to define it because we need exact terms otherwise, how will we know what each other are talking about?
> 
> I don't accept your definition of "divinity", it still doesn't make any sense to me. By the second sentence in your definition it would sound to me like you're describing the laws of physics, are the laws of physics your definition of "divinity"?



Yes and no. The currently accepted laws of physics show no clear reason for the universe's apparent affinity for patterns and order, particularly spirals which harbor life. In fact, the existence of life and the order we find within our galaxy and solar system are clearly contraindicated under the currently accepted system based on their extreme improbability, nearly to the point of impossible. Science doesn't yet have an explanation for this force, but it is well within the realm of the laws of physics.



padawanbater2 said:


> One's connection to _the laws of physics_?


In a grand scheme, yes. If one was successful in using math and logic to determine the underlying waveforms dictating their reality, and able to apply this to live in harmony with them, that would be the definition of someone very spiritually advanced. Most people's minds and bodies are just better tailored to interpret these waveforms intuitively than by math and science.



padawanbater2 said:


> It would benefit you to avoid making personal claims, you're simply wrong. You don't know me, it makes you look foolish to claim such things. 99% of the people I know in my personal life are religious, both of my parents are Christian.




Fair enough. I'll adjust my claim to "You have a problem with religious people _on this forum_ regardless of whether they make claims about evolution or the origin of the world." I don't know you personally, but I am capable of reading your previous posts.




padawanbater2 said:


> You couldn't be more wrong. Like I said before, these beliefs reach much farther than your doorstep. And it's not so much the dismissal of beliefs, but the blind acceptance of certain beliefs that I think causes so much harm.
> 
> 
> Homophobia, racism, sexism, inequality, murder, mutilation, cruel and unusual punishment, the list goes on and on.. all of them not caused by, but definitely perpetuated by organized religions.
> ...




First off, Hitler was an atheist who wanted to bring back many of the germanic pagan traditions. The much perpetuated myth of him basing the actions of the Nazi political party on Christianity is exactly that - a myth.

Secondly, you know my stance on the major organized religions. They are corrupt, power hungry organizations, and nothing more. Everything you referenced here are symptoms of Man's lust for power and control. Your equating this with religion is not much different than blaming guns for murder or blaming medical marijuana laws for people who take advantage of the system. When there is a certain desire, justification can always be made. Simply "tradition" was used as this justification many times as well, with no real religious context.



Padawanbater2 said:


> There are ways to attain the same level of comfort for life via a more humane process, this is the beauty of logic and critical thinking, you can think your way to comfort and happiness if you're willing to try. The road there is treacherous, but when you reach the destination (I still haven't), you will discover the trip was worth taking.


If you "aren't there yet", what is your evidence of this? You're believing someone else's claim based on faith. 

This isn't really related to the comment you quoted me on, but I agree with this nonetheless. There are many roads to the top of the mountain, and the type of deep pondering of the nature of life you are referencing is a form of meditation and would be considered a spiritual practice. The majority of people, however, cannot find happiness solely by studying academia.



padawanbater2 said:


> Enlighten me.






They have a relationship with divinity, a connection with their god, the universe, or nature that you do not. Most people have more access to their spiritual faculties than you do because they don't spend the majority of their time denying them. If there was a means of "explaining" spiritual experience to someone who has never felt it, we wouldn't have a need of organized religion.



Padawanbater2 said:


> Anecdotal evidence ='s 0 in the game of science. Give me something to measure, test, observe...



I and billions of others have already "observed" these forces. Unless you are literally handicapped, you are able to as well if you stopped intentionally blocking it. If a number on some sort of equipment is something you require, then invent it.



Padawanbater2 said:


> -original sin
> -Noah and his arc
> -the entire account of Genesis
> -life starts at the moment of conception
> ...


-original sin - Gender inequality? Do you truly believe there would be no gender inequality without the concept of original sin? Protip: Women are smaller and weaker than men. Men are not as detail oriented or socially inclined as women. The genders AREN'T equal. One excels at some things, the other excels at others.

-Noah and his arc - A fable. "Holds us back" no more than the story of Paul Bunyan and Babe the blue Ox.

-the entire account of Genesis - See above.

-life starts at the moment of conception - 1. define life. 2. prove it doesn't. 3. Abortion has pros and cons and would still be a topic with differing opinions, religious or not.

-chosen people - The result of corruption due to man's lust for power. Yet another instance where people's inclination towards spirituality was taken advantage of to benefit those in power. 

-chosen land - see above

-inequality - Inequality is a natural evolutionary tactic seen in many primates. People and many other primates are more comfortable with their group or tribe, because in times past, the other tribe was likely to kill and eat you(this cannibalistic behavior is seen in ancient humans as well as modern primates that have otherwise 100% vegetarian diets). The ability to identify and discriminate between groups was a necessary survival trait. While our culture has certainly advanced past this, our natural instinct has not. Racial prejudice can be and has been observed in infants.
 
-homophobia - Homophobia exists without religion. Long before Christianity, ancient cultures were openly practicing homosexuality and pedarasty without social taboo or religious dogma denying it, and even then, when it was the accepted social norm, there were those who actively spoke against it.

Denial of Evolution is a result of a combination of poor schooling, misunderstanding the purpose of the bible, a lack of critical thinking and intelligence, and people's characteristic of being easily led. One asshole on the radio or the pulpit thinks the bible should be interpreted literally and gets a million innocent people to follow them.

Once again your posts reflect that you are more AGAINST Christianity than FOR critical thinking. You cannot escape your prejudices. You referenced a whole bunch of Christian things, then talked about people's innate penchant for fanciful things. The only correlation is in their adjacency in your text. Belief in the bible has NOTHING to do with UFO's, Bigfoot, or psychic mediums. In fact, UFOs being aliens and the work of Psychic mediums are completely denied and considered blasphemy by Christianity. The natural inclincation for the fanciful is a result of the creative and imaginative mind of Man, and has nothing to do with organized religion. Also there is a ridiculous amount of evidence for bigfoot.

I for one don't believe the creative, fanciful imagination "holds us back" at all. If not for this we wouldn't have innovation. While its pitfalls may lead us to come to ridiculous conclusions, its merits have led us to all of the most remarkable scientific and cultural breakthroughs in the history of mankind.


Once again I will end the post with my point - Having SOME type of spiritual practice is better and healthier than having none. The exception is when fundamentalism creeps in, but at this point it can be argued that it's no longer spiritual practice. Do you disagree with this or agree?


----------



## guy incognito (Jun 8, 2011)

Dude wtf are you talking about? Noah's arc is taught to be very literally true. So is genesis. It is only taught as non-literal when the scientific evidence to dispute it is absolutely overwhelming and they MUST concede that it is not literal, and many of them still stick with the bible when it doesn't make sense (for example the earth being 6,000 years old. Of course it's older and everyone knows it. Some still claim it's only 6,000 years old, but most reasonable christians accept that the bible is wrong about that, but the rest IS true).

And once you start using critical thinking to evaluate the stories in the bible to decide which ones are literal and which are metaphorical, why not just take it one step further and subject the entire religion to the same standards? If it doesn't make sense, has no evidence, and in fact has contradictory evidence then it is probably not true.


----------



## karri0n (Jun 8, 2011)

guy incognito said:


> Dude wtf are you talking about? Noah's arc is taught to be very literally true. So is genesis. It is only taught as non-literal when the scientific evidence to dispute it is absolutely overwhelming and they MUST concede that it is not literal, and many of them still stick with the bible when it doesn't make sense (for example the earth being 6,000 years old. Of course it's older and everyone knows it. Some still claim it's only 6,000 years old, but most reasonable christians accept that the bible is wrong about that, but the rest IS true).
> 
> And once you start using critical thinking to evaluate the stories in the bible to decide which ones are literal and which are metaphorical, why not just take it one step further and subject the entire religion to the same standards? If it doesn't make sense, has no evidence, and in fact has contradictory evidence then it is probably not true.


Mythology in general is metaphorical. Interpreting it as anything but is incorrect. Those that teach that the stories in the bible are to be taken as literal accounts of history have missed the point. People in Jesus' time - those who followed him, spoke with him, and were considered his apostles missed the point and he died because of it. What makes you think 2000 years later people will get it? 

Your definition of "reasonable Christians" differs from mine. Reasonable Christians in my book understand that their mythology is there to teach a lesson about how to worship and how to treat others. If they can't differentiate mythology from history, then they aren't reasonable.


----------



## Pipe Dream (Jun 8, 2011)

karri0n said:


> If they can't differentiate mythology from history, then they aren't reasonable.


Exactly, it's all stories. They are supposed to prove the existence of god because they are impossibe, if they didn't happen then its all make believe and proof the religion a hoax.


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Jun 9, 2011)

karri0n said:


> Yes and no. The currently accepted laws of physics show no clear reason for the universe's apparent affinity for patterns and order, particularly spirals which harbor life. In fact, the existence of life and the order we find within our galaxy and solar system are clearly contraindicated under the currently accepted system based on their extreme improbability, nearly to the point of impossible. Science doesn't yet have an explanation for this force, but it is well within the realm of the laws of physics.




Again, yes OR no, it can't be both. You need to clearly define the term "divinity" before we go any further. Don't be ambiguious or vague.

You described it as what sounded like the laws of physics. Then you jumped to the conclusion that this force is what you call "God" because science hasn't explained it's reason for existence yet. That's fine if that's what you believe, though you must realize, this approach isn't very rational. It's what people have been doing for thousands of years until science _does_ explain it. 

Essentially, this is what you're doing...

1. a force exists
2. science can't explain it
3. the reason for the force can only be God

Your second premise is flawed and remains unjustified. Just because science hasn't explained it yet doesn't mean you can automatically conclude it's God. What evidence do you have that supports that theory? 




karri0n said:


> In a grand scheme, yes. If one was successful in using math and logic to determine the underlying waveforms dictating their reality, and able to apply this to live in harmony with them, that would be the definition of someone very spiritually advanced.


Then how can you say an atheist can't be a "spiritual" person? _Spiritual_ in this sense, and in the sense you've described it, is completely absent of religion. 




karri0n said:


> Most people's minds and bodies are just better tailored to interpret these waveforms intuitively than by math and science


 
That's unfortunate because like I keep telling you, anecdotal evidence, what this amounts to, is useless in the game of science. What you _think_ you might feel isn't evidence. What you _think_ might be subject to error. Our senses are fooled all the time.




karri0n said:


> Fair enough. I'll adjust my claim to "You have a problem with religious people _on this forum_ regardless of whether they make claims about evolution or the origin of the world." I don't know you personally, but I am capable of reading your previous posts.


The only people I have a problem with are stupid people, religious or not. 

I challenge you to find a post by me confirming your claim, that I "have a problem with religious people on this forum regardless of wheather they make claims about evolution or the origin of the world". Good luck.




karri0n said:


> First off, Hitler was an atheist


 
Karri0n, you've gotta be kidding me. Go search this in google, the only people making the claim Hitler was an atheist are fundamentalists. Hitler was a Catholic, observe;






















...then there's this...

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/09/list_of_hitler_quotes_in_honor.php


Get to the rest later...


----------



## dababydroman (Jun 9, 2011)

if you have to hear other peoples opinions you obviously dont even kno what you believe. 
like who exactly do you want to hear opinions from.. other athiest? dont yall all believe the same fucking thing? nothing!?
theres one of these threads up like everyother week


----------



## Heisenberg (Jun 9, 2011)

dababydroman said:


> if you have to hear other peoples opinions you obviously dont even kno what you believe.
> like who exactly do you want to hear opinions from.. other athiest? dont yall all believe the same fucking thing? nothing!?
> theres one of these threads up like everyother week


So once we have an opinion we should ignore everyone else? It is not okay to seek out others of similar interest? You don't wish to have your opinion validated or criticized by others? Aren't you on a message board that is at largely designed to bring together like minds?


----------



## karri0n (Jun 9, 2011)

Padawanbater2 said:


> [/FONT][/SIZE]
> 
> Again, yes OR no, it can't be both. You need to clearly define the term "divinity" before we go any further. Don't be ambiguious or vague.
> 
> ...


Gods as you are picturing them are personifications of this force. It's easier for most people to work with and understand "people" than it is for them to work with something formless and mostly nondescript.



padawanbater2 said:


> Then how can you say an atheist can't be a "spiritual" person? _Spiritual_ in this sense, and in the sense you've described it, is completely absent of religion.


I didn't say that. There's no reason an atheist, by the strict meaning of the word, cannot be a spiritual person. Belief in the existence of a specific deity is not required for spirituality. Denial of the existence of a soul, and of the existence of spirit, which is common to many atheists, do put a hamper on things however. 




Padawanbater2 said:


> That's unfortunate because like I keep telling you, anecdotal evidence, what this amounts to, is useless in the game of science. What you _think_ you might feel isn't evidence. What you _think_ might be subject to error. Our senses are fooled all the time.


Unfortunate indeed, I agree. I anxiously await a time scientific discovery can shed some light on this, though I'm quite certain it will continue to be misunderstood by the vast majority even if this does happen. Most people don't get the point of their own religion, never mind understanding the broader concepts that encompass nearly all(with the exception of those that worship the self, such as Satanism) religions. I have no reason to think once science can measure some of these things that people will begin to understand it either.


Padawanbater2 said:


> ...then there's this...
> 
> http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/09/list_of_hitler_quotes_in_honor.php


From that website:

*Objection!* Hitler was merely cynically manipulating the German people by using their beliefs in God.
*Reply* : I'd say something similar of his misuse of scientific theory.
*Objection!*  You're doing the same thing we are, only instead of blaming Darwinism, you're blaming Christianity.
*Reply* : No, I think _humans_ have done evil throughout their history, and are always willing to grab any convenient rationalization for their behavior, whether it's science or religion or twinkies. Science doesn't dictate morality, and it's also rather clear that religion does a piss-poor job of it, too.

In public and in his book, he spoke of Catholicism. This is a great way to rally people. Behind the scenes, he extensively worked with the occult and spent huge amounts of money and resources sending his armies to the ends of the earth to try to find and collect occult artifacts. He also spent large amounts of money researching the ancient Germanic Pagan traditions and brought _many_ of them back to German culture. Both of these are extreme forms of blasphemy if he was indeed a Catholic. He also DID believe in evolution, as evidenced by his Eugenics program. You're right about one thing - he was probably not an Atheist in the modern sense, but regardless of what he claimed publicly, he certainly did not consider himself Catholic. If he felt he was not bound by the rules, and could practice and support pagan traditions, as well as dabble in the occult, then he was not catholic, even if he thought he was. 
Let's avoid making this into a Hitler thread, and agree that he was mostly a crazy bastard, more than any religion or belief system that one could attribute to him, ok?


----------



## guy incognito (Jun 9, 2011)

karri0n said:


> Gods as you are picturing them are personifications of this force. It's easier for most people to work with and understand "people" than it is for them to work with something formless and mostly nondescript.


It's not nondescript inherently though, you are just not describing it. How can you be so much of an expert on the topic when you can't even define what the force is? It's just formless and nondescript and can't have a definition tied to it, but you are an expert on it.


----------



## Brazko (Jun 9, 2011)

I'm confused because, I thought Karrion said this....



karri0n said:


> Divinity - The creative force in the universe. *Call it what you will* - chaos and order, synchronicity, God, spirit, Mana, Prana, magic. It's what's responsible for the patterns that allow our universe to exist and harbor life.
> 
> Spirituality - One's connection with divinity


And then you said this.....




Padawanbater2 said:


> [/FONT][/SIZE]
> 
> Again, yes OR no, it can't be both. You need to clearly define the term "divinity" before we go any further. Don't be ambiguious or vague.
> 
> ...


The only thing that mimics what Karrion said in his post that you essentially gathered was points 1 & 2. It seems that the preconceived God of your reasoning is the only force of reasoning you can grasp. Hmmmm, Maybe Not...Let's See 

Do you think there is an undiscovered force that unifies and drives the interaction of Energy? Yes or No

I will also define what I mean for you so there is no ambiguity.

*force* (fôrs, f




rs) 
_n._ *1. *The capacity to do work or cause physical change; energy, strength, or active power:



*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy*
In physics, *energy* (Ancient Greek: &#7952;&#957;&#941;&#961;&#947;&#949;&#953;&#945; _energeia_ "activity, operation"[1]) is an indirectly observed quantity. It is often understood as the ability a physical system has to do work on other physical systems.[2][3] Since work is defined as a force acting through a distance (a length of space), energy is always equivalent to the ability to exert pulls or pushes against the basic forces of nature, along a path of a certain length.

I also pose that question to anyone else...


----------



## Brazko (Jun 9, 2011)

guy incognito said:


> It's not nondescript inherently though, you are just not describing it. How can you be so much of an expert on the topic when you can't even define what the force is? It's just formless and nondescript and can't have a definition tied to it, but you are an expert on it.


There could be a definition tied to it but thats just an opinion and observed guess.

And yes it starts with a "G".. 

It's the only thing I know that binds everything in our Universe.


----------



## guy incognito (Jun 9, 2011)

Brazko said:


> There could be a definition tied to it but thats just an opinion and observed guess.
> 
> And yes it starts with a "G"..
> 
> It's the only thing I know that binds everything in our Universe.


Gravity? I agree.


----------



## Brazko (Jun 9, 2011)

guy incognito said:


> Gravity? I agree.


Yes, of course... We only have Newton's law and Einstein's relativity available to describe gravity's effect on our dimensional world and heavenly bodies. Yet we do not know clearly its origins (i have my idea's) or how it governs the quantum world. Science is still trying to provide a mathematical theory that ties it all together. 

However man has always set forth on a course that was always sparked by intuition and imagination, so the ability to sense and feel will always be proponents of our next discoveries and there is no sciencetific technology that will do this until we create and design it.


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Jun 9, 2011)

> Gods as you are picturing them are personifications of this force. It's easier for most people to work with and understand "people" than it is for them to work with something formless and mostly nondescript.


OK, but you didn't address how you jump from "(reason for)unknown force science hasn't explained yet....to....God". 



> I didn't say that. There's no reason an atheist, by the strict meaning of the word, cannot be a spiritual person. Belief in the existence of a specific deity is not required for spirituality. Denial of the existence of a soul, and of the existence of spirit, which is common to many atheists, do put a hamper on things however.


Define "soul"

Define "spirit"



> Unfortunate indeed, I agree. I anxiously await a time scientific discovery can shed some light on this, though I'm quite certain it will continue to be misunderstood by the vast majority even if this does happen.


Why do you feel "quite certain" it will continue to be misunderstood by the vast majority of people?

Why do you think certain things are generally accepted by the majority of the population and some things aren't?



> Most people don't get the point of their own religion


I'm pretty sure _most people_ would argue otherwise. Are you saying you know most peoples religion better than they do?



> I have no reason to think once science can measure some of these things that people will begin to understand it either.


Why? That is the purpose of science, that's what generally happens when we discover new things. New observations are made, experiments are done, conclusions drawn, peer reviewed, accepted by scientists, accepted by public, added to knowledge.. 

It's also really unfortunate that all these claims most religions make that are so dangerous are in the supernatural, which means they can never be tested (which is why they're there) because of the claims religions make that _can _be tested, the tests *always* side with science.



> If he felt he was not bound by the rules, and could practice and support pagan traditions, as well as dabble in the occult, then he was not catholic, even if he thought he was.


ROFL! Better recheck those numbers if this is the standard we're going by. How many people today feel they're not bound by the rules their religion lays out? 



> Let's avoid making this into a Hitler thread, and agree that he was mostly a crazy bastard, more than any religion or belief system that one could attribute to him, ok?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwins_law

Because it comes up so often..


Even if he was an atheist, it would have no bearing on atheism.


Even if he was a Christian, it'd have no bearing on Christianity.


Hindu, yep, guess what, same thing.


The dude had black hair, does that mean having black hair is wrong?? See what I'm getting at? 





> Do you think there is an undiscovered force that unifies and drives the interaction of Energy? Yes or No?



I don't know. Are you asking me if I think there is a consciousness controlling each and every individual part of the universe for a specific purpose? I don't know. If there is I don't know what the purpose of it would be or how we would know it once we found it. I do know I won't pretend to know, and pretending to know will only lead to incorrect conclusions, and cause unknown amounts of damage in the process.


----------



## karri0n (Jun 10, 2011)

Padawanbater2 said:


> OK, but you didn't address how you jump from "(reason for)unknown force science hasn't explained yet....to....God".


It's just words. I didn't say GODDDDDD... I put forth several terms and concluded with "Whatever you want to call it". No jumps have been made, but many people have different names for the same thing. 


Padawanbater2 said:


> Why do you feel "quite certain" it will continue to be misunderstood by the vast majority of people?


For the same reasons that not everyone is a monk, or a doctor, or an astrophysicist. Some concepts are more difficult than others and take a certain type of mind to understand.



Padawanbater2 said:


> Why do you think certain things are generally accepted by the majority of the population and some things aren't?


Depends on what "things" you are talking about - I think there are various reasons depending on the topic. This question is really broad and I'm not quite sure how to approach it or what angle you are coming from.




Padawanbater2 said:


> I'm pretty sure _most people_ would argue otherwise. Are you saying you know most peoples religion better than they do?


Those same _most people_ would claim that it's 100% obviously true that god is real. Does it make them right? 

No, I don't know the minutiae of every single religion better than its adherents. I do, however, understand to take a step back and look at the bigger picture behind the vast majority of them. Most people get caught up in the details and tend to think they are the important part. This is their misunderstanding.





Padawanbater2 said:


> ROFL! Better recheck those numbers if this is the standard we're going by. How many people today feel they're not bound by the rules their religion lays out?


It's the standard the book goes by. Not my standard, and I didn't set it. 



Padawanbeter2 said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwins_law
> 
> Because it comes up so often..
> 
> ...


My point exactly, and I didn't point out the flaws in your data to try to say anything disparaging against atheism - just to promote factual information. In fact, you are the one that pointed out that he was religious as a point against religion. It's completely irrelevant.


----------



## Brazko (Jun 10, 2011)

Padawanbater2 said:


> I don't know. Are you asking me if I think there is a consciousness controlling each and every individual part of the universe for a specific purpose? I don't know. If there is I don't know what the purpose of it would be or how we would know it once we found it. I do know I won't pretend to know, and pretending to know will only lead to incorrect conclusions, and cause unknown amounts of damage in the process.


 
No, I was simply asking for a yes or no answer as to whatever findings, discoveries, or knowledge that you may have taken profound thought on as to their relevance to the observable universe. Just to see if you held any creative intelligence or thinking. 

I did say undiscovered so I'll take some fault in your leap of perpetuated thinking but I figured by giving you the said definition of what I was asking that you would probably elaborate on Gravity, Dark Matter, Dark Energy, Quantum Gravitation, or *(Strong/Weak Nuclear Forces) being a scholar of the sciences as you claim you are. Although there is sufficient evidence and knowledge on Strong/Weak Nuclear forces, I only included them as to show a range of logical and reasonable topics to consider to the question posed, but the aforementioned still entails a great deal of unknowns and lack of understanding including Gravity. But your answer didn't have to detail anything or even consider the topics I suggested. Yes, or No with a check or X by either would've been a great start!! 

But lets just say even if my thinking was geared towards what you were saying, I don't believe that consciousness as defined by us will hold to an Universal standard of what consciousness is. Just as there is debate as to if animals are consciouss beings, so may a higher intelligent life form deem us as unconsciouss beings. So if the Universe did operate on some type of consciousness I think we would fail to describe in defined terms relative to our consciousness. It's almost like saying the cells that operated daily on the hour by the minute every second before you were born didn't function with purpose to their operation. However, I'm sure you'll say that cells within the human body are unconsciouss, which I would agree with as set by our defined understanding of consciousness and yet you cannot say you have control over the function and operation of every cell of your body. But you do have the ability to influence the efficiency of their operations. In other words consciousness and purpose does not equivocate to the point of function or operation. An example would be a vegetative human, as we define the state as being unconsciouss, but at the same time the body still operates and function regardless. So being consciouss has nothing to do with rather there is a force that unifies and drives the interactions of Energy/Mass will be my point.


This is just some creative thinking on my part and holds no other purpose except for the purpose of stimulating the mind. This is not something that is forged into my belief system or thinking, see how that works... And I didn't have to believe in Unicorns and Leprechauns to do it!! Having an idea rather creative or imaginative is O.K. and finding out the truth of the matter makes it fun and enjoyable as to see how correct you were and just how wrong. I always tell people I love being wrong because it gives me the opportunity to learn and gather knowledge regardless. Thinking outside the box is O.K., its sticking to ideas that are proven to be wrong which is not O.K... You should know this very well.


----------



## ShadyStoner (Jun 10, 2011)




----------



## Farfenugen (Jun 14, 2011)

Well, just be sure never to tell a Muslim that, otherwise they'll off your head and kill your family.


----------



## cannawizard (Jun 14, 2011)

my god can kick your god's ass, --cheers


----------



## karri0n (Jun 14, 2011)

cannawizard said:


> my god can kick your god's ass, --cheers


CHALLENGE ACCEPTED

View attachment 1647767a


----------



## ChronicObsession (Jun 14, 2011)

Atheism would be fucking brilliant if its virtues could be applied to upholding laws of the nation. I DON'T BELIEVE IN MARIJUANA BEING ILLEGAL. Uh ohs, so does that mean I am no longer bound to the affects of being ARRESTED? fucking rediculous. There are a lot of points to debate but seriously, who cares? Atheists will do their thing, and people that have the Holy Spirit will do others. I suppose Atheists laff much less at rediculous shit like Black Magic and Witches, but oh, Jesus Christ is the funniest zombie joke they know.


----------



## guy incognito (Jun 14, 2011)

ChronicObsession said:


> Atheism would be fucking brilliant if its virtues could be applied to upholding laws of the nation. I DON'T BELIEVE IN MARIJUANA BEING ILLEGAL. Uh ohs, so does that mean I am no longer bound to the affects of being ARRESTED? fucking rediculous. There are a lot of points to debate but seriously, who cares? Atheists will do their thing, and people that have the Holy Spirit will do others. I suppose Atheists laff much less at rediculous shit like Black Magic and Witches, but oh, Jesus Christ is the funniest zombie joke they know.


I care. I don't like seeing people brainwashed. Nor do I like living in a society of brainwashed people. Especially when the brainwashing can lead to further irrational decisions like bigotry and intolerance.


----------



## ChronicObsession (Jun 14, 2011)

Yea Guy, if we actually got paid to debate what the government can't even control, we could do it all day and every day. But right now, the I don't care part is because there is simply not enough patience/time devoted to humanitarian projects like solving the age old problem between religion vs religion vs atheism. 


guy incognito said:


> I care. I don't like seeing people brainwashed. Nor do I like living in a society of brainwashed people. Especially when the brainwashing can lead to further irrational decisions like bigotry and intolerance.


----------



## sativagod (Jun 14, 2011)

I won't label maybe as an atheist,as that comes with a belief system in itself. I simple don't know and don't care, being rooted in science and logic,then understanding emotional concepts religion or god is way at the bottom of my list of 5000 concerns.

That said, I am happy religion exist, as it is an effectively form of self-government, without this, this world would be a much more crazy place to live it.


----------



## ChronicObsession (Jun 14, 2011)

As indirect as possible here I would like to pose the questions... so science basically says we are fucked once our internal organs can no longer support working together? We just "go to sleep forever", right? Basically a guy like Hitler could be as bad ass as possible and cause the direct/indirect DEATH and Suffering of millions, and then just die and well he can sleep in peace now, no retribution for that mother fucker. I like science, but anyone that believes that we are not monkeys and the buck doesn't stop here knows that Science is a Don of the holyspirit. I guess I am expecting too much from others who don't have any inclination to stuff outside of the box, unless it's dinosaurs, wormholes in space, ghosts, witches, penis enlargement pills, ahh yes, those really put a nice touch to the end of my own personal life experience.


sativagod said:


> That said, I am happy religion exist, as it is an effectively form of self-government, without this, this world would be a much more crazy place to live it.


----------



## guy incognito (Jun 14, 2011)

ChronicObsession said:


> As indirect as possible here I would like to pose the questions... so science basically says we are fucked once our internal organs can no longer support working together? We just "go to sleep forever", right? Basically a guy like Hitler could be as bad ass as possible and cause the direct/indirect DEATH and Suffering of millions, and then just die and well he can sleep in peace now, no retribution for that mother fucker. I like science, but anyone that believes that we are not monkeys and the buck doesn't stop here knows that Science is a Don of the holyspirit. I guess I am expecting too much from others who don't have any inclination to stuff outside of the box, unless it's dinosaurs, wormholes in space, ghosts, witches, penis enlargement pills, ahh yes, those really put a nice touch to the end of my own personal life experience.


No. Sleeping is a process that requires you to be alive.


----------



## cannawizard (Jun 14, 2011)

karri0n said:


> CHALLENGE ACCEPTED
> 
> View attachment 1647767a


*prepare to meet your maker... --if that wasnt funny, then i guess im just really baked right now


----------



## sativagod (Jun 17, 2011)

So what are you saying? That fact based science support religion inherit?


----------



## Stark Raving (Jun 17, 2011)

As comforting as it may be to imagine evil people like Hitler suffering after he died, that comfort doesn't make it a fact. Just because we want something to be true doesn't make it so. Unfair? Well sure, I guess. But isn't that reality?
Thinking outside the box is a term often used to make an idea that is completely unsupported by anything other than fantasy, seem like critical thinking. To really think critically (ie. "outside the box") we have to accept that certain things are simply unknown, and possibly unknowable. Filling in the blanks with, "god did it" is narrow minded. So when we see something that seems totally unfair, sometimes it's just that. Unfair. Accepting that is what brings atheists peace. 

_"From the faith that you release, find an atheists peace."_


----------



## Brazko (Jun 17, 2011)

Stark Raving said:


> we have to accept that certain things are simply unknown, and possibly unknowable


I can accept the thought of there always being unknowns, but I do not accept the position that there is a limit of what can be known. Maybe after reaching past limits of what was unknown we may find more, but accepting failure to the unknown isn't just being narrow minded. It's just that, acceptance towards failure.. in my opinion


----------



## Heisenberg (Jun 17, 2011)

ChronicObsession said:


> As indirect as possible here I would like to pose the questions... so science basically says we are fucked once our internal organs can no longer support working together? We just "go to sleep forever", right? Basically a guy like Hitler could be as bad ass as possible and cause the direct/indirect DEATH and Suffering of millions, and then just die and well he can sleep in peace now, no retribution for that mother fucker. I like science, but anyone that believes that we are not monkeys and the buck doesn't stop here knows that Science is a Don of the holyspirit. I guess I am expecting too much from others who don't have any inclination to stuff outside of the box, unless it's dinosaurs, wormholes in space, ghosts, witches, penis enlargement pills, ahh yes, those really put a nice touch to the end of my own personal life experience.


I didn't realize science was making any definitive claims about the afterlife. I had understood it as science is unable to support religious claims of the afterlife, though not from lack of trying. Show me these studies which conclude that we just go to sleep forever.


----------



## Stark Raving (Jun 17, 2011)

Brazko said:


> I can accept the thought of there always being unknowns, but I do not accept the position that there is a limit of what can be known. Maybe after reaching past limits of what was unknown we may find more, but accepting failure to the unknown isn't just being narrow minded. It's just that, acceptance towards failure.. in my opinion


I agree with you 100% I re-read my post and was not clear. By unknowable, I meant that there is always the possibility that something will be unknowable to US, as individuals. I would never discount the possibility of us as a species aquiring any knowledge ever. It's why I used the word "possibility". It's about accepting that some things I just won't be able to learn in my lifetime. That's not to say I wouldn't persue that knowledge, just that I may not be able to get there. And I'm cool with that. The persuit of knowledge is the noblest of goals.


----------



## Brazko (Jun 17, 2011)

Stark Raving said:


> I agree with you 100% I re-read my post and was not clear. By unknowable, I meant that there is always the possibility that something will be unknowable to US, as individuals. I would never discount the possibility of us as a species aquiring any knowledge ever. It's why I used the word "possibility". It's about accepting that some things I just won't be able to learn in my lifetime. That's not to say I wouldn't persue that knowledge, just that I may not be able to get there. And I'm cool with that. The persuit of knowledge is the noblest of goals.


I assumed you meant that but I wanted to point it out since it didnt read that way. I agree a 100% with what you said as well, we may not figure it all out in our lifetime but we can lay the foundation for future generations to do so.


----------



## sync0s (Jun 17, 2011)

If a god created everything we know, what created this god? What created that creator?

Can god microwave a burrito so hot, even he can't eat it? - Homer Simpson (I've gotten a lot of shit for using this quote as reinforcement that there is no "god" as english language would define it, because believers have a horrible time realizing that by even answering this question you've already admitted that your god is not all powerful)


----------



## Heisenberg (Jun 17, 2011)

sync0s said:


> If a god created everything we know, what created this god? What created that creator?
> 
> Can god microwave a burrito so hot, even he can't eat it? - Homer Simpson (I've gotten a lot of shit for using this quote as reinforcement that there is no "god" as english language would define it, because believers have a horrible time realizing that by even answering this question you've already admitted that your god is not all powerful)


Although I agree with your sentiment, I wouldn't let you get away with that question either as reasoning against god. It is a tautology. The premise assumes the conclusion. It really doesn't suggest anything meaningful, especially to a believer. Someone with faith could easily say yes, god can make a burrito so hot that he can not eat it, and then he can turn around and eat it, he is after all, god. Remember, people of faith are satisfied with ignorance and prone to magical thinking. I do not mean to belittle you but to help you perhaps construct a more productive argument.


----------



## sync0s (Jun 17, 2011)

If someone said that to me, I wouldn't need a better argument.. If you have faith it does not give you a reason to use clinical insanity as an argument. 

I agree with you that people with faith have responses like that. Partially responsible for the fact that the bible says "God always was" and they accept that as proof without ever stopping to think that if the bible explained how god himself came to be it would completely expose the bullshit that surrounds the christian religion.

Religion only promotes ignorance and murder on mass proportions all the while giving the people a reason to illogically and insanely justify such actions.


----------



## Heisenberg (Jun 18, 2011)

sync0s said:


> If someone said that to me, I wouldn't need a better argument.. If you have faith it does not give you a reason to use clinical insanity as an argument.
> 
> I agree with you that people with faith have responses like that. Partially responsible for the fact that the bible says "God always was" and they accept that as proof without ever stopping to think that if the bible explained how god himself came to be it would completely expose the bullshit that surrounds the christian religion.
> 
> Religion only promotes ignorance and murder on mass proportions all the while giving the people a reason to illogically and insanely justify such actions.


Is your goal to win the debate, or to create doubt? Religious people are used to having their faith attacked. In fact, after someones faith has been 'tested' they somehow become more entrenched and proud of it. A religious person will never change their world view simply because they were proven wrong. We can only hope to plant seeds of doubt that may grow and cause them to change their mind on their own, which is the exact way most of us came to the conclusions we have. I find this is best done by finding a neutral subject that you both agree on, like ghosts or psychic powers or even the Kennedy assassination conspiracy, and point out the errors of reasoning involved there. You can then go on to point out how belief in a deity makes the same mistakes. Why is it okay for religious conclusions to make these mistakes but not other subjects? In fact, you don't even give a pass to other religions when they make these mistakes, why is yours special? Again this doesn't immediately prove anything to a believer, but it is an excellent way to create doubt.


----------



## sync0s (Jun 18, 2011)

Heisenberg said:


> Is your goal to win the debate, or to create doubt? Religious people are used to having their faith attacked. In fact, after someones faith has been 'tested' they somehow become more entrenched and proud of it. A religious person will never change their world view simply because they were proven wrong. We can only hope to plant seeds of doubt that may grow and cause them to change their mind on their own, which is the exact way most of us came to the conclusions we have. I find this is best done by finding a neutral subject that you both agree on, like ghosts or psychic powers or even the Kennedy assassination conspiracy, and point out the errors of reasoning involved there. You can then go on to point out how belief in a deity makes the same mistakes. Why is it okay for religious conclusions to make these mistakes but not other subjects? In fact, you don't even give a pass to other religions when they make these mistakes, why is yours special? Again this doesn't immediately prove anything to a believer, but it is an excellent way to create doubt.


I usually only get into religious debates with people when they question my atheism, or they speak on ignorance (for example denying evolution). If it's the latter, I don't discuss religious philosophy much, just the proofs evolution.


----------



## undertheice (Jun 18, 2011)

Heisenberg said:


> Although I agree with your sentiment, I wouldn't let you get away with that question either as reasoning against god. It is a tautology. The premise assumes the conclusion. It really doesn't suggest anything meaningful, especially to a believer. Someone with faith could easily say yes, god can make a burrito so hot that he can not eat it, and then he can turn around and eat it, he is after all, god. Remember, people of faith are satisfied with ignorance and prone to magical thinking. I do not mean to belittle you but to help you perhaps construct a more productive argument.


it's nice to see that at least one other atheist here is unwilling to buy into these cliched attempts to belittle faith, though i do object to your blanket use of ignorance as an excuse. i understand perfectly, having used the same rationale myself, the reason for such an attack, but ignorance implies that some evidence is being willfully discounted and that really isn't the case. the question of god remains unanswered. 

the more i deal with people of faith, the more i realize that they are ignoring nothing. they are admitting their own inability to understand the workings of the cosmos and using that "magical thinking" to put those questions to rest. they are just grateful for even the simplest of the joys of living and their faith is the expression of that gratitude. while some few may stubbornly hold to backward ideas and deny newly found truths, most are open to discovering how things work, the mechanics of existence, and simply refuse to accept that there is no "why" behind all of creation. 

who do we thank for the wonder of it all? you and i may be satisfied with non-specific appreciation of the happy coincidences of our existence, but the generous heart often needs a more definitive target for its gratitude. for the believer, god is that target and the "why" for our dumb luck.


----------



## TheGreenThumber (Jun 18, 2011)

undertheice said:


> the more i deal with people of faith, the more i realize that they are ignoring nothing.


 They may not be ignoring things on purpose, but much more likely they just lack the ability to think deeply or rationally. 


There is a reason why religiosity and intelligence vary inversely. 

Atheist here btw. How the fuck do magnets work?


----------



## undertheice (Jun 18, 2011)

TheGreenThumber said:


> They may not be ignoring things on purpose, but much more likely they just lack the ability to think deeply or rationally.


do we really need another example of ignorant atheism? consider that only 12% of americans consider themselves as atheists or agnostics. do you really feel yourself so superior to nearly nine out of every ten people in the nation? in the rest of the world that number is much lower, in some cases estimated to be as low as 2.5% of the population. 

the stereotypical, but well advertised, image of backward, science denying creationist hicks may be convenient, but it is disingenuous at best. the vast majority of men and women of accomplishment, the scientists, philosophers, discoverers, entrepreneurs and leaders, have believed in a higher power. adhering to the belief in the superiority of the atheist mind is sheer hubris.


----------



## Brazko (Jun 18, 2011)

TheGreenThumber said:


> How the fuck do magnets work?


 The electron spin/motion of an atom creates a magnetic field called a Magnetic dipole. An accumalation of these dipoles aligned creates a magnetic domain. If all the magnetic domains in a object are aligned, the object will act like a magnet. 

You know I was giving some deep thought about magnets, gravity, and cores.. I'm glad you asked that question. I'm starting to like my assumptions even more..


----------



## TheGreenThumber (Jun 18, 2011)

undertheice said:


> do we really need another example of ignorant atheism? consider that only 12% of americans consider themselves as atheists or agnostics. do you really feel yourself so superior to nearly nine out of every ten people in the nation? in the rest of the world that number is much lower, in some cases estimated to be as low as 2.5% of the population.
> 
> the stereotypical, but well advertised, image of backward, science denying creationist hicks may be convenient, but it is disingenuous at best. the vast majority of men and women of accomplishment, the scientists, philosophers, discoverers, entrepreneurs and leaders, have believed in a higher power. adhering to the belief in the superiority of the atheist mind is sheer hubris.


Why do atheists make up 93% of the National Academy of Sciences in the US? Which includes 200 nobel peace prize winners and what not.

Albert Einstein, many of the founding fathers, Steven Hawking - Na they are all idiots.
/sarcasm

Or how about the fact that atheists make up less than 1% of the prison population, vs making up ~12% of the general population. Do you not think that committing crimes has to do with a lack of intelligence or morals on some level?


And saying that it is much lower in the rest of the world is false.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_atheism

Stop spewing uneducated lies hidden by rhetoric.


----------



## zvuv (Jun 20, 2011)

LJ6 said:


> 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.....


No. Thats the conclusion of atheism. The fundamental beliefs of atheism are about what can be accepted as fact. Most atheists dont believe that there is no 'God', rather they don't believe there is a God. A subtle but important difference.





LJ6 said:


> .... 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


Indeed science leaves many questions unanswered. Is it then better to just invent an answer for the sake of having one, or to simply say "I don't know" ?


----------



## medicalmaryjane (Jun 21, 2011)

zvuv said:


> No. Thats the conclusion of atheism. The fundamental beliefs of atheism are about what can be accepted as fact. Most atheists dont believe that there is no 'God', rather they don't believe there is a God. A subtle but important difference.


i always thought this was the main difference between an agnostic and an athiest. 

agnostics say they don't know if there is a god. 
athiests DO NOT believe in god. 

i do not believe in god but i call myself an agnostic to be more PC. calling yourself athiest is controversial, no one cares about an agnostic. it's nice. 

i actually really like the principles of hinduism and taoism. I also love spinoza and i feel that his philosophies are relevant to the way i live. i think nature is a form of a higher being and that life connects us all but i dont believe it was created by an anthropomorphic being. that kind of belief imo is stupid and i lose all respect for people who believe there is a man sitting up in the clouds juding people. 

i always thought believing in shit was stupid. why believe? go oout and find the answer and KNOW.


----------



## zvuv (Jun 21, 2011)

@medicalmaryjane

Yes 'agnostic' is less confrontational than 'atheist'. Atheists eat babies while agnostics are just indecisive weasels 


There is a range of skeptical positions that come under the umbrella of atheism and agnosticism. It's more important to understand a person's actual position than it is to be able to label him as atheist agnostic etc.

In very broad terms, the most common flavors of skeptical positions on the matter of the existence of God are:

_Strong Atheism_: Asserts that God does not exist.

_Atheism_: Does not believe that God exists.

_Agnosticism 1_ Unsure of the existence of God.

_Agnosticism 2_ Believes God is unknowable.

The Athiest position is that he sees no reason to believe in God any more than he does in unicorns but if confronted with a live unicorn or compelling evidence for God (what could this be?), he would reconsider. So yes, he doesn't claim absolute certainty and there is an element of doubt. Nevertheless this is a strong position. When we make plans we completely discount the possibility of unicorns showing up. The Atheist feels the same way about God.

Agnostic 1 is unconvinced but he considers the existence of God a serious possibility, something that needs to be taken into account.

None of these statements make a lot of sense until we define what we mean by 'God'. One can be an atheist about one kind of God and an agnostic or even a believer about another.


----------



## medicalmaryjane (Jun 21, 2011)

zvuv said:


> @medicalmaryjane
> 
> Agnostic 1 is unconvinced but he considers the existence of God a serious possibility, something that needs to be taken into account.


if this is the case, i've been lying by saying i am agnostic.

i've always thought as an agnostic i don't believe and i don't disbelieve. the truth is that i do disbelieve. it would seem that i am an athiest. i just don't like to say it because it doesn't sound nice. as i said, i look down on people who believe in god. what could be more athiest than that? i think i will try saying i am athiest and see what comes of it - not that anyone regularly asks me.


----------



## Stark Raving (Jun 21, 2011)

Here are the four main categories with regard to atheism vs theism:

Gnostic Atheist: Claims that a deity or deities do not exist, and does not believe in them. 
Agnostic Atheist: Does not know whether a deity exists, but does not believe they do. 
Agnostic Theist: Does not know whether a deity exists, but believes they do.
Gnostic Theist: Claims knowledge of the existence of dieties, and believes in them.

So you see, by saying you are agnostic you are not being dishonest about whether or not you are an atheist. Saying you are agnostic is saying that you don't know. Saying you're atheist is saying you don't believe.


----------



## medicalmaryjane (Jun 22, 2011)

i am an agnostic athiest but i am almost gnostic athiest. sounds like i can keep saing i am agnostic.


----------



## guy incognito (Jun 23, 2011)

God doesn't exist...


----------



## TheGreenThumber (Jun 23, 2011)

Pleasantly Poiple said:


> God does exist...





guy incognito said:


> God doesn't exist...


Now were gettin somewhere.


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Jun 23, 2011)

Why favor faith over results?


----------

