Discussing Atheism and atheistic beliefs

[Times Roman]

First, keep it clean and no flaming.

Now, this is an area I don't get to discuss too much, as the aethist is usually quieter about their beliefs than the religiously inclined. But they may feel just as strongly as the others, just as passionate.

I'd like to hear some reasoning behind how one develops the belief that there is zero chance a metaphysical being could have had any part in the creation of the universe.

Let's set some guidelines

There being a metaphysical "prime mover" does not necessarily mean "life after death"

it may not be responsible for the creation of life

nor the creation of a heaven, or a hell.

it may not have any interest in humans

nor any awareness of humans

at it's lowest common denominator, a supreme being, a "prime mover" is simply a metaphysical entity that is responsible for creating something from nothing. Specifically, this universe where there was no universe to start with.

But that also doesn't mean that if there is a prime mover, that it is limited to the lowest common denominator. It could be more than that too.

As little as we know about everything, I don't see how anyone can say with certainty whether from a random quantum fluctuation or from a metaphysical being.

It may be possible we are not even asking the right questions?

[marcus300]

Will be interesting to see the opinions of the members of this one

[lovbyts]

First, keep it clean and no flaming.

Now, this is an area I don't get to discuss too much, as the aethist is usually quieter about their beliefs than the religiously inclined. But they may feel just as strongly as the others, just as passionate.

I'd like to hear some reasoning behind how one develops the belief that there is zero chance a metaphysical being could have had any part in the creation of the universe.

Let's set some guidelines

There being a metaphysical "prime mover" does not necessarily mean "life after death"

it may not be responsible for the creation of life

nor the creation of a heaven, or a hell.

it may not have any interest in humans

nor any awareness of humans

at it's lowest common denominator, a supreme being, a "prime mover" is simply a metaphysical entity that is responsible for creating something from nothing. Specifically, this universe where there was no universe to start with.

But that also doesn't mean that if there is a prime mover, that it is limited to the lowest common denominator. It could be more than that too.

As little as we know about everything, I don't see how anyone can say with certainty whether from a random quantum fluctuation or from a metaphysical being.

It may be possible we are not even asking the right questions?

I have to disagree with this statement. It use to be that way but the last 15+ years it's gone far the other way. Atheist are the ones pushing to have prayer removed from schools and anywhere else they can. Bibles removed from libraries and schools, anything to do with christ or religion removed from any/all government owned buildings.

[Hazard]

I have to disagree with this statement. It use to be that way but the last 15+ years it's gone far the other way. Atheist are the ones pushing to have prayer removed from schools and anywhere else they can. Bibles removed from libraries and schools, anything to do with christ or religion removed from any/all government owned buildings.

That shit aggravates me. I'm more of a science guy..... I just can't believe all the religious stuff but I don't push what I think on others. I would never tell someone to stop praying or going to church. Removing bibles from libraries and stuff like that is ridiculous.

[Metalject]

That shit aggravates me. I'm more of a science guy..... I just can't believe all the religious stuff but I don't push what I think on others. I would never tell someone to stop praying or going to church. Removing bibles from libraries and stuff like that is ridiculous.

In the U.S. I agree, the above attitude you're referring to is ridiculous. The argument that prayer or religious displays of some sort are a mix of church in state is again ridiculous. The separation of church in state simply means the state (federal or state governments) will not force a particular religion on any one or groups of people. And by "Force" requiring them to hold to that faith. And if I want to read my bible in a public place or say a prayer, why atheist deem this as me pushing a belief down their throat makes no sense. If it is, then their lack of prayer is pushing their belief down my throat, equally ridiculous.

As for the OP topic, I agree, atheism is impossible to prove. It's somewhat of an arrogant position IMO. Agnostic at least takes away from the arrogance.

[Hazard]

I wouldn't say it's entirely impossible that a greater being created everything..... I just tend to lean more towards the science aspect of creation.

Even if a greater being created us..... Who or what created him/her or it? The argument I've heard is that god has just existed.... But if that argument is good for god why isn't it good enough for the universe. It just existed.....

[Hazard]

I believe that religion was man made and its purpose was to control the people. Religion helps keep some kind of order tho..... Lets be honest - who wants to rot in hell if you believe it exists?

I think as time goes on..... Eventually religion will get phased out.

[kelkel]

Worms/can/open.

[davidtheman100]

I only have aesthetic beliefs

[davidtheman100]

I wouldn't say it's entirely impossible that a greater being created everything..... I just tend to lean more towards the science aspect of creation.

Even if a greater being created us..... Who or what created him/her or it? The argument I've heard is that god has just existed.... But if that argument is good for god why isn't it good enough for the universe. It just existed.....

Because time did not exist before then

[austinite]

cans//worms/open

[Metalject]

I wouldn't say it's entirely impossible that a greater being created everything..... I just tend to lean more towards the science aspect of creation.

Even if a greater being created us..... Who or what created him/her or it? The argument I've heard is that god has just existed.... But if that argument is good for god why isn't it good enough for the universe. It just existed.....

I've always asked why can't science and "creation" mix? The only way they couldn't is if science could already answer every single question there is, which it can't. We tend to view "Science" as this complete entity of knowledge and forget that it's anything but that. Perhaps there is a scientific explanation for God, we just don't understand it yet. There are millions of things we didn't understand throughout human history that we understand a little more, but each generation seems to have an arrogance that they are the enlightened...that tends to annoy me quite a bit.

[Metalject]

cans//worms/open

Here's a can of worms worth opening...why do you always have random pics of DLB posted in your avatar? I've always found it strange and just wondering if there's a reason.

[RaginCajun]

Here's a can of worms worth opening...why do you always have random pics of DLB posted in your avatar? I've always found it strange and just wondering if there's a reason.

That's his mom

[Bonaparte]

I think most stories from the Bible are the work of schizophrenics, impressed upon the naive, and capitalized upon by clever opportunists.

Have you ever spent a few hours stuck face to face with someone suffering from schizophrenic religious delusions? They can be pretty convincing after a while if they're charismatic. And that's when you're looking at their medical history and know that a doctor has deemed them insane.

[austinite]

Here's a can of worms worth opening...why do you always have random pics of DLB posted in your avatar? I've always found it strange and just wondering if there's a reason.

I'm just proud of my mom.

[jay94]

Personally, I don't believe in anything, but I can definitly see why people do have beliefs. What my university research has shown me is that it's only natural for human societies to have some kind of organized spiritual movement. Spirituality is the result of our highly developed ability to think abstractly combined with our need to create answers for the great existential questions of life. Religion is organized spirituality. It's the result of some people's ability to be leaders and desire to serve their own political and economical interests.

Also, I have actually read the Bible, and I can confidently tell you that most people who think it's literal have never done so. The way it is written says it all; it uses intentionally vague ancient Hebrew words to signify that the whole 7-day creation is a metaphorical story used to lay down the principles according to which people should live. Principles that can no longer fully apply in the drastically different world of 2000 years later.

[Metalject]

I'm just proud of my mom.

OK. Thanks for not answering.
Anyway, I find it slightly annoying and a little creepy. Photo shoot pics are one thing, regular pics of another man's wife, weird.

[Metalject]

Personally, I don't believe in anything, but I can definitly see why people do have beliefs. What my university research has shown me is that it's only natural for human societies to have some kind of organized spiritual movement. Spirituality is the result of our highly developed ability to think abstractly combined with our need to create answers for the great existential questions of life. Religion is organized spirituality. It's the result of some people's ability to be leaders and desire to serve their own political and economical interests.

Also, I have actually read the Bible, and I can confidently tell you that most people who think it's literal have never done so. The way it is written says it all; it uses intentionally vague ancient Hebrew words to signify that the whole 7-day creation is a metaphorical story used to lay down the principles according to which people should live. Principles that can no longer fully apply in the drastically different world of 2000 years later.

I've read the bible, beginning to end. Curious as how you came to that conclusion regarding the story of creation. Also curious as to the principles that applied then that you say wouldn't apply now. What would those be? Personally, I feel the nature of man has and will never change. Desires, wants, needs, etc. those stay the same and are constant. Technology changes and we learn and discover new things, but I have a hard time seeing a change in man himself throughout history. If you have examples to share I'd be interested.

[austinite]

OK. Thanks for not answering.
Anyway, I find it slightly annoying and a little creepy. Photo shoot pics are one thing, regular pics of another man's wife, weird.

Cool. It's not really any of your business anyway, Kiddo.

[Hoggage_54]

[austinite]

[jay94]

I've read the bible, beginning to end. Curious as how you came to that conclusion regarding the story of creation. Also curious as to the principles that applied then that you say wouldn't apply now. What would those be? Personally, I feel the nature of man has and will never change. Desires, wants, needs, etc. those stay the same and are constant. Technology changes and we learn and discover new things, but I have a hard time seeing a change in man himself throughout history. If you have examples to share I'd be interested.

The problem with the Bible is that it lays down the framework of what is right and wrong for people. But the notion of right and wrong itself has an implied sense of universality to it; in order for that notion to work, everyone must believe in the same right's and wrong's. However, today's society is a clash of cultures... you have people coexisting who come from different cultures and, therefore, who have very different notions of right and wrong. One could argue that there are some universal right's and wrong's, but for the most part, you can't have a single set of culture-based rules in a society made up of people from different cultures.

[Deal Me In]

Finally, something in my wheelhouse. TR, you are correct. Most atheists would technically be agnostic. Some atheists will tell you god does not exist. Most of us will say, there is no proof that god exists. Almost every atheist I know will freely admit that if there is ever scientific proof of a god, they will change their opinion. For whatever reason it's much easier for me to believe we simply don't know YET, what came before the big bang. I'm ok saying I don't know. This is much more plausible than the invisible sky wizard theory.

Most of society doesn't understand the meaning of the word agnostic so we all get lumped together.

And nobody is trying to keep you from praying in public. Get real. Myself, and many other atheists want to keep your god (which ever one that happens to be) away from our government. Separation of church and state is exactly that. If you allow a Christian symbol on state property you have to allow all religious symbols and that gets really, stupid really fast. If we only allow one type of religion then the state is endorsing a religion and that is forbidden by the constitution.

I've never heard of anyone trying to remove bibles from library's. If you have an article that backs up this claim I would like to read it and then I will tell you it's stupid.

[OdinsOtherSon]

I have to disagree with this statement. It use to be that way but the last 15+ years it's gone far the other way. Atheist are the ones pushing to have prayer removed from schools and anywhere else they can. Bibles removed from libraries and schools, anything to do with christ or religion removed from any/all government owned buildings.

Today its freedom from religion rather than of religion. The whole establishment clause has been bastardized WAY past correcting.

[jay94]

Finally, something in my wheelhouse. TR, you are correct. Most atheists would technically be agnostic. Some atheists will tell you god does not exist. Most of us will say, there is no proof that god exists. Almost every atheist I know will freely admit that if there is ever scientific proof of a god, they will change their opinion. For whatever reason it's much easier for me to believe we simply don't know YET, what came before the big bang. I'm ok saying I don't know. This is much more plausible than the invisible sky wizard theory.

Most of society doesn't understand the meaning of the word agnostic so we all get lumped together.

And nobody is trying to keep you from praying in public. Get real. Myself, and many other atheists want to keep your god (which ever one that happens to be) away from our government. Separation of church and state is exactly that. If you allow a Christian symbol on state property you have to allow all religious symbols and that gets really, stupid really fast. If we only allow one type of religion then the state is endorsing a religion and that is forbidden by the constitution.

I've never heard of anyone trying to remove bibles from library's. If you have an article that backs up this claim I would like to read it and then I will tell you it's stupid.

There are flaws with the 'god who created everything' theory, and these were identified even before the Bible was written. For example, Plato asked 'is something right because the gods said so, or did the gods say that something is right because it is?' and 'If a god created everything, then what created that god?. The human brain is hardwired in a way that there must be a reason for everything. I think we must prepare ourselves for the possibility that we were not made to understand everything. Some things might have not a reason for their existence like we expect them to.

[Times Roman]

The problem with the Bible is that it lays down the framework of what is right and wrong for people. But the notion of right and wrong itself has an implied sense of universality to it; in order for that notion to work, everyone must believe in the same right's and wrong's. However, today's society is a clash of cultures... you have people coexisting who come from different cultures and, therefore, who have very different notions of right and wrong. One could argue that there are some universal right's and wrong's, but for the most part, you can't have a single set of culture-based rules in a society made up of people from different cultures.

some of the commandments, imho, are universal truths.

5. honor your father and mother - the people who raised you and cared for you when you were defenseless and unable to truly care for yourself. As they age, they too may need assistance. Part of the circle of life

6. You shall not murder

7. You shall not commit adultery - this is universal in the sense that you have vowed to remain monogamous and true to your spouse. To violate this is to violate your oath.

8. You shall not steal - it all boils down to this. Taking something that does not belong to you. Murder is stealing someone's life.

9. Do not bear false witness against your neighbor

10. you shall not covet your neighbor nor his belongings nor his family

Finally, something in my wheelhouse. TR, you are correct. Most atheists would technically be agnostic. Some atheists will tell you god does not exist. Most of us will say, there is no proof that god exists. Almost every atheist I know will freely admit that if there is ever scientific proof of a god, they will change their opinion. For whatever reason it's much easier for me to believe we simply don't know YET, what came before the big bang. I'm ok saying I don't know. This is much more plausible than the invisible sky wizard theory.

Most of society doesn't understand the meaning of the word agnostic so we all get lumped together.

And nobody is trying to keep you from praying in public. Get real. Myself, and many other atheists want to keep your god (which ever one that happens to be) away from our government. Separation of church and state is exactly that. If you allow a Christian symbol on state property you have to allow all religious symbols and that gets really, stupid really fast. If we only allow one type of religion then the state is endorsing a religion and that is forbidden by the constitution.

I've never heard of anyone trying to remove bibles from library's. If you have an article that backs up this claim I would like to read it and then I will tell you it's stupid.

I think the literal meaning of the separation doctrine is that no public money will be used to support any particular religion. politicians are free to express religious views, of course.




Now, back to my original thought.

It seems to me that many atheists are really against religion as opposed to for a particular philosophical belief system. Also, it seems to me that many atheists were born into a religious family, and become atheist as a form of rebellion without doing the heavy work of developing, in my opinion, the necessary framework for such an extreme viewpoint.

Many atheists feel strongly about their view, and I'd like to know why. Is it based on critical thinking and rationality, or is it emotionally based like the religious true believers have developed?

[jay94]

some of the commandments, imho, are universal truths.

5. honor your father and mother - the people who raised you and cared for you when you were defenseless and unable to truly care for yourself. As they age, they too may need assistance. Part of the circle of life

6. You shall not murder

7. You shall not commit adultery - this is universal in the sense that you have vowed to remain monogamous and true to your spouse. To violate this is to violate your oath.

8. You shall not steal - it all boils down to this. Taking something that does not belong to you. Murder is stealing someone's life.

9. Do not bear false witness against your neighbor

10. you shall not covet your neighbor nor his belongings nor his family

I disagree with some of these. I have some pretty strong opinions (which could easily perceived by some as 'evil') about certain things, but I don't really feel comfortable discussing them.

[Metalject]

The problem with the Bible is that it lays down the framework of what is right and wrong for people. But the notion of right and wrong itself has an implied sense of universality to it; in order for that notion to work, everyone must believe in the same right's and wrong's. However, today's society is a clash of cultures... you have people coexisting who come from different cultures and, therefore, who have very different notions of right and wrong. One could argue that there are some universal right's and wrong's, but for the most part, you can't have a single set of culture-based rules in a society made up of people from different cultures.

I understand what you're saying. The world, however, has always been made up of varying cultures, that hasn't changed. Sure, in some places there are stronger mixes, such as in the U.S. but the cultural divide that has always caused conflict is the same. Take for instance the Middle-East, predominantly Arabic and Muslim, and while other cultures may reside there it is still heavily and predominantly Arabic and Muslim. The conflicts that exist and stem from that region are not limited to cultural intrusion by others, meaning nothing has changed in thousands of years.

And what Roman said and you eluded to as well, there are certain universal rights and wrongs, things that are inherent. However, varying cultures do not always hold to those. For example. murder is acceptable in some cultures and beliefs. Due to that acceptance in that culture does that make it any less right or wrong?

Back on to the main point of the thread a little more directly. An atheist cannot understand religion if they cannot accept faith as anything more than imagination. Someone of faith would argue faith does produce something tangible, but if an individual refuses to accept that (not accept the faith as his own but accept it on the basis of understanding) he can never understand the person of faith. If he can at least begin to understand it, he wouldn't be an atheist, he'd be agnostic. It also makes it difficult for the atheist if he refuses to believe science and faith cannot coexist, but that goes back to what I already said.

Finally, something in my wheelhouse. TR, you are correct. Most atheists would technically be agnostic. Some atheists will tell you god does not exist. Most of us will say, there is no proof that god exists. Almost every atheist I know will freely admit that if there is ever scientific proof of a god, they will change their opinion. For whatever reason it's much easier for me to believe we simply don't know YET, what came before the big bang. I'm ok saying I don't know. This is much more plausible than the invisible sky wizard theory.

At one time a round earth seemed implausible. So did horseless carriages or being able to provide your body testosterone for that matter. Simple because we cannot yet comprehend something does not make it any less possible.

Most of society doesn't understand the meaning of the word agnostic so we all get lumped together.

And nobody is trying to keep you from praying in public. Get real. Myself, and many other atheists want to keep your god (which ever one that happens to be) away from our government. Separation of church and state is exactly that. If you allow a Christian symbol on state property you have to allow all religious symbols and that gets really, stupid really fast. If we only allow one type of religion then the state is endorsing a religion and that is forbidden by the constitution.

I've never heard of anyone trying to remove bibles from library's. If you have an article that backs up this claim I would like to read it and then I will tell you it's stupid.

There is nothing in the constitution or DOI that says there should be or must be a separation of Church and State. That's an important thing to remember, in my opinion, if and when discussing the topic. The phrase "Separation of Church and State" was first used by the Supreme Court in the 1940's. However, the phrase "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" was a phrase put into place by Thomas Jefferson, who adamantly states in numerous speeches and letters that government would have interference on religious beliefs, practices or expression. The phrase was only added to the constitution to prevent government established religion or it restricting others.

For some reason, certain acts of religion, if performed anywhere in building funded by the government has been deemed by many as an endorsement of religion by the government. How this has been allowed to stand is very confusing to me as I don't see any logic in it. I wonder if it bothers such individuals that congress prays before each session? I'd say it does, but barring this only suppresses the individual's freedom of speech. Some will always argue that religion and politics shouldn't mix but this is an impossible request since our faith or lack thereof defines how we see the world.

"I consider the government of the United States as interdicted [prohibited] by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions or exercises. - Thomas Jefferson - Letter to Samuel Millar, 1808

[jay94]

I understand what you're saying. The world, however, has always been made up of varying cultures, that hasn't changed. Sure, in some places there are stronger mixes, such as in the U.S. but the cultural divide that has always caused conflict is the same. Take for instance the Middle-East, predominantly Arabic and Muslim, and while other cultures may reside there it is still heavily and predominantly Arabic and Muslim. The conflicts that exist and stem from that region are not limited to cultural intrusion by others, meaning nothing has changed in thousands of years.

And what Roman said and you eluded to as well, there are certain universal rights and wrongs, things that are inherent. However, varying cultures do not always hold to those. For example. murder is acceptable in some cultures and beliefs. Due to that acceptance in that culture does that make it any less right or wrong?

One thing is for sure: if we want to see things happen that have never happened before, we will have to do things that we have never done before. If you look at our recorded history, it's pretty much always the same... Things keep going nowhere until it all explodes and then a lot of people die. Rince and repeat. You are right when you say that, despite the technological advancements, humans haven't really changed at their core. My point is, blood always ends up being spilled, and if we want to change, we will need to reconsider the way that we spill that blood. And in order for that happen, someone will have to look beyond their own sense of humanity that defines those universal wrong's that you're talking about... I don't who or how or when, but it will have to happen, or else nothing will ever truly change. Haven't you ever considered that, maybe, just maybe, by retaining that sense of humanity, we are holding ourselves back?

[Ernst]

“I was walking along the bank of a stream when I saw a mother otter with her cubs, a very endearing sight, I'm sure you'll agree. And even as I watched, the mother otter dived into the water and came up with a plump salmon, which she subdued and dragged onto a half submerged log. As she ate it, while of course it was still alive, the body split and I remember to this day the sweet pinkness of its roes as they spilled out, much to the delight of the baby otters, who scrambled over themselves to feed on the delicacy. One of nature's wonders, gentlemen. Mother and children dining upon mother and children. And that is when I first learned about evil. It is built into the very nature of the universe. Every world spins in pain. If there is any kind of supreme being, I told myself, it is up to all of us to become his moral superior.”


― Terry Pratchett

[Ernst]

I am a quiet atheist. I thought it was ridiculous when people wanted "under god" removed from our money and from the pledge of allegiance. Most people assume I am religious because of my ethnic background and upbringing. After all, when you are this Irish you must be Catholic....


Where I get pissed is when religion interferes with reality. Teaching of creationism and a lot of the anti-abortion rabble is absolutely nuts.

[austinite]

I am a quiet atheist. I thought it was ridiculous when people wanted "under god" removed from our money and from the pledge of allegiance. Most people assume I am religious because of my ethnic background and upbringing. After all, when you are this Irish you must be Catholic....


Where I get pissed is when religion interferes with reality. Teaching of creationism and a lot of the anti-abortion rabble is absolutely nuts.

Blasphemy!

[Times Roman]

I disagree with some of these. I have some pretty strong opinions (which could easily perceived by some as 'evil') about certain things, but I don't really feel comfortable discussing them.

I worded it carefully. the one I thought most would have an issue with, if any issues, would be #5 as there are a lot of crappy parents out there. which is why I added my .02 in there "the people who cared for you when you were defenseless". if you were abused or if your parents didn't care for you as they should, then the way I worded it would/should indicate then it doesn't apply.

I don't give a fvck, #6 is universal

#7 I had to word carefully too. I used the phrase "vowed to remain monogamous". If you are in a relationship that both parties agree does not apply, then it doesn't apply. But I personally think very few marriages start out that way. they may evolve that way, and eventually run into trouble, but I doubt very many start that way.

#8 is universal. period

so is #9 and #10

which could you possibly disagree with?

by virtue of you post saying you disagree, but don't want to talk about it, means you do want to talk about it only if egged on...

....so I'm egging. which one do you disagree with?

[Times Roman]

I am a quiet atheist. I thought it was ridiculous when people wanted "under god" removed from our money and from the pledge of allegiance. Most people assume I am religious because of my ethnic background and upbringing. After all, when you are this Irish you must be Catholic....


Where I get pissed is when religion interferes with reality. Teaching of creationism and a lot of the anti-abortion rabble is absolutely nuts.

I have no problem with teaching religion in school in the right context and in a balanced approach. I was partially educated in a private Jesuit University for a few years when I was younger. The Jesuits teach religion, and they teach science. They do not confuse the two. And this is where many run into trouble. They confuse science with religion, as if they must compete somehow. they do not. Apples and oranges. Science is a process of discovery, whereby theories are developed in an attempt to explain certain phenomenon. then the theory is further tested to see if valid or invalid. Theories grow and pick up gravity when others can repeatedly test and confirm results. Science also explains why the universe behaves the way it does. There are many branches of science.

Religion is not science. It is not meant to be. Why? I've never seen anyone attempt to explain a burning bush and be able to repeat the results as we assume them to be from the Moses incident.

Religion is neither good nor bad. it is a tool to be used for a variety of reasons.

Spirituality is really where it is at. There are many "religious" people that are not very spiritual, but act more like sheep and simply do what ever they are told by the church without much thought.

I'm trying to develop a sense of spirituality at a deep level. But to do so, I must embrace it in all aspects, not just emotionally, as most do. There is a reason people get pissed off when you try to have a rational discussion about their religion. Because for the most part, they have put little rational thought into their belief system except for what the preacher man and the bible tells them what to think. When you discuss dinasaurs, all you seem to get is that god must have created the earth with dinosaur fossils to trick us for some reason, and that dinasaurs were never really alive all those hundreds of millions of years ago. How could they be alive back then? The earth hadn't been "created" yet!

[jay94]

I worded it carefully. the one I thought most would have an issue with, if any issues, would be #5 as there are a lot of crappy parents out there. which is why I added my .02 in there "the people who cared for you when you were defenseless". if you were abused or if your parents didn't care for you as they should, then the way I worded it would/should indicate then it doesn't apply.

I don't give a fvck, #6 is universal

#7 I had to word carefully too. I used the phrase "vowed to remain monogamous". If you are in a relationship that both parties agree does not apply, then it doesn't apply. But I personally think very few marriages start out that way. they may evolve that way, and eventually run into trouble, but I doubt very many start that way.

#8 is universal. period

so is #9 and #10



which could you possibly disagree with?

by virtue of you post saying you disagree, but don't want to talk about it, means you do want to talk about it only if egged on...

....so I'm egging. which one do you disagree with?

I need to think a lot more about things before giving my actual opinion about each of these, and sadly, at the moment, I don't have enough time to do that. But I will answer, just not now.

[Deal Me In]

Now, back to my original thought.

It seems to me that many atheists are really against religion as opposed to for a particular philosophical belief system. Also, it seems to me that many atheists were born into a religious family, and become atheist as a form of rebellion without doing the heavy work of developing, in my opinion, the necessary framework for such an extreme viewpoint.

Many atheists feel strongly about their view, and I'd like to know why. Is it based on critical thinking and rationality, or is it emotionally based like the religious true believers have developed?

I struggle with the concept of being against religion. I try not to be, but there are times when I get so frustrated I do lash out against all religions. This is something some atheists struggle with.

You are right to a point. Almost all of us were brought up with some form of religion. For me, it was catholic. I became an atheist because I simply don't believe. If I don't belief, how can be religious? It had nothing to do with rebellion. It would be easier to believe.

Most atheists refer to themselves as rational thinkers. We believe what we can prove. Nothing more, nothing less. In my experience, what separates most atheist from believers is we are capable of saying, "I don't know." This statement seems to really bother religious people. They have to have an explanation for everything. When they can't explain something, "baby jesus works in mysterious ways." That makes no sense.

Now, many believers think that atheist look down on them. I will try and explain why.

Imagine if you met me and after several conversations you came to conclusion that I was an intelligent, rational person. Then one day I told you I believed in santa claus. Not believed like a 6 year old, but I truly believed there was a jolly fat man that lived at the north pole with a bunch of elves and once a year he got in sleigh pulled by 8 flying reindeer and delivered toys to all the good little boys and girls of the world. No matter what you told me, I would not be swayed. You could point out that reindeer don't fly. A fat man can't fit down a chimney. You couldn't circumnavigate the globe in one day. Nothing would change my mind. You would think there was something wrong with me. Something seriously wrong with my ability to reason.

This is how atheists think about believers. You are simply trading one imaginary friend for another. This baffles us.

The definition of "faith" is the intentional suspension of critical thinking. I simply can't suspend my critical thinking long enough to believe in a supreme being without proof.

[Hoggage_54]

[Deal Me In]

TimesRoman, here is a debate featuring Dawkins and the archbishop of Australia. At 13:30 they discuss the difference between being atheists and agnostic and why most people simply use the word atheist when agnostic would be more appropriate.

Debate: Atheist vs Christian (Richard Dawkins vs Cardinal George Pell) - YouTube

[Times Roman]

I struggle with the concept of being against religion. I try not to be, but there are times when I get so frustrated I do lash out against all religions. This is something some atheists struggle with.

You are right to a point. Almost all of us were brought up with some form of religion. For me, it was catholic. I became an atheist because I simply don't believe. If I don't belief, how can be religious? It had nothing to do with rebellion. It would be easier to believe.

Most atheists refer to themselves as rational thinkers. We believe what we can prove. But you can't prove that there isn't a god either. Nothing more, nothing less. In my experience, what separates most atheist from believers is we are capable of saying, "I don't know." This statement seems to really bother religious people. They have to have an explanation for everything. When they can't explain something, "baby jesus works in mysterious ways." That makes no sense.

Now, many believers think that atheist look down on them. I will try and explain why.

Imagine if you met me and after several conversations you came to conclusion that I was an intelligent, rational person. Then one day I told you I believed in santa claus. Not believed like a 6 year old, but I truly believed there was a jolly fat man that lived at the north pole with a bunch of elves and once a year he got in sleigh pulled by 8 flying reindeer and delivered toys to all the good little boys and girls of the world. No matter what you told me, I would not be swayed. You could point out that reindeer don't fly. A fat man can't fit down a chimney. You couldn't circumnavigate the globe in one day. Nothing would change my mind. You would think there was something wrong with me. Something seriously wrong with my ability to reason.

This is how atheists think about believers. You are simply trading one imaginary friend for another. This baffles us.

The definition of "faith" is the intentional suspension of critical thinking. I simply can't suspend my critical thinking long enough to believe in a supreme being without proof.

1) There is no rational way possible to disprove a metaphysical being. It's like trying to prove there are not ghosts or that there are not other people on other planets. In order to prove there are not other people on other planets, we would have to know where every planet is in the universe, and have first hand factual information that no people live there. It aint going to happen.

2) Because we cannot prove there is not a metaphysical being, then how is it possible for an atheist to factually say there is no metaphysical being? Statistically, the odds of there being a metaphysical being is not zero, therefore, it's possible. And because it is a statistical truth that there could be a metaphysical being, then for an atheist to attempt to factually say there is NOT a metaphysical being would make that statement illogical and therefore non factual. And since it is a non factual statement, it is also not rational. Because the atheist is passionate about their non factual position, then in my humble opinion, their position is no more superior to that of an emotional, non rational religious belief.

3) Critical thinking demands uncertainty, and therefore, from a rational approach, the only position that makes rational sense is that of the agnostic.

This is the flow of critical thinking. One step at a time. Thought out. Concise. Rational.