Atheism discussion

Well... I don't know, and won't until after this life, but I still disagree with you here. I do not know God as someone who operates that way. You may be right, but at any rate, I disagree.

Fair enough, I'm just saying what Jesus says as recorded in the Gospels. I could be wrong, it could be a misquote, a bad translation, or something made up by the authors altogether, however, I have no more reason to doubt that one teaching than I do for anything else Jesus supposedly said and did.

or with God, time is not an issue, and it was already accomplished, despite it not happening on our timeline yet.
This was not an explanation I had thought to apply to that point, but I quite like it, as it meshes well with the way I think of God. Thank you.

You're welcome. That has been my preferred view for quite some time, but lately I've considered more and more the idea that God actually did choose who would be saved and who wouldn't. As much as I dislike the idea, it's an issue I'm constantly flip flopping back and forth from.

yeah but at least my "faith" that my sister is real and exists can be evidenced by the fact i can physically see her with my own two eyes and talk to her if i pick up a phone.

I know this wasn't addressed to me, but I have a lot to say, epic, and you may pass over it if you wish. I also hope Brooks will address your post, and not feel like he doesn't need to just because I gave my input.

Anyway, onto matters. To quote Obi-Wan Kenobi, "Your eyes can deceive you; don't trust them."

If you "saw" God with your own two eyes, what makes you think for even a second you'd believe it was really God? Chances are, with an intelligent fellow like yourself, you'd believe it was your imagination. But let's say you accepted Him as being God. Which God? Say He gave an indication He was the Christian God. What if He was lying? Maybe He is actually Satan, who is the REAL God, and only wanted to have some fun with us Christians?

My point is that these old sorry eyes and ears, much less our minds, are NOT the best indicators of truth. Sometimes, they fail. With some people, not even the testimony of a dead man will convince them.

as much as you may say you have a "relationship" with god, you can't do this. i know, i've been there.

Clearly my friend you have not been there. You DIDN'T do this, so you assume it can't be done. Me and darth brooks have done it, and still do it, as we accept that it can and is being done.

the "faith" in a personal, loving, creator god is nothing like that, as much as theists love to try and push it and thus somehow justify their faith as being something other than being simply blind. there is no "proof" of god.

There's no proof of you. There's no proof of anything. There is, however, good evidence of both you and God. You don't accept it, I do.

there cannot be, or else faith is irrelevent.

How so? You claim you've "been there", epic, but this is exactly the type of uninformed opinion I would expect from one who never knew God. God NEVER expected ANYONE to have faith in His existence. All He ever asked was that we have faith in His WAYS, in His POWER, in His LOVE. Faith that He is who He claims to be, and that He will do what He promised to do. That is the only Biblical expectation of faith. Study the Bible, and you'll see.

a personal conviction or some "feeling" you have in your gut or your heart does not constitute proof.

No it doesn't. But it is evidence. Of course, it's also evidence of indigestion. That's why we don't go on nothing but emotions. It's an entirely different level than the emotions. Than a feeling in your gut. It can't be explained to those who don't know it.

proof of a god would include the ability to see him with our own two eyes. why can't we do that?

No, that wouldn't be proof. It would be more evidence, yes, but not proof. For many, it is enough. God shows Himself to some of them. For many others, it would not be enough. God does not sho

 

My family is Christian but not overly so, they skip out on church sometimes and rarely pray or anything. I guess I always had doubts about god, the whole thing seemed pretty hokey to me. I guess it's because I am a scientificly minded person, I believe in Evolution and such, and it disgusts me how Christianity and other religions have foisted themselves on the world, spreading like cancer. Mostly because I don't really need the idea of god or heaven to help me live my life, when I die, I die, and all this does is make me live my life to the fullest. Oddly enough, I do believe in something like karma and that there is some weird balancing system in the universe, akin to luck and chance.

 

I'm probably going to side wit anakin_girl, in that I believe in a god, but not in any one religion.

 

I would probably go with Karl Marx's "Religion is the opium of the people," though without all the economic context associated with it.

 

I tend to tell people I'm agnostic, as it seems to be the only logically defesible position, but if I'm honest my tendencies are towards athiesm.

My family isn't very religious, we would only ever go to church for hatches, matches and dispatches. I remember getting briefly interested in Christianity when I was at school, even joining a Christian Group, but it didn't seem to last too long. As I got older I became far more critical of what I saw as dogmatism, The more I started thinking about history, the psychology of individuals, the behaviour of societies, the more organised religion seemed explicable in purely secular terms.

I could understand that the very earliest humans must have looked at the vast uncontollable world around them, and felt both awe and a powerful sense of their own insignificance. From this it is not difficult to appreciate the development of forms of worship that were based upon the influences in these peoples' lives; the sun, the weather, animals, all representing food and shelter and Man's ability to survive.

As people became more sophisticated so did the forms of worship, concepts like the sun or fertility, so alien and incomprehensible, were made meaningful by attributing to them human characteristics. This seems to be a theme throughout religions across the globe, whether you are looking at the pagan Green Man, the Egyption Amon, the Greek Aphrodite.... These forms of worship also allowed the growth of a priest class who purported to have a more direct relationship to these divinities. As these priests were only human, they no doubt also saw that there position allowed them a certain amount of control and power, and also enabled them to educate the members of their society. Important concepts of civilisation could be cloaked in the guise of religious doctrine (ie they way the dead should be dealt with, the proper preparation of food etc) and were thus more likely to be strictly observed.

More time passes, and societies continue to become more spohisticated. Particularly in the West multiple gods become outmoded, replaced by monotheistic beliefs. A lot of the old language and characteristics seem to cling on though - we still often think of god in terms of the light (the Sun?), and we still seem to feel that same sense of powerlessness and awe. More importantly, will still cling to this idea of imposing human characteristics to our god, we create god in our own image in order to make it comprehensible. Christianity took this to the extreme by making god a human who walked on the Earth, almost as if all the Greek Gods on Olympus were incorporated into a single man.

In a sense the new priestly classes encouraged people to see a single deity as the culmination or fulfillment of their earlier beliefs - adopting ancient feast days for example, or in the case of many old English churches, placing the pagan image of the Green Man on the exteriors of the church itself as a symbol of continuity.

I realise I'm rambling a bit, just thinking aloud really. Hopefully this gives some idea of why I began to feel that supernatural religion had a very natural basis. For this reason I felt that I couldn't follow any particular religion, I felt that all of them were products of their society, telling us a great deal about the society itself, but without offering any real metaphysical truth.

Whether there is a higher power at all is a rather different question. Whilst I think our psychology and history makes us inclined to believe in a god or gods, that doesn't necessarily mean that there isn't actually a god of some sort. On this question I have always felt that I cannot know the truth, it is too far outside human understanding, like trying to explain what is outside the universe, or trying to see infinity. Sometimes I hope there is something out there, and maybe one day I'll find out. But I do wish that some of the effort people put into answering this question could be directed to our more immediate problems. Worrying about a life after death seems to distract some p

 

My parents' marriage was a union between a devout southern Baptist and a devout Methodist family. Having spent a considerable amount of time in both churches, I eventually realized that I could no longer spend another second with either.

Simply put, I have found no evidence for god's existence, and no reason to believe in her despite the lack of evidence.

Even the best of the apologist arguments for god, C.S. Lewis in particular, seem a bit dim-witted. The book Mere Christianity is a philosophical and logical mess. I read it perhaps three times and every time I become more disappointed with its fundamental flaws of common sense.

I'm an ontological naturalist. I believe the universe is all that is the case, pending evidence to the contrary. If god created me, she created me in such a way that it is impossible for me to have faith in god. Because I feel compelled to rely on sound reasoning as a foundation for my beliefs, I am denied salvation if indeed Christianity is the one supernatural belief system that is true of the infinite number of possible supernatural belief systems.

 

It is possible that your consternation in reading Lewis is not the author's fault.

 

For that belief Jabbadabbado, you will be told you are spiritually blind and oblivious to the truth that God exists when nobody can actually provide his actual existance but from personal experience which could be made up, the mind playing tricks on them or it could be true.

 

Learner, you shouldn't presume to speak for those you hold in such clear contempt. Or is the thin veneer of this discussion on atheism peeling away to reveal that this thread is little more than yet another weak attempt to bash Christians?

 

Christianity is an overt attempt to bash atheists (among others), so I think we are entilted to give a little feedback.

Its not my fault of religion gets its feelings hurt by reasoned discussion.

 

I am going to reiterate some thing said in the first post, as a reminder to everyone.

So I think it's time the Atheists have another thread (last one was locked) and discuss why one would become an atheist in the first place and maybe share why a person became an atheist. This discussion is open to all members and is not intended to be a Christian bashing party. I ask all members to keep things respectful.

Now, Christianity, Judaism, Islam, or any other religion should not enter into this discussion except in the context described above. Unless you are bringing it up in the context of why you (or someone else) chose to become an athiest, then don't post it. If you can't be respectful in posting your view, then don't post it.

Clear enough?

Kimball Kinnison

 

Learner, you shouldn't presume to speak for those you hold in such clear contempt. Or is the thin veneer of this discussion on atheism peeling away to reveal that this thread is little more than yet another weak attempt to bash Christians?

It's not, I fully intended for things to stay respectful. If some members cannot do this then I suggest going to my journal or some other place to bash Christians. And yes, I use my journal for that purpose, but it's not the casual christians, just the big time believers. But this thread is to discuss atheism. If you disagree with that specific viewpoint, fine, but disagree in a respectful manner, keep the bashing for your private time or between friends or in different message board forums (yeah, they're out there).

As for Atheism being "faith based" I'd say you're correct, faith in yourself is key and faith in science (at least in my case). We do not have a specific order to everything there are no Atheistic priests, there are no doctrines other than living your life as you see fit. It is the absence of a deity. And sure you could say that all of those require faith, but the faith theists refer to is religious faith. Atheists do not have that. Whatever faith an atheist has had is abandoned for whatever reason. As you see, the atheists that have posted here have a amalgam of reasons for doing so. It's not like they awoke one day and said, "Today I'm going to be an atheist!" Just as theists claim to have religious experiences, atheists have experiences that tell them that there is no deity. Or that the church is full of crap.

 

Well put Fire...

Many Atheists come from a Christian background.
I was raised Christain...just not strictly. I was given the freedom to explore my own spirituality from a very young age. I have spent many years studying and understanding various religions and of course scientific knowledge to draw my conclusions about "God" and my own spirtuality.

To me, "God" is simply a personification of the universal constant of energy (the Force for all of you Fans!). We know this energy exists and makes up all the matter in the Universe. It is tangible. There are religions that recognize this...Taoism being a biggie.
However it is human nature to personify that which is difficult to comprehend. This personification has existed for so long that many view it as fact and cannot see any other way. It has been instilled into society thru generations of tradition and teaching...whether it is truth or not.

One question I have for those who believe in "God" wholeheartedly....

If you know that the existence of God is irrefutable; because you have "met" God or thru another personal experience; what characteristic did you recognize that tells you God is male?

Because theists who proclaim Gods existence ALWAYS refer to "him" in that context...He Him, etc.

 

From a Christians point of view:

?God is no longer a habitual concern for human beings. Less and less do they call him to mind as they go through their days or make their decisions. . . . God has been replaced by other values: income and productivity. He may once have been regarded as the source of meaning for all human activities, but today he has been relegated to the secret dungeons of history. . . . God has disappeared from the consciousness of human beings.?

?The Sources of Modern Atheism.

French writer P. Valadier stated: ?It was the Christian tradition that produced atheism as its fruit; it led to the murder of God in the consciences of men because it presented them with an unbelievable God.?

It's no wonder people don't believe in him. Attrocities done in the name of religon and Christianity abound throught out history!

 

Pure and simply, I cannnot believe in the notion that there is something, somewhere who created the entire universe and continues to control everything in it, with no proof. The various contradictions and simple nonsense in the Bible would be funny if they weren't believed by millions.

Any decent proof of God's existence, naturally, would turn me instantly.

 

There is LOTS of evidence for God's existence.

The problem is, none of it is conclusive. All of it can be explained and interpreted in different ways. This is one tenet that Agnostics base their arguments upon.

Having lots of evidence is not the same thing as having good evidence.

 

Could you say...provide a Atheist with a link of what is apparently evidence. Historic Records are good also.

 

No, there's belief. There's absolutely no 'evidence' good or otherwise.

 

There's absolutely no 'evidence' good or otherwise.

That is simply not true. I think you are confusing the terms 'proof' and 'evidence'. They are quite different.

The Bible is a piece of evidence. Christians accept it as proof of God's existence. Atheists think it is simply a book, not proof. Either way the Bible is one piece of evidence for God, but it is very questionable evidence, and not sufficient proof for the existence of the Christian God.

But you are right in belief is the main factor involved.

 

Apologies. There's no /proof/.

 

BLACKJEBUS, are you an author? If not are you a teacher? You ought to be both.

 

I live in a dilemma (I don't care what label fits me best). While I personally believe that there is no god whatsoever, I think that millions or billions who believe could be somewhat right. Or that millions and billions share a single delusion. I just think that it's failry uncertain (if a god exists), and that we perhaps will never know whoever is right or wrong.

Wow, that sounded extremelly confused.

 

Interesting.

 

I stopped reading after the fourth paragraph I'm afraid.

To think that the countless mechanisms of the natural world just happened is beyond me. It is like claiming that a tornado swept through a scrap metal yard and produced a 747 jumbo jet, idling and ready for take off. That wouldn't happen in a trillion tornadoes

Fair enough...belief. There's no actual reason given why such an event as the creation of the Universe could happen by accident.

The spiritual realm, on the other hand, offers more possibilities. If there is a realm where beings are not bound by time, then the law of cause and effect would have no meaning.

And how was this created? Philosophical and hypothetical questions like the ones posed there are interesting, but certainly not 'evidence'. It's all belief.

 

That webpage is presenting and analyzing evidence with a decidedly Christian slant.

This site contains the same arguments, but with an Atheistic interpretation:
Interesting as well

It all comes down to what you believe.