To the atheists of mx

[I'm blue dabadeedabadie]

When I was 12 or so I heard George Carlin, and I thought he was hilarious, but now that I listen to him years later, he sounds like some cheap, Mencia-esque comic who "tells it like it is," and "says what I'm thinking!" etc.

The reason for this thread is that he, along with many people who believe themselves to be smart, has an unbelievably immature perspective/stereotype against religion.

Now, I'm sort of indifferent to it and don't really think about it because I don't think I'm mature enough yet to actually care about/understand spirituality, but please, this is just idiotic:

Carlin: "Religion has the greatest bull**** story ever told. Think about it; religion has actually convinced people that there's an invisible man! Living in the sky! Who watches everything you do every minute of every day!"

And he's come to various other stupid realizations about it-- and his arguments also include, "If there's a God, why do we get sicknesses? Why did Hitler exist?"

"War, disease, death, destruction, hunger, filth, poverty, torture, crime, corruption... something is definitely wrong. This is not good work. If this is the best God can do, I am not impressed." and also: "If I can see something, it kind of helps the credibility along."

"If there is a god, may he strike the audience dead."

And I realized that most people don't understand the purpose of religion-- either that, or they think that religion = right wing, orthodox, fundamentalist Christianity.

(more to the point):

To atheists, I'm just wondering what your rationale is, how you chose to become an atheist, assuming you weren't born into an atheist family.

So ^that's the point of this thread.

[BassRevelation1029]

perhaps you should change the title to *OFFICIAL atheism thread* before it gets closed.

[I'm blue dabadeedabadie]

Oh, sorry.

[Doop]

Nothing i've ever seen has given me reason to believe in god.

[Scuba_Steve]

My rationale is that I get my spiritual fufillment from a variety of sources, friends, music, hobbies. I simply don't need to joina club where they tell you what you can and can't do because "an invisible man in the sky" says so.

And the purpose of religion is so that there is something people can turn to and mindlessly believe in to themselves feel better. That's all there is to it, and I don't mean this as a bad thing. I know religion has spawned some good people and for that I tihnk it's great. But it has also spawn overly zealous hypocrites, which makes me think it's the worst thing. Balance those two things out and you get an OK.

I also don't like religion because I always find myself second guessing it, it's part of my personality and there's very little I can do to change it.

But hey, if religion works for other people and they don't force it on me or other people that's perfectly okay.

[ihatemybass]

i don't really see a reason why this thread should be closed.

I beleive some people just become atheists because it's easier not to care.

[I'm blue dabadeedabadie]

My rationale is that I get my spiritual fufillment from a variety of sources, friends, music, hobbies. I simply don't need to joina club where they tell you what you can and can't do because "an invisible man in the sky" says so.


Yeah, I'm not trying to tell you to do anything, but Buddhism sort of revolves around the way you live your life and doesn't add in anything unnecessary to doing that, like Christianity would add in.

I'll also add I'm not Christian so I'm not referring only to religions with a deity, as far as the invisble man thing goes.

[madeyadams]

I just think it's ridiculous to believe in something that no one knows if it exists or not. I also think its just retarded to believe some of the things that religions believe, especially Christianity. Not even spiritually either, just morally.

And the purpose of religion is so that there is something people can turn to and mindlessly believe in to themselves feel better. That's all there is to it, and I don't mean this as a bad thing.

I agree. But I do mean it as a bad thing.

[Bron-Yr-Aur]

My rationale is that I've yet to notice anything that proves a higher being exists. The Bible tends to contradict itself, and all possible chances of seeing God or finding some sort of proof are conviently written out. For me, it's basically the whole thing is suspicious and unfounded.

[MAthiAS]

I don't know if there's a god or not, but the Christian god is not a god I'd worship.

[Der Übermensch]

Athiesm is logical, because the logical conclusion when faced with no proof for the existence of something is to assume it doesn't exist. Its not always correct, but its the logical choice.

[RockAndRoll]

Athiesm is logical, because the logical conclusion when faced with no proof for the existence of something is to assume it doesn't exist. Its not always correct, but its the logical choice.
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! :upset:

[Seafroggys]

George Carlin was raised in a catholic home. I think he knows what he's talking about.

Do you honestly believe comedians believe in what they say? :rolleyes:

[Der Übermensch]

Carlin believes what he says in the very general sense, but I don't think that explaining his opposition to religion in his own real terms would make for very good comedy...

[I'm blue dabadeedabadie]

Carlin believes what he says in the very general sense, but I don't think that explaining his opposition to religion in his own real terms would make for very good comedy...

Well, George Carlin more instegated this question in me, forget about him, I just was looking for a more logical basis on which to deny anything pertaining to any religion.

But, to the other poster, he obviously doesn't know what he's talking about, even if he was raised a Catholic, because he must have been raised in a very fundamentalist and generally bad way.

There's plenty more logical reasons for decrying Catholicism.

[Letto]

To call Carlin Mencia-esque is just horrible. You should at least say Mencia is Carlin-esque, but that would be way too great of a compliment. Mencia is vulgar for the sake of being vulgar; he's not making a statement with his comedy.

[sjada]

Carlins argument is not based at all on religious beliefs, but not all atheists believe in atheism for the same reason.

[The Violent Warrior]

lol i chose to become an atheist for the same reasons carlin is one, but you can go deeper into epistemology and stuff

[badtaste]

My rationale is that I get my spiritual fufillment from a variety of sources, friends, music, hobbies. I simply don't need to joina club where they tell you what you can and can't do because "an invisible man in the sky" says so.

And the purpose of religion is so that there is something people can turn to and mindlessly believe in to themselves feel better. That's all there is to it, and I don't mean this as a bad thing. I know religion has spawned some good people and for that I tihnk it's great. But it has also spawn overly zealous hypocrites, which makes me think it's the worst thing. Balance those two things out and you get an OK.

I also don't like religion because I always find myself second guessing it, it's part of my personality and there's very little I can do to change it.

But hey, if religion works for other people and they don't force it on me or other people that's perfectly okay.

Pretty much the same for me. I just don't like the idea of having to turn to a book for inspiration or spiritual meaning.

[Danger Bird]

When I was 12 or so I heard George Carlin, and I thought he was hilarious, but now that I listen to him years later, he sounds like some cheap, Mencia-esque comic who "tells it like it is," and "says what I'm thinking!" etc.

The reason for this thread is that he, along with many people who believe themselves to be smart, has an unbelievably immature perspective/stereotype against religion.

Now, I'm sort of indifferent to it and don't really think about it because I don't think I'm mature enough yet to actually care about/understand spirituality, but please, this is just idiotic:

Carlin: "Religion has the greatest bull**** story ever told. Think about it; religion has actually convinced people that there's an invisible man! Living in the sky! Who watches everything you do every minute of every day!"

And he's come to various other stupid realizations about it-- and his arguments also include, "If there's a God, why do we get sicknesses? Why did Hitler exist?"

"War, disease, death, destruction, hunger, filth, poverty, torture, crime, corruption... something is definitely wrong. This is not good work. If this is the best God can do, I am not impressed." and also: "If I can see something, it kind of helps the credibility along."

"If there is a god, may he strike the audience dead."

And I realized that most people don't understand the purpose of religion-- either that, or they think that religion = right wing, orthodox, fundamentalist Christianity.

(more to the point):

To atheists, I'm just wondering what your rationale is, how you chose to become an atheist, assuming you weren't born into an atheist family.

So ^that's the point of this thread.
lol, that has nothing to do with George Carlin at all. In case you didn't notice, he's a comedian, not a philosopher, or The Official Spokesman for Atheism.

I am an atheist because I don't see a reason to believe in God, and I think it's logical to be skeptical of something as a default. why should I believe in it? Because if not, Jesus will bully me into loving him by threatening me with hell? No thanks.

[Berner]

I'm an atheist because of my analytical mindset. I search for logical conclusions to specific problems/situations. So when faced with the question of a higher being existing I see it as illogical.

I also think people have this stigma that atheism is the anti-thesis of religion. I do not think this at all. I have no problem with religion whatsoever. People can choose to believe whatever they want and I respect that.

[Danger Bird]

I'm an atheist because of my analytical mindset. I search for logical conclusions to specific problems/situations. So when faced with the question of a higher being existing I see it as illogical.

I also think people have this stigma that atheism is the anti-thesis of religion. I do not think this at all. I have no problem with religion whatsoever. People can choose to believe whatever they want and I respect that.
Bruce Campbell, now there's a comedian.

[AKid2]

I'm an atheist because of my analytical mindset. I search for logical conclusions to specific problems/situations. So when faced with the question of a higher being existing I see it as illogical.

I also think people have this stigma that atheism is the anti-thesis of religion. I do not think this at all. I have no problem with religion whatsoever. People can choose to believe whatever they want and I respect that.

I'm much similar with a few other thoughts.

One of the major reasons I turned away from religion (Catholic in my case) wasn't becasue of the actual concepts preached; but because the way people worshipped was so...weak. People take communion and leave, people miss mass without a second thought, but still hold strong in their catholicism during family conversation etc. Heck, my aunt is a eucharistic minister, and she has no problem missing mass. People start to take serious interest in God only when something bad happens. etc.

This type of worshipping towards such a supposed holy being really belittles the whole religion and can easily be deemed a disgrace. That's not exactly what I'm trying to say, I'm having trouble getting it out, but such lazy worshipping of someone you supposedly build your life around doesn't sit well with me.

It's important to re evaluate every once and a while. Too many people never ask themselves why they believe what they do. If you sincerely ask yourself am I believing the right thing? Does this make sense? and if the answer is yes, you should belive with all you've got, but for me it was a no.

Don't flame me about catholicism. I know. :)

[Bron-Yr-Aur]

One of the major reasons I turned away from religion (Catholic in my case) wasn't becasue of the actual concepts preached; but because the way people worshipped was so...weak.

Which is pretty much what you're doing. You're proving yourself a far weaker worshipper than people who miss mass or communion every now and then.

This type of worshipping towards such a supposed holy being really belittles the whole religion and can easily be deemed a disgrace.

And that's a good reason to quit worshipping if believe the religion?

[slash_bmxer09]

I beleive some people just become atheists because it's easier not to care.

I disagree. Atheists that I know, including myself, care. We don't just say, "Well whatever, I guess there is no God because I don't think there is." I always consider whatever I can. The fact that the only thing that shows if there is a God is the Bible(Refering to Christianity) makes me doubt things. One reference. A flawed reference I might add. I just believe some people think of Atheists in a totally negative way.

[Bluesiestman]

You all might find this interesting: http://www.commonground.ca/iss/0410159/cg159_geoffUniv.shtml

Its about Enstein's question "Is the Universe Friendly?"

I want to say yes, because optimism is generally better than pessimism in relating to your mental health, but fundamentally I feel that the Universe is indifferent.

[dustindow]

I went to church since I can remember, up to about three years ago. I went to a catholic school for 4 years. Jumped from church to church. Learned about different religions, got more into philosophy. After all that I just decided that wether there be a god or not, it all boils down to the ethics. Thats what I try to follow. Be a good person.

[slash_bmxer09]

After all that I just decided that wether there be a god or not, it all boils down to the ethics. Thats what I try to follow. Be a good person.

Yeah, but why is it that people use religion as the source? Sometimes it seems like christianity is just a way for people to scare others into being a good person.

[peeted]

george carlin is funny but i dont think you can take what he says as the view of every atheist out there. if it was then atheists would all be morons, wich there not.

[(*The Noonward Race*)]

i was born in a very religious home
im too lazy to follow religion
thats it

[Zoroaster]

And the purpose of religion is so that there is something people can turn to and mindlessly believe in to themselves feel better. That's all there is to it, and I don't mean this as a bad thing. I know religion has spawned some good people and for that I tihnk it's great. But it has also spawn overly zealous hypocrites, which makes me think it's the worst thing. Balance those two things out and you get an OK.

That's so incredibly patronizing I think you should issue an apology to all those that do in fact believe. In your above post there wasn't one hint, not one, to suggest that you tolerate people of faith. Now, I may be wrong on this one, but why harp on the need for socialism and the utter asinine tolerance it entails, when in reality you harbour none for your fellow man? I mean, I can say without exception that each and every socialist fails to grasp the complexity of the modern world; but I still restrain myself from calling their "quest in life" meaningless. Which it effectively is.

[koastokoast]

I'm much similar with a few other thoughts.

One of the major reasons I turned away from religion (Catholic in my case) wasn't becasue of the actual concepts preached; but because the way people worshipped was so...weak. People take communion and leave, people miss mass without a second thought, but still hold strong in their catholicism during family conversation etc. Heck, my aunt is a eucharistic minister, and she has no problem missing mass. People start to take serious interest in God only when something bad happens. etc.

This type of worshipping towards such a supposed holy being really belittles the whole religion and can easily be deemed a disgrace. That's not exactly what I'm trying to say, I'm having trouble getting it out, but such lazy worshipping of someone you supposedly build your life around doesn't sit well with me.

It's important to re evaluate every once and a while. Too many people never ask themselves why they believe what they do. If you sincerely ask yourself am I believing the right thing? Does this make sense? and if the answer is yes, you should belive with all you've got, but for me it was a no.

Don't flame me about catholicism. I know. :)
I agree with you here; when many Catholics go to mass they often go by force of habit and because they feel they have to; their worship is weak.
However, I also know that when a mass is done properly, not half-heartedly, and when many people are involved, and at a time like Christmas, it is often enough to inspire people in some way to keep their faith reinforced. Maybe it's the tradition (like at a tridentine mass) or the magnitude (when Pope John Paul II died), I don't know, and I don't particularly care either tbh, as I'm not Catholic, nor do I fit into any category of belief. My father was agnostic, and my mother was a free-thinking Catholic, and luckily for me I was not compelled to turn away from it, it just helped me have an open mind. As a result, I don't feel compelled to come to a conclusion about my beliefs, I ask myself questions, but I don't necessarily look for answers.

[Schyma]

I turned atheist because the more I read from this so called 'most important book you'll ever read' non sense the more I began to realize the bible was made from men, not god. Men who made (and altered it the way they wanted it to be, not how it really was) It's is so watered down from people changing it that there's probably less than 50% of the original bible in most today. The Bible pushing is probably my biggest pet peeve as-well and what's with this white supremacy bull**** that was practiced for quite a time there? (and still is to a degree I mean Jesus was not this white, blue eyed man he's famously pictured as) The more time I spend to thinking about it, the more I begin to fully realize how much I dislike Christianity period.

Out of all the religions in history I can't think one that has left the annals of time as drench in blood as Christianity has. Christianity has killed so so many. I mean does Christianity really help you become a good person? I mean all you have to do is say you're a Jesus-head and shazzam you are a Christian. You can go throughout your life and not even change the way you live, going on and 'sinning' as you please....no big deal. The point is Christianity doesn't require you to change the way you live (and sin) at all, except you have to go church on Sunday to make your self feel better for all the mistakes you made the previous week so you can fool yourself by thinking you're going to same magical perfect utopia in the sky for eternity. A god is very illogical anyway....

I've been meditating twice a day and I've been studying Buddhism like a mad man for the past couple of months so right now I see my future somewhere in Tao/Buddhism (eastern philosphy is so much more intelligent and rewarding and plus no wars have been fought for the name of Buddha) not under the quite dull pessimistic shadow that is atheism. After all, from what I can see, most of the atheists in this fourm most of what they do is trying to convince stubborn Christians (like BassRevelations) that it's the biggest brainwash in the entire history of man kind and it's non-sense. (maybe I shouldn't pass judgment though, after all Lao-tzu says 'the master's heart is of a mirror, he reflects judgment' or at least something along the lines of that) I see myself anywhere but Christianity and probably an eastern religion; so basically what made me turn is Christianity itself. (if that makes sense)

[PerpetualBurn]

Carlin: "Religion has the greatest bull**** story ever told. Think about it; religion has actually convinced people that there's an invisible man! Living in the sky! Who watches everything you do every minute of every d

Consider instead that Carlin begins addressing the ins and outs of the ontological argument and Pascal's Wager.

Who's laughing now?

You're as far off the point as you can be if you think it's wrong of a comedian to use stereotypes. That's how jokes work. An exaggeration of truth is required or it's not funny.

[coheneran]

When I was 12 or so I heard George Carlin, and I thought he was hilarious, but now that I listen to him years later, he sounds like some cheap, Mencia-esque comic who "tells it like it is," and "says what I'm thinking!" etc.

The reason for this thread is that he, along with many people who believe themselves to be smart, has an unbelievably immature perspective/stereotype against religion.

Now, I'm sort of indifferent to it and don't really think about it because I don't think I'm mature enough yet to actually care about/understand spirituality, but please, this is just idiotic:

Carlin: "Religion has the greatest bull**** story ever told. Think about it; religion has actually convinced people that there's an invisible man! Living in the sky! Who watches everything you do every minute of every day!"

And he's come to various other stupid realizations about it-- and his arguments also include, "If there's a God, why do we get sicknesses? Why did Hitler exist?"

"War, disease, death, destruction, hunger, filth, poverty, torture, crime, corruption... something is definitely wrong. This is not good work. If this is the best God can do, I am not impressed." and also: "If I can see something, it kind of helps the credibility along."

"If there is a god, may he strike the audience dead."

And I realized that most people don't understand the purpose of religion-- either that, or they think that religion = right wing, orthodox, fundamentalist Christianity.

(more to the point):

To atheists, I'm just wondering what your rationale is, how you chose to become an atheist, assuming you weren't born into an atheist family.

So ^that's the point of this thread.

I wonder if you realise that George Carlin is a comedian. He's not trying to argue atheist rhetoric on his audience, he's trying to make them laugh, and maybe think.

I'm an atheist because any sort of omnipotent God is illogical and doesn't fit in with the obvious logical pattern of life. Fair enough if you want to say that God is just a being who doesn't work by logic, but in that case I don't see how much security it brings to know that there is an all-powerful being out there that isn't logical. I know it doesn't make me feel any better about the universe.

[PerpetualBurn]

Personally, I exclude agnosticism from my beliefs as I don't think it gives us a basis for our actions. In order to make moral decisions, and to decided how we should act, I feel it necessary to place judgement on the possible existence of a higher entity. I choose to act on the basis that no such entity exists, as no evidence would make me think it does.

[Zoroaster]

I'm an atheist because any sort of omnipotent God is illogical and doesn't fit in with the obvious logical pattern of life. Fair enough if you want to say that God is just a being who doesn't work by logic, but in that case I don't see how much security it brings to know that there is an all-powerful being out there that isn't logical. I know it doesn't make me feel any better about the universe.

Fair enough. Now all that remains is for you to prove that a belief in God is illogical. Which, frankly, you failed to in your above post.

[bradc1988]

I'm an atheist because of my analytical mindset. I search for logical conclusions to specific problems/situations. So when faced with the question of a higher being existing I see it as illogical.

I also think people have this stigma that atheism is the anti-thesis of religion. I do not think this at all. I have no problem with religion whatsoever. People can choose to believe whatever they want and I respect that.

That's basically the exact same as me. I respect peoples beliefs, but they shouldn't push it on me, I don't push atheism on them. I didn't grow up in a religious home, wasn't babtised, so I never had any religion pushed on me.

I like atheism, I like science, it makes more sense than anything I've ever heard from religion.

[suspect]

I'm an agnostic, but I feel that this applies to atheism as well. I'm agnostic, because I don't believe in anything. It is as easy as that. You can't force yourself to truly believe in a religion. ****, I wish I could have faith in something larger then life, but I just don't. Faith is an incredible support in peoples life, but it isn't something you can force on yourself.

[Aklerc]

As 'God' said in futurama: (I love this quote)

'If you do something right, then people won't realise you'll have done anything at all'

[PerpetualBurn]

Fair enough. Now all that remains is for you to prove that a belief in God is illogical. Which, frankly, you failed to in your above post.

Absence of evidence.

[coheneran]

Fair enough. Now all that remains is for you to prove that a belief in God is illogical. Which, frankly, you failed to in your above post.

I didn't try to, so how can I fail? All I did was outline my opinion on religion. Now, there are a myriad arguments that help in striking out the existence of a Biblical type of God, and I am not going to recite them all, or any of them. They're most probably all in the Official Christianity Thread already. I hope you can be satisfied with me saying that God doesn't make any sense to me.

[coheneran]

As 'God' said in futurama: (I love this quote)

'If you do something right, then people won't realise you'll have done anything at all'

My favourite:

"I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."
"But," says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves that You exist, and so therefore, by Your own arguments, You don't. Q.E.D."
"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.

[Merkaba]

Looks like George had it pretty right. It's not his fault that so many are taught to put so much of their heart and emotion into a system. IF the system is greatly faultered then it deserves to be ridiculed and dissected from as many angles as possible. Some of them happen to be by comedians.

[coheneran]

Like Lenny Bruce and Bill Hicks!

"Have you ever blabla'd your lady's blabla? She'll love it so much, she'll blabla your blabla for you."

[superpeer]

Athiesm is logical, because the logical conclusion when faced with no proof for the existence of something is to assume it doesn't exist. Its not always correct, but its the logical choice.

Wouldn't it be more logical to admit you don't know, hence being an agnostic? There is no proof that he does exists, but there's no proof that he doesn't, apart from the fact that there is no proof that he does. <-<
But that's hardly something to base an opinion on, it's kinda like aliens, there might be some, who knows. It seems a bit awkward to be against that possibility. Which is, after all, what atheism seems to imply, namely a-theism, being against something that you don't believe to exist in the first place seems unnecessary.

Not caring seems more logical, hence agnosticism. If that makes sense.

[siva_chair]

Athiesm is logical, because the logical conclusion when faced with no proof for the existence of something is to assume it doesn't exist. Its not always correct, but its the logical choice.

Not really. The logical thing to do is to say you don't know and withold judgement on the matter.

[PerpetualBurn]

Not really. The logical thing to do is to say you don't know and withold judgement on the matter.

It's impossible to do so when the judgement is required in order to make action.

[coheneran]

Not really. The logical thing to do is to say you don't know and withold judgement on the matter.

But as long as God insists on faith, there can be no proof that he exists, because, like Douglas Adams pointed out, if there is any conclusive evidence that God exists, he will cease to exist. That's just one argument.

[PerpetualBurn]

Douglas Adams was joking. If God created the Universe, there must've been a point at which he existed and we didn't, so to say he wouldn't exist without faith is pretty dumb.

[siva_chair]

It's impossible to do so when the judgement is required in order to make action.

If you wish to remain completely within the confines of logic, you cannot make a judgement. Once you make a judgement either way on something unknown, you introduce faith into the equation. If confronted with such a situation, inaction would be the most "logical" step.

Everyone exercises faith to a certain degree.

But as long as God insists on faith, there can be no proof that he exists, because, like Douglas Adams pointed out, if there is any conclusive evidence that God exists, he will cease to exist. That's just one argument.

That is just silly. It is easy to make "logical contradictions" appear when you define God in such a way.

Douglas Adams was joking. If God created the Universe, there must've been a point at which he existed and we didn't, so to say he wouldn't exist without faith is pretty dumb.

I agree.

[coheneran]

Douglas Adams was joking. If God created the Universe, there must've been a point at which he existed and we didn't, so to say he wouldn't exist without faith is pretty dumb.

Well, if he created the Universe, and before the universe there was no time (or, in other words, time was infinite), then God existed for an infinite (or, in other words, zero) amount of time. Wait, no...

[PerpetualBurn]

If you wish to remain completely within the confines of logic, you cannot make a judgement. Once you make a judgement either way on something unknown, you introduce faith into the equation. If confronted with such a situation, inaction would be the most "logical" step.

Everyone exercises faith to a certain degree.

I would make the logical choice given the circumstance and evidence, as I always do.

Well, if he created the Universe, and before the universe there was no time (or, in other words, time was infinite), then God existed for an infinite (or, in other words, zero) amount of time. Wait, no...

Whatever. The point remains that there is absolutely no reason why God would need faith in order to exist.

[coheneran]

No, but then again, the Bible says a lot of things that don't make sense. Let's leave it with the ominous and unexplanatory "God works in mysterious ways", shall we?:p

[2muchket!]

Now heres what pissed me off about christians they assume, that because your an atheist, you have some stereotypical view of religion as a whole. I don't I understood Islam and Christianity very well. That doesn't mean however I'm gonna choose that religion. I find those two religions unfullfilling to my needs of life, and recently I have started to sought out other faiths. However I don't believe in any faith at the moment. Quite simply the bible doesn't make much sense. And the whole unquestionable faith in god :rolleyes: TBH it just seems preposterous to me.

[Mispeled]

Right now I'm Catholic (going to church every week), but I'm seriously considering leaving the church. I don't reject the idea of a god existing somewhere or in some form, but I don't really think that organized religion is for me. So I guess strictly speaking, I'm more of an Agnostic than an Atheist, but they tend to be stereotyped together, anyway.

To be honest, the reason I haven't left the church is because I don't think my parents would let me.

One of the major reasons I turned away from religion (Catholic in my case) wasn't becasue of the actual concepts preached; but because the way people worshipped was so...weak.
Originally Posted by Bron-Yr-Aur
Which is pretty much what you're doing. You're proving yourself a far weaker worshipper than people who miss mass or communion every now and then.
No he's not. He's showing respect for them by leaving a religion he can't possibly believe in.

[Zoroaster]

Absence of evidence.

And gravity didn't exist until someone proved it did...


I didn't try to, so how can I fail? All I did was outline my opinion on religion. Now, there are a myriad arguments that help in striking out the existence of a Biblical type of God, and I am not going to recite them all, or any of them. They're most probably all in the Official Christianity Thread already. I hope you can be satisfied with me saying that God doesn't make any sense to me.

Then it's not an opinion, it's thin conjecture.

No, but then again, the Bible says a lot of things that don't make sense. Let's leave it with the ominous and unexplanatory "God works in mysterious ways", shall we?

Quite derogatory coming from a person that has failed to convince me of his water-proof, logical case.

[PerpetualBurn]

And gravity didn't exist until someone proved it did...


I forget, which point of history wasn't gravity evident?

[Syncratic]

Most of peoples' rationale is that they have no proof.

Religion is the FAITH that a higher being exists. It may or may not be true, but you have to believe (i.e. have faith) that it exists.

I'm fine with any school of belief, as long as all other points are respected.

And I don't necessarily believe that atheism is lazy. It's a belief as well. Now nihilism, that's lazy.

[PerpetualBurn]

I absolutely hate it when people say such stupid things like that. Why is it somehow justified and not completely ridiculous just because you stick the word "faith" in front of it?

"A casual stroll through an asylum will demonstrate to you that faith proves nothing"

[Syncratic]

I absolutely hate it when people say such stupid things like that. Why is it somehow justified and not completely ridiculous just because you stick the word "faith" in front of it?

I never said anything about it being justified, because it simply isn't.

There's no right or wrong here. If someone has faith that God or Buddha or Krishna or Allah exists, then fine, they can have it their way. Does it mean it's ultimately justified? No. It's just a school of belief. I never said it was true, because neither I nor anyone else can prove it. They have faith that it does exist. They have a firm belief that it exists. Doesn't prove a thing to be justified or not completely ridiculous.

[Amit]

I love Carlin but I'm not an athiest.

*gasp*

[Shadius]

I'm an agnostic, but not because I'm too lazy to chose a side or anything.

I lean towards athiesm in terms of organised religion, but I lean towards spirituality generally.

A higher being may exist, any athiest who says it's impossible is being as illogical as someone who says that one does, and they know about it and how to please it.

I save my higher being for duties such as the begining of the Universe, should one ever have existed. But things like morality, I'm sure a higher power wouldn't really care about, or would have a very different take on than we do.

Life is whatever you get out of it. If you want something, you should try and achieve it, and be happy, but not at the expense of other people if you can help it. Caring about others will make you happy, ultimately.

I'm a psychology student, and I find a lot of human psychology very interesting and the internal spirituality that exploring the unconscious can bring.

Incidentally, a lot of organised religions have good ideas, and they're all really part of the same thing in my eyes. A way for the masses to grasp spirituality to some degree and have comfort without having to spend their whole lives questioning things they'll likely never find answers to. Things go wrong when people have distorted the religions from their core ideals. Kept things secret, or just generally used them to manipulate and control people.

Also, you see athiests saying it's STUPID AND REDICULOUS TO BELIEVE IN SOMETHING YOU CANT SEE, yadda yadda. It's so stupid. Everyone has beliefs in their lives, even athiests. It's how we function as a species. Athiests are no more enlightened than thesists are, and vice versa. Science itself is based on theory and scientists have FAITH in their theories, until they are proven wrong. Much of the stuff you learn about in science could well be proven wrong, yet most people chose to believe it, so we can function better.

Anyway, have fun.

[Amit]

You're a psychologist?

[Shadius]

You're a psychologist?

I'm studying psychology at University and intend to go into it further. I was trying to explain my perspective on life is that of a psychologist.

I suppose I should make that clearer.

[DBoons Ghost]

I was born into a deeply religious family, of Roman Catholics. I went to Catholic grammar school and continued religious education into my first year of high school.

During grammar school, the thing that stood out most was the general hypocrisy in which the Catholic Church ran their business, which is really all it is. They sell you God, you pay them for it. They sell you God's education, you pay them for it. The "community" which encompasses the Catholic Church, and Christianity overall is only there for you as long as you pay them. Once you fall on hard times, and cannot pay them, you're no longer worthy of God's service in the forum of Roman Catholic studies or worship.

I know this is not the case for every christian religion, and I know mankind corrupted religion beyond repair, but there it is all the same. How could God choose these people for his vessels if they are not worthy vessels? God made man. Man corrupted religion to the point of evil. Sooo.. Explain that please? Rhetorical. No explanation needed. I've heard so many regurgitations of people justifying this and it's all like some fairy tale in which I am supposes to set aside EVERYTHING I've learned in my 34 years on this planet and believe in some infallable being. I tell you what folks. Against all odds, I only have faith in myself. No one else. I walk this road alone, and alone I shall be.

Faith is a difficult thing. You have to set aside faith in yourself in order to accept the fact that God is your guide, but he's not. Only the teachings and scribblings of seemingly madmen are all we have to prove anything of God or Jesus' existence.

Now, with that said, I'll never understand if Jesus had the ability to feed everyone, who only choose those who believed? Are we not all God's children? What about the story of Moses? All those innocent first born sons murdered by God. Why? Why is that ok, but "Thou shall not Kill" is what? Maybe it should read "Thou shall not kill anyone who believes in God".

Ok I could go on listing all the hypocrisies and contradictions in the bible, but we all know it's pointless.

Truth be told, even if God proved his existence, I'd tell him to take a hike. I want nothing to do with it. Life is hard enough, and this is the time we need to do everything right. Giving humanity the idea that you need to live a good life only to get to some afterlife is the biggest sham in history, because it's preventing us from realizing that this time on this planet is all we have, and we better make the best of it. However, people live their life with the hope that they are living for something false, when all that is real is right here. Makes me sick sometimes.

[I'm blue dabadeedabadie]

george carlin is funny but i dont think you can take what he says as the view of every atheist out there. if it was then atheists would all be morons, wich there not.

I know that. That's why I asked for mx'ers reasons, because they're sure to be a tad bit more logically developed.

[Atomic Rain]

To atheists, I'm just wondering what your rationale is, how you chose to become an atheist, assuming you weren't born into an atheist family.


Certaintly nto by such immature logic as that guy.

The first thing was that all the priests and teachers and shiz kept telling me that god was all around me, when I couldn't feel that he was at all. I was quite young when that one came.

The second was when I learned about the origins of life, the universe etc. and found that god didn't NEED to exist.

The biggest thing might well have been the church; the more I learned and realised about it the more I felt like I wanted to distance myself from it.

It wasn't a decision I made one day; I just got sick of the concepts of religion, and the more thought I gave it, the more i decided "nah" to the whole god thing.

Isaac Asimov once said that being an atheist wasn't a scientific conclusion; it was an emotional thing. He was at first hesitant to admit it and called himself agnostic, but one day decided that it wasn't shameful to have an opinion one way or the other. And I agree with that.

I just think its wrong that religion is something that's taken for granted, something above questioning. I like to question everything once, and when I don't get an answer I'm happy with or when I get an answer without a justification, I'm wary.

[YouGottaBeCrazy]

And the purpose of religion is so that there is something people can turn to and mindlessly believe in to themselves feel better. That's all there is to it, and I don't mean this as a bad thing.



I agree in a way. Although, I think religion's purpose by many is to control others.


The biggest thing might well have been the church; the more I learned and realised about it the more I felt like I wanted to distance myself from it.

It wasn't a decision I made one day; I just got sick of the concepts of religion, and the more thought I gave it, the more i decided "nah" to the whole god thing.



Kinda' like that South Park episode where a bunch of guys do some really lame anti-smoking campaign with singing and dancing at the school, and the boys hate it so much that they decide to take up smoking anyway.

[Shadius]

I agree in a way. Although, I think religion's purpose by many is to control others.

The two are part of the same thing though. People who don't question, or, as many Christians do question 'inside' the box, are controlled.

[Orchid_74]

Growing up in a family of mixed religions/denominations (Dad- Catholic, Mom-Baptist) I took the time growing up to actually learn and understand the different religions but, after a while it basically boiled down to where I simply don't think this seemingly etheral being known as God has supplied sufficient evidence of his existence in our world or anywhere else in the cosmos for that matter. That is to say if he even does exist which if he does I will simply eat my own words the day his existence is proven and, accept the fact that I along with many others were wrong. But until then I will continue with my beliefs and stay rational and mature about it unlike most of the "I know everything" highschool students that sound like baffling idiots when they try to explain to you why religion is "stupid".


Edit: Although I am what most would call Athiest, I do hold high standards for myself and those around me and, I have kept up good morals the majority of my life unlike most atheists.

[Zoroaster]

My problem with organized religion stems from the asinine folly some of its members spout. Now, I'm not talking about the bigoted, sexist nonsense. No, I'm talking about the touchy-feely band of people that go about the globe preaching in whiny overtures about the love Christ holds for each and every person on the face of the earth. Listening to a sermon where the content pretty much breaks down to a string of "Jesus loves you" is as pointless as the dogma that accompanies it. Christianity has been corrupted, as DBoon said earlier. But not beyond repair. There is much to be said about the Bible but no one can purport to fully understand it. I would rather people criticize the Bible in a Christian way than pander a commercialized appeal to faith that dilutes the very teachings Christians subscribe to.

Having said all of that, my contempt for kumbaya Christians comes nowhere near the contempt I have for the utter, categorical arrogance of atheists. They're smug, they're high-handed, and most nettling of all, they're condescending. They would sooner trash the efforts by charitable Christians than actually amount to anything on the humanitarian front. They discuss the seemingly hollow values of religion while preaching likewise hollow values of hedonism, promiscuity, and the proverbial consequence-free society. I love how Christianity binds people to a code of morality that simply outdoes the atheist alternative. It's practical, and by golly, it's nice.

[YouGottaBeCrazy]

The two are part of the same thing though. People who don't question, or, as many Christians do question 'inside' the box, are controlled.

I gotcha.

[PerpetualBurn]

I never said anything about it being justified, because it simply isn't.

There's no right or wrong here. If someone has faith that God or Buddha or Krishna or Allah exists, then fine, they can have it their way. Does it mean it's ultimately justified? No. It's just a school of belief. I never said it was true, because neither I nor anyone else can prove it. They have faith that it does exist. They have a firm belief that it exists. Doesn't prove a thing to be justified or not completely ridiculous.

Of course there's a right and wrong here. It doesn't make believing in fairies any less stupid just because it's "a school of belief".

[Syncratic]

Of course there's a right and wrong here. It doesn't make believing in fairies any less stupid just because it's "a school of belief".

So..anyone who believes in God is illogical and irrational and your point is the absolute truth?

[Shadius]

Of course there's a right and wrong here. It doesn't make believing in fairies any less stupid just because it's "a school of belief".

The fact is though, when we're talking about the idea of a higher power, and I'm not necesserally talking about the existance of Christianities god, you can't just say one dosn't exist because you have no proof.

You can't explain how the Universe started, or more accurately why the big bang started. A higher power could possibly explain that.

Let's start arguing how stupid it is to believe in science, or that you can be in a good relationship with someone, or life, or anything.

[-1up!-]

You all might find this interesting: http://www.commonground.ca/iss/0410159/cg159_geoffUniv.shtml

Its about Enstein's question "Is the Universe Friendly?"

I want to say yes, because optimism is generally better than pessimism in relating to your mental health, but fundamentally I feel that the Universe is indifferent.

This has a huge effect on how I became atheist. I'm definitively a positive person, and the Universe is friendly to me; easy to understand how many Christian concepts of repenting, sin, salvation (from what?) clashed with my personality. Then there's my analytical nature. Plus, in my teenage years I used to be extremely (to an insane point, maybe) rational, and seeing no proof of God whatsoever permanently shifted my certitudes towards his non-existence.

The fact is though, when we're talking about the idea of a higher power, and I'm not necesserally talking about the existance of Christianities god, you can't just say one dosn't exist because you have no proof.

You can't prove that something doesn't exist. Think about it.

Having said all of that, my contempt for kumbaya Christians comes nowhere near the contempt I have for the utter, categorical arrogance of atheists. They're smug, they're high-handed, and most nettling of all, they're condescending. They would sooner trash the efforts by charitable Christians than actually amount to anything on the humanitarian front. They discuss the seemingly hollow values of religion while preaching likewise hollow values of hedonism, promiscuity, and the proverbial consequence-free society. I love how Christianity binds people to a code of morality that simply outdoes the atheist alternative. It's practical, and by golly, it's nice.

That being said from the most condescending poster on MX is pure hilarity. And I won't bother adressing your completely ridiculous generalisations on atheists, because doing so would imply your claims have some sort of worth.

[rancid22]

most of the churches in christianity are seperated by stupid differences like whether the eucharist is the body of Jesus or just a symbol of it....they completely are missing the message...Jesus could have even been an alien from some far away galaxy....but that doesn't matter....he came a preached a message of love...to love your neighbor as yourself....love defines all human morality (unless u believe that humans are solely animals)........i do believe their is a God and all humans have a spirit....but i am not gonna join a religion and be one of the mindless followers who never think for themselves....i admire ppl who have strongly analized this and still follow a faith....but sadly most ppl just follow a religion because that is what they were born into


just my 2 cents

[coheneran]

Most of peoples' rationale is that they have no proof.

Religion is the FAITH that a higher being exists. It may or may not be true, but you have to believe (i.e. have faith) that it exists.

I'm fine with any school of belief, as long as all other points are respected.

And I don't necessarily believe that atheism is lazy. It's a belief as well. Now nihilism, that's lazy.

Not THAT lazy:

Nihilism is a philosophical position which argues that the world, and especially human existence, is without objective meaning, purpose, comprehensible truth, or essential value. Nihilists generally believe all of the following: There is no reasonable proof of the existence of a higher ruler or creator, a "true morality" is unknown, and secular ethics are impossible; therefore, life has no truth, and no action is known to be preferable to any other.

Then it's not an opinion, it's thin conjecture.

Quite derogatory coming from a person that has failed to convince me of his water-proof, logical case.

I didn't mean to insult you, sorry if you took it that way.

This is what I said, it is my opinion, with a very basic reason for it, I don't know how you can call this whole paragraph a guess (the bolded bits are just to make it clearer that it is an opinion):

I'm an atheist because any sort of omnipotent God is illogical and doesn't fit in with the obvious logical pattern of life. Fair enough if you want to say that God is just a being who doesn't work by logic, but in that case I don't see how much security it brings to know that there is an all-powerful being out there that isn't logical. I know it doesn't make me feel any better about the universe.

[nowhesingsnowhesobs]

They're smug, they're high-handed, and most nettling of all, they're condescending. They would sooner trash the efforts by charitable Christians than actually amount to anything on the humanitarian front. They discuss the seemingly hollow values of religion while preaching likewise hollow values of hedonism, promiscuity, and the proverbial consequence-free society. I love how Christianity binds people to a code of morality that simply outdoes the atheist alternative. It's practical, and by golly, it's nice.First of all, I must congratulate you on your unsurpassed gimmickery. Good job, old fellow.

But I must say it irks me when you describe atheists as 'high-handed' and 'condescending', which, needless to say, is a gross generalisation. But then again, its quite plain to see that you don't go in for even-handed, accurate analysis.

And so as not to be unjust, I will congratulate the great huminatarian crusade against AIDs in Africa being carried out by the Christian Right. As everybody knows, promoting abstinence, and failing that, prayer, is a fail-safe strategy in the face of this (homosexually originating, lest we forget) disease.

[guitrguy]

Somewhat Ironically my friend just finished his research paper on Atheism.

Religion is one of the oldest and most controversial subjects man can encounter. The friction caused between opposing religious ideas, however, is meaningless if no form of supernatural deityGodexists. Todays world, with scientific and technological advancements and the shaping of the art of logic, leads the belief in God to be illogical and even unnecessary. For the sake of argument, and because most readers of this paper are of the Western world, the prime example used here will be the Judeo-Christian God and the texts and philosophies that are associated with the belief in Him.

The opposite of theism, or the belief in God, is atheism, literally meaning "without God." Atheists can be categorized into two distinct types"weak" atheists who simply lack belief in God for some reason or another and "strong" atheists who knowingly, actively (and sometimes vehemently) deny and try to disprove the existence of God (Secular Web, 1997). Many atheists believe that science has and is leading to proof that God does not exist, while others (and some of the same) are simply skeptical of what they believe to be the stories fabricated by groups of individuals trying to retain the moral structure of society.

One argument of theistsand a very valid one, I will admitis that of First Cause. The basic premise of the argument is simply that if our world exists today, it must have been derived from something (Russell, 1957). Every event in time, be it the reading of this paper or the fall of Babylon, has another event that leads to its occurrence (Moreland, 1993). In that case the worlds occurring event could easily be God. From the theist perspective, the organization, unity and sheer beauty of the earth must have been created with a final idea, a design in mind. The fact that human DNA can be broken down into proteins that can be "read" as information is an idea that theists claim could not come about by chance. The probability of the universe being created by chance has been calculated by Cambridge professor Fred Hoyle as being 1x1040, or a "tornado

blowing through a junkyard and forming a Boeing 747 (Moreland, 1993, p. 35)."

First Cause, however viable it may be, can be turned on its proverbial head to make a case for atheism. If everything is preceded by something, then something must have preceded God. This is not a situation with which many theists prefer to deal, and those that do often can not provide an answer because no theist scripture contains such information. Bertrand Russell, in his essay "Why I Am Not a Christian," provides an excellent example of such logic:

If everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause. If there can be anything

without a cause, it may just as well be the world as God, so that there cannot be any

validity in that argument. It is exactly of the same nature as the Hindus view, that

the world rested upon an elephant and the elephant rested upon a tortoise; and when they

said, "How about the tortoise?" the Indian said, "Suppose we change the subject." The

argument is really no better than that (Russell, 1997, p. 7).

From a much broaderand bolderaspect, but fitting in nicely with the idea that God himself must have been created, is the idea of the tangibility of God. Dr. Kai Nielsen argues that God can not be defined in the sense of man. Most theists, Christians specifically, do not believe in an anthropomorphic, or qualitatively human, God. Therefore, the definition of God, of what God actually is, can only be given as the "maker of the heavens and earth" (Nielsen, 1993). When asked "What is the maker of the heavens and earth?" the only answer that can be given is "God," and the dilemma arrives exactly where it began.

Another theist argument takes the moral standpoint. (When addressing the moral aspect of God the idea of His existence is put on hold to discuss whether ethics depend of God (Nielsen, 1993). If determined that ethics can exist without God, the argument can be used to strengthen the idea that God does not exist.) The idea is that if one acknowledges morality, he must also acknowledge God. When God created the earth He also created right and wrong and extended the philosophy of such to humans. Bertrand Russell counters this argument by having his readers suppose that if there is a difference between right and wrong, and right and wrong were created by God, then the two ideas actually have no discernable differences except in the mind of the Creator. However, if God is good, then right and wrong are an idea separate from God, or "logically anterior" (Russell, 1957, p. 12). Russell also notes that this idea could mean that God was actually ordered to create the earth or even that something entirely separate from Godthe devil, perhapsformed the earth "at a moment when God was not looking" (Russell, 1957, p. 12). Dr. Kai Nielsen again provides a more aggressive, sarcastic example:

(Knowing what God wills), they claim, settles what is right, no matter what it seems to

human beings, no matter what our frail moral sense suggests. You must do it even if

God orders you to kill your only son. If God orders you to do it, then it is right, no matter

what he orders you to do. You would, no doubt, say He wouldnt give you such orders,

but if He did, you would still conclude that it is the right thing to do because whatever

is right and whatever is wrong is determined by what God wills. We dont have even

to look at the content of His commands. You just have to know that they are his

commands. (Nielsen, 1993, p. 99)

The moral idea of God also falls in line with the idea of design. God supposedly created the world, with all of its love and beauty. God must also, then have created the Holocaust and war and the Klan. Yet if God is a loving, benevolent God who knows right from wrong, there does not seem to be any reason why he would do such a thing (Russell, 1957).

Secular morality, the kind embraced by Aristotle and denounced as evil by Martin Luther, promotes the idea that happiness of man and those around him is what drives ethics, and virtue is a "fixed disposition involving choice" as determined by a rational and intelligent person (Ferguson, 1972, p. 128). This is where the bible (and other doctrines) comes into the argument: if a man needs a 2,000 year-old book to tell him how to be a good person, then he is not actually a good person.

The teachers of morality for most theistic religions are prophets, in some form or another, including Jesus of Nazareth, the Christian messiah. Christians believe, despite limited historical evidence, that Jesus was crucified by the Roman Empire, buried in a stone tomb, and rose from the dead after three days to work miracles and continue preaching the word of God. Dr. J.P. Moreland argues that the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth constitutes the existence of God (Moreland, 1993.) For a man to claim he is the Son of Godor, rather, God Himselfand then be seen preaching after he supposedly died seems to be enough reason to justify a heavenly being. Nielsen refutes this point, however, by pointing out that even if by some scientifically unexplainable (at least as of today) event Jesus corpse could have been reanimated, no proof of God is actually given by those circumstances (Nielsen, 1993). Also, with the limited "historicity" (a word favored by Moreland), no one knows if Jesus actually died, or even lived, for that matter. Any historical evidence surrounding Jesus of Nazareth resides only in the Bible, not in other documents, yet it is taken as fact.

Because of the Bible Christians consider their views on God to be superior to Jewish and Islamic views, yet the Jews and the Muslims, because of their scriptures, believe their views to be superior, and all three religious peoples consider the Hindus and the Buddhists and the pagans to be completely off base (Nielsen, 1993). Religions are, for the most part, separated throughout the world by region; in different areas, people of different backgrounds believe different things. Surely if God exists he would have his entire creation carry the same belief, i.e. Him. Religions, then, must be collections of stories that differ from ethnicity to explain mans arrival on earth and to keep the morals of society intact.

Max Black, in his essay The Prevalence of Humbug, defines humbug as "deceptive misrepresentation, short of lying, especially by pretentious word or deed, of somebodys own thoughts, feelings, or attitudes" (Frankfurt, 2005, p. 6). Princeton professor Harry G. Frankfurt expounds on this definition, describing a lack of reality, of indifference toward it, and proposing that when a lack of reality is combined with ones own feelings and deceptionhumbugthe product is "bull****" (Frankfurt, 2005, p. 33). Theists believe that whatever religion is their own is the correct religion, yet they often can not explain from where their God and morals come, nor do they seem to care that other religions may hold other truths. Their beliefs are pretentious and display no concern for reality, which in turn means theism is bull****.



Works Cited

Ferguson, J. (1972) Ethics and politics. Aristotle. New York: Twayne Publishers, Inc.

Frankfurt, H.G. (2005) On bull****. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press

Moreland, J.P. (1993) Yes! A defense of Christianity. Does God exist? Amherst, New York:

Prometheus Books.

Nielsen, K. (1993) No! A defense of atheism. Does God exist? Amherst, New York: Prometheus

Books.

Nielsen, K. (1993) Ethics without God. Does God exist? Amherst , New York: Prometheus

Books.

Russell, B. (1957) Why I am not a Christian. New York: Touchstone Books

Secular Web Library. (1997) What is atheism? An introduction to atheism. http://www.infidels

.org/library/modern/mathew/intro.html 1-2 Retrieved June12, 2006

[Atomic Rain]

I agree in a way. Although, I think religion's purpose by many is to control others.



Kinda' like that South Park episode where a bunch of guys do some really lame anti-smoking campaign with singing and dancing at the school, and the boys hate it so much that they decide to take up smoking anyway.

maybe, only the boys made an informed decision and went into the whole thing with the mindset that smoking was cool anyway.

I love Carlin but I'm not an athiest.

*gasp*

If I could hold the beliefs you do, I swear I'd die a happier man.

[AA-12]

Athiesm is logical, because the logical conclusion when faced with no proof for the existence of something is to assume it doesn't exist. Its not always correct, but its the logical choice.
^This.

I was atheist, but have found my way. I do dislike most religions though.

[AKid2]

Which is pretty much what you're doing. You're proving yourself a far weaker worshipper than people who miss mass or communion every now and then.



And that's a good reason to quit worshipping if believe the religion?


You're right, but I'll bet that a more consistent, whole-hearted worshipping community would have instilled much more faith in me than the one I grew up in. It was the half-hearted worshipping that encouraged the non believer thoughts. Once I had thought those through, I realized I had no basis for believing in God.

So the worshipping inspired question, it didn't directly put me away.

I forgot who posted it but I'll agree that Easter/Christmas masses in a Cathedral with a Bishop can be very inspiring. We happen to have an excellent organist(?), too, which is really neat.

[RockAndRoll]

Personally, I exclude agnosticism from my beliefs as I don't think it gives us a basis for our actions. In order to make moral decisions, and to decided how we should act, I feel it necessary to place judgement on the possible existence of a higher entity. I choose to act on the basis that no such entity exists, as no evidence would make me think it does.
Well in most practical senses any agnostic is an atheist.

[Mr. Ron]

I'm sort of a atheist/theist......is that possible?

[coheneran]

Hah, you're agnostic.

J/K

[ihatemybass]

As 'God' said in futurama: (I love this quote)

'If you do something right, then people won't realise you'll have done anything at all'
hahaha that's great!

[Zoroaster]

And so as not to be unjust, I will congratulate the great huminatarian crusade against AIDs in Africa being carried out by the Christian Right. As everybody knows, promoting abstinence, and failing that, prayer, is a fail-safe strategy in the face of this (homosexually originating, lest we forget) disease.

Okay, you're just being an idiot right now. The Christian Right are the ones helping drug addicts and homeless people get a foot back in life. When was the last time you saw an atheist organization carrying out charitable work in your local community. I'll venture a guess and say: never. As for the putative campaign to curtail the spread of HIV/AIDS in Africa by means of abstinence, thanks a bunch for coupling a human epidemic with Christianity. That pretty much shows where your allegiances lies.

[coheneran]

Okay, you're just being an idiot right now. The Christian Right are the ones helping drug addicts and homeless people get a foot back in life. When was the last time you saw an atheist organization carrying out charitable work in your local community. I'll venture a guess and say: never. As for the putative campaign to curtail the spread of HIV/AIDS in Africa by means of abstinence, thanks a bunch for coupling a human epidemic with Christianity. That pretty much shows where your allegiances lies.

http://www.h-a-b.org.uk/

There's also loads of Cancer Research UK, British Heart Foundation, Oxfam as well as a few miscellaneous charity shops and organisations. Not one Starvation Army, mind you. Not that they help, over there a-preachin' and Bible-banging, telling you that if you give your money to Jesus you'll get pie in the sky when you die, my my, that's a lie.

Utah Phillips, ftw!

[Atomic Rain]

Zoro;

have you seriously never heard of the whole humanist thing?

Besides, you don't have to pour the fact yuou're an atheist down some sucker's throat just to help them.

Far right Xtian: "Accept jesus into your heart! Soup?"

Atheist: "Dude, here's some soup. You're very welcome."

[-1up!-]

Okay, you're just being an idiot right now. The Christian Right are the ones helping drug addicts and homeless people get a foot back in life. When was the last time you saw an atheist organization carrying out charitable work in your local community. I'll venture a guess and say: never. As for the putative campaign to curtail the spread of HIV/AIDS in Africa by means of abstinence, thanks a bunch for coupling a human epidemic with Christianity. That pretty much shows where your allegiances lies.

Bad try on your guess, given it fails miserably. You don't hear about atheist organizations precisely because there's no need for an organization to show its atheism to help people, unlike Christians who do this as the will of Jesus or God or whatever they want, or to proselytize. Atheist are, more often than not, humanists, and their goal is to help humanity as a whole, starting from their acts.

The American Red Cross was started by Clara Barton, an agnostic Unitarian-Universalist, btw...

[dislocated214]

I've listened to that stuff you quoted, I actually thought most of it was pretty funny and had substance.

[I'm blue dabadeedabadie]

Originally Posted by Zoroaster
Having said all of that, my contempt for kumbaya Christians comes nowhere near the contempt I have for the utter, categorical arrogance of atheists. They're smug, they're high-handed, and most nettling of all, they're condescending. They would sooner trash the efforts by charitable Christians than actually amount to anything on the humanitarian front. They discuss the seemingly hollow values of religion while preaching likewise hollow values of hedonism, promiscuity, and the proverbial consequence-free society. I love how Christianity binds people to a code of morality that simply outdoes the atheist alternative. It's practical, and by golly, it's nice.

You act as though atheists are animals without reason or the ability to function in society.

Listen: Atheism does NOT equate to no morals.

"Promiscuity"? You're saying that a belief in a Christian god is all that can stop a person from engaging in sex irresponsibly?

And about the atheist organizations doing charitable works-- guess what? That's because there ARE no atheist organizations of that sort-- there's nonpartisan organizations that do just as much and more then Christian charities.

And just because there are a few charitable Christian organizations doesn't mean atheists are evil and socially incompetent. It also doesn't mean that Christians are incorruptible-- I've noticed quite an opposite trend.

[Amit]

Having said all of that, my contempt for kumbaya Christians comes nowhere near the contempt I have for the utter, categorical arrogance of atheists. They're smug, they're high-handed, and most nettling of all, they're condescending.

Smug, high-handed, and condescending can just as easily be used to also describe certain Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Zoroastrians, or whatever you want.

I'm not sure why you have a hard time understanding this :-\

The more I think about it, I think Zoroaster is another gimmick account like Zero. They even start with the same letter :-O

[nowhesingsnowhesobs]

yeh Zoro is a gimmick, no question about it.

[Mr. Ron]

I'm just seriously undecided on what to believe really.....I certainly don't follow any monotheistic religions, but i'm sort of spiritual at the same time, but at other times I'm just an atheist.


I'm confused. :(

[free_thinkers_are_dangerous]

the utter, categorical arrogance of atheists. They're smug, they're high-handed, and most nettling of all, they're condescending.

Huh? Utter and categorical? I know a whole lot of atheists, and most of them are none of those things.

They would sooner trash the efforts by charitable Christians than actually amount to anything on the humanitarian front.

Their biggest beef is Christians who do harm in the name of God. To paraphrase someone else's previous example, "you can't have your soup unless you believe in Jesus."

They discuss the seemingly hollow values of religion while preaching likewise hollow values of hedonism, promiscuity, and the proverbial consequence-free society.

Just... no. No. No. No. I really have no idea what the hell you're talking about here, unless you assume that every atheist is an STD-filled bag of sex juices.

I love how Christianity binds people to a code of morality that simply outdoes the atheist alternative. It's practical, and by golly, it's nice.

Which proves God exists... how exactly?




My biggest beef with organized religion is that I don't understand the why of it all. If there really was a God, would He give a rat's *** what I do on Sunday mornings? I'm an atheist, and I'm a good person. I don't lie to get into girls' pants, I don't rape little children, I'm honest and straightforward, and all this without some arsehole in a funny hat telling me I'm going to hell because I relieve myself sexually without the intent to create babies. If you want to believe in God, and need to believe in such a God to convince yourself not to "sin", fine. Go ahead. I personally don't, because I've seen no proof, whereas anybody who believes in Him basically farts around with assumptions and he-said-she-said books from thousands of years ago. It is mathematically possible to have life without a creator, they've been able to recreate the first few steps in a lab, and the rest comes down to thousands of years of trial and error, with a biological soup sitting around getting hit by lightning. It's one of the most primal rules of statistics - the odds of something happening, given that it happened, is 1.

You can say Christian morals are great, which I believe they (fundamentally) are, but you can't convince me Jesus hated gays or that God really wants me to eat fish on Fridays. If God is really such a moron, He isn't worth worshipping. My personal belief, and I don't expect anybody to believe me because it's purely my own assumption, is that there are still lots of things out there we haven't discovered, and that there are many other forces acting that we haven't discovered. We can't even find 80% of the matter required to hold the universe together. So yeah, science is flawed, but at least it's a start. I have absolutely no proof God exists or has ever existed, and even if I did I wouldn't follow some stupid rules just for the sake of it. Simply put, a god worth worshipping wouldn't care if you sacrifice virgins on the solar eclipse as long as you don't beat your children.

[Berner]

Well put free_thinkers_are_dangerous.

[PerpetualBurn]

Listen: Atheism does NOT equate to no morals.


Sure it does.

[Shell]

I choose to act on the basis that no such entity exists, as no evidence would make me think it does

Sure it does.


So, uhh... you have no morals?

[Sergio_Rueda]

Sure it does.


Morals just refers to principles of right and wrong, a philosophy can have morals as well as a religion.

As for me i don't worship a god.
What i find funny about religion (at least monotheistic religions) is that the concept of a god is simply everything or life. I'll try to explain myself:

God is omniprecent:
So if you sum all particles of energy and mass (including anti-matter and quarks and whatnot) then you will have all that is the universe, that is omnpresent.

God has a will:
By simple observation we can say that particles tend to have a will of life, atoms will react with other atoms to create molecules, particles will group togheter through gravity to form galaxies and planets and etc until we reach life. Therefore God (the universe) has a will of creation.

God rules and controls the universe:
Well, we all know that this universe is controlled by physical laws, and since God can be interpreted to be the universe itself, every particle that composes it, then the physical laws are the laws of god.

If you think about it that way then God does exist and the fact that humans give this God names and personalities is just something human to do (like with deities or rain and fire) but God itself doesn't really have a personality or a name.
Just something i was thinking about the other day, i though it would be appropiatte to share it here.

[Syncratic]

I actually kinda agree with ^.

I believe that there is a force, an energy within all of existence that binds us all.

Human spirit, divine omnipotence, its all the same to me.

[PerpetualBurn]

Without any higher ordaining power there is absolutely nothing to define one thing as ultimately "good" or "bad".

In essence, the statements "thou shalt do no murder" and "thou shalt do murder" would be morally equal. I suppose if you want to be entirely pedantic you can say they are both morals, but really since neither is better or worse than the other, neither has any real "moral" quality.

[Der Übermensch]

Without any higher ordaining power there is absolutely nothing to define one thing as ultimately "good" or "bad".

Plenty of philosophers have answers to that... Many are very good.

[PerpetualBurn]

Answers, yes, I wouldn't say "good" answers as they all fail to actually quantify what good is further than "good is what I say it is". Kant's categorical imperative is fascinating, it's just a failure.

[Iskandar]

Without any higher ordaining power there is absolutely nothing to define one thing as ultimately "good" or "bad".

In essence, the statements "thou shalt do no murder" and "thou shalt do murder" would be morally equal. I suppose if you want to be entirely pedantic you can say they are both morals, but really since neither is better or worse than the other, neither has any real "moral" quality.
Don't be a fool; societies develop their own morals.

[Der Übermensch]

Kant's categorical imperative is fascinating, it's just a failure.
Kant was a fool, because he didn't have even the slightest flexbility. The general sense of his idea though is the Golden Rule, which, as I have stated in previous threads, is the most universal moral concept out there, and if anything can be taken as absolute, that is it.

[Sergio_Rueda]

Without any higher ordaining power there is absolutely nothing to define one thing as ultimately "good" or "bad".

In essence, the statements "thou shalt do no murder" and "thou shalt do murder" would be morally equal. I suppose if you want to be entirely pedantic you can say they are both morals, but really since neither is better or worse than the other, neither has any real "moral" quality.

No, without a "higher ordaining power" men can't justify their morals as abolsute and that is about it. Reason works just as good as beleif to deinfe good or bad, it's just that many people that use reason come to the conclusion that good and bad are highly relative terms when they are not put into a context in which you could be defying a vast enternal plan when you do a bad action. Murder is a tricky example, because you are possibly using murder to describe the killing of another human beign when it is not imperative for survival or for a freater cause. Now i won't use the arguement that beleivers also commit murder because that only depicts how easily beleifs can be forgotten but i will say that seeing how vague beleifs are after milleniums of being tainted by many humans any moral based of religion can be as ambiguous as any moral based on relative human thought.
Now by using reason you can easily codify a moral code that works for whatever ideals you want, peace or the advancement of the human race being examples that come to my mind.

[PerpetualBurn]

You have absolutely no way in which to say that your moral good is better than anyone else's moral good.

[guitrguy]

No, without a "higher ordaining power" men can't justify their morals as abolsute and that is about it. Reason works just as good as beleif to deinfe good or bad, it's just that many people that use reason come to the conclusion that good and bad are highly relative terms when they are not put into a context in which you could be defying a vast enternal plan when you do a bad action. Murder is a tricky example, because you are possibly using murder to describe the killing of another human beign when it is not imperative for survival or for a freater cause. Now i won't use the arguement that beleivers also commit murder because that only depicts how easily beleifs can be forgotten but i will say that seeing how vague beleifs are after milleniums of being tainted by many humans any moral based of religion can be as ambiguous as any moral based on relative human thought.
You could have easily typed this in one sentence.
Now by using reason you can easily codify a moral code that works for whatever ideals you want, peace or the advancement of the human race being examples that come to my mind.
That is exactly how moral codes really come about, and are changed; even in a religious setting.

[DBoons Ghost]

You have absolutely no way in which to say that your moral good is better than anyone else's moral good.


So you think that athiests are lesser people than christians simply by default as a result of their lack of morals?

Is that what you honestly think?

[PerpetualBurn]

I didn't say anything at any point that should possibly make you think that's what I meant.

[Sergio_Rueda]

You have absolutely no way in which to say that your moral good is better than anyone else's moral good.
exactly, which is what you tried to say when you said that only through belief you can have moral

[DBoons Ghost]

I didn't say anything at any point that should possibly make you think that's what I meant.


OK.

You did say that lack of God in one's life equates to a lack of morals.

It's up there in plain text. Atheism means no morals.

[PerpetualBurn]

Yep.

[PerpetualBurn]

exactly, which is what you tried to say when you said that only through belief you can have moral

Not through belief. Only through God actually existing would morals exist.

[DBoons Ghost]

Yep.


That's just plain ignorant. So an atheist who is also a realist and a humanist has no morals?

I'm tryin to give you the benefit of the doubt by way of not putting words in your mouth so to speak.. or type for that matter.

Christian morals don't apply to the betterment of all mankind. Only those who place their faith in God.

Morals in general, whether by God or the bible or even by christian teachings, are not nor have they ever benefited mankind on the whole.

[PerpetualBurn]

I don't ever remember mentioning Christianity.

[Der Übermensch]

I didn't say anything at any point that should possibly make you think that's what I meant.

So then you would agree that an Athiest can be a moral person?

[Sergio_Rueda]

Not through belief. Only through God actually existing would morals exist.
Moral is defined as relating to princilpes of good and evil. Now even Nietczhe spoke about good and evil, therefore he had a moral. Plain and simple.
You may argue that there is no absolute moral with big letters in red and neon signs, but this is irrelevant since everytime somebody talks about good, evil and their difference there is a moral going on.

[PerpetualBurn]

Well morals can only be anything meaningful if there's a God, otherwise morally right and wrong are hollow terms.

I suppose if, as an atheist, I am wrong and there is a God, and by chance my morals are the same as His, then I'd have been a moral person. But, no God, no right and wrong, good or bad.

[Sergio_Rueda]

Well morals can only be anything meaningful if there's a God, otherwise morally right and wrong are hollow terms.

I suppose if, as an atheist, I am wrong and there is a God, and by chance my morals are the same as His, then I'd have been a moral person. But, no God, no right and wrong, good or bad.

I can see your point, but i disagree strongly with it. The fact that my morals discern with the absolute creator of the unvierse or that there is none doesn't mean there are meaningless. The simple fact that i have morals will mean that my actions are backed by something that makes sense to me and that will make me pursue my ideals, and this is not meaningless to me even if there isn't a god who will reward me for this.

[PerpetualBurn]

Just because you like your morals doesn't make them good in any real sense.

[Sergio_Rueda]

Exactly, it just makes them go well with your ideals.

[ATC]

Well morals can only be anything meaningful if there's a God, otherwise morally right and wrong are hollow terms.

I suppose if, as an atheist, I am wrong and there is a God, and by chance my morals are the same as His, then I'd have been a moral person. But, no God, no right and wrong, good or bad.

The only reason morally right or wrong involves God is because of duties owed. With god out of the picture, you still have duties owed other people which can be the basis of your morality.

[guitrguy]

Well morals can only be anything meaningful if there's a God, otherwise morally right and wrong are hollow terms.
How? From an Atheist standpoint man made god, so the morals that came along with god were also made by man.

[A Spoonful Supreme]

i go by the constitution

[Shell]

Think about where your morals came from. I think any one person's morals (whether we are atheist, Christian, Buddhist, whatever) are in one way or another, a result of religion. NOT that we follow a religion - but if we could trace back through time and see that our mother taught us what is right and wrong - our mother learned it from her mother - and so on and so forth... I bet somewhere at the beginning of that was religion.

I highly doubt that any man would learn on his own what is right and wrong JUST because he has that good of reasoning skills. Maybe, if it weren't for the intervention of religion (whether it be adam eating the forbidden fruit, or buddha passing along his divine knowledge of right and wrong) - maybe we would all be more animalistic - I want your food... so I take it... if you won't let me have it... I kill you (then probably eat you).

Just something to think about...

[Der Übermensch]

Morals come from before religion. Religion gives rise to Ethical systems, which is the codification of morals.
Morality comes from the pre-civilization times, with "good" morals being thigs that were good for the group, and "bad" morals being bad for the group. Its actually evolutionary.

[guitrguy]

Man has intelligence, and realizes that he can benifit off of other man, so killing another man or eating another would not happen. It doesn't even happen with animals in that same species.

As man developed intelligence he developed morals. Moral standards have been in every ancient civilazation. For the most part these civilizations believed in a multiple dieties that we now know do not exist.

[Sun Ra]

Think about where your morals came from. I think any one person's morals (whether we are atheist, Christian, Buddhist, whatever) are in one way or another, a result of religion. NOT that we follow a religion - but if we could trace back through time and see that our mother taught us what is right and wrong - our mother learned it from her mother - and so on and so forth... I bet somewhere at the beginning of that was religion.

I highly doubt that any man would learn on his own what is right and wrong JUST because he has that good of reasoning skills. Maybe, if it weren't for the intervention of religion (whether it be adam eating the forbidden fruit, or buddha passing along his divine knowledge of right and wrong) - maybe we would all be more animalistic - I want your food... so I take it... if you won't let me have it... I kill you (then probably eat you).

Just something to think about...

It doesn't have to be that we get our morals from religion, you can use any kind of scare tactics to get people to behave.

[Der Übermensch]

Question for you PB... does morality depend on the belief in the Higher Absolute i.e. God, or the actual existence of God? i.e. were the Greeks who followed the moral ideals of the Greek Gods moral because they believed in their existence and authority?

[guitrguy]

Question for you PB... does morality depend on the belief in the Higher Absolute i.e. God, or the actual existence of God? i.e. were the Greeks who followed the moral ideals of the Greek Gods moral because they believed in their existence and authority?
You grabbed that my question from my post! :angry:

[Sergio_Rueda]

Think about where your morals came from. I think any one person's morals (whether we are atheist, Christian, Buddhist, whatever) are in one way or another, a result of religion. NOT that we follow a religion - but if we could trace back through time and see that our mother taught us what is right and wrong - our mother learned it from her mother - and so on and so forth... I bet somewhere at the beginning of that was religion.

I highly doubt that any man would learn on his own what is right and wrong JUST because he has that good of reasoning skills. Maybe, if it weren't for the intervention of religion (whether it be adam eating the forbidden fruit, or buddha passing along his divine knowledge of right and wrong) - maybe we would all be more animalistic - I want your food... so I take it... if you won't let me have it... I kill you (then probably eat you).

Just something to think about...

Great apes have moral codes in a very rudimentary way, so did early humans before even the most remote misticism. Now if you beleive in a god you can go by any storie of how humans were barbarians before God sent the first prophet. If you don't beleive in god you can say that humans were barbarians before they invented religion as a rudimentary philosophy.
Now the first arguement doesn't work that well consedering the millions of religions, unless you beleive that god manifested himself in millions of way to every different tribe on earth.

[Sun Ra]

what about hammurabi's code

[Der Übermensch]

You grabbed that my question from my post! :angry:

Actually, I didn't even notice yours :p Great minds just think alike :cool:
It just came as an afterthought, and I didn't bother editing into my previous one...

[Sergio_Rueda]

http://www.ebaumsworld.com/2006/05/bananaproof.html

:p

[slack]

When I was 12 or so I heard George Carlin, and I thought he was hilarious, but now that I listen to him years later, he sounds like some cheap, Mencia-esque comic who "tells it like it is," and "says what I'm thinking!" etc.

The reason for this thread is that he, along with many people who believe themselves to be smart, has an unbelievably immature perspective/stereotype against religion.

Now, I'm sort of indifferent to it and don't really think about it because I don't think I'm mature enough yet to actually care about/understand spirituality, but please, this is just idiotic:

Carlin: "Religion has the greatest bullshit story ever told. Think about it; religion has actually convinced people that there's an invisible man! Living in the sky! Who watches everything you do every minute of every day!"

And he's come to various other stupid realizations about it-- and his arguments also include, "If there's a God, why do we get sicknesses? Why did Hitler exist?"

"War, disease, death, destruction, hunger, filth, poverty, torture, crime, corruption... something is definitely wrong. This is not good work. If this is the best God can do, I am not impressed." and also: "If I can see something, it kind of helps the credibility along."

"If there is a god, may he strike the audience dead."

And I realized that most people don't understand the purpose of religion-- either that, or they think that religion = right wing, orthodox, fundamentalist Christianity.

(more to the point):

To atheists, I'm just wondering what your rationale is, how you chose to become an atheist, assuming you weren't born into an atheist family.

So ^that's the point of this thread.
Sounds like you don't really get Carlin or comedy in general. He's not up there trying to pretend he's some philosopher making a scholarly argument against God. That wouldn't be funny. So he's simplified things, taken a few big ideas and tried to poke fun at them.

To answer your question, I don't believe anymore because God seems like a third wheel. The concept of a supreme being is itself rather nebulous, and is oftentimes either too vague and far-reaching to have any real significance, or is so primitive that it doesn't seem like a plausible explanation at all.

[I'm blue dabadeedabadie]

You have absolutely no way in which to say that your moral good is better than anyone else's moral good.

Funnily enough:

According to the Catholic doctrine, if you do anything contrary to your conscience, then you commit an immoral act.

That means, that Hitler is not necessarily condemned to hell-- if he was so very convinced that what he did was what God would want him to do, then he fulfilled what he believed to be "good."

The same applies to people of other religions, people who never hear about Jesus, the mentally handicapped-- the Catholic church believes that if they follow their conscious (even if it's a "conscious in error" by the standards of Catholic morality), then that they are not necessarily condemned to hell.

Therefore, your conscience is what determines your moral "good." I took a semester of Catholic morality, and because there's not much to cover, you go pretty in depth into only a few different topics, and this was most definitely the position of John Paul II.

So that's how an atheist would live by a system of morals. It's common sense, anyways.

You essentially said that there's only one system of morals (that of a religion), and that anything outside of that is a system that goes against all of those morals.

[free_thinkers_are_dangerous]

the utter, categorical arrogance of atheists. They're smug, they're high-handed, and most nettling of all, they're condescending.

Huh? Utter and categorical? I know a whole lot of atheists, and most of them are none of those things.

They would sooner trash the efforts by charitable Christians than actually amount to anything on the humanitarian front.

Their biggest beef is Christians who do harm in the name of God. To paraphrase someone else's previous example, "you can't have your soup unless you believe in Jesus."

They discuss the seemingly hollow values of religion while preaching likewise hollow values of hedonism, promiscuity, and the proverbial consequence-free society.

Just... no. No. No. No. I really have no idea what the hell you're talking about here, unless you assume that every atheist is an STD-filled bag of sex juices.

I love how Christianity binds people to a code of morality that simply outdoes the atheist alternative. It's practical, and by golly, it's nice.

Which proves God exists... how exactly?




My biggest beef with organized religion is that I don't understand the why of it all. If there really was a God, would He give a rat's *** what I do on Sunday mornings? I'm an atheist, and I'm a good person. I don't lie to get into girls' pants, I don't rape little children, I'm honest and straightforward, and all this without some arsehole in a funny hat telling me I'm going to hell because I relieve myself sexually without the intent to create babies. If you want to believe in God, and need to believe in such a God to convince yourself not to "sin", fine. Go ahead. I personally don't, because I've seen no proof, whereas anybody who believes in Him basically farts around with assumptions and he-said-she-said books from thousands of years ago. It is mathematically possible to have life without a creator, they've been able to recreate the first few steps in a lab, and the rest comes down to thousands of years of trial and error, with a biological soup sitting around getting hit by lightning. It's one of the most primal rules of statistics - the odds of something happening, given that it happened, is 1.

You can say Christian morals are great, which I believe they (fundamentally) are, but you can't convince me Jesus hated gays or that God really wants me to eat fish on Fridays. If God is really such a moron, He isn't worth worshipping. My personal belief, and I don't expect anybody to believe me because it's purely my own assumption, is that there are still lots of things out there we haven't discovered, and that there are many other forces acting that we haven't discovered. We can't even find 80% of the matter required to hold the universe together. So yeah, science is flawed, but at least it's a start. I have absolutely no proof God exists or has ever existed, and even if I did I wouldn't follow some stupid rules just for the sake of it. Simply put, a god worth worshipping wouldn't care if you sacrifice virgins on the solar eclipse as long as you don't beat your children.

Quoted because a whole lot of religious people have chosen not to answer this.


And as for the morals, people who think that morals have to be defined by a higher power are wrong. As long as there is a good reason for the morals to come about, they have historically sprung up in societies all over the world. As a general rule, morals will somehow lead to the betterment of society - if murder stops your village from running properly, people will eventually come around to realizing murder is wrong. If giving food to the poor makes people feel better about themselves, eventually people will decide that feeding the poor is good, and so on, until society has its own code of morals built.

Religion is basically man's way of a) explaining the unknown, and b) giving people a "final answer" to the question of "why?" so that they will become functional members of society. If something is clearly not in the interests of the human race, it will be seen as "wrong," and if something clearly is, it will be considered "right." Everything else is a gray zone, which explains why certain cultures think some things are right whereas other cultures will think the same thing is wrong.

For those of you who are a little slow, here's what I mean:

- killing: Clearly wrong. Any society that valued killing its own members for no particular reason is long-extinct. Not beneficial, therefore killing is bad.

- helping the sick/elderly: Nursing people back to health instead of needing to have another baby to replace them is more efficient, and the elderly can often relate wisdom to those who are able-bodied but too young. They're worth keeping around, even if they provide a drain on resources. This is clearly beneficial, and is considered good by almost every culture on the planet.

Who needs God to dictate morals when you have common sense and basic knowledge of Darwin?

[Surtr]

Funnily enough:

According to the Catholic doctrine, if you do anything contrary to your conscience, then you commit an immoral act.

That means, that Hitler is not necessarily condemned to hell-- if he was so very convinced that what he did was what God would want him to do, then he fulfilled what he believed to be "good."

The same applies to people of other religions, people who never hear about Jesus, the mentally handicapped-- the Catholic church believes that if they follow their conscious (even if it's a "conscious in error" by the standards of Catholic morality), then that they are not necessarily condemned to hell.

Therefore, your conscience is what determines your moral "good." I took a semester of Catholic morality, and because there's not much to cover, you go pretty in depth into only a few different topics, and this was most definitely the position of John Paul II.

So that's how an atheist would live by a system of morals. It's common sense, anyways.

You essentially said that there's only one system of morals (that of a religion), and that anything outside of that is a system that goes against all of those morals.
Quoted For Truth.

After reading that you have me convinced. (Already is an Atheist)

[free_thinkers_are_dangerous]

I don't know much about Catholicism (even though I was baptized and took 5 years of religious education in high school :upset: ), but yeah, it's pretty cool that no matter how badly you screw up your life, you can still go to heaven if you genuinely realize you were wrong after you die :).

[Der Übermensch]

you can still go to heaven if you genuinely realize you were wrong after you die .
You have to realize it before you die actually, but close enough.

[free_thinkers_are_dangerous]

Doesn't St. Peter come and give you a last chance or something though?

I dunno, I'm trying to conjure up stuff I studied in grade 8 here.

[Der Übermensch]

No, all mortal sins must be confessed before you die. If you die with them unconfessed, you go to hell (note that if you intended to confess, it just means extra long time in purgatory). There is a second chance when Christ returns in the End times, but thats it.

[I'm blue dabadeedabadie]

No, all mortal sins must be confessed before you die. If you die with them unconfessed, you go to hell (note that if you intended to confess, it just means extra long time in purgatory). There is a second chance when Christ returns in the End times, but thats it.

This is wrong. See my post at the top of the page.

The Catholic church maintains a sytem of morals, and believes that any person who has a very clear consciousness of what is right and wrong (that is, what helps other and ourselves, and what harms other and ourselves) would be in accordance with that system.

Anyone who is severly inclined (as in, someone who's indoctrinated or handicapped) against something Catholics hold as a mortal sin (such as murder) is not necessarily condemned to hell for comitting that mortal sin.

A person must be able to comprehend the Christian system of right from wrong in order to follow the Christian system of right and wrong.

^The Church understands this and therefore not ALL mortal sins are sure-fire ways into hell.

(this is what the Catholic church teaches, I don't believe in hell myself).

[Iskandar]

People in this thread need to learn to distinguish absolute morals from relative morals

Society creates and redefines absolute morals over time. I don't see the big deal.

[Der Übermensch]

This is wrong. See my post at the top of the page.
Depends... Liberal Catholics would agree with you, but Traditional Catholic Doctrine is inline with what I said.
I'll also respond to that previous post after this, since you brought it up.

The Catholic church maintains a sytem of morals, and believes that any person who has a very clear consciousness of what is right and wrong (that is, what helps other and ourselves, and what harms other and ourselves) would be in accordance with that system.
Again... Liberal v Traditional. I always love to bring up Paul to the Romans, and use the Liberal standpoint that says Paul felt that because god gave people the ability to know right from wrong, anyone could go to heaven. However, the Traditional viewpoint is that this only appies to people who have never heard of Jesus. If you have heard of him, you must also follow him.

Anyone who is severly inclined (as in, someone who's indoctrinated or handicapped) against something Catholics hold as a mortal sin (such as murder) is not necessarily condemned to hell for comitting that mortal sin.
Mortal sin by its nature is a sin done with full understanding of that it is wrong, and understanding the consequences, so thats irrelevent.

A person must be able to comprehend the Christian system of right from wrong in order to follow the Christian system of right and wrong.
As I pointed out, if they havn't heard of it, they aren't held accountable to it, if they have though, they are...

The Church understands this and therefore not ALL mortal sins are sure-fire ways into hell.
Yes they are... If it isn't a trip to hell, then its venial sin. Venial Sins can be burned off in purgatory, Mortal sins can't...

(this is what the Catholic church teaches, I don't believe in hell myself).The Liberal side of the Catholic Church...

According to the Catholic doctrine, if you do anything contrary to your conscience, then you commit an immoral act.
In simple terms, basically... But remember that they also teach that conscience and the moral dictates of it are universal.

That means, that Hitler is not necessarily condemned to hell-- if he was so very convinced that what he did was what God would want him to do, then he fulfilled what he believed to be "good."
Wrong. Good and Bad are absolutes as I pointed out above.

Therefore, your conscience is what determines your moral "good."
Yes... but what is good is always the same thing.

So that's how an atheist would live by a system of morals. It's common sense, anyways.
They can be moral, but their final destination depends on whether you are Liberal of Traditional.

[antiant]

infidel guy (http://www.infidelguy.com) you may learn some things

[PerpetualBurn]

The only reason morally right or wrong involves God is because of duties owed. With god out of the picture, you still have duties owed other people which can be the basis of your morality.

There's nothing objectively good about "duties owed".

How? From an Atheist standpoint man made god, so the morals that came along with god were also made by man.

And those morals are are no better than any other morals they may have made up.

Question for you PB... does morality depend on the belief in the Higher Absolute i.e. God, or the actual existence of God? i.e. were the Greeks who followed the moral ideals of the Greek Gods moral because they believed in their existence and authority?

It's only "good" if the Gods actually exist, as I've previously stated.

what about hammurabi's code

It's no better than any other moral code.

You essentially said that there's only one system of morals (that of a religion), and that anything outside of that is a system that goes against all of those morals.

I'm fairly sure that's not what I said. I said that there may be 1000 "moral codes" out there, but unless a higher ordaining power exists then not one of those codes is actually good in any real sense.

And as for the morals, people who think that morals have to be defined by a higher power are wrong. As long as there is a good reason for the morals to come about, they have historically sprung up in societies all over the world.

I'm not wrong. Without a God there is no such thing as a "good reason" to base morality upon.

People in this thread need to learn to distinguish absolute morals from relative morals

Relative morals basically equate to no morals, which was my original statement.

To all: My statement stands that without a God (not a specific God as some of you have previously implied I meant) then not one of you can give any objective definition to what "good" and "bad", "right" and "wrong" are in any meaningul way. Essentially, two complete opposites, like whether to murder or not, are both morally good, and morally bad. In this way, where killing is neither truly good nor bad, this equates to it being neither in an objective sense. Basically, even though you claim to have a sense or idea of "good", it doesn't actually exist.

[Shadius]

Yep.

I'm an athiest in the moral sense and I have morals. So I suppose you're wrong.

Since when are the commandments morals, anyway? Yes, they should lead to morals if you follow them, but ultimately they're rules, not morals. Just the fact you don't do the acts described is enough to follow them, regardless of how you necesserally feel about it.

Anyway, okay, so "Thou shalt not murder", okay, so murder is "wrong", okay. The fact is Christians believe that, and they believe a higher power made that the case, fine. They can't categorically prove that their belief is any more correct than anyone elses, just like no one can proove their morals to be more correct than anyone elses. So it looks like we're all in the same boat, right?

How do the major religions of the world contend next to each other? Are they all right because a higher, infalable power said so? Even if they contradict?

No religion i've looked into has ever had a comprehensive moral code that is beyond interpretation. I can't really believe in absolute morals, i'm more of a relative morals guy myself, and I'd argue that any religion, being interpreted by man regardless of the existance of a higher power is relative and not absolute.

No religion can categorically say their morals are better than any other. As usual, it comes down to belief. You cannot prove absolute morals exist.

Why are relative morals practically no morals? That's rubbish, it's all we objectively have anyway.

[siva_chair]

Society creates and redefines absolute morals over time. I don't see the big deal.

I see the big deal. Society is sick, and I don't really want it dictating what is right and wrong for me.:p

[Atomic Rain]

I see the big deal. Society is sick, and I don't really want it dictating what is right and wrong for me.:p

Considering you're the most progressive catholic i've ever encountered, you're pretty stuck in the past. Society has always had problems. Concentrate on our sucesses; no slaves, no peasants, many froms of sexism, racism etc forbidden by law...

[siva_chair]

Considering you're the most progressive catholic i've ever encountered, you're pretty stuck in the past.

Hey and I'm not even Catholic.:eek:

Society has always had problems. Concentrate on our sucesses; no slaves, no peasants, many froms of sexism, racism etc forbidden by law...

Yup, society has always been sick. I wouldn't say I am stuck in the past, as I think society has always been fundamentally sick, and will always be sick as long as it is founded on what it is.

[Der Übermensch]

It's only "good" if the Gods actually exist, as I've previously stated.
Ok then... is God arbitrary then? Does he choose Good and Bad to be such because he merely decided "Lets have it this way"? Or is it because in his infinite wisdom, he knew that this is what should be Good, and this is what should be Bad?

[Atomic Rain]

Hey and I'm not even Catholic.:eek:



Yup, society has always been sick. I wouldn't say I am stuck in the past, as I think society has always been fundamentally sick, and will always be sick as long as it is founded on what it is.

oh, sorry.

And yeah, i think the main flaw in society is that it's made of people :p

[Danger Bird]

Shouldn't this just go in the Christianity thread now?

[Der Übermensch]

Christian specific arguments yes, but I'm merely theist v. athiest at the moment...

[siva_chair]

oh, sorry.

That's ok. I think it is cool you consider me to be the most progressive Catholic.

And yeah, i think the main flaw in society is that it's made of people :p

The main flaw with society is it is founded on domination of land/each other/ect. Instead of living in harmony with nature, we feel the need to dominate and control it. Society is built on greed.

[PerpetualBurn]

Ok then... is God arbitrary then? Does he choose Good and Bad to be such because he merely decided "Lets have it this way"? Or is it because in his infinite wisdom, he knew that this is what should be Good, and this is what should be Bad?

If you're trying to lead me into Euthyphro's dilemma, it's a bad tactic because I'm an atheist anyway. Defending morals with God is no concern of mine, it's simply quite clear that they can't exist without him. Maybe they can't exist under a God anyway, but that really doesn't affect atheism.

[PerpetualBurn]

I'm an athiest in the moral sense and I have morals. So I suppose you're wrong.

I'm right, your deluded.

Since when are the commandments morals, anyway? Yes, they should lead to morals if you follow them, but ultimately they're rules, not morals. Just the fact you don't do the acts described is enough to follow them, regardless of how you necesserally feel about it.

Why do you expect me to start defending Christianity when I'm so overwhelmingly atheist in every way?

Anyway, okay, so "Thou shalt not murder", okay, so murder is "wrong", okay. The fact is Christians believe that, and they believe a higher power made that the case, fine. They can't categorically prove that their belief is any more correct than anyone elses, just like no one can proove their morals to be more correct than anyone elses. So it looks like we're all in the same boat, right?

Here's a hint: truth isn't democratic.

I don't think there's a God. Suppose there is, and he's the Christian one, then only Christian morals would be good. Or right. This is irrespective of whether they could prove it or not - it's what actually is that's important.

How do the major religions of the world contend next to each other? Are they all right because a higher, infalable power said so? Even if they contradict?

Well since so many religions are mutually exclusive, only one would actually be ordained by a God. I'd have thought that would be obvious.

[qupte]No religion i've looked into has ever had a comprehensive moral code that is beyond interpretation. I can't really believe in absolute morals, i'm more of a relative morals guy myself, and I'd argue that any religion, being interpreted by man regardless of the existance of a higher power is relative and not absolute.[/quote]

Relative morals for all intents and purposes equates to no morals - my original statement. If two opposite actions are equally moral, then morality is a pointless and worthless thing.

No religion can categorically say their morals are better than any other. As usual, it comes down to belief. You cannot prove absolute morals exist.

I don't need to prove that they exist. I don't think they do.

Why are relative morals practically no morals? That's rubbish, it's all we objectively have anyway.

Erm, relative morals aren't objective, that's kind of the entire definition of the term.

Thou shalt kill = thou shalt not kill - according to subjective morality. This basically is the same as there being no moral standpoint at all, as neither is more valid than the other.

[naw mean mang?]

atheists are people that cant except that they have no control over what happens in the next minute, or the next day. they cant accept that there is no guarantee of a tomorrow and that something greater than them controls their life.

[Der Übermensch]

If you're trying to lead me into Euthyphro's dilemma, it's a bad tactic because I'm an atheist anyway. Defending morals with God is no concern of mine, it's simply quite clear that they can't exist without him. Maybe they can't exist under a God anyway, but that really doesn't affect atheism.

Heh, your smarter then most people then :p But I guess being an atheist, its a pointless argument to bring up...

atheists are people that cant except that they have no control over what happens in the next minute, or the next day. they cant accept that there is no guarantee of a tomorrow and that something greater than them controls their life.
I have fully accepted I have zero control over what happens, we are all but played on the stage.

[Iskandar]

User PerpetualBurn needs to understand that relative morals are still morals.

Being punished by society for murder is not that different from being punished by God. The difference is that one is fallible, while the other isn't.

[free_thinkers_are_dangerous]

atheists are people that cant except that they have no control over what happens in the next minute, or the next day. they cant accept that there is no guarantee of a tomorrow and that something greater than them controls their life.

I could counteract this by saying that faith is for weaklings that can't take charge of their own life or the blame for the problems they have.


I believe that if you want something out of your life, you have to get up off your arse, fight for it, and take it. If you want to sit around and wait for God to hand it to you, you'll never get it. There is obviously a large degree of luck, but in the long run you get what you fight for.

[slash_bmxer09]

atheists are people that cant except that they have no control over what happens in the next minute, or the next day. they cant accept that there is no guarantee of a tomorrow and that something greater than them controls their life.

Are you Atheist? If you are not, don't even start. If your not Atheist, you don't know the way Atheists think. No one has control of what happens the next minute, or next day. There is no guarantee of a tomorrow...and explain to me HOW you know something greater than us controls our lives?

[PerpetualBurn]

User PerpetualBurn needs to understand that relative morals are still morals.

Being punished by society for murder is not that different from being punished by God. The difference is that one is fallible, while the other isn't.

Well I'd hate to weasel out of an argument on semantics, but my first statement was that it equates to no morals. Since no moral standpoint is actually better than any other, there is no actual "moral" at all, just an idea, and not which can actually be said to be good.

And whether there is a punishment or not is irrelevant as to whether the act is good. You might consider sleeping with a girl and then never calling her again to be "immoral" there's certainly no punishment though. And even then, if you are punished, that doesn't make your act "bad" in any real sense. Bad for society, maybe, but in an absolute sense, what the hell does society matter?

[Sergio_Rueda]

Well I'd hate to weasel out of an argument on semantics, but my first statement was that it equates to no morals. Since no moral standpoint is actually better than any other, there is no actual "moral" at all, just an idea, and not which can actually be said to be good.

And whether there is a punishment or not is irrelevant as to whether the act is good. You might consider sleeping with a girl and then never calling her again to be "immoral" there's certainly no punishment though. And even then, if you are punished, that doesn't make your act "bad" in any real sense. Bad for society, maybe, but in an absolute sense, what the hell does society matter?

Man you are not paying attention to the definition of a moral, any idea about good and bad is a moral. The idea may not be right and it may impossible to tell without a god but the fact that is an idea makes it a moral.

[Uberman]

I recognize that this thread is about atheism vs. theism, so there's a reason why we are only talking about theistic religions, but people: stop referring to "religion" when you are really only talking about Christianity. Example:

Originally posted by Syncratic
Religion is the FAITH that a higher being exists.

No. Consider that Buddhism is called a religion, yet Gautama Buddha very clearly stated that there is no God, no gods, no Creator, no Creation, etc. Furthermore, dig this:

Originally posted by the Buddha
As the wise test gold by cutting it and examining the streak made by rubbing it across a piece of touchstone, so should you accept my words only after examining them according to your own experience and reason, and not merely out of regard for me.

Either Buddhism is not a religion, or religion is NOT always faith.

I have no particular fondness for Christianity, but I think most of you have a much greater aversion for it than I. Whenever you make blanket statements insulting "religion" in name but only Christianity in substance, in this and other threads, you disappoint me with your vast and blatant ignorance of the religious life of man. I suppose Christianity is the only religion most MXer's are familiar with. That being the case, either refer to it properly, or educate youself about the others before talking about religion on the whole.

[Zoroaster]

Man you are not paying attention to the definition of a moral, any idea about good and bad is a moral. The idea may not be right and it may impossible to tell without a god but the fact that is an idea makes it a moral.

Don't mind Perpetual. He's just very, very confused.

[Atomic Rain]

That's ok. I think it is cool you consider me to be the most progressive Catholic.



The main flaw with society is it is founded on domination of land/each other/ect. Instead of living in harmony with nature, we feel the need to dominate and control it. Society is built on greed.

I see greed as a fundamental quantity of people, infused into us (unfortunately) by evolutionary desires but unfortunately realised by our incredibly potent brains. I think that if society wants to improve it will have to learnt o realise its greed in small ways rather than in very big ways. And I don't think that wil happen. ever.

[Der Übermensch]

Don't mind Perpetual. He's just very, very confused.

Pot calls the Kettle Black?

[BassRevelation1029]

User PerpetualBurn needs to understand that relative morals are still morals.

Being punished by society for murder is not that different from being punished by God. The difference is that one is fallible, while the other isn't.
He understands that. I believe he's pointing out that they're meaningless.

[RustedPieces]

Well I was born into a Roman Catholic family, and I used to believe in God and all that. But I never really stopped to think about religion I just believed what I was told. I guess I'm at a point in my life where I just can't seem to care about religion or spirituality. By definition I suppose I am an athiest but I don't really consider myself an athiest simply because I don't care about religion or spirituality all together.

[Iskandar]

Well I'd hate to weasel out of an argument on semantics, but my first statement was that it equates to no morals. Since no moral standpoint is actually better than any other, there is no actual "moral" at all, just an idea, and not which can actually be said to be good.
In retrospect, my post was a little condescending. I apologize.

So you're absolutely right: there are no absolute morals under atheism. I don't see how that is a problem.
Bad for society, maybe, but in an absolute sense, what the hell does society matter?
When it comes to relative morals, society is everything. Society defines them. :)

Of course, if you're saying the actions of society ultimately amount to nothing, that may also be true ... but that's a pretty nihilistic view to take.

[PerpetualBurn]

Are you Atheist? If you are not, don't even start. If your not Atheist, you don't know the way Atheists think. No one has control of what happens the next minute, or next day. There is no guarantee of a tomorrow...and explain to me HOW you know something greater than us controls our lives?

I'm an atheist. However I believe in the laws of physics, specifically, cause and effect. Just because there's no God, doesn't mean that actions stop having their repsective reactions, so things are predictable, and things aren't necessarily chaotic (please, please, please, nobody mention quantum physics!).

Man you are not paying attention to the definition of a moral, any idea about good and bad is a moral. The idea may not be right and it may impossible to tell without a god but the fact that is an idea makes it a moral

Well you reduced "morals" to something entirely hollow and meaningless, so you've gained absolutely nothing. It's essentially just some random idea you pulled out your ***, and is no better than no moral at all.

To say "no morals" would be equal to "morals" because the term has no substance to it.

Don't mind Perpetual. He's just very, very confused.

Surely Zoroaster's not going to try and argue that moral relativism has any value whatsoever? I had thought this might be something we would agree on, but apparently your gimmick isn't bound by any urge to hide hypocrisy.

In retrospect, my post was a little condescending. I apologize.

So you're absolutely right: there are no absolute morals under atheism. I don't see how that is a problem.

When it comes to relative morals, society is everything. Society defines them.

Of course, if you're saying the actions of society ultimately amount to nothing, that may also be true ... but that's a pretty nihilistic view to take.

No offence taken at all.

Perhaps I am being overly nihilistic, but I don't see how if all morals are equal without God, that any atheist (me included) can really start arguing that they have "morals" as if it's something to be proud of, or something worthwhile. A better term would be "preferences".

[Iskandar]

No offence taken at all.

Perhaps I am being overly nihilistic, but I don't see how if all morals are equal without God, that any atheist (me included) can really start arguing that they have "morals" as if it's something to be proud of, or something worthwhile. A better term would be "preferences".
Well, it's simple. Since society defines morals, it can define morals as anything it wants; however, it generally chooses to endorse actions which are benficial to society and condemn those which aren't. As society develops and changes, morals do (or should) with it. That's why I am socially progressive; and that's why I believe absolute-moral systems are flawed, because they don't allow much room for society's development.

[Zoroaster]

Surely Zoroaster's not going to try and argue that moral relativism has any value whatsoever? I had thought this might be something we would agree on, but apparently your gimmick isn't bound by any urge to hide hypocrisy.



I'm on to you, mister. For all the unnecessarily florrid language and postmodernist nonsense, at the core of your posts there's no factual backing. Fair enough, you think there's no God. You're entitled to an opinion, however unfounded or foolish. But to be so categorical; so incredibly smug in making your case, that's just plain crude conduct. I'm still expecting a plea to logic as to why there's no Christian God. Until you can provide me with one, I suggest you retract your earlier claim and admit that as it stands, you have no clue what you're saying.

[Iskandar]

I'm still expecting a plea to logic as to why there's no Christian God.
It's faith-based, the same as theism. People use their life experiences as indicators of whether there is a God or not.

[Der Übermensch]

I'm still expecting a plea to logic as to why there's no Christian God.
Because there is no proof (beyond personal proof/faith) for the existence of god, and Logic states that absence of proof for existence is an argument for the non-existence.

[PerpetualBurn]

I'm on to you, mister. For all the unnecessarily florrid language and postmodernist nonsense, at the core of your posts there's no factual backing.

You see this is why trolling gets you in trouble. There always comes a point where you look for an argument to anything, and end up making a stupid one.

The discussion I'm having is whether or not morals could exist without God. Whether God actually exists is quite irrelevant to the hypothetical situation, so to moan about the absence of "factual backing" in an entirely theoretical discussion makes you look pretty stupid. And that's despite the intricacies of your thesaurus.

Fair enough, you think there's no God. You're entitled to an opinion, however unfounded or foolish. But to be so categorical; so incredibly smug in making your case, that's just plain crude conduct.

My case so far on the matter of morality (though I am an atheist in reality) is entirely hypothetical. IF (conditional, right there in big letters for you) God doesn't exist, then morality is entirely meaningless. This is pretty categorical, as only God could be considered qualified to ordain such things as "right" and "wrong". I can be as smug as I like in delivering it to you, your gimmickiness.

I'm still expecting a plea to logic as to why there's no Christian God. Until you can provide me with one, I suggest you retract your earlier claim and admit that as it stands, you have no clue what you're saying.

If you want to sit there and repeat "In the absence of reputable evidence for the existence of X, I conclude that X exists" then quite clearly you are unequipped for this debate. You surely lack the necessary knowledge of how logic works and are thus unable to offer anything worthy of note to the discussion.

[Jersey's Best Dancer]

The reason that I am atheist is that I think that wether there is a 'greater being' or not (which almost everything leads to the fact that there isn't), why should I care? Christianity is based on living this life for God so that you can prosper in the next life correct? I live my life for me. I don't need some book to guide me through life and tell me what to do. I am capable of making my own desicions. I was born into a catholic family, and then later converted to Lutheran. Nothing in that time gave me reason to believe in a god, or even think that there is a greater being. Religion is a funny thing, cause when I ask christians about why they are religious, it's usually because their family is. And when I give them my point of view, they say 'I know, your right.. ect ect.', but still continue to go to church because they think that is what they are supposed to do. It's a fear factor. Some people are afraid to denounce a god thinking that if there is one, the will go to hell or something. That's what amazes me.

[Jersey's Best Dancer]

Another thing, when I say to people who are christian that them having pre-marital sex, and breaking one of the 10 commandments, that they are hypocrits. And I usually get two different responses, either: God will forgive me if I go to church and confess or I only believe in certain things about christianity. I don't follow the belief of not having pre-marital sex. If there was a god, wouldn't he want the 'rules' be a certain way. Any douchebag could interpret them how they pleased, and then say he was still faithful, or just do something bad and then go confess his sins. So that would make someone who follows the bible very strictly and then someone who breaks the 'rules' of christianity, but then confesses or follows their own guidelines on the same playing field when it comes to god's exceptence of them?

I'm not trying to bash anyones faith, but I would love to hear feedback from a christian about the statements I've made.

[Sergio_Rueda]

Another thing, when I say to people who are christian that them having pre-marital sex, and breaking one of the 10 commandments, that they are hypocrits. And I usually get two different responses, either: God will forgive me if I go to church and confess or I only believe in certain things about christianity. I don't follow the belief of not having pre-marital sex. If there was a god, wouldn't he want the 'rules' be a certain way. Any douchebag could interpret them how they pleased, and then say he was still faithful, or just do something bad and then go confess his sins. So that would make someone who follows the bible very strictly and then someone who breaks the 'rules' of christianity, but then confesses or follows their own guidelines on the same playing field when it comes to god's exceptence of them?

I'm not trying to bash anyones faith, but I would love to hear feedback from a christian about the statements I've made.

Well, first of all if you remember christian tradition the 10 commandments don't even matter annymore, as christ brought just one "love one another".

[slash_bmxer09]

I'm an atheist. However I believe in the laws of physics, specifically, cause and effect. Just because there's no God, doesn't mean that actions stop having their repsective reactions, so things are predictable, and things aren't necessarily chaotic (please, please, please, nobody mention quantum physics!).

Yeah, I was trying to state that I hate when people "think" they know what others think. I will admit sometimes it happens. With everyone. Of course, that person does not know how I (or other Atheists for that matter) think.

[Zoroaster]

Surely Zoroaster's not going to try and argue that moral relativism has any value whatsoever? I had thought this might be something we would agree on, but apparently your gimmick isn't bound by any urge to hide hypocrisy.

God, I never thought I'd stoop to this level, but here goes. You're appealing to a case that rests solely on ad ignorantiam, i.e. a fallacy of irrelevance. I'm not saying you can subject the claim that there is a God, and a Christian one at that, to some sort of scientific methodology. You simply can't. But to categorically reject some supernatural Creator, irrespective of creed, without so much as exhausting this supposed overarching "logic" that disproves us ever having been created, is arrogant, smug and self-defeating.

[PerpetualBurn]

Haha. Gimmickyboy couldn't resist.

I will reject the existence of a God as long as no evidence exists that would lead to the conclusion otherwise. You act like I deny the vague possibility that one day we may find evidence for God, maybe we will, I find this to be "a fallacy of irrelevance" based on the current circumstance.

[Syncratic]

Perhaps people should find their own personal way into a religion or belief, bet it theism or atheism. It's a bit more personal, I think, instead of being influenced by a group of others.

[Auberge le Mouton Noir]

Perhaps people should find their own personal way into a religion or belief, bet it theism or atheism. It's a bit more personal, I think, instead of being influenced by a group of others.

I've always taken this view. Organised religion is a bit of a non-concept for me.

[Zoroaster]

I've always taken this view. Organised religion is a bit of a non-concept for me.

The same can be said about organized socialism, yet you have no problems promoting it.

[Iskandar]

The same can be said about organized socialism, yet you have no problems promoting it.
I've never seen him promote socialism....

At any rate, this is a religion thread.

[Der Übermensch]

The same can be said about organized socialism, yet you have no problems promoting it.

Whatever its faults, socialism doesn't presuppose the existence of a metaphysical being :p

[free_thinkers_are_dangerous]

Another thing, when I say to people who are christian that them having pre-marital sex, and breaking one of the 10 commandments, that they are hypocrits. And I usually get two different responses, either: God will forgive me if I go to church and confess or I only believe in certain things about christianity. I don't follow the belief of not having pre-marital sex. If there was a god, wouldn't he want the 'rules' be a certain way. Any douchebag could interpret them how they pleased, and then say he was still faithful, or just do something bad and then go confess his sins. So that would make someone who follows the bible very strictly and then someone who breaks the 'rules' of christianity, but then confesses or follows their own guidelines on the same playing field when it comes to god's exceptence of them?

I'm not trying to bash anyones faith, but I would love to hear feedback from a christian about the statements I've made.

urrite, one of the things I hate most about real tr00 christians is how they all pick and choose what to obey. If the Bible is absolute, then anybody who speaks ill of their mother or father, commits adultery, or faces the sunrise on Easter should be executed. If the Bible is not absolute, then how can anything be justified with biblical passages without further proof these passages are "right"? If someone had an infallible source for the word of God, I'd accept it. The thing is that there is no absolute source of religious information, and anybody who's ever played the game "broken telephone" can imagine how much words (even God's own words) can be twisted after 2000 years of interpretation.

[coheneran]

urrite, one of the things I hate most about real tr00 christians is how they all pick and choose what to obey. If the Bible is absolute, then anybody who speaks ill of their mother or father, commits adultery, or faces the sunrise on Easter should be executed. If the Bible is not absolute, then how can anything be justified with biblical passages without further proof these passages are "right"? If someone had an infallible source for the word of God, I'd accept it. The thing is that there is no absolute source of religious information, and anybody who's ever played the game "broken telephone" can imagine how much words (even God's own words) can be twisted after 5000 (at least) years of interpretation.

Fix'd.

[free_thinkers_are_dangerous]

God, I never thought I'd stoop to this level, but here goes. You're appealing to a case that rests solely on ad ignorantiam, i.e. a fallacy of irrelevance. I'm not saying you can subject the claim that there is a God, and a Christian one at that, to some sort of scientific methodology. You simply can't. But to categorically reject some supernatural Creator, irrespective of creed, without so much as exhausting this supposed overarching "logic" that disproves us ever having been created, is arrogant, smug and self-defeating.

I'm really starting to dislike how you expect us to believe you for reasons you find it ridiculous we ask you to even understand where we're coming from.

Here's what you're saying, loosely paraphrased:

"Hey guys, there's this guy called God. You might not believe him, but he exists. I have no proof, but I assure you he exists. Oh, and by the way, your proof he doesn't exist is no good because only my proof works. What is my proof? Well, uh, it's sort of possible that he might have done stuff, but nobody's really sure about that."


You're asking us to stop believing what we believe, and yet you can't provide a single reason other than suppositions and telling us our logic sucks and doesn't apply.

[coheneran]

I'm really starting to dislike how you expect us to believe you for reasons you find it ridiculous we ask you to even understand where we're coming from.

Here's what you're saying, loosely paraphrased:

"Hey guys, there's this guy called God. You might not believe him, but he exists. I have no proof, but I assure you he exists. Oh, and by the way, your proof he doesn't exist is no good because only my proof works. What is my proof? Well, uh, it's sort of possible that he might have done stuff, but nobody's really sure about that."


You're asking us to stop believing what we believe, and yet you can't provide a single reason other than suppositions and telling us our logic sucks and doesn't apply.

QFT.

[Smokey D]

Well, first of all if you remember christian tradition the 10 commandments don't even matter annymore, as christ brought just one "love one another".

He brought two. Love your God, and love your neighbour as yourself.

[madeyadams]

"Hey guys, there's this guy called God. You might not believe him, but he exists. I have no proof, but I assure you he exists. Oh, and by the way, your proof he doesn't exist is no good because only my proof works. What is my proof? Well, uh, it's sort of possible that he might have done stuff, but nobody's really sure about that."


You're asking us to stop believing what we believe, and yet you can't provide a single reason other than suppositions and telling us our logic sucks and doesn't apply.

Well. Loosely interpreted.. that's what the Bible says. There is no proof OR logic behind there being a God.. except a book, and Christians love to go around and say that they're better because they believe in God because it's the right thing. A stupid book that is the basis for some people's way of life and morality. How do you see that as being okay to live by? I find it ridiculous that some people can swallow that BS and use it in their everyday lives.

[free_thinkers_are_dangerous]

Well. Loosely interpreted.. that's what the Bible says.

It's also why I don't believe a single word the Bible says about God. I think it has some very solid moral lessons in it - sharing, community, loving, and all that jazz are things the world could use a healthy dose of right now. I just don't think it's a book of fact. I see it more as a code of morals that is, by and large, outdated.

There is no proof OR logic behind there being a God.. except a book, and Christians love to go around and say that they're better because they believe in God because it's the right thing. A stupid book that is the basis for some people's way of life and morality.

Exactly. The "logic" that the concept of God comes from is simply man's inability to understand the world around him, and the "logic" is also the "proof," because there will always be things our brains are too puny for.

How do you see that as being okay to live by?.
I don't, which was the point of my post :confused:.
I find it ridiculous that some people can swallow that BS and use it in their everyday lives
Definitely. If people want to read the Bible's stories for wisdom and learn from it, go ahead. There are a lot of valuable lessons in it. My beef is that people take bizarre quotes out of context, slap on 50 pages of rhetoric, and declare their rhetoric to be the word of God.

[mcmurray]

Carlin: "Religion has the greatest bull**** story ever told. Think about it; religion has actually convinced people that there's an invisible man! Living in the sky! Who watches everything you do every minute of every day!"
Personally I almost believe what he's saying, but not quite in those terms. I don't necessarily believe that there is a God, but I think there are some lessons one can take out of religion. Religion gives some people purpose in their life, and I can respect that although I think their purpose should come from elsewhere.


And he's come to various other stupid realizations about it-- and his arguments also include, "If there's a God, why do we get sicknesses? Why did Hitler exist?"

"War, disease, death, destruction, hunger, filth, poverty, torture, crime, corruption... something is definitely wrong. This is not good work. If this is the best God can do, I am not impressed." and also: "If I can see something, it kind of helps the credibility along."

"If there is a god, may he strike the audience dead."
First/second paragraph: it is my understanding that God tends to not get involved in things. Any followers of religion who believe otherwise, I do indeed ask you to say so because otherwise I have been misled. Also, even though there is war and all that, the world seems to be somewhat better off in the end. After WWII, there were no more Nazis or Hitler, but there was that whole Cold War deal.

Third paragraph: I don't think God would respond to an unbeliever's requests to destroy an entire crowd.


And I realized that most people don't understand the purpose of religion-- either that, or they think that religion = right wing, orthodox, fundamentalist Christianity.
That's true. Unfortunately that's the way a lot of people think about it. Also, people tend to think that right wing religious folk are the fundamentalist types. Just because you're a Christian Republican doesn't mean you're automatically Pat Robinson or that one "God hates fags" guy. Fred something I think.


To atheists, I'm just wondering what your rationale is, how you chose to become an atheist, assuming you weren't born into an atheist family.
I'm not really sure I'd consider myself an atheist any more. There have been some instances that seem to point to there being a God. The reason I didn't believe in God before was because I thought it to be a waste of my time and a trivial thing. That and I hadn't seen any evidence to suggest there being one. At the time of this posting, I am of the opinion that if there is a God, I really don't care and I'll keep doing what I've always done. I personally think religion is a waste of time. If you believe in God, you don't have to go to church to prove it to everyone. Many people think that you have to go to church to believe in God.

[EJinCho]

It's been almost 2006 years.
No one can prove that the bible is false.
I'm gonna keep believing in God until someone proves it wrong.
Even if it was false there is a lot in the bible that can teach you to be a better person.
Sure beats believing the idea of coming from an ape.
Yes im a sinner, and yes at times i find that im a hypocrite.
But i try not to and thats what counts.
no ones perfect.

[Smokey D]

Even if it was false there is a lot in the bible that can teach you to be a better person.

By whose reckoning?

Sure beats believing the idea of coming from an ape.

Why?

[EJinCho]

Even with morals you can take a look at the world today and see how bad it is.
Now imagine without the morals.
I dont mean to offend people who believe in darwinism, sorry if i do,
but i dont know how a random cell would pop up out of no where
and turn into a monkey finally leading into the creation of man or maybe woman.
so far, i havent heard of any apes that are in the process of turning into humans now days.
I dont think i should even be here since im not an athiest but i just wanted to check it out.

[Smokey D]

Even with morals you can take a look at the world today and see how bad it is.
Now imagine without the morals.

Without morals, how can anything be either good or bad?

I dont mean to offend people who believe in darwinism, sorry if i do,
but i dont know how a random cell would pop up out of no where
and turn into a monkey finally leading into the creation of man or maybe woman.
so far, i havent heard of any apes that are in the process of turning into humans now days.

Have you read a biology text book?

[EJinCho]

Humans have the tendency to do what they want.
without morals we will do what we like.
Humans like drugs, alchol, and getting what they want.
Sometime things that they want are what others want.
And when others want what you want.
We take each others heads off.
aka anarchism.
Just as how athiests say the bible has mistakes.
im sure that i can say biology books have mistakes in it too.
I remember reading something about spontaneous growth or something like that.
But never read about that leading into apes.

[Smokey D]

Humans have the tendency to do what they want.
without morals we will do what we like.
Humans like drugs, alchol, and getting what they want.
Sometime things that they want are what others want.
And when others want what you want.
We take each others heads off.
aka anarchism.

Without morals, how is that either right or wrong?


Just as how athiests say the bible has mistakes.
im sure that i can say biology books have mistakes in it too.
I remember reading something about spontaneous growth or something like that.
But never read about that leading into apes.

Spontaneous growth was disproven in the 19th Century and formed part of a rival theory to Darwinism. And of course biologies are not 100% correct, but they are largely correct and therefore you should read them.

[EJinCho]

i guess it wouldnt be wrong without morals
but we probably wouldnt exist until now without them.
And i think humans want to exist as long as they can, especially if your athiest since no one really likes putting their hopes in a grave.
And yeah i guess i should read a biology book but i think athiests could benefit from reading the bible aswell.
But it seems like everytime an athiest tries too, they get led the wrong way or misunderstand something.
anyways it was nice debating, im off to bed. I dont really debate much, this is the first time ive actually said something out of the guitar forums but i just thought id try to say a few words.

[neal_672]

Sure beats believing the idea of coming from an ape.


No, that's what people who don't understand evolution say.

We did not eveolve from apes, simply that apes and us shared a common ancestor, and we both evolved from that through necessity over millions of years. THAT is why you don't see any apes evolving right now, because a) we're completely different species so they're not gonna be walking around asking about the stock exchange anytime soon, and b) because it takes millions of years if they were supposed to.

It's quite a simple theory really, nobody thinks that an ape suddenly gave birth to a human because that is absurd, if that was our theory you'd be quite right for disbelieving it, i know i would too!

Seriously go read up on it, you might surprise yourself as to how much sense it makes in comparison to the creation story.

[siva_chair]

No. Consider that Buddhism is called a religion, yet Gautama Buddha very clearly stated that there is no God, no gods, no Creator, no Creation, etc.

I think you need to read more about Siddartha Gautama then, as he believed in God (in which the Hindus call Brahman, an eternal, genderless, omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent, yet indescribable). He, much like Jesus, simply taught you can become on with God through personal relationship with God. Siddartha most certainly wasn't an athiest.

Furthermore, dig this: As the wise test gold by cutting it and examining the streak made by rubbing it across a piece of touchstone, so should you accept my words only after examining them according to your own experience and reason, and not merely out of regard for me.

Yup, he is saying not to just believe things arbitrarily, as only you can show yourself truth.

Either Buddhism is not a religion, or religion is NOT always faith.

You're right. Religion isn't always faith. One must first find out what it means to have a religious mind.


I see greed as a fundamental quantity of people, infused into us (unfortunately) by evolutionary desires but unfortunately realised by our incredibly potent brains. I think that if society wants to improve it will have to learnt o realise its greed in small ways rather than in very big ways. And I don't think that wil happen. ever.

If society wishes to survive, it must stop trying to dominate nature and learn to live with it. Part of me believes the Garden of Eden story signifies man's desire to dominate nature and become gods ourselves. It is interesting to note that the argricultural revolution (the point in time where man felt the need to completely dominate nature) spawned modern society. After which, man started killing one another on a massive scale while simultaneously raping the land. Before that, science tells us that man lived in relative peace with nature for tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of years. Simple hunter-gatherers living day by day. Today, the threat of global extermination has never been greater, and all within just around 8,000-10,000years.

I'm an atheist. However I believe in the laws of physics, specifically, cause and effect. Just because there's no God, doesn't mean that actions stop having their repsective reactions, so things are predictable, and things aren't necessarily chaotic (please, please, please, nobody mention quantum physics!).

Quantum physics.

Because there is no proof (beyond personal proof/faith) for the existence of god, and Logic states that absence of proof for existence is an argument for the non-existence.

That is not true. Absence of proof is not proof of non-existence.

[Smokey D]

If society wishes to survive, it must stop trying to dominate nature and learn to live with it. Part of me believes the Garden of Eden story signifies man's desire to dominate nature and become gods ourselves. It is interesting to note that the argricultural revolution (the point in time where man felt the need to completely dominate nature) spawned modern society. After which, man started killing one another on a massive scale while simultaneously raping the land. Before that, science tells us that man lived in relative peace with nature for tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of years. Simple hunter-gatherers living day by day. Today, the threat of global extermination has never been greater, and all within just around 8,000-10,000years.


Nobe Savage = Bad.

Progress = Good.

Further, Genesis reads: "And God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth"

[lfantwister]

I think you need to read more about Siddartha Gautama then, as he believed in God (in which the Hindus call Brahman, an eternal, genderless, omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent, yet indescribable). He, much like Jesus, simply taught you can become on with God through personal relationship with God. Siddartha most certainly wasn't an athiest.

BUt that god wasn't the same as the Judeochristian God, which has very humanlike characteristics (love, jealousy, anger, etc). So he didn't believe in God, he believed in more of a spirit that permeated everything.

That's why all the old mystics, like Angelus Silesius were "condemned" by priests and stuff. Also, Siddhartha didn't really have anything that new. Look up Plotinus.

Wait--did Jesus say you can become one with God? I know he emphasized the personal relationship with God and that he is the father/creator/omnipotent being, but I didn't know you could become one with him through Christianity.

[Smokey D]

BUt that god wasn't the same as the Judeochristian God, which has very humanlike characteristics (love, jealousy, anger, etc). So he didn't believe in God, he believed in more of a spirit that permeated everything.

I'm pretty sure that would be considered God.

[siva_chair]

Nobe Savage = Bad.

Progress = Good.

Depends on what your definition of being a savage is and what you see as progress.

Further, Genesis reads: "And God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth"

Yup, it sure does. Of course, you know I believe in a non-literal interpretation of the Bible. I get the impression that we were imbued with the God-like quality of consciousness and free will, and that is what is meant by having dominion over the fish of the sea, ect. ect.

Also, an interesting thing to note: Look at the professions/trades of Cain and Abel. I believe this to be symbolic as well.

BUt that god wasn't the same as the Judeochristian God, which has very humanlike characteristics (love, jealousy, anger, etc). So he didn't believe in God, he believed in more of a spirit that permeated everything.

What do you think God is?

That's why all the old mystics, like Angelus Silesius were "condemned" by priests and stuff.

Since when are priests the authority on Christianity?

Also, Siddhartha didn't really have anything that new. Look up Plotinus.

Plotinus came about 700 years after Siddhartha.

Wait--did Jesus say you can become one with God? I know he emphasized the personal relationship with God and that he is the father/creator/omnipotent being, but I didn't know you could become one with him through Christianity.

Why couldn't you? God is everywhere.

What I believe is meant by relationship is relationship means to be related-not in action, not in some project, not in an ideology- but to be totally united in the sense that the division, the fragmentation does not exist. This comes from what I have observed and what I believe is meant by Jesus through my own interpretation and is in no way meant to be some declaration of authority on scripture from myself.

[Smokey D]

Depends on what your definition of being a savage is and what you see as progress.

In the context of the Noble Savage, a 'savage' is someone belonging to pre-civil society, where material progress is viewed as a bad thing.

[siva_chair]

In the context of the Noble Savage, a 'savage' is someone belonging to pre-civil society, where material progress is viewed as a bad thing.

I never said material progress is a bad thing, desire for material excess is what the problem is, IMO.

To be honest, if I had the skills and ability neccessary to do it, I would much rather live a simpler life of a hunter-gatherer like those of a more "native" peoples, than put up with the day to day conflicts and problems we have now.

[Smokey D]

No individual has the skills necessary to do that, however. Hence society.

[PerpetualBurn]

It's been almost 2006 years.
No one can prove that the bible is false.
I'm gonna keep believing in God until someone proves it wrong.
Even if it was false there is a lot in the bible that can teach you to be a better person.
Sure beats believing the idea of coming from an ape.
Yes im a sinner, and yes at times i find that im a hypocrite.
But i try not to and thats what counts.
no ones perfect.

You can't prove conclusively that Hobbits don't exist.

Following the bravery, selflessness, and over all heroic nature of Frodo will make you a better person.

[PerpetualBurn]

I never said material progress is a bad thing, desire for material excess is what the problem is, IMO.

To be honest, if I had the skills and ability neccessary to do it, I would much rather live a simpler life of a hunter-gatherer like those of a more "native" peoples, than put up with the day to day conflicts and problems we have now.

You say that until you die of cholera.

[Der Übermensch]

That is not true. Absence of proof is not proof of non-existence.
Not it isn't. Its proof for belief in the non-existence being the logical choice. Not the right choice in the end, but the logical one.

[PerpetualBurn]

If someone produces new evidence (it would be the first of its kind) for God, then I will reassess my position. Under current analysis, it is logical to not believe in God.

[free_thinkers_are_dangerous]

Even with morals you can take a look at the world today and see how bad it is.
Now imagine without the morals.
I dont mean to offend people who believe in darwinism, sorry if i do,
but i dont know how a random cell would pop up out of no where
and turn into a monkey finally leading into the creation of man or maybe woman.
so far, i havent heard of any apes that are in the process of turning into humans now days.
I dont think i should even be here since im not an athiest but i just wanted to check it out.

Ignorance isn't an excuse to keep believing something wrong.


If you really want to know, I'll go through it (again) for one last time. Flash back to when Earth was basically a bunch of lifeless swamps with lava jets and such all over the place. Weather systems were quite active, probably something comparable to nowadays.

Certain atoms have a natural tendency to group themselves together. Carbon is a good example, and each carbon atom will "try" to form 4 bonds with other atoms. If you ever took college chemistry, now's the time to dig out your books, but if not, basically that means that carbon has a tendency to group itself together with other carbon atoms and certain other elements - the ones worth remembering (off the top of my head, although I believe there are more) are N (nitrogen), O (oxygen), and P (phosphorous).

So now you have billions upon billions of "ordinary" carbon-based molecules floating around your swamp. Eventually, the laws of physics (look up Brownian movement if you don't believe me) state that molecules will collide with each other at high speeds. Now, the first ten billion times this happens, you may get no result, or simply the destruction and reformation of other compounds (ie a chemical reaction). But over thousands of years, enough of these collisions led to the formation of the first organic material (you'd have to look up what that was, although I believe it was some form of protein and/or phospholipids) for various of earth's lifeless swamps to be full of organic material. Still no life, but full of the building blocks of what would create it. Now, this part has all been recreated in a lab quite easily, so it is 100% plausible that this happened. The next steps, theorized to be similar to the collisions between inorganic molecules, basically boil down to dumping bricks out of a plane and hoping they land in the shape of a wall. Organic materials in the swamps would have had to be of the right mix (very possible if you take into account thousands of swamps and millions of years) and would have had to come together in just the right way (I believe the leading theory is that lightning struck one such swamp that had just the right balance) to create incredibly simplistic life. At this point, life was not even complex enough to be called single-cell organisms; it was just a cluster of organic material that reacted in various ways to different stimuli, grew in size, and broke apart (aka "reproduced") when the cluster grew too big. This part is the longshot - nobody can prove it happened, but if you take into account millions upon millions of trials, you can assume the possibility of it happening once is high enough for it to be plausible. After that, evolution took over, you ended up with RNA and more complex organic compounds adding themselves to the mix.

If humans and apes never had a common ancestor, how do you explain that our most distant ape relative still has something like 94% of the same DNA as us?

[Der Übermensch]

Next person to say Evolution says that we evolved from monkeys gets a (metaphorical) beating for sheer stupidity.

COMMON ANCESTOR =/= Monkey !!!!!

[EJinCho]

"Ignorance isn't an excuse to keep believing something wrong."

how are you 100% certain that i am ignorant? In my view you could be the one that's ignorant. Yeah i could check out more science texts books,
but you could also read through the bible and really try to understand it.
Instead of picking out random verses and saying that it is all false according to your own perspective.

Where did atoms and molecules come from?
Where did the quiet active weather systems and elements that help form the "organic" matter come from.

[free_thinkers_are_dangerous]

"Ignorance isn't an excuse to keep believing something wrong."

how are you 100% certain that i am ignorant? In my view you could be the one that's ignorant. Yeah i could check out more science texts books,
but you could also read through the bible and really try to understand it.
Instead of picking out random verses and saying that it is all false according to your own perspective.



You said this...


but i dont know how a random cell would pop up out of no where
and turn into a monkey finally leading into the creation of man or maybe woman.

And used your lack of knowledge as a reason to keep believing what you believe.



Yeah i could check out more science texts books,
but you could also read through the bible and really try to understand it.

How does one "understand" the Bible? By accepting it without question?

Instead of picking out random verses and saying that it is all false according to your own perspective.

I'm not picking out random verses, I'm teaching you something so you can't go around saying you "don't know". Life can be spawned from a bunch of water, some rocks, a lightning bolt, and millions of years of trial and error. Period.

Where did atoms and molecules come from?
Where did the quiet active weather systems and elements that help form the "organic" matter come from.

If I could tell you this, I'd win every Nobel prize for the next 500 years. The fact is that you can't tell me that either, and to say God did it is to simply chicken out of a real answer. Who created God? Is it not possible that some things are simply beyond our grasp, or that it'll take us another millenium to figure out? There are a lot of things ruled categorically impossible throughout history that are common knowledge now, and while that in itself isn't proof of anything, it's proof you shouldn't reject a possibility until you prove its impossibility.

[EJinCho]

I don't believe that putting my trust in evolution will give me knowledge.
I dont use lack of knowledge to believe in God.
I believe in god because i think that i am made up of more than trial and error.
By examining the way the universe and everything in it operates, i think its more than trial an error too.
Everthing just seems too complex and seems to fall into place.
Why is it that humans just happen to have legs to walk with and arms to work with and a brain to think with. etc.etc. Why couldnt we be a race with no arms and no legs living life as a human vegetable.
Why couldn't the human race be spawned from marrs where we would burn to nothing or maybe even pluto where we would freeze and live life as icicles.
We just happen to be on this planet called earth that is perfect for living.
Our existance just happens to fall in place in this ideal home.

All humans want to be loved. We feel satisfied when we are loved. That why we put our faith in God.
Animals, like apes, do not share the same emotions as us. They do not know what it really means to feel love.


You do not have to accept the bible without question. But i really think it is truly writing by God through inspiration. There is nothing from the bible that has been proven false.


God is more than something that could be created. God is not a ghost-like man that watches your every move.
God is i guess, a spirit that has always been here and will always be here.

I believe in God not because of lack of knowledge.
God is all that I got in the end. Why not believe? There is no real loss.
Without faith, we live a sad, purposeless life. So why not believe?
God doesnt ask for ALL YOUR TIME, ALL YOUR MONEY, salvation does not come through good deeds like what many other religions.
Salvation comes by simply believing that jesus died for everyone sins.

[neal_672]

"there is no real loss"

I'm not religious and even i know that's not true faith, that's just a fail safe.

Humans hav arms, legs etc because that's the way we evolved from our common ancestor. Why do you believe that we cannot have come about through the process of "trial and error" (ie natural selection) you suggest? It seems to me to be extremely arrogant of the human race to presume that we're too intelligent to have come about in a completely natural way.

Equally the word "love" is a human concept, we cannot prove that certain animals cannot feel love, some are also monogomous like humans.

The earth is indeed in a convenient place, but out of all the billions of stars/planets in the universe do you honestly believe that none of them were ever going to be perfect for intelligent life?

To be honest i'd rather do good deeds and run the risk, yet know that i've lived a happy, fulfilling, kind life and will be accepted by many other religions should they exist than put all my faith in Jesus who we know absolutely nothing about for certain.

[Der Übermensch]

ALL YOUR TIME, ALL YOUR MONEY,
But the Church does :p

Why couldn't the human race be spawned from marrs where we would burn to nothing or maybe even pluto where we would freeze and live life as icicles.
Because its an inhosptibale wasteland?

Animals, like apes, do not share the same emotions as us. They do not know what it really means to feel love.

Actually, higher level mammals, such as Dolphins, monkeys and Apes have, in studies, shown signs of expressing almost identical kinds of emotions to us... even love...

Salvation comes by simply believing that jesus died for everyone sins.
I believe that... I don't believe he was divine, and I dunno about the existence of god even... But Jesus died for our sins...

Think of a better answer there :p

There is nothing from the bible that has been proven false.
Actually, I did a wonderful little post on how there is a glaring contradiction between Luke and historical fact, but you probably won't believe me... I'll post it when I get home.

[-1up!-]

how are you 100% certain that i am ignorant? In my view you could be the one that's ignorant. Yeah i could check out more science texts books,
but you could also read through the bible and really try to understand it.
Instead of picking out random verses and saying that it is all false according to your own perspective.


lol. A science textbook has the purpose to explain phenomena and understand complex realities. The Bible's a large storybook, and stories won't ever help understand anything about man's origins. Snap out of it.

[coheneran]

lol. A science textbook has the purpose to explain phenomena and understand complex realities. The Bible's a large storybook, and stories won't ever help understand anything about man's origins. Snap out of it.

Are you sure you mean that? Maybe you need to snap out of your science-obsessed trance!

[nitzguy]

i need proof of god, not just blind faith.

off topic-i only want to know one thing from the people who love god... if Homosexuals go to hell for being Homosexuals, what happens to a male priest that rapes little 6-year-olds? do they goto hell or are they exempt from going to hell because they repent? and go do it again the next week! Thats whats f'ucked up about the church, and why i don't belive in it.

[Auberge le Mouton Noir]

Are you sure you mean that? Maybe you need to snap out of your science-obsessed trance!

You're expressing an opinion! How closed-minded.

[Der Übermensch]

off topic-i only want to know one thing from the people who love god... if Homosexuals go to hell for being Homosexuals, what happens to a male priest that rapes little 6-year-olds? do they goto hell or are they exempt from going to hell because they repent? and go do it again the next week! Thats whats f'ucked up about the church, and why i don't belive in it.
If a sinner repents, and MEANS it, they are absolved of that sin... Pedophile, homosexual, or what ever else they may be. If they confess a mortal sin, and have every intention of going and commiting it again next week, its not an honost confession, and is therefor Null and Void.

[coheneran]

And so only the sinner can know if she has truly repented, which means no one has the right to say that someone is going to Hell.

[siva_chair]

No individual has the skills necessary to do that, however. Hence society.

They did. We have become lazy. Society has conditioned us.

And have you seen that survivor guy on the discovery channel? :p

You say that until you die of cholera.

I think having to worry about that is much better than all the worries, concerns, and problems modern society has now.

Not it isn't. Its proof for belief in the non-existence being the logical choice. Not the right choice in the end, but the logical one.

How? You can't just say "Well, that's the logical default." What the absence of evidence does is gives one logical grounds to not believe in (that is in the affirmative) the existence of something. Not believing in the existence of something and believing in the non-existence of said thing are two completely different things. I fail to see how the lack of evidence gives logical justification for belief in the non-existence of something.

If someone produces new evidence (it would be the first of its kind) for God, then I will reassess my position. Under current analysis, it is logical to not believe in God.

There is a difference in not believing in God and believing in the non-existence of God. The former an agnostic could hold, while an athiest holds both beliefs.

[Der Übermensch]

I fail to see how the lack of evidence gives logical justification for belief in the non-existence of something.
If there is no proof, then there is no reason to believe... If proof is produced, then there is reason to...

[free_thinkers_are_dangerous]

How? You can't just say "Well, that's the logical default." What the absence of evidence does is gives one logical grounds to not believe in (that is in the affirmative) the existence of something. Not believing in the existence of something and believing in the non-existence of said thing are two completely different things. I fail to see how the lack of evidence gives logical justification for belief in the non-existence of something.


What would you accept as proof God doesn't exist? The problem with religious people who demand proof God doesn't exist before they stop believing is that no matter what you prove, they say God is something else. They used to think Heaven was in the clouds, and when we proved that above the clouds there was just a whole lot of thin air they said it was all metaphorical.They used to think the universe was created 5000 years ago and that species haven't changed since, and when they discovered fossils the excuse was that it was pure lies (although there was no good argument as to why). If we could prove what created the universe (or, better yet, that the universe has always been and was never "created"), you still wouldn't believe God didn't exist, because you are too stubborn to accept anything that doesn't confirm what you already believe.

[PerpetualBurn]

I think having to worry about that is much better than all the worries, concerns, and problems modern society has now.


You say that until you're pissing rusty water out your arse.

[Daisy_5]

My reasons for being an atheist are...

1) there is no proof or reasonable explenation as to why god or any other divine being would exist.

2) I feel that I can find my own spiritual meaning on my own by understanding MYself as that's all that I have in this life. Me, Obviously posessions and love and so on but the only thing that I really understand or really know is me because I am my own thoughts and feelings. Religion will not give me that insight, I will learn that insight from myself.

3) I do not need hope drafted and edited in a book for me. I have my own degree's of hope and mistrust. I don't need someone to explain right and wrong to me because Common sense is a lovely human trait we should all have.

The problem with trying to prove god's existence or god's non-existence is that we don't have the most in depth understanding of some scientific things but we don't have any evidence that some divine entity survives. My belief is nope,not a chance.

If we're talking Big bang here what about the possibility of there being thousands of big bang's and we're living in a universe after many before it. Head ****y to think about.

To the whole "It just so happens earth supports life yadda yadda". Actually earth is just the right distance from our sun to be able to support life. Perfect balance of heat,radiation and so on.
Mars is inhospitable because it's atmosphere has been leeched away. We have no proof no other life exists and we can never be sure untill we travel the universe and come back with either side of the argument as a known fact.

Personaly I think that life must exist somewhere else because we're not important enough to be the only life. The reasons aliens don't visit is 'cause we're on some ****ty backwater planet that's gonna end up destroying itself anyway :)

[Smokey D]

They did. We have become lazy. Society has conditioned us.

No, humans have always been social creatures.

And have you seen that survivor guy on the discovery channel? :p

One person is not representative of the human condition.


I think having to worry about that is much better than all the worries, concerns, and problems modern society has now.

Jeez, with all this abundant food, shelter and energy, how do we manage?

[siva_chair]

If there is no proof, then there is no reason to believe...

Your right, there would be no reason to believe in the existence of something. That is what I said. But you are still missing the fact that lack of evidence is not proof of the non-existence of something. Once again the statements "I do not believe in God" and "I believe God does not exist," are two different statemements.

If proof is produced, then there is reason to...

Of course.

What would you accept as proof God doesn't exist?

Well, I am not so niave to conclude the non-existence of anything as I do not possess infinite knowlege. I can conclude that I do not percieve a unicorn within my field of vision at the moment, but that doesn't mean I can logically deduce that unicorns don't exist anywhere. To conclude that God does not exist, one would have to know everything as only then would there be no unknown to make assumptions into. Ironically, if one knew everything, they would pretty much be God.

This is why athiesm is logically absurd to me, as it simply assumes into the realm of the unknown.


The problem with religious people who demand proof God doesn't exist before they stop believing is that no matter what you prove, they say God is something else. They used to think Heaven was in the clouds, and when we proved that above the clouds there was just a whole lot of thin air they said it was all metaphorical.They used to think the universe was created 5000 years ago and that species haven't changed since, and when they discovered fossils the excuse was that it was pure lies (although there was no good argument as to why). If we could prove what created the universe (or, better yet, that the universe has always been and was never "created"), you still wouldn't believe God didn't exist, because you are too stubborn to accept anything that doesn't confirm what you already believe.

And my question to you is: how do you know the original authors didn't write in metaphors for all this stuff? How do you know they meant it literally. It is very important to keep in mind that symbolism and metaphors were very common literary devices at the time, and lots of historical texts are littered with them.

You say that until you're pissing rusty water out your arse.

Still not as compounded as the problems and conflicts we face today.

No, humans have always been social creatures.

Never said we haven't. Nor did I say I would be completely alone.

The fact still remains that earlier man was much better equipped and prepared to live with nature as opposed to living against it, like we are today. Humans most certainly have the potential to live like that, as they have done it for thousands of years. We would just have to un-condition ourselves.


One person is not representative of the human condition.

Thus the reason for the :p at the end of the sentence.



Jeez, with all this abundant food, shelter and energy, how do we manage?

We build bombs and weapons capable of destroying whole populations while raping the land and continually bickering and dividing ourselves.

[Der Übermensch]

Your right, there would be no reason to believe in the existence of something. That is what I said. But you are still missing the fact that lack of evidence is not proof of the non-existence of something. Once again the statements "I do not believe in God" and "I believe God does not exist," are two different statemements.
Now your arguming semantics... one is a postive statement, one is a negative statement, but they both amount to the same general thing, and both are supported by the lack of proof...

[Smokey D]

Still not as compounded as the problems and conflicts we face today.

Materially, we are infinitely better off than at any other point in human history.


Never said we haven't. Nor did I say I would be completely alone.

Yes we have.

The fact still remains that earlier man was much better equipped and prepared to live with nature as opposed to living against it, like we are today. Humans most certainly have the potential to live like that, as they have done it for thousands of years. We would just have to un-condition ourselves.

Yes, there's a reason early man died at 25.

We build bombs and weapons capable of destroying whole populations while raping the land and continually bickering and dividing ourselves.

We make beauty and culture that was impossible to pre-civilised society. It's a trade off that I'm more than willing to make.

[PerpetualBurn]

This is why athiesm is logically absurd to me, as it simply assumes into the realm of the unknown.

This is the funniest thing any Christian ever said.

[RockAndRoll]

Now your arguming semantics... one is a postive statement, one is a negative statement, but they both amount to the same general thing, and both are supported by the lack of proof...
He's saying that a lack of proof supports agnosticism, not atheism.

[Dried Muffin Remnants]

It's hard to believe that everything in this universe spawned from some big mass of gases, so I can understand why people would muse about the unknown, Deities, and such...I just would never join any type of organization that'd try to explain creation or the origin of our species, because they don't know anything more than I do. I don't call myself an atheist because, IMO, that's just another group that believes that science can explain everything. Sure, I would certainly lean more to their side of the spectrum...but I think that there most certainly could be phenomena that science would be obviously useless for. I just find it funny that people claim to be experts on this subject, when, in reality, they could be completely ignorant. Maybe we all are.... But I think when it comes to people living their daily lives, they shouldn't rely on the unknown, and just use what has been proven.

I guess my point is that I find it foolish for people to call themselves anything...including an atheist.

[coheneran]

My problem with the Big Bang is this:

If the Universe was created by floating gasses, what created the gasses?

The real answer is probably something like: Odin farted.

[Der Übermensch]

He's saying that a lack of proof supports agnosticism, not atheism.
No. It supports both. If you want to prove something exists... how do you do that? You provide proof of its existence. If there is non, you can't provide proof, and therefor the logical deduction is that it doesn't exist. A athiest would say that proves his point. An Agnostic would say yep, but ya' never know, proof may arise in the future.

[free_thinkers_are_dangerous]

My problem with the Big Bang is this:

If the Universe was created by floating gasses, what created the gasses?

The real answer is probably something like: Odin farted.

My problem with that is that you still can't answer the same question about God. If God could always have been, why not the universe?

I have this (unproven :() theory that it's just one of those things that the human brain isn't intelligent enough to grasp. Before "something" there had to be "nothing," but how can "something" come from "nothing" unless there was "something" there before it? Infinite space-time continuums (continua? :amaze: ) are just not something the human mind can contemplate. It'd be foolish to think we have the brainpower to explain everything.

[Dried Muffin Remnants]

It'd be foolish to think we have the brainpower to explain everything.

...and that's precisely the reason why we can't automatically rule out the spiritual world. That's what I have against atheism. Sure, science works for our world, but how can we be sure it works for everything else?