How could atheism exist?

Originally posted by AeroQuake
Athiesm simply exists because of two reasons, well, I've narrowed it down to them:


1.) People are lazy, which comes down to, they don't want to make a commetment like that, Wednsdays, Sundays, Sunday Nights....Saturday nights if Catholic.


2.) They think science can prove everything, Athiesm exists within Darwanism, being the fact that we came from Apes, which scientifically is impossible;

First mistake. Saying atheists exist because people are lazy and don't want to go to church in the morning or whenever people go. Explain then why I, an atheist, am soooo lazy that I run cross country, track, and participate in taekwon do! Doesn't sound too lazy, does it?

Second was already explained, we didn't evolve from apes. Common ancestor. All that jazz, already stated by Gazrok.

Another thing is Phsycis, Quantum Fravity and whatnot, don't ask me how I know this, most of it I learned around, plus reading a lot of physics book, heh... As I was saying, Time=Power, Power=Light, Light=Time, so, no light, no time, it's Algebra, If A=B, and B=C, then A must surely Equal C, Three factors, Father, Son, Holy spirit, now onto Intelligent Design.

Alright, I won't ask you where you got your information, but by doing so, it is useless, and cannot be used. Time is a creation of man, and therefore cannot equal power, power was not created by man.

Intelligent design, has nothing to do with God, but does show the fact that there must've been a higher force creating the universe, galaxy, etc. The Earth's Atmospheric Oxygen level, as most people know, is somewhere around 22.3, any less, and we couldn't breath it, any more, and the simplest spark, or flame would annihalate the Earth, considering Oxygen IS flammable/explosive. ALSO The Earth is stationed perfectly, One planet closer, we'd fry, one planet farther, we'd freeze.

If you payed attention to astronomy, you would realize that many planets in the galaxy are in the same position as us. Usually, there is an area too cold, too hot, and just right, kinda like the three bears and their delicious porridge. Bigger stars means more areas of each, smaller stars vice versa.

"The job of apologetics is to clear the ground, to clear obstacles that prevent people from coming to the knowledge of Christ," Dembski said. "And if there's anything that I think has blocked the growth of Christ [and] the free reign of the Spirit and people accepting the Scripture and Jesus Christ, it is the Darwinian naturalistic view.... It's important that we understand the world. God has created it; Jesus is incarnate in the world."

Above is a quote from William Dembski, a senior fellow involved with ID. Now, after reading that, how is ID not religious? The entire purpose of ID is to give "scientific" evidence of creationism. All of the "scientists" involved with ID would not be classified as such by peers. Many have not even had the best schooling.

If they succeed, which I doubt, then they would hope to teach creationsim in school. Which is lunacy.

Now, I'm just giving you this information on two reasons, Atheism, technically those people believe lies, and Darwinist belive in all things scientific, so why shoot themselves in the foot with information that would instantly state Evolution a False?

I don't understand what you are saying here! You are spouting nonsense in this paragraph. How are we shooting ourselves in the foot?



As to the original question of this thread. There is one simple answer, in many cases it is true. The reason atheism can exist is because of apathy. People really don't give a dookie whether or not god exists, and everyone who goes around preaching the gospel and "feeling sorry" for them doesn't influence them at all, because they don't care!

www.au.org...

Above is the link to the article from which I got the Dembski quote. A good read, as is everything on the au website. There is another article on there concerning ID, titled "Insidious Design."

Thank you all, and adieu.


www.au.org...

[edit on 10-1-2005 by Kompaktor]

Originally posted by badkitty
Yes, but I find it very compelling that recent research in molecular biology and genetics indicates that humans are more closely related to chimpanzees than cats are to lions. How about the concept of evolutionary creationism? Meaning maybe we are evolved from some other creature but that does not preclude the concept of a creator. Just maybe we were not one of the original creations. Maybe God just generated the big bang and evolution took it from there. I wish we knew definitively. It would save a lot of headache and bloodshed. But the fact is no one on this planet knows for sure. At least not yet.

Ummm...sorry to burst your bubble...but every organism has DNA that is atleast 95% the same. You want to know the source? A Kid's Discover magazine. Yes, for kids.

Originally posted by Kompaktor

Originally posted by badkitty
Yes, but I find it very compelling that recent research in molecular biology and genetics indicates that humans are more closely related to chimpanzees than cats are to lions. How about the concept of evolutionary creationism? Meaning maybe we are evolved from some other creature but that does not preclude the concept of a creator. Just maybe we were not one of the original creations. Maybe God just generated the big bang and evolution took it from there. I wish we knew definitively. It would save a lot of headache and bloodshed. But the fact is no one on this planet knows for sure. At least not yet.

Ummm...sorry to burst your bubble...but every organism has DNA that is atleast 95% the same. You want to know the source? A Kid's Discover magazine. Yes, for kids.

I'm not sure how you think this might burst my bubble. You must have misunderstood me. I was implying by my statement that evolution my very well have occured. And further that maybe man was not "created" as most religions imply but merely is a part of the natural evolution. My only implication of creation was that maybe god generated the big bang and the scientific view of all life evolving from a single organism is true.

Therefore, your evidence supports my proposition rather than debunking it.

However, let me clarify that this is just a thought - I do not claim to know the answer to this and argue that no one knows unequivicollay the origins of the universe.

Originally posted by stumason

I heard that the fact that we only use a little bit of our brain either isn't true in the first place or doesn't affect our ability to comprehend, think, or act.

Your right. we use all parts of our brain, but not at the same time. Bit like using bits for reading, but you wouldn't also use the a part of the brain needed for driving a car at the same time.

(crappy example I know, but converys the point)

You're basically saying that we use all parts of our brain, just only 10% or so at a time.

But you don't even have to go that far. The whole idea that we only use a small part of our brain is false. It was made up by the superstitious and those that believe in psychic phenomena to help prove the "latent psychic" idea. It is not true, we use pretty much all of our brain at the same time. Have you ever heard of someone being shot in the head, and the doctor saying "It's alright, it hit the part we don't use!"?

Originally posted by Ikku

Originally posted by stumason

I heard that the fact that we only use a little bit of our brain either isn't true in the first place or doesn't affect our ability to comprehend, think, or act.

Your right. we use all parts of our brain, but not at the same time. Bit like using bits for reading, but you wouldn't also use the a part of the brain needed for driving a car at the same time.

(crappy example I know, but converys the point)

You're basically saying that we use all parts of our brain, just only 10% or so at a time.

But you don't even have to go that far. The whole idea that we only use a small part of our brain is false. It was made up by the superstitious and those that believe in psychic phenomena to help prove the "latent psychic" idea. It is not true, we use pretty much all of our brain at the same time. Have you ever heard of someone being shot in the head, and the doctor saying "It's alright, it hit the part we don't use!"?

Well, we dont use 100% percent all at the sametime, because certain areas of the brain are not needed for certain situations. For example, you wouldnt need the area of the brain that controls emotions and future planning when you take a piss. Also, you can operate with only half of your brain. There have been cases when a patient has to have the left or right side taken out out due to seizsures that cannot be stopped, and if its gets taken out at a young age, they will re-learn a lot of the things that they could only do on the side that was cut out. The brain will learn to re-wire itself and make new connections on the remaining half.

No, we do not use 100% of our brain at once, but we certainly use more than 10%. Even while you take a piss, your brain is regulating pretty much everything going on in your body (including said waste removal) and also producing thought pretty much constantly.

My two cents. I think the Science explains everything theories and atheist beliefs over look the fact that something had to first create something for it to exist at all. If it wasn't created then where did anything come from. It's said that there was a big bang. That's nice and all, but how did this stuff get there to get big banged. Science that does not include a driving force like a god or a spirit just cannot explain everything, it never will. It is much easier to prove there is a creating force or god than not. You only have to look back the very beginning to see this. Sorry, but nothing can exist at all unless it is first created. Think about it.

Troy

ok...but, it has also been proposed that the big bang happens over and over an infinite amount of times. the universe simply expands infinitely and compresses infinitely.
It's hard to think about because the human race doesn't even consist of a fraction of the "life" of the universe. We aren't even a speck on the univeral timeline.

Yes, which makes much more sense than an eternal creator figure, because we KNOW that matter exists, and it is constant. That's a lot more proof than religion has.

This question is becoming polarized - Christian vs. Atheist. (There was one mention of Hindu, but for the most part we are looking at Christianity or Atheist.)

Every time I see this I am likely to jump in and give my two cents worth, like it or not.

There are about a billion religions in the world so it seems. Some of them do not have gods. As far as I know Buddhism has no God, neither does Taoism I am pretty sure, as well as some Native American traditions. Those are just the ones of which I can think, I am certain there are more.

I am genuinely curious so I am asking the Atheists here:

Are you an Atheists because you don't accept Christianity, or are you an Athiest because you don't believe in belief systems?

The amount of time that this universe has been here is vast, it seems neverending. Whatever big bang theories or whatever happened, are secondary to creation. One only has to ask where did the matter first come from. You are only left with one answer, creation.

There is nothing complex about it, it is quite simple, it's all these atoms, material, and other stuff that confuses the simplicity of it. If you don't believe in creation, then try this, go home and make a cake without creating it. That "particular" cake did not come about untill you first had an idea about making the cake. "You" will be the one to mix the ingredients by whatever means, even if it is only pushing a button. "You" will be the one to tell your body to turn on the oven, etc.

"You" are a spirtual being, and a "creator" did create this universe. You are not some mindless animal.

Troy

Originally posted by wellwhatnow
Are you an Atheists because you don't accept Christianity, or are you an Athiest because you don't believe in belief systems?

Im atheist because I lack belief in God/Gods. I dont believe anything defies the natural laws of the universe. I see no evidence of design. God is just an abstract concept to me that makes little sense. It is tricky though, because God is such a vague term. When I say I lack belief in a God, I mean that I lack belief in a creator of some kind of intelligent design. What some people consider "God" I believe may play part in some kind of natural explanation that some day we will come to understand. I just see no point in calling it God because it would be a natural part of life. I'm not talking about a conscious being of some sort, but maybe a natural cycle of life, reincarnation of some sort, a soul, some type of source or energy, im not sure. I just think that if it exists, we can observe it one day. Im not saying I believe these things, only that they may possibly (in my mind) have some sort of truth. We'll see what the future brings, though.

Originally posted by Ikku
Not necessarily. You don't need anything to justify God's existence. Apparently he just exists, he has no creator. I can apply the same thinking to humans. We just exist, we have no creator.

Nicely put. I've never thought abot it that way!

Personally, im an atheist, and I cant see why someone could believe in a supreme being. So I feel the exact opposite, compared to the author of this thread.

I agree with the previous poster. I find it hard to grasp that people put blind faith into an all powerful god and creator. I think that God was created by humans not the other way around. Whenever something was unexplainable or frightening to us we turned to our parents when we were children. Now when we grow older that same "reflex" occurs and we begin to imagine a great all knowing parental figure to protect and inform us about the big bad world we suddenly find our selves alone in. I don't believe in an all powerful creator and God, but I do believe that there is something more to this world than just natural laws. Also I absolutely despise organized religion. It causes many more problems than the ones it tries to fix.

To answer the original question, the reason atheism exists is because we are all different. It is just that simple. It is hard enough to find two Christians who agree on everything about the Bible. I don't know how you could ever find two people of different paths who are going to agree. There is a Jewish saying: "Ask two Jews a question and you are likely to recieve three different answers." This could be said of almost any two people.

"Religion" is a concept and is so intangible that it is hard for me to pinpoint an accurate definition. I think that there are openings in any organized religion into which corruption can enter. So from that point of view I can understand not wanting to be involved in some huge church that looks more like a corporation than a temple.
so,
Mxyztos (and others),
again, I am just curious - how do you feel about unorganized religion or like systems?

Man i was brought up a catholic, but through in the towel on all that stuff, i dont see how u can`t believe someone cant belive in some kind of god, the way i see it, Both sides can seem equally absurd depending on ur view,
i say not beliveing in a god counts as a "belief", in its self.

Excuse poor spelling and punctuation

To answer my own question, I guess, I have to say I agree with wellwhatnow. With over 6 billion people in the world, it's statistically obvious that there will be plenty that don't believe in a God, even if He has made Himself perfectly noticeable to us many times (which He has throughout history).

The purposes behind theism are more debatable than atheism.

Primitive human beings could explain little by way of natural phenomena. As knowledge increased, individuals with knowledge could increase their power base. Some even used their knowledge to get people to believe in creation myths.

These are universal. The evil purposes to which they are put, however, vary markedly between cultures.

Mxyztos (and others),
again, I am just curious - how do you feel about unorganized religion or like systems?

Personally I don't have a problem with people practicing their faiths individually, or even as a small group. What I don't like is when religion is institutionalized. The leaders of the faith may start with good intentions or even start out with bad ones, but once you put individuals in control of people they will inevitably corrupt. This problem is magnified with faith. Like I said before people blindly believe in their religion. This makes them even more easily influenced by respective leaders offering their take on the scriptures than government officials propaganda promoting certain policies.

Now wait a moment slacker2788, I wasn't saying that exactly!
What one person interpretes as proof of God another person may not.

I personally am a Pagan Unitarian. I used to be a practicing Buddhist. The first of these paths is labeled polytheist, the second is labeled atheist. They are just labels. One of the things these two paths have in common is that neither teaches that salvation can be obtained through a messiah figure. Neither path denies that dieties exist, yet the two faiths have opposing labels. I am not saying I am right and everyone else isn't. I am just saying that these things are labels.

Here are the points I was trying to make from the beginning:

Rejection of Christianity does not make one an atheist. Christianity is not the only religion in the world.

Everyone (including atheists) have faith in something. The atheist just places his/her faith outside of what may be considered religion. The atheist may place faith in their own personal power, their higher self, political agendas, science, their spouse, or the fact that the sun will rise tomorrow morning - but they have faith in something, somewhere; even if it is faith that life sucks and then you die.

Human beings believe in things. We have to believe in things because none of us are stupid enough to think that we know every mystery of the Universe. We don't have all the answers, so we form hypotheses.
Why is it so hard to believe that we will all form different ones?
This is why atheism exists. To ask why it exists makes as much sense as asking why don't we all have the same favorite colour?

My favorite color is black and I have absolute proof it is the best color in the whole wide world! It is obviously the best, now why can't the rest of you poor slobs see that?