Confessions of an Atheist

reply to post by Gigatronix


If we cannot take into account every possible variable would that not make it impossible for us? Seeing as to how we need 100% yet can only muster say 34%?

reply to post by Gigatronix


It is really just more of a qualifier. Like saying. "Yeah, I think God exists. But it doesn't really matter what I think because I also think we'll never know."

It is a round-about way of saying lets stop talking about it.

reply to post by Gigatronix


The only thing i would add is, even the " now " would mean nothing if their wasn't a purpose for it...

What have a purpose? A purpose indicates something else...meaning something additional.

I feel we must live in the now because it will help us become better people and I know you won't agree with me here but what we do in this life and everything that happens happen for the single reason to reconnect us with Life itself and the universal energy which everything is made up of......


I am glad though you decided to post your opinion in a bit of a different way than other atheist's have on here........

Your exactly right though......What do you get out of trying to prove to your neighbor that " Jesus is the way" or that there is no god..........

You are just wasting your time .....worry about yourself when it comes to spirituality......As only you can fully experience spirituality .

That does not mean be a spoiled brat and only worry about yourself, because in working with others and doing things for others you are essentially helping yourself grow and understand......

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
reply to post by Gigatronix

 

If we cannot take into account every possible variable would that not make it impossible for us? Seeing as to how we need 100% yet can only muster say 34%?

Yep its a vicious cycle isn't it? The bottom line is we can't say for sure. Not yet, or perhaps somebody did know, and word never got out lol! I guess I just don't like saying it's impossible, when the only reason we say that is possible because we haven't learned enough, something hasn't happened, or we just aren't looking in the right place. i rather not have that limitation in place, let's assume it IS possible, and maybe that will give us the extra edge to figure it all out!

reply to post by Gigatronix


"To my understanding, impossible is only a way of saying this cannot happen under these circumstances."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And at this point I feel you are most likely correct (although I can't say for sure )
I can't fathom how a pissant on a rock in the far reaches of an unremarkable galaxy that is only 1 of about 300 billion will ever be able to grasp knowledge of anything absolute in this infinite playground of space.

So, I'm agnostic.

Which means, I don't really care about your God. (not calling you a believer) At least not right now. Let me figure out interdimensional travel and then we'll ponder the nature of God. For now, I'll just say that yeah, there is probably a prime creator.

reply to post by Gigatronix


I think that is part of the nature of the universe. The journey *finding the answers* is where the growth is, not the goal *finally knowing the answers*. Which is true of a great deal of things you ask me. The journey is always far more important than the destination.

Originally posted by LucidDreamer85

What have a purpose? A purpose indicates something else...meaning something additional.

I posit that the only purpose to our physical existence is to experience it. A divine plan and cosmic alignment of stars is not neccessary, in my view there is an explanation for deja vu, the feeling of destiny or fate, dreams, prophecy and so on. These things can be explained without a cosmic purpose. In my opinion, of course, not even trying to assert that my explanation is right.

In working with others and doing things for others youa re essentially helping yourself grow and understand

This is really the most important thing, bravo to you for recognizing this truth. I really have a distaste for Atheist stereotype that we are morally bankrupt and without a compass,a dn that we place no value in other living things.

reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows


Absolutely right! This is a central tenant to what I believe, that the journey is the most important thing, and that its best realized ona individual level. It's also paramount to help other people while not infringing on their right to choose their own way.

[edit on 19-7-2009 by Gigatronix]

reply to post by Gigatronix


Most stereotypes suck. Generalized comments are usually the property of a meek mind.
But, this is the nature of man, I suppose.

Originally posted by LucidDreamer85

What have a purpose? A purpose indicates something else...meaning something additional.

This is where my "cold Atheist analysis" comes in. What if our "purpose" is simply to exist? To experience reality, interact with other living things, and continue. Obviously self preservation and reproducing are central human motivations. At our basic level we are like most other living things: Don't die,reproduce. But this doesn't mean we aren't capable of more. Because to continue can mean more than simply perpetuating your species, it is also the path to whatever is after death.

I would hate for my life to have a purpose that wasn't of my design. I'd feel like a slave to someone elses agenda. I hear the argument frequently about people dying in tragic accidents and the reason is because we are supposed to learn something from it, it's supposed to cause a reaction, it's gods will. I'm wondering how the deceased feel about that? I had to die horribly so people could forget the lesson in 6 months, or not even understand the "meaning" of it in the first place.

Everything happens for a reason.Itjust so happens that the reasons are usually much more mundane than the grand cosmic signifiganceness of what much of us would like to believe.

A guy is on his way home from work, is on a isolated road away from any other traffic, loses control of his car, crashes and dies. Why did he lose control of the car, investigators don't know, the crash mangled the car in such a way they can't do any kind of forensic analysis or whatever. The guy had 3 kids, a wife, and was a decent citizen. With no explanantion to explain why it happened, we would say something like"It happened for a reason" or "It was his time" or "insert comforting cliche here" In reality the accident could be explained, just not by the people examining the problem. And they might have been able to at some point in time if only X,Y,Z had been A,B,C.

How long did we cling to ideas as supernatural simply because we couldn't explain it, and thought it would be impossible to know? And how many times did we find out those earlier guys were wrong?

How much ya wanna bet we're still doing it.

There probably is very little happening in the universe that isn't explainable. Just because some guy doesn't know, doesn't mean there isn't an answer. And just because some guy claims he can, doesn't mean he's right.

What would be funny, is if the "Confessions of an Atheist" were "I believe in God, as a power greater than myself."

I'm curious, I'm hoping someone will indulge me here:

Why does it make sense for there to be a god?

What is the argument against there being no God?

Now I'm not looking for an explanantion for a specific god, I'm looking for an argument for there to be a god period. Why is it more reasonable to have one than not?

reply to post by Gigatronix


It could work either way.

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
reply to post by Gigatronix

 

It could work either way.

Well yeah we know that, but alot of people don't. Im curious what the intellectual reasoning is by people who believe differently than myself. Not because I want to debunk it, it just helps in the empathy/objectivity department hehe.

It boils down to a first cause vs. a causeless cause, and an experiencial knowing, that there is a power greater than self who loves even the smallest of things.

No God makes no sense in the face of an immaculate conception of reality itself.

And the God concept resonates, deeply, in a way the unbeliever just can't seem to grasp, and there's wisdom there, and intelligence, something from beyond the sphere of the mind and the self.

And then all the moden science, and ideas around consciousness, holographic mind and universe, all these things point to the person as a sphere within a sphere all of which is aware and self aware, in a final relativity of being.

In fact, the best way to think of God is as Jesus did, like a loving and intimate parent, that's the experience, the knowing.

And there's feeback too, which, if the whole thing were nothing but a deklusion, wouldn't be workable or helpful.

Think source energy if you don't like the word God or universal intelligence, or self aware universe, creator, whatever.

Seems the G word really gets in the way for a lot of people.

reply to post by Gigatronix


I know what you mean. But for the best I can see most dismiss or accept it based purely on the window dressings of the thing or politics of the sides supporting it. And I say this having "bumped" heads with both sides while just throwing possibilities out there. Rather like the whole silly evolution versus creation debate when either side refuses to acknowledge that both could happen with each other *meaning a created creature could evolve if the creator so wished it or evolution could be the way in which a creator creates*.

[edit on 21-7-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]

Originally posted by OmegaPoint
No God makes no sense in the face of an immaculate conception of reality itself.

Are you saying this because of your perception of reality, or because the infinite complexity of creating all that is seems impossible to achieve without a god? Or do you have a different reason?

And the God concept resonates, deeply, in a way the unbeliever just can't seem to grasp, and there's wisdom there, and intelligence, something from beyond the sphere of the mind and the self.

As does the no god concept. It could all still work.

In fact, the best way to think of God is as Jesus did, like a loving and intimate parent, that's the experience, the knowing.

It might be a comfortable way of thinking about it, but is it really accurate? You sure you aren't mistaking god for your higher self? Because a higher self could afford you some of that knowingness, guidance feeling.

And there's feeback too, which, if the whole thing were nothing but a deklusion, wouldn't be workable or helpful.

Of course in my view, the origins and meaning of this are debatable. not gonna say things don't happen that are miraculous or destined or whatever you wanna say, but that their explanation is open for interpretation.

Think source energy if you don't like the word God or universal intelligence, or self aware universe, creator, whatever.

I actually do think along the lines of energy, but I don't see the need for there to be a god. Infinite energy consciousness, with infinite parallell realities. You are experiencing one, as the consciousness of your reality. There is only infinite unique consciousness, experiencing their version of reality. You are born, you start perceiving. You die, you stop perceiving briefly, then you enter back in somewhere in the total physical existence at some point in the time current.

Seems the G word really gets in the way for a lot of people.

Meh, methinks it does for the people believing in him.

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
*meaning a created creature could evolve if the creator so wished it or evolution could be the way in which a creator creates*.

[edit on 21-7-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]

Ah but you're saying both sides support each other, but your examples only help the case for god. God takes all the credit. of course this is after more than a few gods objected to the advancement of the science that lead to evolution. Now they just do an about face and claim it was their idea all along. how does God taking the credit help the case for evolution? Aside form the benefit of people just accepting information on the basis that god did it.

[edit on 21-7-2009 by Gigatronix]

reply to post by Gigatronix


Um, not what I meant at all Gig. Those examples are simply ways of illustrating that evolution no more refutes creationism than creationism refutes evolution. Basically that neither idea supports or detracts from the other. If you get down to the meat of the two ideas minus all the political "I'm right and your wrong" crap thrown in. And just a silly question, when have you heard a "God" speak against evolution? I mean I believe it's a possibility some type of being we would call a God exists but I would never claim I met one. *just being silly

*

[edit on 21-7-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows

Um, not what I meant at all Gig.

when either side refuses to acknowledge that both could happen with each other

I understood this to mean that the two were compatible in some way. That they both supported explanations of the opposite view. yes evolution is a compelling argument for god. God is a compelling argument for evolution. But evolution is also a viable argument for Atheism. No wonder god wants it for himself.

when have you heard a "God" speak against evolution?

Well seeing how religious folk seem to think that they are receiving the absolute word of God, and only they can experience his glory, it seems reasonable to assume that God's will is manifested through them. So whatever picket sign they're waving around must be straight from the horses mouth LOL