Atheist Sunday Assembly goes worldwide, the future is bright for non-believers

Originally posted by solomons path

Originally posted by pacifier2012
Always said atheism was a religion. This proves it.

Whats funnier is this group have more 'faith' than the ones they say they oppose. Funnier than that, is they don't see that they have more 'faith'.

Ugh . . . faith by definition means believing in something without evidence. How is not believing in something that has no evidence to support it considered faith? It is the exact opposite . . . If you are a believer, you should brush up on Hebrews Chap 11. This coming from an Atheist.

I'm agnostic for the simple reason that we have no scientific evidence or capability to prove or disprove a higher power does or doesn't exist.

Therefore , wouldn't an atheist who says a higher power doesn't exist as a fact , would have had to take a leap of faith to come to such a conclusion?

Note: I tend to be on the atheist side when it comes believing in a God as we typically refer to in religion, but I have no way to scientifically prove it either. Therefore I accept it for what it is , an unknown.

Originally posted by Cuervo

Originally posted by solomons path

Originally posted by pacifier2012
Always said atheism was a religion. This proves it.

Whats funnier is this group have more 'faith' than the ones they say they oppose. Funnier than that, is they don't see that they have more 'faith'.

Ugh . . . faith by definition means believing in something without evidence. How is not believing in something that has no evidence to support it considered faith? It is the exact opposite . . . If you are a believer, you should brush up on Hebrews Chap 11. This coming from an Atheist.

Evidence is perspective-based. There is no evidence for a lack of gods and goddesses. However, a religious person often has a personal gnosis in which evidence is presented for that person specifically.

I don't wish to get into a weird back-and-forth about it but I personally think it takes less faith for me to believe in my deities than it takes for an atheist to believe that none exist. In fact, I don't even call what I am "a person of faith" because I don't have faith in the face of something I consider to be completely immanent and tangible on a daily basis for me.

Fortunately for atheists and believers alike, existence is a wheel and we literally will all come around, eventually.

No . . . evidence is physical. Your "gnosis" or knowing may be perspective based, but you can't show any other person this evidence. You can try to "convince", proselytize, or rationalize what you "know" to others, but you can't point to anything that is tangible (material). In the end, you have no physical proof for any god, or anything supernatural for that matter. That is why it is "faith" . . . just as the definition implies.

Nothing in the physical world, to this point, requires a supernatural entity or intervention to explain its existence.

If/when any real tangible evidence, that can be shared and tested, emerges . . . I will reconsider my position. Don't assume that my lack of belief means I don't have full knowledge of religious texts . . . gnostic or otherwise. How could I come to an informed decision, if not through search?

Originally posted by solomons path

Originally posted by Cuervo

Originally posted by solomons path

Originally posted by pacifier2012
Always said atheism was a religion. This proves it.

Whats funnier is this group have more 'faith' than the ones they say they oppose. Funnier than that, is they don't see that they have more 'faith'.

Ugh . . . faith by definition means believing in something without evidence. How is not believing in something that has no evidence to support it considered faith? It is the exact opposite . . . If you are a believer, you should brush up on Hebrews Chap 11. This coming from an Atheist.

Evidence is perspective-based. There is no evidence for a lack of gods and goddesses. However, a religious person often has a personal gnosis in which evidence is presented for that person specifically.

I don't wish to get into a weird back-and-forth about it but I personally think it takes less faith for me to believe in my deities than it takes for an atheist to believe that none exist. In fact, I don't even call what I am "a person of faith" because I don't have faith in the face of something I consider to be completely immanent and tangible on a daily basis for me.

Fortunately for atheists and believers alike, existence is a wheel and we literally will all come around, eventually.

Nothing in the physical world, to this point, requires a supernatural entity or intervention to explain its existence.

What came first the Chicken or the Egg?

Originally posted by interupt42

Originally posted by solomons path

Originally posted by pacifier2012
Always said atheism was a religion. This proves it.

Whats funnier is this group have more 'faith' than the ones they say they oppose. Funnier than that, is they don't see that they have more 'faith'.

Ugh . . . faith by definition means believing in something without evidence. How is not believing in something that has no evidence to support it considered faith? It is the exact opposite . . . If you are a believer, you should brush up on Hebrews Chap 11. This coming from an Atheist.

I'm agnostic for the simple reason that we have no scientific evidence or capability to prove or disprove a higher power does or doesn't exist.

Therefore , wouldn't an atheist who says a higher power doesn't exist as a fact , would have had to take a leap of faith to come to such a conclusion?

Note: I tend to be on the atheist side when it comes believing in a God as we typically refer to in religion, but I have no way to scientifically prove it either. Therefore I accept it for what it is , an unknown.

edit on 12-3-2013 by interupt42 because: (no reason given)

An Atheist doesn't believe simply because there is no proof . . . physical, scientific, or otherwise. Hearsay and mythology isn't proof . . . or else Zeus, Ra, Thor, Krishna would all be just as real. If evidence is produce, then an Atheist should re-examine their view on the supernatural.

Agnostics "know", from gnosis, there is a higher power they just do not name/label or subscribe to a certain set of religious dogma.

You have described yourself as an Atheist . . . you just seem "on the fence" about outing yourself as such . . . nothing wrong with saying "we don't know" and until we do . . . I don't believe in supernatural entities. Unless of course, you do believe deep down and are afraid if you don't believe you are going to hell, or something?

reply to post by interupt42


That's a nice deflection . . . what have we ever discovered in the physical world that requires a supernatural entity to ensure it operates as it does? Answer: Nothing. So far the laws of physics have provided us with a natural explanation for everything. Do we know exactly how it all started or why it happened . . . No. And I'm okay with that as we are still trying to figure it out . . . I don't have use the old "well, we don't know, so must be magic" to make explain my place in the universe. If it makes you more comfortable to believe in fairy tales and invisible magic men, be my guest . . . I don't deny anyone that right.

Originally posted by solomons path

Originally posted by interupt42

Originally posted by solomons path

Originally posted by pacifier2012
Always said atheism was a religion. This proves it.

Whats funnier is this group have more 'faith' than the ones they say they oppose. Funnier than that, is they don't see that they have more 'faith'.

Ugh . . . faith by definition means believing in something without evidence. How is not believing in something that has no evidence to support it considered faith? It is the exact opposite . . . If you are a believer, you should brush up on Hebrews Chap 11. This coming from an Atheist.

I'm agnostic for the simple reason that we have no scientific evidence or capability to prove or disprove a higher power does or doesn't exist.

Therefore , wouldn't an atheist who says a higher power doesn't exist as a fact , would have had to take a leap of faith to come to such a conclusion?

Note: I tend to be on the atheist side when it comes believing in a God as we typically refer to in religion, but I have no way to scientifically prove it either. Therefore I accept it for what it is , an unknown.

edit on 12-3-2013 by interupt42 because: (no reason given)

An Atheist doesn't believe simply because there is no proof . . . physical, scientific, or otherwise. Hearsay and mythology isn't proof . . . or else Zeus, Ra, Thor, Krishna would all be just as real. If evidence is produce, then an Atheist should re-examine their view on the supernatural.

Agnostics "know", from gnosis, there is a higher power they just do not name/label or subscribe to a certain set of religious dogma.

You have described yourself as an Atheist . . . you just seem "on the fence" about outing yourself as such . . . nothing wrong with saying "we don't know" and until we do . . . I don't believe in supernatural entities. Unless of course, you do believe deep down and are afraid if you don't believe you are going to hell, or something?

Like I said I'm agnostic and I accept that I have no clue whether a God exists or not and its not based out of any fear. Its solely based on the fact that we have no way of proving either way. I would rather be wrong and truthful to myself than fear into believing in something.

Perhaps we might be arguing on the semantics:

atheism.about.com...

What is an Atheist?

An atheist is anyone who doesn't happen to believe in any gods, no matter what their reasons or how they approach the question of whether any gods exist. This is a very simple concept, but it's also widely misunderstood. For that reason, there are a variety of ways to state this. Atheism is: the lack of belief in gods, the absence of belief in gods, disbelief in gods, not believing in gods.

What is an Agnostic?
An agnostic is anyone who doesn't claim to know for that any gods exist or not, no matter what their reasons or how they approach the question of whether any gods exist. This is also a simple concept, but it may be as widely misunderstood as atheism is. One major problem is that atheism and agnosticism both deal questions about the existence of gods, but whereas atheism involves what a person does or does not believe, agnosticism involves what a person does or does not know. Belief and knowledge are related but nevertheless separate issues.

There's a simple test to tell if one is an agnostic or not. Do you think you know for sure if any gods exist? If so, then you're not an agnostic. Do you think you know for sure that gods do not or even cannot exist? If so, then you're not an agnostic. Everyone who can't answer "yes" to one of those questions is a person who may or may not believe in one or more gods, but since they don't also claim to know for sure they are agnostic — an agnostic theist or an agnostic atheist.

What if all that you believe are in fact null and void??

Apparently, "change" is a constant and for that reason labeling one's faith as an atheist or a christian is irrelevant in this context.

For when the next big discovery comes about, which may amount to "evidence", to either one of the two specified. Then either faith becomes null and void.

Perhaps further explanations will be thrown in to complicate strengthen the belief and non-beliefs.

Being open-minded and seeing change as it is, in my opinion is not subjective and for that matter cannot be ruled null and void.

Peace

reply to post by interupt42


Semantics maybe . . .

Also, my mistake, as I described Gnostics (not Agnostics) . . . so, my prior post is somewhat in error. I'll leave it as I don't believe in hiding my mistakes.

But, yes I don't believe. But, I don't think that takes a leap of faith, as there is no evidence to support it. No evidence doesn't exist. But, again, with evidence that can change. For example . . .

I also don't believe in ghosts, angels, fairies, etc . . . all dwell in the realm of the supernatural. If anything is produced to support the supernatural . . . then I can consider the possiblility of a deity and become Agnostic. If we find something in the known universe that can only be explained with the addition of the supernatural, again then I can re-examine and become Agnostic. But, how is it faith to not believe in that the has absolutely no physical evidence. Should one also be Agnostic about leprechauns or unicorns? I mean you never know, anything is possible right? Is it a leap of faith to say you don't believe in other such creatures besides a deity?

I've always felt as I said previously . . . Agnostics are simply riding the fence because they don't want to "be wrong".

Here is how convoluted the thinking can get from the Agnostic Wiki:

Agnosticism often overlaps with other belief systems. Agnostic theists identify themselves both as agnostics and as followers of particular religions, viewing agnosticism as a framework for thinking about the nature of belief and their relation to revealed truths. Some nonreligious people, such as author Philip Pullman, identify as both agnostic and atheist.[9] In contrast, the philosopher William L. Rowe said that in the popular sense, an agnostic is someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in the existence of a deity or deities, whereas a theist and an atheist believe and disbelieve, respectively, and that in the strict sense agnosticism is the view that human reason is incapable of rationally justifying the belief that deities do, or do not, exist.

Originally posted by InnerPeace2012
What if all that you believe are in fact null and void??

Apparently, "change" is a constant and for that reason labeling one's faith as an atheist or a christian is irrelevant in this context.

For when the next big discovery comes about, which may amount to "evidence", to either one of the two specified. Then either faith becomes null and void.

Perhaps further explanations will be thrown in to complicate strengthen the belief and non-beliefs.

Being open-minded and seeing change as it is, in my opinion is not subjective and for that matter cannot be ruled null and void.

Peace

edit on 12-3-2013 by InnerPeace2012 because: apparently used put objective instead of subject...complicating things further I guess

That is the nature of the scientific mind . . . change comes with evidence and confirmation. If you would rather go through life with the "anything is possible, so believe eveything" theory or "believe nothing for for tomorrow it may change" philosophy . . . that is your prerogative. That isn't to say that I am closed to the possiblity or that I will deny the evidence . . . but, until any evidence is produced, I don't believe. Just as I don't believe in fairies, demons, or angels. So far everthing around us has a natural explanation and that is good enough for me . . . what is wrong with being in wonder of the natural world and all that it holds? I find wonder/beauty/amazement in the universe to a much greater extent knowing that it doesn't require a supernatural force to create or intervene to make possible. Much greater than when I was younger and believed it the supernatural was responsible.

I hold my fellow man in higher regard and feel a greater connection to the universe . . . knowing this life is natural and fleeting. I don't understand the notion that Atheists are "dead inside" or have no meaning in their lives. My meaning is derived from the natural world and my fellow living creatures . . . Must be why I am so fond of Eastern Philosophy and the teachings of Siddhartha on compassion . . . they mean much more to me, knowing this is the only life I have and have limited time to make a meaningful contribution.

But . . . I see your point.

Originally posted by solomons path

Originally posted by Cuervo

Originally posted by solomons path

Originally posted by pacifier2012
Always said atheism was a religion. This proves it.

Whats funnier is this group have more 'faith' than the ones they say they oppose. Funnier than that, is they don't see that they have more 'faith'.

Ugh . . . faith by definition means believing in something without evidence. How is not believing in something that has no evidence to support it considered faith? It is the exact opposite . . . If you are a believer, you should brush up on Hebrews Chap 11. This coming from an Atheist.

Evidence is perspective-based. There is no evidence for a lack of gods and goddesses. However, a religious person often has a personal gnosis in which evidence is presented for that person specifically.

I don't wish to get into a weird back-and-forth about it but I personally think it takes less faith for me to believe in my deities than it takes for an atheist to believe that none exist. In fact, I don't even call what I am "a person of faith" because I don't have faith in the face of something I consider to be completely immanent and tangible on a daily basis for me.

Fortunately for atheists and believers alike, existence is a wheel and we literally will all come around, eventually.

No . . . evidence is physical. Your "gnosis" or knowing may be perspective based, but you can't show any other person this evidence. You can try to "convince", proselytize, or rationalize what you "know" to others, but you can't point to anything that is tangible (material). In the end, you have no physical proof for any god, or anything supernatural for that matter. That is why it is "faith" . . . just as the definition implies.

Nothing in the physical world, to this point, requires a supernatural entity or intervention to explain its existence.

If/when any real tangible evidence, that can be shared and tested, emerges . . . I will reconsider my position. Don't assume that my lack of belief means I don't have full knowledge of religious texts . . . gnostic or otherwise. How could I come to an informed decision, if not through search?

No, you are wrong about evidence. Evidence can be exclusive and even personal.

ev·i·dence [ev-i-duhns] Show IPA noun, verb, ev·i·denced, ev·i·denc·ing. noun 1. that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof. 2. something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign: His flushed look was visible evidence of his fever. 3. Law. data presented to a court or jury in proof of the facts in issue and which may include the testimony of witnesses, records, documents, or objects.

I do not need to show other people my evidence in order to know the truth. I do not need you to know the same truth that I know. In fact, I am not trying to convince anybody of my beliefs. It is normally the opposite in my experience; it is the atheist who feels the need to convince me of the non-existence of divinity.

They also have no evidence to show me.

reply to post by solomons path


Your assumptions of my deeper understanding of what you have just generalized is wrong and so nullifies your point.

But then again what amounts to evidence to you?

As I've mentioned earlier, what could be evidence "now", could be given a different spin with new discoveries in this vast universe.

So as I understand that would change your evidence-based perceptive of things in general?

Peace

Originally posted by solomons path
reply to post by interupt42

 

That's a nice deflection . . . what have we ever discovered in the physical world that requires a supernatural entity to ensure it operates as it does? Answer: Nothing. So far the laws of physics have provided us with a natural explanation for everything. Do we know exactly how it all started or why it happened . . . No. And I'm okay with that as we are still trying to figure it out . . . I don't have use the old "well, we don't know, so must be magic" to make explain my place in the universe. If it makes you more comfortable to believe in fairy tales and invisible magic men, be my guest . . . I don't deny anyone that right.

No fairy tales here and like I said I tend to lean more to the atheist side, but I can't say with 100% certainty that a Higher power doesn't exist.

I'm not using the "well, we don't know, so must be magic" , I'm using the "well, we don't know, so must be an unknown" logic.


I agree with what you stated "Do we know exactly how it all started or why it happened . . . No." .

However, science tells us everything (including the physical world as you say) is about reactions or a cause and effect. Therefore, What existed before any existence of anything? That is why I'm agnostic , because I can't fully use science to explain the creation of something out of nothing which goes against our laws of science. Me being an agnostic has nothing to do with fear , especially since I don't believe in any religion.

Newton's First Law of Motion states that a body at rest will remain at rest unless an outside force acts on it . So what was the initial force that caused everything?

We are no where near explaining or comprehending what came before the big bang or what was the initial catalyst of everything, but yet you are making an assumption of what its not or what it couldn't have caused it. An assumption is not a fact, just because it doesn't fit into your model.

IMO there is enough uncertainty and lack of knowledge of the big picture that nothing is impossible. We don't have enough understanding of the universe to even start to eliminating things.

reply to post by Cuervo


And as I've said before in this thread . . . if you want to believe in the supernatural, have it. I don't care, nor do I care if you don't believe. I haven't pushed my beliefs on you, but you are still describing faith as you can't provide this "evidence" to anyone else. If you could, everyone would be a believer or have this "gnosis". To say you don't because you "choose not to" is a cop out. If you choose to call faith "gnosis" . . . that is also your prerogative.

Here . . . I'll give you a way out of "faith". How is anything in the known universe possible only through or with the help of the supernatural? For if there is a natural expanation, there is no reason to involve the supernatural, which again we currently have no evidence for. For inherent "gnosis" is faith . . . faith that your "gnosis" is correct. Just one piece of evidence that leads to "gnosis" . . . that is all.

ETA - The burden of proof is on the one that claims to something that has no evidence to support it . . . You can't prove a negative. No evidence . . . doesn't exist.

Originally posted by InnerPeace2012
reply to post by solomons path

 

Your assumptions of my deeper understanding of what you have just generalized is wrong and so nullifies your point.

But then again what amounts to evidence to you?

As I've mentioned earlier, what could be evidence "now", could be given a different spin with new discoveries in this vast universe.

So as I understand that would change your evidence-based perceptive of things in general?

Peace

Absolutely . . . if what we think we know now of the natural world is turned upside down . . . I would go with what the evidence shows or at least shows to be the most likely.

Maybe I misunderstood your previous post, as I wasn't attempting assume your understanding of the infinite . . . just trying to relate that whatever you choose to believe or how you come about those beliefs (or maybe I should be using "one" instead of "you", as I mean in general terms) is "one's" prerogative. For me, if there is not evidence to suggest otherwise . . . I don't see a reason to involve anything outside of the natural world. It's wonderous enough and strange enough and perfectly capable to account for all in it . . . including creation.

But . . . new discoveries alway call for re-examination.

As an atheist, this does not interest me at all, however, I can see its purpose and why it could be a good thing.

Many religious people these days stay in the religion even though they know its nonsense, they just cannot pull themselves away from the emotional support the church gives them, as well as being a part of such a close community and all that brings. This is why many cults flourish, also.

If we can move these people away from the silly and harmful types of religion, maybe atheism can make a better shot of creating an intelligent community of support, free from irrational, unscientific, and harmful beliefs. Again, not of interest for me, and not of interest to most atheists I know, but for those who are in religion purely for the community part of it, this could give them a better way.

Originally posted by interupt42

However, science tells us everything (including the physical world as you say) is about reactions or a cause and effect. Therefore, What existed before any existence of anything? That is why I'm agnostic , because I can't fully use science to explain the creation of something out of nothing which goes against our laws of science. Me being an agnostic has nothing to do with fear , especially since I don't believe in any religion.

Newton's First Law of Motion states that a body at rest will remain at rest unless an outside force acts on it . So what was the initial force that caused everything?

Those are scientific laws of our Universe. Whatever existed prior to our Universe was not our Universe, and therefore not subject to the laws of our Universe. The Big Bang does not goes against the science of our Universe, because there was no Universe. No Universe, no laws. It's quite simple, I think.

In a nutshell, whatever state existed pre-Big Bang was not subject to the laws of our Universe!

reply to post by grainofsand


Yeah, I can see evil written all over the YMCA.....

It originated in London in 1844 when 12 young men formed a club to improve the spiritual condition of young tradesmen. The first U.S. club was formed in Boston in the 1850s. YMCA programs include sports and physical education, camping, formal and informal education, and citizenship activities. It also runs hotels, residence halls, and cafeterias. National councils are members of the World Alliance of YMCAs (established 1855), headquartered in Geneva. The YMCA was charged with sponsoring educational and recreational facilities in prisoner-of-war camps by the Geneva Convention of 1929. It now operates in dozens of countries. The Young Women's Christian Association (YWCA) was founded in Britain (1877) to address the needs of women from rural areas who came to the cities to find work; in the U.S. (founded 1906), it has championed racial equality.

www.merriam-webster.com...

Damn those do gooders and their morals and helpfulness!

reply to post by interupt42


The chicken:

metro.co.uk...

reply to post by humphreysjim


But how did the chicken get there?

Did a supreme being plop it on the earth?

Originally posted by interupt42

Originally posted by solomons path
reply to post by interupt42

 

That's a nice deflection . . . what have we ever discovered in the physical world that requires a supernatural entity to ensure it operates as it does? Answer: Nothing. So far the laws of physics have provided us with a natural explanation for everything. Do we know exactly how it all started or why it happened . . . No. And I'm okay with that as we are still trying to figure it out . . . I don't have use the old "well, we don't know, so must be magic" to make explain my place in the universe. If it makes you more comfortable to believe in fairy tales and invisible magic men, be my guest . . . I don't deny anyone that right.

No fairy tales here and like I said I tend to lean more to the atheist side, but I can't say with 100% certainty that a Higher power doesn't exist.

I'm not using the "well, we don't know, so must be magic" , I'm using the "well, we don't know, so must be an unknown" logic.


I agree with what you stated "Do we know exactly how it all started or why it happened . . . No." .

However, science tells us everything (including the physical world as you say) is about reactions or a cause and effect. Therefore, What existed before any existence of anything? That is why I'm agnostic , because I can't fully use science to explain the creation of something out of nothing which goes against our laws of science.

Newton's First Law of Motion states that a body at rest will remain at rest unless an outside force acts on it . So what was the initial force that caused everything?

We are no where near explaining or comprehending what came before the big bang or what was the initial catalyst of everything, but yet you are making an assumption of what its not or what it couldn't have caused it. An assumption is not a fact, just because it doesn't fit into your model.

IMO there is enough uncertainty and lack of knowledge of the big picture that nothing is impossible. We don't have enough understanding of the universe to even start to eliminating things.

edit on 12-3-2013 by interupt42 because: (no reason given)

My last post to you explained some of this as I went over the semantics part and may have been a better explanation than the one quoted, but I don't know. It's late and I think I'm starting to ramble . . .

From this post . . . I will say that nothing in the known universe or any of the current hypotheses about the beginnings of our universive goes against any current scientific theory (which include the laws, as theory is the highest order).

We have ample evidence to explain and support the Big Bang. Simply saying "we don't know" what came before is not reason to assume a supernatural and the more technology advances the more evidence we gather, so maybe one day we will know the how/why. Which will just lead to more questions . . . Just as there is plenty of evidence to support the hypothesis of Abiogenesis, some less to explain Panspermia (if that is what you choose) . . . the fact that we cannot explain the exact how/why, is no need to assume a supernatural. In fact, there is more indirect evidence to support alien intevention than the supernatural . . . 1) we at least know life exists (here) in the universe, as opposed to the supernatural 2) we at least know intelligent life (here) exists in the universe 3) we know there are billion upon billion of other stars with trillions of satellites which may have life 4) we know it is possible to travel in space with advance technology. Yet, no where have we witnessed the supernatural . . . So, until we at least can verify that possiblity, there is absolutely no reason to assume it is responsible for anything. Simple logic.

Now . . . that said, if you just can't shake the notion that the supernatural is in some way responsible . . . so be it. Each man decides his own truth. I have no problem with anyone believing whatever they like, as long as they don't force/push their beliefs on others without the evidence/proof to back it up. Science doesn't "push" or "force" you into anything . .. it simply says what we know or what the evidence leads to . . . In saying everything up to what we don't know, believers think this means we are saying with certainty and that is not what it is. The problem a lot of time is what we do know goes against what believers have faith in and that causes the conflict.

We do know that there has never been the need to interject or involve the supernatural and we still can explain everything and most importantly test and confirm, by trying to falsify.