Religion Vs Atheism

When I said I believe in both I meant that I believe in god, I'm catholic, BUT I also love science and love learning the new things it brings us. If I love reading about the big bang and stuff like that, then I'm not 100% into religion and there are some aspects that I believe in science. Don't believe that is possible? Tough. Deal with it.

Saturn, up until 40 seconds ago I didnt know an Atheists foundations were that of the rejection of Deities - So thanks for that push to read up on it a little more

You have made it pretty apparent that many people I talk to who say they're Atheists, don;t actually know the basics of the stance they're taking.

And yes I'm also Agnostic when it comes to little green men, too Haven't seen them, but don't deny them - Its o.k to say "I don't know" than pretend I do.

My stance is that there is a possibility that there is a particle in the universe which is the 'god particle' - And that enabled everything to flourish the way we see now. No man with a white beard, or a head turban, just one small thing that created all this - God.

Originally posted by Jepic
Both ways of thinking are equally as arrogant. Exhibit A says that there is a god and exhibit B says that there is no God.


When the truth is all we really know is that we know nothing.

Not really.

Person A says: "There is a God and "HE" is like this, according to this book I read."

Person B says: "Okay, I hear you, but, I don't believe that is true."

Originally posted by n00bUK
Saturn, up until 40 seconds ago I didnt know an Atheists foundations were that of the rejection of Deities - So thanks for that push to read up on it a little more

You have made it pretty apparent that many people I talk to who say they're Atheists, don;t actually know the basics of the stance they're taking.

And yes I'm also Agnostic when it comes to little green men, too

Haven't seen them, but don't deny them - Its o.k to say "I don't know" than pretend I do.

My stance is that there is a possibility that there is a particle in the universe which is the 'god particle' - And that enabled everything to flourish the way we see now. No man with a white beard, or a head turban, just one small thing that created all this - God.

Its a common misconception...and one that proper Atheists do try and shed light on.
Most of the (usually younger/young) people whom call themselves atheist are also assigning a whole host of things and misrepresenting the whole atheism thing.
It really is just that simple. no belief in a deity(s)...not that they believe there not to be..there could be..there could be hundreds of deities..but until some proof shows up, then its taken on the same lines as little green men.

What you are discussing are hardnosed skeptics, and quite often, gnostic atheists (they are equally as annoying as the gnostic theists..those people that claim to absolutely know which god is the right one, almost have magical knowledge of certainty..but for some reason never show proof).

Yes, should you meet someone matter of factly telling you there are no gods, that is not the stance of an atheist..that is someone pretending to have actual factual knowledge of the deity (or lack thereof) which indeed is faith based and of its own religion..but that is not an atheist...that is a -gnostic- atheist (having knowledge of no gods)
A proper Atheist is a Agnostic Atheist...no knowledge of, therefore no belief in.

Originally posted by windword

Originally posted by Jepic
Both ways of thinking are equally as arrogant. Exhibit A says that there is a god and exhibit B says that there is no God.


When the truth is all we really know is that we know nothing.

Not really.

Person A says: "There is a God and "HE" is like this, according to this book I read."

Person B says: "Okay, I hear you, but, I don't believe that is true."

Oh sure...sum up in 2 sentences what takes me a novella to try and say.

Who asked you!

Originally posted by SaturnFX
Maybe...but is the nature of a specific deity qualify as unfalsifiable?

For instance, lets say the SaturnFX Deity, one attribute, is that it will not allow mankind to go to the moon. Well, once mankind goes to mars, isn't that then enough to disprove the (original) SaturnFX deity?

So, Deities by their very nature as a subject may be unfalsifiable, however, specific religions...for instance the deity of the Christian bible has attributes...very broad mind you, but there are some. The deity mentioned in the OT will strike you dead of you do many things (work on sundays, etc). As an experiment then, based on the writings of the OT, we can potentially conduct experiments.

Now, theists may then quickly shift from deity to deity (the OT doesn't count anymore because god evolved as of JC 01BC...which is fine, then you move on to that once you officially remove that one)

I meant its behavior is capricious. The qualities and attributes of deities may overlap, so how could a scientific experiment distinguish between the actions of Amon-Ra and the OT God? Also, the OT God might strike me down, but He could very well change His mind for whatever reason

reply to post by SaturnFX


LOL!

2nd line, hehe.

reply to post by Nacirema

Also, the OT God might strike me down, but He could very well change His mind for whatever reason

But he would be omniscient, correct? So he would never have to change his mind because he would have already been aware of the change in circumstances that would have made him change his mind before that change ever happened.

Forgive me, but I've never understood what fuels these arguments. Allow me to expand on what some others have touched on.

Proving God should not ever be the question. The idea is not provable. People who demand "proof" have not thought their demand through. People who say they can offer "proof" of God's existence can only present the evidence that persuaded them. Not laboratory "proof."

There is evidence, however. Believers say that there is enough evidence to allow them to honestly believe in the existence of God. Non-believers are in a difficult situation. They say that there isn't enough evidence for belief. To avoid being called a religion, they refuse to say that they believe there is not a God. But they must also refuse to say that they believe there is a God. In short, they must have no belief on the subject of the existence of God.

To me, this is an intellectually cowardly position to take and stay in. From the beginning of recorded history, God has been a fundamental question for humanity. Evidence and arguments have been brought forth for every conceivable point of view. The greatest thinkers humanity has produced have analyzed and discussed this question to unimaginable depths. Nearly everyone in the history of the world has had an opinion on the existence of a god. It is likely that this question is the fundamental question of existence.

After all of this, to say "Eh, maybe, maybe not. And I'm comfortable with that," leaves me shaking my head. This is a perfect time to bring up the old saying "Not to decide is to decide." I have no trouble with someone saying "I'm researching this question, and I'm gathering evidence, but I haven't been at it very long so I haven't decided yet." That's a respectable position.

But it's not reasonable to say "Until I have video tapes and samples of God which can be analyzed in a laboratory, I'm not going to take any position." It is a fearful and cowardly position. Say there is no God, fine. Say there is a God, fine. But don't hide from the question, face it and decide.

reply to post by charles1952


Do you believe that there is a talking Blubberlubber(an entity) in my backyard that controls every aspect of the human world?

There is about 1000 followers, maybe in about 2000 yrs i will have Billions.

reply to post by charles1952

Proving God should not ever be the question. The idea is not provable. People who demand "proof" have not thought their demand through. People who say they can offer "proof" of God's existence can only present the evidence that persuaded them. Not laboratory "proof."

There is evidence, however. Believers say that there is enough evidence to allow them to honestly believe in the existence of God. Non-believers are in a difficult situation. They say that there isn't enough evidence for belief. To avoid being called a religion, they refuse to say that they believe there is not a God. But they must also refuse to say that they believe there is a God. In short, they must have no belief on the subject of the existence of God.

Do you believe in unicorns? Same principle. Scientifically speaking, there is no reason to believe in unicorns, but if you really want to, then there's any number of ways to argue for their existence. It's more a matter of wanting to believe than a matter of being forced to either believe or lie to yourself.

"God" is such a case. Rather than being forced to either accept a sole logical conclusion as per the evidence provided, people decide they want to believe regardless of what evidence suggests.

"When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." - Sherlock Holmes

Quite frankly, the character profile for the Judaic god is a laundry list of contradictions and psychotic disorders just waiting to be diagnosed. As such, the majority of the intentions ascribed to such a deity could very well be the lunatic ravings of a madman - or the product of powerfully connected men on a marketing campaign. Either way, the conclusions as stated by the Bible are illogical to a fault, considering the elements that are purported to have given rise to such conclusions.

As a result, we are faced with two possibilities: 1) the Judaic god does exist, but exceeds our psychological capacity and should therefore be abandoned as a topic of discussion until further notice, or 2) the Judaic god is a complete fabrication.

In either case, this discussion is moot. All we can do is speculate.

reply to post by n00bUK


I don't care if people want to believe without proof that an intelligent agent created the universe. How am I to know if this is true or not?

But, this spreading of biblical garbage to children and having them spread it to their children, and so on and so on is sheer lunacy.

Hundreds of thousands of Muslims rioted in Bangladesh.

Sunday's Hefazat protesters said they wanted the government to meet 13 demands, including the reinstatement of "absolute trust and faith in the Almighty Allah" in the constitution and capital punishment [DEATH] for those who would denigrate Islam and its prophet.

Islamists Battle Police

Yeah, let's just keep our mouths shut and allow this to keep growing. NO!

reply to post by luciddream

Dear luciddream.

Do you believe that there is a talking Blubberlubber(an entity) in my backyard that controls every aspect of the human world?

Show me your evidence, then I'll decide.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by charles1952

Show me your evidence, then I'll decide.

But isn't that exactly the argument atheists have been using?

reply to post by AfterInfinity

Dear AfterInfinity,

Good to see you again. We may never find anything we agree on, but I always pay attention to your posts.

Do you believe in unicorns? Same principle. Scientifically speaking, there is no reason to believe in unicorns, but if you really want to, then there's any number of ways to argue for their existence. It's more a matter of wanting to believe than a matter of being forced to either believe or lie to yourself.

There's a couple of decent points in that paragraph. As I mentioned above, show me the evidence for unicorns and, if the evidence is that it's more likely than not that unicorns exist, I'll believe in them until new information is discovered. (My own belief on the subject? There probably was something in our distant past that was close to a unicorn, but they've gone extinct. More information may change my belief.)

Wanting to believe? I think that's a little misleading. If one is looking for the truth, and most of the evidence points one way, it seems dishonest not to accept that as a belief until something changes.

"God" is such a case. Rather than being forced to either accept a sole logical conclusion as per the evidence provided, people decide they want to believe regardless of what evidence suggests.

This seems to be a false dichotomy. You're saying there are only two choices. 1) Accept that there is only one possible conclusion to which the evidence points (Disbelief), or 2) Ignore all evidence and logic, and believe. I don't think that's an accurate description of the choices.

You change subjects drastically after your Sherlock Holmes quote. Instead of discussing whether God exists, you explain why you're uncomfortable with the OT portrayal of God. I can only think that because blood and gore fly throughout the OT, you believe you've got a better case against God by focusing on that.

In either case, this discussion is moot. All we can do is speculate.

I disagree strongly. The question of God's existence must be raised, it's importance pointed out, evidence bearing on the question must be gathered, and people must be encouraged to think about and weigh the evidence as thoroughly as they can to reach a decision.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by charles1952

Show me your evidence, then I'll decide.

See what you did there?

But ill play along.

The Blubberlubber is hard to fathom in our human concepts, It is in tangible but its presence can be "felt" by those that have enough faith in it. There are many fables written by men about It but its open to interpretation due to its age.

It is said it created the concept of human thought.. everything human think is because of it.

You think you can believe in it?, because thats all the evidence i can provide.

reply to post by charles1952

Wanting to believe? I think that's a little misleading. If one is looking for the truth, and most of the evidence points one way, it seems dishonest not to accept that as a belief until something changes.

Who says people are looking for the truth? Maybe they are just looking for a reason to live. These are not the same things.

This seems to be a false dichotomy. You're saying there are only two choices. 1) Accept that there is only one possible conclusion to which the evidence points (Disbelief), or 2) Ignore all evidence and logic, and believe. I don't think that's an accurate description of the choices.

Then correct my description.

You change subjects drastically after your Sherlock Holmes quote. Instead of discussing whether God exists, you explain why you're uncomfortable with the OT portrayal of God. I can only think that because blood and gore fly throughout the OT, you believe you've got a better case against God by focusing on that.

I mentioned the Sherlock quote because it offers a reasonably sound method of deduction. Using said method, I eliminate whatever is impossible - namely, the laundry list of contradictions in both the NT and the OT, which leaves only the frail imagining of a god as depicted by ancient cultures and refined by more recent ones.

I disagree strongly. The question of God's existence must be raised, it's importance pointed out, evidence bearing on the question must be gathered, and people must be encouraged to think about and weigh the evidence as thoroughly as they can to reach a decision.

I disagree. All the evidence was compiled from superstitious Bedouin sheepherders that lived and died thousands of years ago when objective observation was a myth and science was Satan's pet project. The best of our forensic talents have uncovered that locations and people did indeed exist, but all that prove is that Harry Potter could very well have existed, and the book series sold as a fictional front for the authentic account of the boy wizard who finally destroyed He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named. Now, if the mention of real places and events in fictional novels of today do not validate the legitimacy of the contents in those fictional novels, why should they validate the conversations purported to have taken place in the Bible?

Originally posted by SaturnFX
Aaaand your wrong.
An atheist didn't conclude there are no gods. Atheists do not conclude anything..they simply remain in disbelief until facts and proof is given.

Actually, Atheists do conclude that there is no god, from their beliefs and faith in their idea.

It's the Agnostics that stay open minded and don't conclude any sides of the argument.

I don't know where you picked up that misconception about Atheists.

What annoys me the most is the lack of moderates anymore. It used to be I went to church with my family, and we believed in positive thinking, helping the poor, etc. I never experienced judgement in religious circles until recently -

It used to be hanging out with atheists meant hippies, who were generally laid-back and accepting. Now it is bitter, judgmental people.

Where to go?

reply to post by luciddream

Dear luciddream,

My principle is to look for whatever evidence is available, pro and con, then consider where the weight of the evidence points. The evidence for blubberlubber? Written fables. Ok, let's consider those writings. Who wrote them? Why? Are the writings we have the same as the original writings? Are the writings consistent with other known information? And on and on. The rest of the evidence is various claims that have no existence outside the believer's mind. That's what you've got? Not enough for me.

With respect,
Charles1952