My thoughts on athiesm

[wayoftheleaf]

I believe that Athiesm, in itself, is hypocritical. To Acknowledge one possability over another on something that as of now, we can not fully understand, over another is hypocritical.

I believe in being agnostic. If you are going to have a belief in something that no one, as of now, has the ability to learn the exact truth of, you need to consider every possability.

Discuss :)

[mrdevious]

Atheism is largely misunderstood, as is the concept of agnosticism. What many people define as agnosticism actually falls under the category of atheism. This is what leads to the false idea that atheism is just another "religion" with it's own "beliefs", that being the non existence of god.

To explain, atheism is NOT a belief that there is no god, it is a logical assesment of available evidence. It does not claim the non-existence of god as an established fact, it works under the train of thought that there should be no credence given to the existence of god without actual evidence of such. Otherwise, you would have to be "agnostic" about the existence of literally any imaginary being or thing I can conjure up in my mind.
Agnosticism, on the other hand, purports that the existence or non-existence of god is still undecided and both are logically admissable systems of belief.

As for atheists who claim god does not exist as a fact, they clearly do not understand the proper logical or scientific method of interpretation of evidence. Even Richard Dawkins, the prominant and outspoken atheist, says that you cannot discount the existence of god.

[Pass That Shit]

I think you can't put a person in a category as far as beliefs go. I don't think that people in any religion agree on everything spiritually but yet they are labeled as having the same beliefs. I think we are all individuals and speak what we believe from our hearts. I think our beliefs differ from person to person, not religion to religion.

You shouldn't rule out God, cause you can't disprove his existence. How can you? If you could, he would be a liar. :pimp:

[wayoftheleaf]

It could just be me, but there seems to be quite a few definitions of athiest.

[mrdevious]

You shouldn't rule out God, cause you can't disprove his existence. How can you? If you could, he would be a liar. :pimp:

NO HE WOULDN'T. God is not a "liar" for not existing, because if he never existed in the first place, he never could have lied in the first place. Your criteria even for the non-existence of god requires the assumption that god directly made a claim, though he didn't exist... you see how this goes around and around.

And once again, for the billionth time, you can't disprove the existence of god; not because he's so real you can't disprove him, but because you can't disprove something that doesn't exist. The flying spagetti monster, the invisible trans-dimensional space jelly fish, the microscopic teacup floating around some random sun somewhere, NONE of these can ever be disproven. and, once again, the only way god can be "disproven" is in negative terms where every claim for his existence is shown to be logically fallable. This has been done to every creationist claim out there, but as expected nobody already devoted to their faith will listen, that's just the way the human mind works unfortunately.

[Pass That Shit]

"NO HE WOULDN'T. God is not a "liar" for not existing, because if he never existed in the first place, he never could have lied in the first place. Your criteria even for the non-existence of god requires the assumption that god directly made a claim, though he didn't exist... you see how this goes around and around."


Weren't we left some literature called the word of God? Did I call it that? Even our money says "In God We Trust". Now if you don't believe his claims, try disproving them. If you say that God does not exist, you're basically calling him a liar cause he says he exists and made everything. Just cause you don't believe in his word doesn't mean it's not his word. Heaven and Earth will pass, but his word will endure forever.

Go ahead and put your faith and trust in the spaghetti monster and I will put mine in God. Whatever works for you.

[mrdevious]

Weren't we left some literature called the word of God? Did I call it that? Even our money says "In God We Trust". Now if you don't believe his claims, try disproving them. If you say that God does not exist, you're basically calling him a liar cause he says he exists and made everything. Just cause you don't believe in his word doesn't mean it's not his word. Heaven and Earth will pass, but his word will endure forever.



Yes, we were left some literature called "the word of god". just because something is claimed to be the word of god, that doesn't prove it is the word of god. You're using the conclusion as your premise for your argument. Nobody is calling god a liar, they are saying he doesn't exist. You're just taking your conclusion that he already exists to support the argument that he exists in the first place, which is a rediculous logical fallacy.

I don't care if American money says "in God we trust", that doesn't prove a thing either. Since when is the US mint the definitive expert on supernatural beings?

And seriously, didn't you even read (about a billion times over) why it's illogical to base the innability to disprove something as proof that it exists? You can't just make a claim then say "well you all try to disprove it!". Do you see physicists getting together at conferences, and one guy says "black holes are created by sub-dimensional seahorses sucking in reality around them." and all the physicists agree with him simply because they can't disprove it? Seriously, this isn't hard to grasp.

PTS, really, can't you understand what's wrong with making so many of your arguments by saying "I've already concluded that this is true, so that makes it true!".... or maybe you're just unable to concieve of a concept that doesn't match your already-concluded decisions, I really don't know.

[MastaChronic]

i dont consider myslef athiest. i think that god doesnt exist, simple as that, because there is no evidence to support him, when i see some irrefutable evidence i will start to believe, but not until then.

[harris7]

"

Weren't we left some literature called the word of God? Did I call it that? Even our money says "In God We Trust". Now if you don't believe his claims, try disproving them. If you say that God does not exist, you're basically calling him a liar cause he says he exists and made everything. Just cause you don't believe in his word doesn't mean it's not his word. Heaven and Earth will pass, but his word will endure forever.

Ok, your reasoning is seriously flawed.
Nothing ever written can prove the existence of God. NOTHING.
If I took my biology text book and added a page that said â??god exists and he wrote thisâ?�
You look through the text and everything is true. You cannot conclude that god exists.
They are independent of each other.

Having a book that says god exists. Doesnâ??t prove he exists. Even if this book has many true things in it.

And just because you believe that the bible is his word, Doesnâ??t make it actually his word!!

[harris7]

I believe that Athiesm, in itself, is hypocritical. To Acknowledge one possability over another on something that as of now, we can not fully understand, over another is hypocritical.

I believe in being agnostic. If you are going to have a belief in something that no one, as of now, has the ability to learn the exact truth of, you need to consider every possability.

Discuss :)

Atheism for me, is not a belief. It is a conclusion.
My belief is to follow logic, observation and fact.
When given any set of information with more than one explanation. I will accept the best explanation.
The best explanation isâ?¦ the one which best describes the information.
When posed with an Idea of â??godâ?� and creationism; logic, observation and fact point to evolution and have NO support for the existence of god.

[Pass That Shit]

My speech is not flawed, I speak the word of God. The day will come when we will all be convinced. Every eye shall see him. He will govern the earth. He will reign in Jerusalem. He is the KING of kings. :dance:

If you speak against his word, you'll be found a liar. God is true. :smokin:

[MastaChronic]

My speech is not flawed, I speak the word of God. The day will come when we will all be convinced. Every eye shall see him. He will govern the earth. He will reign in Jerusalem. He is the KING of kings. :dance:

If you speak against his word, you'll be found a liar. God is true. :smokin:

okay, when he does magically show up and start doin miracles THEN i'll believe him. it would have to be a verifiable miracle tho.

[mrdevious]

My speech is not flawed, I speak the word of God. The day will come when we will all be convinced. Every eye shall see him. He will govern the earth. He will reign in Jerusalem. He is the KING of kings. :dance:

A whole lot of mystical speach backed with conviction in the words isn't going to convince anyone. You can say all these "facts" that you want, the same facts that almost every generation has believed, but it never happen's. If your belief is really legitimate and not based on an emotional conviction, or a belief so ingrained that you won't even question it or analyze the facts against it, then show some real evidence of it, not more cryptic warnings that you think carry weight because you declare them as absolute truths.


If you speak against his word, you'll be found a liar. God is true. :smokin:


You sure like to throw the word "liar" around a lot. A liar would indicate somebody who knows the truth, but tells a lie to cover up the truth. To intentionally mislead. A liar is not somebody with a false belief, somebody who's theory is wrong, or somebody who dares question what so many just declare to be unquestionable facts.

[Polymirize]

Atheism for me, is not a belief. It is a conclusion.
My belief is to follow logic, observation and fact.
When given any set of information with more than one explanation. I will accept the best explanation.
The best explanation isâ?¦ the one which best describes the information.
When posed with an Idea of â??godâ?� and creationism; logic, observation and fact point to evolution and have NO support for the existence of god.

actually, you seem to be making a logical flaw setting atheism counter to a belief in christian doctrine and creationism rather than the belief in god, which can take form in many ways. Albeit some less logical than others.

Not that I'm coming down one way or the other. I consider myself to be rather agnostic, although not agnostic in the way that Devious would define it.

Something I am in fact quite certain of however, is that Richard Dawkins is a bit of a hack. If a very outspoken and well publicized hack at that...

[Immolation]

Why doesn't everyone believe in god? Why after all these eons are we still debating this.There is no evidence for any god.How many people here believe in Odin? You can't prove that he doesn't exist, so therefore he does.Do you see why this argument doesn't work.

If more believers did honest research into the bible we would have less believers and less violence in the world.

[harris7]

actually, you seem to be making a logical flaw setting atheism counter to a belief in christian doctrine and creationism rather than the belief in god, which can take form in many ways. Albeit some less logical than others.



I dont really know what you mean, could you go on.

i'm not saying atheism is opposite to Christianity. or any religion.

I dont believe atheism is a belief. For me it is the lack of a belief.

Since i lack belief in god I am an atheist

by a conclusion i mean that the conclusion is not to accept the belief.

[Polymirize]

When posed with an Idea of â??godâ?� and creationism; logic, observation and fact point to evolution and have NO support for the existence of god.

I guess my point was that this was kinda a strawman...

[slipknotpsycho]

i dont' believe in any type of god, or religion, call that whatever you want, i've just always known it as atheist... if that is wrong, and i'm agnostic, please correct me as i never reallly understood the diffrence.... actually my grandma taught me atheism is not believing and agnostic is hating god... i learned later agnostic does not mean to hate god...

i really don't understand how anyone can pick up a book, which is obviously written by man, and take it as total fact and impossible that it is fake... it's always baffled me.. i mean you dont' see everyone picking up a science fiction novel and thinking in 20 years that aliens are going to come invade planet earth do you?

[slipknotpsycho]

meh i should probably clarify the above statement, i don't and won't believe in any god or religion UNLESS i am shown viable ROCK HARD evidence otherwise... basicly when god walks up to me, or i see him walking down the street.... words mean nothing, especially words writen over 2,000 years ago, by man.

[ozkid]

haha you got it sussed

[ChronoSponge]

I believe that Athiesm, in itself, is hypocritical. To Acknowledge one possability over another on something that as of now, we can not fully understand, over another is hypocritical.


Well I guess I'm a hypocrite.

But in that case, all religion is hypocritical. Not even the most devout believers will claim that they fully understand their God, thus the term "The Lord works in mysterious ways". And people can neither prove nor disprove any other religion. So to pick one over the other without any particular reason is, as you say, hypocritical.

[harris7]

Well I guess I'm a hypocrite.

But in that case, all religion is hypocritical. Not even the most devout believers will claim that they fully understand their God, thus the term "The Lord works in mysterious ways". And people can neither prove nor disprove any other religion. So to pick one over the other without any particular reason is, as you say, hypocritical.

Yup,

Arbitrarily pick one. And then denounce all others.

[B.Basher]

A liar is not somebody with a false belief, somebody who's theory is wrong, or somebody who dares question what so many just declare to be unquestionable facts.

I don't think i've ever heard a better argument. Every post was epic. Nice one :thumbsup: !

[ValkyrieAg]

When I first became religiously aware, I really didn't think 'God' actually existed, and left it at that. Alot of people use 'god' to stay on a certain 'path'. Well from a moral standpoint, my parents raised me right and I am a moral person. Well, I began to wonder about it. Do you ever stop and think about how 'perfect' our world is? Has anyone ever really looked around at the things we have? Isn't this world damn near perfect? We just happen to be at a perfect warm spot where we can thrive. We have drinkable water. Rain. Plants. Marijuana. haha. One time I was talking to someone about religion, and she asked me if I had ever been to New York City....(at the time I had not)....so I said 'no'. Then she said "well how do you know that it exists if you haven't seen it? People tell you that it exists and they have been there, but if you haven't seen it with your own eyes, how do you know it exists?"

Of course thats kind of apples and oranges, but it still makes you think. But I still don't feel comfortable with any religion. MORE people have died in the name of religion than any other cause. Thats not something I want to be a part of. I am agnostic, but I want to keep an open mind. I WANT TO BELIEVE. But...if I believe, religion kind of goes against my morals....

[harris7]

The problem with that argument for me is
That although you are taking their “word”, or you have faith in what they say. Similar to religious faith.

You have the ability to prove them wrong. You can “try” to go to new york and find out if it’s real.

So the person who told you that is taking the risk of Falsifiability, unlike any person on religion.

[delusionsofNORMALity]

each day we wake up and go on our merry ways, each step of the way we take so many things on faith. the little, minute to minute things. how many of us understand how the various machines in our lives work? we take for granted that what was there yesterday will be there today (faith). we work each day expecting a paycheck (faith). we convert that check into money, expecting to use it to purchase our necessities (faith). we know how a burger will taste, how a siren will sound, how a woman will feel (faith, faith, faith).
without these simple acts of faith most of us would be quivering masses of paranoid jelly.

so it would seem to be with the greater questions in life.

is there a god? what happens after death? etc. etc. etc...

for those of you who place their faith in religion, that is your choice and you must live with the consequences and limitations inherent in that choice. for those of us called atheists and unbelievers, we have placed our faith in our senses. we have chosen to rely on our mental capacity and what facts we can discern on the nature of our reality.

is our degree of faith any less than yours? i think not. but what the hell do i know.

[harris7]

I think this is the only example of faith that all non believes succumb to. Faith that our observations represent reality. But, everyone succumbs to this assumption

I agree with your intent but I disagree that these things are based on faith.

[JunkYard]

Harris is talking about blind faith being faith, me thinks. Something us religious folk kinda count on, lol! If it aint blind, it aint faith, or something like that, right harris?

Btw, what do atheists believe in, man? Wait, that hit kinda broad, didn't it? I have a few atheist friends, but they're not hell bent on disproving God, or anything like that. They, like many other liberal minded folks, value very worthwhile things, imo. The only difference is they don't look to a book, or a higher power to tell them what's right or wrong.


Love,

[harris7]

yes, I also think there are different kinds of faith. and to different people the word means different things.

i'm pretty sure we all agree that "religious faith" is blind faith. so when we use it in a religion thread we really should only use it with one meaning.

I'm only hell bent to bring reason to people. Not to disprove god. Your beliefs are very reasonable so i dont try to disprove them too much.

But there are some fucking crazy religious folk and someone has to smack some sense into them.

like that jesus camp

[delusionsofNORMALity]

isn't all faith blind?
reality changes all around us every day; reality is different from one person to the next, from one moment to the next. much of what is possible today wasn't possible yesterday, what is commonplace for some is extraordinary for others.

don't place too much certainty on your version of reality, lest someone else's comes crashing through your mind.

paradox is a wonderful thing. i have absolute faith in my perceptions of reality and yet i am absolutely certain i am wrong.

or at least i will be, just give it a moment.

[Polymirize]

Not all faith is blind. Some faith is justified as its built into the system of knowledge.

Think about deductive truths, which are basically all tautologies such as 2=2. They're all knowable a priori. Are they really held to falsifiability though?

1+1=2. How could conceivably prove that wrong? Bearing in mind that if you would have to do so in a way that didn't demonstrate misunderstanding about the qualities of 1, 2, addition, or identity, because you'd simply be talking about something else.

Scientific zealots often think that the entire paradigm of thought needs to be rehashed scientifically, but in thinking to do so they ignore certain foundational assumptions that science operates by, the inner workings of science which are invisible to the process itself. Science is a powerful tool for progress but its application isn't total. Theories can be extended beyond their context with disasterous consequences (think social darwinism if you like). Science all too often fails to understand itself as metaphorically representative of reality.

And I fail to understand how some people think their particular representative mythologies are better than other peoples.

[delusionsofNORMALity]

damn, i lost it again. i start a reply and then lose the freakin thing.

i'll make this one short

it's not a matter of facts or a system of knowledge or even deductive reasoning that determines reality. it is our perception.

1+1=2 may be false depending on your perception of the elements of the equation.

as perception changes reality changes, as reality changes the "facts" change, what was true then is false now.

this way lies madness and we embrace it with all our hearts

[delusionsofNORMALity]

as for religious elitism:


tis the nature of the beast. when groups divide themselves, it seems there must be the superiors and the inferiors. god shines down his radiance upon those with superior qualities therefore adherents to the true belief must be superior and all others damned in one form or another.

[harris7]

Not all faith is blind. Some faith is justified as its built into the system of knowledge.

Think about deductive truths, which are basically all tautologies such as 2=2. They're all knowable a priori. Are they really held to falsifiability though?

1+1=2. How could conceivably prove that wrong? Bearing in mind that if you would have to do so in a way that didn't demonstrate misunderstanding about the qualities of 1, 2, addition, or identity, because you'd simply be talking about something else.

Scientific zealots often think that the entire paradigm of thought needs to be rehashed scientifically, but in thinking to do so they ignore certain foundational assumptions that science operates by, the inner workings of science which are invisible to the process itself. Science is a powerful tool for progress but its application isn't total. Theories can be extended beyond their context with disasterous consequences (think social darwinism if you like). Science all too often fails to understand itself as metaphorically representative of reality.



science is nothing more than a good system of observation.


The only thing someone can really know is that they exist.
"i think, therefore i am"

everything else is uncertain. But since that uncertainty will never affect us. It is only a philosophical exercise, and dosn't really matter imo

[Polymirize]

The only thing someone can really know is that they exist.
"i think, therefore i am"

everything else is uncertain.

If you cared to look into the subject, you'd find that philosophy (much like science) has advanced since the 17th century. Descartes? Please...

[Polymirize]

it's not a matter of facts or a system of knowledge or even deductive reasoning that determines reality. it is our perception.

1+1=2 may be false depending on your perception of the elements of the equation.

as perception changes reality changes, as reality changes the "facts" change, what was true then is false now.


I would dispute that, I think it gets to the core even if I'd pose it differently semantically.

But all I wanted to really pose was whether or not falsifibility should be held objectively against every belief we hold. As a means of critiquing most of harris' posts concerning a scientific rejection of certain possibilities. I don't think it holds up to scrutiny is all.

He's building sandcastles...

[delusionsofNORMALity]

If you cared to look into the subject, you'd find that philosophy (much like science) has advanced since the 17th century. Descartes? Please...

getting a little testy, are we?

__________________________________________________ _
excuse me for being dense,but.......


please define "falsibility". i'm not as smart as i used to be and, though i could extrapolate a meaning from the roots, i'd rather know exactly what you mean.

[PlantBoxer]

From birth to about 16 years old, I went to church twice on Sunday, and every Wenesday evening, the standard Southern Bapitist type of religion.

I stayed very confused for next few decades, torn between what my logical reasoning mind believed...and all the *miracles,supernatural beings,supernatural events* that defy reason and basic physics.

Then I found the the word *Deism*. Our founding forefathers, well our first 3 presidents were Diests, they believed in God, as a creator, a builder of sorts, but we believe like a clock maker would make a clock set the pendulem in motion, and let it tick away. Never needing to interfer in any way.

I dont believe in miracles, nor spirits, nor magical beings from virginal women, nor do I believe the Bible as word of God. The Bible is a wonderful book full of poems, stories, some damn fine suggestions (Ten Commandments).

I know nothing has ever killed more life forms than organized religion and governments....usually for power,control,wealth.

If anything asks you to give up your reasoning mind....run from it, it's coercion.

[JunkYard]

From birth to about 16 years old, I went to church twice on Sunday, and every Wenesday evening, the standard Southern Bapitist type of religion.

I stayed very confused for next few decades, torn between what my logical reasoning mind believed...and all the *miracles,supernatural beings,supernatural events* that defy reason and basic physics.

Then I found the the word *Deism*. Our founding forefathers, well our first 3 presidents were Diests, they believed in God, as a creator, a builder of sorts, but we believe like a clock maker would make a clock set the pendulem in motion, and let it tick away. Never needing to interfer in any way.

I once called myself a Deist, lol! I still hold on to the clock maker anaolgy, though. They don't believe in divine interference, which I agree with. God set the machine in motion, and left us to take care of our own. :thumbsup:

Also, Deism isn't at all organized as far as I know. There are no strictly Deist churches, or dogma to follow, right ? Good stuff!


Love,

[MrMeNaCe]

I Feel As Though There IS Some High Force Not As In God That Every Religion Trys to Explain... ITs More Like MOTHER NATURE or the SUN that if anything should be GOD to man it gives life and takes life. but in general i agree with evolution its the only EXPLAINABLE answer for LIFE.

[harris7]

If you cared to look into the subject, you'd find that philosophy (much like science) has advanced since the 17th century. Descartes? Please...

Really well thanks for letting me know.

I dont know for sure because i dont really like old philosophy readings and I generally dont need to finish to understand the arguments but..
wasn't "I tihnk therefore i am" only half way through his meditation and didn't he make some progress himself?

anyhoo, for you information i'm actually perusing a degree in philosophy

[mrdevious]

damn, i lost it again. i start a reply and then lose the freakin thing.

i'll make this one short

it's not a matter of facts or a system of knowledge or even deductive reasoning that determines reality. it is our perception.

1+1=2 may be false depending on your perception of the elements of the equation.

as perception changes reality changes, as reality changes the "facts" change, what was true then is false now.

this way lies madness and we embrace it with all our hearts


Did you just watch "What The Bleep Do We Know?" and say "OMG OMG THAT'S WHAT I BELIEVE NOW!!!"? (like so many people do). Even if that is the case, you're misinterpreting and overexpanding the theory.

In any event, then it still doesn't give or take away any ground to the god theory, since our perceptions about either the existence or non-existence of him are completely unpredictable and changing.



getting a little testy, are we?


If you can consider that post by Polymerize "getting a little testy", then this whole board is having a mental breakdown.

[JunkYard]

It's about damn time, too! I was getting lonely being the only mental case round here, lol!

~~Mental breakdown~It's my birthday~Board wide~~It's Friday~~
~~Gonna smoke some~Marjiuana~ Get bent on ~herrijuana~~
~~New tail lights~fix my bumper~~


:dance:

[Oneironaut]

When I read the title of this thread, I knew it couldn't have been written by an atheist, since atheists know how to spell "atheism".

Anywho...I am an atheist. What can I say? There's nothing I have ever experienced in my life that would qualify as sufficient evidence that there's a gigantic invisible superhuman intelligence that spontaneously came out of nowhere and then designed the universe. That hypothesis seems too improbable for words. In my experience, it seems all the evidence points to the fact that intelligence does not spring out of nothingness by chance. Intelligence only seems to arise through the non-random process of Darwinian natural selection over geological timespans in incremental steps from simple beginnings. The creationists are right on one point: incredibly complex things don't just form themselves out of nothing by chance. Trouble is, they fail to apply this principle to their own God, and fail to see why evolution is a non-random process that explains the only way complex intelligence can conceivably arise from simple self-replicating molecules.

If there is such a God, or a Flying Spaghetti Monster, or a Santa Claus out there, I invite them all to show evidence of themselves. Until then, the lack of evidence is going to lead to a lack of belief. That's just how my brain works, and there's nothing I can do to change it. I can't make myself believe in something for which there is no evidence, so I don't believe in God, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or Santa Claus.

[Oneironaut]

Actually, scratch that. I do have observable physical evidence of Santa Claus, in the form of millions of presents delivered to children of Christian parents every December 25. It just seems at the moment that the more probable hypothesis is that Santa Claus is a fictional character invented by Christian adults that they deceive their children into believing for some weird reason. But that's still way more evidence for Santa Claus than God.

[delusionsofNORMALity]

It's about damn time, too! I was getting lonely being the only mental case round here, lol!

the only mental case? hell, no!!!

i've been certifiable for so long, i don't remember what sanity is like.

isn't it fun to watch the thoughts go round and round in your head and just pull them out, play with them and then let them fly away.

[delusionsofNORMALity]

Did you just watch "What The Bleep Do We Know?" and say "OMG OMG THAT'S WHAT I BELIEVE NOW!!!"? (like so many people do). Even if that is the case, you're misinterpreting and overexpanding the theory.

In any event, then it still doesn't give or take away any ground to the god theory, since our perceptions about either the existence or non-existence of him are completely unpredictable and changing.

actually i seem to have gotten way off course, as i am wont to do, and slipped a cog or two. and no, this is merely observation not some borrowed philosophical clap-trap. so you can see how medication (meditation/mendication/benediction) might be necessary

[JunkYard]

the only mental case? hell, no!!!

i've been certifiable for so long, i don't remember what sanity is like.

isn't it fun to watch the thoughts go round and round in your head and just pull them out, play with them and then let them fly away.

Yup, it's a lot of fun [At times] Only, sometimes they don't fly, but land face first in the dirt along with me ego, lol!


Love,