Are you an Atheist?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Hache

Well-Known Member
#21
True atheism is like my husband...he just shrugs and goes on. There's no defensiveness or anything.

I like this.

Most shall we say "avid" athiests I know and have known are arseholes about it, if you pardon my language.

I much prefer the people who do not care, just get on with life. Not the people who preach to you why they are athiests and slag off religion, those people are just as bad as the religious figures and ideals they hate themselves.
 

Krem

Well-Known Member
#22
Edgar Roni Figaro. I will start with one little thing- Russel's Teapot.

Also, I'm aware that I don't know everything. Instead of defaulting to something to explain it, without a basis, I say that I don't know. IF there was anything to suggest a god, or any creator, I would say that I'd be agnostic until it can be proven either way. But since there is nothing to suggest it, nothing to prove, it is as Russel's Teapot.

Other than the obvious on which my opinions are different from yours, and thus I believe you are wrong (Where you believe that I am wrong), I enjoyed your post. :)
 

Phteven

Well-Known Member
#23
I don't know how anyone who calls themselves an atheist can look down on the beliefs of a religious person. All religions along with atheism are philosophically the same thing. They are all absolute belief systems in which a person must have infinite knowledge to make the assertion of either. By the very nature of making an absolute claim that god exists or god doesn't exist both systems essentially close themselves off to any outside knowledge.

Once a belief system becomes closed by making absolutist claims, they become incapable of benefiting humanity. Neither belief system is capable of growing or adapting to new knowledge. Because of this both belief systems result in an "us vs them" mentality in which the atheist blinded by their absolutist assertion that god does not exist seeks to subjugate mankind in the name of absolutist morality based on their closed system. (example Soviet Union)

On the other hand the absolutist assertion that god does exist found in religion leads to the subjugation of man in the name of god. (example Catholic Church in Europe).

There is only one system that can change humanity for the better and that is the scientific method. It is the only system mankind has that is an open system capable of taking in all knowledge mankind attains and assimilating it into the advancement of mankind. The scientific method has no need to deal in absolutes because the system itself safeguards against such assertions.

We can go back and forth between religious nations and atheistic nations but the results will always be the same. Mass murder by those in power who claim absolute authority over knowledge itself by systematically removing all knowledge that contradicts their absolute assertions and killing anyone who is against them.
Just to clarify atheism is a response or answer to a question (Is there a god(s)?) to which the answer is there is no god(s)...that is all atheism is and nothing more. When one makes a claim (there is a god) the onus is on the person who makes such a positive claim to prove it. Atheism does not assume any positive claim of the nonexistence of a god but instead counters the positive claim that there is a god (because of a lack of proof) . If offered sufficient proof that a god(s) exist, which I as an atheist I would welcome, then they would change there position to affirm the question instead of countering it.

Atheism is not a belief system and is very complimentary to the scientific method, as it requires of those who make a claim of a god(s) to provide sufficient evidence to back there claims up. To claim atheist are the same or similar to theists because the both make absolute assertions is false because atheism does not make any absolute assertions but rather says there is insufficient evidence to support the claim that there is a god(s).
 

Phteven

Well-Known Member
#24
Right in your first sentence you claim atheism is not a belief system. Then you go on to say only 2 sentences later that "An atheist simply believes there is no god". That is an absolute assertion which makes it a belief system since the assertion is based on incomplete knowledge.


Atheists deal in absolutes just like religious folks. You say there is no god, and you know this how?

Can you personally explain to me how matter came from nothing?

Do you personally understand what the universe is? (Because apparently quantum physics is just now beginning to question that there may in fact be an infinite amount of universes)


Do you have knowledge of the origins of the universe before the Big Bang?

If you said no to those questions which you did, then you admit to a severely limited understanding of the universe.

You're assertion that there is no god of any sort (and god is a loose term here meaning the creator of matter in the universe) is an absolutist statement which requires complete knowledge of the universe of which you lack.

So according to the scientific method, we must remain open to the possibility that a being with far more knowledge than humans, who could understand far more than we currently do, did in fact create or trigger some cause which created the universe as we now know it.

To not be open to that possibility is to deny the open process of the scientific method. You can argue your belief system any way you want to but the fact remains if you make an absolute assertion without the knowledge required to make that assertion you are no different than the Catholic Church who made the assertion that the world was flat simply because it did not understand the science of astronomy.


If you do not see the relationship between a religious person absolutely claiming there is a god without full scientific understanding of how the universe works and where it came from, and an atheist absolutely claiming there is no god with the same lack of scientific understanding as the religious person, then you need to at least take a basic philosophy course in logic and learn to understand the argument being made.( Just wanted to add I mean no disrespect by the last sentence. I am not calling you illogical.)
Scientific method refers to a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.
Although procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another, identifiable features distinguish scientific inquiry from other methodologies of knowledge. Scientific researchers propose hypotheses as explanations of phenomena, and design experimental studies to test these hypotheses. These steps must be repeatable in order to dependably predict any future results. Theories that encompass wider domains of inquiry may bind many independently derived hypotheses together in a coherent, supportive structure. This in turn may help form new hypotheses or place groups of hypotheses into context.
Among other facets shared by the various fields of inquiry is the conviction that the process must be objective to reduce biased interpretations of the results. Another basic expectation is to document, archive and share all data and methodology so they are available for careful scrutiny by other scientists, thereby allowing other researchers the opportunity to verify results by attempting to reproduce them. This practice, called full disclosure, also allows statistical measures of the reliability of these data to be established. from Wikipedia

As you can see the scientific method does not deal with possibilities as it is "based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning" which would preclude anything that is unobservable, unmeasurable or untestable and therefore the scientific method would not include "the possibility that a being with far more knowledge than humans, who could understand far more than we currently do, did in fact create or trigger some cause which created the universe as we now know it", unless there is a test or method that I don't know about that can test the unknowable, and upon testing show results for such a statement.
 

empty101

Well-Known Member
#25
I don't know how anyone who calls themselves an atheist can look down on the beliefs of a religious person. All religions along with atheism are philosophically the same thing. They are all absolute belief systems in which a person must have infinite knowledge to make the assertion of either. By the very nature of making an absolute claim that god exists or god doesn't exist both systems essentially close themselves off to any outside knowledge.
I suggest you rethink this approach. First off, you will find that atheism only means "a belief that there is no god" in a very bad dictionary. More likely you will find that atheism is a "rejection in the belief of god". If you want to say that atheism is philosophically the same as religion because an atheist blindly believes something, you're off in the clouds.

It's easy to mix up "I don't believe in god" with "I believe there is no god" and in common language they would be used interchangeably. However if you want to really get down to technicalities, like you would when trying to use the definition of atheism to call it absolutist.. these statements are very different.

I can't call you an absolutist because I believe in unicorns and you don't.

On a different note, there's also the definition of god to consider but I'm not willing to get into that problem.


If someone tells me "following religion has made my life better" I can respect that and perhaps envy it. If someone tells me "there is definitely a god" I can't help but sigh in my head.
 

mulberrypie

Well-Known Member
#26
By the very nature of making an absolute claim that god exists or god doesn't exist both systems essentially close themselves off to any outside knowledge.

QUOTE]
I agree with you. I also found your beliefs about the Sumarians and the Annunaki interesting. I can't say I really believe all that Sitchin stuff...but who knows.

Anyway, I guess i'd say i'm agnostic in the sense that I don't believe (at least at this point in time) it can be proved either way.


I think... the scientific method isn't perfect, and even less so when dealing with the metaphysical. It was created by man, doesn't seem to me to be a reliable source to prove or disprove if there is a god(s) because most likely god is supernatural or exists in a universe much different than our own. Accepting the definition of athiesm that zomby gave, in this sense, athiests go on as much "blind faith" as someone who believes in a diety. Though it may be shown by science to exist or not exist, there's a very real possibility it can't be. So saying "it is not there until i can see, touch, smell, etc. cuz thats how science works" is all fine and dandy, but it is just a belief, like someone who believes in god. You're not anymore intelligent or logical to have this belief.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Phteven

Well-Known Member
#27
I think... the scientific method isn't perfect, and even less so when dealing with the metaphysical. It was created by man, doesn't seem to me to be a reliable source to prove or disprove if there is a god(s) because most likely god is supernatural or exists in a universe much different than our own. Accepting the definition of athiesm that zomby gave, in this sense, athiests go on as much "blind faith" as someone who believes in a diety. Though it may be shown by science to exist or not exist, there's a very real possibility it can't be. So saying "it is not there until i can see, touch, smell, etc. cuz thats how science works" is all fine and dandy, but it is just a belief, like someone who believes in god. You're not anymore intelligent or logical to have this belief.
I think u have a misunderstanding of what im trying to say (as i am not very good at explaining my position...sorry for that). But basically im not making a claim that there is no god, Im saying there is no prof of a god. I am not saying "it is not there until i can see, touch, smell, etc. cuz thats how science works" but instead I am saying I will not believe in a god until someone can reasonably prove there is one. Its like if i were to say I'm a millionaire and I want you to tell everyone that I'm a millionaire. Well you have no proof that I am but me just claiming I am a millionaire doesnt make it true. If you were to go around claim to everyone that i'm a millionaire without knowing you would be taking a leap of faith that what I'm saying is true. But if you were to say "I want proof before I do anything" that requires no leap of faith now does it. There is a chance I could be but there is no evidence to support what I am saying. So the default position would be I am not a millionaire, and if evidence comes to light that shows otherwise then you would change from the default to affirming what I said is true.

It requires no leap of faith(blind faith as u say) to say there is no proof of god. It requires a huge leap of faith to say there is a god as to me there is no evidence to suggest anything of the sort exists or ever existed. To claim that god is beyond our understanding ("most likely god is supernatural or exists in a universe much different than our own.") is like saying I can't prove god doesnt exist, but as I said before I'm not claiming he doesn't exist, I am claiming there is no evidence for God therefore it is not necessary, logical or reasonable to be believe in him.

Simply put I am not taking a leap of faith when I say there is no proof for a god.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
#28
I think u have a misunderstanding of what im trying to say (as i am not very good at explaining my position...sorry for that). But basically im not making a claim that there is no god, Im saying there is no prof of a god. I am not saying "it is not there until i can see, touch, smell, etc. cuz thats how science works" but instead I am saying I will not believe in a god until someone can reasonably prove there is one. Its like if i were to say I'm a millionaire and I want you to tell everyone that I'm a millionaire. Well you have no proof that I am but me just claiming I am a millionaire doesnt make it true. If you were to go around claim to everyone that i'm a millionaire without knowing you would be taking a leap of faith that what I'm saying is true. But if you were to say "I want proof before I do anything" that requires no leap of faith now does it. There is a chance I could be but there is no evidence to support what I am saying. So the default position would be I am not a millionaire, and if evidence comes to light that shows otherwise then you would change from the default to affirming what I said is true.

It requires no leap of faith(blind faith as u say) to say there is no proof of god. It requires a huge leap of faith to say there is a god as to me there is no evidence to suggest anything of the sort exists or ever existed. To claim that god is beyond our understanding ("most likely god is supernatural or exists in a universe much different than our own.") is like saying I can't prove god doesnt exist, but as I said before I'm not claiming he doesn't exist, I am claiming there is no evidence for God therefore it is not necessary, logical or reasonable to be believe in him.

Simply put I am not taking a leap of faith when I say there is no proof for a god.
As pointed out by me above the problem is that most atheists do not say there is no proof of god. Atheists claim there is no god period.

Perfect example is the definition of atheism as given by dictionaries.

"Atheism is commonly defined as the position that there are no deities. It can also mean the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. A broader definition is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist."

I know what you are trying to say. That the burden of proof for someone who believes in a god is on them, that you can't prove a negative. However the act of believing that a negative does not exist still requires a belief and thus makes atheism a belief system which states an absolute assertion based on a belief. This is incompatible with and open system of learning.

I will give the following example as proof.

Back in the 1500s everyone believed the earth was flat. Now the burden of proof was on those who said the earth was round because it was accepted by all of society that the earth was flat. This meant that the negative burden of proof at the time of this belief was that the earth was round. The accepted belief was that it was flat.

So

Positive belief was "the earth is flat"
Negative belief(which had the burden of proof on it) was "the earth is round"

Now if you follow this logic and replace earth is flat with atheist and earth is round with a person who believes in god you get

Positive belief "god doesn't exist"
Negative belief (as you say the burden of proof is on the believers) "god does exist"

You can clearly see from the example above that both beliefs are assertions taking an absolute position. However as science matured it disproved the socially held belief that the earth was flat and proved that the earth was round.

Since science is incomplete at the moment and since we do not have all the knowledge required to make an absolute statement that god does not exist, we cannot logically say with all certainty that god does not exist. The reason for this is that the picture is incomplete just as the picture for whether the earth was flat or round was incomplete. And as we discovered science eventually proved the positive assertion by society that the earth was flat wrong and the negative assertion that it was round as correct.

Because science is -incomplete- it still leaves the -possibility- that a god exists. Thus the idea that you cannot prove a negative really does not apply.

Science actually backs this up as well. Physics as you may know once held the assertion that everything in the universe was either a "yes" or a "no". A "positive" or a "negative" which is what you reference in your statement about the burden of proof being on the negative assertion. Then Quantum Mechanics came along and turned physics on its head. Under the rules of Quantum Mechanics the universe no longer is either a "yes" or a "no". Quantum Mechanics provides the mathematical formulas to state that everything is possible in the universe no matter how outrageous it may sound even if the chance of such a thing happening is 1 in 1000 to the 1000th power. The result of this discovery technically means that no absolute assertions can be made about anything and be proven correct. There is only a probability of it being correct and no matter how many times you repeat the experiment at one point in time the experiment will do the opposite of what it was supposed to do. It might take the experiment being done a near infinite amount of times but it will happen eventually.

The more we discover through science the more bizarre what we refer to as "reality" starts to become. There are no absolutes at this point in time in science. So I suggest you join the agnostic club with me and watch from the sidelines while two sides club each other to death because nobody is ever going to prove anyone else correct...at least not with our current understanding of science.
 

mulberrypie

Well-Known Member
#29
I think u have a misunderstanding of what im trying to say (as i am not very good at explaining my position...sorry for that).
probably. im kinda ditzy,sorry... ty for explaining it more thoroughly for me

So the default position would be I am not a millionaire, and if evidence comes to light that shows otherwise then you would change from the default to affirming what I said is true.
well, in this analogy, it;s not "default" for me to believe you aren't a millionaire. that's assumptuous as saying you are a millionaire. you could be. i would remain neutral until i know for sure.


I can't prove god doesnt exist, but as I said before I'm not claiming he doesn't exist, I am claiming there is no evidence for God therefore it is not necessary, logical or reasonable to be believe in him.
you sound agnostic to me - you don't believe in god but you dont deny he could exist.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

wastedmylife

Well-Known Member
#31
I am an atheist, just based on based experiences and using my brain did I realize god is a bunch of crap

and no it has not helped me, if anything it hurts to be an atheist in the society I live
 

Phteven

Well-Known Member
#32
As pointed out by me above the problem is that most atheists do not say there is no proof of god. Atheists claim there is no god period.

Perfect example is the definition of atheism as given by dictionaries.

"Atheism is commonly defined as the position that there are no deities. It can also mean the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. A broader definition is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist."

I know what you are trying to say. That the burden of proof for someone who believes in a god is on them, that you can't prove a negative. However the act of believing that a negative does not exist still requires a belief and thus makes atheism a belief system which states an absolute assertion based on a belief. This is incompatible with and open system of learning.

I will give the following example as proof.

Back in the 1500s everyone believed the earth was flat. Now the burden of proof was on those who said the earth was round because it was accepted by all of society that the earth was flat. This meant that the negative burden of proof at the time of this belief was that the earth was round. The accepted belief was that it was flat.

So

Positive belief was "the earth is flat"
Negative belief(which had the burden of proof on it) was "the earth is round"

Now if you follow this logic and replace earth is flat with atheist and earth is round with a person who believes in god you get

Positive belief "god doesn't exist"
Negative belief (as you say the burden of proof is on the believers) "god does exist"

You can clearly see from the example above that both beliefs are assertions taking an absolute position. However as science matured it disproved the socially held belief that the earth was flat and proved that the earth was round.

Since science is incomplete at the moment and since we do not have all the knowledge required to make an absolute statement that god does not exist, we cannot logically say with all certainty that god does not exist. The reason for this is that the picture is incomplete just as the picture for whether the earth was flat or round was incomplete. And as we discovered science eventually proved the positive assertion by society that the earth was flat wrong and the negative assertion that it was round as correct.

Because science is -incomplete- it still leaves the -possibility- that a god exists. Thus the idea that you cannot prove a negative really does not apply.

Science actually backs this up as well. Physics as you may know once held the assertion that everything in the universe was either a "yes" or a "no". A "positive" or a "negative" which is what you reference in your statement about the burden of proof being on the negative assertion. Then Quantum Mechanics came along and turned physics on its head. Under the rules of Quantum Mechanics the universe no longer is either a "yes" or a "no". Quantum Mechanics provides the mathematical formulas to state that everything is possible in the universe no matter how outrageous it may sound even if the chance of such a thing happening is 1 in 1000 to the 1000th power. The result of this discovery technically means that no absolute assertions can be made about anything and be proven correct. There is only a probability of it being correct and no matter how many times you repeat the experiment at one point in time the experiment will do the opposite of what it was supposed to do. It might take the experiment being done a near infinite amount of times but it will happen eventually.

The more we discover through science the more bizarre what we refer to as "reality" starts to become. There are no absolutes at this point in time in science. So I suggest you join the agnostic club with me and watch from the sidelines while two sides club each other to death because nobody is ever going to prove anyone else correct...at least not with our current understanding of science.
You obviously dont know what im saying as u seem to be confusing my essential point of what i was trying to say. As for your example both positions (that the world is flat and that the world is round) are positive claims and both were at that time based on evidence altho looking back we now know whose evidence was more accurate.

As well it requires no belief!!!! what so ever to say there is no god. I cant stress this enuff. Based upon the knowledge we have of the world and the universe it is reasonable to hold the belief that there is no god because the evidence thats out there thats says there is a god is weak at best. I would also like to stress that atheism as a term has been used to describe things out of the scope of its definition. An atheist is someone who doesnt believe a god(s) exist, atheism is the principle that atheists follow which states there is no evidence for a god. So being an atheist is holding a belief based on the lack of evidence for a god that there is no god. Anything outside of that is misusing the term.

Now i agree with you the knowledge is incomplete but im ok with that. I dont claim as religion does to hold all the knowledge to how the universe came into being and any such claim require huge leaps of faith that i reasonably dont wish to make. Religion claims to hold all knowledge for everything, I on the other hand am open to the evidence and that is what I form my beliefs upon. I seek to hold only those beliefs that are true as much as we can know the truth. You said that there is no absolute assertions that can be made and I agree with you, yet religion makes those claims all the time without any proof to back there assertions up. Where science doesnt make absolute assertions but makes assertions based on evidence and if those assertions turn out to be wrong (like evidence shows them to be flawed)then they r discarded or changed to make new assertions. Religion does not allow for this.

I hope this clears up my point a bit more :)
 

Zurkhardo

Well-Known Member
#33
I was tempted to join in on this discussion, but quite frankly I'm learning more than enough from you folks. Such illuminating people we have here ;)
 
#34
You obviously dont know what im saying as u seem to be confusing my essential point of what i was trying to say. As for your example both positions (that the world is flat and that the world is round) are positive claims and both were at that time based on evidence altho looking back we now know whose evidence was more accurate.

As well it requires no belief!!!! what so ever to say there is no god. I cant stress this enuff. Based upon the knowledge we have of the world and the universe it is reasonable to hold the belief that there is no god because the evidence thats out there thats says there is a god is weak at best. I would also like to stress that atheism as a term has been used to describe things out of the scope of its definition. An atheist is someone who doesnt believe a god(s) exist, atheism is the principle that atheists follow which states there is no evidence for a god. So being an atheist is holding a belief based on the lack of evidence for a god that there is no god. Anything outside of that is misusing the term.

Now i agree with you the knowledge is incomplete but im ok with that. I dont claim as religion does to hold all the knowledge to how the universe came into being and any such claim require huge leaps of faith that i reasonably dont wish to make. Religion claims to hold all knowledge for everything, I on the other hand am open to the evidence and that is what I form my beliefs upon. I seek to hold only those beliefs that are true as much as we can know the truth. You said that there is no absolute assertions that can be made and I agree with you, yet religion makes those claims all the time without any proof to back there assertions up. Where science doesnt make absolute assertions but makes assertions based on evidence and if those assertions turn out to be wrong (like evidence shows them to be flawed)then they r discarded or changed to make new assertions. Religion does not allow for this.

I hope this clears up my point a bit more :)


Again I'm an agnostic and since you are an atheist I am going to play devils advocate here. Putting aside everything we just talked about consider the following.

Have you heard of the multiverse? In Quantum Theory the mathematical equations are now pointing us in the direction of infinite universes. In fact the theory says that there is a universe for every possible action of every possible particle in the universe.

This would mean that there are an infinite amount of me and you, one version of us for every possibility of every particle everywhere in the universe.

If this turns out to be true, then the idea that an advanced civilization that has existed for trillions of years located in any one of these infinite universes would theoretically be probable.

Now what if one of these incredibly advanced alien civilizations had the power to create a universe and what if the universe they created happens to be the universe we currently exist in? By definition that would make them the gods of this universe.

Just something to think about. Quantum Physics is so bizarre, and so strange, that it turns everything we have ever been taught on its head.
 

Phteven

Well-Known Member
#35
I think u have a misunderstanding of what im trying to say (as i am not very good at explaining my position...sorry for that).
probably. im kinda ditzy,sorry... ty for explaining it more thoroughly for me



well, in this analogy, it;s not "default" for me to believe you aren't a millionaire. that's assumptuous as saying you are a millionaire. you could be. i would remain neutral until i know for sure.




you sound agnostic to me - you don't believe in god but you dont deny he could exist.
I dont think your ditzy in fact i think u express your opinions very clear much more so than me.

The default position is basically the way that something will appear or be done if you make no other choice. Therefore when presented with a positve claim (that im a millionaire or there is a god) the default would be to the negative unless there is evidence to support the claim. Which is why I say the default postion in my analogy is that Im not a millionaire as there is no evidence to support that claim.

I'm definately an atheist as I definately dont believe in a god(s) and will never unless presented with evidence to the contary. I also believe the chances of someone coming up with any empirical evidence for the existance of a god is very highly unlikely. I would put the odds that there is a god(s) at 1 to 1 followed by a trillion zeros. Thats how convinced I am that there is no god(s)
 

Phteven

Well-Known Member
#36
Again I'm an agnostic and since you are an atheist I am going to play devils advocate here. Putting aside everything we just talked about consider the following.

Have you heard of the multiverse? In Quantum Theory the mathematical equations are now pointing us in the direction of infinite universes. In fact the theory says that there is a universe for every possible action of every possible particle in the universe.

This would mean that there are an infinite amount of me and you, one version of us for every possibility of every particle everywhere in the universe.

If this turns out to be true, then the idea that an advanced civilization that has existed for trillions of years located in any one of these infinite universes would theoretically be probable.

Now what if one of these incredibly advanced alien civilizations had the power to create a universe and what if the universe they created happens to be the universe we currently exist in? By definition that would make them the gods of this universe.

Just something to think about. Quantum Physics is so bizarre, and so strange, that it turns everything we have ever been taught on its head.
A multiverse is a hypothetical theory 1st off and secondly it would be just as likely that there would, theoretically, be no advanced alien civilizations had the power to create a universe such as ours and that universes come into exist but some natural means. Which is pure specualtion as I have nothing to back this up.

anyways i think i made my veiws pretty clear .. :)
 

Entoloma43

Well-Known Member
#37
Edgar appears to have a fundamental misunderstanding of of atheism.

In practical terms, I can state "there is no God", for the same reason I can state "there are no unicorns", because there is no evidence for either of them. I don't require omniscience or absolute knowledge to make this claim fairly. (From a technical standpoint one has to remain agnostic about everything since we don't have omniscience. Unicorns could after all be living somewhere in deep space)

Non-belief is the default position. If someone states aliens live in their back-yard, you don't believe in him until they provide evidence of their claim. Same applies to theism.

Theists have the burden of proof as they are asserting a positive claim. If someone states aliens live in their back-yard, it's their job to demonstrate this to you, not your job to disprove aliens live in their backyard. Same applies to theism.
 
#38
I grew up going to church every time i saw my dad and at 14 my crazy mother who couldnt handle me sent me along to a fundamentalist christian commune for 9 months where they took me out preaching in shopping centres and knocking on doors

They had a little school there about 10 or so kids but instead of learning math was memorizing scripture and the whole book of revelation they presssured me to get baptised and i eventually left on my own 9 months later it did give me a deeply spiritual perspective on life and i attended churches on and off for years but i have always been miserable and have not will never again attend another church again

Itsa tough question but the world looks so painfully put together that i prefer to believe that it wasnt created intentionally
 

Prinnctopher's Belt

Antiquities Friend
SF Supporter
#39
Technically, yes. I don't remember "converting," since it was more of a series of thought processes and experiences, transitions in thinking, enlightenment, whatever you want to call it, but I always had my doubts in Sundee school when I was growing up. Yes, I also believe in something greater, I just don't believe it's a god(s) nor any sentient being for that matter.
 

mulberrypie

Well-Known Member
#40
TY! naw, u explain urself very well. just to beat this dead horse,
i'm not saying i think atheism or science is a religion! but i think when you reject something as untrue, you therein form a belief to it's opposite. The only way I can see someone being without a belief about something entirely is to be undecided/not come to a conclusion or not be aware of the concept.
i have heard this new 'lack of belief' definition and to me it seems too broad. That would make me an athiest, because i do lack belief but don't throw out the possibility. and it seems you don't either.
The belief in the possibility of there being a God, regardless of how tiny the odds may be, is what I always thought discerned an athiest from an agnostic.
but the definition has changed a lot. Despite the play on words 'new' atheists want to use, the statement "I don't believe that god exists/have no belief god exists" is equivalent to "I believe that god does not exist." :\ negative raising doesn't change the meaning here.....but whatever! i respect ur opinion xx
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Please Donate to Help Keep SF Running

Total amount
$70.00
Goal
$255.00
Top