|
Atheist
Mar 27, 2006 0:29:35 GMT -5
Post by Tyual on Mar 27, 2006 0:29:35 GMT -5
Those who have no religion. There is no higher power. Everything has a scientific and logical explanation. There's a reason that can and will eventually be explained for everything.
Anyways, disagree as I may personally, here's a thread open to the discussion of atheism.
|
|
|
Post by moogman on Jul 6, 2006 2:40:14 GMT -5
Definate Atheist, even though i was brought up as a christian and was hammered with all those beleives from a very young age I still turned out the way I did and proud of it, I dont have a paticular problem with anyone and there faith but i do have a hard time understanding it and have trouble understanding why people follow such a religion? but as i said people can do as they please.
|
|
|
Post by 2bfoundwanting(unused) on Jul 6, 2006 3:02:14 GMT -5
I definitely can't say that I'm an athiest, but I do find it hard to ignore this thread. I mean doesn't everyone want to believe in something? I can understand questioning God's existence, but I honestly can't understand what it's like to be an athiest, or what leads one person to want to be one. I've tried to understand, but like in a lot of things I guess I have shortcomings in these areas because I don't understand. Even though, I was taught some things I don't agree with and I don't agree with some things in my church and the way they believe it didn't stop me from believing in God.
I'm not trying to knock anyone down, it's just that I don't understand. I'm not going to change my beliefs, but I want to try and understand what leads someone to becoming an athiest.
|
|
|
Post by moogman on Jul 6, 2006 3:10:01 GMT -5
i think im an atheist for many reasons, one im a huge fan of science and i want everything explaining to me in terms that i can prove with evidence not with blind belief, i am also very anti religion because i beleive the world wouldbe a better place without it, less war for starters. Im also pushed that way because of personal reasons, things that have happened to me in my life that have cemented my thoughts about any god, things that have really made me think if there is a god i wouldnt want to beleive in him anyway because hes obviously a bit naff at what he does. I do beleive in things i beleive in nature i beleive the planet is a living being and i beleive that maby it is our higher power, Gai i think it is called when u beleive that but i beleive this through science and nothing else.
|
|
|
Atheist
Jul 6, 2006 14:21:28 GMT -5
Post by Tyual on Jul 6, 2006 14:21:28 GMT -5
Sorry, but I highly disagree that science can explain everything. I've seen way too many things in my life that science cannot explain. Science says that the things that happened shouldn't have been possible, and they were.
As for the world being a better place without religion, I believe that is very wrong. Most religion gives people a guideline for a better life. It doesn't teach wars, people do that on their own, not religion. War would still be faught, religion or not. Over resources and land and seflishness. So it wouldn't stop wars. They just wouldn't be able to use it as an excuse anymore.
I like to see things logically and with evidence myself, but I understand that for some things that just isn't possible. And I don't think science will be able to explain them in the future either. And some things they can explain -what- happened, they've yet to prove -why- and that's the part I don't think they can prove on a lot of stuff.
Although I might disagree with your beliefs, you're fully entitled to them as far as I'm concerned...
|
|
|
Atheist
Jul 9, 2006 19:46:57 GMT -5
Post by seffy on Jul 9, 2006 19:46:57 GMT -5
Ty, how can you condemn science for not proving things to you and be so willing to follow a religion that 'can't' prove anything and are not even willing to try? Prove that it's possible to draw a figure in the clay and breath life into it. Prove you can feed five thousand people on two fish and a loaf of bread. Prove you can turn water into wine. You can't, no one can. Yet you're so willing to believe it can be done with no more proof than a story in a book? Science can prove a whole lot more than religion will ever be able to dude. True, science can't explain everything, let alone prove it. But over time, I firmly believe that it will. As for religion providing guidelines to living a better life? I've never been arrested, never spent a single night in jail, I don't drink, I don't do drugs, hell I'm the first one to offer my seat to an OAP on the bus. And I do it all without a single thought towards religion. So even in that respect, religion isn't needed. Missy, my answer to you is quite simple. I believe in what I can see, what I can touch, in what all my senses tell me is real. I believe in what science tells me, not because it's science and it's some clever guy with a load of letters after his name, but because when science says something it provides the reasons, the working out and the means for testing it myself. It provides me with the proof I need to believe in it. I'm an Atheist because I can find nothing to show me that god is real, any god. This planet was formed by dust and rock and gas colliding, causing the fragments to spin. Once they began to spin, they had gravity which then pulled more dust and rock and gas in. Under gravity, these peices began to fuse together and, as they drew more and more material in, began to grow until all the material was either used up or cast away and what was left was a planet. There was nothing mystical about it and it took a lot longer than the seven days the bible says it took. The proof? I can see it happening today. Both Nasa and ESA have the locations of several Stellar Nurseries in space and are watching as new stars and planets are being formed. It can even be worked out using Maths. This is why I'm an Atheist.
|
|
|
Atheist
Jul 10, 2006 0:54:48 GMT -5
Post by Tyual on Jul 10, 2006 0:54:48 GMT -5
I'm not condeming science at all. I like science. I'm just stating that it is my believe that it is not possible for science to explain some things. I've seen things that science says shouldn't be possible, but are. (The first particular instance in my mind was a guy I saw live through a wreck that science said he should have died from. I've also known my stepfather's blood pressure to go so high that he scientically should have died. He didn't.)
As for following my religion, remember what I posted in the Debate thread. I don't follow the religion on account of the religion. I disagree with a lot of the things in organized religion. It has its good side, but the hypocracy and corruption in it is bad. Although I follow Christianity in my own way, I'm not as much on following the church, especially the catholic church (which I have a lot of issues with) and it's specifically the catholics who don't want to try to advance science. Personally, I like science. I like seeing how God's creations work, and that's what science tells me is how it works, but not why.
"I've never been arrested, never spent a single night in jail, I don't drink, I don't do drugs, hell I'm the first one to offer my seat to an OAP on the bus. And I do it all without a single thought towards religion. So even in that respect, religion isn't needed."
I'm not saying that it's necessary to be a good person! I'm not saying you're a bad person for not being religious! And it seems like that's what you think I said. It was not. I'm saying that religion offers this guidance to some people and a lot of them need it. I'm just saying that religion itself offers good things for people, but people choosing to use those good things, and in the right way, is up to them.
"but because when science says something it provides the reasons, the working out and the means for testing it myself."
No, it provides what happens as a result of this and this. It doesn't say WHY it happens. The reasons it happens. It can tell you why the events of this and this happen, but it doesn't tell you WHY the original things that make it possible happen. It doesn't tell me WHY I feel emotions, just the chemical reactions that happen because of it. It doesn't tell me WHY atomic particles exist, just what happens when they combine in different ways. It doesn't tell me WHY the universe exists, just a possible reason of how things formed.
As for how the planet was formed, were you an existant being when it was formed? No. Then you honestly don't know how the hell it was formed. Science can give you its ideas but guess what, our scientists with their technology weren't around back then either. That means that they can't tell you for sure that's how it's happened! That's just what they think.
Granted, that things form that way now. So lets assume the whole universe formed that way, via the Big Bang. So what caused the big bang to happen? What made the first particles that were used in the big bang exist.
Let me also pose an idea to you: When people think of the world being made in 7 days, they think of the earth. However, did it ever occur to you that the world could infact be the entire universe? And from the universe, planets created themselves over time. So witherin they did this, God created Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, to be perfect for a relationship. (God made man to have a relationship with, if he wanted just mindless worship, he'd have not created anything but the angels. He wanted things that loved him by their own choice). It never says they were the only beings that he created. So who's to even say that the Eden he made them in was on Earth at all? Actually, when I think of the 'world' as the universe, that's why I find it very easy to believe that there could be other life in different parts of the universe. It even says they were cast from Eden. So maybe when they were cast from Eden, the place they were cast was Earth. Ever think of it like that?
Also it says 7 days. We measure that as a week. How does God measure 7 days? To us, that might be 7 eons. What is a day to God may be an eternity to us. We don't know. So we can't take that so literally.
We think of these things in the terms we know them as, instead of looking at expanded possibilities. We look from a very narrow perspective.
As for the miracles of Jesus, I believe that is not the act of a man's power. That is the power of God. Jesus had the power God allowed him. Therefore, he could do things no one could do sheerly by man's power. And when you believe that this is the same supreme being that created the entire universe, is it so hard to believe that he could do something like let a humanly incarnation of himself heal blinded men, turn water to wine, feed any number of people he wants, such and so forth? I find that to be a relatively simple task for a being that could create the universe that we in thousands upon thousands of years have not been able to understand fully.
|
|
|
Atheist
Jul 10, 2006 2:48:38 GMT -5
Post by moogman on Jul 10, 2006 2:48:38 GMT -5
just to spread the thinking a lil on the last few points you made Tyual, About jesus. one thing I could never figure out is why would God never show himself. never heal save or help anyone outright and then send his son down who goes around healing the blind, turning water into wine and feeding the masses? I mean if he did do that then why? if god isnt the type to just go around helping people because we are to learn for ourseleves and it is humanities fault for the way we are who gives his son the divine right to around intefering?
just seems to me that god and jesus if they exist had some pretty conflicting ways of dealing with things.
|
|
|
Atheist
Jul 10, 2006 2:56:59 GMT -5
Post by Tyual on Jul 10, 2006 2:56:59 GMT -5
He did that because he loves his creations. He sent Jesus to die and be a sacrifice for our evils, our sins, that we commit via free will. That away we would not be separated from him for all eternity in hell. He wants us to be with him, so he gave us that gateway through Jesus.
As for the miracles of Jesus, the physical spectacle of seeing the miracles and listening to what he taught brought many non believers to know God as well. So in a way, not only was he saving his creations from a certain eternal cuss wordation but promoting himself as well. Because, out and out honest, he wants all the attention.
Jesus was infact more the physical representation of God. Although we refer to him as the son of God, we do so because of the mortal form he took. Although they are separate, they are the same, am I making what I'm trying to say clear? because at 4am, I'm not sure if I am. Jesus, as is believed was the essence of God in mortal form. So infact he was personally doing it, Moog.
|
|
|
Atheist
Jul 10, 2006 3:02:14 GMT -5
Post by moogman on Jul 10, 2006 3:02:14 GMT -5
but sureley if God wanted to do some groovy advertising and save his people from cuss wordation in the pits of hell he could come up with something a little better than that? unless of course theres even ore to this whole god thing than we think we know and hes held back by some godly rules of the game were he cant? if not hes not really trying that hard to save his followers? im sure the odd miracle here and there would have the masses rallying tohis banner.
|
|
|
Atheist
Jul 10, 2006 9:49:26 GMT -5
Post by seffy on Jul 10, 2006 9:49:26 GMT -5
Is it me or is this discussion beginning to overlap with the Religious Debate thread? Atheists guys, Atheists.
|
|
|
Atheist
Jul 10, 2006 9:51:12 GMT -5
Post by moogman on Jul 10, 2006 9:51:12 GMT -5
Hmmm very very true, not sure what else to discuss though really. What can you really say about being an Atheist?
|
|
|
Atheist
Jul 10, 2006 11:09:40 GMT -5
Post by seffy on Jul 10, 2006 11:09:40 GMT -5
That it's better than being a City supporter? (That's an old soccer joke, for those of you over in America ;D)
|
|
|
Atheist
Jul 11, 2006 1:23:21 GMT -5
Post by Tyual on Jul 11, 2006 1:23:21 GMT -5
Moog, he could do whatever he wanted. I'm sure he had his reasons for choosing the method he did.
Also, he wants us to love him and have a relationship with him by our own choice. That's why he gave us free will. So if he went about doing miracles every 10 minutes, then we wouldn't believe in them, and we also would come to expect them. It would also be bribing us into having a relationship with him for miracles. That's not what he wants. Jesus did miracles to show the power of God, to show that what he was saying was the truth. However, he taught people more than anything. The main thing of Jesus wasn't the miracles, it was his teachings.
I noticed the overlap as well, Seffy, but it's kind of hard not to, I think, like Moog said...Until more atheist straggle in and you will all then have a thread to hang out in together.
|
|
|
Atheist
Oct 31, 2006 10:05:25 GMT -5
Post by rupertfan on Oct 31, 2006 10:05:25 GMT -5
I'm atheist. I don't believe in God or live after death. I believe the bible is just a story that was so convincing that people started beliving in it. It is live the da vici code is a book and people are beliving in it now as well. I also believe that there was a MAN called Jesus that helped people but not with the power of God. He was normal the first day and divine the next.
I hold all my belilf is science. We evolved from ape. Earth was creted vea the big bang. When you die you die and your memory is all that is left so I'm sorry to those who do belive in God but this is what I belive.
|
|
|
Atheist
Oct 31, 2006 13:27:49 GMT -5
Post by Tyual on Oct 31, 2006 13:27:49 GMT -5
Wow. I basically can't disagree more.
Polar opposites.
|
|
|
Atheist
Oct 31, 2006 16:31:40 GMT -5
Post by rupertfan on Oct 31, 2006 16:31:40 GMT -5
It is what I believe and I will stand by it.
|
|
|
Atheist
Oct 31, 2006 16:43:48 GMT -5
Post by hp4freek on Oct 31, 2006 16:43:48 GMT -5
I think it's commendable to stand by what you believe.
Atheism to me sounds depressing to me, though. I don't necessarily buy into the full Christian pakage, and I agree with a lot of points you make, Steph, but I'd still like to know there's something at the end of this rainbow.
|
|
|
Post by moogman on Nov 1, 2006 6:42:58 GMT -5
Rainbows, i bet someone blamed them on the power of god at one stage in our evolution u know.
|
|
|
Post by rupertfan on Nov 1, 2006 6:59:13 GMT -5
Rainbows are also explained by science but I won'y get into that. I just don't seem to have the strength to believe in God. And then the religus studies in school are so boring, A few people in the class uncluding myself argue every point that the teacher says. The few that I am talking about are the top three people in the science department. Me being at the top lead the bebate in class.
|
|
|
Post by moogman on Nov 1, 2006 8:35:21 GMT -5
i used to do that in RE to (religious Education) i hated it when people said Jesus did this Jesus did that and This happened here and there, how the hell do they know? i totaly disagree with religious education in schools. Religion should be something you believe in later in life when you can fully understand, appreciate and take in all the facts. Teaching it at school is not school to me, it is an archaic way of pushing beliefs on others young.
|
|
|
Atheist
Nov 1, 2006 13:10:07 GMT -5
Post by hp4freek on Nov 1, 2006 13:10:07 GMT -5
Now, while I do know the religious stories behind rainbows, I definitely 'believe' the science of rainbows. My whole thing with religion and God is simple: I think science proves Gods existence. I think that it's too much of a coincidence that one planet out of who knows how many has life.
I do agree with moog, on that religion isn't fully appreciated until later in life. I don't think a child who has had religion shoved down their throat fully appreciates the ideas and beliefs of true religion. I think also, that you need to question religion from an un-biased point of view at least once as well, to see if it's truely something you can believe in.
|
|
|
Atheist
Nov 1, 2006 13:35:58 GMT -5
Post by Tyual on Nov 1, 2006 13:35:58 GMT -5
" My whole thing with religion and God is simple: I think science proves Gods existence. I think that it's too much of a coincidence that one planet out of who knows how many has life."
That's how I stand on it as well. I don't find that science conficts God but just shows how and why the things he made work, work the way they do.
I agree that education should not have religious classes. That should be a personal choice. However, saying this, I must also say I don't believe that the big bang and evolution should be taught as fact either! Which they are. So if I can't teach religion as fact when I can't prove it 100%, you shouldn't be able to teach theories you can't prove either.
Also agree that religion is best appreciated later in life when you can understand it. When I was a little kid there was no way I could have truely grasped the concept and the fullness of all that it entails.
|
|
|
Atheist
Nov 1, 2006 18:50:42 GMT -5
Post by moogman on Nov 1, 2006 18:50:42 GMT -5
but if god only created life on earth what is the point of all of the other planets? why do they exist and why do all the other solar other solar systems exist?
|
|
|
Atheist
Nov 1, 2006 21:11:34 GMT -5
Post by Tyual on Nov 1, 2006 21:11:34 GMT -5
"but if god only created life on earth what is the point of all of the other planets? why do they exist and why do all the other solar other solar systems exist?"
I assume that's not directed at me, because personally I feel there may be other life in different areas. It's too fast a universe for there not to be, I think.
I think another possibility is that they may be there for man. As we expand and become more technological, we may expand to them and inhabit them one day. Use them for recources. Find other life or something. So they may just be pre-set means for furthering man.
It says God created the world, but who is to say that the Earth is the whole world, not just a part of it? The world could in fact be the entire universe....
Just a thought on that..
But yeah, I veer from the popular religious view on this, as I don't find it that hard to believe in other life with the vastness of the universe. I don't believe the whole universe was created just so life could be stuck on one planet. If that's what he wanted, then being an omnipotent being, God in theory could've just made our nice little sphere self sufficient and all that exists, but it's not that way. Leads me to believe there is a purpose to the rest of the universe.
|
|
|
Atheist
Nov 24, 2006 9:56:15 GMT -5
Post by rupertfan on Nov 24, 2006 9:56:15 GMT -5
Dis you know that mosses wrote the first 5 books in the bible and that he dies in one of them?
|
|
|
Atheist
Nov 24, 2006 17:34:07 GMT -5
Post by Tyual on Nov 24, 2006 17:34:07 GMT -5
Moses was not the one to write the first 5 books, he was the subject of them, except for Gensis if I believe, but if I'm not mistaken he is in it somewhat. The words of the Old Testament are believed to have been written by the priests of the tribes of Israel, if I'm not mistaken, as told by God. Or more or less that God used them as a mortal coil to write what he wanted. Moses was not one of those said priests.
But yeah, much of those early books is based around Moses. The laws referred to in them are even called the Mosaic Law. (though I figure you knew that part.)
|
|
|
Atheist
Nov 26, 2006 12:51:53 GMT -5
Post by hp4freek on Nov 26, 2006 12:51:53 GMT -5
But this begins the discussion on what you believe the Bible to be. Is it truth, real events that happened in a set time line, exactly as they are presented, or is it a collection of stories, morally challenging myths and theories, meant to teach a valuable lesson, but not be interpreted as true happenings?
I believe it to be stories. The book Ishmael by Daniel Quinn (yes - it's a sustainability book) speaks of it in terms of history and fables. The history we learn is only half the history. Only the winner's story is told. A lot of the moral lessons taught in the Bible are just that: lessons. Ismael presents the Cain and Abel story as rivaling tribes, fighting over farming vs. hunting.
I think it's all about perspective. Others will preach (literally) that these were actual events that took place, but I just don't think so. These are still man's words on that paper, no divine spirit wrote them there. Many of the stories in it are the same or quite similar to others told in other religions, predating Christianity.
|
|
|
Atheist
Nov 26, 2006 20:42:55 GMT -5
Post by Tyual on Nov 26, 2006 20:42:55 GMT -5
Although I don't know personally nor do I claim to, I'd say many stories are told as you said, as moral fables. Jesus himself is known to have taught through parables. Although I can't speak for the old testament, much of the New Testament is not literal, but fables for teaching. With the exceptions of the books written by Paul, those were actual letters he wrote to the different nations of the time/people of the time.
Revelations also, was the recording of John as he said he witnessed the end of the world as shown to him by God. So it also is to be literal.
Much of the old testament does follow a historic timeline, and relates to the real world in which it was written. So it's as likely that they WERE real events, and real people, as it is that they were parables.
I do believe events such as the great flood, and Moses leading the people from Egypt, and major events. The 10 commandments story, things like that, I believe are literal. Even perhaps Cain and Able. However, the general things, just a general story, about no one specifically called by name, I believe we can reguard as a parable for moral teaching.
No matter what the truth on that level - the purpose of it being recorded is the same: for people to read and learn from, to lead a better life.
Which brings up a question I have about atheist. Why are they commonly anti-religion. I mean why are they so strongly anti-religious. Especially in America now, we have people who are trying to remove religion completely. By the law, those of us with religion are entitled to have it freely, in public, where-ever, just as much as they are entitled to not have it. So why do they feel that they should have the right to take that away from us? No one forces them to pray, or look at our religious signs, or any other thing like that.
Also, what makes them hate religion so much to do this in the first place, as religion is infact a teaching with the purpose of helping people lead better lives. Why try to take away something that makes some people better people since it's not being forced on them?
|
|