Why are Atheists Atheists?

page: 8
5
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 2 2007 @ 11:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by GreatTech
For all atheists: who do you believe is the Supreme Being of the Universe? Yourself, the President, a famous scientist, a famous writer, a famous athlete...? Why?


Nature, chaos, a quark, neutrino's, anything but an invisible entity that see's and knows all, but seems to be blind and knows nothing.
Why would anything on this small dust bowl in an insignificant backwater of the universe have anything to do with whats going on.
You do understand dont you that the definition of Atheist means that we dont believe in any supreme being, your question therefore lacks any substance!




posted on Mar, 2 2007 @ 11:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by ixiy

Atheists have no need to spread their science to others who do not want, need or believe in it.


then atheists are lying to themselves. Atheists want to be accepted for who they are. Atheists want to belong. Atheists need to both be accepted and belong. Time spent in self reflection would reveal this as a truth from any perspective other than those who do not want or need to be accepted, and do not want or need to belong.



Why do the religious need to spread their faith to others who do not want, need or believe in it?


Because there are souls in this world who would feel as though they do not belong, nor are they accepted for who they are (from their perspective) because they don't subscribe to the beliefs that promote sharing acceptance and belonging.



Why do the religious see the need to spread their faith to others with a different kind of faith than their own?

sharing acceptance and belonging, and seeking truth compliance through acknowledging, recognizing, accepting, and sharing truth with one another.



When everyone believes that their views are correct and have a desire so strong that force is used to make another follow what one believes to be correct causes conflicts.


the only conflict is that one cannot force another to follow or believe. So perhaps it would be best if each and every individual soul stopped projecting their will upon a shared reality, and learned to accept the truth of eachother's words.



Why is there a need so strong that one is willing to kill another over it?


fear of not being accepted or belonging, and hating those who are percieved as being in conflict with their beliefs which leads to a feeling of victimization and blaming those who will never accept or belong to the will that they project and manifest in a shared reality.



Who is truly correct?

"i am", but to prove this false one would first have to confront "i am" to seek truth. Most people value and hold reverence for other things rather than truth, even their own truth. They have their priorities, and the truth isn't at the top of the list.



Can we all be wrong about what we believe?


no, we can not be wrong about what we believe, but in order to know this one should at least recognize and acknowledge what it is they do believe. What is it they believe? Some have no idea. They don't know. They act upon conditioned responses by repeating actions and behaviors when introduced to familiar stimulus. They don't acknowledge or recognize their own intentionality, what drives them to perform what actions and behaviors that they act out in a shared reality. They act upon their opinion, which is an accumilation of their most self serving guestimations.

Some do not even consciously know what variables make their opinion their opinion.

We all learn through the process of the law of association. new incoming information can only be percieved consciously if it can connect to compatible pre-existing information in the conscious mind.

what was the first truth of the conscious mind of which all incoming information had to comply with in order to be acknowledged and accepted consciously? What was the first truth of the conscious mind? What was embedded into the first conscious mind's brain cell?

"Self Pre-Serve" aka "Self Preserve" aka "Self before serving (anything or anyone, as there was no end to the instinctual prime directive)

So, without being forced back inwards to fix their faulty selfish consciousness, everything a human who has no faith, no spirituallity, no religion, no god, can hope to learn must adapt itself to be compatible with:
"i am selfish before i serve anyone or anything"

hence, truth exists .... but truth is not compliant with selfishness all the time.



Is one willing to see if they may have been wrong?


Only as far down within themselves as "alone" allows them to go. Since, if they believe in no higher being, when they delve into the depths of their own psychi's programming ... they go there knowing that they are not accepted, and that they do not belong.



Can blind faith be dangerous?


depending upon what one has faith in, no.



posted on Mar, 3 2007 @ 12:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher

then atheists are lying to themselves. Atheists want to be accepted for who they are. Atheists want to belong. Atheists need to both be accepted and belong. Time spent in self reflection would reveal this as a truth from any perspective other than those who do not want or need to be accepted, and do not want or need to belong.


Now were liars on top of everything else weve been labeled in this thread.

How do atheists want/need to belong to anything, we deny the existance of a supreme being and his/her teachings, how is that lying to ourselves, except from your perspective, given evidence to the contrary i may change my opinion, i may also win 25 million in the powerball next week.

Those who believe in God are those that need to belong, who is it that needs to gather in groups each week to pray and hear the word of the lord, who needs re-affirmation of their beliefs each day through prayer, which group of people is it that needs to spread the word, who needs to believe in an afterlife to gain forgiveness for their sins committed in this life. Who is it that needs to belong.

Not Atheists.

Cheers.



posted on Mar, 3 2007 @ 02:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by GreatTech
For all atheists: who do you believe is the Supreme Being of the Universe? Yourself, the President, a famous scientist, a famous writer, a famous athlete...? Why?


the supreme being of the universe...

hmm

well, after some thought and meditation on the idea, here's what i came up with

is there a supremely hot thing in the universe?
can you actually point to an object and say "that object is hotter than every other object there is" and be absolutely certain?

sure, there may be objects that measure as the hottest things in the universe, but it's a group of objects, not a supreme individual
(this whole little diddy is loosly based off of my argument for why i believe polytheism to be slightly more logical than monotheism)

there are a supreme group of beings in this universe, i'll call them sentients
beings similar to humans
en.wikipedia.org...

basically, any beings that work towards change are the supreme beings in our universe



posted on Mar, 3 2007 @ 05:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by mojo4sale

Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher

then atheists are lying to themselves. Atheists want to be accepted for who they are. Atheists want to belong. Atheists need to both be accepted and belong. Time spent in self reflection would reveal this as a truth from any perspective other than those who do not want or need to be accepted, and do not want or need to belong.


Now were liars on top of everything else weve been labeled in this thread.

How do atheists want/need to belong to anything, we deny the existance of a supreme being and his/her teachings, how is that lying to ourselves, except from your perspective, given evidence to the contrary i may change my opinion, i may also win 25 million in the powerball next week.

Those who believe in God are those that need to belong, who is it that needs to gather in groups each week to pray and hear the word of the lord, who needs re-affirmation of their beliefs each day through prayer, which group of people is it that needs to spread the word, who needs to believe in an afterlife to gain forgiveness for their sins committed in this life. Who is it that needs to belong.

Not Atheists.

Cheers.


As an Agnostic Athiest I have to disagree with you mojo4sale and agree with Esoteric Teacher on this in spesific. What Esoteric Teacher writes is true, however this has nothing to do with Athiests versus Thiests. Everyone has a underlying need to belong and to be accepted, this is basic human nature and has nothing to do with the belief or non-belief of God(s).



posted on Mar, 3 2007 @ 07:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by GreatTech
melatonin, are you happy or unhappy with "nature"? Why?


Indifferent but with an occassional sense of awe?

I was a little peeved it rained the other day though, as I wanted a long calming walk along the seafront...

Although, I have spent half my life trying to get a peek up mother nature's petticoat. She's a coy thing but with a good approach we get the occasional glimpse of what makes her tick.

[edit on 3-3-2007 by melatonin]



posted on Mar, 3 2007 @ 08:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by VladTheImpaler
As an Agnostic Athiest I have to disagree with you mojo4sale and agree with Esoteric Teacher on this in spesific. What Esoteric Teacher writes is true, however this has nothing to do with Athiests versus Thiests. Everyone has a underlying need to belong and to be accepted, this is basic human nature and has nothing to do with the belief or non-belief of God(s).


Exactly, everyone has a need to belong as some core instinct, not just atheists.
It is a misguided concept though that atheists will have anything in common enough with each other to ever be able to form a group and belong.
Can you say the same about those who believe in a deity.

Once again i hope that made sense as ive just gotten home from the pub. More sin to taint my soul....(shrugs).


[edit on 3/3/07 by mojo4sale]



posted on Mar, 3 2007 @ 05:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by GreatTech

Originally posted by shihulud

Do you feel that theists are more intelligent due to their faith???



I will not use the word "intelligence" due to its controversy and how it may hurt people's feelings; instead, I will use the word development. I believe theists are more developed in Spiritual matters and that atheists are more developed in scientific matters.

Why would you feel that theists were more 'developed' in spiritual matters than atheists when the spiritual is a subjective subject and therefore not quantified by belief. Atheists can be very spiritual sometimes moreso that theists. While in the case of scientific matters its all down to how you perceive the world around you, sometimes subjective but has more of a factual objective basis than the subjectivity of spiritual matters.



G



posted on Mar, 3 2007 @ 06:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by shihulud

Why would you feel that theists were more 'developed' in spiritual matters than atheists when the spiritual is a subjective subject and therefore not quantified by belief. Atheists can be very spiritual sometimes moreso that theists. While in the case of scientific matters its all down to how you perceive the world around you, sometimes subjective but has more of a factual objective basis than the subjectivity of spiritual matters.


I believe that God understands everything objectively. The more we know God the more we can understand anything objectively.

I believe that knowledge is a lower realm of Spirituality and consciousness than wisdom. Wisdom is objective in its purest form, while science or knowledge is always subjective.



posted on Mar, 5 2007 @ 07:03 PM
link   
What would the world be like if it were 0% theistic and 100% atheistic, or 50% theistic and 50% atheistic, or 100% theistic and 0% atheistic?

If it were 0% theistic, I believe the world would be gone.

If it were 50% theistic, I believe the world would be a partial struggle for survival.

If it were 100% theistic, I believe the world would be Heaven-like.



posted on Mar, 5 2007 @ 09:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by GreatTech
What would the world be like if it were 0% theistic and 100% atheistic, or 50% theistic and 50% atheistic, or 100% theistic and 0% atheistic?


We have experience of an almost 100% theistic society, it was that way for most history (be it montheism, polytheism etc), it has never reached a nirvana-like status. The only situation not really experienced is predominately atheistic.

I doubt much would change though, it would just remove one source of division, I'm sure we'd focus on other ideological differences (nationalism, politics etc).



posted on Mar, 6 2007 @ 12:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by GreatTech
What would the world be like if it were 0% theistic and 100% atheistic, or 50% theistic and 50% atheistic, or 100% theistic and 0% atheistic?

If it were 0% theistic, I believe the world would be gone.

If it were 50% theistic, I believe the world would be a partial struggle for survival.

If it were 100% theistic, I believe the world would be Heaven-like.


Well, count your blessings! (pardon the pun)

As of current with the best figures I could find we are looking at a %85.3 theistic population. Going by the current world population. And thats with 1.1 billion in the "Secular/irreligious/agnostic/atheist/antitheistic/antireligious" category. I would argue that there are some theists in that group as agnostic folks usually believe in a "higher power". Even given that I would say that a %80 theist populace is close to accurate.

So let me ask? Do you feel that we are %80 "heaven like". I don't, I feel more like %20 "heaven like." Or did you mean it more like if %100 of the population believed in your religion it would be "heaven like".

BTW, I have an update I was on the way to work last week and guess what was going down at the bus stop? Yep, some lady came up carrying a bunch of pamphlets and guess what, she wanted to know if I have found god. I gladly took her pamphlets and listened to what she had to say. After hearing her sales pitch I informed her that I was once religious but did not care for her recruiting people at a public bus stop. I also informed her that she should probably keep her pamphlets as they would be nothing more than firestarters for me (literally as I have a fireplace and thats where my junkmail goes). She said why don't you come to our church this sunday, I asked her why don't she come over and play some dominoes and have a few drinks. Well she seemed kind of offended and I figured she probably wasn't up for it. She said, I just want to show you the "glory of the lord", I said I just want to show and talk to you about why I am a person of disbelief.

At this point I said sorry you are beating a dead horse here, and she proceeded to leave and here is where it gets good, there was a lady I see at the bus stop fairly often that came walking up. She asked the religious lady for a quarter as she didn't have enough for bus fair. The lady just plain ignored her and kept walking, I didn't have a quarter but I had an extra dollar and happily gave it to her. She even paid me back a couple days later and said thank you. It was "heaven like". :shk:



posted on Mar, 6 2007 @ 04:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by GreatTech
What would the world be like if it were 0% theistic and 100% atheistic, or 50% theistic and 50% atheistic, or 100% theistic and 0% atheistic?

If it were 0% theistic, I believe the world would be gone.
Then why is it still here?? Depending on the diety of worship then theism is not that old in the context of length of time that humans have been on this planet



If it were 50% theistic, I believe the world would be a partial struggle for survival.

If it were 100% theistic, I believe the world would be Heaven-like.
The world struggles for survival as it is, no need to add faith into the mix.


Why do you always assume that being atheistic has a detrimental effect on how we live??? I would think that the restrictions of faith would have a more detrimental effect but there you go!!


G



posted on Mar, 6 2007 @ 04:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by GreatTech
What would the world be like if it were 0% theistic and 100% atheistic, or 50% theistic and 50% atheistic, or 100% theistic and 0% atheistic?

If it were 0% theistic, I believe the world would be gone.
Then why is it still here?? Depending on the diety of worship then theism is not that old in the context of length of time that humans have been on this planet



If it were 50% theistic, I believe the world would be a partial struggle for survival.

If it were 100% theistic, I believe the world would be Heaven-like.
The world struggles for survival as it is, no need to add faith into the mix.


Why do you always assume that being atheistic has a detrimental effect on how we live??? I would think that the restrictions of faith would have a more detrimental effect but there you go!!


G



posted on Mar, 6 2007 @ 07:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by shihulud
Then why is it still here?? Depending on the diety of worship then theism is not that old in the context of length of time that humans have been on this planet


Quite true actually. In the 4.6billion years of the earth, the period of theistic humans is pretty inconsequential, even moreso if we take the history of the universe.



posted on Mar, 6 2007 @ 07:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin

Originally posted by shihulud
Then why is it still here?? Depending on the diety of worship then theism is not that old in the context of length of time that humans have been on this planet


Quite true actually. In the 4.6billion years of the earth, the period of theistic humans is pretty inconsequential, even moreso if we take the history of the universe.


I give you the concept of "think back." Correlating human age with theories of the creation of the Universe become inconsequential with respect to time. The more we "think back", the more we find God, but thinking back is not the only method to discover God. Prayer and meditation are effective methods for discovering God; if we cannot humble ourselves, we cannot be enlightened (compare the Dark Ages with the Renaissance).



posted on Mar, 6 2007 @ 07:59 PM
link   
I thought the dark ages and mideavil era were so horrifically bad because there was a departure from science and the totolitarianism of religion. Everything suffered then from the quality of life, technology, creativity, even music went into the crapper.

THe rennesaince(sp) was so succesful and flurished because it was an age of bringing back science. You think florence built all of those buildings without a deep interest in real knowledge. The rennesaince was mirrored after the greek and roman times where there was still religion but science was also prevelant.



posted on Mar, 7 2007 @ 09:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by BASSPLYR
THe rennesaince(sp) was so succesful and flurished because it was an age of bringing back science. You think florence built all of those buildings without a deep interest in real knowledge. The rennesaince was mirrored after the greek and roman times where there was still religion but science was also prevelant.


good point, in greece and rome people paid lip service to religion. however, all the art came about through money from religion, because the church had leeched the populous clean by that point in history.



posted on Mar, 7 2007 @ 11:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by GreatTech
I give you the concept of "think back." Correlating human age with theories of the creation of the Universe become inconsequential with respect to time. The more we "think back", the more we find God, but thinking back is not the only method to discover God. Prayer and meditation are effective methods for discovering God; if we cannot humble ourselves, we cannot be enlightened (compare the Dark Ages with the Renaissance).


I'm not sure how this fits with the original claim that 0% theistic = teh end etc...



posted on Mar, 7 2007 @ 05:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by GreatTech

Originally posted by melatonin

Originally posted by shihulud
Then why is it still here?? Depending on the diety of worship then theism is not that old in the context of length of time that humans have been on this planet


Quite true actually. In the 4.6billion years of the earth, the period of theistic humans is pretty inconsequential, even moreso if we take the history of the universe.


I give you the concept of "think back." Correlating human age with theories of the creation of the Universe become inconsequential with respect to time. The more we "think back", the more we find God, but thinking back is not the only method to discover God. Prayer and meditation are effective methods for discovering God; if we cannot humble ourselves, we cannot be enlightened (compare the Dark Ages with the Renaissance).
And you think the theory of evolution is wrong ??? But then again I do suppose it depends on your definition of god

However is it not a fact that buddhists meditate and arent they atheistic???

So prayer (an unfounded claim other than subjective experiences) and meditation (for the above reasons) cannot be effective methods for discovering god other than a subjective experience which is no basis for truth.

G





new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join