Why are Atheists...Atheists?

reply to post by coastlinekid


Not true of "activist atheist", who think anyone who doesn't share their view is demented.

I am an athiest possessed by the spirit of God.

No, this God didn't "create" the universe from nothing and this God isn't a "he".

This God is goodness, this God is kindness and patience, this God is fairness and equality.

This Devil, or evil, is the opposite.

So, I believe in God, but God didn't create the universe. The universe created us in its own image which is both Go(o)d and (D)evil. We are the image of the universe, and the universe itself was not created; it is sempiternal.

There's a plan, on the other side of the fence, there's a choice. Relative to each perception and experience ignorance is bliss. Some will give in to the plan, some will give in to believing in choice, and fewer will stay neutral and experience the delusion of both.

Religion as it is today is a carcinogen to the planet.

[edit on 24-5-2008 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]

i for an example am "atheist" in so far, because i hear the us-army advertising on radio, by saying: "do you hear the call of god [...]" to join the army and kill people. this is pure bull#. it cant get any worse than this. religion is propaganda. its time to wake up now, because governments all over the world use this propaganda for their legitimization and your enslavement.

if there was a god - mind you as being propagated! - then why does this god allow for example hitler or bush, which is pretty much the same, to do what they want? simple, there is no such god, its an illusion you are being taught. and if such a god exists, who does permit and allow such actions, then i say # this god!

god is dead, because our society is dead. we allow(!) wars to happen, crime to happen, poverty and starvation to happen. if we continue to live like this, not only will god remain dead, no, satan will arise for us all.

2012 or bust.

greetings.

In my experience, I think the rise in atheism in western culture is largely linked to the former domination of Christianity, especially Catholicism. Most people I have met that are atheists cannot disconnect the idea of a higher power from the dogma and anthropomorphism of Christianity (to a lesser extent, other organized religions.) Thus, they reject Christianity, and in doing so, reject the concept of a higher power.

I think it would behoove everyone, atheists, agnostics, spiritualists and followers of any religion, to learn in depth about the history and origins of their own faith, and of other faiths. To learn is to understand the core principals, histories, and facts that most religions and forms of spirituality share. Having spent a decade on research into religion and spirituality, into the origins and mechanisms and the light that science can cast on the "mysteries," I find it unlikely that anyone with an open mind would be atheist, were they truly educated on the subject. Anthropomorphism is a joke, yes; the evident reality of a higher power is not. And even if one should research extensively, and still be an atheist, at least then they might be able to understand spirituality. Sadly, the majority of atheists these days will rant against religion, while knowing almost nothing about it.

Originally posted by phl0gist0n
I don't see why atheism needs to have a cause. I always sense that I'm being psychoanalized when I explain to someone that I'm an atheist.

Atheism is simply a lack of belief. The opposite of theism. I don't believe in god for the same reason I don't believe in unicorns or dragons. I simply haven't seen any sufficiently compelling reason to believe.

It seems to be difficult for theists to accept how natural this is, and I've never understood why. They always try to look for a psychological explanation like trauma or narcissism. It really gets tiresome, frankly.

I am a born again believer yet I agree with your sentiment here....tho I understand the "cause" angle differently ....however the need to label non-believers and psychoanalyze atheists is the antithesis of" love thy neighbor as thyself."...In fact just let me say gently that the question at the start of the thread which is aimed at atheists is divisive in the same way...tho I know that was not the intention of Matrix, who has been courteous throughout...

If I love you as I love myself - do I seek to understand you with an open heart or attempt to fit your soul into my "world view" or my "faith view" ? do I follow my own penchant for a good argument here or defer to Christ who said "I have sheep you know not of" .....the Atheist you decry now may be the one who saves your neck in a bad situation...

Love uber allis...it does a body good
cheers
realshanti

reply to post by phl0gist0n

It seems to be difficult for theists to accept how natural this is, and I've never understood why. They always try to look for a psychological explanation like trauma or narcissism. It really gets tiresome, frankly.

I quite understand! It seems to be difficult for atheists to accept how natural it is to believe in a higher power, and I've never understood why. They always try to look for a psychological explanation like:we are foolish, gullible, or not very intelligent, or not right in the head.

Yes, I relate perfectly! I'm sorry, I couldn't resist!

reply to post by realshanti

I am a born again believer yet I agree with your sentiment here....tho I understand the "cause" angle differently ....however the need to label non-believers and psychoanalyze atheists is the antithesis of" love thy neighbor as thyself.".

Oh, please! Again, I cannot resist. I have never met a born again evangelist that did not want to convert everyone over, that they can!

I have the benefit of having been a religionists myself in the past, and so know every scheme & technique.

But, I don't have anything to convert the atheist over to!

As much as those of us who believe in a higher power have been critiqued, those who are religious have been psychoanalyzed to death. Even by me! LOL!

Truly I am agnostic (I think), but for argument sake I always say I am an atheist. Though, I may in fact be a realist, I am not sure. Ultimately to me it doesn't matter if god exists or not.

I tend to lean to the side that says god doesn't exist, simply because I see no place for god in our world or reality. Then again, it could be that god created the world to be that way.

I make my choices and actions based on what I see to be the best choice for me or for the other people involved for every instance. I do what I feel I am meant to do, if there is a god, he/she/it made me that way, if there was no god it is just the way I am.

Basically, god existing or not existing has no effect on my choices or actions, so really I don't care. Right now, I see no evidence for a Christian like god. Thus I think there isn’t one. I do however see evidence of what I guess you could call Einstein’s god, but then again I am not certain.

I think to some extent I might end up being a true follower of god, in the assumption there is a god, and the fact that god made me with my mind the way it is to fulfill some purpose. In fact meaning that god made me not to believe in Gods self in order to finish the task I was meant for, which requires that type of thinking.

Either way it doesn’t really matter as I see it. Right now I see no evidence so I say no god, but if I did see evidence I would be like, okay there is a god and nothing more. If I see God personally, I would just ask a # load of questions.

My stance one any form of religion however is not so flexible. I truly think religion does no good for society. It takes the power away from the people and channels it to something that can’t be confirmed. People see this take advantage of it and use it for their own gains. This causes lots of problems in society, if organized religion was removed and everyone searched for spirituality on their own, I think the world would be a much better place.

In the end I would like to believe in people and have people believe in each other over some god, because it is the people here trapped on this earth together. Sadly, though even though I want to believe in people I can’t. Too many people are just too weak and sell out their beliefs and will to others. These others, are people out for their own gain and seem to be bond to some sick twisted logic for some other reason. This sadly makes me see people as not equal even thought I would rather believe in all people. I am a slave to my logic and thus I think I am a realist, but sadly this leads me to the conclusion I really have a hard time bearing. I hope people will eventually be able to see the world in a true light and that I can have faith in the majority of people again, but sadly I see the possibility very low.

Well, that is my view in a nut shell. If anyone has what classification I actually fit, I would love to hear it.


[edit on 24-5-2008 by halfmask]

We have only the word of men to design and circulate their versions of "God".
I have not met anyone who could heal the sick, raise the dead, or walk on water....not even turn water into wine.
I have met no true representative of the Christian God, since Jesus said "These things I do ye can do likewise".
I am a panthiest, I believe in all gods who are gods, and have no sympathy for frauds.
Athiests are a lot like Satanists...just more rebel christians.
Just my personal feelings, if you are offended perhaps you could pray for your god, goddess, or cosmic awareness to enter my heart and make of me that which pleases it.
I am a licensed interfaith minister in my state I can marry, bury, and hold meetings as a regular church of the Great I Am, regardless of the fact of my question...You Are...WHAT?
Nature?
That is very cool with me.

Originally posted by MatrixProphet
reply to post by realshanti

 

I am a born again believer yet I agree with your sentiment here....tho I understand the "cause" angle differently ....however the need to label non-believers and psychoanalyze atheists is the antithesis of" love thy neighbor as thyself.".

Oh, please! Again, I cannot resist. I have never met a born again evangelist that did not want to convert everyone over, that they can!

I have the benefit of having been a religionists myself in the past, and so know every scheme & technique.

But, I don't have anything to convert the atheist over to!

As much as those of us who believe in a higher power have been critiqued, those who are religious have been psychoanalyzed to death. Even by me! LOL!

WOW - somehow I have offended you... my apologies - you assume many things from the statement "born again believer"...which is the point of my previous post - never assume you "know" a person's heart -

I am most assuredly NOT a religionist....for many of the reasons you yourself have covered...but that has not kept me from my Faith which has nothing what-so-ever to do with a building or organization....

I have no wish to ''convert" anyone, have no scheme or technique - I take from my Faith the commandment to love very seriously and so I took the opportunity to explain my point of view...do with it what you will - I meant no harm...Just don't feel the need to dissect my fellow humans on their faith belief or lack of it and think its counter productive...

In my life time I have witnessed no higher power anywhere. All "miracles" are explainable and natural universal occurences.

All that I have done or become has came from "me".

Ultimately to me it doesn't matter if god exists or not.

this reminds me of the old saying...

Which is worse ignorance or apathy?

I don't know and I don't care.

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
Ever heard the phrase grasping at straws? Multiple universe theories are a atheist joke.

I apologize, I didn't mean to imply that you could comprehend advanced physics. Maybe if you weren't so attached to using the big bang as evidence of God you could see how multiple universe theories can still be compatible with religion.

A desperate attempt to explain away the anthropic principal of cosmology that so strongly supports the belief in God that prominent atheists have actually converted due to the evidence.

I know that ATS has become a little less professional recently, but I'm going to use an old throwback and say...
souces please?

What is one to make of all this? As with all scientific theories, we begin by asking for the evidence. So what is the empirical evidence for oscillating and parallel and multiple universes? Actually, there isn't any...
Now we are in the realm of "just add universes."

D'Souza

Sorry, but books have publishing dates, and science is always moving foward.

IN AUGUST, radio astronomers announced that they had found an enormous hole in the universe... One team of physicists has a breathtaking explanation: "It is the unmistakable imprint of another universe beyond the edge of our own," says Laura Mersini-Houghton of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. “Standard cosmology cannot explain such a giant cosmic hole”

people.tribe.net...

But it's more than just the hole...

If the cosmic cold spot was all that Laura Mersini-Houghton and her colleagues had chalked up in the way of a prediction, it might be possible to dismiss it as a fluke. However, they claim they can explain two other anomalies in the WMAP measurements of the cosmic microwave background too.
The standard model of cosmology cannot explain why the hot and cold spots of the quadrupole and octupole are much closer in temperature than they are in other multipoles. But Mersini-Houghton says that the squeezing of our universe by neighbouring ones in her team's model leads to repulsive gravity and suppresses the quantum fluctuations that seeded matter. "This is turn depresses the temperature variations at the quadrupole scale, exactly as WMAP has seen," she says.

Also, the team has two other predictions that, if proven, would make an essentially rock solid case for us mere humans having actually observed the effects of a nearby universe.

They predict that there should be not one such giant void but two: one in the northern hemisphere corresponding to the WMAP cold spot and one in the southern hemisphere. "We are hoping that a southern void will turn up in the data soon," she says.

The other prediction is that the The Large Hadron Collider WILL NOT have the energy required to produce supersymmetric particles

They hope to test what happened when the universe cooled below a certain temperature and underwent a phase transition, which broke supersymmetry. According to string models, the energy released during the phase transition drove inflation, and went on to create supersymmetric particles. Since the energy had to be sufficient to ensure the growth of our piece of vacuum, Mersini-Houghton and her colleagues can make an estimate of the energy scale of supersymmetry breaking. "We find it is about 100,000 times greater than generally believed," she says. "Therefore we predict that the LHC will not detect supersymmetry."

Yes M theory is the atheist scientist last gasp in the face of overwhelming evidence for God.

Actually, the math adds up. M theory is an attempt to explain everything we've observed thus far without resorting to magic. And as for the evidence of God... source?

The prioncipal of Occams Razor that when offered many possible explanations the one that requires the least assumptions is the best.

If M theory fits all of our observations then it is the supernatural explanation that does not fit Occams Razor.

...our universe is designed for life because someone designed it that way. You don't need to make up the idea of a hundred billion universes that you know nothing about in order to account for the only universe you can possibly examine.

But a supernatural and omnipotent creator, with zero evidence of existence, that seems nothing more than a flight of fancy in much the same vein as Zeus, is a mammoth assumption that contains infinite assumptions within, and therefore, violates Occam's Razor.

Okie dokie, this argument is the one that officially ends all rational discussion. If satan becomes your reason for any type of disagreement, you have not only taken this thread down an alternate route, but that route happens to be a dead end.

I apologize I didn't mean to imply that you could comprehend the Bible verses. Of course I would be in error to expect a materialist to be able to comprehend something that is spiritually discerned. If you had read my post that statement that was addressed to the Bible believing Christians.

A materialist? Now you're just assuming things. I could very well be more spiritual than you. Of course, it would probably be a type of spirituality that you would say is caused by....
hmmmm....
what would the church lady say?

And it was never offered as a reason for disagreement only as the explanation for atheists blindness to the overwhelming and "obvious as the nose on your face" evidence for a creator.

And also to someone claiming to see spirits, like what you said to Drakiir...

I don't doubt you see things, I just doubt "they" are what you think "they" are.

Unless you were calling Drakiir a swamp gas witnesser, I'd say you were saying that Drakiir's seeing demons sent by....
satan.

reply to post by realshanti


Quite frankly, your previous message was ambiguous. The last paragraph definitely had an evangelistic feel to it. It seemed a little on the passive aggressive side.

Why?

You admitted to being born again. That is a religious phrase so it was not hard to determine that you were coming from that angle. Often devout Christians will powder-puff a passive aggressive move by acting or seeming righteous (showing false concern) while undercutting the previous messenger.

Please re-read your post and see if you can see it from my point of view. If you are sincere then you have my apologies.

reply to post by halfmask


I am a realist who is spiritual. God lives in hard core reality. This is why it is so hard for so many to understand why he allows or does what he does.

I am repeating this post I did earlier;

It is a hard thing to reconcile. When I took God out of the box I started to see him in a different light.

My father was a tough, strong character, a bit of a butt-kicker. I have come to like those qualities. He could take you or leave you, it took some effort to get his attention. But once you did, he really cared. He was not at all codependent!

It reminds me of God.

Our confusion comes I think, from trying to fit him into this box that we have been taught by religion to do. He doesn't want to be boxed!

Originally posted by Howie47
Unbelievers tend to confuse "faith", with blind faith. If you saw all the miracles the slaves of Egypt where shown to encourage their faith. You wouldn't be putting down faith like it was nothing.

That's great and all, but if those miracles are true that still doesn't change the fact that all modern faith IS blind faith.

Also, let's play the logical fallacy game. All of the slaves get to see these wonderful miracles, so now they have no reason to doubt and they absolutely believe. They just got a free ticket to heaven because they were born back when God liked to perform magic tricks, and as we all know, believing in God is FAR more important than actually being a good person.

Fast foward a few thousand years to modern civilization. Basically I'm boned because I can't believe millenia old hearsay? If God floated to earth and pulled a rabit out of his hat I'd believe, I swear, but because I don't have that kind of luck I'm stuck not believing and I'm eternally damned?

I also use this argument against the ressurection myth. All of the "witnesses" got a free ticket to heaven while the rest of the world can kiss God's ass.

This is a monstrous logical fallacy. Belief being more important than behavior is an obvious tool of brainwashing and is the primary reason I have a problem with Judeo-Christian nonsense. This is the one fact that turned me from a believing little nine year old to one whom must question everything.

I remember the day quite vividly. I was in my friend's apartment. My friend Paul came with me because he wanted to hook up with my friend. Childish shinanigans, but I digress. Paul and I somehow got on religion. He was a few years older so his religious education was a little ahead of my own. Anyway, the moment I heard about belief being more important than being good the entire illusion of religion crumbled. I saw it for the tool it was. I had a hard time accepting that so many people would do so much in the name of nonsense, but as the years past and I learned about all of the religions of the world and how they all claim that they alone hold the truth, it was easier to accept.

Read my signature!!!

reply to post by Bigwhammy


I just wanted to take the time to reply to your signature.

If there were no God there would be no atheists. - G. K. Chesterton

And add my own line of logical thought, not a subduing half truth to use against the masses as a religious sign post.

If there were only athiests there would be no God.

reply to post by Sunsetspawn

I know that ATS has become a little less professional recently, but I'm going to use an old throwback and say...
souces please?

]

Souces? Do you mean like barbecue our sweet and sour?

Famous Atheist Professor Antony Garrard Newton Flew converts to theism due to the scientific evidence.

Leading scientists have acknowledged the far-reaching implications of the anthropic principle. "A commonsense interpretation of the facts." writes astronomer Fred Hoyle, "suggests that a super-intellect has monkeyed with the laws of physics." Physicist Freeman Dyson says, "The more I examine the universe and study the details of its architecture, the more evidence I find that the universe in some sense must have known we were coming." Astronomer Owen Gingerich writes that the anthropic principle "means accepting that the laws of nature are rigged not only in favor of complexity or just in favor of life, but also in favor of mind. To put it dramatically, it implies that mind is written into the laws of nature in a fundamental way." Astronomer Robert Jastrow observes that the anthropic principle "is the most theistic result ever to come out of science."

M theory is an attempt to explain everything we've observed thus far without resorting to magic.

Get a clue! The 'M' in M theory is for magic!

According to Witten and others, the M in M-theory could stand for master, mathematical, mother, mystery, membrane, magic, or matrix. Witten reluctantly admits the M in M-theory can also stand for murky due to the fact that the level of understanding of the theory is so primitive.

wiki

The math you speak of relies on concepts like "imaginary time" which is purely the magical thinking of atheists like Stephen Hawking who are desperately trying to explain away the anthropic principal.

M Theory amounts to nothing but New Age dreaming but anyone who can believe in multiple universes should have no problem believing in heaven and hell. Just think of them as "alternate universes."

It is a serious objection to all theories of multiple universes that they violate Occam's razor. They invent a fantastically complicated set of circumstances to explain a single case when there is a much simpler, more obvious explanation right at hand. It says, quite simply, that our universe is designed for life because someone designed it that way. The Designer Universe approach has this benefit: you don't need to make up the idea of a hundred billion universes that you know nothing about in order to account for the only universe you can possibly experience. Yet this third response seems to be anathema to some people, and here we see how strongly modern atheism relies on "New Age dreaming."

D'Souza

So yeah the atheists Magic theory makes good science fiction movies that's about it.

Originally posted by MatrixProphet
reply to post by realshanti

 

Quite frankly, your previous message was ambiguous. The last paragraph definitely had an evangelistic feel to it. It seemed a little on the passive aggressive side.

Why?

You admitted to being born again. That is a religious phrase so it was not hard to determine that you were coming from that angle. Often devout most impChristians will powder-puff a passive aggressive move by acting or seeming righteous (showing false concern) while undercutting the previous messenger.

Please re-read your post and see if you can see it from my point of view. If you are sincere then you have my apologies.

The term born again comes straight from the bible - I could have easily said
"I'm a believer" which would have been ambiguous - but I chose to be specific cause the new testament is the basis for my faith....just being honest...tho I can see how that might have pushed the wrong button for you - wasn't my intention...

not sure which paragraph of which post you are referring to as being "passive aggressive"..but looking over what I wrote - I stand by it.... love is the most important instruction I received from my faith, its the essence of everything Christ practiced and is summed by Paul in Corinthians.....when I saw the link posted to the youtube video...well, I didn't see the love in that and could easily see why it would offend some folks - I also truly believe the words of Christ when he tells his disciples that HE has sheep they know not of...

And last but not least I really do believe that the Atheist I decry today may save my life tomorrow - because experience has taught me that my GOD has an exquisite sense of irony about such things....

So I guess I am devout but my devotion is to Christ and not some guy in a pulpit....and then if you're still not convinced check the music link on my signature - that should clear it up for you and if you're not convinced after that well.....I dunno.... therapy? ....just kidding
Be well
relashanti

For those (namely Bigwhammy) trying to prove God through evidence, i can see one gaping hole in your arguments.

If, as you have said, God can be proven through scientific proofs, then why have the Churches not latched onto this and used it?

The Churches, Catholic in particular, have been at odds with scientists for centuries, they are mortal enemies. For the Church to use their enemy to prove themselves correct it would be the biggest coup in religious history.

We all know the Catholic church is about $$$ and for them to have solid, scientific proof of God would make their fortunes multiply tenfold.

So, if you proof exists like you have been saying over and over again, why has no one ever heard of it? Why has it not been used to convert the masses?



[edit on 24-5-2008 by fooffstarr]