It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Are Religious Believers Weak?

page: 2
1
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 22 2009 @ 06:24 PM
link   
Religion doesn't make life any easier unless the hardest challenge faced is the question, 'Why?'. And for some, it is. But the answer is still incomplete and reliant on one's belief in an idea that encompasses a creative force and intent. Which often isn't easy in the face of the adversities we all face. And, ultimately, whether one looks to religion or science the answer will always come down to 'Just because' eventually. Not easier, just different.

Religion, like science, is nothing but a way of defining reality, not denying it.

And to say that proof does not exist is incomplete and ignorant, lacking the defining adverb of 'yet'. Because the other thing that believers in either religion or science can both be prone to is the faulty assumption that they know everything already.

If that were the case, we wouldn't have a need for either.

So are religious believers weak? No more or less than any other human being.




posted on Feb, 22 2009 @ 06:25 PM
link   
reply to post by N. Tesla
 


When a young child dies anyone with a heart will cry even us Christians. No one alive really know what happens after death. Christians like myself don’t want to die we are just not worried about death because in our belief we know that we will better off.

And to the original post asking if being a Christian is easier. Look on this site, Look in this forum and any other forum talking about religion and look at all of the things that are said to someone who believes in God. Do you think that it is easy just to sit there and be told how stupid and weak you are and not lash back. The amount of self control alone that keeps us from lashing back should be enough to show that we are not weak.

It is not easy to believe in a God in a world increasingly telling you he doesn’t exist. In a world where you are looked at like a crackpot for believing you a creature created by an all knowing Being. In my opinion it would be easier not to believe in a God. That way you have no worries.



posted on Feb, 22 2009 @ 06:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by TravelerintheDark
Religion, like science, is nothing but a way of defining reality, not denying it.


You should never compare religion and science because science is based upon empirical data and religion is based upon....................books written by men that could be completely fictional and have no testable basis.


Originally posted by TravelerintheDark
And to say that proof does not exist is incomplete and ignorant, lacking the defining adverb of 'yet'. Because the other thing that believers in either religion or science can both be prone to is the faulty assumption that they know everything already.


Man you obviously don't understand scientific theory. Science accepts anything put in front of them that can be proven. They say this is what is possible now, and wait until someone proves them wrong. Science would NEVER say they know know everything already. If they believed that then they wouldn't bother researching anything anymore. Whereas religion says, this is what is possible and never accepts anything else.

Science is a ladder, religion is a ledge.


Originally posted by TravelerintheDark
So are religious believers weak? No more or less than any other human being.


Studies show that religious people are better able to deal with deaths of oved ones. I would say that shows a need for certain people to believe in an afterlife to cope.



posted on Feb, 22 2009 @ 06:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ant4AU
And to the original post asking if being a Christian is easier. Look on this site, Look in this forum and any other forum talking about religion and look at all of the things that are said to someone who believes in God. Do you think that it is easy just to sit there and be told how stupid and weak you are and not lash back. The amount of self control alone that keeps us from lashing back should be enough to show that we are not weak.


Again i state that you are in the majority. To not lash out is what Jesus told you to do (if you're a christian) and i never singled out Christianity. Atheists are the minority and are persecuted rather badly as they are the minority. Maybe you live in some other world but statistically we are a very very very small minority.



posted on Feb, 22 2009 @ 06:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
Studies show that religious people are better able to deal with deaths of oved ones. I would say that shows a need for certain people to believe in an afterlife to cope.


So that by being more capable they are weaker? That rather flies in the face of the definition of 'weak' doesn't it?

The rest of what you said is purely argumentative and denies the context of what I said. But to entertain the ideas you put forth...

Certainly, religion and science are 'apples and oranges', which are wholly different, except in the purpose they serve. They can both be eaten for sustenance.

And I wasn't speaking of scientific theory but rather its adherents who do at times deny anything they can't prove. That's rather unscientific isn't it? More appropriate would be to say, 'I don't know, yet'. But that's a fault with people, not the theory.

You may be right though, and I find it rather appropriate, that science is a ladder and religion a ledge, but how do you know where the ledge goes if you aren't willing to walk it? Or would you rather deny the ledge even exists since you can't prove where it goes? In that case, what's the point in even considering it? And how will you ever know if you don't explore.



posted on Feb, 22 2009 @ 06:48 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984
 


I agree that Atheists are persecuted unfairly by main stream Christianity. And that is the problem. Main stream Christianity has forgotten what it is about, and have forgotten that they are not to judge, not to persecute. The Christians duty is not to persecute but to merely plant a seed and move along. All the majority do is push people away.

I personally realize that we all have a choice to either believe or not to believe and I am not going to force my thoughts or beliefs on to anyone. Unfortunately main stream religion does not believe as I do.

For years main stream Christianity pushed and pushed their views until Atheists pushed back. I understand I really do the problems Atheist see with religion. They only see the corrupt main stream versions. Even being a Christian myself the corrupt main stream views make me sick.

That is the reason I say it is hard to be religious. We Christians have a corrupt face that the world sees. So those of us who do not follow the main stream views are classed with them and have to fight even more to get what we believe to be the truth out.



posted on Feb, 22 2009 @ 07:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by TravelerintheDark
So that by being more capable they are weaker? That rather flies in the face of the definition of 'weak' doesn't it?


They are relying upon something else for support and are therefore weaker. It's like a 100 metre tower standing upon it's own and another 100 metre tower using a crane for support.


Originally posted by TravelerintheDark
The rest of what you said is purely argumentative and denies the context of what I said. But to entertain the ideas you put forth...

Certainly, religion and science are 'apples and oranges', which are wholly different, except in the purpose they serve. They can both be eaten for sustenance.


You completely disregarded what i said. If we take your apples and oranges metaphor then the apples of religion are eaten simple and used for nutrition, the oranges however are studied, the pips removed, the fruit eaten and the knowledge of the pips used to make more oranges.


Originally posted by TravelerintheDark
And I wasn't speaking of scientific theory but rather its adherents who do at times deny anything they can't prove. That's rather unscientific isn't it? More appropriate would be to say, 'I don't know, yet'. But that's a fault with people, not the theory.


Science relies upon evidence. To say they don't believe something is to go upon the evidence they currently have. I myself get annoyed at science saying things aren't possible, like interstellar travel. However we can prove what happens to the body after death, we can prove it contains certain kinds of energy, we can prove it releases said energy upon death and therefore can prove that energy doesn't continue in any kind of cohesive manner that could contain consciousness.


Originally posted by TravelerintheDark
You may be right though, and I find it rather appropriate, that science is a ladder and religion a ledge, but how do you know where the ledge goes if you aren't willing to walk it? Or would you rather deny the ledge even exists since you can't prove where it goes? In that case, what's the point in even considering it? And how will you ever know if you don't explore.


You missed my metaphor. The ledge is flat and never expanding knowledge, the ladder is knowledge that is gained by adding each rung. The ledge can never be increased upon, the ladder can always be built upon.



posted on Feb, 22 2009 @ 07:45 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984
 


It wasn't my intent to disregard what you said, but rather to choose a way to better express what I was getting at. You said I shouldn't compare the two, some would say I can't, but I say I can. It's all a matter of perspective. And that's really my point entirely. That science and religion are at their core different perspectives on the same universe. Personally I don't see either as necessarily better than the other, but that's a choice everyone can make for themselves. I don't really see any value in judging that choice, no matter how faulty it may appear from the opposite side.

It's like you illustrated with the building and it's supports. I'd ask if it matters what's holding the building up if the building still has value in standing. That's assuming the support the building receives doesn't impinge on the other buildings around it.

I don't think I missed your point with the metaphor, though I did circumvent it perhaps, if only to illustrate, as I see it, that there's not much point in judging how we get there, but rather that we get there at all since both hold the promise of a better life.

In the case of the ladder and the ledge, the ladder can be built upon and I supposed this is why some prefer the ideas of science. It allows control, or at least a sense of it, an idea you seemed to further illustrate with the apple and orange. I can understand that point of view. Religion on the other hand requires one to follow the path as it exists. But then some of us prefer a mystery to answers.

Now, as for religion, perhaps the core of your issue has to do with the nature of some religions. Perhaps not, but I think it's worth exploring. Because as I see it there are two types of people on the ledge of religion, those who stand, afraid to move for fear of falling, and cry for salvation. But there are those who see the point in the journey.

To me its the difference in waiting for God to come to you, or going to meet God. And even this really boils down to the personality of the adherent. Because almost all religions I'm aware promote self-improvement and exploration.

But science doesn't really have much of an advantage because there are only a limited number of people with the skill to actually build on the ladder. Everyone else is simply following them up with the same promise that things are better at the top.



posted on Feb, 22 2009 @ 07:56 PM
link   
reply to post by TravelerintheDark
 


The entire basis of this thread is simply whether the belief in religion is for those who are to fragile to accept the world as it is before their eyes and must overlay it with faith and those who would simply see it as it is. You can argue that god exists but in the end you won't cover new ground and so it isn't important to the thread.

I would again argue that two people look at a situation and cope with it in two different ways. An atheist can look at something tragic and want to make it better because they believe that we only have one life and need to make it better, to reduce the suffering. Whereas the religious can look at it, sooth their minds with the idea that god has a plan or the sufferers will have a reward after death and only have a slight compulsion to help compared to the atheist.

The religious may want to help but they won't have the same drive as an atheist.



posted on Feb, 22 2009 @ 08:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Ant4AU
 


I hope you can forgive me for saying that thi shas nothing to do with this thread. In the end this thread is not about any one religion, none, of them. It is about the weakness of some people that have to believe in a religion to justify the world around them compared to atheists who are able to accept what is around them.



posted on Feb, 22 2009 @ 08:01 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984
 


I wasn't trying to make any point about the existence of God. But you asked a question and I tried to present an explanation as to why I see the answer as arbitrary. Whether we adhere to religion or science, we're human. It isn't our beliefs that make us weak or strong, but our character.



posted on Feb, 22 2009 @ 08:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by TravelerintheDark
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984
 


I wasn't trying to make any point about the existence of God. But you asked a question and I tried to present an explanation as to why I see the answer as arbitrary. Whether we adhere to religion or science, we're human. It isn't our beliefs that make us weak or strong, but our character.



Whilst i can see what you mean i track back to the fact that people can see and experience terrible situations and some go the route of god and others stay on their atheistic path. I would say the growing population of atheists shows a greater understanding of the universe and a new age of understanding. The religious mind is based in the past when we could not understand anything, when gravity itself was thought to be the work of spirits and the fire was the ancestors of the past.

We have grown from this. It is a statistical fact that the modern academia tend to be either agnostic or atheistic. It seems people who are unable to accept reality revert to god because if they didn't they couldn't accept the suffering that goes on and may even lose their minds.



posted on Feb, 22 2009 @ 10:11 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984
 



Are Religious Believers Weak?


In my opinion, no. It takes a lot of strength to stand firm in our faith. This could easily be turned around if we think about the song 'Strong enough to bend.' It takes strength to 'bend' our will to the will of God.

Should I say atheists are too weak due to the desire of appeasing the self that they cannot acknowledge the existence of a higher power or an afterlife? And they have to resort to exhausted absurdities like:


Proving a negative is pretty much impossible. Please disprove unicorns because that is the exact same argument. Therefore atheists do know what happens after death, nothing.


Wow. Nobody can disprove unicorns, 'therefore' atheists do 'know' what happens after death: Nothing. What a ridiculous non sequitur. How can you 'know' what you just admitted is 'disprovable?'

That's not knowledge. That's faith.

In my opinion, someone who would have 'knowledge' on this subject (yet still be open to debate) would be someone who has experienced an NDE that defies logical explanation. I could understand them claiming to 'know.' Not someone who claims to know an unprovable/disprovable.


Atheists know there is no soul as we cannot prove a soul.


Oh dear. Do you have any idea how many things are in this world that we cannot prove? Your logic tells us we can 'know' those things are not true because there is no proof.

If I was trying to prove that I love my son via the scientific method and proving my hypothesis depended on the experiment to show affection to my son as evidence, what if I lose my temper and yell at him? Do I not love my son or is this an example of not being able to prove something that I know to be very real.

Just like in the above example, the scientific method for deriving 'proof' can fail in certain circumstances. The afterlife is one of them. The existence of God is another.

Just like I can only provide evidence for loving my son (I can hug him and kiss him all day long) but cannot prove it (Hey, maybe I'm a sociopath just going through the motions), likewise, there is evidence for an after life (NDE's for example) but it cannot be proven (maybe something else is going on with the power of the human mind).

So, no. You don't 'know.' You have faith.

Are we weak?

I cannot speak for everyone but I can speak for myself. I went where the evidence (not proof, but evidence) led. That is me going by what reality and evidence is telling me- not the feel good butterflies I get from believing this all has a purpose. It's hard sometimes but that is strength.

Can atheists be weak?

[edit on 2/22/2009 by AshleyD]



posted on Feb, 22 2009 @ 10:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by AshleyD
Wow. Nobody can disprove unicorns, 'therefore' atheists do 'know' what happens after death: Nothing. What a ridiculous non sequitur. How can you 'know' what you just admitted is 'disprovable?'


That is the point. You cannot disprove anything. That isn't science, science is the thing that helped us to this point, that removed us from the dark ages and invented medicine, computers and incalculable other inventions. It was all based upon proof. That is science. You cannot disprove my unicorn so i cannot disprove your god, just as you cannot disprove the shiny dwarf that lives under my pillow (he's invisible). So why does your god have any more proof that my shiny dwarf? Why is the dwarf ridiculous compared to your god? I would ask what you consider ridiculous.


Originally posted by AshleyD
That's not knowledge. That's faith.


Yes unicorns are faith, the flying teapot around Neptune is also faith. Please explain why your god is anymore explainable than the flying teapot. However again this thread isn't about that and i despair that it has been brought down to that again by fundamentalists.


Originally posted by AshleyD
In my opinion, someone who would have 'knowledge' on this subject (yet still be open to debate) would be someone who has experienced an NDE that defies logical explanation. I could understand them claiming to 'know.' Not someone who claims to know an unprovable/disprovable.


Actually the NDE can be simulated in the lab with a magnetic cap, maybe you are unaware of this but the feelings of god have been directly influenced along with NDE's using this magnetic cap. That to me says a lot.


Originally posted by AshleyD

Oh dear.

If I was trying to prove that I love my son via the scientific method and proving my hypothesis depended on the experiment to show affection to my son as evidence, what if I lose my temper and yell at him? Do I not love my son or is this an example of not being able to prove something that I know to be very real.


You are comparing emotion to fact, that won't work. Emotion can be tracked with fMRI scans, the soul cannot be proven. Sorry but you failed with this attempt at comparison. Science can directly and completely track the methods your brain can use to love or scold your son. IN time we will get this down to an exact science and directly influence it. This is already coming.



Originally posted by AshleyD
Just like in the above example, the scientific method for deriving 'proof' can fail in certain circumstances. The afterlife is one of them. The existence of God is another.


Actually you failed in your knowledge of science and yet again you missed the point of the thread and are trying to bring it back to the existence of god rather than the need to believe to cope. Still this is what i expect from the religious.




Originally posted by AshleyD
Just like I can only provide evidence for loving my son (I can hug him and kiss him all day long) but cannot prove it (Hey, maybe I'm a sociopath just going through the motions), likewise, there is evidence for an after life (NDE's for example) but it cannot be proven (maybe something else is going on with the power of the human mind).[/quote[]

Actually NDE's have been tested. They put monitors on the top of cupboards that were not viewable by anyone in the room unless they were floating on the ceiling. The monitors flashed random images. No patient has yet identified these images when they die whilst claiming NDE's and OBE's. Therefore your evidence is not evidence. It is merely explainable malfunctions of the brain as it shuts down.


Originally posted by AshleyD
So, no. You don't 'know.' You have faith.


Again ashley i don't have faith i know. I know what happens when i die because science provides the answer. There is no evidence of an energy source that we cannot explain. Therefore there is nothing more to death than the dying of electrical signals.

Still you missed the point of the thread as many others have and they have forced their opinions upon it. They have forced me to respond to opinions that have nothing to do with the subject at hand and have reduced it to the "god does or doesn't exist" idea. This is annoying as it wasn't the basis of the thread. I guess the religious cannot resist doing this though.

I would request that any further replies deal with the topic which is being so completely avoided by the religious and that is the idea that the religious need to believe to cope with reality. This has nothing to do with there actually being a god or not. If you can't argue the point without resorting to arguing over the existence of god then you shouldn't even bother replying as you are avoiding the topic and i won't even bother replying to people who argue that point anymore.

People who argue the existence of god are detracting from my thread and i just won't bother with them any more.



posted on Feb, 22 2009 @ 10:58 PM
link   
Briefly...


Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
That is the point. You cannot disprove anything. That isn't science, science is the thing that helped us to this point, that removed us from the dark ages and invented medicine, computers and incalculable other inventions. It was all based upon proof. That is science.


Yes. And science can only take us so far. That was the point.


You cannot disprove my unicorn so i cannot disprove your god, just as you cannot disprove the shiny dwarf that lives under my pillow (he's invisible). So why does your god have any more proof that my shiny dwarf? Why is the dwarf ridiculous compared to your god? I would ask what you consider ridiculous.

Yes unicorns are faith, the flying teapot around Neptune is also faith. Please explain why your god is anymore explainable than the flying teapot. However again this thread isn't about that and i despair that it has been brought down to that again by fundamentalists.


Have your dwarf step into the historical process as an actual figure or have him provide humanity with some very detailed prophecy that has proven itself to be accurate thus far. But that is beside the point. What it comes down to for God, the dwarf, and worm food is: Faith. So you don't 'know.'


Actually the NDE can be simulated in the lab with a magnetic cap, maybe you are unaware of this but the feelings of god have been directly influenced along with NDE's using this magnetic cap. That to me says a lot.


That is why I mentioned 'that defies logical explanation.' It is true that some NDE phenomenon can be replicated in a lab. However, not all of it and replication is not necessarily the genuine article.

A human clone would replicate that person but it would not be their emotions, memory, personality, etc. It's only partial. Likewise, NDE experiments are still only replications of the phenomenon and only partial ones at that. Just because it can be reproduced in part, does not mean that is how it naturally occurs.


You are comparing emotion to fact, that won't work. Emotion can be tracked with fMRI scans, the soul cannot be proven. Sorry but you failed with this attempt at comparison. Science can directly and completely track the methods your brain can use to love or scold your son. IN time we will get this down to an exact science and directly influence it. This is already coming.


I believe you again miss the point. Tracking (evidence) is not the same as hard core proof (what you seem to be demanding).


Actually you failed in your knowledge of science and yet again you missed the point of the thread and are trying to bring it back to the existence of god rather than the need to believe to cope. Still this is what i expect from the religious.


No. I responded to it for a reason.

1). To show BOTH sides (not just the religious) takes a level of faith.

2). Acknowledging the possibility of a Creator's existence is vital to this discussion as it shows a REASON why the religious believe what they do which in turn...

3). Partially refutes the claim of weakness that it is all just a crutch to help cope with the unbearable.


People who argue the existence of god are detracting from my thread and i just won't bother with them any more.


Again, because that is crucial. If it is possible a God exists and there is any evidence for His existence (notice that I did not say proof), then that is certainly not weakness- that is acknowledging a possible reality and changing our life's paths accordingly, even when it is not easy. That is something that takes strength.

I also said this that you may not have seen to tie it into your specific subject:



I cannot speak for everyone but I can speak for myself. I went where the evidence (not proof, but evidence) led. That is me going by what reality and evidence is telling me- not the feel good butterflies I get from believing this all has a purpose. It's hard sometimes but that is strength.



posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 05:43 PM
link   
My first reaction is "Oh no, not another atheist vs. believer thread."

But for what it's worth, here's my 2 cents:

Atheists call believers weak and themselves strong. Believers can say atheists are egomaniacs, because they acknowledge nothing greater than themselves.

When I was younger and was healthy, strong and believed myself invincible, I was an atheist. Then when I went through some very dark and difficult times I found that my own limited, mortal existence would not sustain me. I needed more.

I have long since moved past the religion I was raised in, but I then began a spiritual (for lack of a better word) quest to investigate all the belief systems that exist, including those of pagans and/or nature worshippers. I haven't yet gotten through them all.

It's a mistake to assume that all "believers" are Christians who have a literal interpretation of their primary holy book. Christians are a minority in comparison to some of the world's oldest and biggest religious systems, and different denominations are very diverse.

What unifies them all is the belief (or understanding) that the ego or little self is just a fragment of a much bigger and presumably purposeful whole. We cannot begin to approach an enlightenment until that ego gains some perspective on itself and is capable of being put on hold (not eradicated or destroyed, just kept in check when need be). Transcendence, according to most of the world's belief systems, is reserved only for the last and final phase of enlightenment, which is very rare in the material phase of existence.

I do not claim to have achieved enlightenment, or anything close to it. I have great regard for science when it comes to explaining the tangible universe, but feel it's not so good at the intangible elements of life.

I live in peaceful coexistence with both believers and non believers and find common ground with them all. I agree with atheists on many points. For example, my response to human needs is the same as a non-believer's: Many "evil" (for lack of a better word) conditions are the result of man's negligence or greed and call for a response on a human level. Spiritual needs can come later if at all.

My husband was raised in a Christian denomination and is now an agnostic. We get along fine. He has some thoughts that I have no answer to, at least not yet. For example:

God, if He (or She) exists, is either all powerful or all good but cannot be both.
If a natural disaster occurs and God can do nothing to stop it, then He is not all-powerful.
If He can do something about it but chooses not to, then He is not all good.

I have no answer for that, at least not yet.

Peace.

[edit on 23-2-2009 by Sestias]



posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 05:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sestias
Atheists call believers weak and themselves strong. Believers can say atheists are egomaniacs, because they acknowledge nothing greater than themselves.


That's wrong on many levels. Atheists don't just acknowledge themselves. Well some do of course but that's just about variation in people and not a belief system. As an atheist you can still marvel at the wonder of the world and be deeply spiritual, you just don't believe in a higher power. So to think we're all egomaniacs isn't correct.

On the other hand all religious followers are weak and believe in a god because without one they couldn't deal with this world. It seems to be programmed into the mind. When our ancestors looked at the stars they couldn't understand it and had to invent something to explain it, this is where we get all kinds of religious believes. When the lightning struck and the thunder roared our ancestors had to invent some way of understanding it. This makes perfect sense for that time.

Now we are able to understand a great deal more about this world and have no need to invent gods. Only the people who cannot deal with reality need to invent a being that has a plan or an afterlife where you get rewarded.



Originally posted by Sestias
When I was younger and was healthy, strong and believed myself invincible, I was an atheist. Then when I went through some very dark and difficult times I found that my own limited, mortal existence would not sustain me. I needed more.


When i was younger and very strong i was also an atheist. Now i'm very ill and have been for a number of years. This hasn't led to a belief in god because my character is strong enough that i can cope with it without needing to believe a magical being in the sky has a plan for me or that i will be rewarded when i die. As i said some people need religion because without it they could not cope with the problems in life, like people dying, illnesses even break ups of relationships.



posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 08:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984

That's wrong on many levels. Atheists don't just acknowledge themselves. Well some do of course but that's just about variation in people and not a belief system. As an atheist you can still marvel at the wonder of the world and be deeply spiritual, you just don't believe in a higher power.

On the other hand all religious followers are weak and believe in a god because without one they couldn't deal with this world. It seems to be programmed into the mind. When our ancestors looked at the stars they couldn't understand it and had to invent something to explain it, this is where we get all kinds of religious believes. When the lightning struck and the thunder roared our ancestors had to invent some way of understanding it. This makes perfect sense for that time.



As an atheist you can marvel at the world and be deeply spiritual in what sense? Since when does marveling over physical things equate to spirituality?

It's easy to say people who are religious or believe in God are weak and need a way to cope in the world, but what you fail to realize is that the majority of people who you think are weak have had major experiences with the supernatural. Wheather it was something they have seen, smelled, tasted, felt, heard - or a combination of any of these things doesn't matter because their focus shifts from the things seen, to those of the unseen.

Though science can't test or explain these unseen things - the people experiencing them can't suddenly jump back over on the other side of the fence, so to speak. We move forward - with or without you.

A very wise man once said, "Whoever has something in hand will be given more, and whoever has nothing will be deprived of even the little they have."

You see me as weak and I see you as deprived. You contemplate my weakness but I don't often contemplate your deprivation.



posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 08:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by N. Tesla
reply to post by heyo
 


i KNOW what happens after death. i am a very stubborn atheist and i KNOW nothing happens after you die. try to convince a christian theres no heaven.

Yes but your not even realising your being a hypocrite, no offence, you say you know, but in reality your opinions is your own belief, your own faith. Your just the same as those who follow christianity and believe there is a god that created the universe.

Also why do people refuse to believe in a god, when there can be many definitions, of "what god is"

For example some people can say god is whatever "force" that started the creation of the universe = The creator. That makes logical sense to me, why not?
My point is how can we refuse that there is something out there, when we don't even understand or know what that thing really is. lol

It's the same as someone who might refuse that there are other galaxies out there, because he cannot understand how it works, or if they really exist.

We have not explored even 00000.1% of the universe, we haven't even left our planet properly yet. So how can we even begin to think we understand the universe. How can we "deny" that god exists with the little knowledge we have? that would be pretty illogical, right?

And when it comes to logic, athiests like to say that people who believe in god are illogical. But in my opinion it seems it's more illogical to deny that there is something out there that started this whole universe or something out there we do not understand. It's like a normal person denying that DNA exists, because he doesn't understand or know's that it exists.

It's impossible to deny something like a creator/god, when we have so much to learn.

Peace.



[edit on 23-2-2009 by _Phoenix_]



posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 10:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Myrtales Instinct
As an atheist you can marvel at the world and be deeply spiritual in what sense? Since when does marveling over physical things equate to spirituality?


Depends on the physical thing. To look at say, a beautiful autumn deciduous woodland, glittering in gold, orange, yellow and red and feeling connected to the earth is spiritual, but does not require a faith in god, an afterlife or anything else. So yes an atheist can be spiritual as long as we use the broad and not narrow sense of the word.


Originally posted by Myrtales Instinct
It's easy to say people who are religious or believe in God are weak and need a way to cope in the world, but what you fail to realize is that the majority of people who you think are weak have had major experiences with the supernatural. Wheather it was something they have seen, smelled, tasted, felt, heard - or a combination of any of these things doesn't matter because their focus shifts from the things seen, to those of the unseen.

The majority? Care to provide statistics as proof? I was raised a christian and none of the people in my church ever talked about anything supernatural happening to them, and i did ask.


Though science can't test or explain these unseen things - the people experiencing them can't suddenly jump back over on the other side of the fence, so to speak. We move forward - with or without you.


The majority? Care to provide statistics as proof? I was raised a christian and none of the people in my church ever talked about anything supernatural happening to them, and i did ask. I'm afraid that by your logic someone suffering from schizophrenia must be believed because they can feel it.


Originally posted by Myrtales Instinct
A very wise man once said, "Whoever has something in hand will be given more, and whoever has nothing will be deprived of even the little they have."

You see me as weak and I see you as deprived. You contemplate my weakness but I don't often contemplate your deprivation.


Deprived of what? I am perfectly happy, so why do i need god? The fact you have stated that you think i'm deprived goes to show that you seem to need god to fill a whole in your life. If you need that then yes you are weak. The quote isn't that wise, but then again i suppose anything written in the bible is considered wise by the followers. Even the bit that tells you to kill others huh



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join