Confessions of an Atheist

I believe Woody Allen

"We are the Gods of our own moral universe"

: note - I believe , not I believe in

reply to post by semidiablan


Excellent post, id give ya 2 stars if I could! How refreshing to see someone calling things out like they are. It doesnt matter what you believe, if youre militant about it or stubborn, thats a problem.

reply to post by Gigatronix


The problem is that none of the attributes you list are central to the concept of deity. But, you are welcome to follow your own path and make up your own mind of course. Even if through your belief that it will be so you will lock yourself into a small black box called oblivion for eternity.....

Excellent contribution Semidiablan! I think this is key:

Originally posted by semidiablan

We know that anyone who believes too heavily on one side of anything is destined to be unbalanced and narrow-minded (including everything from Atheists to Mormons :p).

I like to think I don't lean too hard on any particular belief, rather they all contribute equally to the whole. There are some main tenants of my belief system, but none of them require the abscence of a God. In fact, if there were a God of some kind, it would't neccassarily destroy what I believe. of course that depends on the magnitude of the god, or deity, if it were some wrathful old testament god type, I'd be screwed.

My main point is I'm not married to belief system. I'm pretty confident about the No-God thing, and I'm equally confident in some fo the other things I believe. I am always looking and always ready to receive new information. I don't close doors on anything, I move through them freely.

Originally posted by semidiablanOnce somebody classifies themselves as believing or disbelieving in a God or Gods, they automatically lose the possible experience of believing in neither and both.

I don't believe this to be a hard and fast rule here. It could be argued that choosing one over the other is a sign of long study and deep convictions. I may have studied from every angle imaginable and came to rest on a idea that I found personally fulfilling.

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows


The problem is that none of the attributes you list are central to the concept of deity.

That's the beauty of it really. I dismissed the idea after having reduced the concept so many ways. Adding any other kind of information is pointless for me, because I eliminated the need at a fundamental level.

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-ShadowsEven if through your belief that it will be so you will lock yourself into a small black box called oblivion for eternity.....

I don't believe that, so I'm not worried. What I believe has me and everyone I care about in good shape when our times come.Besides if buy into a lot of religious stuff goin on today, I'm probably going to hell if I go that route, so oblivion might not be so bad !

I don't believe there is a god or gods. I define god(s) as a supernatural all-knowing all-powerful being. My definition ends there.

That is where my definition ends but I call myself agnostic.

The fact is I just don't know if the Universe and all that is, we/us, our combined consciousness is what is known as god or if even that is made up because we need to believe in something beyond ourselves.

reply to post by Gigatronix

That's the beauty of it really. I dismissed the idea after having reduced the concept so many ways. Adding any other kind of information is pointless for me, because I eliminated the need at a fundamental level.

Um, no offense, but you did not answer address my statement sir. I say that because of your statement here is not in line with your OP *a "god" need not be all knowing, power does not mean knowledge as well*. No existential question is so easily dismissed as you pretend it is.

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows

Um, no offense, but you did not answer address my statement sir.

I'm apologize if I was unclear. Those criteria are personal, I prefer that over a preconceived idea. Of course I would take into consideration the insight of those far wiser than myself. But ultimately we all have our personal version of what we believe. Nobody believes EXACTLY the same thing. And that is how it should be.

I say that because of your statement here is not in line with your OP *a "god" need not be all knowing, power does not mean knowledge as well*.

You're going to have to help me out here I dunno what you mean.Perhaps we are defining the criteria for a god differently?

No existential question is so easily dismissed as you pretend it is.

I don't pretend when it comes to spirituality. I am as honest and straightforward as you could ask for. I believe the journey towards true spirituality to be sacred to every person, and I have no desire to corrupt anyones ideas.

As far as dismissing questions goes, I am a man of many questions and many theories. If I am dismissing things it's because at that moment its unneccesary for me personally. Now in a conversation it's different I'll entertain any notion. Playing Devils Advocae is a personal favorite

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
The problem is that none of the attributes you list are central to the concept of deity.

Says who? I go by my definition, which naturally take a lot of inspiration from people much further along than myself.but I'm not about to let someone elses definition derail me. It's our journey, the sooner we make it our own the sooner we begin to learn real truths.

Even if through your belief that it will be so you will lock yourself into a small black box called oblivion for eternity.....

I don't believe that all. And I don't believe being an Atheist will stick me there in spite of that.

reply to post by Gigatronix


Gods promises and blessings fall on those who profess they do not believe in Him. So if you truly are all about the fellow man thing, then God's blessings will follow you. He will keep showing you things though. Things that may be so personal that you just can't put them into words. Don't ignore these signs. If you do, He will give you what you wish. You will be left with your own little God that cannot save. I like your style though, and yes you are right. In a pinch it doesn't matter who believes what. We all help each other. God Bless my friend.

The problem here is the assertion in the OPs respect of of other beliefs. This allows for the categorization of belief into the acceptable and the unacceptable. That is to say that it's okay to believe in the christian god but the tooth fairy is just superstition. There is no more evidence to prove god or the tooth fairy.

I respect individuals not their belief systems.

This doesn't make me a 'militant atheist', it makes me a human being. A human being whom theists label an atheist because I don't subscribe to their supernatural mumbo-jumbo.

I believe more in mumbo jumbo than I do Christianity

I see more proof of mumbo jumbo than I do of JC raised from the dead

reply to post by Gigatronix


Ah, so you believe there is an afterlife? Please note also that the locking one's self into a small black box called oblivion for eternity is simply a turn of phrase I use. The meaning is quite simple, if someone believes there is nothing but oblivion waiting for them beyond death that is what they will get. Which is very sad in my opinion but there is really nothing I can do *or should really* because you can't really save someone from themself.

And please dispense with the double speak. Pretty please? Either you dismissed it or you did not, you can't go both ways.


[edit on 18-7-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]

I don't like the title of "Atheist". I AM open to the possibility of ANYTHING being probable with the sufficient amount of evidence.

I guess different people will consider different amounts of evidence and different forms of evidence as being acceptable to them.

For one person it could be a book, for another person it could be a dream or a vision, yet another person might consider word of mouth as sufficient evidence and yet to another person coincidence could be sufficient evidence or any combination of these things.

I am not a Scientist and I am not very smart but I do consider the Scientific Method to be a pretty good measurement to determine if something is accurate.

For me to consider something as profound and life changing as a belief in a Demi-God or a God or God's or a Goddess or Goddesses or an Afterlife or a place of judgment and possibly punishment or even the existence of a "Soul" or "Spirit" it would have to be in the form of Evidence presented through use of the Scientific Method.

I hate being called an Atheist because people immediately associate the word "Atheism" with completely denying that something COULD be possible.

It's not that I do not think it could be possible, it's just that I have not seen the right kind or the right amount of evidence to persuade me.

Originally posted by Gigatronix


I have much respect for JC.But I gotta say, in all honesty, I feel bad for the guy. All the trials and tribulations he experienced while alive aside, look what happened to his message. Look how his followers turned out, and the world in general. If he is all that you say he is, he must be very sad.

I totally agree. I'm an agnostic who was raised Christian but the more I looked at the religion the more I realized they weren't even bothering to follow Christ or his teachings. In fact modern Christianity tossed most of Jesus' (whose real name was actually Yeshua as far as we can tell) teachings/gospels out of the Bible, go figure, he's the basis for their religion and they don't even want all the sources of info closest to his time of living...

Bill Hicks, the late comedian, used to do a bit on how Christians wear crosses and that Jesus is likely refusing to come back until they stop wearing them because they are glorifying is suffering with what is, essentially, an idol of him bleeding to death. If Jesus could see what had happened to his teachings of love and the things they were used to justify, he'd weep...

Any atheist, if he were to be intellectually honest with himself and others, would be forced to call himself an agnostic, or close himself off to the realm of possibility.

It is good to remain open mind and unbiased just in case there might be something to know which at present may exist in the realm of the unknown unknown or what you don't even know that you don't know, which, ironicallly is where all new knowledge resides, including the possible awarenesss of a Godbeing or a type of undying universal awareness or beingness (same difference).

But no smart theologian thinks of God in terms of a separate being or like a bearded man in the sky, and the Bible wasn't written to be read from a purely historical literalist perspeective - those are all assumptions by teenage atheists.

reply to post by TurkeyBurgers


Because that is what atheism means? Seriously, here's Miriam Webster to back me up:

Main Entry: athe·ism
Pronunciation: \ˈā-thē-ˌi-zəm\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French athéisme, from athée atheist, from Greek atheos godless, from a- + theos god
Date: 1546
1archaic : ungodliness, wickedness
2 a: a disbelief in the existence of deity b: the doctrine that there is no deity

SOURCE:www.merriam-webster.com...
Sounds more like your agnostic, though I will say some of your schtick comes off as an atheist *like your overeagerness to to disprove a concept that leads you presumptiously, not to mention spuriously, call it disproven*.
But of course, I would like to add, you have a right to believe as you wish, all this haggling about labels is silly at best. And I acknowledge I do it too *just now

*.

[edit on 18-7-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]

reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows


Yeah I see your point Watcher. I am not an Agnostic though because an Agnostic is someone who is still waiting to get more evidence before they make their decision.

I consider myself as someone who has examined the evidence presented to me and made a decision based on that evidence.

NOT to say that the case cannot be reopened if new evidence is presented that would call for a new Trial

reply to post by TurkeyBurgers


Um, no you are wrong sir. There are plenty of agnostics that believe the answer is unknowable.
My ole buddy mirriam-webster to the rescue *again*:

Main Entry: 1ag·nos·tic
Pronunciation: \ag-ˈnäs-tik, əg-\
Function: noun
Etymology: Greek agnōstos unknown, unknowable, from a- + gnōstos known, from gignōskein to know — more at know
Date: 1869
1: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable ; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
2: a person unwilling to commit to an opinion about something
— ag·nos·ti·cism \-tə-ˌsi-zəm\ noun

SOURCE:www.merriam-webster.com...

See? Nothing about waiting for answers. And you would do well to note what you said about how evidence is subjective and apply it to yourself.

[edit on 18-7-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]

I'm unsure why people are making a distinction between agnostic and atheist.

The two terms aren't related in any way. In fact, one can be both.

I used to consider myself both an atheist and an agnostic.

This debate kinda' sucks actually. People can never get terms set.