Time to accept that atheism, not god, is odd

reply to post by m0r1arty


Sometimes people put too much energy into "faith" of one or the other. If you are a scientist, fine...if you are clergy member....fine.

I put my energy in my life, my kids, my wife, effecting the now. Because that is where it is important to me. Not worrying about what happens at the end.

If there is some paradise we go at the end, I can say I lived my life better than a child molesting priest, or a genocidal scientist. Call it an insurance policy, whatever. I've been a good person. Despite my "big brother" and Law enforcement jobs. haha.

[edit on 6-3-2010 by Demoncreeper]

Originally posted by NovusOrdoMundi

Originally posted by SPACEYstranger
I dont see how the notion of something from nothing can be considered a good answer to anything.

Where was God before the Universe was created? Just hanging out in blank space? That's pretty impossible since, in order to create anything, God would need to be made up of energy. And since religious folk claim that the energy that caused the Big Bang could not have come from nothing, where did God's energy come from if there was nothing prior to his creations?

I expect a non-answer whether you choose to reply or not because you have obviously already made up your mind as to what the truth is and there is no disputing that no matter how bombarded you are with facts and common sense to the contrary.

Thats just the thing. you could ask all your brilliant questions all day and nobody will answer them according to your rigorous, yet ambiguous, standards. Maybe instead of waiting for people to reply and then trying to aggravate some weak debate in which you have nothing to say besides "the universe expanding and big bang are better then any explanation for god" (which isnt even an answer to how the beginning came about (which is the question)) you should instead attempt critical thinking and try and learn something about the actual arguments.

You can ask all day "what came before the big bang" and talk about waves and how something needed to cause those waves or whatever it was you were trying to get at, but the only answers you will get are the ones that supposedly dont fit into your world view. Because as great as atheism is (which it isnt), it has no explanation for any of these things. All we have is our brains, and it seems like everyones using theirs except you. Instead of asking dumb questions, try and come up with plausible answers, because both science and atheism have no grounds to even begin contemplating the answers.

Im waiting for something tangible, instead of an attack on me for saying that atheists commonly refer to the evolution and big bang arguments. Im not "attacking" you, im waiting for a good answer in which you sound like a reasonable and nice person.

now that i think about it you probably need help you should look into craigs Cosmological argument, or Anselms Ontological argument. Beginner stuff, but craig keeps in mind the science

[edit on 6-3-2010 by SPACEYstranger]

[edit on 6-3-2010 by SPACEYstranger]

[edit on 6-3-2010 by SPACEYstranger]

The difference is that Atheists and Agnostics can accept that we will never know all the answers, we can even accept changes to our beliefs (although some are more open then others).

Religious followers can do niether.

When was the last time an athiest/agnostic stoned someone to death, burnt them alive or tortured them into submission?

My beliefs are my own, I do not often speak of my beliefs, nor do I try to convince other's that one of us is incorrect: each individual has the right as a sentient being to follow a path that makes sense to them. Oddly, it is the devout who feel the need to convert everyone who thinks differently than themselves.

Convert or kill, either is apparently acceptable.

I have been drawn into arguements in the past about my beliefs and there is one thing common to each time: My belief system is fair game for any and all comments, but when if I dare mention the flaws in religious doctrine it becomes a personal attack on my behalf.

It's funny to me, a Christian can call me a minion of Satan and that's ok, but should I have the audacity to question the blind following of religious dogma I'm viewed as being unreasonable or vicious? I do not feel threatened in anyway by any religion or it's followers; as long as they can remain civil, so can I.

Remember: I feel just as strongly about my beliefs as any follower of any religion.

I read a book one time, the hero spoke about treating others with the respect that you would have yourself treated with.

Why can the believers never remember that?

I guess the differences between those who believe and those who do not boil down to one simple fact:

Believers can do whatever they want as long as they say their sorry, Atheists and Agnostics actually have to be responsible for their actions.

reply to post by [davinci]


Thats exactly how it should be Davinci!! I think the issue arises in "mainstream atheism". not believing in the notion of god is one thing, but when people become organized followers against belief in god then they may as well join organized religion. Because no matter whose right, both sides will think so with religious fever and will ultimately fight for their beliefs.

personal/private disbelief in god is all groovy, though. Whatever gets you through the day!

[edit on 6-3-2010 by SPACEYstranger]

reply to post by SPACEYstranger


It's funny how easily your buttons are pushed. I've put very little effort into debating your weak points yet you have drifted from a neutral point of view in your first post to attempting to insult me and claiming atheism is flat out wrong in your most recent post.

Next time just come right out with your honest beliefs instead of trying to play both sides to give yourself a comfortable retreat point.

reply to post by NovusOrdoMundi


lol still no answers eh? I have stated before that my beliefs dont matter and i have barely talked about them at all, but if u want to know i think atheism is right for its faith in science. Science is the best thing ever, and is half of the answer. But religion is also right in some ways, but incredibly wrong about how they institutionalize it.

i think the more we know the nature of the universe the closer we get to god. Science is the tools of reason that make it possible to discover god, and god is "that which none than greater can be conceived" (whatever that might be).

that fact that you said...

"I expect a non-answer whether you choose to reply or not because you have obviously already made up your mind as to what the truth is and there is no disputing that no matter how bombarded you are with facts and common sense to the contrary. "
...to me when i had never regarded you, nor made any concrete argument in either direction that would suggest i was completely set in my ways is the reason why YOU have made this into a fight. a fight for which i have desperately tried to provide some sort of academic basis, which you have constantly derailed with questions that have been asked and answered again and again to the best of human knowledge for thousands of years by those far more qualified to ask them then you. So, until you can take a clear stance and provide a clear argument for anything you have said (which isnt anything as far as i can see) then i think were done here.

Which is worse-

Believing in a god and being right? Or

" " " " " " wrong?



Peace

Originally posted by iMacFanatic
Most people believe in something so the belief (and yes it is a matter of belief and faith) in nothing is indeed odd.

I don't know why people assume that atheists "believe in nothing". I have MANY beliefs and I also have faith in things. Just not a deity. I don't have faith in Thermogopolis, either. Does that make me odd, too? Oh, well, it's not the first time I've been referred to as "odd".

What I find interesting is that so many atheists go about it with the zeal of a true believer and miss totally the irony.

Many atheists do, you're right. It's kind of sad. I can't deny that some have made their atheism into their own little "religion". Makes me kinds sick.

The fact is science does not prove or disprove the existence of a God any more than religion proves or disproves science.

Totally agree. There is no need to prove either.

Either way the fact that we are here at all is a miracle and worth our celebration and awe.

Again, I agree. We are a miracle. I'm not saying the miracle is due to a supreme being, but we are miracles. It's pretty amazing that we're here and that we work like we do.

In any case, I'm perfectly willing to accept that atheism is "odd". It's much more "natural", being raised in this theistic world, to believe in a God. If we had been raised in an atheistic world, well, atheism would be the "norm" and believers would be "odd".

[edit on 3/6/2010 by Benevolent Heretic]

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
The problem or part of the problem is the language and visualizations we have of that which we call God.

The first thing that we have to get through our heads is that God is not a individual or a thing...it is beyond such categorization. Whatever we say about God is fundamentally wrong, being a projection of what we think or expect it to be. In this context it is equally true to say that God exists and that God does not exist.

I describe God as the consciousness inherent in the universe...the space between the atoms and the atoms themselves or the fundamental essence.

And I know that is still off base.

I agree that a definition of what God is, is needed before we can say whether or not we believe in it. I guess I'd have to say that if I cannot describe it, and just have a meaningless word that I have attached to it (like Thermogopolis), there's no reason to believe it's there. I mean, if I can't describe it, how can I believe in it?

Originally posted by iMacFanatic
I describe God as the consciousness inherent in the universe...

I call that the consciousness inherent in the universe. No need to give it any more of a name or personality.

When speaking of "God", I'm talking about what MOST people would agree that God is. A deity, the creator of the Universe, the all-knowing presence that will one day judge our behavior on Earth and either send us to heaven or Hell.

If we start giving other definitions to the word "God", then I think we should use other names. It becomes far too confusing if we each have our own definition, I think.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

Well you believe in love but can anyone adequately describe it?

Maybe not adequately, but when people describe it, it's pretty clear that we're all talking about the same thing, or something very close to the same thing. We don't have people defining it as the space between thoughts or the time between molecules. It's pretty well-accepted that love is the feeling or action with which we treat those people or things that are important in our lives.

If you look up the definition of love, you'll find variations on a theme, but when you look up God, it's a "being". UNLESS you're going to add your unique definition. And that's fine with me, but I'm not going to call some idea or inspiration that I don't have words for "God". That's already taken.

Larry King: Do you believe in God?

Stephen Hawking: Yes, if by God is meant the embodiment of the laws of the universe.

Source

Originally posted by iMacFanatic
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

 

The first thing that we have to get through our heads is that God is not a individual or a thing...it is beyond such categorization.

That line is pretty much a paraphrase of something I heard a mystic (or theologian) I heard a week or two on PBS...I wasn't paying much attention until I heard that.

I have come across that idea repeatedly over the years in discussing the idea of God so it wasn't new to me.

Still since that which we call God is unknowable it could be that science might analyse every scrap of existence and still find no proof either way.

I have heard that as well. And I think it's probably true.

I see you're a fairly new member, so you may not have heard my PODcast about Why I Don't Believe in God

Two basic points:
1. Organized religion has separated us from "God".
2. The height of arrogance and control was when Man made God in his image.

So, I think you'll see that I totally understand what you're saying and agree. I just don't use the same word, because it's already defined by organized religion.

It's kind of similar to the idea that I would be happy to give up the word "marriage" since religion is so against letting gay people use that word for their unions. If the law wants to come up with another word to mean "non-religious union between two people", I would happily adopt that word for my marriage.

I hope you can see that I don't have anything against the word God or even the concept of a man in the sky. I just don't believe it. I do have spiritual, metaphysical beliefs that don't really have assigned names.

[edit on 3/7/2010 by Benevolent Heretic]

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

Organized religion is what the disciples turn the teachings of a master into once they realize how hard they are to live up to.

Religion and spirituality are two overlapping yet very distinct things.

You can be very religious and not have a spiritual bone in your body...
or you can experience spirituality both within the context of organized religion or outside of it...
and you can experience spirituality as a deist and an atheist as well.

It doesn't take a PhD to figure this out...

Religion has lost a lot of its importance as time goes on. Heck, we can even see this shift just in recent generations, let alone in recent decades.

So, with the focus on it being diminished, people are increasingly challenging the role and importance of religion, eventually even rejecting it outright.

It's actually a pretty easy trend to identify.

Well of course it is an opinion piece. And there's nothing wrong with that opinion. It's one that theists and atheists alike should contemplate. For example it doesn't hurt to ask that if atheism is odd, why is this so?

Intelligent people have 'unnatural' preferences and values that are novel in human evolution