Atheism is a fraud.

Originally posted by IamBoon
reply to post by dragonridr

 

I am not special at all in the sense that we all are!

Why wouldn't the "god" reveal himself if the "god" can impart any kind of will in our reality at all? If we are to worship or form any ideas about the "god"?

If there is a god that even cares about our "soul" or what we are doing would he be obliged to impart law for our salvation? If he didn't then would he be worth praise?

What is the "god" agnostics are on the fence about ?

As far as I know anything remotely similar to a "god" is also similar to " illogical , incoherent , and nonexistent" . So what in your opinion is "godly" and lets use simple deductive logic on the concept.

We aren't "on the fence about" any specific god. We have proof for none of them, but scientifically speaking, that doesn't make his existence impossible. Saying "there is no god because he hasn't revealed himself" is stupid and narrow minded.

Here's a video that should clarify why god doesn't necessarily has to reveal himself:



Something that could potentially be classified as a god doesn't have to be illogical, incoherent, or non-existent. It could just be that us humans don't have the senses to see/feel/hear him, or it could be that given the huge size of the universe, we just aren't important enough (even if that thought pains a lot of people). Again, I'm not saying there's a god, because we have zero proof...but saying there is no god for sure like a lot of atheists do is foolish and ignorant, just like claiming you know god and have a personal relationship with him is hogwash too.

SA

reply to post by eight bits

Dot, dot, dot.

Your words. Not mine.

Those aren't quotes from my posts.

I think maybe you're looking for Annee.

Oh wait, I think she's found you.

But while I'm in the neighborhood, nice clip, XYZ. Thanks for posting it.



[edit on 24-7-2010 by eight bits]

Originally posted by eight bits

Those aren't quotes from my posts.

I think maybe you're looking for Annee.

Oh wait, I think she's found you.

LOL - - the first and last one are mine.

Don't know who belongs to the middle quote.

reply to post by MrXYZ


You state, 'Saying "there is no god because he hasn't revealed himself" is stupid and narrow minded'. What if I was to suggest that the universe was created by a giant intergalactic immortal lobster called Colin?

There is no argument that proves/disproves god over Colin.

Colin hasn't reveled himself yet, so there is the possibility that he is real and I think we should all pray to Colin. At some point he will reveal himself, until then, I expect everyone to have faith in him and pray to Colin everyday.

Anyway, I must go now, it's cephalopod night at the Holy Temple of Colin and I'm preparing the calamari sacrifice.

reply to post by MrXYZ


THen what would constitute the title "god"? If you cannot conceptualize the idea then you have no opinion because the thought never processes.

When every "god" revealed itself and stated attributes about itself is it lying? Not very "god" like! And to suggest that now after all these thousands of years that "Oh No! Maybe everything written about god in my religion is impossible because HUMANS cannot UNDERSTAND IT!" Is hilarity and quite sad. Why would god even try then? And Being "god " you would think he would find a damn good way to convey himself , but I guess not the gods you like. I know that "god" is anything but a "god" in my book.

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by _SilentAssassin_
You 'lack belief' in GOD, but you do not want to know what GOD means.
You are free to disagree with that opinion if you wish.

Why would I want to know what god means?

There simply is no reason for that.

Not to steer the conversation back in the direction of information, but I'd asked TraditionalDrummer something in his thread and he sort of answered, but sort of didn't, and I'm still curious as to the perspective of an atheist.

At its core, atheism is the non-belief in deities, not just any specific god one might name. Not a matter of "No Jesus", "No Allah" or "No Thor", but "no any of that stuff." It would also extend to a theoretic god that had nothing to do with us, so it's a black and white non-belief in the very concept, a non-belief that can stand in the absence of complete knowledge. Am I'm correct in that assessment? If so, were I an atheist, I would actually struggle with what "god" means, because one needs a definition in order to discern what you don't believe in. TD seems to limit it to "creator god", but I might be misconstruing him, so I'd appreciate your viewpoint.

Looking beyond that, do atheists, as a rule, also dismiss all likelihood of there being anything supernatural? Whatever that might mean to you, once again, nothing specific like "No ESP", "No afterlife" or "No astral projection". Things that have nothing to do with deities (or don't have to, if they do,) but are about as verifiable as them. Although I'd like to think such a disbelief would be universal, I suspect that there are exceptions, but don't know what they might be or what the rationale would be.

Thanks!

[edit on 24-7-2010 by adjensen]

reply to post by adjensen


I am an atheist and I claim to know nothing of the metaphysical. What is there to actually know though>? No telling to what happens to the "life-force" or whatever you wanna call the animating force behind life. I do know that "I" will not be a product of it however because "I" as in an existential ego is a logical nightmare.

This was asked of XYZ, but everything posted is fair game for discussion, so I would like to comment, just speaking for me.

What if I was to suggest that the universe was created by a giant intergalactic immortal lobster called Colin?

There is no argument that proves/disproves god over Colin.

Colin hasn't reveled himself yet, so there is the possibility that he is real and I think we should all pray to Colin. At some point he will reveal himself, until then, I expect everyone to have faith in him and pray to Colin everyday.

Anyway, I must go now, it's cephalopod night at the Holy Temple of Colin and I'm preparing the calamari sacrifice.

Well, of course, I would say that you made up Colin in order to illustrate a point in a web discussion. That doesn't prove Colin doesn't exist, but it does bear on the question. Since that is the entire corpus of evidence, and it uniformly favors Colin's non-existence, ... well, you can take it from there.

Contrary to rumor, agnostics aren't on the hook for maintaining credal equipoise about each and every specific god-claim they hear. Although I must admit that Colin sounds yummy, and tonight would seem like a good night to investigate Colinism. Unfortunately, I don't believe there is a Holy Temple of Colin, for the same reason I don't believe there is a Colin.

However, it appears that you are unable to distinguish between the merits of Colin's claim and what some of his competitors bring to the table (so to speak). Let me guess, why so many people understand that Russell's orbiting teapot isn't remotely comparable with Jesus is a stumper for you, too. (Hint: Before the web, people used to sit around talking face-to-face and make things up to illustrate points in those discussions.)

And what if I'm wrong? Bon appetit!

[edit on 24-7-2010 by eight bits]

Originally posted by mithrawept
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

You state, 'Saying "there is no god because he hasn't revealed himself" is stupid and narrow minded'. What if I was to suggest that the universe was created by a giant intergalactic immortal lobster called Colin?

There is no argument that proves/disproves god over Colin.

Colin hasn't reveled himself yet, so there is the possibility that he is real and I think we should all pray to Colin. At some point he will reveal himself, until then, I expect everyone to have faith in him and pray to Colin everyday.

Anyway, I must go now, it's cephalopod night at the Holy Temple of Colin and I'm preparing the calamari sacrifice.

That's exactly my point. Colin's existence is just as likely as Allah's, or any god's. Yet humans chose to fill gaps in knowledge with either making things up (religion) or claiming there is no god, even if we can't scientifically rule it out.

Now, we're only talking about his/her/its existence. Whether or not we should pray to such a potential being is a whole different story

[edit on 24-7-2010 by MrXYZ]

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by mithrawept
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

You state, 'Saying "there is no god because he hasn't revealed himself" is stupid and narrow minded'. What if I was to suggest that the universe was created by a giant intergalactic immortal lobster called Colin?

There is no argument that proves/disproves god over Colin.

Colin hasn't reveled himself yet, so there is the possibility that he is real and I think we should all pray to Colin. At some point he will reveal himself, until then, I expect everyone to have faith in him and pray to Colin everyday.

Anyway, I must go now, it's cephalopod night at the Holy Temple of Colin and I'm preparing the calamari sacrifice.

That's exactly my point. Colin's existence is just as likely as Allah's, or any god's. Yet humans chose to fill gaps in knowledge with either making things up (religion) or claiming there is no god, even if we can't scientifically rule it out.

Now, we're only talking about his/her/its existence. Whether or not we should pray to such a being is a whole different story

There is far more evidence for Christ than Colin, documentary if nothing else.

If you would like to write a complete history and theology (well, convince a number of people to write it with you,) then build a church of followers around that, in the face of persecution that tells you that you may be killed for your belief, have yourself and your fellow "inner circle" die horribly for your made up cause, and yet have the faith continue to build until 1 in 4 people on the planet call themselves your followers, I would give your "evidence of Colin" a bit more credibility.

You have a point of view. It's not one that is shared with most people, for reasons that they find as important (or more so) as yours. Belittling them or parodying their beliefs will convert no one, and makes one see you as insensitive and arrogant.

reply to post by adjensen


Consider this:

Most religions are mutually exclusive. If we assume for a moment that one of the hundreds of religions is correct, that means billions of people are following a fairy tale. Given that all of them claim to follow the "correct and only true" religion, and that they all have the same amount of what they call "evidence and proof" (it's not scientific evidence or proof), it's pretty clear that at best, the large majority of them is following a fairy tale. At worst, no one's correct and every single religious person is following a fairy tale.

Scientifically, we don't have any proof/evidence for the existence of any god. So why do people chose to fill the gaps in knowledge with superstitious texts from thousands of years ago when people knew even less than now?

reply to post by IamBoon

I am an atheist and I claim to know nothing of the metaphysical. What is there to actually know though>? No telling to what happens to the "life-force" or whatever you wanna call the animating force behind life. I do know that "I" will not be a product of it however because "I" as in an existential ego is a logical nightmare.

Freud on ego:

"...The ego is that part of the id which has been modified by the direct influence of the external world ... The EGO represents what may be called reason and COMMON SENSE, in contrast to the id, which contains the passions ..."

"Conscious awareness resides in the ego. The ego separates what is real. It helps us to organise our thoughts and make sense of them and the world around us." Ego's task is to find a balance between primitive drives and reality."

As a community, you are REGRESSING to the unbalanced state of infancy which is characterized by impulse drives, not by any common sense driven existence.
It's absolutely critical that we stop being stupid to think that our spiritual immortality is more different than the coherence of an electric field. Just because we don't understand that yet, doesn't mean we have to stop like your suggesting.

"The Third World War must be fomented by taking advantage of the differences caused by the "agentur" of the "Illuminati" between the political Zionists and the leaders of Islamic World. The war must be conducted in such a way that Islam (the Moslem Arabic World) and political Zionism (the State of Israel) mutually destroy each other. Meanwhile the other nations, once more divided on this issue will be constrained to fight to the point of complete physical, moral, spiritual and economical exhaustion…We shall unleash the Nihilists and the atheists, and we shall provoke a formidable social cataclysm which in all its horror will show clearly to the nations the effect of absolute atheism, origin of savagery and of the most bloody turmoil.Then everywhere, the citizens, obliged to defend themselves against the world minority of revolutionaries, will exterminate those destroyers of civilization, and the multitude, disillusioned with Christianity, whose deistic spirits will from that moment be without compass or direction, anxious for an ideal, but without knowing where to render its adoration, will receive the true light through the universal manifestation of the pure doctrine of Lucifer, brought finally out in the public view. This manifestation will result from the general reactionary movement which will follow the destruction of Christianity and atheism, both conquered and exterminated at the same time." 4 "

The Priory of Sion, the Protocols of Sion

Better resolve these issues on the Internet. I don't wanna get caught in middle.





[edit on 24-7-2010 by _SilentAssassin_]

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by adjensen

 

Consider this:

Most religions are mutually exclusive. If we assume for a moment that one of the hundreds of religions is correct, that means billions of people are following a fairy tale. Given that all of them claim to follow the "correct and only true" religion, and that they all have the same amount of what they call "evidence and proof" (it's not scientific evidence or proof), it's pretty clear that at best, the large majority of them is following a fairy tale. At worst, no one's correct and every single religious person is following a fairy tale.

Scientifically, we don't have any proof/evidence for the existence of any god. So why do people chose to fill the gaps in knowledge with superstitious texts from thousands of years ago when people knew even less than now?

I am in general agreement with a statement that I read somewhere about most religions having some truth in them, but Christianity is the most correct of them all. If you run off and create your "religion of Colin" and build a following, I don't think that it makes my faith any less true.

If following a "fairy tale," as you so adroitly put it, makes me a better person (and I believe that it does,) I fail to see how that's "at worst." At best, I have a personal relationship with the creator of the entire Universe, and eternal life. At worst, I've been a better person, who used Christ's life as an example of how to serve others, be humble, and try to make the world a better place.

I'm not sure what "gaps in knowledge" you think I'm filling with Old Testament teachings, but, apart from what happens when you die, I'm not aware of any.

Most religions are mutually exclusive. If we assume for a moment that one of the hundreds of religions is correct, that means billions of people are following a fairy tale. Given that all of them claim to follow the "correct and only true" religion, and that they all have the same amount of what they call "evidence and proof" (it's not scientific evidence or proof), it's pretty clear that at best, the large majority of them is following a fairy tale. At worst, no one's correct and every single religious person is following a fairy tale.

Just because a religion teaches itself to be "correct and true," it does not follow that even from its own perspective that other religions are "fairy tales."

Islam, for example, obviously qualifies as a self-certifying religion. However, Muslims have stories (not in the Koran, but inferred from differences between the Recitations and the Bible) about how Christians and Jews fell into error. At least theoretically, Christians and Jews are free to believe their faiths, arguably even directed to do so, within Islamic faith and morals.

In contrast, Islam is anti-pagan. "Fairy tale" would be a fair characterization of its view about the religion it displaced in Arabia. Except usually people don't kill other people for telling fairy tales.

As came up recently, all Nicene Christians profess to believe in a single church (in the sense of a single body of believers), united by baptism and the Creed itself. However, any given Christian might well believe that many other baptized Christians are fundamentally wrong about their Christian beliefs. There are even two versions of the Creed.

Logic and comparative religion are not easy partners. "Mutually exclusive" simply doesn't mean in religion what it means in mathematics.




[edit on 25-7-2010 by eight bits]

Originally posted by adjensen


There is far more evidence for Christ than Colin, documentary if nothing else.

Really?

There is actually no real proof or real evidence of Christ. None.

Ancient writings translated and interpreted by god believing scribes (when you look for god - you find god).

Would the translations and interpretation of ancient text be the same from an atheist? I doubt it.

Originally posted by Annee
Would the translations and interpretation of ancient text be the same from an atheist? I doubt it.

Actually, I'd be very interested in reading that.

You might have missed it, but I asked if you could help me with a specific question a little ways back in this thread. Since no one has answered it in two threads, I may have asked something nonsensical or unanswerable, sorry.

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by Annee
Would the translations and interpretation of ancient text be the same from an atheist? I doubt it.

Actually, I'd be very interested in reading that.

You might have missed it, but I asked if you could help me with a specific question a little ways back in this thread. Since no one has answered it in two threads, I may have asked something nonsensical or unanswerable, sorry.

Sorry. I try to keep up. But I take care of a 2 1/2 year old boy. Self-explanatory

Yes - I would also be interested in reading ancient writings translated/interpreted from a non-theist group.

I personally believe and attribute it to evolved off planet beings. Not gods. But given the title gods by humans.

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by Annee
Would the translations and interpretation of ancient text be the same from an atheist? I doubt it.

Actually, I'd be very interested in reading that.

You might have missed it, but I asked if you could help me with a specific question a little ways back in this thread. Since no one has answered it in two threads, I may have asked something nonsensical or unanswerable, sorry.

Sorry. I try to keep up. But I take care of a 2 1/2 year old boy. Self-explanatory

Yes - I would also be interested in reading ancient writings translated/interpreted from a non-theist group.

I personally believe and attribute it to evolved off planet beings. Not gods. But given the title gods by humans.

No worries, real life always takes precedence over discussion, lol.

I may be misreading your quote there, and if so, I'm sorry, but are you saying that you believe that our ancient writings came to us from extraterrestrials, the "ancient astronauts" theory? That's quite interesting, and I've given it thought over the years, but I wasn't ever able to make it work for me.

Now I'm even more interested in your perspective on my question, which is on the previous page of this thread, here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Now real life intervenes, and I have a five hour drive ahead of me, but I'm looking forward to your response when I get there.

Originally posted by adjensen

I may be misreading your quote there, and if so, I'm sorry, but are you saying that you believe that our ancient writings came to us from extraterrestrials, the "ancient astronauts" theory? That's quite interesting, and I've given it thought over the years, but I wasn't ever able to make it work for me.

This thread is not about my belief.

The condensed version is - I believe everything is energy. At some point there was a creation (not a Creator - just a creation - as in something happened to cause existence of the universe and all it encompasses). It COULD have been created by an intelligence/consciousness - - OR intelligence/consciousness created itself in the process of evolution.

In other words - - intelligence/consciousness could have developed after the creation.

I do believe there are intelligent consciousness' far more advanced (older in timeline) then we are. And I do believe many visited earth in our ancient times. Yes - I believe this is where humans got the idea of god/gods. As "suns who descended from the sky".

I do not believe in a Creator God.

When you examine Christianity (its what I know) from a now non-belief mind - - - it's clear that it really makes very little sense - and is based on really nothing. There are some factual histories in ancient text - - but there are also many fables and parables. And cultural/social dialects - - making it impossible to do any straight translation.

If you are translating ancient text (ancient Astronauts) from a god belief - - of course you are going to see god - - not ET.

reply to post by _SilentAssassin_



I always like to help out...so here ya go...enjoy!