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.

 

Will the real Atheists please stand up

page: 2
4
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 11:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Joecroft
reply to post by Segador
 





Originally posted by Segador
I am an Athiest because I searched for god and did not find him.
I searched for any evidence of his existence and found none.


Is the fact that you found no evidence, a good enough reason to call yourself an Atheist?

Where did you look? And what kind of evidence were you hoping to find?


- JC


The lack of belief in god is why I call myself an Atheist, I was hoping to find some concrete evidence of his existence and simply found none. I do try and research all religions just for knowledge sake and I even have the Bible and the Qu'ran(still haven't gotten around to finishing this one though.)

If this god existed and made his presence known then I would convert but until then he just just like the boogeyman under my bed.

I reject Christianity in the same way you reject other religions OP.




posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 12:22 PM
link   
Better question: Why are you a theist?

If your god exists, and the only way to be "saved" is to believe that his "son" died for our sins, what about other life forms on other worlds? They weren't on Earth to believe in jesus so they're SOL? Sounds false already.

On another topic, most religious people claim non-believers will go to "hell." If I were to ask for a description of this hell, you would most likely tell me "it's really hot and miserable and there's lots of eternal suffering." Did you know that the main description of the MAIN consequence in your religion comes from a fictional book called Dante's Inferno?

I'm not saying I wouldn't change my views if presented with proof, I'm an athiest because there's too many holes in religion that people prefer to brush under the rug. Besides, if god is mad because I used logic and reason instead of blind faith to live my life, then I'll suffer the consequences.



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 12:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Joecroft
 


The most vocal atheists seem to be atheists because they were abused by people calling themselves Christian(or Muslim) at some point. I think this because they seem to have a severe emotional reaction whenever the subject of God or religion is mentioned, claiming its the source of all the worlds problems and wars. For example, if children were to instructed to recite "God loves me." in school or something like that, a vitriolic atheist would reel back as if shot with a rifle and wish to sue the school for a million dollars in mental pain and suffering. They'd then marvel at how they are being poisoned and how they are forced to support wars and violence. However, they would quickly note how we should all have great faith in our wonderful governments to keep us safe, just so long as religion is kept out of it.

For example, vocal atheists often say George Bush's comment that God told him to invade Iraq, and that shows it was a religious war. However, the obvious reason was to help out his oil buddies and and get new bragging rights... doing what his daddy couldn't get away with. George Bush was obviously never a religious guy at any point in his life, so no, religion had nothing to do with it. Yet the vocal atheists actually blame religion on that war and tens of others they know about despite religion having virtually nothing to do with them.

I used to hold the belief "God does not exist", but since I didn't reel back as if shot with a rifle when hearing the word "Jesus" I pretty much never called myself an atheist because again I considered (and still consider) atheists people with mental hang-ups over religion. Not only that but I even consider the stereotypical vocal atheist to be religious, since they tend to have this whole set of emotion-based beliefs about how terrible Christianity and Muslims are and how all our problems would go away if only Muslims and Christians stopped believing in God.

Given that we know as a matter of fact exactly nothing about the core processes that allow our universe and the laws of physics to exist in the first place, I see no purely logical basis in fact upon which God could be either included or excluded. That is why I considered myself an agnostic at one point. At some point I decided that emotional reasoning is in some ways superior to logical reasoning, and at that point I shifted to theist from agnostic. And while I would have said at one point "I believe God does not exist" again I did not want to be called an atheist because I didn't want to be associated with the highly emotional religion-bashing that is associated.



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 01:00 PM
link   
reply to post by civilchallenger
 


Hmm

I am fairly vocal about the subject. I used to be religious long, long ago.
I quite liked it...never got abused, never had a horrible experience..just moved on naturally as I learned more about science.

When someone starts singing a jesus centric christmas song, I know the words and maybe even join in if liquored up enough..but I would also sing frosty the snowman (same catagory).

I see atheism, for me at least, to be a practical stance. I am a transhumanist fan and so seek out to remove things that hinder the movement. structured religion is a big one..and so, until religion is put in its place, the road to progress is hobbled in my opinion.



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 01:42 PM
link   
"god" has been tried every time a bunch of people get together and try to vote for a leader.
then somebody got hurt. Early election mudslinging often contained more dangerous things than mud.

So they...always created an all powerful dude, or dudette..That was immortal, And outlasted all the politicians.
no elections needed..mostly..answer to God first..Give him your money, or sheep, and root vegetable. Whatever he likes. Of course later, some mortal guys saw what a great scam it was...So they got in on it. taxes, instead of Tithes...Or 20 bucks for a bottle of holy water.

I'm an atheist and that's o.k.
I watch Saturday night movies
And I sleep Sun-day..

Wouldn't standing up change some sort of proof of God existence ratio, by having a higher percentage of us getting struck by lightning?

And...Get over it..
You can have whatever god you choose, you don't have to share.
I'm am completely ok with you're right to have one, or two..Or a whole pantheon.
Talk about it as much as you want...Don't always expect me to participate in the conversation.
And don't EVER tell me "this particular way, is the only way to nirvana, or heaven".
Because it's very confusing...so many ways...And so many killing each other to get there first.

Have a nice day!



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 01:45 PM
link   
reply to post by RedPill
 



Firstly, thanks for your awesome post, it wasn’t quite what I was expecting.



Originally posted by RedPill
Isn't it funny, the law of thermodynamics says mater and energy can not be created or destroyed. Matter can change to energy and visa-versa. The big bang theory describes an event where a bunch of matter/energy was in one spot then exploded. That still does not explain where all this mass/energy came from. So the scientific explanation for the universe as we know it is as follows:


Yes, the big bang has been described as a rapid expansion of space from a minute spec. It’s seems to me that size is really only relative to what it’s being compared to, in that there is a whole world that exists within the molecules and atoms themselves. Unfortunately once a scientist invokes infinity, they are said to have already lost the Big Bang scientific debate.



Originally posted by RedPill
If you know how all matter/energy was created then after you explain it to the world's top astrophysicists you could site a lack of evidence for a creator. But if you do not know how all mass in the universe got here then everything you see including the eyeballs you see with could be evidence of a creator.


Most of the current scientific theories we have regarding what happened before the big bang, all have the same inherent problem i.e. what got it going in the first place. As far as I am aware, no complete scientific model of a universe, which can be a self-reliant system within itself, has been found/proposed by scientists.



Originally posted by RedPill
As for my beliefs, I try not to hold beliefs but rather I have theories in progress that are the sum of what I have learned so far and ever ready to be scrapped if a more sensible theory is discovered.


Regarding the field of big bang/creation there is only so much information that a person can have and there may also come a stage in the distant future, where a saturation point is reached i.e. no more available evidence.

It seems to me, that if the scientific method is being applied to God, then there is always going to be this “waiting for evidence to show, mentality”. If Atheists are waiting for evidence, then essentially they are undecided in my opinion because believing in God is not about absolute concrete evidence; it’s about taking all the available evidence and actually trying to make a decision, regardless of whether it’s right or wrong.


- JC



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 02:33 PM
link   
i believe in God,,but i dont believe in religion!!!!!



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 02:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Phantom traveller
 





Originally posted by Phantom traveler
No he isn't.The Big Bang created the universe. So if this the definition of god, there is scientific proof that says otherwise



The scientific proof is not complete. i.e. no one knows how the big bang got started, and although there are a few competing theories in science, it is currently unknown.


- JC



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 03:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joecroft
If Atheists are waiting for evidence, then essentially they are undecided in my opinion because believing in God


I am undecided on UFOs being piloted by extraterrestrials.
To me, the concept of extraterrestrials in general is solid, backed by science. The concept of them travelling to earth is not unheard of. At the present time, there is no proof backing this up, however there is nothing that goes against the possibility. There is no structured understanding of how they must come here, and it is understandable that there are sciences yet uncovered that could easily get them to go faster than light.

the concept of a deity however goes against rational thinking, evidence to the contrary, and there is no working model on any scale to support such a being.
This is not undecided in the same way that the alien hypothesis is. It is more in line with...tiny flying reindeer.
there is no model, it goes against logic, reason, and knowledge of reindeer anatomy.

Just because there are stories of people claiming to see eight tiny reindeer flying around and pulling a sleigh does not mean that is substantial evidence to make it a consideration as a reality. There is no undecided...it simply is not true unless there is some new revelation of truth supporting this claim.

until then, it is simply childrens stories to control their behavior.



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 03:32 PM
link   
reply to post by davespanners
 





Originally posted by davespanners
What most people call God is some kind of concious being that deliberately created the universe through his own will.

Taking this definition then the answer is pretty simple.

When you discuss the problem of the start of the universe you always hit the wall of having to postulate how something could come from nothing, one popular explanation for this, the one that's often called God, states that the something was put their by a fully formed concious being with the capacity for abstract thought and planning, This answer however does not answer anything at all and only puts forward a billion more questions such as "where did god come from" What created god" "how is it that god can have thought without having any physical form" etc etc etc


Yes, but questions roughly pertaining to the same equivalent, can be directed towards the Big Bang and pre big bang scientific theories such as “What caused the big bang”, “If our universe came from a pre existing universe, then where did that universe come from”, “Where did the universe and all matter come from” “Have all the elements in the universe and the Laws that govern them always existed” etc etc etc



Originally posted by davespanners
Belief in God then becomes an admissions that you have just decided to give up trying to think of how the universe may have been created and just decided "It was magic" and then left all of the other questions unanswered by saying that they are "un-knowable" it's lazy


I’m not sure what you mean by “left all of the other questions unanswered” but I’m not suggesting that science should give up looking for answers just because someone believes in God. What I am suggesting though, is that regarding the ultimate question, there may be only so much we can know to the extent that it is "un-knowable". The current scientific theories regarding pre Big Bang, can’t be knowable as a fact, even though they are based on some sound scientific principles and accurate mathematics.


- JC



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 03:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by RedPill
Isn't it funny, the law of thermodynamics says mater and energy can not be created or destroyed.


What creates the substance from which comes your dream?

How many +1s and -1s can a mathematician create out of zero?

What is anti-matter and what does it's existance say about the totality of matter?

Which came first, the holy trinity, (father, son and holy ghost,) or the magian trinity, (dream dreamer, dreamed,)?



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 06:43 PM
link   
reply to post by eight bits
 





Originally posted by eight bits

Anyway, I am not an atheist. I have no difficulty locating in real life atheists who are delighted to say "I believe there is no god." Here at ATS, we often get the "I don't believe anything about God" wannabes, and my personal favorite, the guy who claims to be 21 and who can't bring himself to say "I believe there is no Santa Claus." Facepalm.

So, let me answer by proxy for the atheists I know, with some comments on my personal beliefs along the way.


Firstly, thanks for the in depth reply, although the last thing I was expecting, was for an Agnostic, to answer all of the Atheist questions!



Originally posted by eight bits
Right atop your list, I see no reason to believe that the Universe was created, nor if it were, that any single personal agent was responsible. I don't see this as a religious issue. How the Universe came to be is secular subject matter. Just because someboday has claimed that Zeus hurls lightning bolts doesn't make a thunderstorm a religious event.


hmm
Can you accurately define what type of Agnostic position you hold? because right now, it’s not that clear.



Originally posted by eight bits
Nevertheless, we could probably agree in a practical sense what an atheist is, even if we disagree about a reasonable definition of god.


Well, this is the dilemma commonly faced when discussing this topic. Now I know your are approaching this from the perspective of an Agnostic, but unless the definition of God can be agreed upon, then there’s an automatic problem as to what an Atheists position is, in relation to the definition.

The reason I chose “God is the creator of the universe…”, is because it is the most commonly held view of most religions (albeit with extras on top), faiths and those who just believe in a God but not in religion.

Just out of interest, what is your definition of God?



Originally posted by eight bits
If it’s because you believe there is no God, then how can you be so sure?
Certainty is not required in order to express a religious belief.


I agree.
All my (If) questions were aimed at trying to cover all bases, of an Atheists position. I wasn’t expecting an Atheist, or an Agnostic for that matter, to answer all the questions, but just the ones that closely applied to them individually.



Originally posted by eight bits
If it’s because there is a lack of evidence for you to believe it and/or because there is a lack of evidence to the contrary, then doesn’t that equate to you being undecided?
Personally, I am an agnostic. I am not "undecided," I have categorical beliefs about the state of the evidence, similar to what you describe. Ultimately, the evaluation of the evidence is prioristic, a matter of opinion (lol, there can't be "evidence" which decides the right way to evaluate evidence).


Okay you have “categorical beliefs” regarding the “evidence” but the “evidence” is prioristic and a matter of opinion! So I’m guessing that makes you undecided! lol no wait…that can’t be right, because you already stated that you are not "undecided". Perhaps you could explain your Agnostic position more clearly.



Originally posted by eight bits
If you do not believe, while at the same time, hold the position of saying it’s not untrue either, then doesn’t that equate to you being undecided?
Umm, if you say "It's not untrue," then are you not a theist? I think you meant to ask something else, but my best guess for what you might have meant has already been asked. So, I don't know what you're asking here.


This question is aimed at those atheists who do "not believe in X" but at the same time don’t claim to “believe not X”



Originally posted by eight bits
If you reject it, and because the word reject, means to put aside, send back or not comply, then doesn’t that equate to you being undecided?
Reject is a vague word. But a person believes what they believe. If they have chosen a vague word to describe their beliefs, then you can't just guess what they really meant. OK, fine, maybe you're asking them that, but if so, then you're also leading in your question, which is uncalled for.


Yes, reject is a pretty vague word but it can have different meanings for different atheist and once again I was just trying to cover all bases here, I wasn’t expecting an Atheist to answers all the questions, just the ones that they felt related best to their own position. It would really be up to an Atheists reply, to explain their version of reject.



Originally posted by eight bits
If it’s because you deny it, the word deny means to declare untrue, disclaim or refuse. How have you been able to do any of these things?
Again, I don't see how this question differs from your earlier one about "how can you be so sure?" Someone can deny something based on their beliefs about the subject. Certainty is an unreasonably high threshold for speaking your mind.


Well one of the dictionary definitions of “deny”, is to “refuse”. Now IMO I think refusing something and declaring something “untrue”, are a lot different from each other.


- JC



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 09:53 PM
link   
...i was born this way...


...does the one line thangy apply to BTS?... o'well, just to be on the safe side - i'll expand my response...

...why havent i been converted to theism?... well, it sure wasnt because bible thumpers, child beaters and spineless twits didnt try - but - apparently, i lack the genetic predisposition required for mental retardation (at least in that area)...



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 10:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Wyn Hawks
 





Originally posted by Wyn Hawks
...i was born this way...

...does the one line thangy apply to BTS?... o'well, just to be on the safe side - i'll expand my response...

...why havent i been converted to theism?... well, it sure wasnt because bible thumpers, child beaters and spineless twits didnt try - but - apparently, i lack the genetic predisposition required for mental retardation (at least in that area)...


Hilarious…

But you’ve answered the question “why have you have rejected religion?” and not the question in my OP, which is “why are you an Atheist”, based on whether there is a God who created everything, with no religion being brought into play.


- JC



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 10:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Hail2theChippewa
 





Originally posted by Hail2theChippewa
I'm not saying I wouldn't change my views if presented with proof, I'm an athiest because there's too many holes in religion that people prefer to brush under the rug. Besides, if god is mad because I used logic and reason instead of blind faith to live my life, then I'll suffer the consequences.



Yes but I’m not asking you to believe in a Religion, I’m asking you why you are an Atheist, based on the premise of my OP.


- JC



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 10:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Segador
 





Originally posted by Segador
The lack of belief in god is why I call myself an Atheist, I was hoping to find some concrete evidence of his existence and simply found none. I do try and research all religions just for knowledge sake and I even have the Bible and the Qu'ran(still haven't gotten around to finishing this one though.)

If this god existed and made his presence known then I would convert but until then he just just like the boogeyman under my bed.

I reject Christianity in the same way you reject other religions OP


This seems to be a common trend in this thread so far, as you can probably tell, but this thread isn’t about religion, it’s about why a person is an Atheist, based on what I have outlined in my OP.

But now that you’ve brought it up, I don’t reject other religions; I believe there is a lot of truth in all of them. I have however, rejected many parts of Christianity, which I personally believe are not true, even though I believe in Jesus.


- JC



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 11:16 PM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 





Originally posted by SaturnFX
the concept of a deity however goes against rational thinking, evidence to the contrary, and there is no working model on any scale to support such a being.
This is not undecided in the same way that the alien hypothesis is. It is more in line with...tiny flying reindeer.
there is no model, it goes against logic, reason, and knowledge of reindeer anatomy.

Just because there are stories of people claiming to see eight tiny reindeer flying around and pulling a sleigh does not mean that is substantial evidence to make it a consideration as a reality. There is no undecided...it simply is not true unless there is some new revelation of truth supporting this claim.



You were responding to my reply to ReddPill, but in it I stated that the scientific method when being applied the big bang and pre big bang theories, could most probably, never be completely known and for that reason “waiting for evidence”, may not necessarily lead to an accurate answer.


What I mean by undecided is that a conclusion hasn’t been reached or arrived at yet, using the scientific method. Regarding plausible things though, isn’t it better to say they are possible/unknown, until new evidence comes to light, rather than stating “it simply is not true unless there is some new revelation of truth supporting this claim.”


- JC



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 12:10 PM
link   

Can you accurately define what type of Agnostic position you hold? because right now, it’s not that clear.

I believe that the available evidence is insufficient for me to profess a belief about the question of gods.

You asked this in connection with the origins of the Universe. I have no idea whether (or in what sense) the Universe began, and so no idea whether it was created, nor if it was created, then by what means. So, a creator god presents problems for me that other kinds of gods do not.

I still think we have a practical agreement about what an atheist is, though.


what is your definition of God?

Small-g god: A hypothetical personal being who exists outside of space and time, who can cause some effects in space and time, and who is not offered as uniformly inferior to some other being with those properties.

I have no idea, of course, whether there is any god, but the definition excludes a lot: The Brahman (not personal), space aliens (not outside space and time), anything entirely "extra dimensional" (no effects in space and time), and angels (offered as uniformly inferior to their God). Oh yeah, Santa Claus is out, too (same reason as space aliens).

Capital-G God is a specific small-g god. Usually, I would define which specific god based on who believes in him. That may differ from one conversation to the next (Christians' God, Muslims' God, even Neoplatonic pagans' God... depends on the context, at least for me).


So I’m guessing that makes you undecided!

Undecided connotes "not having made up my mind." I have made up my mind. I cannot answer the question of gods. If the evidence changes, then we can talk again. Or who knows? Maybe the evidence stays the same, but I get smarter. Woohoo.

But right now? I am only as smart as I am, and the evidence is what it is. Based on what I believe about the evidence, I have nothing to offer on the question of gods. There is no sense in which I am "working on my answer." Unlike, say, what I plan to do on Christmas, where I am trying to decide between offers, and expect that I will shortly. About Christmas, then, I am undecided.

"Is there a god?" is not the only religious question. "Do you have a personally satisfactory basis to decide whether there is a god?" is also a religious question. Just because I can't answer one religious question doesn't mean I can't answer any religious question.


This question is aimed at those atheists who do "not believe in X" but at the same time don’t claim to “believe not X”

OK, and we can agree that I was trying to "proxy" only for those who "believe not X."


Well one of the dictionary definitions of “deny”, is to “refuse”. Now IMO I think refusing something and declaring something “untrue”, are a lot different from each other.

Yes, I think so, too. The problem with a dictionary is that all it ever tells you is how people have used a word. Since different people use the same words, some of those uses can easily be inconsistent with each other.

Anyway, I understand your questions better now, so thank you for the explanations. I also hope my own explanations are of some help to you.



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 05:09 PM
link   
reply to post by eight bits
 





Originally posted by eight bits
I believe that the available evidence is insufficient for me to profess a belief about the question of gods.


Atheists site the same above reason for being an Atheist. What separates your position as an Agnostic, from theirs?



Originally posted by eight bits
You asked this in connection with the origins of the Universe. I have no idea whether (or in what sense) the Universe began, and so no idea whether it was created, nor if it was created, then by what means. So, a creator god presents problems for me that other kinds of gods do not.


The universe happening/creating on it’s own, unaided, presents me with a problem also, even though there is no evidence, that, that is the case.



Originally posted by eight bits
Undecided connotes "not having made up my mind." I have made up my mind. I cannot answer the question of gods. If the evidence changes, then we can talk again. Or who knows? Maybe the evidence stays the same, but I get smarter. Woohoo.


So you have decided, that it cannot be currently known, due to a lack of evidence that there is either, (A) a creator God or (B) that there is not a creator God.

Would that be a fair statement to describe your Agnosticism, in connection with the question in my OP?



Originally posted by eight bits
Anyway, I understand your questions better now, so thank you for the explanations. I also hope my own explanations are of some help to you


Thanks, your eloquent descriptions and explanations, have helped me understand Agnosticism much better and not just on this thread, but on the other one as well.


- JC



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 06:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Joecroft
 


I feel that to solely define oneself as an ''atheist'' is a flawed description, and most atheists would be better described as agnostic.

Atheism is ''an absence of belief in God or gods'', which also describes half of the position that is held by agnostics.

The flaw I feel with defining oneself as ''atheist'', is that it doesn't explain the other half of the atheist's position, which is whether they hold an active disbelief or passive disbelief in the existence of God or gods.

Most atheists don't rule out the possibility that a God may exist, and this passive disbelief is actually agnosticism.

While some atheists actively believe that a God or gods do not exist, this is an illogical position to hold, as it is an example of the ''argument from ignorance'' logical fallacy.


So, why would anybody use the term ''atheist'' to define their position, when that doesn't inform people whether they hold a passive disbelief ( logical ) or active disbelief ( illogical ) ?

And why, if the ''atheist'' holds a passive disbelief, don't they more accurately describe themselves as ''agnostic'' ?



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join