Could Atheism be technically considered a religion?

page: 33
15
<< 30  31  32    34  35  36 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 01:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by interupt42
 



Yes, I agree both atheist and religious people are blindly taking a leap of faith on opposite sides of the spectrum and somewhat lying to themselves.


Is it really a blind leap of faith from atheists?

Some people believe in the Hollow Earth Theory. Lets for the sake of discussion say there is at least some evidence for this.

Now let's say someone that believes in that theory also believes deep within Earth is a city inhabited by rock golems.

I assume you disbelieve in this yourself. Why?

If I said you're taking a blind leap of faith by not believing in the rock golems what would you say to me?


Science can explain why the rock golems doesn't exist. If science couldn't then you are right, I would be taking a blind leap of faith by not believing in the rock golems. Can you provide me scientific facts that some cosmic creator doesn't exist?

There is no scientific law nor mathematical equation, that can factually prove what happens before we are born or after we die nor what came first the chicken or the egg. In addition Science can't answer without a doubt what is the purpose of life nor do we truly only live once or do we get reincarnated?

All I'm saying at some point we have to acknowledge our limitations and accept that we don't have all the answers. Prior to the big bang theory what existed? empty space? well what is empty space and what existed prior to it being empty? nothing? Will how does something come out of nothing?If energy can't be created nor destroyed where did it originate from, etc ....

The point is that even though atheist have more facts on their side and atheism makes more sense to me than any religion I can't factually say that a creator doesn't exist. Simply because I don't have the evidence to back it up. So eventually you make a leap of faith and either you believe for a fact that God exists or you believe for a fact that God doesn't exist. Or you can be more factually accurate and say its not likely , but I have no proof either way.

In science lack of evidence doesn't proof anything, does it? In science an unknown is an unknown despite of probability. Of course if you have all the variables then yes we can solve for the unknown but as far as I know we are no where close to having all the variables.

I'm an agnostic that leads more toward the atheist side and don't really believe in religion. However, I can't ignore that I have no facts to back up my believes (gut feelings) nor any facts that clearly proves that no creator exist. Like I said I can use probability and form my theory but in the end I can't go past speculation or expand beyond a theory.

We need to answer and proof without a doubt what came first the chicken or the egg , before we claim that we have any clue as to any real answers about the universe or our existence.
edit on 7-12-2012 by interupt42 because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 01:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Grimpachi
 


it would only be positive for people who weren't suffering in ways that don't support reflecting on how you might have brought it on yourself, like pixie's daughter being raped. the idea of asking her to accept that she did something in a different life that caused it, is horrifying to even think about.
it's like victimizing the victim.
edit on 7-12-2012 by undo because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 01:12 AM
link   
reply to post by interupt42
 


this is a fascinating conversation!

*grabs the popcorn*



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 01:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by blackcube
Exactly. For practical sense I am atheist but if I need to be precise about the knowledge I am agnostic, the same way I am agnostic about unicorns, dragons, bigfoot, flying spaghetti monster, santa klaus etc..


Ahh Unicorns! You know I've often seen people equate the faith in an unseen God to believing in Unicorns.

Then...Guess what I found...now the translation is questionable but in all English versions of the Bible I have searched through I have found this


Numbers 24:8 God brought him forth out of Egypt; he hath, as it were, the strength of a unicorn. He shall eat up the nations his enemies, and shall break their bones and pierce them through with his arrows.



Deuteronomy 33:17 His glory is like the firstling of his bullock, and his horns are like the horns of unicorns. With them he shall push the people together to the ends of the earth; and they are the ten thousands of Ephraim, and they are the thousands of Manasseh.”


They are in Job, Psalms and Isiah!

Noah must have missed them



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 01:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by undo
reply to post by Pixiefyre
 


well now i agree with your sentiments entirely.
that was a good post.



Thank you. I wish I could get that point across to others



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 01:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pixiefyre

Originally posted by undo
reply to post by Pixiefyre
 


well now i agree with your sentiments entirely.
that was a good post.



Thank you. I wish I could get that point across to others


look up dominionism. they think jesus wont come back till we make the place suitable for him. it's never going to be suitable in its current state, no matter how much paint and plaster we put on it. it's a partly malfunctional planet/dimension/or whatever it's called. it's not working in a perfected state and neither are we lol.

ever read the namshub of enki? its an excerpt from the enuma elish. it talks about the world before everything went crackers, mostly in relation to the tower of babel scenario. it doesn't mention the tower, just mentions the confusing of the languages. anyway, says the animals were non violent and so were the people. so even the animals have been effected. i would say that's not a place you would want to ask him to camp out at. he would have to redecorate. lol



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 01:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by undo
reply to post by Grimpachi
 


it would only be positive for people who weren't suffering in ways that don't support reflecting on how you might have brought it on yourself, like pixie's daughter being raped. the idea of asking her to accept that she did something in a different life that caused it, is horrifying to even think about.
it's like victimizing the victim.
edit on 7-12-2012 by undo because: (no reason given)


That would only be if I thought I deserved such hardship which I assure you I do not believe however I also do not believe that with the concept of Karma that what returns to you has to be proportionate. I rationalize such a thing through a speculation on energy. Also no person can know what one small act they have committed can set off a chain of events which can return to them. Karma is actually a very soothing concept when it is explored intellectually.

Even in hard times I can rationalize Karma.as opposed to how in other beliefs people can see miracle like seeing a face in a piece of toast or one person survives a train wreck where hundreds of others died. I cannot rationalize that way of thinking. If something bad happens without a silver lining like one survivor it is explained as free will. That entire premise would anger me if I had to except it because it all sounds like a cop out.

I do not see any of it truly mattering after the fact because I see philosophes in religions as coping mechanisms for people. Dogma is a whole other issue.[]
edit on 7-12-2012 by Grimpachi because:




posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 01:47 AM
link   
reply to post by undo
 


Yes I have. You know there are a lot of sects that place great focus on Revelations, wishing it would occur now so only the righteous will be left. But I can't help but consider what Jesus would face if he were to come today. Imagine some stranger walking up to your kid telling them that he is Jesus, or wandering about a city preaching, I'm sorry to say he would likely be interred in a mental hospital quite quickly!

Have you ever read any of the Gnostic Gospels or the Apocrypha, I have found them rather interesting, their version on Genesis makes you think a bit.

I just wish the Catholic Church did not completely destroy some of the ancient texts, determined that man should never cast their eyes on them. What a loss. I want to know what they keep in the secret archives, I want to wander through all the history and see what I can learn.



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 01:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pixiefyre
reply to post by undo
 


Yes I have. You know there are a lot of sects that place great focus on Revelations, wishing it would occur now so only the righteous will be left. But I can't help but consider what Jesus would face if he were to come today. Imagine some stranger walking up to your kid telling them that he is Jesus, or wandering about a city preaching, I'm sorry to say he would likely be interred in a mental hospital quite quickly!

Have you ever read any of the Gnostic Gospels or the Apocrypha, I have found them rather interesting, their version on Genesis makes you think a bit.

I just wish the Catholic Church did not completely destroy some of the ancient texts, determined that man should never cast their eyes on them. What a loss. I want to know what they keep in the secret archives, I want to wander through all the history and see what I can learn.




we need our own little chat space lol
have you ever seen this ?



the important part is when he meets a guy who has similar ability, who asks him to draw a picture of what he's seeing while calculating huge numbers. ever hear of the akashic library?



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 01:55 AM
link   
I will just quote Bill Maher:
"Atheism is a religion just like abstinence is a sexual position"



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 01:57 AM
link   
reply to post by undo
 


Yeah I've seen that it's amazing.

The library I had not heard of before I will have some reading material! It looks interesting



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 02:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pixiefyre
reply to post by undo
 


Yeah I've seen that it's amazing.

The library I had not heard of before I will have some reading material! It looks interesting


here's a wiki quote about it



The akashic records are described as containing all knowledge of human experience and the history of the cosmos. They are metaphorically described as a library; other analogies commonly found in discourse on the subject include a "universal supercomputer" and the "Mind of God". People who describe the records assert that they are constantly updated automatically and that they can be accessed through astral projection[1] or under deep hypnosis.


i think daniel is somehow accessing the library without having to astral project or similar, because his brain is wired differently. i have a theory also, that our junk dna is our own library for imprinting our own life experiences for inclusion in the big library. i don't think he's getting his info from his junk dna, but i think he's recording it on his junk dna as part of his life experience.

/end of another one of undo's wacky theories.
edit on 7-12-2012 by undo because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 02:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Grimpachi
 


Thank you. My family wasn't perfect, but when I look back I know I was and am loved. There is a song called "Daddy's Hands" I think by Holly Dunn that describes my father, he was not afraid of physical discipline and when I was young I questioned his love....but I know that he was doing the best he knew how. There were so many good things about him...he passed away in 1985. My mom is still going strong at 79! She lives down in Fla and goes to one of those Mega churches now.

My parents were not your garden variety run of the mill parents but I think that was a good thing. For example how many people can claim their parents toured with Johnny Cash during his early years!!!



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 02:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by IShotMyLastMuse
I will just quote Bill Maher:
"Atheism is a religion just like abstinence is a sexual position"


LOL!
atheism is the "i dare you" belief. they dare you to prove stuff to them that is utterly personal lol



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 05:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by ProfessorChaos
Atheists have no belief in a god or religion, and they rely on evolutionary science for their arguments ... Thus making Atheism in effect, the religion of evolutionary science?


I think atheism places its faith in Nature, it rejects religion and prefers to explain Nature as 'self-forming' whereas those who believe in God explain Nature as formed by a 'supernatural force' - but they are more alike than they concede. For example, the birth of a baby from conception through gestation until the baby's first cry demonstrates the miraculous work of God for the faithful and demonstrates the wonder and coherence of Nature for the secular - both sides are satisfied. I think there is a fallacy that atheists deny the wonder and beauty of life. Many people are unable to accept the biblical account of creation because it seems to lack logic. Modern man has outgrown scripture. His questions are profound and require scientific answers.

But there is a fallacy that science denies God or even that it can explain Nature/Life without God (by God I mean a supernatural force that has designed the universe and life within it). Evolutionary science does not support an atheist perspective - it has nothing to say about God or religion. Certainly there are proponents who have become evangelical in their rants against religion (Dawkins, Dennett ..) but that's their own personal views - its not science - most certainly not Darwin.

Darwin did something absolutely amazing - he showed that all life on Earth is connected - both past (fossils) and present. He showed that life on Earth is on a forward progressive path of improvement towards greater complexity, diversity and adaptability. He also showed that we are profoundly connected to Nature. No one had done that before. That is his genius.

But Darwin's essential tenet - that life started with a very simple construct and became more complex over time - was falsified in 1953 with the discovery of the DNA structure. In one blinding moment we glimpsed the complexity of the cell and since then we've been like 17th century explorers entering at a new and wondrous world. Now we realise that incredible complexity in code is required for the first signs of life to occur. Like the robot Asimo - it does very simple actions (by human standards) of walking, climbing stairs, and rudimentary running but the amount of ingenious code that is required for these few actions is immense - so too with life. The simplest life forms require hundreds of thousands of interconnected working components. Organisms may have appeared simple at the beginning of life on Earth but this belies the mad complexity that enables life.

And I should point out that we still don't know what life is - we can isolate a single cell in a Petri dish then pierce the skin so all the cell's contents spill out. We have everything that is required for life in the dish (supposedly) yet we cannot put it back together again - cannot give it life.

Evolutionary science has now morphed into something called neo-Darwinism, but it has nothing to do with Darwin and simply trades on his good name. Darwin spoke of natural selection and arbitrary mutation, but all of that is gone - gone is the concept of natural selection, and mutation has changed into 'arbitrary chemical collisions'. It has become fantasy and still it is no closer to explaining the mathematical perfection and precision of life.

I'm sorry that I've gone off on a bit of a rant myself, but it does science a great disservice to say that it supports an atheistic perspective. This position limits the investigation of our evolutionary past, because it forces a 'bottom up' methodology of inquiry. If we say that there is no 'reason to the rhyme of life', that our past is only a collection of physical arbitrary processes then we'll never look for the truth. Nature works through systems and processes, and I truly believe evolution is another process - a system of development like other systems found in Nature. It is time to connect the dots the way Nature works. Look around you, Nature makes sense, so too should our evolutionary past.

We need to take a systems approach and connect the patterns and regularities we see in our fossil record. We presently explain the reoccurring jumps in evolutionary biological improvement (dinosaur to mammal for example) as being the result of mass extinction events. But that overlooks how the biology on Earth improved, and it stops us investigating what those mechanisms could be. We have recorded 6 huge genetic jumps, yet everyone is looking at meteor strikes, when that explains nothing.

It's a fallacy to say science is atheist, molecular biology uses engineering principles to investigate the cell - we need to do the same to investigate our evolutionary past. Atheism is a belief system. Science is a system for studying the operation of Nature in the observable Universe. The 2 are very different



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 06:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by undo

i admit it seems irrational on its face, but the world would certainly be alot better place if our leaders actually did believe god exists and is expecting them to behave. it seems the fox is in the chicken coop, the gate is locked, and the owner has vacated the premises.

edit on 6-12-2012 by undo because: (no reason given)


But which God should we be hoping they believe in. I hope its not the god of the old testament.



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 07:51 AM
link   
Let's pretend god exists.... Which god?

And after that the most important of question : WHY should I worship such god? Give me good reasons for me to do it. It's simple question and I never heard a good reason to do such thing.



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 08:09 AM
link   
I'd go with Zeus.

anyway, fine call it a religion. what do i care, its just a name. i say atheists get together and have a big party every sunday. maybe a bbq when the weather is nice. And then we can say its tax exempt and skirt adding funding into the economy. To the sum of billions of dollars.

Maybe I'll make my self high priest and buy some property and get tax exemption from my property tax. I'll have parties at my home in the guise of mass. $20 to get in and $5.00 for a cup for the keg.



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 09:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by idmonster

Originally posted by undo

i admit it seems irrational on its face, but the world would certainly be alot better place if our leaders actually did believe god exists and is expecting them to behave. it seems the fox is in the chicken coop, the gate is locked, and the owner has vacated the premises.

edit on 6-12-2012 by undo because: (no reason given)


But which God should we be hoping they believe in. I hope its not the god of the old testament.


have to watch those god words carefully. angels, gods, spirits (dearly departed), and what i am theorizing is actually the pharaoh of the time in the passage mentioned, are all called god in the english translation at various points.



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 09:52 AM
link   


Text My atheism is not based on faith, while I have no physical evidence to prove my position I do not need to provide any, because I'm not the one claiming there is a god or gods, I'm simply claiming that I do not believe in one or any. The burden of proof is on the one making the claim.
reply to post by Openeye
 


@ Openeye

Didn't you just write that you do not have any physical proof to prove your position and that physical proof is not needed for your belief? Yet you require proof for one who believes in a creator. Where do you get your rules? Is there a rule book that requires one person to provide proof and not another? Why can't I demand that you prove your statement of disbelief? After all you are making a claim that there is no creator while a creationist only states that he or she believes there is a creator.

I was always under the impression that a creationist is only a creationist by theological understanding and not a statement of fact. If that is the case then who made this silly rule for a creationist to prove his or her theology? If I were to interview Steven Hawking and demand that he prove his theoretical science, I believe that I would show my ignorance of exactly what a theoretical scientist really is. Actually his theoretical science is no better than a creationist theology. Both are a religion and nothing less. If that rule applies to a creationist then why doesn't that silly rule apply to you? Actually you have made a statement of fact while a creationist makes a statement of theology. I think that atheists have the rule book all screwed up.



  exclusive video


top topics
 
15
<< 30  31  32    34  35  36 >>

log in

join