Atheism

It’s good to know that there are so many people that are able to think critically about this social virus called religion. People like Pat Condell, Richard Dawkins, Lewis Black, Bill Maher, and many others give me hope that mankind just might survive the next 100 years. Keep up the good work.

Religion was created to explain that which was not explainable, to give order to chaos. In this era of science and rational thought. it simply isn't as necessary now that we have knowledge.

To put it simply, fighting over religion is like fighting over who has the better imaginary friend.

reply to post by ac3rr


unless you are a true bhuddist and there is no need for fighting
some religions have good ideas...at the very very very hidden roots, hidden by the misconceptions. i respect your view and hope we both find that we can experience many more lifetimes on this planet. scientists are still babies, but growing up quick, hopefully not too quick.
the problem is that some people can be so adamant about there being nothing after death.
said atheist has a near death experience, then dies, and is ressucitated.
the atheist's views completely change, and he tells a few select people what he saw when he crossed into the holy land
maybe this man can describe aspects of previous lives (or possible multidimensional memory teleportation?)
but in the long run, if there is a change of heart so drastic for someone (me) i believe you may experience the same.

wishing you the best-
william

reply to post by ac3rr


Exactly. Someday these religions will fade away and be long forgotten like the rest. It's only a matter of time until unproven beliefs are finally thrown in the garbage and evidence against those beliefs is accepted.

reply to post by ac3rr


Oh how I agree with you, Religion is now and always has been the main excuse for war. It was originaly created to bring social order to community's it has been used as a tool to control, divide, oppress and conquer for thousands of years.
Every person has the right to believe in whatever they so wish. But religion, government or politics should never be combined. Blame for wrongdoing should never be placed upon the Christians the Muslims the Jews the Catholics the Budists or any other other religion. The blame should be placed upon the individual people who have committed crimes, acts of terrorism or war. If we as people could exclude religion from the world of politics and law we would all be better of.

Remember Religion is a personal choice it should have no bearing on ones opinion of others.

I personally cannot come to grips with the idea of faith my mind will not allow it but my mind cannot exclude either.


tlasalt

reply to post by ac3rr


Why do atheists feel a need to call belief a virus? Throughout the ages man has asked what there is besides himself, to ask if there was a creator. How is it more advanced to not ask the question? You must be smarter than everyone else in history. You asked the question and found your answer, fine, so why is it silly for others to ask the same question? You call it religion, it is people attempting to understand their existence and coming to answers they believe. Many people believe there is a consciousness outside of themselves that is more advanced, they call it God, why is that a problem?

At a minimum the greatest foolishness is to not ask the basic questions and peoples answers will vary and that is okay. The hostility towards different views is the virus. More people have been killed by atheists than by believers. Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, count the numbers. I do not accuse all atheists with being the same and the straw man of some wacko that claimed to be religious is a child's game to respond to. Let us address the real issue, is their a consciousness beyond our own and did it give us our consciousness. That is the question of God and we don't need to agree on the answer.

As an atheist I agree with the OP to some extent. Unfortunately in most cases (not all) it falls on deaf ears because of the very nature of faith. And while I strongly detest "organized" religion there are some community perks that come along with it. And I believe that is the toughest part for a lot of people to let go of. If there was a way to bottle the community aspects of religion without the spiritual element I feel it would be far easier to accept.

I try to stay out of these sorts of debates though because there is no easy win for either side and oft times feelings get hurt. Both sides can be quite zealous when it comes to pushing their factoids. And even atheist can blast out shoving their ideals down others throats, damning those of faith for doing exactly what they're doing to them - pot, kettle, black.

The way I feel about it is like so: beliefs (science and faith) are very personal and neither side should shove their indoctrinations down the other's throat. Offer enlightenment only when asked. Don't knock on my door with your ideals and I wont knock on yours with mine.

I myself am not an atheist, but i would have to agree with you religion is a terrible thing. rules and regulations on how to get into heaven, where in the bible does it say you have to work for salvation? nowhere at all. people turn the bible around for there own liking and beliefs god and the bible isn't the problem its religion.

Both you crack me up. SCIENCE proves that there is a religion center found in our brain, stronger in some, weaker in others. There is no evidence to suggest this is being bred out or getting weaker. In fact, science, trends, and history, all point to religion never being abolished unless you somehow wipe out the emotional centers of the brain and don't allow people to be diverse and have a contrary opinion to that of the mainstream. It seems to me you'r desire to see religion abolished is an emotional one, not based on facts or evidence, and contrary to all current evidence making it a simple belief, your own personal imaginary friend if you will.

Originally posted by Terrormaster
As an atheist I agree with the OP to some extent. Unfortunately in most cases (not all) it falls on deaf ears because of the very nature of faith. And while I strongly detest "organized" religion there are some community perks that come along with it. And I believe that is the toughest part for a lot of people to let go of. If there was a way to bottle the community aspects of religion without the spiritual element I feel it would be far easier to accept.

I try to stay out of these sorts of debates though because there is no easy win for either side and oft times feelings get hurt. Both sides can be quite zealous when it comes to pushing their factoids. And even atheist can blast out shoving their ideals down others throats, damning those of faith for doing exactly what they're doing to them - pot, kettle, black.

The way I feel about it is like so: beliefs (science and faith) are very personal and neither side should shove their indoctrinations down the other's throat. Offer enlightenment only when asked. Don't knock on my door with your ideals and I wont knock on yours with mine.

edit on 1/15/2011 by Terrormaster because: (no reason given)

I like your post and I am a Christian. The part I like the best is about not attempting to force people to believe what you believe; but, instead to give an answer when asked. Too many people have had bad experiences with people who claimed to love God. Rather than address the actions of the people that abused them, they blame it on the religion. The conversation about "God" from a philosophical position begins with simple questions rather than a discussion of history or bad people. It starts with the fact that we experience reality and our experience has an emotional response from within ourselves. That in and of itself is a miracle worthy of consideration, consciousness.

reply to post by AQuestion


A virus invades living cells and uses their chemical machinery to keep itself alive and to replicate itself. It may reproduce with fidelity or with errors.

A religious movement invades living areas and uses their missionaries to keep themselves powerful and to replicate itself. It may reproduce with fidelity or with errors.

That is the simplest way to describe why.

Originally posted by AQuestion
reply to post by ac3rr

 

Why do atheists feel a need to call belief a virus? Throughout the ages man has asked what there is besides himself, to ask if there was a creator.

A nobel path..it is good to ask questions, to want answers.

How is it more advanced to not ask the question?

It isn't, not asking questions is "tarded". An atheist btw is constantly asking and will not accept just any answer, but rather answers backed with proof. Atheists do not believe in God, because there is no proof of such a thing...should proof come that becomes obvious of a deity, then yep, time to re-examine that belief.

You must be smarter than everyone else in history. You asked the question and found your answer, fine,

Well, thats actually incorrect.
An atheist has asked the question (often repeatedly) and found only silence...so until the silence is interrupted with something, then the question remains completely open...the answer until then was the defacto answer before the question was asked...which is, no proof, therefore no belief.

so why is it silly for others to ask the same question?

You will find most religious people are not asking a question, they are repeating an answer with nothing to back up the claim. They refuse to question actually, which makes it a religion verses a simple speculation.

You call it religion, it is people attempting to understand their existence and coming to answers they believe.

The question is, how do they come to an answer with no proof?

Here is a great way to look at it. How do you know your spouse loves you? Well, it is said, but that could be a lie. You get gifts, you get sex, you get all sorts of things...no matter how much you get, you cannot truely know, but you make the final leap and simply accept they probably do love you and you believe it.
This is a acceptable way to believe something without some sort of undeniable proof, but even then, you may be wrong..(she could simply want a greencard )

Now, take the same concept...love. How do I know Pamela Anderson is not in love with me. She in this respect is God...she has given me no sex, no gifts, she has not spoken to me, etc etc etc...so why would I believe she is in love with me beyond simply wishing

Why believe in a deity that has not spoken or given anything, not a hug, not a word, not any proof of existance...yet believers believe in a deity that is loving them...why? (see...that is a question)

Many people believe there is a consciousness outside of themselves that is more advanced, they call it God, why is that a problem?

Define God and back up the definition with some science. Why not believe we are finger puppets for this deity? Why not believe that there is a consciousness outside of ourselves that harvest and eat souls once they die...we are simply food for the cosmic creator...nope, it has to be a love god with candy and gifts for everyone when they die.
Ask a believer what they believe God is...the creator...ask them if we could end up being the torture pets or food for such a creator whom is growing us the way a farmer raises chickens for the feast...they will find it offensive...yet there is equally, if not more "evidence" for such things as a loving Mr Candyman sky ghost wizard.

At a minimum the greatest foolishness is to not ask the basic questions and peoples answers will vary and that is okay. The hostility towards different views is the virus. More people have been killed by atheists than by believers. Mao,

Taoism

Stalin,

Communism attributes, but sure, lets accept that one

Hitler,

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/a9f34fe74f40.jpg[/atsimg]
Hitler was a STRONG Christian!
btw, that nazi belt buckle reads "God With Us".
Sorry mate, Hitler is one of yours.

Pol Pot,

Nope, Pol Pot was a Buddist..actually, his whole murderfest was under the guise that he was doing what heaven wanted him to do. He did not believe in a deity in the ways that say, a christian, views it...but he most certainly was under a religious ferver...

So you got 1. Stalin..the rest have an established religion..just by using -your- examples, already the body count is far higher for theists than atheists...and this is without mentioning the crusades, the inquisitions, the burnings, the purifications, and still before biblical accounts of "God" himself smiting and murdering people (to the tune of I think 33 million, give or take.)...and of course genocide,...terrorist attacks, etc

Do not go down the bodycount road...you will be exceptionally distressed with facts beyond chatter.

You appear to have been informed and fooled by the "Liars for Jesus" crew that take christians that did bad things and tossed them into the atheist barrel.

count the numbers. I do not accuse all atheists with being the same and the straw man of some wacko that claimed to be religious is a child's game to respond to. Let us address the real issue, is their a consciousness beyond our own and did it give us our consciousness. That is the question of God and we don't need to agree on the answer.

Good question, and yes, Someone like myself is highly curious about such a question...I call that general spirituality and speculation though...the day I say I have the objective truth of the universe...I do hope someone locks me up as either gone mad, or purposefully lying to get a profit off some suckers.

Oh, and a followup

Religion, in this day and age...is still needed

Some of us can live life doing good works because its how we want our world to be. We live by principles, a set of personal morals and ethics, and are happy and peaceful.

Some folks -require- a invisible boogieman to keep them in check. I have met the types before, the sub-genius's of society whom have no inner strength or principles..whom would murder a person for their money if they didn't fear eternal torment from a secret wizard watching them, like some sort of ultra santa claus that is making a naughty forever list.

If I came across something that without a doubt proved no deitys, I would personally sit on the information..or code it in such a way that only the very intelligent would come across this information...because unfortunately the average and below average need a deity, else all hell would indeed break loose.

The irony does not escape me

reply to post by SaturnFX


I will address only two points at this time. Pol Pot was a communist and an atheist. Now to the seminal point, proving God exists, don't need to. Prove he doesn't. You cannot. How funny. Prove that consciousness does not exist, or attempt to say that it is transitory. Give me the science behind that.

If you are not afraid to be truthful, I am more than willing to begin a very long thread proving the existence of God. It will begin with what we cannot ignore, our self awareness, it will take weeks to complete but will be intellectually unavoidable. Shall we begin?

Originally posted by AQuestion

Now to the seminal point, proving God exists, don't need to. Prove he doesn't. You cannot. How funny. Prove that consciousness does not exist, or attempt to say that it is transitory. Give me the science behind that.

Your right...I cannot prove deitys do not exist

You know what else I cannot prove does not exist?
Short list:
Ghosts
Aliens
Elves
Santa Clause
Tooth Fairy
Vampires
Werewolves
Monsters under someones bed
Dragons
Giants
Middle earth dwellers shaped like a teacup
Invisible Spagetti Monsters
Time Travellers
Zombies
Magic
Demigods
sub-atomic people
Leprecauns
Cloudmen
etc...

Now, some of the above mentioned things may in fact be true, but until some solid evidence is produced, then I don't think we should give tax exempt status for buildings founded on just a unproven belief...

And I think it would be way cooler to have "In Nosferatu We Trust" stamped across our money verses deitys...unless of course deitys use money also...in which case, maybe a honorable mention...but really, if a deity uses no money, then how can a capitalist society trust it anyhow...I mean, its putting nothing in for taxes yet takes up some seriously prime real estate for its bajillion houses.

Lets at least use some other mythos...I am fond of elven folklore, or zombies..we should have zombie churches or elven garden services...maybe they will show up if we build enough churches to them...

See the issue yet? (doubtful)

You cannot disprove a paranormal negative. That statement is flawed if your trying to say that because you cannot disprove it, we should therefore accept it...bah

active Atheism is a religion, we even have a first Church of Atheism, and Atheism is recognized as a religion by the United States government.

Atheism can not defeat "Love" and those atheists who try should be kept an eye on to some extent, by my "theistic" reasoning (which is majority) it is those who do not believe in love, or love their fellow human, to be the ones who exhibit the ability to do harm to others, and great harm as history has proven.

Originally posted by SaturnFX
You know what else I cannot prove does not exist?

but I, and many other people can prove to you "Love" exists, it is even something you can see.

in "fact" atheists know this already, I have had two atheists profess their belief in love just today...

how about you SFX ?

do you believe in love ?

Originally posted by AQuestion

I like your post and I am a Christian. The part I like the best is about not attempting to force people to believe what you believe; but, instead to give an answer when asked. Too many people have had bad experiences with people who claimed to love God. Rather than address the actions of the people that abused them, they blame it on the religion. The conversation about "God" from a philosophical position begins with simple questions rather than a discussion of history or bad people. It starts with the fact that we experience reality and our experience has an emotional response from within ourselves. That in and of itself is a miracle worthy of consideration, consciousness.

that's great, every conversation one tries to have with a professed atheist is always derailed and points avoided, or ends in multiple quoted replies with one liner responses supposedly making up an addressing answer.

did I mention the same tune is sung every time, along with the same images or graphs presented ?

it is the behavior of a charlatan imo...

Originally posted by SaturnFX

Originally posted by AQuestion

Now to the seminal point, proving God exists, don't need to. Prove he doesn't. You cannot. How funny. Prove that consciousness does not exist, or attempt to say that it is transitory. Give me the science behind that.

Your right...I cannot prove deitys do not exist

You know what else I cannot prove does not exist?
Short list:
Ghosts
Aliens
Elves
Santa Clause
Tooth Fairy
Vampires
Werewolves
Monsters under someones bed
Dragons
Giants
Middle earth dwellers shaped like a teacup
Invisible Spagetti Monsters
Time Travellers
Zombies
Magic
Demigods
sub-atomic people
Leprecauns
Cloudmen
etc...

Now, some of the above mentioned things may in fact be true, but until some solid evidence is produced, then I don't think we should give tax exempt status for buildings founded on just a unproven belief...

And I think it would be way cooler to have "In Nosferatu We Trust" stamped across our money verses deitys...unless of course deitys use money also...in which case, maybe a honorable mention...but really, if a deity uses no money, then how can a capitalist society trust it anyhow...I mean, its putting nothing in for taxes yet takes up some seriously prime real estate for its bajillion houses.

Lets at least use some other mythos...I am fond of elven folklore, or zombies..we should have zombie churches or elven garden services...maybe they will show up if we build enough churches to them...

See the issue yet? (doubtful)

You cannot disprove a paranormal negative. That statement is flawed if your trying to say that because you cannot disprove it, we should therefore accept it...bah

Deceptive comments at best. Lets address them one by one. Firstly you discuss things you cannot prove and of what value is that? I am confused you can't seem to prove anything and this means what? You answer with some silliness about tax status, what are you responding to, I never discussed tax status nor do I care about it. You evade the issues because the issues destroy your argument.

You proceed into some nonsensical discussion about money and dieties, why? God never asked for our money, this is worldly stupidity. You attempt to equate God with zombies, God is the question, zombies are a story. Nobody ever claimed that zombies were God. Straw men are garbage. You follow up with putting words in my mouth that will not fit. I didn't say that because you could not prove he didn't exist that you had to accept that he did, that is not truthful and my words are written. I said it is worth asking the question.

Now lets address your position. You say that because people believe (children) in Santa Clause that God does not exist. Well if people believe in Barak Obama does that mean God does exist. You logic is nonsensical. You did not address the questions I presented you with, you picked one. Does consciousness exist? Answer that and we begin.

Originally posted by Noncompatible
reply to post by AQuestion

 

A virus invades living cells and uses their chemical machinery to keep itself alive and to replicate itself. It may reproduce with fidelity or with errors.

A religious movement invades living areas and uses their missionaries to keep themselves powerful and to replicate itself. It may reproduce with fidelity or with errors.

That is the simplest way to describe why.

Invades? What is wrong with you, people with beliefs do not invade, they exist. You argue against people saying what they believe. What is wrong with you? Do you not attempt to explain yourself to others, explain your beliefs? You think that beliefs about God are different? A virus is not alive, life grows and that means that it attempts to find nutrition and support. Viruses do not seek support. If you will use an analogy at least bother to make it relevant. I will agree with one thing, your answer was the simplest and that is where you are coming from, simple. Not truthful, lazy and simple.

Originally posted by AQuestion

Deceptive comments at best. Lets address them one by one. Firstly you discuss things you cannot prove and of what value is that? I am confused you can't seem to prove anything and this means what? You answer with some silliness about tax status, what are you responding to, I never discussed tax status nor do I care about it. You evade the issues because the issues destroy your argument.

The tax status is relevant
What is the difference between open speculation on fairys verses open speculation on deitys? deitys get special treatment from government. That is relevant..especially when you see it as equal to a fairy myth..they get tax exempt status, they get mention on currency, they get mentioned at offical government meetings (that my tax dollars go to support), etc. This is why religion is looked at as critically, because everyones tax dollars is going towards supporting some form of a unproven thing...transfer the word God with Fairy Godmother and you will find it offensive...because you don't believe in fairy godmothers...now you know how an atheist views things...because we do not believe in a God...it is equal...and how officals push this fairy godmother meme (God) onto everyone is in my opinion, outside of their function.

You proceed into some nonsensical discussion about money and dieties, why? God never asked for our money, this is worldly stupidity. You attempt to equate God with zombies, God is the question, zombies are a story. Nobody ever claimed that zombies were God. Straw men are garbage. You follow up with putting words in my mouth that will not fit. I didn't say that because you could not prove he didn't exist that you had to accept that he did, that is not truthful and my words are written. I said it is worth asking the question.

Again with the tax thing, I refer you to what was above.
As far as zombies are a story...actually, I can point to many examples in the bible about zombies (walking dead...saints will rise, etc). Both in my view are equal storys.
As far as a greater order in the universe or multiverse...I quite enjoy speculation on the possibility..I would like to think there is some sort of meaning behind everything on some scale, I simply am opposed to deitys in regards to the religions we have on the world today. a box cutout personal deity whom gets grumpy if you imagine your neighbor nude...to me, that is not divinity, that is mind control through fear.

If I use the term "God" to discuss and speculate on a order in the universe or multiverse..just as pure speculation, immediately most people on planet earth start associating it to some nonsense religion

My personal consideration...God is to man, what man is to a quark. totally oblivious to its existance, yet potentially part of the greater whole...but again, sheer speculation...not a ounce of "truth" to it...just a consideration I like to entertain. Would I like to find out a truth? sure...I like truth..truth is cool..but I won't get frustrated and simply resort to a religion to answer all my questions nice and easy. That is stopping looking for answers, not accepting anything.

Now lets address your position. You say that because people believe (children) in Santa Clause that God does not exist. Well if people believe in Barak Obama does that mean God does exist. You logic is nonsensical. You did not address the questions I presented you with, you picked one. Does consciousness exist? Answer that and we begin.

No, I am saying that if people accept something without any substance or proof, why not accept anything with equal non-proof.
Barack Obama is a real person...you can measure him, touch him, etc...his existance has no relation to if something else (a deity) exists...that is nonsense.

I was discussing belief without any proof.

Some would say that if you have proof, then belief is not necessary. This is not true because we never get all the proof needed. I believe that the world is sort of spherical, somewhat oblong in the middle because we have proof to back it up, however, in 100 years, we may find due to even better tools, it is not that shape at all,but rather maybe rippled layers due to electromagnetic waves giving subtle shapes we cannot detect currently, however, because we have the proof we have today, its safe to believe in the current understanding of the shape...open to rearrange our understanding and belief when more proof roles in that is different.

Hopefully that clears it all up for you