People are not born atheist. They decide they are just like they decide they are religious. Atheism is the "Belief" that there are no gods. You can't say it is proven because you can't prove it. And it isn't just not knowing of a god (agnostic). Atheism is strictly the belief that there is no God/Gods.
Whether you want to admit it or not it is a Belief, since it takes just as much "faith" to believe it as Religion does.
Currently playing: LOTRO & WoW (not much WoW though because Mines of Moria rocks!!!!)
Looking Foward too: Bioware games (Dragon Age & Star Wars The Old Republic)
People are not born atheist. They decide they are just like they decide they are religious. Atheism is the "Belief" that there are no gods. You can't say it is proven because you can't prove it. And it isn't just not knowing of a god (agnostic). Atheism is strictly the belief that there is no God/Gods.
Whether you want to admit it or not it is a Belief, since it takes just as much "faith" to believe it as Religion does.
What are u talking about man.
Be realistic.
When you were 5 y/o or even 10 y/o you didn't give a damn about God.
If your parents would not raise you as Cristian the chances that you could get spiritual would be very slim.
Most of the Religious involvement is due to the pressure that people around you put on you.
Faith is not something you are born with.
Faith either grow on you when you get older or just stay Atheist like many.
You don't choose to be Atheist, but you choose to be Religious.
People are not born atheist. They decide they are just like they decide they are religious. Atheism is the "Belief" that there are no gods. You can't say it is proven because you can't prove it. And it isn't just not knowing of a god (agnostic). Atheism is strictly the belief that there is no God/Gods.
Whether you want to admit it or not it is a Belief, since it takes just as much "faith" to believe it as Religion does.
You really didn't think about that one, did you? Maybe YOU were quoting scripture from the womb, but I didn't know a thing about god(s) until my parents told me about them when I could understand language. I was also told about Santa Claus, but no one seems to have a problem with me having no Santa Belief. It doesn't take "faith" to disbelieve the Easter Bunny.
While atheism may be said to be a lack of belief, it does then require another belief, that those who do believe in some kind of god are wrong. This can potentially provide the same kind of motivation as those who kill in the name of religion.
People are not born atheist. They decide they are just like they decide they are religious. Atheism is the "Belief" that there are no gods. You can't say it is proven because you can't prove it. And it isn't just not knowing of a god (agnostic). Atheism is strictly the belief that there is no God/Gods.
Whether you want to admit it or not it is a Belief, since it takes just as much "faith" to believe it as Religion does.
But we weren't talking about belief, we were talking about belief structure. Two dif. things.
If you consider belief as having choice I can see were you would be confused.
I don't believe there isn't a god. I know there isn't one.
Easiest way I can put it.
Every child is an athiest, and chooses to believe in god when given the ability to choose. If you're belief in god is a part of your upbringing and you never got to make a choice then you can choose to be an athiest and not believe in god.
I never made a decision. I have always, since birth, been an athiest. I didn't choose any belief, I am what I know. Therefore I have no belief. My parents would tell you the same about me. Even in sunday school, something I volentarilly choose to attend, I knew in my heart there was no god.
Most athiests don't even know what to believe, they just know that there isn't a god. That is hardly a structure of belief.
Or let me put it another way.
In the absence of god there is no belief. It may be hard for someone who believes in something to understand. Just take out god and any possibility of belief in one, and what are you left with?
Edit: It's also a little easier if you don't use belief as a state of mind or being, but as a simple word.
I know my girl loves me, and I BELIEVE her when she says she does, but I don't have any belief in her love. I don't believe in evolution, I know that evolution exists and believe that it is natural. I know my boss is a jerk, and I believe he can't help it. I know there is no god, but I don't believe that there is something else. I do know that with a little water, some UV light and hydrocarbons you can get life though.
So you are telling me that every child knows there is no god when they are born? Can you prove this? No I didn't think so. Not knowing of a god is not the same as knowing there is no god. To be an Atheist you must know there is NO God. Which no one knows. So in all honesty you can think you are an Atheist. You can Believe you are an Atheist, but you can not prove you are. Since you can not prove there is no god. Just like I can't prove there is one. So in reality both Atheism and Religion take the same blind faith to believe.
Currently playing: LOTRO & WoW (not much WoW though because Mines of Moria rocks!!!!)
Looking Foward too: Bioware games (Dragon Age & Star Wars The Old Republic)
So you are telling me that every child knows there is no god when they are born? Can you prove this? No I didn't think so. Not knowing of a god is not the same as knowing there is no god. To be an Atheist you must know there is NO God. Which no one knows. So in all honesty you can think you are an Atheist. You can Believe you are an Atheist, but you can not prove you are. Since you can not prove there is no god. Just like I can't prove there is one. So in reality both Atheism and Religion take the same blind faith to believe.
Depends what definition of "atheist" you are using. Many define it as just a lack of belief, in the same way that you (probably) don't believe in Santa, but can't prove that he doesn't exist, as opposed to (or as well as) a firm belief that there is no Santa. The first being "weak" atheism, the second being "strong". Most of the atheists on this site subscribe to the "lack of belief" definition when talking about themselves.
So you are telling me that every child knows there is no god when they are born? Can you prove this? No I didn't think so. Not knowing of a god is not the same as knowing there is no god. To be an Atheist you must know there is NO God. Which no one knows. So in all honesty you can think you are an Atheist. You can Believe you are an Atheist, but you can not prove you are. Since you can not prove there is no god. Just like I can't prove there is one. So in reality both Atheism and Religion take the same blind faith to believe.
Depends what definition of "atheist" you are using. Many define it as just a lack of belief, in the same way that you (probably) don't believe in Santa, but can't prove that he doesn't exist, as opposed to (or as well as) a firm belief that there is no Santa. The first being "weak" atheism, the second being "strong". Most of the atheists on this site subscribe to the "lack of belief" definition when talking about themselves.
Thank you.
You can lump athiests into two classes. Those that had religion and lost it and those that never had it to begin with. Belief has nothign to do with the later group and everything to do with the first group.
I have no belief because I have never had religion.
Cabe,
I almost lost my life to another man once. Guy tried to slit my throat. God never crossed my mind, and I didn't thank him to be alive when it was over. If I'm going to dought my own convictions, I would think that at time when life and death become very tangable things would be the time to do it, and I didn't.
Edit: Also a baby doesn't know it's asshole from it's elboe, how would it know about god? And it's provable. Some cultures don't believe in a god. And if you were born knowing a god then there wouldn't be converters.
While atheism may be said to be a lack of belief, it does then require another belief, that those who do believe in some kind of god are wrong. This can potentially provide the same kind of motivation as those who kill in the name of religion.
No man, you are wrong.
I personally do not give a fuck, if God exist or not.
I just don't care.
Of course on a philosophical point of view, if discussion arise, I like to discuss about God and his "existance".
But it has nothing to do with the fact I don't believe in it.
My point is that what I can't see it doesn't exists, it is something that can be applied to everything in life not only God.
When I discuss about God existence, I am not only discussing the religious subject, but I am generally discussing the fact that you cannot be sure that something exists, until you see it or have scientific proof.
That can be applied to a car, an animal or aliens.
The fact that in this case the subject is God, has nothing to do with the fact that I am technically Atheist.
Do you need faith to disprove that "flying pigs" exists?
I don't think so, the same applies for God.
EDIT: I just read your last post, and still don't agree.
There isn't such a thing like "harcore" or "Softcore" atheist.
It is funny that some people hijacked the word Atheism.
Yes there are some that live to disprove the existance of God, but they shouldn't be called Atheists.
If you read the dictionnary the meaning of the word Atheist is quite clear, it doesn't say anywhere that he is a person that want to disprove the existence of God.
Atheist is a person that doesn't believe in God. Let's keep it that way.
Please don't give words the wrong meaning otherwise we will keep discussing about hot air.
So you are telling me that every child knows there is no god when they are born? Can you prove this? No I didn't think so. Not knowing of a god is not the same as knowing there is no god. To be an Atheist you must know there is NO God. Which no one knows. So in all honesty you can think you are an Atheist. You can Believe you are an Atheist, but you can not prove you are. Since you can not prove there is no god. Just like I can't prove there is one. So in reality both Atheism and Religion take the same blind faith to believe.
Cabe please don't insult people intelligence.
It doesn't take faith to prove that God doesn't exists.
Have you ever met him/her/it?
Does anyone ever saw her/it/him?
Did it/she/he ever bothered to appear in front to human kind to prove he/it/she exists?
The answer is no.
So he/it/she, technically doesn't exist.
It takes faith to believe the opposite, because you have to make up theories on the reason why there is lack of sighting of this GOD, and that's what religion is.
Religion is the complete package that allows you to have the right tools to make something you cannot see, look credible.
It doesn't take Atheist any faith to prove God doesn't exist, because no one ever saw him/it/her and there is not certified proof of its existance.
Therefore like everything else you can't see or touch, he/she/it technically doesn't exists.
While atheism may be said to be a lack of belief, it does then require another belief, that those who do believe in some kind of god are wrong. This can potentially provide the same kind of motivation as those who kill in the name of religion.
No man, you are wrong.
I personally do not give a fuck, if God exist or not.
I just don't care.
Of course on a philosophical point of view, if discussion arise, I like to discuss about God and his "existance".
But it has nothing to do with the fact I don't believe in it.
My point is that what I can't see it doesn't exists, it is something that can be applied to everything in life not only God.
When I discuss about God existence, I am not only discussing the religious subject, but I am generally discussing the fact that you cannot be sure that something exists, until you see it or have scientific proof.
That can be applied to a car, an animal or aliens.
The fact that in this case the subject is God, has nothing to do with the fact that I am technically Atheist.
Do you need faith to disprove that "flying pigs" exists?
I don't think so, the same applies for God.
EDIT: I just read your last post, and still don't agree.
There isn't such a thing like "harcore" or "Softcore" atheist.
It is funny that some people hijacked the word Atheism.
Yes there are some that live to disprove the existance of God, but they shouldn't be called Atheists.
If you read the dictionnary the meaning of the word Atheist is quite clear, it doesn't say anywhere that he is a person that want to disprove the existence of God.
Atheist is a person that doesn't believe in God. Let's keep it that way.
Please don't give words the wrong meaning otherwise we will keep discussing about hot air.
In a previous posts, you have stated "Religion has being created by human mind to try to explain the meaning of life and why we are conscious." and "If you analyse the Bible with a logical mind, the whole christian religion would collapse." Are you saying that actuallly that's not something you believe? Other than that, I don't see how any of what you said applies to my quote, other than possibly to support it by attempting to claim the more logical position. It just takes one look at these forums to see that both atheists and theists believe the other to be equally wrong, and can get quite passionate about it.
In response to your edit, I wasn't just making stuff up off the top of my head. These are terms often used by atheists. Neither term has any bearing on whether a particular atheist pushes his views on others, or has any wish to prove or disprove his belief, but only on the nature of that belief (or lack thereof). In regards to dictionary definitions, I've see both lack of belief in the divine and belief that there is no god, as definitions - hence why people have started using "weak" and "strong" to clarify. Link
In a previous posts, you have stated "Religion has being created by human mind to try to explain the meaning of life and why we are conscious." and "If you analyse the Bible with a logical mind, the whole christian religion would collapse." Are you saying that actuallly that's not something you believe? Other than that, I don't see how any of what you said applies to my quote, other than possibly to support it by attempting to claim the more logical position. It just takes one look at these forums to see that both atheists and theists believe the other to be equally wrong, and can get quite passionate about it.
In response to your edit, I wasn't just making stuff up off the top of my head. These are terms often used by atheists. Neither term has any bearing on whether a particular atheist pushes his views on others, or has any wish to prove or disprove his belief, but only on the nature of that belief (or lack thereof). In regards to dictionary definitions, I've see both lack of belief in the divine and belief that there is no god, as definitions - hence why people have started using "weak" and "strong" to clarify. Link
Ok I re-quote what I said about the reason why I discuss those kind of subject.
Read it well because it answer your first dilemma.
Originally posted by ste2000
Of course on a philosophical point of view, if discussion arise, I like to discuss about God and his "existance".
But it has nothing to do with the fact I don't believe in it.
My point is that what I can't see it doesn't exists, it is something that can be applied to everything in life not only God.
When I discuss about God existence, I am not only discussing the religious subject, but I am generally discussing the fact that you cannot be sure that something exists, until you see it or have scientific proof.
That can be applied to a car, an animal or aliens.
The fact that in this case the subject is God, has nothing to do with the fact that I am technically Atheist.
I don't organise my life around trying to disprove the God exists.
But if the discussion arise, of course I will explain why I think he doesn't exists.
You guys are treating Atheism as a sort of anti-God, anti-religious movement, and that's not what it is.
It is just a word that define who don't believe in God, it is not an organization aimed to destroy religions.
You need to realise that.
If there are people that say they are Atheists and make conventions about the absurdity of religions, then they are just pseudo-scientists.
I am an Atheist and I will get offended to be put in the same league of those people.
They should create a new science and called themselves something different.
There is more to it than the existance of God. That's pretty much the least important element for me.
Religion is about community.
Social cohesion.
Providing common morality and a structured framework in which to celebrate our gains and mourn our loses. A way of living together in closer harmony. It's a social institution dedicated to the well being of mankind.
Historically, and even currently, religion has had an active policital role and manages many of the social systems that have been replaced in many societies by govenmental office. From education to social welfare.
If you are one of those rebels who thinks religion is evil, mental violence or responsable for many of the worlds wars etc., you have missed the point. Warts an all, it's primary motivation is to do good. Difference in nomination of god or actual existance of gods are sideshow, the importance is to recognise a power higher than yourself. Collectivism. A communism.
There is a god, because we need there to be one. Society needs a higher being. Someone that no matter how powerful you are is more powerful than you. That all most bow before even the mightiest emperor; and something that orders you to behave in a social manner. Hopefully God is a social bond stronger than greed. Stronger than avarice. Stronger than jealousy. Stronger than personal advantage.
Ammorality is a dangerous thing. To argue that there is no god misses the point.
Gods are good, even if they don't exist they still significantly benfit mankind. If you don't believe in god, you should still be able to see the benefits gained from having one. Trying to convince people there isn't one is self-defeating. Anti-social even.
There is more to it than the existance of God. That's pretty much the least important element for me.
Religion is about community. Social cohesion.
Providing common morality and a structured framework in which to celebrate our gains and mourn our loses. A way of living together in closer harmony. It's a social institution dedicated to the well being of mankind. Historically, and even currently, religion has had an active policital role and manages many of the social systems that have been replaced in many societies by govenmental office. From education to social welfare. If you are one of those rebels who thinks religion is evil, mental violence or responsable for many of the worlds wars etc., you have missed the point. Warts an all, it's primary motivation is to do good. Difference in nomination of god or actual existance of gods are sideshow, the importance is to recognise a power higher than yourself. Collectivism. A communism. There is a god, because we need there to be one. Society needs a higher being. Someone that no matter how powerful you are is more powerful than you. That all most bow before even the mightiest emperor; and something that orders you to behave in a social manner. Hopefully God is a social bond stronger than greed. Stronger than avarice. Stronger than jealousy. Stronger than personal advantage. Ammorality is a dangerous thing. To argue that there is no god misses the point. Gods are good, even if they don't exist they still significantly benfit mankind. If you don't believe in god, you should still be able to see the benefits gained from having one. Trying to convince people there isn't one is self-defeating. Anti-social even.
We don't need god(s). Because, if I understand you right, the reason we do need god(s) is to fear something and to drive us pathetic humans into acting correctly, otherwise it would all fall apart. We're not sheep, we're mostly harmless, and we don't need the boogeyman to scare us into submission. The majority of people avoid chaos in their lives. They don't run around murdering because they don't want to run the risk of being murdered themselves, having their family murdered in retribution, spending time in prison, and , through evolution, we're wired NOT to murder - we evolved as social creatures because we survive best as a group.
However, and just like we have today, some people do murder. It doesn't matter if there is some concept of god(s) in our society, or an evolved sense of society, we still have a few elements of chaos that occur on a daily basis - as our prisons can attest to.
We are doing fine, and would be fine, without any god(s). We're not born evil as the Bible tells us, have some "faith" in your fellow man and stop being afraid of the training wheels being removed.
So you are telling me that every child knows there is no god when they are born? Can you prove this? No I didn't think so. Not knowing of a god is not the same as knowing there is no god. To be an Atheist you must know there is NO God. Which no one knows. So in all honesty you can think you are an Atheist. You can Believe you are an Atheist, but you can not prove you are. Since you can not prove there is no god. Just like I can't prove there is one. So in reality both Atheism and Religion take the same blind faith to believe.
Cabe please don't insult people intelligence.
It doesn't take faith to prove that God doesn't exists.
Have you ever met him/her/it?
Does anyone ever saw her/it/him?
Did it/she/he ever bothered to appear in front to human kind to prove he/it/she exists?
The answer is no.
So he/it/she, technically doesn't exist.
It takes faith to believe the opposite, because you have to make up theories on the reason why there is lack of sighting of this GOD, and that's what religion is.
Religion is the complete package that allows you to have the right tools to make something you cannot see, look credible.
It doesn't take Atheist any faith to prove God doesn't exist, because no one ever saw him/it/her and there is not certified proof of its existance.
Therefore like everything else you can't see or touch, he/she/it technically doesn't exists.
God is the grown up version of Santa.
Can you disprove Santa exists?
No.
Does it mean that you believe in Santa?
I hope you don't....................
There are lots of things throughout history that Humans take as existing that they have never seen. Have you ever seen Gravity? Have you ever seen an Atom. Probably not. But you take the word of others who have seen it and experienced it. That is what the Bible is. It is a historical document that talks about God. I personally have never seen an African slave, that doesn't mean that I think they do not exist.
And to your Santa remarks he did Exist that is proven. He is based on real life person and people continue to give gifts based on his works. But I am open minded enough to know that there is a whole lot of stuff I do not know and there is a whole lot of stuff that mankind doesn't know. Just because Atheists choose to be narrow-minded and think that they know something that they can't possibly know, that is good for them. But there is no proof to back up their ideas.
Currently playing: LOTRO & WoW (not much WoW though because Mines of Moria rocks!!!!)
Looking Foward too: Bioware games (Dragon Age & Star Wars The Old Republic)
There is more to it than the existance of God. That's pretty much the least important element for me.
Religion is about community. Social cohesion.
Providing common morality and a structured framework in which to celebrate our gains and mourn our loses. A way of living together in closer harmony. It's a social institution dedicated to the well being of mankind. Historically, and even currently, religion has had an active policital role and manages many of the social systems that have been replaced in many societies by govenmental office. From education to social welfare. If you are one of those rebels who thinks religion is evil, mental violence or responsable for many of the worlds wars etc., you have missed the point. Warts an all, it's primary motivation is to do good. Difference in nomination of god or actual existance of gods are sideshow, the importance is to recognise a power higher than yourself. Collectivism. A communism. There is a god, because we need there to be one. Society needs a higher being. Someone that no matter how powerful you are is more powerful than you. That all most bow before even the mightiest emperor; and something that orders you to behave in a social manner. Hopefully God is a social bond stronger than greed. Stronger than avarice. Stronger than jealousy. Stronger than personal advantage. Ammorality is a dangerous thing. To argue that there is no god misses the point. Gods are good, even if they don't exist they still significantly benfit mankind. If you don't believe in god, you should still be able to see the benefits gained from having one. Trying to convince people there isn't one is self-defeating. Anti-social even.
We don't need god(s). Because, if I understand you right, the reason we do need god(s) is to fear something and to drive us pathetic humans into acting correctly, otherwise it would all fall apart. We're not sheep, we're mostly harmless, and we don't need the boogeyman to scare us into submission. The majority of people avoid chaos in their lives. They don't run around murdering because they don't want to run the risk of being murdered themselves, having their family murdered in retribution, spending time in prison, and , through evolution, we're wired NOT to murder - we evolved as social creatures because we survive best as a group.
However, and just like we have today, some people do murder. It doesn't matter if there is some concept of god(s) in our society, or an evolved sense of society, we still have a few elements of chaos that occur on a daily basis - as our prisons can attest to.
We are doing fine, and would be fine, without any god(s). We're not born evil as the Bible tells us, have some "faith" in your fellow man and stop being afraid of the training wheels being removed.
- Mal
Which is all fine and dandy if there is no "god", but of course that means that we have no purpose, we are all just an accident. Now if there is a "god" choosing to believe in one doesn't provide any harm to society. Much much more good has been done in the world in the name of "god", then evil that has been done in the name of "god". So if we weighed the good versus the bad on a scale the good that "god" has brought into the world would definitely outweigh the bad.
Currently playing: LOTRO & WoW (not much WoW though because Mines of Moria rocks!!!!)
Looking Foward too: Bioware games (Dragon Age & Star Wars The Old Republic)
In a previous posts, you have stated "Religion has being created by human mind to try to explain the meaning of life and why we are conscious." and "If you analyse the Bible with a logical mind, the whole christian religion would collapse." Are you saying that actuallly that's not something you believe? Other than that, I don't see how any of what you said applies to my quote, other than possibly to support it by attempting to claim the more logical position. It just takes one look at these forums to see that both atheists and theists believe the other to be equally wrong, and can get quite passionate about it.
In response to your edit, I wasn't just making stuff up off the top of my head. These are terms often used by atheists. Neither term has any bearing on whether a particular atheist pushes his views on others, or has any wish to prove or disprove his belief, but only on the nature of that belief (or lack thereof). In regards to dictionary definitions, I've see both lack of belief in the divine and belief that there is no god, as definitions - hence why people have started using "weak" and "strong" to clarify. Link
Ok I re-quote what I said about the reason why I discuss those kind of subject.
Read it well because it answer your first dilemma.
Originally posted by ste2000
Of course on a philosophical point of view, if discussion arise, I like to discuss about God and his "existance".
But it has nothing to do with the fact I don't believe in it.
My point is that what I can't see it doesn't exists, it is something that can be applied to everything in life not only God.
When I discuss about God existence, I am not only discussing the religious subject, but I am generally discussing the fact that you cannot be sure that something exists, until you see it or have scientific proof.
That can be applied to a car, an animal or aliens.
The fact that in this case the subject is God, has nothing to do with the fact that I am technically Atheist.
I don't organise my life around trying to disprove the God exists.
But if the discussion arise, of course I will explain why I think he doesn't exists.
You guys are treating Atheism as a sort of anti-God, anti-religious movement, and that's not what it is.
It is just a word that define who don't believe in God, it is not an organization aimed to destroy religions.
You need to realise that.
If there are people that say they are Atheists and make conventions about the absurdity of religions, then they are just pseudo-scientists.
I am an Atheist and I will get offended to be put in the same league of those people.
They should create a new science and called themselves something different.
That's not what real Atheism means.
I re-read your quote, and I'm looking at what your saying, and the only conclusion I can reach is that you haven't understood my point at all. I haven't said anything about atheists trying to disprove God's existance or being any part of some kind of anti-theism movement.
My point was that if we're saying that religion can be the direct or indirect cause of war due to ideological differences (the "I'm right, you're wrong" tribal mentality), then atheists cannot claim immunity from the same motivations.
My point of quoting your previous statements was not to accuse you of religion bashing, but to support my argument that a lack of belief in one thing, often means a belief in something else. So, "I don't believe in God" usually goes with such beliefs as "religion was invented by humans to explain the unexplainable" or "religion was invented by humans to be a tool of control" - in the same way as "I don't believe in Santa" goes with the belief, "my parents fill my stocking when I'm asleep", or "I don't believe there's a teapot orbiting Mars" goes with "I believe Bertrand Russell invented that concept to make a point in an argument".
To put the point directly at you in a simple manner, to demonstrate what I'm saying, if you believe that religions are man made, then do you, or do you not believe that religious people are wrong in their beliefs that their religion has come from God? If you believe that the bible is illogical and that it's the more logical position not to believe in a God you cannot see, are you, or are you not saying that you believe that religious people have illogical beliefs?
So, therefore we can see that, lack of belief in God --> belief in religion being man-made and illogical --> belief that religious people are illogical and wrong --> supposedly, the same kind of motives as those who have started wars "in the name of religion".
There is more to it than the existance of God. That's pretty much the least important element for me.
Religion is about community. Social cohesion.
Providing common morality and a structured framework in which to celebrate our gains and mourn our loses. A way of living together in closer harmony. It's a social institution dedicated to the well being of mankind. Historically, and even currently, religion has had an active policital role and manages many of the social systems that have been replaced in many societies by govenmental office. From education to social welfare. If you are one of those rebels who thinks religion is evil, mental violence or responsable for many of the worlds wars etc., you have missed the point. Warts an all, it's primary motivation is to do good. Difference in nomination of god or actual existance of gods are sideshow, the importance is to recognise a power higher than yourself. Collectivism. A communism. There is a god, because we need there to be one. Society needs a higher being. Someone that no matter how powerful you are is more powerful than you. That all most bow before even the mightiest emperor; and something that orders you to behave in a social manner. Hopefully God is a social bond stronger than greed. Stronger than avarice. Stronger than jealousy. Stronger than personal advantage. Ammorality is a dangerous thing. To argue that there is no god misses the point. Gods are good, even if they don't exist they still significantly benfit mankind. If you don't believe in god, you should still be able to see the benefits gained from having one. Trying to convince people there isn't one is self-defeating. Anti-social even.
We don't need god(s). Because, if I understand you right, the reason we do need god(s) is to fear something and to drive us pathetic humans into acting correctly, otherwise it would all fall apart. We're not sheep, we're mostly harmless, and we don't need the boogeyman to scare us into submission. The majority of people avoid chaos in their lives. They don't run around murdering because they don't want to run the risk of being murdered themselves, having their family murdered in retribution, spending time in prison, and , through evolution, we're wired NOT to murder - we evolved as social creatures because we survive best as a group.
However, and just like we have today, some people do murder. It doesn't matter if there is some concept of god(s) in our society, or an evolved sense of society, we still have a few elements of chaos that occur on a daily basis - as our prisons can attest to.
We are doing fine, and would be fine, without any god(s). We're not born evil as the Bible tells us, have some "faith" in your fellow man and stop being afraid of the training wheels being removed.
- Mal
Which is all fine and dandy if there is no "god", but of course that means that we have no purpose, we are all just an accident. Now if there is a "god" choosing to believe in one doesn't provide any harm to society. Much much more good has been done in the world in the name of "god", then evil that has been done in the name of "god". So if we weighed the good versus the bad on a scale the good that "god" has brought into the world would definitely outweigh the bad.
So, without god(s) we should just kill ourselves, because what is the point, right? Well, in the interest of not ending the only life I will ever have, I would prefer to think that I find my own purpose. I don't need the goals that a bunch of tribesmen 2000+ years ago laid down for me in their holy book. I'm pretty sure I'm more creative than they are. Just because you don't have a storybook ending (we'll call it Heaven), doesn't mean you don't go through with the journey.
I'm okay with being an "accident", because it doesn't matter to me. It doesn't change a single thing in my life to have that realization. I still write, I still enjoy games, I still hang out with my friends... ya know, I've known I was an accident for a long time now, and it hasn't made a single dent in my life. Maybe I'm stronger than all of society, but I really, really doubt it.
A belief in god(s) has done plenty of harm, plenty of good, and random acts of non-god driven kindness have done the most.
People are not born atheist. They decide they are just like they decide they are religious. Atheism is the "Belief" that there are no gods. You can't say it is proven because you can't prove it. And it isn't just not knowing of a god (agnostic). Atheism is strictly the belief that there is no God/Gods.
Whether you want to admit it or not it is a Belief, since it takes just as much "faith" to believe it as Religion does.
I think Maledicta raises some really interesting points, and I would read his posts closely to obtain a closer meaning of the sort of atheism most people subscribe to.
Do you think it's just chance that so children overwhelmingly join the religion of their parents? It isn't. Children don't know what God is or even have a concept of a deity until their parents or society in general instructs them. Similarly, children don't really have an understanding of politics when very young. I'll even pull Dawkins out here: "Would you refer to a child as Communist or Tory?" Of course not. Children cannot judge these beliefs and are incapable of rationally examining them until much later. Similarly, we should hear, instead of "a Christian child," "a child whose parents are Christian." Children are overwhelmingly indoctrinated into the religions of their parents.
This does not mean that children are naturally atheist or areligious. Children may themselves invent concepts of God or Gods independently of rational religion -- inventing religions and gods seems natural to the human condition (though it says nothing of such entities existences). But to say that they would invent the Christian God is patently ridiculous.
Agnosticism means that you don't think there is enough evidence to judge one way or the other about God's existence. Atheism is not a belief itself, but a lack of belief. You believe there is a God: I have no such belief. I do NOT believe in no God. It is possible God exists, but if he does there is a startling lack of evidence as to this fact, and also even more lack of evidence as to which God it is that exists.
Anyhow, I think Maledicta already said everything I said here, and probably more concisely. I just figured it couldn't hurt to reiterate it.
Originally posted by Cabe2323There are lots of things throughout history that Humans take as existing that they have never seen. Have you ever seen Gravity? Have you ever seen an Atom. Probably not. But you take the word of others who have seen it and experienced it. That is what the Bible is. It is a historical document that talks about God. I personally have never seen an African slave, that doesn't mean that I think they do not exist. And to your Santa remarks he did Exist that is proven. He is based on real life person and people continue to give gifts based on his works. But I am open minded enough to know that there is a whole lot of stuff I do not know and there is a whole lot of stuff that mankind doesn't know. Just because Atheists choose to be narrow-minded and think that they know something that they can't possibly know, that is good for them. But there is no proof to back up their ideas.
You can see pictures of atoms and observe their interactions in the world at large, either through an electronic microscope or by visiting a nuclear power plant. These places don't run on magic, and the kinds of science that they use are extremely well-documented and understood. It's not faith -- or, at least, the same kind of faith -- to believe in electricity as it is to believe in God. While you will probably never see electricity (except for a few sparks) in your entire life, that doesn't mean it can't shock you. Similarly, multiple historical accounts of slavery in the United States exist.
Conversely, the Bible is the only source for the information it contains. It cannot be independently verified from other sources so we cannot really treat it as unbiased historical narrative. Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_and_history for a better discussion of this topic. But let's presume your right and that the Bible is the literal truth of God. Even if it was true at one point, it was an oral tradition for centuries and is certainly, at this point, highly inaccurate -- not even accounting for numerous copyist mistakes and mistranslations. I think it would be difficult to argue that, if it were a divine book, the messages contained therein are accurate to the original. Coupling the probable textual inaccuracies with the unlikelihood of the book's authenticity, I think an observer would doubt that the Bible is literal truth, or even authored by God.
Anyhow, atheists don't need proof: it's logically impossible to prove a negative. If I told you that little green goblins where constantly rearranging the furniture right outside your field of vision, would the burden of proof be on you to disprove my ludicrous theory? Of course not: I would have to prove that the goblins were there. Similarly, atheists are not making an assertion here. We aren't saying that God exists, and we aren't saying that God doesn't exist. We're saying that until there is evidence to believe in God it seems logical to think that he doesn't exist. It is the duty of the theist to provide evidence that the atheist finds palatable.
I will even make this easy for you. I am skeptical, but I am not unreasonable. If you can give me evidence of God's existence -- incontrovertible proof that He has intervened in the affairs of humanity, as documented by unbiased historians and other observers -- I will happily accept his existence. All I wait for is proof. (Of course, then I'd need further proof that your God is actually the Christian God, and not, say, Zeus, but we can cross that bridge when we come to it.)
There is more to it than the existance of God. That's pretty much the least important element for me. Religion is about community. Social cohesion. Providing common morality and a structured framework in which to celebrate our gains and mourn our loses. A way of living together in closer harmony. It's a social institution dedicated to the well being of mankind. Historically, and even currently, religion has had an active policital role and manages many of the social systems that have been replaced in many societies by govenmental office. From education to social welfare. If you are one of those rebels who thinks religion is evil, mental violence or responsable for many of the worlds wars etc., you have missed the point. Warts an all, it's primary motivation is to do good. Difference in nomination of god or actual existance of gods are sideshow, the importance is to recognise a power higher than yourself. Collectivism. A communism. There is a god, because we need there to be one. Society needs a higher being. Someone that no matter how powerful you are is more powerful than you. That all most bow before even the mightiest emperor; and something that orders you to behave in a social manner. Hopefully God is a social bond stronger than greed. Stronger than avarice. Stronger than jealousy. Stronger than personal advantage. Ammorality is a dangerous thing. To argue that there is no god misses the point. Gods are good, even if they don't exist they still significantly benfit mankind. If you don't believe in god, you should still be able to see the benefits gained from having one. Trying to convince people there isn't one is self-defeating. Anti-social even.
I think the contention that religion's "primary purpose" is to do good is at least arguable. Most religions' primary purpose (like any good meme) is to ensure their own propagation. Religions are amazingly good at this, because they spread directly to children who are not equipped with the mental faculties to reasonably doubt them -- and also, religions are delivered to children by people in authority, their parents or priests, who they trust implicitly. They have no reason to doubt religions, and so as they grow older never question their initial cherished beliefs.
This is probably why religions are so prevalent amongst humans, and also so difficult to exterminate. People come up with a variety of good beliefs (when it is cloudy, it will probably rain) and bad ones (when the earth rumbles, it is the footsteps of giants in the underworld). The good ones survive because they are demonstrably beneficial, but the bad ones ride their coattails as they become conglomerated into a system of beliefs that becomes difficult to dismiss. Why do bad ones come about? They make good stories, or people want to believe that each event has a cause that they can identify, and so they do. When passed from adults to children these stories become beliefs and eventual form religions.
I don't want to sound like a cultural evolutionist here, though. Suffice it to say I think ideas like the afterlife, prevalent in many religions despite lack of evidence, points to a similarity in addressing certain questions that might have no (or very unpleasant) answers that humans desperately want answers to.
And I've always hated the idea of God as the Eternal Policeman. If that's true, why do we need corporeal law? And why, when corporeal law breaks down, do people commit crimes with impunity? (See, for example, the 1923 Victorian Police strike.) If most people are religions -- and they are -- and God is also the strongest social bond, why do we need police at all?
The idea essentially amounts to: we need God for laws. But when you take away laws, God isn't there to cover the gap. So, probably, we just need laws, and we don't need God for them. Happily we have a system of ethics probably selected for by evolution that strongly encourage following rules and engaging in non-violent group behavior. If we had to rely on God to come up with a system of values for us, well, let's just say that you would be stoning your daughter to death and killing your neighbors much more frequently than you would probably think.
The thing is that most if not all outspoken Atheists and Atheist groups (Just like most if not all outspoken religious groups are extremist) don't stop at just that there is no proof that "God" exists. They always take it one step further and say that "God" doesn't exist. When you make a statement like God doesn't exist then you need to have proof to back it up. Other then I have never seen him so he doesn't exist. That is like me saying Siberia doesn't exist, because I have never seen it. I have no problem at all with people who say "well I don't know, I don't think there is a God because I have never seen any proof of one". See the difference, when someone even in their own opinion says that there is no way that God exists it makes them sound ridiculous. Because Science can not prove that God doesn't exist. People are free to believe what they want to, but when you act like your beliefs make you better then other people (and I am talking about both Atheists and Religious people) it does nothing but make you look like a complete idiot.
Currently playing: LOTRO & WoW (not much WoW though because Mines of Moria rocks!!!!)
Looking Foward too: Bioware games (Dragon Age & Star Wars The Old Republic)
The thing is that most if not all outspoken Atheists and Atheist groups (Just like most if not all outspoken religious groups are extremist) don't stop at just that there is no proof that "God" exists. They always take it one step further and say that "God" doesn't exist. When you make a statement like God doesn't exist then you need to have proof to back it up. Other then I have never seen him so he doesn't exist. That is like me saying Siberia doesn't exist, because I have never seen it. I have no problem at all with people who say "well I don't know, I don't think there is a God because I have never seen any proof of one". See the difference, when someone even in their own opinion says that there is no way that God exists it makes them sound ridiculous. Because Science can not prove that God doesn't exist. People are free to believe what they want to, but when you act like your beliefs make you better then other people (and I am talking about both Atheists and Religious people) it does nothing but make you look like a complete idiot.
Well, probably they're just taking a quick rhetorical shortcut here. Saying, "God doesn't exist," is pretty well equivalent, for most atheists, to saying, "There is no proof that God exists." Almost no one means, "I have proof that God doesn't exist." Technically speaking, I mean, you don't say, "There is no proof that unicorns exist." You merely say, "Unicorn's don't exist" and have done with it. You don't need to prove your assertion that unicorns don't exist, and no one reasonably thinks you're saying, "I have proof of unicorn's non-existence." Rather you would expect whoever challenged you that unicorns DO exist that they would have to provide proof of unicorn-existence.
This is the same thing that atheists have to do about religion.
I think that atheists might act superior because of the feeling that most other people are laboring under some kind of awful, mind-crippling disease or delusion that impairs their functionality and guides their actions. When someone says something like, "Homosexuality is wrong because the Bible says so," I personally feel nothing but the most profound pity for them. It's impossible to hate someone who is so obviously ignorant, brought up on the lies of their parents and whatever books they were taught to believe. It is easy to feel superior in cases like this, but we must remain careful to realize that nothing removes the sympathy of an opponent for an argument so efficiently as pity.
Comments
People are not born atheist. They decide they are just like they decide they are religious. Atheism is the "Belief" that there are no gods. You can't say it is proven because you can't prove it. And it isn't just not knowing of a god (agnostic). Atheism is strictly the belief that there is no God/Gods.
Whether you want to admit it or not it is a Belief, since it takes just as much "faith" to believe it as Religion does.
Currently playing:
LOTRO & WoW (not much WoW though because Mines of Moria rocks!!!!)
Looking Foward too:
Bioware games (Dragon Age & Star Wars The Old Republic)
What are u talking about man.
Be realistic.
When you were 5 y/o or even 10 y/o you didn't give a damn about God.
If your parents would not raise you as Cristian the chances that you could get spiritual would be very slim.
Most of the Religious involvement is due to the pressure that people around you put on you.
Faith is not something you are born with.
Faith either grow on you when you get older or just stay Atheist like many.
You don't choose to be Atheist, but you choose to be Religious.
That's it.
You really didn't think about that one, did you? Maybe YOU were quoting scripture from the womb, but I didn't know a thing about god(s) until my parents told me about them when I could understand language. I was also told about Santa Claus, but no one seems to have a problem with me having no Santa Belief. It doesn't take "faith" to disbelieve the Easter Bunny.
- Mal
While atheism may be said to be a lack of belief, it does then require another belief, that those who do believe in some kind of god are wrong. This can potentially provide the same kind of motivation as those who kill in the name of religion.
But we weren't talking about belief, we were talking about belief structure. Two dif. things.
If you consider belief as having choice I can see were you would be confused.
I don't believe there isn't a god. I know there isn't one.
Easiest way I can put it.
Every child is an athiest, and chooses to believe in god when given the ability to choose. If you're belief in god is a part of your upbringing and you never got to make a choice then you can choose to be an athiest and not believe in god.
I never made a decision. I have always, since birth, been an athiest. I didn't choose any belief, I am what I know. Therefore I have no belief. My parents would tell you the same about me. Even in sunday school, something I volentarilly choose to attend, I knew in my heart there was no god.
Most athiests don't even know what to believe, they just know that there isn't a god. That is hardly a structure of belief.
Or let me put it another way.
In the absence of god there is no belief. It may be hard for someone who believes in something to understand. Just take out god and any possibility of belief in one, and what are you left with?
Edit: It's also a little easier if you don't use belief as a state of mind or being, but as a simple word.
I know my girl loves me, and I BELIEVE her when she says she does, but I don't have any belief in her love. I don't believe in evolution, I know that evolution exists and believe that it is natural. I know my boss is a jerk, and I believe he can't help it. I know there is no god, but I don't believe that there is something else. I do know that with a little water, some UV light and hydrocarbons you can get life though.
Wish Darkfall would release.
So you are telling me that every child knows there is no god when they are born? Can you prove this? No I didn't think so. Not knowing of a god is not the same as knowing there is no god. To be an Atheist you must know there is NO God. Which no one knows. So in all honesty you can think you are an Atheist. You can Believe you are an Atheist, but you can not prove you are. Since you can not prove there is no god. Just like I can't prove there is one. So in reality both Atheism and Religion take the same blind faith to believe.
Currently playing:
LOTRO & WoW (not much WoW though because Mines of Moria rocks!!!!)
Looking Foward too:
Bioware games (Dragon Age & Star Wars The Old Republic)
Depends what definition of "atheist" you are using. Many define it as just a lack of belief, in the same way that you (probably) don't believe in Santa, but can't prove that he doesn't exist, as opposed to (or as well as) a firm belief that there is no Santa. The first being "weak" atheism, the second being "strong". Most of the atheists on this site subscribe to the "lack of belief" definition when talking about themselves.
Depends what definition of "atheist" you are using. Many define it as just a lack of belief, in the same way that you (probably) don't believe in Santa, but can't prove that he doesn't exist, as opposed to (or as well as) a firm belief that there is no Santa. The first being "weak" atheism, the second being "strong". Most of the atheists on this site subscribe to the "lack of belief" definition when talking about themselves.
Thank you.
You can lump athiests into two classes. Those that had religion and lost it and those that never had it to begin with. Belief has nothign to do with the later group and everything to do with the first group.
I have no belief because I have never had religion.
Cabe,
I almost lost my life to another man once. Guy tried to slit my throat. God never crossed my mind, and I didn't thank him to be alive when it was over. If I'm going to dought my own convictions, I would think that at time when life and death become very tangable things would be the time to do it, and I didn't.
Edit: Also a baby doesn't know it's asshole from it's elboe, how would it know about god? And it's provable. Some cultures don't believe in a god. And if you were born knowing a god then there wouldn't be converters.
Wish Darkfall would release.
No man, you are wrong.
I personally do not give a fuck, if God exist or not.
I just don't care.
Of course on a philosophical point of view, if discussion arise, I like to discuss about God and his "existance".
But it has nothing to do with the fact I don't believe in it.
My point is that what I can't see it doesn't exists, it is something that can be applied to everything in life not only God.
When I discuss about God existence, I am not only discussing the religious subject, but I am generally discussing the fact that you cannot be sure that something exists, until you see it or have scientific proof.
That can be applied to a car, an animal or aliens.
The fact that in this case the subject is God, has nothing to do with the fact that I am technically Atheist.
Do you need faith to disprove that "flying pigs" exists?
I don't think so, the same applies for God.
EDIT: I just read your last post, and still don't agree.
There isn't such a thing like "harcore" or "Softcore" atheist.
It is funny that some people hijacked the word Atheism.
Yes there are some that live to disprove the existance of God, but they shouldn't be called Atheists.
If you read the dictionnary the meaning of the word Atheist is quite clear, it doesn't say anywhere that he is a person that want to disprove the existence of God.
Atheist is a person that doesn't believe in God. Let's keep it that way.
Please don't give words the wrong meaning otherwise we will keep discussing about hot air.
Cabe please don't insult people intelligence.
It doesn't take faith to prove that God doesn't exists.
Have you ever met him/her/it?
Does anyone ever saw her/it/him?
Did it/she/he ever bothered to appear in front to human kind to prove he/it/she exists?
The answer is no.
So he/it/she, technically doesn't exist.
It takes faith to believe the opposite, because you have to make up theories on the reason why there is lack of sighting of this GOD, and that's what religion is.
Religion is the complete package that allows you to have the right tools to make something you cannot see, look credible.
It doesn't take Atheist any faith to prove God doesn't exist, because no one ever saw him/it/her and there is not certified proof of its existance.
Therefore like everything else you can't see or touch, he/she/it technically doesn't exists.
God is the grown up version of Santa.
Can you disprove Santa exists?
No.
Does it mean that you believe in Santa?
I hope you don't....................
No man, you are wrong.
I personally do not give a fuck, if God exist or not.
I just don't care.
Of course on a philosophical point of view, if discussion arise, I like to discuss about God and his "existance".
But it has nothing to do with the fact I don't believe in it.
My point is that what I can't see it doesn't exists, it is something that can be applied to everything in life not only God.
When I discuss about God existence, I am not only discussing the religious subject, but I am generally discussing the fact that you cannot be sure that something exists, until you see it or have scientific proof.
That can be applied to a car, an animal or aliens.
The fact that in this case the subject is God, has nothing to do with the fact that I am technically Atheist.
Do you need faith to disprove that "flying pigs" exists?
I don't think so, the same applies for God.
EDIT: I just read your last post, and still don't agree.
There isn't such a thing like "harcore" or "Softcore" atheist.
It is funny that some people hijacked the word Atheism.
Yes there are some that live to disprove the existance of God, but they shouldn't be called Atheists.
If you read the dictionnary the meaning of the word Atheist is quite clear, it doesn't say anywhere that he is a person that want to disprove the existence of God.
Atheist is a person that doesn't believe in God. Let's keep it that way.
Please don't give words the wrong meaning otherwise we will keep discussing about hot air.
In a previous posts, you have stated "Religion has being created by human mind to try to explain the meaning of life and why we are conscious." and "If you analyse the Bible with a logical mind, the whole christian religion would collapse." Are you saying that actuallly that's not something you believe? Other than that, I don't see how any of what you said applies to my quote, other than possibly to support it by attempting to claim the more logical position. It just takes one look at these forums to see that both atheists and theists believe the other to be equally wrong, and can get quite passionate about it.
In response to your edit, I wasn't just making stuff up off the top of my head. These are terms often used by atheists. Neither term has any bearing on whether a particular atheist pushes his views on others, or has any wish to prove or disprove his belief, but only on the nature of that belief (or lack thereof). In regards to dictionary definitions, I've see both lack of belief in the divine and belief that there is no god, as definitions - hence why people have started using "weak" and "strong" to clarify. Link
In a previous posts, you have stated "Religion has being created by human mind to try to explain the meaning of life and why we are conscious." and "If you analyse the Bible with a logical mind, the whole christian religion would collapse." Are you saying that actuallly that's not something you believe? Other than that, I don't see how any of what you said applies to my quote, other than possibly to support it by attempting to claim the more logical position. It just takes one look at these forums to see that both atheists and theists believe the other to be equally wrong, and can get quite passionate about it.
In response to your edit, I wasn't just making stuff up off the top of my head. These are terms often used by atheists. Neither term has any bearing on whether a particular atheist pushes his views on others, or has any wish to prove or disprove his belief, but only on the nature of that belief (or lack thereof). In regards to dictionary definitions, I've see both lack of belief in the divine and belief that there is no god, as definitions - hence why people have started using "weak" and "strong" to clarify. Link
Ok I re-quote what I said about the reason why I discuss those kind of subject.
Read it well because it answer your first dilemma.
I don't organise my life around trying to disprove the God exists.
But if the discussion arise, of course I will explain why I think he doesn't exists.
You guys are treating Atheism as a sort of anti-God, anti-religious movement, and that's not what it is.
It is just a word that define who don't believe in God, it is not an organization aimed to destroy religions.
You need to realise that.
If there are people that say they are Atheists and make conventions about the absurdity of religions, then they are just pseudo-scientists.
I am an Atheist and I will get offended to be put in the same league of those people.
They should create a new science and called themselves something different.
That's not what real Atheism means.
There is more to it than the existance of God. That's pretty much the least important element for me.
Religion is about community.
Social cohesion.
Providing common morality and a structured framework in which to celebrate our gains and mourn our loses. A way of living together in closer harmony. It's a social institution dedicated to the well being of mankind.
Historically, and even currently, religion has had an active policital role and manages many of the social systems that have been replaced in many societies by govenmental office. From education to social welfare.
If you are one of those rebels who thinks religion is evil, mental violence or responsable for many of the worlds wars etc., you have missed the point. Warts an all, it's primary motivation is to do good. Difference in nomination of god or actual existance of gods are sideshow, the importance is to recognise a power higher than yourself. Collectivism. A communism.
There is a god, because we need there to be one. Society needs a higher being. Someone that no matter how powerful you are is more powerful than you. That all most bow before even the mightiest emperor; and something that orders you to behave in a social manner. Hopefully God is a social bond stronger than greed. Stronger than avarice. Stronger than jealousy. Stronger than personal advantage.
Ammorality is a dangerous thing. To argue that there is no god misses the point.
Gods are good, even if they don't exist they still significantly benfit mankind. If you don't believe in god, you should still be able to see the benefits gained from having one. Trying to convince people there isn't one is self-defeating. Anti-social even.
We don't need god(s). Because, if I understand you right, the reason we do need god(s) is to fear something and to drive us pathetic humans into acting correctly, otherwise it would all fall apart. We're not sheep, we're mostly harmless, and we don't need the boogeyman to scare us into submission. The majority of people avoid chaos in their lives. They don't run around murdering because they don't want to run the risk of being murdered themselves, having their family murdered in retribution, spending time in prison, and , through evolution, we're wired NOT to murder - we evolved as social creatures because we survive best as a group.
However, and just like we have today, some people do murder. It doesn't matter if there is some concept of god(s) in our society, or an evolved sense of society, we still have a few elements of chaos that occur on a daily basis - as our prisons can attest to.
We are doing fine, and would be fine, without any god(s). We're not born evil as the Bible tells us, have some "faith" in your fellow man and stop being afraid of the training wheels being removed.
- Mal
There are lots of things throughout history that Humans take as existing that they have never seen. Have you ever seen Gravity? Have you ever seen an Atom. Probably not. But you take the word of others who have seen it and experienced it. That is what the Bible is. It is a historical document that talks about God. I personally have never seen an African slave, that doesn't mean that I think they do not exist.Cabe please don't insult people intelligence.
It doesn't take faith to prove that God doesn't exists.
Have you ever met him/her/it?
Does anyone ever saw her/it/him?
Did it/she/he ever bothered to appear in front to human kind to prove he/it/she exists?
The answer is no.
So he/it/she, technically doesn't exist.
It takes faith to believe the opposite, because you have to make up theories on the reason why there is lack of sighting of this GOD, and that's what religion is.
Religion is the complete package that allows you to have the right tools to make something you cannot see, look credible.
It doesn't take Atheist any faith to prove God doesn't exist, because no one ever saw him/it/her and there is not certified proof of its existance.
Therefore like everything else you can't see or touch, he/she/it technically doesn't exists.
God is the grown up version of Santa.
Can you disprove Santa exists?
No.
Does it mean that you believe in Santa?
I hope you don't....................
And to your Santa remarks he did Exist that is proven. He is based on real life person and people continue to give gifts based on his works. But I am open minded enough to know that there is a whole lot of stuff I do not know and there is a whole lot of stuff that mankind doesn't know. Just because Atheists choose to be narrow-minded and think that they know something that they can't possibly know, that is good for them. But there is no proof to back up their ideas.
Currently playing:
LOTRO & WoW (not much WoW though because Mines of Moria rocks!!!!)
Looking Foward too:
Bioware games (Dragon Age & Star Wars The Old Republic)
We don't need god(s). Because, if I understand you right, the reason we do need god(s) is to fear something and to drive us pathetic humans into acting correctly, otherwise it would all fall apart. We're not sheep, we're mostly harmless, and we don't need the boogeyman to scare us into submission. The majority of people avoid chaos in their lives. They don't run around murdering because they don't want to run the risk of being murdered themselves, having their family murdered in retribution, spending time in prison, and , through evolution, we're wired NOT to murder - we evolved as social creatures because we survive best as a group.
However, and just like we have today, some people do murder. It doesn't matter if there is some concept of god(s) in our society, or an evolved sense of society, we still have a few elements of chaos that occur on a daily basis - as our prisons can attest to.
We are doing fine, and would be fine, without any god(s). We're not born evil as the Bible tells us, have some "faith" in your fellow man and stop being afraid of the training wheels being removed.
- Mal
Which is all fine and dandy if there is no "god", but of course that means that we have no purpose, we are all just an accident. Now if there is a "god" choosing to believe in one doesn't provide any harm to society. Much much more good has been done in the world in the name of "god", then evil that has been done in the name of "god". So if we weighed the good versus the bad on a scale the good that "god" has brought into the world would definitely outweigh the bad.
Currently playing:
LOTRO & WoW (not much WoW though because Mines of Moria rocks!!!!)
Looking Foward too:
Bioware games (Dragon Age & Star Wars The Old Republic)
One word.... YES!!!!
The only thing the World would be better off without is narrow-minded people. Everyone should keep an open mind and be willing to learn new things.
Currently playing:
LOTRO & WoW (not much WoW though because Mines of Moria rocks!!!!)
Looking Foward too:
Bioware games (Dragon Age & Star Wars The Old Republic)
In a previous posts, you have stated "Religion has being created by human mind to try to explain the meaning of life and why we are conscious." and "If you analyse the Bible with a logical mind, the whole christian religion would collapse." Are you saying that actuallly that's not something you believe? Other than that, I don't see how any of what you said applies to my quote, other than possibly to support it by attempting to claim the more logical position. It just takes one look at these forums to see that both atheists and theists believe the other to be equally wrong, and can get quite passionate about it.
In response to your edit, I wasn't just making stuff up off the top of my head. These are terms often used by atheists. Neither term has any bearing on whether a particular atheist pushes his views on others, or has any wish to prove or disprove his belief, but only on the nature of that belief (or lack thereof). In regards to dictionary definitions, I've see both lack of belief in the divine and belief that there is no god, as definitions - hence why people have started using "weak" and "strong" to clarify. Link
Ok I re-quote what I said about the reason why I discuss those kind of subject.
Read it well because it answer your first dilemma.
I don't organise my life around trying to disprove the God exists.
But if the discussion arise, of course I will explain why I think he doesn't exists.
You guys are treating Atheism as a sort of anti-God, anti-religious movement, and that's not what it is.
It is just a word that define who don't believe in God, it is not an organization aimed to destroy religions.
You need to realise that.
I re-read your quote, and I'm looking at what your saying, and the only conclusion I can reach is that you haven't understood my point at all. I haven't said anything about atheists trying to disprove God's existance or being any part of some kind of anti-theism movement.If there are people that say they are Atheists and make conventions about the absurdity of religions, then they are just pseudo-scientists.
I am an Atheist and I will get offended to be put in the same league of those people.
They should create a new science and called themselves something different.
That's not what real Atheism means.
My point was that if we're saying that religion can be the direct or indirect cause of war due to ideological differences (the "I'm right, you're wrong" tribal mentality), then atheists cannot claim immunity from the same motivations.
My point of quoting your previous statements was not to accuse you of religion bashing, but to support my argument that a lack of belief in one thing, often means a belief in something else. So, "I don't believe in God" usually goes with such beliefs as "religion was invented by humans to explain the unexplainable" or "religion was invented by humans to be a tool of control" - in the same way as "I don't believe in Santa" goes with the belief, "my parents fill my stocking when I'm asleep", or "I don't believe there's a teapot orbiting Mars" goes with "I believe Bertrand Russell invented that concept to make a point in an argument".
To put the point directly at you in a simple manner, to demonstrate what I'm saying, if you believe that religions are man made, then do you, or do you not believe that religious people are wrong in their beliefs that their religion has come from God? If you believe that the bible is illogical and that it's the more logical position not to believe in a God you cannot see, are you, or are you not saying that you believe that religious people have illogical beliefs?
So, therefore we can see that, lack of belief in God --> belief in religion being man-made and illogical --> belief that religious people are illogical and wrong --> supposedly, the same kind of motives as those who have started wars "in the name of religion".
We don't need god(s). Because, if I understand you right, the reason we do need god(s) is to fear something and to drive us pathetic humans into acting correctly, otherwise it would all fall apart. We're not sheep, we're mostly harmless, and we don't need the boogeyman to scare us into submission. The majority of people avoid chaos in their lives. They don't run around murdering because they don't want to run the risk of being murdered themselves, having their family murdered in retribution, spending time in prison, and , through evolution, we're wired NOT to murder - we evolved as social creatures because we survive best as a group.
However, and just like we have today, some people do murder. It doesn't matter if there is some concept of god(s) in our society, or an evolved sense of society, we still have a few elements of chaos that occur on a daily basis - as our prisons can attest to.
We are doing fine, and would be fine, without any god(s). We're not born evil as the Bible tells us, have some "faith" in your fellow man and stop being afraid of the training wheels being removed.
- Mal
Which is all fine and dandy if there is no "god", but of course that means that we have no purpose, we are all just an accident. Now if there is a "god" choosing to believe in one doesn't provide any harm to society. Much much more good has been done in the world in the name of "god", then evil that has been done in the name of "god". So if we weighed the good versus the bad on a scale the good that "god" has brought into the world would definitely outweigh the bad.
So, without god(s) we should just kill ourselves, because what is the point, right? Well, in the interest of not ending the only life I will ever have, I would prefer to think that I find my own purpose. I don't need the goals that a bunch of tribesmen 2000+ years ago laid down for me in their holy book. I'm pretty sure I'm more creative than they are. Just because you don't have a storybook ending (we'll call it Heaven), doesn't mean you don't go through with the journey.
I'm okay with being an "accident", because it doesn't matter to me. It doesn't change a single thing in my life to have that realization. I still write, I still enjoy games, I still hang out with my friends... ya know, I've known I was an accident for a long time now, and it hasn't made a single dent in my life. Maybe I'm stronger than all of society, but I really, really doubt it.
A belief in god(s) has done plenty of harm, plenty of good, and random acts of non-god driven kindness have done the most.
- Mal
I think Maledicta raises some really interesting points, and I would read his posts closely to obtain a closer meaning of the sort of atheism most people subscribe to.
Do you think it's just chance that so children overwhelmingly join the religion of their parents? It isn't. Children don't know what God is or even have a concept of a deity until their parents or society in general instructs them. Similarly, children don't really have an understanding of politics when very young. I'll even pull Dawkins out here: "Would you refer to a child as Communist or Tory?" Of course not. Children cannot judge these beliefs and are incapable of rationally examining them until much later. Similarly, we should hear, instead of "a Christian child," "a child whose parents are Christian." Children are overwhelmingly indoctrinated into the religions of their parents.
This does not mean that children are naturally atheist or areligious. Children may themselves invent concepts of God or Gods independently of rational religion -- inventing religions and gods seems natural to the human condition (though it says nothing of such entities existences). But to say that they would invent the Christian God is patently ridiculous.
Agnosticism means that you don't think there is enough evidence to judge one way or the other about God's existence. Atheism is not a belief itself, but a lack of belief. You believe there is a God: I have no such belief. I do NOT believe in no God. It is possible God exists, but if he does there is a startling lack of evidence as to this fact, and also even more lack of evidence as to which God it is that exists.
Anyhow, I think Maledicta already said everything I said here, and probably more concisely. I just figured it couldn't hurt to reiterate it.
You can see pictures of atoms and observe their interactions in the world at large, either through an electronic microscope or by visiting a nuclear power plant. These places don't run on magic, and the kinds of science that they use are extremely well-documented and understood. It's not faith -- or, at least, the same kind of faith -- to believe in electricity as it is to believe in God. While you will probably never see electricity (except for a few sparks) in your entire life, that doesn't mean it can't shock you. Similarly, multiple historical accounts of slavery in the United States exist.Conversely, the Bible is the only source for the information it contains. It cannot be independently verified from other sources so we cannot really treat it as unbiased historical narrative. Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_and_history for a better discussion of this topic. But let's presume your right and that the Bible is the literal truth of God. Even if it was true at one point, it was an oral tradition for centuries and is certainly, at this point, highly inaccurate -- not even accounting for numerous copyist mistakes and mistranslations. I think it would be difficult to argue that, if it were a divine book, the messages contained therein are accurate to the original. Coupling the probable textual inaccuracies with the unlikelihood of the book's authenticity, I think an observer would doubt that the Bible is literal truth, or even authored by God.
Anyhow, atheists don't need proof: it's logically impossible to prove a negative. If I told you that little green goblins where constantly rearranging the furniture right outside your field of vision, would the burden of proof be on you to disprove my ludicrous theory? Of course not: I would have to prove that the goblins were there. Similarly, atheists are not making an assertion here. We aren't saying that God exists, and we aren't saying that God doesn't exist. We're saying that until there is evidence to believe in God it seems logical to think that he doesn't exist. It is the duty of the theist to provide evidence that the atheist finds palatable.
I will even make this easy for you. I am skeptical, but I am not unreasonable. If you can give me evidence of God's existence -- incontrovertible proof that He has intervened in the affairs of humanity, as documented by unbiased historians and other observers -- I will happily accept his existence. All I wait for is proof. (Of course, then I'd need further proof that your God is actually the Christian God, and not, say, Zeus, but we can cross that bridge when we come to it.)
I think the contention that religion's "primary purpose" is to do good is at least arguable. Most religions' primary purpose (like any good meme) is to ensure their own propagation. Religions are amazingly good at this, because they spread directly to children who are not equipped with the mental faculties to reasonably doubt them -- and also, religions are delivered to children by people in authority, their parents or priests, who they trust implicitly. They have no reason to doubt religions, and so as they grow older never question their initial cherished beliefs.
This is probably why religions are so prevalent amongst humans, and also so difficult to exterminate. People come up with a variety of good beliefs (when it is cloudy, it will probably rain) and bad ones (when the earth rumbles, it is the footsteps of giants in the underworld). The good ones survive because they are demonstrably beneficial, but the bad ones ride their coattails as they become conglomerated into a system of beliefs that becomes difficult to dismiss. Why do bad ones come about? They make good stories, or people want to believe that each event has a cause that they can identify, and so they do. When passed from adults to children these stories become beliefs and eventual form religions.
I don't want to sound like a cultural evolutionist here, though. Suffice it to say I think ideas like the afterlife, prevalent in many religions despite lack of evidence, points to a similarity in addressing certain questions that might have no (or very unpleasant) answers that humans desperately want answers to.
And I've always hated the idea of God as the Eternal Policeman. If that's true, why do we need corporeal law? And why, when corporeal law breaks down, do people commit crimes with impunity? (See, for example, the 1923 Victorian Police strike.) If most people are religions -- and they are -- and God is also the strongest social bond, why do we need police at all?
The idea essentially amounts to: we need God for laws. But when you take away laws, God isn't there to cover the gap. So, probably, we just need laws, and we don't need God for them. Happily we have a system of ethics probably selected for by evolution that strongly encourage following rules and engaging in non-violent group behavior. If we had to rely on God to come up with a system of values for us, well, let's just say that you would be stoning your daughter to death and killing your neighbors much more frequently than you would probably think.
The thing is that most if not all outspoken Atheists and Atheist groups (Just like most if not all outspoken religious groups are extremist) don't stop at just that there is no proof that "God" exists. They always take it one step further and say that "God" doesn't exist. When you make a statement like God doesn't exist then you need to have proof to back it up. Other then I have never seen him so he doesn't exist. That is like me saying Siberia doesn't exist, because I have never seen it. I have no problem at all with people who say "well I don't know, I don't think there is a God because I have never seen any proof of one". See the difference, when someone even in their own opinion says that there is no way that God exists it makes them sound ridiculous. Because Science can not prove that God doesn't exist. People are free to believe what they want to, but when you act like your beliefs make you better then other people (and I am talking about both Atheists and Religious people) it does nothing but make you look like a complete idiot.
Currently playing:
LOTRO & WoW (not much WoW though because Mines of Moria rocks!!!!)
Looking Foward too:
Bioware games (Dragon Age & Star Wars The Old Republic)
This is the same thing that atheists have to do about religion.
I think that atheists might act superior because of the feeling that most other people are laboring under some kind of awful, mind-crippling disease or delusion that impairs their functionality and guides their actions. When someone says something like, "Homosexuality is wrong because the Bible says so," I personally feel nothing but the most profound pity for them. It's impossible to hate someone who is so obviously ignorant, brought up on the lies of their parents and whatever books they were taught to believe. It is easy to feel superior in cases like this, but we must remain careful to realize that nothing removes the sympathy of an opponent for an argument so efficiently as pity.