Atheists, my frustrations, and your opinions :P

[Viper]

The problem with 'believers' is that they think themselves so important that an all powerful being actually takes it's time to take care of each and anyone of them.
Now think about this: compared to insects, or let's say ants (to be more exact), are practically gods. Was there ever any human that took so much interest in them to the point of imposing his own moral system and monitoring each individual personally? I think not.

By me, religion, in most cases, is a complex system of (moral) laws that was needed in ancient times to separate humans from animals, or, to be more exact, to give them a reason to be civilized. And of course it worked.

As for me, I don't really care about this religion thing.

 

[Chakra-X]

Wrong. Atheist, by its very definition, is simply a label for those who do not believe, just as theist is a label for those who do. Do you require a belief that the tooth fairy isn't real? How about unicorns?.

The burden of proof is always on the one making the assertion. It requires no belief to not believe.

Agnostic is just someone who doesn't want to say either way. "Well I can't say either way if there's an easter bunny." That's an agnostic.

I always saw it that atheists asserted the claim that god does not exist, period. That's what they believed: an absence of a god. Theists of course believed in a god of some sort, while agnostics just simply "do not know". They are convinced on either side so they just plead ignorance.

But I also thought you'd get a hybrid of the two, like someone who absolutely does not believe in any of the gods created so far, but is still open to the idea of a ominpotent force/being.

 

[sub]

I always saw it that atheists asserted the claim that god does not exist, period. That's what they believed: an absence of a god. Theists of course believed in a god of some sort, while agnostics just simply "do not know". They are convinced on either side so they just plead ignorance.

But I also thought you'd get a hybrid of the two, like someone who absolutely does not believe in any of the gods created so far, but is still open to the idea of a ominpotent force/being.

That last one is what I am. I think it's called an agnostic-atheist, or weak atheist?

 

[Skiwan]

I think Jesus was making the point that to be either a theist or atheist, you commit yourself to an ideology. Which is perfectly true.

 

[En'me]

I resent that statement.

In a way atleast. I believe in my own interpretation of the Bible and not every scrap the church feeds me. Yet im still a christian. But i do not defy logic or anything like that.

Nothing wrong with faith providing you can use your own head for something else than the scraps feed to you by other people (yes this actually includes schools trying to make an obedient dog of the system from you)

New best friend!

 

[Almighty_Gir]

Wrong. Atheist, by its very definition, is simply a label for those who do not believe, just as theist is a label for those who do. Do you require a belief that the tooth fairy isn't real? How about unicorns?.

The burden of proof is always on the one making the assertion. It requires no belief to not believe.

Agnostic is just someone who doesn't want to say either way. "Well I can't say either way if there's an easter bunny." That's an agnostic.

Noun

Singular
atheist


Plural
atheists

atheist (plural atheists)

1. A person who does not believe that deities exist; one who lacks belief in gods.
* 2006, Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion, page 51:

Atheists do not have faith; and reason alone could not propel one to total conviction that anything definitely does not exist.

2. A person who believes that no deities exist; one who denies the existence of all gods.

[edit] Usage notes

* (person who does not believe that deities exist): Note the difference between the two senses. In general, those who identify themselves as atheists say they do not have a belief, while those who are believers identify atheists using the second sense, someone who denies the existence. This reflects the different underlying philosophies—the religious see belief or faith as valid; the non-religious do not. (This is the substance of the Dawkins quotation.)

 

[Pain]

I think Jesus was making the point that to be either a theist or atheist, you commit yourself to an ideology. Which is perfectly true.

To not believe in something requires absolutely no ideology. This is where a lot of people seem to be confused.

Do you really need an ideology to not believe in thor or zeus? Really?

1. A person who does not believe that deities exist; one who lacks belief in gods.
* 2006, Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion, page 51:

Atheists do not have faith; and reason alone could not propel one to total conviction that anything definitely does not exist.

2. A person who believes that no deities exist; one who denies the existence of all gods.

... Thanks for backing up what I said?

 

[Eon]

I always saw it that atheists asserted the claim that god does not exist, period. That's what they believed: an absence of a god. Theists of course believed in a god of some sort, while agnostics just simply "do not know". They are convinced on either side so they just plead ignorance.

But I also thought you'd get a hybrid of the two, like someone who absolutely does not believe in any of the gods created so far, but is still open to the idea of a ominpotent force/being.

Actually, the common conception of an "Atheist" is actually what a real Satanist is, Satanism actually does not worship the Christian dude Satan or anything, it's mainly about worshipping yourself and being a free thinker...while being a selfish prick.

You don't really find too many "HAIL SATAN!!!111" people.

 

[Dokutayuu]

You don't really find too many "HAIL SATAN!!!111" people.

A bunch of people I knew a while ago openly claimed they were satanists on a number of occasions. I'm not sure how committed they were though.

Satanist =/= Atheist though. There are probably a lot of people who think that but by my definition, an atheist neither believes or worships any kind of god. I'm assuming satanists worship Satan.

It is pretty impressive how an internet forum can have fairly educated discussions like this. Many other forums I've seen just went into flame wars after about a page.

 

[Skiwan]

To not believe in something requires absolutely no ideology. This is where a lot of people seem to be confused.

To completely deny the existence of any god is an ideology in itself. I hope I don't need to link you definitions of ideology ;\

 

[Disguise]

I don't think you can deny that God, however it exists, has had and still does have an impact on the world. So it's illogical to say God doesn't exist. But it's fair to say that the way people believe God doesn't exist, yet it falls into philosophical principle that you can't know what another person knows. That being the case, how can you say that their belief isn't true, since you cannot know what they know?

You start going into proofs here about what existance means. If I can use it, then it exists. That's exactly how God works as well. Whatever you believe is true, and to each their own.

Maybe God is our subconcious.

 

[Pain]

To completely deny the existence of any god is an ideology in itself. I hope I don't need to link you definitions of ideology ;\

Let's see what we can do with this.

To completely deny the existence of any mythical creature is an ideology in itself.

This is in essence what you're really saying, and as you can see, indeed, as any being capable or rational thought can see, it's quite a ridiculous claim to make.

But back to your original point. Allow me.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ideology

1. the body of doctrine, myth, belief, etc., that guides an individual, social movement, institution, class, or large group.
2. such a body of doctrine, myth, etc., with reference to some political and social plan, as that of fascism, along with the devices for putting it into operation.
3. Philosophy.
a. the study of the nature and origin of ideas.
b. a system that derives ideas exclusively from sensation.
4. theorizing of a visionary or impractical nature.

The only thing that comes close to what you're trying to say is philosophy. Not believing something doesn't require a philosophy either. "There's an invisible pixie behind you!"

Now, if you'd like to name a specific god instead of the broad mysterious god of the gaps that seems to be so popular around here, that is where ideology and philosophy can come in.

 

[sub]

I don't think you can deny that God, however it exists, has had and still does have an impact on the world. So it's illogical to say God doesn't exist. But it's fair to say that the way people believe God doesn't exist, yet it falls into philosophical principle that you can't know what another person knows. That being the case, how can you say that their belief isn't true, since you cannot know what they know?

You start going into proofs here about what existance means. If I can use it, then it exists. That's exactly how God works as well. Whatever you believe is true, and to each their own.

Maybe God is our subconcious.

I'm trying to say this in the nicest way possible, but I have no idea what you're talking about and none of that made sense.

 

[shadowcast]

Well I think of myself as an atheist..because I do not believe in any God of any religion, but what I do know not believe, that there is a higher force, and its the universe, everything around us (but dont say hah so you believe in something, no i do not have faith i do not believe but i use my logic to presume that there is a higher force, but not a force that over looks us but a force that just is...our minds as well as my mind cant comprehend what the universe really is, thats why we make up gods and religions, which in a sence isnt that bad of a thing.

Religion in my opinion was created to guide people because when the Bible was wrote crimes were existent yet moral was not....so you need something to scare the people...there comes God who is the watcher, punisher.

An atheist like me doesn't need a God to live morally yet alot people do need, so in theory religion is a good thing but in practice, its an ideology that is twisted and changed to serve someones purpose...its a tragedy how many lives were lost to the name of a certain God, how many people were enslaved, their lives and habits changed because they did not share the same faith.

 

[Skiwan]

Let's see what we can do with this.

This is in essence what you're really saying, and as you can see, indeed, as any being capable or rational thought can see, it's quite a ridiculous claim to make.

But back to your original point. Allow me.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ideology



The only thing that comes close to what you're trying to say is philosophy. Not believing something doesn't require a philosophy either. "There's an invisible pixie behind you!"

Now, if you'd like to name a specific god instead of the broad mysterious god of the gaps that seems to be so popular around here, that is where ideology and philosophy can come in.

My initial point was about atheists, but perhaps I was being too broad by selecting athiests, since an athiest could believe that we're all just on an atom in a giants foot etc/"insert your bull**** here". If you just want me to narrow it down, basically, people who say that there is no mystical explanation to how the world works, and firmly believe we are here by chance or whatever reason science gives, are following their own ideology.

I don't want to argue semantics about it, perhaps I used the wrong words, or was trying to use them in the wrong way, but my point is still valid, while it may have been imprecise.

It's just so amazing to see some people wildly attacking religion for all its faults while being so blind to see that their own beliefs are the nature behind their disgust and their prattling. It makes them no better in my book. While trying to prove people wrong is fun and all, when it comes down to what people believe, it's personal. No amount of words can dissuade somebody from what they believe to be true, and it's not only rude to try, but it's self serving and arrogant, and it perpetuates the same ****ing problem differing religions always had.

I'd rather have a nice day to day conversation with a devout christian than to have to listen to Richard Dawkins try and tell me about how everything in science proves there's no god. I've made up my mind already, now shut the **** up and lets get along with each other.

 

[Disguise]

I'm trying to say this in the nicest way possible, but I have no idea what you're talking about and none of that made sense.

lol I'll simplify it.

How can you say that someone else's beliefs are wrong if you aren't them and you don't know what they know? People think, act, and have different experiences in life.

How can you also say that God doesn't exist, if God obviously has a historical and continual impact on the world today? To say he doesn't exist is to say that it's all made up, and if God is made up, then who's to say everything anyone believes is also not made up? If God has no truth to it, then what does?

Science is all action and reaction. I eat too much, I'll get fat, and here's why. Does that say anything about what we believe though? We understand the human mind is as much as we understand what a galaxy is.

I guess I'm just trying to argue that people shouldn't be so absolute with how they see things. One man can draw a Mona Lisa, another can build a bridge. They have similarities, but they're different. They should never try to compare whose talents are better unless they want to show how foolish they are.

To the Atheists: Do you really think your beliefs are greater than something that doesn't exist? Now that's an illusion.

Btw Sub, when I say you, I don't mean you.

 

[Sicron]

lol I'll simplify it.

How can you say that someone else's beliefs are wrong if you aren't them and you don't know what they know? People think, act, and have different experiences in life.

How can you also say that God doesn't exist, if God obviously has a historical and continual impact on the world today? To say he doesn't exist is to say that it's all made up, and if God is made up, then who's to say everything anyone believes is also not made up? If God has no truth to it, then what does?

Science is all action and reaction. I eat too much, I'll get fat, and here's why. Does that say anything about what we believe though? We understand the human mind is as much as we understand what a galaxy is.

I guess I'm just trying to argue that people shouldn't be so absolute with how they see things. One man can draw a Mona Lisa, another can build a bridge. They have similarities, but they're different. They should never try to compare whose talents are better unless they want to show how foolish they are.

To the Atheists: Do you really think your beliefs are greater than something that doesn't exist? Now that's an illusion.

Btw Sub, when I say you, I don't mean you.

To those people, God may exist in the same way I have a really hot girl sitting next to me here, her name is Samantha...she's my imaginary friend.

God exists in the hearts and souls of people, you can't deny that. It...or He, exists as a common entity among all believers, as a common belief. But not any of them can give any hard proof that he really exists or has existed. The few that do think they can prove he exists can only name passages of the bible and their 'expierences' with God. But the bible is probably the most unreliable source of information ever made, even worse than Wikipedia. There is absolutely no proof at all in the bible that the stories are genuine and not made up by some half-assed drunken guy going by the name Gunther.

I'm drifting away here, but the question is. What is your definition of 'God' then? A true superhuman, omnipotent, higher deity or is he a belief many humans share, a sign of hope and fear?

 

[MC]

What is your definition of 'God' then?

Bingo.

How can anyone prove the existence of God without first taking the necessary step in defining what "God" is?

 

[DJ-Ready]

Oh god I laughed so hard



The Bible was written by the Romans to control the peasant workers. Eve is designed to teach women of their role in life- the obedient follower- but also (in her betrayal, eating the fruit) to warn men to distrust women.
The Bible is full of teachings like "don't sow two types of cloth into one piece of clothing or you'll go to hell" because it was designed to teach the peasants how to live cheap, empty lives while working for the manipulative empire. After the dark ages the Church became a branch of the government- that is, the Monarchy- of England to manipulate both the peasants and Parliament.
E.G marriage exists to stop over-population, the commandments exist to re-enforce the law (Because back then the law was just something pushed onto people by the Monarchy, it needed a moral backing to ensure people follow it) and Jesus taught total pacifism to pacify the peasants, to prevent any unruly behavior- rioting, fighting the taxmen, overthrowing the Monarchy.
All of this is very well evidenced by Native American history- of how after the end of slavery (Which the Church did play a part in) Churches started finding the poor, homeless blacks and integrating them into society by teaching them Christianity, saying "The Bible is right, and all your native culture is wrong". If they hadn't, modern black culture would probably be far more unique and intelligent.

The Bible is not a holy text nor is it a silly joke some ancient Arab made up, it was designed to control people like you and me, to make us content with our role in life and to make us hard workers.
I don't have anything against spirituality but it should be a personal venture, there is absolutely no reason to follow the Bible or Christianity, only remnants of a more openly imperialistic and dominant society.

I wholeheartedly agree with you

 

[Eon]

Oh god I laughed so hard



The Bible was written by the Romans to control the peasant workers. Eve is designed to teach women of their role in life- the obedient follower- but also (in her betrayal, eating the fruit) to warn men to distrust women.
The Bible is full of teachings like "don't sow two types of cloth into one piece of clothing or you'll go to hell" because it was designed to teach the peasants how to live cheap, empty lives while working for the manipulative empire. After the dark ages the Church became a branch of the government- that is, the Monarchy- of England to manipulate both the peasants and Parliament.
E.G marriage exists to stop over-population, the commandments exist to re-enforce the law (Because back then the law was just something pushed onto people by the Monarchy, it needed a moral backing to ensure people follow it) and Jesus taught total pacifism to pacify the peasants, to prevent any unruly behavior- rioting, fighting the taxmen, overthrowing the Monarchy.
All of this is very well evidenced by Native American history- of how after the end of slavery (Which the Church did play a part in) Churches started finding the poor, homeless blacks and integrating them into society by teaching them Christianity, saying "The Bible is right, and all your native culture is wrong". If they hadn't, modern black culture would probably be far more unique and intelligent.

The Bible is not a holy text nor is it a silly joke some ancient Arab made up, it was designed to control people like you and me, to make us content with our role in life and to make us hard workers.
I don't have anything against spirituality but it should be a personal venture, there is absolutely no reason to follow the Bible or Christianity, only remnants of a more openly imperialistic and dominant society.

I hate using emoticons. Especially these newer candy assed ones.

But....

:yes: :yes:


You got two. I exceded my quota for the decade by two. Thanks jerk, you made a good post.