| Ex-atheists?
Posted: 10/13/2005 11:04:30 AM | Why label Atheism as a religion? Because it is the only way they can fit it into their own narrow, warped perception of the way the world works... Nothing complicated about that... On the other hand, no matter how much they want to do that the assumption is still erroneous no matter how bad they want to fit the square peg into their round hole so to speak.
Cat | |
|
| Ex-atheists?
Posted: 10/13/2005 11:11:58 AM | | There are other reasons too. I can think of one individual at least on these threads who is an intelligent, free thinking individual and an atheist, yet he argues atheism is his religion. For me it's a simple dictionary definition, but words mean different things for different people, and I have used terms loosely myself, so I can't fault them too greatly. I take much greater offense at trying to label things science that are not science. | |
|
| Ex-atheists?
Posted: 10/13/2005 12:13:30 PM | wonkavision-- Yep it all comes down to semantics and meanings... subjective reality.... re labeling something science when it is not well I agree with you there that is a huge problem.
Cat | |
|
| Ex-atheists?
Posted: 10/14/2005 2:37:19 AM | Count, though I do not have a pet goldfish, that was my argument exactly. Anything can be a religion.
And again, there are atheist organizations. Why do they feel the need?
If we are to accept the premise of this argument then the Oprah book club and the Cub Scouts are both religions.
NO. NOT JUST ANYTHING CAN BE A RELIGION. There is a definition of what a religion is.
| |
|
| Ex-atheists?
Posted: 10/14/2005 1:08:49 PM | | Seriously, people buy a dictionary. I understand that language is dynamic and ever shifting in nuance, but that has to balanced with standards of meaning or our ability to communicate will break down entirely. If you say that "dog" for you means any four legged creature, then "would you like to pet my dog?" would apply when you are taking your weasel for walk, and the vetinary sciences would be in a crises. | |
|
| Ex-atheists?
Posted: 10/16/2005 9:47:19 PM |
what do you think of Professor Flew's conversion from atheism to deism?
The funny thing is I never heard of this guy before he converted. As I understand the situation he converted to Deism because he couldn't understand how life could come into existence without a Designer. However, he also admitted he hadn't read up on the subject of abiogenesis for a decade. I wonder if he could tell us who designed the Designer since something so perfect must have a Designer. | |
|
| Ex-atheists?
Posted: 10/16/2005 9:54:27 PM | | He can't tell you because a Designer doesn't have a designer. Everything as we know it had to start somewhere. | |
|
| Ex-atheists?
Posted: 10/16/2005 10:09:42 PM | | ^^^So how did God start? | |
|
| Riddle me this...riddle me that!
Posted: 11/14/2005 8:25:39 PM | why couldn't the universe have been created from a previous one that exploded?...leaving no evidence.....particles do rearrange themselves biologically speaking....and our universe could have been created out of one that was previously there before...and that one before it.....things are just in an ever reaccuring cycle of matter changing through the energy contained in it.
Why do people assume someone had to create something....its kind of like people saying Ben Franklin invented electricity.....he didn't he discovered it.....
Best quote ever..."Is man God's greatest invention, or is God man's greatest invention?" Neizche...
As an atheist that looks to reason as my guide...i believe the latter.
Prophets just seem like writers that have a mental illness...think about modern times and if someone were to say...God told me to sacrifice my son......or arrows from the hand of God pierced my bosom to be healed instantaeously...or I hear a voice inside my head!!!!..... Don't get me wrong I love studying religion...but I haven't found any reasonable arguement for support. There is so much bias in religion and hardly any historical truths. Why do people blindlessly follow because of faith and a feeling; yet, judge others when they choose reason and intellect? | |
|
| Riddle me this...riddle me that!
Posted: 11/14/2005 10:04:26 PM | | I am strong believer that God created everything including the big bang. The bible says he spoke everything into existence except man and who is to say the big bang was not God's voice . There is too much evidence that evolution occurred but I believe each creature evolves within it's own species. I know many Christian who claim the earth is only 50,000 years old and to me that is ludicrous. However If they feel happy inside believing this way well then more power to them. | |
|
| Ex-atheists?
Posted: 11/14/2005 10:09:06 PM | i'm an ex-christian
then i became an atheist, now i'm an ex-atheist
now i am an agnostic | |
|
| Riddle me this...riddle me that!
Posted: 11/14/2005 10:14:52 PM | that whole idea that each creature evolved within it's own species is Natural Selection, which is what I believe also. I also believe mostly that God created evolution. There's some things I dont believe about it though, like a missing link between us and chimpanzies.
But if you take a look at a cell, and how every part of the cell has a purpose, and a function within the cell, and has it's own 'orbit', a cell's structure is very similar to how our galaxy functions. As if there is a special system that God uses to create life, that works in any size within another size. Also the distance of every 2 connecting atoms is approximately the same ratio as the moon is to Earth. Interesting stuff.
Maybe the entire universe is all by chance, just by the roll of the dice. What the evolutionists dont think about is "Who's rolling the dice?" | |
|
j-roc
|
Joined: 5/24/2005
Msg: 63 | |
| Riddle me this...riddle me that!
Posted: 11/14/2005 10:22:05 PM | I question the validity of intelligent design, but I really like your statement/question....
Maybe the entire universe is all by chance, just by the roll of the dice. What the evolutionists dont think about is "Who's rolling the dice?" Sort of makes me wonder....
I would say I am an atheist who is now on the verge of being agnostic. | |
|
| |
| Ex-atheists?
Posted: 11/15/2005 3:48:23 AM | Thank God, I don't believe in God! | |
|
| Ex-atheists?
Posted: 11/15/2005 4:15:07 PM | The only thing about the who is controling the dice?...why do you have to assume that there is some mystical power at hand?....I think humans just don't want to feel so lonely in this universe and don't want to live up to the idea that we have no purpose.. I'm not being a cynic...but the reason why relgion has been a big part of civilization is one....it gives people a purpose for live....and two gives them the superiority of having a "moral soul" in contrast to "savage" creatures/animals.
I guess I'm kind of anwering my own question...and also answering why most Atheists become agnostics....
People do not want to believe that their life was all for nothing. They want someone controlling their dice that way it wasn't just by chance.
This is where I think people go wrong.
The big bang theory was no what I was alluding to (sorry to the guy who posted after me) I was saying it is most reasonable through scientific thought to conclude that what has been will always be just through different states of matter. (I. E. E = M c^2)
Its kind of like reincarnation only without the soul part....your body goes into making something else that then produces something else. Atheists don't tend to believe in souls but energy.
I hope that helps out a bit | |
|
| Ex-atheists?
Posted: 11/16/2005 1:02:05 AM | I guess I'm kind of anwering my own question...and also answering why most Atheists become agnostics....
People do not want to believe that their life was all for nothing. They want someone controlling their dice that way it wasn't just by chance.
Actually, in all honesty I am very comfortable with the idea of there being no divine being or creator. In fact if I could believe this to be unquestionably true it would give me a good deal of comfort. The reason I am Agnostic has nothing to do with not wanting to believe that life is basically meaningless in the greater scheme of things. It has far more to do with a lack of evidence either way and quite possibly the lack of there ever being the possibility of evidence.
From my perspective to be able to say without a doubt that there is nothing supernatural "rolling the dice" would take a good deal on faith. Faith, assumptions, socialization, cultural beliefs, and other forms of delusions are the very things I have been working to question in my life ever since I was old enough to realize I had them. Everyone has their own delusions that they cling to without realizing it. I know I probably have quite a few that I have yet to pay attention to, but it has been a long trial and new evidence is constantly being brought forth.
This does not mean I automatically discredit any delusions I find, only that I investigate them to see if there is a good reason for them and learn from what I discover. | |
|
| Ex-atheists?
Posted: 11/16/2005 6:20:50 AM | Well I wasn't trying to say it was black and white that all ex-atheists that are now agnostics are that because they want to believe their life has a purpose...i was just stating it is probably one of them and most frequent...
But punching a hole in your philosophy that we can't prove there wasn't a God so I'm just going to say I don't know is understandable...but compare it to something else..
say a dragon...... you hear stories about dragons all the time... why does everyone in their right mind know that they do not exist...and unicorns too. Why is it that people can understand that unicorns, dragons, and other things are fake creations of the mind with no proof of their existance but yet they still belive God is a real being. The idea of God came about the same way the idea of unicorns and dragons...they were told in stories and passed down from generation to generation...
I don't see how someone can form a line between mystical creaters and god.
further adding the analogy....think Christmas....Saint Nicholas....Santa Clause...the idea is false but the spirit is real. The idea of God is false....but the teachings and way of life are real. I'm not denouncing religion in any way shape or form...I do believe it has its pros and cons just like anything else...
I hope this makes some sense...at least it does in my mind eye....if someone can find a hole in my theories...that would be awesome | |
|
| Ex-atheists?
Posted: 11/17/2005 12:37:26 AM | In the case of fantastical creatures, you are not dealing with a supernatural entity that is beyond our reach, you are talking about creatures that would leave skeletons and have evolutionary traces back to their existance.
In my perspective it is possible, though very unlikely that these creatures existed, however we do not have conclusive proof, only circumstantial evidence. Same with god only we have even less circumstantial evidence that there is no and never was any divine being.
The case against god would be similar to this.
A man is charged with murder and is convicted based on the fact that he was not in any of the places he would normally have been at the time of the murder. No weapon was found, no fingerprints, nothing. Just the fact that he could not be proven to NOT have murdered that night.
The case for god is about the same honestly. Both deal with purely circumstantial evidence and treat it like it is concrete. That is why I say it cannot be proven and probably never will be proven. | |
|
| Ex-atheists?
Posted: 11/17/2005 6:02:18 PM | how do you know that god is a supernatural entity that is beyond our reach... if you are dabbling in the christian realm....humans were supposedly made out of god's image...therefore god would have a human form....and should be in our reach if so many people believe god talks to them..and the bible records conversations....
According to Greek Religions...god's actually carried on affairs with humans and could get them pregant. I guess it depends on how you view god and what personal perception you have of them....i was specifically talking about the idea of a dragon and a unicorn....and the idea of god...they are all fathamed things...with no proof or disproof of their existance....and i was trying to point out that its weird how dragons and unicorns are known to be false...but god isn't.
oh in your case that you put up...the man wouldn't get a conviction without evidence....thats not how the justice system works..you can't even get a warrant without evidance supporting the need for one.....unless the system was ignored.....and you have a case to back it up your example doesn't hold any credibility | |
|
| Ex-atheists?
Posted: 11/17/2005 6:10:06 PM | in response to the guy asking why atheism is a religion...
Religion—is commonly defined as belief concerning the supernatural, sacred, or divine, and the moral codes, practices and institutions associated with such belief. In its broadest sense some have defined it as the sum total of answers given to explain humankind's relationship with the universe. In the course of the development of religion, it has taken a huge number of forms in various cultures and individuals. ...
therefore, religion is a belief concerning the supernatural...well atheist's belief concerning the supernatural..would be that there isn't one...
the sum total of answers given to explain humankind's relationship with the universe is either, I don't know so i'm going to assume not.....or big bang...or energy....or some other personal conviction..
synthesizing it together, atheism is definately a religion...because it has its on set of values and belief systems about the idea of God and humans relationship in the universe. | |
|
| Ex-atheists?
Posted: 11/18/2005 2:40:06 AM | You don't seem to be understanding me.
The example I provided was used specifically to point out that you WOULDN'T convict this person in a court of law. The evidence would have been considered insubstantial, which is why it is absurd to use similarly circumstantial evidence to "disprove" or "prove" God.
As for my perception of god, I don't have one. That is the point. You cannot disproove what is only vaguely defined to begin with and by some definitions, is actually an unreachable entity. I won't say it is impossible to disprove God's existance, but that I personally cannot even begin to fathom what that evidence would be. Therefore I say that it will likely never be disproven.
If you define God by narrow margins then it would be much easier to disprove his existance, but you cannot define God by such margins because as soon as you do someone will say 'but MY god isn't like that' and you have to start all over again.
I've got no problem with someone claiming to be positive/strong athiest or even saying it is a logical path. I do have issues with anyone who claims that God has been proven as a hoax and they have no faith that there is no god as a result. Anyone who claims there is definitely no supernatural deity of any kind is taking this on faith. Admittedly this faith is not quite as blind as religious faith, but it is still faith. | |
|
| Ex-atheists?
Posted: 11/18/2005 11:28:15 AM | "Anyone who claims there is definitely no supernatural deity of any kind is taking this on faith. Admittedly this faith is not quite as blind as religious faith, but it is still faith."
Strong atheism can be called faith, but not religion. Terri- you are being rather slippery in your definitions. Almost every definition in the Oxford English Dictionary defines religion as belief in a supernatural creator in one way or another. Those that don't, use it metaphorically as in "the religion of mine eye." Atheism- A- against or opposite to, theism- belief in a divine being. Atheism- lack of belief in a divine being. So, religion no. But, to assert conclusively something which can not be empirically proven is a position of faith either way. Weak atheism, on the other hand, is more akin to agnosticism, and is antithetical to faith. | |
|
| Ex-atheists?
Posted: 11/18/2005 3:19:42 PM | | I'm not being slippery on my definitions i googled it..and if you honestly want me to i can post the source of the exact definition. | |
|
| Ex-atheists?
Posted: 11/18/2005 3:50:39 PM | | Sorry but the Oxford English Dictionary is the definitive source on the definition of English words. I'm not particularly interested in some second hand definition that you googled off of the internet. The only valid argument on your side is that language is dynamic and nuances of meaning continually shift due to cultural forces. On the other hand, I would point out the necessity of deciding upon a consensus of meaning, otherwise all meaningful discourse breaks down. If you say, there is a god, and I make the rebuttal that there isn't, if we don't agree on a functional definition of what god is, then the debate loses objectivity. In fact two people could vehemently debate an issue on which they actually agree, which would have been obvious from the outset had they bothered to rely on standards of meaning. | |
|
Home
login 
