How about athiesm?

[sorrow]

Well, if there is a religion forum, the only place i belong on it is either in the debate section, or in the atheism section.. so i decided (while this religion thread still exists) that i may as well create a thread for atheists.

Anyone else on the same boat? I live in an area that seems to have far more religious people per-capita than i ever have before (No, its not SLC ), and because of that have started reading The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins, and have also started identifying as a vehement atheist -- mostly because i feel that a number of potentially rabid religious folk here would love to convert me if i didn't identify as such..

[Dark616]

Im not an atheist, but im curious what pushed you to atheism? what feelings, facts(or lack therein) or info convinced you.

[xondak]

Richard Dawins kicks major ass! I love him...

I too, am an atheist, but by major objection from my Mormon parents...

SLC = Salt Lake City... I laughed pretty hard when I read that

You might want to get a shirt that says something about you being an atheist... that'd be great!

[David]

Atheism is pretty strait foward, "There is no god!"
I guess that's me, I don't think there's a "God" or any "higher power"

I Think that there're only really inteligent people out there who figured out that there's only one way to get people to act nice to others.

And that's to tell them that they will suffer for eternity if they do something bad....

Yeah, thats what I think...

[sorrow]

Originally Posted by rock4christ

Im not an atheist, but im curious what pushed you to atheism? what feelings, facts(or lack therein) or info convinced you.

I wouldn't really say anything necessarily "pushed" me there, its just always been how i have felt, as far back as i can remember.

I also am very heavily influenced by science -- not specifically evolution, although i do believe in it -- and (for the most part) i don't think that science and religion are compatible. My (very religious) friend Rachel would disagree with me on this one though, because she has this bordering on uncanny ability to work religion and science together, but only up to the point where they are incompatible, and then she points out how (she believes) religion is superior / correct, and science can't be. For example, one time we got to discussing carbon dating, which for the most part (like many other sciences), she believes is a true science. But when i asked her about the carbon dating of old pre-historic homosapiens, she argued that she thinks it only works up to a point, and we haven't quite gotten the measurements down.... so anything before when God created the world... is obviously just a scientific miscalculation that will eventually be solved. Needless to say, debating religion with here isn't a ton of fun when it gets whittled down to irrefutable arguments like that on her end.

That said, the way i see things is that i have never before, and (no offense intended) rather doubt that i will ever feel some "superhuman" being out there, capable of snuffing me out at a whim, or creating the world -- not to mention the universe -- in 7 days. I also am a very firm believe in the thought that anything can happen when you die, and i strongly disapprove of anyone telling me "oh, this happens or that happens" when you die. No one ever has -- and in all probability, no one ever will -- prove what does or doesn't happen.

And one last point before i go to bed is that i find the current mix of religion and the state to be appalling, which is a decent portion of why i'm leaning towards the "anti-religion" stance. I believe that a lot of people are religious more by default than anything, and if they really looked within themselves they would no longer go to church every other month or something, but would stop attending at all, and would stop wondering if the candidate they voted for prays before he goes to bed, etc. As Richard Dawkins says: there is no such thing as a Christian child, or any other religion; but there are people who just happened to be raised in a Christian setting, and aren't aware of / comfortable with their ability to shed this skin that they were raised within, even if they are wearing it inside out.. if that makes any sense.

[wizardmt70]

Originally Posted by sorrow

For example, one time we got to discussing carbon dating, which for the most part (like many other sciences), she believes is a true science. But when i asked her about the carbon dating of old pre-historic homosapiens, she argued that she thinks it only works up to a point, and we haven't quite gotten the measurements down.... so anything before when God created the world... is obviously just a scientific miscalculation that will eventually be solved. Needless to say, debating religion with here isn't a ton of fun when it gets whittled down to irrefutable arguments like that on her end.

Actually.... Science has determined themselves that carbon dating is a flawed method determining somethings age.

As Richard Dawkins says: there is no such thing as a Christian child, or any other religion; but there are people who just happened to be raised in a Christian setting, and aren't aware of / comfortable with their ability to shed this skin that they were raised within, even if they are wearing it inside out.. if that makes any sense.

With all due respect... Mr. Dawkins is wrong. I am a Child of God and I did shed my Christian background to do what I pleased for about 20 years. I recently (2004) gave my life to Christ when it became extremely apparant to me about how real Jesus Christ is.

As a matter of fact... I think it's just the opposite. there is no such thing is an atheist. How can you deny the existance of something that you don't believe exist?

[Dark616]

Originally Posted by wizardmt70

Actually.... Science has determined themselves that carbon dating is a flawed method determining somethings age.



With all due respect... Mr. Dawkins is wrong. I am a Child of God and I did shed my Christian background to do what I pleased for about 20 years. I recently (2004) gave my life to Christ when it became extremely apparant to me about how real Jesus Christ is.

As a matter of fact... I think it's just the opposite. there is no such thing is an atheist. How can you deny the existance of something that you don't believe exist?

easy

"it doesnt exist"

but just because its easy doesnt make it right.

[wizardmt70]

Originally Posted by rock4christ

easy

"it doesnt exist"

but just because its easy doesnt make it right.

my point is that if it doesn't exist then there is nothing to deny.

[Dark616]

Originally Posted by wizardmt70

my point is that if it doesn't exist then there is nothing to deny.

oh...but that still dosnt quite make sense

[putis]

Originally Posted by rock4christ

oh...but that still dosnt quite make sense

You're right, that doesn't make sense.


I think you may be unsure about what 'atheist' actually means. Not that I'm an atheist, or consider myself one..

It doesn't entail the denying of some inherently obvious thing, as you're misconstruing it to be.

Originally Posted by dictionary.com

a person who disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

And even if it did involve some form of 'denial,'

Originally Posted by dictionary.com

To declare untrue; contradict.

[sorrow]

Originally Posted by wizardmt70

Actually.... Science has determined themselves that carbon dating is a flawed method determining somethings age.

Maybe so, i'm wasn't aware of that, but its besides the point: in any conversation about science versus religion, she adapts portions (or even a majority) of science to fit her cause, but strongly denies anything that goes against it; it makes debate useless -- it's like trying to cup water in your hands: not matter how hard you try, some always gets out.

With all due respect... Mr. Dawkins is wrong. I am a Child of God and I did shed my Christian background to do what I pleased for about 20 years. I recently (2004) gave my life to Christ when it became extremely apparant to me about how real Jesus Christ is.

Umm, you lost me there: Mr. Dawkins is wrong? All because you had a life changing experience that (i'm going out on a limb here,) a majority of people don't have? Sounds pretty bold. And when you go about it that way, i could just as easily say "Wow, the Bible is obviously wrong because look a all the evidence pointing at evolution!" instead of saying Dawkins is wrong; its the same mentality of overall judgment because of personal thoughts / experience / feelings.

As a matter of fact... I think it's just the opposite. there is no such thing is an atheist. How can you deny the existence of something that you don't believe exist?

How can i deny the existence of something i don't believe exists... Maybe you should read over that again, because i'm looking at it right now and it sounds very obvious.. to me at least. My Zune, sitting directly in front of me, obviously exists, and so does the book its sitting on top of. But, even if i don't believe in it, neither of those things are going to up and disappear.
And furthermore, i'm a pretty firm believe in accepting things once they have been proven... but as for believing in things that can't and (no offense) probably never will be completely proven... well, thats a different story, and i'm very hard pressed to believe in something like that.
Also, i'm not going to say that God or the Bible is wrong simply because it has not been proved wrong [to the best of my knowledge that is yet to happen], and because of the simple fact that it hasn't been proven incorrect does not mean i'm going to believe in it -- do you believe in aliens simply because we can't prove they don't exist?

Originally Posted by Rock4Christ

oh...but that still dosnt quite make sense

My sentiments exactly

Edit: This came up while i was revising my post, so i'm editing in a reply

Originally Posted by Putis616

And even if it did involve some form of 'denial,'

Good point(s). I need to work on that being concise thing :p

[putis]

All of you go and sign up for the group, you lazy bums.

http://www.zuneboards.com/forums/pro...editusergroups

[wizardmt70]

Originally Posted by sorrow

Maybe so, i'm wasn't aware of that, but its besides the point: in any conversation about science versus religion, she adapts portions (or even a majority) of science to fit her cause, but strongly denies anything that goes against it; it makes debate useless -- it's like trying to cup water in your hands: not matter how hard you try, some always gets out.

Here is my view on science and The Bible (which is where my belief in God and ultimately Jesus Christ stems from)...

Science continues to change and evolve. A method used for many years can be found to be flawed by a new more effective method. Not that science isn't useful or beneficial but it is flawed.

The Bible, despite popular cultural belief, continues to be proven correct. Now me, being a Christian, I already believe that the Bible is the correct and infallable word of God. I don't need science to prove that but if it helps non-believers see the truth then great. You, being an atheist, have to rely on science because you have nothing else. I personally see this as flawed logic simply because science is so often changing and evolving while God is God, never changing always the same.

Umm, you lost me there: Mr. Dawkins is wrong? All because you had a life changing experience that (i'm going out on a limb here,) a majority of people don't have? Sounds pretty bold. And when you go about it that way, i could just as easily say "Wow, the Bible is obviously wrong because look a all the evidence pointing at evolution!" instead of saying Dawkins is wrong; its the same mentality of overall judgment because of personal thoughts / experience / feelings.

You quoted Mr. Dawkins as saying...

As Richard Dawkins says: there is no such thing as a Christian child, or any other religion; but there are people who just happened to be raised in a Christian setting, and aren't aware of / comfortable with their ability to shed this skin that they were raised within, even if they are wearing it inside out.. if that makes any sense.

I'm simply saying that this statement is false based on my own testimony. I know several other people who's testimonies would also cause this statement to be false. Therefore Mr. Dawkins is either wrong in his thinking or making a very dangerous generality about the Christian faith. I view either one of these as dangerous because he is mis-leading people.

How can i deny the existence of something i don't believe exists... Maybe you should read over that again, because i'm looking at it right now and it sounds very obvious.. to me at least. My Zune, sitting directly in front of me, obviously exists, and so does the book its sitting on top of. But, even if i don't believe in it, neither of those things are going to up and disappear.
And furthermore, i'm a pretty firm believe in accepting things once they have been proven... but as for believing in things that can't and (no offense) probably never will be completely proven... well, thats a different story, and i'm very hard pressed to believe in something like that.
Also, i'm not going to say that God or the Bible is wrong simply because it has not been proved wrong [to the best of my knowledge that is yet to happen], and because of the simple fact that it hasn't been proven incorrect does not mean i'm going to believe in it -- do you believe in aliens simply because we can't prove they don't exist?

My sentiments exactly

Edit: This came up while i was revising my post, so i'm editing in a reply


Good point(s). I need to work on that being concise thing :p

I was merely trying to make the point that without God there is no Atheist because there is nothing to deny or contradict or to not believe in. Sorry if this is muddying the water then we can just drop it.


btw... I am registered for the group. ; )

[putis]

That's not necessarily true. This could lead into a philosophical discussion, causing jim to come in and destroy us, but in any case..


I see where you're going, with the whole 'No good without evil' thing, and vice versa, but I don't think that applies to this.

If there was no god, atheists would still be around, because atheism is the disbelief in a higher power, no matter what it is, god, buddha, luck, fate, etc.

You do not need the presence, or possible presence of something to not believe in it.

[wizardmt70]

something to ponder....

now this is no reason to believe in God, which leads to accepting Christ but just something to hopefully make you think.

If you are right and there is no God and I die then what happens.... nothing.

If I am right and there is a God and you die then what happens....

you owe it to yourselves to examine every statement that is said against the existence of God. Don't just take someone else thoughts and make them your own. They may be wrong.

I have the same responsibility as a Christian. I have to examine every teaching and everything said to make sure it is Truth. I believe in God and I believe that He sent His only Son to die on the cross for my Salvation based on the things that I have experienced in my life that say to me that He is alive and in charge. I don't base my belief on what I've heard or was taught as a child.

[putis]

When people die, their bodies decompose, a very simple fact; god isn't involved.