Atheism: Just Another Religion

[Guest Supreme Gamesmaster]

I am pretty much an Atheist. I don't believe there is a god. I think about it very often' date=' about how this could happen, I wonder if this is a big dream, but you would need another existance to have a dream. Maybe we are a small part of that wich is bigger. A different race, performing tests on us, tornadoes, earthquakes, UFO. You can ask a soda can for a game you want, or you could ask god to heal a family member with an illness. Either way, you will get nothing from god or anything else.

 

If there is a god, why wouldn't HE worn us about hell. If he did, most of us wouldn't sin. There are a million other things to prove god is not real. I will prove it like that guy with the pink elephant. If this does happen, I will beleive in him, IF THERE IS A GOD, CHANGE MY AVATAR TO "GOD RULES" within 2 hours.

[/quote']

 

Atheism is often construed, due to the Western definition of god. (trust me, I'm going somewhere with this)

 

Atheism isn't "denial of god," it is A-Theism, or Non-Theism. It is not the lack of belief in god, or the belief that there is no god, it is the belief that an "absolute deity" does not exist. The Christian God is a deity; such a construct under minds the true definition of "absolute/god"

 

Say god was not a deity, but that it was a force that existed, a sort of energy, not human in nature whatsoever.

 

Would you say that physical scientific proof would be needed to prove that such a thing exists, or would your own personal experience be enough?

Ooh, now atheism has an offshoot religion. ^_^

 

As has already been stated, the atheism we discuss here is the belief that God does not exist. But to answer your last question, while I personally take the former standpoint, many people take the latter, and still more misconstrue the latter as the former.

 

Right... Offshot Religion.

 

Hinduism is one of the world's oldest religions; the Vedas date back somewhere around 5000 BC, more than a thousand years before the first Jew existed. Buddhism is about half as old as the Vedas.

 

Also, my point is related, so it is valid. If you didn't feel like responding to my questions you should not have replied.

I answered your question. ^_^

 

I formed my own religion. I dont believe in god without denying his existance. I call it Atheism.

No, that's not atheism; it's agnosticism.

[Koshej]

I totally agree with the thread's name.

And that's why.

In both Big Bang and Evolution cases - there's NO FIRST-HAND facts or witnesses!

Whatever scientists have is purely THEORY.

Ever saw a LIVE dinosaur???

Now prove to me that their skeletons were put together correctly.

I won't forget a fact that proves me 100% right - that some dinos had their head attached to their tail for some time.

#1

#2

#3

#4

Are you gonna continue saying "SCIENCE IS ALWAYS RIGHT"???

Then I'm right - it's just another religion with its own idol: HUMAN.

[Felix Culpa]

Hobbits... no jk.

 

Atheism being the lack of religion doesn't neccessarily make you believe in science. THis thread is a disease...

[DesCrow]

lol

If atheism is a religion, then NOT playing yu-gi-oh! is a hobby.

 

Evolution is proven. Micro-evolution that is, things DO adapt and change to suit their environment. Macro-evolution is a whole different plane of discussion.

and no, I've never seen a live dinosaur, but have you ever seen a live jesus? or even jesus' bones?

lolno

 

I will debate people who disagree with me into the ground.

[Felix Culpa]

lol

If atheism is a religion' date=' then NOT playing yu-gi-oh! is a hobby.[/b']

 

I lol'd, Crow. I have a new hobby... Ha. Anyways, macro and micro evolution are, as Crow stated, two whole different planes of evolution. Just because bones of prehistoric humans have been discovered doesn't mean they evolved. We could be a brand new thing completely.

[Willieh]

ITT:People confusing Creed with Religion

[Koshej]

Just wikied creed...

OK, atheism is a creed rather than a religion - does it change anything about it? NO!

And thanks for the micro/macro-evolution point.

That's exactly what confuses people: micro-evolution (I'd rather say simple adaptation) does exist - but has nothing to do with macro-evolution which requires millions of years to be witnessed (in case it existed).

Not to mention the Big Bang which couldn't be witnessed by anyone by default.

 

DesCrow

I want to disappoint you - but I'm Jewish and don't believe in G-d being physical.

This world is in G-d, but G-d isn't limited by anything including this or any other worlds.

That's why you can't prove G-d through physical means (but you can through experience if you understand what's happenening and why).

My point was to say that when science trys to disprove religion - neither can win since their areas are simply different.

And no, "but the computer works!" is not a proof for science.

Religion doesn't say physics in general is wrong - it just says don't rely on theories.

If you can make a fish grow legs - then we can talk about proofs...

Etc...

(Nonsensical topic anyways since both sides are firm in their BELIEFS.)

[DesCrow]

Religion vs. Non-religion

This debate all traces back to ONE question.

"Which side has the burden of proof?"

Meaning, "do religious people have to prove god exists?" or "do nonbelievers have to prove he doesn't exist"

I think that the believers should have to.

They are the ones making the claim, therefor they should have to prove it.

Think of it like this.

 

If I said "when you aren't looking, and when NO cameras are around, I turn into a frog" then it is MY burden of proof because I am the one making the claim. It is fundamentally unsound to say "you have to prove I don't!" because not only is it childish, but it makes no sense.

 

IMO burden of proof falls on the religious people, and I've yet to see 1 shred of empirical evidence that cannot be wholly explained by science/reason.

[OMGAKITTY]

Religion vs. Non-religion

This debate all traces back to ONE question.

"Which side has the burden of proof?"

Meaning' date=' "do religious people have to prove god exists?" or "do nonbelievers have to prove he doesn't exist"

I think that the believers should have to.

They are the ones making the claim, therefor they should have to prove it.

Think of it like this.

 

If I said "when you aren't looking, and when NO cameras are around, I turn into a frog" then it is MY burden of proof because I am the one making the claim. It is fundamentally unsound to say "you have to prove I don't!" because not only is it childish, but it makes no sense.

[b']Sup my name is Invisible Boy and I can turn invisible, but only when no one is looking[/b]

 

IMO burden of proof falls on the religious people, and I've yet to see 1 shred of empirical evidence that cannot be wholly explained by science/reason.

 

Also, NECROBUMP RAEG!

 

Science and Religion are not opposites.

[Koshej]

DesCrow

The idea of ONE G-d is 3500 years old.

Science _as we know it_ is like TEN times younger.

Atheism based on science is even younger.

So who's "making the claim"??? :D

[Dark]

That's because WAY back in the day, people didn't question God. It would turn into another "burn the witch!" thing.

 

Now, we can form our own opinions without being ''burned''. There is no consequence for not believing in God, therefore we CAN.

[DesCrow]

@Koshej

So because something is old it is right?

There are religions that contradict the Abrahamic ones, that are much older.

Age =/= Correctness

People believed that gods controlled floods blindly because they could not understand them(thousands of years)

Now we know the moon/clouds/etc. causes tides and floods, and can PROVE it using real evidence (last couple hundred years)

remember first =/= correct

Religion is "making the claim", because they claim something supernatural, with no tangible proof. You also failed to address half of my other points...

[Koshej]

DesCrow

Your and many others' mistake is to compare the pagan beliefs with monotheism.

You know why?

Because those "gods" were really just somewhat of a substitute to nowadays science - whilst the monotheistic idea is based on NON-PHYSICAL G-d Who both controls this world and is not bound by it.

There's no physics laws for G-d!!! Seriously.

Monotheism doesn't make much of an issue on HOW the world runs - the point is WHO runs it, not HOW.

Science and monotheism are 100% compatible as long as physics stay what it is meant to be - the way to explain the PHYSICAL world.

You can't apply physical logic to spiritual things.

 

Back to "making the claim".

Everybody is using money for thousands of years.

Now I suddenly have an idea that we don't need money at all.

I even manage to build a small 50 people community that survives without money.

Now you come to me and say that 50 people is not the entire world and that we do need money for global economy to survive.

But I shot back - hey, but MY community works!!!

I also say that you're making a stupid outdated claim and that my community doesn't need it anymore.

NOW: who's making the claim?

You - by bringing up the old facts about economy that already existed?

Or me - by saying that my newborn community doesn't need money?

And most important - so who's right?

 

The analogy is somewhat weak but the idea of "making the claim" should be explained through it...

[DesCrow]

Did you know there are hundreds of monotheistic religions? Who are YOU to say YOURS is right?

So you are basically saying "something exists but not really", in my opinion, existence contends that something has matter and presence. I'm sorry but, just because millions of people suffer from the same god delusion doesn't make it true. It's obvious you can't apply physical logic to spiritual things, because spiritual things DO NOT EXIST. It only exists in the minds of the people who NEED him or who it is FORCED upon.

 

Your analogy makes little to no sense, please go back and answer my point that

"the one making the claim has the burden of proof"

[Koshej]

DesCrow

Miracle DO happen even nowadays.

Just most of them are not so impressive as Dividing the Sea or Stopping the Sun.

But most people have some moment in their life when something happens exactly how it never would - and this helps or even saves lives.

I don't believe in coincidences - and firstly from the mathematical point.

Try finding out the mathematical probability of making up a single cell out of the atom "soup" - then we'll talk.

We take so many things for granted - and call it nature - that we never think how actually complicated are the mechanisms that make it work.

The very mathematics suggest it's easier to believe in somebody creating such complicated things rather than say it appeared on its own.

[Dark]

The Catholic Church both:

 

A.) used to think everything revolved around the Earth.

B.) used to think the Earth was cerca 6000 years old.

 

Two scientists from the SAME TIME PERIOD as the assumptions made by the Catholic Church were able to prove the Catholic Church wrong, using the SAME MATERIALS that were available to the Catholic Church.

 

Imagine if someone edited the Bible, saying that jumping off a 2000-foot high bridge would clear your soul of all sins. How many people would jump off that bridge (assuming it was legal (although not intended for that purpose) and a bridge like that already existed)?

[OMGAKITTY]

The Catholic Church both:

 

A.) used to think everything revolved around the Earth.

B.) used to think the Earth was cerca 6000 years old.

C.) is fallible.

D.) does not represent Christianity as a whole.

 

Two scientists from the SAME TIME PERIOD as the assumptions made by the Catholic Church were able to prove the Catholic Church wrong' date=' using the SAME MATERIALS that were available to the Catholic Church.

 

Imagine if someone edited the Bible, saying that jumping off a 2000-foot high bridge would clear your soul of all sins. How many people would jump off that bridge (assuming it was legal (although not intended for that purpose) and a bridge like that already existed)?

[/quote']

[DesCrow]

Tell me ONE miracle, that certifiably happened (e.g. footage) and I'll hear you out.

O WAIT! There are none >_>

Coincidences are not events, they are human labels placed onto unusual event. Therefor, they cannot "not" exist.

I think you take nature for granted, the problem with religious thinking is you thing.

Things must be created. Then I pose, who created God?

To which you rebut, he always has been.

If some "can always have been" then why couldn't the universe be in that boat INSTEAD of god?

Also, ever notice how the ideals of a God DIRECTLY reflects the wants of it's followers?

God was developed as a TOOL, a TOOL for power and control.

Who has always been the most powerful member of any society before..say...1500? A religious leader that's who.

[Koshej]

Counter-A.) Nowadays physics states clearly that all this is just a matter of mathematical coordinates system. It's possible to write correct mathematical formulas to prove that Mercury goes round Pluto - in a very weird orbit indeed, but it DOES. Also, Earth is the _importance_ center of the universe - not nessesarily physical.

Counter-B.) All time measurement theories will stay as such for another 6000 years when our descendants will be able to read this post and check whether our calculations about the past 6000 years were right or wrong. To check the age of "dinos" - wait another few hunder million years. :D

Counter-D.) I'm Jewish. :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Dark]

God was created to scare people into doing the "right" thing.

[Koshej]

DesCrow

Another typical mistake of somebody "bound to earth".

Time was also CREATED!

G-d exists outside time as much as inside.

He's simply not restricted by it.

 

Speaking of power...

As I just mentioned, I'm Jewish. And religious.

For some 2000 years Jews didn't even have a country, not to mention any real power.

Still - nowadays Jews believe in the SAME Torah that was given on Sinai some 3500 years ago by G-d.

It's just another mistake - to confuse what "religious people do" with what "they should do according to their religion".

BTW for Jews, religion was never a source of power even inside the community, not to mention in the "outer world".

Sages and Rabbis were always revered and admired by simple people, but never politically feared.

 

You just use bad examples and say that it applys to all.

[Milk-Chan]

No. No. Absolutely no. A true atheist does not just believe that there is no God' date=' he KNOWS there is no God. It's not a belief, it's the truth.

[/quote']

 

I know I'm quoting from the first page, but who is it for one to say that there isn't a Higher Power or Deity?

[Dark]

The law of rational thinking. If you do not think rational, you are a moron.

[Koshej]

Logic has the problem of being personal thus limited...

[DesCrow]

Logic has the problem of being personal thus limited...

 

is this guy fr srs?