Atheism : Love it or Leave it? - Part 2

[DBryan]

The argument has been made a number of times throughout this thread that affirmed atheism, stating that there is no god, is no more logical than stating that there is and still comes down to a matter of belief. The argument can therefore be made that the only position based on what a person truly knows is agnosticism. Its not a matter of openness, just a matter of making claims without proof.

This is precisely why I am an agnostic.

 

[Calvin]

I think its pretty much a given that there was a historical Jesus. These things don't just pop out of nowhere.

You mean like Scientology?

What if there was an analogue to L. Ron back when the old testament was made.

 

[DBryan]

It's still a dickish way to make a point. God turned a man's life (and the lives of his entire family) into playthings for Satan just to prove the man wouldn't curse God's name. And giving Job more wealth than he had before and a new family wasn't gonna bring back his old family.

And then there was that time God told Abraham to kill his own son just to see if he would. Sure he stopped Abe at the last minute, but it's (once again) a dickish way to prove a point.

There's no way around it - its flat out immoral.

 

[DarkSovereignty]

You know what one of the greatest horror stories of all time is? The book of Job. God and Satan pick out some random schmuck named Job and spend the entire book ****ing up his s*** to settle a bet.

reminds me of "Trading Places" with eddie murphey and dan akroyd lol.

anyway, yeah, i find religion as a whole is just stupid, at least when organized. i view religion as just a way to justify death, a concept that pretty much terrifies everybody, so yeah, it only natural that people invent an afterlife. that's not a problem for me, my philosophy is, if there's a heaven, i'd like to think that its open to all good people, not just the people who believe that Jesus was the son of god or whatever (which i think is ********, bit i digress) so i think that i'd go there, as im a good person. but if there isn't a heaven, if im just worm food in the end, am i going to care when i die?

 

[DBryan]

What's happening these days is that people are picking and choosing what they want to emphasize on in their religious beliefs.

My Christian sister is a good example.

She wants to believe that good people, no matter what religion, go to heaven.

It doesn't work like that. What good is it to be a wishy washy Christian?

The reason parts of the bible are so incredibly uncomfortable for modern people to deal with is that these are very outdated beliefs.

The people who wrote the bible were a primitive people, trying to understand the world, trying to justify why things should be the way they wanted them to be. Their morals are not our morals.

It's all BS.

Sometimes I just wanna go around shaking religious folk until they get it. But I'm not like Richard Dawkins, I don't really believe that aggressively attacking religion is the way to go. It's kind of counter-productive.

But its frustrating sometimes. Let it go, humanity! Let these archaic beliefs go!

 

[DarkSovereignty]

I'm just sort of indifferent to religion. I just don't care lol.

 

[Bill]

The argument has been made a number of times throughout this thread that affirmed atheism, stating that there is no god, is no more logical than stating that there is and still comes down to a matter of belief. The argument can therefore be made that the only position based on what a person truly knows is agnosticism. Its not a matter of openness, just a matter of making claims without proof.

But the positive statement that there is no god doesn't, in and of itself, constitute atheism. Some atheists will make that argument, and make it well, but that argument doesn't make atheism.

You can be, and are, an atheist if you hold no belief in a god or gods. Agnosticism is not about what you believe, but what you know. It's not a third option between atheism and theism. It simply defines the type of atheist or theist.

An atheist who makes a positive statement that God doesn't exist is a gnostic atheist. He claims to possess knowledge that affirms his belief. The agnostic atheist does not believe, but claims no specific knowledge that affirms it.

 

[DBryan]

It's unknowable.

We'll never know for sure, one way or the other.

 

[Dr.]

An atheist who makes a positive statement that God doesn't exist is a gnostic atheist. He claims to possess knowledge that affirms his belief. The agnostic atheist does not believe, but claims no specific knowledge that affirms it.

I’ve seen dictionary definitions of so-called hard/strong atheism – the position that there’s positive evidence for the non-existence of god. But I’ve never run across any self-described atheists who actually espouse this view. I think for the vast majority, the simple lack of evidence legitimately defines atheism.

Dawkins devised a 7-point scale of theism/atheism and puts himself at 6.9. He’s as sure as anyone can be about anything – but he doesn’t claim absolute certainty (technically, only mathematicians and logicians can do that).

Now, according to some, this makes Dawkins an agnostic. But he calls himself an atheist. The position he holds is fairly clear - yet two different words can be used to describe it.

 

[8wid]

I don't know if this has been asked yet, but atheists still believe in some physical form of an after life or ghosts, such as beings that pass between different dimensions?

 

[Nevincer]

I don't know if this has been asked yet, but atheists still believe in some physical form of an after life or ghosts, such as beings that pass between different dimensions?

Some may do, some may not. A-"theism" only implies a lack of belief in the existence of deities, but generally speaking, if you don't believe in a god you probably won't believe in any other supernatural mumbo-jumbo either, even if you try to explain it with pseudo-science. Buddhists are technically atheistic for example, and they believe something kind of like that to do with energies, I think... (I hope no one hurts me if I misrepresented Buddhists there).

 

[Mr.Webs]

No, you pretty much got it right. Buddhism has been described as the 'religion of no-religion-', because there are no beings to deify and no formal doctrines to really follow, depending on the school of Buddhism you follow.

 

[Heretic]

You're forgetting the point of that book. God let Satan do his worst to the guy...He knew Job wouldn't fail. And afterwards, Job was rewarded vastly more than he ever had before.

So...it's all cool that God killed his kids because he later gave him new kids??? So...is that the official Christian stance, or just yours?

I don't have kids...but if you kill my dog...and then hand me a new dog...I will rightfully call you a bloodthirsty monster, and dedicate my life to destroying you.

 

[Bill]

I’ve seen dictionary definitions of so-called hard/strong atheism – the position that there’s positive evidence for the non-existence of god. But I’ve never run across any self-described atheists who actually espouse this view. I think for the vast majority, the simple lack of evidence legitimately defines atheism.

Dawkins devised a 7-point scale of theism/atheism and puts himself at 6.9. He’s as sure as anyone can be about anything – but he doesn’t claim absolute certainty (technically, only mathematicians and logicians can do that).

Now, according to some, this makes Dawkins an agnostic. But he calls himself an atheist. The position he holds is fairly clear - yet two different words can be used to describe it.

I don't subscribe to the view that you are agnostic as opposed to atheist or theist. You are either an agnostic atheist or a gnostic atheist. Just as there is the agnostic theist and gnostic theist. Dawkins is an atheist in that he holds no belief in a god or gods. I would probably consider Dawkins a gnostic atheist because he does claim specific knowledge of God's non-existence. He just doesn't feel 100% certainty about it.

I've seen people call themselves Agnostics because they "neither believed nor disbelieved" in God. But that doesn't have anything at all to do with what constitutes agnosticism. There is nothing incompatible with agnosticism and atheism or theism. One better describes the stance of the other two.

 

[Heretic]

Right. Atheism isn't asserting anything. If you believe, you're a theist...EVERYONE ELSE is an atheist. If your answer is "I don't know" then surely you do not believe...so...you're an atheist.

 

[bunk]

So...it's all cool that God killed his kids because he later gave him new kids??? So...is that the official Christian stance, or just yours?

I don't have kids...but if you kill my dog...and then hand me a new dog...I will rightfully call you a bloodthirsty monster, and dedicate my life to destroying you.

God supposedly gave us our morals, but it's a big no-no if you attempt to level those morals back at him.

 

[the amazing fro]

If an almighty being, like God, exists then he can pretty much do what he wants. And there's pretty much jack anyone can do about it. From listening to the various "leaders" of new atheism speak, this is a main thing that worries them about religion. They don't want to be seen as "slaves."

Thoughts/Views etc?
Would it bother you if you were ruled by an unstoppable force? Or would you just shrug your shoulders and get on with it?

 

[bunk]

If an almighty being, like God, exists then he can pretty much do what he wants. And there's pretty much jack anyone can do about it. From listening to the various "leaders" of new atheism speak, this is a main thing that worries them about religion. They don't want to be seen as "slaves."

Thoughts/Views etc?
Would it bother you if you were ruled by an unstoppable force? Or would you just shrug your shoulders and get on with it?

That's not their main concern. It wouldn't even make sense given that they don't believe. Generally, the main concern has to do with religion hindering social progress, hindering science and promoting violence.

 

[the amazing fro]

I meant to say its a main concern about the idea of an all powerful god not of religion. Just typed it wrong. That's what you get when you try to multi task SHH and essay writing

 

[hopefuldreamer]

The reason parts of the bible are so incredibly uncomfortable for modern people to deal with is that these are very outdated beliefs.

The people who wrote the bible were a primitive people, trying to understand the world, trying to justify why things should be the way they wanted them to be. Their morals are not our morals.

It's all BS.

Sometimes I just wanna go around shaking religious folk until they get it. But I'm not like Richard Dawkins, I don't really believe that aggressively attacking religion is the way to go. It's kind of counter-productive.

But its frustrating sometimes. Let it go, humanity! Let these archaic beliefs go!

I share your frustrations.

It's hard when your trying to be a reasonable person and not shove your opinions down people's throats... But you have to listen to people preaching on and on about something a few guys said happened THOUSANDS of years ago.

And they're even 'updating it' now, as though they have the right to go 'oh well THAT part of the bible is just a story, but THIS part is absolute truth.'

They don't even agree amongst themselves what the truth is.

It's just a security blanket now.

Instead of just admitting that basically what they are doing by 'interpreting' their own version of the bible, is creating THEIR OWN moral code (which is what atheists do), they have to find a way of saying 'the bible says it' to reassure themseleves it is virtuous.

 

[hopefuldreamer]

If an almighty being, like God, exists then he can pretty much do what he wants. And there's pretty much jack anyone can do about it. From listening to the various "leaders" of new atheism speak, this is a main thing that worries them about religion. They don't want to be seen as "slaves."

Thoughts/Views etc?
Would it bother you if you were ruled by an unstoppable force? Or would you just shrug your shoulders and get on with it?

It would bother me being RULED at all.

Seriously, if God existed, as absolutely hopeless and impossible as it would be, I'd fight against him.

I might only get as far as thinking about it before my soul was destroyed or I was chucked into an inescapable, horrific level of hell...

But I would rather die than live under the rule of a merciless dictator.

 

[Franklin Richards]

We are ruled by unstoppable forces all the time. The difference between gravity, the sun, and god are...


Gravity and the Sun are real.

 

[DBryan]

Give it another couple hundred years (if humanity is around that long) and most religions will be a thing of the past.

 

[the amazing fro]

To be honest I think most religions will be around for as long as we are. Or are at least replaced with something similar.

 

[GhostPoet]

It would bother me being RULED at all.

Seriously, if God existed, as absolutely hopeless and impossible as it would be, I'd fight against him.

I might only get as far as thinking about it before my soul was destroyed or I was chucked into an inescapable, horrific level of hell...

But I would rather die than live under the rule of a merciless dictator.

See, I think that's the problem with our country in particular (the USA) we are force fed to be self relient. It may be a fact in some other countries, but ours in particular has a huge issue with this. It's given us an ego...it's made us spoiled children, rejecting any kind of authority. It's why we are so selfish and unconcerned with the lives of others. It's made us cold and hard hearted.