The Atheist Page

Liquid Snake said:
You mean agnostic? being atheist is just as dumb as being religious.

I don't really understand agnosticism..

When someone is claiming the existence of something, the burden of proof is their's. In this case I feel a lack of proof is enough to conclude a higher power does not exist.

If I were to say "I believe that there are invisible alligators in this room", it would be on me to prove that. If they were invisible, it couldn't really be "proven" either way anyhow, right? Its the same way with God. Its not something you can see or touch or taste or smell anyway, so theres no way to prove it. So one can only conclude logically- there is no God.

If somebody chooses to believe in God than it is a matter of faith. You aren't SUPPOSED to be able to prove faith, anyway. Thats why its called faith. See what I'm saying?
 
As far as I can tell, the Agnostic position is "well theres not enough proof either way, so I'll reserve judgement". But my point is that the belief in God isn't SUPPOSED to be something you can prove, you either believe or you don't.

So I just don't get the Agnostic position, they seem to think theres going to be proof either way. And I don't understand why they think that.
 
Its interesting to think that if Christians are correct and there is a God who created this God. Or are we all supiorior beings and are we all Gods to a world of lesser creatures.
We can take life and create life in a scence we are all Gods
 
Wilhelm-Scream said:
I don't agree because one is saying that there is a God, and there's no way that you can prove that, the other is saying that there is no God, and there's no way you can prove that, so Agnosticism seems to be the smartest way to go, you don't have to build your life around an assertion that may or may not be true. Agnostics are in fact the only ones that we know are right.

i'm not saying "there is no god", just that i don't believe in one. the first is a definitive statement and the second is an opinion. that's why i said it's rude to call someone dumb for their beliefs. i don't attack people of faith for having their beliefs, i can respect them for it while still disagreeing with them.
 
giggs11uk said:
Agnostic people dont believe in any religion but they are also afraid that there is a God so people say there Agnostic in order to save there selves from "Heck"

Religion has been used for a long time as a way to control the public. For instance British kings say I am your leader. Then the peasent says why are u our leader. The King simply responds God made me King you ignorant peasent. He will kill you
No... wow, what are you one?


Atheist BELIEVE there is no god or higher power, so in that they're believe which makes it not alot different than one who BELIEVES in god. Agnostic just think it can't be known if there is or no god (by god i mean a higher power, we all know jesus wasnt the son of god and the god as most religions say doesnt exist)
 
Liquid Snake said:
Atheist BELIEVE there is no god or higher power, so in that they're believe which makes it not alot different than one who BELIEVES in god. Agnostic just think it can't be known if there is or no god (by god i mean a higher power, we all know jesus wasnt the son of god and the god as most religions say doesnt exist)

What about what I was saying above?
 
Liquid Snake said:
No... wow, what are you one?


Atheist BELIEVE there is no god or higher power, so in that they're believe which makes it not alot different than one who BELIEVES in god. Agnostic just think it can't be known if there is or no god (by god i mean a higher power, we all know jesus wasnt the son of god and the god as most religions say doesnt exist)

I already apologized for that comment but I am not Agnostic. All i ment to say is that i believe that people are Agnostic as some type of safty net. I know that isn't true i just believe some people do that.
 
Maxwell Smart said:
As far as I can tell, the Agnostic position is "well theres not enough proof either way, so I'll reserve judgement". But my point is that the belief in God isn't SUPPOSED to be something you can prove, you either believe or you don't.

So I just don't get the Agnostic position, they seem to think theres going to be proof either way. And I don't understand why they think that.
No they just use logic, and believing begins where logic ends so yea
 
giggs11uk said:
I already apologized for that comment but I am not Agnostic. All i ment to say is that i believe that people are Agnostic as some type of safty net. I know that isn't true i just believe some people do that.
Safety net? Most smart people know theres no heaven or hell, and bible is not infact all metaphor, I'm not argueing about the credibility of organized religion but higher power.
 
Liquid Snake said:
No they just use logic, and believing begins where logic ends so yea

Atheism isn't a belief though. Its not "faith" like believing in God. When people claim theres a God, the burden of proof if their's. A lack of proof is enough in this case to logically conclude there is no God.

To believe in God is a matter of faith. Outside of that belief though, I don't see how you could come to any conclusion but atheism. Either you believe or you don't(Atheism).
 
Maxwell Smart said:
Atheism isn't a belief though. Its not "faith" like believing in God. When people claim theres a God, the burden of proof if their's. A lack of proof is enough in this case to logically conclude there is no God.

To believe in God is a matter of faith. Outside of that belief though, I don't see how you could come to any conclusion but atheism. Either you believe or you don't(Atheism).

this is pretty much what ive been saying they are infact Religous people and believe in a God they just don't want to believe in the wrong good. If an Agnostic person dies and sees Mohammid standing over him he can just say "well I always believed in you I just wasn't to sure"

See Agnostic=Safty Net
 
"One thing is for sure, I'd rather trust an Atheist than a religious person.

Atheism to me means someone who's abandoned silly religious doctrine in favor of true morality. Morality expressed by people like for example Kant, Schopenhauer or Voltaire the great philosophers and fathers of modern western civilization."

I find that statement slightly ammusing. If there is no God who will judge you, then "morals" (all of them) are but a moot point and should have no major influence in your life.
 
Man-Thing said:
"One thing is for sure, I'd rather trust an Atheist than a religious person.

Atheism to me means someone who's abandoned silly religious doctrine in favor of true morality. Morality expressed by people like for example Kant, Schopenhauer or Voltaire the great philosophers and fathers of modern western civilization."

I find that statement slightly ammusing. If there is no God who will judge you, then "morals" (all of them) are but a moot point and should have no major influence in your life.

it's not about being judged. i don't care how someone judges me. it's about not harming people and things and knowing the difference between right and wrong. it's about respecting everything, even if you don't agree with it. morals aren't confined to religion, they make up your character.
 
Addendum said:
My creed:

1) The single greatest rule is to be kind to one another.
2) We should be good stewards of the planet, for no other reason than we owe it to the future generations of our species, even though some of us have no desire to procreate.
3) Always strive for honesty, integrity and a good work ethic.
4) That little thing called the "fruits of the spirit" isn't such a bad thing, when you look at it.
5) Always take responsibility for your actions.

It's not written by some guy whose been dead for 2,000 years. It's not well structured or written with loads of poetic tools. It's just simple common sense practices that some cynic thinks could make this place a little bit better.

The only thing it lacks is a deity that has to be worshipped.

I find those 5 sentences to be more important than where you direct your prayers to. If that makes some deity slighted because I didn't believe in it, then what kind of a deity is that

:up: :up: :up: :up:
A-men dude . . . like I said . . . I believe in something of a collective consciousness, and if you practice what you feel makes you an honest, good person, you are recycling good into the greater good that is that consciousness . . . .

I feel that all of the evergy in the universe is part of a vast sea of sorts, and the whole of that sea is what 'God' is . . . . and that's why we'll always be connected to whatever that power is . . .

if that makes sense . . .
 
Daisy said:
See, the thing is... I believe in those same things, but I believe in a god. I don't think it has to be worshiped, but I think it's a nice thing to recognize that which endowed us all that we have.

My problem is exactly what Lackey made reference to. Atheists who think themselves superior in intelligence... well, actually pretty much all things... because they've "abandoned the need to believe in a 'fairy tale'" or something like that. Who assert that people who believe are naive or stupid... and liken believing in a deity to beliving in say... "the giant spaghetti monster in the sky".
I don't have a problem if people say their prayers to jehovah, allah, jesus, satan, ganesh, kali, the greek gods and/or goddesses, the egyptian gods/and or goddesses, the celtic gods and/or goddesses, cthulhu, j.r. "bob" dobbs, the four winds, your ancestors, a rock in the african plains, etc. etc. etc.

However, when some (this doesn't include anyone in this thread) say "you must believe in (insert deity of user here) or else..." or try to get others to believe through guilt trips, coercion, peer pressure, or whatever shady methodology used that's when I have a problem.

The best example I saw of how I feel was on an episode of a sci-fi series, Babylon 5. If you haven't tuned out, please let me explain. In this particular episode, EarthGov decided to have a week where the dominant belief system of each alien race was presented, in a way to build an understanding between each race to further the art of diplomacy.

At the end of the episode, the commander of Babylon 5 was in charge of showing the dominant belief system of Earth.

"Exactly what sort of demonstration does he have planned" asked one diplomat.

"Unknown. He wouldn't even tell us. He just said it would showcase Earth's dominant belief system" replied the second in command.

"I don't hear any drums" interjected another diplomat.

"Or bells" said another.

"Or chants. Are you sure we come to the right place?" said yet another.

"That's it. I'm leaving" said the last diplomat.

"This is where he said to wait, and this is where we'll wait" said the security chief.

Finally, the commander arrived and led the delegation around the corner and into the central corridor.

"This is Mr. Harris. He's an atheist."

"Father Cresanti, a Roman Catholic"

"Mr. Hayakawa, a Zen Buddhist"

"Mr. Rashid, a Muslim"

"Mr. Rosenthal, an Orthodox Jew"

"Running Elk, of the Oglala Sioux faith"

"Father Papapoulous, a Greek Orthodox"

"Ogigi-ko, of the Ebo tribe"

"Machukiak, a Yupik Eskimo"

"Sawa, of the Jivaro tribe"

"Isnakuma, a Bantu"

"Ms. Chang, a Taoist"

"Mr. Blacksmith, an aborigine"

"Ms. Yamamoto, a Shinto"

"Ms. Naijo, a Maori"

"Mr. Gold, a Hindu"

The camera then pans down the corridor showing a never-ending line of people from Earth, waiting to be introduced to the ambassadors, until the screen fades to black, showing the closing credits.
 
Maxwell Smart said:
As far as I can tell, the Agnostic position is "well theres not enough proof either way, so I'll reserve judgement". But my point is that the belief in God isn't SUPPOSED to be something you can prove, you either believe or you don't.

So I just don't get the Agnostic position, they seem to think theres going to be proof either way. And I don't understand why they think that.

The point of Agnosticism is that nothing is to be taken on faith. There should be some evidence, and it should supported by logic and evidence. Agnostics consider the empirical evidence to support a claim. If empirical evidence is lacking, then a definitive answer cannot be made. I think you feel that things are either black or white. But the world isn't black or white. It's almost always shades of gray. Agnostics allow themselves to see the shades of gray.

I consider myself Agnostic, and I can come up with logical arguments against the existence of a Christian God, but nothing empirical unless we go to science to discount claims of the Bible(The biblical flood comes to mind). But I cannot discount that there might be some type of "Supreme Being." There might be, there might not. I don't know. And I don't say I don't know because I'm afraid of the consequences. The "safety net" analogy is silly, wrong, and dishonest. I say I don't know, because...I don't know. It's not that it is safe, it's that it is the truth.

Atheists don't know there isn't a God or Supreme Being. They take that on the same amount of faith as any Christian. They might say something definitive, but producing something empirical is another matter entirely. I've read arguments of logic from Atheists on the Christian God, and I have agreed with them. But that does not discount the existence of all Supreme Beings, just the one.
 
But just because you have discounted the claims of Christianity doesn't make it false.

good post from your POV though.
 
This thread is pretty confrontational.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled dose of hate and enmity, with a heaping helping of bitterness. Tastes awful, but it works.
 
sinewave said:
it's not about being judged. i don't care how someone judges me. it's about not harming people and things and knowing the difference between right and wrong. it's about respecting everything, even if you don't agree with it. morals aren't confined to religion, they make up your character.

character, morals and ethics if there is no God are nothing. It should be survival of the fittest, but even then there has to be the desire to live, so in effect nhilism becomes reality, and that's something I don't think even the most affirming athiest can have peace with.
 
Man-Thing said:
character, morals and ethics if there is no God are nothing. It should be survival of the fittest, but even then there has to be the desire to live, so in effect nhilism becomes reality, and that's something I don't think even the affirming athiest can have peace with.

On the other hand, morality with a God is completely arbitrary. Rather than REALLY being right and wrong, it's merely "God approved" versus "God disapproved". There has to be some deeper reasoning that doesn't come from God for right and wrong for it to be anything more than that.
 
Man-Thing said:
character, morals and ethics if there is no God are nothing. It should be survival of the fittest, but even then there has to be the desire to live, so in effect nhilism becomes reality, and that's something I don't think even the most affirming athiest can have peace with.

but you're forgetting that we're intelligent life forms. survival of the fitest works in the wild, but not in a society. i disagree with your claim that character, morals and ethics are nothing without god. i don't believe in god, but i know what being a good person is about and i try to adhere to those standards because i realize i'm not the only person in our society and i know i wouldn't want to be treated badly so other people shouldn't have to tolerate that either. that's basically what morals are, trying to live harmoniously in a man-made society without infringing on other people's quality of life.
 
Man-Thing said:
But just because you have discounted the claims of Christianity doesn't make it false.

good post from your POV though.

Well, I don't know if I want to try to make the idea false, just the existence of the Christian god from a logical standpoint. If I could take you back through time and allow you to see everything that is claimed by the Bible to be untrue, would that falsify it in your eyes?

If I can find problems of logic and errors in a book that is purported to be influenced by a perfect being and held by some to be perfect and without error, then I might have some strong evidence that the particular god in question is false and man-made judging it soley by that criteria. There are some who do not hold the Bible to be inerrant, that it is a book of parables and guidelines influenced by God but written by man that hold some relevence today. The relevence of the argument is influenced by the regard in which the subject is held. That is part of what makes religion such a hard subject to debate.
 
I don't have enough faith to be an atheist.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Staff online

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
200,554
Messages
21,759,168
Members
45,593
Latest member
Jeremija
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"