Am I an atheist?

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Oh I get it. All the people I have talked to are crazy. Why don't you just come out and say it with out having to beat around the bush?

Let's not bring a bush into it. Burning or otherwise. Or even today's Bush who 'talks' to some God or the other.

But, if someone does want to Beat Around the (GW) Bush. I'd be happy to see it every time he 'forget's to veto more spending.

Do you really think my two friends look crazy? I think they are free spirits and dress that way to express themselve. Though the smell is a bit off.

Back to topic - A need to explain the unknown can be fueled by fear, curiosity, anal retentiveness, humor, charity, comfort, etc etc etc - who am I to say what motivates THAT guy, or THAT girl, or whatever. I think the retentiveness one might be the big winner. I don't even know if it's that important for me to try to guess.

Isn't just as out of line for me to say that you "fear" the faithful because you don't understand them, and therefore you have the 'faith' that they are all enough of the same and can be stereotyped into one mindset that allows you to be comfortable?

anyway, Rookie doesn't sound religious or atheist. He sounds like he doesn't much care and doesn't know the definition anyway. His Actions won't describe his faith (pro or con). Sometimes a person's faith (pro or con) can guide actions though.

I have faith that small rat like dogs are evil. Therefore, I cling to the actions of kicking them from behind and watching them flip through the air - like a claypidgeon.

Like this guy.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[SpeedRacer 1]

I think that the belief in God is not and never was supposed to be an attempt to explain physical phenomena. That is the realm of science. Belief in God is a way to explore spirituality, not physicality. God as the source of the human soul, for example.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[Skyrad 0]

God knows

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[kelpdiver 2]

If you have to ask the question, the answer is no.

[downwardspiral 0]

Quote

I think that the belief in God is not and never was supposed to be an attempt to explain physical phenomena. That is the realm of science. Belief in God is a way to explore spirituality, not physicality. God as the source of the human soul, for example.

I agree regarding the current God. However his name is still pinned on natural disasters like Katrina and the tsunami by the religious even though they can be explained scientifically. Why is that do you think?

We can sit here for an eternity debating the existence of God and in the end we would have progressed no further than,"He exists!" "No he doesn't!" Because it is an argument with no possibility of being proven either way. Yet religion Christianity threads tend to be the most popular here in speakers corner.

www.FourWheelerHB.com

[Darius11 12]

Quote

Yep, and it works for the god argument too. What created god?

Yes it does.
So atheists believe that there is no god but they don’t know how it all began? Is that correct?


Not trying to debate just want to know an atheists point of view.

I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain

[jakee 1,564]

Quote

I think that the belief in God is not and never was supposed to be an attempt to explain physical phenomena.

I think that is one of the most comprehensively wrong statements I've ever heard.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

So atheists believe that there is no god but they don’t know how it all began? Is that correct?

That is correct regarding my beliefs, but of course I can't answer for all atheists.

Though if anyone told me that they know how it all began, I probably wouldn't believe them. So yeah, that description probably works for most atheists.

[Vallerina 2]

Quote

So atheists believe that there is no god but they don’t know how it all began? Is that correct?

Nobody knows how it all began!

There's a thin line between Saturday night and Sunday morning

[Darius11 12]

Quote

Quote

So atheists believe that there is no god but they don’t know how it all began? Is that correct?

That is correct regarding my beliefs, but of course I can't answer for all atheists.

Though if anyone told me that they know how it all began, I probably wouldn't believe them. So yeah, that description probably works for most atheists.

This is one of those subjects where no one can be sure as no one has proof.

Cool thank you.

I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain

[Everon 0]

Quote

As an atheist you don’t believe in god or any god. I am assuming that you believe in the big bang theory or something like it. Here is what I always have difficulty with. Lets say that the universe was created by to huge pieces that collided and formed the universe. Who or what made those objects?

"Believe in" is improper in this context. The correct question is "do you accept the big bang theory?"

The theory is that our universe erupted into a fireball from a singularity. Scientists can explain the evolution of the universe from a point just after the eruption. The reason I accept the theory is that it has supporting evidence (expanding and cooling universe).

As to how the singularity came to be remains unknown, so you aren't the only one who questions that.

The best we can do is discover what we are able to given the evidence.

[masterblaster72 0]

Quote

my general disdain for small ratlike dogs.

I think the existence of small ratlike dogs (and poodles) is proof that there really isn't a God.

Be humble, ask questions, listen, learn, follow the golden rule, talk when necessary, and know when to shut the fuck up.

[masterblaster72 0]

Quote

Lets start a cult and find god.

I will bring the kool-aid!!!!

yay.

The church of banesanura's boobies -- there's a cult I'd be happy to be a part of. I'll be happy to take the role as pontiff.

Be humble, ask questions, listen, learn, follow the golden rule, talk when necessary, and know when to shut the fuck up.

[SpeedRacer 1]

Quote

I agree regarding the current God. However his name is still pinned on natural disasters like Katrina and the tsunami by the religious even though they can be explained scientifically. Why is that do you think?

I think such things are an abuse of religion.

Many religious Christians have no problem with things like Evolution and so forth. Pope John Paul II was one example. Many Catholics & mainstream Protestants feel the same way. Why do you suppose that is?

As for homos causing Katrina, well WTF can you say? The Bible in many places deals with the fact that this world is often an unjust place. Bad things happen to good people a lot. To say for example, that when someone gets killed in a hurricane that it is because they deserved it, actually goes against the message of the Book of Job.

There

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[jakee 1,564]

Quote

Many religious Christians have no problem with things like Evolution and so forth.

But many do, even in todays (1st) world of universal education and ever increasing levels of scientific knowledge.

In the USA, more than half the population uses religion to explain where human beings came from. More than half! (Who knows what the figure is in less developed countries, or Islamic republics). How can you look at that amount, then consider the far less knowledgeable societies that created the major religions of the world, then consider the creation stories contained within the major religious texts, and come to the conclusion that no-one ever meant to use religion to think about the physical world? How can you possibly do that?

Hell, in most polytheistic religions actual physical phenoma are worshipped as Gods! Weather was controlled by Gods, the sea was controlled by Gods, the growth of your crops and mobility of your sperm - controlled by Gods! What you are saying flys in the face of common sense, historical record and observable fact. It's bollocks.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[downwardspiral 0]

Quote

Quote

I agree regarding the current God. However his name is still pinned on natural disasters like Katrina and the tsunami by the religious even though they can be explained scientifically. Why is that do you think?

I think such things are an abuse of religion.

Many religious Christians have no problem with things like Evolution and so forth. Pope John Paul II was one example. Many Catholics & mainstream Protestants feel the same way. Why do you suppose that is?

As for homos causing Katrina, well WTF can you say? The Bible in many places deals with the fact that this world is often an unjust place. Bad things happen to good people a lot. To say for example, that when someone gets killed in a hurricane that it is because they deserved it, actually goes against the message of the Book of Job.

There

Yes it is an abuse of religion but it doesn't answer my question.

I've never met a Christian that believes and accepts evolution because evolution says humans came from apes while the bible says humans came from Adam and Eve so to believe evolution as a Christian is to believe Adam and Eve were apes. So all I can say is that has not been my experience but I would be interested to learn more about this.

To me, and perhaps this is a bit cynical, religion is about money and power simply because humans are involved. Yet I am Buddhist and proudly admit it. Funny don't ya think?

www.FourWheelerHB.com

[beowulf 1]

Quote

Quote

Quote

So atheists believe that there is no god but they don’t know how it all began? Is that correct?

That is correct regarding my beliefs, but of course I can't answer for all atheists.

Though if anyone told me that they know how it all began, I probably wouldn't believe them. So yeah, that description probably works for most atheists.

This is one of those subjects where no one can be sure as no one has proof.

Cool thank you.

It's not so much as proof as it is about evidence. I don't necessarily have to have proof of something to believe it is most likely true, but I do require a certain amount of evidence. Currently there is no evidence of any deity.

I don't know how everything began, but I do have evidence of evolution. I have never found any evidence of any deity at all. So logically which makes more sense? To me evolution makes more sense since there actually exist evindence to back it up.

[wmw999 2,545]

Quote

I've never met a Christian that believes and accepts evolution because evolution says humans came from apes while the bible says humans came from Adam and Eve so to believe evolution as a Christian is to believe Adam and Eve were apes.

Sounds like the only people who will admit they are Christians to you are of the fairly fundamentalist variety. Because I know plenty of self-identified Christians who believe in evolution, and who think that there is a lot of truth in the Bible, but most of it's not in the specifics in Genesis .

Me, for instance.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[downwardspiral 0]

Quote

Quote

I've never met a Christian that believes and accepts evolution because evolution says humans came from apes while the bible says humans came from Adam and Eve so to believe evolution as a Christian is to believe Adam and Eve were apes.

Sounds like the only people who will admit they are Christians to you are of the fairly fundamentalist variety. Because I know plenty of self-identified Christians who believe in evolution, and who think that there is a lot of truth in the Bible, but most of it's not in the specifics in Genesis .

Me, for instance.

Wendy W.

You're probably right since I don't actively seek out conversations about religion with Christians so those conversations I do have are always with someone wanting to convert me. My favorite one is... "we'd sure love to have you on our side when armegeddon comes."

But I understand your position completely as there are things I do not believe about Buddhism.

www.FourWheelerHB.com

[SpeedRacer 1]

If you believe that all Christians are science-denying fundamentalists, then how do you explain Pope John Paul IIs statements, as well as statements by the Catholic Church (before Pope JPII), that they have no problem with scientific explanations such as Evolution?

edited to add:

\Evolution in the bible, says Vatican
By Martin Penner
November 07, 2005 12:00am
Article from: Font size: + -
Send this article: Print Email
THE Vatican has issued a stout defence of Charles Darwin, voicing strong criticism of Christian fundamentalists who reject his theory of evolution and interpret the biblical account of creation literally.

Cardinal Paul Poupard, head of the Pontifical Council for Culture, said the Genesis description of how God created the universe and Darwin's theory of evolution were "perfectly compatible" if the Bible were read correctly.
His statement was a clear attack on creationist campaigners in the US, who see evolution and the Genesis account as mutually exclusive (comment by Speedracer: Ironically, Fundamentalist Atheists believe the same thing!).

"The fundamentalists want to give a scientific meaning to words that had no scientific aim," he said at a Vatican press conference. He said the real message in Genesis was that "the universe didn't make itself and had a creator".

This idea was part of theology, Cardinal Poupard emphasised, while the precise details of how creation and the development of the species came about belonged to a different realm - science. Cardinal Poupard said that it was important for Catholic believers to know how science saw things so as to "understand things better".

His statements were interpreted in Italy as a rejection of the "intelligent design" view, which says the universe is so complex that some higher being must have designed every detail.


------------
\This article is just one example. The Catholic church has a strong intellectual tradition within its ranks. I remember reading a Catholic Bible from the late '60s that had an annotation by a Cardinal stating essentially that the Bible is not supposed to be used as a replacement for a science textbook, etc.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[vortexring 0]

Quote

Quote

Many religious Christians have no problem with things like Evolution and so forth.

But many do, even in todays (1st) world of universal education and ever increasing levels of scientific knowledge.

In the USA, more than half the population uses religion to explain where human beings came from. More than half! (Who knows what the figure is in less developed countries, or Islamic republics). How can you look at that amount, then consider the far less knowledgeable societies that created the major religions of the world, then consider the creation stories contained within the major religious texts, and come to the conclusion that no-one ever meant to use religion to think about the physical world? How can you possibly do that?

Hell, in most polytheistic religions actual physical phenoma are worshipped as Gods! Weather was controlled by Gods, the sea was controlled by Gods, the growth of your crops and mobility of your sperm - controlled by Gods! What you are saying flys in the face of common sense, historical record and observable fact. It's bollocks.

Your attitude hit a nerve with me. I'm no member of the God Squad, and despite having a few doubts myself...there'll be a few people behind me at the Pearly gates I reckon, as I'm trying to bluff my way in, what hit a nerve is this:

The amount of people who put an intellectual slant to their (dis)belief. It's as if they're so smart they know better and the believers are, of course, below their superiority. It's arrogance. Like the people at the opposite end of the spectrum, neither of you actually know.

So like all arrogant people, you can all just fuck off. If you wish to express your opinions to gain knowledge, fine. To take the higher ground over something you don't actually know, but just have an over-inflated opinion of.............

That surely means you're gay.

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

[vortexring 0]

Quote

With all the religion threads going I thought I would throw my mind into the mix a bit.

To start, I cannot remember the last time I went to church. I sure as hell cannot tell you what kind of church the last one I went to was. I remember going to church every sunday when I was in Basic Training for the Army. I did that to get out of barracks detail. So my question is am I atheist?

I dont go to church, or pray. I don't stand in from of abortion clinics telling people god will punish you. I dont make decisions because god or the bible told me to. I have never even spoken to the man. I treat people the way they I want to be treated.

I love Christmas season and I say merry christmas. I dont see why so many get bent out of shape because of it. You get the freakin day off work so enjoy the time off with your family.

I dont thank god for things I have. I get them because I work my ass off. I dont ask him for forgiveness. If I make a mistake I learn from it and move on and hope to not make the same mistake twice.

I like to think there is something after I am old and gone. I just hope I live the right life to get a good parking place. I usually dont post anything in the religion threads because I am not very in tuned to the church. So does this make me an atheist or what?

Having witnessed the insane Christian fundamentalists living throughout the US I'd simply go off into the woods and pray over which religion to follow. With a bit of luck, and some guidance, the big man will insist you start your own religion. It happened to Joseph Smith - he started the Mormons through such circumstances. Pretty easy, no?

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

[downwardspiral 0]

Quote

If you believe that all Christians are science-denying fundamentalists, then how do you explain Pope John Paul IIs statements, as well as statements by the Catholic Church (before Pope JPII), that they have no problem with scientific explanations such as Evolution?

I didn't say I believe. I said it wasn't my experience and then followed it up with wanting to learn more.

You have to keep in mind as I do that no one is going to come out of this thread and say to themself,"holy shit! She's right! I have had it wrong all this time." Nope...we'll come out of this all believing what we initially believed but more tense. With this understanding I enjoy engaging in conversations like these in order to better understand and perhaps in the end I'll be more informed which is always a good thing.

Unfortunately and ironically this thread will never last long with patience and understanding but if we get a little hostile then this will go on for a couple hundred pages at least.

edited to add: oh and btw I have no idea what Pope JP2 said concerning evolution. Please fill me in.

www.FourWheelerHB.com

[jakee 1,564]

Learning to fucking read would be a start for you, mate.

I'm not talking about whether religion s valid or not, I'm saying that Speedracer's argument that religion was only ever meant to explain spiritual things and not physical things is complete bollocks. And it is complete bollocks. How else do you exlain the fact that throughout human history physical phenomena have been worshipped?

If you want me to pussy foot around the subject and be all PC about it, well, you can take your limp wristed, cappucino drinking, Guardian reading, save the whales, precious sensitivities and bloody well shove 'em.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[vortexring 0]

Now, now my sensitive little sausage, lets not get all upset.
Regarding reading? Perhaps you could do the same, seeing as you've connected an attitude to a point I've made, and surprisingly connected it directly to your earlier statement.

And who the fuck mentioned being PC and pussy footing around things?

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'