Irony . . .

[hecter]

It may have been helpful to them, but they were wrong.
Rather like the four elements theory of medicine-helpful to your medieval peasant possibly, but wrong.
LIkewise, religion may temporarily help people cope with life, but their beliefs are still incorrect.
I take the truth over convenient falsehood every time.

What makes you so sure that all our theories and discoveries will be true 500 years from now? They were the most correct (as in most accepted) theories and discoveries at the time, which were later proven wrong, just as I'm sure ours will be over time.

And thats the key difference between science and religion. Just as Einstein overturned (some) of Newton doubtless some of Einsteins theories wil be disproved-but they CAN be proved or disproved. Whereas "Divine revelation" can not be-it cant be tested, and thus meaningless.
Meanwhile, Einstein one day may be disproved but its holding good now...

It was replaced with modern science wasn't it? Well, with the non-creationist crowd, anyway.

[luns101]

I was ready to walk away from this one, but since you quoted me, I'll resopnd.

But it's still not a religion.

If that's your opinion so be it. I don't agree. I've read quotes from atheists who talk about secular humanism being it's basis. Secular humanists talked about it being a religion up until around World War II. They stopped referring to it as a religion because it would have been seen as a competing religion.

It's merely a belief-system. It is certainly a competing belief system opposed to other belief systems.

Good, we agree on something! Whew! I was being told by others here that it was a "non-belief" or a "lack of belief".

But atheism has the advantage of not needing any proof. Because the burden of proof falls on the party trying to proof something to be positive.

Don't you think that's quite convenient? It's true because it is. No proof needed. I don't think I could prove to you that God exists because I think it's more a matter of the will than of the mind. It is true that some atheists are convinced intellectually, but for the majority of people that made the switch like myself, it's a matter of the will.

The reasonable stance on belief is that there are no supernatural things. The religious person may have reasons to believe otherwise, but it isn't reasonable.

Once again, very convenient. This is one of the points I've been trying to get across. Atheists try to set up the language so they are reasonable and those who disagree with them are not.

[Backglass]

I was being told by others here that it was a "non-belief" or a "lack of belief".

It's semantics Luns. It is a non-belief in gods....Yes. So by your standards I have a "belief in not believing" then?

Don't you think that's quite convenient? It's true because it is. No proof needed. I don't think I could prove to you that God exists because I think it's more a matter of the will than of the mind. It is true that some atheists are convinced intellectually, but for the majority of people that made the switch like myself, it's a matter of the will.

Exactly. You gave yourself up to your belief...it really doesn't matter to you if it is true or not. It's real to you.

Atheists try to set up the language so they are reasonable and those who disagree with them are not.

I would say that christians are far more guilty of this as they have a vested interest in proving their point. Mr. Nate is a master wordsmith for example when it comes to these debates. "Prove to me that YOU exist" et all.

[luns101]

It's semantics Luns. It is a non-belief in gods....Yes. So by your standards I have a "belief in not believing" then?

Well, then it sounds like you don't agree with other atheists here who say it's a belief system. I'm going leprachaun-hunting tonight. We've got one open slot. I'll pay for the beer!

[hecter]

It's semantics Luns. It is a non-belief in gods....Yes. So by your standards I have a "belief in not believing" then?

Well, then it sounds like you don't agree with other atheists here who say it's a belief system. I'm going leprachaun-hunting tonight. We've got one open slot. I'll pay for the beer!

Can I be in? I maybe be a few years underage, but it's no biggy...

[luns101]

It's semantics Luns. It is a non-belief in gods....Yes. So by your standards I have a "belief in not believing" then?

Well, then it sounds like you don't agree with other atheists here who say it's a belief system. I'm going leprachaun-hunting tonight. We've got one open slot. I'll pay for the beer!

Can I be in? I maybe be a few years underage, but it's no biggy...

You can come with us for "Unicorn Night". We card anyone who looks under 30.

[hecter]

It's semantics Luns. It is a non-belief in gods....Yes. So by your standards I have a "belief in not believing" then?

Well, then it sounds like you don't agree with other atheists here who say it's a belief system. I'm going leprachaun-hunting tonight. We've got one open slot. I'll pay for the beer!

Can I be in? I maybe be a few years underage, but it's no biggy...

You can come with us for "Unicorn Night". We card anyone who looks under 30.

Well that would be me... I may be a little younger than you think... Maybe I should start calling you Mr. Luns...

[Backglass]

It's semantics Luns. It is a non-belief in gods....Yes. So by your standards I have a "belief in not believing" then?

Well, then it sounds like you don't agree with other atheists here who say it's a belief system. I'm going leprachaun-hunting tonight. We've got one open slot. I'll pay for the beer!

Atheists don't agree on ANYTHING...except that gods don't exist. No code, no bible, no commandments. Just one "belief in non-belief" system.

[freezie]

I don't only not beleive in God, I don't beleive wht almost every religions say about unsurnatural things.

So, I beleive that I lack beleif, not beleive in no God.


I guess it's different for everyone. Since I don't know what ''atheist'' think.....Your choice

[Snorri1234]

If that's your opinion so be it. I don't agree. I've read quotes from atheists who talk about secular humanism being it's basis. Secular humanists talked about it being a religion up until around World War II. They stopped referring to it as a religion because it would have been seen as a competing religion.

Since a religion deals with anything supernatural, and atheism doesn't, I wouldn't call it a religion.

Good, we agree on something! Whew! I was being told by others here that it was a "non-belief" or a "lack of belief".

Lack of belief in gods, not neccesarily a lack of belief in anything.
It's different from religions because it doesn't deal with the supernatural, which is why calling it a non-belief isn't entirely wrong.
I think the confusion stems from how you define belief.

But atheism has the advantage of not needing any proof. Because the burden of proof falls on the party trying to proof something to be positive.

Don't you think that's quite convenient? It's true because it is. No proof needed. I don't think I could prove to you that God exists because I think it's more a matter of the will than of the mind. It is true that some atheists are convinced intellectually, but for the majority of people that made the switch like myself, it's a matter of the will.

No we don't need proof for atheism, all we need is a lack of proof for anything else. It's not true because it is, but because there isn't any proof to the contrary. It's the only reasonable startingpoint. Or are you suggesting we should start with the notion that god exists, because that is just silly. (And not only because of the many different gods you have to choose from.)

Once again, very convenient. This is one of the points I've been trying to get across. Atheists try to set up the language so they are reasonable and those who disagree with them are not.

We aren't setting up the language. We're not an organised group with power over the government and all that.

[MR. Nate]

No we don't need proof for atheism, all we need is a lack of proof for anything else. It's not true because it is, but because there isn't any proof to the contrary. It's the only reasonable startingpoint. Or are you suggesting we should start with the notion that god exists, because that is just silly. (And not only because of the many different gods you have to choose from.)

So in the absence of evidence you're willing to accept, you go with your assumptions. Don't you know that negatives can't be proven?

Starting with the notion that God exists is no more silly than starting with the notion he doesn't. A truly reasonable STARTING point is agnosticism, not atheism.

[The1exile]

Starting with the notion that God exists is no more silly than starting with the notion he doesn't. A truly reasonable STARTING point is agnosticism, not atheism.

How is this different from backglass's esteemed leprechauns?

[Guiscard]

Starting with the notion that God exists is no more silly than starting with the notion he doesn't. A truly reasonable STARTING point is agnosticism, not atheism.

Why? I look around me... I see no evidence of God. I can see a laptop, I can see one of my knees... I can see some fairly tragic curtains... no God there... If we take only what we can empirically experience as a starting point I'm afraid its atheism all the way.

[Snorri1234]

No we don't need proof for atheism, all we need is a lack of proof for anything else. It's not true because it is, but because there isn't any proof to the contrary. It's the only reasonable startingpoint. Or are you suggesting we should start with the notion that god exists, because that is just silly. (And not only because of the many different gods you have to choose from.)

So in the absence of evidence you're willing to accept, you go with your assumptions. Don't you know that negatives can't be proven?

Starting with the notion that God exists is no more silly than starting with the notion he doesn't. A truly reasonable STARTING point is agnosticism, not atheism.

In the absence of evidence, one should conclude that there is no evidence after the extensive search we've had for God. There has never been any evidence to suggest God exists, so why should we think he does?

Though the whole problem with this is that God can never be proven, ever. Unless he is to come down from the skies and say to us "Hai guys! I EXISTS! The Ancient Greeks were right, too bad they all died out."
Sure, there is a really small chance that a god or something exists, and in that sense I'm an agnostic, but I'm also an atheist because I don't think he/she/they exist.

I understand what you mean, and I believe I haven't been very clear on this. Starting from agnosticism, I would say atheism is the more reasonable choice, so in that sense you could define my position as atheist with a mix of agnosticism. I don't deny the possibility of a god, but that doesn't mean I believe it's reasonable to not choose one position over another. I don't deny the possibility of an invisible pink unicorn being in my room right now, but I presume there isn't. This is my position.
I think that probably includes many, many people who say they're atheist.

[Backglass]

Starting with the notion that God exists is no more silly than starting with the notion he doesn't. A truly reasonable STARTING point is agnosticism, not atheism.

How is this different from backglass's esteemed leprechauns?

[MR. Nate]

Note that I said "that you're willing to accept." Jesus Christ came to earth, did a bunch of miracles, rose from the dead, and you deny that he could have. Why? Because those things don't happen, and you know they don't, so you can reject his claims out of hand.

See, it's all a nice tidy package. You reject Christ because nobody could do the things he supposedly did, then complain that God doesn't prove himself to you.

You've got a certain number of things that you will accept as proper evidence for the existence of God, and until the Supreme Being jumps through your hoop, your not going to believe he exists.

[hecter]

Note that I said "that you're willing to accept." Jesus Christ came to earth, did a bunch of miracles, rose from the dead, and you deny that he could have. Why? Because those things don't happen, and you know they don't, so you can reject his claims out of hand.

See, it's all a nice tidy package. You reject Christ because nobody could do the things he supposedly did, then complain that God doesn't prove himself to you.

You've got a certain number of things that you will accept as proper evidence for the existence of God, and until the Supreme Being jumps through your hoop, your not going to believe he exists.

He's omnipotent. How hard would it be to talk to 6 billion people on a semi-regular basis? It's not like I've never prayed before... I also never got an answer.

[MR. Nate]

What kind of answer were you expecting? Ever considered He answered in a different way?

[hecter]

What kind of answer were you expecting? Ever considered He answered in a different way?

Well, I hear so many Christians talking about how they talk to God, why wouldn't I be able too (back when I actually believed in him)? And I'm sure I got no answer. Positive, in fact.

[jiminski]

What kind of answer were you expecting? Ever considered He answered in a different way?

Dialogue with god as a believer is internal. We are made aware of the truth according to gods will and teachings.

As someone who strongly believed in God, (brought acutely to me by nearly dying after being hit by a lorry at 11 years old) i am fully aware of the constant internal conversation about right, wrong and morality. And the feeling of enlightenment; a unison with the holy spirit at the realisation of Gods 'truth'.

I maintained this inner personal dialogue throughout the evolution of my faith from a quasi Christianity, through to spiritualism; encompassing a mosaic of religious and philosophical doctrines. Penultimately to the last resting place before the disintegration of faith. The step which perceives god as the 'body' of existence in which all matter, cognisant or otherwise is linked and one.

I genuinely was at one with god, at peace with myself and aware of divinity. Judge that as you wish.

What i came to understand is that the inner conversation was only with myself. The very real conjoining of myself to Nature, to the energy force of the universe was created by me. (be it real or imagined)

The feeling of being not alone in my own mind and the feeling of being guided by the divine was entirely conceptual and based upon my learnings of what the greatest good and god represents. the search for this and allowing our unclouded mind to reach it is like constant epiphany.

This focus and purity and ever re-evaluation under the scrutiny of the ever watching 'Father' can inspire us to great acts of kindness and endeavour. We often need that courage and that crutch to unlock what is within us. But within us it is!

In many ways I regret the loss of that magical communion with 'god' but i also know that is was not real.
It was simply my personal communion with the best of what is inside of me!

[Snorri1234]

Note that I said "that you're willing to accept." Jesus Christ came to earth, did a bunch of miracles, rose from the dead, and you deny that he could have. Why? Because those things don't happen, and you know they don't, so you can reject his claims out of hand.

Not because those things don't happen, but because I wasn't there when it supposedly happened.
All I got on Jesus is an old book describing how cool he was. Nothing else.

You've got a certain number of things that you will accept as proper evidence for the existence of God, and until the Supreme Being jumps through your hoop, your not going to believe he exists.

Yes. I'm not trusting an almost 2000 year old document. If jesus came to me today and peformed his miracles, I would certainly consider my view again. But he doesn't. So where is the reason for me to believe?

[Backglass]

Note that I said "that you're willing to accept." Jesus Christ came to earth, did a bunch of miracles, rose from the dead, and you deny that he could have. Why? Because those things don't happen, and you know they don't, so you can reject his claims out of hand.

See, it's all a nice tidy package. You reject Christ because nobody could do the things he supposedly did, then complain that God doesn't prove himself to you.

You've got a certain number of things that you will accept as proper evidence for the existence of God, and until the Supreme Being jumps through your hoop, your not going to believe he exists.

Note that I said "that you're willing to accept." Leprechauns live on earth, hide in plain sight, have pots full of gold, and you deny that they exist. Why? Because those things don't happen, and you know they don't, so you can reject these claims out of hand.

See, it's all a nice tidy package. You reject Leprechauns because nobody could do the things they supposedly do, then complain that they don't show themselves to you.

You've got a certain number of things that you will accept as proper evidence for the existence of Leprechauns, and until the King Leprechaun jumps through your hoop, your not going to believe they exists.

Ya just gotta believe!