“invisible and pink” is easy compared to “deserving of my love and allows babies to be tortured”
Don’t forget, being an atheist makes you look really cool in front of your long-haired friends.
Here’s how I can be an Athiest.
-
I don’t care where the universe came from. I really don’t. I don’t beleive in creation and don’t fully buy the big bang either. It’s one of those things that I do not need an answer to.
-
I’ve never seen any evidence of any god. Unless there is a god of lost socks I’m unaware of.
-
I think when we die, we stop. Nothing special happens, we just stop working. I think of humans in the same way I think of light bulbs. One minute it worked great, the next minute it doesn’t. Some bulbs burn their expected time, some are dead out of the package, some just seem to work forever. Some bulbs flicker and drive you nuts.
I don’t need to believe in a heaven or afterlife to make me feel my time on this planet is all for nothing. I can accept the fact that when I die my life and memories just go away. And I’m fine with that.
Sure, It would be nice to live forever or be carted off to never-never land after I die to live with the rest of my friends and family for ever and ever and ever… I just don’t see that a viable option. But it does make a nice story.
That said, the people that knock on my door at 8am saturday mornings asking me to repent now and be saved would be going to heaven. That means I’d have to see them again. I could hardly stand the 2 minutes it took to get them out of my doorway let alone for ever and ever and ever. Hmmmm? I hear hell is nice in the winter.
- If I WERE to be religious, the christian religion would be my last choice. It makes the least sense to me of all the major religions. One lonely god out there somewhere makes a bunch of people and then just sits around for them to prove they are good enough to spend forever with him… I don’t get it. What’s the point?
I rather like the greek gods though. They seem like party animals.
To sum it up, MOST of the answers people get from religion come from questions that don’t concern me. I don’t care where I came from or were I’m going when I die. I just care that I’m here NOW and I use that time the best I can.
Corrrect me if I am wrong, but Atheism makes an affirmative statement that God (or other supernatural being) does not exist as a possible explanation, or theory, for the existence of the universe because it cannot be proven.
However, since the evidentiary record fails to prove any given theory (evolution, Big Bang, Christianity, Islam, whatever), doesn’t it take a “leap of faith” into Science to affirmatively say that God does not exist as a possible theory?
Isn’t this “leap of faith” that the Athiests take in scientific theory the same “leap of faith” theists take in defense of their religious theories since neither science nor religion have proven to origin of the universe?
Religious theories have not been disproven. Doesn’t this “leap of faith” into Science make the Atheist a hypocrite?
Under this reasoning, how is it possible to be an Athiest?
I am Agnostic.
[quote]
a·the·ist
n.
One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.
Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
[quote]
Bearflag, not all athiests share the same belief system. I personally don’t deny the posibility of a creator, but all man-made religions strike a false note to me. I consider myself an athiest, calling myself agnostic would be acknowledging the possibility that some religion is right.
An agnostic believes that Southern Baptists and Buddhists both have some possibility of being correct.
What’s your point?
Depends on which atheist you talk to, I guess. I plan to start believing in God the moment I get some solid evidence He exists – everything I’ve heard so far have been circular reasoning, along the lines of “The Bible is the word of God because the Bible says so.” :rolleyes:
I think the evidence for the Big Bang is pretty good, but then I actually studied the darn thing. And the evidence for evolution is so overwhelming, it crosses over several branches of science. Yet for some reason the fundamentalists still refuse to acknowledge any of it…
Yes, but that’s irrelevant – a religious theory, if it wants to be taken seriously, must be proven. So far, none have managed to do so. In contrast, the “big-name” scientific theories have managed to rack up enough evidence to strongly indicate they are correct.
You are also exhibiting faulty reasoning and a lack of information, but that’s another matter. 
On what basis do you embrace Science[sup]TM[/sup] and deny Religion[sup]TM[/sup]?
Strike my last post.
Science does not contradict itself, religion does.
Umm? What’s yours?
I was just pointing out what the dictionary says about what an Athiest is. Basicly the only "affirmative statement " an Atheism makes is just that. No god. Period.
I would suspect the reasons differ on which athiest you speak with though.
Pi? Doesn’t the bible say pi is 3? :rolleyes: How does the existence of these qualities lead to the Christian god?
Not so, simply because the Christian god is beyond human comprehension.
If such is the case, why does the bible say pi is 3? Why is it so skimpy on mathematics? Why doesn’t it tell us that c is 300,000 km/s?
That doesn’t prove anything, does it?
I must be reading another Watchmaker analogy, one that is distinctly difference from yours.
The version I kept hearing is an ID (Intelligent Design) argument.
That’s interesting, because that is a conflict with some fundamental Christian doctrines.
Are you admitting the Christian god is not:
- eternal
- omniscient?
Science as the practice of finding out how God works? Now that is a contradiction.
Again, the Watchmaker analogy is not a complete theological hypothesis about the Christian god. It is a fallacious ID argument.
rjung, neither Big Bang nor Christianity have been proven.
I don’t understand how you can embrace/discard any one theory in favor of another.
Dieter, all you provided was a definition without applying it to the conversation at hand. The definition alone didn’t answer the question.
How can you embrace the “affirmative statement” of “no god. period.” given the ultimate lack of proof in support of any given scientific theory?
If the proof is incomplete on any given theory, then all other theories are possible until one theory is conclusively proven to be Truth[sup]TM[/sup]. No?
Christianity and Big Bang are both possible, as is Islam, the Invisible Pink Unicorn, or whatever.
If all theories have the burden of proving themselves correct, then no theory should be adopted as Truth since no theories have been proven to be Truth.
Accordingly, Baptists, Mormons, and Big Bangers should acknowledge the possibility of truth in each other’s theories.
Athiests deny the possibilites of truth in religion with no more basis than the devoutly religious deny the possibility of truth in Science.
But, there is (mucho) evidence to support the big bang theory, while all evidence discredits religion. See, science has a way of incorporating new ideas- science is not an orthodoxy holding on to ancient ways of seeing the world.
You display a misunderstanding of the scientific meaning of the word theory- gravity is a theory, do you doubt it’s existence? In scientific use, almost everything is a theory. If it can be disproved, it is discarded, but many things can neither be proved or disproved conclusively. There are mountains of evidence supporting a scientific view of the world.
Athiests who adopt Science as Truth based upon an incomplete proof are making the same “errors in reasoning” that many Atheists condemn the religious for making.
Thank you for this interesting point that I am too tired to consider at the moment. I’ll be back.:o
The “just a theory” attitude is a pet peeve of mine, a scientific theory has been proven. Just because scientists have higher standards of truth than thiests and still call something a theory doesn’t make it false. Gravity is a theory, calling it a theory doesn’t mean I’m going to float off into space.