If you don't believe in god, does it follow that you must believe the reverse is true - no god, no creator, nothing?
Nero - questioning Christian-oriented agnostic
Depends very much on definitions, I'm afraid.
If one doesn't believe in god yet defines god as the creator then yes. If one doesn't believe in the conventional definition of god (as some kind of anthropomorphic supreme being in the common religious sense) then one could still have room for "something else" I guess.
I can only speak for myself. I do not believe in god, gods, creators, supreme beings or any supernatural entity (super-natural being literally "outside nature" - beyond physics etc.).
Nope.
"I do not believe in god." is a different thing than "I believe god does not exist."
For most the atheists I know, it's not a "there is no god" type assumption, but a "I have never seen god, nor any poof of god, and so I doubt his existence, until proven otherwise".
(on a personal note, I'm not an atheist.. not really)
statement p = I believe that a God exists.
therefore -p = I don't believe that a God exists.
Pretty cut and dried to me. Seems if one doesn't believe in the possibility of a God's existence, then one doesn't believe in the possibility of a God's existence.
An agnostic might believe in the possibility of a God's existence without actually believing in any currently recognized deity.
Quote from: Nero on October 09, 2009, 09:33:58 AM
If you don't believe in god, does it follow that you must believe the reverse is true - no god, no creator, nothing?
Not sure I understand this logic, it seems very linear. Maybe there's more than one god. In fact, maybe everything is god (my personal belief). If everything is god (otherwise known as 'All That Is') then there is no 'God', nevertheless God exists.
Thanks for your posts.
Well, as hard a time as I have believing in god, I seem to have an equally hard time believing in nothing. :laugh:
Just because you don't believe in god as its usually defined doesn't mean you believe in nothing.
Two common arguments for why god exists...
"It's all too amazing to happen by chance, therefore god exists!"
- argument from incredulity
- misunderstanding of what "chance" means
"Science can't explain X, therefore god exists!"
- argument from ignorance ("god of the gaps")
For a longer list (some quite funny) of arguments for god, see:
- http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm (http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm)
And a more seriously worded yet quite good summary:
- http://www.godlessgeeks.com/WhyAtheism.htm (http://www.godlessgeeks.com/WhyAtheism.htm)
(I have no particular preference for these sites, they just provided useful links).
Fundamentally, though, they all ultimately seem to boil down to the two I explicitly mention above and they are, in turn, founded on confirmation bias...proponents just want to believe! Of course, it doesn't have to be just good ol' Jehovah etc. you can insert any pseudo-deity or similar belief in here and have exactly the same irrational arguments put forward (I'm looking at you wiccans here...poke poke) :)
I bet you wouldn't say that to the Invisible Pink Unicorn (http://www.invisiblepinkunicorn.com/) :P
Hehe, true! All hail the Eye-Pee-You! :)
I don't believe in religion and I have serious reservations about the bible but I more and more I am rediscovering my belief and trust in God.
It is an undeniable fact that Communism exists but I do not believe in it.
There are portions of the Communist ideology that I do agree with but because
of the way human beings have interpreted and twisted the tenets of the ideology
the real world practice of Communism has produced some very horrific results.
As long as there are people who believe that they are "more equal than others',
Communism will never produce the nirvana which it's forefathers envisioned.
The same goes for the human interpretation of "God"
Quote from: Nero on October 09, 2009, 10:51:23 AM
Thanks for your posts.
Well, as hard a time as I have believing in god, I seem to have an equally hard time believing in nothing. :laugh:
Why does it have to be one or the other? Why believe anything? People need to use facts to guide their lives not beliefs.
Post Merge: October 09, 2009, 02:13:52 PM
QuoteIt is an undeniable fact that Communism exists but I do not believe in it
Poor choice of words. You do not subscribe to it. Or you do not believe that the intent of communism will bring about a result as in the hopes of those that praise it.
Quote from: lisagurl on October 09, 2009, 02:09:00 PMPeople need to use facts to guide their lives not beliefs.
The fact is, I was born with male genitals but I believe I am a woman.
Which should I use to guide my life, the facts or my belief? Religion is the same.
True belief is very personal, based on personal experience and insight.
Quote from: lisagurl on October 09, 2009, 02:09:00 PMPoor choice of words.
You say tomato, I say pogo stick.
Quote from: heatherrose on October 09, 2009, 01:18:01 PM
As long as there are people who believe that they are "more equal than others',
Communism will never produce the nirvana which it's forefathers envisioned.
The same goes for the human interpretation of "God"
girl that is right on the money. If there is a god surely that god would not be so petty as to actually favor one arbitrary group of people over another. It's all a shell game. I prefer a religion or philosophy where hatred and bigotry towards those who are different isn't even possible within its tenets. If anything is god, then everything is god. If there is god then god must be beyond our wildest dreams and can never be put in a box, no matter how many religions try to do so.
How is it they live for eons in such harmony-
the billions of stars-
when most men can barely go a minute
without declaring war in their mind against someone they know.
There are wars where no one marches with a flag,
though that does not keep
casualties from mounting.
Our hearts irrigate this earth.
We are fields before
each other.
How can we live in harmony?
First we need to
know
we are all madly in love
with the same
God.
-Thomas Aquinas
Quote from: FairyGirl on October 09, 2009, 02:31:41 PMIf anything is god, then everything is god. If there is god then god must be beyond our wildest dreams and can never be put in a box, no matter how many religions try to do so.
...and if "God" is everything (which I believe it is) we, being made of stardust, are "God".
Quote from: FairyGirl on October 09, 2009, 02:31:41 PM
How is it they live for eons in such harmony-
the billions of stars-
when most men can barely go a minute
without declaring war in their mind against someone they know.
There are wars where no one marches with a flag,
though that does not keep
casualties from mounting.
Our hearts irrigate this earth.
We are fields before
each other.
How can we live in harmony?
First we need to
know
we are all madly in love
with the same
God.
-Thomas Aquinas
That was beautiful. Thank you for sharing it with us.
Quote from: Nero on October 09, 2009, 09:33:58 AM
If you don't believe in god, does it follow that you must believe the reverse is true - no god, no creator, nothing?
Nope. "I believe there is no god" is logically distinct from "I do not believe there is a god". The former is the belief of absence, the latter the absence of belief.
Quote from: Kait on October 09, 2009, 02:47:29 PM
Nope. "I believe there is no god" is logically distinct from "I do not believe there is a god". The former is the belief of absence, the latter the absence of belief.
I'm chewing on this a little...
Imagine I am looking at an empty glass. "I believe there is no beer" compared with "I do not believe there is beer" may be grammatically distinct but I'm not sure what the logical distinction is, as it is only a transposition, not a differentiation. Eg:
belief := no beer
no belief := beer
Logical equivalence remains despite the transposition of the negative, no?
Quote from: finewine on October 09, 2009, 03:35:02 PM
I'm chewing on this a little...
Imagine I am looking at an empty glass. "I believe there is no beer" compared with "I do not believe there is beer" may be grammatically distinct but I'm not sure what the logical distinction is, as it is only a transposition, not a differentiation. Eg:
belief := no beer
no belief := beer
Logical equivalence remains despite the transposition of the negative, no?
No.
The culprit is an illusion of duality. What you're thinking is similar to this: If a person is either good or evil, then saying I do not believe they are good implies that I believe they are evil, *only* if you have to believe one or the other. You can say *both* 'I do not believe they are good' and 'I do not believe they are evil' if you aren't sure one way or the other.
The same applies to 'God'. You can believe there is God, believe there is no god, or you can be unsure either way. If I am unsure I can say 'I do not believe there is God', without implying that 'I believe there is no God'.
This is the difference, respectively, between theistic religion, atheism, and agnosticism. (And yes, traditionally Atheism is defined as the positive belief in the absence of god, not the lack of belief in the existence of God.)
Quote from: finewine on October 09, 2009, 03:35:02 PM
I'm chewing on this a little...
Imagine I am looking at an empty glass. "I believe there is no beer" compared with "I do not believe there is beer" may be grammatically distinct but I'm not sure what the logical distinction is, as it is only a transposition, not a differentiation. Eg:
belief := no beer
no belief := beer
Logical equivalence remains despite the transposition of the negative, no?
Let's put it this way... are you actively denying the existence of all the specific people you've never heard of, or do you merely have no positive belief in their existence?
The negation of belief is the absence of belief.
If you say "God does not exist", that's a positive statement of belief and not the negation of belief.
Whereas "I do not believe in God" is the absence of a positive belief in God, just the same as the absence of a positive belief in all the people you've never heard of.
b(x) := I believe x is true
`b(x) := `(I believe x is true) = I do not believe x is true
b(`x) := I believe `x is true = I believe x is not true
`b(x) != b(`x)
Peoples ideas of God range through a whole spectrum.
Everything from the typical god or no god, to aliens, to mother nature, to...
I tend to believe in in mother nature and panspermia (the theory earth was seeded from space in some manner, the likeliest source being a metorite).
Quote from: heatherrose on October 09, 2009, 01:18:01 PMIt is an undeniable fact that Communism exists but I do not believe in it.
Quote from: lisagurl on October 09, 2009, 02:09:00 PMYou do not subscribe to it. Or you do not believe that the intent of communism will bring about a result as in the hopes of those that praise it.
When I say, I do not "believe in" something, I mean that my beliefs are not in that thing.
Quote from: Kait on October 09, 2009, 04:02:11 PMb(x) := I believe x is true
`b(x) := `(I believe x is true) = I do not believe x is true
b(`x) := I believe `x is true = I believe x is not true
`b(x) != b(`x)
still sounds like a lot of bx to me... :laugh:
but yes, saying "I don't believe in Obama" (as in, abilities, whatever) is not the same as saying "I do not believe Obama exists"
Quote from: Ketsy on October 09, 2009, 03:54:40 PM
No.
The culprit is an illusion of duality. What you're thinking is similar to this: If a person is either good or evil, then saying I do not believe they are good implies that I believe they are evil, *only* if you have to believe one or the other. You can say *both* 'I do not believe they are good' and 'I do not believe they are evil' if you aren't sure one way or the other.
Interesting and I would agree that !good != evil. But my problem with this is that good and evil are contrary traits, whereas all we have in the previous examples where variations of expression in belief founded on the *same* trait, i.e. that there isn´t beer :)
Quote
The same applies to 'God'. You can believe there is God, believe there is no god, or you can be unsure either way. If I am unsure I can say 'I do not believe there is God', without implying that 'I believe there is no God'.
I honestly can´t discern a substantive difference between those two statements. Surely if one is unsure, it is that you don´t know if there is a god or not...and *that* seems very different from where you put the negation to me.
Quote from: Kait on October 09, 2009, 04:02:11 PM
Let's put it this way... are you actively denying the existence of all the specific people you've never heard of, or do you merely have no positive belief in their existence?
Well, neither because the existence of other people is credible, whether I have heard of them or not.
Quote
The negation of belief is the absence of belief.
If you say "God does not exist", that's a positive statement of belief and not the negation of belief.
Whereas "I do not believe in God" is the absence of a positive belief in God, just the same as the absence of a positive belief in all the people you've never heard of.
[...]
I confess the distinction is too subtle for me to discern. An agnostic position inherently allows for the possibility of existence whereas neither belief in non-existence or non-belief in existence allow for that...at least not in the way I grok the written language.
Not that I want to argue the point, it is more that I cannot discern a point of significance to debate in the first place, if you know what I mean! :)
Ooo ooo... try this one:
If someone is never ever confronted with the idea of the divine, she utterly lacks belief. If someone has heard of deities, but isn't interested, she also lacks belief. If someone is raised Catholic, and then becomes a "hard" atheist who positively denies God, she's certainly got a belief.
Quote from: Nero on October 09, 2009, 09:33:58 AMIf you don't believe in god, does it follow that you must believe the reverse is true - no god, no creator, nothing?
The "God", which this current manifestation of civilization has built up,
is nothing but a yoke of oppression, used by those who consider themselves
more equal, to control the ignorant masses. Rejection of this hollow "God" is the
beginning of understanding but does not necessarily negate the possibility that an
omnipotent creative beneficence exists. It is human nature to seek a power greater
than themselves, a power not given to the same faults and vanities as themselves.
The problem with an individual discovering their own true path to "God" leaves
them feeling so empowered by this profound knowledge that they must share
it with others and the cycle starts once again. The belief or disbelief in
a "God" is not the problem. The problem is that an organized religion,
most likely started by an individual with the best of intentions,
believes that they have a corner on the "God Market".
QuoteThe fact is, I was born with male genitals but I believe I am a woman.
Which should I use to guide my life, the facts or my belief? Religion is the same.
True belief is very personal, based on personal experience and insight.
It is not that you believe you are a women it is that you want to be a women. It can be debated what a women is, or what culture is in relation to physical and mental gender stereotyping, or what is comfortable for you. But the fact that you have genitals that do not match the cultural definition how you feel is not a belief.
I am glad someone else has a ring side to what is going on inside my head
'cause it is one hell of a show, never a dull moment. You must have stepped
out for popcorn before the "Gender Identification Parade" passed in revue. I
have it on good authority (from the chik that cleans up after the efelants)
that the fact is, my head says I am a woman although
my genitalia denotes otherwise.
Ah...the age old subject of belief...
.
Nero: As a fellow agnostic (which will probably only show that even in agnosticism there is variety), I don't think that it need be one or the other.
.
Personally, I look at it like this:
.
There really isn't solid proof of god's existence. (finewine's 'godless geeks' links point out many of the logical fallacies used by many as proofs)
.
However, there isn't any way that god's existence can be completely dis-proven. No matter how many theories are plied, or fossils dug-up, there is always the possibility that things exist that are beyond our means to confirm, and beyond our ability to sense.
.
Which, of course, is why we call religions "Faiths." They aren't based on facts...they're based on beliefs.
.
Most people are taught a religion from the time they are born, and stay with the same one throughout their life. They don't really choose their religion, as much as they don't think to question the one that has been chosen for them.
.
Currently, there are about 22 "major" religion classifications (those with over 500,000 members), derived from over 4,000 different religions. If you also include historical religions that have died out, the number increases exponentially. In short, there are a ton of different belief systems out there that one could possibly choose. How one believes in a god can vary greatly.
.
More often than not, what someone believes boils down to what they want to believe. "I want to believe that god is benevolent" "I want to know X." "I want to believe in an afterlife." "I want to believe that science can explain everything." etc, etc...
.
While following one's own desires can be a good way to bring personal comfort, they are a poor way to determine truth. (And so the question should be asked, what are you looking for in a religion?)
.
For me, truth is far more important than comfort.
I don't believe in any specific god...but I don't deny the possibility that a god could exist. I'm open to any proof that might be out there. But in knowing the practical foundational aspects of faith and belief, I'm don't expect to see anything that would constitute proof. Therefore, I can either run myself ragged trying to prove the un-proveable...or I can accept that I don't...and cannot...know.
.
It is no shame to admit one's own ignorance.
.
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
Some would say that I have achieved a level of perfect ignorance.
I take a certain amount of pride in my ignorance. If it was not for my ignorance,
my life would not be as interesting as it is. My ignorance has caused me to question
the the mind numbing pablum that organized religion tried to spoon feed me.
There is not god. Sin does not exist and there is literally no way to actually go to hell. I used to be a believer and was on a 'born again' path and was riding down the rode listening to the bible on cassette and it hit me..angry god, jealous god, incest, stone your kid to death, fallen angels, dinosaurs, etc. At that very moment I became liberated. All the guilt that I had because of my belief in god had vanished. I have never turned back since and am loving it.
Dana,
Were you pissed off at "God" or what some domineering politician wrote claiming
to have received HIS marching orders directly from "The Almighty"?
Friend of mine posted this on Facebook the other day, he's got a way with words.
If your God hates what you hate, then it's certain you've made him in your image.
Quote from: heatherrose on October 11, 2009, 12:06:09 AM
Dana,
Were you pissed off at "God" or what some domineering politician wrote claiming
to have received HIS marching orders directly from "The Almighty"?
No, I wasn't pissed off at anyone and politics had nothing to do with it.
Quote from: Miniar on October 11, 2009, 08:01:27 AM
Friend of mine posted this on Facebook the other day, he's got a way with words.
If your God hates what you hate, then it's certain you've made him in your image.
I like that! :) Nicely said.
Organized religion is nothing but politics.
Quote from: heatherrose on October 11, 2009, 12:16:27 PM
Organized religion is nothing but politics.
It is also a trained culture and cultist organized community.
Quote from: heatherrose on October 11, 2009, 12:16:27 PM
Organized religion is nothing but politics.
Organized politics is nothing but religion. ;)
Quote from: finewine on October 09, 2009, 04:37:05 PM
I confess the distinction is too subtle for me to discern. An agnostic position inherently allows for the possibility of existence whereas neither belief in non-existence or non-belief in existence allow for that...at least not in the way I grok the written language.
Not that I want to argue the point, it is more that I cannot discern a point of significance to debate in the first place, if you know what I mean! :)
It's a fault of the language we're using to talk about this (which is a fault of language in general, not this).
If you do not believe in the existence of God, you can be in a number of possible situations:
1) Unaware of the concept of God in the first place
2) Unsure about the existence of God
3) Believe that there is no God.
English has a way of making negations connote assertions. 'I do not believe in God' *can* be taken to mean 'I believe there is no God' especially when spoken verbally where emphasis can be placed differently. Consider 'I do NOT have a belief in God' versus 'I do not have a *belief* in God' One statement negates the belief itself, one statement negates the subject of belief.
So an Agnostic falls under case 2, Atheist under case 3, and Child raised by wolves falls under case 1 :).
Quote from: heatherrose on October 11, 2009, 12:16:27 PM
Organized religion is nothing but politics.
The operating word in 'Organized religion' is *organized*, and there is little difference between organized religion, organized politics, organized rebellion, and organized terrorism. Throughout history each has been associated with the other consistently and systematically. The only point of contention is who has power and who wants to claim power.
Nothing is ever so black and white. Plenty of religious people that doubt their faith, and plenty of athiestic people that still wonder. I think Richard Dawkins explained it best in "The God Delusion", the different types of people. Believers, many levels of agnostic, and atheist.
There are those who 100% believe in an omnipotent creator, and will kill and die for it.
There are those who believe but aren't about to stone a neighbor for eating fish on tuesday.
There are those who are on the fence. And don't commit one way or the other
There are those who think its highly unlikely, but not entirely impossible
And finally, those who see no evidence, therefore it is not there.
And plenty variations between
I personally fall into a catagory of agnostic, leaning heavily to atheist. Because of my nature, I cannot rule out an unknown entirely, but I'm quite sure theres no boogey man in my closet.
-note- I personally feel that organized religion of all sorts is the biggest hoax in the world, and best manipulation tactic ever.
Quote from: Jushi on October 12, 2009, 05:27:55 PM
...but I'm quite sure theres no boogey man in my closet.
Until...you open the door and she/he/it introduces her/him/itself.
:icon_chuckel:
QuoteI personally feel that organized religion of all sorts is the biggest hoax in the world, and best manipulation tactic ever.
Close but not as much as the hoax that consumerism is the path to happiness.
Very well put Ketsy. (Wow, that brings back memories from my foreign language classes. Aren't languages fun?) ;)
.
= = = = = = = = = =
Miniar: Awesome quote. I'm definitely going to remember that one.
.
= = = = = = = = = =
Heatherrose: I'll have to respectfully disagree in technical ways...even if I agree that politics is often the end result of religion. Religions are interesting things. My parents bopped around to enough of them when I was young that I got to see a lot of different variants of the christian faith. Most of the christian church-goers consider themselves to be "sheep," with the pastor or ultimately jesus (a concept that is easily co-opted) being the shepherd. The problem with sheep, is that they aren't too bright, they're easily frightened (ie. the Bush years), they often don't think for themselves as much as they should, and they're easily herded to wherever someone wants them to go. People who self-identify as "sheep" are sure to be prime targets for any political wolf, because they're easy pickin's. Not all religious folk are this way. Honestly, there are a lot of Catholics I know that I respect...because they don't follow the party line, and they do think for themselves. As with anything though, your mileage will vary person by person. Religion doesn't have to be politics...but all too often it is.
= = = = = = = = = =
.
Jushi: That's probably fairly accurate. Though I'll have to protest the language used to describe it. "On the fence" is something people in one yard or the other tend to use to try and imply a certain measure of discomfort...someone balancing between two ends that must eventually come down on one side or the other. (Often using the story of a man mid-way between two apple trees, who starves to death unable to decide which one to eat from.) While I do consider myself in the middle of the two (I think a magical being saying "Let there be Light" is about as likely as a "Big Bang")...I'm not on any fence...
.
I look at it this way:
An astronomer tells me that there is a "Planet X" located 10,000,000 light years away at certain exact coordinates. Considering the furthest ever found so far is at 17,000 light years, I'm skeptical...so I say, "It's possible...but due to our limitations we won't know in my lifetime, if ever." I don't really feel the need to address the topic again. It's a theory that I spent a lot of time on in my youth, but ultimately it doesn't effect me directly at all. However, since the world is obsessed with "Planet X," obsessed with fighting over where it is...over how it is...over what it is...over the mystical way it effects the Earth...the subject constantly comes up. Nasty neighbors throwing trash over the fence at each other as they fight, while I watch from my backyard and shake my head and sigh.
I'm not "on the fence" about the subject...I'm comfortably in my own yard. I don't know, and I don't have to pretend that I know. I don't have to pretend that there is enough evidence on either side to prove their arguments conclusively...nor do I have to waste any further time trying to decide between A and B....I'm C. If one day one of them come to my door with new and exciting information about "Planet X", they can invite me to their barbeque, and I'll see if I like their yard any better than mine. I somehow doubt it, but I won't be closed-minded to new information (or a free lunch ;) ).
.
That said, there are people who are "on the fence"...but I don't consider them to really be agnostic, because they still view the world in those black and white...here or there...terms...which is why they're torn. "Agnostic" isn't the same as "undecided." It's about choosing something other than the 2 options originally offered.
.
There are far more shades of gray and color out there to be found that are unaccounted for in the black and white view of Atheism vs. Religion. As many variations as found in the male-female paradigm we all know so well. Ultimately, I think that's what you were saying. Sorry about the rather long-winded disputation...the "on the fence" idiom just tends to irk me when used to describe Agnostics, because to me it misrepresents what they are.
.
I'm not usually very vocal, but after rereading this...I have to say....good god (ignoring the irony of those words)...am I a rabid Agnostic? :angel: >:-)
Quote from: Kay on October 12, 2009, 11:30:20 PMI'll have to respectfully disagree in technical ways...
:eusa_naughty: No, you are not allowed to. :icon_chuckel:
Quote from: Kay on October 12, 2009, 11:30:20 PMReligion doesn't have to be politics...but all too often it is.
Politics is a system used to control the masses with the threat of violence. :police:
Religion is a system used to control the masses with the threat of damnation. >:-)
Quote from: Dee_pntx on October 13, 2009, 02:33:10 AM
I am a militant Atheist. I do not believe in ANY so called supernatural deities, at all. None. Zip.
They do not exist. Period. There is no heaven, there is no hell. None other than the here and now.
You have your heaven or your hell NOW. When you die, you are dead. Lights out. The synapses cease fire and your cells die and your memories die with you. There is no "soul" or "spirit". Period.
NO ONE and NO THING will ever convince me otherwise.
Personally, I am deeply offended by "religion" and when people start talking the stuff I take offense.
I bite my tongue and say nothing because most "religious" people will KILL you if you dare to disagree with their silly beliefs.
It's a very dangerous thing to be an Atheist in this world. Funny thing, how the most violent and hateful people in the world are "religious"..
And that is where I stand on the issue. I will not budge. I will fight to the death for my right of freedom FROM religion.
I will NOT fight for anyone else's right to believe in invisible beings in the sky.
I normally keep this to myself but it was asked and I am being honest.
I do not mean to offend, I mean only to speak my piece in peace.
Be well. :)
I find that "millitant" atheism is not too much better then religious extremism.. Being curt and rude does not change minds. Also, Silly beliefs aren't the problem. Its the opression of forcing beliefs upon others that is the problem. If people learn to believe what they want whilest not trying to force others to live by the rules they live by, Then religion wouldn't be an issue.
In short, People need to understand that the US has a separation of church and state.
I fight for Freedom. Freedom to believe in the abrahamic god, no god, Wotan, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
And no one's freedom should interfere with another's.
Now, I don't think its a great idea to spend one's life worshiping any diety. But I can only offer a kind heart and my own insight. And people will do what they will with it. Some people may see it my way, some may spit in my face for such blasphemey.
Life is short. Smile and move on.
:icon_bunch:
Quote from: Dee_pntx on October 13, 2009, 03:35:00 AM
Oh? And in what alternate universe is that?
Take a stroll through google images for "In god we trust" and get back with us.. --> http://tinyurl.com/yzue6pa (http://tinyurl.com/yzue6pa)
There is NO separation of "church" and state in this country or most any other country in the world.
MOST laws in this country are based on "Abrahamic law."
Until the "In god we trust" is removed from all forms of legal tender, from all public documents, from the faces of public buildings, until the 10 commandments are removed from court houses, capital buildings, until prayers are banned from football games in public schools until "swearing on the bible" is banned, until "god" is removed from national anthems and especially removed from the pledge of allegiance, there is NO SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE IN THIS COUNTRY.
I will NOT recite the pledge of allegiance nor sing the national anthem until those items are resolved.
I do not use paper money or coin because I do not support the phrases that are printed on them as they are NOT representative of me or my beliefs.
Thus I pointed out that people need to understand it.. No one asked you to recite the pledge, or sing the anthem. You're arguing for no reason hun. The attitude you have is very off putting and pointless.. It won't help you achieve your goal of spreading atheism, I assure you. For the sake of this forum, Please do not turn this thread into an idiotic flame fest. If you take further issue with what I say, I think it is best posted in the PMS zone.
QuoteOh? And in what alternate universe is that?
I am not keen on religion having a effect on my freedom and liberties also. But I think you need some history classes. Read the Federalist Papers and see the discussion on religion. Now as for" In God We Trust" it was the McCarthy era when people were afraid of communism, that the extremists lobbied the government to distinguish the Moral U.S. capitalism from Atheist Russian communism. We did blacklist many people in that period in the name of democracy. The Demos is mob rule. Now also it is not "Abrahamic law" but natural common sense that most all civilizations follow including Abraham. I could suggest a host of books but perhaps you would prefer to watch a class now on going at Harvard. You can find it at,
http://wgbh.org/programs/ProgramDetail.cfm?programID=429 (http://wgbh.org/programs/ProgramDetail.cfm?programID=429)
Quote from: Dee_pntx on October 13, 2009, 02:33:10 AM
NO ONE and NO THING will ever convince me otherwise.
...
And that is where I stand on the issue. I will not budge.
I'm very sorry that you feel so outright hostile to religion. I don't know what experience you had with it that burned you so, but I wish you could see that statements like those aren't logical or rational - you're basically saying you take atheism on
faith, and preemptively reject evidence.
Quote from: Dee_pntx on October 13, 2009, 02:33:10 AM
I bite my tongue and say nothing because most "religious" people will KILL you if you dare to disagree with their silly beliefs.
Do you really believe that, or is it just hyperbole?
Quote from: Nero on October 09, 2009, 09:33:58 AM
If you don't believe in god, does it follow that you must believe the reverse is true - no god, no creator, nothing?
My answer: No. I haven't read the other posts so bear with me if I repeat anyone.
I was raised to believe God was a single almighty being. Using that definition I have to answer no to your question. There could be an entire society of beings that work in concert or just a few. Is there something behind all we can't explain? I believe there is.
I've read a lot of near death experiences. There are a few commonalities I've noticed. One is that when we pass to the other side we are immersed in love. That is the best description of heaven I could ever ask for. But I do not believe there has to be a supreme leader to keep the spiritual world in line. When you leave this world you leave behind all the negativity of this world. All there is left is love.
There's a lot to be learned from the NDEs, whether you believe it is real or imagined. One person described his "life flashing before your eyes" experience as living everything you affected, good or bad, directly or indirectly, as if it had happened to you. Punch someone in the face and you feel the fist hit you, the emotions that person felt, the hurt his/her family felt when they saw the cuts & bruises you inflicted and on and on.
This guy was a sharp shooter in the Viet Nam war. He described taking sight on a Viet Cong leader 1000 yards away, pulling the trigger and seeing his head explode through his sight. In his NDE he felt the bullet hit the head, the confusion the target felt for a split second, the pain as the bullet's ripped through and the pain of the loss from the man's wife and children and family.
If you live your life knowing everything you, good and bad, will be lived as if it all happens to you, it will change a lot of how you act and react towards others. That was one of the positives I learned from NDEs. BTW, this man had two NDEs and both times he talked about being filled with love and joy and both times he fought the forces that told him he had to come back. And he can't wait when it will finally be his turn to go home.
Julie
Quote from: Julie Marie on October 13, 2009, 12:40:43 PM
[...]
I've read a lot of near death experiences. There are a few commonalities I've noticed. One is that when we pass to the other side we are immersed in love.
Hypoxia, for one, causes a state of euphoria before you black out. A lot of things happen to the traumatized/near death mind. You can get that "life flashing before your eyes" sensation by jumping off a crane with a bungee tied to your ankle (at least the first time, when you really are afraid of death). Having very nearly drowned once, I can personally vouch for some of these reported effects but, in hindsight, I can't find anything supernatural in any of them.
Quote
This guy was a sharp shooter in the Viet Nam war. He described taking sight on a Viet Cong leader 1000 yards away, pulling the trigger and seeing his head explode through his sight. In his NDE he felt the bullet hit the head, the confusion the target felt for a split second, the pain as the bullet's ripped through and the pain of the loss from the man's wife and children and family.
The velocity and damage a shot like that would make means it would surely be impossible for there to be conscious registration of pain or anywhere near enough time to process "confusion". To be honest, virtually all this stuff can be more plausibly explained through a combination of the subjects confirmation bias/spiritual beliefs etc.. We know the mind is very pliant and that's what hypnotherapists and practitioners of NLP tap into.
I mean really, aside from the mystique and allure of these woo stories - what's more likely? Intrinsic manifestion of clinically observed mental suggestion/delusion phenomena? Or what these NDE folks blather on about?
Note that I'm not denying the finite possibility there's something in these various beliefs...it just surprises me that ostensibly intelligent people cling to them so passionately and unquestioningly. Again, I put this down to confirmation bias. Even the flimsiest of evidence seems to carry more weight when it aligns with what one wants to be true.
Look up Dannion Brinkley. Read "Saved By The Light". From there let your curiosity take you where it will. I did that. I entered into this as an agnostic with a skeptical attitude but there were too many things that couldn't be explained. Everything you've said Finewine, I've looked into and it can be the explanation for some things but other things go unexplained.
But you're right, anything you set out to prove, you can.
We can't prove there's a God yet billions of people believe, without a doubt, there's a Supreme Being of some sort. We believe the universe is 14 billion years old and was formed by the Big Bang, but what was before that? When we reach the end of the universe, what's on the other side?
There are so many things our little human minds can't fathom we resort to belief rather than trying to answer all the questions. I choose to believe what helps make me be a better, more caring person and I hope to leave this earth having made a positive difference, no matter how big or how small.
Julie
Quote from: Julie Marie on October 14, 2009, 09:46:24 AM
We can't prove there's a God yet billions of people believe, without a doubt, there's a Supreme Being of some sort. We believe the universe is 14 billion years old and was formed by the Big Bang, but what was before that? When we reach the end of the universe, what's on the other side?
[...]
There are so many things our little human minds can't fathom we resort to belief rather than trying to answer all the questions.
To be fair, it's not that we don't have the answers to those, it's that our questions don't make sense. There's no "before time" or "outside the universe". Further, the universe, though it has a shape, doesn't have any boundaries or "end".
Quote from: Julie Marie on October 14, 2009, 09:46:24 AM
[...] I choose to believe what helps make me be a better, more caring person and I hope to leave this earth having made a positive difference, no matter how big or how small.
Oh I understand and no criticism was implied! :)
Quote from: Kaitlyn on October 14, 2009, 11:24:16 AM
[...] There's no "before time" or "outside the universe".
You're quite correct and this is another one of those areas where we rapidly hit the limits of language. There's no before time because time (this universe's arrow of time) started with the universe. However, I do grok what people mean by the question, even though the question itself makes no sense. If we consider universe to be a closed loop bubble that came into existence somewhere along the arrow of time in a hyperverse, one could ask the question about whether there were hyperversal precursor conditions because the frame of reference is no longer universal time which didn't exist "prior" but hyperversal time.
Of course, we don't know if such a concept is valid - but for theories like colliding m-branes to be viable, something like that is required - those interactions couldn't be happening on
our time arrow, as it doesn't exist at that point.
So, the "answer" is beyond our understanding, supernatural.
Quote from: heatherrose on October 14, 2009, 07:55:31 PM
So, the "answer" is beyond our understanding, supernatural.
[only qouted because I began by answering this post.. the rest is a bit of a tangent]
That which we have yet to understand is not necessarily supernatural by default. Its merely beyond our understanding capabilities for the moment. May be well within our grasp in the future. It is merely unknown at this time. Trying to learn more and understand the unknown is far from easy, and we may never know in our lifetime. But I'm willing to embrace that. I'd rather walk with my eyes open in the dark, then with my eyes closed imagining a sun baked road.
Time is an invention of humans. The concept exists only because of Cause and Effect. Without Cause and Effect, there is no "Time" Thus, before The existance of the universe, There was no Time. The first Cause was the universe expanding into existance. Humans have a hard time understanding the concept of nonexistance, or the absence of "time". Its much easier for humans to believe in a being that always was and always is, that has magical powers to create and control all things. Because they don't think about it too hard. Most don't bother to question, what created this "god"? And if they do, the answer is essentially. Its Magic! And the same answer is given for many questions.
The belief in god is the easy way out. It answers all the hard questions with.. Magic. And It gives people something to blame when they can't sort out their life. And something to look forward to if their life is aweful and beyond their control. And it gives the powerful a friendly mask to wear when they need to lead the believers.
Quote from: Kaitlyn on October 14, 2009, 11:24:16 AM
To be fair, it's not that we don't have the answers to those, it's that our questions don't make sense.
.
.
"Six by nine. Forty two."
"That's it. That's all there is."
"I always thought something was fundamentally wrong with the universe."
.
Sorry Kaitlyn...couldn't resist a 'Hitchhiker's' quote with that comment :D
.
Questions and answers are most often about perspective. The above quote makes no sense unless you're thinking in base 13...and really wasn't originally intended (by the author) to make any sense at all. People have a habit of re -framing things so that they make sense to them on a personal level...regardless of whether any "Ultimate Question to The Meaning Of Life The Universe And Everything" was intended or not.
.
Still....the answer is most definitely 42. ;)
Quote from: Kay on October 14, 2009, 10:56:43 PM
Still....the answer is most definitely 42. ;)
The question is "How many pounds of chocolate could a hungry Kaitlyn eat at this moment?"
Actually it is one less seventy and
four more than sixty-five.
A romantic dinner for two.
I am undecided on the matter due to lack of clear evidence from either side.
Atheist side: There is a complete lack of evidence to support the existence of God there for (s)he must not exist.
Counter argument: Lack of evidence does not constitute evidence of lack.
So I am taking the middle ground on this one, there might be a God so I will be a nice person because it is nice to be nice and if there is a heaven for nice people when I die then that will be a happy bonus.
Well, what if heaven is only for the wicked?
What if this is neither heaven nor hell, behind the curtain?
Quote from: Washu Chan on October 22, 2009, 09:23:46 PM
I am undecided on the matter due to lack of clear evidence from either side.
Atheist side: There is a complete lack of evidence to support the existence of God there for (s)he must not exist.
Well, at risk of being tagged a pedant, one doesn't need to assert that god
must not exist to be atheist, just that one has an absence of belief. In my case, I can't deny there is a finite possibility that god exists but the overwhelming dearth of supporting evidence suggests that the possibility is vanishingly small, so I don't believe god does exist.
Quote
Counter argument: Lack of evidence does not constitute evidence of lack.
True but that's a toothless universal truth as it can apply to any hypothesis, no matter how bizarre. There are probably an infinite number of permutations one could come up with on all manner of entities and phenomena, yet our ability to study, experiment and learn is finite.
Hence we need to prioritize our endeavours by focusing on those hypotheses that show potential, which invariably means those that have at least some supporting evidence to suggest there's something to the hypothesis. (See my article on
the importance of experimental observation (http://www.jimmo.org/mind/?p=190) for a more detailed response).
QuoteI will be a nice person because it is nice to be nice and if there is a heaven for nice people when I die then that will be a happy bonus
There is a cultural responsibility and moral obligation to be a descent citizen regardless if it is nice or religion.
One can go through their whole lives not believing in either, neither or anything else there might be concerning it.
So my answer to the original question is "no" since there is a must in it.
The answer to your question... Is a most OBVIOUS, "No"
I've seen far too many connections in day to day life. Repeating words, obscure things... Etc etc etc....
But I don't believe in a god like most people do... I just see things differently.