What is Atheism?

Conscript · 3 Apr 2008 at 13:22

This makes me an agnostic atheist then.

The whole argument is essentially pointless anyway. God's existence cannot be proven and by the same logic, cannot be disproven. No amount of arguing is ever going to reach a conclusion.

V3g3tto · 3 Apr 2008 at 13:57

God is a 300 year old turtle living in Bermuda. I am right until proven otherwise, haha

Conscript · 3 Apr 2008 at 14:27

V3g3tto said:
God is a 300 year old turtle living in Bermuda. I am right until proven otherwise, haha

Pretty much. Look up the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster as an established parody of the stance of religious beliefs.

V3g3tto · 3 Apr 2008 at 14:45

Setting up a religion is easy, i believe theres a video on youtube called "how to start a cult" or something, it's great. Just look at scientology, if a sci-fi author can create that, just imagine what J.K Rowling could create!

manoz · 3 Apr 2008 at 14:52

Conscript said:
This makes me an agnostic atheist then.

The whole argument is essentially pointless anyway. God's existence cannot be proven and by the same logic, cannot be disproven. No amount of arguing is ever going to reach a conclusion.

What I don't understand is that just because we've made advances in science people are using it as excuse to say God doesn't exist and therefore religion isn't right blah blah blah. I believe there's still more proof God exists then not by the very fact we're here(and why religion even exists).

RDM · 3 Apr 2008 at 14:57

manoz said:
I believe there's still more proof God exists then not by the very fact we're here(and why religion even exists).

The fact we are here doesn't prove that God exists any more than it proves abiogenesis and evolution are right. And if you look at the evolution of religion it starts to look more and more man made rather than divinly inspired.

Jet · 3 Apr 2008 at 14:57

manoz said:
What I don't understand is that just because we've made advances in science people are using it as excuse to say God doesn't exist and therefore religion isn't right blah blah blah. I believe there's still more proof God exists then not by the very fact we're here(and why religion even exists).

In the past people couldn't explain the setting and rising and the sun or the weather or even certain diseases. They couldn't understand how these things could occur without a god.

The reason we don't believe in the those specific gods anymore is because we have rational explanations for the phenomena they were created to explain. There's stuff we don't fully understand at this point in time. Some stuff we may never find out but that's no reason to say a god is behind it all.

semi-pro waster · 3 Apr 2008 at 15:03

manoz said:
What I don't understand is that just because we've made advances in science people are using it as excuse to say God doesn't exist and therefore religion isn't right blah blah blah.

If the Universe can be explained and modelled without the interference of a god then some people will choose that explanation, just as some will choose to believe that he/she/it created the Universe. Religion (which one, there are more than a couple?) could be right and co-exist with science as an exposition of the laws set in motion by a god, religion could be wrong and science is the only possible way to explain the creation of the Universe except that we haven't yet reached the level of understanding to do so or finally religion could be right and science has merely been a neat way of passing the time and explaining away things that happen in our corner of space. I'm probably missing out another couple of possibilities here.

manoz said:
I believe there's still more proof God exists then not by the very fact we're here(and why religion even exists).

That is totally faith based, to make the assertion you need faith because we have no proof either way. It could just as easily be a giant cosmic lottery where with enough inputs you will eventually end up with the Universe as we have now.

V3g3tto · 3 Apr 2008 at 15:20

Quiz Question #15:

Q: What's the difference between a carpenter telling me he's the son of God whilst he's fitting my kitchen today and a carpenter telling me 2030 years or so ago?

Dolph · 3 Apr 2008 at 15:22

V3g3tto said:
Quiz Question #15:

Q: What's the difference between a carpenter telling me he's the son of God whilst he's fitting my kitchen today and a carpenter telling me 2030 years or so ago?

It's a lot easier to disprove the first than the second.

Conscript · 3 Apr 2008 at 15:23

manoz said:
What I don't understand is that just because we've made advances in science people are using it as excuse to say God doesn't exist and therefore religion isn't right blah blah blah.

Because much of what was originally taught to be the truth has been overturned. The Bible tells us that God created the heaven and the Earth in 6 days, and that the Earth is 6,000 years old. Which completely rules out the existence of the dinosaurs 65 millions years ago, which is not something written or theorised about, but something about which we have evidence and can prove happened. Which sort of knocks the whole Creation argument into a cocked hat. Thus, the religious teachings in this respect are wrong.

V3g3tto · 3 Apr 2008 at 15:26

Conscript said:
Because much of what was originally taught to be the truth has been overturned. The Bible tells us that God created the heaven and the Earth in 6 days, and that the Earth is 6,000 years old. Which completely rules out the existence of the dinosaurs 65 millions years ago, which is not something written or theorised about, but something about which we have evidence and can prove happened. Which sort of knocks the whole Creation argument into a cocked hat. Thus, the religious teachings in this respect are wrong.

Also The Bible was written well after Jesus's death, by many different people, added to decades and centuries after. It also contradicts itself at just about every opportunity, love thy neighbour is the best example of this, read on and it tells you to kick his ass lol.

V3g3tto · 3 Apr 2008 at 15:28

Dolph said:
It's a lot easier to disprove the first than the second.

Hmm, good answer.

Although, what if the modern carpenter died just after fitting my kitchen, neither can show/tell us anything, we have to rely on what others (who have never met either) tell us.

V3g3tto · 3 Apr 2008 at 15:30

Just thought on the subject of the Bible:

What the hell are people called Matthew, Mark, Luke and John doing living in the middle east? Business trip?

Did half those names even exist 2000+ years ago?

Dolph · 3 Apr 2008 at 15:35

V3g3tto said:
Hmm, good answer.

Although, what if the modern carpenter died just after fitting my kitchen, neither can show/tell us anything, we have to rely on what others (who have never met either) tell us.

That would depend on what other information was about at the time, reports of evidence to support and so on.

Having said that, I'm not a christian, I don't believe the bible to be a history book, and so on. Arguing atheism by criticism of christianity isn't really an argument for atheism, but an argument against christianity.

NeilF · 3 Apr 2008 at 15:40

Ice Rich said:
Hi all,

What exactly is atheism and what is ment when you decribe someone as an atheist?

Is it to believe in no religion, god?

Not sure! But I don't believe in it!

V3g3tto · 3 Apr 2008 at 15:51

Dolph said:
That would depend on what other information was about at the time, reports of evidence to support and so on.

Having said that, I'm not a christian, I don't believe the bible to be a history book, and so on. Arguing atheism by criticism of christianity isn't really an argument for atheism, but an argument against christianity.

I'm not an Atheist though, there's no proof anything exists or doesn't as people have said. Then again it's all word of mouth. A drunk American finds an empty tin of beans in a desert and claims its from outer space, then 60 years later, it's considered by many aliens landed there. Really, The lord of the Rings books hold just as much weight as any religious text: It's written text, written by another human being, fact and fiction become blurred.

What always made me laugh though, is how in any religion, the deity or such is made into their race with it's own back story. Apparently in Europe/America, Jesus was a Caucasian male carpenter, only son to caucasian parents: Mary and Joseph, who's mates were John, matthew,etc,etc. And God is depicted male with a white beard. At least they could keep goegraphical/historical context in place lol.

manoz · 3 Apr 2008 at 15:54

Conscript said:
Because much of what was originally taught to be the truth has been overturned. The Bible tells us that God created the heaven and the Earth in 6 days, and that the Earth is 6,000 years old. Which completely rules out the existence of the dinosaurs 65 millions years ago, which is not something written or theorised about, but something about which we have evidence and can prove happened. Which sort of knocks the whole Creation argument into a cocked hat. Thus, the religious teachings in this respect are wrong.

Yeah but aren't you meant to take those with a grain of salt and are purely metaphorical, the 6 day and 6000 year thing.

Jet said:
In the past people couldn't explain the setting and rising and the sun or the weather or even certain diseases. They couldn't understand how these things could occur without a god.

The reason we don't believe in the those specific gods anymore is because we have rational explanations for the phenomena they were created to explain. There's stuff we don't fully understand at this point in time. Some stuff we may never find out but that's no reason to say a god is behind it all.

Just because we can explain some stuff with science, does that mean we should rule out God entirely? There's still stuff we don't know now like you said so it's a bit like what was back in the day. Except now more people are using science as an excuse that God has been disproved, when it doesn't actually seek to do that.

Conscript · 3 Apr 2008 at 15:58

manoz said:
Yeah but aren't you meant to take those with a grain of salt and are purely metaphorical, the 6 day and 6000 year thing.

So they aren't any use at all for explaining the foundations of the universe in which we live?

manoz said:
Just because we can explain some stuff with science, does that mean we should rule out God entirely? There's still stuff we don't know now like you said so it's a bit like what was back in the day. Except now more people are using science as an excuse that God has been disproved, when it doesn't actually seek to do that.

Of course there still stuff we don't know. I'd rather live in a world where we constantly strive to find out though, rather than just plump for "It must be God", that old guy in the clouds for whom we have no proof of existence.

If you'd rather have a personal faith in God and convince yourself he exists and comforts you, fine. But I am happier living in a world without God, because from what I have seen, despite the comfort he brings a lot of people, he also causes people to commit some of the most violent and abohorrent acts the world has ever seen and divides more people than he unites.

RDM · 3 Apr 2008 at 16:00

manoz said:
Yeah but aren't you meant to take those with a grain of salt and are purely metaphorical, the 6 day and 6000 year thing.

Who knows? It could be that it is meant to be metaphorical or it could be that it was meant to be the actual literal word of God. The Bible is a bit short on reading guidelines. It then brings in to question if that bit of the bible is metaphorical and should be taken with a grain of salt, what other bits should be taken with a grain of salt?