What is Atheism?
- Thread starter Ice Rich
- Start date
You cannot disprove god but you can disprove the premises that religions are based on, thus disproving the religious god.
MookJong said:
That would be Pantheism.
Tis indeed
Everyone is an atheist of some degree or other.
Unless you believe in every single god ever (a logical impossibility, as belief in some gods precludes the belief in others)
Christians are atheist about Zeus, Ra, Odin, all the classical gods.
Jews are atheist about all gods that are not Yaweh. Muslims don't believe in any god except Allah. Etc etc.
I just go one god further than them.
I'm not a rigid to the core atheist - if you show me proof of a god, I'll believe in it. Until then, I'll cheerfully admit to being an atheist, as it upsets people all over the internet
Unless you believe in every single god ever (a logical impossibility, as belief in some gods precludes the belief in others)
Christians are atheist about Zeus, Ra, Odin, all the classical gods.
Jews are atheist about all gods that are not Yaweh. Muslims don't believe in any god except Allah. Etc etc.
I just go one god further than them.
I'm not a rigid to the core atheist - if you show me proof of a god, I'll believe in it. Until then, I'll cheerfully admit to being an atheist, as it upsets people all over the internet
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2004
- Posts
- 16,024
- Location
- 9th Inner Circle
Don't make a random choice as one should know what path is right for them, after all I didn't pick my Pagan beliefs at random and I did go to Sunday School when I was younger.
I'm a man of science. I am however humble to accept that there are some things our all knowing race does not understand, just as every year, a new discovery rubbishes what we took as gospel before that (i.e. the entire medical industry, some pills are good, oh no, now they are bad, oh no, now they give you cancer, no wait, they're good again,etc).
As such, if i do not understand something, i will accept that and not suggest it's either : a) an all powerful super-being living in space, b) Aliens or c) The Ghost of a carpenter who apparently, according to scripture written hundreds of years after his death, could get people drunk on water.
Thus, i believe what i encounter in everyday life and for most people, that is all you need to believe, and not think that the human race is so unique, special and one of a kind, that we deserve a paradise in the clouds when we biologically die.
As such, if i do not understand something, i will accept that and not suggest it's either : a) an all powerful super-being living in space, b) Aliens or c) The Ghost of a carpenter who apparently, according to scripture written hundreds of years after his death, could get people drunk on water.
Thus, i believe what i encounter in everyday life and for most people, that is all you need to believe, and not think that the human race is so unique, special and one of a kind, that we deserve a paradise in the clouds when we biologically die.
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2004
- Posts
- 16,024
- Location
- 9th Inner Circle
As am I but I am also a man of Faith. The two are not mutually exclusive.
No because atheist implies no belief in any god at all. Not believing in any specific god does not make you atheist at all if you believe in another one.
The way I see it, "theist = believes in a god of some sort" therefore "atheist = does not believe in any gods". Lack of belief comes under the umbrella of not believing in my opinion. I think there is some overlap between agnosticism and atheism.
They kind of conflict though, as science will contradict what you believe or what you have been taught by your parents, who themselves were taught it, who before them were. My dads a Christian, his missus a Catholic. She was sent to a Catholic school and told to follow it, like many others, or be punished. And to be fair, if you look at history (which could be construed as a science), all religions at some point fought one another and pretty much forced people to follow them, or threatened those who didn't, until people knew no different.
Also, ceiling cat worships only serious cat, as this is serious thread
Im agnostic. Im hedging my bets.
It's called Pascal's Wager.
M
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 27 Sep 2004
- Posts
- 25,821
- Location
- Glasgow
Feel free to go right ahead, I don't think anyone has categorically managed it yet, they have merely disproved bits but I'd be delighted if you were the first to create a GUT of all religion being false. Do bear in mind though that the number of religions is well into the thousands, particularly if you include those that are no longer followed so I hope you've got a considerable amount of time to spare.
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2004
- Posts
- 16,024
- Location
- 9th Inner Circle
They kind of conflict though, as science will contradict what you believe or what you have been taught by your parents, who themselves were taught it, who before them were. My dads a Christian, his missus a Catholic. She was sent to a Catholic school and told to follow it, like many others, or be punished. And to be fair, if you look at history (which could be construed as a science), all religions at some point fought one another and pretty much forced people to follow them, or threatened those who didn't, until people knew no different.
Also, ceiling cat worships only serious cat, as this is serious thread
It only conflicts from the point of view of science. Also, seeing as I went to Sunday School (Christian parents) my faith cannot be down to any kind of influence from an outside source. I really do believe that Science and Religion do not need to conflict.
It does, however, really annoy me when religion tries to stick its nose in when it comes to science. Like the current hybrid embryo debate. Religion should be kept out of the State and science.
Meaning out of all those religions, only one can be considered correct, as a Diety's teachings must be followed, it can't give 1000 different versions, like an international version of MS Windows.
Therefore,by following an incorrect one, if you are at all, you are actually 'sticking it to the man' as the yanks would put it
Therefore,by following an incorrect one, if you are at all, you are actually 'sticking it to the man' as the yanks would put it
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 27 Sep 2004
- Posts
- 25,821
- Location
- Glasgow
Perhaps but extremists aren't always the best to base definitions on.
No, it is "I don't have enough information" or at worst "I don't have enough information to convince me". There is evidence - anecdotal, written or experienced, whether you choose to believe any of it is up to you.
Well that's kinda what i mean. You were directly influenced from a child by your parents faith, infact like most people (including me, christian schools) encouraged to follow theirs, at a point in our lives when we didn't know what it all meant, let alone make our own judgements. Only in recent years have i decided to take things as they come and not believe what others (who i consider equals) tell me exist.
I would however never question anyones beliefs, because as humans, we need them, if religion was disproved categorically tomorrow, many people would simply lose the will to live, if they were told that we are not here for a purpose other to procreate and that when they die, they die.
Last edited:
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 27 Sep 2004
- Posts
- 25,821
- Location
- Glasgow
So following this to it's logical conclusion, the right path for me is to say that I don't have enough information to form a decision on the existence of god(s) and therefore agnostic is what I am. Being agnostic isn't necessarily an absence of any thought on the matter at all so when I call it the fence sitters position it is somewhat tongue in cheek.
I don't believe any specific idea of how the universe, in it's entirety, began. Maybe it just exists? After all most religious people believe that god simply exists. They don't believe that god somehow came into existance at some point in time, god is something that always was and always will be. If theists believe that, then believing the universe simply exists is no more or less sensible.
This is another case in point. I don't understand why people can't say (no pun intended) "We Don't understand, we're not going to make assumptions, it's beyond our knowledge until further notice"
Also, what our eyes see is literally a miniscule percentage of what is actually there. Electro-magnetic spectrum,etc. We don't see infra-red, atoms, molecules,etc, unless we set out to study them. We don't see things we don't know exist.
As to my opinion on the creation of the Universe:
I find the big bang theory flawed at base because my mind can't comprehend how "A bang started, then expanded forming the universe". From what? What put that atom, item, point in existence in the first place? What made it explode? Also the religous point of view, who created God? What made him appear? Why did he create the universe?
Therefore, i concede my mind cannot comprehend these points, from my knowledge they offer no explanations both from science and religion, just half assumptions. As such, i accept it "happened".
The most popular theories are of course the Big Bang, or perhaps that the universe has always existed. But of course, such research is an ongoing thing. I don't understand what you mean by "Do you beleiv what you see"? Could you elaborate?