keeblerdrow
Member
Q: What's the difference between an agnostic and an atheist?
A: I don't know and I don't care.
A: I don't know and I don't care.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Atheist? Raise your voice!
- Thread starter Drexon
- Start date
- Status
When I was in (a christian) kindergarten and we were told the fairy tale of creation, I asked the teacher how god was created and she didn't know an answer.
Little me thought "When I shall accept that god was 'simply there', wouldn't it be easier to believe that the world as a whole was 'simpy there' ?"
Of course, little me didn't know either about Occam's Razor or that reality wasn't as easy as he thought.
After a few years, I learned about the big bang theory and over another few years, I began to realize it's not as crazy as it sounded at first but makes sense.
So I guess I'm an atheist as long as I can think although I agree with the notion that there is the slight possibility that there is one, but it's negligibly small.
It would be the biggest twist for me since 24 Day 1 22:58 PM.
Little me thought "When I shall accept that god was 'simply there', wouldn't it be easier to believe that the world as a whole was 'simpy there' ?"
Of course, little me didn't know either about Occam's Razor or that reality wasn't as easy as he thought.
After a few years, I learned about the big bang theory and over another few years, I began to realize it's not as crazy as it sounded at first but makes sense.
So I guess I'm an atheist as long as I can think although I agree with the notion that there is the slight possibility that there is one, but it's negligibly small.
It would be the biggest twist for me since 24 Day 1 22:58 PM.
* May 18, 1872Ignatz Mouse said:
"In 1961, he was imprisoned for a week in connection with his nuclear disarmament protests" (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertrand_Russell )
Someone who goes to prison for his principles at the age of 89 is not what I'd call a pussy.
Besides, look at all these awesome aphorisms: http://en.thinkexist.com/quotes/bertrand_russell/1.html
- The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.
- Most people would rather die than think; in fact, they do so.
- The time you enjoy wasting is not wasted time.
...
Fresh Prince
Banned
So do any of us celebrate Christmas? 
tt_deeb said:
Norway.
http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article636647.ece
This survey seems a bit inconclusive though. There was a recent serious survey that showed that 52% were not religious at all, compared to 40% something religious.
I do! Christmas was originally the celebration of Yule by Pagans. It was on Dec 25th and consisted of a large feast and gift giving. Around 450AD the pope (in an effort to ease the conversion of paganism to christianity) declared Dec 25 as Jesus's day of birth.
not that I give a shit about any of this of course. It's a cultural celebration, nothing more.
not that I give a shit about any of this of course. It's a cultural celebration, nothing more.
Warm Machine
Member
pnjtony said:
Which is very ironic considering that doing anything resembling Pagan worship, like decorating trees, can make you end up with a whole lot of eternal damnation.
Fresh Prince
Banned
For me Christmans is 1) Food 2) Family and Friends 3) Otherpnjtony said:
It's weird but I dislike the fact that there are nativity scenes in public. He might be your Lord and Saviour but he isn't mine.....
Also que the true origins of Christmas...
it's funny also because in it's pagan roots, Halloween(Samhain) and Christmas(Yule) are bound to each other. Halloween signified the dying of the old god and the goddess mourning him untill his re-birth at Yule. That's why we honor the dead on halloween. The church tried creating All Saints day on November 1st but it wasn't popular enough to crush halloween (like it did with yule and ostara(easter)) This is prolly why most chrsirtians demonize halloween.
Link648099
Banned
Well, I use to be an atheist, but after awhile, couldnt find much to solidify that stance, so I was left to taking atheism on faith. More blind faith then anything. No I'm a theist, a Christian to be exact.
I'm an atheist. For some reason people seem to think that being an atheist requires one to renounce the ability to even consider various First Causes. I find that rather silly.
When I ask myself "Do you believe that there is a God?", I find that I have no belief in a Supreme Being. I base it on a belief in the natural rather than the supernatural. I am willing to consider various First Cause hypothesises, but I reject the ones that involve an all knowing, all powerful being that goes beyond natural into supernatural. Could this Universe be the result of an intelligent being? It's certainly possible. But does that make this being "superior" to you and me? That's where I think most religious people take a giant leap in their logic.
I do not reject the idea that there could be a creator being, but was he/she/it a Being with a capital B? That's where I draw the line. Consider this...If you extrapolate the growth of technology out a few million years, there will probably come a time when the descendants of today's particle accellerators will be able to trigger the birth of a Universe. Perhaps that birth could be controlled to engineer circumstances that would predetermine the evolution of life in that new Universe. But does that mean that future Dr. Joe Schmoe who "Puts his pants on just like the rest of you - one leg at a time. Except, once my pants are on, I make Universes" is God? I think not.
I call myself and atheist rather than an agnostic because I firmly do not believe that a supernatural being created the Universe. I do not know what created the Universe, but then again, none of us do.
When I ask myself "Do you believe that there is a God?", I find that I have no belief in a Supreme Being. I base it on a belief in the natural rather than the supernatural. I am willing to consider various First Cause hypothesises, but I reject the ones that involve an all knowing, all powerful being that goes beyond natural into supernatural. Could this Universe be the result of an intelligent being? It's certainly possible. But does that make this being "superior" to you and me? That's where I think most religious people take a giant leap in their logic.
I do not reject the idea that there could be a creator being, but was he/she/it a Being with a capital B? That's where I draw the line. Consider this...If you extrapolate the growth of technology out a few million years, there will probably come a time when the descendants of today's particle accellerators will be able to trigger the birth of a Universe. Perhaps that birth could be controlled to engineer circumstances that would predetermine the evolution of life in that new Universe. But does that mean that future Dr. Joe Schmoe who "Puts his pants on just like the rest of you - one leg at a time. Except, once my pants are on, I make Universes" is God? I think not.
I call myself and atheist rather than an agnostic because I firmly do not believe that a supernatural being created the Universe. I do not know what created the Universe, but then again, none of us do.
There are roughly three versions of "god" that I have heard of. The first belongs to the "Zeus throws lightning bolts at people he doesn't like, God will crash a meteor into Massachusetts for allowing gay marriage" type, which are clearly false. The second is effectively nonexistent by definition, ie. deism. And the third is incoherent, eg. most form of christianity. Basically, they either don't exist, or can't exist.
So yes, that would make me an atheist.
So yes, that would make me an atheist.
No, that's not true. Atheism has the same burden of proof as theism -- the only difference is that you claim to definitively KNOW that gods do not exist.pnjtony said:
If your belief is that there is not enough evidence to decide, or that the very question is unanswerable, then you are an AGNOSTIC, not an atheist.
ahh...you confuse agnostic with weak atheism young grasshoppah!
Just because you don't believe in a god, doesn't mean you claim to prove one doesn't exist. I think the defining difference is that I couldn't give less of a shit.
as far as the reaping goes...I sow that there is no god, does that mean I'll reap a non-god?
Just because you don't believe in a god, doesn't mean you claim to prove one doesn't exist. I think the defining difference is that I couldn't give less of a shit.
as far as the reaping goes...I sow that there is no god, does that mean I'll reap a non-god?
Atheist.
This is wrong. For me, at least, what takes effort is the explaining and the arguing with my religious family members, friends and whoever else thinks that I'm just confused or will one day return to faith.
To me it just isn't an issue. There isn't a higher power, and for me that's that.
No. This is another tiresome argument. The only ones who are going to judge me are people like this.
sefskillz said:
This is wrong. For me, at least, what takes effort is the explaining and the arguing with my religious family members, friends and whoever else thinks that I'm just confused or will one day return to faith.
To me it just isn't an issue. There isn't a higher power, and for me that's that.
isamu said:
No. This is another tiresome argument. The only ones who are going to judge me are people like this.
Atheism: : one who believes that there is no deitypnjtony said:
Agnostic: : a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and prob. unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
APerfectCircle
Member
it's become sorta "cool" to be an athiast, i thought i'd been one since i was 6 years old and got a letter form my mum to stop doing religious studies. But now im not sure, im not into strict rules, as i feel they are just the results of blind followers who have made a religion more than it should, i do believe there's something that occurs after death, and i lean in favor of being reborn. Religion is so vague, you can believe what you want.
-jinx- said:
Actually, most atheists hold the definition as "one who does not believe that gods exist," while the definition of "theist" as "one who believes that one or more gods exist". These don't fit in with what philosophers use, but they're actually realistic, since they don't create some bizarre dichotomy between "absolutely certain" and "has absolutely no clue". As far as "faith" goes, the word is jargon from the more modern religions. To say that atheism takes "faith" makes gibberish out of claims like "My faith helped me get over my mother's death."
And claiming that "knowledge" about the subject is not possible is *not* the same as claiming no belief concerning the subject, thus agnosticism is not, in the atheist's understanding, any sort of middle-of-the-road option. At any moment, you believe in gods, or you don't. That's it.
Of course, I see strong evidence that gods are created by humans, so I feel no particular need to withhold judgment here. But whatever - if other people want to believe in pixies or incoherent mishmash concepts, they're free to do so.
Mumbles: Hence the usefulness of the distinction between strong and weak atheism. I have much more times for weak atheists than strong atheists, simply because the latter is ever bit as much a faith-based position as belief in a god, and strong atheists tend to refuse to acknowledge this.
APerfectCircle
Member
i dunno, i talked to my friend who is studying pychology and he said its human nature to want a reason for everything, it could have to do with that, a reason for living and dieing.NLB2 said:
About religion, three words: Creation By Man. Some dude back a couple of thousands of years ago Came Up with this just so he could have a feasable explanation for what he saw and observed back then, instead of actually going the scientific way. That's what it comes down to for me. Why should I believe in something like that? Feels a little rediculous actually.
And oh yeah. I actually achknowledge that something may happen after you die, and some part of your personality will in some way go on.. why? Because as many here has said, we don't know everything and probably never will, and some part of physics may actually carry on our counciousness (sp?) to something we can't yet comprehend. I'm not saying I think this will actually happen, I don't believe that, but I achknowledge that there is space for such an event in physics.
And oh yeah. I actually achknowledge that something may happen after you die, and some part of your personality will in some way go on.. why? Because as many here has said, we don't know everything and probably never will, and some part of physics may actually carry on our counciousness (sp?) to something we can't yet comprehend. I'm not saying I think this will actually happen, I don't believe that, but I achknowledge that there is space for such an event in physics.
Do The Mario
Unconfirmed Member
Catholic at school never really considered the teachings to be true but more of a guide.
Now I am an atheist going into my 3rd year of zoology, I am keen on taking up Buddhism but I probably cut up too many animals to become a Buddhist. That part of my degree is mostly done however so I might look into it over the next few weeks.
Now I am an atheist going into my 3rd year of zoology, I am keen on taking up Buddhism but I probably cut up too many animals to become a Buddhist. That part of my degree is mostly done however so I might look into it over the next few weeks.
Cerebral Palsy
Banned
I don't know if I would call myself an Atheist. There could be a god. There could not be a god. I just don't really give a shit. I'd rather deal with the present over worrying about what will happen when I'm rotting in the ground. My disdain for organized religion and the religous is high.
Link648099
Banned
DaMan121 said:
Define faith for me please. If you say blind faith, you are wrong. My faith in the Christian religion is based on evidence, that which is testable. I myself am too "scientific" you could say (i.e. in my methods for which I come to hold a piece of knowledge) to take such extraordinary claims on blind faith.
Since this topic is brought up so much on these boards, im finally going to define faith for you guys. I wrote this bit on faith to another poster here on GAF a while back, and I dont feel like editing it too much, so I'll just paste it here:
Of course, that just seems to beg the question today, some 2000 years removed from the events of the New Testament, that could have been tested back then, but with all forms of history, cannot be tested today. Hence, that is why the study of History is not a science. It is not something that you can test empirically like you can physics, or chemistry. But you can collect evidence and use that evidence to infer conclusions.
One of the greatest evidences of Christianity, of course, is the New Testament. Many of you may not like that, but it's true, and I doubt anyone here can discredit it enough to change that. All of the historical evidence that we have in our possession, testifies to the accuracy of the New Testament. In addition to that positive note, we also have no significant negative points in which the New Testament is actually discredited in it's finer claims.
Being as how I must leave these school dorms in the next hour, and will be travelling to Texas from Vermont, I wont be able to be online much over the next few days. I'm sure most of you will simply dismiss what I have said, but unless you know what I know, and have studied for years this topic, and have good, solid reasons for discrediting much of the New Testament, you really do not have much of a firm foundation to stand upon, I'm sad to say. I should know, because I was in your place once, if you remember.
Of course, the best advice I can ever give anyone here whos willing to listen is not to take my word on all this. Don't listen to me, cause in your eyes, what do I know? But, if the claims I have made prove interesting to you, then check them out. See if what I am saying is true or not. Test the evidence. Follow where the truth leads you.
If you choose to do that though, always try and use balanced, credible sources. I would not recommend consulting your typical armchair atheist or Christian. Analyze information by people with halfway decent creditials. Read information that has it's sources cited at the bottom. Too many times have I been in debate with people who toss out all the general, cliche "information" they can google up against Christianity, only to see me or someone else discredit it with sound, verifiable evidence.
Going with that, I would recommend this site to any who are interested: http://www.tektonics.org/index.html
It has about 1200 articles dealing with just about any topic you can imagine. I recommend it because most of them are very well reseached with footnotes, etc.
Either way, thats all I can say on the topic.
Link648099
Banned
DaMan121 said:
What exactly bars unicorns or "leprichauns" from existing? Do we not have horned mammals? Are there not many kinds of animals that are extinct that we have not discovered yet? In the realm of Palentology and History, the first rule to remember is absence of evidence does not always mean evidence of absence. There is a mammal, a type of whale, that has a single, needle shaped horn on it's head that extends out several feet. If a whale, of all animals, can have a single protuding horn, why cannot an undiscovered species of horse have one as well?
Concerning leprichauns, I seem to recall a species of human being that was just discovered on a secluded island that reached heights no more then three feet tall. I doubt you would want to disagree with me on this. After researching this find a bit on Nature.com, I found another article that mentioned sightings of small humans in the local jungles as recent as a century or two ago. I'm sure the traditional understanding of a "leprichaun" is somewhat different then your cliche, lucky charms view of one.
So from your point of view, and based on the evidence, it would be better to say the jury is still out, then that they do not exist.
<idly glances over thread #3002 on the semantics of agnosticism v. strong atheism v. weak atheirsm and the faith of belief v. the faith of disbelief>
Yes, I agree completely, Bertrand Russel was a god (Interestingly enough, he was fiercely anti-religious, although his atheism or agnosticism has always been debated). Pity about that Principia Mathematica issue. I guess that puts this little man in the running for super-god then. Don't think he ever got a Nobel though, did he:
Yes, I agree completely, Bertrand Russel was a god (Interestingly enough, he was fiercely anti-religious, although his atheism or agnosticism has always been debated). Pity about that Principia Mathematica issue. I guess that puts this little man in the running for super-god then. Don't think he ever got a Nobel though, did he:
McLesterolBeast
Member
Uhh, yeah. That's worthless. The issue at hand is whether one ought to have faith that what has happened in the past is attributable to a god. If you presuppose that the individual in question believes there is a god, then of course little faith is required to "trust" god.
"Miracles" only serve as confirmation of your beliefs if you're searching for something to attribute chance events to, or more specifically, you already have in mind what you want to attribute it to.
It's possible that they exist. Very remotely possible. Certainly not probable enough to spend any time speculating. If a past species was prevalent enough to be well represented in literature, then it would be prevalent enough for their to be traces of it's existence. To be fair, the past existence of unicorns seems a great deal more probable than there being the truth behind the sentiment of your other point of interest in this thread.
The jury is out, alright. They're out getting a twix to enjoy when the verdict is read. The verdict is: stick to theology.
You just said "primary Christian church", which I guess is Catholicism. There are plenty of different Christian churches, but no one church to rule them all? Heh, anyway, I've got this thing where I tend to see "Christianity" as the pure form of it and the organized factions, those that have made bullshit of it.maharg said:
Of course, debating this any further would result in arguing over terms, heh, so I'll just concede it.
For those thay say science is one of their main reasons, I'm not sure I quite understand that just because you define religon=mystical and science=practical means that it has to be defined that way.
Also, the original poster said "I don't believe in any of those crazy stories", well, you don't have to, to believe in God. Thinking the bible is crock and thinking there is or is not a higher power are two completely different things.
Personally, knowing that we all know just how complex science is, it makes it that much easier to put faith in the idea of God. The fact that nothing IS magical, and that everything in this world has some rhyme or reason to it and how it came to be (whether we as humans know the answer or not), I personally don't believe this happened by chance. I think it's actually ridiculous to say that.
And that "species of human being" you refer to is a bit of a stretch. Another off shoot, but not exactly a "species of human being".
Also, the original poster said "I don't believe in any of those crazy stories", well, you don't have to, to believe in God. Thinking the bible is crock and thinking there is or is not a higher power are two completely different things.
Personally, knowing that we all know just how complex science is, it makes it that much easier to put faith in the idea of God. The fact that nothing IS magical, and that everything in this world has some rhyme or reason to it and how it came to be (whether we as humans know the answer or not), I personally don't believe this happened by chance. I think it's actually ridiculous to say that.
And that "species of human being" you refer to is a bit of a stretch. Another off shoot, but not exactly a "species of human being".
Do The Mario
Unconfirmed Member
To be honest I think its typical of the human race to place such importance on ourselves, thats why I dont like the catholic religion.
iapetus said:
Actually, I've found the distinction to be practically useless. The concept, in and of itself, has merit, but I've found that most "weak atheists" are really of the "I'm 99.99% sure that gods don't exist, but would rather not argue my position" type. Strong atheists, meanwhile, usually say "I'm about as sure that gods don't exist as I am that space aliens aren't kidnapping people to sodomize them, and here's why..."
don't really feel like it's my obligation to know these things as an atheist, soooo... basically, whatever.
What are you talking about? Are you saying you're lumping your opinion of the bible and your stance on God all in one? Shows how much you've thought about things.
You don't have to know the bible, but you don't have to believe in it to believe in God...
Not sure I believe in a supreme being.. but I definately believe in a form of existence after death. This is one thing I have absolutely no doubts about due to things I have encountered, let alone my own personal conciousness existing at this instant. If you want to say that 'seeing is believing'.. well I have 'seen'. I'm not going to try and convince anyone else. I don't think anyone should impose their beliefs on another individual.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked