Non-threaded

Forums » The Lounge » Read Thread

A place to sit back, hang out, and make monkey noises about anything you'd like.

Atheism

11 years ago
I might regret this, but why be atheist why not just be agnostic? Just don't see the point in being atheist.

Atheism

11 years ago

I'm an atheist because I don't believe there are any sort of dieties or other spiritual beings in the universe. Agnostics are agnostics because they're not sure whether there are spiritual beings or not. At least that's my understanding of it.

Atheism

11 years ago
Please, let's not delve into this topic again.

Atheism

11 years ago

Why not? For as long as we're not disrespectful towards the beliefs of one another I can't see why it's a poor topic.

Atheism

11 years ago
Because being Agnostic means you're not sure one way or the other. Sindriv and I both believe there is no god, so we're not agnostic, we're athiestic. That's as simple as it is :)

Atheism

11 years ago
I, when asked, will say I am a Christian because I was raised that way, but secretly I am more of a agnostic, though I do hope God exists. I don't understand why you would not at all believe in God because, (I hate repeating this mantra) but theres no way you can disprove it, in a sense, and it would be nice if there was a God.

Atheism

11 years ago
Using that logic, all Christians should be agnostic rather than Christians (and that goes for all religions), and there would be no religion in the world anyways, since it can't be proven either way. That's why I never really take Christians seriously when they tell me "You can't prove that he doesn't exist", becuase they can't prove that he does exist. It's kind of hypocritical.

To quote Glee (this is one of the few episodes I've seen) "I can't prove there's a flying teapot on the dark side of the moon with a dwarf inside who shoots milk out of his boobs, but it's pretty unlikely".

Atheism

11 years ago

Also, this applies to virtually everything. Hogwarts, Krypton, Jack Sparrow. One can argue that these exist from the perspective that it is impossible to disprove their existance, and so, if atheists should be agnostic instead of atheists (and btw, asking "why aren't atheists agonstic" is exactly the same as asking "why aren't religious people agnostic") because it is impossible to prove that atheism is correct, then every fictional thing anyone could think of can be listed as "possibly real".

Atheism

11 years ago
My understanding is and has long been that agnosticism is the belief that there is no way of knowing whether or not God (or any deity) exists. You can be an atheistic agnostic (where you don't know, but suspect there is no god), or a theistic agnostic (where you don't know, but suspect there -is- one or more god(s)).

The point... is that you believe what you believe.

Atheism

11 years ago
On my way home I had thought on what I posted, and realized my mistake, I am not trying to ask that question exactly, more like, I guess, this-

Would you want God to exist?

Atheism

11 years ago
An all powerful all knowing being that loves me and wants the very best for me? Yeah, I'd want that. That is assuming you mean the current idea of god and not the vengeful tyrant the bible describes him as.

Atheism

11 years ago
That's mostly only the Old Testament, but ya.

Atheism

11 years ago
Of course I would, but wanting it to exist and it actually existing are completely different. When I turned 11 I wanted nothing more than to get a letter from Hogwarts, doesn't mean I'm currently casting spells though

Atheism

11 years ago

This might not answer your question, but I found it clever nonetheless.

 

Why does humanity believe in something it can't see, hear, taste, smell, or touch?

Because carbon monoxide poisoning kills people.

Atheism

11 years ago
I would say I'm Christian if asked, but like Cov, I'm really more of an agnostic, though I hate to say it.

Atheism

11 years ago

I was raised Catholic, though my beliefs started getting shaky at around the age of eleven, which was when I started questioning things. I was halfway between being atheist and theist for a while - I felt guilty that I was disowning God - but by thirteen years of age I was a strong atheist. This stage lasted a short amount of time until I realised that just because there isn't proof for gods existing doesn't mean they're not there. I started to call myself an agnostic (also when I got past that thirteen year old phase of being hostile towards religion).

As an agnostic, what I believed is that it is possible for gods to exist, just highly unlikely. I didn't like to be called an atheist because despite the incredibly high likelihood of there being no god, I felt it was foolish to deny the possibility. Earlier this year, I discovered that agnosticism is not a proper title.

belief chart

Agnosticism has to do with knowledge - whether you assert knowledge of whether gods exist or not. Theism has to do with belief - whether you assert a belief in gods or not.

I call myself an agnostic atheist because that is what I am. I am atheist, but I do not claim to know about god. I'm almost apatheistic in my view on religion (that is, believing it is impossible to ever know whether gods exist or not and therefore not care at all) - but as long as religion brings injustice to the world (eg. banning same-sex marriage, euthanasia, Sharia law etc.) I can't not care about the issue.

An agnostic theist believes in gods or a god but doesn't claim to know whether they're true or not.

A gnostic theist believes in gods or a god and claims to know it's the truth (this is most religious people).

A gnostic atheist claims there's a 0% chance of gods existing and that it's common knowledge that there is no gods. I am a gnostic atheist in regards to the Christian/Jewish god, because all the contradictions in the Bible make it impossible for said god to exist. Overall I'm still an agnostic atheist, though, as there could be a similar god out there somewhere.

Atheism

11 years ago

it should be common knowledge that there are no gods.*

Atheism

11 years ago
Then I would fall under the category of Agnostic Theist or Deist.

Atheism

11 years ago

Also should note that I've written that above post horribly :S

Atheism

11 years ago

That's such an awesome graphic!  Love it

Guess that makes me an Agnostic Deist then. haha  My view:  While I don't assert any knowledge one way or the other, I make the rationalization that the functioning and unified macro and micro universes, most notably the development of higher consciousness, reasoning, and imagination as a product of the same force (nature) that created the rocks and the stars, is indicative (in some inductive reasoning kind of way) of "god," if you will.  With that undefined entity being little to nothing more than the thing that we, as conscious beings, gravitate towards and wish to become more like and perpetuate and understand, on some level, through personal growth (financial, social, educational, spiritual, etc).  The complexity and the duality of the mind, the "goods" and "evils" of the world, 1 + 1 = 2, sensory perception, virtually anything that "is" - all part of the same scheme, starting somewhere, whether you believe in the Big Bang or Jesus Christ or Zeus and the Fates.  The thing the gave us sand is the same thing that gave us the tides, is the same thing that made green look the way it does, is the same thing that gave us aversion to pain and attraction to beauty in a sunset, in a personality, in a song, in a complex mathematical equation...  The connection between these things is what I call "god."  And every voluntary action we take is loaded with intent to make our existence that much better - drink water because you're thirsty, scratch your nose because it itches, help an old lady 'cause it makes you feel good, steal her purse because it makes you feel good, punch yourself in the face because proving a point is more important to you than a pain-free face.  Mistakes are made and no one's perfect, so we all don't know what we're doing, but we're in it together (insofar as we're all in it for ourselves)...

And if you're followin' me, you probably recognize that in this case the idea of a "god" is superfluous.  Unnecessary.  These things can necessarily exist with or without some "god."  The fact that I grouped a bunch of things together and called it something doesn't mean it exists.  And you'd be totally right. haha  However, since some people say god is a nice dude in the sky, others say it's a buncha people, or the sun, or Charles Manson, or they say he's in the sky but isn't very nice, or he's a tall white dude, or "he" has no gender, or he causes natural disasters, or he doesn't do shit... the very notion of what or who god is or is supposed to be is subjective.  It varies from person to person.  It's not like a car or a dog, where you and I both generally think the same thing.  It's total crap shoot.  My point is you can call what I describe as "god," nature, or "w;lkasj" - my simple reason is that "it" is an active force, living through us - in a manner of speaking - each moment.  I just happen to liken it to divinity, as defined as something simply "greater" - like the symbol behind the artefact - and not just a bunch of artifacts.

Atheism

11 years ago

"my simple reasoning* is that "it" is an active force, living through us - in a manner of speaking - each moment.  I just happen to liken it to divinity, as defined as something simply "greater" - like the symbol behind the artifact* -"

Atheism

11 years ago
Not trying to mock you, but the Force came strongly to mind when I read that.

Atheism

11 years ago
"If you do not take the distinction between good and bad very seriously, then it is easy to say that anything you find in this world is a part of God. But, of course, if you think some things really bad, and God really good, then you cannot talk like that. You must believe that God is separate from the world and that some of the things we see in it are contrary to His will. Confronted with a cancer or a slum the Pantheist can say, 'If you could only see it from the divine point of view, you would realize that this also is God.' The Christian replies, 'Don't talk damned nonsense.'... [Christianity] thinks God made the world - that space time, heat and cold, and all the colours and tastes, and all the animals and vegetables, are things that God 'made up out of his head, as a man makes up a story. But it also thinks that a great many things have gone wrong with the world that God made and the God insists, and insists very loudly, on our putting them right again." -C.S. Lewis

I believed it to loosely apply.

Atheism

11 years ago

Sind, hahah, that's alright.  I'm not too familiar with the concept of The Force, but I do know that Lucas was heavily influenced by the Greek classics.  So, to think we'd be on the same page in some respect to "divinity," or whatever we wanna call it, is pretty cool haha :p

Ugilick, yah it kinda does. haha  Brings me back to a deeply cynical criticism/discussion of religion I had with my cousin some time ago...  Characterizing "god" simply as necessity, then you really can't say he's all "good."  With respect to cancer and the Pantheist, if I have cancer, then it's necessarily the case that I have cancer.  There's no time or place in the universe I could go to where this would be untrue.  Today, tomorrow, 10 years ago, 500 years ago - it would always be the case that on May 5, 2012, I would be in existence and I would have cancer.  And any notions of "what if" would be irrelevant (not considering the possibility of alternate timelines or universes).  At its core, our logic, our science, our utmost basic understanding of the universe is developed by our examination of the world as it is (or as we perceive it), and our ideas of "what if this happened" are simply extensions of that basic understanding, considering how the things that did not happen would have otherwise affected present reality.  So, along these lines, if we accept this idea of "god" being the "beginning and the end, the alpha and the omega," the all-powerful, ever present, unyielding force that created our reality, then I guess I really don't see where "all good" fits into that.  The idea that this being would "desire good" and "condemn evil," qualities which he himself created, would appear to be something more along the lines of hopeful convenience...

We don't like the idea of bad things happening to "good" people, or "bad" people getting away with what we perceive to be evil acts - that much we do know.  So, what could be more appealing to human beings than the idea that there existed some divine greater justice?  Did "god" create us in his image, or did we create him or them in our own?  As we've changed over time, so have our gods, religions, and overall sense of "morality."  We characterize this glorious and just being as we do, it seems, because on some level we seek delude ourselves with the idea that association with this being somehow makes us better people.  Makes us more righteous, as we present ourselves to others with a fake humility in a simple self-serving campaign to feel superior.  When, in reality, we willfully ignore the fact that this type of god can only be accepted if we disregard our worldly observations and embrace this idea of "faith," which is both the only thing we choose to blindly accept in this world simply for the sake of blind accepting something else and the reason holy scripture is so important in religion.  It's something you actually can point to and say "this here is why I believe what I believe.  And the book doesn't lie, because it tells me it doesn't lie."  With that one physical grounding in reality, those words on those pages somehow inspired by the creator of all existence, and with a lot of effort, you can hopefully keep yourself convinced long enough to be too ashamed to ever admit you've been dishonest with yourself all that time.  Why?  Probably because we fear our own mortality, and telling ourselves stories make us comfortable than dealing with our problems.  Goes back to the feeling superiority - you're stronger, better, special... you don't have to face death, because you're going to live forever (in heaven).  You're a "good" person and deserve as much.  If we're speaking in terms of primal behaviors, then asserting - or flaunting - your spiritual constitution is tantamount to asserting your physical dominance in the wilderness.

However, we all make mistakes.  We're prone to do "bad" things time and again... "but it can't be 'god's' fault," we say.  "Most certainly can't be our fault, hah!  We're good people, remember?  Must be the doing of evil spirits.  Oh, how unfortunate for those poor lost souls."  Why take responsibility for your actions when you can blame it on something or someone else, whom everyone willingly accepts is causing all sorts of problems anyway? haha 

Anyway, this is just my cynical run through of this one particular brand of "god" in religion.  Forgive me if anything is really unclear, haha, couldn't sleep at all last night, so I just jumped online a few hours ago and.. here I am. haha  I've got another theory about religion (Christianity specifically) that's much less harsh on the institution and speaks more to its followers... but I thought this one was more interesting :p

Atheism

11 years ago
That reminds me of several other things Lewis said. You may want to read
'Mere Christianity' if you appreciate Lewis' writing.

In regard to your first paragraph.

"Everyone who believes in God at all believes that He knows what you and I are going to do tomorrow. But if He knows I am going to do so-and-so, how can I be free to do otherwise? Well, here once again, the difficulty comes from thinking that God is progressing along the Time-line like us: the only difference being that He can see ahead and we cannot. Well, if that were true, if God foresaw our acts, it would be very hard to understand how we could be free not to do them, But suppose god is outside and above the Time-line. In that case, what we call tomorrow is visible to Him in just the same way as what we call today. All the days are 'Now' for Him. He does not remember you doing things yesterday; He simply sees you doing them; because though you have lost yesterday, He has not. He does not 'foresee' you doing things tomorrow; He simply sees you doing them; because though tomorrow is not yet there for you, it is for Him. You never supposed that your actions at this moment were any less free because God knows what you are doing. Well, He knows your tomorrow's actions in just the same way - because He is already in tomorrow and can simply watch you. In a sense, He does not know your action till you have done it: but then the moment at which you have done it is already 'Now' for him." -C.S. Lewis

Bo told me about some philosopher who taught what your talking about, but I thought it was a rather silly philosophy. As I understand it he disregarded the idea when he dislocated his shoulder and the physician told him "it had always been dislocated for it was dislocated now and for it to be dislocated now shows that it had always been dislocated." Something silly like that. Basically the physician was mocking him.

At some point or another I need to get around to typing up a third Lewis quote on the second paragraph. I have a pretty good one in mind if it can be found.

Atheism

11 years ago
I forget the exact name, but it was on the metaphysical issue of permanence and change and this Zeno guy (not the most famous Zeno of philoa or soemthing like that, there were a couple of Zenos) made a bunch of time paradoxes, but that doesn't apply here. Zero's first paragraph was not a questioning of Gods interference in or place in time, but rather if he got cancer on a certain date, no matter what you do he will always get cancer on that certain date, and so saying "what if this this or this would happen" is completely irrelevant, so i don't think the Zeno paradoxes apply. I think that's where the discrepency arose, but it is an entertaining tale if you want me to type it again.

However, I would like to point out the futility of quoting Lewis for all of your points. It kind of circles back to Zero stating "this here is why I believe what I believe. And the book doesn't lie, because it tells me it doesn't lie.". I remember this quote that was made for humor but it applies just as well when taken seriously "Science is the application of logic and empirical evidence to find new answers. Faith is the ignoring of logic and empirical evidence to keep your old answers." Even though you can say "God works in mysterious ways" or "God is my true god and he loves me" as a rebuttal (although your posts are more substantial than that), that's just blind faith used to ignore rationality.

Atheism

11 years ago
Except I'm not trying to make a point, I'm posting things that I think apply, because they are good blocks of information. As soon as this becomes an argument in which we are trying to make points to defeat one another, I'm leaving the conversation. Zero posts good stuff, I like to read his stuff. If he can post good stuff, that I will get to read, in reply to pieces of Lewis' writings then I am well pleased.
Thanks for clearing up the Zeno thing by the way.

Atheism

11 years ago
Haha, points aren't confined to arguments just like debates aren't confined to stages. You can make points all day long, and those points might conflict with the points of others, but you don't have to be arguing :)

Atheism

11 years ago

I never knew C.S. Lewis wrote philosophical papers, actually. haha  Pretty cool, and I guess I shouldn't surprised, since he's a writer.

I'm really not looking to argue either, haha.  When it comes to stuff like this, I just like to explore ideas.  Although, criticism and counter points do help in moving a discussion along. :)

As for the quote - yes! haha  The crux of the freewill/predetermination discussion lies in a distinction between simple necessity and conditional necessity.  Simple: if I let go of a rock, it will necessarily fall to the floor.  Conditional: if I witness a rock falling to the floor, it is necessarily falling to the floor.  If we place god outside of time, merely witnessing our actions, it solves the problem... because him seeing me eat a sandwich tomorrow is no different from you seeing me eat a sandwich today.  Just because you know it to be happening, and it can no other way, it doesn't somehow mean that I wasn't the sole agent in my decision to eat.

This places "god," however, in a passive role.  You'd have great difficult making the case that god both plays an active role in the universe, but at the same time doesn't interfere with our decisions.  Because if he exists outside of time, then any conditions or situations he establishes for your life - to test your or to see how you exercise your will or for whatever reason - had always necessarily existed, such that the world around you had been set in motion from the "beginning" to lead you to this particular situation.  Otherwise, you'd have to make a case for either 1) he only does things that affect you through random and isolated events, separate from others and the working world around you or 2) that he works by manipulating situations and other people's lives just because he wants to test you.

With 1, you could say he sends his angels, etc.  Solves the problem, but if you apply occham's razor - the argument that makes the fewest assumptions is best - you find that there's no better reason to accept that answer than the one that says god knew what he was doing when he created the world and didn't have to add or change anything while you and I watch it unfold.  In which case, we're left with a "presently" passive god - we keep our will, he keeps his foreknowledge, and any such influence he has on present life was established at creation. 

With 2, he has a great deal of influence, but free will is compromised.  If he manipulates either one of us for the sake of creating a situation for the other, then one of us loses our free will.  That interaction with the hand of god would have to be a part of his plan for both of us, allowing you and me our freedom.  But if no one is manipulated, unless it's some massive event that affects many people (like a tsunami), then it brings us back to argument 1...

Ugh.. I'm sure I'm talking in circles now. haha  But it seems to me that the problem is not whether god has influence, but whether he actually pays so much attention to our individual lives, responding to our prayers and deeds, punishing and rewarding accordingly.  Going back to what I said about our human desire for justice, I'm sure we'd love to believe that he's watching and reacting, but there doesn't seem to be a reason to.  I wanna say it plays into the whole cynicism of us trying to feel connected.  "He's watching me.  He talks to me.  He has a plan for me," even if it involves the rationale behind argument 2 (manipulation of others) ... at least, that's what I gather from this.

I'm jumping back and forth between stuff I needa get done, haha, and I'm sure there are holes in here.  But yah, I'll come back to the thread later today. haha

Atheism

11 years ago
When I have children, I want to take them to church every Sunday to make sure they are imbued with certain values and faith, because I am not particularly strong in faith regretfully and I have seen what a strong sense of Faith can do for some people, and I would like to give my children that. Of course though I will let them go on there own paths when they are older.

Just wanted to know if this was wise.

Atheism

11 years ago

I don't really see a problem with it as long as you don't force them to go or look down on them if they become atheist or agnostic. My Faith has probably saved my life on multiple occasions to be honest. When I was in a state of depression, if it wasn't for my fear of going to Hell I probably would have killed myself.

Atheism

11 years ago
Honestly, one of the things im most grateful for to ly parents is the opposite. Yeah, they tookble to church when
I was younger, but once I told them I didn't want to go anymore they didn't make me go every Sunday. Although they did their beat to instill Christian values in me (which sweet with mixed success. I don't lie, but Im not exactly the most altruistic person in the world, etc. etc) but they never forced their beliefs onto me. Of course when I revealed my athiesm to them they were disappointed, which is to be expected, they never berated or mistreated me for it. One of the things I respect the most about my parents was their letting me make my own religious decisions, and I hope you don't try to press your own beliefs upon your children by forcing them to attend church trust me, I've seen several friends leave the church just because they had grown to reset it... in part due to forced church attendance

Atheism

11 years ago
I know what your talking about, I hated going to church it was boring to me, because I wasn't used to it and I had started going when I was way to old to get used to it. Though what your talking about is a bit different I understand.

Atheism

11 years ago
god my phone is so terrible when I'm posting online :P

Atheism

11 years ago

I bet it's glad you typed the infamous 7,000 word post on your computer huh?

Atheism

11 years ago

I don't know what any of that means but it sounds interesting.

Atheism

11 years ago

Cov, far be it from me to tell you how to raise your future kids. haha  Couldn't really tell you whether or not it's wise either, but you do what you think is best as a parent.  I mean, honestly, once they enter school and start spending most of their day with children their own age, they're pretty much going to be out of your hands.  Of course, you'll still be a main influence, but you won't be the only one.  As far as taking them to church "to make sure they are imbued" with anything you believe is important, you can't really expect too much, ya know?

My parents took me to church pretty much every single week of my life, haha, for the most part, that is.  Sure, I went and listened and did the whole thing.  I even really believed it at a point - but not because it "made sense" to me, or because I "connected" in any way, but because I grew up being told that, and I believed it.  I eventually came to "feel the holy spirit," as it were, right before the time I reached jr. high, because I'd been tricked (through fear) into believing I was fuckin' up, simply by listening to music I liked, watching shows and anime I liked, and mundane things of that nature.  I was also a pretty depressed kid, haha, so when I flat out stopped doing those things and placed a massive focus on church and religion, it was easy for me to accept it when people - in a very cultish fashion, I might add - told me that it was God that was helping me, guiding me, etc etc.  I faintly recall something along the lines of people being too weak to fight the devil and temptation on their own (again, they likened this to anything that doesn't bring you closer to God), and that the simple fact that I'd changed was evidence of his presence.

It didn't take more than a year or so before I started to feel progressively more distant from it, because it seemed like all God (or rather, the church) wanted me to do with my life was not to live it.  Parents and the people "supporting" me, as I soon realised, didn't know a damn thing about me. haha  They didn't know why I liked the things I liked, and it seemed all they ever did was passive agressively judge me and try to guilt me.  By around the second year, I totally stopped giving a fuck about how they saw me, because it turns out they only support you if you do what pleases them.  And although I came out of it with experience in the long term, I was a much worse person because of it in the short term.

Haha, then I matured a little bit, and now it's just dust in the wind.  My parents fought me along the way to get me to go to church, but they're not totally beyond reason. haha  After countless discussions about what I'm willing to let myself believe, they finally stopped trying to get me to go... which I'm glad they did, haha, because after these conversations they seemed like they'd all but lost their own faith once or twice.  They're kinda old, and I'd feel pretty guilty if I thought I'd somehow taken that away from 'em, even if I don't believe it myself.  It's not like they were lying to me, and I don't blame them for doing what they truly believed was best - but in the end we all grow up, and we're going to do what makes sense to us.  Same will happen with our kids after we raise and teach them what we think is best, and the same will happen to theirs.

Atheism

11 years ago
I agree with what your saying and I hope I do the right thing but I just wanted to ask, what church did they take you to?

Atheism

11 years ago

Seventh Day Adventist.  Basically the same as most other denominations, except they go to church on Saturday, don't eat pork or shell fish, or celebrate Christmas or Easter... I'm sure there are other differences, but I couldn't tell ya off the top of my head.

Atheism

11 years ago
That sounds similar to my church experience, except for the pre-atheism super-christian days which weren't as intensely faithful and I didn't have as many restrictions. Didn't matter what the excuse was - homework, sickness, etc. (although sometimes i just legitimately didn't want to) - I was terrible for missing church. Apparently showing them bible verses about repenting with the reasoning of "If a serial killer can get into Heaven with God in his heart, then I doubt missing a day of church will send me to Hell" was just 'Satan's influence'. Apparently Satan influenced the Bible too... Anyway, I basically got pissed by all the hypocricy and self-rightous judgement - because while I genuinely tried to repent for my sins my elders were apparently superior because they kept their sins in the dark - and stopped atteding church a year or two before I became athiestic.

Atheism

11 years ago

So true, haha, it's funny.  They have all these discussions on how to get young people to come to church and keep them there, but it's often those very people who love only to judge and criticize and correct others' thoughts and behavior.  It's clearly a counter productive method, and yet they can't seem to figure out the problem. haha  Not all, of course, but that's most of the church staff (or whatever they're called) at my old place in a nutshell.

Atheism

11 years ago
You guys had to pay tithe that's stupid.( looked it up)

Atheism

11 years ago

I think it's all pretty stupid for the most part.  No one's looking into your bank account or making sure you "put your money in the basket," as it were.  But they do try to guilt you to pay, just like they try to guilt you to do everything else.  It's just one more tool used to get you more invested in the church - but you don't "have" to do it anymore than you "have" to do any other ridiculous thing they want you to do.

Atheism

11 years ago
Well if you look at were the tithe is supposedly going to, its a good cause, and I am fine with it as long as its not required because then it just depends on your own strength to say no, and alot of things people buy in life are due to pressure, whether its guilting or peer pressure.

Atheism

11 years ago

Yah, I agree.  But people don't go to church because they want to be independent and live by their own code and make their own decisions.  You know what you're getting - you surrender to "greater" than yourself, you're limiting the amount of things you do for the sake of pleasing that greater thing, you follow what it says in some book, etc etc.  It just so happens that not everyone seems to take it so seriously, haha.  But at the end of the day, no one's forcing anyone, but they are pretty much telling you "Hey!  I'm not judging, but.. you know... I'm not the one you should be worried about" and that goes for everything they want you to follow.

Atheism

11 years ago
Ive heard of churches were its different some how in that there's not as much tradition and were a individuals personal belief in god is important and its more about just being with other people, haven't really heard any specific names though, theres alot of different churches out there.

Atheism

11 years ago

Definitely.  There are more lax places out there, but there's a difference between less pressure and no pressure.  As far as organized religion goes, you're not going to find "no pressure," or no avocation or expectation of adherence to scripture.  But yah, you can certainly preach the stuff, talk about your own life and experience, bring other people to give testimony and whatnot, give advice on matters and discuss the most ethical or moral way about doing things (without necessarily guilting or pressuring someone to behave a particular way).  But I think that takes a certain type of person, and not so much a certain type of church.

Atheism

11 years ago
Ya I guess you just have to get lucky and hopefully meet the right people if you join a church

Atheism

11 years ago

The burden of proof lies on those claiming something exists. While religious people can simply say "you can't disprove it", the fact that they can't prove it themselves is proof itself that they're basing their belief on faith and not logic or proof. Though it's funny to note that many religious folk believe that the burden of proof lies on those who do not believe in their religion, to prove it wrong.

Then again I never understood how people can even argue if a religion is real or not. The vast majority of Gods and religions can easily be disproven by their own scriptures, it's just the idea of a God or an afterlife themselves that, by their very nature, can't be disproven or proven.

Though I don't see a point in telling any religious person this. I know plenty of nice religious people and I don't feel like bashing their beliefs just for the sake of bashing them. A belief is a belief and not a fact, so I feel that I really have no business telling them what they can and can not believe in provided they aren't bashing me for my lifestyle and aren't being violent/rude due to their beliefs.

My position is Agnostic Atheist.

[This was a reply to another post in another thread but I felt it would be more in place here, which is why the beginning feels like a response to something else]

Atheism

11 years ago

Can't we just FUCKING GET ALONG?! JUST AGREE TO DISAGREE?!

Atheism

11 years ago
We have. I don't see any argumetns in the thread. So why can't we just fucking read? Just agree to use common sense?

Atheism

11 years ago
If that was one of bradhals threads that might have been something Swift, but your incompetence won out this time and you failed!

Atheism

11 years ago

Agreed!

Atheism

11 years ago
I pretty much skimmed this thread rather than reading the whole thing (of course stopping to read everything Zero posted because 1. I usually find his posts to be the most intellectually compelling and 2. I have something of a crush on the guy) and I thought I would pitch in my two cents. Personally, I am atheist because I do not believe that there is a higher power. However, I am not by any means what one would call a "militant atheist" because that shit is completely retarded. People like Dawkins and Hitchens, while clearly very intelligent individuals, always seem to be driving the point that the world would be better off if it were to be purged of religion, and that is simply not the case.

Sure, you can cite many, many examples of wars and heinous crimes that have been committed in the name of religion, but the same can be said for land, resources, etc. ANYTHING can be a catalyst for bloodshed, we are simply a species that enjoys fucking each other's shit up.

I believe that there may have been a point in time when religion was necessary in order to maintain order (the enticement of the promise of eternal life in Heaven or the threat of eternal damnation in hell would be a pretty compelling argument that one should get their shit together), but now that we live a structured, civilized society (mostly), I would argue that religion has been rendered obsolete. The moral and ethical teachings found in the Bible were certainly ahead of their time when they were originally written, but today some of the contents (condoning slavery, promoting murdering in the name of God) is downright terrifying and no longer relevant.

Everyone should be able to believe whatever the hell they want, granted those beliefs don't infringe upon anyone else's inalienable right or threaten others in any way. Trying to force your beliefs down someone else's throat is a pointless endeavor. At the end of the day, you are still going to stick to what you believe and so will they. We're a bunch of stubborn mother fuckers like that.

Atheism

11 years ago
WHY THE HELL DOES ANYONE CARE ABOUT RELIGION! LET'S JUST CARE ABOUT THE CEILING CAT OR THE BASEMENT CAT!

Atheism

11 years ago

Dear DV,

;9 hahah  This guy ^^^

But seriously, well put, señor. haha  Our religious views evolve all the time, and we're constantly switching between a "vengeful" god and a "merciful" god and a "just" god... which is a good thing, 'cuz it means we're not sticking to principles like pro-slavery and misogyny based capital punishment, etc.  And those who do, the fundamentalists, are fucking crazy. haha  With all due respect, of course :p

Yah know, I really don't like the false notion many people have that in order to be moral, one must be religious.  But that's something else entirely.  There's the idea that morals are based on religion, which I think is also pretty wacky, but at least I can understand why one might think that.  

Atheism

11 years ago
One question, DV: Where in the Bible does it condone slavery? Or promote murder in any way?

Atheism

11 years ago
Slaves being bought:
Exodus 21:1-4 "If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing. If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself."

Leviticus 25:44-46 "Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession. And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour."

Genesis 17:13 "He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant."

Genesis 17:27 "And all the men of his house, born in the house, and bought with money of the stranger, were circumcised with him."

Slaves being Captured:
Deuteronomy 21:10-14 "When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the Lord thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive, And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife; Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house; and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails; And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife. And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all for money, thou shalt not make merchandise of her, because thou hast humbled her."

Deuteronomy 20:14 "But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself"

Numbers 31:28-47 "And levy a tribute unto the Lord of the men of war which went out to battle: one soul of five hundred, both of the persons, and of the beeves, and of the asses, and of the sheep: Take it of their half, and give it unto Eleazar the priest, for an heave offering of the Lord. And of the children of Israel's half, thou shalt take one portion of fifty, of the persons, of the beeves, of the asses, and of the flocks, of all manner of beasts, and give them unto the Levites, which keep the charge of the tabernacle of the Lord."

There also were restrictions on reselling slaves. (Apparently a Hebrew slave could not be resold.):

Exodus 21:8 "If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her. And if he have betrothed her unto his son, he shall deal with her after the manner of daughters. If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish. And if he do not these three unto her, then shall she go out free without money."


Funnily enough, Atheists actually have to learn Bible verses to justify their claims. I only knew about the Leviticus quote before I looked it up though. As for the murder, I'm sure it's in there somewhere, and I know it both justifies and condemns the death penalty from my paper on it. However, I seem to remember something about murdering heathens or pagans, but I've looked up the slavery thing, so I'll leave it ot someone else to look up murder.

Atheism

11 years ago

Yah, there's lots of stuff about killing adulterous women and homosexuals.  There's a verse about the streets running red with the blood of gay people, but I'm admittedly far lazier than Bo in finding the specific verses. haha

Atheism

11 years ago
Meh, I've got nothing to do for the next half hour :P

Atheism

11 years ago

I don't know which verses you are thinking of in regards to killing adulturous women, but the story in John chapter 8 comes to mind. People were trying to stone a woman found in adultury, and Jesus forgives the woman, then challenges the stone throwers "If any is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone". None of them did.

Atheism

11 years ago
We've posted them over here, actually: http://www.chooseyourstory.com/forums/message.aspx?MessageId=7483

Atheism

11 years ago
Turns out we don't have adultery quotes there :/. So here's some to make up for the false link:
If a man commits adultery with another man's wife, both the man and the woman must be put to death. (Leviticus 20:10 NLT)

And remember, by adultery they don't mean peopel who cheat on their spouses, they mean people who did that, got divorced and remarried, or had lust for another woman.

Atheism

11 years ago
Oh, tack this on to the list, it's much more direct to the issue of slavery:
"Slaves, in reverant fear of God submit yourselves to your masters, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh." - 1 Peter 2:18. So basically, even if you want to say that The Bible sys it's ok to do things but God didn't neccesarily say it (Like how Solomon had 300 concubines but God disapproved of sex before marriage), this both shows that the Bible advocates it and God does as well.

Atheism

11 years ago

Context, Bo, context. You're taking one verse out of context, and missing the point of the passage

     13 Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every human authority: whether to the emperor, as the supreme authority, 14 or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right. 15 For it is God’s will that by doing good you should silence the ignorant talk of foolish people. 16 Live as free people, but do not use your freedom as a cover-up for evil; live as God’s slaves. 17 Show proper respect to everyone, love the family of believers, fear God, honor the emperor.

     18 Slaves, in reverent fear of God submit yourselves to your masters, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh. 19 For it is commendable if someone bears up under the pain of unjust suffering because they are conscious of God. 20 But how is it to your credit if you receive a beating for doing wrong and endure it? But if you suffer for doing good and you endure it, this is commendable before God. 21 To this you were called, because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps.

This isn't the Bible condoning slavery, merely accepting that it exists in the world of that day, and outlining how a slave should go about living a Godly life. The passage as a whole is about submitting to authority, and it uses slaves as one instance of that.

God did disaprove of Solomon's many wives and his concubines. Because of them, Solomon fell away from God to worship the Gods of his wives

Atheism

11 years ago
Sorry, I wasn't aware of the full passage and so wasn't aware that I was taking out of context.

Atheism

11 years ago
Just because Solomon had 300 concubines does not mean that the Bible condoned it. Judas betrayed Jesus and hung himself, this does not mean the Bible condones betrayal or suicide.

Atheism

11 years ago
1.) When did I bring up suicide? This is slavery
2.) I've just heard that argument before (and since you keep saying the Bible doesn't condone slavery or murder I thought you might bring it up as well) that just because it's in the Bible it doesn't mean the God doesn't like it. It's an extremely stupid argument and not at all true, but it was what's called a "pre-buttal", taking out an argument before it can actually ne used. I know perfectly well that God didn't approve of concubines.
3.) This has nothing to do with the Bible and what it does or does not condone, but I always found it interesting how Solomon has 700 wives, and STILL wasn't satisfied so he got hundreds of concubines.

Atheism

11 years ago

However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)

Atheism

11 years ago
Ooh, nice one, couldn't find it

Atheism

11 years ago
It condones the death penalty for murder and worse things. It condemns it for lesser things.

Atheism

11 years ago

Even though I thoroughly hate this website since it's only goal is to bash religion, I thought of it as a good source.

http://www.evilbible.com/Slavery.htm

http://www.evilbible.com/Murder.htm

http://www.evilbible.com/Murder.htm

Atheism

11 years ago
I am a theist. That is all I am going to say because I am heavily outnumbered here.

Atheism

11 years ago
haha, I hope you don't think we're bashing the Bible, but this is mostly in return to Mithex's saying "there's no condoning of rape in teh Bible" or "there's no condoning of murder in the Bible" or things like that.