Any atheists around?

Originally posted by richie5126

Atheism

Theist: Belief in a god
Atheist: Neutral belief in a god
ism: act, state, or theory of
Atheism = The neutral act, state, or theory that there is a god
so atheism technically is still a belief (though not a religion anymore to me)

Besides being completely wrong, I'm still at a loss as to what you're trying to say here.

[hyyyper]

Originally posted by richie5126

i thought quantum is a different study than string theory

I think that error is part of the message the image is trying to get across.

Originally posted by richie5126

Atheism

Theist: Belief in a god
Atheist: Neutral belief in a god
ism: act, state, or theory of
Atheism = The neutral act, state, or theory that there is a god
so atheism technically is still a belief (though not a religion anymore to me)

Atheism is the lack of belief in a god. How many times do we have to tell you this? Theism is the belief of a god. The prefix "a" refutes that. So atheism literally means no belief in a god.

Oh i confused not with neither

[gouldy]

The words are quite easy to understand once explained;

Theist; a belief in a deity.

A; without.

"Atheist", quite literally means; without a belief in a deity.

There's nothing else to it. The word Atheist doesn't describe what the persons beliefs actually are (this is why Atheism inherently isn't a religion, as some like to claim), just that; whatever their beliefs are, they hold them without holding a belief in a deity. There always seems to be a lot of misunderstanding surrounding this.

So atheism is the belief in any sort of philosophy as long as it has nothing to do with a god? OK

Any belief (or lack of) requires faith- so this will be a continual and utterly pointless argument because we none actually know what happened. "So I guess nothing exploded?" "Well then what created God?" ... get the picture?

[gouldy]

Originally posted by richie5126

So atheism is the belief in any sort of philosophy as long as it has nothing to do with a god? OK

Well, the words Atheism and Theism don't deal with anything other than a persons belief on just one subject. The subject of deities. It doesn't dictate anything else about those indivudual's lives. So you probably can't really say that "Atheism is the belief in any philosophy so long as it has nothing to do with a god", because that sentence asserts something else about the life of that person.

There's nothing to it, but; this person doesn't believe in a god.

That's all it means.

Originally posted by disaster249

Any belief (or lack of) requires faith

Holding a belief requires faith in the belief. Not holding a belief doesn't require faith in the belief. It is, in fact, precisely because you have no faith in the belief, that you don't hold the belief.

What a silly thing to say.

[Coasterkidmwm]

http://www.cnn.com/2011/11/30/world/afr ... index.html

^ Yet another positive influence created by the great imaginary friend in the sky.

Here in holland most people are atheist nowadays. Although every town has is own church and some big cities have mosques so there are still a lot religious influeces here

I'm an atheist and so I believe in absolutely nothing, although I love all the so called satanic metal music

Originally posted by Henkmax

Here in holland most people are atheist nowadays. Although every town has is own church and some big cities have mosques so there are still a lot religious influeces here

I'm an atheist and so I believe in absolutely nothing, although I love all the so called satanic metal music

I think that most places regardless of their atheist population will still have churches and such. Religious freedom is accepted by most modern countries. Places like Iraq and Afghanistan are not as technologically advanced as places like the US, Europe, and parts of Asia. I think that the scientific and technological advances said places have made allow them to be more open minded about religious freedoms.

[hyyyper]

Originally posted by NightwindElf

Originally posted by Henkmax

Here in holland most people are atheist nowadays. Although every town has is own church and some big cities have mosques so there are still a lot religious influeces here

I'm an atheist and so I believe in absolutely nothing, although I love all the so called satanic metal music

I think that most places regardless of their atheist population will still have churches and such. Religious freedom is accepted by most modern countries. Places like Iraq and Afghanistan are not as technologically advanced as places like the US, Europe, and parts of Asia. I think that the scientific and technological advances said places have made allow them to be more open minded about religious freedoms.

That is not quite the case. 90% of Holland's churches are over a hundred years old. They were build when Christianity was still popular. Nowadays, churches are only visited by retired old people, and on Christmas and weddings.

Originally posted by hyyyper

Originally posted by NightwindElf

Originally posted by Henkmax

Here in holland most people are atheist nowadays. Although every town has is own church and some big cities have mosques so there are still a lot religious influeces here

I'm an atheist and so I believe in absolutely nothing, although I love all the so called satanic metal music

I think that most places regardless of their atheist population will still have churches and such. Religious freedom is accepted by most modern countries. Places like Iraq and Afghanistan are not as technologically advanced as places like the US, Europe, and parts of Asia. I think that the scientific and technological advances said places have made allow them to be more open minded about religious freedoms.

That is not quite the case. 90% of Holland's churches are over a hundred years old. They were build when Christianity was still popular. Nowadays, churches are only visited by retired old people, and on Christmas and weddings.

But that's still religious freedom. The people have the freedom to attend services as they wish. Unlike places like Iraq where there is no freedom to believe whichever book of fairy tales you want

[gouldy]

Churches are one thing I can be thankful of religion for, in many ways. I live in a fairly dull country and our churches remain as a reminder of when our country was at the very forefront of construction techniques. I look at the main curch in the city where I live (built in 985), and other than the obviously far more modern Football stadium and university building, it is comfortably the most impressive building in the city. The city I live in would not be the city it is, without the presence of Chrisitanity in the past. But that's just what it now is, a reminder of the past.

Like in the majority of western countries (America obviously excluded), almost no one goes to church religiously (as in; every week, in a spiritual capacity). However, the majority of people do still attend church on occassions such as weddings and funerals, for no reason other than that this is just the accepted norm in society, I guess simply through tradition. I remember at my dad's funeral, knowing everyone in the room, I knew that almost everyone there was atheist. To be honest, I don't even know what the alternative is... I mean, where else do you hold a funeral? (Other than a crematorium, of course, but even this is still always seemingly in a Christian capacity) I've never even looked into this

Originally posted by gouldy
To be honest, I don't even know what the alternative is... I mean, where else do you hold a funeral? (Other than a crematorium, of course, but even this is still always seemingly in a Christian capacity) I've never even looked into this

When a friend's dad died, all of the services were held at a funeral home. There was no church service to be had. I think it's partly due to the fact that he was never very open about his religious beliefs and therefore, a church was something they didn't see as appropriate. All of the people there held Christianity higher than any intelligent person should, but that's besides the matter.

Catholic church architecture is indeed amazing.

Originally posted by gouldy

Originally posted by dj-dj



All the science in the world unfortunately can't explain what happened 2 seconds before the big explosion why did nothing turn into a systematic flow of perfectly balanced amount of matter energy and time. Something must have happened or cause an instability in a way. Otherwise it would just have remained nothing. Not even time would exist. Even the theory?????????s that suggest multiple universes (with their own times and range of dimensions) that each formed out of this cosmic foam triggered the existence of ours. What created the foam? Why is the instability there? Stuff like that is what keeps me living and atheists will need to prove that before I'll change my point of view to not believing in a power greater than the universe, foam or whatever you want to call it. Something that had to exist for eternity and still will (in your point of view of time off course).

Just because we don't know what happened before the big bang, why should that mean we automatically assume it must be a god. And even if it were a god, then the next logical question is; what was there before the god? Both of these questions cannot be answered, so why would you add the extra assumed step of there bing a god? This guy explains it a lot better than I ever could. If you don't want to watch the whole video, just watch from 1:25.




I have all the time in the world for Carl Sagan.


The point being, we don't have all the answers yet, maybe we never will. But to assume that it was a god, nay, not just a god, but a specific god of a specific religious text, is nigh on insanity. As a species, we will always be trying to answer the question of how we got here, and there may be a day that we can prove what happened when it all began, and why it all happened. The answer to the question could be that a higher power was involved. But to postulate that it definitely was your god, simply because science doesn't yet have the answers, is arrogance of the highest order.

Originally posted by dj-dj


Something that had to exist for eternity and still will

Why add the extra assumed step of a god with this situation, either? If you say, it must be a god because there has to be something eternal, well then; why can't it just be the universe that is eternal? Maybe our universe is just forever expanding and then crushing back down to a singularity before exploding in another big bang, repeatedly over and over for eternity. There are literally an infinite number of possiblities, it is preposterous to assume, without knowledge, that any one of them is correct.

Well then you just showed me that both sides is just as surreal to human understanding which in most statements made by atheists filters down to something magical then. The real form of arrogance lies in the question: Why hammer on an internet forum to change the view of anyone to your own? Especially when your own conclusion is just as ?????????magical??????????

[gouldy]

Originally posted by Freddie

Catholic church architecture is indeed amazing.

And can come with a lot of important history, in this case - over 1000 years of globally important history. There is a flipside to this coin however, and even in this instance there is an example of how religion still affects me, even though I live in a fairly secular society. Back when The Church of England still had power, the church passed a law in Wolverhampton that dictates that nothing can be built taller than the church within the city's ring road. The council still has to enforce this retarded law for some unkown reason, and as a result, the city itself outside of the church is decidedly UNimpressive . There are now taller buildings outside of the ring road, though. But, as a result of an old Christian law, Wolves has trouble developing as a city, in contrast to other cities nearby. While it definitely is the most impressive building in the city, there is a bad reason for this - it has forced surrounding buildings to be less impressive in stature. That this pointless religious law is still given special dispensation, is something I have a long standing gripe with.

And to bring this back from my life story, just slightly . This is the sort of thing that atheists find frustrating, aside, of course, from the far more important issues about life that religion still affects.

Originally posted by dj-dj


Well then you just showed me that both sides is just as surreal to human understanding which in most statements made by atheists filters down to something magical then. The real form of arrogance lies in the question: Why hammer on an internet forum to change the view of anyone to your own? Especially when your own conclusion is just as ?????????magical??????????

This is the point, I don't have a "conclusion". What I said before was a suggestion to fit in with the universe being eternal. My point was, while we have no conclusion, it's very arrogant of anyone to claim they have the conclusion, which is what religious folk do. Despite their conlusions often being demonstrably false.

If you don't want to discuss things on the internet, then don't, but maybe others like discussion?

[hyyyper]

^It could be worse, just imagine how Manhattan would've looked if it had the same rule.

Originally posted by gouldy

Originally posted by dj-dj


Well then you just showed me that both sides is just as surreal to human understanding which in most statements made by atheists filters down to something magical then. The real form of arrogance lies in the question: Why hammer on an internet forum to change the view of anyone to your own? Especially when your own conclusion is just as ?????????magical??????????

This is the point, I don't have a "conclusion". What I said before was a suggestion to fit in with the universe being eternal. My point was, while we have no conclusion, it's very arrogant of anyone to claim they have the conclusion, which is what religious folk do. Despite their conlusions often being demonstrably false.

If you don't want to discuss things on the internet, then don't, but maybe others like discussion?

I don't think your understanding me very well here. No group should be trying to force down evidence if you don't have any????????? It's just as retarded when a religious person tries to tell me that he/she knows there is a God, just so is it when anybody goes around telling people that they know there is not. No one really knows. That is why it's called belief. If you have a scientific theory, don't you believe in it?

Using the term "demonstrably false" is just part of saying I'm right and your wrong. With no evidence to back it up, where is the obvious part in that? An atheist?????????s assumption of existence happening without any input from somewhere above science is just as ?????????magical?????????. Last time I did the nahaaa yeahaa nahaa thing was in primary school.

The discussions will always turn into an endless loop going back and forth with what we are saying to each other right now. It's silly really.

[gouldy]

Originally posted by dj-dj

If you have a scientific theory, don't you believe in it?

You're talking about the definitions of words here; No, you accept it, or you don't accept it. A belief is something for which you need some element of faith, as opposed to a fact which requires no belief. A scientific theory, is only accepted as a theory once it has substantial evidence and supporting evidence in order that you can prove time and time again that the laws that operate within the theory are objectively observable as correct. At this point, hypothesis becomes theory. While something is still a hypothesis, it's understandable that you could say it required faith to assert that was definitely the truth, but once it is theory, it's now either accepted as truth or you're ignorant to the evidence and don't accept it as truth. It's like someone looking at a ball and saying "this ball is red", but the man next to him has his eyes closed and says "No that's ignorant to what I believe and it's arrogant to say you know it's red, you can't prove it to me!" The truth is, the ball is red, whether the guy with his eyes closed accepts it or not. But the guy looking at the ball, can see that the ball is red, no faith required.

Also, the phrase; "Despite their conclusions often being demonstrably false" refers to all claims made by all religious scriptures about everything. Let's look at things like talking snakes, or that all of humanity spawned from a man and a woman who had two MALE children - I doubt that you need me to demonstrably falsify these things for you?

Lol
Being the first creatures evolved enough to be classified as humans doesn't mean they were the only ones. Common, those probably weren't even their names if they had any. Not to mention having said that I see the Bible as a very symbolic guideline. Yeah a talking snake????????? Can you explain any talking animal? What are you? It's all about perspective.

I don't even go to church mainly because I don't agree with what they stand for. It's a big money making scheme. The house of God? lol Tax takes more than 10% of my money. Haha, maybe that could be classified as paying your dues.

If you succeed in let?????????s say converting a Christian to atheism what are you gaining from it? Do you even really care about the future of the world if everybody is atheist anyways? Really just do your thing and live with it.

[gouldy]

I am interested in the progression of the world around me, yes. "Just do your thing and live with it"... what if someone's "thing" happens to be attempting to help progression? Oh wait, yeah, that's mine. So I'll carry on with it as you, yourself, suggested.

Not that talking to people on an obscure internet forum could be construed as "attempting to help progression", I realise. But having discussions with people is all part of helping others and myself gain better understanding. Whether you see it or not, this is a good thing.

Originally posted by dj-dj

Yeah a talking snake????????? Can you explain any talking animal? What are you? It's all about perspective.

Realise that by saying this, you're implying it's a plausible belief that a snake would be of high enough intelligence to communicate with a human, in the human's own understanding of communication. That is nothing about perspective. Humans are just as much an animal as anything else, correct. But a human communicating with a human is an entirely different proposition than a snake communicating with a human...

[Coasterkidmwm]

Do animals go to hell because they don't go to church?

Yes, CK, they do.