Once upon a time I was officially an Atheist....

abetarrush

I remember one day i was watching an episode of some TV programme. I dunno what its called [ill try find out]. I think it was some Law programme, but anyway...


This episode was about a REALLY devout Christian man and a really devout Jewish woman, who just seperated and were battling over the custody of thei little girl, the Father claiming he had to save her soul


So anyway, in the end the Dad won, as he was a rich business man,and, Oh yeah, would save her soul


So the woman who was the Mother's Lawer went to see the little girl, and the little girl said

I know my Mommy won't go to Heaven
Because there is no Heaven
and theres no Hell, and no God
Because if there was a God, he would'nt do this to me and my Mommy



That was one of the biggest eye-opening statements, in general, I have ever heard, and I agree 100%


People shouldnt waste time praising what doesnt exist [I can say God doesnt exist because he doesnt, theres no proof, and in my eyes proof = existence]

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

so should people who live in really hot deserts not believe in ice or water falling from the sky?

abetarrush

That's just stupid, ye know what I meant


There has never been any proof of God, EVER, AT ALL, ANYWHERE!

Desert people can see rain, and Ice, and go to other countries and see it

Dades

abetarrush wrote:

Desert people can see rain, and Ice, and go to other countries and see it

You can't see there isn't a god either.

abetarrush

Exactly


Tot I said that


That's what I'm like, I don't try to convince people theres no God, and I'm not sayin there ISNT, I just seriously doubt there is

Tar.Aldarion

The Atheist wrote:

You can't see there isn't a god either.

I'm converted!

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

There has never been any proof of God, EVER, AT ALL, ANYWHERE!

Desert people can see rain, and Ice, and go to other countries and see it

but that's the point, atheists have as much ability to go to the spiritual 'place' that theists go to to find 'proof'.. we just have to will ourselves to, or have something really horrible happen to us I suppose.

5uspect

For me religion is the first real theory of existence. However science has allowed us to develop new theories about all the aspects of our universe. Theories are updated, replaced and are constanted evolving. God on the other hand has dug itself in by not allowing itself to be replaced, Its built on the premise that you can never understand it or disprove it. But so is the idea that the answer to life, the universe and everything is 42. It cannot be tested and yet we can accept this as fiction.

Nehpets

The Atheist wrote:

You can't see there isn't a god either.

You can't see a floating banana. Does one exist?

Doomspell

abetarrush wrote:

I know my Mommy won't go to Heaven
Because there is no Heaven
and theres no Hell, and no God
Because if there was a God, he would'nt do this to me and my Mommy

While I see the point, I beg to differ. I myself am agnostic,
but I like to think that everything happens for a reason. Not because 'something' made it happen but simply because is was 'meant' to happen.

I use to call myself atheist but I found myself wondering about...well, gods I suppose. It took me a long time to figure everything out, but now, it just seems right to me.

Now I'm open 100% to other peoples thoughts, this is just mine. I can't understand how someone can say, 'I'm now atheist/agnostic, whatever. I just don't understand it! Sure it might make you question your religion, but can something like that really change your mind completely?? Now as I said before thats just MY opinion and anyone can disagree with me. For that would be their personal opinion and I respest that,
Matty

SonOfPerdition

Nehpets wrote:

You can't see a floating banana. Does one exist?

does the floating banana in my mind exist?

SonOfPerdition

Doomspell wrote:

While I see the point, I beg to differ. I myself am agnostic,
but I like to think that everything happens for a reason. Not because 'something' made it happen but simply because is was 'meant' to happen.

I use to call myself atheist but I found myself wondering about...well, gods I suppose. It took me a long time to figure everything out, but now, it just seems right to me.

Now I'm open 100% to other peoples thoughts, this is just mine. I can't understand how someone can say, 'I'm now atheist/agnostic, whatever. I just don't understand it! Sure it might make you question your religion, but can something like that really change your mind completely?? Now as I said before thats just MY opinion and anyone can disagree with me. For that would be their personal opinion and I respest that,
Matty

cool . .if you have it figured out can you share with the rest of us mere mortals?

Zombrex

I have a dream ... a dream of a better world ... a dream where my children and your children can live and play in peace ... a dream where every second post on the atheist forum doesn't decend into rants about the logic of being an agnostic over and atheist ... oh yes, I have dream today!


To abetarrush, welcome to the Atheist forum, please leave your logic at the door

Dades

Wicknight wrote:

I have a dream ...

I really thought this was going to be something more noble.

Asiaprod

The Atheist wrote:

I really thought this was going to be something more noble.

Don't encourage him, he might just put it to music:)

ScumLord

People shouldn't waste time praising what doesn't exist [I can say God doesnt exist because he doesnt, there's no proof, and in my eyes proof = existence]

Proof? You, nature in general and the universe, how much more proof do you need? Have you a better explanation for how a universe so perfect came about?

Maybe the traditional view of God is wrong but that doesn't mean there was no creator or that something specific caused this universe to come into existence. If you don't restrict your view of God to the religions God could be practically anything from an event to an equation.

For me religion is the first real theory of existence.

That's the way I look at it too and as theorys go it was preaty good considering it was completely imagined.

pH

Wicknight wrote:

I have a dream ... a dream of a better world ... a dream where my children and your children can live and play in peace ... a dream where every second post on the atheist forum doesn't decend into rants about the logic of being an agnostic over and atheist ... oh yes, I have dream today!


To abetarrush, welcome to the Atheist forum, please leave your logic at the door

It should become a banning offence - get it in the charter Mr Atheist!

We should have one stickied thread to debate the philosophical hair splitting about who's an atheist and who's agnostic and why we should be one rather than the other.

I think this must be a cunning plan by a Divine Being, to divide and conquer the non-believers, they're so busy splitting hairs and arguing amongst themselves to have a go at the theists!!
- Muwahahahahaha!!!!

Either that or we need *both* an agnostic and an atheist forum - obviously clumping such opposing beliefs in a single forum is just asking for trouble

Tar.Aldarion

Yes, it should just be stated in the charter that we all know that it is more logical.

SonOfPerdition

ScumLord wrote:

Proof? You, nature in general and the universe, how much more proof do you need? Have you a better explanation for how a universe so perfect came about?

Maybe the traditional view of God is wrong but that doesn't mean there was no creator or that something specific caused this universe to come into existence. If you don't restrict your view of God to the religions God could be practically anything from an event to an equation.

That's the way I look at it too and as theorys go it was preaty good considering it was completely imagined.

<playing devils advocate>
proof of the existence of nature and the universe relies on the fact that our senses aren't lying to us. . but thats an assumption and in itself can't be proved .. so nothing can be proved.

we're all figments of the deranged mind of a rabid turtle.

Scofflaw

pH wrote:

It should become a banning offence - get it in the charter Mr Atheist!

We should have one stickied thread to debate the philosophical hair splitting about who's an atheist and who's agnostic and why we should be one rather than the other.

I think this must be a cunning plan by a Divine Being, to divide and conquer the non-believers, they're so busy splitting hairs and arguing amongst themselves to have a go at the theists!!
- Muwahahahahaha!!!!

Ah well, at least we're not quite as bad as the theists themselves, and they seem to have time left over to attack atheism/agnosticism...


in the manner of a fruit drink,
Scofflaw

Dades

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

Yes, it should just be stated in the charter that we all know that it is more logical.

But how can you be sure. I mean it might not be... or maybe it is... I mean isn't... ohhh I just can't decide!

in the manner of a fruit drink

LOL

Tar.Aldarion

The Atheist wrote:

But how can you be sure. I mean it might not be... or maybe it is... I mean isn't... ohhh I just can't decide!

I have decided that I define everything, and that what I believe is always right, this makes things easier. (:

MrB

ScumLord wrote:

Proof? You, nature in general and the universe, how much more proof do you need? Have you a better explanation for how a universe so perfect came about?

Perfect, the only way you could say the Universe is perfect is by closing your eyes to all the imperfections!
Actually I don't really see the Universe as being perfect or imperfect, I just see it as being. It is everything so there is nothing to compare it to.

Zombrex

ScumLord wrote:

Proof? You, nature in general and the universe, how much more proof do you need? Have you a better explanation for how a universe so perfect came about?

Define "perfect" in that context? Perfect compared to what?

As MrB points out the universe is full of weird things, things that aren't quite right, and things that just don't work very well.

How is a black-hole ripping apart a star considered "perfect"

It seems rather silly to consider the universe perfect or imperfect, since we have nothing to compare it too.

stevejazzx

ScumLord wrote:

Proof? You, nature in general and the universe, how much more proof do you need? Have you a better explanation for how a universe so perfect came about?

Millions of years of evolution? The world 4-5 billion years old. That's 4 thousand million years btw. Now that is unimaginable for a human. Our average life spans is around 70 years. Not even the tiniest blip on the chart of time. In fact 4 thousand million years in almost timeless if you think about it.
Animals and insects throughout time and through generations evolve to suit their habitats, so everything is constantly changing, balancing.
That is our perfect world, thousand of millions of years of balance.

scumlord wrote:

Maybe the traditional view of God is wrong but that doesn't mean there was no creator or that something specific caused this universe to come into existence. If you don't restrict your view of God to the religions God could be practically anything from an event to an equation.

That's the way I look at it too and as theorys go it was preaty good considering it was completely imagined.

The theory of a god is just about the weakest and most pathetic explanation of the universe. It a hopeless catch all idea born out of ignorance and superstition the very antithesis of evolution. And it cetainly wasn't original even in biblical times, there many other well known recorded supposed gods so they derived a variant.

stevejazzx

Wicknight wrote:

Define "perfect" in that context? Perfect compared to what?

As MrB points out the universe is full of weird things, things that aren't quite right, and things that just don't work very well.

How is a black-hole ripping apart a star considered "perfect"

It seems rather silly to consider the universe perfect or imperfect, since we have nothing to compare it too.

Even if we had something to compare it to it would pointless, as perfect is a word, a human idea.

pbsuxok1znja4r

abetarrush wrote:

Because if there was a God, he would'nt do this to me and my Mommy

Interventionist God.

God.

Two different things.

I hope this TV show isn't the whole basis for your eyes being 'opened' or your atheism. There are many Theists who are Theists for idiotic reasons and generally out of ignorance and there are just as many Atheists who are Atheists for idiotic reasons and out of ignorance. So, like Doomspell said, be quick to question your beliefs, but don't be so utterly impressionable so as to be entirely swayed one way or the other so easily.

babyvaio

abetarrush wrote:

Exactly


Tot I said that


That's what I'm like, I don't try to convince people theres no God, and I'm not sayin there ISNT, I just seriously doubt there is

Just dropped by
Hmm, this is fun. First u were 100% convinced, and then in one the next posts u have certain doubts about the same thought....hmmm hmmm hmmm :cool:

robindch

> There are many [...] Atheists who are Atheists for idiotic reasons and out of ignorance

Could you give us an example of some atheists who are atheistic for idiotic reasons or out of ignorance? Name or reasons would be good!

pbsuxok1znja4r

I'm talking about reasons that would more politely be termed 'unsound'. Okay, I'll attempt to do so. Before I do, I'm wondering: do you believe there are no atheists who have arrived at Atheism by unsound logic?
Am I to assume you contest not that there are also Theists who do the very same thing?
Sorry buddy, nice try, but I shan't be naming names. Some of these people are friends of mine. Others are people I've had one-off debates with; many strangers on forums.
Okay, some people, for what to me are irrational reasons, suddenly decide 'there is no God'. And that's very well and good - more power to 'em. But for me, the thinking is often unsound.
Here is the most common example. A friend of mine's mother died of cancer several years ago. Up until this point my friend was your average catholic teenager (in that they didn't have any specific doubts about being christian, but nor would they have been unusually devout or anything; it wasn't a huge part of their life*). Anyway, it's not a subject we often discuss, but the next time we did, some months later, they were atheist. Apparently because no God would have taken their mother like that. I asked if there were other reasons and there weren't. It was the typical (if understandable) difficulty in believing in an omnipotent benevolent God. But the absence of an omnipotent benevolent God is not necessarily the absence of any God. So this alone doesn't add up to Atheism. Yet this person believed that Atheism was correct. I want to make clear that my atheist friend is no idiot and I respect them and their choice of religion, but I still maintain that their expressed reason for said choice is logically unsound.
If this is not enough for you, I think I've a suitable CSL quote lurking around somewhere...

*You might well argue that if they had, at this point in time, taken the time to examine their faith, they might've then also arrived at Atheism. But A) They didn't and If it were for the same reason they ultimately did, then I still say the logic is unsound. You may contest "unsound" if you want, but I stand by what I've said. You asked for the reasons, you got 'em.

I understand that your skeptical leanings require you to at least see evidence for something before you believe it, but you'll learn fast that I'm no bluffer. Do you yourself really believe that no-one's reasons for Atheism (or any other -ism) are unsound? And does your Atheism so much outweigh your skepticism that it would not matter to you whether you or anyone else arrived at an Atheistic perspective through flawed logic/thinking, so long as they did, as an end, arrive at Atheism?

robindch

robindch wrote:

> There are many [...] Atheists who are Atheists for idiotic reasons and out of ignorance

Could you give us an example of some atheists who are atheistic for idiotic reasons or out of ignorance? Name or reasons would be good!

"angstheists", usually teens
Although I suppose they don't really count

Dades

scouser.tommy wrote:

Apparently because no God would have taken their mother like that. I asked if there were other reasons and there weren't. It was the typical (if understandable) difficulty in believing in an omnipotent benevolent God. But the absence of an omnipotent benevolent God is not necessarily the absence of any God. So this alone doesn't add up to Atheism. Yet this person believed that Atheism was correct. I want to make clear that my atheist friend is no idiot and I respect them and their choice of religion, but I still maintain that their expressed reason for said choice is logically unsound.

That seems like a sound reason to begin. I'm sure his reasoning went beyond his own immediate situation. I'd imagine a death like that calls for a lot of reflection. The pain and suffering that exists in world today is (for me) a very big reason to believe there isn't a benevolent god watching over.

And atheism isn't 'correct' or 'incorrect' - it's simply what you believe. Your friend had no doubt been told since he was tiny about the one and only real God. When he concluded that this God could be not reconciled with the world that he now knew - why should he be anything other than atheist? Should he immediately seek a replacement god?

Once his default religion has been rejected, unless he takes up a new one atheism is what you are left with - at least as far as a benevolent god is concerned. Ultimately we are back to where we were a couple of days ago - the definition of 'god'. Your friend looks like he isn't interested in entertaining the "anything we don't understand" as god, and I can respect that.

Schuhart

We know that the existence of pain/evil/Westlife is in fact one of the things that exercises religions quite a bit. So the fact that a personal experience might spark someone's thoughts in a particular direction does not strike me as irrational. Not everyone will necessarily have either the habit or inclination to talk about these things in a neutral manner. But they still may have the essential thrust of a valid argument.

I know there are some theologians who have speculated that the existance of evil can best be explained by saying either god is not all good or god is not all powerful, and opt for the second as they feel the idea that the universe is subject to a morally flawed god is too uncomfortable a concept to deal with. That said (going way beyond my knowledge) I think there was some philosphy - Manicheism? - that suggested we are cast adrift in an evil, pain filled universe. That outlook probably made a lot of sense if you were living through the Black Death.

All of which is a long way round to pointing out that, as I understand it, both Christianity and Islam would maintain that god is good, just and all powerful. Hence, your friend reflecting through personal experience that this is not consistent with random death and misfortune, and surmising that this means mainstream religions are hokum looks sound to me. I don't see any particular need for him to seek out some weirdo sect that venerates pestilence just to cling to a theist conception of creation.

Scofflaw

The Atheist wrote:

That seems like a sound reason to begin. I'm sure his reasoning went beyond his own immediate situation. I'd imagine a death like that calls for a lot of reflection. The pain and suffering that exists in world today is (for me) a very big reason to believe there isn't a benevolent god watching over.

Indeed - contrary to the standard quote about foxholes, a large number of those who went to the trenches in WWI as Christians came back as atheists. Many soldiers found it impossible to reconcile the inhumanity of the slaughter with the idea of a benevolent God, let alone a benevolent interventionist God.

cordially,
Scofflaw

pbsuxok1znja4r

The Atheist wrote:

And atheism isn't 'correct' or 'incorrect' - it's simply what you believe.

Well, if you look at what I said, you'll see that I phrased it as "They believed that Atheism was correct". I know full well that it's simply what one believes.

The Atheist wrote:

Your friend looks like he isn't interested in entertaining the "anything we don't understand" as god, and I can respect that

You make it sound as if that were every Agnostic's (or more believing person's) thinking. That "anything we don't understand" must be God. I suppose I shouldn't be suprised if you do seek to portray agnosticism as being so irrational. Whatever. The fact is, the world being, for us, such an 'evil' place does not rule out the possibility that some God exists, whether he be benevolent, omnipotent, pestilent, or whether he be Galactus®: The Eater Of Worlds! You just can't know.

wrote:

I don't see any particular need for him to seek out some weirdo sect that venerates pestilence just to cling to a theist conception of creation.

Haha, I hadn't thought of this. And why wouldn't they, if they thought the universe was really being run by some all-powerful, evil force?
'Clinging'. Now there's an apt word, folks. This word is essential to what I'm talking about, re: people holding certain beliefs for the wrong reasons, whether it be Theists or Atheists.

A question for you, if you don't mind: Do you still believe that you yourself have an open mind with regard to Atheism/Theism? I mean, if new evidence came to your attention that could somehow potentially change the whole ball-game, do you really believe that you yourself could face up to giving that evidence due, objective consideration, with whatever belief-shaking implications it might carry with it?
Something to ask yourself / think about.

Scofflaw

scouser.tommy wrote:

A question for you, if you don't mind: Do you still believe that you yourself have an open mind with regard to Atheism/Theism? I mean, if new evidence came to your attention that could somehow potentially change the whole ball-game, do you really believe that you yourself could face up to giving that evidence due, objective consideration, with whatever belief-shaking implications it might carry with it?
Something to ask yourself / think about.

Not sure if your question was intended generally, but I've been an alatrist/atheist for over 30 years, and I certainly think I'm open to new evidence. Unfortunately, so far all the evidence I've been presented with requires what geologists call the "eye of faith" - you have to want to see God in it.

The recent flooding of New Orleans is an excellent example - there are plenty of people who are happy to present that as evidence of an interventionist deity...a notion that, in the absence of faith, is really rather unpleasant, as well as absurd.

It seems to me that if there were evidence for God that could be accepted without faith, there would be no unbelievers. There would also be a camera crew, documentaries, etc etc.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Dades

scouser.tommy wrote:

You make it sound as if that were every Agnostic's (or more believing person's) thinking. That "anything we don't understand" must be God. I suppose I shouldn't be suprised if you do seek to portray agnosticism as being so irrational. Whatever. The fact is, the world being, for us, such an 'evil' place does not rule out the possibility that some God exists, whether he be benevolent, omnipotent, pestilent, or whether he be Galactus®: The Eater Of Worlds! You just can't know.

Two things. I never deemed agnosticism as irrational - the difference between that and atheism boils down to your definition of god. I have mine - others have theirs. Secondly I haven't ruled out any type of god - I just don't believe any exist. Why should I? Just because so many people are fixated with the belief that gods exist can I not believe they don't?

scouser.tommy wrote:

'Clinging'. Now there's an apt word, folks. This word is essential to what I'm talking about, re: people holding certain beliefs for the wrong reasons, whether it be Theists or Atheists.

Still waiting on a "wrong reason" for atheism.

scouser.tommy wrote:

A question for you, if you don't mind: Do you still believe that you yourself have an open mind with regard to Atheism/Theism? I mean, if new evidence came to your attention that could somehow potentially change the whole ball-game, do you really believe that you yourself could face up to giving that evidence due, objective consideration, with whatever belief-shaking implications it might carry with it?
Something to ask yourself / think about.

Good question. Admittedly it would be very tough to come up with something to change the ball game, so-to-speak. The evidence would have to be good, very good. Something that couldn't be mistaken for anything other than an unequivical message. (Or possible to be done by man).

I gave an example in the Christianity forum of one day all the planets of the solar system suddenly aligning themselves, in conjection to a message delivered to every person on earth, in every language. Now that would be god-like.

Thats the kind of sign that gives somebody creator kudos. A tortilla that looks like Jesus won't cut it.

While I'm ranting, let me ask you a question. If we found out from that message that aliens planted the seeds of life on earth a billion years ago, and left us alone; are they gods?

pH

So basically this is once again coming down to 'how irrational an atheist is', 'agnostics are the only ones with any sense' type argument. Quel surprise

Anyway I'm way above all this atheist/agnostic twaddle now I've become an ignostic. If only we could have a forum where ignostic ideas could be discussed without being attacked by closed minded agnostics ...

robindch

> I'm wondering: do you believe there are no atheists who have arrived at
> Atheism by unsound logic?

I'm sure there are some who've done this. Perhaps even plenty!

> But the absence of an omnipotent benevolent God is not necessarily the
> absence of any God. So this alone doesn't add up to Atheism.

No, but you'll be as familiar as I am with the huge number of people -- on this board and elsewhere -- who say that god *is* benevolent, and he's omnipotent and omniscient and all the rest. It's quite easy to see that what's described by these good people, and proclaimed by preachers from pulpits throughout the land, is imbued with a slew of heroic, but completely contradictory, qualities which verge on the schizophrenic. It's not a great step of logic to say, "nah, that's rubbish, that is!" and that's the atheism which I subscribe to.

> it would not matter to you whether you or anyone else arrived at an
> Atheistic perspective through flawed logic/thinking, so long as they
> did, as an end, arrive at Atheism?

I don't care whether or anybody else is an atheist or not, and if they are, I don't care how they arrived there. This is a personal issue for them and I've no interest in it one way or the other.

But it's interesting that you ask the question, because it suggests that you view atheism as a competing religion whose only interest is in gaining converts, presumably at the expense of your religion, and thereby suggesting that group-size is an important consideration to religionists. It's not like that. Actually, it was put well by a poster some months ago: "Atheism is just another religion like not-collecting stamps is just another hobby".

.

pH

robindch wrote:

But it's interesting that you ask the question, because it suggests that you view atheism as a competing religion whose only interest is in gaining converts, presumably at the expense of yours. It's not like that. Actually, it was put well by a poster some months ago: "Atheism is just another religion like not-collecting stamps is just another hobby".

Yes - and some of those people who are not collecting stamps are not collecting stamps for very unsound reasons.

Schuhart

pH wrote:

Anyway I'm way above all this atheist/agnostic twaddle now I've become an ignostic. If only we could have a forum where ignostic ideas could be discussed without being attacked by closed minded agnostics ...

Non-Believer. Persecute the heretic.

CatStevens

abetarrush
what about the following story

This episode was about Uncle Tom and mother Lisa, who just were battling over the custody of thei little girl, Tom claiming he had to save her life 'cause her mother wants to marry another guy, her husband died, So the woman who was the Mother's Lawer went to see the little girl, and the little girl said
I know my Mommy won't save my life Because she isn't my mother
Because if she was my mother, she would'nt do this to me and marry another guy!

Does it make sense?
Who said that we are living in a perfect life? life with no problems no violence or whateva? we are not living in paradise, this life wasn't created to be perfect, why to believe in god life must be perfect yet god couldn't be perfect when created an imperfect life?

Peace & Love
Yours Sincerely
CatStevens