I believe in Atheism...

[Slytovhand]

Yes, I'm sure you believe in 'supernatural'...why?? Cos of deja vu.

Deja vu?

Yes, deja vu.

We've had this discussion before...

And I totally agree!

(I bet you knew I was going to say that, hey??)

[Pedersen]

How many times has science been wrong?

I like this thought. It quite neatly, in one little statement, shows the greater problem faced by society at large.

People are not allowed to make mistakes any more. Mistakes are caused by somebody else. People who admit that they make mistakes are inherently weaker on the grounds that they make mistakes, whereas people who show how the mistakes are always somebody else's fault are stronger and better.

The other side of that coin: People cannot change their mind anymore, either. If you are presented with evidence that would otherwise make you change your mind, then that evidence must have been fabricated. Why? Because if you change your mind, then you were wrong, and that would have been a mistake. And as has already been shown, that makes you weak.

Which, right now, is why I think that people are turning towards religion. Go and ask the religious leaders, and they'll tell you: God doesn't make mistakes. As they are emissaries of God, he shields them from making mistakes, and that makes religion better than any science could be, since science can learn something that shows them wrong.

Science can make mistakes. Religion can't. Or, at the least, it can't admit to them.

For me, personally, that makes religion weaker. I make mistakes. I'm not perfect. There's no human being who is. Anybody who claims to be perfect is, ipso facto, lying, which makes them imperfect immediately.

Failure to admit to imperfection is the first sign of weakness, since it takes personal strength to ask "Am I wrong here?" If you are unwilling to admit the possibility, then you are already weaker than I am.

Oh, and a tidbit that religious people really seem to get up in arms about: No matter how divinely inspired, any given religious text was written down by a flawed human being. It was then transcribed by another flawed human being, and another. Still others translated it, combined it with other texts, tossed out sections they didn't like, etc.

The religious texts of today are written in different languages, with different intonations from their original sources, with different meanings, etc. Study them all you wish. You are studying a flawed source of divine inspiration, given to you by another flawed human being, all the while decrying the flaws of people seeking to understand the nature of reality.

All in all, fascinating to me. And all of that (plus so much more, but I'm cutting my rambling short) comes from one flawed person's flawed statement about a flawed understanding of flaws in other people.

Thank you.

[Boozy]

People are not allowed to make mistakes any more. Mistakes are caused by somebody else. People who admit that they make mistakes are inherently weaker on the grounds that they make mistakes, whereas people who show how the mistakes are always somebody else's fault are stronger and better.

Quoted for truth! I liked this post.

That's why we get politicians who lie to us. We practically demand it of them.

Now I had better shut up before I cause any major thread drift.

[Slytovhand]

While for the most part I have to agree with your rambling, Mr Ped, there's just one bit I'll chuck in - more as a 'clarification' than anything else.

There is a difference between a 'natural' religion and an 'inspired' or 'revealed' religion. The latter have their books and all, the former don't.

If a Native American wants to get in touch with their religion, they don't go looking in a book for 'truth' - they go out and actually experience it. They don't need such an unchanging, unwieldy thing like absolute truth. (and this is the same for all natural religions... I just thought I'd use Native American, as most ppl on that part of the world are more familiar with it...). Change is actually a requirement (well... I'll use that term ) The universe and nature changes - so should 'truth'. I know for myself (and I use the word 'know' to mean 'have actually experienced') that I can ask a question today and get one answer, ask the same question tomorrow, get a different answer.... (bloody annoying, that is, too! )

[Sylvia727]

People are not allowed to make mistakes any more. Mistakes are caused by somebody else. People who admit that they make mistakes are inherently weaker on the grounds that they make mistakes, whereas people who show how the mistakes are always somebody else's fault are stronger and better.

"Pride is the most dangerous of the seven deadly sins because pride will have you repeating the other six again and again." -Can't remember who said it, but it's all too true.

[Flyndaran]

I'm an atheist, but I don't believe in atheism any more than I believe in negative unicorns. I don't believe in unicorns as I don't believe in afterlives, magic, fairies, and souls. All just feel good stories people tell themselves to cover for the uncomfortable truths of ignorance and that everything, including ourselves, having an end.

[Slytovhand]

.... All just feel good stories people tell themselves to cover for the uncomfortable truths of ignorance and that everything, including ourselves, having an end.

Ah... just as arrogant and 'know it all' as any 'true believer' of any other religion And just as dismissive of every experience of everyone else who believes something because of those experiences... miracles never occur, sightings are all figments of the imagination, revelations are all crap..????

Yeah, I know - that's the sort of thought pattern you have to give yourself to justify your beliefs.

[Jadedcarguy]

Yeah, I know - that's the sort of thought pattern you have to give yourself to justify your beliefs.

Yeah, it is.

[Evandril]

I'm an atheist, but I don't believe in atheism any more than I believe in negative unicorns. I don't believe in unicorns as I don't believe in afterlives, magic, fairies, and souls. All just feel good stories people tell themselves to cover for the uncomfortable truths of ignorance and that everything, including ourselves, having an end.

The definition of an atheist is the belief there are no dieties. Since there is no proof for or against their existance, it cannot be classified as anything other than a belief.

[Flyndaran]

The definition of an atheist is the belief there are no dieties. Since there is no proof for or against their existance, it cannot be classified as anything other than a belief.

Do you also classify your belief in the non-existance of Zeus as a belief? Is so, then alright. If not, then why not?

You can disprove that I don't have a magical, tiny, insubstatial, invisible, unicorn in my butt, so your disbelief is a belief, right?

That's what it boils down to. Is disbelief a form of belief? I don't think so. You do. End of discusssion, eh?

[Evandril]

Do you also classify your belief in the non-existance of Zeus as a belief? Is so, then alright. If not, then why not?

You can disprove that I don't have a magical, tiny, insubstatial, invisible, unicorn in my butt, so your disbelief is a belief, right?

That's what it boils down to. Is disbelief a form of belief? I don't think so. You do. End of discusssion, eh?

Can I prove Zeus does/did not exist? Nope...So I'm neutral on the matter, I've never claimed he does or does not exist. And honestly, I'd be more inclined to believe in Zeus's existance than the Christian god, m'self...Zeus wasn't all powerful, even within the mythos, nor all knowing.

If you can show me proof of something, then it no longer requires taking something on faith...of course, absoulte proof is such a pain...*shrugs*

If you can tell me how you can say 'x' does NOT exist anyplace within the universe, without asking me to take part of it on faith, I'd be impressed. Heck, if you've read Hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy, give me proof that the diety mentioned in that book doesn't exist, and we're not all to be wiped out by the coming of the great hankerchief That god had *nothing* to do with Earth, so wouldn't leave any signs here...

[Gabrielle Proctor]

Okey dokey, just to chime in here... I don't remember who said it, but let me make a clarification, ahem, EINSTEIN DID NOT SUPPORT INTELLIGENT DESIGN.
This is just like Darwin's "eye quote" which is taken out of context and never expanded upon.

Also, Intelligent design was denounced IN COURT. That's right, the government found that it had absolutely no merit in the court of law. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10545387/

"A six-week trial over the issue yielded “overwhelming evidence” establishing that intelligent design “is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory,” said Jones, a Republican and a churchgoer appointed to the federal bench three years ago."

Also, I do not believe in God(s). I guess that makes me an Atheist. I would be glad to believe in God(s) if there was evidence to support God(s), but there isn't. Also, I can't justify believing in one without entertaining the possibility that all of the other ones are true too.

[Slytovhand]

Hi Gab... long time and all....

Firstly, twas I who mentioned Einstein's name, and it was indeed in a post in which ID was mentioned. But I didn't say he supported 'it'. I was heading towards the idea that he looked at what he saw and thought that there seems to be rational reason for believing in some form of 'Intelligent Designer'... that it made more sense to him than 'all this' being purely random.

But that's for the ID thread... (which it went to anyway )

And yes, I know it got thrown out it court... strangely, that in itself doesn't actually mean it's wrong! Only that it was unlawful to teach it in science (in particular, biology... which to my way of thinking is a real stupid place for ID'ers to even bother fighting said battle! Their argument makes no sense whatsoever!!) After all, for all we know, what those ID'ers are trying to say was actually the way the universe unfolded!

But... back to this thread. I don't understand quite why belief in one deity must necessarily mean belief in all. I can understand "I might be wrong, and any number of other options are therefore possible", but maybe I'm just mis-reading you...

[Evandril]

But... back to this thread. I don't understand quite why belief in one deity must necessarily mean belief in all. I can understand "I might be wrong, and any number of other options are therefore possible", but maybe I'm just mis-reading you...

If this was directed at my arguements, then I wasn't clear. I'd been saying I personally won't say if any given deity exists or not, not that if you believe in one, you need to believe in them all. Belief is just that, taking something on faith...and if you're doing that, that does not mean you have to take the rest of 'em on faith as well. I was just saying that, to the best of my knowledge, you cannot *disprove* the existance of a diety with the information we have.

Btw, Aethist = There are *no* gods, period, according to all the definitions I've heard. Agnostic = There might be gods, might not be, not going to worry about it. (More definitions for that one, but the 'not worrying about it' part tends to be fairly standard)

[Slytovhand]

Ev.. no, Gab's line.

Oh - did we define 'deity', given that Zeus has now been mentioned? After all, no real reason to believe some being calling itself Zeus, who, compared to the local population, didn't have super amazing magical powers type stuff... and thus got labelled as a 'god'... thus making him a 'deity'... even if he was just an alien.