wood burning stoves*
The moose likes Meaningless Drivel and the fly likes Atheism or Theism?? Big Moose Saloon
  Search | Java FAQ | Recent Topics | Flagged Topics | Hot Topics | Zero Replies
Register / Login
JavaRanch » Java Forums » Other » Meaningless Drivel
Bookmark "Atheism or Theism??" Watch "Atheism or Theism??" New topic
Author

Atheism or Theism??

stephen gates
Ranch Hand

Joined: Apr 30, 2007
Posts: 69
I'm not trying to dispute science at all. I'm just being objective about things. Your the one disputing religion. I think the "bible" is a nice story but I don't believe any of the religious texts should be taken word for word. Some people do believe this.

But objectively looking at things, people who are extremely religious can say that science is more about "theories" than about facts. Just look at the whole Global Warming issue right now.

You have half the scientist's proclaiming it's the end of the world scenario and mainly caused by human's and the other half of scientist's proclaiming it's nowhere near the end of the world and not caused by scientist's. You have many scientist's research backed by political money or corporate money and therefore, if they sway too far from the views of that money, that money is no longer there and that research fades. At least for the time being.

Science is well indeed needed and the world is a better place because of it. But dont' fool yourself into thinking science isn't just as political and a hot bedded topic just like religion is. There are no such thing as "Pure" anything in this life and if you believe in science or religion and believe it should be the way, then you also should believe in "Just because a few people say that's what it is, doesn't always mean it really is."
Gregg Bolinger
GenRocket Founder
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jul 11, 2001
Posts: 15299
    
    6

Can we prove God exists/doesn't exist? Not today.

Not ever. No one can prove God exists using science. I'd argue that is because God is beyond science while the atheist would merely say it's because God doesn't exist. No skin off my back. The atheist has every right to not believe there is a God.

Genesis can't be backed by any proof at all.

What part of Genesis? Are you simply talking about the creation of the world? Then that statement is possibly true. But there are many parts to the book of Genesis including Noah and the flood which are supported by a lot of scientific evidence As a matter of fact, the flood actually scientifically explains a few things that still baffle scientists today, including the formation of the Grand Canyon.

I'd invite atheist and theists a like to take a look at the following web site. Even if you don't believe, it is still interesting.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/


GenRocket - Experts at Building Test Data
Dave Lenton
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jan 20, 2005
Posts: 1241
I may take a look. I'd be interested to see how they can explain how the entire Earth was covered in water when there is no-where near enough water in, on and floating above the Earth to do this. I'd be almost as interested to hear just how the kangaroos got from Australia to the Middle East and back again.


There will be glitches in my transition from being a saloon bar sage to a world statesman. - Tony Banks
Stan James
(instanceof Sidekick)
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jan 29, 2003
Posts: 8791
Anybody read Hitchens "God Is Not Great"? I saw him on CNN last night for a few minutes, and he's been making the TV rounds lately for the new book. Some quotes from quotes from an Amazon review ...

Religion is ... "violent, irrational, intolerant, allied to racism and tribalism and bigotry, invested in ignorance and hostile to free inquiry, contemptuous of women and coercive toward children."

Holy texts ... "contain a warrant for trafficking in humans, for ethnic cleansing, for slavery, for bride-price, and for indiscriminate massacre."

He's way off base painting all followers of faith with one brush, but I tend to side with those statements over the span of history.


A good question is never answered. It is not a bolt to be tightened into place but a seed to be planted and to bear more seed toward the hope of greening the landscape of the idea. John Ciardi
stephen gates
Ranch Hand

Joined: Apr 30, 2007
Posts: 69
Take it for what it is......Like I said, religious texts are nice stories. Some of what is in them are part of history. Some of what are in them are what people believed. Whether it's the jewish bible, christian bible, the koran, and so on.

Remember the Tsunami in sri Lanka and all those other area's. Remember Hurricane Katrina? For the people who lived in those places, the storm, water, and floods destroyed their world.

Now go back a few thousand years. Most people's worlds were what existed in a few square miles. So if a flood came in and destroyed their village and the next village over, for all intensive purposes, it Flooded the world. It's all about perspective.

If the entire world consisted of 10 miles, it's not hard to imagine the world being flooded. And even today, there are many poor people who don't know there is other parts of the world. Nor do they care. So if their world is flooded, think what they would say. "The world flooded for 40 days and 40 nights and so on and so forth."

Yeah some people take everything literally and makes it harder for others to listen. But if you keep things in perspective, a flood that destoryed the world thousands of years ago is not hard to imagine considering most people's worlds didn't go beyond 20 miles.
stephen gates
Ranch Hand

Joined: Apr 30, 2007
Posts: 69
Objective people can hear that fact. Religions have been the reasons for half the wars, if not more, in the world's history. Whether it's the big 3 religions, Asian religions, indian religions, and so on. Most of what people fought for over the years has been in the name of "their higher power."
Stan James
(instanceof Sidekick)
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jan 29, 2003
Posts: 8791
I had to go read up a while on scientists "baffled" by the Grand Canyon. I was aware of Tom Vail's book and some of the assertions about rapid formation. The scientists responding Here don't seem so baffled.

I had a physics major friend in college who ran into the carbon dating vs young earth problem and nearly abandoned science. I worry about staying competitive in technology while losing bright people to conflicts like that.
Ashok Mash
Ranch Hand

Joined: Oct 13, 2000
Posts: 1936
Religions are just like anything else in this world - they are born in some corner of the world, they evolve and mature and at this stage they reach their critical point and starts believing they can explain it all, and then, they become victims of their own success and they stop adapting (evolving). Eventually, they get displaced by new religions.


[ flickr ]
Dave Lenton
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jan 20, 2005
Posts: 1241
Originally posted by Ashok Mash:
they are born in some corner of the world, they evolve and mature
A good example of this is the change from the Old Testament to the New Testament. It's fairly clear that the NT view of the universe is heavily influenced by Greek philosophy and is quite different in feel to the OT. This enabled the religion to spread out of the Middle East and into the larger Greek influenced area.
Tony Alicea
Desperado
Sheriff

Joined: Jan 30, 2000
Posts: 3222
    
    5
I still have not seen addressed what is in my opinion the most important aspect under the title of this thread.

So I will volunteer my comments.

I (and every intelligent, rational being on this planet) should understand that, although there is no proof (not even an inkling) that any of the so-called gods exist, much less the tales that are told in the so-called holy books, that it is imperative (in our society, the USA in particular) that we allow its citizens to express any kind of worship that individual groups may want to exercise.

But even so, kinds of worship that would allow (as an example), polygamy, human sacrifice could be exercised but not the practice of polygamy or the killing of humans (even if they are willing to be killed).

Short of things like that, we in the USA will allow all to practice their religion. It's not me; it's the Constitution.

However, the separation of state and religion in the Foundation of our country was intended to protect the state from religion and its fanatics.

Therefore no "holy" scriptures shall be quoted, used or in any way cited as justification for passing civil laws that will govern our Republic.

Laws shall be passed solely for the benefit of the public good as it is expressed in practical terms (like for example, outlawing the killing of other humans outside of self defense) and not because "god said so" since there's no unequivocal proof that "god said so".

The onus is on believers. Not unbelievers.

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence..."

My Fellow Americans: Let's continue trying to build the most just society in the world!
Mapraputa Is
Leverager of our synergies
Sheriff

Joined: Aug 26, 2000
Posts: 10065
Gregg: One could argue that nearly every scientific fact is only fact until someone disproves said fact, thereby making said fact a theory all along.

If "a theory" means "disproved fact", then it seems that airplanes, medicine, cellphones, computers... would never be possible. Many scientific facts remains just that -- facts. New theories may offer better explanations, or show where the old theory is not applicable, rather then disproving it outright.


Uncontrolled vocabularies
"I try my best to make *all* my posts nice, even when I feel upset" -- Philippe Maquet
Tony Alicea
Desperado
Sheriff

Joined: Jan 30, 2000
Posts: 3222
    
    5
Exactly. As it happened with Newtonian mechanics and the orbit of Mercury. And General Relativity.

Careful observations of the orbit of Mercury around the Sun showed that its movement (Mercury's) didn't follow the exact predictions laid out by Newtonian mechanics.

So the scientists at that time proposed the existence of yet another planet ("Vulcan", really!) too close to the Sun to be seen with telescopes but massive enough to explain the "anomalies" displayed by the orbit of Mercury around the Sun.

It turned out that they were seeing relativistic effects and today Einstein's General Relativity (as opposed to his and now ours Special Relativity) explains said anomaly away very elegantly.

Relativity is an extension to Classical Mechanics. It does not invalidate any classical mechanics but instead enhances it.
Marilyn de Queiroz
Sheriff

Joined: Jul 22, 2000
Posts: 9046
    
  10
Originally posted by Tony Alicea:
... it's the Constitution.

However, the separation of state and religion in the Foundation of our country was intended to protect the state from religion and its fanatics.


Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;


This seems to contradict Tony's statement. Rather than "protect the state from religion", it sounds to me like it was meant to protect the citizens from the establishment of a "state religion".


JavaBeginnersFaq
"Yesterday is history, tomorrow is a mystery, and today is a gift; that's why they call it the present." Eleanor Roosevelt
Dave Lenton
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jan 20, 2005
Posts: 1241
Its interesting that in the US there is a constitutional separation between church and state, but at the same time politicians often use religious statements in their campaigning, and in some cases religion becomes a factor taken into account when voting. In the UK we have a monarch who is head of a church as well as head of state, and an established church for England, and bishops in the House of Lords, but our politicians act in a much more secular way (religion is almost taboo in campaigning).

Perhaps it shows that the rules on these kinds of things don't make much of a difference.
Tony Alicea
Desperado
Sheriff

Joined: Jan 30, 2000
Posts: 3222
    
    5
"This seems to contradict Tony's statement. Rather than "protect the state from religion", it sounds to me like it was meant to protect the citizens from the establishment of a "state religion"."

Ha ha! It's the same thing!
John Smith
Ranch Hand

Joined: Oct 08, 2001
Posts: 2937
Originally posted by Dave Lenton:
Its interesting that in the US there is a constitutional separation between church and state, but at the same time politicians often use religious statements in their campaigning, and in some cases religion becomes a factor taken into account when voting.


We also have military chaplains. Before the big battles, they instruct the marines to keep the Sabbath holy and to not kill. Is that the same in the UK?
Richard Green
Ranch Hand

Joined: Aug 25, 2005
Posts: 536
´┐ŻAtheism is a non-prophet organization´┐Ż - George Carlin


MCSD, SCJP, SCWCD, SCBCD, SCJD (in progress - URLybird 1.2.1)
stephen gates
Ranch Hand

Joined: Apr 30, 2007
Posts: 69
Fact was Pluto used to be a planet. Fact is it no longer is. Fact is there were other planets that are no longer Planets.. Yeah facts are facts as long as somebody else doesn't come along with more money, more power, more intelligence and change what everybody believes and thinks are fact.

Fact is there used to be 4 major oceans. There are now 5 major oceans. Fact is nobody knows how Earth was really created, they just have theories.
Yeah there are certain things that should always remain facts. But in reality, that is rarely the case. What is a fact today might be considered ridiculous tomorrow.

Why is this an issue? Because the same reason people condmemn Religious fanatics of being thick headed and unrealistic are the same things you can accuse Engineers and Scientist's of. Your way or the highway as they say.
Dave Lenton
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jan 20, 2005
Posts: 1241
Originally posted by stephen gates:
Why is this an issue? Because the same reason people condmemn Religious fanatics of being thick headed and unrealistic are the same things you can accuse Engineers and Scientist's of. Your way or the highway as they say.
This would be true if we look at everything in the universe in a binary way - as either proven fact or disproved.

The problem here is that we can fall into excessive scepticism - just about everything could be argued to be not 100% proven. This leads people to equate all unproven theories as being equally valid.

This is a bit of a mistake though, as it ignores the probability of a theory being correct. By assigning theories probabilities, even if only approximate or relative, we can differentiate between the likely unprovens and the unlikely unprovens.

Black holes and invisible pink unicorns are both uncertain. We can't say or either that we are 100% sure they exist, and there is no possible situation in which they don't exist. Despite that, a lot more people accept that black holes are probably out there then accept that invisible pink unicorns are.

We can do a similar comparison between scientific and theological theories, for example evolution verses young-Earth creationism. Both are theories, and both are unproven. Because of this some people advocate giving both equal weighting within scientific discussion and teaching.

From a scientific point of view they are not equally likely though. There is a wealth of evidence indicating that evolution is correct. There is almost no evidence that young-Earth creationism is correct. This means that while both are only theories, I think it perfectly acceptable to consider evolution to be highly likely to be true, and young-Earth creationism not to be.
Paul Sturrock
Bartender

Joined: Apr 14, 2004
Posts: 10336


Fact was Pluto used to be a planet. Fact is it no longer is....Yeah facts are facts as long as somebody else doesn't come along with more money, more power, more intelligence and change what everybody believes and thinks are fact.

This is specious reasoning. Because facts change all facts are theories?! Fact: the earth is flat. At least it was 'til our knowledge grew to disprove this. David Hume always said we must reject that which is not based on observable evidence, because it cannot be said to be univerally true. On the observable evidence at the time Pluto was a planet. Now we can see more, we know it is not. Hume would also say that we cannot call anything based on "invisible intelligences" a truth (or fact). Religion is defined entirely be invisible intelligences, so we can't compare it to facts and fact-based theories. The only choice is to state it in terms of belief and keep it seperate from rational thought.

I'd urge anyone who has time on their hands and an interest in this to read Hume's "Dialogues concerning Natural Religion". Whether you are religious or not there has been no better discussion of this stuff ever written.
[ May 15, 2007: Message edited by: Paul Sturrock ]

JavaRanch FAQ HowToAskQuestionsOnJavaRanch
Dave Lenton
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jan 20, 2005
Posts: 1241
Originally posted by Paul Sturrock:
I'd urge anyone who has time on their hands and an interest in this to read Hume's "Dialogues concerning Natural Religion". Whether you are religious or not there has been no better discussion of this stuff ever written.


Wow, now there's a coincidence. I just started reading this yesterday!
Paul Sturrock
Bartender

Joined: Apr 14, 2004
Posts: 10336



Good luck. A very dense argument, but worth the effort (as are most of Hume's articles/books).
Devesh H Rao
Ranch Hand

Joined: Feb 09, 2002
Posts: 687

Originally posted by stephen gates:
Fact was Pluto used to be a planet. Fact is it no longer is. Fact is there were other planets that are no longer Planets.. Yeah facts are facts as long as somebody else doesn't come along with more money, more power, more intelligence and change what everybody believes and thinks are fact.

Fact is there used to be 4 major oceans. There are now 5 major oceans. Fact is nobody knows how Earth was really created, they just have theories.
Yeah there are certain things that should always remain facts. But in reality, that is rarely the case. What is a fact today might be considered ridiculous tomorrow.

Why is this an issue? Because the same reason people condmemn Religious fanatics of being thick headed and unrealistic are the same things you can accuse Engineers and Scientist's of. Your way or the highway as they say.


This is like confusing between fact and belief.

Fact != Belief....

Earth was spherical is a fact and it was a fact even when it was believed that earth was flat. Absence of proof leads to misleading beliefs and not facts.

A fact is binary, something exists or something does not exist.

God exists or not is binary, it is a fact which has not been discovered yet hence leading to proliferation of beliefs....
stephen gates
Ranch Hand

Joined: Apr 30, 2007
Posts: 69
If your catholic or christian, Jesus was supposed to be a son of god. Plenty of books have been written about it. Believe the theories or not, some people would say that this proves "god" existed because his "son" did "miraculous" things.

I'm not catholic or christian so I don't believe this theory. But stories have been told, history books have been written about it. If you say it's just "fake" and "made" up then the same thing can be said about half the science books, history books and everything else written.

As far as Pluto not being a planet?
That's a politcal thing more than a fact thing. Out of 2400 registered astronomers, 400 voted on whether Pluto, Ceres, and others would be deemed a planet or a dwarf planet.

What happens one day if Mars isn't a planet or Jupitor or Saturn is considered a star and not a planet or what if Earth is no longer considered a real planet because it doesn't meet the new criteria.
At one point Pluto met the criteria to be a planet. But the criteria changed.

400 People voting to make things facts is more Political than anything else. Like it or not, Science has always been political.

There are certain things that are "facts" but then again, We've barely visited the depth of the Ocean's, we've barely visited Space, and one day maybe certain "facts" change because of new found realities or new found political agenda's.

Right now Global Warming is the big thing. You have one side claiming the end of the world as we know it. You have another side claiming it's all BS. But the reality is, both sides are Scientist's who claim these things. What is fact and what isn't? It depends what side of the story you believe.

Somebody who doesn't believe in a God will surely say there is no proof, no evidence. Somebody who does believe will say something different.

You say Evolution is closer to fact than religion. Somebody else will say How did we go from dinosaurs to humans? Nobody knows what's evolved. For all intensive purposes humans as we know it don't seem to go back past 10,000 years. Yeah "cavemen" might, but then again new scientific evidence suggests humans' today did not evolve from those "cavemen."

Like I said. Can we prove if there is a God? No. But can we prove where Human's really came or evolved from? No.
[ May 15, 2007: Message edited by: stephen gates ]
Devesh H Rao
Ranch Hand

Joined: Feb 09, 2002
Posts: 687

Originally posted by stephen gates:


There are certain things that are "facts" but then again, We've barely visited the depth of the Ocean's, we've barely visited Space, and one day maybe certain "facts" change because of new found realities or new found political agenda's.

Right now Global Warming is the big thing. You have one side claiming the end of the world as we know it. You have another side claiming it's all BS. But the reality is, both sides are Scientist's who claim these things. What is fact and what isn't? It depends what side of the story you believe.

[ May 15, 2007: Message edited by: stephen gates ]


That is the exact thing with which I have an issue with, there is nothing like a fact which we believe in. A fact is independent of reason, belief, mob mentality. it is the truth and truth is not something which needs people to belive in it. Eons back even if all the living people believed that earth was flat that would not make that a fact, the fact still was that earth was spherical. The two words are not equal, ille, nein, nahi.... whichever language you want to pick up.

Global warming is a nice example, so what is a fact, fact is what will happen irrespective of whatever people think. Fact is some years down the line we are in line for a sequel to noah's ark or we are not. Now till the time that happens we can believe either of the possibility.

Belief is as i said the assumption of the existence of an entity, Fact is the proof of that existence.

I may live a bit longer is a belief.
Death is a fact. [I see someone coming up with an example for elixir of life being discovered and so on and so forth, death is a fact even though it will tend towards infinity, but it still is a fact]


Similarly god is a belief as long as long as you do not see him/her/it, then god becomes a fact for you if at all it happens, but for the rest it still is a belief.
Dave Lenton
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jan 20, 2005
Posts: 1241
Originally posted by stephen gates:
You say Evolution is closer to fact than religion. Somebody else will say How did we go from dinosaurs to humans? Nobody knows what's evolved. For all intensive purposes humans as we know it don't seem to go back past 10,000 years.

I disagree. There is a wealth of evidence which indicates evolution is likely. This evidence does not show that humans evolved from dinosaurs (more likely we evolved from small rodents living along side the dinosaurs), but there is plenty of fossil evidence of species thought to be predecessors of humans. Humans are thought to have been around for about 200,000-250,000 years, rather then just 10,000.

Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution which is quite an interesting read on the subject.

Yeah "cavemen" might, but then again new scientific evidence suggests humans' today did not evolve from those "cavemen."
It depends what you mean by "caveman". If you mean Neanderthals, then yes, most likely we did not evolve from them, but early humans would have lived in caves as well.
Like I said. Can we prove if there is a God? No. But can we prove where Human's really came or evolved from? No.
Absolutely, neither are certain. However we can look at the balance of evidence. There is a lot of evidence which suggests where humans evolved and what our predecessors were like. There is very little evidence that God exists. To me this implies that evolution is quite likely to be true, and God is quite unlikely to be true.
Stan James
(instanceof Sidekick)
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jan 29, 2003
Posts: 8791
Matters of faith are necessarily belief in that which cannot be proven.

Sincere people of faith have come to different conclusions about many things. They disagree on big things like one god or many gods, small things like dance is a sin or something that can be used in worship, and things in between like America's hot button "family values" issues.

It must be that some of them are wrong. It might be that all of them are wrong.

Why should I allow any of these people to control any aspect of my life? Governments and laws based on religion frighten me. Laws based on my beliefs should frighten you, too.
Arun Kumarr
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 16, 2005
Posts: 513

Consider this thought.
When communication was not that easy like it is today, when there was no international calls, no ships, no sea travel, no internet, when people hardly knew if people existed in other parts of the world, when hindus dint know about a religion called christianity, when muslims didn't know about jainism, Every single person believed about a supreme power, something like GOD to exist and controlling the threads of anything and everything. How's that possible. Is GOD a personification of the fears which humans had? Fears like lightning, earthquake, volcano etc., How did GOD himself evolve as an entity among different cultures, when they don't even know that there are different cultures existing in this world.

any rationale?


If you are not laughing at yourself, then you just didn't get the joke.
Jim Yingst
Wanderer
Sheriff

Joined: Jan 30, 2000
Posts: 18671
Arun, how can you be sure that "every single person believed about a supreme power, something like GOD to exist"? Sounds a little exaggerated to me; we can't possibly know that. Various Greek philosophers expressed considerable skepticism over the existence of gods, for example. However belief in some sort of supreme power was pretty widespread, true.

But, just because most Hindus did not know about Christians and vice versa does not mean that no communication took place. The Roman Empire traded with India, for example. Even in cases where no direct communication took place, most societies have at least some people who talk to some of their neighbors, who in turn talk to other neighbors, etc. And thus, ideas can spread. Sometimes quickly, sometimes slowly, but they spread. In fact the very languages we speak are evidence of this - there are many ties between European languages and Indian languages such as Sanskrit. Surely if the very words we speak were transmitted from one location to another that far in the past, the idea of gods could be as well?


"I'm not back." - Bill Harding, Twister
Devesh H Rao
Ranch Hand

Joined: Feb 09, 2002
Posts: 687

Originally posted by Arun Kumarr:
Consider this thought.
When communication was not that easy like it is today, when there was no international calls, no ships, no sea travel, no internet, when people hardly knew if people existed in other parts of the world, when hindus dint know about a religion called christianity, when muslims didn't know about jainism, Every single person believed about a supreme power, something like GOD to exist and controlling the threads of anything and everything. How's that possible. Is GOD a personification of the fears which humans had? Fears like lightning, earthquake, volcano etc., How did GOD himself evolve as an entity among different cultures, when they don't even know that there are different cultures existing in this world.

any rationale?



Atheism in Hinduism

And no doubt other religions or should I say sects across the world also had similar philosophies....

God is creation of human minds, We need some explaination for stuff which cannot be proved like the basic question of how all came into existence, and hence the need for a super container called "God".

Similarly we do not know as much so as to say no to the existence of god as well and hence there being both school of thoughts on either side of the fence.

I still feel the best time to ask a person if god exists is when the person is giving a Math paper, ... i have seen many non belivers turn belivers in no time at all.......


God is Mathematics.......
[ May 17, 2007: Message edited by: Devesh H Rao ]
George Harris
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 05, 2003
Posts: 84
I would like to add the question to this thread... WHY???

If you are a Theist is it because you were raised that way, you found god or someone convinced you?

If you are Atheist did you lose your faith or were you never religious?

To answer my own question... I consider myself 'agnostic.' I was not raised as a given religion and I believe I came to understand that I haven't a clue if there is or isn't a god... and I am good with that.

Any otheres???
Mapraputa Is
Leverager of our synergies
Sheriff

Joined: Aug 26, 2000
Posts: 10065
George: If you are Atheist did you lose your faith or were you never religious?

I've never been religious due to my upbringing. I tried several times to get religion a fair chance to succeed in my salvation but it never worked out. Just didn't make any sense to me. Not long ago I decided to give up, and spend the rest of my days as an atheist.
R K Singh
Ranch Hand

Joined: Oct 15, 2001
Posts: 5371
oh .. old lovely debate.

It is one of those topics, like SEX, that surely gets attention.


"Thanks to Indian media who has over the period of time swiped out intellectual taste from mass Indian population." - Chetan Parekh
Ashok Mash
Ranch Hand

Joined: Oct 13, 2000
Posts: 1936
Originally posted by George Harris:
If you are Atheist did you lose your faith or were you never religious?


I would call myself agnostic bordering atheism.

I was raised religious, as in the ways of Hinduism, which is not religious at all compared to other major religious.

The turning point for me was when I noticed how faith has made ordinary people gullible, how many put themselves thru unnecessary situations for the sake of their faith etc. Then I noticed the same thing happening everywhere, irrespective of the religion! Now when two individuals swear by their respective religious and make irrational and decisions according to their faith, I started distancing myself from the religious aspect of things.

I consider myself spiritual, but not religious. God? May be. Science? Yes.
fred rosenberger
lowercase baba
Bartender

Joined: Oct 02, 2003
Posts: 11320
    
  16

I was raised Catholic. I went through confirmation when i was...12?

Then, in high school, i saw a map of the known universe. it had a small section, maybe 3"x3" representing our solar system. That square was then shown as a pinpoint in a 3x3 section representing the local star cluster. THAT was shown as a pinpoint in the local super cluster of stars, which was a pinpoint in a section of the galaxy, which was a pinpoint in the collection of galaxies, etc.

I think i figured out once that on that 3' x 3' poster, the earth was something like 1 x 10^(-9) of an electron wide.

It made me feel so insignificant, that the idea of a god creating all that stuff for such a tiny mote of dust seemed utterly rediculous.

As time went on, i considered the idea of a god more and more. it made less and less sense. The concept of a 'soul', 'heaven' and 'god' defies what we currently believe about energy. All the stories of god and his powers are anecdotal at best (IMHO). The bible, what i was raised to believe, is a translation of a translation of a translation of a story handed down from generation to generation. the thought that it is in any way close to the original story is laughable.

Now, having said all that, I am not willing to declar, as an athiest would, that there IS NO god. I don't think we really know. I don't think we can ever know that it doesn't exist. I don't believe there is any evidence saying there IS a god, and much saying it does not.

But i am open to the possibility that someday there will be evidence supporting such a thing. I actually think it would be pretty cool to find out something new.


There are only two hard things in computer science: cache invalidation, naming things, and off-by-one errors
Tony Alicea
Desperado
Sheriff

Joined: Jan 30, 2000
Posts: 3222
    
    5
Whether Pluto is a planet or not should not be used as an example of a "fact" in the context we have here.

Whether Pluto or the piece of orbiting rock (or ice or whatever) exists in our Solar System is a FACT. It is NOT a belief.

I thought we were talking about the existence (or lack of such) of something
Tony Alicea
Desperado
Sheriff

Joined: Jan 30, 2000
Posts: 3222
    
    5
"As time went on, i considered the idea of a god more and more. it made less and less sense. The concept of a 'soul', 'heaven' and 'god' defies what we currently believe about energy."

Just a thought (please don't kill me! )

What if there's no 'god' but there's still a "soul"? Something that survives physcial death with an implicit recolelction of what was lived?

Again, please don't kill me!
fred rosenberger
lowercase baba
Bartender

Joined: Oct 02, 2003
Posts: 11320
    
  16

again, the concept of a 'soul' seems to defy the way we think the universe currently works. provide me evidence of a 'soul', and i'll consider it. but it seems (to me) to be a made up fantasy.

it's a nice fantasy, to think that we somehow survive beyond death, but i don't believe it.
Arun Kumarr
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 16, 2005
Posts: 513

Originally posted by Jim Yingst:
Arun, how can you be sure that "every single person believed about a supreme power, something like GOD to exist"? Sounds a little exaggerated to me; we can't possibly know that. Various Greek philosophers expressed considerable skepticism over the existence of gods, for example. However belief in some sort of supreme power was pretty widespread, true.

But, just because most Hindus did not know about Christians and vice versa does not mean that no communication took place. The Roman Empire traded with India, for example. Even in cases where no direct communication took place, most societies have at least some people who talk to some of their neighbors, who in turn talk to other neighbors, etc. And thus, ideas can spread. Sometimes quickly, sometimes slowly, but they spread. In fact the very languages we speak are evidence of this - there are many ties between European languages and Indian languages such as Sanskrit. Surely if the very words we speak were transmitted from one location to another that far in the past, the idea of gods could be as well?


- Yes. I was a little exaggerating . There were also people who believed the world was round in a flat world. But every stupid thing which was believed in those days was disproved in the later time. GOD was the only belief which has stood the test of time. Iam just wondering the flawless implementation of the abstraction of GOD in people's mind. Could GOD be the reality, which the ancient people want to model. Like you take an Object falling, you always associate to it with a name and try to think only in language. You say, a meteor is falling, a bag is falling. Nobody would talk in abstract terms like, something is falling[they would, only if they don't know or can't see it clearly]. Same is with behaviours. You say he is angry, she is cold. But for certain behaviours for which people cannot associate a term or a logic, something which is over their head, they designate it as Godly.
But as and when people start understanding the definition of those things/behaviours which was Godly, it has moved from theistic/godly domain to scientific/atheistic domain.

Considering the entire knowledge universe as a circle we always know a wedge of 30% and we declare that we know 30% based on the 30% knowledge we obtained. We always try to decipher things and understand the realm of unknown only from the realm of the known (say, 30%). Once the unknown things begins to make sense scientifically, we move it from the 70% to the 30%. Iam wondering if GOD was a framework to give us sense about all that unknown we have seen and unseen.

And coming to communication, I always accept that there was communication between the places connected by land. For those places connected by sea, I was just wondering, how those cultures also believed in something like GOD.
Ulf Dittmer
Marshal

Joined: Mar 22, 2005
Posts: 41885
    
  63
Originally posted by Arun Kumarr:
But every stupid thing which was believed in those days was disproved in the later time. GOD was the only belief which has stood the test of time.


Maybe that's because the existence of God actually is a belief, and not a fact. Which means that by definition it can't be proven or disproven.


Ping & DNS - my free Android networking tools app
 
wood burning stoves
 
subject: Atheism or Theism??