sweetjasmine Posted March 19, 2011 Posted March 19, 2011 My friend noted that they are a lot more afraid of death - which makes sense. I'm sure not all atheists fear death, but, from my experience, most do, and it's painfully evident once they're on their death bed. My experience has actually been the opposite. I used to belong to an atheist community, and one of the members was diagnosed with late stage lung cancer. He posted his thoughts, feelings, and experiences all the way up until the last couple of days on an online forum, and I can honestly say I have never seen anyone face certain death with as much dignity and strength as he did. He accepted what was going to happen to him and made as much of his last months as he could. He decided when chemo and the suffering that comes with it would be too much, and when that point came, he decided to stop it and face his inevitable death at home and in peace with his family by his side. I also know a few people who have had serious medical scares in the past year, from cancer to aneurysms to severe infections. They all had some fear of the worst happening, but they had a sense of calm and acceptance that I don't often see from most people. In my experience, the atheists I've known tend to take a more practical approach to death. They focus on quality of life over length, and most that I know would rather have family members pull the plug than keep their body alive artificially. That being said, people should probably shy away from dating others who have very different philosophical views if those views are important. I agree with you there.
threebyfate Posted March 19, 2011 Posted March 19, 2011 Neither death nor aging bother me. They're both eventualities that have been accepted. It doesn't mean that I seek them but just know they're going to happen and continue life with a healthy lifestyle. It's very much like my belief that there's no purpose to life. We're like everything "alive" on this earth through evolutionary means. We're the dominant life form since we're capable of controlling our environment and also, killling it. Eventually, if people continue with the belief that the world was made by a higher power for our usage, we'll kill ourselves.
Crusoe Posted March 19, 2011 Posted March 19, 2011 (edited) I may be wrong, but I believe the philosophy of early cynics was to live a life of happiness in accordance with nature. To be self sufficient, non materialistic and to be in control of your mental attitude. If that be true, then as an athiest, I am delighted to be considered a cynic. I'm sure I could make a Boston sewage worker blush too. Edited March 19, 2011 by Crusoe
Andy_K Posted March 19, 2011 Posted March 19, 2011 Atheists, especially 'internet atheists' are generally white middle classed people who are big heads and have no problem judging and bothering those who have a faith because they think they are more intelligent and brilliant. Interestingly, studies have shown that the more educated and intelligent you are, the LESS likely you are to believe in a God of any major religion. So it's not a totally crazy judgement to make. Personally, I'm agnostic. This means I get to look down my nose at both christians and atheists
Macaw Posted March 20, 2011 Posted March 20, 2011 Interestingly, studies have shown that the more educated and intelligent you are, the LESS likely you are to believe in a God of any major religion. So it's not a totally crazy judgement to make. Personally, I'm agnostic. This means I get to look down my nose at both christians and atheists You just reminded me of a comedian who posts in a fake twitter accounting pretending to be God. People send him questions and he answers them in a humorous manner. A while ago, someone asked this: "Dear Lord, what happens to agnostics when they die? Are they send to hell just like atheists?" and he replied: "Nope, I send them to the Great 'Maybe', a place that may or may not exist between Heaven and Hell."
ScreamingTrees Posted March 20, 2011 Posted March 20, 2011 Psh.. C'mon, guys, why can't we all just agree to disagree? I don't really care for labels, but I guess you'd call me an Atheist because I've never invested in blind faith.. I don't look down on others, but I see religion as a coping mechanism for those with death anxiety, objectively speaking. I'm not cynical, I just see our collective reality for what it is. I rarely swear, and follow a live and let live, do not judge lest ye be judged code of honor.. I think that's a personality thing, totally unrelated to religious beliefs, because you can find people like that all over the map regardless.
D-Lish Posted March 20, 2011 Posted March 20, 2011 Anyhow, is it common for atheists to act in such a abrasive,cynical, and unappealing manner? Seems every atheist I run into these days, act in such a manner. Is this common? Most of the Atheists I know- and I know a lot, don't act in this manner. I certainly don't. Most of the Atheists I know are thoughtful, well educated, and much less judemental than those that claim to believe in god. I am governed by my conscience, I try and live everyday treating people with kindness and acceptance. I do so not because I believe I am going to suffer eternal damnation if I don't- I do so because I believe in doing the right thing for its own sake. It bothers me to no end that some people believe that because you don't have religious inclinations, that you lack morals. My conscience serves me well, it always has.
dreamingoftigers Posted March 20, 2011 Posted March 20, 2011 My father is Catholic, my mother is an Athiest, I am a Mormon. My husband is agnostic. His parents are Jehovah Witnesses. My father (Catholic): swearing, high levels of cynicism My mother (Athiest): some swearing, oblivious to reality Me (Mormon): high levels of swearing (have to work on that I guess), very very uncynical My husband (Agnostic): swearing, cynical His mother (JW): no swearing, highly cynical His father (JW): no swearing, cynical when my husband's mother is around, otherwise reasonable
dreamingoftigers Posted March 20, 2011 Posted March 20, 2011 Most of the Atheists I know- and I know a lot, don't act in this manner. I certainly don't. Most of the Atheists I know are thoughtful, well educated, and much less judemental than those that claim to believe in god. I am governed by my conscience, I try and live everyday treating people with kindness and acceptance. I do so not because I believe I am going to suffer eternal damnation if I don't- I do so because I believe in doing the right thing for its own sake. It bothers me to no end that some people believe that because you don't have religious inclinations, that you lack morals. My conscience serves me well, it always has. My mother is this way as well, although it is sometimes quite misguided IMO. I am a believer, but I don't act or try for better because I fear "eternal damnation." In fact, from what I know of my faith, we are pretty iffy on the "eternal damnation" stuff to begin with. I try to do better because I have truly believed that what I have suffered through is placed there for me and that if I respond to it with love and kindness, that not only will I become a better and stronger person but that I will understand God better as well. There is a book in the Bible called Hosea. At first the content of the book shocked me. (there is a few things in there that would be akin to child abuse today). As I read through the Passages while in the throes of pain from adultery in my marriage, it talked about how God is in pain because he is rejected by his children who love him. By this understanding sometimes when I suffer and trust that he is there for me too, I feel much closer to him and stronger to face my life. I know that so many others are in pain and often they don't have that sense (and often I forget to turn to him and trust him too, it still isn't an ingrained habit.) I try to be somewhat of a comfort to those in pain, I have Aldo cone to realize over the last few months that some people I thought were just ignorant/selfish people are in loads of pain and feel as though no one has their back. I never am so presumptuous to recommend faith or whatever to them, i've been on the other side of that and it is a piss off (and most often rudely done) but I do try my best to hold my own and pay the love and trust I have received forward. I don't know if too many believers of God are scared of the Hellfire. I do think a lot of them figure that they hold the only answer though, that's narcissism. I never trod on any one else's hope or tell them that their faith is wrong.
dreamingoftigers Posted March 20, 2011 Posted March 20, 2011 Psh.. C'mon, guys, why can't we all just agree to disagree? I don't really care for labels, but I guess you'd call me an Atheist because I've never invested in blind faith.. I don't look down on others, but I see religion as a coping mechanism for those with death anxiety, objectively speaking. I'm not cynical, I just see our collective reality for what it is. I rarely swear, and follow a live and let live, do not judge lest ye be judged code of honor.. I think that's a personality thing, totally unrelated to religious beliefs, because you can find people like that all over the map regardless. I think for some it is a mere coping mechanism, agreed. The second paragraph I totally agree with! 100%! I have seen the same types if attitudes from both sides of the fence and I have also been on both sides of the fence. I am a believer, but to paraphrase a scripture that I believe most miss: "concentrate on the things that unite us, not the things that divide us." Then it goes on to talk about how one person may view a day as special, and one may not, etc. When I meet someone and they start the talk (and yes they do). I kind if enjoy hearing their theories etc. I don't mind sharing mine and answering questions. And no, it isn't because I am on conversion-fest or anything. Choosing to convert to a different religion or set of beliefs is a very personal decision and chances are if I were to actually be ridiculous and push someone into believing what I believe, it would only be an ego trip for me and it wouldn't be a true and healthy thing for them either. I do believe that a fair amount of Christians have a 'dunk first and ask questions later' approach. (and my church is far from immune to this). A lot of people on both sides of the debate are not very well informed and like to accuse the other side of not being very well informed. Sort of like two blind men in a fistfight.
Knittress Posted March 20, 2011 Posted March 20, 2011 I don't see how some atheists don't get that they're being just as dogmatic as anyone else. Personally I see spirituality as more of a mental artform, so I'm a bit put off by anyone who enjoys trying to suck all the wonderment out of existence. Not all of them do though. I'd argue that those are the ones that lean agnostic.
missmac Posted March 20, 2011 Posted March 20, 2011 I was raised in a non-religious home, and was allowed to gain experience and learn about both religion and what it meant to take a more scientific approach as to how the earth came to be. To me the theories based in science and history seemed logical - while passages from the bible exclaimed events that seemed highly unlikely and made me feel alienated. After enduring three horrific traumatic experiences within the span of 2 years - I also added to my disbelief in a god - because I wouldnt expect that the creator of human life would be satisfied to watch his lifes work suffer through such pain. I was cynical for a long time, it took a while to regain my positivitiy, and faith in other people again - after being exposed to a select few people who I could only describe as completely evil. It showed me a darkness to the human race which I did not think could exist. It was hard to just try to go back to being me, trying to unlearn what I leanred, unsee what I saw.....I cant erase the past, only rebuild myself again. Sorry to be brash - but try telling a girl that has just been raped that it was "all part of gods plan" and that "it happened for a reason" im sure you will not get a good response.
ScreamingTrees Posted March 20, 2011 Posted March 20, 2011 (edited) I don't see how some atheists don't get that they're being just as dogmatic as anyone else. Personally I see spirituality as more of a mental artform, so I'm a bit put off by anyone who enjoys trying to suck all the wonderment out of existence. Not all of them do though. I'd argue that those are the ones that lean agnostic. Agnostic, atheist.. is there a HUGE difference, besides the wording? "I don't believe in the possibility of a God due to a lack of ANY evidence whatsoever" versus "I'm not really convinced by any particular religion, but I'm certainly open to it." I'm assuming you'd only really be open to it if there was somehow proof. Y'know, I'd actually practice buddhism if I wasn't such an evil faithless being, that's more up my alley. And yes, Dreaming, I agree with you. I don't like to bring up religious discussions, they're almost NEVER socially productive or positive in any way.. And then I want to start talking about things that might make some philosophically sheltered people think I'm a nutjob. lol Edited March 20, 2011 by ScreamingTrees
sweetjasmine Posted March 20, 2011 Posted March 20, 2011 Agnostic, atheist.. is there a HUGE difference, besides the wording? "I don't believe in the possibility of a God due to a lack of ANY evidence whatsoever" versus "I'm not really convinced by any particular religion, but I'm certainly open to it." I'm assuming you'd only really be open to it if there was somehow proof. This is actually an important question. Most people don't really understand the way it works. It might seem like a minor difference in wording, but it's actually a big difference, if you think about it. I refer to myself as an atheist, but I'm really an agnostic atheist. When I say that, "agnostic" is a knowledge statement, and "atheist" is a belief statement. In other words, I don't believe in any god but I also don't know whether one exists. The two are separate statements, and trust me, there are people out there who are agnostic theists. I've met people who self-identify as agnostic Christians: they believe in a Christian God, but they say they don't know for sure whether there is any god and admit that there's no hard evidence to prove it either way. But they choose to believe and have faith in a Christian God anyway, despite their agnosticism. People automatically assume that "atheist" = "I absolutely know there is no god and I'm going to scream in your face until I'm blue!!!111". It's as if everyone believes atheists are all constantly doing a George Carlin act, when in reality, with most of us, you'd never know we're atheists unless you ask about religion or anything religious. And there are fewer strong atheists ("I know there's no god") when compared to weak atheists ("I simply don't believe there's a god"). But the strong ones tend to be much louder, so that's what everyone thinks an atheist is. It's very irritating to be called dogmatic for simply not believing in any god. There's no belief system that automatically follows from not believing in a god, though some atheists are drawn to Humanism. But people seem to pin these beliefs and behaviors on all atheists when the only thing they have in common is lack of a belief in any god. Which is funny to me, because anyone who believes in one deity is making an atheistic belief statement about every other deity in human history. If you believe in a Christian God, you're an atheist when it comes to the classical Greek gods. Do you suddenly turn abrasive and cynical when you realize that? I'll tell you one thing, though. In my own personal belief system, yucky curse words aren't nearly as bad as harmful actions. I don't get upset at people using the F word, though it does get annoying when people feel compelled to drop it in every sentence. I do get upset at people being mean and judgmental while using nice, sweet sentences unadulterated by yucky taboo words. I guess that makes me abrasive and unpleasant.
ScreamingTrees Posted March 20, 2011 Posted March 20, 2011 Well, I guess now I have to say that I'm an agnostic atheist, thanks..
dreamingoftigers Posted March 21, 2011 Posted March 21, 2011 I was raised in a non-religious home, and was allowed to gain experience and learn about both religion and what it meant to take a more scientific approach as to how the earth came to be. To me the theories based in science and history seemed logical - while passages from the bible exclaimed events that seemed highly unlikely and made me feel alienated. One thing - science changes quickly and radically - often. Both science and religion are based on us believing in testimonies of others. I have never been up in space and seen the Earth as a sphere, we accept that because others that we trust tell us to trust the books that we read and the internet etc. Religion and Science basically come from who to trust. This is also correlated from your own perspective and sense of the world. My religion is slightly different in that it asks for the testimonies of its members but does not claim to give you your own testimony of a God or the world and what it means. In fact my religion encourages others to seek the truth in all things. That's why I like it, it encourages me to test out the beliefs and principles for myself. I accept the bigger puzzle because of the foundation that I can confirm for myself. The pieces fit together. Oftentimes the truth is stranger then fiction, I am often shocked on the news by the things I hear. After enduring three horrific traumatic experiences within the span of 2 years - I also added to my disbelief in a god - because I wouldnt expect that the creator of human life would be satisfied to watch his lifes work suffer through such pain. This is a very common belief. My personal theory is that we are here for a very short time and the suffering that we go through is personalized, but also often random. I may be wrong. If you were ever to read The Flip Side (not a religious book) you may come to realize that humans have great potential for not only surviving adversity but strengthening themselves from it. Often throughout such works as the Bible, it is constantly reassuring us to maintain a personal standard despite adversity, to treat others with respect, (esp. New Testament) and to expect suffering. In my life I have come to look at suffering in a new light. I used to ask "why do I have to go through this?" or "when will this suffering end?" It won't end. It will be random for the rest of your days, and whatever makes you suffer only makes you suffer because it psychologically or physiologically triggers you to suffer. I do not consider breaking a nail to be suffering, others would. So odds are in my life there is going to be "suffering" that I wouldn't notice and other suffering that I will. By overcoming whatever suffering obstacle and realizing that the suffering won't last forever (even if it is terminal) I can grow from it and often move past it. I believe suffering is here to teach us to not draw our own happiness from external sources. Not to rely on others, security, or material things to provide us with our own internal peace. We must be ever-vigilant to find and fight for that for ourselves no matter what the circumstances. Life will be a series of obstacles against that. In the end though, by growing past each thing, we become better at finding our own peace and having our own footing. We would not be able to do this without suffering. This isn't even religious. I was cynical for a long time, it took a while to regain my positivitiy, and faith in other people again - after being exposed to a select few people who I could only describe as completely evil. It showed me a darkness to the human race which I did not think could exist. It was hard to just try to go back to being me, trying to unlearn what I leanred, unsee what I saw.....I cant erase the past, only rebuild myself again. 'Good' and 'evil' are states that each individual chooses to live in (consciously or not). There are people that live truly evilly and only see themselves and not the damage they cause to others. Some use that damage to give themselves warped pleasure. By encoutering such people you have three choices: join them and reap what you can, let them use you for their own means and you use them for your own strange validation, or become strong enough to cut the evil from your life. Rebuilding yourself and limiting the evil influences in your life is never easy. We are also never promised that we won't encounter this. To bring in the religious end of things: we are in fact guaranteed that we shall be exposed to evil and people who choose to do evil and try to influence us to do evil. There are biblical recommendations for dealing with this. (and other associated works, won't get into this now). One thing that was not promised by following God is that life would be any kind of smooth sailing. He did promise to stand by and support when the suffering did occur and we need only ask. I have not been alone except when I wanted to be. Biblically it claims he knows what we need and when we need it, sometimes we need to suffer and grow, other times we need peace. Sorry to be brash - but try telling a girl that has just been raped that it was "all part of gods plan" and that "it happened for a reason" im sure you will not get a good response. I would say that both responses are condescending and unempathetic. They are also extremely inconsiderate of their audience. In the Bible in talks about being a comforter. Being a comforter does not mean that anyone should be told at the pinnacle of their suffering that God wished for them to have excruciating pain for no easily discernable reason. Or that he somehow abandoned you but "it's all good." It isn't all good, it isn't all fine and to invalidate those things is a terrible abortion of what Christianity should reflect. To suggest that you should be "fine with the bigger picture according to me" at a high point of trauma is ridiculous. It is, in fact, inhuman. Those who have followed God their whole lives struggle with retaining the "bigger picture" during suffering. It isn't something to be forced on to someone so dismissively who may not take comfort in a creator. All it would do is tell you that should such a creator exist, that he lets you live in pain and sends stupid people to your bedside. Not the God I have come to know. There are scriptures and advices to get to know him if you would want to. There are many. If someone truly doesn't want to know if there is a God or not, then they aren't going to try the steps and they may or may not truly know. In fact there is a passage in the Bible that states: "if someone were to come from the dead, then they would believe." To which it is responded: "If they would not listen to Moses and the Prophets, then even if they were to see someone rise from the dead they would not believe." I often find the "prove there is a God" arguments to be misleading because the only proof comes from within and the steps one is willing to take to find out. I can't prove to someone else whether or not there is a God, even he says so. They have to find out on their own. It's like saying: prove someone will date me, how would I have any proof until someone dates me!
TheBigQuestion Posted March 21, 2011 Posted March 21, 2011 (edited) Like someone said earlier, those with higher intelligence and those who have achieved higher education are more likely to be atheists or just plain non-religious. I find belief in any religious system, particularly any of the Judeo-Christian variety, to be utterly disgusting. I won't talk about it to anyone unless they bring it up and challenge me on it, however. With that said, it's been my experience that atheists are hardly ever the aggressors in these debates. Most people assume that God exists even if they aren't particularly religious, so they look at atheists with an unusual and unwarranted amount of disdain. From a purely metaphysical perspective, there is NOTHING that separates "God" from the Easter Bunny, Zeus, Santa Claus, or Osiris. Absolutely nothing. The god or gods you believe in are simply products of the creation myths and moral codes of your ancestors. The truth in those parables and lessons are man-made, not handed down by divine figures. If you don't agree, you simply haven't thought about it hard enough You want to follow your religion's teachings, you like the ethical aspect of it, fine. Take those lessons and heed them well. But belief in a god as a being is laughable at best. If that makes me cynical, fine. I'd rather be cynical than an idiot I also love it when religious people start saying stuff like "I have my beliefs and you have yours. You have no right to question what I think, as this is a private belief on my part." That just translates to cowardice. Most of the people who say stuff like that are completely unable to justify their beliefs and don't believe that they can or should verify whether or not their beliefs are true. And when they do try to justify it, the premises on which they try to justify their beliefs are shaky at best. Edited March 21, 2011 by TheBigQuestion
dreamingoftigers Posted March 21, 2011 Posted March 21, 2011 Wow, Pot meet Kettle! Like someone said earlier, those with higher intelligence and those who have achieved higher education are more likely to be atheists or just plain non-religious. Statistically speaking scientists dealing with hard numbers, chemistry, physics etc. tend to be more religious. Those in basic Philosophy and Language Studies less so. MDs also tend to have higher then average tendencies to have a faith. Where did you pull that idea from? I find belief in any religious system, particularly any of the Judeo-Christian variety, to be utterly disgusting. I find that finding other people's beliefs to be 'disgusting' closed-minded. I won't talk about it to anyone unless they bring it up and challenge me on it, however. With that said, it's been my experience that atheists are hardly ever the aggressors in these debates. That's because you are an athiest. Athiests don't tend to challenge other Athiests. Been on both sides of that fence, quite frankly IMO Athiests tend to be a little more threatened and do the "lash-out at perceived threats of religious oppression" more often then the Christian "annoy you with the Word and Guilt Trip" thing. Most people assume that God exists even if they aren't particularly religious, so they look at atheists with an unusual and unwarranted amount of disdain. I think that that is an oddly personalized perspective. I never felt looked down upon as an Athiest, except by the occasional pushy nut with poor manners. From a purely metaphysical perspective, there is NOTHING that separates "God" from the Easter Bunny, Zeus, Santa Claus, or Osiris. Okay: I have seen both the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus at the mall.....I haven't seen God at the mall, have you? I would guess that potentially lightning bolts would separate God and Zeus, but only if Zeus existed and was particularly cranky. Absolutely nothing. The mall! The god or gods you believe in are simply products of the creation myths and moral codes of your ancestors. The truth in those parables and lessons are man-made, not handed down by divine figures. If you don't agree, you simply haven't thought about it hard enough Maybe you you aren't the only person on the planet with thoughts and perceptions, and hey, YOU, just like everyone else, COULD BE WRONG. (Flying Spaghetti Monster forbid). You want to follow your religion's teachings, you like the ethical aspect of it, fine. Take those lessons and heed them well. But belief in a god as a being is laughable at best. If that makes me cynical, fine. I'd rather be cynical than an idiot I think not considering your audience is laughable at best. Who is it you are trying to reach exactly? Are you trying to teach the Athiests who potentially already believe the same thing but are more apt not to insult someone else? Are you trying to reach those who believe in a faith but insulting their intelligence and belief? That works well. I also love it when religious people start saying stuff like "I have my beliefs and you have yours. You have no right to question what I think, as this is a private belief on my part." That just translates to cowardice. Try me. I am no coward and nothing says ignorance like the above quote. Most of the people who say stuff like that are completely unable to justify their beliefs and don't believe that they can or should verify whether or not their beliefs are true. And when they do try to justify it, the premises on which they try to justify their beliefs are shaky at best. You know what? Agreed. Most people don't know how to justify what they believe to another person. Especially younger people who have a sense of what they believe but not entirely sure why.
Trojan John Posted March 21, 2011 Posted March 21, 2011 Is it any wonder amongst all of you as to why anecdotal evidence is the weakest form of evidence? It would never be admissible in a court of law, but in the court of public opinion it is the most persuasive form of evidence one can find. Why? Because we're emotionally susceptible to it. Our personal anecdotes are just that: personal. They are coloured by our biases and emotions, yet rarely stand up to the scrutiny of logic. In this thread one reads, "in my opinion", "in my experience", "from what I've seen", and so on. That is absolutely fine and normal. But the problem comes when we take our own unlearned or uninformed opinion as a statement of unwavering fact, even though it's made from a very small sample pool. Threads that proclaim Obama or Bush to be essentially the anti-christ, all atheists to be highly cynical, all women to be golddigging whores, all men to be porn addicts, all cheaters to be the scum of the earth, particular religious beliefs to be Truth™, or all religious people to be stupid are only good for stirring up controversy. Again, when rational thought is introduced these arguments crumble, yet it doesn't stop the battle of irrational beliefs from being waged. Simply saying that "this is my belief and you can't tell me I'm wrong" is a waste of time and insulting to one's intelligence. Of course I can tell you you're wrong, but I need to back it up with empirical evidence as to why. Ironic because in most cases it's that your opinion or belief is made entirely without any empirical evidence. (But I have a strong belief that many of you will disagree with me. )
dreamingoftigers Posted March 21, 2011 Posted March 21, 2011 Is it any wonder amongst all of you as to why anecdotal evidence is the weakest form of evidence? It would never be admissible in a court of law, but in the court of public opinion it is the most persuasive form of evidence one can find. Why? Because we're emotionally susceptible to it. Our personal anecdotes are just that: personal. They are coloured by our biases and emotions, yet rarely stand up to the scrutiny of logic. In this thread one reads, "in my opinion", "in my experience", "from what I've seen", and so on. That is absolutely fine and normal. But the problem comes when we take our own unlearned or uninformed opinion as a statement of unwavering fact, even though it's made from a very small sample pool. Threads that proclaim Obama or Bush to be essentially the anti-christ, all atheists to be highly cynical, all women to be golddigging whores, all men to be porn addicts, all cheaters to be the scum of the earth, particular religious beliefs to be Truth™, or all religious people to be stupid are only good for stirring up controversy. Again, when rational thought is introduced these arguments crumble, yet it doesn't stop the battle of irrational beliefs from being waged. Simply saying that "this is my belief and you can't tell me I'm wrong" is a waste of time and insulting to one's intelligence. Of course I can tell you you're wrong, but I need to back it up with empirical evidence as to why. Ironic because in most cases it's that your opinion or belief is made entirely without any empirical evidence. (But I have a strong belief that many of you will disagree with me. ) Actually there is some empirical evidence, but quite frankly it really isn't even worth putting up because of the fact that things get too emotionally charged PLUS specifically in scripture it talks about knowing if the scripture is true, and the way to do that isn't by building a physical case. Truth is, if there is an omnipotent God and he wanted to hide from those who wouldn't take a leap of faith to believe in him, then he would find a way to do that right? So arguing back and forth about whether or not he's there or not is like arguing about whether or not I can see my hand in front of my face in the dark, there are a whole bunch of factors involved. I am annoyed by the: "well proove he exists" line of thought. Not because I am a believer, but because I can't prove to another person that he exists, that's what makes it a faith. I can tell people why I have faith, I can share tidbits here and there that have struck me over the head. I can actually probably somewhat prove it with lots of time and books (The Science of God being a favorite). By beyond all reasonable doubt? No, probably not. Faith comes from personal experience. I can prove that it has health benefits. I can prove that psychologically in general people do better and are happier with a faith. I can show that by living principles of my faith that there are advantages. I can't make someone else a believer. Quite frankly, it's not my job or responsibility. That's between them and The Flying Spaghetti Monster (or whomever ). If people want to know then they can take some steps to find out, if they don't then oh well. I just wish so many people weren't so damned rude about other people's personal decisions when it comes to faith: be it no faith, what faith they are etc. I have been called out insultingly by people in other religions when they find out what mine is. I have heard my faith called and accused of disgusting things. Things that are not true. Or things that one person or a few people have done. For instance there was a child molester that ascribed to my faith and when I went into work someone was talking about how people of my faith molest their kids and they are all like that. WTH? Seriously, don't you think there would be a crackdown or something if that were the case? I didn't get hopping mad or anything, I just said that it wasn't true and didn't even get into my personal faith or anything. I have been through 5 faiths and have been an Athiest as well. My current faith I have been with for nine years. I have never dealt with attacks and rumors as nutty as I have heard from uninformed people about my faith. Mostly from people of other faiths. I just hope people find something that gives them hope.
sweetjasmine Posted March 21, 2011 Posted March 21, 2011 Both science and religion are based on us believing in testimonies of others. I have never been up in space and seen the Earth as a sphere, we accept that because others that we trust tell us to trust the books that we read and the internet etc. This is not true at all. One of the fundamental aspects of science is testable hypotheses. You don't need to see Earth from space to determine it to be round: the Greeks had done it centuries before anyone ever ventured out into space. There are natural phenomena that every single person alive can observe with their own two eyes to figure it out. With science, you and anyone else can repeat the same exact experiment and see whether you get the same results. That's what makes it science and not guesswork. You say that proof of God comes from within, and, yes, I absolutely believe you if you mean that's where people get their belief. But scientific proof does NOT come from within: it comes from observations and tests in the physical world. If someone's observation can't be replicated, it's not accepted as true no matter how much trust people have in that person and no matter how many degrees and awards they have on their CV. If you can't see those differences, I really don't know what else to say. Science and religion are very different. I find that finding other people's beliefs to be 'disgusting' closed-minded. Sorry, I'd rather be close-minded and find treating women like cattle because of words written in a book to be disgusting, even if a Wahhabi Muslim is offended by my thoughts on the matter. I never felt looked down upon as an Athiest, except by the occasional pushy nut with poor manners. You'd be surprised at what people are like throughout certain parts of the US. A friend of mine took a job in Montgomery, AL and was persistently harassed in a "nice" way at work every day, but they didn't drop the F-bomb, so I guess that makes it inoffensive to a lot of people.
dreamingoftigers Posted March 21, 2011 Posted March 21, 2011 This is not true at all. One of the fundamental aspects of science is testable hypotheses. You don't need to see Earth from space to determine it to be round: the Greeks had done it centuries before anyone ever ventured out into space. I am familiar with the wells in the different cities and the shadow perspective. Bad example, tried to pull one quickly while posting. There are natural phenomena that every single person alive can observe with their own two eyes to figure it out. Often yes, but then often we are still relying on individuals and groups in labs etc. Many things that have been "proven" are unproven again etc. With science, you and anyone else can repeat the same exact experiment and see whether you get the same results. That's what makes it science and not guesswork. Again, these things are based on testimonies of others, we trust that the experiments have been done in other places and achieved the same results. I am not saying that it is wrong but rather that both science and religion are dependent upon people sharing the information. Often in both fields information gets tweaked or has a certain 'spin.' Frankly, I put my faith in both because I have found through my education etc, more spaces where they link-up then where they differ. I believe Science vs. Religion to be a false choice. You say that proof of God comes from within, and, yes, I absolutely believe you if you mean that's where people get their belief. But scientific proof does NOT come from within: it comes from observations and tests in the physical world. Based on the human interpretation of it and our own limited scope of the universe and its phenomena. Not saying that it is wrong per se of at all a foolish venture, but quite frankly we have no idea how much we don' t know. So both science in its current state and religion are both limited by our perspectives. If someone's observation can't be replicated, it's not accepted as true no matter how much trust people have in that person and no matter how many degrees and awards they have on their CV. If you can't see those differences, I really don't know what else to say. Science and religion are very different. Yes and no. It's like saying cats and dogs are very different, it is all relative. Sorry, I'd rather be close-minded and find treating women like cattle because of words written in a book to be disgusting, even if a Wahhabi Muslim is offended by my thoughts on the matter. I would say that the treatment is disgusting, the belief his own business as long as he doesn't act disgusting. You'd be surprised at what people are like throughout certain parts of the US. A friend of mine took a job in Montgomery, AL and was persistently harassed in a "nice" way at work every day, but they didn't drop the F-bomb, so I guess that makes it inoffensive to a lot of people. That is rude and offensive. I would very quickly make sure I wasn't harassed. I allow the talk to go on a bit and present it like we are both sharing or that I am interested in their perspective but make sure it ends the second anything insulting comes out. I have no time for that.
Titania22 Posted March 21, 2011 Posted March 21, 2011 (edited) In light of this being a thread about atheists, I thought I would share a quote I found today, by a man who lived a hundred years ago, about Darwin and his theory of evolution. Enjoy! "Darwin & Evolution In mere impressionism we take our stand. We have no positive tests nor standards. Realism in art: realism in science – they pass away. In 1859, the thing to do was to accept Darwinism; now many biologists are revolting and trying to conceive of something else. The thing to do was to accept it in its day, but Darwinism of course was never proved: The fittest survive. What is meant by the fittest? Not the strongest; not the cleverest – Weakness and stupidity everywhere survive. There is no way of determining fitness except in that a thing does survive. "Fitness," then, is only another name for "survival." Darwinism: That survivors survive." (Damned, pp. 23-24) Edited March 21, 2011 by Titania22 Misspelt Darwin
Trojan John Posted March 21, 2011 Posted March 21, 2011 Actually there is some empirical evidence, but quite frankly it really isn't even worth putting up because of the fact that things get too emotionally charged PLUS specifically in scripture it talks about knowing if the scripture is true, and the way to do that isn't by building a physical case. Truth is, if there is an omnipotent God and he wanted to hide from those who wouldn't take a leap of faith to believe in him, then he would find a way to do that right? So arguing back and forth about whether or not he's there or not is like arguing about whether or not I can see my hand in front of my face in the dark, there are a whole bunch of factors involved. I am annoyed by the: "well proove he exists" line of thought. Not because I am a believer, but because I can't prove to another person that he exists, that's what makes it a faith. I can tell people why I have faith, I can share tidbits here and there that have struck me over the head. I can actually probably somewhat prove it with lots of time and books (The Science of God being a favorite). By beyond all reasonable doubt? No, probably not. Faith comes from personal experience. I can prove that it has health benefits. I can prove that psychologically in general people do better and are happier with a faith. I can show that by living principles of my faith that there are advantages. I can't make someone else a believer. ... If people want to know then they can take some steps to find out, if they don't then oh well. I just wish so many people weren't so damned rude about other people's personal decisions when it comes to faith: be it no faith, what faith they are etc. I don't think that you read my post for context. You stating that there is no point in introducing empirical evidence runs in direct contradiction to what I was addressing. We get into these emotionally charged debates because we are simply trading anecdotes, not making actual, testable statements of fact. Bringing up scripture (more anecdotal evidence) only adds fuel to the fire. Regarding faith and psychology, your claim that people are happier and better is not a testament to the power of faith but rather the power of the mind. The human mind is capable boosting one's physical and emotional well-being, or conversely greatly diminishing it. Faith or belief in the supernatural just happens to be one focus. Meditation is another. Exercise. Sex. Et Cetera. Your anecdote simply and better explained by psychology. I do agree with you that there is no point of being rude, but thread titled like this one tends to bring it out easily in people.
Trojan John Posted March 21, 2011 Posted March 21, 2011 In light of this being a thread about atheists, I thought I would share a quote I found today, by a man who lived a hundred years ago, about Darwin and his theory of evolution. Enjoy! "Darwin & Evolution In mere impressionism we take our stand. We have no positive tests nor standards. Realism in art: realism in science – they pass away. In 1859, the thing to do was to accept Darwinism; now many biologists are revolting and trying to conceive of something else. The thing to do was to accept it in its day, but Darwinism of course was never proved: The fittest survive. What is meant by the fittest? Not the strongest; not the cleverest – Weakness and stupidity everywhere survive. There is no way of determining fitness except in that a thing does survive. "Fitness," then, is only another name for "survival." Darwinism: That survivors survive." (Damned, pp. 23-24) That is entirely off topic but would be a great debate for anyone remotely familiar with Darwin and/or Fort. Start a new thread, perhaps?
Recommended Posts