A question for y’all Atheists / Agnostics

[phoenix1]

Thanks for the responses. A lot of interesting stuff and if I have more time I would like to individually respond. I would like to respond with a couple points though.

Quixote,

I agree with what you are saying. I think though that in the past when people believed in the many gods of nature who had their motivations and cruelty, there were still elements of anxiety control for the masses. For example, you could perhaps sacrifice an animal or a child into the water as an appeasement for that particular god of the water. In doing so, you would convince yourself that you pleased that particular god and that now that god will give you better weather and not drown you out in the sea. There were always rituals and sacrifices in order to believe that your particular god is taking care of you. To help limit the overall anxiety of uncertainty.

Around the 4 and 5th century AD in Europe - Christianity was taking root in the main cities while the pagan religions still flourished in the countryside. Progression always starts when diverse ideas and peoples are forced together in large cities. Christianity beat the pagan beliefs and took root and then eventually spread to everyone else. I say this, because there’s a parallel to this day and age. I think its fascinating that now atheism is getting more and more mainstream in the bigger cities, just like Christianity was - And with the onset of the internet, the world is becoming one big city in itself too. Its interesting because perhaps its the first time in human history that much of the world population is trending towards self reliance and uncertainty in the larger scope of things.

Dealing with uncertainty is always such a difficult question, that’s why I originally posed it. If it was easy, then I assume there would never have been a need for religion to begin with.

I do like the idea of love as posted. Maybe it’s the bond between family and fellow humans that will replace the need for the religion. The comradeship that we are all together for whatever reason or lack of reason and that we do our best to take care of each other in this strange existence. To strive to make life better for everyone because that is what would make us feel better too if people did that for us as well.

To know perhaps that when uncertainty comes and we feel overwhelmed - We don’t need to look to the skies, but to the next room, to your neighbor, to your country, to your world. The people of this world will be there and guide you and love you. We could live and die in each others arms and then uncertainly wouldn’t be so bad.

Yes, I’m a sentimental fool sometimes.

 

[phoenix1]

Alright Pinkputter,

Despite saying I didn’t want this thread to turn to a religious debate, what you say is so absurd and offensive, that I feel the need to respond.

To summarize, what you are saying with your absolute truth ‘tricky trap’ you probably read in some magazine or heaven forbid (pun intended) you thought of it yourself is this – Atheists generally don’t believe in absolute truths, so how can they be sure that there is no god?

Shonen_Yo pretty much summed it up for most atheists. We don’t deny that there could be some great reason or some grand truth to the whole scheme of existence, we mostly just deny the absurdity of mainstream religions, especially the western ones. The general idea is that – maybe there is some grand truth (most likely it won’t impact us in any way though) - but the religions of today are wrong in some fundamental manner. And on the rare chance that I am wrong, and that there is a benevolent god, then he would know that he give me this brain with which to think and we would forgive me for actually using it. And if he did judge me and damn for thinking independently, then he is not all-good and becomes not worthy of worship and the whole argument becomes moot anyway.

The thing is, people don't doubt God, then START sinning. They usually sin first and doubt themselves, and then doubt God. I dunno, something to take in consideration.

Rather absurd. All though my teenage years I would sit in my room and think about religion and great purpose to life while all my peers were having fun and partying. I wasted those years, but I did come out with extreme doubts about god and the mainstream religion. It was nothing to do with sinning or doubting myself. I just thought it through as much as I could. You are simply trying to justify why we don’t believe like you do.

Funny enough, there is some truth to what you say with that, although its not what you think. Its most likely what happened to you and people who are ingrained in the vicious religious cycle. Say for example, you had pre-marital sex and ‘sinned’ and felt guilty for that even though its such a natural human thing to do. You would feel guilt, doubt yourself and find ways to rectify it. Many times someone in that position will even doubt god for a time because they are doing everything they can to rectify their guilt. Eventually what happens, and what probably happened to you is that you couldn’t change your belief (like pre-marital sex is wrong) so you had to be forgiven for being bad. So you eventually turn to god and you feel better. It happens to virtually everyone I know who’s stuck in that cycle of beliefs that are contrary to human nature and needs.

Let me say right now though. That is not how we become atheists. That is absurd. The path to atheism is not about doing something against ‘god’ and then doubting yourself and god. That’s the temporary problem of all people with believe in black and white rules of modern day religion. The path to atheism is about understanding humanity and understanding what is truly wrong and right based on human desires and wants and understanding the absurdity of ‘rules’ that don’t make sense to a good person. Its about appreciating all life in itself and for itself and not because someone told you so.

 

[pinkputter]

Phoenix, my intentions were not to bring up religion. If you look back in the posts, another person brought up believing in god/him/her/it... something like that. My initial question was if you believed in absolute truth, which does not have to be religous. It's a common philosophical question which i thought was pertenent to the topic you were talking about.

I am not sure I will be answering the questions, but more like accusations some of you have made (in general not towards me). But i found a discussion that has some valuable info about this topic:

There can be no such things as an atheist. This is why: Let's imagine that you are a professing atheist. Here are two questions for you to answer: First, do you know the combined weight of all the sand on all the beaches of Hawaii? We can safely assume that you don't. This brings us to the second question: Do you know how many hairs are on the back of a fully-grown male Tibetan yak? Probably not. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that there are some things that you don't know. It is important to ask these questions because there are some people who think they know everything.

Let's say that you know an incredible one percent of all the knowledge in the universe. To know 100 percent, you would have to know everything. There wouldn't be a rock in the universe that you would not be intimately familiar with, or a grain of sand that you would not be aware of. You would know everything that has happened in history, from that which is common knowledge to the minor details of the secret love life of Napoleon's great-grandmother's black cat's fleas. You would know every hair of every head, and every thought of every heart. All history would be laid out before you, because you would be omniscient (all-knowing).

Bear in mind that one of the greatest scientists who ever lived, Thomas Edison, said, "We do not know a millionth of one percent about anything." Let me repeat: Let's say that you have an incredible one percent of all the knowledge in the universe. Would it be possible, in the ninety-nine percent of the knowledge that you haven't yet come across, that there might be ample evidence to prove the existence of God? If you are reasonable, you will be forced to admit that it is possible. Somewhere, in the knowledge you haven't yet discovered, there could be enough evidence to prove that God does exist.

Let's look at the same thought from another angle. If I were to make an absolute statement such as, "There is no gold in China," what is needed for that statement to be proven true? I need absolute or total knowledge. I need to have information that there is no gold in any rock, in any river, in the ground, in any store, in any ring, or in any mouth (gold filling) in China. If there is one speck of gold in China, then my statement is false and I have no basis for it. I need absolute knowledge before I can make an absolute statement of that nature. Conversely, for me to say, "There is gold in China," I don't need to have all knowledge. I just need to have seen a speck of gold in the country, and the statement is then true.

To say categorically, "There is no God," is to make an absolute statement. For the statement to be true, I must know for certain that there is no God in the entire universe. No human being has all knowledge. Therefore, none of us is able to truthfully make this assertion.

If you insist upon disbelief in God, what you must say is, "Having the limited knowledge I have at present, I believe that there is no God." Owing to a lack of knowledge on your part, you don't know if God exists. So, in the strict sense of the word, you cannot be an atheist. The only true qualifier for the title is the One who has absolute knowledge, and why on earth would God want to deny His own existence?

The professing atheist is what is commonly known as an "agnostic" - one who claims he "doesn't know" if God exists. It is interesting to note that the Latin equivalent for the Greek word is "ignoramus." The Bible tells us that this ignorance is "willful" (Psalm 10:4). It's not that a person can't find God, but that he won't. It has been rightly said that the "atheist" can't find God for the same reason a thief can't find a policeman. He knows that if he admits that there is a God, he is admitting that he is ultimately responsible to Him. This is not a pleasant thought for some.

It is said that Mussolini (the Italian dictator), once stood on a pinnacle and cried, "God, if you are there, strike me dead!" When God didn't immediately bow to his dictates, Mussolini then concluded that there was no God. However, his prayer was answered some time later.

Justice delayed is not justice denied.

An athiest saying "I don't believe in God." Is like a thief saying I don't believe in the crime I just commited OR the policeman who brings justice to the crime I just commited.

---------------------

Ok the thing is, I do not think WORRYING about religion will help with recovery. I know my faith dropped to pretty much 0 going thru all the crap anxiety and depression brings. I know how it goes and it's rough. All I'm really saying is to remain spiritual. And so that when you do recover, you can keep an open mind about things and not look to your own suffering to discount religion.

No one ever fasts with impunity...However, Jesus had come for this very purpose. Not to crush all desires and temptations, not to conquer them honorably. The contrary is true.... Our fasting even today risks opening the door to the excitement of the desires it threatens to unleash, a door which looks out on the other shore of our desires, not on their dark but on their light side: God within us; God who desires to be loved; God who hungers for us and we for Him, passionately.
-Father Andre Louf, O.C.S.O.


"Everything in moderation except moderation, you can't have too much moderation." Keep a similar attitude and remember some of the teachings of Christ.

I am not trying to convert you. So don't try to un convert me. Thats all athiests can do I guess ... and you can try. If you have questions I'd love to tell you my best answer. I don't hold all the answers, and won't. I am not accusing you all of not having truth in you. Many of you have brushed up on many philosophers I can tell. I too have studied in Philosophy, I am not a one track minded Christian who just takes up room in a pew. I love throwing around ideas with people ... so if you have questions / ideas it'd be fun to discuss. It is when you get all defensive we can't communicae on the same level. Ok that's it. Like I said recovery is best to focus on ... any way hope that cleared up some things for those who showed interest.

 

[sabbath92001]

Science

 

[Shonen_Yo]

Phoenix, my intentions were not to bring up religion. If you look back in the posts, another person brought up believing in god/him/her/it... something like that. My initial question was if you believed in absolute truth, which does not have to be religous. It's a common philosophical question which i thought was pertenent to the topic you were talking about.

I am not sure I will be answering the questions, but more like accusations some of you have made (in general not towards me). But i found a discussion that has some valuable info about this topic:

There can be no such things as an atheist. This is why: Let's imagine that you are a professing atheist. Here are two questions for you to answer: First, do you know the combined weight of all the sand on all the beaches of Hawaii? We can safely assume that you don't. This brings us to the second question: Do you know how many hairs are on the back of a fully-grown male Tibetan yak? Probably not. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that there are some things that you don't know. It is important to ask these questions because there are some people who think they know everything.

Let's say that you know an incredible one percent of all the knowledge in the universe. To know 100 percent, you would have to know everything. There wouldn't be a rock in the universe that you would not be intimately familiar with, or a grain of sand that you would not be aware of. You would know everything that has happened in history, from that which is common knowledge to the minor details of the secret love life of Napoleon's great-grandmother's black cat's fleas. You would know every hair of every head, and every thought of every heart. All history would be laid out before you, because you would be omniscient (all-knowing).

Bear in mind that one of the greatest scientists who ever lived, Thomas Edison, said, "We do not know a millionth of one percent about anything." Let me repeat: Let's say that you have an incredible one percent of all the knowledge in the universe. Would it be possible, in the ninety-nine percent of the knowledge that you haven't yet come across, that there might be ample evidence to prove the existence of God? If you are reasonable, you will be forced to admit that it is possible. Somewhere, in the knowledge you haven't yet discovered, there could be enough evidence to prove that God does exist.

Let's look at the same thought from another angle. If I were to make an absolute statement such as, "There is no gold in China," what is needed for that statement to be proven true? I need absolute or total knowledge. I need to have information that there is no gold in any rock, in any river, in the ground, in any store, in any ring, or in any mouth (gold filling) in China. If there is one speck of gold in China, then my statement is false and I have no basis for it. I need absolute knowledge before I can make an absolute statement of that nature. Conversely, for me to say, "There is gold in China," I don't need to have all knowledge. I just need to have seen a speck of gold in the country, and the statement is then true.

To say categorically, "There is no God," is to make an absolute statement. For the statement to be true, I must know for certain that there is no God in the entire universe. No human being has all knowledge. Therefore, none of us is able to truthfully make this assertion.

If you insist upon disbelief in God, what you must say is, "Having the limited knowledge I have at present, I believe that there is no God." Owing to a lack of knowledge on your part, you don't know if God exists. So, in the strict sense of the word, you cannot be an atheist. The only true qualifier for the title is the One who has absolute knowledge, and why on earth would God want to deny His own existence?

The professing atheist is what is commonly known as an "agnostic" - one who claims he "doesn't know" if God exists. It is interesting to note that the Latin equivalent for the Greek word is "ignoramus." The Bible tells us that this ignorance is "willful" (Psalm 10:4). It's not that a person can't find God, but that he won't. It has been rightly said that the "atheist" can't find God for the same reason a thief can't find a policeman. He knows that if he admits that there is a God, he is admitting that he is ultimately responsible to Him. This is not a pleasant thought for some.

It is said that Mussolini (the Italian dictator), once stood on a pinnacle and cried, "God, if you are there, strike me dead!" When God didn't immediately bow to his dictates, Mussolini then concluded that there was no God. However, his prayer was answered some time later.

Justice delayed is not justice denied.

An athiest saying "I don't believe in God." Is like a thief saying I don't believe in the crime I just commited OR the policeman who brings justice to the crime I just commited.

---------------------

Ok the thing is, I do not think WORRYING about religion will help with recovery. I know my faith dropped to pretty much 0 going thru all the crap anxiety and depression brings. I know how it goes and it's rough. All I'm really saying is to remain spiritual. And so that when you do recover, you can keep an open mind about things and not look to your own suffering to discount religion.

No one ever fasts with impunity...However, Jesus had come for this very purpose. Not to crush all desires and temptations, not to conquer them honorably. The contrary is true.... Our fasting even today risks opening the door to the excitement of the desires it threatens to unleash, a door which looks out on the other shore of our desires, not on their dark but on their light side: God within us; God who desires to be loved; God who hungers for us and we for Him, passionately.
-Father Andre Louf, O.C.S.O.


"Everything in moderation except moderation, you can't have too much moderation." Keep a similar attitude and remember some of the teachings of Christ.

I am not trying to convert you. So don't try to un convert me. Thats all athiests can do I guess ... and you can try. If you have questions I'd love to tell you my best answer. I don't hold all the answers, and won't. I am not accusing you all of not having truth in you. Many of you have brushed up on many philosophers I can tell. I too have studied in Philosophy, I am not a one track minded Christian who just takes up room in a pew. I love throwing around ideas with people ... so if you have questions / ideas it'd be fun to discuss. It is when you get all defensive we can't communicae on the same level. Ok that's it. Like I said recovery is best to focus on ... any way hope that cleared up some things for those who showed interest.

If someone was born without the knowledge of any religion is he an agnostic? No, agnostics profess to not know the nature of God. An atheist doesn't profess either way.

I'm sick of your hypocritical posts. Accusations: check on your part. You started the accusations of how atheists twist things. I bet you've never prayed to Allah, listened to the wisdom of the Buddha, or indulged in the compassion of Hinduism, or the peacefulness of an empty church. You have to look passed the literal words and actually think about what is really being said. Tell me, who is your god anyway? if you do not deny all other reasons, you would obviously be an agnostic. You're definitely not a deist: proclaiming on omniscient God. So you're effectively telling me the amount of sand on the beaches of Hawaii. That or your God is so poorly defined, it can be anything.:lol: You say your God can do everything because you haven't observed anything, you say your God is all knowing... well, I don't have to say it, do I. Buy hey, if you got faith I can't touch you, but don't try to tell me whom I am, because you don't even know what an atheist is.

 

[Thelema]

I've always liked what Aleister Crowley had to say about God

But God with a capital "G" in the singular is a totally different pair of Blüchers—nicht wahr?

Let me go back just for a moment to the meaning of "belief." We agreed that the word was senseless except as it implies an opinion, instinct, conviction—what you please!—so firmly entrenched in our natures that we act automatically as if it were "true" and "certain without error," perhaps even "of the essence of truth."1 (Browning discusses this in Mr. Sludge the Medium.) Good: the field is clear for an enquiry into this word God.

We find ourselves in trouble from the start.

We must define; and to define is to limit; and to limit is to reduce "God" to "a God" or at best "the God."

He must be omniscient (Mercury) omnipotent, (Sulphur) and omnipresent (Salt);2 yet to such a Being no purpose would be possible; so that all the apologies for the existence of "evil" crash. If there be opposites of any kind, there can be no consistency. He cannot be Two; He must be One; yet, as is obvious, he isn't.

How do the Hindu philosophers try to get out of this quag? "Evil" is "illusion;" has no "real" existence. Then what is the point of it?

They say "Not that, not that!" denying to him all attributes; He is "that which is without quantity or quality." They contradict themselves at every turn; seeking to remove limit, they remove definition. Their only refuge is in "superconsciousness." Splendid! but now "belief" has disappeared altogether; for the word has no sense unless it is subject to the laws of normal thought... Tut! you must be feeling it yourself; the further one goes, the darker the path. All I have written is somehow muddled and obscure, maugre my frenzied struggle for lucidity, simplicity . . . .

Is this the fault of my own sophistication? I asked myself. Tell you what! I'll trot round to my masseuse, and put it up to her. She is a simple country soul, by no means over-educated, but intelligent; capable of a firm grasp of the principles of her job; a steady church-goer on what she considers worthwhile occasions; dislikes the rector, but praises his policy of keeping his discourse within bounds. She has done quite a lot of thinking for herself; distrusts and despises the Press and the Radio, has no use for ready-made opinions. She shares with the flock their normal prejudices and phobias, but is not bigoted about them, and follows readily enough a line of simply-expressed destructive criticism when it is put to her. This is, however, only a temporary reaction; a day later she would repeat the previous inanities as if they had never been demolished. In the late fifties, at a guess. I sprang your question on her out of the blue, à la "doodle-bug;" premising merely that I had been asked the question, and was puzzled as to how to answer it. Her reply was curious and surprising: without a moment's hesitation and with great enthusiasm, "Quickly, yes!" The spontaneous reservation struck me as extremely interesting. I said: of course, but suppose you think it over—and out—a bit, what am I to understand? She began glibly "He's a great big—" and broke off, looking foolish. Then, although omnipotent, He needed our help—we were all just as powerful as He, for we were little bits of each other—but exactly how, or to what end, she did not make clear. An exclamation: "Then there is the Devil!"

She went on without a word from me for a long while, tying herself up into fresh knots with every phase. She became irreverent, then downright blasphemous; stopped short and began to laugh at herself. And so forth—but, what struck me as curious and significant, in the main her argument followed quite closely the lines which came naturally to me, at the beginning of this letter!

In the end, "curiouser and curiouser," she arrived at a practically identical conclusion: she believed, but what she believed in was Nothing!

As to our old criterion of what we imply in practice when we say that we believe, she began by saying that If we "helped" God in His mysterious plan, He would in some fashion or other look after us. But about this she was even more vague than in the matter of intellectual conviction; "helping God" meant behaving decently according to one's own instinctive ideas of what "decently" means.

It is very encouraging that she should have seen, without any prompting on my part, to what a muddle the question necessarily led; and very nice for me, because it lets me out, cara soror!

 

[Shonen_Yo]

I've always liked what Aleister Crowley had to say about God

But God with a capital "G" in the singular is a totally different pair of Blüchers—nicht wahr?

Let me go back just for a moment to the meaning of "belief." We agreed that the word was senseless except as it implies an opinion, instinct, conviction—what you please!—so firmly entrenched in our natures that we act automatically as if it were "true" and "certain without error," perhaps even "of the essence of truth."1 (Browning discusses this in Mr. Sludge the Medium.) Good: the field is clear for an enquiry into this word God.

We find ourselves in trouble from the start.

We must define; and to define is to limit; and to limit is to reduce "God" to "a God" or at best "the God."

He must be omniscient (Mercury) omnipotent, (Sulphur) and omnipresent (Salt);2 yet to such a Being no purpose would be possible; so that all the apologies for the existence of "evil" crash. If there be opposites of any kind, there can be no consistency. He cannot be Two; He must be One; yet, as is obvious, he isn't.

How do the Hindu philosophers try to get out of this quag? "Evil" is "illusion;" has no "real" existence. Then what is the point of it?

They say "Not that, not that!" denying to him all attributes; He is "that which is without quantity or quality." They contradict themselves at every turn; seeking to remove limit, they remove definition. Their only refuge is in "superconsciousness." Splendid! but now "belief" has disappeared altogether; for the word has no sense unless it is subject to the laws of normal thought... Tut! you must be feeling it yourself; the further one goes, the darker the path. All I have written is somehow muddled and obscure, maugre my frenzied struggle for lucidity, simplicity . . . .

Is this the fault of my own sophistication? I asked myself. Tell you what! I'll trot round to my masseuse, and put it up to her. She is a simple country soul, by no means over-educated, but intelligent; capable of a firm grasp of the principles of her job; a steady church-goer on what she considers worthwhile occasions; dislikes the rector, but praises his policy of keeping his discourse within bounds. She has done quite a lot of thinking for herself; distrusts and despises the Press and the Radio, has no use for ready-made opinions. She shares with the flock their normal prejudices and phobias, but is not bigoted about them, and follows readily enough a line of simply-expressed destructive criticism when it is put to her. This is, however, only a temporary reaction; a day later she would repeat the previous inanities as if they had never been demolished. In the late fifties, at a guess. I sprang your question on her out of the blue, à la "doodle-bug;" premising merely that I had been asked the question, and was puzzled as to how to answer it. Her reply was curious and surprising: without a moment's hesitation and with great enthusiasm, "Quickly, yes!" The spontaneous reservation struck me as extremely interesting. I said: of course, but suppose you think it over—and out—a bit, what am I to understand? She began glibly "He's a great big—" and broke off, looking foolish. Then, although omnipotent, He needed our help—we were all just as powerful as He, for we were little bits of each other—but exactly how, or to what end, she did not make clear. An exclamation: "Then there is the Devil!"

She went on without a word from me for a long while, tying herself up into fresh knots with every phase. She became irreverent, then downright blasphemous; stopped short and began to laugh at herself. And so forth—but, what struck me as curious and significant, in the main her argument followed quite closely the lines which came naturally to me, at the beginning of this letter!

In the end, "curiouser and curiouser," she arrived at a practically identical conclusion: she believed, but what she believed in was Nothing!

As to our old criterion of what we imply in practice when we say that we believe, she began by saying that If we "helped" God in His mysterious plan, He would in some fashion or other look after us. But about this she was even more vague than in the matter of intellectual conviction; "helping God" meant behaving decently according to one's own instinctive ideas of what "decently" means.

It is very encouraging that she should have seen, without any prompting on my part, to what a muddle the question necessarily led; and very nice for me, because it lets me out, cara soror!

I can see where you got name from :wink:

 

[Power_Bog]

There can be no such things as an atheist. This is why: Let's imagine that you are a professing atheist. Here are two questions for you to answer: First, do you know the combined weight of all the sand on all the beaches of Hawaii? ....... Conversely, for me to say, "There is gold in China," I don't need to have all knowledge. I just need to have seen a speck of gold in the country, and the statement is then true.

You spend several paragraphs here saying essentialy -- you can't prove a negative. which is true more or less.

I don't think this is any help to beleivers, though.

Santa Claus.

Take you entire post, and apply it to Santa Claus. By the same logic, you cannot disprove Santa Claus' existense. Since you can't observe the universe all at once, you can never disprove Santa Claus.

If you think about it, aren't there an infinite number of things that you can't disprove, including things that are incompatible with Christianity, the existence of Vishnu or Shiva, or Anti-God. You would have to be "agnostic" about all of those things, too.

To say categorically, "There is no God," is to make an absolute statement. For the statement to be true, I must know for certain that there is no God in the entire universe. No human being has all knowledge. Therefore, none of us is able to truthfully make this assertion.

Do you think there is a distinction between saying you believe Z is true and being able to prove Z is true? Maybe, maybe not. You could argue either way. Are you truthfully able to say that you believe that Z is true? Isn't some Christian theology about being able to believe in God's existense in the *without* proof?

The professing atheist is what is commonly known as an "agnostic" - one who claims he "doesn't know" if God exists. It is interesting to note that the Latin equivalent for the Greek word is "ignoramus." The Bible tells us that this ignorance is "willful" (Psalm 10:4).

So you note there is some coincidental historical relationship between these terms and use this as the basis of their being the same? The virgin Mary used to be called "Silly" because that term meant innocent hundreds of years ago. Would it make any sense for me to say that therefore based on this coincidental historical relationship Mary is therefore fact silly like Paris Hilton? I could even say it was "interesting to note" and base the equivalence on that. I think that's rather ridiculous, wouldn't you agree that it would be rather ridiculous if I said that?

I propose that "interesting to note" something that is by any standard irrelevant is not good way to say that two things have the same meaning.

It's not that a person can't find God, but that he won't. It has been rightly said that the "atheist" can't find God for the same reason a thief can't find a policeman. He knows that if he admits that there is a God, he is admitting that he is ultimately responsible to Him. This is not a pleasant thought for some.

I don't think this esplanation is complete. You need to give us some reason why we should believe this. Forgive me for being a little facetious, but in order to prove this wouldn't you have to prove that you were a psychic? How do you know what these imaginary prototypical atheists "know" without them expressing it? Ignoring for the moment the question of whether a prototype of people can have a mind to be read anyway

You need to give us evidence to believe this is going on in the minds of atheists instead of just declaring it to be the case.

It is said that Mussolini (the Italian dictator), once stood on a pinnacle and cried, "God, if you are there, strike me dead!" When God didn't immediately bow to his dictates, Mussolini then concluded that there was no God. However, his prayer was answered some time later. []
Justice delayed is not justice denied.

Does anyone think that by this declaration Mussolini would then believe that he would never ever die eventually? I think this is a silly exampel.

What's the general principel here? If I dare God to do something, and that something doesn't happen then but eventually happens anyway, does that prove that God exists? Really does it? So, if I dare God not to sent me to work this instant, and it fails to happen, but if I then drive to work tomorrow anyway that will prove God exists?

I think any Christian theologican would say that it's a poor test of God's existence. While you can think of challenges to God that will ultimately happen on their own anyway like me going to work or Mussolini dying, you could also challenge God to make you a ten foot cheese sandwich, or challenge God to make you ten feet taller, etc. things that would obviously fail, and I don't think you would think that the failure of the test would mean God didn't exist. I think we can agree that this exampel is silly.

Since we are all Santa Claus-agnostics (we *cannot* disprove Santa Claus, have less than unlimited knowledge of the universe), we can do a piece of equivocation and say that agnostic = ignorant, where ignorant has a modern meaning that is "does not know something that is true" a meaning totally different than the modern meaning of "agnostic" we can swish things around a bit. And "ignorant" has a different chain of connotations, doesn't it? We could come up with some business about some meaning of ignorant not present in the meaning of agnostic and subtly so, without noticing that a gap in the connection took place.

Undisprovable Santa Claus is like an undisprovable teapot and an infinite number of other things. Russell's analogy of the teapot is:

If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense.

 

[pinkputter]

Ok in response to the incomplete answer to the questions I brought up:

"Science."

This is what I have to say.

Jodi Foster has said: "How could you ask me to believe in God when there is absolutely no evidence that I can see. I do believe there are scientific explanations for what we call mystical."

Oh, has science, rather than God provided explanations for the evidence of creation?
Let's for a moment believe what science says. Let's have FAITH in what they tell us. Let's believe for a moment that billions of years ago there was nothing. There wasn't even space. There was Zip.
Suddenly there then was a huge bang. BOOOOM

And from that there came roses, apples, fish, sunsets, the seasons, clouds, the rain, hummingbirds, polar bears, dogs, cats, lions, tigers, and elephants, and thousands of other animals, and the incredible marvels of the human body.

Think of it. Does a big bang produce order?And then think of the order of creation. From the atom through the universe, Incredible order. No, a terrorist bomb doesn't produce harmony and order, it produces chaos.

Most evolutionists I speak to, say then there was the sea sitting there after the big bang, on the earth. And then after the sea, was light, that came from the big bang as well.

And in the sea, well there was life that just happened to have been there from the big bang. So I have to ask, this first fish thing that we evolved from that came out of the sea first to evolve into other animals, including us, that breathes air and not water, did this fish have lungs or gills?
Because the first thing that comes out of the water onto the land, if it only has gills, it will gasp and die. It needed to have lungs to breathe the air that evolved after the big bang. Why then did this fish evolve lungs while it was living in water, when it did not have a reason to use them? And this first fish that crawled up, came up as either male or as female. Well if it was a male, it needs another of its kind, but has not evolved yet. So we have a fish here that needs lungs and an opposite partner so that it could mate and have offspring. That is just ONE form of life.

You see there isn't a missing link. The whole chain is missing.

Malcom M. the Brittish journalist and philosopher said, " I myself am convinced that the theory of evolution is one of the greatest jokes in the history books of the future."

From the atomic energy research commission says, "scientists who go about teaching evolution as a fact of life are great con-men. The story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution, we do not have one iota of fact."

This is true, there are no facts. It is a theory. A belief. If you are an evolutionist, and you listen to them talk, you will notice they are force to speak in a language that is called a language of SPECULATION.
They say, well we believe, or we summize. Then they use words like perhaps, probably, possibly, may have been, could have...

So let's just put evolution aside for a moment and focus on that whatever the reason for the earth to have been made how it is, there had to have been a beginning. Who then made God? Usually when this is asked, there is an exclamation point "!" at the end, because they think this question cannot be answered.
Oh yes, it can. It's very simple. Who made God?
Well does space have a beginning or an end?
What if some one said there is a beginning of space and that there is a brick wall and it says "the beginning" on the wall, I want to know what's behind the brick wall. What would you say?
So by faith, we believe, even though it hurts our brain, that space has no beginning or no end, regardless the direction you're going. God is the same. He is eternal.


I feel like I've said my peace on the subject. The other responding posts used circulum lacution type logic, and I didn't quite understand your stance on the topic. I just answered it from a scientific standpoint. There are many other forms of knowledge you can approach the existence of God, obviously. .. just wanted to clarify the one.

 

[Power_Bog]

Oh, has science, rather than God provided explanations for the evidence of creation?

This is a false dilemma. The universe created the evidence which scientists attempt to document and interpret, and according to some of faith, God could have created the universe, right?

Based on the rest of your post, I think you're really trying to make a distinction between The Bible and science. Or more specifically, one Christian evangelical interpretation of the Bible versus science. Whether or not god exists is not really the question here, we're talking about one particular religious tradition. After all, the pope certainly believes in God, doesn't he? And the Catholic Church has more or less endorsed big bang theory and the theory of evolution, and most Christians are not creationists. This has nothing to do with whether god exists or not, this is just one piece of doctrine.

Let's for a moment believe what science says. Let's have FAITH in what they tell us. Let's believe for a moment that billions of years ago there was nothing. There wasn't even space. There was Zip.

Big bang theory doesn't postulate anything about what happened before the big bang. Actually, according to big bang theory and more basically Einstein's relativity, time and space are the fabric of the same thing, so what happened "before" the big bang is a contradiction in terms.

Suddenly there then was a huge bang. BOOOOM ...

Think of it. Does a big bang produce order?And then think of the order of creation. From the atom through the universe, Incredible order. No, a terrorist bomb doesn't produce harmony and order, it produces chaos.

No. The big bang was expansion. Basically, the universe seemed to expand very quickly at first. This is not the same as an explosion, or a bomb going off.

Most evolutionists I speak to, say then there was the sea sitting there after the big bang, on the earth. And then after the sea, was light, that came from the big bang as well.

And in the sea, well there was life that just happened to have been there from the big bang.

Huh?

Ok, I'm assuming you're honestly trying to convey what you might have heard, and I can only say that either you did not understand what these "evolutionists" told you or you actually got this information from some crude mischaracterization somewhere.

If you want to make accurate criticisms of evolution theory and or the big bang then you need to be better acquainted with them than this. The big bang theory does not say anything like what you're described

So I have to ask, this first fish thing that we evolved from that came out of the sea first to evolve into other animals, including us, that breathes air and not water, did this fish have lungs or gills?
Because the first thing that comes out of the water onto the land, if it only has gills, it will gasp and die. It needed to have lungs to breathe the air that evolved after the big bang. Why then did this fish evolve lungs while it was living in water, when it did not have a reason to use them? And this first fish that crawled up, came up as either male or as female. Well if it was a male, it needs another of its kind, but has not evolved yet. So we have a fish here that needs lungs and an opposite partner so that it could mate and have offspring. That is just ONE form of life.

One of the intermediate species between fish and land animal was Tiktallik, which had both gills and lungs, answering your question here.

Besides that, the theory of evolution does not say that evolution happens to individuals. it's not like suddenly one fish "evolved" to walk on land and then needed something to mate with. Really it was a continuum of different forms which were compatible with the rest of their species at that time. Maybe one fish could stick its head out of the water a little and eat algae on the edge of land which meant it was more likely to survive and pass on this trait to its descendants, and of those descendants, those who could stick their head out a little farther were more likely to survive among their generation, and so on...

You see there isn't a missing link. The whole chain is missing.

No it isn't. It's right here:

This is true, there are no facts. It is a theory. A belief. If you are an evolutionist, and you listen to them talk, you will notice they are force to speak in a language that is called a language of SPECULATION.
They say, well we believe, or we summize. Then they use words like perhaps, probably, possibly, may have been, could have...

This is more than just speculation, the difference between science and non-science is that speculation in science makes predictions that can be tested. Evolution predicts that intermediate species will appear in the fossil record. And such appearances are discovered constantly, like Tiktaalik up there.

As for the perhaps, probably and possibly, these words are meant to honestly communicate uncertainty which may exist.

Criticizing this usage I find ironic from someone who espouses one particular interpretation of Christian theology in the face of a much larger number of other interpretations. Creationism and the literalism of the story of Genesis is a belief held by a minority of Christians. If you have a sense of certainty in the face of that, I think that it is an honestly questionable one, and most other theists would disagree with you on many points. You're not looking at one, eternal God, you're looking at your own one-of-many interpretations of specific little qualities of his universe. What do you think about other theistic or Christian traditions that don't have a problem with evolution or big bang theory? Certainly if they have any sense of certainty about these things it must be a false one, right?


This is not whether god exists, this is about your point of view on some biblical stories. And with all due respect I think you could criticize big bang and evolution theory better if you read up on them a little more.

 

[appletree]

i'm sorry but i believe i did answer your question.
your question was this:
"So my question to others who aren’t religious, do you have a guiding force that makes everything less painful and less anxious?"
as for absolute truth, i would say yes but then you will probably come up with something annoying about perception and the limitation of human perception.
does the sun exist?
yes.
so for me that is absolute truth, but you could say that i only percieve the sun to exist, meaning that this argument could go on indefinatly. i know i said this wasn't the place for a religious discussion and i stand by that because in all honesty i see arguments about the existance of god one of the most pointless things to do with your time. I'm atheist, if people have a problem with that then fine don't talk to me or whatever.
i did answer your question and i'm confused that now you are talking about absolute truth.

 

[appletree]

oh dear! what is going on here?
I thought this was a place for people with social phobias to discuss their problems. I'm sure there are plenty of forums out there for people who want to waste their time with petty discussions regarding religion and creation. I'll probably get some stick for calling them pointless but this is just my opinion, they seen endless and everytime i hear somebody say something about it i just think oh no here we go again.
i have some very good christian friends, some very good atheist friends.
we share a lot of the same beliefs regarding morality and ethics and we also often agree on the pointlessness of these arguments.
seeing as how god is unfalsifiable by logic you cannot have a logical argument about this, in the same way that you can't have a logical argument about the existance of the tooth fairy.
i'm sorry to get so blatant about my viewpoint i didn't think it would come to this but all i'm saying is this is a social phobia forum and it is my opinion that here we should avoid existential arguments because it's not really all that relavent.
people from all religions and atheists get anxiety, what does that tell you?
it's irelavent.

 

[pinkputter]

My point in posting here, like i've said in previous posts, is to say that it is hard having SA, to be spiritual. Faith is low and hope is almost gone. I know, I've been there. I just wanted to say (again) that mantaining spirituality is a key to recovery. Which religion you choose is up to you.

I do think there is ultimate Truth in one, that is indescribable until you experience it for YOURSELF.

Other questions people asked in posts is the reason for going on about specifics of science, and religion were my reason for explaining things in a Christian perspective. Like i said, I've said my peace about it. And the posts after my last one about science, I cannot say anymore than I already have and your questions just lead me back to what I've already said.

I just find it interesting that anyone who opposes God or christianity in general gives all different reasons. Some people say well I scientifically can't prove otherwise, but philosophically, it just doesn't make sense. Or some people get so into science all they can rely on is a theory to explain the formation of the earth, but something inside them says there has to be an underlying purpose of the universe for moral laws, etc.
I'm saying this because it is very noteworthy to realize that if you believe in absolute truth, which I will go ahead and say you do regardless is you profess it (you believe you are in existence, you believe there are struggles, and I could go on)... if you believe in absolute truth, there should be unity in that truth. Athiest all share a common belief, that there is no god. If this was the ultimate truth, they would all share the same reasons. But the things is, I've been to athiest/agnostic student meetings, and they all disagree on why. They are all nice to each other, and they do enjoy discussing things, but nonetheless cannot come to a conclusion on why. Is this telling? Christians may not have all the answers. But no one does. If there is ultimate truth, the believers in that truth would be agreed on the preimise of it... and there would be no maybe talk.
"Truth doesn't change on your ability to stomach it."

Anyway, this IS my last post on here... I agree that this site needs to be kept for its intended purpose.
Bottom line for writing on this subject is to remain spiritual, so that when you recover you keep an open mind to things youve heard before, but during SA was hard to have faith in.

 

[pinkputter]

Last thing to add that was intended to go in the other post but saw after....


PowerBog...

Yes you are right. Science and Religion do not contradict.

My response was intended to some one's post that merely said "science." As if science in and of itself held all of the answers. My post was directed at answering his post, nothing else. I was hoping people would take things under context. And that was the whole purpose of me responding only taking in consideration science.

 

[phoenix1]

As I said in the first post this thread was not meant to be a religious debate, but its hard not to say anything when someone comes in and spurts nonsense accusations and unbelievably absurd reasoning’s. Thank you pinkputter for destroying what was turning out to a very interesting discussion on belief and anxiety.

Your ‘absolute truth’ has absolutely nothing to do with the threads purpose. You know as well as I, that it was meant to goad atheists for your own self-indulged purpose. A Christian perspective is fine, if you want to talk about how faith has helped your anxiety or something a little more relevant than posting about how you cant prove a negative (funny) or that evolution and the big bang are wrong. And to pretend that it was trying to be helpful is at the very least dishonest. It wasn’t even a discussion. You seem to ignore everything you read and even twist your own logic around to try to mold it to some pre-conceived grander truth.

Anyway back to the original topic, if it’s possible. Do you guys constantly gear up to fight fate and control what little we can truly control? And then get angry/guilty when something goes wrong, which creates more pain and anxiety. Or do you just simply smile and submit to uncertainty? Maybe you tell yourself that fate in inexorable? And you willingly let it sway you to its desire? The question I guess is – how do you know when to fight for that control over your life or when to just let it all go and tell yourself that fate in inexorable and there’s nothing you can do about it? Do you fight to the bitter end or do you let go and let fate decide for you?

 

[Shonen_Yo]

As I said in the first post this thread was not meant to be a religious debate, but its hard not to say anything when someone comes in and spurts nonsense accusations and unbelievably absurd reasoning’s. Thank you pinkputter for destroying what was turning out to a very interesting discussion on belief and anxiety.

Your ‘absolute truth’ has absolutely nothing to do with the threads purpose. You know as well as I, that it was meant to goad atheists for your own self-indulged purpose. A Christian perspective is fine, if you want to talk about how faith has helped your anxiety or something a little more relevant than posting about how you cant prove a negative (funny) or that evolution and the big bang are wrong. And to pretend that it was trying to be helpful is at the very least dishonest. It wasn’t even a discussion. You seem to ignore everything you read and even twist your own logic around to try to mold it to some pre-conceived grander truth.

Anyway back to the original topic, if it’s possible. Do you guys constantly gear up to fight fate and control what little we can truly control? And then get angry/guilty when something goes wrong, which creates more pain and anxiety. Or do you just simply smile and submit to uncertainty? Maybe you tell yourself that fate in inexorable? And you willingly let it sway you to its desire? The question I guess is – how do you know when to fight for that control over your life or when to just let it all go and tell yourself that fate in inexorable and there’s nothing you can do about it? Do you fight to the bitter end or do you let go and let fate decide for you?

I suppose if there was faith, I'm fighting it. After all my loses, I get back on my feet to take another pounding. It's all about how many hits I can take. I don't believe in faith, personally, but I believe that my life is hard. But that's not necessarily a bad thing, 'cause when it's over, whether I win or lose, I'm going to be stronger in the end.

 

[appletree]

My point in posting here, like i've said in previous posts, is to say that it is hard having SA, to be spiritual. Faith is low and hope is almost gone. I know, I've been there. I just wanted to say (again) that mantaining spirituality is a key to recovery. Which religion you choose is up to you.

i can't believe how arrogant you are, it's like you are saying people who have no faith in god are making a bad desision, i personally think faith is the wrong term because i don't believe god exists.

which religion you choose is up to you?
oh thank you how nice of you. what if i choose no religion? is that okay with you? i cannot believe how arrogant you come across as being in your posts.
as for faith, i do have faith in some things, i know you are for some reason biased against those who choose not to believe in the existance of god. (in the same way that i choose to not believe in the tooth fairy or santa)
i have faith in things i know to be true, in friends and family and love and life so don't you dare imply that i need any religion in order to fit in to your definition of spirituality.
i'm sorry it's come to this but you know this is why i personally think atheists are able to be more clear minded about these kinds of things because with religion comes this superiority thing and then if people go against those views you can't deal with it.
if somebody believes in god, that's fine i have no issue with that at all but if somebody believes in a god and then they continually imply that they are somehow more well informed than me for doing so then it's just unjustified arrogance.

 

[pinkputter]

appletree I apologize if how I came across was not of a place of humility. Maybe you misinterpereted what I said or I miscommunicated. I will be the first to raise my hand high for the membership of the "lowest of the low" club ... I in no way consider myself better (or worse) than anyone and I am sorry if it appeared that way.

I suppose if there was faith, I'm fighting it. After all my loses, I get back on my feet to take another pounding. It's all about how many hits I can take. I don't believe in faith, personally, but I believe that my life is hard. But that's not necessarily a bad thing, 'cause when it's over, whether I win or lose, I'm going to be stronger in the end.

Hey keep fighting for faith. If there's anything in this life to have faith in, it is that it's hard. I totally agree with that. Believe it even if it hurts.



The reason why I posted here again was to put this website up here. I was going to do a seperate post, but I decided to add to what you guys had to say. Here's the website, hope you find it as interesting as i did.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/04/m...74021200&en=c4a219c7398aa540&ei=5070&emc=eta1

 

[phoenix1]

That was honestly a very interesting article. A little long, but quite fascinating.

Thanks for the link.

 

[_sarah_]

hmmm well pinkputter your posts certainly made for entertaining reading... back to the original post..

I have no belief of a higher being and sometimes think that if i did life would be easier but then i would be going against everything i know (or believe to know). i gain strength in knowing that my input in this world is ultimately minor and my actions will not make a great impact on the future. This may seem negative but it can give me freedom to face fears knowing that the outcome is not important. It can work both ways... "why should i bother attempting to be more social when in the end it wont matter" but i try to take the other angle "why not give X a try because even if you fail who's really going to notice and will it matter".

I think this was a great topic to bring up and its something i do think about when talking to friends that are religious... im interested to keep hearing others' opinions just nothing on absolute truths or attacking anyones beliefs or lack there of