posted Apr-17-2006 10:19 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chasing Amy:
It's not a belief at all actually, it's a lack of belief. .

---

Atheism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Atheist)
Jump to: navigation, search
"Atheist" redirects here; for the band, see Atheist (band).

Atheism, in its broadest sense, is an absence of belief in the existence of gods. This definition includes both those who assert that there are no gods, and those who make no claim about whether gods exist or not. Narrower definitions, however, often only qualify those who assert there are no gods as atheists, labeling the others as agnostics or simply non-theists.

(Emphasis mine.)

I think that there really is no definition for atheist, which is confusing...I'd label you an agnostic, not an atheist. Lack of belief is different from assertion that there are no gods...

Sorry to post this...I just kept getting confused by what you were saying...to ME. lack of belief is agnostic, where as purposeful disbelief is athesim...

C

IP: Logged

posted Apr-17-2006 10:20 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chasing Amy:
I admit that I do enjoy driving them nuts by refusing to engage them.

---

Why would you do that? If you had no other intention other to yank chains and not pass ideas back and forth, then you are no better then certain other posters on this site you accuse of doing the same.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-17-2006 10:24 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by torque:
Why would you do that? If you had no other intention other to yank chains and not pass ideas back and forth, then you are no better then certain other posters on this site you accuse of doing the same.

---

I hate to say it, but he has a point...

C

IP: Logged

posted Apr-17-2006 10:29 AM            

The gods are all eternal scoundrels
Incapable of dissolving the suffering of impermanence.
Those who serve them and venerate them
May even in this world sink into a sea of sorrow.
We know the gods are false and have no concrete being;
Therefore the wise man believes them not
The fate of the world depends on causes and conditions
Therefore the wise man many not rely on gods"

IP: Logged

posted Apr-17-2006 10:29 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by colby5402:
...I'd label you an agnostic, not an atheist.

---

There are, as you just posted, several definitions.

It's up to Amy to label herself, thankyouverymuch.

And I'm a "don't know and doesn't matter."

IP: Logged

posted Apr-17-2006 10:31 AM            

Torque: I almost always avoid theological discussions that involve my personal lack of belief - particularly in a real life (outside of the CH) context. It is very personal and I have no desire to convince anyone else of my perspective. I rarely, if ever, call myself an atheist because of the reactions that the word invokes. I might as well grow horns out of my head and start tapping my cloven hoof.

I do not intentionally "yank people's chains" unless they are unrelenting. I mostly just sip my cup of coffee and smile.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-17-2006 10:34 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chasing Amy:

It is very personal and I have no desire to convince anyone else of my perspective.

---

Faith.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-17-2006 10:42 AM            

Increase in secularism = decrease in birth rates.

Seems logical and intuitive to me.

It also seems that relative to the general population we are blessed with an overabundance of atheist on this particular site. I wonder why that is...

IP: Logged

posted Apr-17-2006 10:46 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by offended by everything:
I wonder if there's a correlation between childlessness and atheism? Or said another way -- I wonder if there is something about being an atheist that makes you not want to have children.

Increase in secularism = decrease in birth rates.

Seems logical and intuitive to me.

It also seems that relative to the general population we are blessed with an overabundance of atheist on this particular site. I wonder why that is...

---

There are several assumptions in the above statements.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-17-2006 10:48 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chasing Amy:
Torque: I almost always avoid theological discussions that involve my personal lack of belief - particularly in a real life (outside of the CH) context. It is very personal and I have no desire to convince anyone else of my perspective. I rarely, if ever, call myself an atheist because of the reactions that the word invokes. I might as well grow horns out of my head and start tapping my cloven hoof.

I do not intentionally "yank people's chains" unless they are unrelenting. I mostly just sip my cup of coffee and smile.

---

You did engage in this thread though on your own volition though. In fact, your first post was an inflammatory one.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-17-2006 10:53 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by torque:
You did engage in this thread though on your own volition though. In fact, your first post was an inflammatory one.

---

Yes, I did.

And my word, who poked you in the eye? When did you lose your sense of humo(u)r?

IP: Logged

posted Apr-17-2006 10:53 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by TropicalEsq:
Torque, you're a bright person, quit being so boneheaded about this!

---

1

It sounds like a conversion sermon to me.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-17-2006 11:01 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chasing Amy:
Yes, I did.

And my word, who poked you in the eye? When did you lose your sense of humo(u)r?

---

I can appreciate the humour when it's called for..really I can. But to post an imflammatory cartoon directed at me and then to engage in the discussion in the thread only to divulge you like winding people up because yopu have your own agenda.

And, it ain't nice.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-17-2006 11:03 AM               

IP: Logged

posted Apr-17-2006 11:05 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by makeda:
1

It sounds like a conversion sermon to me.

---

ser·mon [ súrmən ] (plural ser·mons)

noun

Definitions:

1. religious talk: a talk on a religious or moral subject given by a member of the clergy as part of a religious service

Really? I though we were having a debate on the properties of why we believe what we believe.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-17-2006 11:08 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by maryk:
So. Where were you going with the Theory of Relativity?

---

Oh..good..back on topic. Thanks Mary. Einstein's theory revealed the guts to the Big Bang theory. Are you familiar with the Big Bang theory?

IP: Logged

posted Apr-17-2006 11:10 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by korts:
I have many friends that think I'm nuts for continuing my struggle to find faith. I believe that I am in a minority. People believe in the G-d of their childhood, or they convert, or they don't participate at all. They don't spend 25 years trying to find faith to no avail.

---

I'm sure I have a few friends that think I'm nuts, as yours do. I know some of my friends growing up did, as most were from one religion homes and mine was not which led to some interesting perspectives and questions on my part.

I've finally come to a point in believing where it's not so much a struggle as an inquisitive openness. There are so many things to learn and ways to grow if one remains open to new ideas and experiences. Good luck in your search.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-17-2006 11:17 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by torque:
Really? I though we were having a debate on the properties of why we believe what we believe.

---

That's what you keep calling it. But my mother was a minister and I know a sermon when I see it. I'll stick around to see the big finish.

Torque: "I too was an atheist turned agnostic and finally a theist. These decisions were not taken lightly. There is no way that I would blindly believe in something unless I too had proof. The more I searched to establish the reasons that I did not believe in a Diety the more the evidence that there is a God."

IP: Logged

posted Apr-17-2006 11:17 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by torque:
I can appreciate the humour when it's called for..really I can. But to post an imflammatory cartoon directed at me and then to engage in the discussion in the thread only to divulge you like winding people up because yopu have your own agenda.

And, it ain't nice.

---

Seriously. Torque. It wasn't directed at you. Really. Scout's Honor. Hand to God.

Anyhow, I'm retiring from this thread and heading over to the Boston tracking thread.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-17-2006 11:18 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by torque:
Oh..good..back on topic. Thanks Mary. Einstein's theory revealed the guts to the Big Bang theory. Are you familiar with the Big Bang theory?

---

I'm pretty sure I've experienced something of the sort in the kitchen. A ball of matter explodes to the far reaches of the universe, creating stars, planets, etc.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-17-2006 11:19 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sue in NYC:
There are, as you just posted, several definitions.

It's up to Amy to label herself, thankyouverymuch.

And I'm a "don't know and doesn't matter."

---

I'm honestly not trying to label her...just understand what she's saying. In MY MIND, she's an agnostic, because of what the word agnostic means in my vernacular.

If she wants to call herself an atheist, go for it. I just understand that word differerently than she does.

C

IP: Logged

posted Apr-17-2006 11:24 AM            

So, was this holy man an atheist? Is that a contradiction in
your world of concepts?

The Enlightened One = an atheist.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-17-2006 11:39 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by maryk:
I'm pretty sure I've experienced something of the sort in the kitchen. A ball of matter explodes to the far reaches of the universe, creating stars, planets, etc.

---

Ok...you do have a grasp of it. This theory is generally the accepted theory of the origins of the universe. Not just by lay people like you and me, but by some of the biggest brains on this planet.

Did you know that when Einstein first developed his theory he did not like where it was going? He was trying to prove the the universe was and always was infinite. No beginning, no end. But his calculations proved otherwise. His findings proved that their was indeed a precise starting point to the universe. This went against everything he belived in. In fact, his biaisms took over and he actually "fudged" his formula to get his desired outcome.

His work was exposed some time later when another scientist used his theory to apply to some tests. His conclusions also corraborated what Einstein initially discovered. Einstein later stated that "fudging" his thoery was "the greatest blunder of my life". This comig from a man who was probably one of the most respected geniuses this world has seen.

What the Big Bang theory states is that all matter, time, and space were squeezed into a ball so tiny it would be smaller than the tip of a needle..in essence, nothing...because there was nothing. Next , everything you now know, the earth, all of the cosmos...the immenseness of it all suddenly exploded from nothing. These are facts based on what our leading scientists have given us.

Now, if you believe in the thoery of cause and effect you'll see what I'm getting at. Before there was all this, there was nothing...that's not just the opinion of a theist. In order for there to be "something" the Big Bang, there had to have been a cause. What caused that Big Bang to happen?

Einstein also stated, after to coming to the realisation that something caused the Big Bang, that he wanted "to know how God created the world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thought, the rest are details".

I know this doesn't provide the ultimate proof that there is a Diety, but it certainly makes for a good argument in His favour.

[This message has been edited by torque (edited Apr-17-2006).]

IP: Logged

posted Apr-17-2006 11:39 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by torque:
One of the greatest discoveries in science, at least in my view, is Einstein's Theory of Relativity. Are you familiar with it?

---

Good morning!

Einstein's Theory of Relativity is not a scientific discovery, it is a scientific theory. A scientific theory is a hypothesis driven explanation of the hows and whys of a specific phenomenon. Theories are subject to continual testing and revising. Quite a different species from a scientific discovery. Only when a scientific theory has survived countless assaults and testing does it move into the realm of scientific law or dogma...but they we must be especially wary!

I'll give my favorite example of why scientific dogma must continue to be held to the same rigorous testing as scientific theory...the central dogma of molecular biology, which implies that all living things use nucleic acids to reproduce. When Stanley Prusiner first published his findings on self-replicating infectious protein particles, he was literally heckled on stage...only he later when he won the Nobel prize in medicine for his discovery of prions....did scientist rethink the central dogma (okay, this is still quite controversial...as it should be...but it is just to illustrate my point). Prusiner made a scientific discovery, observation is the hallmark of discovery....but even observation is limited. We can "observe" gravity...and yet Newton's Law of Gravity is a classical example of scientific dogma that was later found not to be a universal truth. It remains a theory for motion and gravity, but is not true under all conditions.

What is the relevance of this to a discussion of religion? None, to the atheist*, as there is no evidence as to the existence of god that can withstand scientific scrutiny. The theist argues that proof is found in faith..but the essence of faith is belief without proof.

* Even among atheists, these terms "atheist", "agnostic" are debated...just as among Christians there are those that argue who among them is a Christian...but these are merely words...I have clearly defined my criteria for inclusion as an atheist. If you prefer, I can use the term agnostic, non-religious, skeptic...my position does not change...it is just a word.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-17-2006 11:39 AM               

A fun test for ya'll!
http://www.philosophersnet.com/games/god.htm

Korts- I think that in addition to the drive to reproduce, we have been hardwired through evolution to have faith. The communities/societies with faith to bind them together were more successful than others. (United we stand, divided we fall and all that cr@p)

You should google "sleep paralysis". When experiencing sleep paralysis, people often report feelings of an evil being present in the room, sometimes sitting on their chest. I've had it happen, and it is an incredibly powerful feeling indeed, and is the only thing that has ever shaken my "belief" in the non-existence of the supernatural. In the end, it turned out to be just a blip of the mind during an improper awakening. I feel that the emotion of faith is a similar situation- it's just something in the mind.

As Torque mentioned about the world being flat, I feel that there is so little known about the human mind. It's hardly romantic to have our emotions broken down to simple chemical reactions, as in the programmed oxytocin rush of seeing an infant's face, but often the truth is not romantic.

IP: Logged