What Is Your View On Life?

I have not seen many, if any Atheists that think they know everything. The point that we try to make is that we don't everything, but refuse to use a religious placeholder as a temporary, if not eternal explanation.



I fail to see how mainstream science, or otherwise, has every provided a real explanation for what happens when we die.



Not many people who call themselves Atheists are actually true Atheists. In fact, I am agnostic in the sense that if someone proved to me that God exists I would believe it, however, I believe that the proposition is so unlikely that I chose to live my life on the basis that is it false. I like to call it Agnostic in belief, Atheist in practice. I would have to agree with the point that people are always pitting Atheism/Agnosticism strictly against Christianity. I have debated a few Deists and a Muslim, and disagree with their concepts, (although I rejoice in their lack of arrogance), just as much as I do Christianity.



The reason Atheists debate Theists is that believing in an imaginary being is delusional and should be treated as such. I don't want the people around me to blindly follow anything, I want them to think for themselves. I think it is part of our role in society to try and correct others when they are wrong, and show them when they are being idiotic.

Sigh. There is barely any point in arguing with you.

• You failed to understand the meaning of the first part of my post. Go back and reread it.

• You will have to find out the hard way that mainstream science and mainstream medicine are not all they are cracked up to be. It is not a realisation that most come to because most people are willfully ignorant of the anomalies which exist in ‘accepted’ theories.

Heh, it is funny. You do not realize your own hypocrisy in following the mainstream. For example: the idea of Atheism is to accept that it is an unknown, you say (although the actual idea of Atheism is to claim there is nothing) and yet you affiliate yourself with mainstream science which has these ‘filler’ theories. “The ‘accepted’ theory is the big bang, because we don’t have any better theories.” Is this not the exact opposite of accepting it as an unknown, I.e. filling it with garbage?

I have a news flash for you. Mainstream science and medicine are both blindly followed, in the same way religion is. If one is unsure, one looks it up in a book. Failing that load the patient up with pills, failing that just don’t report the anomaly. This is how these things work in practice.

Science is the same. Take, for example, cold fusion. Oh, it apparently violates the laws of thermodynamics. Well it turns out that cold fusion does exist, and its been confirmed by a US military lab. But will scientists accept this astounding discovery? No, they will not. Why? Because they are blindly following the ‘accepted’ rules of science.

 

[dpunk]

You failed to understand the meaning of the first part of my post. Go back and reread it.

I wasn't trying to argue against mainstream medicine and science, there is no doubt there are flaws in both mainstream and heterodox. I was just arguing against you saying that Atheists seem to think that they know everything.

You will have to find out the hard way that mainstream science and mainstream medicine are not all they are cracked up to be. It is not a realisation that most come to because most people are willfully ignorant of the anomalies which exist in ‘accepted’ theories.

I'm sure that there are just as many flawed theories in the heterodox world of science as there are in mainstream. You seem like you just like to argue against anything that isn't "contrary to popular belief".

Heh, it is funny. You do not realize your own hypocrisy in following the mainstream. For example: the idea of Atheism is to accept that it is an unknown, you say (although the actual idea of Atheism is to claim there is nothing) and yet you affiliate yourself with mainstream science which has these ‘filler’ theories. “The ‘accepted’ theory is the big bang, because we don’t have any better theories.” Is this not the exact opposite of accepting it as an unknown, I.e. filling it with garbage?

I don't say that the Big Bang Theory is correct, I can just say that it could be correct. I don't know what the true start of the universe was, and I am fine with that, but I believe that the Big Bang/Crunch Theory could have some conceptual truth to it.

I have a news flash for you. Mainstream science and medicine are both blindly followed, in the same way religion is. If one is unsure, one looks it up in a book. Failing that load the patient up with pills, failing that just don’t report the anomaly. This is how these things work in practice.

You always seem to pick on the mainstream, but again, are there not flaws in the non-mainstream practices of science and medicine?

Science is the same. Take, for example, cold fusion. Oh, it apparently violates the laws of thermodynamics. Well it turns out that cold fusion does exist, and its been confirmed by a US military lab. But will scientists accept this astounding discovery? No, they will not. Why? Because they are blindly following the ‘accepted’ rules of science.

One of the great things about science is that there are always new discoveries. They are probably just holding to the laws of thermodynamics and trying to find out what is wrong with them. Or I could be wrong, I don't know, and cold fusion and the laws of thermodynamics aren't subjects that interest me at the moment. Maybe I will read into it sometime though.

 

Well based on your comments dpunk, I must conclude that you are not an Atheist, but think you are. Which is perhaps not that uncommon.

Atheism, as a philosophical view, is the position that either affirms the nonexistence of gods[1] or rejects theism.[2] When defined more broadly, atheism is the absence of belief in deities, alternatively called nontheism.[3] Although atheists are commonly assumed to be irreligious, some religions, such as Buddhism, have been characterized as atheistic

The word atheist itself means 'without god':
atheist
1571, from Fr. athéiste (16c.), from Gk. atheos "to deny the gods, godless," from a- "without" + theos "a god" (see Thea). A slightly earlier form is represented by atheonism (c.1534) which is perhaps from It. atheo "atheist."

Whereas agnostic is:
agnostic
1870, "one who professes that the existence of a First Cause and the essential nature of things are not and cannot be known." Coined by T.H. Huxley from Gk. agnostos "unknown, unknowable," from a- "not" + gnostos "(to be) known" (see gnostic).

So it would seem that, ironically, you are defending Atheism by misunderstanding its goals and meanings and mislabeling yourself as an atheist when you are in fact, and in practice, agnostic.

While agnosticism can be seen as a form of weak atheism,[36] most agnostics see their view as distinct from atheism, which they may consider no more justified than theism, or requires an equal conviction.[37] The supposed unattainability of knowledge for or against the existence of God is sometimes seen as indication that atheism requires a leap of faith.[38] Common atheist responses to this argument include that unproven religious propositions deserve as much disbelief as all other unproven propositions,[39] and that the unprovability of God's existence does not imply equal probability of either possibility.[40] Scottish philosopher J. J. C. Smart even argues that "sometimes a person who is really an atheist may describe herself, even passionately, as an agnostic because of unreasonable generalised philosophical scepticism which would preclude us from saying that we know anything whatever except perhaps the truths of mathematics and formal logic."[41] Consequently, some popular atheist authors such as Richard Dawkins prefer distinguishing theist, agnostic and atheist positions by the probability assigned to the statement "God exists".

While I don’t have much respect for Dawkins, I point out the last line of that paragraph.

Consequently, some popular atheist authors such as Richard Dawkins prefer distinguishing theist, agnostic and atheist positions by the probability assigned to the statement "God exists".

A strong Atheist would say there is a zero probability. Whereas an agnostic would say a non zero probability. On which side do you fall?

 

[dpunk]

Well based on your comments dpunk, I must conclude that you are not an Atheist, but think you are. Which is perhaps not that uncommon.

The word atheist itself means 'without god':
atheist
1571, from Fr. athéiste (16c.), from Gk. atheos "to deny the gods, godless," from a- "without" + theos "a god" (see Thea). A slightly earlier form is represented by atheonism (c.1534) which is perhaps from It. atheo "atheist."

Whereas agnostic is:
agnostic
1870, "one who professes that the existence of a First Cause and the essential nature of things are not and cannot be known." Coined by T.H. Huxley from Gk. agnostos "unknown, unknowable," from a- "not" + gnostos "(to be) known" (see gnostic).

So it would seem that, ironically, you are defending Atheism by misunderstanding its goals and meanings and mislabeling yourself as an atheist when you are in fact, and in practice, agnostic.

While I don’t have much respect for Dawkins, I point out the last line of that paragraph.


A strong Atheist would say there is a zero probability. Whereas an agnostic would say a non zero probability. On which side do you fall?

Me belief goes something like this, you can call it what you will. I do not believe in a God. If someone showed my undeniable evidence proving the existence of a God, I would believe. I do not, however, believe that this evidence exists. I believe there is an extremely high probability of there being no God to the point that I live my life based on the assumption that there is not one. I call myself an Atheist because I live my life without belief in a God. I am the opposite of a Theist, which is the definition of an Atheist. I think of a true Agnostic as someone who absolutely does not know whether a God exists, and thinks that it could go either way, with equal probability. I don't call myself an Agnostic because I believe that there is a much higher probability of there not being a God than there is of their being one. I guess I would call myself an Atheist, but an Atheist with enough Agnostic rationality to know that there is at least a chance of a God being there, although it is very unlikely. To say that you know 100% that there is not a God is just as delusional as saying that you know 100% that there is one.

 

[Bot0matic]

Me belief goes something like this, you can call it what you will. I do not believe in a God. If someone showed my undeniable evidence proving the existence of a God, I would believe. I do not, however, believe that this evidence exists. I believe there is an extremely high probability of there being no God to the point that I live my life based on the assumption that there is not one. I call myself an Atheist because I live my life without belief in a God. I am the opposite of a Theist, which is the definition of an Atheist. I think of a true Agnostic as someone who absolutely does not know whether a God exists, and thinks that it could go either way, with equal probability. I don't call myself an Agnostic because I believe that there is a much higher probability of there not being a God than there is of their being one. I guess I would call myself an Atheist, but an Atheist with enough Agnostic rationality to know that there is at least a chance of a God being there, although it is very unlikely. To say that you know 100% that there is not a God is just as delusional as saying that you know 100% that there is one.

Atheist is not about knowing 100%. its about Believing 100% that there is nothing. That are two different things.
I am an Atheist i do not believe in a GOD.

 

[the_wippit]

Atheist is not about knowing 100%. its about Believing 100% that there is nothing. That are two different things.
I am an Atheist i do not believe in a GOD.

lol yep, athiest and agnostic are different

 

[dpunk]

Atheist is not about knowing 100%. its about Believing 100% that there is nothing. That are two different things.
I am an Atheist i do not believe in a GOD.

Could you re-word that so it meshes well with the English language? I don't speak bad grammar.

 

Dpunk, your views are self contradicting. You say you believe there is no god, but would believe there was one if you were given the evidence. This is a form of agnosticism, not atheism. Atheists not only believe 100% that there cannot be, and is not, any sort of god, or metaphysical being, but also actively try to destroy other sets of beliefs using logic and reasoning.

These are dangerous human tools of argument with respect to the unknown, because history shows that when used on the unknown they draw us into misleading and incorrect conclusions, from which escape is often difficult. A fine example being the flat earth theory; arrived at through logic and reasoning, but incorrect. Another example being when science considered it reasonable to assume the sun ran on coal.

It quickly becomes obvious that human tools of reasoning are bound by human understanding, and flaws in that understanding pass through into the reasoning, and the conclusion thereof. With so little skepticism of previously gained knowledge and fundamental theories, in the mainstream, how can we ever audit our understandings and ensure that our reasoning will be constructive and leading, rather than destructive and misleading? We cannot. And we see this day by day in science where there are fewer and fewer avenues of research to pursue, because we’ve boxed ourselves in to an incorrect set of understandings. Now physical scientific progress seems only to be made through ‘by accident’ discoveries in quantum physics. Quantum physics itself, ironically, being from left field; before Einstein they had even less to work with.

My point is simple. If you are unsure with respect to the God of Christianity, how can you be sure with respect to other religions? You have a ‘NO RELIGION’ sticker in your signature. Is this not being hypocritical?

Anyone who professes to know something to be 100.00% certain is a fool. And as such anyone who dismisses the possibility of something completely is also a fool. This is why Atheism is the realm of the close-minded and unintelligent, with few exceptions. Although it should be noted that most will cross the waters of Atheism in searching for a set of beliefs which make the most sense. And that, as such, having followed atheism for a time does not necessarily make you unintelligent.

 

[el-loco-uno]

Dpunk, your views are self contradicting. You say you believe there is no god, but would believe there was one if you were given the evidence. This is a form of agnosticism, not atheism. Atheists not only believe 100% that there cannot be, and is not, any sort of god, or metaphysical being, but also actively try to destroy other sets of beliefs using logic and reasoning.

These are dangerous human tools of argument with respect to the unknown, because history shows that when used on the unknown they draw us into misleading and incorrect conclusions, from which escape is often difficult. A fine example being the flat earth theory; arrived at through logic and reasoning, but incorrect. Another example being when science considered it reasonable to assume the sun ran on coal.

It quickly becomes obvious that human tools of reasoning are bound by human understanding, and flaws in that understanding pass through into the reasoning, and the conclusion thereof. With so little skepticism of previously gained knowledge and fundamental theories, in the mainstream, how can we ever audit our understandings and ensure that our reasoning will be constructive and leading, rather than destructive and misleading? We cannot. And we see this day by day in science where there are fewer and fewer avenues of research to pursue, because we’ve boxed ourselves in to an incorrect set of understandings. Now physical scientific progress seems only to be made through ‘by accident’ discoveries in quantum physics. Quantum physics itself, ironically, being from left field; before Einstein they had even less to work with.

My point is simple. If you are unsure with respect to the God of Christianity, how can you be sure with respect to other religions? You have a ‘NO RELIGION’ sticker in your signature. Is this not being hypocritical?

Anyone who professes to know something to be 100.00% certain is a fool. And as such anyone who dismisses the possibility of something completely is also a fool. This is why Atheism is the realm of the close-minded and unintelligent, with few exceptions. Although it should be noted that most will cross the waters of Atheism in searching for a set of beliefs which make the most sense. And that, as such, having followed atheism for a time does not necessarily make you unintelligent.

You always put so much thought into your posts Sythe <3, im officially agnostic.

 

[dpunk]

Dpunk, your views are self contradicting. You say you believe there is no god, but would believe there was one if you were given the evidence. This is a form of agnosticism, not atheism. Atheists not only believe 100% that there cannot be, and is not, any sort of god, or metaphysical being, but also actively try to destroy other sets of beliefs using logic and reasoning.

These are dangerous human tools of argument with respect to the unknown, because history shows that when used on the unknown they draw us into misleading and incorrect conclusions, from which escape is often difficult. A fine example being the flat earth theory; arrived at through logic and reasoning, but incorrect. Another example being when science considered it reasonable to assume the sun ran on coal.

It quickly becomes obvious that human tools of reasoning are bound by human understanding, and flaws in that understanding pass through into the reasoning, and the conclusion thereof. With so little skepticism of previously gained knowledge and fundamental theories, in the mainstream, how can we ever audit our understandings and ensure that our reasoning will be constructive and leading, rather than destructive and misleading? We cannot. And we see this day by day in science where there are fewer and fewer avenues of research to pursue, because we’ve boxed ourselves in to an incorrect set of understandings. Now physical scientific progress seems only to be made through ‘by accident’ discoveries in quantum physics. Quantum physics itself, ironically, being from left field; before Einstein they had even less to work with.

My point is simple. If you are unsure with respect to the God of Christianity, how can you be sure with respect to other religions? You have a ‘NO RELIGION’ sticker in your signature. Is this not being hypocritical?

Anyone who professes to know something to be 100.00% certain is a fool. And as such anyone who dismisses the possibility of something completely is also a fool. This is why Atheism is the realm of the close-minded and unintelligent, with few exceptions. Although it should be noted that most will cross the waters of Atheism in searching for a set of beliefs which make the most sense. And that, as such, having followed atheism for a time does not necessarily make you unintelligent.

I don't think that you can ever know for sure that there is not a God, because there is no way to prove it. I can't disprove the existence of a God in the same way I can't disprove that there are animate, talking lawn gnomes that rape pink flamingos at night, because to disprove it I would have to be everywhere in the universe at all times watching, which I can't. Do I believe in the latter? No of course not. Would I believe in it if someone showed my undeniable evidence of it? Yes. Do I believe that there is some possibility of that happening? Yes. But does that mean that I don't know for sure that it's not true? Maybe so, but for all practical situations, I believe that it isn't true. I choose to live my live based on the assumption that the raping of the pink flamingos does not occur, because there is such a high probability of it being false. To me the definition of Atheist and Agnostic seem kind of relative. I choose to think of myself as an Atheist for all practical situations, but in a sense an Agnostic as well. You can call me what you want, it doesn't bother me being called either. As far as my sig pic that you mentioned, there isn't really one I found for an Agnostic, so I might as well keep that. I still like to call myself an Agnostic in belief, Atheist in practice.

 

[treebeard9]

heh if this adam and eve myth is true did anyone think that since only adam and eve existed
to keep life going adam and eves kids would have to have babies with each other =I incest
most people have already thought of this anyway
Still if you have babies with your siblings theyre most likley going to turn our mentally disable... retarded

 

[treebeard9]

btw its probably more comforting to have false hope than no hope at all

 

[Le_Dark_Lord]

According to the Bible, there was a flood that covered Mt. Everest with no evidence of where that water went

I came to the conclusion that the water that flooded the earth is what we now call Antartica.

though, i am probably wrong.

You guys want an answer to Adam and Eve? Here's my attempt.

The existence of Adam and Eve, perhaps they are names given to the first humans. Like X and Y are popular substitutes in math equations.
So in a way, they really did exist.
As for their 'forbidden fruit'... dude, they lived in a garden! Who knows what type of plants they had around them.
The first humans could have been eating a plant that causes delusions, creating the illusion that an unseen being was talking to them, telling them not to eat the fruit.
They eat the fruit which causes another hallucination of them being kicked out of the garden and they see what they believe is an angel.

Ok, there is my explanation.
Im going to bed now.

 

[Le_Dark_Lord]

heh if this adam and eve myth is true did anyone think that since only adam and eve existed
to keep life going adam and eves kids would have to have babies with each other =I incest
most people have already thought of this anyway
Still if you have babies with your siblings theyre most likley going to turn our mentally disable... retarded

Tee-hee... here's a disturbing fact.
It is recorded that Eve only gave birth to sons.

Now, if Adam and Eve were all incest, and you are, in the long run, a product of the fucking, does that not bring forward a reason why mental illness was first brought into the world?

If your thinking from a christians point of view - Was that one of God's mistakes?

 

[dpunk]

I came to the conclusion that the water that flooded the earth is what we now call Antartica.

though, i am probably wrong.

You guys want an answer to Adam and Eve? Here's my attempt.

The existence of Adam and Eve, perhaps they are names given to the first humans. Like X and Y are popular substitutes in math equations.
So in a way, they really did exist.
As for their 'forbidden fruit'... dude, they lived in a garden! Who knows what type of plants they had around them.
The first humans could have been eating a plant that causes delusions, creating the illusion that an unseen being was talking to them, telling them not to eat the fruit.
They eat the fruit which causes another hallucination of them being kicked out of the garden and they see what they believe is an angel.



Ok, there is my explanation.
Im going to bed now.

Hmm I do like the explanation...although the bit about Antarctica isn't correct because that would mean a global temperature change, which would have resulted in killing off all the humans.

heh if this adam and eve myth is true did anyone think that since only adam and eve existed
to keep life going adam and eves kids would have to have babies with each other =I incest
most people have already thought of this anyway
Still if you have babies with your siblings theyre most likley going to turn our mentally disable... retarded

You are quite right lol.
Just another contradiction found in this "perfect book" concerning the first family:
When Cain was exiled out of his parents home, God put a mark on him to protect him so people wouldn't kill him while he wandered the earth. Ok, now for a question to all the Christians. WHO WERE THE OTHER PEOPLE? The Bible never talks about God making any more does it? Don't think so.

btw its probably more comforting to have false hope than no hope at all

A drunk person is happier than a sober one but that doesn't mean that we should all live our life drunk now does it?

 

[Macroman]

Chose Wrong in Poll : Adam and Eve Did Exist and Evolution Didn't Happen

Well I'm Christian So theres my Answer For you

 

[WoW Sucks]

lool, well bump, keep this thread alive!!

 

[The_Number_0]

I think evolution but i havent exactly studied into this so i cant really go in further.. But i'd like to learn more about evolution.