I believe in Atheism...

[Evandril]

Do you also classify your belief in the non-existance of Zeus as a belief? Is so, then alright. If not, then why not?

You can disprove that I don't have a magical, tiny, insubstatial, invisible, unicorn in my butt, so your disbelief is a belief, right?

That's what it boils down to. Is disbelief a form of belief? I don't think so. You do. End of discusssion, eh?

Can I prove Zeus does/did not exist? Nope...So I'm neutral on the matter, I've never claimed he does or does not exist. And honestly, I'd be more inclined to believe in Zeus's existance than the Christian god, m'self...Zeus wasn't all powerful, even within the mythos, nor all knowing.

If you can show me proof of something, then it no longer requires taking something on faith...of course, absoulte proof is such a pain...*shrugs*

If you can tell me how you can say 'x' does NOT exist anyplace within the universe, without asking me to take part of it on faith, I'd be impressed. Heck, if you've read Hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy, give me proof that the diety mentioned in that book doesn't exist, and we're not all to be wiped out by the coming of the great hankerchief That god had *nothing* to do with Earth, so wouldn't leave any signs here...

[Flyndaran]

The definition of an atheist is the belief there are no dieties. Since there is no proof for or against their existance, it cannot be classified as anything other than a belief.

Do you also classify your belief in the non-existance of Zeus as a belief? Is so, then alright. If not, then why not?

You can disprove that I don't have a magical, tiny, insubstatial, invisible, unicorn in my butt, so your disbelief is a belief, right?

That's what it boils down to. Is disbelief a form of belief? I don't think so. You do. End of discusssion, eh?

[Evandril]

I'm an atheist, but I don't believe in atheism any more than I believe in negative unicorns. I don't believe in unicorns as I don't believe in afterlives, magic, fairies, and souls. All just feel good stories people tell themselves to cover for the uncomfortable truths of ignorance and that everything, including ourselves, having an end.

The definition of an atheist is the belief there are no dieties. Since there is no proof for or against their existance, it cannot be classified as anything other than a belief.

[Jadedcarguy]

Yeah, I know - that's the sort of thought pattern you have to give yourself to justify your beliefs.

Yeah, it is.

[Slytovhand]

.... All just feel good stories people tell themselves to cover for the uncomfortable truths of ignorance and that everything, including ourselves, having an end.

Ah... just as arrogant and 'know it all' as any 'true believer' of any other religion And just as dismissive of every experience of everyone else who believes something because of those experiences... miracles never occur, sightings are all figments of the imagination, revelations are all crap..????

Yeah, I know - that's the sort of thought pattern you have to give yourself to justify your beliefs.

[Flyndaran]

I'm an atheist, but I don't believe in atheism any more than I believe in negative unicorns. I don't believe in unicorns as I don't believe in afterlives, magic, fairies, and souls. All just feel good stories people tell themselves to cover for the uncomfortable truths of ignorance and that everything, including ourselves, having an end.

[Sylvia727]

People are not allowed to make mistakes any more. Mistakes are caused by somebody else. People who admit that they make mistakes are inherently weaker on the grounds that they make mistakes, whereas people who show how the mistakes are always somebody else's fault are stronger and better.

"Pride is the most dangerous of the seven deadly sins because pride will have you repeating the other six again and again." -Can't remember who said it, but it's all too true.

[Slytovhand]

While for the most part I have to agree with your rambling, Mr Ped, there's just one bit I'll chuck in - more as a 'clarification' than anything else.

There is a difference between a 'natural' religion and an 'inspired' or 'revealed' religion. The latter have their books and all, the former don't.

If a Native American wants to get in touch with their religion, they don't go looking in a book for 'truth' - they go out and actually experience it. They don't need such an unchanging, unwieldy thing like absolute truth. (and this is the same for all natural religions... I just thought I'd use Native American, as most ppl on that part of the world are more familiar with it...). Change is actually a requirement (well... I'll use that term ) The universe and nature changes - so should 'truth'. I know for myself (and I use the word 'know' to mean 'have actually experienced') that I can ask a question today and get one answer, ask the same question tomorrow, get a different answer.... (bloody annoying, that is, too! )

[Boozy]

People are not allowed to make mistakes any more. Mistakes are caused by somebody else. People who admit that they make mistakes are inherently weaker on the grounds that they make mistakes, whereas people who show how the mistakes are always somebody else's fault are stronger and better.

Quoted for truth! I liked this post.

That's why we get politicians who lie to us. We practically demand it of them.

Now I had better shut up before I cause any major thread drift.

[Pedersen]

How many times has science been wrong?

I like this thought. It quite neatly, in one little statement, shows the greater problem faced by society at large.

People are not allowed to make mistakes any more. Mistakes are caused by somebody else. People who admit that they make mistakes are inherently weaker on the grounds that they make mistakes, whereas people who show how the mistakes are always somebody else's fault are stronger and better.

The other side of that coin: People cannot change their mind anymore, either. If you are presented with evidence that would otherwise make you change your mind, then that evidence must have been fabricated. Why? Because if you change your mind, then you were wrong, and that would have been a mistake. And as has already been shown, that makes you weak.

Which, right now, is why I think that people are turning towards religion. Go and ask the religious leaders, and they'll tell you: God doesn't make mistakes. As they are emissaries of God, he shields them from making mistakes, and that makes religion better than any science could be, since science can learn something that shows them wrong.

Science can make mistakes. Religion can't. Or, at the least, it can't admit to them.

For me, personally, that makes religion weaker. I make mistakes. I'm not perfect. There's no human being who is. Anybody who claims to be perfect is, ipso facto, lying, which makes them imperfect immediately.

Failure to admit to imperfection is the first sign of weakness, since it takes personal strength to ask "Am I wrong here?" If you are unwilling to admit the possibility, then you are already weaker than I am.

Oh, and a tidbit that religious people really seem to get up in arms about: No matter how divinely inspired, any given religious text was written down by a flawed human being. It was then transcribed by another flawed human being, and another. Still others translated it, combined it with other texts, tossed out sections they didn't like, etc.

The religious texts of today are written in different languages, with different intonations from their original sources, with different meanings, etc. Study them all you wish. You are studying a flawed source of divine inspiration, given to you by another flawed human being, all the while decrying the flaws of people seeking to understand the nature of reality.

All in all, fascinating to me. And all of that (plus so much more, but I'm cutting my rambling short) comes from one flawed person's flawed statement about a flawed understanding of flaws in other people.

Thank you.

[Slytovhand]

Yes, I'm sure you believe in 'supernatural'...why?? Cos of deja vu.

Deja vu?

Yes, deja vu.

We've had this discussion before...

And I totally agree!

(I bet you knew I was going to say that, hey??)

[Evandril]

I'll just buzz in here for $20...

Hopefully, people will beleive in something because of evidence and experience.

But, back to the main point... I have experienced certain things. Logic is at a loss to explain it away as merely natural stuff. So, I'm left with either I'm a looney, or there is more to this universe than science actually knows. (sure - the former certainly has it's possibilities )

I'm thinking I wasn't clear, sorry I was seperating 'knowing' something is real (ie, because of factual evidence), and 'believing' something is real (based on their personal faith)

The whole 'stranger things' is something I quite agree with, and don't believe science will ever 'prove' everything...The more we learn, the more we discover we HAVE to learn...on not quite a logrithmic scale, but similar

Supernatural, as a term, I tend to dislike...because it's saying outside of nature. Being within nature doesn't mean you're following the same rules as everything else, it just means you're part of the system. (And, no, not everything follows the same rules, even the stuff we know about )

[Slytovhand]

The first set relies on faith, and the second on facts. If something is a fact, it takes no 'faith' to believe in it. If it cannot be proven, then it is not a fact.

I'll just buzz in here for $20...

Hopefully, people will beleive in something because of evidence and experience.

If the 'supernatural' (be whatever it may...) really is out there, it has been since the beginning of the universe, and has probably got something to do with it as well. I don't really see that it would feel the need to prove itself - certainly not to a pesky bunch of mammals who have only been around for a short tick of the clock... and with the way things are going, aren't likely to be around for another tick.

But, back to the main point... I have experienced certain things. Logic is at a loss to explain it away as merely natural stuff. So, I'm left with either I'm a looney, or there is more to this universe than science actually knows. (sure - the former certainly has it's possibilities )

As I've expressed previously, I'm more inclined to think that science will eventually come to accept things that currently it won't.

[crashhelmet]

But the number of planets and moons has never been described or taught as a theory. It's always been a fact.

That's where my beef with "science" really comes from. All too often, it's fueled by capitalism instead of ethics. Some scientists are only proving what they want to prove or what they're paid to prove. But then that "discovery" becomes a "fact" until it's disproven.

Yes, as technology grows we learn more and more about things, but how much of the "building blocks" of science was pulled out of someone's ass because they couldn't figure out what it was?

CH

[Evandril]

The problem with science is it always starts with a guess. From that guess a scientist creates a "fact."

It may start with a guess, but I am at a loss to think of another way TO start. You take your guess, then see if the data you can gather supports your guess. If it does, you move on, if it doesn't, you toss out your guess, and come up with a new one. At any point, a true scientist is willing, and hopefully *eager* to be proven wrong.

The battle between Ideology/Religion/Beliefs and Science will never end. Even Des Cartes gave up eventually. CH

Because it's like the battle between apples and oranges... The first set relies on faith, and the second on facts. If something is a fact, it takes no 'faith' to believe in it. If it cannot be proven, then it is not a fact.