Are you an atheist? (3 Viewers)

[Dick7Access]

As I said, a perfect scam that even leads to war. What a winner! Hats off to whoever thought up religion as a way to scam people.

Col

Agreed, Praise God

 

[Galaxiom]

Aside from the obvious implications of writing off people with differing worldviews as somehow defective, it is also a somewhat cold and lonely point to place yourself.

Yes. Living in an abusive relationship certainly is a cold and lonely place to be.

The objective evidence is clear that the God of the Bible is an abusive controlling monster.

Attempting to counter that evidence with platitudes doesn't make for much of a discussion.

 

[Rabbie]

While I defend the right of people to believe whatever they want to, I do not think that gives them the right to tell me what I should believe or to punish me because I do not accept their beliefs.

I do agree with most of the moral guidelines of Christianity but I cannot accept the supernatural part of their beliefs.

 

[raghuprabhu]

Yes I am. My religious switch was turned off on my 14th birthday in a temple in India. I am a Hindu by birth and proud of it. Hinduism is not a religion it is way of life. All my relatives are very religious. My late wife was too. I being an atheist did not stop me taking my wife to the temple or a church or any other place of worship. The only religion in this world is Humanity. By the way if you do things that do not harm others in any way or form you will see God when you look in the mirror, else, if you your actions or deeds harm or make others unhappy then you see the devil when you look in the mirror! Every Sunday morning I go to the Hindu temple near my home and work in the kitchen as a volunteer. Education is the key. I was pushed into becoming a priest by my mother. I have inherited a temple, I did not take it and my father put it into a trust. As a kid I was hyper active and was given medication to slow me down. One day a doctor friend of the family visited us and saw me very drowsy. He asked my parents what was the matter with me. Mum told him that I was on medications for being very hyperactive. He told my parents he will observe me for a few days after school. I started visiting his medical clinic and sat with him as he was attending to his patients. The then took me to his private library. Suddenly a treasure trove of knowledge was open to me. That day was the 01-Jan-1974. Within 6 months I was purely smitten by knowledge and stopped reading religious text books and became a scientific person. On 24-June-1974 I was reborn as an atheist.

 

[Bladerunner]

Science rarely reverses much about knowledge but instead refines it with greater detail.

Einstein didn't replace Newton but demonstrated that Newton's Laws were a specific case of a more general law where the effects of relative velocity were trivial. Gravity was shown to be a special type of acceleration.

Indeed General Relativity could even be considered as nothing more than Newton's Laws of motion applied to four dimensional SpaceTime.

Likewise, Quantum Mechanics didn't invalidate Atomic Theory but revealed the deep underlying causes of the interactions between matter and energy.

General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics describe the Universe as we know it from the largest to the smallest scales respectively. The accuracy of their predictions is beyond reproach with vast numbers of observations and experiments confirming the nature of nature itself. You are sitting in front of a machine that is testimony to our understanding of reality.

These theories hold and correctly model the Universe we live in from the point where the first pixel of pure energy burst forth. The pixel size of the Universe is 10 ^ -35 metres across.

This also equates to a time tick of about 10 ^ -44 seconds.

We do understand the operation of the Universe on incredibly small scales and find no need for anything other than physics and logic to explain everything that we see in the Universe today.

Science doesn't leave much for a God to have done but create that first pixel. Thousands of scientists are working on observations and new hypotheses to extend our understanding to outside our Universe and determine what physical cause there could be for that first pixel.

The need for and influence of a God has moved further back throughout history as scientists explained the truth about reality. The causes revealed have never yet turned out to be the will of a supernatural being so I would lay odds that the Big Bang won't turn out to be down to a god.

Hello Galaxiom: It has been a while. I did like your dissertation above and your ability to put God back to one mili-second (maybe) before the big Bang and then over billions of years expansion did nothing else. With the billions of galaxies and thousands of billions of planets like our own out there (odds are good), there should be humanoids like ourselves out there that either believe in a higher deity or do not believe?/NO? What about Parallel Universes? Could God have come from one of them to start the Big Bang?/No? You see, once your mind looks out at the world through the prism of science, you can imagine all sorts of things even the eventual scientific confirmation that there is no God. In a chemical reaction, the ingredients are known and the outcome is predictable. The ingredients for the universe is so diverse that no two suns or planets, etc. are exactly alike. Who or what wrote that formula using all those ingredients and then put them all together? Don't know, but I can't wait to meet him..

Scientist can only prove what we can see around us at present time. We cannot use light that comes from a far off world and see its history. Maybe that is what we need to work on since light has reflections of what it bounced off of much like radar. The bottom line is that you and everyone on this planet have the brain power to believe or not in God. Does that give us the right to trash each other for it?NO ---What do I lose by believing in Jesus and his father if when I die they are not there. Nothing. By your words, I took that placebo and was happy all those years on earth. You and all those that are atheist or agnostic cannot say that because you lived your life without the placebo (a good life I'll bet) yet still missing something because seconds before you die, 90% of you will turn to God just in case there is one. In that instance, you have confirmed that your whole life, everything you did was based on the lie (There is NO God)

 

[Galaxiom]

With the billions of galaxies and thousands of billions of planets like our own out there (odds are good), there should be humanoids like ourselves out there that either believe in a higher deity or do not believe?/NO?

Hard to say because we don't know the extent of potential variety of life forms. I would be confident that there would be other complex intelligent lifeforms. They would be rare compared to the number inhabited by simple unicellular organisms.

However I don't see the relevance of whether they believe in god or not.

What about Parallel Universes? Could God have come from one of them to start the Big Bang?/No? [

It is possible that another parallel universe held a conscious being that generated anther universe. But there is no evidence for it and it does not solve the problem of the origin of that conscious being.

Moreover science shows us how a simple entity at the Big Bang became a complex universe. Your proposition stars with a complex structure so offers no insights whatsoever.

You see, once your mind looks out at the world through the prism of science, you can imagine all sorts of things even the eventual scientific confirmation that there is no God.

Scientists have imagined all kinds of things but science provided a framework to test their hypotheses. This process has been extraordinarily successful at determining the nature of the reality we find ourselves in.

Religion looks out through a dark narrow tunnel. Hypotheses are tested against what is already written in an old book and therefore its "knowledge" is entirely incapable of being advanced.

Over and over that "knowledge" has been shown to be wrong. The faithful try to rehash the interpretation of dogma before their claims begin to look completely ridiculous. The irreconcilable parts of their "divine reference" are quietly ignored.

The ingredients for the universe is so diverse that no two suns or planets, etc. are exactly alike. Who or what wrote that formula using all those ingredients and then put them all together?

The single ingredient of our universe is pure energy. Despite their size stars are relatively simple and very well understood. The progression to the complex universe we see today follows the simple laws of physics.

Scientist can only prove what we can see around us at present time. We cannot use light that comes from a far off world and see its history.

No. The limit of the speed of light allows scientists to use powerful telescopes to peer into the distance and look back at parts of the Universe just a few hundred thousand years after it began because that light is just now reaching us.

The bottom line is that you and everyone on this planet have the brain power to believe or not in God. Does that give us the right to trash each other for it?NO

Everyone has the right to their opinion. However the religious expect their beliefs to form the basis of public policy even though it is backed by nothing more than "God said" as reported by a book written by ancient men. Moreover the "knowledge" in that book has been repeatedly shown to be contradictory to science.

They also expect to be able to promulgate their beliefs without exposure to criticism based on the concept that their deeply held beliefs should be afforded "respect".

What do I lose by believing in Jesus and his father if when I die they are not there. Nothing. By your words, I took that placebo and was happy all those years on earth.

Perhaps it does you no harm. However religious dogma does do great damage to many people who don't meet its expectations. We have a Pope who teaches that condom usage promotes HIV yet science knows this is false. Religion stigmatises those who feel attracted to other people of the same sex. Abrahamic religions also justify killing those who disagree with the dogma.

You and all those that are atheist or agnostic cannot say that because you lived your life without the placebo (a good life I'll bet) yet still missing something because seconds before you die, 90% of you will turn to God just in case there is one. In that instance, you have confirmed that your whole life, everything you did was based on the lie (There is NO God)

That is a ridiculous unsubstantiated claim. The claim that we are "missing something" presumes that our lives are not whole without your god.

As I have said before, my early experiences in a society that was driven with religion may well impose upon my failing brain as I approach my death. That does not in any way undermine the decades I have spent celebrating life without a god.

 

[ozzi]

The poll is missing an option.


option: this concept is not worth discussing.

ozzi

 

[Galaxiom]

The poll is missing an option: this concept is not worth discussing.

I disagree. It is important to discuss the subject because religion lies at the foundation of many of the social problems we have on the planet.

The religious want no discussion because they know their doctrines cannot withstand intelligent analysis.

 

[Dick7Access]

I disagree. It is important to discuss the subject because religion lies at the foundation of many of the social problems we have on the planet.

The religious want no discussion because they know their doctrines cannot withstand intelligent analysis.

Your right. People can either accept what I preach by faith or they can rejected it, but I will not debate it as it can not be proven by sight. Also it is perfectly acceptable to say it is a crutch that we use.

 

[ozzi]

The religious want no discussion because they know their doctrines cannot withstand intelligent analysis.

One stone discussing with another stone whether to move, or remain in place.
Intransience on both sides. Neither side in any doubt about their case. No point in the discussion, No change on either side.

I disagree. It is important to discuss the subject because religion lies at the foundation of many of the social problems we have on the planet.

Not so.
Religion, just like this discussion is a symptom not the cause.
Religion and this discussion are just attempts at validation. The barely disguised battle cry is, “I am Important, do as I say”. Validation is the animal need to be dominant, and this need is driven by the urge to spread ones genetic code. This is the fact of “life”. There is no purpose. Life exists and will continue to exist. Just like cells dividing animals procreate because that is what they do.

Life exists and will procreate and as a result of this activity, evolution happens. The two aspects of evolution are mutation and death. The fittest outlive the weak. The strong prey on the weak. We are programmed to dominate as a species and as individuals within the species. These are facts.

Now add the mutation that causes intellect. The imperative of life can now be tempered by choice. Or can it? Do we use our intellect to enhance our dominance, or is it the programming that makes us do all the things that you ascribe to religion? The world has many problems because we refuse to use our intellect for the betterment of ourselves. We use our intellect to dominate each other and the planet. Religion is only a symptom.



ozzi

 

[scott-atkinson]

One stone discussing with another stone whether to move, or remain in place.
Intransience on both sides. Neither side in any doubt about their case. No point in the discussion, No change on either side.

Talking stones!!! You need to stop using LSD buddy

Religion, just like this discussion is a symptom not the cause.
Religion and this discussion are just attempts at validation. The barely disguised battle cry is, “I am Important, do as I say”. Validation is the animal need to be dominant, and this need is driven by the urge to spread ones genetic code. This is the fact of “life”. There is no purpose. Life exists and will continue to exist. Just like cells dividing animals procreate because that is what they do.

Life exists and will procreate and as a result of this activity, evolution happens. The two aspects of evolution are mutation and death. The fittest outlive the weak. The strong prey on the weak. We are programmed to dominate as a species and as individuals within the species. These are facts.

Now add the mutation that causes intellect. The imperative of life can now be tempered by choice. Or can it? Do we use our intellect to enhance our dominance, or is it the programming that makes us do all the things that you ascribe to religion? The world has many problems because we refuse to use our intellect for the betterment of ourselves. We use our intellect to dominate each other and the planet. Religion is only a symptom.



ozzi

The only problem I see with this is for example the Crusades in the middle ages, yes I agree it was about dominance, but it was dominance in the name of religion, therefore you could argue that if religion had not existed would the crusades still have happened as what would it needed to have been dominant about...

 

[ozzi]

Talking stones!!! You need to stop using LSD buddy

The only problem I see with this is for example the Crusades in the middle ages, yes I agree it was about dominance, but it was dominance in the name of religion, therefore you could argue that if religion had not existed would the crusades still have happened as what would it needed to have been dominant about...

Religion was just an excuse, the crusaders were seeking wealth and land. The roman empire, the Mongol hordes, the Napoleonic wars, world war 1, world war 2, korean war, vietnam, kuwait, afganistan, iraq, no religious reason to fight these. Racisim, sexism, elitism, homophobia, sadism, are not the exclusive domain of religion. so much carp happening in the world and most of it happens without religion.

It is individuals seeking dominance over others that use religion and so many other causes to persuade others to do their dirty work.

this is just the way we are, but we can be better, if only we would use our brains.

ozzi

 

[Galaxiom]

Religion was just an excuse, the crusaders were seeking wealth and land. The roman empire, the Mongol hordes, the Napoleonic wars, world war 1, world war 2, korean war, vietnam, kuwait, afganistan, iraq, no religious reason to fight these.

Religion is not actually a symptom but another face of the same issue. At least removing religion removes an excuse and a means of recruitment.

It would certainly force those who use religion in this way to be more upfront about their real motives.

Genghis Khan literally thought he was a god. Napoleon was close too. Many Roman emperors put themselves at a similar level.

 

[Galaxiom]

One stone discussing with another stone whether to move, or remain in place.
Intransience on both sides. Neither side in any doubt about their case. No point in the discussion, No change on either side.

The goal is not changing the mind of the believer but to expose the facts to those contemplating a religious future.

For centuries speaking against religion was an invitation be killed. Then it became an impolite subject to be avoided.

Now we can speak out about the ridiculous facade that is religion. Religion cannot sustain this. I won't see its complete demise in my lifetime but I will certainly continue to experience its decline.

Ultimately the future of this planet depends on the young everywhere rejecting religion for the archaic superstition that it is.

 

[Galaxiom]

Your right. People can either accept what I preach by faith or they can rejected it, but I will not debate it as it can not be proven by sight. Also it is perfectly acceptable to say it is a crutch that we use.

I don't have a problem with who have a place for religion in their lives. I subscribe to my own personal myths for their positive aspects too. Something does not need to be true to be useful.

However I draw the line when such beliefs are raised as the basis for public policy.

I also object to the notion that any belief deserves automatic respect and immunity from criticism.

 

[Galaxiom]

Talking stones!!! You need to stop using LSD buddy

Nothing particularly new to the Bible and its sequels. Talking bushes (Exodus 3) and a talking donkey (Numbers 22:28).

The Quran (19:22-33) has Jesus speaking as a baby in the crib.

Yet otherwise intelligent people actually believe this rubbish.

 

[ozzi]

Hi Galaxiom

Religion is not actually a symptom but another face of the same issue. At least removing religion removes an excuse and a means of recruitment.

Still a symptom of the underlying Life imperative to dominate inorder to spread ones genes. agreed that is religion an excuse, but my point is that unless one uses ones intellect to evaluate real motives people will still use and fall for other excuses,(ideology, nationalism, patriotism, etc.).

It would certainly force those who use religion in this way to be more upfront about their real motives.

You think so? its more likely they will attempt to shout louder and seek out weaker minds

Genghis Khan literally thought he was a god. Napoleon was close too. Many Roman emperors put themselves at a similar level.

Just because they thought of themselves as god doesn't mean their motives were of a religious nature. the very idea shows their desires to be the pack Alpha.

ozzi

 

[ozzi]

The goal is not changing the mind of the believer but to expose the facts to those contemplating a religious future.

keep your religion out of our schools, and we will keep our logic out of your church.

For centuries speaking against religion was an invitation be killed. Then it became an impolite subject to be avoided.

Now we can speak out about the ridiculous facade that is religion. Religion cannot sustain this. I won't see its complete demise in my lifetime but I will certainly continue to experience its decline.

Ultimately the future of this planet depends on the young everywhere rejecting religion for the archaic superstition that it is.

all true, but only if we stop legitimising religion by not giving them the opportunity to debate. why give them a forum outside their closed group. why would you talk to a "stone" and why would you listen to one.
the debate/ discussion seems to be more about which group is dominant Alpha.

surely it would be more "Intellectual" to discuss methods of improving Education than to be trying to score points against the indefensible?

ozzi

 

[Galaxiom]

Still a symptom of the underlying Life imperative to dominate inorder to spread ones genes. agreed that is religion an excuse, but my point is that unless one uses ones intellect to evaluate real motives people will still use and fall for other excuses,(ideology, nationalism, patriotism, etc.).

One less excuse is still a step in the right direction. Indeed religion is the most powerful of motivators, threatening the non-compliant with eternal suffering. Breaking down the facade of religion is using intellect to expose the real motives.

You think so? its more likely they will attempt to shout louder and seek out weaker minds

Thus reducing the pool of susceptible minds by removing the stronger minds. The weakest of minds are already in the clutches of religion. Shouting louder won't help them much. Indeed it makes them look more desperate.

Just because they thought of themselves as god doesn't mean their motives were of a religious nature. the very idea shows their desires to be the pack Alpha.

Regardless of their primary motives they still used divine purpose as the justification for their actions.

You seem to be confusing motive with the means. Removing religion removes one of the historically most effective of all means.

 

[Galaxiom]

keep your religion out of our schools, and we will keep our logic out of your church.

But they don't keep religion out of our schools.

all true, but only if we stop legitimising religion by not giving them the opportunity to debate. why give them a forum outside their closed group.

Religion already has influence well beyond their churches. They don't need to debate atheists to legitimise their cause. They are well organised political lobbyists. In the UK they have places set aside for them in the House of Lords.

Moreover their attempts at debate are the most effective means expose the ridiculous nature of their doctrine. The faithful do more in attempted debate to demolish the credibility of their organisations than any atheist could hope to achieve. Read some of the posts by Aziz Rasul earlier in this thread and it will be clear that facts don't come into their thought processes at all.

why would you talk to a "stone" and why would you listen to one.
the debate/ discussion seems to be more about which group is dominant Alpha.

As I said before, the primary target audience is not the religious but those not already hopelessly poisoned by doctrine.

surely it would be more "Intellectual" to discuss methods of improving Education than to be trying to score points against the indefensible?

By all means start a thread on that subject rather than trying to discourage interactions on this one.

I suspect you are in fact a religious apologist simply trying to shut down debate because you fear its effectiveness at undermining the foundations of religious beliefs which you actually support.