Atheist and proud of it?

Damn straight, not only do I get my sundays free but I also get to watch The Golden Compass with glee!

I'm an Atheist.

i don't see why I should be proud of it though.

You're proud because of disbelief? Seems a rather strange thing to be proud of.Rhazakna

Yessir

You're proud because of disbelief? Seems a rather strange thing to be proud of.Rhazakna

Its not disbelief, its rational thought.

[QUOTE="Rhazakna"]You're proud because of disbelief? Seems a rather strange thing to be proud of.dnumba1man

Yessir

Yup..."don't believe in everything u can't see"

[QUOTE="dnumba1man"]

[QUOTE="Rhazakna"]You're proud because of disbelief? Seems a rather strange thing to be proud of.xboxgamefx

Yessir

Yup..."don't believe in everything u can't see"

So you wouldn't believe in yourself if you couldn't see yourself?

I hope you guys caught the sarcasam in the TC's post... mainly revolving around the fact that a lot of Christians and Catholics are not letting their kids see the movie 'The Golden Compass' because of it's use of witchcraft and the like.bobstos

I guess no Harry Potter too then.

[QUOTE="Rhazakna"]You're proud because of disbelief? Seems a rather strange thing to be proud of.Rifkin-

Its not disbelief, its rational thought.

Not necessarily.

I hope you guys caught the sarcasam in the TC's post... mainly revolving around the fact that a lot of Christians and Catholics are not letting their kids see the movie 'The Golden Compass' because of it's use of witchcraft and the like.bobstos

Actually its because of the hypocriticism of Christians. The movie supports the ideals of Atheism, but apparently this is wrong, while they are allowed to have movies that do the opposite, they move to ban the movies that don't agree with their religion.

Its not disbelief, its rational thought.Rifkin-

Proof of something that has no proof of its own existance? Thats ridiculous, why don'tyou try to disprove the sixteen-legged-purple-eyed-flanging monster i call the purpolosaurus. You can't because I have nothing for you to disprove, but sadly I have empirical evidence, and you can't dispute that!

All hail the Purpolosaurus, or it will eat you!

[QUOTE="Rifkin-"]Its not disbelief, its rational thought.foxhound_fox

Empiracal evidence: Ever seen god? A soul? an angel? A spirit? Didn't think so. It may not be empiracle in the sense that something has been seen, but then again when we're talking about disproving something that never has been seen its kind of hard to come up with true empiracle evidence.

Its just like saying there's a teakettle orbiting in the asteroid belt. At this point you can either not believe in the teakettle because there's no proof to suggest that such a thing exists or you can believe in the teakettle despite the fact that there is no proof as to its existence. Of course, you can never be sure no matter what choice you pick so perhaps the only purely logical choice is to be a teakettle agnostic. However, most people would consider a person who believed in the teakettle or who did not fully doubt its existence to be at least somewhat insane. It may be a bad and cliched example but it should suffice.

[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"][QUOTE="Rifkin-"]Its not disbelief, its rational thought.gameguy6700

Empiracal evidence: Ever seen god? A soul? an angel? A spirit? Didn't think so. It may not be empiracle in the sense that something has been seen, but then again when we're talking about disproving something that never has been seen its kind of hard to come up with true empiracle evidence.

Its just like saying there's a teakettle orbiting in the asteroid belt. At this point you can either not believe in the teakettle because there's no proof to suggest that such a thing exists or you can believe in the teakettle despite the fact that there is no proof as to its existence. Of course, you can never be sure no matter what choice you pick so perhaps the only purely logical choice is to be a teakettle agnostic. However, most people would consider a person who believed in the teakettle or who did not fully doubt its existence to be at least somewhat insane. It may be a bad and cliched example but it should suffice.

Exactly, and then furthering it with a little rational thought, you can conclude that the possibility of this kettle is ridiculous and if anything else is just an meteorite or astroid. Same with the idea of Atheism, you can understand with rational thought, that the idea that something "Thinking" or "Conscious"created this random universe is proposterous, and it is morelikely the universe has always existed.

In the end, we are all Agnostic in some sense, but to move science further you must press on forwards with your theories and research.

Exactly, and then furthering it with a little rational thought, you can conclude that the possibility of this kettle is ridiculous and if anything else is just an meteorite or astroid. Same with the idea of Atheism, you can understand with rational thought, that the idea that something "Thinking" or "Conscious"created this random universe is proposterous, and it is morelikely the universe has always existed.

In the end, we are all Agnostic in some sense, but to move science further you must press on forwards with your theories and research.

Rifkin-

I hope you don't mean you think the universe is literally random, because it isn't.

Exactly, and then furtheI hope you don't mean you think the universe is literally random, because it isn't.

Rhazakna

No, the universe has many laws that we understand within physics, not religion.

[QUOTE="gameguy6700"]

[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"][QUOTE="Rifkin-"]Its not disbelief, its rational thought.Rifkin-

Empiracal evidence: Ever seen god? A soul? an angel? A spirit? Didn't think so. It may not be empiracle in the sense that something has been seen, but then again when we're talking about disproving something that never has been seen its kind of hard to come up with true empiracle evidence.

Its just like saying there's a teakettle orbiting in the asteroid belt. At this point you can either not believe in the teakettle because there's no proof to suggest that such a thing exists or you can believe in the teakettle despite the fact that there is no proof as to its existence. Of course, you can never be sure no matter what choice you pick so perhaps the only purely logical choice is to be a teakettle agnostic. However, most people would consider a person who believed in the teakettle or who did not fully doubt its existence to be at least somewhat insane. It may be a bad and cliched example but it should suffice.

Exactly, and then furthering it with a little rational thought, you can conclude that the possibility of this kettle is ridiculous and if anything else is just an meteorite or astroid. Same with the idea of Atheism, you can understand with rational thought, that the idea that something "Thinking" or "Conscious"created this random universe is proposterous, and it is morelikely the universe has always existed.

In the end, we are all Agnostic in some sense, but to move science further you must press on forwards with your theories and research.

Yeah, that's how I see atheism, doubt based on probability (which is technically the definition of agnosticism, but whatever). While I don't completely discount the existence of God, I'd put the probability that he exists below 0.5%. The thing about deities is that after you toss out all the hogwash excuses and explanations like "we can't understand the mind of god" or "god has always existed" its very easy to tear apart any religoin.

[QUOTE="Rifkin-"]

Exactly, and then furthering it with a little rational thought, you can conclude that the possibility of this kettle is ridiculous and if anything else is just an meteorite or astroid. Same with the idea of Atheism, you can understand with rational thought, that the idea that something "Thinking" or "Conscious"created this random universe is proposterous, and it is morelikely the universe has always existed.

In the end, we are all Agnostic in some sense, but to move science further you must press on forwards with your theories and research.

Rhazakna

I hope you don't mean you think the universe is literally random, because it isn't.

I quote David Hume when I say that all we really know of this world in terms of "laws" and "concepts" is that two or more events seem to occur at the same time everytime we observe something, causing us to believe that the universe is delicately and intricately structured through science and physics, when in reality, it may not be at all. So the universe may very well be random in that events just seem to always coincide with each other, whether by chance or elsewise...

[QUOTE="Rhazakna"][QUOTE="Rifkin-"]

Exactly, and then furthering it with a little rational thought, you can conclude that the possibility of this kettle is ridiculous and if anything else is just an meteorite or astroid. Same with the idea of Atheism, you can understand with rational thought, that the idea that something "Thinking" or "Conscious"created this random universe is proposterous, and it is morelikely the universe has always existed.

In the end, we are all Agnostic in some sense, but to move science further you must press on forwards with your theories and research.

jetpower3

I hope you don't mean you think the universe is literally random, because it isn't.

I quote David Hume when I say that all we really know of this world in terms of "laws" and "concepts" is that two or more events seem to occur at the same time everytime we observe something, causing us to believe that the universe is delicately and intricately structured through science and physics, when in reality, it may not be at all. So the universe may very well be random in that events just seem to always coincide with each other, whether by chance or elsewise...

I find it hard to believe that causality is one big coincidence.

Yeah, that's how I see atheism, doubt based on probability (which is technically the definition of agnosticism, but whatever). While I don't completely discount the existence of God, I'd put the probability that he exists below 0.5%. The thing about deities is that after you toss out all the hogwash excuses and explanations like "we can't understand the mind of god" or "god has always existed" its very easy to tear apart any religoin.

gameguy6700

How did you come by that figure- 0.5%? I think there are plenty of reasons to believe in God. We've been over this a million times in OT, God can no sooner be disproven than proven. All we have is Scripture and faith. I don't see where a 0.5% probability comes from, though. God has always been a 50/50 chance of being real, considering nobody can prove or disprove Him.

[QUOTE="gameguy6700"]

Yeah, that's how I see atheism, doubt based on probability (which is technically the definition of agnosticism, but whatever). While I don't completely discount the existence of God, I'd put the probability that he exists below 0.5%. The thing about deities is that after you toss out all the hogwash excuses and explanations like "we can't understand the mind of god" or "god has always existed" its very easy to tear apart any religoin.

RiSkyBiZ-13

How did you come by that figure- 0.5%? I think there are plenty of reasons to believe in God. We've been over this a million times in OT, God can no sooner be disproven than proven. All we have is Scripture and faith. I don't see where a 0.5% probability comes from, though. God has always been a 50/50 chance of being real, considering nobody can prove or disprove Him.

Obviously you didn't read the post correctly, The poster was saying that HE has .5% belief in there being a god

[QUOTE="RiSkyBiZ-13"][QUOTE="gameguy6700"]

Yeah, that's how I see atheism, doubt based on probability (which is technically the definition of agnosticism, but whatever). While I don't completely discount the existence of God, I'd put the probability that he exists below 0.5%. The thing about deities is that after you toss out all the hogwash excuses and explanations like "we can't understand the mind of god" or "god has always existed" its very easy to tear apart any religoin.

Rifkin-

How did you come by that figure- 0.5%? I think there are plenty of reasons to believe in God. We've been over this a million times in OT, God can no sooner be disproven than proven. All we have is Scripture and faith. I don't see where a 0.5% probability comes from, though. God has always been a 50/50 chance of being real, considering nobody can prove or disprove Him.

Obviously you didn't read the post correctly, The poster was saying that HE has .5% belief in there being a god

And I am inquiring how HE came by that figure.

And I am inquiring how HE came by that figure.RiSkyBiZ-13

Because thats what he thinks? Is that so hard to grasp?

If you are something and proud of it...then you are confused of what you are proud of. I am white...but am I proud of it? No, it is just what I am, there is no sense of accomplishment of me being white so why should I be proud? You are athiest, but why are you proud? Because you think it makes you look cool...like an anti-christ? Come on tell me, there has to be a reason....well maybe not a legit one.Ilived

you are born white. however, one can come to their own conclusion on whatever makes the most sense to them about their beliefs or disbeliefs. its not such a great comparison. and no, i dont consider myself the antichrist.

Remember Jesus when you are opening your presents on his birthday.
white_sox

No thanks, I am just gonna have fun this holiday season.

What does the universe not being totally random have to do with religion? Its called science if you didn't know.Rikusaki

religious people think that god created the world, and that the world is too beautiful to have been created at random and by natural selection, so they choose to use their idea that god created the world and all it's intricasies as a way of justifing their irrational thought process

[QUOTE="Rifkin-"][QUOTE="RiSkyBiZ-13"][QUOTE="gameguy6700"]

Yeah, that's how I see atheism, doubt based on probability (which is technically the definition of agnosticism, but whatever). While I don't completely discount the existence of God, I'd put the probability that he exists below 0.5%. The thing about deities is that after you toss out all the hogwash excuses and explanations like "we can't understand the mind of god" or "god has always existed" its very easy to tear apart any religoin.

RiSkyBiZ-13

How did you come by that figure- 0.5%? I think there are plenty of reasons to believe in God. We've been over this a million times in OT, God can no sooner be disproven than proven. All we have is Scripture and faith. I don't see where a 0.5% probability comes from, though. God has always been a 50/50 chance of being real, considering nobody can prove or disprove Him.

Obviously you didn't read the post correctly, The poster was saying that HE has .5% belief in there being a god

And I am inquiring how HE came by that figure.

0.05 is the threshold where you can reject a hypothesis. In this case the hypothesis is god, and personally I feel that the god hypothesis has less than a 0.05 probability of being correct. If I didn't I would be agnostic or a theist.

Sorry, the 0.5% was the result of me not thinking about what I was typing. The percentage would actually be 5%.

Damn straight, not only do I get my sundays free but I also get to watch The Golden Compass with glee!

Rifkin-

Damn straight, not only do I get my sundays free but I also get to watch The Golden Compass with glee!

Rifkin-

Also, I'll be watching the Golden Compass as well but I hardly think that one movie makes being an Atheist worth it, lol. Especially when it has a poor rating on rottentomatoes.com

No i'm not but I am cathloic and proud.cowboymonkey21

this

[QUOTE="RiSkyBiZ-13"]And I am inquiring how HE came by that figure.Rifkin-

Because thats what he thinks? Is that so hard to grasp?

Somebody's a little testy... I'm wondering WHY he thinks that, is that so hard to grasp?

[QUOTE="RiSkyBiZ-13"][QUOTE="Rifkin-"][QUOTE="RiSkyBiZ-13"][QUOTE="gameguy6700"]

Yeah, that's how I see atheism, doubt based on probability (which is technically the definition of agnosticism, but whatever). While I don't completely discount the existence of God, I'd put the probability that he exists below 0.5%. The thing about deities is that after you toss out all the hogwash excuses and explanations like "we can't understand the mind of god" or "god has always existed" its very easy to tear apart any religoin.

gameguy6700

How did you come by that figure- 0.5%? I think there are plenty of reasons to believe in God. We've been over this a million times in OT, God can no sooner be disproven than proven. All we have is Scripture and faith. I don't see where a 0.5% probability comes from, though. God has always been a 50/50 chance of being real, considering nobody can prove or disprove Him.

Obviously you didn't read the post correctly, The poster was saying that HE has .5% belief in there being a god

And I am inquiring how HE came by that figure.

0.05 is the threshold where you can reject a hypothesis. In this case the hypothesis is god, and personally I feel that the god hypothesis has less than a 0.05 probability of being correct. If I didn't I would be agnostic or a theist.

Sorry, the 0.5% was the result of me not thinking about what I was typing. The percentage would actually be 5%.

The way I see it the universe is fairly large and the odds are that just about anything is possible, just look at our life on this completely random planet called earth. So if we're possible and God is possible then I guess I'm buying into him as well, regardless of how improbable. I've seen too many "improbable" things turn out true to take a gamble with something of this gravity.

Just my thoughts...

[QUOTE="gameguy6700"][QUOTE="RiSkyBiZ-13"][QUOTE="Rifkin-"][QUOTE="RiSkyBiZ-13"][QUOTE="gameguy6700"]

Yeah, that's how I see atheism, doubt based on probability (which is technically the definition of agnosticism, but whatever). While I don't completely discount the existence of God, I'd put the probability that he exists below 0.5%. The thing about deities is that after you toss out all the hogwash excuses and explanations like "we can't understand the mind of god" or "god has always existed" its very easy to tear apart any religoin.

Kalel559

How did you come by that figure- 0.5%? I think there are plenty of reasons to believe in God. We've been over this a million times in OT, God can no sooner be disproven than proven. All we have is Scripture and faith. I don't see where a 0.5% probability comes from, though. God has always been a 50/50 chance of being real, considering nobody can prove or disprove Him.

Obviously you didn't read the post correctly, The poster was saying that HE has .5% belief in there being a god

And I am inquiring how HE came by that figure.

0.05 is the threshold where you can reject a hypothesis. In this case the hypothesis is god, and personally I feel that the god hypothesis has less than a 0.05 probability of being correct. If I didn't I would be agnostic or a theist.

Sorry, the 0.5% was the result of me not thinking about what I was typing. The percentage would actually be 5%.

The way I see it the universe is fairly large and the odds are that just about anything is possible, just look at our life on this completely random planet called earth. So if we're possible and God is possible then I guess I'm buying into him as well, regardless of how improbable. I've seen too many "improbable" things turn out true to take a gamble with something of this gravity.

Just my thoughts...

Too bad "God exists outside of space and time"

But to answer your questions, evolution has a 1.0 probability. Its guaranteed to occur once life emerges. The probability for the big bang is unknown seeing as how we don't even know what caused it.

Like I said, atheism is based off probablity. The probability that God exists is very small. Its not impossible, but its extremely unlikely. The logical choice is to reject the hypothesis. To not reject it means you've either found some piece of evidence that you think increases the probability of the God hypothesis to greater than or equal to 5% or you believe that the risks and benefits make believing the safest choice (in which case you evoke Pascal's Wager which is probably the worst reason to believe in a religion).

i'm not trying to be mean here or anything like that buut i see atheists as people that are like little kids that they believe in things that they can only see, sometimes what you cant seeis the truest thing out there. The greatest scientists of history and the smartest people in history believen in thigs they couldnt see which was the atom. I dont think you have to see to believe. I hope i dont get flamed, if i do....oh well f*ck it.