Athiests: Do you hope for a world with no religion?

[QUOTE="Saturos3091"] I don't see why we shouldn't pursue such understanding of the eventVandalvideo

[QUOTE="Red-XIII"]What more authority can their be besides the physical world in which we inhabit?Vandalvideo

I said the physical world, not science itself. Science is the study of it. Science is our understanding of that physical world, so while our interpretations of it may change, the physical world itself won't.

I hope for a world where religious people stop trying to force their views down everyone's throats. Frattracide

In today's society, athiests and extreme leftists try to force their views far more than Christians (ironically, Muslims are being defended).

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

[QUOTE="Megadeth425"]Really? ExplainMegadeth425

Read Why Would Anyone Believe in God by Justin Barrett, a European psychologist.

People are psychologically developed where belief in God is about as natural as love. Not everybody experiences it (hence atheists) but it is unavoidable all the same.

I can't exactly explain it in such detail, so if you want the whole story, you'll have to buy the book or get in contact with a psychologist who knows this stuff.

A website you may want to check out: http://www.iacsr.com/Home.html

How does science require faith? Oh and could you define exactly what you mean by scientism.

domatron23

Scientism is when science is used as the be-all-end-all of ethics, morality, knowledge, and any other field where science has little or no authority over.

[QUOTE="domatron23"]

How does science require faith? Oh and could you define exactly what you mean by scientism.

Theokhoth

Scientism is when science is used as the be-all-end-all of ethics, morality, knowledge, and any other field where science has little or no authority over.

Science does not need faith.. It is factual evidence based on the scientific method of observation and experimentation.

Would be nice, but there's nothing to do about it now.

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"][QUOTE="domatron23"]

How does science require faith? Oh and could you define exactly what you mean by scientism.

sSubZerOo

Scientism is when science is used as the be-all-end-all of ethics, morality, knowledge, and any other field where science has little or no authority over.

Science does not need faith.. It is factual evidence based on the scientific method of observation and experimentation.

Science has its boundaries. To believe science can cross them is scientism, a religion.

Anybody who read the link knows that this is what it says, and hasn't anything to do with faith in scientific methods; rather it's faith in science alone.

I think that would be really greedy.

I'm religous and I think atheists are free to believe or not, I think it should be the same way around as well.

cyberdarkkid

What I don't particularly like is organised religion. Whether or not you belive in God, and how you worship/respect Him, should be between the two of you, not you two and the rest of the community, because that's where politics and power plays come in. And then of course you have religions evolving over time to suit social changes (i.e.they only belive things "in the moment" or "what suits me to get more power"). Also, with organised religion you then have standardised veiws, which suggests one set of veiws is "more" correct than others.

Also, with large groups of people beleiving in the same thing you then have those people putting their beliefs in places it doesn't belong, such as Governments and the decisions they should make (abortion for one thing).

Well that was a bit ranty and incoherent. Enough from me.

[QUOTE="mindstorm"]

I put "I'm religious - yes" because of the cliche saying "It's not religion, it's a relationship."

The only people Jesus ever condemned were the hyper-religious people who thought themselves righteous.

Red-XIII

You know what's sad is that so many fundamentalists use the Bible as their basis to hate others. I've called some of them up on it and they think they're somehow exempt from 'let he who is without sin cast the first stone'.

Good for you. Yes I did just say that... Pointing fingers is wrong but correcting a fellow Christian in love is encouraged. Many do not seem to understand that...

On the occasion people like that need their toes stepped on. There is the possibility their motivation is right but they do not act quite like Jesus. Jesus wouldn't be allowed in many of the churches in this day...

[Good for you. Yes I did just say that... Pointing fingers is wrong but correcting a fellow Christian in love is encouraged. Many do not seem to understand that...

On the occasion people like that need their toes stepped on. There is the possibility their motivation is right but they do not act quite like Jesus. Jesus wouldn't be allowed in many of the churches in this day...

mindstorm

Being an atheistic/agnostic, but raised Christian, that is how I feel as well. Jesus would be appalled at how some people represent him. I'm fine with Christianity as an ideal to live by, but not as their authority over others.

I love the bitter irony when an 'unbeliever' uses Bible quotes against them XD

"The more man puts in God the less he retains in himself."

"To abolish religion as the illusory happines of the people is to demand their real happiness."

"Religion... is the heart of a heartless world, the spirit of spiritless conditions."

I'd rather see the day when people put faith in each other rather than a random supernatural entity.

Religion is important in as far as Philosophical and moral ideas can be learned from it but irrational belief is a weakness which, when recognised, should be discarded.

I think it would be... AWESOME.

But w/e, just dont shove it down my throat x)

Pick up a book on Quantum Physics/mechanics, and you will begin to how some values and phenomenon are not only unexplainable, but incalculable and unpredictable. yet, look how well this chaos works out. SO much cannot be explained, so much cannot be created. All that can be done is to record information we see and make predictions.

In the face of such mathematical mysterious and perfection, how can you deny a creator of some sort? I suppose you think I'm crazy, but I doubt you've seen and studied what I have, because if you did we would not be having this discussion.

[QUOTE="mindstorm"][Good for you. Yes I did just say that... Pointing fingers is wrong but correcting a fellow Christian in love is encouraged. Many do not seem to understand that...

On the occasion people like that need their toes stepped on. There is the possibility their motivation is right but they do not act quite like Jesus. Jesus wouldn't be allowed in many of the churches in this day...

Red-XIII

Being an atheistic/agnostic, but raised Christian, that is how I feel as well. Jesus would be appalled at how some people represent him. I'm fine with Christianity as an ideal to live by, but not as their authority over others.

I love the bitter irony when an 'unbeliever' uses Bible quotes against them XD

So long as they are correctly used against the person I'm quite happy at it as well. (often times they are not...)

Being an atheistic/agnostic

Red-XIII

Oh god, you're worse than an agnostic, who can't decide if they do or don't believe in God. You can't even decide whether you don't believe in God or can't decide if you do or don't believe in God! :P

I'd certainly like it to stay further away from schools and politics than it is right now.MindFreeze

Same here.

I'd certainly like it to stay further away from schools and politics than it is right now.MindFreeze

Do you think Churches should not be involved in political discussion at all?

[QUOTE="Red-XIII"]

Being an atheistic/agnostic

clicketyclick

Oh god, you're worse than an agnostic, who can't decide if they do or don't believe in God. You can't even decide whether you don't believe in God or can't decide if you do or don't believe in God! :P

Agnostic and gnostic are just terms in the realm of knowing. I agree that you can not know, therefore making me agnostic, but in the realm of believing,I'm atheist.

i think the main problem is the extremists on both sides. christians have the fundamentalists who somehow think a loving God hates people who dont believe a certain way and tries to convert people by condemning them and telling them they are bad people which in most cases is not so. and atheists have the so called intellectuals that think they know everything and always force science on christians as a means of disproving God, which in many cases is illogical.

Without these groups i think everyone would except each other better and live alot more harmonious. but thats not gonna happen so will just have to do our best

Agnostic and gnostic are just terms in the realm of knowing. I agree that you can not know, therefore making me agnostic, but in the realm of believing,I'm atheist.

MindFreeze

"I am an atheist, out and out. It took me a long time to say it. I've been an atheist for years and years, but somehow I felt it was intellectually unrespectable to say that one is an atheist, because it assumed knowledge that one didn't have. Somehow it was better to say one was a humanist or agnostic. I don't have the evidence to prove that God doesn't exist, but I so strongly suspect that he doesn't that I don't want to waste my time." — Isaac Asimov

One does not need to "know" something doesn't exist to rationally assert that it doesn't exist. You're an atheist. Agnosticism describes belief as well. Or rather, a lack of conviction in either direction.

One does not need to "know" something doesn't exist to rationally assert that it doesn't exist. You're an atheist. Agnosticism describes belief as well. Or rather, a lack of conviction in either direction.

clicketyclick

One doesn't need to know something exists in order to rationally assert that it exists.

"I believe in Christianity for the same reason I believe the sun has risen; not because I see it, but because by it I see everything else." C.S. Lewis.

[QUOTE="clicketyclick"]

One does not need to "know" something doesn't exist to rationally assert that it doesn't exist. You're an atheist. Agnosticism describes belief as well. Or rather, a lack of conviction in either direction.

Theokhoth

One doesn't need to know something exists in order to rationally assert that it exists.

"I believe in Christianity for the same reason I believe the sun has risen; not because I see it, but because by it I see everything else." C.S. Lewis.

i really like that quote by C.S. Lewis. have you read any of his stuff? ive read the screwtape letters and really liked it. i am going to read mere christianity once i get a chance after i finish my current book. i dont read much so it takes me a while

"I am an atheist, out and out. It took me a long time to say it. I've been an atheist for years and years, but somehow I felt it was intellectually unrespectable to say that one is an atheist, because it assumed knowledge that one didn't have. Somehow it was better to say one was a humanist or agnostic. I don't have the evidence to prove that God doesn't exist, but I so strongly suspect that he doesn't that I don't want to waste my time." - Isaac Asimov

One does not need to "know" something doesn't exist to rationally assert that it doesn't exist. You're an atheist. Agnosticism describes belief as well. Or rather, a lack of conviction in either direction.

clicketyclick

• An agnostic atheist is someone who does not admit to knowing whether or not a God or gods exist(s) but believes that one does not.
• A gnostic atheist is someone who does admit to knowing whether or not a God or gods exist(s) and believes that one does not.
• An agnostic theist is someone who does not admit to knowing whether or not a God or gods exist(s) but believes that one does.
• A gnostic theist is someone who does admit to knowing whether or not a God or gods exist(s) and believes that one does.

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"][QUOTE="clicketyclick"]

One does not need to "know" something doesn't exist to rationally assert that it doesn't exist. You're an atheist. Agnosticism describes belief as well. Or rather, a lack of conviction in either direction.

metaldude05

One doesn't need to know something exists in order to rationally assert that it exists.

"I believe in Christianity for the same reason I believe the sun has risen; not because I see it, but because by it I see everything else." C.S. Lewis.

i really like that quote by C.S. Lewis. have you read any of his stuff? ive read the screwtape letters and really liked it. i am going to read mere christianity once i get a chance after i finish my current book. i dont read much so it takes me a while

Are you kidding? I read his stuff all the time. He's a huge inspiration.

[QUOTE="clicketyclick"]

One does not need to "know" something doesn't exist to rationally assert that it doesn't exist. You're an atheist. Agnosticism describes belief as well. Or rather, a lack of conviction in either direction.

Theokhoth

One doesn't need to know something exists in order to rationally assert that it exists.

"I believe in Christianity for the same reason I believe the sun has risen; not because I see it, but because by it I see everything else." C.S. Lewis.

Lewis' argument is a bit Utilitarian and presents a rather dangerous criterion upon which to decide things exist.

Religion is not rational - it is not based on logic or reason. If you reasoned your way into religion (i.e. Pascal's Wager), it would lack the necessary qualities of Faith.

Religion is not rational - it is not based on logic or reason.

clicketyclick

:roll: Define logic and reason, then we'll identify the problem with that statement.

Agnosticism/gnosticism is the state of "knowing" something, not what you believe.

foxhound_fox

Agnostic: "A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God." (Oxford Dictionary)

Since it is impossible to empirically prove that a God or gods exists in our physical universe, one can *only* believe what they *think* they know.foxhound_fox

Do you only believe that leperchauns don't exist, or do you know they don't?

So long as they are correctly used against the person I'm quite happy at it as well. (often times they are not...) mindstorm

Don't worry, I'm not an ignoramus who trolls against Christians. I had to study the Bible in highschool so I use it respectfully.

The problem with atheism and theism are the polar extremes, such as Revinh or Deity_Slapper. I think the world would be a better place without both of them.

[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"]
Agnosticism/gnosticism is the state of "knowing" something, not what you believe.

clicketyclick

Agnostic: "A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God." (Oxford Dictionary)

Since it is impossible to empirically prove that a God or gods exists in our physical universe, one can *only* believe what they *think* they know.foxhound_fox

Do you only believe that leperchauns don't exist, or do you know they don't?

I don't believe in leprechauns for the same reason I do not believe in any deity, but I do not know for either.

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"][QUOTE="clicketyclick"]

One does not need to "know" something doesn't exist to rationally assert that it doesn't exist. You're an atheist. Agnosticism describes belief as well. Or rather, a lack of conviction in either direction.

clicketyclick

One doesn't need to know something exists in order to rationally assert that it exists.

"I believe in Christianity for the same reason I believe the sun has risen; not because I see it, but because by it I see everything else." C.S. Lewis.

Lewis' argument is a bit Utilitarian and presents a rather dangerous criterion upon which to decide things exist.

Religion is not rational - it is not based on logic or reason. If you reasoned your way into religion (i.e. Pascal's Wager), it would lack the necessary qualities of Faith.

everything unknown requires faith. so if you cant know something completely for sure then you have to have faith that what you believe is the truth. nothing is exempt including science which im assuming is what your asserting here.

[QUOTE="clicketyclick"]

[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"]

Since it is impossible to empirically prove that a God or gods exists in our physical universe, one can *only* believe what they *think* they know.MindFreeze

Do you only believe that leperchauns don't exist, or do you know they don't?

I don't believe in leprechauns for the same reason I do not believe in any deity, but I do not know for either.

Ah, but the problem arises: do you really know anything?

[QUOTE="clicketyclick"]

Religion is not rational - it is not based on logic or reason.

Theokhoth

:roll: Define logic and reason, then we'll identify the problem with that statement.

I think in the case of "miracles", they are handwaved as acts of God. Or when faith should take precedent over a sound explanation.

[QUOTE="MindFreeze"][QUOTE="clicketyclick"]

[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"]

Since it is impossible to empirically prove that a God or gods exists in our physical universe, one can *only* believe what they *think* they know.clicketyclick

Do you only believe that leperchauns don't exist, or do you know they don't?

I don't believe in leprechauns for the same reason I do not believe in any deity, but I do not know for either.

Ah, but the problem arises: do you really know anything?

I know if I walk into a wall it hurts.

Humans can know many things to a certain degree, why bother claiming to know past what we can sensibly acknowledge.

Agnostic: "A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God." (Oxford Dictionary)clicketyclick

Do you only believe that leperchauns don't exist, or do you know they don't?clicketyclick

I know if I walk into a wall it hurts.

MindFreeze

How do you know that?

I'm agnostic (almost an atheist but not quite) and I hope for a world free of the clutches of organized religion.

I have no problem with people believing in some kind of spiritual world, a soul, heck, even some form of higher power other than coincidence and some kind of afterlife. What I do have a problem with is a few people (ie the pope and all his minions of the church) getting immensely rich and having enormous influence and power over millions of people's ideas, morals, etc., by telling them God somehow sent them all the answers down from heaven in the form of a handy sacred book and everyone should do as they say because they hold the absolute and unquestionable truth of life.

You obviously misread what I wrote. People can admit to knowing something but they don't have to have a rational or empirical basis for claiming they know it.foxhound_fox

On another note, someone can admit to knowing something while having a rational (maybe even empirical) basis for knowing it but without having a demonstrable basis for knowing it.

So basically they know something to be true, but they can't demonstrate it.

[QUOTE="MindFreeze"]

I know if I walk into a wall it hurts.

clicketyclick

How do you know that?

Because I did and my head hurt.

[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"]
You obviously misread what I wrote. People can admit to knowing something but they don't have to have a rational or empirical basis for claiming they know it.Theokhoth

On another note, someone can admit to knowing something while having a rational (maybe even empirical) basis for knowing it but without having a demonstrable basis for knowing it.

So basically they know something to be true, but they can't demonstrate it.

So, in other words: "I have the evidence, but you have to believe in what I believe to see the evidence"? Umm yea that doesn't work too well.

[QUOTE="clicketyclick"][QUOTE="MindFreeze"]

I know if I walk into a wall it hurts.

MindFreeze

How do you know that?

Because I did and my head hurt.

Wait, seriously?

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"]
You obviously misread what I wrote. People can admit to knowing something but they don't have to have a rational or empirical basis for claiming they know it.MindFreeze

On another note, someone can admit to knowing something while having a rational (maybe even empirical) basis for knowing it but without having a demonstrable basis for knowing it.

So basically they know something to be true, but they can't demonstrate it.

So, in other words: "I have the evidence, but you have to believe in what I believe to see the evidence"? Umm yea that doesn't work too well.

No. More like "I saw evidence, but it is not within my ability to give you this evidence, so either take my word for it and maybe you'll see something too or don't and maybe you'll see something anyway."

Kinda like a witness to a murder trial who can't prove that he actually saw the murder, even if he truly did.