192 replies to this topic

[Hunter]

It is absurd to dismiss the theory of evolution since there is a huge amount of evidence to support it.



Also, something that makes me believe there is no God is the fact that, according to the bible, dinosaurs and Humans must have co existed. When it has been proven that they actually lived millions of years apart

[Chaos]

Perhaps or "god" is an alien race that created us as an experiment. I am not atheist, but I am agnostic. Until it is proven that there is a god I will stay on the fence.

[Ixchel]

Ehh. Agnostic leaning on athiest. I was raised in a half Catholic home, went to Catholic/Private school from preschool to 12th grade.
Both of my schools taught evolution with no mention of it conflicting with religion. I had no idea it was an issue until I found it on the internet.

I believed in a God unquestioningly until about the middle school grades I guess. The longer the Catholic environment went on, the more I began to lose faith. Too many inconsistencies, etc, and the god of the Bible is a jerk. If I were to be Catholic, I'd take the majority of the Bible as fabricated fairy tales used to teach morals. Such as the story of Job, creation, etc. I lost faith completely somewhere in my highschool years, but I still have that instilled guilt and fear.

Anyways, how did evolution come up as an issue? It doesn't go against the existence of a god in the slightest. Besides, you only have to look at species of bacteria and viruses to see that it happens. How do you think we keep getting new strains of germs after we vaccinate ourselves? Surely a god isn't just popping them into existence to troll us. Then again, it'd fit with his personality in the Bible. :/

[UnholyVision]

And at one point most the scientists said the earth was flat...

At one point people were killed for being eccentric or called a witch for practicing medicine. What is your point exactly? We all live and learn through the process of the irrelevant thing we call time.

All I can say is that it takes faith to believe in God, but it also takes faith to believe in atheism as you also have no way of proving it... so to claim it as "scientific" is absurd

Atheism is not a religion to follow with a belief system. There is no book to do, say, or whatever. You just go by the laws of the universe of what really happens through a form of trail and error for the most and sort of make since of things with mathematics & the possibilities that can happen within said laws of physics. As far as science goes no one can just make any kind of new entry into the history of science and say, "This is what happened" without some basis of fact. Meaning it is in no way similar to a religion where one can say, "This is how it works in my eyes" to make it an entry in a book to be considered a fact. Surely, you do not take truth in everything each Christian bible says do you? A Jehovah Witness believe birthdays and Christmas should not be celebrated & they actually follow the ten commandments and to not weird worship and idol, carve image, et cetera with the crosses & Jesus crosses. Baptist believe in the whole dunking of the head under water to be saved. Methodists (If i am remembering correctly) are the ones who believe you need a password to get into heaven. See my point? Now in no way is science perfect, but at least it is not based on some form of fact to not be later tested. Heck a few of Einstein's theories were not proven until the technology was out there to even test said theories. (We live, we learn, slowly evolve, and prosper down the course of what we consider time).

Perhaps or "god" is an alien race that created us as an experiment. I am not atheist, but I am agnostic. Until it is proven that there is a god I will stay on the fence.

Perhaps we are just a simulation game running on someones computer. Perhaps we are this or that. Somethings we may never know. As there is so many possibilities and so many different rules in terms of planets, space, black wholes, dimensions, and what ever else we have not discovered. (There are just so many countless things to understand). Personally, I think religions will always be there most likely and they will only become more complex and/or absurd to sort of try to explain things based of what little science is considered acceptable under said rule sets. Sort of how some branches of Christian religions have come to terms of believing in evolution while others still dispute it as it was the garden that started it all. While we will continue to have people whom do not carry a belief system. (My overall point is basically, you great great great great grand children may even still be waiting for this answer)

Anyways, how did evolution come up as an issue? It doesn't go against the existence of a god in the slightest.

In terms of the Garden of Eden it does. Be it that God made man directly from a star dust and then ripped a rib out of Adam to make Eve. http://en.wikipedia....ki/Adam_and_Eve

Edit: For the related topic, I am atheist FYI.

Edited by UnholyVision, 12 December 2012 - 12:00 PM.

[Nollog]

Some atheists are down right assholes.
The ones that treat it as a status symbol, and try to convert everyone and belittle those who believe in a deity.

The others are fine people.

[UnholyVision]

Some atheists are down right assholes.
The ones that treat it as a status symbol, and try to convert everyone and belittle those who believe in a deity.

That would be called Antitheism and not related to just to just atheist. You can be agnostic and be all anti-theist in claims of all religions are bollocks and overall belittle anyone whom believes in so and so. Heck you can be Christian and be anti-theist to talk down to another form of theism. Your basically taking your aggressions out on one group that is not particularly the main cause of that.

Atheism is not a religion so there is no means of converting in the terms of say a religion. Though as far as this goes you can say it is a two way street. You have this group saying your wrong to pull you into this or that group trying to pull you into that. There is always someone to try and play missionary per se.

[Noonabites]

That would be called Antitheism and not related to just to just atheist. You can be agnostic and be all anti-theist in claims of all religions are bollocks and overall belittle anyone whom believes in so and so. Heck you can be Christian and be anti-theist to talk down to another form of theism. Your basically taking your aggressions out on one group that is not particularly the main cause of that.

Atheism is not a religion so there is no means of converting in the terms of say a religion. Though as far as this goes you can say it is a two way street. You have this group saying your wrong to pull you into this or that group trying to pull you into that. There is always someone to try and play missionary per se.

The definition of conversion is more than moving from one belief to another, it can mean bring one party over to another, to cross different view points.. logical conversion.

In a sense, yes, every belief (or non believer) can be an softshell lizard, but this includes atheist as well. As a Christian, they are the ones I usually have to attempt ignore the most (when being rude, of course).

To run this topic on course, when I was atheist, it was due to Leviticus, and then started to spread after studying Buddhism.. I found I had a harder time explaining to my family, above all, what my views were and why... and it was part in due to the fact that if I didn't understand their views at that very moment, I was at fault and "going to hell", when in actually, everyone needs time to think and decide for themselves and forcing any view will only fuel them to deny it more. Just a thought.

Edited by Noonabites, 12 December 2012 - 12:46 PM.

[PedanticGamer]

I have no way of proving scientifically that there is a God... but responding to everything I say with "well you dont have an answer either" just shows you have no clue what so ever about what your talking about...

All I can say is that it takes faith to believe in God, but it also takes faith to believe in atheism as you also have no way of proving it... so to claim it as "scientific" is absurd

I responded to one point you made with the fact that you or anyone else doesn't have an answer regarding the origins of the universe, as you questioned another about not giving answers yet provided only questions yourself. My point is the only answers religions has is faith, that is it.As for the earth being flat that is a good point and actually shows how knowledge is always being improved (and how ridiculous it is to believe that some men tending animals thousands of years ago know more about the origins of the world etc then we do), so when science moved on and discovered truth which at this point is based on an overwhelming amount of evidence in areas such as evolution, most major religions have not.

Faith requires the suspension of critical thinking as it requires you to simply believe. Not believing in god by definition does not require faith, in fact it actually can't involve faith as faith specifically is a belief in a god or gods or the belief in the doctrine of a religion.


I know your just trying to stir controversy but when you saying things like "being an atheist requires faith", you are just being absurd (to put it nicely).

Edited by PedanticGamer, 12 December 2012 - 01:10 PM.

[UnholyVision]

The definition of conversion is more than moving from one belief to another, it can mean bring one party over to another, to cross different view points.. logical conversion.

In a sense, yes, every belief (or non believer) can be an softshell lizard, but this includes atheist as well. As a Christian, they are the ones I usually have to attempt ignore the most (when being rude, of course).

Yes, I know, but I was just saying the converting in theory is not the exact same as a religion. Being as your not converting on party from one religion to another in a form of belief. I will say I may have not conveyed what I was proclaiming very clear, but still. (shrugs Edit: I sort of was going from the Mitch guy to him and possibly reading it wrongly. Yet some people think to believe in nothing is a religious belief itself as if it required some kind of practice. Which is absurd).

Really? Atheist can be assholes? No, I never would have guessed. Again not the point of what I was saying. He was stating atheist up front and I just was adding that it was not just atheist that can be anti-theist. Everyone can be anti-theist to dispute others & belittle a non-belief. How is that not understandable? (Kind of confused why your emphasizing on this is all. Also, how it reads may sound badgering I suppose. Yet it was intended in a sort of sarcastic way).

Edited by UnholyVision, 12 December 2012 - 01:24 PM.

[chainmychomp]

the god of the Bible is a jerk.

Why would god be nice?

[Xiombarg]

I will state again that I like to classify myself as an aptheist/apathetic or a weak atheist. The questions of how the universe truly work don't matter to me, I don't care if there is or isn't god or afterlife, nor should it affect the way I live.
I like to make this distinction, because I like to separate myself from the stereotype of the atheist jerk. I already been in that world and with those people, and it isn't pleasant. I don't get along with strong atheists or strong theists.

So this is what I found:

"God exists in more than one dimension of time. Things that exist in one dimension of time are restricted to time's arrow and are confined to cause and effect. However, two dimensions of time form a plane of time, which has no beginning and no end and is not restricted to any single direction. A being that exists in at least two dimensions of time can travel anywhere in time and yet never had a beginning, since a plane of time has no starting point. Either interpretation leads one to the conclusion that God has no need of having been created."

And if that were the case it seems like its a suitable counter argument that would answer what you posted

It somewhat covers the idea, but brings up some issues with the planes of time and other possible planes and god, and etc... Because you are now arguing with something you found, it is more so trivial or pointless unless you really want to pursue the nature of a being no one is supposed to understand. The idea that a god exists outside of time and space is still rather unreasonable.
There is one point that a western philosopher made, that god experiences time differently than humans. This theory is much more...reasonable when trying to make a point for your god without moving into the realm of abstracts and pure conjecture. While we experience it in its longevity, he experiences in a blink of an eye (or something of the sort), and is therefore able to be all knowing yet also able to grant free will.

[Mitch]

At one point people were killed for being eccentric or called a witch for practicing medicine. What is your point exactly? We all live and learn through the process of the irrelevant thing we call time.

My point was just because a scientist claims it doesn't make it a truth

I responded to one point you made with the fact that you or anyone else doesn't have an answer regarding the origins of the universe, as you questioned another about not giving answers yet provided only questions yourself..

Him (and the rest of you) not giving answers and me not giving answers are completely different, Ive said I cant prove God scientifically so I would have no possible way of giving you answers that will ever satisfy you, but for you people to claim what you say as scientific and then not actually have all the facts to actually prove it just goes completely against itself, all I would like is a straight answer; not one that is "well you dont have any facts either"

It somewhat covers the idea, but brings up some issues with the planes of time and other possible planes and god, and etc... Because you are now arguing with something you found, it is more so trivial or pointless unless you really want to pursue the nature of a being no one is supposed to understand. The idea that a god exists outside of time and space is still rather unreasonable.
There is one point that a western philosopher made, that god experiences time differently than humans. This theory is much more...reasonable when trying to make a point for your god without moving into the realm of abstracts and pure conjecture. While we experience it in its longevity, he experiences in a blink of an eye (or something of the sort), and is therefore able to be all knowing yet also able to grant free will.

I am no theologist, nor have I ever claimed to be one, and no matter how much I look into the topic of the matter of these questions I will never find an answer that doesnt pose more questions.


Other than the one thats not "scientific" at all and simply believing there is a God who can exist simply because he is God, and the fact that he is God would mean these laws dont apply to him

Edited by Mitch13pavel, 12 December 2012 - 02:30 PM.

[Dark Link]

A former Christian, now an Atheist. I no longer agree with the Bible and what it says as truth when the majority of it makes no sense whatsoever (the contents in the Bible is sourced from third-hand information where much of the original is completely lost). I take what I've learned from science and evolution over anything from a leather-covered book held by holy men behind a wooden pulpit. The god of the Bible also appears to me as capricious, angry, hateful, jealous, and deadly yet people tell me he is peaceful and kind. This post is perfectly frank and isn't to offend the Christians on this forum as I respect anyone that believes in Christianity, but this guy isn't one of them...at least not anymore.

[Elric]

-religion is only useful to separate people from each other, instead of bringing them together, which is something god would supposedly want

I disagree with this statement to an extent. Religion does tend to split people apart. I think that religion only separates people when people are un-willing to be open-minded and be respectful of what someone believes. Think about it, would people be separated if people just respected other peoples beliefs? As a semi-christian myself, I would say that God doesn't want separation. I think that if anything a loving God would want people to get along, even if they have a difference in beliefs. My family has several different views on religion. My brother is atheist and tends to look at life more philosophically, to be the best person you can possibly be and it will pay off eventually. My Dad is Catholic, and i'm honestly not quite sure what religious views my Mom has. My family is not split apart though just because we have different religious views. I believe that religion is useful for other things, not just splitting people apart. I think for many religious people it gives them hope in their times of darkness. We live in a dark world, with tons of violence and other unpleasant things. Sometimes unfortunate things happen to us. I think people who have a religion, helps them get through hard times by praying to their god. I think that it gives them hope when they are suffering through something. I don't know that much about other religions as much as much as I know about Christianity, but basically Christians pray to god in their times of darkness, because it is described that even in the pitch black god can act as light.

Edited by Elric, 12 December 2012 - 04:00 PM.

[Hari]

in my atheist opinion is just not the bible, is all the relligions that exist. I find it not logic that there are people with other religions and they each think they are the true one and since we know why they are not true we do not apply that to ourselves. also they make no sense and it has been proven that they are wrong with all the advance in science we have gotten we wont need to invent for answers. i believe we will never understand exactly how things were originated because is mega far more complicated than our brain, because our brain is just nothing compared to these mysterious questions of sience.
I used to "belive" in god because i was affraid may be he existed, but i never really completely though he existed, even if they told me to love him I couldnt love him because i cant love nothing, i never felt him like a presence and sometimes i thought as if he didnt existed and it was still the same. I lost "faith" in him like in middle-school and it was a pretty good decision for me. Since I live in the very catholic Mexico atheists are not seen like normal people lol. I have a friend in school who people knew he was an atheist and we make fun of him like if he is the son of satan lol (not bullying, just cool jokes)

[UnholyVision]

My point was just because a scientist claims it doesn't make it a truth

Yes, just because they say something is true does not mean it is, but a scientist is working in a manner to prove something with fact. Once it is out there others review their work and try to dismiss it or prove it within the understanding, technology, and et cetera which is given to them at the time. These tests are done multiple times to find out if the same thing happens every time. If it does not you can not prove it is a fact. Do you not agree that gravity is real when you can test it to see the same occurrence every time? Really no one other than people following religion are just going off of something someone claims without any facts to back it up. After all the translations, the revisions (for other branches of the religion), people in power burning original scriptures and/or destroying some of the original branches of Christianity, and religions being created and written by man for reasons of power (Many idol like gods such as snakes or et cetera), how can you say without a doubt it is correct when it can not be proven? (Yes people could write something incorrect in science books, but if it is not proven in a test of trails and errors it is not held as a overall true fact. It is no more than a theory based upon factual logic that has proven to be true through a series of testing. That you yourself could do if you had the equipment. While once the so called theories are able to be tested you can learn and grow to find out if it is one-hundred accurate. If not go back to the drawling board with your true facts, make a theory based of those facts, and test it is possible).

I disagree with this statement to an extent. Religion does tend to split people apart. I think that religion only separates people when people are un-willing to be open-minded and be respectful of what someone believes. Think about it, would people be separated if people just respected other peoples beliefs? As a semi-christian myself, I would say that God doesn't want separation. I think that if anything a loving God would want people to get along, even if they have a difference in beliefs. My family has several different views on religion.

Well I beg to differ because in the Mormon Bibles you have stuff like this. (Edit: I know I am a little clip noting you, but yeah)

"And [the Lord] had caused the cursing to come upon [the Lamanites], yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto [the Nephites] the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them."

And thus saith the Lord God: I will cause that they shall be loathsome unto thy people, save they shall repent of their iniquities.
And cursed shall be the seed of him that mixeth with their seed; for they shall be cursed even with the same cursing. And the Lord spake it, and it was done. (2 Nephi 5:21-23)

Seems to me god is trying to split the people and cause a form of racist movement if you ask me. Not to mention how the old and new testaments talk about slaves (more so the old).

However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)

If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years. Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom. If he was single when he became your slave and then married afterward, only he will go free in the seventh year. But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife will be freed with him. If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master. But the slave may plainly declare, 'I love my master, my wife, and my children. I would rather not go free.' If he does this, his master must present him before God. Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl. After that, the slave will belong to his master forever. (Exodus 21:2-6 NLT)

When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)

Yeah, not to friendly if you ask me and out to sort of split up people. Not trying to sound rude to Christians (Because they did dub down God to sound a little more friendly in the new testament) though God really is a prick when it comes down to it.

Edited by UnholyVision, 12 December 2012 - 05:54 PM.

[Xiombarg]

Well I beg to differ because in the Mormon Bibles you have stuff like this.

Seems to me god is trying to split the people and cause a form of racist movement if you ask me. Not to mention how the old and new testaments talk about slaves (more so the old).


Yeah, not to friendly if you ask me and out to sort of split up people.

I disagree with this statement to an extent. Religion does tend to split people apart. I think that religion only separates people when people are un-willing to be open-minded and be respectful of what someone believes. Think about it, would people be separated if people just respected other peoples beliefs?

[UnholyVision]

Think about it, would people be separated if people just respected other peoples beliefs?

Your are kind of missing the overall point of it all Mournblade. This quote alone is impossible. Yes, but in order to follow a religion you have to believe in said documentation if you're a true follower. How can a person that has dark skin respect a Mormon if that is what they believe? Would you respect someone whom wants to treat you as if you were evil, a charity case (In terms of trying to save you), or something to sort of avoid?
(Also, for the record that red text is just bleeh Edit: OP of the red that is).

Edited by UnholyVision, 12 December 2012 - 06:28 PM.

[SoldMyWiiUAndLeftTheForums]

Don't belive in God and I never will.

[Xiombarg]

Your are kind of missing the overall point of it all Mournblade. This quote alone is impossible. Yes, but in order to follow a religion you have to believe in said documentation if you're a true follower. How can a person that has dark skin respect a Mormon if that is what they believe? Would you respect someone whom wants to treat you as if you were evil, a charity case (In terms of trying to save you), or something to sort of avoid?

How is it impossible when I have met people who do follow religion and yet have respect for others. A book doesn't speak for your religion and neither does a church. The concept of a true believer is impossible and is typically not used by the person themselves. The concept of a true believer is either used by someone who is essentially inane enough to make that statement or used by another person/3rd party to describe a person.
I am an atheist, but I am also a subjectivist, so I cannot comprehend why you refer to true followers when it is impossible. There can be no true followers because of the age, translations, chruch, different people, etc...