General Question

shayadave's avatar

Are you an atheist?

Asked by shayadave (28points) April 2nd, 2008 from iPhone
Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

121 Answers

jrpowell's avatar

Agnostic. It is an answer we can’t know until it is to late.

scubydoo's avatar

Im not but I know someone who claims to be one.. does that count?

delirium's avatar

Yes, and damn proud of it.

joeysefika's avatar

No, But i am a Realist.. Basically i dont deny the thought of God but im not going to believe it until i see it.

Trustinglife's avatar

I’m so curious then, y’all: do you think there’s something bigger than us out there? Do you ever find yourself talking out loud to “nothing at all”?

Have you ever been in a crisis or hit rock bottom? You think there is nothing to support us in thosetimes?

shayadave's avatar

I just don’t understand why some people who have a belief in a god are not open minded and as respectfull as people who don’t have any beliefs in any gods period. if that makes any sense.

delirium's avatar

I don’t believe in any magical sort of force ‘out there’. I don’t talk out loud to nothing at all. I’ve been in crises and have hit rock bottom. Humanity helps. The idea of god is for people who need that crutch. I don’t. I’ve moved beyond it. Humanism is my safety net.

shayadave's avatar

well I like to think alot, maybe its a problem for some people, but I think that our universe is so young relative to time in a sense way beyond most peoples imagination that we are just a speck in the scheme of life out there.

what if we (planet earth) in other worlds perspectives is comparable in size to a spec of sand or vice versa?


Randy's avatar

I believe in God. I DO NOT see it as a crutch. I dont see how the universe, the world and we as people just happened. I’d like to think there is something out there in control. I dont go around trying to force someone into my beliefs. I think we should believe what we want.

ishotthesheriff's avatar

I am not an Atheist.
I don’t know what kind of “name” or “title” to give myself, and I’m completely fine with that.
I believe there is an amazing G-d, but I don’t believe in these “Christians” or how they live their lives, nor the folks that like to say “I left Christianity to follow Christ” b/c most of them, well. . . don’t. cliche, but, Ghandi said it perfectly.
like Randy said, He is not a crutch.
People try and sell their beliefs like an “AS SEEN ON TV” product, when that is not G-d or what He clearly asks for.
without getting into anything more (even though I haven’t really explained myself at all, but that wasn’t the point of this question). .
bottom line-
I think too many people give up their minds to a bunch of words in a book and some image they make up in their heads.
If you truly believe in G-d, then get it through your head that He gave you a brain to think. and to use. I don’t understand why people are afraid to think, why would G-d be afraid to answer any questions you have? or any doubts you encounter?
further more, no one exhibits any love or open-minds to others, just like Jesus supposedly did. Nothing angers me more than someone lashing out or even having horrible thoughts towards an atheist or someone with different beliefs or sexual preference.

end rant.

Upward's avatar

If there is an almighty power, it isn’t likley to be into blood sacrifices or even need homage from us in any way.

Foolaholic's avatar

I guess I am. I mean, I believe that there is a higher power governing us, but not in the way that Christians visualize “God”...

mzgator's avatar

No, I am a Christian. I believe deep in my heart in God, and that Jesus died on the Cross to save my soul.

It seems that this is an unpopular answer to this post, but it is what I believe.

TheDeadWake's avatar

You are correct, he doesn’t NEED anything from us, he is God and he is completely sufficient unto himself. However he created us out of love, and wanted to share his majesty and power with us, all he asked for in return was our love and worship. Then Adam and Eve screwed things up and we were separated from him and now only able to join back through Jesus Christ.

I also don’t believe him to be a crutch, at least not for me because being a Christian is a harder lifestyle (for the ones who do it correctly) especially for those who live in countries who don’t allow Christianity and punish people who claim it.

I do believe in God.
I hope this doesn’t sound preachy.

ishotthesheriff's avatar

I appreciate and, for the most part, agree with both your responses, mzgator and TheDeadWake. thought I’d say so. . .
kudos. too many people don’t speak up!

glial's avatar

I’m with mzgator. It may be unpopular to be Christian here, but non-believers are really a very small minority.

shayadave's avatar

Jesus Christ is just one out of many “Gods”, what about the other gods? Are there Jesus clones?

Theres more concrete evidence that tells us otherwise. Evolution, Big Bang that tell us where life came from.

klaas4's avatar

Fact: You’ll find out if he exists, sooner or later.

ishotthesheriff's avatar

Jesus was the only one that rose from the dead.

my viewpoint.

shayadave's avatar

@klaas4: Yes. and scientist’s are very close to proving there theories.

glial's avatar

We believe that there is only one God.

Shayadave, you are aware of Christ and you have made your decision. If that is what you are comfortable with then why raise the question at all?

It takes more faith to be Atheist than Christian.

As far as proof, scientists are not going to prove the existence. No more than they can prove the existence of love or what water tastes like.

shayadave's avatar

David Blaine rose from the dead too.

glial's avatar

Well, i guess if you are ever in a life and death situation you can pray to David Blaine.

TheDeadWake's avatar

@ shayadave, that’s if you choose to believe in the big bang theory or the like.

God wants our reverence, love, and worship, but not if it is forced. If God proves himself beyond any doubt then we are forced to worship him and as such we would not be genuine.

shayadave's avatar

@glial: The question was asked because its a great question to ask. not a question specifically for me. but for those who are interested in an open discussion like were having now.

see the thing is, is that because there is no “Set in stone” factual evidence of 1 single “God” we are openly discussing these topics.

Original Question; Are you an Atheist?

glial's avatar

Yes, and it has only been discussed here a dozen or more times.

Vincentt's avatar

I’m religious, but I’m not bound to a specific religion. The Bible, in the end, was written down by man, and, how do they say that, “the flesh is weak”?

My religion is about what I feel, and I feel there is something more out there. Not sure if it’s a personal God or something, but it’s there. To me.

sndfreQ's avatar


We can connect to the ‘force’ of life and the universe through Love. All the other stuff is respected but IMO not needed for me to appreciate life.

“All you need is Love” is a pretty perfect axiom for me.

syz's avatar

I am a confirmed atheist. Science is my god.

I don’t believe that there is any special sanctity about human life – we are merely highly evolved animals. I don’t believe in life after death – I think we just rot. I believe that religion was created by man as a method to deal with the sociological issues of becoming an agrarian and social society.

I am not anti-Christian. It is those professed Christians who do not live by what they preach that I object to. I do find some forms of religion evil – those that say you can’t get into heaven(or attend our church) because you don’t believe exactly what I say, you can’t be saved if you’re a different color, a different ethnicity, a different sexual orientation, a different social class ( it happens ), those that amass wealth for thier own benefit under the pretense of doing “God’s work”.

I say, instead of harassing me (ringing my doorbell at 8am on a Saturday and then insisting that I talk to you), influence me by your actions. If I saw real change being enacted by those who were living out their beliefs, I might be more open minded.

TheDeadWake's avatar

@ syz I am a Christian and I agree with your last two paragraphs. Especially the ringing of the doorbell at 8am part.

Breefield's avatar

I’m Agnostic, and due to delirium, a Humanist as well.
I view all religions as either one crutch or another.
It’s like the placebo effect, if the belief feels good, regardless of it’s truth, then most people would probably live in an untrue good feeling world than a true less good feeling world.

The main reason I became Agnostic is the realization that I can’t live a life based on faith, it’s like believing in a sacrificial santa clause until you die.

syz's avatar

@ TheDeadWake. Thanks. I went with my partner recently to help her buy a new car (her first new car in ten years and an economy model) and met a preacher there. He was trading in his car – it was a seriously pimped out Cadillac ( all of the guys working at the car dealership had to walk over and check it out, it was that flashy), and he was trading up. It bugged me: do pastors and preachers have to take a vow of poverty? Of course not. But as a man of God and someone who is supposed to lead his flock, what message did that car send? It is sour grapes (and envy) because he has more money than I? No. But it did seriously bug me. The same way that the Bakers having real gold fixtures in their dogs’ house bugged me.

cornman's avatar

@delirium. How can you even associate with so many of us here that are so far below you. Wouldn’t it be a wonderful world if we could all be cured, lose our crutches and only count on humanity as our diety.

Cardinal's avatar

@glial @Randy @mzgator Right on people, I’m with you.

@delirium (Wiki: Humanism is a broad category of ethical philosophies that affirm the dignity and worth of all people, based on the ability to determine right and wrong by appeal to universal human qualities — particularly rationality). This seem to be in very short supply as you look around our world!

TheDeadWake's avatar

@ syz
That’s sad, especially the gold fixtures in the dog house, when there are people in this world that are hungry and dying.

Unfortunately man still screws things up, but thankfully God still forgives even though the aforementioned people take advantage.

TheHaight's avatar

I believe in God.
As delirium says, “the idea of God Is for people who need that crutch” and I completely disagree. I believe in him because I want too and choose too not because of “the placebo effect”(what breefield says, which I think is ridiculous!) I am very interested in other religions and beliefs, and look into them all the time. The world is too big to be so closeminded, to “force” your beliefs Down peoples throats, and to be so serious all the time. We should try to be more open with others beliefs (yet love yours), live
more of a free life, and just relax! Like what someone said above, we will find out sooner than we think because life goes by way to fast!

TheHaight's avatar

it won’t let me edit again, so I was going to say i believe in him/ or her. I’d like to think Gods a her… That’d be cool.

gorillapaws's avatar

Are there Atheist missionaries—as in atheists who actively try to convert people into believing God doesn’t exist? It would be entertaining to see that go down at 8am in a Christian neighborhood.

To address the question, I truly don’t know. I was raised Christian, studied philosophy and religion, and broadened my mind. Of the many religions that I have studied, much of the new testament seemed to make the most sense (I also like the original doctrines of Sikhism before it evolved into what it is today). I think if God does exist, he/she/it would probably be the kind/loving/nice God of the new testament and not so much of the jealous, vengeful, and grouchy one of the old. I mean jealousy is such a pathetic human trait, I have a hard time believing that the supreme force in the universe would really get jealous if I choose to worship my toaster.

I certainly don’t think the bible is flawless/perfect/God’s word, but should be read more in terms of the overall messages that come out of it. Even if the entire book turns out to be complete fiction, living your life according to the golden rule and doing your best to help others is still a nice way to spend your time on this rock called earth. So I agree with many of you guys in that people should be tolerant and respectful of other’s beliefs, that “converting” others is the source of most of the worlds problems, and that if people were more understanding of each other, we’d all be better off.

Not sure what that makes me, I think I need to live more before I can make that decision.

bulbatron9's avatar

I believe in God! Better safe, than sorry!

ishotthesheriff's avatar

@ bulbatron, like it’s been said a few times in this thread, G-d is not meant to be a crutch.
“better safe than sorry” is one of biggest signs (to me) of a weak faith.

not implying you have the said, but just saying. . .

El_Cadejo's avatar

@bulbatron9 LOL at obvious example of Pascal’s Wager

Im much more fond of the Atheist Wager.
“You should live your life and try to make the world a better place for your being in it, whether or not you believe in God. If there is no God, you have lost nothing and will be remembered fondly by those you left behind. If there is a benevolent God, he may judge you on your merits coupled with your commitments, and not just on whether or not you believed in him.”

TheHaight's avatar

@ uberbatman
I really like that quote.

TheDeadWake's avatar

God doesn’t want faith in him by default. As I mentioned before he wants a genuine faith.

Note: I’m not trying to say I know what God wants, no one can claim that. If someone claims to know how God works they are limiting him to the confines of the human mind which he is bigger than seeing as how he created it.

eklamor's avatar

I know that God the father lives and that his Son Jesus Christ atoned for my sins. I know He lives.

scamp's avatar

I am a Christian. The only “crutch” I need is the pair given to me by the hospital when I had my knee surgery. I find it interesting that people have often asked me to prove there is a God, when they cannot prove to me he does not exist.

Another thing I would like to bring up is how we form our beliefs. People have touted the bible as just another fairy tale, or a book written by man. They say I have been brainwashed by some fat preacher behind a pulpit. I’d like to ask how these people came to the conclusions they have. I’ve seen so many posts on this subject, and many links were posted to try and disprove what I believe in. But where did they come from? Also in books written by men. So before someone accuses me of ‘buying into a lie”, ask yourself this: How do you know what you are being taught is not in fact untrue? Did you test out these things for yourself, as in personally dig up a dinosaur and carbon test the bones or did you choose to believe what you read about it in a book? Check the copyrights in these books. How old are they? These are fairly new and constantly changing ideas. Mine has lasted over 2000 years.

I don’t get angry with someone for not believing the same way I do. And I don’t try to tell people I am right. I do what is right for me. I am willing to talk about my faith with someone who really wants to know, but I am not the type of person to ram my beliefs down another’s throat. I prefer to be a quiet example.

It astounds me how offended people become on both sides of this fence. I am far from the perfect example of what a Christian “should be”, but I am still not a finished project, and I am glad my maker has a forgiving nature. When the holes in the human safety net let me down, I am thankful I have a caring God to catch me. So believe what you will, it’s fine with me. I won’t insult you if it’s different than what I believe, but for your sake I hope you’ve made the right choice.

Maverick's avatar

So, to answer Scamp, the reason we know to believe some things over others is that some things stand up to scrutiny under the Scientific Method and others do not.

KimboSlice's avatar

why would it matter if G-d exists or not. Religion was never about facts and never will be. To many people get caught up in facts, what it is truly about is faith. Religion unites us together as one regardless of truth.

Edit: pretty much what gorillapaws said

mzgator's avatar

My faith in God and my choice to be a Christian are my own personal beliefs. I have searched my own heart and found what I chose to believe.

I would never judge anyone for their belief in whatever they choose. I am only a human woman. It is my personal belief that God will do the judging for those who do not believe.

I will be friends with anyone. I will try to treat everyone with respect, regardless of their belief. As I said, I will never judge anyone. I will just continue to live my life being a good wife, friend, mother and example for my daughter. That is all any of us can do…whether you choose to believe in God or not.

Let us all just be kind and respectful of each other. We are all different, and that is how God made us.

scamp's avatar

@Maverick Ah, but how do we really know what has stood up to scrutiny if we haven’t tested for ourselves? Are we taking someone’s word for it because we read it in a book? Or have we had a personal experience? This is great food for thought.

nikipedia's avatar

@scamp: I personally am comfortable believing things I read in textbooks, because almost every time I have had the opportunity to test something that was stated in a textbook, the textbook has been correct. As a scientist, I have had many opportunities to test things empirically. And most of the time when a textbook has been incorrect, it’s been incorrect about a minor feature rather than a theory as a whole.

So you are correct in pointing out that I have not tested everything I’ve learned from a professor’s lecture or a textbook. But the high success rate of the things I have tested leads me to believe that the rest of the things they tell me are very likely true.

Also, most scientists will readily admit that most things in science are theory, conjecture, hypothesis, or a work in progress. Any scientist who insists to you that everything science says is absolutely true is not much of a scientist!

gorillapaws's avatar

@ scamp, it’s call epistemology, the study of what knowledge is and how we come to know it. There are varying degrees of “proof” that are required for us to consider a belief to be true depending on which epistemic theory you follow. I do think that belief that the Bible is 100% true, the word of God, etc. is a very different kind of belief than believing that my textbook is accurate. Trying to use an argument from analogy as you’ve done here won’t work simply because the things you are comparing aren’t similar enough for your argument to be sound.

I don’t want to hijack the thread here, but since you brought that up, I thought I’d comment on your fallacious logic.

scamp's avatar

@nikipedia Thank you for your input. I am glad to know that there are people who truly know why they believe what they do.

@gorillapaws Thanks to you as well for helping me expand my vocabulary. But what I said was not necessarily an argument. And I don’t think it is fallacious logic because I wasn’t trying to deceive or convince anyone of anything. I was merely putting those questions out there because wanted to know the answer to them.

nikipedia's avatar

@gorillapaws: How are atheism and theism (or textbooks and the Bible) too dissimilar to compare?

El_Cadejo's avatar

@scamp as a couple other people already stated, this really is the beauty of science. The fact that anything that is accepted as fact can be repeated time and time again by anyone and say i run the experiment myself and find some crazy new results and am able to replicate them it may change our understanding of a certain thing. See that to me is what makes science so much more amazing and believable than what the bible holds. It is ever changing and literlly evolving with us to show what we as a people understand about this world we live in. I cant be sure that everything i know right now is true, but i can tell you that if someone shows another way to do the same old experiment it will be considered.

I really don’t think standing the test of time is necessarily a good thing. We as humans have changed a lot in the past 2000 years and learned much much more about the world and the universe we live in. To me the bible is just another out dated book to explain the things we just didnt know at the time it was written.

TheDeadWake's avatar

@uberbatman and nikipedia
Thanks for admitting that science is not an absolute. I always hear people speaking of scientific fact, and proving God does not exist because there is no proof. I have always believed that science is ever widening and changing, therefore a belief solely in science is a faith unto itself. For me the fact that there is a constant influx of new scientific discoveries is proof that God is real, and that he is really creative. To say that science and our ideas of things are constantly changing and the Bible and God are stoic and antiquated is false. The universe is stoic as well, it just waits for us to discover what’s around the next corner, what tidbit of info, or what new cog changes the way we see things, while the mechanism in place has not changed at all. As far as God goes, I believe him to exsist outside of mankind’s time but he does reach in at points to guide us (example: Jesus Christ.) So it’s not that he changes or doesn’t change, but instead he IS. He has no beginning, he has no end, he is not bound by time, he IS.

nikipedia's avatar

@TheDeadWake: No sweat. I think any good scientist would do it too. I do want to ask you about a couple things you said though. I’m going to paraphrase here, so let me know if I’m misrepresenting you.

You state that science is changing, therefore belief in it requires faith. I don’t really see how you can make that conclusion. What is the connection between something changing and faith?

Second, how do new ideas prove that God is real? I just don’t really see the connection between those two statements.

TheDeadWake's avatar

For the first question, I say that for those who fully rely on science as a belief system. People who say that they don’t believe in God because there is no proof when in fact there is no “proof” that what we know scientifically is 100% correct either. You can believe in science (or have faith in it) with or without it being your faith. I hope that answers the question.

As far as the second question goes, I was speaking of my personal belief that “all this” could not exist without God, because there must be (to me) something bigger than “all this” that put here for us to enjoy and marvel at it’s complexity. That is how I find joy in my faith.

TheDeadWake's avatar

P.S. I meant to say our perception of science is always changing just as our (or at least my) perception of God is always changing.

Also, thank you for being respectful and inquisitive.

TheDeadWake's avatar

Sorry, I was having trouble with my verbage on the first question, but basically what I think is that those who trust or have faith in science and use it to refute God’s existence are doing so on a faith that what they know is absolutely true and unchanging, while instead our view of science is constantly changing. Therefore they must have faith that there will never be a proof of God, which come the end of time (according to Christians [including myself]) will occur.

gorillapaws's avatar

@ nikipedia, Atheism and Theism are fine to do comparisons, but the Bible and textbooks are two very different sources of knowledge. Information in textbooks is peer-reviewed (by a large and diverse group) and constantly being challenged, updated and revised to reflect improved understanding. Things that aren’t well known are claimed as such and so people reading them are able to interpret that information accordingly. Also many textbooks contain a priori knowledge such as math and logic books so that’s also a major difference.

The Bible is very different. Many of the claims in the Bible contradict people’s experiences with the world (i.e. seas parting, turning water into wine, etc.). There were also other accounts of things by some of the disciples that were excluded from the Bible (i.e. the gnostic gospels) by whoever it was that made that call (I’m still a little unclear about how all that went down). So one can see why you could doubt the “facts” of the Bible and still accept the “facts” of textbooks and not have a contradiction in your logic.

I’m not saying that there’s anything wrong with believing in the Bible, just that argument by analogy doesn’t really hold up in this case.

nikipedia's avatar

@gorillapaws: I understand what the difference is between the Bible and a textbook.

It is perfectly logically defensible to ask, “Why do you have blind faith in a textbook but not the Bible?”

The answer, as you point out, is because the information contained in the respective books was arrived at quite differently, making one a reasonably good source of information and the other not quite such a good one.

So I am by no means defending the Bible (or for that matter, in this argument, defending textbooks). I am pointing out that you were actually the one using fallacious logic. They are similar; they are analogous; they are comparable. In that comparison one is more logically defensible than the other. The comparison itself, however, is valid and tenable.

nikipedia's avatar

@TheDeadWake: Well, I think we need to distinguish between two different uses of the word “science”. If someone says, “My belief system is based on science”, they’re probably referring to the scientific method rather than specific scientific facts. The scientific method is pretty static—scientific facts are (lucky for me!) always turning up new discoveries!

gorillapaws's avatar

His argument was something like this:

You believe in textbook knowledge
You reject biblical knowledge
They are both from books and thus are the same kind of knowledge

Therefore there is an internal inconsistency to your belief system

At least that’s how I interpreted it. Perhaps I did make an error in my analysis here, but I’m not seeing it.

TheDeadWake's avatar

I agree, but doesn’t the scientific method yeild said specific scientific facts that are always changing and therefore faith in science would have its origin in the method and then spread to its results?

nikipedia's avatar

Well, let’s get specific then. I assume we were both referring to this claim:

“Ah, but how do we really know what has stood up to scrutiny if we haven’t tested for ourselves? Are we taking someone’s word for it because we read it in a book?”

While the word “book” is mentioned, I don’t see any suggestion of the argument you described. Both of these questions are questioning how we validate information—any information—and suggesting that coming from a book (any book) is not sufficient evidence of truth.

nikipedia's avatar

“I agree, but doesn’t the scientific method yeild said specific scientific facts”


“that are always changing and therefore faith in science would have its origin in the method and then spread to its results?”

No. The scientific method cannot ever truly prove anything is true. It can only prove that things are false. So if anyone tries to argue that they have a “fact” that’s “proven” by science, they’re simply incorrect. The scientific method is a way of approaching information, not a collection of facts.

scamp's avatar

@ nikipedia While the word “book” is mentioned, I don’t see any suggestion of the argument you described. Both of these questions are questioning how we validate information—any information—and suggesting that coming from a book (any book) is not sufficient evidence of truth.

Thank you for helping to clairify my question. I asked it for people on both sides of the fence to consider.

delirium's avatar

I said it was a crutch in response to @trustinglife’s comment to me “Have you ever been in a crisis or hit rock bottom? You think there is nothing to support us in those times?”

I don’t think all religion is a crutch. My words are being misinterperated.

I believe that jesus was a real person, and that he was a wonderful humanistic man…. but nothing more than that.

I think that biblical literalists are downright scary, though.
Cornman: “How can you even associate with so many of us here that are so far below you. Wouldn’t it be a wonderful world if we could all be cured, lose our crutches and only count on humanity as our diety.”
I didn’t imply people were beneath me because if their beliefs. Don’t be so blindly judgemental. But yes, the world would be a better place if people would stop hating eachother because of faith, or lack there of. And the world would be a MUCH better place if religion would stop encroaching on the secular world.

Cardinal: ”(Wiki: Humanism is a broad category of ethical philosophies that affirm the dignity and worth of all people, based on the ability to determine right and wrong by appeal to universal human qualities — particularly rationality). This seem to be in very short supply as you look around our world!”
Yes, they are. What’s your point?

Scamp: “How do you know what you are being taught is not in fact untrue? Did you test out these things for yourself, as in personally dig up a dinosaur and carbon test the bones or did you choose to believe what you read about it in a book?”

Yes. I have dug up remains. I’ve worked on paleontology and have done carbon dating, potassium-argon dating, as well as other kinds. We have MILLIONS of fossils in collections all over the world. If ONE of them went against the science, it could ruin it. Out of these millions of times, there has NEVER been one that has thrown off any of our data. And there’s MANY ways something could be wrong.
Hundreds of years of fossil collection have produced a vast library of the ages of the earth and the life on it. We can now identify general time periods when major changes occured. Interested in the origin of mammals? Go to rocks from the period called the Early Mesozoic; geochemistry tells us that these rocks are about 210 milion years old. Interested in the origin of primates? Go higher in the rock coumn, to the Cretaceous period, where rocks are about 80 million years old. The order of fossils in the world’s rocks is powerful evidence of our connections to the rest of life. If, digging in 600-million-year-old rocks, we found the earliest jellyfish lying next to the skeleton of a woodchuk, then we would be seriously fucked. That woodchuck would have appeared earlier in the fossil record than the first mammal, reptile, or even fish. Before even the first worm! Moreover, our ancient woodchuck would tell us taht much of what we think we know about hte history of the earth and life on it is wrong. Despite more than 150 years of people looking for fossils, on every continent of earth and in virtually every rock layer that we can possibly access, this observation has NEVER been made.

You ask how I know what i’m being taught is true. I know it because you can do experiments on it. How do you know what you’re being taught is not in fact untrue? How do you know that you’re deity is more right than the hundreds of other deities that people have believed in, believed in miracles from, dedicated their lives to…. What makes yours more true? Its not the oldest. Its not that with the most rational mythology. Its not the faith with the most literature… etc.

scamp's avatar

Let’s go back and read my posts again shall we Delirium? Please show me where I said anything about my deity being any more right than any other. or more true for that matter. I did however say I don’t try to tell people I am right. I do what is right for me I said no where that what I believe is the oldest or most rational. I said only that is has been around for over 2000 years. I was asking for comparisons. I also said in response to another poster that I am not trying to convince anyone of anything.

I got several private messages this afternoon after my post commending me for what I said The reason for this is because I stated my views without using derogotory terms towards people that do not agree. I will not discuss any of this further with someone who puts words into my mouth that I didn’t say or becomes snippy with me. It serves no purpose for anyone here.

It’s too bad really because I was beginning to learn something in this thread. But I can do without the drama, so I digress.

delirium's avatar

I wasn’t being snippy, nor intending to putting words in your mouth. I was simply taking your question and passing it back at you.
Contrasting faiths are quite interesting. And I was avoiding repeating what I had said before about strengths of science.

Randy's avatar

I like to see science a little different. Science is the study of how things are/was/were/work. Right? My God is all powerful and in control of everything, so based on that, your science is the study of how God works. Plain and simple. I dont have to see evidence to support this because I have faith. Show me love. You can’t, its a mind set. God is love. I can’t show you him, but like love, I can feel him. I sorry you can’t.

scamp's avatar

Another of the many things we see differently. I didn’t edit any of my posts.

delirium's avatar

Randy, you can be sorry for for me not being able to feel ‘gods love’.
I feel love, though. I love humanity above anything else.

delirium's avatar

Scamp: I also don’t see where I was being particularly derogatory. I’m sorry that you find yourself to be offended by what I said. It was not my intent.

TheDeadWake's avatar

first off, my iPhone has remembered your user name and does autofill :)

Secondly, thank you for clarifying how the scientific method can only prove falsehoods, but have these ever then been proven true or redone because of new data?

Sorry if I come across as naive in the ways of science, but my experience (viewing science from outside) is that scientists work in facts, for example, people saying that global warming is true. I’m not trying to start a debate on that as there is already another thread, just giving an example.

TheDeadWake's avatar

I concur with Randy.

nikipedia's avatar

@Randy: That was so condescending. You can define “science” or “god” however you want. That doesn’t make you correct.

If you don’t need evidence for things I hope the next time you get sick you pray your way out of it instead of relying on evidence-based medicine.

Randy's avatar

@nikopedia- Sorry you misunderstood. Maybe it was my wording. In the begining of that I said “I like to see science different”. I didn’t say that’s the way it was. To me that’s correct, but its an opinion. Also, I said I don’t need evidence to support my statement on the science=study of Gods workings. I don’t bash science at all. Its a great tool to help us out. A good example of that is the medicine your talking about. On that note, if its Gods will for me to die the next time I’m sick, it will happen. Meds or no meds. If I do get sick, I will take them though because God game me the sense to know that it will help me. Sorry for any confusion.

gorillapaws's avatar

I know i’d like my bridges to be built by engineers and not priests, my water to purified/sanitized with scientific processes and not holy purification rituals.

posted about 5 secs after the one above

TheDeadWake's avatar

I hope that no one thinks I believe science to be irrelevant. It has its place and I trust and thoroughly enjoy it.

Randy's avatar

I agree compleatly. The thing is, in my mind and beliefs, it was God that gave those engineers and scientists the knowledge to do those things. Its ok that you guys don’t agree. Its just one of those things that we’ll never know untill our life here is over.

@ TheDeadWake- well said, and I agree compleatly.

Upward's avatar

I consider myself a spiritual agnostic.

I have total faith….. that if there was no god, man would have made him up.

In fact there are thousands of gods long since forgotten that “believers” did unbelievable things to defend. Millions of people over the last few thousand years have been killed by “believers”.

I believe religious fundamentalist of any faith are some of the worst people in the world.
They will start wars to defend their “faith”, they will kill and steal to defend their god.
Their actions prove they are not with god.

On the other hand:
I believe pure spiritual people of all faiths are some of the best people in the world.
They don’t start wars or kill people to defend their beliefs.
They draw a line when it comes to killing to defend what “THEY KNOW TO BE TRUE”.

delirium's avatar

A adore what you’ve said, upward. And agree wholeheartedly.

Upward's avatar

delirium, Thanks… I’m humbled…. I’ve been thinking about my beliefs a lot recently.

ishotthesheriff's avatar

G-d is the only one that can comfort my soul in an inexplainable, deep way.

having a tough moment right now and thought I’d share in this thread, it seems to be relevant in the current discussion.
call it brainwashed or what you will,
I call Him Father.
a comforting one, at that.

gooch's avatar

I am a Christian…and hell yes I belive!

Riser's avatar

I would strongly advise many of you posting here, to keep in mind that you will know Christians by their fruit because Atheists are naturally selfish people. Obviously, their passion for humanism damns them to a mindset of self-centeredness. That is exaclty why Delirium, a professed Atheist, is using her miraculous talents in the drawing/painting arts to draft an image of my sister to one day be a tattoo, followed with a portrait of Michael and I together in the joy and happiness we could only experience through love, like her love for her friends and Christ’s love for his.

Upward's avatar

Riser, Love ya dude, but I’ve read your posting 10 times a have know clue what it means.

TheDeadWake's avatar


sndfreQ's avatar

@Riser: holy Jim Jones, who slipped you the funky Kool-Aid? I can’t make heads or tails with your statement!

Aside from being replete with obvious contradicting statements, I can’t seem to make heads or tails as to your position-do you or don’t you support Atheists?

“Damns them to a mind of self-centeredness?” being “damned” into a mindset makes you somehow more creative? Please, help me understand your position, or else please tell me that you’re really that 11-year old kid (emerica) and that you’ve hacked your way onto Riser’s profile!?!

I’m really perplexed by the response, all due respect. Please clarify?!

Maverick's avatar

I can’t believe I read all those messages. Anyone that is still following this thread (religious, atheist, or otherwise) should do themselves the great service of reading “The God Delusion” – or at least watch the documentary. Despite the title (which the author did not want), it provides a balanced view of the relationship between science and religion. I highly recommend it.

sndfreQ's avatar

Okay so, it’s now morning here in CA, and I re-read your statement Riser. I’m guessing that you were making that statement out of sarcasm, right?

gorillapaws's avatar

Randy I think the only reason you’ve been getting a bit of “heat” from your statements about science being the study of God’s works is because there have been many instances where religious people have sought to include religious teachings in science class in schools and otherwise bringing other religious beliefs/practices into something that really should remain secular. For example, look at the intelligent design debate, and the prayer in school issues, these are issues that really bother atheists, as well as many Christians and people of other faiths.

I can totally understand where you’re coming from by your statement in the sense that you view everything to be a creation of God, then coming to understand how the world works would be in a way, coming to learn more about God. It’s a bit of a thin line between that and crossing over to: since science is learning about God, we should inform science by teaching about God in science class (if you follow what I’m trying to express).

Science and religion aren’t necessarily mutually exclusive, as many people seem to think, it’s only when religion makes claims that are testable scientifically that we begin to run into conflicts. So as long as religion doesn’t try to step on science’s toes by including non-scientific information/methodology in the science classroom (like Intelligent Design for example), then I think everything should work out ok.

sndfreQ's avatar

@gorillapaws: two words: Creation Museum

gorillapaws's avatar

Yeah, I’ve heard about that place. It’s sad to think of all the good they could have done with the millions they spent on making that abomination. It’s like a misinformation factory, don’t get me started…

Maverick's avatar

SndFreq, so your proof of God is in an amusement park? Doesn’t that tell you anything? If I sent you to Disneyland as proof of Quantum Theory, I think you would be justified in being skeptical.

delirium's avatar

GP, I agree totally. Its what I always say: I don’t get bitchy with religion until it forces itself upon the secular world.

TheDeadWake's avatar

I agree that religion should not be forced on the secular world, but I do believe the secular world should be introduced to different religions or beliefs (including atheism and what not), but not through a science class, through some type of required humanities course. This would at least go so far as to inform people, and hopefully make them less ignorant and more tolerant.

sndfreQ's avatar

@Maverick-in context to the discussion thread, the link I posted was meant to gorillapaws’ post: ”... there have been many instances where religious people have sought to include religious teachings in science class in schools and otherwise bringing other religious beliefs/practices into something that really should remain secular.”

The link is just my interpretation of that concept, and in this particular example, having a multi-million dollar museum to support such ideals is a fitting reference IMO.

So you understand my position on it, I think that the two concepts (science and religion) aren’t necessarily mutually exclusive, but I think that in almost every case, when organized religion attempts to reconcile science and scripture, I think the effect is most often detrimental to the follower.

I was raised in a religious household (Roman Catholic), so it’s just one person’s take here, but I think there’s enough scientific evidence to blow the “dinosaur ridin’ caveman” theory out of the water; I’ll also throw in the “universe is 6,000 years old” one into the hat as well.

TDW, that is a solid and constructive idea above (humanities course)...I learned a great deal from a course in philosophy (it was labeled as an “ethics” course), that dealt with this very issue-the study of both sacred and secular. It’s good stuff, especially when the class is mixed with a variety of believers, agnostics, and atheists; I too think that college is an appropriate setting for this type of dialogue.

gorillapaws's avatar

@TDW I couldn’t agree more about introducing students to an array of religions. It promotes cross-cultural understanding as you pointed out, but it also promotes critical thinking, which is sorely lacking in education these days. And that was a perfect example sndfreQ.

delirium's avatar

I agree that learning about them is important. I am probably the most educated about world religion of anyone I’ve ever had the pleasure of interacting with, religious or not.
My mother taught me about all of the major mythologies (religions) old and new. Then once I was old enough she set me free to choose. I became an agnostic who truly respects myth of all shapes and sizes and I kept studying. I didn’t become an atheist until much later when I was much stronger in science.

Upward's avatar

Ummm…. If Earth was only 6000 years old there would be no stars in the sky!

Upward's avatar

@delirium The problem is most people don’t want to believe that their faith has been inappropriately placed in a religion. They are so emotionally bonded to their religion they can no longer see the big picture.

Many religions teach that if you do not believe their articles of faith you will be punished for all eternity. Yet the articles of faith are always nothing more than rumors. They are risking their eternal soul on nothing but hearsay?

Just because in your heart you believe something is true, doesn’t make it true.
Think of all the people who died for false gods/causes believing they were justified.

Everyone at some point should ask themselves why his or her religion is a true religion. I dare everyone to take 2 weeks of their lives to study another religion.
Your very eternal soul could be at risk if you haven’t done your do diligence to study other faiths.

Many people say they “believe” because it is a safe bet.
I say humanity can’t grow until we are willing to look deeply into all world faiths and see they do have a common thread “LOVE THY NEIGHBOR AS THYSELF”.

delirium's avatar

Oh. My. God. @ that link.

:) I agree totally Upward. Your insight makes me smile. Its a delight to see you’ve found yourself in such logic. :)
They’re all made up of circular logic. Its not that I don’t believe that there is beauty in the mythologies, and doesn’t mean that a lot of the moral aspects aren’t wonderful… The problems are in the other areas. The areas where religion teaches hate, guilt, regret, inhumanity, and most of all irresponsibility.

Maverick's avatar

That Creation Museum scares the hell out of me, but anyway, the thread has moved on. I also agree that everyone should take an interest in learning as much as possible about other religions. Its impossible to have hatred for that which you understand. But equally important, I don’t believe that children should be endoctrinated in any religion until they are at an age that they can evaluate it honestly, ask questions, and have some bearing in life with which to understand the answers – probably around the age of 13–16. As it stands, being born into a religion is nothing more than brainwashing.

Upward's avatar

I think it would do the world a lot of good if we taught at least 6 religions in public schools.
Only through truly understanding each of them, can you really make an educated choice between them.

breedmitch's avatar

@upward: Which six would you choose?

thegodfather's avatar

I am not an atheist. God can only be known by his revelation, and his revelation may include anything he chooses. I can say with certainty that he has revealed himself to me in his own way, and that I cannot deny his existence.

mrdh's avatar

Yes. God is dead.

ArmyWife0112's avatar

I’ve read Angels and Demons, the book fascinated me. i’m not exactly an atheist, but i don’t live in faith. i believe that one day, like in Angels and Demons (Dan Brown), someone will discover a way to undoubtedly link science to religion and, if i’m alive, that will be my ‘religion’. anyhow, i still fell over laughing at the atheist joke told by dane cook, look up ‘atheist joke, dane cook’ on youtube, it’s great, lol.

Maverick's avatar

Ugh, I don’t know who Dane Cook is, or why someone would give him a mic – I’m guessing – before a boxing match, but he is not funny. I’d like the last 8 minutes of my life back.

El_Cadejo's avatar

hes such a tool -_ -.

ArmyWife0112's avatar

lol, awww, i’m sorry maverick. perhaps you’d like to point me in the direction of some real comedy???

Maverick's avatar

I don’t mind, at least I learned to ignore Dane Cook for the rest of my life! :)

El_Cadejo's avatar

may i suggest you look up louis ck someone dane cook stole some jokes from :P warning NSFW

mrdh's avatar

Off topic: Dane Cook is a tool.
For proper comedy I resort to watching Blackadder or Fawlty Towers or something along the lines of these two. For American comedy, I watch 30 Rock; it is very good.

ArmyWife0112's avatar

lol, nice one uberbatman, I loved it. funniest thing: My roommate asked if I was watching Dane Cook!!

Answer this question




to answer.

This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.

Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther