religion, oh god... gods!

Personally, I am an atheist, I don't believe in anything without some sort of proof or evidence.

I don't reject the possibility that there is a god. However, I do reject the idea of an omnipotent, benevolent god, such as the common christian view of god. I find the suggestion of an all-powerful being who loves us and does nothing to end war, starvation, racism and general suffering to be a ridiculous concept. I feel that belief systems like paganism (and I really that encompasses a broad range of religions) are more likely to be true, whereby there are a large number of gods, none of whom are without equal, who have a vague and ambivalent relationship with us, and often have their own problems to deal with. It would certainly explain the apparent lack of divine intervention in the world.

However, I think that trying to make people change their beliefs is an exercise in futility. It makes no difference to me what others belief, and belief in higher powers can be comforting to people who are sad, and what right do I have to deprive them of that.

"all life is only a set of pictures in the brain, among which there is no difference betwixt those born of real things and those born of inward dreamings, and no cause to value the one above the other."
-HP Lovecraft, The Silver Key, 1926

Just because I haven't gone through the arduous process of pointing out the problems behind each and every religion doesn't mean I'm necessarily linking them all together. You can't say that I didn't provide enough information, then turn around and dismiss my post as a large rampage.

The one harmful factor that any religion which believes in a god has is that they support belief without reason. This basic thought process is what leads to the more extreme examples I've posted.

That's me linking all religions together. The previous post was just one example.



Personally, I think nate is wrong to use the word proof. I continue to believe my house exists when I'm gone because I have a logical reason to do so; it was there when I left, it's always been there when I come back, and it has no means of transportation.

Now, what logical reason is there to believe in god? None. Much like how there's no reason for me to believe my house disappears while I'm gone. Having someone walk up to me and say they believe in a higher power for no reason is the same as them walking up to me and saying they think they're house disappeared for no reason.

That's a pretty good summary of how most atheists view religion.

What you have to understand about religion, is that it is inherently illogical. It cannot be proved because, to paraphrase Douglas Adams, proof denies faith, and without faith, religion is nothing.

There are some religious people who claim that there is proof of god, but they tend to be the extremists who are only listened to by other extremists. But the majority of religious people, at least that I've met, acknowledge that there is no proof, and that religion is illogical. Yet they continue to believe it, because that is what they believe.

That last sentence is literally what a religious friend of mine told me. I myself agree with you, that it seems stupid to believe in these kinds of things. But you can't argue against it with logic, because it is not something born of logic. Have you ever tried to argue without logic? It's not exactly easy to do.

I understand that's what religion is about, but I don't get why that's a good thing. Why does "faith" have a positive connotation, and "doubt" have a negative one?

No clue. I guess maybe religious people connect faith with a trusting nature and doubt with a cynical one. Whereas we atheists connotate faith with gullibility, and doubt with scientific rigor.

It all depends on how you view the world. Which as answers go, is probably one of the vaguest I've ever given.

I'm not sure 'not scientifically sound' is the right term to use here. At least for the Big Bang Theory, all the theory works, and it only relies on two assumptions: that current knowledge of the laws of physics hold true (which is the assumption almost all scientific hypotheses make), and the cosmological principle (don't ask me about that one).

We have found no disproving evidence, and found some evidence for it. Including the recent 'discovery' of gravity waves. It was over-exaggerated by newspaper headlines, really what they found were distortions in the background radiation that could have been caused by gravity waves, but it's still a pretty big deal.

It is more that the theories of the origins of the universe are estimations based on the evidence currently at our disposal. They work, so they may be right, but they have not been proved to a significant enough degree that they can be assumed to be true for any other scientific experiments. Plus, the theories are constantly being altered and adjusted to fit new evidence that comes to light, such that we are always coming closer to the truth.

Also, it's an interesting fact that the person who first suggested a Big Bang Theory-like explanation was actually a priest, Georges Lemaître.

Well for the sake of my belief I won't mention what I believe in because it will only spark up arguments that will beat me down. I never doubt my beliefs, even though there is so much that contradicts it, I choose faith over everything. I also believe in science because it is one that can really help us evolve in ways regarding intelligence.

I don't wanna say other beliefs are BS or anything, because everyone have their beliefs in life and I also understand when many seem to give it up, it's not easy having patience with God because we are species that desire everything and wish it to happen all at once, where God on the other hand delivers it according to his judgement on when it is the right time to recieve it.

I think that every sentient creature is inherently a god; it's just that we lack the strength of will to bring our imaginations into existence. After all, what is a god if not thought given form?

As for the question, well... I'll leave that to scholars and scientists. I'm just a person, I don't know.

If there's no explanation for something, then you don't know. If I don't understand how the world was created, I have no reason to believe it was anything in particular, or that time itself even had a "start".

I can totally understand the possibility of time having a "beginning," and if there were a beginning, I could understand the possibility of it coming from what you would call "outside science". Though while I have reason to acknowledge them as possibilities, I have no reason to choose that belief over any other.



This is the danger that I was talking about echiigaijin. I understand Golden also said he believes in science (which is true whether you believe in it or not), but religion removes doubt. Religion creates people who will never question themselves or their own code. Even if it is a peaceful religion like shintoism, that one line, "I will never doubt," spreads through culture like a virus, causing people to never make revisions to their own ideals, freezing people mindsets and preventing social evolution.

You don't want to say it but you do say it. Almost explicitly even. I don't know what you believe but if you believe in a monotheistic god then, by definition, there can be no other god or gods which means all other prophets are false ones which means their beliefs are BS. And you say «because everyone have their beliefs in life» well, so what? Just because they have them and like them very much, it doesn't mean they're true.

Having a monotheistic belief (which the capitalization of 'God' would suggest he does) does not necessarily mean you are saying all other beliefs are completely wrong. That is something called exclusivism, where you believe your faith is the only true one, and all the others are wrong. This is what drives some people to try to convert people to their religion.

There is also, however, pluralism. This is basically where they believe all religions are different path to the same god (or something along those lines). So they can believe other religions have only parts of the truth, or have different interpretations of signs from god etc. but believe that theirs is the only religion with the whole truth.

There's also a middle ground between exclusivism and pluralism called inclusivism, but I can't remember what that is.

Just remember not all religious people are as closed-minded as you think.

Personally I'm a Protestant who believes in God, but by no means do I not understand why some people see religious as 'Illogical' and that it shouldn't really have a standing in the modern day of science and intellectual progress.
I personally believe in God out of a personal reason, the reason is because the way I view science and such (Mainly the concept of The Big Bang) is that it offers no hope in this world of ours. What I mean is in my view religion offers a sense of love and affection towards man while science makes me feel as if there is no reason for living and we are just a product of chance whereas religion gives me purpose for living other than passing on my DNA for the next generation.

But as I said; I completely understand why people see an omnipotent and all powerful God as something they can't accept because of all the suffering that is a constant in our world which is a more than reasonable argument. But I try to dismiss this as an argument when people argue with me because I see life as a trial to try and achieve passage into Heaven and no trial can just be a simple life where everything is perfect, otherwise you would have nothing to aim for and Heaven would be pointless because of this. Continuing, I also understand that some people don't see that argument as unreasonable since they generally believe 'What about Innocent children who die needlessly?' to this I like to think that they are rewarded for living through such suffering with passage to Heaven but by no means do I believe it's any less of a travesty or an agreeable concept that even I use to question God sometimes.

Without evil there cannot be good, therefore evil needs to exist in this world for a God to exist and that's another reason why I believe that God does nothing to right any of the wrongs in this world, because the balance of Good and Evil would sway unfavourably; after all one man's evil is another man's goof.

This all being said such arguments in about Religion in my mind are kinda trivial since we should all just aim to end the problems in this world that we can like world hunger and prejudice.

Either way, I've rambled for too long at this point, time to get back to those Doujinshi's!

The ones that aren't closed minded are not, in my view religious.

Here's the thing: When you talk about absolutes, by definition, there can be no middle grounds. You can't justify, for example, semi-omnipotence. Either God is all powerful or he's not. Either God exists or he does not. Either God is true or it is not. By definition, there can be no middle ground between these terms otherwise you would get a paradox. You claim people follow pluralism which is true but saying people follow it doesn't make pluralism true.

Deists seem to be free to follow something among the lines of pluralism and I know a few that do. The problem is that if you believe in, for example, Jesus Christ, you are forced (not in a violent sense) to believe that all other prophets posterior to Jesus are false. Different religions will and do contradict each other.

I suspect, that the reasons as to why religious people respect each other's beliefs are the following: one, by criticizing other faiths they will inevitably use arguments that can be used against them and two, they prefer people with faith over atheists.

Religious:adjective, relating to or believing in a religion.

That is literally the definition. It's a vague and broad definition, which it kind of has to be given the variety of beliefs out there. And by being broad and vague, it does not exclude people who are closed minded. Saying an open minded person who believes in Allah is not a religious person is simply ridiculous.

I never said that pluralism was true, in fact I don't believe it is. But truth is not the point, the point is that, like with each religion having different views on god, different religious people have different views on other faiths. They do not all assume that everything about every other faith is wrong.

Believing in Jesus Christ does not falsify previous prophets, it simply means, where there is a contradiction, they take Jesus' side. And a pluralist could easily justify contradictions by saying other prophets misinterpreted the word of god. In fact, when have religious people ever been bothered about contradictions, there are too many to count in the bible alone.

And saying they prefer people with faith over atheists is, the evidence would suggest, wrong. You so rarely hear about hate crimes against atheists, bar the occasional accusation of satanism (always a classic). Yet all the time you hear about people being attacked, beaten, killed, or generally discriminated against and repressed, because of their religion. And I doubt most atheists would do those sorts of things based on religion.

I don't think you realize that when it comes to monotheistic religion there can be no middle ground. If you believe in Allah, you have to base your belief on the Qu'ran. To believe the Qu'ran, you have to believe the prohet. Having said that, you find yourself with a set of beliefs you deem holy. You can't say: «Yeah, this part is true and I agree with, but the other part is false» If you do, you are essentially saying that the message that god, whatever god may be, decided to deliever is flawed whether through interpretation or truth value. You can believe in God or Allah on their own but that is no different than believing that Darth Vader existed whereas all other Star Wars characters didn't.

Sure, they can create their differences but there is a difference between believing what you feel like and having a set of beliefs determined by logic and epistemology.

And true, they have tons of different views but I do think they have to assume the other is wrong. If you believe in Jesus, you believe that you HAVE to believe in him, otherwise you will go to hell for worshipping false idols. By definition, and as Jesus himself said, all other prophets are false idols. Therefore, they will go to hell.

I think your point about atheists not being persecuted is very shady because when you talk about being attacked and beaten, yes, it doesn't happen often in the western world i.e. the world in which it's sort of okay to be an atheist. But it seems shady because you speak on two different levels at once. Yes, atheists aren't as persecuted as Indian people where during the Crusades but on a social context, which is what I was referring since we are talking about sets of beliefs, not holy war, being an atheist always seemed to me to be taken worse than other religions.

I've often heard Christians go: Are you a muslim? Oh, okay, I don't share your beliefs but I respect them. And then turn to me and say: Are you an atheist? You know you're going to hell, right?

As a bit of a note, especially in America, atheists do get the short end too when, for example, they are kicked out of their parents' house and beaten in church.

It's just like I posted, everyone have their own beliefs in life and I wish not to criticize their beliefs. Sure you may think it like that but I truly respect peoples decisions on who or what they believe in. I believe everyone has the rights to decide on what they should believe in and that we have no business intervening between them and their decisions.

Whether it is true or not that also depends on our decision in life to believe or not believe. It is BECAUSE of our decision that we chose to believe or not believe. Our discussions between believing a God and not believing on God is one of the most oldest discussions that always ends up two opposing groups never agreeing on this topic. For me the most wisest choice is to not push or pull on other people's belief, rather respect that decision but still being human to one another.

I am not assuming through my posts that what I believe in is right or the true religion, it's just that I made my decisions in life to believe what I believe in today, but I am not rubbing it in on other people's faces that what I believe in is true for for everyone, but I believe it's true because I chose it to be "MY" truth.

( Edited )
However I still maintain my thoughts of reason in society, so it's not like I will kill somebody if they refuse what I believe, just wanna chill and move ahead in life.

I use the term "Atheist" to explain to people simply and easily that I have no faith, no belief in a God(s), but it's always a simple explanation because it's a far more detailed thing to talk about.

I personally call myself a Liberal Secular Humanist, I've built this framework since 2002, when I was pulled from a Cult mentality by the lucky actions of my friends. When I realised how I was acting and behaving, I started researching religion and listening to people in the know (this was back when the Infidel Guy was the Head Honcho of talkative Atheists online-we miss you Reg!) and slowly started distancing myself from religion. I started calling myself an Atheist around 2006 and went from there.

But here's the kicker, I can't say with any certainty that I'm right in my disavowing of God(s), I have no clue as to whether the idea of this flawed system we live in isn't just that/those beings dicking with us. I use my own personal reasoning to think like the Sagen Argument on Aliens on a grander scale (paraphrasing-he said that, if a species can travel amongst the stars, they likely had similar conflicts to ours and managed to keep from destroying themselves) that if these beings do exist, something with that much knowledge and understanding should not have the malevolence to doom a person/people to destruction. It's flawed and I know the holes in it, the other reasoning I can get to is a Deistic God(s), but even that can't be proved so I leave it where it is, unknown and it's not going to effect me.

I don't call myself Atheist or Agnostic because the idea doesn't matter to me, is there a God- I don't care. If there is it won't matter because there are eventually only three options with a caveat for one.

#1 He/she/it/they are benevolent and understanding about my limited knowledge and understanding, ending up in doing nothing to me.
#2 He/she/it/they are malevolent and judgemental about my limited knowledge and understanding, ending up in punishing me for my lack of said knowledge.
#(b)where I have been accepted by said god(s) I would choose to turn away, any being that can do that is not a just being in my book and not worth spending any period of "time" with.
#3 There is no God, no afterlife and nothing other than this life, so when I die, I simply return to the state I was in before my birth, nothingness.

I feel like half the time the word "atheist" is used here, the person meant "agnostic". Just noting.

Since when did all religious people start following everything in their holy books? There are far too many contradictions in pretty much all the holy books for people to do. The majority just seem to pick the points that support their opinions to believe in. Even religious people, when faced with this argument, would say that their holy book is not always right, like saying 'the Bible was written in homophobic times, so we can't follow its homophobic views in modern times'.

On Jesus Christ saying previous prophets were false idols, I did not know that, and if you can provide a quote from the bible to support that, I'll concede the point, at least for christianity. I don't agree with the view point, but if that's what Christians believe...

And about the atheists getting more flak than other religions, I guess it depends where you live. Here in Britain, there are alot more anti- people than anti-athiest people. Which is possibly a bad thing.