Conquer Club

For a while, I thought of myself an atheist until I realized it was a belief, too

I've begun worshiping the Sun for a number of reasons. First of all, unlike some other gods I could mention, I can see the Sun. It's there for me every day. And the things it brings me are quite apparent all the time: heat, light, food, a lovely day. There's no mystery, no one asks for money, I don't have to dress up, and there's no boring pageantry. And interestingly enough, I have found that the prayers I offer to the sun and the prayers I formerly offered to God are all answered at about the same 50-percent rate.
-- George Carlin, Brain Droppings

I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings.

Is Spinoza saying that rocks, tables, chairs, birds, mountains, rivers and human beings are all properties of God, and hence can be predicated of God (just as one would say that the table “is red”)?

john9blue wrote:Because atheism is the same... it's possible but there is zero evidence.

john9blue wrote:But it could be true. That's not a belief, it's proven. Could a God be controlling our minds now? Yes, therefore it definitely could be true... the only way you could convince me otherwise is with proof or evidence.

john9blue wrote:And I believe that there is some "evidence" for God, or at least observations that could be taken as such, but I'm not even bringing those up. I'm operating under the assumption that there is no evidence here.

john9blue wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographi ... e_Sciences

Keep in mind that this is regarding disbelief or doubt, NOT just atheism. Even this broad category doesn't match your statistic.

Juan_Bottom wrote:

I've begun worshiping the Sun for a number of reasons. First of all, unlike some other gods I could mention, I can see the Sun. It's there for me every day. And the things it brings me are quite apparent all the time: heat, light, food, a lovely day. There's no mystery, no one asks for money, I don't have to dress up, and there's no boring pageantry. And interestingly enough, I have found that the prayers I offer to the sun and the prayers I formerly offered to God are all answered at about the same 50-percent rate.
-- George Carlin, Brain Droppings

I was wrong, he worshiped the sun.

Juan_Bottom wrote:

I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings.

Einstein said "God does not play dice with the universe." On neither occasion was he talking about an actual god. I myself reference God in this way. A lot of Atheists do. Also, Spinoza's God is not a God...

Is Spinoza saying that rocks, tables, chairs, birds, mountains, rivers and human beings are all properties of God, and hence can be predicated of God (just as one would say that the table “is red”)?

I don't suggest EVER reading his work in it's original text without a lot of foot notes.

Juan_Bottom wrote:

john9blue wrote:Because atheism is the same... it's possible but there is zero evidence.

Take the evidence I have already given you. EVERY SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL SINCE THE LATE 1800s HAS LEAD US TOWARDS A UNIVERSE THAT EXISTS IN AND OF IT'S OWN DOING/FUNCTION.

Juan_Bottom wrote:

john9blue wrote:But it could be true. That's not a belief, it's proven. Could a God be controlling our minds now? Yes, therefore it definitely could be true... the only way you could convince me otherwise is with proof or evidence.

Do you understand what evidence or scientific reasoning is? They would laugh you out of a lecture hall. It is proven that God could be controlling our minds now? You mean the God of Abraham here don't you,.. you said "God could!!!"
My invisible worm-sperm could be crawling up your back leg right now on it's way to impregnate you. By your very own reasoning, you have to believe me. I/you have no proof that it is not... enjoy your babies. All 11,000 of them MUAHAHAHAAA

Juan_Bottom wrote:

john9blue wrote:And I believe that there is some "evidence" for God, or at least observations that could be taken as such, but I'm not even bringing those up. I'm operating under the assumption that there is no evidence here.

You are wrong, there is none.

Juan_Bottom wrote:

john9blue wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographi ... e_Sciences

Keep in mind that this is regarding disbelief or doubt, NOT just atheism. Even this broad category doesn't match your statistic.

Using this broad statistic you still get 93% of NAS scientists are either Atheist or have no opinion. With Atheist being the popular choice. This is a non-issue, but still tells you what a rational person would believe. Further reading can be done on this subject by googling papers on how even trained scientists who grew up in a home where religion was important refuse to give up their faith when it is challenged by their work. Something like 54% of all American scientists have religion in their hearts.This phenomena is what you witness with most Agnostics.

john9blue wrote:

Juan_Bottom wrote:

I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings.

Einstein said "God does not play dice with the universe." On neither occasion was he talking about an actual god. I myself reference God in this way. A lot of Atheists do. Also, Spinoza's God is not a God...

Is Spinoza saying that rocks, tables, chairs, birds, mountains, rivers and human beings are all properties of God, and hence can be predicated of God (just as one would say that the table “is red”)?

I don't suggest EVER reading his work in it's original text without a lot of foot notes.

"Actual God"? I wasn't aware there were real and fake classes of deity. And I've never read an original text of Spinoza's but I'm familiar with his ideas.

That's because of people centuries ago who made a God of the gaps for everything they couldn't explain. I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about God in the most general sense, the lowest common denominator of most every deity conceived by man.

I'm talking about God in the most general sense,

Why is there a word for "God"?

Point at it, describe it, assign some meaningful attributes to it, and it's a discussable concept.

A word describing a vague something that must be there because the universe is there , and which is "unknowable", "beyond our realms" or "greater than physical reality" or whatever is simply a way of moving the air around with your mouth, and devoid of meaning.

It's not just that I don't believe in "gods" - I can see no need for the word itself since it doesn't refer to anything describable..

Metsfanmax wrote:I would just like to clarify Einstein's view of God. His view was not "atheist" in the same way atheism is normally thought of. Snorri was correct in saying that he didn't believe in an anthropomorphicized God (at least, in the later part of his life), but he did believe in a higher order, a certain set of rules the Universe followed which he thought had to come from a higher level because it was so elegant (and no, this is not the same as intelligent design). This is quite evident in his work, for example in his addition of the cosmological constant to his field equations - he believed that the universe ought to be static on large scales, an example of his belief that there were certain rules the Universe had to abide by.

He was much closer to atheism than any of the modern religions, but it would be incorrect to say that he rejected the idea of a higher power.

john9blue wrote:I define God as a conscious creator of the universe... which sounds like a cop-out, but it's really the only definition that can encompass any definition of God possible, which is necessary when talking about theism as an idea. I'm pretty sure pantheism falls under this definition.

Also snorri, I disagree that the universe being logical is evidence against God (that seems to be what you said). If anything, it supports God.

alex951 wrote:wait soo atheism isn't a religion?

Timminz wrote:Is a salt flat a body of water?

Mach1tosh wrote:A religious person has their belief system to which they subscribe in order to assist their perception and understanding of what goes on around them.

Mach1tosh wrote:There is nothing concrete about religous attitudes beyond blind faith.

dwilhelmi wrote:

Mach1tosh wrote:There is nothing concrete about religous attitudes beyond blind faith.

There is also nothing concrete about the belief that there is no God, beyond "I have not seen it, therefore it does not exist". I have never seen the Rocky Mountains, but you would all call me wacky if I told you I didn't believe that they exist at all.

The logical, concrete way of dealing with a question would be to apply the scientific method to it. We have a hypothesis, we run tests against that hypothesis, we come to a conclusion based off of the results of those tests. However, the existence or non-existence of a God is a hypothesis that can't be tested, therefore the logical response would be to draw no conclusions until such time as a test can be performed.

Snorri1234 wrote:

dwilhelmi wrote:

Mach1tosh wrote:There is nothing concrete about religous attitudes beyond blind faith.

There is also nothing concrete about the belief that there is no God, beyond "I have not seen it, therefore it does not exist". I have never seen the Rocky Mountains, but you would all call me wacky if I told you I didn't believe that they exist at all.

Except that we can give you evidence of their existence and even point out where you can find them. It's just not on the same level.

For example, do you think you would be ridiculed if you said you didn't believe in Zeus?

Snorri1234 wrote:

The logical, concrete way of dealing with a question would be to apply the scientific method to it. We have a hypothesis, we run tests against that hypothesis, we come to a conclusion based off of the results of those tests. However, the existence or non-existence of a God is a hypothesis that can't be tested, therefore the logical response would be to draw no conclusions until such time as a test can be performed.

Actually, the existence of God is a hypothesis that is unfalsifiable. It's not that we currently don't have a way of determining whether he exist, it's that we can't ever find a way because nothing disproves God.

Belief in the non-existence of any Gods is still a belief system. Your belief in the lack of a God assists you in understanding what goes on around you. Without that belief, your understanding would be different, therefore your belief assists in your understanding.

For example, Humanism is a religion, of which one of the beliefs is atheism. Naturalistic Pantheism is another example of a religion that holds atheistic views.
Simply put, atheism is an attribute of certain religions, and not a religion in and of itself

"I have not seen it, therefore it does not exist". I have never seen the Rocky Mountains, but you would all call me wacky if I told you I didn't believe that they exist at all.

The logical, concrete way of dealing with a question would be to apply the scientific method to it. We have a hypothesis, we run tests against that hypothesis, we come to a conclusion based off of the results of those tests. However, the existence or non-existence of a God is a hypothesis that can't be tested, therefore the logical response would be to draw no conclusions until such time as a test can be performed.

dwilhelmi wrote:I do not think I would be ridiculed, no. I also do not think atheists should be ridiculed. Nor do I believe that christians, buddists, followers of Greek gods, or any other belief set should be ridiculed. My example was a little off mark, but the point was simply that there is no proof that there are no God(s) in existence.

Snorri1234 wrote:Actually, the existence of God is a hypothesis that is unfalsifiable. It's not that we currently don't have a way of determining whether he exist, it's that we can't ever find a way because nothing disproves God.

Tongue in cheek response - sure we do, we just have to die first.
Actual response - That is exactly my point. Neither the existence nor the non-existence of God(s) can be tested. Therefore, the only logical conclusion would be to draw no conclusions, and leave it in the category of pure theory.

What if Txaryclaryquickzyxcozyl is actually the one true God, even though he's only worshipped by a small remote tribe in the jungle of Argentina?