If atheists don't believe in God nor the Bible, do they believe in any prophecy...Nostradamus, Edgar Cayce, etc.?

An athiest believes in what ever he wants to believe in, and it just happens its not God or the Bible.

quote:Originally posted by Mental Detour:

An athiest believes in what ever he wants to believe in, and it just happens its not God or the Bible.



That's bullshit, and you know it.

Atheism isn't existential, nor is it agnostic. There is a definite belief structure involved.

Atheism is the absence of a particular belief structure.

Personally, my atheism stems from a strong belief in empiricism, hence I put little stock in prophecies.

quote:Originally posted by Armed&Angry:

Atheism is the absence of a particular belief structure.

Personally, my atheism stems from a strong belief in empiricism, hence I put little stock in prophecies.

STOP STEALING MY THOUGHTS, YOU BASTARD!!!

http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

A belief in the non-existence of what other believe in.

You believe that this is all there is. Fine by me, different strokes for different folks.

But it IS a belief, as you cannot prove it, just as I cannot prove my beliefs.

Atheism is just not having a belief in God. Don't refer to it as a religion. It is lack of religion in my belief. and yes I am one.

It's not a religion. Of course not. However, it is a belief.

It's a belief in not having a belief, as I've stated.

Atheism is only a lack of belief in gods. An atheist does not believe in God or gods. It is not a religion. Prophecy may or may not be about religious affairs. So atheists could possibly believe in some prophecy...Jean Dixon, perhaps. Now, why do people who claim to be atheists relate they think atheism is some form of school of thought? It has nothing to do with existentialism, holism, ect.

Atheism is nothing. It is not a belief - it is disbelief in God or gods. Thats it...nothing special or elaborate. An atheists is not necessarily a satanist or reptilian. Though they could be....

It's a belief in disbelief.

Let' me try to explain. Can I prove that God exists?

No, of course not. Hence, my faith is merely a belief.

Now, you don't have a belief in a higher power. You don't believe it exists. But can you prove it?

No, you can't. Which is what makes it a belief.

Im agnostic,

I belive.....shit, Im confused.

kikey is right, it is a beleif, just like I beleive I have toes and my little sister beleives in the tooth fairy.(you cannot prove I have toes simply becasue a majority of people think I have toes and tests show conclusive evidence tword their existence, becasue if consensus defined reality the major religion would be undeniably correct becasuse a majority of people beleive in it.)

A beleif is not to be confused with a religion, for example, beleiving all christian doctrine does not make you a christian, you may be the anti christ or hate god, or be a liberal democrat or....lol

Im tired and getting confused.

This is the same argument i have with my friend on a daily basis. You cant convince an atheist that there is a certain amount of dogma and faith in their belief structure because as we all know, atheists know everything and are much supierior to those puny individuals that need the crutch of religion [/sarcasm]

Actually an atheist couldn't be a Satanist, because Satanism is a religion (a subset of Semitic religion, usually Christianity).

Actually, Archaic999, you can prove you have toes if tests show you have toes. That's the idea of tests... they're a means of determining something using an objective method, since belief is subjective.

The only way to objectively determine truth is to base conclusions on empirical evidence.

My problem is not with the hypothesis (and it can barely be called that; it is certainly not a theory) that there is a God. It is certainly possible. However, my objection to religion (in all it's forms), is that it is highly unlikely, and there is no evidence, nor train of logic based initially on evidence, that indeed there is such a thing as God or divinity. It is simply fiction, borne of nothing more than human creativity.

That is why I disagree with belief in religion, because there is no valid reason to believe it. I hold religion to the same standard as anything else.

Imagine, if you will, a murder trial. The defense makes its case telling the jury a story that explains how the defendant couldn't have committed the murder; they don't have any facts to support their version of events, however. The defense lawyer tells the jury to have faith that the defendant is a good person, to have faith that he is telling the truth about his version of events.

Things are different on the prosecution's side, however. The detectives started the case knowing nothing about anything surrounding it. Through investigation, they discover facts about the crime, until based on that evidence, they piece together an idea of what happened. All available evidence is analyzed, and all evidence which indicates anything in the case indicates the defendant's guilt.

There is no evidence to support the defense's case, nor does any point towards a third explanation (one other than either the defense's or prosecution's explanation).

The prosecution doesn't have evidence for every single part of what happened, and likewise there are parts unexplained. These lacks of evidence are not evidence of anything, they do not point to either the defense's or prosecution's case, nor do they discredit either, nor are they glaring absences which detract from the validity of the conclusions drawn from indesputable evidence.

The jury would convict in a heartbeat.

This is identical to the situation with religion. It's nothing but a story in a story book. There is plenty of empirical evidence for another explanation of just about everything else. Incidentally, the explanations of just about about all these other things tie in together and corroborate one another. The explanations given by religion can only be used to excuse the indesputable facts, while the secular theories are strengthened by them.

I will be the first to admit that secular, scientific theories do not explain everything, nor are enough facts know to do so. That doesn't mean they're false.

Religion was once the accepted explanation for everything. As humans learn more facts about reality, there is a direct correlation to the decline in acceptance of religious explanations. The earth is round, not flat like the church insisted. The church said that the sun orbited the earth, as the rest of the planets did, and anyone who spoke otherwise was persecuted by the church. "Oops... sorry about that, we were wrong about that one. And that one... but the rest is true, I swear! I have no evidence, so have faith!"

Now, we don't have any evidence at the moment to disprove the remainder of the religious stories, but there is a strikingly distinct pattern emerging...

There is no cause to believe religion, but there is cause to believe secular explanations.

Come on, Kikey, you seem fairly intelligent. You're smarter than that. You were just raised into your religion by your parents, and just like 99% of everyone else out there, you're just following what they taught you because that's what you were brought up with. If your parents had been Irish Catholic, you would be too, just as you'd be Hindu if they'd been. Open your mind. Look at the facts. Let the facts lead you to your conclusions, rather than trying to make the facts fit your beliefs. You seem to be able to do it with everything but religion.

[This message has been edited by zorro420 (edited 08-27-2003).]

quote:Originally posted by zorro420:

Come on, Kikey, you seem fairly intelligent. You're smarter than that. You were just raised into your religion by your parents, and just like 99% of everyone else out there, you're just following what they taught you because that's what you were brought up with.

On the contrary, my parents are most commonly identified as methodists.

However, we did not go to church. All throughout my childhood, I went to church 5 times, tops, and that was only on Easter. I was never baptised, my parents refused to, even though my family insisted. I was basically raised agnostic. My parents wanted me to choose my beliefs for myself.

And, you know what? I chose it. I was not 'brainwashed.' I was not just born into it.

Life is not as black and white as you think.

quote:If your parents had been Irish Catholic, you would be too, just as you'd be Hindu if they'd been.

Are your parents athiests?

quote: Open your mind. Look at the facts. Let the facts lead you to your conclusions, rather than trying to make the facts fit your beliefs. You seem to be able to do it with everything but religion.

I seem to have some sort of personal proof. Something which makes me more likely to believe in God rather than the converse.

And, believe me, I do, though you'd more than likely dismiss it. And, really, I couldn't blame you.

The problem with secular theories is that many have not start or base... they just sort of appeared or happened. Take the big bang theory for instance, say that there was a large ball of matter just kind of there... how did the matter get there? And dont give me that "it doesnt matter, it just was" bs because thats no better than a christian, in the face of evidence that jesus wasnt the messiah saying "he just was". The problem with secular theories is that they require just as much if not more faith than religious theories.

I chose it. I was not 'brainwashed.' I was not just born into it.

Hmm... I guess you're not as smart as I thought.

Are your parents athiests?

No, and neither am I. I am an agnostic who believes that only empirical evidence has validity.

To paraphrase Isaac Asimov,

I do not believe that all who use the scientific method are correct. I simply believe that those who do not use the scientific method have no valid argument.

I seem to have some sort of personal proof.

Good for you. It has no value. Sorry. Show me some empirical evidence.

---

Take the big bang theory for instance, say that there was a large ball of matter just kind of there... how did the matter get there? And dont give me that "it doesnt matter, it just was" bs...

It most certainly does matter. Unfortunately, I don't think anyone knows yet. That doesn't mean the rest of the theory isn't sound. In fact, if you haven't been paying attention, it's been proven... they have found the background radiation that is the residual of the big bang itself. In other words, now they know that it happened, but they still don't know why.

The problem with secular theories is that they require just as much if not more faith than religious theories.

Um... perhaps you missed the whole part of religious stories (I won't call them theories) have no supporting empirical evidence, while the secular theories do. Faith is belief without evidence. The secular theories not only do not require it (due to the fact that there is real evidence), but actively discourage it (since faith runs contrary to the very basis of science).

So basically you're just wrong in that statement.

[This message has been edited by zorro420 (edited 08-27-2003).]

quote:Originally posted by zorro420:

I chose it. I was not 'brainwashed.' I was not just born into it.

Hmm... I guess you're not as smart as I thought.

Are your parents athiests?

No, and neither am I. I am an agnostic who believes that only empirical evidence has validity.

To paraphrase Isaac Asimov,

I do not believe that all who use the scientific method are correct. I simply believe that those who do not use the scientific method have no valid argument.

I seem to have some sort of personal proof.

Good for you. It has no value. Sorry. Show me some empirical evidence.

---

Take the big bang theory for instance, say that there was a large ball of matter just kind of there... how did the matter get there? And dont give me that "it doesnt matter, it just was" bs...

It most certainly does matter. Unfortunately, I don't think anyone knows yet. That doesn't mean the rest of the theory isn't sound. In fact, if you haven't been paying attention, it's been proven... they have found the background radiation that is the residual of the big bang itself. In other words, now they know that it happened, but they still don't know why.

The problem with secular theories is that they require just as much if not more faith than religious theories.

Um... perhaps you missed the whole part of religious stories (I won't call them theories) have no supporting empirical evidence, while the secular theories do. Faith is belief without evidence. The secular theories not only do not require it (due to the fact that there is real evidence), but actively discourage it (since faith runs contrary to the very basis of science).

So basically you're just wrong in that statement.

[This message has been edited by zorro420 (edited 08-27-2003).]

I see, so the fact that there's radiation in space proves that a big bang billions of years ago put it there. That's funny, some religious people would say the fact that there are humans on earth proves that god put us here thousands of years ago.

It's a little more in-depth than that, and I don't remember all the details off the top of my head. But yes, when taken with the rest of the evidence, it does in fact prove that the big bang happened.

[This message has been edited by zorro420 (edited 08-27-2003).]

Not everyone who professes atheism believes the big bang explains every particular of physics. Some of us realize that such a conclusion is just an educated guess, and that it's basically irrelevant.

This is largely because atheism is the lack of a particular belief system.

jesus christ, this damn argument over and over again,

"Synonyms: belief, credence, credit, faith

These nouns denote mental acceptance of the truth, actuality, or validity of something: a statement unworthy of belief; an idea steadily gaining credence; testimony meriting credit; has no faith in a liar's assertions.

See also synonyms at opinion

Antonyms: disbelief"

how come is it that only atheists refuse to acknowledge the universally known fundamental fact that BELIEF AND OPINION are one and the same.

"Atheism is just not having a belief in God. Don't refer to it as a religion. It is lack of religion in my belief. and yes I am one."

even this jackass acknowledges the fact but lacks the wisdom to see it.

nobody said atheism is a religion, it is a belief.

if you tell me something and i can't prove it's true.

i can believe you are correct, or i can not believe you.

SAYING I DON'T BELIEVE YOU, IS THE EXACT SAME THING AS SAYING I BELIEVE YOU ARE LYING.

try to solve fermat's last theorem, which says this equation can never be satisfied.

(x+1)^(w+3) + (y+1)^(w+3) = (z+1)^(w+3)

can it be solved or not? what do you BELIEVE.

prove it.

does the value of pi terminate at some point, will a pattern emerge, does it go on for infinity.

what do you believe?

prove it.

if you cannot prove either of these, the outcome of each is a belief, a lack of belief in one result indicates a belief in another result.

think about it as a damn equation.

god exists = true,

god exists = false,

which statement is correct?

prove it.

nothing more than a goddamn belief or opinion is it, the only true fact for fermat's theorem, pi, and god is that we don't know and the answer.

i can say the same ignorant shit as you people.

i don't believe in god.

i lack belief that god doesn't exist.

[This message has been edited by IzzyReele (edited 08-27-2003).]

To clarify, i am not disputing the big bang. I believe it happend, under divine guidence, but it happened none the less. As i said about secular theories, sure they have supporting "facts" but a lot of those facts can be disproved or are possibly misinterpreted. So the actual act of believing in the theory requires faith that the evidence supporting it is in fact true and being interpreted correctly. Thats where i was heading with my last statement.

quote:Originally posted by zorro420:

Hmm... I guess you're not as smart as I thought.

Yeah, sure.

You have beliefs different from mine. Intelligence has nothing to do with it, though you guys like to claim some kind of intellectual seperiority and claim that it does.

I don't quite understand it. Why are you folks so insecure that you have to evangelise and go on crusades?

You think you're right. Fine by me. I think I'm right. Neither of us can prove ourselves correct. But you don't see me trying to convert those with different beliefs than mine, nor do you see me attacking them(with the sole exception of Muslims, who are not bad people, but worship a tyrant who converted by the sword, which their priests mostly refuse to acknowledge.)

Fact is, if athiests are right, they'll never know, and I'll never know. So why even discuss it? Why are you so desperate to 'prove' yourselves?

quote:No, and neither am I. I am an agnostic who believes that only empirical evidence has validity.

Good for you.

quote:Good for you. It has no value. Sorry. Show me some empirical evidence.

Show me some empirical evidence proving your beliefs.

The scientific method is hard to apply to a non-physical concept. I sure wish it wasn't, though. I'd like to study the nature of the human consciousness scientifically.

I think most people would like to study the conciousness scientifically... this is starting to remind me of a conversation i had while watching Pi for the first time. Good movie.

I believe the answer to this should be left to the Atheists.

And telling people there thoughts are bullshit is... well... bullshit.

Cheers,

Lost

quote:Originally posted by Fascistsmasher:

The problem with secular theories is that they require just as much if not more faith than religious theories.

No they don't. For one thing, if you have no theory you're allowed to say "I don't know.", as opposed to making one up completely without base.

Or you can make one up, knowing that if it incorrect elements will be thrown out. (again, unlike belief, where obviously incorrect ideas are glossed over)

quote:Originally posted by IzzyReele:

how come is it that only atheists refuse to acknowledge the universally known fundamental fact that BELIEF AND OPINION are one and the same.

Oh, Izzy, you and your word games.

Is it a firmly held belief of yours that Santa Claus doesn't exist? How illogical.

quote:if you tell me something and i can't prove it's true.

i can believe you are correct, or i can not believe you.

False dichotomy. You can also say you don't have enough evidence and refuse to take a side.

quote:think about it as a damn equation.

god exists = true,

god exists = false,

Alright then, which of these inequalities is correct?

x > 0

x <= 0

prove it.

x being an unknown value, you can't.

(this is not to advance the agnostic cause, because the value of x is not unknowable)

Now, if the majority of the world believed x to be positive, and you knew you didn't know the answer, when asked you would probably tell people you don't believe x is greater than 0. This doesn't mean you believe x is less than or equal to zero.

Saying "I don't believe in God" can be the same as saying "There is no God.", but it isn't always. It can also mean "I lack belief in God." It's the vagueness of the phrase that you're latching onto.

This is not a perfect analogy. The chances of the two choices above are almost equal, whereas the chances of God existing are much smaller than the chances of him not.

quote:we don't know and the answer.

Weak atheism is functionally equivalent to saying you don't know.

Here: being apolitical doesn't mean that you are against politics (though it can), or the opposite of political. It just means you lack political opinion.

Being atheistic therefore doesn't mean you're against theism (though it can), or the opposite of theistic (believing there to be no God). It just means you lack theistic belief.

edit: too tired last night to make my point, added it this morning

[This message has been edited by Craftian (edited 08-29-2003).]

quote:Originally posted by Craftian:

Isn't saying you don't know the answer what atheist is? (weak atheism, at least)



I'd consider that agnosticism.

Athiests are as certain that there is no God/s as theists are that there is.

About fermat's last theorum, wouldn't x = 1, y = -1, z = 1, w = 1 satisfy the equation?

quote:Originally posted by Haddock:

About fermat's last theorum, wouldn't x = 1, y = -1, z = 1, w = 1 satisfy the equation?

The thing he posted wasn't actually Fermat's last theorem, I have no idea what it was.

From this site: (http://www-gap.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/HistTopics/Fermat's_last_theorem.html)

"Fermat's Last Theorem states that

x^n + y^n = z^n

has no non-zero integer solutions for x, y and z when n > 2"

quote:Originally posted by Kikey_Kikeowitz:

I'd consider that agnosticism.

Athiests are as certain that there is no God/s as theists are that there is.

See, the problem here is that we're all working on different definitions.

Agnosticism is the belief that it is impossible to know whether there is a god.

From this site: (http://azaz.essortment.com/agnosticdefinit_rmak.htm[/url)

"The essential problem was that Huxley believed the problem was unsolvable."

There's more there but I can't be bothered to edit for effect.

A weak atheist doesn't believe in a god.

A strong atheist believes there is no god.

BSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBS BSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBS BSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBS BSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBS BSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBS BSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBS BSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBS BSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBS BSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBS BSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBS BSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBS BSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBS BSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBS BSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBS BSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBS BSBSBSBSBSBSBS. That's all I can say about the "how do you know there's air? None can see the air!" 100th time recurrent thread.

"Know yourself", how can you know yourself if you disqualify practices that you never knew in this life? You go to the restaurant, look at the menu, and say "that one's not tasty". The waiter asks you "well I don't remember you trying it". You answer "I don't like the way it sounds." BSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSSSBSBSBSBSBSSBSBSSBBBBS

quote:Originally posted by Craftian:

. For one thing, if you have no theory you're allowed to say "I don't know.", as opposed to making one up completely without base.

Or you can make one up, knowing that if it incorrect elements will be thrown out. (again, unlike belief, where obviously incorrect ideas are glossed over)

BS

"I doin't know" is not very much heard among scientists.

"I don't know" is the epitaph of any real religious life.

There indeed is more need for faith in order to believe in "noGod".

~~~~~

Ã. Even though the whole universe goes after cause and effect law.

B. You have to break that universal order and state: "I believe that above that infinite chain of effects, there's - no cause..."

C. What a fucking irrational, fanatical faith!

BSbsbsbbsbsbssbbbs



[This message has been edited by UrbnTbone (edited 08-29-2003).]

quote:Originally posted by UrbnTbone:

C. What a fucking irrational, fanatical faith!

BSbsbsbbsbsbssbbbs

Science has peer review. You can hardly say that about religion, where the only review you get is through bloody schisms.

And in response to the original poster, whose topic we have deviated from, Mental Detour had it right at the beginning.

Most atheists, however, are skeptics and see Nostradamus and friends for the crap they are.

quote:Originally posted by UrbnTbone:

There indeed is more need for faith in order to believe in "noGod".

~~~~~

Ã. Even though the whole universe goes after cause and effect law.

B. You have to break that universal order and state: "I believe that above that infinite chain of effects, there's - no cause..."

C. What a fucking irrational, fanatical faith!

BSbsbsbbsbsbssbbbs

[This message has been edited by UrbnTbone (edited 08-29-2003).]

B. It's not stating there's no cause. It's stating that we don't know the cause, and there's no reason to believe that "God" is the cause.

C. While there may be fanatics who are extremely zealous about science, it's anything but irrational. In fact, it is the very essence of rational. Nothing that disobeys science can, in fact, be rational.

Posted by Kikey:

I don't quite understand it. Why are you folks so insecure that you have to evangelise and go on crusades?

Two reasons. First, religion is a bad thing because it prevents people from developing true morals based on the actual morality of something rather than fear of retribution by a higher power. It also results in intolerance and violence (most of the conflict in the world is based on religion).

Second, this is a forum for discussion views about religion, and that's what I'm going to do here. Just because that's what I talk about here doesn't mean that I "evangelise" elsewhere.

However, since all I'm putting forth is science, I'd just call it education.

quote:Originally posted by zorro420:

Actually an atheist couldn't be a Satanist, because Satanism is a religion

I disagree, being and Atheist does not preclude you from being a Satanist. Satanism is a moral structure, not a religion. An atheist simply does not believe in a deity, plain and simple. Many religions don't have a deity, Buddhism and Satanism being two of them. Buddhists and Satanists are atheists with a codified set of morals. But they are still by the strictest definition of the term, atheist. I'm a Satanist and an Atheist, and damn proud. =)

And if we didn't have conflicts based on religion, believers would be overran by atheists, satanists, pagans, etc who are mostly just out for themselves or personal gratification and that would cause society to decay worse than it already has. And that is why religion causes wars. People do not wanna live in a society and a culture where the majority of people are cancers growing on the face of morality.

quote:Originally posted by Wings Of Azrael:

People do not wanna live in a society and a culture where the majority of people are cancers growing on the face of morality.

I don't think I've ever been called a cancer before.

Seriously, you think atheists are any worse than Baptists? or jihadists? I would say that the majority of the "theistic" Western world (meaning that which continues to go to church because it's easier than thinking about things) is as immoral as any atheistic or satanic group, perhaps more so.

Unless you include things like homosexuality, eating pork, fornication,etc as immoral.

Which most theists probably do.