I am because I don't like the idea of someone else in control of my life.

But then again, it has been said that all atheists are really religious in disguise; all they need is a reason to believe.

Who said religions control your life? The Christian god gave us free will. Buddhists don't really believe in any single "moral" lifestyle.

quote:Originally posted by theBishop:

Who said religions control your life?

In my opinion, the Christian people say premarital sex is bad, that is persuading people to not have premarital sex, so in the end it is a form of controlling people through religion. Religion also controlled people’s lives in the dark ages. How the funk can u proove god gave us free will? The only way you'll be able to answer that is by giving me your opinion or quotes from a "holy book" that may not even be true to begin with; no proofs.

"Don't worry if you cannot see that you don't have free will, your programming simply won't allow it."

[This message has been edited by Aczar (edited 01-06-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by Aczar:

In my opinion, the Christian people say premarital sex is bad, that is persuading people to not have premarital sex, so in the end it is a form of controlling people through religion. Religion also controlled people’s lives in the dark ages. How the funk can u proove god gave us free will? The only way you'll be able to answer that is by giving me your opinion or quotes from a "holy book" that may not even be true to begin with; no proofs.

"Don't worry if you cannot see that you don't have free will, your programming simply won't allow it."



The Church says it is bad, and they say you shouldn't do it, but they don't say you cannot do it. And it is possible to sin and still go to heaven in the catholic religion. The Catholic Church does nothing to control her congregation, they make reccomendations as to how people should live, but they do not 'control' people's lives.

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

The Church says it is bad, and they say you shouldn't do it, but they don't say you cannot do it.

I understand your point.

Saying that something is bad will make people rethink what the subject is; I see it as human nature. When one says something is bad they will supply reasons for why they believe that. I see this as a form of persuasion and is equal to an unintentional attempt to controlling someone. A possible reason for why one is atheist is because they don’t feel like being controlled unintentionally. Agree?

I don't like to look at things as "religion". That's just a label. When I take things in, I take them in as thoughts.

Religion does rule your life, and it did, back in the Dark Ages, people who had never heard of Jesus were ruled by the church, but that was then, which makes it irrealevant.

If you don't like the thought that something is in charge of your life, you better live with it. Your enviroment is in charge of your physical life.

Think of this, everytime you pass a stopsign that stops cars on a road that intersects with the one you are driving on, you are trusting that person to stop, and not just blow through and kill you, thus, that person has control of your life at that moment.

Physically we are at mercy to our surroundings.

If its predestination (The thought that our lives are pre-decided for us, already set in stone i.e. Fate), I agree with you. I do not like the thought of me not being able to change my future, which I do.

If you are a teenager, as am I, this is probably a phase and you will snap out of it. Either that, or its just the way you worded it.

quote:Originally posted by Aczar:

I understand your point.

Saying that something is bad will make people rethink what the subject is; I see it as human nature. When one says something is bad they will supply reasons for why they believe that. I see this as a form of persuasion and is equal to an unintentional attempt to controlling someone. A possible reason for why one is atheist is because they don’t feel like being controlled unintentionally. Agree?

The Church is usually right though.

I sort of see how it could be to some people like unintentional influence(better word than control), and I know a lot of people would not like that. I don't think the church is trying to control anyone, they are just trying to get people to live good lives by saying what they think is good and what is bad. Most of what today's church says is bad, is actually bad. Most of what they say is good, is actually good. Catholicism is a lot of just living your life in a good, moral fashion; the church gives guidelines which it thinks will help people live a good, moral life.

I am because i use my Brain. There is no evidence of god, and I am able to cope with the fact that at some point I will die. The purpose of religion is to cope with the idea of death.

I’m atheist for two reasons.

The first of which is the lack of proof to back up the writings of religions or the existence of their deities. This is of course not to say that they are devoid of meaning, as even the tallest of tales have a truth behind them. Instead I prefer to find my meaning and guidance with my own human logic. This brings me to my second reason. The church (I am referring to the Christian church right now) has an interesting way of perverting things that Christ in his life would never have meant to have been seen that way. Though religion has the power to unite, this doesn’t guarantee that it is for the better. Let’s take Islam for instance. The religion itself is nothing like what it has been warped into by radical figures.

That’s why I’m atheist; I can find my own truth without getting caught up in the mess.

That's sort of odd Iron. It sounds like you're on a spiritual journey, yet you describe yourself as devoid of spritual belief, at least as it pertains to God.

And "The Church" is easy to pick on. I did so often, and continue to do so sometimes. But first, you have to seperate the Catholic church from the protestant. Then within the protestant denominations, there are lots of honest people who actually care about what the bible says. Not every church is shuffling its congregation through, telling them what they want to hear so they can have an excuse to hate gays and donate lots of money to the church.

If you look at the trees, rather than the forest, i think you'd see that it isn't as bad as the 700 Club makes it seem.

*LAUGHING OUT LOUD AT BISHOP*

That was fantastic !

To all the athiest's that honestly responded: thank you. Insight is great.

I'm atheist for several reasons; during my search for truth, I requested of God to be filled with his spirit and to be saved. Not some half-assed muttering; I honestly wanted to experience and be immersed in his salvation, and to submit myself to him. Each time I did this (thrice in total) the feeling of exhiliration came, but it lasted only for a few weeks each time, leading me to the conclusion that my hope was just getting the best of me.

Along with that, I find Judaism to have a very skewed perspective on humanity, and the same with Islam.

Aside from those 3, I dabbled a great deal in European religions, but I noticed that all of them were simply filled with gods that represented natural aspects that can be explained today in terms a child can understand.

From there, I went to Eastern religions, which while they contain a great deal of philosophical truths, the few theistic varieties seemed like utter bullshit, and well, the atheistic varieties are...atheist.

By religion, you can call me a Taoist, because it contains philosophy that can be verified by mere observation, without violating any of my better senses. However, I'm an atheist as well, being as Taoism prescribes no belief in gods, nor against them.

Hexi you dont get the fealing all the time, i know it, im sure Degi knows it and im sur xreeeme knows it and they will all tell you it dosent last, why its beyond me...

You said that you had the fealing for weeks, Drugs cant do that ,cheeting cant d othat, skydiving cant do that...



[This message has been edited by madamwench (edited 01-08-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by madamwench:

Hexi you dont get the fealing all the time, i know it, im sure Degi knows it and im sur xreeeme knows it and they will all tell you it dosent last, why its beyond me...

You said that you had the fealing for weeks, Drugs cant do that ,cheeting cant d othat, skydiving cant do that...





Acid, shrooms, NDEs, peyote, and insanity can all get that feeling to last for several weeks. It's a producable and lasting feeling not unique to religous searching, leading me to believe it's just in the head (a conclusion that's been seeing quite a bit of scientific support lately).

yeah but relgion wont tend to kill you, acid does... mabey Marx was right when he said "relgion is the opate of the masses"

quote:Originally posted by madamwench:

yeah but relgion wont tend to kill you, acid does... mabey Marx was right when he said "relgion is the opate of the masses"

There's no maybe about it. He was right. People abuse religion all the time,it's everywhere.

As for my being athiest, it's as simple as I don't like having to fear some being for after when I die, I'll pay for what I did when I was living. I like to do things, and only fear about real world consequences, not some fabled being holding a grudge after I die. Also, I believe people that use their faith to guide them through life is just proof they don't have the mind capability to live life for themselves.

Most of the explainations I've heard so far are, in my opinion, missing the point, and in many ways merely reactionary. In regards to the notion of being an atheist in order to be free from the control of God or the Church, I ask how merely not believing in something frees you from its control. If you don't like the fact that exerts control over you, how will simply choosing not to believe in it help you in any way? It's like an anarchist choosing not to believe in the existence of a government because he doesn't like the idea of government control. If you don't like the idea of divine control over your life, how does refusing to believe in it, effectively make it non-existent? It merely makes you adverse to it. Just because you don't like religion or the idea of God, doesn't necessarily make it false.

In regards to the idea of God or religion lacking proof, I would like to remind atheists that the idea of the non-existence of God would require proof as well. You can't prove the existence of a God, granted, but you can't disprove it either. Something which is naturally beyond the scope of human reason/comprehension, such as a God, cannot be empirically proven or disproven scientifically or logically. It's a leap of faith to believe and a leap of faith not to believe.

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

The Church says it is bad, and they say you shouldn't do it, but they don't say you cannot do it. And it is possible to sin and still go to heaven in the catholic religion. The Catholic Church does nothing to control her congregation, they make reccomendations as to how people should live, but they do not 'control' people's lives.

yeah, thats why the roman/spanish inquisitions happened, cuz the church just advises people how to live, they are advised by being burned at the stake

quote:Originally posted by LostEquation:

Most of the explainations I've heard so far are, in my opinion, missing the point, and in many ways merely reactionary. In regards to the notion of being an atheist in order to be free from the control of God or the Church, I ask how merely not believing in something frees you from its control. If you don't like the fact that exerts control over you, how will simply choosing not to believe in it help you in any way? It's like an anarchist choosing not to believe in the existence of a government because he doesn't like the idea of government control. If you don't like the idea of divine control over your life, how does refusing to believe in it, effectively make it non-existent? It merely makes you adverse to it. Just because you don't like religion or the idea of God, doesn't necessarily make it false.

In regards to the idea of God or religion lacking proof, I would like to remind atheists that the idea of the non-existence of God would require proof as well. You can't prove the existence of a God, granted, but you can't disprove it either. Something which is naturally beyond the scope of human reason/comprehension, such as a God, cannot be empirically proven or disproven scientifically or logically. It's a leap of faith to believe and a leap of faith not to believe.



Very well stated. I could not agree with you more.

You could say i am atheist because i only believe in "god" in the most transpersonal

sense.

Tao or Chaos makes more sense to me.

The word god , to me , is much too tainted with anthropomorphic views for me to use.

I am atheist because i am awake , and the idea of a personal , moralistic god is just completely ludicrous to me.

It is for us to decide what is good and bad,

and it is for us to make the best out of living in a hostile universe for ourselves and for others , not for the sake of pleasing any god , but for the sake of

"Do unto others..."

Some parts of the bible kick ass...

Too bad these are also the most neglected parts. Sorry about the long sentences...

LostEquation:

"If you don't like the idea of divine control over your life, how does refusing to believe in it, effectively make it non-existent?"

One problem: Your entire argument revolves around the assumption that there is, indeed, a God, and that he is in total control. If this were the case, then no, simple disbelief would not free you from God's control. However, since his existence cannot be proven, then you may take your disbelief to whichever degree you choose.

Also, the anarchist analogy does not apply here, being that Governmental control can, and is proven on a daily basis. Maybe I'm missing the point, but then again, I haven't thoroughly read every response that your post was aimed at.

Moving on...

"You can't prove the existence of a God, granted, but you can't disprove it either."

You are correct, in a sense. It is true that you cannot disprove the existence of a being, simply based on the fact that a non-existent object cannot produce evidence as to its own non-existence. Yet, by this logic, there is no possible way to prove an object's non-existence.

On the other hand, an object's existence CAN (and MUST) be proven.

What if I were to tell you that I see a 40 ft. tall man standing in my front yard? Would you believe me? Not until you had seen some proof. Well, why would I need evidence of this man's existence? All I have to do is say, "Prove me wrong". Do you see the horribly flawed logic in this statement? Anyone with half a brain would simply backhand me and walk away.

The burden of proof does, indeed, lie with the believers, as you cannot prove a being's non-existence, yet you CAN prove a being's existence.

quote:Originally posted by LostEquation:



In regards to the idea of God or religion lacking proof, I would like to remind atheists that the idea of the non-existence of God would require proof as well. You can't prove the existence of a God, granted, but you can't disprove it either. Something which is naturally beyond the scope of human reason/comprehension, such as a God, cannot be empirically proven or disproven scientifically or logically. It's a leap of faith to believe and a leap of faith not to believe.

Why can't you prove the existence of a god?

There is nothing stopping Jesus or any other theistic being/icon for that matter, from doing quantifiable actions which could prove at the very least that he was powers/abilities much greater than mere humans.

On the other hand, you can't prove lack of existence.

The burden of proof would not hold any weight on atheists, because they cannot, in any way shape or form refute existence. Therefore it must fall on theists who's argument could easily be proved correct.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 01-10-2005).]

Who holds the burden of proof is not really important,to tell the truth.The fact of the matter is that no proof can be provided to determine the existance/non-existance of a god/gods. Without supporting evidence of existance, it is more logical to lean toward disbelief. But denying the possibility,due to lack of evidence is somewhat illogical also. Although extremely unlikely, there is always the minute possibility that evidence may be found. Therefore, I hold an agnostic point of view,leaning more toward athiesm.

[This message has been edited by truckfixr (edited 01-10-2005).]

The burden of proof is important, at least I see it as important, because it serves as a logical way of choosing which argument to believe in. Do you believe those who claim god exists, whom have not produced any sort of evidence, while having countless of means to do so? Or do you believe atheists who have not produced any evidence of non-existence, which is to be expected since it is impossible?

P.S. Why do you say it is impossible to provide evidence of the existence of a god?

quote:One problem: Your entire argument revolves around the assumption that there is, indeed, a God, and that he is in total control. If this were the case, then no, simple disbelief would not free you from God's control. However, since his existence cannot be proven, then you may take your disbelief to whichever degree you choose.

I'm not assuming there is a God at all. I was pointing out how some of the above posters were appearing to assume there was a God, by denouncing supposedly oppressive divine authority as the reason for their atheism.

quote: What if I were to tell you that I see a 40 ft. tall man standing in my front yard? Would you believe me? Not until you had seen some proof. Well, why would I need evidence of this man's existence? All I have to do is say, "Prove me wrong". Do you see the horribly flawed logic in this statement? Anyone with half a brain would simply backhand me and walk away.

First of all, a 40 foot man standing in your front yard could be easily proven or disproven empirically simply by me going to your front yard and seeing this man standing there. If he's there, it's true, if he isn't there, it's untrue. That is because a 40 ft. man is an object which can be seen and understood by the senses. However my point is that a God might not necessarily be able to be understood through the senses, simply because of the nature of being God, that is being something beyond human reasoning/comprehension. If you were to tell me that God was standing in your front yard, it would be impossible to determine whether or not you are telling the truth empirically, because if I went over there to your front yard, you would not be able to prove to me that God was indeed standing in your front yard, whereas you could prove to me that a 40 ft. man was standing there.

quote:The burden of proof does, indeed, lie with the believers, as you cannot prove a being's non-existence, yet you CAN prove a being's existence.

As I said earlier, I don't believe proof has anything to do with believing or not believing in something like a God...it's a leap of faith either way. But...

In regards to your point above, how can you not prove a God's non-existence, yet be able to prove a God's existence?

Anyways, the burden of proof would lie with the believers if they choose to try and prove it. However this is something totally different, and in my opinion, ridiculous because of the very nature of trying to logically/scientifically prove something which is so completely illogical/scientific.

However the critical point lies in the very nature of atheism itself. This being that atheists take the extra step of choosing categorically not to believe in a God, rather than reserving judgement. Therefore they automatically assume that because no proof of God exists, that there must be no God at all, thus approaching a very illogical subject in a very logical and scientific way. As a result, my point is that choosing not to believe in something's existence in turn places another burden of proof on the atheists...a burden which cannot be carried.

quote:Why can't you prove the existence of a god?

There is nothing stopping Jesus or any other theistic being/icon for that matter, from doing quantifiable actions which could prove at the very least that he was powers/abilities much greater than mere humans.

You're taking a very narrow approach assuming that a God must be recognized in the Christian sense as one which intervenes and meddles in the affairs of humans in ways which are overtly obvious to us. Once again, you're trying to look for logical/scientific evidence of something which by its very nature is the exact opposite.

quote:On the other hand, you can't prove lack of existence.

The burden of proof would not hold any weight on atheists, because they cannot, in any way shape or form refute existence. Therefore it must fall on theists who's argument could easily be proved correct.

Here you're essentially proving my point. Namely that atheists are categorically believing in the non-existence of a God even though "they cannot in any way shape or form refute existence." In other words they don't believe in a God despite the fact that they cannot prove the non-existence of one, nor can they even disprove the existence of one. With this mindset, it seems atheists take just as big a leap of faith (if not bigger) not to believe, than theists do in order to believe.

I'm more of a deist then an atheist or an agnostic. Primarily because I believe the world was made to be self-sustaining.

quote:Originally posted by Hexadecimal:

I'm atheist for several reasons; during my search for truth, I requested of God to be filled with his spirit and to be saved. Not some half-assed muttering; I honestly wanted to experience and be immersed in his salvation, and to submit myself to him. Each time I did this (thrice in total) the feeling of exhiliration came, but it lasted only for a few weeks each time, leading me to the conclusion that my hope was just getting the best of me.

Along with that, I find Judaism to have a very skewed perspective on humanity, and the same with Islam.

Aside from those 3, I dabbled a great deal in European religions, but I noticed that all of them were simply filled with gods that represented natural aspects that can be explained today in terms a child can understand.

From there, I went to Eastern religions, which while they contain a great deal of philosophical truths, the few theistic varieties seemed like utter bullshit, and well, the atheistic varieties are...atheist.

By religion, you can call me a Taoist, because it contains philosophy that can be verified by mere observation, without violating any of my better senses. However, I'm an atheist as well, being as Taoism prescribes no belief in gods, nor against them.

At the risk of sounding judgemental, I must point out that it is YOU who failed in your relationship with God, not He.

Let me explain...

I am a Christian, that much is obvious. But am I like any other Christian ?

Yes.

When I first accepted Christ into my heart, I went through a swell of spiritual contentment. I like to call it the 'Honeymoon' phase.

Everything was wonderful, and I felt as if I could spread the gospel unabashedly to the entire world.

6 weeks later, I was on the brink of suicide again.

Why ? Because I was not walking with Him.

Every relationship requires contribution from both sides. God happens to be more adept at fulfilling His role in the relationship than we are.

If we do not walk with Him, read His word daily, pray fervently, and keep ourselves as innocent children in our reception of Him, then we go through a valley.

Valley's are difficult, and can even appear to be hopeless...but they are beneficial to Christians in many ways.

Just one of those is that in adversity humans thrive. They learn. They adapt. They memorize, to prevent walking through a particular valley again in the future.

If we had never been hungry in our lives, how could we come to appreciate the satisfaction of being full ?

If we had never broken a bone, how would we know that we did not want one ?

Suffering causes the mind to switch places...to see things from an opposite position.

To comprehend God's grace, we must experience what it is to fall out of it (of our own accord).

God did not leave you, friend. You left Him.

I know it is hard to take responsibility for that, especially when you felt so convicted to live your life for Him.

But if you do not live as He commands us to in the Bible, the valley's will come.

I was in a valley for 3 1/2 years while I was in the Navy. I never went to church, I hardly prayed, and I rarely thought about Him at all. I had already been a Christian for 7 years by that time. Didn't I know better ? Oh, yes. Did that stop me from being stupid, irresponsible, and wreckless with my precious relationship with God ? No.

It was such a long time (in my mind) to be away from Him. I thought it would never end.

But that valley taught me that I never want to be without Him again. He was always there, but I kept Him out in the cold. I missed Him greatly, and I must say it was one of the darkest times in my life.

And it was all self-inflicted.

Did I know that at the time ? I hadn't the foggiest. I remember asking, "Why have you left me, Lord ?"...and I didn't receive an answer. I felt convinced that this meant He had turned His back on me.

Since I have re-dedicated my life to Him, I see things very differently.

I also want to say that if you truly became saved the first time you asked Him into your heart, the 2nd and 3rd time did not grant you any more salvation than you already had.

If you chose to give your heart to Christ more than once, that indicates you had doubt of the sincerity of the first. That alone should make you think.

You cannot stop being a child of God, once you accept Him, unless you recant, and believe wholeheartedly that He does not exist. That is, after all, the only unforgivable sin.

I suspect you still believe in Him...which means you are still saved (and not an athiest).

Take a look around at the valley you're in...

and try to find a way out.

quote:Originally posted by Tree_Unit:

I am because i use my Brain. There is no evidence of god, and I am able to cope with the fact that at some point I will die. The purpose of religion is to cope with the idea of death.

No, it is to cope with the idea of life everlasting.

quote:Originally posted by Hexadecimal:

Acid, shrooms, NDEs, peyote, and insanity can all get that feeling to last for several weeks. It's a producable and lasting feeling not unique to religous searching, leading me to believe it's just in the head (a conclusion that's been seeing quite a bit of scientific support lately).

Drug induced euphoria is nothing like being filled with the Holy Spirit. Anyone who has experienced both can attest to that.

Also, having a chemical force your body to have a reaction is completely different than have your spirit react to God's presence.

I don't know anyone (personally) who can mentally cause euphoria INSTANTLY.

I did not meditate for hours prior to the overwhelming joy I felt when I accepted Christ. It happened in a matter of moments, actually.

You cannot just decide that you are going to be inexplicably joyful.

If that were true, everyone would be doing it.

I'm intersted in your "science", though...can you show me ?

quote:Originally posted by truckfixr:



Very well stated. I could not agree with you more.



I agree with him/her, too. VERY WELL written.

I do have to recommend "I Don't Have Enough Faith To Be An Athiest" at this point.

Very good book.

quote:

You're taking a very narrow approach assuming that a God must be recognized in the Christian sense as one which intervenes and meddles in the affairs of humans in ways which are overtly obvious to us. Once again, you're trying to look for logical/scientific evidence of something which by its very nature is the exact opposite.

You have a point but:

1. The argument would still be correct when dealing with religions like Christianity, Islam, etc.

2. If he does not intervene then he equals nothing. It would be the same as me arguing that this piece of pizza is god, which removes any significance from the label; it would become an non-issue.

Furthermore, since it removes any significance from the label, then you'd be hard pressed to find an atheists who would object to it.

quote:

Here you're essentially proving my point. Namely that atheists are categorically believing in the non-existence of a God even though "they cannot in any way shape or form refute existence."

I'm not proving your point.

quote:

In other words they don't believe in a God despite the fact that they cannot prove the non-existence of one, nor can they even disprove the existence of one. With this mindset, it seems atheists take just as big a leap of faith (if not bigger) not to believe, than theists do in order to believe.

The argument is whether it is more logical to believe in the existence of a god, or believe he/it doesn't exist.

It is clearly more logical to believe that he doesn't exist, because the lack of evidence from atheists is to be expected; something that cannot be said of theists.

Whether atheism (in this case "Strong Atheism") involves faith is irrelevant, because the argument is whether it would be a more logical choice over theism, and thus a justification for choosing it over theism; which if you remember, is a direct answer to the topic.

So, you're having pizza for dinner ?

LostEquation:

"I'm not assuming there is a God at all. I was pointing out how some of the above posters were appearing to assume there was a God, by denouncing supposedly oppressive divine authority as the reason for their atheism."

Like I said, I had not thoroughly read, or checked which posts you were responding to. In this case, I agree with you. Turning to Atheism as a means to escape God's control is ridiculous... as escaping this control would signify an already existing belief in that God.

Now, about the 40 ft. tall man scenario. I should have been a little more specific. I meant to say that, for example's sake, I (in my mind) see this man in my front yard, and I truly believe that he exists. However, no one else seems to acknowledge his existence. Why not? Can you prove to me that he does not exist? Can you gather evidence from this non-existent being to support your assumption that he isn't there, simply because you cannot see him or touch him? Obviously not. So who's job is it to gather evidence? Apparently, that responsibility would fall into my lap, being that I am the crazy individual ranting about a giant in my front yard.

Most would view this as insane, yet does the belief in an all-powerful, all-knowing, supernatural being sound any less ridiculous? And does it sound any more logical to state that, since one cannot prove the existence of this being, beyond our comprehension, that the burden of proof now lies with those that do not believe?

"I can't prove his existence, and you can't disprove his existence, so why not believe?" *Horrible Logic! Horrible Logic!*

Anyway, sorry about the rant... and the crappy analogy. Oh well, I took it and ran with it. Moving on...

"As I said earlier, I don't believe proof has anything to do with believing or not believing in something like a God...it's a leap of faith either way."

Disbelief in something that has no evidence to support its existence is not a leap of faith. However, I understand where you are coming from. I am by no means a strong atheist. I am open to the possibility of a God. We may one day find proof of God's existence, and I will be happy to acknowledge it. However, to the best of my knowledge, he is not there. If no one can present evidence to convince me otherwise, and he is not willing to convince me himself, then I have no reason to believe.

And now, as I'm sure all of you are hoping, I will shutup and return to my corner.