 |
|
|
|
|
October 16th, 2013
03:20 PM ET
What Oprah gets wrong about atheism
(CNN) - To some, Oprah Winfrey appears to have an almost godlike status. Her talents are well recognized, and her endorsement can turn almost any product into an overnight bestseller. This godlike perception is fitting, since in recent years Winfrey’s work has increasingly emphasized spirituality, including programs like her own "Super Soul Sunday." But what happens when an atheist enters the mix? A few days ago Winfrey interviewed long-distance swimmer Diana Nyad on Super Soul Sunday. Nyad identified herself as an atheist who experiences awe and wonder at the natural world and humanity. Nyad, 64, who swam from Cuba to Key West last month, said “I can stand at the beach’s edge with the most devout Christian, Jew, Buddhist, go on down the line, and weep with the beauty of this universe and be moved by all of humanity — all the billions of people who have lived before us, who have loved and hurt.” Winfrey responded, “Well I don’t call you an atheist then.” Winfrey went on, “I think if you believe in the awe and the wonder and the mystery then that is what God is… It’s not a bearded guy in the sky.” Nyad clarified that she doesn’t use the word God because it implies a “presence… a creator or an overseer.” Winfrey’s response may have been well intended, but it erased Nyad’s atheist identity and suggested something entirely untrue and, to many atheists like me, offensive: that atheists don’t experience awe and wonder. MORE ON CNN: Diana Nyad completes historic Cuba-to-Florida swim The exchange between Winfrey and Nyad reminds me of a conversation I once had with a Catholic scholar. The professor once asked me: “When I talk about God, I mean love and justice and reconciliation, not a man in the sky. You talk about love and justice and reconciliation. Why can’t you just call that God?” I replied: “Why must you call that God? Why not just call it what it is: love and justice and reconciliation?” Though we started off with this disagreement, we came to better understand one another’s points of view through patient, honest dialogue. Conversations like that are greatly needed today, as atheists are broadly misunderstood. MORE ON CNN: Behold, the six types of atheists When I visit college and university campuses around the United States, I frequently ask students what words are commonly associated with atheists. Their responses nearly always include words like “negative,” “selfish,” “nihilistic” and “closed-minded.” When I ask how many of them actually have a relationship with an atheist, few raise their hands. Relationships can be transformative. The Pew Research Center found that among the 14% of Americans who changed their mind from opposing same-sex marriage to supporting it in the last decade, the top reason given was having “friends, family, acquaintances who are gay/lesbian.” Knowing someone of a different identity can increase understanding. This has been true for me as a queer person and as an atheist. I have met people who initially think I can’t actually be an atheist when they learn that I experience awe and am committed to service and social justice. But when I explain that atheism is central to my worldview — that I am in awe of the natural world and that I believe it is up to human beings, instead of a divine force, to strive to address our problems — they often better understand my views, even if we don’t agree. While theists can learn by listening to atheists more, atheists themselves can foster greater understanding by not just emphasizing the “no” of atheism — our disagreement over the existence of any gods — but also the “yes” of atheism and secular humanism, which recognizes the amazing potential within human beings. Carl Sagan, the agnostic astronomer and author, would have agreed with Nyad’s claim that you can be an atheist, agnostic or nonreligious person and consider yourself “spiritual.” As Sagan wrote in "The Demon-Haunted World,": "When we recognize our place in an immensity of light‐years and in the passage of ages, when we grasp the intricacy, beauty and subtlety of life, then that soaring feeling, that sense of elation and humility combined, is surely spiritual.” Nyad told Winfrey that she feels a similar sense of awe: “I think you can be an atheist who doesn’t believe in an overarching being who created all of this and sees over it,” she said. “But there’s spirituality because we human beings, and we animals, and maybe even we plants, but certainly the ocean and the moon and the stars, we all live with something that is cherished and we feel the treasure of it.” MORE ON CNN: 'Atheist' isn’t a dirty word, congresswoman I experience that same awe when I see people of different beliefs coming together across lines of religious difference to recognize that we are all human — that we all love and hurt. Perhaps Winfrey, who could use her influence to shatter stereotypes about atheists rather than reinforce them, would have benefited from listening to Nyad just a bit more closely and from talking to more atheists about awe and wonder. I know many who would be up to the task. Chris Stedman is the assistant humanist chaplain at Harvard University, coordinator of humanist life for the Yale Humanist Community and author of Faitheist: How an Atheist Found Common Ground with the Religious. soundoff (4,964 Responses)« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 Next »
Next entry »Stephen Colbert roasts the Pope
« Previous entryIn Syria, Muslims struggle to celebrate holy day
|
  About this blog
The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.  |
|
|
|
..."JESUS" never existed!!!!.............DO NOT believe in him!
Theres many reasons to think he existed, the fact that we live in 2013 After Christ shows that he existed.
We also live 5 years after the defeat of Voldemort.
El Liar, that is not proof that your Jesus figure was divine.
Jane – It doesnt prove that he was devine, but it proves he existed, if he wasnt a real person with, influence in the people of his time, we would not be living in 2013 After Christ, but some other age.
Yes, El Pibe, that's the poiint, stupid. There is zero evidence that your Jesus was divine. And anyway, it is ridiculous for a god to think that humans should believe in him, after he hasn't said a peep for 2K+ years.
There is proof, that Jesus was divine, there were many eyewitnesses that prove that point. He has been talking even today. Read the Bible, and you will see what God requires of us. It will go very well for you if you try to apply what God say through the bible.
Regarding what El Pibe's nasty god ass hole guides believers to do according to the bible, here are some fine examples:
Numbers 31:17-18
17 Now kiII all the boys. And kiII every woman who has slept with a man,
18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.
Deuteronomy 13:6 – “If your brother, your mother’s son or your son or daughter, or the wife you cherish, or your friend who is as your own soul entice you secretly, saying, let us go and serve other gods … you shall surely kill him; your hand shall be first against him to put him to death”
Revelations 2:23 And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works.
Leviticus 25
44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves.
45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property.
46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.
Note that the bible is also very clear that you should sacrifice and burn an animal today because the smell makes sicko Christian sky fairy happy. No, you don't get to use the parts for food. You burn them, a complete waste of the poor animal.
Yes, the bible really says that, everyone. Yes, it's in Leviticus, look it up. Yes, Jesus purportedly said that the OT commands still apply. No exceptions. But even if you think the OT was god's mistaken first go around, you have to ask why a perfect, loving enti-ty would ever put such horrid instructions in there. If you think rationally at all, that is.
And then, if you disagree with my interpretation, ask yourself how it is that your "god" couldn't come up with a better way to communicate than a book that is so readily subject to so many interpretations and to being taken "out of context", and has so many mistakes in it. Pretty pathetic god that you've made for yourself.
So get out your sacrificial knife or your nasty sky creature will torture you eternally. Or just take a closer look at your foolish supersti-tions, understand that they are just silly, and toss them into the dustbin with all the rest of the gods that man has created.
Ask the questions. Break the chains. Join the movement.
Be free of Christianity and other superstitions.
http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/
...
El Pibe is a JW – What are you??
DF'd ex-reg pio/ms
El Pibe ex JW – You made your decision, hopefully your able to come back one day.
DF'd ex-reg pio/ms w/ 3.8% neanderthal DNA and a degree in geology...
El Pibe,
The B.C./A.D. dating system was the brainchild of a monk named Dionysius in the 6th century. The Church was very, very powerful in those days and controlled many aspects of society, including politics, economics, literature and history-writing... still, his dating system took hundreds of years (nearly 1000) to be inst-ituted world-wide. Many cultures still keep their ancient calendars going on the side.
It only proves that that monk and his Church **believed** that Jesus existed and was "God". It proves nothing else.
there is not one single solitary shred of real evidence that christ or any other god ever existed.
An excellent example of a fallacy. Because something is named after someone (an era is named after Christ), that person must actually exist (there must have been a Christ).
An example: Because there is a comic book named Spiderman, there really is a spiderman.
The question of whether Christ existed is separate from this. On that, I offer no opinion.
El Pibe, that might be the dumbest thing I have ever read on the internet.
Also, it is 2013 CE not AD, we dropped that when I was in like 5th grade.
You have not because you ask not.
Post by 'Robert Brown' is an instance of the Secret Decoder Ring fallacy.
http://fallacyfiles.org/glossary.html
After all the talk about love of beauty and other humans,
can you tell us how many atheist organizations provided aid after Katrina?
If humanist principles are stable, why is the Humanist Manifesto at its third version?
I am quite sure many atheists donated money and supplies to aid people.
What, exactly, is your argument? That atheists tend to give in nontraditional ways? That we're fairly small in number? Do any of your complaints have any bearing on god's existence or the fact that there is zero proof for any gods?
lol!!
lol!!!!
Well you could look it up your self but last I heard the main relief came from FEMA, better late than never.
Glad you asked. I just happened to be in Houston at the time and volunteered my time to help with the relief of the victims that relocated to Houston.
Pretty easy to find, actually:
A number of secular, non-religious aid organizations are active in this relief campaign. They do not incorporate a religious message in their operations, nor do they proselytize to those in need.
AMERICAN FRIENDS SERVICES COMMITTEE
AMERICAN HUMANIST ASSOCIATION
AMERICAN NATIONAL RED CROSS (Founded by Deist-Unitarian Clara Barton)
AMERICARES
HANDS ON HUMANITY is a project of the Universist Movement. It is operated by Atheists and other secularists, and is concentrating on the Birmingham, Ala. area. It has applied for non-profit status.
The MASONIC SERVICES ASSOCIATION OF NORTH AMERICA has established a Katrina Hurricane Relief fund and accepts on-line donations.
MERCYCORPS
NETWORK FOR GOOD (has numerous listings for helping groups, both religious and secular)
OXFAM AMERICA
SECOND HARVEST
UNITED WAY OF AMERICA
observer1776, now that such organizations have clearly been shown to have helped, what is your reaction?
Atheists don't feel compelled to trumpet their selflessness as many religious people do. I do a lot of selfless and selfish things, but I never attribute them to my non-belief in supernatural deities.
I've never heard of this manifesto you speak of, but then atheism isn't a prescribed set of beliefs with a doctrine to be blindly followed.
It is a well known fact that atheists are more likely to help people in need than religious folks. There have been studies easy to google. And we help because we want to help people not score a better seat in some imaginary utopia.
Yes, and the cost efficacy of atheist help is generally much higher. No fancy dresses for the priests need be bought.
God is loving, and despite many people misrepresent him or dont recognize him at all, he still honors every one, giving rains and the sun. Though, soon every one will have to recognize God anointed King, that will come and take over the earth. Many people will be saved, but many millions will have to suffer judicial punishment: "Then the kings of the earth, the high officials, the military commanders, the rich, the strong, every slave, and every free person hid in the caves and among the rocks of the mountains. 16 And they keep saying to the mountains and to the rocks: “Fall over us and hide us from the face of the One seated on the throne and from the wrath of the Lamb, 17 because the great day of their wrath has come, and who is able to stand?" Rev 6:15-17
Threats of eternal punishment betrays a weak argument...
Cheesemaker – In order for this world to be a better place God will have to punish wickedness. I didn't say that you or other people here are wicked, im just saying that God will bring judgement upon the wicked!
And then punish them forever, just like your evil bible says, El Pibe. No thanks, you can keep your stories of your ass hole of a god to yourself. Silently, please.
Bob – Punishes forever??...what do you mean? The bible says that death is the end of everything. The wicked that will die during Gods punishment will simply die, with no opportunity of ever living again. Thats what the bible teaches!
Here is what your ass hole of a god really demands of you, according to your bible fairy tales:
Numbers 31:17-18
17 Now kiII all the boys. And kiII every woman who has slept with a man,
18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.
Deuteronomy 13:6 – “If your brother, your mother’s son or your son or daughter, or the wife you cherish, or your friend who is as your own soul entice you secretly, saying, let us go and serve other gods … you shall surely kill him; your hand shall be first against him to put him to death”
Revelations 2:23 And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works.
Leviticus 25
44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves.
45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property.
46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.
Note that the bible is also very clear that you should sacrifice and burn an animal today because the smell makes sicko Christian sky fairy happy. No, you don't get to use the parts for food. You burn them, a complete waste of the poor animal.
Yes, the bible really says that, everyone. Yes, it's in Leviticus, look it up. Yes, Jesus purportedly said that the OT commands still apply. No exceptions. But even if you think the OT was god's mistaken first go around, you have to ask why a perfect, loving enti-ty would ever put such horrid instructions in there. If you think rationally at all, that is.
And then, if you disagree with my interpretation, ask yourself how it is that your "god" couldn't come up with a better way to communicate than a book that is so readily subject to so many interpretations and to being taken "out of context", and has so many mistakes in it. Pretty pathetic god that you've made for yourself.
So get out your sacrificial knife or your nasty sky creature will torture you eternally. Or just take a closer look at your foolish supersti-tions, understand that they are just silly, and toss them into the dustbin with all the rest of the gods that man has created.
Ask the questions. Break the chains. Join the movement.
Be free of Christianity and other superstitions.
http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/
Please explain how unbelief in your god equates to "wickedness"? It is a poor position...one that seems to point more as a way to keep believers such as yourself "believing". It is not based on anything rational or moral...it is based on fear. Nice god you got there....
And furthermore, your god could save billions, but chooses not to. That is not merciful,. That is the action (or lack thereof) of a cruel and excessively vengeant ass hole. It's that simple.
That's interesting. You have chosen verses that show a compassionate God. What about all of those verses that show God is not so kind, is vengeful, murders innocent children, etc. ?
Which verses?
El Pibe, here are just a few quotes from hundreds from the Christian book of nasty AKA the bible, that show what a complete ass hole and human rights abuser your nasty sky fairy would have to be classed as, if he existed:
Numbers 31:17-18
17 Now kiII all the boys. And kiII every woman who has slept with a man,
18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.
Deuteronomy 13:6 – “If your brother, your mother’s son or your son or daughter, or the wife you cherish, or your friend who is as your own soul entice you secretly, saying, let us go and serve other gods … you shall surely kill him; your hand shall be first against him to put him to death”
Revelations 2:23 And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works.
Leviticus 25
44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves.
45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property.
46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.
Note that the bible is also very clear that you should sacrifice and burn an animal today because the smell makes sicko Christian sky fairy happy. No, you don't get to use the parts for food. You burn them, a complete waste of the poor animal.
Yes, the bible really says that, everyone. Yes, it's in Leviticus, look it up. Yes, Jesus purportedly said that the OT commands still apply. No exceptions. But even if you think the OT was god's mistaken first go around, you have to ask why a perfect, loving enti-ty would ever put such horrid instructions in there. If you think rationally at all, that is.
And then, if you disagree with my interpretation, ask yourself how it is that your "god" couldn't come up with a better way to communicate than a book that is so readily subject to so many interpretations and to being taken "out of context", and has so many mistakes in it. Pretty pathetic god that you've made for yourself.
So get out your sacrificial knife or your nasty sky creature will torture you eternally. Or just take a closer look at your foolish supersti-tions, understand that they are just silly, and toss them into the dustbin with all the rest of the gods that man has created.
Ask the questions. Break the chains. Join the movement.
Be free of Christianity and other superstitions.
http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/
Nice copy and paste!
Can you talk, or are you a bot?
If it's true, what difference does it make if it was copied and pasted?
Because he never responds. 🙁
Thus far, you have provided nothing of substance to respond to.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joni_Eareckson_Tada
This lady has done more to help people heal from amputations and disabilities than you and that website you spam this board with.
I'll trust her words about God any day over yours.
Why does he also torment the innocent?
Torment the innocent? how? what do you mean?
Natural disasters – floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, etc.
If you insist that all people are sinners and deserve such things arbitrarily, then I would suggest serious childhood diseases that cause suffering and death like cancers.
What has an infant or young child done to deserve cancer. This is not the act of a loving God who is the "intelligent desiger' of his creation. Why are diseases (and particularly childhood diseases) part of God's plan?
The "we cannot understand the mysteries of God" would be a cop-out here.
The words you chose were "God sends the rain and the sun" etc. So God sends the tornadoes and floods too.
The spirit inside of us, which means our physical body, tells us itself that there is a God. If you deny this, then you are lying to yourself and to God. Also, you will notice there is order in the universe; to say that all the planets and their revolutions, degrees, etc. came by chance is simply unrealistic. Besides, there is the argument that you can't prove that there isn't a God anyway.
You also can't prove that all the 1,000s of other gods are wrong too..... you are an atheists-1... "The spirit inside of us, which means our physical body, tells us itself that there is a God." ie the biochemical reactions in your brain that evolved to help our species deal with our level of consciousness.
Yes, consciousness. A very interesting subject.
One that you have no understanding of.
Are you aware of yourself Bob? What is instinct?
What is perception?
1. If you will tell me how one would go about disproving your god, I will give it a shot.
2. You have no proof at all of any magical force called a "spirit." When you can prove that it exists, we can discuss it. Until then, we might as well be discussing unicorns.
Obvious – its simple as this, "every house is built by someone, so who but all we see, something so complex?" God for you may be a myth, but believing that everything came out of nothing requires an unbelievable amount of faith, since science many times proved to be wrong about many ideas it had in the past!
Good points.
As always, then what created your god because that is exactly what you are arguing.... that your god can't exist without a creator. Why can't the universe or whatever supports it have always existed instead of your god?
Tired, old, meaningless, often refuted points.
Open your mind and think. Please.
Post by 'El Pibe" contains an instance of the Argument from Ignorance fallacy.
http://fallacyfiles.org/glossary.html
Why, apparently your god was not created, why is it hard to understand?
Birch Please – The bible tells us that God has no beginning, or an end....just like numbers have no beginning or end.
Oh, so the difference is your book written by bronze age desert people then pieced together by Romans to control people says that god and not the universe have no beginning.... well that is a good argument, please take that to a philosopher and collect your prize.
I find it much more simple to admit that we really don't know. It seems odd that so many people think that answer less logical than "big invisible and undetectable sky wizard chanted it all into existence with magic spellzzzzz!"
Why is there something rather than nothing? We don't know, but since we don't know, then the possibilities are infinite. To say that it must be "nothing" (what the fvck is "nothing" anyway? Who says "nothing" exists?) or god is mind-numbingly ridiculous.
I don't know why we are here; therefore, I don't claim to know. Because I don't claim to know, I simply say that I don't know. I wouldn't be caught stupid saying that it must be some invisible magic weirdo who can't follow his own commandments.
I am awe-struck by her comments and wonder whether she would benefit from reconsidering her perspective on atheism..,
Neil DeGrasse Tyson, please enlighten me. If you have the answers, I will read them.
I don't think you'll consider anything. I'm a former Christian, and I have examined the arguments against my position of non-belief. You apparently have considered nothing besides what you already have been taught. You have to ask, "Am I being honest with myself." Are you afraid of God's vengeance, which keeps you from thinking about anything different?
Yes, I will.
What are the arguments against your position, then?
I'm a former atheist who found God after seeking humility, honesty and open-mindedness. So I can offer another perspective for this woman if she would like.
When you were an atheist, what was the reason you gave to others for not believing in god?
People were selfish.
@AE – That is true, people are born selfish, but it is through our natural desire for kindness that we continue to work to overcome that.
Our natural desire seems to be survival of the fittest. Sacrificing for others seems to go against nature.
Our natural instinct is survival, and built into that is to eliminate pain and suffering from our lives. And we also find that by surrounding ourselves with people that believe the same, our lives move beyond mere existence, more than just animals.
What? That is, quite possibly, the stupidest reason that I have ever heard for someone to be an atheist. Seriously? You didn't believe in god because people are selfish? Really?
Cpt O
That was one reason, yes. The selfish nature of people led me to believe there was no God. There were many other reasons. Really, I didn't obsess about it as much as you seem to. I didn't believe in God, but I lived my life the best I could. I lived and let others live. But things, which were caused by my selfishness, caused me to fail.
I don't ever remember, as an atheist, criticizing another for what they personally believed. I guess I wasn't one to troll religious blogs looking to act hostile toward people who honestly believe in God.
Youtube – Neil DeGrasse Tyson – The Perimeter of Ignorance
Right. I call that being made in the image of God.
AE – would you mean the OT version of God? Of course you mean the NT version. And that's the weak link – God can go from being extremely undesirable, as in the OT, to one who is loving, in the NT. Can't you see how religious folks re-invented God to make Him seem more likeable?
How stupid. Not believing in god because people are selfish. It's non sequitur and nonsensical. It's not even an argument, much less a good or bad one.
I said it was one of the reasons, Cpt. O.
Youtube – Neil DeGrasse Tyson – The Perimeter of Ignorance
God is real – the one I've experienced as faithful and true. Not sure if that is your OT or NT understanding. Or if you have an understanding. Did you have the Holy Spirit as a guide?
@AE – I have had my human spirit as a guide, my morals based on the golden rule, and the wisdom (and errors) made by the many that have preceded me.
AE Sorry bud, just have to mention that you are a poe stirring up the cess pool to get responses. Good on you, but what the hell is the point?
Me, too, I guess, Neil.
OK. I don't know what the point is.
There is no such thing as a "former Christian". Maybe you had a temporary emotional conversion, maybe you went to church regularly, maybe you read the Bible everyday and told people you were a Christian, but if you had been adopted by Christ as His child you would not fall away. You are like the seed that falls on shallow soil that sprouts quickly but has no deep root, and withers away in the hot sun. I suspect you were escorted into your time of "Christianity" by a church or leader that teaches a false Gospel. Perhaps God will call you at a later time, according to His purposes and glory.
That's an interesting philosophical question. No, my purpose is while I am here, to help someone breathe a bit easier, to tell them what they need to hear, and not what they want to hear. Only through honest recognition of our problems can we ever hope to solve them, rather than hiding behind a religion to make ourselves feel better, while everything else around us goes down the drain.
The argument for a god is really moot... you will all be done and rotting in the ground in a few 1,000 days (if you are lucky) and that will be the end of you. I think we need to first truly understand the universe before we really try and go beyond it in our assumptions.
I think it's interesting that someone claiming atheism also claims spirituality. If there is no God, then naturalism is all that remains, the evolution of man from simpler organisms over billions of years. I wonder at what point a spirit came into being. How does the random collocation of atoms in the naturalistic world spawn an immaterial spirit, if indeed the material is all that there is? To claim spiritualism trades on the ideas of religion, which I would think atheism would necessarily shun.
Unless what we're saying here is that spiritualism is nothing more than an emotional response to external stimuli. In that case, love, hate, happiness, sadness, anger, and elation are all potentially spiritual in nature and are simply chemical reactions in the brain causing an outward response. This means that spiritualism is arbitrary as the same event can trigger happiness in one person, but rage in another. That makes it relative, the very definition of post-modernism. If spiritualism is relative, then no one has the right to refute anyone else's exercise of spiritualism. It's a free-for-all.
Surely we can see how this is harmful. That isn't liberation, it's anarchy. When you take a philosophical view of atheism, it becomes morally bankrupt. I'm not saying that all atheists are Hitler. I'm simply saying that, due to the relativistic nature of atheism, an atheist has no right to judge Hitler. He was just being "spiritual" in his own way. Man cannot be the ultimate authority on moral matters. There must be someone higher.
The problem is that you think of "spirit" in the terms of supernatural, whereas we think in terms of our spirit as our essence, our morals.
What is the atheistic origin of morals? As a purely naturalistic being, how can random chemical collisions create morals? And if they are truly random and unguided, how can you trust them as true, or even real?
Nevertheless all societies have them, so morals exist.
Notions of good and bad behavior relative to group norms can be observed in all higher primates.
You provide not one ounce of proof. Your opinion is not proof.
And morality does not require a "higher being." Morality is a human concept, thought up by human brains, defined by human actions and ideas. Besides, most gods have subjective morality that allows them to break their own laws, and they rule by "might makes right." It might be wrong for others, but because god is "mightiest," he gets to break the rules. The average criminal has a better morality than the average god.
Nor is YOUR opinion "proof".
I thought that much was obvious. Didn't I already say that?
Oh, and I'm not trying to prove anything. I'm not saying that something exists. I am saying that I don't find somebody else's OPINION to be reasonable on something that they claim exists but is completely invisible, undetectable, and irrelevant.
You mentioned that God is "invisible, undetectable, and irrelevant." I agree with you on the first two attributes, but I'm curious where you get "irrelevant" from. More people claim some form of deity than not. Regardless of who that deity or deities they claim is/are, that hardly makes a case for the "irrelevance" of divinity. Why is it that you have it figured out when so many others are lost? Please share that we all may be enlightened.
Though regarding your initial response, you said that I did not provide "one ounce of proof". I guess perhaps you don't see philosophical thinking as due support, so please tell me what other method of proof you require. I'll do my best to explain my position more clearly.
Except that its not relative, we know a good deal about the neurological pathways that result in these emotions.. they are essentially the same in everyone. Whether you take LSD or chant in church the same parts of the brain light up and make you feel "spiritual".
So no matter what I do, I can feel "spiritual" then. Neurological pathways aside. Taking drugs or "chanting in church" both lead to making people feel spiritual. How exactly is that not relative? "You do what you do and I do what I do" is the very definition of relativism.
This is a perfect example of someone twisting other's belief systems to support their viewpoint.
Please explain.
Why?
jamie- this is the best written, most well spoken argument i have ever read on the internet. i could not, nor would not, add anything to the points you make.
steve, specifically, what do you find compelling about Jaime's argument? Since you agree, do you mind answering the questions I posted for her above?
And just a point of clarification. This Jamie is a "he". But your statement does show how quickly we can jump to conclusions without having the entire picture. Perhaps we should have a discussion about our worldviews without resorting to incivility. The university was created for this purpose. "Unity in diversity" is the etymology of the word. My hope is that one day we can have these discussions in the classroom again without the Christian being immediately castigated for his/her beliefs.
Jamie,
"The university was created for this purpose. "Unity in diversity" is the etymology of the word."
No, it is not the etymology of the word "university".
university (n.)
c.1300, "inst.itution of higher learning," also "body of persons const.ituting a university," from Anglo-French université, Old French universitei (13c.), from Medieval Latin universitatem (nominative universitas), in Late Latin "corporation, society," from Latin, "the whole, aggregate," from universus "whole, entire" (see universe). In the academic sense, a shortening of universitas magistrorum et scholarium "community of masters and scholars;" superseded studium as the word for this.
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=university
Hitler was religious.
Many atheists hold to their beliefs with religious fervor. Stalin being a prime example, a man who was actually going into the priesthood until he disavowed God, and then orchestrated the killing of 15 million of his own people. Granted, that's an extreme case. But it does show the potential end of a life lived to atheism's logical conclusion. I will give Stalin this, he was consistent in his faith. Modern-day atheists hold dogmatically to their beliefs as well. Richard Dawkins told a crowd of his followers to "mock Christians whenever you encounter them. Ridicule them." For no other reason than they believe in God. It takes a closed mind to universally discredit an entire people-group based on nothing other than a label. History is full of this behavior and it has never ended well.
Yes, Hitler was religious. He was religiously devoted to genocide in the name of purification, but he didn't do it for God. He never claimed Christendom. He wanted to create superman on earth, he wanted to play God. I'd rather someone claimed God didn't exist than to claim that he in fact IS God.
As of October 17, 2013 at 7:25pm Central standard time, I do not give atheists or any ent!ties associated with atheists permission to use my pictures, information, or posts, both past and future. By this statement, I give notice to atheists they are strictly forbidden to disclose, copy, distribute, or take any other action against me based on my posts and/or its contents. The contents of my posts are private and confidential information. The violation of privacy can be punished by law (UCC 1-308- 1 1 308-103 and the Rome Statute).
AE
So are you delusionally claiming that people can't respond to you on here by using your own words? Good joke for a public board.
What is your point AE?
It is just something my aunt posted on facebook (minus the atheist parts)
lol
So you are a poe, thanks for sharing. You could of told me sooner. I wasted a fair amount of time on you for nothing, I will recover, are you the DEMON Chad disguised?
Shhhhh. You don't know what you are talking about.
AE
I very seldom do, just hope you will pull Topher's chain once in a while just for the fun of it, thanks?
Topher seems pretty kind. Does he ever verbally as.sault people?
AE
Just proof read my last comment. Mea Culpa if you misread my comment, pulling Topher's chain is totally inappropriate. After all he has taken up my tip to pump her/the doll up with helium so it feels like she/it is pushing back.
Only with his inane arguments....
He can't get no satisfaction, Topher and his Stones.
I don't know much about Toper, sorry. I'm not sure what you are getting at.
AE
Sure you know about Topher, on these threads, or what pops up in your dreams. perhaps. Are you RCC they really get off on the kneeling thing.
I'm not RCC. Whenever I see Topher he has a bunch of people hurling ugly insults at him, and I don't think I've seen him stoop to their level. Is that right?
You maybe Topher under another handle self aggrandizing your ego? It is a stretch, I am getting all giddy about the thought, would any other earthly being promote the Topher, I think not.
You are the one who brought him up. Other people have accused me of being Topher. I don't know why so many people are so obsessed with him. Somebody keeps posting as a fake version of him, too? I don't understand it.
As an Atheist, I have friends from different religions. If it gives them comfort- cool. If they should start pointing fingers against
other beliefs- Blah.
I understand agnostism but I don't understand atheism. How can you be 100% positive that there is no deities and no God? To claim this you would need to be omniscient, which curiously is a key trait of a deity or devine being. Please, somone explain.
I understand agnostism but I don't understand theism. How can you be 100% positive that there are deities or a God? To claim this you would need to be omniscient, which curiously is a key trait of a deity or devine being and not people. Please, somone explain.
Lol. Why do I have the feeling i'm being mocked? The cornerstone of theism is faith. There is no faith involved in atheism. Your thoughts?
Atheism does not claim to be able to disprove the presence of a deity. There is however no proof of a deity. Agnostics believe that there is a somewhat equal chance of either.
I cannot disprove that you are not standing next to an undetectable unicorn with pink wings. But is there any reason to believe there is?
... is there any reason to believe there isn't? Your point is lost on me. The glass is half full or half empty. An agnostic would say we can not measure the water level to an accuracy required to determine if it is half full or empty. Without faith these are pointless guesses. Without faith, only agnosticism makes sense.
That's MY unicorn – it leaped over the fence. Please hold it till my private angels come get it.
The vast majority of atheists are not 100% positive there is no god.
Your thinking of what an atheist is differs from what an atheist actually is. An atheist does not believe the claim that there is a god. For many (myself included) this is not a position of "there definitively is no god" but rather a position of "I see no compelling reason to believe that there is a god." The claim is unsubstantiated.
You are creating a distinction that does not exist.
No one can prove non-existence. *Most* atheists will not claim 100% knowledge that there is no God.
Consider the term agnostic atheist – someone who doesn't think there is a God, but can't (and doesn't need to) prove it.
Easier to determine is the following:
People are either believers (in God(s) or a higher power) or non-believers. Except for people who genuinely can't decide, the outcome is binary.
I disagree and I suspect you are mixing atheists and agnostics together. Atheists are the opposite of theists. Agnostic believe that any claims of existance or non-existance of any deity is unknown. You can't both claim to know, or as you say "think" and at the same time claim the imposibility of knowing.
The terms atheist and agnostic are not mutually exclusive. One deals with knowledge, the other belief.
agnostic = it cannot be known if a god does/does not exist
atheist = I do not believe a god exists
Put them together and you get an agnostic atheist: one who does not thing it is ultimately knowable whether a god does or does not exist, but does not believe that one does,
I feel comfortable making the claim that the majority of atheists are of the agnostic atheist variety. We cannot claim, nor accept the claim that god definitely does not exist for the very reasons we cannot accept the claim that he does: lack of evidence and an inability to verify said claim.
TL;DR version: You are wrong when you categorize atheists as 100% certain god does not exist.
.
The only difference between "claims of existence being unknown" and not believing are semantic.
One either believes or one does not.
The contemporary use of atheist is equivalent to non-believer.
Non-belief does not require a proof of non-existence.
I disagree with it being semantics. You either know or you don't know. Again, you can't claim that you know that there is no God and also claim that you can't possibly know. You do see that this is illogical, right? This is the key difference between agnostism and atheism.
You second comment is interesting. "Non-belief does not require a proof of non-existence". Maybe this is why I did not understand atheism. It literally is the opposite of theism. Instead of having faith, as a theist has, an atheist has doubt (the opposite of faith). Would you agree?
please explain: You do not understand atheism because you are attributing positions to them that they do not typically take (there are some exceptions). You are trying to understand from a faulty definition.
Atheist = disbelief in god. Full stop. This includes those who claim that there is 100% definitively no god; however they are a subset of the whole. The vast majority of atheists are atheist because they simply do not accept the claim that god exists.
This is not a categorical denial, but rather retaining the null hypothesis because of lack of substantiation for the claim that there is a god.
"Maybe this is why I did not understand atheism. It literally is the opposite of theism. Instead of having faith, as a theist has, an atheist has doubt (the opposite of faith). Would you agree?"
Yes, I think this is a fair statement. There's some grey area when we talk about Desim and spirituality of an non "God-like" form but the notion is that the emerging contemporary view of atheists is essentially 'not theists'.
As I noted earlier it is the set of people who don't believe in God(s) or a higher power.
"As I noted earlier it is the set of people who don't believe in God(s) or a higher power."
succinct and precise. If the answer to the question "DO you believe there is a god" is anything but yes, then you are an atheist. Most agnostics are atheists (some agnostics are theists claiming that they do believe in god but admitting that there is no way to KNOW there is)
People without faith (in God(s) or a higher power) is the same as non-believers.
@tom,
I concur with your definitions.
Unfortunately it seems like the one who our elaborations are directed towards, the one who would benefit from both of our posts over the last 20 minutes or so is no longer with us.
Hopefully he comes back, reads, evaluates and recognizes that his lack if understanding was due to his erroneous thoughts of what an atheist position really is.
There are a lot of problems with the "atheist" label today.
One (the one in discussion here) is that some people assume the term implies a positive belief that there is not and cannot be a God. (This is indistinguishable from an article of faith.) This concept does not represent all people who self-identify as atheist.
The other problem with the label is that it gets conflated with the minority subset of atheists who are anti-theists. The anti-theists want to attack religion and see it end. Unsurprisingly organized religions identify 'anti-theists' as an enemy and this baggage holds some people back from self-identifying as "atheist". According to the one survey I have seen attempting to analyze this, anti-theists represent 14.8% of atheists. Most atheists are content to live and let live.
I have many atheist friends. But I agree with Oprah. Just because you don't believe in God doesn't mean God doesn't believe in you. Or moves in you.
And vice versa....
In a century or so when we fully understand the brain this afterlife nonsense will come to an end. When we can reproduce someone's consciousness (ie all that you are) in a machine (organic or not) the idea that it somehow lives on once it breaks down will be just silly.
So all that we are does not include a spiritual component? Are you sure?
The evidence we do have does not imply that there might be any magical body parts like "souls" or "spirits;" thus, it makes sense to withhold belief until evidence might be found that implies such a belief is reasonable.
As sure as I can be that little fairies don't live in my brain. There is no reason to believe in ghosts, spirits, and souls except for your fear of death.
If atoms exist, then it proves that they came into existence somehow.
Are you a christian?
You have ZERO PROOF that even if there were "creators", that God is it. Nothing has changed. No proof.
But God is real. And I have more evidence of His existence than you have in your theory about his non-existence.
Since you are one of the fortunate ones, how are you sharing this?
Your feelings and opinions are not "evidence" no matter how much you say that they are. When are you going to realize this fact?
impossible to prove a negative. There is as much evidence for your god as the 1,000s of others, do you believe in them all equally?
He can't, it is all personal "evidence" that he cannot demonstrate to anyone else and is therefore useless to anyone else.....been down this road with him.
There is plenty of evidence.
Martin Luther King, Jr's testimony is one example:
The phone rang out in the midnight silence, and when King lifted the receiver, a drawl released a torrent of obscene words and then the death threat: "Listen, n-–, we've taken all we want from you; before next week you'll be sorry you ever came to Montgomery."
King hung up without comment, as had become his custom. Threatening phone calls had become a daily routine in the weeks of the protests, and King had tried to brush them off at first. In recent days, however, the threatening phone calls had started to take a toll, increasing in number to thirty or forty a day and growing in their menacing intent.
Unwelcome thoughts prey on the mind in the late hours, and King was overcome with fear. "I got out of bed and began to walk the floor. I had heard these things before, but for some reason that night it got to me.
Stirred into wakefulness, King made a pot of coffee and sat down at the kitchen table. "I felt myself faltering," he said. It was as though the violent undercurrents of the protest rushed in upon him with heightened force, and he surveyed the turbulent waters for a way of escape, searching for an exit point between courage and convenience-"a way to move out of the picture without appearing a coward"-and he found none. "I was ready to give up," he said.
King thought of baby Yoki sleeping in her crib, of her "little gentle smile," and of Coretta, who had sacrificed her music career, according to the milieu of the Baptist pastor's wife, to follow her husband south. For the first time, he grasped the seriousness of his situation and with it the inescapable fact that his family could be taken away from him any minute, or more likely he from them. He felt himself reeling within, as the Psalmist had said, his soul "melted because of trouble, at wit's end." "I felt myself . . . growing in fear," said King.
Sitting at his kitchen table sipping the coffee, King's thoughts were interrupted by a sudden notion that at once intensified his desperation and clarified his options. "Something said to me, 'You can't call on Daddy now, you can't call on Mama. You've got to call on that something in that person that your daddy used to tell you about, that power that can make a way out of no way.'" With his head now buried in his hands, King bowed over the kitchen table and prayed aloud. He said:
Lord, I'm down here trying to do what's right. I still think I'm right. I am here taking a stand for what I believe is right. But Lord, I must confess that I'm weak now, I'm faltering. I'm losing my courage. Now, I am afraid. And I can't let the people see me like this because if they see me weak and losing my courage, they will begin to get weak. The people are looking to me for leadership, and if I stand before them without strength and courage, they too will falter. I am at the end of my powers. I have nothing left. I've come to the point where I can't face it alone.
As he prayed alone in the silent kitchen, King heard a voice saying, "Martin Luther, stand up for righteousness. Stand up for justice. Stand up for truth. And lo, I will be with you. Even until the end of the world." Then King heard the voice of Jesus. "I heard the voice of Jesus saying still to fight on. He promised never to leave me, never to leave me alone. No never alone. No never alone. He promised never to leave me, never to leave me alone."
And as the voice washed over the stains of the wretched caller, King reached a spiritual shore beyond fear and apprehension. "I experienced the presence of the Divine as I had never experienced Him before," he said. "Almost at once my fears began to go," King said of the midnight flash of illumination and resolve. "My uncertainty disappeared. I was ready to face anything."
http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Christianity/2005/01/Receiving-The-Call.aspx?p=2
Blessed are the Cheesemakers
I have shared about and led other people to God. I'm trying to help you see the evidence. There is probably a good reason why we are here talking about it again. You really perk up when I talk about my trust and confidence in God!
The atheist's feeling that there is no God is not good evidence. Yes.
God's evidence is better. He is real.
There is an absence of evidence for unicorns, so I find no need to believe in them. Same for god. Feelings don't factor into it unless the believer is claiming that the feelings are evidence........in which case, the believer is a moron.
I've never heard a person like Martin Luther King, JR talk about unicorns like he talks about Jesus.
And there are lots of people that have faith and confidence in Jesus. From doctors to janitors I've heard some amazing testimonies. You can see it in their eyes. God is good.
AE,
I perk up because people like you have been making these baseless claims to me for 40+ years. Your assertions are no different than any other believer of religions that compete with yours. You can't justify your god any better than they can...you have admitted as much in the past. I comment as a response to your basless claims. You want what religions and believers have always wanted...to be able to spout your assertions as facts and not be opposed.
That is why you post on religious blogs so much. OK.
I have honestly answered your question about why I post on here many times to you. Do you have a memory problem or are you just annoyed with facing oppostion?
I must be having memory problems. I don't know why you post on here so much.
Doesn't surprise me....
How come you have such a problem with opposition to your baseless claims?
We know how atoms came into existence: The four fundamental forces of reality and the energy of the big bang. We have no idea if the universe itself came into existence or always exists in some state or other; we do know that our universe expanded from a very hot and dense state very different from what exists today.
Why do atheists come across as know-it-alls when they don't really know it all?
You seem to have all the answers Christina,
How did life start?...your god did it.
How did the universe come about? ...your god did it.
I am fine with "we don't know"...
It may have changed forms many times, like my desk use to be a tree. Matter (including atoms) cannot be created of destroyed, only changed in form. Go ahead, prove me wrong, make some atoms exist
We can guess and hold many ideas as to what started it all. However, protons, electrons and neutrons in which atoms are made of doesn't explain how a god was created. Or, to truly throw a wedge into that type of thinking how a god came before any particle, quarks, gluons... basically from absolutely nothing.
Best (valid) answer right now: The heck if I know but we are trying to find out.
Why couldn't the creator have created itself?
Why is such an idea absurd?
The idea that atoms created themselves is even more absurd.
Christina,
So which came first, the creator or the created? Chicken and egg nonsense.
I don't know, but there is probably a scientific explanation.
Which you apparently have very little knowledge of, or you would have presented some evidence.
What if the dimension that our universe sits in always was, it expands to nothing, then restarts? No personified being of "Love" needed?
How would it have gotten started?
How did your god get started?
What if it always was, a universe inside a multiverse, inside a mulit-multiverse, etc.... there is no requirement for anything that one would call a god that actually knows you exist, let alone cares.
Many religious individuals are self-consumed with their own (present) religion. Step a side for a moment and think about the (fact) that there were thousands of religious before your religion, after your religion and currently active during your current religion. Exactly which god is the correct god? Neither has been proven to be true. All require faith. Where faith means to believe in something without any evidence. With that in mind, why would you want to hold a belief in something or for that matter anything that doesn't support any evidence for its platform. Stating that your own holy book says its true is circular reasoning. Unless that book has evidence for it supernatural claims that can be weighed right now it will continue to hold nonsensical claims. What it all boils down too is what century you were born in, what geographical area you were born in and the religion or non-religion your parents and community are committed to that molds your direction. When you become an adult you either study more on the subject or you blindly except your belief system.
GREAT post 🙂
I sincerely wish to understand Atheists. Where do they think awe-filled nature comes from? It seems to me to deny a creator is to deny yourself as a creation, human, whatever you wish to call it. How can you have one without the other? Personally I don't feel we are born with a choice. We are. Therefore a creator must be. Perhaps this is my childlike faith speaking, if so, I am eternally grateful for it.
I'd say it's certainly ok to believe in God, or a creator. But, that doesn't have to mean religion. Religion is a creation of the human mind, meant to try and answer things we're not capable of answering. No one knows for certain.
The Big Bang is a start. But we Atheists/Naturalists don't pretend to have all of the answers. We believe in that for which there is fact/observation/evidence. This does not preclude wonder and awe. It is sad that you don't get that.
@Sharla Robertson – could you be wrong about the existence of God?
There's probably a poor kid in a slum in Bangladesh who never read the Bible or even thought about God. I can't see inside
his/her mind how it feels to see a astounding sunrise. The lens may be clearer without any dogma. I don't know or won't try
to guess, it would be egotistical and close minded.
@Sharla,
substi.tute the word existence or universe for "creation". That is a first step to understanding why we don't see the need for a "creator".
I have family members and friends whom are religious and which I love dearly. I use to be religious as many atheists have. It isn't easy to become or be an atheist. At least not in the U.S. Much easier in Europe.
My brain is wired just like yours. Nerve endings and such. I get goosebumps at times just like you. I smile and laugh, sometimes my stomach or facial muscles will hurt because I am laughing so hard. I feel pain just like you. My feelings get hurt and I can feel intense pain just like you. I have a favorite color(s) just like you. I fall in love just like you.
In all, I am (almost) just like you. The only difference is our experiences, our knowledge, our gender (possibly), our strengths and weakness and what god we believe or do not believe in.
It comes from the Universe, that we are all connected, all one people stretching back through time, and on into the future. We are all gods in that respect, the Universe made manifest, trying to figure itself out. I don't believe in magic beard man, or the fables in holy books. I don't need to be reminded how to be a good person, or be threatened with eternal damnation for refusing to believe in some "Supreme Being" (Which seems awfully petty for an omniscient being). I am not bound to dogma.. (Islam=Bad, Christians=good). My opinions are not tainted through years of forced scripture, But what I have seen and experience personally, They are my own.
Actually, looking around and seeing awe & wonder in the natural world is a well known acknowledged religious concept that predates organized religion; Naturalism, related to Natural Law. Guess Oprah hadnt read about that.
her statement is incorrect. so anyone who is atheist cannot appreciate nature. thats her interpretation. apparently being rich and smart dont go hand and hand.
Without a Creator, there wouldn't be any Nature to appreciate.
Can you prove that?
Yes.
there was silence
Christina,
We're waiting. Go ahead.
She doesn't converse or form arguments like any PhD I ever knew. I have to call bs on her credentials, and the argument she offers has no evidence, and was easily refuted (if it exists, it was created ... well, then who created God, since God exists?). No need to spend any more time on this thread.
And where did the creator come from?
Why doesn't the existence of something prove that it was created? If matter was created, then something had to do the creating. Why would matter create itself?
The blessings of simplicity!
Christina
"Why doesn't the existence of something prove that it was created?"
So who created God or doesn't he exist?
The point is Christina that if a Creator "exists" then that Creator, by you logic, would itself have to have been "created". And that is the problem with that theistic logic. You want to apply it to the universe and not your "god". That is a fallacy called special pleading.
Perhaps the question itself is flawed. Does everything that comes into existence have to be 'created'?
That may be true in your imagination but it's not true in my world.
No Justin she was talking about spirituality. I know a lot of spiritual Agnostics via this forum but spiritual Atheists are rare. The religious or dogmatic ones are more popular here so I don't blame her!
Dogmatic....atheists?
Disbelief is not unbelief. So not a lack of belief, unbelief, will not makr you an Atheist. You will have to actively decide not to believe certain things but believe others. Which is disbelief or Atheism. So it is not a simple lack but an active decision against belief which is why it is considered a religion.
None of that makes any sense what so ever. I did not decide I was an atheist, I was presented with claims, I rejected those claims for lack of evidence.
Umm...and none of that address your claim of "atheistic dogma". You are just making up definitions to words to make your view of atheism = religion. Why are you so concerned with putting atheism in the scope of religion? Sort of makes you look insecure in your belief.
Is "theism" a religion? Of course not. So how can you claim "atheism" is unless your motive is to deceive?
I'm often glad that the same people who have no concept of logic feel the need to "use it" in defending their viewpoint on their god. It's good to see that they are on the other side.
The only "dogma" is in not believing in God(s) or higher powers.
"Insistent" is a better word than "dogmatic" in this case.
And yes there is a spectrum of people who are insistent or even militant about it.
I am insistent that people don't misrepresent my thoughts as being something different from what they are. That is the heart of this article.
Atheism is a non-prophet organization.
Funny!
I am agnostic and I find both theists and atheists irrational. Theists have faith, which is an irrational choice to believe in something of which they have absolutely no definitive proof. Atheists lack faith because they choose to reject the "proof" provided by various religions supporting the existence of a "God." This rejection of proof and declaration that there is no "God" is also irrational because atheists have absolutely no proof there isn't a "God." I choose to be agnostic because there is no proof to support the claims of either group. However, I tend to sympathize with the atheist view because of the historical irrational behavior demonstrated by groups of faith over the history of humanity. Though I support those who choose to believe in a "God," I am most definitely anti-church because humanity's implementation of faith based structure has historically limited the progression of our ability to advance as a species. While atheists are labeled as closed-minded, I would state that theists are exponentially more closed-minded than atheists. I think an atheist would understand why it would be far more rational to be agnostic than it would to be atheist, if they took the time to consider why they disagree with the theist view. In a way, I am atheist because I don't believe in a "God" but I also don't believe there isn't a "God" so I'm not atheist. I don't know if there is or isn't a "God" and neither does anyone else. What I do know and understand is that our lives are delicate blips in a vast universe of time and we should have far more appreciation and respect for present and future forms of life than we have now. We should focus more on what we know than what we don't know because faith is a distraction that will only limit our ability to enhance our existence. Does it really matter what anyone believes as long as they have a general respect for life? If someone is a person of faith, who are they to pass judgement on those who have none? Can we rely on the irrational interpretations by our primitive ancestors to pass judgments on the thoughts of others? How do we know they got it right? I highly doubt it! If there is a "God", I'm sure God is very disappointed with humanity's misrepresentation of God's expectations and the use of those misrepresentations to manipulate humanity for other less virtuous reasons.
Why isn't the existence of matter good enough proof of a Creator?
How do you prove the non-existence of anything?
I will submit to you that you either an agnostic atheist, and afraid to embrace the atheist "label" or you are having trouble making up your mind.
People are believers (in God or a higher power) or non-believers. Pick one.
Except for people who can't decide, distinguishing agnostics from atheists is a cop-out.
I am Christian. Faith requires us to know that there might or might not be what we think is God. To quote St Paul, now we see darkly as through translucent glass but after death we shall see what truely is...!
Agnostic understand the Christian and theistic position better unless they are biased
GOP
Cop out? Isn't it the same accusation dogmatic and religious Xtians used on their spiritual but not religious cousins? And u wonder why Atheism is classified as a religion?
@Atheist, Me?
The whole "Spiritual But Not Religious" label does indeed have similarities to the "agnostic" label.
SBNR includes:
– Believers in 'traditional' religions (like Christianity but who don't have a particular denominational affilliation)
– Believers in a higher power (but not an anthropomorphic God) like the Deists
– Believers in new-agey pick-and-choosey cafeteria style religion with a bit of this and a bit of that eg: (hippy Jesus + reincarnation + feng shui)
– Believers who don't want to be associated with the "organized religion" label
– Non-believers who don't want to be perceieved as "non-spiritual" (rather much like this topic)
– Non-believers who don't want to be associated with the "agnostic" or "atheist" labels
– and 'other'
Of those groups, the believers who don't want to be associated with the "organized religion" label are a bit of a cop-out too, don't you think.
I agree that 'cop out' is the wrong terminology.
"Coward" is the correct one.
Oh please...
Reject the "proof" of god? There is no proof, that's the point. And that's why religious people talk about FAITH, ie/ have faith in that for which there is no proof. The onus is on believers to prove god...they haven't been able to do that yet.
And just stop with the nonsense about disproving that which can't be proven. Can you prove that Poseidon is not the god of the seas and oceans. Well, if you can't then I guess you are irrational. Right?
Yes, except for those who are genuinely unsure and for them the term is fine.
The expression 'agnostic athesist' is meaningful in this context. It means someone who doesn't think there is a God but can't prove it.
Many people cling to the agnostic label becuase they don't want to be associated with the atheist label. Why? Because religionists conflate *all* atheists with the militant subset of atheists who are anti-theists – those who want to attack religion and see it end.
Personally I'd rather people used believer and non-believer. This is clear cut and most people (except that small group that can't make up their mind) can self-identifiy without the baggage heaped on the "atheist" label by the anti-theists.
According to the only study I've seen on the subject, "anti-theists" represent only 14.8% of atheists. (You will see more here, which is unsurprising.)
"Theists have faith, which is an irrational choice to believe in something of which they have absolutely no definitive proof. [...] In a way, I am atheist because I don't believe in a "God" [...]. I don't know if there is or isn't a "God""
Ya, you're an atheist. You just don't understand how it's defined. Atheists will believe in anything that can be proven rationally, ie/ facts/observation/evidence. Atheists don't believe in god b/c there is no proof of its existence. Prove it and we will believe. That's the point of atheism!
Oprah isn't an atheist because she thinks SHE is God.