What Atheists Believe

it's absolutely different. Atheists don't go around worrying themselves with their no-God stance. You are able to dismiss other Gods without that becoming a belief right?

There's a reason atheist's don't worry themselves with what their no-God stance means to their lives, bc it means they don't have to. I believe they still do though, whether they would admit it or not. We were designed to run on the Holy Spirit, and anything else is like gasoline in a diesel, you will know somethings not right. Gotta run though, I'll be back.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
There's a reason atheist's don't worry themselves with what their no-God stance means to their lives, bc it means they don't have to. I believe they still do though, whether they would admit it or not. We were designed to run on the Holy Spirit, and anything else is like gasoline in a diesel, you will know somethings not right. Gotta run though, I'll be back.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

I believe you spelled oxygen incorrectly.
 
"I contend that we're both atheists, I just believe in one less god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all other gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen Roberts

Is it possible for all g/God(s) to be utterly, primarily or even partially wrong / right - but one closer to the truth than another?

Building off of Vercy's post from earlier ITT (iirc) - that there are two issues to be had here, one is of existence, the other of relationship.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
Religion: a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe.

In my opinion, belief that there is no God, and my actions have no eternal consequences, is in itself, a set of beliefs to explain purpose and nature. (2 of 3 from definition)

Frankly, our alliegence is to someone of something, whether we believe it or not. I believe that by nature, our alliegence is to ourselves. Think about it, unless we are taught that giving is better than receiving, (a whole other topic) we, by nature, would MUCH rather take something for ourselves than to sacrifice something for another. We worship our own selfish desires. (Jumping around a bit, I know)
Posted via VolNation Mobile

I'm not sure that pointing out or ultimate selfishness advances the argument very well.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
PS.(Secular humanism is also a religion.)
Posted via VolNation Mobile

How so? I hear this term thrown around a lot, and even after some cursory reading, am not sure that I fully understand what exactly it is, or is intensest to imply.

And that's not addressed to Kush, alone - I'd appreciate a working definition from anyonen who might provide it.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
it's not a belief to simply say something doesn't exist. Are you a member of the anti-Zeus religion too?

you can have a purpose in life without God

I don't doubt for a second that an atheist can have purpose in life, and is equally capable of doing just as many wonderful and reviled things as a believer - but I wonder as to their reason(s) for doing so, or toward what end they seek (i.e. believers have the promise of heaven / fear of hell as motivation - what's the equivalent for an atheist, if any)?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
I don't doubt for a second that an atheist can have purpose in life, and is equally capable of doing just as many wonderful and reviled things as a believer - but I wonder as to their reason(s) for doing so, or toward what end they seek (i.e. believers have the promise of heaven / fear of hell as motivation - what's the equivalent for an atheist, if any)?
Posted via VolNation Mobile

It could simply be altruism.

Personally, I feel like I can handle suffering and misery very well; therefore, if I can do something that helps remove the burden of suffering from someone else, even if it adds to my burden, I usually do. Part of that is confidence in my abilities combined with knowledge that I can live in the most dire conditions and survive with no long-term ill effects.

Regardless of eternal reward and/or punishment, I do experience suffering and witness suffering. If I can do something to ease that suffering, I will.
 
It could simply be altruism.

Personally, I feel like I can handle suffering and misery very well; therefore, if I can do something that helps remove the burden of suffering from someone else, even if it adds to my burden, I usually do. Part of that is confidence in my abilities combined with knowledge that I can live in the most dire conditions and survive with no long-term ill effects.

Regardless of eternal reward and/or punishment, I do experience suffering and witness suffering. If I can do something to ease that suffering, I will.

No larger aim than that (not that it isn't admirable)?

And you say "usually" do, but sometimes not - what is usually the difference as to when you choose to do so, or don't?

Where do you believe that the desire to end the suffering of another, even to your own detriment, comes from?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
The Universe tends toward disorder. Vast amounts of energy are required to counter this tendency.

If you take Big Bang, purely as an example, all things were highly disordered until energy expenditure via particle collision, or whatever, resulted in more order.

But the tendency is still to return to disorder, and maintaining the level of order seen, requires energy.

If you consider the reversal of the Big Bang, the Big Squeeze or Collapse, or whatever it is called, you can assert that, eventually, everything will collapse back into itself and disorder will again reign supreme.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

This is likely a dumb question - but what is the most widely accepted scientific reason for this struggle toward order?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
This is likely a dumb question - but what is the most widely accepted scientific reason for this struggle toward order?
Posted via VolNation Mobile

Thermodynamics is something that I have often struggled with, but as I understand it, and hopefully someone here better equipped than I can explain it (hopefully to me as well) is that order requires an input of energy.

Disorder does not. It is easier to not input energy than it is to input energy, and thus the tendency of any system is toward disorder, such that it does not have to expend, acquire or manufacture energy.
 
Thermodynamics is something that I have often struggled with, but as I understand it, and hopefully someone here better equipped than I can explain it (hopefully to me as well) is that order requires an input of energy.

Disorder does not. It is easier to not input energy than it is to input energy, and thus the tendency of any system is toward disorder, such that it does not have to expend, acquire or manufacture energy.

This is the way I understand it. Once energy is introduced to a closed system order will take hold.
 
Gentlemen: Thought Experiment.

Feel free to play Devil's Advocate. Interested in seeing views.

Consider time. Consider that time has either a) always existed, b) created at the moment of the Big Bang or c) exited prior to the Big Bang, but after the Big Bang, a new time course was set, and the previous is unimportant.

Consider god. Consider that god is all powerful, all knowing and all creative.

Who came first, god or time? And if it was god, during the period where god was creating time, what was that period referred to? If it was time first (assuming you do not believe time has always existed) then where did time come from?
 
Last edited:
Gentlemen: Thought Experiment.

Feel free to play Devil's Advocate. Interested in seeing views.

Consider time. Consider that time has either a) always existed, b) created at the moment of the Big Bang or c) exited prior to the Big Bang, but after the Big Bang, a new time course was set, and the previous is unimportant.

Consider god. Consider that god is all powerful, all knowing and all creative.

Who came first, god or time? And if it was god, during the period where god was creating time, what was that period referred to?

To finish the hypothetical you should also ask if it was time first then where did time come from
 
To finish the hypothetical you should also ask if it was time first then where did time come from

If you accept the postulate that time has always existed, as I do, then that question is moot.

But I agree, remove my bias. :) Thanks.
 
Gentlemen: Thought Experiment.

Feel free to play Devil's Advocate. Interested in seeing views.

Consider time. Consider that time has either a) always existed, b) created at the moment of the Big Bang or c) exited prior to the Big Bang, but after the Big Bang, a new time course was set, and the previous is unimportant.

Consider god. Consider that god is all powerful, all knowing and all creative.

Who came first, god or time? And if it was god, during the period where god was creating time, what was that period referred to? If it was time first (assuming you do not believe time has always existed) then where did time come from?

Time is simply a measure of change. Therefore, time could not have existed prior to energy and/or matter. Time is simultaneously introduced at the moment that energy and/or matter are introduced.

Most philosophical descriptions regarding the characteristics of a supreme deity state that the deity would be immutable (unchanging). Therefore, the deity would not be subject to time.
 
Another thought experiment:

Is there anything besides the universe as we know it? Do you believe their are/could be multiple universes (or realities that have some form quite different from our universe)?

I'll hang up and listen.
 
Another thought experiment:

Is there anything besides the universe as we know it? Do you believe their are/could be multiple universes (or realities that have some form quite different from our universe)?

I'll hang up and listen.

According to the mathematics of M-theory, there are absolutely parallel universes and a grand total of eleven dimensions in our own universe. Humans, however, only have the capacity to recognize four of them (X plane, Y plane, Z plane, and time).
 
Time is simply a measure of change. Therefore, time could not have existed prior to energy and/or matter. Time is simultaneously introduced at the moment that energy and/or matter are introduced.

Most philosophical descriptions regarding the characteristics of a supreme deity state that the deity would be immutable (unchanging). Therefore, the deity would not be subject to time.

Fantastic response. Can we find any example of any inanimate object that is not undergoing change at any level?

I would say probably not.
 
Reading a little bit of T.S. Eliot's prose and I found these gems:
Anyone with even the slightest religious consciousnes must be afflicted from time to time by the contrast between his religious faith and his behaviour; anyone with the taste that individual or group culture confers must be aware of values which he cannot call religious.
...
The actual religion of no European people has ever been purely Christian, or purely anything else. There are always bits and traces of more primitive faiths more or less absorbed; there is always the tendency towards parasitic beliefs; there are always perversions, as when patriotism, which pertains to natural religion and is therefore licit and even encouraged by the Church, becomes exaggerated into a caricature of itself.
...
That behaviour is also belief, and that even the most conscious and developed of us live also at the level on which belief and behaviour cannot be distinguished, is one that may, once we allow our imagination to play upon, be very disconcerting. It gives importance to even our most trivial pursuits, to the occupation of our every minute, which we canot contemplate long without the horror of nightmare.
...
It is inconvenient for Christians to find that as Christians they do not believe enough, and that on the other hand they, with everybody else, believe in too many things.
...
For what a people may be said to believe, as what is shown by their behaviour, is, as I have said, always a great deal more and a great deal less than its professed faith in its purity.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
I am a athiest and I don't think anyone truly knows how the world got here. But i dont think a god made us cause if a god did then who made god? People say faith gotta have faith but u can have faith in anything and that doesn't make it true. Or they say he had just been here forever. That's completely illogical.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
I am a athiest and I don't think anyone truly knows how the world got here. But i dont think a god made us cause if a god did then who made god? People say faith gotta have faith but u can have faith in anything and that doesn't make it true. Or they say he had just been here forever. That's completely illogical.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

You should probably read a philosophy book or two.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 

VN Store



Back
Top