ok ok after doing much soul seching and looking I found out something intresting.
all the religons out there never give any answers to the quetions I have been asking, true my parents tred to impose there religous belifs on me but after looking. i have found out that there is no proof that god does or does not exist.
so I live my life to the way I see fit I dont brake the law I keep out of trouble
and i dont waist my life trying to figure out if there is or is not a higher purpose in life many people have done that.

there are posative and negative points to both religous and non religous belifs

 

Well-said, the fox. I tend to agree with you. Spell-check, though, might be a worthwhile investment.

 

I'm probably misreading this but I said no such thing. I had a few years in a quasi-hippie lifestyle. My response was was questioning someone elses issue with it. I was asking what was wrong with stoned and naked; the talking to trees was just some meaningless aurguementation.

 

Sorry Perv, I think I was actually referring to a statement by Abyrne for which he apologized to everyone. Prolly misthought it was you, sorry.

 

Faith appears to be a basic instinct, a perspective instilled in our conscious being. The earliest drawings found on cave walls deplict belief in an afterlife. It is something that even you, an Athiest, have (by your own admission) given considerable thought.

Faith is soothing is many ways. It provides mental, emotional, and social relief. The belief of eternal life will soothe worries of dying. The social connection felt in church (where there are many good people doing good things, despite what the news deplicts) is a good for a human being.

Regarding religion, there hasn't been definitive proof that there is or isn't an afterlife. Humans should be more accepting of those with and without faith.

 

Nice statement. I should have read it before posting mine. Very enlightened for someone so young.

 

I believe I have read that it has been proven that the solemnity and quietness of the liturgical services induces alpha brain waves giving a feeling of peace.


Again I KNOW there is an afterlife me and 3 of my friends have BEEN there.

 

I believe in God. I'm a Christian, but I'm not religious. Religion is for people who are afraid of Hell. Spirituality is for people who've been there. There is so much more to Christianity than what most people even know. Going to church on Sunday, and listening to 30 minutes of singing and a 30 minute sermon and then being out by 12 so you can make it to McDonald's is not what Christianity is about. That is religion, it's based on rules and regulations that put God inside a box. Southern Gospel is not what Christianity is about (Thank God) despite what you would see on most Christian television, which is garbage, btw. I promise we're not all like Fred Phelps. Most of us, actually, aren't bigots. It's just a select few that the media likes to focus on, a few who commit horrible atrocities in the name of God, and they give us all a bad name. Christ taught about love, not hate. He said "Love God, and Love your neighbor." That basically sums up what it means to be a good person (not that all atheists are bad people. Only the dickheads.) There is an intense feeling that I get when I experience God that I have no explanation for, and neither does science. Science is all well and good, but "Unbiased" science is just what they call it when they want to disprove God. There really is no unbiased science, there is no unbiased anything. Religion and Atheism are both working toward their own ends and refusing to take into account the whole picture. Both parts fit together as a whole, but Atheists say that intelligent design is garbage, while Christians say that evolution is impossible. Nobody is completely objective. I'm completely open minded to what everyone here believes, but I definitely don't want people to have a messed up view of Christianity. (And yes, I know I'm a horrible hypocrite for looking at porn. Sue me. Only one man was perfect and they still murdered Him.)

 

I completely and utterly agree with you.

 

Then you certainly don't understand you're whole existence?

 

I honestly wish I could give a solid answer as to why I hate hippies. I'm not really sure why, I just know I hate them. It could have something to do with a major part of hippie culture revolves around drug use, and as a former cocaine addict, I have problems with people that use drugs, I'm not sure. So the only answer I can give you is that I hate hippies because I've always hated hippies.

Also, I realize that Wiccans don't run around hugging trees, but the statement about getting stoned, naked and doing things with trees came from someone who obviously was using Wicca as an excuse to get stoned constantly, and probably because it pissed his parents off.

 

I think this is one of the best post on here in support of christianity.

As far as I am concerned evolution is a proven fact but your post is still well articulated.

 

I agree absolutely that this is the best post yet in support of Christianity. I still do, however, have a problem with the distinction the author attempts to make between religion and Christianity. The best argument I've read supporting this distinction is in Karl Barth's Church Dogmatics: 1.2 The Doctrine of The Word of God, section 17 entitled "The Revelation of God as the Abolition of Religion." The fact that the author then went on to write several volumes in support of essentially traditional Protestant Christianity, while remaining a pastor and professor of theology tends to undermine my confidence in him as an independent thinker. What, neroxtreme1380, is your definition of the distinction between Christianity and religion? Is Christianity merely a moral/ethical system of "do unto others" equivalent to the teachings of Confucius, or did Jesus claim to teach with real authority?

 

"Christ taught about love, not hate. He said "Love God, and Love your neighbor." That basically sums up what it means to be a good person (not that all atheists are bad people."
Didn't Christ also promise that his Angels would separate the wheat from the chaff on the last day? Didn't he also talk about separating the sheep from the goats? Didn't he talk about how it would be more terrible than what happened to the city of Sodom compared to what would happen to those peoples/cities who rejected the teachings of his disciples? Jesus was as bloodthirsty as any of the other illiterate prophets of the ancient world. The teaching of love of God and neighbor was borrowed from the Jewish tradition which specified one's neighbor as a fellow Jew. To think that this teaching is anything new in the history of religion is to be ignorant of the other religious traditions of the world.

 

bad news for us atheists . . .

our position is as much a position of belief as any theist.

luckily it needs no further justification than the conviction of our belief and, for most of us, it serves us well as we cope with our complicated world.

in my opinion, we'd all be alot better off if we just accepted our so-called "knowledge" as belief, allowed our fellow humans to truly and freely enjoy their own beliefs, and conducted ourselves consistently in accordance with our own moral code.

then again, that kind of enlightenment may make the world kind of boring

 

Thanks for the reply, OldTool. Are you saying that all knowledge is a form of belief on par with that of religious faith? Are you further saying that all humans should be allowed to freely enjoy their own beliefs and to conduct themselves consistently with their own moral code, whatever that moral code may be? I'm just seeking some clarification here, because I'm not sure I understand. How are you defining belief, and is belief the same thing as faith? For example, is the statement "I believe that the sun will rise tomorrow morning,"he same as a statement of faith such as the Nicene Creed that begins "I believe in one God, the father almighty . . "

 

"our position is as much a position of belief as any theist."

Just out of curiosity, what is it that atheists believe in?

 

no sir, those two statements of belief are not on par with eachother except that they both are beliefs . . . unless you can refute Hume's position that there is no logical or rational basis for the "fact" of cause and effect - many have tried, none have succeeded. Now, there may be a more sufficient reason to hold the belief that the sun will rise in the morning, and thus more people will be willing to accept your belief when you state it - but it is still just a personal belief.

As to your first question - yes, I do believe that all persons should be allowed to state and exercise their personal moral code. From this, some have argued that this will leave us with complete social anarchy. My argument is that this is precisely what we have right now - the right to state and exercise our personal moral code, and that we spend enormous amounts of emotional energy denying this.

I call it "Old Tool's No Have Tos" theorem. It states that except for death, there are no true "have tos". You don't have to do anything - except die. You don't have to pay taxes, eat, breathe, love your mother, obey the law, etc., etc. You choose to, based on your beliefs and your personal moral code.

So as to not get too far off-topic, I don't see the justification for belief in a diety to be any more or less reasonable than the belief that there is no such thing. I have freely chosen to believe there isn't one.

 

Atheists believe that there is no diety. Of course, most prefer to simply deny theist belief - leaving the theist the burden of proof . . . but the law of non-contradiction indicates that to be an Atheist, you must believe that there is no diety. To deny it, is to simultaneously affirm it. One of philosophies most powerful tautologies.

 

So then according to the law of non-contradiction affirmative statements and negation are the same. The statement I believe in Santa Claus, and I do not believe in Santa Claus mean the same thing . . .namely I believe in him. Therefore there is no way to disbelieve in anything, since to disbelieve it is to simultaneously be forced to affirm it?

Personally I disagreee . I see a fundamental distinction between an affirmative statement of belief, and a lack thereof. Any assertion demands evidence. The same cannot be said of absence of belief. It is upon the believer to provide evidence for his claim that his belief is true. One who doubts it need provide no evidence whatsoever, only to say that based upon the evidence provided this belief does not merit affirmation. It seems to me that otherwise, one of philosophies most powerful tautologies forces us to say that affirmation and negation are one and the same. This interests me very much from the linguistic perspective, but I can only imagine the practical implications.