The SPrinkLer
Banned deucer.
I'm not entirely sure. I've been going to church, but it's hard to decide. I guess I'm a Christian.
-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
-
Congrats to the winners of the 2023 Smog Awards!
How did any of you arrive at your conclusion?
- Thread starter St Dionysius
- Start date
"atheist" isn't the right word then. If you KNOW there is a God, regardless of how much time you devote to him or whatever, you'd be a theist.
Ah, to have an interest in philosophy in a place like this!
I believe that there is an unseen force, if you would call it that, however, I'm not entirely sure whether you can call it a "faith". I believe, that since the universe, time and existence are constants, they must all have a start point. Of course, without these things, a start is incomphrehensible. Which is exactly what I am suggesting. The thing some faiths would label God, in my opinion, is in fact a start point of existance, and since every start has an end, most probably the end point. However, since it is incomphrehensible, it immediately disproves any faith which attemps to draw any link between a deity and humanity, as no such meeting could exist without the human almost certainately being unable to understand or describe the impossible force, which one could only imagine leading to insanity or death, at least of the mind.
Therefore, I believe there is a "God", but it exists outside of faith, or, for that matter, any imaginable existance.
Thanks for reading!
I believe that there is an unseen force, if you would call it that, however, I'm not entirely sure whether you can call it a "faith". I believe, that since the universe, time and existence are constants, they must all have a start point. Of course, without these things, a start is incomphrehensible. Which is exactly what I am suggesting. The thing some faiths would label God, in my opinion, is in fact a start point of existance, and since every start has an end, most probably the end point. However, since it is incomphrehensible, it immediately disproves any faith which attemps to draw any link between a deity and humanity, as no such meeting could exist without the human almost certainately being unable to understand or describe the impossible force, which one could only imagine leading to insanity or death, at least of the mind.
Therefore, I believe there is a "God", but it exists outside of faith, or, for that matter, any imaginable existance.
Thanks for reading!
Maybe life would be simpler if we only saw time as beginning when we were born, learned about the past as just "the land before time"...
I dunno where I'm getting at here, because history is extremely important. The Universe is incomprehensible to a mortal mind. We can't really grasp the concept of "no beginning", but "no end" is in fact a wish for many... All we know is "stuff happened in the past", but we don't know when "stuff" started existing.
I dunno where I'm getting at here, because history is extremely important. The Universe is incomprehensible to a mortal mind. We can't really grasp the concept of "no beginning", but "no end" is in fact a wish for many... All we know is "stuff happened in the past", but we don't know when "stuff" started existing.
I'm an atheist for the reason that I don't see any proof of there being a god.
Also, I don't really like talking about/arguing about religion due to some people being too religious.
Also, I don't really like talking about/arguing about religion due to some people being too religious.
I agree with made up for people, i think its just there so humans have some sort of "GOAL" by the end of their lives.
I am an atheist as of now. I dont agree with discrimination blacks and jew and now GAYS go through. What religion teaches to not accept people. We are all different so as of now i have no religion. I do hope to find peace by the end of my life though!
And im not a gay activist or black!! FYI
Religion is, surely, just a figment of the perfectly human feature of faith. However, there are so many question left unanswered that a "greater force" is entirely possible.
As farfetched (no I'm not doing the obvious forum relevant gag) as it may seem, for all we know, Christianity could have been planted in our society by aliens a long time ago...
The point is it is folly to believe in the greater echelons of religious beliefs, as redemption, or whatever, ain't happening. That said, faith can be the inspiration of people's lives and you've got to respect that. And even as an atheist, you've got to appreciate the possibility.
Just wish extremists wouldn't allow themselves to be blinded by one of the greatest propaganda devices of all time: religion, with the wrong intention.
As farfetched (no I'm not doing the obvious forum relevant gag) as it may seem, for all we know, Christianity could have been planted in our society by aliens a long time ago...
The point is it is folly to believe in the greater echelons of religious beliefs, as redemption, or whatever, ain't happening. That said, faith can be the inspiration of people's lives and you've got to respect that. And even as an atheist, you've got to appreciate the possibility.
Just wish extremists wouldn't allow themselves to be blinded by one of the greatest propaganda devices of all time: religion, with the wrong intention.
I am an atheist. While I cannot prove to you that there is not a God, the fact that a God existing is much much much more probabilistically unlikely than a God not existing (particularly any one specific version of "God", eg the Judeo-Christian God etc), and the fact that there is absolutely no evidence or reason why there must be a God, allows me to believe pretty firmly that God does not exist, or, in other words, has been discredited.
Notice that I didn't use the word disproven, because you can never really disprove God just like you can't disprove the flying spaghetti monster just like you can't disprove invisible completely undetectable unicorns roaming through space (I just made that last one up), but the fact that these entities have no legitimate evidence of existing, no reason why they must exist, and can be reasoned away by psychology (God only exists because people have a biological desire for faith, the other two exist to prove points) means that you can assume they actually do not exist, as long as you allow for the minute possibility that they do. I suppose the Judeo-Christian God could exist, but then again so could undetectable unicorns.
Ultimately, simplicity is more probable than complexity, and there is absolutely nothing more complex than an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent being that runs the universe when there is the perfectly adequate explanation that the universe just runs on its own, life came about from chemical reactions, there is no such thing as the "soul" etc. Sure using a purely scientific universe presents problems like how did it get here, why is it even here in the first place etc, but just because these questions seem unanswerable to us is no excuse for us to invent some psuedo-response to them with religion. In all likelihood, questions like this are only pressing to us because of the way our minds work and the way we think and the way our language works. Just because human minds are engineered to think everything must have a cause and reason and meaning doesn't mean that that must be true.
IMO the worst argument you could possibly make is the whole "the universe is too complex for it to have come about on its own." This implies that there is some sort of objective "level of complexity" scale that you are ranking the universe on, when in fact you are only ranking the complexity of the universe compared to your subjective view of "complexity" based on everything you've seen and learned. Who are we to decide what is a reasonable level of complexity? For all we know, the universe could have been 100000x more complex. The fact that it looks complex to us is because... we are us.
Notice that I didn't use the word disproven, because you can never really disprove God just like you can't disprove the flying spaghetti monster just like you can't disprove invisible completely undetectable unicorns roaming through space (I just made that last one up), but the fact that these entities have no legitimate evidence of existing, no reason why they must exist, and can be reasoned away by psychology (God only exists because people have a biological desire for faith, the other two exist to prove points) means that you can assume they actually do not exist, as long as you allow for the minute possibility that they do. I suppose the Judeo-Christian God could exist, but then again so could undetectable unicorns.
Ultimately, simplicity is more probable than complexity, and there is absolutely nothing more complex than an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent being that runs the universe when there is the perfectly adequate explanation that the universe just runs on its own, life came about from chemical reactions, there is no such thing as the "soul" etc. Sure using a purely scientific universe presents problems like how did it get here, why is it even here in the first place etc, but just because these questions seem unanswerable to us is no excuse for us to invent some psuedo-response to them with religion. In all likelihood, questions like this are only pressing to us because of the way our minds work and the way we think and the way our language works. Just because human minds are engineered to think everything must have a cause and reason and meaning doesn't mean that that must be true.
IMO the worst argument you could possibly make is the whole "the universe is too complex for it to have come about on its own." This implies that there is some sort of objective "level of complexity" scale that you are ranking the universe on, when in fact you are only ranking the complexity of the universe compared to your subjective view of "complexity" based on everything you've seen and learned. Who are we to decide what is a reasonable level of complexity? For all we know, the universe could have been 100000x more complex. The fact that it looks complex to us is because... we are us.
For what it's worth, the most complex object in the Universe is probably the human brain, and life in general. Planets, stars, galaxies, all those sorts of things are pretty simple really. Even something like tourmaline, a mineral with the following general formula
(Ca,K,Na,[])(Al,Fe,Li,Mg,Mn)3(Al,Cr, Fe,V)6(BO3)3(Si,Al,B)6O18(OH,F)4
is trivial compared to the complexity a bacteria or virus. I suppose maybe things like the magnetic field of the Sun, or the dynamics in a supernova explosion, might rival life in complexity.
PS: And yes I looked up the formula for Tourmaline. Some people know it, I'm not one of them. They only learn it to show off anyway.)
The bible says that the Earth is 6000 years old, and if you don't believe that you don't believe in the bible. Why do people say that they're Christian if they don't believe every single word written in their book? I mean, I can see the moral obligations to believe in God, and most of the stuff in the bible, but if that same religion also says something else, you either believe that too, or you're not really of that religion. (I know I'm going to get called out on this, so if I'm misinformed please inform me here.)
Why do I have to believe in God to know that it is wrong to kill someone? Why are the only people with real morals people with religion, as Deck Knight has been asserting. (I have the utmost respect for you Deck Knight, and I agree with you mostly in cong topics, but not right now). He also said something about how religious orginizations are the ones that are donating and volunteering and being stand-up and altruistic etc. I see how religion would motivate you to do good things, and be a good person, but why are people without religion unable to be this caring? And couldn't one argue that they are only doing that to pass the test of being a good person on Earth to get into heaven?
Anyway, my point of not currently having a religion (at least not being Christian), is not the lack of proof of God, but that in Juedo-Christianity, our existence is just a test to pass to get into heaven. This is just a test, and when you think about it, doesn't really mean anything. People find meaning in Christianity, but I see the exact opposite. If you'll end up in heaven or hell anyway, why does it matter? If there is no heaven or hell, then what you do in your life seems to matter more, because that is all that there is for you. This is true, at least for me personally, which is my answer to the question of this topic.
Main points: You don't need to be religious to be moral, and I personally see more meaning in life without the afterlife.
Why do I have to believe in God to know that it is wrong to kill someone? Why are the only people with real morals people with religion, as Deck Knight has been asserting. (I have the utmost respect for you Deck Knight, and I agree with you mostly in cong topics, but not right now). He also said something about how religious orginizations are the ones that are donating and volunteering and being stand-up and altruistic etc. I see how religion would motivate you to do good things, and be a good person, but why are people without religion unable to be this caring? And couldn't one argue that they are only doing that to pass the test of being a good person on Earth to get into heaven?
Anyway, my point of not currently having a religion (at least not being Christian), is not the lack of proof of God, but that in Juedo-Christianity, our existence is just a test to pass to get into heaven. This is just a test, and when you think about it, doesn't really mean anything. People find meaning in Christianity, but I see the exact opposite. If you'll end up in heaven or hell anyway, why does it matter? If there is no heaven or hell, then what you do in your life seems to matter more, because that is all that there is for you. This is true, at least for me personally, which is my answer to the question of this topic.
Main points: You don't need to be religious to be moral, and I personally see more meaning in life without the afterlife.
I'm not a Christian, but I see adherance to the teachings of Jesus Christ more important than adherance to the Bible. The Bible was written by people who weren't Jesus, so while it is an important document to Christianity parts of it can be taken with a little grain of salt. Though not all Christians would agree with that, that's how I see it.
I'm an atheist, I have been for years. Mainly for the reasons stated in this thread - just no reason to believe in a particular god.
I'm an atheist, I have been for years. Mainly for the reasons stated in this thread - just no reason to believe in a particular god.
But most Christians teach (from what I know) that anyone can get into heaven through faith or love or something, so the point is moot.
I know I for one was born into mine, then indoctrinated, and now see no reason to change.
This is why we have a lot of atheists nowadays. As for why religious people place so much stock in their faith- if you believe that an almighty power told you to do something and can punish you for disobeying, you will do it.
Homosexuality isn't illegal in most developed countries, as far as I'm aware, but yes, homosexuality would be socially acceptable if it weren't for Christianity. Christians were essentially the only ones to campaign against it in California's Prop 8, which is proof as far as I'm concerned that only Christians care about it.
As far as evolution... it's fact. There really is no valid argument to disprove it. The main evangelical argument is just that evolution has divine origins.
No, as I see it this is a completely valid point. If God supplied the points in the Bible, why is he wrong? Either readers have misinterpreted the Bible, misunderstood natural phenomena and wrongly asserted the earth is older than 6000 years old, or something was lost in translation to English. As you and I see it, Christians must go along with one of the three options.
The basic argument is that if you can do something profitable for you without getting punished, you should do it. In Judeo-Christianity, all "sin" is punished by an omniscient God. If such a God does not exist, however, many of the same "sins" can be committed without much possibility for punishment- the potential reward outweighs the risk for many such things, such as cheating. One could still put the overall benefit of society above themselves and be moral, but there is no tangible benefit for doing so. Basically, nonreligious people can still be moral- but they have fewer reasons to do so.
See my first response to Khyl; but your argument is quite valid. Imperfect people wrote the Bible and translated it several times, so the final product is by no means perfect.
Depends on the Christian.
I probably have a few errors in here somewhere, correct me if I'm wrong. Sorry for the wall of text.
I'm pretty sure it is in the bible and the teachings of Jesus that the only way to avoid hell is to be a christain, and this is what pretty much every christian I know believes
I don't attach a name to my religious beliefs, they are my own, as the one thing I believe in is myself (this is about faith, not about trust, I trust people). If I were to name it, it would be after myself.
My religious background is rooted in science, and oddly enough, science convinced me that not EVERYTHING can be explained though science and that there is/was some sort of god. I am not able to accept that time never began, that time is an illusion. Some sort of higher power started existence; however, I make no claim that this higher power did anything more to push us onward.
I believe in free will, I believe that there is some sort of soul, that we are more than a culmination of chemicals. I believe that there MIGHT be an afterlife. One much unlike a Christian one, I see heaven being no better than hell. Their heaven is either eternal or terminal, neither of which can truly be happy. The afterlife would simply that, the life after this one. And how well we live this one has little bearing on that one.
I could delve far deeper into the reasoning behind me beliefs, I've been to religious panels, I've written brief research papers, taken a semi-deep interest in string theory, and have had many debates about this sort of thing.
Side note: Google is apparently a god. http://churchofgoogle.org/
My religious background is rooted in science, and oddly enough, science convinced me that not EVERYTHING can be explained though science and that there is/was some sort of god. I am not able to accept that time never began, that time is an illusion. Some sort of higher power started existence; however, I make no claim that this higher power did anything more to push us onward.
I believe in free will, I believe that there is some sort of soul, that we are more than a culmination of chemicals. I believe that there MIGHT be an afterlife. One much unlike a Christian one, I see heaven being no better than hell. Their heaven is either eternal or terminal, neither of which can truly be happy. The afterlife would simply that, the life after this one. And how well we live this one has little bearing on that one.
I could delve far deeper into the reasoning behind me beliefs, I've been to religious panels, I've written brief research papers, taken a semi-deep interest in string theory, and have had many debates about this sort of thing.
Side note: Google is apparently a god. http://churchofgoogle.org/
Hmph...upstarts. This is the original and true computing religion
And you think that positing a "higher power" explains anything? It doesn't. First, you are not even defining properly what that thing would be, so it doesn't amount to anything more than semantic noise. Second, time cannot "begin": if a process "begins", then there must be a moment when that process was not occurring and then a subsequent moment when it did. Something begins at a specific point in time. Saying that "time begins" (in time) is as nonsensical as saying that space has a specific location (in space). The "first moment in time" plainly and simply *cannot* have been produced by anything, because time is a logical prerequisite to creation. The first moment in time is uncaused by logical necessity. Similarly, to "start existence" is not only meaningless but inconsistent: whatever entity "starts existence" would have to exist before it could do any such thing.
Sounds like wishful thinking. If a soul exists, what does it do? It ought to be doing something. Unfortunately, not a day passes without us figuring out more and more about how each aspect of our behavior is correlated with brain activity. If the soul exists, then whatever its function is, brain damage should not hinder it. So that function isn't memory (Alzheimer), it is not personality or morality (lobotomy in the prefrontal cortex can make a nice person into a complete asshole), it is not emotion (emotions lag physiological changes), it is not language, it is not rationality... so what the heck does it even do? What parts of ourselves would be transferred in the afterlife? Forget that misleading feeling we all have that we are, somehow, "special". It just does not make any sense for us to be "more than chemicals" so far, that is, unless you wish us to be.
Please. the Church of Turing was around as early as 1936.
I've been raised a Christian, but am currently an Atheist because
A) I don't believe in God or any spirituality for the simple reason that them existing is immeasurably improbable.
B) I hate everyone at my church.
I, however, find atheism to be enlightening in the fact that you can't keep waiting around for God to happen. Not that most Christians rely wholly on God. Eh, I'm just spewing out crap. Still, glad to see so many atheists. I, too, would love to type out a full-page post about atheism, but it's midnight as I type this, and I happen to be sick =( So... yeah. No one-page posts for me.
A) I don't believe in God or any spirituality for the simple reason that them existing is immeasurably improbable.
B) I hate everyone at my church.
I, however, find atheism to be enlightening in the fact that you can't keep waiting around for God to happen. Not that most Christians rely wholly on God. Eh, I'm just spewing out crap. Still, glad to see so many atheists. I, too, would love to type out a full-page post about atheism, but it's midnight as I type this, and I happen to be sick =( So... yeah. No one-page posts for me.
One could postulate that the brain acts to 'connect' the soul to the body, and thus consider brain damage as affecting that connection. Not saying I or anyone else believes this, but it is one way (probably not wholly satisfactory it's true) to reconcile the hypothesis of a soul with the known effects of brain damage.
This post was just beautiful.
Some sections of the Bible support the proposition that not just anyone can get into the Christian heaven; the second chapter of James more or less condemns those who believe that faith alone will save them, comparing them to devils who also know that their is one God. The whole topic we're discussing now could fill up a whole thread by itself, so I'll stop right here. Just know that there are arguments for both sides.