By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - What does being athiest mean to you?

pearljammer on 15 August 2011
steverhcp02 said:
pearljammer said:
steverhcp02 said:
pearljammer said:

maverick40 said:

haha that was funny. I don't feel superior to both at all. As a scientist i need proof about all these things and there is no proof that god does or doesn't exist.

In the context of science though, there cannot be proof of the nonexistance of something. Asking one to do so with the consequence of calling them ignorant (as you did in your first post) is highly unfair.

Not making unproven assumptions is what makes somebody atheist. I don't think any (reasonable) atheist would argue that there is no chance of there being any diety, intervening or not - just simply that from what we know, that is highly unlikely and that there is absolutely no reason to make the assumption that there is.

But scientific proof is rather cyclical not only in our immediate past but obviously our distant past. I am no scientist but i do take a general interest in things such as astronomy and what i constantly read is the ability to define or discover things is only relavent to our current knowledge at that snapshot in time. To me a great scientist doesnt belittle others with their "science" and they readily admit that  science is merely the skyscraper built on the basis of what we consider fact at this time based on our knowledge of the universe. If something were to shift that base the skyscraper would wither crumble or need to be rebuilt at some point, thus our science at this time is dependent on the actual base at this time...and its by no means a permanent base.

The fact that we are able to view galaxies as they were nearly 10 billion years ago based on their distance, that there are billions of galaxies like ours in existance that our galaxy is over 100 million light years large and we are in 2015 just going to have a drone near pluto, the dwarf planet on the edge of our solar system, to me shows how much more our "science" will change.

Each generation is fixed on an ever distant part of this universe. Imagine how much has changed from the 1700's to now. That is predicted to exponentially increased in 300 years based on the advancement in technology. Hell, even the aforementioned number of galaxies or distances between them, movement of them, expansion of the universe may change in the future based on what we discover...

All these things considered it reminds me of Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy. When Zaphod is captured and put into the machine which actually shows him how insignifcant he is in the scope of the entire universe....and hes the only one to survive based on his ego. Science is well and good and great in context of current knowledge, but acting like its not evolving or moveing and/or changing at the expense of others is rather unscientific.

There's no belittling going on here, certainly not on my part. I don't wish to sound rude but I'm not quite sure what prompted you to post this - I haven't implied that science claims to hold great answers.

Science readily admits when it cannot sufficiently explain something. Any reasonable atheist would be shortsighted to say that they have all or even most of the answers - Hell, we know incredibly little. To claim any differently would be arrogance. That arrogance is displayed by those who actually do claim to know. Atheists are not the ones making the assumptions here. They simply say that from what we know, which is very little, there is no reason to assume an, especially intervening, higher power.

Sorry for the confusion. I meant it in response to the previous poster whose text i put in bold. I forgot to delete your response. Which i do in fact agree with which is probably why my response sounded strange if you thought it was directed at you.

Haha. No problem. Now it makes a lot of sense.



Around the Network
Player1x3 on 15 August 2011
benao87 said:
snakenobi said:
benao87 said:
 

So please tell us in detail what it means to be an atheist and how is life supposed to be functional without reincarnation or how it just continues to be how it is


Eh? Do you need to believe in the after-life in order to have a functional life?

I just can't believe in the existence of a higher being, who controls our destiny. When you die, thats it.


believing in god doesn't mean he controls you

 

it just makes us understand before creation and after creation realms

Uhmm, don't know dude, its just like I think that if there is a God who created the universe and blah blah blah, its like a person with a giant ant farm. He goes there and poke that. If it is indeed its creation, it was made for its amusement. Thats how I interpret the view from the people who believe in any form of god.

Btw, I really didn't get your point about life.

had you been made for God's amusment, he wouldnt have given you free wil. He wold constantly interact with your life and events in it



sapphi_snake on 15 August 2011
huaxiong90 said:
A person who doesn't believe in a higher being and that death marks the end.

As for what I am...I've always been a Muslim...however, I wasn't really a practicing Muslim several years ago for several reasons.

Then I saw an exorcism happen to a relative of mine who was never really troubled as a person. The way it all happened...words cannot possibly describe it, and I have yet to see a (reasonable) scientific explanation for this. Ever since, I've been pursuing more religious knowledge.

Now I see the center of this debate revolves around science such as the big bang and evolution. I support science, and I believe that God created the universe as we know it through the big bang and are continuously expanding it (and one verse supports this). As for evolution, I believe in theistic evolution.

Considering all the so-called exorcisms that happen worldwide all the time, I'm just gonna say that it's was probably all fake. I didn't know exorcisms were practiced by muslims too. Was your relative 'possessed'?



"I don't understand how someone could like Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky, but not like Twilight!!!"

"Last book I read was Brokeback Mountain, I just don't have the patience for them unless it's softcore porn."

                                                                               (The Voice of a Generation and Seece)

"If you cant stand the sound of your own voice than dont become a singer !!!!!"

                                                                               (pizzahut451)

sapphi_snake on 15 August 2011
maverick40 said:
Rath said:
maverick40 said:
an atheist is just as ignorant as a religious person. I am agnostic.



haha that was funny. I don't feel superior to both at all. As a scientist i need proof about all these things and there is no proof that god does or doesn't exist. 

Shouldn't you, as a scientist, consider something to be false without actual proof of it's validity (or even any reason to believe that such a thing might be real)?



"I don't understand how someone could like Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky, but not like Twilight!!!"

"Last book I read was Brokeback Mountain, I just don't have the patience for them unless it's softcore porn."

                                                                               (The Voice of a Generation and Seece)

"If you cant stand the sound of your own voice than dont become a singer !!!!!"

                                                                               (pizzahut451)

Netyaroze on 15 August 2011

I believe with absolute certainty nobody has the slightest clue whats going on not religion and not science. Religion is just guess work for me and science reaches its limits when it comes to the big (or small) stuff.

"Alot of people who call themselves atheist think of the big bang as creation but never question it which itself means that you are not an atheist and think that the day we die the world ends for us and we will be no more than stardust."

I think of the big bang as PART of the creation. We cant explain what happened between 0 and 1 planck second. We CANT know if big bang was the creation of everything unless we have a theory to describe everything but we dont

Also both big theorys that try to explain everything predict existance before big bang so the big bang doesnt seem to be the beginning of existance. And scientist KNOW that it was just the beginning of our universe (probably)

To the rest: We are ALREADY Stardust. And besides Science does not neccessarily say it will be the end of your life after death they CANT say that and depending on how the world really is there are MULTIPLE possibilitys
where you will live again after death. For ever expanding Universe: You will plop into existance again after trillions of years due to quantum fluctuation. Multiverse: You will be born again in a slightly different reality after X amount of time. Infinitly large Universe: You will be born again on a duplicate earth somewhere far far far away from us.
Omega point theory: once life evolved to a god like existence this existence will emulate the entie history to see how it come into this world and it will also emulate you as one of his ancestors.

There are way more solutions some more likely some less. Infinite time Reoccuring big bangs Multiverse Infinite space infinite expansion make you coming back almost a neccessity.

@rath

"Somebody who believe it is impossible to prove or disprove the existence of a deity"

IT IS IMPOSSIBLE SCIENTISTS KNOW THAT. If you are an atheist or not its LOGICALLY IMPOSSIBLE TO DISPROVE GOD LIKE OTHER THINGS for more information read falsification on wikipedia. Scientists know that thats why noone has ever disproven god and never will it be possible. God is absolute per definition he is a singularity above creation thus you wil NEVER be able to disprove him its just not possible even if you would become yourself a god you cant know if there is something above you. You might be god in your universe but you cant see beyond your universe maybe there is a layer above you. Its like bacteria will never see a human. Our universe already has dozends of plains of existence and the further we go up or down the less we can see until we are physically limited to see more.

Scientists often chose to be atheists BUT its still believing something its not knowing something Atheism is as backed up through facts as religion. And even if religions are total BS and you can prove that (which you never can) that doesnt mean god is not existing just humanity was wrong.

I had a really long and repetetive discussion with someone that just doesnt got the ULTIMATE TRUTH ALWAYS IN EVERY POSSIBLE REALITY CORRECT THAT YOU WILL NEVER BE ABLE TO DISPROVE GOD .



Around the Network
ww3ismw3 on 15 August 2011

Very muscular.



ww3ismw3 on 15 August 2011

Like Arnold maybe



Rath on 15 August 2011
Netyaroze said:
I believe with absolute certainty nobody has the slightest clue whats going on not religion and not science. Religion is just guess work for me and science reaches its limits when it comes to the big (or small) stuff.

"Alot of people who call themselves atheist think of the big bang as creation but never question it which itself means that you are not an atheist and think that the day we die the world ends for us and we will be no more than stardust."

I think of the big bang as PART of the creation. We cant explain what happened between 0 and 1 planck second. We CANT know if big bang was the creation of everything unless we have a theory to describe everything but we dont

Also both big theorys that try to explain everything predict existance before big bang so the big bang doesnt seem to be the beginning of existance. And scientist KNOW that it was just the beginning of our universe (probably)

To the rest: We are ALREADY Stardust. And besides Science does not neccessarily say it will be the end of your life after death they CANT say that and depending on how the world really is there are MULTIPLE possibilitys
where you will live again after death. For ever expanding Universe: You will plop into existance again after trillions of years due to quantum fluctuation. Multiverse: You will be born again in a slightly different reality after X amount of time. Infinitly large Universe: You will be born again on a duplicate earth somewhere far far far away from us.
Omega point theory: once life evolved to a god like existence this existence will emulate the entie history to see how it come into this world and it will also emulate you as one of his ancestors.

There are way more solutions some more likely some less. Infinite time Reoccuring big bangs Multiverse Infinite space infinite expansion make you coming back almost a neccessity.

@rath

"Somebody who believe it is impossible to prove or disprove the existence of a deity"

IT IS IMPOSSIBLE SCIENTISTS KNOW THAT. If you are an atheist or not its LOGICALLY IMPOSSIBLE TO DISPROVE GOD LIKE OTHER THINGS for more information read falsification on wikipedia. Scientists know that thats why noone has ever disproven god and never will it be possible. God is absolute per definition he is a singularity above creation thus you wil NEVER be able to disprove him its just not possible even if you would become yourself a god you cant know if there is something above you. You might be god in your universe but you cant see beyond your universe maybe there is a layer above you. Its like bacteria will never see a human. Our universe already has dozends of plains of existence and the further we go up or down the less we can see until we are physically limited to see more.

Scientists often chose to be atheists BUT its still believing something its not knowing something Atheism is as backed up through facts as religion. And even if religions are total BS and you can prove that (which you never can) that doesnt mean god is not existing just humanity was wrong.

I had a really long and repetetive discussion with someone that just doesnt got the ULTIMATE TRUTH ALWAYS IN EVERY POSSIBLE REALITY CORRECT THAT YOU WILL NEVER BE ABLE TO DISPROVE GOD .

Which is why most scientists are agnostic. The reason why they're also mostly atheist is because if there is no proof of something the default position is to not believe in it. Basically do you believe that magical unicorns don't exist? For the same reason I believe deities don't exist.



benao87 on 15 August 2011
Player1x3 said:
benao87 said:
snakenobi said:


believing in god doesn't mean he controls you

 

it just makes us understand before creation and after creation realms

Uhmm, don't know dude, its just like I think that if there is a God who created the universe and blah blah blah, its like a person with a giant ant farm. He goes there and poke that. If it is indeed its creation, it was made for its amusement. Thats how I interpret the view from the people who believe in any form of god.

Btw, I really didn't get your point about life.

had you been made for God's amusment, he wouldnt have given you free wil. He wold constantly interact with your life and events in it

Well, thats my position in the hypothetical situation where I accept there is a god.

Can't really go deep into this, as honestly I haven't really cared. But, I'd say because if we were merely an ant farm, we wouldn't have lasted as the monotomy would've bored him quickly. Now, as we have free will, the constant change bring surprises, therefore less boring ;)



Complete comic

Netyaroze on 15 August 2011

@sapphisnake

"Shouldn't you, as a scientist, consider something to be false without actual proof of it's validity (or even any reason to believe that such a thing might be real)?"

No why is that ? Science and God are not two opposing things. Why should they be god is out of reach and will be forever. Science handles mostly facts or probabilitys. they dont consider anything as false until its disproven.

God is unreachable and thus science cant make any claims (other then hypothetical) about god. Without beeing unscientific. Falsification is a tool of science and means until not disproven we cant rule it out and things that cant be disproven are not science.