Question for liberals, aetheists etc?


Does it suck to not believe in anything? OR to only believe in things as they can be found to be contrary to the religous right. Liberals by their very nature rebel against the norm, the standard. They live on the notion of "Maybe theres a better way" and i think thats a valid mindset to have in many circumstances.

But it seems that more often than not, alot of liberals take stances for the sole purpose of opposing the norm.

reply

[deleted]

You obviously haven't the slightest idea of what it means to be liberal - but I do see (based on today's media and social issues) of why you would think the way you do of liberals.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal

That would be a good start to better understand the liberal point of view. Just opposing the norm is simply ridiculous. Opposing what norm? What 'norms' are we talking about exactly?

Also, I am in fact an atheist - by definition, as that is the word agreed upon to define someone who doesn't believe in the supernatural - and it doesn't suck at all. I find I have every reason to get up in the morning, I am very content with being skeptical and thinking critically, I am happy to always question everything that comes at me - particularly religion. I must say that I do find a great sense of pleasure at better understanding the world around me - instead of invoking the 'God must have done it' line of reasoning.

My question for conservatives, theists, etc - How bad does indoctrination suck?

reply

Both sides are guilty, thats true. Im like you i just live by what works best for me.

Weegs - im not indoctrinated into ANYTHING, but i also keep an open mind that there is more to the world than we see. I can acknowledge that things can exist without evidence of their existence.

reply

I was speaking in a broader sense when I spoke of indoctrination. In the film, particularly where young children were being given someone else's (in the film's specific case a motivational speakers') world-view.

With such a significant amount of America being religious, you can't help but wonder how many are truly believing what they've been told 'just because' or, like that one child in the film upon being asked why do you believe in Jesus - "...because my parents told me to".

Also, acknowledging that things can exist without evidence? Based on what? The only reasoning for that is if it is based on faith - which is not reasoning at all.

reply

Do you love your mother? father? anyone? prove it. you cant, not without speaking in intangibles. and emotional faith terms.

reply

Love is a second rate emotion i agree.

but I can prove that I hate you.

peace out

reply

Prove it? Sure - I can prove to the keen observer that my behavior towards my mother and father is much different than my behavior around someone I dislike or someone else, for that matter. That obviously has a lot to do with the fact that I know my parents better than that person I dislike and also I like my parents better than that person. But that same idea can apply to my best friend - my behavior around my best friend is still different than my behavior around my parents - that goes for tendencies, respect, obedience, mutual understandings, etc.

Emotional faith terms? Like love? Love is not faith, love can be measured, it can be viewed, it can be expressed in many different ways, there isn't anything mysterious about it all, and there is plenty of evidence of the existence of such etymology.

"Emotional faith terms" only obtain special treatment because you or other people give such terms special treatment.

reply

I dont think my indoctrination sucks. But also maybe you should ask youself the same thing.

By following your link I stumbled across this interesting fact.

"Liberalism can be regarded as an ideology, philosophical view, and political tradition which holds that liberty is the primary political value."

Nothing wrong with that, however according to wikipedia.

"Indoctrination is instruction in the fundamentals of a system of belief (such as a philosophy or religion)".

Case in point being, since Liberalism embraces a philosophical view, it then has indoctrination of its own.


reply

I think it's fine that your a liberal athiest.
In general liberals are hostile towards christianity.
It flys in the face of the average liberals belief system.
In general they misrepresent christians and their beliefs out of bias or misunderstanding.
I am not saying this from a distance.I have many extremely liberal freinds and co workers.At one point in my life i beleived what they do.

The God must have done it line of thinking does not do away with understanding it urges people to a deeper fuller understanding of every area of life.
In Christianity God is foundational to all logic,and understanding.

Darwin is foundational thinking for many people.
The doctrine that Darwin presents has a logical end.
So does the doctrine of Christ

In Darwinism perfection comes though selection and fitness,self will and determination.The only end can be a perfect being(or no being at all i suppose that would be possible).Crawling out of the mud to ascend to infinity if you will.If darwins ideas are real only a select few creatures could ever reach the top.(Is there a top?)

In Christianity the logical end is also perfection,but it is submited to a perfect creator.Man was created perfect and at some point was corrupted.A perfect being brings broken beings into perfection.

I would wager that statisically the later is more likely,it would be interesting to find out.


Do you know what Doctrine is?
It is how to live.Some basic christian doctrine is:Don't kill,steal,lie,cheat on your spouse,etc...i have no problem with this way to live.It does not suck.

I am almost sure that we share the beliefs i just mentioned.The problem comes with things like abortion,homosexuality,promiscoius sexuality,etc.we probably don't share the same doctrine on these issues.People who live this doctrine would play hell trying to disagree with it,it would make a person crazy to do one thing and believe another.Or as a man thinks so he is,as a man does so he thinks.

Very few christians believe what they believe becuase they where somehow fooled into it.Most choose to live the way they do because of solid choices and understanding.


Every parent,school,university,class, uses some form of instruction(doctrine).

reply

Its funny i have trouble with the first question...

"Does it suck to not believe in anything?" that 'question' is so absurd, i'm not sure how to answer but lets see:

A. Because I am a non-believer, sure, I don't believe in 'tyrone-jones' god, but having that belief IS BELIEVING in something. so your question is a little flawed, but oh well, maybe next time.

B. No it doesn't 'Suck,' blind acceptance sucks in my opinion... I believe in things that are tangible AND real. Imagine that, weird concept.

"liberals.... rebel against the norm, the standard"

Wow. Are you the standard/norm? God (pun intended), I hope the 'Norm' isn't believing in the supernatural, but based on the 2004 elections that may be the case. I don't just live to oppose a 'norm' I live to exist, and I oppose whats wrong and can't be proven true.

See ya in Sunday school, tyrone.



peace out

reply

Not at all. Actually, it is quite wonderful. Does it suck to believe in unsubstantiated myth? Or to live your life in fear? Does it suck to move in coordinated lockstep without a single creative or original thought?

Hmm. Thought so.

reply

well, for your sake i hope you are right, then the afterlife holds NOTHING. but if IM right... the afterlife MAY be hot for you

reply

"well, for your sake i hope you are right, then the afterlife holds NOTHING. but if IM right... the afterlife MAY be hot for you "

Aahhh... that old chestnut. What does that mean exactly? Does that give you some sense of pride, that if you're right then we'll all have to suffer? Would that make Heaven a more enjoyable experience for you? Knowing that people who lived good lives (with the exception of not believing) are suffering for eternity? That's really effed up, tyrone.

I rarely do this, but I'm gonna climb on my high horse and talk down to you. Atheists, IMO, are actually less selfish than so-called Christians. You know why? When I (as an atheist) do a good deed, I'm doing it because it's a good deed. I'm doing it to help someone out. When a Christian is doing a good deed, they're doing it because they hope to be rewarded. They hope God is watching and that it'll score brownie points when its time to get into Heaven.

To spin your statement the other way, back at you, I'll say this: If I'm right, there is no afterlife. There's nothing after death. That means you wasted your entire life preaching a meaningless myth (and being a d--khead on imdb message boards). You wasted all that money giving to your church so your pastor could afford his new convertable. You devoted your entire life to a fable, tyrone. If YOU are right, however, then I will go to hell. Which is fine with me. Because I've lived a good life so far. I've been a good person. So, if God wants to punish me just because I don't believe in him and send me to a lake of fire to burn forever, than so be it. I don't want to have any part with that God. That God is not just. And not loving.

So, either way, I'm fine with it.

reply

So, by that argument, a life of service to god/church/theology is a waste, as theres a 50-50 chance he doesnt exist?

I do find it amusing, though, that Aetheists are responsible for the largets death toll in the 20th century. Yet aetheists always claim to be peaceful.

Karl Marx... Lenin... Stalin... Mao... Pol Pot... Hitler... All atheists.

reply

Wow, 6 people are suppose to represent how millions of people think and behave? How is it then that over 80% of the prison population in the United States alone are of Christian religion? Yet Christians always claim to be peaceful...

What about the number of priests and pastors - like Ted Haggard, who have been revealed to be corrupt and deceitful and not to mention criminals for some of their sexual activity among children? All Christians and Catholics.

What about our great leader, our own president Bush who is responsible for our foreign conflicts which is costing us thousands of American lives and billions of tax dollars and not to mention the damage he'll most likely have on our country years after he's gone. He's a proud Christian.

And by the way - actually study history, instead of being fed by mass misinformed belief, and you'll find that Hitler was actually a self-proclaimed Catholic. He even used his religious beliefs in God in many of his speeches to his own countrymen before and after coming into power. He was no atheist.

Religion has accounted for more blood shed than any ideology ever conceived in this world combined. It's not even worth mentioning otherwise for a credible debate on this.

reply

Well, not to mention that Karl Marx never killed anyone. Neither did Lenin, and Hitler was no Atheist, he was a Fascist Christian. If you read mein kamph it is full of christian nonsense, so Tyrone needs to check his facts again.

Also, you are absolutely correct in your appraisal of Religion being the single largest source of bloodshed in history.

Also, the myth of religion as a societal moral center is completely disproven by evidence. The most secular countries in the world (with percentages of people self-identifying as atheists) are Sweden and Japan, both of which have the highest standards of living and lowest crime rates. As a matter of fact, Sweden, and for that matter the other socialist, atheistic scandanavian countries, are regularly at the top of every good list and the bottom of every bad one.

Tyrone makes another untrue statement when he says that the odds of his being right are 50/50. That is untrue. They are more like 99.9% to .1, if you approach religion in the same way as every other unfounded, unproven myth. Scientific method requires the person making the unlikely claim to bring the evidence, and so far he hasn't brought any.

reply

[deleted]

Well said 1ngjon,and nobody seems to have brought up the FACT that Christianity is merely transmogrified Paganism anyhow, dating from thousands of years before the bible was written.The (son) Sun,The Three Kings (stars),12 Disciples,25th December .. Blah blah blah.. have all been associated with MANY other religions pre-dating Christianity and have provided solid Archaelogical EVIDENCE in pictorial and textual forms.If you're going to believe in a book,at least get one written by the original author not some shameless COPY of a COPY of a COPY of a COPY of an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT manuscript Stolen from a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT RELIGION,and pro-lifers,don't even get me started on those idiots,we're intelligent human beings with the capacity to DECIDE and CHOOSE.Anyone who tries to remove that right should be treated as a *beep* DEMON, if you still believe in that sort of thing :)

reply

Touche... hitler was no aetheist... MAYBE.

but take all the people in prison who are christians, all the priests, teleevangelists etc who are christians and doing wrong, add them up, and it still DWARFS the damage done by communists. And while yes theres only 6 (5) names on that list, one man cant do anything alone, he'd need millions of willing participants. but you miss the point of my post... those 5 were atheists, and look what they did, what they influenced rather.

it is amusing the Atheist selective association. If Mao killed millions, "Oh... uh he was REALLY not an atheist, Neither was Stalin"

And for the record, Lenin & Trotsky, from 1917 - 1922 killed roughly 4 million people, primarily... you guessed it THEISTS (christians, Jews & Catholics)

reply

this conversation can't really continue until you actually know what communism is.

again, the state governments you speak of are/where dictatorships. i mean using you line of logic i could argue that every nazi wore a CROSS on his uniform, i mean seriously its rediculous--compairing body counts.

absurd.

as far as karl marx it's believed that he was jewish, though as i said earlier, he didn't comment on religion that often on a personal level.

reply

MY POINT is that Communists were all atheists, and did more damage in this past century than all christians combined (in this past century) dictatorship or not... those dictators were communists, and by definition ATHEISTS.

reply

[deleted]

Did you fall off your knob, or what?
Past century, you add up all the people killed in religious battles in the middle east, Israel, Africa, and everywhere else I'm sure you'll find the body count is higher than the so called 'communists' you pretend to disparage.

Perhaps you should count the millions killed in Vietnam as a casualty of our christian battle with the 'atheistic communists'.
Not to mention that Mao was a Taoist, not an atheist. I'm sure if you look into Stalin, he was probably a religious person. The communistic government was atheistic, pushing the idea of a secular government, but those executing the government were most often religious people.

In other words, you have no argument.

reply

[deleted]

tyrone... great work.

as normal you are VERY misinformed (i'm coming to expect that from you).
Karl Marxs' religious beliefs are not really known, he mostly commented on societies interaction with religion and vice versa. Karl Marx was also a pretty peaceful guy, he devoted his life to representing the worker who had no say in his lifetime (this continues to be true). I wasn't sure if you are claiming he killed somebody, because well, HE NEVER DID. if you are trying to argue that his 'communist manifesto' led to killing, well that argument would be difficult for EVEN YOU to back.

perhaps you should read this:
http://atheism.about.com/od/philosophyofreligion/a/marx.htm

then try and pick up a REAL copy of the 'communist's manifesto.' i think you'll find it way more realistic then your loved bible.

its important to remember the the 'communist' states in the last 100 years where all dictatorships, which isn't really communism... but again, i wouldn't expect you to know that, you believe a man died THEN came back to life. (its weird if you believe that why would you really care about people dieing... i mean just bring 'em all back to life!)

hitler as said earlier wasn't an aetheist... but kurt vonnegut is (check him out tyrone).



as this and, oh yeah, the millions (if not billions) of people that have been killed in the name of christ.
cheers!

reply

i can't prove theres an afterlife... you can't prove that theres not.

reply

And for the record, Lenin & Trotsky, from 1917 - 1922 killed roughly 4 million people, primarily... you guessed it THEISTS (christians, Jews & Catholics)

Isn't Lenin the greatest student of Marx?

I CAN and do acknowledge that these were dictatorships. Not Necessarily communism being to blame... but those dictators were atheists.

reply

"Isn't Lenin the greatest student of Marx? "

great stuff... yeah Marx taught Lenin at grad school (obviously joking).

Lenin was actually baptized in a Russian Orthodox church, and members of his ancestry were Jewish.
Trotsky (now this may be splitting hairs) wasn't actually communist he invented his own communist hybrid, which he called "Trotskyism." He was raised (though he wasn't deeply religious) in a Jewish family... so you really can't say either of these men where 100% atheist. YOU DEFINETALY can't say they killed anybody because of religious views. If anything communism is more concerned with economics, not religion. but tyrone how could you know this it's obvious you know very little (if anything) about real communist/socialist thought.

Its important to remember that methodologies don't kill people... people's own hatred, intolerance, and ignorance kill people. The bible has more of this then any book i've ever read. i mean tyrone explain to me why people in lesser developed countries with high religious government control continue to die of AIDS (look to the whole continent of Africa for instance) because the pope still deems contraceptives as 'sacrireligious.' I could site plenty more examples but it really isn't necessary.

that and your argument concerning death tolls is rediculous... i mean (a conservative estimate) of the crusades lists 2 million dead, we could go on and on but whats the point? you shouldn't be on imdb message boards tyrone, your eyes should be in a (factual) book learning something.

reply

i know that ideologies / methodologies etc. dont kill anyone. People do. But when those people just happen to be Atheists... it makes for a good counterpoint when people make blanket statements like "Well christians killed millions throughout history" the counter here being "Well so did atheists"

the atheists' counter of course being "Nuh uhh... they were... actually... uhh christians too!!!"

reply

is funny because the person who brought up the point was 'tyrone-jones' then he says its a 'counter point.' whatever

the only person on this board making blanket statements? you guessed it, 'tyrone-jones.'

reply

it doesn't make a good counterpoint when the argument is flawed.

one can do a simple search on the net to find the evidence needed to debunk Hitler and Marx, among others, as being atheists.

just because you don't like getting that information thrown back at you as false and those names coming back as in fact being one of your own (a Christian) doesn't make it the 'atheists counterpoint', it just makes it fact, whether you approve of it or not.

reply

ok, so answer me this honestly - do you believe Stalin was an Atheist?

reply

i have never read anything which has referenced or cited Stalin himself declaring himself in his own words that he is an atheist or to have atheistic beliefs. if i ever were to come across such absolute evidence, i would then be ready to agree that he is in fact an atheist, but what i do believe is that there are a number of things we must understand before we point the finger and say atheist. here is some research I found -posted it here- just for you tyrone, as i don't expect you to take the shovel of self-inquiry and dig into deeper knowledge and understanding:

Few would deny that Joseph Stalin's Soviet Union was a totalitarian dictatorship, or that he focused much of his enmity on the church. However, we must consider two important factors: 1) Did he commit his crimes in the name of atheism, and 2) What were his motivations.

Stalin (1879-1953) was the product of a seminary, and learned its lessons of manipulation and mind control well. He knew that the best way to stifle dissent and to break the will of the people was to deprive them of that which they value the most. Religion, being so important to the lives of the Russian people, was the perfect target. By depriving the people of the crutch of religion, he knew he could crush their spirit.

There are no elements of freethought (the foundation of atheism) in Soviet philosophy. Stalin most certainly was unfamiliar with the humanistic underpinnings of atheism; they contradicted his goal, which was to create a totalitarian state in which he became the new god, whose dictates were not to be questioned. Individual rights, so central to freethought, were unknown in Soviet Russia.

The massacres of Stalin's reign were committed in the name of statism, not atheism, and statism is a by-product of the fundamentalist religious mindset.

Every government since time immemorial has recognized the role religion plays in stifling dissent and keeping people quiet and submissive. Charles I of England, for example, once said "religion is the only firm foundation of power."

Stalin did not want to share his power with anyone. Recognizing the church as the only significant rival to his supremacy, he attacked it. His attacks had nothing to do with ideological differences; it was a simple question of his stamping out a perceived threat.

Final proof that Stalin was not acting on atheistic principles could be seen during the opening salvos of the Barbarossa campaign during World War II. Things were not going well for the Russian armies at that point and Stalin, facing a possible revolution on the home front was searching for ways to amass a broad base of support for the war effort. To achieve this, he reinstated the Orthodox Church hierarchy to serve 'Mother Russia.' This shows that Stalin was by no means averse to promoting religion if it suited his purposes to do so. Clearly, Stalin's tyranny was based on the totalitarian premises that he learned from religion: Unquestioning obedience, reverence for a deity-figure (in human form) as well as a pie-in-the-sky utopian vision. His government never tolerated freedom of thought. Stalin's policies were the antithesis of atheist philosophy.



to answer your question, do i believe he was an atheist? the evidence isn't there to be certain for sure, but i do THINK he may have been an atheist, but surely not acting in the name of atheism, instead acting in the name of his political agenda.

reply

ok, answer me this - is it even possible that atheists have human flaws? or have ever done anything bad at all?

reply

well of course. c'mon, be reasonable for just 5 seconds. everyone on this Earth - the pope himself included, have human flaws - we're human! no matter what you are - atheist, christian, muslim, jew, hindu, buddhist, etc.

the point here is not to divide body counts to determine who is worse, as you would have us do.

the point of this post, and one of the points one can find from this movie is that organized religion can be (and IS in my opinion) a very dangerous thing and exactly the type of thing we no longer need if we are to advance as a society, culture - civilization in general.

we no longer need to call upon ancient texts to decipher what is best in our lives - the same texts (be it the bible, the koran, the bahgvad gita, whatever) written by human beings who had an even greater less of an understanding of the world around us than we do today. its absurd.

even to this day, with science advancing at such an incredible rate, we still have the religiously blind filling in the gaps which science does not yet explain with god and jesus christ, allah, brahma or shiva - the same religiously blind who are conformed to their dogmas to such a point where they are incompatible with other like dogmas to which cooperation and peaceful togetherness escapes every corner of plausibility.

in the words of sam harris:
"I’m asking you to imagine a world in which children are taught to investigate reality for themselves, not in conformity to the religious dogmatism of their parents, but by the lights of truly honest, fearless inquiry. Imagine a discourse about ethics and mystical experience that is as contingency-free as the discourse of science already is. Science really does transcend the vagaries of culture: there is no such thing as “Japanese” as opposed to “French” science; we don’t speak of “Hindu biology” and “Jewish chemistry.” Imagine a world that has transcended its tribalism—racism and nationalism, yes, but religious tribalism especially—in which we could have a truly open-ended conversation about our place in the universe and about the possibilities of deepening our experience of love and compassion for one another. Ethics and spirituality do not require faith. One can even achieve utter mystical absorption in the primordial mystery of the present moment without believing anything on insufficient evidence."

reply

see, this reasoning is the problem. of course atheists have human flaws, they are after all human. but atheism (which like communism/socialism is a difficult term to use-- people hear it and have a knee jerk reaction, because they don't really know what any of these really mean-- i perfer humanism, or simply a non-believer) is more about free thought, questioning everything, not believing anything until it has been proven by fact. i mean, tyrone-jones (to use your method) answer me this-- do you belief in your faith because, as an adult you choose this? or from your earliest memory it was forced upon you, i have to believe this was the case because, what is contained in many parts of the bible is unquestionably false, the rest is just a collection of mildly amusing short stories.

so to answer your question as simply as possible (i think you probably like your information as simple and black and white as possible, when in reality a discussion like this needs deeper thought as most issues are many shades of grey) yes, atheists have flaws, but i believe most atheists are missing the greatest human flaw which in my opinion, is blind acceptance. and as john lydon once put it: "blind acceptance is a sign / of stupid fools who stay in line."

reply

Truth be told, im an agnostic with Theistic leanings... i just think organized religon has done far more good than bad. it organized humans into civilizations who have accelerated their cultures toward learning, exploration and charity. It gives people something to believe in as well as a core of values that ideally keeps everyone getting along (not always in practice though)

Has it trampled the little guy? yes, it has a bloody past with hundreds of thousands killed over the past 2,000 years. Some would of course argue, that those who commited those crimes are not true theists themselves, but power hungry dictators.

I make a point about communism being a bad thing... It's not, the only thing bad about it is when you get human beings involved :) i dont think all communists are bad, and i dont think that just because atheism is a part of communism that all the bad things done in the name of communism are for Atheism. i do think history shows us that organized religon has suffered at the hands of communism, but not exclusively in the name of atheism or true communism, but rahter by the lunatics at the helm.

In truth... My Theistic tendencies lie in the fact that i dont think all of this happened by accident. We live in complex ecosystems with trillions of variations of life. It seems mind boggling that even the very first spark necessary for life just happened one minute. Evolition theorists could debate me all day long, but life/nature has a tendency toward entropy not Coalescence. Living things grow, mature and die, but in nature itself, outside the realm of "life" things fall apart, decay and break down. I cant imagine the right circumstances under which proteins and enzymes would come together and create something.

Also, i lean towards Theism because of our planet... a world under all the right circumstances... a "Goldilocks" effect... not too hot not too cold, just enough gravity etc. (granted these are all subjective terms to our species) but it all seems too perfect to be an accident, even taking billions of years into consideration.

reply

point taken, but what i think and feel that most theists disregard or overlook is that a grand creator or designer is JUST AS improbable as that which he/she/it is suppose to be responsible for (all of these improbabilities you speak of).

and then, human beings organizing themselves into what we call religion have the arrogance (not you specifically) to say that my holy book holds all of the answers to such difficult questions - questions which were answered thousands of years ago by other human beings who had no telescopes, no microscopes, no sense of understanding of that to which we hold today, especially in areas of cosmology, biology, physics and chemistry (and there is STILL much we do not know about). and we are to follow these people and their religious doctrines who believe in such ridiculous claims (like having this magnificent and grand, complex creator indulging him or herself into our personal lives, acting as some great surveillance camera in the sky judging our every action and thought as he does so simultaneously to the other billions of people which occupy this planet to eventually come to the decision as to whether or not you are worthy enough and have followed his rules written conveniently enough in a book, of which he needed our help to create as he was busy working on this vast universe of ours - to either be let in to his great place which we refer to as paradise or thrown into the pits of fiery hell) and allow these people to assume power, take our money, not pay taxes and dictate what is good and what is bad for the rest of us. sanity is certainly in numbers.

i agree that organized religion has served its purpose - but what i am getting at is that we do not need it anymore, we have reached the point in which we can let go of our security blankets and face the world head-on, truthfully without the need to fear the unknown.



"And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerve in the brain of Jupiter. But may we hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this most venerated reformer of human errors."

-Thomas Jefferson, Letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823

reply

An interesating point about evolution, the big bang etc is how many scientific rules it breaks... primarily the first law of thermodynamics - if energy and matter can neither be created or destroyed... where'd it come from?

the laws of entropy etc.

but now we're gertting into scemantics lol

reply

well, evolution doesn't make any claims about the origins of life. that is one of the biggest misconception about the evolution theory. UPON the origin of life, we have a pretty good idea of how we got from point A to where we are today - all animal and plant life included. there are various theories on how life came from non-life - none of which deal with evolutionary theory and the process of natural selection.

as far as the big bang theory - i think it is probably the most plausible theory we have on the origin of the universe at this point in time - that is to say that there is evidence pointing to such a theory - enough evidence to make it a significant one. but because we have just barely dipped our toes into the vast ocean of space and for that matter, the universe, and there is so much we do not know - so much to be discovered yet, it is much too early to say that we are sure of such a theory. i think one day we'll know for sure what events transpired - but i think the big bang theory will one day reflect the theory that the sun rotated around the earth in that because of better technology and understanding - we'll blow away such a theory with a more substantial and credible one.

but for right now, as for as how the universe began and how life on earth began, i am content with saying that i just do not know and am definitely not ready to stake a god to fill that gap - ignorance does not need to breed a deity or deity's.

reply

[deleted]

Well an interesting theory for how the Big Bang came to be is the "Wave Function of the Universe" Theory. But then you are getting into quantum physics.

Also if you are trying to imply that god had something to do with it the logic breaks down. God created the universe so God must be greater then the universe. So either you have something being brought into existence that is more complexe before the universe (hense more unlikely) or something infinitly more complexe being brought into existence before the universe (hense infinitly more unlikely).

The answer is we don't know yet. We got a few decent theories but it will take a while for us to get a better idea. However, Even when we get that idea of how it happened you could just say "well God must have designed it that way" and we are back to square one.

I find it funny creationist use 2 arguements like "God of the Gaps" and "The Watch Maker". Basicly if you don't have the answer right now then it's God. If you do have the answer then it works so perfectly it must be designed by god.

Either way God did it.


How do I get these ideas? It's like a gift, you know? It's like I can't control it.

reply

perhaps you should look into Absurdism tyrone if you have difficulty explaining the world around you.

reply

[deleted]

How does it feel to have no beliefs of your own never questioning what you are indoctrinated and pushing your beliefs on everybody else with your false feeling of superiority?

reply

[deleted]

Well first off i would say Liberal does not mean atheist (though most atheist are liberal i find).

I myself am an atheist so i will try to answer your questions as best i can.


Actaully i find it very liberating to not believe in religion. If i did then my reason and outlook on life would not be what i want it to be (it may be cruel to use the word "narrow" but there it is). Also is it not exactly like i choose to be an atheist as much as it was the only path i could go down and feel like i was being honest with myself. I suppose i could have told myself over and over again it is all real but i am not like that and would have ending up having hollow beliefs anyway.

Also i would go as far to say i actaully feel sorry for religious people.


I don't believe in things contrary to the Bible or Koran or what have you for kicks. I do it because i want to interpret reality correctly as a rational person and see things as they are and not as i may want them to be. Religion is about faith and i am an evidence kinda guy.

I would like to think everyone if of the opinion "maybe there is a better way". We should always strive to do better.




How do I get these ideas? It's like a gift, you know? It's like I can't control it.

reply

No, it doesn't.
You should try it sometime.
*beep*

reply

Since when is Christianity the norm?
You wish it was, but the rest of us who live is reality know it isn't.

reply