Currently waiting to hear the outcome of my lobbying to become both Archbishop of Canterbury and Chief Rabbi, so not technically (or remotely) atheist or agnostic.
I find it very interesting how sure atheists can be about the non-existence of God(s), which is actually pretty illogical given the burden of proof required to disprove the existence of anything. Agnostics I don't mind, as long as they don't pronounce the 'G'.
I don't get it...
Why do you want to find a label in order to classify yourself on the basis of something you don't think?
Because I'm on the search to find people who think similarly to what I think. I can do that by throwing this subject out there for others to cling to so they, too, can find camaraderie with like minded individuals as well. I don't mind some labels. Why should I limit my comfort levels to your comfort levels with the word.
It's like calling someone a "thingamajigist", that being someone who doesn't believe in leprechauns, or a "dodecahedrist", that being someone who doesn't believe in geometry.
Geometry is a science that works everytime it is applied. Pythagorean Theorem for example. Works everytime you work with a triangle to find the measures. It's one of many concrete equations that give us answers for life. A calculator never gets it wrong. If someone denies Geometry then they aren't educated in how it works and how it always works no matter who you are or who made the calculator. It makes a lot of sense. As for religious beliefs, the results are always varied and not much different than chance.
Do you even know what a Secular Humanist even is? If not, look it up because it's something that people have to label themselves by in order to explain what they do believe in and how they do about trying to make the world a better place sans religion and do what is right for the sake of the betterment of the community. Religion can be abolished and people will always be people. But I don't believe in helping people charitably and holding their sandwich hostage until they hear a sermon. I believe in just helping those who are in need with no religious conviction to do it. This is all a part of secular humanism. It says a lot about someone when they know how they fall in line with a particular group of people in every way and help others understand what it is they do in fact believe in for various reasons.
If you have a problem with my knowing I am a secular humanist and labeling myself. Don't call yourself anything you aren't comfortable with and I will do the same for myself.
If you don't believe something then that's all there is to it - you needn't have a contrary view - you can simply reject the belief.
Did I say I have the contrary view? I don't just reject believe. I'm not here to recruit people to my way of believing. I am here to talk about who I am and let those who feel inclined to do the same be able to find a platform to do it. I have zero interest arguing religion here at LPSG.
And you refer to family being "pretty tolerant", well do you imagine that's remarkable or unusual? Family's are supposed to be tolerant, if not actually encouraging and supportive; you make it sound like they're doing you a favour.
Well, I had a brother commit suicide for not being accepted for who he was, another brother has left the family 13 years ago, another brother won't live in the area for his own reasons. I stay because I have a lot of roots here. And if I can get along with my family that demanded we all went to church 3 times a week, get baptized or go to hell or learn to speak tongues to show your closeness to God (my dad was a pastor also and still an avid believer himself) THEN- YES IT'S A GINORMOUS THING to have my family continue to love me and want to be around me despite our differences in religious belief.
And as for friends, do you mean to say that people in your area would reject you as a friend on the basis of your beliefs? If that's the case then I would say you're better off without them. Doesn't sound very "christian" to me.
I'm pretty curious for why the atheists among us have chosen not to believe anymore.
I'd like to hear about your reasoning, your experience where you live, how your family dealt with your "coming out" as an Atheist.
I'm pretty curious for why the atheists among us have chosen not to believe anymore.
I never believed...I haven't seen compelling reason for belief...so I don't. This applies to everything else I haven't seen compelling belief for. I don't see why it's framed as an active choice. It's the default position for everything else, and should be for this too.
Funny the guy who started this forgot to add RELIGIOUS to the title.
Funny the guy who started this forgot to add RELIGIOUS to the title.
Make you think..............doesn't it.
Well at least there are a lot of us that don't need to justify why we are not any of the above three.
We know the truth .............don't we.
Peace,perfect peace!
:wink:
I also think it's a little funny that you'd consider "I don't have to justify myself" as a show of strength...if I can't explain something, or I'm not willing to, I consider it an indication that my rationale is probably weak.
Yes, but when looking at the bible or q'uran, the words are supposedly directly from God.
So when Mozes split the ocean, it was not some trickery or unknown scientific occurence.
The Bible says it's the work of God, the bible and other religious works are the ultimate truth as it is Gods work.
It does not leave room for any other interpretation as doubting the books is doubting God.
So no it is not the same.
In science the gaps can be filled with new yet unseen discoveries, in religion all the answers are set because you cannot question the words of a god as questioning it, it would mean it was flawed and gods cannot not be flawed.
Mozes split the ocean, Jesus turned water into wine, budha slept under a tree for x amount of years all by divine power.
Sooo not the same thing but I do like the comparison.
Atheists often go by the Scientific Method not allowing for the existence of a god because we can't define it with proof. So far we can't measure a soul or a life that goes on after physical death.
The Burden of Proof is on the person who says this higher power exists. Not on the people who say we have no proof of this higher power. You can't prove something doesn't exist if we have no proof at all it does exist.
No one can see it, no one can smell it, no one can hear it, no one can touch it. We have no proof of it in any way possible. As for life that goes on after death- all proof leads to well pretty much no proof at all. But hope people have that they will go on and that's all they have to stand on. I don't believe in things because it feels good or that I hope to believe a doctrine I've heard. I run things by the scientific method that proves all things we can understand.
We know that the brain can form split personalities- one atheist and one theist. And if someone has a certain brain injury all of their personality characteristics go away forever. If this is the case that our persona lives on in another dimension, how would one with split personas be judged? Do they both go to hell, only half go to hell, etc.
If I claimed a tooth fairy existed for real, the burden of proof is on me. Not the people who have never seen a tooth fairy past early childhood stories. How can I prove to someone who believes in the tooth fairy that she doesn't exist? I can prove so much more with the God theory based on answered prayers being at the same success rate as random chance.
I used to be an extreme conservative right wing bible thumping tithe paying Christian for 28 years. I know how Apologists think. I used to be one. In my studies to be a stronger more faithful Christian I only found it to contradict itself. Thus I had no choice but to look into what others who doubted all gods felt about the god I had worshiped for so long. Then I was like woah, I am not the only one who noticed this stuff. I was just afraid to admit it to myself.
Burden of proof is on the believer making claims for things science can't remotely find to be consistent across the board.
Bollocks. This isn't the English legal system - the burden of proof is on no-one. It's a matter of belief. You have reasons why you don't believe in the existence of a higher power, other people have reasons why they do. Nobody can definitively prove their position, so all parties simply have to accept the others' points of view & get on with what they think is best for them.
The problem comes when one group wishes to force their ideas onto someone else, or to eradicate a rival ideology. And that very rarely has religious roots, and is usually guided by other motives, with deliberate misinterpretation of religious literature in order to manipulate the populus.
And what do mean the Tooth Fairy doesn't exist?! She's starting to get pretty pissed off at always getting dragged into this argument!
She isn't saying that because there is no proof of god, her position is the correct one, but rather than non-belief is logical since there is no evidence to the contrary. There's a clear semantic difference there. It definitely is a burden of proof question since the theist is the one who makes the claim in the first place.Bollocks. This isn't the English legal system - the burden of proof is on no-one. It's a matter of belief. You have reasons why you don't believe in the existence of a higher power, other people have reasons why they do. Nobody can definitively prove their position, so all parties simply have to accept the others' points of view & get on with what they think is best for them.
The problem comes when one group wishes to force their ideas onto someone else, or to eradicate a rival ideology. And that very rarely has religious roots, and is usually guided by other motives, with deliberate misinterpretation of religious literature in order to manipulate the populus.
And what do mean the Tooth Fairy doesn't exist?! She's starting to get pretty pissed off at always getting dragged into this argument!