Atheism? How do you label my view, when disbelief in your deity doesn't define who I am..?

Question

There's always creationist types who "catagorise" people by whether they believe in "their" god, or not..
If "alleged" disbelievers also had an interest in, and acceptance of ALL mainstream scientific principles and understandings, they may instead be called "evolutionists", but still considered "athiests".

I don't "define" myself by my disbelief in your god, but if a term had to be used, I'd consider myself more of a realist.
In my view, a realist can be from any corner of the globe, and from within any community or culture. Unlike religion, it isn't possible for a scietifically literate realist to provide discriminatory explanations.

Atheist: a disbelief in the existance of god.
Agnostic: one who holds that we know nothing beyond material phenomena, and maybe some things are unknowable.

So what would christians and their fruitcake creationist brethren call: "embracing mainstrean science, and an appreciation for the work and findings past, present and future"?

"ddead_alive", you have just severely embarrassed yourself..!!

Your arguments are not only hollow, they are baseless and offer no explanations, just verbal diarrhoea and religiously sponsered mindless dribble..

Answer 1

I am an atheist. I don't believe in any god so I respect your views. I respect religious views as well, but I do not think there is a god. Christians view scientology like we do catholicism. they think it is a waste of time and doesnt matter.

Answer 2

Well i'd say the correct term would be 'agnostic'
Which is probably the most truly rational stand point to take
ie withholding any absoloute judgements on these matters.
(Even Dawkins admits (when pushed) That he is an agnostic, because he knows there is never 100% proof either way))

You do seem quite intolerant in your question and abusive to those with diffferent opinions. In fact ironically the word 'fundamentalist' comes to mind.....

Answer 3

I saw this in a pamplet... and it was cute and so true! It's by Ray Comfort.

"Billions of years ago, a big bang produced a large rock. As the rock cooled, sweet brown liquid formed on it's surface. As time passed, aluminum formed itself into a can, a lid, and a tab. Millions of years later, red and white paint fell from the sky and formed itself into the words "Coca Cola... 12 fluid ounces."

Of course my theory is an insult to your intellect, because you know that if the Coca Cola can is made, there must be a maker. If it is designed, there must be a designer. The alternative, that it happened by chance or accident is to move from the intellectual free zone.



Here is another:

"The Banana: The Atheist Nightmare"

Note that the banana...

1. is shaped for the human hand.

2. has a non-slip surface.

3. Has outward indicators of it's inward contents. Green - too early, yellow - just right, black - too late.

4. Has a tab for removal of it's wrapper.

5. Is perforated on wrapper.

6. Has a bio-degradable wrapper.

7. Is shaped for the human mouth.

8. Has a point at the top for ease of entry.

9. Is pleasing to the taste buds.

10. Is curved towards the face to make the eating process easy.

To write that the banana happened by accident is even more unintelligent than to write that no one designed the Coca Cola can.

Test 1.

The person who thinks the Coca Cola can has no designer is:

A. Intelligent

B. A fool

C. Has an ulterior motive for denying the obvious

Now the document that I am referring from states that the eye has 40,000,000 nerve endings and focuses it's muscles approximately 100,000 times a day. and that the eye has a retina that contains approximately 137,000,000 light sensitive cells.

The document continues and states that Charles Darwin stated:

"To suppose that the eye could have been formed by natural selection, seems I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree" Agreed... it does not have the reference recorded so I do not know if this statement is true or false. But let me get to the point at hand.

If man can not create the human eye then how can anyone in their right mind believe that it was created by chance? In fact... man can't create anything from nothing... we just do not know how to do it. We can re-create, reform, develop... but we can not create one grain of sand from nothing. Yet the human eye... is a mere tiny part of the most sophisticated part of creation - the human body.

Again... another statement which I would have to research and verify if this person actually made this comment:

"George Gallup; "If I could prove God statistically; take the human body alone; the chance that all the functions of the individual would just happen, is a statistical monstrosity."

Now this statement concerning Albert Einstein. This is confusing... why would this man contradict himself? If he stated this... then every other statement that has been quoted at this forum is invalid because the man appears to be speaking from both sides of his mouth. In this statement Einstein is quoted to have said:

"Everyone who is seriously interested in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe - a spirit vastly superior to man, and one in the face of our modest powers must feel humble."

Test 2:

1. Do you know any building that did not have a builder? Yes? No?

2. Do you know any painting that did not have a painter? Yes? No?

3. Do you know any car that did not have a maker? Yes? No?

If you answered "Yes" to any of those statements... please give details:______________________...



Third analogy:

Could I convince you that I dropped 50 oranges onto the ground and then by chance fell into ten rows of five oranges? Logically, anyone with an intelligent mind might conclude that someone put them there. The odds that ten oranges would fall into a straight line is mind boggling. Let alone ten rows of five.

Test 3

Yes or No 1. From the atom to the universe is there order?

Yes or No 2. Did it happen by accident or must there been an intelligent mind?

3. What are the odds of 50 oranges falling by chance into ten rows of five oranges? ______________________________...

To declare that there is no God is to make an absolute statement. And for an absolute statement to be true; one must have absolute knowledge. Here is another such statement: "There is no gold in China."

Test 4 What would I need to have for that statement to be true?

A. No knowledge of China?

B. Partial knowledge of China?

C. Absolute knowledge of China?

"C" is the correct answer. In order for the statement to be true, I must know that there is no gold in China.

Likewise; to state that there is no God and to be correct then you are stating that you are omniscient. You must have absolutely certain knowledge that there isn't one.

Let's say that a circle contains all the knowledge of the universe. And let's say that you have an incredible understanding of one percent of all that knowledge. Is it possible that the knowledge you haven't yet come across, that there might be ample evidence to prove that God does indeed exist?

If you are reasonable, you would have to admit, "Having the limited knowledge I have at present, I believe that there is no God." In other words, you don't know if God exists, so you are not an atheist. You are an "agnostic." You are like a person that looks at a building and doesn't seem to know if there is a builder.

Test 5 The man who sees a building and doesn't know if there is a builder is:

A. Intelligent

B. A fool

C. Has an ulterior motive

In summary: There are plenty of things that we have faith in that we do not fully understand. Most of us do not have a complete understanding that when you turned your computer on as to why it worked. You took a step of faith that turning it on... that somehow that it would work. You accept the unseen electrical waves that appear right in front of your eyes when you type your comments here. We do not see the reason for why the messages appear... because the powers that be are invisible to the naked eye. For them to be manifest, we need a monitor... so we can enjoy the experience of this forum.

God is not flesh and blood; He is an eternal Spirit. Immortal and invisible... like the computer waves. He can can not be experienced unless the monitor is turned on. One should approach the Bible in the same way as the monitor. If it works, enjoy it and if it doesn't, forget it.

Or do you have an ulterior motive? Could it be that the "atheist" can't find God... as a thief can't find the policeman? Could it be that your logic is clouding your good judgment?"

Answer 4

There can be only "one" truth.
The Bible helps believers in finding out what that is.
We were created with free will. We each can use that to either believe or not.
And what we believe does not alter what the truth is.
One plus one equals two.
That is truth.
If a person believes it equals three, in his mind he is correct. But in truth he is not.
When it comes to religion, those who believe the Bible have been given instructions to tell others just what it says.
(Matthew 28:19-20) Go therefore and make disciples of people of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all the things I have commanded YOU. And, look! I am with YOU all the days until the conclusion of the system of things.”

Answer 5

Atheist is fine by me even if it connotes being judged by other peoples standards. Yes I like realist, then anyone who held superstitious religious beliefs could be called by their proper name... unrealists (or would that be arealists?)

Answer 6

A person looking for answers, in all the wrong places.( No disrespect intended, I agree to disagree)

Answer 7

christians hate science!

Answer 8

Very well said.