English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

First have a look at this question that was posted not so long before this question, then answer the question below>

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Ap2ijQKE5bA3Vp1KyF8zAQ3sy6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20071005062108AAXTIbK

Yes I am the accomplice, and yes, I know it wasn't nice but please, PLEASE remain calm and assertive. (Those who want a second lick feel free to)

Although originally the task was to see which group used the most reasoning, we feel that we didn't achieve anything because people probably felt it was easier to type short slanders then explaining their beliefs in long answers and also with supporting evidence, and speaking of slanders, well, this is YA, not a science conference, so we really couldn't expect anything more :D

2007-10-05 04:43:09 · 7 answers · asked by Ravenous Q 1 in Society & Culture Religion & Spirituality

So the question is-
Both groups claim to have reasons behind their beliefs,
yet there is no definitive answer. Should people really jump into conclusion about God, even though there is not enough viable evidence for both against, and for the existence of God, if so give reason?

Belief is not a process of rational thought
(even for religion)

2007-10-05 04:43:21 · update #1

To Demetri (and others who feel the same way)-
Definition of Atheism: Someone who denies the existence of god - Key word DENIES!!

2007-10-05 21:30:00 · update #2

7 answers

The problem inherent in your 'test' is that the most rational people are unlikely to respond to the type of question you posted.

Also like many people you have misdefined atheism. Defining such a simple word appears to be a full time job here. Atheism does not mean that someone says they know that there is no god. The word is self defining. The prefix 'a' literally means not or without.

"Should people really jump into conclusion about God" This is the closest to the definition of atheism you came in your entire post and yet you seem to be using the statement to say atheism is unreasonable. Atheism by definition is not jumping to either extreme.

If this were a project for school I would have to give a pretty low grade. You set out to test a hypothesis about two groups of people yet you let your incorrect definition of one of the groups cloud your results.and bring you to a flawed conclusion.

It's as though one of your groups was dolphins and yet you made the basic mistake of categorizing them as fish. Then based all of your conclusions on your assumptions about fish.
---
---
To Raveneous Q. Sorry but where ever you got your definition is misinformed, biased or both. "Denying" something presumes that it exists and are in denial of it. Your source is without question biased. Someone who is amoral for instance does not deny the existence of morals.

At any rate I will say again the word is simple and defines itself. Atheism by definition is neutral and not jumping to conclusions. It isn't anti-theism. It is simply someone without theism. While some atheists might you don't need to claim you know there is no deity to be without theism.

2007-10-05 04:52:25 · answer #1 · answered by Demetri w 4 · 4 0

Our experience and limitations only allow us each one
of two pre-suppositions:
1) There is only natural.
2) There is supernatural as cause and natural as effect.
Science can not observe or prove supernatural because
of the fact that it is, well, supernatural, one can not
determine cause from only studying effect.
That is why there is philosophy and religion.
God is only determined by spiritual connection!
Spiritual connection brings a new dimention to life
and a more complete one that reaches to eternity.
We are not mere natural phenomena - that is not
possible due to the realm of the soul and spirit
that we certainly have!
Science can not explain these things - there is
much about life and conscience that science will
not ever be able to explain.
There is mere superstition (speculation) and
there is the real spiritual realm just like there
is scientific hypothesis and there are the
more concrete scientific laws.
The natural is a type and shadow of the
spiritual.
Science is useful and practical, spiritual
understanding is priceless.

2007-10-05 11:53:32 · answer #2 · answered by Nickel-for-your-thoughts 5 · 0 1

Wow a lot of links but let me try.
I have FAITH. "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." Heb1:1.
I LOVE GOD..What is my reasoning, none. I LOVE MY FAMILY..What is my reasoning, none. I can not produce evidence to counter slanders of either. I can't prove; love, my existence, my families existence, or God.
How can I explain to a nonbeliever the joy, the passion that has filled my life because of my walk with God. I can not reduce my emotions, my spirit to an equation. I don't want to if I could.
Is logic and rational your only comfort? Do you apply it to all your emotions? How do you have a love affair or delight in your children, enjoy a sunset using only logic an rational?

2007-10-05 12:01:56 · answer #3 · answered by PROBLEM 7 · 1 1

You are stating something .....

"Belief is not a process of rational thought"

i suspect you mean belief is not the result of a process called rational thought..

anyway, belief is not always based on nothing.
you can have 'clues'. When i throw a dic 10 times and it always falls on 6, would you belief then that the 11th time it will probably fall on 6 as well ?

the belief in this little example is based on experience , isnt experience part of a rational thought process ?

.

2007-10-05 12:05:15 · answer #4 · answered by gjmb1960 7 · 1 1

BONGERNET wrote: Remember, "god" is nothing more than a nonsense word created by man to explain away all of the things we can't yet understand.
________________________

But we do understand that "The fool says in his heart, There is no God." Psalm 14;1. And "By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the Word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible." Hebrews 11:3. "Even God who gives life to the dead and calls those things which do not exist as though they did." Romans 4:17. For "He speaks and it is done! He commands and it stands fast." Psalm 33:9.
***********************************
Religion is a disease of the mind, born of fear, which has done nothing but bring untold misery down upon the human race.
*******************************************************************
FALSE RELIGION YES is a disease of the mind, born of fear, and which has done nothing but bring untold misery down upon the human race.

But the TRUE RELIGION, the ONLY RELIGION OF THE BIBLE is not a disease of the mind... far from it!!! The Religion of the Bible is born of God who is Himself the Prince of Peace and He has done nothing but bring untold blessings upon the human race!

"Truly, this only I have found: That God made man upright, but they have sought out many schemes." Proverbs 7:29.

2007-10-05 12:03:55 · answer #5 · answered by sky 3 · 1 1

From what I read the atheists answered your question perfectly.Just because that isn't what you wanted to hear doesn't mean they are using a lack of reason.

2007-10-05 11:52:51 · answer #6 · answered by darwinsfriend AM 5 · 2 0

let me ask you something....do you believe thats air you are breathing and that it contains oxygen and carbon and that water is really a combination of hydrogen and oxygen....how do you know did you yourself test this to be true in a lab...so you chose to believe what you were taught...but when it is about religious beliefs why is it so hard for people to believe.....and it can be tested with research so just every one do your research and find out the truth....

2007-10-05 11:55:38 · answer #7 · answered by Belinda J 2 · 1 1

fedest.com, questions and answers