[Wind's metaphysical corner] About atheism - for Jimmie mainly :D

[WindPhoenix]

Hey Jimmie! Remember when you were saying that faith is an unnecesary accesory of the weak?
I gave it a though and actually, ironically, atheism is a faith as well, the faith in the absence of God (otherwise, the lack of belief in anything is agnosticism - the mental state in which you think it might exist God). Another irony is that atheists brag about religions not being scientifically provable. Actually, as long as i recall, when you don't have proof that statement A is either true or false, you keep an open mind about it, not randomly pick "true" or "false" based on your cultural background. In our case, statement A is "God exists", and the unbiased, scientifically corect point of view would be the one of an agnostic. The atheists, on the other hand, chose "false" for this statement, from ground zero, without any proof. Or, better said, without any real proof, since most of the arguments that God doesnt exist i heard from atheist are related to how horrible/illogical/unnecesary religions are. Since religions are social institutions derived from the act of worshipping God (regardless the name), trying to disprove the existence of God is like looking in the footprints of a horse and trying to figure if it was a horse, an unicorn or a pegasus. These kind of inferences are just not logical.
And i ask you, fellow atheist: Based on arguments such as that, you're trying to motivate choosing value "false" for statement and you call that scientific? :confused:

[Herza]

You could just send him a mail or smth....
Attention hoe.

[WindPhoenix]

You could just send him a mail or smth....
Attention hoe.

[Sarvi]

Hey Jimmie! Remember when you were saying that faith is an unnecesary accesory of the weak?
I gave it a though and actually, ironically, atheism is a faith as well, the faith in the absence of God (otherwise, the lack of belief in anything is agnosticism - the mental state in which you think it might exist God). Another irony is that atheists brag about religions not being scientifically provable. Actually, as long as i recall, when you don't have proof that statement A is either true or false, you keep an open mind about it, not randomly pick "true" or "false" based on your cultural background. In our case, statement A is "God exists", and the unbiased, scientifically corect point of view would be the one of an agnostic. The atheists, on the other hand, chose "false" for this statement, from ground zero, without any proof. Or, better said, without any real proof, since most of the arguments that God doesnt exist i heard from atheist are related to how horrible/illogical/unnecesary religions are. Since religions are social institutions derived from the act of worshipping God (regardless the name), trying to disprove the existence of God is like looking in the footprints of a horse and trying to figure if it was a horse, an unicorn or a pegasus. These kind of inferences are just not logical.
And i ask you, fellow atheist: Based on arguments such as that, you're trying to motivate choosing value "false" for statement and you call that scientific? :confused:

I love you WindPhoenix!

People generally see me arguing against the religious point of view and categorize me as an atheist, but I have to say that I respect people who recognize what the "scientific view of the world" truly tells us. In natural sciences there's no such thing as an absolute knowledge of things; there are only theories, which can only rise to be the most likely explanation of something, but they can always be questioned, they can always be criticised, and they're never considered as absolutes. In sciences, (excluding maths I guess) there's no such thing as certainty, which is why I consider myself as an agnostic.

That being said, I think that a belief in a god is freaking stupid. There's no evidence that would even hint that there's such a thing as a creator, a master, a god, or whatever you would call your deity. A god is just as likely as a leprechaun.

ps. All of this is based on the assumption that people's definition of an atheist is someone who knows there's no god, instead of someone who simply isn't a theist - an atheist.

pps. I'm a bit stoned and a little bit of drunk (the only condition in which I post here ), so I apologize for abusing the english language.

[OliveTrade]

http://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/ have fun with that

and something I personally like "Every description of god is an excuse for his absence."

"The atheists, on the other hand, chose "false" for this statement, from ground zero, without any proof. Or, better said, without any real proof, since most of the arguments that god doesnt exist i heard from atheist are related to how horrible/illogical/unnecesary religions are." god doesn't exist without it's "worshipers", the entity/word/definition is how humans defined it, that is what atheists are sure of not existing, that is what agnostics are not sure about. But expanding "god" as an excuse to "any form of really powerful being ( that 100% had a form of evolution AND NOT CREATION as stated by the whole god concept ) is frustrating, it's like you make version 1.0 that says "I AM PERFECT" than new information comes along and totally makes 1.0 obsolete but you keep upgrading to 1.1 and 1.2 and 1.3 and 1.4 to make up with the new information.

Not sure how to explain this: "god" as an entity is defined by the general acceptance of the ones who believe in him, that you or someone else has a different view well that's just another religion/cult or mental illness. atheists have a problem with 2 things: 1. religion as a concept of believing in something with no proof at all about it's existence 2. this "god" entity that humans have defined.

on the other hand saying "atheism is just another religion" is again stupid ( or i find it so ). it just doesn't make "mathematical" sense.

"Since religions are social institutions derived from the act of worshipping god (regardless the name), trying to disprove the existence of god is like looking in the footprints of a horse and trying to figure if it was a horse, an unicorn or a pegasus." This is the most retarded thing ever said, 1->2 doesn't mean 2->1.

every "religion/cult" has some sort of "manual/book" - bible/coran and i don't know the other ones - that has some "axioms" that define it as a cult. when you get to the point when you find these "axioms" that define the whole "cult/religion" as false than the whole thing sounds ridiculous. an axiom is the base of a system accepted as being true without need of proof (hmm .. that sounds like something out of the bible .. ) but when an axiom is proven false it makes the whole system bullshit. it's like someone coming now and proving  x != x, I think that would pretty much screw up anything we know about mathematics.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YOXNunGLhmk watch through all 5 parts, he can put it much better in words to why people are atheists

[WindPhoenix]

i like the fact someone actually took his/her time to post here thx for the feedback guys :p

[WindPhoenix]

http://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/ have fun with that

and something I personally like "Every description of god is an excuse for his absence."

"The atheists, on the other hand, chose "false" for this statement, from ground zero, without any proof. Or, better said, without any real proof, since most of the arguments that god doesnt exist i heard from atheist are related to how horrible/illogical/unnecesary religions are." god doesn't exist without it's "worshipers", the entity/word/definition is how humans defined it, that is what atheists are sure of not existing, that is what agnostics are not sure about. But expanding "god" as an excuse to "any form of really powerful being ( that 100% had a form of evolution AND NOT CREATION as stated by the whole god concept ) is frustrating, it's like you make version 1.0 that says "I AM PERFECT" than new information comes along and totally makes 1.0 obsolete but you keep upgrading to 1.1 and 1.2 and 1.3 and 1.4 to make up with the new information.

Not sure how to explain this: "god" as an entity is defined by the general acceptance of the ones who believe in him, that you or someone else has a different view well that's just another religion/cult or mental illness. atheists have a problem with 2 things: 1. religion as a concept of believing in something with no proof at all about it's existence 2. this "god" entity that humans have defined.

on the other hand saying "atheism is just another religion" is again stupid ( or i find it so ). it just doesn't make "mathematical" sense.

"Since religions are social institutions derived from the act of worshipping god (regardless the name), trying to disprove the existence of god is like looking in the footprints of a horse and trying to figure if it was a horse, an unicorn or a pegasus." This is the most retarded thing ever said, 1->2 doesn't mean 2->1.

every "religion/cult" has some sort of "manual/book" - bible/coran and i don't know the other ones - that has some "axioms" that define it as a cult. when you get to the point when you find these "axioms" that define the whole "cult/religion" as false than the whole thing sounds ridiculous. an axiom is the base of a system accepted as being true without need of proof (hmm .. that sounds like something out of the bible .. ) but when an axiom is proven false it makes the whole system bullshit. it's like someone coming now and proving  x != x, I think that would pretty much screw up anything we know about mathematics.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YOXNunGLhmk watch through all 5 parts, he can put it much better in words to why people are atheists

you should look up Osho. btw, using language that harsh for nothing, makes you look like a troll. I thought twice before replying to you, i don't usually argue with people trying to argue against something using only arguments from their own paradigm, when the whole point is that there are other views possible. It's like we're both looking at a white cat and you're viewing it from behind a blue glass and you're trying to convince me it's a blue cat. Nice try.