<p>I agree with flipback in that atheism is not a religion. however, I do not agree with flipback when he says, "I do not follow the bible of atheism, unless you mean that to be REASON." Unless I misunderstood, and let me know if I did, flipback is implying that atheism follows reason and religion does not. This is absolutely not correct. In fact, it is completely the other way around. Religion is reason and atheism, unfortunately, is an escape way out of reason. I fail to understand of how one can argue that atheism is reason. I do not want to keep going if I misunderstood flipback's argument. However, if I did understood correctly, I will debate as necessary..</p>
<p>I hate to stray away from the original topic of this discussion, but I feel obliged, as an informed member of our citizenry, to correct ivy's misconceptions. I interpreted flipback's argument in the same way, and though I will say that his comment about atheism following reason was probably a flippant lighthearted attack on religion, I disagree completely that religion is following reason and atheism is an escape from reason. I will proceed to show you how one can argue that atheism is following reason. There is absolutely no proof of God's existence. A baby born of a virgin defies biological reason. Turning water into wine defies chemical reason. Returning to life after one is dead defies physical reason. (Actually, I think that last one is biological again, but it sounds cooler if I nail all three major sciences, but I digress). I understand that the above examples only are speaking of Christianity, but there are ones for every religion. Atheism follows the simple idea that the physical world is all that is real, and there is nothing else. There is no overarching higher being, no son of that being, and no supernatural forces that created and guide our existence. Reason and logic have shown us nothing to believe the contrary. You could say it is "reasonable" to believe in God because otherwise you might be smited (Pascal's Wager), but other than that, religion depends on Faith. There is nothing wrong with that, and I don't want this interpreted as an attack on religion, for I am a religious person myself. However, I do not claim my belief in religion is reasonable. It is solely faith. It is my faith in God to believe that the above things actually happened, even though science and reason would suggest they didn't, because I believe God is above reason and science. So, ivy, I want your perspective on this now. How exactly do you think atheism is an escape from reason. </p>
<p>Oh, and just so I feel I contributed to the discussion, I had a couple of friends that went to Georgetown a few years back, one a white Christian (not Catholic), and the other an African American Baptist, that said the only time they felt it was really Catholic was when the Pope died, and they said that week was miserable. But other than that, it is like any other university.</p>
<p>Cricket, First I want to make this point: As you said, God is above science and reason, and therefore the "scientific obstacles" for such happenings cannot be used against them. </p>
<p>I still disagree that atheism follows reason. If you can prove to me how the world came to be (how nothing can form into something without an outside power), you can argue that atheism follows reason. It is so simple, yet people cannot see it. Scientists cannot fully explain how existence came to be, and do not want to accept that there is a God, so they find the solution in the so called "evolution." As for the reason that they do not want to accept the existence of God: 1) They think that science is the supreme power and see God as a way out 2) They do not want to comply with the rules and regulations of religion. They do not want to accept the concept of heaven and hell, for then they would have to act appropriately and not act as they wish. So basically, they are kidding themselves. </p>
<p>ONE CAN, NOT ACCEPT THE EXISTENCE OF GOD, BUT NO ONE CAN ACCEPT THE NONEXISTENCE OF GOD.</p>
<p>If the perfect proportions and systematic progression of existence is studied, it can be understood that these cannot happen without a supernatural being.</p>
<p>Cricket, you say you are religious, but think that atheism is reasonable. So, you believe there is a God, but you do not think that is reasonable? I see a contradiction. </p>
<p>If one thinks reasonably, it is impossible for him to not conlude that a God exists. Everything in the universe is changeable. Anything changeable is contained by time and space; it has a beginning and end. Anything which has a beginning needs a beginningless one who brings it into existence. For the one who has a beginning cannot be the originator of things, since such a one will, evidently, need another originator. As an unending regress through the originator of each originator, is unacceptable, reason demands one who is infinitely self-existent and self-subsistent, who undergoes no change, namely God.</p>
<p>All living and even non-living beings are in continuous need of many things, even a small portion of which they are unable to supply by themselves. For example, the operation and maintenance of the universe demand the existence of certain universal laws, such as growth, reproduction, gravitation and repulsion. However, these laws, which we call natural laws, have no external, visible or material existence; they exist nominally. Something with a nominal existence only, which has no knowledge and consciousness, can evidently not be responsible for a miraculous creation, which requires and absolute knowledge, wisdom, and power of choice and preference. So, one who has all these attributes has established these natural laws and uses them as veils before His operations for a certain purpose.</p>
<p>Also, plants need air, water, heat and light for their life, none of which they are able to meet by themselves. As for the needs of man, they are too many to enumerate. Fortunately, all his essential needs, from the very beginning of his earthly existence in his mothers womb to his death, are met beyond his own capacity and intervention. When he enters into the world, he finds everything prepared to meet all the needs of his senses and intellectual and spiritual faculties. </p>
<p>From tiniest particles to huge spheres and galaxies, everything in the universe and the universe as a whole display a magnificent harmony and order. Not only in things themselves but also between all things there is a harmonious relation, so much so that as the existence of a single part necessitates the existence of the whole, so also the whole requires the existence of all its parts for its existence. The deformation of a single cell may lead to the death of a whole body; similarly a single pomegranate demands for its existence the collaborative and co-operative existence of air, water, earth, and the sun and a well-balanced co-operation between them. This harmony and co-operativeness in the universe point to a creator of order, who knows everything in all its relations and with all its characteristics, and who is able to put everything in order. </p>
<p>Even the reason behind God's existence makes atheism unreasonable.</p>
<p>I just want to say one more thing. I said before, ONE CAN, NOT ACCEPT THE EXISTENCE OF GOD, BUT NO ONE CAN ACCEPT THE NONEXISTENCE OF GOD. So let's assume that God does not exist. We all die. What happens? Nothing. Ok, so no problem. I'm not going to say, "Oh, shoot, why did I believe in God?" But let's assume there is a God. Then excuse my language, but atheists are screwed. And I say, "Wooh!" </p>
<p>This, my friend, is logical thinking.</p>
<p>"I just want to say one more thing. I said before, ONE CAN, NOT ACCEPT THE EXISTENCE OF GOD, BUT NO ONE CAN ACCEPT THE NONEXISTENCE OF GOD. So let's assume that God does not exist. We all die. What happens? Nothing. Ok, so no problem. I'm not going to say, "Oh, shoot, why did I believe in God?" But let's assume there is a God. Then excuse my language, but atheists are screwed. And I say, "Wooh!" </p>
<p>This, my friend, is logical thinking."</p>
<p>^^^^Hahahaha....nolessthanivy, do u believe in the Heleocentric theory or do u think its a myth/"solution" like evolution?Anyways, It would be illogical for me to debate you now since you have logically made your point sound illogical about the logical existance of god.</p>
<p>Anyways, I got admitted to my first choice(Cornell ED) so I won't be applying to Georgetown but we can keep on debating about the "logical" or "illogical" nonexistance/existance of god.....</p>
<p>"Hahahaha....nolessthanivy, do u believe in the Heleocentric theory or do u think its a myth/"solution" like evolution?Anyways, It would be illogical for me to debate you now since you have logically made your point sound illogical about the logical existance of god."</p>
<p>Rohan, after all the LOGICAL points I make about the existence of God, you come with that reply? >>I think the "Hahahaha" part should go right here. Well, you asked so let me answer: I do believe in the heliocentric theory and it is not contrary to my religious beliefs. I don't think you understood what I said. The "logical" parts probably confused you, since your sentence was a very illogical one. DO you understand what I said :ONE CAN, NOT ACCEPT THE EXISTENCE OF GOD, BUT NO ONE CAN ACCEPT THE NONEXISTENCE OF GOD. So let's assume that God does not exist. We all die. What happens? Nothing. Ok, so no problem. I'm not going to say, "Oh, shoot, why did I believe in God?" But let's assume there is a God. Then excuse my language, but atheists are screwed. And I say, "Wooh!" If not, let me know and I will explain.</p>
<p>And I got accepted to my first choice (Wharton ED) so I won't be applying to Georgetown either, but like you said, we can keep debating. But let's come up with some better arguments please.</p>
<p>1)Why are u using quotations around the word logical. I am the one making fun of your logic...why would u do that to urself as well?</p>
<p>2) Why can't I "ACCEPT THE NONEXISTENCE OF GOD"?</p>
<p>3) Why would the we all die if God does not exist?And am I dead now ?</p>
<p>Also, please avoid the use of circular reasoning in ur arguemants. That just makes you loose even more credibiliy....</p>
<p>1) Because you are making fun of yourself while trying to make fun of my logic. So, I am making fun of you for trying to make fun of me. </p>
<p>2) You cannot accept the nonexistence of God, because in order to do that you would have to prove God does NOT exist. I am pretty sure you or anyone else cannot do that. In other words, even if we assume evolution is fully correct, that still does not mean God does not exist. You cannot prove God's nonexistence. Clear enough for you?</p>
<p>3) Haha. Exactly, I knew you did not understand what I said, because it would be scary for a person who got into Cornell to make such a pointless comment.
I did not say we would die if God does not exist. I was giving a hypothetical situation. Let me explain it once again. Lets assume God does not exist. Eventually you will die at some age, correct? You are buried. Nothing is going to happen to you since after life does not exist, so there is no problem. BUT, lets assume God does exist. Then you are in some big trouble for denying the existence of the One who created you. Is that more clear? Please do not tell me that is not logical. You did not understand the logic you were making fun of. Lets not make comments before we understand the argument. </p>
<p>Oh and one more thing, talk about circular reasoning. Please tell me rohan, what arguments have you made>>>> none. You are just TRYING to refute my very clear arguments. Make a legitimate argument before you attack mine.</p>
<p>Any other questions you have for me today?</p>
<p>I think you're missing the point with the whole death metaphor thing. If you are an atheist, you believe there is no afterlife, correct? There is nothing beyond this lifetime where we will exist metaphysically for eternity, correct? The great majority of theists, on the other hand, believe in an afterlife. Catholics, in particular, believe in heaven and hell, eternal closeness to or exile from God, respectively. </p>
<p>If a theist dies, believing that he will go to some afterlife, and God doesn't exist nor any of this heaven mumbo-jumbo, then he will simply cease to be conscious. His life will be over. He will not have any knowledge if he was right or wrong in believing in God. He'll simply stop being. If a theist dies, and God does exist, assuming he's lived a good life, he will spend eternity in heaven with God, knowing he spent his time on Earth usefully.</p>
<p>On the other hand, if an atheist dies, and again God and heaven are nonexistent, then the atheist will also cease to be. He will not know that he was right because his soul/mind will no longer be functioning. They will not have moved on, only stopped functioning for eternity, assuming there is no afterlife. If there is an afterlife, an atheist now has to deal with this huge afterlife deal. They will realize that they were wrong in denying God's existence and will face the ramifications of this.</p>
<p>So, atheists will never know if they were right about God's non-existence, but could realize they are wrong. Theists, on the other hand, could never know that they were wrong, but also stand (what I believe is) a good chance of finding out their lives meant something.</p>
<p>Many people believe atheists will go to hell because they've blatantly chosen to deny God's existence and role in their lives. I'm not sure where I personally stand on that issue, but I know it is a viewpoint. I just think that it's something to consider that if you're wrong, you could be screwed.</p>
<p>Ok this endless argument concerning the existence of God is well outside the context of this thread and CC for that matter. The "problem of God" is relative and will always be and there is no way to prove or disprove your stance towards faith-if there was such a proof we wouldn't be having this discussion in the first place. Leave this question for the theology and philosophy departments at Georgetown.</p>
<p>
[quote]
But let's assume there is a God. Then excuse my language, but atheists are screwed.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I'm just saying, you know, that if God is as wonderful and loving as so many people say he is, I don't think he's going to really care one way or another if atheists believed in him (or her!) or not.</p>
<p>I understand your point Sarah, as many people think the same way. However, being compassionate and merciful does not mean there is no punishment. Often times, parents are very compassionate and love their children. When the children act outside of the rules of the parents, however, they are punished in some way. You will get what you have planted during your lifetime. If you think of life as a test, it will be more clear. People are not free to act as they wish. They are being tested in life. Afterlife is where you will find out the results of this test. God is very compassionate and merciful, but you are the one who chooses the results of your test and consequently your reward/punishment. Believing or not believing in God does not differentiate between heaven and hell, of course. Someone who has believed in God their entire life but did not truly practice his belief has nothing over a person who has lived his life as an atheist, but converted during the last minute of his life. No one knows how the results of the test will be.</p>
<p>nolessthanivy, the argument that God exists because no one can proove his non-existance is a FALLACY. By saying, that you are not prooving anything; you are just weakening your own arguement.
Also, are u trying to say that since people are unsure about the existance of god they should a live a life filled with fear just to be on the safe side?
And one more thing, morality is in no way connected to religion</p>
<p>rohansingh, I am sorry but with each of your posts, you are going down further. I am not sure if you have an understanding problem or if you are making these unrelated comments because you have nothing to answer back with. All your posts are the same, "you are weaking you own argument," "you are losing your credibility." Believe me, it is you who is losing his credibility. You have not made one legitimate argument, whereas I have corrected all of your false analyses of my arguments.</p>
<p>When did I say that God exists because no one can prove his non-existence? I said that you cannot accept his non-existence, that is all.</p>
<p>Also, I am not trying to say that since people are unsure about the existence of God, they should live a life filled with fear. An undesired belief in God just to be on the safe side is not going to change anything. However, this reasoning is a starting point. People can realize that not believing in God is risky and start thinking about these topics, rather than just flat out rejecting God's existence. And once they think about it, they will realize that it is most reasonable that God in fact exists.</p>
<p>"And one more thing, morality is in no way connected to religion." Ok, you have skipped onto a whole different topic without any arguments for the first one, but that is ok, since you probably do not have any. Lets see if you can support this argument you made. Morality IS connected to religion. I want to ask you one question: If there were no legal preventions for murder, would you kill someone you absolutely hated?</p>
<p>(Not to be conceited or anything, but the fact that I am dominating this argument might be a signal of God's existence :)</p>
<p>First of all, I am not debating with you about my own beliefs since I am pretty satisfied with them. Therefore, I am just responding to the flaws in your arguements.
And ofcourse, you can assume/accept/believe in the non-existance of god as long as his/her existance is not proven...thats common sense.
Also, I did not skip "onto a whole different topic" by saying "morality is no way connected to religion". I correctly inferred from your posts that you assumed that there is a connection between the two.
Infact, you are the one who "skipped onto a whole different topic" by bringing legality into our discussion about morality and its lack of relationship to religion.And my answer to your question is NO.</p>
<p>All I am saying is that you are using either circular reasoning or logical fallicies in your arguements in order to proove your point...</p>
<p>why are you guys arguing about beliefs? its rather ridiculous to me</p>
<p>"First of all, I am not debating with you about my own beliefs since I am pretty satisfied with them. Therefore, I am just responding to the flaws in your arguements."</p>
<p>And just what flaws are those, rohan? Have I not corrected you in every single "flaw" you claimed my arguments contained? Rohan, once again, you are not making any arguments. You are just TRYING to prove me wrong. How longer is this going to take?</p>
<pre><code> "And ofcourse, you can assume/accept/believe in the non-existance of god as long as his/her existance is not proven...thats common sense."
</code></pre>
<p>You still do not understand what I am saying. You are wrong. What you can do is, not accept the existence of God. You cannot accept the nonexistence of God. There is a difference. But you keep failing to understand, so I will not keep trying to explain this to you. </p>
<pre><code> "Also, I did not skip "onto a whole different topic" by saying "morality is no way connected to religion". I correctly inferred from your posts that you assumed that there is a connection between the two."
</code></pre>
<p>And how exactly did you infer this from my posts? </p>
<pre><code> "Infact, you are the one who "skipped onto a whole different topic" by bringing legality into our discussion about morality and its lack of relationship to religion.And my answer to your question is NO."
</code></pre>
<p>I brought legality into the discussion because you skipped on to the topic of morality and religion, so once again, you are false. </p>
<p>Ok, so since you have answered my question, let me ask you another thing: Why would you not do that?</p>
<pre><code> "All I am saying is that you are using either circular reasoning or logical fallicies in your arguements in order to proove your point..."
</code></pre>
<p>You still haven't made any legitimate arguments to prove your points (although it is probably hard since your points are not even clear), you keep saying the same things over and over again, and you still do not understand that I have no flaws in my arguments. You just fail to understand my arguments and claim I have flaws. You have not yet proven me wrong in anything. Maybe you should read our debate over again. </p>
<p>Rohansingh, your posts are not strong enough replies to my arguments. If you are going to keep making unrelated comments and not going to be able to answer me with legitimate arguments, I feel that this argument is not going anywhere.</p>
<p>Not that I mean to disrupt a very profound debate, but can I please confess how bothered I am by the 'Gerogetown' in the thread title? Is there any way to change this? It's an eyesore.</p>
<p>I'm Catholic but that's not why I'm applying there. But if you say the school's really religious that's all very well with meeee=)</p>
<p>MODERATOR NOTE: </p>
<p>There has been a request from a participant to keep this thread on topic--the topic of the thread being whether Georgetown would be a suitable place for a student who doesn't profess the plurality religion of Georgetown students, and the credited response being yes. I would ask students who are NOT applying to Georgetown this year, as several participants have said they are not, to now cease discussing the issue of whether or not God exists in this thread, in the interest of courtesy to participants who are looking for college information about Georgetown here. </p>
<p>Everyone is invited to refresh their recollection of the Terms of Service </p>
<p>of College Confidential. </p>
<p>Have a happy New Year and best wishes for all of your applications.</p>
<p>Was it really necessary to debate the existence of god on this website? To answer the original question - whether Georgetown is a good fit for an atheist - the answer is definitely yes. I am an atheist, as is the rest of my family, and coming to Georgetown marked the first time in my life that I was surrounded by students from all over the country and all over the world and from various religious backgrounds. I'll be honest, I am constantly irritated by the presence of social conservatives on campus, but having grown up in San Francisco it has been a crucial learning experience for me meeting deeply religious people and discussing their beliefs, my lack of belief, etc... Also, keep in mind that Georgetown is a Jesuit institution; it is not run by evangelical Christians. The school stresses education and community involvement; nobody is going to try to convert you to Catholicism or try to convince you to believe in god. My advice, if you get into Georgetown, is to make sure that you have a roommate with similar beliefs so that you can vent when somebody REALLY gets on your nerves. And remember that students come to Georgetown first and foremost to take advantage of its academics and also its location in D.C.; which means that you will probably find that you have more in common as far as your ambitions, academic interests, etc... are concerned, regardless of your religious differences.</p>