<p>I'm atheist. I don't accept that a "God" exists. I don't think being religious makes anyone better than an unreligious person. It's actually pretty hypocritical of Christians to be so intolerant of us "nonbelievers."</p>
<p>I do want to make the point also that being religious doesn't make someone spiritual. One actually has to contemplate over existence rather than simply accept what others say as fact - as so many good Christians have a habit of doing.</p>
<p>whoop, on the contrary, i do know what i'm talking about!</p>
<p>alright, atheists believe that there is no God usually because of the lack of physical evidence. and sometimes because of the irrationality of god in his decisions to bless some, curse others. but the whole problem is that atheists want a rational human-like God. this is totally childish, for who can understand God, something that is above the physical world???</p>
<p>and in terms of "ideas" or "forms," if u atheists even presume or assume it, u are admitting to the fact that there is God. for in fact, part of God is LOGOS, or the WORD.</p>
<p>also, because of irrationality of God, some are doomed to hell (and their hearts are closed to the gospel) and some are greatly blessed for the kingdom. in the realm of philosophy, of plato, plotinus, leibniz, spinoza, etc. i find understanding coming so naturally. but in the realm of theology, i am utterly lost. it's SOOOOOOOOOO confusing!! it is so irrational...so unatural..</p>
<p>damn it. why did i get into this argument? dude. let's just talk about church activities...</p>
<p>I've been raised Catholic, and I am forced to go to church every week even though I really don't believe in the Catholic faith.</p>
<p>I don't know about other atheists - I only know about myself. And, personally, I don't believe in God because I think man is desperate to understand how they've come to being. Many jump on the idea of a bigger man who controls the universe, kind of like the ancient civilizations who praised their own sets of Gods.</p>
<p>Personally, I think religion is a result of impatience. People want to understand how we got here NOW, and so explain it off with the idea of God. Well, we can't understand now. Maybe we'll understand when science catches up to spirituality; maybe we'll understand in our last moments of life as we enter death. Who knows? Maybe we'll never understand. I've accepted that.</p>
<p>^ I like this arguement a little better because it's respectful. But to Atheists, you do have to admit, even though we want to understand the world in our life-time, thousands of years have passed and some of the ancient religons are STILL being practiced today. Judaism, Christianity, even the Muslims, these religions have been grounded enough to spread throughout the world and endure for 1-3+ millenium. They have great plausibillty and that's why they've survived so long while other mythical religions have died out. Christianity is a sucess story in survival of the fittest religon.</p>
<p>Atheists just don't acknowledge that these faiths must have strong justification in order to survive so long and proliferate even unto to present day. For the Agnostic belief and nhilism to proliferate they would need to have as strong a justification and acceptability as these religions. The fact that they didn't proliferate until recently shows that for most of time mankind has had little evidence to support these belifes. I see this as a weakness in the belife, not a strength of modern man. If the belife was plausible, it should have been accepted on faith like the other religions long ago, without the need for the scientific evidence which we attribute to our improving technological advances.</p>
<p>And there is an argument of my own which I've decided to use on this thread.</p>
<p>
[quote]
They have great plausibillty and that's why they've survived so long while other mythical religions have died out.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You're assuming that the most plausible religions survive. What makes you think this is so?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Atheists just don't acknowledge that these faiths must have strong justification in order to survive so long and proliferate even unto to present day.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That's because they don't. All that a religion has to do to survive is to be somehow beneficial to the powerful and the rich. Which is exactly what happened with Christianity. </p>
<p>Some religions have been extremely successful for long long periods of time - but are no longer taken at all serious - for example (what is today) Greek mythology. We're talking about a good millennium here. So when it comes down to it, age isn't a terribly good sign of plausibility.</p>
<p>I'm an atheist, but respectful of others' beliefs; several close friends are Catholic, or strongly religious in other ways. In a somewhat libertarian way I view religion or spiritually as a personal choice completely removed from the state (the gov't should not be influenced in ANY way by ANY religion, and thus my dislike of the religious right). Because of my feelings about this, I normally don't comment on religion and keep my opinions to myself. Given this is an internet forum and a discussion, however...</p>
<p>I fail to understand why people continue to be religious when the most intelligent among us (astrophysicists, evolutionary biologists, the scientific elite in general) largely dismiss it. I view religion as being a side-product of the development of sophisticated human intelligence; as we became aware of, and could analyze, the world around us in a new way, we were scared by how much we couldn't explain. Religion developed as a means of explaining the then-unexplainable and over millenia consolidated into the organized institutions we have today. Although we don't know everything about the universe, we know enough that the claims of religious texts such as the bible are usually ridiculous. Furthermore, many religious organizations have been and still are corrupt (indulgences are one example that comes to mind). Finally, I refuse to help propogate what I see as one of the most destructive of man's creations; far too many people have been killed, tortured, or otherwise harmed by agents of religion.</p>
<p>Having said all of this... I also don't believe that religion is necessary for moral behavior. I lead what I consider to be a moral life (I'm 18, finished with a year of college, and have never had alcohol for example [and yes, I still have something of a social life]).</p>
<p>Oh, I really HATE it when self-important religious snobs say that atheists are immoral.</p>
<p>I think atheists are more ethical than most religious people. Even at school, everyone who goes to the local church are hypocrites. They go to church every Sunday, smoke pot on monday, have sex (unmarried) Tuesdays-Thursays, shower themselves with unnecessary riches, then dare to question my morality. </p>
<p>I think the idea of religion is beautiful; but when it sparks wars, molestation, and corruption, I just can't be a part of it.</p>
<p>what?? where in the world do christians ge the energy for pot and sex? we use up all our energy in devotion, fasting, prayer, penance.</p>
<p>of course, 99 percent of those who call themselves christians are hypocrites, u're right. these people see children starving on television and just shrug. for me, when i see those kind of stuff my heart burns with compassion and anger. pretty soon, i, the LORD OF GREATNESS, will go to these forsaken lands and build gardens out of deserts, glass fortresses of learning and art in the coasts of north africa, happiness will spring from the barren lands, children shalt sing hymnes instead of crying out in pain, </p>
<p>people will reclaim classical greatness of art and learn greek, arabic, latin...of happiness</p>
<p>That's why I picked Mercer. I knew that I needed some where were most people were not moral liberals or athiests. Hopefully while I'm there I'll be able to find a Lutheran church since that's what I've been raised as, but if not, I'll go for the Baptists, Methodists, anything Christian basically.</p>
<p>Also, people who smoke pot, have unmarried sex, etc. are not Christians. Especially if they think it's cool or okay. Even if they say there are they don't believe in their heart.</p>
<p>To the user who cited greek mythology as lasting a long time despite it's implausibillty, I'd like you to note that that religion is dead now. The religions I've cited are still around after millenium. I also don't like how "the infidels" (aethists and agnostics) have a tendency to label groups people, for instance, "The church leaders lead because they're rich and powerful." That's just simpleminded thinking.</p>
<h2>So do the Budhists donate alot of money to charity or are they just too lazy to work and prefer to spend their time meditating on mountains?</h2>
<p>羹: ultra complicated traditional character for a broth...</p>
<p>sauronvoldemort/charizardpal (I assume these names are under one person) why is that happiness and greatness is from the past to you? You have said this type of comment in more than one thread.</p>
<p>"people will reclaim classical greatness of art and learn greek, arabic, latin...of happiness" by sauronvoldemort</p>
<p>(how do you quote people)</p>
<p>^ first of all, sauron and charizard are not the same person. we just have the same abnormally high IQ (150).</p>
<p>second, i keep stressing on past glories for a reason. the classical age WAS the golden age of man, the peak of civilization. from that time, mankind fell slowly at first, but at an astronomical velocity after the industrial revolution when science became supreme. absolute no faith, no imagination... people these days make fun of the religious, show no respect for tradition; and people busy about their stressful lives giving no heed to higher pleasures or noble ends...it's a small wonder that many are atheist.</p>
<p>I stress that the greatest strides in technology have occured before the last 50 years. You might claim that data storage, post-it-notes, and better graphics are significant inventions, but these merely raise out standard of living. It's silly how we label our current age as "The Information Age," started since about 20 years ago How pretentious is that? Such an age should have begun with the printing press or telegraph and continued with radio and the telephone and finally the internet. All of these are merely replacements of previous inventions, they're not particulary breathtaking. Even the internet is a succession of the CB radio, complete with handles (usernames) and chat rooms. Seems sad that the last 15 years have had the attention of the public eye (the spot-light) cast on the improvement of softwear, increased data-storage, and other applications instead of on better building design, textiles and food production. Since these wants are lower on Mendel's pyramid they have already been provided for and instead of improving what already works, humans are lazy and work entirely on improving the technology of their leisure (music, cds/mp3s, dvds, video/computer games, etc.)</p>
<p>When I look into the past, I see Masonry, Concrete, Arched buildings, alphabets and printing presses. I see grand monuments, pyramids and monostary art that have endured millenium. By converse, the San Francisco Bridge will crumble in 200 years, the Statue of Liberty has required maintainece, all sky-scrapers last for about 100 years and no longer. We have no monuments that stand the test of time because all of our buildings are made from the cheapest materials we can find-plaster, wood, sometimes steel and sometimes even plastic. No quarried stones support the Pentagon or White House. By converse in Rome and other ancient captials there are still standing stone ruins, even roofs from ancient forums.</p>
<p>Clearly our collective advancements have been greatest in the past.</p>
<p>
[quote]
To the user who cited greek mythology as lasting a long time despite it's implausibillty, I'd like you to note that that religion is dead now. The religions I've cited are still around after millenium. I also don't like how "the infidels" (aethists and agnostics) have a tendency to label groups people, for instance, "The church leaders lead because they're rich and powerful." That's just simpleminded thinking.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That's exactly my point. A religion can exist for a long long time, then die. The same thing could happen to Christianity a millennium from now.</p>
<p>Explain why it's simpleminded thinking.</p>
<p>Even if it is simple minded doesn't change the fact that the renowned religious leaders tend to have much more wealth and power than they deserve.</p>
<p>And by the way I'm an agnostic atheist (if the concept is confusing, I'll explain) who enjoys having an intelligent debate.</p>
<p>the purpose of life... there is none</p>
<p>To the poster who said that since religion has stayed around so long, it must be strongly justified: not so.</p>
<p>Religion is somewhat like a mental virus (thanks Dawkins). This isn't a pejorative description, merely factual. Think about it. Almost every religion contains among its basic tenets proscriptions against questioning the faith; the most strongly rewarded activity is believing. Religions also almost universally contain mechanisms for spreading themselves, Evangelical Christianity being an extreme, but poignant example. And finally, religion feels good. It feels great to know that there's someone taking care of you; that there is something larger than a petty, materialistic human existence in this universe (or somewhere else).</p>
<p>Unfortunately, just because something feels good or right doesn't mean it's true.</p>
<p>One other reason that religion (and christianity in particular) has seeped into much of the global population is that many peoples have been converted by the sword, and forced to believe in a certain god(s). Religions are just types of clubs were they can exclude others to make themselves feel better about themselves. "No we must kill you Jews, even though our religions are very similar, because you dont believe that a man was actually also god AND rose from the dead AND can somehow magically take away all of our sins." It is also an institution of power, keeps the masses at bay ('opiate of the masses' thx Marx) and in control while the church officials get money (more aimed at the catholic church) and can easily have power over peoples lives. And thusly, are robust institutions (just like the Party in 1984 or a dictatorship in general) and they do not still exist because they are good, and definately not because they are right, but because religions are powerful drugs that influence the minds of most and control the masses through thing that humans want: justice, retribution, absolution of sin, and a grandfather figure that will look out for you. </p>
<p>1of42 congrats on princeton, so it was you who took my spot, lol jk</p>