The Rise of Atheism – Global Atheist Convention

[Darth Wader (Wade)]

Originally Posted by FredSnerd

Most liberating experience I ever had was the day I decided I didn’t believe in God anymore. That was many many years ago now and I haven’t looked back. I recommend it to anyone

I agree 100% Claude. I still remember the day it happened to me. I was a practising Catholic since I was a kid. One day not long after my son was born I sat with him in the rocking chair, contemplating the world and all of the horrible things that we humans do to each other. I decided then and there that I simply could not believe that this supposedly benevolent god would allow these atrocities to happen. I shed a few tears, then I gathered myself and stuck with my decision to embrace atheism and free-thinking. On the whole it has made me a much better person and I've found a sense of wonder in the world that I haven't had since I was a child. "Break the chains and set yourself free!"

[FredSnerd (Claude)]

Hey Jeanette,

Yeah something like that.

Hey Wade

Yeah my experiance was very similar to how you describe it. You might say we saw the light.

[FredSnerd (Claude)]

I should say I will start believeing in God again if i get my telescope for Christmas. Now I have been dropping alot of hints so you know, this is make or break time.

[jjjnettie (Jeanette)]

You should read "Stranger in a Strange Land" by Robert A Heinlein.
He has the funniest take on organised religion.

[mick pinner]

l find it hard to accept that if there is a god he feels the need to accept and therefore allow so much suffering in a world that frankly in my opinion should be torn down and started again. maybe Tom Waites got it right when he said there is no devil it's only god when he's drunk.

[FredSnerd (Claude)]

Thanks Jeanette, I'll keep an eye out for it. I read a novel by Frank Yerby many years ago called "Judas My Brother". I think its quite different to your recommedation but as far as a novel goes it was a good hoot (and i touch irreverant).

[Waxing_Gibbous (Peter)]

[/QUOTE]Sounds easy doesn't it? The problem with a God that just "sets the rules and gets the ball rolling" is that such a God has to be unbelieveably complex in the first place to be capable of being able to do such a thing and religion, whether organised or not, is incapable of answering the question of where did this God come from? To use a God as a creator simply puts off the questions of how or by whom was God created and so answers nothing.
Personally I prefer people who believe in the full on God rather than this rather wimpy version, if you are going to believe in fairy stories, at least believe in interesting ones!
Lastly, "hyper-rationality" is an interesting term. Rationality is attempting to understand events based on evidence, and refusing to invoke "unknowables" based on simple faith to explain away difficulties. As such you cannot be hyper rational, you are either rational or you are not. I cannot accept science can explain 99.9% of the universe and reserve the rest to God and still call myself a rationalist. Remembering of course that a rationalist should never say that science explains everything, only that everything is open to scientific rational enquiry. There may be some things that we cannot hope to explain, it doesn't mean we shouldn't try or worse, simply invoke "faith" and a God to avoid the question.
My 2 cents worth![/QUOTE]

Ooh Angry.
We live in an unbelievably complex universe "by what or whom was God created" rather ignores the question of by what or whom was the substance of space-time created? Something from nothing? Your preference for people who believe in the full-on version of God is deeply irrational, as you have no proof of Gods existence it makes no sense to prefer one lot over the other.
"You are a rationalist or you are not" sounds like something George Bush would say. Of course you can be a rationalist and have faith. To be a rationailst and NOT accept the possibility of devine intervention is to be irrational
I don't recall saying that scientific enquiry should be limited or that we should stop trying to examine and explain the universe around us by rational enquiry. I propose merely that there is as much evidence for devine intervention in the substance of the universe as there is for sponataneous generation.

[mswhin63 (Malcolm)]

No matter whay happens it is here to stay, as ape evolved eventually into humans their brains became more complex and imginative.

The theory the bible more than likely was created to set moral standards that was primarily lacking possibly in the days of old as our brain realised there was something better that clubbin' people over the head.

Science though the years give to more complexity of the human race and we started to distort things out of proportion.We also understand and question what it is that we understand from the past.

I mean there cannot be any truth to the new testimate anyway because that can't even have the right name. Jesus Christ is a Greek name not Hebrew so they ain't got that right for starters.

There has been a place for religion to a degree which I believe gave us some morality.

[mswhin63 (Malcolm)]

Thinking back in history many people that discover astronomy were religiously inspired. They have given us the opportunity to lok at the star in a more deeper and meaningful way.

We have only started to uestion it that is all.

[barx1963 (Malcolm)]

My point about being a rationalist or not is that the term "hyper-rationalist implies that there are degrees of rationalism. I simply contend that that makes no sense. Can I be a rationalist in relation to say plate techtonics and accept that earthquakes are caused by movements in the earths crust rather than Gods wrath, and yet be willing to accept (without evidence) that the universe was created by a higher being. To me, that is simply being inconsistent. Hence I think one must be either a rationalist (or hyper-rationalist or or ultra-rationalist) or not.
As regards accepting the possibility of divine intervention, I believe that a true rationalist will accept it when evidence is produced. The whole point of science is that it is self correcting. If firm evidence of Gods intervention in the creation of the universe is forthcoming, I will happily accept it, that is a rational thing to do. However that has not yet happened.
The problem with using faith to explain the origin of the Universe is that it requires just that...faith, which is the opposite of enquiry. Enquiry requires an open mind and a willingness to accept evidence that is contradictory to existing ideas. Faith requires well..faith! As such it says here's the answer, stop looking!
Spontaneous generation is an idea about the birth of the universe that is an idea, it is not yet fully accepted in science as I understand it and may or may not stand the test of time and evidence, and that is the whole point. I don't have to "believe" in it I only have to say I will support as long as the evidence does.
I hope I haven't offended anyone, that is never my intention. I do feel that is a forum member posts their ideas about the universe, it is reasonable to challenge them politely and rationally (there's that word again!)
Peter, hope to meet up with you some day and discuss more fully over a glass of something!

[fringe_dweller]

ahh memories ... wot no agnostics convention? they couldnt fit all those fence rails in a theatre?

good to see the rabble of non-believers possibly have an organised collective voice/lobby with clout (forming) for a change .. much like the other team has had for the longest time

altho on same team, dawkins does give me the willies sometimes tho - cant put my finger on it hmmm thank gawd for richard dawkins

[joe_smith]

No matter whay happens it is here to stay, as ape evolved eventually into humans their brains became more complex and imginative.

Thats wrong and half the trouble with the evolution debate, Humans did not evolve from Apes. Humans and Apes share a distant ancestor in the past. BTW we are more closer to pigs than apes, and our love of junk food proves it

[Omaroo (Chris Malikoff)]

Originally Posted by fringe_dweller

altho on same team, dawkins does give me the willies sometimes tho - cant put my finger on it hmmm thank gawd for richard dawkins

Idiot! LOL!

[CoombellKid]

Originally Posted by fringe_dweller

ahh memories ... wot no agnostics convention? they couldnt fit all those fence rails in a theatre?

good to see the rabble of non-believers possibly have an organised collective voice/lobby with clout (forming) for a change .. much like the other team has had for the longest time

altho on same team, dawkins does give me the willies sometimes tho - cant put my finger on it hmmm thank gawd for richard dawkins

Man picks up stone, learns weight, man picks up two stones and
bangs them together, now man can make sound thats not his own.
Man picks up stone and whacks other man on head, man now has
food. That evolution.

Now unless I was born praising the lord. I would not know about it.
That's manipulation. And fits well with creationism

Cheers,CS

[jjjnettie (Jeanette)]

It's all too medieval for me.
To believe that if someone has a mental illness they're possessed by the devil.
Cancer is god's way of punishing you because you've been a bad girl.
That's just stupid and very very hurtful.

Oh, and then they want to convert you so you can go to heaven when you die. Heaven sounds like some kind of hell to me.
Spending eternity singing praises to a god who allows all this pain and hurt? get real.

I knew I should have stayed away from this thread. Once I get started.......

[rider]

As a member of the Lesser Orthodox Obsequious Orthodontic Surgeon Assembly (blessed are the teeth makers) We LOOOSA’s are offended by your free speech and independent thinking.
Or alternatively, Perhaps I just don’t think that this is a constructive thread for an Astronomy Web site which should probably avoid alienating members who hold strong views about 2000 year old carpenters , chubby stone statues or or upside down pyramids, BUT still enjoy the same hobby as ourselves.
There aren't enough astronomers out there people, don't loose them because of a different subject.

[FredSnerd (Claude)]

Originally Posted by mswhin63

No matter whay happens it is here to stay ...

The theory the bible more than likely was created to set moral standards that was primarily lacking possibly in the days of old as our brain realised there was something better that clubbin' people over the head.

There has been a place for religion to a degree which I believe gave us some morality.

The assumption that religion gave us moral standards has always perplexed me. Man is a gregarious animal and as such has always had to devise rules for living together. Religion is what comes next when a religious fervour develops around the rules and simply does not tolerate any other way of doing things or looking at the world (that’s when people are burnt to the steak and Galileo is made to recant). Religion did not give is morals, it just gave us the intolerance that often goes with morals. Its like marriage. Religion tries to trick us into believing that it invented that too.

Are you saying "no matter what happens religion is here to stay". If by “here to stay” you mean there will always be a hand full of followers, then OK. But its had its day I’m happy to say and I do envisage the time (soon I hope) when the Christians and Muslims etc will be competing with the Order of Jedi Knights for the religion with the most followers. Its done so much harm.

[mojo (Terry)]

...a topic best continued at the aforementioned convention.