Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Right, but you can't prove their non-existence completely, correct? There's still a chance that garden faeries may exist, right? Myths. Sure. We should probably classify them as myths and put them in the same box as other mythologies and gods but there's still a chance that they could exist, right?
Troop this is the point where all the proof is against their existence, and I think that shifts the burden on you to prove they exist. Without that proof I will keep them in the myth box along with the thousands of myth gods.
Troop this is the point where all the proof is against their existence, and I think that shifts the burden on you to prove they exist. Without that proof I will keep them in the myth box along with the thousands of myth gods.
I agree. To say that the burden of proof is on me to say they exist is absolutely true whether we are talking about Gods or Faeries. That, in itself, is why I feel that the answer to whether or not gods, faeries, trolls, elves, sprites, etc... is, in essence, a scientific question rather than a philosophical one although we can philosophically ask ourselves in light of the scientific evidence if something is true or untrue.
In science, we can prove beyond a reasonable doubt, with almost 100% certainty that something is or isn't and in science we task ourselves with the burden of proof to suggest an occurrence or an existence or a happenstance. However, merely not liking something or even hating something does not deny the existence of said thing.
Currently, I feel that if you examine all of the realms of science that you cannot reconcile that a God exists. The surmounting evidence to suggest that there is a viable alternative to the notion of a god is indeed overwhelming just as much as the notion of a garden faerie's non-existence is overwhelming but it does not completely falsify the notion of their existence.
The problem with the idea of gods is that it is insisted upon that they are supernatural which brings to question the evidence factor. Supernaturalism implies that it exists beyond the observable realm which makes no real sense to begin with. Saying that something exists is to say that it is comprised of SOMETHING and that means it should be natural and henceforth testable.
If we are to say to ourselves with 100% certainty that a god does not exist than the burden of proof then falls on ourselves to prove it and I do not currently know of a way to prove it in that matter. Even if a god roared his ugly head from the heavens and started striking down people it would also not mean that his existence is proven 100% yet we would currently have considerable evidence to suggest that such a thing were real.
The problem with saying you are 100% certain of something is that it develops an absolutist mindset. This is the problem with religion. Religion gives people the power to say "I am absolutely right and therefore I can absolutely do what is necessary to force others to believe what I do." That, in itself, is probably the largest problem with religion. In itself, when someone says they are absolutely right on a scale of 100% accuracy, they become completely obscure to any evidence contradictory to their ways. A perfect example of this is the ridiculous idea of literal Biblical Creationism. Despite all of the overwhelming evidence that things such as Noah's Ark, Adam and Eve, etc... etc... did not happen, the absolutist still thinks they are 100% right and there is no talking or reconciling differences in that way.
I get the feeling that your hatred towards religion is not much different than mine but if I approach it with the mindset that I am absolutely right then what stops me from stooping to the level of religion to prove my point?
Saying that I am 99% certain something does not exist does not mean that I am holding out hope that a god exists or that I am no longer an Atheist. It just means that I recognize there are no such things as absolute truths and therefore I am open to any evidence suggesting that I may be wrong. Currently, I have not seen that shred of evidence but that also means that evidence may still exist.
It helps with wanting to gain knowledge and discovering the mysteries of life.
I prefer several reference sources that keep exploring and trying to find the truth instead of just reading one old book and then saying dont question it, it was all some magic man in the sky.
I really don't think there's an answer for this. I really don't do anything as a result of my Atheism. I don't do anything as a result of my non-belief in Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny either. It's just a non-belief.
To me, it just doesn't make sense to say that because you are an Atheist that you are "X". Atheism defines nothing except a non-belief. Period. At least, that's how I see it.
I've been following this thread, and GCSTroop's response nails my take on this precisely. I had no conversion to atheism, no moment when the scales fell from my eyes. It's simply been a perspective that has developed naturally, and I guess, inexorably, during the span of my life. My atheism flows from other beliefs and values that are more central to me-- a love of truth, a loyalty to reality (most of the time), a respect for science and scientific inquiry, a disdain for snake-oil salesmen and, yes, for suckers, and a sensibility that the natural, temporal world is good enough, fascinating enough, without the salve of the supernatural. My atheism does not shape these values so much as it is shaped by them.
Now, having said that, I must admit that during the religious revival of the last twenty years or so, when everyone is either talking about Jesus or labeling themselves "spiritual", I've taken a sort of perverse pleasure in moving against the great tide. It's my one shot at being a vocal minority, and I'm enjoying that thoroughly.
Actually, I would often prefer to believe. To believe that someone is watching out for me and has a plan for me. Living in a Universe which doesn't care about me and doesn't have absoulte Good and Bad is often scary.
And I tried to believe, really did. I never became a believer because religion and the concept of a god didn't make any sense to me. I've really strugged, I've really tried to hold on to some sort of faith but I look at facts and the world around me and all that is said about God by those who believe clearly presents itself as wishful thinking to me.
So no, my agnosticism isn't something very positive in my life a lot of the time. Often I wish I knew less and thought less and therefore could believe like many people do. I'd be a more productive, more joyful, more positive person that way, I'm almost sure. I'm accepting a universe without god almost the way one accepts bad news-- sometimes angry, sometimes full of denial, sometimes dejected.
Sometimes I do feel freedom, enlightenment realizing that my life is only mine. Theoretically I often see myself as more in control but only theoretically. Practically it's difficult. But then I know that I believe the way I do for the right reasons, that it is the only choice I have. So I just accept the challenge of being fundamentally alone and try to make the most of my life.
Science has always held a deep facination for me. When I was young, I could never understand why the Bible and theists never mentioned what happened to those vast societies of human beings who couldn't accept Jesus, or Muhammad, or whomever, because they lived in times before that personage's time.( Also, why were not dinosaurs mentioned, at all? ) I was told that if one did not accept Jesus (or whomever) as their savior and lord, then one was doomed to hell. I thought - "How unjust!" , for it wasn't a person's fault if they were born BEFORE someone else. One cannot controll THAT! This injustice turned my heart against religion of any kind.
Also, organized religions refuse to accept ideas, or scientific data which goes against their age-old dogma. Scientific facts like EVERYONE starts out as FEMALE, and during the development, some change into males. This makes FEMALE as the superior gender, NOT male. Also, is has been shown that Females - NOT males- invented the wheel. In ancient times, when people were hunters/gatherers, males walked around the moving group, holding their wepons ONLY (prepared to protect the group). It was the women who toted the household items, often while being pregnant, holding a baby, or leading a toddler. Under these circumstances, finding a way to ease the toting was in their best interest. Just look at today - it's the Mother who carries the baby, diaper bag, purse, and groceries - while the man often walks beside her with his hands in his pockets.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Science and discoveries stirr my heart.
