Thread: This topic is for Atheists only!(Jesus isn't my saviour,etc.

I think I'll answer Baker's origional question about that new age stuff.

As a weak atheist, I got where I am from the position of a devout catholic by reason alone, peer-pressure and emotion played absolutely no part in it(I go to a catholic school for Christ's sake). As such I reject this new age crap on the same grounds I rejected my religion, but I do find it much more intriguing. I can see where alot of people, upon leaving home, realize how rediculous their religion is, or succumb to peer pressure and abandon their religion, but they do so because of emotion and peer pressure, and thus are much more susceptible to this new age stuff because of their previous attitudes that hadn't been completely abandoned. That's why you see this stuff flourishing on University Campuses.

As for Lucid Dreaming, I think it is definitely characterized as 'New Age'. Probably because Lucid Dreaming, OBE's, 'astral projection, and the like are all dream-like states and alot of new age philosophies either incorperate or were generated around the latter experiences. Because many people share interest in, both Lucid dreaming and New Age stuff, the connections are drawn.

Don't worry about it though, if you have to you can keep it a secret, but I wouldn't worry too much about being characterized as "New Age", especially with some of the stuff you spout of on these forums.

LOL Ophelia! That's awesome.

Just to clarify, this whole thread actually began as a mockery of another thread and I didn't actually expect it to develop into any kind of meaningful discussion. Thanks for the comments on the original question...but it was really just the same question as the other thread, with a few extra words sprinkled around.

ive always been an atheist and LDing is just trying to understand yourself more, just because your more self aware doesnt mean you are apart of a faith

Im a total atheis, I have no belif in a God what so ever. And i am a veyr moral person, i have great values and I cherish life. NOt beacse of the promise of soem silly afterlife or to please god, tbu beacse we are all human, and humans deserve to betreated with kindness and respect. We only live for a limited time, and after that we are gone for good. we all need to help each other out and make this life as wonderful as it can be, while preservign it for future generations. Lucid dremaing is part of that human experince. It helps us reach into ourslefs on a nother level that most people dont even tyr to achive. Whne we know more abotu ourselves, we cna learn more abotu other. And in this way we can help oursleves and other live a better life.

....

I am 100% atheist ^____^

All religion did nothing but screw over mankind. It's so Freaking incredible that so many people believe the load of crap churches tells them.

The fact that about 100 times more bibles were sold in america after 9/11 does show that people just turn to religion out of desperation, becouse they Don't know anymore.

Religion is an excuse to stop thinking about things no one can Prove.

And nirvana spermseed go away kthx =D I didn't even read the stuff you wrote and I wonder or Anyone Ever does. Same with that other god-spaming dude.

I posted that awhile ago, and now realize the thread is for athiest only. I'm not a christian of the church or any other religion, and I'm not an athiest. I also disliked the material I posted so I removed it.

This thread should be in the Spirituality/Religion section.
by the way

Originally posted by Belisarius

As for Lucid Dreaming, I think it is definitely characterized as 'New Age' [then wrote]
Don't worry about it though, if you have to you can keep it a secret, but I wouldn't worry too much about being characterized as \"New Age\"

I don't see why we would be worried or keeping it secret. Call it being a satanist for all I care. It doesn't mean I am one. It's just lucid dreaming. I don't see any point hiding it because the subject fits into the newage section of the bookstore. If anything it should tell you something about how the newage section can actually be something that is part of something normal. woo Imagine that.....

Book on LDing are in the "self help" section of the book sotres around here

I haven't read all of the posts here so I'm sorry if I'm repeating something that has been discussed already. And I haven't really studied much to do with anything discussed here, so I'm just asking a question that I've always been curious about but have never researched or discussed with people.

I was just wondering what you guys think about how "everything" started. I mean before the planets, before the big bang, before ANYTHING. What was there before that? Is there a scientific theory that explains this?

Originally posted by kichu
I haven't read all of the posts here so I'm sorry if I'm repeating something that has been discussed already. *And I haven't really studied much to do with anything discussed here, so I'm just asking a question that I've always been curious about but have never researched or discussed with people. *

I was just wondering what you guys think about how \"everything\" started. *I mean before the planets, before the big bang, before ANYTHING. *What was there before that? *Is there a scientific theory that explains this?

Here's a question, why did there necessarily have to have been a beginning? A number of scientific theories (the ekpyrotic scenario is my favorite) suggest that there was no beginning and there will be no end.

Originally posted by bradybaker

Here's a question, why did there necessarily have to have been a beginning? A number of scientific theories (the ekpyrotic scenario is my favorite) suggest that there was no beginning and there will be no end.

I'm not sure how there could not be a beginning. Atoms and molecules and all that stuff had to come from somewhere. There had to be a paritcular point in time they were made or appeared. I'll look up this ekpyrotic theory and see what I think. But something not having a beginning makes no sense to me. Please explain in detail the logic behind this because I just don't see it. I don't get it!

The ekpyrotic scenario basically says this:

Our universe is just one of many 3 dimensional objects floating in higher dimensional space. (Picture a bunch of bed sheets (2d object) on a clothesline floating in 3D space).

These objects are called "branes" (short for membrane). And are practically empty (the matter and energy is so spread out that its bascally nothingness).

However, these branes are gravatationally attracted to one another when they are in this state, and when they finally touch a massive explosion (that would appear to observers within the brane as a "Big Bang") results and the universe would play out as ours has.

Then, trillions of years later the matter and energy would be sufficiently spread out so that the branes are attracted to each other again, and they would be attracted again.

This cycle stretches endlessly into the past and future.

Sorry if that doesn't make any sense, I tried to explain it plainly, ask me if you have any questions though.

^ ^ ^ A little hard to grasp at first, but I'm doing my research. I also spoke about this at work with someone that has a degree in science something or other and he said something along those same lines. I was wondering what you think of Steven Hawkings "A Brief History of Time."

Also, what is the difference between Atheist and Agnostic? I've been looking stuff up and paragraphs like this one for example don't really make it clear to me:

"Thus, it is clear that agnosticism is compatible with both theism and atheism. A person can believe in a god (theism) without claiming to know for sure if that god exists; the result is agnostic theism. On the other hand, a person can disbelieve in gods (atheism) without claiming to know for sure that no gods can or do exist; the result is agnostic atheism."

I was told that Atheists absolutely do not believe in God but Agnostics neither believe nor disbelieve. Do agnostics believe in god, but as the paragraph suggests, are not sure if that god actually exists? What about believing in the possibility of a god but not knowing it that god exists or not? What category would that fall under?

Originally posted by kichu
^ ^ ^ A little hard to grasp at first, but I'm doing my research. *I also spoke about this at work with someone that has a degree in science something or other and he said something along those same lines. *I was wondering what you think of Steven Hawkings \"A Brief History of Time.\"

I know what you mean. It seems impossible that all this matter has always existed. At the same time, it doesn't seem possible that it was somehow created. That only turns the question to where did [whatever created matter] come from? If you ask me, it's impossible for anything to exist. Yet here it is.

Originally posted by kichu+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(kichu)</div>

Also, what is the difference between Atheist and Agnostic?[/b]

Here's what my dictionary has to say:

Agnostic >noun: a person who believes that nothing can be known concerning the existence of God

Atheism >noun: the belief that God does not exist.

It seems, though, that the term agnostic is usually used a little more loosely to describe someone who believes there is not enough evidence to prove or disprove the existence of God/Gods.

Originally posted by kichu+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(kichu)</div>

I was told that Atheists absolutely do not believe in God but Agnostics neither believe nor disbelieve.[/b]

Correct.
<!--QuoteBegin-kichu@
Do agnostics believe in god, but as the paragraph suggests, are not sure if that god actually exists?

Not necessarily. Agnostics may believe that god does or does not exist, but also believes it cannot be known for sure either way.
<!--QuoteBegin-kichu
What about believing in the possibility of a god but not knowing it that god exists or not? *What category would that fall under?

Agnostic.

^ ^ ^ Then I don't understand how someone can call themselves an atheist. How can you ABSOLUTELY not believe in the POSSIBILITY of a god/greater being, etc? Logically, wouldn't one have to concede in the possibility? Or is there a book/theory/teaching of some sort that absolutely in some way (through the authors/theorists eyes anyways) holds an amazingly developed arguement that is hard to oppose in terms of atheism?

I'm confused how people could label an idea like this as an ABSOLUTE. Unless I'm misunderstanding and that's not what atheism means.

God is logically impossible, as described. As UM has here-in demonstrated any number of times. And done a great job of it. Kudos, Universal Mind!

Originally posted by kichu
^ ^ ^ Then I don't understand how someone can call themselves an atheist. *How can you ABSOLUTELY not believe in the POSSIBILITY of a god/greater being, etc? *Logically, wouldn't one have to concede in the possibility?

The same argument can be applied to the theist. How can someone ABSOLUTLEY believe in a god(s) without the POSSIBILITY of their faith being wrong?

I'm confused how people could label an idea like this as an ABSOLUTE.[/b]

It's all relative to how each individual interprets the evidence he/she is presented.

Originally posted by kimpossible
God is logically impossible, as described. *As UM has here-in demonstrated any number of times. *And done a great job of it. *Kudos, Universal Mind!

Sorry, who is UM? My computer at home is messed up so I've been going on here on my lunch breaks at work and have a very limited amount of time. Can you please point me in the right direction to these posts? I tried to look UM up in the members list but saw a different name that was similiar, but didn't see any topics related to this. I would really appreciate it.

Thanks

Universal Mind

Originally posted by kichu


Sorry, who is UM? *My computer at home is messed up so I've been going on here on my lunch breaks at work and have a very limited amount of time. *Can you please point me in the right direction to these posts? *I tried to look UM up in the members list but saw a different name that was similiar, but didn't see any topics related to this. *I would really appreciate it.

Thanks

UM is Universal Mind.

Here are some of his threads:

http://www.dreamviews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=22115

http://www.dreamviews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=21357

http://www.dreamviews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=23029

And who could forget this one:
http://www.dreamviews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=22875

Originally posted by InTheMoment+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(InTheMoment)</div>

kichu wrote: *
^ ^ ^ Then I don't understand how someone can call themselves an atheist. How can you ABSOLUTELY not believe in the POSSIBILITY of a god/greater being, etc? Logically, wouldn't one have to concede in the possibility? *

The same argument can be applied to the theist. How can someone ABSOLUTLEY believe in a god(s) without the POSSIBILITY of their faith being wrong?[/b]

I know, I agree. I'm not making an arguement for believing in god, I'm just trying to understand all this from a logical point of view. It seems to me that being atheist means that you have decided on something for sure without actually having anything to prove that. But I also think this belief must be based in something real and valid and I just haven't heard it yet so I'm searching for those answers.


<!--QuoteBegin-InTheMoment

It's all relative to how each individual interprets the evidence he/she is presented.

I want to know what those interpretations are based on though.

Originally posted by InTheMoment
Universal Mind

Duh, maybe I should pay more attention.

Thanks!

Originally posted by Mark75


UM is Universal Mind.

Here are some of his threads:

http://www.dreamviews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=22115

http://www.dreamviews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=21357

http://www.dreamviews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=23029

And who could forget this one:
http://www.dreamviews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=22875

YOU'RE AWESOME! Thank you, thank you, thank you.

Thanks for the help and patience guys.

Originally posted by Kichu+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Kichu)</div>

It seems to me that being atheist means that you have decided on something for sure without actually having anything to prove that.[/b]

There is no reason to believe in an omnipotent/omnibenevolent/omniwhatever being, considering the amount of falsifiable evidence. The burden of proof for such an extraordinary claim, requires extraordinary evidence.

<!--QuoteBegin-kichu

I want to know what those interpretations are based on though.

A large number of different factors, not too exclude personal experience, knowledge, external influences, etc.