Thread: Religion: What is the point?

Atheism is not a religion. Atheism is defined by "A lack of belief in a god" An atheistic agnostic would be "A lack of belief in a god with a doubt that he may still be there"

Atheism means that you don't believe in a god unless you're handed proof of him, more than a book.

Atheists are NOT a social group of any kind. They are a label. That label simply means that they don't believe in god. LIKE YOU. You are an atheist, or an agnostic atheist. Atheism is not a religion. It's a belief. To be a religion, it would have to have teachings, rituals and stuff. Atheism does not have any of those. Atheism is the "lack of belief in a god" even if there's the following part "unless I'm handed proof". You're an atheist. Atheism does not have any teachings or anything. Atheism is empty. Very empty. Many people who are coming from religions to atheism feel kinda empty. What to do? What's the point? Why?

That is up to the person to decide. I am an atheist. It's not a religion, or cult or anything. It simply means that I don't believe in any of the modern gods people have invented. Nothing else. I don't even know who from my friends are atheist and who are not. I don't care. Since it doesn't matter to me.

What defines morals for an atheist. Well... The person himself defines his morals. He decides what he considers right and wrong. An atheist has absolutely no hope of getting in to heaven, but he doesn't have a fear of hell either. An atheist does good things not because he wants to get to heaven, but because he wants to do good things. I'm not saying that almost any christian does good things to get into heaven, but there might be some.

Hope I helped out to clarify it. Atheism is not a religion. There are cult like gatherings of atheists in some places, but those are not the definiton of atheist. Atheists don't have to follow NOBODY. Atheist just has a lack of belief in godly entities. That's it. It does not say anything else. It does not mean that the person is evil nor that he is good. It does not mean that he has good or bad morals. It does not mean that he does not believe that there MAY be a god. He just doesn't believe in any of the gods.

Cheeers!

I do it willingly, because everything in life (for me personally) boils down to faith...my decisions ands actions all boil down to faith, because I firmly believe that there is an afterlife. Whether my religion is right or wrong, ik that being a good person enhances my life and everyone around me..religion is a motivation for me to be a good person and I see nothing wrong with that..Blindly following a book isnt a valid description of my religion (christianity) because thats not what I do. Can a book offer me guidance and provide comfort? sure, but i live my life trying to be a good person to have a good afterlife, thats the point for me personally

For most people, it's the hope for a one being who gives them another life, for others, they hope that their god(s) can help with world peace.

Honestly, I believe both of these are stupid, but some people need hopes. Even if they are false ones.

Morals are learned. Whether it be through religion or otherwise. My question wasn't about why people do good and bad things. I understand it perfectly. I wanted to know why religious people think the way they do. If God exists, why doesn't he just provide proof? If he doesn't exist, why is there a supposed book about it? I don't necessarily disbelieve in God. I just haven't seen any proof. I understand atheism, I just don't believe you can slap that label on anyone without a religion. Does that mean that anyone without a religion thinks the same? No. I probably have different views than another so-called atheist.

Thanks for the input though. But I was really looking forward to a religious person's view.

Originally Posted by JussiKala

Atheism is not a religion. It's a belief.

Or lack thereof.

To the OP: I'm not sure why you take issue with people applying labels to themselves. Labels are merely names for concepts that people agree with. They help to identify various classes of beliefs (or non-beliefs), so that people can easily speak to each other. Which is easier, saying "I'm a communist," or "I believe private property should be abolished and all resources put into public ownership?"

I don't like labels because many times they lead people to think something else. Like, if I say: I like alternative rock. You will think of whatever band you may have heard in that genre. Do I nessessarily like every song in it? no, but I do like songs with that label. Instead, I could get more specific and say, alternative rock bands with influences of classic music and have an electric violin. But that still wouldn't be descriptive enough.

Originally Posted by Bmahon26

I do it willingly, because everything in life (for me personally) boils down to faith...my decisions ands actions all boil down to faith, because I firmly believe that there is an afterlife. Whether my religion is right or wrong, ik that being a good person enhances my life and everyone around me..religion is a motivation for me to be a good person and I see nothing wrong with that..Blindly following a book isnt a valid description of my religion (christianity) because thats not what I do. Can a book offer me guidance and provide comfort? sure, but i live my life trying to be a good person to have a good afterlife, thats the point for me personally

What leads you to believe there is an afterlife?
It's great that you try to be a good person. I'm just wondering where all of these beliefs come from, and why you think that way.

Originally Posted by Kafke

Morals are learned. Whether it be through religion or otherwise. My question wasn't about why people do good and bad things. I understand it perfectly. I wanted to know why religious people think the way they do. If God exists, why doesn't he just provide proof? If he doesn't exist, why is there a supposed book about it? I don't necessarily disbelieve in God. I just haven't seen any proof. I understand atheism, I just don't believe you can slap that label on anyone without a religion. Does that mean that anyone without a religion thinks the same? No. I probably have different views than another so-called atheist.

Thanks for the input though. But I was really looking forward to a religious person's view.

You know... You're best off classifying yourself as agnostic atheist.

What I would do is just follow my own feelings. I wouldn't rely on anyone else to influence my beliefs. If you feel like the bible isn't true, that's what you think. The end. Why should anyone change your beliefs?

You can't really make up your mind unless you yourself make the decision. If you let other people influence your decision, it will only hurt you in the end. Although religion isn't something that I was pressured into (therefore I'm atheist. It's a well known fact that religion is so well accepted since parents tell their childs that god is real. And children are programmed to accept anything their parents tell them as truth, even later in life. This belief is very hard to get rid of), I have made numerous other similar decisions in my life and with some of them, I let people influence me. That never turned out well.

I suggest you take some time alone thinking about this.

Read the whole bible like a novel 100% through

Watch some science documentaries.

Those two things will draw you closer to your decision.

You will have much less difficulties when you make your own decision.

Originally Posted by Kafke

What leads you to believe there is an afterlife?
It's great that you try to be a good person. I'm just wondering where all of these beliefs come from, and why you think that way.

just personal logic/ theory...obviously there are no facts, but I feel like the soul or spirit is a part of something greater...like what is it that makes our heart beat, we dont have a battery or power source, I fell as if the soul is too powerful to simply perish the way the body does...I dont know if the soul continues in a reincarnation sense or an eternal resting state, but its impossible for me to believe that a force that strong disipates because of the human bodies limitations

I have nothing more to say than this, I love your questions and good job for questioning those things.

Originally Posted by Bmahon26

just personal logic/ theory...obviously there are no facts, but I feel like the soul or spirit is a part of something greater...like what is it that makes our heart beat, we dont have a battery or power source, I fell as if the soul is too powerful to simply perish the way the body does...I dont know if the soul continues in a reincarnation sense or an eternal resting state, but its impossible for me to believe that a force that strong disipates because of the human bodies limitations

Do you know how intelligent chimpanzees are?
Some studies show that they are better at basic math than we are. (Not the advanced stuff)
They are most likely capable of wondering what other chimps are thinking of right now. They are in every single way almost like us, except they can't talk.. And of course they're missing some other traits that we humans have.

Do chimpanzees have souls?


Now.. Think about mentally challenged people. By some definitons, some of these mentally challenged people would not be nearly as intelligent as a chimpanzee. If chimpanzees wouldn't have souls, why would these guys have souls?

What makes a soul a soul? Is it our huge frontal lobe containing everything that the soul can accomplish?
Is a soul something non physical? Is it pure energy? Is it something unnatural?
The thing is... We're not sure.

And I'm a natural skeptic. I'm not relying on anything before I get some proof.

Until that, I'm just being a good person out of my own good will...

Also im a VERY strong believer of intelligent design...for those of you who arent familiar its basically the theory that scientific advances and discoveries further prove the existance of god. People are always discrediting religion because of science, but I have a "science tells us how, but not why" mentality. All of the discoveries make it obvious to me that there is in fact an intelligent designer behind all of it. I see too many characteristics of the world and universe for it to be purely coincidence, for instance the temperature of the sun, tilt of the earth, rotation of the earth, orbit of the solar system, oxygen levels, gravitational pulls, distance from the earth to the sun...there are countless of examples that need to be so unbelievably precise and exact that I find it unreasonable to believe that they are coincidental. These factors are all completely independant and if even one of them is SLIGHTLY off par, life as we know it can not exist.

An old teacher of mine in catholic school broke it down to a childs level that really stuck with me: he explained that in a watch, there are hundreds of dials and pieces, all of which need to work together and in harmony for the clock to function properly. They need to be in the exact location, rotate properly and every part relies on another part to maintain working order.

Now if you took apart that watch and all of its components, put it in a paper bag and simply shook it, even if you tried millions of times the clock would never function again.

Obviously thats a simple thought but I loved and understood the message behind it. This world/universe is so incredibly complex, that it cant be coincidence, its too perfect. I never understood how people discredit religion by simply saying, "the big bang theory, case closed." Sure that would discredit a great amount of religious beliefs, such as creationism, but I feel it only proves the bigger picture. Where did that original energy come from, what was the force responsible for whatever existed to fuel the big bang...

Again just personal theories I believe, but I dont believe this simply for comfort, IMO the world is too beautiful and complex to be a big accident.

Originally Posted by JussiKala

Do you know how intelligent chimpanzees are?
Some studies show that they are better at basic math than we are. (Not the advanced stuff)
They are most likely capable of wondering what other chimps are thinking of right now. They are in every single way almost like us, except they can't talk.. And of course they're missing some other traits that we humans have.

Do chimpanzees have souls?


Now.. Think about mentally challenged people. By some definitons, some of these mentally challenged people would not be nearly as intelligent as a chimpanzee. If chimpanzees wouldn't have souls, why would these guys have souls?

What makes a soul a soul? Is it our huge frontal lobe containing everything that the soul can accomplish?
Is a soul something non physical? Is it pure energy? Is it something unnatural?
The thing is... We're not sure.

And I'm a natural skeptic. I'm not relying on anything before I get some proof.

Until that, I'm just being a good person out of my own good will...

Good points, questions I honestly have not given much thought too...but using my original reasoning, I would be inclined to say that yes they too have souls, since I used the soul as an "energy source" type of deal. I think that a chimp is hindered by its body and brain, but if i believe that a human has a soul that outlasts the body, I see no reason to not believe an animal wouldnt posess the same. Again ill spend some time thinking asbout these things, but right away Id have to say no, that the sould doesnt come from the brain. The brain may be responsible for our identities as people, but I feel the soul is the underlying force or energy for it all, our reason to live and an unconcious force that powers the mind and body.

Originally Posted by Bmahon26

Also im a VERY strong believer of intelligent design...for those of you who arent familiar its basically the theory that scientific advances and discoveries further prove the existance of god. People are always discrediting religion because of science, but I have a "science tells us how, but not why" mentality. All of the discoveries make it obvious to me that there is in fact an intelligent designer behind all of it. I see too many characteristics of the world and universe for it to be purely coincidence, for instance the temperature of the sun, tilt of the earth, rotation of the earth, orbit of the solar system, oxygen levels, gravitational pulls, distance from the earth to the sun...there are countless of examples that need to be so unbelievably precise and exact that I find it unreasonable to believe that they are coincidental. These factors are all completely independant and if even one of them is SLIGHTLY off par, life as we know it can not exist.

An old teacher of mine in catholic school broke it down to a childs level that really stuck with me: he explained that in a watch, there are hundreds of dials and pieces, all of which need to work together and in harmony for the clock to function properly. They need to be in the exact location, rotate properly and every part relies on another part to maintain working order.

Now if you took apart that watch and all of its components, put it in a paper bag and simply shook it, even if you tried millions of times the clock would never function again.

Obviously thats a simple thought but I loved and understood the message behind it. This world/universe is so incredibly complex, that it cant be coincidence, its too perfect. I never understood how people discredit religion by simply saying, "the big bang theory, case closed." Sure that would discredit a great amount of religious beliefs, such as creationism, but I feel it only proves the bigger picture. Where did that original energy come from, what was the force responsible for whatever existed to fuel the big bang...

Again just personal theories I believe, but I dont believe this simply for comfort, IMO the world is too beautiful and complex to be a big accident.

The gist of it is this: The universe is larger than your tiny tiny tiny brain could ever wrap itself around.

This kind of conditions have to happen SOMEWHERE in this huge universe. The fact that you're on one doesn't prove anything

Did you know that the kepler telescope (I think it was that) found 50 new planets within the starts that they orbit around zone that would support liquid water? IIRC 5 of these planets were earth sized. That would support life. And the telescope only took a picture of a tiny portion of the sky. The chances of life are greater than you think

Also, science does explain the why. Since science explains how... It explains that the planets around the sun formed from the debri that orbited around it and anything that didn't have a stable orbit didn't survive

See a purpose there? No. That's just the point. Science explains how things happen. It automatically denies ANY why questions.. Things don't have a purpose since they are just random interactions between mass and energy. There cannot be a why since everything follows the laws of physics, and if we want to have a purpose, something that controls stuff, we need to break the laws of physics. Is there a single recorded incident of laws of physics being broken? A proven incident? No..
Science says that this happened like this. And that will happen like that. That automatically leaves out any chance of a why...

(I'll just leave the following comment below) Unless everything was planned ahead in the beginning of all time. Unless everything of the "why" was already planned before the universe was created. See? I have my doubts about all this as well.

True, one thing we both can agree on is that our brains cannot comprehend it. For the same reasons you disprove religion by new planets, I feel it proves it. People are prisoners to egoism, we think we are the center, so when another planet that can supprt life is discovered, there must be no god because any other creature that is not familiar to us must be godless beasts lol.

The one reason I really dont like arguing atheism is becasue I find (please dont take offense, keep in mind the atheists I debate are college students <20, not grown men and women with solid beliefs) is there arguments are incredibly negative. Ik a few atheists very personally and these few in particular are just all around miserable people, I feel sorry that people can be granted such a beautiful gift in life and not appreciate it. Its as if they dont even have the belief that there is no good, its simply the trendy religious view for college students. As i get older and smarter I see it more and more, it becomes incredibly evident in their arguments. Most of their arguments have two of the major fallacies in logic.

1. Burden of Proof- Obviously you can not prove the existance of god. Atheists I have debated with feel that this is factual evidence for their cause. Since one cannot prove that god exists, he in fact must not. Obviously it is flawed logic, however this is almost always the backbone of a college atheists arguments.

2. Ad Hominum- Personal attacks on me, discrediting the opponent to further prove their point, again obviously not a logical argument.

Im interested to read what are some of the reasons educated atheists come to their decisions? It seems im in the minority on this forum in being passionate about religion, why is that? Is it because lucid dreaming seems to be an alternate reality, one that shouldnt exist if there is a god with a plan? I don't know, hope someone can fill me in.


Again I hope I didnt offend anyone, I respect atheist beliefs and recognize that no one knows the answers, I love that people differ from me so greatly, it makes life worthwhile.

Originally Posted by Bmahon26

True, one thing we both can agree on is that our brains cannot comprehend it. For the same reasons you disprove religion by new planets, I feel it proves it. People are prisoners to egoism, we think we are the center, so when another planet that can supprt life is discovered, there must be no god because any other creature that is not familiar to us must be godless beasts lol.

The one reason I really dont like arguing atheism is becasue I find (please dont take offense, keep in mind the atheists I debate are college students <20, not grown men and women with solid beliefs) is there arguments are incredibly negative. Ik a few atheists very personally and these few in particular are just all around miserable people, I feel sorry that people can be granted such a beautiful gift in life and not appreciate it. Its as if they dont even have the belief that there is no good, its simply the trendy religious view for college students. As i get older and smarter I see it more and more, it becomes incredibly evident in their arguments. Most of their arguments have two of the major fallacies in logic.

1. Burden of Proof- Obviously you can not prove the existance of god. Atheists I have debated with feel that this is factual evidence for their cause. Since one cannot prove that god exists, he in fact must not. Obviously it is flawed logic, however this is almost always the backbone of a college atheists arguments.

2. Ad Hominum- Personal attacks on me, discrediting the opponent to further prove their point, again obviously not a logical argument.

Im interested to read what are some of the reasons educated atheists come to their decisions? It seems im in the minority on this forum in being passionate about religion, why is that? Is it because lucid dreaming seems to be an alternate reality, one that shouldnt exist if there is a god with a plan? I don't know, hope someone can fill me in.


Again I hope I didnt offend anyone, I respect atheist beliefs and recognize that no one knows the answers, I love that people differ from me so greatly, it makes life worthwhile.

1: No offence taken
2: You just don't probably notice the happy atheists. I find that the happy ones are the ones that don't go around trying to debunk others beliefs. They're there, believe me.
3: Atheists attacking you personally? That's the fault of the person itself, not the idealism of atheism.
4: Science and the laws revolving around it are very convincing. Much more so than religion. I grew up in a religion free home, so I wasn't forced to anything. My parents let me choose my path. They didn't defend either side of the argument. Now that I have no past pressures to make me choose, I find science more credible, since I know a lot about it.

Main point: (also directed at the OP) It's all belief man. Just choose what you find the best for you and live with it. And have a great time. We only live once, no need to waste time being depressed about not having a belief. Just move on with your life is my advice.

PS: I'm leaving my computer for 12h now, so I can't reply to anyhting after this :C

Wow, this post has it all. Cosmological argument, Paley's watchmaker, the works! It must be my birthday.

Originally Posted by Bmahon26

Also im a VERY strong believer of intelligent design...for those of you who arent familiar its basically the theory that scientific advances and discoveries further prove the existance of god.

It's actually the hypothesis (not theory, since we're speaking scientifically) that various aspects of life and the universe are more accurately explained by the existence of a creator instead of natural processes.

People are always discrediting religion because of science, but I have a "science tells us how, but not why" mentality.

And so does everyone else. Science doesn't really aim to answer why things happen, unless you blur the line between "why" and "how."

All of the discoveries make it obvious to me that there is in fact an intelligent designer behind all of it. I see too many characteristics of the world and universe for it to be purely coincidence, for instance the temperature of the sun, tilt of the earth, rotation of the earth, orbit of the solar system, oxygen levels, gravitational pulls, distance from the earth to the sun...there are countless of examples that need to be so unbelievably precise and exact that I find it unreasonable to believe that they are coincidental. These factors are all completely independant and if even one of them is SLIGHTLY off par, life as we know it can not exist.

It's like you're channeling William Lane Craig.

The quoted statements above are essentially reiterations of the teleological argument, which makes note of the "orderliness" and "direction" of the universe, and concludes that the only way for such direction and order to exist is for an intelligent designer to exist.

And what a ridiculous conclusion. It's a complete non-sequitur, and furthermore, an argument from ignorance. One sees order and complexity in the universe, thinks that it is entirely unlikely to happen naturally, and concludes that God exists. Richard Dawkins brought up a very good point about such an argument, namely that the creator would have to be, at least, just as complex as the object created. But surely since God is so complex, he would have to be created. The argument turns into an infinite regress and is patently retarded.

And of course the rebuttal to that is "well God must've been the 'first cause.'" But of course this is nothing but sheer absurdity. Why is he the first cause? Futhermore, the first cause could have been anything. God is not necessary.

An old teacher of mine in catholic school broke it down to a childs level that really stuck with me: he explained that in a watch, there are hundreds of dials and pieces, all of which need to work together and in harmony for the clock to function properly. They need to be in the exact location, rotate properly and every part relies on another part to maintain working order.

Now if you took apart that watch and all of its components, put it in a paper bag and simply shook it, even if you tried millions of times the clock would never function again.

Paley's watchmaker. Fun.

Except we know a watch is inorganic and thus is not flexible enough to spontaneously come back together in a working fashion when taken apart and shaken up in a bag, whereas the organic molecules of life are (especially when given billions of years).

Paley's watchmaker is just a reiteration of the teleological argument. Reread what I wrote about about that.

Edit - I'm gonna channel Hume here for a second. We see order all around us, such as snowflakes. These are complex shapes of frozen water. Were they created by an intelligent being? Certainly not.

Obviously thats a simple thought but I loved and understood the message behind it. This world/universe is so incredibly complex, that it cant be coincidence, its too perfect.

This isn't so much a case for God as it is wishful thinking and a lack of scientific understanding, it seems.

I never understood how people discredit religion by simply saying, "the big bang theory, case closed." Sure that would discredit a great amount of religious beliefs, such as creationism, but I feel it only proves the bigger picture. Where did that original energy come from, what was the force responsible for whatever existed to fuel the big bang...

No one knows. Science will come to understand with due time. But that doesn't mean we should believe in an unproven creator.

Quite frankly, it looks like a big coincidence that we are here. If something or someone intentionally put us here, wouldn't they have put us in more places as well?

Also, I'm not trying to attack anyone or their beliefs. I just find religion an interesting topic, but fail to accept it. I love learning about other's cultures and beliefs. Would I change myself to match? probably not, unless there is a good reason too. However, as humans begin to explain and understand the universe, I'm sure there will be people who are wrong and will become angry. Just look at what happened with heliocentric-ism. And the fact that the world is actually round. The people who were wrong were way angry. They even attempted to convince people the truth was a lie.

As long as people learn to accept discoveries and scientific advancements, I'm perfectly fine with them believing what they want.

I just don't want people to be like this one guy I met. He was at a parent-teacher conference, and asked the teacher if the student can do the assignment without a computer. The teacher asked why not and the man replied: "We don't have any, they are evil". This was a few years ago. This shocked me. He didn't know how computers worked, and had absolutely no reason to hate them. With me being a computer science major, you could imagine my reaction. I didn't say anything, but to this day I still remember that entire conversation.

Originally Posted by JussiKala

1: No offence taken
2: You just don't probably notice the happy atheists. I find that the happy ones are the ones that don't go around trying to debunk others beliefs. They're there, believe me.
3: Atheists attacking you personally? That's the fault of the person itself, not the idealism of atheism.
4: Science and the laws revolving around it are very convincing. Much more so than religion. I grew up in a religion free home, so I wasn't forced to anything. My parents let me choose my path. They didn't defend either side of the argument. Now that I have no past pressures to make me choose, I find science more credible, since I know a lot about it.

Main point: (also directed at the OP) It's all belief man. Just choose what you find the best for you and live with it. And have a great time. We only live once, no need to waste time being depressed about not having a belief. Just move on with your life is my advice.

PS: I'm leaving my computer for 12h now, so I can't reply to anyhting after this :C

good points, all make sense, however one thing I question is does living in a religion free home really allow you to make a decision? If there is no religion in a home, I would think that there is an underlying tone of atheism..but then again with that reasoning is impossible to create a neutral home....interesting

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

Wow, this post has it all. Cosmological argument, Paley's watchmaker, the works! It must be my birthday.



It's actually the hypothesis (not theory, since we're speaking scientifically) that various aspects of life and the universe are more accurately explained by the existence of a creator instead of natural processes.

And so does everyone else. Science doesn't really aim to answer why things happen, unless you blur the line between "why" and "how."

It's like you're channeling William Lane Craig.

The quoted statements above are essentially reiterations of the teleological argument, which makes note of the "orderliness" and "direction" of the universe, and concludes that the only way for such direction and order to exist is for an intelligent designer to exist.

And what a ridiculous conclusion. It's a complete non-sequitur, and furthermore, an argument from ignorance. One sees order and complexity in the universe, thinks that it is entirely unlikely to happen naturally, and concludes that God exists. Richard Dawkins brought up a very good point about such an argument, namely that the creator would have to be, at least, just as complex as the object created. But surely since God is so complex, he would have to be created. The argument turns into an infinite regress and is patently retarded.

And of course the rebuttal to that is "well God must've been the 'first cause.'" But of course this is nothing but sheer absurdity. Why is he the first cause? Futhermore, the first cause could have been anything. God is not necessary.

Paley's watchmaker. Fun.

Except we know a watch is inorganic and thus is not flexible enough to spontaneously come back together in a working fashion when taken apart and shaken up in a bag, whereas the organic molecules of life are (especially when given billions of years).

Paley's watchmaker is just a reiteration of the teleological argument. Reread what I wrote about about that.

Edit - I'm gonna channel Hume here for a second. We see order all around us, such as snowflakes. These are complex shapes of frozen water. Were they created by an intelligent being? Certainly not.

This isn't so much a case for God as it is wishful thinking and a lack of scientific understanding, it seems.

No one knows. Science will come to understand with due time. But that doesn't mean we should believe in an unproven creator.

Interesting, I dont necessarily agree, but I see where youre comming from. Now with the standpoint that religion has a flaw in the "god is first theory" what are your views? Do you believe anything was "first?" I cant think of a situation other than creation as far as the universe goes, even if it means the smallest measurement of energy being created and science do the rest...I imagine that whatever the theory is would be a basis for atheism, I just don't know what it is

Originally Posted by Bmahon26

Interesting, I dont necessarily agree, but I see where youre comming from. Now with the standpoint that religion has a flaw in the "god is first theory" what are your views? Do you believe anything was "first?" I cant think of a situation other than creation as far as the universe goes, even if it means the smallest measurement of energy being created and science do the rest...I imagine that whatever the theory is would be a basis for atheism, I just don't know what it is

If we're talking about what was "first" in the sense that the universe was created (whether naturally or intelligently), I don't know, and neither does anyone else. I think it is very highly unlikely that an intelligent designer created the universe. Can I, with absolute certainty, say an intelligent designer does not exist? No, because absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. But don't entertain the notion that just because I can't disprove something mean that said something exists.

Aside from there being a staggering lack of evidence and ridiculously flawed logical mental gymnastics being employed in the case for a creator, I think the whole notion of a creator is merely a leftover ancient human practice of invoking the God of the gaps. That is, whenever humans encountered something they didn't understand, they would explain it away with concepts like sin, demons, gods, and magic. Only a few thousand years ago did we not know why rain fell from the sky. What did humans do? Created stories about how the Rain God was crying or something like that.

Originally Posted by JussiKala

It's a well known fact that religion is so well accepted since parents tell their childs that god is real. And children are programmed to accept anything their parents tell them as truth, even later in life. This belief is very hard to get rid of.

Exactly what happend to me, when I started questioning religion I thought I was going to hell and stuff, it took me quite a few years to break away from religion. It was hard and when I made the decision I was sick to my stomach. I see through all of the flaws in religion now, I feel like I was brain washed... I don't claim that god definantly doesn't exist, but until I see some proof I will believe otherwise. Religion is a primitive way that people without science explain the universe.

Originally Posted by Kafke

Why do people blindly follow a book? No, I'm not atheist, Buddhist, agnostic or any other label you try and throw on me. I don't believe labels can be applied to people. I've come to ask some questions. And I seriously want to know the answers.

Labels can be applied to people, but it is very unlikely that those labels will completely encompass what that person is since this is constantly changing. Having labeled something is not the same as knowing completely what it is.

Originally Posted by Kafke

I don't understand why people credit the good things to God.

Well duh, they're spelled almost exactly the same. I don't know much about etymology but I'd guess that the word God came directly from the word good(although they may have been different words in a different language).

Well I looked it up and apparently they aren't related, or at least not God proper. However it says that god was the old english version of good.

Originally Posted by Kafke

Another big question: What is a spirit? or Soul? or w/e you people call it. I've heard that term thrown around so much I almost went crazy. I asked and they explained it as emotion. What does it mean? How can a person have one? Do plants have souls? What about planets, stars, or animals? If we met aliens, would they have one? What about an autistic person? Do they have a soul?

I believe the soul is a persons collection of experience, their subjective take on the world.

Animals have souls, of course, how else would all dogs go to heaven? But seriously I don't think plants have souls or feelings at least not in the same way humans do. Saltyseadog(a user here) once said that plants have feelings too and I was just assuming they didn't (in a vegetarianism debate). Hopefully he reads this cause I still really wanna know why he thinks they do. To me the soul comes from consciousness, from experience. But this is not all that is needed to make it. Intelligence, memory and emotion are also needed.

Personally I would define spirit as life. Not life as in

Originally Posted by Kafke

I'm just not getting it. All of the religious people I have talked to, just chock up anything they don't know to religion. Whether it be math, science, literature, or anything else. How come some religious people don't like certain video games? Like grand theft auto or other violent video games? Do they not realize that it is fake? How can it affect you at all?

Actually video games do effect you. They don't make you violent, but they do effect your mindset. GTA in particular. My friend once told me after he played GTA he always drove faster and more aggressively. They put you in an aggressive mindset. Being in an aggressive mindset is not inherently bad or anything, but it certainly isn't good for all situations.

Anything you do or experience has an effect on you.

Originally Posted by Kafke

Why don't those who believe in heaven suicide? If heaven is so much better, then why stay on earth?

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

Or lack thereof.

To the OP: I'm not sure why you take issue with people applying labels to themselves. Labels are merely names for concepts that people agree with. They help to identify various classes of beliefs (or non-beliefs), so that people can easily speak to each other. Which is easier, saying "I'm a communist," or "I believe private property should be abolished and all resources put into public ownership?"

It's easier to say I'm a communist, but it is clearer what you mean if you say "I believe private property should be abolished and all resources put into public ownership?". I have no problem with people labeling themselves, but I really don't label myself because I don't get my identity from my beliefs. On top of this many labels are misunderstood, for example if I was to say "I'm an anarchist", this is a true statement, but it probably would be misinterpreted, that's why I say I'm a voluntarist, because people don't have preconceptions about what that means.

As far as whether or not I'm an atheist, that depends on how you define it. If you define it as one who holds the belief that no gods exist, I'm not one, but if it is just the lack of belief in a god then I am. Is there a correct definition? One that is academically accepted or something?

But I think that lacking a belief in something does not really merit a label in some ways. At least not so much that you identify with the label. For example there is no label for those who don't believe in unicorns.

Originally Posted by stonedape

It's easier to say I'm a communist, but it is clearer what you mean if you say "I believe private property should be abolished and all resources put into public ownership?". I have no problem with people labeling themselves, but I really don't label myself because I don't get my identity from my beliefs. On top of this many labels are misunderstood, for example if I was to say "I'm an anarchist", this is a true statement, but it probably would be misinterpreted, that's why I say I'm a voluntarist, because people don't have preconceptions about what that means.

Fair enough.

As far as whether or not I'm an atheist, that depends on how you define it. If you define it as one who holds the belief that no gods exist, I'm not one, but if it is just the lack of belief in a god then I am. Is there a correct definition? One that is academically accepted or something?

If we accept the dictionary as a standard, then atheism is the lack of belief in God.