I dont like to post on the controversial threads, but I feel the need to stick my two cents in on this one. TRUE BLUE athieism subscribes to the notion that life orginates out of nothing, goes nowhere, means nothing and that human intelligence is the beginning and end of it all. Judging by the lyrics, words and the actions of Eddie, there is no way he believes that. Athiests are more serious and commited to their beliefs than most southern baptists are, and most people who claim to be athiests are simply agnostics who believe that there is maybe something up/out there, but cant understand how an all-powerful being can let all the bad things that happen in the world and in their lives go on. And most of those who claim to be athiests also hate the hypocrisy of organized religion a lot more than they hate the idea of a God. But not believing in organized religion IS NOT athieism. Listen, a person who believes in hope, love, positive thinking, and making a positive difference in the world, as I believe Vedder and the other guys in PJ do, isnt truly an athiest, just one who can't accept what organized religion and doctrine is subscribing. To me, Vedder and the guys are very spiritual people in the true sense of the word....every time he says "we can feel ya" in concert he reaffirms that.

You are so wrong.

An atheist is simply a person who lacks a positive belive in dieties. That's it.

Atheists can be political conservatives or liberals. They can be nice people or assholes (most atheists I know are nice). They can be of any race or nationality.

It really doesn't take a genius to figure out there's no gods, so atheists can pretty much be anybody. They don't even have to be smart. Atheists don't even have to be skeptics on other issues, there can even be crazy nutty conspiracy theorist atheists.

I think maybe you're confusing the word "atheist" with the word "nihilist."

I am an atheist, and I know hundreds of atheists and none of them are like what you have described.

Also, with regard to the term "spiritual" this is such a nebulous term. It does not mean that the feelings come from gods or angels or ghosts or something supernatural. I could say that I get spiritual feelings when I attend a rock concert, but I still don't believe in supernatural beings. Just because someone says they are spiritual or have spiritual experiences does not mean they believe in spirits.

you saying that is like someone saying "it doesnt take a genious to figure out jesus christ is the savior of the world"

it also seems that reason you are so sure eddie vedder is an atheist is b/c you yourself are one and you feel you relate to mr. vedder b/f you think you have the same beliefs

I am not so wrong....You just basically described an agnostic....its just semantics, but your statement about lacking a "positive belief in dieties" is the very defintion of agnosticism. To me there is a very important distinction between a agnostic and an athiest...an agnostic says I have too many questions to just simply believe in the god of the organized religions, but I dont know for sure, but I do have an open mind about stuff.....athiests are arrogant and vain enough to say FOR CERTAIN that all the worlds great religious and spiritual thinkers throughout history were wrong.

Conversely, believers in god are arrogant and vain enough to say FOR CERTAIN that all atheists throughout history are wrong.

who said that? I don't think that. I think people who believe in god/gods and angels and ghosts and devils and that kind of stuff are mistaken, but that doesn't mean they can't be right about other things.

ah... I was wondering how long it would take before someone responded like this. true though.

Wow this is really going places.

This logic implies that ANYbody who has developed a belief about the creation, purpose, and future of this existence is arrogant, because they're willing to say that they suspect the opposing/different notions to be in error.



Actually, "true blue atheism" subscribes to the idea that life is largely a rare but potentially widespread event resulting from the right set of scientific principles manifesting themselves. Where that life goes or evolves is dependent upon many factors, and that intelligence is a development which allows us to affect and adapt to our surroundings to a far greater extent than most species, as well as develop (and adjust) a sense of what qualifies as moral behavior.



This part is probably pretty accurate. I push myself pretty hard in the hopes of making this life as good as possible for myself and others, and the idea that there is no afterlife, no additional maintanence of perception or awareness beyond death, is a focal point for most of my decision-making.

I definately think that a lot of people fall in the realm of agnostic, and mislabel themselves.



I am continuously irritated by the way mythology influences a population's decision-making, but I would say religion is no different than any human device in that it is sometimes used to excuse abuses or destruction, but in and of itself is not a problem. I do not hate the idea of a god at all.



Inaccurate. I hope you didn't really mean to imply that someone who believes in love and has hope for human improvement cannot at the same time believe that there is no god or afterlife? That doesn't equate.


I feel like I'm in News and Debate!

it's pointless to argue about whether or not there are gods. there is no absolute proof one way or the other. however since there have been so many hundreds if not thousands or even millions of gods made up throught human existence and since its much more likely that these are ideas that people created, and not actual real beings, it is likely that the gods that people believe in today are just as imaginary as the ones people used to believe in but don't anymore.

can i prove it? no of course not, you can not prove the non existence of something. but you can think about what is more likely: there are gods and invisible creatures who rule the world, or there aren't. i think it is more probable that there aren't. if you think there are, that's fine, i don't care.

bottom line is we are all humans, we all have the right to believe whatever we want.

wrong again.

an agnostic might say "i dont know if there is a god or not" or "it is not possible to know whether or not there are gods"

an atheist might say "it's likely there are no gods" or "i'm pretty sure there are no gods"

atheists dont say "i know there are no gods" or "i can prove there are no gods"

there is really not that much difference between an agnostic and an atheist. i could go by either.

conversely, it is usually religious believers who are so certain and closed-minded about their beliefes.

lacking a positive belief in dieties is the definition of an atheist.

i am not going to believe in something if there is no evidence for it. if there is evidence for it, i'd be happy to look at it and change my mind if such a change is warranted by the evidence. until then i'm an atheist.

atheists still keep an open mind.

peace.

Why do religious people take it so peronally when you throw facts at them that put most opf teh bible into question? The trump card for them is "you just believe"

I'm agnostic, leaning towards atheist, and its movies like Signs that do it for me. you just take what you see in life and you mind does the rest.

I dont "thank God" when something fortunate happens to me. If i or anyone believes everything happens for a reason or we have no control over our lives they are selling themselves short, in my opinion.

The Bible says, God gave us free will to find our way back to him to "prove" ourselves, but arent all of our choices in life Free Will? Wouldnt this then mean we make ourselves into who we want to be and our own choices exist independantly from God? So if by our own Free Will, we choose to do something and something happens because of that, how can we claim God played a role in this. If our Free Will is an independant wild card, if you will, anything resulting of that should also be independant of God.

Another turning point for me was Astrology class. The universe is so huge and expansive and yet there is no mention of anythign in the bible. If God created everything, he would have all the knowledge of the entire universe in its entirety, not to mention the entire planet earth.

The reason i am so skeptical is the most important fascinating part of the bible takes place in the first few lines. about god creating the heavens and earth in 7 days. Does this mean God is familiar with ozone layer, and the earths core? Does God just have a roll in Earth? No othe rplanets, we know they exist, but nothing besides a small section of the middle east was importanmt enough for teh good book.

My point being, there are so many holes, and something like religion is a little too important to say "just believe" So my knowledge thus far is, there is nothing greater, and im comfortable with it. God has enough power to end it all, he should have neough power show up and just tell it how it is, and then go back to whatever he wa sbusy with since the days of teh bible that has kept him off this planet.

Keiv,

Do you celebrate Christmas or Winter Solstice?


Or perhaps Festivus?


Seriously though, do you give people presents in late December?

People who dont believe in Jesus can still celebrate Christmas. Why do peopel give gifts to other people on Christs Birthday? How many of the 7 sins exist over "Christmas" Gluttony, Greed......so id say people who dont believe in Jesus are prolly better off celebrating Christmas.

One could also argue that because so many different societies developed similar philosophies regarding the origin of the universe, they must have gotten that idea from somewhere. Of course, it's not anything close to proof, but that fact alone cannot be any kind of basis for belief one way or the other. It could be used as evidence for either side, depending on the spin put on it.

There was ariticle i did a report on for Psycology on "The God Gene" It was really interesting. About brothers, sisters or twins seperated at birth and their religious beliefs after like 30 years of seperation to see if they were born with beliefs or it was imply society. I think it very supportive of no God gene, the percent of similar beliefs were rather small.

Maybe i just dont like teh fact believing in this stuff is liek saying my friend Mohamud wont pass judgement day or othe rpeople die by the hand of not believeng....there is something unheavenly and unpure about thsi thought for me.

I'm not suggesting that people are born with an inherent belief in God of some sort. I'm just simply arguing that the diversity of religions found in the world is by no means evidence that God does not exist.



That is something that varies by belief system. Even within Christianity, you have a huge spectrum ranging from born agains who think God chooses who is saved and accepts very few, to Universalists who believe that everybody will be saved on the basis that God loves all his children.

I personally am of the belief that people can only be judged according the their actions, and according to what they know. It seems ridiculous to me that a devout peace-loving Muslim who does nothing but good would be condemned just because of the culture he was born into. I don't think that belief precludes me from a belief in God.

This brings us to a point I'm fairly interested in. Most religious people seem to have adapted their religion to their personal beliefs almost to the same extent that they have adapted their beliefs to fit the religion. In other words, something like Christianity becomes this undefined, nonspecific idea within which most people find a place they are comfortable with. How does one reconcile these beliefs with something like the Bible, especially when they contradict its teachings?

I believe that the inability to think critically may very well be tied to genetics.

This is true, and this is why there are so many different versions of Christianity. The problem with the Bible does not become not the seeming contradictions, but instead figuring out how it is to be interpreted. The Bible itself is slightly enigmatic, in that even scholars cannot agree on what anything means, leading to confusion in that regard. So it becomes difficult to point out contradictions between any particular belief system and the Bible until we know what the authors actually meant.

My personal belief is that there is modern Christianity--the undefined, nonspecific idea which you referred to, which has been adapted to fit the beliefs of all sorts of different people--and Christianity--the actual physical organization created by Jesus and led by his apostles.