Atheists Haven (Not heaven).

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I dont think you really understand the term God. Perhaps if you refrained from assuming so much it might come to you. Has it ever occurred to you that the term God may have a broader meaning than the narrow perspective that atheists often seek to associate it with? Perhaps this narrow perspective is the result of having limited their search for truth ...[text shortened]... unintelligent agencies has led many to make a God of science. How limiting. How disappointing.

How self-serving.

You act like you're the first to have this idea.

Originally posted by Suzianne
How self-serving.

You act like you're the first to have this idea.

What is it you want your airheadness?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
No its far from obvious. In fact i would go as far as to term it dogmatic to state that its obvious. Again this reductionist thinking and narrowing of perspective seems endemic to our atheist friends who assume too much at times. What I have actually stated is that to many science has become for them like a God. Even you yourself are treating it as an omnipotent all powerful megolith which we must gaze upon in wonderment and awe.

That's an absurd and nonsensical caricature of science and my view on it. Science has proven useful in our everyday lives. Scientific theories that are not, are disregarded. This is a far cry from worshipping a deity.

And, I haven't said it in a few posts now, so let me repeat: none of this has anything to do with atheism.

Originally posted by C Hess
That's an absurd and nonsensical caricature of science and my view on it. Science has proven useful in our everyday lives. Scientific theories that are not, are disregarded. This is a far cry from worshipping a deity.

And, I haven't said it in a few posts now, so let me repeat: none of this has anything to do with atheism.

a caricature of science and my view on it - yes isn't it! tee hee! 😀

Originally posted by Suzianne
As innate as his understanding of God is, he's still a dog. 🙂

There's a lesson there.

A priest, a minister, and a rabbi want to see who can best bring out the innate understanding of God in a dog. They each go to the park, find a stray dog, and attempt to convert it. Later they get together, to compare notes.
The priest begins: “When I found the dog I read to him from the Catechism and sprinkled him with holy water. Next week is his first communion.”
“I found a dog by the stream,” says the minister, “and preached God’s holy word. The dog was so mesmerized that he let me baptize him.” They both looked down at the rabbi, who was lying on the ground covered in bites and scratches.
“In retrospect" said the rabbi, “maybe I shouldn't have started with the circumcision."

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
A priest, a minister, and a rabbi want to see who can best bring out the innate understanding of God in a dog. They each go to the park, find a stray dog, and attempt to convert it. Later they get together, to compare notes.
The priest begins: “When I found the dog I read to him from the Catechism and sprinkled him with holy water. Next week is his ...[text shortened]... tches.
“In retrospect" said the rabbi, “maybe I shouldn't have started with the circumcision."

😵

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
a caricature of science and my view on it - yes isn't it! tee hee! 😀

Pffft, you know what I meant. 🙄

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
A priest, a minister, and a rabbi want to see who can best bring out the innate understanding of God in a dog. They each go to the park, find a stray dog, and attempt to convert it. Later they get together, to compare notes.
The priest begins: “When I found the dog I read to him from the Catechism and sprinkled him with holy water. Next week is his ...[text shortened]... tches.
“In retrospect" said the rabbi, “maybe I shouldn't have started with the circumcision."

The truth of the matter is, given enough time, the dog will convert each of these to his innate understanding, which is closer and more natural than theirs.

If you've ever owned and loved a dog, you know what I'm talking about.

Originally posted by Suzianne
The truth of the matter is, given enough time, the dog will convert each of these to his innate understanding, which is closer and more natural than theirs.

If you've ever owned and loved a dog, you know what I'm talking about.

My dog owns me. (Though the cat owns us both).

😞

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
My dog owns me. (Though the cat owns us both).

😞

You got doubly pwnd.

Originally posted by C Hess
Scientific theories are the exact opposite of religious dogma. The whole point of the scientific endevour is to reject poorly supported theories, while building on theories with good evidential support and predictive power. All you have to do to knock a theory over is study it, and the evidence for it, and provide either a better explanation, or evidence agai ...[text shortened]... you can still accept scientific theories, even if you're not an atheist. See the difference now?

The origin of each can be different, it does not mean that people don’t treat them the
same way. The point of scientific endeavors is the reject poorly supported theories, I’d
agree with you, but people who love their beliefs will defend them. You can look on these
boards and see the hate flung around with those that disagree. The name calling, the
insults, it is no different than some here who are defending their religious points of view!
I’m not talking about the source, but how people behave! Your dogma colors your world
and everything in it, to alter it changes everything on how you see all things around you.
You see God in the definition below, or just the fact that truth through authority rests at
the heart of the discussion?


Wikipedia:
Dogma is a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true. It serves as part of the primary basis of an ideology or belief system, and it cannot be changed or discarded without affecting the very system's paradigm, or the ideology itself.

Originally posted by googlefudge

Atheist have stories yes, are they the same for all, no. That is true of Theist as well.

Theism isn't a religion either.

Christianity is a religion, Islam is a religion, Hinduism is a religion, theism is not a religion.

A theist is a person who believes in the existence of a god or gods.

I would say that this by definition make ...[text shortened]... e is no 'theist belief system'.

Thus there is no 'theist religion' and no 'atheist religion'.

The difference between Christians and Atheist is that the Christians have a source that
does not just rest within them, that being scripture. I also believe that God is also a
source for our all of our beliefs as well, I’ll acknowledge I cannot prove God, but can
point to our text. The other religions of the world have central figure heads or something
that would bind them together.

The (I don't believe in anything belief system) is an amusing statement, but being that our
lives don't abide vacuum’s it will fill what has been vacated with something, So I reject that.
You can say you reject God and gods, no biggie but you will replace all that means with
something. A godless universe is still a universe where we are looking for reasons, trying
to figure out what is right and wrong and you will use whatever you mind latches onto to
rationalize your views.

Atheist I cannot imagine share many views since each one figures it out on their own,
and the idea of religious tenets would be ludacris under those conditions, but still you
must have something to use to figure out right and wrong, there must me some plum line
to see what is level and is not, there must be a scale to see if one is being mistreated or
treated fairly. Whatever godless measuring device, or scales for right and wrong is your
source for your beliefs, it doesn’t matter if you are alone in what you pick, or you agree
with others to the point of a doctrine, but there will be something to fill the void.

Originally posted by KellyJay

Atheist I cannot imagine share many views since each one figures it out on their own,
and the idea of religious tenets would be ludicrous under those conditions, but still you
must have something to use to figure out right and wrong, there must me some plum line.

Enter morality, exit God.

Originally posted by KellyJay
I’m not talking about the source, but how people behave!

But the "source" makes all the difference, between evidence based opinions and faith based opinions. They're worlds apart, and if you find individials along the entire spectrum, behaving similarly toward each other, that doesn't mean that they're all equally justified in their behaviours.

Oh, and by the way, behaviour also is not about atheism.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Dogma is a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true. It serves as part of the primary basis of an ideology or belief system, and it cannot be changed or discarded without affecting the very system's paradigm, or the ideology itself.

And this is why atheism, theism and science, all fails to be considered dogmatic in and of themselves. Two are strictly about believing (or not) in the existence of god(s), not what to do with that belief, and the last is about finding the best evidence based explanations to natural phenomena, and one of the core ideas is to be willing to change your mind according to new evidence.

I see now that we understand each other. Thank you. 🙂