MtnManInMT

I have asked many questions to try to understand what it is that drive Athiest thought only to come up with one definitive, that you do not belive in the exsistance of God. What, then do you suscribe to as evidences for your lack of belief and do your positions enrich your exsistance?

As one of Faith, I not only Support the Scientific Method but relish in that which they are able to prove. None of that which has been proven is inconsistant with my belief. I am not thretened by it in fact I wish more organizations would subscribe to it.

Science and the Scientific Method have nothing to do with faith and so far have only confirmed certian natural laws which are constant with (as they are) the Laws of God. Truth is eternal, unchanging. I applaud the efforts of Man to prove or disprove it.

Don't get me wrong I am not a Christian conformist. But as one who studies and applys the scientific method, I do not see any contridiction with Faith in Theory.

Why is this such a rub with Atheists?

I appreciate all of the athiests who have waded through several of my questions as I try to reconcile several of the answerers, disparit comments. While I do not share your lack of belief I do respect your position and can understand it.

An statement is often made that, beyond your common agreement that Atheists simply hold a lack of beleif in God, there is a common feeling of the need to protect your rights. I can only assume that is what has given rise to the many Athiest organizations that some here have given me reference to (it is what most of there sites are framed around).

Could somone explain how one would lose the right to not believe? I mean I realize that it is contrary to the constitution etc. but is there or has there been legislation brought forth that would limit your right to not believe? How would that be accomplished? I am aware of the effort of some to try to restore rights of faith that were over turned.

Okay in my last question I posted the "teaching"s of Athiesm from American Atheists Org. and I got blasted for asking if they were indeed what you teach. I am just trying to understand why you all tell me one thing then you give me references that say another. I know you all don't beleive the same thing. No two groups of those of faith do either. I am just trying to reconcile what you all are telling me. This group perports to represent you. I am just asking if they do. Here is their "creed" the link is http://www.atheists.org/visitors.center/because.ht...

We Are Atheists Because...

* There is no proof of the existence of god.

* There is no need of, or use for, a god.

* A good god would be useless if it were not powerful.

* A powerful god would not deserve worship if he were not good.

* There is no all-powerful good god; otherwise there would be no

imperfection.

(I will post it all in just a minute)

This is right of the American Atheist site. This is what they claim Athiests Teach. Is this Right? Do you dedicate your time to teach this? To me this does not support what you have all told me previously and this is just the "teachings". I will post the "beliefs" next. It is much more of an agressive stance than those of you who have answered me have indicated. What's up?

Atheism Teaches That...

* There is no heavenly father.

Humankind must protect the orphans and foundlings, or they will

not be protected.

* There is no god to answer prayer.

Man must hear and help man.

* There is no hell.

We have no vindictive god or devil to fear or imitate.

* There is no atonement or salvation by faith.

We must face the consequences of our acts.

* There is no beneficent or malevolent intent in nature.

Life is a struggle against preventable and unpreventable evils.

The cooperation of humankind is the only hope of the world.

* There is no chance after death to "do our bit."

We must do it now or never.

* There is no divine guardian of truth, goodness, beauty, and

liberty.

These are attributes of humankind. We must defend them or they

will perish from the earth.

I asked several questions about what Athiest held in common and was pretty much told that it was only a lack of belief in God. I'm cool with that as it is whet the word means.

Then in many of the answers people say that Atheist don't readily disclose that they are because those who do are so discriminated against in America. What's up with that? How do you discriminate against a lack of belief? Is it like hey you can't come to my church cause you don't believe? Is that discrimination? If so why would you care?

By the way you can come to my church any time weather you believe or not.

Love ya!

Okay so I asked in several ways if there were beliefs that Athiest held in common beyond a lack or non acceptance of any belief in God and I was told almost unannomusly that there was not. Then I asked another question and was given quite a list of Atheist organizations and their realted affiliations and most have creeds of belief that suggest otherwise. What's up? Are these just isolated nonprofit lobbies promoting an agenda or is there more to organized Atheism than many of you know, are willing to let on, or do you all just not subscribe to the beliefs of the American Atheists Org.?

Okay I now have clarified, for myself and others, that "Atheism" is purely an abreviated way to say one has no belief in a deity. Just as "Theism" means only a belief in deity.

My question is, while I understand there is no "Atheistic" organization per say, are there any groups of notible size that "SPECIFY" as a part of their organizational articles, a atheistic stance and meet together regularly to share, discuss and apply common ideas on the origin of the universe, and man's purpose or progression?

If so, could you please site examples and if possible point to the organizational statement that includes this stance?

Thanks in advance!

This excludes any of the major religious organizations like Buddists, Taoists, etc. as they do not name but do not refute the exsitance of deity.

If so are there any other notions of atheism that you all agree on?

I am just trying to understand what is consitantly held by Atheists.

This is a follow up to my last question.

Please no more long cut and Pastes. just sources please. I can go and read. Thanks.

If so, where are the generally accepted broader definitions recorded?

Sources please.

If you don't know don't bother answering.

I am a Christian Theist (but obviously non-traditional from the standpoint of many Christian answerers here.

A basic tenant of my faith states:

"We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where or what they may."

Is this teaching offencive to anyone? Why?

My only clarification is that I already know it is offencive to some "Christian" sects, I don't really understand why, as it is consistant with the teaching of Christ but I understand it still the same. I am looking for any others whom it is offencive to and their rational.

I believe all should respected in their belief in so far as they act according to that which they profess (that includes Atheism, although I understand it is not a belief based concept).

See my prior question(s) (sorry I tryed to add details and it submited them as a new question.)

When I say most I am only refering to those that answer here, not the genneral population.

Atheism, as I understand it is defined solely as an unacceptace ( i have said denial, but am often corrected) of diety as to them it is an unproven concept. I can understand and accept that.

Theism, is the acceptance of God. Why does almost every answer from Athiest assume that Theism is limited in scope to written history, a book or something else? It is not.

True, most religions are limiting in the acceptance of scripture. But that has no bering on Theism.

Why does Theism get painted so narrowly when it is in every way as diverse as Atheism?

I am a theist but am open to all lines of thought.

Atheism is to religion as Conservatism is to Liberalism.

I know this sounds odd and I don't necessarily believe it in it's pure form but consider this:

Atheism limits acceptance to that which is proven of Science. (conservitive)

Theist choose to belive that which is not yet proven of men but which is confirmed of the Spirit. (Liberal)

If this is true then why does it seem that in practice, most atheist are liberals based in a conservitive belief system and most Theist are consrtvitives based in a liberal belief set?

Often in practice they are at the exteem end of the views that are of opposet polarity to their beleif system?

Follow on:

These are some really interesting answers! Thanks, As I stated I do not necessarily believe this but wondered id it was a good analogy. I guess my difficulty with atheism is that it is not definable as it is a disbelief having no paramiters other than denial of God. At least that is what Webster says. Is there more, where?

Atheism is to religion as Conservatism is to Liberalism.

I know this sounds odd and I don't necessarily believe it in it's pure form but consider this:

Atheism limits their belief to that which is proven of Science. (conservitive)

Theist choose to belive that which is not yet proven of men but which is confirmed of the Spirit. (Liberal)

If this is true then why does it seem that in practice, most atheist are liberals based in a conservitive belief system and most Theist are consrtvitives based in a liberal belief set?

Often in practice they are at the exteem end of the views that are of opposet polarity to their beleif system?

Follow on:

These are some really interesting answers! Thanks, As I stated I do not necessarily believe this but wondered id it was a good analogy. I guess my difficulty with atheism is that it is not definable as it is a disbelief having no paramiters other than denial of God. At least that is what Webster says. Is there more?

Atheism is to religion as Conservatism is to Liberalism.

I know this sounds odd and I don't necessarily believe it in it's pure form but consider this:

Atheism limits their belief to that which is proven of Science. (conservitive)

Theist choose to belive that which is not yet proven of men but which is confirmed of the Spirit. (Liberal)

If this is true then why does it seem that in practice, most atheist are liberals based in a conservitive belief system and most Theist are consrtvitives based in a liberal belief set?

Often in practice they are at the exteem end of the views that are of opposet polarity to their beleif system?

Isn't that another category? Not that I mind, but why isn't there a category for non-believers? I think they deserve one. Just courious?

Oh, there is? Philosophy? Hmm, then why is it that so many that accuse Chistians of attacking, close mindedness and limited intelligence spend so much time here. Who is the agressor in this senerio?

Hi, I'm not an atheist, but I find it interesting that many Atheist, not all and I can apreciate that, post that their position is based on scientific evidence, when science by definition puts forth it's Theory of Origins, Evolution, Genesis etc., as just that. Scientific theory of the origin of human life has not been proven, yet many Athiest are open and often ready to grasp at these theorys.

Why is it that when science, you, or anyone on earth can not prove the exsistance of human life to be anything other than that of a supream creator, do you, who claim to be open minded, in search of answers, choose to deny the evidence and harmony of natural laws of propogation all around you that are evidences that in perpetuity would suggest that there is a creator? (ie: a bird is begotten of a bird, tree is begotton of a tree, a man is the offspring of one who had like form?)

Just the thought of this obviously less than enlighten soul?

I've got this brainiac niece. She is a great reader! She is only nine but is really interested in speed reading. Her mom is looking for a computer based program and asked me if I knew of one. This one is out if my area of knowlege so I thought I'd turn to you for help. If you know of a good one please let me know what it is and why it is better than the others out there. Remember it's for a nine year old. I didn't get into speed reading till I was several years older, is 9 to young?

If a euorpean sparrow were to circumnavigate the globe carring two halves of an empty cocoanut shell, what additional velosity would it have to travel at if it were to pass through the african continant on its way, to reach it's home point at the same time as if it were to travel in a due eastward direction?

Hi, my 10 year old boy (has a sister age 12) is really a great kid. He is quite smart, has a gennerally pleasent personnality, but has a short fuse when he gets upset or confused about something. I know he is ten, but otherwise he is almost the ideal son so to see him become so agressive, even lash out at times when he is just confused or upset by small things concerns me? Any advise?