I am an Atheist and always have been.

To me the interesting thing about this thread is the diversity. It's good. It is very informative to me.

Those who go to church will hear a sermon. Agree or not agree in their own minds and go on about their lives. Next Sunday they will be in church. They, again, will agree or not agree and go on with their lives. Next Sunday they will appear again. The question in my mind is why do they continue to go to church??
It's what we have always done may be the answer.
It is what draws the family together for at least one day? It matters because it is right? Tradition?? Comfort in knowing that everything is right in your life?
Do the words spoken in the sermon have an effect? Do they matter?
Is belief and denominational preference just a matter of upbringing and tradition?
So many questions. Not just for you but for me. I believe in God. I believe he talks to me. I believe he knows me better than I know myself. I know he is there.
Does anyone else feel the same?
 
My favorite is when and if they have members get up and do testimony. Not many do I think. I love hearing those
personal stories and how it effected them. I think when the sermon is really hitting close to something you are going through
or grateful about at the time, you focus in a bit better. In so doing that, if the next sermon doesn't catch your focus you can bet
it does for someone else.
To be honest the main thing that will turn me off of a church is if they have strong cliques that leave
you out of being a part of a project. I had that happen at two I was trying out to see if I felt they were the one.
All churches don't fit for every one and they sure aren't the same even if they carry the same name.
My family didn't attend church, none since moving to California in the 1940s. I am the only one that has attended regularly when
I found the one that helped me with love, compassion and acceptance. I keep Him with me everyday, I need Him every day to block
that other voice whispering in the other ear. You know what I mean :rolleyes: Sometimes I fail but it's not long before I know it.
 
rbtvgo said:
To me the interesting thing about this thread is the diversity. It's good. It is very informative to me.

Those who go to church will hear a sermon. Agree or not agree in their own minds and go on about their lives. Next Sunday they will be in church. They, again, will agree or not agree and go on with their lives. Next Sunday they will appear again. The question in my mind is why do they continue to go to church??
It's what we have always done may be the answer.
It is what draws the family together for at least one day? It matters because it is right? Tradition?? Comfort in knowing that everything is right in your life?
Do the words spoken in the sermon have an effect? Do they matter?
Is belief and denominational preference just a matter of upbringing and tradition?
So many questions. Not just for you but for me. I believe in God. I believe he talks to me. I believe he knows me better than I know myself. I know he is there.
Does anyone else feel the same?
Click to expand...
I've seen hypocrisy in church. I don't go these days but i will say despite the hypocrisy, I don't think it's what is taught or one is used to, when I DO go despite the other stuff or the sermon I feel HIM. I don't care if it's a wedding I don't really feel like going to or a holiday or a Sunday, by the time I leave I feel something beyond all of it. That strikes in a MAJOR way. Even if hypocritical, somewhere I did not want to be, it just takes over ME and it isn't because I am looking for it either...

Such is one of the many reasons I believe. There isn't any describing some things...
 
gruntlabor said:
Science has all the answers. (irony)
We're doomed.
Click to expand...

Science provides NO answers. It offers only a consensus belief based on available evidence. If more evidence is found, or better interpretations are made, so the consensus changes, and the "belief" of science changes.

It's a common mistake to think that science offers categorical answers.

Warrigal said:
Overall, we looked for similarities more than we focussed on differences.
Click to expand...

I applaud you, and your outlook. Sadly, there are too few like you.

Rich said:
I would think that during war both (or all) sides likely pray to their respective gods.
Click to expand...

Perhaps. But a higher level of thinking is those same people asking themselves, how does war relate to my beliefs?

gruntlabor said:
Considering the history of the Catholic church I think the Pope should siddown and shuddup.
Click to expand...

Hm. He's the head of the Catholic Church, he should be speaking the MOST. There are reparations due, and he should speak on it. Still, if you can point me to a belief system that is guilt free.............

MACKTEXAS said:
And maybe there's someone else in a high position who should consider the ramifications of angering 53-77 million adherents to the Pope.
Click to expand...

There are not enough people who were outraged. For all the God believers in the US, when it's time to stand up and say something isn't right, too few are willing to do so. IMO.

rbtvgo said:
And there are so many similarities. We all funnel back to a point where we connect. We are all connected and yet we are not. God's name may be spoken differently but it is the same God. The one. The I AM.
Click to expand...

Thank you for your thoughtful post. Perhaps predictably, I have a slight issue with it. That is, you quote only from the Bible, which doesn't suggest to me that you truly believe in one God, and only one. Perhaps I'm being unfair?

AutumnGal said:
It is a fairly active thread, that's for sure.
Click to expand...

I think this is because we, as an oldies forum, is full of people a lot closer to the finishing line than we are the starter line. These questions are eternal. We want to know who we are. Why are we here? What does it all mean..........
rbtvgo said:
Do the words spoken in the sermon have an effect? Do they matter?
Click to expand...

I don't go to church, so don't hear any sermons. However, I do have an answer for this. That is, in order to believe anything someone is saying to me, I have to have confidence and trust in the person speaking. That trust isn't given via a job description. I could never trust what is said to me because of a costume, or uniform. I'd have to first trust the person speaking, and for that, I'd need to know them in some detail.
 
gruntlabor said:
EDIT: Science *believes* they have all the answers.
Click to expand...
Science believers believe they have all the answers.
I remember that as a kid I said to my friend: Do you believe in God? No. Me neither. I believe in the evolution theory! Yes me too! We had no clue what if even was about. We were 8 or 10. It was a belief. I once played a game of ping pong with an atheist. Lol so bad. So ping creation is true because ask Google answersinGenesis this stone has a half worth time of a split second so it was created.

Pong No because answer from whatever evolution rebuke the answersingenesis points site. Ping another thing Oh yes lol Carl Baugh said pong Carl Baugh is a crook ping oh hmmm hahahahahahaha but he had to search it too. It was not like he was a scientist who thought things himself. We both just trusted a group of scientists and/or the Bible.
 
Last edited:
VaughanJB said:
No, that's not correct.

As I wrote, "Science provides NO answers. It offers only a consensus belief based on available evidence."

There are NO definitive answers in science. Literally zero.

It is a mistake to think there is.
Click to expand...
EDIT: Science believes no-one is relevant but itself, good old science, father of the lobotomy, genetic engineering, gender reassignment, Little Boy, and other wonders, like trying to blow up the moon.
 
gruntlabor said:
And they find plenty of error too, for example the 1960s practice of prescribing women 10 times the necessary dose in birth-control pills.
Click to expand...

Which is what the scientific process is supposed to do.

Same with, say Margarine. For years it was believed to be more healthy than butter. Today, the opposite is true. As humans, we can't and don't have all the answers. We only have the best explanation of available data.
 
VaughanJB said:
Again, I must say, this is so very very wrong. Perhaps you recognize this. Still, it's worth reiterating - a belief in the science (which is a belief in the scientific process) never, ever, thinks it has all the answers. To do so isn't science.
Click to expand...
But I think a lot of people do that. They always say: it's so many billions of years old as if it is a fact. Not: our theory is that it's that old. It often sounds like a belief.
Same with food. Eggs are bad! Oh wait they're not. But all these years they believed too many eggs was bad.
 
Messy said:
But I think a lot of people do that. They always say: it's so many billions of years old as if it is a fact. Not: our theory is that it's that old. It often sounds like a belief.
Same with food. Eggs are bad! Oh wait they're not. But all these years they believed too many eggs was bad.
Click to expand...

We should blame the person, not science.

Same with God believers. God believers think there is a God, without question. Unbelievers are those who either never opened their hearts, or never bothered looking. After all, believers are "right".

What people do or say, in their ignorance, is really down to the individual. We all have flaws.

Honestly, in all mankind and it's learnings, the scientific process stands as one of the very best "inventions" we've come up with. In other words it says: This is the best we can make of what we can prove through experiment; what we can replicate.

Science requires zero faith. While one might "believe" in a set of results, that only means one accepts a conclusion based on available data. That is not the same as so called "blind faith", which requires no evidence other than a belief itself.
 
I don't know.

I question either.

Some cite science as if it is the answer to everything.

Some do the same with God.

I don't. I question all.

However, God wins as nothing else makes much sense to me. Am I convinced we have Him right? No.

Imo mankind's interpretation of anything is fallible and mankind has certainly interpreted and then reinterpreted almost everything.

I'm not the fan of science some are. It's done well with some things and yet there's plenty of junk science too.

And maybe are ALL wrong. Who knows...
 
AutumnGal said:
I'm not the fan of science some are. It's done well with some things and yet there's plenty of junk science too.

And maybe are ALL wrong. Who knows...
Click to expand...

Saying you're not a fan of science means you're not a fan of "the systematic study of the physical and natural world through observation, experimentation, and evidence-based reasoning to understand how the universe works." Which to me is strange, given we must live each day on Earth.

That you question stories about conclusions attributed to "science" is another thing. For that, one must blame those reporting - usually news media.

Science, by definition, can never be wrong. Which I know may rankle some. But in its purest form, it simply can't be wrong.

That said, humans are fallible. Humans can be corrupted. Humans can be wrong.

So, while I will defend science, I will accept that some of what we read that is attributed to science is rubbish. However, in such cases, we should hold the messenger to account, not the scientific process.

ps: Science has been corrupted by, you guessed it, capitalist ideals. Poor reporting is usually based on the profiting of others from misinformation.

Why am I so steadfast in my belief of the scientific process? Repeatability. Proof. Evidence. No blind faith. No guesses. Just show me what you've got.
 
VaughanJB said:
... This is the best we can make of what we can prove through experiment ...

... one accepts a conclusion based on available data.
Click to expand...
We have not done our best and we have proved nothing. We've merely shown likelihood in some cases in my opinion.
That "one accepts a conclusion based on available data" (also acceptable in court decisions) is not good enough, in my opinion.
 
VaughanJB said:
Saying you're not a fan of science means you're not a fan of "the systematic study of the physical and natural world through observation, experimentation, and evidence-based reasoning to understand how the universe works." Which to me is strange, given we must live each day on Earth.

That you question stories about conclusions attributed to "science" is another thing. For that, one must blame those reporting - usually news media.

Science, by definition, can never be wrong. Which I know may rankle some. But in its purest form, it simply can't be wrong.

That said, humans are fallible. Humans can be corrupted. Humans can be wrong.

So, while I will defend science, I will accept that some of what we read that is attributed to science is rubbish. However, in such cases, we should hold the messenger to account, not the scientific process.

ps: Science has been corrupted by, you guessed it, capitalist ideals. Poor reporting is usually based on the profiting of others from misinformation.

Why am I so steadfast in my belief of the scientific process? Repeatability. Proof. Evidence. No blind faith. No guesses. Just show me what you've got.
Click to expand...
No, I said I'm not the fan "some" are.

I also said I question both things.

Science has been behind some very amazing things. Yes, there are also things that I question with some of it.

I'm not a big fan of statistics either. I'd need to see how big of a study and how they went about it and so on and yet some quote statistics as if they are the be all and end all.

Yes, humans are fallible. Every single one of us.
 
gruntlabor said:
We have not done our best and we have proved nothing. We've merely shown likelihood in some cases in my opinion.
That "one accepts a conclusion based on available data" (also acceptable in court decisions) is not good enough, in my opinion.
Click to expand...

So I ask you for one, single, example of a certainty in belief.

We live, we die. But as to how anything works, and what it means................. what certainties are there?
 
AutumnGal said:
I'm not a big fan of statistics either. I'd need to see how big of a study and how they went about it and so on and yet some quote statistics as if they are the be all and end all.

Yes, humans are fallible. Every single one of us.
Click to expand...

Oh, but who quotes stats without truly looking into it? Media. Lazy people. The uneducated.

This isn't a fault of science, just media outlets.
 
gruntlabor said:
EDIT: Science believes no-one is relevant but itself, good old science, father of the lobotomy, genetic engineering, gender reassignment, Little Boy, and other wonders, like trying to blow up the moon.
Click to expand...
Sorry, but you are not making sense. Science is not a person, nor a group of persons.

Science is a body of knowledge, verifiable facts and theories. Scientists follow a process referred to as the scientific method. Scientists argue with each other until it becomes incontestable which theory is the most plausible. Even then if new data/evidence is discovered, accepted thories can be abandoned or modified in the light of new knowledge.

It has been thus since the Middle Ages. Back then science was called Natural Philosophy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top