I think many people is convinced it's possible to be a atheist, but some claim it isn't possible.
The reson is that it's difficult to imagine that a person is 100 % sure it doesn't exist a God.

I think most of them who call themself atheists, are in reality agnostics.
They may propably be 99,5 % sure or so, but I doubt there are many who is 100 % sure,- if it is at all.?

By the same reasoning, because it is impossible to be 100% sure there is a god, all people must be agnostic, and there can be no truly religious people.

I am an atheist. There is no evidence whatsoever that there is a god of any form espoused by any religion I have heard of. As "atheism" is defined negatively with regard to religion (that is, each religion has its tenets, whereas there is no organized atheism; it simply is the lack of any of these various beliefs), the non-existence of any god is not so much a belief as an assumption. I am perfectly willing to be convinced that I am wrong; this does not make me agnostic, but merely open-minded. I do not expect any evidence of any god to come along (thus, the atheism), but if it does, I would not close my eyes to it. Note the difference there--there are certainly religions that have actively closed their eyes to solid evidence refuting their beliefs; I would point to "creation science" as but one example.

Let me ask you, Human...whatever your own particular religion might be...are you agnostic with regard to all others? Do you, just in case, light incense around your effigy of Krishna as well as taking communion, or praying toward Mecca, or offering burnt sacrifices of fatted calves to Zeuss? Are you 100% sure that Thor does not exist?

I am 100% certain that I have seen no evidence whatsoever for any god as defined by any religion I am aware of (or for that matter, any god by any meaningful definition of the word--I have seen attempts to redefine "god" in such a way as to render the word meaningless, and I think that may be a desperate reaction to the realization that there is no evidence to be had). Therefore, I am an atheist.

Most people I have discussed philosophy with, comprehend me as a Christian, and some as a agnostic.
But I think I am an agnostic in reality.
I do believe in God and Jesus , but I think The Bible isn't enough to know all you need about the primary life.

I am also very interested in science, but science about religious phenomens doesn't prove anything,- IMO.

There's only one sun in the sky right? And yet how many different expressions do we have for the word "sun" in all the other languages besides English?

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

There is, I think you will agree, very good evidence that the sun exists, no matter what we call it. The same cannot be said for any god, no matter what we call it.

Human, by what evidence do you believe in god and jesus? What is it about that particular story that strikes you as more real than the others? Or do you simply choose it, knowing full well that it is but one of many possible stories? I will take you at your word that you believe in god and jesus...could I ask you whether you also believe in Allah? Zeuss? Thor? Krishna? Isis? The Force? Which, if any, do you find plausible? Which do you reject out of hand? Why?

What do you mean by "the primary life"? Is there a secondary? Tertiary? More? How do you know?

"Science about religious phenomena"? Science is limited to empirical claims. Which "religious phenomena" do you speak of? How do you know a phenomenon is religious? Does belief in a god differ a priori from any other sort of belief? If scientists can study belief in other things (and they can and do), what is it about religious belief that is different? How do you know?

I am not trying to prove anything at all. I wish merely to look at the evidence, and follow where it takes me.

Well,- I think most religious people believe in a religion because they fear "afterlife punishment", etc.
I also think that many religious people have experienced paranormal phenomena, like near death experiences.
If you are interested, you may check out:

http://memopolis.uni-regensburg.de/...sh/ndebook.html

I am baptized as a Christian, and that may explain why I believe most in this religion.
However, I propably have some other viewpoints than other Christians.

I have found this online book some interesting:

http://www.yahwehsnewkingdom.com/yahweh-book.htm

About the "science about religious phenomena". I think that a scientifical evidence about something paranormal, doesn't proove anything.
In example, if "The Big Bang" theory was prooved, there is still not enough evidence to say that the Universe was not created by God.
After all we know, it could have been God who created the big bang, who created the Universe...

Re: fearing punishment. This is essentially Pascal's Wager. How do you determine which religion to choose to avoid punishment? Many are mutually incompatible (though not all). If you choose X, you are destined for punishment according to Y, and vice versa. By what evidence do you decide which is right? Logically, they cannot both be (although both could be wrong).

Re: paranormal phenomena. An individual has an experience. It is, to him, unexplained. a) this does not make it unexplainable, and his ignorance of the real explanation does not mean that someone else does not have an adequate explanation. There are experimental psychologists dedicating decades to the study of our experience; many thoroughly understood phenomena would certainly be experienced as "paranormal" by the person experiencing them. b) whether or not the experience is explained, how do you then make the leap to an explanation that involves god, or survival of consciousness, or any such thing? With absolutely no evidence other than "I can't explain this experience", there is no reason to infer some supernatural phenomenon! (BTW, this "god of the gaps" explanation--that any unexplained thing is evidence of god--is a dangerous path for the believer. As science grows, god shrinks! You should define your god not in terms of your own ignorance, but positively. Problem is...there is no evidence for any god, nor any need to have a god as part of any world-view.)We aren't out to "prove anything". We are out to follow the evidence and be convinced by it. Thus far, there is nothing in our understanding of human experience that requires a god in order to explain it. Nothing in our understanding of the universe, or of life itself, that requires a god in order to explain it. This does not "prove" anything--it does not need to (see next paragraph)Are you familiar with the concept of "burden of proof"? Suppose we have an adequate explanation of a phenomenon (or even an explanation which, even though it has holes, is the best available thus far), and someone comes along with another explanation which is more complex. IF the new explanation does a better job of explanation and prediction than the old one, then there will be evidence to that effect. The proponents of the new theory show this evidence, there are huge arguments, and if the evidence is sound, the old theory is rejected in favor of the new (or, more typically, the old theory is amended to include the new--Einstein's model added to Newton's, it did not replace it). On the other hand, we should not be expected to simply abandon a good model because someone claims their new model is better; it is up to the new claimant to demonstrate that the new model is better. Science is very conservative in that matter; we will prefer the simplest explanation that fits the facts. Any new layer of complexity must be justified; the burden of proof is on the proponents of the more complex theory.

So...could god have caused the big bang? What does this explain that "the big bang spontaneously occurred" does not? (hint: nothing) What evidence is there that there was this supernatural event? (hint: none) Is there any reason whatsoever to think that a god, let alone the christian version of this god, even existed before, during, or after the big bang? (hint: no) Could the big bang have been the handiwork of a deity? Sure, why not? Is there any reason to believe it? Not yet. The burden of proof is squarely on the shoulders of those who would claim that god exists. I await their proof...but I am not holding my breath.And who created god? All you have done is push the unknown back one step, and a completely made-up step at that. Such "explanations" feel like they help, but add absolutely nothing to our understanding, except perhaps useless verbiage. A god is such a tremendously complex thing to add to the picture...we should not accept such an addition without very good evidence for the claim.

Yes, but what difference does it make what we call it if, in fact all it does is obscure the issue? Why even bring the issue up then?

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

What is the issue you claim is being obscured? I would say that we are progressing--we are, perhaps, ready to jettison some more of our pre-scientific understanding of the world. We have, as a society, a lot of momentum behind the belief in a deity, and it will take a great deal to change this (if indeed it ever does happen). If something is being obscured, perhaps it is the definition of god--with every advance, it seems there is less unknown for us to point to and say "look, there is god's handiwork."

Since you brought up the sun earlier, let us take that as an example. It is as plain as the nose on your face that the sun rises through the sky in the morning, peaks at noon, descends and sets. Our experience of the sun's path through the sky could not be clearer. It was so patently obvious that Copernicus's new idea of a heliocentric solar system was deemed absurd. Indeed, it was very difficult to prove that the earth both rotated on its axis and orbited the sun, although both are accepted today as beyond question (by all but a handful--hey, you try to get 6 billion people to agree on anything). Of course, even with our (relatively) new understanding of the relationship between the sun and the earth, we still have our prescientific language (sunrise and sunset) to describe our experience of the phenomenon. Even though the phrases absolutely do not describe what is actually happening, they describe our experience. So...As described above, someone has an unexplained experience. That person may describe it in religious or paranormal terms; another person may understand it in those terms. But just as we understand "sunrise" even though it is not reality, the "religious experience" may well have a completely different underlying mechanism. As we learn more and more about behavior and about the brain, we have more answers and explanations for formerly-unexplained experiences.

So, what difference does it make what we call it, if in fact all it does is obscure the issue? It makes a difference because our society has agreed (tacitly) on the uses of words. We understand when someone comments on a beautiful sunset--we would look at them strangely if they made the same comment at noon. You can call something spiritual or religious, or exclaim "oh,my god!" because you will be understood. (part of the problem I have with your views is that you do insist on using words improperly--words that have perfectly acceptable uses outside your philosophy, but which you make do double or triple duty without paying overtime.) And, at the same time...you must be aware that just saying something does not make it true. Just because we have the word sunrise does not mean the sun actually rises. Our experience is not the arbiter of reality; rather, it is faulty and demonstrably biased.

Why bring up the issue? To learn, and to educate others. When we abandoned a geocentric world-view, we discovered the laws (Kepler's, among others) that would eventually allow us to visit the moon, to send spacecraft beyond the solar system! When we abandon the notion of a deity...(I personally have a long list of positive changes, but unless change occurs, I can not know if any will happen.) Religious people often claim that, without a deity, we have no charge to be moral; in truth, atheists certainly behave morally, but do so not out of fear or obedience to a myth. Religion does not have to stand in the way of learning...but how long was it until the catholic church accepted Galileo's work? Darwin's? Has the church ever been ahead of the curve on any issue of learning?

And yet there are just as many interpretations of the sun, as there are species of plants on this planet. Wouldn't that be a fair enough assessment? Why should it be any different with God then? Where each religion (species of plant) acknowledges the source just a little bit differently? In which case we've just eliminated the need to argue about which religion is best. Or, if we do, we can argue about what makes them different as opposed to right or wrong.

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

No, Atheists behave out of the fear of the law enforcement folks, hence the fear of punishment which, is still an appeal to authority. So, to imply that Atheists do not have to be held accountable for their actions (which is the purpose for establishing any law) would be absurd. So, all you're really doing in this respect is substituting one system for another.

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

I am more safe if I believe in one religion instead of none.


I have experienced paranormal phenomena a long time ago.
That was déjà vu, and I was really convinced I had lived before.

However, I have read some about déjà vu the last months, not very much though, but I now think déjà vu doesn't have anything with a previous life to do at all.
I think it has a scientifically explanation, not religious.
Some scientists who know much about the human mind, say it is possible to remember false memories that in reality never have happened.

Déjà vu experiences may also be from a dream or experience earlier in life with similarities. Then the brain think the same has happened before, but only a similiar thing has in reality happened before.

There are also some doctors/scientists that think's the main reason to déjà vu is lack of concentration.
I remember I experienced déjà vu in a period with lack of sleep.

There are religions that are actively opposed to certain other religions, and more sympathetic of non-believers (they see them as not actively insulting their beliefs, but merely ignorant). So...nope, not safer believing just one.I am very impressed. It is the rare person who will, having learned something, easily admit to their prior ignorance (not stupidity, mind you!). Not that you should care, but you have gained much in my estimation of you .

Now, the difficult question: can you conceive of a similar insight, or series of insights, explaining everything that you currently hold to be evidence of soul, or of god, or of spirit (or throw in any religious/spiritual concepts you wish)? I do not whatsoever mean to say that this is the case; I merely ask whether you think it could ever happen? (In case you are wondering, I ask it because Iacchus has actively rejected any explanation of our behavior which denies the reality of a soul, and I wish to see whether you are more openminded than our host here. Sorry to say that, Iacchus, but I also do not wish to post under false pretenses.)

LOL...some Atheists probably do, Iacchus.

You would do well to read up on "Moral development". Not that I buy the whole package, but I think you would benefit from examining Kohlberg's stages of moral reasoning. Yes, some people make their moral decisions based on fear of punishment (from parents, police, or god), but that is not by any means the only reason to behave, for atheist or believer. I know that I behave as I do even when I know the police are not watching (and I do not need an omniscient god to watch when they cannot just to keep me in place).

I am certain you can find Moral Reasoning or Moral Development information in lots of places, so I will not give you a link (I don't know if you would trust any link I give you, anyway)...I would be glad to discuss this issue again once you know more about it.

No, it would not. Why on earth would you use the word "interpret" when speaking of photosynthesis? Could you please define "interpretation" as you use it here? (It seems I am forever asking you to define your words. And yes, I know you are using the term metaphorically--see below--but if you are, the statement still is not a "fair enough assessment", until you can demonstrate that each species of plant has its own unique form of photosynthesis.)Um, because your example is merely a metaphor. What is more, it is a metaphor which falls apart in any light breeze, to use another metaphor.So now the word is "acknowledges"? Could you define that one as well? And then, please, demonstrate that plants do, in fact, photosynthesize differently from one another. I am perfectly willing to be proven wrong on this, and since your plant metaphor is easily subject to empirical evaluation, this should be easy.Well...first off, you have not established that your metaphor is apt, nor even that the statements you use metaphorically are even accurate. But let us give you those--your own metaphor undermines you; if each plant photosynthesizes differently, then it is perfectly possible that one species might be better or worse than another at it. This, too, would be emperically demonstrable.Nice conclusion. Too bad it sits atop a house of cards. Also, what makes them different is completely independent of whether they are all right, some right and some wrong, or all wrong. So even if your conclusion was right, it is irrelevant.

I have to admit that I sometimes do a gamble, if you want to call it that. To live is a state of choices and gambling.
Just think about all the choices we do during a day, it's very many, although we rarely reflect's over it...

Anyway, I believe in what I find likely.
I find it likely that we have a Soul, but not that déjà vu is caused by a earlier life, since I do believe that our past lives was very different, and with no similarities with the current life.
Hence, déjà vu can't be caused from a earlier life, in my opinium.
And yes, I believe in reincarnation, if you do wonder, but that the different lives are very different, not that way Buddhists see on reincarnation.

I understand you are wondering why I believe we have a Soul. I am going to make a thread about it soon.
And your comment's are welcome.

What you find likely. Based on what? Seriously, you are saying that it is "likely" that we have a soul...what is your evidence? I have seen absolutely none--is it merely based on what someone has told you? Why do you trust them, if that is the case? You find reincarnation "likely"? Why? And you even believe it with some degree of detail as to what sort of reincarnation happens--this implies (especially since you say you believe in what you find likely) that you have seen some sort of evidence upon which you base these views. What is this evidence? What has shaped your views such that you find such things "likely"?

Do you find flying cows "likely"? There is considerably more evidence for them than for a soul--at least we know cows exist; now all we have to do is see one fly. No one has ever observed a soul to be able to describe what it might be like--they have always been deduced from philosophical assumptions, the best of which are still assumptions and not demonstrated, and the worst of which are demonstrably false.

I think you believe despite the "likelihood" of the things you believe in, and have not really examined them to see if they are, in fact, "likely" at all. Not to worry; this puts you, with the rest of us, squarely guilty of being human. We all use social cognitive heuristics to generate our beliefs of likelihood. Psychologists have studies such things ("representativeness heuristic", "availability heuristic", etc.) for decades. It is the genius of the scientific method that it guards agains our natural thought processes, with the use of experimental controls and the publication and review processes.

I used to think this was true, but that was because I didn't know what atheism was. Because I always have said I wasn't 100% sure, I called myself an agnostic. Well, as it turns out, I was right and wrong. I found out I am an atheist because I don't believe in a god. This is completely different from believing there is no god. The first is a statement that I don't know, but there is not enough evidence (in this case, no evidence) to make me believe. The second is a statement that I am certain a god doesn't exist, which is just as arrogant as claiming to "know" that a god does exist.

Most of the people I know, including Human apparently, think that a person who admits they don't know is an agnostic, but this is only partially true. An agnostic admits they don't know, but they may or may not believe. So you can have agnostic theists as well as agnostic atheists. In fact, if we are being totally honest, we are all agnostics, because it is impossible to know for certain. Agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive.

However, since the word "atheist" engenders such negative reactions with many people, I just call myself an "agnostic" around most folks, because that is halfway true. Too many people have decided that atheist means "a person is 100 % sure it doesn't exist a God." Those people should try to find out about a person's philosophy before they try to pigeonhole them.

Is this to say that there is a geniune philosophy to be held about Atheism then, albeit it might vary from one person to the next? For some Atheists will insist that's it's not a belief (to get past past the notion that it pertains to religion), but rather the "lack of belief." And yet it's just as easy to say, "I believe that there is no God," in which case it is a matter of belief. If so, then wouldn't that basically affect one's worldview and, how one goes about one's business?

Greetings goozleberry, and welcome aboard!

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

But I don't say "I believe that there is no God," I say, "I don't believe there is a God."

The first is a statement of belief
The second is a statement of the lack of a belief.

Too many people try to assign atheists the first belief, when that is not at all what they are saying. It is a subtle, but important difference.

And thanks for the welcome.