|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|
Atheists do not dislike God - they dislike the God which has been created, described and distributed by human beings. "A Christian God" - says an atheist - "is not a God at all" - and they are true - up to a great extent. A "Muslim God" - said he - "is psychologically ill". "A Hindu God" - says an atheist quite frankly - "is under drugs".
Is religion (I mean - any religion) advisable? Can we - and should we - introduce children to a religious faith? My answer is: Religion is not advisable (but it is advisable if certain factors are met). Religion is strictly inadvisable in the case of children. Children (good ones) are already perfectly spiritual.
Every (sane) atheist know that a Creator exists. Some are under self-deception when they say that It doesn't. But most know that a Creator exists. Some atheists fluctuate between this knowledge and self-deception.
But when they are questioned - in a public venue - about their ideas regarding religion - a subtle dilemma ('complex' even) - takes over their minds. If they confess - to an interviewer - that they know that a Creator exists (which exists independent of religion): this confession would immediately weaken their position before the interviewer (and before the audience - if there was any at that venue).
So atheists 'cannot' really speak up their minds on the subject of God - because if they do - they would immediately lose the game. But - what if - they accept the possibility of the existence of a God? Well, that acceptance would still rob them of their license to speak against religion. They would become - very unwillingly - agnostics!
So - they need a defense system. Something - which would let them be - freely - against religion.
Actually, this need for a 'defense system' had been there for thousands of years. Some ('unwise') atheists went out and told everyone that God doesn't exist, and they were immediately asked: "Then, tell us, who created us?".
Can you imagine the faces of those atheists after such a blatant defeat? Did human beings come out of the sewer system? Is that so easy? We human beings, the most intelligent thing in the world (perhaps in the universe) struggle to cure as simple a physical disorder as a skin rash. We are terrified if we accidentally lose a few teeth. And we are talking about the creation of the human body and mind.
So can you 'sense' the desperation of atheists, a desperation that ran across for thousands of years, to find an 'excuse'. A silver bullet that would remove for them, the most difficult barrier to their freedom to take steps against the 'monopoly' of religion, and the clique who used it to gain access to incredible amount of monetary and 'other' profits and benefits using this psychological tool that could control masses of people, controlling them effortlessly and invisibly, without requiring the existence of any armed force which is visible . Religion is an easy career. However, you must build your own courseware.
Slowly, but steadily, keeping pace with human 'intellectual' developments, the clique of atheists amassed bits and pieces that would enable them to build an effective half-truth, and set their way to a victory that they had been waiting for such a terribly long period of time.
This underground movement reached its pinnacle, as Charles Darwin successfully formulated, and published, "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life".
The world welcomed it, because this theory came from a scientist. But people didn't realize that this dogma and its author didn't care for them. This half-truth wasn't created to enrich and enlighten human lives. But that, this was a serpent which was designed to bite and kill a certain aspect of the human consciousness. The world failed to realize that Charles Darwin didn't care about the well-being of its people and its young generations; but that he cared for the grievances that he (and his clique) had been nursing for long years and which, had now found a new and convenient target in the society which they had chosen to infest and redirect.
Atheists are 'free' now, to preach atheism. If anyone asks them, now: "Who created human beings?"; they say: "Why? Evolution!". If they want to stretch the game, they might even choose to counter-attack, ask the questioner instead: "Are you illiterate? Haven't you been to a school? Evolution is such an obvious fact that everyone know about it except you!"
So, do you realize the tremendous shift of power has taken place inside the 'game'? Every school in the world teaches, to its young generation, 'the theory of evolution', with an astonishing uncriticalness. They don't know how biological life originated out of non-living material, but they are certain of natural selection and of evolution.
Star atheists, like Richard Dawkins and others, freely enter media interviews and smashes down any 'attack' on atheism on the strength of this magic bullet.
Is Atheism advisable?
Once, it used to be advisable. Right now: it's not.
Can we - and should we - introduce children to the present version of atheism? My answer is: The current form of atheism is more hazardous to children than religion is. Children (good ones) are highly spiritual, and this atheism destroys that spirituality. It's relatively easy to shake off religion, which are mostly composed of metaphorical moral stories and imaginative narratives. Almost anyone, who investigates religion deeply, would conclude them to be invalid.
But the atheism that we witness today, is parasitical in its nature of consciousness. It's very difficult to shake off this atheism, because, fundamentally it's a carefully constructed deception, a pristine piece of twisted reason, which is difficult to consciously reject.
It's harmful. And we need to need to do something about it.
[Please note: I invite only honest, sincere and civil replies on this forum. If you're an atheist who finds it difficult to think anything over and outside of it; then please reconsider before posting.]
"Every (sane) atheist know that a Creator exists."
Proof, please? After all, surely no one would make such a claim with having solid proof in hand, even the theist that hasn't a clue how to go about collecting that proof.
Every (sane) theist knows that no creator exists. They just don't want to admit it.
Out of context. You are not crazy, not that there is anything wrong with crazy. I've been feeling a little crazy lately, tell me the story of the boat again? Kidding!!!!!!!!!!! I love Mo.
Well, you wrote a lot this time, but not much of it is accurate.
Atheists are quite capable of discussing the topic of spirituality or lack thereof without becoming agnostics. Just as you can discuss a Harry Potter movie without thinking people fly around on broomsticks.
You mention "good children" which sends up a red flag for me. All children are good. No child is born "bad." Their parents, schools, society, etc., can lead them astray, but they were not born "bad." That smacks way too much of original sin for me.
The Theory of Evolution is just that - a theory. We accept it as such. The Big Bang - another theory - explains one way inanimate became biological. I'm sure other theories will come around as the years pass.
Atheism is not negated if an atheist does not buy into the Big Bang theory. That atheist only has to dismiss the idea of an intelligent Creator in order to qualify as an atheist. It's no more of a stretch to buy into the idea of the Big Bang than it is to buy into a story of sticks turning to snakes and snakes talking.
Wow. You certainly are attempting to pick a fight with them.
Three things. Wouldn't this have been better as a hub? Second, you may not understand the usage of the term agnostic. Agnostics speak out against religion all of the time. Many atheists consider the term interchangeable. Third, what you appear to be offering is religion which meets your criteria. Having seen how religion divides and separates humanity why would you think anyone was willing to follow another individual's take on spirituality? Now that we know the harm even the best intentions can eventually create.
It's tedious to write 'atheists and agnostics' repeatedly. When I said atheist - I meant both of the groups. People who do not like the God that religion offers - and those who speak against it.
Kept it short there.
Agnostics may speak against religion - but their criticism of religion and the God it offers - and atheists' criticism of religion and the God it offers - are of (almost) completely different value. That's why I mentioned them as two separate groups.
I wasn't unaware of the fact that agnostics are against religion - when I wrote the opening post. Actually - when I wrote about atheists' antagonism and hatred for religion - I automatically included agnostics' antagonism and hatred, with that. However, it escaped my attention to elaborately pen the ways that I dealt with these two groups.
But - it was in my intention.
My contention is that human beings are inherently spiritual, though we may or may not be aware of that fact. We are (sentient) spirits inhabiting physical bodies for a definite period of time.
I'm not trying to make a new religion.
My contention is this: When children (good ones) come into this world; they are already bursting with sentience, spirituality and creativity. All I am saying is to protect that spirituality - not let it be infected - and let it prosper. And help adults shake off their infections (conflicting belief systems).
But the way the world currently is (the result of a kind of 'spiritual warfare' that it has encountered) - this delicate thing gets corrupt and lost. And it can, and does, affect human lives. And the general structure of the world as well.
Because the world that we see today - is actually a reflection of our consciousness. If we can 'edit' that consciousness - we can 'edit' the world too.
I actually agree with parts of this. I'm a little confused as to why you referenced 'good' children. And, so you know, I'd prefer you not explain that. I think I'd cringe.
Now, that runs into one of the bigger things I've never been able to get past. The idea of a spiritual entity that is opposite the god entity. If, as you say, there is a creator/god then you have to decide if your god is pure goodness as many religions believe - or if your god is also evil.
If your god is good - and your god is the original creator- then your god can only create from that which is the essence of the god - or - good. But, you've indicated that some children are not "good" and that corruption exists. If this is true - in a spiritual aspect, then a "good" god could not create it. It would have to come from the non-good entity (most call evil or devil). But, who then created this evil? The good god? And if the good god created that which becomes evil - then the good god is no longer good. If the good god does not create the evil - then, the non-good one creates it and if the non-good one creates it - then entities other than the Creator - create, which is, of course against most religious tenets.
The truth is- if a monotheistic god exists - and evil also exists - that god created it. Or - evolution occurs on a spiritual realm as it does on a physical realm, but that also negates any reason to believe in a god.
Of course humans are sentient. We discern through our senses, which is all that is necessary to fit the description of sentience.
Can we "edit" our consciousness as you say - and hence, edit man's experience? Most certainly - we do it all the time. We experience "need" and we set our minds to filling that need. We invent - we enjoy - we plan and we reap. As we do so - we edit consciousness because the human experience evolves as we learn more about our surroundings and we develop better and better methods to progress.
But - I don't know what you mean by needing to "shake off conflicting belief systems," because conflict is what causes us to want more. Conflict is at the base of all discoveries and invention. When I experience the conflict of having to choose between seeing my kids or watching a Sunday game - that prompts me to figure out a way to do both. Conflict drives us forward.
But -- all of that happens without being under the watchful eye of a spiritual deity. And - we're getting better at what we do.
I believe there is no Creator. There is no benign intelligence that knows all and sees all and is all powerful. Too many things argue against it. I've read your stuff and I think you mean well.
But so far, I've read nothing that cannot be easily and logically explained.
"Every (sane) atheist know that a Creator exists."
Proof, please? After all, surely no one would make such a claim with having solid proof in hand, even the theist that hasn't a clue how to go about collecting that proof.
"Every (sane) atheist know that a Creator exists. "
No, that is not what atheist means.
Quite the reverse.
Evolution can be proven to an extent. Obviously there are some holes in certain theories because we as humans can and probably will never have all the answers. But still, evolution is a concept that can be proven.
To say an invisible deity snapped their fingers and poof we are all walking about willy nilly cannot be proven, at least at this time. I personally do not think any religion's god that punishes people for not believing will ever be true simply because of its lunacy, contradictions, and extreme human aspects.
To believe completely that some imaginary powerhouse dictates everything that happens in the world is a cop out of reality. You simply do not care to understand the true answers, which would be fine if people did not sit there and try to deny the truth from others who actually want to know.
It is crazy to say an atheist is defeated when asked the question "Who created us" directly after declaring a god does not exist, simply because the person who asked that very question cannot prove god created us either. When it comes to the god depicted in the bible however, that can be proven to be false simply be reading the damn book.
It is hard to take what you say seriously when it sounds like you have no idea what you are even talking about
All of it? I can honestly say no, and I personally don't think you have either. If you have though, I cannot help but think you cherry pick the parts you like and ignore the parts you don't. But, that is my opinion.
I do not think I have the patience to read the lunacy it contains in one sitting, but I do plan on reading it in its entirety one day.
I have seen enough passages to determine that it is nothing more than a fiction book however. To say the bible is 100%, heck even 50% real is like saying Harry Potter and Twilight are real. It makes no sense to tell me to believe in talking animals, genocidal floods, and a supreme deity just to turn around and say I can't be a wizard, vampires are in fact not gorgeous, or that Santa does not bring me presents late at night.
Since I answered your question, do me a kindness and answer mine in return: why is it that you focused on that particular sentence out of my entire comment? To be honest, I had not initially planned to leave that part in there but went with it anyway. You completely ignored everything else I said...why is that?
I have read the New Testament twice, but not the Old Testament. I am, however, familiar with much of the Old Testament (since I am part of a bible study that meets once a week), so I feel that I probably know more about it than you, not that I am comparing. I do not cherry pick the bible. I kind of feel that if you've NEVER read the entire bible, how do you know it is full of lunacy? Read the New Testament before you read the Old one. You'll see that there is a lot of sense in there, and a lot of the stuff preached by Jesus and written by Paul is indeed good stuff.
It's not that I "ignored" everything else you said, it's just that I became curious when you just dismissed the bible as being false simply based on what you had "heard" from other Atheists, or just concluded on your own.
Although I have never met you and do not know you personally, I would say that you just don't have enough information to logically determine that the entire bible is false. You have never read it, so you cannot possibly say that it is a fantasy book. You cannot compare it to Harry Potter and Twilight. I haven't read HP but I read the Twilight books and they are a far cry from the bible in terms of comparing them. I think you are very young and not learned enough...you've just gone on what you've heard. That is the reason I focused on the bible portion of your response.
We don't know that God simply snapped His fingers and the Earth appeared, but we don't know that He didn't. If you believe in God, you'd understand that anything is possible with Him. I personally think that God is outside of time, so the world and it's inhabitants forming over millions of years could be a snap of the fingers for Him. Believing in God takes Faith, that is, one can not prove He is real, but has faith that He is. My advice is that you really read the New Testament and give the religion a second chance. All I can do is pray that God softens your heart and opens your mind to receiving the information the way it should be received.
There are a great deal of atheists who have read both the OT and NT, some have spent years in theological colleges studying them further, they probably know a great deal more than you, yet they too consider both books pure nonsense.
Yes, believing in God takes Faith, but so does believing in anything that has never been shown to exist. That's the problem, it doesn't matter what we want to believe is true, it is disingenuous and dishonest to oneself to accept anything on Faith. Where then does one draw the line on what they will accept on Faith? Everything?
Ah, nothing to actually say, yet again.
I must profess, though, your copy-link-to-post skills are extraordinary.
I have to say I did lick on the first one thinking it was an answer, but I learn quickly.
I firmly understand that anyone who demonstrates skills that are so well honed and mastered far beyond anything most humans could muster, they deserve the credit where credit is due.
My point with Harry Potter and Twilight is that both are fiction books filled with magic or otherwise fictional acts. Again, you cannot tell me to believe in magical acts performed by jesus/god in the past but turn around and tell me wizards, santa claus, the tooth fairy etc do not exist, it just does not make any sense. If god truly cared about giving me and all the other atheists/agnostics proof of his existence, he would have done it already. There is no "special time" for it, it is not a question of whether or not we have faith either (especially considering how a good chunk of atheists were originally believers searching for god), if he is all knowing and powerful then he already knows that unless he provides proof, faith in his existence will never happen. So, either he does not care for us which voids his "all loving" aspect, or he does not exist.
As far as the passages that I have heard mentioned by seeing other discussions on the topic, its not like I automatically sided with the atheist or otherwise non believer. I did look up any passages mentioned and from a logical standpoint, a non believer's argument almost always makes more sense than the believers. It is my understanding that the NT is less horrible than the OT, so is that a coincidence that you have not read the old yet? I have also heard that the NT does not replace the old but is meant to reinforces it.
Please do me two favors. First: STOP bringing up my age, you have done that in the past on bubblews when I have already proven to you on more than one occasion that my age has nothing to do with how I think or act. With how you have acted in the past I could just as easily call you a child yourself. Second: do not pray for me either, or at least do not tell me you are doing so, It is condescending. Instead of spending 2 seconds sending a prayer to something you aren't even 100% sure exists, actually DO SOMETHING to make me believe he does exist. If you can't, then do not tell me you are praying for me, or anyone for that matter.
Link, I only bring up your age because you just don't have the life experience that some of us have had, and I don't mean that in a bad way. One day you'll know what I mean. You strike me as the type of boy who likes to sit around and play video games all day. And I don't mean to be condescending when I say I'm praying for you. I don't understand why you would think that is condescending. But I'll honor your requests.
That in itself is condescending. How does playing video games all day factor into this conversation at all? The only relation it has would be to my age. I do hope you realize there are full grown adults who do the same exact thing when they are not out working their day jobs or out with friends, so whatever point you were trying to make with that in regards to my age is invalid. Life experience does not factor into my particular equation here, I am a logic oriented person and as far as I have seen the bible is far more illogical than it is logical for modern people to take it seriously, but they continue to do so. For me to suddenly view it as more logical than illogical means I have quite literally gone insane at some point in my life.
I said in that very same comment why it is condescending to pray for other people, but I will repeat it once more as well as add to it.
First: telling an atheist or otherwise non believer of your particular religion that you will pray that god will show them the way is automatically implying that they are on the wrong path and that you are on the right one. There is no getting around that, you are implying that you are superior in some way shape or form.
Second: Praying instead of getting up and actually doing something to prove that god exists is equivalent to doing absolutely nothing about the situation. Praying does not heal people (and by that I mean ANYONE who has a fatal illness, not one or a few people), avoid natural disasters, feed the hungry, or shelter the homeless. When you tell me/anyone that you will pray for them, its like saying you will do nothing about the situation at all, which is true, you aren't doing anything about it. You pray for the hungry children in Africa? Instead of praying, head over there and help them yourself if you truly care that much. You feel sorry for homeless people on the street and pray for them? Instead of that, give them a set of clothes or a packaged lunch if you truly care that much. To say you will pray for them is an excuse to make yourself THINK you are actually doing something for them. Do keep in mind I am mostly generalizing here since I do not know what you personally have done for any type of cause.
And before you or anyone else goes there, no I do not directly help kids in Africa or give homeless people packaged lunches. Aside from the fact that I am under absolutely no obligation to do so (and all the homeless people in my area are a bunch of drunks), I do not have the resources to. But at least I am honest about it, rather than sending prayers and act like I did all I could. When I am not constantly worried about my own finances, I will focus on worrying about other people's finances.
Praying to God does do something for me, because to me, God is real. I have a relationship with Him and He knows me better than I know myself. When I pray, I am asking Him directly to help me or others. Prayer does work...I've been healed inexplicably from things, and my prayers do get answered (those that are in God's will). When I pray for someone, it is NOT because I think I'm better than they are.... I wish to help them and I'm asking the Creator of the universe to do something for them. Like you, I do not have the resources to donate lots of money nor can I get out there to physically help. But prayers do get answered...just not always the way we'd like them to be. And sometimes God says no, which can be difficult to hear. Gods ways are different from our ways...and everything is working according to God's plan, and sometimes, it does feel like a really bad plan. But it's God! It's up to Him.
If you don't know who God is, then of course, you'll find my answer to be silly. In your mind, I'm talking to an imaginary friend. But I really believe that Jesus exists. That's just the bottom line.
Believe in what you want, I really cannot count how many times me and others have told you that specifically. What you PERSONALLY believe is absolutely fine, I might not agree with it but I have no right to tell you that its wrong to think whatever you think. Just do not freak out when others do not believe in the same thing. If you wish to spread your faith, fine, but stop and move on when someone says "No". If you wish to defend your faith, which is completely in your right, be prepared to back up what you say. You cannot say "this is true" and expect others to believe it without any type of proof but still get mad at them and say they will go to hell for it. That has and always will be the bottom line.
Just a little side note here, had you been anything close to this level of civility on bubblews, we would both still have our accounts.
Yeah...I'm sorry about that. Just so you know, I wasn't the one who reported you the second or third time. And also, it wasn't completely MY fault we got kicked off---I believe you played a significant part in that. I'm back on Bubblews with a new name and account, so I have put the mess behind me. Maybe if you're good I will let you know who I am now.
I do not regret losing my cool with someone who reported content she did not agree with as well as defamed me (who then gloated about getting away with it), especially considering how I had not once reported you until after my account was deleted. Again, you are being condescending, whether you realize it or not, but I cannot say I wish to know your new username regardless. Can only hope you discuss things properly with other people you come into contact with on that site from now on.
Yes, it is wonderful when our prayers get answered. It' kind of like when you have a plan to do something and it works out. Often times we have to tweak or change the plan as it unfolds in order for it work out. Alas though, plans don't always work out the way we want them to, sometimes even with disastrous results.
You're praying for someone not because of what they want, but because of what you want, you said it yourself: "I wish to help them and I'm asking the Creator... Shouldn't other people decide what's best for themselves and not what we want for them? We need to respect their wants and needs and let them pray to the Creator for some help. Why can't they ask for help from God? Why would they need you to do that for them?
Praying really isn't doing anything productive, it's often used as an excuse for not having to do anything.
Which is exactly the way plans sometimes go, they either work out or not the way we'd like them to be. Essentially, praying to God and pure happenstance appear to be identical in nature.
Yes, and sometimes inexplicably, a good plan will not work out at all which can also be difficult to hear, exactly the same way.
Yes, it's up to God to have a really bad plan. Cause and effect can make a really bad plan, too.
Not really, I find your answers to consistently align with the Special Pleading and Appeal to Belief fallacies.
You say stuff like that to people and wonder why it annoys them? It is rather a patronizing and dismissive in my opinion. A classic ad hom attack that engages with no substantive points in the discussion but just tries to undermine the dignity of the speaker.
Richard Dawkins might feel disappointed with that performance.
by Abdus Salaam2 years ago
Are atheists rebelling against 'bad religion' because God's image has been tarnished by the church?"By believing in God, you have gained something; spirituality. By disbelieving in God, you have lost something;...
by Brittany Williams4 years ago
Atheism only means the lack of a belief in God. Why is it so hard for Christians to realize that we dismiss their religion for the same reasons that they dismiss all other religions? It doesn't make us horrible people,...
by Mick Menous6 years ago
Let's face it. We ALL know that most atheists are paranoid of religions and that they're in-denial about it. They claim they're the more peaceful people in America when really they're no different from any average...
by Thom Carnes9 years ago
A few weeks ago I asked what I thought was quite a serious, searching question about the existence of God, and was rather disappointed when it got a very limited response. (This could have been because we were all...
by Mahaveer Sanglikar4 years ago
Is atheism becoming another religion? I am asking this question because many atheists are loudly talking against 'other' religions, like many of the the propagandists of religions do.I myself am an atheist, and I think...
by bdn938521 months ago
Does atheism means I don't believe the existence of God or I hate God for who He is?
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.