« Newer Older »

My official stance on religion

i DO believe that religion is a fallacy in all its basis.

1.) I refuse to believe in a creature who has been spotted less than the Mongolian death worm, or the loveland frog people.

2.) I refuse to believe in god simply for fear of finding out that there is one when I die, because I know a lot of people would rather be 'safe than sorry'. I believe true faith can exist in absence of god, and true faith is standing by what you believe in no matter what, and no one, not even GOD can scare me out of my beliefs.

3.)  I refuse to accept the fact that while, its IMPOSSIBLE for life to simply 'exist' without a creator, Its INEVITABLE that god does. how can you use ones own power to justify its existence? I've heard the argument so many times.... "look how complicated we are, we MUST have been created"... If god can JUST exist without explanation than thats assuming that there are forces guiding the universe that ALLOW for that, in which case, WHY CANT WE!?

4.) Anthropic principle.

     4a.) The only reason we ask 'WHY ARE WE HERE?' is because we are here to ask it.
            Sure, its a million-trillion to 1 chance that life would evolve anywhere in the universe of its own                     accord, but theres a million-trillion places where it doesn't exist

    5a.) The only reason why the world seems so perfect, and "man made" is because if it didn't, we wouldn't be here to notice!

In my opinion god is ignorance. throughout history he has been nothing more than a method to explain the things that science had not yet been able to cover. As we slowly pull ourselves out of the dark, we begin to see god less and less in our every day lives, and accept the universe for what it really is.... Simply a functioning system with scientific basis. god no longer causes droughts, he doesn't move the stars. when you start coughing up blood you don't go to a church, you go to a doctor. God is ignorance because for as long as hes existed hes done so, only in the things that we can not explain. And as we learn more and more he slowly runs out of places to hide.

 The bible itself has, in many eyes, regressed from a book of proven fact to one of moral guidelines.
it was written in a time when it was OK to beat your wife, or to kill your daughter for having premarital sex. It was written by the SAME type of people, who we are now at war with.

I suppose the point im trying to make is

You don't NEED a god to have faith. i have faith in evolution, mainly the intangible form of idealogical evolution. if i want to survive after death, ill live a life worthy of emulation. Ill help to found the rules that others might live by, and learn from my mistakes so i can contribute to society and in a way, exist beyond the time i have been alloted. life isn't owed to anyone, look at the universe around you and notice its death and homogeny and realize that you will join it when you die. Its OK to not have an afterlife, because by all rights, you shouldn't have a life to begin with, and anything that says otherwise inside of you (in my opinion) is simply your instinct for self preservation screaming out at you against the inevitability of death. yes, I AM an atheist, and yes, I AM comfortable with the idea of death. when you abandon the idea of god you see what a miracle life really is.

recognize the fact that, in the absence of god, life itself is the most powerful force in the universe, and live in a way that reflects that.

And if all else fails, when i die I'll be proud to look him in the eye, and explain how I've lived a just live, without need for his influence, and that ive spent it standing up for what i believe in, and preaching what i believe to be true in order to better the world around me, out of the decency of my heart, rather than the will of an ancient scripture.



Posted on 12/11/2007 10:11 AM Visits: 102
sunkist1020: 12/11/2007 10:52 AM
you know what? i really love the fact that youre standing by your beliefs! its extremely respectable of you. youre awesome!
varooka: 12/11/2007 12:12 PM
do you believe in the interconnectedness of the web of life?
jackspade: 12/11/2007 12:17 PM
i believe that all things are connected on some level, whether directly or indirectly. its impossible to escape that fact
strikextoxincinerate: 12/11/2007 12:22 PM
Well, I believe that in everything there is a spirit represented in many forms, and that everything is connected and equal.
inlikeflint: 12/11/2007 12:24 PM
Neti Neti
jessie123: 12/11/2007 1:55 PM
LONG
LOL
burningstarsxe: 12/11/2007 2:28 PM
So you're nihilistic, basically is what you're saying.
kirehsei: 12/11/2007 2:53 PM
i respect that you're so willing to stand up for what you believe it'd be nice if more people did that. *shrugs* personally, i believe there is a "higher being", i just don't believe any one thing in particular.
jackspade: 12/11/2007 2:57 PM
ah, yes. i was unaware of what that word even meant but i guess so, having read up on it... ive always believed, in my own words, "an object cannot define its creator, but rather, may only take definition from it" (id love for someone to point me towards that quote, elsewhere or an other words). life is a product of existence (or the universe depending on your grasp of philosophy and the intangible), and 'value', is an idea created by higher forms of life, to make decisions that might prolong it . by my 'theory', its impossible for existence or life, to have any real value to anything other than itself. ( i hope i explained that properly)

anyone with a background in programming might understand, as it seems to mimic (or the contrary) the structure of the objects... 'classes' i think...
villevambam: 12/11/2007 5:20 PM
I understand were your coming from, Sort of made me step back and think about what u said, And I respect what u said, In everyway, its hard to belive in things some times.
burningstarsxe: 12/11/2007 5:38 PM
jackspade said:
ah, yes. i was unaware of what that word even meant but i guess so, having read up on it... ive always believed, in my own words, "an object cannot define its creator, but rather, may only take definition from it"

If you read the Bible (and believe it's true, of course) then you might find that God, in the Old Testament, and Jesus, in the New Testament, defines himself and his creation a few times. ;)
jackspade: 12/11/2007 6:05 PM
not exactly what my statement meant. the idea is that, any subsystem must function within the bounds of the system that created it, and it cannot change the rules of the system that created it, realistically. this wasn't a statement about religion, but one of nihilism. and, having read the bible, i can safely say that jesus in no way violated this rule. im not denying his existence as a man, but rather the philosophical concepts that religion puts forth
burningstarsxe: 12/11/2007 6:24 PM
kiastar67 said:

burningstarsxe-May I ask what you are trying to say? I was looking at your answer to jackspace and i guess i am not getting what you are saying! Thanks! It is appraciated!

Apparently I misunderstood jackspade's comment. I thought he meant, literally, that creation cannot define its creator, and that the creator must define its creation. So I pointed out that there are a few instances in the Bible when God/Jesus defines Himself and his Creation. But, as I misunderstood jackspade's point, my point is no longer valid. :P
burningstarsxe: 12/11/2007 6:29 PM
jackspade said:
not exactly what my statement meant. the idea is that, any subsystem must function within the bounds of the system that created it, and it cannot change the rules of the system that created it, realistically. this wasn't a statement about religion, but one of nihilism. and, having read the bible, i can safely say that jesus in no way violated this rule. im not denying his existence as a man, but rather the philosophical concepts that religion puts forth

I understand what you meant now. Although I'm not quite seeing how the subsystem, that is, humanity, changes the rules of the system, in this case, a God figure. No matter what people believe, whatever is true will exist in the end whether people believe it or not. So, in that way, I agree with you. (if I am understanding you correctly, that is)
jackspade: 12/11/2007 6:35 PM
the idea was that value itself was created by living things, to judge the world around them. if my theory holds true, then value, including value of life, cant be a universal truth. when you apply fully, all your left with is that the universe just 'exists' void of intent and purpose. things just 'happen'. i believe that this means that life itself has no meaning, (not that its devoid of meaning but that the word simply doesnt apply) and that meaning is simply a veil to help us make sense of the universe
Total: 41 1 2 3
Add Comment
This person only allows registered users to leave comments. You must sign up or sign in to comment.
ARCHIVE
What if we lost?
The Ecstacy of Cecelia
Breaking news
MY FRIENDS


Jackspade's Journal Widgets:
RSS | ATOM | JavaScript
Buzz Feed