10 Meanings
Add Yours
Follow
Share
Q&A
Rationalist Lyrics
See yourself to the exit.
We can’t afford to watch you resort to this.
Even hope hides in the shadows.
Nothing is real. Color is black, is white, is color blind.
Tucking away what’s true, what’s tangible.
You’re crashing faster and there won’t be
pieces to piece back together this time.
Can’t you see you’re ringing out?
This is dissonance.
It’s in the quiet of this place.
That all things come to life.
All that is real is blurred by your notion of reality.
Nothing is real. Color is black, is white, is color blind.
Tucking away what’s true, what’s tangible.
You skeptic, you. You believe in unbelief.
Now you’re the hypocrite.
You can’t hide from this.
We can’t afford to watch you resort to this.
Even hope hides in the shadows.
Nothing is real. Color is black, is white, is color blind.
Tucking away what’s true, what’s tangible.
pieces to piece back together this time.
Can’t you see you’re ringing out?
This is dissonance.
It’s in the quiet of this place.
That all things come to life.
Nothing is real. Color is black, is white, is color blind.
Tucking away what’s true, what’s tangible.
Now you’re the hypocrite.
You can’t hide from this.
Add your song meanings, interpretations, facts, memories & more to the community.
lol this whole song sounds like a contradiction. fail
I think that's the point. Criticism fail.
I think that's the point. Criticism fail.
whats up with all the "fail". it may take a second but read it.
whats up with all the "fail". it may take a second but read it.
Just because someone believes that christianity is a ridiculous fairy tale that defies logic, does not mean they don't believe anything, nor does it make them a hypocrite. They are believing that christianity and religion in general is bullshit. Therefore they ARE believing in something, just not what the band wants them to. They would be a hypocrite if they denounced religion publicly but actually believed in it themselves. Believing that a belief isn't true isn't hypocrisy, it's opinion.
Thanks for proving the point of the song....:D
Thanks for proving the point of the song....:D
Scratch that comment. Yours doesn't really makes sense. I thought I got what you're trying to say but my dyslexia got the best of me. You might wanna clear up what you meant cause your context is non-existent when you say "they"...
Scratch that comment. Yours doesn't really makes sense. I thought I got what you're trying to say but my dyslexia got the best of me. You might wanna clear up what you meant cause your context is non-existent when you say "they"...
The song isn't saying that they don't believe in anything. Read my comment above. The song is a commentary on the fact that many atheists claim to "lack a belief" in God instead of just saying they believe there is no God.
The song isn't saying that they don't believe in anything. Read my comment above. The song is a commentary on the fact that many atheists claim to "lack a belief" in God instead of just saying they believe there is no God.
I'm sure August Burns Red would admit that atheists likely believe in the existence of hamburgers or furniture. Stop trying to broaden the meaning of the song.
I'm sure August Burns Red would admit that atheists likely believe in the existence of hamburgers or furniture. Stop trying to broaden the meaning of the song.
Actually what I'm saying is that the writer clearly doesn't understand what a hypocrite is. Being an atheist does not in any way make you a hypocrite, provided you do not secretly believe in god or something else contradictory to atheism.
Actually what I'm saying is that the writer clearly doesn't understand what a hypocrite is. Being an atheist does not in any way make you a hypocrite, provided you do not secretly believe in god or something else contradictory to atheism.
I made this point earlier, but...
I made this point earlier, but...
Atheism in general is not even a belief. It is actually somebody who DOESN'T have a belief - in a God. You must acknowledge the distinction between NOT BELIEVING SOMETHING and BELIEVING SOMETHING IS FALSE. An atheist doesn't necessarily believe that there is absolutely no God. He is simply not buying what the theist is selling.
Atheism in general is not even a belief. It is actually somebody who DOESN'T have a belief - in a God. You must acknowledge the distinction between NOT BELIEVING SOMETHING and BELIEVING SOMETHING IS FALSE. An atheist doesn't necessarily believe that there is absolutely no God. He is simply not buying what the theist is selling.
The fact that we need to have a word for "not believing in a diety" may seem silly, but there it is.
The fact that we need to have a word for "not believing in a diety" may seem silly, but there it is.
The whole "belief in unbelief" thing had got me thinking as well, and I think the description applies a lot more towards nihilists, and not atheists or agnostics, or skeptics.
The whole "belief in unbelief" thing had got me thinking as well, and I think the description applies a lot more towards nihilists, and not atheists or agnostics, or skeptics.
And by the way, being a critical thinker, or, skeptic, should be something to be proud of.
And by the way, being a critical thinker, or, skeptic, should be something to be proud of.
Wow, deekismusic, I am quite impressed with your word manipulation skills. The distinction between not believing something and believing something is false? Really?
Wow, deekismusic, I am quite impressed with your word manipulation skills. The distinction between not believing something and believing something is false? Really?
Atheism - the doctrine or belief that there is no God. The lack of belief in the existence of a God or gods.
Atheism - the doctrine or belief that there is no God. The lack of belief in the existence of a God or gods.
Lack of belief does not imply lack of disbelief. In fact it implies disbelief. The only way you can truly "lack belief" one way or the other is if you are completely unaware of the idea or object in question. For instance, if you had never heard of the easter bunny you would truly...
Lack of belief does not imply lack of disbelief. In fact it implies disbelief. The only way you can truly "lack belief" one way or the other is if you are completely unaware of the idea or object in question. For instance, if you had never heard of the easter bunny you would truly "lack belief." Once you hear about the easter bunny you must choose one side or the other or your brain will do it for you. At this point you NO LONGER LACK BELIEF. You either believe or you don't.
An atheist believes that God does not exist. They may not know FOR CERTAIN that God does not exist but that is irrelevant. You are right, an atheist doesn't necessarily believe that there is ABSOLUTELY no God. I really like how you slip absolutely in there.
The point is, an atheist DOES have to believe that there is no God. They MUST to fulfill the definition. Certainty does not play a part, that is where the gnostic or agnostic modifier comes in.
LOL...God does talk about that nasty lil' bugger called "pride." So because you believe you know everything and you're the center of your universe makes you brigher? More important? Wiser? That's funny. The fact that you either can't or don't see possiblities and are unable to explain many occurances in life makes me wonder if you're more ego than brains.
LOL...God does talk about that nasty lil' bugger called "pride." So because you believe you know everything and you're the center of your universe makes you brigher? More important? Wiser? That's funny. The fact that you either can't or don't see possiblities and are unable to explain many occurances in life makes me wonder if you're more ego than brains.
claiming to be a "rationalist", and looking down on the silly mortals for "believing in fairy tales" is hypocrisy when all you have is a different belief. christianity cannot be absolutely proven, but it cannot be idisproven. so ya to demonize a group of people for not meeting a ridiculous standard you yourself cannot meet would indeed make you a hypocrite.
The burden of proof lies with the believers.
The burden of proof lies with the believers.
You believe in God? Show me the evidence, I'd be happy to accept God as fact in that case.
You believe in God? Show me the evidence, I'd be happy to accept God as fact in that case.
What would you say to a Scientologist that tried to get you join? Or a Jedi? You'd ask for evidence.
What would you say to a Scientologist that tried to get you join? Or a Jedi? You'd ask for evidence.
The absence of belief is not belief in something else.
The absence of belief is not belief in something else.
The burden of proof lies with the believers.
The burden of proof lies with the believers.
You believe in God? Show me the evidence, I'd be happy to accept God as fact in that case.
You believe in God? Show me the evidence, I'd be happy to accept God as fact in that case.
What would you say to a Scientologist that tried to get you join? Or a Jedi? You'd ask for evidence.
What would you say to a Scientologist that tried to get you join? Or a Jedi? You'd ask for evidence.
The absence of belief is not belief in something else.
The absence of belief is not belief in something else.
ahh, but the burden of proof isn't just on the christians, but also to the rationalists. rationalism is not rooted in an absence of belief of god, but rather a belief in an absence of god. those are much, much different.
ahh, but the burden of proof isn't just on the christians, but also to the rationalists. rationalism is not rooted in an absence of belief of god, but rather a belief in an absence of god. those are much, much different.
so you'd have to prove (rationally and analytically) that there is an absence of the judeo-christian (and every other) God for rationalism to actually be rational.
so you'd have to prove (rationally and analytically) that there is an absence of the judeo-christian (and every other) God for rationalism to actually be rational.
as far as the second part of the post, i do quite agree with you. there's gotta be some standard to consider something trustworthy. as do the christians who have done...
as far as the second part of the post, i do quite agree with you. there's gotta be some standard to consider something trustworthy. as do the christians who have done their homework. there are tons of books out in the world on evidences of christian beliefs. josh mcdowell has written books after him and a team spending thousands of hours collecting firsthand information on the validity of the christian bible. it's astounding. also if you have netflix and an an hr to kill, a lot of the same information is on "the case for christ". really cheesy documentary, but the info is good.
There is so much 'evidence" if only people would open their eyes. Look at all the sins God talks about and look at the consequences on individuals; groups; and society as a whole. He talks about greed; war; love/hate; divorce; adultry; dependence; homosexuality; etc. And look at what we have when we see...how many hurt due to us going against the teachings. You cannot disprove faith and those with faith are under no obligation to prove it. You cannot prove how you got here; why you're here; and where'd you're going, so does that mean you do not exist???...
There is so much 'evidence" if only people would open their eyes. Look at all the sins God talks about and look at the consequences on individuals; groups; and society as a whole. He talks about greed; war; love/hate; divorce; adultry; dependence; homosexuality; etc. And look at what we have when we see...how many hurt due to us going against the teachings. You cannot disprove faith and those with faith are under no obligation to prove it. You cannot prove how you got here; why you're here; and where'd you're going, so does that mean you do not exist???
Dang, I cannot type today!
Dang, I cannot type today!
Who gave me a thumbs up. I said I couldn't type, not couldn't think;)
Who gave me a thumbs up. I said I couldn't type, not couldn't think;)
i feel this song is about how we try to rationalize everything in our life.
This song is talking about how rationalists perceive our existence, specifically atheists. Many atheists claim that atheism is the "lack of a belief" with regards to God, which is somewhat ridiculous. If you ask an atheist if they believe that God does not exist, they will say yes, otherwise they are agnostic at best. Therefore, atheists do have a belief, the belief that God does not exist. This is what this song portrays at the end when it says "you believe in unbelief."
The rest of the song is basically talking about how people try to rationalize everything and twist things to fit in with their presuppositions. What they don't realize is that if a creator existed outside of the universe, (which the Christian God must), then he does not have to play by all of the rules of the universe. After all, he is the one who created them. This song says that we need to look at what is real and tangible to help us understand what is really going on.
Thats how I see it anyway... :)
It sounds that you haven't spoken with many atheists. You also seem to be confused about the terms "atheist" and "agnostic." The terms are NOT mutually exclusive. You can be both, neither, or one or the other. This is because they address two different inquiries. Theism is the BELIEF in a deity. Adding the a- prefix to theism is basically saying "without theism" or "no theism." It does not get into the depths of theism being empirically false. Simply, if you are not a "theist," then you are atheist by default. Also, atheism is not a belief at all -...
It sounds that you haven't spoken with many atheists. You also seem to be confused about the terms "atheist" and "agnostic." The terms are NOT mutually exclusive. You can be both, neither, or one or the other. This is because they address two different inquiries. Theism is the BELIEF in a deity. Adding the a- prefix to theism is basically saying "without theism" or "no theism." It does not get into the depths of theism being empirically false. Simply, if you are not a "theist," then you are atheist by default. Also, atheism is not a belief at all - much the same way that my non-belief of Bigfoot isn't a belief. We don't have a term for "Abigfootists" because the majority of people know it to be myth.
I don't think I've met a single atheist who would genuinely claim that "There is definitely no God." Claiming certainty of something's non-existance is just silly, you're going to have trouble trying to prove a negative. However, these people could be defined as "gnostic atheists". FOr all practical terms, I would say there is probably no God, given our current understanding of everything around us. However, since I know it is silly to claim with absolute certainty the non-existance of something, you might call me an agnostic atheist. This brings me back to my earlier point, which is how "atheist" and "agnostic" deal with two different things. As we know, theism involves belief, while agnosticism deals with knowledge (greek: gnÅsis = "knowledge"). An agnostic (notice the use of the "without" prefix of "a-") would say that there is no current knowledge to be able to make a claim about, in this case, God. So there are agnostic and gnostic theists (some claim they KNOW there's a God), and the same goes for atheists.
I would strongly disagree with your interpretation that the song encourages us to examine what is real and tangible to help determine truth. In fact, it is doing the opposite. As a skeptic myself, I push myself hard to examine things critically, and use actual evidence to determine what I understand as true. This song, as well as organized religion in general, looks down on people who are naturalists and get their truth from science and observation. Theists, on the other hand, have nothing tangible except a book writen by men, and delusional thoughts that help re-enforce their delicate notion of a father figure watching over them.
I understand the terms and I agree with your definitions. I just prefer to simplify the terms a little more. When I say agnostic I am essentially referring to a "soft atheist" or an "agnostic atheist." When I say "atheist" I am referring to a "hard atheist" or "gnostic atheist." I should have clarified.
I understand the terms and I agree with your definitions. I just prefer to simplify the terms a little more. When I say agnostic I am essentially referring to a "soft atheist" or an "agnostic atheist." When I say "atheist" I am referring to a "hard atheist" or "gnostic atheist." I should have clarified.
Really the only point I was getting at is that "hard atheists" are just being silly, which is exactly what you said. So we are in agreement.
Really the only point I was getting at is that "hard atheists" are just being silly, which is exactly what you said. So we are in agreement.
I continue to hold to the belief...
I continue to hold to the belief that the song encourages us to examine what is real and tangible. Basically the skeptic is saying "Nothing is real. Color is white, is black is color-blind," essentially closing themselves off from any real truths that they can tangibly see and understand with their senses. The next line "tucking away what's true, what's tangible" describes how they forget about the power of observation and critical examination that you spoke highly of. They are "tucking away" obvious truths and in doing so convince themselves that they are not true.
Saying theists have nothing tangible except a book is quite laughable, and I really should just leave that alone. I'll give a few examples of tangible evidence for you just for the fun of it.
The fact that the Bible is written by over 40 authors over hundreds of years and is in complete agreement with itself after endless examination and scrutiny.
The fact that (as recorded in the Book of Martyrs) each of Jesus' disciples other than John died an excruciating death after seeing him raised from the grave and spending the rest of their lives boldly preaching his Gospel. This after they were completely discourage and wrought with self-pity after realizing their leader was dead. What could have caused them to boldly give their lives other than knowing Jesus was alive after such a devastation?
The countless first-hand experiences with miraculous and mysterious happenings that Christians all over the world continue to claim. This is not as tangible, that is true, but is worth mentioning nonetheless. I can certainly cite first hand experiences of my own which makes it important to note.
The complexity of the Earth and the incredible balance in which it hangs, along with the existence of little to no room for adjustment without a complete collapse. (This makes randomness seem a little more than unlikely.)
The fact that the world's best scientists still cannot explain how something living came from something non-living.
The fact that the beginning of the Earth, let alone the universe, has no logical explanation outside of a creator.
Of course, this evidence is of little use to someone who is convinced in their heart that there is no God. That is the real issue. All I ask is that you continue your search for truth, and I pray that one day God will grant you the faith to believe in him, and open your eyes to the unseen truths of this world.
"The fact that the Bible is written by over 40 authors over hundreds of years and is in complete agreement with itself after endless examination and scrutiny."
"The fact that the Bible is written by over 40 authors over hundreds of years and is in complete agreement with itself after endless examination and scrutiny."
>
"The fact that the world's best scientists still cannot explain how something living came from something non-living."
>
"The fact that the world's best scientists still cannot explain how something living came from something non-living."
True, but just because "science" is unable to come up with an answer, doesn't make...
>
Realistically, you're an Atheist too, you're an Atheist to Thor, Zeus, Apollo, Shiva, Allah, I trust you believe in the father of Jesus Christ? So you don't believe in all these other 'Gods' that many other people put their faith in or have put their faith in, fair enough, well Atheists just go one god further. ;-) Surely that's not so incomprehensible.
Now talking personally, I just can't find the faith to choose one of the many religions, just because most condemn you for believing in anything else. Islam the 'peaceful religion' condemns all 'fakhir' (non-believers) while Christianity sends me to hell apparently for not sharing their beliefs, these 'peaceful' religions are only peaceful if you're a part of them. So I choose to accept these theories, and go with a theory that since these guys contradict each other, they both can't be right. And since neither one has any real/enough evidence to show me the proof of their God (after all the burden of proof rests with the believer) I will just choose to not believe what they believe.
'The burden of proof rests with the believer' - this is a very good phrase. If some one came to you trying to convert you to the Church of The Flying Spaghetti Monster you'd think they were crazy and ask for evidence. After all evidence is the only real reason to give something your support. Authority, 3rd party revelation and Tradition are all reasons you shouldn't blindly believe what someone or something says.
Any questions? Comments?
i think everybody needs to consult the dictionary:
i think everybody needs to consult the dictionary:
a·the·ism    [ey-thee-iz-uhm] Show IPA —noun 1. the doctrine or belief that there is no god. 2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.
a·the·ism    [ey-thee-iz-uhm] Show IPA —noun 1. the doctrine or belief that there is no god. 2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.
Sure gets you thinking.
Lyrics aside, this song is musically unreal.
This song is awesome, and while I personally disagree with the message behind the lyrics they are strong and thought-provoking. I would like to further some of the points already made here by referring to thommcnealy's comment. He says:
"claiming to be a "rationalist", and looking down on the silly mortals for "believing in fairy tales" is hypocrisy when all you have is a different belief. christianity cannot be absolutely proven, but it cannot be idisproven. so ya to demonize a group of people for not meeting a ridiculous standard you yourself cannot meet would indeed make you a hypocrite."
As mentioned before, just because an individual does not believe in (for example) Christianity does not necessarily mean that they hold another belief, or more specifically the belief that Christianity is explicitly false. In my opinion, the 'all or nothing' idea that you must either have the belief that something is right or the belief that something is wrong stems from the teachings of Christianity and therefore provides a warped or biased view. In essence, the non-belief in Christianity is not in itself a belief that something is false. It is purely not believing, which I do not think is hypocritical as it is entirely what non-believers set out to do. The idea that non-belief extends further into a belief of falsehood or alternate reasoning is an unfortunate side-effect of the term 'atheist', which furthers the portrayal given by Christians that non-believers are opposites or 'the opposing team', the 'A'-theist counterpart to the theist. In my opinion the reality is much more complex than this, there is not simply a left and right hand side. For example this song describes the 'rationalist' as the hypocrite, however there are many other religions with equal measures of evidence for their belief as Christianity. Subscribing to one religion while discarding another ventures in the direction of hypocrisy, yet other faiths have so far been left out of this argument. I hope this makes sense to someone as this is a difficult subject to summarize. On a different note, this song is awesome! ABR RULES!
Acoasm, get what you're saying.
Acoasm, get what you're saying.
I don't believe in any religion. I believe in myself, I believe that religions were created to give some sort of rule set and explanation for our existence for the civilizations of old. ABR's song "Marianas Trench" (to me) talks about how Christianity is not equipped in our modern world to explain or deal with things like evolution and other proven subjects, or other ways of life that are frowned upon by their faith. The only constant is change, and if religions can't change to match our modern and evolving world then they will be...
I don't believe in any religion. I believe in myself, I believe that religions were created to give some sort of rule set and explanation for our existence for the civilizations of old. ABR's song "Marianas Trench" (to me) talks about how Christianity is not equipped in our modern world to explain or deal with things like evolution and other proven subjects, or other ways of life that are frowned upon by their faith. The only constant is change, and if religions can't change to match our modern and evolving world then they will be swept beneath the truth of the universe. I don't believe in any god, I see the universe we live in as a far more beautiful place knowing that it all happened on its own naturally. There are many possibilities as to what triggered the big bang, but in no way am I ready to hop on some age old bandwagon and live my life hoping that one possible reason for our creation was some deity outside our universe creating things.
The fact that our universe is infinite and still expanding exponentially just shows that we are by no means the center of it, or the only ones here. It shows the fragility of life and how we must just enjoy it and no matter where or how you choose to lead it, in the end the only impact you will have will be on those who can observe said impact. (ie: the people you know and care for) So enjoy your lives, respect others around you, and have the best damned time you possibly can!!
I love ABR for such great music and thought provoking lyrics. What they're saying through them is one thing, but to us, all that we have IS the lyrics so we can make what we want of them.
Spread the love
You know what? I like how respectful you were in that post. I'm not going to post any of my own views or anything else, just to stay neutral. Just stay curious and keep seeking out truth in everything.
You know what? I like how respectful you were in that post. I'm not going to post any of my own views or anything else, just to stay neutral. Just stay curious and keep seeking out truth in everything.
I get what you're saying, and its not about religion. It not about well I'm a Christian, well I'm a athiest, well I believe in myself. Its about faith. The thing is, whatever you choose to believe requires faith, be it Christ, or the universe, or whatever. If you're a Christian, you have the faith in Christ that He died for you and will return for you. If you're an athiest, its faith in the correctness if your views. All of it takes a measure of faith, like it or not. And, respectfully as possible, it really is a defining...
I get what you're saying, and its not about religion. It not about well I'm a Christian, well I'm a athiest, well I believe in myself. Its about faith. The thing is, whatever you choose to believe requires faith, be it Christ, or the universe, or whatever. If you're a Christian, you have the faith in Christ that He died for you and will return for you. If you're an athiest, its faith in the correctness if your views. All of it takes a measure of faith, like it or not. And, respectfully as possible, it really is a defining right and left side. If you believe in nothing, you believe that you are right, and for you to be right, someone has to be wrong. Otherwise, that leaves leeway for YOU to be the wrong one. Finally, I have a question for all of you. Obviously, you are pretty rock solid in your beliefs, and obviously you have a serious level of faith in what you believe in, so why waste that faith on death? All that non-belief offers is death eternally, while Christiany offers eternal life, and all it takes is faith. Because logically and rationally, after your years here are up, would you rather be dirt in the ground, or live? Think on it, and reply with your thoughts.
Thanks for your comment! I'd like to again offer the idea that atheism does not in fact require faith... the reason being that it does not deal in absolute truths. The Christian faith in Christ traditionally requires that ideas such as intelligent design are taken as absolute truths, meaning that they are regarded as sacred and not open to discussion or editing. This is what requires 'faith', because the views often have to be held in the face of entirely contradictory evidence. The fact that religion is supposed to provide a moral compass for life, and indeed claims to have...
Thanks for your comment! I'd like to again offer the idea that atheism does not in fact require faith... the reason being that it does not deal in absolute truths. The Christian faith in Christ traditionally requires that ideas such as intelligent design are taken as absolute truths, meaning that they are regarded as sacred and not open to discussion or editing. This is what requires 'faith', because the views often have to be held in the face of entirely contradictory evidence. The fact that religion is supposed to provide a moral compass for life, and indeed claims to have the answers to the mysteries of the universe, should mean that it is open to criticism and debate. However all to often it is not! I hope it would not seem to unfair to bring up the old example of Italian astronomer Galileo, who was condemned for heresy in the 1600's for his (correct) conjecture that it was in fact the sun at the center of the solar system! Given that the Catholic Church did not make a formal apology for this until 1992, I believe this would not only be fair to point out, but would also serve as a good example of just how stubbornly faith can make people reject true observations due to out-dated, pre-existing beliefs.
On the other hand, atheists (and I try not to generalise here, because as I see it atheists are not so much their own group with a formal set of beliefs as they are just non-participants) do tend to take the scientific, rationalist approach. The difference is that atheists do not (or at least should not) hold their beliefs as absolute truths. More often theories are based on evidence, and the more evidence there is for something, the more it can believed to be true. Take for example our friend Galileo, who's observations told him that the earth was not actually the center of the universe. Or indeed the opposing argument to intelligent design, which would be evolution. Science works on the principles of approximation, prediction, experiment and observation. If something agrees with experiment then it is taken to be true, or at least the best approximation for something that there is.
However these are not absolute truths! It is pretty certain that the sun is the center of the solar system. But IF a better explanation were to come along, that agreed more completely with observation and experiment, or explained as yet undiscovered astronomy data, there would be nothing stopping us (if not frustration) from altering our beliefs. There are no sacred truths or prophets in science. Of course there is a degree of 'faith' in one sense of the word in beliefs such as evolution, because they can be relied upon to produce accurate predictions about our world. But it is not the faith that I am trying to describe, the true religious use of the word. That would be holding a belief without or even in spite of genuine evidence. Only religion requires this, and hence it is is the only option that requires 'faith'! For all I know, Christianity may in fact be correct. But I don't claim to know, and that is why I shouldn't have to justify my belief, or have any sort of faith in it. My own experience however, learns me to think that such an answer for the origin of the universe is at best unlikely, as there is no empirical evidence. This is why I choose not to believe. But only the believers have the onus on them to justify their belief with faith, as they are the only ones claiming absolute truth. And again, atheists do not specifically 'believe in nothing' as you suggest. It is merely the refusal to have a belief at all, at least without the support of evidence.
Lastly, I would like to adress your final question. I realise I have written a lot, I hope it does not seem like I'm just trying to write the most! Incidentally I should also note that my aim here is not to try and convince you not to have faith or to change your opinion. I am very away that no-one worth of calling themselves a Christian would drop their beliefs immediately because of a few paragraphs! I don't wish to be that obnoxious. My aim is only to defend atheism from the accusations of hypocrisy that seem to be flying around, and try to explain why I am doing so, thought it has proven difficult to do briefly. The scientific method is a noble endeavour which has given us all of the technologies, medicines and knowledge that we have today. And my atheism has given me the joys of wondering at the origin of the universe, and the humility that the overwhelming feeling of 'not knowing' brings. It leaves you room to decide your own purpose in life, rather than being given one. It allows you to set your own moral compass, one that is specifically based on what YOU think is right rather than what your often questionable God thinks.
Your question is a troubling one for me as I have been asked it several times and every time I feel like I have misunderstood. If it is as simple as it seems, you seem to be asking why, given the choice, one would choose to believe in 'eternal death' as opposed to eternal life. The answer is that because for me, I draw a distinction between what I would prefer to believe, and what I actually think is more likely. We are at a crossroads because your faith leads you to the belief in eternal life, while my beliefs mean that I do not see the necessity for or the logic behind such a thing. But if you were simple given the choice of which to believe, why be so arrogant as to assume that the entire nature of the universe conforms to what you wish it to be, when there is no evidence to suggest that it should? To be honest with you though, perhaps I am just as guilty of just choosing the outcome I prefer. While I am not entirely confortable with the concept of death, I am unsettled much more at the prospect of eternal life, for reasons that I very much can't explain. I just find the concept of 'eternity' and having to live through that amount of time to be a scarier prospect than simply dying and no longer being conscious. In comparison, that would almost seem like a relief. However, I can not BELIEVE how much I have written! I guess this has been on my mind a lot. Thank you so much if you have read this far! I would love to hear some responses.
Atheists, or Christians, all are entitled to their own beliefs. In reply to the prospect of eternal life: Jesus while on the cross said to one of the 2 other guys who was crucified too, after recognizing Jesus as the saviour “Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise.” + 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18
Atheists, or Christians, all are entitled to their own beliefs. In reply to the prospect of eternal life: Jesus while on the cross said to one of the 2 other guys who was crucified too, after recognizing Jesus as the saviour “Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise.” + 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18
But we do not want you to be uninformed, brothers, about those who are asleep, that you may not grieve as others do who have no hope. For since we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so, through Jesus, God will bring with...
But we do not want you to be uninformed, brothers, about those who are asleep, that you may not grieve as others do who have no hope. For since we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so, through Jesus, God will bring with him those who have fallen asleep. For this we declare to you by a word from the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will not precede those who have fallen asleep. For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the voice of an archangel, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we will always be with the Lord. ...
Hope this helps.
John 14:1-31
John 14:1-31
“Let not your hearts be troubled. Believe in God; believe also in me. In my Father's house are many mantions. If it were not so, would I have told you that I go to prepare a place for you? And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and will take you to myself, that where I am you may be also. And you know the way to where I am going.” Thomas said to him, “Lord, we do not know where you are going. How can we know the way?” ...
“Let not your hearts be troubled. Believe in God; believe also in me. In my Father's house are many mantions. If it were not so, would I have told you that I go to prepare a place for you? And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and will take you to myself, that where I am you may be also. And you know the way to where I am going.” Thomas said to him, “Lord, we do not know where you are going. How can we know the way?” ...
I thought...
I thought this was interesting too.
Love the song, and if it gets individuals talking about religion; faith; non-belief than that's an added bonus. Just wondering why we're all supposed to be tolerant of everyone except Christians and fat people..and why we'll consider the possiblity of alien life form elsewhere but not the concept of a higher being called God:) Who the heck is responsible for evolution? I choose to believe in God, and His teachings have been proven wise for centuries. When I was an atheist for over two decades I NEVER felt the need to insult Christians. Confident atheists don't feel the need to look down on or challenge those of faith. Show some respect...where's all that inclusion and tolerance shit:)
Ok, as a Christian, I would love to debate, or discuss what this song means to an atheist, or agnostic...but I feel like a topic like this is something that really needs to be talked about in person...thats just my opinion. I love going through and reading from both sides and I just whats on my mind, and im not trying to discredit anyone or anything. (fyi, my understanding of atheists and agnostics might be a little fuzzy, so if something i say is wrong, please feel free to correct it)
Belief-noun: A state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing.
I feel like the debate on things that we still have no certainty on (from both parties) is kinda of pointless. As a Christian, my BELIEF is my God, Yahweh created the heavens and the earth, etc. As for God, Yahweh Himself? My BELIEF is that what the scriptures say, "He is the Alpha and Omega, The Beginning and The End and that God has just always been there from the very start. He is so much bigger than anything i can even come close to comprehending. So i mean, for me, if an athiest, or agnostic were to ask me, for example, "How was God created?", I would simply answer, My belief is that He just ALWAYS was. Because honestly, anything else after that, im DEFINITELY not sure about. God to me, and other believers, is infinite, and we are finite. We can't understand ALL of God, at least this side of heaven.
But as for Atheists, or Agnostics, we could possibly ask questions about some topics like, and im not trying to give my opinion about these topics, just use them as an example, but things like Evolution or the Big Bang Theory. Is there not evidence about both those topics that hasn't been proved, or can even be proved? Like I said earlier, if something I say about these are completely false, PLEASE correct me. But if im not mistaking, the Atheist, or Agnostic BELIEF is that one doesnt have all the facts to prove or disprove God Yahweh, and the other denies God existence all together?
Speaking from a neutral standpoint, If as of right now, either side, believing or non-believing, don't have all the facts to over-rule the other side, why must we argue about things neither of us know?
I'm not sure if this helps, thats just my thoughts. I hope it helps! :)
I understand the song completely, and in order to be heard in an unbiased fashion, I will take no specific side openly. On the other hand, I know which side I stand on and would like to submit some thought-provoking insight. This song is clear as to which group it is speaking to, and which side it is speaking on behalf of.
*Atheists generally stand by evolution, which states that the universe, this earth, and even mankind was not an act of creation but millions of years of species improvement and environmental development. This eliminates the belief in God and His influence in human affairs, and coincides with the belief of Humanism which basically states that man is his own "god", and he is in control. This was theorized decades ago by a well-known and well-educated scientist named Charles Darwin.
*Christians generally stand by creation, which states that everything and everyone that exists was spoken into existence by God. This was dictated to over 40 different authors during a period of over 2,000 years. And yet in the centuries of biblical study by both believers and non-believers, there has not been one false fact or contradiction within it's pages. It contains numerous scientific facts that were later "discovered" such as the shape of the earth, and the underwater currents in the sea. It was composed centuries ago through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit who was present during creation and who composes a portion of the Trinity which is God.
Both sides make excellent points, and both have some scientific support, but in the end I must base my beliefs on one thing: their authors. Do I trust a man, or do I trust God?
And upon the foundation of that belief do I base the rest of my beliefs. Many may think my comment is irrelevant because it deals with creation and not with the song in and of itself, but knowing where your beliefs begin is necessary to knowing where they end.