Question for the atheist?
- Thread starter badboyyawdie
- Start date
No actually. Religious people (theists) don't assume that there is a God. They BELIEVE it as an absolute TRUTH.
Atheism is a REJECTION of this ABSOLUTE belief hence an ABSOLUTE rejection.
There are no assumptions here.
Sorry.
You are absolutely incorrect, fear of death is not the whole point of human nature or existence. As a being inhabiting this Earth you should have a desire to strengthen yourself mentally, physically, emotionally, and spiritually to the point where you understand that there is no such thing as death. To understand that you are a spiritual being inhabiting a vessel of flesh that one day will perish. Only the spiritually immature fear death because they lack knowledge of self and knowledge of existence. This is why Christians fear death because the belief system they subscribe to does everything in its power to stunt their spiritual and intellectual growth to make it easier for their "superiors" to control them. Fearing what will go on in your absence i.e. what is going to happen to your family and etc. is healthy and human but to fear passing on itself isn't. The most ironic thing about it all is that Christians claim they hold the truth and that they know where they are going when they die but they STILL are afraid to pass on. That shows me right there that their conviction is superficial.
As for knowledge of the earth, cosmos, mind, body, etc ... neither do atheists.Even though they swear they do. Which is equally hilarious.
You see, the Christian doctrine does not teach humans anything about this plane of existence. It doesn't explain space, water, the mind, the body, or the soul, and since it presents itself as the end all be all book it's contents are supposed to be the apex of human intelligence which it clearly isn't. If we all were to live our lives according to Jesus we would be a group of possession-less nomads with no medicine (just pray), no knowledge of the world (trust in God), no individual thought (wait for God to give orders), and submissive (must obey your superiors i.e. Priest, Pastor, and etc.). Christianity stifles human progression due to it's archaic, arrogant, and stubborn nature which limits it's ability to evolve. At least Atheist's closest thing to a "doctrine" doesn't act like it has all the answers and is actually open to criticism. You don't have to have faith in science because if it doesn't make sense you discard it until it is able to be understood. A true Atheist is open to spiritual, mental, and emotional progression...Christians aren't.
I know that science can't 'absolutely' prove anything, but guess what; at it's core it does not pretend to. Any reasonably competent scientist will tell you that science is a tool that we humans use to try to explain everything as best we can using the best data available. How does it work? By using rational skepticism, and rigorous questioning in order to weed out the ideas that doesn't work, from the ones that do against the best data. Or course there are assumptions, which is why the idea of absolute certainty is not encouraged (even tho due to ego some scientists may still that way about certain theories) and if you listen closely when scientists are discussing a topic they do not typically speak in absolute terms. Those two principles are why science is capable of change and in the process, change the way we live.
Contrast that with religion, (or belief in a personal god) that makes bold claims about the universe without offering an inkling of evidence that can be dissected in order to support their claims. Complicating the matter, many religious people would love for the government to legislate their morality for all citizens, their morality which is usually based on a book that they claim was written/inspired by a god that they do not even have evidence for.
Also I would not expect someone to absolutely believe me when I say I love my moms, but to make a reasonable assumption based on my actions. You should never trust what anybody says/does 100% even those closest to you since you can never know what is going on in their heads. You should always keep in mind that there is always a chance no matter how miniscule it may be, that they could betray you. It's not being paranoid but being realistic.
When it boils down to it, this is more about rational skepticism than anything. Atheism is more or a less a conclusion certain people reach when applying it to a certain topic (god).
There are many things that people claim to have seen/heard/felt, the the general populace dismisses as being highly unlikely. Why shouldn't the idea of god be held to same standards you would hold to a used car dealer?
Ew^^^^^^^^^^^^^ LISTEN TO THIS MAN
I gotta give it to you SEAN69. You're a gifted writer, but a lot of what you wrote, albeit poetic, is either misinformed or all out bullshit.
But you be writin. Sho nuff!
I gotta give it to you SEAN69. You're a gifted writer, but a lot of what you wrote, albeit poetic, is either misinformed or all out bullshit.
But you be writin. Sho nuff!
So you follow out of fear??? Wrong reason to do it. I wont be arrogant enough to say there is no god... I will say however the capacity that many belive it to be is absurd. Fact is this... Theres more evidence that the diety you so desperatly want to belive in does not exist, than the opposite. Therefore I question where you get you faith from. Is it mearly brainwashing that took place at an early age??? Or is it founded on something tangible??? That what I took from religion at an early age, believe in this or else... I had the wrong personality for that. You have people that say ok, and the ones who say or else what... Its clear as day which kid you were.
Who is John Gault?
You misunderstood me. I meant it in the pure carnal sense. I didn't mean to say that we only live to die. That would be a waste of our sentience. In my opinion. I'm not trying to argue this PHILOSOPHY. At least not in this thread.
You speak of the desire to live spirituality as if this is an automatic hard-wired innate inclination. I don't think it is. The knowledge of self and existence you mention is furnished by interaction with our environment and our societal disposition, both of which are understood through the ASSIMILATION and ACCOMMODATION of the mental schema/representations that we've - the process of thought.
And how is fearing what happens to loved ones after death healthy and human but fearing your own death not?
I don't understand your reasoning here. Aren't both cases rooted in the same anxiety? Shouldn't the same knowledge of self and existence (which should include the existence of your loved ones) allow one to transcend this fear as well? After all, you'll be dead anyways so why care? If not, this selective conviction is equally as superficial.
Let's also not forget that there was a time when religious fundamentalists had no problem dying for their beliefs. Oh wait, that's still going on ...
First, two questions:
What plane of existence?
What's the apex of human intelligence?
Secondly, I can "explain", say, a red coffee mug to you, describe it based on it's physical properties (color, shape, size, what it's made of, etc) but all I've done is tell its properties, maybe how it behaves, but not what it is. Science can't tell you what it is either.
How come? Because the psychological process involved in the first step of science, observation, is deterministic and nature itself is probabilistic (at least that's how we perceive it).
A very smart non-Christian named Richard Feynman who studied the nature of the interaction of light and matter - about as fundamentally as it gets in science - realized this too.
I'm not a Christian but this is simply not true. Again, superlatives.
I find atheists to be as arrogant as religious fundamentalists. Which makes sense, being that it's also an institution and the psychological effects of institutionalization on human behavior is well established.
Not true. Please scroll up and read my previous post about Phlogiston and Newton's Corpuscular Theory of Light. Or read Thomas Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Heck they should make that book required reading for all atheists. smh
Why hasn't science discarded quantum theory? That theory makes absolutely no sense.
Actually it is true....because Christianity.....the Original Sin of man is Eating from the Tree of Knowledge....
Seeking knowledge is sin in the eyes of Christianity.....
I guess the last part of my post you quoted sort of went over your head
The evidence required to validate a scientific claim (physical) and the evidence required to validate a religious disposition (experience) are apples and oranges.
I'm not arguing the politics of religious INSTITUTION. That's too easy.
Reasonable assumptions based on ACTIONS.
OK. Now what assumption would you make based on the ACTION of person A who wakes up one day and decides to kill their 2yr old kid?
Now what assumptions would you make if when asked why they did it, person A says it's because they loved the kid so much?
But science rarely submits to "the general populace" (maybe to a select community in some cases). So why should religious experience?
Da fuck?Huh??
Did you even read what you quoted?
Oh, and by the way, the tree of knowledge thing . Are you serious? This is your argument? Weak.
@ 2:38
"... atheism is not the assertion that gods don't exist, but the rejection of the claim that gods do exist as unsupported."
How is this semantic sophistry any different from Intelligent Design proponents saying that they're not Creationists?
"murder is not the act of taking another's life from existence, but the rejection of the notion that that person deserves to not live"
The power of language.
And this whole notion that existence must be demonstrated and rejection of existence doesn't have to be is utter bullshit. If so, we might as well just reject every claim which can't be demonstrated to us scientifically. Like abstract emotions like love for instance.
How do you rationally demonstrate the existence of something whose effects are not proportionate to it's cause? By reductionism. But how do you apply reductionism to emergent phenomena? Like color? (I challenge anyone in this thread to reduce the color blue)
The natural progression of scientific explanation is to proceed from the effect of something toward the knowledge of the cause. And the requirement is that from every effect the the existence of it's proper cause should be demonstrated through the physics (mechanics) of interactions.
Since the effects can only be known to us psychologically through observation and subsequent induction (cognition) therein lies the limiting variable. And the shear number of people that agree that something is what it is has absolutely no bearing on the truth. Hey, you atheists came up with that one, not me. LOL.
So what are we left with? SMFH.
Last edited:
Reads like something an evangelical Christian would say. lol.
A caveman can sit back and call bullshit. It's so easy. Argue your case. If it's compelling i'll concede. Some of you atheists are as fundamental and religious as Mormons
........................
intersting book, i'll probably cop it, however I don't see how it contradicts what I said. could you expound?
I guess the last part of my post you quoted sort of went over your head
The evidence required to validate a scientific claim (physical) and the evidence required to validate a religious disposition (experience) are apples and oranges.
I'm not arguing the politics of religious INSTITUTION. That's too easy.
nope i understood you, did you understand me?
Reasonable assumptions based on ACTIONS.
OK. Now what assumption would you make based on the ACTION of person A who wakes up one day and decides to kill their 2yr old kid?
Now what assumptions would you make if when asked why they did it, person A says it's because they loved the kid so much?
you can't just make a simple assumption. first you have to start off with :'i don't know why', and try to work your way back using their history. was the person a psychopath, bi-polar, under extreme stress, or held a delusional belief? if the answers to these questions and more probing ones don't satisfy or seem to jive with what was reported about the persons involved, then maybe you would have to come to grips with the idea that you will probably never know why they did what they did. i fail to see how that contradicts what i said tho.
But science rarely submits to "the general populace" (maybe to a select community in some cases). So why should religious experience?
you're sure that science doesn't want to submit to the general populace, or is it that the general populace doesn't care/is uninterested in the scientific process, including skeptical reasoning, but would happily consume the fruits of its labor?
close thread
atheism = lack of a belief in a god or any diety.
all that other shit is irrelevant.
I'm an atheist . . . don't see the big deal. As far as arrogance goes . . . some are some aren't. Not a terribly interesting observation. However, I disagree with your broad stroke assertion that atheist's are fundamentalists, on par with religious folks.
The likely scenario (from my experience) is, you encounter religious audacity and fanaticism almost every waking day. And it's suppose to be 'o.k.' because it's gospel or comes from a 'good book'. . . and what could be wrong with the gospel, right? Religious folks are the poster children for arrogance. History bears this out. But somehow, I imagine your aim in this thread is something more than trying to say that the pot is calling the kettle black, no? At least I hope so.
JG
Reads like something an evangelical Christian would say. lol.
A caveman can sit back and call bullshit. It's so easy. Argue your case. If it's compelling i'll concede. Some of you atheists are as fundamental and religious as Mormons
thats the thing christians are the ones that need to argue thier case on Y they believe in a cloud man, me i just relax work hard and enjoy life and if there is a God that banishes me to hell just for not goin to church on sunday then fuck em hells prolly better anyway
Your mind ain't free.
It's the easiest thing in the world to understand unless you need with all your being to believe in God.
It's like telling a bottom bitch that Silky don't care about her. She ain't gonna believe you.
It ain't the shit you're saying. You believe that God exists, and are certain of it. Atheists don't think God exists, but most would be up for a legitimate discussion that proved he did.
The problem is, the idea of atheism is so far out of the mindset of the average Christian, they are like you... they can't relate a reasonable argument, because they can't wrap their head around what atheism really is.
sean69
if you're arguing that personal experience ought to be one of the most revered aspects of a claim, then where do you draw the line? if schitzos believe that they are jesus christ or superman, should that claim be challenged or scrutinized or 'respected'? how about when someone claims that they were held down by a demon as they woke up (even tho that has been demonstrated in the lab)? while emotions including love can be beautiful and complex, they are not above being explained scientifically.
can you clarify this for me? when someone makes a claim that seems way off the cuff, do you go 'i doubt what that person said what they experienced, really happened' the way they described it or are you like 'well that was his personal experience so i can't really judge?
if you're arguing that personal experience ought to be one of the most revered aspects of a claim, then where do you draw the line? if schitzos believe that they are jesus christ or superman, should that claim be challenged or scrutinized or 'respected'? how about when someone claims that they were held down by a demon as they woke up (even tho that has been demonstrated in the lab)? while emotions including love can be beautiful and complex, they are not above being explained scientifically.
can you clarify this for me? when someone makes a claim that seems way off the cuff, do you go 'i doubt what that person said what they experienced, really happened' the way they described it or are you like 'well that was his personal experience so i can't really judge?
Yes. I'm not just in here being Devil's Advocate. I'm not in here defending Christianity. I wonder why that always seems to be the default conclusion folks come to
... oh well. I'm just addressing some of the flawed logic and misinformation (especially the claims about the so-called 'linear' 'apolitical' purely objective evolution of science)And I agree with you. I should have said 'some' atheists. Religious folks by and large tend to be more arrogant and fundamentalist in their beliefs than atheists (and agnostics more so). You're right. I was just addressing those atheists I personally have interacted with.
I guess my main point is this: Religious INSTITUTION is often confabulated with religious EXPERIENCE. And understandably so. You can say that the former supervenes the later. But as unbelievable as it probably is to most atheists, scientific and religious experience (spirituality or whatever you wana call it) can be compatible and a very healthy synergy can actually be realized.
As one who is very in tune with my spirituality, I really don't feel the burden to prove my 'personal' experiences and inferences to anyone. As a scientist the burden of 'proof' is a requirement of the method.
But you felt the need to comment on my posts. It's not a big deal, it's human behavior.
besides if you actually read any of my post for the last 3 pages you wouldn't be typing to me about Christianity
close thread
lets keep it open for a sec
@ 2:38
"... atheism is not the assertion that gods don't exist, but the rejection of the claim that gods do exist as unsupported."
How is this semantic sophistry any different from Intelligent Design proponents saying that they're not Creationists?
"murder is not the act of taking another's life from existence, but the rejection of the notion that that person deserves to not live"
The power of language.
And this whole notion that existence must be demonstrated and rejection of existence doesn't have to be is utter bullshit. If so, we might as well just reject every claim which can't be demonstrated to us scientifically. Like abstract emotions like love for instance.
How do you rationally demonstrate the existence of something whose effects are not proportionate to it's cause? By reductionism. But how do you apply reductionism to emergent phenomena? Like color? (I challenge anyone in this thread to reduce the color blue)
The natural progression of scientific explanation is to proceed from the effect of something toward the knowledge of the cause. And the requirement is that from every effect the the existence of it's proper cause should be demonstrated through the physics (mechanics) of interactions.
Since the effects can only be known to us psychologically through observation and subsequent induction (cognition) therein lies the limiting variable. And the shear number of people that agree that something is what it is has absolutely no bearing on the truth. Hey, you atheists came up with that one, not me. LOL.
So what are we left with? SMFH.
funny how both sides fail to realize they lack the tools, knowledge, biology, and language to understand or make any claims about how the universe was created
On a lighter note, this made me
BGOL exists, therefore God exists.
Seriously, we are alive and living on a planet inside a universe, proof of God right there.
Seriously, we are alive and living on a planet inside a universe, proof of God right there.
The issue the always emerges in exchanges relative to theism and atheism is that the terms are rarely agreed upon in advance, so misinterpretation is introduced in the beginning. For example. Religion and Spirituality, are you using them interchangeably? I understand what religion is . . . I don't have ANY idea what spirituality is. And I've witnessed too many people say they are 'spiritual' but not religious. So perhaps science and spirituality can co-exist. I dunno, don't know what it is. But religion and science clearly can't. The foundations are counter to each other.
JG
@ 2:38
"... atheism is not the assertion that gods don't exist, but the rejection of the claim that gods do exist as unsupported."
How is this semantic sophistry any different from Intelligent Design proponents saying that they're not Creationists?
......
And this whole notion that existence must be demonstrated and rejection of existence doesn't have to be is utter bullshit. If so, we might as well just reject every claim which can't be demonstrated to us scientifically. Like abstract emotions like love for instance.
The second bolded section is where you're wrong. It's wrong because like most Christians, you can't wrap your head around the first quote. You don't get it.
If I put an upside down cup in front of you, the Christian notion says that "there's a silver dollar under the cup."
Agnostics say, "why' would there be a silver dollar under the cup? Why do you believe that? Could be a quarter. A marble or something. Maybe, I don't know."
Atheists say, "there's no silver dollar under that cup. Silver dollars are rare, and I don't even see where the fuck you get that silver dollar shit, you pulled that right out of your ass. The cup is probably empty."
Your argument basically, as I read it, says that Atheists have to prove there is no silver dollar under the cup, just as Christians would have to prove there IS a silver dollar under the cup.
But the cup will never get lifted. So no one will ever really know.
But the nature of living as a Christian says the Christian has to live every day knowing that there IS a silver dollar under the cup. The nature of the Atheist is to live like there's no cup at all. So what does he have to prove?
I myself am agnostic. I don't have faith that if there is a God, he cares about us. Or that we need to worship him. Or that one of our versions is correct. But I'm not opposed to a God. I'd love one. I just don't see much in the way of the world to have any kind of certainty.
Reads like something an evangelical Christian would say. lol.
A caveman can sit back and call bullshit. It's so easy. Argue your case. If it's compelling i'll concede. Some of you atheists are as fundamental and religious as Mormons
I've seen what you've written, and I have seen rebuttals. Thats what I write about. I also know you are attempting to play devils advocate. You're not the first. It's cute, but it's off. The reason that it's bullshit has already been pointed out. I gave you credit for having SOME good ideas, a decent knowledge base, and the ability to expound like many a preacher on the mound. I appreciate it actually, but now that it's been put to bed by Count23, wny not just give it a rest? Great questions, you got great answers. I enjoyed the debate, it's come full circle at least TWICE. Wanna keep going? I'm cool on that.
I've been in a lot of these threads. I read em, and I typically only interject when there is something I can chime in on. I did when you, a writer who's ideas I respected, went a bit astray from what I expected from such a mind. Nothing else to say. I will keep reading though.
funny how both sides fail to realize they lack the tools, knowledge, biology, and language to understand or make any claims about how the universe was created.
Untrue my man, untrue. And HOW the universe was created, is a different question than 'who' created it. And who's to say that answering THAT question is the LAST/ULTIMATE question. We only KNOW what we KNOW, nothing more nothing less. Belief is a whole separate matter.
JG
Similar threads
