What are the concepts behind the belief sytem of Atheism?

originally posted by: FyreByrd
a reply to: Ghost147

All an athestist is is someone who doesn't believe in a 'creator being' that went poof and history started.

Buddhists don't believe in such a 'creator being' but they do pray to many gods or advanced beings.

Buddhists do however believe in laws of nature, one of which would be the law of Karma (or simplistically the Law of cause and effect).

This is yet another definition. How is that not also agnostic, pantheist, deist etc

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: luthier

No, it was a chemist, which means that he wasn't a SME on the matter.

Like I said, the problem with the idea is that it presupposes that the universe has a purpose (life), which is a complete guess because we can't know if the universe has a purpose. If one or two variable were off, these scientists are probably right, life as we know it wouldn't exist, but that doesn't mean that life in another form wouldn't exist. Heck something else entirely could exist.

This is the problem when you just google things and dont read sciwntific papers or actual theory. The FTU has been expanded and modelled by many physcicists. Hoyle in 1950 was starting the theory.

You are just argueing for no reason without any prior knowledge.

First you say its just something christians use to persuade, then you say a chemist , but really it was started by an astrophyscicist. It has nothing to do with christianity. Some christian theologists have used it.

Honestly you are not doing your argument any good. The teleological arguments is not that easy to disprove without theoretical constructs like a multiverse.

Perhaps you havent read this thread but i am agnostic not promoting one thing or another. Just pointing out there are rational arguments for god that dont comw from the bible. Even aquinas and anslem had points.

Aquinas was a philosopher and not a scientist. Sure he made some good points about the human condition. But bring those points into the modern age and psychology does a much better job of describing the mind of a person, all without bringing god in to explain the things that aquinas could not.

He also made epistemological arguements.

I am not a big believer in most psychology. I think its a pseudoscience. I disagree but dont want to derail the thread. In order for it to be a real science one wouod have to use anthropology to understand what the human condition is in the first place. Psychology is great at profiling. Its base is however moveable as is what is normal. If our society needed ADD workers it would become normal and we would give people drugs to make them what we consider normal behavior. Not to mention they can only treat symptoms and not cure anything. I think neuroscience is the real science. Psychology is subject to trends and behavior created by society at the moment but "normal" is not a fixed point.

I noticed you didn't respond to the communism atheism point I made. Atheism has so far no better luck with large scale collective political structure than religion making me believe its mankind and not philosophy or theology that creates suffering.
What Mao and Stalin did was no better than the Vatican and none of the three actually followed the philosophy they were controlling society with.

I am likewise not a big fan of many of the claims made by the field of psychology and psychiatry. That does not exclude it from the realms of science. It is the study of the human mind. It is still young and we still need to separate the religious dogma that is still prevalent all throughout society. It is still building it's foundation. But do not disregard what good has come from it.

a reply to: luthier

Every christian apologist brings up stalin, mao, and pol pot. Maybe a handful of other atheist leaders. I can name about a million religious leaders. There is no comparison between the millions of people killed under secular leadership, compared to the trillions killed under religious leadership.

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: FyreByrd
a reply to: Ghost147

All an athestist is is someone who doesn't believe in a 'creator being' that went poof and history started.

Buddhists don't believe in such a 'creator being' but they do pray to many gods or advanced beings.

Buddhists do however believe in laws of nature, one of which would be the law of Karma (or simplistically the Law of cause and effect).

This is yet another definition. How is that not also agnostic, pantheist, deist etc

Buddism is an atheistic world view. They are most commonly refered to as pantheistic as they believe that the universe is the creator of life and everything is connected physically (which is not true).

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: luthier

No, it was a chemist, which means that he wasn't a SME on the matter.

Like I said, the problem with the idea is that it presupposes that the universe has a purpose (life), which is a complete guess because we can't know if the universe has a purpose. If one or two variable were off, these scientists are probably right, life as we know it wouldn't exist, but that doesn't mean that life in another form wouldn't exist. Heck something else entirely could exist.

This is the problem when you just google things and dont read sciwntific papers or actual theory. The FTU has been expanded and modelled by many physcicists. Hoyle in 1950 was starting the theory.

You are just argueing for no reason without any prior knowledge.

First you say its just something christians use to persuade, then you say a chemist , but really it was started by an astrophyscicist. It has nothing to do with christianity. Some christian theologists have used it.

Honestly you are not doing your argument any good. The teleological arguments is not that easy to disprove without theoretical constructs like a multiverse.

Perhaps you havent read this thread but i am agnostic not promoting one thing or another. Just pointing out there are rational arguments for god that dont comw from the bible. Even aquinas and anslem had points.

Aquinas was a philosopher and not a scientist. Sure he made some good points about the human condition. But bring those points into the modern age and psychology does a much better job of describing the mind of a person, all without bringing god in to explain the things that aquinas could not.

He also made epistemological arguements.

I am not a big believer in most psychology. I think its a pseudoscience. I disagree but dont want to derail the thread. In order for it to be a real science one wouod have to use anthropology to understand what the human condition is in the first place. Psychology is great at profiling. Its base is however moveable as is what is normal. If our society needed ADD workers it would become normal and we would give people drugs to make them what we consider normal behavior. Not to mention they can only treat symptoms and not cure anything. I think neuroscience is the real science. Psychology is subject to trends and behavior created by society at the moment but "normal" is not a fixed point.

I noticed you didn't respond to the communism atheism point I made. Atheism has so far no better luck with large scale collective political structure than religion making me believe its mankind and not philosophy or theology that creates suffering.
What Mao and Stalin did was no better than the Vatican and none of the three actually followed the philosophy they were controlling society with.

I am likewise not a big fan of many of the claims made by the field of psychology and psychiatry. That does not exclude it from the realms of science. It is the study of the human mind. It is still young and we still need to separate the religious dogma that is still prevalent all throughout society. It is still building it's foundation. But do not disregard what good has come from it.

I don't know what good that is yet though. It is great for police and profiling but what is the base for their findings? What is the "normal" human mind. How do we know foe instance what is or is not a Darwinian important survival trait?

Communism true to impose atheist ideals. Not saying that is the only outcome just that its corruption in general. Do you honestly believe these religious zealots care about their own theology?

I agree with you mostly but we should still use philosophy to generate an ethical standard. People like Kant and Locke have plenty to offer regardless of their religious back round. I like Marx plenty to completely mis understood.

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: FyreByrd
a reply to: Ghost147

All an athestist is is someone who doesn't believe in a 'creator being' that went poof and history started.

Buddhists don't believe in such a 'creator being' but they do pray to many gods or advanced beings.

Buddhists do however believe in laws of nature, one of which would be the law of Karma (or simplistically the Law of cause and effect).

This is yet another definition. How is that not also agnostic, pantheist, deist etc

Buddism is an atheistic world view. They are most commonly refered to as pantheistic as they believe that the universe is the creator of life and everything is connected physically (which is not true).

Quantum entanglement?

originally posted by: Woodcarver
a reply to: luthier

Every christian apologist brings up stalin, mao, and pol pot. Maybe a handful of other atheist leaders. I can name about a million religious leaders. There is no comparison between the millions of people killed under secular leadership, compared to the trillions killed under religious leadership.

As a science based person I would expect you to see the fallacy of the argument. You are comparing 100 years of atheist ideological political system to 6 thousand years of religious persecution.
The other fallacy is atheist would do better there is proof against that claim. My wife is polish is the suffering her family endured during communism somehow not the same as the religious suffering?

Budhism is not an atheist view at all. Explain yourself. It is agnostic. It fits in and ideology because it doesnt make claims about god it is simply a code to live by.

I don't know what good that is yet though. It is great for police and profiling but what is the base for their findings? What is the "normal" human mind. How do we know foe instance what is or is not a Darwinian important survival trait?

You don't know what good psychology does?
You don't study psychology do you? How is it that you feel so confident dismissing something you've never studied?

One thing it has shown us is that there is no "normal" human mind. Our minds are as varied as our bodies.

Communism true to impose atheist ideals. Not saying that is the only outcome just that its corruption in general. Do you honestly believe these religious zealots care about their own theology?

i believe they do. Take anu here for instance. I do believe that he believes what he is saying. I wouldn't be here discussing this if people didn't actually believe these religious concepts.

I agree with you mostly but we should still use philosophy to generate an ethical standard. People like Kant and Locke have plenty to offer regardless of their religious back round. I like Marx plenty to completely mis understood.

I think religious people can add to scientific discovery..... When they use science to come to these conclusions. We judge the merit of ideas based on the evidence at hand, not by who is submitting the claims. Can anyone show how any religious concepts have furthered our understanding of science?

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Woodcarver
a reply to: luthier

Every christian apologist brings up stalin, mao, and pol pot. Maybe a handful of other atheist leaders. I can name about a million religious leaders. There is no comparison between the millions of people killed under secular leadership, compared to the trillions killed under religious leadership.

As a science based person I would expect you to see the fallacy of the argument. You are comparing 100 years of atheist ideological political system to 6 thousand years of religious persecution.
The other fallacy is atheist would do better there is proof against that claim. My wife is polish is the suffering her family endured during communism somehow not the same as the religious suffering?

Budhism is not an atheist view at all. Explain yourself. It is agnostic. It fits in and ideology because it doesnt make claims about god it is simply a code to live by.

There are no buddist gods. Because they do not believe in gods. That makes them atheists. Although nowadays, there are as many buddist denominations as there are christian ones.

Did you go to college?

If so, what fields did you study in?


a reply to: luthier

Quantum entanglement is a physical phenomenon. We understand quite a bit of it, but it is not a completely understood event. What we do know about it points to a physical event. Not a supernatural one.

a reply to: luthier

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Woodcarver
a reply to: luthier

Every christian apologist brings up stalin, mao, and pol pot. Maybe a handful of other atheist leaders. I can name about a million religious leaders. There is no comparison between the millions of people killed under secular leadership, compared to the trillions killed under religious leadership.

As a science based person I would expect you to see the fallacy of the argument. You are comparing 100 years of atheist ideological political system to 6 thousand years of religious persecution.
The other fallacy is atheist would do better there is proof against that claim. My wife is polish is the suffering her family endured during communism somehow not the same as the religious suffering?

Budhism is not an atheist view at all. Explain yourself. It is agnostic. It fits in and ideology because it doesnt make claims about god it is simply a code to live by.

None of those systems were atheist in their ideologies. They were socialist and communist ideologies. Atheist doesn't mean secular either.

Take america for example. We are supposed to be a secular society. However the majority of people here are religious. We find that the more secular we become, the less we are forced to live by the standards of the religions we live among. Secular govt means more freedom to think and do as one wants.

Regardless of what our media claims, crime has steadily reduced in the last 100 years, we ended slavery, despite the religious south claiming it was a god given right.

We ended women's bondage, despite the religious view that women were to submit to men.

Gays are now "allowed" to marry, despite the religious minded's efforts to stop it.
Secular govt, when applied properly, spreads freedom from religion.

a reply to: Woodcarver

In essence, what we all want is the freedom to not be forced to follow a religion we do not agree with.

Show me a god i can believe in or give me a good reason to believe in one of them and i'll change my mind.

The whole idea of agnosticism is that there is not enough information to make a decision on the merits of the claim that a deity does exist.

I agree with that. But there is also no reason to believe in any of the examples that have been brought forth to date.

Hinduism=bunk
Judaism= bunk
Christianity=bunk
Islam=bunk

Do you have any good reasons to believe any of these religions wholly?

I don't and that makes me an atheist, not an agnostic. You can try to cover other ideologies with a thin veneer of religion, such as pantheism, but you have to stretch the definition to make it fit.

If you don't believe in any of those gods, you could try to invent your own god and then you can make up his personality, likes, dislikes and apply pretty much any properties you want. But you would be in lala land, and you would have to disregard 90% of all of science. Which many people have already done.

originally posted by: Woodcarver
Did you go to college?

If so, what fields did you study in?


a reply to: luthier

Yes sound engineering and philosophy at the berklee school of music. Our philosophy classes were at harvard and it was 20 years ago why?

I also study ethnomusicology and anthropology and am a judo and wrestling coach. I see literally half the kids on prescription drugs for add and other stuff. So yeah i have a bit of a chip on my shoulder about the validity and goals of psychiatry.

Do I appear uneducated? What was the purpose of your asking?

originally posted by: Woodcarver
a reply to: Woodcarver

In essence, what we all want is the freedom to not be forced to follow a religion we do not agree with.

Show me a god i can believe in or give me a good reason to believe in one of them and i'll change my mind.

The whole idea of agnosticism is that there is not enough information to make a decision on the merits of the claim that a deity does exist.

I agree with that. But there is also no reason to believe in any of the examples that have been brought forth to date.

Hinduism=bunk
Judaism= bunk
Christianity=bunk
Islam=bunk

Do you have any good reasons to believe any of these religions wholly?

I don't and that makes me an atheist, not an agnostic. You can try to cover other ideologies with a thin veneer of religion, such as pantheism, but you have to stretch the definition to make it fit.

Have you read spinoza?

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Woodcarver
a reply to: luthier

Every christian apologist brings up stalin, mao, and pol pot. Maybe a handful of other atheist leaders. I can name about a million religious leaders. There is no comparison between the millions of people killed under secular leadership, compared to the trillions killed under religious leadership.

As a science based person I would expect you to see the fallacy of the argument. You are comparing 100 years of atheist ideological political system to 6 thousand years of religious persecution.
The other fallacy is atheist would do better there is proof against that claim. My wife is polish is the suffering her family endured during communism somehow not the same as the religious suffering?

Budhism is not an atheist view at all. Explain yourself. It is agnostic. It fits in and ideology because it doesnt make claims about god it is simply a code to live by.

None of those systems were atheist in their ideologies. They were socialist and communist ideologies. Atheist doesn't mean secular either.

Take america for example. We are supposed to be a secular society. However the majority of people here are religious. We find that the more secular we become, the less we are forced to live by the standards of the religions we live among. Secular govt means more freedom to think and do as one wants.

Regardless of what our media claims, crime has steadily reduced in the last 100 years, we ended slavery, despite the religious south claiming it was a god given right.

We ended women's bondage, despite the religious view that women were to submit to men.

Gays are now "allowed" to marry, despite the religious minded's efforts to stop it.
Secular govt, when applied properly, spreads freedom from religion.

Have you read stalin, lennon, and marx?

a reply to: luthier

I was asking because i thought you were a philosophy student. Whether gods exist or not is a scientific question not a question of philosophy.

Spinoza died in the 1600's. His ideas on ethics were based on his own interpretations of what god was, wanted, liked and disliked. The synagogues kicked him out because he would not assimilate.

He never gave up his belief in deities, and all of his work was based on his own interpretations. His work reads like many of the psalms. I have no use for science or philosophy riddled with emotional theism.

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Woodcarver
a reply to: luthier

Every christian apologist brings up stalin, mao, and pol pot. Maybe a handful of other atheist leaders. I can name about a million religious leaders. There is no comparison between the millions of people killed under secular leadership, compared to the trillions killed under religious leadership.

As a science based person I would expect you to see the fallacy of the argument. You are comparing 100 years of atheist ideological political system to 6 thousand years of religious persecution.
The other fallacy is atheist would do better there is proof against that claim. My wife is polish is the suffering her family endured during communism somehow not the same as the religious suffering?

Budhism is not an atheist view at all. Explain yourself. It is agnostic. It fits in and ideology because it doesnt make claims about god it is simply a code to live by.

None of those systems were atheist in their ideologies. They were socialist and communist ideologies. Atheist doesn't mean secular either.

Take america for example. We are supposed to be a secular society. However the majority of people here are religious. We find that the more secular we become, the less we are forced to live by the standards of the religions we live among. Secular govt means more freedom to think and do as one wants.

Regardless of what our media claims, crime has steadily reduced in the last 100 years, we ended slavery, despite the religious south claiming it was a god given right.

We ended women's bondage, despite the religious view that women were to submit to men.

Gays are now "allowed" to marry, despite the religious minded's efforts to stop it.
Secular govt, when applied properly, spreads freedom from religion.

Have you read stalin, lennon, and marx?

Yes, those people were crazy. I have found that modern explanations do a far better job at describing the world we live in. People who lived before even the industrial revolution were not well educated. Information came much slower and their ideas were not as well vetted as they are today.

a reply to: luthier

My background and schooling is in engineering, electronics, robotics, biology, and physics. Although i took psychology, and philosophy, i found them full of egocentric opinions and very little fact.

My mind is accustomed to thinking about the world in physical terms, as there are no other terms to describe it. Other than philosophy, which is just opinion and def not science in any stretch of the imagination.

originally posted by: Woodcarver
a reply to: luthier

My background and schooling is in engineering, electronics, robotics, biology, and physics. Although i took psychology, and philosophy, i found them full of egocentric opinions and very little fact.

My mind is accustomed to thinking about the world in physical terms, as there are no other terms to describe it. Other than philosophy, which is just opinion and def not science in any stretch of the imagination.

I think I you go back with a neutral view and look at what you have said your view point is plenty egocentric.

Who came up with the scientific method? Philosophers called empiricists'. Science would not exist without philosophy and scientists without philosophy hardly ever make big break throughs. Albert Einstein believed in Spinozas view of god that is why I was asking.

Marx was brilliant in my opinion. Bucky Fuller and Tesla also come to mind.

You have replied most egocentrically and asserted such claims that most theoretical scientists would be in disagreement with you on. My brother who also has an account here or did at one time had three full scholarships for physics. UT, McGill, Dr at the University of Chicago specifically to work at Fermilab. I can tell you that most of the views he holds are far less closed off than I have heard from you. My father worked for Boeing and was a project manager with a full scholarship in Physics to Umass untill he went to Vietnam.

I am nearly 40 and definitely not a student. I have been around brilliant minds my whole life and am the black sheep in that regard. However none of these men had any sort of rigid viewpoint that I am hearing from you. My dad was Catholic even and holds several patents on aircraft technology. Amazing he could get so far being so ignorant huh?

My brother is weather modeler and has written several advanced algorithms for market research on the impact of the weather and global warming trends on global markets. Never heard him bash religions even though he is agnostic too.

Is it possible this is the only way to go from cave to lab? Quite possibly this path is the only one there is.

The only scientists that discredit philosophy are closed minded ones who don't understand the history of science. Science started with philosophy. Philosophy asked the question and science answers it.