It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

A Question For Atheists

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 11:27 PM
link   
While I could ask the timeless question of "where did atoms come from", an atheist could easily retaliate with the question of "where did God come from". Whether you believe in a Divine Creator or simply physical matter, one must have a belief to this question that cannot be answered. So my question is this; if this physical world is all there is, what's the point? Would you not want to spend every minute of every day trying to get high, be it through drugs, sex, alcohol, exercise, food, fueling your ego, etc.? Why would you not rob a bank, conduct unethical business to get rich, or kill a person because they upset you? This leads to morals.

I would have to imagine atheists would not believe we were born with a "moral code", but that society has imposed parameters based on majority rule. If so, are you saying we are just byproducts of our environment. The year is 2011. The big bang, evolution, and physical science are the primary topics taught in our biology classrooms today. But if consciousness, divinity, meditation, and creation were taught, would you still be an atheist? Not to say the Truth would change, as the Truth needs no one to believe it. But would your beliefs be different? Years ago, it was preposterous that the Earth could be round. Schools taught the Earth was flat. Needless to say, they were wrong.

But an atheist may argue that with years of study, we've learned a great deal about science, discrediting anyone who would believe in a Divine Creator. However, in agreeing that science is based on an anomaly that cannot be tested or proved (the origin of the universe), how can physical science be trusted at all? So, if you are an atheist, a byproduct of what you've learned through society, enjoy your senses as best you can, and try not think too much about what you've just read.

Cogito ergo sum




posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 11:32 PM
link   
Science takes faith just as religion does. And IMO a belief that something could come from nothing, is anyting but scientific.



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 11:34 PM
link   
I don't know what the point is. I don't think any person does, they might think they do, but nobody really knows. We're just the results of some extremely lucky chemical reactions that formed single celled organisms which eventually evolved, and then those next organisms evolved, and 4.5 billion years later, humans are up to bat.

I think the point of life is to enjoy your time here, not stress about the BS and the little things, reproduce, die, and evolve. That's life IMO.



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 11:40 PM
link   
reply to post by DaveakaRNG
 


The Church used to be one of the few if not the only way to learn, and you know what they taught? Lies. The Bible was incorrect, yet the Church spend countless time and money to repress any scientific theories that contradicted theirs. So I believe that the Church and religion were and are teaching the wrong things, and science backed up by fact always beats some old book.



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 11:46 PM
link   
well the reason I don't kill people who make me mad or rob a bank is because i don't want to be imprisoned. And I spend as much of my time as possible being a libertine, hell I wouldn't even work if I didn't need money



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 11:48 PM
link   
reply to post by TupacShakur
 


I believe you're falling into the trap many have fallen into by confusing historical documents and spirituality with church and religion. Church and religion has been designed and used for control and power for many years. That's nothing new. And unfortunately, religion has perverted spirituality, big time. Spirituality and consciousness is something we feel and cannot explain, religion is contradictory and man made. Don't confuse the two.

But I don't judge you TupacShakur, I know only God can do that.

edit on 24-1-2011 by DaveakaRNG because: Had something else to reply with



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 11:48 PM
link   
the real question is how do we know we are alive?



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 11:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Electric Crown
 


So are you saying if it wasn't illegal to kill someone, that you could do so without any remorse?



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 12:13 AM
link   
"There is more information in one thimble of reality than can be understood by a galaxy of human brains. It is beyond the human brain to understand the world and its environment, so the brain compensates by creating simplified illusions that act as replacement for understanding.
When the illusions work well and the human who subscribes to the illusion survives, those illusions are passed to new generations.
The human brain is a delusion generator. The delusions are fuelled by arrogance- the arrogance that humans are the centre of the world, that we alone are endowed with the magical properties of souls and morality and free will and love…
To survive our brains need to tame the blizzard of information that threatens to overwhelm us.

Our perceptions are obviously flexible, transforming our worldview automatically and continuously until we find safe harbour in a comfortable illusion.

The best anybody can do is pick a delusion that helps him/her get through the day."

-God’s Debris, Scott Adams



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 12:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Monkeygod333
 


Thank you for the response. I just looked up God's Debris and it looks like a fascinating read. I appreciate the thoughtfulness.



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 12:29 AM
link   
Although I'm no atheist... I'm pretty sure I can answer that question from an Atheist viewpoint.

The point of life, for the Atheist, is to participate in and be a part of the natural cycle of life of which we are all apart- that is, to eat, breathe, reproduce, and live- all in harmony with the rest of the world.

Just because one is an Atheist doesn't mean they don't have a moral code.



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 12:40 AM
link   
An Intelligent person does not need the promise of heaven to see the merit in good deeds.

I don't know who originally stated that but, I think it answers your question pretty well.

Also, are you saying that if you suddenly found out there was no god or heaven that you would live your life being high while conducting unethical business after your four o'clock raping? From the way your question is directed, you seem to enjoy such activities but refuse to commit them because of moral issues.
edit on 25-1-2011 by knylon90 because: Grammar and another sentence or two....



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 06:34 AM
link   
reply to post by DaveakaRNG
 



Originally posted by DaveakaRNG
While I could ask the timeless question of "where did atoms come from",


Protons, neutrons, and electrons.



an atheist could easily retaliate with the question of "where did God come from".


Well, it's not so much of a retaliation as an honest question.



Whether you believe in a Divine Creator or simply physical matter, one must have a belief to this question that cannot be answered. So my question is this; if this physical world is all there is, what's the point?


The point? Why does there have to be a point? Why can't we just be along for a great ride? Sure, you can make your own point, as we so often do with everything. I chose to make my own point: to live a life I'll be proud of living and to make sure as many people as possible suffer less and are made happier by my actions.



Would you not want to spend every minute of every day trying to get high, be it through drugs, sex, alcohol, exercise, food, fueling your ego, etc.?


No...what's the point in all of that? That's the most base form of hedonism. Atheism =/= hedonism.

Sex, alcohol, exercise, food...those are all great things at the appropriate time. We don't have to indulge simply because there isn't a deity.



Why would you not rob a bank,


Because I wouldn't want people to take money from me. It's basic empathy. "Do unto others" isn't a divine command, Confucius came up with it as a secular concept many centuries before Jesus.



conduct unethical business to get rich,


Again, the golden rule. I wouldn't want others to behave unethically, so why should I do it for myself?



or kill a person because they upset you?


Best example of the golden rule. In fact, this is sort of what holds our societies together. The prohibiting of actions that we wouldn't want visited upon our selves is what forms the basis of laws.



This leads to morals.


Yes, morals that are based upon empathy, not on absolute commands. Atheists aren't amoral.



I would have to imagine atheists would not believe we were born with a "moral code", but that society has imposed parameters based on majority rule.


No, we are born with an inbuilt morality of sorts. We understand empathy at quite an early age and are quite good at following the concept of not doing to others what we wouldn't want done to us. Though you are right, societal factors do play a major role.



If so, are you saying we are just byproducts of our environment.


Not purely.



The year is 2011. The big bang, evolution, and physical science are the primary topics taught in our biology classrooms today.


What? I mean, I learned about evolution...but the big bang, physics, and chemistry never came up...



But if consciousness, divinity, meditation, and creation were taught, would you still be an atheist?


Why yes, I would. You see, I became an atheist while studying at a Jesuit high school. I had daily theology class and we learned about all sorts of esoteric religious concepts. We were regularly taken to the chapel and given instruction on prayer and meditation...
Creation wasn't taught simply because you have to not understand science to teach it.



Not to say the Truth would change, as the Truth needs no one to believe it.


Except that you don't have the truth if you're a believer in creation. Creation is scientifically untenable as a position as so many fields of science directly contradict it.



But would your beliefs be different?


Probably not.



Years ago, it was preposterous that the Earth could be round.


Unless you had studied Greek philosophy...I mean, the ancient Greeks sort of knocked that one out.



Schools taught the Earth was flat. Needless to say, they were wrong.


Which is surprising because they actually had a quite good estimation of the Earth's circumference in around 240 BC...and good ol' Eratosthenes wasn't too far off considering that he was basically using shadows to figure things out.



But an atheist may argue that with years of study, we've learned a great deal about science, discrediting anyone who would believe in a Divine Creator.


What? I'm sorry, but this is quite a straw man. Now, the science might discredit creationism, but it doesn't discredit the belief in a deity that works through natural forces...such an idea is actually outside of falsifiability. You would be unable to disprove it, but it has yet to be proven...so we don't believe.



However, in agreeing that science is based on an anomaly that cannot be tested or proved (the origin of the universe), how can physical science be trusted at all?


I'm sorry, but physics isn't based upon the big bang theory. In fact, it's based upon testable evidence. And we can test and prove the big bang theory. We can trust the physical sciences because we're working on computers that were created with understanding gained through the physical sciences. I always find it ironic when creationists on the internet try to discredit science as a practice.



So, if you are an atheist, a byproduct of what you've learned through society, enjoy your senses as best you can, and try not think too much about what you've just read.


And the assuming of the position of superiority to take the cake of the post. You've proven nothing but a few personal biases with this point. You have biases and you're a bit ignorant on a few subjects. So what?



Cogito ergo sum


Why does "I am thinking, therefore I exist" have to do with anything?



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 07:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by DaveakaRNG
So my question is this; if this physical world is all there is, what's the point?


I don't know what the point is.
There may be a point and there may not be. There's no way for me to know what the point is or if there is one. And I'm comfortable with not knowing.



Would you not want to spend every minute of every day trying to get high, be it through drugs, sex, alcohol, exercise, food, fueling your ego, etc.? Why would you not rob a bank, conduct unethical business to get rich, or kill a person because they upset you?


I would not want to spend my life in pure indulgence because it doesn't sound like fun to me. Why I wouldn't rob a bank or murder someone? Because those things are against my moral code.



I would have to imagine atheists would not believe we were born with a "moral code", but that society has imposed parameters based on majority rule.


I actually think both are true to some extent. We are born with the capacity of compassion and empathy. But we learn the laws of the land and how important it is to live in an ordered society. So, I believe my morals come from both nature and nurture.



If so, are you saying we are just byproducts of our environment. The year is 2011. The big bang, evolution, and physical science are the primary topics taught in our biology classrooms today. But if consciousness, divinity, meditation, and creation were taught, would you still be an atheist?


Yes, I would still be an atheist. All of these subjects and much more were taught to me as a child and young adult and yet, I am an atheist.


So, if you are an atheist, a byproduct of what you've learned through society, enjoy your senses as best you can, and try not think too much about what you've just read.


No problem. I've read it all before and it didn't have an impact then, either. BTW, I didn't learn to be an atheist because of what I learned through society. It's because of what I learned when I opened my mind.



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 09:24 AM
link   
Re DaveakaRNG

You wrote:

["Whether you believe in a Divine Creator or simply physical matter, one must have a belief to this question that cannot be answered."]

Sorry, you have already limited your options to only two (while there actually are more), and thus enforced a black/white frame suiting your purposes. A debate based on this exclusive basis will be rather invalid.

Quote: ["So my question is this; if this physical world is all there is, what's the point? Would you not want to spend every minute of every day trying to get high, be it through drugs, sex, alcohol, exercise, food, fueling your ego, etc.? Why would you not rob a bank, conduct unethical business to get rich, or kill a person because they upset you? This leads to morals."]

Is that how YOU imagine what a 'good time' is generally, then you surely are in need of some introspection or, if that fails, certainly some outside moral guidance, as you obviously can't make it on your own.

Quote: ["I would have to imagine atheists would not believe we were born with a "moral code", but that society has imposed parameters based on majority rule"]

You seem to be imagining a lot and basing your ideas on that. Disregarding your imposition of what atheists believe or not, your knowledge about genetics and/or acquired behavioural traits is so simplistic as to be worthless (an extensive subject far beyond this thread), and your knowledge about political philosophy equally small. WHAT society are you talking about? Imposed parameters on majority rule? You must be kidding.

What you're trying to say seems to be, that liberal society has taken away elitist privileges from fanatic extremists and made such extremists just like everybody else in rights and obligations. And that mankind is lost without the moral advice from one or the other elitist doctrines.

Quote: ["But if consciousness, divinity, meditation, and creation were taught, would you still be an atheist?"]

What do you mean by "taught'? Indoctrinated or taught about? In any case your examples don't belong in the same category and should be considered separately. A fine case of semantic maneuvering, ending with the rhetoric question about atheists worldwiev integrity. Most atheists are in my experience well-educated and intelligent, and are not wandering aimlessly through life following whims or propaganda pushed at them (maybe such describes your world instead).

Quote: [" Years ago, it was preposterous that the Earth could be round. Schools taught the Earth was flat. Needless to say, they were wrong."]

An exceptionally badly chosen example. It was elistist claims which were kept up in schools, and that these flat-earth claims eventually were demonstrated to be wrong was the merit of opponents to the elitists.

Quote: [" But an atheist may argue that with years of study, we've learned a great deal about science, discrediting anyone who would believe in a Divine Creator."]

Years of scientific study have certainly demonstrated some of the basic information from the holy manual to be pure bosh, but not 'proving' anything about a divine creator or not, except that there is no evidence FOR (where you guys demand evidence AGAINST, bringing us to the flying spaghetti monster argument). Generally the pro-creator persons discredited are those fanatics, who want to push their personal fantasies on mankind, but the discrediting is done from a social perspective of not accepting elitist (=fascist) political methods.

Quote: ["However, in agreeing that science is based on an anomaly that cannot be tested or proved (the origin of the universe), how can physical science be trusted at all?"]

Who has agreed on that? YOU have agreed on it, is that it? So you can add delusions of grandeur and ignorance of science's self-definition to your merits.

Quote: ["Cogito ergo sum"]

In your case, I'm sceptical about the 'cogito'. If you'd said "I propagandize, therefore I am" it would appear more fitting.

Is the OP a joke? The practically same agenda, worded in similar ways, turns up regularly and is just as regularly turned down. This meaningless insistence can only be ascribed to an optimistic faith in the value of quantitative repetitions, eventually resulting in brainwashing.

Mate, you're up against non-zombis. Upgrade your efforts.

edit on 25-1-2011 by bogomil because: improved language




top topics



 
1

log in

join