Atheism

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by HunkaHunka
It matters not... the fact that I am inspired to greatness by a story or ideal doesn't have anything to do with the objective reality of that story or ideal... the only thing that matters is the movement it inspires in me...

It doesn't matter only if you don't care whether the things that inspire you are true. But it does matter, particularly when atrocities are done in the names of these gods. Determining whether there is or isn't a deity could eliminate this harmful phenomenon to the benefit of our species. It very much matters.

Go read up on Newton and you will discover that the only thing he felt more passionately about than physics was deciphering bible prophecy and the reason he was so devoted to the Principia Mathematica was because he felt he was translating Gods intentions.... he was in modern day parlance... a religious fanatic...

In fact... read the introduction to the PM it's all right there...

Indeed, Newton was kooky about a lot of things. But claiming that he couldn't have achieved similar things without fanaticism is just too speculative.

edit on 9-6-2011 by traditionaldrummer because: (no reason given)

It's not speculative at all.. Much has been written about this. Newton was who he was because of those things that formed him. Not saying that someone else couldn't have sought these things out for different personal passionate reasons... just that, it was Newtons passionate ideals based on concepts of religion, alchemy and other fanatical beliefs that fueled his.

reply to post by HunkaHunka


Newton's ideas were hampered by his religiosity, not helped or fueled by them. He merely abandoned the three body problem, something that he could have easily resolved, by saying it's the domain of God. He could calculate Earth and Moon or Earth and Sun...but the three together? He just gave up.

And...someone less brilliant ended up figuring it out not that long after.

Hell, he spent an inordinate amount of time on his crazy ideas and probably wasted the majority of his potential on them.

Originally posted by ButterCookie
So far, the bulk of your comments repeatedly bash and ridicule any idea, whether religious, or Ancient Alien theory.

Is it "bashing and ridiculing" or is it application of skepticism? Very often, discussing any contrary opinion is misinterpreted as a "bash".

I do understand what you're getting at and I can work at more productive/constructive posts, but the nature of many of my posts goes to requiring that the claimant support his or her claims.

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by ButterCookie
So far, the bulk of your comments repeatedly bash and ridicule any idea, whether religious, or Ancient Alien theory.

Is it "bashing and ridiculing" or is it application of skepticism? Very often, discussing any contrary opinion is misinterpreted as a "bash".

I do understand what you're getting at and I can work at more productive/constructive posts, but the nature of many of my posts goes to requiring that the claimant support his or her claims.

Agreed!!

I actually am on your side

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by ButterCookie
So far, the bulk of your comments repeatedly bash and ridicule any idea, whether religious, or Ancient Alien theory.

Is it "bashing and ridiculing" or is it application of skepticism? Very often, discussing any contrary opinion is misinterpreted as a "bash".

I do understand what you're getting at and I can work at more productive/constructive posts, but the nature of many of my posts goes to requiring that the claimant support his or her claims.

I think to expect an Atheist to engage in - or discuss - or accept any belief system - or concept of - - is asking a bit too much.

If you have a belief/concept - - why isn't it enough that it works for you?

reply to post by Annee

“The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact than a drunken man is happier than a sober one”

-George Bernard Shaw

I don't agree that the reason for a belief should rest with "how it makes you feel", or if it makes you happy.

I guess you did say "if it works" - But Charles Manson could state "killing women works for me".

Perhaps i'm misunderstanding you Annee.

Originally posted by ButterCookie
Agreed!!

I actually am on your side

You are awesome!

I genuinely appreciate your constructive criticism and have taken it seriously.

Thanks again.

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
reply to post by Annee

 

“The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact than a drunken man is happier than a sober one”

-George Bernard Shaw

I don't agree that the reason for a belief should rest with "how it makes you feel", or if it makes you happy.

I don't either.

I have certain beliefs - - but I believe them from a concept of science. The science may not be there at this time as proof - - but for me they are logical. I do not expect anyone else to agree with me or accept my belief.

Science is limited by what is known. There is much we do not know.

reply to post by Annee


I agree with you.

As Carl Sagan once said "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"

Russell's teapot as always been a warning of this notion though;

Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


Oooooo! Can I pretend my opinion as to what some historical personage would do if ______ is fact next!?!? Plllllleeeeaaaassssseeeee?

reply to post by awake_and_aware


What's interesting (at least to me) - is I considered myself Christian up until about 5 years ago. I am 65.

I'm kind of one of those who was in search of God. But the more I read the more I searched - - - the more Christianity just didn't hold up. There is no real foundation to it. No proof of any kind.

Like someone said - its like the best/worse version of the Telephone game. Events happened and humans expounded on it. TPTB saw potential to manipulate and control people through a god belief.

At some point - - I stepped completely out of the Religion circle. After I was out - - I realized I was part of the social/human conditioning that there is a god - - a creator. I was assimilated into a concept that has been perpetrated since man first asked "what am I - why am I here".

Also after I stepped out of that bubble - - I realized why I was searching. I was searching because I never believed. It never made any logical sense to me.

I was always Atheist - - I just hadn't realized it yet.

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
reply to post by Annee

 

I agree with you.

As Carl Sagan once said "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"

LOL

Besides anyone who believes along the lines of the Terra Papers - - certainly doesn't do it to feel good.

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by ButterCookie
Agreed!!

I actually am on your side

You are awesome!

I genuinely appreciate your constructive criticism and have taken it seriously.

Thanks again.

Cool!!!!

reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows


Appeal to ridicule? Really?

It's not a stretch to say that one of the great scientific minds of history would have probably produced more great work if he hadn't wasted his time searching for the philosopher's stone or mapping out the dimensions of the temple of Jerusalem.

Originally posted by UB2120

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by UB2120
Science lives by the mathematics of the mind; music expresses the tempo of the emotions. Religion is the spiritual rhythm of the soul in time-space harmony with the higher and eternal melody measurements of Infinity. Religious experience is something in human life which is truly supermathematical.

Excuse me, but....WHAT?

I know that this neo-guru screed is supposed to sound deep but it's a bunch of stuff you've made up accompanied by words you made up that don't correlate with the way we know the universe works. In a response acknowledging that you need to provide proof of your claims you've now made even more claims that require even more evidence and/or proof. Souls? Supermathematics? Eternal melody measurements of infinity? Seriously?

Ok, I will make it a little easier for you. What about what we call life? Life can only spring from pre-existant life. So where did life originate if not God?

Life itself is not unique, and does not come from a 'loving' god.

Everything, from the oxygen you breathe, to the grass on the ground.....the gold in your jewelry to the blood in your body....

EVERYTHING

is a remnant of a star. A supernova explosion, essentially produced what you would consider 'life'.

You are actually made up of the same substances as the computer you are typing on....but the elements are in different degrees and in different forms than you.

Humans consider 'life' to mean 'consciously aware'.....needing oxygen to survive.

We assume that if it is anything like US, then it is alive or intelligent.

That is arrogance.

More than likely, what we call 'life' is probably just a common element throughout the universe. We want to think of it is 'special' or unique because human arrogance has us feeling that way. Since everything, literally, is a result of an exploded star, compare the elements of you and a star:

Iron
Calcium
Magnesium
Carbon
Hydrogen
Nitrogen
Plasma
Sodium
Potassium
Oxygen

etc.....

everything except helium.

The answer to your question? Life is the bonding of particular elements. Nothing 'unique'.

That sounds a lil' harsh, I know....but we have to realize that we are only unique to ourselves.

reply to post by awake_and_aware


I'll add an addendum, absence of evidence is evidence of absence when evidence should be present.

There is an absence of evidence for a global flood in the places we should find it, therefore it is an evidence of absence.

Originally posted by Annee
I'm kind of one of those who was in search of God. But the more I read the more I searched - - - the more Christianity just didn't hold up. There is no real foundation to it. No proof of any kind.

I am not interested in converted anyone, especially agnostics and atheists because in my opinion they have already made their decisions and there's no point in trying to convince them otherwise. But that is one of the craziest statements I've heard in a while and deserves a response. Christianity at its core is a belief in Christ, and even many atheists readily admit that Christ did exist. Sure they don't think He is/ was God. But there's no question that He is the foundation of Christianity, and there's ample proof that He existed not just in the Bible but also in secular sources. Here's a blurb from y-jesus.com... :

The following facts about Jesus were written by early non-Christian sources:
•Jesus was from Nazareth.
•Jesus lived a wise and virtuous life.
•Jesus was crucified in Judea under Pontius Pilate during the reign of Tiberius Caesar at Passover time, being considered the Jewish king.
•Jesus was believed by his disciples to have died and risen from the dead three days later.
•Jesus’ enemies acknowledged that he performed unusual feats they called “sorcery.”
•Jesus’ small band of disciples multiplied rapidly, spreading as far as Rome.
•Jesus’ disciples denied polytheism, lived moral lives, and worshiped Christ as God.

All of these independent accounts, religious and secular, speak of a real man who matches up well with the Jesus in the Gospels. Encyclopedia Britannica cites these various secular accounts of Jesus’ life as convincing proof of his existence. It states:

“These independent accounts prove that in ancient times even the opponents of Christianity never doubted the historicity of Jesus.”

There are additional reasons to believe He was not just a man (I direct anyone interested in the reasons to the above link), but my point isn't to prove that to you, but rather I'm just disputing your claim that there is no foundation or proof for Christianity.

Since this thread is still going here’s a 65 year old's 2 cents.

I don’t think the atheists, the religious or other folks have nailed it and it comes down to our need to identify/categorize people and a herd mentality. The first thing asked about a child is it male or female. Why? So we can put them in their respective herd and train them in the ways of the male or female herd.

For example, the religious sheep want to congregate with other religious sheep and try to increase the size of their respective herd (through indoctrination maybe) for comfort and the protection of numbers you see in herds in nature. A few on the outside, the old, infirmed or slow may die but the herd continues. I think the other groups can be overlaid the same. It’s all about increasing the size of the herd.

A quick drive-by on a thread may pick off a member of the other herd.

I remember the attempted indoctrination well and can probably conjure up a few verses and maybe name the books of the bible if I could remember that jingle we had to learn. I questioned why we got tapped on the head with a wet rose. We got to be with a few friends and make ceramic pot coasters or pot holders at bible school or sometimes at night have good food at church. I remember reading comic books, magazines or talking quietly with friends in balcony. After, we all walked to the drug store for a cherry coke, ice cream or a soda. So, you can see that the adult’s propaganda fell on deaf ears back then or I might have ended up a fundi.

My mother insisted on a church wedding and I let her drag her grand kids to church occasionally to keep peace while she was alive. I’m sure it didn’t take with my children either.

I know that what is needed is to break that cycle of dragging children to indoctrination and let them find their own way.

If pinned down I would say I really like the H. P. Lovecraft Mythos, Agatha Heterodyne, other comics, anime and computers/technology. I haven’t made up my mind if there is existence beyond death and sometime in the next 20-30 years I will find out if it involves tentacles. I like the wicca approach, attitude and concept of the All the most. That said, I will finish playing the cards The Lord and The Lady dealt, then spend some time in The Lady’s presence before taking another turn on the wheel just to see what has been going on.

If I do come back and I could choose the next time I would like to be, in order, free, super smart, healthy, strong, young, beautiful and immortal (or a least until I couldn’t stand it any more) not needing food, drink or air but able to enjoy and savor them along with manifesting clothes and things, ignoring gravity and able to fly such as like Ryoko from Tenchi Muyo! with a Ryo-Ohki like space ship but amplify Ryoko's and Ryo-Ohki's powers more toward the super beings (Chousin) like Lady Tokimi, Washu and Tsunami. Power to kill or create a planet, star, galaxy or universe. I know it sounds so “Uber-Sue” but that is the point of fantasy.

Or, an Elder God like Bast from the world of the H. P. Lovecraft Mythos but with more anime cat girl features, like Eris in Asobi ni Iku Yo! but not ditzy, instead of just a cat head.

But, I expect if I do come back I'll be someone mediocre learning some lesson that helps my eternal existence.

reply to post by Annee

What's interesting (at least to me) - is I considered myself Christian up until about 5 years ago. I am 65.

I find that incredibly interesting; I don't want to call it a "conversion"; so i'd say it's rare to hear of such enlightenening experiences. Or in other words; one's journey of belief.

I hope you don't mind me saying, but after such a period of denouncing oneself as Christian that takes some mighty courage.

I'm kind of one of those who was in search of God. But the more I read the more I searched - - - the more Christianity just didn't hold up. There is no real foundation to it. No proof of any kind.

And even if your lack of faith was ultimately incorrect, i'm sure a merciful God would forgive such doubt, when your disbelief is expressed with such honesty.

But reading the Christian dogma, it seems their description of a God appears to take a more radical approach to honest doubt.

Like someone said - its like the best/worse version of the Telephone game. Events happened and humans expounded on it. TPTB saw potential to manipulate and control people through a god belief.

I agree. But perhaps it was a mistake, perhaps we shouldn't condemn ancient man for such superstitious beliefs in a time of little educational infrastructure, and a lack of a scientific community. Perhaps the morals and ethics were the most "fit" for the time.

But the aggrigation of power for centuries in organised "cults", threats coming from priests, even in an enlightened age, certainly organised religion has been more of a hinderance than a help.

At some point - - I stepped completely out of the Religion circle. After I was out - - I realized I was part of the social/human conditioning that there is a god - - a creator. I was assimilated into a concept that has been perpetrated since man first asked "what am I - why am I here".

I understand, and i have little concern or desire to condemn the "Deistic/Creator" belief. Compared with a "Theistic" or Religious debate; not only are my arguments philosophical, but social and moral too; because their dogma causes extreme prejudice.

Despite my lack of concern for the "creator" belief, i do feel that the Deistic belief is an assumption, and can lead to further dogma, as it has done. But that isn't an argument for non-existence, it still could be true.

Also after I stepped out of that bubble - - I realized why I was searching. I was searching because I never believed. It never made any logical sense to me.

Again, i find your story very empowering, and heart warming, and not because i wish for "conversions", but i love the sharing of self-discovery, the constant skeptical enquiry - It seems to be what makes us human, our "curious as cows" nature (as contradictory as that may sound)

What upsets me, although i try to disguise it in the form of argument, is when atheism or skepticism is condemned as "ungodly" "sinful" "arrogant" or when skeptical disbelief is attributed with an "allegiance to science". I'm trying to cure these prejudices, perhaps to no avail.

I was always Atheist - - I just hadn't realized it yet.

I feel, if you havn't already, you should write about your experience, share it, start a thread with just that title.

Originally posted by UB2120

Originally posted by The Djin

Originally posted by UB2120

Originally posted by The Djin
reply to post by UB2120

 

You asked why I thought the universe reeked of design, I gave examples. I'm just showing that there is pattern and God is the source of all pattern.

Which god ?

There is only one. The Universal Father, .

You have proof of this ?

You have proof this is not the case?

Yes, another god told me so.