The Growth of Atheism and What it Means for Our Future

What Atheists fail to realize is that - Without the existence of philosophy (examination of self, religion, love, death, etc...), there would be no motivation for 'self existence'. No desire to do anything beyond just breathing. Hollow existence. We live, die, and that is all that matters.

Sounds very-very hollow to me.

Originally posted by gentledissidentWe are simply another species. Our frontal lobe has given us an awareness that contemplates death. As an animal, we must work out our plan for survival. This slow oncoming unavoidable predator has frightened us and caused us to rationalize a life after this one as the only escape. We then look for any coincidence and others who will reaffirm this to strengthen our belief we will survive the attack. We will not. I'm sorry.

So, what drives you to better yourself as a human being? What is love? What is anger? What is fear? What is death?

How do you know that what you just said is true? Do you have 'faith' that what you said is true? Do you 'believe' that your philosophy is true?

Originally posted by Section31 Hollow existence

Wow, it's like you're psychic. How did you know? Do have some pamphlets for me?

Originally posted by gentledissident

Originally posted by Section31 Hollow existence

Wow, it's like you're psychic. How did you know? Do have some pamphlets for me?

How do you know that what you just said is true? Do you have 'faith' that what you said is true? Do you 'believe' that your philosophy is true?

(See my post above the quoted post for more questions.)

Originally posted by Section31 So, what drives you to better yourself as a human being?

I'm driven to do things to entertain myself and educate the world. I try to change the world to make it a better place for me. In the end, it's all about me. If you're happy, then I'm happy.

Originally posted by Section31 What is love? What is anger? What is fear? What is death?

I think love is the satisfaction I get being around those who make me happy. It comes back to me. Anger and fear are emotions I don't have a use for. Death is the end. It's like before I was born. It's like I was never born. My dead decaying brain will remember nothing.

Originally posted by Section31 How do you know that what you just said is true? Do you have 'faith' that what you said is true? Do you 'believe' that your philosophy is true?

It's not a philosophy to say that fire will burn me or a rock will break me. My point of view is as clear as these realities.

reply to post by MrXYZ


Indeed, I believe HP Lovecraft said that the lazy man first attributes that which he does not understand to the supernatural. And there is perhaps much yet that will be discovered that was thought to be supernatural. What would be your thoughts if science proved God? Would scientists even admit it if they did? The odds of life starting without some help are staggering. The idea that a supreme being of some sort started life on this planet is not improbable. As far as the "jewish zombie" thing you can attack me all day, those particular beliefs are a matter of faith and faith is an easy target.
Abiogenesis? brief definition please.

I would like to ask all the atheist how it went in Russia with their outlaw of religion? How many people did Stalin kill in his ethnic cleansing of Russia? What makes you think it would be any different today if the USA made all religions illegal the only religion would be the state AKA 1984. All you atheist would be screaming murder because of all you supposed civil rights were taken away. Yet the constitution states that these rights are God given. The state giveth and the state taketh away!!

reply to post by guitarplayer
The God that we are to answer to are Priests. These are animals. They are either deep into denial, abuse, or power and therefore not to be trusted. en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by madnessinmysoul

It's not really a big leap of faith. We have no evidence to show that it is not the real world even if we cannot be certain that it is.

Leaps of faith are purely relative. From where I'm sitting, you're taking a huge leap of faith assuming there's no God.

Nope, I just acknowledge the blind spot in the middle of my field of view. I can, however, verify my observations. As flawed as our brain's interpretation of sense data can be, as flawed as our perceptions may be, we can test them. If you can't believe something is really there, you test that it is. Simple as that.

inevitably, by pure random chance, things won't be that simple, and religious beliefs stem from that in so many ways. If we cannot have a consensus, we cannot have a truth. Some post modernists would say there is no truth. I would argue, in some post-post modernist f-storm, that absolute truth is true with some faith. However many people that may make angry, it works out pretty well when you think of it.

...no, I have no reason to think that they won't. There's a difference between 'faith' and not considering an incredibly unlikely alternative.

eh, I'm not so sure. I mean we never expected Voyager would suddenly slow down at the edge of the solar system. You said earlier that when new data comes you simply believe it. I mean, from my own experiences, I guess I'm doing the same with God. Only I've not gotten any new info. Perhaps I have strange faith. I talk to God through the random. set a system, ask an answer, and take in on faith that's the answer. I've done things based off that from anything ranging from where to go to college based off the wind, to weather or not to go somewhere based off the light. I have faith that truly random things still come from God. Now so far it's worked out profusely well. But that's faith. And such repeated experiments have always led me well.

...no, it's not. I don't have any faith, I have skepticism and doubt. You're simply believing without evidence, I'm making a conclusion based upon reasonable evidence.

Just seems like faith in a different thing. Something obviously more "real" from the human perspective. But then again, if something could only see and live in dark matter and not our world, maybe it would have a different perspective. I have skepticism and doubt on plenty of things, including my own religion. Questioning literal 7 days of creation has led me to conclude that the first 2 Genesis accounts are from two different perspectives. God, going across the ages and the days going by for him, and Man, observing time linearly and from his own life. So by questioning young Earth creationism I've come to the conclusion to how evolution still works with creation. God says "F the time line", man is bound by it.... for now. You are doing the same, only you've closed down your mind to any possible chances that what you believe is false. Like with God. Skepticism can only go so far. Eventually you have to make a decision. You've decided on a path that leads to oblivion and no reward, I've made a decision that keeps my logical and critical thought, but has the rewards of life afterwards, if in fact my faith is proven true. I'm not saying either of us are wrong, I'm just being cliche lol. One has a reward the other doesn't.

...it's not faith. It's observable, testable, and in constant doubt. Anything I believe could be changed with a reasonable amount of evidence.

That whole statement can be applied to my religious beliefs. So I really don't see how it's not faith. A creature existing in the dark matter spectrum of the universe and cannot observe us probably has the same perspective of our lives. It's all still faith.

...but I have no faith that gravity is constantly the way it is, I merely accept that our only observations of gravity have shown that its effects are measurable, consistent, and any changes can be accounted for as interactions with other portions of the universe. If a new piece of data comes in, I incorporate without problem. It's called science, the place where we don't make absolute claims.

Once again, the same is true for my religious beliefs. Watch:

...but I have no faith that my views of God is constantly the way it is, I merely accept that my only observations of God have shown that its effects are visible, consistent, and any changes can be accounted for as interactions with other portions of the scripture. If a new piece of scripture or word comes in, I incorporate without problem. It's called religion,

I would end without your own ending, because for both our views, absolute truths are for the now, but adjustable if we find we are wrong. In the end, it's faith in our own correctness and right-ness until proven wrong. One just has a reward, and can live with the other. Basically my faith is perfectly workable with modern science's views, but your faith in God is not workable with my views. Put down your stubbornness and maybe you'd have a reward at the end. If it's not true, then who cares?

...it's not really faith. Our eyes don't actually see 'what's happening', they merely perceive photons bouncing off of surfaces, we use this to approximate. We can then test things.

But our minds do, and for all we know the brain's input comes from skynet. We can test it because a computer doesn't change unless its reprogrammed.

...so your basic argument that anything which is without epistemological certainty is faith? I'm sorry, but that's stupid. It refer to something that has been tested repeatedly and is under constant scrutiny as equivalent to something that is merely believed without evidence is idiotic.

No, my argument is that everything is faith. So you might as well do some homework and choose the one with the most rewards. Believing without evidence is not really that idiotic. Unless its based off nothing by your own observations. Then its insanity. I wasn't really willing to believe that anything I thought supernatural was real until about 20 other people said the same thing in some Friday night gathering occurred. Which, btw, I took on faith to go to that location at that time on nothing more than the angle of the light in front of me. It was insane until it clearly brought me to a better place with my faith. I repeat such insane adventures with the same results. Faith, see? No different really. You have faith in the scientific process. I do to, but I have faith in other things as well.

No, I assume it. I don't have faith because I'm open to the possibility that they're not or not entirely.

huh. And assumption is faith. That's why its an assumption. You belief based off some experience you have faith is true and you trust yourself that its true, which is faith.

And I'm not giving this freely, so it's clearly not faith.

I doubt you would be this forthcoming if you didn't have faith in your own truths. Clearly it is.

We've gone over this, my position is that I do not believe. I have no belief in the absence of deities! Dear sweet Aunt May and sweet Christmas, how many times do I have to go over this?

You do have a belief in the absents of deities. You have made a choice to either believe it or not. And a maybe really isn't valid after a long time. Perhaps you didn't have a belief in the absence of deities or the existence of them for a few seconds, but eventually your brain configured a parameter that you stick by. The mind, weather you consciously accept it yet or not, has decided for you. Eventually you just believe or you don't. Inability to choose just makes you a non-believer. You're mind has clearly shut down itself to belief in certainty that there are gods, so therefore you don't believe. Now you can express an outward emotion of uncertainty, but the fact is that if you were, say, found unfortunately attacked, drunk, bewildered, and drugged by some unknown aggressor, and randomly asked about your faith in that semi-dream state, your subconsciousness would output the answer your mind has had for much longer then perhaps you accept. Because in such a sub-intellect state, the mind auto-responds to everything in certainty. A trait from our animal origins in evolution. Of course, I don't think I have to go down the historic basis for this fact in how people get other people drunk or drugged so that their true emotions come out. But weather you accept it, your mind has decided, and I think it's a belief in no deities.

Babies no longer count as humans, good to know. And this is a non-sequitur. Merely stating it doesn't make it true. How does it follow that the only absence of faith can be ignorance?

No, not quite. Just underdeveloped. You cannot deny the fact that those brain cells will grow and become a distinct independent intellect. So don't add straws to that one. It follows that ignorance is the only choice for the exact reasons I described above. The mind makes decisions for you after a given time. The subconscious is not something that is undecided for long. You can consciously alter what it accepts as truth, but in the end the subconscious does not leave parameters undefined. It's going to, and probably has, found an answer for you. You can say you do not believe that, but when in situation x and forced to give an answer, you would give some answer.

Or no, you're just wrong.

Or maybe my relative is into that sort of mental mumbojumbo and showed me a bunch of psych materials on it. Or maybe you're just saying that out of defiance. It does sound like an act of faith from your own beliefs.

I know that, but when did she say she believed in a higher power?

She said "another woman". That's probably not God, but to the mammalian mind, maybe God is mother. Would make sense for a few early idols. huh, maybe the gorilla isn't such a deist? The point is null really, the mind of the Gorilla made a statement decided. Animals don't really get confused about such things Animals are auto-response programmed creatures. The fact that we doubt ourselves and our own subconscious, at least from observable evidence, is a uniquely human thing. Idk, maybe also dolphins. But I'm not researcher so I'm going to say no until something says yes. See, I made a decision there. You should too. It's not healthy to remain undecided on things.

reply to post by gentledissident


Preist are no more God's than the man in the moon are are just men and that is all.

Originally posted by gentledissident
reply to post by guitarplayer

 

The God that we are to answer to are Priests. These are animals. They are either deep into denial, abuse, or power and therefore not to be trusted. en.wikipedia.org...

Okay, that is your interpretation, and I can respect that you are different than everyone. You are unique in every way, shape, and form, and nothing can take that away from you.

So... Why are you attacking a group of people's unique perspective of the world around them?

According to the King James Bible, God has no physical form on Earth. Christianity is also not exclusive to one religious organization.

Originally posted by gentledissident
reply to post by guitarplayer

 

The God that we are to answer to are Priests. These are animals. They are either deep into denial, abuse, or power and therefore not to be trusted. en.wikipedia.org...

No it isn't. The God we answer to isn't a priest, where did you get that notion from? We don't bow down to a priest most of us don't even listen to a priest.

I think you have your facts mixed up.

I have been an atheist for about 13 years I was raised religious but I have always loved science my whole life and the more I learned the more it seemed to me that the science was the truth and the bible was just a bunch of fairy tales written to control people.

reply to post by Section31


Your link is to secular humanism, secular priest are not God's and neither are the human ones and I am not attacking priest the bible states that all believers are of a royal priesthood that any believer can bring a sacrifice of joy or of love the fruit of our lips to God, can give and receive forgiveness of sins give and take communion one does not have to go to seminary to become a priest.

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

 

It's not really a big leap of faith. We have no evidence to show that it is not the real world even if we cannot be certain that it is.

Leaps of faith are purely relative. From where I'm sitting, you're taking a huge leap of faith assuming there's no God.

Is that not bloody hilarious. All these people are saying God does not exist, but they are failing to understand that not believing is also having faith.

Originally posted by guitarplayer
reply to post by Section31

 

Your link is to secular humanism, secular priest are not God's and neither are the human ones and I am not attacking priest the bible states that all believers are of a royal priesthood that any believer can bring a sacrifice of joy or of love the fruit of our lips to God, can give and receive forgiveness of sins give and take communion one does not have to go to seminary to become a priest.

Here is your flaw. You are using the word "Bible", which means you are focused on a secular definition.

Second, you also made a very-very bad mistake. According to the Christian bible, all sacrifices had ended with the death of Christ. Your arguments eat themselves with ignorance about a religious philosophy, which you fail to understand in its complexity and entirety.

I am a man who believes science and Christianity work together as one. My philosophies are based upon Darwin and Christ.

I have no sympathy for those who do not exercise tolerance.

reply to post by Equinox99

Maybe it was the opening line..."The God that we are to answer to are Priests" that trew me off. but you do bow down to the preists of secular humanism giving you their insights and such. What books do you read? Where do you get your ideas from? Did they fall out odf the sky or did you read a book or see a film that influanced you in what you beleive?

reply to post by Section31


In the new covenant
Romans 12:1 I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service.
Philippians 4:18 But I have all, and abound: I am full, having received of Epaphroditus the things which were sent from you, an odour of a sweet smell, a sacrifice acceptable, wellpleasing to God.

I think you should read your bible opps New Covenant.

Originally posted by guitarplayer
reply to post by Equinox99

 

What books do you read? Where do you get your ideas from? Did they fall out of the sky or did you read a book or see a film that influenced you in what you believe?

I gave you the first star. Why?

You cannot answer your questions without saying, "I believe science is correct because 'I have faith' in the person who has written them".

What that means is that you believe in something, and that is why your philosophy is the same thing as religion.

You have faith in a bigger explanation for your existence, which you cannot completely comprehend without help.

Link: Brainy Quote

Science must begin with myths, and with the criticism of myths. ~ Karl Popper

In so far as a scientific statement speaks about reality, it must be falsifiable; and in so far as it is not falsifiable, it does not speak about reality. ~ Karl Popper

Hmm... Interesting philosophy.

The tools tools used for war were create through the use of science. Regardless about religion's existence, mankind would have killed themselves anyway.

Wow, Gorman91, you've got a Nature's Magic 8 Ball. At least you get to interpret the results and head toward the direction you were leaning. We atheists call that "making a decision."

The priests wrote, disseminated, and enforced the doctrines. They are the puppeteers of God. If you are going to assume that you are given rights and not just born with a will to survive and to seek comfort, you will be given rights by those who can take them away. If they don't have the power to take them away, they don't have the power to give them. There is the government and there are the priests.They have the power to give rights. You may chose one or the other in your mind, but they are one in the same.

There is no faith in not believing. Belief requires faith becasue an unprovable entity is introduced where there was none.

The argument that I need something bigger than myself for some sort of resolution and guidance doesn't apply to me. I don't.