I'm A "Scathing Atheist." Ask Me Anything.

Originally posted by borntowatch
Strangely I have no desire to ask an atheist a question, the answer will be at the very best boring and repetitive.

What could you offer any one here, that is worth any value, hope, peace or joy.

You live and then die and life may be good but will then be bad.
Science is the answer to everything but doesnt have any answers, its just data,

Yawn, I am putting myself to sleep typing boring rhetoric stuff.

Good luck, what do you wish to achieve in this thread...

Participation in this thread is not mandatory.

That said - my intent is to shed some light on what an Atheist really is and what makes the Atheist mind tick. Any entertainment you may find here is merely a side-effect. I see verifiable knowledge about the world around me to be more than data, but if that's all it is to you you're entitled that that opinion. I believe there is a great deal of beauty in my worldview that people who don't attempt to understand it often miss - and again, you are entitled to your opinion. Please keep in mind though - it serves neither of us to be bitter towards one another, and your attitude may effect my opinion of your worldview, which I am also entitled to do.

Originally posted by AlienScience
Are you familiar with The Allegory Of The Cave?

If so, how do you think this could relate to the concept of god?


If not, do you think it is possible for one person to experience something and not have the ability to correctly relate that experience to others, and so in attempting to relate that experience...they screw it up and create an illogical re-telling of it?

Sure, I'm well aware of it.

I'm not denying that there are things beyond the comprehension of my brain - what I am denying is the supernatural and the claims individuals have made about understanding the supernatural. I believe such things because (regardless of whether or not many of the things I believe are not 100% known) my beliefs stand up to the harshest scientific scrutiny available. The opposing beliefs do not. I don't think that means people should not be allowed to believe them, but I'm certainly not going to concede that science is not the most useful tool for ascertaining the unbiased truth to date. By beliefs also allow me to admit I was wrong (which many other beliefs do not) and later change my viewpoint to accommodate new insight.

Originally posted by SubSea
Do you have any problem with aspiring to these concepts?

Absolute Honesty
Absolute Love
Absolute Unselfishness
Absolute Purity
Absolute Forgiveness

If you don't, then you for all intents and purposes are a follower of Jesus. The "Church" has surrounded Jesus with so much mysticism and liturgy that it clouds what Jesus was really about. Those 5 "absolutes" are the essentials of the teachings of Jesus. The "Church" is a power/money thing just like politics. The real Jesus is a simple man with a simple message who wanted to gather followers and spread the word that those absolutes have the power to change the world for the better.

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "aspiring" to these concepts, but I do indeed believe that people should be absolutely honest to one another, they should absolutely respect one another, they should act selflessly when they can, and they should forgive honest mistakes. "Purity" is a bit ambiguous, and I'm not sure what it means. I believe that people to explore the world, so perhaps by your definition I do not believe in absolute purity.

Regardless of whether or not these were the true tenants of Jesus Christ, if he really was a man, is irrelevant. I did not "follow" him to discover them, I came upon them myself through intellectual journey.

Originally posted by HairlessApe

Originally posted by AlienScience

Originally posted by HairlessApe

Originally posted by caterpillage
Do you think there is anything more to who we are, than simply who we are? Does any aspect of us persist after death?

All of the carbon and iron in your body was formed in the cores of high-mass stars billions of years ago

Again, is that 100% concretely verified?

Or is it just our current best guess?

It's about as scientifically verified as gravity. And by that I mean the theory (scientific theory - not colloquial theory) may change, but we have a basic understanding of the process which is sufficiently clear.

We create our own elements in labs based upon our understanding of these principles.

I would disagree on that. The only thing that the Theory of Gravitation and the "theory" that all carbon came from stars have in common is that they are both currently accepted scientific postulates.

Although the idea that all carbon came from stars is widely accepted, it can't be tested or replicated in a controlled environment, and in fact isn't even a "scientific theory". On the other hand, gravitation is a mechanic...and we can test and replicate these mechanics in a controlled environment. To say the two are equivalent shows either a complete misunderstanding of the two or a complete misunderstanding of scientific theory. You can't apply the scientific process to the postulate of "all carbon in the universe comes from stars".

And yet you believe this, which just further shows that not everything you believe in is based on facts or hard evidence...you believe in a lot of assumptions and guesses...just as we all do. It's nothing to be ashamed of, but to deny it makes you look uninformed.

reply to post by HairlessApe


What is the source of consciousness?

What is the purpose of human self-reflection when all other mammals seem to get along better through empathy and natural instinct?

Originally posted by joeraynor
reply to post by HairlessApe

 

Nice Sagan Avatar.

Hairless Ape, why aren't you agnostic, rather than an atheist?

Atheists to me start out on the right path, asking for truth from science and observation / logic rather than asking to be dictated to by a religion, but then they make the mistake of having faith just as religious do- faith that there is no deity or metaphysical reality, even though they have no evidence of this. So to me, the only group who isn't believing or having faith in something without proof is agnosticism. Atheists afterall don't merely believe in the non-necessity of a deity to explain the world, they believe in the certain abscence of deities.

Although to be fair, most atheists I have pointed this out to have aceded that they are ultimately agnostics, but prefer the title "atheist" because it is edgy, haha.

Thanks Jim-- Er, Joe. I think you're the first person to mention it.

I do not purport to "know" that there is no deity, I simply purport to know that other people's beliefs on the subject are not supported by scientific evidence. I think the speculation about it hurts communities by making them vulnerable to abuse by others who would use their beliefs as a tool.

I do not believe in the certain absence of a deity - I believe in the that religious interpretations of deities are certainly incorrect. Personally, no I do not believe a deity exists, but if evidence for one arose and I felt it was notable, I would change my view.

This is the definition of an atheist according to Dawkins and Hitchens - two inflammatory guys I'll admit - but they dismissed the absolute disbelief in the possibility of a deity as something other than true atheism. Frankly, they're correct.

Originally posted by DeReK DaRkLy
reply to post by HairlessApe

 

What is the source of consciousness?

What is the purpose of human self-reflection when all other mammals seem to get along better through empathy and natural instinct?

Another person asked this question on the previous page (3), you can find my answer there.

Originally posted by AlienScience

Originally posted by HairlessApe

Originally posted by AlienScience

Originally posted by HairlessApe

Originally posted by caterpillage
Do you think there is anything more to who we are, than simply who we are? Does any aspect of us persist after death?

All of the carbon and iron in your body was formed in the cores of high-mass stars billions of years ago

Again, is that 100% concretely verified?

Or is it just our current best guess?

It's about as scientifically verified as gravity. And by that I mean the theory (scientific theory - not colloquial theory) may change, but we have a basic understanding of the process which is sufficiently clear.

We create our own elements in labs based upon our understanding of these principles.

I would disagree on that. The only thing that the Theory of Gravitation and the "theory" that all carbon came from stars have in common is that they are both currently accepted scientific postulates.

Although the idea that all carbon came from stars is widely accepted, it can't be tested or replicated in a controlled environment, and in fact isn't even a "scientific theory". On the other hand, gravitation is a mechanic...and we can test and replicate these mechanics in a controlled environment. To say the two are equivalent shows either a complete misunderstanding of the two or a complete misunderstanding of scientific theory. You can't apply the scientific process to the postulate of "all carbon in the universe comes from stars".

And yet you believe this, which just further shows that not everything you believe in is based on facts or hard evidence...you believe in a lot of assumptions and guesses...just as we all do. It's nothing to be ashamed of, but to deny it makes you look uninformed.

Again, artificial chemicals are created in labs based upon the understanding of these principles. In fact, mercury has been turned to gold in several labs throughout the world (which was obviously thought of as fantasy after the little alchemy fiasco) for several years now, which was again made possible due to a solid understanding of the principles.

I agree, the theory of gravitation is slightly more understood than the creation of the elements (the theory of gravitation has actually had huge problems fitting into the standard model of physics - largely do to the existence of dark matter and dark energy and the rate of expansion of the universe) but again, if new evidence were to arise my beliefs would become malleable to accommodate for the new information.

I have never once denied the fact that my beliefs are not 100% correct, I have simply stated that my beliefs will change as new discoveries about the Universe are made. Many worldviews do not allow for said change.

Here is the wiki article explaing the conversion of one element to another using a nuclear reactor or accelerator.

reply to post by HairlessApe

A simple concept with inspiration obviously drawn from reddit's AMA articles.

Over the years I've seen several religious groups create surveys meant to define different categories of atheists. While I don't particularly agree with the conclusions of those surveys, nor do I agree with compartmentalizing the atheist movement, I would certainly have to agree that I fall somewhere between what is typically referred to as an "intellectual atheist" and "activist atheist." I am an avid proponent of social justice, and I am fairly well read on the typical atheist reading material and debate such as the works but forth by Dawkins and the late Mr. Hitchens.

Do atheists call themselves atheists because they like to talk about God but don't want to appear religious?

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
reply to post by HairlessApe

 

A simple concept with inspiration obviously drawn from reddit's AMA articles.

Over the years I've seen several religious groups create surveys meant to define different categories of atheists. While I don't particularly agree with the conclusions of those surveys, nor do I agree with compartmentalizing the atheist movement, I would certainly have to agree that I fall somewhere between what is typically referred to as an "intellectual atheist" and "activist atheist." I am an avid proponent of social justice, and I am fairly well read on the typical atheist reading material and debate such as the works but forth by Dawkins and the late Mr. Hitchens.

Do atheists call themselves atheists because they like to talk about God but don't want to appear religious?

Atheists call themselves Atheists because they hold viewpoints which are opposed to theism/religious belief. Hence "Anti-Theism" (Anti-Theist, technically) which is what Atheist stands for.

Theist is in the name, so yes, God is a subject which they like to discuss.

You still have not addressed my questions. So I will add a 3rd is defelection part of being an Atheist?

Originally posted by abeverage
You still have not addressed my questions. So I will add a 3rd is defelection part of being an Atheist?

I apologize, I somehow missed your post. I'll quote it here.

I have been wanting to write a few threads about this and still might depending on your answers as I would like more than one Atheist opinion. I have heard that Atheist tend to have a few points higher I.Q. but far lower empathic abilities. Do you have empathy? And I am extremely curious about this one, growing up in an Atheist household. Do you believe in an afterlife? If not why not?

In my opinion I have an abundance of empathy. Some of the biggest reasons I choose to be vocal in my Atheism is the fact that people are abused due to being overly-susceptible to the agendas of their religious leaders. Two good examples of this are 1) The fact that many priests in Africa tell the AIDs-infected members of the congregations that if they don't use condoms God will protect them, and if they do God will send them to hell. It happens more frequently than you'd imagine. 2) The physical abuse of women under the laws of Islam. The fact that when a woman is raped in many Muslim-dominated countries she as the victim is honor-killed by her own family to prevent shaming them while the rapist walks free.

I also donate to charities, some of which are due to Atheist podcasts and services being open to taking donations - often times for "Doctors Without Borders." Naturally, everyone possesses empathy. The complete lack of empathy is what makes one a sociopath. The degree to which one feels empathy has to do with many factors, I think. And I also don't believe Atheists are naturally less empathetic than others.

I don't believe in an afterlife. People very close to me have died, and of course I WANT to believe that they've gone "somewhere better." But I don't, because I don't see the evidence for it and I don't believe said evidence exists.

Again - sorry for ignoring you! It was not intentional.

Originally posted by HairlessApe

Originally posted by AlienScience

Originally posted by HairlessApe

Originally posted by AlienScience

Originally posted by HairlessApe

Originally posted by caterpillage
Do you think there is anything more to who we are, than simply who we are? Does any aspect of us persist after death?

All of the carbon and iron in your body was formed in the cores of high-mass stars billions of years ago

Again, is that 100% concretely verified?

Or is it just our current best guess?

It's about as scientifically verified as gravity. And by that I mean the theory (scientific theory - not colloquial theory) may change, but we have a basic understanding of the process which is sufficiently clear.

We create our own elements in labs based upon our understanding of these principles.

I would disagree on that. The only thing that the Theory of Gravitation and the "theory" that all carbon came from stars have in common is that they are both currently accepted scientific postulates.

Although the idea that all carbon came from stars is widely accepted, it can't be tested or replicated in a controlled environment, and in fact isn't even a "scientific theory". On the other hand, gravitation is a mechanic...and we can test and replicate these mechanics in a controlled environment. To say the two are equivalent shows either a complete misunderstanding of the two or a complete misunderstanding of scientific theory. You can't apply the scientific process to the postulate of "all carbon in the universe comes from stars".

And yet you believe this, which just further shows that not everything you believe in is based on facts or hard evidence...you believe in a lot of assumptions and guesses...just as we all do. It's nothing to be ashamed of, but to deny it makes you look uninformed.

Again, artificial chemicals are created in labs based upon the understanding of these principles. In fact, mercury has been turned to gold in several labs throughout the world (which was obviously thought of as fantasy after the little alchemy fiasco) for several years now, which was again made possible due to a solid understanding of the principles.

I agree, the theory of gravitation is slightly more understood than the creation of the elements (the theory of gravitation has actually had huge problems fitting into the standard model of physics - largely do to the existence of dark matter and dark energy and the rate of expansion of the universe) but again, if new evidence were to arise my beliefs would become malleable to accommodate for the new information.

I have never once denied the fact that my beliefs are not 100% correct, I have simply stated that my beliefs will change as new discoveries about the Universe are made. Many worldviews do not allow for said change.

Here is the wiki article explaing the conversion of one element to another using a nuclear reactor or accelerator.

edit on 5-8-2013 by HairlessApe because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-8-2013 by HairlessApe because: (no reason given)

I think you are misunderstanding my disagreement. I am not questioning the creation of one element from others, the questioning was the claim that all carbon comes from stars. There is absolutely no way to know this...and yet you believe it.

That is the main part of my point, you are making a claim that you only hold beliefs that can be verified scientifically, and yet that is simply not true.

Why are you so insistent on stating that you only believe things that are verified when I have already showed you a few examples of where this isn't true?

reply to post by jazztrance


Jesus Christ was not an american...he is a jew....
remember your bible history? he was not born in the usa.

Originally posted by HairlessApe

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
reply to post by HairlessApe

 

A simple concept with inspiration obviously drawn from reddit's AMA articles.

Over the years I've seen several religious groups create surveys meant to define different categories of atheists. While I don't particularly agree with the conclusions of those surveys, nor do I agree with compartmentalizing the atheist movement, I would certainly have to agree that I fall somewhere between what is typically referred to as an "intellectual atheist" and "activist atheist." I am an avid proponent of social justice, and I am fairly well read on the typical atheist reading material and debate such as the works but forth by Dawkins and the late Mr. Hitchens.

Do atheists call themselves atheists because they like to talk about God but don't want to appear religious?

Atheists call themselves Atheists because they hold viewpoints which are opposed to theism/religious belief. Hence "Anti-Theism" (Anti-Theist, technically) which is what Atheist stands for.

Theist is in the name, so yes, God is a subject which they like to discuss.

edit on 5-8-2013 by HairlessApe because: (no reason given)

Actually, you are wrong on what "atheist" stands for. Atheists simply don't believe in gods, it says nothing about their viewpoints and how they are "opposed" to religions.

Atheist does not mean "anti-theist", which implies an active belief AGAINST theism. Atheists are simple those that don't believe in god(s), it does not mean they are "anti" to anything other than god(s). Anti-theism is an entirely separate thing from atheism, it is those that are actively against theism as opposed to just having an individual dis-belief in god(s).

You don't seem very well versed in the distinctions of atheism and it's separate sects.

Do you know that you would be considered an agnostic atheist?

Originally posted by AlienScience

Originally posted by HairlessApe

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
reply to post by HairlessApe

 

A simple concept with inspiration obviously drawn from reddit's AMA articles.

Over the years I've seen several religious groups create surveys meant to define different categories of atheists. While I don't particularly agree with the conclusions of those surveys, nor do I agree with compartmentalizing the atheist movement, I would certainly have to agree that I fall somewhere between what is typically referred to as an "intellectual atheist" and "activist atheist." I am an avid proponent of social justice, and I am fairly well read on the typical atheist reading material and debate such as the works but forth by Dawkins and the late Mr. Hitchens.

Do atheists call themselves atheists because they like to talk about God but don't want to appear religious?

Atheists call themselves Atheists because they hold viewpoints which are opposed to theism/religious belief. Hence "Anti-Theism" (Anti-Theist, technically) which is what Atheist stands for.

Theist is in the name, so yes, God is a subject which they like to discuss.

edit on 5-8-2013 by HairlessApe because: (no reason given)

Actually, you are wrong on what "atheist" stands for. Atheists simply don't believe in gods, it says nothing about their viewpoints and how they are "opposed" to religions.

Oh really? Thanks for clarifying that for me.

Atheist does not mean "anti-theist",

That's quite literally what the "A" in "A-theist" stands for.

...which implies an active belief AGAINST theism. Atheists are simple those that don't believe in god(s), it does not mean they are "anti" to anything other than god(s). Anti-theism is an entirely separate thing from atheism, it is those that are actively against theism as opposed to just having an individual dis-belief in god(s).

You don't seem very well versed in the distinctions of atheism and it's separate sects.

Do you know that you would be considered an agnostic atheist?

Again, you're entitled to your opinion but I have no interest in forcing you to change it. My definition of "Atheist" comes from the figureheads of the movement whom I happen to agree with. Feel free to label me however you like. This wasn't really a thread meant for this kind of debate, so at this time our conversation has come to an end.

So, if you feel that awareness is for the purpose of carving out one's destiny, how did that mode of consciousness arise out of basic instinct?

And what end-result would be an example of self-steered human destiny?

Originally posted by HairlessApe

Originally posted by DeReK DaRkLy
reply to post by HairlessApe

 

What is the source of consciousness?

What is the purpose of human self-reflection when all other mammals seem to get along better through empathy and natural instinct?

Another person asked this question on the previous page (3), you can find my answer there.

Originally posted by DeReK DaRkLy
So, if you feel that awareness is for the purpose of carving out one's destiny, how did that mode of consciousness arise out of basic instinct?

And what end-result would be an example of self-steered human destiny?

I believe abstract thought gave human beings an evolutionary advantage for some reason, and when it mutated into the species the ones with abstract thought became more and more prevalent over many generations until it eventually became a permanent part of our species.

As I said earlier, I don't believe in "destiny" in the philosophical sense.

reply to post by HairlessApe

As I said earlier, I don't believe in "destiny" in the philosophical sense.

But what about the literal destiny (future) of human consciousness?

Or is the only purpose of abstract thought (imagination) for us simply domination/survival?