The Atheist Thread

Atheism is not the future. Humanity needs something more to live by than just "the lack of belief in God".

Humanitarianism - The Golden Rule - Compassion - "Do unto others as you would like them to do unto you" is the future.


With many hazy rules of morality, this seems to be the simplest thing to live by, and no humanitarianism is not an "Atheistic" philosophy. It is secular (not relating to a belief or lack of belief in a God or Gods).

arpgme
"Do unto others as you would like them to do unto you" is the future.

Humanitarianism doesn't corner the market on ethical behavior.
Alluding that atheists are incapable of this is almost as ignorant as stating the world is flat.

-Peace-

OP you are entitled to your beliefs and you can even make a thread about it.

I have no problem with Athiests.

However, I have known Doug Stanhope for over twenty years.

The guy is an idiot. A fool. He is the worst human I have ever known.

So believe what you want....Just find another prophet.

reply to post by whyamIhere


Prophet?
You're confusing me for a Christian.
Doug's just a comedian.
The notion that you accuse me of whorshipping him is a just a thinly veiled attack so I'm just going to say:

-Good Bye-

Eryiedes
reply to post by whyamIhere

 

Prophet?
You're confusing me for a Christian.
Doug's just a comedian.
The notion that you accuse me of whorshipping him is a just a thinly veiled attack so I'm just going to say:

-Good Bye-

Attack?

You really need to lighten up.

Where did I say "YOU" worshipped Doug?......I didn't.

You acted like you found his words Phropetic?

Just telling you the guy is an idiot. Your the one attacking people of faith.

reply to post by whyamIhere


I'm not against religious people.
I am against the ignorance they hold up as dogmatic self-evident truth.

-Good Bye Again-

arpgme
Atheism is not the future. Humanity needs something more to live by than just "the lack of belief in God".

Humanitarianism - The Golden Rule - Compassion - "Do unto others as you would like them to do unto you" is the future.


With many hazy rules of morality, this seems to be the simplest thing to live by, and no humanitarianism is not an "Atheistic" philosophy. It is secular (not relating to a belief or lack of belief in a God or Gods).

This I agree with.

Humans need belief. Even if they believe in themselves instead of God. In fact, so much the better. God, if he exists, has not shown even the most minute levels of engagement in our existence. In the words of the indian shaman i know...he is utterly indifferent. No more worried about me than i would be of a single blade of grass, and how it grows, in the open meadow.

bigfatfurrytexan
Humans need belief. Even if they believe in themselves instead of God.

Belief is acceptance in the absence of facts.
NOTHING is dangerous as that.

-Peace-

Eryiedes

bigfatfurrytexan
Humans need belief. Even if they believe in themselves instead of God.

Belief is acceptance in the absence of facts.
NOTHING is dangerous as that.

-Peace-

Well, it has the potential to be dangerous, sure.

But we all have beliefs. Beliefs really aren't acceptance in the absence of facts. So much of our existence is perceptive. Sure, you can take a singular measurement, and proclaim it as fact.

The belief in "something" transcends culture and continent. It would seem to be an artifact of our consciousness. Who knows. But to an outsider, the average atheist mostly provides lip service to such notions as "non belief". It seems mostly to be something like an affirmation that helps remind the atheist of their belief in non belief. It looks like a serious fighting against the natural current of the psyche.

bigfatfurrytexan
Beliefs really aren't acceptance in the absence of facts.

"Belief is the psychological state in which an individual holds a conjecture or premise to be true"

Sorry sir...but that sounds like absence of facts to me.

-Peace-

Eryiedes

bigfatfurrytexan
Beliefs really aren't acceptance in the absence of facts.

"Belief is the psychological state in which an individual holds a conjecture or premise to be true"

Sorry sir...but that sounds like absence of facts to me.

-Peace-

See what i mean about "perceptive". I presume you mean "the absence of facts" as an absolute, meaning that not all facts are available. To this, I would say that rarely are all facts available. We, as humans, tend to operate on various levels of "belief", ranging from total disbelief to "know", and including such milestones as "reasonable doubt" and "shadow of a doubt".

See, I am perceiving "absence of facts" to mean that some, but not all facts are missing. Because there really can be no absolute. Your definition uses words such as "conjecture" and "premise", but which could be based partially on facts.

But this really doesn't matter. I said things of far greater substance than that in my post. The splitting of hairs will get us nowhere, philosophically speaking.

Eryiedes

bigfatfurrytexan
Beliefs really aren't acceptance in the absence of facts.

"Belief is the psychological state in which an individual holds a conjecture or premise to be true"

Sorry sir...but that sounds like absence of facts to me.

-Peace-

The notion that there is no God is based entirely on conjecture. There is no evidence to answer the question 100% either way, therefore both positions are based on conjecture.

It's unfortunate that some Atheists find the need to approach the subject with such vitriol. I think I would have at least something good to say about atheism if that were not the case. I suppose the excuse is that they faced similar (and worse) persecution in the past by believers. While that is true (and regrettable), I still don't think 2 wrongs make a right, and hoisting the banner of "progress" while behaving in like fashion to those you criticise is comically hypocritical.

reply to post by Eryiedes

Eryiedes
Alluding that atheists are incapable of this is almost as ignorant as stating the world is flat.

-Peace-

Did I say Atheists are incapable of following The Golden Rule of treating others as you would like to be treated? Nope. I didn't.

I simply said that Atheism "the lack of belief in a God" is not the future, because that alone, does not dictate any sort of morality.

You can be a socialist atheist, a capitalist atheist, a evolutionist atheist, a solipsistic atheist, etc. Atheism alone doesn't same much about a person, just like saying "I am NOT a stamp collector" doesn't say much about who I actually am.

DeadSeraph
The notion that there is no God is based entirely on conjecture.

So is the theory that there is one so the rest of your post is irrelevant.

-Peace-

reply to post by arpgme


You forgot one in your haste to label people.
They're called:

"Human Beings"

Maybe that's your problem.
Spending too much time trying to fit others into niches you can categorize easily.

-Peace-

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


Sorry sir.
There are no facts to support the existance of deities.
That's why it's called "faith-based" and not stark reality.

-Peace-

reply to post by Eryiedes


Would you mind sharing what "Stark Reality" is? In other words, what is your belief system? Do you actively participate in the learning process of whatever belief system you hold?

I find myself in agreement with arpgme. I am not so sure our lives are really about what we are not or what we are against, and more towards growing in what we are..

reply to post by Serdgiam


I'll, tell you what stark reality isn't.
And that's pretending a life view embraced in absence of all facts and logic can be productive and useful.

-Peace-

Eryiedes
reply to post by Serdgiam

 

I'll, tell you what stark reality isn't.
And that's pretending a life view embraced in absence of all facts and logic can be productive and useful.

-Peace-

Fair enough, would you mind expanding on that?

Why do you feel focusing on what you are not is a better use of your time and energy than say, actively practicing science?

Serdgiam
Why do you feel focusing on what you are not is a better use of your time and energy than say, actively practicing science?

Why are you trying to infer that I am saying the opposite of what I actually said?

-Peace-