What exactly is atheism? (offshoot of same sex thread)

[Tez3]

Actually I feel I must interrupt here to point out that saying we KNOW something is wrong when it comes to science. We have a pretty good idea, however a discovery tomorrow could prove this idea to be wrong. It happens all the time with science. After all, at one point we KNEW the earth was flat.

The flat earth thing is a a myth actually, mankind have been sailing boats for millenia and knew the earth wasn't flat.

http://bede.org.uk/flatearth.htm

 

[Makalakumu]

“Delusions are often functional. A mother's opinions about her children's beauty, intelligence, goodness, et cetera ad nauseam, keep her from drowning them at birth.”
― Robert A. Heinlein

Fascinating point. Perhaps a delusional upgrade could be argued for because it would be more functional? Newtonian Physics was a useful delusion at the time, but it was given up for a more useful delusion eventually.

The same point could be made for religion. Think about all of the damage that is done to society because people cling to their particular thousand year old delusions. I say jettison the whole religious mess and upgrade your delusions!

 

[celtic_crippler]

Understand what?! My point is that the sentence is foolish and wrought with ignorance and false dichotomies. We know the big bang happened, we know where we came from, we know how the universe formed, we learn more each year. The argument from incredulity shows you have not actually read it properly or thought logically which you seem to accuse so many of. We even know what was before the big bang.

You keep throwing around “false dichotomy”… I don’t think that means what you think it means.

At no point have I made the assertion that anyone’s beliefs were outrageous. To the contrary, I’ve said more than once people are free to believe whatever they wish. The only time I take issue with another’s belief is when they attempt to force it upon me.

You don’t understand “faith”… and it’s obvious; painfully so. So much so that it’s apparently the source of much frustration for you. So when you post this:

I'm not looking for spirituality.

I have to wonder…

If you’re really an atheist, and don’t believe in faith of any sort, then why are you getting so upset?

Are those doubts we’re seeing bubbling to the surface? Are you seeking validation for your belief or non-belief as it were?

When you have evidence and facts, yeah it can be. I still have no idea what your taking from that slogan or what you think it means. It feel like your arguing just for the sake of it.

You claim intellectual superiority here, but it’s apparent you haven’t done much homework on the matter.

I at least, have posted legitimate opinions from accepted legitimate sources citing arguments both for and against; therefore, through my actions, have proven that I am at least capable of entertaining more than one point of view regardless of what I believe.

What have you posted?

I’ll make it easy for you and bullet-point the observations I’ve made:

• Spirituality is a uniquely individual thing
• If you have faith you understand it. If not, you don’t (thanks for providing evidence of that by the way LOL)
• Those attempting to force their views on others are typically either doing so for validation or political gain
• Religious freedom means being able to believe whatever you like as long as you don’t cause harm or attempt to legislate your beliefs on others
• Everyone dies; therefore, any questions or doubts anyone has about the subject will eventually be laid to rest along with their decaying body
• This is quite possibly the oldest debate known to man. Noted “intellectuals” such as Plato, Aristotle, Epicurus, Averroes, Aquinas, Descartes, Immanuel Kant, David Hume, Nietzsche, Bertrand Russell, Albert Einstein, Stephen Hawking, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Richard Swinburne, William Lane Craig, and Alvin Plantinga have all put considerable thought into the matter and some concluded there is proof while others concluded otherwise.

Atheist tend to see “God” as an invisible man, sitting up in the clouds, monitoring everything we do and therefore take Him no more seriously than they do the Easter Bunny.

In all fairness, I’ve also met Christians that think of “God” as a fatherly, white-bearded old man who takes a personal interest in their lives. If we’re “good” then we get to go to heaven, but if we’re “bad” the deity that personifies love and kindness casts you into a pit of fire to burn forever.

Here’s another observation for you: I see these views as hugely arrogant as they attempt to assign flawed human characteristics to something that one would not think a “being” or “intelligence” of such magnitude would possess.

There are those that take the Bible quite literally, there are others that recognize the symbolism within it, and yet others who reject it altogether. No two people will take away the exact same interpretation after reading a passage. There’s no false dichotomy there, in fact that’s a lot of gray. You want proof? Just look at all the denominations that exist within the Christian community alone. And don’t forget, the Big 3 (Christianity, Judaism, and Islam) all began with Abraham. So, yeah… subject to interpretation.

If you put “religion” aside and simply look at the teachings of people like Jesus or Buddha, it’s hard to disagree that we wouldn’t be better off as a people if their examples were followed. Which kind of brings up the question, “From where do atheists derive their moral character?”

If you’re not looking for spirituality, then what guides your decisions? Are they completely selfish? If not, what motivation do you have to do good works? Without something “spiritual” involved, from where do you derive any pleasure in doing anything for anybody else?

But then to be fair, “spirituality” really lacks a definitive definition and you apparently don’t define it the way I do; not even close.

By the way, in "A Brief History of Time", Stephen Hawking claimed that when physicists finally discover the so-called "theory of everything" then they will have seen into the mind of God. Hawking is not the only scientist who has associated God with the laws of physics. Nobel laureate Leon Lederman has made a link between God and a subatomic particle known as the Higgs boson. Lederman suggested that when physicists find this particle in their accelerators it will be like looking into the face of God.

Atheists don’t believe in a God or supreme intelligence of any sort, so be careful who and what you cite to back up your position.

 

[celtic_crippler]

Edit: Duplicate Post

 

[celtic_crippler]

That can happen, that's the beauty of science. What we know today, may not be what we know tomorrow. But I'm talking about what we know today. Generally what we know has gone through peer review, publish and repeatable for any one to test against or learn from, once something has been countered, or new evidence arrives. We then know something new, and hopefully it replaces the old.

You mean like when we "knew" the world was flat? :lfao:

 

[jezr74]

CC, you know I'm talking about this right?

 

[celtic_crippler]

CC, you know I'm talking about this right?

If you say so. :drinkbeer

 

[Makalakumu]

CC, you know I'm talking about this right?

Lol. That is the most metal description atheism ever. Someone call Dethklok.

 

[crushing]

It is truly scary to consider that what apparently keeps some people from stealing, murder, and rape is an external moral compass in the form of the threat of their religion's hell.

What we have labelled as morals developed long before mankind invented any religions (which, funny enough, may have also had evolutionary origins) as a means for the perpetuation of our genes.

http://www.ted.com/talks/paul_zak_trust_morality_and_oxytocin.html

 

[celtic_crippler]

It is truly scary to consider that what apparently keeps some people from stealing, murder, and rape is an external moral compass in the form of the threat of their religion's hell.

What we have labelled as morals developed long before mankind invented any religions (which, funny enough, may have also had evolutionary origins) as a means for the perpetuation of our genes.

http://www.ted.com/talks/paul_zak_trust_morality_and_oxytocin.html

Your assertion is flawed. All "religions" don't have a "hell".

I don't suppose you'd like to address this?

If you put “religion” aside and simply look at the teachings of people like Jesus or Buddha, it’s hard to disagree that we wouldn’t be better off as a people if their examples were followed. Which kind of brings up the question, “From where do atheists derive their moral character?”

If you’re not looking for spirituality, then what guides your decisions? Are they completely selfish? If not, what motivation do you have to do good works? Without something “spiritual” involved, from where do you derive any pleasure in doing anything for anybody else?

I understand it's much easier to post pithy comments than actually engage in meaningful and intellgent conversation, but I assure you the effort would be more appreciated than the former.

 

[crushing]

I understand it's much easier to post pithy comments than actually engage in meaningful and intellgent conversation, but I assure you the effort would be more appreciated than the former.

BACON!

Right?

 

[jezr74]

I can say my moral code comes from a natural sense of right and wrong. And a supportive family community.

I don't doubt that you couldn't get benefits from other sources like religion, martial arts, teachings of Buddha and the Dali Lama. But I think it compliments what we all have inside us already.

 

[Makalakumu]

“From where do atheists derive their moral character?”

An atheist can derive their moral character from reason if they choose. There are plenty of secular ethical systems that lay out fully fleshed out descriptions of right and wrong. Philosophic Libertarianism is a good example of this. If people accept the Non-Aggression principle and Self Ownership, all of the good things described in religion will still be found as good...and all of the evil things that religions call good will be relabeled as evil. It's a delusional upgrade!

By the way, in "A Brief History of Time", Stephen Hawking claimed that when physicists finally discover the so-called "theory of everything" then they will have seen into the mind of God. Hawking is not the only scientist who has associated God with the laws of physics. Nobel laureate Leon Lederman has made a link between God and a subatomic particle known as the Higgs boson. Lederman suggested that when physicists find this particle in their accelerators it will be like looking into the face of God.

Atheists don’t believe in a God or supreme intelligence of any sort, so be careful who and what you cite to back up your position.

I think you are reading too much into a metaphor. When these physicists refer to "god" they do not mean it in any contemporary religious sense.

It's a personal view of the universe. If people want to call this spirituality, that's fine by me. I guess that means I'm spiritual then. I have a view of the universe that helps me interpret the bigger picture and and can help alleviate some of the anxieties of human consciousness. That doesn't mean that I'm not an atheist, IMO. I reject religions and am open to new, better, more rational views of the universe and my place in it.

So, why bother to talk about religion at all? how does it matter to me what people believe? People need to be very careful with religion. The thousands of year old delusions were created by humans to manage their minds and enforce violent hierarchies. If society keeps tying itself to these beliefs, they open themselves up to control by any high priest who crooks a finger. Religion has always been a tool of power and an enemy of free humanity.

If people want to call their personal ethos Jesus, that might be okay, but there are backdoors that are built in that concept that clever human managers can use to insert mind control viruses. IMHO it's an outdated operating system that is prime for abuse. I talk about religion for selfish reasons. I talk about it in order to ensure that I can remain free and that my life is free from oppression.

 

[crushing]

If you put “religion” aside and simply look at the teachings of people like Jesus or Buddha, it’s hard to disagree that we wouldn’t be better off as a people if their examples were followed. Which kind of brings up the question, “From where do atheists derive their moral character?”

If you’re not looking for spirituality, then what guides your decisions? Are they completely selfish? If not, what motivation do you have to do good works? Without something “spiritual” involved, from where do you derive any pleasure in doing anything for anybody else?

Obviously, the world would be a better place if indecent people followed the teachings attributed to Jesus or Buddha, or the examples of any decent people independent of religion.

What motivates people to basically be good? Maybe that TED talk to which I linked helps explain it?

 

[Drasken]

The flat earth thing is a a myth actually, mankind have been sailing boats for millenia and knew the earth wasn't flat.

http://bede.org.uk/flatearth.htm

This actually doesn't surprise me much. But while the example is flawed, my point stands. While I consider myself a fairly logical person and think scientific discovery to be extremely important, I think that in some cases, Scientific thinking is inherently as flawed as religious denial of scientific discovery.
People are so convinced of their own knowledge and discovery that they tend to think that they have figured it all out. They take current ideas and discoveries to be indisputable fact. Not everyone does this, but it is more common than people think. ( I believe a lot of this comes from a misunderstanding on all sides about the term scientific fact )
I also find it funny that most people try to deny possibilities of things that we can't understand as pure fantasy when they think scientifically. Now this isn't all scientific minds, and I respect those that say "we have no evidence of this, so I will neither confirm or deny its validity." Such a statement avoids pointless arguments. For most of these arguments it ends up being circular logic, sometimes on both ends, anyway.
Science isn't about disproving anything, or denying anything. It is about learning and understanding the things that we CAN.

Anyway, enough rambling from me.
My original point is that we should always look at scientific data as though we have some idea how things work. We shouldn't act as though we have things figured out and merely expand from there. Just because we agree, doesn't mean we aren't missing a variable that will turn our current "knowledge" completely upside down. When we think we have it all figured out, it proves only that we have much to learn.

 

[Steve]

I'm a PC.

 

[Makalakumu]

I'm a PC.

Get a Mac!

 

[Steve]

Get a Mac!

I have a Mac, 2 iPads and 2 Apple TVs. I also have a PC, 2 Windows laptops and a Samsung Galaxy SIII (that has an Apple sticker on the back). I'm suffering from a profound crisis of faith.

 

[Dirty Dog]

I like UNIX...

 

[jezr74]

People are so convinced of their own knowledge and discovery that they tend to think that they have figured it all out. They take current ideas and discoveries to be indisputable fact.

If they are proven, correct peer review takes years. That's why some facts hold up longer than others. Scientific facts can be tested and retested, controls are taken and recorded. The burden of dis-proving something is on the person questioning it. All the evidence and testing is available for anyone to take a look at.

I also find it funny that most people try to deny possibilities of things that we can't understand as pure fantasy when they think scientifically.

Give an example. I will not try to "prove" something that is not tangible. If you make a statement that can be tested and is repeatable. You are up for scrutiny. It's very hard to prove or disprove fantasy. So is not considered science.

Science isn't about disproving anything, or denying anything. It is about learning and understanding the things that we CAN.

Kind of agree, but it can be used to disprove or change what we know. Because it can be tested and re-tested and studied.

My original point is that we should always look at scientific data as though we have some idea how things work.

Do you mean the results? The results normally mean something.