...Of course that would put many of us in the religion of bitcoinism, inshallah.
And others see bitcoin as a wonderful, exciting experiment that we have the opportunity to be a part of.
Topic: The problem with atheism. - page 37. (Read 38470 times)
And others see bitcoin as a wonderful, exciting experiment that we have the opportunity to be a part of.
Your mind is God. It generates a universe around you. Your birth is creation of the world and your end is the end of the world. Amen.
Yes and Atheism is also a religion. I quite sure some of you have noticed it already.
So atheism is a religion? A religion without a God or a supernatural force of any kind? That would mean it is not a religion. I don't go to an atheist church, and atheists are not looking for converts to keep our mega church in gold. I have met a man in the Guatemalan jungles who fervently believed that the world rested on the back of a turtle. Yet, he laughed at city people for believing that God lived among the clouds. "You can't stand on a cloud", he explained. "They are just water and cannot support your weight". It was easy for him to see the impossibility of a God he did not believe in, but he was completely blind to his own superstitions. That is religion.
Semantics.
re·li·gion
n.
1.
a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.
Atheism is not a perfect fit for the top definition, but it does fit (scientism -- deification of science and "rationality," a humorless kludge of rationalism and empiricism).
The bottom two are a better fit, with #4 being descriptive of the militant a[nti]theists in this thread.
Yes and Atheism is also a religion. I quite sure some of you have noticed it already.
So atheism is a religion? A religion without a God or a supernatural force of any kind? That would mean it is not a religion. I don't go to an atheist church, and atheists are not looking for converts to keep our mega church in gold. I have met a man in the Guatemalan jungles who fervently believed that the world rested on the back of a turtle. Yet, he laughed at city people for believing that God lived among the clouds. "You can't stand on a cloud", he explained. "They are just water and cannot support your weight". It was easy for him to see the impossibility of a God he did not believe in, but he was completely blind to his own superstitions. That is religion.
Semantics.
re·li·gion
n.
1.
a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.
Atheism is not a perfect fit for the top definition, but it does fit (scientism -- deification of science and "rationality," a humorless kludge of rationalism and empiricism).
The bottom two are a better fit, with #4 being descriptive of the militant a[nti]theists in this thread.
Yes and Atheism is also a religion. I quite sure some of you have noticed it already.
So atheism is a religion? A religion without a God or a supernatural force of any kind? That would mean it is not a religion. I don't go to an atheist church, and atheists are not looking for converts to keep our mega church in gold. I have met a man in the Guatemalan jungles who fervently believed that the world rested on the back of a turtle. Yet, he laughed at city people for believing that God lived among the clouds. "You can't stand on a cloud", he explained. "They are just water and cannot support your weight". It was easy for him to see the impossibility of a God he did not believe in, but he was completely blind to his own superstitions. That is religion.
It's amazing to me how few people realize that most of the 'big' questions in life can be known through what is directly evident at all times...and it really doesn't take a genius by any stretch of the imagination to figure out the correct answers.
LOL - I doubt you have to deal with delusional bunny believers trying to shove their holy rabbit turds down your throat at every opportunity.
Dude, you don't even know...
LOL - I doubt you have to deal with delusional bunny believers trying to shove their holy rabbit turds down your throat at every opportunity.
No. Atheism is not a religion and it is not a belief. This is a point theists seem incapable of comprehending.
Atheism is a religion for at least the people protesting that it is not. I don't believe in the Easter Bunny, but my lack of belief doesn't drive me to denounce His existence at every opportunity, or pwn Bunny Believers
What God(s) are best to worship? There are so many to choose from, how does one go about deciding?
Why even bother? Go with Zen Buddhism.
No. Atheism is not a religion and it is not a belief. This is a point theists seem incapable of comprehending.
There is no atheist agenda.
Atheism simply means "without god". There is nothing to "do".
All your activities, in the long run, are probably pointless.
Atheism simply means "without god". There is nothing to "do".
All your activities, in the long run, are probably pointless.
Yes and Atheism is also a religion. I quite sure some of you have noticed it already.
What God(s) are best to worship? There are so many to choose from, how does one go about deciding?
In other words, final stage of growing up is actually a recognition that you give a meaning to the universe (not the other way around), and that you actually have the tools to realize the meaning in your life and to refine it. Worrying whether there exists or does not exist someone who set it up in this way and what is their intent is then besides the point. Both points of view (God does exist/doesn't exist) may help different people to achieve this goal if they are persistent enough in their inquiry.
I believe you're correct; the existence of God is not important, what's important is that the individual can express a healthy amount of doubt toward not only with his foe's beliefs, but as well his own.
Believing in God makes sense to me on many levels making me a better person in relation to others, which is good for my local community my family and myself.
Why would believing in God make you a better person? There is one answer: fear. Deep down, those who believe in God are afraid that their "bad" behavior is being observed and will be punished. It's the exact same relationship that young children have with their parents.
Rejecting God is the final stage of growing up. It represents your acceptance of full responsibility for your actions, independent of any reward or punishment from a higher power.
In other words, final stage of growing up is actually a recognition that you give a meaning to the universe (not the other way around), and that you actually have the tools to realize the meaning in your life and to refine it. Worrying whether there exists or does not exist someone who set it up in this way and what is their intent is then besides the point. Both points of view (God does exist/doesn't exist) may help different people to achieve this goal if they are persistent enough in their inquiry.
[...]
A creator gives something a meaning, purpose, etc. If you don't acknowledge a creator of yours or don't acknowledge his ownership over you, making you his slave, the concepts of meaning and purpose do not apply. If you acknowledge both, then voilà, your meaning and purpose is what your religion commands.
The end. This type of discussion only proves that way too many people need to check their definitions and formalism.
+1 Do you happen to know of a nice writeup of this concept (meaning can not be inherent but can only come from outside)?A creator gives something a meaning, purpose, etc. If you don't acknowledge a creator of yours or don't acknowledge his ownership over you, making you his slave, the concepts of meaning and purpose do not apply. If you acknowledge both, then voilà, your meaning and purpose is what your religion commands.
The end. This type of discussion only proves that way too many people need to check their definitions and formalism.
Believing in God makes sense to me on many levels making me a better person in relation to others, which is good for my local community my family and myself.
Why would believing in God make you a better person? There is one answer: fear. Deep down, those who believe in God are afraid that their "bad" behavior is being observed and will be punished. It's the exact same relationship that young children have with their parents.Rejecting God is the final stage of growing up. It represents your acceptance of full responsibility for your actions, independent of any reward or punishment from a higher power.
Let me start by making it clear that I am an atheist.
The problem I have with the atheist agenda is that is stops at 'the non existence of God' - the same logic is not applied consistently to the whole of the human condition.
If I examine my life and use this same 'spaghetti monster' logic, I am drawn to the same conclusions about all my actions and activities - they are all as equally pointless and irrational as worshiping God.
If I rationally examine my sense of self I realize that it is just a genetic innovation - it encourages self preservation - genetic selfishness creates a genetically induced illusion of self worth.
My desire to survive is itself as delusional as a belief in God - pain and my fear of pain are a genetically induced survival mechanism I am in thrall to.
If I believe in God and survive then it is no different to not believing in God and surviving - nature will select for survival.
But my actual survival is meaningless whether I believe in God or otherwise.
This is the only conclusion that can be logically formed from a real examination of life.
Atheism is merely another tribal display - a peacock's tail trying to attract a mate through a verbal display of intelligence.
So you are looking for the answer to the biggest question: "What should I do?"The problem I have with the atheist agenda is that is stops at 'the non existence of God' - the same logic is not applied consistently to the whole of the human condition.
If I examine my life and use this same 'spaghetti monster' logic, I am drawn to the same conclusions about all my actions and activities - they are all as equally pointless and irrational as worshiping God.
If I rationally examine my sense of self I realize that it is just a genetic innovation - it encourages self preservation - genetic selfishness creates a genetically induced illusion of self worth.
My desire to survive is itself as delusional as a belief in God - pain and my fear of pain are a genetically induced survival mechanism I am in thrall to.
If I believe in God and survive then it is no different to not believing in God and surviving - nature will select for survival.
But my actual survival is meaningless whether I believe in God or otherwise.
This is the only conclusion that can be logically formed from a real examination of life.
Atheism is merely another tribal display - a peacock's tail trying to attract a mate through a verbal display of intelligence.
Basically you can either do random stuff or continue looking. If you decide for the latter the next question is "How?"
At this point i think it is you who doesn't understand the halting problem. Nowhere does the halting problem suggest that the final state is *undetermined*, merely that it's *impossible to predict* the final state. See the difference?
What difference? That's exactly what I said. I said, and explained why, brains are deterministic but at the same time unpredictable. Nobody, including yourself, knows what you're going to do before you do it. Ergo, you have free will. Your will cannot be predicted by anything less than omniscience, and an omniscient being who did predict it is powerless to influence or constrain your will.The difference is obvious: You may not know the outcome, but the outcome is nevertheless predetermined. Illusion of free will != free will. I thought we were debating something far subtler.
Illusion of free will [acting as if you have a say in the outcome, because you do not know the outcome] is enough to make the game fun, because it *appears* functionally equivalent to the players, and tugging on the veils of Maya is a fool's errand. Still, we're on pretty touchy-feely theology turf, so these distinctions are important.
.....
This link may help. Excellent article that explains things really well, though I don't fully endorse the conclusions drawn because they're just stretching things too far in the direction of stereotypical Christian ideas about god. They could just as easily have appealed to spiritualism without 'god' per se, solipsism, some Hindu beliefs and so on.
I may have been too broad-sweeping in my earlier criticism. I've been an atheist for most of my life, and only fairly recently have drifted to being more theistic/spiritual.
This link may help. Excellent article that explains things really well, though I don't fully endorse the conclusions drawn because they're just stretching things too far in the direction of stereotypical Christian ideas about god. They could just as easily have appealed to spiritualism without 'god' per se, solipsism, some Hindu beliefs and so on.
I may have been too broad-sweeping in my earlier criticism. I've been an atheist for most of my life, and only fairly recently have drifted to being more theistic/spiritual.
Actually, your link doesn't help one bit, it confuses the issue considerably. Typical theocrat trying to apply his own principles to cosmology.
This kind of garbage from your article...
The Incompleteness of the universe isn’t proof that God exists. But… it IS proof that in order to construct a rational, scientific model of the universe, belief in God is not just 100% logical… it’s necessary.
Is FALSE and represented an unsubstantiated conclusion based on the prior argument and facts presented.
The author of that article seems to expose a bit Atheistic hypocrisy: they basically believe that the universe is 100% knowable from within the system, despite not knowing everything yet.
At this point i think it is you who doesn't understand the halting problem. Nowhere does the halting problem suggest that the final state is *undetermined*, merely that it's *impossible to predict* the final state. See the difference?
What difference? That's exactly what I said. I said, and explained why, brains are deterministic but at the same time unpredictable. Nobody, including yourself, knows what you're going to do before you do it. Ergo, you have free will. Your will cannot be predicted by anything less than omniscience, and an omniscient being who did predict it is powerless to influence or constrain your will. .....
This link may help. Excellent article that explains things really well, though I don't fully endorse the conclusions drawn because they're just stretching things too far in the direction of stereotypical Christian ideas about god. They could just as easily have appealed to spiritualism without 'god' per se, solipsism, some Hindu beliefs and so on.
I may have been too broad-sweeping in my earlier criticism. I've been an atheist for most of my life, and only fairly recently have drifted to being more theistic/spiritual.
This link may help. Excellent article that explains things really well, though I don't fully endorse the conclusions drawn because they're just stretching things too far in the direction of stereotypical Christian ideas about god. They could just as easily have appealed to spiritualism without 'god' per se, solipsism, some Hindu beliefs and so on.
I may have been too broad-sweeping in my earlier criticism. I've been an atheist for most of my life, and only fairly recently have drifted to being more theistic/spiritual.
Actually, your link doesn't help one bit, it confuses the issue considerably. Typical theocrat trying to apply his own principles to cosmology.
This kind of garbage from your article...
The Incompleteness of the universe isn’t proof that God exists. But… it IS proof that in order to construct a rational, scientific model of the universe, belief in God is not just 100% logical… it’s necessary.
Is FALSE and represented an unsubstantiated conclusion based on the prior argument and facts presented.
In other words, Godel's incompleteness theorum doesn't help the argument that god does exist. Or that God does not exist.
Jump to: