I believe in God because the fact that we exist is a miracle.
Seriously who would have thought a bunch of feces throwing apes would evolve to build pyramids, computers, send a man to the moon...
By accident.
Topic: The problem with atheism. - page 40. (Read 38470 times)
Quote
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.
I don't think there is an atheist agenda, there is an anti-theistic agenda, but that's another subject.
Actually the vast majority of atheists position themselves as agnostic atheists, we don't make claims, we accept the evidence and we make our mind by that evidence, and as there is no evidence for the existence of gods, we have no good reason to believe in them.
I go the extra mile and say there are no gods, but I cannot support this claim, because absence of evidence it's not evidence of absence, it's just my bet.
Quote
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.
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.
As a species, I believe, we have already transcend our natural selection heritage, we no longer act on mere instincts.
Quote
Atheism is merely another tribal display - a peacock's tail trying to attract a mate through a verbal display of intelligence.
It's just a position we take on a claim, the same position I take on many other claims like astrology, sorcery, homeopathy, mediums or Nigerian letters.
Atheism is simply a way of interpreting reality without alluding to God, not the opposite of theism (which is antitheism, but that's an annoying word that makes people want to barf -- don't use it). Dawkins is just an annoying guy -- ignore Dawkins.
Not really. Since most of the reality is explained by atheists/whoever and theists agree with it (how your cell phone/car/train/etc works). The only part they don't agree with is creation, so it's pretty much creationism vs atheism.
You're confusing theists with creationists and atheists with Darwinists.
I am not confusing anything. Most likely you're confusing agnosticism with atheism.
Agnosticism is a state of not having knowledge concerning existence of God. Atheism is the interpretation of reality without alluding to God. Yes, in everyday speech the definitions overlap, but when the two are contrasted (as you have done), the abovementioned definitions apply.
Atheism is simply a way of interpreting reality without alluding to God, not the opposite of theism (which is antitheism, but that's an annoying word that makes people want to barf -- don't use it). Dawkins is just an annoying guy -- ignore Dawkins.
Not really. Since most of the reality is explained by atheists/whoever and theists agree with it (how your cell phone/car/train/etc works). The only part they don't agree with is creation, so it's pretty much creationism vs atheism.
You're confusing theists with creationists and atheists with Darwinists.
I am not confusing anything. Most likely you're confusing agnosticism with atheism.
Atheism is simply a way of interpreting reality without alluding to God, not the opposite of theism (which is antitheism, but that's an annoying word that makes people want to barf -- don't use it). Dawkins is just an annoying guy -- ignore Dawkins.
Not really. Since most of the reality is explained by atheists/whoever and theists agree with it (how your cell phone/car/train/etc works). The only part they don't agree with is creation, so it's pretty much creationism vs atheism.
You're confusing theists with creationists and atheists with Darwinists.
Holliday got it right; atheism is a broad term that blankets any person who does not include any god in their beliefs. Although we may believe anything, even something completely and utterly irrational, so long as those beliefs do not include god, it's still atheism.
I believe it's better to define atheism not as itself a belief, but more of a "who cares"; there's more important things to worry about than whether or not there's a God, such as what's on TV, or what I might eat for dinner tonight. There cannot be an atheist without a theist, for if we have one and not the other, it's as strange as noticing that there's oxygen everywhere; we don't often think about the moments when there isn't. Although it may be obvious that there's a stark contrast between theist and atheists today, there was a time when atheism was downright impossible to imagine, and I believe there will be a time in the future where upon learning that most people of today believed in mythological creatures, the future-people will draw long and odd glances.
However, I must disagree with you on the point of life; if the point of life is to change life, or to accomplish some unthinkable goal, then life is pointless, for our time here is limited, and we'll never be able to accomplish, and surely not alone, whatever end-game life has in store for us (I imagine that moment isn't going to be fun), nor would we even be around to see it. If, on the other hand, we may view life solely to appease our sense of happiness, then the one who spends more of his time here happy is ultimately the winner in his own end. If we're under the belief that nothing happens once we die, it is imperative to accomplish such a task while we're still aware we can accomplish it.
With this in mind, the person who believes in God and is also happy, is doing better than the person who does not believe in God and is unhappy; however, if it is true that God brings happiness, there would be no atheists. So what brings happiness? Is it the truth?--no, the truth, as we've examined in the various "smarter" folk on this planet, often makes people unhappier than those who are blissfully ignorant (and with good reason; who could be happy knowing what governments are doing to this world?) If the truth does not bring happiness, then why do we seek it? Perhaps, then, we are not naturally inclined to be happy, but naturally inclined to survive; it is at this point there is a disconnect between what makes an organism human and what makes him like any other creature on the planet, for if we are to assume human beings are just clusters of smaller organisms that occur over a stretch of time, powered by whatever other organisms it will consume, then surely life appears to not have a point; after all, the grass does not grow because it wants to, it is simply programmed to do so.
So if we look at life this way, through a cold and logical lens, we will never find a reason for it; it just is; it's not until we use what no other animal has that we can find meaning in it, for we are the only creatures who have the capacity to apply meaning. But this, as you say, is where atheism ends; atheism applies to just one, singled-out idea. I'm not sure if there is a word for belief in nothing; I believe nihilism would be appropriate.
I believe it's better to define atheism not as itself a belief, but more of a "who cares"; there's more important things to worry about than whether or not there's a God, such as what's on TV, or what I might eat for dinner tonight. There cannot be an atheist without a theist, for if we have one and not the other, it's as strange as noticing that there's oxygen everywhere; we don't often think about the moments when there isn't. Although it may be obvious that there's a stark contrast between theist and atheists today, there was a time when atheism was downright impossible to imagine, and I believe there will be a time in the future where upon learning that most people of today believed in mythological creatures, the future-people will draw long and odd glances.
However, I must disagree with you on the point of life; if the point of life is to change life, or to accomplish some unthinkable goal, then life is pointless, for our time here is limited, and we'll never be able to accomplish, and surely not alone, whatever end-game life has in store for us (I imagine that moment isn't going to be fun), nor would we even be around to see it. If, on the other hand, we may view life solely to appease our sense of happiness, then the one who spends more of his time here happy is ultimately the winner in his own end. If we're under the belief that nothing happens once we die, it is imperative to accomplish such a task while we're still aware we can accomplish it.
With this in mind, the person who believes in God and is also happy, is doing better than the person who does not believe in God and is unhappy; however, if it is true that God brings happiness, there would be no atheists. So what brings happiness? Is it the truth?--no, the truth, as we've examined in the various "smarter" folk on this planet, often makes people unhappier than those who are blissfully ignorant (and with good reason; who could be happy knowing what governments are doing to this world?) If the truth does not bring happiness, then why do we seek it? Perhaps, then, we are not naturally inclined to be happy, but naturally inclined to survive; it is at this point there is a disconnect between what makes an organism human and what makes him like any other creature on the planet, for if we are to assume human beings are just clusters of smaller organisms that occur over a stretch of time, powered by whatever other organisms it will consume, then surely life appears to not have a point; after all, the grass does not grow because it wants to, it is simply programmed to do so.
So if we look at life this way, through a cold and logical lens, we will never find a reason for it; it just is; it's not until we use what no other animal has that we can find meaning in it, for we are the only creatures who have the capacity to apply meaning. But this, as you say, is where atheism ends; atheism applies to just one, singled-out idea. I'm not sure if there is a word for belief in nothing; I believe nihilism would be appropriate.
Atheism is simply a way of interpreting reality without alluding to God, not the opposite of theism (which is antitheism, but that's an annoying word that makes people want to barf -- don't use it). Dawkins is just an annoying guy -- ignore Dawkins.
Not really. Since most of the reality is explained by atheists/whoever and theists agree with it (how your cell phone/car/train/etc works). The only part they don't agree with is creation, so it's pretty much creationism vs atheism.
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.
That's not true - Richard Dawkins does not apply his understanding of evolution when talking about religion to the rest of human behaviour.
He limits it to belief in God.
Why doesn't he talk about people working in factories or in fields, or going to football matches?
He clearly has an agenda.
Atheism is simply a way of interpreting reality without alluding to God, not the opposite of theism (which is antitheism, but that's an annoying word that makes people want to barf -- don't use it). Dawkins is just an annoying guy -- ignore Dawkins.
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.
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.
And yet you keep on living, posting threads about the meaning of.. Not true atheism, but life itself really.
Beautiful isn't it?
I believe in God (supreme energy, consciousness, etc, etc) because I can question its very existence and I love the fact that real atheists, like yourself exist.
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.
That's not true - Richard Dawkins does not apply his understanding of evolution when talking about religion to the rest of human behaviour.
He limits it to belief in God.
Why doesn't he talk about people working in factories or in fields, or going to football matches?
He clearly has an agenda.
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.
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.
Jump to: