This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
Is Atheism just another cult, with their own dogma, like religious cults?
Is Atheism just another cult, like a religious cult, with people who believe there is no god, and in most cases also that what is presented by science is the absolute truth? Do people of an Agnostic persuasion believe, atheists have a blind faith in science, believing what they show, and measure is the last word about reality; believing that this Science supports their side of the debate while excluding the Religious view.
Those in the middle of the God/No God debate (Agnostics) have stated that such a claim is delusional and is indicative of cult mentality on par with religious cultism. It requires blind belief God does not exist which is dogmatic because there is no proof (currently) that is acceptably to the Agnostic crowd that God is or is not. Agnostics see the gaps in Scientific knowledge and try to keep an open mind pertaining to spiritual ideas and their connection to the real world. They have sometimes been accused of creating the Scientific idea of Creationism which has gathered steam in the last decade or so. Being in the middle, They are attacked by both sides of the debate, as will be demonstrated in this debate question.
Biting and Kicking is allowed by the Author and leaves it to TED to tell us where the limits lie.
Closing Statement from John Moonstroller
"Is Atheism just another cult, with their own dogma, like religious cults?"
“The word cult in current popular usage usually refers to a new religious movement or other group whose beliefs or practices are considered abnormal or bizarre.[1] The word originally denoted a system of ritual practices. The word was first used in the early 17th century denoting homage paid to a divinity and derived from the French culte or Latin cultus, ‘worship’, from cult-, ‘inhabited, cultivated, worshipped,’ from the verb colere, 'care, cultivation'.” ~ Wikipedia
“Dogma is the official system of belief or doctrine held by a religion, or a particular group or organization” ~ Wikipedia.
Organizations of atheists ritually denounce the existence of God. They have become an organization, dedicated to the activity of removing all relic’s of Theism from public places. Their dogma is based entirely on their notion or belief that God does not exist. These organizations work tirelessly towards this effort.
It is no longer possible for an individual to simply state they are an atheist, by reason of personal belief, and not be affiliated, by membership or indirect alignment with these organizations.
These organizations have an official system of belief and their doctrine is to end the belief of theism on this planet.
They are exclusive, ritualistic, and have a belief system which generates activity within and beyond the boundaries of the organization. They are a Cult.
Not everyone agrees with this interpretation but the meaning of words evolve over time. To be an Atheist is to believe in a dogma and be a member of a club or organization. In the least, an individual is indirectly aligned with these clubs or organizations by belief or personal assertion they are an atheist.
John Moonstroller
Vincenzo Sergi
The lamp becomes brighter when you add fuel to it. Without fuel, it becomes only a creative artifact.
All of this reminds me of the differences between a Psychologist and a Psychiatrist. ..... a Psychologist is interested in hearing what the voices in your head are saying, where a Psychiatrist is only interested in muting those voices withe medication. He sees those voices as abnormal placements in an otherwise normal brain. In the Academic evolution, Psychiatry is Biology at a higher level of learning, at this point Human logic does not exist.
Cheers and good luck.
John Moonstroller 20+
Now, you are convinced you just got high five by God, but who you going to tell?
Well while it may sound like a funny story, the bible is filled with stuff like this, even the water into wine trip.
We laugh, we tell jokes but we really don't have a way to disprove it. People today make claims about God visiting, talking and making things better but it is impossible for someone who has never experienced that believe ti could possibly be true.
Just because it never happened to you does not mean it doesn't happen. Here's what I saw. An old woman lying on her death bed due to sclerosis of the liver. Her daughter, my GF, is sitting in the room at the hospital waiting for her to die. Around 3 in the morning, her mom gets up and wants to go home because everything is alright. We managed to get her back in the bed and the hospital doctor comes in, checks her out and is surprised. He gets her to stay in the bed so he can order some tests. When the tests come in She has a completely healed liver with no sign of Sclerosis. We take her home, she tells us she died and that God said he wanted her to hang around for a while longer. She finally died 6 years later of the flue but the smile never left her face.
Don Wesley 50+
I put my trust in the argument developed by John Lennox. I am a mature Christian.
Two renowned Scholars are involved:
John Lennox Vs. Richard Dawkins (Christianity Vs. Atheism)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RbAtCb9K_zs&feature=fvwrel
Common Objections Atheists Make (John Lennox)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=qVallWIA4G8#t=170splaylist-p=PL92F7FCC568920E7F
Until soon,
Aware of and caring about us All.
Don [From The Silent Generation - 1930's]
Christophe Cop 500+
If you assume the naturalistic worldview (like the Bright movement states http://www.the-brights.net/ ),
then you cannot claim it is the same as a religion or a cult.
Pure atheism is rare, I call myself an atheist because for me the likelyhood of any given god is close to 0... (I just round down).
Of course a lot of people that have a naturalistic worldview still want to have rituals or spiritual congregations or other aspects that are found in religion (like Alain explains here: http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/alain_de_botton_atheism_2_0.html)
John Moonstroller 20+
If pure atheism is rare, is impure atheism more common?
IF you round up, does it change the likelihood?
Your statement yields two questions which require answering before we can reach a conclusion.
John Moonstroller 20+
Obey No1kinobe 50+
John Frum 30+
I must add that I don't like the debate between D and L. I did not like that D assumed L to have a fair understanding of natural selection, which he does not.
John Moonstroller 20+
How would you say the debate went? Did you learn anything, not who won or lost.
I find myself drawn to Prof. Lennox because his arguments entail some points of logic I also entertain, especially where the cosmos is concerned, black holes, singularities, expansion of the the Universe, etc.
But, to be truthful I have never read any of Dawkin's work. I should, to be fair and impartial. I will try to find a kindle version (perhaps someone already has such a thing?).
John Frum 30+
To L's credit, he seems more humble... i.e., making a better effort of trying to figure out if he has understood D. To L's discredit, he seems to be jumping from topic to topic. Which I find particularly bizarre considering that he is a mathematician. Arguments are not settled that way!
I would go about an argument the way anyone goes about a proof in mathematics or science. I'd start from axioms: things we both (or all) agree on. And I'd proceed from there, making sure there is agreement at every step of the way. If there is irreconcilable different at some point, at least we'd know exactly where we part ways. This debate was bad.
At least it was better than any debate of William Lane Craig that I have watched: WLC blathers on and on, and when his opponents refute him, he ignores it and says, "Opponent has failed to refute me".
As for whether I'd recommend any book or talk of Dawkins on the topic of gods, I wouldn't. You see despite being an atheist, agnostic, ignostic (each, depending on which definition you go by), I am also an apatheist (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apatheism). Dawkins is not an apatheist. On Dawkins' own forum, in one of my replies to him, I have expressed my preference that he stop writing about gods... because there is a lot about biology that I could learn from him, and he is a brilliant teacher.
John Moonstroller 20+
I'm trying to mount my webcam to my microscope to watch Mycilium grow. I enjoy playing with mushrooms and bacteria. I like to eat them also.
John Moonstroller 20+
John Frum 30+
John Moonstroller 20+
John Moonstroller 20+
You can feel this in the video. He is working from a prepared report so his points are tuned to dispel Dawkins suppositions and conclusions in a prepared fashion.
What I haven't seen is a debriefing by Dawkins about the debate he had with Prof. Lennox.
Andres Aullet 10+
Actually i just read a definition in about.com that might clarify your question a bit.
You seem to imply that there are three type of people: believers, agnostics and atheists. And that division frames the question, because it seems that all responses are trying to support whether agnostic is better than atheist, or agnostic is better than believer.
The term agnostic has to do with claim of knowledge, not with belief. There can be agnostic believers (people who believe in god without claiming to know for sure of his existence), there are agnostic atheists (those who do not believe in god but do not claim to know for sure) and yes, others that either believe or don't believe and claim to know for sure (and to both of those i would like to ask how can they know for sure, but that's a different story)
But there is no such a thing as a non-believer, non-atheist simply agnostic, in other words, there is not a third group of "in-betweeners" in regards to their belief or lack of it
cheers
John Moonstroller 20+
I'm still working on that example. Studying at Stanford and taking care of my blogs is becoming time consuming. It appears that when I have time I just waste it on TED.
:)
Later.
There are only two types of knowledge: That which is on this side of the black hole and that on the other side.
I don't think either is mutually exclusive but I have no proof of that... just a feeling.
Vincenzo Sergi
John Moonstroller 20+
The focus of the atheist (in the modern sense) is to oppose the idea that God exists. The more militant of the klan, take an active position to eradicate the idea of God and it's associated religious practices, and philosophical arguments.
They have propose the preposterous idea that babies are born atheists. Babies are born without knowledge, which should implicate to the simplest of minds that babies are not born with any label other than infant or baby; such is the testimony offered by this diverse group that call themselves atheists.
Their dogma is an anti-dogma opposed to the religious dogma. Because of this I propose they are a cultist lot.
The idea that God does not exist has not been proven and remains as a valid philosophical argument.
An atheist serves no other purpose in life but towards the end of disproving the existence of God yet, they have sought relevance in the Revelations of science, just as Religion seeks to justify it's relevance with ideas of Creationism.
Those in the middle, are merely observers of this time wasting argument which serves no purpose other than to inflame emotions and set people at odds with one another.
I think it is a wasted pursuit.
.
Vincenzo Sergi
cheers.
John Moonstroller 20+
I can debate the rationality behind their truthfulness. But there it ends.
The God-No-God question will continue. I have found nothing to disprove or prove based on logic, but there are witnesses, which we can't recall for questioning they are those ancients that lived long ago and wrote down their revelations and historical accounts.
What are we to do?
If I don't show myself to the public, do I not-exist?
If I camouflage myself so I don't stand out from the background, do I not-exist?
I will have to write the closing arguments tonight and tomorrow. Do you have anything to offer in closing?
Thank you for your participation. Vincenzo Sergi
John Moonstroller 20+
Helen.... my birthday is special :)
If I worship the ground my wife walks on is this kinda like what your talking about?
:)
I think the word special is undefined as you use it in this debate Helen. I know you are talking about worship ceremonies practiced in Religious organizations but what is special about that?
Steve Zagata
You asked me about my god, I would lean with Einstein's interpretation or Frank Lloyd Wright's "“I believe in God, only I spell it Nature.” It's okay to say "I don't know" - the -Hocus Pocus- moment comes when you don't know but you pull a god out of your hat and act like you do know. That may not be formal logic as you mentioned but neither is arguing that an invisible deity who lives in a celestial Disneyland and can read your mind exists.
John Moonstroller 20+
Don posted a video that gives an example of a very smart Prof. who argues these points quit elegantly.
We live in a world where over two thirds of the population (that's .3 x 7 billion, to help you with the math) believe in a God. While individually, it is appropriate for one to not share this belief, to insinuate that they are stupid, ignorant and full of (Hocud-Pocus) momentum is, unfortunately, considered unlearned and unsocial behavior.
If you go to Saudi Arabia talking this nonsense you might lose your head. :)
Start with a simple statement about how you feel that Atheism is not cultist and should not be called a cult. It's easy. Even a child can do it.
Entropy Driven
On the "debate." Of course atheism is not a cult. When a question is posed with such absolutism, it has thus been self-defeated. For a few or for a lot of people atheism might become their cult with dogmas, not unlike religious cults. But it is not by definition. It is not by itself. Atheism can be many things. It can be a belief system, sure, it can be a cult too. But it can also be a conclusion, or a position about rejecting until proven otherwise. It can be so many things that trying to define the whole thing into a cult is plain ignorance, and very poor logic.
chen xin
John Moonstroller 20+
Steve Zagata
Some people think this type of person is teaching religion but what he is teaching is ignorance - and yes I mean that in a very pejorative way.
You argued that people can believe in all kinds of crazy things and you're right but they should also be prepared to be challenged when their views are forced upon society.
John Moonstroller 20+
What if "their" views are not "forced" on society? Is it alright to have views that differ with society?
Is it possible that you're ignorant of the teachings of Religion? How many books have you read about Religion? How many different religions have you studied?
How old is the earth...... exactly?
Steve Zagata
Your argument seems to be that there are things we don't understand so god is a possibility. Yes, that's true but it's a far fetched possibility and like I mentioned in my other post any god past or present could fit your argument.
I call this the "Hocus Pocus Argument". We don't know how the Universe was create so... HOCUS POCUS... it has to be god (and my god to be specific). Very weak.
John Moonstroller 20+
It is a widely held theory by many Cosmologist (Scientists who study the Cosmos). Here is a link to this Theory:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
As to whether or not God had anything to do with it, it is a conjecture, not a theory. The difference is a conjecture is a proposition that is unproven, untestable by ordinary means.
I've never heard of a "Hocus Pocus" argument in formal logic.
"(and my god to be specific)~ steve Zagata
Tell us about your God Steve.
Steve Zagata
One question for you. How old do you think the Earth is?" I'm starting to think you are in that 6,000 year range and on the wrong website.
John Moonstroller 20+
Steve Zagata
I do discuss the immoral side of religion and I will continue to question aspects of it that harms society. Many people, because they are so tied to an erroneous doctrine will lash out when exposed to the illogic of their beliefs. I understand that and have compassion for them. They may have been programmed since an early age and lack the critical thinking skills to work things out.
I also understand that you did not mean to be condescending by asking what's "maxism" when clearly the author meant marxism. Or when you cut and paste definitions of easily understood terms like "Big Bang" or "Atheist" or when you ask how many books someone has read.
So if you think I am exhibiting "stupidity and rancorous postulations" as you so kindly stated I will leave you to "your topic area" so you can continue bullying people that don't agree with you.
You may want to flag this as you threatened, but after reading your comments you may also want to go flag yourself.
John Moonstroller 20+
Personally, I think, ideologically speaking, you and have more similar ideas than opposing ideas.
If I have overstated or understated your comments, by inference, I apologize. I think if we can find middle ground and we spend some time together, this feeling of difference will fade away.
Chin is a virtual friend of mine. I meant him no disrespect. I wanted to suppose he meant Marxism but wanted to be sure before I answered his question. He is just learning to speak English and making remarkable progress.
I'll put it this way. I am not a creationist but I am open to the discussion of things relating to the scientific ideas of a creator, a super scientist alien, perhaps on the level of a Class III civilization, as delineated by Carl Sagan and Michio Kaku. Such a civilization would have eradicated disease, mortality, and not necessarily be tied to material reality as we are. We are not yet a class I civilization because of the way we derive and manipulate our energy sources.
I am not a practicing religious person, but I maintain a sense of spiritualism that is more meditative than dogmatic, more communicative than focus. If I were likened to a device it would be a SETI radio antenna. :)
I don't accept the dogma of any religious organization nor do I accept the dogma of Atheism.
I don't like to disrespect the arguments of others, I like to entertain myself with them in the hopes of learning or widening the scope of my perspective on reality.
I hope this explanation helps us to draw closer together as respective members of an open-minded community.
Obey No1kinobe 50+
John Moonstroller 20+
I often wonder, if we rewind the Universe all the way back to the singularity, what lies beyond? If "our" laws of Physics can only be applied to a Universe with "our" particular physical peculiarities and they disintegrate at or inside of it's event horizon, how can we describe what lies beyond?
My answer is we can't describe it with Science, only conjecture.
"A conjecture is a proposition that is unproven. Karl Popper pioneered the use of the term "conjecture" in scientific philosophy.[1] Conjecture is contrasted by hypothesis (hence theory, axiom, principle), which is a testable statement based on accepted grounds. In mathematics, a conjecture is an unproven proposition that appears correct.[2]"
So how can a conjecture be applied to describing what lies on the other side of a singularity?
If we agree the singularity existed, is it plausible to suppose reasons for it's existence? With some people this reason is God. In fact, there is no reasonable scientific explanation basis by which we can fashion a conjecture about the singularity other than:
1. It's gravity or force of containment is so strong it can contain an entire universe in a single point of position within an unknown framework.
2. Equilibrium implies a state of stability created by balanced forces.
3. It can be destabilized out of equilibrium to give up it's contents.
It is at this point in the argument of existence that the ideas of the atheist disappear because science disappears, but the ideas of the agnostic can continue to be expressed and stipulated.
These three points lead to one question:
1. What is the the framework that contains the singularity?
2. What kind of force to you need to destabilize a singularity to give up it's contents?
Why is God a good conjecture? Because there is no other explanation offered.
Steve Zagata
All you're stating is "I don't know how this happened so it must be god"
John Moonstroller 20+
"Not only can any god; Zeus, Quetzalcoatl, Janus, etc be used for your analogy but any other figure the imagination can conjure up would suffice, as long as he, she or it is invisible."
Actually, I was writing to Obey.
I don't see this analogy you are speaking of. I did mention a "Reason" that may apply to "some" people. But you appear to be taking it for granted that "some" people includes me specifically.
Have I misinterpreted your comment and you are relying to something else?
Obey No1kinobe 50+
Some conjecture about the origins of the universe or self replicating molecules and life seems reasonable.
Gods or goddesses are one diverse group of supernatural explanations for things people do not understand. It's just I don't give them much weight.
When you get to the essential crux, we don't know, the universe is complex for our monkey brains, we evolved to assume agency, we mostly grew up surrounded by superstitious religions, astrology etc. For some assuming a god is comfortable assumption.
For me it is basically saying its magic.
Gods might be more compelling conjecture if there was anything to indicate their actual existence. If there was anything concrete we could say about their nature. If there was anything to indicate that magic or god was a better explanation than we don't know.
I don't know how gravity works. I can use Newtons calcs. I'm familiar with proposals involving gravitational force carriers that move at the speed of light, but I don't really comprehend how it works, in the same way I can comprehend something more human in scale. By your approach, anything we don't know is a good reason to imagine gods or magic is involved.
I disagree.
I don't absolutely discount the possibility, but I disagree.
Re: "Why is God a good conjecture? Because there is no other explanation offered." If some people want to adhere to this approach that is their choice. But I disagree. Resorting to gods or magic for which there is no evidence, just as gap fillers is a poor path to better understanding.
John Moonstroller 20+
Obey in the model I presented about the singularity, God is just another name for the unknown destabilizing force. It is a settling description for some and others are happy to simply call it the unknown.
By the same argument for conjecturing God as a solution, you could substitute the word unknown. It does not change the fact it is the limit of Human knowledge, which was my point.
This point is made to augment the idea anyone can claim there is no God, but no one can prove it. To be party to a club that has no hope of proof is a waste of time.
Hence, people are never born atheists because there are no atheists in the sense they can prove God does not exist. It remains an open question for debate. However, the idea that atheists exist.... is closed in my mind. To believe in something that only causes a group of people to be exclusive and locked in their ideas and notions is still a cult and Atheism, fits this description.
Magic is tricks not forces of nature and therefore cannot be used to compare a real or possibly existing force with simple sleight of hand.
I don't use magic in discussions such as these to describe phenomenon that I don't understand, but I do use it in the parlor sometimes when playing cards.
Obey No1kinobe 50+
That puts these beliefs alongside any claim you can not prove. Great.
Then you mention that religious beliefs may be useful. Well they can also be harmful. Neither utility or harm goes to the issue of being true or false.
Then you mention we don't have answers for everything. Or that you can not imagine natural processes resulting in life where most animals survives by eating other living things. So out of the argument from ignorance, there must be some god or gods or goddesses. In fact because it is totally subjective there is jsut as likely 40,999,888,123 gods involved in creating the universe as there is one. And we still haven't got any understanding of how they did it, and you still have no cause for them. You may assume they didn't need a cause, which is special pleading because you make this exception for them but not for the natural universe.
You are left with millions of contradictory and subjective supernatural religious and spiritual beliefs that may or may not be useful, but definitely at best are all false but for one. And this one truth may be something humans have not imagined.
If you look at the history of the contradictory religions they were nearly all started by men. A couple like Christian Science, by women.
You suggest we may never know the truth about god. I agree. Especially if gods don't exist. Especially if there is no evidence for them or any reliable information about them. Its a subjectivesoup
Then we have some unproven miracles. We have so called miracles today, but not one amputated limb grown back. Not one case of down syndrome being healed.
Seriously if someone claim to earth claim to be the creator and made another moon I would take notice.
As it stands it seems not believing theist claims that they know things they seemingly don't is reasbl
Don Wesley 50+
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Kz4OgXsN1w&feature=player_detailpage
Steve Zagata
Don Wesley 50+
I say you are off-topic with some remark!
This conversation started on Sep 21 2012, now showing all 370 comments.
I am busy looking for truth and found it in the lecture.
This conversation will close in 20 days, 3 hours and 12 minutes, on October 21, 2012 at 4:28:17 AM.
Steve Zagata
Glad you are busy looking for truth. From what I viewed of the video you posted you may need to remain busy.
Don Wesley 50+
It was easy to predict your trigger finger quick reply.
You are stuck in one system, of explanation.
I care enough about you to tell you.
Don Wesley
Steve Zagata
You seem like a decent enough gent so don't be taken aback by other views. This is an open conversation on the subject not simply a repository of one's views.
Obey No1kinobe 50+
I note there are Indian gurus living today who many thousands believe are doing miracles similar to Jesus.
Imagine is Jesus had created a 5 km high monument made from some exotic alloy that still existed today. That would be impressive.
Imagine if all the amputated limbs of soldiers were healed. That would be impressive. Seems miracles don't have the power to regrow limbs or cure down syndrome. Lame.
And even if they did occur, and would warrant examination, they don't prove the claims of being the creator god of the universe. They don't make the bible factual in total.
Now if Jesus created a few extra planets that would indicate he may have had the ability to create much of the universe.
But what do we get. Loaves and fishes created from loaves and fishes. That's the sort of creation miracle we see described in the bible, again with no proof.
Odd that there are no known extra biblical references to Jesus made while he was alive, let alone miracles. Even the new testament was written decades after he lived. Pretty poor in terms of evidence for the theist claims regarding the creator of the universe, supposedly with some very important consequences - ie Yahweh/Jesus will kindly send us to eternal punishment if we get it wrong.
John Moonstroller 20+
"You can speak of the ethics of science but you can't speak of ethics with science" ~Albert Einstein
The car is a device invented with scientific knowledge but the knowledge came from the Agent, Henry Ford, et all.
Alludes to the idea, who is the agent of creation?
Science can, of itself, do nothing. Science is a creation of the mind.
Excellent video Don, Thanks for the contribution. You have led me to myself. :)
Don Wesley 50+
I too John, am beginning to see the miracle in you.
Don
Obey No1kinobe 50+
Yet nature seems to run fine without any obvious agency.
And who created your creator. And who created the creator of the creator. You go around it circles until you assume that something didn't need a creative agency.
On ethics I have a slightly different view to the quote. Ethical and moral analysis as best we know are human endeavours. Religion was/is one human technology used in part to convey morality, generally by assumed divine command. My god orders us to kill homosexuals and adulterers so this is good.
While science is not the appropriate vehicle for discerning sensible ethical constructs it does inform us about ourselves and the universe. Combined with reason and evidence we can try and construct frameworks of human bestowed rights and responsibility without bundling them up in religion.
In fact if Yahweh described in the old testament is real, what a monster. What he is supposed to have commanded and did is not moral unless you fall back to divine command theory.
Why is it good to kill homosexuals and adulterers? Why is it good to slay the Canaanites and Ammonites etc. Was this god moral when he murdered every man women and child in the great flood? Was it moral for him to pick one tribe as his chosen people. Is it moral of him to eternally punish and torment other conscious beings. Other than divine command, how is this so.
If a human did these things outside of a religious framework would they be good?
Religion is a very flawed technology for moral and ethical analysis.
John Moonstroller 20+
The catholic church use to believe it was accepted behavior to burn witches at the stake, but do they do it today?
Obey, we can all read the law and act properly, never commuting a crime. We would eventually find we don't need judges or prosecutors. But that day has not arrived and we would be foolish to do away with both.
It matters little what one believes. What matters is how one conducts themselves in society.
If I believe in little green men and I also tell everyone I think I have a dragon in my garage, but, I'm the most wholesome citizen on the earth, never break the law and come up with wonderful scientific discoveries that enhances the comfort of people on this earth of what concern is my belief in green men or dragons?
It would be foolish to belittle this person in such a way that they stop being a benefit to humanity. That would be foolishness Obey. Don't fool yourself.
Steve Zagata
I have also read some interesting theories that have Satan as the author of the Bible which makes some sense. Look how many people have been murdered by god in the Bible and all those evil acts. Also, Satan was kicked out of heaven because he wanted to be worshiped, what better way to have people worship you than to recreate yourself as a god? If Satan is the great deceiver, scratch that, the greatest deceiver it would be a logical course of action for him.
John Moonstroller 20+
What do you suggest we do with them who believe in little green men and dragons Steve?
"If there is a omnipotent creator of the universe do you think he would give us the gifts of curiosity, intelligence and common sense without an expectation that we should put them to use?"
If there was an omnipotent creator I would think we could ask he/she/it that question, don't you?
"You know heaven could be a place for non-believers who passed the test and made use of those precious resources (which would be a nice bonus for me)."
I'm glad you passed the test Steve. Congratulations.
What bonus would you receive Steve?
"Would an almighty being bother with such pettiness and show such desperation? No, but this is right up Satan's alley."
Is this essay on Satan a statement of your personal belief?
Steve Zagata
Also not sure about your second question. Do you ask them while you are alive? It might be too late later if we pissed him off for not using his gifts to us.
Third comment with Congratulations. - Thank you.
As far as Satan and that belief. It is a more compelling argument, I mean look at the first three commandments, basically, worship me, worship me, worship me. Would an almighty being bother with such pettiness and show such desperation? No, but this is right up Satan's alley.
John Moonstroller 20+
Steve Zagata
Atheism has become a handy term to define people who do not believe in god or gods. I am constantly referred to as an atheist but don't consider myself one. How would I describe it? "I don't believe in something that doesn't exist"? I simply consider myself a human being.
That said, if people want to call me an atheist I don't lose sleep over it, better than saying I'm delusional.
The term atheist depends on religion, if religions didn't exist neither would the term atheist. So if it's a cult it is because of religion.
John Moonstroller 20+
"The term atheism originated from the Greek ἄθεος (atheos), meaning "without god(s)", used as a pejorative (derogatory term) applied to those thought to reject the gods worshiped by the larger society."~wikipedia {with emphasis added by me}
When a Religious person calls you an atheist, it is this fashion they are using the word, so they are correct in their usage.
In this sense it does depend on Religion and it is possible that if there never was any religion, there would not be such a word. But, it could also be argued that by the power of evolution that we would be dinosaurs instead of humans if they weren't wiped out by a cataclysmic event and you wouldn't exist at all as a human being. So, you are a human being by "what?" an act of providence or by design, or just by coincidence?
Steve Zagata
In your same wikipedia page you will find:
"Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities"
All other definitions say basically the same thing. This is the meaning of the word today.
By the way, it is a well known fact that the dinosaurs were atheists. I imagine this angered the boss almighty and may have had something to do with their extinction.
John Moonstroller 20+
Obey No1kinobe 50+
Obey No1kinobe 50+
John Moonstroller 20+
The remorse, broken hearts, damage done through the act of killing one another makes a compelling argument to follow this Theistic command. Does the implication that a God gave us this command as a point of morality to guide us towards becoming more Like God, make the revelation pertinent? No. But if you are trying to make a people understand that their way of life is immoral by not recognizing that killing one another can lead to a dysfunctional society it may work and has worked, as recorded by history. It's impact on society has it's peaks and valleys but the theme resounds through out our history and drives us always back onto the path of a morally minded society.
If a child dies with the knowledge that Santa Clause is real, has that child suffered in some way?
If their lot is oblivion, nothing has changed. If their lot is Heaven, nothing has changed.
If you have a society based on Antithesis, were are the limits that would cause someone to recognize that murder is a socially dysfunctional action when, through murder, they achieve success in life?
From the NO God foundation, using logic, it can be stated that if murder achieves ones goals in life, it is alright to commit murder. The only harm done is to the victim, occurred in life, and now they are dead and feel nothing, but the gains given by the murder to the survivor are testament to the fact the murder can help in achieving ones goals in life.
In a religious framework, with the God given command that "tho shalt not commit murder", it can be argued that all murder is incorrect. Does this stop murder? No, but it raises the possibility that there may be consequences to committing murder that wouldn't ordinarily exist.
By the same token we could simply pass laws, but couldn't reasonably argue their pertinence.
We are still stuck with the question why, where and what for.
Obey No1kinobe 50+
Then you revert to gods are useful if the associated dogma is useful, such as don't kill.
Anyway I'll respond to your diversion.
Firstly being useful teaching morals does not go to the question of truth in regards to the theist claims.
Secondly we can figure out ethics without religion. In fact if all but one at most religion are man made then most if not all religious morality is man made anyway. It sure looks that way.
Thou shalt not kill from the old testament 10 commandments. Pretty common sense. Follows commandments ordering us to only follow Yahweh and not to carve graven images. Followed by lumping women in as chattel such as donkeys not to be coverted.
Read on in the old testament then Yahweh kills hundreds of thousands (just the enumerated), Orders million killed, including genocide of competing tribes. Floods the whole world near committing global genocide. As well as other contradictory commandments to kill witches, homosexuals, adultery, unruly children, people who work on Saturday, non virgin brides.
Throw in regulations for slavery, rather than condemning ownership of other humans.
And some believe this is divine morality from the creator of the universe.
Better to use our brains than get stuck in iron age morality.
We can teach people about human rights without religion.
Its a pretty twisted view you have of no god equalling dispicable morality, similar to much biblical morality.
Most atheists I know support human rights and don't go around killing people. They are not killing people in the name of their gods. They are not killing people because they believe their god gave them some land. They are not cutting off bits of their children's genitals as part of a covenant with their supposed god. They are not sexist as per the scriptures. Not polygamous as per Islamic and Mormon teachings. Not homophobic.
They focus on reducing suffering and improving the human condition.
John Moonstroller 20+
Most modern religious based societies base their laws concerning murder on the assumption that it is against the commandments of God. This has overreaching affects in everything else we do, when we interrogate prisoners of war, the Geneva conventions. Now, without such barriers to human behavior. How could we argue it is not proper to torture prisoners to death in order to get information out of them to protect the society?
What social sense of morality, devoid of a God limited command, states that this is not proper behavior?
John Moonstroller 20+
What is spirit and how can it be blind as opposed to seeing?
John Moonstroller 20+
Nicholas Lukowiak 50+
John Moonstroller 20+
A number by itself needs some validation.
Obey No1kinobe 50+
Kevin Fielder 20+
I am not sure if you genuinely misunderstand or are just being obtuse.
Yes there is no teapot, that is the point, but you cannot prove that, and any reasonable person would expect me as a 'teapotist' to prove it's existence, not for you as a teapot atheist to disprove it. That is the point of the example, religion is a belief, and that is fine if people admit it is just that. Otherwise don't hid being the 'you can't disprove it' fallacy and offer some genuine proof. Simple.
Atheism is NOT a journey to disprove something, it is a position that this something does not exist and a statement that there is no real proof for it. It amazes me how words are twisted and games played rather than openness from those who claim to be honest and pious. This does not seem to align with my understanding of the point of religion. But then as an agnostic I guess I can claim I wouldn't understand.
As per my reply to Peter, I don't think atheism is remotely cult like. Some proponent of atheism have been mistakenly drawn into reason and evidence free debates on this subject that does not do them any favours when we should stick to the scientific position of expecting reason and evidence, but that is as far as it goes for me.
As my previous post stated this likely will go round in circles, and we clearly have opposing views the other is unlikely to change. This is proving to be true.
John Moonstroller 20+
A position, as you imply is a point along the path of the journey
What is closed minded and dishonest about the statement: "...there was a man named Jesus who was God, came to this earth as a man, preformed miracles, then ascended to heaven after his death?", which is the claim of the Christians. Perhaps it is true you don't understand; you would know better than I.
Atheism the definition is not a cult. Atheism the dynamic population of organized members, I believe, is a cult. It matches all the definitions of "Cultism". They are an anti-belief.
Your last statement is very true.
Kevin Fielder 20+
I would suggest anything could be made into a cult, but most that I have heard of have a leader or leader who claim some divine or supernatural right for their position and for the cult so I guess it may be more difficult when your position is that there is no supernatural or divine being..
I'd certainly suggest atheism isn't a cult as it is just a position on whether the is a god or not, nothing more. If some people who hold that position take a too strong a view or position that doesn't change the view point or it's validity. I expect you wouldn't want your entire religion judged because a few extremists under that banner may become a cult or go too far?
Obey No1kinobe 50+
But what about one step in from that. Is it unreasonable to think that we have as many religious and spiritual beliefs as there are believers. That they can not all be correct. That is not much evidence for the key supernatural claims of many. That they often come down to personal experiences that could be just natural mind brain experiences interpreted through cultural religious filters.
You can remain open to future evidence while taking the position of not believing in gods. Not claiming to know for certain but thinking the are no good reasons to believe.
Isn't this at least as reasonable position as believing in particular theist belief?
Can you see the irrationality to believing in god A and dogma B which just happens in most cases to be one of the belief systems in your culture at that time. To believe when there are thousands of other conflicting belief systems that have the same lack of evidence as yours.
I'm not talking about the usefulness of the beliefs even if false. But why is it reasonable to believe your religious beliefs are more correct than any others.
John Moonstroller 20+
The orbit of the earth was supported by ample mathematics to prove the sun orbited around the earth and the math worked. Does that imply the idea of an earth centered universe is still viable? No.
Can math be used to prove the sun orbits the earth? Yes.
Does this make it true? No.
Does science today support this? No.
Is string theory correct? Who knows.
If my belief was that the earth orbited the sun and not the other way around, wouldn't it be reasonable to believe my sun centered belief as oppose to others, earth centered? And if my argument was different than other arguments that supported their claims would not my argument be valid and supportable, even it there was mathematical proof of the contrary?
Without proof, all you have is argument.
Obey No1kinobe 50+
the falseness of one religion does not make any of the others false. I agree. It does not make any of the others true either
Again at best one belief system is exactly correct. That makes all the thousands if not millions of beliefs systems at least false in part. 1/9999999 etc.
My argument is they do not have proof enough to substantiate their claims.
I'm not disproving them all. Although simple logic points out at best one of millions is correct.
So what are we left with. Not proof that they are all false. I agree.
We are left with a whole lot of baseless conflicting god claims that at best can npt be verified one way or the other and must be false except for one at best.
Its a pretty sound argument.
I'm just pointing out they have no proof so why believe in any of them?
I don't need to prove they are all false. Actually you can see all but one at best has to be false.
I'm not claiming they are all false.
Logically one could be correct. It might even be gods not correctly imagined.
But there is enough information to reason out that specific religious belief is pretty suspect
Obey No1kinobe 50+
Meanwhile as the universe whips around the earth, instead of the earth rotating on its axis, the other planets would be orbiting the sun.
The sun could not be traveling around the earth independent of the rest of the universe.
Also my understanding is there is evidence of the earth spinning on its access in regards to the atmospheric dynamics.
All this does not change the law of non contradiction.
If the jews were right that the Christians, Muslims and most other religions are essentially false. Do you concede this?
Or have you completely given up on reason as this indicates that conflicting belief systems can not all be correct.
You know we figured things out best by using the scientific method. The Greeks thought moving objects came to rest eventually because they got tired. They thought objects fell because they yearned for the earth. These views or similar were held until Newton.
Science improves. It corrects itself. This is a strength not a flaw.
Prayer to Zeus all you like but he won't provide you with electricity.
We don't need absolute knowledge to know enough that claims that can not be verified, that Are completely subjective are not strong claims. They may be right, but only one can be right of there are millions of conflicting contradictory beliefs.
I can't prove Yahweh, Allah, Vishnu, Odin, isis, Marduk, baal, el, rangi, faries, demons, angels etc do not exist in some form.
That does not make belief in one of these a strong position.
You can dance around this point, but no one has been able to prove any of these exist in a compelling manner.
Let people believe if they like but don't fool yourself that these are sound beliefs.
John Moonstroller 20+
Not according to the rules of logic Obey.....
The denier has the burden of proof.
All god beliefs are a subset of religion.
Are you saying that we com prewired to experience religion? because of childhood experiences; we have a predisposition to religion?
"beliefs are not verifiable." This does not disqualify them from being beliefs.
Your conjecture that religion is nothing but delusions and hallucinations is not verified by physiological tests which show that religious folk are not only sane but more normal than others of dissimilar beliefs systems, Atheists included.
I've seen these responses before..... :)
Andres Aullet 10+
I see the conversation like a pendulum. I don't think there is any sensible way to merge these two opposite frames of reference.
Yes i have been told before that this debate is not about science. However, i have grown as a scientist, and that permeates everything, from my rules of logic to my approach to asking and answering a question.
I am not sure from a philosophical point of view (but Nicholas is pretty well versed and can throw some light on the matter) who has the burden of proof.
From a legal stand point, it is possible that the denier of a claim made by a large group of people might have the burden of proof.
In science, one is allowed to propose any theory... as far fetched as you want. I can propose that green martians cause gravity by sending their invisible pets to pull our feet down to the ground. But science will only consider my proposal when i provide a way to test it. The theory can have 10 predictions, but as long as one is verified, and the other 9 remain unverified, it will be considered a valid scientific theory. Needless to say if i confirm 9 and fail one of them, then the theory will need to be revised.
I suspect that Obey is not arguing from a philosophical or legal point of view, and I don't think you are answering from a scientific point of view
Until this dissonance is resolved, our answers will keep going back and forth as a pendulum, since I agree that your arguments and those posed by Nicholas are perfectly valid from a philosophical point of view, but at the same time i find my comments and those of Obey perfectly valid from a scientific point of view
My assertion, within a scientific framework, is that a person can have the equivalent of spirituality (a great moral foundation, those altered mental processes, associated feelings, etc) without either god or a religion
cheers
John Moonstroller 20+
There in no reason to.
No one has talked about Einsteins General theory of Relativity so we have no need to talk about clocks.
science follows the rules of formal logic.
Particle wave duality is still being debate in the Science realm.
Real science has only existed, at the rate of discovery we are experiencing, for less than 100 years.
It' in it's infancy.
And, when those old preconceptions have been ruled out we will let them go.
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?"
NO it's not a logical argument, it is a challenge to God.
Let God answer it because it was directed at God, not me.
Andres Aullet 10+
I think that your understanding of science is not quite accurate, but at the same time i will admit that my logic is indeed quite rusty. Mathematical proofs, yes i can follow those, but the rules of formal logic... well, i think i am not as good
But i will confess that i have not needed those. For a scientific theory to be valid, it does not have to make logical sense. Does it make any sense that time flows slower in the surface of the earth than it does up in the satellites? and i am not talking about some funny conjecture but a real rate change that needs to be adjusted in clocks that are sent out into space if you want to keep them in sync with the ones here on the surface
Does that follow any formal logic?
How about the fact that electrons behave as particles and waves at the same time?
But science is not, as you say, an all or nothing. Not black and white. When astrophysicists reach the edge of the observable universe and they don't find god along the way, they do not say "there is no god". All they say is that in the observable universe, whether as small as we can detect or as large as telescopes can see, no evidence of god has been found.
Science is indeed about the discovery. And science is about letting go of old preconceptions when they no longer describe the universe around us
Andres Aullet 10+
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?"
Is that a logical argument?
I have heard this refuted with the argument that it is because of free will and because god works in mysterious ways that the whole argument is false, but i have not felt convinced with that refutation
Obey No1kinobe 50+
Also he seems to come back to the assumption that all atheists absolutely deny the existence of gods. Whereas in my experience most atheists I know may not think it likely there are gods, but don't claim to know for sure.
I agree that those who state to know there are no gods need to justify the position.
But one step in from that are people like me who don't claim to know absolutely but see no reason to believe the claims of theists or the existence of gods. So I don't believe in gods. I'm not a theist. I'm a non theist. An atheist.
I agree no human knows for sure. Zeus or Odin or el could exist. But see no reason to believe in any of the thousands of gods in human history as being anything more than human constructs.
Nicholas Lukowiak 50+
Also, there is reason to believe, the thousands of gods which could of existed - could have been misinterpreted aliens :-D.
Hallucinogenic plant eating is a recently theory in evolution; in cognitive development would of made our brain more active in order to expand faster. There is not enough (almost none) historic record about prehistory cultures doing hallucinogens. Temples and religious centers didn't keep records of much activity, but yeah, pretty sure some Inca priest were getting trashed. Lol, but yeah, God could be a misinterpreted alien and/or through history the facts were changed on what the visitors said/did in order to control people, well, through the same extraterrestrial knowledge. Just dumb down versions.
Reinterpreting Jesus (definitely an alien - lol) is actually an interesting practice of secular theology.
God - Humanism [faith]
Kingdom of heaven - State of mind involved in harmony on earth
Holy Spirit - Human spirit
I am/me (reference to self) - This [is] 'way'
The only way to God is through me - The only way to humanistic faith is through this way.
The kingdom (above meaning) would not be found in the form of a physical kingdom - Jn 18:36
It would manifest itself in spiritual ways - Ro 14:17
Jesus was a humanistic philosopher - compare him to Buddha.
While the West made Jesus an atomistic son of an omni-being, the East made Buddha a holistic leader in monism.
My 2 major point:
The religious based debate here is not being argued in contrast to how religion exist today. There are a lot of religions that are atheistic; especially Eastern religions.
A creator God can exist from a rogue scientist alien to an energy pocket of spacetime we are ignorant of how to see.
Obey No1kinobe 50+
I'm saying I don't know. Im saying theists make some pretty signifcant claims, that conflict. That oftenconflict with reality as i understand it and have no proof indicatingbthe truth oft these claims. So have no reason to be a theist of any colour.
Im saying most the evidence points to religions being man made and contradictory
That our understanding of the brain indicate religious experience is most likely a natural brain phenomena.
It might be that people can function reasonably well in society and still hold crazy religious beliefs. Just because the majority of society says religious delusions are acceptable up to a point doesn't mean they are not delusions. If The christians are right then the hindus, muslums, mormons, etc are delusional. It is just accepted. Whereas saying you are god generally isn't.
Again I'm not saying that one of the theist belief systems might not be exactly correct and all the others wrong. I'm not saying there may not be gods that are nothing like the humans have imagined.
We just obviously have not been able to work out who's view of gods is correct if any. And there is a lot that points to gods being man made. Religious experience most likely a natural psychological phenomena.
I'm not stating absolutes. Just that there is not enough for me to believe in gods or goddesses. In fact the as as knowledge of the universe and ourselves increases there are fewer gaps for gods.
You can believe anything you want. But not all beliefs are equal if you are looking for truth. Not being verifiable is actually evidence of a weak position, not a strong one.
Again me saying there is a spiritual dragon in my garage, who created the universe and who I can connect to in extreme conscious states is not much different to the core of many religious beliefs.
John Moonstroller 20+
As far a crazy religious notions or idea, well, crazy is as crazy does. I think I've already addressed the physiological stance on the mental stability of Religion folk.
Maybe there never will be a correct view about God in our lifetime.
Depends on your test of validity. With some all that is necessary is a simple prayer.
Others want more.
As far as the dragon goes, call a pest control company, not your pastor; you'll get better results.
Obey No1kinobe 50+
The rest of us can look at the evidence for and against and make a judgement call, or just blindly follow their cultural religion, or take bits and pieces that make sense for them.
Just that some positions will have more substantiated support than others.
If you are going to argue any proposition that can not be disproven or proven is as good as a position that can be proven we will just go around in circles. I think you do get the point that not all belief are equally Robust.
I think you get the point that it is not a binary choice. Believe in gods or absolutely deny them.
I think you understand that many if not most people who call themselves atheists leave the door open for reasonable proof of some god claims in the future. They don't claim to know absolutely.
The parody of atheism you propose supports your argument.
You seem to be deliberately misunderstanding points. Or maybe your world view is so different from mine you do jump to completely different conclusions.
I'm not sure if anywhere you have conceded that if the Mormons are correct then everyone else is wrong.
You can dance around and point out that there may be overlaps about specific details, but if orthodox Mormonism is correct, then the core dogmas of other religious beliefs a false.
The law of contradiction is the foundation of reason. If we can not agree on that then no wonder this conversation is going around in circles.
John Moonstroller 20+
What does it matter if an individual does not steal because they believe is is a sin, socially criminal, or it goes against their ethics or morality?
The result is the same.
The result of human behavior is the central focus.
We can't suppose that because someone is religious, that their method or belief is an inferior path towards achieving the same result.
Everything else is just supposition. We are what we do.
What does Atheism drive us to do?
Obey No1kinobe 50+
I have no issue with religious people who have peaceful beliefs and don't harm others. I support freedom of religion. But there is still the issue of what is true and correct.
I suggest the best foundations for building a life are not conflicting subjective religious belief systems. These may have some utilitarian benefits, but also lock in harmful dogmas.
I suggest the utilitarian argument for religion, does not address whether the claims of a religion are true or false.
Atheism is not a complete world view with dogma and rules. It is just a position on whether you belief in gods or not. It is not an ethical framework or philosophy for life. Atheism doesn't drive anything. It is not a cult or religion.
But we have so much information out their to work things out as best we can. The enlightenment, philosophy, human rights etc. I note less religious countries do just fine compared to more religious countries.
But none of this has anything to do with whether any particular religion is correct in their theist claims.
Obey No1kinobe 50+
The religious seem to ignore all the other god beliefs that conflict theirs.
Personal religious type experiences seem to be part of our wiring. I note about half of children have imaginary friends. I guess religious experience of adults is not that different. What we do know is the conflicting interpretations of all these experiences or revelations can not be correct.
At core some religious or god related beliefs are not verifiable. Just like the spiritual dragon that
Ives in my garage.
We know enough about our minds to know humans are subject to delusions and hallucinations.
Also not comprehending or knowing how nature works or things could end up looking like they are do not make supposing supernatural causes reasonable. Not knowing is not evidence for gods.
Few responses to some of your recent comments above.
John Moonstroller 20+
I know many surgeons but I'm not a surgeon. I've known many Architectural Engineers but I'm no Architectural Engineer.
Shakier, To be an Atheist is to pursue the proof that God does not exist. It has more to do with being a prosecution attorney than being a scientist. Science is jut one tool in the Atheist tool box.
I think, as this debate evolves we are coming to realize that my statement in support of my question has many loopholes and misnomers. There has been the suggestion of altering the Supporting statement, but I think it would be unfair to those who replied in the beginning and brought this failing to light.
I no longer believe that we can properly debate the statement I offered properly. We are just rehashing the same notions over and over again.
What do you think? Do you think I should cut the time and let it die?
Adriaan Braam 20+
As, I think you said, the debate about wether God is or not, has and will be going on forever. The literal text ot the Bible, or even the spiritual sense of the Bible does not proof anything spiritual. Whether we are spirits or God exists.
For me, I do not have any problem believing God exist. I have confirmation many times a day, but that is because I'm possitive to the idea.
Anyone that is negative to the idea sees 'proof' everywhere he or she looks, also many times a day.
There is a basic reason why this situation exists. If there was proof one way or the other, that would take our freedom away to make a choice about what to believe. Because we do have a choice. In fact it is having that cholice, is what makes us human. No animal can choose a belief sytem.
The only 'connection' between spirit and matter is the "science of correspondence." (please Google) There is no measurable, observable connection between spirit and matter. However, there still is a very real relationship. It is impossible to measure or proof, when e.g. 100 people do the very same thing, why they do it.
All this exists for the soul reason that we as humans can excersise, or do what we love doing. That is what freewill is all about and what it is for.
Please forget whatever you heard or read about any religious explanation or interpretation related to the Bible and life. Again, please have an open mind for truth and take the time to see if you think it is, or if you think it is not. Be human. This one link is to two books that I hope will make sense to you.
http://sites.google.com/site/liveitupspiritually/home/writings/DLW_DP.pdf?attredirects=0&d=1
John Moonstroller 20+
I read the "science of correspondence" on the site you posted and this just solidified my stance.
Adriaan Braam 20+
Andres Aullet 10+
1 The idea that an atheist is a person who seeks proof that god does not exist. The majority of the atheists i know are not even looking for such proof (granted, they are mostly scientists, so they are waiting for the testable predictions and then i am sure they would love to jump into the testing wagon)
2 There are people who trust science blindly (like a religion) but most of those are not scientist. Any respectable scientist will tell you that a theory that is perfectly suitable today might be found flawed tomorrow, and that is perfectly fine. Nothing is treated as "absolute truth"
John Moonstroller 20+
Andres Aullet 10+
1) i would call that anti-theists, just like antipathy is the opposite of sympathy, but apathy is the absence of sympathy, But i see your point, for example, in the most accepted meaning of anarchist, even though the term means without a government, people interpret it to be a position against government
Obey No1kinobe 50+
Most people I know who call themselves atheists don't claim to know absolutely. We just claim to know enough that indicates most religions are bunk. In fact we know that at best only one specific religion view could be correct. And they all look like human constructs. No compelling evidence for there claims so we don't believe in gods or goddesses.
What is your view on this atheist position. Not the absolutist one.
John Moonstroller 20+
I think they spend a lot of time on something they can't prove. That's my position. That's why I'm agnostic.
Obey No1kinobe 50+
But I don't claim to absolutely claim to know whether any particular religion actually is correct, or they are all wrong but some gods exist that humans have not imagined.
Not believing is different to denying. by your definition I might be agnostic. But I think all the religions are probably false. We know all but one at most be false. So I disbelieve just one more than any theist.
Obey No1kinobe 50+
If you claim there is an intangible intelligence, and we can not verify or test it, then it is outside the bounds of science.
If you say prayer works, we can test that. Let's all pray that the amputee on crown street has his arm grow back.
Actually more systematic tests have been done too.
If your beliefs claim the earth is less than ten thousand years old, that is also disproved unlessngodmcreated the earth to look older.
So some religious claims clash with our scientific understanding, as well as conflicting religious claims.
But some things are unverifiable. We can see the parts of the brain active when praying or meditating. So we know at least part of the experience is in the physical but we can not tell in the person is supernaturally connecting with Jesus or Mary or Allah or Vishnu or Buddha or maduk.
John Moonstroller 20+
John Moonstroller 20+
Obey No1kinobe 50+
Science also contradicts most creation dogmas etc.
The fact there is no decent evidence for the existence of gods does not help the case of the theist. It just means people can come up with any subjective religious or supernatural belief system that contradicts all the others. Which seems to be in part why we have such a mess of conflicting supernatural claims.
Obey No1kinobe 50+
You can stick with the parody of atheism if you choose.
If there was evidence for a particular interpretation of gods or goddesses I would take a look.
Often these days god beliefs come back to not having an answer to big questions, rather than any evidence for the existence of the being itself, or proof of the particular theist claims.
Shakira Quiñones
Atheist do not believe in god because its existence is just not logical. It does not compute in any logical manner. And the fact that they don't believe in god does not mean they don't believe in human values like respect, love, friendship, cooperation, etc. We, atheist, don't need a god to blame for whatever happens to us, or to pray to when we are in a bad situation, or to regulate our behavior because logic itself is enough for us to decide how to act.
I don't think science or atheism are dogmas. One is a process of understanding the word using logic. The other one is the lack of a belief of god or gods.
That was just my opinion...and I would like to excuse myself for any grammatical error since English is not my native language.
Cheers!
John Smith
My criticism of religion is that sometimes they take a blind dive into the unknown abyss, trying to guess what is there. With this method, they come up with one explanation out of the possible infinity with no proof and no plans to revise their idea. That is as close to a zero chance of being right as you can get. Science on the other hand, narrows things down by revising theories until they explain all phenomena associated with the unknown.
Atheism isn't science though. They say they believe in it, but when atheists get in arguments, they tend to gravitate to the currently untestable unknown which leads to them having one belief and no chance of revision, something science never does. In light of that, I am with the atheism is a cult crowd.
John Moonstroller 20+
With the Christians, God himself came and put aside the Jews and made God the intermediary in the Form of Jesus.
These are events, not logic and therefore cannot be disputed with philosophy or Science. We either accept or deny.
Therefor the basis of the Atheist is to deny the events and the basis of the Agnostic is to wonder.
I see no way that Atheism can debate the idea of God. They either accept or deny but the burden of proof is upon them. Those who deny a claim have to prove the claim is a lie.
We can use science to prove that the soul does not exist but that has failed so far.
We can use science to prove that the earth did not stand still, but that would declare the supposition that third class civilizations do not exist (without proof) and we find ourselves, as Atheists denying another claim.
Either we accept the claim or we deny it. I see no other means of resolution about God.
Obey No1kinobe 50+
Atheists indicate that there is no evidence for any particular god. It is simply healthy scepticism at heart. If there is no proof for these extraordinary claims the claims should be treated accordingly.
Not sure why you think subjective religious claims should be off limits for rational consideration.
If you accept they are all subjective, but you want to pick and choose, fine. But please don't pretend that the claims in religion that have not compelling evidence are truth.
You can understand more and more about our body/brain/mind and how it works without the need for a sou without any evidence of soul. But you can not prove that there is or is not some magic spiritual stuff connected in some way to our physical body.
Spirit stuff is redundant in science. There does not seem to be any need for it, not just no evidence.
Gods use to send plagues. Now we have germ theory.
And science does not need to prove there are no souls or spirits for these to be subjective human ideas little objective basis. But lots of mythology and magic and superstition down through the ages from our more ignorance past.
Kevin Fielder 20+
Remember Scientology has as much provenance as any other religion - a person or people existed, and a book was written..
You are correct no one knows, however I refer you back to that teapot not knowing doesn't mean there is something magic and unexplainable, it is just not yet knowing.
It is a belief system based on books written long ago that have no proof to back up any of their claims, it is not based on any provable facts. Based on your last response I'll caveat that with provable facts about the existence of any supreme being or miracles etc. Things like a country exists or xx human being exists may be true, but as stated these facts are very different from the fact that a supreme being or being exists.
People want to believe in something, people don't want to thing death is the end (if may not be even without the existence of any gods..), people want to belong and fit in, people want to identify with others - there are many reasons on top of the whole indoctrination issue why religions are so successful. As I said I also thing we need to keep religion and the actual existence of a god or gods as separate issues.
The other point as you are talking about different religions is that they all claim to be right, and the amusing thing is if any single one does turn out to be correct most are wrong.. And depending upon which one that is all the other religions may be in a bit of trouble for worshipping the wrong god(s) or the right god but in the wrong way.
These arguments always become very circular because those on the 'gods' side offer not proof for god, and expect those on the other side to offer proof against something you can't see / feel etc. which is pretty much impossible.
Peter Law 30+
You're a bit off-topic. Do you think Atheism qualifies as a cult or not ?
:-)
John Moonstroller 20+
Religion, as I stated somewhere else, is a history of actual events, a belief system built on the relavance of these events. Atheism cannot dispute Theism if Theism is based on historical events. They can dig in the dirt but that has only proved the events probably occurred.
The atheist can only deny the events and seek proof to deny that the "relevance" associated by the Theists to the event is incorrect.
My question is has Atheism become cult like as a result of their dispute with Religion. When investigating a psychopathic killer, the detective must sometimes put themselves in the mind of the Perp. Have atheists been looking for proof too long? Have they become similar in organization and scope by their association with Religion. Remember. Atheism is not a subset of the Scientific Mindset. It is a task, A journey to disprove something.
Kevin Fielder 20+
My concern with the whole debate is that one side has no evidence and the other side is expected to disprove something that cannot be seen or heard, and cannot in anyway be proven to exist, let alone not exist!
Logic will always fail when faced with blind faith.
Thus to even the field - I eagerly await a single piece of evidence from the theist camp..
Disproving something, even something concrete is known to be extremely difficult which is why theists fall to this rather than admitting there is actually no evidence what-so-ever.
For me I really don't mind what people want to believe and whether they want just belief or something where evidence and experiment are required. I do however have many issues with organised religion from indoctrination (teach kids it's just a belief and expose them to science!) to the petty rules (this being created the entire universe and everything in it, but care about the direction you face when you pray, or whether you eat pork, or whatever... really?). That is however a separate issue to whether you belief in some supreme being or beings or not. This does often muddy the waters, many theists vehemently defend their religion rather than theism and many atheists are much more concerned with issues around organised religion than pure atheism vs. theism.
Maybe that could be your next question..
John Moonstroller 20+
So if someone, a human being who was actually spoken to by this God, then were is the proof to dispute them?
If I told you I was personal friends with Michio Kaku and gave him the idea about string theory, would you believe me? You wouldn't have evidence one way or the other. So that's the big kicker in this whole debate.
We all have this notion that there is more to us than just a body and a brain. We feel there is something else that set us off from the rock or the insect and not just mass and energy.
What if the soul is actually a connection to another dimension? We don't know, science doesn't know and Atheists truly don't know anything. No one knows if the soul exists.
No, this whole argument boils down to do we believe those who made these claims or not.
All of religion on the general scale is a belief system. The atheists have no way to get around this. In some religion they are convinced that God is talking to them today and if God is not talking to you, what does that tell you about "your" relationship with God? How do you argue with this?
It's hard to find anyone who has not been indoctrinated by some form of region to give a really good control sample. The only guy I knew was in India, in a very remote village and when his dad started teaching him about the village gods, he went on a search into the mountains and apparently, God not only spoke to him but gave him a mission. He is an evangelist today and that is his story. He is also one very smart cookie and you wouldn't think he would given over to fairy tales.
It's a belief system based on some facts given long ago. On the flip side, what is the fact that Athirst is based on? Nothing... it's just the anti-thesis of Theism