Atheism Thread

[realitybites]

Babycakes I don't believe in God. I just don't like atheistic ideology and I despise anyone who argues a subject like this -and yes, to a point this subject can technically be "argued"- in any way that implies there can be, at the end, a provable answer. But when I originally said that atheists were morons it was not because of what they don't believe in but rather because of how loudly they make sure everyone knows they don't believe in it.

Look sugar, you seem at least as passionate as me about the atheism/theism divide. Why else would you be posting on this thread? For the challenge? The thrill of it? Just to be a contrarian? I don't even give an ounce of energy to subjects I care less about, such as football.

And I don't see atheism as the default.

It is the original position. Each of us is born an atheist (without belief in a god.) We are then taught to believe in God.

Alright. I'm sure it's not an issue either of us cares enough to get into. I was being sarcastic.

I care.

 

[Skylarker]

Look sugar, you seem at least as passionate as me about the atheism/theism divide. Why else would you be posting on this thread? For the challenge?

Yes.

The thrill of it?

Yes.

Just to be a contrarian?

I'm not sure that's a word, but yes.

It is the original position. Each of us is born an atheist (without belief in a god.) We are then taught to believe in God.

That's a very Western argument.

I care.

No; that part of my post was referring to the degree to which Skinny does or does not dream about banning people.

 

[realitybites]

I'm not sure that's a word, but yes.

A contrarian is a person who takes up a position opposed to that of the majority, no matter how unpopular. Contrarian styles of argument and disagreement have historically been associated with radicalism and dissent.

That's a very Western argument.

We are in the west. Give me the eastern argument, smarty pants.

 

[Anonymous]

The Biblical truth? You're a Christian? So Hindus, Jews, Muslims, Buddhist, Sikhs and everyone else is wrong, and you're right? Oh dear, oh dear. Fact vs. non fact, wit against the shit, as Neil Hannon said.



P.

"The fool says in his heart,
"There is no God."
They are corrupt and their ways are vile;....
PSALM 53 THE HOLY BIBLE

 

[Skylarker]

"The fool says in his heart,
"There is no God."
They are corrupt and their ways are vile;....
PSALM 53 THE HOLY BIBLE

Thanks for chiming in, Jesus.

 

[kip winger]

agree.I believe in God.Even scientists have to admit they can explain the big bang theory but they cant say who or what lit the touch paper .It boils down to something having to be there in the first place. The answer is thats God's invisible spirit was the first and foremost thing in the entire universe.If you cant accept the Biblical truth of this then why can you accept a planet was "just there " or the first atom was "just here ".what was the creative force that put it/them there ? and what put that there ?
It is infinite regression -at least the Bible gives a clear understanding of creation-stating there was NOTHING except Gods spirit.People struggle with imagining nothing ,but there has never been pure nothingness as still invisible Gods spirit has /was always there. Same as a persons invisible spirit is always there-how can you see a spirit? if you are in high spirits or low spirits you cant produce a spirit to show people .its invisible and inside you.

The notion of ‘something having to be there in the first place’ is merely a product of our primitive minds. I don’t claim to be a scientist, but simple investigations into quantum physics, cosmology, etc., reveal that the universe is hardly what we humans normally think it is. Down the rabbit hole is more like it. For example, there are all sorts of invisible stuff out there. In fact, all that you know about life, mostly all of that which we’ve seen, felt, smelled, etc., comes from about only 5% of the universe. 95% of the stuff is invisible and unknown to us. A very rough analogy, but imagine being a juror in a trial where you only know 5% of the evidence. And quantum entanglement tells us that matters may be interconnected so much so that paired particles will share the same properties instantaneously though they may be many, many miles apart, which at first blush would seem to violate the ultimate speed limit. We don’t know why this happens, but we know it happens. And the list of bizarre-ness goes on and on. But closer to your point, in what appears to be a flat universe in which we live where the total energy in the universe is zero, our universe may be one giant quantum fluctuation (sudden appearance of energy in empty space), and that an initial source for the creation of the universe was unnecessary. That seems counter-intuitive, but the underlying science is very real.

 

[realitybites]

The notion of ‘something having to be there in the first place’ is merely a product of our primitive minds. I don’t claim to be a scientist, but simple investigations into quantum physics, cosmology, etc., reveal that the universe is hardly what we humans normally think it is. Down the rabbit hole is more like it. For example, there are all sorts of invisible stuff out there. In fact, all that you know about life, mostly all of that which we’ve seen, felt, smelled, etc., comes from about only 5% of the universe. 95% of the stuff is invisible and unknown to us. A very rough analogy, but imagine being a juror in a trial where you only know 5% of the evidence. And quantum entanglement tells us that matters may be interconnected so much so that paired particles will share the same properties instantaneously though they may be many, many miles apart, which at first blush would seem to violate the ultimate speed limit. We don’t know why this happens, but we know it happens. And the list of bizarre-ness goes on and on. But closer to your point, in what appears to be a flat universe in which we live where the total energy in the universe is zero, our universe may be one giant quantum fluctuation (sudden appearance of energy in empty space), and that an initial source for the creation of the universe was unnecessary. That seems counter-intuitive, but the underlying science is very real.

If you are interested in this subject, I recommend this book ~ Why Does the World Exist?: An Existential Detective Story

It just came about about a month ago. This is the publishers description: In this astonishing and profound work, an irreverent sleuth traces the riddle of existence from the ancient world to modern times. Whether framed philosophically as “Why is there a world rather than nothing at all?” or more colloquially as “But, Mommy, who made God?” the metaphysical mystery about how we came into existence remains the most fractious and fascinating question of all time. Following in the footsteps of Christopher Hitchens, Roger Penrose, and even Stephen Hawking, Jim Holt emerges with an engrossing narrative that traces our latest efforts to grasp the origins of the universe. As he takes on the role of cosmological detective, the brilliant yet slyly humorous Holt contends that we might have been too narrow in limiting our suspects to God vs. the Big Bang. Whether interviewing a cranky Oxford philosopher, a Physics Nobel Laureate, or a French Buddhist monk, Holt pursues unexplored and often bizarre angles to this cosmic puzzle. The result is a brilliant synthesis of cosmology, mathematics, and physics—one that propels his own work to the level of philosophy itself.

I'm about halfway through. It is not easy reading and definitely not for someone who doesn't have a basic understanding of metaphysics.

 

[kip winger]

If you are interested in this subject, I recommend this book ~ Why Does the World Exist?: An Existential Detective Story

"...an irreverent sleuth..."

"Whether interviewing a cranky Oxford philosopher, a Physics Nobel Laureate, or a French Buddhist monk, Holt pursues unexplored and often bizarre angles to this cosmic puzzle. The result is a brilliant synthesis of cosmology, mathematics, and physics—one that propels his own work to the level of philosophy itself."

Intriguing. Thanks.

 

[Peterb]

Thank you Peterb. Glad there are a few of us here.

I agree that the term “atheism” doesn't say much. This was a point I was arguing further back on this thread. And others argued that atheism is a theory. But it is not a theory. It makes no claims. It is a position that can be falsifiable, yes, if a god could be proven to exist. And then one would simply ditch the atheist position and become a theist. But then the term theist too would become meaningless because everyone would believe in god, just as everyone believes in the sun. For some people, this bit of logic is hard to grasp. But it seems simple to me. So I do agree with you that using the word atheist is kind of pointless. You and I know this. But... the term atheism still works for me because it packs a punch. It is the strongest position to take against theism. And, as I am sure you agree, religion has a lot—too much—unchecked power in this country, and the world, for that matter. In all honesty, I am an anti-theist. But I reserve that usage for specific situations and don’t feel it is at all appropriate here. Christopher Hitchens made the term anti-theist a part of the lexicon. He is my intellectual hero.

Anyhow, I also like the term atheist for it’s straightforward meaning and it’s simplicity. Thus it is very neutral when it comes to political, environmental, and existential ideologies. One can be an atheist and be an existentialist, humanist, naturalist, socialist, capitalist, etc. These philosophical positions say much more about the person's beliefs than atheism does. That is why I consider myself to be an atheist existentialist naturalist. I have written about this in my blog. So I won’t elaborate here.

One term I really hate is agnostic. It should be wiped from the vocabulary list. It’s weak. It’s refusing to have the courage to take sides. And there are real sides here. Either god exists or he doesn’t. There is one truth—one reality. Saying I don’t know, is pussyfooting at its finest. Err.

So, what I want to know is, what do you believe? How do you identify yourself as a non-believer? I’m assuming that is what you are, btw.

Hi Realitybites, I'm not sure what I believe. I know I do not believe in a god. It's a difficult question because any knowledge at all relies on some sort of belief system but I guess I want stuff to make sense. I know this is not much of an answer but I can see no credible reason to believe in a god and every reason to follow what I see as reasonable and rational explanations of the universe.
I agree with everything you said in your post and yes, the term atheism does pack a punch and I do like that.

 

[Rowntree]

Realitybites, I'm agnostic in that I don't necessarily belive in one divine being but personal experience has made me not believe that there is nothing but a quick fling on Earth either. I'm not an atheist but I'm not of a religion either. It isn't sitting on the fence, it's not having all of the answers and no matter how much you try to convince us that you have them I know that you haven't.

You keep saying that everyone is atheist and will be until God shows himself. I'm not a Christian but Christians would argue that God has shown himself and yet everyone doesn't believe. Does God need to show himself to every generation?

 

[realitybites]

Realitybites, I'm agnostic in that I don't necessarily belive in one divine being but personal experience has made me not believe that there is nothing but a quick fling on Earth either. I'm not an atheist but I'm not of a religion either. It isn't sitting on the fence, it's not having all of the answers and no matter how much you try to convince us that you have them I know that you haven't.

I never said I had all the answers, or any answers. I said I did not believe in the existence of an entity which was constructed in the minds of primitive people long ago. Choosing to not believe in something doesn't mean I have any answers. I don't know what came before the Big Bang. Was there nothing before something? It is interesting to think about. If I were to adopt the term agnostic, then I would have to be agnostic about tons of things. I would even have to be agnostic about everything for which I didn't know the answer. I do understand the definition of agnosticism. And I do realize that philosophers chose to pin it to their lapels. But I don't care. I don't like the term. I'd rather stand for something--like rational thought. And rational thought doesn't make room for god, ghosts, demons or leprechauns. Why do I need to be agnostic about God but not the Tooth Fairy? Is there any more evidence for God? Just because more people believe in a god doesn't make it more true. You cannot wish something into existence.

I'm agnostic in that I don't necessarily belive in one divine being but personal experience has made me not believe that there is nothing but a quick fling on Earth either.

Your subjective experience is something that many have also experienced. Put all of you together on an island and you have some sort of consensus reality. That still doesn't make your claims valid. It just means you all have agreed upon what reality is.

You keep saying that everyone is atheist and will be until God shows himself. I'm not a Christian but Christians would argue that God has shown himself and yet everyone doesn't believe. Does God need to show himself to every generation?

I never said god will show himself. I said we are all born atheists--without belief in God. We are also born without belief in a political ideology. These beliefs are taught to us by our parents, schools, and the greater cultures we live in. The word for this socialization is called indoctrination. Do you think other wise--that humans are born believing in God? If so how do you explain why there are so many different gods? What if a baby is born in India to a Hindu mother but is adopted three months later by a Christian American couple? Does the baby then stop believing in Brahma and now believe in the Abrahamic God? Do you think God is an innate concept that we understand a priori? There may be biological explanations for why we have evolved--or not lost--the need to create gods. But I don't think we are born knowing god.

 

[Rowntree]

I never said I had all the answers, or any answers. I said I did not believe in the existence of an entity which was constructed in the minds of primitive people long ago. Choosing to not believe in something doesn't mean I have any answers. I don't know what came before the Big Bang. Was there nothing before something? It is interesting to think about. If I were to adopt the term agnostic, then I would have to be agnostic about tons of things. I would even have to be agnostic about everything for which I didn't know the answer. I do understand the definition of agnosticism. And I do realize that philosophers chose to pin it to their lapels. But I don't care. I don't like the term. I'd rather stand for something--like rational thought. And rational thought doesn't make room for god, ghosts, demons or leprechauns. Why do I need to be agnostic about God but not the Tooth Fairy? Is there any more evidence for God? Just because more people believe in a god doesn't make it more true. You cannot wish something into existence.



Your subjective experience is something that many have also experienced. Put all of you together on an island and you have some sort of consensus reality. That still doesn't make your claims valid. It just means you all have agreed upon what reality is.



I never said god will show himself. I said we are all born atheists--without belief in God. We are also born without belief in a political ideology. These beliefs are taught to us by our parents, schools, and the greater cultures we live in. The word for this socialization is called indoctrination. Do you think other wise--that humans are born believing in God? If so how do you explain why there are so many different gods? What if a baby is born in India to a Hindu mother but is adopted three months later by a Christian American couple? Does the baby then stop believing in Brahma and now believe in the Abrahamic God? Do you think God is an innate concept that we understand a priori? There may be biological explanations for why we have evolved--or not lost--the need to create gods. But I don't think we are born knowing god.

A couple of retorts, it doesn't make those subjective claims any less valid either. There are a couple of things that HAVE happened to me that have shaped my opinion and I get rather annoyed when I tell people my experiences and they just look at you with a disbelieving smurk on their face. I was bought up an atheist and certain things have made me question that doctrine.

None of us know or don't know where we are spiritually when we are born. Religious doctrine is certainly taught, that doesn't mean that spirituality is.

 

[realitybites]

A couple of retorts, it doesn't make those subjective claims any less valid either. There are a couple of things that HAVE happened to me that have shaped my opinion and I get rather annoyed when I tell people my experiences and they just look at you with a disbelieving smurk on their face. I was bought up an atheist and certain things have made me question that doctrine.

I think they are poking fun because they subscribe to this maxim, You are entitled to your own opinions but you are not entitled to your own facts. You can believe whatever you want, just don't expect others to consider your beliefs to be facts unless you can provide evidence for them.

I was bought up an atheist and certain things have made me question that doctrine.

Again... atheism is not a belief system, philosophy, ideology, or doctrine.

What were you taught to believe?

None of us know or don't know where we are spiritually when we are born. Religious doctrine is certainly taught, that doesn't mean that spirituality is.

I would agree that the capability, or even perhaps the propensity, for spiritual expression is innate in humans. I think I am missing the gene(s) which are responsible for it. Or they are not being expressed for some reason. The light is not turned on, so to speak. But I am not alone. Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris and many more are in the same predicament. I am actually serious.

 

[realitybites]

fascinating.

 

[realitybites]

Hi Realitybites, I'm not sure what I believe. I know I do not believe in a god. It's a difficult question because any knowledge at all relies on some sort of belief system but I guess I want stuff to make sense. I know this is not much of an answer but I can see no credible reason to believe in a god and every reason to follow what I see as reasonable and rational explanations of the universe.
I agree with everything you said in your post and yes, the term atheism does pack a punch and I do like that.

 

[Rowntree]

I think they are poking fun because they subscribe to this maxim, You are entitled to your own opinions but you are not entitled to your own facts. You can believe whatever you want, just don't expect others to consider your beliefs to be facts unless you can provide evidence for them.



Again... atheism is not a belief system, philosophy, ideology, or doctrine.

What were you taught to believe?



I would agree that the capability, or even perhaps the propensity, for spiritual expression is innate in humans. I think I am missing the gene(s) which are responsible for it. Or they are not being expressed for some reason. The light is not turned on, so to speak. But I am not alone. Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris and many more are in the same predicament. I am actually serious.

I was taught to believe that there is only this, as in this life, then we die and then there is nothing. There is no God, there is no reincarnation, no other nonsense, what you see is what you get. Pure atheism really.

I see you're bringing out the big intellectuals to back up your stance. I'm cool with that but I'm happier that my mind isn't so cemented that I am determined to always seek proof even when proof isn't there. On to my experiences, as a six year old I wrote a story from which was entirely made up. The same story turned out to be an entirely factual historical event in which I named people, places and years. Now, somebody like yourself would just say that I had obviously read or heard about this somewhere else like my teacher did and just dug it out from the back of my mind somewhere. I can honestly say that this isn't true but I have no way of proving it just like I didn't to the teacher although he didn't have any idea where I'd got the information for the story, I didn't get it from him and certainly didn't at home or anywhere else - I didn't read any books above the usual nursery rhymes, I wasn't allowed to watch television except for Playschool or Rainbow. The latter argument is just coincidence but to me there were too many coincidences all together for it to just be coincidence. The other thing, I used to have a bedsit which had a trapdoor in it with some stairs leading up to it. There were footsteps going up these stairs for a couple of hours one night and there was nothing there, there wasn't just a creaking, there was one step after another going up but not down and then starting all over again. I have no explanation for that. Likewise all of the people in the house had no explanations for their experiences there. I don't even know why I'm bothering to say this to you as you'll just have it down as hocum pocum. I generally agree with your points but these things mean that I can't be so dismissive just because a scientist or two thinks that they have everything figured out.

Even reading this back it seems ridiculous but it is as it is. I don't have the answers, I could try to reason that it's this or it's that but none of the reasons people have thrown at me have added up any more than these things make sense in any rational way.

 

[Skylarker]

Best movie ever.

 

[billybu69]

Best movie ever.

Title?

 

[realitybites]

I was taught to believe that there is only this, as in this life, then we die and then there is nothing. There is no God, there is no reincarnation, no other nonsense, what you see is what you get. Pure atheism really.

Thank you for answering my question. And that is a set of beliefs. It is called a natural world view. Naturalists believe that there is nothing but natural elements, principles, and relations of the kind studied by the natural sciences. The supernatural doesn't exist; only nature is real. I am a naturalist.

I see you're bringing out the big intellectuals to back up your stance. I'm cool with that but I'm happier that my mind isn't so cemented that I am determined to always seek proof even when proof isn't there.

We are all standing on the shoulders of giants. How many times a week do you think Dawkins name-drops Darwin? The late Hitchens often quoted Ingersoll and Spinoza during his debates. And physicists today still reference Einstein in their talks. Knowledge builds upon knowledge. As long as we formulate our opinions in fresh, new ways, they are our own. I have read posts on this forum that quote Yoda and Voledmort as appeals to authority.

On to my experiences, as a six year old I wrote a story from which was entirely made up. The same story turned out to be an entirely factual historical event in which I named people, places and years. Now, somebody like yourself would just say that I had obviously read or heard about this somewhere else like my teacher did and just dug it out from the back of my mind somewhere. I can honestly say that this isn't true but I have no way of proving it just like I didn't to the teacher although he didn't have any idea where I'd got the information for the story, I didn't get it from him and certainly didn't at home or anywhere else - I didn't read any books above the usual nursery rhymes, I wasn't allowed to watch television except for Playschool or Rainbow. The latter argument is just coincidence but to me there were too many coincidences all together for it to just be coincidence. The other thing, I used to have a bedsit which had a trapdoor in it with some stairs leading up to it. There were footsteps going up these stairs for a couple of hours one night and there was nothing there, there wasn't just a creaking, there was one step after another going up but not down and then starting all over again. I have no explanation for that. Likewise all of the people in the house had no explanations for their experiences there. I don't even know why I'm bothering to say this to you as you'll just have it down as hocum pocum. I generally agree with your points but these things mean that I can't be so dismissive just because a scientist or two thinks that they have everything figured out.

Even reading this back it seems ridiculous but it is as it is. I don't have the answers, I could try to reason that it's this or it's that but none of the reasons people have thrown at me have added up any more than these things make sense in any rational way.

What do you believe the explanation is for being able to write a story that mirrored a real life event at a young age? What do you think accounted for the sounds on the steps? You told me what happened but did not assign causes. Or have you not attributed meaning yet? If not, then are you OK with the notion that you don't know why but some day scientists may be able to explain these things as a part of the natural world? Are you OK with uncertainty? Can you resist assigning supernatural causes just because you need answers? I'm OK with uncertainty. There are millions of things I have no answers for. And I am OK with science being uncertain. We don't know what causes cancer--yet. Two hundred years ago, cancer was believed to be caused by demons. This was before we understood cells, bacteria, viruses and disease. As we learned more about disease we became less likely to assign supernatural causes to illness. Now even the Pope believes that the cold is due to a virus, not a supernatural demon or curse. But if you were to visit an island (if any still exist) undisturbed by modernity, you would find primitive people believing that cancer is caused by demons, spirits, etc. Can you entertain the idea that we too--in the future--will look back on today and see that our supernatural explanations for things were due to the lack of knowledge and tools to explain them through natural laws?

David Hume (sorry a name-drop) has a great little test for deciding whether something is a miracle:

No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle unless the testimony be of such a kind that its falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact which it endeavors to establish.

a scientist or two thinks that they have everything figured out.

Science is not a static endeavor. It is dynamic, changing , growing , modifying, and dismissive. Scientists are curious by nature and relish the challenge to solve problems. But they are also open to being, and expect to be, proven wrong--as par for the course--time and time again. Scientists are not ego-driven as much as they are truth-driven. If a scientist has a so called cemented mind, he or she is in the wrong profession. And I will close by saying, I do not have a cemented mind either. I am always open to new information and ideas.

 

[realitybites]

Title?

Ghost World.