Ask your difficult questions of an Atheist.

You are mistaken, I've not denied science. I would be interested to see where I have. We must have faith in science otherwise we would doubt everything science claims.

You feel I must have faith in religion and not science. You are incorrect. I hear what people claim (religious and scientific) but I don't have a faith in either. I believe you should remain skeptical and just have faith in yourself.

Do you think it would be easier if we just became a copy of your beliefs?

 

Doubt is core to science. Science can't exist without it.

 

Correct, faith means, "1 - complete trust or confidence in someone or something. 2 - strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof".

You can have faith in anything. I have faith in my car getting me to work.

 

What's missing is how the hell you get from any of that to the universe being an illusion.

In other news, while Bach is popularly believed to be a musical genius, examination of an mp3 of the Brandenburg Concertos in binary form reveals that it's really nothing but random ones and zeros, most likely generated by a chimpanzee banging on a pair of bongo drums.

 

Yup ! Because we’re talking about spirituality, number two only has meaning.
Cars ? I hope the trust i have is founded on both the reputation of the car maker and relative to adherence to a maintenance schedule.

 

I disagree. Science by its very nature, requires NO FAITH. Otherwise, it isn’t science. You should be skeptical of anyone declaring that the science behind anything is infallible. If it is, science, it is SUPPOSE TO BE DOUBTED. It’s suppose to be the subject of constant scrutiny. That’s the difference. Religion does not welcome doubters, questioning and scrutiny. Science demands it.

 

LOL! Rahl has you by the nads.

Why would I "believe" (which in religion means bet my life) on anything when there is absolutely no evidence?

One has to draw a line. Humans have to have a reasonable amount of skepticism in order to make rational decisions. Our competitive niche in this world is that we have big and highly expensive brains. Flushing that advantage WITH NO REASON makes no sense at all.

 

rahl has never explained how that fantasy of his works.
If you think that atheism is not a religion by some definition maybe you can enlighten us since atheism is a religion by definition, just like water is wet.

yes you did exactly that by choosing atheism.

but for some strange reason those quantum intelligent brains cant comprehend something as simple as 'absence of evidence is not evidence of absence', and they FAITHfully Believe that no god exists, which is a decision grounded in ignorance of course because it is a logical fallacy.

 

So you don't trust or have confidence in scientists, ok.

 

Illusion Definition: something that deceives or misleads intellectually.

Apparently they aren't random or generated by a chimp.

 

The biblical God character was simply the series of emperors and chief priests who rule the dominant Middle Eastern empires in ancient times. They were all insane but some were crazier than others. The God character bit the dust for good with the collapse of the Babylonian Empire around 530 BC. He is not ever coming back.

 

Maybe I wasn’t clear enough. I think we are talking about science as a methodology and not scientists. Science imo, demands skepticism. This is what peer review and consensus is all about. I hope we never just take a body of science and never try to improve on it. IMO, we should strive to take nothing on faith, even the work of any scientist..

 

You're starting off with a contradictory premise. Atheism and agnosticism are not far removed from each other. Everything in the definition of “religion” includes faith or the abscence of evidence. Requiring evidence is NOT a religious construct. It is in atheism.

Saying “atheism is a religion” is false to begin with and then going on a rant with that as a premis is going down the wrong rabbit hole.

 

What are you basing that off of? The Bible has historical proof to back it up.

Any alleged similarities between the bibical God and emperors and chief priests has to do with them being rulers-it is superficial at best.

 

The definition of atheism precludes it from being a religion. You are fully aware of that fact.

 

no it doesn’t. Scientific and historical evidence shows the Bible is not correct.

 

False, just like water is wet, the definition of atheism includes it as a religion, that is a fact that has been proven to you several times.

 

You are fully aware that your statement above is completely false.

 

Why then, has no one been able to do more than offer place names as this "Proof" you refer to?

 

RE: Ask your difficult questions of an Atheist.
⁜→ Kokomojojo, rahl, et al,

(COMMENT)

This question presupposes the definitions are universally accepted.

Religions are "Belief (a matter of faith) Structures." Atheism is NOT a belief structure. Atheism is the Absence of a "Belief Structure" (no faith). The absence of faith is not a religion.

• © 2006 BY ENCYCLOPÆDIA BRITANNICA, INC. •

Page 124
atheism \9@-th%-0iz-²m\ Critique and denial of metaphysical beliefs in God or divine beings. Unlike AGNOSTICISM, which leaves open the question of whether there is a God, atheism is a positive denial. It is rooted in an array of philosophical systems. Ancient Greek philosophers such as DEMOCRITUS and EPICURUS argued for it in the context of MATERIALISM. In the 18th century DAVID HUME and IMMANUEL KANT, though not atheists, argued against traditional proofs for God’s existence, making belief a matter of faith alone. Atheists such as LUDWIG FEUERBACH held that God was a projection of human ideals and that recognizing this fiction made self-realization possible.MARXISM exemplified modern MATERIALISM. Beginning with FRIEDRICH NIETZSCHE, existentialist atheism proclaimed the death of God and the human freedom to determine value and meaning. Logical POSITIVISM holds that propositions concerning the existence or nonexistence of God are nonsensical or meaningless.

Page 1605
religion Relation of human beings to God or the gods or to whatever they consider sacred or, in some cases, merely supernatural. Archaeological evidence suggests that religious beliefs have existed since the first human communities. They are generally shared by a community, and they express the communal culture and values through myth, doctrine, and ritual. Worship is probably the most basic element of religion, but moral conduct, right belief, and participation in religious institutions also constitute elements of the religious life. Religions attempt to answer basic questions intrinsic to the human condition (Why do we suffer? Why is there evil in the world? What happens to us when we die?) through the relationship to the sacred or supernatural or (e.g., in the case of BUDDHISM) through perception of the true nature of reality. Broadly speaking, some religions (e.g., JUDAISM, CHRISTIANITY, and ISLAM) are outwardly focused, and others (e.g., JAINISM, Buddhism) are inwardly focused.
​

With no relationship to a "God", there is no basis for a religious belief.

(COMMENT)

This is very dependent on a number of propositions. It depends on your understanding of the source of the information. If the information is truly bestowed by an all-powerful and all-knowledgeable Supreme Being, then the contents of the "bible" can be anything the Supreme Being wishes. It could be fiction; it could be fact. It could be created in the description of a timeline outside the existence of humanity. It could be a product of superstition.

We simply do not know, IF you are a believer.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

Historical proof that the Bible is filled with ambiguity and falsehoods. Early religion served a purpose of controlling the masses when organized society didn’t exists,

 

No he isn't. He keeps producing his own definitions of religion that amazingly don't require a god. Serms to think that any beluef system is a religion.

 

If you are a believer, you’ve already committed yourself to superstitions and contradictory falsehoods.

 

By the least expansive definition of "universe" that I'm aware of, truth is an element of the set of all things contained therein; so if the universe is illusory, so is truth, wherefore deception is a myth. Enjoy.

And apparently the universe is not an illusion; but just as the Brandenburg Concertos can be rendered a product of imbecility by emphasizing certain epiphenomena, the universe may likewise be rendered illusory.

 

I know there is an attempt at a message somewhere.