Is Atheism a logical belief?

We can decide what we intend by our posts, we can't control what they actually mean.

I already addressed the direct questions in the OP, I'm trying to move on to the wider questions around them, one that I think would actually move towards of what you're trying to understand (which I think would boil to down to the fundamental questions like; "How can two people look at the same thing yet take something entirely different from it?").

I like to think I've been as polite as is possible when you're disagreeing with someone, certainly no less polite that suggesting millions of people all around the world are all illogical.

 

Wrong - I made my point earlier - concisely.

Capeesh?

 

One point that the OP has made very CONCISELY is that HE is NOT one of the "more polite posters" as ESTABLISHED by his ODIOUS SLUR above.

Sad!

 

Our knowledge base does not negate the concept of a "creator". It offers other possibilities for sure, but it does not negate. I agree with you that from our perspective something can look infinite or all encompassing, while from the perspective of "god(s)" there may be limitations. And I agree that ultimately we don't know. But that also means we don't know if these things do exist as well as don't exist.

 

I don't think I have said anything along those lines. I don't think anything in my post would count as incessant ridicule or beratement.

There are many atheists who quote quite confrontational approaches as the reason they ended up leaving religion. I've never been much for ridicule or beratement, but I am not the arbiter of what other people do or aim for.

Have I given that impression?

 

as you learned in my thread, they dont leave 'religion', there merely swap one for another.

Secular religion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


A secular religion is a communal belief system that often rejects or neglects the metaphysical aspects of the supernatural, commonly associated with traditional religion, instead placing typical religious qualities in earthly entities. Among systems that have been characterized as secular religions are capitalism, nationalism, Nazism, fascism, feminism, communism, Maoism, Juche, progressivism, transhumanism, Religion of Humanity, Jacobinism, and the Cult of Reason and Cult of the Supreme Being that developed after the French Revolution.

Suppression of religious beliefs
Political religions sometimes compete with existing religions, and try, if possible, to replace or eradicate them.[7] Loyalty to other entities, such as a church or a deity, are often viewed as interfering with loyalty to the political religion. The authority of religious leaders also presents a threat to the authority of the political religion. As a result, some or all religious sects may be suppressed or banned. An existing sect may be converted into a state religion, but dogma and personnel may be modified to suit the needs of the party or state. Where there is suppression of religious institutions and beliefs, this might be explicitly accompanied by atheistic doctrine as in state atheism.

the atheist agenda is well known and understood, the only difference between atheist religion and deity based religion is the source. Atheism is a belief system grounded in faith no different than a deity based belief system.

 

My apologies - I may have been a little hot. I just really do want to live in a world wherein people actually do respect each other, in spite of their actions and demeanor, and their claims that they do. Not directed at you.

 

Oh yeh! Allz ya gotta do is back one of their masterdbaiters in a corner and rest assured a cheerleader will come to the rescue to flood the thread with 50 posts of ignorant and/or vile nonsense. SOP in the atheist religion.

 

Spot on the money!

You have a way with words, sir!

 

I think that Atheism is logical except that they fold their higher godly attributes into their natural world view simply because these attributes are inherent in mankind. Chief among these higher attributes is conscience to know right from wrong. Then there is love, charity, compassion, forgiveness, apology/repentance, faith, etc. None of which is perceptible, measurable, or qualifiable by science. These attributes are not born or relative to the earth, solar system or anything in nature. Yet Atheists esteem them as part of the natural world to which these attributes have no actual scientific connection. And then dismiss the notion of a God to whom our higher natures suggests a fine and certain connection. So they have in essence an expense account, ever filled with an untraceable kings ransom, which they assume is simply supposed to be. They cannot see the gigantic silver spoon in their mouths, much less God. Granted this is an exaggeration for the sake of effect. But I believe my point is valid. We are all too caught up in living to notice the excellence of our creator and the rock from which we are hewn. How much of it is that God hides, or is it more that we simply close our eyes to it, feign ignorance, wall up excuses to hide ourselves away from the truth. And then say to ourselves, well God is not detectable by any of our meters, so he must be a fable. Some, for the sake of obstinance and willfulness go so far as to make war with the concept. Who do they fool but themselves. Is this logical?

 

Yeah, he's pretty excellent all right. He gives us lousy bodies prone to 1000's of diseases, kills women in childbirth, condemns millions to short rotten lives. What a guy!
You got this one right buddy, he's either a sadist or a fable.

 

I'm curious, you sound like you are angry at Him? If He doesn't exist, how can you be angry at Him? If He doesn't exist, there is no way you can blame Him for all you list.

What doesn't kill you, makes you stronger.

The Darwinian theory of natural selection describes the mechanism as "survival of the fittest." - wikipedia.

 

You should give respect if you seek respect. This thread went downhill when you declared people stupid... After you do that, you should not expect polite responses.

 

There is nothing illogical about concluding that a self contradictory claim is false.

That includes any claims of an all powerful being who wants to be known by all, but shows no detectable presence and creates a world that is no different than what could be expected without him.

It also includes any claims of a benevolent all powerful creator being, if the world contains such nasty and hostile things, ranging from 99% of the universe being inhospitable, to natural disasters and famine, to animals such as guinea worm and parasitic wasps, and predators generally who must kill (often in horrific ways) to survive.

If you want to define God in a very distant deist way, then it becomes much harder to discount. But if you are a bible thumping fire and brimstone Christian, orthodox Jew, or Muslim, it really isn't irrational for people to see your claims as self contradictory and false.

 

Do you ask yourself that whenever you watch a movie or TV show with a well written villain? Would you not find it disturbing if others watching these shows told you these villains were the good guys and that you should worship them?

The "angry atheists" you speak of are not so much "mad at God", as they are disturbed that theists would praise and worship such a vision of God.

Correct. But we can judge him as a character and we can compare out judgments on that character to those of others.

Not always so.

Just because we, as a social species, developed mirror neurons and a sense of empathy doesn't mean evolution itself is in any way a moral statement or framework.

 

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHHAHAAA!

Those are ALL traits that EVOLVED to ENABLE SURVIVAL and they EXIST to one degree or another in MULTIPLE SPECIES.

Chimpanzees taught SIGN LANGUAGE would get upset when LIED to thereby establishing that they do KNOW "right from wrong". Experiments where animals were NOT given EQUITABLE rewards demonstrated the SAME ability in other species.

Love, charity and compassion are ALL observed in other species. Injured members of animal groups are cared for by others in the group.

The MOST forgiving of all animals are our pets who NEVER display RESENTMENT if you are LATE home or FORGET to give them a treat. The HANGDOG expression is one of APOLOGY when they realize they done something WRONG.

As far as MIND CONTROL aspects of HUMANITY such as "repentance" and "faith" are concerned those are ABERRATIONS that have NOTHING to do with EVOLUTION but instead are SOCIAL constructs in order to IMPOSE false BELIEFS upon others. Animals are SMART enough to NOT have fallen down that rabbit hole.

So it is flat out WRONG to FALLACIOUSLY allege that NONE of those traits above are "perceptible, measurable, or qualifiable by science".

They have ALL been ADDRESSED, measured and quantified for their EVOLUTIONARY and SOCIAL Science impact on our lives.

That INCLUDES the NEGATIVE mental impact of IMPOSING the FALLACY that "everyone is BORN a sinner" and therefore "MUST REPENT" of those IMAGINARY "sins" in order to be "forgiven" for something they have NEVER done by something that does NOT EXIST.

So YES, Atheism is a LOGICAL approach to DEALING with REALITY and distinguishing between theist DISINFORMATION such as the above and Scientific DATA that EXPOSES the above as claptrap.

 

What makes you assume there was a "first cause"?

All observations point to the Oneness of All at the fundamental level. The ancients knew it and modern science is slowly beginning to realize this.

Very simply, if All is One, then space/distance & time, and therefore motion & change are illusory. That is, if All is One, there is no distance/space between any object, there's no time (all events "happen" simultaneously & are experienced as "snapshots"), no motion, and thus no change. It means, therefore, that what we experience as distance/space, time, motion, and change are an illusion. And this illusion is the result of the illusion of separation. Furthermore, it also means that awareness is an illusion because awareness is the result of the illusion of separation. Without the illusion of separation, no-thing can exist. Yet every-thing exists!

Hence, reality itself is a paradox: It is both real and an illusion at the same time, because without the illusion of separation, there is no awareness...and hence, no existence.

So, to answer your question...the answer is that it cannot be answered because All is One, and Oneness can never know itself absolutely because it can never escape itself. (Even if it could escape itself, how would it ever know?) And if it cannot escape itself it can never become aware of its true nature...let alone, how or why it (or any-thing) even exists. Oneness can only experience itself in infinite ways, eternally. This is exactly what makes Creation both infinite and eternal. Each of us, like every-thing else in Creation, thus represents a perspective of Oneness experiencing itself. And every perspective is its own universe. Oneness then becomes self-aware...yet can never escape itself, and never understand itself absolutely.

There is thus no meaning to life because if there was, life (Creation) could not be infinite. We give life meaning, and are born with a kind of pre-birth "template" that provides a "blueprint" upon which to explore Oneness/Creation in a unique way in each life that we experience.

But the more logical and, to me, most profound question is this (which also has no answer):

If All is One, then how did the illusion of separation (and thus existence) emerge out of Oneness?

This always boggles my mind!!

 

Yes Immensely, Im told that every day here on the boards! We have several snoots full of atheist benevolence and high moral standards.



I grew up thinking Churchill was a hero. Recently I've discovered he was a Monster ... tonight, after watching this - I feel almost ashamed to be British. Sorry ...

After ww1 Germany rebuilt and the British saw that as a threat. Churchill said Germary was going to get war, Whether it want's it or not.



For all those saying Germany had it coming : It was BRITAIN who began bombing, just 3 days after the war broke out the first RAF raid was on 3rd September on the Kiel Canal, followed by Wilhelmshaven the next day, where multiple civilians were killed.

These attacks continued through 1939 and right up until the battle of France. After Dunkirk Hitler offered Churchill multiple unconditional peace offers (as he’d already done 3 times the previous year) Churchill could never allow peace since his entire personal and political agenda rested on going to war with Germany (look up the focus, the Jewish group who funded Churchill for carrying out their bidding) german Air Force after having their peace offer ignored, began bombing factories and military targets, but Hitler on express orders in telegram (doc 61 “under no circumstance are civilian targets to be hit”

We can also see Churchill in May 1940 in his letter to air chief Marshall Harris “when is the earliest date you can launch an attack in Berlin?” To which the RAF replied “we fear if we do that, the Germans may retaliate, also the nights are too short at this time of year, September will be the soonest time we can bomb german cities”

After cutting off all communication with the German embassy, Churchill received yet another peace offer from Germany via Sweden, only to sack his Swedish ambassador mr Henry Lovelock.

Churchill’s private diary show clearly how much he wanted British civilians to die so he could justify what many saw as another pointless war, finally on the 24th August 1940, a German bomber flew 1 ring outside its flight path and instead of bombing the west end factories it hit a farm house killing 16 chickens, smashing 4 windows and injuring an old man.

Finally, the press made this attack into a mountain of propaganda and evil etc etc, so the following night Churchill sent 100 bombers to attack Berlin, thus beginning civilian terror bombing, which not only killed innocent Germans, but also lead to his own British people suffering as well.

After almost 3 months, Hitler finally lost his anger and ordered a massive raid on London, leading to 40,000 British casualties, which of course Churchill wanted for his war to continue.

It’s pretty ****ing clear that Churchill began civilian bombing, not Hitler!


THIS MADE ME SICK AND MAD

Atheist morals at their finest!

So then chimps have G/gods and morals like us?

What about the NEGATIVE MENTAL IMPACT of atheists claiming the FALLACY that everyone is born an atheist?

Yes, that video says it all! Lovely bunch.

 

@ Kokomojojo

Sometimes you make me laugh, and sometimes you don't.

 

Churchill publicly declared his war aim to be the wrecking of the power of the German people, but the real motive was to extinguish their economic/banking independence.

Germany progressed from economic tatters circa 1930 (where a wheelbarrel load of money was needed to buy a loaf of bread) to great prosperity in just 3 years. Instead of borrowing money from the international banks, they issued their own money.

If you go against the international bankers by not borrowing from them, you incur their wrath. They are the real enemies of peace. Check history: the Rothchilds financed both sides of more than one war.

Jackson, Lincoln, and JFK were targeted for the same reason.

 

So it was OK to gas 6-million poor Jewish people, because The Rothschilds?

 

...

 

No worries. Do you have any comments on what I actually did post (here)?

This seems to be a way more complicated issue than we've given it credit for in this thread. I can respect a person without respecting every single belief they hold. I think there are ideas/beliefs that are not worthy of respect (I personally prefer to address the person respectfully regardless, but I'm not surprised that people respond respectlessly to ideas which to them do not seem worthy of respect), I don't think we are required to respect every idea. I don't think we are justified in ignoring reasonable arguments just because we think we deserve more respect than we think we were given.

 

When I was very young, back in the olden days, my grandmother used to tell us, while she was beating it into us into submission with her wooden spoon - if you do not have anything nice to say, keep your gawd damned stinking trap shut.

We could learn a great deal from them extremely wise old-timers...

Yes, the point is this - atheists have no more proof for not God, than theists have for God.

 

You are projecting human motivation on animal conduct whether they are our pets or wild, thus creating a fantasy which exists nowhere but in your mind. As for faith, it is what motivates every person to persevere. It is not a "rabbit hole". And repentance is what you do when you trespass against another. For instance, you might say, I'm sorry. There is nothing supernatural, alien or contrived about our higher nature except for psychopaths who attempt to approximate the trait.