Atheism is a religion

I wasn't defending subjectivity. I was clarifying his position.

I'm simply saying if no one agrees I have a right, IN PRACTICE (not ideally, perhaps I do in a perfect world where logic rules and all rational people would recognize the right) then for all intents and purposes I do not. And human offspring are very good at mimicking what they have learned from their parents/authority figures.

Well I'd need to see how Dawkins would answer the objection of feral children. But it seems to be strongly against any kind of genetic component.

People figured out they could get more done working together than killing each other. Humans do have some sort of innate rationality that other animals do not. And certain things are more beneficial to the group, such as not lying, because then you could lead me into danger, or not stealing, because then you could cause me to starve.

As to being across cultures, those things like what you mentioned affect everyone in the human condition. Morality has also changed a lot actually over the centuries. Women were thought of inferior to men, African Americans were enslaved, and homosexuals were seen as defective somehow. And all of these were defended on the grounds that this is how "things just are." And people strongly (and I think wrongly) defended these ideas for a long period of time, and some people still defend them today.

As to your last point that something caused us to different, that could have been the beneficial aspects of living in a group. I don't know if you are saying God here, so I won't respond to that unless you say that's what you believe.

 

That's a deep philosophical problem. We could all be seeing an illusion, and have no way to overcome it. It's an interesting idea to think about.

I also did not make the argument about God and science, I was responding to someone else. So I am not sure what you are saying. I will tell you what I think you are saying and then you tell me whether I am right or not. You are saying that our existence is only the world we know, but there could be another world we don't know about. And I don't know about this other world unless I communicate with something from that world. Hopefully this is what you meant.

Yeah weird quantum physics stuff. I'll have to think about this more. Are you trying to make the point that reality could be really trippy and unintuitive?

 

Yes, its your position that the world needs nothing of compassion, of selflessness, of charity, service, honor, family, and faith.

What terribly superstitious nonesense.

Why would anyone choose an atheism bereft of these things.

 

And I believe I was rebutting it.

And yet people can choose family as a methodology of advancement and they can choose to reject it. In fact, history is replete with examples of both.

I still fail to understand why atheists insist on their breaking with their 'family' is a good thing, as if that in and of itself is what defines them. The breaking of a family is a terrible thing. An honest spiritual choice is not - in fact, its a very good thing.

Dawkins claims that morality has a genetic basis. Its hardwired into us. Perhaps it is, for some men are born with characters of iron, and others are not. But I challenge any genetics professor to find a tangible DNA difference between an honest man and a crook.

Then why are there murders and wars in this day and age where we have figured this out? Certain people lie all the time, they fight and even kill all the time. There are drunken bafoons, tyrants, broken hearted, the dejected, the arrogant, etc.

The human afliction remains despite our intellect. THe traps of sin remain. Adultry caused great heart ache millenia ago, and it continues to do so today.

The idea that we have beaten sin through intellect is ... well, not very intellectual.

The plight of women has risen and fallen through history, as it has for homosexuals.

What makes you think that the conditions that have allowed this to come to pass cannot be revolked? Have you noticed the Taliban per chance?

Yet, ever was it a sin to deny a human their humanity. It remains so. What is right and what are accepted have not changed. We can deny it for a time, but invariably, it comes to pass again.

Well, it is God.

The morality of the Roman world was brutal, little removed in reality than from animals. That all changes about 2,000 years ago with a coming of one man. Further afield, bit not far away comes another single man, and those two concepts continue to dominate the world view in terms of morality and establishing our systems.

To say that Christiany and Islam have not profoundly shaped the world we live in is to be deliberately blind.

We did not arrive here through the force of intellect alone.

 

Philosophical problems are flat problems - the survival of all life on earth and in the universe is a deep problem.

Not really. We are using a kind of reality simulator called "brain and body" for our thoughts and everything what we do. Often we are confusing reality with the simulations we are doing.

Aha

Afterwards you would also not knoe what's right or wrong. We could be both right or wrong.

No.

There are lots of words we don't know anything about. You don't know for example anything about the world of my own language. But the problems in case of the universe at all is it that the structures of time, space, energy and informations could be compleltly in another way if other uinverses would exist. As long as this universes are not communictaing with us we don't have any chance to say anythgin about. What is doing no interaction is not existing for all this tings what are not interacting. What we are able to notice is always only interaction. We could live within thousands of universes and/or the kingdom of god - but we would not be able to notice this as long as nothing interacts.

Seems to me that I mean this.

¿?

No - I'm thinking god is no liar. And IöM also thinking intuition is unbelievable important. If god shows us ways then this ways are real (also illusions are somehow real and are telling us something). I'm thinking everyone is able to start at any point in this universe, with any thought and he will be able ot find the truth, if he likes to search the truth.

http://youtu.be/9kENJm15zPU

 

Anobitsar - I find your posting a bit difficult to follow.

Yes - I think I agree with that.

 

I don't understand your first sentence AT ALL. The world need a great deal of some of those things, but it certainly won't get them from American fundamentalism, which is about pretending to believe lies and calling that 'faith', and about negating Christianity for a bullying, stupified religiosity. 'Atheism' is just a negative version of fundamentalism: move on.

 

Agh, I see, first its a rant about the superstitions of religion in general and how it is dying, and when we mention the things that are central to our faith, well, now its American fundamentalism that is the issue?

Atheism is now a reaction against that is it? Its just a nihilism then, with no scientific foundation in facts or rationality whatsoever?

In other words, atheism can, and indeed does, shift on a dime in order to become whatever it needs to be in order to disagree with someone in a belittling fashion.

You speak pretty tightly about lies, odd.

 

It is difficult, I suppose, to get an American (as I take it you are) actually to READ what anyone else has written. I regard the whole 'religious/atheist' drama as on a par with arguments about phlogiston - it is not a discussion serious people should engage in unless the alternative is to watch paint dry. There was immense good in Christianity, in the various religions, and in early science: we should learn from all three, but pay attention to the real world we actually live in.

 

Ohhhh. The ambiguity of words.

Notice the use of the root word "reason" (normal thinking). So exactly what are you trying to say about people who possess "normal thinking" abilities?

Also notice the use of the word 'or'; meaning that the expressions before and after the word 'or' are equally enforceable in either of the conditions cited.

 

Can't you have a discussion in normal English without playing these games? They seem a bit silly.

 

They only appear as "silly" to you, when they defy the claims that you are making. Though words can be and are ambiguously used, they have power of their own, and there is nothing that you can do about it but to accept that fact, else the words will be continuously nipping at your butt.

 

Stick to beer, lad.

 

Coffee, Sweet tea, milk, Pepsi Cola, and an occasional Mountain Dew,,, but definitely no beer or other alcoholic beverage, laddie.

 

Well, the problem is that I read what you are saying, and the fact that I disagree with you may come as a shock .... but, I disagree with you.

Anyone who thinks a person of faith does not live in or pay attention to the real world.

I mean did you know that once you become Christian, you never get another bill? No worry about employment, I mena bills just don;t happen in the Christian world!

Your children are actually perfect as well, I mean you are imbued with perfect parentage just by becoming Christian.

There are no car accidents in the world of Christians, did you know that? Nothing ever breaks either.

I mean I don't even know why the Bible wastes any time discussing sin at all? I mean, once you accept Christianity sin leaves your life - its magic, just like atheists claim.

Do I need tio be Irish (I am) to understand that this is not true? Nigerian? Chinese? What?

I mean what makes you think that Christians do not pay attention to science either?

You appear to be very uninformed about our faith and its teachings.

 

In my view, that line of reasoning is a specious argument presented by those of that point of view. Our Ten Amendments are more comprehensive than any ten religious Commandments. And, as the supreme law of the land, our federal Constitution and Bill of Rights is the fundamental basis for our morals and legal ethics under the common law.

 

And what are this ten amendments?

 

I took a little look now and I'm not really understanding what you like to compare. Do you like to say "The USA is a god and everyone has to follow the rules of this god"? Did you ever read what's really written in this 10 comAmandments?

Amandment II in my german words: The weapon producers, weapon dealers and weapon users have the right to earn a lot of money and are priviledged persons within the USA. This amandment is for example in my eyes nothing else than a joke only and if this would be a law in Germany I had to fight against my own country to change this. No civil defense today in the whole world is able to fight against professional armies. In case the american army would like to transform the USA into a dictatorship, the citizens of the USA would have no chance to stop this process with their own weapons any longer. The only chance is it that the american soldiers love their own country. This amendment II is just simple antiquated and is not in correlation with any comparable law of any other democratic nation in this world. It's in my eyes crazy how easy it is for everyone to become a violent criminal or to do [extended] suicide(s). I don't know what this institutionalized weapon fanaticism costs the citizens of the USA in general - but this second amendment for example is for nearly no one in the world understandable. It's everything else than comprehensive - it's destructive.

-----

In the last days the mountain of the Lord's temple will be established as chief among the mountains; it will be raised above the hills, and peoples will stream to it. Many nations will come and say, 'Come, let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob. He will teach us his ways, so that we may walk in his paths.' The law will go out from Zion, the word of the Lord from Jerusalem. He will judge between many peoples and will settle disputes for strong nations far and wide. They will beat their swords into ploughshares and their spears into pruning hooks. Nation will not take up sword against nation, nor will they train for war any more. Everyone will sit under their own vine and under their own fig-tree, and no-one will make them afraid, for the Lord Almighty has spoken. All the nations may walk in the name of their gods; we will walk in the name of the Lord our God for ever and ever. http://youtu.be/YaqQnhBtxaI

 

i.e. 'The property of the rich is sacrosanct and they owe nothing to anyone'. Sounds a good system for porkers.

 

Ok, your mind is a vessel to be filled, not a fire to be kindled. Not telling what you want to hear is dodging. Sorry for misunderstanding..

Everyone sees that you have called child abusers the smartest people in society.
Everyone sees your attempt to derail the topic to the treatment of homosexuals infiltrating the CC by the CC.

1. And if I don’t say God exists and don’t refuse to say logic and refuse to tell you that my methods will actually lead you to the creator, then ???
2. What am I saying?

What am I saying?

ersion of Christianity you adhere to (though you don't say how you know this).

You have quoted me. Who are you replying to?

Total rubbish! Who has come up with such rubbish void of not only logic? What kind of an angry teenager abused by parents or scientists, college professor and intellectuals has made it up?

That seems to be the outline of what you are saying.

So, it is you who has made it up.


1. If you want to talk about God or a cube, God as well as cube has to be defined. (only an angry abused teenager can refer to God as to capitol IT ).

Ask a Xn:
– “The supreme God is a Being eternal, infinite, absolutely perfect. He is not Eternity and Infinity, but Eternal and Infinite; he is not Duration and Space, but he endures and is present. He endures forever, and is every where present; and, by existing always and every where, he constitutes Duration and Space.
– As a blind man has no idea of colours, so have we no idea of the manner by which the all-wise God perceives and understands all things. He is utterly void of all body and bodily figure, and can therefore neither be seen, nor heard, not touched; nor ought he to be worshipped under the representation of any corporeal thing. We have ideas of his attributes, but what the real substance of anything is we know not.” – Sir Isaac Newton. “Principia mathematica” a.k.a Universal Laws of Gravity a.k.a Laws of Motion.

2. God cannot be understood by human reasoning by the definition.

3. Science has been demonstrated to be a pile of rubbish beliefs.

4. The Bible is said to be the word of God.

5. It is said that God set his Church for people who know him.

What would be the shortest and the most efficient way to come to knowing God if he exists (and to check if he exists)?


Multiple choice:

A. Reasoning and logic of an angry abused teenager.
B. Science.
C. Science and logic of an angry abused teenager.
D. The Bible and a Xn Church.
E. I don’t care there are no gods.

You have been completely escaping both logic and reality. It is a fact. Thus your statement that Logic is not completely escapable is false.

 

Your intellectual dishonesty is showing.

Um.....You don't say God exists and you want to use logic...WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? You've been saying the complete opposite.

You're the one who said science is all stupid and unreliable and God would have to be greater than it. If you don't like that argument examine your own logic. The form is valid, it's called modus ponens, like I explained before, and if you knew anything about logic you would know you have to attack premises, and not go off on rants that are not connected to the discussion.

So I can play this game too. Zeus cannot be understood by human reasoning but is by definition a necessary being, so he can't not exist. There. The definition of Zeus assumes he is incomprehensible and must exist.

Demonstrated how?

Yeah well perhaps I can look at another holy book that says it is divinely inspired. You have failed to show why I should believe the Bible.

Said where? And by whom?

I am regretting engaging with you. You have called scientists child abusers, you are calling me an angry teenager, you keep dodging the issue, and you want God to be male for some strange reason. I hope God doesn't turn out to be female! I'm not sure we can really engage anymore.

 

The Ten Amendments known as our Bill of Rights.

 

You are welcome to your opinion. In my opinion, our Founding Fathers did an excellent job at the convention, with our federal Constitution.

Our Second Amendment is meant to ensure States' rights, not individual liberty since a State may use its sovereign police power to ensure the domestic tranquility and security; even if it must infringe on individual liberty at some point, in the process.

You may not understand our federal form of government. The several States are sovereign within their spheres as is their military. Our National Guard is actually composed of the various militias of the several States.

If gun lovers were to love their republic as much as their guns, even a professional standing army would be at a disadvantage without the goodwill of the populace and economy within which they participate.

 

Sorry for taking so long to respond. I know from experience waiting means other thread responses pile up and it becomes hard to keep up with everything.

I agree that family is good. And if you can stay close with your family (assuming they are good people, don't abuse you, etc) then you should stay with them. And I don't know any atheist who thinks they should break with their family just for the sake of doing it, so I'm not sure what you mean here.

There might be a little bit of genetics. I'm not as informed on this as I should be, but the feral children example shows if there is a genetic component, we need other humans to guide us in "activating" it.

I think you are making a mistake here. There is a famous quote that says man is not a rational animal, but is capable of reason. People are imperfect. Some people have psychological disorders. Some people have genetic predispositions, like you said towards violence or whatever. And in some cases there is downright logical disagreements (like, should one lie in order to save Ann Frank if the Nazis were to come to the door and ask if she was there?). I don't know of any plausible way to evaluate morality without some sort of rationality involved.

I'll respond more to this at the end since you sort of talk about it there too.

Yes, but overall the trend is getting better in western countries. Could you imagine a politician today openly saying women shouldn't be allowed to vote, or that blacks are inferior to whites? In the not too distant past this was still socially acceptable.

Well it has changed for women and African Americans. In the 50s women never worked outside the home, now it is common. There was also segregation, and we don't have that anymore either.

Romans were not the only moral system around. They espoused the philosophy of stoicism, which was to just accept your fate without expressing emotion. They also relied on military might to get what they wanted.

No objection here. Their influence is far and wide.

Ok here is the problem basing morality on God. You may have heard this problem before, but if not I suggest doing a quick google search. It is called the Euthyphro problem, from Plato's dialogue Euthyphro. In it Socrates asks Euthyphro, is an action good because God says it is good or does God recognize it is good and thus say we should do it? If you say an action is good because God says so, then anything God orders (murder, rape) would be moral. If you say God recognizes it as good, then morality is separate from God. And I don't know if this objection has ever been adequately answered, but I would be interested to see your response.

 

Neither of the above, unless the term "existence" is understood in the same way by everyone. I say that God is a spiritual entity existing in our spiritual world only. Trying to justify God's existence by performing laboratory experiments is as inappropriate as trying to justify the age of our planet by quoting from a holy book. Methods of validation of claims in our material world are not the same as those in our spiritual world. Do you agree?