Can atheism coexist with religion?

This is absolutely true and I have tried to point out the logical problems with that position before, to no avail.

 

Agreed.

Disagreed. The fact human beings all over the planet and separated by geography for thousands of years all developed forms of spiritual beliefs should be a clue that human beings are not just mind and body, but have a spiritual component as well. As previously posted, "religion" is a tool for spiritual enlightenment, but not everyone uses it for that purpose.

 

Personal beliefs always seem to get into trouble with logic. And whenever it happens, logic is either thrown away overtly, or people will work hard to make the logical, illogical, but are not using logic and reason to do it. Their general tactic is to attempt to confuse the logical with BS, over riding logic with inane complications and complexity, in an attempt to confuse the logic of the issue. So one must be vigilant against these most nefarious and illogical creatures who are attempting to back up their thinking that they actually possess certainty, when that is simply impossible given the nature of the beast.

It is apparently human nature, this demand for certainty, and being able to express it. I understand that. I can see within myself WHY this is a demand. I just refuse to submit to it, due to the logic involved in being unable to submit to it. Logic will not allow me to express certainty in regards to a god or no god. Atheists have no such problem, or at least the ones here on this forum.

Atheism or theism, is simply a claim that man can KNOW, what is impossible to know. And yet an atheist will never be honest and admit the obvious fact of being unable to actually know with any certainty. The theists have sort of a way out of this by basing their own beliefs upon this thing called faith. Faith is thinking that something is true, not using evidence of such, but by having a faith that without what is called scientific evidence, that what they think is still true. The atheist will never admit to faith, for they tie that in with the religious. They will just say science backs up their beliefs, while in fact, science is not at all concerned with this god issue as a part of the scientific method. Except, that they want to explain how things work, or how those things came to be, using philosophical materialism as their foundation. And yet it has always been known by the educated that materialism is an assumption, used as a foundation in order to understand the universe in a mechanistic materialistic process. And yet materialism cannot in and of itself, even prove the truth of philosophical materialism. No more than the bible can prove itself to be true. You have to assume the bible is true, or that materialism is true as to the nature of reality.

 

As I've said many times, the evidence is irrefutable. But why do you ask for evidence when what you really demand is proof?
And when it comes to the scientific theory of creation, not only do you lack proof, you have zero evidence. You require as much faith in the scientific theory of creation, and there are many such theories, as any theist.

 

Who said that it did? Not me. I only said that religion and to some degree philosophy has been the traditional conduit for morality. Unless you can prove to us that great atheist and widespread atheist organizations also were conduits for morality.

Religion appears, at least in its more primitive forms, like the shamans of tribal cultures, to have arisen very early in primitive homo sapien sapiens. And it was universal, spanning regions and cultures. And I doubt it had one single cause, as some on your side want to believe. Yes it may have arose as man tried to make sense of his existence, to understand how the world came to be as well as man himself. I have little doubt about that. But there is also the valid idea that the drugs like DMT that is contained in so many plants, may have had a role in it as well. To be exposed to what is common with DMT, a set of higher beings, gods if you will. If you have ever done sufficient doses of DMT, and read about the research by Strassman, a very serious scientist, with DMT there is a commonality of these gods that are experienced, while on the chemical, from people to people. Certain images of gods appear to most of these people, without having a knowledge of these gods. In other words, it is very common for people to experience the same gods while on this substance, without ever being told of what these gods look like. Just that fact gives some credence to the role these mind altering drugs played in the formation of the more primitive religions. And it may have affected even the later religions, as well. My point being, there may be more than just one cause for religion.

 

Extraordinary claims on your part require extraordinary evidence and/or proof.

You can't provide any.

Got it!

The theist FALLACY that there even was a "creation" also requires extraordinary evidence on the part of theists.

To date they haven't delivered squat.

On the other hand SCIENCE has delivered the Laws of Physics that establish that there was NO NEED for any "creation" event.

The Universe has always existed and will always exist in one form or another per the Laws of Physics.

I don't need any "faith" to UNDERSTAND the Laws of Physics.

 

We have already established that other species have morality. It is a survival strategy that works.

That religion nefariously pretends to be the arbiter of morality while preaching immoral bigotry destroys any shred of credibility it may have when it comes to morality.

 

Had I stated what you claim I did...Okay, However I did not. I did state we do not attack your God but certainly do question the books people write about it. Many Atheists (myself included) certainly call out individual theists such as yourself, just as many Dems call out Republicans when they speak falsehood...it is much the same. Usually this involves a Christian trying to claim a Biblical story (such as the flood or resurrection) is true even though impossible and they then get pissed, claim attack and distract the debate into something else.

 

We don't think science attacks religion, atheists attack religion, and they think they own science.

 

You do not believe in people, who tell you god spoke with them. You don't think you know that Moses, Jesus and Buddha are liars, or do you?

 

I've never heard of the "scientific theory of Creation"....could you provide a link?

Do you mean the Abiogenesis hypothesis?

 

Agreed, although morality is really not hardwired, behavior, as in other animals. Nor have they created codes of conduct, which must be passed on, for theirs is genetically hardwired. Ours isn't. Ours must be taught.

And I have little doubt that the morality of humanity came about not as something being genetic, but as to the fruits of our different kind of brains, minds, observing that particular behavior in human groups created conflict, to the point that it became an issue for survival. For instance, taking another persons food, or having sex with their mate, or of killing another tribe member out of jealousy and anger. None of these acts would add a thing to the relationships between people within the tribe. And so morality, moral codes of behavior probably arose due to our different brains and not being hardwired to be moral human beings, which would overrule selfish behavior. We put some of these moral values into concrete as law, with punishment for breaking it. All of this was in the interest of peace within a tribe, and being able to cooperate. Might be harder to cooperate with some dude who just stole your daily meal, and he kept doing it because he was larger than you. And at the end of the day, morality became a part of the survival mechanism for the species. And religion became the conduit for passing on this morality, arrived at by observation and trial and error on the part of humans. I sense that you don't much like this, for it gives some importance to religion, and its role in the rise of humanity and its survival. And you think religion has no importance at all, and only dunces find value in it. ha ha

 

If they think God spoke to them, it doesn't make them liars.

 

No - there are too many. Start with primordial soup.

 

But you don't seem to see the non-extreme of the atheist side, which was shown by your utterly ridiculous claim that most atheists on this forum advocate eliminating religion through violence.

 

I don't think that Moses existed and I don't think Gautama claimed God spoke with him.

 

"Bernie Sanders loses it"? Russell Vought showed himself to be a bigot.

 

I think the problem would be mostly eliminated if Christians would just follow the early Christian rule of keeping their religion "secret, silent, and sacred". End proselytizing and the problem vanishes largely.

 

That is hypothesis and even then deals with life not creation. So it would seem you are referring to the hypothetical mix of Chemical/Energy resulting in the initiation of reproducing cellular activity?

 

I have NEVER seen or heard of this in any form until YOU just made it up....care to provide even a single instance that we do not consider you untruthful?

 

let's list the possibilities of what they could be...grifters trying to con people for power and wealth, drug induced simpletons or just plain nuts...

 

A single instance of what? Of Max Rockatansky claiming that most atheists want to eliminate religion through violence? You can find his ridiculous claim in post 24 of this very thread.

 

Bernie Sanders was grilling Russell and his theological view, which he had no business doing.

 

we are not special, we are animals.
people raised without religion show the same morality if not better than religious followers...the code of conduct for hate, intolerance and violence is very much a part of religion, so for that part you are correct it is taught and contrary to natural human behaviour...

 

My mistake and apology.