church of atheism

a church of atheism where does it go , one doesn't believe in god , good , now what ? , how does it help Humanity grow , into believing in its self ?

1 Reply

Is bald a hair color?

Is not collecting stamps a hobby?

A
R
T

0 Replies

@north,

north wrote:

a church of atheism where does it go , one doesn't believe in god , good , now what ? , how does it help Humanity grow , into believing in its self ?

Better than believing in randow nonsensical things, I suppose =)

failures art wrote:

Is bald a hair color?

Is not collecting stamps a hobby?

A
R
T

It would seen like you failed at art. Congratulations!

0 Replies

To me the more interesting question is one which does not argue for or against religion (rules, rituals etc) but that which rationally explores the basis of theists and atheists. In other words a belief in a creator of the universe and the opposing belief of no creator. When the question is posed like that and I explore the statements I find that both these beliefs have dogma at their source - An axiom if you wish or an unproven fact. The only 'non religion' in my view is the agnostic position.

1 Reply

@amer,

amer wrote:

In other words a belief in a creator of the universe and the opposing belief of no creator.

A semantic error.

The universe exists. The opposing theories are how/why this is. Supernatural theories like gods are opposed by natural theories. An atheist doesn't have to make a negative thesis, but instead support a positive thesis that doesn't require any supernatural beings (like gods).

A
R
T

1 Reply

@failures art,

You may be right and there may be no god and I doubt that there is, but why make a absolute for or against something that can not be proven?

1 Reply

@reasoning logic,

reasoning logic wrote:

You may be right and there may be no god and I doubt that there is, but why make a absolute for or against something that can not be proven?

I may be wrong, but me being wrong can also mean that there are many, in fact an infinite number of gods. There aren't any agnostics for flying spaghetti monsters. Agnostic philosophy is always pick and choose. For that matter, every single scientific theory I believe could be false, but them being false would not make a single supernatural theory true. For them to be true, they would still need to be supported. It's a false dichotomy to think that if a theory is wrong, that is makes another one true. Scientific theories are not true because religious ones are wrong. Scientific theories are true because they are supported and testable. Scientific theories are found to be wrong all the time, but they aren't invalidated by religion. They are invalidated by better adherence to scientific method and better developments in observation and tooling.

Also, we don't do negative proofs. Atheists have no imperative to disprove what has never been proven. Similarly, if I claimed Napoleon was a red head, it wouldn't be your job to prove he wasn't. The claim belongs to me, and the burden falls on me to support my claims. Now, if I don't put any effort into supporting that he had red hair, does that mean a controversy exists? How is it intellectually superior to assume the agnostic middle ground (metaphorically) that we simply don't know? It is a false stalemate.

A
R
T

2 Replies

@failures art,

Like I said you may be right! I just like Sam Harris's view point on atheism.
I also believe in the flying spaghetti monsters dont you?
Absolutes can get you in trouble so be carefull as you may make more absolutes then what exist!

1 Reply

@reasoning logic,

reasoning logic wrote:

Like I said you may be right! I just like Sam Harris's view point on atheism.

I am particularly fond of Harris's musing on identity regarding atheism.

reasoning logic wrote:

I also believe in the flying spaghetti monsters dont you?

I'm not willing to commit to saying that they don't exist. Razz

reasoning logic wrote:

Absolutes can get you in trouble so be carefull as you may make more absolutes then what exist!

I disagree. The worst that happens is that I might be wrong. This when compared to not settling into any absolute, is easy. Agnosticism is guaranteed to be wrong, ultimately.

A
R
T

1 Reply

@failures art,

failures art wrote:

reasoning logic wrote:

Like I said you may be right! I just like Sam Harris's view point on atheism.

I am particularly fond of Harris's musing on identity regarding atheism.

reasoning logic wrote:

I also believe in the flying spaghetti monsters dont you?

I'm not willing to commit to saying that they don't exist.

reasoning logic wrote:

Absolutes can get you in trouble so be carefull as you may make more absolutes then what exist!

I disagree. The worst that happens is that I might be wrong. This when compared to not settling into any absolute, is easy. Agnosticism is guaranteed to be wrong, ultimately.

A
R
T

Your quote ; [The worst that happens is that I might be wrong] If you are ever wrong are you going to believe that you are absolutely right or are you going to believe that you are absolutely wrong, "or are you not going to even catch that you are absolutely wrong when it is happening? Wink

1 Reply

@reasoning logic,

When what is happening? Specifically.

A
R
T

1 Reply

@failures art,

Absolutes

1 Reply

@reasoning logic,

When is that? I'm serious.

A
R
T

1 Reply

@failures art,

Are you never wrong? it seems that it is these absolutes that make us wrong much of the time.

1 Reply

@reasoning logic,

I'm wrong quite frequently. In fact, I'm positive the the greatest minds of today are simply waiting to be found wrong by the greatest minds of tomorrow.

The evolution of the atomic model is a perfect analogy. The first person to imagine sub-atomics was quite right, and yet they have been invalidated numerous times since. Once we thought electrons orbited the nucleus. That model has been replaced by fields, which has been replaced by electrons phasing in and out of reality in a predictable way. This model will eventually be replaced as well.

Being wrong is worth celebration, quite often because it means progression in intellectual pursuits.

A
R
T

1 Reply

@failures art,

Very good now you need to become a preacher and get the church to understand this and if you are able to, we will see a advancement in mankind that puts the computer advancements to shame. lol

1 Reply

@reasoning logic,

I don't need to be a preacher. Who needs a pulpit, when you got this here fancy schmancy box of soap!

http://fearlessblogger.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/soapbox.jpg

A
R
T

1 Reply

@failures art,

I think you lost me on that one

1 Reply

@reasoning logic,

Wiki wrote:

A soapbox is a raised platform on which one stands to make an impromptu speech, often about a political subject. The term originates from the days when speakers would elevate themselves by standing on a wooden crate originally used for shipment of soap or other dry goods from a manufacturer to a retail store.

The term is also used metaphorically to describe a person engaging in often flamboyant impromptu or unofficial public speaking, as in the phrases "He's on his soapbox", or "Get off your soapbox." Hyde Park, London is known for its Sunday soapbox orators, who have assembled at Speakers' Corner since 1872 to discuss religion, politics and other topics. A modern form of the soapbox is a blog: a website on which a user publishes one's thoughts to whoever reads the page.

Soapbox

Sorry. I was making fun of myself. I didn't mean to confuse you.

A
R
T

1 Reply

@failures art,

Thank you! I am cool it was just a term I never heard of.

0 Replies

church of atheism

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know