Atheist for an hour

Certainly not a good decision maker. If one had a boss like that, it could drive one crazy. But, then, it's written that we have free will -- so does Mother Nature.

0 Replies

Lightwizard says: "I don't believe a "Creator" has an intelligence we lowly humans understand. That's the ultimate human egoism that it is anything like us."
I agree. Something that could create a universe must be INFINITELY beyond our intelligence, perhaps like an ant understanding our present conversation. Our "egoism" is expressed in the assumption of some of us that the Cosmos reflects INTELLIGENT design. We can determine the IQ of God by His works? Perhaps he is an idiot savant with a touch of autism--and definitely an overachiever.

Ya basta!

0 Replies

I don't even go that far. I don't believe in any "creator" with a super intelligence beyond the conscience of humans or not.

0 Replies

Me either, C.I., but I was just trying to evaluate the Intellligent Designers' conclusions after hypothetically accepting their presupposition about God's existence.

0 Replies

I don't think it can be "beyond" anything. There is no beyond in the Universe. Infinity confounds our conception of being and we have come up with a lot of different answers, many of those in religion. It doesn't communicate with anyone, at least if they're out of an asylum. Science just tries to explain how it works based on intelligent conclusions from logically perceived evidence, some of it not demonstrable as far as reenacting it. I'm really addressing those who are trying to hard sell intelligent design. They're in a semantic quagmire there. They might as well be trying to sell me a refrigerator with a heater inside.

0 Replies

LW, Will a combo work?

0 Replies

A fridge with a jazz combo inside would be nice. At least we'd have music.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Eorl wrote:
Meanwhile, it seems as though fresco was right. Nobody is actually prepared to try this?

I'm not prepared to try it again Earl. Like RealLife I know what it is like to not believe for awhile and found that I didn't like it. And like George, I spent a time trying to deny my religious faith; either shuck it or adopt something "better". And I finally wound up back at a point of truth that I could not deny.

But having been in both places, I like the place I am in much MUCH better than not being a believer.

Is "liking" it a good enough reason? (You think atheists "want" there to be no heaven?)

A similar question, but not the same; Does this mean you admit that your belief is based on your need to do so, rather than any objective reality?

0 Replies

Eorl wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
Eorl wrote:
Meanwhile, it seems as though fresco was right. Nobody is actually prepared to try this?

I'm not prepared to try it again Earl. Like RealLife I know what it is like to not believe for awhile and found that I didn't like it. And like George, I spent a time trying to deny my religious faith; either shuck it or adopt something "better". And I finally wound up back at a point of truth that I could not deny.

But having been in both places, I like the place I am in much MUCH better than not being a believer.

Is "liking" it a good enough reason? (You think atheists "want" there to be no heaven?)

A similar question, but not the same; Does this mean you admit that your belief is based on your need to do so, rather than any objective reality?

Liking something I think is not a choice. It is a result of a choice. And no, it is not sufficient reason to not change. I may like chocolate very much, but that is not a sufficient reason to not stop eating chocolate if I'm allergic to it. But liking being where you are is a pleasant experience when one finds himself/herself in a good place or enjoying a good thing.

Yes, I think Atheists want there to be no heaven, no hell, no God, no benefit from religion. That is the only way they can justify the doctrine they support and that's why they so vigorously attempt to discredit religion sometimes to the point of trying to eliminate all evidence of it from public society. It is the religion they have chosen. (I also think they are sufficiently uncertain about all that so that they are drawn to threads about religion. Smile

)

I think the truly nonreligious are indifferent to religion and feel no need to discredit it or avoid it or even deal with it. They might explore it or enjoy participating in it or give it no attention at all in the same way that we might or might not find science fiction or other escapist pursuits to be aesthetically pleasing or have an entertainment or social value. A generic public prayer bothers them no more than somebody reciting the company slogan. That is different from Atheism which I define as being its own religion albeit one that attempts to deny a deity rather than worship one. Some Atheists are as zealous and aggressive in their advocacy for their beliefs as is any fundamentalist "are you saved, Brother?" Christian.

And yes, like our body having a need for certain vitamins etc. that we may not fully understand or may not even be aware of, I have come to believe that everybody has a need for God. I think it is what drives us on our spiritual journeys and keeps us wondering and thinking about it and asking questions even for those who are angry or offended by religious things or concepts. For me that is an objective reality.

But that is purely my opinion/conviction/belief/whatever and I do not require that anybody else share it.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Yes, I think Atheists want there to be no heaven, no hell, no God, no benefit from religion. That is the only way they can justify the doctrine they support and that's why they so vigorously attempt to discredit religion sometimes to the point of trying to eliminate all evidence of it from public society. It is the religion they have chosen. (I also think they are sufficiently uncertain about all that so that they are drawn to threads about religion. )

I think this is a common misconception of atheism. Who, in there right minds, would not want eternal life, reunion with loved ones, happiness forever, etc. It's just that some of us don't let that desire blind us to what we see as the obvious truth. Lifeforms live their lives, and die.

Foxfyre wrote:

I think the truly nonreligious are indifferent to religion and feel no need to discredit it or avoid it or even deal with it.

I think that would be largely true if it wasn't for September 11, the Kansas/Dover School Board, the abortion issue holding elections to ransom, etc, etc, etc...

0 Replies

And marriage for gays.

0 Replies

Eorl wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

Yes, I think Atheists want there to be no heaven, no hell, no God, no benefit from religion. That is the only way they can justify the doctrine they support and that's why they so vigorously attempt to discredit religion sometimes to the point of trying to eliminate all evidence of it from public society. It is the religion they have chosen. (I also think they are sufficiently uncertain about all that so that they are drawn to threads about religion. )

I think this is a common misconception of atheism. Who, in there right minds, would not want eternal life, reunion with loved ones, happiness forever, etc. It's just that some of us don't let that desire blind us to what we see as the obvious truth. Lifeforms live their lives, and die.

Well as I said, I don't require anybody to accept my point of view on this. My experience with Atheists, however, are that they are every bit as passionate about their 'religion' as Christians or any other faith are passionate about theirs. And they promote it with missionary zeal.

The nonreligious, as I explained, do not concern themselves with religion and they don't need to excoriate, ridicule, or hold in contempt those who do. They aren't bothered by a religious word on a coin or in the Pledge or a religious piece of art is placed in a public building. They are truly live and let live people. Many if not most Atheists are not. Even you phrased a 'desire for heaven, etc.' as being 'blind to what (Atheists) see as the obvious truth'.

Quote:

Quote:
I think the truly nonreligious are indifferent to religion and feel no need to discredit it or avoid it or even deal with it.

I think that would be largely true if it wasn't for September 11, the Kansas/Dover School Board, the abortion issue holding elections to ransom, etc, etc, etc...

For the life of me I do not see any relationship whatsoever that 9/11 or any school issue or abortion or elections, etc. etc. etc. has to your original question, the question I most recently answered, or the nonreligious that I described.

Are you sure you carefully read what I wrote? Because your responses seem to be a bit nonresponsive.

0 Replies

Foxfyre, I understand how you see this, the capital "A" atheists being just another proselytizing religion, the equal and opposite belief. (Indeed, Frank the Devout Agnostic probably would have agreed with you.)

However, what I'm saying is that the "non-religious" as you put it, are only happy to sit back and take it for so long...up to the point where it bothers them personally...this is apathy, not virtue.

9/11 had something of a galvanizing or even polarizing effect on the world. I can promise you, the non-religious family members of the people who died on September 11, or on the London tube, are not OK with it.

The time has come for people to be honest about what they KNOW and what they simply have FAITH in, and to stop forcing matters of their FAITH on those of us who do not share it, and find such reasoning faulty and/or dishonest.

To accept the ten commandments on the wall of a courtroom as valid, is to accept September 11 as equally valid. (Not equally "bad", just equally valid in terms of unsupportable religious motive.)

0 Replies

Eorl wrote:

Foxfyre, I understand how you see this, the capital "A" atheists being just another proselytizing religion, the equal and opposite belief. (Indeed, Frank the Devout Agnostic probably would have agreed with you.)

However, what I'm saying is that the "non-religious" as you put it, are only happy to sit back and take it for so long...up to the point where it bothers them personally...this is apathy, not virtue.

9/11 had something of a galvanizing or even polarizing effect on the world. I can promise you, the non-religious family members of the people who died on September 11, or on the London tube, are not OK with it.

The time has come for people to be honest about what they KNOW and what they simply have FAITH in, and to stop forcing matters of their FAITH on those of us who do not share it, and find such reasoning faulty and/or dishonest.

To accept the ten commandments on the wall of a courtroom as valid, is to accept September 11 as equally valid. (Not equally "bad", just equally valid in terms of unsupportable religious motive.)

Nonsense. A piece of art on a courtroom (or any other) wall, religious or not, is nothing more than a piece of art. To equate that as no different from madmen committed to creating as much death, pain, suffering, and horror as possible is waaaaaaay beyond anything I would ever accept as reasonable. If you think Atheists don't see a difference, then you are condemning them to the deranged category far more than any Christian I know would do that.

Forcing one's religion on others is not what this discussion was about, or at least it wasn't the discussion I thought you were initiating. But if that's where you want to go with this, I know no Christians anywhere who are any more obnoxious with their religion than are zealous Atheists obnoxious with theirs. And if it is the evils of religion you are actually interested in, you misrepresented that with your thread starter, and I'll bow out in deference to those who might be interested in rehashing all of that again. Just bear in mind that you are not really discussing religion at all in that context, however, but rather the difference between good and evil.

0 Replies

Relevant or not, Eori's point makes very good sense.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Eorl wrote:
Foxfyre, I understand how you see this, the capital "A" atheists being just another proselytizing religion, the equal and opposite belief. (Indeed, Frank the Devout Agnostic probably would have agreed with you.)

However, what I'm saying is that the "non-religious" as you put it, are only happy to sit back and take it for so long...up to the point where it bothers them personally...this is apathy, not virtue.

9/11 had something of a galvanizing or even polarizing effect on the world. I can promise you, the non-religious family members of the people who died on September 11, or on the London tube, are not OK with it.

The time has come for people to be honest about what they KNOW and what they simply have FAITH in, and to stop forcing matters of their FAITH on those of us who do not share it, and find such reasoning faulty and/or dishonest.

To accept the ten commandments on the wall of a courtroom as valid, is to accept September 11 as equally valid. (Not equally "bad", just equally valid in terms of unsupportable religious motive.)

Nonsense. A piece of art on a courtroom (or any other) wall, religious or not, is nothing more than a piece of art. To equate that as no different from madmen committed to creating as much death, pain, suffering, and horror as possible is waaaaaaay beyond anything I would ever accept as reasonable. If you think Atheists don't see a difference, then you are condemning them to the deranged category far more than any Christian I know would do that.

Forcing one's religion on others is not what this discussion was about, or at least it wasn't the discussion I thought you were initiating. But if that's where you want to go with this, I know no Christians anywhere who are any more obnoxious with their religion than are zealous Atheists obnoxious with theirs. And if it is the evils of religion you are actually interested in, you misrepresented that with your thread starter, and I'll bow out in deference to those who might be interested in rehashing all of that again. Just bear in mind that you are not really discussing religion at all in that context, however, but rather the difference between good and evil.

I didn't say equally bad, I said equally valid. The argument you use to accept the 10 commandments in the courtroom "My god said so, and I don't need to prove it" can be used to justify anything...including 9/11.

There you go again, equating belief with a lack of belief.

Imagine this scenario....

Theist and atheist are put in a room. On a table there's a box.

Atheist says "oh, a box. Let's see what's inside"

Theist says "No, my god says looking in boxes is forbidden. Neither of us will look in that box"

The kind of atheist you profess respect for says "Sure, no problem."

The point of this thread is to assist people to understand what atheism really is, rather than what they assume it to be. You are certainly helping me with that, so thank you.

0 Replies

Eorl wrote:

Meanwhile, it seems as though fresco was right. Nobody is actually prepared to try this?

I will!

My belief is that man will become god, or god-like, or a reasonable facsimile by present standards, via technology. I can deny this belief by imagining we self-destruct before that point.

I am not convinced a theist must by default adhere to supernatural idealizations.

0 Replies

Chumly,

My aphorism " people are their beliefs" was made in the context of a "traditional omnicient God" where the "self" was defined in terms of a mutual relationship or transaction between the "two" parties. Your own definition of "God" as a position to which we move or aspire is essentially antithetical (indeed heretical) to "tradition".

0 Replies

Eorl wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
Eorl wrote:
Foxfyre, I understand how you see this, the capital "A" atheists being just another proselytizing religion, the equal and opposite belief. (Indeed, Frank the Devout Agnostic probably would have agreed with you.)

However, what I'm saying is that the "non-religious" as you put it, are only happy to sit back and take it for so long...up to the point where it bothers them personally...this is apathy, not virtue.

9/11 had something of a galvanizing or even polarizing effect on the world. I can promise you, the non-religious family members of the people who died on September 11, or on the London tube, are not OK with it.

The time has come for people to be honest about what they KNOW and what they simply have FAITH in, and to stop forcing matters of their FAITH on those of us who do not share it, and find such reasoning faulty and/or dishonest.

To accept the ten commandments on the wall of a courtroom as valid, is to accept September 11 as equally valid. (Not equally "bad", just equally valid in terms of unsupportable religious motive.)

Nonsense. A piece of art on a courtroom (or any other) wall, religious or not, is nothing more than a piece of art. To equate that as no different from madmen committed to creating as much death, pain, suffering, and horror as possible is waaaaaaay beyond anything I would ever accept as reasonable. If you think Atheists don't see a difference, then you are condemning them to the deranged category far more than any Christian I know would do that.

Forcing one's religion on others is not what this discussion was about, or at least it wasn't the discussion I thought you were initiating. But if that's where you want to go with this, I know no Christians anywhere who are any more obnoxious with their religion than are zealous Atheists obnoxious with theirs. And if it is the evils of religion you are actually interested in, you misrepresented that with your thread starter, and I'll bow out in deference to those who might be interested in rehashing all of that again. Just bear in mind that you are not really discussing religion at all in that context, however, but rather the difference between good and evil.

I didn't say equally bad, I said equally valid. The argument you use to accept the 10 commandments in the courtroom "My god said so, and I don't need to prove it" can be used to justify anything...including 9/11.

There you go again, equating belief with a lack of belief.

Imagine this scenario....

Theist and atheist are put in a room. On a table there's a box.

Atheist says "oh, a box. Let's see what's inside"

Theist says "No, my god says looking in boxes is forbidden. Neither of us will look in that box"

The kind of atheist you profess respect for says "Sure, no problem."

The point of this thread is to assist people to understand what atheism really is, rather than what they assume it to be. You are certainly helping me with that, so thank you.

Atheism is the denial of the supernatural or at least the denial of a supernatural deity or Creator. It's as simple as that.

Your thread starter suggested that you wanted to know whether Christians had ever looked at a world such as that.

I dealt with the thesis I believe was in the thread starter.

You don't seem to wish to discuss the difference between the Atheist and the Christian or other faith and/or the nonreligious that practices none of the above. From the tone and content of your posts, a reasonable person could conclude that you wish to explain and/or defend Atheism far less than you wish to condemn and/or excoriate Christianity. You see, I don't know ANY Christians who wouldn't look in the box. Or any nonreligious for that matter.

I've already been there and done the Christian bashing discussion. And it is inevitably non productive and boring. So, have a good day, a good thread, and we'll catch you on the next topic.

0 Replies

Well, that's too bad you're leaving, it seems there's a lot more fertile ground to plow.

I'm just curious as to how closely you looked in the box. I know we're skirting terribly close to the No True Scotsman Fallacy in reverse, but what was it about atheism that didn't sit with you?

Your brief mention of this aspect in addressing the OP was just that...too brief.

0 Replies

Atheist for an hour

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know