dust1n
Zindīq
Just poking my head in.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Is this Statement Correct in Your View?
- Thread starter RedDragon94
- Start date
Just poking my head in.
I think that they are right to concentrate on the "How" question..
But the problem is with their adopted answers to this "How question".
What a weird parallel. Why are you lumping Richard Dawkins in with WBC and ISIS?
Thief
Rogue Theologian
if you say .....evolution is HOW God did it.....
it still doesn't work for them
i suspect a deeper need to make denial
Atheism doesn't 'ignore' anything. But we try to rely on what we know, fact or evidence that can be corroborated, usually by the scientific method. There are thousands of gods created by humans, one has only to study anthropology and mythology..... men create gods, seems more correct. Gods just won't show up... thus each individual has a different idea of what a 'god' is and does. But regarding 'inherent' meaning to the universe, certainly we can guess at it, but to say a 'god' gives you meaning when you have no idea where 'god' comes from, that's absurd.
Magic Man
Reaper of Conversation
Yes, there is no inherent meaning in the universe. Yes, I do not care about a why, because a why implies some kind of god. If there is no intelligence behind the universe, then there is no "why". It's like asking "why is that rock over there?".
Milton Platt
Well-Known Member
It is incorrect. Atheism is the rejection of a specific claim. As long as you do not have a belief in the existence of deities, you are an atheist. What you believe about anything is independent of that lack of belief
turbopro
New Member
I believe several other posts tried to explain that "atheists" tend to have--like any other homo sapiens--varying understandings, opinions, responses to your original question. So, given that I hold no belief in gods, which may suggest that I am an atheist, allow me to point out that the phrase "atheism assumes" may be non-descript.
Atheism is not a sentient being or an object that may act. Atheism describes a concept that may itself describe a particular homo sapiens' response to the claims made by other homo sapiens about the existence of another being.
Now having said as much above, if your statement had said: "... is why [an atheist] assumes that nature can be completely figured out." Then, IMHO, I should respond--as per other posts above--that perhaps some atheist may make that assumption, and that another atheist may not, and yet another atheist may not know if that assumption is warranted or not.
Technically, that applies to naturalists, who are a subset of all atheists.
And since I am naturalist, I will have to say yes. I believe there is no inherent meaning nor purpose in the Universe.
And it is not true that we do not care if there are whys. We just believe there aren't any.
Ciao
- viole
Well... I'm a theist and I don't think there's any "inherent meaning" to the universe, so...
... bagels?
... bagels?
Cephus
Relentlessly Rational
Why is a silly question because it assumes things that are not in evidence. "Why" assumes purpose. Purpose is not something you can simply propose, it is something you have to discover. Yet theists have no means whatsoever of discovering anything, they can only insist that they know these things, somehow, yet cannot demonstrate how they actually have this supposed knowledge. Meaning is not inherent in anything, theists only insist that it is for emotional comfort.
And we should accept you speak for all theists because.... ?
McBell
Unbound
Is it not true?
With the way so many theists dis on Dawkins AND consider him some sort of atheist leader....
Cephus
Relentlessly Rational
Show me one for whom it's not true, show me one that arrived at a belief in any god purely intellectually and not emotionally. We'll wait.
I've said it before: someone who is as passionately in favour of faith and religion as Richard Dawkins is against it would be something akin to a liberal Anglican priest whose biggest fault to most people would be that he's too boring.
Well, considering there is no such thing as a human who does anything for "purely intellectual" reasons...
Cephus
Relentlessly Rational
Prove it. I reject religion for entirely intellectual reasons.
I don't believe you. I believe you believe that, but I don't believe you. It's not possible that your environment, genetics, and emotions had zero impact. Human behavior isn't purist like mathematical programming - it's the result of many interacting factors.
Oh, forgot to mention - nice moving the goalposts back there. Classic!
Cephus
Relentlessly Rational
I don't care what you believe, I care what you can prove. And I didn't move a thing. You said it wasn't possible, I gave myself as an example and you totally failed to back up your claim. No surprise there.