There is no atheism

[buddhadev]

If there cannot be a reason for our emotions, the time, the land(i.e. matter) then what is the cause of their existence? I bet any one atheist to dare try and give valid reason for his very existence in this universe. Only religion has a answer to this.

 

[LuisDantas]

If there cannot be a reason for our emotions, the time, the land(i.e. matter) then what is the cause of their existence? I bet any one atheist to dare try and give valid reason for his very existence in this universe. Only religion has a answer to this.

Hi, Buddhadev.

So you see a relation between belief in God and those reasons?

IMO there isn't a reason for my existence. If anything, it has been painfully clear that my existence can't possibly be meant. That certainly nudged me towards Atheism to some extent.

Edit: I meant that there isn't, corrected now.

 

[Sunstone]

Does one need a reason for his or her existence?

 

[Father Heathen]

Our purpose is one we choose for yourselves, and the meaning of life and emotions is to live and experience them. Things justify themselves by merely being.

 

[Jeremy Mason]

Does one need a reason for his or her existence?

 

[jarofthoughts]

If there cannot be a reason for our emotions, the time, the land(i.e. matter) then what is the cause of their existence? I bet any one atheist to dare try and give valid reason for his very existence in this universe. Only religion has a answer to this.

Could you clarify somewhat what you mean by your question?
Do you mean the mechanisms that on a cosmological/biological scale led to my existence or do you mean the more philosophical question of "why are we here"?

 

[linwood]

I bet any one atheist to dare try and give valid reason for his very existence in this universe.

There is no "reason" for my existence other than what I myself determine.

Only religion has a answer to this.

Answers are nice, correct answers are even better.

 

[McBell]

If there cannot be a reason for our emotions, the time, the land(i.e. matter) then what is the cause of their existence? I bet any one atheist to dare try and give valid reason for his very existence in this universe. Only religion has a answer to this.

I am confused a bit by your post.
perhaps you can clarify what you mean?

Seems you are claiming that atheists cannot be religious.

 

[bobhikes]

If there cannot be a reason for our emotions, the time, the land(i.e. matter) then what is the cause of their existence? I bet any one atheist to dare try and give valid reason for his very existence in this universe. Only religion has a answer to this.

Nice horse by the way. Horse's are my favorite animal.

First there are reasons's for emotions, time and matter. As to the root cause of their existence it may never be found. As to the reason for any one thing from a specific baterium to a specific human there is none. A specific thing is caused by just a bunch of random events.

How does this relate to the title that there is no Atheism. Atheism is a term indicating non-belief in God. Even if God exists Atheism as defined can still exist. God is his own writings indicates that there will always be people that will not believe.

 

[tarasan]

If there cannot be a reason for our emotions, the time, the land(i.e. matter) then what is the cause of their existence? I bet any one atheist to dare try and give valid reason for his very existence in this universe. Only religion has a answer to this.

ok firstly to clarify to cliam something doesnt exist it must be it must be logically contradictory. anyone disagree

I dont think that your statements logically follow from what i get from your statement your saying this

(1) there is reason for emotions, time, matter
(2) these have a cause
(3) athiests cannot explain the cause
(4) therefore athiesm doesnt exist

i dont see how these points even follow neccessarily from each other, never mind explaining how Athiesm doesnt exist! if you think its an implicit contradiction then your goin to have to clarify yourself! or maybe ive misinterpreted you.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Funny thing is, I am not even an Atheist, and I find their position regarding the existence of a supreme being(s) to be perfectly rational and in line with what is currently known about our universe and natural laws.
Emotions, time, matter, etc, are all explained perfectly without the necessity of God(s).

 

[tarasan]

Funny thing is, I am not even an Atheist, and I find their position regarding the existence of a supreme being(s) to be perfectly rational and in line with what is currently known about our universe and natural laws.
Emotions, time, matter, etc, are all explained perfectly without the necessity of God(s).

i disagree but i most certianly dont find it irrational or internally contradictory as this guy seems to be saying, i dont think he understands the burden of proof that he has, when we makes his cliams

 

[Revoltingest]

Funny thing is, I am not even an Atheist, and I find their position regarding the existence of a supreme being(s) to be perfectly rational and in line with what is currently known about our universe and natural laws.
Emotions, time, matter, etc, are all explained perfectly without the necessity of God(s).

I'd add that even were things not so well explained, I've no need to adopt any
particular view without good reason. No sign of gods ==> No belief in them

 

[freethinker44]

If there cannot be a reason for our emotions, the time, the land(i.e. matter) then what is the cause of their existence? I bet any one atheist to dare try and give valid reason for his very existence in this universe. Only religion has a answer to this.

Don't fault atheists for being intellectually honest and saying "I don't know". We could make something up like any religion does but we prefer knowing truth over filling in the blanks with "god".

 

[LuisDantas]

In any case, atheism certainly does exist.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If there cannot be a reason for our emotions, the time, the land(i.e. matter) then what is the cause of their existence? I bet any one atheist to dare try and give valid reason for his very existence in this universe. Only religion has a answer to this.

Here's an answer:

Gophers

Why is this a better or worse answer than religion's answer?

 

[tarasan]

Here's an answer:

Gophers

Why is this a better or worse answer than religion's answer?

now penguin, mostly because Gophers are little furry rodents.

adorable? yes

does it even attempt to answer the questions listed above? no

I dont think his issue is that athiesm doesnt try and answer the questions rather they give unsatisfactory answers, or at least i hope thats what he means....

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

now penguin, mostly because Gophers are little furry rodents.

adorable? yes

does it even attempt to answer the questions listed above? no

But is "gophers" a better or worse answer than religious explanations for the same thing?

My point is that if we can't demonstrate that religioius "answers" are better at actually answering the relevant questions than one that's obviously arbitrary nonsense, then the fact that religions have them and others don't isn't really a point in favour of religion.

I dont think his issue is that athiesm doesnt try and answer the questions rather they give unsatisfactory answers, or at least i hope thats what he means....

Atheism itself has no answers at all. I got the impression that the OP was complaining about this as if it's a problem, and as if a bad answer is better than no answer.

Many atheist schools of thought answer the "big questions" with answers that range from the (IMO) patently absurd, such as the Raelians, to the non-answer of "let's try to find out the answer" of skepticism.

 

[tarasan]

But is "gophers" a better or worse answer than religious explanations for the same thing?

My point is that if we can't demonstrate that religioius "answers" are better at actually answering the relevant questions than one that's obviously arbitrary nonsense, then the fact that religions have them and others don't isn't really a point in favour of religion.

thats not true even if religion is false, many philosphers find the answers very relevant, because of the effect if has on society, wether it is a model for providing morals or worth or as thing that people unite under, it could be mistaken correct but not arbitrary.

Atheism itself has no answers at all. I got the impression that the OP was complaining about this as if it's a problem, and as if a bad answer is better than no answer.

Many atheist schools of thought answer the "big questions" with answers that range from the (IMO) patently absurd, such as the Raelians, to the non-answer of "let's try to find out the answer" of skepticism.

ohhh im sorry i interpreted the op as in the worldviews that stem from athiesm, generally people popularise the word athiesm to mean things like Nilism or scienism (hope ive spelt those two right!!)

if he does just mean the the general term of athiesm, then thiesm (as the general term) doesnt answer it either! at least i dont see how the blanket statement of thiest does, do you?

 

[Alex_G]

If there cannot be a reason for our emotions, the time, the land(i.e. matter) then what is the cause of their existence? I bet any one atheist to dare try and give valid reason for his very existence in this universe. Only religion has a answer to this.

Your argument begins with the premise that there cannot be an explanation or reason for existence. You then proceed to claim religion provides that very reason you claimed cannot exist.

You then proceed to commit a fallacy of duality, and assume only 2 possible view poionts, and seeing as atheists cannot explain it, it must therefore validate the religious perspective, when of course it doesn't. You use lack of evidence as a justification for believing what religion says on the matter, which again isnt correct. (as in it does not validate the religious view).

You use a somewhat aggressive and provocative tone, which only does you a disservice sir. You finish with what is a special plea, where you assert that 'only religion has the answer', and of course you give absolutely no reason to justify it.

If you care to sort out you post, and submit a second draft, maybe we can have a better discussion and debate.

Alex