Thoughts on Atheism

[james bond]

No, I don't think atheism 'leads' to communism..... but in the absence of religion, there must be other organizations to assume the functions of religion. Atheism does not 'purport to understand all that we need to know about the world' as you suggest, it simply says that there is no evidence for any gods or goddesses. Communism may want to eliminate religion but never will, as it appears new gods are constantly created by those who insist they must exist.

If this is all there is and all there will be, then communism helps to "rule" what the atheists believe exists. Liberals have many political beliefs such as gun control to take individual power away and rule by the majority or what the liberal rich want everyone to do.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Some things cannot be defined. Not everything that exists can be perceived and understood by humans. The "definition of God" is: the great mystery source, sustenance, and purpose of all that exists. Which is ultimately beyond human comprehension.

If an entity exists that cannot be defined or perceived, and is beyond human comprehension, then we cannot profitably consider or discuss such an entity.

It's a question of grasping and appreciating the ultimate mystery. And then exploring the possibilities that mystery offers us, precisely because it IS a mystery.

You seem to be contradicting yourself. You're referring to exploring that which cannot be defined, perceived, or understood, remember? How do you expect to grasp such a thing?

Incidentally, one doesn't need to inject gods into a discussion of the universe's mysteries.

If we want to understand mankind's relationship with the gods, we need to be able to face our own profound ignorance, and be willing to walk strait into it.

What do you think that you know about gods for your efforts that you wouldn't know without having walked "straight into it"? How has your ignorance been mitigated?

 

[james bond]

Atheists are mostly people who think that they need a reason to believe in a god and don't have one. Many of us remain agnostic regarding gods or aftelives. What we say is that there very well many be no gods or consciousness after bodily death, and that there is no evidence for these things, and therefore no reason to believe that such things exist.

There is no need to go further



Atheism is neither a religion nor a worldview, and what he commented on was belief, which is not synonymous with unjustified belief (religious-type faith).



Humans most likely did evolve, and did make guns. How do you account for all of the transitional forms connecting chimp-like creatures to man?



Darwin's theory make no comment on guns or gun control. Man has entered a phase of cultural evolution. Giuns and gun laws derive from that.



I have never seen an atheist make that claim.

Incidentally, rejecting an idea is not skepticismm. Skepticism is the attitude that ideas should be questioned, not be believed because of faith, authority, or tradition. Creationists' attitudes toward atheism is rejection based in faith, the opposite of skepticism.

>>IANS: Atheists are mostly people who think that they need a reason to believe in a god and don't have one. Many of us remain agnostic regarding gods or aftelives. What we say is that there very well many be no gods or consciousness after bodily death, and that there is no evidence for these things, and therefore no reason to believe that such things exist.

There is no need to go further<<

I think you're generalizing about atheists while I have a foundation for my atheism leads to communism. From what I understand, Christians or theists much convince every single atheist of God and the best and only way is pain and suffering. However, finding out the truth this way is the hard way since it is in the afterlife.

I would think you're atheist instead of agnostic. Why believe in God or the afterlife if there is no "evidence?" My evidence is not your evidence.

>>Atheism is neither a religion nor a worldview, and what he commented on was belief, which is not synonymous with unjustified belief (religious-type faith).<<

We'll have to agree to disagree.

>>Humans most likely did evolve, and did make guns. How do you account for all of the transitional forms connecting chimp-like creatures to man?<<

We agree they made guns. However, they did not evolve as Darwin believed. They were created by God as stated in Genesis. Thus, no common ancestor. There really isn't much evidence to connect man with apes. Just few ape-men fossils.

People made guns to survive and protect themselves from others, from the government and majority rule.

>>Darwin's theory make no comment on guns or gun control. Man has entered a phase of cultural evolution. Giuns and gun laws derive from that.<<

I would think Darwin does since "survival of the fittest." For example, cons need guns to protect themselves from the libs in order to procreate ha ha.

>>Incidentally, rejecting an idea is not skepticismm. Skepticism is the attitude that ideas should be questioned, not be believed because of faith, authority, or tradition. Creationists' attitudes toward atheism is rejection based in faith, the opposite of skepticism.<<

Well, atheism is based on faith that God does not exist. I would think atheism (skepticism) is a rejection of creationism (faith) since creationism came first ha ha.

 

[Koldo]

Yep. There are some things in life that you just can't have. And god-knowledge is one of them. But rejecting the mystery because it's a mystery doesn't make the mystery go away. Nor does it make you any smarter than you were before you rejected it. So I'm not impressed by complaints that theists can't or won't define their gods, just so that atheists can contend with them.

What mystery ? Because it seems you have created one.

 

[Laika]

@james bond

The simplest way to think about dialectical materialism is that it is the self-motion of nature. physical nature (materialism) moves as the result of internal contradictions in natural and social evolution (dialectics) and so does not need a creator or supernatural realm to explain how the universe works due to a "first cause". The combination of materialism and dialectics basically repeats the process of eliminating the need for a first cause in virtually every subject area by asserting all causes come from within nature and the universe itself rather than outside of it.

Dialectical Materialism however is not representative of Atheism as a whole which is a number of competing philosophies. There is occasional overlap, but it shouldn't be taken that the atheism of communist/Marxist-Leninist states is representative of "Western Atheism" which has its roots in traditions of free thought, scepticism and philosophical agnosticism. The Soviets would look at the "New Atheists" like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris with a great deal of contempt, because while (for example) they criticise Islam, they continue to defend the existence of Islam and freedom of religion rather than argue for its systematic extermination in a process of forced secularisation:

It is our duty to destroy every religious world-concept... If the destruction of ten million human beings, as happened in the last war, should be necessary for the triumph of one definite class, then that must be done and it will be done.(1929, Yemelyn Yarosalvsky, chair of the league of militant atheists).

The differences are pretty significant in that Marxist-Leninist Atheism is overtly political, whereas Western Atheism usually isn't. Even Fredrich Nietzsche who proclaimed "God is dead" and the necessity of an "over-man" who would overcome a post-christian morality, would not have gone as far as the Soviets. Even if Dialectical Materialism can be very interesting to imagine what a wholly "atheist" worldview may look like, it is not the only way to be an atheist and certianly not the most numerous since the collapse of the USSR.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I personally don't value it, but the atheists would be swayed by it. It's based on what atheists believe exists.

In the same sense that the Bhagavad Gita is based on what theists believe exist.

 

[Revoltingest]

Laika pointed out Dialectical Materialism which is what atheists are concerned about and think that is what exists -- the dialectic and materialism.

Most atheists don't use the term "dialectical materialism".
We might, if we knew what it meant.

 

[jonathan180iq]

Most atheists don't use the term "dialectical materialism".
We might, if we knew what it meant.

Dialectical materialism - Wikipedia

It's just misguided trash-talking.

 

[Revoltingest]

Dialectical materialism - Wikipedia

It's just misguided trash-talking.

Good....then I won't bother to read it.

 

[Jumi]

I personally don't value it, but the atheists would be swayed by it. It's based on what atheists believe exists.

It didn't "affect" me when I was atheist, so I'm having trouble understanding why you think that would happen. As others have pointed out, atheists who aren't communist don't believe in dialectic materialism or the Marxist definitions.

It's a bit like saying all theists believe Jesus will return when we know it's mostly Christians and Muslims who believe it.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I think you're generalizing about atheists

I think you're correct. I also think that that is reasonable when describing or defining atheists and atheism.

I have a foundation for my atheism leads to communism.

Communism may lead to atheism, but not the other way around. There is nothing about unbelief in gods that makes one opt for communism. You need to like the communist philosophy. I happen not to, so there is no risk of somebody like me, which is most atheists I encounter in cyberspace and meat space, choosing communism.

From what I understand, Christians or theists much convince every single atheist of God and the best and only way is pain and suffering.

No, you don't need to convince of us anything.

I also won't try to convince you to give up Christianity. I'm content to explain why it's not for me.

I would think you're atheist instead of agnostic.

I'm both. That's what weak atheism means - I don't believe because I have no reason to, but I also don't claim that gods don't exist. I realize that I cannot answer that question for lack of an experiment, observation, argument, or algorithm that rules logically possible gods out.

[man] did not evolve as Darwin believed. They were created by God as stated in Genesis

I have no reason to believe that and plenty of reason to believe the opposite.

There really isn't much evidence to connect man with apes.

Man is an ape. You probably meant quadripedal (brachiating) and extinct apes.

Just few ape-men fossils.

The fossil evidence alone is quite robust, but there is more than just fossil evidence. The genetic evidence is quite compelling as well. Together, they make a stronger case than either alone. Human chromosome 2 by itself is smoking gun evidence of common descent among .

Well, atheism is based on faith that God does not exist.

Atheism is based on rational skepticism and the lack of sufficient reason to conclude that god exist.

I would think atheism (skepticism) is a rejection of creationism (faith) since creationism came first ha ha.

Atheism is a failure to accept creationism, which is slightly different. If anybody ever falsifies the theory of naturalistic evolution, creationism will become the de facto best hypothesis for the world we find around us. In fact, it seems to me that it would be the only possibility remaining. Notice that this does not need to mean by a god. A race of sufficiently advanced extraterrestrials would be a logical possibility.

Whoever the creators were, natural or supernatural, we would have to agree that they went to great trouble to deceive us. Are you aware of any god that would do that? Perhaps Loki or some other malicious or mischievous god.

Christians would probably blame Satan, but it would mean that Satan created man and the earth, wouldn't it?

 

[blü 2]

Says who? You?

Either a thing is real ─ has objective existence ─ or it's purely imaginary.

If you disagree, please spell out your reasoning.

If I take a drug that enables me to "see God", does that mean I didn't see God?

It means you don't see a real god, a god with objective existence, just an artifact of your brain processes, an imaginary god.

Just because the drug helps us to understand HOW I saw God does not mean that I didn't see God.

By the same reasoning your dreams would be real, a live Donald Duck is running around in Florida, Freddy Kruger is out there. I reject that view. To be real is to have objective existence, to exist independently of whether any brain holds the concept.

There are some things in life that you just can't have. And god-knowledge is one of them.

But before 'god-knowledge' can be factual ─ be information about reality ─ there must first be gods with objective existence.

However, there's no definition of 'god' such that if we encountered a candidate we could objectively determine that it was a god (meaning that the idea of a real god is incoherent, while imaginary gods, which can be whatever you want, don't pose any more problems than other fictitious characters do).

But rejecting the mystery because it's a mystery doesn't make the mystery go away.

What mystery?

I'm not impressed by complaints that theists can't or won't define their gods, just so that atheists can contend with them.

If you can't define 'god' then you don't know what you're talking about. If you claim a god is real, then it has objective existence and nothing in principle stops you from giving us a useful definition of it, and a satisfactory demonstration of it in reality.

But neither of these things happen.

That's only what "real" means to a materialist. To the rest of us, "real" means a lot more than just displaying physicality apart from our awareness of it.

Once again you fail to state what you mean. What definition of 'real' are you using?

And anyway, "objectivity" is, itself, an absurdly incoherent concept, as it completely ignores the fact that all human perception is subjective.

A thing has objective existence if it exists independently of the concept of it in any brain.

There is no "objective reality" that any human mind can access.

There are indeed caveats on objectivity, which is why it's good to be aware of them; but objectivity is not a problem of the kind you speak of. Otherwise you'd have no idea where the air you breathe, the food you eat, the people you meet, come from, you have no concept of the way to San Jose, the keyboard you type on is unknowable to you, your friends and partners are indistinguishable from characters in fiction. I doubt that.

No, we've evolved to deal with objective reality well enough.

 

[corynski]

Atheism is a twisted world view put up by those brainwashed by the long years of secular education since childhood. In a nutshell, they demand and suggest that everything should be well evidenced before it is believed. However this is not how this reality works. They can't even provide the evidence of what they themselves did just yesterday. While they take the existence of black holes for a fact without any evidence presented to them individually.

Hawkins......... You couldn't be more mistaken in your assessment of atheism, and I really can't believe what you have said....."brainwashed by long years of secular education"...... what an insane statement. But you know how reality works...... give me a break. "Can't even provide the evidence of what they themselves did yesterday".... what a joke, you can't be serious. Your ignorance is truly laughable......

1:39 a.m......"In a nutshell they demand...." Science requires everything to be evidenced and corroborated, yes, it's called the Scientific Method, which is an attempt to permit us to agree upon what is reality. There is no reality in the Bible or in religion, it is men's imagination as is evidenced by every individual having a different conception of reality, and agreeing upon nothing. Religion makes a mockery out of reality as is so apparent to truly rational thinkers. "To see by faith, you must shut the eye of reason", to paraphrase B. Franklin.........

 

[corynski]

>>IANS: Atheists are mostly people who think that they need a reason to believe in a god and don't have one. Many of us remain agnostic regarding gods or aftelives. What we say is that there very well many be no gods or consciousness after bodily death, and that there is no evidence for these things, and therefore no reason to believe that such things exist.

There is no need to go further<<

I think you're generalizing about atheists while I have a foundation for my atheism leads to communism. From what I understand, Christians or theists much convince every single atheist of God and the best and only way is pain and suffering. However, finding out the truth this way is the hard way since it is in the afterlife.

I would think you're atheist inste

>>IANS: Atheists are mostly people who think that they need a reason to believe in a god and don't have one. Many of us remain agnostic regarding gods or aftelives. What we say is that there very well many be no gods or consciousness after bodily death, and that there is no evidence for these things, and therefore no reason to believe that such things exist.

There is no need to go further<<

I think you're generalizing about atheists while I have a foundation for my atheism leads to communism. From what I understand, Christians or theists much convince every single atheist of God and the best and only way is pain and suffering. However, finding out the truth this way is the hard way since it is in the afterlife.

I would think you're atheist instead of agnostic. Why believe in God or the afterlife if there is no "evidence?" My evidence is not your evidence.

>>Atheism is neither a religion nor a worldview, and what he commented on was belief, which is not synonymous with unjustified belief (religious-type faith).<<

We'll have to agree to disagree.

>>Humans most likely did evolve, and did make guns. How do you account for all of the transitional forms connecting chimp-like creatures to man?<<

We agree they made guns. However, they did not evolve as Darwin believed. They were created by God as stated in Genesis. Thus, no common ancestor. There really isn't much evidence to connect man with apes. Just few ape-men fossils.

People made guns to survive and protect themselves from others, from the government and majority rule.

>>Darwin's theory make no comment on guns or gun control. Man has entered a phase of cultural evolution. Giuns and gun laws derive from that.<<

I would think Darwin does since "survival of the fittest." For example, cons need guns to protect themselves from the libs in order to procreate ha ha.

>>Incidentally, rejecting an idea is not skepticismm. Skepticism is the attitude that ideas should be questioned, not be believed because of faith, authority, or tradition. Creationists' attitudes toward atheism is rejection based in faith, the opposite of skepticism.<<

Well, atheism is based on faith that God does not exist. I would think atheism (skepticism) is a rejection of creationism (faith) since creationism came first ha ha.

ad of agnostic. Why believe in God or the afterlife if there is no "evidence?" My evidence is not your evidence.

>>Atheism is neither a religion nor a worldview, and what he commented on was belief, which is not synonymous with unjustified belief (religious-type faith).<<

We'll have to agree to disagree.

>>Humans most likely did evolve, and did make guns. How do you account for all of the transitional forms connecting chimp-like creatures to man?<<

We agree they made guns. However, they did not evolve as Darwin believed. They were created by God as stated in Genesis. Thus, no common ancestor. There really isn't much evidence to connect man with apes. Just few ape-men fossils.

People made guns to survive and protect themselves from others, from the government and majority rule.

>>Darwin's theory make no comment on guns or gun control. Man has entered a phase of cultural evolution. Giuns and gun laws derive from that.<<

I would think Darwin does since "survival of the fittest." For example, cons need guns to protect themselves from the libs in order to procreate ha ha.

>>Incidentally, rejecting an idea is not skepticismm. Skepticism is the attitude that ideas should be questioned, not be believed because of faith, authority, or tradition. Creationists' attitudes toward atheism is rejection based in faith, the opposite of skepticism.<<

Well, atheism is based on faith that God does not exist. I would think atheism (skepticism) is a rejection of creationism (faith) since creationism came first ha ha.

James Bond....... Your analysis of atheism is too ridiculous to comment upon, except to say you have no idea what atheism is about. Go to an atheist meeting and talk with some atheists instead of running your mouth about what you don't know. Atheism is not an organization, it is simply an admission that I have found no evidence for any god or goddess. It says nothing more about me or what I believe as you seem to think..... where do you get all your misinformation? There is no structure to atheism, end of story.

 

[DavidFirth]

Thoughts on atheism?

Hmm... I believe in Romans 1:20 so I think it's obvious that God created. To me atheism is abnormal thinking. That's about it, I guess. I just don't get it.

 

[blü 2]

To me atheism is abnormal thinking.

This is where we return again to your great need for a sound method that distinguishes true and false for you.

I just don't get it.

Tell me what the problem is and I'll do my best to make it clear to you.

After all, what are friends for?

 

[Jesster]

I personally don't value it, but the atheists would be swayed by it. It's based on what atheists believe exists.

I'm not swayed by it. There goes your idea.

 

[james bond]

In the same sense that the Bhagavad Gita is based on what theists believe exist.

The Christians believe in Lectio Divina. Non-Christians have made this suitable for their faith such as Bhagavad Gita, The Torah or The Koran. It can also be adapted to the four Jungian psychological principles of sensing, thinking, intuiting, and feeling.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The Christians believe in Lectio Divina. Non-Christians have made this suitable for their faith such as Bhagavad Gita, The Torah or The Koran. It can also be adapted to the four Jungian psychological principles of sensing, thinking, intuiting, and feeling.

No, no: I agree with your approach: whether a person is an atheist or a theist dictates everything else about their worldview.

We can see that there are atheists who closely link their atheism with their communism, so all atheists are communists. Likewise, we can see that there are theists who closely link their theism with the Bhagavad Gita, so all theists believe in the Bhagavad Gita.

Your broad brush uses flawless logic.

 

[Augustus]

I hadn't noticed I'd done two fourth points until you mentioned it. lol!

Pay no heed to the imperialists' lapdog.

That's how you finish a 5 year plan in 4 years.