Atheism

Originally posted by Badabing
Why are they mystified? Maybe you find meaning and answers in science, mathematics, music, art, nature, etc. You can "believe" in those things.

It's not even finding a muse, per se. It's like, existence is awesome. There's meaning. Be happy, there's a reason. Make others happy, there's another. It's so mind-numbingly easy to have meaning without religion, but it is unfortunately sometimes impossible for religious folk to imagine that.

So why they're mystified, I couldn't really tell you. All I know is, I get asked "How do you find meaning?" an awful lot (or some similar variation), as though I shouldn't be able to find it. "I make my own meaning rather than it being given to me," is usually my response. It doesn't work for them, but meh.

Originally posted by After The Eulog
I am always amused by Atheist who assume that Science and God cannot coexist.

I know a couple of these points are fodder for Atheist but here are a few to get you guys going.

1. First if God exist and his whole premise is too get people to believe/have faith on their own based on free will, what would be the point of him revealing himself? The whole point in religion is having faith and CHOOSING to be one with God, not doing it because you know you will be in trouble.

2. Why can't our purpose as humans be figuring all of this out? What if that is Gods plan? God could have set this up for humans to figure out how life started, what life is about and once we finally reach that stage, that could be the ultimate stage of enlightenment.

3. Morality and The Human Conscience. I have researched and read plenty of theories about both of these. To this date, I have not found any credible "Evidence." If we are really just chemical reactions, how do we interpret right vs. wrong.

4. And trying to attack the Bible, Torah, Koran...Whatever text you would like to attack, even if all those are wrong, that would still not dispute the possible existence of God. When discussing the possibility of A God, you need to leave religion out of it. It seems most atheist attack religion more than they attack the possibility of a God,Creator, Higher being. Religion is man made, therefore it will have flaws.

I have no issue with Atheist as I use to be one myself. I understand your point of view. I just do not believe that Random Chance and luck played into my creation.

Others on the earlier page dealt with this much better than I'm willing to, but in a nutshell, religion and God don't have to interfere with one another. But the specific claims of nearly every religion on the planet do interfere with it. And a God that can coexist with a materialist, deterministic universe isn't a god worth believing in, worshipping, and has no power over creation, there is nor will ever be evidence to support his existence, etc. etc.

Also, is #3 proposing a soul? Because yes, the functions of our brain can indeed explain all of our cognitive states. I'm not sure why you'd think otherwise.

Originally posted by inimalist
that is still untrue

I'll admit that most scientists are either individually uninterested in the minutia of philosophy of science, and there is an air amongst mathemeticians that theirs is the "purest" of the "sciences", but the fact remains that maths are a simple system of logic that we have invented to build models around.

in no philosophical sense do our mathematical models provide any "truth" about the universe, math doesn't solve any problems, but rather allows us to express observation (probably the term you meant instead of math) in simple, logical, and universally communicable terms. Many scientific models can't be easily broken down to math, or the models are so complex, or formed from so many parts, the mechanistic algorhythms become the "trees" of the proverbial "forest".

Math is a tool, much like an experiment.

At no time was I ever talking about that. I was talking about the belief that math, as you put it, is the "purest" of the "sciences", and that models can reflect reality perfectly (by the way, this has been proven to be wrong). This belief is an example of belief that is not as was characterized earlier.

You are going off topic.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
At no time was I ever talking about that. I was talking about the belief that math, as you put it, is the "purest" of the "sciences", and that models can reflect reality perfectly (by the way, this has been proven to be wrong). This belief is an example of belief that is not as was characterized earlier.

under the definitions of the philosophy of science, that is not science, and all scientists who use such short hands would readily admit such, though they might roll their eyes at their impaitence with philosophical concepts.

the belief that maths can accuratly represent the real world is NOT a principle of science, which is the argument you made. It is short hand scientists might use when discussing things, but in a true to philosophical sense, it is not, and there would be no argument amongst scientists on this matter.

Originally posted by inimalist
under the definitions of the philosophy of science, that is not science, and all scientists who use such short hands would readily admit such, though they might roll their eyes at their impaitence with philosophical concepts.

the belief that maths can accuratly represent the real world is NOT a principle of science, which is the argument you made. It is short hand scientists might use when discussing things, but in a true to philosophical sense, it is not, and there would be no argument amongst scientists on this matter.

No, the argument I made was that there is more then one type of faith. Not all faith is blind faith. I was simply stating that even scientists have faith in things they cannot prove. I really don’t care about your interpretation of the “philosophy of science”, while in this thread.

then its probably best not to bring up your own

Atheism is simply the absence of religion.

I was once an Atheist myself, after denouncing my Christianity.

But now, I've found peace with the Dark Carnival.

Originally posted by inimalist
that is still untrue

I'll admit that most scientists are either individually uninterested in the minutia of philosophy of science, and there is an air amongst mathemeticians that theirs is the "purest" of the "science
s", but the fact remains that maths are a simple system of logic that we have invented to build models around.

in no philosophical sense do our mathematical models provide any "truth" about the universe, math doesn't solve any problems, but rather allows us to express observation (probably the term you meant instead of math) in simple, logical, and universally communicable terms. Many scientific models can't be easily broken down to math, or the models are so complex, or formed from so many parts, the mechanistic algorhythms become the "trees" of the proverbial "forest".

Math is a tool, much like an experiment.

However, it is mind boggling how mathematical exercises purely for their own sake have oftentimes centuries later found application in Sciences helping to explain the world further. Those are things Mathematicians already understood many years before it became ever important.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html

This is just the first site I found when I searched Google for "List of world Religions". There are a lot more. You can find a definition to fit whatever you want, but most of the world disagrees with you. Also, your definition of faith is wrong. Even scientists have faith that the basic unprovable principles of science are true.

http://www.adherents.com

Adherents.com is a growing collection of over 43,870 adherent statistics and religious geography citations: references to published membership/adherent statistics and congregation statistics for over 4,200 religions, churches, denominations, religious bodies, faith groups, tribes, cultures, movements, ultimate concerns, etc.

http://www.adherents.com/classify.html

Religion

For the purposes of taxonomic classification, a "religion" is a group of people and traditions which share a historical background and usually some doctrinal, cultural and ritual similarities . . . Thus we would include Agnosticism, Atheism, conservative Christianity, Humanism, Islam, Judaism, liberal Christianity, Native American Spirituality, Wicca and other Neopagan traditions as "religions."

The other traditions most often included in lists of "major world religions," but which are also often left out of such lists are . . . Confucianism and Taoism (both left out for being ethical systems rather than religions . . . [and traditions that] advance the idea that their particular religion is not, in fact, a religion at all.

🙄

I think there are a lot of cons to such a viewpoint, mainly the inherent contradiction atheism creates between the person and the world they're trying to interact with.

Atheists tend to become insular and end up only believing in themselves.

Originally posted by RichardBrittain

Atheists tend to become insular and end up only believing in themselves.

That is not based in any sort of reality, it's just something you made up.

Originally posted by RichardBrittain
I think there are a lot of cons to such a viewpoint, mainly the inherent contradiction atheism creates between the person and the world they're trying to interact with.

Atheists tend to become insular and end up only believing in themselves.

So, can I deduce that you do not believe in yourself?

Originally posted by AsbestosFlaygon
Atheism is simply the absence of religion.

I was once an Atheist myself, after denouncing my Christianity.

But now, I've found peace with the Dark Carnival.

That applies to most Atheists I've known/met. They don't subtley, little-by-little say they're Atheist. They dramatically denounce whatever they once believed. My son told me that one of his undergrad friends once caused an awkward Thanksgiving (American holiday F.Y.I., cause you're in Austria). When his dad bowed his head in prayer prior to eating, he decided that then was the moment to declare his Atheism. The rest of the dinner must have been pretty awkward, as you can imagine.

So it seems to be a kind of "coming out", in which an audience is preferable.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
That applies to most Atheists I've known/met. They don't subtley, little-by-little say they're Atheist. They dramatically denounce whatever they once believed. My son told me that one of his undergrad friends once caused an awkward Thanksgiving (American holiday F.Y.I., cause you're in Austria). When his dad bowed his head in prayer prior to eating, he decided that then was the moment to declare his Atheism. The rest of the dinner must have been pretty awkward, as you can imagine.

So it seems to be a kind of "coming out", in which an audience is preferable.

I have seen that same kind of rudeness with radical atheists.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
That applies to most Atheists I've known/met. They don't subtley, little-by-little say they're Atheist. They dramatically denounce whatever they once believed. My son told me that one of his undergrad friends once caused an awkward Thanksgiving (American holiday F.Y.I., cause you're in Austria). When his dad bowed his head in prayer prior to eating, he decided that then was the moment to declare his Atheism. The rest of the dinner must have been pretty awkward, as you can imagine.

So it seems to be a kind of "coming out", in which an audience is preferable.

Atheists:

IYO, what is the biggest disadvantage of theism? For fairy-tale/wish-fulfillment extremists, the answer seems obvious. But for those theists who adopt a more realistic and compassionate attitude, what do you feel is still "missing" from their lives? I don't mean to imply judgment, but for lack of better words, what are they still doing "wrong"?

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
🙄

It seems like you are trying to discredit the web site I was using. 😆 Ether you or oblivious to the point I was making or you are trying to redirect. It does not matter what the web site says.

Let me illustrate my point:

Person A, says that the word gay means very happy.

Person B, argues that gay means homosexual and provides a gay web site to show what the popular meaning of the word gay is.

Person A looks at the site and finds something that is strange or not correct, and presents that as a way to show that the web site is wrong.

Person A did not understand the point that person B was making.

Just because there are things on that web site that are strange or even wrong, does not change that fact that most people would agree that Buddhism is a religion.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
It seems like you are trying to discredit the web site I was using. 😆 Ether you or oblivious to the point I was making or you are trying to redirect. It does not matter what the web site says.

Let me illustrate my point:

Person A, says that the word gay means very happy.

Person B, argues that gay means homosexual and provides a gay web site to show what the popular meaning of the word gay is.

Person A looks at the site and finds something that is strange or not correct, and presents that as a way to show that the web site is wrong.

Person A did not understand the point that person B was making.

Just because there are things on that web site that are strange or even wrong, does not change that fact that most people would agree that Buddhism is a religion.

Originally posted by King Kandy
YOU missed the point. He showed quotes where the website admits it lists things that aren't really religions. So something being on that website doesn't mean it's a religion.

The web site is a little strange and even wrong, but the content of the web site was not the point at all.

Originally posted by Bardock42
However, it is mind boggling how mathematical exercises purely for their own sake have oftentimes centuries later found application in Sciences helping to explain the world further. Those are things Mathematicians already understood many years before it became ever important.

oh, for sure, I'm not taking the piss out of math or anything. I was trying to give some perspective on how math is used in science, and how there is absolutly no need to assume that mathematical models produced by science are an accurate reflection of reality.

Originally posted by Mindship
Atheists:

IYO, what is the biggest disadvantage of theism? For fairy-tale/wish-fulfillment extremists, the answer seems obvious. But for those theists who adopt a more realistic and compassionate attitude, what do you feel is still "missing" from their lives? I don't mean to imply judgment, but for lack of better words, what are they still doing "wrong"?

I know in my own opinions there is nothing "wrong" or "missing" from their lives. As I have, they found explanations that work for them in understanding the universe and I have no real reason or interest in trying to disuade them of that position. There is no real fundamental difference between people who believe in anything in this way, it simply supports the psychological constructs that provide something to the individual, and as such, I wouldn't say a religious person is missing out on anything that I gain as an atheist.

If you mean, rather, why don't I, as an atheist, ascribe to ideas of a "realistic" supernatural, it would be because I see no real convincing reason to suppose it does exist. Furthermore, the more "realistic" a divine being becomes, the more uninvolved and detached from the universe it becomes. It either becomes an entity that doesn't interact with the universe at all, or something tautologically defined as "all things", neither of which, if there were evidence for their existance, would be really worthy of the title "god" or of any sort of worship.

atheists and others:

why is the question, "Is X a religion" actually relevant to anyone?

like really, what is the actual importance of debating this?