Message boards :
Politics :
Atheism is not a religion
Message board moderation
Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · Next
Author | Message |
---|---|
bluestar Send message Joined: 5 Sep 12 Posts: 6995 Credit: 2,084,789 RAC: 3 |
Thanks for that, Gordon. Mentioning the passing of my father earlier on, I got the message from a visit from both my mother and aunt, which I believe was on Wednesday. Also the passing away, which apparently was last Tuesday and I was not present there at that time. Read my lips, but neither such a thing as the smile of Mona Lisa, nor that of a major earthquake or tsunami happening on Earth is going to change anything. This, only or because of the fact that when such a thing is happening, it could be about possible change and for this we are or could be having possible events. Fall in love with Albert Einstein, or perhaps Niels Bohr, if you will, but one possible option could be that of a event horizon being part of a Black Hole making up a given property of space. Perhaps we are a bit or slightly too concerned about space itself and next forget about such a thing as gravity. Gravity, as you may well know, is a "pet science" among some people, because it deals with, or incorporates a couple of subjects relevant to both mankind, as well as a given functionality. If I am not wrong, Jesus probably was probably renouncing his Father, namely God, for leaving him, while hanging on the Cross. The problem here is that while such a thing as a given suffering could be quite obvious, we could still be left out when it comes to a given fact when it comes to that of a possible "fate", or perhaps oblivion. Ask for help, or possible mercy, if you will and such help or comfort might only be offered by God and not the Devil. The Devil is a symbol for possible wrong-doing, by means of telling "to do" versus "not do do". Logic and Justice could at times be inherent, or perhaps relating with each other. Because of such possible "not to do's" versus those possible "do's", or "to do's", we possibly could be looking at given possibilities or options rather than anything else. Next I become or get stumped and the fact that such a thing as "Do not tell me the odds" do not necessarily tell me about any Religion or Faith at all, including that of the possible Devil. If the question becomes "What are my chance to live or survive", rather than that of "possible death by means of a given coincidence", or possible event, the most likely outcome would be some 50/50 and again a given Probability for such. My guess or assumption is that you may not leave such a thing alone in a just a 50/50 fashion as mentioned or stated above. The fact is that we most likely do not bother about neither the ants or the beehive when such a thing goes dark, but when it comes to possible moral or ethical issues, including that of ourselves, or our existence, the answer could well be a different one. As I previously mentioned, possible Belief and Faith could be either yours to choose, if you do not choose to be one such yourself. Why not such a thing as Religion here? Perhaps I should give a look into what that of possible "Belief" is supposed to mean? Right now I do not have the answer here. Back later. |
Gary Charpentier Send message Joined: 25 Dec 00 Posts: 30608 Credit: 53,134,872 RAC: 32 |
You insist on imbuing it with life; There is no rational reason to do so. Nor is there any reason to think of it as a machine either, because if it is a machine you force it to be subject to the time arrow and to cause a simulator it would have had to exist before time zero and what caused it? The only logically consistent answer is the universe caused itself. Not a warm and fuzzy answer.Don't even know I'm alive, so why invoke some E.T.?Has to do with computer science and computer simulators. To the conscious running on the simulator it is impossible to know if it is being simulated or real.Who else but E.T. Can't be human now can it? |
pierre castro Send message Joined: 18 Feb 17 Posts: 86 Credit: 107,398 RAC: 0 |
I think that an absence of God is the default position of human consciousness. God is a social construct around which beliefs are structured, hence Religions. That's not to say that Atheism could not be pushed, as religions are, but then it's only pushed as a counter to institutional religions. |
OzzFan Send message Joined: 9 Apr 02 Posts: 15691 Credit: 84,761,841 RAC: 28 |
OzzFan said: How so? Why is it not possible to reject an idea without creating a religion? |
KWSN - MajorKong Send message Joined: 5 Jan 00 Posts: 2892 Credit: 1,499,890 RAC: 0 |
Ok, By 'casual water' I took it to mean 'water not placed on the ground by a human being'. If, for instance, I urinated on the ground, the resulting puddle would NOT be casual water. But, if you wanna talk puddles in the Chihuahuan desert in the afternoon during March or April, fine... About 25 years ago in mid to late April, while on vacation, I was driving just outside (to the north of, about 1 mile) of Presidio, Texas, on Hwy 67. A freak (early) supercell thunderstorm blew in. Rain was EVERYWHERE (at least one inch). I had to cut my vacation short (not wanting to camp in the mud and risk flash-floods). I drove east to Ft. Stockton, spent the night, then drove back home. Oh, by the way, the northern Chihuahuan Desert is my favorite place to vacation. I have seen a LOT of the area over the last 50-something years that I have been vacationing in that area (more vacations there than everywhere else in the world combined). I've even seen a road-runner eating a dead coyote by the side of the road (between Balmorhea and Ft. Davis on Tx Hwy 17). Now then, if puddles after a (HARD) rain do not fit the bill (since you are using what is apparently a GOLF term here)... well... it would require some sort of divine intervention (which, imo, does not happen) to produce. https://youtu.be/iY57ErBkFFE #Texit Don't blame me, I voted for Johnson(L) in 2016. Truth is dangerous... especially when it challenges those in power. |
Mr. Kevvy Send message Joined: 15 May 99 Posts: 3776 Credit: 1,114,826,392 RAC: 3,319 |
Still searching for the "missing link." The missing link? Which one is that? Thousands of transitional forms between hundreds of species have been found... problem is, when we find one, we create two more gaps for people to point at and say "Missing link!" :^p At best, there's only anecdotal evidence of sub-atomic particles. Then there's still only anecdotal evidence of gravity, electromagnetism and the existence of stars. Really, there's about equal evidence for all four. All I know is I physically/mentally experienced something 300 miles away the moment a close relative died which can not be explained using the "scientific method." In 600, Mohammed had a similar revelation, being visited in the cave of Hira by the archangel Gabriel and gifted a verse of the Quran. This fulfills your criterion of being a parable that has existed for centuries. Will you accept Islam because of this, or do you doubt it? Is it any less valid than your premonition? If so, why? If you don't believe it, why should anyone believe yours? I have feelings like this often: deja vu, odd senses of dread, unexplained anxieties, a feeling like something bad has happened. But it never does. If something like a death of someone I know had happened around the same time, I might be inclined to associate that feeling with the death, forgetting all the times it was meaningless. This is "counting the hits and forgetting the misses", a well-documented phenomenon... it's what cold-reading "psychics" use. They will throw out a dozen bad guesses but when they get a good one they latch onto it and develop it, and the audience seems to forget all the bad ones. You're right, atheism is not a religion; it's a very narrow view. The path through an uncharted wasteland may be narrow, but it is well-trodden for a reason. |
John Neale Send message Joined: 16 Mar 00 Posts: 634 Credit: 7,246,513 RAC: 9 |
Now I'm being attacked. You're not. Mr. Kevvy is stating his view, in opposition to yours, and asking a few questions of you, which you've ignored. Furthermore, your assertion that Mr. Kevvy "can't point out irregularities in ancient writings to come to the scientific conclusion that all ancient writings are wrong or should be ignored" is a straw man argument. He did no such thing. |
OzzFan Send message Joined: 9 Apr 02 Posts: 15691 Credit: 84,761,841 RAC: 28 |
To that point, I find it curious to the point of concern that people tend to interpret attempts to question, challenge assumptions, or share viewpoints are viewed by some as "attacks" on this forum. How is one ever supposed to gain a broader world view if one never gets challenged in what we assume we know? |
Gary Charpentier Send message Joined: 25 Dec 00 Posts: 30608 Credit: 53,134,872 RAC: 32 |
To that point, I find it curious to the point of concern that people tend to interpret attempts to question, challenge assumptions, or share viewpoints are viewed by some as "attacks" on this forum. How is one ever supposed to gain a broader world view if one never gets challenged in what we assume we know?That would be logical scientific method, not spoon fed indoctrination that it seems some persons believe all should have so they are identical in every respect. Hummmmm wonder if that is why some hate diversity ....... |
Mr. Kevvy Send message Joined: 15 May 99 Posts: 3776 Credit: 1,114,826,392 RAC: 3,319 |
I know what I experienced. I do not know what someone in 600 AD experienced. This is the crux of it. Our minds are not computers, our eyes not cameras, our ears not microphones. They quite often deceive us. The most popular religions were developed before there was any knowledge of schizophrenia or temporal lobe epilepsy or a host of other mental issues. Thus, you understand you can't take on faith what went on in the head of someone else fifteen hundred years who claimed to have "visions", or to be "called", or "chosen". Yet people who claimed the same attributes wrote every religious book ever written, all based on things they claimed to see, in their minds that we now know can create believable illusions, illusions that can't be told apart from reality. If you can dismiss this person's religious experience out of hand as illusory, then it is no different than dismissing anyone else's. As someone once put (or close to it): "I propose we are both atheists. I only disbelieve one more god than you do. When you understand why you reject all the millions of possible gods that humanity has invented over thousands of years, then you will understand why I reject yours." |
kittyman Send message Joined: 9 Jul 00 Posts: 51468 Credit: 1,018,363,574 RAC: 1,004 |
I believe I have stated this before.............. I respect an atheist's right to not believe. I may not agree with their lack of belief. But I shall not berate them for that. I only ask them to also respect my right to believe as I do. "Freedom is just Chaos, with better lighting." Alan Dean Foster |
Gordon Lowe Send message Joined: 5 Nov 00 Posts: 12094 Credit: 6,317,865 RAC: 0 |
Everything you say makes sense, but the act of rejecting things creates it's own religion, imo. How so? Why is it not possible to reject an idea without creating a religion? If you're passionate enough about something to be certain, that mindset falls into my definition of a religion. The mind is a weird and mysterious place |
bobby Send message Joined: 22 Mar 02 Posts: 2866 Credit: 17,789,109 RAC: 3 |
Everything you say makes sense, but the act of rejecting things creates it's own religion, imo. Well yes, that's very likely true, which is why some atheists (myself included) adopt Russell's approach to describing their position: Here there comes a practical question which has often troubled me. Whenever I go into a foreign country or a prison or any similar place they always ask me what is my religion. Essentially this is very similar to Mr. Kevvy's "millions of gods" vs "millions of gods + 1" approach, though it does attempt to address the "certainty" issue. That certainty thing appears to be present in posts from theists and atheists in this thread: At best, there's only anecdotal evidence of sub-atomic particles. Cathode ray tubes are not anecdotal evidence for the existence of electrons, at least not by what most would consider "anecdotal" (the reverse of "the plural of anecdote is not data" is also true, "the singular of data is not anecdote"), while the evidence may be indirect (we cannot see with our own eyes an individual electron), to my my mind, that's not sufficient cause to describe it as anecdotal. If you truly believe that the best evidence available for the existence of sub-atomic particles is anecdotes, please visit CERN and discuss your ideas with the physicists and engineers there, you might be persuaded to change your belief. Atheism is neither a Religion, nor a Secular Ideology. Just a belief in the Scientific Method. AKA 'Prove It'. There were atheists prior to the creation of the scientific method, thus atheism cannot be "just a belief" in that method. Russell's (and Mr Kevvy's) approach was accessible to those who thought about gods prior to the creation of the scientific method. The possibility of the existence of a god (or God) troubles this atheist as much as the possible existence of Russell's teapot or invisible pink zebras, that I cannot conclusively prove none of these things exist, is not really the point. I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ... |
OzzFan Send message Joined: 9 Apr 02 Posts: 15691 Credit: 84,761,841 RAC: 28 |
[quote]Everything you say makes sense, but the act of rejecting things creates it's own religion, imo. Your first statement was without a modifier; "the act of rejecting things creates it's own religion, imo." Now you are adding a modifier that wasn't there, putting an "if" on it; "If you're passionate enough about something to be certain..." While the individual can be passionate, that's a more a reflection on them. Additionally, the "if" you've added now allows for a possibility for someone to reject things without being passionate. Therefore should it not be possible to reject things without being passionate and therefore be an atheist without creating a religion? |
kittyman Send message Joined: 9 Jul 00 Posts: 51468 Credit: 1,018,363,574 RAC: 1,004 |
Religion does not adhere to nor does it require any 'scientific evidence'. Although some have tried to provide such. I have my belief because I was taught it. And I have never seen any reason to abandon that thought. It gives me great comfort at times, realizing that there are forces in play in life that are far greater than I have any control over. I acknowledge one true God, who gave me my life. And while I have that understanding, I also know that He does not control it. If so, he would never have led me to where I am standing right now. He, if He were so controlling, would have steered me far away from where I am at this time. But, He has allowed me to steer myself far away from where I should be. We, you and I, are not simply ships awash at sea. I know this, and at some point before I pass, should hope to bring the ship around hard. "Freedom is just Chaos, with better lighting." Alan Dean Foster |
©2024 University of California
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.