Atheism

[Kurdanak]

Well how dig big bag happen?

 

SCIENCE CAN'T EXPLAIN THE BIG BAG

[Rozalia]

 

 

SCIENCE CAN'T EXPLAIN THE BIG BAG

 

[Spite]

I know you were being trite OP, but I don't think being an atheist means you believe life has no meaning. I think you can dedicate yourself to doing good, helping others and finding happiness without the need for a God, though if that's the path you want to go down organised religions tend to offer a fair bit of support.

[Peace and War]

There is no person that can for certain say that God does or doesn't exist. So why would you follow any belief that takes either side?

[Arthur Wellington]

Atheisme argues against religion because of the negative effects of the tendency of theists to say: because my religion/god says so. Its stops trains of thought and often provides a null argument. The benefits of religion are not dependend on a god but on human communities.

 

That being said: without religion no star wars

[Fistandantilus]

Atheism often promotes itself as being rational unlike what they see as superstitious nonsense. However if we think logically isn't Agnosticism more rational of a thought than any other including Atheism? If we look it as a question of two sides, those who believe in God arrogantly proclaim to know of the superbeing's existence, while those who do not believe arrogantly proclaim to know of the superbeing's non-existence. Both have no real knowledge on the matter, none can actually prove their claims. 

 

Ultimately, because Religion is ridiculous and delusion. Just like any other ridiculous claim, it is safe to assume they are untrue. If I 'corrected' someone by telling them that the core of the moon is not made of Cheese, am I being intrinsically arrogant? Ofcourse not. While the core of the moon hasn't been directly investigated by me or other humans, it is a extremely safe assumption that is is not cheese. People treating religion like this only come off as intrinsically "arrogant" to some because of our cultural bias that gives the current religions validity because so many others entertain the meme(An interesting thing our brain's do). This is just the a priori side of it as well, there are ofcourse the scientific argument of the Universe not working that way, which also applies to the major religions.

 

But just like the moon's core not being made of cheese, Religious claims like an Omnipotent super being(s) who watch our every move and grant us afterlife cant be directly dis-proven(And us humans love deductive reasoning!). But does that mean we should entertain the possibility? Ofcourse not. It is not intrinsically Arrogant nor unwise to denounce the Delusion(This is a more complicated statement then it may seem at 1st). Furthermore, when regarding the major religions specifically, they are paradoxical and can not exist as a rational thought, even in a thought experiment.

 

Incase all of this is unclear, to specifically spell out the answer to your questions. Entertaining the possibility of a delusion is less rational then not. "Both have no real knowledge on the matter, none can actually prove their claims." is untrue because there is "Real knowledge" pertaining to this question. The knowledge is our current models of understanding the world(That predict phenomena and therefor have *atleast* some measure of validity, and religion is delusion under these models) and the logic that bears the major religions out to be contradictory and nonsensical.

 

If your kid randomly claims that the Moon has a core ofcheese inside it because you have never been there, it is irrational to believe him or open yourself up to the possibility

[durmij]

Well shit, I afk for like 36 hours and and this turns into the Great Wall of Text. In no particular order...

 

 

Well how dig big bag happen?

 

Since you've been roasted enough over your spelling, I'll address the big bang question. No one has any knowledge of what happened before the big bang, but that is not proof of a God. You're making an argument that Neil Degrasse Tyson (an agnostic) calls God of the Gaps. Basically people look for any gap, however big or small, in our understanding of the world, and claim that God is the reason for things we can't understand. But our understanding of the world is not fixed. God was responsible for lighting the world, until we discovered the mechanics of the stars. God created man, until we discovered evolution. God made the tides go in and out, and still does according to a least one tv buffoon. A God of the Gaps is not only a poor argument based on the assumptions that my lack of proof is your proof, but such a God is doomed to keep vanishing as knowledge expands.

 

Edit: I'm actually paraphrasing NGD a bit, just to clarify.

Edited December 28, 2015 by durmij

[durmij]

I know you were being trite OP, but I don't think being an atheist means you believe life has no meaning. I think you can dedicate yourself to doing good, helping others and finding happiness without the need for a God, though if that's the path you want to go down organised religions tend to offer a fair bit of support.

 

I meant meaning in the way that religions promises you meaning, in a cosmic scale. It's impossible for a person to be meaningful on such a scale because we don't belong on that scale. Meaning is derived from context and persons are completely with out context on a universal scale. We derive context in our lives by having relationships with people, institutions etc. Life absolutely can have meaning, just not in the permanent, all encompassing arena that religion offers.

 

There is no person that can for certain say that God does or doesn't exist. So why would you follow any belief that takes either side?

 

Because for me, "God", as described by theists, has been satisfactorily disproved. The grand question of god may be irrelevant and unanswerable, but many people claim to have an answer, answers i find fundamental flaws in. That is why I'm an atheist instead of agnostic.

 

Edit: spelling

Edited December 28, 2015 by durmij

[durmij]

With the field of Atheism there is no belief in God and hence no Teleology. Under this field of doctrine is it more or less to say that it is guided more by the philosophy of JS Mill or Immanual Kant?

 

I'm actually far less read in philosophy then I should be, so I used google and will try to answer this the best I can. JS Mill's Utilitarianism leaves a lot to be desired, but Kant appears to be a moral absolutist which is just an untenable point of view, because it ignores the changing of contexts. I wouldn't consider myself a part of any atheist doctrine, as I believe organized atheism has some fatal flaws in it.

[durmij]

Reincarnation is real.

 

Prove it and forever be known as the greatest scientist to exist.

[Lannan13]

Well how dig big bag happen?

From the explosion of a Star. It could have been a Supernova or maybe a Hypernova. 

[Lannan13]

I'm actually far less read in philosophy then I should be, so I used google and will try to answer this the best I can. JS Mill's Utilitarianism leaves a lot to be desired, but Kant appears to be a moral absolutist which is just an untenable point of view, because it ignores the changing of contexts. I wouldn't consider myself a part of any atheist doctrine, as I believe organized atheism has some fatal flaws in it.

I can agree there. I am the same way, but for Christianity. During the Enlightenment they found that the only way that one can have faith is through doubt. If one hasn't challenged or questioned their own beliefs then they are not a believer, but are brainwashed.

[Lannan13]

On this post I shall teach all about Atheism

If You have something rude to say about the true non religion this is NOT the place

No shit posting

This is not a debate thread

 

I'm just taking the piss. But if you want to ask a man that is convinced life is meaningless and is okay with that fact some questions, I can answer.

 

Muslims can't have all the fun.

This is slightly on a small tangent, but do you believe that it is possible for this to be an alternate dimession? The reason this could be is since singularities are found only at black holes and the big bang. It could be possible, that the Big Bang was a result of a SuperNova that collapsed into a black hole. The matter sucked into the black hole was stripped into Hyrdogen atoms and very hot, but would soon cool down as the universe expanded. (you know the rest of the story)

 

As an atheist, what is your favorite argument against the existance of God?

[Doktor Avalanche]

As an atheist, what is your favorite argument against the existance of God?

Their religious texts having credence.

[Abu Haddad]

The Quran is the most credible source

[A/C]

The Quran is the most credible source

You're easily one of the most annoying troll posters I've ever seen.

[Mike Haggar]

How do you, as an atheist, explain the remarkable consistency of DMT trips, dreams, and near-death experiences? While I'm a staunch believer in science, there's a remarkable amount of observations that Occam's razor would require some sort of relationship between the human psyche and the very nature of the universe.

 

Disclaimer: While I have flirted with atheism, I am leaning more towards hermeticism and actually consider myself a "probabilitist". I ascribe probablilities to my beliefs, rather than rigid either/or orthodoxy. Currently, some sort of creator or deity is at a higher probability than no deity.

[Lannan13]

Their religious texts having credence.

Wouldn't that just be a refutation of a simple minded argument then?

[Jack Mcfloyd]

The Quran is the most credible source

[durmij]

This is slightly on a small tangent, but do you believe that it is possible for this to be an alternate dimession? The reason this could be is since singularities are found only at black holes and the big bang. It could be possible, that the Big Bang was a result of a SuperNova that collapsed into a black hole. The matter sucked into the black hole was stripped into Hyrdogen atoms and very hot, but would soon cool down as the universe expanded. (you know the rest of the story)

 

As an atheist, what is your favorite argument against the existance of God?

 

My favourite is the incompatibility with the notion of God with the scientific definition of a system. A closed system as any system that doesn't have any interaction with anything outside. The only thing that fits this definition is the entirety of the universe. We can treat smaller systems as closed for the purpose of experiments and what not, but only the universe fits that definition in the strictest sense. God is supposed to be an entity outside of the universe that has direct, measurable impact on the world. Here we see the conflict. If god is outside of the universe, it can't influence it in any measurable way. If it does, it ceases to be a God and just becomes a super being in the universe. That's why the entire question of God is an irrelevant to me. Any "God" I can see would be unable to convince me it wasn't just some uber being.

 

How do you, as an atheist, explain the remarkable consistency of DMT trips, dreams, and near-death experiences? While I'm a staunch believer in science, there's a remarkable amount of observations that Occam's razor would require some sort of relationship between the human psyche and the very nature of the universe.

 

Disclaimer: While I have flirted with atheism, I am leaning more towards hermeticism and actually consider myself a "probabilitist". I ascribe probablilities to my beliefs, rather than rigid either/or orthodoxy. Currently, some sort of creator or deity is at a higher probability than no deity.

 

Drugs have similar effects in people, barring things like brain damage or chemical unbalance. As someone who has tried many psychadelics, while I did have experiences some would call spiritual, including a profound sense of connection to the universe, those are just experiences. They aren't evidence of a God, in the same way every good experience or good act isn't either. There is a tendency to treat everything emotional or moving as a point for god, but sometimes an acid trip is just an acid trip.

[Hereno]

i mean, scientifically speaking, we're all the same universe and our consciousness all comes from the same place

 

that's pretty much how it has to be

[Abu Haddad]

Atheism is illogical because the universe came out of nothing.

Would someone explain what is the nothing the Big Bang happened in

[durmij]

Atheism is illogical because the universe came out of nothing.

Would someone explain what is the nothing the Big Bang happened in

 

You're making the same argument, the "god from the gaps", again. Sciences lack of understanding of a certain area of knowledge is not proof of god.

 

You're also deliberately misinterpreting conventional thinking on the big bang. It's not something from nothing, it's everything from a very tiny something.

[Lannan13]

On this post I shall teach all about Atheism

If You have something rude to say about the true non religion this is NOT the place

No shit posting

This is not a debate thread

 

I'm just taking the piss. But if you want to ask a man that is convinced life is meaningless and is okay with that fact some questions, I can answer.

 

Muslims can't have all the fun.

Are you up for a friendly debate on the other forum?

[Lannan13]

What's your opinion on Pascal's wager?

I find it an interesting argument, but it could be used for anything though. For example (see the bellow)

 

You must believe in Kathulu (I know it's mispelled) or he will crush you.

 

Kathulu Doesn't exist and you believe in him--->Nothing happens

Kathulu Doesn't exist and you don't believe in him--->Nothing happens

Kathulu Does exist and you believe in him--->Kathulu spares you

Kathulu Does exist and you don't believe in him---> Kathulu crushes you.

 

See? This can be used for anything as stupid as that. Besides, it has nothing to do with the existance of God, but is more or less a game of shifting the Burden of Proof for the argument to the atheist and it has absolutely nothing to do with the argument. Call it a Red Heron at most.