David Icke's Official Forums (https://forum.davidicke.com/index.php)
-   The Nature of Matrix Religions and what they mean. (https://forum.davidicke.com/forumdisplay.php?f=14)
-   -   Atheism Is Bullshit (https://forum.davidicke.com/showthread.php?t=231182)

voxvot 22-12-2012 11:01 AM

Atheism Is Bullshit
 
Atheism for most people is a comfort myth that replaces an uncertainty that must be addressed by thinking, for a certainty that can be addressed with dogma. Atheism is the worldview of the lazy. It requires little though, no work and imposes no burden of responsibility.

Atheism, like all shallow and essentially dumb philosophies, is popular with two sectors of society: the masses and the intelligentsia. The intelligentsia are that sector of society that has intelligence but no power and seeks power by exploiting its intelligence. The problem with the intelligentsia is that it does not represent top flight intelligence, the type of intelligence possessed by an Enoch Powell for example, if it did it wouldn't be the intelligentsia, it would be the power elite.

The power elite, however are vulnerable. The enhanced capabilities of the power elite foster an autocratic autonomy that fosters natural divisions. What can be divided can be conquered and although the power elite have a shared common interest in retaining their individual positions, they lack the feelings of dependency that create a unity in opposition. Under threat the power elite act like Samurai warriors facing the Mongol invaders. Individual champions, sure in their perfection of individual martial prowess ride out to challenge the champions of the horde, only to be shot down at an inglorious distance by the mass of archers in the enemy army.

In this way a consolidated force of the above average, but beneath excellent, can defeat an established elite with excellent power credentials. Please note that this does not mean that the power-elite are either the best or the most intelligent people in society. The power elite in any society are simply those best equipped with whatever tools are necessary to exploit the power opportunities extended by a particular social paradigm. The prerequisite of power for the intelligentsia is consolidation of opposition. This requires uniformity of ideology and the mobilization of mass opposition, the masses.

If the attraction of atheism to the intelligentsia is as a unifying ideology that radically contests the established authority what is its attraction to the masses? The masses, like everyone else, are motivated by getting as much bang for their buck as is possible at any given time. This sums to a desire to get the maximum amount of pleasure with the minimum amount of responsibility. The problem with this is that myopic mankind en masse is very, very bad at estimating the real cost of a "free" lunch. The hordes constantly sign up for "peace, bread and land" only to be served war, famine and industrial slavery.

Atheism as an ideological tool of the liberal-intelligentsia used to consolidate opposition and mobilize the masses against the established power structure, for the purpose of the replacement of the present establishment with the intelligentsia, but why is it bullshit?

It is bullshit because it is a false dichotomy and therefore a strawman fallacy. Religion and philosophy address three questions summed up by Paul Gauguin in the title of his masterpiece painting, "Where Do We Come From? What Are We? Where Are We Going?"

In response to, Where do we come from?", atheism's answer is, the Big Bang. The Big bang, however, presupposes matter and energy, which begs the question, where did the matter and energy come from? For this reason, far from being a conclusive answer, the big bang merely represents a convenient stop off point in an infinite regress.

The question, "What are we?", is addressed by atheists at a purely biological/reproductive level, when in reality it is essentially a question about consciousness. In reality atheists are simply evading the question.

The answer to the question, "Where are we going?" is death. What happens after death? Apparently nothing, but atheists can't explain how they know this.

pyrrhonist 22-12-2012 12:21 PM

Atheism is bullshit, but then so is everything else.

deinonychus 22-12-2012 12:24 PM

Are there even true atheists? How can anyone without a shred of doubt say there is no God and there is no afterlife? Atheism is a negative stance.. ''I do not believe in God / God does not exist''. Why do people prance around with a negative label? The label only remind themselves of God and I thought they wanted to get rid of that. I don't hate atheists. Many of them are interested in science and are a skeptical people. That is to be valued, but I think it's always better and safer to take the position of an agnostic when one deals with science and skepticism. Check David Hume.

pr0fanus 22-12-2012 12:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by voxvot (Post 1061213029)
Atheism for most people is a comfort myth that replaces an uncertainty that must be addressed by thinking, for a certainty that can be addressed with dogma. Atheism is the worldview of the lazy. It requires little though, no work and imposes no burden of responsibility.

That's an odd, odd comment. For one, pretty much everything you wrote there is... wrong. 1) Atheism doesn't have myths. 2) Atheism doesn't have a dogma. 3) Atheism is not a worldview. The last sentence is about right; Atheism "requires" no thought or work, because atheism is merely a position on a single issue (the belief in a god or gods).

Quote:

Originally Posted by voxvot (Post 1061213029)
Atheism, like all shallow and essentially dumb philosophies, is popular with two sectors of society: the masses and the intelligentsia.

You're not going to back up any of this, are you?

You then go on a rant on the power elite, which I'm not going to touch, due to it's irrelevance to the matter at hand.

Quote:

Originally Posted by voxvot (Post 1061213029)
If the attraction of atheism to the intelligentsia is as a unifying ideology that radically contests the established authority what is its attraction to the masses? The masses, like everyone else, are motivated by getting as much bang for their buck as is possible at any given time. This sums to a desire to get the maximum amount of pleasure with the minimum amount of responsibility. The problem with this is that myopic mankind en masse is very, very bad at estimating the real cost of a "free" lunch. The hoards constantly sign up for "peace, bread and land" only to be served war, famine and industrial slavery.

So the great unwashed are dumb? 'kay.

Quote:

Originally Posted by voxvot (Post 1061213029)
Atheism as an ideological tool of the liberal-intelligentsia used to consolidate opposition and mobilize the masses against the established power structure, for the purpose of the replacement of the present establishment with the intelligentsia, but why is it bullshit?

It is bullshit because it is a false dichotomy and therefore a strawman fallacy. Religion and philosophy address three questions summed up by Paul Gauguin in the title of his masterpiece painting, "Where Do We Come From? What Are We? Where Are We Going?"

I would like to know what the false dichotomy and the ensuing strawman are.

Quote:

Originally Posted by voxvot (Post 1061213029)
In response to, Where do we come from?", atheism's answer is, the Big Bang.

False. In response to "Where do we come from?", the answer of atheism is profound silence. An atheisT may have an answer to that question, but atheisM certainly does not. Again, atheism is not a worldview.

Quote:

Originally Posted by voxvot (Post 1061213029)
The Big bang, however, presupposes matter and energy, which begs the question, where did the matter and energy come from? For this reason, far from being a conclusive answer, the big bang merely represents a convenient stop off point in an infinite regress.

First of all, you're misusing "begs the question", which comes from the latin "petitio principii", meaning roughly "assuming the initial premise". No offence. Also, how do you know matter and energy hasn't always existed? Why do you assume there was a "nothing", from which the universe had to come? "Before the Big Bang" seems to be an impossibility on its own, because it seems likely that there was no time before the Big Bang. I use "seems" and the like, because we have no definite knowledge.

Quote:

Originally Posted by voxvot (Post 1061213029)
The question, "What are we?", is addressed by atheists at a purely biological/reproductive level, when in reality it is essentially a question about consciousness. In reality atheists are simply evading the question.

Again, wrong. Many Buddhists, for instance, while being atheists believe in concepts such as Nirvana. Atheists have a whole variety of beliefs on consciousness, souls and the like.

How do you know consciousness is separated from the biological?

Quote:

Originally Posted by voxvot (Post 1061213029)
The answer to the question, "Where are we going?" is death. What happens after death? Apparently nothing, but atheists can't explain how they know this.

Do I even have to say this? You're wrong, again. This is the crucial part: Atheism is the lack of belief in a god or gods. Nothing more, nothing less. By the way, I find it humorous that you would require evidence for the lack of an after-life, would you, by the same token, care to provide some evidence for the non-existence of Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer?

drakul 22-12-2012 01:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pr0fanus (Post 1061213161)

Do I even have to say this? You're wrong, again. This is the crucial part: Atheism is the lack of belief in a god or gods. Nothing more, nothing less. By the way, I find it humorous that you would require evidence for the lack of an after-life, would you, by the same token, care to provide some evidence for the non-existence of Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer?

Are You saying that atheists believe in an Immortal Soul but not God? Heh.

If the soul is immortal - then why not God?

The Immortal Soul IS God.

drakul 22-12-2012 01:24 PM

Quote:

quote voxvot: Atheism for most people is a comfort myth that replaces an uncertainty that must be addressed by thinking, for a certainty that can be addressed with dogma. Atheism is the worldview of the lazy. It requires little though, no work and imposes no burden of responsibility.

This is so true - I am glad someone finally said it. All these famous atheists - how much time have they put into meditation for example? Even Jesus had to go out into the desert and fast and pray for 40 days.

Reaching God Consciousness - Christ Consciousness - Higher Consciousness takes WORK: Fasting, meditation, yoga, dedication. Years of work. How many years of dedication to finding God did the famous avowed Atheist Richard Dawkins put into it? Dawkins spent many years getting his PHD, how many years did he spend searching for God? NONE> Dawkins got his phd in animal behavior the easy way studying crickets in a testube. And this entitles him to announce - Guess what all you stupidos - there is no God.

Dawkins didn't even go out into the field like other famous naturalists and spend years living with gorillas or chimpanzees for example. If he had, Dawkins would have much more respect for the WONDER that is nature. Dawkins pretends that God must be like a genii in a bottle: `God are you there? Come out come out wherever you are'. (snaps fingers). `God did not answer me! Therefore - no God.

pr0fanus 22-12-2012 01:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by drakul (Post 1061213277)
Are You saying that atheists believe in an Immortal Soul but not God? Heh.

If the soul is immortal - then why not God?

The Immortal Soul IS God.

So this becomes a problem of semantics. Usually God is defined as an EXTERNAL being, separate from man. This is the most common view of God in the western world, so it seemed more appropriate. The belief in an immortal soul does not necessarily include the belief in the equivalence of the immortal soul and God.

voxvot 22-12-2012 01:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pr0fanus (Post 1061213161)
That's an odd, odd comment. For one, pretty much everything you wrote there is... wrong. 1) Atheism doesn't have myths. 2) Atheism doesn't have a dogma. 3) Atheism is not a worldview. The last sentence is about right; Atheism "requires" no thought or work, because atheism is merely a position on a single issue (the belief in a god or gods).

To state that, "That's an odd, odd comment" is meaningless abuse. Your intention is to create an impression of detached and slightly amused intellectual superiority, so your discourse is born in nonsense and deceit.

Where did I state that atheism has "myths"? Nowhere! What are you disputing here?

Atheism does have a dogma delineated in a corpus of literature featuring lightweight twaddle like, "The God Delusion".

Atheism is not necessarily a worldview, this does not mean that it cannot and does not manifest as a worldview. The re-branding of atheism under the banner of "New Atheism" clearly categorizes it as a worldview. Are you perhaps incapable of perceiving the possibility of different kinds of atheist? There are philosophical atheists and ideological atheists. Philosophical atheism is essentially ontological.

Quote:

You're not going to back up any of this, are you?
This is reality based on my environmental observations. Dawkins and his fellow travelers constitute an intellectual vanguard for a nascent popular mass movement. My assertion can be validated by simple observation, why would I "back it up"?

Quote:

You then go on a rant on the power elite, which I'm not going to touch, due to it's irrelevance to the matter at hand
This is a structuralist analysis of the motive behind ideological atheism.

Quote:

So the great unwashed are dumb? 'kay.
Of course they are. There is a spectrum of intelligence and most people are, in comparison to the elite, dumber than shithouse rats.

Quote:

I would like to know what the false dichotomy and the ensuing strawman are
It's true that I didn't develop that point.

Quote:

False. In response to "Where do we come from?", the answer of atheism is profound silence. An atheisT may have an answer to that question, but atheisM certainly does not. Again, atheism is not a worldview
Atheism, having its foundation in materialism, has no answer to that question. This speaks more about the limitations of atheism than about the relevance of the question. If people find the question meaningful, which they overwhelmingly do, then atheism's inability to contribute can only be perceived as a massive fail.

Quote:

First of all, you're misusing "begs the question", which comes from the latin "petitio principii", meaning roughly "assuming the initial premise". No offence. Also, how do you know matter and energy hasn't always existed? Why do you assume there was a "nothing", from which the universe had to come? "Before the Big Bang" seems to be an impossibility on its own, because it seems likely that there was no time before the Big Bang. I use "seems" and the like, because we have no definite knowledge
Neither of us "knows" anything in that sense. We have knowledge of the natural world and intuition. My knowledge and intuition lead me to believe that where there is infinitely complex order there is an ordering principle and that entropic forces like explosions don't lead to creative outcomes like ordered universes and human consciousness in the absence of a creative presence.

Quote:

Again, wrong. Many Buddhists, for instance, while being atheists believe in concepts such as Nirvana. Atheists have a whole variety of beliefs on consciousness, souls and the like
This is why ideological atheists don't debate much with Buddhists, mystics or philosophers.

Quote:

How do you know consciousness is separated from the biological?
This is a primacy argument, which lands us in the ontological realm.

Quote:

Do I even have to say this? You're wrong, again. This is the crucial part: Atheism is the lack of belief in a god or gods. Nothing more, nothing less. By the way, I find it humorous that you would require evidence for the lack of an after-life, would you, by the same token, care to provide some evidence for the non-existence of Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer?
Let me first note your "amused" stance strategy. Essentially you are rehashing the old "you can't prove nonexistence" argument. This is garbage; it would be pretty difficult for me to prove there were no flying reindeer with luminous noses, but with the required resources, it would not be anymore difficult to prove than that there is no living Diplodocus. It is easy to prove nonexistence: there are no married bachelors.

selig 22-12-2012 01:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by drakul (Post 1061213300)
This is so true - I am glad someone finally said it. All these famous atheists - how much time have they put into meditation for example? Even Jesus had to go out into the desert and fast and pray for 40 days.

You appear to be in the awkward position of having not done any research into what you are attacking...




Quote:

Reaching God Consciousness - Christ Consciousness - Higher Consciousness takes WORK: Fasting, meditation, yoga, dedication. Years of work. How many years of dedication to finding God did the famous avowed Atheist Richard Dawkins put into it? Dawkins spent many years getting his PHD, how many years did he spend searching for God? NONE> Dawkins got his phd in animal behavior the easy way studying crickets in a testube. And this entitles him to announce - Guess what all you stupidos - there is no God.

Dawkins didn't even go out into the field like other famous naturalists and spend years living with gorillas or chimpanzees for example. If he had, Dawkins would have much more respect for the WONDER that is nature. Dawkins pretends that God must be like a genii in a bottle: `God are you there? Come out come out wherever you are'. (snaps fingers). `God did not answer me! Therefore - no God.
I often get letters, quite frequently, from people who say how they like the programmes a lot, but I never give credit to the almighty power that created nature. To which I reply and say, "Well, it's funny that the people, when they say that this is evidence of the Almighty, always quote beautiful things. They always quote orchids and hummingbirds and butterflies and roses." But I always have to think too of a little boy sitting on the banks of a river in west Africa who has a worm boring through his eyeball, turning him blind before he's five years old. And I reply and say, "Well, presumably the God you speak about created the worm as well," and now, I find that baffling to credit a merciful God with that action. And therefore it seems to me safer to show things that I know to be truth, truthful and factual, and allow people to make up their own minds about the moralities of this thing, or indeed the theology of this thing.

David Attenborough - From the BBC documentary Life on Air (2002)

I think of a little child in east Africa with a worm burrowing through his eyeball. The worm cannot live in any other way, except by burrowing through eyeballs. I find that hard to reconcile with the notion of a divine and benevolent creator.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mI7f3xVgZdA

pr0fanus 22-12-2012 01:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by drakul (Post 1061213300)
This is so true - I am glad someone finally said it. All these famous atheists - how much time have they put into meditation for example? Even Jesus had to go out into the desert and fast and pray for 40 days.

Reaching God Consciousness - Christ Consciousness - Higher Consciousness takes WORK: Fasting, meditation, yoga, dedication. Years of work. How many years of dedication to finding God did the famous avowed Atheist Richard Dawkins put into it? Dawkins spent many years getting his PHD, how many years did he spend searching for God? NONE> Dawkins got his phd in animal behavior the easy way studying crickets in a testube. And this entitles him to announce - Guess what all you stupidos - there is no God.

You do realize that most atheists come to their conclusions through a long process of study, right? Especially in the west, most people are taught to be Christians. They aren't atheists initially.

Quote:

Originally Posted by drakul (Post 1061213300)
Dawkins didn't even go out into the field like other famous naturalists and spend years living with gorillas or chimpanzees for example. If he had, Dawkins would have much more respect for the WONDER that is nature.

That's why he wrote such books as The Magic of Reality, right?


voxvot 22-12-2012 02:13 PM

Quote:

You do realize that most atheists come to their conclusions through a long process of study, right? Especially in the west, most people are taught to be Christians. They aren't atheists initially
LOL! Two recent cases tend to suggest (whatever your view of their rights or wrongs) that your view of Christianity as an institutionalized and powerful force in the Western world is total bullshit.

Quote:

A nurse could be sacked and even struck off for offering to say a prayer for an elderly patient.
Caroline Petrie, a community nurse and devout Christian, has already been suspended for an alleged breach of her code of conduct on equality and diversity.
She now faces disciplinary action, even though the patient involved did not make a formal complaint

Quote:

A Christian today lost her appeal against a ruling which cleared British Airways of discrimination by stopping her wearing a cross visibly at work.
Nadia Eweida, 58, had wanted three judges to overturn a decision by the Employment Appeal Tribunal that she was not a victim of indirect religion or belief discrimination
That's another thing I hate about atheists, the fact that they present themselves as valiant heroes engaged in a noble struggle against a dominant ideology, whilst in fact they are sadistically tormenting a crippled and dying minority. Atheists are weak people without valor or honor.

deinonychus 22-12-2012 02:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pr0fanus (Post 1061213365)
You do realize that most atheists come to their conclusions through a long process of study, right? Especially in the west, most people are taught to be Christians. They aren't atheists initially.

Maybe that's the case for America, but most Europeans these days are raised in atheist families. The surveys may give us a different picture but I think that has more to do with identifying with cultural Christianity and family, not so much with belief in God.

pr0fanus 22-12-2012 02:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by voxvot (Post 1061213331)
To state that, "That's an odd, odd comment" is meaningless abuse. Your intention is to create an impression of detached and slightly amused intellectual superiority, so your discourse is born in nonsense and deceit.

Where did I state that atheism has "myths"? Nowhere! What are you disputing here?

A bit defensive, are we? I merely stated my opinion. I found your initial paragraph odd, because it seemed like you had taken a paragraph written by your average Youtube atheist and replaced "religion" with "atheism". Try replacing "atheism" with "mainstream/conventional religion", you'll see what I mean.

"Atheism for most people is a comfort myth". Well... I'm disputing most of what you wrote, I thought that was clear?

Quote:

Originally Posted by voxvot (Post 1061213331)
Atheism does have a dogma delineated in a corpus of literature featuring lightweight twaddle like, "The God Delusion".

And that's where you're wrong. Like I said, atheism is the lack of belief in a god. Every individual atheist is free to mold their beliefs beyond that as they wish. Do you seriously think Nietzsche and an atheistic Buddhist would see eye to eye? Books written by atheists represent the views of individual atheists, not that of Atheism.

Quote:

Originally Posted by voxvot (Post 1061213331)
Atheism is not necessarily a worldview, this does not mean that it cannot and does not manifest as a worldview. The re-branding of atheism under the banner of "New Atheism" clearly categorizes it as a worldview. Are you perhaps incapable of perceiving the possibility of different kinds of atheist? There are philosophical atheists and ideological atheists. Philosophical atheism is essentially ontological.

...so the worldview would be New Atheism, not Atheism... Those are two separate things. I'm quite capable of perceiving different kinds of atheists, like I clearly stated before. Are you incapable of perceiving the possibility that atheists necessarily posses beliefs that have nothing to do with atheism, that then further define the individual?

Quote:

Originally Posted by voxvot (Post 1061213331)
This is reality based on my environmental observations. Dawkins and his fellow travelers constitute an intellectual vanguard for a nascent popular mass movement. My assertion can be validated by simple observation, why would I "back it up"?

How does one objectively "observe" a belief to be "shallow and dumb"?

Quote:

Originally Posted by voxvot (Post 1061213331)
This is a structuralist analysis of the motive behind ideological atheism.

It seems like an obtuse one. You realize that atheistic philosophers (that we have written record of) have existed since the ancient Greeks and atheistic individuals probably since the first concept of God, yes?

Quote:

Originally Posted by voxvot (Post 1061213331)
Of course they are. There is a spectrum of intelligence and most people are, in comparison to the elite, dumber than shithouse rats.

I don't see how that's a criticism of atheism.

Quote:

Originally Posted by voxvot (Post 1061213331)
It's true that I didn't develop that point.

Fair enough.

Quote:

Originally Posted by voxvot (Post 1061213331)
Atheism, having its foundation in materialism, has no answer to that question. This speaks more about the limitations of atheism than about the relevance of the question. If people find the question meaningful, which they overwhelmingly do, then atheism's inability to contribute can only be perceived as a massive fail.

No, the question is just irrelevant to atheism. That's like calling the inability of the Pythagorean theorem to account for the deliciousness of chocolate a "massive fail".

Quote:

Originally Posted by voxvot (Post 1061213331)
Neither of us "knows" anything in that sense. We have knowledge of the natural world and intuition. My knowledge and intuition lead me to believe that where there is infinitely complex order there is an ordering principle and that entropic forces like explosions don't lead to creative outcomes like ordered universes and human consciousness in the absence of a creative presence.

Neither of us knows anything absolutely? Apart from logical necessities, sure.

Quote:

Originally Posted by voxvot (Post 1061213331)
This is why ideological atheists don't debate much with Buddhists, mystics or philosophers.

The reason for the small amount of that kind of discussion is the unwillingness on the mystics part. Although, some of this does go on, partly in places you probably wouldn't think to look to.

Quote:

Originally Posted by voxvot (Post 1061213331)
This is a primacy argument, which lands us in the ontological realm.

Keen observation, although I'm not sure what brings you to use the phrase "primacy argument". I submit to you that consciousness as we empirically know it is inherently tied to the brain, if you suffer damage to your brain, the corresponding area of your consciousness malfunctions. So where is the disconnect between the human body and consciousness?

Quote:

Originally Posted by voxvot (Post 1061213331)
Let me first note your "amused" stance strategy. Essentially you are rehashing the old "you can't prove nonexistence" argument. This is garbage; it would be pretty difficult for me to prove there were no flying reindeer with luminous noses, but with the required resources, it would not be anymore difficult to prove than that there is no living Diplodocus. It is easy to prove nonexistence: there are no married bachelors.

It wasn't a "strategy", it was my opinion, although it does seem to show me a bit more of the way you treat others and therefore expect to be treated.

In a way, yes. A diplodocus is different from a God because of this: you have an expectation of the sort of evidence you would assume to see of a diplodocus and therefore a way to verify existence. If these criteria are not met, you have to assume nonexistence, right? Well, this isn't the case with something supernatural, such as an after-life. How could you possibly prove or disprove an after-life (aside from dying, which doesn't do much for others)? The case of a married bachelor, on the other hand, is a simple case of logical necessity. These are the two cases I can think of where nonexistence can be proven, theoretically. And even then, you can't actually absolutely disprove the nonexistence of a living diplodocus, can you? You would technically have to be omnipotent to prove that to yourself, much less others. This isn't made any easier by the constant moving of the goalposts by (mainly) the Christians.

pr0fanus 22-12-2012 03:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by voxvot (Post 1061213398)
LOL! Two recent cases tend to suggest (whatever your view of their rights or wrongs) that your view of Christianity as an institutionalized and powerful force in the Western world is total bullshit.






That's another thing I hate about atheists, the fact that they present themselves as valiant heroes engaged in a noble struggle against a dominant ideology, whilst in fact they are sadistically tormenting a crippled and dying minority. Atheists are weak people without valor or honor.

And this is the fault of atheists, because...?

I never even said that Christianity is powerful force in the Western world, I said that most children do grow in an environment that is religion-friendly, if you will. Especially in America, it's quite rare for an atheist not to have a Christian background.

pr0fanus 22-12-2012 03:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by deinonychus (Post 1061213404)
Maybe that's the case for America, but most Europeans these days are raised in atheist families. The surveys may give us a different picture but I think that has more to do with identifying with cultural Christianity and family, not so much with belief in God.

I live in Scandinavia, which is supposed to be one of the most atheistic parts of the world, and I don't know a single (self-identified) atheist family. Most people identify themselves as Christians, cultural or not. The point is that they think they're Christian and feel that's what their children should be.

kappy0405 22-12-2012 04:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pr0fanus (Post 1061213319)
So this becomes a problem of semantics. Usually God is defined as an EXTERNAL being, separate from man.

Key word there is "usually".. Not believing in the external, anthropomorphized God of literalist Abrahamic religion doesn't make one an atheist. There are still pantheist's, panentheists, both of which are even compatible with monotheism.. & so on..

Quote:

Originally Posted by prOfanus
This is the most common view of God in the western world, so it seemed more appropriate. The belief in an immortal soul does not necessarily include the belief in the equivalence of the immortal soul and God.

If someone believes in an immortal soul, that would imply something higher than our naked 5 sense physical reality & thus "God", according to a general definition.

I agree the issue often comes down to semantics..

amethyst2009 22-12-2012 04:20 PM

Athiesm is our default setting, why change it? We are all born non believers in any of the gods. I think you need an update to put you back to factory settings ;)

Love and peace for all living being on the planet. :)

deinonychus 22-12-2012 04:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pr0fanus (Post 1061213495)
I live in Scandinavia, which is supposed to be one of the most atheistic parts of the world, and I don't know a single (self-identified) atheist family. Most people identify themselves as Christians, cultural or not. The point is that they think they're Christian and feel that's what their children should be.

The churches are becoming more and more empty and people are dabbling in the occult and New Age. Those paths are hardly Christian. People pick 'Christianity' because of cultural identity. But I bet that has changed over the decades.

Atheist families? Nobody calls their family an atheist family. So you don't know any non-religious family? Well that's odd to say the least.
Quote:

Originally Posted by amethyst2009 (Post 1061213621)
Athiesm is our default setting, why change it? We are all born non believers in any of the gods. I think you need an update to put you back to factory settings ;)
Love and peace for all living being on the planet. :)

You are also born without reason, table manners, and a whole range of other things.

selig 22-12-2012 04:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kappy0405 (Post 1061213605)
Key word there is "usually".. Not believing in the external, anthropomorphized God of Abrahamic religion doesn't make one an atheist.

Of course not, it's the rejection of all gods that makes one an atheist.

Quote:

There are still pantheist's, panentheists, both of which are even compatible with monotheism.. & so on..
I would say pantheism is more compatible with atheism than it is monotheism, but that does depend on what your definition of monotheism and pantheism is I suppose.

http://www.pantheism.net/atheism.htm

http://www.pantheism.net/paul/

Quote:

If someone believes in an immortal soul, that would imply something higher than our naked 5 sense physical reality & thus "God", according to a general definition.

I agree the issue often comes down to semantics..
I would also say that a belief in an immortal soul is just that, and that there really is no need to deduce that a god exists because one believes a soul is immortal.

And most atheists believe we have more than 5 senses.

http://fac.hsu.edu/langlet/general/g...perception.htm

himitsunomiko 22-12-2012 04:41 PM

Religion is losing it's grip on people's minds, hence the reason for the anti atheists campaigns and rhetoric. The people don't want to be controlled anymore, we want to be free to think and believe what makes sense to us. There is no reason to slander a people for exercising that freedom.


All times are GMT. The time now is 04:37 AM.