Thread: Will Atheism Save the World?

Originally Posted by Mark75

I'm not seeing a contradiction here. My "way of thinking" is changing way of thinking when a better way comes along. It does not indicate any particular set of beliefs if that's what you thought I meant.

Oh I see. I believe that is a natural thing to do. Words have limitations...

What would you think if you saw somebody who lived in the kingdom of heaven, simply by having searched for God; having an atypical outlook and an open Mind?

Originally Posted by Mark75

You also said I contradicted myself "again" but where was the other time?

It's not as important, so I shouldn't really have suggested it. It may only stir unnecessary argument; read what I have already said in my previous post.

Originally Posted by really

What would you think if you saw somebody who lived in the kingdom of heaven...

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Do you mean to say if I literally saw someone who was in heaven, or do you just mean it figuratively?

It's a very broad question, but if you mean it figuratively, I would guess that the person is clinging to these beliefs out of fear of death or hope for an afterlife, lingering childhood indoctrination, etc.. Or that there's simply something they're not considering. That their "search for god" was skewed in some way, or the result was given more merit than it had, etc. It's hard to answer without specifics. There's millions of reasons why people "live in the kingdom of god".

Looks like Mark wins again.

Originally Posted by Taosaur

I'm pretty hostile to monotheism--it's hard for me not to interpret the history of the last two millennia as the story of monotheism frustrating human progress and, particularly in the last century, bringing into question the survival of humanity, if not all life on earth. Yet atheists, descended mainly from the same ontological foundations, just in opposition rather than affirmation, seem equally imperial, suggesting they've found the One True Path to enlightenment and advancement of society.

It will not work.

I thoroughly disagree.

Religion limits the endeavour of knowledge. Implications of supernatural beings always replace the true amazing nature of the universe. Furthermore, it encourages the abolishment of individual responsibility (ie. "do not worry, god will take care of it" "its in gods hands now" etc.).

Atheism utilizes science (as it has nothing else to utilize) which only focuses on what is systematically observable, empirical, and practical. There is no inclination to remove individual responsibility as there is no impending supernatural being. Furthermore, knowledge is left up to the individual to seek.

Atheism does not give excuses for faulty personality flaws. You will never find an atheist saying, "They died because God wanted them to" or something similar because Atheists recognize the amazing spark of life that you have now and do not get drunk indulging into a hopeless dream.

No one can explain the differences here better than John Lennon:
Imagine: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jEOkxRLzBf0

"Imagine there's no heaven, it's easy if you try. No hell below us, above us only sky. Imagine all the people, living for the day. Imagine there is no country, it isn't hard to do. Nothing to kill or die for, and no religion to."

(Note: Some radios are arrogant enough to change "no religion to" to "one religion to")

We're not going to get everyone to agree on what's going on here. We're not going to get everyone to agree that it's God's will, that it's evolution, or that it's entirely pointless.

I thoroughly diagree.

I see in this century the crux of debate between evolution vs creationism. I see direct paralell's between this debate and geocentric vs heliocentric systems. The proof is overwhelming. (I am not going to cite any proof or anything, you have seen my other thread.)

If you are so indulged, I encourage you to look further into it to see it unedited and perfect in its own form of presentation:
https://www.skeptic.com/Merchant2/me...egory_Code=OTH

Atheists, do you really believe that if everyone thought like you and shared your values, the world would be a better place? Do you see that ever happening? Do you see any rationally positive outcome to pushing for a world that can never exist?

I think it can exist and it will. Make no mistake, Atheists are not looking to brainwash people into believing a blind faith towards something. I seek that other people value and cherish the idea of the scientific method. If you are wrong, be receptive to it and learn from it. Do not become stubborn in your beliefs and abide by them regardless of a plethora of evidence against it.

Quite literally what you ask of me is; "do you think that a world where people are receptive to others arguments, will listen, will learn, will develop, can truly exist?"

To think otherwise, is an absolute nightmare.

Monotheists, can you accept that other people are referencing the same world even if they use different methods/symbols/texts? Can you get beyond literalism and territoriality to refute the notion that all religion is poison?

Here is where I think a religious person will fail to come up with a response that can truly be patriotic to their beliefs and yet maintain some form of interdependence. Perhaps someone will try to say some middle-ground remarks to try and be respectful and honorable to both sides.

However, I argue for the sake of the sashay of truth and empiricism. I am more than willing to believe in a God if it can be proven; just like anything else. I argue for the path of the systematically observable.

Personally, I think religions have to police themselves for the most part, and fix what's wrong from within. We need to encourage interfaith dialogue, so that people can retain their faith while accepting that there are many paths.

Religion is the stubborn bully of the world only budging inches at a time. Without religion, our world would be incredibly and significantly better.

On that note, I would like to encourage people to enjoy a good satire:
Part I: http://allsp.com/loading2.php?url=l.php?id=e151
Part II: http://allsp.com/loading2.php?url=l.php?id=e152

What do you think...?

Edit:
Here's a good question; how is it what I proposed a bad thing? What are the potential threats from what I am proposing? Evolution may be wrong in some areas, but certainly not all. Even in the hypothetical case that it is; what is the harm in the method that Atheists pontificate? I honestly want to know because I have yet to be shown any reason. (This is not sarcasm or a threat, I have genuinely not seen a reason to believe otherwise).

~

Here I go again...
Getting all giddy at the line, "I disagree".

This thread is what school should have been, entertainingly contradictory.

Moar pl0x?

Very well put O'nus. The argument always seems to be "So instead of brainwashing children with religion, you'll brainwash them with science and reason - same difference". The entire argument consists of fail.

You can make any form of education sound negative by calling it brainwashing or indoctrination. But brainwashing and indoctrination are just specific forms of education, namely those that discourage self-responsibility and critical thinking. You cannot brainwash someone with science and if you could, I would advocate doing so.

If I was to say what should be taught in school, I'd make philosophy of science, logic, ontology and knowledge mandatory from very early age on. Then I would add psychology of well-being, self-discovery, reason and humanistic psychology. The goal would be to make it extremely easy for any child to understand that religion is dogma and rubbish. Do only that and and a lot of problems would be solved (in theory)

The problem really seems to me now that kids learn maths, but not logic, they learn science, but not the scientific method, they learn self-delusion instead of self-discovery.

Originally Posted by ClouD

Here I go again...
Getting all giddy at the line, "I disagree".

This thread is what school should have been, entertainingly contradictory.

Moar pl0x?

Like school, we also value your contribution.

I think Taosaur is suggesting one of two things:

1)

Atheism cannot "save" the world or change it and there is a better alternative. I am curious what that alternative is and, considering number 2, I fear what the alternative is because it can only be in opposition to 2.

2)

Atheism cannot save the world and we ought to value a sense of community.

Fortunately, this is actually the crux of atheism! Atheism relies on humanism and the value of truth and the empirical. Not to believe in wishful thinking or naivity but the systematicall observable. In other words, I will believe in something when it can be systematicall shown or proven. This is obviously the best grounds for belief as it is inclined to fact which is something that gives cogent reason for any other person to believe in the aforementioned.

Originally Posted by Korittke

Very well put O'nus. The argument always seems to be "So instead of brainwashing children with religion, you'll brainwash them with science and reason - same difference". The entire argument consists of fail.

You can make any form of education sound negative by calling it brainwashing or indoctrination. But brainwashing and indoctrination are just specific forms of education, namely those that discourage self-responsibility and critical thinking. You cannot brainwash someone with science and if you could, I would advocate doing so.

This is also entirely contradictory. Brainwash people to reason? How the bloody hell does that make sense?

"I am going to force you to think for yourself!" or "Careful! Atheists will indoctrinate you to have critical thinking skills and to be independent!" In the words of someone I highly respect:


....wait, what?

~

Science - A system for aquiring knowledge.

Knowledge - Justified true belief.

Religion - A set of common beliefs and practices.

We love our quests for purpose don't we.

Originally Posted by ClouD

Science - A system for aquiring knowledge.

Knowledge - Justified true belief.

Religion - A set of unjustified common beliefs and practices that you can have without making unjustified claims.

WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

Justification - A statement in explanation of some action or belief.

Also note;
Justification: Something that shows an action to be reasonable or necessary.

No need to reply, then...

I'll rebut myself.

Originally Posted by ClouD

Religion - A set of common beliefs and practices.

We love our quests for purpose don't we.

Originally Posted by ClouD

Justification: Something that shows an action to be reasonable or necessary.

Purpose seems to be a reason in itself.

Originally Posted by ClouD

Science - A system for aquiring knowledge.

Knowledge - Justified true belief.

Religion - A set of common beliefs and practices.

We love our quests for purpose don't we.

Atheism almost entirely relies on science. Furthermore, religion relinquishes the responsibility of the individual and need for cogent reasoning.

What a theist can do that an atheist cannot:
"I killed him in the name of God"

What an atheist can do that a theist cannot:
"I will listen to your ideas and rationally weight them for a mutual interdependent conclusion."

What are your implications in what you have stated...?

Purpose seems to be a reason in itself.

This is exactly what I hold firm. The only thing you can hold dear is that you are alive. In "the Root of All Evil?" Richard Dawkins ends the documentary with, "Think of all the people that could be in my place, in yours. Think of all the incidents that had to occur, that had to happen, in order to bring us here. We have but a spark of consciousness to experience this life and I encourage to not throw it away."

~

Originally Posted by O'nus

Atheism almost entirely relies on science. Furthermore, religion relinquishes the responsibility of the individual and need for cogent reasoning.

What a theist can do that an atheist cannot:
"I killed him in the name of God"

What an atheist can do that a theist cannot:
"I will listen to your ideas and rationally weight them for a mutual interdependent conclusion."

I believe in god.
What I can do:
"I killed him in the name of myself"
"I will listen to your ideas and expand on them personally in theory coming to, at most, a temporary conclusion"

Originally Posted by O'nus

What are your implications in what you have stated...?

Other than contributing to the thread, outlining the human nature of questing for an infinite purpose which doesn't exist.

Originally Posted by ClouD

I believe in god.

Which God? I might ask why, but it depends on which God.

What I can do:
"I killed him in the name of myself"

If you were Christian, you could do this, but at the consequence of going to hell. So, my response to this is also dependent on my first question.

"I will listen to your ideas and expand on them personally in theory coming to, at most, a temporary conclusion"

This is entirely the crux of the scientific method which is, as an Atheist, the only thing that I can truly adhere to.

Other than contributing to the thread, outlining the human nature of questing for an infinite purpose which doesn't exist.

Exactly. I think that you will find if you read the link in my signature, this is the very samething that I say. The only purpose you can have is the onus of life. What you do with it is up to you, but ultimately the "purpose", if anything, is to truly just experience and live with no set goals or ideals.

So far, I see no difference between you and I aside from the comment "I believe in God."

I believe in God if you define it as the collective energy source of all living things. I believe in God if you define it as the initial kinetic energy which created the big bang (of course this is arguable, but I am stating that I believe it is a possibility derived from plausibility).

However, I argue that theistic Gods like the Christian God are no different from Santa Claus or Zeus. If anything, the Christian God is hateful, sadistic, and the greatest hypocrit the ever exist. Which is why I find it interested that many Christian fundamentalists love George Bush so much; because they seem to have so much in common.

Of course, if you can show otherwise, I am profoundly willing to listen. I hope that my demeanour shows this. (ie. if you think my above paragraph is offensive, please explain to me why [aside from "you suck" ideal] and I am more than willing to discuss).

~

Originally Posted by O'nus

Which God? I might ask why, but it depends on which God.



If you were Christian, you could do this, but at the consequence of going to hell. So, my response to this is also dependent on my first question.



This is entirely the crux of the scientific method which is, as an Atheist, the only thing that I can truly adhere to.



Exactly. I think that you will find if you read the link in my signature, this is the very samething that I say. The only purpose you can have is the onus of life. What you do with it is up to you, but ultimately the "purpose", if anything, is to truly just experience and live with no set goals or ideals.

So far, I see no difference between you and I aside from the comment "I believe in God."

I believe in God if you define it as the collective energy source of all living things. I believe in God if you define it as the initial kinetic energy which created the big bang (of course this is arguable, but I am stating that I believe it is a possibility derived from plausibility).

However, I argue that theistic Gods like the Christian God are no different from Santa Claus or Zeus. If anything, the Christian God is hateful, sadistic, and the greatest hypocrit the ever exist. Which is why I find it interested that many Christian fundamentalists love George Bush so much; because they seem to have so much in common.

Of course, if you can show otherwise, I am profoundly willing to listen. I hope that my demeanour shows this. (ie. if you think my above paragraph is offensive, please explain to me why [aside from "you suck" ideal] and I am more than willing to discuss).

~

god: everything

everything: consciousness

These are theories I'm not sure if I fully support anymore, because of the below reason.*

consciousness: the ability to experience; rather, what experiences

We are all god. We control our realities. Can we control others'?
That's where it stops. It reminds me of the "Absolute Truth" thread.

*We can believe there is an absolute reality, we can believe there is an infinite universe, but we cannot ever prove it.
Logically, it becomes incomprehensible henceforth.

You suck.

Originally Posted by ClouD

god: everything

everything: consciousness

These are theories I'm not sure if I fully support anymore, because of the below reason.*

consciousness: the ability to experience; rather, what experiences

We are all god. We control our realities. Can we control others'?
That's where it stops. It reminds me of the "Absolute Truth" thread.

*We can believe there is an absolute reality, we can believe there is an infinite universe, but we cannot ever prove it.
Logically, it becomes incomprehendible henceforth.

With the above said, what you have said is the very samething I hear avid Atheist physicists speaking about when they want to make a difference in the world. They want to investigate energy without mass and how we are all interdependent.

So what then separates you from an Atheist? Keeping in mind that what you have described is absolutely no different from what I hold. (Also, remember that I do believe in the possibility of anything as long as I can be shown good reason for it)

~

Originally Posted by O'nus

With the above said, what you have said is the very samething I hear avid Atheist physicists speaking about when they want to make a difference in the world. They want to investigate energy without mass and how we are all interdependent.

So what then separates you from an Atheist? Keeping in mind that what you have described is absolutely no different from what I hold. (Also, remember that I do believe in the possibility of anything as long as I can be shown good reason for it)

~

The label. That and my user title.

Originally Posted by ClouD

god: everything

everything: consciousness

consciousness: the ability to experience; rather, what experiences

We are all god. We control our realities. Can we control others'?

I think that this is true. That is what makes me different to an Atheist.
I choose not to be ignorant to possibility, true or false.
Nor blinded by my mind.

Then... true and false are closer than opposites. As are good and evil.
They are as close as subjectivity.

I don't see how saying that you yourself and everything else is God makes you not an atheist. It makes you closer to a Zen buddhist and buddhism is atheistic. Theism refers to supernatural, external gods, not some philosophical interpretation of naturalism.

It's settled then.

These thoughts of mine claim the title of atheism.

Now I'm in the club...do I get anything but eternal damnation?

Actually I think I'm wrong.
You're more like a pantheist.

However, I would argue that pantheism is not a form of theism but synonymous with atheism. Once you claim that the universe and everything in existence is God, you are merely arguing semantics by making "God" and "existence" synonymous and therefore eliminating the need for the word "God" (-> Occam's razor). To say that there is no God and that everything is God is the same. There is only God in so much as there is something that is not God (Dualism). Pantheism is then just a synonym for naturalism. Both atheism and pantheism are shells of ideas with no content. They are not needed.

Nothing is needed.

Though what would give greatest disillusioned happiness without ignorance?

Well hmm...
I say that... but I don't even agree with myself.

Chaos Eudaimonia?
Objective Eudaimonia is rather where it's at.

A lot of the arguments I'm seeing here concern highly idealized Atheists versus a reductive caricature of religious people, no different than Creationists arguing that Darwinians believe in "wing stubs" and spontaneous generation. Not all religious practitioners are strict literalists, not all operate on "blind faith," not all are theists of any sort and not all theists believe in a Superking Sky Daddy pulling all the strings. If you wonder, "How do people believe this nonsense?" the most likely answer is, they don't; you're mischaracterizing their views and withholding empathy.

Yes, some people use religious texts, deities, or communities as a crutch or an excuse, but many who take up the principles of science as their foundation for relating to the world go wrong in precisely the same ways: fatalism, strict determinism, crusading proselytism, and reductionist approaches to other viewpoints, among other errors. I would venture that most people, atheist, theist, spiritualist or otherwise, exhibit some flawed or incomplete reasoning with regard to how they apply their principles. I would also venture that most people have good and similar intentions: wanting to be happy and free from suffering themselves, and wanting their loved ones to be happy and free from suffering. It doesn't derive from our adopting the right or wrong set of principles and beliefs, but from our humanity.

I know, "But really, we've figured it out! This is it! This is the Way!" Sorry if I'm skeptical, but you sound an awful lot like the people you're demonizing. I don't think the variety of human experience allows for One Way, and I think crusading proselytism is the flaw that makes monotheism so dangerous. A rationalist, atheist set of principles taking that same approach is just as dangerous. Ask the exiles of Tibet, or those still living there amid the burned out monasteries and mass graves.

I don't think we can or should "cure" the world of religion. What we can do is take a more humanist, pragmatic, compassionate, relativist, celebratory approach to religion. Plenty of people do--people with smoothly functioning symbol sets don't make as much noise as the crusaders, and may not even attend an institution, but they're out there. What we need to do is stop holding up Fundamentalists as the template for "real" religion, whether we're for or against.