Thread: Atheism

I'll take my chances in this life.

I feel sorry for people who live artificial lives (closet Gays for example) here in the belief there is something better awaiting them. Imagine spending your entire life suppressing your sexuality in the mistaken belief it is going to get you into heaven, where you still can't be yourself.

I'm with Douglas Adam's on this one, there's a certain amount of arrogance in the belief that this planet and its life was created for us, human beings, by some supreme power.

Like the puddle of water in the hole thinking 'well this hole fits me perfectly so it must have been made for me'. Even when the sun starts evapourating the water it still thinks the same thing.

Originally Posted by stroller

This is where I differ with Thorm, yes, life as we know it may be part of some "master plan", or, in other words, there may be more to it than can be established through scientific investigation.

When I read about research into the design of robots and Artificial Intelligence I do sometimes wonder whether we haven't been through all of this before, and whether we ourselves may be advanced self-replicating machines designed by another, possibly extinct, life-form. Maybe we were the rejects.

Originally Posted by Thormaturge

Originally Posted by stroller

This is where I differ with Thorm, yes, life as we know it may be part of some "master plan", or, in other words, there may be more to it than can be established through scientific investigation.

When I read about research into the design of robots and Artificial Intelligence I do sometimes wonder whether we haven't been through all of this before, and whether we ourselves may be advanced self-replicating machines designed by another, possibly extinct, life-form. Maybe we were the rejects.

Interesting thoughts... Why would the life-form (Designer) be extinct? Why would we need to be the rejects?

The actual odds are unknowable, but we can narrow it down to a ginormous ballpark...Either it was sparked by design, which implies an intelligent driver, or it was a random event. I lean towards random.

If by design, then it was either the absurdity of a Biblical Creation (BC), or something else. Each to his own, and if the BC, then one should also subscribe to the rest of at least the OT, since it would be absurd to accept something so counter-intuitive as the BC being the word of God and then reject what follows in the same book. Keep in mind also that the BC et al relies on the acceptance of a neverending series of outrageous events called miracle, which coincidentally only ever happened in times when people not only believed but thrived on the absurd. Sure this confronts us with a host of unanswerable questions, but nothing that cannot be convincingly explained by blind faith.

So far so good, still nowhere near a plausible answer, but let's try guessing how many beans in the box. If you learn that your guess (the BC) is wrong (intuition), then any other number you choose is more likely to be correct. Using this analogy and eliminating the OT Creation as a bit OTT may be a fine starting point for your own peace of mind, and anything else you consider will be closer to the truth.


*1 - Pass.

*3 - It would be precocious to even attempt to answer this, except for those representatives of God charged to convey His words and intentions and mindset to the gullible masses.

*2 - >design.

If there is a creator, who created the creator? And who created that creator. Russian dolls to infinity.
No creator except chance is a neater solution.

Originally Posted by Thormaturge

I feel sorry for people who live artificial lives (closet Gays for example) here in the belief there is something better awaiting them. Imagine spending your entire life suppressing your sexuality in the mistaken belief it is going to get you into heaven, where you still can't be yourself.

With this you are addressing 'promises' of religion, and an assumed 'suppression' of one's self-fulfillment or whatever.
I don't find this a useful line of arguing for the subject of "atheism", it will quickly sidetrack this discussion and create attacks and counterattacks.

However, as Einstein said: I do not believe in immortality of the individual, and I consider ethics to be an exclusively human concern with no superhuman authority behind it.

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

I'm with Douglas Adam's on this one, there's a certain amount of arrogance in the belief that this planet and its life was created for us, human beings, by some supreme power.

Accusing believers of "arrogance" contributes little to exploring the subject of atheism.

Originally Posted by Thormaturge

When I read about research into the design of robots and Artificial Intelligence I do sometimes wonder whether we haven't been through all of this before, and whether we ourselves may be advanced self-replicating machines designed by another, possibly extinct, life-form. Maybe we were the rejects.

Yes, for example, a Matrix-type thing.
It would be very difficult to disprove it.

An interesting question here, in light of what was argued earlier, would be if it requires faith to accept this as the truth rather than speculation, and whether disbelieving this requires faith as well?
I'd say yes to the former, no to the latter.

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

I'm with Douglas Adam's on this one, there's a certain amount of arrogance in the belief that this planet and its life was created for us, human beings, by some supreme power.

Agree.

I've had a problem with this concept, also.

Main Entry:1im·age
Pronunciation: \ˈi-mij\
Function:noun
Etymology:Middle English, from Anglo-French, short for imagene, from Latin imagin-, imago;
perhaps akin to Latin imitari to imitate
Date:13th century

1: a reproduction or imitation of the form of a person or thing; especially : an imitation in solid form : statue

2 a: the optical counterpart of an object produced by an optical device (as a lens or mirror) or an electronic device b: a visual representation of something: as (1): a likeness of an object produced on a photographic material (2): a picture produced on an electronic display (as a television or computer screen)

3 a: exact likeness : semblance <God created man in his own image — Genesis 1:27(Revised Standard Version)> b: a person strikingly like another person <she is the image of her mother>

4 a: a tangible or visible representation : incarnation <the image of filial devotion> barchaic : an illusory form : apparition

5 a (1): a mental picture or impression of something <had a negative body image of herself> (2): a mental conception held in common by members of a group and symbolic of a basic attitude and orientation <a disorderly courtroom can seriously tarnish a community's image of justice — Herbert Brownell> b: idea concept

6: a vivid or graphic representation or description

7: figure of speech

8: a popular conception (as of a person, institution, or nation) projected especially through the mass media <promoting a corporate image of brotherly love and concern — R. C. Buck>

9: a set of values given by a mathematical function (as a homomorphism) that corresponds to a particular subset of the domain

image - Definition from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

Originally Posted by stroller

I don't find this a useful line of arguing for the subject of "atheism", it will quickly sidetrack this discussion and create attacks and counterattacks.

With this point I was simply expressing my sympathy for those who believe in God. I agree it doesn't actually advance the argument against "God". It merely draws attention to the sheer futility of the belief system. If I were Gay then I'd make the most of it here in the full knowledge that there was no hope for me in the after life.

Originally Posted by stroller

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

I'm with Douglas Adam's on this one, there's a certain amount of arrogance in the belief that this planet and its life was created for us, human beings, by some supreme power.

Accusing believers of "arrogance" contributes little to exploring the subject of atheism.

It's not an accusation, stroller. It's merely my opinion, I'm entitled to one too remember.

Originally Posted by Sir Burr

If there is a creator, who created the creator? And who created that creator. Russian dolls to infinity.
No creator except chance is a neater solution.

Those are a couple of the unanswerable questions that are neatly sidestepped with the random factor...see you in hell Sir B.

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

It's merely my opinion, I'm entitled to one too remember.

Oh dear, and I dared to comment on it - my bad.

Originally Posted by keda

Originally Posted by Sir Burr

If there is a creator, who created the creator? And who created that creator. Russian dolls to infinity.
No creator except chance is a neater solution.

Those are a couple of the unanswerable questions that are neatly sidestepped with the random factor...see you in hell Sir B.

Well, this is what I meant when I said 'god' can not be the ultimate absolute.
It is very hard to venture into this area, it is beyond language and rational understanding.
For me, the Buddhist concept of 'nothingness' is the closest acceptable explanation I've come across.

^Yeah, but "nothingness" does not give you a soft and fuzzy feeling. It is indeed "empty." Human emotion interacts better with Christian and religious concepts. Good vs. evil.

Nothingness is beyond most humans' field of empathy.

Originally Posted by stroller

Oh dear, and I dared to comment on it - my bad

You didn't comment, you passed judgment and deemed it an unworthy contribution. I think this is at the heart of your continued confusion.

Picking on semantics again, eh?
I am not confused, it's just that IMO you are posting crap.
This is a comment which passes judgment.

Last word on the matter for you, saving yet another topic from going South:

Originally Posted by stroller

it's just that IMO you are posting crap

I'd dumb it down for you but that might annoy others.

Here is a general basic resource page for atheism.

Originally Posted by stroller

The different is that one believes, the other doesn't.

I disagree in that to believe god doesn't exist requires a large element of faith.

I play it safe and leave the door open to the possibility of god's existence.

After all is there any downside to allowing such a possibility?

Since my human intellect has finite boundaries why should I presume to cognate an infinite being. It's quite simply beyond my compehension.

This is the ultimate response:

"Ok, if I'm wrong, I'm wrong for a lifetime....If you're wrong, you're wrong forever.

Hedge your bets boys....

Originally Posted by Mr Earl

I play it safe and leave the door open to the possibility of god's existence. After all is there any downside to allowing such a possibility?

None as long as we keep our belief to ourselves. Big downside if we try to impose it on others.

Yes, logically it's better to believe in a God.

I just get this mental image of dying, coming before God and him saying,
"Sorry, the only people that actually got it right were the Odinka tribe in Western Sudan. The rest of you are going somewhere else".

Originally Posted by Mr Earl

I disagree in that to believe god doesn't exist requires a large element of faith.

Not believing that something is true is not equivalent to believing that it is false.

It is important to note the difference between the strong and weak atheist positions. "Weak atheism" is simple skepticism; disbelief in the existence of God. "Strong atheism" is an explicitly held belief that God does not exist.