Thread: Comments on a world without God.

Does anyone find it a bit disturbing that people like Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins promote Atheism in a manner that's as arrogant, humorless and intolerant as the religions that they criticize? One gets the feeling that the four religions really crapping up this planet are Islam, Judaism, Christianity and Atheism.

Natural religion, a belief in God based on common sense observations of the complexity, design and beauty of nature, is a perfectly defensible position intellectually. God gave us reason, not religion.

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

It's still the notion of a divine entity/being/whatever taking a particular interest in the affairs of humanity.

says who ? Religion ? again your hardon for religion is showing, you can't stop thinking without referring to religion. You sound almost as bad as the religious zealots

For me, it's irrelevant. Humanity is part of a universe that a god "created" or originated. Humanity is just a tiny spot in the universe and is deeply influenced by the movements of that universe.

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

It still has that inherent arrogance.

again you are barking at the wrong tree, and it's also irrelevant that Religion is arrogant. Who cares, religion is insignificant on the scale of the universe god.

Originally Posted by Butterfly

says who ? Religion ? again your hardon for religion is showing, you can't stop thinking without referring to religion. You sound almost as bad as the religious zealots

I've just said that religion's irrelevant to the point I'm making.

Originally Posted by Butterfly

again you are barking at the wrong tree, and it's also irrelevant that Religion is arrogant. Who cares, religion is insignificant on the scale of the universe god.

Well you care, apparently. Enough to take me to task on the point I made at least.

And you're, again, the one that seems to be hanging your hat on the peg of 'religion'. You've yet to explain how the point's not valid, you keep getting caught up in the irrelevancy of 'religion' when the point I made's not reliant on it. In fact you haven't actually even addressed the point I've made yet (other than now just calling it irrelevant after making several posts on it ).

Originally Posted by GooMaiRoo

Does anyone find it a bit disturbing that people like Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins promote Atheism in a manner that's as arrogant, humorless and intolerant as the religions that they criticize?

definitely, that's why I wasn't too impressed with those videos. Great for entertainment or debating exercise, but hardly philosophical or scientifically sound. It's pure rhetoric, preaching like

Originally Posted by GooMaiRoo

One gets the feeling that the four religions really crapping up this planet are Islam, Judaism, Christianity and Atheism.

Definitely, Atheism is a strange form of religious believe. Believing in the non-existence of a religious God. Since a religious god doesn't exist and two negatives make a positive, they are true believers of their own religion

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

And you're, again, the one that seems to be hanging your hat on the peg of 'religion'. You've yet to explain how the point's not valid, you keep getting caught up in the irrelevancy of 'religion' when the point I made's not reliant on it. In fact you haven't actually even addressed the point I've made yet (other than now just calling it irrelevant after making several posts on it ).

that sounds like a lawyer circular argument. Please explain yourself in a more simple manner. You are referring to a religious God, and I am not, I am referring to the definition of a god. Maybe that's where the disagreement is.

Originally Posted by Butterfly

You are referring to a religious God, and I am not, I am referring to the definition of a god.

But that's the thing, I'm not either.

You keep insisting that I am despite the fact that I've pointed out several times now that my original point has nothing to do with the presence/absence or defintion of "religion". I'm referring to the concept of a/the God itself which you're ring-fencing by insisting I'm relying on a definition that I never even defined to begin with.

Originally Posted by Butterfly

Maybe that's where the disagreement is.

Right now it seems to be over a concept that's completely irrelevant to what I initially said and, frankly, I'm equal parts bemused and confused as to how that has come to be.

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

You keep insisting that I am despite the fact that I've pointed out several times now that my original point has nothing to do with the presence/absence or defintion of "religion". I'm referring to the concept of a/the God itself which you're ring-fencing by insisting I'm relying on a definition that I never even defined to begin with.

re-quoting you below to address what you seem not to understand

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

It's still the notion of a divine entity/being/whatever taking a particular interest in the affairs of humanity.

that's basically the definition of a religious god. Humanity will be influenced by the universe god, not because that god is "thinking" about humanity, but simply because humanity is a very tiny and fragile part of a universe that is highly "exposed" to the movement of that universe. Early philosophers would describe God as the "movement" and the source of all the "movements". Those movements will impact the universe, and in particular humanity because of its insignificance, like a leaf in a storm.

it is pure energy ,universal intelligence and dances with chance. and is in every living creature and plant. ( billy the kid )

So, in what will probably amount to a pointless exercise, BF, are you able to define your belief in any way whatsoever? You seem to be proposing something and nothing at the same time.

I'm well versed in most modes of thinking, although I haven't extensively read much philosophy, mostly as nowadays it is considered a dead subject, superseded by other, more relevant fields, such a psychology.

I'm curious as to your reasoning, as I always welcome others theories on such matters.

Originally Posted by StrontiumDog

If you truly think this, then you haven't grasped what Atheism is BF.

I have an absence of belief. It isn't that I believe there isn't a god. I simply don't have any belief. Why do I need to? I'm only interested in reality.

but that's in itself is impossible. You might state it, doesn't it mean it's true. Man is intrinsically a religious animal. It comes with the package. If you are not a religious animal, then you are simply an animal

Originally Posted by StrontiumDog

mostly as nowadays it is considered a dead subject

a big mistake,

Originally Posted by StrontiumDog

superseded by other, more relevant fields, such a psychology

completely unrelated, I think you don't even know what Philosophy means, you might confuse it with Humanism, which is a topic addressed in psychology, the definition of happiness and what make men great

Originally Posted by StrontiumDog

although I haven't extensively read much philosophy

you might want to start there, or else it's like preaching to monkeys

Originally Posted by StrontiumDog

So, in what will probably amount to a pointless exercise, BF, are you able to define your belief in any way whatsoever?

told you already, it would be a bit pointless, but I am happy to entertain a few thoughts about it

Originally Posted by billy the kid

it is pure energy ,universal intelligence and dances with chance

in some ways it could be. Early philosophers would attribute chances to god will, which was the basis of every religion. Randomness, chaos and order theory somehow seems to be linked by a common denominator.

Originally Posted by Butterfly

Originally Posted by StrontiumDog

If you truly think this, then you haven't grasped what Atheism is BF.

I have an absence of belief. It isn't that I believe there isn't a god. I simply don't have any belief. Why do I need to? I'm only interested in reality.

but that's in itself is impossible. You might state it, doesn't it mean it's true. Man is intrinsically a religious animal. It comes with the package. If you are not a religious animal, then you are simply an animal

Or maybe I've evolved to the point that I don't feel a need to address my insecurities by believing in something external to me to explain everything.

Reality is such a nice place to be.

(Btw, you need to read about Piaget, followed by some more contemporary developmental psychology research. Focus in particular upon conceptual intelligence)

Religion is a human invention (as are superstitions and the belief in the paranormal/mystical...they are also closely associated neurologically), as can be shown by the constantly shifting beliefs of people over time. It used to be polytheism and now we have monotheism, but by the very fact that religion is archaic (and anachronistic), that should inform you of how "evolved" those are who feel the need to cling to a notion of some omnipotent creator.

It's no coincidence that "belief" or "faith" used to be a dominant feature of society, permeating all aspects of peoples day to day existence, but as we have evolved, less and less people buy the bullshit.

It seems to be problematic for you that I don't have any belief, but that's my reality.

There's nothing evolved or sophisticated about religion....and there's plenty of evidence to back up that assertion.

Originally Posted by barbaro

And the adults won't answer my questions from the book (a cartoon/picture book) that stated Noah lived to be 900 years old.

Erm, I don't think the Gregorian calendar was in use back then. It's likely they counted in moon cycles, like the Indians use. So 900 moons is, give or take a few moons, 75 years.

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

Douglas Adams put it best...

Ah, so your alter nick is 42?

Originally Posted by StrontiumDog

Reality is such a nice place to be.

Yes. Reality is real nice when there is peace (thanks to the troops who keep us safe every minute of the day) and all you need to do is live your little life without a care in the world. I wonder why we were given emotions if there was not a higher being that made it so. Do crickets cry? I know my dogs and kitties got sad and happy, but not to the point that humans do.
Religion is OK. I go to meditate and pray in a variety of Houses of God. Peaceful and they are all kind. Religion helps you transcend the physical world. We do have abilities beyond the physical. Atheists are stone age folks, who cannot see beyond physical senses -- very young souls who are likely the detritus of old souls being reincarnated.
But, religion so often becomes political, hateful, spiteful. I like the theories of them all except Islam.

Originally Posted by StrontiumDog

Or maybe I've evolved to the point that I don't feel a need to address my insecurities by believing in something external to me to explain everything.

so I take you don't believe in Science either ? and it's insignificant in your world ?

Originally Posted by StrontiumDog

It's no coincidence that "belief" or "faith" used to be a dominant feature of society, permeating all aspects of peoples day to day existence, but as we have evolved, less and less people buy the bullshit.

you think ? faith and belief is still very dominant in our society. How about the belief of democracy, freedom ? you don't have those ? what about the belief we all deserve equality ? again you don't believe in this or have faith in it ?

Originally Posted by StrontiumDog

It seems to be problematic for you that I don't have any belief, but that's my reality.

It's problematic that you don't realize that "religious" belief in all forms and shape are central in your reality. I would go as far as saying you wouldn't be able to understand reality without it.

Originally Posted by StrontiumDog

There's nothing evolved or sophisticated about religion

don't think anyone said it was

Originally Posted by Jet Gorgon

Originally Posted by StrontiumDog

Reality is such a nice place to be.

Yes. Reality is real nice when there is peace (thanks to the troops who keep us safe every minute of the day) and all you need to do is live your little life without a care in the world. I wonder why we were given emotions if there was not a higher being that made it so. Do crickets cry? I know my dogs and kitties got sad and happy, but not to the point that humans do.
Religion is OK. I go to meditate and pray in a variety of Houses of God. Peaceful and they are all kind. Religion helps you transcend the physical world. We do have abilities beyond the physical. Atheists are stone age folks, who cannot see beyond physical senses -- very young souls who are likely the detritus of old souls being reincarnated.
But, religion so often becomes political, hateful, spiteful. I like the theories of them all except Islam.

Emotions have an evolutionary basis. For example, fear is related to survival. They are simply chemical changes in the brain, nothing otherworldly about them.

Recent studies indicate many animals do experience emotions .

I think you might need to rethink your view of Atheist's being "stone age"...here are some quotes from some notable ones.....A real bunch of detritus here...!

I have examined all the known superstitions of the world, and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology.
--Thomas Jefferson

The whole thing is so patently infantile, so foreign to reality, that to anyone with a friendly attitude to humanity it is painful to think that the great majority of mortals will never be able to rise above this view of life. — Sigmund Freud

Say what you will about the sweet miracle of unquestioning faith, I consider a capacity for it terrifying and absolutely vile. — Kurt Vonnegut

I think flying planes into a building was a faith-based initiative. I think religion is a neurological disorder. - Bill Maher

I have never seen the slightest scientific proof of the religious ideas of heaven and hell, of future life for individuals, or of a personal God. So far as religion of the day is concerned, it is a damned fake… Religion is all bunk. -- Thomas Edison

Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities - Voltaire.


All thinking men are atheists. — Ernest Hemingway

It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere. … Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man’s ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death. -- Albert Einstein

Lots more here....

Atheist Quotes: Famous Atheism | Atheists NSD

Originally Posted by Butterfly

Originally Posted by StrontiumDog

Or maybe I've evolved to the point that I don't feel a need to address my insecurities by believing in something external to me to explain everything.

so I take you don't believe in Science either ? and it's insignificant in your world ?

Originally Posted by StrontiumDog

It's no coincidence that "belief" or "faith" used to be a dominant feature of society, permeating all aspects of peoples day to day existence, but as we have evolved, less and less people buy the bullshit.

you think ? faith and belief is still very dominant in our society. How about the belief of democracy, freedom ? you don't have those ? what about the belief we all deserve equality ? again you don't believe in this or have faith in it ?

Originally Posted by StrontiumDog

It seems to be problematic for you that I don't have any belief, but that's my reality.

It's problematic that you don't realize that "religious" belief in all forms and shape are central in your reality. I would go as far as saying you wouldn't be able to understand reality without it.

You don't believe in science, to say such a thing is utterly preposterous and indicates a serious deficit in your understanding.

Likewise I base my other opinions on cold hard logic.

How is religion central to my understanding of reality? Please explain.

Originally Posted by GooMaiRoo

Does anyone find it a bit disturbing that people like Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins promote Atheism in a manner that's as arrogant, humorless and intolerant as the religions that they criticize?

Seeing and reading the arrogance of the Xtians, Jews, and Muslims, you need to be as tough as possible.

You have to fight these religious people.

Originally Posted by StrontiumDog

You don't believe in science, to say such a thing is utterly preposterous and indicates a serious deficit in your understanding.

your words, not mine, see below

Originally Posted by StrontiumDog

Or maybe I've evolved to the point that I don't feel a need to address my insecurities by believing in something external to me to explain everything.

Science is precisely something external trying to explain everything, exactly like religion, hence, you are as much a religious animal as anyone else

QED

Originally Posted by Butterfly

Originally Posted by FlyFree

Reading should be supplementary to your own thought processes, not the basis of those.

yes and no, you need to read first to get the basis, but that shouldn't stop you from reading more to supplement your thought process eventually.

Originally Posted by FlyFree

There were great philosophers in days of yore, mainly because they were the pioneers, if you wish. They had the luxury of original thought, not thought as a derivative of the thoughts of someone else.

not original per se, they were simple ideas based on observation and logic, the very foundation of both science and philosophy, and yet they were very realistic. I think their ideas are very important because they were simply expressed and very concrete, like stone in a foundation.

Originally Posted by FlyFree

Modern day 'philosophers' are seldom up to the 'greatness' of the early philosophers because of this. They are a bit like the Japs, not really innovative, just adept at improving on someone else's ideas.

I think the limitation of modern day philosophers is that they are motivated by greed, fame, and flamboyant gratification. It's also difficult to bring anything new when most classic and early 20th century philosophers have addressed clearly and intelligently the majority of issues. We are at a plateau in terms of philosophical advancement. Modern philosophers are picking up the crumbles, but eventually someone will push the envelope. Maybe someone did already in their circle, but didn't yet make it to the mainstream less sophisticated audience.

Originally Posted by FlyFree

So stop talking about what 'classic authors' say.

What they say is equally important. They represent fundamental ideas you can't ignore or forget. Ignoring those foundations will put you eventually in the religious loonies camp. It's like asking to ignore classic science (like gravity) to pursue science. It's not really sensible.


I did it in some ways. I am not simply repeating what I have read (I haven't read them for years).


what a strange idea you are having. I haven't exposed fully my ideas, don't think the TD crowd could take it. What you read should help you dismiss or develop certain ideas, not replace them entirely with others. Our minds are not like a hard drive that is full and need deletion when running out of space. Original thought is not based on ignorance, au contraire. And reading a lot like an idiot savant is definitely not the path to originality. Both extremes have the same outcome.

Originally Posted by FlyFree

This is why I believe education is the wrong way round.

sounds like a lame excuse

Originally Posted by FlyFree

You should first develop your own thoughts and theories, then read, adapt and extend.

how can you develop you own theory when you know nothing ? the classic will teach a few things you could have never thought of in a lifetime.

Originally Posted by FlyFree

Not read then develop your theories, cause that way round originality is sunk.

again, strange ideas or are you referring to idiot savants ? don't think idiot savants are the norm

Originally Posted by FlyFree

Which explains the slow(?) degradation of human 'intelligence'.

no, that would be the lack of education

Ahh well. I tried. As I said, due to modern education, where ideas and dogmas are implanted from childhood and the person then simply uses that as a foundation, original thought is next to impossible.

Basically, brainwashing.

Go outside, try and tell a Thai what they were taught was crap. Same same.

So I was right in my assumption. You are simply regurgitating someone else's ideas.

Originally Posted by FlyFree

Ahh well. I tried. As I said, due to modern education, where ideas and dogmas are implanted from childhood and the person then simply uses that as a foundation, original thought is next to impossible.

modern education ? what are you trying to imply here ? older education that is outdated would make a better alternative ?

Like I said, discussing that kind of topic with certain "posters" is going to be a difficult task, a bit lecturing a Thai about Democracy and the rule of law, you know it's going to draw blanks

Originally Posted by FlyFree

Go outside, try and tell a Thai what they were taught was crap. Same same.

exactly, excellent analogy, see my answer above

Originally Posted by FlyFree

So I was right in my assumption. You are simply regurgitating someone else's ideas.

and how would you know that since you never read any of them ? God told you so ?