do you pray before you fly?

[Everskyward]

Why discuss seriously and try to persuade opposing opinions when you can instead simply mock and ridicule them?

I don't think anyone, at least not anyone with any sense, is trying to persuade others to their way of thinking in this thread. Anyone who has posted here is probably pretty entrenched in their opinion about the subject. Everyone is seemingly trying to justify their own position.

 

[warthog1984]

I could write entire chapters on examples of evil being committed in the name of religion. Name almost any major religion and I will provide such examples. Can you provide examples of evil being committed in the name of atheism?

China anytime after WWII and before 2005 or so. Russia after the overthrow of the Tzars. Kristallnacht.

 

[Dav8or]

Can anyone tell me what good comes from atheism?

The belief in doing nothing to enhance, facilitate, or educate on the "after life" does no harm. The good is, people are left the hell alone. There are no stonings, there are no forced confessions, there are no rituals, there is no "spreading the word", there are no "Fatwas", there are no beheadings, there are no amputations for crimes, There are no restrictions on the food you can eat, the people you can have relations with, or when and who you can have sex with. There are no special days. Use them as you will. There is no requirement to consult with an ordained official about your life, or listen to their lectures on how to live your life. There are no incentives to coerce others to listen to these lectures. There are no restrictions on your speech. There are no dress codes. There are no restrictions on how you grow your hair. There are no reasons to want to kill another person just because they don't subscribe to the same stuff as you. There is no promise of 72 virgins in the afterlife, so there is no motivation to strap a bomb on yourself and kill people in a crowded market.

There is an unlimited source of potential information available to you to try to make sense of your world as you spend your time here. The less religion you have, the more information is available to you.

 

[Dav8or]

I could write entire chapters on examples of evil being committed in the name of religion. Name almost any major religion and I will provide such examples. Can you provide examples of evil being committed in the name of atheism?

China anytime after WWII and before 2005 or so. Russia after the overthrow of the Tzars. Kristallnacht.

YES! The communists tried to eradicate religion. They did so with a certain zeal that resulted in lots and lots of dead. They failed. Decades after their blood purges and re-education camps, it turns out that the standard religions we know and love/hate lived on in secret all those years and have now come back to those lands. That is the power of belief... for some people.

However I don't think Kristallnacht ever equated with any real religion. It was just bigotry that was fueled by pseudoscience and political conjecture popular at the time. There was no organized religion calling to attack the Jews then. Just a bunch of Nazi hooligans backed by a sympathetic police apparatus in the country.

 

[ollopa]

This is a flawed line of reasoning. Atheism is the simple state of not believing and not accepting arguments for theism. It isn't a philosophy or a doctrine and there are no atheist scriptures that prescribe behavior and punishment. Doing something "in the name of atheism" isn't the same thing as a political movement that is violently anti-religion.

The good that comes from atheism is continued critical thought and the absence of the burdens, both logical and moral, that come with religion. Open-mindedness and the willingness to be wrong when reality is apparent.
That being said, it's just a state of mind. It's not a set of codified rules and principles like religion. You might as well be asking "What good comes from orange?" and "How many people have been killed in the name of meatballs?"

 

[EdFred]

This is a flawed line of reasoning. Atheism is the simple state of not believing and not accepting arguments for theism. It isn't a philosophy or a doctrine and there are no atheist scriptures that prescribe behavior and punishment. Doing something "in the name of atheism" isn't the same thing as a political movement that is violently anti-religion.

The good that comes from atheism is continued critical thought and the absence of the burdens, both logical and moral, that come with religion. Open-mindedness and the willingness to be wrong when reality is apparent.
That being said, it's just a state of mind. It's not a set of codified rules and principles like religion. You might as well be asking "What good comes from orange?" and "How many people have been killed in the name of meatballs?"

Actually, I don't see that with the majority of atheists I know. They are just as adamant about their unproven belief as the believers are about theirs.

 

[Challenged]

I have considered becoming a militant atheist at times, but it's too much work.

 

[Henning]

I could write entire chapters on examples of evil being committed in the name of religion. Name almost any major religion and I will provide such examples. Can you provide examples of evil being committed in the name of atheism?

That is not the question, we all know the evil perpetrated in the name of religions, all which are based in Blasphmey. I can also point out the evil that atheists do because they believe in nothing but self and money. Things don't happen 'in the name of atheism' because atheism is a negative. The things that happen because a lack of responsibility to anything besides self are all around us.

 

[bullwinkle]

To me Atheism is sort of like the red pill/blue pill in the Matrix. Religion is the blue pill..you believe whatever you want to believe without the consequences of having to critically reflect upon the finality of your life. Atheism is the red pill: there's no comfort from a belief in a God watching over me, but there is a different sort of comfort in the freedom to try to logically explore reality.

How can you believe that the religious do not "critically reflect upon the finality of their lives"? They spend a lot more time than atheists pondering exactly that.

If you are a purely material atheist, you must believe that the following are no more than chemical reactions and conditioned responses, and have no objective reality:

love
beauty
friendship
joy
hope
choice
motivation
excitement
morals
ethics
consciousness


and the big one:

free will

In this philosophy, you are just a bundle of nerve endings and neurotransmitters. You are a piece of clockwork, very complex but ultimately completely predictable and with no more sense of purpose than an amoeba.

That might sound like "freedom" to some. To me it sounds like slavery.

If all of the above is true, then what is the point of doing anything other than completely following all of one's whims and desires? It's all ultimately meaningless, so why ever do anything for anybody else? Why have morals at all?

For that matter, why protect one's own life and happiness? It's objectively meaningless, and in any event you will be nothingness forever anyway. You can say "to enjoy the time I have" but what does that matter? Enjoyment is an illusory state created by chemicals and electrons. What makes it preferable to pain and sorrow? "I like it more" is not much of an answer for a true materialist since your preferences have no objective reality.

As I said, I'm not religious. But I think material atheism has questions of its own to answer which are just as daunting as those facing religions.

 

[bullwinkle]

I don't think anyone, at least not anyone with any sense, is trying to persuade others to their way of thinking in this thread. Anyone who has posted here is probably pretty entrenched in their opinion about the subject. Everyone is seeming trying to justify their own position.

I'm trying to pose questions and get both sides to see they have issues to address. As I have said, I don't have a dog in the hunt. My comments have been directed toward the atheism side since they seem to be the ones her with disdain and ridicule for the other side.

The big fallacy here is that science and religion are incompatible. There are many famous and respected scientists who are/were also religious. Science is simply an experimental method of inquiry, and its results are rarely 100% conclusive. Experiments usually lead to more questions and new experiments.

Science is a fantastic tool, but to think it's our only tool is the same as trying to use a hammer to complete every home repair task.

 

[Henning]

The only reason science and religion are incompatible is greed and money. Science was invented to correct religious fallacies and understand the true nature of God and existence. Money and power lust are what prevented that from happening. Now we have a scientific community who will not even engender the concept of a superlative intelligence at the core of the multiverse, even though they have already generated the evidence.

 

[narchee]

China anytime after WWII and before 2005 or so. Russia after the overthrow of the Tzars. Kristallnacht.

The mistreatment of people due to communism is due to communism and not atheism. The fact that they were atheists is not the primary driver. Their actions were not performed in the name of atheism.

Kristallnacht most of those perpetrators were fine christians. Thank you for the counter example. The centuries long persecution of Jews may very well be due to this hateful little verse in the bible: Matthew 27:22

Pilate saith unto them, What shall I do then with Jesus which is called Christ? They all say unto him, Let him be crucified.
27:23 And the governor said, Why, what evil hath he done? But they cried out the more, saying, Let him be crucified.
27:24 When Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing, but that rather a tumult was made, he took water, and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, I am innocent of the blood of this just person: see ye to it.
27:25 Then answered all the people, and said, His blood be on us, and on our children.

 

[Henning]

The mistreatment of people due to communism is due to communism and not atheism. The fact that they were atheists is not the primary driver. Their actions were not performed in the name of atheism.

Kristallnacht most of those perpetrators were fine christians. Thank you for the counter example. The centuries long persecution of Jews may very well be due to this hateful little verse in the bible: Matthew 27:22

Pilate saith unto them, What shall I do then with Jesus which is called Christ? They all say unto him, Let him be crucified.
27:23 And the governor said, Why, what evil hath he done? But they cried out the more, saying, Let him be crucified.
27:24 When Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing, but that rather a tumult was made, he took water, and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, I am innocent of the blood of this just person: see ye to it.
27:25 Then answered all the people, and said, His blood be on us, and on our children.

All over money...

 

[Dav8or]

...In this philosophy, you are just a bundle of nerve endings and neurotransmitters. You are a piece of clockwork, very complex but ultimately completely predictable and with no more sense of purpose than an amoeba.

That might sound like "freedom" to some. To me it sounds like slavery.

If all of the above is true, then what is the point of doing anything other than completely following all of one's whims and desires? It's all ultimately meaningless, so why ever do anything for anybody else? Why have morals at all?

For that matter, why protect one's own life and happiness? It's objectively meaningless, and in any event you will be nothingness forever anyway. You can say "to enjoy the time I have" but what does that matter? Enjoyment is an illusory state created by chemicals and electrons. What makes it preferable to pain and sorrow? "I like it more" is not much of an answer for a true materialist since your preferences have no objective reality.

The answer to your questions is- It's all part of the clockwork. It's all part of the neuro chemistry. We care about other people because our brains produce empathy and we have morals as a practical means of survival and order. The evidence is when sociopaths and psychopaths are born. We now know that these people have defects, or differences in their brains that modify their feelings and motivations. They can't feel empathy.

They don't care about other people and many do not adhere to any sort of morals that don't suit themselves. If everyone were born like them, the species would not last long. Evolution has created brains in all living things that are designed for survival and propagation. The more complex the creature, the more complex the brain and it's emotions. At it's core, the human and the amoeba have the same instructions for life. Survive as long as possible and propagate. We just have an incredibly complex brain and so our process of following those instructions are far more complex by necessity.

I'm trying to pose questions and get both sides to see they have issues to address. As I have said, I don't have a dog in the hunt. My comments have been directed toward the atheism side since they seem to be the ones her with disdain and ridicule for the other side.

The big fallacy here is that science and religion are incompatible. There are many famous and respected scientists who are/were also religious. Science is simply an experimental method of inquiry, and its results are rarely 100% conclusive. Experiments usually lead to more questions and new experiments.

Science is a fantastic tool, but to think it's our only tool is the same as trying to use a hammer to complete every home repair task.

There is a middle ground. One that I subscribe to. Agnostic. Neither affirm, nor deny the existence of a god. There is no proof that God, or gods exists, but absence of proof does not mean they may not exist. If you follow scientific reasoning as I try to, you can not discount the possibility that God, or gods might exist and we have yet to discover them, or the proof of them.

One thing seems constant in science, the more we learn and discover, the more we realize what we don't know. We can not discount the possibility of higher beings, or existences. On the flip side, there is no reason to fanatically follow a bunch of stuff written down by men centuries ago with the intent to control other men with fantastic tales, stories and the threat of damnation in the afterlife.

Live and let live. Pursue God, or don't, but the point is to let others continue on their life path unobstructed. The here and now is what matters. That is what's real and not some promised afterlife that there is no proof of.

 

[Henning]

The answer to your questions is- It's all part of the clockwork. It's all part of the neuro chemistry. We care about other people because our brains produce empathy and we have morals as a practical means of survival and order. The evidence is when sociopaths and psychopaths are born. We now know that these people have defects, or differences in their brains that modify their feelings and motivations. They can't feel empathy.

They don't care about other people and many do not adhere to any sort of morals that don't suit themselves. If everyone were born like them, the species would not last long. Evolution has created brains in all living things that are designed for survival and propagation. The more complex the creature, the more complex the brain and it's emotions. At it's core, the human and the amoeba have the same instructions for life. Survive as long as possible and propagate. We just have an incredibly complex brain and so our process of following those instructions are far more complex by necessity.



There is a middle ground. One that I subscribe to. Agnostic. Neither affirm, nor deny the existence of a god. There is no proof that God, or gods exists, but absence of proof does not mean they may not exist. If you follow scientific reasoning as I try to, you can not discount the possibility that God, or gods might exist and we have yet to discover them, or the proof of them.

One thing seems constant in science, the more we learn and discover, the more we realize what we don't know. We can not discount the possibility of higher beings, or existences. On the flip side, there is no reason to fanatically follow a bunch of stuff written down by men centuries ago with the intent to control other men with fantastic tales, stories and the threat of damnation in the afterlife.

Live and let live. Pursue God, or don't, but the point is to let others continue on their life path unobstructed. The here and now is what matters. That is what's real and not some promised afterlife that there is no proof of.

You have no evidence of HOW that is produced, none whatsoever. To dismiss that being the result of the influence of God has absolutely no more validity than than the claim that it does; it is merely your belief, your faith, that it orders itself from random chaos.

 

[Challenged]

I guess I consider myself a Secular Humanist, and I find that proclaiming my atheism that way is much easier for people to swallow: " Secular Humanism posits that human beings are capable of being ethical and moral without religion or a god." I consider myself to be very moral, considerate of my neighbors and loving to my family. I do so because those actions make humanity and the world around me a better place for all. I believe people can incorrectly tie morality to religion.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

 

[Everskyward]

I'm trying to pose questions and get both sides to see they have issues to address.

I don't think you'll be changing any minds here...

It's as bad as high wing/low wing. Maybe worse since there are really no facts to prove anything one way or the other.

 

[Henning]

I guess I consider myself a Secular Humanist, and I find that proclaiming my atheism that way is much easier for people to swallow: " Secular Humanism posits that human beings are capable of being ethical and moral without religion or a god." I consider myself to be very moral, considerate of my neighbors and loving to my family. I do so because those actions make humanity and the world around me a better place for all. I believe people can incorrectly tie morality to religion.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

Stoicism is just fine as a way of life, it's how my dad lived. However it does not explain why one believes what is right and wrong, as valid arguments can be made for both sides of nearly any right an wrong issue. As a secular argument, it is easy to justify genocide when one considers that the population situation is beyond the capabilities of Earth's natural resource base to sustain. One can even make a secular argument for Soilent Green being the protein source of the future and the best means to avoid extinction.

 

[bullwinkle]

I guess I consider myself a Secular Humanist, and I find that proclaiming my atheism that way is much easier for people to swallow: " Secular Humanism posits that human beings are capable of being ethical and moral without religion or a god." I consider myself to be very moral, considerate of my neighbors and loving to my family. I do so because those actions make humanity and the world around me a better place for all. I believe people can incorrectly tie morality to religion.

Sure, you can say that, and it's clearly true. But WHY?

Human beings may be capable of being ethical and moral without any higher reality...but why would they?

The religious/spiritual viewpoint is much better at providing the answer to why we would be ethical and moral: there is a higher reality that places value on such things.

Without that higher reality, moral choices become simply capricious whims. What is the objective value of acting morally, verses acting brutally or sadistically?

Saying humans CAN act that way in the absence of a higher reality is self-evident. Now tell us why a human being would want to do so when it's against his/her self interest, and how is any value whatsoever in a universal sense derived from doing so?

The materialist specializes in "how" but sucks at "why"...the spiritualist specializes in "why" but suck at "how". Neither works completely by itself.

 

[bullwinkle]

The answer to your questions is- It's all part of the clockwork. It's all part of the neuro chemistry. We care about other people because our brains produce empathy and we have morals as a practical means of survival and order. The evidence is when sociopaths and psychopaths are born. We now know that these people have defects, or differences in their brains that modify their feelings and motivations. They can't feel empathy.

But why is one superior to the other? If it's all just clockwork, why does empathy matter? If it's to advance personal survival, then the sociopath/psychopath's lack of empathy is a huge survival advantage. No moral qualms creates many more potentially successful survival strategies than are available to we squeamish "healthy" people. Shouldn't we be encouraging psychopathy as superior?

If the purpose of empathy is to help the species...WHY? What value does the species have to the universe? What value does the species even have to itself, since it's meaningless clockwork? A volcano doesn't care if it blows itself up. A star doesn't worry that it will eventually burn out.

Isn't it interesting that every natural system in the universe breaks down to baseline, less complex forms over time due to entropy, EXCEPT living systems? Living systems tend toward *more* complexity, evolving to become ever more complex and sophisticated over time...

Why does life move completely contrary to entropy, which rules every other process?

 

[bullwinkle]

I don't think you'll be changing any minds here...

It's as bad as high wing/low wing. Maybe worse since there are really no facts to prove anything one way or the other.

Agreed, but having a rational discussion on important topics is a goal in itself.

 

[jesse]

Actually, I don't see that with the majority of atheists I know. They are just as adamant about their unproven belief as the believers are about theirs.

I don't attempt to classify myself as anything. I ultimately feel as though my brain, our species, and our technology are not sophisticated enough to understand whatever the real answer is. I certainly don't believe any book written thousands of years ago that is further disproved with each year our society advances is the answer.

To ultimately sum it up, I figure I can't understand it, therefore I'm not going to try, I'd rather just enjoy my life. I can exist quite peacefully in that state. I don't need to know what the answer is, don't need to know what is after life, can't grasp the concept of there being nothing after life, so really I'm just perfectly content not knowing or trying.

I'd rather focus on what I can understand..and that's whatever brings me enjoyment each day while ensuring my actions, as much as possible, bring other people enjoyment and not pain.

 

[Henning]

I don't attempt to classify myself as anything. I ultimately feel as though my brain, our species, and our technology are not sophisticated enough to understand whatever the real answer is. I certainly don't believe any book written thousands of years ago that is further disproved with each year our society advances is the answer.

To ultimately sum it up, I figure I can't understand it, therefore I'm not going to try, I'd rather just enjoy my life. I can exist quite peacefully in that state. I don't need to know what the answer is, don't need to know what is after life, can't grasp the concept of there being nothing after life, so really I'm just perfectly content not knowing or trying.

I'd rather focus on what I can understand..and that's whatever brings me enjoyment each day while ensuring my actions, as much as possible, bring other people enjoyment and not pain.

This is not true, our failure to understand is a cultural one, not physiological. We don't want to understand because it reveals a responsibility to all of mankind that we don't want to accept because it costs money, and we have all accepted money as our personal savior, even the religious. It's much easier to deny any responsibility beyond self than to accept it. The way religion misrepresents God it allows some to profit greatly and the rest to absolve themselves of responsibility and just blame God, when really, we are part of God, a cancerous part at this point..

 

[jesse]

This is not true, our failure to understand is a cultural one, not physiological. We don't want to understand because it reveals a responsibility to all of mankind that we don't want to accept because it costs money, and we have all accepted money as our personal savior, even the religious. It's much easier to deny any responsibility beyond self than to accept it. The way religion misrepresents God it allows some to profit greatly and the rest to absolve themselves of responsibility and just blame God, when really, we are part of God, a cancerous part at this point..

We'll agree to disagree We all have our opinions on this subject and few are willing to change them.

 

[Henning]

We'll agree to disagree We all have our opinions on this subject and few are willing to change them.

That in and of itself is why mankind is in the **** condition it's in. People will refuse to consider things they don't want to, all the way to extinction. The one thing mankind has mastered is denial of responsibility. That is the one trait that secularists and the religious have in common, "It's not my fault".

 

[jesse]

That in and of itself is why mankind is in the **** condition it's in. People will refuse to consider things they don't want to, all the way to extinction. The one thing mankind has mastered is denial of responsibility. That is the one trait that secularists and the religious have in common, "It's not my fault".

I fail to see how my perspective results in the denial of fault of anything.

 

[Henning]

I fail to see how my perspective results in the denial of fault of anything.

It doesn't cause anything, it allows. It allows us to look the other way as billions starve, have no water, and get hacked to death. It allows us to send armies and air forces to regions and slaughter people by the millions to access their resources and assure our financial stability.

 

[Dav8or]

You have no evidence of HOW that is produced, none whatsoever. To dismiss that being the result of the influence of God has absolutely no more validity than than the claim that it does; it is merely your belief, your faith, that it orders itself from random chaos.

Sure. Did you read the second half of my post? The part about being agnostic? In the absence of evidence, or proof, we must continue searching fr this truth and keep all options and theories open and on the table. That includes the possibility of some sort of higher being, or controlling force. But since there is zero proof of this being, or force, we have to investigate with what we can see and do.

Like I said, we do not know what we don't know. However we have learned a lot about how the mind works and so far... no super natural forces at work. More research is needed.

 

[Henning]

Sure. Did you read the second half of my post? The part about being agnostic? In the absence of evidence, or proof, we must continue searching fr this truth and keep all options and theories open and on the table. That includes the possibility of some sort of higher being, or controlling force. But since there is zero proof of this being, or force, we have to investigate with what we can see and do.

Like I said, we do not know what we don't know. However we have learned a lot about how the mind works and so far... no super natural forces at work. More research is needed.

We have learned much about how the brain works, not the mind, they are separate entities.

 

[bflynn]

It doesn't cause anything, it allows. It allows us to look the other way as billions starve, have no water, and get hacked to death. It allows us to send armies and air forces to regions and slaughter people by the millions to access their resources and assure our financial stability.

As opposed to watching those things happen, which will make us aware that they're happening but not otherwise impact it.

When was the last time the United States slaughtered people by the millions to access their resources?

 

[Henning]

As opposed to watching those things happen, which will make us aware that they're happening but not otherwise impact it.

When was the last time the United States slaughtered people by the millions to access their resources?

WWII.

 

[Checkout_my_Six]

We have learned much about how the brain works, not the mind, they are separate entities.

what about spirits and souls?

 

[Henning]

what about spirits and souls?

Again, the difference between mind and brain.

 

[Checkout_my_Six]

That in and of itself is why mankind is in the **** condition it's in. People will refuse to consider things they don't want to, all the way to extinction. The one thing mankind has mastered is denial of responsibility. That is the one trait that secularists and the religious have in common, "It's not my fault".

I guess you've not learned about being reconciled?....and fixing one's sin nature?

 

[Checkout_my_Six]

Again, the difference between mind and brain.

I'm releaved.....I thought you'd bring alcohol and shoes into this.

 

[asechrest]

Sure, you can say that, and it's clearly true. But WHY?

Human beings may be capable of being ethical and moral without any higher reality...but why would they?

The religious/spiritual viewpoint is much better at providing the answer to why we would be ethical and moral: there is a higher reality that places value on such things.

Without that higher reality, moral choices become simply capricious whims. What is the objective value of acting morally, verses acting brutally or sadistically?

Saying humans CAN act that way in the absence of a higher reality is self-evident. Now tell us why a human being would want to do so when it's against his/her self interest, and how is any value whatsoever in a universal sense derived from doing so?

The materialist specializes in "how" but sucks at "why"...the spiritualist specializes in "why" but suck at "how". Neither works completely by itself.

As an agnostic, I have to be willing to entertain two tough-to-swallow answers to "why" questions: 1) we don't know, or 2) because. The latter is the more difficult to come to terms with.

But why is one superior to the other? If it's all just clockwork, why does empathy matter? If it's to advance personal survival, then the sociopath/psychopath's lack of empathy is a huge survival advantage. No moral qualms creates many more potentially successful survival strategies than are available to we squeamish "healthy" people. Shouldn't we be encouraging psychopathy as superior?

If the purpose of empathy is to help the species...WHY? What value does the species have to the universe? What value does the species even have to itself, since it's meaningless clockwork? A volcano doesn't care if it blows itself up. A star doesn't worry that it will eventually burn out.

Isn't it interesting that every natural system in the universe breaks down to baseline, less complex forms over time due to entropy, EXCEPT living systems? Living systems tend toward *more* complexity, evolving to become ever more complex and sophisticated over time...

Why does life move completely contrary to entropy, which rules every other process?

Life is not anti-entropic, nor are local increases in entropy limited to living systems.

 

[Henning]

I guess you've not learned about being reconciled?....and fixing one's sin nature?

There is no such thing. All this absolution stuff is a lie created to increase revenue. The whole threat of damnation is a lie as well, you just go back to work in another universe to learn what you haven't learned. The only one that can fix your sinful nature is yourself.

 

[Checkout_my_Six]

There is no such thing. All this absolution stuff is a lie created to increase revenue. The whole threat of damnation is a lie as well, you just go back to work in another universe to learn what you haven't learned. The only one that can fix your sinful nature is yourself.

that sounds like some scary Juju.....

 

[Henning]

that sounds like some scary Juju.....

We evolve on two levels, as a species within the constraints of the universe, and as individuals as cells of the multiverse organism. We are a duality that exist both within and without the realm of physical creation, same as all products of quanta.

 

[Checkout_my_Six]

scary dude......