Holy Atheism

Misc topics

Holy Atheism

Postby dyn » Tue Mar 19, 2013 13:42 UTC

I am posting this in case someone thinks i am an atheist. :twisted:

Let's face it, atheism a is limited worldview. Opposing delusions and manipulation of population via religion is one thing, and i support that. However denying existence of higher life-forms is just baseless, and thus it ironically requires a lot of faith to maintain that worldview. Furthermore, if opposing one group which is wrong gives atheists all the confidence they are right, that is effectively accepting their authority, just reverse of it.

Why? Well, as i said in the other thread, you have Universe so big and science tells you there are _similar_ planets to ours. Besides, there are complex life forms developing in even the most adverse conditions (ie. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrothermal_vent - which is not adverse to them), so 'similar planets to ours' criteria is not that important. Knowing all this we can safely say there are other life-forms in this Universe, and i am sure this civilization with all the silly problems is not the apex of it. Even more, it is perfectly logical to say this Universe is teaming with Life!

Why such confidence you may ask. Simply because it is possible to see we are nothing special and how the entire Universe has countless similarly developed galaxies in every direction. The belief that only this planet is important comes from lack of knowledge, and of course religion saying Earth is the only important place in all creation, funnily enough, many times those who oppose religion will use that same worldview to say there is no other life anywhere.

So, plain logic tells us both groups are wrong -- and they belong to the same group after all, that is, people who believe without any proof in order to give some sense to their existence. It simply takes same amount of belief in both cases.
User avatar
dyn
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3847
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2008 07:50 UTC
Favorite map: q3dm8
Server: FFA
Website: https://vogonhq.com

Re: Holy Atheism

Postby dyn » Tue Mar 19, 2013 13:42 UTC

Image
User avatar
dyn
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3847
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2008 07:50 UTC
Favorite map: q3dm8
Server: FFA
Website: https://vogonhq.com

Re: Holy Atheism

Postby SD » Tue Mar 19, 2013 16:34 UTC

Sorry, but no. Atheism is not "the secular religion of belief system of not believing in god" or any such crap that believers want to convince you it is. If you think this then you have been suckered in like they have. Atheism is not a belief system or a world view.

The proposition is that at least one "God" exists.
If you accept this claim you are a theist.
If you do not accept this claim you are an atheist. Not a shred of "faith" required.
That's all there is to it. Literally everything else is completely separate. Also, I see you managed to find a little script that Godfags love to use, the "nothing happened to nothing" thing. I'm very surprised you are buying into this. No such theory states anything like this, this is what believers want to convince you abiogenesis is, none of what that thing says has anything to do with atheism, it's the first cause/prime mover argument and anyone who buys it reveals only the fact that they haven't done any research and have no clue what they are talking about. Surely you don't fit into this category.

Not trying to start an argument, or be disrespectful, but your definition of atheism is outside of what atheism actually is. You are talking about something else, maybe mysticism or something similar, not theism/atheism.

Actual definition of atheism - Absence of theism, absence of a belief in a deity.
Theist's definition of atheism - Atheists 100% absolutely know with certainty that God (pick one) exists they just want to sin all the time so they pretend they don't believe.


To clarify -

Gnosticism - [Knowledge] Refers to what you know or at least think you know
Agnosticism - [Absence of knowledge] - Refers to what you don't know or don't claim to know
Theism - [Belief in at least one Deity] - Refers to the Deity you believe in
Atheism [Absence of above belief in any Deity] - Simply a label for the absence of any belief in any Deity.

Simples.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
User avatar
SD
Former Admin
 
Posts: 1583
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2009 18:54 UTC
Location: Wales, UK
Favorite map: Q3TOURNEY3
Server: INSTAKILL

Re: Holy Atheism

Postby SD » Tue Mar 19, 2013 16:40 UTC

Also, denying the existence of "higher life-forms" is not baseless. Assuming you are referring to aliens of some sort. Personally, I think it is incredibly likely that somewhere out there, there is life, but as of right now we have no evidence to support this idea, well nothing good anyway, maybe some things to suggest that Mars for example may have once supported life. Also, this has nothing to do with atheism either. Unless by "higher life-forms" you meant some deity. In which case there's no evidence for that. You can be an atheist and believe in the tooth fairy, leprechauns, unicorns, magic purple bananas, ghosts, poltergeists, psychic powers, karate-cheese - anything you like - just not Deities.

"The only thing that makes for a real crappy atheist is an atheist who believes in God" - Matt Dillahunty.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
User avatar
SD
Former Admin
 
Posts: 1583
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2009 18:54 UTC
Location: Wales, UK
Favorite map: Q3TOURNEY3
Server: INSTAKILL

Re: Holy Atheism

Postby VAT » Tue Mar 19, 2013 19:26 UTC

ImageImage
User avatar
VAT
 
Posts: 310
Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2008 18:19 UTC
Server: FFA

Re: Holy Atheism

Postby dyn » Wed Mar 20, 2013 04:16 UTC

SD wrote:Also, denying the existence of "higher life-forms" is not baseless. Assuming you are referring to aliens of some sort. Personally, I think it is incredibly likely that somewhere out there, there is life, but as of right now we have no evidence to support this idea, well nothing good anyway, maybe some things to suggest that Mars for example may have once supported life. Also, this has nothing to do with atheism either. Unless by "higher life-forms" you meant some deity. In which case there's no evidence for that. You can be an atheist and believe in the tooth fairy, leprechauns, unicorns, magic purple bananas, ghosts, poltergeists, psychic powers, karate-cheese - anything you like - just not Deities.


I see your argument and i believe you are not pure materialist and allow at least existence of aliens somewhere out there. My criticism of atheism is not me attacking you personally, but i must point out what i find wrong with it, and i am not alone in this. It is not only theists vs atheists, or evolution vs creation. Most probably this planet was geo-engineered and seeded with life. Perhaps there was already some life on it or at least better conditions for our life form than Mercury for example. Would be really a challenge creating ecosystems there. :)

So much about pure evolution, or purely monotheistic creation ideas. So-called gods created the world indeed, but it was our ancestors, not some angry bearded guy from the Old Testament of Semitic idiocy, nor adverse weather against the cavemen forcing them to kill more efficiently.

( As for the pic, equaling this with fairy tales only shows lack of understanding. I know this is mostly because academia is ignoring whatever makes them feel uncomfortable, and people learn from them, and sadly only from them most of the time. )

With Atheism i see many problems, mainly:
- a-theism is opposed to the idea of a God (theism), and of course other earlier ideas of multiple gods, which would be any higher than ours life-form, not necessarily topmost God in existence, so they by all logic cannot accept higher-life forms that easily and the Universe hosts many of those or there was just a lot of space wasted (which would make it very ineffective and naturally illogical)

- those who oppose just one God and don't even bother with other gods base their view on what mono-theistic religion is teaching, give authority to it even if they negate it, since they also believe there is only one-God idea to oppose, so proper name ought to be a(nti)-monotheism, not a-theism (it is quite common to see atheists speaking against a 'God' not gods)

- "no proof" is again based on science of today, in the same way one could say pyramids do not exist because there is no proof anyone with today's technology could build them, but they are there nevertheless; radio-waves are just an imagination another scientist from the 19th century might say -- my point is, not very advanced science cannot be a measure or proof of non-existence of a much higher _science_ which is far beyond anything known today (yes i say science on purpose because in the end science and spirituality will inevitably unite, ask any serious quantum physicist about it)

- other life then must be equal or less evolved than ours (ie. bacteria on Mars is "allowed", since it would be non-threatening, something familiar / safe), or else they may be like half-gods or even gods to us, which is unacceptable to most atheists (and it would be threatening!), so there is pretty high probability majority of atheists believe in some perverted form of that old monotheistic view, how Earth is the center of the Universe, just saying this civilization is the best Universe can offer ('center of the Universe' would be rather silly to say today after all the telescopes and other inventions)

- in the end most atheists are already pure materialists, which is very close or the same as that idiotic theory of dialectical materialism (economy/money as the only driving force of civilization) ... basically further limiting insight and awareness in order to feel safer, another step of slavish religion of monotheism, first they denied all other higher life-forms (various gods) and said there is only one God, later this devolved further into materialism, so in a way atheism is a bastard child of monotheism (only when there is monotheistic lack-of-insight present you can have theories based on ... lack of insight)

- injustices in the world -- very popular arguments against God, mainly why is there suffering if God exists? -- that's naive view, comes again from monotheistic and humanist ideas of universal equality, demanding it for everyone without any respect to how Nature works ... what would you say to a child asking "why must i fall so often before i can walk, why doesn't someone carry me around all the time?" (very unlikely any kid will ask that, but anyway) -- it doesn't work that way, people need to evolve using their own power and learn about both good and bad and go beyond that, people need to learn about inequality also (that's another big topic in itself; ideas of equality can be traced back to monotheism)

Again what i listed here is not necessarily against what you said in the past, it is what i observe to be problematic with atheism in general. And ultimately, you don't need to be 'one of them' in order to oppose something as stupid as modern religion. Anyone with clear reasoning can see there is something very wrong with it, and it must be stopped before it's too late for this civilization.
User avatar
dyn
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3847
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2008 07:50 UTC
Favorite map: q3dm8
Server: FFA
Website: https://vogonhq.com

Re: Holy Atheism

Postby dyn » Wed Mar 20, 2013 04:23 UTC

SD wrote:Sorry, but no. Atheism is not "the secular religion of belief system of not believing in god" or any such crap that believers want to convince you it is. If you think this then you have been suckered in like they have. Atheism is not a belief system or a world view.

The proposition is that at least one "God" exists.
If you accept this claim you are a theist.
If you do not accept this claim you are an atheist. Not a shred of "faith" required.
That's all there is to it. Literally everything else is completely separate. Also, I see you managed to find a little script that Godfags love to use, the "nothing happened to nothing" thing. I'm very surprised you are buying into this. No such theory states anything like this, this is what believers want to convince you abiogenesis is, none of what that thing says has anything to do with atheism, it's the first cause/prime mover argument and anyone who buys it reveals only the fact that they haven't done any research and have no clue what they are talking about. Surely you don't fit into this category.

Not trying to start an argument, or be disrespectful, but your definition of atheism is outside of what atheism actually is. You are talking about something else, maybe mysticism or something similar, not theism/atheism.

Actual definition of atheism - Absence of theism, absence of a belief in a deity.
Theist's definition of atheism - Atheists 100% absolutely know with certainty that God (pick one) exists they just want to sin all the time so they pretend they don't believe.


But exactly that is my argument, i am against all that -- i am neither one or another and yet i know and believe there are higher life-forms in this Universe, because logic tells us so. We don't need atheist nor theist labels to know that, only a decent telescope and a clear mind. Besides, theism is usually perceived as monotheism when people discuss it, and atheism as opposing it, which was my point. That's very important, we need to focus on how this plays out in practice, not about dictionary definitions.

* Depending on how you define knowledge here, you may or may not "know" about other life forms. I agree that inductive reasoning leads us to believe it is most probably true, I have no argument there. And I 100% agree we do not need "atheist" labels at all. After all, I don't have a special word for my non belief in unicorns.

( Ah, that picture, it is funny and it makes perfect sense when describing Evolutionist religion, you know, Darwin and his apes. )

Only time atheists use dictionary definitions is when asked how this is not just another belief system. Well, it is, even if you say it isn't. Normally atheist believes idea of God is unreal, impossible, because in his view God doesn't exist, because there are injustices around the world and how come God doesn't help and so on. That's the basis of it, not the absence of belief like for example in children who may not be aware yet of those abstract concepts, since their brain is not fully developed yet. So you see, i don't think atheists have undeveloped brain, i don't see them as children, i see they are actively opposing this idea of God because they _believe_ God doesn't exist. They are too stupid to prove anything, therefore the entire atheist movement is becoming monotheistic-religion-like, if you like it or not. In the essence it is nothing else than another incarnation of monotheism.

* No, it isn't - even if you say it is :P - A lack of belief cannot be a belief system, it's a contradiction in terms. Atheists are often forced to bring up dictionary definitions due to strawman arguments against atheism. The absence of a belief in deities is called atheism, the argument against it is anti-theism, but the two are not always found together. Most atheists, I would argue, are not anti-theists. Not believing God exists is not the same as believing God doesn't exist, do you believe that Santa doesn't exist? Or do you just simply not believe that he does? It's not the same.

A-theism and theism, in practice is just same crap as communism vs. capitalism, and i also oppose both. I know this may be unusual, but our time will come. There are people out there who reject all those ideas, because pretty much all them are typical for a declining civilization, which the West most certainly is. That is various ideas of equality and justice for all and so on. It's very advanced topic, but once you understand it you can see beyond what is commonly accepted -- and i want you to see beyond all those delusions. Then something interesting happens... You see where most of it originates from and you no longer want to partake in discussions, arguing with them -- you just want to start something new -- and to destroy all the failed systems at the same time.



Even more, i think this is the only way this civilization can survive. Despite some sarcasm here and there, i am really serious about it.
User avatar
dyn
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3847
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2008 07:50 UTC
Favorite map: q3dm8
Server: FFA
Website: https://vogonhq.com

Re: Holy Atheism

Postby SD » Wed Mar 20, 2013 09:23 UTC

dyn wrote:
SD wrote:Also, denying the existence of "higher life-forms" is not baseless. Assuming you are referring to aliens of some sort. Personally, I think it is incredibly likely that somewhere out there, there is life, but as of right now we have no evidence to support this idea, well nothing good anyway, maybe some things to suggest that Mars for example may have once supported life. Also, this has nothing to do with atheism either. Unless by "higher life-forms" you meant some deity. In which case there's no evidence for that. You can be an atheist and believe in the tooth fairy, leprechauns, unicorns, magic purple bananas, ghosts, poltergeists, psychic powers, karate-cheese - anything you like - just not Deities.


I see your argument and i believe you are not pure materialist and allow at least existence of aliens somewhere out there. My criticism of atheism is not me attacking you personally, but i must point out what i find wrong with it, and i am not alone in this. It is not only theists vs atheists, or evolution vs creation. Most probably this planet was geo-engineered and seeded with life. Perhaps there was already some life on it or at least better conditions for our life form than Mercury for example. Would be really a challenge creating ecosystems there. :)

* This is an idea called directed panspermia, I don't personally buy it and although I haven't looked that hard, I haven't found anything supporting it yet. Also there is no creation vs evolution argument. Evolution makes no claims about the origins of life, it simply explains the diversity of life since it originated. Abiogenesis concerns the origins of life, so better to say Abiogenesis vs Creation/ID.

dyn wrote:So much about pure evolution, or purely monotheistic creation ideas. So-called gods created the world indeed, but it was our ancestors, not some angry bearded guy from the Old Testament of Semitic idiocy, nor adverse weather against the cavemen forcing them to kill more efficiently.

( As for the pic, equaling this with fairy tales only shows lack of understanding. I know this is mostly because academia is ignoring whatever makes them feel uncomfortable, and people learn from them, and sadly only from them most of the time. )

* I can assure you that after ten years (+) of studying this, it isn't lack of understanding :)

dyn wrote:With Atheism i see many problems, mainly:
- a-theism is opposed to the idea of a God (theism), and of course other earlier ideas of multiple gods, which would be any higher than ours life-form, not necessarily topmost God in existence, so they by all logic cannot accept higher-life forms that easily and the Universe hosts many of those or there was just a lot of space wasted (which would make it very ineffective and naturally illogical)

* No, it isn't - that's anti-theism, or one definition of it, which is a position I could also successfully defend, but that's off topic.
There are two approaches to anti-theism, the first is the active opposition to organised religion, the second is the argument against the existence of God. The first I know you support, the second requires a definition of God first. I haven't met two theists who believe in the same God yet, so this is always fun.

dyn wrote:- those who oppose just one God and don't even bother with other gods base their view on what mono-theistic religion is teaching, give authority to it even if they negate it, since they also believe there is only one-God idea to oppose, so proper name ought to be a(nti)-monotheism, not a-theism (it is quite common to see atheists speaking against a 'God' not gods)

- "no proof" is again based on science of today, in the same way one could say pyramids do not exist because there is no proof anyone with today's technology could build them, but they are there nevertheless; radio-waves are just an imagination another scientist from the 19th century might say -- my point is, not very advanced science cannot be a measure or proof of non-existence of a much higher _science_ which is far beyond anything known today (yes i say science on purpose because in the end science and spirituality will inevitably unite, ask any serious quantum physicist about it)

* Not sure what you mean here, if you meant that no one back then had the technology to build them, this has been proven wrong. They used copper chisels and other basic tools and although hard work - by no means impossible. This is of course after the 8 people who survived the global flood had populated Egypt to the extent that they had slaves etc - all in just 100 years! Very busy people! :) Science and spirituality unite? You for real? I'm pretty sure the bulk of scientists would argue strongly against this idea. Science concerns the natural world, claims of anything spiritual cannot be investigated by science, unless the claim involves something which has a tangible effect on the world we observe, some manifestation of some kind perhaps, in which case it can be investigated. And has been, several times, in all instances where this has been done the claims have failed to produce anything measurable. If it's not measurable, it is indistinguishable from something which doesn't exist at all - here I am referring to spiritual claims and such. But then it also depends on what you mean by spirituality. The JREF has a $1m prize on offer for anyone who can demonstrate anything "supernatural" even right down to psychic claims, many have tried, all have failed. I'm not saying it wouldn't maybe be nice to believe in things like this, but I am more concerned with what is actually real and true rather than just what makes me happy.

dyn wrote:- other life then must be equal or less evolved than ours (ie. bacteria on Mars is "allowed", since it would be non-threatening, something familiar / safe), or else they may be like half-gods or even gods to us, which is unacceptable to most atheists (and it would be threatening!), so there is pretty high probability majority of atheists believe in some perverted form of that old monotheistic view, how Earth is the center of the Universe, just saying this civilization is the best Universe can offer ('center of the Universe' would be rather silly to say today after all the telescopes and other inventions)

* Everything has evolved at the same level, just in different directions, everything has had the same amount of time (although not generations)

dyn wrote:- in the end most atheists are already pure materialists, which is very close or the same as that idiotic theory of dialectical materialism (economy/money as the only driving force of civilization) ... basically further limiting insight and awareness in order to feel safer, another step of slavish religion of monotheism, first they denied all other higher life-forms (various gods) and said there is only one God, later this devolved further into materialism, so in a way atheism is a bastard child of monotheism (only when there is monotheistic lack-of-insight present you can have theories based on ... lack of insight)

* Some might be pure materialists, but the vast majority just don't really think about it all that much. If someone asks them the question "Do you believe in God?" they just say no. Granted, most atheists aren't as interested as I am. And because I'm interested this proves I believe in God! Zing!

dyn wrote:- injustices in the world -- very popular arguments against God, mainly why is there suffering if God exists? -- that's naive view, comes again from monotheistic and humanist ideas of universal equality, demanding it for everyone without any respect to how Nature works ... what would you say to a child asking "why must i fall so often before i can walk, why doesn't someone carry me around all the time?" (very unlikely any kid will ask that, but anyway) -- it doesn't work that way, people need to evolve using their own power and learn about both good and bad and go beyond that, people need to learn about inequality also (that's another big topic in itself; ideas of equality can be traced back to monotheism)

* Problem of evil. No theist can answer this argument. A secular or naturalist point of view can. The "problem" of evil is only a problem if you believe in a benevolent deity, if you don't then it ceases to be a "problem" (in the sense that it can be explained). The problem arises due to the claims religions make about their specific God(s) - Christianity is a prime example here, where God is referred to as all knowing all powerful and wholly and entirely good, this God is incompatible with the world we experience. If a religion says it's god is all knowing and all powerful but is an ass hole - the problem of evil goes away. But no religion I'm aware of describes it's deity in such a way, so the problem remains (for them).

dyn wrote:Again what i listed here is not necessarily against what you said in the past, it is what i observe to be problematic with atheism in general. And ultimately, you don't need to be 'one of them' in order to oppose something as stupid as modern religion. Anyone with clear reasoning can see there is something very wrong with it, and it must be stopped before it's too late for this civilization.

* Again, you are referring to anti theism here. A simple non belief in any deity (atheism) can't be problematic. This is why we sometimes equate with fairy tales, because it demonstrates the point. for example, not believing in the tooth fairy is not problematic.
User avatar
SD
Former Admin
 
Posts: 1583
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2009 18:54 UTC
Location: Wales, UK
Favorite map: Q3TOURNEY3
Server: INSTAKILL

Re: Holy Atheism

Postby SD » Wed Mar 20, 2013 09:36 UTC

Apologies for not editing the post properly, I haven't found a quick way to just quote certain bits yet. Will come back and try to tidy it up later. Also, I think I may have hit edit instead of quote - sorry.
Also, I'm not looking to get into an argument with the head admin :) - I'm probably the only one who will reply to this topic (which is a shame) and if anyone else had started it I would argue a lot more, especially about definitions.

If you want to discuss anti-theism that's cool, and would be interesting, but it's impossible until definitions are clear.

If you want to nail me down to a "classification" then I identify as an agnostic atheist. I don't know (or claim to) with 100% certainty that no God(s) exist, I just don't believe that they do. I would use this term in a technical discussion, where being clear is important, because as mentioned above, belief and knowledge aren't the same thing.
User avatar
SD
Former Admin
 
Posts: 1583
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2009 18:54 UTC
Location: Wales, UK
Favorite map: Q3TOURNEY3
Server: INSTAKILL

Re: Holy Atheism

Postby craij » Wed Mar 20, 2013 21:44 UTC

dyn wrote:Most probably this planet was geo-engineered and seeded with life.

LOL

dyn wrote:-- i am neither one or another and yet i know and believe there are higher life-forms in this Universe, because logic tells us so.

This bit is off-topic for me as I don't think Atheism is discounting extraterrestrial life forms in any way.

Going to side with SD here. Atheism is an idealogy just like any other religion, they just doubt the existence of God/gods. Pretty straight-forward. I think you could have saved a couple thousand words by just saying: "I don't think I really understand Atheism but I still don't like it."
craij
 
Posts: 467
Joined: Wed Nov 04, 2009 17:41 UTC
Server: FFA

Re: Holy Atheism

Postby hexidecimalhack » Wed Mar 20, 2013 21:56 UTC

I've really missed you guys... ;P
hexidecimalhack
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2010 19:26 UTC
Server: FFA

Re: Holy Atheism

Postby SD » Wed Mar 20, 2013 22:04 UTC

hexidecimalhack wrote:I've really missed you guys... ;P


Welcome to the party :)

Atheism is just not believing in God(s) - it really is that simple. Like I mentioned above (at length) everything apart from that is a separate thing to atheism.

Craij - you are right, atheism doesn't discount anything. It doesn't even discount God(s) - it's simply a word we have for the non-belief (note, "belief" not knowledge) in them.
User avatar
SD
Former Admin
 
Posts: 1583
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2009 18:54 UTC
Location: Wales, UK
Favorite map: Q3TOURNEY3
Server: INSTAKILL

Re: Holy Atheism

Postby dyn » Thu Mar 21, 2013 22:28 UTC

SD wrote:Apologies for not editing the post properly, I haven't found a quick way to just quote certain bits yet. Will come back and try to tidy it up later. Also, I think I may have hit edit instead of quote - sorry.
Also, I'm not looking to get into an argument with the head admin :) - I'm probably the only one who will reply to this topic (which is a shame) and if anyone else had started it I would argue a lot more, especially about definitions.

If you want to discuss anti-theism that's cool, and would be interesting, but it's impossible until definitions are clear.

If you want to nail me down to a "classification" then I identify as an agnostic atheist. I don't know (or claim to) with 100% certainty that no God(s) exist, I just don't believe that they do. I would use this term in a technical discussion, where being clear is important, because as mentioned above, belief and knowledge aren't the same thing.


I am not seeking an argument, it is also what i was researching lately so i had more to say about it than usual. I see problem here is what God should be, and many take Church's teachings as a guidance towards this, and here is the _main fucking problem_ -- i really mean it. Those fuckers perverted what was Christ's (real or not) original message. He said God is within those who work on themselves, which was also old pagan view. It was common knowledge nobody needs State or Church to reach "heaven". This is why fuckers persecuted so much people later and burned all the books. It's time Vartican and Mecca are leveled to the ground. Along with Jerusalem.

Btw, you were not the only one who replied. Craij said 'LOL', answer that if you can! :-D
User avatar
dyn
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3847
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2008 07:50 UTC
Favorite map: q3dm8
Server: FFA
Website: https://vogonhq.com

Re: Holy Atheism

Postby dyn » Thu Mar 21, 2013 22:37 UTC

craij wrote:
dyn wrote:Most probably this planet was geo-engineered and seeded with life.

LOL

dyn wrote:-- i am neither one or another and yet i know and believe there are higher life-forms in this Universe, because logic tells us so.

This bit is off-topic for me as I don't think Atheism is discounting extraterrestrial life forms in any way.

Going to side with SD here. Atheism is an idealogy just like any other religion, they just doubt the existence of God/gods. Pretty straight-forward. I think you could have saved a couple thousand words by just saying: "I don't think I really understand Atheism but I still don't like it."


Go LOL yourself! If you lean to atheism then perhaps this may be interesting to read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panspermia

Yea i know, funny title, but they have a point. Randomly you can't just expect evolution to happen out of nothing. I go a bit further and say civilizations also need to move from one planet to another from time to time, so it makes sense to help cultivate life on other planets, why not. This is today still far-fetched, same as saying men may walk on the Moon one day, a century or two ago, or making a sci-fi about sending robots to Mars, and other impossible-to-realize ideas one could LOL all day at.
User avatar
dyn
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3847
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2008 07:50 UTC
Favorite map: q3dm8
Server: FFA
Website: https://vogonhq.com

Re: Holy Atheism

Postby dyn » Thu Mar 21, 2013 22:43 UTC

hexidecimalhack wrote:I've really missed you guys... ;P


Welcome back! :)
User avatar
dyn
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3847
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2008 07:50 UTC
Favorite map: q3dm8
Server: FFA
Website: https://vogonhq.com

Re: Holy Atheism

Postby dyn » Thu Mar 21, 2013 22:58 UTC

OK i fixed quotations in that longer reply you made above, but we need to avoid this 1:1 replying because it makes it harder to focus and not sure many people ever read those in their entirety, and it wastes a lot of time replying.

I will reply to it later, but you can already see i am aiming at something else here, not necessarily to bash atheism. Reason is, atheism is very good when it comes to destroying delusions of the past, which mainstream religion most certainly is. Just like feminism is good to dissolve too patriarchal societies. Atheism is like an antidote to the neurotoxin of organized religion. In that view it is very good and that's mainly why i like videos on this topic.
User avatar
dyn
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3847
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2008 07:50 UTC
Favorite map: q3dm8
Server: FFA
Website: https://vogonhq.com

Re: Holy Atheism

Postby SD » Fri Mar 22, 2013 00:51 UTC

Big thanks for fixing the quotations, I should have got that right my self, I was just keen to reply and didn't get around to fixing it. I'm sure there is some faster way to do it than the way I would have done it. The only (only) gripe I had is that your objections are to anti-theism, not atheism, I just wanted to get that bit straight before continuing. I'm not looking to argue either, I do that enough on this topic as it is :) which is my choice of course, nobody forces me to. I think this is the biggest and most important topic anyone can ever discuss, so naturally because I hold that view I am interested in conversations about it.
User avatar
SD
Former Admin
 
Posts: 1583
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2009 18:54 UTC
Location: Wales, UK
Favorite map: Q3TOURNEY3
Server: INSTAKILL

Re: Holy Atheism

Postby dyn » Fri Mar 22, 2013 14:45 UTC

About pyramids and also many other ancient buildings all around the world, yes it is really impossible to recreate them today with such precision. There's a lot of info online about it. This is important to know, because it tells us there were more advanced civilizations before. In old writings they describe many interesting things, for example how someone was taken above the earth and he described continents as they were, then you have all those war stories many times featuring flying-somethings, vimanas for example. In short, even if it's text only it is impossible for primitive people to just make it up and be so correct. Even if this is made up which is highly unlikely, there are artifacts and other findings, along with all that "impossible" architecture which tells us something went very wrong later and in many areas they were beyond our technology.

I am mentioning this because right now it seems this civilization is heading in the same direction. It is not evolving anymore, it is in fact devolving and if this is not fixed it will self-destruct soon. In any case there will be major upheaval before anything changes globally. From what we can see civilizations many times just die or return to stone age, survival is not guaranteed. This is why you have pyramid in Bosnia, older than 16,000 years some say, bigger than pyramids in Egypt. Who the hell built it? Neanderthals most certainly not. See, this is just one example.
User avatar
dyn
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3847
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2008 07:50 UTC
Favorite map: q3dm8
Server: FFA
Website: https://vogonhq.com

Re: Holy Atheism

Postby dyn » Mon Mar 25, 2013 09:22 UTC

SD wrote:Atheism is just not believing in God(s) - it really is that simple. Like I mentioned above (at length) everything apart from that is a separate thing to atheism.

It's not that simple. I will answer this below. I describe atheism as perceived in practice, online or offline, mostly what i see during various debates which a lot of times bore me to no end. Why? Because it is always atheism vs. monotheism, wait no, against Christianity, because they fear mad Muslims i guess.

SD wrote:I'm probably the only one who will reply to this topic (which is a shame) and if anyone else had started it I would argue a lot more, especially about definitions.

If you want to discuss anti-theism that's cool, and would be interesting, but it's impossible until definitions are clear.

If you want to nail me down to a "classification" then I identify as an agnostic atheist. I don't know (or claim to) with 100% certainty that no God(s) exist, I just don't believe that they do. I would use this term in a technical discussion, where being clear is important, because as mentioned above, belief and knowledge aren't the same thing.

Others are too busy playing games and acting clueless, or they may be afraid to say something politically incorrect online. About anti-theism, same as above, will answer it below.

SD wrote:* This is an idea called directed panspermia, I don't personally buy it and although I haven't looked that hard, I haven't found anything supporting it yet. Also there is no creation vs evolution argument. Evolution makes no claims about the origins of life, it simply explains the diversity of life since it originated. Abiogenesis concerns the origins of life, so better to say Abiogenesis vs Creation/ID

It is, all over the YouTube. Creationists vs. evolutionists, don't tell me you never saw a video about that. I am not into this, but i noticed there is some evidence about species suddenly appearing, which may be hard for a Darwinist to explain, although it has nothing to do with religion, it is just nature with all the surprises.

SD wrote:* Not sure what you mean here, if you meant that no one back then had the technology to build them, this has been proven wrong. They used copper chisels and other basic tools and although hard work - by no means impossible.

It's impossible to build pyramids like that today. I really mean it, but i will be brief. There is no technology to do it, with all the perfect alignment structurally and also positioning them at Earth energy grid points, not only to fuel something, but to enhance that same grid. Primitive Egyptians who used pyramids as tombs didn't have this technology, it was much older. Tesla worked on similar ideas, he was able to get energy from the ground as well, and convert it to electricity. Science like that is what i call true science.

Atheists USUALLY deny the existence of anything that is not entirely physical and observable. Problem with this is limiting your perspective, science many times needs to think about the impossible in order to evolve. When you limit your views, everything becomes limited. You think Tesla would be able to get electricity from all the impossible sources if he asked other scientists what is possible and what to work on? Think about it. Science will evolve and new discoveries already point in direction of unification, how everything is interconnected in a way.

SD wrote:This is of course after the 8 people who survived the global flood had populated Egypt to the extent that they had slaves etc - all in just 100 years! Very busy people!

Yes... It's not even funny anymore. Global flood was @ the end of the last Ice Age, ca. 18000 BCE. How stupid are people not to realize this is beyond comprehension. There is evidence of water levels before and after, and it rapidly ended. It was flood-like, many died also, species went extinct etc. It has nothing to do with Christians or Moses, it happened 15000 years before they copied this from other sources who preserved this information for so long. Now, that's something! I mean preserving it, not stealing it and then running away through the desert.

Science and spirituality unite? You for real? I'm pretty sure the bulk of scientists would argue strongly against this idea. Science concerns the natural world, claims of anything spiritual cannot be investigated by science, unless the claim involves something which has a tangible effect on the world we observe, some manifestation of some kind perhaps, in which case it can be investigated. And has been, several times, in all instances where this has been done the claims have failed to produce anything measurable. If it's not measurable, it is indistinguishable from something which doesn't exist at all - here I am referring to spiritual claims and such. But then it also depends on what you mean by spirituality. The JREF has a $1m prize on offer for anyone who can demonstrate anything "supernatural" even right down to psychic claims, many have tried, all have failed. I'm not saying it wouldn't maybe be nice to believe in things like this, but I am more concerned with what is actually real and true rather than just what makes me happy.

1.) Screw JREF! You think JREF and the likes will discover anything new? 2.) Yes, its for real and yes science will sooner or later discover how everything is inter-connected and ultimately both spiritual and scientific will unite. Search online about different quantum theories, then you can see how real or unreal this science of today can be. Impossible to imagine today, with oppressive religion which is doing nothing else but destroying true spirituality, and underdeveloped science because they are still too busy with fossil fuels and atom bombs. Yea, like they will prove anything, except how stupid the entire civilization can be. Religion has nothing to do with spirituality, it only limits it.

SD wrote:* Everything has evolved at the same level, just in different directions, everything has had the same amount of time (although not generations)

Not sure what you mean here with generations. I meant there are similar conditions all over the Universe, and when we think about trillions of galaxies, with countless stars and solar systems, it's impossible to comprehend this correctly. Just 1 galaxy can have 100 billion - 1 trillion stars, or more. Those with less light are so-called dwarf galaxies. Our galaxy is Sagittarius Dwarf Galaxy, colliding with the Milky Way bastards for about 2 billion years already. And one galaxy is nothing compared to cluster of galaxies with hundreds, even thousands of galaxies. And then you have super-clusters and so on. Yes, life is everywhere. It would be comically stupid to say otherwise.

SD wrote:* Some might be pure materialists, but the vast majority just don't really think about it all that much. If someone asks them the question "Do you believe in God?" they just say no. Granted, most atheists aren't as interested as I am. And because I'm interested this proves I believe in God! Zing!

Well, how could they believe in a God as portrayed by their religion anyway. I completely understand why people have doubts and disbelief. At the same time you have pretty active atheists who want much more than just freedom to have doubts.

SD wrote:Problem of evil. No theist can answer this argument. A secular or naturalist point of view can. The "problem" of evil is only a problem if you believe in a benevolent deity, if you don't then it ceases to be a "problem" (in the sense that it can be explained). The problem arises due to the claims religions make about their specific God(s) - Christianity is a prime example here, where God is referred to as all knowing all powerful and wholly and entirely good, this God is incompatible with the world we experience. If a religion says it's god is all knowing and all powerful but is an ass hole - the problem of evil goes away. But no religion I'm aware of describes it's deity in such a way, so the problem remains (for them).

Monotheists can't answer it because they are denying the laws of Nature. I would go further and say good and bad is how things must work, only good would be as bad as only bad. Everything evolves with periodical stress and regeneration following it. Besides, if everything is good all the time one wouldn't even know it is good. People need Satan!

SD wrote:* Again, you are referring to anti theism here. A simple non belief in any deity (atheism) can't be problematic. This is why we sometimes equate with fairy tales, because it demonstrates the point. for example, not believing in the tooth fairy is not problematic.

--- next post ---
SD wrote:Big thanks for fixing the quotations, I should have got that right my self, I was just keen to reply and didn't get around to fixing it. I'm sure there is some faster way to do it than the way I would have done it. The only (only) gripe I had is that your objections are to anti-theism, not atheism, I just wanted to get that bit straight before continuing. I'm not looking to argue either, I do that enough on this topic as it is :) which is my choice of course, nobody forces me to. I think this is the biggest and most important topic anyone can ever discuss, so naturally because I hold that view I am interested in conversations about it.


When you post a reply, highlight some text at any post at the bottom of the page (topic review box) and then press the quote button and it will paste in only the text you highlighted. It may not work with all forums or under all possible conditions.

Why? Are we discussing new dictionary edition and need to be absolutely academically clear about different terms, or are we talking about reality? When you check what famous atheists are saying you can see they are at war with religion, and masses follow famous people, especially when they have nothing else to follow. So called "new atheism" calls for destruction of all religion, all influential atheism today is this new atheism. Old less aggressive atheism is as common as tooth fairies.

In practice there is little difference among all those views, basically it is a stand against being governed by people who believe in badly translated and misunderstood myths from the ancient times. I can see there is hardly anything else people could do in this time and age. Alternatives suck. Also, let's skip this nitpicking and ignore anti-theism as in opposing one god because your god told you so, many believers are anti-theists like that. Most big wars in the past were anti-theistic in nature.

It doesn't end there, modern atheist can see how religions are bad for the world, and how things could and should be run differently, free from mad terrorists and prepubescent genital mutilation.

That makes it a Weltanschauung, that is, a world-view. Ideas like that started with Renaissance, popular movements for individual rights, revolutions, revolts against aristocracy, etc. Only logical conclusion of this is revolt against God himself. Total dethronation. Bolsheviks even had a trial against God in 1920's. It is hard to imagine society like that without monotheism preceding it since most of the ideas are taken from Abrahamic religions, like equality among slaves, masses revolting, "rich man never gets in Heaven", and the desire to convert others at all cost, either through Crusades and Inquisition or murdering millions in gulags. Here i am not defending religion, but one can see there are many similarities between monotheism and atheistic movements.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Atheism
"religion should not simply be tolerated but should be countered, criticized, and exposed by rational argument wherever its influence arises."

Atheism is justified and expected reaction to bad theism.

Atheism is what monotheism always wanted to be, but this idea of no God at all was simply too much to tolerate back then, and people were not afraid to kill.
User avatar
dyn
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3847
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2008 07:50 UTC
Favorite map: q3dm8
Server: FFA
Website: https://vogonhq.com

Re: Holy Atheism

Postby dyn » Tue Mar 26, 2013 04:56 UTC


The Trouble With Atheism (Channel 4)


The Trouble with Atheism is an hour-long documentary on atheism, presented by Rod Liddle. It aired on Channel 4 in December 2006. The documentary focuses on criticising atheism for its perceived similarities to religion, as well as arrogance and intolerance. The programme includes interviews with a number of prominent scientists, including atheists Richard Dawkins and Peter Atkins and Anglican priest John Polkinghorne. It also includes an interview with Ellen Johnson, the president of American Atheists.

download: https://mega.co.nz/#!xY4XwLaA!uLLTKXv_wiJ1vRrp-p5D0YUsgep_rMnYYkffHrs_4FA (355 MB)
User avatar
dyn
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3847
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2008 07:50 UTC
Favorite map: q3dm8
Server: FFA
Website: https://vogonhq.com

Re: Holy Atheism

Postby dyn » Tue Mar 26, 2013 05:03 UTC


Newsnight Review - Is Atheism the new Religion?



This is just to see all this from different perspectives. Otherwise transition from monotheism to anything which is not of that same nature can be very liberating. Many atheists who were theists before realized this. I think key is to keep some distance from the mainstream atheism, and think for yourself.
User avatar
dyn
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3847
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2008 07:50 UTC
Favorite map: q3dm8
Server: FFA
Website: https://vogonhq.com


Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Ahrefs [Bot], CommonCrawl [Bot], Google AppEngine and 4 guests