Atheism. Is there more to it than just mocking people?

[Symmetry]

I'm not sure that that's entirely true about it being evolution vs literal (I assume you mean Biblically literal) creationism. There are people who believe in evolution and in God as the creator. There are people who believe in intelligent design, and there's a whole spectrum of belief there too. There are people who see Genesis as a historical document, or a kind of analogy or parable, but still see science as the way to understand the world.

Essentially, it's not quite a dichotomy, even for those within the Abrahamic traditions.

I'd also take issue with your idea of "history" and it only being known by "fragments", but tbh, I'm not entirely sure what you mean by that. "History" is a huge field, involving many different fields that interact with one another, and I only have expertise in certain periods of early modern human history. Even that requires inter-disciplinary research nowadays.

Sorry, that mostly came across as criticism, but I liked your post and agreed with a lot of it. But "I agree" takes up less space than explaining where I disagree.

[jonesthecurl]

I agree.

[warmonger1981]

I've actually been on the fence for a while on religion and God. after a long talk with my wife last night I've decided the family shouldn't go to church anymore or teach our kids about god. she was upset but I'm sure she will get over it. the kids were devastated to hear we been lying to them about an imaginary supreme being and they won't be seeing their friends anymore at church. luckily my kids are young so hopefully I havnt ingrained this in them. I would like to thank all atheists on here for giving me the courage to do this. although it has put a real strain on our family core I'm sure in time they will get over it. if not oh well. it's not like I should feel guilty for telling the truth. now my parents on the other hand will be much more vocal about my decision. anyone have tips on how to tell my parents that God is fake? I'm gonna need some pointers for them. is there a computer model that proves evolution? if there is it will help me greatly as scientific research will be easier to prove than what I can relay to them.

[Neoteny]

Lmao

I'm no relationship expert, but maybe if you were so intently questioning your place in this weirdly performative, imaginary world, you should have included your wife in the top level discussion and addressed your kids' needs for consistency and social interaction before acting in a manner of draconian control and caprice you really only see in the Old Testament.

[warmonger1981]

Lmao

I'm no relationship expert, but maybe if you were so intently questioning your place in this weirdly performative, imaginary world, you should have included your wife in the top level discussion and addressed your kids' needs for consistency and social interaction before acting in a manner of draconian control and caprice you really only see in the Old Testament.

I did address this with my wife before the kids you idiot. We did it together as a couple. Sometimes the truth hurts. But when it comes to be in no God it's obviously fact. You should be happy that you have inspired me to tell the truth to my children.. are you saying that I should consistently lied to my children about there being a god? or is it better to have my children deal with people who are in reality and fact-based. Remember you're the one for socialism to control. So again I say thank you especially to you. But don't think you know about my family's conversations to say that it was draconian. Every time my kids step out of the door they are interacting socially with people. You act like I said I was locking them up. It seems to me that you are implying that I should have my young children around anyone. If anything you should take credit for my so called Draconian actions as you have inspired me. What you say has real-life implications. So please take a bow.

[DoomYoshi]

That's brutal.

[jonesthecurl]

I encourage the curlson to go to church. He is aware of my own stance, and has come to the conclusion that I'm wrong. I think his faith is useful to him, giving purpose to his world view. He was 10 before we left the UK (he's 22 now), which means that he was taught about God in school ( there were three vicars from local churches who were closely involved with the school). A few years ago, he joined a church in NJ run by his girlfriend's uncle, which involved a full-body baptism. That guy moved, and so did the curlson, so he's not involved with that church any more, but he's attended a local church here in CA. He doesn't bother much any more, I think he's growing out of that phase just as I did many years ago.

[Neoteny]

I did address this with my wife before the kids you idiot. We did it together as a couple. Sometimes the truth hurts. But when it comes to be in no God it's obviously fact. You should be happy that you have inspired me to tell the truth to my children.. are you saying that I should consistently lied to my children about there being a god? or is it better to have my children deal with people who are in reality and fact-based. Remember you're the one for socialism to control. So again I say thank you especially to you. But don't think you know about my family's conversations to say that it was draconian. Every time my kids step out of the door they are interacting socially with people. You act like I said I was locking them up. It seems to me that you are implying that I should have my young children around anyone. If anything you should take credit for my so called Draconian actions as you have inspired me. What you say has real-life implications. So please take a bow.

Lol what a full diaper we have here. Most of this is barely comprehensible dude. And it definitely all happened, yes.

I was more referring to opening the conversation on such a major topic to thought and discussion over a longer period of time instead of springing it on her one night before "I've decided the family..." Nothing draconian there. You later said they wouldn't be seeing their friends anymore. Top-notch parenting for sure. And just leaving them all to "get over it." You're a real winner, eh? It's a bit silly that you're trying to conflate atheism with absolute sociopathy, but I think all this emoting really says more about you than it does about atheism.

[warmonger1981]

I did address this with my wife before the kids you idiot. We did it together as a couple. Sometimes the truth hurts. But when it comes to be in no God it's obviously fact. You should be happy that you have inspired me to tell the truth to my children.. are you saying that I should consistently lied to my children about there being a god? or is it better to have my children deal with people who are in reality and fact-based. Remember you're the one for socialism to control. So again I say thank you especially to you. But don't think you know about my family's conversations to say that it was draconian. Every time my kids step out of the door they are interacting socially with people. You act like I said I was locking them up. It seems to me that you are implying that I should have my young children around anyone. If anything you should take credit for my so called Draconian actions as you have inspired me. What you say has real-life implications. So please take a bow.

Lol what a full diaper we have here. Most of this is barely comprehensible dude. And it definitely all happened, yes.

I was more referring to opening the conversation on such a major topic to thought and discussion over a longer period of time instead of springing it on her one night before "I've decided the family..." Nothing draconian there. You later said they wouldn't be seeing their friends anymore. Top-notch parenting for sure. And just leaving them all to "get over it." You're a real winner, eh? It's a bit silly that you're trying to conflate atheism with absolute sociopathy, but I think all this emoting really says more about you than it does about atheism.

Do what thou Wilt shall be the whole of the law. atheism 101. Atheists live by moral relativism.

[Neoteny]

Lmao you should probably do a little more research before committing, bro.

[mookiemcgee]

I think it's silly how you think there could even be a Atheism 101. I mean religious folk in the USA have done a great job portraying atheists as an organized force. and certainly there are atheist organizations, but Atheism is effectively saying you don't belong in a bucket. The only thing that unites athiests under one umbrella is a disassociation not a positive one. There is no atheist bible that unites them under a single umbrella. They are simply, the 'aren't'. So saying atheists do anything (implying they are all the same), is a total fallacy.

But since you are now an athiest and live by what you describe as moral relativism, maybe you should just sell your kids to a nice christian family, and you wife to a nice muslim man.

[jonesthecurl]

I think you'll find "Do what thou wilt" is Crowley, who certainly wasn't an atheist.

[warmonger1981]

If you are an atheist would you care if I sold my children or my wife? To each their own right. Atheists are under an umbrella of non-believers. Maybe you missed that part of being atheist. You know not believing in God. Something all atheist have in common. Just like all Christians believe in Christ. I'm still looking for those computer models so I can show my parents.. and yes I'm well aware of where the quote came from Aleister Crowley. The quote basically sums of atheism though. There is no law but your law. Current laws have been set up under some type of religious Foundation. Maybe its time to break these laws founded by religious systems and instead implement systems of science and reason. I thought you people would be much more accepting of my new found faith in nothing.

Jones why would you tell your kid to go believe in something that's not there?? Maybe you sound crazy for telling somebody to go believe in something that's not real. That's probably one of the craziest things I've ever heard. Is it his faith that is giving him purpose to his worldview? Or would it be God giving him a purpose?

[Neoteny]

Swallow my doubt, turn it inside out,
Find nothing but

faith in nothing.

want to put my tender
Heart in a blender,
Watch it spin round to a beautiful oblivion.

[tzor]

If you are an atheist would you care if I sold my children or my wife?

That's an Atheist Libertarian not an Atheist. An Atheist Statist would insist that the state has absolute say in your actions and as a loyal follower of the state logic would demand that I do care, if I were such a person (which I am not). Spock (pretty much a Atheist Progressive) once cited "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few (or the one)."

[tzor]

I think it's silly how you think there could even be a Atheism 101.

I would argue that there is an Atheism 101, because anything that is not "positive" atheism collapses into mild agnosticism ("I don't know and I assume no") when the arguments are put to the test. Atheist 101 demands that anything that cannot be proven cannot exist. (Never mind that you have just caused the entire universe to vanish in a puff of logic because we can't prove a lot of fundamental things at the deepest scientific level ... at least not yet.)

The second level of Atheism 101 is snark and straw men. Trying to compare Atheism with the "Flying Spaghetti Monster" would be like me trying to compare religious with Darleks. (I mean look at history ... eventually all atheists start running around the countryside shouting "exterminate.") The greatest of the strong atheists are nothing more than insult generators.

[DoomYoshi]

Zizek said something along the lines of "there is only one question... if there was a God, would you change the way you live? atheists are the people who answer no to that question".

[tzor]

Zizek said something along the lines of "there is only one question... if there was a God, would you change the way you live? atheists are the people who answer no to that question".

But here we see the double problem generally used by atheists.

The first point is "if there is a God." This is a moot question. It's like asking If strong theory is correct. Well it is and it isn't but the question should be if I knew that string theory was correct. If it was correct and I thought it
wasn't correct the fact that I don't know that it is correct isn't going to impact my life in any manner whatsoever.

On the second place knowing something doesn't mean a person is going to change their way of life. There are many people who know smoking is a road to painful death but smoke anyway. The knowledge that smoking is a road to painful death may not change the way they live.

[Symmetry]

Zizek said something along the lines of "there is only one question... if there was a God, would you change the way you live? atheists are the people who answer no to that question".

But here we see the double problem generally used by atheists.

The first point is "if there is a God." This is a moot question. It's like asking If string theory is correct. Well it is and it isn't but the question should be if I knew that string theory was correct. If it was correct and I thought it
wasn't correct the fact that I don't know that it is correct isn't going to impact my life in any manner whatsoever.

On the second place knowing something doesn't mean a person is going to change their way of life. There are many people who know smoking is a road to painful death but smoke anyway. The knowledge that smoking is a road to painful death may not change the way they live.

I don't agree. I think your simile is flawed. Most people have no opinion whatsoever on string theory. You needed an extra assumption to make that simile work, and it's almost like putting the decision into the hands of priests, except in your simile, string theory physicists. I don't think that priests holding on to mysteries should be a replaced by scientists doing the same.

A scientist is not a priest- a scientist tests, and retests, and has their research tested and retested before it is accepted. A priest tells people that it is accepted.

[warmonger1981]

I think it's silly how you think there could even be a Atheism 101.

I would argue that there is an Atheism 101, because anything that is not "positive" atheism collapses into mild agnosticism ("I don't know and I assume no") when the arguments are put to the test. Atheist 101 demands that anything that cannot be proven cannot exist. (Never mind that you have just caused the entire universe to vanish in a puff of logic because we can't prove a lot of fundamental things at the deepest scientific level ... at least not yet.)

The second level of Atheism 101 is snark and straw men. Trying to compare Atheism with the "Flying Spaghetti Monster" would be like me trying to compare religious with Darleks. (I mean look at history ... eventually all atheists start running around the countryside shouting "exterminate.") The greatest of the strong atheists are nothing more than insult generators.

I'm pretty sure atheists have proven evolution and no God. That's why there is no god and their atheist. Although I have never seen any real proof of evolution it's obviously fact and everybody must realize it. God is dead. instead thank AI as it will be the real God of this planet. can't wait for it. something real and tangible. not false spirits of angels and demons but real intelligence. the more you lose spirituality the more you gain knowledge and wisdom of the real world not imaginary folklore. silly so many people believe in something that is only in their heads.

[tzor]

A scientist is not a priest- a scientist tests, and retests, and has their research tested and retested before it is accepted. A priest tells people that it is accepted.

A priest is not a scientist. To compare the apple and the orange is confusing at best and insulting at worst.

Theology is in the province of theologians, not priests. It's interesting to note that most types of theology work in exceptionally vague terms; only Western Christianity tends to get into complex details because that's a legacy of the engineers of Rome. That problem exists everywhere and even impacted the development of science to this present day.

This is made even further confusing that "science" as we know it today, which is a product of the "scientific method" is a relNotative recent notion. Originally, the Greeks categorized such sciences as one of the three philosophies (or bodies of knowledge). Natural philosophy would later evolve to the sciences. Moral philosophy would evolve into ethics. Metaphysical philosophy would evolve into both theology and logic.

So "scientists" basically come from natural philosophy (unless they are math majors in which case they hail from metaphysical philosophy and generally don't go around performing "experiments").

Now let's bring this back full circle. Nobody does experiments on the Hippocratic oath (or any major issue of ethics). Not every branch of philosophy (knowledge) is driven through experiment. That doesn't disparage the other branches. They are just different, just as the apple is different from the orange.

[Symmetry]

A scientist is not a priest- a scientist tests, and retests, and has their research tested and retested before it is accepted. A priest tells people that it is accepted.

A priest is not a scientist. To compare the apple and the orange is confusing at best and insulting at worst.

Theology is in the province of theologians, not priests. It's interesting to note that most types of theology work in exceptionally vague terms; only Western Christianity tends to get into complex details because that's a legacy of the engineers of Rome. That problem exists everywhere and even impacted the development of science to this present day.

This is made even further confusing that "science" as we know it today, which is a product of the "scientific method" is a relNotative recent notion. Originally, the Greeks categorized such sciences as one of the three philosophies (or bodies of knowledge). Natural philosophy would later evolve to the sciences. Moral philosophy would evolve into ethics. Metaphysical philosophy would evolve into both theology and logic.

So "scientists" basically come from natural philosophy (unless they are math majors in which case they hail from metaphysical philosophy and generally don't go around performing "experiments").

Now let's bring this back full circle. Nobody does experiments on the Hippocratic oath (or any major issue of ethics). Not every branch of philosophy (knowledge) is driven through experiment. That doesn't disparage the other branches. They are just different, just as the apple is different from the orange.

You're definitely stretching the "apples and oranges" thing here. The simile was flawed before you used it, to be fair- both round, both sweet, both fruit, etc.

You probably shouldn't use it as the both the start and end of your argument in future. I'll deal with the middle and its seeds (hey- apples and oranges both have seeds too (sorry, got distaracted)).

Anyway, natural philosophy is a big catch-all term. It's never really been defined or re-defined in the way that other branches of philosophy have- say metaphysics, or moral philosophy.

Take Francis Bacon as an example- someone who combined his Protestant theology with his politics and early modern scientific methodology.

[tzor]

You're definitely stretching the "apples and oranges" thing here. The simile was flawed before you used it, to be fair- both round, both sweet, both fruit, etc.

Which is why the apple is divided into easily dividable segments and ... wait it's not. It's the same here. It's not obvious that not all philosophy uses the "scientific method." It's like the segmentation of the orange; completely different from the layout of the apple even both are generally round, sweet (thanks be to prohibition when apples were bred for smoothness and not for making cider or pies) and both are technically fruit.

Take Francis Bacon as an example- someone who combined his Protestant theology with his politics and early modern scientific methodology.

I think I made my argument with this already; people were constantly crossing over the boundaries of the philosophies and making arguments from "scientific method" to areas of morals and ethics and vice versa. Darwin's theories were bastardized to support both eugenics and genocide. Remember that Martin Luther wanted to burn Galileo at the stake only he was in Catholic hands at the time. Galileo, for his part was using his scientific observations to make statements beyond what his observations were indicating well into moral, ethical and theological arguments.

The point stands, moral philosophy is not based on "experiments." (There was a bishop in Galileo's time that stated, "the Bible tells us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go.") Thus a priest, who holds and passes down moral philosophy is not by any means a "scientist" not because he doesn't use the scientific method but because his branch of moral philosophy is not based on the scientific method. It is not a defect of moral philosophy.

[DoomYoshi]

"Remember that" Martin Luther was dead 20 years before Galileo was born. 95 theses was 1518. Galileo's letter to the Grand Duchess was 1605.
"Remember that" the quote (which we only know because Galileo quoted it, and might possibly be his own invention) is "That the intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven. not how heaven goes."
"Remember that" the bishop was actually a cardinal, and the same one who invented the phrase "dark age" to refer to the period of Catholic rule over Europe.