I will not praise it, I will not degrade it, it will be open

As we see it ever so often. The path of atheism is a path of explicit pride of humanity and the individual. But then whom does one praise? If there is no infinite unlimited being, you are stuck with a finite limited being. The path of atheism seems to be more, honorable, because it seems almost a ‘rebellion of the intelligents’, a rationalism that isn’t actually rational. Somehow humanity has bought into a lie that atheism is some monolithic way of looking at life, something you find when you reach that great level of intelligence, completely false. To some degree reading Nietzsche, or a Hume, will present a nimbus of intelligence, because it’s a liberation, something that seems blinded eye’s can’t communicate with it’s been said. I know, because i’ve seen it. When some of the highest degree of books being read in the class are atheist and agnostic, it doesn’t leave room for even a ‘possible’ step higher of the theist. If it was such a lame excuse it would be open to scrutiny in the classroom, but no, we’d rather scrutinize then mock behind backs, instead of opening the allowment to show the cards. For if it is to be an offense to discuss one’s faiths logically, then you must discuss others faiths as well. If we are to be truly open-minded, we can’t shut out what seems to be close-minded, because then you fail to be open-minded. The motivation has been set, it’s been to secularize the society. When we can leave out thoughts of an infinite being, then we can look at things more modernly and rationally the motivator says, without giving rational excuse. This man breathes his desires down on necks, for out of fear no religionist should stand, it’s irrational, but it’s never told completely why, it’s just been hacked at with straw man arguments until it seems so simple minded to the simple minded. Religious beliefs have been mocked by satires, although never showing true falsehoods, it’s just a mockery that creates a nimbus for a falsehood. We’ve bought into the lie, from Religionists, to Agnostics, to Atheists; religion has been deemed dimwitted. We have bought it, and soon we will see our own reflections, along with the malevolent men who motivated these thoughts. These men haven’t given reason’s why. Sure they can praise the forgiving, but rarely do they forgive. They can love the lovable, but cannot find it in their hearts to love the unlovable. What will this future be like in years to come? Egoism? Erotomania? Megolomania? Are these the fathers of the future?

These are just some thoughts of what I’ve been feeling lately. I’d love to hear comments on what you think about what i’ve said, and then tell me why you think whatever you’ve said.

This is a common misunderstanding of what it means often used in religious circles. Athiesm does not necessarily imply that man is the maxim of being. But often rather they are just a being.

You need not praise anyone to be an athiest. And why would you want to praise anyone or anything? Revery is something which can easily lead one down a path of a static individual.

Once again it may not seem rational to you but it is an accepted religious stance with a large amount of reasoning behind its arguments.

How can you say that this is completely false? And in a way it can be a monolithic way to walk through life. You accept the responsibility of your own actions, understand that some things are simply going to happen, and teaches you to enjoy every moment of your life as it may very well be the last you will ever have (due to a lack of afterlife etc.)

You are looking at this from an askewed perspective. First and foremost what classes? Schools still try to keep a seperation of Church and State. Philosophy of Religion courses I read from many Christian thinkers. They have not been wiped out of history. It just so happens that the classes and the ideas they teach no longer rely upon God since the idea is not radical by any means at this moment. Secondly, look at the historical perspectives of this. The RCC had a stranglehold upon any sort of information for quite some time. They did this with full intent and purpose. Now, is it the academic communities fault that the individual does not believe in God? I find this notion foolish; because if they are an “individual” they should make up their own mind. Also, many books do leave that room in regards to those who wish to seek them out.

It is open to the classroom for most people to do as they wish with it. If your professor does not allow it that is his/her choice. But in a science classroom it holds no room as it is based upon empirical evidence.

If you have recieved this it is nothing that you can do. The Church has reaped what is has sowed in regards to this over historical movements it has incurred.

What straw man’s are you talking about?

And also non-religious believers have been killed over time. I am just curious why you are not looking at this from the cause and effect view over history.

Western religions are still strong regardless of what you believe. As I have said before though Western religions has made the bed in which it sleeps. Its history is a stain upon its stance. Nations which are further away from the sort of religious stances we take are far more cohesive (i.e. Japan, Germany, U.K.).

They most certainly have. Read from the late 1700’s on in regard to religions, historical, literature, and science.

Once again you are portraying Christians or the ones of God in the highest light. Once again let he who is w/o sin cast the first stone? Athiests, thiests, agnostics are all of the same mold. The ever so flawed human being. Ideas are powerful when their time has come. But when their time is gone they shall all fade for some time. As John Lennon said “Imagine there is no heaven, no hell below us.” What would that do to people? I believe it would create a.) one less item to fight about b.) an acceptance in living for today c.) Self-reliance in regards to ones status.

I wish no emotional pain upon anyone but life is what it is. Pain is ineveitable.

If man isn’t the maxim being, what is? Won’t we mistake man to be God? If nothing supernatural exist, we must go with the next step lower, man. I don’t see another way.

So you praise nothing as an atheist? Than an atheist does nothing?

Give some good reasonings and we will discuss.

The statement is completely false, don’t skew my words. Atheist believe atheism is a monolithic way of looking at life as opposed to theism which they believe isn’t, still they have many more unanswered questions to their claims, and most of them end in destruction.

No, they have not revealed some hidden implications, they have reaons behind what they do. If not God, than pride, lust, or greed, all roads which utterly end in destruction.

I’m not sure where science came into play either… I wasn’t discussing Intelligent Design. I however directed some of what I’ve said to satirical straw man mockerys such as “The church of the flying spaghetti monster”.

What would it do to people if we imagined there was no heaven or no hell?

I’ll tell you. We’d mistake time to be eternity. Life would be even more meaningless than some already perceive it to be. I’m not saying this is totally true, but for the most part it is. The atheistic life, ends up being meaningless. If the model men for atheism are Sartre and Nietzsche, this is something I would not put trust into following. This is not my reason, but it’s one reason why not.

09.17.06.1566

Logic ≠ Religion

so little words with such powerful enlightenment, i’m amazed at your greatness.

Logic isn’t religion, religion isn’t logic. Faith isn’t logic, logic isn’t faith. Logic is reasonable, reasonable is logical. Religion is reasonable, reasonable is religion.

2xreligion=2xreason or 2/religion=2/reason or 2+religion=2+reason

Or if you want I can try some algebraic formulas with it later, just to need your permission.

Once again just because you see it one way does not mean that is the final word. We will just pretend that all those Buddhist and Daoist w/o there God just worship man.

Yes, we all just sit around in a pile of our own waste and think of ways to undermine Christian thinkers. Or perhaps we think of ways of improving ourselves instead of what a being thinks of us. I already see you slipping back to your state prior to your epiphany a few threads back.

About?

Here after quoting a words is where you can say “Give me some good reasonings and we will discuss”.

I don’t and I am an athiest. Perhaps you should really study up on Eastern thought before you categorize everyone. And when you take a test you may give answers and they very well not be the right one!
:wink:

I am not sure in what this is reference to because it is a bit out of frame.

I was making a point of an academic situation which science is certainly not warranted.

What if it is all we will ever now?

You still refuse to understand that athiests are not all doom and gloom little buddy. Buddhists and Daoists are athiests. You are making excessive overassumptions in regards to a world you know little about.

It is something you would not put trust into and that is fine. I do not follow their examples either but does not mean I don’t respect their creative and powerful minds.

On the contrary this is your reason.

Ehhh i actually have to agree with club here as far as aetheism goes. It is pretty illogical to really believe that there is no God whatsoever. However i think it’s completly LOGICAL to believe there is no christian God though. Come on that’s a given.

As far as agnosticism (is that a word?) i think that’s totally reasonable as well because it acknowledges some higher being. Also maybe an afterlife.

I dont believe in religion but i do believe in a God and an Afterlife. I feel no need to praise any one or anything and think it is quite silly to do so. Live life to the fullest and let your only boundaries be your own morals…not a set of rules from a book written thousands of years ago.

Why?

This is feasible w/o the role of God in one’s life.

It is illogical because it doesnt seem reasonable that there was no force behind the beginning of time. A car cannot start without the key in thee ignition. And thee ignition can not occur without a driver. According to aethism there is no driver and the car started by itself. You and i both no this to be completey ridiculous.

Do you agree?

Perhaps the very things in nature we have to study such as gas, pressure, combustion, etc. But I suppose it comforts you to believe that that is how things came to be.

The driver is nature and the car is nature powered.

I know this to be your version of events. But certainly not ridiculous.

Powered Water, can you explain why it’s logical not to believe in the Christian God? I’m curious.

Yes, even without my religion. To say it’s more logical that nothing turned itself into something as opposed to an alternative being or thing that exists infinitely with knowledge is ludicrous.

Data

This is like saying “an irish fairytale cannot start without a leprechaun. According to atheism, there was no leprechaun and the fairytale started itself. Therefore there is a God and he is a leprechaun.” The comparison between the universe’s beginnings and a car’s starting because of a driver just amounts to assuming that there must be a ‘driver’ to the universe, which is what you’re trying to show. This elementary logical fallacy is called affirming the consequent, proving your conclusion using a premise that is the same conclusion you’re trying to prove.

Data

The sheer volume of terrible (yet respected) proofs for God’s existence is evidence that people really, really, really want God to exist. If arguments of this appalling quality were applied to things in ordinary life no one would buy them. But because of the intense pull that gods exert on the human mind, people lower their logical defenses and let any argument in that lets them believe what they want to believe.

Portent

Theology is the advancing of bad arguments for the religious beliefs people hold, in truth, because they prefer believing.

That is the notion you lack comprehension on. There was always something.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

And frankly I find the notion that some large man was like BAM! And created the universe a little ludicrous. :sunglasses:

Perhaps it is this notion which has put you to believe the academic realm views some aspects of religion foolish.

How do you explain it’s bangingness? Or any other bangingness? What banged it? How? Why at this particular time?

It’s quite logically possible that the big bang was the cause of God. I’m not sure why this wouldn’t be. You can only comprehend some big guy making something go bang, that’s only your lack of intellect and dim imagination, this doesn’t disprove anything. But maybe you can elaborate a bit more.

Indeed. But there is a more clear and reasonable position for the atheist. I do not maintain that the universe ‘came into being’ by a process of ‘nothing turning itself into something’. Such a position is linguistically addled from my point of view, because I maintain that the universe (from latin: the ‘one story’) is being itself. To be is to be in the universe, and to be in the universe is to be. Thus the universe could not have ‘come into being’ any more than any other object can ‘come into itself’. Something which is being itself does not need a cause for its ‘coming into being’ since it did not ‘come into being’ at all.

It is philosophically naive to imagine that before the big bang there was this big empty space, then suddenly for no reason a little ball popped into the space and became very big. That is not my position and it should not be the position of anyone, theist or atheist. The universe does not need a foundation or reason; rather, it is the foundation and reason for everything.

Read it. Familiarize yourself with it and you shall understand it.

Once again you are reverting back to your pre-“gathering” post Caleb.

ilovephilosophy.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=152504

It is simple and yet very complicated Chemistry, physics, and astronomy. You just ignore the information and instead say I am “lacking” intelligence which would have nothing to do with this silly notion of God creating the universe.

There is never just nothing. You may see nothing may think nothing but inside it swirls with energy and potential. Look at how much energy is created from an item such as Uranium. And that is a mass roughly bigger than a baseball.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_explosion

So, let go of the idea you held and examine the possibility that things happen in nature that create incaculable amounts of energy.

Before we continue (well I will anyways.)

Is it BAD, to have pride in humanity and the individual? Look around, at the bridges that span miles and miles… I think justification of pride in humanity abounds. hell look at the computer you are typing this message on… If we merely relied on the “will of the creator” (like hardcore fundamentalists, christian or muslims or jews.) we would still be living in the stone age and communicating vis a vie only those we agree with.

The internet allows us to confront those who will challenge our beliefs every day. The computer allows work to be done more efficiently.

Is it completely wrong to be proud of humanity for these accomplishments? I dare say, humanity is better off today, EVEN WITH war famine and disease in other countries than we ever have been in history.

Let’s talk about praise… Do you praise your son when he does well in school? Do you praise your wife when she does something for you?

Do you praise the car dealership for making you an awesome deal?

All of these situations praise is earned correct? Tell me what god has done to earn my praise?

Thus the pursuit of knowledge and preservation of knowledge becomes more important. The muslims believe they are infinite beings and thusly will gladly strap bombs to themselves to get 72 virgins in the afterlife… most christians aren’t that much different. Most of them would be HAPPY to see a nuke going off in the mid-east, as it would portend the coming of christ.

The finite is therefore more valued without an infinite progenitor.

there ya go mixing rationality and faith. There is nothing rational about believing in an infinite god. it’s contrary to reality.

I agree there are SOME atheists like that. And many of them have replaced one cult for another. Look at the global warming crowd, or the marxist crowd… they all have dropped one flawed religion for another. Those are very monolithic ways of looking at life and they are very resistant to confrontation to those views, just like any monolithic religious faith.

I agree… the schools have become monolithic liberal arts churches.

IT SHOULD BE!!

A perfect example of this is the book by Bjorn Lomborg, “the skeptical environmentalist”… Bjorn went in looking for proof of manmade and controllable global warming and came out with no evidence that billions of dollars should be spent on such a proposition… and that such would hurt the poorest countries in the world.

The Enviro church made a strawman out of him and burned him… Yet when gore a POLITICIAN, comes out with “proof” of global warming, he is not challenged at all!

I agree… but to be truly open minded to me means to not shut your mind to criticizing everything. But to leave your mind closed enough to leave your own brittle faith in tact.

agree.

I admit that’s how I see it… But I also see the importance of it.

These men want nothing more to tear down tradition for their own perversity IMO.

While you do need science to fill in the details, I don’t think the universe origin problem, at its root, has anything to do with science. It is a philosophical and linguistic problem, as I argue in my post above.

Its “banging” (the quality of rapid violent expansion from an initial state) is the result of its initial state. The initial state by contrast cannot be explained, but is the foundation of explanation for everything else. There is no ‘how’ or ‘why’ outside of the universe. There is no time either.

If you like, you can refine my post above to say that the universe, specifically its initial state, is the foundational cause of everything else.

You lack the notion of a God, so how can you call him silly?

The universe had a start, we know this. But you can’t even begin to give me the start, and niether can scientist, heck I know I was reading on NASA earlier today. To say this universe created itself , this way, you’d really have to have faith.

But before I go on.

Here’s a man who ‘actually’ knows what he’s talking about.

polkinghorne.org/

He was once stated as saying this universe being the product of randomness would be like taking aim to a 1 by 1 inch square billins of lightyears away and hitting it dead on.

Don’t say my beliefs are silly, only how you’re silly mind see’s them makes them silly.

I don’t really concern myself with the origin’s problem but some need some kind of understanding regarding the origin ideas so I am haappy to grant them that. As far as I am concerned this universe is all within our minds but that is a whole other thread dealing with time-space and relativity.