The Atheist Purpouse? Atheism sux! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Just kiddingPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image!. I realy don't mean to question the atheist belief or in any way compare it to any other belief. What I am interested in is what you're view as an atheist is on disseminating the common atheist views and to what eventual end. Stamp out religion? If so then why?
Religion is redunant. It does not provide anything that can't be found elsewhere. At the same time, it's a money sink which breeds corruption and attempts to control society. Not all religions mind you, just the organized ones.
the average atheist doesn't care about coverting theists. They just want to be left alone by theists and their arrogant stance of life, i.e. that they hold the truth.
Atheism has no purpose other than to register a disbelief in a god or gods, or to assert that a god or gods do not exist. Anything else associated with atheism is not atheism and should be considered part(s) of new or other philosophies.
I'm Buddhist, though I've heard many a time people calling us atheists. I'm certainly at odds with most followers of the abrahamic religions. Personally, I don't believe in a God who created the world for a lark to test us and who's going to burn us all in hell if we fail. I mean, it sounds like something you'd get from a hippy just down off LSD, yet so often a Christian has looked at me, stunned, as I tell them that I don't believe. They point to things that "Must show evidence of God" like man, animals, the planets etc... I used to have the energy to sit with them and teach them about cosmology, but I just don't care any more.
I dont think 'Atheists' have a purpose (aside from what we define for ourselves as individuals). We just don't accept things without proof. 'God' is just one of those many things.
It's like (some) religious people wanna point out the wonderts of God and that it's true, he exists, etc, life will be so much better if you realise and embrace that. Some atheists feel the same.
most atheists couldn't care if there is a god or not. there's no point giving thought to something that dosen't exist.
Whoa there Nelly! That's two contradictive statements there. If 'God' did exist, I'm fairly certain most atheists WOULD care. There is a solid difference between 'not accpeting things without proof' and 'ignoring things with proof'. As of right now 'God' falls into the former category; however, if proof ever did arise that 'God' exists and you didn't care then thats just plain ignorance.
"There is a solid difference between 'not accpeting things without proof' and 'ignoring things with proof'. As of right now 'God' falls into the former category; however, if proof ever did arise that 'God' exists and you didn't care then thats just plain ignorance." Yes there is a solid difference. God only falls in the former category if you're talking about empirical science. But as for philosophic proofs, God falls into the second category; i.e., "ignoring things with proof." The problem being: atheists ignore philosophic proof by muddying the waters with empirical data, thus turning the tables around, and making it look as though the argument began as a question of "not accepting things without proof."
I am sure that with a little creative writing, a philisophical proof of the Easter Bunny being real can be made. I don't think empirics muddy the waters. It's philosophy that does. Think about the role that philosophy played in the idea that the world is flat (even in the face of emprical data that showed otherwise).
Doubtful that the Easter Bunny could be made real; seeing as it is the product of human imagination. But I see what you're getting at; it's an old criticism. Sure, philosophy muddies the water of science--maybe. But I was saying that certain philosophic arguments start out that way, but then science comes into the picture and ruins it.
Of course the final arbitrator is reality, not thought. No matter how illogical a phenomena may seem, if it exists, it exists. Still, I would enjoy seeing your philosophical proof of God. ~Raithere
I don't know about "my" philosophic proof. But there are several in existence. The volume I have contains at least twenty; and, meshed togehter, they provide quite a nice homogeny. After all, reasons for belief do not amount to proofs; they amount to probabilities. Just like in court.
Sure it could. You put thousands of years of writings behind the Easter Bunny and raise all children to accept his existance without proof then suddenly he's real. The Easter Bunny is no more a product of human imagination than 'God' is. The only difference is that one of them is accepted as being real. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Well if ruining it means curing all sorts of diseases, having trains / planes / automobiles, providing great dental care, walking on the moon, observing pulsars, microwaving an entire meal in two minutes then let's ruin away baby!
He's a brave man folks...where he comes from not believeing in god will get you killed. Atheism also has flaws just like religion but it is what it is. It's a belief in a disbelief. Both sides through major resistence against each other. I guess you wait till you die to find out huh??? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Perhaps it's time to re-examine another atheist purpose This question always brings more trouble than it's worth, but there are enough new faces around that I might get a surprise. But looking at the "Atheist purpose" brings to mind another aspect of religion and atheism that rarely gets examined. Religions provide, among their other claimed benefits, assertions regarding the purpose and meaning of life. One of the hard things for many religious people is explaining the magnitude of what the atheist rejects when the atheist casually declares, "There is no God." And while the manifestation of the difficulties inherent in such a collision of ideas varies from religion to religion, and while the manifestation depends on the priorities of the religion--e.g. Christians frequently assert that a lack of God necessarily leads to a lack of morality, a not-entirely unsupportable claim that actually suffers the most damage from an interpolation of the idea, the lack of morality heralded by the acceptance of God. So it would be interesting to delve into this realm; it's over a years since anything around here got close to the idea, and Raithere and I still haven't hammered out a couple of points of examination from the last time (we're getting closer; progress actually seems to be occurring, so let that be a lesson that it's possible). But what, then, is the "meaning" or "purpose" of life? For the religious, the meaning and purpose are often ascribed by religious doctrine, though never so overtly as one might hope. However, as any asserted meaning or purpose lacks objective verification, I'm curious about the presumptory structures employed by atheists to maintain an ethical or moral basis for action in life. Upon what values are choices balanced or justified? One of the worst blows to religion in my life came when atheism actually failed me°; for all its criticism of a lack of objectivity I never found within atheism the opportunity for a proper objectivity that did not lead me by various courses to nihilism. So I'm empty on that count. The people for whom atheism seems a more natural fit: I'm curious what they've got. There are atheists out there whom we will never hear from; they wouldn't know to answer the question if they were present at their asking because their atheism is unfettered by the comparative. But, like "real" Christians, they are as far between as the stars, it seems. But of those who actively identify themselves as atheists, I'm wondering if any atheist is going to admit to it being a life-scale decision, or if people will continue to insist that atheism is a small idea entirely limited to itself while refusing to provide the details of what else fills the void that other people use religion to fill. The bottom line is that if atheism is to succeed as a human philosophy and rescue the sorry lot of humanity from its religious throes, it's going to have something more than it already does. It's not for a lack of substance among atheists, but a seeming lack of willingness to demonstrate it. And people are welcome to let free-thought magazines and archives stand for their opinion, if they want, or quotes from dead people. But what seems a small argument to the individual who holds it--e.g. atheism--has huge implications for a person who might be asked to consider its merits--e.g. a religious person. And, quite frankly, this is the long-running expressive failure of atheism. As a solitary pagan for part of my life, I understand the idea that any suggestion of formal organization among free thought rings a distasteful note, but just as Americans want to enjoy their rights while abdicating their responsibilities to their society, so too do I see atheists enjoying a common label which they're willing to refuse at the drop of a pin because it appears that atheists do not, generally, either give thought to these other issues, or else express them for other people's benefit. I used to be a staunch defender of the atheists around here until I was told that my defense of atheism placed too many responsibilities (e.g. objective integrity) on atheists. I have to admit that the two years of that defense I enjoyed before the lazy, selfish punks showed up to denounce everything but the tiniest of ideas with the hugest of implications-refused-consideration were enjoyable; atheists were worth something in terms of intellectual contributions to the religion forum. I'd like to see some of that contribution again. It was rather quite valuable, and it's a shame to have lost it. So the central question is this: When presenting the atheist idea (there is no God) to a religious person, what can the atheist offer to fill the void left behind by something on the scale of Christianity, for instance? Generally speaking, I write up atheism's low demographic proportion to educational standards; you have to be smart enough to escape superstition unless you were fortunate enough to not be born with a silver Bible crammed in your mouth. But part of that doesn't hold true. Atheism by itself, especially as the small idea insisted on by many in the past at this forum, has little, if anything, to offer a potential "new" atheist. That religious person is giving up a huge portion of their moral infrastructure in rejecting God, and atheism seemingly has nothing to offer to fill the void. This lack also contributes to the low number of atheists relative to the general population; you can't sell people on an idea with just a picture in a catalog. And for a number of atheists who see fit to expound on the subject of religion, I would think such considerations are a must. Of course, it atheism is just a bitter social movement intended to empower people to bitch about everybody else, that would explain why many atheists want atheism restricted to a small, non-functional idea as the basis for common identification while refusing common identification. I mean, think about it: Despite some wonderful produce, various New Age religions are written off as juvenile, shock-the-parents alternatives to Christianity. Sometimes the same can be said for atheism. I know there are bright atheists out there who give these issues consideration, but I must say I was stunned by the number of bitter individualists among our atheist crowd the last time I got anywhere near these ideas. So a genuine appeal: As one for whom atheism failed for its inability to provide either an alternative foundation for ethical infrastructure or a philosophical escape hatch by which I could wholly circumvent the issue without becoming a completely selfish whore, I'm curious what I missed. What have the atheists to fill that void? Does one merely inflate one's ego with self-affirming individualist philosophies, or is there something more substantial you can offer those who want to ditch their gods but maintain their humanity? I don't know ... maybe it should be a new topic. I thought this post would be shorter and less critical. Or, in the words of Carl the Alien, "Moo! Moo-moo." :m:, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Re: Perhaps it's time to re-examine another atheist purpose ___________ My answer would have to start with a hard look at the religious position... namely, that it's a scam, that you analyze what is missing from a person's life and you invent your religion to supply the missing desire or want. Billy Graham used to preach the greatest pain of mankind was loneliness, and that by becoming a Christian, you would acquire an imaginary friend named Jesus who would love you totally and listen to every prayer... of course, Jesus would never answer you, and you had to study the silence for your "answer.' But if that's what religion offers, why, yes, atheism comes up short. Atheism doesn't offer any imaginary friends that totally, totally love you despite your failings. That's part of the price we pay. On the other hand, we don't have to listen to priests or pastors or ministers who offer their opinions about what happens to us after we die, and then ask us to contribute a few dollars for the experience. So, the answer is, Atheism does NOT offer you the extras, the perks, that other forms of religion offer. It's part of the package.
