But those weren't your words. You spoke of there being no scientific basis for atheism, not that people are arguing for the authority of science. You don't seem to understand what "in other words" means. It's supposed to clarify your previous statement, not obfuscate it. What do you mean when you say values are the basis for atheism? How is that manifested? You're not bringing anything to my attention. I'm well aware of what the evidence against the existence of godhood is, and I know why atheism isn't a metaphysical position. Remember, I'm the one who just to you that. All I was doing in this last bit was making sure you understand that my not wanting to list for you every shred of evidence for the fabrication of every deity doesn't mean that such evidence doesn't exist. No, I've already done it. It's why I'm an atheist. If you had done it, you'd probably be one, too. :shrug: It's not a metaphysical position. I'm not making any claims about the fundamental makeup of the universe that can't be backed up with evidence. I'm also not claiming absolute knowledge. That's all on your end. Will the irony never end? :shrug: Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
And this is what he brings to the discussion. Religion/spirituality is a very personal topic, so it's no wonder people get personal, in a number of ways.
Well I said them - that makes them my words ... distinct from when you say something ... that's what makes them your words. :shrug: no, they are your words, not my words. For details of this complex notion, see above. I am saying values are the basis for how an individual engineers a perspective (whether it be a perspective on government, religion or stamp collecting for that matter). This is why we can commonly use atheist (or indeed any categorical name that designates an ideological/ethical/etc stance) not only as a noun but also an adjective. IOW its the values that underpin how a perspective is manifest. So for example, suppose someone is an atheist and someone has lost their faith in ecclesiastical bodies on account of corruption, etc. Both of them might share the same perspective on certain issues (such as its a good idea to dismantle organized religion etc), but a clear understanding of how its the values that are under-writing their perspectives enables one to see the broader picture at work. And I am bringing to your attention that that intelligent atheists tend to refrain from making absolute negatives (like you just did) in an effort to avoid putting themselves in the current bind you find yourself in how ... magical. In the meantime though, all we are left with is your metaphysical opinions about the world. then fine. Please provide the evidence for your claim about all ideas god being rooted in fabrication (as opposed to rendering self-serving accolades to your so-called intelligence) . Don't forget, you get extra brownie points if you can avoid steering the discussion into the realm of mere opinions Thanks in advance Probably not in the foreseeable future given the irreconcilable qualities of this statement : "Metaphysics are not required to say that all concepts of God as we know it are man-made, which is the essential premise of atheism." :shrug: the irony is that this comes from a person who offers their own accolades as a response to queries about evidence. :shrug:
trolling is exemplified by an inability to spot anything really. That's why it commonly takes the form of a vague series of insults, devoid of context, explanation etc etc :shrug:
lol. well I guess that means I must be doing something right then Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
This is mostly unintelligible. What I can glean from it, however, fails to address the question. Care to give it another try, or was this nonsense intentional? I'm not in any bind. The evidence is there. It's like talking to an evolution denier: the evidence is so massive, there's simply no point in having the discussion on such a fundamental level on an internet forum. It would take too long, and the evidences are too numerous to list here. And I don't know who you consider to be an intelligent atheist, but the claim I make is a common one. That's like saying if I don't explain the concept of 1 + 1 = 2 to you, all we are left with is my metaphysical opinions about math. In other words, my position is not defined by your ignorance of a subject. Feel free to educate yourself or not, but I am not beholden to you. I knew this was going to happen. You actually want me to list for you the evidence of every god being fabricated. That's like asking me to list for you the evidence of every species evolving. Either do the homework yourself or don't, but don't ask me to do it for you. There's nothing irreconcilable about. Not even your ignorance. Problem is, it's up to you to change it. :shrug: I'm flattered you consider atheism to be a personal accomplishment, but it's really just the inevitable position one takes when they consider the evidence. :shrug:
Its quite simple. The example illustrates two things : 1 . how identical perspectives (IOW manifestations of a world view, or how one "acts" in the world) can arise from differing values (since you asked "how do they manifest") 2 . how it is values that empower a perspective (since you expressed confusion about how they are distinguished) Plain and simple : You can't mention it because it doesn't exist. The best you could hope to do (aside from slinging a few red herrings like evolution or overly simplistic maths problems) is offer a link from some atheist hate site. I'm guessing the only reason you are refraining from doing that is because even you understand how such a link is simply a lame collection of opinions. On the contrary, intelligent atheists refrain from making broad sweeping generalizations such as "all gods are fabricated" to avoid situations as you find yourself in at the moment Its nothing like that at all since there is a consensus of evidence on what 1+1 equals. If its as elementary as you are trying to pretend it is, you wouldn't be blowing all this hot air to avoid answering it :shrug: We both know that you cannot even list every name given to god, much less express familiarity with the background and philosophical/social context of them ... what to speak of explaining how they are all fabricated. Its nothing like that since the claim of evolving species is evidenced by a biological mechanism. IOW what is evidenced is the one thing that under-rides the many. There is no such evidence of "one thing that under-rides the many" ... as far as evidencing the claim that all gods are fabricated. If there was such evidence, you would no doubt quickly bring this to our attention. All you can do is build one wild assertion on top of another. :shrug: The only way you show that it is not irreconcilable is to evidence your claims. Solo accolades doesn't cut the mustard in this department I am afraid ... Will the solo accolade never end? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Couldn't help myself, you can't have "proof" that something is "probably". But then again I'm playing on semantics here. Carry on.
Well this place seems to have more to offer than what I thought. I met my first atheists here, and now I just learned of the first "indoctrinated" atheist. Atheism CAN be the most logical state to be in; at the absence of proof or evidence for god. Usually coupled with a lack of practicality to fuel the inquisitive journey to get more out of one's life. It is relatively easy to systematically criticize something and show it is wrong/unacceptable, it needs a bit more to shift viewpoints, do some extra reading and motivate oneself to add what may be missing, or fix what is wrong.
Surely that is "Usually coupled with a lack of practicality to fuel the inquisitive journey to possibly get more out of one's life." ?? The existence of evidence for God's existence aside, is it not also the lack of sufficient evidence that the belief itself, or even the religions, does not necessarily lead to one getting more out of life that discourages the attempts? I.e. if there was compelling evidence that believing in God necessarily benefitted people, or made them "better" people, then surely more atheists would actively take that inquisitive journey, irrespective of whether there was absence of evidence for God or not. But many see that there is no difference in the actions of people that believe and those that don't. There is merely different rationale for the same action. Different justification. So it then begs the question, for them, of why bother going on that journey if it ultimately doesn't change anything.
It changes the quality of one's mind, making all the difference between having peace of mind, and not having peace of mind. At the end of the day, this is what matters the most to a person: the quality of one's mind.
There is a lack of purpose and realization of the fruitlessness of ones life inherent to being an atheist. Most members here accept the pointlessness of life and find comfort in the fact that they have the courage to accept such fact. Some others are still in that inquisitive process but haven't found anything that stands up to their level of skepticism yet. And you're right in adding the "possibly" in there, the journey from atheism to some spiritual belief with some sort of afterlife is not a guaranteed one; assuming that one does exist and has solid proof out there, one might simply not get the chance to consider it. However, atheism is the worst state to be in, getting a chance at any of the religions out there beats rejecting them all and not even having that slim chance. Of course kidding yourself into believing something you simply think is BS won't work, but if there's a desire to accomplish more while exploring with an open mind, possibilities of correctness would be accepted, if not solid belief. As for religon's effect on happiness, and atheism's link to depression, you are quite out of the circle if you have never come across evidence that religious people are happier. While the online atheist community is active in boards and blogs, the actual published studies are leaning heavily, if not unanimously, support that religous people are happier. A simple example: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21865527
Pascal's wager is not a very good reason to "believe". Or even to begin a practical process that possibly then dominates one's life. Unless one is already convinced of the reasonable possibility of God. One does not need to be religious to achieve this. Or even spiritual. One can gain almost everything through merely Humanistic leanings. But this fails to support that it is the religion that makes people happier. Rather than just "happier" people tending toward religions. I.e. it makes no conclusion on causation over correlation. And as far as possible causation goes, it might merely highlight the effect of "community", which an organised religion certainly has over atheists who don't have such self-help at their fingertips. But the organisation of religion is again no guide-rope for the tenets of the religious beliefs.
Don't know who or what you're referring to here. It's most likely just an ego defense mechanism, though, so I won't waste too much time thinking about it. No idea where you get the idea that atheism is simply the absence of evidence for God, or that it is coupled with a lack of practicality. You've made the claim, but haven't managed to make the actual connection. Nor do I have any idea what you mean by "do some extra reading," and it indeed runs counter to the studies showing atheists being more educated than theists. I can't imagine you've overlooked this, so I can only assume you're referring to some religious texts or spiritual guides. To that end, I can only say that not everyone believes the key to happiness is found in self-delusion.
You're repeating a popular myth among internet-forum theists, and one that has been dispelled here countless times. Atheists may not see life as having cosmic purpose, but they do believe purpose is found locally - whether that's in one's career, their family, or their philanthropy. The idea that there must be a god or an afterlife for the world to have any meaning simply isn't true, and doesn't even make sense when examined. Another fallacy is that one who doesn't believe in God lacks an "open mind." In reality, the trip from atheist to believer is a rare one because atheism is arrived at through logic and reason, and adopting a deity or spiritual worldview requires the abandonment of those faculties. Yeah, if you're a gullible sap or desperate for a sense of belonging, you might get roped into some form of faith; but if you're neither of those things, the chances are remote that you'd convert, because in doing so, you'd have to surrender your brain to self-delusion. I also am at a loss as to what you mean by "atheism is the worst state to be in." Certainly that's a subjective measure, don't you think? The study doesn't seem to link atheism to depression. Rather, it correlates affirmative religious belief to a lower risk of depression. As to the significance of it, I'm not sure where you're going. If the truth hurts, should we lie to ourselves so we feel better?
And therein lies one of the issues... that we can not know the quality of another's mind. I, for one, consider myself to have peace of mind. Should i risk this for a journey that has no compelling benefit? especially if you consider it to be what matters most.
