Feed on Posts or Comments 01 September 2014

Christianity &Islam &Rationals Thomas on 31 Dec 2009 12:10 am

A typical person thinks about death and atheism

His name is Jase Haber:

Jase, your life has the meaning you give it. Read this, it may help:

When you die, you die

Once you wrap your head around that, it gives your life more meaning, not less.

38 Responses to “A typical person thinks about death and atheism”

  1. on 31 Dec 2009 at 1:34 pm 1.Lou said …

    Atheist is the religion of meaningless, the end and the short-sighted. The draw is beyond understanding. They cannot explain the beginning, no answers, yet evangelize theist on their religion. Until you can prove you belief is the correct one, stop sharing your “truth” with the rest of us.

  2. on 31 Dec 2009 at 9:35 pm 2.Thorsdecree said …

    No. Atheism is no religion. It is a state of mind in which one does not allow the outside influences of religious institution to rule one’s life. It is not meaningless. I am an atheist and i find meaning for my life through my family, my friends, and my education. I find meaning simply by experiencing life. How dare you call atheists’ lives meaningless!? Perhaps it is you who have no true grasp of meaning, if you can’t comprehend the garden without imagining fairies beneath it all. You should tale some time to contemplate the true meaning of your own life and the valued relationships you share with others. If this is your only shot, you had better make it worthwhile. As for myself, i live for the love i share with the people around me. Realizing my place in the universe, i do what i can to actualize a beautiful and fulfilling life.

  3. on 31 Dec 2009 at 10:11 pm 3.Severin said …

    Lou 1
    “Until you can prove you belief is the correct one, stop sharing your “truth” with the rest of us.”

    It is about a millionth example of changing of thesis:
    Atheist DO NOT CLAIM THERE IS A GOD!
    YOU do!
    If someone claims something, HE/SHE has a duty tu support his/her claims with arguments and evidences, not the one who does not claim anything!

    So, take us atheists as uninformed children, and give us, please, some supporting arguments for your beliefs, maybe you convert us!
    Atheist are known as people always ready to change quickly their opinions under the pressure of evidences.
    As a fair player, I will not say to you „shut up“, as you in a little bit softer manner did (“..stop sharing…”).
    On the contrary!
    I kindly expect your arguments!

  4. on 01 Jan 2010 at 1:21 am 4.skeptic said …

    I’m confused… Atheism isn’t an organized religion, but you meet and evangilize?

  5. on 01 Jan 2010 at 5:20 am 5.That Guy said …

    @ skeptic

    Religion: the belief and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods

    Do atheists claim there are god(s) and worship said god(s)? NO! Perhaps you should pick up a dictionary before loosely stringing together two totally different concepts. Also since when was social interaction with like-minded individuals religious? Can we call demonstrations an organized religion? I guess exposing flawed reasoning is evangelizing, too.

  6. on 01 Jan 2010 at 11:11 am 6.Severin said …

    Sceptic 2
    „What I don’t understand is that you trust (or have faith) in Science and you are trying to convert people? How is this not another form of organized religion? Just curious.“

    Why would you call each organized group of people religious group?
    Society of butterfly collecters? Chess clubs?
    Schools – they are trying, in an organized way, to convert people without knowledge to people who know something, but are not religious organisations.

    Atheism is NOT a religion! Pls. refere to the comment of „That Guy 5“ in „A typical person thinks about death and atheism“.
    Typical for atheists is to DOUBT, not to BELIEVE. Yes, aheists (always with some doubts and questions) may accept a atheory, if provided with evidences, but will (in most cases with joy, because they learn something new) abandon their „belief“ in a theory, or correct their opinion about one, if someone provides fresher and more logical/evidential arguments.

    Most atheists are not educated enough to deal with scientific tools, such as high mathematics, physics, etc., to understand scientific theories. I admit I am not.
    How then I/we recognize what to accept, and what to throw away?

    I/we chose to trust thoose scientists, whose accomplishments WORK. No doubt that this world developed a lot thanks to scientific accomplishments: compare today’s world with the world 50 or 100 or 2000 yeras ago! It is because of aproved and APPLIED scientific accomplishments! They WORK, thus no doubt they are correct! Your mobile phone WORKS thanks to some scientific theory, so this theory must be correct!

    Thankfully, scientists among themselves fight all the time, competing each other, and DO NOT ALLOW wrong things, things out of logic and without evidences, to appear on scientific scene. It is perhaps a little bit simplified, but it happens that way.

    And, of course, less educated atheists have their own education and common sense, and are able to make their own choices if arguments are exposed well.

    It is very good to doubt, but NOT to fill up the gaps of your (partial) ignorance with gods and unnatural „causes“. What we do not know today, will be explained tomorrow, and instead of trembling before unknown, it is better to impatiently wait the unknown to be explained by science.

  7. on 01 Jan 2010 at 12:21 pm 7.Severin said …

    Sceptic 2
    Atheists are in no way a koherent group. They usually do not form their “clubs” or “societies”. To be an atheist is, in most cases, a highly individual determination.
    What is common among them is critical mind, mind which does not allow to just believe things, but mind searching for evidences and logic. A dynamic mind posing questions and searching for answers.
    Of course, not ALL atheists are, by any “automatizm”, good people.

    Why then are SOME atheists still active in trying to “convert” religious people, and even organize themselves to “clubs” an “societies”, and are very active publically?
    I would call them very concerned, responsible, and “unlazy”.

    Because all religions are VERY DANGEROUS for both individuals and societies.

    Please refre to STATISTICS available on Internet!
    The less the members of a society are obsessed by religion, the healthier the society: less criminal, richer people, higher health level, less abortions, higher education level of population, less illiteracy ….
    Compare data for Holland, Sweden, Norway, Germany, UK,… with data for South America!
    Not to speak about muslim countries!

    Or refer to http://www.whywontgodhealamputees.com to understand it.
    Or to “The God Delusion” from Richard Dawkins.

    Refere to history, too! As there were practically no atheists IN POWER in human history, you can easyly see that almost all evil things happened during thousans of years of human history were done by RELIGIOUS people.
    Not by atheists, there were none of them, untill recently!

  8. on 01 Jan 2010 at 1:09 pm 8.Lou said …

    SCOTUS declared atheism to be a religion. Your cries of NO! fall on deaf ears, You are a religion just like your other atheist denomination Buddhism.

    I know atheist like to believe they are different even special but you are not. You have your organizations, your political groups and your evangelist. Many attend the Universalist churches!

    Welcome to the world of religion and all that goes with it. Your data is completely false Severin. I suggest you go to wiki and do a snapshot of the countries you list. America, is the greatest nation ever founded and by a vast majority of Christian theist. That is case closed.

  9. on 01 Jan 2010 at 2:23 pm 9.burebista said …

    When atheist offer classes in atheism evangelism (see earlier thread) then is incumbent on you, the atheist, to prove to the theist why they should not believe in God. If you have never encountered God in salvation you cannot prove there is no God. Personal experience is, well, personal. Lou is correct, atheist is just another religion.

  10. on 01 Jan 2010 at 4:52 pm 10.skeptic said …

    Sorry, I’m didn’t mean to offend you, I was just curious. I want to be clear, I’m not trying to attack your position, or prove that it is wrong, I was only commenting on something I found ironic.

    Also definition of religion:
    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion

    noun
    1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
    2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
    3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
    4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
    5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
    6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.
    7. religions, Archaic. religious rites.
    8. Archaic. strict faithfulness; devotion: a religion to one’s vow.

    Read these carefully and analytically. Notice how the first definition says “esp” (“especially”, and not “restricted to”). Definition #2 would apply to the things that I have read from this sight and have read about Dawkins following at Oxford. They have created a series of moral rules for athiests, no? They are a group of people that meet regularly? They all agree that there is no God?

    I don’t really like evangalism from religious groups, let alone non-religious groups. I personally work with several non-profits around the world, all of which have some religous affiliation and happen to be doing things like delivering clean water, healthcare, food, education to the poorest of the poor.

    I am also a Biologist, who is very familiar with the good and bad history of Science. Yes science has given us the ability to do amazing and wonderful things.

    Unfortunately it has also been the justification, and cause for many attrocities. I will give you a couple of examples. First, the study of Eugenics was the justification the Nazi’s used in their extermination of the Jew’s. It was also the justification the US government used to sterilize literally tens of thousands of mentally handicapped people. We know now that Eugenics which was a kind of pseudo scinece was extremely flawed, but it held ideas that people invested themselves in. It took two world wars and Millions of Deaths for people to realize that Eugenics was wrong. (There is a really good book, called the “Zoo Keeper’s wife” I also really like “Eugenics and other evils” by G. K. Chesterton, but he’s a christian so you might think he is too biased).

    Next let’s talk about Haber, now this guy was an amazing scientist (he was also jewish, but that didn’t seem to affect his work). He was the guy who figured out that you could synthesize ammonia (Great for farming, and amunition) from Nitrogen in the air. Now before this discovery countries had to rely on natural deposits of ammonia and chemicals for their munitions, which created a natural obstacle for prolonged warfare. If you ran out of these sights, or they were disturbed, you had no munition and thus couldn’t fight modern warfare. This lone discovery lead to the ability for states to prolong modern warfare until one side is almost completely anhialated. This is why so many people were shocked and horrified at how long and drawn out WWI was (remember, it was the war to end all wars). Haber didn’t stop there. Haber was working from a very German and Nationalistic (almost religious) zeal. He decided that Germany needed a new weapon that would turn the tides in this stalemate. So he decided to develop Chemical war fare. His wife, also a chemist, asked him to stop, and when he didn’t she killed herself. He went on to develop Chlorine gas and the gasses later used in Holocaust gas chambers (there is a documentary about him called “Haber, The father of Chemical Warfare” it’s really interesting)(also side note, many of his relatives where killed in those very gas chambers).

    The list continues and continues, everything from Miasma theory (“Ghost map”, such a good book) to the Atomic bomb. All of this just to point out that there are two sides to every coin. If you study science you see that nature has balance. Newton’s Third law, for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. In ecosystems you can’t simply remove or add something and not have everything be affected. In the same way it seems that for all the good science does, it also brings a good deal of harm. Science in itself is neither good nor bad, it is what it is. It is how science is used when we run into problems (For instance Global warming, I don’t know why it seemed okay to consume and use all of this energy and not think that there was going to be some type of consequence. Everyone is so surprised by it and that kind of flabbergasts me).

    Why do I spend so much time on this response, because my one pet peeve is misinformed and misapplied science. It can be just as dangerous as misapplied religion. I am not trying to be confrontational, just educational.

  11. on 01 Jan 2010 at 5:47 pm 11.Severin said …

    8.Lou
    “SCOTUS declared atheism to be a religion.”
    I doubt that! Can you kindly give me references? Where/how to find this declaration?

    Even if SCOTUS did declare atheism to be a religion (what I doubt), would it be the first time in history that SCOTUS (or any other court) declares something wrongly?
    What a court is able to see my private thoughts, my intime beliefs and my feelings, and what the hell a court is authorized to explain them for me?
    I did not know (and I doubt it!) SCOTUS became Orvel’s „Ministry of Truth“, to try to rule individual thoughts and feelings.

    Atheists ARE different, among themselves in the first place!
    They are in no way a coherent group, so why putting them all in the same bag?
    The only thing common to all atheists is their open an critical mind, unprepared and unable to accept illogical and unproved bullshits, and, yes, that is how all of them differ from you.

    Organizations? Please!!!
    What are several thousands of organized atheists compared to billions people organized in churches and other religious organizatons? It is incomparable!
    If you have rights to organize, why would not atheists have the same rights?
    And yes, atheist started to organize to fight stupidity, „bullshitness“ and DANGERS religions bring to individuals and societies. Why not? We are sic and tired of those bullshits, and pressures we suffered for milleniums to accept bullshits, and we want our children to grow in really free world. Frree of any sort of brainwashing in the first place. So, enough passivity, let’s fight!

    Statistics?
    EVERYONE can see statistics on the Internet, so please do not falsify it for those a little bit more „lazy“ to see them by their own eyes.
    Just compare the % of atheists in Nicaragua, Haiti, Honduras, Dominica, Ecuador (less than 1%), or for South America (3.3%, 1998.), to % of atheists in France (19%, 1998.), Germany (21.5%, 1998), Netherland (33%, 1997.) Sweden (35%, 1998.), Italy (18%, 1998.).
    Then compare the status of those countries regarding all positive and negative statstic data available!
    Do not forget islamic countries, why would you! Those are highly religious countries too!

  12. on 01 Jan 2010 at 5:58 pm 12.Severin said …

    Sceptic 10
    “Sorry, I’m didn’t mean to offend you, I was just curious.”

    You are always free to discuss anything you want, and some “slight offending” could be wellcome to rise dramaturgy of debate. Nothing to be sorry for!
    You can not, for example say somebody is stupid, but can say his opinion is bullshit. It is always better to have some arguments for it, of course, because “bullshit” is a “nice” word, but but not an argument!

  13. on 01 Jan 2010 at 6:00 pm 13.Severin said …

    8 Lou
    “Welcome to the world of religion and all that goes with it.’

    So we are wellcome to the world muslim religion too, or what?

  14. on 01 Jan 2010 at 6:20 pm 14.Severin said …

    Burebista 9
    You are uncurrable!
    All possible religions had all possible schools under their power for thosands of years, WITHOUT BEING INCUMBENT ON THEM TO PROVE ANYTHING!!!
    They only claimed, and claimed, and claimed, and never offered any evidences for their claims, but
    killed people who did not believe.

    Now, when finally some normal people won their rights to say what THEY have to say, evidences are instantly wanted from them!

    Be fair, and let us claim our attitudes publically without evidences for the next 3000 – 4000 years, then will we be 1:1.
    Then we will see…

    Promise, atheists will not kill people who opose their opinion!

    Religions did, millions!

  15. on 01 Jan 2010 at 6:37 pm 15.skeptic said …

    In response to Severin:

    Definition of evangalism;
    Main Entry: evan·ge·lism
    Pronunciation: \i-?van-j?-?li-z?m\
    Function: noun
    Date: circa 1626
    1 : the winning or revival of personal commitments to Christ
    2 : militant or crusading zeal

    The reason for my confusion, was mostly the word choice of evangalism. It is traditionally a very christian word, and associated with religious groups. Usually I don’t hear of chess clubs or educational groups “evangalizing” people to their clubs. Neither are these groups proponing a belief system or “state of mind” or whatever you would like to call it. Usually they are places where people congregate to do an activity.

    Now for example if there was a chess club who had members attend “religiously” and at these meetings they began to adhere to a belief around chess and create moral rules by ways to live from chess, and that they felt others should live this way too and began to “evangalize” for this chess “club.” Then I would begin to call that a religion. Do you see where the distinction is? It would be one thing if atheists formed a little club where they could talk about science and discuss philosophy and share ideas. It turns into religion when people begin to create belief systems around these things and moral ways to live, and then when they begin pushing these on other people.

    Please understand what I am trying to say, I am only pointing out how odd your word choice is. Why not call it educating people?

  16. on 01 Jan 2010 at 6:43 pm 16.Severin said …

    Religions were first to claim something!
    They claimed there were gods, so they were responsible to prove their claims.
    They could not find evidences for milleniumas, but, as they had all the power, they successfully replaced evidences with threats: believe, or we will kill you, was their only “argument”. Extremely successful one!

    Nowadys times came to show some proofs for their claims, but they cann’t find any so far.
    In lack of evidences for thier claims, and being accustomed to aggressiveness without oponents, they are helplessly keepeng their aggressive attitude today, requesting evidences from other side, but not offering their own.

    So, when (after so many 1000 of years), you finally give us some evidences there is god (are gods?) we will consider possibility to give you evidences for our claims.

  17. on 01 Jan 2010 at 8:08 pm 17.Breckmin said …

    Atheism is based on the belief structure of the “philosophy of naturalism.” Of course it is a commitment to a particular faith and therefore a religion. Christians have been explaining this for years.

    The very idea of “natural” and that “natural” is somehow independent of a Creator’s sustaining order
    and power is a belief. It is an assumption. It is
    actually a circular assumption to require all naturalistic conclusions which exclude theistic implication and limit the application of science itself.

  18. on 01 Jan 2010 at 9:21 pm 18.skeptic said …

    @ Beckermin

    Here, i wrote this, but then wasn’t going to post it cause I didn’t think that anyone would really read it, but it all comes down to epistimological understandings. your close, but it’s more than just that. I would also like to say that their are two types of athiest. What John Haught would call Hard Core Athiests (Nietzche being a nihilist; There is nothing and thus no point to life) and soft core athiests (Naturalism which is what you pointed out).

    @Severin

    “Nowadys times came to show some proofs for their claims, but they cann’t find any so far.”

    It looks to me that what you are a little confused on an epistimilogical issue (How we know what we know). Science uses one epistimilogical spectrum of our senses. Essentially science asks the question of how. And it does so in such a way that we can propose theories that we can not prove to be true, but we can prove to be wrong. Every scientific theory is a theory. It is an extremely useful tool as you have mentioned earlier, but you have to remember that it is just that, a tool. Ask any scientist and they will tell you the same thing. it is not a perfect tool, but it is the best one we have right now that helps us understand how the natural world around us works. Some scientists can be trusted while other’s (like the korean guy said he cloned dogs, but falsified data) can’t (There are always outliers, or seeming exceptions to rules or theories. Einstein shattered and recreated laws with his discoveries).

    Where as many religious people (not all) epistimilogically hold that they can learn things that are true through religiuos experiences. Or through the religious experiences of others. While some can be trusted (Gospel accounts for Christians, and quran for muslims) while other’s can’t (heresy’s and some crazy cults). Theology, or how they know about God would be considered an epistimological tool similar to science, but using different ways of understanding things. If science asks “how?”, then theology asks “why?”

    Both epistimologies rely on “witness accounts” Science has peer reviewed published articles, while theology has theological works like the talmud, bible, quran, and other writings. In both situations you have to really know how to interpret them because if you interpret them wrongly or apply them wrongly then you get all kinds of problems.

    Now let’s look at how these two epistimologies collide in Christianity with the Young earth creation theory and science. Here are a series of analogies that I hope will help.

    You do not use a hammer (Science) to clean a window (to ask why?), and you do not use a cloth (Theology) to drive in a nail (to ask How?).

    Now from what I read on this website, I understand that some very misinformed people tried to use the bible as if it was science, or literal (which it’s not), and when they tried to do this, they started to use cloth to drive nails. Now everyone using hammers (science) says “well if your using cloths to drive nails, we’ll use our hammers to clean your windows” thus supposedly shattering the cloths window. And now the cloths are mad at the hammer’s and the hammer’s don’t understand what the big fuss is all about. you still following?

    When in reality if you study theology seriously you find that there is very little room that explains how creation works (atoms, electrons, and so forth) while science really gives you some cool things to think about. Unfortunately Christian theology is seemingly taught only to those who go to undergrad or seminary and thought to be to complex to explain in detail to the layman. This gets compounded with splits in denominations and fights over doctrine and somewhere it gets skewed and people think that they can interpret the bible literally which is a fallacy. ((http://jbudrdanl.wordpress.com/2009/06/15/the-fallacy-of-literal-interpretation/) this guy gives a good history of the fallacy)

    Let me give you another example. Say someone takes a romance novel that has a love triangle in it, and from that love triangle, this person tells a mathemetician that they figured out how the pythagorean theorem works through love (The person explaining this to the mathmatician thinks they understand it now, while the mathmatician knows that they got it all wrong). Now the Mathmatician is frustrated by the seemingly idiotic attempts of the misinformed person and decides from that conversation that love doesn’t exist because the misinformed person individual tried using it to understand a mathmatical proof. Do you see where I’m going? A love triangle cannot tell us how the pythagorean theorem works just like a certain person groups mythology cannot tell us exactly how nature was created or works. And we cannot use math to disprove love, just in the same way we cannot use science to disprove a diety.

    There are many things in religions that don’t make sense. There are many reasons not to believe in God, why I have met many people who call themselves Christians but have no idea what that means or how to practice it. They then take their personalized religion and justify their actions through it, reducing their religion to justification which then leads to witch burnings, crusades, and lots of unholy things committed by supposedly holy people.

    What is important is that we continue to seek after truth, and that we recognize that just as we see diversity in nature their is also diversity in the ways that we can know things. When someone (whether atheist, christian, buhddist, muslim, jewish, or a scientist) who says they have the absolute answer in something, always be skeptical. Remember we cannot ever really know anything, all we can do is keep looking and hopefully find some meaning. Every theory is just a theory and in the end all we have are our experiences.

    P.S.
    Careful with what you are trying to point out with statistics and how you say it. If you make the correlation that countries with poorer populations are thus due to religion, you are completely ignoring the fact that the majority of poor countries where at one time or another controlled by those wealthier countries. You can’t just point to numbers and say look this proves it, you actually have to come up with a valid logical argument that says something about the numbers that you have.

  19. on 01 Jan 2010 at 10:27 pm 19.Lou said …

    Breckmin you points on the naturalism being the answer to all questions is exactly why SCOTUS gave atheism protection as a religion under the constitution. It is essentially pantheism without the name of God inserted. I am a little amused atheist are so offended since this offers them protection. Lets face it, their zeal is only matched by other religions.

    Sheptic left out the brach of atheism know as Buddhism. The brach of special forces without any Gods.

  20. on 02 Jan 2010 at 1:23 am 20.Severin said …

    Skeptic 10, 15 and 17
    Do you think quantity = quality?
    There is no need for such detailing; I know all definitions of “religion”, know for Haber, etc., and in case I do not recognize some of your eferences, I am able to find literature about them.
    I know also how science functions, and recognize the right meaning of the term “scientific theory”.

    From quantity of your information I think that I found the essence of your message: a coin (a medal) has two sides, and science is as dangerous as it is benefitial.
    Who did ever claimed oposite?
    Who has ever said that scientific accomplishments could not be used against humanity?
    But, it was the science that brought this world to the present point, which is MUCH better than it ever was, not religion.
    So it must be that the two sides of the same scientific coin/medal are not quite equal! One of them prevails, in spite of human nature and – I would say – in spite of religion, which was all the time against any progress. Pleasese find a single example for me where/when religion did not push science back by all means they had.
    Where would we be today if religions (all of them, but even more christianity than, for example islam) would not have stopped science by all its forces. Church was very angry at Newton when he explained his physical laws – just, at that time, church has no more such power to burn him. Only to attack him in religios books and pamphlets.
    Church was mad about Darwin’s theories, and if his theory appeared only a century or two before, church would burn him the same way they burnt Galileo and ruined Bruno.

    Religious coins/medals have, perhaps, also 2 sides, but both of them equally dark.

    What good did any religion bring to this world, ever?
    Religious wors, selling of pardons (indulgentiae), burnings, killings, torturings, tolerating of slavory,…
    Oh, yes, they built nice churches – with blood of their believers.

  21. on 02 Jan 2010 at 1:53 am 21.Severin said …

    Sceptic 10, 15 and 17
    What about Hitler and eugenics? Didn’t you say it was a quasi-science, an it is to expect that a lunatic in power uses such things to jutify his massive crimes.

    But you are wrong in one important point: Hitler DID NOT use eugenics to justfy masacres of Jews, but criples, homosexuals, people with uncurable mental and physical deseases and abnormalities.

    For jews, he used RELIGIOUS ARGUMENTS:
    “My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God’s truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter…. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice…“
    -Adolf Hitler, in a speech on 12 April 1922., Munich

    And, please tell me, at the time when thousands were sterilized in the USA, only atheiests were in power there? USA had an athestic governemnt then, or what?

  22. on 02 Jan 2010 at 2:23 am 22.Severin said …

    Skeptic 10, 15 and 17
    „If science asks “how?”, then theology asks “why?”

    You tell me!
    Please refere to my previous comments, somewhere in this Blog, where I clearly said the same.

    The difference is in necessity to pose questions!

    Question „how“ is a very challenging question which makes scientists think and work.

    I admit that „why“ is even more challenging question.
    But if we do not know how to answer it, is it justified to give fairy tails and Bible stupidities as answers? And to insist for centuries, and even TODAY that those bullshits are still valid?

    It is my opinion (and, believe me, opinion of much more clever, and much more educated people) that it would be better to leave this question unanswerd untill we see if there any answer is possible at all, than to „shit around“ with quasy-scientific and „supernatural“ explanations.
    Because it may be a wrong question. Question without answer!
    (How many angels are possible to place on the peak of a needle?)

    Why (why indeed?) relidious people are ready to recognize „god“ as eternal, and can not recognize matter/energy/space/time as eternal? Without divine attributes and warshiping bullshits!

  23. on 02 Jan 2010 at 2:36 am 23.Burebista said …

    SCOTUS took on the atheism question at the request of the secular humanist. If they had no desire to be recognized as a religion they certainly went about it the wrong way. Maybe the want the protections but not the name.

  24. on 02 Jan 2010 at 1:58 pm 24.Severin said …

    Sceptic
    „Every scientific theory is a theory.“
    It is not quite so! You should know that in scientific way, theories are much more than just assumptions or hypothesis.
    Copernicus’ theory was WALID in some domains of astronomy, and is still valid in aproximations. Newton’s theory was WALID in certain domains of physics, and is still valid in approximations of Einstein’s one. Both theories were USEFUL to calculate and to explain natural events far better than they were explained before they appeared.
    Einsteins theory is WALID in the more extended area of physics than it was case with Newton’s one, but still does not cover all the cases.
    If science is going on and on today in giant steps, waht can we expect tomorrow (CERN…)?

    It is quite unlikely to expect science will solve ALL questions soon, but its eneormeous progress calls for optimism. We have too many proves that science is CAPABLE. It is really mighty!

    So, if we are witnesses of how science is doing more and more to explain this universe, and is explaining it more and more accurately, why to give any chance to religion, which never explained anything, but was all the time only a „brake“ for peogress?

    Did we get any answers to the question „how“, from any religion? Yes, we did, in form of fairy tails (in most cases very bloody ones!) and nonsenses only, and during the major part of our history we were FORCED to take them for granted, under enormeous threats, and in spite of more and more developing common sense and knowledge.
    Did any religion ever answerd us „why“?
    Of course not!

    The biggest danger from side of religions TODAY is turning people’s attention from question „how“ to question „why“.
    Yes, it is very attractive question, but where are benefits of answering it? Why should we know „why“, but to satisfy our curiosity? Isn’t it too expensve to vaste our resources to find answer to an intelectualy interesting, but absolutely unimportant question?
    And what if this question is unanswerable, because it simply is not the right question. Mayby nature does not recognize such questions at all (which is probably the case!)

    If the answer to „why“ includes causlity, and it inevitably does, at the very moment when posed, than all religions are automatically meaningless.
    Beacuse if the answer to the the question „why matter/energy/space/time exist is: beacause of creator, the next inevitable question is: why creator? You can not just stop questioning at a conveniant moment!

    For how long should we turn arround in this „circulus vitiosus“, like a dog katching his tail?
    Let’s answer as many „hows“ as possible, to make this world better and safer!

  25. on 02 Jan 2010 at 4:30 pm 25.Severin said …

    Burebista 23/Sceptic 15
    I could not find anywhere when, and in what form, SCOTUS “recognized” atheism as religion, but I can easyly guess what happened: atheists were aggressively attacked, and a court has found a legal way to protect them. The court equaled the rights of atheists to those of religious groups, that was (probably) all the court did. In what way is giving of legal staus to a group automatically the DEFINITION of a group?

    Atheists do not believe in unnatural creatures! Atheists do not warship anything! They do not pray! They do not expect “salvation” of anyone! They do not expect to live after death! They have no organisations, especially not enormeously big and expensive ones, and in no way opressive ones, such as religious organizations used to be, and still are.
    They do not pose questions “why”, knowing it is a tricky causal/consequence question without answer.

    So, please, what makes atheism a religion, if atheist’s attitudes do not contain a slightest religious attribute? Just your wish, to somehow eqaul atheist with you?
    No way!

  26. on 02 Jan 2010 at 7:13 pm 26.Severin said …

    Sceptic 15
    No atheists ever created moral rules.
    During he entire human history moral rules were under exclusive patronage/jurisdiction of religions.
    You can easyly see,by reading religious books, what kind of morality it was(and still is)!

    You can also see from proved historical events in which churches, or “secular rulers” guided by churches and religious dogmas took part, what “highly moral” consequences of applying of religious “morality” occurred:
    bloody religious wars, lethal prosecutions of adherents to other religions, brutal torturings, slaughters and burnings, “in name of god”, of non-like-minded people, lethal oppression against scientific accomplishments, imposing of “right” religions to millions (Africa, both Americas etc) by “fre and sword”, determined keeping of slavory during 000 of years, …..a long list of “moral” deeds imposed by religion “morality” during human history!

    I could only wish atheists had more influence in creating moral rules in the past.
    And I do hope they wil have more chances in future, as they already have in some countries, where, no doubt, one can brethe more easyly and freely.

  27. on 02 Jan 2010 at 7:30 pm 27.Severin said …

    Breckmin 17, Lou 19
    “Atheism is based on the belief structure of the “philosophy of naturalism.”

    If a religion can be based on non-believing in anything, then atheists are religious, but it is obviously contradictory, isn’t it?
    We just DO NOT BELIEVE, and if you claim oposite, how do you know it? By reading our thoughts?

    If somebody asked you to explain “philosophy of naturalism” I bet you could not find any explanation. You would stay mute.

    Now, if religion poses the question “why universe?”, and your answer is “because of creator”, my next question is: “why creator?”
    The times are passed when you could just shut our mouths threatenning us by torturing or brutal death to stop us posing such “inconveniant” questions.
    The question is posed, so: why creator?

  28. on 02 Jan 2010 at 9:23 pm 28.skeptic said …

    @Severin

    I see you’ve missed my points and are continueing to parrott a diefied view of science back at me. As I am having difficulty understanding what WALID, SCOTUS, warshiping, and these other nonsense words, I must be on to something else. It seems I’ve wasted my time here. I don’t mean to sound like a prig, but honestly reading some of this stuff makes me feel like one. Quite smug actually. And as no one likes a smug prig, then I’ll best be off.

    One last word, you don’t have to ask why? If that is not your perogative, than who am I to judge you for it. But know that when we stop asking why we start down very dangerous roads. We should always question the status quo, whether it be religion, science, government, or whatever it is. Because with questioning we begin to find truth. And the value of truth (at least for me) is inherent.

    I love science, I love research, and I highly recommend everyone to get involved in learning more about it. But please do so in an educated manner understanding it’s limits (“The Limits of Science” looks promising, it’s by Nicholas Rescher). It is not perfect, and althroughout history we see how political it is (A really good book is “A short history of nearly everything” by Bill Bryson, it’s fantastic). And your right it will not give us all our answers but it does help us understand things, and that goes a long way.

  29. on 02 Jan 2010 at 9:48 pm 29.skeptic said …

    @Severin

    P.S. There are many more athiests througout history than you think, and as for athiests creating moral rules, you should read Nietzsche. He had quite a bit to say on the subject. Be careful when you paint in broad strokes.

  30. on 03 Jan 2010 at 1:24 pm 30.Severin said …

    Sceptic
    Walid = valid, my mistake (English is not my native language, I am self-taught, so I make errors here and there, as I am trying to write quickly, without using dictionary)
    SCOTUS = Supreme Court of the United States
    warship = worship, same as with “walid”

    It is always nice to debate with someone whose Englis is poor; you can always say you did not understand him well, and get out of debate excused of giving arguments.
    I am sure my English grammar and syntax (= structure of sentences) are poor too, but understndable enough for such a debate. We are not writing literature/poetry here.
    Now, I DID admit that “why” is a very challenging intelectual question.
    My point was that in NO WAY religions are right institutions to search for and to expose answers to it.
    They had 1000 of years to prove themselves, but did not, so: good bye!
    The same way I let scientists to search for answers to the question “how”, and choose to trust them or not, based on evidences available and on validity (functioning in practice) of their theories, I would let educated and ingenious people (Bertrand Russel, etc, maybe Mr. Rasher too, when I learn something about him, and from him) to search for answers to “why” for me.
    Then, when I see their answers, I will decide whether to trust them or not.

    THAT was the point: FREEDOM OF THINKING, which all the religions suppressed ALL THE TIME by all available means, including the cruelest ones imaginable.

    I still think that the question “why” is unanswerable, and that nature simply is not based on such questions. It is, of course, not a “forbiden” question, but is senseless: every “why” ineviatbly includes the next one, and you can stop ONLY with a “supreme being”, which is unexplicable “per se”. Such a creature should be, by default, much more complicated than universe itself, then: who/what created it? How was it created? How did it started to exist?
    So we come back to EXACTLY the same questions we apply to matter/energy – why then to apply them to a divinity?
    Let philosophers (not religions!) search for answers, and let enjoy in evaluating of their arguments, but let us NOT believe anything without arguments/evidences.

    Doubt is the key for going on, not dogmas!
    That is why religions (plural!) are DANGEROUS!

    P.S. I never claimed there were no atheists at all in history of human race, but that “No atheists ever created moral rules.”
    If they did (your example),tell me, who ever paid attention to their “moral rules”, even only 100- 200 years ago. Do you deny that religions (plural!) had practically the ONLY influence to moral rules untill some 50-60 years ago (or 150, or 200, but what is this compared to 7-8000 years of human history?). How did Nietzsche influence the history? Stopped the WWI or WWII?
    And yes, I did read him, thanks.

  31. on 03 Jan 2010 at 1:31 pm 31.Severin said …

    intelectual = intellectual, sorry

  32. on 03 Jan 2010 at 1:44 pm 32.Scott said …

    Its easy to excuse the question of a supreme being by claiming “Why” is a senseless question. It is good thing for humanity not asking “Why” has been a quest man has not been afraid to challenge. For some, the excuse may just be laziness or fear they may be wrong.

  33. on 03 Jan 2010 at 2:51 pm 33.Severin said …

    Scott 32
    „Its easy to excuse the question of a supreme being by claiming “Why” is a senseless question.“

    I did not just claim (as typical for you believers).
    I put on the table a logical riddle:

    Why matter? Beacuse god created it.
    Why god? No answer!

    If your answer, as expected, might be: „God is unquestionable, he is here without any reason, he has no cause, he is both in one: the cause and the consequence, O.K., fine!
    But WHY, the hell, should we search for a supernatural being to apply such definitions to it?
    Why not apply it to matter/energy/time/space, which we have under our noses?

    If you apply it to matter/energy, it BY NO MEANS make them divine or supernatural!
    Why?
    Beacuse matter/energy is following some rules (natural laws)!
    God/gods (ha, which one is the right one?) does/do not follow any!
    What we were told „from“ gods (religious books), and about gods (from priests), are illogical nonenses that are so stupid, illogical and incosistant, that even „bullshit“ is not the right word to describe them. „Nothing“ could be the right one!

  34. on 03 Jan 2010 at 7:50 pm 34.Rostam said …

    Its not a matter of laziness Scott, it is more an issue of preconceptions. If an individual refuses to consider anything outside their own tunnel vision they will naturally blast anything outside their peripheral. The fixation is true in all areas of subsistence and existence.

  35. on 03 Jan 2010 at 7:54 pm 35.Severin said …

    About my P.S.
    What I ment to say was that religions had monopoly on morlaity, and de facto made moral rules that influenced historical events almost absolutely, untill very recently. In some countries religions still have enormeous, if not total influence on secular life. In other ones, their influence is still too high.

    Just look at the “Index Librorum Prohibitorum” (Index of Forbidden Books), the list of Chatolic Church, promulgated in 1559. and extended by ADDING works and uathors through centuries, untill 1996. (!!!)
    Just a few years ago!

    How to trust ANYTHING an organisaton (not very different from fascistic one) which prohibits Descartes, La Fontain, Pascal, Voltaire, Hugo, Flaubert, Dumas (both!) Diderot, Rablais, Zola, A. France, A. Gide, J.P. Sartre, Keppler, D. Defoe (?!), G. Bruno, G. Galilei, Copernicus, G. Greene, G. Sand, M. de Unamuno, Stendal, Flaubert, Shoppenhauer, Nietzche, H. Heine, even tha map-makers such as S. Muenster and J. Ziegler, etc, etc, etc…
    And, of course, they NEVER put on their list Hitler’s “Mein Kampf”!

    When they weren’t able to burn people any more, they tried to suppress their thoughts by prohibiting their books, probably being very sorry to be unable to burn the authors.

  36. on 03 Jan 2010 at 7:59 pm 36.Severin said …

    Sorry, the title of 35. Severin is wrong, just neglect it please.

  37. on 15 Jul 2010 at 2:55 pm 37.TruthSeeker said …

    30 Severin

    Any rational and intelligent person would immediately recognize a typo.

    They want us to go to their church, they want us to give them at least 10% of our paycheck, they want us to volunteer out time and effort for the church and yet they REFUSE to acknowledge Mark 16:17-18.

    Because, they should be able to: Drive out Demons (cure mental and other illnesses like epilepsy), speak in tongues, pick up snakes (wtf?), place hands on sick people and they shall get well and finally, drink deadly poison and shall be unharmed.

    Because the USA is supposedly a ‘Christian’ nation, according to this passage we should need no medical or mental professions because Christians should be happy to be a witness and spread the name of Jesus, and what better way than healing amputees? Yet they refuse to. I guess they should prove whether they are true christians or not by drinking poison. By doing so they can PROVE they are a christian and that there is a Jesus and God.

    Something so simple… yet they refuse. It’s because they know, deep down, the truth… but their conscious mind refuses to acknowledge it.

  38. on 15 Jul 2010 at 4:10 pm 38.Severin said …

    37 TruthSpeaker

    Please see my last comment (begins with “77 Merlin “I would NEVER ever…”).

    Yes, they don’t want to see, and sometimes, unwillingly (doing Freudian slips) they admit it!

    There is no god, but there is (sometimes) justice in this world!

Trackback This Post | Subscribe to the comments through RSS Feed

Leave a Reply