Atheism

[philibusters]

Would you agree that everything you described about black holes is just an assumption based on observation, and that the assumption has been modified over time to fit the changing and more complete observations?

Maybe. I guess the scientific method can be boiled down to an assumption based on observation. Black holes were theorized to exist before there was any evidence of their actual existence based on the laws of gravity. For example, even before we landed a satellite on Jupiter's surface we could probably guess Jupiter's gravitational force will be significantly stronger than the Earth's gravitational pull.

A belief in God, as I understand Him, is merely the emotional/spiritual version of that. My observations have given me the firm understanding of Him, and my understanding has grown over time as I have observed more.

Do you think an ancient Greek priest of Zeus could have felt the same way about Zeus. They had an impression of him that got deeper as they emotional and spiritually interacted with him?

See my comments above in bold.

 

[philibusters]

There seems to be a lot of variation both in believers of higher power and not, so I found this picture. It seems very accurate to the people with whom I've spoken.
View attachment 117537

I guess I would be an agnostic atheist based on that poster. I don't claim to know anything for sure. But I don't believe in a God.

 

[This_person]

If religions weren't making claims to be THE word, THE way and promising eternal subjugation for believers and purgatory for the non believers, celebrating and yearning for that judgement day, that would be fine, but that core feature remains.

Science is, by definition, always asking, always willing to abandon a position once the hypothesis fails or is displaced by better proofs. If your understanding is to say you leave the non sense behind as you learn and grow, great. But if you retain that core belief and hope, you gotta expect people are not be willing to just go along nor be happy that it is in our politics. If you're saying you have a pick and choose version of religion then that's good in a broader sense. However, it can't be said to be true to the religion unless that core is rejected. Religion doesn't allow for picking and choosing nor does it allow for non believers to be left in peace; they're damned and doomed unless they get on board.

You really do not understand my religion at all, personally speaking.

But, there is essentially zero difference between a gnostic atheist and a gnostic theist (per the chart above) based on what you're saying. The difference being the theist admits there is no proof, and the atheist rarely does.

 

[This_person]

5th mindset; I don't believe in a god and the evidence against it continues to grow. The place faith stands on, continues to shrink. Further, this makes sense to me and makes the whole thing good that our earliest, and worst, attempts at reason and science and philosophy and biology should fade slowly into history.

That actually puts you in the top right quarter of the chart. There's not a single bit of evidence against the existence of a god. Not one bit of evidence at all.

 

[This_person]

See my comments above in bold.

I think every religious person, from any religion, probably feels the same way. So, yeah, for that person back then, Zeus (as we understand him today) was probably the guy.

 

[itsbob]

After the contradictory first paragraph everything you wrote was about your perception of various religions. It is my goal here to leave other religions out and discuss atheism.

To use your words, you believe in a freedom from other religions so I assume this would be acceptable to you.

You say your faith (a proof we're talking a religion here) is in science and logic, something you can verify. How have you verified the origins of life, or the reasons mankind is sentient and the animal kingdom apparently is not?

His choice of the word "faith" doesn't proclaim a religion or acknowledge atheism is itself a religion in any way shape or form.. He's using YOUR work that you can relate to.

I've never seen an atheist raise money for their religion.. or proclaim.. You must send me 10% of the everything you make or you're not REALLY a (choose religion here).. so there's that basis alone for atheism NOT being a religion.


What you should really ask, and what I think is very important in our days, is why would an atheist be insulted by a cross on Federal Property.. or a nativity scene on the courthouse lawn? It they are truly atheists, and not just intolerant liberals, the cross can't be insulting to them.. nor can the nativity scene as neither has any meaning to them..

What is a cross to an atheist, and how would it relate to something they wholly don't believe in??

 

[This_person]

His choice of the word "faith" doesn't proclaim a religion or acknowledge atheism is itself a religion in any way shape or form.. He's using YOUR work that you can relate to.

I've never seen an atheist raise money for their religion.. or proclaim.. You must send me 10% of the everything you make or you're not REALLY a (choose religion here).. so there's that basis alone for atheism NOT being a religion.

Not every religion requires money-raising. However, belief that something is true without proof something is true (and, frankly, with the full comprehension the belief simply cannot be proven) is faith. Science is like that, in that the origins of life are unprovable, as is the origin of the universe (unless we can start with nothing and create a universe without actually doing anything that would imply some kind of intelligent design, and we can do that repeatedly for peer review and accuracy of the proof).

So, no, lack of raising money (I've seen a lot of scientists beg for money, by the way) is not a proof of lack of "religion", but faith in the unprovable seems like pretty conclusive proof of religion status.

What you should really ask, and what I think is very important in our days, is why would an atheist be insulted by a cross on Federal Property.. or a nativity scene on the courthouse lawn? It they are truly atheists, and not just intolerant liberals, the cross can't be insulting to them.. nor can the nativity scene as neither has any meaning to them..

What is a cross to an atheist, and how would it relate to something they wholly don't believe in??

I fully get that - they have been sold a load of goods about a mythical separation of church and state. They think that if the state offers space, or electricity, or purchases a religious artifact than that breaks the mythical separation. They've either never read the Constitution, or can't distinguish between the First Amendment and the myth of separation.

Given their lack of comprehension, it makes total sense. They're not bothered by the cross, or nativity scene, they're bothered by their tax dollars being used in some way to support the majority opinion. It's like the people bothered by fluoride in their drinking water - they're not afraid of the fluoride, they're afraid of a government that can drug them without their knowledge or consent.

 

[itsbob]

Talking to you is becoming increasingly exhausting.
So, Whatever dude.



Whatever.

Sentience = Life = Sapience. Run with that.





Alrighty then.

Johny5 was none of the above...


And Johny5 is alive!!

 

[This_person]