why would anyone want to profess strong atheism? What is the basis for such a belief?
-
Why?Voted for by TeChNoWC.
What do you wish to gain from upholding the truth? Heres the truth: If atheism is true, and I am going to assume that, and that evolution is the basis of our existence, then there is an evolutionary reason as to why the phenomenal mind has created the illusion of religion, and spirituality. It would seem that this illusion plays a pivotal role in our benefactory survival. To believe in pink elephants or invisible unicorns would be of no loss either. If no malevolent or benevolent force exists in the universe, then you will lose nothing by doing so. Upholding the truth will be of no benefit either, for when you die, you know nothing, and this truth has made you no better off than the christian believer, or the worshipper of pink unicorns. Simply put, nothing matters, therefore, it is of no benefit to you what you choose, except, for the mere possibility of the innerancy of such a truth, and, if you have any notion of skepticism, you will realise that anything must be considered a possibility. Fideism peoples, fideism. I am a solipsist therefore, as it causes me distress, I choose to believe in something else. If a malevolent force is controlling me, i cannot escape, hence, my only escape is to pretend that such is an illusion, through faith and hope.
-
FurthermoreVoted for by TeChNoWC.
Atheism is based on knowledge, beliefs, on faith. In a world where knowledge is unnatainable, one would have to debase skepticism to promote strong atheism. Beliefs need not do such a thing, since faith can still adhere to the fact that possibilities abound infinitely.
Please login or register to comment.Registration is required because of issues with spam. It is fast and free! This author would LOVE to get a comment from you, please join!
-
Adding your comment: -
Most people I know who claim to be atheists are in reality agnositics. They have been raised in Christian homes and reject the final answers of Christianity (they do not buy, for example, that Jesus was God). Since they reject the idea that Jesus was God they assume they must be atheists. I went to an "atheist" site that quoted famous atheists." I would say about 80 percent of them were agnostics who had problems accepting Christianity. If atheism really meant rejecting Christianity then I would have to call myself one. But I know that is not the definition of a true atheist. I wonder if even your hard core atheists are not really in some kind of rebellion against imposed religion, but have not thought it out very well. Their experience with God and religion has been unfulfilling, so they jump to childish conclusion that God must not exist and harness their intellects to justify such a position. But I think if you put such people in hard life situations of sink or swim they might shed their intellectual paradigms and discover a new reality.
-
Most atheists are really agnostics
Most people I know who claim to be atheists are in reality agnositics. They have been raised in Christian homes and reject the final answers of Christianity (they do not buy, for example, that Jesus was God). Since they reject the idea that Jesus was God they assume they must be atheists. I went to an “atheist” site that quoted famous atheists.” I would say about 80 percent of them were agnostics who had problems accepting Christianity. If atheism really meant rejecting Christianity then I would have to call myself one. But I know that is not the definition of a true atheist. I wonder if even your hard core atheists are not really in some kind of rebellion against imposed religion, but have not thought it out very well. Their experience with God and religion has been unfulfilling, so they jump to childish conclusion that God must not exist and harness their intellects to justify such a position. But I think if you put such people in hard life situations of sink or swim they might shed their intellectual paradigms and discover a new reality. -
Most atheists are really agnostics
Most people I know who claim to be atheists are in reality agnositics. They have been raised in Christian homes and reject the final answers of Christianity (they do not buy, for example, that Jesus was God). Since they reject the idea that Jesus was God they assume they must be atheists. I went to an “atheist” site that quoted famous atheists.” I would say about 80 percent of them were agnostics who had problems accepting Christianity. If atheism really meant rejecting Christianity then I would have to call myself one. But I know that is not the definition of a true atheist. I wonder if even your hard core atheists are not really in some kind of rebellion against imposed religion, but have not thought it out very well. Their experience with God and religion has been unfulfilling, so they jump to childish conclusion that God must not exist and harness their intellects to justify such a position. But I think if you put such people in hard life situations of sink or swim they might shed their intellectual paradigms and discover a new reality. -
wisdomsearch
***But I think if you put such people in hard life situations of sink or swim they might shed their intellectual paradigms and discover a new reality.*** wisdomsearch, I must say I agree with that statement -
I also agree. Thank you for that, wisdomsearch. In my experience it seems that many people do tend to do this, and those that profess strong atheism seem to use the debasement of religion to back up their stance rather than actually proving godlessness as fact. These arguments may convince one to hold to agnosticism, which I can totally understand - but stating things like "there is no way God, or any other diety for that matter, could exist" being stated as fact seems to me a very irrational act, considering that one cannot know if something DOES NOT exist.
-
-
atheism is based on the simulation of knowledgeVoted for by Auxiliar.
It really starts to appear to the populace in Europe around the time of the fathers of science and their inheritors, much like phrenology and eugenics. The expansion of man's ability to predict and invent solutions to problems through the a posteriori laws of science and to find new laws through an ostensibly a priori investigation.
This extension pervades today, as those guests on talk radio who defend Evolution in schools, as they should, and they claim its benefit under the standard of science itself. It is as though they say to us, "There is no reality but science, and only this scientific theory alone has been proven," and furthermore, "There is no God, and he has no prophet." This is not strict hipocrisy, but it's getting there.
We'd do better to read more Kant and Hume, or even Thomas Kuhn.
Please login or register to comment.Registration is required because of issues with spam. It is fast and free! This author would LOVE to get a comment from you, please join!
-
Adding your comment:
-
Thanx, Auxiliar. One wishes to agree with you. For sure, science should not be supressed and forgotten, but one must remember its limitations. In my opinion, although this is not inherently true, science is a rather simple system, in itself unable to harbour truth, but merely truth of a particular reality, and only a part of such a reality anyway. It is restricted by its own criterion, and cannot test its own validity. It is far from flawless.
-
-
Atheism?Voted for by Kazrith.
Because they are fed up with God. to believe in god, you must have some ounce of faith. you know that a lot of mothers give up godly worship over the death of their child? they believed that god has a hand in everyones life, but as we can see by the deaths and the attacks on societies that god does not, in fact involve himself with this world, or at least any more. without a path for people follow, you cannot atleast give the shadow of truth. evolution maps a way to the shadow. the people who do not put an effort into faith (really, it takes special people to have lots of faith) they can not just jump aboard and follow the leader. i am agnostic. i could truly care less if god existed or not, and if he is this all supreme/knowing god people say he is, he will understand that i dont want to waste my time to something that might not exist.
Please login or register to comment.Registration is required because of issues with spam. It is fast and free! This author would LOVE to get a comment from you, please join!
-
Adding your comment:
-
'i dont want to waste my time to something that might not exist'. Like, all of reality. Both are as knowledgeable concepts as one another. One can experience God, within the bounds of reality (whatever you call it, whether it be a chemically induced reaction and dogmatic brainwashing or the real deal) and so likewise, even within the bounds of so called 'objective' reality He exists, in some form or another. If i was to say that i wasnt going to waste my time to something that might not exist, then I wouldnt bother existing, since I cannot prove that anything at all exists.
-
i can touch, smell, hear, taste and see myself, that is enough for me to support my reality. if you believe in god, sure, all for ya. but i dont need him at this time so i am not too worried about it.
-
and what, pray tell, supports your touch, smell, hearing, taste and sight?
-
my mind
-
and what, pray tell, supports your mind?
-
Kazrith, please read Descartes' Meditations.
-
what supports god?
-
hypothetically, nothing. But, would you rather believe and trust in an eternal promise, or, a carnal logical outlook towards a desired finite life? Neither is known for sure, but given the circumstance, one would see greater overall benefits in believing in the existence of a benevolent, loving, all powerful, eternal God. To live as a thiest or an athiest both require a level of faith (or, self-deceit) to entrust to either paths of certainty. Given my experience with God (of which I cannot support) and all given factors, it is far more beneficial to both myself and possibly the concieved diety than would be to choose having faith in what i see, and ultimately, only myself.
-
I would believe and trust in a carnal logical outlook towards a desired finite life.
-
And such is your destiny. But remember, you had a choice, and, you made it too.
-
yes. and i might remind you that i am not an atheist, i am agnostic.
-
Yep. Except you regard living the carnal life greater than the leap of faith.
-
the carnal life i can touch and see, whereas faith is just a belief in something. so what are you going to do if you find out that your faith is unjustly placed?
-
Keep believing. Faith excedes reality, for reality can only hinder one through extreme percieved objectivity. I would pass it off as another test of faith and keep believing, until the time comes that the proposed reality is seen for its true illusionary state. Ideally.
-
To stop believing is to give in to chaos. One accepts a new fate based on percieved experience, and hence, shows themselves able to be swayed by one's experience. This would give a controlling malevolent force power. The will is the dominant force. If a malevolent force cannot break my will, then I cannot be persuaded, as if he were to use ultimate force to simply persuade me, my will would still be fixed (eg. I wouldn't care what he does to me because I choose not to believe it). My only weakness would be if this is somehow broken, but ideally, one has strength in their faith. One problem; a man's will is not strong enough to even break free from simple deceptions and persuasions. Faith in anything (simply put, denial) would cause one to fail in their weakness and be decieved. But when one has faith in God/Jesus, the promise of the empowerment of the Holy Spirit is invoked. This 'promise of power' or 'promise of will, steadfastness' coupled with the actual experience of such a persona/force (the Holy Spirit is a person) allows one to keep such faith. Whether or not it be true, one believes so, and thus, the prophecy is fulfilled, and one remains steadfast in their faith. Such a faith would allow one to 'believe' that one day their will will be insuperable.
-
trust me, science isnt chaos. preach all you want, your religious beliefs jive with you, and dont for me. simple as that.
-
It's quite funny that you said 'trust me' at the start of 'science isn't chaos'. Exactly my point, that there is a level of faith involved, that you need to not prove it to me, but rather require me to just trust you. And you also have given in to subjectivity. You are relying on your will to explain why you oppose my ideas. Simply because it does not jive with you. It's not preaching, my friend. If you regard it as such, you obviously have no idea what religion is, and you are conveying your ignorance. Question(s): what if you were to find that your assumptions about science were false, eg, it did not convey true reality but rather was guided by the hand of a decieving malevolent being? Could you still keep faith in it? Given the circumstance that you are now being ruled over by a malevolent being, how would you react? In desperation? Would you shut down because it goes against anything else you ever experienced and thought you knew? As an agnostic, don't you just go with the flow of things and wait for the truth to reveal itself? What if the truth was something very sadistic, malevolent and cruel? How would you handle such a revelation?
-
with a shrug of my shoulders. besides if that happened science would prove the exsistence of god and in which i would be eternally greatful. but if science proves god to be false, what would you do? keep practising in hopes that science was the falsehood or would you release yourself from (and for just a good word) your bonds of faith for something stronger?
-
It seemingly pervades that science cannot prove God to be false, since science is only the study of the natural world. I would still credit it as possible, but it's suggested proof could still be denied. Only revelation induced knowledge could ever hypothetically be regarded as 'flawless'. There is no way to know that science is true because there will always be the possibility that it will be challenged and all go possibly wrong (back to my scenario of the malevolent being again, or, concurrently, God reveals Himself in a greater way that science could never imagine possible). Also, if science proved atheism, yes, there is no reason not to continue believing in God, because life is finite, death is escape and inevitable, it is peace and tranquility with a state of mere consciousness before it. As Kant proved, without God their is no ethics. One can scrutinize all they like, but, with such a knolwedge, I would be inclined to just go and jump off a bridge. It's called 'eternal peace'. You won't care whether or not you are dead once you get there. Atheism = supposed knowledge claims (MUST claim knowledge to be an athiest) Theism = supposed knowledge claims or claims to faith (does not require knowledge but creates meaning through the desire to have meaning) Agnosticism = no knowledge claims, but, at least, a willingless towards meaning Which one creates the desired meaning?
-
you just danced around my questions. i have come to notice you never answer a question, but try to poke it with a stick in the dark. sometimes hitting it and sometimes not. are you afraid that you do not have faith in yourself? i know you have faith in god, but what about yourself? what about others? faith doesnt always revolve around god. yes, sure, but until god suddenly appears and makes things fall faster or slower than they should, science will continue to prove itself. your theory of a maleviolent being suddenly interfering is just as unlikely as science to prove god wrong/right. it is all in where you put your faith. i personally like to have a solid platform for such a mighty thing. which one creates the desired meaning? so do not understand. do you mean that i am to choose one? the only one you have clearly defined is theism.
-
question - why do you so despritely want to prove to me that god exists? i have a theory for why you insist on doing this but i want to know what your answer is before i decide to tell you it or not.
-
As of the moment I don't really have an overwhelming desire to prove God to you, nor did I really at any time, I do believe. I just found the discussion intruiging, and also, might succeed in shedding some philosophical light to the dilemma of agnosticism (using a type of fideistic 'Pascal's Wager). There could be many possible reasons why I would have a slight inclining to prove God to you. Most likely, because of the fact that my faith entrusts that I am fervent in conversion, however, I failed to use the Word of God so it probably wasn't a true conversion attempt. Convincing you of God would in no way, as I saw it, increase my faith, so no, I did not see it at as a security issue.
-
ah, by convincing me god existed, you confirm your believe in him/her. a septic can make even the believers question their faith.
-
Kazrith, I hope you aren't trying to pride yourself with this accomplishment. Questioning faith is an important part of faith, or it's not faith. I don't confirm my believe by proving it to you, because you may as well not even exist. If it did confirm it in my mind, then it would already be confirmed (because I have done it before) and, as of the moment, it is not confirmed. It doesn't need to be.
-
i really dont care weather you question your faith but it is a valid point in why you insist on trying to prove to me why your god exists.
-
many things are valid. I grow tired of people reverting to attacking wildly at their fellow debatee when they can no longer provide an argument as to why/ why not. However, you gave a so called 'valid' explanation behind the motives of many people, however, the debate was primarily about strong athiesm, as I indicated. I would like to hear as to why and how these people make such bold knowledge claims (in all their percieved wisdom and intelligence).
-
can you see yet that this debate no longer revolves around athiesm but around our beliefs. no matter how hard we try, we are not going to make each other realize what we mean, so can we drop it now?
-
You can if you wish, but I would still like an explanation as to why strong athiests make such knowledge claims, that alledgedly, isn't a belief.
-
"your theory of a maleviolent being suddenly interfering is just as unlikely as science to prove god wrong/right." Not necessarily true. It could happen right now, and you would have no way of predicting whether or not it would or wouldn't. Your rational mind just tells you it won't, maybe actually inducing you to percieve that it is currently not happening when really it already is. "science will continue to prove itself." What if the Earth was created 5 minutes ago, and your memories implanted upon creation? To believe that science has proven itself one must trust their experience. What if your memories are inacurrate? Believing in the self and others? They are seemingly considered as imperfect beings. We are even told that they will fail us. One does not know whether or not this is accurate though. They could be in allegiance with the malevolent being, or they could even be just a projection of the mind. One must trust something that actually promises.
-
ah, so you dont trust anyone, i thought so. as as for god suddenly changing things, ya, sure, it could happen, but so can science proving he doesn't exist. okay, let us look at the definition of belief: be·lief (b-lf) n. 1. The mental act, condition, or habit of placing trust or confidence in another: My belief in you is as strong as ever. 2. Mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something: His explanation of what happened defies belief. 3. Something believed or accepted as true, especially a particular tenet or a body of tenets accepted by a group of persons. you are going to want number 2 here. "Mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something." you are rooted in believing that god is true that you can't see why others do not belief, right? well an atheist is the same, only different. they cannot see why people are deluded by god and do not except knowledge or science as truth. your truth=god athiest truth=knowledge/science
-
"I would believe and trust in a carnal logical outlook towards a desired finite life." "atheist is the same, only different. they cannot see why people are deluded by god and do not except knowledge or science as truth. your truth=god athiest truth=knowledge/science". Read these two quotes of yours. If they are the same then why did you pick science? Are you aware of Pascal's Wager? If you have debased both claims to truth then you are left in a state of unknowing (perceivingly). Hence, your agnostic affiliation. But absolute agnosticism does not exist, because that would leave one inert of belief (although grant may claim himself to be in such a condition, I have seen him seemingly assume things through belief). So, at any given time you will sway one way. You must choose which way to sway.
-
if you really want to know which way i sway, it is a way from religion and towards science. I am a science geek, that is who i am and it is what i believe. i do not believe in religion, i see it as a complete waste of time and effort. besides, why believe in something corrupt?
-
Simply, believe it isn't corrupt (or at least allow such a thing to prove itself to you.) You seem to entirely miss the point however. I seem to be wasting my time. Farewell, and may the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ protect you.
-
I do believe the point is missed on both sides. and i believe we are both wasting our time (as i tried to say a few posts ago). but i really think you missed the point. i said i disbelieved in religion, i didnt say anything about god. you dont need religion to believe in god.
-
Good point. But then one is forced to believe in their own ideas and not any foundational system to go by. So the belief seems to render itself useless, because it merely changes as you change. Hence, you flow with whatever goes. There seems to be no commitment and no foundation. One becomes one's own god, because one believes simply, and only, what one percieves. Religion fixes this error by telling us what we should believe.
-
actually that is a misconception. rules are set and very rarely change. Commitment is one thing i am a stickler about. i am more committed then most, if not all of my religious friends. you dont need a religion to have a foundational system of ideals and beliefs. to say an athiest or an agnostic do not have a set belief system and do not have commitment or the like is pretty pathetic and niave. actually, being "godless" is a good thing because you are more open to new ideas (ie, homosexuality ect ect)
-
*"actually, being “godless” is a good thing because you are more open to new ideas"* Like I said, you don't have a foundation. You changed your mind. Foundational is set.
-
Registration is required because of issues with spam. It is fast and free! This author would LOVE to get a comment from you, please join!
Please register or login to comment! It's totally free