My issues with Atheism, Lets talk :)

[downbeatplumb]

The difference between fundamentalist religionists and "fundamentalist" atheists:

Fundamentalist religionists try to force their opinion down your throat and insist you are completely wrong, and that what they say is the only truth.

"Fundamentalist" atheists try to have an open dialog with believers to discuss all opinions equally, and to debate over points of contention.

What is usually a situation of an atheist arguing that things should be fair and representative of all beliefs, comes across to believers (and the ill-informed) as some kind of proselytising. All we want is equality; the right to say what we want, to discuss ideas. We don't want governments to support faith-based initiatives because they have no business doing so. Faith is a person issue, and the more the government stays out of our personal lives, the better.

As I've said before (on numerous occasions), I'm as much against an atheist nation as I am a Christian (or other religion) one. I don't think governments should represent any religious belief, given that those religious beliefs are varying throughout the country.

Adrian I used to think like this.

However I've found that religious people will allways put their oar in.

There is a 24 hour Asda that is only 24 hour service 6 days a week because of religion.
Why do I, as an athiest have to live with the petty restrictions of the christians.
If christians choose to not work on Sunday fair play to them, but I want the chance to buy a spit roasted chicken when I want.

It was the same in Los Angeles when the 'religious right' voted to outlaw same sex marriages.
That was none of their business.

If the religious didn't try and inflict their view on everything I really would not have an issue.

They can believe what they like, but they keep inflicting their beliefs us by indirect means.

[Eilonnwy]

I've always felt a very spiritual presence in my life - in the eyes of woman, the outdoors, the moon, the rain, mountains, deep meditation, writing music (not the analytical type). In other words you could say I'm agnostic, or an atheist or an agnostic atheist (what the hell am I? haha). I've NEVER believed in 1 or 100 gods, but I've always believed that god was everything - I worship nature, I can FEEL nature, and human connection and that there is a larger power and force at work in the world.

If you don't believe in God then you're an atheist. If you believe god is nature, then you're probably not an atheist because you have a concept of God that you believe in, regardless of how utterly useless it is.

Definitions matter, so saying something like "God is nature" means nothing. It's the same as "God is love". Well I believe love exists but does that mean I believe in God? Of course not, because God is a substantive concept of a higher being whether the notion is personal or deistic. To slap on a definition like nature or love loses the significance of what we're arguing about.

I can't prove it... but you can't disprove it.

And this is the crux of the problem. WE don't have to disprove it. You make the claim, back it up. Of course if you want to believe something and keep it to yourself, that is entirely up to you. However, it's important to realize that just because someone can't disprove it, doesn't make it okay to believe it. Yeah we can't disprove it, but you can't prove it. You can make up whatever fantasy you want about what God is but it has no shred of validity versus the beliefs of other people, and there are people out there that will kill you based on those fantasies.

Your actions are determined by your beliefs, and while it may seem harmless to believe god is nature, it's not harmless to believe god wants you to kill gays or nonbelievers. They can't prove their beliefs anymore than you can.

Furthermore, when you put up certain propositions about a God concept it is possible to test those propositions as long as they are falsifiable, so in that capacity I think it can be possible to disprove something.

My problem with Atheism in its sole dependence on the scientific method. It is simply a tool to break things down into categories, but creating categories is really just created by humans, its a human process.

Atheism is not dependent on the scientific method. As stated previously it's just a lack of belief in God. Many atheists can hold other supernatural beliefs without belief in God. What you seem to be arguing against is more science and skepticism.

Anyway, the fact that science is a human construct doesn't invalidate the science itself. That's a fallacy. The reason why we know it works is it provides results. Of course we can't know anything, and people who adhere to skepticism will be the first to tell you, but the scientific method has proven to be the best method by which we can understand the world. As human process goes, it's fucking awesome.

In other words, we, as human beings, created EVERYTHING that can actually explain anything.

Of course we did, because that's all we have.

The basis of Atheism seems to be, I'll believe only that which is proven with logic or experiments.

No, that's skepticism, but many atheists arrive at their atheism through a process like this.

But in actually proving anything, your using tools that humans designed. The scientific method was designed by us, just like the bible.

The difference being the Bible was a book written by ignorant people that demands acceptance uncritically and the scientific method was developed to understand the world and it thrives on criticism. If the hypothesis doesn't fit the results, the hypothesis goes away, not the results. With believing in something like the Bible, the opposite is true. It's not the fact that these things are human inventions, it's the inventions themselves.

Even words are a tool that we designed ourselves... the fact that I read that my soul is created by a firing of neurons, or that love is a chemical reaction... neurons and chemical reactions are really just a matter focusing on one part of a bigger picture and labeling it. A neuron is just a word describing a part of you that YOU are focusing on right now at this moment. Not seeing the forest for the trees, or in other words, not seeing the soul or love for the neurons and chemical reactions...

Definitions are useful for comprehension and understanding each other. So you can't just switch one word for another because it's convenient. Regardless of how the words got their meaning, they have them now and they are useful in how we communicate.

If you want to use a figure of speech and say that love comes from the soul, awesome. If you want to tell me that there is something inside me that exists outside my brain and will continue living after I'm dead, prove it.

Science in general is really just breaking things down and breaking them down again, and labeling this and categorizing that...

No, I'm think you don't understand what science is. It's about understanding the observable world around us. The labels and categorizations are so we can effectively communicate the observations. I don't think you have any clue how fascinating and absolutely wonderful science is.

It seems like Atheism is based on a million illusions that we created ourselves to try and understand ourselves. But my FEELING of the divine, of spirituality, of ONE with the EARTH and the stars and universe... I can be the universe or I could be a single cell at the same time, its just how I am perceiving it in that moment (is this how Quantum Theory works in a sense too? I'm not all too familiar with it) F**k I'm confused

You can feel all you want. The human brain has an amazing capacity for hallucinations and illusions. There's actually a specific part of your brain that accounts for the feeling that you are in your body and if you chemically alter it, then you have an "out of body" experience.

You have no idea what Quantum theory is. Most people who get into pseudoscience love to throw "quantum" around. Quantum Mechanics deals with matter and energy on an atomic scale, not how you feel about the universe. It is such a complicated subject that most people have no idea what "quantum" really means so they can just say, "Hey, it's Quantum physics" and people will nod mindlessly, because they don't really know what it is.

I mean seriously, look at this:


It's fucking amazing and science is the reason we know anything about it. I don't need to think God did it to make it seem anymore fucking amazing. Because of science we know about galaxies and the universe, we understand planets and stars. By your insistence, science is just an illusion we give ourselves. What are we living in some sort of Matrix unable to tell the difference between reality and illusion? It's absurd. and it's useless to assume this is some illusion.

Isn't Atheism just believing in the scientific method which was created by us. Is Atheism giving humans too much credit? Isn't reality just our consciousness and what we are focusing on at the moment... I mean to me, Atheism can't disprove god either. You can say, "how could god allow such a messed up world." But that would assume that god has human traits and morality. Atheism just seems to be too simplistic for me, its rooted in too many man made concepts. I need a beer my brain hurts.

No, atheism is not.

You seem to complain that atheists are somehow arrogant because we believe we can understand the world. I don't think you give humans and human intellect enough credit. I would say it's arrogant to assume that there is a supreme being and you somehow have some special access to that supreme being who loves and cares for you. That somehow closing your eyes and believing what you want to be true is somehow just as valid or better than the scientific method. The scientific method brings the goods. It has results to back it up. Do you even know what the scientific method is? It's not guessing, it's not deciding based on feelings. It's testing a hypothesis with rigorous standards before accepting something is true.

Whenever someone wants to question the scientific method I want to tell them to stop using their computer. Obviously it doesn't work, because science is just a useless human invention. e.e

Come on, give humans credit. We are doing the best we can with what we have to understand the world around us. Just because something is "human" doesn't make it bad. It's almost like it's a dirty word.

No wonder why you're confused, I don't think you really understand what you're saying.

I'm not trying to be insulting, but I'll I've seen here is a spewing half understood concepts and consistent misunderstanding of what science is and what atheism is.

[Tiberius]

Just had to make this after reading Eilonnwy's post.

[LoveandLight]

After doing some research I think I would fall into either pantheism or probably more panantheism. I don't believe in God in the traditional sense, but on the other hand, I also believe there's something out there, more like a kind of logical 'way of the universe' that allows for everything to be the way it is and creates order (if only in this tiny corner. Its beyond our comprehension). I still feel inclined to worship and pray, and find it very rewarding so that would rule out Atheism. I guess thats why I would be more panantheism than pantheism because I believe in something bigger than what our 5 senses can perceive. Right now I am just kind of babbling, but thanks for your feedback, Atheism is interesting but I don't find comfort in cold hard logic and data driven beliefs. My instincts strongly oppose and science seems to new, it has been rewritten too many times. Good luck with your pursuit for the truth!!! LOVE and LIGHT!

---

"I am not going to adjust my view without some spectacularly good proof from you, just because you've got a vague feeling there must be something more."
- downbeatplumb

When did I tell you to adjust your view? I just came here to get some answers about atheism. congratulations!

[fr0d0]

Welcome loveandlight - 2 great posts so far

Theism and atheism are too narrow definitions and miss out a lot. I've always been interested in seeking out truth. I've explored many avenues to that end. I'm now 'theist' but that doesn't make me feel disconnected.

In the realm of comprehending this reality I'm in the same boat as you. I absolutely agree, and think you make a wonderful point that science can be an all too cerebral approach. We can't understand so completely, and it makes a lot more sense sometimes to listen to our gut feelings, and learn from that, as well as the wonders science presents.

You rock

[leo-rcc]

Atheism is interesting but I don't find comfort in cold hard logic and data driven beliefs.

You haven't listened to a single word anyone has said to you have you?

Atheism doesn't give comfort, because atheism is nothing else but not believing in gods. You want comfort, buy a couch. Atheism is not a belief system, so don't attach labels on it that do not apply.

[Autumnlicious]

After doing some research I think I would fall into either pantheism or probably more panantheism. I don't believe in God in the traditional sense, but on the other hand, I also believe there's something out there, more like a kind of logical 'way of the universe' that allows for everything to be the way it is and creates order (if only in this tiny corner. Its beyond our comprehension). I still feel inclined to worship and pray, and find it very rewarding so that would rule out Atheism. I guess thats why I would be more panantheism than pantheism because I believe in something bigger than what our 5 senses can perceive. Right now I am just kind of babbling, but thanks for your feedback,Atheism is interesting but I don't find comfort in cold hard logic and data driven beliefs. My instincts strongly oppose and science seems to new, it has been rewritten too many times. Good luck with your pursuit for the truth!!! LOVE and LIGHT!

I find couches comforting but you do not see me spreading the cult of the used couch. Your use of comfort is merely "This doesn't make me feel good, so I don't believe it".

And your characterization of science is an incredibly poor to the point of uselessness. With that line of thought, nothing that changes is good, and the older and more unyielding, the better. It also ignores the fact that science is not rewritten with the connotations of being some flippant masturbatory pursuit. Science is built on a foundation of logical thought - educate yourself, assuming you can, about the processes of logical thought.

From what you've written about science, you couldn't research your way out of a cardboard box.

[Meatball]

Even if science is a massive pyramid of knowledge built on observations of a collective illusion as you suggest, is it not still the best explanation of our existence that's available to us?

What would be a better explanation? How could anything else be a better explanation?

[Autumnlicious]

Apparently feelings are a better qualifier for how things fit together.

[Tiberius]

Atheism is interesting but I don't find comfort in cold hard logic and data driven beliefs. My instincts strongly oppose and science seems to new, it has been rewritten too many times.

Science is rewritten because new data comes in that contradicts an already held idea. If an idea contradicts with the observable reality, it is evidently the wrong idea. Why should we stick with wrong ideas when we can adapt and change them to match what we see?

Atheism has nothing to do with cold, hard logic. Neither does it have anything to do with data driven beliefs. You have no idea what you are talking about, so either retract those statements or explain your meaning behind them.

Even if science is a massive pyramid of knowledge built on observations of a collective illusion as you suggest, is it not still the best explanation of our existence that's available to us?

What would be a better explanation? How could anything else be a better explanation?

Technically, the "truth" would be a better explanation. Science doesn't pretend to be the truth, only what is most likely given the material evidence. Science isn't 100% accurate, so the absolute truth would be the better explanation in all cases. Of course, I get where you are coming from; how we can know what is absolute truth and not is currently infeasible for us.