Atheists should shut up!

[Artimas]

It's also true for atheists. The drive behind most atheism is the fear of someone other than yourself as judge over your actions. Atheism vs religion, that battle is always gonna go down to morality wars. Atheism morals will always be dictated by the majority or the powerful, whilst religious nuts will base it of their god(s).

Eh I only see my own morals. I criticize even the law, so you can't say atheists have to rely on powerful leadership or majority. Morals aren't dictated for intelligent people, they're dictated for fools. In general.

True power is knowledge, so even if atheism did rely on a powerful leader then they would have to be knowledgeable. But I don't anyways, this is what I call spiritual atheism. What other atheists and religious dislike, but it's the most powerful concept between the three.

[Along The Way]

Science describes the world, but gives no value to it.

So it's all good and well to say that science advances civilizations as far as far as progress in medicine, technology, etc. goes.

But that leaves out the entire sphere of values, for which humans beings and far more importantly, human civilizations cannot thrive. And that is where both philosophy and religion come into play. And don't say "but atheists have values too" because of course they do/can. That's not the point. The point is that science fundamentally is incapable of providing values. And without values, we are nothing but highly sophisticated apes playing around with dangerous toys and developing more of them for the sole sake of playing around with and developing more dangerous toys.

As Nietzsche predicted accurately, we are a civilization struggling mightily with meaning, purpose, and valuations, in the absence of our supreme value giver (God), and with only Science (which is incapable of creating values) to take its place. And this lack of a value centre has played a mighty, mighty role in the terrors that played themselves out in the 20th century and continue to play themselves out today.

Of course, the answer isn't to go back to believing in mythological creatures, and/or to deny the value of science as a tool of description. But creating values is no easy task. And that, again, is where religion, spiritually, ethics, and other disciplines come in. A world in which everyone belongs to the church of Scientism is horrifying beyond comprehension. It will (and does) make the reign of the catholic church look like child's play.

Religion doesn't need to be destroyed. It needs to be yet again reformed to compliment a post-modern civilization.

[Artimas]

Science describes the world, but gives no value to it.

So it's all good and well to say that science advances civilizations as far as far as progress in medicine, technology, etc. goes.

But that leaves out the entire sphere of values, for which humans beings and far more importantly, human civilizations cannot thrive. And that is where both philosophy and religion come into play. And don't say "but atheists have values too" because of course they do/can. That's not the point. The point is that science fundamentally is incapable of providing values. And without values, we are nothing but highly sophisticated apes playing around with dangerous toys and developing more of them for the sole sake of playing around with and developing more dangerous toys.

As Nietzsche predicted accurately, we are a civilization struggling mightily with meaning, purpose, and valuations, in the absence of our supreme value giver (God), and with only Science (which is incapable of creating values) to take its place. And this lack of a value centre has played a mighty, mighty role in the terrors that played themselves out in the 20th century and continue to play themselves out today.

Of course, the answer isn't to go back to believing in mythological creatures, and/or to deny the value of science as a tool of description. But creating values is no easy task. And that, again, is where religion, spiritually, ethics, and other disciplines come in. A world in which everyone belongs to the church of Scientism is horrifying beyond comprehension. It will (and does) make the reign of the catholic church look like child's play.

Religion doesn't need to be destroyed. It needs to be yet again reformed to compliment a post-modern civilization.

Already explained this point before. Philosophy is what is needed, one can do philosophy without being restricted to religion though.

[Arcturus Descending]

Faust wrote

.... I don't think there is a god. Any god, anywhere.

Why do you feel that way, Faust? Based on what conclusions?

Not even an impersonal god? Not even the god who is completely NOT the god of the Jews and the christians?

When you say god, what is it that you mean?

I think that sometimes atheists feel the need to argue their view that there is no god simply because they are still not convinced. That moment of argument also lies within their self. Their atheism is based more on a denial to "believe", more on emotions that any god could possibly allow what happens in the universe. Maybe atheism is based more on a lack of understanding and wishful thinking. I'm not saying that yours is.

If god cannot be the almighty and powerful daddy in the sky god simply disappears. Which is a good thing. That just means that someone has come to some kind of a more real realization.

But if you could possibly say that god, well, we won't say, has existence, that's our word - if you could give just one word really important word to define what you think/feel/imagine/intuit that Something (for lack of a better word) is - what word would you use.

I'm agnostic. I couldn't be an atheist but then that's just based on my observation of the universe and the way in which it works. Humans aside, where did it come from, aside from the scientific explanation?

How did it all come to be? How can any philosopher seeking truth state that there is for certain nothing which preceded EVERYTHING?

What is the problem? Language, a lack of understanding. Oh, yes it is certainly that. What do we do when we have a lack of understanding and knowledge? Deny? or do we try to stretch our necks out to see possibilities though we have no idea what those possibilities are.

We haven't a clue but do we deny? How much fun is that when engaging in mystery?
I think perhaps that atheism is just another word for sweeping everything under the carpet. No?

[Faust]

Why do you feel that way, Faust? Based on what conclusions?

Not even an impersonal god? Not even the god who is completely NOT the god of the Jews and the christians?

When you say god, what is it that you mean?

I see no evidence of any type of god.

I think that sometimes atheists feel the need to argue their view that there is no god simply because they are still not convinced. That moment of argument also lies within their self. Their atheism is based more on a denial to "believe", more on emotions that any god could possibly allow what happens in the universe. Maybe atheism is based more on a lack of understanding and wishful thinking. I'm not saying that yours is.

I don't think I need to argue for that view at all. Of course it's a denial to believe. I deny belief in all sorts of things. So do you. So what?

If god cannot be the almighty and powerful daddy in the sky god simply disappears. Which is a good thing. That just means that someone has come to some kind of a more real realization.

But if you could possibly say that god, well, we won't say, has existence, that's our word - if you could give just one word really important word to define what you think/feel/imagine/intuit that Something (for lack of a better word) is - what word would you use.

This is sloppy verbiage. To say that I have to come to a more real realization assumes that there is something more real to realize. That something is "nothing". There is no reason to describe something that you don't think exists. I can put this another way, though. All those people who think some kind of god exists? I disagree with them. It's not really about a non-existent god at all - it's about people. people who think a god exists. I disagree with those people.

I'm agnostic. I couldn't be an atheist but then that's just based on my observation of the universe and the way in which it works. Humans aside, where did it come from, aside from the scientific explanation?

I don't know. I don't even know if it makes sense to ask the question. Why would the world have to come from something? Wouldn't that just be another version of the world? Now, the physical universe we know something about - that may have come from conditions that we cannot conceive of. So you could say that those conditions precede the universe as we know it. That does not imply a god.

How did it all come to be? How can any philosopher seeking truth state that there is for certain nothing which preceded EVERYTHING?

I am not seeking truth. I do seek understanding. But please reread your last sentence and try to make sense of it. I cannot. If it's everything, then nothing could precede it.

What is the problem? Language, a lack of understanding. Oh, yes it is certainly that. What do we do when we have a lack of understanding and knowledge? Deny? or do we try to stretch our necks out to see possibilities though we have no idea what those possibilities are.

Why do we have to do anything when we have a lack of understanding and knowledge? Have a banana and enjoy life.

Deny? or do we try to stretch our necks out to see possibilities though we have no idea what those possibilities are.

You may pass the time as you wish. It is no concern of mine, generally.

We haven't a clue but do we deny? How much fun is that when engaging in mystery?
I think perhaps that atheism is just another word for sweeping everything under the carpet. No?

No.

[James S Saint]

Science describes the world, but gives no value to it.

So it's all good and well to say that science advances civilizations as far as far as progress in medicine, technology, etc. goes.

But that leaves out the entire sphere of values, for which humans beings and far more importantly, human civilizations cannot thrive. And that is where both philosophy and religion come into play. And don't say "but atheists have values too" because of course they do/can. That's not the point. The point is that science fundamentally is incapable of providing values. And without values, we are nothing but highly sophisticated apes playing around with dangerous toys and developing more of them for the sole sake of playing around with and developing more dangerous toys.

As Nietzsche predicted accurately, we are a civilization struggling mightily with meaning, purpose, and valuations, in the absence of our supreme value giver (God), and with only Science (which is incapable of creating values) to take its place. And this lack of a value centre has played a mighty, mighty role in the terrors that played themselves out in the 20th century and continue to play themselves out today.

Of course, the answer isn't to go back to believing in mythological creatures, and/or to deny the value of science as a tool of description. But creating values is no easy task. And that, again, is where religion, spiritually, ethics, and other disciplines come in. A world in which everyone belongs to the church of Scientism is horrifying beyond comprehension. It will (and does) make the reign of the catholic church look like child's play.

Religion doesn't need to be destroyed. It needs to be yet again reformed to compliment a post-modern civilization.

Yep.

[surreptitious57]

I think that sometimes atheists feel the need to argue their view that there is no god simply because they are still not convinced

I believed in God for all of forty six years and so no one can ever accuse me of never having seriously contemplated his existence

if you could give just one word really important word to define what you think / feel / imagine / intuit that Something ( for lack of a better word ) is

You are begging the question by implying that there is something of that nature in spite of there being absolutely no evidence to support such an idea

I think perhaps that atheism is just another word for sweeping everything under the carpet

I want to lift up the carpet so as to see what lies underneath no matter what that might be

[surreptitious57]

creating values is no easy task. And that again is where religion spirituality ethics and other disciplines come in. A world in which everyone
belongs to the church of Scientism is horrifying beyond comprehension. It will ( and does ) make the reign of the catholic church look like childs play

The roots of morality lie in psychology not religion. As all the latter does is reinforce the important morals and introduce entirely superfluous ones
Furthermore there are moral alternatives to religion such as humanism or egalitarianism or utilitarianism. So not only is religion unnecessary but it
is not the only model. Also recommending it as a moral discipline can not be accepted given its incredibly bloody history that continues to this day
A significant amount of that was perpetrated by the Catholic Church of which the worst were the activities of paedophile priests. So then equating
that institution with scientism despite the latters dogmatism is easily one of the most ridiculous things ever said on the internet without exception

[Arcturus Descending]

Faust,

I see no evidence of any type of god.

Even discounting the use of the word "God", again, what is your explanation of the origin of Everything which we know of at this time?

....Their atheism is based more on a denial to "believe", more on emotions that any god could possibly allow what happens in the universe. Maybe atheism is based more on a lack of understanding and wishful thinking. I'm not saying that yours is.

I don't think I need to argue for that view at all. Of course it's a denial to believe. I deny belief in all sorts of things. So do you. So what?

You mean to argue "against that view"?
A denial to "believe" might also be agnosticism. Why aren't you an agnostic?

To say that I have to come to a more real realization assumes that there is something more real to realize. That something is "nothing". There is no reason to describe something that you don't think exists. I can put this another way, though. All those people who think some kind of god exists? I disagree with them.

Is it an assumption or is it an assertion based on knowledge and experience, Faust?
As a philosopher, aren't you closing your mind saying that that which many call God doesn't exist? Or is it that because you feel it is something which can't be proven either way, it just doesn't exist for you? Aren't you the least bit curious about the mystery of it?

It's not really about a non-existent god at all - it's about people. people who think a god exists. I disagree with those people.

Your statement seems like a contradiction to me. Are you saying that you intuit that there may be Something - you just don't agree with the thinking of "those people"?

I don't know. I don't even know if it makes sense to ask the question. Why would the world have to come from something?

Don't you think that it is especially the questions which seem to make no sense which must be asked?
I don't know, Faust - it just doesn't seem to be logical to me that creation came from nothing albeit we have no idea how to describe that, how to give it language. You hate metaphysics - do you also hate having a sense of wonderment?

Wouldn't that just be another version of the world?

I'm not sure what you mean here unless you're saying that with the brains we have at this moment in time, we can only figure things out based on what we know now and based on how we as humans "see" things. Even if we can't begin to know where it came from except by our scientific explanation, does this mean that there is not some thing, some energy, whatever, that is the cause of it all? But certainly not in the religious sense of it.

Now, the physical universe we know something about - that may have come from conditions that we cannot conceive of. So you could say that those conditions precede the universe as we know it. That does not imply a god.

Skip that word. What might it imply? That's the question?

How did it all come to be? How can any philosopher seeking truth state that there is for certain nothing which preceded EVERYTHING?

I am not seeking truth. I do seek understanding. But please reread your last sentence and try to make sense of it. I cannot. If it's everything, then nothing could precede it.

You just didn't understand the way I expressed myself. You may have done better with what I was trying to say.
Let me ask you a question. Do you emphatically believe that there IS nothing which preceded everything.
By EVERYTHING, what I mean is all things which happened to be created, formed, come into existence, as a process, as a continuum, all worlds, galaxies, stars, all evolutions, transformations, all which will come to be....I know I left a lot of stuff out.

ALL OF IT! We don't actually know or can conceive the moment when creation, for lack of a better word EVERYWHERE for lack of a better word began (began-for lack of a better word).

Even for those who feel it was all some kind of an accident, accidents occur from causes.

Why do we have to do anything when we have a lack of understanding and knowledge? Have a banana and enjoy life.

A great part of my enjoyment of life is asking questions, wondering, trying to understand and getting to the bottom of what I am interested in. Different things make life worth living to different people.
What I can't know for certain I can still wonder about, have those aha moments. We're a process.
Look how far we've come from not knowing. I can enjoy my banana and at the same time feast on life and its mysteries too.

You may pass the time as you wish. It is no concern of mine, generally.

I'm glad you feel that way. I'm also pretty sure that you're kidding about what you said two quotes above.

We haven't a clue but do we deny? How much fun is that when engaging in mystery?
I think perhaps that atheism is just another word for sweeping everything under the carpet. No?

No.

I intuit that it is for some, for many. Some people just cannot live in negative capability. For those, they are sweeping everything under the carpet. If they can't have all of the answers, it all disappears into dust.

[Kriswest]

What about seperating a god from religion? Even better just call that being a superior being? A being that has been evolving. Our mistakes or misunderstandings would be coming from a naturally or bred species. Infants screw up.

[Ultimate Philosophy 1001]

Even discounting the use of the word "God", again, what is your explanation of the origin of Everything which we know of at this time?

Origin of everything is because nonexistence cannot exist...

God part of it comes in when you deem the world is a good or bad place...Some might argue life is bad but could be worse, therefore God is a regulative entity. For instance, "I could have been born a diseased fat blob, but God did not make it so. "

[Faust]

arc - I cannot explain the origin of everything. "God did it" just doesn't seem like an improvement on "I don't know."

Why am i not an agnostic? Why am I not a Cubs fan. I am not an agnostic because I don't believe on a god, which makes me generally an atheist. I'm not sure I even understand your question.

I do not think that nonsensical questions should be asked. Unless you're trying to entertain a small child. The difference between small children and metaphysicians is that the former laugh at nonsense while the latter depend on it. I am not closing my mind - I have made a decision. There is no mystery.

I am not intuiting that there may be something. I am saying that there is nothing to deny unless I am also "denying" the existence of leprechauns. You seem to have no idea how you are trapped in language.

That conditions that precede the universe as we know it are inconceivable to us implies that we cannot conceive of those conditions. You are asking me to describe conditions that we cannot conceive of? Seriously?

I emphatically believe that there is nothing that preceded everything. Because everything is, well... how shall I put it... everything. I'm not sure what "everything" could mean except, well, everything. I have no idea what that everything is, but it was your question. I just know what "everything" means. It means "everything."

There is no reason to believe that everything has a cause.

I'm not kidding about anything.

[Artimas]

What about seperating a god from religion? Even better just call that being a superior being? A being that has been evolving. Our mistakes or misunderstandings would be coming from a naturally or bred species. Infants screw up.

... Already been done. It's called nature and spirituality... Remember, that thing religion tried killing? But can't because it's natural while religion is a construct. One feels spiritual. One is taught religion.

Religion is systematic, dogmatic, coercion, extortion, false hope, etc. Blatant control.

[Artimas]

arc - I cannot explain the origin of everything. "God did it" just doesn't seem like an improvement on "I don't know."

Why am i not an agnostic? Why am I not a Cubs fan. I am not an agnostic because I don't believe on a god, which makes me generally an atheist. I'm not sure I even understand your question.

I do not think that nonsensical questions should be asked. Unless you're trying to entertain a small child. The difference between small children and metaphysicians is that the former laugh at nonsense while the latter depend on it. I am not closing my mind - I have made a decision. There is no mystery.

I am not intuiting that there may be something. I am saying that there is nothing to deny unless I am also "denying" the existence of leprechauns. You seem to have no idea how you are trapped in language.

That conditions that precede the universe as we know it are inconceivable to us implies that we cannot conceive of those conditions. You are asking me to describe conditions that we cannot conceive of? Seriously?

I emphatically believe that there is nothing that preceded everything. Because everything is, well... how shall I put it... everything. I'm not sure what "everything" could mean except, well, everything. I have no idea what that everything is, but it was your question. I just know what "everything" means. It means "everything."

There is no reason to believe that everything has a cause.

I'm not kidding about anything.

Well technically "god did it" is worse than "I don't know". Due to the fact that saying you do not know is the person submitting to humility and the truth of it.

[Arcturus Descending]

What about seperating a god from religion? Even better just call that being a superior being? A being that has been evolving. . Infants screw up.

This is actually what I am trying to do here...the separating. I'm thinking more in terms of science.
We are beings - can we call - well, let's call it the alpha and omega, for lack of a better word, the A&O a being? Do you think it is like us?

Our mistakes or misunderstandings would be coming from a naturally or bred species

nat. & bred species? You mean we humans?

[Arcturus Descending]

Faust

arc - I cannot explain the origin of everything. "God did it" just doesn't seem like an improvement on "I don't know."

The former is certainly no improvement on the latter. The latter is an improvement, in my book if one says I withhold judgment on it all while at the same time exploring possibilities.

.... I am not an agnostic because I don't believe on a god, which makes me generally an atheist. I'm not sure I even understand your question.

This was my question: A denial to "believe" might also be agnosticism. Why aren't you an agnostic?

That was my error. For whatever reason, an atheist [does] deny a god's existence, doesn't believe.
So no, you're not an agnostic. An agnostic, in my book, withholds all judgment either way. There is no Yes nor No. They know there can't be any certainty, any real certainly. Just possibilities.

You seem to have no idea how you are trapped in language.

Now that is Your error. I certainly do have an idea of that. Perhaps it's also because I do not know the philosophical jargon but I may be wrong.

That conditions that precede the unierse as we know it are inconceivable to us implies that we cannot conceive of those conditions. You are asking me to describe conditions that we cannot conceive of? Seriously?

I'm not sure if I am actually asking you to describe those conditions but I suppose in a sense you may be right if I'm musing about what caused it all. I can, in a sense, understand your need or decision to "see" no god since it's utterly impossible to know or to describe something which is inconceivable to us, except in human language according to physics and the human heart, et cetera. But I don't like to throw the baby out with the bathwater even if the baby is invisible to us.

I emphatically believe that there is nothing that preceded everything.

What do you mean by that? You could be saying that there was Something which some might call god.

Because everything is, well... how shall I put it... everything. I'm not sure what "everything" could mean except, well, everything. I have no idea what that everything is, but it was your question. I just know what "everything" means. It means "everything."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of ... philosophy)
In philosophy, a theory of everything or ToE is an ultimate, all-encompassing explanation or description of nature or reality.[1][2][3] Adopting the term from physics, where the search for a theory of everything is ongoing, philosophers have discussed the viability of the concept and analyzed its properties and implications.[1][2][3] Among the questions to be addressed by a philosophical theory of everything are: "Why is reality understandable?" "Why are the laws of nature as they are?" "Why is there anything at all?"[1]


In his 1996 book The Conscious Mind,[5] David Chalmers argues that a theory of everything must explain consciousness, that consciousness does not logically supervene on the physical, and that therefore a fundamental theory in physics would not be a theory of everything. A truly final theory, he argues, needs not just physical properties and laws, but phenomenal or protophenomenal properties and psychophysical laws explaining the relationship between physical processes and conscious experience. He concludes that "[o]nce we have a fundamental theory of consciousness to accompany a fundamental theory in physics, we may truly have a theory of everything." Developing such a theory will not be straightforward, he says, but "it ought to be possible in principle."

Okay, well I can see that....

The woods are lovely, dark and deep,
But I have promises to keep,
And miles to go before I sleep,
And miles to go before I sleep.

Gees, how little I know.

There is no reason to believe that everything has a cause.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/sufficient-reason/

I'll read this. It might help me to comprehend something. Then I'll probably be back in the woods.

I'm not kidding about anything.

I think that you were about the banana.

[statiktech]

I intuit that it is for some, for many. Some people just cannot live in negative capability. For those, they are sweeping everything under the carpet. If they can't have all of the answers, it all disappears into dust.

How many atheists, or even people in general, do you know that refuse to believe anything because they can't have answers for everything?

[Amorphos]

It needs a theory of reality, and not of universe ~ even with consciousness added. whatever one adds and that nought can be taken away [everything exists in some sense, even colour qualia etc], we surely always need that to round up to a whole. if we begin with categorical differences, then naturally that's a dualism. ...don't get why that isn't immediate lol [to physicists].

consciousness might yet be a part of physical existence, we would just have to adapt the concept 'physical' to refer to all existent entities ~ which would initially include every aspect of consciousness. I say initially because one would also need the categorical difference of 'mind' as a function in physics, ...can't see that happening in a hurry.

[Artimas]

It needs a theory of reality, and not of universe ~ even with consciousness added. whatever one adds and that nought can be taken away [everything exists in some sense, even colour qualia etc], we surely always need that to round up to a whole. if we begin with categorical differences, then naturally that's a dualism. ...don't get why that isn't immediate lol [to physicists].

consciousness might yet be a part of physical existence, we would just have to adapt the concept 'physical' to refer to all existent entities ~ which would initially include every aspect of consciousness. I say initially because one would also need the categorical difference of 'mind' as a function in physics, ...can't see that happening in a hurry.

Or people can just be spiritual without religion tying control around everything...

[Only_Humean]

"A nothing will serve just as well as a something about which nothing could be said."

[Arcturus Descending]

I intuit that it is for some, for many. Some people just cannot live in negative capability. For those, they are sweeping everything under the carpet. If they can't have all of the answers, it all disappears into dust.

How many atheists, or even people in general, do you know that refuse to believe anything because they can't have answers for everything?

That for me would be more of a psychological problem for those kinds of individual.

My experience is more with those on the other side of the coin. They refuse to question and doubt "anything" or make distinctions because then they might have to sacrifice comfort and security.

Both are fools.

[statiktech]

Yeah, they probably would be if either type of person actually existed.

[surreptitious57]

I try to accept reality as it is and not let any subjective interpretation of it up
on my part determine how it should be since that does not actually make it so

[Artimas]

I try to accept reality as it is and not let any subjective interpretation of it up
on my part determine how it should be since that does not actually make it so

Yep. ^

[James S Saint]

Or people can just be spiritual without religion tying control around everything...

That is like saying, "Everyone could just be scientific. There is no need to have organized science".
Or, "Everyone could just govern themselves. There is no need to have an organized government".