In continuing this series, I decided to let the dust settle a bit, as I took a break to work on other projects. To recap my previous essays on this subject, Part 1 of "Is atheism the answer?" made the case that atheism is a necessary aspect of the healthy human thought process and that such atheistic thinking is logical under various circumstances. In Part 2 of this series, I provided a basic definition of atheism as "without a god," which in essence means that atheism is not precisely a worldview or ideology in and of itself, and thus does not serve—as many people opine—as a belief system that is against God. From the comments here and elsewhere, proceeding with this series requires me to address the oft-heard contention that atheism contributes to immorality and has allowed for tremendous atrocity, including genocide. I have already briefly explored in another article the claim that religion causes immorality, but does its apparent opposite, atheism, do the same? Are certain wars and criminal actions the direct result of not believing in God?
Abused by religion?
In my work exploring the origins of religion and exposing its deleterious aspects, I have come across the suggestion many times that I and other critics are "just reacting" against religion because we have been "hurt" or "abused" by it. In my case, I have always been quite fascinated by religion and was never in an abusive situation personally, because I was raised in a very mild form of Protestantism. That being said, although my church and family did not engage in them directly or abuse me specifically with them, general attitudes in the public at large produced by the religion du jour in my location—Christianity—definitely did affect me.
These negative, religiously produced attitudes include that human beings are "bad" because they are "born in sin," that they are only redeemable through Jesus Christ, and that females in particular are inferior, especially because Eve ate the "apple" in the Garden of Eden. We were also permeated with the notion that our human bodies are "naughty" and "nasty"—especially the female body—because sex is "dirty," and people always want to have it, and so on. Again, this negative mentality born of religious dogma certainly did affect me, as it did practically everyone I knew in my area growing up. Also again, my formative years were spent in a very secular time and place, when and where people hardly spoke about religion, church, Jesus, God, etc. These attitudes nevertheless pervaded writings and populated the airwaves, especially TV and radio, even though there were very few stations and no one I knew was listening specifically to Christian programming, which we barely heard of at that time. On TV, there were the Big 3 networks and PBS, and on radio, Rock and Roll.
Thus, I was never hurt directly by the particular church I attended, and my critique of religion is not based on any personal abuse in that regard. However, my criticism does address the abusive attitude of religion towards humanity as a whole, and this mistreatment must be evident even to defenders of faith, as it is they who most vocally point to it as a cause of complaints about religion in the first place. Atheists too like to hold up the clever assessment by non-believing writer and scientist Isaac Asimov that reading the Bible itself creates atheists, for example.
Atheism as the result of abuse?
Is atheism often the result of a reaction against human abuse by religion? So it seems to be, at least in significant part, as opined by both theists and atheists. Therefore, it is to this debasement of humanity in general by religion that we may look for the cause of much turmoil, including that of the past century, which is held up as a black mark against atheism because of such figures as Josef Stalin, Adolf Hitler and Pol Pot. A common argument against atheism is that these individuals were all atheists who wrought horrendous atrocities against vast numbers of people. While this latter contention of these individuals committing infamy is certainly true and should never be forgotten or whitewashed, is it accurate to say they were all atheists or were motivated by atheism, such that it is to be blamed? Was their lack of belief in a God behind their actions, which led to the deaths many millions?
Infamous atheists?
As I write in my book The Gospel According to Acharya S (a tongue-in-cheek title):
Theists hold up Communism and Nazism, along with the regime of the Cambodian tyrant Pol Pot, as evidence of murderous "atheist" tyrannies that have caused the deaths of tens of millions. While it may be true that Communism portrayed itself as "godless," it did not wage war in the name of atheism, nor were its founders and leaders raised as atheists. They were, in fact, preponderantly Jewish and Christian. Communist Manifesto writer Karl Marx was born a Jew, the grandson of two rabbis, and was converted to Christianity at age 6. Leon Trotsky, whose real name was Lev Bronstein, was born and raised a Jew but later declared himself "an internationalist."
Josef Stalin and his daughter Svetlana (1935)
Josef Stalin's "very religious" mother named him after St. Joseph, and wanted him to become a priest. Stalin himself supposedly claimed that his father had been a priest, and he was purportedly "damaged by violence" while being "raised in a poor priest-ridden household." As a youth, Stalin spent five years in a Greek Orthodox seminary, after which he purportedly renounced his religion. In his later years, Stalin apparently embraced Christianity once more. As Stalin biographer Edvard Radinsky remarks, "During his mysterious retreat [of June 1941] the ex-seminarist had decided to involve the aid of the God he had rejected." Radinsky likewise chronicles a number of religious comrades in Stalin's immediate circle. It is evident that, whether for good or bad, religion played a significant role in Stalin's life.
Adolf Hitler was raised a Catholic, and in a speech in 1922 he remarked, "My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Saviour as a fighter..." In his autobiography Mein Kampf (1.2), Hitler stated:
Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.
Throughout his life, Hitler invoked God and "the Lord," demonstrating his religious, not atheistic, nature.
Pol Pot was raised a Buddhist and Catholic. In this regard, Dr. Ian Harris, a Reader in Religious Studies at the University College of St. Martin, relates: "In one of his early writings Pol Pot wrote approvingly that the 'democratic regime will bring back the Buddhist moralism because our great leader Buddha was the first to have taught [democracy].'" Although in comparison to the Abrahamic religions its history is far less violent, Buddhism has not been entirely devoid of atrocity in its spread and practice.
If we are to insist—as many people have done, including numerous theists and atheists alike—that religious human abuse is the cause of atheistic reaction against religion, we need look no further, it would seem, than to Josef Stalin's religiously abusive childhood to discover from where much of his rage appeared to emanate. His atheistic reaction therefore would be caused by religion. Hitler, who was also fascinated by mysticism, could not be deemed an "atheist" by any scientific standard, and Pol Pot also was not raised an atheist in a vacuum devoid of religion but was obviously affected and motivated by it.
If atheism is frequently but a reaction against human abuse by religion, then in itself such disbelief may not be the cause of malfeasance. But, we must ask again, is atheism the answer to the world's problems? And if not, what is? Is there a perspective that does not blindly believe yet also does not merely dismiss religious beliefs and spirituality, but accepts and approaches them as part of the human experience?
See Part 4 of "Is atheism the answer?"
Sources & Further Reading
Is atheism the answer? Part 1
Is atheism the answer? Part 2
The Gospel According to Acharya S
Comments
Is atheism the answer? No God? God, NO!
If the Abrahamic religions could at least reform their dogmas and creeds to a 21st century point of view, maybe they wouldn't be so harshly criticized. Misogynistic ideologies has got to go.
No, atheism is not the answer.
David Hume was correct in saying that, logically, 1.) while cause does precede effect, one cannot infer cause from effect. IOW, we can look at the effect (the universe), but that does not tell us what brought the universe into existence.
Also based upon logic, 2.) effect cannot precede cause, 3.) cause & effect cannot be one & the same & 4.) there cannot be a causeless effect. #3 tells us that the universe could not have brought itself into existence. #4 tells us that the universe could not have come into existence from nothing.
SoWe are left with the universe being eternal & having always existed? Problem is, is that the Steady State theory has been shredded.
Something created the universe. Applying Occam's Razor shows us that the most likely explanation is that God created the universe. Some might say that this universe was preceded by something quite natural. But 1-4 would apply to it as well. Where would it come from, then?
Cont...
Continued...
Indeed, where would it have come from? That only passes the buck and does not answer how that which preceded this universe came into existence.
Indeed, based upon logic again, infinite regression is logically fallacious.
Looking at all that I have provided there was a indeed a beginning, and the best excplanation left is that God brought this universe into existence.
Some don't want to look at theses things through the lens of logic, though. They only want the Scientific Method. They want imperical proof or nothing at all.
But you cannot divorce the Scientific Method from logic, though.
I was raised Catholic in a loving household. Attended religion class from first through tenth grade. Is religion still abusive? Hell yes it is. I have had a lifetime of "Catholic guilt" to trudge through and it has deeply impacted my life. To even have a phrase as well known as "Catholic guilt" has to make you wonder. It certainly isn't the first time it's been said. Abuse doesn't have to be consistent beatings, it can be as subtle as indoctrinating an impressionable child into a belief system. This is the worse kind of abuse, in my opinion, akin to brainwashing. I was falsely led by people I trusted (unwitting parents)and authority figures (priests, nuns). Under their tutelage I was molded into a false doctrine that has impacted every facet of my life. Without religion would I have grown up to be amoralistic? Certainly not! Knowing the difference between right and wrong is not the exclusive domain of theistic beliefs. Moral integrity is inherent in us all.
I think the problem is rankism plain and simple. Humans because of how we are raised from childhood build up personal insecurities and these come back to haunt us as adults when we seek to create social hierarchies. It is also based on our primal fear of the dark, the Oedipal complex and other cultural factors. The fact remains that race and religion are methods of setting up social hierarchies. No one is more efficient at doing it than white people because of their affinity for technology. Whites in power have to ability and will to force everyone on the planet to comply with their demands or face death. That is too much power in the hands of too few people.
My problem with atheism is the absolutism. It is no different from religion in its claims of inerrancy. No one knows what happens when we die. It doesn't matter what your faith tells you. Faith is just hoping what you were taught or believe is true. It is not an indicator of reality. Agnostics like myself got it right.
My mother was a Catholic who was thrown out of the church when she divorced and remarried in 1944 as the church considered her as living in a state of adultery since her remarriage. I was abused by Nuns in my early education because I was left handed and therefore a tool of Satan. I never really became Christianised until my mid fifties in the Pentecostal movement. After a decade of looking at church hyprocracy around me I did some research and became a confirmed atheist. Leaving Christianity and all of it's fables and myths was one of the greatest things I ever did. No regrets whatsoever
Can certainly understand Rick's viewpoint on Catholicism.
The problem is the lies. The blind leading the blind on fairy tale trips. It is only possible for an individual to wake up.
Society CANNOT! It can wake up more than it has for sure but still at a level far lower than can be done by individuals.
Atheism is another fairy tale based on a reaction. It is the
as those in religion - moronic. All religion and non-religion is a reaction and ignorant. Breathing with awareness is natural and is not a reaction.
We must distinguish catagories. Avoid mixing "in the name of religion or ideology" with "in the name of atheism or theism". Communists might prefer atheists as do Buddhists. Communists killed masses, Buddhist's never did but for "just wars". Conclusion? Actually, no one has ever killed masses in the name of atheism or for that matter in the name of theism either. Theism is simply the belief in a god or gods and atheism the disbelief or even, as in my case, the probabilistic knowledge that there is no god or gods. Theism is not a religion or ideology. Nor is atheism. Religionism, communism, capatilism etc are all ideologies.
The ism in communism is not the same as the ism in atheism. The ism in communism refers to a distinctive doctrine or theory. The ism in atheism means state, condition, attribute, or quality as in astigmatism or anachronism neither of which are doctrines. Both theism and atheism are harmless in themselves. Ambitious ideological dogma is the evil.
Ray, you are abusing logic, the first thing you need to know about logic is that it utterly precludes mysticism. Analytic propositions tell us nothing about the world, they are true by definition e.g. 1+1=2. Synthetic propositions depend on evidence and so there can be no necessarily true synthetic propositions. Metaphysics and theology are literally meaningless since such statements are neither matters of logic, so not true by definition, nor are they provable by empirical evidence. Scientific method is to observe relevant data, analyse data toward hypothesis, devise experiments to test hypothesis, modify hypothesis according to experimental results, argue for a theory, have theory peer reviewed and finally use theory to predict other things on the basis of it. Since philosophy of science and science are inductive processes of truth attainment they are always waiting ready to be further modified. All logic is however is analytic, true by definition however also exclusive of predicates
Marc, for you to say that that I am abusing logic because logic somehow "utterly precludes mysticism" is an absolutist statement as well as a sweeping generalization on your part, and thus, logically fallacious on your part.
Hume and Occam helped lay the foundation for the modern era of scientific inquiry with which came the need for imperical evidence and the rise of the scientific method. Thus, you cannot divorce logic from science. To do so would be akin to ripping the concrete from underneath a house that has been built upon it.
Indeed, again, 1-4 which I noted below are still in play and cannot be ignored nor cast aside.
Imperical evidence and the scientific method do have their advantages, and are quite beneficial as well, but one cannot just rely upon imperical evidence. Indeed, logic transcends imperical evidence.
Ray, the scientific method starts with Socrates. Modern civilisation is a monument to Socrates. The modern return to the scientific method was initiated by Bacon and Descartes. Bacon insisted that we must search equally for dis-confirming evidence and Descartes established a method os systematic doubt.. Logic is the deductive component supporting the inductive method that is philosophy and science. It is absolutely true however that logic has no place or metaphysics as I have already very clearly explained regarding analytic and synthetic propositions. Since logic has to be tautological, true by definition, it cannot be applied to metaphysics. Sorry bud, I know you want it to but it cannot be done.
daft question, set again in terms of religion being the defining status quo .. suggesting that people must have religion because they can't live without it .. God/religion is either baloney or it isn't regardless of anything else
Hector .. surely the Abrahamic rels cannot reform since they're essentially revelatory and historical
Ray .. and who/what created God? .. it's still ex-nihilo
I am not an atheist, because I cannot prove that no god exists.
I am not a theist, because I cannot prove the any god exists.
Therefore, I call myself an agnostic.
Ray: the theory that the current form of the universe began with a "big bang" proves NOTHING about what came before; the untanability of the "steady state" universe DOES NOT mean that the universe is not eternal; it merely means that it must change state from time-to-time.
Marc: There is no evidence the the "scientific method" began with Socrates (and some scholars think he was Plato's invention). Check out Ibn al-Haytham. Roger Bacon and, somewhat confusingly, Francis Bacon, had a lot to do with modern scientific formalism.
People are fascinating aren't they, Acharya? lol At the end of the day we still have to ask ourselves this question: Is there evidence of invisible beings with magical powers that interfere with the lives of humans? I've yet to see it. I cannot prove that these beings do not exist. But, since I'm not making the claim they do exist it is not my burden to proof. It is the burden of the person making the claim.
I do not believe that atheism is merely a reaction to religious abuse. Atheism is realization that believing in invisible beings doesn't make sense. At least that's my definition for myself. To me, such beliefs are without evidence and silly, like childhood fantasies (monsters under the bed, invisible friends, etc).
I do not believe that atheism is the sole answer to the world's problems. I think man is selfish, irrational, gullible, and impulsive. Belief in gods is only a reflection of man's irrationality.
I think the solution to the matter is honesty. Will conti
As I was saying, I think the solution is honesty. Maybe is we start being honest we will get closer to the truth of who we are as a species.
I always think back to relativity, though. Maybe there isn't a solid answer. For example, to the world I am a 'worthless eater' and never noticed. But, to my animals I am the world. :-)
I truly undertand where people are coming from who have turned away from faith because of other people's damaging actions .... but I don't care screwed up some of God's children are, that won't keep me away from having a relationship with God himself. Atheism? I don't think so.
"What is an atheist? An atheist is a person who does not believe in the existence of a god, i.e., in the existence of a supernatural being. Why doesn't the atheist believe in a god? Quite simply, because belief in a god is unreasonable. Can the atheist prove that a god does not exist? The atheist need not 'prove' the nonexistence of a god, just as one who does not believe in magic elves, fairies, and gremlins does not have to prove their nonexistence. A person who asserts the existence of something assumes the burden of proof. The theist, or god-believer, asserts the existence of a god and must prove the claim. If the theist fails in this task, reasonable people will reject the belief as groundless. Atheists do not believe in a god because there is no reason they should. But haven't philosophers proved the existence of a god? No. All such attempts have failed...."
continued 1
I regard the statement that "God is One" as an axiom. If it is assumed to be true then in my mind it follows that the universe is a single cohesive whole. Assuming a different axiom from which to build a worldview does build a different worldview. So from my point of view the existence of God is a workable assumption and I believe it leads to conclusions that work. Thus the faith that there is one God or that God is one has a real effect.
Being axiomatic, it cannot be proven.
I regard the statement that "God is One" as an axiom. If it is assumed to be true then in my mind it follows that the universe is a single cohesive whole. Assuming a different axiom from which to build a worldview does build a different worldview. So from my point of view the existence of God is a workable assumption and I believe it leads to conclusions that work. Thus the faith that there is one God or that God is one has a real effect.
Being axiomatic, it cannot be proven.
I love this stuff. The contortions of the mind with logic, scientific method and faith are much like a kaleidoscope. With each slight change in the stones, the whole scene seems to change. Yet there is the eternal, never changing in time, here/now which is incomprehensible to most. God and religion allow frightened minds a parking place to feel 'safe', while life flows right past.
John's Truth: I like your approach to the subject. Anyone who claims to have all the answers should be looked upon as suspicious. We must all realize that we are at a crossroad and it's time to leave the human childhood behind us. That includes all the bronzage desertgods and it's very limited way of trying to explain the universe. We have much better way to explain the universe today. Our evolution as a speechie and our lifes is a journey. To have the claimes that an old book contains all the answers we need is just plain stupid. More questions and answers will arise as we go along. Enjoy it and relax, it's just a ride! Make it the best ride you and mankind have ever had :)
To try and place atheism as the answer instead of religion in my opinion would not work, what we do with this effort is just the reversed effect of religion. Both will still be "there" and the fight they have against one another will still be there. You will always have religious people, and you will always have those opposed to religion, we should ask the question; how can we change or aliviate religion to incorporate it into 'life' in such a manner that all the other groups can live with them, "peacefully".
Caveat
The freedoms and lifestyle we have in our country today are based on the idealism that all men are created equal and thus have inaliable rights. The underlying premise is that we are all created equaly in God's image.
Athiesm on the other hand defaults and is akin to Darwinism. Survival of the fittest, adapt or die.
The Point I would like to make here is that our ideoligies are not just mental flights of fancy . They have real consequenses.
Athiests and religous fundamentalists are equaly lost.
Father please forgive them, for they not not what they do.
Geno Canto del Halcon, the Scientific method is in the Socratic dialogues. Even in the shortest (ION). Some have tried to prove that Socrates never actually existed and that Plato of course merely invented him. But then why did other writers also write about him. It doesn't matter if Socrates never actually existed, though very unlikely as it is, the message from the dialogues remains.
Theism is simply the belief in a God or gods. Atheism is the disbelief in a God or gods. Probabilistically the world exists outside of my mind, you are not all just a dream but we are all in fact real somethings other than just my thoughts. I cannot be 100% sure of this - I cannot prove this. It is as probable that no god exists and so I believe none does. But atheism and theism are not theories or ideologies or dogma's so neither is ever an answer. Philosophy is the answer. Take Socrates out of the bible and it is left a confused anachronism - better to go back to the Sumerian tablets.
The common thing between Moses, Constantine, Mohamed, Mao, Stalin and Hitler seems to be ideologies. Neither theism or atheism is common to these people and their era's. They were all blood thirsty totalitarian despots.
Hi, been following Ms. Murdoch's articles with interest for a while. I'm not sure of the point. Atheists don't have anything to prove. They believe in existence. Theists do assert a viewpoint, and as it is ultimately bound in a dogmatic truth, they clash with atheists and other theists who hold a divergent dogma. Thus religion is more likely the cause of conflict and abuse than non-religion.
The next consideration is; what is the nature of reality? Lets look at life and death. Lay 2 humans on a flat surface, one recently dead and one living.. both with their eyes closed. What difference do you perceive? And yet what animates the living and is absent in the dead? The living is imbued with consciousness and the dead is without.
Much of humanity's combined effort has been spent pursuing the ultimate reality and still after thousands and more of years are we any closer? Perhaps if we worship at the altar of humanism? "Love and do as you will" could be the new mantra...
Without any doubt what so ever Atheism IS the answer.
Religion in all its many flavors has caused more death, war, civil unrest, destroyed whole civilizations, and genocide than any other single factor that humans have inflicted on one another.
Religion preaches/teaches to deny fact in favor of faith regardless how absurd that faith is or how positively proven the fact is.
That is stupefying billions keeping them basically in the same mindset as bronze age savages.
It is like giving Nuclear weapons to Neanderthals and expecting something good to become of it.
First of all, science predates Socrates by many thousands of years as the people who built pyramids all over the planet needed a lot of science to do so. So modern civilisation is in debt to a long chain of scientists that extend all the way back to the first human beings who managed to master fire burning a few fingers in the process.
Second, human consciousness is a complex process that can happen if our organs function well (hearth pumping, lungs breathing, etc). Our organs function if the cells do their jobs (adn, mitochondries, etc.). The cells in turn depend on molecules doing their part. Molecules depend on atoms, atoms on sub atomic particles, and so on and so forth. For consciousness to be at the end of the chain, it already has to be at the beginning. Science is in the process of demonstrating that intelligence is present from the ground up. In each and every atom of the universe. That's where God is to be found. At the opposite end of where religions were searching it.
Religion has never, I repeat never, started or been the cause of a war. War is always waged for the same underlying reasons. The gaining of resources and/or the extinction of the holder or competitor of those resources, Period.
Religion has been used as an unifier or justification if you will. So has nationalism, race, doctrine and for some on this forum a belief so vane as to eclipse the sun itself. Fly high Iccarus.
FuDog
"Religion has never, I repeat never, started or been the cause of a war."
What planet do you live on? On Earth, all one has to do to find massive death, destruction & genocide is read the bible.
"270 million non-believers were murdered by Muslim jihadists"
"Christians killed 250 million"
How many has God killed?
freethoughtnation. com /forums/viewtopic. php?t=2381
Watch the video of Frank Schaeffer Author of "Crazy for God" on the Rachel Maddow show
youtube. com /watch?v=lPwGV1h4lW8
He is spot on!!!
What planet do I live on...o.k.... hmmm.
Anyway your revalations do not change what I had stated. Only demonstrated your inability to hear it. YOu are so locked on to the same arguments that they have become a knee jerk reaction.
Of course the Bible is full of death for death is. The bible is not a stoy it is THEE story. Believe as you must as it flows from the divne. I appeal to those who see.
FuDog
Gold is and has been a unit of trade since time immemorial.
It is said to have value intrinsic.
Men of power in the guise of service coin the money
and upon it place thier image or seal.
Over time the gold and the image are seen as one. Thier authority equal.
The gold is then claimed as the property of the powerful men as it does bear thier seal.
Finaly the gold is taken outrite and replaced with a worthless substance although still bearing the seal.
The masses are none the wiser.
A fool is : He who wears his ignorance with pride.
At the risk of sounding condesending the gold in this story is an analogy for spiritual light (for lack of better term), although true on it's face valie as well.
For those adept at thinking as athiests claim to be.
Check your logic.
Given as fact : Religous people kill.
+ The Bible is Fiction.
_____________________
= There is no God.
This is clearly a falacy of logic and should be avoided in any intelligent discusion as to the matter of wether God does or does not exist.
FuDog
Serge Grenier, Of course science predates Socrates. How did the Sumerians know so much about all the planets in our solar system? However, can you point me to an earlier written illustration of the scientific method as demonstrated by Plato in the Socratic dialogues? An earlier illustration that has had an effect on scientific thinking regards the method(s)?
Fudog:
I'm with you. It is written in the Word that the wise will be confounded. They will lean on their own understanding. You are right, the arguments are all the same. No matter what you call as evidence exists, it never supersedes the Truth.
And by the way: while it is true that many wars and deaths have been caused in the name of religion, it is not God himself; it is man's sinful nature caused by the dark principalities that you cannot see. Because there is darkness, there also must be light. That light is God Himself. Any time anyone has shown you compassion, that came from God. So do not blame the One who created you and gave you the freedom to reject Him for the pain and death in this world. That comes from your father.
Everyone here needs to realize some things:
Logic transcends imperical evidence, given that (for instance) one does not need the scientific method to realize that effect cannot precede cause. Indeed, logic shows that 1-4 (which I addressed earlier) are true. That logic shows us that even if there were billions of universes preceding this one, there cannot be infinite regression.
There was a beginning, it logically could not have created itself & come out of nothing (cause and effect cannot be the same, effect cannot precede cause and effect is preceded by cause).
Even if the Steady State theory (which has been shredded) does not necessarily correspond to other possible realities, or a possible reality beyond it, those are just mere possibilities.
In the end, it takes less faith to believe in a.) an eternal unmoved mover creating a non-eternal universe such as ours, as it takes to belive in b.) eternal matter, non-eternal universe(s) yet no God creating it/them. Why? Cont..
Why?
It takes greater faith to believe that a.) this universe, any other possible preceding universe, any possible preceding matter or uncreated reality coming into existence from nothing or being eternal than it does to b.) not belive in that, since it takes greater faith & a dumping of logic to believe in causeless effects, & cause & effect being one & the same.
When you boil it down, atheists are willing to entertain the idea of causeless effects, cause & effect being one & the same & in infinite regression - as some of the posts have shown.
Atheists have no scientific proof of matter being eternal or being uncreated or there being a reality (universe or universes) that are uncreated & eternal.
***YET, the onus of proof is upon atheists to prove that matter is uncreated and eternal.***
Atheists are willing to dump logic, when they should be placing logic ahead of the scientific method & the need for imperical evidence, since logic is the foundation for both of them
Ray, Believing in an uncaused god who can creat a universe such as ours takes a lot more faith. It is a far greater feat for something as comlex as a universe creating god to appear out of nothing than it is for a universe to come out of nothing. Isaac Newton was a deist - he believed that once god created the universe he turned away and left it on it own course whatever the outcome. But such a god would have to be far more complex than this universe - where did that god come from - that's an even more complex question to answer. Science so far having brought us to the age of space travel and genetic engineering has only started to get a glimpse of the tip of the iceburg that is science. The journey of science has just begun. Come back in another 2000 years and see the progress then.
Marc,
Was your conclusion of wich requires more faith a God creating universe or vise versa arrived at scientificaly ? Show your math!
In the end it is clearly an argument in symantics.
That anything is created out of nothing is a mind bender however nothing is the only thing that is complete in and of itself. As Nothing need preceed it. That is why it's symbol and representitive number 0 is the pivot point of the numbering system. It represents the egg, earth, or seed. It is the absense of anything from wich all things eminate. Puff, Puff , pass.
It took scientist about a thousand years to catch up to the Taoists with chaos theory and quantum physics. Alas I to have succumbed to symantecs. Science and sophic wisdom are the same madness by different methods.
Praise be to God
The degradation of women, which is embraced by all major organized religions of the period of civilization (society based on division into social classes), is probably a result of women being reduced to the status of property. The Roman term for wife meant 'head slave.' Today, women tend to be seen as commodities having a 'price.' It is not from being a 'sex object' per se. This is the Marxist view and I think it makes an objective frame of reference.
Atheist Epicurus 270BC explained the following:
The Atom, The Molecule, Law of Inertia, Principle of Universal Natural Law, Rain Cycle, Sound as a Pressure Wave in Air, Light Composed of Particles, Sense of Smell Caused by Shape of Molecule Fitting Shape of Receptor in Nose, Lightning Caused by Friction between Storm Fronts, Lightning Composed of Tiny Particles, Earthquakes Caused by Slipping Fault Lines, Nile Rises from Snow Melting at its Source, Animals & Men Evolved by Natural Selection, Matter is Mostly Empty Space, Magnetism Caused by Exchange of Particles, Fire is not an Element, No Center of the Universe, Other Planetary Systems, Speed of Light is Finite, Theory of Relativity, Quantum Indeterminism, Brownian Motion.
Marc O'Brien--we meet again!
I most enjoy--your postings. They are intelligent and thought provoking. Imagine not that long ago--we all would be burnt at the stake! For having a 'friendly' discussion on such matters.
A closer look at your last posting--involves the process of the interaction of any two opposite particles. Please see ALL my previous postings! Those any--can not exist without the CENTER. My Coin (Man) analogy. (50 ONE 50) = THREENESS.
Myself personally--I prefer not to use the word GOD(note three letters!). The Exoteric Fanatics have so tarnished that word.
How can Atheism NOT exist without its counter part Theism. Even though neither side of the coin threeness is totally true. Because it will always be a blending of both to come to the CENTER. The Mythos SUN GOD Jesus was crucified in the CENTER because it is the center of your threeness Invisible SELF, that holds the Atomic structure of YOU together. Each side of the coin tugging at its opposition.
What is the Sound of One hand clapping? The sound not made when two forces collide. Hold your hands over your ears and listen closely--the sound of two forces colliding.
EVERY Man is a Mythical Jesus. He contains within himSELF the Solar Spark--that keeps the THREENESS together. Upon corporeal death--the threeness disintangles itSELF. The Ancient Philosophy was to teach Man carefully--by degrees of knowledge--that he was to give birth to the CHRIST WITHIN. Then and only then--did he become THE CHRIST. Symbolically--not historically or literally.
The same Mythos applies with all the other ancient SUN GODS. Yes--they are MYTHS--but the PHILOSOPHY remains the same.
Until everyone learns what is roaming around LEACHDOME preistcraft in NOT true Christianity--it should be called ChristianISM. To keep the two APART. We have Exoteric on one side of the Grand Canyon and Esoteric on the other. One can NOT exist without the other!!!! THREENESS...
Stare at a Tree? What do you See? You see only 180 degrees of the tree. You either move your Mind around to see the Other Side--or you physically must move your position 180 degrees to see the Other Side. A perfect (1/2 (One) 1/2) 360 degree full and complete CIRCLE. (One Side [Tree] Other Side)= Triangle Threeness.
Man is a symbolic playground Tetter Totter. He stands on the fulcrum trying to find his balance. But he is always swinging to far to the left or to far to the right. He must learn to appply equality of pressure to either side to save himSELF.
I think this I have wonderful news.
There is More evidence for my state of your reasoning, with-in ME.
I like mine
Experiencing the shared responsibility for creation , I am not only committed to the promotion of the defense of the earth, of water and of air, given by the Creator to everyone, but above all is committed to protect man from the destruction of MYSELF & MY MIND .
Know yourself !!
to thine own self Be True
Acharya, Once again you hit the nail on the head. Synchronistically, I just typed a mini-essay upon the same subject, looking at a very unpopular alternative in the process. can we connect privately? on myspace my URL is \jim.farley
i certainly agree that it is possible for people to react in such a way ,that they become atheist ,but i preffer to believe , that most atheists become this way because of evidence. in the sense there is truth and evidence through science to answering questions that simply cant be answered by the bible or any other holy book ( i have read the bile ,the quran ,the ramikain) .to my knowledge most if not all religions induce mindless behaviour and divide good people that without such beliefs could live in harmony.religions as a whole control peoples thoughts and prevent that person or persons from raising their conciousness .also as a man i can see that most religions make it seem that women are lower and have less value than men ,which is completly undeserved .i simply cannot understand how devout theists can whole heartedly ignore the evidence for evolution and the nonsense of creationism or design .
i want to write more so ::::: its true that science as of the moment cannot answer where the original laws of physics came from or what there was before the big bang ,but i dont see this as a place where it can be explained by god ,i simply say that science doesnt know yet,but will one day. i am scared of the fact the fastest growing religion is islam ,it shows to me that most people need to have some kind of code to live by and maybe most men want to dumb down women and exploit them .it saddens me to say it ,but it is apparent .atheism ,is an explaination of the truth simply done by evidence ,its true that there could be a god or gods but it highly improbable,.
Pages
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!