Atheists are not superior...
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
11-07-2015, 03:25 PM
Atheists aren't superior.
It seems that most Athiests are trying to define the world in very exact terms. The idea is that Atheism is superior to Theism because it relies on specific evidence with science as it’s backbone. Exactness does not appear in nature though, so in some sense this strive for exactness is unatural. What I'm talking about is the idea that only logic can define pure and perfect objects such as numbers or points and co-ordinates. We imagine things such as perfectly rounded objects with clean boundaries in empty spaces, whereas nature is much more messy and is made of hard to define particles in various groupings with energy and forces moving in waves. Nature does nothing that is ever stable or can be exactly defined at any given point, as it is under constant change (the uncertainty principle)
A good example of trying to define exactness in the natural world is color. There is no boundary between colors in the light spectrum, just an infinite number of shades of color where blue changes into green and into yellow etc.. The frequency of light also extends beyond our vision and logically too beyond our instruments. We could find infinite terms to describe infinite shades of light, but we see a loosely defined band of 7 stripes or shades of color and we measure a number of invisible frequency bands on either side of our visible spectrum. (eg. infrared, ultraviolet, gamma, xrays and microwaves).
Another example of the loose definition in nature might be under an imaginary super powerful electron microscope where the boundary between the particles that makeup your hand and the air in front of it becomes vague. The closer you look, the more the boundary between you and the air disappears - or the more air there is in you. You are also loosing bits of yourself at an alarming rate into the air, and at the same time you are also dependent on the air to breath. So at what point do you precisely cease being you and become part of the air around you - or vice versa?
When we put an object boundary around anything, we define it only in loose visual terms from some point of consciousness, in reality everything is part of the same universe of particles and forces - which is the most simple general idea of reality that we can ever create. At the same time the universe is the most complex object we know of, in that it contains all other objects inside it. We have no idea if it is infinite or finite – inward or outward.

The idea that there is something outside of nature or supernatural is not so far fetched even though Atheists claim to be resistant to believe it eg. light continues beyond the range of the eye. We can’t see it, yet we are happy about it because we have evidence of it through machines that can measure it. Evidence hasn’t always been available though, and yet some people still believed it possible – were they stupid?. If you are seeking to define evidence of light outside the visible spectrum using the human eye alone, then you will not find it. How could you ever possibly define something that is outside the range of the tool that you use to identify it with? The intelligent mind would not expect evidence of any kind using the human tool - it would be happy enough with the pure theory and belief that it was there. This is the essence of the human belief system - to imagine beyond our senses. The same applies to the supernatural imagination that lies outside of the measurable spectrum.

So we use our imagination, and science tests imaginary theories and designs instruments to define more and more of the universe. The things we have not yet discovered are still outside our range of what we have already defined as nature. Even if we have evidence of similar things, we cannot know the supernatural in the material sense, as the very act of discovery reveals it as plain old nature. Schroedingers cat is neither dead nor alive in its box. This is a supernatural state - it is not natural because nature always defines state. Therefore we have to look inside the box to reveal nature - but the supernatural state exists within us until we do.

OK so what's my point?. My point is that Atheists and Theists are really using the same methods and there is no fundamental difference in how our human minds work. One side is no more superior than the other. We all have a clear idea of the supernatural state and what we might imagine to find beyond nature, and we all use information and belief systems to support it. The difference is that to the theist - the cat's state can be certain whilst being supernatural at the same time though belief.
To defend theism I would suggest that it is hampered by conservative traditions that inhibit it's development in the modern world. To it's advantage and at it’s center it has spirituality. which is a very personal human device that measures mood and feeling in a similarly imperfect way to the eye that measures the spectrum of light. There may be invisible supernatural dimensions to spirituality, but they are highly subjective and undetectable by the hardware. It is pointless for Atheists to expect to find exterior evidence of spirituality, when it is in itself an internal and personal meter.

I am an Atheist, the reason being that I don’t personally believe in any of the intelligent deity solutions to the cosmos or in the organized religion idea. I see so much shit spread by Atheists who think that they are superior to religious people, simply because they imagine that they don't blindly believe in the supernatural – yet science does it and they do it everyday!. You cannot take the high ground, exactly because we all are inclined to believe in something – with or without evidence of it in the natural world. We are all to some extent religious too - in the sense that we have intuition and we use it to support and organize our beliefs.

So please stop giving theistic religious people a hard time for just supporting the idea of belief and for using their intuition – it discredits Atheism and it's really just human nature at work. Sure the Bible is always going to be full of crap – even more so as time goes by. Tradition is a tribal inheritance and there will always be stupid outdated theories passed down to both intellectuals and to ordinary people alike. I always try to point these out and I'm devoted to it.
BUT - religion and theism are not really based on stupidity in themselves. Truth, wonder and mystery are the driving forces of human development, and spirituality (the persuit of internal happiness) does not pose a problem with an Atheistic philosophy. I think we should remember that and resist taking the high ground as Atheists.

Xeb.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-07-2015, 04:02 PM
RE: Atheists are not superior...
You're entitled to your own opinion. As is ISIS, I suppose.

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-07-2015, 04:02 PM
RE: Atheists are not superior...
You got it chief.

It's based on an assumption, that's largely the difference.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-07-2015, 04:12 PM
RE: Atheists are not superior...
"outside of Nature"????

sorry.... If it exists, it exists..... If it doesn't, it doesn't....

There's no room for half baked woo.................

Believing in the "supernatural" is a fools game.

.......................................

The difference between prayer and masturbation - is when a guy is through masturbating - he has something to show for his efforts.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like onlinebiker's post
11-07-2015, 04:14 PM
RE: Atheists are not superior...
(11-07-2015 03:49 PM)xeberdee Wrote:  It seems that most Athiests are trying to define the world in very exact terms. The idea is that Atheism is superior to Theism because it relies on specific evidence with science as it’s backbone. Exactness does not appear in nature though, so in some sense this strive for exactness is unatural. What I'm talking about is the idea that only logic can define pure and perfect objects such as numbers or points and co-ordinates. We imagine things such as perfectly rounded objects with clean boundaries in empty spaces, whereas nature is much more messy and is made of hard to define particles in various groupings with energy and forces moving in waves. Nature does nothing that is ever stable or can be exactly defined at any given point, as it is under constant change (the uncertainty principle)
A good example of trying to define exactness in the natural world is color. There is no boundary between colors in the light spectrum, just an infinite number of shades of color where blue changes into green and into yellow etc.. The frequency of light also extends beyond our vision and logically too beyond our instruments. We could find infinite terms to describe infinite shades of light, but we see a loosely defined band of 7 stripes or shades of color and we measure a number of invisible frequency bands on either side of our visible spectrum. (eg. infrared, ultraviolet, gamma, xrays and microwaves).
Another example of the loose definition in nature might be under an imaginary super powerful electron microscope where the boundary between the particles that makeup your hand and the air in front of it becomes vague. The closer you look, the more the boundary between you and the air disappears - or the more air there is in you. You are also loosing bits of yourself at an alarming rate into the air, and at the same time you are also dependent on the air to breath. So at what point do you precisely cease being you and become part of the air around you - or vice versa?
When we put an object boundary around anything, we define it only in loose visual terms from some point of consciousness, in reality everything is part of the same universe of particles and forces - which is the most simple general idea of reality that we can ever create. At the same time the universe is the most complex object we know of, in that it contains all other objects inside it. We have no idea if it is infinite or finite – inward or outward.

The idea that there is something outside of nature or supernatural is not so far fetched even though Atheists claim to be resistant to believe it eg. light continues beyond the range of the eye. We can’t see it, yet we are happy about it because we have evidence of it through machines that can measure it. Evidence hasn’t always been available though, and yet some people still believed it possible – were they stupid?. If you are seeking to define evidence of light outside the visible spectrum using the human eye alone, then you will not find it. How could you ever possibly define something that is outside the range of the tool that you use to identify it with? The intelligent mind would not expect evidence of any kind using the human tool - it would be happy enough with the pure theory and belief that it was there. This is the essence of the human belief system - to imagine beyond our senses. The same applies to the supernatural imagination that lies outside of the measurable spectrum.

So we use our imagination, and science tests imaginary theories and designs instruments to define more and more of the universe. The things we have not yet discovered are still outside our range of what we have already defined as nature. Even if we have evidence of similar things, we cannot know the supernatural in the material sense, as the very act of discovery reveals it as plain old nature. Schroedingers cat is neither dead nor alive in its box. This is a supernatural state - it is not natural because nature always defines state. Therefore we have to look inside the box to reveal nature - but the supernatural state exists within us until we do.

OK so what's my point?. My point is that Atheists and Theists are really using the same methods and there is no fundamental difference in how our human minds work. One side is no more superior than the other. We all have a clear idea of the supernatural state and what we might imagine to find beyond nature, and we all use information and belief systems to support it. The difference is that to the theist - the cat's state can be certain whilst being supernatural at the same time though belief.
To defend theism I would suggest that it is hampered by conservative traditions that inhibit it's development in the modern world. To it's advantage and at it’s center it has spirituality. which is a very personal human device that measures mood and feeling in a similarly imperfect way to the eye that measures the spectrum of light. There may be invisible supernatural dimensions to spirituality, but they are highly subjective and undetectable by the hardware. It is pointless for Atheists to expect to find exterior evidence of spirituality, when it is in itself an internal and personal meter.

I am an Atheist, the reason being that I don’t personally believe in any of the intelligent deity solutions to the cosmos or in the organized religion idea. I see so much shit spread by Atheists who think that they are superior to religious people, simply because they imagine that they don't blindly believe in the supernatural – yet science does it and they do it everyday!. You cannot take the high ground, exactly because we all are inclined to believe in something – with or without evidence of it in the natural world. We are all to some extent religious too - in the sense that we have intuition and we use it to support and organize our beliefs.

So please stop giving theistic religious people a hard time for just supporting the idea of belief and for using their intuition – it discredits Atheism and it's really just human nature at work. Sure the Bible is always going to be full of crap – even more so as time goes by. Tradition is a tribal inheritance and there will always be stupid outdated theories passed down to both intellectuals and to ordinary people alike. I always try to point these out and I'm devoted to it.
BUT - religion and theism are not really based on stupidity in themselves. Truth, wonder and mystery are the driving forces of human development, and spirituality (the persuit of internal happiness) does not pose a problem with an Atheistic philosophy. I think we should remember that and resist taking the high ground as Atheists.

Xeb.

Belief in childish fairy tales deserves derision.

Faith - the belief in something without evidence.

Delusion: an idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument, typically a symptom of mental disorder. A belief held with strong conviction despite superior evidence to the contrary.

Religion - The embracement of delusion.

You are confusing faith, with knowledge. HUGE difference.

Science is the antithesis of faith. Science is a process that contains multiple and redundant checks, balances, and safeguards against human bias and error. Science has a built in corrective mechanism..hypothesis testing...that weeds out false claims. Claims that come about as a result of a scientific process are held as tentatively true by scientists..unlike claims of faith that are held as eternally true with zero evidence. Related to this, claims that come about as a result of a scientific process are falsifiable, that is, there is a way to show the claims are false. This is not the case with faith claims. For example, there's no way to falisify the claim that the norse god Loki was able ot assume other forms.

Scientists try to prove claims false (falsification), unlike faith leaders who unequivocally state their faith claims are true. If a scientist can demonstrate that a popular scientific claim is false, he or she can become famous, get tenure, publish books, earn more money and become respected by her or his peers. If a preacher states that the claims of his faith tradition are false, he's excommunicated, defrocked or otherwise forced to abandon his position...the stifling of growth and enlightenment basically.

Science is a method for advancing our understanding. It is process we can use to bring us closer to the truth, and to weed out false claims. Science thus is the best way we've currently found to explain and understand how the universe works...unlike the religious leaders who base it on a superstitious fictional book put together and sold to the masses. greatest scam ever pulled on mankind.


The "god of the gaps" argument is the believer's appeal to god as an explanation for whatever phenomenon we cannot explain scientifically. For example, if the scientific understanding of the day cannot explain lightning bolts, the believer will say "god did it".Once we can scientifically explain the mechanism behind lightning, the believer will move on to another phenomenon and attribute god as the cause of that phenomenon.

Faith IS the delusion, belief without evidence. Faith is pretending to know things that you dont know. To say "I have faith in god" really means "I pretend to know things I don't know about god"....THINK about it, you dont know, you HOPE. Faith is an epistemology. It's a method and process people use to understand reality. Faith-based claims are knowledge claims. For example, "I have faith that jesus christ will heal my sickness because it says so in Luke" is a knowledge claim. The utterer of this statement is asserting jesus will heal her. Those who make faith claims are professing to know something about the external world. For example, when someone says "jesus walked on water" (matthew 14:22-33), that person is claiming TO KNOW there was an historical figure names jesus and that he, unaided by technology, literally walked across the surface of the water. This is a knowledge claim...an objective statement of fact.

Your religious beliefs typically depend on the community in which you were raised or lived. The spiritual experiences of people in ancient greece, medieval japan or 21st century saudia arabia do not lead to belief in christianity. It seems, therefore, that religious belief very likely tracks not truth but social conditioning.

Faith is a failed epistemology. Showing why faith fails has been done before and done well. (Bering 2011, Harris 2004, Loftus 2010, 2013, McCormick 2012, Schick & Vaughn 2008, Shermer 1997, 2011, Smith 1979, STenger & Barker 2012, Torres 2012, Wade 2009 etc)

If a belief is based on insufficient evidence, than any further conclusion drawn from the belief will at best be of questionable value. This can not point one to the path of truth. Here are five points believers/non believers should be able to agree upon.

1) There are different faith traditions.
2) Different faith traditions make different truth claims.
3) The truth claims of some faith traditions contradict the truth claims of other faith traditions. For example, Muslims believe muhammad (570-632) was the last prophet (Sura 33:40). Mormons believe Joseph Smith (1805-1844), who lived after muhammad was a prophet.
4) It cannot both be the case that muhammad was the last prophet, and someone who lived after him was also a prophet.
5) Therefore: At LEAST one of these claims must be false....perhaps both....

it is impossible to figure out which of these claims is incorrect if the tool one uses is faith. As a tool, as an epistemology, as a method of reasoning, as a process for knowing the world, faith cannot adjudicate between competing claims. The ONLY way to figure out which claims about the world are likely true, and which are likely false, is through reason and evidence. There is no other way.

"Belief is so often the death of reason" - Qyburn, Game of Thrones

"The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them." -Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 9 users Like goodwithoutgod's post
11-07-2015, 04:17 PM
RE: Atheists aren't superior.
double post?

"Belief is so often the death of reason" - Qyburn, Game of Thrones

"The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them." -Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-07-2015, 04:27 PM
RE: Atheists are not superior...
(11-07-2015 03:49 PM)xeberdee Wrote:  The idea that there is something outside of nature or supernatural is not so far fetched even though Atheists claim to be resistant to believe it

Until the supernatural can be showed to be true (in any way), then why believe it does exist? Also, like you said, the universe is everything, so everything inside it is natural. What is the supernatural?

Another dimension? Another universe?

(11-07-2015 03:49 PM)xeberdee Wrote:  eg. light continues beyond the range of the eye. We can’t see it, yet we are happy about it because we have evidence of it through machines that can measure it.

Exactly. That's the whole point. Gravity cannot be seen, tasted, touched, heard or smelled, but we take it as granted. Why? Because we can verify its existence with other means. It's not just about the concept of God. Think about unicorns. Do you believe they exist? Until you find a living unicorn or its skeleton, why believe they do?

(11-07-2015 03:49 PM)xeberdee Wrote:  Evidence hasn’t always been available though, and yet some people still believed it possible – were they stupid?

Please provide a concrete example of this.

(11-07-2015 03:49 PM)xeberdee Wrote:  If you are seeking to define evidence of light outside the visible spectrum using the human eye alone, then you will not find it. How could you ever possibly define something that is outside the range of the tool that you use to identify it with? The intelligent mind would not expect evidence of any kind using the human tool - it would be happy enough with the pure theory and belief that it was there. This is the essence of the human belief system - to imagine beyond our senses. The same applies to the supernatural imagination that lies outside of the measurable spectrum.

If God exists, then he knows what can convince me and many others of his existence, and he has the powers to do so. Why doesn't he?

(11-07-2015 03:49 PM)xeberdee Wrote:  So we use our imagination, and science tests imaginary theories and designs instruments to define more and more of the universe. The things we have not yet discovered are still outside our range of what we have already defined as nature. Even if we have evidence of similar things, we cannot know the supernatural in the material sense, as the very act of discovery reveals it as plain old nature. Schroedingers cat is neither dead nor alive in its box. This is a supernatural state - it is not natural because nature always defines state. Therefore we have to look inside the box to reveal nature - but the supernatural state exists within us until we do.

What is an imaginary theory?

Schrödinger's cat is not about a supernatural state. It's a paradox from our own perspective, because *we* don't know whether the cat is still alive or not, so it could be both simultaneously. But it's a play on concepts and perspective, not actual reality. But as far as the cat's perspective is concerned, everything goes as natural as usual, be it alive or dead.

(11-07-2015 03:49 PM)xeberdee Wrote:  OK so what's my point?. My point is that Atheists and Theists are really using the same methods and there is no fundamental difference in how our human minds work. One side is no more superior than the other. We all have a clear idea of the supernatural state and what we might imagine to find beyond nature, and we all use information and belief systems to support it. The difference is that to the theist - the cat's state can be certain whilst being supernatural at the same time though belief.
To defend theism I would suggest that it is hampered by conservative traditions that inhibit it's development in the modern world. To it's advantage and at it’s center it has spirituality. which is a very personal human device that measures mood and feeling in a similarly imperfect way to the eye that measures the spectrum of light. There may be invisible supernatural dimensions to spirituality, but they are highly subjective and undetectable by the hardware. It is pointless for Atheists to expect to find exterior evidence of spirituality, when it is in itself an internal and personal meter.

I don't think I'm superior but we are not the same: I don't have a belief system. I used to but I don't anymore. So we're not the same in that case.

(11-07-2015 03:49 PM)xeberdee Wrote:  I am an Atheist, the reason being that I don’t personally believe in any of the intelligent deity solutions to the cosmos or in the organized religion idea. I see so much shit spread by Atheists who think that they are superior to religious people, simply because they imagine that they don't blindly believe in the supernatural – yet science does it and they do it everyday!. You cannot take the high ground, exactly because we all are inclined to believe in something – with or without evidence of it in the natural world. We are all to some extent religious too - in the sense that we have intuition and we use it to support and organize our beliefs.

Science doesn't follow the supernatural, it follows the evidence, and it changes its mind when new reliable evidence comes up that contradicts the last.

(11-07-2015 03:49 PM)xeberdee Wrote:  So please stop giving theistic religious people a hard time for just supporting the idea of belief and for using their intuition – it discredits Atheism and it's really just human nature at work. Sure the Bible is always going to be full of crap – even more so as time goes by. Tradition is a tribal inheritance and there will always be stupid outdated theories passed down to both intellectuals and to ordinary people alike. I always try to point these out and I'm devoted to it.
BUT - religion and theism are not really based on stupidity in themselves. Truth, wonder and mystery are the driving forces of human development, and spirituality (the persuit of internal happiness) does not pose a problem with an Atheistic philosophy. I think we should remember that and resist taking the high ground as Atheists.

We can argue whether some atheists (public figures) could or could not change their attitude, but there is importance in criticizing unsupported beliefs. People must be free to believe in whatever they want, as long as this doesn't deny other people their rights.

Hope that helps. And welcome to TTA!

孤独 - The Out Crowd
Life is a flash of light between two eternities of darkness.
[Image: Schermata%202014-10-24%20alle%2012.39.01.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like The Polyglot Atheist's post
11-07-2015, 04:30 PM
RE: Atheists are not superior...
Lets take WIKI - and stick to those definitions.

'A religion is an organized collection of beliefs, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to an order of existence.'

As an Atheist I have a collection of beliefs in a cultural system, My world view relates to humanity and the order of existence. So I am religious too.

'Faith is variously defined as belief, confidence or trust in a person, object, religion, idea or view.'

As an scientist, I have to have confidence in my theory or my idea. Faith is not a dirty word.

This I regard, as well as spirituality, as the valid elements of theism. We should respect them.

We should not respect dogma, tradition, or assumption.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-07-2015, 04:31 PM
RE: Atheists are not superior...
(11-07-2015 03:49 PM)xeberdee Wrote:  It seems that most Athiests are trying to define the world in very exact terms. The idea is that Atheism is superior to Theism because it relies on specific evidence with science as it’s backbone. Exactness does not appear in nature though, so in some sense this strive for exactness is unatural. What I'm talking about is the idea that only logic can define pure and perfect objects such as numbers or points and co-ordinates. We imagine things such as perfectly rounded objects with clean boundaries in empty spaces, whereas nature is much more messy and is made of hard to define particles in various groupings with energy and forces moving in waves. Nature does nothing that is ever stable or can be exactly defined at any given point, as it is under constant change (the uncertainty principle)
A good example of trying to define exactness in the natural world is color. There is no boundary between colors in the light spectrum, just an infinite number of shades of color where blue changes into green and into yellow etc.. The frequency of light also extends beyond our vision and logically too beyond our instruments. We could find infinite terms to describe infinite shades of light, but we see a loosely defined band of 7 stripes or shades of color and we measure a number of invisible frequency bands on either side of our visible spectrum. (eg. infrared, ultraviolet, gamma, xrays and microwaves).
Another example of the loose definition in nature might be under an imaginary super powerful electron microscope where the boundary between the particles that makeup your hand and the air in front of it becomes vague. The closer you look, the more the boundary between you and the air disappears - or the more air there is in you. You are also loosing bits of yourself at an alarming rate into the air, and at the same time you are also dependent on the air to breath. So at what point do you precisely cease being you and become part of the air around you - or vice versa?
When we put an object boundary around anything, we define it only in loose visual terms from some point of consciousness, in reality everything is part of the same universe of particles and forces - which is the most simple general idea of reality that we can ever create. At the same time the universe is the most complex object we know of, in that it contains all other objects inside it. We have no idea if it is infinite or finite – inward or outward.

The idea that there is something outside of nature or supernatural is not so far fetched even though Atheists claim to be resistant to believe it eg. light continues beyond the range of the eye. We can’t see it, yet we are happy about it because we have evidence of it through machines that can measure it. Evidence hasn’t always been available though, and yet some people still believed it possible – were they stupid?. If you are seeking to define evidence of light outside the visible spectrum using the human eye alone, then you will not find it. How could you ever possibly define something that is outside the range of the tool that you use to identify it with? The intelligent mind would not expect evidence of any kind using the human tool - it would be happy enough with the pure theory and belief that it was there. This is the essence of the human belief system - to imagine beyond our senses. The same applies to the supernatural imagination that lies outside of the measurable spectrum.

So we use our imagination, and science tests imaginary theories and designs instruments to define more and more of the universe. The things we have not yet discovered are still outside our range of what we have already defined as nature. Even if we have evidence of similar things, we cannot know the supernatural in the material sense, as the very act of discovery reveals it as plain old nature. Schroedingers cat is neither dead nor alive in its box. This is a supernatural state - it is not natural because nature always defines state. Therefore we have to look inside the box to reveal nature - but the supernatural state exists within us until we do.

OK so what's my point?. My point is that Atheists and Theists are really using the same methods and there is no fundamental difference in how our human minds work. One side is no more superior than the other. We all have a clear idea of the supernatural state and what we might imagine to find beyond nature, and we all use information and belief systems to support it. The difference is that to the theist - the cat's state can be certain whilst being supernatural at the same time though belief.
To defend theism I would suggest that it is hampered by conservative traditions that inhibit it's development in the modern world. To it's advantage and at it’s center it has spirituality. which is a very personal human device that measures mood and feeling in a similarly imperfect way to the eye that measures the spectrum of light. There may be invisible supernatural dimensions to spirituality, but they are highly subjective and undetectable by the hardware. It is pointless for Atheists to expect to find exterior evidence of spirituality, when it is in itself an internal and personal meter.

I am an Atheist, the reason being that I don’t personally believe in any of the intelligent deity solutions to the cosmos or in the organized religion idea. I see so much shit spread by Atheists who think that they are superior to religious people, simply because they imagine that they don't blindly believe in the supernatural – yet science does it and they do it everyday!. You cannot take the high ground, exactly because we all are inclined to believe in something – with or without evidence of it in the natural world. We are all to some extent religious too - in the sense that we have intuition and we use it to support and organize our beliefs.

So please stop giving theistic religious people a hard time for just supporting the idea of belief and for using their intuition – it discredits Atheism and it's really just human nature at work. Sure the Bible is always going to be full of crap – even more so as time goes by. Tradition is a tribal inheritance and there will always be stupid outdated theories passed down to both intellectuals and to ordinary people alike. I always try to point these out and I'm devoted to it.
BUT - religion and theism are not really based on stupidity in themselves. Truth, wonder and mystery are the driving forces of human development, and spirituality (the persuit of internal happiness) does not pose a problem with an Atheistic philosophy. I think we should remember that and resist taking the high ground as Atheists.

Xeb.


Quote:So please stop giving theistic religious people a hard time for just supporting the idea of belief and for using their intuition.

This would be fine, I could do that if religious belief systems the world over didn't condemn others and hate people based on some book written by the ancients who had no proof of their deities.

As soon as their belief systems become intertwined in my country's government business then it invades my life. When war is the result of a belief system then it affects me and my children and I'm gonna have a few words to say about it.

Shakespeare's Comedy of Errors.... on Donald J. Trump:

He is deformed, crooked, old, and sere,
Ill-fac’d, worse bodied, shapeless every where;
Vicious, ungentle, foolish, blunt, unkind,
Stigmatical in making, worse in mind.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-07-2015, 04:36 PM
RE: Atheists are not superior...
I'd be superior either way. The atheist part is coincidental.

'Murican Canadian
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like yakherder's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: