In my experience as a rationalist and adeist -some would call an atheist- I find plenty of hope. Hope for my future, my daughter's future, the futures of my descendants; the future of mankind in general; the future of our planet; and so on.
That has nothing to do with being a theist or a atheist. One problem i have with Atheism is the element of narcissism. Charles Darwin was a classic narcissist. Just because YOU dont know everything does not mean what you do not understand or can prove does not exist.
So, I find it difficult to imagine what you mean by no hope. If there's an atheist, adeist or agnostic out there that has no hope, please post here so that we might understand your thoughts.
Hope that a person who dies as a child does not just turn rot in the dirt.
"Super" in this context means "outside" of nature. Not natural. Beyond the natural. In other words, not of the universe of reality.
Beyond the scope of our understanding does not mean non-existant. Hundreds of years ago cloned humans were a supernatural concept, BUT that is no longer the case.
All people are born atheists. There is no concept of gods until the meme is transmitted culturally. This is a well-documented and indisputable fact, however, if you posit that it is wrong you have only to cite a case where someone was born with an innate concept of a god that they were never exposed to. This should be easy enough, since your claim is that your god is the correct one (I'm assuming) -therefore one should find your god being represented in remote African tribes of the Congo where missionaries have yet to arrive. Or within children born to Hindu parents in India and China.
You, like Bells, are misinterpreting what i am saying. You are focusing on the human aspect of religion, customs and refinements. Weather they are right or wrong or just someones interpretation is of little consequence. The fact remains that these people had their own interpretations of life after death and tell me where these people are or were who have no conceptualization of an after life or no supernatural inclinations. Afterall religious people are just expanding upon more primitve beliefs that came before them. Why is this? Because as humans they, left to their own devices developed what came naturally from birth. Tell me of one primitive people who were Atheists? That is the issue, it is NOT learned. I have to put credance into what comes naturally, that is what makes us human. Did you ever see a gorilla build a shrine or have religious rites? Now tell me where belief is non-existant in human history unless it is purged from the human being.
But, as it turns out, no missionaries have ever arrived in the Congo, China, Polynesia, the Amazon, etc and found that God arrived first.
Same as above.
I don't disagree with that statement. Nor do I think that being atheistic/adeistic implies that one is mechanical. Indeed, I've always held that this thing that can be best described as "spirituality" can exist even among atheists. Richard Feynman, who was both born and died an atheist, wrote one of the most moving and inspirational poems I've ever read. I found it very spiritual.
You really dont know what thoughts were in his head when he died and you never will. If even for one moment he had even the slightest hope in an afterlife upon which his essence\soul would enter into and all the thoughts and ideas he had learned would follow then he is not an Atheist but was conditioned\deluded into believeing he was. That is the basis of my position. If you are asking me or anyone for proof you will have to wait a long time for it.
I don't see how it's in the slightest bit relevant what a Victorian scientist thought with regard to what I think (or should think). The "deathbed recant" of his atheism has long been a myth, oft repeated and never validated by religious apologists -the goal, I assume, is that they wish to show how even their (not you, necessarily) "most hated enemy" (the evil Darwin himself, who dared suggest we descend from earlier primate species instead of being specially created by a god) accepted god at the last second.
First of all, what benefit would his own wife get for lying about this? His wife NEVER belived his evolution theory and it is based on simplistic observations which all these years later have never been borne out. Not even in the slightest way, that is the truth. You may not like it but it is.
I don't worry about death and I teach my daughter that death is nothing to be afraid of. She's heard me more than once explain to her that it'll be just like it was before she was born.
What kind of an answer is that? That is a cop-out answer, if you believe there is nothing after death then you should just tell her that. She is asking what will happen to her not if the world will go on.
That single concept is a very difficult one to come to terms with if you've been raised all your life to believe and expect that there is something more after death than that -but my daughter marvels in the fact that her molecules may one day be a part of a tree, a rock, forest animals or even an as yet un-evolved species.
Dead peoples molecules are no more than dirt or fertillizer. Not required for life and can in fact be detrimental.
For that I agree. As long as your worldview doesn't impinge on progress or public policy. At that point, only the most rational and logical perspective should be applied.
Our civilization was not built by Atheists, not by any stretch of the imagination, in fact the complete opposite is true so i find it hard to understand where it will inpinge on progress.
Archbishop says Nativity Story fictional
- Thread starter Orleander
- Start date
Right. It was built, agonizing bit by agonizing bit with the blood of slaves and those of other cultures who didn't believe the same as their conquerers.
Point is old chap, that we have no idea what it would be like to be without the plague of religion. If people didn't categorize others based on religion (just like "race") or any other arbitrarily stupid attribute.
It's possible that we'd be even worse off. But not likely.
It does not matter to me. If you are asking me if i belong to any particular movement then the answer is NO. Weather i believe in Jesus or not has no strings attached to it. Far be it from me to tell the Shinto that he is wrong and since no one will ever tell me what to think or belive then neither will I.
hitler was a christian. the human sacrafice religions of mesoamerica. the crusades. ireland and the middle east now. if you truely belive that than you don't know history
god is with us or something like that
Last edited by a moderator:
Mans inhumanity to man has no religious requirements and religion is not a prerequisite for being a conquerer. If Christians fought for you or your way of life then why is that a problem?
And so was everyone else in Germany at the time. He was also an occultist and a speed freak. He didn't go off to try and conquer the world because god told him to but he was hit with hard drugs every morning by his personal physician.
Religion fosters group hatred, just like nationalism and racism. You can't deny it. We accept that the nature of humans is to be violent toward one another, especially across (artificial) group boundaries. Why invent or perpetuate such arbitrary distinctions and give ourselves excuses to kill, enslave, and degrade each other?
religion was a part of what motavated him
So you know what motivated Hitler?
Why and how did religion motivate Hitler?
Did religion motivate the people who fought him and died?
Were the American and allied forces Atheists?
Nobiscum Deus
Because as children we believe in them just as much and with as little reason as adults do in god(s). They're exactly the same thing except the god fairytale gives a few power over the gullable masses.
So John99, what is so abhorrent about dirt? There isn't any dirt on most planets, it's a sure sign of life. Without it, there is just clay and sand and rock. If anything is sacred, it's dirt and the microorganisms that comprise it, for those are our distant ancestors, the pioneers.
Why do you insist on defining hope in terms of life after death? Must everything meaningful also be unlimited? There is a limit to our coherence as biological machines, but we are only one aspect of the totality of existence, which has no boundries. The boundries we ordinarily accept without question are only illusion, assumptions to be considered true for some practical purposes relative to our perspective. We never really die because we never really left that. The universe is a stream of causation. To put a frame around the "you" aspect of it, and insist it continue unchanged for eternity is to be blind to it's inseparable nature from the rest of nature. It's already a wonderous fantastic thing without having to improvise any additional story.
Why do you insist on defining hope in terms of life after death? Must everything meaningful also be unlimited? There is a limit to our coherence as biological machines, but we are only one aspect of the totality of existence, which has no boundries. The boundries we ordinarily accept without question are only illusion, assumptions to be considered true for some practical purposes relative to our perspective. We never really die because we never really left that. The universe is a stream of causation. To put a frame around the "you" aspect of it, and insist it continue unchanged for eternity is to be blind to it's inseparable nature from the rest of nature. It's already a wonderous fantastic thing without having to improvise any additional story.
A nice post Spider. As you know we are but fragile, emotional animals and John, like most, is merely scared of the realisation that he will eventually cease to be. Protection from that realisation comes in the form of belief that he is of some grand universal significance.
it is well documented religion played a part in hitlers madness
First, I'm not claiming that the things I hope for have anything to do with atheism. Indeed, those things are wholly independent of atheism. I arrive at these hopes for the same reasons I arrive at an atheistic perspective, however: rational thought.
Second, I think you either don't know what atheism is about (the more likely case) or you don't know what narcissism is. Atheists are no more likely to be in love with themselves than the members of any non-atheist population. If you have data that demonstrates a positive correlation otherwise, please cite it here.
Third, I'm also not claiming that since I don't "know everything" I'm claiming things don't exist. I'm stating that there's no good reason to accept their existence (and this doesn't just apply to [insert god].
What you've done is created three straw man arguments by mis-characterizing the arguments of atheists generally and my arguments specifically.
What reason would I have to hope that? It would be nice if it weren't true, but there is no good reason to believe that anything special happens to humans who die that doesn't happen to the rest of the animal life on this planet. We cease to continue awareness; our molecules break down and recombine into other combinations through bio-chemical processes. That's it.
I hope the memory of my life and my achievements goes on. If my child dies I hope that her memory will remain among those that knew her (as I would hope for all those I love). But I have no reason to hope that her life continues after her body has been buried, regardless of how much I'd wish it to be true. But then I wish a lot of things that don't exist in reality were true.
Nor do I suggest that not understanding means non-existent. Things are either within nature (thus within reality) or they aren't. Those that aren't are supernatural. Should ESP be demonstrated to exist, it will no longer be supernatural but natural. Should magic be shown to exist, it'll no longer considered supernatural but natural. Should your god be shown to exist, it'll no longer be considered supernatural but natural. But until such time as your god has been shown to exist, I see no good reason to believe in it. I'm not going to believe in magical garden gnomes, witchcraft, flying horses, unicorns, fire-breathing dragons, and ghosts simply because humans have created stories about these things and I cannot prove they don't exist. Such an expectation is ludicrous and anyone expecting such a thing is deserving of ridicule.
What gods do the Navajo worship? The Zuni? The Fulani? Do you really want to go down that road with an anthropologist?
These are just a few of the so-called primitive cultures that are extant that I'm able to think of off the top of my head. Indeed, there is evidence that most primitive cultures begin with worldviews that are without gods altogether (Bellah 1964) where there is no distinction between the sacred and the profane -where all the world and everything in it is sacred and there is no deity that is worshiped -nature itself is what is revered and held to be sacred.There are observations of primates standing in awe and reverence of nature, particularly among chimp cultures and this has been thoroughly documented by notable primatologists such as Jane Goodall (1990). Belief is probably an evolutionary adaptation, which I've discussed elsewhere in this forum. But even if it is assumed that every single human is born with a predisposition for "belief" (whatever that might be), there is still no good reason to assume that there is a god. That would be a post hoc ergo propter hoc explanation and unnecessary.
Nor do I claim otherwise. But that also applies to you. And there is no good reason to believe that he had any thoughts of recanting his godless position. Nor is there any relevance to an appeal to such authority that an alleged deathbed recant might provide. But since this is the internet and since there will undoubtedly be someone who stumbles upon this in a google search, allow me to clarify the issue.
You are wrong, if I'm understanding you correctly, on a few points. Darwin's recant is probably contrived and not by his "wife" but an evangelist known as Elizabeth "Lady" Hope. Darwin's family, specifically his daughter, refuted the story as a fabrication. Darwin's daughter was quoted (Clark 1985) as saying:
.
I don't worry about death and I teach my daughter that death is nothing to be afraid of. She's heard me more than once explain to her that it'll be just like it was before she was born.
It's an answer based in truth and reality. I'm not going to make up shit for her to believe as about death. I'll leave that to the superstitious. Moreover, I'm not telling her "there is nothing after death." There is plenty after death. She just won't be aware of it any more than she was before she was alive. Cop-out answers are "you'll be in heaven; your mother is in heaven; she's in a better place; etc." Not only are they cop-out answers, they're deceptive, irrational, and not based on any evidence.
I have no idea what your point is or how it has any relevance. Of course dead peoples molecules are no more than dirt or fertilizer. In fact, that's the basis of the instructions for disposing of my carcass when I'm dead: drill a shaft, wrap me in biodegradable linen, drop me in it, cover it, and plant a tree over me. Graveyards are illogical and irrational wastes of space. Golf-courses are better use of space and I hate golf.
Our civilization is built by peoples of wide and ranging beliefs. But its the secular notions of both religious freedom and the separation of church and state that make United States civilizations great. Unfortunately, religious zealots would seek to impinge upon progress in education by inserting creationist mythology in place of science, interfering with stem cell research, sticking their noses in the bedrooms of others, discriminating against sexual preferences, making costly wars on other religious cults, demanding recognition of state-sponsored cults which eliminates/excludes non-state sponsored cults (like Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, etc.), and so on.
References:
Bellah, R. (1964, June). Religious Evolution. American Sociological Review, 29(3), 358-374
Clark, Ronald W. (1985). The Survival of Charles Darwin: a Biography of a Man and an Idea. Weidenfeld & Nicholson, p. 199. (Clark's source is Darwin's daughter: Litchfield, R. B. (February 23, 1922). "Charles Darwin's Death-Bed: Story of Conversion Denied," The Christian, p. 12.)
Goodall, Jane (1990) Through A Window. Houghlin Mifflin: Boston p. 241-242.
Bells
Staff member
John, why do you feel the need to have to believe in something? You appear to have this need to believe in something. Why is that? Don't you think you are strong enough to face life as a mortal and a man? Why this need for a supernatural being who watches over you and care for you after you die?
Is it fear that drives your need (and those of others) to believe in something?
I am just curious.
Do you think man's (as a species) beliefs are innate (exists naturally in our mental development from the womb), in that they are born with a perception of there being something bigger than himself (God)? Or do you think belief in God is something man learns from a suggestive society and from being told they exist (as a child is told Santa exists and will believe it until they find out for themselves that it really is a parent who takes a bit from the carrot and drinks the milk on Christmas eve, or they are told that Santa is nothing but a myth). If that is the case, then how can it be that atheists simply do not believe in God or any other supernatural deity? After all, if the belief in something bigger is innate, it stands to reason that atheism simply cannot exist and we would all believe.
Is it fear that drives your need (and those of others) to believe in something?
I am just curious.
Do you think man's (as a species) beliefs are innate (exists naturally in our mental development from the womb), in that they are born with a perception of there being something bigger than himself (God)? Or do you think belief in God is something man learns from a suggestive society and from being told they exist (as a child is told Santa exists and will believe it until they find out for themselves that it really is a parent who takes a bit from the carrot and drinks the milk on Christmas eve, or they are told that Santa is nothing but a myth). If that is the case, then how can it be that atheists simply do not believe in God or any other supernatural deity? After all, if the belief in something bigger is innate, it stands to reason that atheism simply cannot exist and we would all believe.
I will be back later with a more in-depth response, right now someone needs my attention so i have to cut this short.
Skinwaalker, i said 'Tell me of one primitive people who were Atheists?' i did not mean Navajo but much ealrlier civilizations. Since you brought them up, Native Americans were NOT Atheists.
Speaking to who???
What great spirit?
Skinwaalker, i said 'Tell me of one primitive people who were Atheists?' i did not mean Navajo but much ealrlier civilizations. Since you brought them up, Native Americans were NOT Atheists.
Speaking to who???
Chinook Lord's Prayer
Nesika papa klaksta mitlite kopa saghalie
(Our Father Who dwells on High)
Kloshe kopa nesika tumtum mika nem.
(Good for our hearts Your Name.)
Kloshe mika tyee kopa konaway tillikum;
(Good you Chief of all people
Kloshe mika tumtum kopa illahee kahkwa kopa saghalie;
(Good Your heart to make our country such as Yours up above
Potlatch konaway sun nesika muckamuck,
(Give us all days our food,)
Pee kopet-kumtux donaway nesika mesachie,
(And stop remembering all our sins we make to them,)
Kahkwa nesilka mamook kopa klasksta spose mamook
mesachie kopa nesia;
(As we suppose not their sin against us
Mahah siah kopa nesika konaway mesachie.
(Throw far away from us all evil)
Kloshe kahkwa.
(Amen.)
What great spirit?
Native Indians *do* believe in a great many gods. I asked you what the name of the gods for the specific peoples I named. You've gone off and found information for completely different cultures.
Also, it'll be quite difficult to speak for "much earlier" civilizations, particularly since most of the ones that are relevant to the discussion were illiterate and there is no way to validate whether or not they actually believed in gods or not. This is why I chose several extant civilizations for which some very detailed ethnographies exist.
Also, it'll be quite difficult to speak for "much earlier" civilizations, particularly since most of the ones that are relevant to the discussion were illiterate and there is no way to validate whether or not they actually believed in gods or not. This is why I chose several extant civilizations for which some very detailed ethnographies exist.