re-EVOL-ve

[(Q)]

Atheism doesn't list a value system- I already stated that. But that is why if you lie or not, it doesn't matter- its still compatible with Atheism.

No, it isn't, because atheism states nothing about lying, raping women or grilled cheese sandwiches. Islam, on the other hand, is more compatible with raping women and lying as that what it teaches and condones.

My question is about COMPATIBILITY with Atheism- you have no understanding of the question so just STFU and let someone answer it.

Compatibility with the non-acceptance of theists claims have nothing to do with your silly questions. You still don't grasp that simple concept.

 

[(Q)]

I didn't say it was part of Atheism- I am talking about COMPATIBILITY!-

Irrelevant. Get over it.

 

[spidergoat]

Atheism allows me to make a 'personal judgement' wasn't that what we were talking about as 'personal meaning'.

Secondly you are correct, Atheism contains no value system- that is why Atheism is compatible with a philosophy that preaches that you should rape 1 woman everyday.

Theism also contains no particular value system or moral values. I'm sure there are some theisms that teach that women should submit to practices that you and I would call rape. In fact some forms of Islamic sharia law allow a husband to rape his wife.

Theism doesn't inherently contain any notions of an afterlife, or the permanence of personality that you consider a prerequisite for caring about things. In addition, atheism could contain notions of an afterlife, such as some future version of AI where people could attain robotic bodies and live forever!

Humanism asserts that the nature of the universe depicted by modern science makes unacceptable any supernatural or cosmic guarantees of human values. Obviously humanism does not deny the possibility of realities as yet undiscovered, but it does insist that the way to determine the existence and value of any and all realities is by means of intelligent inquiry and by the assessment of their relations to human needs.​

http://goodwithoutgod.org/

 

[(Q)]

Q they are double teaming you. you need reinforcements.

Two times nothing is still nothing.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Lets cut the story short- Does the universe have a purpose?

Nope. Purpose requires a sapient "purposer".

So the connection that a purposeless universe yield everything you do meaningless fundamentally doesn't make sense?

I'll say it again. Meaning is the relationship between two or more variables. Everything I do has a massive amount of meaning AND at the same time the universe has no purpose.

I do recognize 'personal meaning' but was referring to the fundamental truth that really your actions are meaningless/purposeless as is your existence as is the universe.

My actions and inactions are all meaningful. That can't be changed, it's just the way reality is. My actions may or may nor be purposeful... depending on why I am taking them. My existence has zero purpose.

And a gain is needed why?

It is objectively in human nature to be motivated by gain.

Right but another may not matter...

Correct.

I agree but again the term was used in the context of the universe being purposeless-

The context is irrelevant. If you sneak in subjective assertions into an objective statement then it's dishonest and people will pick up on that.

Ok, but why does biological sapience matter in the universe?

It doesn't.

Okay so the meaning of your life is programmed into you.

Incorrect. The meaning of my life is the relationship my life has to everything it can have a relationship wiht.

Thats all good to say for a human society, but in the universe there is only one truth- the universe is purposeless.

Incorrect. Truth is when a concept/notion in your mind matches reality. It's a state of equality between what you think and what is. In other words, the universe doesn't contain truth. It is however true that the universe is purposeless. It is also a true that you live on Earth. See? two truths and neither are "in" the universe.

Well you don't need the ability to destroy everything, I was simply using the extreme case.

Make sure your extreme cases support your assertions because the last one clearly wasn't an the equality you stated it was.

Yes, its directly related to your meaning of life- then again if someone wants to destroy something then its all and good because its subjective.

And the point is?

What... gravity will feel bad without electromagentic waves?

Do you understand what the word "relationship" objectively means?

True, Atheism does replace that with nature, if it doesn't for example- then it has replaced it with something that is probably just as unprovable as God- and thus the purpose of Atheism would be self-defeating. So Atheism, if replacing with nature, then its fundamental truth is that the universe is purposeless.

Atheism doesn't replace anything with anything. It is the rejection of a single statement. You are however correct in that the universe is purposeless. Additionally, any human-claimed god is disprovable.

No, because it was subjective

Dishonesty is objective.

What is the purpose of the universe?

It doesn't have one.

Peace be unto you

Kay a red nude peeped under a yak.

 

[786]

No, it isn't, because atheism states nothing about lying, raping women or grilled cheese sandwiches.

How idiotic can you be. If Atheism 'states' something then it would be part of it- and I've already said morality is not part of Atheism. I'm talking about the compatibility between the two.

Compatibility with the non-acceptance of theists claims have nothing to do with your silly questions. You still don't grasp that simple concept.

You don't understand a simple concept that Atheism of its ownself doesn't provide any moral system- you need to have a system that is compatible with Atheism- which you can find many. And my question is if Atheism would be compatible with a system that preaches that a women should be raped once every day.

If you can't understand the difference, don't answer the question.

Peace be unto you

 

[786]

Irrelevant. Get over it.

That was the question...... only thing that is irrelevant is your response.

Peace be unto you

 

[786]

Theism also contains no particular value system or moral values. I'm sure there are some theisms that teach that women should submit to practices that you and I would call rape. In fact some forms of Islamic sharia law allow a husband to rape his wife.

I'm talking about the compatibility of Atheism with raping woman- you are continuously trying to bring in Islam- I don't give a damn about what anything else says- my question is if ATHEISM compatible with a society that preaches rape!

Theism doesn't inherently contain any notions of an afterlife, or the permanence of personality that you consider a prerequisite for caring about things.

I never said that afterlife was needed for things to be important- I was answering a question about 'why I care'- so at least read things in context.

In addition, atheism could contain notions of an afterlife, such as some future version of AI where people could attain robotic bodies and live forever!

And how would this be determined? Secondly this response is due to the misunderstanding of my statement shown above.

Humanism asserts that the nature of the universe depicted by modern science makes unacceptable any supernatural or cosmic guarantees of human values. Obviously humanism does not deny the possibility of realities as yet undiscovered, but it does insist that the way to determine the existence and value of any and all realities is by means of intelligent inquiry and by the assessment of their relations to human needs.​

http://goodwithoutgod.org/

Humanism is NOT Atheism- so this is irrelevant.

Peace be unto you

 

[786]

The context is irrelevant. If you sneak in subjective assertions into an objective statement then it's dishonest and people will pick up on that.

Not if the context (Atheism) allows almost everything subjective to become objective-

It doesn't.

Agreed.

Do you understand what the word "relationship" objectively means?

And can that relationship be subjective? Atheism doesn't give a damn about subjectivity or objectivity- you're the only one stuck up in these technicalities.

Peace be unto you

Atheism doesn't replace anything with anything. It is the rejection of a single statement. You are however correct in that the universe is purposeless. Additionally, any human-claimed god is disprovable.

Okay Atheism doesn't replace anything, other philosophies that are 'atheistic' do. Can you disprove any 'human-claimed god'? (Just make a separate thread)

Dishonesty is objective.

To you it is, it could be subjective as well- depends on the person who cares about this-

It doesn't have one.

Great, the universe is purposeless.....anything in it that happens is lost in the purposeless universe- you're just follow the laws of Thermodynamics- one day you're all going to be dead and lost in the purposeless universe.

Peace be unto you

 

[quadraphonics]

The universe is purposeless-

Where did I say that?

you can give it purpose-

Possibly.

but you are a direct creation of a purposeless universe.

"Direct creation of"? No. The universe isn't a "creator."

So it doesn't change the fact that the universe is purposeless.

What makes you think that you or I could even discern the purpose of the universe, supposing there is one?

If an external source creates the universe to have a purpose- then anything that is created by the universe is due to a 'purpose'.

And what then is the purpose of said external source? All you've accomplished is to transfer the question of purpose from "the universe" to "external source." Which doesn't seem like an improvement to me.

 

[spidergoat]

I'm talking about the compatibility of Atheism with raping woman- you are continuously trying to bring in Islam- I don't give a damn about what anything else says- my question is if ATHEISM compatible with a society that preaches rape!



I never said that afterlife was needed for things to be important- I was answering a question about 'why I care'- so at least read things in context.



And how would this be determined? Secondly this response is due to the misunderstanding of my statement shown above.

Humanism is NOT Atheism- so this is irrelevant.

Peace be unto you

You are obviously trying to insult atheists by saying atheism is compatible with things that have nothing to do with whether god exists or not. As I pointed out, atheism and theism are both compatible with many acts which we would call crimes. Theism is belief in a god. That God could call for crimes in his name.

Theism is just as absent in moral values as atheism. You may add moral values to your theism, but they are not inherent.

 

[iceaura]

I'm talking about the initial Atheism which is then mixed with other philosophies.

Gibberish. There is no such thing as "the initial Atheism" - you are talking about your own invented notion of a particular Atheistic philosophy, and refusing to accept correction from actual atheistic people who have no such philosophies as you imagine.

 

[786]

You are obviously trying to insult atheists by saying atheism is compatible with things that have nothing to do with whether god exists or not. As I pointed out, atheism and theism are both compatible with many acts which we would call crimes. Theism is belief in a god. That God could call for crimes in his name.

Theism is just as absent in moral values as atheism. You may add moral values to your theism, but they are not inherent.

Say religion X permits crimes A-Z - but there are restraints in theism which are there as the part of the religion and so they are inherent to theism

Atheism on the other hand has no restraints and so there are no inherent restrains in Atheism not only is it compatible with crimes A-Z but all the alphabets of all the languages.

There is a difference.

I'm sorry that you feel insulted by the obvious fact that Atheism is compatible with basically everything even if it be blowing up all the children in the world.

Peace be unto you

 

[quadraphonics]

but there are restraints in theism

No there aren't. There are moral restraints in specific religions, but not in theism as such. It's quite easy to come up with theistic philosophies that condone any crime imaginable.

 

[786]

Gibberish. There is no such thing as "the initial Atheism" - you are talking about your own invented notion of a particular Atheistic philosophy, and refusing to accept correction from actual atheistic people who have no such philosophies as you imagine.

I think Spidergoat knows what I'm talking about.

Atheism is simply the denial of God- other philosophies are based on this notion (so they take Atheism and mix their own philosophy).

And I can create all the philosophies I want but they will still be 'atheistic' as long as they deny the existence of a god.

Here's a new Atheistic philosophy idea:

Drink Baby Blood- It denies the existence of God - and believes that men 60+ should drink baby blood. Still Atheistic because it doesn't believe in God. Compatible with Atheism in every respect possible.

Now if your own created Atheism is different- I don't give a shit because my form is still Atheism, by definition, as well.

Peace be unto you

 

[quadraphonics]

Here's a new Atheistic philosophy idea:

Drink Baby Blood- It denies the existence of God - and believes that men 60+ should drink baby blood. Still Atheistic because it doesn't believe in God. Compatible with Atheism in every respect possible.

That would work just as well as a theistic philosophy:

Drink Baby Blood - it confirms the existence of God - and believes that man 60+ should drink baby blood. Still theistic because it does believe in God. Compatible with theism in every respect possible.

 

[spidergoat]

there are restraints in theism which are there as the part of the religion and so they are inherent to theism

There are no restraints inherent to theism, except that God(s) exists.

Now you are conflating theism and religion, which are two different things, just like secular humanism is a different thing than atheism. The Aztecs did have a theistic religion which demanded the blood of children in sacrifice. The advantage of atheism is that it INHERENTLY stresses the importance of reason over faith without evidence. Reason is why people become atheists in the first place, and this reason would tend to prevent the sacrifice of children as pointless and harmful to society.

 

[786]

No there aren't. There are moral restraints in specific religions, but not in theism as such. It's quite easy to come up with theistic philosophies that condone any crime imaginable.

Oh.... I see... I get your point. Okay... so you're using Theism to basically mean 'belief in God' and nothing more? Although I've never really seen such form of theism- and no body simply touts that they are 'theist'- because all theists give some definition to God's nature- which brings inherent restraints- the same can't be said of Atheism.

Peace be unto you

 

[786]

Ok so everyone agrees: Atheism by itself is fked up and Theism by itslef is fked up? So atheists should stop preaching Atheism, Theists really never preach 'theism' they usually preach religion if anything.

Peace be unto you

 

[spidergoat]

On the contrary, I have never seen atheists devoid of ideas of morality. The restraints of reason are more powerful than the restraints of faith- because they are supported by evidence, they can be tested, and they are not arbitrary.

Theism is f'ed up, because it demands faith, which is utter and complete belief without evidence. Atheism is a tentative belief, supported by evidence.