The Inadequacy of Atheism

[lightgigantic]

Cris

“ "People in this age eat their food without washing beforehand. ”

Fortunately most civilized people now use utensils for eating so not washing before eating is hardly an issue anymore.

I can see your mother had difficulty training you - if you pass stool do you wash your hands afterwards even if you are using a knife and fork?

“ Monks break their vows of celibacy. ”

Any self imposed abnormal and unnatural discipline will be difficult to keep, they should not be surprised.

abnormal to one who cannot perceive any greater pleasure than the sexual act, yes

“ Cows are kept alive only for their milk. ”

Apart from the ones that are slaughtered for their meat.

glorious advancement of civilization

“ Water is scarce. ”

It is plentiful where I live,

the notion of drought or a shortage of water anywhere is an anomaly of normal living arrangements (at least by vedic standards)

and isn’t three quarters of the world water?

tried watering your garden with salt water lately?

“ Many people watch the skies, praying for rain. No rain comes. ”

Ahh the power of prayer.

the power of prayer performed by an extensively sinful population to be more exact

“ The fields become barren. ”

Apart from most that don’t.

land errosion, soil salinity, drought and other environmental extremes are issues inmany parts - but you are right, its not a predominant issue in some parts at the moment, but then we are less than 1.5% into the new kali yuga too and steeped in numerous bad habits and practices that we don't appear capable of relinquising

“ Suffering from famine and poverty, many attempt to migrate to countries where food is more readily available. ”

Sounds like a good strategy.

you seem to be departing from the smugness of your previous stance that the world is ok

“ People are without joy and pleasure. ”

Apart from the many that are joyful and happy.

Are you refering to the ones that don't take prescription medication or see psychiatrists regularly - what percentage of the american population is that?

“ Many commit suicide. ”

But the overwhelming vast majority do not.

And I guess you will say that its just a coincidence that suicide rates are higher in part s of the world where the symptoms of kali yuga are more prominent

“ Men of small intelligence are influenced by atheistic doctrines. ”

Men of small intelligence can be influenced by almost anything. What is more important is that most with the greatest intelligence tend to be atheistic.

by intelligence I guess you mean the design and application of things that lower the general mass of living standards (like access to clean air and water and food stuffs free from toxins) - just have to look at how much damage has been done to the world in about 60 serious years of industrialism

“ Family, clan and caste are all meaningless. ”

Apart from the many who put value on these things.

so you are arguing that the family unit and a person's sense of social belonging has not undergone any serious and detrimental transformations in recent history?

“ Men are without virtues, purity or decency." (Visnu Purana 6.1) ”

Apart from the many who are virtuous, pure and decent.

I guess the problem is that the persons you are alluding to never make such a grand impression by their numbers as leaders or celebrities

“ This is one of many Vedic predictions for our current age. ”

This is hardly a prediction as it is more simply a statement of the way life has always been for a few.

so the statistics that indicate rising problems on a social, environmental and economic level are fanciful?

“ As one of its many symptoms is always mentioned the prevalence of atheism. ”

Pity that it got it so wrong. Atheism has not been prevalent these past few thousand years, even now perhaps only 20% of the world population are atheistic. Perhaps a more credible observation is that much of the sorry state of the world is due to the majority influence of theism?

you have a narrow view of the distinctive qualities of an atheist and a theist

“ Why? Because atheism is the root cause of the pitiful condition of this age. ”

How so when so few are atheistic?

to be an atheist all that is required is that one feels it is normal to act like there is no god - it doesn't hinge on lip service or an institutional stamp -your general statement is true however - atheists in the guise of theists are the ones that have done the most damage

“ If the knowledge of higher reality is lacking, there is no question of life in harmony with the universal order (dharma). ”

Achieving harmony with ones surroundings does not come through a conviction of something that does not exist but through knowledge of oneself. Once that is achieved then the universe never appears disharmonious.

therefore you see that dharma and god realisation is closely tied in with self realisation - however the material identity (my family, my country, my car etc etc) is a good example of having faith in something that will not exist in the immediate future (and its the main contributer to disharmony as the platform of such a false identity is the source of all disharmonious activities)

“ And dharma being neglected, all the above (as well as other) symptoms of decline appear as reaction.

- J. Adbaita ”

There is no universal order there is only cause and effect. To avoid unfortunate effects one must avoid unfortunate causes. It is really that simple.

these unfortunate causes are clearly established by dharma

“ The general principle advocated here is that the universe operates under certain laws and disharmonizing with them is the root cause of all calamity - therefore the greatest calamity is atheism (whether it appears in the guise of organized religion or outright denouncement of the notion of superior maintenance in the universe) ”

The universe does indeed operate through the base laws of physics, and certainly to attempt to thwart or oppose these laws is futile and pointless. To become harmonious with the universe one must flow with the laws and use them.

use them? use them for what?

There seems to be no relation with these harmonious base laws and belief in any religious concept.

Except for the main problem that arises from them - utililization

 

[Laika]

Its not clear why you would perceive the environment as totally unconnected with god (even in theory) - although it is a common mispractice in some strains of xtian theistic philosophy to seperate god from his creation that you may be responding to

on the side I remember when the tsunami hit a few years ago all the newspapers were full of headlines like "the fury of god" etc .... no atheists in a fox hole

I didn't say that I perceive the environment as totally unconnected with god, but that there is no necessary correlation between respect for the environment and religious belief. The full spectrum of attitudes to the environment is represented in both theists and atheists.

 

[lightgigantic]

I didn't say that I perceive the environment as totally unconnected with god, but that there is no necessary correlation between respect for the environment and religious belief. The full spectrum of attitudes to the environment is represented in both theists and atheists.

If the environment is connected to god (in otherwords it is obviously god's property and not ours for selfish means) on what grounds would a theist be justified in exploiting it?

 

[Laika]

I am not religious in the least, and I see the necessity of preserving the natural environment, so I am extremely unqualified to answer that. But I'll try. I guess that it would be easy to justify if you think that humans are qualitatively different (superior) from other life, that we are the pinnacle of creation, and that we were made in god's image.

 

[Godless]

If the environment is connected to god (in otherwords it is obviously god's property and not ours for selfish means) on what grounds would a theist be justified in exploiting it?

LG.

Human nature, "I know you theist don't follow human nature" anyhow, human nature is exploring, first it was to the first mountain, then to the next continent, then to space, thus the history of humanity has been exploring our enviorenment.

If were up to dumbass theists, we still be riding horse and buggy, and have never would have gotten off the continent!!

 

[lightgigantic]

I am not religious in the least, and I see the necessity of preserving the natural environment, so I am extremely unqualified to answer that. But I'll try. I guess that it would be easy to justify if you think that humans are qualitatively different (superior) from other life, that we are the pinnacle of creation, and that we were made in god's image.

The issue of management is inescapable for human society (its not practical for us to just sit passively in this world)- theism offers boundaries and ideals for such endeavours - in otherwords the qualitative difference between humans and animals is more along the lines of having greater responsibility (dominion indicates responsibility rather than exploitation - at least amongst an intelligent person)

 

[lightgigantic]

LG.

Human nature, "I know you theist don't follow human nature" anyhow, human nature is exploring, first it was to the first mountain, then to the next continent, then to space, thus the history of humanity has been exploring our enviorenment.

If were up to dumbass theists, we still be riding horse and buggy, and have never would have gotten off the continent!!

the dog runs around on 4 legs - we run around on 4 wheels - where is the advancement if its all dog's business?

 

[baumgarten]

LG.

Human nature, "I know you theist don't follow human nature" anyhow, human nature is exploring, first it was to the first mountain, then to the next continent, then to space, thus the history of humanity has been exploring our enviorenment.

If were up to dumbass theists, we still be riding horse and buggy, and have never would have gotten off the continent!!

Columbus, Watt, Bernoulli, Ford, the Wright brothers, and the vast majority of all the pioneers and innovators of the last thousand years were theists. So actually, thanks to "dumbass" theists, we are no longer riding the horse and buggy. (We would be living on six continents regardless, actually.)

Of course, the theism of most of these (with the notable exception of St. Thomas Aquinas, whose forward-thinking ideas were the basis of the civil rights movements of the twentieth century, including Dr. Martin Luther King and Mohandas K. Gandhi, both of whom were also theists) never comes into play when we discuss their contributions to science and civilization. The fact that you are so caught on whether any of these believed in what you yourself admit is merely a figment of the imagination speaks volumes about the depth and usefulness of what you have to say about them.

Frankly, I believe you're spouting gibberish almost every time I read what I guess you think is a good point. You and LG appear as white and black pawns on a chessboard, arbitrarily opposed in a game that neither of you either control or understand. You have become little more than tools of your respective ideologies, immersed in them to the point that, like children, you cannot conceive of a rational viewpoint from outside of your own perspectives. In response to what each of you sees from the other as unusual and threatening, you respond defensively. Lightgigantic crafts exquisite bullshit that veils itself in sesquipedalians because if clearly stated, it would be clearly false. You, on the other hand, simply vomit onto the keyboard and somehow find yourself proud of the rancid gruel you've made. It's not just that you are inarticulate; you truly make no sense. Your posts are almost purely reactionary, rarely if ever fettered by the constraints of logic in its trigger-happy associativity: theism = bad.
atheism = good. You never state it directly, but it is so easily inferred that next to LG, you could be called intellectually honest.

What neither of you will ever admit, though, is that your great war is actually insignificant. People have believed all sorts of things. Most of them have not been relevant. In your case, you fight over the letter 'a' like a couple of frat boys over the last slice of THC-laced pizza. With such a disinterest in truly understanding even your own ideologies as they relate to the very world they attempt to make sense of, your words become meaningless. Your battle is over nothing more than the correct spelling of righteousness.

Is atheism inadequate? No. It fills the shoes of both God and Satan adeptly. See how it has been proven by this thread alone.

 

[SkinWalker]

Columbus, Watt, Bernoulli, Ford, the Wright brothers, and the vast majority of all the pioneers and innovators of the last thousand years were theists. So actually, thanks to "dumbass" theists, we are no longer riding the horse and buggy. (We would be living on six continents regardless, actually.)

Of course, the theism of most of these (with the notable exception of St. Thomas Aquinas, whose forward-thinking ideas were the basis of the civil rights movements of the twentieth century, including Dr. Martin Luther King and Mohandas K. Gandhi, both of whom were also theists)

An interesting point about many theists who make great discovery is that we are often presented with a one-sided look in history; one that favors the noble act and the perseverance of the historical figure over that figures other, less worthy acts. Perhaps the very deed itself is glossed over as a sincere accomplishment and the figure given immortal status, even sainthood, for his deed, regardless of other, less noble deeds, or even of the reality of the deed at hand.

Surely, the "accomplishments" of Columbus can be such a deed, and has come under fairer scrutiny over the course of the last decade or so. His "discovery" being down-graded to something closer to illegal immigration. Certainly the calamity and genocide that quickly followed, however intentional or unintentional (some of both, evidently), wasn't a noble accomplishment. It could perhaps be considered an innovation, since it effectively allowed for the systematic removal and replacement of millions upon millions of indigenous peoples by white Europeans.

Another of the figures you mention above was Thomas Aquinas, from whom modern Civil Rights leaders drew their inspiration. One educated in Aquinas but not in these leaders might be left to wonder how they reconciled his opinion heretics (those that don't believe in his god or brand of Christianity) be "separated from the Church by excommunication, but also to be severed from the world by death ( Summa Theologiaeth 1265-1272 II:II 11:3).

Humans decide how to treat each other and what's acceptable or not. Not gods, to that I think you and I agree. I don't fault those that use their religious superstitions to do good works for anything other than being disingenuous to themselves and not giving themselves the credit they're due. But we must also bear in mind that if Columbus hadn't been "divinely inspired" to find the New World, eager companies of the fast-growing British and Spanish Empires probably would have; had Aquinas not written inspirational words that King and Ghandi were able to pick out from his call for the execution of heretics, perhaps they would have found inspiration elsewhere, possibly even a non-theistic source.

Ford gave us the automobile in a mass-produced fashion (it had already been invented), but he also supported Hitler's extermination of the Jews and was the only American mentioned in Mein Kampf. I'd take the horse & buggy over the holocaust or having any part of it, personally.

 

[AAF]

The Inadequacy of Atheism


"People in this age eat their food without washing beforehand. Monks break their vows of celibacy. Cows are kept alive only for their milk...
- J. Adbaita
The general principle advocated...)

Hi lightgigantic:

Your Coat of Arms is making me DIZZY.
I quit!

:m:

 

[lightgigantic]

baumgarten

Frankly, I believe you're spouting gibberish almost every time I read what I guess you think is a good point. You and LG appear as white and black pawns on a chessboard, arbitrarily opposed in a game that neither of you either control or understand.

you haven't given premises why your "understanding" is superior, merely asserted it

You have become little more than tools of your respective ideologies, immersed in them to the point that, like children, you cannot conceive of a rational viewpoint from outside of your own perspectives. In response to what each of you sees from the other as unusual and threatening, you respond defensively. Lightgigantic crafts exquisite bullshit that veils itself in sesquipedalians because if clearly stated, it would be clearly false. You, on the other hand, simply vomit onto the keyboard and somehow find yourself proud of the rancid gruel you've made.

seems you are doing the same thing - welcome to the club

It's not just that you are inarticulate; you truly make no sense. Your posts are almost purely reactionary, rarely if ever fettered by the constraints of logic in its trigger-happy associativity: theism = bad.
atheism = good. You never state it directly, but it is so easily inferred that next to LG, you could be called intellectually honest.

how are your assertions bereft of premises a superior proposition?

What neither of you will ever admit, though, is that your great war is actually insignificant. People have believed all sorts of things. Most of them have not been relevant. In your case, you fight over the letter 'a' like a couple of frat boys over the last slice of THC-laced pizza. With such a disinterest in truly understanding even your own ideologies as they relate to the very world they attempt to make sense of, your words become meaningless. Your battle is over nothing more than the correct spelling of righteousness.

Once again you allude to a superior understanding without telling us what it is (except perhaps that the only path of sanity is to agree with your ideology on the strength of your ad homs)

 

[superluminal]

No matter what anyone says, lg will patronizingly counter it, even if the counter is baseless and outright stupid. It's a good way to perpetuate a conversation even long after its dead.

Carry on lg. Keep asking those insightful questions of others. And keep sidestepping the real questions of others.

 

[lightgigantic]

No matter what anyone says, lg will patronizingly counter it, even if the counter is baseless and outright stupid. It's a good way to perpetuate a conversation even long after its dead.

Carry on lg. Keep asking those insightful questions of others. And keep sidestepping the real questions of others.

So in other words you feel that in the absence of an ability to form premises suitable for debate its more intelligent to generate ad homs?

 

[superluminal]

So in other words you feel that in the absence of an ability to form premises suitable for debate its more intelligent to generate ad homs?

Debate? Is that what you're doing here? You had me fooled. You keep repeating the same gibberish over and over and over again. I thought you were doing vocal exercises.

And no. When the subject has been so beaten to death and no real debate is in view, and the rambling just goes on for the sake of seeing your own words, I think it's intelligent to start poking fun at the participants. Simple, really.

 

[baumgarten]

An interesting point about many theists who make great discovery is that we are often presented with a one-sided look in history; one that favors the noble act and the perseverance of the historical figure over that figures other, less worthy acts. Perhaps the very deed itself is glossed over as a sincere accomplishment and the figure given immortal status, even sainthood, for his deed, regardless of other, less noble deeds, or even of the reality of the deed at hand.

. . .

Humans decide how to treat each other and what's acceptable or not. Not gods, to that I think you and I agree. I don't fault those that use their religious superstitions to do good works for anything other than being disingenuous to themselves and not giving themselves the credit they're due. But we must also bear in mind that if Columbus hadn't been "divinely inspired" to find the New World, eager companies of the fast-growing British and Spanish Empires probably would have; had Aquinas not written inspirational words that King and Ghandi were able to pick out from his call for the execution of heretics, perhaps they would have found inspiration elsewhere, possibly even a non-theistic source.

Ford gave us the automobile in a mass-produced fashion (it had already been invented), but he also supported Hitler's extermination of the Jews and was the only American mentioned in Mein Kampf. I'd take the horse & buggy over the holocaust or having any part of it, personally.

I'm not sure what I can add to this. It is an excellent point.

Once again you allude to a superior understanding without telling us what it is (except perhaps that the only path of sanity is to agree with your ideology on the strength of your ad homs)

What ideology am I pushing, exactly? Is a frustration with your sophistic bullshit an ideology now? Okay, I base all my beliefs on the singular premise that you're a bag of hot air.

Godless pretends to be a free thinker. You pretend to be intelligent. You're not so different; that's all I said.

 

[lightgigantic]

“ Originally Posted by lightgigantic
Once again you allude to a superior understanding without telling us what it is (except perhaps that the only path of sanity is to agree with your ideology on the strength of your ad homs) ”

What ideology am I pushing, exactly? Is a frustration with your sophistic bullshit an ideology now? Okay, I base all my beliefs on the singular premise that you're a bag of hot air.

Your ideology is that you don't have an ideology (in otherwords you esteem that you are in fact the "true" neutral ground of reason and logic) - and the grounds that we should accept it is based on ad homs such as indicated underneath

Godless pretends to be a free thinker. You pretend to be intelligent. You're not so different; that's all I said.

 

[baumgarten]

Your ideology is that you don't have an ideology (in otherwords you esteem that you are in fact the "true" neutral ground of reason and logic) - and the grounds that we should accept it is based on ad homs such as indicated underneath

Clearly you know the intentions of my words better than I do. I only wrote them, after all.

The ad-hom is the point, LG. There is nothing more. In fact, if you could discern the tone of my writing, it should be fairly obvious that my ground is far from neutral -- unless you need me to be more crass about it. All right. Fuck you. You're a bullshit artist, and an inept one at that. That is the whole of my point to you. Don't believe me? Why not? Why would I lie about something like that? Maybe you're also a delusional bullshit artist. I know -- you aren't applying the correct epistemology for perceiving the ontology of the lack of meaning behind the multitudinous sesquipedalians irregardlessly implemented by your exceedingly antideluvian diversional tactic. Ingest excrement. Good day.

 

[lightgigantic]

Ok - so now you are dopping all pretense of a format of a debate and revelling in the pure medium of ad hom.

I guess maybe we should just continue communicating in grunting


HHMMMMRRGGHHPPHHHHHGRAAHHHHHH!!!!

 

[baumgarten]

Ok - so now you are dopping all pretense of a format of a debate and revelling in the pure medium of ad hom.

I guess maybe we should just continue communicating in grunting


HHMMMMRRGGHHPPHHHHHGRAAHHHHHH!!!!

It seems to be working. You almost understand!

Let me repeat. It was not a debate to begin with. My first post in this thread was a blatant ad-hominem, a debasement of your and Godless's arguments using personal attacks. I didn't try to cover it up. My follow-ups were merely repetitions of the original, each involving less explanation and more inflammatory language than the last. You're just too dense to know a well-deserved insult the first time you see it. You're so obsessed with this game of sanctimonious posturing that you think everyone who makes a comment to you is trying to take the moral or intellectual high ground, to appear somehow superior in his worldview or character. Well, not me. I believe you are an idiot, lightgigantic. You have convinced me. It wouldn't matter if I was a Nazi with the IQ of a rabbit. I'd still be making an accurate observation. Everyone who reads this board has to put up with your ornate but thoughtless monotone. You are full of shit; please stop using our throats as toilets.

 

[superluminal]

Baum is going on LG's ignore list, just like me.