Atheism 2.0

by Qcmbr 384 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Terry

  We evolved from lower primates. I believe that less evolved primates is where language came to be in our evolutionary timelines. Check out the Gelada Baboon's social structures. They have a language that cannot be translated because it's not like our language, but it is communication through vocal chords. My point was that our ancient primate ancestors did fine without a complex language system. When I said "no spoken language" I meant no defined words like we use today.

  Until primates write language, create libraries, schools, academies and invent science and technology they are primitives, surely. Language becomes the starting point of HISTORY! Maybe it isn't really an argument so much as an observation. Until and unless we employ specific VOCABULARY and Grammar in a societal "norm" progress cannot be made. Chimps don't write Shakespeare. But, neither do 99.99% of humans :)
• 

  Terry

  I suppose I might ask you, Terry, if you believe there is a reason the universe exists. If you believe it was created by God, then it follows that you believe He did so for a purpose. What is religion if not seeking to understand the meaning of life within the context of the universe?

  Question answered: The existence of the Universe is an Axiom. We don't question axioms as our starting point because they are an unassailable "given."

  Asking a question "Why?" about the existence of the universe is pointless. However, if you DO ask that- you ALSO must ask it about God's existence too. This is where religious people, deists and thesits suddenly accept the existence of God as Axiomatic. Do I make sense?

  Believers in God's existence don't have any problem at all NOT asking that question. Why is that?
• 

  Terry

  If you want to talk about anything convenient about my definition, it is that dawkins himself (if i recall correctly) toured around in a bus with pretty much the exact same statement

  What Dawkins says or doesn't say is not ATHEISM so much as Dawkin's opinion. No one person or group has the Authority to create THE definition of Atheism beyond the word itself. Atheism is axiomatic. The a priori should be obvious to you.
• 

  tec

  Q - if what you are trying to do is replace the religious aspect of your former faith (the social circles, the art, the purpose, the groups and meetings and studies), then I would suggest as someone else did, some humanitarian group. Or any other group really that interests you all. Just try and make sure its a good fit before you give up on it, because you're liable to find things that you can't stand too. You could also spend your Sundays learning about another place and culture in the world. Maybe even choose one place to visit once a year or every couple (depending on budget). Or you could get involved in some theoretical science on space travel, or other worlds, or even the wonders of this world, like the ocean.

  I don't think you'll be able to find something that falls solely in the providence of atheism, though. Because any person of faith can do all of the above as well. But you could find a group that allows only atheism - I'm not sure if "secular humanists" are such groups or not; could be?

  Peace,

  Tammy
• 

  Nickolas

  Yes, but historically theists have had a written law that was designed to uphold moral values. Atheism explains morals with science which is lack luster, imo.

  The written law to which you refer would have you put to death children who insult you, people who are intimate with one another outside of marriage, homosexuals, those who say "goddamn" and other disrespectful utterances, those who are apostates, those who are found guilty of thought crime like covetousness, and a host of other imaginary crimes. Those are not moral values. They are moral corruptions dressed up in flowing white robes. Atheism does not explain morality with science at all. Atheism espouses morality on the basis of good and harm, done to other people and other species and by extension the world on which we live. There is much in religion that is immoral, much of which is driven by the untestable notions about what happens after death. To quote Sam Harris, "What one believes happens after death dictates much of what one believes about life, and this is why faith-based religion, in presuming to fill in the blanks in our knowledge of the hereafter, does such heavy lifting for those who fall under its power. A single proposition—you will not die—once believed, determines a response to life that would be otherwise unthinkable." Belief in that proposition also determines how people view the lives and wellbeing of others. It is no coincidence that the only western society still putting people to death is American and that Americans by and large are theists who subscribe to the written law, more or less, of the Bible. We haven't even begun to discuss the morality espoused in the other holy books inspired by God, like the Koran.

  I must be off. Real life priorities are beckoning.
• 

  Terry

  You are just dodging the question and being a bit passive-agressive about it. First i mainly quoted your many statements about atheists from your first post. If it seem highly emotional to you now lets just say i too found them emotional when you made them originally.

  Is there a point to all this?

  But the question is very valid...

  Oh, well---thanks!

  ...since you are of the belief the statement i made to represent atheists is "convenient" and thus does not generally apply, I do hope you will back up your many statements about how important it is to carefully define ones words and explain what atheists (in general and in your oppinion) really believe.

  You don't find it comical that the two words "atheist" and "believe" are put next to each other? I don't CARE what atheists individual opinions are. Neither should you. Each of us is free to think on our own. I said, in effect, Atheists are rude. I quoted Hitchens. Get it?

  What christopher hitchens believe about mother theresa (in particular) clearly does not answer that question. And we can agree he is rude, but I do think he make a couple of valid points along the way, such as many of her statements about powertry being nonsence and her resistance about birth-control probably did little to help the people in her area.

  Haven I mentioned I LOVE Christopher Hitchens? That doesn't make him less rude. He IS a fart in an elevator if ever there was one. Now what's your point?
• 

  Terry

  I describe myself as an atheist. You say "atheists believe so and so" and compare atheists oppinion in general to farting in elevators. Even if you do not intend it, and even if you have a perculiar definition of atheist which is wrong, it is very hard for me to see how your statements about atheists (in general) do not apply to me (in particular) because they do so logically.

  Parse it any way you like. If it makes you happy or unhappy depends on your state of mind rather than mine.

  Personalizing general statements is poor policy, imho.

  How you manage to go from the general to the particular is downright gymnastic.

  The Atheists who couch their language with "maybe" are to be pitied for abuse of language. Why not admit to being agnostic instead?
• 

  Terry

  Chairman Mao, Joseph Stalin and their ilk were atheists, yes Terry, but you are making the common mistake of equating their immorality, pathology and insanity to the realisation they reached that God does not exist. The mass starvation of millions of people, political purges, pogroms and genocides are not the hallmarks of a rational mind.

  Disconfirm my statement, then. Don't merely assert it.

  Were Mao or Stalin in the state of mind that they are "sinners in the hands of an angry God" can you suppose millions of innocent lives would so easily be extinguished by their own plenary authority?
• 

  botchtowersociety

  I believe the Universe has a meaning.
• 

  DT

  "DT couldn't thinking without words be called meditation, right? Listening/focusing to music without words would be considerered thinking without words."

  I think listening to music is a great example of how thought can take place without words. It is common to anticipate how a musical phrase will resolve and then experience some kind of emotional reaction based on how your expectations are confirmed or denied. This involves advanced information processing without the direct involvement of language. Sure, there are words to describe some of these processes, but even someone who is ignorant of the terminology is still capable of having these thought processes.