Atheism - A System Of Belief

[Jobrjo]

aUr essentially wrong here..... if Energy changes and as u say becomes 'less useful' to us humans does that negates the fact that it still exists? Also its only considers thermal energy there many other forms of energy in the world which Laws of Thermodynamics does not cover.

Also by if a something can neither be created nor be destroyed what does it make it? Apply your commonsense here too.....



bI told you already... see Ohm's Law, Non Ohmic Conductors, Super Conductors for one example . . . . . . . There are a lot everyone has to learn.



cThat cos its changing from heat energy to other forms..... just because it changes forms does not mean it does not exist. A simple parallel A knife that loses its sharpness becomes less useful/useable to us but does that mean it does not exist or did not exit or will not exist in one form or another?

Again I ask you if something can neither be created nor be destroyed what does it make it? Use commonsense . . . . .



dSi....



eYet no matter whatever rules the VGs may say or apply is the basis of those worlds: the hard drive and softwares free from the very laws that bounds us? Those fantasy worlds are actually illusions created while following laws of our world . . . . . . .

As I warned u earlier your assumption that there can be some supernatural phenomenon to describe the natural can go both ways...... why cant existence of matter-energy be actually beyond the laws of this world? What if like God as excellently put by you matter-energy itself is outside material world yet inside it?



fU think they are like rocks yet they have RNA, reproduce, consume etc all of which are basic qualities of the living..... how the non living in your opinion can have qualities of the living? Apply commonsense here.....

Well let's begin shall we, and keep it peaceful at that

A) I don't need to post the scientific principle of entropy again. The FACT is that both matter and energy is deteriorating. I'm not saying it doesn't exist, but the fact that it's own a downward spiral indicates it is not eternal. If something cannot be created or destroyed, then it would be eternal- if it wasn't the fact that it's "growing older" per say, due to entropy.

B) I'm admittedly not familiar with those principles. But they seem rather off topic, so I'll just say this: If something can be accurately stated as a law, then it's always right. Otherwise, it no longer fits the definition of a "law", whether it's considered one or not.

C) What if that knife keeps losing sharpness? What if it keeps deteriorating? Eventually, it will just be useless matter floating along. To re-sharpen/re-build it requires energy, which will then also become less useful. Entropy denies the eternity of matter or energy. The 2 are inter-related.

D) Espanol? Buena!

E) That was just an analogy. Analogies are never perfect, but rather are meant to get a point across. All I'm saying is that within this physical world, it's impossible for closed systems to create themselves, or to be eternal. Therefore, something beside the physical must have started it all. But such is off topic and will be another discussion for another time.

F) I don't see the purpose of this point... viruses are complex non-living organisms. End of story... .-.

 

[Jobrjo]

Nope.
I don't know why you'd consider this assumption fact, but it's not accurate.
You're arguing that 'nothing' cannot create 'something', which, at face value, seems extremely logical. You forget, however, to explain your creator. You've simply invoked an infinite regress, where everything in existence leads back an original creator, in this instance the Christian God, but never once do you explain how your God exists as you believe him to. He shouldn't be able to exist, considering that, by your own logic, something cannot 'pop out' of nothing. How does your God exist?
What arguments can your put forth for his existence that I can't repeat in favor of the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

I don't plan to discuss this in length, If you wish we can do so via PM. But this thread is not about the existence of God, it's about rather that to be an atheist is to believe certain postulates that aren't based on fact.
So I will be brief, and not expound.

If there was ever a time when there was ABSOLUTELY nothing, then there would be nothing today. But something is here today, one must simply look around. Because matter isn't eternal, then something else must've always been there, and of a nature outside of the physical. God is the logical conclusion.

 

[Darthlawsuit]

You must be registered for see images

Well then its a good thing I ain't christian

Wrong. Atheists do not believe there is no god. Atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist.

If that is true why do Atheists argue there is no god? If you didn't believe in anything then Atheists wouldn't argue about nothing.

 

[ZK]

I don't plan to discuss this in length, If you wish we can do so via PM. But this thread is not about the existence of God, it's about rather that to be an atheist is to believe certain postulates that aren't based on fact.
So I will be brief, and not expound.

If there was ever a time when there was ABSOLUTELY nothing, then there would be nothing today. But something is here today, one must simply look around. Because matter isn't eternal, then something else must've always been there, and of a nature outside of the physical. God is the logical conclusion.

Like you said; the thread isn't about the existence of God. I will, however, say that since natural (non-supernatural) theories adequately explain the development of religion and belief in gods, the actual existence of such supernatural agents is superfluous and may be dismissed unless otherwise proven to be required to explain the phenomenon.

 

[ZK]

If that is true why do Atheists argue there is no god? If you didn't believe in anything then Atheists wouldn't argue about nothing.

We shouldn't have to. What has been asserted without evidence, like any deity has, can be dismissed without evidence.
But I find it morally questionable to not argue against a thing whose worshippers and preachers encourage sexism, slavery, genocide and hatred.

 

[drknght]

1. But no less disgusting than a Billionaire holding ego boosting parties while thousands suffer from starvation..... But I think you are essentially misunderstanding the basic principles of Communism, give this a read:

Spoiler

I would like to pose a question that refers to an idea set forth by Marx, in the Communist Manifesto; he says, "It has been objected that upon the abolition of private property all work will cease, and universal laziness will overtake us" (86). Is Marx accurate in his declaration that a primary concern of a communist society is the resulting 'laziness' of the people? Yes, I believe that the concern is valid. This is because people will receive enough income to survive, no matter how hard they labor. In an ideal communist society, a doctor or a lawyer would make as much income as a sewage cleaner. Then, naturally one asks, what is the incentive to study rigorously at medical school or law school, when one can simply drop out after middle school? Marx seems to indicate that there is a natural desire in humans to forgo work in favor of being lazy. In the end, the equal income allows all people to survive (no matter what kind of occupation they have), and no one person can become richer, or poorer.

Even though the concern of laziness is certainly valid, the possibility of the problem, (I think) is not as likely. In an IDEAL communist society, everyone will have enough money in order to survive. Yes, people could then stop doing things that cause aggravation or work; however, this will also allow people to do whatever they want. Communism would allow people to no longer worry about money, and instead, people could actually pursue their passions. Artists could do what they love (create art) without fear of not making enough money. An avid fisherman could pursue his passion, even if in a capitalist society, his passion would yield no income. A communist society eliminates the concern of money, and allows people to do whatever they want. In fact, people would not be lazy, but instead, would be much more inclined to pursue activities. A normal human, who possesses inherent passions, would pursue his or her passions in a perfect communist society, and in fact would be much less stressed, lazt, and would not be conscious of money.

Also Communism is based on common good of the society as whole and being lazy brings no good to the community and thus in a way against Communistic Work Ethic.

2. Well I dont get the context here...... ur just cementing what I said: Hitler knew shit about how genetics worked.

3. Yes those who does not learn from the past is condemned to repeat it.... both the shame and glory of our respective past is ours to bear, and to grow wiser from it.

1. People who don't know how to take care of themselves need communism.

2. You just ignore the fact that Hitler was all for eugenics, racial hygiene, grouping people. Marx misinterpreted Darwin's ideas, and the rest followed it, not just "Marx", there were other "great thinkers" too. If Nazi's would win the war, you would be supportive for them, I have no doubt about it.

3. There is no need to "bear" our past. It's slowing us down. We need to go forward, and not standing in one place, like that's what communism offers, the point of view of the animals.

 

[ZK]

1. People who don't know how to take care of themselves need communism.

2. You just ignore the fact that Hitler was all for eugenics, racial hygiene, grouping people. Marx misinterpreted Darwin's ideas, and the rest followed it, not just "Marx", there were other "great thinkers" too. If Nazi's would win the war, you would be supportive for them, I have no doubt about it.

3. There is no need to "bear" our past. It's slowing us down. We need to go forward, and not standing in one place, like that's what communism offers, the point of view of the animals.

I lol'd. Hard. You really need to read what you critizise.

 

[OfficialRikudouSennin]

jashinist are coming.....

 

[Kirin Rei]

I lol'd. Hard. You really need to read what you critizise.

Hush. Let him continue, it's entertaining. <3

 

[ArabianLuffy]

Whatever people believe in.

I believe that All Blue exist. <insert troll face>

 

[PhazoN]

You must be registered for see images

Well then its a good thing I ain't christian


If that is true why do Atheists argue there is no god? If you didn't believe in anything then Atheists wouldn't argue about nothing.

Most atheists don't do it. If there's no evidence supporting the non-existence of god, then why should you believe in it? It sounds like faith to me. There are some people who believe in this though, and they're called "positive" atheists.

 

[Jobrjo]

Like you said; the thread isn't about the existence of God. I will, however, say that since natural (non-supernatural) theories adequately explain the development of religion and belief in gods, the actual existence of such supernatural agents is superfluous and may be dismissed unless otherwise proven to be required to explain the phenomenon.

And I will AGREE that natural theories explain the development of man-made religions, and to follow such is the have the blind lead the blind, only to end up in a pit. That is not what I am, nor anyone who truly is a Christian, which sadly +999/1,000 "Christians" aren't. But this thread is also not about denominations, the one true way, etc. That may be discussed later.
Secondly, there are many proofs that actually prove the existence of God. But, this thread =/= that.

I suggest we leave this a stalemate for now, before you and I shift the purpose of this thread here xD
I'm just pointing out postulates an atheist (specifically who believes in the commonly accepted hypotheses of origins) must believe in

 

[sasori345]

All of this is true. In the name of imperialism, the only thing that changed is that it's now easier to kill people instead of controlling them. That does not change the fact that monopolyism and socialism has nothing to do with atheism. Which was her point all in one.

Either it's religious or irreligious so atheism is concerned since it's irreligious...
What i listed are all done, not in the name of god, but in names of IRRELIGIOUS and secular ideologies.That's why it's an outdated cliché to say that “religions are the cause war and conflict”.

Bah, you're missing the point.

The claim was that atheism was the cause of ideological wars. Meaning that all the casualties you listed above were caused by atheism and religion couldn't be held responsible for the deaths it caused.

My point was that no war had ever been waged because of atheism and countless wars had been waged due to religion. Hitler and Stalin were given as examples by the other party and that's the reason I mentioned them in my post. Pol Pot, Mao Zedong and deaths caused by political rejimes have nothing to do with this debate.

@YowYan -> You beat me to it. <3

The point in bold, i proved that all the wars i listed was done by irreligious ideologies, so atheism is concerned.
Read some of the late books out on darwinism's influence on Hitler, Stalin and the like...



This is summarised well by Keith Ward, the former Regius Professor of Divinity at the University of Oxford, he writes,

“It is very difficult to think of any organised human activity that could not be corrupted…The lesson is that anti-religious corruptions and religious corruptions are both possible. There is no magic system or belief, not even belief in liberal democracy, which can be guaranteed to prevent it.”

 

[YowYan]

Either it's religious or irreligious so atheism is concerned since it's irreligious...
What i listed are all done, not in the name of god, but in names of IRRELIGIOUS and secular ideologies.That's why it's an outdated cliché to say that “religions are the cause war and conflict”.


The point in bold, i proved that all the wars i listed was done by irreligious ideologies, so atheism is concerned.
Read some of the late books out on darwinism's influence on Hitler, Stalin and the like...



This is summarised well by Keith Ward, the former Regius Professor of Divinity at the University of Oxford, he writes,

“It is very difficult to think of any organised human activity that could not be corrupted…The lesson is that anti-religious corruptions and religious corruptions are both possible. There is no magic system or belief, not even belief in liberal democracy, which can be guaranteed to prevent it.”

irreligious? Did you just make up that word? And it's a cliche created by religious folks themselves to try and share the blame of wars and what not with atheists. Which is pathetic and illogical. I think you lack a few years of reasoning and living in general to be able to have a legit opinion on the matter. What you just said towards me and Kirin Rei makes no sense whatsoever.

 

[sasori345]

irreligious? Did you just make up that word? And it's a cliche created by religious folks themselves to try and share the blame of wars and what not with atheists. Which is pathetic and illogical. I think you lack a few years of reasoning and living in general to be able to have a legit opinion on the matter. What you just said towards me and Kirin Rei makes no sense whatsoever.

Look for irreligious in dictionary.
If you can understand that, then you will be on your way to understanding why atheism is concerned.

 

[YowYan]

Look for irreligious in dictionary.
If you can understand that, then you will be on your way to understanding why atheism is concerned.

I know the word, I've just never, ever heard anyone use it in real ;p
And no, it's not.

 

[Kirin Rei]

Look for irreligious in dictionary.
If you can understand that, then you will be on your way to understanding why atheism is concerned.

The point you're missing is that atheism is not a motivating factor in non religious wars. It has nothing to do with them.
Does lack of belief in big foot, unicorns and flying spaghetti monsters drive you to do evil? No, because lack of something is not a driving force.

If a community believed in a mythical big foot and waged war because of said belief, that would be due to big foot.
If a community was completely non religious and waged war because of economical or political reasons, you can't claim that they waged war due to their lack of faith in big foot.

It's as simple as that.

If (when) the day comes that a non believing community wages war against a religious community, solely because of the fact that they believe in something, only then can it be categorised as a war caused by atheism.

 

[YowYan]

The point you're missing is that atheism is not a motivating factor in non religious wars. It has nothing to do with them.
Does lack of belief in big foot, unicorns and flying spaghetti monsters drive you to do evil? No, because lack of something is not a driving force.

If a community believed in a mythical big foot and waged war because of said belief, that would be due to big foot.
If a community was completely non religious and waged war because of economical or political reasons, you can't claim that they waged war due to their lack of faith in big foot.

It's as simple as that.

If (when) the day comes that a non believing community wages war against a religious community, solely because of the fact that they believe in something, only then can it be categorised as a war caused by atheism.

Well said.

 

[drknght]

The point you're missing is that atheism is not a motivating factor in non religious wars. It has nothing to do with them.
Does lack of belief in big foot, unicorns and flying spaghetti monsters drive you to do evil? No, because lack of something is not a driving force.

If a community believed in a mythical big foot and waged war because of said belief, that would be due to big foot.
If a community was completely non religious and waged war because of economical or political reasons, you can't claim that they waged war due to their lack of faith in big foot.

It's as simple as that.

If (when) the day comes that a non believing community wages war against a religious community, solely because of the fact that they believe in something, only then can it be categorised as a war caused by atheism.

Give me one reason why atheists wouldn't enrage wars between religious communities. I'm catholic, but for me it doesn't really matter if someone believes or not. It's people's choice. But, if I would be an atheist, meaning believe that death ends everything, I would try to get rid off people of religion, because they would be obstacles for me to fulfill plan of "bettering" people. Meaning, creating humanoids, people-computers, the ultimate communists, having intercourse with animals, or whatever sickness they can come up with.

 

[ZK]

Give me one reason why atheists wouldn't enrage wars between religious communities. I'm catholic, but for me it doesn't really matter if someone believes or not. It's people's choice. But, if I would be an atheist, meaning believe that death ends everything, I would try to get rid off people of religion, because they would be obstacles for me to fulfill plan of "bettering" people. Meaning, creating humanoids, people-computers, the ultimate communists, having intercourse with animals, or whatever sickness they can come up with.

You must be registered for see images