I want to know more about Aethism! help me please

[Robertsxxx]

www.askanatheist.org visit this and anlyze their beliefs

Huh? !st you asked about ask.com Now it seems like a totally dif. site.

what is the term called “Cosmological proofs”?

*The cosmological argument, or “first cause” argument, takes the existence of the universe to entail the existence of a being that created it. It does so based on the fact that the universe had a beginning. There must, the first cause argument says, be something that caused that beginning, a first cause of the universe. The cause is assumed to be God.

There is also a specific form known as the kalam argument.*(wiki)

I think the Anthropic principle, Fine tuning argument, First cause argument, Uncaused cause & Unmoved mover can also fall under Cosmological arguments.
I bet you can just google them, it will give explanations.

 

[Leela]

I suppose thats why some atheists believe in the crazy idea that some moral statements are logically and meaningfully true.

Hi Mind,

Why is it a crazy idea that a moral statement could be true? It seems to me that if there are practices that are good or bad for human beings then these would be truths worth knowing and inquiring about. In the US, the word we use to describe our best efforts in honest inquiry is “science.” For the atheist, questions about morality are ones about human flourishing, and if so, then science can help us inquire about how to achieve that goal. (Of course if morality is about avoiding making God mad, science will be of little use.)

Best,
Leela

 

[Dameedna]

That’s an overly optimistic generalization in my opinion. I think some proportion (would be interesting to see which) of people are atheists not for the best of reasons: they haven’t given the idea of a diety a thought, or haven’t faced a convicing preacher, or just do not give thoughts to those believes at all.

How many believers that you know, can explain why they believe what they believe? How many circular arguments have you heard? Deep thinkers do not presume that a bible can prove itself, nor that a pope can claim infailability simply because he say’s so.

Athiests are not immune to the problem of not thinking clearning. They are just skeptical of what they are told, meaning, they have come across a “convincing” preacher and they remained a skeptic because they refuse to believe what they want to.

That would not be honesty, to the athiest.

 

[Robertsxxx]

Athiests are not immune to the problem of not thinking clearning.

That’s what I was pointing out.
Furthermore, I think a big % of non-believers have never even considered why they hold the beliefs they do.

They are just skeptical of what they are told, meaning, they have come across a “convincing” preacher and they remained a skeptic because they refuse to believe what they want to.

How many “normal” atheists do you know that have talked to an actual preacher (a fairly good one - convincing wise)?

I do not think the active atheists only are an actual representation of everyday* atheist that don’t really care much for religious topics & etc. Like the crazy literal crea-arguers/youtubers are not a representation of the majority of Christians who just live their lives, believe whatever & don’t pay much attention to “OMG! ANOTHER ATHEIST ADD! BLASPHEMY!”

That would not be honesty, to the athiest.

 

[Dameedna]

That’s what I was pointing out.
Furthermore, I think a big % of non-believers have never even considered why they hold the beliefs they do.

I think you are correct on this. I think there are a lot of non-believers who haven’t thought about it.

But it would be wrong to presume that if the DID think about it, they would draw the same conclusions.

Often, the rejection of religion, is the acceptance of something else, rather than a well thought out process.

How many “normal” atheists do you know that have talked to an actual preacher (a fairly good one - convincing wise)?

hahah…well, if they were “convincing” then I guess my friends wouldn’t be athiests. What do you mean by convicing?

Yes, I know plenty who have discussed religion ad-nausem and they often know more about it than believers do.

I do not think the active atheists only are an actual representation of everyday* atheist that don’t really care much for religious topics & etc.

It is interesting that you say “active”.

Have you ever noticed that some athiests will try and differentiate themselves with other’s? they will call themselves “true” athests, or “actual” athiests. They don’t know why they are doing it, but they recognize the difference.

I do not think, all non-believers are athiests, and I do not think all athiests need to understand everything about religion to reject it, in a valid way for them.

Non-belief is just as complex as belief.

If you really want to get your knickers in a knot…as yourself this…

…why on EARTH would an individual possible want to believe they blink out of existance and that their actions are meaningless…rather than believe in an eternal promise of life?

Why…would you do it?

 

[Robertsxxx]

I think you are correct on this. I think there are a lot of non-believers who haven’t thought about it.

Just like there are believing that are going through their lives without giving what they believe any thoughts becasue nobody ever asks.

Often, the rejection of religion, is the acceptance of something else, rather than a well thought out process.

I’m not sure what you mean by this.

hahah…well, if they were “convincing” then I guess my friends wouldn’t be athiests. What do you mean by convicing?

Lol I mean moe than just the emotional scare tactics of “YOU’RE GOING TO HELL HEATHEN! REPENT!” or “The Bible is true because the Bible says so”
I mean that atleast have a medium knowledge of different arguments (even though some might be falacious) & will at least make the other side think about what they believe & question their convictions & reasons behind them.

Yes, I know plenty who have discussed religion ad-nausem and they often know more about it than believers do.

Once again I’m pretty sure you are talking about friends that activity* take part in the religious aspects by checking religious news, participating in dif. boards & etc. The majority of the population doesn’t give a damn about it, unless something very controversial is posted in the media. I never knew a “war on Christmas” existed, prior to this year when I actually started to pay attention to the news much more often. We don’t have such problems here. People won’t care whether you say Merry Christmas or Happy Holidays.

I do not think, all non-believers are athiests, and I do not think all athiests need to understand everything about religion to reject it, in a valid way for them.

Researching all religions would take forever… Or more…

…why on EARTH would an individual possible want to believe they blink out of existance and that their actions are meaningless…

Why are actions meaningless if there is no universal diety?

 

[Dameedna]

Just like there are believing that are going through their lives without giving what they believe any thoughts becasue nobody ever asks.

Maybe they aren’t ready yet.

I’m not sure what you mean by this.

I read a quote by a muslim mystic that really stuck with me. He said something along the lines of, Maybe a rejection of a certain kind of God, is a faith in another kind of God.

It stuck with me for many reasons, but in an act of irony that afternoon my mother(a very strong athiest) was incensned by some religious act and very strong stated “GOD would NEVER do that”… then she blushed and said “If there was a god of course”.

hehe. So what I mean is…an act of rejection of something, is often an acceptance of some thing else and the individual may not even know it.

Once again I’m pretty sure you are talking about friends that activity* take part in the religious aspects by checking religious news, participating in dif. boards & etc.

No I’m not. I’m talking about people who know only the basics of christiantiy and they reject it. I agree with the principles of their rejection.

IE, no matter how the bible is justified, it can never be verified.

IE< no matter how much the christian claims choice is a part of the heaven and hell doctrine, we never chose to exist in the first place.

The do this, almost automatically, and no amount of christian knowlege, would change their understanding of truth, or love.

Why are actions meaningless if there is no universal diety?

Because no matter what you do, from a perspective of reality? it doesn’t matter. The universe will continue to do it’s thing, regardless of what I do, as an indvidual.

The universe, doesn’t give two hoots if I live or die. Only I do, and the people how love me.

Does that answer your question?

 

[Robertsxxx]

Maybe they aren’t ready yet.

Ready for what?

I read a quote by a muslim mystic that really stuck with me. He said something along the lines of, Maybe a rejection of a certain kind of God, is a faith in another kind of God.

That is interesting, but at the same time doesn’t really make sense. If somebody does not believe in fairies are they accepting something else in stead?

It stuck with me for many reasons, but in an act of irony that afternoon my mother(a very strong athiest) was incensned by some religious act and very strong stated “GOD would NEVER do that”… then she blushed and said “If there was a god of course”.

Haha

hehe. So what I mean is…an act of rejection of something, is often an acceptance of some thing else and the individual may not even know it.

Hm… in the case of atheists what do you think that “something else” would be?

No I’m not. I’m talking about people who know only the basics of christiantiy and they reject it. I agree with the principles of their rejection.

I would prefer if they actually gave it more though; not in a sense of “accepting christianity” but being more critical to others’ & their own beliefs.

IE< no matter how much the christian claims choice is a part of the heaven and hell doctrine, we never chose to exist in the first place.

Um… technically you can choose to kill yourself. But that’s an interesting point.

The do this, almost automatically, and no amount of christian knowlege, would change their understanding of truth, or love.

Because no matter what you do, from a perspective of reality? it doesn’t matter. The universe will continue to do it’s thing, regardless of what I do, as an indvidual.

& God will stop to do things if you will?

 

[Dameedna]

Ready for what?
That is interesting, but at the same time doesn’t really make sense. If somebody does not believe in fairies are they accepting something else in stead?

I’m not sure I can explain this without putting words in mouths. It’s more an intuition than anything else.

To simplify it, if you think murder is wrong , then you must by default think that “not murdering” is right.

Ie, to have a sense of what is wrong, you must have a sense of what is right.

To have a sense of the “wrong” kind of God, you must have a sense of the “right” kind of God.

This is not the same as believing what you want. Remember what I indicated about athiests. They have given up any hope for an eternal life and ultimate meaning for the sake of “something”. What is that something?

Haha

yeah, my mums a cutie.

Hm… in the case of atheists what do you think that “something else” would be?

hehe…we can continue with this thought on another thread. Gosh, I think we’ve just derailed this one.

bah…OP, are you okay with this chit chat, or is this no what you were looking for?

 

[hughi]

One of my favorite quotes about atheism comes from Salman Rushdie, the well-known (formerly Muslim) atheisit author of “The Satanic Verses”. So said the author in his interview with Bill Moyers on the PBS series “Faith and Reason:”

“Have you ever noticed how athesits are absolutely obcessed with God?”

Chow.

 

[po18guy]

Atheists have a most profound faith. They must to persist in disbelief while being surrounded by overwhelming evidence to the contrary!

 

[Dameedna]

“Have you ever noticed how athesits are absolutely obcessed with God?”

Chow.

Replace God with Truth, and you are some-what closer to the athiest mindset

 

[hughi]

Replace God with Truth, and you are some-what closer to the athiest mindset

The quote is not mine, but comes from an atheist, Salman Rushdie. But I do understand your point. Salman Rushdie, one of the best-known modern atheists, certainly echos your point when he pontificates on ethics and morality. In his view, mankind possesses an “innate” sense of “good and evil” that preceeds, and does not stem, from a pre-imminent existent God.

Listening to his interview with Bill Moyers is interesting, in that one might ask where does an “innate” sense come from? At one point, Rushdie lets out the Freudian slip, using the word “created” in regard to mankind.

I’m not being critical of him. In fact, I really have to wonder what he really believes, when he describes his mission as a writer to primarily stimulate thought in the reader.

Don’t misunderstand me. I suspect that Rushdie, as he says, is a “die in the wool” atheist. But I also suspect, that there are a few “devils’ advocates” out there who articulate a position opposite to their own, simply to stimulate thought. It’s just that Rushdie leaves me wondering when he speaks so fondly of his days in England on the grounds of an Anglican cathedral. To him, it expressed some of the best of religion: it’s abilty to capture in architecture and art the essence of transcendent beauty (and then, perhaps, of God).

Unlike most atheists, Rushdie is the first to tell you that he sees much “good” in religion, but certainly like his co-religionists, he is able to articulate its potential for harm as well. This recalls the paradox which led to the ultimate demise of the IRA in Northern Ireland, meeting its fatal challenge from Catholics who no longer wanted their interests represented by terroritists. Similarly, he speculates as to Islamic Fundamentalism meeting its ultimate demise from its own co-religionists (moderate or liberal Muslims).

Consequently, I suppose it’s no wonder that those medieval cathedrals had both angels and gargoyles on their portals.

I also suppose that one could pose another question. When an atheist speaks of “truth” or “transcendence,” at which point can anyone be certain that “God” is not the unrecognized synonyn?

 

[Dameedna]

Unlike most atheists, Rushdie is the first to tell you that he sees much “good” in religion, but certainly like his co-religionists, he is able to articulate its potential for harm as well.

I think that a lot of athiests would have an easier time seeing the good in religion, if we weren’t being exposed to so much fighting that seems religious based in the world. It’s very hard to see good in religion, when you read about 5 yr old children being taught by their fathers to cut off an infidels head by practicing on the Pig Carcass in their kitchen.

I suspect most athiests would rather be "struck down"than ever support a notion that this is love.

This recalls the paradox which led to the ultimate demise of the IRA in Northern Ireland, meeting its fatal challenge from Catholics who no longer wanted their interests represented by terroritists. Similarly, he speculates as to Islamic Fundamentalism meeting its ultimate demise from its own co-religionists (moderate or liberal Muslims).

Well, even the most fanatical of idealogists (or their followers) will eventually have no choice but to see the devastating effects of their actions. It was with this realization, that Ghandi achieved what he did. At some point…hopefully, people will choose to question the validity of what they are doing. But this will leave them completely adrift from what used to anchor them which is why it is so hard to do.

I also suppose that one could pose another question. When an atheist speaks of “truth” or “transcendence,” at which point can anyone be certain that “God” is not the unrecognized synonyn?

It’s an interesting question and one that has been posed before. I think a search FOR truth could be based on our biology. As problem solvers and tool-makers we evolved with a desire to understand our world around us, since that is slowly what enhanced our survivial. In other words, a search for truth, could have it’s basis in our evolutionary path and is not being “called” by something else at all.

I was once told, that due to the very nature of the athiest…in that they will submit to love and truth despite the cost(believing they will live forever), they are in fact submitting to that which God represents. They are giving up their very “lives” for the sake of that which is much bigger than them, truth and love. Wether they have “THE” truth or not is not really the point. It is the reason they become athiests in the first place that is much more interesting.

So, when you look at the reasons that people tend to move in and out of a faith system you find some surprising results. The lawless self-absorbed individual who is governed by nothing but their own desire, occasionally faces the “truth”. It is a submission and a recognition that their lives are in fact chaos. It is this submission to truth that leads them to support religion in the first place. This is why the absolute submission to “god” and “truth” is so big in the religious mind. It is by allowing something bigger(God/truth) to govern their lives, their lives move out of the chaos of their former being, and into a rule based society and community that is far better for them. And it works.

In an act of real irony, people move away from religion for almost the same reasons. They lose their faith, because of a submission to truth and love. They can simply no longer believe that which may make them feel good and in a bigger and newer understanding of truth and love, they cannot help but to submit to it, and walk away from religion completely. They become a stickler for THE truth, and realize that a religious truth isn’t the same thing.

Then(so I’m told), the skeptic, who maintains that dedication to truth, will eventually move back toward a form of faith, but one that is rather different than the average religious mindset. Truth is not really obtainable, but simply something you spend your life striving for. These people are known some-what as mystics etc.

I think it’s true up to the athiest part.

 

[hughi]

Then(so I’m told), the skeptic, who maintains that dedication to truth, will eventually move back toward a form of faith, but one that is rather different than the average religious mindset. Truth is not really obtainable, but simply something you spend your life striving for. These people are known some-what as mystics etc.

Well said.

I suppose if one wanted to clip a picture from the Gospels to illustrate the dilemma, one might post the encounter of Jesus and Pilate, who posed the question, “What is truth?”

If one were to do so, the intimations are many. Some might counter that it is ludricrous to suggest that “Jesus is the truth,” and by contrast, to suggest that PIlate was either evil or confused for having posed the question in the first place. Let’s face it, we probably know more about Jesus that we do about Pilate, from the paucity of historical information about him. Given the heat of the moment they both found themselves in, I personally don’t think I’d want to trade places with either one of them.

But … is it not more likely that most of us probably resemble Pilate much more than Jesus? Regardless of one’s personal beliefs about Jesus, most of us recognize that we are not and never will be a world-famous religious leader who forged his reputation on the performance of miracles and strong self-assertions. Most of us are probably more like Pilate, not nearly able to articulate even our own personal views, let alone the ultimate truths of the universe.

So, I doubt if any thinking person could fault Pilate for asking the question. And given the heat of the political stress on him at the moment, few would want to be in his shoes, but most if not all of us have had to make decisions where we have to please two masters or numerous warring factions at work or home. Pilate is one of us, and we’re one of him, so to speak.

Of course, the obvious innuendo derived from the juxtapostion of Jesus and Pilate is clear to the believing Christian, and more likely offensive or absurd to the atheist: the suggestion that PIlate was staring truth in the face, and didn’t even know it.

(Or …maybe he did).

H.

 

[hughi]

“Then(so I’m told), the skeptic, who maintains that dedication to truth, will eventually move back toward a form of faith, but one that is rather different than the average religious mindset. Truth is not really obtainable, but simply something you spend your life striving for. These people are known some-what as mystics etc.”:

Well said.

I suppose if one wanted to clip a picture from John’s Gospel to illustrate the dilemma, one might post the encounter of Jesus and Pilate, who posed the question, “What is truth?”

If one were to do so, the intimations are many. Some might counter that it is ludricrous to suggest that “Jesus is the truth,” and by contrast, to suggest that PIlate was either evil or confused for having posed the question in the first place. Let’s face it, we probably know more about Jesus that we do about Pilate, from the paucity of historical information about him. Given the heat of the moment they both found themselves in, I personally don’t think I’d want to trade places with either one of them.

But … is it not more likely that most of us, if we are honest with ourselves, resemble Pilate much more than Jesus? Regardless of one’s personal beliefs about Jesus, most of us recognize that we are not and never will be a world-famous religious leader who forged his reputation on the performance of miracles and strong self-assertions. Most of us are probably more like Pilate, not nearly able to articulate our own personal views, let alone the ultimate truths of the universe.

So, I doubt if any thinking person could fault Pilate for asking the question. And given the heat of the political stress on him at the moment, few would want to be in his shoes, but most if not all of us have had to make decisions where we have to please two masters or numerous warring factions at work or home. Pilate is one of us, and we’re one of him, so to speak.

Of course, the obvious innuendo derived from the juxtapostion of Jesus and Pilate is clear to the believing Christian, and more likely offensive or absurd to the atheist: the suggestion that PIlate was staring truth in the face, and didn’t even know it.

(Or …maybe he did). Either God knows, or ultimately nobody will ever know for sure,

H.

 

[Dameedna]

Of course, the obvious innuendo derived from the juxtapostion of Jesus and Pilate is clear to the believing Christian, and more likely offensive or absurd to the atheist: the suggestion that PIlate was staring truth in the face, and didn’t even know it.

(Or …maybe he did). Either God knows, or ultimately nobody will ever know for sure,

H.

A human staring truth in the face, isn’t something absurd to the athiest at all. After all, they’ve given up a belief in an eternal life, so willing are they to stare…into the face of truth.

Athiests, will give up an eternal life, for the sake of something bigger(truth).

You think you stare truth in the face and you use this story to claim so. No my friend. The athiest recognizes the human capacity for denial. Very much so. ) So, apparently did Jesus.

That is why, they are athiests.

The question is…can you look at Pilate, and see yourself?

Truth, can be argued by anyone that uses any story, in any way shape or form. Both the athiest, and believer WILL understand the story. They will just disagree with each other about what is truth in the first place. hehe

 

[po18guy]

I pray that I will some day possess the profound, unflinching faith that atheists have. To so disbelieve in the face of mountains of evidence to the contrary is an amazing act of faith.

 

[Leela]

I pray that I will some day possess the profound, unflinching faith that atheists have. To so disbelieve in the face of mountains of evidence to the contrary is an amazing act of faith.

It takes no faith to be unconvinced by the evidence for Christianity. Don’t worry about praying for this as an amazing ability. You actually already know exactly what it’s like to be unconvinced by such “mountains of evidence.” Simply consider how unconvinced you are of the evidence for Zues or for Islam or Mormonism, or for any other religion.

Best,
Leela

 

[Charlemagne_II]

hughi

*“Have you ever noticed how athesits are absolutely obcessed with God?” *

I think most people notice this, even the atheists. Atheists often claim to know the truth, which is that there is no god, yet they never seem to come up with any proof that God does not exist. Locked into a materialist view of reality they cannot see beyond their five senses, yet they keep demanding proof for God as if God could be found at the end of a microscope or a telescope.

heronimo

My main impression of atheists is that that have never thought very long and hard about God, and don’t seem inclined to do so. You’ll note that they tend to be dismissive of God as a subject over which they intend to lose no sleep. As one atheist admitted to me recently in another forum, it’s so much easier to sleep in on Sunday morning.

For me that pretty much makes the case against atheism.

That certainly isn’t the case you could make against Catholicism, which urges the most vigorous and hearty pursuit of a relationship with God and doing good for others. Not that all of us Catholics live up to the task, but at least we know there is a task we ought to live up to, and built into our faith are devices for overcoming the tendency to backslide (confession and penance, for just two examples)