Atheism, Marxism, and all that other stuff

[mack341]

More just wondering why you were looking for so many answers about atheism

I wasn't really it just started as a reply to david's post at #59, where he did say amongst other bits on atheism: "This isn't an attack, this is a challenge. If I say something incorrect then I'd hope someone would have the decency to challenge me so I can learn where I'm going wrong and improve. And if I make a post/claim in a public forum then I think by default I'm opening myself up to being challenged. The other option is to not post it."

As Adam correctly guessed I was happily engaged in household chores when I saw David's post reply to me. If I'm honest post #42 is of more interest to me than atheism But if we're gonna have a decent debate in this thread it's got to be a bit indepth or probing, I tend to be a jack of all trades and master of none when it comes to subjects, so I have to rely on articles and videos. The one I posted a few pages back with jordan peterson and sam harris was surprisingly interesting, I do need to watch that again.

Most people don't realise, I certainly didn't, that this is a bit of hot topic and battleground of debate amongst thinkers, scientists and academics, I thought it was just a personal choice and a bit of a dead issue, but there is an active atheism movement a bit like the remain movement re brexit, where something that many assumed was decided in a democratic vote with a large turnout is actually not decided. The militant atheists want change to the way the world is run, an end to religion etc... they want society to move more towards atheism

 

[goatwack]

Haven't seen the last 4 pages, but I was raised a Jehovah's Witness if that helps at all

Now I'm a Satanist

 

[trancemonkey]

I still can't see what you are disagreeing strongly with, I was not talking about whether the existence of god is true or false, I was just saying for myself I find atheism depressing, as you're left only with the atheistic meaning of life. Which is what exactly, enjoy yourself as much as possible as you'll be brown bread soon??

How can taking away God or a creator/ intelligent creative force not be reducing the possibilities of the meaning to life?

Because I dont need a creator or God, so therefore my possibilities are way more open than someone who has to live their life by a set of religious rules.

 

[mack341]

Because I dont need a creator or God, so therefore my possibilities are way more open than someone who has to live their life by a set of religious rules.

I know what you mean, some religions can't eat certain foods and have other odd restrictions imposed on them,[ I don't live by a set of religious rules myself] I did say I wasn't talking about the day to day human activity, but more about the big meaning of life questions. Once you exclude creation and a creator from the possibilities, there's not as much left, all the mystery is taken away and replaced by materialism.

"Materialism is a form of philosophical monism which holds that matter is the fundamental substance in nature, and that all things, including mental aspects and consciousness, are results of material interactions" ~wikipedia

So on that basis morality must be a result of a material interaction/process...it's interesting.

I must say although this debate has got a bit fractious in places I'm pleased it's happened, these subjects are things I haven't thought about for many years, probably pre internet was the last time I seriously looked at philosophy etc in the local library, however using the internet all the resources required are there at the touch of a button, and just seeing the bit's today reminded how much there is to read and learn about.

 

[paul7388]

I know what you mean, some religions can't eat certain foods and have other odd restrictions imposed on them,[ I don't live by a set of religious rules myself] I did say I wasn't talking about the day to day human activity, but more about the big meaning of life questions. Once you exclude creation and a creator from the possibilities, there's not as much left, all the mystery is taken away and replaced by materialism.

"Materialism is a form of philosophical monism which holds that matter is the fundamental substance in nature, and that all things, including mental aspects and consciousness, are results of material interactions" ~wikipedia

So on that basis morality must be a result of a material interaction/process...it's interesting.

I must say although this debate has got a bit fractious in places I'm pleased it's happened, these subjects are things I haven't thought about for many years, probably pre internet was the last time I seriously looked at philosophy etc in the local library, however using the internet all the resources required are there at the touch of a button, and just seeing the bit's today reminded how much there is to read and learn about.

But again i could counter that.

Take god out of the creation and it opens up more avenues to discuss. Instead of god creating people could focus more on evolution etc.

Unless you really believe man was made through incestuous relationship from a couple god created and everyone came from that. Genetically man would never have survived.

 

[mack341]

No I think there could've been a guided evolution, which a creator started off rather than plonked us down on earth. I think science and the mystery of there being a creator can exist together, one doesn't have to exclude the other.

 

[dionysus]

I know what you mean, some religions can't eat certain foods and have other odd restrictions imposed on them,[ I don't live by a set of religious rules myself] I did say I wasn't talking about the day to day human activity, but more about the big meaning of life questions. Once you exclude creation and a creator from the possibilities, there's not as much left, all the mystery is taken away and replaced by materialism.

I'd think the opposite is true
ps im aware im oversimplifying here


Theists
What came first, the chicken or the egg?
The chicken. God made the animals on the 6th day
Sweet

non-thesists
What came first, the chicken or the egg?
Well, do you mean chicken eggs, or all eggs, including reptile eggs? If all eggs, other species bore eggs long before chickens. Do you mean a chicken vs chicken's egg? A proto hen laid what would become the 1st chicken, fertilized by a proto-rooster. This all comes down to another discussion about evolution. But the answer is stil egg.

 

[mack341]

That read like a song or ditty, gave me a chuckle that did

I don't know if I'm breaking some religious core truism but I don't mind evolution, as long as it was a creator who kicked it off, intelligent design I think it's called. It says on wikipedia that natural selection is an undirected process, but I don't see why that has to be the case.

 

[goatwack]

Can't we all just be more spiritual and religious, you bunch of heathens

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

 

[dionysus]

Can't we all just be more spiritual and religious, you bunch of heathens

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

whups, sorry, that's 'Heathers'

 

[paul7388]

Can't we all just be more spiritual and religious, you bunch of heathens

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

Yeah good idea i will become a leader of one of those cults where everyone sits getting stoned , drunk then i have all those lovely women who worship me to do as i please.

Either that or i will join you for one of your satanic rituals.

No thanks actually i will just be my non believing self i don't have any energy for the above.

 

[dionysus]

Yeah good idea i will become a leader of one of those cults where everyone sits getting stoned , drunk then i have all those lovely women who worship me to do as i please.

Either that or i will join you for one of your satanic rituals.

No thanks actually i will just be my non believing self i don't have any energy for the above.

I think it was a Santanic cult; well, at least it would explain the red fur suit and why everyone had to sit on his lap

 

[paul7388]

I think it was a Santanic cult; well, at least it would explain the red fur suit and why everyone had to sit on his lap

I was going to make a comment on that but even i know when to stop.

 

[trancemonkey]

That read like a song or ditty, gave me a chuckle that did

I don't know if I'm breaking some religious core truism but I don't mind evolution, as long as it was a creator who kicked it off, intelligent design I think it's called. It says on wikipedia that natural selection is an undirected process, but I don't see why that has to be the case.

Even though it is scientifically proven that it is, and we have the evidence to prove it.

Btw ... why is there no mention of the dinosaurs in the bible? Pretty important omission right?

 

[mack341]

Even though it is scientifically proven that it is, and we have the evidence to prove it.

Btw ... why is there no mention of the dinosaurs in the bible? Pretty important omission right?

but I've never said I was a bible purist, I think there is verse about monsters and creatures but no they don't specifically mention the dinosaur word. Evolution could still have been 'god' driven could it not?

 

[goatwack]

I'm sure there's mention of 'beasts of the field' type things, though they were likely referencing lions & oxen and shit

 

[paul7388]

but I've never said I was a bible purist, I think there is verse about monsters and creatures but no they don't specifically mention the dinosaur word. Evolution could still have been 'god' driven could it not?

No because God does not exist

 

[smart_croatia]

i just watched this documentary I am rly out of my words.... it have eng. subtitles