Is atheism an anchronistic non-belief system? Of all the "isms" that has bedeviled man's existence, it could be said that atheism takes the cake for being inexplicably incongrous with modernity, for in its essence, non-belief (in somehting or anything) belies the modern notion that belief is essential for man's continuing evolution into the most creative force on earth (or perhaps the universe). The underlying essence of creation is belief.
Do you really feel that the belief is God is essential for man's continuing evolution into the most creative force on earth and that that is a modern belief. All the other (isms) try to control thinking and creativity. An example would be Europe in the Middle ages. A believe in God can greatly hinder creativity by forcing people to study the world from within the teaching of religion. Example of this are astrology, anthropology, evolution, psychics and of course biology. I'm sure I've missed a few areas in which some religion fought against science.
The underlying essence of creation is only believe you want to belief it is so. This very statement shows how Religion can get in the way of science and creativity. It would have been better to ask it in a question and try to answer the question. What is the essence of creation or why are we here?
I have to apologize that my intiial post was not as clear and succinct as I intended it to.
Let me clarify it: I have had a lot of lively (and not so lively) interactions with atheists on HubPages, and if they are representative of other atheists anywhere else, then I will have to say that their non-belief in the existence of God comes with other ideas, one of which is that man's life and existence has no higher meaning, purpose, and usefulness beyond satisfying his biologic need to breath, eat, sleep, urinate, defecate and procreate. In essence, atheists believe that man's existence is anchored on the purely material and physical, with no aspirations for going above and beyond that reality.
Creativity is the purposeful and effortful generation and implementation of a novel ,occasionally radical idea that results in measurably useful outcome.
In the world of an atheists, since life has no higher purpose, why create something purposeful and useful. To them creativity is futility.
I would take issue with your statement that believing in God hinders creativity. People who believe in a Creator would certainly encourage them to be creators themselves because it is in creativity that they find a common experience, a shared narrative with the One that created them.
It is true of course that it is in the field of science that man could experience the highest form of creativity. It is also true that organized religion, in the past, have been a hindrance to that pursuit. But now that we are in the modern era... an era of scientific discovery, religion has purposely retreated into the background, except for the occasional foray into the question of morality and ethics of scientific experimentation.
One of the major religion, Christianity, of which I am a member,now basically concerns itself with the importance of believing in a Creator, hoping that man will find themselves worthy of the creativity that the Creator has blessed them with, and in the process being able to love each other along the way.
In the sense that atheists do not subscribe to the effort invovled in creativity because they equate it with futility, then I would say that Atheism is an anachronistic belief system.
That's very ethnocentric viewpoint. A person doesn't need to believe in the judaic-christian-islamic god of guilt to strive for higher meaning and purpose. that's an insult to buddhists etal who strive for higher consciousness or try to regain the 6th sense of ESP that resides in the 90% of our brains that we don't use.
Now I must leave and take pictures of lightening. I love taking pics of lightening:
It's monsoon season - yeah!
@ptosis: I am not very familiar with Budhism or other faith-based belief systems other than my Christian faith, so I can only speak from what I know. So from that point of view there was never any intent on my part to insult them. Your reference to "god of guilt" just does not jive with my perception of the God that I believe in, and to infer any negative connotation to that entity just does not serve any purpose from the point of view of this discussion.
Until there is some other explanation for reality, I guess what you see is what you get, no matter how much you think it sucks. Still there is no need to abandon your mind, and choose to believe the fairytales from ancient ignorant goat herders.
I don't think you are on to anything with this thread. It seems to me that you are only trying to convince yourself that you have chosen the superior position, by choosing to believe in childish Bronze Age fairytales. Unbelievable!!
"......fairy tales from ancient ignorant goat herders"......"childish bronze age fairy tales"
I have read these talking points from atheists ad nauseam on HubPages, that I would think you folks would at least give me some fresh and fleshy meat to bite my debating teeth into. Oh but I forgot... atheists are so uncreatively dull that they just could not come up with something new... something radical to support their view of the non existence of God.
Now going back to the topic of ancient ignorant goat herders. They may have been uninformed of the Laws of Nature(Physics/Math) that we all now know rule the cosmos, but they intuitively and instinctively perceived that they and their immediate world are not all what it seemed... the grandeur, the rhythm, the vibrancy, the order (and occasional chaos) that sorrounded them could not have led them to any other conclusion except that a Being, much higher than themselves, rule and control that world.
Over the millenia, humans either through the evolutionary process, or divine intervention, or both developed a brain that would secure his current niche atop the natural order... a brain that seeks and seeks and seeks answers to questions of when, how and why the world, the universe relate to his own particular existence. And now through science, man, because of his creativity that emanates from his belief of the existence of God thus of the meaning and purpose to his own existence can now unpeel the "onion" that is Man-Universe-God.
When man stop asking questions and seeking answers to those questions because his existence had become so stunted, and degraded by the atheistic notion that his life has no meaning and purpose beyond the biologic need to breath, eat, sleep, urinate, defecate and procreate, then that would be his ultimate demise...and act of uncreativity and futility.
"fresh and fleshy meat to bite my debating teeth into" - there is nothing new about the anachronistic beliefs from thousands of years ago and thus nothing new to say about them. Only the same statements that you don't want to hear or consider.
"unpeel the "onion" that is Man-Universe-God" - the unpeeling of "god" has been done already (no evidence+no definition=nothing to unpeel) and that leaves man-universe. This is the work of science and will be ongoing forever as all the answers will never be found.
"degraded by the atheistic notion that his life has no meaning and purpose" - you may assign any purpose or meaning you desire to your own life, but it is a philosophical one only and may or may not have anything to do with reality. That atheist notion is an attempt to understand reality, not the imaginings of the old goat herders and is thus neither stunted nor degraded. Unless you consider reality to be both?
@wilderness:"....there is nothing new about the anachronistic beliefs of a thousand years ago...." I must assure you that there is nothing anachronistic about a belief system that remains as vibrant and as self-sustaining as the day the conceptualization of the existence of a Supremen Being began.
The reason why Christianity has survived all of its 2 thousand years of history is the tenacity of its core tenets, that is (1) FAITH-- belief in God (2) HOPE--that in the meaningfulness of man's existence, there is another existence separate from his earthly one (3) CHARITY-- loving one another as Christ and his Father love us.
The 3 VIRTUES of Faith, Hope, and Charity are the trifecta that undergirds Christian beliefs....thus giving it its solidity and its permanence.
I totally disagree with you, in that the unpeeling of that "onion" has barely began. It is true that man has almost unpeeled the the essence of his humanity; now he is starting to unpeel the mysteries of the universe... and in the process come to an understanding of where his existence stands vis-a-vis the Universe and God.
Man's search for the purpose and meaning to his life is NEVER a philosophic venture but one that is based on reality.... for if man does not find the meaning of his existence... or worse, if man decides not to assign any meaning to his existence (as what atheists do when they deny the existence of a Being above themselves), then his life is no more (or less) creative or impactful in the Grand Design of things than the snail that just ate my wife's petunia. If that snail is not careful enough, it might wind up in the menu list of my favorite French Bistro.
The problem is in realm of semantics. It's not atheism that is a anachronism. It is the definition of God itself. Goat herders or not, One is not to judge one's capacity by their area of expertise. The plummer might know as much as the doctor (in the persuit of knowledge or meaning, not in what-about-my-kidney-transplant kind of specific way.)
Atheism depends on what you consider theism is. "...or worse, if man decides not to assign any meaning to his existence (as what atheists do when they deny the existence of a Being above themselves), then his life is no more creative or impactful in the Grand Design of things than the snail that just ate my wife's petunia. If that snail is not careful enough, it might wind up in the menu list of my favorite French Bistro." Do you think in universal scale you are more important than the snail? Or any other animal for that matter. And what does that metaphor mean? That other beings are not apparently conscious thus rendering them not careful? Or not impactful?
As the Christian you said you were you 'should' be more humble towards the universe. I mean, look at it.
Atheism does not invalidate extra-perception. Relative atheism is common in a skeptical (In it's pure, adjustable kind of) way. Accepting the possibility of a superior being is common in the so-called 'atheism'. Atheism is a definition created by believers. I've seen it usually in propaganda to smear counter-interests overtimes.
It might be a false-dilemma. Of course the Universe is a superior being. How could the whale explain to the amoeba that trillions of societies formed by beings just like it inhabit or even, ARE part of it? It is unfair to say that people who seek exclusively earthly understanding are uncreative.
Studying the system in a microscale is part of dreaming in a macroscale.
I personally find some strange comfort in thinking my life has no more or less meaning that that of the snail. Perhaps the only meaning that can exist is an illusion in nature and created by those who need them for a short time?
In essence, the only meaning we can ever have is what we mean to ourselves and others, and then that meaning is in reality meaningless (but a comfort to those self aware creatures, like us, who seek meaning). Like characters in a story, who confront challenges and find meanings that frankly don't exist (outside the mind of the reader of the story), our meaning is transitory.
Frankly, if you take the time to think about what it would be like to exist forever, eternally, and without end, I would go mad. No matter what powers I had, nor how many options for how I spend my time, I could not exist as myself for that amount of time without going completely insane, and even then, we wouldn't be through the previews before the main show called eternity. I wonder if people took the time to really really think about how LONG eternity is, would they really want it?
Perhaps it is that meaning one finds within ones own 'I' ness that would like to cling to the concept of forever. The 'I' cannot imagine an existence without itself.
I am going to have to think about your first statement, get my head round it if you will
I do disagree with the last statement, 'the I cannot imagine an existence without itself', I can imagine existence before I was born/conceived. I certainly do not think the world started with me!
I don't see how it can be impossible to imagine an existence without 'I' or 'me' - ness unless one cannot imagine that existence did not start with them.
Did that make sense?
I feel a bit like I am referring to myself as the royal 'we' at the moment! Trying to divorce myself from myself to talk about myself
I just hate when I talk about myself behind my own back!
Yes it made sense. Then there are those 'I's who would like to preserve their 'I'ness forever other wise they would not subscribe to the concepts like, forever, eternity. At least not in the, we will have a perfect earth and perfect body kinda forever.
Perhaps too that is why heaven and hell are interpreted as they are. Heaven being a chance for the 'I' to continue existing and hell for the 'I' to cease existing.
The 'I' ness tends to be attached to it's physical existence because that is it, as far as it knows and therefore in order to continue existing as the 'I's know how to exist it will do whatever it needs to do to try to hold on to that existence. Simply because it does not know it is much more beyond the physical.
For me you would sorta need to swap these! Forever is just too long!
Ever had a song you just LOVE, best song you have ever heard, most amazing song ever written? You hear it on the radio like a hundered times a day? Within a few days, you start to want to jab something in your ears to burst your ear drums so you never have to hear this song again? This song you used to love? Well eternity is more then long enough to do that to every song, and anything else you can think of, then go on to torture you long enough that your only hope is that the insanity will eventually destroy you totally. At least that is what I suspect an eternity of 'I'ness will really be like, and I wouldn't wish that fate on anyone, not even the worst person to have ever lived. If someone cannot let go of this desire to be permanent, immortal in some way, well thats their choice and who am I to take their choice for them? I just really think, if they get their way they will regret it for so long that the time spent enjoying it will be dwarfed into nothing. I don't see a major harm in believing in the immortal soul (so long as the person keeps it at that, a personal belief) but I do think that that be more of a hellish fate then they can actually imagine and I just hope they are wrong (or that I am, but the more I try to imagine eternity, the longer it looks, the colder it looks, the less I want it).
I suspect that it is actually the ego of the 'I'ness that holds this attachment, we don't see too many animals worrying about their afterlife do we?
It is difficult to try and picture non-existence. Since non-existence is the absence of a picture. We can only work with what is.
I don't find it difficult to picture the absence of me (non-existence). Working only with what is, I find it pretty easy. The world was around long before I got here. That isn't hard to picture. I just take the next step, picture that same world after I leave, not really much different then the world before me. That really is all there is to work with. You don't deny that the world existed before you did (well at least most don't, some do believe in life before birth and reincarnation) so what's so hard about it existing beyond you?
Exactly. You can imagine the world without you. But it's not so easy to imagine what it must 'be' not to be. It's hard to abstract and imagine what is the (non)sensation of being dead.
Imagining the world without you is imagining what it 'must be not to be'. It is one in the same. What was it like to be 'you' 10,000 years ago? It was nothing, and nothing isn't actually all that hard to imagine, at least not for me. Then again I have tried, each time it is easier and somehow it is more re-assuring and makes this brief life I do get the honour of living more important to me. It also makes my desire that those around me value my existence during the time of their existence more important too.
I wouldn't consider it to be the same thing. Describe to me what was your situation like before you were born.
My situation before I was born was nothing, no 'I' to have a situation with. No pain, no needs, no wants, no worries, no regrets, nothing to have these things with. Since time did not start with me, I can only surmise that it is ego that makes it difficult to imagine non-existance. Letting go of that ego is why I feel comfortable, even happy, with the idea of my non-existance. I cannot honestly find a reason to need to be so important as to have some permanent importance in the universe (or to God, if you prefer).
Yes only if we are attached it is hard to imagine.
The nihilism expressed in your post is so stunning to be unbelievable.... but having tangled with a lot of nihilistic atheists on HubPages, I could say I am not surprised. As atheists on Hub Pages themselves would flatly say, as you have in your post, there is just no meaning or purpose to be found in existence in general and the human condition in particular. So now, by way of your formulation were are all just meaningless characters in a universe whose existential futility is as verifiable as the transitory nature of the soul.... what you refer to as eternity.
You say that like it's a bad thing! But seriously, why does life have to have meaning? Or why can't we creat meaning for ourselves? As a pediatrician, I'm sure you've found meaning in your life quite independent of any religious belief.
When I came to the realization that there were no gods, I felt like my life was mine to live and make meaningful for myself. Life becomes far more precious when you realize that our earthly existence is all there is.
Of course you could create meaning or assign purpose to your own life irrespective of belief in God.
What riles me most is the nihilism of the more rabid atheists on Hub Pages.
I disagree most vehemently with your conclusion that earthly life is all there is and nothing more for man. A souless existence is shallow, hollow, and as such does nothing to maintain the verity and dignity of man's existence.
From the perspective of this discussion, and as per clarified by my response to radman's first post, I am specifically referring to and defining God as the Creator of the cosmos. There are of course other adjectives assigned to that name, but I am not in this discussion mentioning them because the main subject of my post is the issue of CREATIVITY of which God is supreme. I still am of the opinion, based on my various entanglements with atheists on HubPages, that they do not put any meaning to their existence anymore than that snail that might end up on my plate. Since most atheists on HubPages (with some exceptions of course) think or feel the non-utility of their existence, thus them being creative is futile.
On a universal scale, human life is of course more meaningful and thus more substantive from the point of utility and creativity than any of the other sentient specie on earth. I think that is self-evident , so for you to even ask the question begs another question: Don't you think human life is superior,( and therefore more impactful) to any of the other animal specie, from the point of view of creativity? Because if you don't, then you must be blind to the fact that snails, or any other animal specie have not created a civilization of their own.
Of course atheists invalidate "extra-perception" all the time , if by extra-perception, you mean anything that is not initiated or informed by our 5 physical senses. That is the whole basis of their non-belief in God, i.e, God is odorless, tasteless, touchless, silent, and invisible.... thus he does not exist. For atheists, as succinctly stated by one of the hubbers who posted a reply to my initial post, what matters most is that she(or he) believes in herself(himself), and nothing else. Which to my thinking is egoccentric. Ego and its licentiousness is a topic that Lone star has elucidated so well in his ripost to my OP... you might want to read it.
Just because we have built a civilisation does not mean we are superior to the animal species. Your thinking seems to be mainstream in that you put one species above another. You seem to put intelligence in terms of technology and advancement above what is natural. Each has its place you know and none is inferior or superior.
I am not an atheist but to state they place no meaning to their existence I very much doubt. It is your perception only that would come to such an outrageous conclusion.
If you believe in God I am not sure how you arrive at such illogical conclusions.
Of course the human specie is superior to the other specie, extinct or non extinct. To say otherwise is pure nihilism. The creation of civilization is just one measure of man's intellectuall superiority over all other sentient entities. I understand and I agree of course when you say that each and every specie has a place and therfore utility and purpose in the grand design of the cosmos.
If you read all my other posts, you will surely and swiftly conclude that I have always and consistently argued for meaning and purpose for man's ( and the other specie's) existence. It is the atheists on HubPages that have described in various formulation their belief in the non-meaning of existence... one even went further as to say that his existence is no more or less meaningful than the common rat that goes scampering in the town dump. One also said, yes the destiny of man is to be born, live, and die... no more, no less.
So the illogical conclusions that you are ascribing to me, should properly be plastered on the atheists on HubPages.
I disagree we are superior. In our own minds perhaps, but in reality no we are not. We have our place for sure but when we do not respect nature we are going against what could work harmoniously. When we do not subscribe to superiority we are understanding the balance of the universe.
With regards to meaning. I have not yet found a person alive that has not found meaning or do not search for meaning in their life. Having or searching for meaning does not require a belief in God. God exists whether we believe or not. Even in those who do not believe will find meaning in one way shape of form. It is human nature.
Love how you get to the point of the matter! I can tell you, some of us actually believe in creating meaning. Not so much about finding it, in God or in something else, but creating it ourselves. Meaning doesn't have to be permanent to exist any more then I have to be immortal to exist. Meaning doesn't need the arrogance of ego to exist, the need to be 'better then' or 'superior to' something else, to rate higher then others (like supposedly 'lower' animals).
I do wonder how people create meaning for their lives if they think it is already there, by default, thanks to some God or other profundity.
Yes indeed I doubt meaning is permanent as experience teaches us that meaning constantly changes. We do create meaning and it does not require ego, holier than thou, higher than thou attitudes to exist.
What our life meant to us as children changed as we grew as it did when we became teens, and changed again as adults and keeps changing. We look for meaning only when we do not realize that our lives change through our own creation and that change is natural.
If God creates meaning to some they might not see their role in the changes and attribute it to God or other wholly and completely. Does not necessarily mean that is so.
@Penny: Well thank your lucky stars (or is it divine intervention) that you have not met any of the rabid atheists I so regularly stummble upon on HubPages; otherwise you'ld be as riled as I am when I read their debating points that neither lacerate nor evicerate.
In reality, homo sapiens is superior to any othe other sentient beings on earth, because we have the brains to prove it. As I have said innumerable times on HubPages... this assertion neither denies nor degrade, the importance of those we share the earth with.
If by "the balance of nature" you mean every living specie on earth should find their own niche in the natural order of things, then of course we are all equal. However, the evolutinary demands that have been placed on the hominid specie, from Homo Habilis to Homo Erectus, to Homo Sapiens required that they/we evolve with a brain that could and did allow us to be more intuitive, instinctive, perceptive, imaginative, and yes creative thus allowing our specie to evolve and find itself on top of the natural order. Just because we have done so does not immediately or necessarily mean that the balance of nature have been upended. Man continues to be ruled by the laws of nature, man continues to be subject to the whims of mother nature. The balance lies in that fact.
The story of the original sin would tend to disagree with you (At least my understanding of it). As I do. The fruit from the tree of knowledge of Good and Evil points exactly to what you are advocating. Man makes distinctions and believes or subscribes to the concepts of inferior and superior because of the knowledge man believes he has attained.
We will have to agree to disagree.
" I am specifically referring to and defining God as the Creator of the cosmos."
"Don't you think human life is superior,( and therefore more impactful) to any of the other animal specie, from the point of view of creativity? Because if you don't, then you must be blind to the fact that snails, or any other animal specie have not created a civilization of their own."
Yes, we are creative beings, but we don't 'create' from scratch. We rearrange existing elements to fix things that are not broken. Every creation is like Frankenstein's Monster made from parts of others ultimately rendering a new being. It might be made from other people but the Monster has is own personality, his wishes, fears etc. And we as humans, being conscious of our own consciousness have this process facilitated. Because we have the ability to channel our feelings into artistic representations, per example. It is beacuse we are aware of their existence. But I don't see why that must be a product of divine intervention.
So no. I don't think atheism is an anachronistic non-belief system. Creation can derive from disbielief as well. Such as disbelief in the word 'Goddunnit' to explain phenomena, for instance.
Since other animals apparently are not aware of their consciousness it's harder civilize their societal ways. So your asking me if because we created the notion of civilization we are superior to the rest of Nature? In a universal scale we are all the same carbon-based debris. Look at those monkeys, how cute. Building towers and what not!
By the way, other species create.With the help of our tools, yes. In this particular case, anyway:
"Of course atheists invalidate "extra-perception" all the time , if by extra-perception, you mean anything that is not initiated or informed by our 5 physical senses."
Why can't a atheist believe in the plausibility of a mathematical theory before it is proven in the natural world?
"For atheists, as succinctly stated by one of the hubbers who posted a reply to my initial post, what matters most is that she(or he) believes in herself(himself), and nothing else. Which to my thinking is egoccentric."
It might be, but what about claiming superiority of the human race above the rest of Nature? What's that?
The human creative process involves first and formost the conceptualization of an idea, not the reaarrangement of pre-existing physical objects. When Einstein formulated ( an act of creativity of the highest order) his elegant equation E=mc2, he did not rearrange mass, and the speed of light to come up with energy. His imagination, as vivid and vibrant as it was, led him to conceptualize the idea that energy and mass are one and the same thing vis-a-vis their relation to the speed of light. The unity of duality. So your idea of creativity is altogether skewed towards physicality, when all creative ideas emanate first and foremost from the conceptual capicity, temerity, and perspicacity of the human brain..... a brain so complexly integrated and interconnected that none of the other sentient's brains could compare with it. So yes in that sense man as a living entity is far superior, because he has the brains to prove it.
Having said that, I am neither implying or proposing the idea that the existence ( and the purpose and utility of that existence) of other sentient beings on earth, should and could be devalued by humans. On the contrary, there is much that humans could learn from their sentient peers. I am also not advancing the idea that just because man has the more superior intellectual capacity for introspection, perception and elucidation, that he is now above the natural order in universe. Man will continue to be ruled by the laws of nature, and will continue to be at the mercy of mother nature.
I can not dissuade you obviously from your idea that the universe and everything that happens in it has nothing to do with Divine intervention. BTW, in an almost round about way, Hawking, suggested that God do exist, when while denying the possibility of mirales, he said (paraphrasing) that the laws of nature could not have initiated itself, so someone or something formulated them. Since miracle by their nature go against the laws of nature, whoever promulgated thee laws could not possibly go against his own laws, just to produce miracles.
Conceptualization. That comes from the physical world, does it not? Maybe we got ourselves in the question: Does the hand make the brain or the other way around? I think opposable thumbs have a big part on the possibility of making a concept.
The formulation of relativity is a great example of creativity. But didn't Einstein use notions such as light, mass, speed, etc.? Didn't he rearrange these concepts in canvas within his mind? Elements were very elementary in my previous saying, my dear A. Villarasa.
Which by my point of view, all of this that I'm saying, would make God virtually impossible not to exist. Since we have the capability of imagining it we are using elements of the existing reality we are set on. St. Thomas of Aquinas had this possibility on his mind. Which apparently has no conclusion. That's one of the reasons I said in my original post that the definition of God itself is anachronistic. You can't understand a being that works in other spectrums which you do not have access to. So the definition doesn't make sense. It's us trying to humanize that force, or spirit or His Holy Whatever.
That Hawking saying invalidates this whole point, depending on semantics yet again. If God is omnipotent then it could reverse it's own laws. It could even make a thing more powerful than it is. But since God is omnipotent, how could that be? And furthermore, if God is omnipresent and omnipotent how could it make something outside of it? Paradoxes hard to solve. But would it be great to hear some development of these ideas.
Imagination and or conceptualization does not come from the physical world. Konowledge does, so wasn't it the same Albert Eisnstein who said :" imagination is better than knowledge"... or something to that effect.
In the creative world, knowledge comes a distant second to imagination/conceptualization in importance. If i were to similarly promulgate an equation as elegant as Einstein the math would look like this: C= I+ (I x I) +k, where C is creativity I (imagination), I(Instinct), I(intuition), and K(knowledge). But serioulsly, now.
I subscribe to Rene Descarte's formulation: "I think therfore I exist"... so the brain does make the hand. Anything the hand does, as you know, is completely under the control of those wonderfully integrated dendro-axonal connections called synapses in the gray matter of the tempral lobe of both cerebral hemisphere. So Einsteins 'canvas within his brain" is far superior to "apposing thumbs", when it comes to creativity.
I do agree with your idea that the definition of God is archaic, but his true nature never changes... it is constant and therefore unmalleable however hard we try, to twist and mold and squeeze, and wrap him into that box or this box.
The game of chicken called the omnipotence paradox was heaped on me by a secularist....and my riposte was, God is just too busy and preoccupied with managing his massive creation, that he just does not have any time to play game with mere mortals,.
When the student refuses to absorb what is being taught to him, then the teachers will have to repeat their instructions to him over and over again. The student will be retained at a certain grade level, until he understands the instructions. So you see it is you causing the repetition, then, you don't even have the awareness to see it.
Yet we know now that these ancient people's view of reality was only a knee-jerk reaction. There is no evidence that there is a Being higher than us, that controls the world.
A belief in god is not seeking anything. It's simply accepting a fairytale as the answer to questions that need to be researched through the scientific method. In fact, historically, religion has been very hostile to scientist, going as far as murdering scientist who disagreed with the erroneous conclusions of whimsical religious dogma.
It is religion that causes man to stop asking question, as your answer to any unknown question is Goddunnit!
Charles Darwin even tried to reconcile his religious faith with his scientific findings, but just could not, in good faith, do it. It was the religious...unevolved sheep who insisted that he abandon his progress in favor of ignorance.
So stop spreading this archaic and unscientific nonsense. Your weltanschauung is absurd.
Ever feel like you are in the twilight zone? Where Christianity is modern and creative and always seeking the truth and Atheism is archaic, lacking creativity and lies for the good of Atheism.
It's just Satan, blinding us to the truth, just so he can harvest our souls later. This would be a great moment for Jesus to step in and stop Satan, but it seems that Jesus is just gonna let Satan easily take our souls. Why can't our savior actually SAVE us.
".. There is no evidence that there is a Being higher than us." is a statement I would expect from an agnostic.... not an atheist. So what are you? BTW, I just heard on TV that the idea of a "God particle" as proposed by a British scientist, a while back, is now being supported by scientific date obtained from different and independent sources.
They call quarks up, down, strange and charmed - but that is just a name - not a property. A person could just as well used the Lucky Charms cereal naming system of pink hearts, yellow moons, orange stars, and green clovers. (Hey it WAS the 60's)
There is no "God" particle folks - it's just a nick name that the media has hammered on. It just sounds cooler than saying the Higgs boson. BTW: Leon Lederman actually wanted to name the particle that "goddamn particle" but his editor wouldn't let him.
Wiki the Higgsless model - "Unparticle physics and the unhiggs that posit that the Higgs boson is scaling invariant
I can't link to my own hub so here's a small quote: "There are no discrete particles, only forces, but in the math equation, when someone says what does that number mean, it's thought as a separate entity - a particle. The reducing of a thing into separate parts is what lies in the problem of understanding quantum mechanics."
Video on Higgs Boson here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_HrQVhgbeo
You are referring to the Higgs boson. This particle, actually has nothing to do with any God...that's only a nickname. But I see that it gives believers more false hope that what they believe is not a delusion. Good try though.
When scientists don't have an answer, the investigation begins; but when God is the answer, the investigation ends. Hence the middle ages.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but your debating point are so dull, they neither lacerate nor eviscerate. Your statements are so full of fallacies, that they are neither lucid, luminous, nor levitating.
Your total and complete reliance on scientific evaluation is foolhardy to say the least. Of course I agree with you that organized religion have been a hindrance to scientific discourse in the past, and to continually say that historical fact over and over and over again to make some debating points is neither useful nor tenable in negating the validity or the verity of issues at hand.
I have also said that it is in the realm of science that man could express his greatest creativity... but to put all your "eggs in that basket" on the way to hopefully understanding the universe and man's place in it is a supreme act of egotism and nihilism.
Rad Dude. Progressing into what we are to become necessitates an understanding above and beyond any that those in the generations before us has had to aspire to, an understanding of exactly what constitutes sentient life, for one, and if that definition could in any way be applied to the universe itself. It it were not a possibility, then, I wouldn't even mention it, but, that is where our science is really going, regardless of Hawking's theory.
Rad-I'm sure you didn't mean to include psychics in your first comment. Go back and read it. Of course, it could be a Freudian slip, say wot?
ha ha ha. No I didn't Druid, It's a combination of my being dyslexic and this new mac and it's not so perfect spell checker. If I type a word in incorrectly it just puts something close in and I keep typing, then when I read it over my dyslexic mind misses way to much. I believe Physics is what I was aiming for.
Thanks. It is kind of funny.
It could be said, but it would be wrong. We create because parts of our brains drive us to create, not because gods command or inspire us. If that was true, then where does non-religious art come from?
"Incongruous with modernity?" But belief in a 2000-year-old load of rubbish is compatible with modernity?
@twosheds1: The pre-frontal cortex is the part of the brain that is most inactive/active depending upon which stage of the creative process is being manifested. During the conceptualization/formulation stage, the activity in the pre-frontal cortex slows down considerably , and during the effectuation stage, the pre-frontal cortex becomes very active again.
The human brain is of course the most complex organ system there is, and its evolutionary journey has been shaped not only by our 5 physical senses, but also by perceptions, conceptions, evaluations of entities that are not immediately subject to those 5 physical senses.
Religious beliefs and Theistic belief are not mutually inclusive. I know of some people who believe in God but are not attached to or follow any religious organization; and of course there are people who are religious but does not believe in a Supreme Being.
You call the Christian faith a load of rubbish. If in fact it is rubbish, how did it survive over the 2 thousand years of its existence? Human history is littered with the debris and detritus of ideas/ideals/ideologies that just did not pass or muster human rationality. In that sense Christianity has survived to this our modern times because it tugs to the sleeves of human aspirations for something above and beyond the material and physical world.
The history of western civilization, of which you are now getting the full benefits of, is closely entertwined with Christianity,...so now are you inferring that western civilization is also rubbish?
Hinduism is far older than Christianity. Does that make more valid? All religions have "tugged at the sleeves of human aspirations," but I would suggest a different metaphor: religions have wrapped their hands around the neck of human aspirations, trying to drag them down. When we think that that sneeze might have a biological cause, religion has held us back and said that demons have caused it, and only by saying "God bless you" can we prevent those demons from coming back in the body. Gregor Mendel and Georges LeMaitre notwithstanding, religion been dragged kicking and screaming into the modern world by human aspirations for real explanations for natural phenomena, for equal rights for women and minorities, and for peaceful solutions to international problems.
Western civilization, indeed all of civilization, has advanced in spite of religion, not because of it.
The real reason why someone would say "God Bless You" when he(or she) hears someone sneeze is because physiologically, we actually stop breathing.... so the hope and idea is for God to bless someone to breathe again so his or her life could resume.
Sleep apnea is another matter, the non-breathing much more prolonged than what happens with sneezing, but no one says God Bless You because everyone else around the person with sleep apnea are sleeping or having sleep apnea of their own.
You failed to mention the fact that a lot of empiricists, aside from Mendel and LeMaitre are firm believers in a Supreme Being.
Religious bias and violence towards the scientific community have long since evaporated from our societal landscape, and to dreg them from the wastebasket of history to make the atheistc point that all religion are bad for you is total inanity, and vapidity.
Regardless of the origin of the phrase, my sneeze metaphor is still valid. What about schizophrenia? I know people who sincerely believe schizophrenia is caused by demons, despite there being no evidence for that and oodles of evidence of biological causes (and treatments). But that doesn't matter.
I don't know what Shangri-La you live, but in the world in which I live there is still religous bias against science. Witness the continued assault by intelligent design creationists against the teaching evolution in schools, or people who believe vaccines cause autism. Would you like to know why the biomedical research building in which I work has an armed guard?
In this day and age , the people who believe that schizophrenia is caused by demons are delusional to say the least. and to give credence to it by mentioning it in this debate, is itself delusional.
In the same manner that you sincerely believe that there is no such being as God... I don't necessarily call you a deluded fool for not sharing my belief. People are of course entitilled to their beliefs.... mine would be, that I believe in a Supreme Being, who created all that there is in the universe, and on earth, initiated the evolutionary process that blessed man, among the other specie, a superior brain that has allowed him to be close to the top of the natural world. If you consider me delusional for believing so...well so be it. I'm more than happy to wallow in those particular delusions.
Just for your information, I am a Pediatrician, and as such I do not share the belief of some folks that MMR causes autism.
I also believe
The underlying essence of creation is belief, however you seem to confuse belief with delusion.
Absolutely the opposite. Religions arose because man had no way to explain his world or the universe, and it therefore seemed magical to him. Early man made sense of his world by inventing supernatural beings to explain the inexplicable.
The more modern society becomes, the more atheism grows, because there is less and less need to invoke the supernatural to explain the natural world. The more we understand how things work, the less we need to invent gods.
If what you are saying is true, then how do you explain the sustained persistence of Theism over 2 millienia....and even in this modern and more scientifically spoused world of ours how do you explain the fact that close to half of the world's 7 billion people have faith based belief system. I don't think, as Gertrite suggests, we are all deluded fools. I posit, that the more science delve into the innner/outer workings of the cosmos, the more people will believe the existence of a Supreme Being. BTW, I just heard on TV, that the British scientist that once proposed the existence of a "God particle" is now being told by other scientists working separatetly and independently, that his idea is not too absurd after all.
One, it's only in the last couple of centuries that the common man has been educated. Prior to that, even if scientist like Newton were making discoveries, the average peasant or serving girl couldn't read and wasn't aware of them. Only a small elite were able to appreciate them.
Two, it's only in the last century or so that the common man has been able to live a comfortable life - and even then, only in developed countries. If you are suffering in poverty with no relief in sight, there is a very strong incentive to believe in an after-life where all your hard work will be rewarded - otherwise, what's the point of struggling on?
@MW: Your 2 paragraphs just doesn't cut it as a way to undermine my argument that Christianity as a belief system, is self-sutaining, and will continue to sustain its relevance in this our age and in future ages.
It is indeed self-sustaining: its followers indoctrinate their children, who in turn indoctrinate their children, and so on. That doesn't make it valid or desireable.
But more to your point, theism may be hard-wired into our brains by evolution (ironic, that). "Pattern recognition" is the term psychologists use. Our early ancestors, while out strolling through the tall grass, heard a rustling sound. Those who tended to survive were the ones who responded defensively to that rustling. Yeah, it could be nothing, but the consequences of a false negative (you think it's nothing, but it's actually a tiger) are far worse than a false positive (you run away from a fluffy bunny).
Applied to gods, people recognized patterns before they had the knowledge of the source of those patterns. Where does lightning come from? People in Viking Norway didn't know about electrical charges, so they came up with Thor.
Re: the "god" particle, the Higgs boson's existence has been suspected for decades. It is only recently that its existence has been preliminarily confirmed. CERN expects at least anothet decade of experimentation to fully confirm it. It's ironic you should mention it, because its existence allows for a universe to begin without the intervention of an outside agency. This has, of course, been suspected for quite some time, but this confirms what Stephen Hawking and Lawrence Krauss and others have postulated.
I don't finf ironic, as you do, that belief in a Deity is "hard wired" by evolution in our brain. As I see it evolution is neither neutral nor uninterested in making humans more attuned to the complexities and perplexities of nature, As a tool to sustain our specie, a belief in a supreme being was an evolutionary leap.... as a tool to plasticize our brain into the most complex organ there is in the natural world, a belief in God was and continues to be an evolutionary triumph.
I am not sure it is a simple as one needing to believe in a supreme being. Our cultures (like many other indigenous cultures) were believed to be pagan worshippers and when the Europeans decided they wanted dominion over the land and its people they instigated war to achieve the desired result. They introduced animals and food that did not originate here that carried diseases that our people did not have the knowledge to cure. Using their knowledge together with war they took away not only land but basic freedoms and also forced their belief systems on our people. Beliefs that were based on the Christian faith that would on the surface offer the solutions our people required to end the wars and diseases they were facing. Generations passed and only a select few from the different tribes kept to the original system of belief. Nowadays most of the indigenous have Christian based beliefs. So there could be many more reasons why it has survived for as long as it has. The example I give is only one.
your post is full of unmitigated generalization that neither imparts verity nor vitality to the history of western civilization.
I think her statement was accurate. When the first Christians came over form Europe to escape what they thought was a watered down version of Christianity they did exactly as Penny described. There is in fact much evidence (including letters) that describe using blankets infected with small pox to kill them off.
The history of the propagation of western culture and by extension, christianity paralleled the spread and competition among the Europian colonialist powers. The mixing of these various human enterprise was obviously as complex and difficult as any ,so to generalize and simplify it into an inchoate paragraph just does not do justice to the topic.
My opinion was based on historical facts. Your opinion seemed to based on what you believe was the reason theism has existed and increased for 2 millenia based on figures alone. Not 'how' those figures have come into being. When you believe that the more science delve into the workings of the cosmos, the more people need to believe, is that not in itself generalizing and incomplete? Your opinion is not based on fact but a perception that has no foundation except the continued existence of and the numbers you believe theism has increased by. I offered a reason as to how they have increased. I also realize it would not be the only reason and did say so.
your last sentence is irrational medically speaking.
You might need to verify that your statement is correct with disease experts. Smallpox can be spread via blankets when it is in scab form. Believed to be a bio weapon used against the American Indians too.
A lot of adjectives have been attached to describe colonialism, but counter-intuitive was not one of them. The propagatiom of Western civilization and achristianity was its intended consequence.
Colonization as a human enterprise was undergirded by trade or commercial considerations as well. So to be an accomplished colonial power involved subjugating and pacifying indegenous/weaker civilization. That obviously meant military occupation...which is not synonymous with complete eradication of native population which you are suggesting with weaponized variola virus. Eradicating native population is counter-intuitive if you are trying to build a colonial empire based on the labor and trade with the indegenous people. Plus if you eliminate the native population, who are you going to preach christian beliefs to¿
Well then, I guess all the history books are wrong then. Do you think the history books are also wrong about Christian led slavery?
I never suggested that complete eradication was the intent. Perhaps for the aborigine it was because they considered that race non human? If you read my post carefully, it said.... because they wanted dominion over the land and it's people. So to control our people, their religious beliefs were introduced. Not only to provide what appeared on the surface as the solution to diseases they did not know how to cure but to instil the fear of God that our people did not have.
I would describe their methods as counter intuitive. Any need to subjugate and pacify a nation without first understanding that nation is not intuitive. There was no trade or commercial considerations underlining the colonization. It was power, control and greed pure and simple.
The history of conquest and colonization, is of course speckled with violence of man towards his fellow man. And now that that part of human history is still with us and will continue to be with us, is a testament to the licentious power of Human Ego, not the conflating temerity of religious belief.
I agree that it was the human ego. An ego that clung to their religious beliefs that should show a supposed heathen who God really is.
If your measure of egotism is trying to impose my religious belief on others... then I am as ego-less as the snail that ate my petunia.
No, I wasn't referring to you. I was keeping in line with our dialogue about the Colonization that happened here. I agreed that ego, which is the culprit of power, control and greed, was what they clung to using their religious beliefs to tame the people they thought did not know God.
"...power control, greed pure and simple."----is an accurate description of dominating trade and commerce. Your last two sentence are not oxymorons.
The tragic flaw of this false-reasoning is the assumption that "belief" must mean "belief in a deity" of some type.
I believe in myself.
What more does one need?
Boy oh boy, your OP sure tries to use a lot of big words but in the end it says pretty much nothing of any substance.
Atheism is non-belief in deities. Atheists can believe in anything that a theist believes in, minus god(s).
The idea that we "need" a belief in the supernatural is absurd. What exactly is the advantage of accepting supernatural claims as opposed to rejecting them?
Actually there must be an advantage from an evolutionary standpoint or we wouldn't have all these gullible people believing in the supernatural. I wonder if anyone has ever done a study on wether theists are more prone telemarketers or infomercials? I strongly suspect they are. My Catholic Father-in-law just informed me that Mother Mary and Jesus are very tired from fitting all this evil and they are beginning to give up unless we all pray to give them strength. He heard this on the radio and thinks it's fact. The gullible never asked who is speaking directly to Mother Mary, they just believe what they are told.
That being said, from an evolutionary standpoint belief in the supernatural must make one more cautious and thus less likely to get eaten by a lion. I'm not sure what the advantage is or if there is still an advantage today, but I'm sure they are helping the economy by buy crap they don't need.
I am not saying that atheists do not believe in anything else.... in fact most ateists I neet on HubPages have alot of other beliefs, one of which is the non-meaning of human existence. That I think is pure nihilism.
The one thing I can never understand about being an "Atheist" is the fact that they choose to attack and speakout against the two things they do not believe in God and religion.
If you deny that there is a God, how can you attack someone or something that you categorically claim does not exist? How does one attack a nothing?
No atheist attack God. We simply explain why we don't believe in god. Has an Atheist ever knocked on your door and tried to covert you to atheism? No right? I've had plenty of Christians knock on my door. I've had plenty of Christians tell me I'm going to burn in hell if I don't do as they do. Am I not allowed to respond to that?
If you don't believe in God then how do you logically discuss something you do not believe it nor accept as truth. This is attacking.
What, I can't give me point of view, but you can?
So by your logic if one does not believe in aliens then one is not allowed to discuss aliens. One is not allowed to attempt to convince others that there are no aliens.
The objection is to religion (active delusion) not God (nonentity).
The only purpose atheism serves is to bolster the ego of the individual atheist, otherwise it only serves to eliminate all hope. Eventually, people who have no hope realize what darkness they themselves have created. Unfortunately, it may be realized too late. Do overs, anyone?
Everyone is born an atheist, it is only through indoctrination that they become believers. Atheism doesn't eliminate hope, but it reduces false hope, such as the hope that a god will intervene at the last moment and save you, or the hope that a god has a plan for you and that everything will work out in the end. Atheism is the acceptance of reality over the false hope of fantasy.
Your first sentence just does not gave any scientific, cultural, and historical basis....a generalization and oversimplification that atheists are known to engage in.
It doesn't need any. A baby born in the US today will most likely become a Christian. A baby born in Saudi Arabia, a Muslim. In India, a Hindu. In Norway a 1000 years ago, a believer in Norse gods. And so on. A person's belief is shaped by the culture into which they are born and beliefs don't take shape until after several years of life. Can a one or two year old child be said to "believe" in a god? Only in as much as they could be said to believe in Santa or the Easter Bunny.
But didn't you say in another post that evolution hard-wired our brain into believing in God?
Psssst...if it was hardwired, we wouldn't be discussing this.
I wouldn't say hardwired because there is very little hardwired into the human brain. But some may be more susceptible to suggestion. And to those I have a little land in south florida that I like to offer up for sale. You'll have to take my word that it's 1000 acres of orange farmland.
"Gods" with a small "g." Pattern recognition led to belief in gods as an explanation for natural phenomena. But the fact that supernatural beliefs are natural doesn't mean that the things we believe are real. In other words, belief in a god doesn't make a god real.
This is nonsense. Athiests are just the same as other people when it comes to having hope and humility.
So, when you boil it down, is anything being suggest here other than "I am right/modern" and "you are wrong/archaic". New words, no new ideas.
@Nouveau Skeptic: You could creatively join the discussion by offering your new ideas.
You started the conversation by basically saying atheism is bad.
My new idea is that you should accept that all belief systems are objectively neither good not bad--only the intentions and actions of people can be judged in that way.
@NS: From which point of view is it bad when I stated that atheism is an outmoded belief system? The statement is neutral and was based solely on my interaction with atheists on HubPages. My explanation of that statement is adequately covered by my response to the post by other hubbers.
Certainly didn't appear neutral to me. No way.
It is as neutral as I could make it... now if I said that Atheism is an ego-driven , vapid, (but occasionally rabid) simplistic belief (or non-belief as you folks like to call it) system because of the narcissistic, vapid and simplistic statements atheists post on HubPages then you are on the right track.
Plus 1. You just said basically atheism is bad, and that makes it not modern.
The conversation started nowhere and has gone nowhere.
We create because it is in our make-up to create. Non-religious art and religious art come from the same place, it is merely that religious artists ascribe their art to something outside of self, and the non-religious artist wants to believe that they did the creation lock, stock and barrel. Ego-centric. If we admit with understanding that all inspiration comes from outside of us, and that we are the instrument by which it becomes reality, then we begin to understand that everything is of a divine nature and a material nature. Both are reality.
Funny how that works, you think that the religious shouldn't take credit when it's do or take the blame when it's do, and the non-religious are ego-centric or taking credit for their creativity and will take blame for their mistakes.
I take the credit when I've done well and take the blame when I screw up. This makes me a better person.
Atheism which purports to believe in "nothing" behind all the self evident "some-thing" purports to foster a belief system that has its basis in "some-thing": There is no Creator of things seen as much as there is no Person making the claim. Classic Orobourus hubris IMHO...I remain agnostically apologetically aloof of offering arguments to those who pretend to be so open minded to philosophical discussion & debate while dismissing the thought of a Creator & those who would dare foster it, either of the 2 Hitchins brothers excluded from this categorisation. One cannot "reason" with the unreasonable.
"atheism is an outmoded belief system"
Nothing neutral about that...
Funny thing is Atheism is not even a belief system.
When you say categorically that you believe there is no Supreme Being, then you are expressing a belief.... perhaps not a system since it is so simplistic in its formulation and connotation, its structure not supported by any elements that make it stand on firmer grounds,
People reify things because it helps them conceptualize "their" behavior. The greatest of all reifications is God.
Anyone who thinks the gid particle has anything to do with God either doesn't understand physics or doesn't understand God.
@NS: I injected the topic of the so called "God Particle" just to twist atheists into a pretzel. It worked....., just reading RadMan and Getitrite and you go into extreme contortions denying that the particle has anything to do with God.
It might turn out (depending upon whether other labs confirm its existence) that indeed the particle could explain ( I certainly am not a physicist, so I'm guessing) how matter was formed after the Big Bang. Would that explain the existence of God? Too early to say... in this case the audacity of hope could easily and rapidly turn to the absurdity of hope, or vice-versa.
So I'm twisting like a pretzel by attempting to explain how Christianity smothered creativity. And you claim you just said that to get a reaction? I think your ignorance is showing.
Wasn't it you who said ignorance is bliss?
But of course, but mostly because you are twisting.
Ah yes...the perplexities of complexities. But there is nothing complex about God and faith in his existence...an atheist cohort of yours stated that evolution has hard-wired into our brain belief in God.
Certainly evolution has given some the need to believe in the supernatural. Perhaps it made them more cautious? If evolution had not selected this trait it wouldn't be here. I wonder if this gullible trait can be studied. Do they buy more from telemarketers and infomercials? Do they get taken more often by fraudsters? I wonder and suspect so. You see, when told there is a God as a kid, most kids don't question, but as they grow up some do, just like Santa and the tooth fairy. If someone told you they still believe in Santa, would you think they're gullible?
On a different layer let's not forget the importance of the myth. Santa exists in a way. Kids write him letters. And they get presents in return conditioned to some moral standards. Just like Jesus Christ, per example. If Jesus hadn't exist (hypothetically, despising historical evidence) would that make any difference to what people did of his behalf throughout History? Or in other words, are metaphors real?
Lets see, what did I learn from Santa? I learnt my parents knowingly lied to me. I learnt my parents bought me a bunch of presents and didn't take credit for them. I learnt that I had to lie for these presents to continue, is that the moral standard you speak of?
The truth is if Christianity hadn't become popular, the gullible would be believing in something else. The myth is certainly real.
Yes, that's part of what I'm talking about. But I don't care about the moral standard that Santa represents for you or anyone else in this specific matter. That's not my point here. I'm talking about acknowledging it exists. My point is that as you said myths are, in a certain way, real.
And even if God isn't real in a purely ontological way, the fact that people do things in it's name, talk about it, glorify and accredit works to it, doesn't it make it real in a 'Putois' fashion?
(It's been bugging my brain )
Fair enough, then lets talk about the good and bad of Christianity. The good it gives weak minded people hope, and that is a great thing, I can't argue with that. The bad.... well, let's talk about the middle ages and the inquisitions and perhaps the Crusades.
Everything has to do with God. Anyone who doesn't understand that...doesn't understand God.
To say something has to do with God implies a more than usually direct connection. Like angels versus apples.
I didn't say something...I said everything...angels, apples and the sunday morning paper. The storm AND the aftermath. Not a 'more than usual' same across the board. If God is God, then everything has to do with God. That is, if God fits his reported description: Omnipotent and omnipresent, creator of all things.
I understood what you said. if you are arguing all things are equally related to God, then making any specific observation of that sort is still meaningless and there is still no reason to inject Higgs boson particle into this discussion as it suggest nothing of relevance.
Or to make a point.
Peguins and asparagus, thus God or not God. Tuesday. Pine tree. Upside down lemonade.
That what I have always felt when they say "God loves everyone" & " Accept Jesus & you go to heaven" - So god love Hitler and Pol Pot as much as Mother Teresa or me? Then that is meaningless 'love', BTW if Hitler did accept JC right before he died during those few seconds after putting the bullet in his head - does he still go to heaven? - but it's the ghetto part? - since he didn't live long enough to do 'good works' so as to be 'richly rewarded" in Heaven?
Would Hitler be my neighbour in Heaven in the slum section?
I would definitely would be in the sloth section - that's where I scored highest on the test - but apparently I can lie as much as I want!
What sin will do you in?
The Higgs boson is of course relevant to the discussion no matter how much atheist dismis s it as just another routine sub_atomic particle.
So what is the relevance? Because the particle, like every other thing, involves God only to the extent you choose to involve H/him. No more and no less. As such it has not more place in a conversation about God than any other things that exists or potentially exists.
Addendum to above post: It is this particle that imparts mass, and therefore, energy to atoms.Without the Higgs boson I might as well say goodbye to all of us and the universe.
Correct, so why not pray to the particle? It is still a leap to say someone put it there, but didn't mention it. If somewhere in the bible it says man will one day smash protons and find a particle that gives mass to other particles you have something, but as it is you have nothing.
Atheism is one of the oldest belief systems and I suspect that it will still be around and thriving when Christianity has gone the same way as Zoroastrianism! :-)
I think the Higgs boson experiments show that post-Enlightenment Scientists are far more creative in their thinking and interaction with the world than any Dark Ages cleric!
Religion often has the effect of stifling free thought and the human imagination.
What is the oldest atheistic text on the planet? Where is your proof that it is one of the oldest (and many atheists will tell you it's not a belief system).
People were atheists before they were even people.
@twosheds1, not true! Before Homo sapiens, we were I AM. Created in the image and likeness of the Father, we were one with the Father. And the Father is not Homo sapiens.
@Nouveau Skeptic, chicken and egg? There's no puzzle there. The egg came first! That which laid the egg was an almost chicken -- a 99.9999999% chicken evolving toward pure chickenness. Or don't you believe in evolution?
I was born (this lifetime, at least) believing in God. Never mind that my grandfather was a Southern Baptist minister; I didn't believe in his interpretation of scripture. My earliest dreams (recurring starting at several months old) were of the difference between perfect confidence (faith) and doubt -- a startling ontological realization.
@PaulGoodman67, you're almost right that religion often has the effect of stifling free thought and human imagination, but if you look closer, you'll see that it really isn't religion at the heart of the problem. It's ego! Yes, even religion is beset with the source of all evil -- ego.
But even scientists can stifle free thought with their self-indulgent ridicule (the darker form of skepticism). That's ego, again. Nothing to do with religion. When chaos theory first emerged, many of the old guard were up in arms with ridicule and disrespect. Instead of innocent curiosity, they attempted to quash the new because it upset their worldview. That's ego.
When one archeological professor in Florida was invited by a friend to investigate underwater structures near Bimini Island, he refused because it would have jeopardized his career. You see, Bimini is "associated" with Atlantis, and the "A" word is the modern blasphemy. Scientists will not investigate Atlantis until it is proven in a peer-reviewed journal. But a peer-reviewed journal will not publish an article on Atlantis until scientists investigate (and quite possibly won't publish then either, because of the stigma). Science by ignorance! And yet, this renegade scientist found in their own literature, 3 items of scientific evidence, each from a different discipline, which prove that an Atlantis-like event occurred right when Plato said the island succumbed to the sea. Science and scientific method is the ideal, but few really live up to it all of the time... all because of ego.
Did "religion" behave poorly at times? Yes, and quite often. But it was ego, not the religion itself. Governments, clubs, military, social groups and even individuals can stifle and subvert -- all because of ego -- the heart of selfishness and self-righteousness.
Science fails when it uses imperfect tools. Skepticism is one such tool. At its more benign, skepticism is merely an imperfect form of humble restraint. This is where most of the good is done. But skepticism has a darker side, ranging from unsupported dismissiveness to self-indulgent ridicule. Neither of these are objective or productive.
Science found itself in grave darkness when in North American anthropology, the elite of that niche held "Clovis first" as holy dogma. Others in the field were held to ridicule and threats of removal (loss of jobs, tenure or funding) if they persisted in digging below the Clovis horizon.
You may think all is hunky dory in the Ivory Tower of science, but it isn't.
Science has done a great many wonderful things studying the fruits of creation. It's sad that some Christian fundamentalists disrespect science and ignore reality. From this, they push themselves into delusion, not because they revere religion -- but because they turn their back on it and revere their own shallow interpretation. Again, ego!
Christ walked on water because he was superior to the laws of physical reality. All of God's immortal children are. But most of them have forgotten who they are. They think they are their egos, their minds and their Homo sapiens bodies. They think they were borne in atheism, but that is the lie of ego. That is the ignorance of selfishness.
Skeptic...are you saying God created everything except sub-atomic particles? Or, are you saying that because there are sub-atomic particles that God obviously had nothing to do with them? WHAT?
Mr. Villarasa, I don't think of atheism as a "non-belief" system. An atheist may have plenty of beliefs, but God the Father is not one of them. As you point out, their beliefs are founded upon physicality. It is a limited belief system, certainly.
But "belief" itself is an activity of this world of dichotomies. There's belief-disbelief, confidence-doubt, compassion-indifference, generous-selfish and more.
An atheist may be a big believer in a great many things. They may be confident, compassionate and generous, but only along the scales of physical dichotomies. They can never rise above these.
But creation is beyond belief. Truth of creation pays no heed to belief. Someone can believe in the wrong thing or the right thing. Belief is thus an inaccurate tool.
Faith is not belief! These two things are more different than oil and water. Faith is not made of mortal dichotomies. Belief is full of cause and effect, but faith has only pure cause (creation).
Belief is observation (effect); faith is creation (cause).
When an atheist does "good," it is the relative good of the meat body they wear. All too frequently, they ridicule themselves, saying that the immortal spirit (the true self within) is a figment of religious imagination. And thus, they condemn themselves to mortality -- to the wailing and gnashing which will descend upon them when civilization is no longer held aloft by the wisdom of spirit.
The governments of today are helping to fan the flames of divisiveness and the ridicule of religion. Their ulterior motive is that of world conquest and the elimination of 6 billion people. They may think their plans are for the good of humanity -- no more war -- but at what cost?
The New World Order of which George H.W. Bush spoke on September 11, 1990, was set on its last lap before full fruition on September 11, 2001 -- exactly 11 years later. These guys love their symbolism, and "11" is one of their favorites (along with "33"). It's a curious fact that the passport of Neo in the movie Matrix shows an expiration date of September 11, 2001. To the architects of oblivion, such hints seem to strengthen their plans, like a witch's incantation. Some of these people may go to church, but they don't believe in God or Christ. They believe in their own godless magic.
The Egyptians had slaves...and weren't christian. The Greeks and Romans had slaves, and weren't christian. It is true that christians had slaves, and used the bible to justify it, but, is slavery part and parcel of God's law? No. Do unto others...
Equating God to energy, as in E=MC2, still leaves the Boson in the ballpark, and from what I have read, the scientific community is saying that they aren't sure it is a Higgs Boson. It is a boson, but if it is truly a higgs is still undetermined.
The smallpox blankets were not the pilgrims or early settlers. Those came during the administration of Andrew Jackson and admins following. In short, the legitimate government of the U.S.
Mikelong...then go, look in the mirror...and gaze upon the face of God. Believe in yourself, and you believe in the only God who truly exists...but there is more to that God than you might imagine.
You can gaze on your god, gods, or whatever you wish.
Don't be a dictator/tyrant and tell me what I have to look at or perceive. Your real purpose (control over others) shines through clearly.
Who says God is supernatural? Mankind is the only SUPERNATURAL creature in the universe!(as far as we know) We alone stand outside of the natural world, looking in. We, alone, from the beginning have struggled to rise above what we were. We, alone have transformed the world from a NATURAL state, to an artificial one. We, alone, have done what no other creature has been able or mindful of doing. We, alone constantly raise the bar, moving faster, better, longer than the humans who came before us. Atheists constantly talk and act as though they are superior, that your 'logic' is more logical than anyone else's, and you make a point which I have made, time and again: Just because someone doesn't believe in God, doesn't mean that they don't harbor totally whacked out beliefs.
Well, EXCUSE the 'F' outta me. Don't look in the mirror. Hide, pray that the rocks will hide you. Or not. Crack open a beer, Or not. Totally up to you. Just disregard that virtual gun I have at your head. Better yet...how's about not overreacting. What are you? A drama queen?
Response to Mike who feels that I am pressuring him to gaze upon his mug in the mirror. The way he reacted, you'd think he was a vampire or somethin'
Yea well, I don't like to really look at myself in the mirror either.
Druid, your statement went beyond "looking in the mirror."
Many Christian ministers pick and choose what chapters, verses and sentences to select when making a point and ignore everything else. You do the same now with your own statement. It is what you said after the mirror that was important.
You can jest however you wish, but all you are doing is trying to detract from the display of behavior that you manifested.
"gaze upon the face of God"...... Please... You want me to do your thing your way...I will perceive whatever I wish. What you minimize, what your choose to ignore, what you selectively forget is the nuance in your words...its the flaw of most Christianity....the subtle, or not so subtle, "do as I tell you"...even in thought.
I reiterate, you can see whatever you wish when you look at yourself, and I will "gaze upon" what I choose...whether based in animism, polytheism, agnosticism, atheism, or whatever else....
You think this is just fun and games..........but your egocentricity then has blinded you.
Hi, Al. Back at Mike Long. If Jesus were here, he would have said the same thing. Understanding the self is looking in the mirror. Understand self and you understand God, and, charity does begin at home, and there is nothing closer to home than self. I don't cotton much to christians who read their bibles with the same myopic understanding that your comment displayed. Afraid of looking yourself in the eye? (again, referring to in depth introspective self analysis)
As Rad Man said to gaze upon whatever he perceives, doesn't sound like he's afraid. You on the other hand seem to be afraid of gazing and realizing what you thought God was wasn't so linear. (If there is one)
"Hi, Al. Back at Mike Long. If Jesus were here, he would have said the same thing."
And your point?
I can care less what Jesus would have said. If I did, I would be going to church. You continue to fall back on pushing your own views...you either fail to see your tactics or think myself and others too naive or foolish... You come as a wolf in sheep's clothing.
"Understanding the self is looking in the mirror."
You write as though these are thoughts that I, or others, have not pondered on. Christians hold no monopoly on introspection by any stretch of the imagination. To try to front otherwise is lunacy.
"Understand self and you understand God, and, charity does begin at home, and there is nothing closer to home than self."
Charity needs not God. Self needs not God. Self is defined solely through the means and perspectives that the individual decides. You have your view, and you continually fail to recognize my personal view. How deluded is that? As I said, you can keep your God and your mindstate....but you can stop pushing it on me... All I see in your words is false pride and arrogance....no matter how "nice" and "flowery" you attempt to push your ideas....
" I don't cotton much to christians who read their bibles with the same myopic understanding that your comment displayed. Afraid of looking yourself in the eye? (again, referring to in depth introspective self analysis)"
I don't "cotton" much at all...I am a polyester man, myself.....(kidding).. It is too bad that you cannot accept that I, or others, can introspect and understand self without your God. Again, you can do whatever you wish, but if you are prejudging me based off "religious belief" you are way, way, way off and completely misguided. Come off your high horse and realize reality, please.
Jesus would have understood all of this already.....he and I would have already seen eye to eye.
Whilst you were introspecting (surprised you didn't fall over God wanderin' around in the darkness like you were) did you happen to see my Vdub? I parked somewhere last night and I can't remember where! Lobotomize yourself...you'd be better off. I speak plainly, and you get your shorts in a knot. The whole bible is about that same introspection, and if you are so convinced that it's all B.S. then what are you doing in a religious forum? Do you think you will convince someone? Anyone? Then it must be so that we might attempt to convince you...which means you really aren't convinced of your own beliefs. Your presence here suggests that you are uneasy about your own ism.
You're the one working so hard to convince me. You keep assuming that introspection leads to your version of deity, or deity at all.... That is your flawed thinking. Again, that is your view, but there are far more other and opposing views than your own. There were far more other and opposing views before "missionaries" destroyed other cultures and beliefs.... The Church of God of Anderson Indiana did an amazingly destructive job to my family back in Egypt and the Ottoman Empire....
What am I doing in a religious forum?
All religion is monotheism?
All religion is Christianity?
Only "religionists" are able to post here?
Wow..... Herr Druid, I didn't realize that I entered your Fascist state.
Hmmm...that sounds like something Hitler's henchmen would say, or support.
I suppose Jesus whispered that one in your ear.....
I am an atheist. The title of the thread deals with atheism.
Your attitude reminds me of a debate I saw. Two men were arguing, one for faith, and one against....but the problem was both were Christians... If one is inherently faith based, he/she cannot be counted on to truly argue against his/her beliefs....
Thank God, the Gods, Nature, and my ancestors that you have no governance authority over myself or anyone else...
You epitomize why we so fervently need the separation between church and state..
It doesn't lead to it. If you go as far as it is possible to go, you find that God was there all the time. You don't need anyone, including me to lead you to God. God is the ultimate understanding of self. If you know yourself completely then you ALREADY KNOW GOD. Just too ------to admit it. Not trying to convince you of anything. If you don't believe it's like I say, then there is nothing more to say. I knew that coming in. None of this depends on me convincing you...but it is something that the individual must search for to find. If you ain't lookin', that's your dig. Dig?
To assume that since I haven't come to your conclusion that I do not search speaks, again in an ongoing theme, to your false characterizations..
I see arrogance here.....a false sense of "I am doing something you are not, I have a connection to something that you don't have if you don't share my viewpoint:" and similar nonsense.
I don't dig your perspective.
I made a general comment in this thread, and you singled me out and continued along this wayward line of expression.
See what you wish, worship what you will, and realize there are others equal or even beyond your connection to the universe.
by Brittany Williams2 years ago
Atheism only means the lack of a belief in God. Why is it so hard for Christians to realize that we dismiss their religion for the same reasons that they dismiss all other religions? It doesn't make us horrible people,...
by Mark Knowles6 years ago
It is my contention that the Christian religion (and specifically following Christ) is guaranteed to cause conflict, wars and ill will.As proof - I cite the last 1800 years - including the hubpages forums as evidence....
by Sherlock221b2 years ago
Since joining HubPages, I have read the many evolution versus creationism and atheism versus religion debates. As an atheistic evolutionist, I have read what I considered to be the strange views of a religious...
by Rishad I Habib6 years ago
Well like religion, i think atheism too varies from atheist to atheist..what is the standard form of atheism, its purpose and strengths over religions??
by Mahaveer Sanglikar3 years ago
Is atheism becoming another religion? I am asking this question because many atheists are loudly talking against 'other' religions, like many of the the propagandists of religions do.I myself am an atheist, and I think...
by enderw1ggins20 months ago
The debate is Theism Vs. Atheism. The spirit of this particular thread is solely for a more formal discussion of the topic. There are rules...which obviously can be broken but should be followed out of courtesy.1.)...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.