There is no atheism

[Autodidact]

If there cannot be a reason for our emotions, the time, the land(i.e. matter) then what is the cause of their existence? I bet any one atheist to dare try and give valid reason for his very existence in this universe. Only religion has a answer to this.

Of course, it's probably a wrong answer.

“He who knows nothing is closer to the truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods and errors”


Thomas Jefferson

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Indeed, those who need answers to unanswerable questions will find them.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

thats not true even if religion is false, many philosphers find the answers very relevant, because of the effect if has on society, wether it is a model for providing morals or worth or as thing that people unite under, it could be mistaken correct but not arbitrary.

I meant that my answer of "gophers" was arbitrary. We can evaluate the correctness, usefulness or explanatory value of any particular statement held up as true, whether it's a religious claim or an arbitrary, nonsensical and possibly incoherent-in-this-context word.

IMO, buddhadev argued from the position that any answer is worth more than no answer. I'm challenging this by asking whether the answers he's talking about are worth more than another answer that we know to be worthless.

ohhh im sorry i interpreted the op as in the worldviews that stem from athiesm, generally people popularise the word athiesm to mean things like Nilism or scienism (hope ive spelt those two right!!)

Yeah... I didn't get that sense from the OP.

if he does just mean the the general term of athiesm, then thiesm (as the general term) doesnt answer it either! at least i dont see how the blanket statement of thiest does, do you?

I agree - I don't think that theism by itself answers anything. However, many (most? All?) theistic religions do attempt to answer the "big questions", and in my experience, generic "theists" tend to be pretty rare. More often than not, a theist belongs to some sort of religion or school of thought that does try to give some answers.

 

[cottage]

If there cannot be a reason for our emotions, the time, the land(i.e. matter) then what is the cause of their existence? I bet any one atheist to dare try and give valid reason for his very existence in this universe. Only religion has a answer to this.

I return the challenge to you. As a believer in God, give a valid reason for your existence in this universe?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Are gibberish-filled, nonsensical posts the new style or something?

 

[AntEmpire]

The reason of my life is to create reason in my life. (some people do this by blaming a god for their reason)

The purpose of my life is to find purpose for my life. (some do this by saying god is their purpose)

The meaning of my life is to find meaning in my life. (some do this by saying god created the meaning in their life)

 

[waitasec]

If there cannot be a reason for our emotions, the time, the land(i.e. matter) then what is the cause of their existence? I bet any one atheist to dare try and give valid reason for his very existence in this universe. Only religion has a answer to this.

for me...there is no why.
i approach reasoning the way i approach the senses, reasoning is what we use to be able to communicate with one another. animals have instincts, and their reasoning button isn't turned on. we on the other hand have the ability to use our reasoning sense because our instinct button isn't necessarily on... depending on what the individual was exposed to when the left hemisphere of the brain was developing.

and this makes sense to me because nature is indifferent. we sense too much undue misery from our perspective which lies within our limited capacity to understand ...our peep hole to the world around us, if you will.

 

[McBell]

for me...there is no why.
i approach reasoning the way i approach the senses, reasoning is what we use to be able to communicate with one another. animals have instincts, and their reasoning button isn't turned on. we on the other hand have the ability to use our reasoning sense because our instinct button isn't necessarily on... depending on what the individual was exposed to when the left hemisphere of the brain was developing.

and this makes sense to me because nature is indifferent. we sense too much undue misery from our perspective which lies within our limited capacity to understand ...our peep hole to the world around us, if you will.

Define reasoning.

I ask because I have seen both dogs and pigs reason their way out of their pens.

 

[Engyo]

Come on now, everyone knows the answer is 42

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Define reasoning.

I ask because I have seen both dogs and pigs reason their way out of their pens.

Ha - and people who couldn't reason their way out of theirs.

 

[Engyo]

Define reasoning.

I ask because I have seen both dogs and pigs reason their way out of their pens.

I can add horses to your list.

 

[tarasan]

I meant that my answer of "gophers" was arbitrary. We can evaluate the correctness, usefulness or explanatory value of any particular statement held up as true, whether it's a religious claim or an arbitrary, nonsensical and possibly incoherent-in-this-context word.

IMO, buddhadev argued from the position that any answer is worth more than no answer. I'm challenging this by asking whether the answers he's talking about are worth more than another answer that we know to be worthless.

i dont think gopher was a good example, your statement is clearly false while religion isnt, now it may be your view that its false, but it most certianly cant be put on power with the word Gophers!

Gophers is obviously mistaken, and not even i would be silly enough to cliam even the most bizar religious cliams were on power with it.

Yeah... I didn't get that sense from the OP.

well i did

I agree - I don't think that theism by itself answers anything. However, many (most? All?) theistic religions do attempt to answer the "big questions", and in my experience, generic "theists" tend to be pretty rare. More often than not, a theist belongs to some sort of religion or school of thought that does try to give some answers.

i wouldnt say all that statement seems too extreme.

isnt that the same with athiests? i mean people could just cliam that they are simply "athiests" but if you were to push them you would generally find another world view like the ones ive cliamed above, i thinks its very rare that someone truely holds a purely generic statement such as athiest or thiest, generally they have other things behind their worldview like " science is the only way, or "everything is subjective", which are worldviews not just generic statements.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

isnt that the same with athiests? i mean people could just cliam that they are simply "athiests" but if you were to push them you would generally find another world view like the ones ive cliamed above, i thinks its very rare that someone truely holds a purely generic statement such as athiest or thiest, generally they have other things behind their worldview like " science is the only way, or "everything is subjective", which are worldviews not just generic statements.

Oh, certainly. I don't think that anyone is only a "theist" or only an "atheist".

For instance, I am an atheist (since I don't believe in any gods) but I'm also a skeptic, humanist and secularist... among other things. "Atheism" only describes what I don't believe (and even then, only one class of thing that I don't believe); those other terms describe what I do believe. However, my approach to these philosophies/viewpoints is that they seem to work very well, not necessarily that they're absolutely, objectively true.

I guess the thing that annoys me is when people say things like "atheism has no answers! Gotcha, atheists!" ... as if this means that atheists can't have answers. Of course we can; they're just derived from things other than atheism. No single label is going to completely define anyone, whether it's "atheist", "theist", "secular humanist", "Anglican", or "lapsed Catholic".

One possibility I see is that people tend to stop listening after they hear "I'm an atheist". I think that historically, we've been so wrapped up in God and religion that a person's view on these subjects is considered all-important. "Atheist" generally implies "I reject God and religion", so at that point, the listener has already heard all he needs to hear and doesn't really care about the nuances of that particular atheist's worldview.

 

[Revoltingest]

isnt that the same with athiests? i mean people could just cliam that they are simply "athiests" but if you were to push them you would generally find another world view like the ones ive cliamed above, i thinks its very rare that someone truely holds a purely generic statement such as athiest or thiest.....

We "pure" atheists are more common than you think. I stand before you (actually sitting) as an example.

 

[tarasan]

Oh, certainly. I don't think that anyone is only a "theist" or only an "atheist".

For instance, I am an atheist (since I don't believe in any gods) but I'm also a skeptic, humanist and secularist... among other things. "Atheism" only describes what I don't believe (and even then, only one class of thing that I don't believe); those other terms describe what I do believe. However, my approach to these philosophies/viewpoints is that they seem to work very well, not necessarily that they're absolutely, objectively true.

I guess the thing that annoys me is when people say things like "atheism has no answers! Gotcha, atheists!" ... as if this means that atheists can't have answers. Of course we can; they're just derived from things other than atheism. No single label is going to completely define anyone, whether it's "atheist", "theist", "secular humanist", "Anglican", or "lapsed Catholic".

One possibility I see is that people tend to stop listening after they hear "I'm an atheist". I think that historically, we've been so wrapped up in God and religion that a person's view on these subjects is considered all-important. "Atheist" generally implies "I reject God and religion", so at that point, the listener has already heard all he needs to hear and doesn't really care about the nuances of that particular atheist's worldview.

hmmm of course you have answers i completely agree! and i most certianly can understand your annoyance! some people ive met seem to switch off when i tell them i am a christian not even attempting to understand what actually a christian is and the nuiances that we believe, most people seem to desire ignorance these days .
although im sure i havnt been as universally rejected as some athiests.

i think that in people should learn about other peoples views hence dialogues like this are important.

 

[tarasan]

We "pure" atheists are more common than you think. I stand before you (actually sitting) as an example.

then what does this "Revoltifarian" part?

 

[Revoltingest]

then what does this "Revoltifarian" part?

It doesn't do much at all.....it's like a herd of cats.

 

[tarasan]

It doesn't do much at all.....it's like a herd of cats.

huh, ive learnt two new things today

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

i think that in people should learn about other peoples views hence dialogues like this are important.

I completely agree!

 

[waitasec]

theology is the study of the nature of god.

why then not study nature? why a book especially ancient texts that were written at a time when nature was mysterious?