Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038

[polymath257]

insidesecrets wrote:

My version of God wouldn't issue such an order.

Now, I suggest you think very closely why that would be the case. If it was simply what 'God wishes', then you could not say that the command to slit the throat of a child is against God's will *except* to claim that it is, independently of God's desires, immoral. But then *that* shows that morality is not dependent on a deity, but even the deity would be evil if such a command was issued.

[Givemeliberty]

Your god has issued worse. By the way, isn't your god grand?

http://news.yahoo.com/woman-timbuktu-punished...

We see a great example of how people who follow your god treat others.

insidesecrets wrote:

<quoted text>
Exactly. By design all of us are capable of independent thought. It is the height of human vanity to expect the whole of mankind to bow to one set of dogmas whether it be science or religion.
<quoted text>
My version of God wouldn't issue such an order.

[insidesecrets]

Hedonist wrote:

<quoted text>
You really don't understand the first thing about atheism and, apparently, are not capable of actually hearing anything that conflicts with your preconceived prejudices.

What's to understand? Outside of the lack of belief in God, atheisim is nothing.

[QUOTE who="Hedonist"]<q uoted text>
Atheism is a general category that includes anybody and everybody who does not fit into the category "theism." The only thing that being an "atheist" tells you is what I'm NOT -- "not a theist". this tells you absolutely nothing about what I am, which for a lot of atheists is HUMANIST.

A general category is not a philosophy or an organization. Atheism is simply a collection of people who lack a belief in God. When pressed for answers, you borrow the ideologies of humanism but you don't practice what you preach. You don't have too. As a non organization without a philosphy, you can't be identified with particular code of ethics.

[Adam]

polymath257 wrote:

<quoted text>
Once again, atheism *per se* is simply the lack of belief in any deity. And you are correct, atheism is, itself, not a philosophy or a moral system. it is *not* the denial of any philosophy or moral system; it is simply a lack of belief in deities.
BUT humanism, which *is* a philosophy and a moral system is certainly *compatible* with atheism: there is no assumption that deities exist within humanism. Because of this, it is possible to be *both* an atheist and a humanist. In practice, many atheists are , in fact, humanists. In the same way, many atheists are parent, joggers, or people who like tomatoes. To be an atheist is only a statement about one small issue: whether one has a belief in deities.

Thanks. Helpful to have it explained clearly.

[Hedonist]

insidesecrets wrote:

<quoted text>
A general category is not a philosophy or an organization. Atheism is simply a collection of people who lack a belief in God. When pressed for answers, you borrow the ideologies of humanism but you don't practice what you preach. You don't have too. As a non organization without a philosphy, you can't be identified with particular code of ethics.

Saying that I can't be an atheist and a Humanist is as stupid as saying people can't be theists AND a protestants at the same time? That's absurd.

[insidesecrets]

polymath257 wrote:

<quoted text>
Might I suggest that they simply grow up and stop requiring other people to think for them?
That isn't the goal or purpose of science. The goal of science is to understand how the universe works. if you want direction and/or purpose, read some philosophy, literature, look at art, fall in love, and learn to think for yourself.

It is precisely because I think for myself, that I do not accept the methodology of science. Science doesn't deal in values. It passes the buck. If everything is valueless, it does not have to hold itself accountable for its own actions. It is unethical to sacrifice life in the pursuit of knowledge, but scientists routinely experiment on caged laboratory animals in the most appalling ways because without values, the end always justifies the means. "Certainly some lives may be lost along the way, but overall mankind will benefit." This is the usual argument, but this is not a search for truth. This is fanaticism. The sacredness of life cannot be sacrificed for life's convenience, or the quality of life itself will suffer. We see the evidence of this sort of fanaticism all around us in the degradation of nature.

polymath257 wrote:

<quoted text>I *do* have 'direction and purpose': to learn, to love, to teach, to help, to experience. But that direction and purpose are chosen *by me* and not dictated by any deity. I have no requirement that my purpose survive my death. In fact, it seems silly to me to require such a thing.

The idea that there is no purpose except to serve one's individual definition of purpose is egocentric. If an atheist thinks that the purpose of life is to make more money, then, virtue to him consist of the best car, or house or swimming pool, which does absolutely nothing to better the human condition.

[insidesecrets]

polymath257 wrote:

<quoted text>
Now, I suggest you think very closely why that would be the case. If it was simply what 'God wishes', then you could not say that the command to slit the throat of a child is against God's will *except* to claim that it is, independently of God's desires, immoral. But then *that* shows that morality is not dependent on a deity, but even the deity would be evil if such a command was issued.

You need to understand that the biblical version of god is not the only version of God.

[scaritual]

insidesecrets wrote:

<quoted text>
You need to understand that the biblical version of god is not the only version of God.

PRAISE PANGU!

[insidesecrets]

Hedonist wrote:

<quoted text>
Saying that I can't be an atheist and a Humanist is as stupid as saying people can't be theists AND a protestants at the same time? That's absurd.

Do expect something else when you define atheism as nothing more than a lack of belief in God?

[Just Think]

insidesecrets wrote:

<quoted text>
It is precisely because I think for myself, that I do not accept the methodology of science. Science doesn't deal in values. It passes the buck. If everything is valueless, it does not have to hold itself accountable for its own actions. It is unethical to sacrifice life in the pursuit of knowledge, but scientists routinely experiment on caged laboratory animals in the most appalling ways because without values, the end always justifies the means. "Certainly some lives may be lost along the way, but overall mankind will benefit." This is the usual argument, but this is not a search for truth. This is fanaticism. The sacredness of life cannot be sacrificed for life's convenience, or the quality of life itself will suffer. We see the evidence of this sort of fanaticism all around us in the degradation of nature.
<quoted text>
The idea that there is no purpose except to serve one's individual definition of purpose is egocentric. If an atheist thinks that the purpose of life is to make more money, then, virtue to him consist of the best car, or house or swimming pool, which does absolutely nothing to better the human condition.

So you don't take any medications, ever, right? You also deny all medical treatment, right?

And, really, you shouldn't be using a computer if you feel this way.

[insidesecrets]

Just Think wrote:

<quoted text>
So you don't take any medications, ever, right? You also deny all medical treatment, right?
And, really, you shouldn't be using a computer if you feel this way.

What you suggesting? That I lay down my life for science because I use Ibuprofen now and then, and own a computer? Surely you jest!

If you actually expect this sort of mindless resignation, make sure you understand what you are acquiescing to......

"Bad reactions to prescription and over-the-counter medicines kill more than 100,000 Americans and seriously injure an additional 2.1 million every year -- far more than most people realize, researchers say. Such reactions, which do not include prescribing errors or drug abuse, rank at least sixth among U.S. causes of death -- behind heart disease, cancer, lung disease, strokes and accidents, says a report based on an analysis of existing studies.(University of Toronto study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association by Dr. Bruce Pomeranz )"

"Most of the everyday practices of modern medicine are unproven if we go by the government's own standards. In 1978, the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA), an arm of the United States Congress, issued a major research report that concluded "only 10 to 20 percent of all procedures currently used in medical practices have been shown to be efficacious by controlled trial." In other words, 80 to 90 percent of what doctors do to you is scientifically unproven guesswork. By this government-supported definition, most of modern medicine is quackery."---Richard Walters (Assessing the Efficacy and Safety of Medical Technologies," U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, PB 286-929, 1978)."

[Just Think]

insidesecrets wrote:

<quoted text>
What you suggesting? That I lay down my life for science because I use Ibuprofen now and then, and own a computer? Surely you jest!
If you actually expect this sort of mindless resignation, make sure you understand what you are acquiescing to......
<SPAM DELETED>

No, I'm suggesting that you are a hypocrite for continually bashing science while gleefully reaping the benefits of science.

But then, most religious types are "do as I say, not as I do" kind of people...

[The_Box]

insidesecrets wrote:

<quoted text>
"Most of the everyday practices of modern medicine are unproven if we go by the government's own standards. In 1978, the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA), an arm of the United States Congress, issued a major research report that concluded "only 10 to 20 percent of all procedures currently used in medical practices have been shown to be efficacious by controlled trial." In other words, 80 to 90 percent of what doctors do to you is scientifically unproven guesswork. By this government-supported definition, most of modern medicine is quackery."---Richard Walters (Assessing the Efficacy and Safety of Medical Technologies," U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, PB 286-929, 1978)."

Complete bunk. Let me guess, you got this from an alternative medicine website?
http://www.veterinarywatch.com/CTiM.htm

[MUQ]

Givemeliberty wrote:

God does not appear in the constitution you reject.
<quoted text>

But who put His name in every Dollar Bill that you carry?

Why some one whose name does not appear in constitution appears on "every currency bill"? Is it constitutional?

[insidesecrets]

Just Think wrote:

<quoted text>
No, I'm suggesting that you are a hypocrite for continually bashing science while gleefully reaping the benefits of science.
But then, most religious types are "do as I say, not as I do" kind of people...

A case of the kettle calling the pot black, don't you think?

[WelbyMD]

Wat the Tyler wrote:

Religion will cease to exist sometime in the 21st century.

RELIGIONS Freemasonry and Secular Humanism will survive as born-again believers will be Raptured before Obama is revealed as the antichrist.

[Thinking]

The intersection set of Atheism with Secular Humanism is larger than most religious sects.

insidesecrets wrote:

<quoted text>
A general category is not a philosophy or an organization. Atheism is simply a collection of people who lack a belief in God. When pressed for answers, you borrow the ideologies of humanism but you don't practice what you preach. You don't have too. As a non organization without a philosphy, you can't be identified with particular code of ethics.

[polymath257]

insidesecrets wrote:

<quoted text>
It is precisely because I think for myself, that I do not accept the methodology of science. Science doesn't deal in values. It passes the buck. If everything is valueless, it does not have to hold itself accountable for its own actions.

Wrong conclusion. Science doesn't deal with values because it is interested in how the universe works. That doesn't mean that scientists don't have values, just the science doesn't study them. But science also doesn't do art or music, even though those are good and important aspects of life.

It is unethical to sacrifice life in the pursuit of knowledge,

Now *that* is a debatable proposition. Suppose that to gain a knowledge of how to cure cancer, we have to kill a cockroach. Is that unethical? I would say most definitely not. So your general proposition is clearly false.

A much better question is whether it is unethical to kill mammals to test the safety of cosmetics. And *that* I do see as problematic (although that has largely to do with the fact that cosmetics are usually not essential for existence).

but scientists routinely experiment on caged laboratory animals in the most appalling ways because without values, the end always justifies the means.

No, that is most certainly NOT the reasoning used. First, those animals are generally used to help us understand human diseases and hence to prevent the suffering and death of humans. That allows for the killing of those animals to be ethical *if* sufficient knowledge is gained to justify the techniques used.

The idea that there is no purpose except to serve one's individual definition of purpose is egocentric. If an atheist thinks that the purpose of life is to make more money, then, virtue to him consist of the best car, or house or swimming pool, which does absolutely nothing to better the human condition.

While I think it much more egocentric to expect a 'purpose' in life that is cosmic or anything beyond our specific lives.

[Just Think]

insidesecrets wrote:

<quoted text>
A case of the kettle calling the pot black, don't you think?

Um...no, actually, I don't.

How sad that you can only dodge the issue.

[Hedonist]

insidesecrets wrote:

<quoted text>
Do expect something else when you define atheism as nothing more than a lack of belief in God?

You're attempting to move the goalposts.

You're stated position that we were discussion was that 'a person cannot be a Humanist if they are an atheist.' And that position is absurdly stupid.