The worldview of an Atheist

Author: Tradesecret

Posts

Total: 87
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,325
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@secularmerlin
Perhaps there were no atheists before the idea of evolution in principle existed? 


The fact is today - atheists as we understand them today are not the same as atheists in the ancient past.  

Christians for instance were thrown to the lions for being atheists. Not believing in the Roman gods. 


Today - it is a truism that all atheists are also evolutionists. 

But not all evolutionists are atheists. 

Similarly, not all theists are creationists - yet it is a religious doctrine. 

Atheists wants to somehow give the impression that they are neutral in these things. Yet, it is not true. It is a lie to say they are neutral. 

Atheists have a worldview - they deny it - for all sorts of reasons - but evolution is but one of their doctrines - a doctrine by necessity. It is impossible to be an atheist and not hold to the theory of evolution.  
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tradesecret
(IF) the classic greek skeptics were atheists before the theory of evolution was discovered (THEN) it is possible to be an atheist with no corresponding belief in evolution.

If you see a problem with my logic please point out the specific flaw in the structure of my argument or offer a (demonstrable or logically necessary) counterfactual. 

You just keep repeating your first argument which I have already refuted rather than moving forward or explaining your case.
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
As Godi s The Ultimate Reality, atheism is the same as nihilism.

What is the atheistic doctrine? There is no absolute truth. All truth is relative. Reality is what you can get away with. 

That sums it up.




Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,325
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@secularmerlin
IF) the classic greek skeptics were atheists before the theory of evolution was discovered (THEN) it is possible to be an atheist with no corresponding belief in evolution.

If you see a problem with my logic please point out the specific flaw in the structure of my argument or offer a (demonstrable or logically necessary) counterfactual. 

You just keep repeating your first argument which I have already refuted rather than moving forward or explaining your case.

just as you pass by my arguments. 

The ancient greeks - skeptics did believe in a form of evolution. Not articulated as such like Darwin's was - but certainly a form of it.  You have yet to actually provide any atheist that does not believe in a form of evolution. Yes, I am talking about evolution per se - not even the scientific version as you understand it. You in fact took it down that road in https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/4933/post-links/209445. Prior to that time - evolution was being used by me generally as an idea. In fact I actually distanced what I was talking about from the so called ToE because I know as you do that evolutionists existed prior to its articulated doctrine by Darwin. https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/4933/post-links/209736

All atheists are evolutionists. IT is a doctrine by implication that flows from their theology. It is one among many. 

secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tradesecret
The ancient greeks - skeptics did believe in a form of evolution. Not articulated as such like Darwin's was - but certainly a form of it. 
This is a claim. Claims must be substantiated. If you only baldly assert that this is the case then I will have no choice but to dismiss your argument. Perhaps you would like to start by explaining exactly what form of evolution exactly you think they believed in. Clearly defined terms are important in intelligent discussion. 
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,325
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@secularmerlin
You know as well as I do that although Darwin articulated the doctrine of Evolution, that many people believed in a form of it over the years. I could go to the internet and find examples of this as well as you can. But what is the point of that?  I am sure you won't deny it is the fact or are you prepared to say that evolution is a modern doctrine that has arisen because of a new type of prophet? This after all is not a topic on evolution. It is on atheism and worldview. 

Now you want me to define terms clearly. Whatever for? Do you know what evolution is? OF course you do. Perhaps you want to make sure I understand it the same way as you do? How do you know I don't? You often throw out your definition of God or understanding of God - despite the fact that it is not the same as mine.  Or you (speaking generally) request people to define their God - so that you (generally) can pick it to pieces.  

This topic is about the worldview of atheists.  Atheists pretend they don't have a worldview. In fact they bury their heads into the sand and say things like "we don't have a faith - our position is that we are a "non-faith". It is not that we don't believe in God, we can see no evidence for any god. This is the only thing that might be said to unite us - otherwise we are all individuals with our own views about everything else.  In fact our non-belief in god is only incidental to who we are as humans. We are humans first, we start there, and then we look at the evidence about us in response to the life we live. We might never ever entertain the question of God because it might never be raised with us. Hence to suggest that it is somehow relevant to the way I think is nonsense - an absurdity. 

I on the other hand think that type of thinking is an absurdity and profoundly ignorant.  To live in a world that is dominated by religions and ideas about God or gods is a truism. To pretend that this can be simply deleted is nonsense.  Everyone in every culture - even the Russian Communist and Chinese Communist ones, unless history is destroyed completely, the notion of god or gods will arise. 

I think the problem for the atheist is that if their position is labeled a worldview - then that implicitly means they too a religion.  And this of course is exactly the reason they took the view secular and changed its meaning to mean "non-religious".   A term that by definition excludes religion. After all if they can exclude religion - then they cannot be labeled one.  It is fudging the truth though.  It is bringing the cart before the horse. It is hiding one's head in the sand. 

Every atheist is an evolutionist. Despite requesting examples otherwise - you keep dodging this one. Please find me an example of an atheist who is not an evolutionist. 

Not every theist is an evolutionist. Many are. Not every theist is a creationist. Yet creationism is still a doctrine that unites many theists- although it is not more than a generalization. Applying that to atheists - it might be the case that some atheists deny evolution, but even this would not be enough to deny that evolution is a doctrine of atheistic worldview.  

There is a commonality amongst atheists in the West. There is a commonality amongst atheists in the East.  Both have their worldviews.  Marxist / Lennonism is a communist worldview - but not just a communist worldview  but an Atheistic communistic worldview.  Secular Humanism is a Western Atheistic Worldview. Buddhism is an Atheistic Spiritual worldview.  

But one thing common to all of these worldviews is evolution. What I would like to explore is other commonalities. 



secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tradesecret
I gave at least one example and I know others have too. If your claim is that the classic Greek skeptics believed in any firm of evolution you need to 

A: explain what form exactly this belief took

And

B: somehow demonstrate that they believed in it.

As far as I know they simply could not have. I would be happy to look into any link you want to send me. 

And by the way this
it might be the case that some atheists deny evolution, but even this would not be enough to deny that evolution is a doctrine of atheistic worldview.  
Is nonsense. Self contradictory nonsense.

secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tradesecret
I think the problem for the atheist is that if their position is labeled a worldview - then that implicitly means they too a religion. 
This is a little silly too. Their are religious atheists. Does an atheist bhudist have two religions? No of course not.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Tradesecret
You know as well as I do that although Darwin articulated the doctrine of Evolution,
EVOLUTION =/= DOCTRINE
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Tradesecret
I am sure you won't deny it is the fact or are you prepared to say that evolution is a modern doctrine that has arisen because of a new type of prophet?
SCIENTIST =/= PROPHET
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Tradesecret
Despite arguments to the contrary - Atheists believe in doctrines and dogmas.  
Citation please.

An atheist chooses not to believe in God despite the evidence to the contrary. 
OLD BOOK =/= COMPELLING EVIDENCE

Yet, an atheist MUST believe in the doctrine of EVOLUTION.  There is no contrary doctrine. 
There are any number of atheists who believe in the plausibility of an intelligent-designer hypothesis, or simply have no opinion on the matter (not everyone's allergic to the words "I don't know" or "epistemological limits").

So, not only is there a non-belief in a deity - 
Do you have a non-belief in BRAHMAN?  Well then, you also have a non-belief in a deity.

but there is also an affirmation of a positive doctrine - evolution. 
This assertion is provably false.

What other doctrines exist - for the atheist? 
Atheism is a description, not a doctrine.

Let us explore. 
I'm looking forward to hearing your ideas.
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
The entire premise is false, the only thing atheism speaks on, is one's belief of a god(s): 

Merriam Webster defines Atheism as such:

"a: a lack of belief or a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods
b: a philosophical or religious position characterized by disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods"

In other words, by definition, Atheism can not be a world view. The same way not believing in Santa Claus is not a world view, or not being apart of boy/girl scouts isn't a community. 
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
In relation to orthodoxy in which God is ultimate reality, atheism would be nihilism. Nihilism is the doctrine of negation. 




The defining characteristic is the rejection of ultimate reality or absolute truth. It is to say there are only relative truths.




Of course, without absolute truth, there can not be relative truths.




It is silly to say this is not a worldview.



Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,325
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Theweakeredge
The entire premise is false, the only thing atheism speaks on, is one's belief of a god(s): 

Merriam Webster defines Atheism as such:

"a: a lack of belief or a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods
b: a philosophical or religious position characterized by disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods"

In other words, by definition, Atheism can not be a world view. The same way not believing in Santa Claus is not a world view, or not being apart of boy/girl scouts isn't a community

So start a movement about not believing in Santa Claus.  Call yourself an asanta.  Believing in Santa Claus is entirely different to believing in God. For you they may be the same - but that speaks volumes all by itself. 

Not believing in Santa has what sort of implications? Let us see if we can see a worldview in that? What does believing in Santa tell us about life and humanity and death? 

If one believes in Santa Claus it tells us what? 

probably that you live in the last 1000 years.  Probably that you live in a Western Nation - Probably that you live in a country that celebrates Christmas. It does not tell us whether you believe in God.  It tells us that you probably believe that Christmas is all about presents and love and being good. It tells us that you probably think it should snow on Christmas. It tells us that you probably believe in elves and dwarves and flying reindeers. It does not tell us about God. It does not tell us about humanity, well actually I suppose it does a little. that people can be good - if they try or they want too. That you get rewarded for being good. But not everyone is good. It tells us nothing about death. It tells us about hope - and sadness. 

But overall it cannot provide a worldview which is essentially tells us three things about life. It tells us about God. It tells us about the nature of humanity. And it tells us about death. Atheism tells us that there is no god. It tells us that man is an animal - which survives by being the fittest. that basically as an animals it has no absolute rules or rights - or morals. It tells us that when we die - that is it. 

Worldview also can be linked to understanding things like philosophy or economics or law etc - but not necessarily. A worldview - the way you see the world - requires three elements and atheism checks all the boxes. 
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,325
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@secularmerlin
I think the problem for the atheist is that if their position is labeled a worldview - then that implicitly means they too a religion. 
This is a little silly too. Their are religious atheists. Does an atheist bhudist have two religions? No of course not.
I think you are attempting to conflate two different ideas.  

Buddhists don't go around calling themselves atheist Buddhists.  They affirm there is no god.  But they don't call themselves atheists, not in the way secular atheists do.  But the other thing you seem to miss about Buddhists is that they are not an exclusive religion.  In other words, they don't have an issue with having two religions - they are what is called a polytheistic religion. I have met so called Christian Buddhists. And  I have met so called Muslim Buddhists.  
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,325
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@3RU7AL
You know as well as I do that although Darwin articulated the doctrine of Evolution,
EVOLUTION =/= DOCTRINE
The word doctrine means "teaching".  Yes the modern dictionary probably adds "faith to it" but the word doctrine is simply another word for didactic - which means teaching. By itself a very neutral term.   Yet - I would suggest that the word "faith" applies perfectly to the term evolution.  I for instance have never seen any evidence whatsoever for evolution.  Not one piece of evidence.  People refer to the missing link because it is not there.  Others dismiss the term the missing link entirely. 

A Mutation of a species is not evidence of evolution. It is evidence only of a mutation.  Mutation and evolution are not synonyms.
  
Change is not evidence of evolution.  To say evolution is not a doctrine is simply nonsensical. 

I am sure you won't deny it is the fact or are you prepared to say that evolution is a modern doctrine that has arisen because of a new type of prophet?
SCIENTIST =/= PROPHET
Today the normal mantra in society is - "believe the science".  And if someone distrusts the science they are mocked and treated with ridicule. This is no different to how people should respond to prophets.   When people don't trust the science - the ultimate authority in society - people don't listen to them. Ridicule or don't believe the science at your peril. 

Despite arguments to the contrary - Atheists believe in doctrines and dogmas.  
Citation please.
No Atheist is going to say they believe in doctrines and dogmas.  We don't expect people are going to admit their own inconsistencies. People in denial cannot admit their errors. 

An atheist chooses not to believe in God despite the evidence to the contrary. 
OLD BOOK =/= COMPELLING EVIDENCE
I was not talking about the Bible. I was talking about what is called General Revelation. The world around us. 

Yet, an atheist MUST believe in the doctrine of EVOLUTION.  There is no contrary doctrine. 
There are any number of atheists who believe in the plausibility of an intelligent-designer hypothesis, or simply have no opinion on the matter (not everyone's allergic to the words "I don't know" or "epistemological limits").
Aliens???  The problem with reverting to aliens is that aliens MUST have started somewhere.  How can anyone not have an opinion on evolution? If someone has termed themselves an atheist - unless they have simply jumped to a conclusion irrationally - cannot say there is no evidence for the existence of God, unless they have asked the question about evolution and the origin of life.  IF someone is an atheist and they have never considered that question or formed an opinion, then they have not reasonably come to the conclusion that there is no evidence for the existence of God.  They have come to their conclusion on blind faith - either their own or their school teachers or their parents. 


So, not only is there a non-belief in a deity - 
Do you have a non-belief in BRAHMAN?  Well then, you also have a non-belief in a deity.
I have said on other occasions that Christians in the early church were considered Atheists because they refused to believe in the Roman Gods.  


but there is also an affirmation of a positive doctrine - evolution. 
This assertion is provably false.
Ok - so do it. 


What other doctrines exist - for the atheist? 
Atheism is a description, not a doctrine.
It is a worldview.  It has many doctrines. 


Let us explore. 
I'm looking forward to hearing your ideas.
In due course and at the appropriate time. 
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tradesecret
I think you are attempting to conflate two different ideas.  
What a coincidence I think you are trying to conflate two different ideas.
Buddhists don't go around calling themselves atheist Buddhists.  They affirm there is no god.  But they don't call themselves atheists, not in the way secular atheists do.  But the other thing you seem to miss about Buddhists is that they are not an exclusive religion.  In other words, they don't have an issue with having two religions - they are what is called a polytheistic religion. I have met so called Christian Buddhists. And  I have met so called Muslim Buddhists.  
Atheism is just the lack of belief in god. I didn't coin the term it is just shorthand. Rather than an atheist you could just say I have no religion and no belief in any gods but that is a bit of a mouthful. I have met self identified Christian atheists. Is that just one religion or two? What would you make of a Christian Muslim Buddhist shintoist?
Sum1hugme
Sum1hugme's avatar
Debates: 37
Posts: 1,014
4
4
9
Sum1hugme's avatar
Sum1hugme
4
4
9
-->
@Tradesecret
My wife was an atheist wayyy before she knew what evolution was.
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,325
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Sum1hugme
->@Tradesecret
My wife was an atheist wayyy before she knew what evolution was.
We are all inconsistent at times. But please ask your wife - what led her to become an atheist?  If she takes the view that there simply was no evidence - how did she come to this conclusion on a reasonable basis without considering how humanity came about?  Probably, I suggest that she either listened to someone debunk religion and then decided that this fit with her experience. Yet if that is the case - this would be inconsistent with her position of atheist. 

After all, an atheist is someone who does not believe or had not observed that there is any evidence for the existence of God. But for this to be a reasonable and consistent and honest non-belief - this person must have asked the question about where humanity came from and how humanity arrived at where they are today. If they have not done so - then they are conceding that the position they came to in regard to atheism is not an honest one.  It is dishonest to say you have found no evidence for God's existence and then admit you have not even considered the origin and how of humanity. 
Sum1hugme
Sum1hugme's avatar
Debates: 37
Posts: 1,014
4
4
9
Sum1hugme's avatar
Sum1hugme
4
4
9
-->
@Tradesecret
She just wasn't raised in religion. She didn't have the word atheist until recently, but the religions she encountered, such as those of her peers was just nonsensical to her.

The origin of humanity is separate from the question of if there's a god lol

Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,325
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Sum1hugme
She just wasn't raised in religion. She didn't have the word atheist until recently, but the religions she encountered, such as those of her peers was just nonsensical to her.

The origin of humanity is separate from the question of if there's a god lol
So people keep telling me. 

Yes, it is inconsistent isn't? And it is also not intellectually honest either, is it?  It is absurd on one hand to say - "there is no evidence to convince me there is a god" and yet in the same breath suggest "well I have not actually asked all the questions yet".  If she had no religion - and had no concept of the word atheist - why jump on the bandwagon before she has at least asked some of the sensible basic questions?  TO do so - is an example of someone who has not actually thought through her position but someone who has just jumped in by "blind faith". 


Sum1hugme
Sum1hugme's avatar
Debates: 37
Posts: 1,014
4
4
9
Sum1hugme's avatar
Sum1hugme
4
4
9
-->
@Tradesecret
Lol. she is the farthest thing from a bandwagon jumper i've ever met. She thought the religious ideas were nonsense, even after she had probed their proponents with honest questions. So it was quite an honest endeavor I assure you.
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,325
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Sum1hugme
Lol. she is the farthest thing from a bandwagon jumper i've ever met. She thought the religious ideas were nonsense, even after she had probed their proponents with honest questions. So it was quite an honest endeavor I assure you.
LOL! Please don't think I am having a go.  Nor am I accusing her of being dishonest per se.  My position is that atheism is a worldview. And often atheists tend to say like you did above that the idea of no god is not related to origin of humanity. I think that has to be a nonsense. It is inconsistent with the view that people say on one hand that they come to atheism with a rational position but freely admit they have not asked all of the appropriate questions.  

If an atheist is genuine in their non-belief it must be the case that they have explored the things that most people would use to prove God exists.  One of those basic proofs is how the world and humanity came about.  For an atheist to conclude there is no God and never have explored that question is honestly misleading. 

The problem I see it is this: Atheists do not want to admit they are a worldview - they prefer for some reason to think that are a non-belief and that there is no unity at all with each other. I think they are fooling themselves.  I think they are self-deceived.  Yet - on the other hand they want people to think that they have come to their position of atheism as a considered view. Yet, if they have no worldview and no other implicit doctrines they are actually revealing that THEY HAVE NOT thought at all about God or evidence for or against his existence.  

It is quite revealing. For someone to say they have not thought about evolution but to be an atheist is to say I have not asked all of the appropriate questions. For someone to say that they have not seen any evidence for God and yet never explored origin theory is to say you have not asked all of the questions. It is quite literally admitting that you are an atheist without even knowing what evidence for God would look like. It is silly.  

The other problem is that they want their cake and they want to eat it as well. Thanks by the way - you have just confirmed for me that God is real.  And that Atheism is a worldview.  Thanks for that. 
Sum1hugme
Sum1hugme's avatar
Debates: 37
Posts: 1,014
4
4
9
Sum1hugme's avatar
Sum1hugme
4
4
9
-->
@Tradesecret
"the idea of no god is not related to origin of humanity. I think that has to be a nonsense."
  Perhaps you could explain?
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,325
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Sum1hugme
I have been trying to.  

If an atheist is a person who says "I have seen no evidence that God exists, this evidence they are not seeing or trying to see is not in a vacuum. 

If an atheist honestly is looking for evidence rather than just dismissing unreasonably ALL evidence, then they would reasonably ask the question "what evidence is there for the existence of God?"  

The number one reason people people believe in God is our own existence.  For an atheist not to even consider this number one reason in their "looking for evidence", would not only be remiss - it would be reckless.    For anyone to come to the conclusion that there is no evidence for God's existence and ignore completely the origin of humanity is absurd.   

It reveals as I said recklessness, irrationality, and blind faith.  The atheist has to reckon with origin of man if he is to honestly say he has explored the evidence and concluded there is no God.  If the atheist does this however, he has to admit that evolution and origin theory are both doctrines of Atheism.  If he ignores it, he demonstrates he believes by blind and reckless faith, since it would be an absurdity to say you have seen no evidence for God and yet also concede you have not explored the evidence properly. It would be better and more consistent to be agnostic than to jump into calling yourself an atheist. 

And just for completeness sake, I think the idea of being an atheist is much more logical and reasonable than being an agnostic in most cases.  I take the view that agnostic as defined is - someone who says "It is not possible to know whether God exists or not - therefore I refuse to be a theist and I refuse to be an atheist".   It is a self-contradictory statement.  How can anyone know it is not possible to know whether God exists or not - UNLESS they know at least one thing about God.  They have to know that we cannot know anything about God in order to make such a statement - which obviously is a contradiction. How can someone know anything about God and yet know one thing about God? Hence - God must exist. At least Atheism is not such a self contradictory statement per se. 

Yet, as we have seen above - atheism is a worldview.  And it has its unique set of doctrines - one which includes evolution.  So if an atheist does not believe in evolution they are in fact revealing that they are an atheist by blind faith and dogma not because of lack of evidence. 
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Tradesecret
I wouldn't call evolution an essential dogma of atheists. It is however very compatable to atheism, as their belief is fundamentally a nihilistic one. That there is no absolute truth, only relative truths. 

The religion of the future will be anti-Christ, and fundamentally anti-human. The dignity of being made in the image of God will be done away with(evolution fascilitates the dehumanization), the love of many will wax cold, and men will be equal to cattle only valuable insofar as what can be exploited out of them by the supermen who reign over them as gods.

That is where it all leads.


The western "scientific" materialist worldview couldn't be more alien to being human. I go so far as to call it anti-human. It is like knowing a tree by chopping it down and counting its rings.

Compare this to knowing a tree by planting it, watching it grow, sitting under it's shade, having your first kiss under it, burying your dog next to it, etc.

I am a human, not a collection of particles and energy. In the end, where does this worldview lead, this atheistic one? We are just masses of organic tissue, whose abortion from life is no moral issue.

But to go back to my first point, there are forms of atheism that do not even try to make the pretense of being rational. True atheists, that is, real deal nihilists, do not believe a thing they say. They simply delight in tearing everything down. Most people who think they are atheists today have been deceived by the real deal ones. Most self professed atheists today actually believe there is absolute truth, they have simply been confused about what it is they profess.




Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,325
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Mopac
I wouldn't call evolution an essential dogma of atheists. It is however very compatable to atheism, as their belief is fundamentally a nihilistic one. That there is no absolute truth, only relative truths. 
What is your position on evolution? Would you call yourself a 6 day creationist - 24 hour periods - or something else? 


The religion of the future will be anti-Christ, and fundamentally anti-human. The dignity of being made in the image of God will be done away with(evolution fascilitates the dehumanization), the love of many will wax cold, and men will be equal to cattle only valuable insofar as what can be exploited out of them by the supermen who reign over them as gods.
I think that the religion of the future will be two-fold.  Some or most will be anti-Christ and one will be pro-Christ. 


That is where it all leads.
Anti-Christ doctrine arises from Satan and death - and will return to it in the future. 

The western "scientific" materialist worldview couldn't be more alien to being human. I go so far as to call it anti-human. It is like knowing a tree by chopping it down and counting its rings.
Possibly. 


Compare this to knowing a tree by planting it, watching it grow, sitting under it's shade, having your first kiss under it, burying your dog next to it, etc.

Yes, experience is important and valid. I think preaching the gospel is like having the kiss whilst lecturing is describing the kiss. Two different thing. 


I am a human, not a collection of particles and energy. In the end, where does this worldview lead, this atheistic one? We are just masses of organic tissue, whose abortion from life is no moral issue.

But to go back to my first point, there are forms of atheism that do not even try to make the pretense of being rational. True atheists, that is, real deal nihilists, do not believe a thing they say. They simply delight in tearing everything down. Most people who think they are atheists today have been deceived by the real deal ones. Most self professed atheists today actually believe there is absolute truth, they have simply been confused about what it is they profess.
Ok. 

Sum1hugme
Sum1hugme's avatar
Debates: 37
Posts: 1,014
4
4
9
Sum1hugme's avatar
Sum1hugme
4
4
9
-->
@Tradesecret
"For anyone to come to the conclusion that there is no evidence for God's existence and ignore completely the origin of humanity is absurd"
  There's nothing about the origin of humanity that requires magic as an explanation you Silly. God doesn't explain human origins, and fails as an explanation for anything else. So one can dive very little into the technical details of evolutionary theory to understand that supernatural intervention isn't required for human origins. 

"the idea of no god is not related to origin of humanity. I think that has to be a nonsense."
  You have failed to demonstrate this, rather instead baselessly asserting it to be nonsense. 
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,325
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Sum1hugme
For anyone to come to the conclusion that there is no evidence for God's existence and ignore completely the origin of humanity is absurd"
  There's nothing about the origin of humanity that requires magic as an explanation you Silly. God doesn't explain human origins, and fails as an explanation for anything else. So one can dive very little into the technical details of evolutionary theory to understand that supernatural intervention isn't required for human origins. 
Who is talking about magic? With respect magic is the only explanation for "nothing was there, and then for no reason, nothing decided to explode".  That is magic because unless there were principles of law in existence,  and something for the principles of law to interact or engage with then magic is the only explanation. We won't even get into the absolute impossibility of statistical nonsense that after the magic of something happening for nothing exploded for no reason that life on our planet came about   

What I am talking about has got nothing to do with whether that is plausible or not or even with whether God could do it or not.  It is to do with the conclusion drawn by an atheist who claims "I have seen no evidence for God",  yet has not even considered looking at the evidence which people who do believe in God rely upon.  If that person chooses to call themselves an atheist - great - but it is nothing short of blind faith. They are an atheist out of choice not because they have actually seen no evidence.  And for the record, I don't have an issue with that. It is your prerogative.  Yet for you or any atheist to say "I have not seen any evidence for the existence of God, so therefore I am an atheist" and yet purport it is because you have actually done your homework is well self deception.  I personally would wish that atheist's just admit that they make a choice because it helps them to fit in with their peers, or because they don't like the idea of a nasty monster god, or that they think it is part of the human travel to rid themselves of superstition.  Looking at the evidence people which theists rely upon does not mean accepting it as true.  But to not look at it is reckless and silly, not to say, intellectually dishonest. 

Atheist often say they prefer the truth to hope on a lie.  Yet,  I find atheists often deluded by their own intellectual dishonesty.  Denying that atheists have a worldview is one of the most delightful delusions. 

"the idea of no god is not related to origin of humanity. I think that has to be a nonsense."
  You have failed to demonstrate this, rather instead baselessly asserting it to be nonsense. 
Failing to prove it to you - does not mean I have failed.  It only means that you do not understand logic and reasoning. 

Sum1hugme
Sum1hugme's avatar
Debates: 37
Posts: 1,014
4
4
9
Sum1hugme's avatar
Sum1hugme
4
4
9
-->
@Tradesecret
"Who is talking about magic? With respect magic is the only explanation for "nothing was there, and then for no reason, nothing decided to explode".  That is magic because unless there were principles of law in existence,  and something for the principles of law to interact or engage with then magic is the only explanation. We won't even get into the absolute impossibility of statistical nonsense that after the magic of something happening for nothing exploded for no reason that life on our planet came about   "
  Well that's a horrible misrepresentation of cosmic origins lol. But again, you fail to explain why god is even relevant to the discussion of human origins.

" Yet for you or any atheist to say "I have not seen any evidence for the existence of God, so therefore I am an atheist" and yet purport it is because you have actually done your homework is well self deception."
  This statement is problematic, because there is a lot of purported evidence, but no actual evidence. So when one such as myself looks, there is naught to be had. If one is being reasonable, then they reserve belief in a claim until it has something to substantiate it. Every piece of "evidence" that i have encountered has not actually been evidence. And i've spent countless hours wrestling with the major arguments and supposed evidences.

" I personally would wish that atheist's just admit that they make a choice because it helps them to fit in with their peers, or because they don't like the idea of a nasty monster god, or that they think it is part of the human travel to rid themselves of superstition."
  Well my friend, where I grew up there was maybe 1 atheist per 1000 people. i mean an crushing minority. So all the pressure from my peers came when I started questioning the YEC beliefs i had been raised in. I didn't meet an outspoken atheist until i was 14. The point is that through the process of wanting to understand the world as it is, god becomes less and less necessary as an explanation for things. 

"Failing to prove it to you - does not mean I have failed.  It only means that you do not understand logic and reasoning. "
   No sir, you just simply failed. But that doesn't mean you can't try again.