Question about Atheism

  • Thread starter Raza
  • Start date
  • #126
1,596
0
Creating, shaping, etc. it doesnt matter, the point is that subjectivity influences matter. Whether this subjectivity actually initiates completely new quantum events, or completely novel ideas, dreamworlds, etc. doesnt matter for now. U say its natural, and i agree, and this also demonstrates that the idea of a god is not in principle supernatural. If its natural when our own minds do it, why would it be supernatural when it happens at some other point in time, for instance at the moment of the big bang.
Neither our mindly experience nor the moment of the big bang are in any way mysterious or "special" events.

I agree, matter as we know it is just the properties we have observed it to have. However, those properties which u hold to be fundamental, do not in any way describe the act of observing. Thats why materialism only tells half the story of whats going on.
Partly there you are right here, since we need to think of matter in a dialectical way. The activity of life and conscioussness is what in fact causes this seperation of consciousness and subjective minds and the outside, external material world (that what is reflected in our consciousness). They form in fact a dialectical unity of opposites, in which neither exists without the other, they have no seperate meaning.



But u think materialism justifies claiming that atheism does not require faith?

Of course conscious experience is evidence against materialism. The red dot in the room is evidence that the room isnt all blue. U are using the basic assumption of materialism(brain produces consciousness), as an argument for materialism!
It is more drastic and radical then that. The red dot only exists because the rest of the room is blue and vice versa. You need to think of them (consciousness, versus matter) in a dialectical way as a unity of opposites.
The same is to say there is no objectivity without subjectivity, no light without dark, no positive without negative, etc. Both determine each other and can not exist without each other.

So in this way conscioussness does not disproof materialism (nor does materialism disproof consciousness), and both can be united as dialectical materialism.
 
  • #127
20
0
Well, I'm not going to make the obvious "What came before God" statement, cause I'm more than sure you have pondered this yourself.

Myself, as an atheist. I beleive in it due to a larger quater of realism in the big bang theory. Personally, its just because I find it hard that a god existed/exist's. I'm more a man of science than religon.

I'm not asking something from 'God' like some atheists do. But I do find it a bit sceptical to put such enormous faith into a book, the main recognition of Jesus, God and beleived creation of man kind.

Don't get me wrong, I strongly wish I still beleived in a religon. Knowing that there is a God(s) looking over me and allowing me into an eternity of happiness is somewhat a good feeling, I wish I could go back to when I beleived in Christianity.

But for now, evidence will pile up... I don't think I'll ever be in another religous group than atheism.
 
  • #128
203
0
Religion does not negate the big-bang theory, learning how the universe is made is not blasphemy. It's just like learning about mountains are made. I believe that the big-bang did happen BUT the power to make the universe was given by God. I was watching Brian Greene 2 days ago and he said that the big-bang happened thousand times faster than the speed of light, now that just doesn't happen randomly.
 
  • #129
173
0
if there is a god why all the very different religions
and every religion split into many sub cults

if man made god it is normal for every man to make a different god
as every man has different ideas and ideals

no god cults are the same without contact between the cults
ie the one god cult moved from egypt to the so call holy land and then to
the saudi lands all close to each other both in time and distance
NO WHERE ELSE had a one god cult except imported versions of these
this clearly shows one man invented or revised the cults at a single time and place
king tuts dad to moses to paul/saul to mohamed and no hand of god
behind the cults beliefs just the teaching of a single man in each stage
and many splits in to subcults following the teachings of other men over time

now if every or even a large number of tribes over the world
had independant home grown cults with beliefs that were near the same
I could see a god behind them who taught man a belief
BUT THAT NEVER HAPPEND
man taught man the beliefs only after contact
and never met a near same cult anywhere
that was a independant creation

SO MAN MADE GODS all types and never two the same
 
  • #130
203
0
if there is a god why all the very different religions
and every religion split into many sub cults

if man made god it is normal for every man to make a different god
as every man has different ideas and ideals

no god cults are the same without contact between the cults
ie the one god cult moved from egypt to the so call holy land and then to
the saudi lands all close to each other both in time and distance
NO WHERE ELSE had a one god cult except imported versions of these
this clearly shows one man invented or revised the cults at a single time and place
king tuts dad to moses to paul/saul to mohamed and no hand of god
behind the cults beliefs just the teaching of a single man in each stage
and many splits in to subcults following the teachings of other men over time

now if every or even a large number of tribes over the world
had independant home grown cults with beliefs that were near the same
I could see a god behind them who taught man a belief
BUT THAT NEVER HAPPEND
man taught man the beliefs only after contact
and never met a near same cult anywhere
that was a independant creation

SO MAN MADE GODS all types and never two the same


I believe your opinion is very valid but let me tell you something.

We as Muslims believe that Judaism WAS the right religion, until it was corrupted,(so all the True Jews between Judaism and Christianity went to the heaven) and Christianity WAS the right religion until it too was corrupted (so all the true Christian between Christianity and Islam went to the heaven).

And also, I sometimes take out my religion (so forgetting about Jesus, Moses etc..) and only think about life and ask myself, How can a universe be created without no one building it? I simply cannot surpass the barrier which is in my mind that says that the universe is made by itself.
 
Last edited:
  • #131
I somply cannot surpass the barrier which is in my mind that says that the universe is made by itself.
This boundary that you have constructed emerges out of your fundamental presuppositions and assumptions about reality. Until you transcend the notion that nature itself, requires a creator, our models of logic will remain incommeasurable.

This has no logical implications, merely speculation and intuivie rambles so don't treat this rigorously.

Let's consider the writing of Jean-Paul Sartre for a moment, which will be from memory so please correct any errors. If one is to forgo the concept of god for a moment, an interesting perspective about reality develops. Assuming the nonexistance of god, we shall proceed to an analogy.

If one chooses to construct a chair, one must first, initiate the concept of the chair so that one can physically design the chair. This is referred to as, 'essence.' After the concept of the chair has been considered, one must create the chair. This is referred to as, 'existence.'

In this particular analogy, 'essence precedes existence,' or the concept of the chair had to be created before the construction of the chair could begin. However, Sartre said that 'subjectivity is the starting point' and that in relation to man, 'existence precedes essence.'

What this means is that constructivist realities (things we create), are contigent upon our subjective conception of a particular property of a constructivist reality, in order for it to come into fruition. However, man is different. Man appears on the scene and then defines himself and everything around him.

We define ourselves as humans, we define a tree to be a tree, we axiomatically construct formal logic systems such as mathematics, etc. We project our own subjective perceptions of the universe, onto itself.

We decide that things require a beginning and we decide that it's impossible for the universe to exist independent of a creator. The notion that this universe existed prior to our inception into the universe, shouldn't be hard to grasp and the notion that we define the universe shouldn't be difficult either.

If that logic follows, then it doesn't seem like a leap to conclude that 'existence precedes essence,' as everything that hasn't naturally existed independent of human mind, is a subset of our existence. There is nothing to define us that we are cognizant of, other than ourselves.

Once you deconstruct your subjective projection of the requirement for a creator, new and alternate perspectives emerge. I personally can't imagine some dude chillen somewhere made the universe as depicted in many religions. I also have a hard time believing that the entire universe was created specifically for this island of a rock we call Earth.

I see no reason for a creator, other than our own projection of that requirement. I am a deterministic byproduct of nature, with absolutely no man made influence.

Now, if we wish to treat this discussion with rigorous logic, I am down for a discussion. Otherwise, we can keep it casual.
 
  • #132
377
0
How can a universe be created without no one building it? I simply cannot surpass the barrier which is in my mind that says that the universe is made by itself.
You cannot process the idea of something made by itself and you resolve this by postulating a god that is made by itself?
 
  • #133
You cannot process the idea of something made by itself and you resolve this by postulating a god that is made by itself?
How did I forget to throw that one in! :)

OCCAMS RAZOR!
 
  • #134
You cannot process the idea of something made by itself and you resolve this by postulating a god that is made by itself?
that's what always gets to me :rofl:

if the universe is "too complex" to create itself (which is kind of an over-simplified statement, but anyway..), then how could a god so much more infinitely complex than the universe (a conscious, feeling, thinking, all knowing, infinitely wise god) have created itself?

or if god can have always existed, why can't reality have always existed... or if god exists outside of time... etc...

the only logical explanation (following the religious logic that is: that everything must have a creator or a designer greater than itself), would be for God to have been designed by an even greater, wiser, all-knowinger, SuperGod! and that super god would have to have been created by an even more infinitely wiserer, all knowingerer super-supergod, and so on.
 
  • #135
We are all truly agnostic. We simply do not know if there is a God or not. That is the only truth.
 
  • #136
203
0
You cannot process the idea of something made by itself and you resolve this by postulating a god that is made by itself?
Who says I believe that God is made by himself? If I don't know the answer to this question, it doesn't mean that I believe that God was made by himself.
 
Last edited:
  • #137
377
0
Who says I believe that God is made my himself? If I don't know the answer to this question, it doesn't mean that I believe that God was made by himself.
Well, "made by something else" would pretty much disqualify god as creator...
 
  • #138
Who says I believe that God is made my himself? If I don't know the answer to this question, it doesn't mean that I believe that God was made by himself.
either way, it doesn't work out logically:
- if god created itself, then that negates your reason to need a god to create the universe in the first place (that is: things, including the universe, CAN create themselves or spontaneously occur).

- if God needed a creator, then God's creator also needed a creator, and so on... ad infinitum, and no god is the true god (in this way too, the universe could be created without the need of a god: multi-verse theories, etc.)

either way, God is redundant. ... and either way both god and no god are a possibility. what is left after that is look at all the available evidence and come to a conclusion.

it's no coincidence the vast majority of scientists are agnostic or atheists: all the evidence points towards God being highly improbable, not needed, and a man-made concept.

no one can say for sure that there is no god, but most scientists will agree that god is simply very unlikely (and even more unlikely is for god to not only exist, but for anyone to pick or be born into the religion that happened to have chosen the true identity of god! -- remember: just as much as you KNOW that islam is true and christianity is not, christians KNOW that christianity is true and islam is not, jews KNOW that judaism is true and christianity is not, scientologists KNOW that scientology is true... )


We are all truly agnostic. We simply do not know if there is a God or not. That is the only truth.
if only that were true... most religious people will admit that they obviously can't be 100% sure of god, and that it's simply what they chose as most probable/help them cope with life/model their values after and so on -- just as most atheists will admit that they can't be 100% sure that god does not exist.
but there are those who do believe beyond shadow of a doubt the word of their god. their mind has been taken over so badly by this belief system that they will shut down (and even punish themselves for) any thought that questions its existence: fanatics, martyrs, etc.

they are a minority, yes... but there's more than enough of them, in more than enough countries, of enough contradicting religions, near enough "red buttons" for it to be very dangerous.
 
  • #139
turbo
Gold Member
3,028
45
We are all truly agnostic. We simply do not know if there is a God or not. That is the only truth.
Thank you. Theism and atheism are equally indefensible, for the same reasons. They both elevate the concept of god to the same level - the former in affirmation and the latter in negation. It is pure hubris to claim any certainty in this matter. The televangelist fiercely squinting his eyes as he "prays" on TV and the "rational" atheist who proclaims that there is no god are but two sides of the same coin.

Agnosticism is not an expression of doubt and uncertainty - it is the acknowledgment that some things cannot be known, and that questions in such matters are philosophical at heart, speculative in nature, and not answerable in practice. So many religions, so much certainty...if only MY belief is right, WHY is MY belief right, and all the others wrong? A question that might have saved millions of lives if answered honestly....
 

Related Threads for: Question about Atheism

  • Last Post
2
Replies
35
Views
3K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
47
Views
6K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
46
Views
5K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
46
Views
5K
  • Last Post
6
Replies
138
Views
21K
  • Last Post
4
Replies
79
Views
6K
  • Last Post
Replies
24
Views
3K
  • Last Post
4
Replies
89
Views
6K
Top