Atheism 2.0

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
1

I thought about adding this to the thread that Pat started on modern-day atheism, But I thought maybe this should have it’s own thread instead of being drowned out in that conversation.

I’m really interested in hearing everybody’s perspective on this, and what your thoughts are on what he has to say about his vision of “modern atheism”. It’s an interesting perspective I think on what contributions religion makes in this world. This is definitely NOT the militant atheism of Dawkins.

Anyways, it’s only a 20 minute TED talk, and worth your investment of time methinks.

2

[quote]bigflamer wrote:
I thought about adding this to the thread that Pat started on modern-day atheism, But I thought maybe this should have it’s own thread instead of being drowned out in that conversation.

I’m really interested in hearing everybody’s perspective on this, and what your thoughts are on what he has to say about his vision of “modern atheism”. It’s an interesting perspective I think on what contributions religion makes in this world. This is definitely NOT the militant atheism of Dawkins.

Anyways, it’s only a 20 minute TED talk, and worth your investment of time methinks.

[/quote]

Well, I don’t necessarily agree with his ideas on what religious people believe, but I agree the mechanisms utilized by religions are effective.

What I find interesting is that he is presupposing, or proposing the idea that the secular life has gaps I.E., this dogmatic hardcore atheism proposed by the likes of Dawkins and Harris and have been very popular amongst the secular also causes problems in that a full scale rejection also leaves empty some parts of life. And that if you choose this hardcore attitude that you isolate yourself from some of the ancillary richnesses that the religious enjoy.

It’s an interesting admission. That a hardcore secularism leaves emptiness in some areas even if the academic propositions are fulfilling. Now I say ‘hard core’ meaning the utter rejection of anything that could even be construed as religious. Which I don’t necessarily believe most save for the most militant hold fast to.

But that secularism has gaps and an emptiness and his idea almost that it’s unfair that religious people get to enjoy these things to the exclusion of the atheist.

I can see where an individual can benefit from what he says and can have a fuller more colorful life by employing some of the mechanisms and values that are typically associated with religion, in their own lives.

But he speaks of community, repeating messages and sort of employing a religious style in transfer of information, in ‘getting the word out’. My question about this, is to what end? What sort of community are you looking for? What is the message? If atheism isn’t to be a religion and is a belief in nothing, I.E. no God, or anything of the sort, what information are you repeating? What are you getting the word out about?
Also, a community of what? A community of absence of belief?

I certainly don’t have an issue with a person seeking a more fulfilling life, but the communal thing and the ‘getting the word’ out thing is confusing.

Secondly, do you find things in the secular life that are lacking and is that why you are interested in this sort of atheism 2.0?

It’s a bit more polite, but no less arrogant and dismissive of believers. It’s interesting that he finds these good things with in religion, but still considers an exchange of ideas with religious beneath him, like talk physics with a dog.

3

Something can be said for people who were raised a certain way, appreciate some of the lessons and community of the Church, but have turned out to be atheist or agnostic.

The thing that appeals to people like myself is the familiarity, if you had a great religious up-bringing and feel your kids will miss out, Atheism 2.0 makes a bit of sense. To someone who say lost their faith and are looking to raise their children in a similar way to the way they were raised might find a lack of secular support in raising their children that would be there if you were part of a parish or other religious community.

Also, maybe we can look at this from an anthropological standpoint? If we are sort of wired to be religious, then wouldn’t it make sense that we go through certain stresses by being atheist or agnostic? Maybe this one is both personal and social? I know it can be for some depending on location. There’s more to this than meets the eye.

An even more interesting caveat is examining people like Dawkins from the anthropological standpoint. Seriously, Dawkins needs to use his platform as a famous scientist to more bash forms of theism, specifically Christianity rather than to promote his platform of Atheism, it’s a weird unabashed prostheletism that sits just like a form of theism, complete with dogma and atheist tattoos, and a book with technical writing which neatly categorizes people into descriptions that nobody agrees with except atheists.

It’s as much about seeing what the atheism side has to offer, which is pretty much Dawkins and the late Hitchens who want to spend as much time insulting as they do promoting how smarter they are/were than everyone else.

I’d find a little justice watching him try to tell a big strong Tita, Samoan or Hawaiian they are stupid for their religion. I’d pay money to watch that.

4

I’m not gonna be able to do it, but I sure would like to be able to help you with this Sparky. Don’t forget to gimme a holler if you ever get over to this side of the state again.

5

So he wants to add some structure to atheism and improve it’s methods of delivery.

I think that the thing he is missing is that with organized religions there is not just a communion of the spirit with God, but also with your fellow members. That is the tie that binds congregations and gives structure through out the world- The shared experience and belief of having been through the rituals and sharing ownership of some of the worlds best known works of art an appreciation for their significance within the whole system of belief.

So what do you do when there is no spiritual experience or binding that holds people together or connects them through out the world? It’s a bit of a gordian knot if you can not acknowledge the human spirit or spiritual existence of a group of people because you do not believe in the existence of the human spirit or any other for that matter. Without that most fundamental element- the spiritual experience- all of the art and architecture in the world isn’t going to mean anything. Travel or pilgrimage? To what? A lecture hall? A coffee house? Woo-Hoo! Did you see the earth tone walls of the original Starbucks? Wow. How bout those seats in the lecture hall at CMU? OMG! I could spend hours in those!

Thats why atheism comes off as flat and empty. The snarky, superior tone that some take doesn’t help either. It’s like a lesbian comedy hour.

6

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
So he wants to add some structure to atheism and improve it’s methods of delivery.

I think that the thing he is missing is that with organized religions there is not just a communion of the spirit with God, but also with your fellow members. That is the tie that binds congregations and gives structure through out the world- The shared experience and belief of having been through the rituals and sharing ownership of some of the worlds best known works of art an appreciation for their significance within the whole system of belief.

So what do you do when there is no spiritual experience or binding that holds people together or connects them through out the world? It’s a bit of a gordian knot if you can not acknowledge the human spirit or spiritual existence of a group of people because you do not believe in the existence of the human spirit or any other for that matter. Without that most fundamental element- the spiritual experience- all of the art and architecture in the world isn’t going to mean anything. Travel or pilgrimage? To what? A lecture hall? A coffee house? Woo-Hoo! Did you see the earth tone walls of the original Starbucks? Wow. How bout those seats in the lecture hall at CMU? OMG! I could spend hours in those!

Thats why atheism comes off as flat and empty. The snarky, superior tone that some take doesn’t help either. It’s like a lesbian comedy hour.

[/quote]

The question is, what’s the message? Delivery of what, exactly?

7

[quote]Severiano wrote:
Something can be said for people who were raised a certain way, appreciate some of the lessons and community of the Church, but have turned out to be atheist or agnostic.

The thing that appeals to people like myself is the familiarity, if you had a great religious up-bringing and feel your kids will miss out, Atheism 2.0 makes a bit of sense. To someone who say lost their faith and are looking to raise their children in a similar way to the way they were raised might find a lack of secular support in raising their children that would be there if you were part of a parish or other religious community.

Also, maybe we can look at this from an anthropological standpoint? If we are sort of wired to be religious, then wouldn’t it make sense that we go through certain stresses by being atheist or agnostic? Maybe this one is both personal and social? I know it can be for some depending on location. There’s more to this than meets the eye.

An even more interesting caveat is examining people like Dawkins from the anthropological standpoint. Seriously, Dawkins needs to use his platform as a famous scientist to more bash forms of theism, specifically Christianity rather than to promote his platform of Atheism, it’s a weird unabashed prostheletism that sits just like a form of theism, complete with dogma and atheist tattoos, and a book with technical writing which neatly categorizes people into descriptions that nobody agrees with except atheists.

It’s as much about seeing what the atheism side has to offer, which is pretty much Dawkins and the late Hitchens who want to spend as much time insulting as they do promoting how smarter they are/were than everyone else.

I’d find a little justice watching him try to tell a big strong Tita, Samoan or Hawaiian they are stupid for their religion. I’d pay money to watch that.
[/quote]

Hitchens wasn’t near the asshole Dawkins is…
Seriously, you said Dawkins needs to spend more time bashing Christianity? Like it’s not bashed enough? I cannot tell if you were being sarcastic or not. I think bashing it is what has lost him credibility even with many atheists. It seems like the guy in the video seems to take issue with his behavior considering he called him out in every way save for in name.
Such behavior is not good PR and makes it look rather unappealing to a lot of folks. It’s a lot of negative energy and people crave positive energy. Being angry and insulting looks like just plain hate and bias, rather than an intellectual reasoned position.

It’s weird though, it seems like atheists like Christmas carols more than I do. I friggin’ hate Christmas carols. I have heard it several times from atheists how they don’t believe in Christmas, but they sure like the music.

8

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
So he wants to add some structure to atheism and improve it’s methods of delivery.

I think that the thing he is missing is that with organized religions there is not just a communion of the spirit with God, but also with your fellow members. That is the tie that binds congregations and gives structure through out the world- The shared experience and belief of having been through the rituals and sharing ownership of some of the worlds best known works of art an appreciation for their significance within the whole system of belief.

So what do you do when there is no spiritual experience or binding that holds people together or connects them through out the world? It’s a bit of a gordian knot if you can not acknowledge the human spirit or spiritual existence of a group of people because you do not believe in the existence of the human spirit or any other for that matter. Without that most fundamental element- the spiritual experience- all of the art and architecture in the world isn’t going to mean anything. Travel or pilgrimage? To what? A lecture hall? A coffee house? Woo-Hoo! Did you see the earth tone walls of the original Starbucks? Wow. How bout those seats in the lecture hall at CMU? OMG! I could spend hours in those!

Thats why atheism comes off as flat and empty. The snarky, superior tone that some take doesn’t help either. It’s like a lesbian comedy hour.

[/quote]

The question is, what’s the message? Delivery of what, exactly?[/quote]

That there is nothing else. No human spirit, no holy spirit, just the life you have for the time you have it, which is nothing more than a chain of chemical reactions and electric signals in response to your surroundings.

At least that is what I get from atheists. Not that the ones I’ve talked to don’t value and enjoy the life that they have, but as soon as you approach any type of spiritual existence, the conversation changes real quick.

Me and a guy had a running inside joke for a while. He sneezed and without thinking about it I said “God bless you.” He told me he doesn’t believe in god, and that I may as well just say “Hey, you just sneezed.” from a Seinfeld episode. So I did. It was good for a few laughs, but I found it interesting that he didn’t care for the sentiment of the statement, which for me amounts to “Feel better soon.”. Usually just friendly and innocuous, but for an atheist it can be a bit of a land mine.

9

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]bigflamer wrote:
I thought about adding this to the thread that Pat started on modern-day atheism, But I thought maybe this should have it’s own thread instead of being drowned out in that conversation.

I’m really interested in hearing everybody’s perspective on this, and what your thoughts are on what he has to say about his vision of “modern atheism”. It’s an interesting perspective I think on what contributions religion makes in this world. This is definitely NOT the militant atheism of Dawkins.

Anyways, it’s only a 20 minute TED talk, and worth your investment of time methinks.

[/quote]

Well, I don’t necessarily agree with his ideas on what religious people believe, but I agree the mechanisms utilized by religions are effective.[/quote]

Where do you think he’s wrong on what religious people believe?

[quote]Pat wrote:
What I find interesting is that he is presupposing, or proposing the idea that the secular life has gaps I.E., this dogmatic hardcore atheism proposed by the likes of Dawkins and Harris and have been very popular amongst the secular also causes problems in that a full scale rejection also leaves empty some parts of life. And that if you choose this hardcore attitude that you isolate yourself from some of the ancillary richnesses that the religious enjoy.

It’s an interesting admission. That a hardcore secularism leaves emptiness in some areas even if the academic propositions are fulfilling. Now I say ‘hard core’ meaning the utter rejection of anything that could even be construed as religious. Which I don’t necessarily believe most save for the most militant hold fast to.[/quote]

I believe that secular life can have gaps in it, just as much as religious life can have gaps. let’s face it, any life can have gaps if that life is lived without purpose and meaning. Do we need belief for our lives to have purpose and meaning? I certainly don’t think so.
What the speaker is referring to I think, is that there ARE some of what you would call “hard core atheist types”, who could stand to benefit from some of the mechanisms that the religious employ.

Personally, I don’t think that it’s the rejection of belief that’s leaving the gaps; it’s the lack of communal bonding, culture, and pursuit of meaning more than likely. The problem for such atheists I think, is that they’re so wrapped up in the fact that they’re surrounded by the religious, that they feel the need to reject loudly anything and everything religious. This is, IMHO, to their detriment, and what the speaker is referring to I think.

I posted the video because, while I don’t agree with everything that he says, I think he’s close to where I’m at with my non belief in certain aspects. I don’t need to be a believer to say “thank you” when one of my religious friends says “bless you”. I don’t need to be a believer to enjoy aspects of the christmas or easter holiday. And I certainly don’t need to be a believer to read the bible, Koran, or any other religious books.

[quote]Pat wrote:
But that secularism has gaps and an emptiness and his idea almost that it’s unfair that religious people get to enjoy these things to the exclusion of the atheist.

I can see where an individual can benefit from what he says and can have a fuller more colorful life by employing some of the mechanisms and values that are typically associated with religion, in their own lives.

But he speaks of community, repeating messages and sort of employing a religious style in transfer of information, in ‘getting the word out’. My question about this, is to what end? What sort of community are you looking for? What is the message? If atheism isn’t to be a religion and is a belief in nothing, I.E. no God, or anything of the sort, what information are you repeating? What are you getting the word out about?

Also, a community of what? A community of absence of belief?[/quote]

I would answer that by saying that the word to get out is a message that you don’t need belief in any of the gods to be happy, for starters. A message of service, service to humanity for the sake of humanity itself and not at the behest of a supernatural deity. That you don’t need belief in the supernatural to lead a meaningful life. For starters, those would be good messages, and what he’s saying is that the mechanisms of the religious ARE certainly effective. Just because mechanisms of the religious are employed by atheist organizations, doesn’t make one “religious” IMHO.

There’s a large community of non believers out there, and we’re growing at a rapid pace. You certainly don’t need belief in a supernatural deity to be a member of a community.

[quote]Pat wrote:
I certainly don’t have an issue with a person seeking a more fulfilling life, but the communal thing and the ‘getting the word’ out thing is confusing.[/quote]

I honestly don’t see why that would be confusing to you.

[quote]Pat wrote:
Secondly, do you find things in the secular life that are lacking and is that why you are interested in this sort of atheism 2.0?[/quote]

Not at all. To be perfectly honest, I find MORE meaning in a secular life. I just thought it was an interesting talk since his stance was markedly less strident than that of Dawkins, and since we were just discussing Dawkins in the other thread, I thought I’d post it up for discussion.

While I have read Dawkins, and don’t really disagree with much of what he says, it’s his presentation that grinds me, as I said in the other thread. This guy is much more in line with me. The other thread asked the question “is this the new atheism?”, and to that I would say, not entirely. It’s out there and it is what it is, but atheism as a belief is wide and varied, just as belief is. I guess I wanted to show that Dawkins isn’t the sole representative of atheism.

[quote]Pat wrote:
It’s a bit more polite, but no less arrogant and dismissive of believers. It’s interesting that he finds these good things with in religion, but still considers an exchange of ideas with religious beneath him, like talk physics with a dog.[/quote]

I have found in my travels, that it’s difficult to make the case for atheism without being offensive to most believers. Even when that message is delivered respectfully and and in a polite manner, I would say that many are offended that I would question even the very existance of their god, whichever god that might be.

Of course, this is why atheists have been treated the way that they have by the religious since, well, forever.

Anyways, I don’t post on here nearly as much as I’d like to these days, but I do appreciate your response, Pat. Cheers.

10

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I’m not gonna be able to do it, but I sure would like to be able to help you with this Sparky. Don’t forget to gimme a holler if you ever get over to this side of the state again.[/quote]

I certainly will try to hit you up if I get over to the D again sometime soon. Good hearing from you, Tirib.

11

You can’t make a case for atheism. You can certainly make a case for agnosticism but what evidence exists that G-d doesn’t exist? And for every paradox you can provide for non existence an equally compelling paradox can be made for existence. For example, the first law of thermodynamics: matter/energy can’t be lost or created. Matter can be converted to energy and energy to matter but the amount must always remain the same. So where did matter/energy come from if someone or something didn’t create it in the first place? Someone or something that is able to break the first law of thermodynamics.

12

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
So he wants to add some structure to atheism and improve it’s methods of delivery.

I think that the thing he is missing is that with organized religions there is not just a communion of the spirit with God, but also with your fellow members. That is the tie that binds congregations and gives structure through out the world- The shared experience and belief of having been through the rituals and sharing ownership of some of the worlds best known works of art an appreciation for their significance within the whole system of belief.

So what do you do when there is no spiritual experience or binding that holds people together or connects them through out the world? It’s a bit of a gordian knot if you can not acknowledge the human spirit or spiritual existence of a group of people because you do not believe in the existence of the human spirit or any other for that matter. Without that most fundamental element- the spiritual experience- all of the art and architecture in the world isn’t going to mean anything. Travel or pilgrimage? To what? A lecture hall? A coffee house? Woo-Hoo! Did you see the earth tone walls of the original Starbucks? Wow. How bout those seats in the lecture hall at CMU? OMG! I could spend hours in those!

Thats why atheism comes off as flat and empty. The snarky, superior tone that some take doesn’t help either. It’s like a lesbian comedy hour.

[/quote]

The question is, what’s the message? Delivery of what, exactly?[/quote]

That there is nothing else. No human spirit, no holy spirit, just the life you have for the time you have it, which is nothing more than a chain of chemical reactions and electric signals in response to your surroundings.

At least that is what I get from atheists. Not that the ones I’ve talked to don’t value and enjoy the life that they have, but as soon as you approach any type of spiritual existence, the conversation changes real quick.

Me and a guy had a running inside joke for a while. He sneezed and without thinking about it I said “God bless you.” He told me he doesn’t believe in god, and that I may as well just say “Hey, you just sneezed.” from a Seinfeld episode. So I did. It was good for a few laughs, but I found it interesting that he didn’t care for the sentiment of the statement, which for me amounts to “Feel better soon.”. Usually just friendly and innocuous, but for an atheist it can be a bit of a land mine.
[/quote]

LOL

13

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
You can’t make a case for atheism.[/quote]

False

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
You can certainly make a case for agnosticism but what evidence exists that G-d doesn’t exist? And for every paradox you can provide for non existence an equally compelling paradox can be made for existence. For example, the first law of thermodynamics: matter/energy can’t be lost or created. Matter can be converted to energy and energy to matter but the amount must always remain the same. So where did matter/energy come from if someone or something didn’t create it in the first place? Someone or something that is able to break the first law of thermodynamics.[/quote]

Atheism doesn’t know, and doesn’t claim to know the ultimate origins of existence. Yours is an assumption, and an extremely large one at that. Now, I realize that you might be a bit put off by that, but the fact remains; claiming that all things were created by a supernatural deity is a large assumption.

14

[quote]bigflamer wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
You can’t make a case for atheism.[/quote]

False

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
You can certainly make a case for agnosticism but what evidence exists that G-d doesn’t exist? And for every paradox you can provide for non existence an equally compelling paradox can be made for existence. For example, the first law of thermodynamics: matter/energy can’t be lost or created. Matter can be converted to energy and energy to matter but the amount must always remain the same. So where did matter/energy come from if someone or something didn’t create it in the first place? Someone or something that is able to break the first law of thermodynamics.[/quote]

Atheism doesn’t know, and doesn’t claim to know the ultimate origins of existence. Yours is an assumption, and an extremely large one at that. Now, I realize that you might be a bit put off by that, but the fact remains; claiming that all things were created by a supernatural deity is a large assumption.
[/quote]

But what is the alternative for how all things were created, and how is it so much less of an assumption it dwarfs the other theory into the realm of just something random that was made up?

15

[quote]bigflamer wrote:

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
So he wants to add some structure to atheism and improve it’s methods of delivery.

I think that the thing he is missing is that with organized religions there is not just a communion of the spirit with God, but also with your fellow members. That is the tie that binds congregations and gives structure through out the world- The shared experience and belief of having been through the rituals and sharing ownership of some of the worlds best known works of art an appreciation for their significance within the whole system of belief.

So what do you do when there is no spiritual experience or binding that holds people together or connects them through out the world? It’s a bit of a gordian knot if you can not acknowledge the human spirit or spiritual existence of a group of people because you do not believe in the existence of the human spirit or any other for that matter. Without that most fundamental element- the spiritual experience- all of the art and architecture in the world isn’t going to mean anything. Travel or pilgrimage? To what? A lecture hall? A coffee house? Woo-Hoo! Did you see the earth tone walls of the original Starbucks? Wow. How bout those seats in the lecture hall at CMU? OMG! I could spend hours in those!

Thats why atheism comes off as flat and empty. The snarky, superior tone that some take doesn’t help either. It’s like a lesbian comedy hour.

[/quote]

The question is, what’s the message? Delivery of what, exactly?[/quote]

That there is nothing else. No human spirit, no holy spirit, just the life you have for the time you have it, which is nothing more than a chain of chemical reactions and electric signals in response to your surroundings.

At least that is what I get from atheists. Not that the ones I’ve talked to don’t value and enjoy the life that they have, but as soon as you approach any type of spiritual existence, the conversation changes real quick.

Me and a guy had a running inside joke for a while. He sneezed and without thinking about it I said “God bless you.” He told me he doesn’t believe in god, and that I may as well just say “Hey, you just sneezed.” from a Seinfeld episode. So I did. It was good for a few laughs, but I found it interesting that he didn’t care for the sentiment of the statement, which for me amounts to “Feel better soon.”. Usually just friendly and innocuous, but for an atheist it can be a bit of a land mine.
[/quote]

LOL
[/quote]

In what regard?

16

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Severiano wrote:
Something can be said for people who were raised a certain way, appreciate some of the lessons and community of the Church, but have turned out to be atheist or agnostic.

The thing that appeals to people like myself is the familiarity, if you had a great religious up-bringing and feel your kids will miss out, Atheism 2.0 makes a bit of sense. To someone who say lost their faith and are looking to raise their children in a similar way to the way they were raised might find a lack of secular support in raising their children that would be there if you were part of a parish or other religious community.

Also, maybe we can look at this from an anthropological standpoint? If we are sort of wired to be religious, then wouldn’t it make sense that we go through certain stresses by being atheist or agnostic? Maybe this one is both personal and social? I know it can be for some depending on location. There’s more to this than meets the eye.

An even more interesting caveat is examining people like Dawkins from the anthropological standpoint. Seriously, Dawkins needs to use his platform as a famous scientist to more bash forms of theism, specifically Christianity rather than to promote his platform of Atheism, it’s a weird unabashed prostheletism that sits just like a form of theism, complete with dogma and atheist tattoos, and a book with technical writing which neatly categorizes people into descriptions that nobody agrees with except atheists.

It’s as much about seeing what the atheism side has to offer, which is pretty much Dawkins and the late Hitchens who want to spend as much time insulting as they do promoting how smarter they are/were than everyone else.

I’d find a little justice watching him try to tell a big strong Tita, Samoan or Hawaiian they are stupid for their religion. I’d pay money to watch that.
[/quote]

Hitchens wasn’t near the asshole Dawkins is…
Seriously, you said Dawkins needs to spend more time bashing Christianity? Like it’s not bashed enough? I cannot tell if you were being sarcastic or not. I think bashing it is what has lost him credibility even with many atheists. It seems like the guy in the video seems to take issue with his behavior considering he called him out in every way save for in name.
Such behavior is not good PR and makes it look rather unappealing to a lot of folks. It’s a lot of negative energy and people crave positive energy. Being angry and insulting looks like just plain hate and bias, rather than an intellectual reasoned position.

It’s weird though, it seems like atheists like Christmas carols more than I do. I friggin’ hate Christmas carols. I have heard it several times from atheists how they don’t believe in Christmas, but they sure like the music. [/quote]

I think Hitchens was more a real free thinker, but he never shied away from bellicose bashing, insulting people on grounds he was much smarter than them, much like Dawkins. The reason I bring it up is because in reality, that IS the common thing most Atheists of their ilk have as community… It’s that sort of I’m smarter than you sort of insult towards anyone and everyone whose ideas don’t marry up with their own. When I said at the end I’d pay money to see Dawkins insult a Tita, I’m saying that a hawaiian or samoan Tita would beat his ass, and I’d enjoy watching him get his ass kicked by a large native woman from a culture that uses physicality as an insult rather than words, just so he could see how it must feel.

What Skyz says is true. There isn’t anything that holds that sort of communal atheism together other than a sort of asshole-ish, elite intellectualism. I mean, the thing that holds them together is talking shit about others. It’s like hearing Christians talk shit about Muslims, it’s just like another religion in that sense and no better.

17

[quote]bigflamer wrote:

False

[/ quote]

What a compelling argument.

Atheism makes the claim that there is no G-d. That’s an extremely large assumption based on no evidence.

18

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]bigflamer wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
You can’t make a case for atheism.[/quote]

False

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
You can certainly make a case for agnosticism but what evidence exists that G-d doesn’t exist? And for every paradox you can provide for non existence an equally compelling paradox can be made for existence. For example, the first law of thermodynamics: matter/energy can’t be lost or created. Matter can be converted to energy and energy to matter but the amount must always remain the same. So where did matter/energy come from if someone or something didn’t create it in the first place? Someone or something that is able to break the first law of thermodynamics.[/quote]

Atheism doesn’t know, and doesn’t claim to know the ultimate origins of existence. Yours is an assumption, and an extremely large one at that. Now, I realize that you might be a bit put off by that, but the fact remains; claiming that all things were created by a supernatural deity is a large assumption.
[/quote]

But what is the alternative for how all things were created, and how is it so much less of an assumption it dwarfs the other theory into the realm of just something random that was made up?[/quote]

The key, is to NOT make any assumptions in the face of not knowing. Atheists believe that there is no god, yes, but that belief is due to the overwhelming lack of any evidence. There is no need for any alternative; what we know is that we don’t know.

19

Is there an Atheism 2.0 for Mac, or is it just for Windows?

20

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:

[quote]bigflamer wrote:

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
So he wants to add some structure to atheism and improve it’s methods of delivery.

I think that the thing he is missing is that with organized religions there is not just a communion of the spirit with God, but also with your fellow members. That is the tie that binds congregations and gives structure through out the world- The shared experience and belief of having been through the rituals and sharing ownership of some of the worlds best known works of art an appreciation for their significance within the whole system of belief.

So what do you do when there is no spiritual experience or binding that holds people together or connects them through out the world? It’s a bit of a gordian knot if you can not acknowledge the human spirit or spiritual existence of a group of people because you do not believe in the existence of the human spirit or any other for that matter. Without that most fundamental element- the spiritual experience- all of the art and architecture in the world isn’t going to mean anything. Travel or pilgrimage? To what? A lecture hall? A coffee house? Woo-Hoo! Did you see the earth tone walls of the original Starbucks? Wow. How bout those seats in the lecture hall at CMU? OMG! I could spend hours in those!

Thats why atheism comes off as flat and empty. The snarky, superior tone that some take doesn’t help either. It’s like a lesbian comedy hour.

[/quote]

The question is, what’s the message? Delivery of what, exactly?[/quote]

That there is nothing else. No human spirit, no holy spirit, just the life you have for the time you have it, which is nothing more than a chain of chemical reactions and electric signals in response to your surroundings.

At least that is what I get from atheists. Not that the ones I’ve talked to don’t value and enjoy the life that they have, but as soon as you approach any type of spiritual existence, the conversation changes real quick.

Me and a guy had a running inside joke for a while. He sneezed and without thinking about it I said “God bless you.” He told me he doesn’t believe in god, and that I may as well just say “Hey, you just sneezed.” from a Seinfeld episode. So I did. It was good for a few laughs, but I found it interesting that he didn’t care for the sentiment of the statement, which for me amounts to “Feel better soon.”. Usually just friendly and innocuous, but for an atheist it can be a bit of a land mine.
[/quote]

LOL
[/quote]

In what regard?
[/quote]

In regards to the fact that I have a similar situation with a catholic friend of mine. I sneeze and he says “bless you”, and when he sneezes I say “gesundheit”, and we both laugh about it.

And your view of atheism is way off, my friend. Yours makes us sound like some robot like creatures with no value of friends, family, loved ones, culture, or anything that comprises the stuff of real living.