Nope.
Atheism means not believing in any supernatural virtue at all.
Nope.
Gnostics believed all material world to be ruled by Evil, and any spiritual life should aim to release from material bonds.
That's why they were burned - because in effect it meant ruthlessly unmoral rule in this world. And in european culture it always meant that resulting with mass repressions or even genocide.
From my own experience, I dont find atheists having any lasting concept of humanity whatsoever - "humanity" is just a tool for other goals which always is a totalitarian organization.
I studied the bible a lot in my youth but soon discovered that I did not believe in God, Jesus is still a good prophet of life philosophy. Love, peace and understanding. Which is so far from the "Hate, Fear & Control" that has taken hold of most state religions even when they call then self Christians.
I would like to mention that since secularism period there are state religions but no religion states.
Furthermore, state religions in most countries are independent from state rule in judgement of its legitimacy.
As I reckon, all systems became totalitarian without judgement on these terms due to floating "humane" idea.
Well, I dont expect even minimal humanity in country where I live - rights for individual freedom, property, privacy are just superficial.
The problem with that idea for me is that it is a scientific argument based on religion. We don't know what it is so it must be god. That is just hugely problematic way of thinking for me. Everytime we find ourselves in a situation where we cannot explain something we bring some supernatural explanation into the discussion just to explain it. I think that is not a good way to do it.
I don't really see any problem simply admitting we do not know what "bump started universe". I don't really see any problem admitting we do not because it allows us to figure it out later on.
thats just the way the human brain works. There are even areas in it that get extra active if people pray or experience anything supernatural
I think its funny how many people who call themselves atheists dwell on astrology, take witchcraft curses or any other pagan rituals, follow conspiracy theories and stuff or still believe in Santa Claus, the Easter bunny and LFS S3.
As if they need something unexplainable in their life, or to quote the Chemical Brothers, I needed to believe
Putting things short it means there are values chosen just by choice. Science doesnt give answer to this - even if you use "Pareto choice" paradigm science DOES NOT tell you WHY you should use "Pareto choice" (allocations of means in a way that nobody is worse off in new situation) instead of maneating.
In fact, science will tell that you should eat people if they have enough proteins and cant fight back.
It is moral axiology telling that eating humans is not humane.
What is the difference between an atheist and christian? A christian does not recognize one deity less than an atheist. Basically, a christian is 99,96% atheist, sad is it not?. Gods You Don’t Believe In, thought about pasting the list here, but it's longer than looong cat.
Through evolution human being has survived because we do not eat other people. Just like animals don't eat their children. It is a product of evolution that we don't eat other humans. So it is in us and it is not a choise. Or it is as much choise as we choose to not walk on our hands as we choose to not eat other people.
And talking about man eating then what is the deal with drinking blood in all religions? "Eating the body of your christ?" That's the better choise??
And don't you find it contradictory at all that while every religion is based on human sacrifice and suffering while you try to make a picture here than science in some ways does not prevent us from eating others while in fact scientific evidence proves that the attribute of not eating other humans is a central key for our survival as a species and a natural result of evolution?
In fact, science introduced cultural relativism, which began with description of polynesian cultures (it concerned promisquity) and postulated changes in european culture in that manner.
Well, it is quite easy to find examples of succesful tribes man-eating their enemies or even big flourishing civilizations (like Aztecan) that used to make mass sacrifices of humans for centuries. So, scientifically - if it works, there could be only objections of esthetics against. Philosophy managed to legitimize all of it - XX century is full of millions and miliions of examples. It looks like for nowadays the most popular would be "dont get caught red-handed"
Of course, man-eating is reductio ad absurdum to show how floating are quite important concepts if not anchored in some kind of supernatural deity.
So in your own words science is nothing more than an ideology that says "the end justifies the goal"? How could human suffering be just esthetics when science can create tools and form laws to prevent human suffering in the first place?
The bigger problem with your post is that you seem to think that one good goal of science is to have big flourishing civilization at all costs. Big is good but suffering is aesthetics?? Where did you get the idea that big flourishing man eating civilizations like aztecan were "succesful" in any scientific sense?
Let's see what the wikipedia says about:
Human sacrifice in Aztec culture: Human sacrifice (Nahuatl: tlamictīliztli [t͡ɬa.mik.tiː.'lis.t͡ɬi] was a religious practice characteristic of pre-Columbian Aztec civilization, as well as of other mesoamerican civilizations such as the Maya and the Zapotec. The extent of the practice is debated by modern scholars.
So you are trying to disprove science because religions cause cannibalism and cultural relativism makes it feel normal for you when you get to taste some gourmet dish made of human nostrils?
As for all our values being "floating" then surely attaching them to some thousands of years old fairy tale does not exactly make them less floaty. That's just circular logic. Religion says all moral comes from religion so without religion you can not have moral. Is that a fact?
Religion/Philosophy is about how you choose to relate to the other sentient living beings around you, eating them is not a good choice !
Could the conversation possibly move on to something other than sacrifice as being a way to appease your 'god'
If you really must kill things to make your 'god' happy then could I suggest flowers.
Or are you all still focussed on the judaic practice of sacrifice ?
"The rules for sacrifices in Judaism are very ancient, and set forth primarily in the book of Leviticus. The first seven chapters, in fact, are almost an instruction manual for how to do each of the sacrifices. Boring beyond belief to most modern readers, but of immense interest to biblical scholars and historians. First, a basic feature of the Israelite sacrificial system, as with that of most ancient Near East cultures, was that most of the offerings were eaten by the priests, and sometimes by the donors of the sacrifice. Eating a ritual meal in the presence of God was considered important, and the sacrifice would not be complete without such a meal. It was not "barbaric," except in the sense that slaughter of animals for meat is barbaric" http://www.straightdope.com/co ... -longer-sacrifice-animals
I just gotta go a bit offtopic here, cause either some of you guys put fake flags to your name and infact english is your native language, or you just speak it that good? Something that bugs me for a while now and I thought i'm good with english..
To me god is not supernatural, at all, it merely transcends dimensions. However god is still within nature, even if it turns out to be nature itself.
Anything that can create a universe out of nothingness is by definition pretty super natural isn't it? And our science has so far given us no more answer than this premise, so the assumption that there is a creator of some sort is a rather logical one, without assuming we know it as a fact.
But you are making an assumption that something was created from nothingness by something. That already is a very big assumption so you are basing an assumption on an assumption (that leads to an assumption).
What if you don't just add any creators into the mix? Would it be so bad to not know (yet) what made it happen? How it is logical that when you do not know an answer you create some magical being that "explains it"? How can a super natural creator of worlds be a logical answer to anything?
If we do not know something why would be it so bad to admit that we simply do not know it? Isn't it better to admit not knowing and have open and curious mind about it than to make up a story just to have an explanation no matter how crazy that explanation is?
Fully agree, my question would be - What has been created from nothing that we consider solid, therefore having form ?, what actually is our ( individual ) version of reality ?. And what is that reality ?
Quantum physics fully supports this. Look at a table, what is it actually comprised of ?, atoms, and what makes up the majority of an atom ?.
I think what Racer X was trying to say was that an interpretation of quantum mechanics (which has been popularised by Lawrence Krauss) suggests that it's possible/inevitable for 'something' (i.e. the universe and all its contents) to come into being from 'nothing'. This contention would alleviate the 'need' for a God figure (or some kind of creator) to explain why we're here.
Note: I'm just trying to clarify what I think Racer X was attempting to say. The entire lecture above is worth watching, btw.
no matter how the universe came to be, be it created, or self created, it is in itself an amazing event in human terms, that's why it is considered "magical"
But in my view nothing is "magical, nothing is too crazy, everything is just unknown. Why is a super creator not logical actually? It is just logic beyond our knowledge and comprehension, before you can prove it is an impossibility, it remains a logical option. I mean whoever or whatever can trigger the born of a universe has to be pretty crazy isn't it? To our mortal eyes it is close to magic.
I don't think there's anything bad about assumptions, without assumptions there wouldn't be hypothesis and there wouldn't be science, as long as I don't hold my assumptions as truth, I don't think there's anything bad at all.
Having a open and curious mind is exactly my point, I just see all seemingly supernatural icons as untied links in something that ultimately makes logical sense.
Thanks amp, I fully accept that my explanations fall short on many grounds.
If anyone looks at how light behaves on a quantum level, and please do some research on this as I can't post links till tmrw, if light is shone through a number of slits them normal newtonian physics says that it shows these slits, but as a quantum experiment then it doesn't.
Why not ?
The universe operates on a level that is not explicable only using newtonian physics. We cannot explain why using standard observation and explanation.
How can we state what reality actually is when we cannot explain it using the references that we usually rely on to explain what we see, touch, feel, as it operates using different rules which we do not understand.
