My new aggressive position on atheism has lost me a few friends and seams to have docked me a few moral points as well. But as I see it if you want to befriend me for testing your gods all knowing all seeing word, then I don’t think I miss the company too much. I do in fact feel bad about how my attack on the more extreme and preaching Christians, leaves a few really nice, good people that keep to themselves in the cross hairs inadvertently. But I cant bend my words to only “hurt” the people of one side when it is religion as a whole that I vowed to speak out against. But I guess that comes with all of it? You really cant please everyone, and I have been doing that for so long I am tired of it.

            Things I have come to notice while beginning my atheist “walk” lol

  1. It is extremely hard to fight religion in a group as a single person. For the reason that group mentality is regarded higher then actual truth. The ability to think for ones self in a group of believers is belittled to nil if nothing at all.

 

  1. The ever revolving answers that don’t really answer anything at all.. more likely called statements, that believers keep saying over and over as if it’s a new fact introduced into the joke they are bumbling.

 

  1. THREEEE and my most hated! IS THAT BELIEVERS WILL ATTACK YOU PERSONALY! After about three seconds into an argument I have always gotten the atheist are immoral, and YOU must be fighting demons, and maybe YOU just cant understand god in its glory, maybe YOU are blind by anger, why would you attack religion where people try to better the world… are you against the world? Do u hate America?…..

 

ALL of these questions kill me in the way that I cant explain. The sole fact that people I have been working hand and hand with for months upon months, that have stated I was a very nice and respectable “kid” are not flip flopping and questioning my judgment and moral upbringings. In a matter of seconds my extremely positive outlook of my character, had been reduced to rubble, sin, and misfortune.

 

I am 100% behind this movement.

I am hell bent to one day live in a world where reason is upheld over fictitious characters.

A world where a man dose not walk into a café strapped with explosives to kill he who does not believe in THEIR god.

A world where plains aren’t used as battering rams in the name of Allah.

A world… of Atheist’s

 

Its our time to shine

Views: 16

Comment

You need to be a member of Atheist Nexus to add comments!

Join Atheist Nexus

Comment by Jason L Fish on January 7, 2011 at 5:56pm
I do have to say that we have to take observation in the fact that one person can use something that someone elts has invented, as simple as a TV remote, books, and language, all of these things though not 100% they do prove to a limit that one has some degree of reality as others. Even down to the clothes we wear, the way movies are put together using groups of people, to coincide in finishing a final product,  are all sorts of ways to prove common relative reality amongst people.
Comment by Jason L Fish on January 7, 2011 at 5:46pm

holy crap you guys have been at work on this blog haha

 

Comment by John Camilli on December 25, 2010 at 9:40am

An illusion cannot exist if nothing exists. Perhaps my senses are entirely illusory, but whether or not I understand what I am experiencing is irrelevant to the fact that I am experiencing something. That something could not be experienced if it does not exist, so the experience of it proves it is real, whether virtual or otherwise. Perhaps you are confusing the idea of virtual reality with something that doesn't exist. Otherwise, you must be defining existence and non-existence differently than I am. But I don't see how you can. What are your definitions of those concepts?

 

As for the motivations of religion and science, it would be nice if it were that cut and dry, but it isn't. Many theists are motivated by curiosity and awe, just as scientists are. It is the motivation to get answers to our curiosities that perverts both of these idealogies. A scientist is only being scientific when he is observing and recording. When he makes a decision about what he has observed, then he is exercising faith, even if that faith is in his own observations.

 

You may argue that science is better because it seems to get more consistent results; it is more useful, but Newton's mechanics were very useful too. In fact, most people still use Newtonian mechanics to describe and answer their questions about the world because there's only a few little problems with it, and they mostly don't become apparent until extreme velocities or masses. The only problem is, it's totally wrong! It doesn't describe what reality is like at all, and for that matter, neither does Relativistic mechanics. We aren't sure quantum mechanics and superstring theory do either.

 

It's totally feasible that we will discover things one day that totally invalidate quantum mechanics. We may even find out that some of the religious idealogies were much closer to actual descriptions of reality than most of the scientific models were. We don't know yet, so you can't say one is better than the other. It's like saying ten is closer to infinity than 1: it makes no sense to say that because both are infinitely far away. Same thing with a description of reality. For all we know there are infinite possibilties, so to say that one is closer than the other makes no sense until we know the right one.

Comment by Glen Rosenberg on December 24, 2010 at 4:50pm

Your "faith" in existentialism is misguided. You have no way to know that the perception of self is not virtual or illusory.

You have supported my earlier contention arguing against the deterministic view or reality you WERE espousing. There is a pervasive (in my view) flaw in your thinking-a foolish consistency if you will.

I do agree that there is a tendency among nontheists to glorify science. However your assertion concerning science and religion as being equally fallible beliefs is absurd. Religion springs from dogma, is enabled by faith and is commanded by fiat. Power and control is the goal. Accomodations are made where necessary to maintain power.

Science springs from curiosity, a search for truth, and a desire to understand and derive benefit from our environment. It is based on evidence, requires experimental verification, and adjusts for conflicting evidence and results.

Science makes predictions that are verifiable. Religion makes predictions that are not verifiable. Where science has shown aspects of dogma are false religion nonetheless persists with its dogma.

Science cannot know with absolute certainty. Relgion is false with near absolute certainty. To equate the two as beliefs is a construct and a dangerous tendency toward dumb doctrinaire thinking.

Comment by John Camilli on December 23, 2010 at 9:48am

Also Glen, do you think science doesn't have contradictions like religion? Let me give you a good example of how it does. Look up the double-slit experiment and really make yourself understand it. Look it up in several places, by several different authors. It is the most critical observation in modern science because it creates the problem of wave/particle duality, and it has yet to be resolved! All of our scientific evidence leads us to conclude a different result than what actually happens in this experiement.

Quantum mechanics sprung almost entirely out of the consideration of this phenomenon, but it is far from a satisfactory theory because there are still many holes in it (things happening in nature it does not predict, and things not observed that it does predict). Still, it is the most widely accepted theory for explaining reality because it has the most consistent experimental results. We ascribe to it because it seems to get the right answer most of the time, but if it does not get the right answer all of the time, it is not a theory that describes reality. We use it because it is useful, but it is not a correct theory, yet, and maybe not ever. In that sense, it is just as good (or bad) as a religion that gets right answers some of the time, but not all of the time.

And if you ask a theist, they will probably tell you that their religion gets it right as much or more than your science. Theists arent asking the same questions as scientists, so a scientist can't necessarily judge whether their results are as consistent as his/hers. We can't say for sure that science has better predictive powers because science can't answer the questions that religions ask.

Comment by John Camilli on December 23, 2010 at 5:14am

Glen, I am not assuming: I am using Occam's razor. There are infinite possible ways that reality could be operating. If they can all be doubted, then they are all equally valid/invalid. However, if one comes along that cannot be doubted, my opinion is that it has greater validity. That doesn't mean I'm right just because that seems reasonable to me, but can you come up with a better process of elimination? A better way to decide between infinite possibilities? And, if not, are you purporting that all views of reality are equally valid? That everyone is as right as they feel they are?

 

I'm not sure where you see me denying that the self exists. I don't see how I could. I have to think about it to deny it, which means something is doing the thinking. And in order to do anything, including think; in order to have qualities; traits; behaviors, a thing must exist. Non-existence, to my mind, would be the absence of traits and behaviors. It is definable, but would be indescribable.

So if I describe anything happening, like thinking, it must exist, even if only in my thoughts. I cannot completely define what "I" am, but I can describe its traits and behaviors, which means "I" must exist to be doing anything describable at all.

 

Lastly, how does science prove anything? If we throw a ball up the air a billion time, and it comes back down every time, and we all agree that it will come back down every time, that does not actually mean it will. It means our understanding leads us to that conclusion because we havent observed anything different occuring. We can call our understanding, and our common agreement, gravity, if we like. We can even call it the Law of Gravity if we like, but if we lack an understanding of what gravity is, and how it operates, then we cannot be sure that the next time we throw the ball up, it will not simply float away. And when it comes down to it, we do not know how something, even as fundamental as gravity, actually works. You can trust me on this because I've been on a kick to figure out gravity since I was in highschool. A very serious kick: it's what I do with all of my spare time, literally. The particle collider at CERN, the LHC, is all about trying to figure out the same problem. They suspect they will be able to produce WIMPs (weakly interracting massive particles) that are responsible for transfering mass between other quanta. But WIMPs are only one of many theories that might explain gravity. If you asked a particle physicist flat out, they would tell you the same thing: we just don't know.

 

We all agree about gravity, and we call it a Law, and we rely on its constancy as if it were proven, but it is not proven. It is not fact, and there are no other examples of facts either, so what exactly is it that science has proven? Any example you give me, I can tear apart, which is not to be obstinate. It is only to show that anything can be doubted - except that I am thinking (because I have to think about that to deny it). That's why existentialism isn't an assumption. Something is an assumption if it can be doubted, but you accept it anyway. You tell me how you can doubt that you are thinking, and I will concede that existentialism is a belief as well.

Comment by Glen Rosenberg on December 22, 2010 at 8:11pm
John, you are making an assumption not in evidence-that the self exists-something you yourself have denied. Equating belief in science and belief in religion is specious. Religion proves nothing and has been contradicted by evidence in many ways. Science flies an airplane, sees into outer space, cures yellow fever and blends mixed drinks.
Comment by John Camilli on December 22, 2010 at 5:39pm

Glen, the virtual reality scenerio does not negate the that a self is still thinking. Perhaps I am in a virtual reality. I cannot prove otherwise. But I can be certain that I am in some kind of a reality because I am experiencing something. I cannot deny to myself that I am experiencing it because denying it takes thought, which is an experience. Even attempting to deny it, actually confirms it.

 

What the scenerio does allow me to doubt is that effects must follow causes. I could be in VR right now, and someone could be about to 'unplug' me in five seconds. So in five seconds, I will have an experience that is completely unrelated (a-causal) to the moment I am in now. And if that's even possible, then I cannot say with certainty that what goes up must always come down, for example, or that all particles with mass will exert gravity, or that entropy prevails. Maybe entropy does not prevail, and it only seems to in my virtual reality.

 

Rob, the whole assertion I made was exactly what you said - that absolute certainty is impossible. This realization means that even scientific "proofs" are suspect, and since they cannot be truly proven, that science, like religion, is based on belief. Just because the initial assumption seems simpler does not make it better, and does not make science any more capable of helping us make decisions and moral judgements than religion does. So to condemn the religious for asserting their beliefs is the same as condemning ourselves for asserting science, because science is a belief-based system too.

 

My whole point is that we are hypocrites if we think that theists have a silly and frustrating view of the world. Ours can be made to look just as silly, and it certainly is more frustrating to try and understand. That's probably why a lot of people stick with religion. Learning science is like learning several whole new languages, and it still does not make people happier or provide answers to their deepest questions. From a theists point of view, we are just a bunch of uppity erudites with our noses stuck in books, who still have no answers to what life is about and how to be happy in it.

Comment by Rob van Senten on December 22, 2010 at 10:25am

@John Camilli,

 

So basically you are repeating Socrates' "I know nothing except the fact of my ignorance". 

 

Absolute truth is an impossibility, however science can proof to some degree of certainty the validity or invalidity of a statement. If absolute truth is what you're after, then in fact you cannot move forward at all. As a human you'll just have to do with varying degrees of certainty. 

Comment by Glen Rosenberg on December 22, 2010 at 9:55am
The conundrum of virtual reality argument does not apply equally to the sentient "self"?

Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today

Donate

 

Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon

Amazon

 

© 2014   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service