Technology3 mins ago
Why Atheism?
137 Answers
“Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived.” Isaac Asimov
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by naomi24. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Reality is cause and effect. Reality is that which is the consequence of that which precedes it.
Reality is not subject to but rather the object of consciousness. Reality is that to which consciousness must conform to qualify as consciousness and that which determines whether consciousness is indeed consciousness or merely a delusion of consciousness.
Reality is that which the rational mind seeks to understand, that which other than a rational mind seeks to avoid, evade or ignore, that which in either case is inevitable and inescapable all the same.
Reality is that which neither demands nor requires our attention and understanding but is nonetheless the reward or punishment for our success or failure to to do so. Reality is that which is inherent in any attempt to deny it. Reality is all that is and nothing else.
Reality has no stake in our beliefs, conforming only to our knowledge and understanding of what it is.
Reality is neither yours nor mine but ours to the extent we share a mutual understanding of its nature and the means and process by which we individually acquire, and validate our knowledge of it, apart from which no worthwhile, meaningful agreement is possible. I neither expect nor anticipate your agreement, but am happy to honour your request all the same if only for the sake of the exercise . . . with apologies to Naomi for once again for subverting her thread.
Reality is not subject to but rather the object of consciousness. Reality is that to which consciousness must conform to qualify as consciousness and that which determines whether consciousness is indeed consciousness or merely a delusion of consciousness.
Reality is that which the rational mind seeks to understand, that which other than a rational mind seeks to avoid, evade or ignore, that which in either case is inevitable and inescapable all the same.
Reality is that which neither demands nor requires our attention and understanding but is nonetheless the reward or punishment for our success or failure to to do so. Reality is that which is inherent in any attempt to deny it. Reality is all that is and nothing else.
Reality has no stake in our beliefs, conforming only to our knowledge and understanding of what it is.
Reality is neither yours nor mine but ours to the extent we share a mutual understanding of its nature and the means and process by which we individually acquire, and validate our knowledge of it, apart from which no worthwhile, meaningful agreement is possible. I neither expect nor anticipate your agreement, but am happy to honour your request all the same if only for the sake of the exercise . . . with apologies to Naomi for once again for subverting her thread.
mibn; I too have dictionaries, or did you just dash all that off from the top of your head? :0)
The point is, that you referred 20:09 Thu. to ideologies not conforming to 'Reality', which within this context must refer to religion, and imply that there is a conflict between your understanding of reality and other peoples, which would also suggest that you can make such judgements from a position of neutrality (if not omnipotence) when you talk of those who "attempt to rewrite reality to conform to [their] own arbitrary whims".
Why do you consider that your vision of reality is any more valid that theirs?
The point is, that you referred 20:09 Thu. to ideologies not conforming to 'Reality', which within this context must refer to religion, and imply that there is a conflict between your understanding of reality and other peoples, which would also suggest that you can make such judgements from a position of neutrality (if not omnipotence) when you talk of those who "attempt to rewrite reality to conform to [their] own arbitrary whims".
Why do you consider that your vision of reality is any more valid that theirs?
No, it wasn't of the top of my head, but I'm not necessarily adverse to digging with the shovel of reason for treasures that might lie buried there.
In partial answer to your question (off the top of my head ;o):
I don't automatically adopt or simply sit on arbitrary beliefs that may have been instilled from childhood. My beliefs are open to question should I find them worthy of examination. As I've previously noted, "believing never made it so", especially when such beliefs are in contradiction to what I have been able to come to understand through the prism of reason about the nature of reality.
This obviously only raises more questions, each of which may well deserve a thread of inquiry of their own, the success of which may well turn on whether they remain on topic.
In partial answer to your question (off the top of my head ;o):
I don't automatically adopt or simply sit on arbitrary beliefs that may have been instilled from childhood. My beliefs are open to question should I find them worthy of examination. As I've previously noted, "believing never made it so", especially when such beliefs are in contradiction to what I have been able to come to understand through the prism of reason about the nature of reality.
This obviously only raises more questions, each of which may well deserve a thread of inquiry of their own, the success of which may well turn on whether they remain on topic.
mibn;
Thanks, a partial answer indeed. So may I take it that your are not so quite certain about objective reality?
Moving on to the other part of your same post, you said "Religion is a debate over what God said", to which you gained instant approval from misinformed members of the atheist brigade. Well, no it ain't, not outside say the mediaeval world of fundamentalist Islam does God say anything at all, best expressed by Aquinas: "God is transcendent, beyond our categories....how can we speak of him at all? first, by remembering that God is unknowable and by understanding that our language about him is ambiguous..."
If this is true, how can "religion be a debate over what God said"? I'm afraid this is nonsense, and even fundamentalists who believe God did speak, by definition do not (unfortunately) debate it.
Thanks, a partial answer indeed. So may I take it that your are not so quite certain about objective reality?
Moving on to the other part of your same post, you said "Religion is a debate over what God said", to which you gained instant approval from misinformed members of the atheist brigade. Well, no it ain't, not outside say the mediaeval world of fundamentalist Islam does God say anything at all, best expressed by Aquinas: "God is transcendent, beyond our categories....how can we speak of him at all? first, by remembering that God is unknowable and by understanding that our language about him is ambiguous..."
If this is true, how can "religion be a debate over what God said"? I'm afraid this is nonsense, and even fundamentalists who believe God did speak, by definition do not (unfortunately) debate it.
@Khandro
I took the gist of mibn's posts to be that objective reality can stand up to measurement of its properties by multiple observers who will (probably not in synchrony) analyse their observations and -independently- arrive at the same theoretical and mathematical descriptions of it.
The inference was then that, since religions cannot agree with each other on what, when and in what manner to worship 'it', nor what 'it' is then, in all likelihood, they're -all- wrong.
Or maybe that last bit is just my take on the situation?
Objective: everybody's analyses concur
Subjective: everybody makes up their own version and then spend centuries killing one another over the disagreements.
Or is this just juvenile again?
I took the gist of mibn's posts to be that objective reality can stand up to measurement of its properties by multiple observers who will (probably not in synchrony) analyse their observations and -independently- arrive at the same theoretical and mathematical descriptions of it.
The inference was then that, since religions cannot agree with each other on what, when and in what manner to worship 'it', nor what 'it' is then, in all likelihood, they're -all- wrong.
Or maybe that last bit is just my take on the situation?
Objective: everybody's analyses concur
Subjective: everybody makes up their own version and then spend centuries killing one another over the disagreements.
Or is this just juvenile again?
Speaking of independant arrival at the same theory I was probably thinking of this guy
http://
(tired of hearing Darwin referred to all the time) but I could just as easily say that the detection of intelligent life in outer space -probably- means the science of both species is objective truth, in the universe. Sorry, god(s)!
http://
(tired of hearing Darwin referred to all the time) but I could just as easily say that the detection of intelligent life in outer space -probably- means the science of both species is objective truth, in the universe. Sorry, god(s)!
Khandro, //"Religion is a debate over what God said", to which you gained instant approval from misinformed members of the atheist brigade.//
If you're referring to me, I am far from misinformed. It's clearly escaped your notice that the subject of this thread is "the most potent force for atheism ever conceived" - the bible - allegedly God's word.
If you're referring to me, I am far from misinformed. It's clearly escaped your notice that the subject of this thread is "the most potent force for atheism ever conceived" - the bible - allegedly God's word.
Latest Posts
ChatterBank4 mins ago
Home & Garden24 mins ago
ChatterBank26 mins ago
Body & Soul36 mins ago
