Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Manchu wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Water answers your thirst, but you will continually need more of it to keep that thirst answered.

But literal water will always be sufficient to slake literal thirst. If thirst is the question, water is sufficient to be its only answer. That's where the analogy to human curiosity and science breaks down.

The analogy is not the argument. It simply explains it.

Humans have a wanting for knowledge. We want to know what stuff does and why. Science answers that by telling us (to the best of our ability at the time). But the more "answers" we get, the more questions it gives us. Human curiosity will not be slaked until everything is understood, something that will never happen. I know I am never happy unless I know the reason why. I spend most of my free time learning, gaining knowledge. Learning all the lies, so I can learn the truth.

MoD: Atheism will not be the end of society. Atheists can and do hold and practice social values absent belief in God. They need not justify their values to hold them. Just as we believers have better answers to questions like "why not murder?" than "because God forbade it."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
The analogy is not the argument. It simply explains it.

Rather say then that knowledge slakes the thirst of curiosity, and understand that not all knowledge is scientific.

 Manchu wrote:
Well, maybe we are talking past each other. There is a difference between not sharing someone's beliefs and their beliefs being lies/fictions.

For what it's worth, I treat all supernatural truth claims as fictional (not necessarily intentional lies) unless I am presented with compelling evidence that they are true.

 Medium of Death wrote:

 daedalus wrote:

 Medium of Death wrote:
What is the ultimate goal of Atheism?

What succour does science give to the common man?

It leads down the path to nihilism and selfishness.

The goal is not believing in a theism. Full stop. Any other goal is something someone else has fabricated by hijacking the term. All qualities you ascribe to an atheist beyond that are stereotypes.

Why do you relate science and atheism together? Do you think there cannot be religious scientists or that science is somehow anti-religion? Why does it need to provide succor? It's not a religion or something.

No. No, it doesn't.

Where do you get your succour from then?

Atheism and science are more closely linked because it's the single source of how you want to live and where you get your answers.

You don't want to be defined by religion but you live in societies that never would have developed without it.

I gain help from myself and those around me. I need no gods, or deities to know who I am and where I stand. If I have lost my home, my job, everything, no god will not help me.

Atheism isn't about answers. Atheism is just not believing in gods. That's all, and that's all it will ever be.

This particular society developed with religion, but society in general does not require religion.

 Manchu wrote:
Claiming someone is lying is only the simplest explanation if you already committed (that is prejudiced) against their claim.

Nope.

When the alternatives are:

- An extremely rare cosmological phenomenon caused the light and the pressure wave that knocked the person down. The resulting disorientation then led that person to believe that an entity was talking to him in a coherent fashion that even led him to change his mind about something.
- An actual deity manifested itself to that person.

"He was lying" is indeed the simplest explanation because if nothing else, its an everyday occurrence: people lie... a lot!

Just because you don't like that explanation doesn't mean that it isn't the simplest one.

 Manchu wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
The analogy is not the argument. It simply explains it.

Rather say then that knowledge slakes the thirst of curiosity, and understand that not all knowledge is scientific.

That's about right. I am not the most element person, so what I say will generally be rather a rough understanding of what I am trying to say.

PhantomViper wrote:
When the alternatives are:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
what I say will generally be rather a rough understanding of what I am trying to say

That's natural. Conversation and thought are often the same thing, except conversation has the advantage of more minds thinking.

Who could have guessed this would turn into another form of misguided atheism vs religion thread?

Anyone, considering that is how it began.

 Manchu wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:
When the alternatives are:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

is a type of informal fallacy that involves a situation in which only limited alternatives are considered, when in fact there is at least one additional option.

So what is the missing option?

PhantomViper wrote:
So what is the missing option?

That a man saw a light and believed it meant God spoke to him.

Wouldn't be the first. Many people truly believe a god has given them a sign. Might be a coincidence, might be them looking for it, might be a god giving them a sign. You can't know for sure

Medium of Death wrote:What is the ultimate goal of Atheism?

What is the goal of religion?

What succour does science give to the common man?

None. Our species has existed for such a short period of time, it can be lost to rounding errors, in the history of one insignificant blue planet, around a tiny star on the edge of one galaxy. Finding this galaxy in the universe would be like finding a single grain of sand on the beach.

It leads down the path to nihilism and selfishness.

I'd argue the opposite. We cannot pass off a problem with "God will fix it". We must confront the problem ourselves, and deal with it. Yes, there are morally bankrupt atheists. But there are also those who are religious, and justify their crimes by religion (Looking at you ISIS). But whereas a religious person is told they must be good, an atheist is only good because they genuinely want to be good.

As a slight aside to an already massive derailed thread (the more the merrier right ), being atheist doesn't mean you disrgaurd any possibility for gods either. I am atheist, but if it could truly be proven to me that a god/gods were real, I wouldn't deny it just to remain atheist.

Atheist isn't something you choose, it's something you are. It's the default state for humans, and religion is then imparted onto us by the people around us, often at a very young age, but sometimes older.

 Manchu wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:
So what is the missing option?

That a man saw a light and believed it meant God spoke to him.

So you are saying that a man in the first century seeing bright lights in the sky and hearing disembodied voices is a simplest explanation than "he was lying"?

 Frazzled wrote:
You can't misinterpret the Bible. you can only interpret it differently.

"Hmm.... this book says it is better to cut off your own hand than use it to sin. Ergo, it is better for me to cut off my neighbor's hand than stand by and let him use it to sin."

Is this person misinterpreting the Bible?

 Manchu wrote:
MoD: Atheism will not be the end of society. Atheists can and do hold and practice social values absent belief in God. They need not justify their values to hold them. Just as we believers have better answers to questions like "why not murder?" than "because God forbade it."

Do we have any examples of atheist societies?

They are currently being given custodianship over societies they didn't build.

'd definitely say Agnostic leaning toward Christianity. Finding my faith I guess?

I think you can definitely see a decline in society as religion has declined in the West.

{Self-deleted}

 Scrabb wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
You can't misinterpret the Bible. you can only interpret it differently.

"Hmm.... this book says it is better to cut off your own hand than use it to sin. Ergo, it is better for me to cut off my neighbor's hand than stand by and let him use it to sin."

Is this person misinterpreting the Bible?

No thats misinterpreting English (or the original Greek).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Medium of Death wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
MoD: Atheism will not be the end of society. Atheists can and do hold and practice social values absent belief in God. They need not justify their values to hold them. Just as we believers have better answers to questions like "why not murder?" than "because God forbade it."

Do we have any examples of atheist societies?

North Korea.

Pretty much every communist country.

 Medium of Death wrote:

I think you can definitely see a decline in society as religion has declined in the West.

I can't see how on earth you have decided this.

Never has the level of comfort, health, the life expectancy, infant mortality rate, etc, been as positive as they are in modern western societies, for everyone.

There isn't a single measurable indicator that doesn't show that the quality of life in any modern agnostic state is much, much better than the quality of life on a religious state present or past.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Medium of Death wrote:

They are currently being given custodianship over societies they didn't build.

And when religion rules over societies they are also being given custodianship over societies that they didn't build.

 Frazzled wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Medium of Death wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
MoD: Atheism will not be the end of society. Atheists can and do hold and practice social values absent belief in God. They need not justify their values to hold them. Just as we believers have better answers to questions like "why not murder?" than "because God forbade it."

Do we have any examples of atheist societies?

North Korea.

Pretty much every communist country.

Right, because a society where they worship their leader as a living God is most definitely atheist.

I answered the question. It answer is accurate.

 Medium of Death wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
MoD: Atheism will not be the end of society. Atheists can and do hold and practice social values absent belief in God. They need not justify their values to hold them. Just as we believers have better answers to questions like "why not murder?" than "because God forbade it."

Do we have any examples of atheist societies?

They are currently being given custodianship over societies they didn't build.

'd definitely say Agnostic leaning toward Christianity. Finding my faith I guess?

I think you can definitely see a decline in society as religion has declined in the West.

>muh forced religion
>muh Inquisition
>muh Crusades

Blasted atheists!

 Frazzled wrote:
I answered the question. It answer is accurate.

You gave an answer. However, the belief that the leader of a nation is a deity on Earth is not atheistic.

Because of the deity part...

What? Thats not coherent. Restate please.

 Frazzled wrote:
What? Thats not coherent. Restate please.

OK. If you believe in a deity, you're not an atheist. It doesn't matter if that deity is meant to be in the sky, another dimension, or playing video games in a palace.

A society that believes that their leader is a deity cannot be accurately called atheistic.

PhantomViper wrote:

 Medium of Death wrote:

I think you can definitely see a decline in society as religion has declined in the West.

I can't see how on earth you have decided this.

Never has the level of comfort, health, the life expectancy, infant mortality rate, etc, been as positive as they are in modern western societies, for everyone.

There isn't a single measurable indicator that doesn't show that the quality of life in any modern agnostic state is much, much better than the quality of life on a religious state present or past.

Weakening of the family unit.

Rise in depression.

Indecent and lewd behaviour.

The weakening of law and the downgrading of crimes because there's a lack of moral authority.

Everything is subjective.

PhantomViper wrote:

 Medium of Death wrote:

 Medium of Death wrote:

They are currently being given custodianship over societies they didn't build.

And when religion rules over societies they are also being given custodianship over societies that they didn't build.

Religion was still present though. Much like how pagan elements were incorporated into Christianity or home Rome became Christian.

 thenoobbomb wrote:

 Medium of Death wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
MoD: Atheism will not be the end of society. Atheists can and do hold and practice social values absent belief in God. They need not justify their values to hold them. Just as we believers have better answers to questions like "why not murder?" than "because God forbade it."

Do we have any examples of atheist societies?

They are currently being given custodianship over societies they didn't build.

'd definitely say Agnostic leaning toward Christianity. Finding my faith I guess?

I think you can definitely see a decline in society as religion has declined in the West.

>muh forced religion
>muh Inquisition
>muh Crusades

Blasted atheists!

Why are you greentexting outside of the Chans?

 jasper76 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
What? Thats not coherent. Restate please.

OK. If you believe in a deity, you're not an atheist. It doesn't matter if that deity is meant to be in the sky, another dimension, or playing video games in a palace.

A society that believes that their leader is a deity cannot be accurately called atheistic.

Not seeing where North Korea PR has called him a deity. I could be wrong. I don't listen to NK NPR.

 Medium of Death wrote:

Where do you get your succour from then?

Atheism and science are more closely linked because it's the single source of how you want to live and where you get your answers.

You don't want to be defined by religion but you live in societies that never would have developed without it.

Spiritually, I don't know if I really do. Emotionally and mentally, generally from the fine people that I surround myself with, I guess.

Well, "where you get your answers", to a certain extent, I will agree with. Science is not really moral in any real way, though that discussion could probably be a thread in and of itself.. For questions of morality, typically, I turn to the philosophers. You can have the ability to subscribe to a set of moral imperatives sans theism. Further, even the apologist philosophers have merit. Kierkegaard is fascinating, though I'm not sure for the ways he himself intended.

I mean, people can define me as a sign post for all I care. That's not really what keeps me up at night. The fun thing here is that religious things can bear total merit for reasons that aren't rooted in the subscription to said religion. I rather admire old Catholic churches, listen to Christian Ska, read the bible, and agree emphatically with what the pope says without actually believing in any gods whatsoever. Not believing is different from denying that the religion exists.

 Medium of Death wrote:
Weakening of the family unit.

Rise in depression.

Indecent and lewd behaviour.

The weakening of law and the downgrading of crimes because there's a lack of moral authority.

Everything is subjective.

How is atheism responsible for any of that? Atheism isn't a lack of moral authority or a claim that everything is subjective. Theists have done some indecent and lewd things. If there is a weakening of the family unit or a rise in depression, what is the link to atheism?