Is Atheism A Religion of Love and Peace?

@RickeyHoltsclaw ;Atheism and Evolution are both religions

What you need to get your head a round is that you are trying to judge and categorize things according to your standards to make what you believe credible.

Just because you belong to a nutty wired belief it doesnt mean that every one else has a belief and at that that belief being horrible.

Translated in to common English what you are really saying is: I have a belief and because I have a belief every one else has an opposite belief.

Which doesnt make any sents at all does it?

@RickeyHoltsclaw

I have to admit that every time I drink my morning coffee, I praise Satan. In China over a billion of non-religious people do the same, hiding it from the commies (who do the same as well behind the closed doors). Long before the Bible existed, Sumers did that too: they telepathically connected with the post-Biblical generations, learned the word "Satan" from there and started invoking it.

maxx said:

you guys are generalizing. you grab a couple of atheists who are in some sort of cult, and deem that for all atheists. That is like saying all Christians engage in holy wars where they maim  and kill innocent people. Religion belongs to the religious; it is not among the general population of atheists. I know both Christians and atheists and while i am sure there are many bad atheists with the wrong lifestyle, morals and ideas, the same holds true for Christians.  I know quite of number of atheists who engage in better morals and values than many Christians do. do not nit pick at my responses and grab one line. I have asked many times to read the definition of what a religion is and then apply that definition to Christians.  @just_sayin

Maxx, I am having some fun with you.  You got to admit the atheist in the Devil costume drinking blood offered to Satan is funny. I think you are missing what Rickey is actually saying.  He isn't saying that you think Satan is real or that you are secretly having Black mass ceremonies.  He isn't even saying you have no morals.  He is essentially agreeing with what Anton LeVay claimed: atheists are following 'Satanic' principles by putting their own interests before those of God or anyone else's. Atheists are living their lives as if they are their own God.  If Satan is real, then the life that the atheist lives makes him happy. In that since, both Rickey and Anton LeVay are right.  

maxx said:

I know quite of number of atheists who engage in better morals and values than many Christians do.

i understand. first he is still saying it is a religion. no it is not. Also he groups all atheists together, which is not right. Some atheists may follow the "principles of what satan represents, but they do not do so because they follow satan; rather they simply lack certain morals and values. some of them do that is. By ricks "reasoning" he may as well state that since a few pairs of shoes hurt peoples feet, then all shoes must.  Listen to what he is saying; he has no evidence nor logic. He refuses to address my points, nor will he apply the definition of what religion is to atheists as a whole.  another thing here, religion is a cult, cults are also sub religions; so if an "atheists engages in a cult, then he is not an atheists, for they do not believe in "any" supernatural deity @just_sayin

Factfinder said:

@RickeyHoltsclaw

Even a blind squirrel finds a nut by chance...when an atheist expresses morality, they do so out of pride or a sense of charity that makes them "feel good"

Like your faith in make believe, you're proud to do that because it allows you to commit the crimes you did in Houston and still go to heaven according to your fairytale elf book lure. 

Flat earth theories are myths.  Ancient people did not believe that.  See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_flat_Earth

@Factfinder, have you considered that your raging anger at God may make you say and believe lies and falsehoods about what people of faith actually believe?  

just_sayin said:

Factfinder said:

@RickeyHoltsclaw

Even a blind squirrel finds a nut by chance...when an atheist expresses morality, they do so out of pride or a sense of charity that makes them "feel good"

Like your faith in make believe, you're proud to do that because it allows you to commit the crimes you did in Houston and still go to heaven according to your fairytale elf book lure. 

Flat earth theories are myths.  Ancient people did not believe that.  See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_flat_Earth

@Factfinder, have you considered that your raging anger at God may make you say and believe lies and falsehoods about what people of faith actually believe?  

"Flat Earth is an archaic and scientifically disproven conception of the Earth's shape as a plane or disk. Many ancient cultures subscribed to a flat-Earth cosmography, notably including ancient near eastern cosmology
 "However, most pre-Socratics (6th–5th century BC) retained the flat-Earth model"  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth

The bible is suspected of original writings as far back as well " the bible as a whole is over 3,400 years old if you consider when it began to be written..."  "Genesis was the first book to be written down. This would have happened around 1450 BC to 1400 BC." https://bigthink.com/thinking/how-old-is-the-bible/

Do the math, your religion was all into flat earth cosmology. Why do you lie? If you believe be honest, admit you believe blindly. That's what your god requires hence the circular reasoning 'don't worry it is stoopid on the outside but not to you, just believe' biblical advice. Look at a rock, see god. That's what you believe, you even point to scripture like in romans sayin we are without excuse if we don't do the same. No my friend it is you believing lies and feeling unnerved at the realization of that fact. Another fact: During the time of Genesis most of the world retained the flat earth model which is why the ignorant scribes wrote what they wrote which led people to believe...

RexTheDog said:

When an atheist considers non existence what do they see? often the answer is 'nothing' or 'lights out forever' this is a denial of the state of existence they have themselves lived through. 100 years before an atheist is born they are in this state of non-existence yet somehow they have seemingly emerged from this state of non-existence in to existence, to then proceed back in to non existence upon death. when thinking about the science of fluke biological emergence one has to also consider the science of fluke big bang 100 years before the big bang what 'existed' 100 years before existence itself existed what existed? as we emerge from non existence in to existence in our billions the question has to be logically asked, what prompted existence itself to exist? I look forward to an atheists response to this question all i can logiclly conclude is that somthing made the decision to exist way back when otherwise nothing would exist by default.    

The typical atheist response would be 'we don't know' when it comes to before the big bang or "existence" as you put it. But invoking an unprovable, undetectable agent to have created "existence" defies logic as it couldn't exist if absolutely nothing existed. I as an atheist no longer believe that (undetectable creator) is a viable option. 

I get you however in order to create 'itself' it has to be a 'self' imagine viewing the entire universe in movement from the outside perspective, this would be a mass of beautiful matter moving in some form of symphony to a set of definable rules against a vast expanse of nothingness, strangely enough on one of what appears to be the grains of sand that make up this overall universal picture is a tiny little creature called life, life that's aware of itself and its relative place within the universe. looking at the universe as a whole from the outside what exactly are we looking at? could this entity in its entirety be described as God? what ever it is it is certainly as you have said creating itself out of pure nothingness which in itself is only describable as magic as we have no science that explains this accurately or otherwise. when people contemplate God as everything everywhere this is what they mean.    

RexTheDog said:

When an atheist considers non existence what do they see? often the answer is 'nothing' or 'lights out forever' this is a denial of the state of existence they have themselves lived through. 100 years before an atheist is born they are in this state of non-existence yet somehow they have seemingly emerged from this state of non-existence in to existence, to then proceed back in to non existence upon death. when thinking about the science of fluke biological emergence one has to also consider the science of fluke big bang 100 years before the big bang what 'existed' 100 years before existence itself existed what existed? as we emerge from non existence in to existence in our billions the question has to be logically asked, what prompted existence itself to exist? I look forward to an atheists response to this question all i can logiclly conclude is that somthing made the decision to exist way back when otherwise nothing would exist by default.    

you are right when you say  'The universe does not have to be a conscious self in order to have created itself' it could very well be a random fluke, the idea of duality is tuned to produce exactly such flukes. when we look at the universe in its entirety as one whole 'object' of sorts we can say for certain it is moving. now lets zoom in on that for a second, we will go right down to the fundamental particle level and imagine a hypothetical scenario where we have isolated a single particle in space time to observe, say we observe it just as it popped in to existence and track it from then onwards 2 things have happened thus far .. it has popped in to existence and it is just sitting here existing now, oh look to the right here comes another particle on a collision course, now our tracked particle has to do something does it wait to he struck or does it move out of the way? in a non-conscious universe it has no decision making consciousness telling it to move out of the way so let continue to track it with this assumption .. the new particle collides with it, at the moment of collision an action meets an equal and opposite reaction, now our particles electron field has been all muddled up and the nucleus starts to get excited by the heat of the interaction, as it starts to destabilase unfortunately for our little particle its electrons abandon it and it begins to decay back in to the nothingness from which it came. this perfectly logical and scientific scenario for an unconscious universe still throughs up some big questions though for example:

What causes the particles to decide to interact with each other? in popping in to existence they can also pop out and often do.

what is making the decision to pop in and pop out? to come in to existence without physical movement (effectively at the quantum level particles can seemingly just arrive in to existence) this requires a self aware decision to be made as without self awareness why pop anywhere at all why not just stay still there's no consciousness telling you to move what's the driver that cause the pop?, to make a decision requires a consciousness, all objects that move of their own accord have to be moving for a reason, the default is no conscious thought to tell objects to move so they simply don't as there is no reason to.

what's strangest of all is that all matter existent now came to be via this process, once there was nothing then 'Pop' now there is a massive something somewhere oh and its constantly moving, and to be fair beautifully so. from the outside looking in a mass of a bazillion particles moving somewhere as a whole has to either have on of 2 possible driving forces either something bigger is moving against it causing it to react with its own movement or it is a consciously yet abstract entity moving of its own accord.

if there is something bigger, what the heck is it? if its God the we are barnacles on Gods back. the deeper you dig the more questions come up. to consider the universe unconscious is to consider ourselves unconscious along with it, yet here we are conscious and contemplating it by describing an idea that's in our non existent imagination drawing information from this space in to existence, in some cases crafting the matter around us in support of these imaginary ideas. say we pop out of existence as some atheists believe, that's fine but what cause you to come in to existence in the first place, ah yes the pop, what's stopping you from popping in again? and most importantly of all where are you before you pop in to existence? that space is where the decision to exist is made, decisions cant be made without a consciousness so what ever occupies that space has to be .. Alive, if it was not alive a state of pure nothing it still doesn't stop life from existing as proofed by us here and now. at a universal level we just popped here then started moving about becoming more complex with age, that's pretty much a life form being born and growing upward and outward. 

all being said we wont truly know what's what until we pop out again or ... go home?          
  

RexTheDog said:

you are right when you say  'The universe does not have to be a conscious self in order to have created itself' it could very well be a random fluke, the idea of duality is tuned to produce exactly such flukes. when we look at the universe in its entirety as one whole 'object' of sorts we can say for certain it is moving. now lets zoom in on that for a second, we will go right down to the fundamental particle level and imagine a hypothetical scenario where we have isolated a single particle in space time to observe, say we observe it just as it popped in to existence and track it from then onwards 2 things have happened thus far .. it has popped in to existence and it is just sitting here existing now, oh look to the right here comes another particle on a collision course, now our tracked particle has to do something does it wait to he struck or does it move out of the way? in a non-conscious universe it has no decision making consciousness telling it to move out of the way so let continue to track it with this assumption .. the new particle collides with it, at the moment of collision an action meets an equal and opposite reaction, now our particles electron field has been all muddled up and the nucleus starts to get excited by the heat of the interaction, as it starts to destabilase unfortunately for our little particle its electrons abandon it and it begins to decay back in to the nothingness from which it came. this perfectly logical and scientific scenario for an unconscious universe still throughs up some big questions though for example:

What causes the particles to decide to interact with each other? in popping in to existence they can also pop out and often do.

what is making the decision to pop in and pop out? to come in to existence without physical movement (effectively at the quantum level particles can seemingly just arrive in to existence) this requires a self aware decision to be made as without self awareness why pop anywhere at all why not just stay still there's no consciousness telling you to move what's the driver that cause the pop?, to make a decision requires a consciousness, all objects that move of their own accord have to be moving for a reason, the default is no conscious thought to tell objects to move so they simply don't as there is no reason to.

what's strangest of all is that all matter existent now came to be via this process, once there was nothing then 'Pop' now there is a massive something somewhere oh and its constantly moving, and to be fair beautifully so. from the outside looking in a mass of a bazillion particles moving somewhere as a whole has to either have on of 2 possible driving forces either something bigger is moving against it causing it to react with its own movement or it is a consciously yet abstract entity moving of its own accord.

if there is something bigger, what the heck is it? if its God the we are barnacles on Gods back. the deeper you dig the more questions come up. to consider the universe unconscious is to consider ourselves unconscious along with it, yet here we are conscious and contemplating it by describing an idea that's in our non existent imagination drawing information from this space in to existence, in some cases crafting the matter around us in support of these imaginary ideas. say we pop out of existence as some atheists believe, that's fine but what cause you to come in to existence in the first place, ah yes the pop, what's stopping you from popping in again? and most importantly of all where are you before you pop in to existence? that space is where the decision to exist is made, decisions cant be made without a consciousness so what ever occupies that space has to be .. Alive, if it was not alive a state of pure nothing it still doesn't stop life from existing as proofed by us here and now. at a universal level we just popped here then started moving about becoming more complex with age, that's pretty much a life form being born and growing upward and outward. 

all being said we wont truly know what's what until we pop out again or ... go home?          
  

Might as well say "Suppose god snapped its fingers and accomplished all it wanted bestowing all that is needed for legitimate, understanding, reciprocated relationships with it's sentient beings; without any need to create evil and sadistic eternal punishments?"  But we don't have that. We have gods with human qualities. Can you define your god or is it what you imagine when you imagine it? 

just_sayin said:

@Factfinder
I truly cringed when I read your 'interpretation' of Isaiah 40:22.  If it makes you feel any better, I would cringe if someone used this passage to suggest that the Bible taught the Earth was a sphere also.  The word used for 'circle' is frequently used to reference domed archways or bridges.  It just means the 'roof' or covering in this setting - aka - sky or heavens.  You just can't take idiomatic expressions (@Joseph - that means words and descriptions that have special meaning to native speakers and should not be understood literally, I am explaining it because it is evident from other discussions you don't know what it means).  and claim they are scientific descriptions of what someone believes.  

Fact, you are getting more and more like Joe and 21st Century, which is never a good thing.  The debate topic is atheism a religion of love and peace.  Not what shape the Bible says the earth is.  

I cringe at your brain dead indoctrinated response. Take your focus off me so you can engage in honest intelligent dialog. I specifically pointed out I wasn't taking the metaphor literally. That it was the limitations of their understanding that caused the metaphors to be used repeatedly instead of the truth. Otherwise why not simply state the truth at least once? 

You can't have dialog, can you? I know this because you don't answer questions or take responsibility for what you say. And how you interact with other members. You said: The Bible doesn't comment on the shape of the earth. But it clearly does and the fact it's an idiomatic comment doesn't change a thing. If you were honest with yourself you'd admit this. Isaiah 40:22:  "It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth,

Evidence that you're pathological mounts.

well darn, may beat me to it. 

@just_sayin

I don't mean to be condescending ( that means I don't want to seem to talk down to you) but you deny everything that goes against your preffered personal. re - translations of the bible.

I would do it to if I was a pretend christian like you  in an attempt to cover up the  ignorant bronze age opinions of uneducated oafs in the bible.

@MayCaesar


What's truly remarkable to me is that people like Lane Craig  constantly use the  Kalam cosmological argument and variations of it and they never acknowledge that it's being easily defeated everytime  they use it.

Most of  the so called professional Christian debaters don't debate they preach, and do so from the bible assuming the words of that book are somehow killer arguments.  Their god  is never defined and verses are always re -interpreted to paint their gods actions in a more favourable light.

When I was a christian I made a lot better arguments for a god than any of cartoon cut out Christians on here.

Have you noticed how they always accuse Atheists of faith knowing how negativly faith based beliefs are viewed by rational agents.  

Also the Atheism is a religion claim is truly ridiculous.
Its truly irrational to accuse scientists  beliefs of being faith based and religious belief being based on rationality , that's actually a denial  of reality by the theist 

Your exercise regarding the students is an excellent example of how one can stretch oneself and others by playfully trying different approaches.

A Catholic priest years ago told me before one takes ones final vows several priests rip you  apart verbally with every possible argument to test your mettle for future possible encounters with lay people.

I met one guy on here years ago who made pretty good arguments for his christian beliefs and to his credit admitted when i asked him that his belief was purely faith based , I had absolutely no problem with this as he admitted he couldn't offer up any arguments that would satisfy a rationalist but he was happy with that.


Thanks for your thoughts and the debate recommendation , I will give it a look.