Ask your difficult questions of an Atheist.

Your individual belief system has nothing to do with reality, no more then a third world isolated tribe living in isolation today knows the reality of the world today and still clings to their sun God.

 

That STILL does NOT mean there is a god.....


The ONLY proof that there is a god is to produce the god..

 

LOL! No amount of gobbledegoop has ever produced a god...

 

RE: Ask your difficult questions of an Atheist.
⁜→ FoxHastings, et al,

Yes, Missed it in the first sentence!

(COMMENT)

"Those that hold onto a Faith-Based Reality as a concept and perception"

v/r
R

 

While I agree with most of your post, there is no way to prove or disprove god(s), even the Christian God. Proofs only exist in closed functional systems, such as logic and mathematics. Religion is an open functional system, just like Science is. Religion deals with unfalsifiable theories, such as the existence of god(s). It makes use of supporting evidence. You have provided supporting evidence for the existence of the Christian God, but evidence is not in any way a proof.

You need not justify your religious beliefs in any way, as doing so leads to logical fallacies. It's best to simply leave such beliefs at the faith basis which they originated from.

 

They are supporting evidence for your Christian faith. They are not in any way proofs, however.

 

Religions DON'T require a god, though... All they require is belief in an initial circular argument and some sort of additional argumentation which stems from that.

 

Hard to find an actual religion that doesn't have a god or some type of supernatural entity.

 

A lot of religions do have god(s) associated with them, but that is not a requirement by any means.

Atheism, by definition, has no god(s). The Big Bang Theory needs no god(s). Evolution needs no god(s). Creationism needs no god(s). Intelligent Design needs no god(s). Buddhism needs no god(s). Shinto needs no god(s). Jainism needs no god(s). The Mimamsa school of Hinduism needs no god(s). ... ... ... As you can see, plenty of religions do not have any god(s) associated with them (in and of themselves). I would've added Global Warming here as well, but the believers of that religion seem to make out "Global Warming" as some evil god who is at war with the heroic goddess "Climate".

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
LOL! No amount of gobbledegoop has ever produced a god...

GoodGAWD! MORE gobbleydegoop…

WHAT TF is that MESS!!!????

 

My bold. Surely these are just placeholders for gods, mechanisms by which religionists can find somewhere where their god can still exist, despite all evidence to the contrary?
And the first three you list are not religions, they're science.

 

Creationism and Intelligent Design only require an "intelligence" of some sort. That "intelligence" need not be a god.

Science is a set of falsifiable theories.

How is Atheism falsifiable? How is the Big Bang Theory falsifiable? How is Evolution falsifiable? The null hypothesis for those theories is not accessible. We have no functioning time machine to go back in time to see what actually happened all those years ago.

 

I never heard of such a thing. It’s just a made up label to pretend atheism is fact less when the opposite is true. Show evidence, and atheism would not exist.

 

As yet, there is no evidence that God exists. That is the essence of any debate on the subject. . So, we can’t run away from the word “ exist”.

 

Indeed, you did a pretty OK job of it, however unintentionally. I coulda done better, but I have rule 2 to think about.

If the understanding thereof is an essential ingredient of your performance here, obviously I'm not missing a damn thing.

 

RE: Ask your difficult questions of an Atheist.
⁜→ dagosa, et al,

The question of the existence of a deity, a group of deities, or that of a Supreme Being, is not something that you can be so arrogant about in terms of reasoning.ª

WHO HAS NOT, during a time of illness, crisis, or pain, cried out to a higher being for help and healing? Praying for help and healing is a fundamental concept in practically all societies, though the object to which these prayers are directed varies among the religions of the world.​

To believe in a Deity or Supreme Being is the unwavering loyalty, belief, and trust in an idea of a higher power by that which can be defined in human terms of understanding. It requires no evidence.

To discuss the existence of the supernatural is like the examination of infinite, and the interlocking concepts within a concept → one nesting inside the other. The accurate description and the assignment of definitive characteristics are beyond human understanding.

THUS: The Medial Profession understook a study that attempted to answer two fundamental questions using the scientific method.º :

(1) Does intercessory prayer to the Judeo-Christian God have any effect on the patient’s medical condition and recovery while in the hospital?

(2) How are these effects characterized, if present?
​

"Prayers to the Judeo-Christian God were made on behalf of the patients in the prayer group by “born again” believers in Jesus Christ. Analysis of events after entry into the study showed the prayer group had less congestive heart failure, required less diuretic and antibiotic therapy, had fewer episodes of pneumonia, had fewer cardiac arrests, and was less frequently intubated and ventilated."

. .
ªSpivak CD: Hebrew prayers for the sick. Ann Med Hist 1:83-85, 1917
º Dr Randolf Byrd, MD, San Francisco General, (published in the July 1988 • SOUTHERN MEDICAL JOURNAL • Vol. 81, No. 7​

Special Note: The Byrd Study is NOT proof of the existence of a supernatural. However, it is sircumstantial enough as to not rule out a future finding.​

(COMMENT)

The existence of the supernatural is not dependent on an all-powerful and knowing Supreme Being. However: the existence of a Supreme Being is evidence of the supernatural.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/atheists-can-be-spiritual_b_1316619

https://thoughtcatalog.com/ben-atwood/2012/04/5-ways-atheism-can-be-spiritual/

No, it is not a "made up term" and being an atheist is not negated by taking back an aspect of ourselves that religion has stolen and perverted into something that it is not.

Have you never been in awe of the magnificence of the world around us and the universe that we are an integral part of? That feeling of awe has nothing at all to do with religion. It is a human experience and everyone is entitled to experience without having to embrace any religious superstitions. We gain our scientific knowledge through our curiosity about the awesome universe. It drives us to learn and understand and appreciate what exists.

 

After reading your post, I get the more the more recent use of “spirituality” in this way. But,
*Traditionally, spirituality referred to a religious process of re-formation which "aims to recover the original shape of man", oriented at "the image of God" as exemplified by the founders and sacred texts of the religions of the world.*

I hear what you’re saying and I am aware some have made this distinction. There is nothing in the original definition that leads me to consider atheists as spiritual. So, IMO, it’s still a corrupt use of the term....
Much the same way that a Republican will start calling himself a libertarian, just so “he” can fit in to a conversation and bring a discussion of conservatism to Sushi bar. I’m not there. Sorry. It leads to references of science as a religion when really, it doesn’t there.

 

I understand where you are coming from and it would be great if there was another term however there are not any that have not been contaminated by religion.

Perhaps it is time to find a better way to describe this.

How does Meditative Atheist sound?

 

I can deal with that .
But, I have a problem with corrupting science when in fact, it’s a simple and basic methodology that pretends to be nothing more then it is. Scientists are free to be religious, spiritual or anything thing else they want on an individual basis. I actually believe in the value of religion in general, like they are free to be atheists.

But, I can’t see corrupting science when they ( scientists) walk though the door and into a “lab” with spirituality, in the same way that politics and governance has no room for religion or even spirituality in decision making.

Describing how we are all one with the universe in composition, is a fact as we now know it. Saying it’s a “spiritual” revelation is fine for the individual experience. But for me, it’s not science. It’s the conclusion a person can make for themselves after being exposed to evidence. It’s not part of the process, which to me, is the science of discovery. Hope that makes sense.

“Spirituality” is feeling, science is a process. I don’t want to mix them together.

 

Let me try and clarify how the scientific studies were conducted. They asked for people who could achieve a "spiritual" state of mind to volunteer to be monitored via EEG's and other advanced technologies that could identify brain activity patterns. They noted the similarities in the patterns across the individuals and then noted that these same states of mind can be achieved through NON spiritual means. The studies went even further in at least one instance and detected these same states of mind in other mammals.

There is no "spiritual revelation" when one achieves this state. That is just religious mumbo-jumbo that has no factual basis and, as you pointed out, no value to anyone except those who believe in theist superstitions.

 

Years ago when the hostages were released from Iran, I caught an interview with one diplomat . When asked what he missed most, his eyes watered up and he replied; he never realized how much missed the simple things in life. It became apparent, the first time he listened to a CD digital recording developed while in captivity of a piece he liked. The science of digital recording elicited great emotion in him. Science that is taken for granted can do that. It gives hearing to the deaf, sight to the blind and hope to the severely injured and ill.

So yes, there is a tendency to confuse spirituality and emotions when science has so much influence and “ spiritual revelation” is falsely attributed to the contributions of man. IMO, it’s the best ideas of man kind that should be revered not spirits....
so yes, within the mind of persons, the emotions of spirituality can be the same as those illicit by scientific intervention.

The right is going to go bonkers at some point, as we will and have discover( ed) that lower forms of animals have religious/spiritual experiences. I can’t wait. They’ll be much more careful about conflating the two. We live on a planet of the apes. We’re nothing more then another primate form, and maybe not the most intelligent or spiritual when intel is measured as it should be.

 

So atheists believe in the existence of spiritual revelation? Accredited to science? The supernatural? News to me?

wow so it proves something spiritual is creating spirituality and nonbelievers and atheists are in denial! What a blow to agnostics like myself and atheists must be totally losing it over that discovery.

 

Surely you could express your thoughts about both me and my opinions in a creative way that doesn't break the rules, but I get how you can't get of your horse.

Of course it is in my mix. I rarely make the effort to refute obvious bullshit directly. It appears you are missing quite a lot.

 

Take it as at least one author's statement in particular. I didn't say anything about belief in spirituality.