Existence: What is the point?

What basis do you have for considering " athiestic naturalism" as a religion?

And isn't " athiestic naturalism" redundant? Rather difficult to imagine a naturalism that believes in god.

 

I categorize ALL opinions about the Big Questions as religio/philosophical beliefs. They are not proven facts, so can only be seen as subjective opinions about the nature of the universe.

How else can you define a belief in atheistic naturalism?

 

No, there are 'theistic evolutionists', who believe God kickstarted everything, then went on vacation.

'Atheistic naturalism' omits God.
'Theistic evolution' is probably the majority belief in western civilization.

 

Sorry but that doesn't disprove redundancy.

 

It explains it, with real world examples.

'Proving!' anything in a debate forum is impossible, anyway, and is not my goal.

Everybody gotta believe something. Everyone has to do their own believing and their own dying.

Whether a person believes there is a 'point!' to existence, or not.. Whether they believe in evolution, creation, atheism, islam, buddhism or christianity, it is their belief, and they will take it to the grave.

We can only walk in the light of our own understanding, education/Indoctrination, influences, biases, and experience.

'Something' is True, regarding the Big Questions of the universe. Do we seek that truth, or content ourselves with entertaining speculations?

 

Because it is not true? It is 'believed!', in spite of the evidence?

the TOE is considered 'factual', by most people indoctrinated by progressive institutions. It is, however, just a religious belief, about origins. It remains a key element in the worldview of atheistic naturalism. Unfortunately, atheistic naturalism has little comfort to the answeres to the Big Questions.. Who, Why, What, and When.. morality, purpose, destiny, and origins.

 

I think believing that an imaginary being created the universe would certainly classify as entertaining speculations. Believing in the big bang for which there is some evidence would at least have some evidential credibility.

Of course one could always claim that the big bang was created by the aforementioned imaginary being but then of course I guess you would have to believe the imaginary being created itself.

 

This lacks understanding or more likely - it is a denial/avoidance response.

The issue that Atheists (along with many agnostics and believers alike) have with religious zealots is that they want to force their religious beliefs on others through physical violence (Law).

 

Accelerated rates of mutations seem to have an increased tendency to produce freaks of nature. Thus I am doubtful of the usefulness of such a method for investigating the ToE.

I agree, except that a favorable position on the theory does not always coincide with belief in it.

 

Actually before recent capitalists freedoms the process was for most humans:

1. Survival.
2. Reproduction.

 

I would argue that suspicion of a Creator's existence is warranted because there is a bit more than zero evidential credibility in this direction, but the issue is too complex to hash it out now. Let's say I'm working on it.

Maybe let's not guess at that. There is a firm principle which states that there isn't anything that can be the cause/creation of itself.

 

I see even in the most primitive human societies, an element of 'play'. I know of no cultures or people groups that did not have that element.

Even among neanderthals, once considered sub human, there was that element. Art, music, sports, and other indications of 'play' are in every human society.

 

Everyone gotta believe something.

You pick your beliefs (or maybe, they pick you!), then live and die with the consequences.

 

The postulate of a Creator, as the First Cause of all things, is hardly 'unwarranted!' Wise men, philosophers, gurus, shamen, and crackpots have speculated for millennia on the Mystery of our existence. The presumption of atheistic naturalism, with a long and storied past, has not been the majority opinion or conclusion of the bulk of the aforementioned philosophers.

There is no 'smoking gun', that definitively explains our origins, or any of the mysteries of life that humans seem to instinctively have a 'sense' of.

The atheists who poo-poo the possibility of a Creator merely express religious dogmatism, by pretending their religious opinion is 'Truth!' It is a speculation, at best, with no empirical evidence.. no more than for a Creator, anyway.

The juvenile quips that some atheists fling at theists is absurd religious bigotry, nothing more. They just believe strongly in their religious opinion, and ridicule those who believe differently.

Religious bigotry has been around as long as man. No surprise, there.

 

Some people pick rationally and some pick on superstition. Obviously both work.

 

I observe that most, if not all, people choose their beliefs, 'rationally'. It is the assumptions that the reasoning is based on that is the problem.

people are compositions of their background, education/Indoctrination, peer influence, personal experience, biases, and genetic inclinations. They have a knowledge base they deem credible, and reason themselves into their worldview based on that knowledge base.

Unfortunately, not everything in the knowledge base is true. It is sprinkled with presumptions, deceptions, predispositions, biases, and delusions.

So, how does one conclude anything 'Rational!' in this primordial soup of conflicting information?

'Superstition!' is just a smear term, for those locked in their own superstitions, unable or unwilling to admit their own Intellectual limitations.

 

I think perhaps you should define what you mean by rational. Superstition is very simple to define.

su·per·sti·tion
/ˌso͞opərˈstiSH(ə)n/
noun

1. excessively credulous belief in and reverence for supernatural beings.
   "he dismissed the ghost stories as mere superstition"
   synonyms: unfounded belief, credulity; More
   • a widely held but unjustified belief in supernatural causation leading to certain consequences of an action or event, or a practice based on such a belief.
     plural noun: superstitions
     "she touched her locket for luck, a superstition she had had since childhood"
     synonyms: myth, belief, old wives' tale, notion; More
     
     Seems to define belief in god absolutely perfectly.

 

Exactly. That was my point:

'Superstition!' is just a smear term, for those locked in their own superstitions, unable or unwilling to admit their own Intellectual limitations.

Atheistic naturalism fits this definition, as well. 'Superstition!', is just a smear term, to denigrate an opposing, competing, religious belief.

Webster's says this:
1: a belief or practice resulting from ignorance, fear of the unknown, trust in magic or chance, or a false conception of causation
2: a notion maintained despite evidence to the contrary

..fits the blind faith and passion of atheistic naturalism, it seems to me..

 

An element of this is true, of course, but this is an overstatement.

We know pretty well where we came from, going back billions of years.

I submit that's pretty incredible.

So, there are things we don't understand, if you seriously look. But, the fact of lacking that understanding can't be cited as proof of some sentient supernatural influence.

 

Good example of an unevidenced religious belief.

You merely believe this. It is not empirical fact.

The FACT is, we don't have a clue, empirically, how we got here, what our purpose is, why we moralize and sense this 'conscience', or when we die, the sense of something more and eternity in our innermost being.

There is NO SMOKING GUN, to prove anything, about these nagging mysteries, yet they obsess us for all our lives.

Humans concoct manner of plausible speculations. Some involve gods, some not. But none of the imaginings of humanity are anything but religious opinions, with no facts to confirm them.

Likewise, the attempts to belittle or disparage opposing beliefs is just the age old practice of religious bigotry.

We live in either:
1. A purposeful universe, created by an Intelligent Being, with moral laws governing our minds and timeless souls, or,
2. A godless universe, with no purpose, morality, or souls.

The Truth does not depend on which we prefer.. there are people who prefer both. There is 'something' True, regarding God and this universe, that is beyond the religious opinings of man.

 

So we agree that religion fits the definition of superstition. The fact that you consider it a smear term doesn't change the fact that it fits religion perfectly and has no relevence to " athiestic naturalism" whatever that bit of redundancy actually means.

 

If by "naturalism" you mean paganism, the worship of crystals or trees, etc., then fine.

But, your buckets are wrong in that case, as that kind of "naturalism" is equivalent to other religions in ALL the ways that matter.

They both involve the totally indetectable supernatural. They require the same level of evidence. Their truth value is equally impossible to verify.

That doesn't mean your religion is invalid. I don't mean to attack your religion.

I'm just saying that tree worship and god worship are in the same bucket with respect to what can be measured. They are only differentiated by that which can NOT be measured.


So, if you think you have said ANYTHING about atheism, I'm here to point out that you have NOT.

 

Denial is not a river in Egypt.

Belief in atheistic naturalism is every bit a religious opinion as any other speculation as to the Big Questions of the universe.

Some people just like to believe that THEIR opinions are 'proven fact!', when they are not. This is just your religious opinion, and raging against it, or maligning Christians, will not change it.

'Christians!' are always a popular target, or whipping boy for frustrated ideologues, who can't face their own consciences. But don't blame them, for your own dogmatism, or insecurities. You have made your philosophical bed, now sleep in it.

Everyone has to do their own believing and dying.

 

Sorry but was their an actual point to that babble. I have no problem with Christians who mind their own business and don't try to pass laws that tell the rest of us how to live. Christians have a long history of what we now know as evil. And of course that trend continues with the religious right. And we won't even go into the Catholic Church and it's endless evil hierarchy up to and including the current Pope.

And believing in something ( god) for which there is no evidence is not the same as not believing in something for which there is no evidence.

And just for fun why don't you explain how athiestic naturalism is anything but a redundancy.

 

You're scrambling questions again. In particular, your 1 and 2 are nonsense.

Religion addresses the why questions, anything about afterlife, anything about supernatural participation in any way, anything about "soul", etc.



I've been one you attack on religious grounds for quite some time, so I'm well aware of your bigotry. On the other hand, I don't dispute your religion - while I don't share it, I don't waste my time trying to save you from it, either.

The various gods man has proposed are not a necessary source for morality. If God were the source of morality, then most of human history would be without morality - which is clearly not the case. And, even in nature we find animals that understand and practice ethical behavior.