Our fundamental nature

lazylad

As a scientific person who believes in higher meaning to human thinking and a strong believe in abstract thinking heres my theory on Atheism. First of all I'm not a follower in organised religion or do I go to mass. I believe that there's a force present in the world that we are inclined to feel and this can never be proven. Accounts of UFO abductions etc are all bogus you atheists believe? Anyway:

*Psychology will classify sadomasochists and well as many other deviancies as having a uniform of personality characteristics(differening on the individual but similar in nature). They will hold similar beliefs and basically a criminal psychologist will be able to some degree describe a person by their acts of crime etc. An atheist person is a name given to a person who believes in nothing, and I think there should be a psychological similarity studied on atheists. Maybe they had a bad experience in their childhood that made them strongly deny the existence of another being or beings. It's ultimately brain wiring that determines your beliefs, just like a schizophrenic might have paranoid delusions etc. But people who believe in the existence of a being who are otherwise psychologically healthy and intelligent people are not just crazy and can never prove their belief. Not everyone who believes in a being is crazy Atheist people! How can we prove your beliefs as much as you deny our beliefs?

*The laws of chaos really should be studied in depth by Atheists before they deny we are born, eat, have sex, die. That's a waste of time really.

*Atheists state their beliefs in a mostly concrete manner, denying the possibilities of other beings. If we didn't have a telescope we coudn't see Jupiters moons; yet even if we could see them, there's always people who are inclined to need proof they are moons of a planet and not just speckles of dirt in space. That might not be best example of concrete thought.

*Black holes have never been fully explained. We have never known what it at the other side. They are fascinating phenomena, yet they are in OUR universe yet not necessary for our evolution as far as we know. Atheists will say it might be necessary for science to know about black holes but they don't fit in with what we need to know to help us evolve. After all science has not helped us travel a light year yet so who can prove without doppler radar that a light year exists? In that case the difference between abstract and concrete thought play: Albert Einstein a man who Dawkins will never even touch on an intellectual level, put forwards theories of abstract possibilities based on abstract thought. These theories are out for most people to grasp but you will get people who deny theories and agree. Who is wrong and who is right? The gifted Einstein was a philosopher and Psychicist.

For atheists who think that life is just living and dying and the inbetween is what they argue their views about(psychogical in nature). If we die there has been no physical proof of what happens in detail. No detail of conception, or death. They are humans and sciences limitations on understanding and where a certain degree of specific mental abilities are required to theorieze(spelling?). Energy can neither be created nor destroyed, the brain is the last organ to die. We can assume that death is the conversion of chemical to kinetic energy eg insects eating you and getting energy or that we become fossil fuels preserving our bodies for generations to come as for coal, but I firmly believe that death of life is more than just that that you or I will never be able to ever ever prove.

*Atheists think of life as life and have a shallow outlook on life as just living each day and at the miserable end you die and your family think they can't bring you back so, who can define mourning as necessary for evolution? Are airplanes and space shuttles necessary for evolution? Oh your answer could be human exploration to answe questions of unknown, or that moving away from earth because our very own evolution is destroying the condition of our planet. If evolution and intelligence(along with Atheist beliefs) went together we would not have destroyed our planet to survive in the first place. Destroying your enviroment is not something that the balance of natural evolution ever planned. Did the dinosaurs fly in airplane from New York to Dublin to get to a meeting? No they didn't have the ability to do that but yet their existence continued unitil a meteorite hit their planet.
My point being natural evolution never included man or womans ability to build machines that allowed you to travel around the world; or space shuttles to get to the moon. Why did we have the intelligence to build such a thing? Could you explain to a dog that they could fly from Dublin to Spain for a holiday in the sun? Holidays are not necessary for our evolution, yet Atheists will say its recreation of living life to the full.

Humans have a capacity to think intelligently about the unknown. We have the intelligence to create factories destroying our very own environment that's necessary for evolution. Why were we given this intelligence? Why do we need an automobile to survive in the world we live in that destroys our world at the same time. Answer lies in our subconscious or maybe not. process in how you react is more than just chemical I think.
Evolution didn't include nuclear weapons. Evolution of life didn't include a meteorite hitting the dinosaurs wiping them out.
Evolution could be the easy universally acceptable answer to our existence, but people who are intelligent and abstract will always want to know more; maybe there is more why deny it or fully believe it either? Chances of it lie in the laws of chaos(anything is possible).
If evolution included our future generations needing to pollute their planet, I would question the whole concept of human evolution(why the industrial revolution if we only need water and food to survive?)

And I will speak personal now which is the statement atheists call silly, and use in their arguments against religion and FAITH. If a genuinly honest person loses their whole life in one day: maybe their husband and two sons killed in an accident and her last straw is to have faith, Atheists views say that that's what life is like accept it. A human will mourn for the children when they die, is a rat the same? Is a horse sad when they loose their foles? Can you measure human thought versus horse thought?
What separates humans from the animals is the fact we have survived on unnatural evolution and our ability to feel emotions and have empathy for people which cannot be scientically proven either really.

People who inflict atheism and refer to believers in something else as SILLY are cold, cynical people who will rare their children to believe in nothing other than eat, sleep, get a good job, have children, die. Doesn't sound very human does it?
Everybody to their own open minded view. I'm willing to accept anything is possible. If I lived a small house all my life and never saw anything ouside it, it's easy to dream about the outside and imagine there's more to the outside. However I could also think there's nothing outside.
Pessimism, and optimism are two opposites. Draw your own conclusion. I believe humans are more than just beings that live to get by, why do we have university? Why study and "feel the need to know" when you are going to die anyway and in the process of this knowledge we are creating machines that destroy our evolution necessary enviroment? Seems a bit of a contradiciton: The people living on the planet destroy their future with their evolutionary process and others believe that having faith in after life is the result of people not caring for the enviroment. Sounds ridiculous! Read between the lines and try to question maybe we are meant for a planet that our process of industry won't destroy the enviroment? Although you'll get the opposition on that too.


*

lazylad

Also, if evolution was as natural as its supposed to, why don't we men physically fight for a guys wife if we are the better match and if we kill them we own her? Very natural it is but we have a thing called morals which make us higher beings than the conventional evolutionary stereotype. Who knows evolution might develop telepathy? Did you Atheiest know that the stars you see in the sky are actually what they looked like millions of years ago! WHEEYY lets live life each day and then die we don't need to know that lol

aidan24326

easyontheeye wrote:

But if im right

You're not. How about that?

aidan24326

Scofflaw wrote:

Because we'd get caught. Obviously. Also, we wouldn't necessarily murder anyone if there was no need - besides, it's difficult. And messy.

Anyway, I've done all the other ones.

cordially,
Scofflaw

What I meant was why does he think that atheists can have a sense of morality without recourse to the supernatural? It is a fundamental mistake of religious believers to assume it necessary for our moral framework.

lazylad

aidan24326 wrote:

What I meant was why does he think that atheists can have a sense of morality without recourse to the supernatural? It is a fundamental mistake of religious believers to assume it necessary for our moral framework.

No at the end of the day we are individual and we have our individual beliefs and our personalities and appetites in life are not shaped by religious institutions. If we like chocolate we can't dislike it because someone says its wrong! Society sees through this logic after a while and becomes annoyed at restrictions by organised religion! That's normal psychology!! Religious order has been powerful and corrupt and that's a separate issue to what we feel is right or wrong or what we truly believe in! We are all born with the same bias!
Using religion as the reason for the worlds problems does not include racism based on skin colour. There are sSOOOO SOOO many problems that have nothing to do with religion! If there were no religions then whether there's a higher power or not would not be an issue, yet there's some experiences people have that would be regarded as crazy or possible. That's life! Make your own mind up.
There are extreme religous people and also extreme atheists too. Why is there a name on atheisim? I wouldn't call an apple a candy apple. Therefore I wouldn't classify someone whos not christian any thing less than a normal person. You use the name Atheist to belong to your own belief group too. Remember at the end of the day we are all human, but why so much conflict and destruction in our world of evolution among people of all beliefs?

lazylad

aidan24326 wrote:

You're not. How about that?

If someone told you that you were not good enough for contributing to human evolution and were an outcasat because you children would not inherit the necessary genes for survival, and because of restrictions on what individuals should have children for our evolution, how would you cope? Would you think maybe someone likes me? Or maybe your so rich and powerful in life as to the point you don't have time to think about anything that you can't see as proven?
How would you like to know that when you get old, wrinkly that your no good to anyone and better off dead and you're expired and no use to anyone anymore? That's cold isn't it. But I take some good out of religion and one of them is to treat everyone with respect that everyone is equal and worth respecting. Golden rule. I took that to be what I wanted to world to be like, yet now I'm hearing people saying we are all flesh and bone and that's it. So really the 10 commandments thou shalt not kill? Can we disobey that because God doesn't exist? Or thou shalt not covet thy neighbours wife? Should we disregard that too because it's religous? Can I have an affair with the woman next door even though her kids would be so low and husbands life destroyed? After all she'll have another child and continue the human race with my genes and hers which is good for evolutions gene pool mix?
Why not do it rather than discuss it? You see, some peoples morals have been shaped by religion, its a hope for some and not for others, so repsect that! A good Christian is not a corrupt one who uses the title.
Whether there's a God or not is your own belief.

Do Atheists think that we can do what we want based on human instinct, natural selection? Im sure your genes aren't necessary for survival how many are good hunters? Or not wait, good space explorers? I'm sure Nasa will be sorry to hear space travel is not part of our evolution, we can't live in space without artificial means. But wait......did one of you say there might be someplace where we can live in the universe? God whoever said that must be Christian or a scientist without proof?
Proof proof proof?
Theres no need for poetry or imagination nowadays, its all about the truth. Science versus fiction. Atheists versus religion.

Son Goku

Do Atheists think that we can do what we want based on human instinct, natural selection? Im sure your genes aren't necessary for survival how many are good hunters? Or not wait, good space explorers? I'm sure Nasa will be sorry to hear space travel is not part of our evolution, we can't live in space without artificial means. But wait......did one of you say there might be someplace where we can live in the universe? God whoever said that must be Christian or a scientist without proof?
Proof proof proof?
Theres no need for poetry or imagination nowadays, its all about the truth. Science versus fiction. Atheists versus religion.

All of your three posts revolve around this central nonsense arguement.
Evolution being factually correct does not mean we would all enjoy a society based around social Darwinism.
For instance I know that Cynodonts evolved into Megazostrodon allowing mammals to arise from reptiles. However this doesn't suddenly mean I think I should kill old people, have sex with my neighbours wife(?) and that people shouldn't travel into space(??).

Evolution of life didn't include a meteorite hitting the dinosaurs wiping them out.

What does this even mean? The meteorite hit the Earth because that was the direction it was moving in, how is a meteorite hitting the Earth a flaw of evolution?

These theories are out for most people to grasp but you will get people who deny theories and agree. Who is wrong and who is right?

The people who support the theory that has withstood decades of testing.

Dades

lazylad wrote:

An atheist person is a name given to a person who believes in nothing, and I think there should be a psychological similarity studied on atheists. Maybe they had a bad experience in their childhood that made them strongly deny the existence of another being or beings. It's ultimately brain wiring that determines your beliefs, just like a schizophrenic might have paranoid delusions etc.

lazylad, there's not much point in responding to your diatribe if you don't even understand what atheism is. Go and look it up, and also look up nihilism which is what you seem to be mistaking it with.

Maybe we'll talk when you've done that.

lazylad

Son Goku wrote:

All of your three posts revolve around this central nonsense arguement.
Evolution being factually correct does not mean we would all enjoy a society based around social Darwinism.
For instance I know that Cynodonts evolved into Megazostrodon allowing mammals to arise from reptiles. However this doesn't suddenly mean I think I should kill old people, have sex with my neighbours wife(?) and that people shouldn't travel into space(??).

What does this even mean? The meteorite hit the Earth because that was the direction it was moving in, how is a meteorite hitting the Earth a flaw of evolution?

The people who support the theory that has withstood decades of testing.

You took that too literal about the meteorite. I mean the dinosaurs didn't die because of Global warming caused by them driving in their cars etc etc. Evolution meant we could be wiped out by likes of meteorite, not by killing ourselves, that's not part of what we want so why do it? Obviously intelligence we have that we can't control or understand fully how to use it. Nobody will know.
Nonsense comes in all forms, but people who always win arguments are not always right. For example Father Fortune(the dirty b*stard he was) was a gifted speaker and could win an argument. The top of every corrupt belief will always win the support of others at the expense of the decent persons true moral beliefs and the trivialisation of gut instinct over fact.
Remember the cult in Waco Texas? Look at the movie. If everybody just stood for what they believed in and stuck to that there would be no more cr£p cults and Atheism from what I feel believe in a world that's free of religion. It's a cold place the world. Sometimes the belief we have is the last thing we have and for some, the last hope in life, so why mock it unless all parties concerned are sure it's not real? It's arrogance labelling the unknown as fiction. Or psychosis over unknown. Let people decide.

Dades

lazylad wrote:

It's a cold place the world. Sometimes the belief we have is the last thing we have and for some, the last hope in life, so why mock it unless all parties concerned are sure it's not real? It's arrogance labelling the unknown as fiction. Or psychosis over unknown. Let people decide.

Despite what you may think - the non-believers on this forum don't stand around wearing sandwich boards decalring "God is made up". Atheism is a personal belief and most people are content for that to be it. When people such as yourself drop by (to this forum) to suggest that atheists should keep their cold hearted opinions to themselves this prompts people to sit up and ask "why should we?"

Dawkins has been discussed at length on this forum and it you'd take the time to read older threads you find that most are a fan of his science, but many (myself included) are not fans of his attitude.

nesf

lazylad wrote:

Also, if evolution was as natural as its supposed to, why don't we men physically fight for a guys wife if we are the better match and if we kill them we own her? Very natural it is but we have a thing called morals which make us higher beings than the conventional evolutionary stereotype. Who knows evolution might develop telepathy? Did you Atheiest know that the stars you see in the sky are actually what they looked like millions of years ago! WHEEYY lets live life each day and then die we don't need to know that lol

Natural doesn't imply right. It's perfectly valid to call something natural yet regard it as morally wrong at some level. There's a fair amount of confusion out there where people equate natural with good, which makes little sense if you even take a minute to think about it.

Scofflaw

nesf wrote:

Natural doesn't imply right. It's perfectly valid to call something natural yet regard it as morally wrong at some level. There's a fair amount of confusion out there where people equate natural with good, which makes little sense if you even take a minute to think about it.

As a medical friend of mine said when someone praised "natural" childbirth over "interventionist" childbirth - "death in childbirth is perfectly natural - that you're not running a 20% chance of it is the result of intervention".

slightly chillingly,
Scofflaw

nesf

Scofflaw wrote:

As a medical friend of mine said when someone praised "natural" childbirth over "interventionist" childbirth - "death in childbirth is perfectly natural - that you're not running a 20% chance of it is the result of intervention".

slightly chillingly,
Scofflaw

Yeah it's similarily funny when you start looking at natural versus artificial additives in food. Conventional wisdom is a dangerous, dangerous thing.

lazylad

The Atheist wrote:

Despite what you may think - the non-believers on this forum don't stand around wearing sandwich boards decalring "God is made up". Atheism is a personal belief and most people are content for that to be it. When people such as yourself drop by (to this forum) to suggest that atheists should keep their cold hearted opinions to themselves this prompts people to sit up and ask "why should we?"

Dawkins has been discussed at length on this forum and it you'd take the time to read older threads you find that most are a fan of his science, but many (myself included) are not fans of his attitude.

Why shouldn't an older child tell a younger one santa doesn't exist at christmas and ruin christmas for that child? Same thing really, I'm not denying God doesn't or does exist, but your are upsetting people with faith, you are mocking their beliefs for scientific logic. It's cold. A doctor can tell someone they are dying nicely or quickly and rushed without emotion. Its about how you approach it and put it across.
Dawkins attitude is not warm, he might be smart. Further more, I'm upset to think that a relative of mine in her final days was upset at his plain denial of anything other than your dead your gone. THE END>

nesf

lazylad wrote:

Why shouldn't an older child tell a younger one santa doesn't exist at christmas and ruin christmas for that child? Same thing really, I'm not denying God doesn't or does exist, but your are upsetting people with faith, you are mocking their beliefs for scientific logic.

I actually agree with you here. I don't believe that either theists or atheists or agnostics should force their belief on anyone. My mother has unwavering faith for instance, she knows I don't. We leave each other be and never argue about it, someone's beliefs are their own and are no-one else's business and so on.

The problem is that it's not that simple. Your beliefs and mine affect much of what we do. Your stance on many issues might be based on them and then our views might clash strongly and when we premise our beliefs as the justification for taking this or that position they do become points of contention.

Take gay marriage. To some it's immoral simply on religious grounds. This, to me, is not a good enough reason to limit the actions of others. This is the kind of situation where our beliefs will be directly opposed.

Myksyk

lazylad wrote:

but your are upsetting people with faith,

So are you saying that no-one should discuss something or state their opinion in the open if to do so upsets someone else?