10 Misconceptions about Atheism »
Posted by: Radiofreeeuropa 1 year ago389 Comments Report this Story
1) Atheists believe that life is meaningless. On the contrary, religious people often worry that life is meaningless and imagine that it can only be redeemed by the promise of eternal happiness beyond the grave. Atheists tend to be quite sure that life is precious. Life is imbued with meaning by being really and fully lived. Our relationships wi
Read Full Story at towelianism.wordpress.com
Join the Discussion 
+ Add Comment
Comments So Far: 389
-
0%
Charlson1 year ago
"In any case, the good effects of religion can surely be disputed. In most cases, it seems that religion gives people bad reasons to behave well, when good reasons are actually available. Ask yourself, which is more moral, helping the poor out of concern for their suffering, or doing so because you think the creator of the universe wants you to do it, will reward you for doing it or will punish you for not doing it?"
When a self-proclaimed religious person states that atheists are immoral, he/she does not judge a person's character by the deeds they do or the good life they lead but whether they believe in their God and his Book.
Reply-
0%
Neophile1 year ago
Rather than making assumptions about someone you haven't met, why don't we ask Charlson what he/she thinks morality is based on?
Reply-
0%
Coatl1 year ago
Curious, you never mentioned that some atheist don't believe in god because there is no evidence of his/her/its/their existence. That's the reason why I don't believe in any god.
Reply-
0%
Candida1 year ago
How many atheists do you know personally? Is it a sufficient number to generalize to all atheists?
Reply -
-
-
-
-
0%
marlenebomer1 year ago
Same with me, my dear. Twelve years of religionist propaganda shoved down your throat will do that to a person.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
0%
kobzikov1 year ago
Then are you not agnostic about existence of Santa Clause, tooth fairy, Easter bunny, invisible pink unicorns, FSM, Aztec gods, Ancient Greek gods, African tribal gods, omphalos hypothesis, Hindu mythological creation hypothesis, Mayan mythological creation hypothesis, etc?
Reply -
0%
Thinker221 year ago
Your own existence and the existence of the world in which we all exist is the best evidence of the existence of someone who created it. If you disagree with this statement then you have to argue that you believe(!) that the Universe came into existence all by itself from nothing without any external help. Do you have any evidence that this is what happened?
Reply-
0%
Candida1 year ago
Where did this external help come from? You argue that the universe had to be created, so who created God? Why is it easier to accept that God has always existed than that the universe has always existed? If God could come into existence by itself, why not the universe?
What's wrong with saying that we don't know how the universe came about, we are just speculating at the moment, and one day we may know. Or not, as the case may be.
Reply-
0%
thinker20071 year ago
I, too, am OK with "not knowing" ... and do not need some human-made, and altered, book (books actually ... depending upon which "Truth" you adhere to) to "tell me" about the nature of reality. Also, I don't need these books (and its adherents) to tell me that I am "bad" if I don't believe as prescribed or dogmatic Truths.
Reply-
-
-
0%
Thinker221 year ago
A book is not necessarily a collection of paper pages bound together. It's a collection of stored information. For example, the first books known to man used stone as base material. Then there were animal skins, rolled papyrus etc. Today the material used to store information includes magnetic and optical disks and cards. Nevertheless, it's the information stored there and not the material this information is stored on that makes a book a book.
Reply
-
-
0%
thinker20071 year ago
I wasn't contesting the need for human-made books for learning ... I was contesting the divine-inspiration of the Bible and other humanly-inspired religious texts.
Reply
-
-
-
0%
Thinker221 year ago
Candida, I'm not God to answer all your questions but this is what I think.
I don't know who created God (I prefer to use the word Creator) for the very same reason your computer does not know who created Bill Gates. Still, I do not think that Bill Gates came into existence all by himself. We KNOW that the Universe (at least the one we live in) had a beginning referred to as the Big Bang meaning that it DID NOT always existed. Further, if we've discovered a carbon copy of New York City on the other side of the Moon few people would argue that it was a natural phenomenon. The Universe is much more difficult to build than New York City. There is nothing wrong in admitting that we don't know how the Universe came into existence but this means that the possibility that it was CREATED has to be considered, too.
Reply-
0%
kobzikov1 year ago
If all you were planning to do is support your position with fallacies you could have easily linked to the following page
http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm
It has more then 500 proofs of God, just as good as the ones you provided. You can easily substitute Creator for God and they would make just as much sense.
"the very same reason your computer does not know who created Bill Gates"
False analogy #1: Computers have no intelligence.
"Still, I do not think that Bill Gates came into existence all by himself."
Non sequitur, argument from ignorance, straw man. Even if computers don't know who created them it says nothing about who created Bill Gates and if he was created in the first place, not that Bill Gates has created any computers.
"The Universe is much more difficult to build than New York City."
False analogy #2, complexity does not require design, see The Watchmaker Analogy. It's a form of begging the question.
Reply-
-
-
-
0%
sanctusvia1 year ago
Wow, I think each one of your comments is more moronic than the last. You belittled kobzikov's intelligence, then call me stupid for calling you out on it? You are a pompous ass. Kobzikov was quite correct that computers are not intelligent, and yours was a false analogy. Care to address that instead of the childish drivel you spew forth?
Reply -
-
-
0%
sanctusvia1 year ago
To put it simply, AI is just what it says. *Artificial* Intelligence. It is not real intelligence. As was mentioned above, computers are not intelligent. Now, if you want to get deeper into it, AI is software. Computers are not software. Computers are hardware. So, your orignal comment questioning the intelligence of kobzikov was nothing but an ad hominem attack on your part. And as such, it is worth no more of my time. If you would like to discuss something else, feel free. Thanks for playing.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
kobzikov1 year ago
"We KNOW that the Universe (at least the one we live in) had a beginning referred to as the Big Bang meaning that it DID NOT always existed."
Half-truth, just because the Universe as we know it hasn't always existed does not mean that there was a creator. According to Big Bang theory and application of general theory of relativity, the Universe started as a singularity.
"the possibility that it was CREATED has to be considered, too."
As was said before, there is no evidence that supports the hypothesis that the Universe was created. And possibilities that have no basis in reality don't have to be considered.
"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." -Christopher Hitchens.
Reply-
0%
Thinker221 year ago
> According to Big Bang theory and application of general theory of relativity, the Universe started as a singularity.
Not exactly. As a singularity is not allowed by the rules of nature as we know them the Big Bang theory and even more so the GR assume that there were different rules there that allowed to avoid the singularity. Claiming that the Universe started as a singularity is equivalent to a claim that it was created by God.
> As was said before, there is no evidence that supports the hypothesis that the Universe was created.
As it was said before the very existence of the Universe supports one of two hypotheses. It was either created or came into existence all by itself. The latter assumption seems to be way less probable that the first.
Reply-
0%
kobzikov1 year ago
"Not exactly. As a singularity is not allowed by the rules of nature as we know them the Big Bang theory and even more so the GR assume that there were different rules there that allowed to avoid the singularity."
Really? You should explain to cosmologists what black holes are then since they have no idea and be sure to tell them about those rules too. Since you'll be effectively disproving that Penrose-Hawking singularity theorems are correct can you post your calculations here as well. This sounds like a monumental discovery.
"Claiming that the Universe started as a singularity is equivalent to a claim that it was created by God."
Faulty analogy and a straw man. So there is a scientific theory supported by existing evidence, derived from other scientific theories and that can be verified independently that shows that God exists? Have you forwarded it to scientific community? Here silly ol' me thought that existence of God wasn't even falsifiable.
Reply-
0%
Thinker221 year ago
I can only say that
(1) this forum is not a proper place to post my calculations;
(2) the Big Bang was different from a black hole because it is "open" (to us) and the black holes are closed by their event horizons;
(3) Hawking and Penrose tried to AVOID a singularity in a black hole;
(4) no one knows how the Universe started but stating that it started from a singularity (a point with zero dimensions and infinite density) is equivalent to stating that it (the Universe) was created by God.
Reply-
0%
kobzikov1 year ago
Here come the excuses, eh?
"(1) this forum is not a proper place to post my calculations"
Post a link to them if there is anything to link to. Were they even peer reviewed? Let me, guess. It's another joke, right?
"(2) the Big Bang was different from a black hole because it is "open" (to us) and the black holes are closed by their event horizons;"
We're not talking about Big Bang the event or black hole the object. We're talking about singularities. It seems difficult for you, but try to stay on topic. And please provide some evidence that we can actually analyze the singularity of Big Bang if that's what you are claiming.
"(3) Hawking and Penrose tried to AVOID a singularity in a black hole;"
Were you planning to present evidence for that? Though what they tried to do is irrelevant to what they proved or to its implications.
#4 is a reposted faulty analogy. God creation claims are not scientific, universe's origin as a singularity is.
Reply-
0%
Thinker221 year ago
> We're not talking about Big Bang the event or black hole the object. We're talking about singularities. It seems difficult for you, but try to stay on topic.
You should check your memory, Kobzikov. It were you who claimed that the Big Bang started from a singularity and from this claim you somehow arrived to a conclusion that it was not created. Try to stay on topic please.
> And please provide some evidence that we can actually analyze the singularity of Big Bang if that's what you are claiming.
No, I do not and did not claim anything even close to this. I'm afraid that you're compensating lack of memory by wild imagination.
> "(3) Hawking and Penrose tried to AVOID a singularity in a black hole;"
> Were you planning to present evidence for that?
No. The relevant monographies are too big and too complicated to be copied or even cited here... and no, there are no on-line versions.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
sanctusvia1 year ago
That is correct. I did not make an assertion that the universe came into existence all by itself. *YOU* made the assertion that it had to be created here http://religion.netscape.com/story/2007/09/07/1...
Neo then replied above that there are more than 2 possibilities. I concur. You use a false dichotomy (very common among fundies).
You make assertions, then don't provide evidence, then accuse others who call you on it of not providing evidence to assertions they did not make. Does you doctor know you escaped the hospital and went off your meds?
Reply-
0%
Thinker221 year ago
> Neo then replied above that there are more than 2 possibilities. I concur.
Can you repeat these "more than 2 possibilities" please? I could not find them and I promise to address each and every one.
To make this task easier I'm looking for the possibilities of the Universe to begin other than (1) being created and (2)come into existence without external help.
Reply-
0%
sanctusvia1 year ago
You are still sidestepping the issue. You said the universe was created. I am still waiting for you to prove it.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
Coatl1 year ago
"you have to argue that you believe(!) that the Universe came into existence all by itself from nothing without any external help."
I don't believe that the universe came into existence all by itself, I just think the matter and energy we know see have allways existed, they just took their current form some hundreds of billions of years ago. I say it is not a blief because if it wasn't like that and matter and energy indeed had a begining my world wouldn't fall into pieces
"Do you have any evidence that this is what happened?"
The best evidence for that would be the law of conservation of matter and energy.
Reply-
0%
Thinker221 year ago
I have some news for you:
1. The Big Bang happened not hundreds of Billions but just(!) about 15 Billion years ago.
2. There was no matter and energy (certainly, no 'matter' as we know it) in the first milliseconds after the Big Bang.
3. The laws of nature including the laws of conservation are part of our Universe and came into existence at the very same moment the Universe did for the simple reason that time itself is also part of the Universe and could not exist prior to the Universe.
Reply-
0%
Coatl1 year ago
" The Big Bang happened not hundreds of Billions but just(!) about 15 Billion years ago."
Sorry my bad, I misused the word billions, English is not my first language.
".There was no matter and energy (certainly, no 'matter' as we know it) in the first milliseconds after the Big Bang."
I know that that's why I say that they took their current form during the moments after the big bang, I think they existed in other form completely alien to us, but that's just my hypothesis.
"came into existence at the very same moment the Universe did"
I know, there were probably a completely different set of laws prior the big bang, but that's a barrier to us now, there is no way of knowing right now. Still I think matter and energy weren't created they just transformed into what we know now.
Reply-
-
0%
Coatl1 year ago
I think they were created by something, but I don't think that 'something' to be intelligent nor sentient, what makes me think that? The fact that we have discovered that process that once we thought were guided by a superior intelligence (like mutations, the rain, eclipses, etc.) are in fact completely autonomous with no intelligence guiding it, proving that naturalistic explanations are not only the simplest but the most accurate.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
0%
thinker20071 year ago
I challenge the notion that "the existence of the world in which we all exist is the best evidence of the existence of someone who created it". The existence of the world and the "order" in the world/universe does support a creative, unifying, and organizing force ... but does not really support a personal "someone" or "God" in the Christian, Judaic, or Islamic traditions.
Reply-
0%
Thinker221 year ago
> The existence of the world and the "order" in the world/universe does support a creative, unifying, and organizing force ... but does not really support a personal "someone" or "God" in the Christian, Judaic, or Islamic traditions.
I agree. The best minds of humanity tried to adjust the religious writings to the real world around us. The most extremist of them tried to do the opposite, to adjust the real world to the religious teachings.
Reply
-
-
0%
NoWayMan1 year ago
"Your own existence and the existence of the world in which we all exist is the best evidence of the existence of someone who created it."
Yep. Rama created it (according to a billion-plus people in asia). Everything we see was part of his dream. Rama then fooled around behind his wife's back and got in big trouble.
what, Rama's not the creator you were looking for?
you have proof of a different, more westernized creator?
Reply-
-
-
0%
Thinker221 year ago
I'm sorry that you did not understand what I was saying all the time in plain English.
I do not think it's my fault. I honestly tried to make it as simple as possible.
Let me put it again in just three sentences:
1. We KNOW that the Universe exist.
2. We know that it had a beginning.
3. This means that it was either CREATED or, alternatively, came into existence ALL BY ITSELF. Feel free to BELIEVE in one of these two possibilities. In either case your BELIEF can not be proven.
Reply
-
-
-
-
0%
kobzikov1 year ago
There are a number of unsupported assumptions in your claims.
"Your own existence and the existence of the world in which we all exist is the best evidence of the existence of someone who created it."
My existence and the world as it exists today are both products of multiple complex processes. I don't see any evidence that suggests one process taking precedence and having more to do with my existence as I am right now any more then a single process being responsible for state of the world around me as it it is.
I don't see any evidence for the claim that original cause, for which you are arguing, has to be external or supernatural. Which still wouldn't imbue it with any qualities of a conscious or even living being.
Reply-
0%
Thinker221 year ago
Your existence is a necessary condition for you to comprehend the existence of the Universe. The existence of the Universe, however, is NOT a "product of multiple complex processes" as all possible processes became possible AFTER the Universe came into existence. In other words, the "multiple complex processes" are a product of something that brought the Universe into existence and not vice versa.
Reply-
0%
kobzikov1 year ago
"Your existence is a necessary condition for you to comprehend the existence of the Universe."
No, duh. I thought that it was evidence for existence of original cause as you claimed above, but for some magical reason you forgot to explain how (tell me it's not because you can't) and are changing the topic now. Weird.
"In other words, the "multiple complex processes" are a product of something that brought the Universe into existence and not vice versa."
So you are saying that God created the forces that govern the known universe, right? God created weak, strong, electromagnetic, and gravitational forces, right? Got some evidence to show that's the case?
Reply-
0%
Thinker221 year ago
> I thought that it was evidence for existence of original cause as you claimed above, but for some magical reason you forgot to explain how (tell me it's not because you can't) and are changing the topic now. Weird.
It was a joke and I'm sorry that you did not understand it. Your own existence as a living creature as well as the existence of life in general is (at least to me) a proof that it (the life in general) was created. It is extremely improbable that the very first, the one and only living creature on this planet came into existence as a result of random movements of dead matter already knowing how to EAT (transform the dead matter around it into the live matter of its own body) and REPRODUCE (build other living creatures like itself using the dead matter around it).
Reply-
0%
kobzikov1 year ago
"It was a joke"
What was?
The rest of your argument is a combination of straw man, argument from ignorance, and a an implied false dichotomy.
You can attack the hypotheses of abiogenesis or alternative scientific explanations of how life came to be on the planet all you like. It doesn't make your claim that life on the planet was created any more valid.
Just like when creationists attack evolution it doesn't make their baseless claims any more valid. It's kind of ironic considering that you can't answer any questions that you'd ask from those who support abiogenesis yourself. Nor, how your claim is falsifiable in the first place.
Reply-
0%
Thinker221 year ago
> You can attack the hypotheses of abiogenesis or alternative scientific explanations of how life came to be on the planet all you like. It doesn't make your claim that life on the planet was created any more valid.
The hypothesis of Creation is no less valid than the hypothesis of abiogenesis. As of now neither has any factual proof but abiogenesis seems to be extremely improbable.
Reply
-
-
-
0%
Thinker221 year ago
> So you are saying that God created the forces that govern the known universe, right? God created weak, strong, electromagnetic, and gravitational forces, right? Got some evidence to show that's the case?
I'm saying that all these (and many other) forces and laws of nature are PART OF THIS UNIVERSE meaning that they can not and do not exist OUTSIDE it. Again, if you believe that they're NATURAL forces then you agree with me. If you think that these forces exist OUTSIDE of the Universe you'll have to state that they're SUPERNATURAL forces and in this case it will be up to you to show evidence that this is the case.
Reply-
0%
kobzikov1 year ago
"I'm saying that all these (and many other) forces and laws of nature are PART OF THIS UNIVERSE meaning that they can not and do not exist OUTSIDE it."
I agree with this statement, which is why I'm not gonna ask you to explain how it is consistent with you saying, "the "multiple complex processes" are a product of something that brought the Universe into existence".
Reply-
0%
Thinker221 year ago
> I agree with this statement, which is why I'm not gonna ask you to explain how it is consistent with you saying, "the "multiple complex processes" are a product of something that brought the Universe into existence".
You're making progress, Kobzikov. This being said it's a pleasure to answer your question. Physical forces are part of our Universe and do not exist outside our Universe. This means that they were created together with every other part of the Universe either by an outside Creator or as a spontaneous event from nothing.
Reply-
-
0%
Thinker221 year ago
As I've said the best (and most obvious) evidence to the existence of the Universe is the world around us. It's ironic that you prefer to ignore it declaring that even the Universe as a whole is not "even a slightest shred of evidence" for you. Any particular reason?
In addition, there is ample evidence that the Universe had a beginning referred to as the Big Bang, from the red shift to background radiation. It's ironic that you prefer to ignore it, too. Any particular reason?
Simple logic suggests that if the Universe exist and it had a beginning it means that it came into existence (1) WITH or (2) WITHOUT outside help. You prefer to ignore this obvious logical statement and run away. Any particular reason?
Reply-
0%
kobzikov1 year ago
"As I've said the best (and most obvious) evidence to the existence of the Universe is the world around us."
You haven't explained how existence of universe demonstrates that it was created nor provided any evidence to support the assertion. Saying that it could have been created is not evidence of creation. Nor is beginning an evidence of creation, which you can't argue because of original state of the Universe as singularity and because time itself did not exist prior to Big Bang. Saying that something caused Big Bang is a non-sequitur, causation requires time. Claim DISMISSED.
"It's ironic that you prefer to ignore it, too. Any particular reason?"
This is a lie. You have no evidence that I've ignored facts which are the basis for Big Bang theory. Claim DISMISSED.
"if the Universe exist and it had a beginning it means that it came into existence (1) WITH or (2) WITHOUT outside help."
That is not logic that is false dichotomy. Claim DISMISSED.
Reply-
0%
kobzikov1 year ago
"As I've said the best (and most obvious) evidence to the existence of the Universe is the world around us."
If that is what you said then it contributes nothing to the case of existence of Creator.
But that's not what you said. You said: "Your own existence and the existence of the world in which we all exist is the best evidence of the existence of someone who created it."
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
om36m1 year ago
Seriously, what's the point of arguing with Christian extremists like this? They don't hear us. We could have all the evidence in the world and they'd still run back to their imaginary friend.
Reply
-
-
-
0%
traveler20001 year ago
Actualy, I do know a lot of atheists who do treat others as they would like others to treat themself.
Doing good to others is actualy not a religious law, but a "natural, instinctive" law.
And doing good to others, just because you "feel" it's the right thing to do, is in my eyes moraly much higher than doing it because religion tells you if you don't you will be punnished or will not be rewarded, by "God".
And, by the way, I know many, many, many,... religious people (Christians, Jewish, Muslim) who realy DO NOT treat others as they would like to be treated, quit in the contrary, they often would, will, and do harm those who do not follow their "Credo", in the name of God and religion.
Reply-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
UncontrollableScaldingDiarrhea1 year ago
Yes. But repenting to save your can doesn't count.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
traveler20001 year ago
----Being nice to one's friend is not that same as treating others as they would want to be treated-----
Where did I speak of "being nice to friends"
I spoke of treating others as you would like others to treat U. Others means "others", friends(obviously)AND others.
So, PLEASE don't put words in my mount I didn't say...
Thank you
.... cont....
Reply -
0%
traveler20001 year ago
....cont...
-----it is a religious law that is the foundation of morality. The "natural instinct" is to succeed or to be better than others. Our are you not familiar with your own belief in Darwin's "evolution"?---
evolution is NOT about the individual, but about the "group", especially the "group's survival". And I do think the "human group" didn't do to bad (as a group, maybe not as a good carer of the world, but that's another discution...)
As for religious law's are the foundation of marality, I realy doubt that. It's rather the opposite. Religious leaders used to impose "logical natural morality" into religious laws, so to make sure all would obey them
Reply -
0%
schismatist1 year ago
AboundInGoodness, you seem to be as open minded as the victims of Saw 1,2 and 3. Think your god could get you out of that!!??
Reply -
0%
Candida1 year ago
AboundInGoodness: "Actually, it is a religious law that is the foundation of morality."
Are you saying that before the religious laws were "given" to the Israelites, they had no moral standards? What about the other nations before Moses and between Moses and Jesus? Was it a free-for-all in those nations? What about all the nations on the Earth who believe in different gods right now and don't follow the teachings of the Bible? Is it only atheists who have no morals or everybody who doesn't follow the Bible?
If you are right that religious law is the foundation of all morality then some monkeys must be familiar with it too because they exhibit some behaviors that we would call moral, for example sharing their food with a begging monkey.
Reply -
0%
jordan111 year ago
sincerely doubt this to be true. Being nice to one's friend is not that same as treating others as they would want to be treated.>>>>
You're too arrogant, which is why I don't care much for overly religious people. Far too judgmental with no evidence. Ironic, when you consider what they feign to believe in.
Reply
-
-
0%
Newenglander1 year ago
ABG, I don't think you actually know any atheists personally. I think you've read about some of them and discussed it with members of your church group. I think that perhaps you have met people that you don't like and labeled them as atheists without knowing their particular beliefs. I am an atheist and am well thought of in my community and my place of work. Every individual needs to be taken for who they are, not prejudiced against because of the color of their skin or their religious beliefs. I think your are a bigot plain and simple.
Reply -
0%
jordan111 year ago
But still, I haven't found an atheist that will treat everybody as he/she would want to be treated. Isn't this the foundation of morality?>>>>
How do you know whether good people you've known are atheists or not? Or even good people you've known 'of.' You don't.
Reply -
0%
thinker20071 year ago
Interesting moral assessment of atheists and agnostics ... especially in light of all the senseless killing that "God-fearing" people have done over the centuries in the name of GOD and Christianity. Just a reminder: The Catholic Church killed tens of thousands during the centuries of the Inquisition and the Crusades ... impressive morality. Today, that same Church takes little-to-no action in protecting children from its "Holy Men" (i.e, the priest pedophiles). I don't mean to pick on Catholicism ... religious people, worldwide, are prone to "fight" (i.e., slaughter opponents) for their beliefs.
Reply
-
-
0%
ppiittuu1 year ago
curious, what makes you think that "in most cases" people of faith, in my case a follower of Christ, do good because "[they] think the creator of the universe wants [them] to do it, will reward [them] for doing it or will punish [them] for not doing it?"
Reply
-