Is God still in the lives of atheists even though they have rejected Him?

[Traveler]

19 hours ago, Godless said:

A mind unencumbered by intangible beliefs in supernatural forces is a mind that can do great things to advance our materialistic understanding of the world we live in. That's not to say that theists can't/don't make or haven't made important scientific discoveries to increase our understanding of the universe and enhance our worldview, but the fact is that religion has historically been one of the greatest roadblocks to scientific progress. In that sense, atheism holds plenty of potential for impact in the great scheme of things, whereas theism can only remain objective in the realm of science so long as it doesn't clash with dogma.

 

 

My life matters to the people who I am fortunate enough to call loved ones. Where questions of meaning and mortal significance are concerned, you and I have a very different sense of scale, but that doesn't mean that I can't find meaning and/or purpose in my existence. Will the things I do in this life have a lasting impact after I'm gone? Probably not, but wishing for a greater meaning outside of mortality and actually having it are two very different things. And FWIW, I don't wish for any kind of ultimate post-mortal fulfillment. I came to peace with my mortality years ago. 

 

 

That's sounding dangerously close to Pascal's Wager. The great paradox of religious ideology is the idea that you believe or you burn, but without any assurance (outside of the very subjective confines of faith) that you're following the right ideology. Is it really so much of a blunder then to distrust all of those ideologies equally?

 

 

You are missing and corrupting your own point – and that is the point I am trying to point out.  The term you used “supernatural” refers to things that are projected beyond the natural course of things.  In reality things like love, compassion, kindness, liberty, justice and even individuality are all subsets of what you are calling supernatural and mind encumbering.  I am just pointing out that by rejecting G-d as unnatural you in reality rejecting all the unnatural aspects of humanity as well.

Your hope of meaning is as unnatural as your references to supernatural – which also carries an unnatural mooring of thought that will eventually become meaningless by your own instance of natural and unnatural supernatural.  The idea that any belief in something that is not naturally evolving and will continue as part of what evolves is encumbering - is itself encumbering.  That is exactly the point.

It is the minds pursuit of the unnatural in the arts and harts of man that separate our intelligence from the brut beasts that become extinct leaving only their fossils.   It is the unnatural that allows man to leave something else as a legacy of existence including such things as mathematics.   Your mind is not unencumbered but it is limited – not just with the paradox of conflicting unnatural possibilities that you think is a relationship with friends but it is limited with your paradigm of mortal space time and that a difference actual difference in the natural course of things is or even may be possible.  G-d as the example and definition of the unnatural is the only possibility of even unencumbered thought that you are anyone else can think beyond what is thought or believed to be the natural end of death and nothing else.  But to even think of such a possibility or consider to think is the unencumbering possibility of something not natural.

 

The Traveler

Edited January 10, 2017 by Traveler

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Traveler said:

It is the minds pursuit of the unnatural in the arts and harts of man that separate our intelligence from the brut beasts that become extinct leaving only their fossils.   

Only if you're a hunter. 

[zil]

39 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Only if you're a hunter. 

OK, but would a hunter really want to pursue an unnatural hart?

In unrelated news, I have a character named Hart.  His story has never been recorded outside my own brain, though.  Maybe one day, if he insists.

[Windseeker]

I read this today and thought it had allot to do with this topic. 

I'd highly recommend it. 

http://happiness-seekers.com/2017/01/02/the-alarming-truth-behind-anti-mormonism/

Specifically: 

Quote

No, crises of faith aren’t a Mormon problem. They’re a Humankind problem, a civilizational problem. Faith itself is weakening in Western society.

 

Perhaps we have learned so much through science that we feel silly relying on beliefs that we can’t confirm scientifically. Perhaps with all the temptations that abound, it’s just easier not having to worry about a God who will hold us accountable for our choices. Perhaps it is something else.

 

But what I do know is that before He died, Christ told a parable about relying on God versus relying on man. Luke writes that the purpose of this parable is to remind us to “pray always and not faint.” And after telling the parable, Christ asks, perhaps with sadness in his voice: “When the Son of Man cometh, will he find faith on the Earth?”

 

Maybe we’re starting to witness what Christ was concerned about when he posed that question.

So, why might the Adversary lay the foundation for plunging Western society into Atheism?  The reason goes deeper than you may have ever expected.

 

Now that we understand the central role that Atheism is playing in the crises of faith for both Mormons and other Christians, it’s time to understand the profound implications.

 

3.  Post-Modern Atheism Is Paving the Way for a New and Destructive Moral Order

To be clear, people who become Atheists don’t suddenly become moral monsters. Their moral views shift, but they probably have more in common with the moral beliefs of their religious friends than they have in contrast.

 

However, one of the problems with the rise of Atheism is that it comes with delayed consequences. Like the frog in the pot of water who doesn’t jump out because the heat only gradually rises, most Atheists are unaware of where their belief system will lead society.

 

The reason for this is simply that most Atheists have had a religious upbringing and live in an environment that has been deeply influenced by Christianity. It is one thing to reject revealed religion, and another to abandon mindsets, attitudes, and values which you don’t even realize have been socialized into you since birth. Thus, many Atheists don’t realize that while they have rejected God, everything about the way they see the world is still deeply influenced by religion.

 

For now, many Atheists can look around and say “we are freed from the foolish traditions of our fathers” and feel content that nothing drastic has changed in the process. But in the long-run, much will change in a society driven by Atheism.

Fortunately, following the logic of Atheism to its natural conclusions is far from an impossible task.

 

For 150 years, pioneering Atheist thinkers, philosophers, and intellectuals have been describing the moral order that naturally emerges from post-modern Atheism. While many schools of thought exist within philosophy, a consensus is converging on the rejection of truth that cannot be scientifically confirmed or assessed (which as we will see has transformational consequences).

 

This is what we know:

For thousands of years, morality has been based on beliefs about human purpose, the immortality of the soul, and other transcendent truths—all beliefs that are religious in nature, as they cannot be scientifically evaluated. However, post-modern Atheism rejects all of these notions, in the long-term, for the same reason that it rejects religion—they cannot be studied or confirmed by scientific inquiry.

 

Instead, Atheism replaces the foundations of morality with what can be seen, heard, touched, or otherwise measured. Since this eliminates notions of God and the interplay between good and evil, we can stop looking outward to ask, “what do God’s laws or the Universe’s laws require of us?” And instead, we can begin looking inward and ask more fully than ever before, “wait, what do I want?”

 

Rather than morality being driven by belief in standards of right and wrong, good and evil, and other such dualisms, morality will eventually be driven solely by human desires, cravings, and impulses—as these are actually palpable. Simply put, society will be governed completely by what individuals think they want and need—as opposed to a sense of duty and obligation to some higher truth about good and evil or directives from Heaven.

 

To understand what all this means, we must identify the principal need that drives human sociality. The answer, according to the great thinkers of the ages is this: respect. More than anything else, people crave respect. They may want sex, but sex from someone who thinks nothing of you is unsatisfying. They may desire love, but to be loved by someone who doesn’t see you as an equal is demeaning. They may crave empathy, but without respect, there is no real empathy.

 

The reason that status, wealth, and power all matter so much to so many people is because they gain you the respect of others.

This desire for respect is the same reason that studies have shown that people would rather take a low salary if it is higher than most of their peers rather than accept a high salary that is lower than their peers. They would rather struggle financially than be the low man on the social totem pole. They value respect over even money.

 

And why did Cain commit the first murder? Because Cain couldn’t stand that God “had respect unto Abel and to his offering. But unto Cain and to his offering [God] had not respect.”

 

This powerful desire for respect is held in check by a belief in God, but it is unleashed once the last vestiges of religious influence are eliminated from society.

 

To understand what I mean by this, consider the recent campaign to legalize same-sex marriage. Proponents of same-sex marriage loudly proclaimed that “love wins.” But this was never about love. Same-sex couples already had the right to love whomever they wanted. They could have been content with anti-discrimination laws or civil unions, but it wasn’t enough. No, what they really wanted was for their union to be just as respected as anyone else’s. Marriage was an honor afforded only to heterosexual couples and same-sex couples were going to feel slighted until that changed.

 

You see, when people begin rejecting moral codes (because they are based on transcendent truths), they shift from feeling ashamed about falling short of moral standards and become angry that anyone would condemn their actions in the first place. They begin to feel indignant that any person or institution in society would dare to say that one choice, one lifestyle, or one belief has greater moral merit than another.

 

The consequence is that society begins to gravitate around radical equality. That is, people will fight and fight until society cannot and will not recognize that any choice is better than another, that any lifestyle, belief, or action has more moral merit than another.

(Of course, equality is an important social value, but Christian equality looks very different from Atheistic equality for reasons listed here.)

 

Many post-modern Atheist philosophers, following the logic of Atheism, say that all differences, such as gender and family hierarchy must be eliminated in the process. They claim that once the forces of radical equality are unleashed upon the old system of traditional morality and institutions, our world will be transformed into something that even they cannot fully conceive.

What is clear, is that every time society allows one choice, one lifestyle, one belief to be honored above another, someone must feel dishonored. And nothing creates more anger and unrest than to be dishonored, to be respected less than your peers. And so, an Atheist society will continue to struggle and struggle under the banner of equality until the world cannot tell a moral difference between two choices.

 

[Guest Godless]

2 hours ago, Traveler said:

 

You are missing and corrupting your own point – and that is the point I am trying to point out.  The term you used “supernatural” refers to things that are projected beyond the natural course of things.  In reality things like love, compassion, kindness, liberty, justice and even individuality are all subsets of what you are calling supernatural and mind encumbering.  I am just pointing out that by rejecting G-d as unnatural you in reality rejecting all the unnatural aspects of humanity as well.

 

Our intellect is the result of millions of years of evolution. It is our greatest tool for survival as a species. With that intellect came self-awareness and a broad range of human emotions. Given that early humans survived better in groups, it could be argued that our emotions -the things that make us human- are also a survival mechanism. Our ability to coexist with other intelligent, self-aware beings was essential to the survival of our species, and that would have been difficult if we had only our intellect and not our more abstract "human" traits. With that in mind, I don't think the intellectual and emotional traits of homo sapiens are unnatural at all.

It is the minds pursuit of the unnatural in the arts and harts of man that separate our intelligence from the brut beasts that become extinct leaving only their fossils.   It is the unnatural that allows man to leave something else as a legacy of existence including such things as mathematics.  

 

Again, our natural evolutionary progress is what led us to the intellectual capacity to follow the pursuits of things like art and mathematics. It is an advanced version of the intellect that drove us to hunt with tools (and create crude artwork depicting ourselves doing it) and cook with fire tens of thousands of years ago. 

Your mind is not unencumbered but it is limited – not just with the paradox of conflicting unnatural possibilities that you think is a relationship with friends but it is limited with your paradigm of mortal space time and that a difference actual difference in the natural course of things is or even may be possible.  G-d as the example and definition of the unnatural is the only possibility of even unencumbered thought that you are anyone else can think beyond what is thought or believed to be the natural end of death and nothing else.  But to even think of such a possibility or consider to think is the unencumbering possibility of something not natural.

 You'd be hard-pressed to find a scientist, atheist or otherwise, who claims to have a complete understanding of our universe. The discoveries we've made just in the last 100 years alone are astounding, but we still don't know everything about the nature of our world. We may never have the complete picture, but I don't see that as a reason to fill in the blanks with unnatural ideas that can't be tested or observed, or even theoretically defined outside of the highly contentious parameters of scriptural record.

[Rob Osborn]

12 minutes ago, Godless said:

 

Our intellect is the result of millions of years of evolution. It is our greatest tool for survival as a species. With that intellect came self-awareness and a broad range of human emotions. Given that early humans survived better in groups, it could be argued that our emotions -the things that make us human- are also a survival mechanism. Our ability to coexist with other intelligent, self-aware beings was essential to the survival of our species, and that would have been difficult if we had only our intellect and not our more abstract "human" traits. With that in mind, I don't think the intellectual and emotional traits of homo sapiens are unnatural at all.

 

 

Again, our natural evolutionary progress is what led us to the intellectual capacity to follow the pursuits of things like art and mathematics. It is an advanced version of the intellect that drove us to hunt with tools (and create crude artwork depicting ourselves doing it) and cook with fire tens of thousands of years ago. 

 

 

 You'd be hard-pressed to find a scientist, atheist or otherwise, who claims to have a complete understanding of our universe. The discoveries we've made just in the last 100 years alone are astounding, but we still don't know everything about the nature of our world. We may never have the complete picture, but I don't see that as a reason to fill in the blanks with unnatural ideas that can't be tested or observed, or even theoretically defined outside of the highly contentious parameters of scriptural record.

Millions of years of Evolution? Talk about something that cant be observed or tested...

[Guest Godless]

1 minute ago, Rob Osborn said:

Millions of years of Evolution? Talk about something that cant be observed or tested...

And yet the very Earth we inhabit is littered with evidence of its occurrence. 

[Rob Osborn]

9 minutes ago, Godless said:

And yet the very Earth we inhabit is littered with evidence of its occurrence. 

Hum...all I see is evidence of the biblical flood from Noahs day and the great upthrust of those sedimentary layers strewn with fossils of all the dead things.

[Guest MormonGator]

13 minutes ago, Godless said:

And yet the very Earth we inhabit is littered with evidence of its occurrence. 

Yup. It's all over the place. Those pesky fossils. Evolution happens, and it doesn't really matter if you accept it or not. It's like saying the world is flat. Your opinion doesn't matter, because it's round. 

And yes, you can still believe in evolution and go to church. It's not that hard. I accept evolution and the book of Mormon. 

Edited January 10, 2017 by MormonGator

[Rob Osborn]

Hum...who am I gonna stand with- Bill Nye the science guy, or Moses? I will stand with Moses.

[Rob Osborn]

https://arkencounter.com

[Traveler]

1 hour ago, Godless said:

Our intellect is the result of millions of years of evolution. It is our greatest tool for survival as a species. With that intellect came self-awareness and a broad range of human emotions. Given that early humans survived better in groups, it could be argued that our emotions -the things that make us human- are also a survival mechanism. Our ability to coexist with other intelligent, self-aware beings was essential to the survival of our species, and that would have been difficult if we had only our intellect and not our more abstract "human" traits. With that in mind, I don't think the intellectual and emotional traits of homo sapiens are unnatural at all.

 

Actually we have been evolving for billions of years and the very fact of evolution implies that what we currently think of as a human species will no longer exist in a few hundred thousand years in the future.  Something likely will have evolved from us but this current human pecies likely will no longer exist in the same manner we are today.  It does not matter if someone is religious or scientific – the human species as we now understand it will eventually fade into something else and disappear.  

The elements that define us will continue to exist in some form – the question is what becomes of our intelligence.  Or if you will the ghost in the machine.

 

Quote

Again, our natural evolutionary progress is what led us to the intellectual capacity to follow the pursuits of things like art and mathematics. It is an advanced version of the intellect that drove us to hunt with tools (and create crude artwork depicting ourselves doing it) and cook with fire tens of thousands of years ago. 

 

You and I keep talking about intelligence - we talk in terms of evolution - but there is no way to determine intelligence by size and weight.  The only way to detect or think we detect intelligence is indirectly by how intelligence changes the "natural" course of events.  This is because we define and measure intelligence by such intelligence being able or capable of choice. 

 

Quote

 

 

 You'd be hard-pressed to find a scientist, atheist or otherwise, who claims to have a complete understanding of our universe. The discoveries we've made just in the last 100 years alone are astounding, but we still don't know everything about the nature of our world. We may never have the complete picture, but I don't see that as a reason to fill in the blanks with unnatural ideas that can't be tested or observed, or even theoretically defined outside of the highly contentious parameters of scriptural record.

The reality is that we have not discovered anything that did not already exist.  What did not exist 100 years ago is a scientist or any other human with intelligence to realize what was not realized at that time.  And just in the last fifty years we have come to realize that with all our science, math, and physics we now know that we only know at best 5% of your universe – the other 95% exist in the same rational you call supernatural. 

What we now know would have been considered supernatural just 100 years ago.  I just do not know why you insist to limit not just your intelligence but the intelligence of all humans .– forever.  Or as the author or 20i01 a Space Odyssey said in essence that any significantly advanced technology is indistinguishable from the supernatural.  Thus what you say makes no sense to me and I do not understand why you think it intelligent to reject what is called supernatural. 

Is it an unencumbered scientific mind that thinks that dimensions other than our dimensional space time is possible?  How is that any different than a supernatural G-d as you term and define G-d???

What I purport is that without the possibility of G-d thinkers are stuck forever unable to evolve or think of what evolution could become.  As soon as you imagine advance technology you are into the realm of the supernatural and the idea that something more technologically advance than us is not just possible but probable.   And as soon as you take that step then we must consider a step after that and so on – the concept of G-d is nothing less that admitting that the steps of intelligence can continue.  To disprove the possibility of G-d you must prove that the steps will eventually end – and that you have not done or even come close to that.  Yet you seem to admit that the steps, even after billions of years are currently continuing to take place.  What are we becoming if the steps continue?

So where does you unencumbered mind realize where you are going???  What is possible?  A world with life as engineered by some advanced intelligence?

 

The Traveler

 

BTW - I love being LDS and the liberty to think outside the status quo box.

[Rob Osborn]

Intelligence is an enigma to science. There is no evidence for it evolving. It exists for us to observe but from whence it came and how it works, no man knows.

[Guest Godless]

1 hour ago, Traveler said:

The reality is that we have not discovered anything that did not already exist. 

Agreed. 

Quote

What did not exist 100 years ago is a scientist or any other human with intelligence to realize what was not realized at that time.  And just in the last fifty years we have come to realize that with all our science, math, and physics we now know that we only know at best 5% of your universe – the other 95% exist in the same rational you call supernatural.

Again, absolutely true. Though what you call "supernatural", I simply call "unknown". Any time a new discovery is made, it enhances the known and diminishes the unknown. If the unknown falls under what you call "supernatural", that could potentially cause problems for the theist. 

Quote

What we now know would have been considered supernatural just 100 years ago. 

That's exactly the point I've been trying to make. This is exactly why religion stands on shaky ground any time it attempts to enter the realm of science. 

Quote

I just do not know why you insist to limit not just your intelligence but the intelligence of all humans .– forever.  Or as the author or 20i01 a Space Odyssey said in essence that any significantly advanced technology is indistinguishable from the supernatural.  Thus what you say makes no sense to me and I do not understand why you think it intelligent to reject what is called supernatural.

Again, I don't view the unknown as supernatural. By definition, if it can be observed, it is part of the natural realm. The fact that we may not understand what we are seeing is irrelevant. Chances are that there will eventually come a time when our understanding is enhanced through the scientific method and the unknown will become gradually more understood.

Quote

Is it an unencumbered scientific mind that thinks that dimensions other than our dimensional space time is possible?  How is that any different than a supernatural G-d as you term and define G-d???

What I purport is that without the possibility of G-d thinkers are stuck forever unable to evolve or think of what evolution could become.  As soon as you imagine advance technology you are into the realm of the supernatural and the idea that something more technologically advance than us is not just possible but probable.   And as soon as you take that step then we must consider a step after that and so on – the concept of G-d is nothing less that admitting that the steps of intelligence can continue.  To disprove the possibility of G-d you must prove that the steps will eventually end – and that you have not done or even come close to that.  Yet you seem to admit that the steps, even after billions of years are currently continuing to take place.  What are we becoming if the steps continue?

So where does you unencumbered mind realize where you are going???  What is possible?  A world with life as engineered by some advanced intelligence?

The Traveler

I have no idea where human evolution will take us, and I'm okay with that. I don't need every detail of my existence explained instantaneously. And yes, I acknowledge and accept that the advancement of human intelligence has real biological limits. I can't say whether we've reached the threshold or not. Only time, measured in thousands of years, will tell. That's a question for a very different world. 

 

Quote

BTW - I love being LDS and the liberty to think outside the status quo box.

I'd imagine Galileo very much enjoyed being Catholic. It must have been very hard for him to be accused of heresy for expressing well-researched ideas with empirical data to back him up. 

Edited January 10, 2017 by Godless

[Guest MormonGator]

1 hour ago, Traveler said:

 

BTW - I love being LDS and the liberty to think outside the status quo box.

Amen bud. 

[Guest Godless]

22 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Specifically, the religions that have hampered scientific progress are the ones who have exercised statist powers against scientific discovery.  Those religions who stay within the realm of religion or have a healthy respect for both arms of truth have had a tremendous impact on scientific discovery.

Agreed. 

22 hours ago, Carborendum said:

It is interesting to note that the Catholic Church (often cited as the cause of the dark ages) both helped and hampered scientific discovery.  They not only tried people for heresy based on some scientific discoveries, they also funded many universities and paid friars and monks to advance many scientific discoveries which were published throughout the world.  The church was a the leading sponsor for scientific research throughout the world.  And despite trials -- I've never heard of anyone being burned at the stake for claiming some scientific discovery.

The relationship between faith and science has certainly been an interesting one. I won't deny the impact that theists have had in the advancement of scientific discovery, nor that the institutions themselves have at times made themselves an ally to such efforts. But at the same time, there were periods of time when dogma dictated which scientific theories were acceptable and which were not (see my reference to Galileo above). Even today, there are religious forces at work in various levels of local/state governments to suppress evolutionary theory, arguably the most important scientific concept in modern-day biology. 

22 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Isaac Newton formulated his three laws and Universal Gravitation based on the belief that a God of order created a universe of order with immutable laws.  Therefore, there must be laws of what we now call "science" which are now termed "physical laws".  This is not simply a theist who came up with a scientific discovery.  It is a scientific discovery born directly out of a religious belief.

Religious compatibility with science demands the assumption that all natural laws, even those that may contradict literal interpretations of scripture, were created by God. Without that premise, the theist worldview is doomed to suffer an existential crisis from time to time. I have never claimed that religion and science are completely incompatible. I believe, as Newton did (and probably Galileo too), that the two can coexist, provided that observable evidence of natural laws aren't hampered by dogma.

22 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Before that, we had some geometry that was developed with the religious influence on architecture.

Even the golden age of Islam resulted from the spread of Islam throughout the Middle east.  From the social order that Islam provided, centuries of scientific development was realized in that region of the world.  While they had statist powers, they did not use those powers to hamper scientific development, but rather provide for it.

Confucianism promoted just as many advances in the Far East during its heyday in history.

To deny such influence of the proper marriage between science and religion is to deny centuries of history in favor of a few decades and a few instances where they have clashed.

It is only in recent centuries that scientific discovery has found itself at great odds with religious teachings. I didn't mean to downplay the role of the religious prior to that, and I apologize if it seemed that way. To be fair though, atheism was practically non-existent in the times that some of the earliest discoveries were being made. So by default, the foundations of many of our scientific concepts were born of theists (and yes, Muslims in particular made some tremendous contributions to our modern understanding of the world). And when the clashes of ideology started happening, those who found themselves victims of Inquisition were primarily theists themselves. 

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, Godless said:

I have never claimed that religion and science are completely incompatible. I believe, as Newton did (and probably Galileo too), that the two can coexist, provided that observable evidence of natural laws aren't hampered by dogma.

It is only in recent centuries that scientific discovery has found itself at great odds with religious teachings. I didn't mean to downplay the role of the religious prior to that, and I apologize if it seemed that way. To be fair though, atheism was practically non-existent in the times that some of the earliest discoveries were being made. So by default, the foundations of many of our scientific concepts were born of theists (and yes, Muslims in particular made some tremendous contributions to our modern understanding of the world). And when the clashes of ideology started happening, those who found themselves victims of Inquisition were primarily theists themselves. 

What I'm getting from what you're saying (even if you did not mean to say it) is that the problems are largely those willing to "decide" what is truth vs. what we "discover" what is truth.  And I'd agree with that sentiment.

But such an issue is true in scientific, religious, and secular circles.  Notice that I separated secular from science.  I believe there is truth that we discover through scientific method, through revelation, and through philosophy.  Where the three are compatible, we may believe we have more certainty.  But I've experienced things that would challenge that notion.  

The fact is that the conflict is not about science vs religion.  It is the very human (theist or atheist or agnostic) tendency to believe that "I know that I'm right and you're wrong."  Theists don't have a monopoly on this mentality.  Atheists can be the greatest stubborn bullies you've ever known (present company excepted, or course).  In the past, as you say, there weren't many atheists.  True.  But that also means that the "bullying" for lack of a better word by theists was not because theism promotes it, but because those happened to be the ones in power.

Today we see more atheists in power and they are being just as much a bully as they were back then regarding what is truth.  It could be argued that you're doing it in a more "enlightened" way because you're not actually killing anyone.  But like I said, I don't know of anyone that was.  But they were persecuted and their reputations besmirched.  And that is just what is going on right now -- especially with things like global warming.

[Anddenex]

4 hours ago, MormonGator said:

Yup. It's all over the place. Those pesky fossils.

Not to be difficult, fossils are not evidence of evolution. They are only evidence that a creature existed, not its parentage.

[wenglund]

On 1/9/2017 at 0:10 AM, Godless said:

No. Atheism is the lack of belief in a god(s). That's it. By definition, it doesn't come with any political baggage. Heck, it actually comes with a lot less religious baggage (again, by definition) than many people realize. 

I thought the context made it clear that I was using the word "god," and by implication the word "religion," figuratively rather than literally. Evidently, I was mistaken.

Now that I have clarified the figurative nature of my question, would you mind responding accordingly.

This is what prompted my questionL It is a video from a former Christian and current atheist: 

 

[wenglund]

Here is something more recent from the same atheist: 

 

[Guest Godless]

7 hours ago, wenglund said:

I thought the context made it clear that I was using the word "god," and by implication the word "religion," figuratively rather than literally. Evidently, I was mistaken.

No, I understood perfectly what you meant. And my response reflected that.

Quote

Now that I have clarified the figurative nature of my question, would you mind responding accordingly.

This is what prompted my questionL It is a video from a former Christian and current atheist: 

 

A self-hating atheist? That's a new one. I've seen the first video before. Dude says a lot about "the State" and the evils of it, makes a claim that atheists are slaves to this evil State, but fails to make a connection in a religious sense (even figuratively so). One of the big problems with his approach is that he fails to identify why atheists tend towards leftism, which in reality has a lot less to do with big government and nearly everything to do with secular social values. The moral/social values of liberalism/socialism/Democrats align far more closely to atheism than conservatism/Republicans. The latter is responsible for policies that suppress womens' health programs, marginalize anyone who doesn't identify as a heterosexual in the traditional sense, and promote religious teachings in the science classroom. If you want to know why we lean left, there it is. It's not about creating a nanny state in which people suck helplessly at the teet of big government (though the assumption that government assistance programs are evil by default is ludicrous). And it's certainly not about running around with guns to ensure compliance (seriously, has this guy ever even met a liberal?). 

I want to go back and focus on the section in bold for a minute. The issues I brought up in that statement are all issues that, at one time or another, have been left in the hands of big daddy government. And it wasn't liberals who were responsible for that. Conservatives want a smaller government, but they just can't help sticking their noses (via their "small" government) where they don't belong, like the the bedroom, the classroom, and womens' bodies. Hypocritical much?

Ultimately, you're going to find passionate people wherever you go on the political spectrum, and it has nothing to do with relgion (figuratively or literally). Conservative Christians are often just as politically outspoken as godless liberals (or, you know, the millions of liberals who are theists). If you're going to say that issues of government and politics are a (figuratively) religious concern for atheists, I think a strong case could me made for religious conservatives as well. Heck, I think some conservatives are more devoted to their political views than they are to their religious values. If this weren't the case, I think social issues would be far less contentious in this country.

I didn't watch the second video, only skipped around a bit. That dude is hard enough to follow without the tiresome radio show format. One thing I caught that I want to address real quick though was his claim that liberals (implying atheists) are hypocrites when it comes to religion, that we embrace Islam and vilify Christianity. While there is some truth to that, I want to make it clear that we don't so much embrace Islam as we do Muslims. And yes, that is a very important distinction. To reverse a common catchphrase, "Hate the game, not the player." If you browse through atheist discussion boards or Facebook groups, I think you'll find plenty of vilification towards Islam as a religion. One of the more popular images in those circles is a picture of the Twin Towers with a caption that reads "Imagine No Religion". I find that Christian liberals are typically more embracing of religions in addition to the people who follow them (religious equivalent of white guilt, I suppose), whereas atheists will demonize religions while (usually) being careful to not extend their spite towards the religious people, especially the majority who practice their faith peacefully. 

Edited January 12, 2017 by Godless

[Guest Godless]

On 1/10/2017 at 6:31 PM, Anddenex said:

Not to be difficult, fossils are not evidence of evolution. They are only evidence that a creature existed, not its parentage.

True, which is why context is everything. Where were the fossils found? What other fossils were found there from the same time period? What fossils were found in the same place but from a different time period? What do the physical features presented by the fossils tell us about the environment in which the creature lived? And so on.

Edited January 12, 2017 by Godless

[Guest]

4 hours ago, Godless said:

Dude says a lot about "the State" and the evils of it, makes a claim that atheists are slaves to this evil State, but fails to make a connection in a religious sense (even figuratively so). One of the big problems with his approach is that he fails to identify why atheists tend towards lefism, which in reality has a lot less to do with big government and nearly everything to do with secular social values.

Whether he makes the connection or not, or what it is "about" wasn't his point.  His point was the hypocrisy of liberal atheists who say it's fine to vote for the sword of government to enforce ones own ideas, but it's wrong for a man to stand up and "say" religious things that you disagree with.

If you're not one who says it's wrong for someone to say things, that's great.  But when you vote for government to enforce your ideals at gun point, you're doing exactly that.  

If it's not about the nanny state, why do you vote for it and defend it in discussion after discussion?

If it's about social issues, I'd ask which is worse, to sue people and put them out of business, to put them in jail, and even physically brutalize them for disagreeing (which is exactly what the left has done time and time again) or to simply "marginalize" (your word) those considered different?  When you put someone in jail, they have no more options.  When you marginalize someone, they still have options.  Which is more of a liberty mindset?

I don't think anyone said government programs are evil by default.  No one on this site thinks that.  Even the guy in the video doesn't think that.  What's evil is when you use the arm of government in such a way that it allows you to enforce your will on someone to the point that they have no way out but to go against their own conscience to serve your wants.  And the left does that FAR MORE than the right ever does.  You can cry about social issues all you want.  But it is an absolute fact that the left is where the abundance of frivolous lawsuits come from because someone's feelings were hurt or because we refused to call a man a woman or a woman a man just because they claimed it.  People have been put out of business.  But the worst you can say about the religious is that they wanted some measures to keep people from having more abortions.  

Do you not see the parallels to bowing down to the altar of planned parenthood and paying them to perform human sacrifice?  And when the mother can't afford to they take money from government who in turn took that money from others who would not support it of their own free will?

My point is not to go down the abortion rabbit hole.  My point is that your argument about "social issues" is far weaker than the argument the guy in the video makes (and I make) about forcing others to do your will.  Both sides do it.  But the left does it far more and for more whimsical reasons than the right does.

[Anddenex]

5 minutes ago, Godless said:

True, which is why context is everything. Where were the fossils found? What other fossils were found there from the same time period? What fossils were found in the same place but from a different time period? What do the physical features presented by the fossils tell us about the environment in which the creature lived? And so on.

Great questions, still not evidence of evolution though.

[Vort]

7 hours ago, Godless said:

The moral/social values of liberalism/socialism/Democrats align far more closely to atheism than conservatism/Republicans. The latter is responsible for policies that suppress womens' health programs, marginalize anyone who doesn't identify as a heterosexual in the traditional sense, and promote religious teachings in the science classroom.

The former is responsible for policies that murder prenatal infants, marginalize anyone who doesn't agree to promote their sociopolitical agenda, and promote anti-religion as "science". I'd say that pretty much trumps your list in every detail.