Atheism is a or is a product of mental illness...

[OPTIONAL777]

I agree about extremism.

But don't you see extremism on both sides of the debate?

So fact based hypocrisy is okay?

That is funny Mike...

Quote from Mike805:

Well, it is my opinion that extreme religion is the cause of many of society's ills. This may be reaching, but, the Atheist may want to reveal to the believer that the believer's belief system, when kept unchecked, leads to dysfunction and alienation.

No one wants to have a set of beliefs forced upon them, however, in certain parts of the country, theists preach that non-believers are sinners in the eyes of god. This is an insidious statement that causes rifts and sometimes hatred in communities.

They have never been successful in changing the true believer, just as the theist is never successful in changing the truth atheist believer.

Well, I can't argue that. Its a personal choice.

Many people, when their personal belief systems are challenged, get defensive and/or aggressive. Ego has a lot to do with it. I think men, in general, possess a lower EQ and do not have the ability to easily change an embedded belief system, hence, the primary response is attack first, understand later (if ever).

Why do you focus your comments on the Bible or other Christian scripture, as the eastern religions take a very different view of God and religion?

My understanding of eastern religions is not as developed, hence, I try not to talk about what I don't have firsthand experience with.

Is it reasonable to conclude that many atheists suffered some trauma because of the abuse by some religious training and/or father figure?

Maybe. I think this may be off topic though, the reasons behind which someone becomes religious or not has more to do with community/parents than anything else. I think we ought to stick to evidence versus belief system here.

Is there not an equal amount of hypocrisy in this respect by the atheist to many of the in name only Christians who ignore the teachings of the very books they hold up as true and needing to be followed?

Yes. Agreed, but there is a difference between using facts to support ones hypocrisy versus using faith.

 

[Mike805]

Quote from OPTIONAL777:

I agree about extremism.

But don't you see extremism on both sides of the debate?

So fact based hypocrisy is okay?

That is funny Mike...

Yes, I do see extremism on both sides.

Hmmm.... I don't know if fact based hypocrisy is or is not okay. I lost track of the hypocrisy argument. It seems to me that acceptance of the good ol' spaghetti monster is a bit different than accepting that when we die we just go back into the earth.... not sure what to make of those two ideas - but - going back into the earth seems a lot more plausible.

 

[OPTIONAL777]

"Yes. Agreed, but there is a difference between using facts to support ones hypocrisy versus using faith."

"Hmmm.... I don't know if fact based hypocrisy is or is not okay."

I see some inconsistency there...as you admit to both faith based and fact based hypocrisy...


Going back to the earth may seem more plausible to you, simply because it appeals to your own world view.

Since there is no fact that your world view is actually the correct world view, I contend that your plausibility is not a actually a purely reasoned one, but simply your faith. You don't believe in God, hence what follows is what you belief happens after death. The God believer starts with a belief in God, then proceeds to what happens after death.

Both are purely speculative, based on a chosen world view, a world view that cannot be objectively verified without a knowledge of the existence of God or an afterlife.

The odds are exactly the same for the belief in and afterlife or a return to the ground, because the odds are incalculable in either situation.

Stepping back, and since no one knows what happens after death, there really is no logical foundation to conclude any particular consequence after death.

To do so assumes too many facts not in evidence.

Quote from Mike805:

Yes, I do see extremism on both sides.

Hmmm.... I don't know if fact based hypocrisy is or is not okay. I lost track of the hypocrisy argument. It seems to me that acceptance of the good ol' spaghetti monster is a bit different than accepting that when we die we just go back into the earth.... not sure what to make of those two ideas - but - going back into the earth seems a lot more plausible.

 

[killthesunshine]

Quote from OPTIONAL777:

Why do the atheists spend so much time trying to make the theist wrong?



Is it reasonable to conclude that many atheists suffered some trauma because of the abuse by some religious training and/or father figure?

No, it's the other way around. The adult Theist is either making up for lack of approval in childhood, or they're following in lockstep their immediate authority figures.

It's the ATHEIST that's the original BOLD, FEARLESS thinker

 

[OPTIONAL777]

"It's the ATHEIST that's the original BOLD, FEARLESS thinker..."

Thanks for providing more evidence to my theory for the mental illness of the atheist...

You do make this so easy...

Quote from killthesunshine:

No, it's the other way around. The Theist is either making up for lack of approval in childhood, or they're following in lockstep their immediate authority figures.

It's the ATHEIST that's the original BOLD, FEARLESS thinker

 

[Mike805]

Quote from OPTIONAL777:

"Yes. Agreed, but there is a difference between using facts to support ones hypocrisy versus using faith."

"Hmmm.... I don't know if fact based hypocrisy is or is not okay."

I see some inconsistency there...as you admit to both faith based and fact based hypocrisy...


Going back to the earth may seem more plausible to you, simply because it appeals to your own world view.

Since there is no fact that your world view is actually the correct world view, I contend that your plausibility is not a actually a purely reasoned one, but simply your faith. You don't believe in God, hence what follows is what you belief happens after death. The God believer starts with a belief in God, then proceeds to what happens after death.

Both are purely speculative, based on a chosen world view, a world view that cannot be objectively verified without a knowledge of the existence of God or an afterlife.

The odds are exactly the same for the belief in and afterlife or a return to the ground, because the odds are incalculable in either situation.

Stepping back, and since no one knows what happens after death, there really is no logical foundation to conclude any particular consequence after death.

To do so assumes too many facts not in evidence.

While I agree with you that all ideas about afterlife are speculative, think about this: scientifically, your remains after death literally decompose back into the earth. That's not speculation, that's fact. To say that soul has a meaning is a different set of philosophical arguments, no one of which disprove that we decompose just like all living things (plant and animal alike).

 

[Thunderdog]

Quote from OPTIONAL777:

...The odds are exactly the same for the belief in and afterlife or a return to the ground, because the odds are incalculable in either situation.

Stepping back, and since no one knows what happens after death, there really is no logical foundation to conclude any particular consequence after death.

To do so assumes too many facts not in evidence.

The odds are exactly the same? Bullshit. Uncertainty does not confer equiprobability. If we observe someone who steps into another room and closes the door behind him for 2 minutes before opening the door again and returning, we could each develop a different hypothesis:

- You could suppose that during those 2 minutes, the person in question became a hideous green monster of gargantuan proportion (the room has high ceilings), and then returned to normal human form and forgot all about what happened just before opening the door.

- I could suppose that during the 2 minutes that we did not see the person in question while the door was closed behind him, that nothing of the sort had occurred.

Neither of us can "know" with absolutely certainty what happened during the period that the person was not visible to us. Does that mean that the "odds" of your scenario is just as good as mine simply because they are technically incalculable?

 

[killthesunshine]

Quote from OPTIONAL777:

"It's the ATHEIST that's the original BOLD, FEARLESS thinker..."

Thanks for providing more evidence to my theory for the mental illness of the atheist...

You do make this so easy...

What are you scared of? That you'll be non-existent in another mere 20 or 30 yrs? That you squandered your time better spent now you've wised up and looking into the abyss?

Face it like a man. Like the intelligent objective atheist human being. there is no afterlife paradise. there isn't even a hell. there is nothing

... n-o-t-h-i-n-g :eek:

this is all there is and ever will be

 

[OPTIONAL777]

Yes, the physical returns to the physical.

And you are saying that man is 100% physical?

Tell me, what is the physical property of a human thought?

No, no the electrical impulses of the brain, but the thought itself which is not the physical impulses of the brain any more than a CD itself is the music that comes from playing the CD.

What is the atomic weight of a thought?

What is the size of a human concept? Which human sense is implemented in experiencing thoughts, ideas, concepts, etc?

Sight, hearing, touch, smell and taste allow us to experience the outer world, but what we experience inside is not via the physical senses.

Yes we have a physical body, but is it logically possible that we have a mental body, or an astral body, or some other subtle body that does continue after the physical body is gone?

Why is it know that human consciousness is a product of the brain and not a non physical mind.

Radio waves are physical which are then played through a radio produce music, but the radio itself is not the source of the radio waves.

It is not known that electrical impulses in the brain, chemical reactions actually produce thoughts, or if they are only a means to be receptive to thoughts which are not the product of the product of gross physical processes which allow for receptivity of thought.

No, there is plenty of unsolved mystery about human existence and the human mind, which means that scientists must not come to conclusions as factual where fact cannot be determined.

Quote from Mike805:

While I agree with you that all ideas about afterlife are speculative, think about this: scientifically, your remains after death literally decompose back into the earth. That's not speculation, that's fact. To say that soul has a meaning is a different set of philosophical arguments, no one of which disprove that we decompose just like all living things (plant and animal alike).

 

[killthesunshine]

"My own view on religion is that of Lucretius. I regard it as a disease born of fear and as a source of untold misery to the human race. I cannot, however, deny that it has made some contributions to civilization. It helped in early days to fix the calendar, and it caused Egyptian priests to chronicle eclipses with such care that in time they became able to predict them. These two services I am prepared to acknowledge, but I do not know of any others."
(Bertrand Russell / 1872-1970 / Has Religion Made Useful Contributions to Civilization? / 1930)