Is Atheism Unscientific?

[Saquist]

says the person who couldn't refute a single thing i've said...

Wizard, I would have if you had said something, but you didn't say anything. You threw a tantrum.

 

[wizard]

Wizard, I would have if you had said something, but you didn't say anything. You threw a tantrum.

translation: i don't like admitting i'm wrong so i'm going to avoid all valid points that contradict mine

 

[thinking]

But if you were to ask me if atheist are moral or not: I would say no.
You see, most theist are barely moral themselves and they have a foundation, they just don't use it.

even if the theists relised their potential of their foundation

what does that mean for the rest of us that is Humanity based rather than some god ?

I can tell you , from me , myself , and I

that my attitude is to promote Human Kind

But what foundation does an atheist have?

THE VERY EXISTENCE of Humanity and putting our Humanities absolute survival above ALL religions , gives us the back-bone and the foundation of any morality

which is far better than any religion

every religion has no apparant want or desire to actually make Humanity ;

1) above any god

2) ever

 

[Saquist]

even if the theists relised their potential of their foundation

what does that mean for the rest of us that is Humanity based rather than some god ?

What should it mean?
Too much emphasis is put on differences rather than unity.

 

[thinking]

even if the theists relised their potential of their foundation

“ what does that mean for the rest of us that is Humanity based rather than some god ? ”

What should it mean?

its not a matter of " what should it mean " but what will it mean

Too much emphasis is put on differences rather than unity.

what points of unity are their between a pure Humanity Survival and the morality based on this and religion ?

 

[Enmos]

Too much emphasis is put on differences rather than unity.

By who then ?

 

[Saquist]

by most. It is the typical human behavior indicative in most and it creates constant conflict regardless of who is right or wrong.

 

[Enmos]

by most. It is the typical human behavior indicative in most and it creates constant conflict regardless of who is right or wrong.

Isn't it the theists that constantly tell the rest of us how to live ?

 

[Saquist]

Not really.
Not all religions (theist as you put it) practice arrogance. That's mainly Christians and false christians at that. Even if Christians' purpose is to preach and teach it doesn't included dictating to those who'd rather not know. The instruction here is todust your feet off and move on.

 

[Enmos]

Not really.
Not all religions (theist as you put it) practice arrogance. That's mainly Christians and false christians at that.

Agreed, but Christianity is by far the most practiced religion where I live.

Even if Christians' purpose is to preach and teach it doesn't included dictating to those who'd rather not know. The instruction here is todust your feet off and move on.

But they lay emphasis on differences by doing so. Shouldn't it be enough that the religion is out there. Whoever wants to join joins.. right ?

 

[Saquist]

Agreed, but Christianity is by far the most practiced religion where I live.

I live in the Bible belt of the US, so likewise.

But they lay emphasis on differences by doing so. Shouldn't it be enough that the religion is out there. Whoever wants to join joins.. right ?

Isn't this more of a matter of diplomatic approach? The right approach will high-light similarities but the wrong approch the difference. It will appear offensive or appear to be judging.

I can't judge other's religion rightly from a religious perspective only from a litteral persepctive. Thus I can say being evangelical is wrong simply because of diplomacy issues

 

[Enmos]

I live in the Bible belt of the US, so likewise.



Isn't this more of a matter of diplomatic approach? The right approach will high-light similarities but the wrong approch the difference. It will appear offensive or appear to be judging.

I can't judge other's religion rightly from a religious perspective only from a litteral persepctive. Thus I can say being evangelical is wrong simply because of diplomacy issues

Wow.. we actually appear to agree

 

[swivel]

Isn't it the theists that constantly tell the rest of us how to live ?

Absolutely it is. That's what organized religion has done for the past 6,000 years. The United States was possibly the first attempt on a large scale to rule by secular law and not by scripture's fiat.

And the experiment is not conclusive yet. Prohibition, slavery, reproductive rights, education, the 10 commandments, safe sex, polygamy, these are all major cases of religious intrusion into the political arena.

The reason that religious people are so militant is because they are not open to debate on ethical issues. Their instructions come from the creator of the universe and are 100% correct. No discussion needed. Comply or burn.

Don't trust anyone that pretends that religion is a case of keeping your head down and living by example. That is complete nonsense. Nothing in history or around us today supports such a claim.

 

[Enmos]

Absolutely it is. That's what organized religion has done for the past 6,000 years. The United States was possibly the first attempt on a large scale to rule by secular law and not by scripture's fiat.

And the experiment is not conclusive yet. Prohibition, slavery, reproductive rights, education, the 10 commandments, safe sex, polygamy, these are all major cases of religious intrusion into the political arena.

The reason that religious people are so militant is because they are not open to debate on ethical issues. Their instructions come from the creator of the universe and are 100% correct. No discussion needed. Comply or burn.

Don't trust anyone that pretends that religion is a case of keeping your head down and living by example. That is complete nonsense. Nothing in history or around us today supports such a claim.

I agree.
I do think the experiment is failing though.

 

[Saquist]

Nothing in history supports any human executed institution as successful. The scale is becomes large enough to exaggerate flaws. No, not even science. That just a comparison. The human equation is the problem with executing purpose.

Christianity should have no political influence.
It is a politically seperate function.

Wow.. we actually appear to agree

Yes, but that is only in theory Enmos. Practicallly speaking all human perspectives are 'evangelical'. Expression is a human quality.

 

[Enmos]

Yes, but that is only in theory Enmos. Practicallly speaking all human perspectives are 'evangelical'.

Not true. Look it up.

Expression is a human quality.

But it's not only a human quality, it's not uniquely human.

 

[Saquist]

Not true. Look it up.

Not literally, I refer to the enthusiam of expression.

But it's not only a human quality, it's not uniquely human.

I didn't say that it was.
But that doesn't make it any less human.

 

[Enmos]

Not literally, I refer to the enthusiam of expression.

That's also not true for all people.

I didn't say that it was.
But that doesn't make it any less human.

But then it's pretty much useless to point that out in this context..

 

[Saquist]

That's also not true for all people.

You're right some people have had that particular quality taken from them.

But then it's pretty much useless to point that out in this context..

So why say it's not unique? How is that useful? We're not speaking of any other creature that can talk and dream of the future.

 

[swivel]

I agree.
I do think the experiment is failing though.

Failing, how? Our ethical system keeps improving and we grow gradually more secular each year. There is no way to see this experiment as heading in any direction but an unmitigated success.