The origins of atheism

[Zlatanara]

I exist because my biological parents had sex. Isn't that why you exist?

"Free will" is an illusion.

Well we have the power and ability to change or make new decisions, even plan for goals as long as 10-15 years ahead. If Kanye West wanted become president in 5 years, he can plan and work his way through that goal. But we are limited to the laws of nature, our goals cannot be something like reaching the Sun because there is a limitation. Inside a Sandbox we are with a free will but its limited or governed by laws. Regardless of you believing in God or not you cannot avoid free will in every bit of your life. I believe there is a God because laws don't self originate in my opinion.

 

[Davian]

How do we establish whether that is true?

From what I gather, Scott believes that that it is true, and he says that his beliefs are beyond reproach.

Did you need more than that?

 

[Davian]

Well we have the power and ability to change or make new decisions, even plan for goals as long as 10-15 years ahead. If Kanye West wanted become president in 5 years, he can plan and work his way through that goal. But we are limited to the laws of nature, our goals cannot be something like reaching the Sun because there is a limitation. Inside a Sandbox we are with a free will but its limited or governed by laws. Regardless of you believing in God or not you cannot avoid free will in every bit of your life.

What do you mean by "free will"? Do you mean as defined by philosophers such as Dan Dennett?

"Dennett's stance on free will is compatibilism with an evolutionary twist – the view that, although in the strict physical sense our actions might be pre-determined, we can still be free in all the ways that matter, because of the abilities we evolved. Free will, seen this way, is about freedom to make decisions without duress (and so is a version of Kantian positive practical free will, i.e., Kantian autonomy), as opposed to an impossible and unnecessary freedom from causality itself. To clarify this distinction, he coins the term 'evitability' as the opposite of 'inevitability', defining it as the ability of an agent to anticipate likely consequences and act to avoid undesirable ones."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_Evolves#Free_will_and_altruism

It is my understanding that the modern philosophy of mind would have what we experience as having made conscious decisions as only a narrative constructed by the brain. In this context, what we believe is not under conscious control.

From http://www.naturalism.org/metzinger.htm

The unsettling point about modern philosophy of mind and the cognitive neuroscience of will, already apparent even at this early stage, is that a final theory may contradict the way we have been subjectively experiencing ourselves for millennia. There will likely be a conflict between the scientific view of the acting self and the phenomenal narrative, the subjective story our brains tell us about what happens when we decide to act. (p. 127)

From a scientific, third-person perspective, our inner experience of strong autonomy may look increasingly like what it has been all along: an appearance only. (p. 129)

I believe there is a God because laws don't self originate in my opinion.

What do you mean by "God"? Are you referring to a "God" that allegedly walked and talked in a garden that has no evidence of having existed, poofed people and animals into existence, and later, in a manner contrary to the modern understanding of genetics, populated the planet with a tiny group of individuals and animals that survived a global flood in an unbuildable boat, a flood that killed the dinosaurs in a manner that only *appears* to be 65 million years ago, because the Earth is really only somehow 6000 years old, yet remains, by every objective measure to date indistinguishable from nothing?

Is this what you are suggesting as the source of what is described by the laws of physics?

 

[Eudaimonist]

Let's not get sidetracked by freewill versus determinism. Christians disagree on this issue, and so do atheists.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[GoldenBoy89]

I have always been a logical, practical guy. Even if God had not revealed Himself to me beyond any doubt (which He did), I would tend toward belief in the triune God of the Bible and therefore follow Jesus. Why? Two reasons: 1) Because of the obvious superior morality of Jesus’ teachings, and 2), because of the logic inherent in Pascal’s hypothetical “wager.” Here is the way I put Pascal’s classic argument:

I find Pascal's wager interesting because it makes the theist admit defeat right at the start. By simply invoking Pascal's wager, you accept that the evidence for God's existence is shaky at best which is why you then have to defer to the threat of not believing to make the argument. The validity of the belief is never brought into question, just that you should believe, in case it is true. But the point still stands that the existence of God isn't well established.

But what would be the advantages (or disadvantages) of believing (or disbelieving) in God if it turned out that there actually WAS a God, and there actually was a heaven and hell as the Bible teaches? In that case, there would be a huge difference in consequences for believers vs. unbelievers. Heaven vs. hell! Eternally! One cannot imagine a more weighty outcome. In this situation, you can’t really lose by believing. But you might lose BIG if you refuse to believe. As a practical, logical, self-protective guy, I think I would at least try to believe, even without clear proof either way.

And here's the other big gaping hole in Pascal's bet. It assumes that the only other option to disbelief in gods is belief in Christianity. It ignores literally thousands of gods that could be real, if you believe gods exist. The Christian God isn't the only one who threatens disbelievers, so by virtue of Pascal's wager, we could very well both be in danger by accepting Christianity if it turns out Islam is true.

It seems to me that when it comes to ultimate concerns, atheists are just not very smart.

Or they're just not convinced that they should be concerned about an afterlife they don't believe exists.

Those with more intelligence might risk a little humility and ask the God they do not believe in to give them that saving faith. Who knows, God may just do that.

Those would be theists and that's the problem with prayer... God is only going to do what He wants. So why bother asking?

 

[Dmitri Martila]

Hello there everyone. I am sure this has been discussed before but I would like to start a new discussion on this. I want to hear your opinions on why do you think atheism exists and its cause. I will tell mine only after I see yours.

The spaghetti being god (their ``monster''), atheists understand much better. So, is the atheism the neo-paganism? Historically the advanced Roman pagans have not believed in divine nature of their statues, but they played their worshiping; and the system and political fashion supported this play (many Russians say: "all our life is play"). The proof, what atheism is the old bad paganism, you see here. There is also important theological information and the physical and social one. You simply need to read this, if you want, dear theist. I am not writing for busy atheists. Very likely, that they are busy with satanic activities. Even the unconscious killers of our believing souls are the killers by the fact. Guess, who is unconscious pagan? The pagan. http://vixra.org/abs/1509.0234

 

[GoldenBoy89]

"Free will" is an illusion.

"Of course we have freewill, we have no choice!"

I think that was Hitchens but I could be wrong.

 

[Zlatanara]

What do you mean by "free will"? Do you mean as defined by philosophers such as Dan Dennett?

"Dennett's stance on free will is compatibilism with an evolutionary twist – the view that, although in the strict physical sense our actions might be pre-determined, we can still be free in all the ways that matter, because of the abilities we evolved. Free will, seen this way, is about freedom to make decisions without duress (and so is a version of Kantian positive practical free will, i.e., Kantian autonomy), as opposed to an impossible and unnecessary freedom from causality itself. To clarify this distinction, he coins the term 'evitability' as the opposite of 'inevitability', defining it as the ability of an agent to anticipate likely consequences and act to avoid undesirable ones."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_Evolves#Free_will_and_altruism

It is my understanding that the modern philosophy of mind would have what we experience as having made conscious decisions as only a narrative constructed by the brain. In this context, what we believe is not under conscious control.

From http://www.naturalism.org/metzinger.htm

The unsettling point about modern philosophy of mind and the cognitive neuroscience of will, already apparent even at this early stage, is that a final theory may contradict the way we have been subjectively experiencing ourselves for millennia. There will likely be a conflict between the scientific view of the acting self and the phenomenal narrative, the subjective story our brains tell us about what happens when we decide to act. (p. 127)

From a scientific, third-person perspective, our inner experience of strong autonomy may look increasingly like what it has been all along: an appearance only. (p. 129)

What do you mean by "God"? Are you referring to a "God" that allegedly walked and talked in a garden that has no evidence of having existed, poofed people and animals into existence, and later, in a manner contrary to the modern understanding of genetics, populated the planet with a tiny group of individuals and animals that survived a global flood in an unbuildable boat, a flood that killed the dinosaurs in a manner that only *appears* to be 65 million years ago, because the Earth is really only somehow 6000 years old, yet remains, by every objective measure to date indistinguishable from nothing?

Is this what you are suggesting as the source of what is described by the laws of physics?

keep it simple and out of article or book quotations, What i mean by God is the cause and power that established the law in a sandbox universe. I would like you to think this with your own mind instead quoting someone else, or else i wont benefit from this conversation because Google is available for me also.

By the way the God i believe did not walk in a garden, this is irrelevant. Although i am not a believer of the Bible or christian faith i understand the ''figure of speech'' used by ancient Hebrews to describe God in heaven.

God is unlike anything, neither is he (the royal he) born nor does he die.

Although i believe what we get to choose are ''limited'' under the laws of the sandbox we live, still we are free to choose between the limited options. I chose to wake up early in the morning, so i set my alarm. I chose to type this reply to you so i picked the sequence of my expression through the keyboard. I can load a porn right now, but i chose not to.

as far as you get to chose even one thing out of the other you are having free will, but indeed not unlimited free will.

 

[quatona]

Although i believe what we get to choose are ''limited'' under the laws of the sandbox we live, still we are free to choose between the limited options. I chose to wake up early in the morning, so i set my alarm. I chose to type this reply to you so i picked the sequence of my expression through the keyboard. I can load a porn right now, but i chose not to.

I´m not sure what the "I chose" adds to these statements. I am not sure I understand what the significant difference is between "I set my alarm clock..." and "I chose to set my alarm clock.". Is it the same difference between "The apple fell." and "The apple chose to fall."?

 

[Dmitri Martila]

"Of course we have freewill, we have no choice!"

I think that was Hitchens but I could be wrong.

The Hawking sees only atheists around him, so, of course, the man like he doubts the existence of the freedom. They are in mental jail: the paganism of atheism (the proof with the comments:
The Spaghetti Being God, that Pagan Atheism Enjoys http://vixra.org/abs/1509.0234)

 

[As I was saying]

You cannot test what you cannot comprehend. Why does it matter to you if we lie or tell the truth? Some here have lied, some told the truth. You do not believe either version, because you do not know the difference. If you were of God, you would know when you heard the truth, but you are not of Him.

A brilliant comment brother. A brilliant comment. It just about sums up the atheist and the way they think (or don't think).

 

[Eudaimonist]

They are in mental jail: the paganism of atheism (the proof with the comments:
The Spaghetti Being God, that Pagan Atheism Enjoys http://vixra.org/abs/1509.0234)

You are aware, I hope, that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is a spoof on religion? Only that?

You do realize that no atheist feels any reverence towards the FSM, or takes it as a symbol of their own values? It's a spoof.

By trying to play armchair psychologist to atheists by taking an intentional spoof as indicating "unconscious paganism", you are just making yourself sound foolish.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Zlatanara]

I´m not sure what the "I chose" adds to these statements. I am not sure I understand what the significant difference is between "I set my alarm clock..." and "I chose to set my alarm clock.". Is it the same difference between "The apple fell." and "The apple chose to fall."?

meditate on the word ''decide'' and see what are the things you can base on that word compared to an apple or vegetable.

if you have never related that word to your life, explain how

 

[asherahSamaria]

Without transcending out of this material gestation, the organic life we experience in this world, is the same as it is with the animal kingdom. Thus: Welcome to the zoo!

Ahh - Ok. Best of luck with your transcending.

 

[quatona]

meditate on the word ''decide'' and see what are the things you can base on that word compared to an apple or vegetable.

Well - as opposed to an apple - I am conscious and self-aware and I can premeditate.
If that´s all that "decide to..." means to signify, ok.
The question is and remains: How does that necessarily point to "freedom" in my "decisions"?

if you have never related that word to your life, explain how

I don´t think it´s a good idea to simply turn my question around instead of answering it - particularly since "how did you not relate to..." isn´t an answerable question.

 

[Zlatanara]

Well - as opposed to an apple - I am conscious and self-aware and I can premeditate.
If that´s all that "decide to..." means to signify, ok.
The question is and remains: How does that necessarily point to "freedom" in my "decisions"?


I don´t think it´s a good idea to simply turn my question around instead of answering it - particularly since "how did you not relate to..." isn´t an answerable question.

remember the more you get to choose between another choice, the higher your free will gets.

 

[quatona]

remember the more you get to choose between another choice, the higher your free will gets.

Doesn´t follow.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Einstein said, 'The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.'

http://paleofuture.gizmodo.com/9-albert-einstein-quotes-that-are-totally-fake-1543806477


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[quatona]

http://paleofuture.gizmodo.com/9-albert-einstein-quotes-that-are-totally-fake-1543806477


eudaimonia,

Mark

"I so wish Einstein had said this so that I could appeal to his authority - even though Einstein isn´t even an authority on the subject."

 

[Zlatanara]

Doesn´t follow.

Decisions are not ''always'' instantaneous, there a many willed actions such the first musical instrument you picked to play. Subconscious mind and conscious mind work together by interacting and sharing duties.

while the subconscious mind works on the simple or well aware tasks, the conscious mind works deal novelty and complexity. Learning to ride a bike, or learning a new language are just a few to say.

meditate on how many new things you learn per day which is related to free will because subconscious mind has not yet had a chance to learn.