[fighter]

(06-02-2016 06:01 AM)Rush87 Wrote:  

So realistically humans cannot function without faith. In fact one can't really have 'no faith' you must either have faith that God exists or that God doesn't exist.

Exists or not, What if "one" just doesn't care?

[Rush87]

(06-02-2016 06:41 AM)fighter Wrote:  

(06-02-2016 06:01 AM)Rush87 Wrote:  

So realistically humans cannot function without faith. In fact one can't really have 'no faith' you must either have faith that God exists or that God doesn't exist.

Exists or not, What if "one" just doesn't care?

I've yet to meet such a person, and if such person does exist, there is most certainly going to be something that they do care about and invariably they will apply faith to that area, which will validate the notion.

[RatInTheWoods]

(06-02-2016 06:01 AM)Rush87 Wrote:  

Science itself is based on faith. By its nature, science must be empirical; if we run an experiment we have only the data gained from that experiment, we do not have records of every single instance of a phenomenon occurring and if we did, then that data would be empirical too. We ultimately must have faith that our sample is representative of the whole. For example: All mathematics is based on axioms, things that are self-evidently true (e.g. a+b=b+a). We just have faith that those are completely accurate and where, by species wide oversight, they contain flaws, so must our mathematics.

So realistically humans cannot function without faith. In fact one can't really have 'no faith' you must either have faith that God exists or that God doesn't exist. It is the inability of 99.9% of atheists to understand this which causes head aches. You hear the ad nauseum statements from the left that it is 'laughable' to have faith in God, whilst atheists demonstrate the exact same faith in science, and their notion that there is no God. Rather hypocritical in fact.

Nice try, but I am not going to let you weasel-connect "faith" and "scientific method" like that.

We can dance around word semantics all we like, but the concept of (blind) faith in religion, as opposed to rationally accepting the probability of a fact based on the amount of evidence and proof are two polar opposite thought systems.

Study the flow chart I posted earlier and try to understand the differences.

I know that as an intelligent male, you want to try and rationalise your religious faith as an intelligent, rational thought process, and at the same time dismiss the scientific method as a faith based system.

They are two very different things.

"Science itself is based on faith." - NO

"By its nature, science must be empirical; if we run an experiment we have only the data gained from that experiment, we do not have records of every single instance of a phenomenon occurring and if we did, then that data would be empirical too."

Correct. Good science means that the results of an experiment or observation are always viewed in context of that observation.

"We ultimately must have faith that our sample is representative of the whole. "

You have a (deviously ) wrong understanding of the scientific method.

Good science does not mean accepting blindly or having "faith" in anything. All observations are suspect and up for change, in proportion to the weight of evidence.

Please see the flow chart I posted earlier and do some reading on the scientific method.

It will be life changing for you to fully and authentically understand it.

[RatInTheWoods]

(06-02-2016 06:01 AM)Rush87 Wrote:  

So realistically humans cannot function without faith. In fact one can't really have 'no faith' you must either have faith that God exists or that God doesn't exist. It is the inability of 99.9% of atheists to understand this which causes head aches.

The exact same thing could be said for the existence of the Easter bunny, or any other imaginary entity in folklore.

Its hardly the existential dilemma you are making out to be...

As an atheist I go through life headache free thinking imaginary things exist in proportion to the evidence, which is almost non existent.

I think that kind of rational, intelligent frame makes life easy, and is pretty easy to run with.

[Rush87]

(06-02-2016 07:16 PM)RatInTheWoods Wrote:  

(06-02-2016 06:01 AM)Rush87 Wrote:  

So realistically humans cannot function without faith. In fact one can't really have 'no faith' you must either have faith that God exists or that God doesn't exist. It is the inability of 99.9% of atheists to understand this which causes head aches.

The exact same thing could be said for the existence of the Easter bunny, or any other imaginary entity in folklore.

Its hardly the existential dilemma you are making out to be...

As an atheist I go through life headache free thinking imaginary things exist in proportion to the evidence, which is almost non existent.

I think that kind of rational, intelligent frame makes life easy, and is pretty easy to run with.

None of what you said has any relevance in the slightest and only serves to highlight exactly why TS is correct in stating that atheism generally leads to leftism. It is this smug assertion that their world view is infallible, which is perfectly fine, but egotistical at best and hypocritical at worst.

There are numerous world renowned physicists far smarter than you or I who echo the very sentiment which I have posted. The worst thing for the progression of the human race, are the smug, leftist view points that serve to ridicule relevant opinion.

It is no different to the feminist, the homosexual or the SJW demonising the very viewpoints echoed through most on this forum.

I will finish with this quote:

“There can never be any real opposition between religion and science; for the one is the complement of the other. Every serious and reflective person realizes, I think, that the religious element in his nature must be recognized and cultivated if all the powers of the human soul are to act together in perfect balance and harmony. And indeed it was not by accident that the greatest thinkers of all ages were deeply religious souls.”

Max Planck, The Nobel Prize winning physicist who made the crucial scientific contribution of founding quantum physics.

The mere ego required to assert an absolute belief above a nobel prize winner is something that I could only ever fathom, stem from the mouth of a leftist SJW.

[Atheistani]

Max Plank may have been a great physicist but that does not make him an authority on religion. In the same way it matters not whether Einstein was a believer in God or not. The vast majority of those simply kept the beliefs they were raised (indoctrinated/brainwashed) into. You have no idea how difficult it is to leave a religion you are brainwashed into as a child if it is the dominant ideology in your social group.

(06-02-2016 07:16 PM)RatInTheWoods Wrote:  

(06-02-2016 06:01 AM)Rush87 Wrote:  

So realistically humans cannot function without faith. In fact one can't really have 'no faith' you must either have faith that God exists or that God doesn't exist. It is the inability of 99.9% of atheists to understand this which causes head aches.

As an atheist I go through life headache free thinking imaginary things exist in proportion to the evidence, which is almost non existent.

I think that kind of rational, intelligent frame makes life easy, and is pretty easy to run with.

I second this completely. I was brainwashed once too, but now that I dont believe in that mumbo jumbo life is much much easier, lighter and more fulfilling. You need to understand that the concept of God itself is man-made, if it were not to exist, we simply would not need to be labelled believers or non-believers.

This is like me coming out with some random idea no one ever heard of, and then claiming everyone must either have faith or not have faith in it. Fact is most people simply wont give a shit.

So I have in my mind an idea which I call SMTHNG. Do you believe SMTHING exists or is true? I know you dont know what it is, and you might ask me what is it. But if you're a smart guy you'll realize that an idea which only exists in my head has no bearing on your life whatsoever and getting pulled into any discussion is just a waste of time. This is how I feel about God.

[Rush87]

(06-02-2016 08:24 PM)Atheistani Wrote:  

Max Plank may have been a great physicist but that does not make him an authority on religion. In the same way it matters not whether Einstein was a believer in God or not. The vast majority of those simply kept the beliefs they were raised (indoctrinated/brainwashed) into. You have no idea how difficult it is to leave a religion you are brainwashed into as a child if it is the dominant ideology in your social group.

(06-02-2016 07:16 PM)RatInTheWoods Wrote:  

(06-02-2016 06:01 AM)Rush87 Wrote:  

So realistically humans cannot function without faith. In fact one can't really have 'no faith' you must either have faith that God exists or that God doesn't exist. It is the inability of 99.9% of atheists to understand this which causes head aches.

As an atheist I go through life headache free thinking imaginary things exist in proportion to the evidence, which is almost non existent.

I think that kind of rational, intelligent frame makes life easy, and is pretty easy to run with.

I second this completely. I was brainwashed once too, but now that I dont believe in that mumbo jumbo life is much much easier, lighter and more fulfilling. You need to understand that the concept of God itself is man-made, if it were not to exist, we simply would not need to be labelled believers or non-believers.

This is like me coming out with some random idea no one ever heard of, and then claiming everyone must either have faith or not have faith in it. Fact is most people simply wont give a shit.

So I have in my mind an idea which I call SMTHNG. Do you believe SMTHING exists or is true? I know you dont know what it is, and you might ask me what is it. But if you're a smart guy you'll realize that an idea which only exists in my head has no bearing on your life whatsoever and getting pulled into any discussion is just a waste of time. This is how I feel about God.

Nobody is an authority on religion. For the record, I don't necessarily believe in a God either. The issue I take is when one talks in absolutes, or ridicules the 'notion' that one would believe in a God. How can one have such an ego?

The reality is that the sum of all human knowledge amounts to almost nothing. A grain of sand on the worlds longest beach. So for anyone to make such implicit statements about religion, faith or God, is foolish beyond belief.

To quote Einstein he had: "an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being". In other words we know nothing.

I believe every single person has just as much validity to put forth an argument in this field. Atheism is just as logical as faith. Once again, it is the condescension of one believing the other is foolish that really sticks in my craw, because it is impossible to come to such conclusions. Even the most intelligent human on planet earth really knows next no nothing in the greater scheme of things.

[puckerman]

I have a very simple theory on this, but I don't see any better explanation. Atheists mostly identify themselves more by what they are against than by what they are for. Since they reject religion, they reject everything else that they consider to be "backward" and "conservative." It's a purely knee-jerk reaction.

[All or Nothing]

(05-19-2016 10:16 PM)scorpion Wrote:  

First of all, there's no need to continue with the snide insults. They just make you look insecure and petty, and it's against forum rules to boot. Please conduct yourself with more class.

Secondly, evolution is inextricably linked to atheism and all "godless universe" theories because it provides the only semi-plausible explanation for the self-evident existence of mankind (as well as all other life) absent a creator. In other words, before Darwin there was no reasonable explanation for a godless universe - atheism did not exist as we know it today, the equivalent back then was more in line with what we'd call Pantheism or even Deism now, more of a rejection of the existing recognized gods/organized religions than a wholesale rejection of the idea of any sort of creator or creative force. There is simply no way to account for the existence of life in a godless universe if you do not have the theory of evolution. This is the reason that literally every civilization has gods and creation mythologies of various sorts. This is why I said that traditionally atheism would be equated with insanity - because pre-Darwin it was essentially the denial of reality itself (i.e. Given that reality obviously exists and must have some origin, and a god/creator was the only reasonable explanation for that origin in pre-modern times, to deny the gods was therefore to deny reality, aka to be insane).

Does reality need to have an origin? What if time infinitely stretches in both directions? Could that be possible?

People need gods, like a creature needs a reason for its existence.

On some level, I understand that my life serves no purpose.

On another, I am locked inside of animalistic emotions that guide my everyday life.

[fighter]

(06-02-2016 08:24 PM)Atheistani Wrote:  

This is like me coming out with some random idea no one ever heard of, and then claiming everyone must either have faith or not have faith in it. Fact is most people simply wont give a shit.

So I have in my mind an idea which I call SMTHNG. Do you believe SMTHING exists or is true? I know you dont know what it is, and you might ask me what is it. But if you're a smart guy you'll realize that an idea which only exists in my head has no bearing on your life whatsoever and getting pulled into any discussion is just a waste of time. This is how I feel about God.

I'm not sure it's atheism, it's more like agnosticism or like I said before I just don't care about the religion.

Reminds me of that chick that asked me if I believe in god, I asked her if she "believes" in Physics, she said no. There are many religious people of that kind.

[Sooth]

Leftism is feminine in nature.
The feminine role is that of the disobeyer.

Leftism and atheism are fundamentally similar where the person doesn't care to think past them selves.
The well being of another person is not a thought they'd consider let alone act upon.

When you see a leftist / atheist doing something for someone other than themselves you can rest assured that there is something in it for them.

[BlackHat]

For me it hasn't one bit. I stopped believing in religions and god when I was 13, but never leaned left on social and moral issues. Fast forward 13 years later, I started believing again, not in religions but in a superior being. Some drugs played a big role in this.

I still think abortion is murder, I am strictly pro-life. I was never pro-choice
I've always been a nationalist.
Always made fun of commies, there was a huge commie population in my high school I trolled them a lot.

It depends on the person actually, but the truth is majority of the atheists are leftists unfortunately.
I'm pretty sure if there was a poll conducted here most people would identify themselves as agnostic/atheist and yet this is one of the most red pill forum out there.

In the 1970's there were discussions about how "Right" wing movements are losing blood, yet the right wing movement evolved with the likes of Ronald Reagan,Margaret Thatcher.
Right wing parties continued to dominate.
Right is evolving again, Donald Trump is playing a lead role in this. You don't have to be religious to identify with the right anymore.

[RatInTheWoods]

(06-02-2016 07:33 PM)Rush87 Wrote:  

It is this smug assertion that their world view is infallible, which is perfectly fine, but egotistical at best and hypocritical at worst.

It is no different to the feminist, the homosexual or the SJW demonising the very viewpoints echoed through most on this forum.

Scientific reasoning isn't smug at all, nor does it claim to be infallible.

Its the religious who claim holy infallibility, and have a monopoly on smugness and close minded thinking and set new records for hypocritical behavior.

Blindly going with a social construction of religion is a lot closer to leftism than a skeptical, free thinking, open minded scientific thinker.

[Truth Teller]

(06-04-2016 12:47 AM)RatInTheWoods Wrote:  

(06-02-2016 07:33 PM)Rush87 Wrote:  

It is this smug assertion that their world view is infallible, which is perfectly fine, but egotistical at best and hypocritical at worst.

It is no different to the feminist, the homosexual or the SJW demonising the very viewpoints echoed through most on this forum.

Scientific reasoning isn't smug at all, nor does it claim to be infallible.

Its the religious who claim holy infallibility, and have a monopoly on smugness and close minded thinking and set new records for hypocritical behavior.

Blindly going with a social construction of religion is a lot closer to leftism than a skeptical, free thinking, open minded scientific thinker.

I ask again: how do you know that scientific facts are the only facts? What experiment allows you to determine that?

[RatInTheWoods]

(06-04-2016 01:06 AM)Truth Teller Wrote:  

I ask again: how do you know that scientific facts are the only facts? What experiment allows you to determine that?

Every experiment, every observation, every bit of evidence, every piece of interlocking knowledge, and the sum of humankind knowledge since the dawn of recorded history (and probably going back a lot further) allows us to determine that the scientific "facts" aka "the scientific method" is real, works and is the most rational, logical and effective process by which we can understand how the universe works.

What experiment have you carried out to prove "other facts" exist?

[Truth Teller]

(06-04-2016 01:34 AM)RatInTheWoods Wrote:  

(06-04-2016 01:06 AM)Truth Teller Wrote:  

I ask again: how do you know that scientific facts are the only facts? What experiment allows you to determine that?

Every experiment, every observation, every bit of evidence, every piece of interlocking knowledge, and the sum of humankind knowledge since the dawn of recorded history (and probably going back a lot further) allows us to determine that the scientific "facts" aka "the scientific method" is real, works and is the most rational, logical and effective process by which we can understand how the universe works.

What experiment have you carried out to prove "other facts" exist?

I agree that science is an excellent way to show how the natural world works. You can't go from "science shows how the natural world works" to "science is the only way to know about reality." Scientism in that sense is deeply self-refuting along the lines of logical positivism. All empirical knowledge is not necessarily scientific knowledge.

For example, history is certainly not science, though I doubt you'd deny that historical events (like Caesar crossing the Rubicon) happened. Mathematics is not science, at least in the strict sense, though I strongly doubt you'd argue that mathematics tells us nothing about reality.

Science has inherent limits. The sooner you recognize that, the sooner you'll start realizing that science is not always motivated by a search for truth.

[Lunostrelki]

My experience with atheists is that they are either highly-motivated, ruthless demagogues with great capacity to get things done, or, as in the majority of cases, lazy whiners. The competent atheists are usually Machiavellian in their conduct, and end up becoming the leaders of this or that insurrection at the head of the massed lazy whiners.

Most atheists are good people with functioning moral compasses, but unlike religious people, they don't believe that morality is anything more than social pressure plus individual choice. So these things can and ought to be changed to suit the interests of the material situation, which leads you to things like socialism, egalitarianism, and the complete negation of traditional sexual morality.

(06-04-2016 09:31 PM)Truth Teller Wrote:  

Science has inherent limits. The sooner you recognize that, the sooner you'll start realizing that science is not always motivated by a search for truth.

Indeed. Usually it is motivated by a desire to more efficiently destroy enemy troops, or to produce more goods for cheaper costs and greater profits. Things don't get researched unless there is sponsorship.

[ivansirko]

I know i am a little late here.

"Does atheism naturally lead to leftism?"

The lack of a religion will leave a void and require some other "spirituality" to fill the void.
For instance, if Christianity is stamped out in the West, it will be replaced with either a Marxist connotation or Islam.
History has proven this often.

[RatInTheWoods]

(06-04-2016 09:31 PM)Truth Teller Wrote:  

I agree that science is an excellent way to show how the natural world works. You can't go from "science shows how the natural world works" to "science is the only way to know about reality."

For example, history is certainly not science.
Mathematics is not science.

Science has inherent limits. The sooner you recognize that, the sooner you'll start realizing that science is not always motivated by a search for truth.

"Natural world" "reality" both the same thing. Science explains how they both work.

All history was created using the natural laws that science explains, and the only reason we know about history was because science taught us how to learn about it... Carbon dating, archaeology, x rays, translating texts, core drilling etc etc.

Mathematics is the raw, untainted language of science.

The only "limits" to science is the "real" "natural" world.

It has no power in the world of imagination, make believe, lies, propaganda or faith and religions.

Except to annihilate them when they enter the real world or try to pass off bullshit as reality.

I guess what you are trying (badly) to say is that science will not give you a meaning to life, or a reason to live, or comfort your fear of death and the unknown.

I can accept that, but it's not the job of science to do that.

[Lunostrelki]

Why is a "meaning of life" less important or real than the "natural world?"

That's the seed of leftism right there. That's there's a real, natural world that everyone needs to worship and treasure more dearly than their spiritual existence or character.

[Truth Teller]

(06-06-2016 12:11 AM)RatInTheWoods Wrote:  

"Natural world" "reality" both the same thing. Science explains how they both work.

All history was created using the natural laws that science explains, and the only reason we know about history was because science taught us how to learn about it... Carbon dating, archaeology, x rays, translating texts, core drilling etc etc.

Mathematics is the raw, untainted language of science.

The only "limits" to science is the "real" "natural" world.

It has no power in the world of imagination, make believe, lies, propaganda or faith and religions.

Except to annihilate them when they enter the real world or try to pass off bullshit as reality.

I guess what you are trying (badly) to say is that science will not give you a meaning to life, or a reason to live, or comfort your fear of death and the unknown.

I can accept that, but it's not the job of science to do that.

No, I'm not saying that. Science is powerless to deal with questions of ethics. If you think that history is indebted to modern physical science, you're clueless. Linguistics is not a science in any real way.

If you think that history is scientific in any way, you're even more clueless.

Science does not have all encompassing power, and simply pointing to scientific successes does not pose an argument. You're taking a philosophical position and handwaving away the need to make an argument for that position.

You seem to have a very naive view of what science can and cannot show, as well as the epistemic nature of scientific endeavor. Science itself rests on axioms that cannot be shown to be true. Those are metaphysical ideas, such as physical law being equally applicable and eternal.

This is called history of science, and it's painfully obvious that you've no knowledge of it.

[Wutang]

(06-06-2016 12:11 AM)RatInTheWoods Wrote:  

(06-04-2016 09:31 PM)Truth Teller Wrote:  

I agree that science is an excellent way to show how the natural world works. You can't go from "science shows how the natural world works" to "science is the only way to know about reality."

For example, history is certainly not science.
Mathematics is not science.

Science has inherent limits. The sooner you recognize that, the sooner you'll start realizing that science is not always motivated by a search for truth.

"Natural world" "reality" both the same thing. Science explains how they both work.

That's totally stacking the deck in your favor preemptively. You take what science is good at doing (probing the natural world) and then make the assumption that since there's nothing but the natural world then science must completely describe all of reality. The reasoning is totally circular and relies on the claim that there's nothing but the natural world which you just simply assume.

[InfraOrbital]

Yes, it does. Most people want to believe in the idea of a "paradise". If there isn't one waiting in the next world, then they'll try (in vain) to construct one in this world.