0
Atheism
Atheism is the disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
1,002 Questions
Theory of evolution describes how life developed through 'descent with modification' (Darwin) without any supernatural involvement. Some religious people believe evolution removes the need for god and god's laws so encouraging relativism or, at worst, nihilism. Even though evolution has had a profound effect on our understanding of our origins as well as the reality of things, many religious people have accommodated evolution and retained their faith.
Decisions about correct moral behaviours arise from many sources, including ethical reasoning, religious practices, innate moral instincts, wider cultural influences and local laws. However there are effectively no simple universal moral laws. Even religious people will apply their moral laws in selective ways to suit circumstances. For example, the killing of people during war even civilians has been defended by many religious people, even though their own religions may have laws prohibiting killing. Similarly as there are many religious beliefs through the world, there are widely differing and, often, contradictory religious moral laws.
So religions provide only general moral laws for their particular believers while people, believers and non-believers alike, actually decide on the moral issues. So it is hard to see how the acceptance of evolution leads to a breakdown of morality as implied by the question.
Ironically the best attempt to achieve universal moral values is through the secular arrangements of the United Nations, namely with the 'Universal Declaration of Human Rights'.
There are many moral philosophies atheists subscribe to, and ironically many religious people subconsciously do as well (as seen by things such as the Moral Sense Test from Harvard). For example, utilitarianism is one such philosophy. Most contemporary ethicists, such as Rawls, were atheists. Basically, most atheists base their morality off variations of the Golden Rule, or treating others as one would want to be treated. The difference is that they reason through what creates the best society whereas most religions promote just following their rules regardless of the consequences (and if they don't, they are internally inconsistent). This leads to people trying to force their morality on others, since it is the "right" morality and not because it is the moral system that creates the best society or some other uniersally accepted good. Beliving morality derives from a god doesn't remove the human element of deciding what is moral; you have to pick and choose what religion you are, which, by definition, cannot be done through logic. Even within Christianity, there are vast differences of opinions as to what is moral (from complete pacifism of some sects to the very staunch support of most wars/patriotism in others, etc etc). So, in short, atheists generally derive their morals from universal principles instead of from sectarian teachings.
Right and wrong are either relative or absolute principles relating to human behaviour. If they are relative, i.e. have no influence on our behaviour, then they are lrrelevant. If they are absolute then they remain constant for all humanity from Adam to the last human being. This makes nonsense of evolution for if humans evolve then the principles of right and wrong must correspondingly evolve and become relative and therefore irrelevant.
Some evolutionists have sought to promote ethics using evolution as the basis. The results are horrifying, at least from a non-evolutionary perspective. Many others realize that it is impossible to live with the logical consequences of such a philosophy, that is, 'nature red in tooth and claw.' Richard Dawkins simply says 'that's the way it is', and so he is honestly acknowledging the meaninglessness and total lack of moral basis inherent in evolution. Yet he can also express horror at a bus smash which kills and injures schoolchildren. The consistent basis for this is unclear.
Many evolutionists are not prepared to acknowledge this and so wish to have on the one hand scientific evolutionism but on the other hand a morality which has Christian values which involve the value of each individual and care for the weak as its basis. Yet, according to those who follow evolutionary theory such as Peter Singer, such should be eliminated.
What often happens is that as part of belief in evolutionism, with subsequent rejection of Christian morality, and Christian teaching about origins, people choose their own morals. They do so because it is in reality impossible to live with the logical consequences of such a theory. However, the theory itself provides no solid basis for any morality, except what will make 'the fittest' survive.So, some indeed revert to some form of Christian morality as a logical and consistent adherence to evolutionary theory alone, when consistently applied, give them no justification for doing so.
He is, in his heart of hearts, an atheist. Good for him. But he feels it can be fun, and inspiring, and add wonder to life, and ease the difficulties of life, to have faith, broadly defined.
If he could see the wonder that is the natural world, a la Dawkins, he wouldn't need that faith. So long as one doesn't lose touch with realty, what is wrong with fantasy? is the question Yann Martel asks?
The issue is, unless one accepts one's myths in all seriousness, can they really ease the pains of life? However, once our myths are accepted seriously, don't we, per force, lose our firm grips on reality?
I myself am an atheist of the Dawkin stripe. And yet, I really enjoyed Life of Pi.
Pi is, after all, a transendental number.
What evidence is there against the Intelligent Design concept of Irreducible Complexity?
Critics argue that examples cited as irreducibly complex can evolve through incremental steps, pointing to evidence of simpler structures that perform related functions. Additionally, computer simulations and mathematical models have shown how complex biological systems could plausibly evolve from simpler precursors. Overall, the concept of irreducible complexity is seen as incompatible with the evidence of gradual evolution seen in biological systems.
No. Vic, Mike, and Jaime are Catholic. Tony is atheist.
What sort of things do theist people believe?
Theists believe:
- in god or gods
- the intervention of god or gods to alter probability and natural laws either randomly or through prayer
- goodness comes from the gods not from human minds
- some sort of afterlife
- some "purpose" to life
- some sort of eternal part ot humans (e.g. souls)
While there is no atheist "Bible" of beliefs there are several common threads in most atheists' worldviews:
- there is no deity, heaven, hell, devil, salvation etc.
- science works and gives us the best available understanding of the Universe
- people are moral without the threat of displeasing a deity
- life is a wonderful thing, parrtly because it is so fleeting
- altruism is a god thing, everybody wins
- there are no miracles, just probability
- when you're dead, you're dead
- they don't want you to try and "save" them
How can you talk to an atheist about Islam?
If you know any atheists than you could try starting there. Try talking to them in their native tongue. But seriously, I am sure that any atheist would not mind talking to you about Islam; although they will probably not know that much about it.
Answer:
Assuming that "talk to about" isn't code for "try to convert" then the simplest and most direct action is to approach your atheist friends and talk. Do not be surprised if the friend knows more about religions, and from a variety of sources, than members of your own faith community. Most atheists, after all have made an informed decision to pass on religions and gods.
If you do mean "try to convert" consider what you would feel like if the tables were turned. Religion, or lack of it, is a personal choice. A word of caution. the atheist may know more good reasons for his point of view than you have for yours - "conversion" may go the other way.
What is the relation between 1111 and 2012?
In a word, tenuous. 2012 is claimed to be the year of the end of a Mayan cycle and that 1111 was a special number in Mayan life - the cycle is also claimed to finish at the specific time of 11:11.
Over the years, there have been many predictions for apocolyptic years, needless to say, they've never come true. Apart from anything else, the calender we're using is probably out by 3 or 4 years (meaning that 2012 is actually this year or last year), the specific time obviously varies depending on which time zone you're in and whether daylight saving is in operation(!)
What are some atheist celebrities?
A short and by no means exhaustive list of celebrities with atheist or non-theist beliefs:
Woody Allen
Lance Armstrong
Charlie Brooker
Derren Brown
James Cameron
Stephen Fry
Ricky Gervais
Angelina Jolie
Sir Ian McKellen
Brad Pitt
Eddie Vedder
Terry Wogan
Nick Clegg (UK Deputy Prime Minister & Lib Dem Party leader)
David Miliband (probable next UK Labour party leader)
AnswerQuite a large number of celebrities are atheists, as listed on several internet sites. In addition, surveys have shown that most senior scientists in Britain and America are atheists, so there is a good chance, when someone announces a new scientific discovery, that the scientist is an atheist.
Neo-Spirituality was created by Hiroyoshi Kuwahara as a combination of Japanese and British spirituality. Adherents say that neo-spirituality is about getting "closer to God" rather than being a religion. This may seem a fine distinction, but it is probably part of the rejection of organised religion in Europe.
What is a naturalistic explanation?
A naturalistic explanation is one that seeks to describe an event/circumstance (e.g. the creation of the universe, etc) in scientific terms. This means that it must be explained using observable evidence that can be tested. To put it very succinctly: explanation without the need for a divine being.
What are 8 requirements for all living things?
I know seven
MRS GREN or MRS NERG
Movement
Respration
Sensitivity
Growth
Reproduction
Excretion
Nutrition
No. Atheism simply means "without god(s)"
Atheism is the philosophical position of not believing - so there can be no beliefs.
We need to define "belief" as well. Belief is accepting as true something for which there is no evidence. Most people confuse "believe for "know" "think" or "understand."
Atheists believe that humans are nothing more than dust and electones. They believe that nothing more than matter exists (and that even the human soul is something like an evolved higher-level of matter). They BELIEVE that nothing more than physical laws and particles exist in the Universe. Having that as a starting point, they cannot find anything 'spiritual' in the world and they thus deny to accept the existence of anything of that nature. They cannot understand that if you axiomatically say "the world is consisted of A, B and C only", then you cannot ever find "D" as a component of the world, no matter how much you search...As Erwin Schrödinger said in "Nature and the Greeks": Modern science has excluded human from its initial axiomatic theory of the universe and thus, cannot find human anywhere in the equation...
One poster has misunderstood atheism. Atheists see that there is no evidence to support any view that humans are nothing more than dust and other things. But I know of no atheist who denies that energy exists. Evidence for the existence of the human soul (or any other kind of soul) is likewise absent. The simple fact is that no evidence ever turned up by anyone in the entire history of humankind has ever suggested that any god(s) or souls exist. Or that anything other than the physical laws (so far discovered) apply to our universe.Should evidence arise to the contrary, many atheists would change their views. We await such discoveries. But we're not holding our breath: 3,000 years and counting.. the odds don't look good.
Atheism is not a religion. It is a lack thereof. So it cannot have any 'beliefs'.Can you be baptised as a baby and become an atheist later in life?
The important thing is that no one can insist that you must remain a Christian just because you were once baptised as a Christian.
The religious counter that you'd be damned if you abandon your faith. This has no impact on a person who understands that there is no god and no aftelife.
From a legal point of view, the baby (a minor) cannot enter into a bindng contract. Neither can anyone else enter into such a contract for the child. The person (once a mature adult) can make up his or her own mind.
What point is life in a doomed universe?
Who says the universe is doomed? It is only 13.7 billion years old and is probably far less than half-way through its life.
The point of life is to add meaning to your own life, not worry about how long the universe will last. Adding meaning to your life means enjoying it: enjoying music, friendships, holidays, even the work that you do. It means leaving the world a better place for your passing. Try it.
Answer:
There is a fantasy short story "That Hell-Bound Train" by Robert Bloch from 1958 that which won the Hugo Award. The moral of it is that it is the companions and the journey, not the destination, that makes everything worthwhile.
What are the characteristics of humanists?
Humanists want to make the world a better place for people, but also for other organisms. They tend to be critical thinkers and atheists, and they have their own moral system.
How do secular humanists respond to suffering?
They don't like suffering and try to avoid it. They do not view it as a punishment from god, an atonement for past wrongs, a purification, or leading to a future reward after death.
To respond to suffering from health issues they seek out medical practitioners, for financial suffering they discuss it with bankers and similar, for hunger they eat, for bad interpersonal actions they seek out legal remedies or just move on, for bad haircuts they get another barber.
For suffering in others they provide first aid, call 911, contribute to charity, do social volunteering.
How can you avoid moral relativism without having a God-centric morality?
You can avoid moral relativism without having a God - centric morality by observing the rules of nature. Also, you can ask yourself if each of your actions causes harm to others or the environment.
Answer:
Moral relativism may be any of several different ways of looking at "proper morality" in various cultures or ethnic groups. It exists in groups that have a god on many issues (death penalties, war, birth control, marriage, euthanasia, abortion) as there is no moral absolute standard correct for all situations. As a consequence, there is nothing but moral relativism for people who do not have a god in almost the same way that those of any religious sect have moral relativism. The only difference is that members of a theist sect believe that they (as a group) are correct and all others are, to varying degrees, wrong. As an example, a Christian would eat an onion while a Jain would find it morally repugnant - the Christian probably couldn't understand the Jain's reasoning.
Was Shakespeare a theist or atheist?
This could be argued either way. On his tomb he has had written:
Good frend for Iesus sake forbeare
To digg the dust encloased heare.
Blese be y man y spares thes stones
And curst be he y moves my bones.
This imposes a blessing or a curse on people for how they treat his remains. However, he could be just playing to the superstition of his countrymen.
Similarly, his plays are full of pious words and prayers demonstrating a knowledge of Christian belief and ghosts indicating a belief in an immortal part to people. But, in no play is the outcome affected by divine intervention - no one is struck down by God or miracles - and the the antagonists and protagonists work their own way to a resolution. In none of the plays does he lash out against gods or religion.
The safest assumption would be that he was a public theist.
His private musing on the topic remain private. A look at his many plays may shed light on the subject. His play King Lear, for example, contains some striking examples of humanistic themes that could lend themselves to atheism. The most notable of which is the storm scene during Lear's madness. The page on Hubpages entitled King Lear Storm Scene and Character Analysis Shows Shakespeare was Atheist in the related links section below provides evidence.
Do atheists get upset that Christians believe in something and why?
This is a question that is likely to get different answers depending on the person.
Opinion
For me, it is not terribly important whether somebody believes that any supernatural entity exists or whether they pray to Him, Her, It, or Them. It has no bearing on my life and those that I care about; in fact, many actually derive happiness and general goodwill from believing in such nonsense. What is extremely important to me is the protection of human rights and freedoms, the sanctity of secularism, equality under the law, and respect for all people. Unfortunately, in my view, Christianity, like many other religions, promotes specific beliefs which serve to undermine those goals and human aspirations and hold their belief in God as a justification for infringing on these fundamental rights and freedoms and creating unjust and unequal laws in their stead. If a Christian finds no need to impose their religious views onto laws and governing principles, then I have no issue with his belief.
Christianity promotes discrimination in the United States against Atheists. Even though it is contrary to the US Constitution, several US States have laws in their state constitutions specifically banning Atheists from having a role in governance. Similarly over 20 states have constitutional amendments banning gay marriage. Both the Anti-Atheist and Anti-Gay Marriage amendments were made based on Christian sensibilities, based on what Christians believe their God to have demanded of us as humans, not based on the pursuit of the goals and dreams that underline the United States. Christian leaders in the United States actively fund, promote, and tie to their religion concrete political goals that are in direct conflict with secularism and national welfare, such as Creationism over Evolution, Climate Denialism over Climate Change, and Jingoism over Complex International Negotiation.
In countries in Africa, where there are far fewer checks of secularism on the Church, we can see the kind of violence that Christianity can inspire, most notably in Uganda, where the newspaper has a section that explicitly notes which persons have now been "discovered" to be gay (so that they can be appropriately targeted, mugged, or killed on the street). While this may seem strange or outlandish to you, it was only 120 years ago that similar newspapers circled around in France advising French citizens about the "new Jews in the neighborhood" so that they could be similarly treated.
