*Author

Artois

  • Guest
Re: Why Atheism? https://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php?topic=6397.msg68109#msg68109
« Reply #120 on: May 13, 2010, 02:34:47 pm »
What is more rational than recognizing ones limits and admitting for once that one simply doesn't know?
Contrary to that, an atheist does indeed make a leap of faith by saying "No, there isn't a god." He really cannot possibly know that for sure and yet here he is making that claim based on no evidence whatsoever. That is irrational.
I would think a true atheist could by definition certainly not acknowledge a god ever.
Thats not quite right Jangoo.

An atheist belives there is a God, no more than you or I believe that the core of jupiter is made of green cheese.  Its nonsense, even though I have never studied or visited the core of Jupiter, I would be very suprised to find it edible.  However, if 'proof' were made available to me that this was the case, I would undoubtably consider the evidence.

The distinct lack of Godly evidence despite continual studies over at least 2000 years is certainly leaning towards a lack of all probability in any divine being.  Further studies into the original sources of the 'miracles' and other teachings, bears light to a lot of falsehoods, myths, and politically motivated alterations to the texts.  Some Gospels have been sidelined.  Certain original Christian sects have been ommitted from history.  its fascinating stuff, but only goes to show that you can't believe what you read.

airframe

  • Guest
Re: Why Atheism? https://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php?topic=6397.msg68238#msg68238
« Reply #121 on: May 13, 2010, 07:17:57 pm »

Allright, it is getting a little painstaking to actually reply in detail, so sorry if I miss out on any specific details.
Yes, the whole topic can be a pain, and I'm sure you know very well where .

Since you seem to like tackle philosofical questions, I feel that I must give you a fair warning. For all you know I could be an engineer, *gasp*. http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=1879#comic (http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=1879#comic)

Different types of agnosticism and rationality:

Yes, the range is pretty wide. From "humans aren't (ever) able to know if there is a god" to "there is no convincing evidence for god (yet)". Artois seemed to be talking about the latter while I was leaning more towards the further.
These stances are rational because they acknowledge the limits of human perception and achievement as well as the concept of god as something that (if even existant) is indeed different than anything else already known to man. What is more rational than recognizing ones limits and admitting for once that one simply doesn't know?
Contrary to that, an atheist does indeed make a leap of faith by saying "No, there isn't a god." He really cannot possibly know that for sure and yet here he is making that claim based on no evidence whatsoever. That is irrational.
I would think a true atheist could by definition certainly not acknowledge a god ever. If he were consequential he wouldn't even admit gods existence after god smacked him in the face personally ... that would probably just be a "psychosomatic shift" or something.
In reality, most atheist aren't such believers that you suggest. I know I'm not, I would believe evidence.

I don't see a multitude of options for agnosticism, I see two.
1."humans aren't (ever) able to know if there is a god" 
2."there is no convincing evidence for god (yet)"
 
So you're leaning towards the first. These are quite different things and exclude each other.

The atheist lifestyle and faith:

I am aware that the elements I pointed out are a part of lots of peoples lifestyles. My point was however that first, this "lot" of people is actually a small minority living in industrialized countries. Far away from that cosy computer-place in our nicely furnished livingroom the world and the people that live within it look, think and live a whole lot different. Education, politics, individualism etc. have no or just a very small place indeed for the vast majority of the worlds population.
My underlying thesis is second, that humans do not live without a strong belief (faith) in something that provides meaning, values and institutions. I simply don't believe that atheists live along "just like that" without giving their lives a "higher" meaning. If this meaning is no further provided by a higher power, then where is it? ...
Yes, atheist are a minority. But how did you come to a conclusion that there are atheist only in industrialized countries and that it is modern idea? Ancient greeks have had similar ideas.

Your underlying thesis is rather weird, since you've implied that you don't have such faith yourself and yet see it as necessary.  :))

I see reality quite interesting, and I enjoy my life. There is so much to experience and feel, and the choices I make are real. I don't see how belief in supernatural would make my life have more higher meaning than it does, on the contrary I would be choosing to live in a fools paradise. Does that answer your question? edit. Now that think of it, I don't usually don't even think about it.

I have to add that I don't have a nicely furnished livingroom. My 'livingroom' a bit ascetic.  :-X

The face of "god" and how to be "convinced" of his existence:

It sort of puzzles me that this talk indeed revolves arond concepts of god that equal the toothfairy or alien abductions, that god is apparently actually portrayed as some old guy with a white beard that has never knocked on your door and introduced himself ... Of course "god" will never be "proven" if you expect him to be like this.
Taking the concept of divine beings a bit more serious has to result in the assumption that "god", if he exists, is in fact amorph or of a quality beyond those known to us:
Multi-sited, much more than a singular entity, within yourself, around you, with physical shape and without, bound by time and yet not, an energy and it's drain ... you get the picture. I am saying that a truly divine being has to be so different to us and our modes of perception that it seems a little bloated to actually think one might recognize it for sure with our 5 senses, find it in a book, have it proven by science or whatever.
So, just to get away from that SantaClause-style god here for a moment, what do you guys think about far eastern spiritual practices and the underlying concepts?
 
Are you familiar with one exquisite teapot, Bertnand Russel's teapot?

Quote from: B. Russel
If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.
http://www.cfpf.org.uk/articles/religion/br/br_god.html (http://www.cfpf.org.uk/articles/religion/br/br_god.html)
When you suggest to think about divine beings seriously, we do also have to take the celestial teapot into consideration. It is equal to the god you describe, and so is the invisible pink unicorn. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_Pink_Unicorn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_Pink_Unicorn)

I don't think any rational person would think these exist, but you suggest that we should seriously take them into consideration. Well, of course there is no way of being absolutely certain they don't exist. 

No one should compel someone to religion. It is an act of violating the right of freedom.

When I was in Singapore, we had to sing and pray to Jesus. Good thing I left after a year.
I agree with you very much.

I also can relate to the feeling you had while having to pray to Jesus because of circumstances. Really annoying.

Artois

  • Guest
Re: Why Atheism? https://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php?topic=6397.msg68242#msg68242
« Reply #122 on: May 13, 2010, 07:21:36 pm »
Ha ha, Bertrand Russell's teapot rides again!

Offline Jangoo

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 877
  • Reputation Power: 0
  • Jangoo hides under a Cloak.
  • New to You
Re: Why Atheism? https://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php?topic=6397.msg68608#msg68608
« Reply #123 on: May 14, 2010, 02:19:06 pm »
Since you seem to like tackle philosofical questions, I feel that I must give you a fair warning. For all you know I could be an engineer, *gasp*. http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=1879#comic (http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=1879#comic)
Lol, nice comic-strip. I would think that this actually the perfect basis for this discussion. I feel we are not even discussion philosophy at the moment but rather much theology.
Personally I couldn't care less about the bible, established churches and the face of god as we are "supposed to" believe in. There is really no point in trying to prove, disprove, disapprove, dis... a god like this, which is why I tried to come down to life-styling issues, personal experience etc. ... still a bit philosophical but much more down to earth imho.

When I say "Why not agnosticism?" in response to "Why atheism?" I mean to imply the next step of "Why so preoccupied with the established, given concepts of god? Why not search for oneself?"


All the same. If there's no evidence for it, then it makes no more sense to believe in it than to believe in anything else that has no evidence to support it (invisible pink unicorns, amorphous gods -you name it).

Sure the tooth fairy and reincarnation are both possible, but my point is that I'm not going to believe in reincarnation any more than I do in the tooth fairy, since I have the same amount of reason (evidence) to believe in either.
And how about the most micro possible level we could probably boil it down to:
Simple and personal "spiritual practices" and their effects on the human ... if you parallel reincarnation with the christian god fine. But what do you think about meditation, prayer etc. as a technique? Do you admit any kind of effect to those techniques? If yes, what are the qualities of those effects? Which name would you give them? ...


Thats not quite right Jangoo.
An atheist belives there is a God, no more than you or I believe that the core of jupiter is made of green cheese.  Its nonsense, even though I have never studied or visited the core of Jupiter, I would be very suprised to find it edible.  However, if 'proof' were made available to me that this was the case, I would undoubtably consider the evidence.
Apparently I am fully mistaken about the true meaning of atheism.

The question remains which type of proof you would need to believe.
I fully agree that the picture drawn of god and other divinities in books, scriptures etc. is most probably far off the "reality". For me, it is a given that humanity failed over the centuries to accurately recognize and portray the face of god for various reasons. Like I said, Santa Clause god doesn't matter to me at all.
So, if the depiction in works like the bible is a vague generalization at best and if religious belief is majorly grounded on highly individual experience ("When I pray I feel that ..."), how are you as an atheist ever going to be confronted with "convincing evidence"? There would hardly be anything to contrast a revelation with.

Hence my claim that a true atheist wouldn't acknowledge god if god smacked him right in the face because he is preoccupied with god as an institutional, political and scriptural concept.
He would probably go: "Hmyes that was weird, but there is no such thing as smacking-in-the-face in the bible so I don't really see why this was supposed to be god." ... See what I am saying?


Yes, atheist are a minority. But how did you come to a conclusion that there are atheist only in industrialized countries and that it is modern idea? Ancient greeks have had similar ideas.
I am saying that I focus on atheism as a postmodern, western idea.
The greeks are supposedly the forefathers of the western thought and system. It's merely a matter of historical perspective imho. Just about anything has already been there at some point in time and yet any remake stands for itself as a special appearance in history. The line of thought I had here does indeed stress religion/atheism as a political issue. However, the larger societal circumstances and their impact on religious belief have always influenced the personal, micro-belief strongly:

Antiquity:
When some ancient greek philosophers suggested "atheism", they did so because it was a political issue for them: The depictions of the gods were merely in place to ensure the established power-relations. On a philosophical/spiritual level they motioned that the faces of the gods were ridiculous and couldn't possibly parallel the spiritual reality.
God or not, these greek philosophers stressed an empowerment of the human being by introducing concepts like the free will. Having discarded the gods did not mean to give up searching for truth for them. Among several other notions they seeded western scientific thought. Their belief was grounded on self-enlightenment, the discovered principles of how the world works and the techniques to discover further became the motor of their pursuit.

Modernity:
When the Nazis established their "atheist" empire, they did so because this also was to mark a historical turningpoint, a new world-order. Religion got the boot as a possible counter-force and because it contradicted the self-empowerment of a supreme people, a people that should show it's dominance without outside or divine assistance. Here already, the dimensions of society became a bit too large to unite a people without a common belief-system. A fanatic, quasi-religious system was installed that featured religious symbology and a god-like leader on top of the pack.

Postmodernity:
The hallmark of postmodernity is detachment from anything that is unifying and collective. It is called post-modernity because meaningful (modern) collectives such as the Nazi-empire are supposedly overcome. Modernity overcame obsolete collectives and their belief systems such as the large churches, postmodernity overcame modern collectives and their belief systems.
The individuals freedom of choice and it's self-empowerment is once again in focus here. At the same time, a typical postmodern problem is that very detachment from a meaningful larger order. The result is a variety of newly established belief-systems since everybody has an urge to belong. Among those are: New religions, dedication to the democratic institutions, the quest for scientific knowledge, the quest for money, retreat to the core family, occupation with specialized niche-fields (gaming-communities e.g.) etc. ... The possible fields here are limitless and most people live a blend of several fields.

I view atheism as a nowadays phenomenon that accompanies an occupation within several of those fields: The postmodern being is a patchwork entity that attempts to define itself. Atheism is fashionable within that patchwork because it echoes human self-empowerment, individualism and a search for meaning outside the obsolete powerstructures of the church.

All that said, postmodernity and the respective lifestyling-blend is really a truly western phenomenon that only slowly spreads across the globe now. The specific place current educated atheism (as we are discussing it here!) has is therefore indeed within that postmodern, western framework.

Your underlying thesis is rather weird, since you've implied that you don't have such faith yourself and yet see it as necessary.  :))
I would say that my underlying thesis is rather much common ground in just about any possible discussion I can imagine. The priviledged human is more or less defined through his striving which is propelled by his beliefs.

Also, I didn't say anything about my faith yet other than that I would view myself as "omni-spiritual" however weird that actually sounds. :P
Just to be clear on that now: I consider myself as a good example for a disrooted postmodern being. I am having trouble to take faith in the human achievement, e.g. I could hardly dedicate my life to world-peace and the respective institutions because that would make me feel like Don Quixote. I also do enjoy my everyday experiences quite a bit like you airframe, however I often find myself wondering if enjoying stuff is really all there is to it. The inevitable end of all things, be it a day in the sun with my girl or a sucessful and fun conference at work, makes me sad here. I do not take definite faith in a specific higher being. However, I have practiced meditation for years and experienced conditions that cannot be described or compared to e.g. "feeling good about a day in the sun with your girl". These conditions haven't always been comforting but just about always enlightening. Therefore, I take a general "omni-spiritual" faith in something beyond the obvious. I do advise anybody to forget about "the church" for once and pick up a spiritual journey of whatever kind for himself. Imho the best place to start it is not a scripture or a heated theological discussion but a spiritual technique which one should choose to ones liking while choosing the teachers of your preference.


Are you familiar with one exquisite teapot, Bertnand Russel's teapot?
[...]
When you suggest to think about divine beings seriously, we do also have to take the celestial teapot into consideration. It is equal to the god you describe, and so is the invisible pink unicorn. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_Pink_Unicorn
Now I am. That reminds me of that official religion of the great spaghetti-monster.
While Russel certainly has a point here, it remains once again within that very limited "rationality + logic" framework which doesn't get you anywhere other than enabling you to say: "I don't have to believe in stuff like this."
Interestingly enough, the teapot doesn't even claim any relevance for a humans live. If it doesn't advise me to do or not do stuff, if it doesn't claim any impact on me whatsoever, why would I even care about it?
Divine concepts (or better yet: the institutions that promote them) claim that impact very often which is why it is worth to talk about them and to "take them seriously".

And once again: I am not describing or defending any specific type of god here.
I believe you are adressing the wrong person or are mistaking me for someone else ... a faithful christian missionary maybe? *shrug


Artois

  • Guest
Re: Why Atheism? https://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php?topic=6397.msg68614#msg68614
« Reply #124 on: May 14, 2010, 02:28:20 pm »
I'm sure I would notice if God smacked me in the face, but I don't believe he ever will.

However, I deduce that whilst you don't believe in the God of the scriptures, or other organised religions, you do 'feel' that there is a spiritual 'something' out there.

This belief in a spititual 'something', however vague does not make you agnostic as far as I can tell... rather you may be about to find a new God for us all  :D

It's all a bit 'new-age-y' for me... but then I have acquaintances who swear by the spiritual effects of crystals  :P

Offline Jangoo

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 877
  • Reputation Power: 0
  • Jangoo hides under a Cloak.
  • New to You
Re: Why Atheism? https://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php?topic=6397.msg68617#msg68617
« Reply #125 on: May 14, 2010, 02:42:24 pm »

Quote
However, I deduce that whilst you don't believe in the God of the scriptures, or other organised religions, you do 'feel' that there is a spiritual 'something' out there.
Yes. However that "something" may be very, very far away from a "being" as such.

Quote
This belief in a spititual 'something', however vague does not make you agnostic as far as I can tell... rather you may be about to find a new God for us all  :D
Like I said, I am not an agnostic. I was suggesting that stance apart from my personal stance.
Finding a new god ... don't think that will happen since I am not too fanatic about it and my consequential idea is exactly not to establish just another religious institution that horribly fails while attempting to bring "the light" to everybody.  ;)

Quote
It's all a bit 'new-age-y' for me... but then I have acquaintances who swear by the spiritual effects of crystals  :P
I despise "new-age" stuff, mostly because new-age followers often seem way too sure about their thing. In that, they are pretty similar to other religious followers.

I consider most people that claim to have specific knowledge about the shape, quality and effect of those "somethings" a little over the top. It will take an elderly person with a convincing aura and a rich live of experiences to make me listen and maybe believe. Some 20-year old missionary in a dress-suit won't cut it; neither will a mid-aged white woman in a saree that claims to have reached a certain state of enlightenment. ;)


Offline Chemist

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 304
  • Reputation Power: 4
  • Chemist is a Spark waiting for a buff.
  • New to Elements
Re: Why Atheism? https://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php?topic=6397.msg68634#msg68634
« Reply #126 on: May 14, 2010, 03:54:42 pm »
And how about the most micro possible level we could probably boil it down to:
Simple and personal "spiritual practices" and their effects on the human ... if you parallel reincarnation with the christian god fine. But what do you think about meditation, prayer etc. as a technique? Do you admit any kind of effect to those techniques? If yes, what are the qualities of those effects? Which name would you give them? ...
Not all spiritual practices are religious practices, but as with all religious practices I agree with the ones that can also be shown to be good from a non-religious perspective. There's evidence that meditation is good for you, but you needn't be religious to meditate. Prayers, while not performing any of the miracles they're promising also tend to have a positive impact on how the praying person feels (which has knock-on effects on health). Though advocating prayer for that reason would be much like advocating placebo as valid medicine...
Apparently I am fully mistaken about the true meaning of atheism.

The question remains which type of proof you would need to believe.
I fully agree that the picture drawn of god and other divinities in books, scriptures etc. is most probably far off the "reality". For me, it is a given that humanity failed over the centuries to accurately recognize and portray the face of god for various reasons. Like I said, Santa Clause god doesn't matter to me at all.
So, if the depiction in works like the bible is a vague generalization at best and if religious belief is majorly grounded on highly individual experience ("When I pray I feel that ..."), how are you as an atheist ever going to be confronted with "convincing evidence"? There would hardly be anything to contrast a revelation with.

Hence my claim that a true atheist wouldn't acknowledge god if god smacked him right in the face because he is preoccupied with god as an institutional, political and scriptural concept.
He would probably go: "Hmyes that was weird, but there is no such thing as smacking-in-the-face in the bible so I don't really see why this was supposed to be god." ... See what I am saying?
I've never said that I would ignore valid evidence, but instead that there isn't any. Convincing evidence could for instance be the sort the god of the Bible provided to the people in that book. A display of the supernatural which can be confirmed as not being bogus, preferably something scientists could observe in a laboratory and confirm as such.

You can say there is a spiritual "something" out there, but can this "something" be observed? If so then it can be proven to exist, if not then why believe in it? Why bother thinking about whether there is an ethereal dragon in your room right now? Even if there was it wouldn't change anything. In accordance with skepticism you shouldn't believe in it since there is no evidence, whereas in accordance with pragmatism you should believe in it if that makes you feel better. I suppose you've already made your choice here.

airframe

  • Guest
Re: Why Atheism? https://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php?topic=6397.msg68707#msg68707
« Reply #127 on: May 14, 2010, 06:12:38 pm »
@Jangoo, sorry, but I didn't read your post fully as I think there was a lot of stuff that's going nowhere and is just distracting. I'll read it later.

I was basically trying to aswer some of your arguments:

Atheism is irrational, and agnosticism is rational.
Atheist has to make a leap of faith.

I think those were covered.

Quote
"I am not describing or defending any specific type of god here."
Neither was I talking about any spesific god. The teapot stands for infinite number of things even the god you suggested:
Quote
Taking the concept of divine beings a bit more serious has to result in the assumption that "god", if he exists, is in fact amorph or of a quality beyond those known to us:
Multi-sited, much more than a singular entity, within yourself, around you, with physical shape and without, bound by time and yet not, an energy and it's drain ... you get the picture. I am saying that a truly divine being has to be so different to us and our modes of perception that it seems a little bloated to actually think one might recognize it for sure with our 5 senses, find it in a book, have it proven by science or whatever.
And yes, the FSM is basicly the same idea taken even further.
You didn't say anything about praying and affecting human life so didn't know that should have been included. :)
But I don't see how that would change anything. What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof.




As for meditation, deadlifting is basicly meditation for me. Well sports in general. And I do mean the mental side of it. I think of meditation as a mental training of sorts. Some like to include weird ideas into meditation, well what ever floats your boat.
Also arts can be meditation of sorts, I like to draw while not being very good at it.


I'm not sure what to make of this omni-spiritual thing of yours. It does seem like you're a theist who says that he is not a theist. Also, why are you even bringing agnosticism up?

Artois

  • Guest
Re: Why Atheism? https://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php?topic=6397.msg68710#msg68710
« Reply #128 on: May 14, 2010, 06:19:15 pm »
Why Atheism has become a split between Atheists, agnostics, Worshippers, and a new schism the as yet not understood Jangoo faction, lol.

Qohelet

  • Guest
Re: Why Atheism? https://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php?topic=6397.msg82268#msg82268
« Reply #129 on: June 04, 2010, 10:20:09 pm »
Knowledge = 3 conditions
1. Belief (A person must believe X to be said to know X.)
2. Truth (X must be true.)
3. Something something something.
Maybe you mean this one?

A subject S knows that a proposition P  is true if, and only if:

   1. P is true
   2. S believes that P is true, and
   3. S is justified in believing that P is true

Gettier pretty much proved that above thinking is bullcrap. I can think many situations where I can justify my beliefs and same time it's not true. Far from it.

From poor mans source (wiki):

    "Smith has applied for a job, but, it is claimed, has a justified belief that "Jones will get the job". He also has a justified belief that "Jones has 10 coins in his pocket". Smith therefore (justifiably) concludes (by the rule of the transitivity of identity) that "the man who will get the job has 10 coins in his pocket".

    In fact, Jones does not get the job. Instead, Smith does. However, as it happens, Smith (unknowingly and by sheer chance) also had 10 coins in his pocket. So his belief that "the man who will get the job has 10 coins in his pocket" was justified and true. But it does not appear to be knowledge. "


Another problem is basic skepticism: how I can know that I'm not hallucinating? You mentioned that 'know that you know' thing, it's basicly the same what I'm trying to say here. If I think christian solution to this problem we have to think God as being who really want prevent this kind of situation BUT only way to own this solution is believing this kind of being. We have own will, so we can make own solutions and one very used is just stop thinking and do something fancy, fill life with action, humour, you name it: just live without thinking that much. In our basic lives we don't think that kind problems anyway - so what the heck!

Anyway, we should give some respect to each other, even when we have issues in 'understanding sector' :)

SeddyRocky

  • Guest
Re: Why Atheism? https://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php?topic=6397.msg84427#msg84427
« Reply #130 on: June 06, 2010, 10:52:14 pm »
As much as I'd love to throw myself into the debate, I'll just answer the original question:

I would love to be anything but an atheist. Life would be so much simpler if I just believed that I was created, for a purpose (is that purpose ever mentioned though?) and will have an afterlife of some sort and probably worship a divine being. Problem is that I can't. I just cannot swallow any religion I've come across so far as credible.

Christianity: We are created in gods image, we are imperfect. Ok, considering that God has:
- Slayed countless amounts of people for reasons that are extremly petty or just plain stupid. Also displaying several horrible streaks of personality.
- Let everyone not born in a christian country go to hell. (Person A was born in a village in Africa. He/She has never faced christianity in any form and has no knowledge of its existance. Yet, as a non-believer, he/she will go to hell...) What kind of all-loving God would do that? Or would slay the sexually loose people of Sodom and Gomorrah but not Lots daughters that had incest sex with him...?
- Flood the earth, killing almost everyone and "starting over"...
- Create bacterias that could kill us, viruses... Not exactly an all loving one?
- Last but not least: Given us brains, intelligence, extelligence (information stored outside the body, such as common information in a tribe or a webpage on the internet) and the ability to think for ourselves and to question him, but smite us if we do? Free will is all good, but how free can we be with soooo many rules?

Most of this also applies to Judaism and Islam, of course.

Hindu:
- Don't know too much, but alll those gods... not likely.
- Caste system cannot have been put in place by gods.
- System of karma is a nice thought though.

Buddhism
- Can almost swallow this one, but the whole divine birth of buddha and all the mystical stuff....

Will add more...

Artois

  • Guest
Re: Why Atheism? https://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php?topic=6397.msg84647#msg84647
« Reply #131 on: June 07, 2010, 02:35:20 am »
Good points, Seddy.

How does an all-lovin' God create a place of eternal pain and torture (hell)?  It's a contradiction of all-lovin' ain't it?

 

blarg: