What an atheist is, for Splendour

[tame_deuces]

Well, I can throw in my two cents also. I think the idea of god was a simplified view of the universe that was actually a good idea once. Common knowledge can unite societies just like common ethics, common culture, common trade etc. can. I also happen to like many of the ethical and normative ideas that follow from christianity and other of the major religions.

Now my opinion is that the belief in god has run it's course. We need to leave that idea behind, as it is like an anchor around or foot in the development of mankind. We have advancements we need to make in philosophy, technology, biology for us to make it on this piece of rock, and I think most major religious beliefs hamper those developments and cause alot of unnecessary grief and harm.

As you might have guessed I don't buy into absolute truths, since I logically think our knowledge is lightyears away from the level it needs to be on to figure out any absolutes. Structured religion therefore seems like a completely illogical notion to me. If we haven't figured out yet what runs the universe, they didn't figure it out some millenias ago either.

I guess some would call me an agnostic since I don't believe in absolutes yet, and others a strong atheist since I deny the existence of the gods of the major religions. A paradox maybe? I don't really know nor care.

[Splendour]

tame_deuces you said:
Now my opinion is that the belief in god has run it's course. We need to leave that idea behind, as it is like an anchor around or foot in the development of mankind. We have advancements we need to make in philosophy, technology, biology for us to make it on this piece of rock, and I think most major religious beliefs hamper those developments and cause alot of unnecessary grief and harm.

What makes you think we have the moral values to handle these advances in science and technology? Every time we develop some new technology we seem to let the genie out of the bottle for abuse of the new technology...Did you ever wonder if technology is outstripping our ability to meet it? Evolution took million of years for changes to occur and people to adapt...don't you think maybe we are evolving technologies too quickly for people to adapt...I know old people that can't even handle cell phones today and refuse to use computers...

[tame_deuces]

The short and simplified version is that I don't.

We need advances in philosophy, culture and learning as well. Basically human knowledge is now changing so rapidly that one is talking about knowledge learnt to specialize in a profession might become obsolete only 10-20 years after. Scientific papers are being published at insane rates compared to only 20 years ago, and nothing seems to indicate that this incredible stream of information is going to slow down or stop accelerating anytime soon. New research show that it will not be unusual for people to hold 10-20 different jobs in just as many years.

We have learnt to integrate ourselves closer and closer with computers and other information technology to handle the pressure, but at some point we are going to need radical new thinking and philosophy as well.

People are going to have to learn how to learn in the most efficient and effective manners possible. Learning knowledge will become supbar to learning how to rationalize new information in the quickest and most efficient ways possible. Humans beings might very need to augment themselves and improve on our functions to manage these difficulties, and it is not really some scifi scenario. Our complete reliance of technology today is really complete integration also, just not of our bodies. Most people in the modern west today can't survive without post 1900-technology.

The furthering of integration with technology might become a necessesity for this to function properly. Especially when more and more of the world is going to join in on the fun and the information streams are going to be absolutely enormous. And we can't slow down, we really don't have the time to. We have some problems to solve and probably some new ones on the way.

[Splendour]

In response to MidGe's post where he questioned God's character...an interesting scholarly paper may help you understand God's true nature better by a scholar of philosophy and ethics: http://www.paulcopan.com/articles/pd...Narcissism.pdf

[foal]

you've already been asked to stop posting links.

[MidGe]

The link you posted has nothing to do with my post. It addresses whether an omnipotent etcc god could be humble.

I cannot reconcile an omnipotent, benevolent and intelligent being responsible for the suffering of humans and animals alike, entity. Whether there is a single cause, unlikely but for the discussion value I'll admit as possible, that entity would not be benevolent or intelligent or omnipotent. Thus would not meet your definition of god and is, surely from my viewpoint, not worthy of worship but simply of contempt.

PS Don't send me PM about your quotes, I am capable of reading a thread.