Post
Topic
Board Politics & Society
Re: The problem with atheism.
by
FinShaggy
on 17/09/2013, 17:36:08 UTC
Let me start by making it clear that I am an atheist.

The problem I have with the atheist agenda is that is stops at 'the non existence of God' - the same logic is not applied consistently to the whole of the human condition.

If I examine my life and use this same 'spaghetti monster' logic, I am drawn to the same conclusions about all my actions and activities - they are all as equally pointless and irrational as worshiping God.

If I rationally examine my sense of self I realize that it is just a genetic innovation - it encourages self preservation - genetic selfishness creates a genetically induced illusion of self worth.

My desire to survive is itself as delusional as a belief in God - pain and my fear of pain are a genetically induced survival mechanism I am in thrall to.

If I believe in God and survive then it is no different to not believing in God and surviving - nature will select for survival.

But my actual survival is meaningless whether I believe in God or otherwise.

This is the only conclusion that can be logically formed from a real examination of life.

Atheism is merely another tribal display - a peacock's tail trying to attract a mate through a verbal display of intelligence.






Not true really. I do not call myself "Atheist" but I'm sure plenty of people would.

I don't believe in ANY god, I simply study culture, society, history and nature for a better understanding of the world.

You seem to still be seeking a god... Once you figure out "God doesn't exist", that is not when you start trying to apply that logic to everything. That is when you decide what DOES matter (family, being the change, introducing new people to new things, etc)

Observer participation, verifiable through experiments in quantum mechanics, demonstrates the interconnectedness between mental and physical reality.  The mathematical proof for the boundary of a boundary = 0 establishes the concept of sameness-in-difference and demonstrates the illusionary nature of separation. 


These concepts alone indicate the plausibility of god to the extent that it lays the foundation for a universal consciousness. Then, toss in the fact that the reality we study is the output of internal processes, and then you realize that it's impossible to explain any event or process without invoking some form of mental causation.

Personally, the more I study reality empirically, the more evidence I find that supports the existence of god.

I think what you are mistaking for "god" is just the "universe". It is a giant organism of some sort, proof of its consciousness is US. Proof of its pulse are stars, etc.

But just because it exists, doesn't mean it knows or even cares about us... Or that it even has the capacity to do those things.
And it surely doesn't mean it created us, who knows if it knows how it started.