If there were anything better than religion to respond to this kind of insecurity, you'd think we'd have invented it by now.

The seminary nearly drove me to suicide. I'm a much happier, healthier, hopeful, and productive individual in the absence of religion.

I find that people who say that religion is a comfort completely miss the point.

The "god gene" as newsweek called it, is a built in human drive to be part of "something bigger" it has nothing to do with spirituality, in my opinion.

But then again, I have A. Had numerous "spiritual encounters" on an almost daily basis, and B. See spirituality completely different than western thought, because spirituality in Judaism, is rooted in the here and now, and could care less about angels, ghosts, demons, premenitions, out of body experiences or any of those things. Each of those experiences remove you from the world and will eventually harm your soul.

But then, it's all a question of the Matrix. Athiests prefer to stay in the matrix even after Neo reveals its all an illusion. Better to know you are nothing but a thinking battery than to struggle with reality.

Oh and murphy, you should label yourself a "Fundamentalist Athiest" cause that is what you are.

We have - It's called secular humanism.


That must be the dumbest pop-culture analogy I've ever heard. Way to go.

Best damned answer I've ever heard. Won't ever convince me, but it's a respectable answer.



I've never got the whole philosophy behind that. Who cares whats real? Better to ENJOY your life than spend it in misery and pain for some artifical concept of 'freedom'.

One person cannot be 'free' without impinging on the freedom of another. So... who cares?

You obviously didn't understand the film then.

I know many a zen and chasids who thought the film was amazing in that regard.

Don't get me wrong, I love secular humanism. I like the notion that -we- can get things right on our own despite our fallibility. But religion is still the norm and humanism is still on the fringes, which indicates it's not that good at responding to the 'God gene'.

I imagine most people feel that way, it and probably confused them because of it.

For many people however, life is not about Enjoyment. And most great things that we today rely on for granted came about from people who's main goal was not enjoyment. However, America today is best at making entertainment, and I am pretty sure at this point, its the only thing we excel at.

Interesting article.

Goes over much the same ground as here and asks questions instead of answering them, but still interesting.

But it's growing steadily. I think it's just the fact that 500 years ago, it was inconceivable to be an atheist, and even just 100 years ago, it was very difficult. For most of human history, we didn't have science as we know it today, so it was hard to explain the universe without gods and spirits and magic. But it's gotten steadily easier; the gaps are closing in on God, so to speak. Nowadays things you can't explain are the exception rather than the norm.

No, the things we can't explain are becoming the realm of advanced science. We understand the process and the how, but in no single science has 'why does it work like this' been truly discovered. Why do we live, and think? No one knows... People are just able to live with the illusion that they know why and how everything works.

Are you kidding me?

So there is this book called the bible, I don't know how old it is exactly, but in there there is a Nation called Amalek, who's memory must be erased once Israel is in a state of peace. The only difference between Amalek and the other nations, is that Amalek is a bunch of fundamentalist athiests who attack the Israelites to prove that there is no Divine.

The truth of the story is irrelevant, the existence of the story and the believability of it however, speaks volumes.

Then you have all the famous athiestic philosophers. The only difference is that you read the internet and trust it more than any other source of information.

Ok. Big picture question.

I'm not sure I understand this "Why?" question. What do you mean, "Why is it like this?" When a child asks, "Mommy, why is the sky blue?" the mother can, if she chooses to answer the question, explain the mechanics of light scattering, show the child a prism, and point out that the sky is indeed not blue at sunrise and sunset. This would be a satisfactory answer, given the question.

Some questions are outright stupid. "What is the meaning of life?" is not a question that should be asked by anyone without a presuppostion of divine creation. You do not need to answer a question that doesn't make sense. It's much like asking, "What is the meaning of nitrogen?" Difference is, no one cares. You do not become religious to answer a question like that. The question makes no sense, because meaning does not come from a lack of intention.

Why is there an Earth? Ask a planetary astronomer. Why do we die? Ask a biologist. What happens when we die? Again, ask a biologist. Why do bad things happen to good people? Ask a sociologist, psychologist, or criminologist, depending on the scope of the answer you're looking for. What "Why?" question are you asking?

We live and think because behaviour that leads to living, thinking things emerged in the universe, due to chance (Unlikely), the way the Universe works (More likely) or a combination of both (Average likelyhood, I'd say). It's that simple.
So... because there's a story... in the Bible... which was written by the Israelis... about the Amalekites, who were their enemies... and how they were atheists... what's your point? That atheists are evil? That atheists have no morals? That atheists are out to get you?

I don't see what your point here is. That there are no atheistic philosophers? That you can't spell? Daganev, you have been indoctrinated from birth to believe in this one book, and your ability to think and reason just stops, because you cannot conceive that the books is anything but the gospel truth. I have multiple sources of information; you have one, very old, very biased, and very poor source of so-called information, and you make the most ridiculous points based on belief which is ludicrously misguided, without a shred of evidence but the collective delusion you and some other people share, based on this old, meaningless meme that's been riding on the back of your people for thousands of years.

But what happens when the kid says, what is light? Why is the light multicolored. Why does a prism separate these colors. Where does light come from? How is it made? Why does it travel so fast?

We understand processes, not sources.

He was replying to your comment about how atheism is new. Please read your own post again.

I prefer to think that science exlains 'how', not 'why'. The astronomer will tell me how the Earth formed, the biologist how bodily processes fail leading to cessation of life. They will not explain the purpose behind these mechanisms, because it is not science's role to do so. If you believe there is no purpose, and the 'why' question makes no sense, that's a valid stance but science isn't answering that question one way or the other.



But it's gotten them this far. You can argue that it hindered them along the way, they can tell you they survived because of it. Who can say which argument is right ?

I know the answer to all of those questions except the last.

Which is exactly my point Korben, I was pointing out that science can not replace religion, just because they might answer some of the same questions. Science is a pair of pants, and religion a shirt. Yes both cover the body, but despite one function being the same, they are not remotely the same articles.