Why are there so few atheists that actually take their philosophy seriously?

[Profileid]

Either because you fear the legal consequences or are not a psychopath or both. But that's irrelevant. Some atheists say they care for the future of the human race but there is no reason why they should.

That reminds me of an argument I had with two atheist stoner dipshits once.
"Most of the religious people I've met have been of remarkable character"
"But like...dude... they're only doing it because they're told to"
"So what? If it makes them behave,who cares?"
"Well it's like a gun's being held to their head"

[Taiguaitiaoghyrmmumin]

How is the Golden Rule absolute? Following your worldview, it exists only in as much as humans choose to believe in it as part of a complex ruse to ensure survival. Will the Golden Rule keep on existing regardless of circumstances? Say, human extinction? The definition of absolute itself says that it applies without a relation to any other thing, so I should ask, is the Golden Rule innate to the universe to you? Does it apply for all life forms? And to non-living matter too?

The golden rule isn't absolute. But the golden rule benefits in human society and it can be observed in animals

All of which are human artifices if we go by the atheist worldview, thus they're not real, just subjective voluntary beliefs that are held out of pure utilitarianism. They're totems.

What are you talking about? You make no sense

Strawman means I create a poor version of what you are, and then attack that weaker version in an attempt to ridicule you.

I'm not doing that. I linked an example of 2 people who are known and have a long bibliography being consistent atheists, and proceed to ask why there are so comparatively few atheists with the same degree of symmetry in their mindset. In other words, why are there so few high quality atheists like Stirner? At some level, Donatien de Sade taking the Thelemite principle of doing whatever one wants, without paying heed to external laws, is somehow intellectually admirable since he actually did put it in motion.

Why is there such low ratio of quality theists in the world when it comes to discussing if god exists or not. Come with me with real facts. Is there any kind of Proof that god exists or not. Theres none, no experiments no physical evidence of him. On top of that its logically contradicting and makes no sense. If I told you an invisible dragon with 3 heads that was everywhere at the same time existed and he was in charge of the oceans and sky. You would probably believe it since you can believe in a invisible being thats everywhere at the same time.

What's the significance of human joy? Just the random byproduct of matter coming together and gaining sentience as part of the infinite physical processes taking place in the universe. The happiness of a human isn't then worth any more than a sun spot, a gas cloud or the gravitational field of the Oort Cloud.

Joy is an emotion but its not random. Emotions are a byproduct of how someone perceives something in the universe. Emotions are to express. Even animals have emotions. The most basic emotion is fear which is essential for survival which is part of the fight or flight response.

What's the significance of this? We want to understand the world around us, that's great. Does that have any objective meaning? It's just atoms stuck together that gained sentience by evolution and now spend time moving around thinking, for a seemingly odd reason since understanding the universe has no survival value in the least.

Meanings have different layers. We use meaning to describe the actual physicality of something. And theres abstract meaning. Obviously I am talking abstract meaning as to people finding something that has people feeling stimulated and joy in their life. Feeling stimulated isn't a concrete phsyical attribute but abstract one based off chemical responses and the experiences of that person

I thought morals came to be only in as much as cooperation was required for survival. Contracts, bargaining, working relations then. Why would morality extend beyond that to care about emotions or feelings?

Morals are heavily derived from culture and environment. However an individuals experience ultimately determines what kind of values they take with them. However theres some stuff that brain structure may play a role in what kind of morals someone carries as well. Since the brain goes through neuroplasticity the environment can also change the structure of the brain or the interaction to the environment may also do that.

The Golden Rule is a 100% method oriented premise. In other words, people try to be friendly to each other under the assumption that such a setting makes society operate in a better manner.

The Golden Rule however doesn't give a metaphysical reason as to why life matters at all from a normative point of view. What's the significance of social peace and stability? Whether we thrive or all die is inconsequential from an objective point of view. Is it moral if a meteorite crashes against a planet? Is it moral if cosmic radiation fries some incipient protein compounds in a distant planet far away? Seems like all of this is just as meaningful/less as humans thriving. You can argue that it only matters because we chose it to matter, but if so, it's a purely subjective belief and there's no real outrage in ceasing to believe in it, since both belief and lack of belief are all meaningless in the end.

Its very simple, Peace and stability gives a sense of security, so they feel their survival is secure from immediate dangers. However all things die in the end.

Agnosticism generally seems to hint at people not having a very defined metaphysical framework of understanding. They wonder if X stuff is meaningful or not, without really making up their mind.
Atheists are materialists that stand for everything that exists being matter and the end result of random forces and particle interacting with each other, with no real objective/inherent meaning to the Universe beyond this. Everything else, according to a consistent atheist point of view, is arbitrary make belief.

The universe is whats real. God isn't. Abstract things are not real but can be emulated into reality. until something abstract is actually implemented into reality, then it is not real.

Don't know, maybe you prefer to get your cock stroked on a Saturday night rather than die. It doesn't matter really, whether you want to live your life till old age and have a family, or die childless, or blow your brains out 1 minute from now, it's all ultimately inconsequential since you're just matter. Does it matter if some water drops falls on a rock today or tomorrow? Probably not.

The biological purpose is to survive as long as you can. It can matter if someone drops fall on a rock because it changes the future. You don't know if that person could have effected the future or effected someone who could effect the future profoundly or have offspring that effects the future. Our effect on future is small in comparison to the Universe but it still effects our immediate planet in the Universe others who share it. Truth is though if humans died out the Universe would still go on though and other life would continue to exists after us.

Why do you? You came to be out of randomness sure, but why do you have to bother preserving it and perpetuating it. If you do so because you feel like it, sure, whatever choice is the same. But you seem to hint at having a duty, meaning something that ought to be done regardless of your choices and will. Why do you? Where does this duty come from? Does a blue star have the duty to do anything?

Because life is random. Why do you keep perpetuating its not?
Is it because you want to feel special with a purpose?

Of course there's not, how could there be? You understand how science works right? It uses physical evidence to build models that explain how reality works. And I'm not making up that definition on my own, but quoting hardcore atheists like thunderf00t or that sort of guy. God is a metaphysical concept to explain why the universe came to be, the purpose. Categorical differences.

God is not a real nor there is any evidence of a real god. There is no experiment that proves god exists. Nor there is no math that proves god exists. No scientists has ever announced a math formula that proved god existed.

I've not mentioned a single religious thing here.

I guess, but it is ultimately voluntary if you want to care for others or not. Since there's no higher imperative that dictates one should care for others. You choose to be altruistic, sure, whatever you feel like. Someone else can choose not to be care and mass murder people to make cups with their skulls, also no difference since his choice is inconsequential.

The choice has consequences because of the environment. Hes interacting with his environment, including if he chooses to mass murder them. Eventually he will die and in the future his work of genocide can be put down or avenged. There is no god pulling any sort of strings. The world is just constantly changing and reacting.

Yes there is. We live in society, Society gives us security and in society we help each other because expect that helping each other builds relationship which we both benefit off of.
But we sometimes help each other purely because we feel joy to help others.
However in reality like I said humans can die and the Universe would keep existing without us.

Scientism is no different. The Aether as a concept of physics was scratched unceremoniously in the early part of the XX Century even though there was no reason for it, something that Nikola Tesla pointed out adamantly at the time. For decades, considering multiverse theory was seen as heresy by the mainstream academia that instead said only string theory should be considered seriously as a way to understand the origin of the universe. Once string theory proved to be a dead end, suddenly the neglected theory of quantum gravity, whose proponent had been sidelined and not given any further university posts, was pushed forward and came to be the basic core of M Theory, seen as respectable today.

Scientists challenge each others theories and the best theories of the day are held to be more true. When newer information is revealed we correct and update. Religions virtually stay the same, and base nothing off of true science and objective observation of the universe. If I see science showing me God is real with real evidence then its something I would consider but till then God is just story of imagination. Much like the invisible tooth fairy who puts a dollar under your bed.

This is Jean-Paul Sartre's take on it, existentialism. The curious idea that while there is no inherent meaning to anything, not even ourselves, we can somehow however spring forth meaning with our choices. Seems quite the leap since it says that from non-meaning, meaning can appear with just a mental switch.
Albert Camus spent his career criticising this inconsistency in existentialism, instead pushing forward a more coherent atheist worldview in Absurdism, where the total lack of meaning is accepted, and is said to be inescapable (true since something cannot come out of nothing), but pretending as if shit matters is important to him, not because it really matters, but just because aesthetically and from an individual (meaning subjective, not objective) point of view, starting enterprises in life is better than be crushed by the weight of meaninglessness.

The problem with god is not even the concept that nothing comes from nothing. Its logical fallacies like he loves you but sends you to hell for eternity just because you don't follow the faith. You can live a life being a murderer or hurting others but at the end be sent to heaven. Hes everywhere at the same time which makes no sense. In the bible it never explains how the universe was created nor nothing about how it works like in physics. It has many contradictory things about his virtues such as approving mass genocide the taking of females to be concubines ect ect.
There is no inherent meaning. We use definition to describe characteristics and attributes of physical things. Abstract things are not physical and they are not real unless implemented into the actual Universe.

[Bezprym]

Either because you fear the legal consequences or are not a psychopath or both.

Legal consequences? I've mentioned suicide afterwards. Well, technically I can also shoot to the police that will try to catch me, what morality stops me, if we shouldn't have morality?

But that's irrelevant. Some atheists say they care for the future of the human race but there is no reason why they should.

And why do you care? You'll die too. The only thing that differs here is that you believe is some Afterlife and being judged. But you don't have to do anything to improve the life of the mankind.
Why a father loves his son? Why a mother doesn't want her daughter to live in a shitty world?

[Dunai]

Why do you? You came to be out of randomness sure, but why do you have to bother preserving it and perpetuating it. If you do so because you feel like it, sure, whatever choice is the same. But you seem to hint at having a duty, meaning something that ought to be done regardless of your choices and will. Why do you? Where does this duty come from? Does a blue star have the duty to do anything?

My sense of duty comes from my great admiration of what humans are capable to achieve when given the chance to exist. It would be really shallow and moreover moronic from me to turn my back to this amazing existence and not help it to somehow survive. Anyone who is struck by the beauty of arts, language, reasoning cannot really be careless about whether it will be destroyed sooner or later, or it could survive, perhaps even outside of our planet.

[hedonist]

But to be consistent, the atheist should admit that, for them, life is meaningless and they might as well not exist. The highest thing they can aspire to is hedonism.

But I think that many people who call themselves atheists are actually agnostics - they are just lazily using a popular term.

Just because you would like something to exist doesn't mean that it does. Finding value in something does not change the fact of weather it exists or not. It either does or it doesn't.

[Insuperable]

Just because you would like something to exist doesn't mean that it does. Finding value in something does not change the fact of weather it exists or not. It either does or it doesn't.

Another 'progressive' atheist cuck.

[hedonist]

Another 'progressive' atheist cuck.

I'm actually not an atheist, I don't believe in any of the Abrahamic religions as they exist today though. I have my own personal values and ideas on the nature of god, spirituality, and humanity's history that's been distorted by state education and heavy editing of the bible. So yeah fuck you and fuck your old world belief systems


Your religion does not define your race/nationality. Stop acting like the two are one and the same.

[Insuperable]

No one knows if the Universe certainly started with the big bang but that there was likely a big bang. There could have been something before it. Another theory believes that the Universe goes into a cycle of shrinking and expanding. Shrinking till its so condensed and big bangs again. Then after expanding condenses again. but no one knows for sure. We just know that scientificly there is no evidence for God. Logically there can't be no god either because it has too many logical fallacies.Problem with religious people is they don't know how to update to the times of newer information when things get discovered. What religious people do is conform other ideas to fit their purpose. Even when Science doesn't back up the notion of god existing they go off tangent, sometimes even try to use psuedo science or manipulate something off context, or just some typical religious jargin.

Nobody can say for certain, that is true, but can say that with 99.99% certainty. There are many evidences, physical and mathematical that support the Big Bang theory. There is not one theory of cycling Universe, there is not one theory of Multiverse, but one billion of them. Most of them are cited like once per year and very rarely somebody gives a shit about them and many of them were thrown to garbage after the discovery of the accelarated expansion of the Universe, but the beauty of physics is that physicists allways find a way to spice things up. The standard view is that there is this Universe and that there was a beginning of space and time. Regarding the origin of the Universe Bible was here ahead of scientists. Only recently do we take the Big Bang theory seriously. It was after the discovery of the microwave background radiation that the Big Bang took hold as the standard model. Hoyle's steady state theory of the eternal Universe was quite famous until that time. But Christians always believed that there was a beginning of the Universe (... in the beginning God created...), that the Universe was created from nothing (early Christian doctrine and now the rising view among physicists) and that information is the basis for all things (in the beginning was the Word and Word became flesh). Having this finely tuned Universe, conscious out of matter, relationship between the abstract and physical and even the laws and relationship between the abstract is so far a good basis for the belief in the highest intelligence.

[Insuperable]

I'm actually not an atheist, I don't believe in any of the Abrahamic religions as they exist today though. I have my own personal values and ideas on the nature of god, spirituality, and humanity's history that's been distorted by state education and heavy editing of the bible. So yeah fuck you and fuck your old world belief systems
Your religion does not define your race/nationality. Stop acting like the two are one and the same.

Fuck your modern degenerate beliefs.

[hedonist]

Fuck your modern degenerate beliefs.

Fuck yours, you have no proof that yours are no more correct than mine. Obsolete piece of shit