Atheism is abnormal human behavior

[Givemeareason]

You keep ducking the question.  What is a naturalist, to you?????

I think I diverged a bit off topic but here's another thought.  If there is any purpose in existence, the God we might create this time around might exceed any of our expectations both now and forever.

[Mike Cl]

I think I diverged a bit off topic but here's another thought.  If there is any purpose in existence, the God we might create this time around might exceed any of our expectations both now and forever.

I don't think there is any purpose in existence.  Purpose is a personal matter.  Your purpose is on you--only you can determine that.  Same for me.  I kind of like Joseph Campbell's take on it--the purpose of life is life.  He goes on to say that to find your purpose, follow your bliss.  Do that which gives you life, that excites you, make you alive, gives you a reason to face the day--that feeds you.  One does not need a god to give one purpose.  All you need is you.  Once you create a god, then you have to conform to that god.  So, why create a god?

[Mike Cl]

Yes, I think we are on the same page up to a point.  But I make a distinction between what I believe and what I might think or speculate on.   We agree down to before the big bang.  The consensus of science is that the big bang did occur.  But it is speculative as to what caused it and I love to entertain the possibilities.  The black hole idea is an excellent one.  So it seems that if that were true universes might come in all different sizes since black holes come in all different sizes.  And then we get into wondering about the boundaries of space and if it exists outside of our universe or could there be universes within our universe and then it gets into string theory which I don't understand and so on.  And as for black holes they such in matter and energy and can even emit energy as well.  I am an old black hole enthuisast.  And as for life I am in awe that it even exists.  It seems so incredibly unnecessary from my tiny point of view.  Which leads me to think this may have happened millions of times before or simultaneously as well (realizing this idea may be flawed since we may also be experiencing it the only time it has happened).  So since life appears so unessential why does it occur and what is happening now as we enter an explosion of knowledge and technology where it appears now possible that we might even create conciousness that is unimaginable???  Why does this appear to be culminating at this point in time?  Seems to sort of detract from existential nihilism from my point of view.  But other than that minor addition we seem in complete agreement.  But what do I know... I am just a biological computer program with very limited data.

So, it seems we do see things in much the same way.  That's good.  Life--what is it and why is it?  I think it is simply a byproduct of all the materials that is present in our universe.  Is it essential.  No.  But so what?  I think it simply happens because of how the material in the universe interacts.  It is impossible to have a universe such as ours and not have life (I surmise).  And who says it all has to be carbon based, such as ours?  In fact, we don't really know what life is; is a virus alive?  It is quite difficult to find a full definition of what life is.  It is all very mysterious.  But it is less mysterious than it was 2,000 years ago.  And god does not make it less mysterious, but adds another layer to the mystery.  One that to me, is much more mysterious than how this universe was formed.

[AllPurposeAtheist]

Alright,  I'm pissed they swiped my  AF short hand of APA and shrinks as far as I'm concerned are a bunch of flakes hell bent on making money selling people on the cure for living..  I've dealt with plenty of shrinks in my life and have yet to meet one who knows didly jack squat about dealing with their own lives much less mine..

There's a word for all this gibberish, HOKUM..

[Givemeareason]

I don't think there is any purpose in existence.  Purpose is a personal matter.  Your purpose is on you--only you can determine that.  Same for me.  I kind of like Joseph Campbell's take on it--the purpose of life is life.  He goes on to say that to find your purpose, follow your bliss.  Do that which gives you life, that excites you, make you alive, gives you a reason to face the day--that feeds you.  One does not need a god to give one purpose.  All you need is you.  Once you create a god, then you have to conform to that god.  So, why create a god?

I cannot fathom a purpose other than we want purpose.  Doesn't it appear a bit odd that something would come into existence and seek purpose?  I am so amazed that the laws of our universe allow our existence much less seek a purpose.  And I am even more amazed that this universe allows us to utilize technology to the extent we have.  But I am also aware that since we are in the middle of what is happening our views are likely distorted.  Maybe my program has malfunctioned?

[Mike Cl]

I cannot fathom a purpose other than we want purpose.  Doesn't it appear a bit odd that something would come into existence and seek purpose?  I am so amazed that the laws of our universe allow our existence much less seek a purpose.  And I am even more amazed that this universe allows us to utilize technology to the extent we have.  But I am also aware that since we are in the middle of what is happening our views are likely distorted.  Maybe my program has malfunctioned?

I cannot begin to say that I understand all this.  But I don't think the universe gives a shit one way or the other.  It is totally and completely neutral.  Life is simply a byproduct of the material of the universe.  Does this make me depressed?  Nope.  Purpose is on me.  And I'm fine with that.  Yes, we are in the middle of of our 'life' and it may seem a bit muddled and distorted and difficult to get the big picture.  But maybe we are trying too hard to find some purpose.  I think it is simply that life occurred here and we have life.  We are lucky.  But there is no grand scheme to any of this.  Pure chance--life had to occur somewhere--and here it is.  And here you are.  It is sort of like that raindrop in the huge rainstorm.  Trillions and trillions of raindrops.  What are the chances that that one particular raindrop hit you in the head?  Too great for me to figure out.  Sooooooooooooooo small.  But it is 100% sure you will be hit by a raindrop if you go out into the storm.  You went out and that particular raindrop hit you.  Now it is a 100% sure thing.   Life in our universe is like that.  Our universe is so huge and we are so small that all we can see is that one particular raindrop.  I'm sure there are trillions more out there, but I can't see them. 

[Givemeareason]

I cannot begin to say that I understand all this.  But I don't think the universe gives a shit one way or the other.  It is totally and completely neutral.  Life is simply a byproduct of the material of the universe.  Does this make me depressed?  Nope.  Purpose is on me.  And I'm fine with that.  Yes, we are in the middle of of our 'life' and it may seem a bit muddled and distorted and difficult to get the big picture.  But maybe we are trying too hard to find some purpose.  I think it is simply that life occurred here and we have life.  We are lucky.  But there is no grand scheme to any of this.  Pure chance--life had to occur somewhere--and here it is.  And here you are.  It is sort of like that raindrop in the huge rainstorm.  Trillions and trillions of raindrops.  What are the chances that that one particular raindrop hit you in the head?  Too great for me to figure out.  Sooooooooooooooo small.  But it is 100% sure you will be hit by a raindrop if you go out into the storm.  You went out and that particular raindrop hit you.  Now it is a 100% sure thing.   Life in our universe is like that.  Our universe is so huge and we are so small that all we can see is that one particular raindrop.  I'm sure there are trillions more out there, but I can't see them.

Well it seems we are in agreement with many things.  So you are only saying what you believe?  It sounds too much like religion to me.  You have exceeded the boundaries of what I believe.  Remember i made that distinction between speculating and believing.  What I have been talking about are not beliefs.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

The realization there is no God is not really very profound.  And identifying as an atheist is not either.

Couldn't agree more. Nothing profound in seeing bullshit as bullshit.

It is usually a transient view for most of us on the way to believing something else just as ridiculous.

Citation needed. Reads as bollocks, probably because it's bollocks.

So the real issue is not god but just us.

How can atheists believe there is a problem with something that doesn't exist in the first place? Indeed, what 'issue' are we talking about again? Seems like this sentence wasn't thought through.

And atheists often reach their views not because of rational observation but because we are still looking for something to believe in. The reason we are here is so we can still retain some sense of belonging while behaving just like the religious do.

Again, citation needed. I don't see how it follows that an atheist can 'lose' their faith in something because they are still looking for faith in something? That don't make no sense.

Also, you don't address at all the statistically large number of people (like me) who have always been an atheist and never had a religious faith in anything. What of us?

Human beings like being around like minded individuals by default. It was necessary for the past for survival and propagation, and it's necessary now for interaction in an increasingly dynamic and fluid society (or so we think). So is it really so surprising to see atheists talking and interacting with other atheists, especially when you consider that in many areas around the world being an atheist is punishable by death and ostracizing from friends and family?

As per the post below, atheism has nothing to do with anything outside of atheism. Rationalism, skepticism, logical inquiry may go hand in hand with being an atheist in many cases but it's got nothing inherently do with atheism. Atheists may act like the religious, but atheism can't by virtue of it having nothing in common whatsoever with theism of any given stripe.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

I am so glad to see this thread is gaining attention.  And I can only assure all of you that I am in no manner a theist of any sort.  I may be a crazy old man but I identify mostly with just being a naturalist. Atheism from my point of view is a prerequisite for being a naturalist.   But not all atheists are naturalists because many still hold supernatural views.  Which clearly indicates that atheism may not be as rational as we like to think. 

Wanted to pick up on this point in addition. What does atheism have to do with the supernatural again?

Atheism = lack of belief in a god or gods ( as a minimum. +ve rejections can go hand in hand). Atheism =/= 'rational', just that you do not have an active belief in a deity. You're right, atheists can believe in all manner of nonsense, and probably do. But what does that have to do with anything? Think you may have meant 'atheists', not atheism.

...So which one are we in?  The one with the God or the one without the god?

Bracketing out everything aside, until there is evidence to demonstrate that there is such, there is no reason to believe that there is aside the personal belief that you want to it to be true.

[Mike Cl]

Well it seems we are in agreement with many things.  So you are only saying what you believe?  It sounds too much like religion to me.  You have exceeded the boundaries of what I believe.  Remember i made that distinction between speculating and believing.  What I have been talking about are not beliefs.

It does seem that we are in agreement in many areas.  And I think if we were to have a face-to-face, we'd be in more agreement.  What you term 'belief' I term hypothesis.  It is based in some fact or another.  I will freely admit that my knowledge of physics and cosmology is limited.  Because of that ignorance, my hypothesis are fully recognized as such by myself as not yet proven.  But there is no 'belief' in the unseen or the unnatural or supernatural going on here.  Science is filled with the unknown, but it is not unknowable, only unknown at this point.  The unknown drives science--curiosity drives the great thinkers of this world.  And so, the unknown is only temporary--there is an answer.  And hypothesis is the way to formulate that curiosity, a way to shape what to look closely at next.
I don't term that religion.  Religion connotes to me the worship of something supernatural, something to beseech for help, something outside of nature.  Nothing deserves to be worshiped; well, maybe baseball and ice cream.  Religion in and of itself is not all that destructive to the rest of us--organized religion is deadly to the rest of us. 

So, I'm sure my hypotheses has exceeded what you believe.  You probably have more physics and cosmology facts at your fingertips--I think you know more.  But as more facts penetrate my skull, my hypotheses can and do change.  My thoughts are not anchored in 'belief' and 'faith', but in theories.  So, my believing something can change; my hypotheses change.  My curiosity forces me to build bridges between what is and what should or could be.  So, my hypotheses can and do change.   

[Givemeareason]

It does seem that we are in agreement in many areas.  And I think if we were to have a face-to-face, we'd be in more agreement.  What you term 'belief' I term hypothesis.  It is based in some fact or another.  I will freely admit that my knowledge of physics and cosmology is limited.  Because of that ignorance, my hypothesis are fully recognized as such by myself as not yet proven.  But there is no 'belief' in the unseen or the unnatural or supernatural going on here.  Science is filled with the unknown, but it is not unknowable, only unknown at this point.  The unknown drives science--curiosity drives the great thinkers of this world.  And so, the unknown is only temporary--there is an answer.  And hypothesis is the way to formulate that curiosity, a way to shape what to look closely at next.
I don't term that religion.  Religion connotes to me the worship of something supernatural, something to beseech for help, something outside of nature.  Nothing deserves to be worshiped; well, maybe baseball and ice cream.  Religion in and of itself is not all that destructive to the rest of us--organized religion is deadly to the rest of us. 

So, I'm sure my hypotheses has exceeded what you believe.  You probably have more physics and cosmology facts at your fingertips--I think you know more.  But as more facts penetrate my skull, my hypotheses can and do change.  My thoughts are not anchored in 'belief' and 'faith', but in theories.  So, my believing something can change; my hypotheses change.  My curiosity forces me to build bridges between what is and what should or could be.  So, my hypotheses can and do change.   

That was very well put.  Yes, I am just drawing the line of what I believe a bit earlier and when it stops being concrete.  When I continue into hypothesizing I consider that to be more speculative .  So now you are much more than just an atheist.  But since i dont care much for the confines of labels, i will let you decide what you are.   :-)

[Mike Cl]

That was very well put.  Yes, I am just drawing the line of what I believe a bit earlier and when it stops being concrete.  When I continue into hypothesizing I consider that to be more speculative .  So now you are much more than just an atheist.  But since i dont care much for the confines of labels, i will let you decide what you are.   :-)

Well, thank you.  I don't think you really 'believe' in the way I understand and use the word.  I think you also form hypotheses.  And hypotheses are by their nature, speculative.  As for being more than an atheist--well, that is a very narrow word.  It only says that I don't believe in god or gods or the supernatural.  It does not say what I think of the universe.  It does not explain how I approach the universe nor how I live my life.  In that sense, all who post here and claim to be atheist are much more than that.  Which it is often said here, that trying to put all atheists under one umbrella, is like herding cats.  Try it some time--all you'll get is snarled at, bitten and scratched---and ignored.

So, I guess I could term myself a naturalist as well.  Which only means to me is that I see the universe as natural and that there is nothing beyond nature.

[antediluvian]

"behavior"  Seriously?

[drunkenshoe]

Atheism is not a human behaviour.

"behavior"  Seriously?

I just wrote the same thing and forum said 'you may want to take a look, somebody has just posted', lol.

[Givemeareason]

Well, thank you.  I don't think you really 'believe' in the way I understand and use the word.  I think you also form hypotheses.  And hypotheses are by their nature, speculative.  As for being more than an atheist--well, that is a very narrow word.  It only says that I don't believe in god or gods or the supernatural.  It does not say what I think of the universe.  It does not explain how I approach the universe nor how I live my life.  In that sense, all who post here and claim to be atheist are much more than that.  Which it is often said here, that trying to put all atheists under one umbrella, is like herding cats.  Try it some time--all you'll get is snarled at, bitten and scratched---and ignored.

So, I guess I could term myself a naturalist as well.  Which only means to me is that I see the universe as natural and that there is nothing beyond nature.

Mike, I am enjoying our little conversation.   Would you like to continue?  I will take that as a yes.  So if I understand correctly, you believe or hypothesize that the universe is entirely random and likely infinite and therefore without purpose.  You may not agree with that entirely but for the sake of discussion let's assume that is the truth.  So let's start at the big bang.  We then assume that the big bang was a purely random occurrence.  So in order for our universe to coagulate into what followed there had to be at least one law, we call it the law of gravity.  Were it not for the law of gravity, the universe may have continued in a pure state of energy or until some other law came into effect.  But since these laws had to have all came into effect randomly as well that would also imply that there would have been an infinite number of laws that could have came into effect.  So let's pause and see if we agree on that.