The Doctrine of Atheism

1. There is no God.

2. Humans are animals.

3. When something that lives dies, it ceases to exist.

4. Question truth to the point where it has no meaning.

5. Worship science.

6. Deny ones' conscience.

7. Has no doctrine.

8. Has no set of coherent beliefs.

Originally posted by josephw
1. There is no God.

2. Humans are animals.

3. When something that lives dies, it ceases to exist.

4. Question truth to the point where it has no meaning.

5. Worship science.

6. Deny ones' conscience.

Atheism has no doctrine. It isn't a set of coherent beliefs.
But I agree with your point 1 - that's it in a nutshell.
The others are either true or not, but they're all irrelevant.
You could be an atheist and not believe any of those or believe them all.

Just one query, on point 2, what are we if we aren't animals?
Plants? Fungi?

Originally posted by amannion
Atheism has no doctrine. It isn't a set of coherent beliefs.
But I agree with your point 1 - that's it in a nutshell.
The others are either true or not, but they're all irrelevant.
You could be an atheist and not believe any of those or believe them all.

Just one query, on point 2, what are we if we aren't animals?
Plants? Fungi?

I fixed the OP to reflect your input. Thank you amannion.

"...what are we if we aren't animals?"

Created in God's image and likeness. Man.

Originally posted by josephw
I fixed the OP to reflect your input. Thank you amannion.

[b]"...what are we if we aren't animals?"

Created in God's image and likeness. Man.[/b]

So, part of our doctrine is that we have no doctrine?
That's about as coherent and useful as ... believing that some man ascended to some fairy world, 40 days after being killed on a cross 2000 years ago.

Okay, so should I amend the biology texts at my school now?
'Life on Earth will now be broken up into the following groups: plants, animals, fungi, bacteria, and those created in god's image.'
Yeah, I can see how useful that is.
Thanks for the heads up ...

Originally posted by amannion
So, part of our doctrine is that we have no doctrine?
That's about as coherent and useful as ... believing that some man ascended to some fairy world, 40 days after being killed on a cross 2000 years ago.

Okay, so should I amend the biology texts at my school now?
'Life on Earth will now be broken up into the following groups: plants, animals, fungi, b ...[text shortened]... e created in god's image.'
Yeah, I can see how useful that is.
Thanks for the heads up ...

Good grief amannion! I'm just foolin' around. We've been at this for five years now. I'm just not going to be serious any more. I'm sittin' here grinnin'.

When I come up with irrefutable proof for the existence of God I'll let you know. 😉

Actually, I already have but you won't buy it! That's another joke I just made up to entertain myself.

Originally posted by josephw
Good grief amannion! I'm just foolin' around. We've been at this for five years now. I'm just not going to be serious any more. I'm sittin' here grinnin'.

When I come up with irrefutable proof for the existence of God I'll let you know. 😉

Actually, I already have but you won't buy it! That's another joke I just made up to entertain myself.

It's funny, I was just talking with my wife this morning about how electronic communication fails to allow us to include nuance.
I get your joking around.
You're just unable to see my wry smile as I type ...

Originally posted by amannion
It's funny, I was just talking with my wife this morning about how electronic communication fails to allow us to include nuance.
I get your joking around.
You're just unable to see my wry smile as I type ...

The smoke from a distant fire...

Originally posted by amannion
It's funny, I was just talking with my wife this morning about how electronic communication fails to allow us to include nuance.
I get your joking around.
You're just unable to see my wry smile as I type ...

Good to know you're smiling too. 😉

I dont think man should be lumped in with other animals. Clearly we are different. I'm not sure about the ocean and her creatures, but on land, man is definatly distinct from other mammals.
As far as I know man is the only species that has the potential to destroy most life on this planet. This implies a great deal and these implications surely set us apart from other mammals...

Originally posted by karoly aczel
I dont think man should be lumped in with other animals. Clearly we are different. I'm not sure about the ocean and her creatures, but on land, man is definatly distinct from other mammals.
As far as I know man is the only species that has the potential to destroy most life on this planet. This implies a great deal and these implications surely set us apart from other mammals...

Don't worry karoly, we won't destroy life on earth. We don't have the power in spite of what they say.

I see you are up early. Good morning. I have to go now, but I look back here later.

Originally posted by josephw
Don't worry karoly, we won't destroy life on earth. We don't have the power in spite of what they say.

I see you are up early. Good morning. I have to go now, but I look back here later.

Hey Joseph🙂
Early? tis quarter past five in the arvo here bro...
Just to clarify: I dont think people will destroy life on Earth, its just that we have the POTENTIAL to...and that implies a lot. It gives mankind an incredible responsibilty.
Remember the 80's? I really thought that nuclear war was a distinct possibilty. To think that someone like R.Reagan (former movie star and puppet of lovely wife), had the power he had is scary.
Anyway, I agree that humans aren't just animals, however, our physical base is built upon "animal foundations" . So what happened in our history to make us like this?

It is at this point where opinions differ, I dont think we were just created "overnight" Do you?

Originally posted by karoly aczel
I dont think man should be lumped in with other animals. Clearly we are different. I'm not sure about the ocean and her creatures, but on land, man is definatly distinct from other mammals.
As far as I know man is the only species that has the potential to destroy most life on this planet. This implies a great deal and these implications surely set us apart from other mammals...

Whether or not you choose to 'lump' us with other animals or mammals, the fact remains that by scientific definitions, we are animals, mammals, and great apes. Common usage may use 'animal' to refer to non-humans (and non plants).

However, your reasons for not wanting to 'lump' us with other animals hardly seem valid. I doubt you would do the same if we were being wiped out by AIDS or tuberculosis, or some insect had managed to cause global warming.
In fact, certain species of algae have in the past been responsible for changing the atmosphere and global temperatures and have thus actually completely changed life on earth as opposed to our mere potential to do so. So are those algae also not to be 'lumped' with plants?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Whether or not you choose to 'lump' us with other animals or mammals, the fact remains that by scientific definitions, we are animals, mammals, and great apes. Common usage may use 'animal' to refer to non-humans (and non plants).

However, your reasons for not wanting to 'lump' us with other animals hardly seem valid. I doubt you would do the same if w ...[text shortened]... to our mere potential to do so. So are those algae also not to be 'lumped' with plants?

No, the algae weren't consiously trying to destroy stuff. The people are. Thats my point. We have the concious ability to change our world that is way beyond that of the average mammal,no?

Yes we are built on animal foundations, but if you cant see the difference between us and the rest of the mammals on this planet...well I'm sure you can. I dont think I need any scientific proofs here.

My opinion is panspermia, but I know not the exact details...and Yes, I could be wrong. Still I see no better explanation for our difference to other animals.

Originally posted by karoly aczel
No, the algae weren't consiously trying to destroy stuff. The people are. Thats my point.

Well then its not a very good point. Who exactly is consciously trying to destroy stuff?

We have the concious ability to change our world that is way beyond that of the average mammal,no?
But why select that as a reason to differentiate us? Why not look at the ability to fly, or the ability to echolocate?

Yes we are built on animal foundations, but if you cant see the difference between us and the rest of the mammals on this planet...well I'm sure you can. I dont think I need any scientific proofs here.
We are unique. So is every other animal.

My opinion is panspermia, but I know not the exact details...and Yes, I could be wrong. Still I see no better explanation for our difference to other animals.
What do you mean by panspermia? The definition I know would not fit with what you are saying.

Originally posted by amannion
Atheism has no doctrine. It isn't a set of coherent beliefs.
But I agree with your point 1 - that's it in a nutshell.
The others are either true or not, but they're all irrelevant.
You could be an atheist and not believe any of those or believe them all.

Just one query, on point 2, what are we if we aren't animals?
Plants? Fungi?

we are beautiful snowflakes, each one unique. we are butterflies, gently flying through life.