Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-1820614-20150731024240/@comment-61022-20150901202714

Seekquaze1 wrote: You are the only person I have ever talked to that applies atheism to a singular, divine creator of all existence and applying a very limited idea of divinity. Every other atheist I have talked to or source I have read about it applies to to either a singular God or multiple gods in general. A large part of the rest of your argument comes from that.

Again, you're really not understanding the crux of atheism. Singular or multiple gods, what it all boils down to in any organized religion, be it one currently practiced, or classical religion is that there is always a divine creator. There is always one being responsible for the creation of everything and then there are those that are considered subordinates in the grand creators vision. What's different is the window dressing.

For example, Christianity there is one God, then you have the angels, you have the devil, Jesus etc.

Compare that to any mythology and you see similar tropes. Norse mythology for example, you've got an analogue you've got Odin who is the All-Father, you've got his fellow Asgardians as an anologue for the angelic host. You've got a creation story: instead of darkness and let there be light and seven days of creation, you've got a man and a cow coming out of the dead remains of an ice giant.

You distill any religion that has a pantheon of gods, and if you strip away all the specifics it comes down to the same basic elements: You've got a creator, you have his loyal followers, and you have the malcontents that are passed out.

To an atheist, all creation myth -- regardless of what religion -- are basically the same.

And the Reed Richards/afterlife part, within the context I have always read it as he was arguing afterlives in general do not exist since he goes on to say all one does in one's present life is what matters. This an interpretation other people on other boards held when I have seen it discussed. And the presence of heaven/hell afterlives is well established in this case Richards is outright ignoring evidence.

So basically what you're saying is that you're taking a quote out of context. The point Richards is giving is that what one does in their life is important. Instead of saying afterlives don't exist, he's stating what they entail is irrelevant in that it's more important that you focus on your physical life. Which is a valid point, as given that he's seen what happens in the afterlife -- doesn't matter if it's a heaven or a hell -- what they all amount to is stagnation, redundancy, there is no change, no strive to advance, they're all just memories repeating themselves over and over. For a scientist like Reed preparing for an afterlife is a complete waste of potential. That's the point that he's getting at.

Many religions are presented as more or less true barring a few inaccuracies. Take classical Greek religion, its gods are real, can hear and respond to prayers, and when you die you go to their afterlife. Chaos War even presented the Greek creation myth has real. Of course, several creations stories for the Marvel Universe have been presented as real.

And again, this is where you're stuck in circular non-logic. As I stated before, there are so many beings that can recreate various feats that characters that identify themselves as gods can do. Answering prayers can be attributed to telepathy, and in the case of these so-called gods, perhaps the "answering of prayers" is a simple matter of being incredibly selective to whose prayers you answer (which is more egotistical than godly, which is a flawed human quality not a divine one) As for the afterlives. Again, there is such multiplicity, and ending up in an afterlife (be it a heaven or a hell) that you believe in is not strictly true either. There are countless instances where souls are stolen or otherwise taken by individuals who have no right over them. (Hela, Mephisto, and various other Hell-Lords and death deities are usually the most likely to do so)

Since death is not necessarily a permanent state of being in the Marvel Universe, I wouldn't say that strikes much credence to a divine purpose. The afterlife would not be the revolving door that it is. The fact that so many characters cheat death speaks of a lack of a divine force dictating one's course.

As for the depiction of creation in the Chaos War story, or any other creation story presented in the Marvel Universe is conjecture. As I said in my original response, it's heresy because they all contradict one another.

The only strong evidence of any sort of creation that has been reinforced and confirmed is the Big Bang. The staggering evidence toward that is Galactus, as he is the only survivor from the previous universe. This is also an event that has been documented by many alien races, particularly the Watchers and the Elders of the Universe.

Here is the massive flaw in any Earth related god's creation story: They're all Earth centric. They lack universal scope, and they very simplistically equate the Earth as the crux point of all creation and that humanity is a divine creation with zero mention of the greater universe around one planet. Which, sorry, if you're going to state you're a divine creator, you're not going to focus your scope on a comparatively insignificant planet, when there are countless worlds that are far older and more advanced.

And yes, many atheists I have talked to over the years do denounce religion.

Who's saying anything about denouncing? To be atheist is not to denounce, it's the lack of faith in the absence of proof. I can see an atheist denouncing the practices of a religion, or the actions of those who practice it in a way that they personally deem unacceptable human behavior.

I think your biggest failing is not being able to understand that atheism is an organic view point, it's not rigid like an organized religion, because it's the anti-thesis of organized religion.

Since we are talking on two entirely different wavelengths I don't see what else there is to discuss between the two of us. The reason I asked in the first place was I was wondering about the reasoning the writers might be using for their characterizations.

If that why you were asking in the first place, why didn't you just state it plainly? Your original question was asking why certain characters were behaving in such a manner. Honestly, if you cared about the reasoning of the writer you would have said so plainly.

If you want reasoning, it's the same reasoning I give anyone who asks an asinine question about why a writer chooses to write something a certain way: artistic license.

I really think that your entire intent here was to create an obfuscation of the subject at hand. The idea of atheist characters does bother you because that doesn't fall in line with your belief systems. Your presentation of opinions of others as though they are absolute facts without any source (your constant use of "And yes, many atheists" and " Every other atheist I have talked to or source I have read about it" and "This an interpretation other people on other boards held when I have seen it discussed." yet make no mention of where these things are being said)

but I do wonder why your wrote a wall of text in response.

You posed a question a question I answered it.

Your complains about the length of my response shows a lack of care or interest in the time I've invested in giving you a response. And because I'm not on your "wave length" (or really because you didn't find what you were looking for, basically some converted to preach to) you're dismissive toward my counter arguments.

Which is fine by me, dealing with someone who can only think in circular reasoning gets trite before long.