Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

This is an official-style thread to discuss atheism, its ideas and adherents, cultural influences, reasons for being, pros and cons of such a worldview, etc. etc.

What follows is my own personal reasons for being an atheist, as well as observations and tendencies I notice in both theists and atheists in regards to their disagreements. It is not intended to represent all or even some atheists, just me. It is, however, intended to provide many potential jumping off points for discussion. Feel free to take any of the points and run with it, or contribute your own.

As always, maintain respect and courtesy whenever possible. The very concept of atheism can be polarizing, so there is a greater need for conversational tact.

...

Why I am an Atheist

1. Precursors in Mythology - As I came from a Christian background, my initial doubts of theism were directed at Christianity. And littered throughout both Old and New Testaments are stories that have not just peers within mythology but precursors. Noah's Ark, the Book of Job, to name a couple popular ones among dozens of others, have stories that mirror them almost exactly in detail, but that came before the Biblical books. Most Christians see these as metaphor, not literal truth, but it begets the question of their inclusion in the Bible at all when such obvious parallels can be found in "pagan" societies. The same can be said of the God of the OT, whose decrees are sometimes flatly evil, who changes his mind, isn't omniscient at all times, and generally acts like a petulant child. One wonders how many would still have a total devotion to the Bible if they knew exactly what they were worshiping.

2. The Jesus Myth - I don't doubt Jesus' existence, but parallels and similarities can be drawn between his story and literally hundreds of others. Any mythological scholarship will point toward the idea of shared stories, motifs, and themes within savior myths and hero tales. Jesus is no different. As metaphor, I feel as though Jesus' story stands very well as a motivation and guide. As literal truth, I feel it is absurd, based on nothing but an archaic book written by superstitious and scientifically uninformed mystics and priests. Most Christians have no problem accepting Old Testament stories as metaphor, not literal truth. This is simply the next step.

3. Paranormal Void - There is a telling web comic that shows a bar graph. One bar shows the number of paranormal claims. It is huge. The other bar shows the number of paranormal claims that have been confirmed via experimentation. It is at zero. A host of physical, cognitive, statistical, and psychological reasons help explain why we often believe claims of the paranormal. These can range from the religious (exorcisms, miracles) to simply the "other" (ghosts, spoon bending, reincarnation, remote viewing, near-death experiences, among many others). But the actual evidence for them is so small as to be negligible, and the vast majority of cases can be explained by common investigative techniques or cognitive errors made by those who believe them.

4. Science as Explanation - At one point, simply pointing to the complexity and beauty of the universe was sufficient to justify God's existence. Before that, natural phenomenon were enough for people to believe in higher beings. But then we discovered fossils, medicine, evolution, plate tectonics, weather patterns, planet and galaxy formation, physics, gravity, relativity, quantum mechanics, etc. etc. etc. At best, those opposed to a scientific worldview can only poke holes in scientific theories, not propose their own viable theories. At worst, they either misinterpret or deliberately subvert facts for their own purposes.

5. The Gaps - One cannot disprove a God, which is what some people seems to believe atheism represents. I cannot claim to know one way or another, only believe. In that sense, there is an article of faith involved with either side, a word that atheists are usually loathe to invoke. However, there are varying degrees of faith. I have faith that the Earth is round, for example, though I've never seen it in its entirety. But there are valid logical and empirical reasons for me to believe such an idea. The need for any God has been reduced greatly due to the vast amount of information about the universe that we can confirm via empirical study, to the point where we even have mathematically feasible explanations of how the universe came to be. It is at a point, in my opinion, where the belief in God requires absolutely blind faith. It is this unthinking emotional justification for belief that I cannot adhere to.

....

Observations (again, opinions):

1. Religious Extremes - It is easy to attack the extremes: militant atheists and evangelical literalist Christians. Their beliefs and ideas either fall apart under the merest of scrutiny, or they needlessly polarize people for the sake of some agenda. It is harder to realize that these don't represent a majority, just a vocal minority.

2. Tolerance - I don't dislike or begrudge religion or the religious. I do shy away from a touchy-feely acceptance and tolerance of all religious beliefs, because there are many that I believe are harmful either on a societal/global level or individually to those who believe them. There is, however, an immense amount of good done in the name of religion, and countless people who derive meaning and strength through religion. This is needed, because not everyone can live with a materialistic worldview amenably.

3. Need for Belief - Both psychological and evolutionary studies have been released that show a profound need for belief in human beings, and how our very nature led to the organization of religions and belief in higher beings. This is not likely to change at any point in the foreseeable future. As such, I don't see a conceptual conflict between the religious and non-religious sects of the world. A move toward a better scientific understanding of the world will always draw some away from religion, but won't override our basic tendencies toward resolving metaphysical questions with a creator being. It is only when one side tries to impose their beliefs on others, either through physical violence, peer pressure, political maneuverings, etc. that I become upset.

4. Challenges to my Beliefs - Most serious (real life) challenges I have had to my non-religiousness have been emotional appeals. I don't face a defense of theism or an attack against atheism, but rather questions like "Do you feel a void in your life? How do you find meaning?" Those sorts of things. I think it reinforces my ideas of how many people relate to religion. It's a connection people feel, not something they believe on the basis of strictly logical reasoning. Which isn't a bad thing, but isn't something I can do.

5. Morality - My ethical credo is this: "Promote the happiness and freedom of all sentient beings, in so far as it does not impede upon the happiness and freedoms of others." It needs no God nor philosophical doctrine. And while in practice there can be tricky situations for any moral code, it provides a basis from which to work and a goal to which I can aspire. I believe simpler moral codes to be better, only because there is needless pain and suffering caused by absolute codes of morality that leave no leeway for an act or situation that has no ill intent or affect, but which makes people feel guilty or punishes them for their actions. Other different moral systems can be found outside of religion, as it's not hard to see an intrinsic need for morality, God or not.

6. Organized Atheism - ...is ridiculous, and probably hurts the cause more than helps. Organizations that promote the use and understanding of science and reason, however, are among my favorite organizations of any cultural genre. I have subscriptions to both Skeptical Inquirer and Skeptic Magazine, which work toward such goals, using science and reason to debunk psuedoscience, resolve conflicts within the scientific community, promote critical thinking and reasoning skills, and helping to uncover and expose those who knowingly and misleadingly profit off of the ignorance of others. They are not strictly atheist organizations, and have no stated religious belief, but I find their approach refreshing and in line with what I have discussed.

...

That's all I can think to say that has immediate relevance. Feel free to comment and/or add your own thoughts.

Not a bad summation there, Dij (for an atheist ). I wonder: how representative do you think your reasons for adopting atheism is? It's generally been my impression that most people become atheists largely due to Failed Expectation Syndrome, the second reason being no direct empirical evidence.

I do not trust anyone who says they have the absolute truth - be it theists or atheists. I also do not like the approach where everything MUST fit into pre-existing boxes; we have progressed by thinking outside of scientific spectrum of the time.
Obviously I am not saying believe everything, but accept possibility and investigate.

We do not know everything already - it is most likely that the central portion of atom (the nucleus) compose neutrons and protons, however we have never seen that area - or better yet, we are yet to see it.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
We do not know everything already - it is most likely that the central portion of atom (the nucleus) compose neutrons and protons, however we have never seen that area - or better yet, we are yet to see it.

That's not really a great example. No matter what happens to be in the nucleus of an atom, various experiments have shown that it acts just like a clump or protons and neutrons would. So there isn't any compelling reason to think the nucleus is something else.

It's like if someone gives you an invisible object. If you can feel that it has eight evenly spaced corners and six identical sides then concluding that it is a cube is reasonable. Someone who says it is a firetruck will have to provide some extraordinary proof. Obviously the experiments needed for atoms are more complex but they're still valid.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
I do not trust anyone who says they have the absolute truth - be it theists or atheists. I also do not like the approach where everything MUST fit into pre-existing boxes; we have progressed by thinking outside of scientific spectrum of the time.
Obviously I am not saying believe everything, but accept possibility and investigate.

We do not know everything already - it is most likely that the central portion of atom (the nucleus) compose neutrons and protons, however we have never seen that area - or better yet, we are yet to see it.

I tend to see this argument as really just presenting a set of forever moving goal posts. By defining something as undefinable or unknowable, anything that does become known actually makes it harder to know this ambigious entity, until we come to a point where its existance would be nearly superfuluous to reality. Unless absolutly all things known to science are completely wrong, what purpose does "god" serve in the universe? So sure, you can ask specific questions currently beyond the scope of science, but even then, the idea that it is those questions, and those questions alone, that one must appeal to a supernatural explanation for is much less logical than an appeal to natural mechanisms; else, a god that doesn't interact with reality might as well not exist.

An atheist is almost always talked about in terms of a position toward a "creator-of-the-universe-interacting-with-reality-person-in-the-sky", not an outright rejection of all possible abstract and irrefutable constructs.

/rant... lol, sorry

very cool, I like a lot of the reasoning

Originally posted by Digi
Why I am an Atheist

I'll share my experience with this, because I think it relates to what you said about a need for belief, and something I've been thinking about when it comes to that.

So like, I can pinpoint the moment I stopped being a Christian. I was in a philosophy or world religions class in grade 10, and the teacher gave an analogy between God and a 10 legged dog, implying that if someone told me "I just saw a ten-legged dog", I'd expect them to produce evidence.

I know you totally covered this, especially in the gaps part, its just, to me it wasn't actually this rationalization process or historical understanding of the myths, but this idea that was so formative in how I would later interpret everything I experienced in the world.

So, I think I might argue that the "need for belief" might be, rather, a search for congruence with ideas that are already held, and neurologically represented by physical information processing pathways. I almost mean that, like, from that day on, my mind interpreted information in a new way, and that for people whose minds are influenced by significant experiences built upon religious understandings, it's almost not our choice that our philosophical beliefs represent the most congruent narratives that have been proposed to explain our real life experiences, almost like cart-before-horse?

I'm really just interested in your opinion, obviously there is no one reason all people believe a certain thing. Did it really take a philosophical sort of deconstruction of Christianity for you to leave it? or was there something more like it just didn't explain your life?

Originally posted by Mindship
Not a bad summation there, Dij (for an atheist ). I wonder: how representative do you think your reasons for adopting atheism is? It's generally been my impression that most people become atheists largely due to Failed Expectation Syndrome, the second reason being no direct empirical evidence.

I'll be completely honest and say that most of the atheists I know haven't thought it through this thoroughly. Some have, granted, but in just the same way that some people wake up and can't imagine the universe without God, to them they can't imagine it with God.

I think a lot of atheists were simply never taught religion formally, live in a secular society, realize that they live entirely secular lives, and simply have the balls to admit their non-belief. Because many Christians aren't practicing or devout, and they live secular lives for all practical purposes, but remain vaguely religious either out of apathy for truly investigating their beliefs or simply to stay with the social norm.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
I do not trust anyone who says they have the absolute truth - be it theists or atheists. I also do not like the approach where everything MUST fit into pre-existing boxes; we have progressed by thinking outside of scientific spectrum of the time.
Obviously I am not saying believe everything, but accept possibility and investigate.

We do not know everything already - it is most likely that the central portion of atom (the nucleus) compose neutrons and protons, however we have never seen that area - or better yet, we are yet to see it.

There's a fine line. Being "open" is usually used by people who think you're close-minded for not believing something other than material reality. I will tell them I'm always "open" to the possibility of something, given evidence to support the claim. I won't believe hypotheticals, regardless of whether they are abstract philosophizing or something that "feels good" to the believer. This is usually where the discussion devolves.

Originally posted by inimalist
very cool, I like a lot of the reasoning

Thanks.

Originally posted by inimalist
I'll share my experience with this, because I think it relates to what you said about a need for belief, and something I've been thinking about when it comes to that.

So like, I can pinpoint the moment I stopped being a Christian. I was in a philosophy or world religions class in grade 10, and the teacher gave an analogy between God and a 10 legged dog, implying that if someone told me "I just saw a ten-legged dog", I'd expect them to produce evidence.

I know you totally covered this, especially in the gaps part, its just, to me it wasn't actually this rationalization process or historical understanding of the myths, but this idea that was so formative in how I would later interpret everything I experienced in the world.

So, I think I might argue that the "need for belief" might be, rather, a search for congruence with ideas that are already held, and neurologically represented by physical information processing pathways. I almost mean that, like, from that day on, my mind interpreted information in a new way, and that for people whose minds are influenced by significant experiences built upon religious understandings, it's almost not our choice that our philosophical beliefs represent the most congruent narratives that have been proposed to explain our real life experiences, almost like cart-before-horse?

I'm really just interested in your opinion, obviously there is no one reason all people believe a certain thing. Did it really take a philosophical sort of deconstruction of Christianity for you to leave it? or was there something more like it just didn't explain your life?

To answer the final paragraph, it was really just a slow, laborious process by which I slowly began to doubt, investigate, and deconstruct my religious worldview. There was never a moment like there was with you. At some point it just sort of dawned on me that I hadn't really been a Christian for a while. Then after that came other paranormal and/or mystical concepts, just as methodically.

I get your other stuff though. Like how the single most determining factor in your religion is what your parents are. If you're taught to think a certain way about the world, everything else will mold itself to that approach.

...

I'd also like to say that I'm always hesitant to mention "studies" or "mythology scholarship" and such without referring specifically to the texts, but the nature of my post necessitated summary. I tried to make everything I referred to in a vague sense something that is, if not common knowledge, at least readily accessible from a variety of sources. And I'm happy to extrapolate on any of it. This paragraph isn't directed at in, just something I wanted to mention in general.

I can't stand Youtube Atheists. They remind me of Religious Fanatics.

"You don't agree with us...then you're stupid"

Up yours you fat ugly slobs.

Originally posted by Digi
Why I am an Atheist

Okay, my turn.

For me it just sort of happened. There was no "loss of faith" that ever happened, more of a realization that I had never really been religious. I like to understand things, when I look at the world around me the satisfying and reliable explanations for how it behaves all come from science. Over time it simply became clear that religion didn't offer what I was looking for, I hadn't even been looking there for answers.

Originally posted by WickedDynamite
I can't stand Youtube Atheists. They remind me of Religious Fanatics.

"You don't agree with us...then you're stupid"

Up yours you fat ugly slobs. Pretty much the attitude of most atheists I have come across.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
Pretty much the attitude of most atheists I have come across.

Yes, well the internet is like that. See: GIFT.

But it's worth remembering that you can't, and shouldn't, condemn a group based on anecdotes. If we did we'd have to hate everyone.

Well, I commend Digi for putting it all out there. That takes moxie. I may not dur you for a while now...mmm

There are always pros and cons, proof for both sides, argument and counter argument, etc.
Some people (more scientists every year) who see Creation as just proof to a Higher Power. That the sheer size and complexity of everything is proof of their belief(s). And other people (scientists included) who see the same creation as proof that everything just happened as it only could through mathematics and confirmed hypothesis.

Just reading and listening to the debate back and forth makes my mind numb. Me after reading and listening...dur

My personal thoughts is that most people have problems reconciling the scientific with the Divine, or whatever term you like. To me they've always been interchangeable in ways. Both looking for answers. Both asking the same root questions "Who are we?", Why are we here?", "What's it all mean?" New scientific discoveries have never cast doubt on what I believe. For every question answered, many more spring up.

I guess for me, the precision of everything, the diversity of everything, the monumental complexity of everything shows me that we're all part of something more. The Universe being a giant, precise mathematical equation is just too much for me to believe is just popped up from an infinitely small and dense pinpoint. That...and my 12 years of Catholic schooling. durangel

As for the wars fought over religion and beliefs and God knows what else. I take that as the Human corruption of institutes which are meant promote peace, tolerance, understanding and all that other hippie crap.

Anyway, I have always had a quote stuck in my head since I can remember:

True knowledge exists in knowing that you know nothing.
Socrates

Originally posted by inimalist
I tend to see this argument as really just presenting a set of forever moving goal posts. By defining something as undefinable or unknowable, anything that does become known actually makes it harder to know this ambigious entity, until we come to a point where its existance would be nearly superfuluous to reality. Unless absolutly all things known to science are completely wrong, what purpose does "god" serve in the universe? So sure, you can ask specific questions currently beyond the scope of science, but even then, the idea that it is those questions, and those questions alone, that one must appeal to a supernatural explanation for is much less logical than an appeal to natural mechanisms; else, a god that doesn't interact with reality might as well not exist.

An atheist is almost always talked about in terms of a position toward a "creator-of-the-universe-interacting-with-reality-person-in-the-sky", not an outright rejection of all possible abstract and irrefutable constructs.

/rant... lol, sorry

It's not about supernatural, it's about not knowing and most importantly it's about BEING WRONG.
People today, are so scared of being wrong, it is considered a failure in many aspects, and that's why many people, many who are not scientists, cling to science so desperately not wanting it to be ever wrong - but the truth is, in almost every case, it has been wrong. And it is that wrongness which has pushed us forward to learn more and to explore more.

As I stated previously, God, the creator, can be the Universe, can be mother nature, can be anything, can be an alien for all we know.
The problem is that people cannot part with Abrahamic view of God no matter what.

Besides, my point is not about God, it's about the rigid view of some people who in almost all cases are not scientists. While at University, I spoke to a biologist who said that they're experimenting (mind you, only on flies) the possibility of regrowing limbs and regeneration. Right now, such things are far from being succesful to say the least, and if we kept strictly to science we know, idea of regenerating body parts is ridiculous....The important thing is - who knows. Maybe one day we DO manage to figure out such things.

And yes, I'd say it is all about setting further goals- looking at universe as a whole we are simply insignificant - the idea that we may acquire all knowledge is by itself impossible. The best we can hope for is to push forward and forward.
If Universe is infinite, then possibilities are infinite and thus knowledge is infinite - we cannot know everything.
And anyone who claims we know everything, knows nothing.

Originally posted by Badabing
My personal thoughts is that most people have problems reconciling the scientific with the Divine, or whatever term you like. To me they've always been interchangeable in ways. Both looking for answers. Both asking the same root questions "Who are we?", Why are we here?", "What's it all mean?" New scientific discoveries have never cast doubt on what I believe. For every question answered, many more spring up.

I would argue the opposite, that in many cases they occupy utterly different spheres of thought.

Science doesn't ask "Who are we?" it asks the related, but very different, question of "What are we?". Not "Why are we here?" but "How did we end up here?" (the word why seems to presuppose a purpose). The question "What does it all mean?" is wholly philosophical and outside the bounds of science.


Or we can look at the places where they might come within spitting distance of each other. We have a man, let's call him Ross Tabulet, who spends all his time thinking.

Ross wants to know "What is good?" His training as a scientist offers very little help here, more information is needed to study the idea of "goodness" scientifically. Simply: science can't properly study abstract ideas like the one he has come up with. His training as a philosopher, however, leads him to the idea that to do good is to not harm others.

Now his training as a scientist can help. The question of "Which actions do not harm others?" can be studied in a scientific way. At this point the question is clearly quite different, though it is related to his original one.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
we kept strictly to science we know, idea of regenerating body parts is ridiculous....The important thing is - who knows. Maybe one day we DO manage to figure out such things.

Is there a law of nature that says body parts can't regenerate? Actually I'm pretty sure the reason they're doing those experiments is because we know of things that regenerate limbs.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
If Universe is infinite, then possibilities are infinite and thus knowledge is infinite - we cannot know everything.

We don't even need the universe to be infinite. Godel and Heisenberg both managed to prove that we can't ever know everything.

Originally posted by Digi

5. The Gaps - One cannot disprove a God, which is what some people seems to believe atheism represents. I cannot claim to know one way or another, only believe. In that sense, there is an article of faith involved with either side, a word that atheists are usually loathe to invoke. However, there are varying degrees of faith. I have faith that the Earth is round, for example, though I've never seen it in its entirety. But there are valid logical and empirical reasons for me to believe such an idea. The need for any God has been reduced greatly due to the vast amount of information about the universe that we can confirm via empirical study, to the point where we even have mathematically feasible explanations of how the universe came to be. It is at a point, in my opinion, where the belief in God requires absolutely blind faith. It is this unthinking emotional justification for belief that I cannot adhere to.


There's also the Atheist-of-the-Gaps fallacy which holds that "There may not be a scientific explanation now, but I'm pretty sure one will eventually come up".

-------

I've also noticed an attitude among Atheists (not you personally) is that all religions are the same. In all seriousness, what do Christianity, Buddhism, and Aztec Teotl have in common? (Other than an Atheist thinking they're all false). Absolutely nothing.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
Pretty much the attitude of most atheists I have come across.

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u55/WatchOut_02/atheism1.jpg

Originally posted by Digi
. . . In that sense, there is an article of faith involved with either side, a word that atheists are usually loathe to invoke. However, there are varying degrees of faith. I have faith that the Earth is round, for example, though I've never seen it in its entirety. But there are valid logical and empirical reasons for me to believe such an idea.

Faith is belief in the absence of evidence. If you have logical and empirical reasons to believe that the Earth is round, then your belief is not faith.

What is "evidence"?

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
What is "evidence"?

A demonstrable and independently verifiable indicator.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
There's also the Atheist-of-the-Gaps fallacy which holds that "There may not be a scientific explanation now, but I'm pretty sure one will eventually come up".

When you have centuries of precedent on your side confidence is rather justifiable.

Sym touched upon the respective realms of science and religion. In a nutshell, Science is the what, religion the "why." Gould's famous non-overlapping magisteria (sic?) argument comes to mind. Here's my problem with that: Religion used to be more literal, it used to be an active God that was frequently involved in human affairs. Science changed that conversation. And it's to the point now where an informed theist actually does believe in a scientific worldview, except with religion on top of that answering the abstracts about human existence. Religion has become entirely conceptual, having had to retreat from the empirical because of science.

To me, it seems like discarding religion altogether is just the next step. Because it's to the point where there IS no evidence, nor any promise of evidence. And it's become a wholly conceptual enterprise, when it was once far grander. The "why" can be found without religion, and the "what" certainly can, so it is not needed. When the entirety of a belief has become abstract, faith-based, and conceptual, it ceases to have relevant meaning imo, and becomes absurd to believe in.

Originally posted by WickedDynamite
I can't stand Youtube Atheists. They remind me of Religious Fanatics.

"You don't agree with us...then you're stupid"

Up yours you fat ugly slobs.

Maybe I'm deluding myself into thinking those guys are the minority. I'd like to think they're just so annoying that they seem like a bigger group of atheists than they really are.

Originally posted by Digi
Maybe I'm deluding myself into thinking those guys are the minority. I'd like to think they're just so annoying that they seem like a bigger group of atheists than they really are.

I don't know if they are a minority or not, but there are indeed an awful lot of them. Their aggression smudges the reputation of atheism as much as extreme evangelism does.

Originally posted by Digi



Maybe I'm deluding myself into thinking those guys are the minority. I'd like to think they're just so annoying that they seem like a bigger group of atheists than they really are.

I would think the same thing...except they do have quite a ton of Subscribers. Then again, it's Youtube we're talking about....people trying to be popular and stuff....

*cough*

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
When you have centuries of precedent on your side confidence is rather justifiable.

It's no different from the cockiness of Theists who "know" God did it.

Originally posted by Digi
Sym touched upon the respective realms of science and religion. In a nutshell, Science is the what, religion the "why."

The "why" can be found without religion, and the "what" certainly can, so it is not needed.

Science can't ask why, because then it stops being science and becomes biased.

In a murder trial, science (forensics) can explain how the murder occured, but not the abstract and immaterial reason of "why". Motive is often illogical and no field in science can always explain the killer's incentive.

Science = how, Religion = why

For me there wasn't one point where I could say I was suddenly atheist either. I was brought up as Roman Catholic, I went to church most sundays, I participated in activities offered by the church, I had Roman Catholic religious education in school until I was 16. I don't think I ever believed any of it as true, I don't think I really thought of it when I was younger either. My parents were definitely more secular so I suppose I just got the feeling that this is just a big storytime we go to every sunday. I don't know, most of my youth is hazy at best anyways. But yeah, I am pretty sure I was convinced that there wasn't a God by the age of ten, and since then I've been flip flopping between calling it agnosticism or atheism, the skeptic in me likes to call it agnosticism, but for all intends and purposes it is really atheism. It is definitely atheism for any of the main theistic religions, I strongly don't believe in any Judaism, any Christian God, or any Islam, of course like lil b tried to say, we don't know everything, and I know even less, so I would even speculate too much in that direction.

As for youtube atheists, there are many dumb and rude ones, but I would hardly call them all that. That is an unfair generalization and to me seems like someone who hasn't done too much research. In fact I'd almost wager that people actually thinking that have at most seen the Amazing Atheist and one or two others, and he is very loud and very rude and somewhat dumb at times, though I can enjoy his videos. However there are very good youtube atheists out there too, who discuss the matter calmly and rationally, often it is not their sole focus, as just atheism makes for boring videos in the long run. Some of my favourites are the always great TheraminTrees and the not very popular, but rather enjoyable XOmniverse.

Oh also we shouldn't forget that the fundamentalist theists they debate can be just as bad or worse, so I would definitely not put the blame solely on the atheists, although there is a sort of smugness that many uneducated atheists get simply by considering themselves superior (though it happens to religious people, too)

And Religion is not the only thing that can look for the "why". Secular philosophy can just as much attempt that. Additionally I would argue that we are close to 100% sure that there must be a "how" whether there must be a "why" is debatable, and a question that could possibly be answered by answering the "how".

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi

Originally posted by WickedDynamite
I can't stand Youtube Atheists. They remind me of Religious Fanatics.

"You don't agree with us...then you're stupid"

Up yours you fat ugly slobs.

Pretty much the attitude of most atheists I have come across.

Those atheists have arrived at the right conclusion for the wrong reasons.




Originally posted by Quiero Mota
I've also noticed an attitude among Atheists (not you personally) is that all religions are the same. In all seriousness, what do Christianity, Buddhism, and Aztec Teotl have in common? (Other than an Atheist thinking they're all false). Absolutely nothing.

If the premise that all theistic religions share, i.e. that a god or gods exist, cannot be substantiated, then the ways in which they are different, e.g. how each views the nature of a god or gods, is irrelevant.




Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
I don't know if they are a minority or not, but there are indeed an awful lot of them. Their aggression smudges the reputation of atheism as much as extreme evangelism does.

Aside from the disbelief in the existence of a god or gods, there is no belief, opinion, or principle that all atheists share; and with no doctrine or community, there can be no reputation.

Originally posted by Digi
I think a lot of atheists were simply never taught religion formally, live in a secular society, realize that they live entirely secular lives, and simply have the balls to admit their non-belief. Because many Christians aren't practicing or devout, and they live secular lives for all practical purposes, but remain vaguely religious either out of apathy for truly investigating their beliefs or simply to stay with the social norm.
Would this be more apatheism then, than atheism?

In any event, now I'm wondering if the highly vocal minority of aggressive atheists (and I do believe they are the minority) are highly vocal and aggressive due to failed expectations (ie, "I will no longer be fooled! And I will save others from being fooled!". All that "fervor" has to come from somewhere.

On a related note, I see the bottom line as not whether or not one believes in God, but how one treats others. Respect is paramount, and agreeing to disagree about something ultimately unfathomable is an honorable outcome. A reality map needs to incorporate a healthy dose of common sense. IMO this does not necessarily mean becoming an atheist but it can ward off wish-fulfillment theism.

As for Religion and (empirical) Science: problems always arise when one tries to do the other's job.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u55/WatchOut_02/atheism1.jpg

oh, indeed

because posting that image in a thread where atheists have been discussing their beliefs among themselves is not the height of hypocrisy

Originally posted by Mindship


In any event, now I'm wondering if the highly vocal minority of aggressive atheists (and I do believe they are the minority) are highly vocal and aggressive due to failed expectations (ie, "I will no longer be fooled! And I will save others from being fooled!". All that "fervor" has to come from somewhere.


My money is on their ego, self pride, and prolly a superiority complex. In any case I see an atheist no different than anyone else....an atheist is a person...who thinks for themselves (just like everyone else) and who can have as much flaws as any other person. Proclaiming Atheism is some unique principle in though leads me to believe that there is elitism behind the movement. Or at least that is the impression they leave behind. From what I read and seen there are disagreements among atheist on certain ideas. Which is normal for any group to experience. So my suggestion to all is that we should not base judgement upon the movement but rather on the individual. One bad apple does not spoil the bunch. Same with religion ...me thinks.

Originally posted by inimalist
oh, indeed

because posting that image in a thread where atheists have been discussing their beliefs among themselves is not the height of hypocrisy

I've just chosen to ignore him. He was snide to me about this topic before it was made. No reason to validate his responses if they're going to border on trolling.

Originally posted by Mindship
Would this be more apatheism then, than atheism?

In any event, now I'm wondering if the highly vocal minority of aggressive atheists (and I do believe they are the minority) are highly vocal and aggressive due to failed expectations (ie, "I will no longer be fooled! And I will save others from being fooled!". All that "fervor" has to come from somewhere.

On a related note, I see the bottom line as not whether or not one believes in God, but how one treats others. Respect is paramount, and agreeing to disagree about something ultimately unfathomable is an honorable outcome. A reality map needs to incorporate a healthy dose of common sense. IMO this does not necessarily mean becoming an atheist but it can ward off wish-fulfillment theism.

As for Religion and (empirical) Science: problems always arise when one tries to do the other's job.

I think it may have more to do with the Greater Internet F*ckwad Theory (google-able if you haven't heard of it). I highly doubt the "angry" atheists fervor is intellectual in origin.

Though to answer another of your musings, I do think some peoples' agnosticism and/or atheism is just one step removed from apatheism. Some put in the legwork to have fully rationalized reasoning behind their beliefs. Many do not, of any religious disposition.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I would argue the opposite, that in many cases they occupy utterly different spheres of thought.

Science doesn't ask "Who are we?" it asks the related, but very different, question of "What are we?". Not "Why are we here?" but "How did we end up here?" (the word why seems to presuppose a purpose). The question "What does it all mean?" is wholly philosophical and outside the bounds of science.


Or we can look at the places where they might come within spitting distance of each other. We have a man, let's call him Ross Tabulet, who spends all his time thinking.

Ross wants to know "What is good?" His training as a scientist offers very little help here, more information is needed to study the idea of "goodness" scientifically. Simply: science can't properly study abstract ideas like the one he has come up with. His training as a philosopher, however, leads him to the idea that to do good is to not harm others.

Now his training as a scientist can help. The question of "Which actions do not harm others?" can be studied in a scientific way. At this point the question is clearly quite different, though it is related to his original one. I was reflecting my own thoughts and perceptions of some books/articles I've read and shows I've watched but wasn't totally clear. For me, I've had no problems reconciling science and Faith. It seems like more scientists are coming forth every year to say something along the lines that the math indicates a higher power. But by no means are there more scientists who affirm that the numbers indicate a higher power than scientists who don't. It just appears to me that there are more now than 10 years ago, or at least more coming forward.

I agree and have always been hesitant to use science to explain Faith and vice versa. They should be 2 separate entities. But I do think at times they can and do compliment each other. So, I apologize if my thoughts came across as muddled. I agree with what you've said. Originally posted by Mindship
Would this be more apatheism then, than atheism?

In any event, now I'm wondering if the highly vocal minority of aggressive atheists (and I do believe they are the minority) are highly vocal and aggressive due to failed expectations (ie, "I will no longer be fooled! And I will save others from being fooled!". All that "fervor" has to come from somewhere.

On a related note, I see the bottom line as not whether or not one believes in God, but how one treats others. Respect is paramount, and agreeing to disagree about something ultimately unfathomable is an honorable outcome. A reality map needs to incorporate a healthy dose of common sense. IMO this does not necessarily mean becoming an atheist but it can ward off wish-fulfillment theism.

As for Religion and (empirical) Science: problems always arise when one tries to do the other's job. Well said.

As for all of you Atheist sinners, I'll pray for you. sneer

biscuits



I usually avoid these discussions due to the fierce passion shown by both sides. It's nice to have civil convos with people I know from KMC.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE

If the premise that all theistic religions share, i.e. that a god or gods exist, cannot be substantiated, then the ways in which they are different, e.g. how each views the nature of a god or gods, is irrelevant.


See, that's what I mean: you had to draw a distinction by saying theistic religions. So religions are not all the same.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE

Aside from the disbelief in the existence of a god or gods, there is no belief, opinion, or principle that all atheists share; and with no doctrine or community, there can be no reputation.

Exactly, they lack cohesion and unity. There's more No Religion people in the States than people who identify as black, Jewish, gay or Hispanic. If they got their shit together and organized, they actually have the potential to be a serious political force.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota

Exactly, they lack cohesion and unity. There's more No Religion people in the States than people who identify as black, Jewish, gay or Hispanic. If they got their shit together and organized, they actually have the potential to be a serious political force.

Bill Maher?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Is there a law of nature that says body parts can't regenerate? Actually I'm pretty sure the reason they're doing those experiments is because we know of things that regenerate limbs.



We don't even need the universe to be infinite. Godel and Heisenberg both managed to prove that we can't ever know everything.

We can ALL regenerate.
The research is about re-growing limbs.

Things that CAN re-grow their limbs are certain amphibians and not mammals. It is not possible for humans as for range of other species to spontaneously re-grow their limbs.
Saying ''there is that in the nature'' does not mean everything can automatically do it. There are things that fly in the nature, it does not mean we or dogs can grow wings and fly.

The point of research is to see if we can artificially induce such things and how, as automatically, or naturally, such is simply not possible.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
We can ALL regenerate.
The research is about re-growing limbs.

Things that CAN re-grow their limbs are certain amphibians and not mammals. It is not possible for humans as for range of other species to spontaneously re-grow their limbs.
Saying ''there is that in the nature'' does not mean everything can automatically do it. There are things that fly in the nature, it does not mean we or dogs can grow wings and fly.

The point of research is to see if we can artificially induce such things and how, as automatically, or naturally, such is simply not possible.

So yeah, what I said. The research is based on multiple existing precedents for animals that can regrow limbs not moving past "the science we know."

Originally posted by Digi
I've just chosen to ignore him. He was snide to me about this topic before it was made. No reason to validate his responses if they're going to border on trolling.

oh, I totally agree, and as much as I behaved in the opposite fashion, I'm relly not interested in the "no-it-dosent" / "yes-it-does" side of the god debate.

I just thought it was funny, because there could be no better proof that the characteristics that are being generalized to atheists are, in fact, the same predispositions toward obnoxious belligerance that all humans who believe anything have.

Originally posted by Bardock42
And Religion is not the only thing that can look for the "why". Secular philosophy can just as much attempt that. Additionally I would argue that we are close to 100% sure that there must be a "how" whether there must be a "why" is debatable, and a question that could possibly be answered by answering the "how".

I like this. I find it strange that people can think there is no "why" to my life without religion, as if the purposes I choose to involve myself with engender a fake type of meaning. it is totally possible that any search for supernatural meaning only exists because people continue to argue that there must be, and the cynic in me sees it as a easy power grab for religious institutions to claim to be the only access point to this truth.

Religious people in my life are always mystified that I find meaning outside of religion. Or they assume that I actually don't have purpose and meaning. It's apparently impossible for them to come to terms with, because their entire purpose is driven through the prism of religion. And when asked to explain how I find meaning, I'm always at a bit of a loss...it's just something that comes naturally in life. There was very little existential crisis in my leaving religion (though I'd be lying to say there was none). So I can relate to the sentiments above from both Bardock and in.

I never had any religion... people have said i'm a raging atheist irl and online. It's always really bothered me whenever someone has a view that I know is wrong in my own mind, not just in regards to religion.

Originally posted by Badabing
As for all of you Atheist sinners, I'll pray for you.

You, pray for me, and I will think for you.




Originally posted by Quiero Mota
See, that's what I mean: you had to draw a distinction by saying theistic religions. So religions are not all the same.

That depends on what qualifies as religion. Buddhism is arguably not a religion, and is largely atheist. Deism and Pantheism define god in such a way that whether or not a god does or did exist is irrelevant. The god claims of theistic religions are the only ones that can be meaningfully discussed.




Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Exactly, they lack cohesion and unity. There's more No Religion people in the States than people who identify as black, Jewish, gay or Hispanic. If they got their shit together and organized, they actually have the potential to be a serious political force.

If Jews, Christians, and Muslims are not united in their shared belief in the existence of arguably the same god, then why would unbelievers be united their shared disbelief in one?

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
...That depends on what qualifies as religion. Buddhism is arguably not a religion, and is largely atheist. Deism and Pantheism define god in such a way that whether or not a god does or did exist is irrelevant. The god claims of theistic religions are the only ones that can be meaningfully discussed...

Buddhism is by definition a religion. Your definition of religion is not valid. Just Google "List of world religions" and you will find Buddhism in that list.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Buddhism is by definition a religion. Your definition of religion is not valid. Just Google "List of world religions" and you will find Buddhism in that list.

I'd bet that depends heavily on the version of Buddhism.

Oh boy, a semantic argument. I LOVE those.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Even scientists have faith that the basic unprovable principles of science are true.

I'm curious, what basic unprovable principles are there to science?

Originally posted by Digi
Religious people in my life are always mystified that I find meaning outside of religion. Or they assume that I actually don't have purpose and meaning. It's apparently impossible for them to come to terms with, because their entire purpose is driven through the prism of religion. And when asked to explain how I find meaning, I'm always at a bit of a loss...it's just something that comes naturally in life. There was very little existential crisis in my leaving religion (though I'd be lying to say there was none). So I can relate to the sentiments above from both Bardock and in. Why are they mystified? Maybe you find meaning and answers in science, mathematics, music, art, nature, etc. You can "believe" in those things.

Originally posted by Badabing
Why are they mystified? Maybe you find meaning and answers in science, mathematics, music, art, nature, etc. You can "believe" in those things.

Probably because people have a tendency to see faith and belief as identical. When atheists disparage "faith" they can be taken as saying it's stupid to believe in anything.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I hate to get off topic, but... It is believed that the secrets of the universe can be determined by mathematics. This is such a strong belief, that it is in truth a faith, because it can never be proved.
It's not a faith, it is believed because of the success it has shown on all levels.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I hate to get off topic, but... It is believed that the secrets of the universe can be determined by mathematics. This is such a strong belief, that it is in truth a faith, because it can never be proved.

not actually correct

I'll make a philosophy of science thread if you want

however, mathematics are a tool used in model building, not the underlying belief of science.

I am always amused by Atheist who assume that Science and God cannot coexist.

I know a couple of these points are fodder for Atheist but here are a few to get you guys going.

1. First if God exist and his whole premise is too get people to believe/have faith on their own based on free will, what would be the point of him revealing himself? The whole point in religion is having faith and CHOOSING to be one with God, not doing it because you know you will be in trouble.

2. Why can't our purpose as humans be figuring all of this out? What if that is Gods plan? God could have set this up for humans to figure out how life started, what life is about and once we finally reach that stage, that could be the ultimate stage of enlightenment.

3. Morality and The Human Conscience. I have researched and read plenty of theories about both of these. To this date, I have not found any credible "Evidence." If we are really just chemical reactions, how do we interpret right vs. wrong.

4. And trying to attack the Bible, Torah, Koran...Whatever text you would like to attack, even if all those are wrong, that would still not dispute the possible existence of God. When discussing the possibility of A God, you need to leave religion out of it. It seems most atheist attack religion more than they attack the possibility of a God,Creator, Higher being. Religion is man made, therefore it will have flaws.

I have no issue with Atheist as I use to be one myself. I understand your point of view. I just do not believe that Random Chance and luck played into my creation.

Originally posted by After The Eulog
1. First if God exist and his whole premise is too get people to believe/have faith on their own based on free will, what would be the point of him revealing himself? The whole point in religion is having faith and CHOOSING to be one with God, not doing it because you know you will be in trouble.

2. Why can't our purpose as humans be figuring all of this out? What if that is Gods plan? God could have set this up for humans to figure out how life started, what life is about and once we finally reach that stage, that could be the ultimate stage of enlightenment.

All of those imply a deist type God, one that has little or no interaction with the world. Once you've stripped God down to something so irrelevant you've basically got atheism anyhow.

Originally posted by After The Eulog
3. Morality and The Human Conscience. I have researched and read plenty of theories about both of these. To this date, I have not found any credible "Evidence." If we are really just chemical reactions, how do we interpret right vs. wrong.

Atheism does not hold that "humans are just chemical reactions." Morality and conscience don't require God either.

Originally posted by After The Eulog
4. And trying to attack the Bible, Torah, Koran...Whatever text you would like to attack, even if all those are wrong, that would still not dispute the possible existence of God. When discussing the possibility of A God, you need to leave religion out of it. It seems most atheist attack religion more than they attack the possibility of a God,Creator, Higher being. Religion is man made, therefore it will have flaws.

"The possibility of a God" is not a compelling argument for theism or even agnosticism. I'm not on the fence about the jackalope simply because their non-existence has yet to be absolutely proven.

When I look at the world around me I see (hear, smell, taste etc) no evidence for an active God. From a position of strict intellectual honesty I cannot rule out a passive God, but that's not an argument for theism either. If God is unable or unwilling to do anything then even if we proven his existence beyond all doubt I would have no reason to care. Nothing about life would change from the way it is now.

Originally posted by King Kandy
It's not a faith, it is believed because of the success it has shown on all levels.

"a faith" and "faith" have different meanings. A faith would be a religion, while faith would be the belief in something to be absolutely true. It does not matter how much evidence there is to prove something, because you can never prove something absolutely. Often, faith is short-handed for blind faith, but blind faith and faith are not the same thing. One of the main principles in my religion is faith, but unlike blind faith, we require proof.

Originally posted by After The Eulog
I am always amused by Atheist who assume that Science and God cannot coexist.
I don't think anyone here has proposed it... however, there are definitely certain religions that are incompatible with science, even if the concept of God is up in the air.

Originally posted by After The Eulog
1. First if God exist and his whole premise is too get people to believe/have faith on their own based on free will, what would be the point of him revealing himself? The whole point in religion is having faith and CHOOSING to be one with God, not doing it because you know you will be in trouble.
That makes sense, but then why would there be such a transparent reward/punishment system? When you have to choose between heaven and hell, you are forced to choose heaven.

Originally posted by After The Eulog
2. Why can't our purpose as humans be figuring all of this out? What if that is Gods plan? God could have set this up for humans to figure out how life started, what life is about and once we finally reach that stage, that could be the ultimate stage of enlightenment.
Sure, that COULD be true, but why would it?

Originally posted by After The Eulog
3. Morality and The Human Conscience. I have researched and read plenty of theories about both of these. To this date, I have not found any credible "Evidence." If we are really just chemical reactions, how do we interpret right vs. wrong.
I doubt you understand this well enough to make a judgment call... the emotional side of the brain is no harder to simulate than the logical side. There's nothing magical about emotions, and if you have any evidence of phenomena that brain chemistry could not possibly explain in regards to morality, I have yet to hear any credible reports.

Originally posted by After The Eulog
4. And trying to attack the Bible, Torah, Koran...Whatever text you would like to attack, even if all those are wrong, that would still not dispute the possible existence of God. When discussing the possibility of A God, you need to leave religion out of it. It seems most atheist attack religion more than they attack the possibility of a God,Creator, Higher being. Religion is man made, therefore it will have flaws.
That much is clear, it is futile trying to attack "God", when any properties can be attributed to it. Only religion can be attacked, because religions give specific properties that are possible to analyze. God without any religion is an amorphous concept, similar to the "Ether" of pre-Einstein physics... it's impossible to debunk something that can have any properties attributed to it.

Originally posted by King Kandy
You said it was a basic unprovable principle of science...

Yes, and there is more then one. Why don't you make a thread about it?

Because i'm not interested in having any more threads that will turn into "everyone on the forum vs. you".

Originally posted by King Kandy
Because i'm not interested in having any more threads that will turn into "everyone on the forum vs. you".

Then stop replying.

Originally posted by Badabing
Why are they mystified? Maybe you find meaning and answers in science, mathematics, music, art, nature, etc. You can "believe" in those things.

It's not even finding a muse, per se. It's like, existence is awesome. There's meaning. Be happy, there's a reason. Make others happy, there's another. It's so mind-numbingly easy to have meaning without religion, but it is unfortunately sometimes impossible for religious folk to imagine that.

So why they're mystified, I couldn't really tell you. All I know is, I get asked "How do you find meaning?" an awful lot (or some similar variation), as though I shouldn't be able to find it. "I make my own meaning rather than it being given to me," is usually my response. It doesn't work for them, but meh.

Originally posted by After The Eulog
I am always amused by Atheist who assume that Science and God cannot coexist.

I know a couple of these points are fodder for Atheist but here are a few to get you guys going.

1. First if God exist and his whole premise is too get people to believe/have faith on their own based on free will, what would be the point of him revealing himself? The whole point in religion is having faith and CHOOSING to be one with God, not doing it because you know you will be in trouble.

2. Why can't our purpose as humans be figuring all of this out? What if that is Gods plan? God could have set this up for humans to figure out how life started, what life is about and once we finally reach that stage, that could be the ultimate stage of enlightenment.

3. Morality and The Human Conscience. I have researched and read plenty of theories about both of these. To this date, I have not found any credible "Evidence." If we are really just chemical reactions, how do we interpret right vs. wrong.

4. And trying to attack the Bible, Torah, Koran...Whatever text you would like to attack, even if all those are wrong, that would still not dispute the possible existence of God. When discussing the possibility of A God, you need to leave religion out of it. It seems most atheist attack religion more than they attack the possibility of a God,Creator, Higher being. Religion is man made, therefore it will have flaws.

I have no issue with Atheist as I use to be one myself. I understand your point of view. I just do not believe that Random Chance and luck played into my creation.

Others on the earlier page dealt with this much better than I'm willing to, but in a nutshell, religion and God don't have to interfere with one another. But the specific claims of nearly every religion on the planet do interfere with it. And a God that can coexist with a materialist, deterministic universe isn't a god worth believing in, worshipping, and has no power over creation, there is nor will ever be evidence to support his existence, etc. etc.

Also, is #3 proposing a soul? Because yes, the functions of our brain can indeed explain all of our cognitive states. I'm not sure why you'd think otherwise.

Originally posted by inimalist
that is still untrue

I'll admit that most scientists are either individually uninterested in the minutia of philosophy of science, and there is an air amongst mathemeticians that theirs is the "purest" of the "sciences", but the fact remains that maths are a simple system of logic that we have invented to build models around.

in no philosophical sense do our mathematical models provide any "truth" about the universe, math doesn't solve any problems, but rather allows us to express observation (probably the term you meant instead of math) in simple, logical, and universally communicable terms. Many scientific models can't be easily broken down to math, or the models are so complex, or formed from so many parts, the mechanistic algorhythms become the "trees" of the proverbial "forest".

Math is a tool, much like an experiment.

At no time was I ever talking about that. I was talking about the belief that math, as you put it, is the "purest" of the "sciences", and that models can reflect reality perfectly (by the way, this has been proven to be wrong). This belief is an example of belief that is not as was characterized earlier.

You are going off topic.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
At no time was I ever talking about that. I was talking about the belief that math, as you put it, is the "purest" of the "sciences", and that models can reflect reality perfectly (by the way, this has been proven to be wrong). This belief is an example of belief that is not as was characterized earlier.

under the definitions of the philosophy of science, that is not science, and all scientists who use such short hands would readily admit such, though they might roll their eyes at their impaitence with philosophical concepts.

the belief that maths can accuratly represent the real world is NOT a principle of science, which is the argument you made. It is short hand scientists might use when discussing things, but in a true to philosophical sense, it is not, and there would be no argument amongst scientists on this matter.

then its probably best not to bring up your own

Atheism is simply the absence of religion.

I was once an Atheist myself, after denouncing my Christianity.

But now, I've found peace with the Dark Carnival.

Originally posted by inimalist
that is still untrue

I'll admit that most scientists are either individually uninterested in the minutia of philosophy of science, and there is an air amongst mathemeticians that theirs is the "purest" of the "science
s", but the fact remains that maths are a simple system of logic that we have invented to build models around.

in no philosophical sense do our mathematical models provide any "truth" about the universe, math doesn't solve any problems, but rather allows us to express observation (probably the term you meant instead of math) in simple, logical, and universally communicable terms. Many scientific models can't be easily broken down to math, or the models are so complex, or formed from so many parts, the mechanistic algorhythms become the "trees" of the proverbial "forest".

Math is a tool, much like an experiment.

However, it is mind boggling how mathematical exercises purely for their own sake have oftentimes centuries later found application in Sciences helping to explain the world further. Those are things Mathematicians already understood many years before it became ever important.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html

This is just the first site I found when I searched Google for "List of world Religions". There are a lot more. You can find a definition to fit whatever you want, but most of the world disagrees with you. Also, your definition of faith is wrong. Even scientists have faith that the basic unprovable principles of science are true.

I think there are a lot of cons to such a viewpoint, mainly the inherent contradiction atheism creates between the person and the world they're trying to interact with.

http://thefreeimagehost.info/lib/images/usr20100

Atheists tend to become insular and end up only believing in themselves.

Originally posted by RichardBrittain

Atheists tend to become insular and end up only believing in themselves.

That is not based in any sort of reality, it's just something you made up.

Originally posted by RichardBrittain
I think there are a lot of cons to such a viewpoint, mainly the inherent contradiction atheism creates between the person and the world they're trying to interact with.

http://thefreeimagehost.info/lib/images/usr20100

Atheists tend to become insular and end up only believing in themselves.

So, can I deduce that you do not believe in yourself?

Originally posted by AsbestosFlaygon
Atheism is simply the absence of religion.

I was once an Atheist myself, after denouncing my Christianity.

But now, I've found peace with the Dark Carnival.

That applies to most Atheists I've known/met. They don't subtley, little-by-little say they're Atheist. They dramatically denounce whatever they once believed. My son told me that one of his undergrad friends once caused an awkward Thanksgiving (American holiday F.Y.I., cause you're in Austria). When his dad bowed his head in prayer prior to eating, he decided that then was the moment to declare his Atheism. The rest of the dinner must have been pretty awkward, as you can imagine.

So it seems to be a kind of "coming out", in which an audience is preferable.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
That applies to most Atheists I've known/met. They don't subtley, little-by-little say they're Atheist. They dramatically denounce whatever they once believed. My son told me that one of his undergrad friends once caused an awkward Thanksgiving (American holiday F.Y.I., cause you're in Austria). When his dad bowed his head in prayer prior to eating, he decided that then was the moment to declare his Atheism. The rest of the dinner must have been pretty awkward, as you can imagine.

So it seems to be a kind of "coming out", in which an audience is preferable.

I have seen that same kind of rudeness with radical atheists.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
That applies to most Atheists I've known/met. They don't subtley, little-by-little say they're Atheist. They dramatically denounce whatever they once believed. My son told me that one of his undergrad friends once caused an awkward Thanksgiving (American holiday F.Y.I., cause you're in Austria). When his dad bowed his head in prayer prior to eating, he decided that then was the moment to declare his Atheism. The rest of the dinner must have been pretty awkward, as you can imagine.

So it seems to be a kind of "coming out", in which an audience is preferable.
You generalize to draw conclusions more than anyone i've seen on this forum.

Atheists:

IYO, what is the biggest disadvantage of theism? For fairy-tale/wish-fulfillment extremists, the answer seems obvious. But for those theists who adopt a more realistic and compassionate attitude, what do you feel is still "missing" from their lives? I don't mean to imply judgment, but for lack of better words, what are they still doing "wrong"?

Originally posted by Adam_PoE


It seems like you are trying to discredit the web site I was using. Ether you or oblivious to the point I was making or you are trying to redirect. It does not matter what the web site says.

Let me illustrate my point:

Person A, says that the word gay means very happy.

Person B, argues that gay means homosexual and provides a gay web site to show what the popular meaning of the word gay is.

Person A looks at the site and finds something that is strange or not correct, and presents that as a way to show that the web site is wrong.

Person A did not understand the point that person B was making.

Just because there are things on that web site that are strange or even wrong, does not change that fact that most people would agree that Buddhism is a religion.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
It seems like you are trying to discredit the web site I was using. Ether you or oblivious to the point I was making or you are trying to redirect. It does not matter what the web site says.

Let me illustrate my point:

Person A, says that the word gay means very happy.

Person B, argues that gay means homosexual and provides a gay web site to show what the popular meaning of the word gay is.

Person A looks at the site and finds something that is strange or not correct, and presents that as a way to show that the web site is wrong.

Person A did not understand the point that person B was making.

Just because there are things on that web site that are strange or even wrong, does not change that fact that most people would agree that Buddhism is a religion.
YOU missed the point. He showed quotes where the website admits it lists things that aren't really religions. So something being on that website doesn't mean it's a religion.

Originally posted by King Kandy
YOU missed the point. He showed quotes where the website admits it lists things that aren't really religions. So something being on that website doesn't mean it's a religion.

The web site is a little strange and even wrong, but the content of the web site was not the point at all.

Originally posted by Bardock42
However, it is mind boggling how mathematical exercises purely for their own sake have oftentimes centuries later found application in Sciences helping to explain the world further. Those are things Mathematicians already understood many years before it became ever important.

oh, for sure, I'm not taking the piss out of math or anything. I was trying to give some perspective on how math is used in science, and how there is absolutly no need to assume that mathematical models produced by science are an accurate reflection of reality.

Originally posted by Mindship
Atheists:

IYO, what is the biggest disadvantage of theism? For fairy-tale/wish-fulfillment extremists, the answer seems obvious. But for those theists who adopt a more realistic and compassionate attitude, what do you feel is still "missing" from their lives? I don't mean to imply judgment, but for lack of better words, what are they still doing "wrong"?

I know in my own opinions there is nothing "wrong" or "missing" from their lives. As I have, they found explanations that work for them in understanding the universe and I have no real reason or interest in trying to disuade them of that position. There is no real fundamental difference between people who believe in anything in this way, it simply supports the psychological constructs that provide something to the individual, and as such, I wouldn't say a religious person is missing out on anything that I gain as an atheist.

If you mean, rather, why don't I, as an atheist, ascribe to ideas of a "realistic" supernatural, it would be because I see no real convincing reason to suppose it does exist. Furthermore, the more "realistic" a divine being becomes, the more uninvolved and detached from the universe it becomes. It either becomes an entity that doesn't interact with the universe at all, or something tautologically defined as "all things", neither of which, if there were evidence for their existance, would be really worthy of the title "god" or of any sort of worship.

atheists and others:

why is the question, "Is X a religion" actually relevant to anyone?

like really, what is the actual importance of debating this?

Originally posted by inimalist
atheists and others:

why is the question, "Is X a religion" actually relevant to anyone?

like really, what is the actual importance of debating this?

Sorry, it started with over generalizations.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Sorry, it started with over generalizations.

yes, but it is something that comes up pretty frequently

Originally posted by Mindship
Atheists:

IYO, what is the biggest disadvantage of theism? For fairy-tale/wish-fulfillment extremists, the answer seems obvious. But for those theists who adopt a more realistic and compassionate attitude, what do you feel is still "missing" from their lives? I don't mean to imply judgment, but for lack of better words, what are they still doing "wrong"?

The idea of living in sin is, imo, underrated as a negative psychological influence. As the theists in American culture are almost exclusively Christian, I see this a lot.

Take sex for an extreme example. If two consenting adults have sex, enjoy it, and nothing particularly awful comes from it, there is no intrinsic bad that comes from it. But it's a sin, so there's a violent clash with the secular nature of our society on the issue. And rather than simply embrace one or the other, I've seen people repress their sexuality to meet a religious ideal, or sometimes just feel very guilty about their actions. This is harmful to the person over a long period of time.

There are, of course, smaller examples on an everyday basis. My mom feels guilty about missing church regularly, despite the fact she has to keep multiple jobs to get by and that is what keeps her from church. These are anecdotes, but the larger point is there. There are numerous "sinful" actions that, on an objective level, someone would have a hard time convincing me are bad things. It's an appeal to authority at that point.

Theists can argue that the religion is not about punishment or guilt all they want, but that's a philosophical argument. What I'm saying is that it does affect people that way, right or wrong.

Originally posted by Digi
The idea of living in sin is, imo, underrated as a negative psychological influence. As the theists in American culture are almost exclusively Christian, I see this a lot.

Take sex for an extreme example. If two consenting adults have sex, enjoy it, and nothing particularly awful comes from it, there is no intrinsic bad that comes from it. But it's a sin, so there's a violent clash with the secular nature of our society on the issue. And rather than simply embrace one or the other, I've seen people repress their sexuality to meet a religious ideal, or sometimes just feel very guilty about their actions. This is harmful to the person over a long period of time.

There are, of course, smaller examples on an everyday basis. My mom feels guilty about missing church regularly, despite the fact she has to keep multiple jobs to get by and that is what keeps her from church. These are anecdotes, but the larger point is there. Theists can argue that the religion is not about punishment or guilt all they want, but that's a philosophical argument. What I'm saying is that it does affect people that way, right or wrong.

I agree. I have even seen sexual perversion come of this kind of repression. However, that is a problem unique to a few religions, but not all.

Originally posted by Digi
To answer the final paragraph, it was really just a slow, laborious process by which I slowly began to doubt, investigate, and deconstruct my religious worldview. There was never a moment like there was with you. At some point it just sort of dawned on me that I hadn't really been a Christian for a while. Then after that came other paranormal and/or mystical concepts, just as methodically.

don't get me wrong, it wasn't that I was like BAM! "I'm an atheist", more that the experience sort of primed a way of thinking for me that eventually, almost inevietably, lead to atheism.

I really like your approach better though. Its a better biography at least/

Originally posted by Digi
I get your other stuff though. Like how the single most determining factor in your religion is what your parents are. If you're taught to think a certain way about the world, everything else will mold itself to that approach.

I don't really know how to describe it at this point, but I'm so interested in this kind of stuff. About how the mechanisms we use to test reality are themselves built by our experiences and how we are told reality works...

Originally posted by Digi
The idea of living in sin is, imo, underrated as a negative psychological influence. As the theists in American culture are almost exclusively Christian, I see this a lot.

Take sex for an extreme example. If two consenting adults have sex, enjoy it, and nothing particularly awful comes from it, there is no intrinsic bad that comes from it. But it's a sin, so there's a violent clash with the secular nature of our society on the issue. And rather than simply embrace one or the other, I've seen people repress their sexuality to meet a religious ideal, or sometimes just feel very guilty about their actions. This is harmful to the person over a long period of time.

There are, of course, smaller examples on an everyday basis. My mom feels guilty about missing church regularly, despite the fact she has to keep multiple jobs to get by and that is what keeps her from church. These are anecdotes, but the larger point is there. Theists can argue that the religion is not about punishment or guilt all they want, but that's a philosophical argument. What I'm saying is that it does affect people that way, right or wrong.

do you see that opinion as being at odds with your Libertarianism at all?

not that I do, I just have a weird moral argument in my head about whether someone's willingness and psychological "choice" to engage in religion sort of makes it so that they want that guilt to be there. Not necessarily that they want to feel guilty, but that they want, even for themselves, there to be some sort of ultimate justice for things done on earth. Under that perspective, I don't know whether I see the guilt they experience as overly negative, as the uncertainty of eternal justice might be worse. From a psychological perspective, I'd almost argue that if it weren't worse, these people wouldn't believe in sin.

lol, don't think I'm just trying to tear you up in the thread or anything, its that I know you and me have similar opinions on a lot of this stuff, so its fun to just run ideas by you.

Originally posted by inimalist
If you mean, rather, why don't I, as an atheist, ascribe to ideas of a "realistic" supernatural... I meant more realistic in that some theists embrace science enough to know how the material world works (eg, they don't depend on prayer alone to cure disease).

I suppose the other way to word my question could be: What is the biggest advantage of atheism?

I don't think there is an "advantage" to atheism... though if something does no good, it's kind of just unnecessary baggage to worry about, so you might as well drop it.

Originally posted by inimalist
...
not that I do, I just have a weird moral argument in my head about whether someone's willingness and psychological "choice" to engage in religion sort of makes it so that they want that guilt to be there. Not necessarily that they want to feel guilty, but that they want, even for themselves, there to be some sort of ultimate justice for things done on earth. Under that perspective, I don't know whether I see the guilt they experience as overly negative, as the uncertainty of eternal justice might be worse. From a psychological perspective, I'd almost argue that if it weren't worse, these people wouldn't believe in sin...

JIA once told me that if it was not for god (or as I took it, his religion) he would be doing great evil. There is a possibility he was right. Is it possible that some people know they need boundaries to keep them for doing wrong? In other words, has religion, somewhere, kept a potential serial killer from killing in the first place?

Originally posted by Mindship
Atheists:

IYO, what is the biggest disadvantage of theism? For fairy-tale/wish-fulfillment extremists, the answer seems obvious. But for those theists who adopt a more realistic and compassionate attitude, what do you feel is still "missing" from their lives? I don't mean to imply judgment, but for lack of better words, what are they still doing "wrong"?

The problem is that theism supports what my (semi-religious) Mother deems the "god-said-it-I-believe-it-that-settles-it" attitude. That's scary to me, no argument and no evidence can convince such a person that they're doing something wrong. Worse culture's that think that way move forward very slowly.

Now obviously there have been millions of thoughtful theists in the course of human history but they are in the minority. That is probably the result of a minority of people in general being thoughtful but atheists are still (usually) less resistant to change.

Originally posted by Mindship
I meant more realistic in that some theists embrace science enough to know how the material world works (eg, they don't depend on prayer alone to cure disease).

My bad. My answer is generally the same, I see no reason why they shouldn't believe that or think that it reflects poorly upon them in any way, but I see no evidence for their God, and would probably question the intellectual honesty of thinking there is a God that can and has interviened to do some things, but those other things, thats unrealistic and crazy. It seems like too subjective of a line for me

Originally posted by Mindship
I suppose the other way to word my question could be: What is the biggest advantage of atheism?

isn't that sort of putting it like Pascal did though?

to be tongue in cheek, my answer would be that the advantage is that it is correct. Basically, it is what is congruent with how I understand reality and the narratives that I have regarding how things work, and I have experienced nothing that has made me question those narratives to a substantial degree.

As arrogantly as that might have been put, I sort of come at belief from a psychology perspective, so I don't really ever think the "advantage" of atheism was a part of it to me. The narratives I had were not congruent with those of religion or the supernatural, so I don't believe in them...

...

my world is so cold...

lol, ok, more seriously though, if there were something that I would say is beneficial to, at least the way I think about atheism and belief, is that you can at least begin to question your own knee-jerk opinions and assumptions without also having to question your entire personal narrative. But this is tied much more deeply into my ideas about personal identity and affiliation, where I strongly believe that attempting to deaffiliate oneself from issues of "who i am" is a necessary cognitive excersize. I think that atheism allows for this type of thing easier than would belief in a God that is anything other than what I described before. It allows introspection and self-doubt to become useful tools rather than something which is problamatized and ruminated upon.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
JIA once told me that if it was not for god (or as I took it, his religion) he would be doing great evil. There is a possibility he was right.

I don't think there is a possibility he was right at all.

There are numerous psychological studies that have emerged largely in the last 4-5 years about people's conscious and unconscious moral preferences. It turns out that many moral axioms, including some that we aren't even aware of, are ubiquitous in humans. There are moral ways we tend to nearly unanimously act in, which hold up accross cultures, that we cannot even identify if asked why we acted in that way.

If JIA was a good person, as in, not someone who actively had to prevent himself from hurting others (as none of us do, and I'm not talking about "bar-fights" and that, I mean like psychopathy), he wouldn't have behaved that way without religion. Religion provided narratives and justification for how he was predisposed to react to the world, not the other way around.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Is it possible that some people know they need boundaries to keep them for doing wrong?

see, this is a totally different issue though. I've always thought that if I ended up in jail I would probably adopt a religon, for no other reason that having that kind of structure, and something to occupy your mind and time with, would probably be something I'd want if my life were out of control (to me, prison is a good measure of this).

The story of Malcolm X is really illustrative in this way. He turned from a pimp hustler into a strict Muslim, and became a world renown intellectual because he was able to channel himself into something productive.

I don't think this quality is something unique to religions or political affiliation or whatever, it is just that more secular and rational institutions don't really exist for this type of thing, yet .

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
In other words, has religion, somewhere, kept a potential serial killer from killing in the first place?

I'd be a fool to say no to question with such a broad scope, but in general, no, I'd say that is not something that would likely happen. Crazier things certainly have though.

I think it is important to balance this, however. The moral certainty that comes from some religions has negative implications. Studies show that people who consider themselves moral have no difficulty doing things they agree to be immoral, and doing these things has no impact on how they see themselves.

So, you can ask someone "do you think it is immoral to lie?", then give them a test where the ability to lie is available (almost encouraged), then, confront them, and ask if they believe they had acted in an immoral way. They will say no, because they are a moral person, and come up with some cognitive mechanism to reduce their own culpability in lying. The same is not seen of people who do not define themselves as strictly moral.

By telling people they know the right way to live, religions actually might be predisposing them to justify all their wrong acts. I'm not saying religion causes any of these things, or that irreligious people can't also fall victim to this.

Originally posted by inimalist
isn't that sort of putting it like Pascal did though?
Pascal was a biased gambler. I'm just...curious.

my world is so cold...

I'm sure there's an app for that.


Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The problem is that theism supports what my (semi-religious) Mother deems the "god-said-it-I-believe-it-that-settles-it" attitude. Oddly enough, my more frequent encounters with such a mindset have been here on KMC. This is probably because as soon as I sensed I was dealing with such a person in real life, I walked away.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Don’t you think this would also be true for someone who believes that atheism is the moral and correct way?

You'd be hard-pressed to find such a person. Correct way, sure, those atheists exist. But I have yet to meet an atheist that believes in absolute morality, or at least a version of it that we can actively know. Pointing out moral faults with religion is one tact, but it's not equivalent to saying that atheism is more moral, which would be a hard statement to defend.

Originally posted by Mindship
I suppose the other way to word my question could be: What is the biggest advantage of atheism?

I wouldn't characterize it in those terms. It's what I believe, period. You can't simply change what you believe, except superficially. So to me the advantage is that it makes more sense to me than religion. But it's not in an atheism > theism sort of way.

There are disadvantages to religion, mind you. Normally they're easier to identify in extremist religion. But that fact doesn't mean religion is wrong or the "lesser" worldview.

Originally posted by inimalist
do you see that opinion as being at odds with your Libertarianism at all?

not that I do, I just have a weird moral argument in my head about whether someone's willingness and psychological "choice" to engage in religion sort of makes it so that they want that guilt to be there. Not necessarily that they want to feel guilty, but that they want, even for themselves, there to be some sort of ultimate justice for things done on earth. Under that perspective, I don't know whether I see the guilt they experience as overly negative, as the uncertainty of eternal justice might be worse. From a psychological perspective, I'd almost argue that if it weren't worse, these people wouldn't believe in sin.

lol, don't think I'm just trying to tear you up in the thread or anything, its that I know you and me have similar opinions on a lot of this stuff, so its fun to just run ideas by you.

I think we're talking about mostly people who were brought up with their particular religion, and so the idea of guilt for sin was introduced to them. I don't see it as a need for an objective moral judge or the "desire" for guilt. I don't think it's a deeper psychological need for moral guilt that gave rise to it in religion.

Because, realistically, fear and guilt as a motivator works very well for religion. It might not be conscious use of such tools, of course, but I'm thinking of it from a memetic standpoint. An institution where guilt, sin, punishment for deviating or leaving, etc. exists is more likely to keep its adherents than one in which there is no negative consequence for leaving, because it creates a powerful self-sustaining meme within a person or society.

In short, I do see ingrained religious guilt as a negative thing. As you mentioned, people are 'moral' because of factors having nothing to do with religion. They don't need such potentially destructive motivators to maintain morality.

I'll be honest and say I'm not sure how any of this could clash with Libertarianism though. Though, off topic, I kinda avoid the 'L' word these days. I've found that most people equate L-ism with something more akin to anarchy. I've retreated to "economic conservative, social liberal" to avoid the semantic discussion before the substantial one. It also has the benefit of painting myself as less of an extreme, and as such my ideas are less likely to be met with unthinking incredulity.

Originally posted by inimalist
its that I know you and me have similar opinions on a lot of this stuff, so its fun to just run ideas by you.

I've found this to be true as well. I have a hard time conversing on "big" topics with someone with whom I share no opinions. There's no common ground. It's much easier to talk with someone who you agree with for the most part, but disagree on smaller aspects of it. There's some common footing that doesn't need to be hashed out, instead of having to argue on the basic premise of the topic in the first place.

I do try to actively seek out theists to debate this with though. Not in an evangelical sense, but because I never want to be accused of being insulated by my influences. The internet is good for that.

Originally posted by Mindship
Pascal was a biased gambler. I'm just...curious.

no, I understand. However, in a lot of ways I'd argue there are clear advantages to theism over atheism if you want to do a cost/benefit analysis

Originally posted by Mindship


I'm sure there's an app for that.




i hope so

Originally posted by Digi
I do try to actively seek out theists to debate this with though. Not in an evangelical sense, but because I never want to be accused of being insulated by my influences. The internet is good for that.

Unfortunately the internet is also terrible for that. You no longer have to have conversations with people who disagree with you. Dedicated forums make it very easy to feel like everybody is on your side and that the only reason things don't conform those views is a conspiracy.

Originally posted by Digi
I think we're talking about mostly people who were brought up with their particular religion, and so the idea of guilt for sin was introduced to them. I don't see it as a need for an objective moral judge or the "desire" for guilt. I don't think it's a deeper psychological need for moral guilt that gave rise to it in religion.

Because, realistically, fear and guilt as a motivator works very well for religion. It might not be conscious use of such tools, of course, but I'm thinking of it from a memetic standpoint. An institution where guilt, sin, punishment for deviating or leaving, etc. exists is more likely to keep its adherents than one in which there is no negative consequence for leaving, because it creates a powerful self-sustaining meme within a person or society.

In short, I do see ingrained religious guilt as a negative thing. As you mentioned, people are 'moral' because of factors having nothing to do with religion. They don't need such potentially destructive motivators to maintain morality.

but, not all people who are religious feel such compulsions toward "guilt" and "sin". There are religious people for whom eternal justice is not a primary concern (though I'll give you that there are fewer religious than atheist people for whom this would be true) and there are atheists who feel guilt and have moral expectations of eachother.

I guess I tend to put the cart a little bit before the horse. I tend to think that people with the disposition toward needing certainty or other such qualities will seek out the things that affirm those beliefs, and people motivated the other way will similarly find other paths. I'm not suggesting there are natural differences between theists or atheists, because I totally believe people of any tolorance for ambiguity or whatever could fall into either camp.

I do see where you are coming from, and I guess I agree, but would also question if you would extend such skepticism to other governmental and social institutions? We indoctrinate our children in so many ways without religion, and sure we can debate severity, but how would we create a society in which we don't impress moral values on people?

Originally posted by Digi
I'll be honest and say I'm not sure how any of this could clash with Libertarianism though.

i dont really think it does either, but it does bring up interesting questions of rational self interest as a real motivator of human bahaviour.

Originally posted by Digi
Though, off topic, I kinda avoid the 'L' word these days. I've found that most people equate L-ism with something more akin to anarchy. I've retreated to "economic conservative, social liberal" to avoid the semantic discussion before the substantial one. It also has the benefit of painting myself as less of an extreme, and as such my ideas are less likely to be met with unthinking incredulity.

tell me about it

Originally posted by Digi
I've found this to be true as well. I have a hard time conversing on "big" topics with someone with whom I share no opinions. There's no common ground. It's much easier to talk with someone who you agree with for the most part, but disagree on smaller aspects of it. There's some common footing that doesn't need to be hashed out, instead of having to argue on the basic premise of the topic in the first place.

the perspective is also nice. We believe a lot of the same things, but it appears for different reasons and from fairly different life experiences.

Originally posted by Digi
I do try to actively seek out theists to debate this with though. Not in an evangelical sense, but because I never want to be accused of being insulated by my influences. The internet is good for that.

I've got to admit, I don't have the paitence for that anymore.

Originally posted by inimalist
I don't think there is a possibility he was right at all.


So are people lying when they claim their newfound religion is responsible for them beating alcoholism?

damn straight its like when ppl give credit to got for winning a football game and grammy

Originally posted by Wild Shadow
damn straight its like when ppl give credit to got for winning a football game and grammy

Um...not quite the same.

If they weren't active in the local church/mosque, they'd still be slanging dope on the streets. That's different from thanking god for winning a sports game.

really... so its either church/religion or streets?

what about volunteer work or further education?

Originally posted by Wild Shadow
really... so its either church/religion or streets?

what about volunteer work or further education?

Yeah, that's another possibility.

But churches do a lot of volunteer work, and higher education is expensive and just because you apply, it doesn't mean you'll get in. Also, a good number of potheads can be found on most university campuses. When I sold weed in the 90's, college kids made up a good a portion of my clientele. Active church-goers? ...not so much.

Sv_ec6y7TXM&feature=related

Originally posted by inimalist
but, not all people who are religious feel such compulsions toward "guilt" and "sin". There are religious people for whom eternal justice is not a primary concern (though I'll give you that there are fewer religious than atheist people for whom this would be true) and there are atheists who feel guilt and have moral expectations of eachother.

I guess I tend to put the cart a little bit before the horse. I tend to think that people with the disposition toward needing certainty or other such qualities will seek out the things that affirm those beliefs, and people motivated the other way will similarly find other paths. I'm not suggesting there are natural differences between theists or atheists, because I totally believe people of any tolorance for ambiguity or whatever could fall into either camp.

I do see where you are coming from, and I guess I agree, but would also question if you would extend such skepticism to other governmental and social institutions? We indoctrinate our children in so many ways without religion, and sure we can debate severity, but how would we create a society in which we don't impress moral values on people?

Not all who are religious feel compulsion toward guilt and sin, true. Same with atheists who experience moral guilt. But, and here's the point, the religious guilt is only going to add to the negativity of the person. Maybe it's that their religion instilled in them the need for some sort of guilt. Or maybe it's vice-versa, and some people are normally inclined toward moral guilt and so they gravitate toward that aspect of religion. I'm not interested in which of those it is (though that could make an interesting discussion as well, and is part of the cart/horse you've mentioned). What I'm interested is the tangible affect it has on people, and I don't see anything positive with creating more psychological punishment for our actions than we are naturally inclined to.

So my original point was simply that religious guilt based on morality is a net negative. I don't see religious moral codes as being needed to be a moral person or society. And actions that aren't intrinsically bad, that create no suffering in the world, can still inspire guilt because of a divine edict. Where, then, is the benefit?

Originally posted by inimalist
I've got to admit, I don't have the paitence for that anymore.

I'll admit to a devilish thrill when a devoutly religious person finds out I'm an atheist. To most, the very possibility of it is inconceivable, so there's a huge amount of shock value. Some people avoid labeling themselves atheist to avoid the shock it engenders. And while I don't go looking to upset others, I tend to embrace and enjoy it when it happens. So I guess I don't really expect the conversation to go anywhere, it's just a novelty.

But there are those in my life who are religious whom I can have serious discussions with, and I do. I also like coming here to KMC. Far from insulating myself by talking with only other atheists, even though this particular thread is somewhat lopsided, I can and have interacted with those of numerous faiths here.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
So are people lying when they claim their newfound religion is responsible for them beating alcoholism?

from the same post you quoted:

Originally posted by inimalist


Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Is it possible that some people know they need boundaries to keep them for doing wrong?

see, this is a totally different issue though. I've always thought that if I ended up in jail I would probably adopt a religon, for no other reason that having that kind of structure, and something to occupy your mind and time with, would probably be something I'd want if my life were out of control (to me, prison is a good measure of this).

The story of Malcolm X is really illustrative in this way. He turned from a pimp hustler into a strict Muslim, and became a world renown intellectual because he was able to channel himself into something productive.

I don't think this quality is something unique to religions or political affiliation or whatever, it is just that more secular and rational institutions don't really exist for this type of thing, yet .

and one soon after:

Originally posted by inimalist

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
So, in this case theism had a positive outcome that helped Malcolm X realize his true potential?

no, but only because I don't believe in "true potential", I would say it allowed him to motivate himself toward a goal that was motivated by a drive for self improvement rather than crime. However, I think it is the institutional qualities of religion, rather than philosophical theism, that have the ability to motivate and channel people's energies in this way. Theism may help motivate self-improvement though, that is an interesting thesis...

but to be specific, no, of course not, for several reasons:

- even if we suppose his religion had nothing to do with him beating alcohol addiction, I still wouldn't say the person was lying. certainly to them religion would have had a significant impact, even if it were possible to eliminate it as a cause.

-I am readily willing to admit that structure, which religion provides, in a person's life is almost necessary for beating addiction. being involved in new activities, away from old triggers of addiction is one of the best strategies, so clearly someone joining a new religious group could assist them in beating something like an addiction. In respect to the selective quote you took, no, however, I don't think it would prevent psychopathic murder.

-I've even admitted that there might be an aspect of religious belief that promotes self-improvement through concern with salvation and attonement. It might prime ideas of betterment in material ways, like you said, getting off the street.

Originally posted by Digi
Not all who are religious feel compulsion toward guilt and sin, true. Same with atheists who experience moral guilt. But, and here's the point, the religious guilt is only going to add to the negativity of the person. Maybe it's that their religion instilled in them the need for some sort of guilt. Or maybe it's vice-versa, and some people are normally inclined toward moral guilt and so they gravitate toward that aspect of religion. I'm not interested in which of those it is (though that could make an interesting discussion as well, and is part of the cart/horse you've mentioned). What I'm interested is the tangible affect it has on people, and I don't see anything positive with creating more psychological punishment for our actions than we are naturally inclined to.

So my original point was simply that religious guilt based on morality is a net negative. I don't see religious moral codes as being needed to be a moral person or society. And actions that aren't intrinsically bad, that create no suffering in the world, can still inspire guilt because of a divine edict. Where, then, is the benefit?

alright, I get what you are saying. Religion certainly exploits people's predispositions toward paranoia and guilt.

Actually, I've always thought it weird that religious behaviour can't be seen as evidence of mental health problems, even though, as you just said, it totally makes issues of anxiety much worse, and invents things for people to ruminate about. I've tended to think certain religious practices might be able to trigger latent psychological issues, but I suppose from what you are saying we could at least say it might be an agonist for mood disorders and the like.

Originally posted by Digi
I'll admit to a devilish thrill when a devoutly religious person finds out I'm an atheist. To most, the very possibility of it is inconceivable, so there's a huge amount of shock value. Some people avoid labeling themselves atheist to avoid the shock it engenders. And while I don't go looking to upset others, I tend to embrace and enjoy it when it happens. So I guess I don't really expect the conversation to go anywhere, it's just a novelty.

I guess, when it comes down to it, I'm really just not that interested in the specific arguement over God's existence. Religions interest me as social and psychological phenomenon, but I don't ever really think about the more "spiritual" aspects in a serious manner any more. There were times, even more recently, where it definatly mattered more to me, but ya, to sound cynical, I can't be bothered to try and defend a position that isn't really personally significant to me with regard to a question that I think is irrelevant to begin with.

maybe like philosophical attrition? lol

Originally posted by Digi
But there are those in my life who are religious whom I can have serious discussions with, and I do. I also like coming here to KMC. Far from insulating myself by talking with only other atheists, even though this particular thread is somewhat lopsided, I can and have interacted with those of numerous faiths here.

I do like it. We have had some good members at times. Even the more radical christians are interesting for perspective. I find the crowd here to be on the intellectual side in general, though, I miss GMG.

Part of my opinion on guilt stems from this: As a side-affect of my deterministic beliefs, I can't hold to the opinion that anyone is 'wrong' for their actions. All actions are inevitable and perfectly logical, given the causes that preceded them, much as we might not enjoy some of them. So the idea of guilt or culpability doesn't enter into my worldview at all. I can reflect on an action in order to change a future one, if I didn't like action or its outcome. But I can't bring myself to feel guilty about it. Or rather, I can't from a philosophical standpoint...in reality, we naturally feel guilty sometimes, whether we "believe" in it or not.

I could also make the same argument, except substitute "determinism" with "relative morality." I can't see how something has an intrinsic goodness or badness. At the risk of sounding needlessly existential, reality just is. Such a stance (objective morality), I would think, would require a God-figure to establish. My approach to morality, then, is a functional one, not a philosophical one: In our lives, happiness is awesome, and suffering sucks. Why not try to promote the former, and avoid the latter? Simple and obvious, imo, requiring neither God nor an objective sense of morality.

...that last paragraph was a semi-bait for you, btw, in. I'm still not quite sure how you hold the beliefs you do and yet believe in objective morality (or maybe I'm confusing it with objective reality, which is another matter entirely).

Originally posted by inimalist

but to be specific, no, of course not, for several reasons:

- even if we suppose his religion had nothing to do with him beating alcohol addiction, I still wouldn't say the person was lying. certainly to them religion would have had a significant impact, even if it were possible to eliminate it as a cause.

-I am readily willing to admit that structure, which religion provides, in a person's life is almost necessary for beating addiction. being involved in new activities, away from old triggers of addiction is one of the best strategies, so clearly someone joining a new religious group could assist them in beating something like an addiction. In respect to the selective quote you took, no, however, I don't think it would prevent psychopathic murder.

-I've even admitted that there might be an aspect of religious belief that promotes self-improvement through concern with salvation and attonement. It might prime ideas of betterment in material ways, like you said, getting off the street.

Well, it depends on what you mean by "structure". Take for example: functional alcoholics. They get shit-faced everyday, but are still able to hold down a nine-to-five. But a functional alcoholic couldn't be devout a Muslim or Mormon, wouldn't you agree? Certain jobs screen workers for illegal drugs; booze and gambling are perfectly legal, but banned in many religions.

You don't think it would prevent psychopathic murder? I'll be completely honest: I can recall at least two occasions in my lifetime when I seriously entertained a violent fantasy against someone I didn't like (ie: going through it in my head step-by-step etc). What stayed my hand was my belief in god. It wasn't the strong arm of the law or other's opinions of me (I could give a shit about either one of those), but faith that prevented me from carrying it out.

So religion provides a structure for it's believer's life that work, school, the law (or any other institution) simply can't.

Originally posted by inimalist
As arrogantly as that might have been put, I sort of come at belief from a psychology perspective, so I don't really ever think the "advantage" of atheism was a part of it to me. The narratives I had were not congruent with those of religion or the supernatural, so I don't believe in them...

That's exactly what I'd say. Atheism isn't inherently superior, it doesn't necessarily make your life better, perhaps in some cases it's even worse. But it is correct. It is the only thing that makes sense if you agree to some basic principles of logic and science. There are a lot of things we do, to lie to ourselves to make us feel better, and I am not necessarily against that, if you are a fine person but like to believe in a God, as long as you don't base your moral understandings on old inhumane rituals, that's fine with me, but it's just not the right thing to believe.

If you share the same foundational beliefs, then the true conclusion can only be "I very much doubt there is a God, there is no evidence for it".

Similarly however, having this one understanding that I hold as true, doesn't make you a good or smart person, you can be a giant idiot in a thousand other ways.


This somewhat touches on what I mean:

XOmniverse - Atheists are Stupid

CSV7vAsfn5A


And this awesome website has a lot of examples of things we do to feel better about ourselves, even though it can be irrational:

http://youarenotsosmart.com/

Originally posted by Digi
The internet is good for that. Indeed. How else could I have so widely asked, "Atheists: IYO..."
As long as I avoid Greater Internet F*ukwadery, I can find some value in such posting.

Originally posted by Digi
It's not even finding a muse, per se. It's like, existence is awesome. There's meaning. Be happy, there's a reason. Make others happy, there's another. It's so mind-numbingly easy to have meaning without religion, but it is unfortunately sometimes impossible for religious folk to imagine that.

So why they're mystified, I couldn't really tell you. All I know is, I get asked "How do you find meaning?" an awful lot (or some similar variation), as though I shouldn't be able to find it. "I make my own meaning rather than it being given to me," is usually my response. It doesn't work for them, but meh.
I think a lot of people are blinded by their Faith. I mean when I see a really hot girl or a badass ride, I may think or say "Thank you Lord" but it's an exclamation. I don't really thank God literally. So, I can relate to finding something inspirational w/o resorting to religion. In the case of a really good looking girl, I'm very "inspired". biscuits

That's a good reply to those people. My uncle is very religious, borderline fundamentalist. When we were in high school he'd tell me and my cousins to keep that "thing" in our pants, or just preach to us. We'd respond by saying "I'm not done sinning yet".

To those who talked about their earlier religious upbringing: was the "strictness" / blind faith / etc, peculiar to your family, or pervasive, like throughout your religious community?

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Well, it depends on what you mean by "structure". Take for example: functional alcoholics. They get shit-faced everyday, but are still able to hold down a nine-to-five. But a functional alcoholic couldn't be devout a Muslim or Mormon, wouldn't you agree? Certain jobs screen workers for illegal drugs; booze and gambling are perfectly legal, but banned in many religions.

unfortunatly, I don't see what you are trying to get at, or how it impacts anything I have said...

religion would obviously interact with thousands of other personal and contextual variables and would have a more or less effective role in combatting addiction in different people...

lol, if you want I can answer you as if this were a proper thesis defense in human behaviour, but I'm being brief in describing things to make it easier to communicate my point. obviously I loose some nuance in describing every possible scenario as a result.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
You don't think it would prevent psychopathic murder? I'll be completely honest: I can recall at least two occasions in my lifetime when I seriously entertained a violent fantasy against someone I didn't like (ie: going through it in my head step-by-step etc). What stayed my hand was my belief in god. It wasn't the strong arm of the law or other's opinions of me (I could give a shit about either one of those), but faith that prevented me from carrying it out.

you want me to argue with you about formative moments in your life regarding psychological decisions I have no context for?

needles to say, I obviouly don't think individuals are the best judge of their own motives, but it would be a practice in futility and of exceptionally poor psychology to even offer an opinion on what motivated you in any particular situation.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
So religion provides a structure for it's believer's life that work, school, the law (or any other institution) simply can't.

and you base this solely upon your own personal interpretations of your own actions or?

Most debates between atheists become a battle of semantics, but even more so, disputes between atheists and believers tend to become a showcase of contradiction. Apparently, 95% of people are unknowing hypocrites, so... I'm gonna go ahead and extrapolate, and presume that most of you have no idea what you're even talking about.

Seeking truth is the only valid outlook.

http://thefreeimagehost.info/lib/images/usr20100

"95% of people are unknowing hypocrites"

hysterical Let me guess, you place yourself in the 5%?

Originally posted by RichardBrittain
Most debates between atheists become a battle of semantics, but even more so, disputes between atheists and believers tend to become a showcase of contradiction. Apparently, 95% of people are unknowing hypocrites, so... I'm gonna go ahead and extrapolate, and presume that most of you have no idea what you're even talking about.

Seeking truth is the only valid outlook.

http://thefreeimagehost.info/lib/images/usr20100

lol, can I be a truth seeker so that I can think like you do? you have totally moved past the prejudices of bias, and I need to open my mind, tell me how?

Originally posted by RichardBrittain
Most debates between atheists become a battle of semantics, but even more so, disputes between atheists and believers tend to become a showcase of contradiction. Apparently, 95% of people are unknowing hypocrites, so... I'm gonna go ahead and extrapolate, and presume that most of you have no idea what you're even talking about.

Seeking truth is the only valid outlook.

http://thefreeimagehost.info/lib/images/usr20100

So...this is bashing and completely non-constructive. Make a point or gtfo.

Originally posted by RichardBrittain
Seeking truth is the only valid outlook.
What is your approach?

Originally posted by Mindship
What is your approach?

My guess is: walk into a room and insult everyone there first.

Originally posted by RichardBrittain
Most debates between atheists become a battle of semantics, but even more so, disputes between atheists and believers tend to become a showcase of contradiction. Apparently, 95% of people are unknowing hypocrites, so... I'm gonna go ahead and extrapolate, and presume that most of you have no idea what you're even talking about.

Seeking truth is the only valid outlook.

http://thefreeimagehost.info/lib/images/usr20100

Is your username a reference to Richard Dawkins?

I've made my point and you saw it not.

If you just sought the truth, you wouldn't be angry; indeed, you would be glad.

Wisdom doesn't come from superficial knowledge.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Is your username a reference to Richard Dawkins?

No, it's a reference to one of my heroes. http://thefreeimagehost.info/lib/images/usr20100

Originally posted by RichardBrittain
I've made my point and you saw it not.

If you just sought the truth, you wouldn't be angry; indeed, you would be glad.

Wisdom doesn't come from superficial knowledge.

i asked for your help

I can see how smart you really are, and I want to be like you

Originally posted by RichardBrittain
I've made my point and you saw it not.How could a point not seen be made? Do you embrace solipsism?

If you just sought the truth, you wouldn't be angry; indeed, you would be glad.We're glad to have friendly if sometimes heated debates on topics of mutual interest, even with complete strangers. All that comes across from you is impatience, arrogance and just a pinch of...desperation to be heard?

Wisdom doesn't come from superficial knowledge. Neither does it hail from anything you've posted.

What compounds your apparent lack of authenticity is your insistence on remaining opaque, as opposed to being open and helpful. As Einstein put it, if you feel you know a truth, you should be able to explain it to your grandmother. Otherwise, you don't really know it.

Share with us. We don't bite (well, most of us, anyway )
Do you meditate, ie, practice attention control?

Guys, he's pretty clearly just trolling at this point. Or at least doing a horrible job at constructive discussion. Ignore him.

Originally posted by Digi
Guys, he's pretty clearly just trolling at this point. Indeed. But trolls need love too.

Originally posted by Mindship
Indeed. But trolls need love too.

Are you insane?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Are you insane? Why do you think they troll?*






* alright, it's for attention, close enough

It seems you've already made your minds up. My input is irrelevant.

Originally posted by Digi
Guys, he's pretty clearly just trolling at this point. Or at least doing a horrible job at constructive discussion. Ignore him.

Does he 'ping' on your Moderator's standard issue sock-radar?

Originally posted by RichardBrittain
I think there are a lot of cons to such a viewpoint, mainly the inherent contradiction atheism creates between the person and the world they're trying to interact with.

http://thefreeimagehost.info/lib/images/usr20100

Atheists tend to become insular and end up only believing in themselves.

Originally posted by Bardock42
That is not based in any sort of reality, it's just something you made up.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
So, can I deduce that you do not believe in yourself?

Originally posted by RichardBrittain
Most debates between atheists become a battle of semantics, but even more so, disputes between atheists and believers tend to become a showcase of contradiction. Apparently, 95% of people are unknowing hypocrites, so... I'm gonna go ahead and extrapolate, and presume that most of you have no idea what you're even talking about.

Seeking truth is the only valid outlook.

http://thefreeimagehost.info/lib/images/usr20100

Originally posted by Digi
So...this is bashing and completely non-constructive. Make a point or gtfo.

Originally posted by Digi
Guys, he's pretty clearly just trolling at this point. Or at least doing a horrible job at constructive discussion. Ignore him.

Who's the troll?

If it's through stupidity that you don't see my points, I forgive you. If it's through wilful anger, I forsake you.

inimalist - thank you for your comments. But wisdom cannot be learnt as though it is knowledge. I can't teach you it; but if you seek it genuinely, you will find it.

Originally posted by Mindship
What is your approach?

Seeking truth.

Originally posted by RichardBrittain
inimalist - thank you for your comments. But wisdom cannot be learnt as though it is knowledge. I can't teach you it; but if you seek it genuinely, you will find it.

if you are older than 16, I pity how unfofilling your life must be

Originally posted by RichardBrittain
It seems you've already made your minds up. My input is irrelevant.

lol, trust me, you made that decision for us

If you seek abstraction, you will find it.

If you seek honour, you will find it.

Originally posted by RichardBrittain
inimalist - thank you for your comments. But wisdom cannot be learnt as though it is knowledge. I can't teach you it; but if you seek it genuinely, you will find it.

You don't know inimalist, do you?

Wisdom would tell you to NOT say something like "Most debates between atheists become a battle of semantics, but even more so, disputes between atheists and believers tend to become a showcase of contradiction. Apparently, 95% of people are unknowing hypocrites, so... I'm gonna go ahead and extrapolate, and presume that most of you have no idea what you're even talking about." It was the cause for the way you were treated. So, to point at us and call us trolls after your introductory blunder is an indication that you still have a lot of searching to do.

Originally posted by RichardBrittain
If you seek abstraction, you will find it.

If you seek honour, you will find it.

so, express in non-abstract terms how you seek things and what it is you seek

Thou sayeth it.

I took your words, and heard them.

You took not my words, nor heard them.

Originally posted by RichardBrittain
Thou sayeth it.

I took your words, and heard them.

You took not my words, nor heard them.

Are you Yoda?

Ultimately, I am not seeking anything from this forum, because as it is written, 'They hear, and yet perceive not. They see, and yet do they not understand.'

Therefore is this fruition in which I am satisified; I thank the truth.

Originally posted by inimalist
so, express in non-abstract terms how you seek things and what it is you seek

That was actually a Buddha quote.

Originally posted by RichardBrittain
Seeking truth. But how? Apparently, forum discussion is not your preference. Do you meditate? And I don't necessarily mean formally. Attention management can be done anywhere, anytime.

Originally posted by RichardBrittain
Ultimately, I am not seeking anything from this forum, because as it is written, 'They hear, and yet perceive not. They see, and yet do they not understand.'

Therefore is this fruition in which I am satisified; I thank the truth.

That sounds very hypocritical of you.

Or in a dark room with insence burning, while looping a sitar song on your ipod.

Hey, four of us posted in the same minute (4:04) Is that any kind of record?

Answer me this:

Was discussion made for man, or was man made for discussion?