The Athiests Thread

[DamianTV]

Warning: This thread is not intended for those of other various religious denominations who may be offended by the content here, or as a means to insult individuals or their beliefs. There may be content that some people consider to be extremely offensive. If you find this content to be offensive, please leave this thread.

Reader Discretion is Mandatory.

---

So we have a whole forum dedicated to religion, except for one, which of course pretty well happens because Athiests dont consider the lack of religion to be a religion in and of itself. However, that doesnt mean that we dont have our own points of view on spirituality or other topics frequently addressed by religion as being solved only by religion.

So, lets get something rolling here.

To me, the intended purpose of every religion out there is a form of control. Religion started from superstition from people seeking answers to questions which, at the time, were beyond their comprehension. Such as weather. They invented the idea of a supernatural being that controls all the weather. As the superstition progressed, some of the people must have noticed that other peoples reactions to their superstitious observed events, such as rain or an eclipse, had a great deal of influence. Someone must have concluded that if they were to start getting more people to be suerstitious, the easier it was to influence a modicum of control over the believers without trying to implement a form of physical control. So the superstitions evolved into a more complex concept, that a self aware supernatural being exists. People were more aware of their own behavior in fear of being watched and punished by what ever supernatural being at the time they made up.

These people were also aware of just how violent human nature was. Violent, and superstitious. A bad combination. Used the wrong way, people could be influenced to attack each other in fear of variations of their superstitious beliefs, while others realized that the influence the superstitions had in peoples behavior could prevent them from doing harm onto others. So I have a wife, and I want her all to myself. I can start to spread the idea that if you sleep with another mans wife, the supernatural beings will come up with some form of punishment for those that disobey those instructions, and the earliest form of LAW was created.

People in those days didnt have to worry about asshole police officers, they had to worry about every other fucker in the tribe trying to steal what you got and had to fend for themselves. Much like a pack of wolves. There was a semblance of order, but not because each was able to hold their own, but quite the contrary, the weak were usually killed. With the inception of Laws, the weak were now protected by the strong, and people continued to develop the concepts of what was humans law and what was superstitious law. The superstitious law was an invention by the primitive minds of the time to make sense of the world around them, and that conclusion sometimes provided peace of mind, whether or not the conclusion was real or completely false, some peace of mind was to be had. It wasnt necessarily from an influence of some supernatural deity controlling their moods, it was from the fact that if others feared the non existent being they just dreamed up, those people were protected by an idea.

Much the same way as we used to feel comfortable as Americans. Living in the "Land of the Free" and that we, and our freedoms were protected, for the most part. The sensation of protection is very similar to having an alarm and a lowjack system for your BMW. The Sense of Security. The religious usually say something about this as being divine, but I must protest that one has to be aware of both sides of the equation to get a full picture of the world. There is a real sense of security, like having a gun, and knowing how to use it, and there is a false sense of security, like having Norton Anti Virus installed on your computer, which is worthless, and I mean worthless to the extreme, like fake tits on a zombie worthless. That is a false sense of security and that gets people into trouble, but it is still a sense. Here buddy, have a gun, youre now protected. That person feels protected. But if I gave that person a plastic gun that shot cheerios and pop tarts at people instead of uranium depleted projectiles, that person is not protected, even though they may feel like they are.

That should be good enough to get this thread started, so chat about what ever you feel like, continue on with the braintrash that I just came up with, or something totally unrelated.

I just think we need a thread for all of us Athiests to not get religion rammed down our throats every chance they get, and to discuss amongst each other our own topics.

 

[nate895]

The Athiests Thread

Title=Fail

Thread=Fail

As if we do not already have million of these BS, begging the question, non-argument threads to last a lifetime and a half.

 

[DamianTV]

It wasnt intended as an argument thread. Everyone else can get whatever thread they want, except the Athiests. So if you dont like it, then dont come in the door. Troll.

 

[nate895]

It wasnt intended as an argument thread. Everyone else can get whatever thread they want, except the Athiests. So if you dont like it, then dont come in the door. Troll.

That is BS, and you know it. Atheists show up in practically every thread to bash religion if it is even a remotely relevant subject. Oh, yeah, and I am the troll. Oh, and by the way, it is reasonable to believe in an infinite number of unobservable parallel universes, unobserved alien species, and eons of time that cannot be observed. But dare to believe in God in any consistent manner and all of a sudden you become an intolerant old coot who must follow every superstition in the book.

 

[DamianTV]

Yeah dude you are intolerant. All I want to do is chat with other athiests why I dont believe, but really, youre right, it does turn into a bash, where occasionally someone says something religious, and they get called on it. But the athiests dont really get together to chat why they think the way they do. You guys do it all the time, but when someone wants to do nothing more than chat, the very first thing that happens is a theist comes in and tells me that being an Athiest = Fail.

Ya know what, thanks for sticking up for my right to believe in what I want to. To me, defending your right to believe, and congregate, and express is at the very heart of freedom, but when it comes to an athiest expressing their beliefs when even so much as one Theist is around, is asking for a fight. So thanks for the respect for my beliefs, and to express those beliefs.

Go put your ass hat back on.

 

[nate895]

Yeah dude you are intolerant. All I want to do is chat with other athiests why I dont believe, but really, youre right, it does turn into a bash, where occasionally someone says something religious, and they get called on it. But the athiests dont really get together to chat why they think the way they do. You guys do it all the time, but when someone wants to do nothing more than chat, the very first thing that happens is a theist comes in and tells me that being an Athiest = Fail.

Ya know what, thanks for sticking up for my right to believe in what I want to. To me, defending your right to believe, and congregate, and express is at the very heart of freedom, but when it comes to an athiest expressing their beliefs when even so much as one Theist is around, is asking for a fight. So thanks for the respect for my beliefs, and to express those beliefs.

Go put your ass hat back on.

Learn how to spell and I might take you seriously.

 

[RedStripe]

Learn how to spell and I might take you seriously.

Is this the way Jesus would speak to other people?

 

[Seraphim]

Warning: This thread is not intended for those of other various religious denominations who may be offended by the content here, or as a means to insult individuals or their beliefs. There may be content that some people consider to be extremely offensive. If you find this content to be offensive, please leave this thread.

Reader Discretion is Mandatory.

---

So we have a whole forum dedicated to religion, except for one, which of course pretty well happens because Athiests dont consider the lack of religion to be a religion in and of itself. However, that doesnt mean that we dont have our own points of view on spirituality or other topics frequently addressed by religion as being solved only by religion.

So, lets get something rolling here.

To me, the intended purpose of every religion out there is a form of control. Religion started from superstition from people seeking answers to questions which, at the time, were beyond their comprehension. Such as weather. They invented the idea of a supernatural being that controls all the weather. As the superstition progressed, some of the people must have noticed that other peoples reactions to their superstitious observed events, such as rain or an eclipse, had a great deal of influence. Someone must have concluded that if they were to start getting more people to be suerstitious, the easier it was to influence a modicum of control over the believers without trying to implement a form of physical control. So the superstitions evolved into a more complex concept, that a self aware supernatural being exists. People were more aware of their own behavior in fear of being watched and punished by what ever supernatural being at the time they made up.

These people were also aware of just how violent human nature was. Violent, and superstitious. A bad combination. Used the wrong way, people could be influenced to attack each other in fear of variations of their superstitious beliefs, while others realized that the influence the superstitions had in peoples behavior could prevent them from doing harm onto others. So I have a wife, and I want her all to myself. I can start to spread the idea that if you sleep with another mans wife, the supernatural beings will come up with some form of punishment for those that disobey those instructions, and the earliest form of LAW was created.

People in those days didnt have to worry about asshole police officers, they had to worry about every other fucker in the tribe trying to steal what you got and had to fend for themselves. Much like a pack of wolves. There was a semblance of order, but not because each was able to hold their own, but quite the contrary, the weak were usually killed. With the inception of Laws, the weak were now protected by the strong, and people continued to develop the concepts of what was humans law and what was superstitious law. The superstitious law was an invention by the primitive minds of the time to make sense of the world around them, and that conclusion sometimes provided peace of mind, whether or not the conclusion was real or completely false, some peace of mind was to be had. It wasnt necessarily from an influence of some supernatural deity controlling their moods, it was from the fact that if others feared the non existent being they just dreamed up, those people were protected by an idea.

Much the same way as we used to feel comfortable as Americans. Living in the "Land of the Free" and that we, and our freedoms were protected, for the most part. The sensation of protection is very similar to having an alarm and a lowjack system for your BMW. The Sense of Security. The religious usually say something about this as being divine, but I must protest that one has to be aware of both sides of the equation to get a full picture of the world. There is a real sense of security, like having a gun, and knowing how to use it, and there is a false sense of security, like having Norton Anti Virus installed on your computer, which is worthless, and I mean worthless to the extreme, like fake tits on a zombie worthless. That is a false sense of security and that gets people into trouble, but it is still a sense. Here buddy, have a gun, youre now protected. That person feels protected. But if I gave that person a plastic gun that shot cheerios and pop tarts at people instead of uranium depleted projectiles, that person is not protected, even though they may feel like they are.

That should be good enough to get this thread started, so chat about what ever you feel like, continue on with the braintrash that I just came up with, or something totally unrelated.

I just think we need a thread for all of us Athiests to not get religion rammed down our throats every chance they get, and to discuss amongst each other our own topics.

I agree with your general synopsis of religion, but right off the bat I must correct the above bolded semantic error. Atheism is NOT a lack of religion. It is a lack of a belief in a higher power (God). Agnostiscism is the lack of religion/religious belief.

One can be absent of religious belief and still hold the belief that there is something (currently) inexplicably higher than this reality.

 

[DamianTV]

The point I was trying to make was that being an athiest isnt its own religion.

But just out of curiousity, for any athiests, why dont you believe?

Me? I've never seen anything that proves to me that there is any form of a higher power, or even makes me question the world around me. Every personal experience I have had with religion has resulted in absolutely nothing good. And that is from the way that people act, and I dont want to associate myself with those people or share their beliefs.

But, thats my point of view, just wondering how it is for other athiests?

 

[Justinjj1]

Learn how to spell and I might take you seriously.

Yeah, we're all concerned about being taken seriously by someone who worships a 2000 year old zombie.

 

[RedStripe]

I'm an atheist because I have no good reason for believing that a "god" exists (under the typical understanding of what a "god" would be). I suppose that, if by "god" one smean the laws of the universe, the universe itself, or something along those lines I would be more compelled.

But there is no evidence that a sentient, supernatural being with a personality, goals, emotions, etc, actually exists. There is, however, evidence that human beings possess the imagination and the explanatory drive which would lead to the invention of such a deity by humans.

 

[amy31416]

The point I was trying to make was that being an athiest isnt its own religion.

But just out of curiousity, for any athiests, why dont you believe?

Me? I've never seen anything that proves to me that there is any form of a higher power, or even makes me question the world around me. Every personal experience I have had with religion has resulted in absolutely nothing good. And that is from the way that people act, and I dont want to associate myself with those people or share their beliefs.

But, thats my point of view, just wondering how it is for other athiests?

I'm agnostic, not atheist, because I've studied nature a lot. And I tend to do religious people the favor of seeing them as individuals, rather than a collective, despite a lot of collectivist actions such as war, missions to convert, missions to help (be fair now, there are some great religious charities) and missions to end violence/increase understanding. You'd also have to be fair and recognize that a lot of horrible things occur in secular societies. Being an atheist is no panacea for the world's woes.

Personally, I think that the only way to know "god" is through studying what exists. No propaganda books, no controlling anyone through fear/reward manipulation. I also think that the best way for a person to challenge their atheism is through studying what exists--and by that I mean nature.

Mathematicians have claimed that mathematics is the language of god--and if there is a god, that makes sense to me because it is far closer to perfection than our spoken/written language, where one word can change the meaning of everything. Our brains our quite imperfect, and our worldview is artificially shaped by language, manipulation, human impulses, fear and desires. It is also a huge part of who we are, for better or for worse. So while my ideal is that all people study nature with the intent of improving their higher knowledge (from whatever perspective is intriguing to them), religious and non-religious people rarely are open to it. I respect religious scientists as much as I respect the non-religious scientists. They come to it from a different perspective--hopefully wanting to understand the "mind of god" or the universe, and I don't see the issue with that.

Personally, I think that "religious" people or social manipulators who are grounded in the dregs of man's most base urges (sex, violence, fear, etc.) are the scum of the scum. The rabbi's who encourage killing every non-Jew in Palestine, the shyster televangelists who lust after power and seek to keep people down, fearful and obedient, the Pope who wants to control every aspect of a person's life, the Imam who thinks it's okay to stone a rape victim for adultery--those are the fakes, the assholes and the people who make religion a disgusting, collective pile of humanities worst characteristics. The ones who are good do not make the news. They do not seek publicity and they are not advertising. People like the Quakers, the good nuns, benevolent priests, many of the Amish, those who truly follow Jesus as the prince of peace. I'm quite fond of the Quakers because of their consistent dedication to non-violence AND their willingness to accept atheists/agnostics. Maybe someday I'll actually go to one of their meetings.

Yeah, we're all concerned about being taken seriously by someone who worships a 2000 year old zombie.

Relax. We all know that your intellect is obviously far superior because you're an atheist, right?

 

[wizardwatson]

To me, the intended purpose of every religion out there is a form of control.

Definitely used as a form of control by many throughout history. Religion has many definitions, but I like this one I found at dictionary.com "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe".

Religion started from superstition from people seeking answers to questions which, at the time, were beyond their comprehension. Such as weather. They invented the idea of a supernatural being that controls all the weather. As the superstition progressed, some of the people must have noticed that other peoples reactions to their superstitious observed events, such as rain or an eclipse, had a great deal of influence. Someone must have concluded that if they were to start getting more people to be suerstitious, the easier it was to influence a modicum of control over the believers without trying to implement a form of physical control. So the superstitions evolved into a more complex concept, that a self aware supernatural being exists. People were more aware of their own behavior in fear of being watched and punished by what ever supernatural being at the time they made up.

These people were also aware of just how violent human nature was. Violent, and superstitious. A bad combination. Used the wrong way, people could be influenced to attack each other in fear of variations of their superstitious beliefs, while others realized that the influence the superstitions had in peoples behavior could prevent them from doing harm onto others. So I have a wife, and I want her all to myself. I can start to spread the idea that if you sleep with another mans wife, the supernatural beings will come up with some form of punishment for those that disobey those instructions, and the earliest form of LAW was created.

People in those days didnt have to worry about asshole police officers, they had to worry about every other fucker in the tribe trying to steal what you got and had to fend for themselves. Much like a pack of wolves. There was a semblance of order, but not because each was able to hold their own, but quite the contrary, the weak were usually killed. With the inception of Laws, the weak were now protected by the strong, and people continued to develop the concepts of what was humans law and what was superstitious law. The superstitious law was an invention by the primitive minds of the time to make sense of the world around them, and that conclusion sometimes provided peace of mind, whether or not the conclusion was real or completely false, some peace of mind was to be had. It wasnt necessarily from an influence of some supernatural deity controlling their moods, it was from the fact that if others feared the non existent being they just dreamed up, those people were protected by an idea.

This is the usual line that atheists take. That religion is the leftover byproduct of our reptilian/monkey brains 'evolving' into our current 'enlightened' state of being. That it is basically a function of ignorance. However, I think its quite the opposite. I think its the attempt of sentient beings to objectify not only what the universe is, but how we relate to it and how we are to behave to affect our happiness in the most positive manner. Like all human constructs, either physical or mental, it has been subject to error, decay and death. One can easily point to all the negative aspects and say, "this" or "that" is what religion is.

I always wonder this idea that atheism is a "new" idea. That we have somehow steadily been "evolving" even during the course of recent, say last 10000 years of human history. And that the idea that there is no God is an evolutionary leap. I'm sure atheism existed since the "idea" of God existed. If you believe in natural law, I don't understand why you would think this "strong preys on weak" idea was only thwarted by the idea of God until later when we "evolved" the concept of law. Natural law has always existed (hence 'natural' law) and religion, culture, and even government can be seen as an outgrowth of the process of humans trying to codify and objectify natural law. Humans are not perfect, and all that is ugly, wrong, and evil is a result of our projection of this "inner unbalance" upon nature and natures reaction to it.

Religion is not an enemy to be fought. Religion is merely a pointing of the finger back to ourselves so that we realize that we are the enemy. It is our minds that deceive us. The mind that says "they" are the problem. The mind that separates good from evil, the mind that judges. The devil is not "out there", god is not "out there", god and the devil are both in your worldview though you may call them by different names. The message of god and religion is that "there is no spoon", no devil, no god. When you see like that, then you are seeing real truth, real "God".

Much the same way as we used to feel comfortable as Americans. Living in the "Land of the Free" and that we, and our freedoms were protected, for the most part. The sensation of protection is very similar to having an alarm and a lowjack system for your BMW. The Sense of Security. The religious usually say something about this as being divine, but I must protest that one has to be aware of both sides of the equation to get a full picture of the world. There is a real sense of security, like having a gun, and knowing how to use it, and there is a false sense of security, like having Norton Anti Virus installed on your computer, which is worthless, and I mean worthless to the extreme, like fake tits on a zombie worthless. That is a false sense of security and that gets people into trouble, but it is still a sense. Here buddy, have a gun, youre now protected. That person feels protected. But if I gave that person a plastic gun that shot cheerios and pop tarts at people instead of uranium depleted projectiles, that person is not protected, even though they may feel like they are.

That should be good enough to get this thread started, so chat about what ever you feel like, continue on with the braintrash that I just came up with, or something totally unrelated.

I just think we need a thread for all of us Athiests to not get religion rammed down our throats every chance they get, and to discuss amongst each other our own topics.

I read a book once called "Religion and Nothingness" by Keiji Nishitani, a philosophy professor (dead now) from the Kyoto school in Japan. It was a book about bridging eastern and western thought (I highly recommend). I think its good for the younger generation of Westerners to read because younger generation westerners are very much on the side of eastern thought, as evidenced by their attraction to libertarianism which has its roots pretty deeply in eastern thought. Western thinking being well embodied in the Christian ideas of compassion, love, and truth that I think younger westerners have a hard time attaching these concepts to anything more than a function of conscience. They are more apt to frame their worldviews around these eastern based concepts of "justice" and "natural law" and "non-agression". They see the necessity of compassion with respect to morality but they do not see the "function" or "usefullness" as clearly in their own lives with respect to achieving their goals, and they grasp to strongly on the side of intellectualism.

And when I hear this line about others trying to "ram religion down our throats" alarms go off in my mind because I think this thought is kind of a key or sign if you will to something deeper I think a lot of atheists miss.

Reason I brought up the book is because I think the first chapter is very relevant (Unfortunately while the book is on Google Books, only the introductions and forward is available). The first chapter is called "What is Religion?". Isn't this a question that all atheists, by definition, must have asked at some point? He goes on to explain throughout the chapter that "Religion" is precisely 'for' the person who asks such questions. Because the message as I said is a "pointing" of the finger, so to speak, back at the questioner.

But I would take it a step further. Why is the person who ultimately comes to call himself an atheist even interested in taking a sideways glance at religion? Is it not to answer questions ultimately related to the suffering of mankind in general? Sure, I know many people think its an intellectual endeavor and about wanting to "know". But isn't it also motivated by compassion? By a desire to understand why good people suffer? We cling to objectivity, justice, natural law, and the non-aggression principle because we see those things as solid, strong and defendable. No one can "hurt" us when we use those things as our armor, our shield. But what's in the drivers seat? What's underneath all that intellectual armor? Isn't it our compassion for others? Isn't the reason we study economics and law and were attracted to Ron Paul because we saw an opportunity to change things, not just for ourselves but for all the victims of injustice? Certainly it wasn't to "defend our property". That's laughable. Most of the people in this movement have no property, its all hearts and minds. And in my opinion, although our hearts are stronger than our minds, as it should be, we tend to only show our intellectual sides, for fear that "showing how much we really care" is a sign of weakness. When in fact it is our compassion that is our real strength, not our intellect.

Anyway, there's my contribution of braintrash. And I'm not any more religious than I am atheist. And I don't think any so-called "atheists" are either. I see more religion in atheists than I see in those the atheists think they are talking about, and the good kind not the bad.

 

[DamianTV]

It didnt take much math or science for me to start seriously believing that they can explain everything, literally. As I watched the explanations of religion, there were no advancements, in fact, usually, religion held science back, and the religion didnt advance at all in its understanding of the world around it. Science grew, math got better, new formulas were discovered, and the way that mathematics can express things in the universe that make much more sense than a several thousand year old superstition.

There is a saying that I use frequently, and use it to be the only thing that I know to be true, beyond the shadow of a doubt, and that is that I dont know everything. Neither does science. But science has come a helluva long way from ooga booga fire cook meat and is hot, to putting a man on the moon. Just seeing the power can do says it for me, we can express everything in mathematics and science, and if it cant, it will soon be able to.

 

[On Ice]

I'm an atheist because I find the concept of religion/belief in god to run directly counter to the concept of self-ownership. I could never reconcile the two.

I suppose I can see how Diests and a scant handful of others can believe in a god, and still believe in self-ownership, but I can't understand how the stereotypical Christian/evangelical can. In Christianty, god owns your life. He gave your life to you. He can inflict pain or pleasure at will. And he can take your life away, for any random reason (or no reason at all). You don't own your life; it's all just on loan.

There are other reasons I'm atheist, but basically that's it.

 

[Pennsylvania]

As an atheist myself, I'm curious whether most people who identify as such who were previously theists went from defiance of god to non-belief, or straight to non-belief. I'm asking because it wasn't the various logical arguments that started me thinking about all that stuff. For me, the first step was that malevolent gods should be disobeyed on principle, if they do in fact exist. So in short, I accepted I was on the christian god's naughty list BEFORE I lost my belief in it. I'm wondering if that's the typical progression.

 

[amy31416]

It didnt take much math or science for me to start seriously believing that they can explain everything, literally. As I watched the explanations of religion, there were no advancements, in fact, usually, religion held science back, and the religion didnt advance at all in its understanding of the world around it. Science grew, math got better, new formulas were discovered, and the way that mathematics can express things in the universe that make much more sense than a several thousand year old superstition.

There is a saying that I use frequently, and use it to be the only thing that I know to be true, beyond the shadow of a doubt, and that is that I dont know everything. Neither does science. But science has come a helluva long way from ooga booga fire cook meat and is hot, to putting a man on the moon. Just seeing the power can do says it for me, we can express everything in mathematics and science, and if it cant, it will soon be able to.

Science evolved from superstition and religious belief--there are quite a few religious scientists--are they all "ooga booga?" Many people, myself included, do not believe that science will ever be able to explain everything. Meditate on the law of conservation of mass/energy, that is a serious chink in the scientific armor.

Of course science makes more sense than superstition/religion--it's based on the observations made in nature, while religion is based on just about everything else. When I speculate about "god," I'm not talking about the Santa Clausesque dude from superficial religion. Perhaps you aren't aware of it, but there are many religious people who aren't at all simplistic morons who feel urges to sacrifice a virgin monkey to a volcano god.

http://www.adherents.com/adh_phil.html
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefaith.html

 

[low preference guy]

Science evolved from superstition and religious belief--there are quite a few religious scientists--are they all "ooga booga?" Many people, myself included, do not believe that science will ever be able to explain everything. Meditate on the law of conservation of mass/energy, that is a serious chink in the scientific armor.

Could you elaborate?

 

[On Ice]

As an atheist myself, I'm curious whether most people who identify as such who were previously theists went from defiance of god to non-belief, or straight to non-belief. I'm asking because it wasn't the various logical arguments that started me thinking about all that stuff. For me, the first step was that malevolent gods should be disobeyed on principle, if they do in fact exist. So in short, I accepted I was on the christian god's naughty list BEFORE I lost my belief in it. I'm wondering if that's the typical progression.

Penn, I'm fascinated with de-belief. My father grew up devout, and lost his faith about 20 years ago. He's still not "over it." 20 years of daily complaining about how he was "duped." 20 years of collecting anti-religion books and videos and forcing his kids (all uninterested non-believers) to read/watch. 20 years of being miserably unhappy because the snake oil turned out not to be a miracle potion. He's lost nearly all of his friends, and alienated much of his family -- not because of his non-belief, but because of the 20-year tantrum about it.

I often wonder what causes some people to move on rather quickly, while others continue to sting like the day it all fell apart.

 

[amy31416]

Could you elaborate?

Matter/energy can neither be created nor destroyed. How does a person explain the fact that matter/energy does exist?

Beyond that, you have to speculate for yourself, but needless to say, I have a tough time believing that something just appeared from nothing. I have an equally tough time thinking that there's some entity that snapped their "fingers" and brought everything into existence.