atheists

[mattpegher]

Not sure if srs....

The theory, that god does not exist, or for that matter, nothing exists outside of the physical universe, is a metaphysical belief structure no less than the theory that there is.
Both theories cannot be tested. Empiric science cannot proof the non-existence of a phenomenon. Therefore each of us has to make a decision about this theory. That decision constitutes a metaphysical belief.
I suggested some of the different varieties of this conviction. I will not suggest that this list is in anyway complete.
We all reach our discision differently. Personnally, I cannot accept the logical inconsistancies, not just with the existence of god, but with the nature of good and evil.
My daughter has percieved my position and in conjunction with the highly publisized negative impacts of "Organized religion", tends to be a bit of a mix.

Some of you may have noted in the past that I tend to try to take a moderate position on these topics, because I find that every once in a while someone from either side offers opinions that I find enlightening, so I chose to try not to be disrespectfull to either position.

 

[Paul98]

The debate about whether atheism is a religion or not seems a bit semantic to me. Atheism is a metaphysical belief structure. The difference is that there arent any churches that just profess theism. Each example of theist beliefs are centrally dependent upon a mythos. Catholics and Protestants and Muslims wont sit down in church together and discuss the nature of god seperate from their individual historical stories.
The prevailance of responses in these threads speaks to the strength of belief or nonbelief. For example, you arent going to see posts about the fact that unicorns dont exist, should someone choose to talk about them. (Vampires enthusiest come to mind)

Atheist belong to many metaphysical rationales.
The parental atheist - parents were atheist, so we never discussed these concepts.
The Angry child - raised religious, but negative factors (personal or world), have demonized religion as more harm than good. Cant see past the hatred.
The convinced - raised religious but logical inconsistancies place doubt on theism
The empiricist - I wont believe anything I cant see. (easiest position but not the most logical)
The dont give a fuck - (we really dont see them here, because by definition they wont post in a religious thread) - It doesnt effect them so they dont care what others believe.
The anti-theists - See so much effect (and sometimes prejudice) from the religous believers that does effect them, literally or emotionally that they choose to debate at every opportunity.
Lastly I should include the atheistic religions such as several of the Hindu sects, who believe in a soul (chakra) but not a creator god. (the autopilot universe) Pantheism

I will admit that one can vascilate between some of the above given mindset and life events.

How about the person who asks why should I believe in something that someone or a group of people made up. Or why should I believe in a being that you have to make up and have no support to think this thing you made up is real.

 

[sandorski]

The theory, that god does not exist, or for that matter, nothing exists outside of the physical universe, is a metaphysical belief structure no less than the theory that there is.
Both theories cannot be tested. Empiric science cannot proof the non-existence of a phenomenon. Therefore each of us has to make a decision about this theory. That decision constitutes a metaphysical belief.
I suggested some of the different varieties of this conviction. I will not suggest that this list is in anyway complete.
We all reach our discision differently. Personnally, I cannot accept the logical inconsistancies, not just with the existence of god, but with the nature of good and evil.
My daughter has percieved my position and in conjunction with the highly publisized negative impacts of "Organized religion", tends to be a bit of a mix.

Some of you may have noted in the past that I tend to try to take a moderate position on these topics, because I find that every once in a while someone from either side offers opinions that I find enlightening, so I chose to try not to be disrespectfull to either position.

No.

 

[mattpegher]

How about the person who asks why should I believe in something that someone or a group of people made up. Or why should I believe in a being that you have to make up and have no support to think this thing you made up is real.

That is basically an empiricist. You are not convinced by the argument of one or another group without empiric data. Nothing wrong with that position. If you chose to profess your position you may want to look beyond the empiric argument toward the logical inconsistencies, because there is no further argument beyond repeating the lack of data. And I suggest that meaningfull dialog cannot be forwarded by repetition or ridicule.

 

[mattpegher]

No.

No, what?
Please explain?
Remember, I agree with your basic premise, but I think you are taking the argument that one is a belief and one is not to a position of useless nomenclature.
On the otherhand, I see that you want to establish a difference, but I think the distinction lies not in the semantics.

 

[Paul98]

That is basically an empiricist. You are not convinced by the argument of one or another group without empiric data. Nothing wrong with that position. If you chose to profess your position you may want to look beyond the empiric argument toward the logical inconsistencies, because there is no further argument beyond repeating the lack of data. And I suggest that meaningfull dialog cannot be forwarded by repetition or ridicule.

Why? To try to convince someone else that their religion is false?

 

[Mike Gayner]

LOL why are Christians so fucking stupid?

 

[sandorski]

No, what?
Please explain?
Remember, I agree with your basic premise, but I think you are taking the argument that one is a belief and one is not to a position of useless nomenclature.
On the otherhand, I see that you want to establish a difference, but I think the distinction lies not in the semantics.

It is not Metaphysical in any sense of the word, it is not a "Theory", neither is THeism a "Theory" for that matter. Your attempt at being Moderate on the issue just has you creating a Strawman position that attempts to appease all and fails to address either position accurately.

 

[child of wonder]

The debate about whether atheism is a religion or not seems a bit semantic to me. Atheism is a metaphysical belief structure. The difference is that there arent any churches that just profess theism. Each example of theist beliefs are centrally dependent upon a mythos. Catholics and Protestants and Muslims wont sit down in church together and discuss the nature of god seperate from their individual historical stories.
The prevailance of responses in these threads speaks to the strength of belief or nonbelief. For example, you arent going to see posts about the fact that unicorns dont exist, should someone choose to talk about them. (Vampires enthusiest come to mind)

Atheist belong to many metaphysical rationales.
The parental atheist - parents were atheist, so we never discussed these concepts.
The Angry child - raised religious, but negative factors (personal or world), have demonized religion as more harm than good. Cant see past the hatred.
The convinced - raised religious but logical inconsistancies place doubt on theism
The empiricist - I wont believe anything I cant see. (easiest position but not the most logical)
The dont give a fuck - (we really dont see them here, because by definition they wont post in a religious thread) - It doesnt effect them so they dont care what others believe.
The anti-theists - See so much effect (and sometimes prejudice) from the religous believers that does effect them, literally or emotionally that they choose to debate at every opportunity.
Lastly I should include the atheistic religions such as several of the Hindu sects, who believe in a soul (chakra) but not a creator god. (the autopilot universe) Pantheism

I will admit that one can vascilate between some of the above given mindset and life events.

Here are the three possibilities we all face:

1. God exists and it demands worship or we're punished for all eternity after death.
2. God exists but does not demand worship (either chooses not to demand worship or is incapable of demanding), therefore we have no idea how to please it and we cannot alter or change what happens to us after death.
3. God does not exist.

In the case of scenario 1 we'd be dealing with a tyrannical and vain god. If such a being exists it would essentially decide to reward or punish us based on the almost arbitrary factor of whether we were born into the right culture or not. Even if one purposefully chose a particular religion over another, there is no greater evidence for any single religion versus the thousands of others. Judging us based on a metaphorical "shot in the dark" makes god an evil being and we should all be anti-theists since such a terrible creature is not worthy of worship.

Scenario 2 would encompass a god that either doesn't care whether we worship it and judges or doesn't judge us based on some other criteria, or it isn't capable of caring (say god is a non-corporeal energy force without personality). In that case, we needn't worry about what happens to us after death since we no means of affecting the outcome. We should all be agnostic since we have nothing to go on.

Finally, scenario 3 absolves us of any concern about god or the after life. We have no means of knowing what happens after we die so we may as well enjoy our brief existence assuming it's all we get.

In all 3 scenarios we shouldn't worship any god. Instead, we should enjoy the time we have and be decent to each other so we can all enjoy this blip in eternity we call "life."

 

[MotionMan]

What does that mean?

Atheism has no Creed, Dogmatic rules, or Rituals. All Religions have those 3 as their focal points.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creed#Christians_without_creeds;

The atheist dogma is that there are no deities. If you believe otherwise, then you are not an atheist.

MotionMan

 

[MotionMan]

drinking is more like eating then it is not.

Agreed.

Some people eat through a tube.

MotionMan

 

[child of wonder]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creed#Christians_without_creeds;

The atheist dogma is that there are no deities. If you believe otherwise, then you are not an atheist.

MotionMan

I don't believe in Unicorns. Do I belong to the church of A-Unicornism?

 

[mattpegher]

It is not Metaphysical in any sense of the word, it is not a "Theory", neither is THeism a "Theory" for that matter. Your attempt at being Moderate on the issue just has you creating a Strawman position that attempts to appease all and fails to address either position accurately.

OK, so lets expand this. Why do you chose the position that there is no god?
I chose this position because there are logical inconsistencies.
As for strawman, how have I misinterpreted your position.
Maybe I should not have used the word moderate, my position may be more demanding of both sides. I admit there are good reasons not to believe in a god, and simply ask what reasons each poster has. I do not accept the empiric argument and I do not respect a position of ridicule, because I do not see that either adds to the debate.

 

[MotionMan]

I don't believe in Unicorns. Do I belong to the church of A-Unicornism?

If there was such a church, then you could qualify for membership, I suppose. However, a Unicorn is not a deity.

MotionMan

 

[mattpegher]

Here are the three possibilities we all face:

1. God exists and it demands worship or we're punished for all eternity after death.
2. God exists but does not demand worship (either chooses not to demand worship or is incapable of demanding), therefore we have no idea how to please it and we cannot alter or change what happens to us after death.
3. God does not exist.

In the case of scenario 1 we'd be dealing with a tyrannical and vain god. If such a being exists it would essentially decide to reward or punish us based on the almost arbitrary factor of whether we were born into the right culture or not. Even if one purposefully chose a particular religion over another, there is no greater evidence for any single religion versus the thousands of others. Judging us based on a metaphorical "shot in the dark" makes god an evil being and we should all be anti-theists since such a terrible creature is not worthy of worship.

Scenario 2 would encompass a god that either doesn't care whether we worship it and judges or doesn't judge us based on some other criteria, or it isn't capable of caring (say god is a non-corporeal energy force without personality). In that case, we needn't worry about what happens to us after death since we no means of affecting the outcome. We should all be agnostic since we have nothing to go on.

Finally, scenario 3 absolves us of any concern about god or the after life. We have no means of knowing what happens after we die so we may as well enjoy our brief existence assuming it's all we get.

In all 3 scenarios we shouldn't worship any god. Instead, we should enjoy the time we have and be decent to each other so we can all enjoy this blip in eternity we call "life."

Agreed. Worship is an odd concept. I liken it to bribery. "What do I get out of this?"
Its the being decent to eachother part that I am thinking about now. The nature of good and evil, the subjective nature of their definition.

 

[MotionMan]

wut. Are you talking in practice, i.e. singling out the Dawkins fellators that have atheist clubs and sermons in atheism and parody churches? Because even there they're a very small minority. If you mean in theory, just lol.

Believing there is no G-d without proof that there is no G-d is similar to believing there is a G-d without proof that there is a G-d.

Two sides of the same religious coin.

Don't confuse Atheism with Agnosticism.

MotionMan

 

[MotionMan]

Can't say I've met anyone like that at any of the cons I've been to.

Then I guess you have no basis to participate in this discussion.

MotionMan

 

[ioni]

Then I guess you have no basis to participate in this discussion.

MotionMan

I don't see how the 2 relate.

 

[ShawnD1]

Religion would be fine if it wasn't for humans fucking it up and twisting it to fit their own agendas. This thread shows that people that say they are religious don't even follow the teaching of their religion.

Funny thing you should say that! (not knowing the details of their own religion)
http://www.worthynews.com/9608-survey-americans-dont-know-about-religion-even-their-own

WASHINGTON D.C. (Worthy News)– A recent survey testing Americans' knowledge of religion found that non-Christians did better than Christians in answering questions about major faiths, while many could not even explain their own faith.

The survey by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life tested the entire spectrum of religious knowledge, but though the U.S. is one of the most religious nations on earth, Americans knew very little about religion.

Ironically, Mormons scored highest on questions about Christianity, followed by white evangelicals; Jews, atheists and agnostics all knew the most about other faiths, yet less than half knew that the Dalai Lama is a Buddhist.

Nearly half of the Roman Catholics surveyed didn't know about transubstantiation, e.g., that by faith, the bread and wine used in the sacrament of Holy Communion becomes the body and blood of Christ.

More than half of all Protestants surveyed didn't know Martin Luther's role in the Reformation, and almost half of all Jews surveyed didn't recognize Maimonides, one of the world's greatest rabbis, as one of their own faith.

Those surveyed were asked 32 questions; on average, participants correctly answered about half of the questions, with atheists and agnostics scoring highest, followed by Jews and Mormons; Protestants and Catholics nearly tied for last place, with 16 and 15 correct answers, respectively.

Participants who claimed they regularly attended worship and considered religion important perfomed better overall, but one's level of education was the best indicator of religious knowledge: the top survey scorers had the highest level of schooling.

The study also found that many Americans didn't grasp the role religion played in public schools: while most knew that teachers cannot lead their classes in prayer, less than 25 percent knew that teachers can use the Bible as literature.

"Many Americans think the constitutional restrictions on religion in public schools are tighter than they really are," wrote Pew researchers.

I'm not even religious and I pull the same trick as religious people. What I like about the bible is that it says many things that could be interpreted as contradicting positions. That's perfect. That means I can come to my own conclusion then tell someone that the bible backs me up based on passage XYZ.

Another thing I never understood about religious people is that they say their god makes good things happen. I thought humans were given free will and god doesn't control what happens to us?

Free will is limited to what you can do. The "god" portion is the stuff you can't control, like the weather. One could argue that tsunamis are not god's problem because god didn't tell you to build shit in places where those occur. I live in the middle of the country, away from the coasts, and I never seem to be attacked by god like that. No earthquakes, tsunamies, tropical storms, etc. There was a tornado about 25 years ago and that was it.

 

[MotionMan]

I don't see how the 2 relate.

Exactly.

MotionMan

 

[sandorski]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creed#Christians_without_creeds;

The atheist dogma is that there are no deities. If you believe otherwise, then you are not an atheist.

MotionMan

That's not a Dogma.

 

[mattpegher]

Free will is limited to what you can do. The "god" portion is the stuff you can't control, like the weather. One could argue that tsunamis are not god's problem because god didn't tell you to build shit in places where those occur. I live in the middle of the country, away from the coasts, and I never seem to be attacked by god like that. No earthquakes, tsunamies, tropical storms, etc. There was a tornado about 25 years ago and that was it.

The problem of evil is a central theme in these arguments. I suggest a read of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_problem_of_evil . I am looking for a non-wiki discussion on this if anyone can find one.

 

[child of wonder]

If there was such a church, then you could qualify for membership, I suppose. However, a Unicorn is not a deity.

MotionMan

And a lack of belief is not a religion.

 

[MotionMan]

That's not a Dogma.

Yes, it is.

Dogma is the established belief or doctrine held by a religion, or a particular group or organization.[1] It is authoritative and not to be disputed, doubted, or diverged from, by the practitioners or believers. Although it generally refers to religious beliefs that are accepted without reason or evidence, they can refer to acceptable opinions of philosophers or philosophical schools, public decrees, or issued decisions of political authorities.[2] The term derives from Greek δόγμα "that which seems to one, opinion or belief"[3] and that from δοκέω (dokeo), "to think, to suppose, to imagine".[4] Dogma came to signify laws or ordinances adjudged and imposed upon others by the First Century. The plural is either dogmas or dogmata, from Greek δόγματα. Today, It is sometimes used as a synonym for systematic theology.

MotionMan

 

[Colt45]

Morality is unrelated to religion, other than that religion is a cave-era morality-enforcement system. Doesn't do a very good job of it, either.

Plenty of religious types that are amoral, and even use religion as the excuse for it. (see: every holy war ever).