Most theists can't handle a redefined concept of "god". I mean what's the point of discussing if cyan is really a color when you were actually talking about magenta?
Do Atheists Come Out of the Closet?
- Thread starter KilljoyKlown
- Start date
Its a shade.
Atheism evolved by differentiating itself from the religious background. It did not define itself as a unique orientation that exists apart and self sufficient, but rather needed the background of religion to differentiate itself.
As an analogy, rather than athesim being something revolutionary, like the I-pad, athesism was more like one of the competitors in this market sort of bootlegging from the original. Gradually, after its introduction as the unique e-pad, as though labeling made it unique, it learned to refine its own niche with a few apps, which have popular appeal.
When I was younger, I became an atheist, since it allowed a lower form of morality. It was much easier, which is part of its popularity. Many things that require forethought in religion, can be done on impulse. This was appealing until I realized I didn't need to cheat to win.
Here is an analogy. Say we begin with a sport like basketball. There are many rules for this game, with not following these strict rules subject to penalties. This is analogous to religion. The atheist looked at this game and came up with their own version of basketball. They changed the rules to make it easier; lower road.
With atheist basketball (religion) you can travel, trip, hold, goal tend, etc., since that makes it easier. This makes it appealing to those who need to cheat to win and/or can't maintain will power. Even with lower skills, if the new rules allow one to trip and/or hold someone's shirt, they can appear to have better abilities, but only as long as the other team plays by the harder rules.
In American politics, the Democrats are closer to atheism, while Republicans closer to religious. If there is a scandal the republicans will need to resign. The easier rules of atheism allows democrats to get re-elected.
As an analogy, rather than athesim being something revolutionary, like the I-pad, athesism was more like one of the competitors in this market sort of bootlegging from the original. Gradually, after its introduction as the unique e-pad, as though labeling made it unique, it learned to refine its own niche with a few apps, which have popular appeal.
When I was younger, I became an atheist, since it allowed a lower form of morality. It was much easier, which is part of its popularity. Many things that require forethought in religion, can be done on impulse. This was appealing until I realized I didn't need to cheat to win.
Here is an analogy. Say we begin with a sport like basketball. There are many rules for this game, with not following these strict rules subject to penalties. This is analogous to religion. The atheist looked at this game and came up with their own version of basketball. They changed the rules to make it easier; lower road.
With atheist basketball (religion) you can travel, trip, hold, goal tend, etc., since that makes it easier. This makes it appealing to those who need to cheat to win and/or can't maintain will power. Even with lower skills, if the new rules allow one to trip and/or hold someone's shirt, they can appear to have better abilities, but only as long as the other team plays by the harder rules.
In American politics, the Democrats are closer to atheism, while Republicans closer to religious. If there is a scandal the republicans will need to resign. The easier rules of atheism allows democrats to get re-elected.
Never run a printing press have you. Cyan is nowhere near magenta.
Why should it "define itself as a unique orientation"? It's a single viewpoint with regard to theism.
Really? How so?
I doubt it. Statistics please.
Such as?
Nice analogy.
Seriously flawed and specious.
So naturally, according to you, the religion with the most rules is the best one. If you subscribe to one with fewer rules, you are just doing it to avoid the inconvenience...
Actually atheism isn't just the non-belief in god, it is a set of beliefs founded on skeptical inquiry into the nature of the universe that says everything is the product of the material. The basis of morality in atheism isn't the arbitrary rule of someone who said they talked to god, it is a careful consideration of the circumstances, with the well-being of fellow human beings in mind.
Last edited:
You can't be serious, but I think this posting might be a good example for the troll topic. Sorry I can't stop laughing about it.
Did you realize this on your own, or did someone have to explain it to you?
I just ask because it seems that many people have to have an authority figure tell them the difference between right and wrong.
So you've born religious.
In which religion you were born?
Funny...when I was an atheist...I found the same thing that I found now-when you don't have a nice neat set of clear-cut rules to follow, as in Christianity...you have to think a lot harder about what's right and wrong.
So are you saying...
Christians ONLY behave themselves because if they don't do so they think their god's gonna barbecue them???:jawdrop:
I'd laugh my ass off, but that's sad.
That's why religion is a good tool to herd the more primitive specimens. They are also more susceptible to its powers. The people who invent religions are pretty smart.
And very controlling aren't they? But why else would a leader, ruler, cult leader, gang boss want people to have a religion? When Christianity was getting started they were just a cult, that only got out of hand after the Romans started making martyrs out of them.
Sure start out as atheist end up controlling and overbearing. End up resenting man's rules forming some sort of anarchist church without any rules of belief. Then your just a short hop into proclaiming yourself a supreme free deity. Ultimately bypassing the atheist-closet phase. Probably fairly close to how Scientology started.
I don't know anyone who made a conscious decision to be an atheist. It's not like you wake up and decide I'm not going to believe everything I was brought up believing.
Personally I went through an extended period of bible study and soul searching before coming out the other end with the realization that I didn't believe it anymore.
Personally I went through an extended period of bible study and soul searching before coming out the other end with the realization that I didn't believe it anymore.
Really, have you ever met a atheist that was like that?
The position of athiesm is apparently : the lack of belief in god. Okay but in an argument about god, when asked the following question : What is the premise of reality? What is your theory on the why and how..
The reply is typically a concrete "I dont know" which is fine but an invalid position to take when it comes to an argument on origin of consciousness when it comes to beliefs and speculation.
The "thiest" doesent "know" for certain - hence the role "belief" plays in the system of religion. One just chooses to foster the "belief" whereas the other doesent for different reasons.
Alternatively if I choose to believe in god as the universe or contigent matter I can argue we are all god (experienced in different focal points or (eyes) or (systems of senses) i mean really what is 'us' and what is 'god' we are all biological systems that are tuned with consciousness to make sense of physical reality which i suspect is basically the universe overlapping its first layer of contigent physical analog matter creating a dual cause and effect structure in terms of intergral based universe systems (due to expansion) and organisms that are meant to experience that fosters consciousness when the physical requirements are met.
I suspect the third overlapping will pave way to a complete digital structure rendering its analoug structure obsolete which is what evolution is mainly about. Adapting in the enviorment. This would kind of solve the axiom of how physical is created when we take out the concept of time we understand its introduction is why our perception is predisposed to certain belief and intelligence systems.
Analog framework shifting into a digital..... if we can believe that random chance will create the format of [ consciousness ---> physical matter or reverse] one is inclined to think that in the vastness of the cosmos that consciousness was not "created" exclusively on earth but is an element so to speak created from the same contigent matter the analoug system is based of.
However I can verywell just be rambling on. Something just makes me suspicious of why we have this framework. I dont think were special enough to have consciousness unless we are all apart of the same source that originated consequenting from the evolution of the cosmos.
The reply is typically a concrete "I dont know" which is fine but an invalid position to take when it comes to an argument on origin of consciousness when it comes to beliefs and speculation.
The "thiest" doesent "know" for certain - hence the role "belief" plays in the system of religion. One just chooses to foster the "belief" whereas the other doesent for different reasons.
Alternatively if I choose to believe in god as the universe or contigent matter I can argue we are all god (experienced in different focal points or (eyes) or (systems of senses) i mean really what is 'us' and what is 'god' we are all biological systems that are tuned with consciousness to make sense of physical reality which i suspect is basically the universe overlapping its first layer of contigent physical analog matter creating a dual cause and effect structure in terms of intergral based universe systems (due to expansion) and organisms that are meant to experience that fosters consciousness when the physical requirements are met.
I suspect the third overlapping will pave way to a complete digital structure rendering its analoug structure obsolete which is what evolution is mainly about. Adapting in the enviorment. This would kind of solve the axiom of how physical is created when we take out the concept of time we understand its introduction is why our perception is predisposed to certain belief and intelligence systems.
Analog framework shifting into a digital..... if we can believe that random chance will create the format of [ consciousness ---> physical matter or reverse] one is inclined to think that in the vastness of the cosmos that consciousness was not "created" exclusively on earth but is an element so to speak created from the same contigent matter the analoug system is based of.
However I can verywell just be rambling on. Something just makes me suspicious of why we have this framework. I dont think were special enough to have consciousness unless we are all apart of the same source that originated consequenting from the evolution of the cosmos.
Last edited:
Admitting to not know things that one doesn't know and has no chance of knowing is better than making up some random story that you have absolutely no chance of knowing whether it's true or not and then claiming that you "know" that a god exists.
What is so freaking special about consciousness?
good point