God is a crutch for the weak minded

[(Q)]

If there was no religion anywhere on the planet, wars would still be happening. We would find something to fight about. I don't doubt that for a second.

Perhaps you're right. Maybe wars are inevitable. Maybe we would find something to fight about.

Does that mean we just give up and not try to correct the root of the problems, regardless if they are religious based or otherwise?

If all it meant was to pull religion out of society altogether, in that it had no say in how we run the world, would that help? People could still practice their rituals and beliefs all they want.

We just simply wouldn't take religion seriously as the basis for reality.

 

[lightgigantic]

*************
M*W: Quite the opposite. Atheists don't "grasp at straws" to perpetuate their non-belief. It's an inner-knowing, an understanding, that the belief in deities is illogical and essentially harmful to the psyche. Religions and their beliefs are also harmful to individuals and societies. IT's like running-in-place. They go through the motions, but they don't learn anything new and, basically, nothing changes.

Please feel free to show us how religions have bettered mankind and the world.

I don't see how you can't draw up a colourful continuum of historical/social influence in this world without heralding religious issues.

I mean even the first amendment is a transcendental doctrine (unless you can empirically indicate how we are indeed all equal)

Actually if you examine the worlds best architecture, art, literature, philosophy etc etc you can see that it all is produced out of strongly metaphysical/religious cultural fabric. For you to just come along and turf all that out means we are basically left with things like football and rap music as the pinnacle of human civilization

 

[lightgigantic]

Perhaps you're right. Maybe wars are inevitable. Maybe we would find something to fight about.

Does that mean we just give up and not try to correct the root of the problems, regardless if they are religious based or otherwise?

If all it meant was to pull religion out of society altogether, in that it had no say in how we run the world, would that help? People could still practice their rituals and beliefs all they want.

We just simply wouldn't take religion seriously as the basis for reality.

As things stand in our capitalistic society, I wasn't aware that religion is taken seriously as the basis for reality (rather all things, including morality, are seen as contingent on capital)

 

[Simon Anders]

If I told you that I have an apple tree in my back yard that produces purple fruit all year round. Would you believe it ?

I took your post above with the definition of atheism to be a response to my post. Perhaps that was incorrect. This last post seems like a complete non-sequiteur to me. I am not sure now what either of your posts mean. I am also not sure if you understood my posts. I was not making any assertions about God, etc. I was talking about the phenomenon: atheist.

 

[Myles]

I understand the definition. I am speaking about reality.

The reality is that there is no god !

 

[Simon Anders]

It's irrelevant. I'm not interested in tackling the very small percentage of people who are the exceptions. I'm more interested in putting a stop to the indoctrination machine that abuses millions of children worldwide.

You are free to pursue those exceptions. Be my guest.

My other point had to do with what seems to be your melding theism, in all forms, with fire and brimstone Christianity. In this case you are pursuing the exception.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

"woke up","only see the light" are suggestive of thinking that you have... progressed(?) in thinking to a better state than those who choose to be "inside the box" and thus are asleep and indarkness. Perhaps you should consider using a different method of speech to get your ideas across without maligning the intellect of those who might disagree with you. I was an atheist for awhile, but I found it more difficult to have faith in 'God not' than to have faith in God is. If I therefore say I escaped the "prison of disbelief" and that my "eyes were opened to the truth", doesn't this suggest that those who are within the "prison", with their "eyes closed" are in some way more limited in mental or spiritual capacity than I am? Doesn't this suggest a thinking that I have evolved further than they? Like I said, simply say what you mean and mean what you say, perhaps with some simpler, less egotistic language?

*************
M*W: Your perception of atheists is one of egotism. I'm not an egotist, rather, a humanist. I can see my phrasing was confusing, and I apologize for not making myself more clear. Embracing atheism does not happen overnight. It is a long process that occurs gradually over time. It took years for me to go from rabid catholicism to agnosticism and then on to atheism. It's a process of rational thought. It can take years to evolve from one place to the other, and this is where I am most comfortable. (Please note the word "comfortable." It in no way implies that I think I am better than a theist.

One's understand of being in or out of the box is relative to each individual. It's like the comparison of apples and oranges; black and white; good and bad.

I lived inside the box for a while, then I escaped. You had the same but opposite experience. It's all about an individual's perception. I'm not saying either one is good or bad. I'm just saying that we each have a difference in our perception of inside and outside of the proverbial box. This doesn't make either one of us better than the other.

Theists just don't understand this concept and are quick to condemn that which they are not familiar with (atheism) or that which they fear (no deity).

Many atheists OTOH have finally been able to escape the tyranny of religion. Those few and far between atheists who have been recaptured by their old or even a new religion, such as yourself, never truly let go of the fear associated with their respective religious beliefs. They are the easiest of targets to recapture, and it has nothing to do with rational thinking. Religions are based on fear... the fear of god... the fear of death... the fear of punishment in the afterlife... the fear of the unknown... the fear of abandonment.

Mankind's most innate fear from the time of birth is the fear of abandonment. Religions offer the promise of never being abandoned, even after death. I can understand the human psychology of this instinctive need, but the truth is that no religion can actually prevent one from being abandoned. It is a lie that probably all religions tell their believers. People believe, not because they truly worship a deity, they believe in what they want to believe to relieve them of their fear of abandonment. Human beings are selfish that way. They are also misinformed, twiddling their while thumbs waiting on eternity, where they believe they will never be abandoned for all time. I guess atheists may not have the same depth of fear of abandonment like theists do, because they have an innate understanding that they are not being abandoned after all. An atheist has no need for false doctrines and rituals. So, there is comfort in being an atheist.

 

[Simon Anders]

The reality is that there is no god !

Excellent. And now you join the ranks of those atheists for whom atheism is a belief or set of beliefs. What you just said is not a lack of belief. Which was the reality I was writing about in that post. The reality of the nature of at least most of the atheists, for example, participating in this thread. Their atheism is at least one belief and in MW's case a whole set.

 

[Simon Anders]

In that respect, it is the questioning of theists claims which you are referring to as a set of atheist beliefs. Nonsense.

No. It is not mere questioning. You can see, for example, how this threads title and OP are not simply questioning? We have flat statements of fact. It would be nonsense to assert otherwise.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

Even if it is incorrect, you should realize how possible it is. Do you not feel superior to those you consider 'weak mnded' who need a crutch?

You can at least see how it might seem likely one would take that as you are superior since you are not weak minded and do not need this crutch. Your 'of course' is odd and rather damning.

Sounds like you chose religions with a lot of cultural shit in them. You also seem to be confusing theism with organized religions and probably Abahamic ones.

This is wishful thinking. It may eliminate certain kinds of negative mind control, but it does very little to protect the mind in general.

Well, it sounds like you have made a good decision for yourself. But it also seem like you are projecting your own use of religion onto all theists.

And you must be able to see how it is implicit in the title of the thread that you consider yourself no longer 'weak minded' or needing the 'crutch' that theists have and in this way superior.

*************
M*W: Again, atheists do not dwell on superiority over anyone. That is strictly a theist point of view as in "my god is bigger than your god." Atheists don't have a god nor do we want one. We don't have the necessity for a god.

Don't concern yourself with the title of the thread. The point of the title is to elicit emotion, ergo, replies.

 

[Myles]

Excellent. And now you join the ranks of those atheists for whom atheism is a belief or set of beliefs. What you just said is not a lack of belief. Which was the reality I was writing about in that post. The reality of the nature of at least most of the atheists, for example, participating in this thread. Their atheism is at least one belief and in MW's case a whole set.

Why excellent? It doesn't take much to get you crowing. To believe that something is not the case is to lack a belief that that something is the case.
No big deal...not worth discussing.

When you have figured out reality, get back to me. Now that would be something to crow about.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

You are so full of shit. :bugeye:

************
M*W: It takes one to know one.

 

[Simon Anders]

To believe that something is not the case is to lack a belief that that something is the case.

This is not correct.
If you try a few examples yourself you will see that they are different.

And in any case a host of atheists will disagree with you on this one. And it seems important to them.

 

[Simon Anders]

]M*W: Again, atheists do not dwell on superiority over anyone.

Atheists are humans. This generality is very strange. I was speaking about you in particular. I do not think that atheists in general think that they are superior. I think you do. If you don't, perhaps some feedback from friends you respect on how you communicate your ideas might let you in on how you come across, unintentionally, I guess.

Don't concern yourself with the title of the thread. The point of the title is to elicit emotion, ergo, replies.

Your post about the trite little world of your children seemed to fit with the OP and thread title. But it seems you do not stand behind the assertion made in the title of your thread. It is good to know you do not agree with it. Often good to make these things clear.

 

[Norsefire]

MW, I've seen my fair share of ignorant, intolerante, narrow minded atheists.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

Atheists are humans. This generality is very strange. I was speaking about you in particular. I do not think that atheists in general think that they are superior. I think you do. If you don't, perhaps some feedback from friends you respect on how you communicate your ideas might let you in on how you come across, unintentionally, I guess.

Your post about the trite little world of your children seemed to fit with the OP and thread title. But it seems you do not stand behind the assertion made in the title of your thread. It is good to know you do not agree with it. Often good to make these things clear.

*************
M*W: Okay, so I am human, since you're talking about me specifically. The fact is that you don't know me, and you think you know M*W, but you don't. If you passed me on the street, you wouldn't know it was me. The only time I thought I was superior to anyone else was when I was a christian. That's when I really did look down my nose at non-believers. I thought I was superior to them, but now I realize I was wrong.

Well, I'm not going to provide you with any references, if that's what you're wanting. I can speak for myself, and if you don't like it, I don't care. You don't have to read my posts if they bother you.

I wasn't speaking about the "trite little world" of my children. Actually, they are all doing quite well, and I see their lives as being quite abundant. I've raised my children equally. Some are theists, some are atheists, and some are agnostic. (I'm speaking here of the children I gave birth to as well as the one's I fostered). My comments were directed at theists in general. Those people who live in fear.

About the title, I write so people will take notice, and it will either make them happy, sad, angry or indifferent. Titles mean nothing in the greater scheme of things. You've got to lead a "horse to water" first. Quibbling over titles is a bit "trite," I would say.

 

[Myles]

This is not correct.
If you try a few examples yourself you will see that they are different.

And in any case a host of atheists will disagree with you on this one. And it seems important to them.

So, a host of atheists ( did you mean angels ? )will disagree with me as will all theists. Am I bothered ? No ! I do not believe in god and I don't give a damn about labels.

 

[Simon Anders]

*************
M*W: Okay, so I am human, since you're talking about me specifically. The fact is that you don't know me, and you think you know M*W, but you don't. If you passed me on the street, you wouldn't know it was me. The only time I thought I was superior to anyone else was when I was a christian. That's when I really did look down my nose at non-believers. I thought I was superior to them, but now I realize I was wrong.

Well, I'm not going to provide you with any references, if that's what you're wanting. I can speak for myself, and if you don't like it, I don't care. You don't have to read my posts if they bother you.

I wasn't speaking about the "trite little world" of my children. Actually, they are all doing quite well, and I see their lives as being quite abundant. I've raised my children equally. Some are theists, some are atheists, and some are agnostic. (I'm speaking here of the children I gave birth to as well as the one's I fostered). My comments were directed at theists in general. Those people who live in fear.

About the title, I write so people will take notice, and it will either make them happy, sad, angry or indifferent. Titles mean nothing in the greater scheme of things. You've got to lead a "horse to water" first. Quibbling over titles is a bit "trite," I would say.

Of course I do not know you. However I do think it is logical to conclude that anyone who refers to the members of another group as 'weak minded" feels superior to them. In a recent post you said you did this simply to provoke or some such. OK. But you have to admit that the title of the thread makes it a fairly logical conclusion that you feel superior to theists. Now you have taken this back. OK.

But then you get strange again:
You say above...

I wasn't speaking about the "trite little world" of my children.

but in an earlier post you said...

Even though I raised my children as christians, I had to leave them behind spiritually, because they wanted to live in their trite little world of fear, hell and damnation.

For the life of me I cannot see how you were not referring to the trite little world of your children. You might also need a little feedback about how the phrase 'leaving someone behind spiritually' tends to come across.

I do not know you. I can only draw conclusions from what you are saying. It seems to me you are saying that what you say are not things you believe or have said.

Please do not hold your readers responsible for misconceptions they may have about you.

 

[Simon Anders]

So, a host of atheists ( did you mean angels ? )will disagree with me as will all theists. Am I bothered ? No ! I do not believe in god and I don't give a damn about labels.

Fine. (notice I used the word 'fine' which I hope does not come off as crowing.) I appreciated what I took to be candor on the part of atheist. And I am sure you won't mind if I consider

The reality is that there is no god !

as something more than a mere lack of belief.

If I said it about electrons or the moon, I am quite sure you would said my belief was incorrect.

 

[Norsefire]

The "reality" is that nobody knows whether or not there is a God, and it's foolish to make any assertion beyond the fact that we don't know.