How Religion Began

[john smith]

Why proselytize atheism? You just become that which you most despise if you try.

Ahh, i agree to a certain extent, but was it not you who said

Amen. Atheism is the one true faith.

slightly contradictory, no?

 

[baumgarten]

slightly contradictory, no?

Sometimes, I don't mean what I say. The distinction of which words are which is an exercise left to the reader.

 

[john smith]

lol ok, i'll keep that in mind.

 

[Confutatis]

Why proselytize atheism?

Actually, there is a reason why atheism needs so much proselytism: because atheism is a lie. What atheists don't see, or pretend not to see, is that their philosophy is self-defeating.

The atheist proclaims life has no purpose, and at the same time accuses religious people of not seeing a purpose to life on earth.

The atheist proclaims there is no such thing as good and evil, and also claims religion is evil.

The atheist believes humans have no free will, and also blames people for choosing false beliefs.

The atheist claims human beings are just machines without an intelligent operator, and then complain that the human machines are not being properly operated.

There is only one way for the atheist to be consistent with his philosophy, and that is by shutting up. Look at the world and feel nothing, say nothing, complain about nothing, for nobody is running the show.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

Actually, there is a reason why atheism needs so much proselytism: because atheism is a lie. What atheists don't see, or pretend not to see, is that their philosophy is self-defeating.

The atheist proclaims life has no purpose, and at the same time accuses religious people of not seeing a purpose to life on earth.

The atheist proclaims there is no such thing as good and evil, and also claims religion is evil.

The atheist believes humans have no free will, and also blames people for choosing false beliefs.

The atheist claims human beings are just machines without an intelligent operator, and then complain that the human machines are not being properly operated.

There is only one way for the atheist to be consistent with his philosophy, and that is by shutting up. Look at the world and feel nothing, say nothing, complain about nothing, for nobody is running the show.

*************
M*W: Atheism does not need to be proslytized. It is not a religion. Atheism and science cannot prove what is. Atheism and science can only prove what isn't. Atheism cannot be self-defeating, because it is not based on mystery of the supernatural.

Life has just as much if not more purpose to an atheist. A religionist believes his life is dutiful to gods. Atheists take responsibility for their own actions and purpose in life.

Atheists have a good sense of right and wrong and morality. Atheists have just as much free will as everyone else. Atheists are often humanists.

The world would be a better place without religion and its blind believers who have brought division, destruction and disharmony, to humankind.

 

[Confutatis]

Atheism does not need to be proselytized.

So why are you doing it then?

It is not a religion.

Of course not, but that doesn't mean atheists don't think they have a right to assert their intellectual and moral superiority.

Atheism cannot be self-defeating, because it is not based on mystery of the supernatural.

Nonsense.

Life has just as much if not more purpose to an atheist.

Still the atheist cannot explain how life can have purpose in a purposeless universe. That is like saying the parts of a machine that does nothing whatsoever are still very useful. Silliness, if you ask me.

A religionist believes his life is dutiful to gods.

A religionist believes his life is ruled by a power greater than himself. The atheist doubts that. The religious may have trouble understand the greater power, but the atheist is simply deluded in not acknowledging its existence.

Atheists take responsibility for their own actions and purpose in life.

How can you take responsibility for anything if you don't even exist? If you are just a machine made of meat, how can you take responsibility for chains of aminoacids and electrical impulses whose behaviour is governed by the laws of physics? Don't you realize the nonsense?

Atheists have a good sense of right and wrong and morality.

Of course they do, they just can't explain why we should bother with it.

Atheists have just as much free will as everyone else.

Explain how free will is possible if everything that happens is controlled by the laws of physics.

Atheists are often humanists.

Sure, and they show their love of humanity by despising the thing humanity cares about the most.

The world would be a better place without religion and its blind believers who have brought division, destruction and disharmony, to humankind.

The world would be an even better place without people. Imagine our beloved earth without human beings plundering its resources, killing its animals, polluting the environment, and holding the key to nuclear self-annihilation.

Sorry but the earth is no kindergarten. Life is harsh and it always will be, because it consists of struggle. Man is just a reflection of nature, with all its savagery. And if we sometimes are better than nature, we only have religion to thank.

 

[baumgarten]

That is ridiculous. I'm an atheist, and not only is my philosophy NOT self-defeating, I feel no need to push it on others.

A good deal of the atheists on this message board and around the world do feel that need, but such a feeling is not inherent to atheism. Atheism is godlessness; no more, no less. It is not a religion (though many atheists for some odd reason have made it into one. It's probably that whole "need to belong" that they all deny in unison.)

When I am "better than nature," I credit myself. You cannot tell me that some religion that I don't observe is the true cause, and I cannot tell you that your god is not your moral compass. Furthermore, whether or not you believe in a god has absolutely nothing to do with my beliefs. We live in the same universe, and we each view it differently. That's the bottom line. This is not an objective issue.

 

[wesmorris]

Sheez I've posted the same thing as the OP I don't know how many times.

 

[Confutatis]

I'm an atheist, and not only is my philosophy NOT self-defeating

All philosophies are self-defeating. When looked below the surface, any philosophy turns out to be nothing more than sophistry. But what makes atheism worse, and the reason most people reject it, is that it claims to be different, to be special. To somehow have escaped the intellectual limitations of men.

I feel no need to push it on others.

Certainly. I was just making a broad assertion to counter another broad assertion.

When I am "better than nature," I credit myself.

But you shouldn't, unless you believe you can transcend your own nature. And that would be religious.

You cannot tell me that some religion that I don't observe is the true cause

But it is, despite the fact that you won't acknowledge it. If it were not for religion, you and I would still be living in caves. You may dispute that, but you cannot dispute the fact that when Man learned to write, the first thing he wrote was a religious book.

I cannot tell you that your god is not your moral compass.

My moral compass is not God but my conscience. God is just an explanation of why you and I have it. It may not be a perfect explanation, but it's the only one there is.

We live in the same universe, and we each view it differently. That's the bottom line. This is not an objective issue.

All those discussions would be a lot simpler if all atheists were like yourself and acknowledged the issue is anything but objective. But that is seldom the case.

 

[baumgarten]

Well then, we don't really seem to disagree.

While we're talking about the origins of religion, my guess is that atheists get that from Christianity. I was Catholic before I lost faith, and when I did, the belief that my God was the one true God carried over. The same thing probably happens to a lot of people. I think it's interesting how one can reject an entire religion but still accept that. It probably has a lot to do with the success of Christianity.

 

[Confutatis]

Well then, we don't really seem to disagree.

Can I ask you a sincere question? See below:

I think it's interesting how one can reject an entire religion but still accept that. It probably has a lot to do with the success of Christianity.

Why do I get a feeling that you're not fully convinced of your atheism?

(just so you see I'm being sincere, I'm not fully convinced of my catholicism)

 

[Enterprise-D]

Confutatis you seem to be using a lot of circular logic to lend credence to your claims where applicable, and use dismissive phrases where the circular logic cannot help. Observe:

“ MW: Atheism cannot be self-defeating, because it is not based on mystery of the supernatural. ”

Confutatis: Nonsense.

Why is it nonsense?

***​

How can you take responsibility for anything if you don't even exist? If you are just a machine made of meat, how can you take responsibility for chains of aminoacids and electrical impulses whose behaviour is governed by the laws of physics? Don't you realize the nonsense?

Simple economics! Seriously though, why do you think answering the responsibility for actions must be generated externally to us thinking rational human beings? We think, therefore we are, therefore we can be responsible.

***​

But it is, despite the fact that you won't acknowledge it. If it were not for religion, you and I would still be living in caves. You may dispute that, but you cannot dispute the fact that when Man learned to write, the first thing he wrote was a religious book.

What does the first written document have to do with the fact that Man LEARNED to write? Wasn't it the elevation of learning (to write) the cause of development, NOT the first document? (Since without writing the document would not be)

***​

My moral compass is not God but my conscience. God is just an explanation of why you and I have it.

And why do you presume that complex chemical reactions and an evolved brain is NOT the reason?


You are responding to others' arguments from the assumption that they're irrevocably wrong. I'm not telling you to renounce your faith, however, your questions do indicate to me that, as you said you are in question of your catholicism. Those arguments are standard knee-jerk retorts of the blind faith set; and you don't seem to be one of them.

 

[Provita]

How Religion Began.

A Fable.

Once long ago, there was a Very Lazy caveman. His name was Oog. He detested needing to go out and hunt for food every day, as it was both Hard Work and Dangerous.

However, Oog had a very good imagination. He was also a pretty persuasive speaker.

Thus, Oog discovered that he had a Talent for Explaining Why Things Happened. Oog was just imagining things out of his head, but the others in his tribe began to come to Oog to Explain Why. Why This? and Why That? and so on.

Oog quickly discovered that he could ask for a favor in return for these explanations ... and people began bringing Oog food, and he would Explain.

Oog liked this new arrangement. All he had to do was lie around all day long thinking up new Explanations for Stuff, and people would give him food!

Oog had invented the Worlds First Profession: Professional Liar. (Or Shaman/Priest/Clergy, if you prefer the vernacular.)

Thus Oog became fat and even more lazy.

This went on for many years.

Then, one day, the son of the Chief was killed, as a direct result of an Explanation of Oog's. The Chief grew quite peeved about it, and immediately had Oog killed.

But, it was Too Late: Oog's "God Virus" idea had taken hold in the tribe. Soon, Oog's son was Explaining Things ...

...

And So, the Present Day: We still have fat and lazy folk that will, for a price, Explain Things with a Convincing Voice.

And THAT is how the God Virus infected the Human Race.

That was a funny read... I love how you talk with such authority as if to explain why things happened... you explained how religion happened... haha, funny. So hows it feel to be a decendant of Oog?

1) You do not know it started that way
2) Ur funny, i must say
3) Explain why the Chief wouldnt DESTROY the entire family of Oog if he found out his son was teaching Oog's teaching... for wouldnt it be a dangerous thing to him?

 

[baumgarten]

Why do I get a feeling that you're not fully convinced of your atheism?

(just so you see I'm being sincere, I'm not fully convinced of my catholicism)

How could I be fully convinced of my atheism when 99% of my peers worship at least one deity of some sort? I don't claim to fully understand religion, and I certainly don't feel comfortable asserting complete conviction of my own religious beliefs. I am an atheist because I don't find meaning in the concept of divinity. I feel I can attribute everything I experience to nature. I don't believe that religion is a hoax or a lie.

 

[dexter]

Quite honestly I didnt even want to respond to this. but I guess you might think about something.

some divide humanity into 3 stages of life so far, traditionalism, modernity and post-modernity.

obviously tradtitionalism gave birth to religion. What religion are you concerened with? Religion based on the God of Abraham and Issak? Or pagan ritualistic superstitious goddess religions?

Either way, You can easily explain it as "some caveman decided to blame everything on god".

But I'm pretty sure that you are a person who feels that all humans have a "longing" to find more.

This longing is like hunger, but you cant feed the longing

the longing is filled by religion

I am not religious, I am not necessarily spiritual, but I hate ignorance on either side of the argument. Science is not everything. there is more beyond the narrow realm of science.

 

[Confutatis]

Confutatis you seem to be using a lot of circular logic to lend credence to your claims where applicable, and use dismissive phrases where the circular logic cannot help.

Yes, but all I'm trying to show is that any fool can come up with circular logic. You can refute one circular argument with another and in the end we will know nothing. That is, in a nutshell, the history of Western philosophy - a long succession of sophisms.

Seriously though, why do you think answering the responsibility for actions must be generated externally to us thinking rational human beings?

Can we really answer that except by a circular argument? Any assertion that humans do things because of chemistry or divinity is nothing but a circular argument.

What does the first written document have to do with the fact that Man LEARNED to write? Wasn't it the elevation of learning (to write) the cause of development, NOT the first document?

I was replying to baumgarten's assertion that his moral behaviour cannot be attributed to a religion he doesn't observe. I think that is an erroneous notion, because we don't invent our morals, we inherit them from the civilization in which we grow up.

And why do you presume that complex chemical reactions and an evolved brain is NOT the reason [for conscience]?

For a simple question of semantics. You can't express "conscience" in scientific terms, although you can certainly dismiss the notion. But if you dismiss it, then there's nothing to explain. That is the reason I'm convinced "conscience" cannot be explained by chemistry: because, chemically speaking, conscience doesn't exist.

You are responding to others' arguments from the assumption that they're irrevocably wrong.

Not at all, I'm just trying to demonstrate that there is a perspective from which they can be irrevocably wrong. I could just as well apply the same strategy to one of those fanatical "born-again" believers. And when all the dust settles, we can all laugh at each other's stupidity and go for a beer.

I'm not telling you to renounce your faith, however, your questions do indicate to me that, as you said you are in question of your catholicism. Those arguments are standard knee-jerk retorts of the blind faith set; and you don't seem to be one of them.

It's a very catholic thing to be in doubt of Catholicism. Doubt is a fundamental aspect of Christianity, because even Christ felt forsaken by God.

I know my arguments sound like knee-jerk retorts from the blind faith set, but the best I can say is that there must be some truth to them. Perhaps the blind faith set is repeating knee-jerk arguments because they only seem knee-jerk arguments on the surface. It's impossible to explain why reason is sophistry without becoming a sophist, but it is perhaps possible to help people see that fact by showing how sophistry leads to absurdity.

In the end this is really a battle to assert the validity of commonsense, and that is not something that can be done with logical arguments.

 

[Confutatis]

How could I be fully convinced of my atheism when 99% of my peers worship at least one deity of some sort?

That is exactly what I feel. How can atheism be true when it's not commonsense?

I don't claim to fully understand religion

Neither do I, but the more I learn about it, the more it makes sense to me. I suppose that is why people like to tell the story of the man who escalates a mountain and finds priests sitting at the top, waiting for him.

The one thing I discovered though, is that it was nothing like I imagined to be. It was far more divine, but at the same time far more mundane. It's really difficult to explain.

I am an atheist because I don't find meaning in the concept of divinity. I feel I can attribute everything I experience to nature.

I used to think the same way, until I discovered things inside me I didn't know existed. Being an educated person, when I discovered those things I naturally searched for a scientific explanation for them. Trouble is, not only I couldn't find any, I was dismayed to find scientists didn't even know those things existed. But I was even more surprised that ordinary people have known about those things since the beginning of time. I guess I could say I fell from the ivory tower, and it was quite a fall.

I don't believe that religion is a hoax or a lie.

Many religions are obviously hoaxes, insofar as they can really be called religions. And I don't think there is such thing as a true religion. I think reality is far more complex, far more marvellous than any religion can possibly convey.

I loved your post, by the way.

 

[Enterprise-D]

Originally Posted by baumgarten
" How could I be fully convinced of my atheism when 99% of my peers worship at least one deity of some sort?"

Confutatis: That is exactly what I feel. How can atheism be true when it's not commonsense?

I must disagree with you Confutatis when you say athiesm is not "common sense". Your contextual definition of "common sense" seems to be 'an opinion shared among the majority'. That is not "common sense". What you refer to is more closely defined as "consensus" - which can STILL be wrong.

"Common sense" refers to answers/conceptions/behaviours that should be almost absurdly obvious and easily accepted as truth (this is my perception of the term).

Using the power of the phrase 'common sense' against athiesm cannot invalidate its logic. Alternatively, using the term cannot lend any additional credence to a "leap-of-faith" based philosophy, which is almost devoid of logic.

Argumentatively, ask.com dictionary defines "common sense" as 'sound judgement not based on specialized knowledge'. Leaps of faith cannot be defined as 'sound judgement' (RIGHT or WRONG) and religion is 'specialized knowledge'. Whereas those subscribing to athiesm need no specialized knowledge to conclude the non-existence of anything. Athiests (if defending a position) would then build on this to gain specialized knowledge to prove their stance as more correct.

Many religions are obviously hoaxes, insofar as they can really be called religions. And I don't think there is such thing as a true religion. I think reality is far more complex, far more marvellous than any religion can possibly convey.

This I would definitely agree with you on!! Except I'd start with ALL instead of 'many'. I may be inclined to expound on this another time/forum...

 

[Confutatis]

I must disagree with you Confutatis when you say athiesm is not "common sense". Your contextual definition of "common sense" seems to be 'an opinion shared among the majority'.

You would be right in disagreeing with me if that was what I meant, but that was not what I meant.

To cut a long story short, each one of us, as well as humanity as a whole, is faced with a fundamental problem. If you have some knowledge of the subject, you should know that insane people are, more often than not, ignorant of their condition. Not only that, but the more insane a man is, the more difficult it is for him to see his condition. And that is, in a strange sort of way, the fundamental problem of men, as individuals and as society: how can we know if we are sane, if we can't rely on our own judgement?

Now the problem with the atheist is that he doesn't recognize that fundamental problem. If you're an atheist, chances are you won't recognize it. Because the fundamental characteristic of the atheist is not that he does not have enough belief in God, but that he has too much belief in himself. The atheist is, to put it boldly, on the verge of insanity. He may not be there already, but whatever it is that is preventing him from completely losing his commonsense, it is definitely not his reason. The sane atheist owes his sanity to the fact that he is not fully atheistic.

I asked Baumgarten a question, a few posts above, because he strikes me as a different, and unusual, kind of atheist. He confessed, as I somehow anticipated, that he does not fully believe in himself. I would not oppose to atheism at all if all atheists were like him; however, something happens to most atheists who do not fully believe in themselves: they eventually become religious. Because atheism is our first philosophy, the philosophy we are born with. If we turn away from it, it's because we believe in our parents, or society, or tradition, more than we believe in ourselves.

Hope this helps clarify my point.

 

[(Q)]

Actually, there is a reason why atheism needs so much proselytism: because atheism is a lie. What atheists don't see, or pretend not to see, is that their philosophy is self-defeating.

Here we have the delusional attempting to understand reality.

The atheist proclaims life has no purpose, and at the same time accuses religious people of not seeing a purpose to life on earth.

Wrong, atheists proclaim that the purpose of life is life itself.

The atheist proclaims there is no such thing as good and evil, and also claims religion is evil.

Wrong, atheists proclaim religion is fantasy and has done little more than great harm to society.

The atheist believes humans have no free will, and also blames people for choosing false beliefs.

Silly in the extreme, atheists make no such claims of free will.

The atheist claims human beings are just machines without an intelligent operator, and then complain that the human machines are not being properly operated.

Wrong, the operator IS the human being, and we are not machines.

There is only one way for the atheist to be consistent with his philosophy, and that is by shutting up. Look at the world and feel nothing, say nothing, complain about nothing, for nobody is running the show.

It is impossible for the theist to be consistent with anything, let alone his philosophy, which you've made quite evident.

Somebody is running the show, it's called mankind.