Ten reasons that I am an atheist

[Doreen]

Reason #1: I am perfectly content with being an atheist. I keep running into people who somehow have a problem with this, and they have reliably been the biggest dickheads I have ever seen. Atheism is my comfort zone. I feel secure there.

So for emotional reasons.

Reason #2: I am not overwhelmingly impressed with the apologetics I have seen for Christianity.

This would make you an achristian.

Reason #3: If you see "Reason #2" and you think, "I am defending theism, not Christianity," go and burn in Hell because you are a piece of shit.

This would not be an argument. Perhaps a threat or an outburst.

Reason #4: I don't feel like I need to be "saved." I actually have very low stress levels.

This also sounds like you are achristian and determine beliefs bases on physiological reactions.

Reason #5: For some strange reason, I am not really bothered by the belief that I am not going to get to have an afterlife. Frankly, I prefer to stay that way.

This is heading towards atheism.

Reason #6: I have read the Bible, and it really is a vexing thing to read. You have to do a lot of back-referencing to understand some of it. Well, I managed to get through it, and it looks pretty man-made to me. If you read it and feel differently, that is up to you.

Achristian.

Reason #7: I have a cautious, conservative personality, and the idea of "blind faith" doesn't sit very well with me. It goes in the same category as body modification.

Likely achristian, but even here many christians base their beliefs on experiences. You may doubt they have had these or correctly interpreted them, but, nevertheless, the whole blind faith concept really on deals with a subset of religion.

Reason #8: Atheists have the same bets as anyone else on having the special favor a mysterious, immortal being. If you ask me, you have be a really bigoted asshole to not be able to see this, and I am being very harsh and judgmental here. My "bets" are just as good as anyone elses.

I am not sure this is a reason to be something, but I can see it as a reason not to change. I think this is, actually, an excellent point.

Reason #9: So-called "religious experiences" sound like a mild seizure to me. When I tell people this, they try to claim that I don't understand what it is, and they try to claim that it is something special and different. Well, it is one thing to claim this, and it is something completely different to get someone like me to believe it. I am a stodgy kind of guy, so I am not very easy to persuade when it comes to this out-there stuff.

This is also a good point. One person's experience is generally not compelling for a second person. It may make perfect sense for the first person to draw certain conclusion AND AT THE SAME TIME make perfect sense for the second person to remain unconvinced or skeptical.

Reason #10: If you tell me that I have to believe in your religion to get my proof for it, thank you: suddenly I know that I should never trust you under any circumstances. I should never lend you money because you won't pay it back. I should never sign a contract with you because you would violate it and ignore the court summons. I tend to avoid dealings with the kinds of people who employ bullshit arguments in the name of their beliefs. There is usually something deeply wrong with their morals.

This is a weaker argument. If someone tells you that meditation can lead to more relaxed reactions to stressful situations
a lot of babbling about why or why not
is just a waste of time.

The same could be said for what one should do with one's center of gravity in a martial art or how to work with negative space in painting.

Sometimes following certain practices can make something much clearer. In fact one can experience certain things if one does certain things that one can not if one does not. This holds for a wide variety of secular activities and there is no reason to assume this might not be the case for religious ones.

However I do think it is presumptuous to tell you what you should do. If you are content, they should leave you alone. If you run to them and say you are miserable and ask for advice, then perhaps they could chime in with suggestions about prayer, etc.

You could always start telling them how they should floss or what dietary changes they should make. Keep steering the conversation over to healthy fats vs. unhealthy ones. Keep the focus on their nutrition and your concern for them.

Perhaps they will 'get' the parallel.

But even if they don't it should be fun.

 

[Billy T]

It's a reference to "Pascal's Wager." It only works if you assume in the first place, "no supreme being would ever LIKE an atheist." It's nothing else in the world except a colossal insult against atheists. In fact, the real flaw in "Pascal's Wager" is that atheists have the same bets as black people, all things considered. Under "Pascal's Wager," you might as well substitute a race or a favorite color. Most people who respond to it on these premises point out, "well, it could be some other god," but that's too narrow. It could be whether or not you eat your hot dogs properly and on the correct day of the week, just as easily. "Pascal's Wager" is simply a crock of shit. So is any variant thereof.

I noted this a long time ago. In fact if one assumes the things about God that most do such as:
God is all knowing or at least very wise.
God made man with free will to choose either good or evil
Good is to do God's will, honor and obey him (her if you are modern, PC)
Good made heaven where your soul will live with him forever, etc.
God is strong, self confident, powerful, “almighty” etc.

Then it would seem strange to me that God wants to spend eternity with a bunch of worshiping believers who have no capacity for critical thought - just do as they are told, like slaves, unless he/she very insecure and needs constant reassurance of his/her power and greatness by them - but that conflicts with at least The Christian description of God.

Thus seems more likely to me that if you want to go to heaven, definitely do not just fall inline with the common POV. Show the postulated God that you can think independently, be questioning, raise good counter arguments, in general be one who a wise and self confident being might like to have around.

SUMMARY: Pascal came to the wrong conclusion on question as o how one should live.*
---------------
*But Pascal was correct in noting that if God and heaven do not exist, you lose nothing by trying to live so he/she will select you for heaven. Pascal’s error was to assume God wants obedient unthinking salves worshipping him forever, instead of thinking souls to be with and talk, even argue, with.

If I were God, I certainly would select the souls that replied, “Possibly, but on the other hand it could be…” Instead of those who always replied: “Yes that is correct – you always are.”

 

[PsychoticEpisode]

I
Reason #7: I have a cautious, conservative personality, and the idea of "blind faith" doesn't sit very well with me. It goes in the same category as body modification.

Nor does it sit well with me.

Our expressive existence becomes exceedingly extenuated if one is to believe the purpose of creating a universe is to reward blind faith.

 

[Diogenes' Dog]

I noted this a long time ago. In fact if one assumes the things about God that most do such as:
God is all knowing or at least very wise.
God made man with free will to choose either good or evil
Good is to do God's will, honor and obey him (her if you are modern, PC)
Good made heaven where your soul will live with him forever, etc.
God is strong, self confident, powerful, “almighty” etc.

Then it would seem strange to me that God wants to spend eternity with a bunch of worshiping believers who have no capacity for critical thought - just do as they are told, like slaves, unless he/she very insecure and needs constant reassurance of his/her power and greatness by them - but that conflicts with at least The Christian description of God.

I think the error comes in picturing God as another person - like a ruler or king. If God is omnipresent, we are all manifestations of God. Spending an eternity with God is therefore reconnecting with the existing eternal core of ourselves - returning to source. A better metaphor for God would be "All rivers return to the sea."

Thus seems more likely to me that if you want to go to heaven, definitely do not just fall inline with the common POV. Show the postulated God that you can think independently, be questioning, raise good counter arguments, in general be one who a wise and self confident being might like to have around.

Definitely! Wrestle with that angel!

SUMMARY: Pascal came to the wrong conclusion on question as o how one should live.*
---------------
*But Pascal was correct in noting that if God and heaven do not exist, you lose nothing by trying to live so he/she will select you for heaven. Pascal’s error was to assume God wants obedient unthinking salves worshipping him forever, instead of thinking souls to be with and talk, even argue, with.

Quite. However, Pascal was a man of his time. I'm sure that if alive today, Pascal would not be formulating his wager as "Believe in God because he can send you to heaven or hell", but believe in God because we all need help to find the good life!

 

[Diogenes' Dog]

I think your subconscious is far more powerful than most people realize. It is this resource that is tapped by practices like prayer and meditation. It can solve all sorts of problems that your conscious brain is unable to navigate. Since it doesn't feel like the same kind of thinking we are used to, it is percieved as another personality. But it's you.

I like that spidergoat! It is you, and also part of the shared universe (Einstein's God), and therefore also part of me, and lori_7 and vica-versa.

Same thing, Einstein's God, which is the physical universe, which includes your brain.

We are interconnected manifestations of the whole universe - wherever that is going....

 

[Lori_7]

It was an arbitrary assignment.
OK, just for you: an amoral overlord computer from space.

It programs itself.

why don't you just say god then.

 

[Lori_7]

But a definition is important, you have to be able to describe what it is on some level or its meaningless in discussion. You say we all know what it is and that when you say it everyone knows what you refer to but since they also seem unable to come up with a definition there is no way to know if you are all speaking of the same thing. I use the word spirit as in 'spirit of the age' or the spirit of a man but it is only used in connection with the living, so for example when a woman told me that she believed in the 'spirit' because when her father died she looked at him and 'he' was not there, I replied that he was not there because he was dead. My idea of spirit relates to energy, the energy of the time, the energy of a man in terms of essence but this 'essence' is only viable in terms of life, in terms of the living and animated. It is not something separate from the body, it doesn't exist when I die just like my thinking process will no longer exist when I die. So when i speak of 'spirit' I mean an age in action or a man in action, not something that is separate from body and mind and the material and lasts regardless of death and so on.

You say lot's of people have what they have decided was a spiritual experience but this does not give rise to evidence that there is any such thing as a spirit.

it does give evidence to those people who experience it. you must admit that you've rather arbitrarily decided that your definition is limited to a force that is dependent upon the life of a physical body, when you have absolutely no idea as to whether or not there is a part of us that does not die with the body.

i have had interactions, along with physical manifestations, of a force that is unseen, and not defined. but the interactions achieved a purpose. they were meaningful, which implies intelligence, and not just some random wave of energy.

 

[Lori_7]

I don't know is a better answer than jumping to unsubstantiated conclusions.

i did not jump to any conclusions, and the one i have arrived at is substantiated.

an unseen force manipulated physical objects right in front of my eyes one afternoon.

it was not a hallucination. i have never hallucinated before or since this occurrence. i didn't even hallucinate the couple of times i dropped acid when i was young. i was in perfect physical health...emotionally stable...i've never been diagnosed with any illness that would possibly bring about hallucination.

the physical objects just happen to surround a letter (which was poetic) that something channeled through me. again, what i would call a spirit. and there were physical manifestations of that inhabitation as well. observable changes in my body, that were quite startling.

during the writing i was also interrupted by another spiritual interaction that i felt. a physical sensation, coupled with the knowledge of a presence. well, i actually knew there were two beings there with me, not just one. and i had no known way of knowing that. i don't understand it.

but it happened.

 

[Billy T]

... an unseen force manipulated physical objects right in front of my eyes one afternoon. ...

Please give more details. What was the "physical object"? Where was it before the "unseen force manipulated" it? How was it "manipulated"? - I.e. made to spin, float in air, Etc.

I am not interested in your "feelings" but in things that could be documented with video recording, etc. Was any aspect of the "manipulation" of this nature? How long did the manipulation last? Did it last long enough for you to video record it or at least photograph it floating in air or perhaps blurring photo by it spin? etc.

Such documentation would be more persuasive than fact you have not had hallucination previously. - There is always a first time.

 

[Lori_7]

Please give more details. What was the "physical object"? Where was it before the "unseen force manipulated" it? How was it "manipulated"? - I.e. made to spin, float in air, Etc.

post #120 here...

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=95363&page=6

I am not interested in your "feelings" but in things that could be documented with video recording, etc. Was any aspect of the "manipulation" of this nature? How long did the manipulation last? Did it last long enough for you to video record it or at least photograph it floating in air or perhaps blurring photo by it spin? etc.

it would have been possible to record it if i had the equipment to do it set up but i did not.

Such documentation would be more persuasive than fact you have not had hallucination previously. - There is always a first time.

ONLY time, with no discernable cause for it. not to mention the fact that the objects remained in the morphed form. hallucinations are temporary and there is no reason to assume that i continually hallucinated in regards to the same particular objects and absolutely nothing else. that would be ridiculous.

particularly considering the fact that the objects were a channeled writing and the stationery that it was written on, address it was being sent to...

in the midst of an intense and ongoing spiritual experience.

this wasn't just some random weird event.

 

[Billy T]

... it would have been possible to record it if i had the equipment to do it set up but i did not. ...

I went to your link and there you state that you went up to take a nap and the morphed state was still present when you came back. Even a camera would have permitted you to recorded the morphed state it was physically real (not just altered perception)

Perception can persist for many days in one state before changing to another. I was cheaply staying in a room in Budapest, (rented by old circus man I shared a few beers with each eve.) for about a week and walked* to the nearest bus stop to start my day of wandering around in the city. There was an art store at that bus stop and one etching in the window attracted my attention - The main feature was the head of a bull with several smaller items (strange dragonfly, top of bare breasted woman, futuristic structures, etc. surrounding bull's head).

After at least 20 minutes total spread over several days the central feature suddenly snapped to be the head of an old man. The bus came a few minutes later. That eve when I returned I could see either the old man or the bull for a few minutes before the other perception returned. I am very interested in perception, and know considerable about it. The next day I could only see he old man - even with analytic help (I knew the old man's eye was the ear of the bull, but even concentrating on these facts, I could not force the prior perception of the bull to return.)

I bought the etching (my only art purchase ever) and it was a pain to avoid damage to it as I traveled via Euro-Rail pass thur more than half a dozen other countries after buying (It is large - nearly a meter tall and 3/4 meter wide.)

I have conducted perhaps 20 experiments with it. Most naive viewers do, as I did, see only the bull's head initially, (There are prominent horns which become part of the old man's Viking hat). Some can immediately see both bull and the man. Most friends that have seen it several times with days between viewing do seem, as I did, lose the ability to see the bull.

Thus fact that your morphed perception lasted a few hours is not very impressive to me.

I will make separate post about "channeling" writing.

PS
I have some reduced photographic copies of the etching, now the size of the 8.5x 11 paper. I now have a scanner, but know from prior experience that I cannot up load anything – Why I do not know. I made them to send to an art expert – to see if my 25 year old etching now has known artist, but he did not know of him. It is a remarkable work. – There are many that can be perceived in more than one way, especially if orientation is changed and quite a few that do not require that (Japer’s “duck/ rabbit” etc.) but this bull-man is the only one I know of that has a “rectification” to only one form after a while.

------------
*My walk took me past a statue of Semmelwieis (Hungarian discover of germs, before Pasteur, or at least the need for surgeons to wash hands)
Every woman should know of his great man /doctor. (You appear to be one.) Wiki has a long but still somewhat inadequate description of him here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis
Many women were dying of "childbirth fever" in hospitals, but not if giving birth at home. He concluded that the doctors were transporting the infection from one woman to another as they made inspections in the maternity. He tried o get the doctors to wash their hands, between exams of different women. They were insulted. It was the women who were dirty "down there" not the doctors. Semmelweis would not give up his efforts. He even infected himself with Child birth fever! To show it was caused by your blood being in contact with woman suffering it. He became such a pain to the other doctors that they bared him form the hospitals and had him intermittently committed to insane asylums! - Crazy fool keep insisting theat the doctor's hands were the problem and not the FACT that women dirty "down there" and with "bad body humors" after giving birth.

 

[Lori_7]

I went to your link and there you state that you went up to take a nap and the morphed state was still present when you came back. Even a camera would have permitted you to recorded the morphed state it was physically real (not just altered perception)

Perception can persist for many days in one state before changing to another. I was cheaply staying in a room in Budapest, (rented by old circus man I shared a few beers with each eve.) for about a week and walked to the nearest bus stop to start my day of wandering around in the city. There was an art store at that bus stop and one etching in the window attracted my attention - The main feature was the head of a bull with several smaller items (strange dragonfly, top of bare breasted woman, futuristic structures, etc. surrounding bull's head).

After at least 20 minutes total spread over several days the central feature suddenly snapped to be the head of an old man. The bus came a few minutes later. That eve when I returned I could see either the old man or the bull for a few minutes before the other perception returned. I am very interested in perception, and know considerable about it. The next day I could only see he old man - even with analytic help (I knew the old man's eye was the ear of the bull, but even concentrating on these facts, I could not force the prior perception of the bull to return.)

I bought the etching (my only art purchase ever) and it was a pain to avoid damage to it as I traveled via Euro-Rail pass thur more than half a dozen other countries after buying (It is large - nearly a meter tall and 3/4 meter wide.)

I have conducted perhaps 20 experiments with it. Most naive viewers do, as I did, see only the bull's head initially, (There are prominent horns which become part of the old man's Viking hat). Some can immediately see both bull and the man. Most friends that have seen it several times with days between viewing do seem, as I did, lose the ability to see the bull.

Thus fact that your morphed perception lasted a few hours is not very impressive to me.

I will make separate post about "channeling" writing.

PS
I have some reduced photographic copies of the etching, now the size of the 8.5x 11 paper. I now have a scanner, but know from prior experience that I cannot up load anything – Why I do not know. I made them to send to an art expert – to see if my 25 year old etching now has known artist, but he did not know of him. It is a remarkable work. – There are many that can be perceived in more than one way, especially if orientation is changed and quite a few that do not require that (Japer’s “duck/ rabbit” etc.) but this bull-man is the only one I know of that has a “rectification” to only one form after a while.

you do realize that what you're describing regarding this piece of art is not so unusual right? there are many designs and drawings and ink blobs and art in general that are interpretive, and people see different things in them. what i was looking at was not a piece of art, it was a piece of notebook paper. the interpretive value as to what a piece of notebook paper and the packaging of some stationery looks like is null. it looks like a piece of notebook paper and stationery packaging. only it morphed. it moved. the packaging shrunk. all in front of my eyes, and it stayed that way.

i'm not sure why you think it's important as to whether you're impressed by it or not. it wasn't meant for you to be impressed by. it was meant for me and i was certainly impressed.

so yes i could have photographed it, but it didn't occur to me to. why would i? i watched it happen with my own eyes.

 

[Alien Cockroach]

You've read the Bible, the Christian holy book. Have you read the "bible" of any other religions?

I am familiar with Bhuddism and, to a greater extent, Taosim. However, the latter is more of a set of philosophical concepts. Otherwise, I have only familiarized myself with Christianity. I am almost completely ignorant regarding most other religious doctrines.

 

[Billy T]

... i could have photographed it, but it didn't occur to me to. why would i? i watched it happen with my own eyes.

Because seeing is a very complex process leading to a perception and full of known distortions and illusions, especially if in a state of mind prepared to have these altered perceptions, but the camera records the facts.

Now a few words about "channeling" but I am not sure they relate to your use of this term:

About 20 years or perhaps a little more many assistant to mute autistic children began to help them express themselves, via writing. The assistant would hold the child's arm or even hand and claimed not to guide it in the writing - They were only serving as a channel for the child's thoughts and feelings to be expressed.

This meet with considerable skepticism from scientists, so some tests were done. I forget the details, but things like: "Is the candy in the blue or red bag? - Tell correctly and you can have it."

The child only performed above chance if the assisting channeler knew the answer, so this nonsense has to a large extent ceased to be popular. Most channelers were not being dishonest - only self deluded.

 

[Lori_7]

Because seeing is a very complex process leading to a perception and full of know distortions and illusions, especially if in a state of mind prepared to have these altered perceptions, but the camera records the facts.

Now a few words about "channeling" but I am not sure they relate to your use of this term:

About 20 years or perhaps a little more many assistant to mute autistic children began to help them express themselves, via writing. The assistant would hold the child's arm or even hand and claimed not to guide it in the writing - They were only serving as a channel for the child's thoughts and feelings to be expressed.

This meet with considerable skepticism form scientists, so some tests were done. I forget the details, but things like: "Is the candy in the blue or red bag? - Tell correctly and you can have it."

The child only performed above chance if the assisting channeler knew the answer, so this nonsense has to a large extent ceased to be popular. Most channelers were not being dishonest - only self deluded.

no, i mean that my body was "used" by something to write a message. and there were symptoms or physical manifestations that i felt and witnessed to let me know that beyond any doubt.

 

[spidergoat]

i did not jump to any conclusions, and the one i have arrived at is substantiated.

an unseen force manipulated physical objects right in front of my eyes one afternoon.

it was not a hallucination. i have never hallucinated before or since this occurrence. i didn't even hallucinate the couple of times i dropped acid when i was young. i was in perfect physical health...emotionally stable...i've never been diagnosed with any illness that would possibly bring about hallucination.

the physical objects just happen to surround a letter (which was poetic) that something channeled through me. again, what i would call a spirit. and there were physical manifestations of that inhabitation as well. observable changes in my body, that were quite startling.

during the writing i was also interrupted by another spiritual interaction that i felt. a physical sensation, coupled with the knowledge of a presence. well, i actually knew there were two beings there with me, not just one. and i had no known way of knowing that. i don't understand it.

but it happened.

What I do in such situations is look to my cat. If she notices it, it must be real.

 

[Lori_7]

What I do in such situations is look to my cat. If she notices it, it must be real.

cats make shit up all the time. lol...

 

[spidergoat]

Do your pet happen to notice anything weird? If not, you should question the reality of your hallucinations.

 

[Lori_7]

Do your pet happen to notice anything weird? If not, you should question the reality of your hallucinations.

my cats pretend to stalk, chase, and run from invisible things when they're bored.

honestly, at that time, the last thing on my mind was what my pets were up to.

 

[spidergoat]

So, no one else noticed anything? It is this lack of verification that makes me doubt what you saw was anything more than a figment of your imagination. Which is a more likely hypothesis - that it was a hallucination, or that it was the action of the same omnipotent being that created the universe itself? People have hallucinations all the time, and there hasn't been any reliable evidence of God... ever.