The down side of being an atheist.

[Medicine*Woman]

Hay Dinosaurs, have you ever seen a dinosaur skeleton full formed from its original bones? Well I haven't which makes me believe dinosaurs never actually existed.

*************
M*W: I believe dinos existed when the world was young. They've found enough dino bones to prove they existed at some point in time. I find the theory that they were all destroyed by a nuclear explosion to be a bit much to believe. I believe they just evolved into birds and flew away to a natural extinction.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

religious don't believe they come to the sky with the clouds either, heaven is just another word for mind, consciousness. people thought gods were in the sky, above them because they couldn't reach the sky, but god is within.

people are atheists because they don't know what god is, they see it as a man in the sky. i doubt many religious people see it that way.

*************
M*W: People are atheists NOT because they don't know what god IS, because there is NO god.

 

[spidergoat]

god is not an image, it's the self. why don't you believe me?

God may very well be the self, but belief is by definition an image. To believe in something we must first form an image or model of it, otherwise it's just a word.

 

[charles cure]

Not all conceptions of religion necessarily involve the derivation of authority from a supernatural being. I certainly wouldn't entertain any that did.

which ones dont? taoism and deism maybe. those arent major religious forces in the world today. as a matter of fact, those arent even really organized religions or belief systems in the traditional sense, they are hands-off lifestyle choices that allow for a belief in the possibility of some great power while attempting to muddle through life and do what is best for yourself more or less.

If I live peacefully and according to the normal rules of our American society but hold private convictions that include a God (that I may or may not share in public with you), what consequences are you speaking of? What actions of mine are you talking about? How do I share in the responsibility of what some fundamentalist nuts are doing? I don't. You cannot judge me by the actions of others, based on the fact that I share, say, 2% of their beliefs and you share 0%.

look, religious moderates or tolerants provide validity to the religious beliefs of others. the cold fact is that in our society, it is not ok to disrespect or challenge someone on the basis of a belief in god because it is so ingrained in our minds that their belief is a deeply personal thing that doesnt effect anyone else. that is simply not the case. every christian moderate helps to provide the foundation upon which christian fundamentalism is built. thats why religious faith, ridiculous as it may be, is so hard to challenege. for every wacko out of the mainstream fundamentalist that comes out saying "youll burn in hell for challenging my god" there are ten people behind him who are saying " i dont agree with his zeal but i agree that the bible is a sacred and moral text and i wish no one would come out against it and challenge its worldview". the US was originally settled by people who would undoubtedly be considered out of their minds today in terms of religious fanaticism. our society was formed by their decendants and although a spirit of toleration exists, it only exist because a society founded by the grandsons of religious outcasts can easily unite behind the idea of not being thrown out of another country. think about what fundamentalism means - a commitment to the fundamental spirit and values of something. i do not agree with fundamentalism because i do not agree with the fundamentals of the belief. how can it be described in another way? by not challenging these people to provide reasoning for what they say and do, you give them a pass to add it to the rest of the subject matter of daily life that has validity for commonly accepted REASONS. why is it that this one thing - religious belief - exists outside of that normal spectrum?

You cannot paint every person who says "yes, I have religious convictions" with the same broad brush.

i wasnt attempting to. i was saying that if someone believes something stupid, you have the right to think that they may be stupid. and that statement applies to people's faith in clearly ridiculous religious premises.


.

On the other hand, the personal religious convictions of any one particular individual may have nothing to do fundamentalism at all.

untrue. the people who are fundamentalists are merely the most vocal and action oriented of religious believers. anyone who supports the fundamental ideals of the particular belief by definition supports fundamentalism. a religious moderate is nothing more than a fundamentalist letting others do the dirty work for them.

Freeman Dyson, to give an example, is a brilliant physicist, who has contributed more to science than most of us ever will. And he believes in God. His personal beliefs are totally irrelevant to his skills as a scientist, and to conclude that the man is somehow lacking in intelligence because of those convictions is absolutely risible.

no its not. it only shows that he could successfully partition his mind to accept rational reasoning and evidence in one aspect of life, yet toss its validity aside when applied to a different aspect. its just a lot of mental acrobatics. it doesnt make his religious conviction any more believable than anyone else's just because he's a fucking scientist. it just shows that he chose to ignore the fact that there is no proof in existence anywhere of a god and that he had the ability to hold out a thread of hope that it could appear at some point in the future and validate his faith. however, belief in some creator being or some type of god without any other criteria involved hardly constitutes involvement in a religion. the thing that is most awful about religion is that it claims that its standards and beliefs are somehow authoritative and requires that other people either accept them willingly or acknowledge their validity through the use of force.

 

[charles cure]

WHY SHOULD WE REMAIN CONSCIOUS?????

and... why an eternity?? also... as pure electrostatic energy, we would likely be free of the constraints of time as we know it....

and in the few seconds that it takes to convert to heat, an NEAR eternty in hell could be experienced... assuming we are conscious.

but the idea that we live on... with consciousness is i think the flaw in judgement..

there is no reason to think we do..

only that what was us.. our lives.. our memories.. maybe preserved..

downloaded to the heaven... by our death.. and conversion processes in our brain.. yielding the energy to manifest as discussed.

-MT

well, if consciousness ceases, then what the fuck is the point of hell as a deterrant for sin? why dont i just go out and rape and murder and pillage all i want if my posthumous unconscious electrostatic energy "soul" will be burnt up as heat and i'll never be able to feel it in any normal sense? thats the point. if that is hell, than life on earth is a fucking million times worse. toss your bible in the trash and do whatever you want if thats the case. and yeah if thats what happens, sure proves how tough god is huh?

 

[SnakeLord]

This isn't a blanket statement, but I know a lot of atheist that can't talk about anything but themselves, their views, or whats going on in their lives.

It's a heavily biased statement. Many people do just that whether they are atheist, christian or lenny the leprechaun worshippers.

Kindly stop being a dick.

 

[Lerxst]

which ones dont? taoism and deism maybe. those arent major religious forces in the world today. as a matter of fact, those arent even really organized religions or belief systems in the traditional sense, they are hands-off lifestyle choices that allow for a belief in the possibility of some great power while attempting to muddle through life and do what is best for yourself more or less.

Fine. I don't care if it fits in a specific religion cubbyhole or not. The point is, if you make such a "lifestyle choice that allows for a belief in the possibility..." as you put it, you are not necessarily engaing in some kind of great evil, or a moronic exercise. Which is my point. One can entertain spiritual notions in one's life and remain as intelligent as anyone who does not. They have nothing to do with one another, necessarily.

every christian moderate helps to provide the foundation upon which christian fundamentalism is built.

Maybe. I don't honestly know if that is really the case. I think many fundamentalists despise liberal Christians more than they despise us nontheists. They might view us as hell-bound sinners, but the liberal Christians are apostates, and that is even worse.

I don't think the world is going to abandon religion suddenly. Smacking them upside the head with a strong atheist position isn't going to win them over. Rather, I would imagine (and hope) that liberal churches such as the unitarians and figures such as J.S. Spong will eventually lead them towards a less dogmatic, more humanistic type of religion. I think it is going to have to be baby steps. Maybe I'm wrong, though.

i wasnt attempting to. i was saying that if someone believes something stupid, you have the right to think that they may be stupid. and that statement applies to people's faith in clearly ridiculous religious premises.

You are free to do so, and you may be grossly mistaken in your assessment of stupid, of course. For example you could look at Martin Gardner, who is a philosophical theist, and just declare "oh, well, then, he must be stupid." Which would be an idiotic move on your part, as the man is quite brilliant and has had a distinguished career as a science writer and a skeptic and has the admiration of many great scientists. Jumping to a conclusion about anybody based on the limited information is intellectually lazy and just as offensive as being told by some bible thumper "oh, you are an atheist? you must be immoral."

untrue. the people who are fundamentalists are merely the most vocal and action oriented of religious believers. anyone who supports the fundamental ideals of the particular belief by definition supports fundamentalism. a religious moderate is nothing more than a fundamentalist letting others do the dirty work for them.

I suppose that is true for some moderates. But it doesn't apply to people who hold their own personal religious convictions that are not affiliated with any particular group (like Gardner). If I'm a deist and I don't go to church and I don't support reactionary politicians, how am I helping the fundamentalists?

Moreover, there are a number of liberal Christians that are politically active in groups that aim to strengthen the wall between church and state. Do you really think these people are, overall, an aid or a hindrance to the bible-thumpers? Look at an organization such as Americans United for the Separation of Church and State. They are headed up my an ordained minsiter, Barry Lynn. Is Mr. Lynn more a friend to nontheists who wish to be treated like equal citizens, or is he more a friend to Pat Robertson and his ilk?

it doesnt make his religious conviction any more believable than anyone else's just because he's a fucking scientist.

I agree. I only used him as an example to show that the claim (not made by you, but by others) that "you cannot be intelligent and religious" is foolish. Conversely, it shows that one can partition the spiritual and the rational sides of one's life, and still be a productive scientist. Which is part of my original point. Spiritual beliefs or the lack thereof are not a litmus test to determine intelligence or one's ability to have profound insights or make discoveries or contribute positively to the human condition. So you disagree with his religion. Fine. He is still an intelligent man.

Compare these two responses:

Atheist A: "Freeman Dyson is an idiot because he believes in God."

Atheist B: "Freeman Dyson is reputable, well-respected scientist. He also happens to believe in God. This is not supported by his scientific work, and I don't respect his religious beliefs, but at least he has been able to keep his personal convictions personal and not interfere with his professional scientific research, which is sound."

Which opinion is more reputable? Which opinion is actually closer to the truth? Which opinion is more likely to make other people think that nontheists are a bunch of arrogant pricks?

If you are going to advance an idea, it make sense to keep in mind the old saying about flies, honey, and vinegar.

however, belief in some creator being or some type of god without any other criteria involved hardly constitutes involvement in a religion.

Exactly. There can be spirituality without religion. That is something I am aiming to find myself. It has nothing to do with intelligence per se.

the thing that is most awful about religion is that it claims that its standards and beliefs are somehow authoritative and requires that other people either accept them willingly or acknowledge their validity through the use of force.

Agreed. Please understand, I'm not trying to defend organized religion, I despise it as much as any atheist on this board. I literally almost died because of a cult-like religion when I was a child, I have good reason to dislike it. I'm only trying to defend the notion that an intelligent person can come to his or her own personal set of spiritual convictions, and provided that they don't cause harm, directly or indirectly, there is nothing wrong with that.

Entertaining a spiritual notion does not necessarily equate to a lack of intelligence. Having your own personal conception of God does not make you as culpable as Abu Musab al-Zarqawi for the ills in the world, or mean that you are suffering from the same disease as him.

 

[scorpius]

OUR SOULS... must be energy...

and at death our soul is released... so what does it convert into?

it can become pure static energy and cross the entire universe...

or it can become radiowaves.. and get lost in deep space.. purgatory.

or it can simply convert directly into heat energy as by entropy.... meaning all your memories.. your soul.. converts into heat... burning in hell...

-MT

or maybe its just lots of hot air
see
www.atheists.org/Atheism/mind.html

 

[Guilty_Biscuit]

I am only annoyed at those who are absolutely convinced that they will be able to say "I told you so" as I suffer in hell for my blasphemous view. They actually seem to have the smug satisfaction of saying it now.

You have to wonder whether their smug satisfaction is identical to that of anyone whose pride is threatend and resorts to profane outbursts in an attempt to debase their assailant. By it's nature - having people disbelieve in your God or even worse - mock your God or religion is extremely hurtful to insecure believers. Just one of many reasons why religion is a cause of conflict in the world and why atheists are persecuted.

 

[Dinosaur]

Consider the following answer to an age old question.

• Intelligent people often believe in foolish ideas because they use their intelligence to defend opinions they accepted when they were not using their intelligence.

Most people form their religious beliefs when the are very young. Their parents, family, ministers, priests, rabbis, whatever teach them when they are still dependent on & awed by the adult world.

My father was an engineer and a mathematician. He encouraged me to ask questions. His religious background was Quakerism, which has little dogma. My mother was Catholic.

I still remember a visit to my Catholic grandmothers’s house when I was 6 or 7 years old. An uncle told me something about Catholic beliefs. I asked a question. Instead of getting an answer, one of my aunts said with horror and condemnation in her tone: “He is so young and already blasphemous!” or something similar. I do not remember what I had been told and I do not remember exactly what my aunt said. If she said blasphemous, I probably did not know what the word meant. It is now about 70 years later & I still remember the horror & condemnation in my aunt’s voice.

I only visited my grandmother a few times a years for a few days each time at holidays. She lived over 100 miles from us. I wonder about a child living in that environment every day from birth to the age of 17-22. Could a child not be indoctrinated with the religious concepts of that family?

When an adult, how likely is a person to change the belief system given to him/her as a child by parents, family, & other adults, especially if those parents, family, & adults are other wise kind, loving, nurturing, intelligent, cetera?

Do religious people really use any critical judgment capabilities when they develop their beliefs? It seems to me that they are brainwashed when young and never change the view given them as children.

 

[Lerxst]

• Intelligent people often believe in foolish ideas because they use their intelligence to defend opinions they accepted when they were not using their intelligence.

That is a very good point. It is a real joykiller for me. Whenever I read the work of an intelligent theist, I start to get excited, thinking, "maybe he can make a case I can believe in!"

Then I remember the above sentiment.

Do religious people really use any critical judgment capabilities when they develop their beliefs? It seems to me that they are brainwashed when young and never change the view given them as children.

I think most do not. But some do. I think that some people have more innate affinity for religous ideas, others less.

 

[Lerxst]

A general question:

If organized religion as we know it is ever to be swept away someday (and I hope it is)...

What will we replace it with?

Most people attend a church for a variety of legitimate and important reasons: socialization, comfort in a time of need, moral guidance from a trusted source, various ceremonial functions, etc. These needs are not going to just disappear one day. Although many of us here get by without a church, most people would be left with a void. What would fill it?

This is why I think that a more secular, liberal, humanistic "religion" needs to evolve out of what we currently have.

 

[Guilty_Biscuit]

I wonder about a child living in that environment every day from birth to the age of 17-22. Could a child not be indoctrinated with the religious concepts of that family?

If you accept that children are disposed to absorb ideas more easily than adults then yes, of course. Many religious beliefs are very diffficult to cast aside once you have believed in them - who would give up the eternal and personal love from a supreme being and risk the wrath of eternal punishment without damn good reasons to do so? A lot of people would surely rationalise that it is not worth casting aside their religion unless someone can prove that their god doesn't exist - something which is impossible to do.

I went to a Catholic school where we were indoctrinated and although I became an atheist while I was there I still got feelings of guilt and fear when I wanted to critise god or religion - even in private. Luckily my family was not religious so I didn't get it from home. If I had been indoctrinated at home and school I probably would not have come to terms with my atheism even now.

Nobody should underestimate how difficult it can be, how afraid people can be and how lonely people can feel when they first give up their religious beliefs.

 

[Guilty_Biscuit]

A general question:

If organized religion as we know it is ever to be swept away someday (and I hope it is)...

What will we replace it with?

I think this needs a thread of it's own. I would say we don't need to put anything in religion's place. People would find their own ways of enriching their life where religion used to do it for them.

 

[Dinosaur]

If belief in religion disappears, it will be an evolutionary process. No planned replacement will be required. It might be replaced with something worse. It might be replaced with something better.

In the Western Technological World, Laissez Faire capitalism replaced feudalism and was replaced by a mixture of socialism & facism somewhat controled by constitutions & democratic-like systems. There was no plan, merely evolutionary processes.

laissez Faire Capitalism was a lot better than the system it replaced. Our current system is better than the feudal system & worse than Laissez Faire Capitalism.

Who knows what our current economic, political, & religious systems will evolve into? In the Western World, our religious systems are a lot better than they were 300-600 years ago when they burnt witches & ran the inquistiion.

 

[TruthSeeker]

Typical deist. Secretly wishing that all of us, who don't agree with you, burn for an eternity. If god does that, he is the complete opposite of what you claim he is, and I don't give a shit if I burn for all fucking eternity.

Hehe.... ironically that's exactly what constitutes a Christian.

 

[TruthSeeker]

laissez Faire Capitalism was a lot better than the system it replaced.

Do you mean the system that caused the great depression?

Do you know why we use the Keynesian model? It's because the government is able to decrease the variation between inflationary and deflationary periods by controlling the amount of money that is in the market (well, that's basically what they do).

 

[Michael]

My conscioussness ending, thats what.

70-80 years is not enough. I have too many things I want to do, too many people I want to know, too many places I want to see, too many discoveries that I want to be around to know about, too many more moments to share with my wife and kids.

Thats what.

Given the choice between it all ending in 30-odd years or being able to experience the wonder of existence for an indefinite time, I'll take the latter, thanks.

It would be nice and who knows maybe it will be possible in time to extend life. Or maybe this freezing the brain will work until something comes along.

But regardless, the way human long-term memory works… even if you were to live to be 5000 years old you will not retain any real memories from this time – including your wife and kids. Maybe none at all. The reason has to do with the way we store and retrieve information. We don’t work like a PC. Our brains are fluid. Fluid is just that – fluid. Each time you remember something you alter it. The more you remember it, the least likely it is to represent anything near the truth/original way you stored it. Go ahead – remember your wedding go through the whole day?

Yeah, well remember it again.

Now again.

I bet you think each of those memories were the same


So what’s the difference:
You, 5000 years from now with all new memories and with no recollection of the you, you are now.
OR
Your descendent, 5000 years from now with all their memories, obviously none of which being yours as you have now.

Either way it isn’t going to be YOU no matter what.

An agnostic is a cowardly atheist.

Actually one can be an agnostic theist. I’m an agnostic atheist. That is I lack a belief in God while acknowledging that I can not prove a negative.

God may very well be the self, but belief is by definition an image. To believe in something we must first form an image or model of it, otherwise it's just a word.

I’d even say ….otherwise it’s just a sound.

But to say God is self is not the meaning most Abrahamists give for the meaning of the word God. And if you’re going to say God = Self then why not just leave it at Self = Self and be done with it?

If I live peacefully and according to the normal rules of our American society but hold private convictions that include a God (that I may or may not share in public with you), what consequences are you speaking of? What actions of mine are you talking about? How do I share in the responsibility of what some fundamentalist nuts are doing? I don't. You cannot judge me by the actions of others, based on the fact that I share, say, 2% of their beliefs and you share 0%.

Well lets look at Abrahamists again.

I asked this once of a Muslim, and of course got no response. It is in reference to the question: Is there a problem with Islam?

(1)Do you think it is OK for a Muslim to convert from being a Muslim into becoming a Jew or Christian or Hindu or Buddhist or Atheist? If they felt a sense of peace would you support their conversion?

If the answer is YES I would support them and their choice - well then there maybe there is no problem with Islam.

If the answer is NO I would not support them and their choise - then there is a problem with Islam.

(2) Do you support allowing Jew or Christian or Hindu or Buddhist or Atheist to proselytize their beliefs and seek to convert likeminded Muslims in Saudi Arabia? To allow them to build Churches and Synagogues and Temples there?

If the answer is YES I would support them and those who choose a new path - then maybe there is no problem with Islam.

If the answer is NO I would not support them nor their chosen new path - then there maybe there is problem with Islam.

As you very well know, we can replace Islam with Xianity or Judaism and get to the same point.

You know, I would LOVE to have a group senior representatives from the major religions asked these questions. Then we can record for all of time the intrinsic bigotedness that resides in the Abrahamists.

It’s a short step to take that religious intolerance and close-mindedness and direct it to do violence and that is why Atheists dislike Theists and think they are sheep. And really, the same is true of other intolerant belief systems – Communism for example.

 

[Mosheh Thezion]

well, if consciousness ceases, then what the fuck is the point of hell as a deterrant for sin? why dont i just go out and rape and murder and pillage all i want if my posthumous unconscious electrostatic energy "soul" will be burnt up as heat and i'll never be able to feel it in any normal sense? thats the point. if that is hell, than life on earth is a fucking million times worse. toss your bible in the trash and do whatever you want if thats the case. and yeah if thats what happens, sure proves how tough god is huh?

LUCKILY for me... i am content to accept the clear possibility that i am wrong... and we might STILL BE AWAKE... SO TO SPEAK..

i gave blood once.. and i asked the guy across from me.. how long it takes.. and he said it would go faster if i pump my hand...

so like an idiot.. i pumped my hand.. and in about i think 10 seconds.. i passed out..

and i found myself flying at tremedous speed threw a tunnel.. and emerging into some form of yellowish glowing medium of somekind..
not a liquid.. and not a gas.. a solid.. which glowed.. and i was floating, and while i had arms and legs they were intangeble...
and i looked around and i thought.. 'gosh.. this is wierd, cause i know i was just sitting in a chair...'

so having nothing to look at, i tried to turn around and look at the tunnel i just came out of.. and i think i have a vague memory of a tiny dot.. receeding away...

and then.. bamm.. i was back in my body and the nurse was waving smelling salts in my face and asking my name...

if she was unattentive.. and let me pass out for 30 seconds.. i would have been dead..

then the guy across from me asked me what happened and what i saw...
he did that to me on purpose.. i now believe.

-MT

 

[Quigly]

It's a heavily biased statement. Many people do just that whether they are atheist, christian or lenny the leprechaun worshippers.

Kindly stop being a dick.

No more biased than saying that one who finds religion equates to a crack addict, but I will apologize as I didn't mean to upset you, that is why I said it isn't a blanket statement. I should have been better at phrasing it, but my point was that everyone has their emotional crutch.