Western Atheism shaped by Christianity

[thefountainhed]

For the sake as avoiding a lengthier post:

I think one can assume that ideological changes within a society can only stray so far from the main as the dynamics of that society allow it. Therefore, it would be highly unlikely for Confucianism for example, to have developed in Europe around the 17th century. It would be equally unlikely for western society of the present to shift to the communist ideology of Marx. What is more, any change or shift in ideology is indebted to the prevailing doctrine of the times.

The ideological shifts within Western society that eventually led to a major embrace of atheism can be chronicled and essentially traced. What can be found is that although the belief structure in that the existence of a God is a falsity differs from the main, which would be Christian mindset that a universal God does in fact exist, there isn’t much else different. In another way, although there is an ideological shift centered around one major point of contention, how different is the ideology from the main that would be the Christian belief system?

Clearly, since Atheism is not a structured doctrine that can be institutionalized, it is hard for morality and other accompanying ideological pretexts to develop around it. Thus, it is hard for atheists to develop their own ethical and moral codes, behavioral conducts, etc distinctly different from those that prevail in society. You therefore have two very separate ideologies in western atheism and Christianity, in that one believes in a supreme being whilst the other does not, but still two different ideologies on that one contentious point and nothing else. Western morality/viewpoint has been shaped and morphed through centuries of Christian indoctrination. Atheists and Christians share pretty much the same morality—that of the society within which they inhabit. The morality, viewpoint of Western thought is essentially Christianity-based. Even the concept and understanding of the God or “gods” is based upon Christian understanding of God. Thus, the argument for the nonexistence of a God has as its basis, the God as defined in the bible.

My point, there really isn’t much else to contend between the western atheists and theists o outside the issue of the existence or non-existence of a God. How many times can the same point be argued? How many times must both sides vehemently argue their point of view, as if one somehow has a trump card in the debate? How many more times before both sides realize that the driving force behind the desire and passion to argue on that contentious issue is pretty much the same?

 

[robtex]

My point, there really isn’t much else to contend between the western atheists and theists o outside the issue of the existence or non-existence of a God. How many times can the same point be argued? How many times must both sides vehemently argue their point of view, as if one somehow has a trump card in the debate? How many more times before both sides realize that the driving force behind the desire and passion to argue on that contentious issue is pretty much the same?

That is an excellent point but I wanted to speak about a few things I have gained doing this:

1) large amounts of knowledge through debate. When I go and reseach the sources provided....and most posters are good about doing this I find I learn a lot quicker about the arguements in question

2) ablity to see persepective of others differnent than me. Espically when the Muslims post. I only have one muslim (shite) friend and its nice to see their opinions in a diverse enviroment

3) Understanding to what others who have thougt it through, points are for various beliefs or lack of beliefs. Kinda a summary of arugmentents from a vary practiced group

4) Improved chance of religious tolerance based on information gained

5) abilty to test theories in my head against people who are not afraid to bite back.

I am only speaking for me and I don't know others motives.....

 

[Athelwulf]

Clearly, since Atheism is not a structured doctrine that can be institutionalized, it is hard for morality and other accompanying ideological pretexts to develop around it. Thus, it is hard for atheists to develop their own ethical and moral codes, behavioral conducts, etc distinctly different from those that prevail in society.

I myself am trying to break free from the mentality of the Christian West. I want to decide for myself what is immoral and what isn't. Sadly, I've been indoctrined already for the majority of my life, so have personal conflicts when I wanna believe something I've been taught was immoral is in fact okay.

Western morality/viewpoint has been shaped and morphed through centuries of Christian indoctrination. Atheists and Christians share pretty much the same morality—that of the society within which they inhabit. The morality, viewpoint of Western thought is essentially Christianity-based. Even the concept and understanding of the God or “gods” is based upon Christian understanding of God.

Sad, ain't it? It's especially hard to break free from the Western mentality when yer decision about something may majorly conflict what most people believe in personally.

 

[thefountainhed]

That is an excellent point but I wanted to speak about a few things I have gained doing this:

1) large amounts of knowledge through debate. When I go and reseach the sources provided....and most posters are good about doing this I find I learn a lot quicker about the arguements in question

But what exactly are you debating? Eventually when all things I stripped, both ideologies come to a single choice:God exists or he does not, and these viewpoints are governed by separate perspectives and values; they are beliefs. I think both sides ought to realize exactly how more they share in ideology.

2) ablity to see persepective of others differnent than me. Espically when the Muslims post. I only have one muslim (shite) friend and its nice to see their opinions in a diverse enviroment

If the nature is a discussion on their religion, then that is fine.

The overiding fact thought is that is seems that whenever a western atheist and a theist engage, both participants present their arguments as if one were attacking a wholly different doctrine. There is only one contentious issue-- the existence of a God. Any other idelogy as pertains to morality for instance is practically shared.

Sad, ain't it? It's especially hard to break free from the Western mentality when yer decision about something may majorly conflict what most people believe in personally.

Well I suppose that depends on how exactly you view it. Is it necessarily bad that your morality and worldview are predominantly shaped by a belief system you disagree with? heh.

The thing with atheism is that it is not a doctrine or ideolgy that can be structured. It cannot be ritualized and therefore cannot allow for a distinct moral standpoint or worldview that society will embrace as a whole. Thus, a dinstinct moral/value structure cannot emerge from atheism. An atheist is therefore left with what society has to offer him, the atheist in the west is left to what the Christian has to offer him. He does not stop to think why he values humility over pride for instance.

 

[SnakeLord]

Even the concept and understanding of the God or “gods” is based upon Christian understanding of God.

Which is actually based upon the jewish understanding of god. The christian god, (we're not talking jesus here who is clearly seen and debated about as a separate entity), is the jewish god.

So we could then say that western atheism was shaped by the jews..

But then.. the jewish god is based upon earlier Sumerian gods.

So we could then say that western atheism was shaped by the Sumerians.

Whatever god you debate about, it's still fictional.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

SnakeLord: The christian god, (we're not talking jesus here who is clearly seen and debated about as a separate entity), is the jewish god.
*************
M*W: I'm confused -- "Jesus is the Jewish god?" I don't believe the Jews saw Jesus as god. He definitely was Jewish, but a Rabbi.
*************
SnakeLord: So we could then say that western atheism was shaped by the jews.. But then.. the jewish god is based upon earlier Sumerian gods.
*************
M*W: I would say that western atheism was shaped by the Christians. Yes, the Jewish god was based upon earlier Sumerian gods. I would also say that the Egyptians probably had more or at least the same amount of influence as the Sumerian gods. It was the baby Aminadab in the basket on the Nile also called Pharaoh Amenhotep IV later also called King Akhenaten familiarly called Tuthmosis by his immediate family and nicknamed Moses during the Exodus. It was Moses who had the idea of one god which he called Aten (as in his chosen name Akhen-aten). Aten then became known as the one god of the Hebrews. I believe they called him Adonai. Problem here is, Moses thought he was Aten, and he wanted everyone to worship him as god. This is what led the Hebrews into the idea of monotheism -- the YHWH, the breathy sound of eee-aah-whaaa or the I AM.
*************
SnakeLord: So we could then say that western atheism was shaped by the Sumerians. Whatever god you debate about, it's still fictional.
*************
M*W: There were earlier civilizations before the Sumerians. They were a matrilineal society. They worshipped nature and the elements and each other. This was long before the male gods of the Sumerians, Babylonians, Mesopotamians, Egyptians and Hebrews rose to power. But you are right. "Whatever god you debate about, it's still fictional."

In summary, you posted a very good subject, but I believe that Christianity is the progenitor of western atheism.

 

[SnakeLord]

M*W: I'm confused -- "Jesus is the Jewish god?" I don't believe the Jews saw Jesus as god. He definitely was Jewish, but a Rabbi.

No. It's why I said {we're not talking about jesus here yada yada}. I was referring to the actual bible god, (yhwh).

Now, I know modern day christians will very often say that the OT isn't that important, but it is what society clings more to. The story of Noah, Adam and Eve, Joseph and his dreamcoat etc etc.

Sure, come christmas some people bring up jesus' name *start sarcasm* and for some bizarre reason put norwegian trees in their homes *end sarcasm*, but in general the religious aspects that are taught to the young in the west are predominantly old testament.

It is only later that people start waffling on about jesus - but by then the image of god has been established - and it is the god of the jews that people envision. One powerful god being, as opposed to a skinny, pale skinned martyr.

M*W: I would say that western atheism was shaped by the Christians.

I would say it was shaped by the individuals brain and the progression of science. In a time when people needed answers - but couldn't find any, god was a suitable excuse. Look at the ten plagues for example. A tragedy occurs and god is the only conceivable answer. But then, as science has progressed mankind has had the ability to look at truth vs wishes. For example look at the bubonic plague. It required no sinners, no angel raping, no killing of a particular races children. All it took was germs. So much for god, he's out the window and long forgotten as far as reality is concerned. All that's left are a bunch of lonely souls practicing closet worship.

Sure, a christian would love to pretend it's "his kind" that have taught the rest of us morality, but even frogs have morality in the context that christians perceive it. Frogs don't just go around slaughtering other frogs, or do anything that is out of the ordinary for their nature.

We are one of those kinds of species that works better as a group. Sure, there will be moments of violence etc, just like with a pack of wolves. They're a unified group, but occasionally they'll attack each other.

It requires no gods, bibles or christians for humans to be human, anymore than it requires a giant invisible frog to teach a frog how to be a frog.

Aside from the occasional "fucking hell", "god damnit", and "jesus fucking christ" - I see very little christian impact - especially to atheism.

We merely exist because others say there's this invisible sky guy that nobody can see, and we do not concur. We're here because science provides reality whereas religion provides nothing except an invisible shoulder to cry on.

This is what shapes atheism.. the arrival of a better answer.

I would also say that the Egyptians probably had more or at least the same amount of influence as the Sumerian gods.

It's unlikely. The Sumerians are the first known writing race of people, and most definitely the early parts of the OT stem from their stories..

As we've spoken about before, it looks very much as if Moses is based upon the story of Sargon which would be in keeping as man moved further inland.

If you look at a map, you'll see Sumeria at the bottom of Iraq. As you then move north you come to Babylon, Akkadia, and so on.

Undoubtedly the stories would travel with the travellers. In the OT not only does it put the garden of eden in Sumeria, but we also see that Abraham was Sumerian. As he moved north he would have taken stories he heard with him and spread them among different cultures.

I suppose however, that the Egyptians certainly would have had some impact if the jews were in slavery for an extended period of time. - but it's certainly harder to see nowadays. For instance, some of the Israeli months are named after Sumerian gods, (tammuz etc), showing how long a cultures influence lasts. There seems to be very little egyptian influence within jewish traditions, and pretty much the only time they're mentioned are as enemies.

There were earlier civilizations before the Sumerians.

Yeah, but the Sumerians are currently credited with being the oldest writing civilisation. (the oldest current work being the Epic of Gilgamesh)

The general picture is:

Early village settlements, Samarra culture, Halaf culture, Ubaid culture, Gawra culture, (about 4,000 - 8,000 B.C.E. "BCE")
Uruk culture (3,000 - 4,000 BCE), late prehistoric period (2,750 - 3,300 BCE), Early Dynastic II - II periods (2,334 - 2,750 BCE)
Akkadian Dynasty (2,154 - 2,334 BCE) including Sargon (2,279 - 2,334 BCE)
Rulers of Lagash & Uruk, Third Dynasty of Ur, First Dynasty of Isin, Larsa Dynasty (1,763 - 2,155 BCE)
First Dynasty of Babylon (1,595 - 1,894 BCE)

This was long before the male gods of the Sumerians, Babylonians, Mesopotamians, Egyptians and Hebrews rose to power

Although they did have male gods, the chief head honcho boss god was a female, (Tiamat). It sounds so much nicer when you look at god as a woman. All through existence there is one general rule: The woman brings the kids into the world. (exception being the seahorse).

 

[Medicine*Woman]

SnakeLord: It requires no gods, bibles or christians for humans to be human, anymore than it requires a giant invisible frog to teach a frog how to be a frog.
*************
M*W: I love it!
*************
SnakeLord: Aside from the occasional "fucking hell", "god damnit", and "jesus fucking christ" - I see very little christian impact - especially to atheism.
*************
M*W: I just realized the importance of Jesus!
*************
SnakeLord: The Sumerians are the first known writing race of people, and most definitely the early parts of the OT stem from their stories..
*************
M*W: Yes, this is correct. The earlier matrilineal civilization had cave wall paintings (in menstrual blood) and clay dolls of voluptuous women giving birth, and other artifacts like the menstrual stick (a mammoth's tusk carved into a round ruler-like object with 13 notches on it for the lunar calendar, but what I think it is is a menstrual calendar, perhaps used when they realized they had 10 lunar months of gestation. Just an idea.

I believe if we research further into the influence of the Sumerians, Babylonians, Egyptians, etc., we will find, like you said, one culture influences another due to the travelers. The question is, which culture was the right one, the true one, the first one, the only one, etc., etc., etc.? The answer is none of them. When one goes back far enough in the search for one's god or gods, one would realize that there is really no god. Then, the whole responsibility for one's life falls right where it should -- within one's own humanity. That was then -- the mental advancement of the caveman. This is now -- advanced technology of cavemen evolved. Caveman needed to be protected from the elements, so caveman created the idea of a great protector. Cavemen evolved have conquered the elements and greater worlds beyond. The need for an invisible protector today has gone with the wind. Those who still need this invisible protector who demands love and worship have no identity or respect of the self or others. When one goes looking for god, they may find god and lose themselves. When one goes looking for oneself, they may find god.

 

[water]

Clearly, since Atheism is not a structured doctrine that can be institutionalized, it is hard for morality and other accompanying ideological pretexts to develop around it. Thus, it is hard for atheists to develop their own ethical and moral codes, behavioral conducts, etc distinctly different from those that prevail in society.

And this is why a society cannot be *organized* by atheists, as they insist on a relativity of morals. Consequent moral relativism excludes the existence of any jurisdictive institutions, and thus we cannot organize a society by these rules.

Atheism is possible only in a world where no crime happens.

Even the concept and understanding of the God or “gods” is based upon Christian understanding of God. Thus, the argument for the nonexistence of a God has as its basis, the God as defined in the bible.

I am always baffled at the answer an atheist gives when asked to define the God he lacks belief in. They usually don't have a definition of God, so it perplexes me how one can positively state that one lacks belief in something that he cannot define anyway, yet at the same time claims how theists are wrong in their belief.


Also, does anyone know of atheists in India who define themselves as lacking belief in Hindu gods?
Or has anyone heard of Greek atheists in ancient Greece who lacked belief in Zeus and other gods?

Somehow, it seems that there aren't any, really. Or they are quiet. I wonder why.

My point, there really isn’t much else to contend between the western atheists and theists o outside the issue of the existence or non-existence of a God. How many times can the same point be argued? How many times must both sides vehemently argue their point of view, as if one somehow has a trump card in the debate? How many more times before both sides realize that the driving force behind the desire and passion to argue on that contentious issue is pretty much the same?

The ongoing fighting is signifying that something else is the reason for these fights.

I think it is just the good old *hate* that is at work, yet few have the guts to call it by its name. So they make up rationalizations and intellectualizations of why Christianity is wrong and illogical and irrational and whatnot.

The real reason for not believing in the Christian God is simply that one hates God or Christianity or the history of that religion. Or that one has a deep personal resentment against it, often steming from being abused by people who have called themselves Christians.

There really are *no rational* arguments against a religion.

Just like one prefers apples over oranges, the same way one prefers atheism over Christianity.

The same as there are *no rational* arguments why apples are better than oranges, the same there are *no rational* arguments why Christianity is worse than atheism or vice versa.

It's a matter of values and preferences, and they don't come with rational reasons.
It is a mean folly trying to argument preferences with rational reasons.

I yet have to meet an atheist who will say just that he is an atheist because he simply dislikes or hates Christianity, and give me no "rational reasons" for his atheism.

The thing with atheism is that it is not a doctrine or ideolgy that can be structured. It cannot be ritualized and therefore cannot allow for a distinct moral standpoint or worldview that society will embrace as a whole. Thus, a dinstinct moral/value structure cannot emerge from atheism. An atheist is therefore left with what society has to offer him, the atheist in the west is left to what the Christian has to offer him. He does not stop to think why he values humility over pride for instance.

Atheism as such is morally bankrupt.
And in its premises it is just as absolutistic as any religion or belief system.

***

I myself am trying to break free from the mentality of the Christian West. I want to decide for myself what is immoral and what isn't. Sadly, I've been indoctrined already for the majority of my life, so have personal conflicts when I wanna believe something I've been taught was immoral is in fact okay.

We cannot but grow up in *some* society. And whatever society one grows up in, one is always influenced and shaped by it, there is no other way; one may, at some point in life, certainly feel "brainwashed".
We could not be raised in a value-neutral environment, for there is no such thing.

So one might just as well *not complain* about being "brainwashed", and actually do something on one's own.

 

[SnakeLord]

The real reason for not believing in the Christian God is simply that one hates God or Christianity or the history of that religion. Or that one has a deep personal resentment against it, often steming from being abused by people who have called themselves Christians.

All due respect, but that is complete and total tripe. It's like saying:

"The real reason for not believing in leprechauns is simply that one hates Irish people".

It's not about hating anybody, but about having no reason to believe in something that quite clearly does not exist.

I hope this helps you ammend your obvious error.

 

[water]

It's not about hating anybody, but about having no reason to believe in something that quite clearly does not exist.

Define God, so that I will know what it is that you claim that doesn't exist.
If you claim the non-existence of something, then you must have a definition for it, so that it is clear the non-existence of *what* you are talking about.

 

[SnakeLord]

Define God, so that I will know what it is that you claim that doesn't exist.
If you claim the non-existence of something, then you must have a definition for it, so that it is clear the non-existence of *what* you are talking about.

Define a leprechaun, other than saying they're small, Irish and hide pots of gold at the end of rainbows. That definition will undoubtedly vary from person to person, but it leaves no more room to believe any of them, regardless of personal definitions.

There can be a million definitions of a 'god', and I see no evidence or reason to believe any of them. From the mortal, snake looking tiamat, to a skinny jew who committed temporary suicide. I could say anything considered omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, any external entity people claimed created life on this planet - be they gods, aliens or swirling hedgehogs, or any deity written about by knowledgeless nitwits several thousand years ago.

We could take a brief look at the dictionary definition:

"A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions."

No evidence or reason to believe in that.

"A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality."

No evidence or reason to believe in that either.

Might I ask what your definition is? By the same token, you must have a definition, otherwise what are you believing in?

You know, most would think thousands of years would be sufficient time in which to back up a claim, but no.. people have spouted their 'god' garbage for millennia, and still to this very day fail to produce so much as one iota of credible evidence to support the claim that they make. Sure, they try.. They waffle on until the non-believer squashes their explanations, by which time the religious person then says the hysterical and classic "you need to have faith".

As the good man Mark Twain once said: "faith is believing what you know aint so".

I know it, you know it, we all know it.

 

[water]

Define a leprechaun, other than saying they're small, Irish and hide pots of gold at the end of rainbows. That definition will undoubtedly vary from person to person, but it leaves no more room to believe any of them, regardless of personal definitions.

There is a phenomenological difference between a god on the one hand, and a leprechaun, or the better-known and proverbial pink elephant on the other hand.
Pink elephants are something that we don't think that our lives depend on, but it is reasonable to think that our lives do depend on something, some principle. And as such, this principle can be inferred, and has traditionally been *called* "God".

We must keep in mind that several millenia back, they didn't have fancy terms like "universal principle", "holistic causality", "objective reality" -- but this doesn't mean that the "simpler" terms they were using in their scriptures necessarily collide with those newer terms, or that there is a mutually exclusivity between the old terms and the new terms.

The definition of a god is usually *about* the "utmost, the highest principle in the Universe, the most important thing in all creation; an overarching organizational principle dependent on an unprovable assertion of the nature of ultimate reality" (as Tiassa once put it).
Such a principle is indeed conceivable and should be taken into consideration, for it would be shortsighted to claim that humans have absolute knowledge of objective reality and that each human is his own first and last cause.

There can be a million definitions of a 'god', and I see no evidence or reason to believe any of them.

In this case, I would like to know
1. Why do you think that some do believe in God?
2. Why would you believe in God, if you would?

From the mortal, snake looking tiamat, to a skinny jew who committed temporary suicide. I could say anything considered omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, any external entity people claimed created life on this planet - be they gods, aliens or swirling hedgehogs, or any deity written about by knowledgeless nitwits several thousand years ago.

Do note that by future generations, we may as well be regarded as "knowledgeless nitwits". We even tend to consider the generation of our grandparents to "not have a clue", and they aren't that far away from us in time.
One should not boast with one's achievements.

"A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions."

No evidence or reason to believe in that.

How so? Do you not believe that monotheistic religions consider God to be the principal object of worship and faith? As far as I know, they do.

All that that definition implies is that if you're not of a monotheistic religion, you don't believe in (that kind of) God.

I really see no problem. If one doesn't speak Chinese, then why should one think it is stupid? -- If one doesn't believe in God, then why should one think it is irrational to believe?

It is only within our own belief system that we can determine some things as rational or irrational, but we cannot make such claims about other belief systems -- unless all the carriers of these belief systems agree to some common standard.

If we do make such claims about other beliefs without there being a common standard, then we are *imposing* our own standards, making an argument of power, and we should be aware of that.

"A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality."

No evidence or reason to believe in that either.

The same as above: Do you not believe that a people believe in and worship God?
As far as I know, they do.

Might I ask what your definition is? By the same token, you must have a definition, otherwise what are you believing in?

I don't have a "definition", as I think it would be a betrayal.
I firmly believe that faith is something to act on, there isn't much to talk about.

You know, most would think thousands of years would be sufficient time in which to back up a claim, but no.. people have spouted their 'god' garbage for millennia, and still to this very day fail to produce so much as one iota of credible evidence to support the claim that they make. Sure, they try.. They waffle on until the non-believer squashes their explanations, by which time the religious person then says the hysterical and classic "you need to have faith".

You are judging them with your own standards, while there seems to be no mutual agreement of a standard that you both would be ascribing to. Hence, you are trying to make an argument of power.

As the good man Mark Twain once said: "faith is believing what you know aint so".
I know it, you know it, we all know it.

Okay, I'll give you a practical example:

Say that I would have a crush on you. (No offense or hint, I am just trying to bring my point across as saliently as possible. ) I see that you're not interested in me right now, you haven't noticed me yet, but I've been watching you from far for quite some time, and I think that you are really really great and everything, and I would like to make you mine. I would like you to love me, but right now I know it ain't so, right now I know that you don't love me. But, since I have a crush on you, I will do everything in my power to make you feel the same way for me, I believe that I could be interesting to you -- so I make the first step.

Would you call such a usual scenario irrational? It sure is about believing in something you know it ain't so, but we act on such scenarios every day.
We act on some faith all the time, or we wouldn't be able to do anything.

 

[I Am F_AQ2]

Originally posted by: RosaMagika
And this is why a society cannot be *organized* by atheists, as they insist on a relativity of morals. Consequent moral relativism excludes the existence of any jurisdictive institutions, and thus we cannot organize a society by these rules.

That is not true. Morality is subjective but that is by no means saying that it is nonexistent. An atheist society would have to come to a general consensus as to what they believed to be moral and that would be the basis of law. From there it would change and adapt to each new generation. Alas this happens anyway in all societies. It was moral for others to actually own black American in the past yet we have moved on and our law has changed to fit our new morals, that all people should be free. Granted this is a slower and more painful process then simply saying that your morality is absolute and killing everyone that does not convert to your moralistic system.

Originally posted by: RosaMagika
I am always baffled at the answer an atheist gives when asked to define the God he lacks belief in.

Really? Well then, I believe in the great akjfkjahakljdhfla, why don’t you? What you don’t know what the great akjfkjahakljdhfla is!!!! Then you MUST believe in it since you cant possibly disbelieve something you cant define.

Originally posted by: RosaMagika
Also, does anyone know of atheists in India who define themselves as lacking belief in Hindu gods?

Well, I guess you’d have to go to India to find them. Have you looked for atheists in India? If you haven’t then NO SHIT you haven’t heard any atheist say that because why would they? That is not the system of belief that you have presented.

Here it goes, I am an atheist that lacks a belief in Hindu gods. You do not seem to understand what atheism is. I am not an atheist because I do not believe in your god, I am an atheist because I do not have a belief in any god at all.

Originally posted by: RosaMagika
Or has anyone heard of Greek atheists in ancient Greece who lacked belief in Zeus and other gods?

Well, I think you have actually missed in the grater point here. First you claim that atheists cannot organize a society because of the lack in any specific morality but the ancient societies like Greece had religions that were just that, lacking any specific morals. The gods were not always kind, did not always act with justice or righteousness. They were very fickle and could decide to wipe your village out for no other reason than boredom. In the tail of Gilgamesh, the entire world was flooded in attempt to kill of ALL humans because the world was to noisy! Obviously a lack of a higher morality does not preclude civilization.

Besides, there were no atheist in Greece because there was evidence of the gods; lightning, earthquakes, flood, famine. The list goes on. It was not until the coming of science did we begin to understand the myth and accept fact.

Back to the topic at hand.
I do see your point but that does not mean that atheists do not also have direct morality differences from theists. This is due to the fact that, as an atheist, you are required to look at those morals that you hold dear and evaluate them constantly. This causes changes and adaptation whist the theist already has the perfect moral set and so does not need to know why something is wrong, just that it is. Instances may include gay marriages/adoption, teaching methods, scientific research (such as stem cell research), abortion ect. Most of the opponents of these are religious people using religious ethics while the other side is moving away from that. Note that I did not say all since there are some people that do not fit this description. It is an atheists duty to rework what a religious society has nailed into head and come up with a better more practical moralistic system.

 

[I Am F_AQ2]

WOW, 3 posts before I even get my first one out. Didn’t get a chance to respond to those last few.

Originally posted by: RosaMagika
Do note that by future generations, we may as well be regarded as "knowledgeless nitwits".

Nay, I assert that we WILL and ARE knowledgeless nitwits in the grand scheme of things. Our future generations will have much more understanding of nature then we do and much more knowledge but that does not change the fact that those that preceded us 2000 years ago are clueless and ignorant of the wonders we now know about today.

Originally posted by: RosaMagika
I really see no problem. If one doesn't speak Chinese, then why should one think it is stupid? -- If one doesn't believe in God, then why should one think it is irrational to believe?

It is not all that hard to see people speak Chinese and know that it is nether stupid or irrational but it is quite clear that belief in a god that has no evidence and base your entire life around it is irrational. How can you call a schizophrenics ideas crazy if you do not believe them yourself? Easy, logic! It also stems that one that believes is the least qualified to judge if their belief is irrational. They are not objective.

I fail to see how your example ties into a belief in god. You assert that you can believe in the possibility of something happening even though it is not true yet hence you take the first move. That however requires you making it true. You will need to work your charm to sway her/him into loving you. You cant be saying that your belief in god will cause his existence! Not to mention that when your are turned away repeatedly by the person you are pursuing then your behavior becomes irrational, just as the fact that god has chosen to leave zero empirical evidence making your continued belief irrational.

However this is still off topic

 

[duendy]

as i glanced over this thread, my eyes latched on ((snakelord's))) mention of GODDESS...alelula!...how many time have i read religious people and athiests debate over such maters and all one reads is "God" this "God" that "He" this "He" that.......when i follow debates of this nature i am very aware of the unacknowledged presence of this "he-God" premise.....Usually if one then mentioned GODDESS one is met with 'there is no evidence' bla bla...they all become scientists all of a sudden

Well if you a 'he' you must have a 'she'...and it's the emphasis on 'he' that's the problem

someone also aksed to 'define God?'....and a definition was offerd all about 'omnipresence' 'worship' etc

well. if we go far far back to the earth religion--for example Dionysos, we find that 'god' was to be DIRECTLY experienced.......That the celebrants who drank the sacrament were 'possessed' by the god-man, who was "ever living ever dying ever regenerating god-man"...ie., s/he is YOU, and Nature!........the trouble began when this Direct experience was deified as A 'God'--a 'pure god"....and as the ritual of direct experience became prohibited we werer just left with empty symbols, dogma, and a 'God' 'up there' and 'in the 'bad' body' to be worshipped TO. do you see the crucial difference here?

this 'God. becomes in other words abstractted out of real experience. and this abstraction can get even more refined, such as with the Eastern version of the "One" vs the "Many", the former indoctrinated to be the highest principle we must stgrive for. then you get 'karma' and the whole nonesense of hierarchy--which includes corruption. because then it's believed therer are spiritually advanced people of high birth!

 

[SnakeLord]

There is a phenomenological difference between a god on the one hand and a
leprechaun, or the better-known and proverbial pink elephant on the other hand.

I beg to differ. The only reason you say that is because you personally believe in one with no evidence, yet completely dismiss the other due to lack of evidence. Your next statement is quite common, but is based upon personal opinion. Let's take a look at it:

Pink elephants are something that we don't think that our lives depend on

This has no worth at all. You're trying to say something exists because of your personal 'needs'.

Hey, who needs a pink elephant? Nobody, as such they're non-existant.. but wait... I need there to be a heaven because I'm going to die and rot, so thus god must be real..

It's borderline lunacy.

You can't dismiss, or accept existence of something because of your specific "needs" in life.

but it is reasonable to think that our lives do depend on something, some principle.

In some ways I would agree, and I'll tell you exactly what we depend on..

The sun

Without it we wouldn't be here, it's that simple.

The sun is a lot more groovy though. It doesn't ask for sacrifice or worship, it doesn't hide in the shadows like a thief in the night. It presents itself boldly, and each and every one of us since mankinds time began, is aware that it is the sun that gives us life, the sun that provides our food, our warmth. It allows us to thrive and to sit here doing what we're doing.

While people look for faces in the clouds - giving them hairstyles, sexes, attitudes, names etc... while singing stupid songs, kissing the feet of statues and condemning everyone who thinks opposing thoughts, the sun just sits there quiet, ensuring that our lives can continue.

You see how easy it is, especially using the written word, to make something like the sun seem almost human, seem like it has a personality? This is why people envision gods. They don't understand that things don't need to be intelligent, don't need to have a life of their own, in order to provide us with ours.

And as such, this principle can be inferred, and has traditionally been *called*
"God"

Of course, people like to put a personality to things - hell, people even give their cars names. They refer to inanimate objects as "she", see a face in the cracks on walls, or in their ice cream tub, or in a bowl of soup. They create a billion non-existant entities to try and make life seem like it has more than actually does - to make it seem as if they can find something new, something nobody else knows or has - from vampires and mothmen, to leprechauns, bigfoot, the loch ness monster, aliens and so on.

We instill all of this into our children from birth, assuring them that this world of fantasy has credibility. We tell them about santa claus, the easter bunny, the tooth fairy and the bogeyman because everything needs a "face". We can't just say christmas is a time when we buy presents for each other because we love each other - no, we need to put an imaginary persona behind it all - because, as you have shown, that is what we "need"

Of course a young child wont argue the case, and would never even have reason to doubt the honesty of his/her parents. god is one small step from there - but is the main fantasy that can be carried beyond puberty. It doesn't make it anymore real than santa, it's just your priorities change as you age. It's no longer about cartoons and candy, but about mortality, depression and conformity.

Such a principle is indeed conceivable and should be taken into consideration

To you it very well might be, it's what you 'need'. Personally I'm happy to just wait for someone to provide one tiny iota of evidence to support any such claims.

The way it looks is that all you're doing is trying to apply personality to "sun", "universe" etc while using the word 'god'. You're drawing a little smiley face on the sun, giving it a voice and then bowing down because you're not worthy.

1. Why do you think that some do believe in God?

Reasons differ from person to person. Loneliness, security, fear and so on are all pertinent reasons. Teaching is also another reason. We tell our kids so and so is true, and they just grow up trusting you - because after all, would their own parents lie to them? And if so, what does that say about everyone else?

You'll find most people will turn religious, (be "born again"), after a very near death
experience. They'll be chronically depressed and on the verge of suicide etc. Basically right at the bottom of the barrel - one small step from oblivion. At this stage, the brain has to provide comfort, and seemingly it works very well.

You'll probably have heard the saying that just before you get smacked by a bus or whatever, your "life flashes before your eyes". It doesn't imply that there's a little "life goblin", bringing back past memories - but shows that the brain is making your passing that little bit easier. How would you rather 'go out'? envisioning your loved ones or being fully aware of your battered, bloody body strewn across the road?

The brain is remarkable - and requires absolutely no outside space being.

Your brain will do what's best for itself, and when you're on the verge of caving in, the 'god' excuse is a good one. You end up with your very own friend, who not only can you relate to - but that whom you can fall deeply in love with. We all know "love blinds us", and that's the whole point of it.

Other than that we can simply look at your very own words.. It's what people "need". It's always about need.. and in the case of "need", reality is not a requirement.

If I really needed aliens to exist, I can guarantee you I'd see a UFO every single night of the week. The brain would also know that nobody else can see what I can see, and so it invents the whole "you need faith" excuse.

2. Why would you believe in God, if you would?

I wouldn't. The only way would be if he came and sat down in front of everyone and said "hi". The simple fact is that "visions", "dreams", and "voices in the head" cannot be considered credible for anything other than self-mental issues. Don't think I'm singling him out - the same would be true for aliens, frogmen from mars and el chupacabra.

But what I don't understand is why those of you who supposedly "know" god exists, keep using the word "believe".

I know my daughter exists. I don't have faith she exists, and I don't believe she exists. I know she exists.

It's the first and foremost giveaway to the absolute fraud people are committing, to themselves.

How many people do you know that walk round saying "I believe in gravity"? It's just not something that is done when you know something is true.

Period.

All that leads us to conclude is that nobody "knows", but are simply saying yes based upon what they "need".

Do note that by future generations, we may as well be regarded as "knowledgeless nitwits".

But then we could just say that future generations would have just got rid of the 'god-concept' altogether - instead relying solely on what is real and existant to guide their lives, as opposed to our simplistic methods of clinging onto false hopes and golden cities in the sky.

However, these people really were knowledgeless nitwits.

Now you are even willing to consider us as knowledgeless nitwits in comparison to future generations, so then why would you believe so much as one word said by someone several millennia ago? Why would you believe they knew more than you do? Forget that, why would you believe they even knew a 100th of what you do? Let's say people 1000 years from now discover that something we currently understand is false. They wouldn't put our science books in hotel rooms, they'd just agree the data is flawed and put it in a museum.

What people are doing right now, is taking the most outdated and flawed science book known to man, and considering it true over modern day science books. That's utter stupidity.

And yet there's millions of people regarding these ancient mental deficients as more knowledgeable than modern day man.

Drop the bible, pick up a science book.

We even tend to consider the generation of our grandparents to "not have a clue", and they aren't that far away from us in time.

Sure, and if your grandparents don't have a clue, what chance do people from several thousand years ago have?

None.

How so? Do you not believe that monotheistic religions consider God to be the principal object of worship and faith? As far as I know, they do.

I posted the entire definition out of courtesy, but you're well aware of what I was referring to, and your attempts to ignore it are simply silly. Look at the bit you didn't put in bold heh..

"A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the
universe"

I really see no problem. If one doesn't speak Chinese, then why should one think it is stupid? -- If one doesn't believe in God, then why should one think it is irrational to believe?

If you don't see the difference, you're beyond help.

If we do make such claims about other beliefs without there being a common standard, then we are *imposing* our own standards, making an argument of power, and we should be aware of that.

No no, you're getting it all twisted and muddled. Someone makes the claim - we simply ask for one speck of evidence - and nobody has ever ever managed to do that. So why make the claims?

Surely even you must understand this? If I said there was a leprechaun in my garden you'd ask for evidence. You wouldn't just believe it.

People don't say "there isn't", before someone says "there is". We can only be classified as "atheists" because there are theists.

The same as above: Do you not believe that a people believe in and worship God?As far as I know, they do.

And again you've decided to lower yourself to simple silliness. Look at the part you "forgot" to put in bold..

"A being of supernatural powers or attributes"

Hope you finally understand.

I don't have a "definition", as I think it would be a betrayal.

And so you don't actually believe in anything.

You are judging them with your own standards, while there seems to be no mutual agreement of a standard that you both would be ascribing to. Hence, you are trying to make an argument of power.

Look, people can believe whatever they want to. My sister believes in fairies, and while the majority would call her delusional, her belief does not differ from yours, the 'face' is just different.

The point is that when you say something does exist, you need to provide something of sustenance if you ever intend for anyone else to support it. You get these religious folk knocking on your door thinking that their say so, and the testimony of ancient nitwits, is sufficient. That's quite simply ignorant and rude.

Life is not like that- and the more people feel they can just claim anything is 'reality' - the more crazy shit gets. From flying planes into buildings, or chopping peoples heads off to stoning your children to death because a voice told you to. Of course, another religious man would claim them insane or simply wrong - but that in itself just shows how "knowledgless" the whole god issue is. Everyone is adamant that their specific version is correct and everyone else is hell-doomed, but all it 'really' requires is some evidence, some proof and the issue would be settled. Faith does not work here - because it is that faith that is getting humanity annihilated. It is faith that causes all the anger, all the sorrow, all the intolerance.

People don't sit down and fight over gravity. They don't bomb each other because their version of gravity differs. It is only when you add faith into the equation, that people start dying.

If you have something to claim, have something to back it up with. If not, don't make the claim- and don't try and force it upon others. Don't try and assume that your freakish little beliefs apply to everyone, because they don't.

Say that I would have a crush on you. (No offense or hint, I am just trying to bring my point across as saliently as possible. ) I see that you're not interested in me right now, you haven't noticed me yet, but I've been watching you from far for quite some time, and I think that you are really really great and everything, and I would like to make you mine. I would like you to love me, but right now I know it ain't so, right now I know that you don't love me. But, since I have a crush on you, I will do everything in my power to make you feel the same way for me, I believe that I could be interesting to you -- so I make the first step.

Would you call such a usual scenario irrational? It sure is about believing in something you know it ain't so, but we act on such scenarios every day.
We act on some faith all the time, or we wouldn't be able to do anything.

Right, and this is what leads to neurosis and certain "mental ailments" that do not actually help - but cause more harm than good. You know there are people who develop such 'crushes' etc where they become obsessive, (as can be seen around this forum). There are delusions where the person truly believes that the one they admire actually loves them - without viewing the evidence that would clearly show the contrary.

There are people that really believe they're fat, when they're not - and end up at the extremes either binge eating, or starving themselves.. or men who believe they have a 'small thing' - and end up flashing their parts as often as possible because they seek some kind of acceptance.

It is when we believe something purely on faith, that we are always wrong and always end up causing more harm and upset.

The open mind wont take the faith answer - because it is clearly corrupt. Instead they will analyse the data and end up with a "real" answer.

So, you have a crush on me, and as you said you're aware I don't share the feeling. Does that stop you? Does that make you "give up" the crush and move on? Of course not.. You continue along with your self produced "wishes" and needs - never actually realising the futility of it, and never acknowledging the facts.

That might seem sad, but after all - We are not perfect by any means.

Once again, as the great Mark Twain said: "Faith is believing what you know aint so".

Let's go right back to the beginning of your post.. It's simply what we "need".

 

[water]

That is not true. Morality is subjective but that is by no means saying that it is nonexistent. An atheist society would have to come to a general consensus as to what they believed to be moral and that would be the basis of law.

"Would have to" is a no-no if you wish to keep things subjective and relative.

Really? Well then, I believe in the great akjfkjahakljdhfla, why don’t you? What you don’t know what the great akjfkjahakljdhfla is!!!! Then you MUST believe in it since you cant possibly disbelieve something you cant define.

Don't put words into my mouth.
If you can't define something, you don't believe in it, sure. But what is the point of going around, telling that you don't believe in something you can't define?

Well, I guess you’d have to go to India to find them. Have you looked for atheists in India? If you haven’t then NO SHIT you haven’t heard any atheist say that because why would they? That is not the system of belief that you have presented.

I regards to the thread topic, it is the atheists that don't believe in the Christian God that are *loudest*. Those who don't believe in, say, Hindu gods, don't talk much about their atheism. Ever wondered why this is so?

Well, I think you have actually missed in the grater point here. First you claim that atheists cannot organize a society because of the lack in any specific morality but the ancient societies like Greece had religions that were just that, lacking any specific morals. The gods were not always kind, did not always act with justice or righteousness. They were very fickle and could decide to wipe your village out for no other reason than boredom. In the tail of Gilgamesh, the entire world was flooded in attempt to kill of ALL humans because the world was to noisy! Obviously a lack of a higher morality does not preclude civilization.

Besides, there were no atheist in Greece because there was evidence of the gods; lightning, earthquakes, flood, famine. The list goes on. It was not until the coming of science did we begin to understand the myth and accept fact.

Hm?

I do see your point but that does not mean that atheists do not also have direct morality differences from theists. This is due to the fact that, as an atheist, you are required to look at those morals that you hold dear and evaluate them constantly. This causes changes and adaptation whist the theist already has the perfect moral set and so does not need to know why something is wrong, just that it is. Instances may include gay marriages/adoption, teaching methods, scientific research (such as stem cell research), abortion ect. Most of the opponents of these are religious people using religious ethics while the other side is moving away from that. Note that I did not say all since there are some people that do not fit this description. It is an atheists duty to rework what a religious society has nailed into head and come up with a better more practical moralistic system.

You generalize terribly.

For example, there are nervous and frustrated non-religious people, as well as nervous and frustrated religious people.
There are also shiny happy non-religious people, as well as shiny happy religious people.
There are power-hungry religious poeple, and there are power-hungry non-religious people.

What makes the difference is that some religious people use their belief to live out their personal frustrations and deisres, or that they say it is their religious belief that makes them happy -- and that without their religion, they would be unhappy.

But this really has *nothing* to do with religion itself -- it is about personal psychology.

Nay, I assert that we WILL and ARE knowledgeless nitwits in the grand scheme of things. Our future generations will have much more understanding of nature then we do and much more knowledge but that does not change the fact that those that preceded us 2000 years ago are clueless and ignorant of the wonders we now know about today.

So you, a future clueless, is calling another one clueless ...

It is not all that hard to see people speak Chinese and know that it is nether stupid or irrational but it is quite clear that belief in a god that has no evidence and base your entire life around it is irrational. How can you call a schizophrenics ideas crazy if you do not believe them yourself? Easy, logic! It also stems that one that believes is the least qualified to judge if their belief is irrational. They are not objective.

You are the one saying how "Morality is subjective" -- and now you dare accuse others of not being objective?!

I fail to see how your example ties into a belief in god.

It ties into the belief in God inasmuch as both require acting on some faith.
Before I make my first step in approaching my crush, I do not know how things will turn out, I only hope they will turn out for the best.

You assert that you can believe in the possibility of something happening even though it is not true yet hence you take the first move. That however requires you making it true. You will need to work your charm to sway her/him into loving you.

Not necessarily will I have to "need to work my charm to sway him into loving me" -- this would be trying to *make* the other person love me. I don't want to be "loved" by someone whom I have *made* to love me. They either will, or they won't, I can't make them. I can only hope they will.

You cant be saying that your belief in god will cause his existence!

I am not saying that my belief in God "will cause His existence".

But unless I have faith and give it a try, I will never know what things could be like. The same as with the crush: unless I give it a try and make the first step, I will never know what will happen -- maybe my crush will love me back, maybe not. But if I don't try, I will never know.

Not to mention that when your are turned away repeatedly by the person you are pursuing then your behavior becomes irrational, just as the fact that god has chosen to leave zero empirical evidence making your continued belief irrational.

If you have been turned away repeatedly, this means that you haven't seen soon enough that the other person doesn't want you. You have put way too much hopes and desires into that crush; you have had unreasonable expectations.

If you have reasonable expectations, yet are rejected -- I see no reason why one should be angry and resentful about that; neither do I see why pursue the crush after being rejected.

If you do end up angry and resentful at being rejected, this only means that you have expected, even demanded too much.

 

[water]

I beg to differ. The only reason you say that is because you personally believe in one with no evidence, yet completely dismiss the other due to lack of evidence.

I am not dismissing anything. I only stated that there is a phenomenological difference between a godly entity and a pink elephant.

This has no worth at all. You're trying to say something exists because of your personal 'needs'.

No.

Hey, who needs a pink elephant? Nobody, as such they're non-existant.. but wait... I need there to be a heaven because I'm going to die and rot, so thus god must be real..

Don't put words into my mouth.

It's borderline lunacy.

And you are assuming to have the absolute standard to measure sanity.

You can't dismiss, or accept existence of something because of your specific "needs" in life.

I hope you are listening to yourself.
Let's put a practical example into what you've just said:

"You can't dismiss, or accept the existence of oxygen or proteins because of your specific "needs" in life." -- now this is ... a non-scientific thing to say.

In some ways I would agree, and I'll tell you exactly what we depend on..

The sun

Without it we wouldn't be here, it's that simple.

That is rather simplistic. If you say that we depend on the Sun, and only that, then you have a lot to answer for, esp. the Big Bang and such.

The sun is a lot more groovy though. It doesn't ask for sacrifice or worship, it doesn't hide in the shadows like a thief in the night. It presents itself boldly, and each and every one of us since mankinds time began, is aware that it is the sun that gives us life, the sun that provides our food, our warmth. It allows us to thrive and to sit here doing what we're doing.

No God is telling you to worship him just for worship's sake, or to sacrifice for sacrifice's sake.
If you don't want to, you don't have to, that's all.

In scriputres, Gods sometimes promise things, and they also say what they want from you to do so that they will fulfill their promise. If you want what they promise, you have to do as they say.

But I find it mean to want something yet not do what is asked to get that.

While people look for faces in the clouds - giving them hairstyles, sexes, attitudes, names etc... while singing stupid songs, kissing the feet of statues and condemning everyone who thinks opposing thoughts, the sun just sits there quiet, ensuring that our lives can continue.

You see how easy it is, especially using the written word, to make something like the sun seem almost human, seem like it has a personality? This is why people envision gods. They don't understand that things don't need to be intelligent, don't need to have a life of their own, in order to provide us with ours.

Humans cannot but anthropomorphize. We cannot put it against ourselves that we anthropomorphize.

Of course, people like to put a personality to things - hell, people even give their cars names. They refer to inanimate objects as "she", see a face in the cracks on walls, or in their ice cream tub, or in a bowl of soup. They create a billion non-existantities to try and make life seem like it has more than actually does - to make it seem as if they can find something new, something nobody else knows or has - from vampires and mothmen, to leprechauns, bigfoot, the loch ness monster, aliens and so on.

If those entities would not be existent in some way, we could not be talking about them. Vampires do exist in literature, for example. Ms Marple exists in literature.

We cannot tear things out of their contexts and treat them as if they are absolute entities.

We instill all of this into our children from birth, assuring them that this world of fantasy has credibility. We tell them about santa claus, the easter bunny, the tooth fairy and the bogeyman because everything needs a "face". We can't just say christmas is a time when we buy presents for each other because we love each other - no, we need to put an imaginary persona behind it all - because, as you have shown, that is what we "need"

Apparently, we do need it, or we wouldn't be doing it.

Of course a young child wont argue the case, and would never even have reason to doubt the honesty of his/her parents. god is one small step from there - but is the main fantasy that can be carried beyond puberty. It doesn't make it anymore real than santa, it's just your priorities change as you age. It's no longer about cartoons and candy, but about mortality, depression and conformity.

This is a grim outlook on life that you have.

“ Such a principle is indeed conceivable and should be taken into consideration ”
To you it very well might be, it's what you 'need'. Personally I'm happy to just wait for someone to provide one tiny iota of evidence to support any such claims.

So you are waiting for others to do a work that only you can do for yourself?
(Read on at a comment a little later.)

The way it looks is that all you're doing is trying to apply personality to "sun", "universe" etc while using the word 'god'.

No. You did not read what I said:

"The definition of a god is usually *about* the "utmost, the highest principle in the Universe, the most important thing in all creation; an overarching organizational principle dependent on an unprovable assertion of the nature of ultimate reality" (as Tiassa once put it).
Such a principle is indeed conceivable and should be taken into consideration, for it would be shortsighted to claim that humans have absolute knowledge of objective reality and that each human is his own first and last cause."

You're drawing a little smiley face on the sun, giving it a voice and then bowing down because you're not worthy.

No. You're putting words into my mouth again. If you think that believing in God is because one feels unworthy, then you have missed the point of faith and worship altogether.

“ 1. Why do you think that some do believe in God? ”

Reasons differ from person to person. Loneliness, security, fear and so on are all pertinent reasons. Teaching is also another reason. We tell our kids so and so is true, and they just grow up trusting you - because after all, would their own parents lie to them? And if so, what does that say about everyone else?

You'll find most people will turn religious, (be "born again"), after a very near death
experience. They'll be chronically depressed and on the verge of suicide etc. Basically right at the bottom of the barrel - one small step from oblivion. At this stage, the brain has to provide comfort, and seemingly it works very well.

This is an abuse of religion. It is very common. For these people, God is just the target of their depression, loneliness and misery; a compensation and a rationalization, a way to trick oneself into persisting in a miserable situation as it takes courage to break out of it. Such "faith" never bears the fruits it hopes for.

The brain is remarkable - and requires absolutely no outside space being.

The brain didn't put itself there where it is. Like I said before, it would be shortsighted to claim that humans have absolute knowledge of objective reality and that each human is his own first and last cause.

Your brain will do what's best for itself, and when you're on the verge of caving in, the 'god' excuse is a good one. You end up with your very own friend, who not only can you relate to - but that whom you can fall deeply in love with. We all know "love blinds us", and that's the whole point of it.

If it blinds, then it isn't love -- it is only an infatuation.

If I really needed aliens to exist, I can guarantee you I'd see a UFO every single night of the week. The brain would also know that nobody else can see what I can see, and so it invents the whole "you need faith" excuse.

Oh my. What dreadful misery you must have lived in. I don't mean to pity you or patronize you, but your thoughts are on the whole completely self-sabotaging.
Nobody is saying that you need alines to exist! Where did you hear that?! And why did you believe it?!

“ 2. Why would you believe in God, if you would? ”

I wouldn't. The only way would be if he came and sat down in front of everyone and said "hi".

So you too need to see a human-like God in order to believe in Him?

But what I don't understand is why those of you who supposedly "know" god exists, keep using the word "believe".

I know my daughter exists. I don't have faith she exists, and I don't believe she exists. I know she exists.

The way you put it is as if there is such a thing as absolute knowledge. Everyone fom Einstein to Russell to Hawking would disagree with you.

How many people do you know that walk round saying "I believe in gravity"? It's just not something that is done when you know something is true.

You are thereby saying that
{statistic evidence}+{certain analysis of this evidence}+{agreement of a certain community}={truth}

I suggest you look up http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=41229

Now you are even willing to consider us as knowledgeless nitwits in comparison to future generations, so then why would you believe so much as one word said by someone several millennia ago?

Because I don't think I have fallen from the Moon, quite literally. I have no choice but to take on *some* of the history of mankind as I get it presented. One cannot and does not live in a vacuum; one is born into a society and takes on certain things, be they good or bad.

Why would you believe they knew more than you do? Forget that, why would you believe they even knew a 100th of what you do?

Comparing knowledge is a very very relative thing. I see no common standards to measure it with. Back then, the knowledge they had was most feasible, and now, the knowledge we have is most feasible.

Let's say people 1000 years from now discover that something we currently understand is false. They wouldn't put our science books in hotel rooms, they'd just agree the data is flawed and put it in a museum.

Yes. But we *live* *here* and *now* and we have to do the best we have *right here* *right now*.

We cannot discard our present because the future may be smarter than us. And we cannot discard the past just because we think they were more stupid than we.

What people are doing right now, is taking the most outdated and flawed science book known to man, and considering it true over modern day science books. That's utter stupidity.

What?! Those who are taking the Bible or the Quran or the Talmud as "scientific" are not acting scientifically. The same as those are being unscientific, who accuse just any religious person to think his scriptures "scientific".

And yet there's millions of people regarding these ancient mental deficients as more knowledgeable than modern day man.

Drop the bible, pick up a science book.

No offence, but from what I've read so far, I dare say that I know more of the scientific method than you do.

Sure, and if your grandparents don't have a clue, what chance do people from several thousand years ago have?

None.

That is an unsubstantiated claim. How can you scientifically prove that those people of old "didn't have a clue"? How can you scientifically determine "having a clue"?

I posted the entire definition out of courtesy, but you're well aware of what I was referring to, and your attempts to ignore it are simply silly. Look at the bit you didn't put in bold heh..

"A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the
universe"

No. You are breaking up the definition and taking things out of context!

The definition went:
"A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions."

"A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe" is QUALIFIED and CONTEXTUALIZED with "the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions."

That is, outside of a monotheistic religion, this definition does not apply. Yet you want it to apply no matter what. -- This is completely unscientific of you.

“ If we do make such claims about other beliefs without there being a common standard, then we are *imposing* our own standards, making an argument of power, and we should be aware of that. ”

No no, you're getting it all twisted and muddled. Someone makes the claim - we simply ask for one speck of evidence - and nobody has ever ever managed to do that. So why make the claims?

Is there a common standard both parties have agreed upon?
No. Yet you are doing as if there were one.

Surely even you must understand this? If I said there was a leprechaun in my garden you'd ask for evidence. You wouldn't just believe it.

I wouldn't say anything! I would neither ask you for evidence, nor would I "just believe it". It's your business and has nothing to do with me.

People don't say "there isn't", before someone says "there is". We can only be classified as "atheists" because there are theists.

So without theists, there can also be no atheists?

And again you've decided to lower yourself to simple silliness. Look at the part you "forgot" to put in bold..

"A being of supernatural powers or attributes"

The definition has a *qualifier* "by a people" -- "A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality."

If you are not one of these people, this definition of God bears no meaning for you. Unless you, once more, assume an absolute standard.

Hope you finally understand.

What I do understand is that you are assuming that there is an absolute standard, and that you are supposedly applying it.

“ I don't have a "definition", as I think it would be a betrayal. ”
And so you don't actually believe in anything.

Don't put words into my mouth. Just because my belief isn't verbalizable they way you want it to be this doesn't mean that I have no belief.

Look, people can believe whatever they want to.

There you go! Once you say "people can believe whatever they want to" this goes for you and for everyone else.

The point is that when you say something does exist, you need to provide something of sustenance if you ever intend for anyone else to support it. You get these religious folk knocking on your door thinking that their say so, and the testimony of ancient nitwits, is sufficient. That's quite simply ignorant and rude.

If you don't like it -- leave it! Why bother with them?! Who or what are they to you that you would have to believe them? You have said yourself "people can believe whatever they want to".

What are they to you that they could threaten you with hell if you don't believe what they do?!

Life is not like that- and the more people feel they can just claim anything is 'reality' - the more crazy shit gets.

You have said yourself "people can believe whatever they want to".

Either take the stance that people should not believe whatever they want to, or face the consequences of "people can believe whatever they want to".

People don't sit down and fight over gravity. They don't bomb each other because their version of gravity differs. It is only when you add faith into the equation, that people start dying.

This is screwed. People are fighting because they have different, often clashing values and preferences. Simply blaming "faith" for the fighting is a cheap copout.

If you have something to claim, have something to back it up with. If not, don't make the claim- and don't try and force it upon others. Don't try and assume that your freakish little beliefs apply to everyone, because they don't.

But then *you* shouldn't be saying "people can believe whatever they want to" either! What do you have to back up this position as the right one?

So, you have a crush on me, and as you said you're aware I don't share the feeling. Does that stop you? Does that make you "give up" the crush and move on? Of course not.. You continue along with your self produced "wishes" and needs - never actually realising the futility of it, and never acknowledging the facts.

No no no no no. If I have a crush on someone, make the fist step, see that they don't want me, I step back, I don't just persist trying to make them love me.
But the first step, I took on faith.

 

[water]

as i glanced over this thread, my eyes latched on ((snakelord's))) mention of GODDESS...alelula!...how many time have i read religious people and athiests debate over such maters and all one reads is "God" this "God" that "He" this "He" that.......when i follow debates of this nature i am very aware of the unacknowledged presence of this "he-God" premise.....Usually if one then mentioned GODDESS one is met with 'there is no evidence' bla bla...they all become scientists all of a sudden

Well if you a 'he' you must have a 'she'...and it's the emphasis on 'he' that's the problem

While the use of "He" certainly can be interpreted as a patriarchal issue, you must also note that "he" is the neutral pronoun when speaking in general.
As in, for example, "The customer can return the purchased ware within 8 days and *he* must have the receipt" or "*He* who lies, also steals" -- these sentences apply both to men and women. The pronoun "one" is often archaic to use, we don't often hear people say "If *one* has purchased certain ware and is not satisfied with it, *one* should return it within 8 days with the receipt."