Why Are Athiests So Obsessed With God?

[Godless]

To prove religion is the cause of the evil, you must give examples of how a non-religious society would be, or has been, better.

The fact is that there has never been a non-religious society. The one's that come close only replaced one form of mysticism with another. Instead of church rule it became police state. i.e. Communism, Nazism, Fascism, etc...

The best example of a mostly secular society would be early American history, were innovation after the industrial revolution brought this nation from a horse buggy to an automobile, the electric light bulb, and Bell's phone company.

Now on the other end of the scale a strongly religious society say Arabs, (muslims) Chinese (communist state police) and African nations are far behind the "industrialized western societies".

Proof that religions are evil is found in their own Books! I suggest you read them; The Bible:

Genesis, the first book of the Bible, has Abraham preparing to sacrifice his son to God. "Take your son, your only son – yes, Isaac, whom you love so much – and go to the land of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains, which I will point out to you." (Genesis 22:1-18) Abraham takes his own son up on a mountain and builds an altar upon which to burn him. He even lies to his son and has him help build the altar. Then Abraham ties his son to the altar and puts a knife to his throat. He then hears God tell him this was just a test of his faith. However, God still wanted to smell some burnt flesh so he tells Abraham to burn a ram.



Even though he didn't kill his son, it is still an incredibly cruel and evil thing to do. If Abraham did that today he would be in jail serving a long sentence as someone's prison-bitch. It amazes me how Christians see this story as a sign of God's love. There is no love here, just pure unadulterated evil.

The Quran:

# Don't bother to warn the disbelievers. Allah has blinded them. Theirs will be an awful doom. 6

# Allah has sickened their hearts. A painful doom is theirs because they lie. 10

# A fire has been prepared for the disbelievers, whose fuel is men and stones. 24

# Disbelievers will be burned with fire. 39, 90

# For disbelievers is a painful doom. 104

# For unbelievers: ignominy in this world, an awful doom in the next. 114

# Allah will leave the disbelievers alone for a while, but then he will compel them to the doom of Fire. 126

# The doom of the disbelievers will not be lightened. 162

# They will not emerge from the Fire. 167

# Those who hide the Scripture will have their bellies eaten with fire. Theirs will be a painful doom. 174

# How constant are they in their strife to reach the Fire! 175

# Kill disbelievers wherever you find them. If they attack you, then kil them. Such is the reward of disbelievers. 191

# War is ordained by Allah, and all Muslims must be willing to fight, whether they like it or not. 216

# Those who die in their disbelief will burn forever in the Fire. 217

# Disbelievers worship false gods. The will burn forever in the Fire. 257

Refs: click
bible

Good enough for ya?.

Godless.

 

[Tiassa]

I have seen from some of your posts that you have a strong sense of social responsibility. I am trying to get a better idea of how the atheist comes up with this feeling. What are the ways this compassion arises?
I would love to hear any idea you have on that if you have time.

I'll get to it. At some point. Er ... right now I'm trying to figure out why I was looking for a certain Simpsons quote; I actually had to email my brother to figure out why I couldn't find it. Now that I have it, I don't remember what it was for. But the time stamps on the emails suggest it was right around the time of my prior post in this topic that I was searching for it.

A minor mystery. In the meantime, the basic answer has to do with a number of factors:

• Humanity tends toward socialization.
• We prepare young individuals to cooperate in society.
• While the human endeavor is not purely zero-sum, deficits must still come from somewhere.
• "Social conscience is a form of greed." (That usually takes some explaining.)
• We cannot leave out "force of habit". (Although this, too, usually takes some explaining.)​

I'll consider the longer form and drop it into the topic you've noted once I figure it out.

 

[Michael]

The title of this thread is "Why Are Atheists So Obsessed With God?" The point of my post was to illustrate a reason why someone who doesn't believe in god would want to know more about a concept that would cause people to be so, for lack of a better word, evil.

OK, I see your point. But, I’d say that slavery has as much to do with wanting to know about Myth (see: God) as any other “evil” institution (like war).

Although I’m not sure of the context, I would disagree that modern civilization was built on the back of slavery. If that was the point of the quote? As slavery had been around everywhere for thousands and thousands of years I would say it was rather the banning of slavery that led to what we like to call “modern” civilization. I think slavery is probably what held back nations from "modern" advancement.

For example: There was an ancient (I can’t remember whom?) that invented a crude steam engine (basically it twirled around quite rapidly) and he thought that it could be of use in pushing boats around. But, it was in no way close to the power achieved by a line of slaves rowing and as there were plentiful slaves around there was no incentive to further this work and thus what could have been the beginnings of the industrial revolution were snuffed out 2000 years ago. I have to wonder – how many times in how many civilizations did this occur becuase of slavery?

 

[Michael]

# Disbelievers worship false gods. The will burn forever in the Fire. 257

A new mistake found in the Qur’an. I am a “disbeliever” however I do not worship any Gods

 

[Michael]

The point of the quote was to illustrate that even though someone might not believe in a specific religion or god (like the slaves didn't believe in christianity or the christian god), it could still have a profound effect on them (like the Catholic church saying slavery was ok and not putting a stop to it) .

It is odd that Africans, with their various indigenous religions, overwhelmingly became Christian after living in servitude for a couple generations. How quickly an entire people can be converted to an alien religion is astounding. I wonder how many Africans were Muslims when they arrived in the Americas and what they must have thought when being converted into Christianity?

I always think it odd that modern African (as well as Women) Christian conservatives today do not seem to understand that their mental-counterparts (conservative) of the past were the very people who rallied against their own forerunners emancipation?

Odd really?

You’d think that the people for whom this Religion had held the most distain would be its natural enemies now? But as we know that isn’t the case.

One of the hallmarks of early African acceptance into American Christianity was the acceptance that Muslims had for Africans into their religion. Seeing that ever larger numbers of Africans were converting to Islam, Christian congregations quickly did an about-face and began promoting Africans into the Xian Religion. Which resulted in a dramatic drop of Islam converts and huge numbers of Africans flocking to the Christians faith.

WHY would Africans opt to join the very religion that maintained their enslavement? The same religion that they were so disparaged against was overwhelming their choice of faith?

I don’t’ get it?

BUT, I think these are the sorts of questions that I as an Atheist find the most interesting.

 

[cole grey]

The fact is that there has never been a non-religious society. The one's that come close only replaced one form of mysticism with another. Instead of church rule it became police state. i.e. Communism, Nazism, Fascism, etc...

I love how nazism, fascism, and communism are religions now. I really have to hand it to you, you are making carl rove and dick cheney look like bumpkins with this one. Perhaps you will help write revisionist histories for big brother someday. You will be able to pin EVERY fault of humankind on religious belief. Bravo!

I didn't expect you to fall so easily into the trap set by the religious when they say, "you must serve someone, hopefully you will choose God". You make sacred the beliefs of secular idealists, thus proving the religious person's point.

I have shed many fundamentalist ideals, but this is the first time I have heard of an atheist who is more fundamentalist than I am.

 

[Brutus1964]

Cole Grey

Communism, Nazism, and Fascism are religions. Their Gods are the state. They demand fidelity to the government. They demand alms and tributes from their subjects. However they are false Gods, they are Satan inspired and are designed to put man ahead of the true God and deny Him. They are modern day towers of Babel.

 

[audible]

why are you people always, putting the blame on poor old satan. he certainly get's the thin end of the wedge. (BTW I believe in neither, him or your god.)
but he's not the evil one in your bible, god is, just making a point, it's about time you read your bibles, without wearing rose coloured glasses.

 

[duendy]

all 'religion' basically means is 'bind togther'.......so keep tha in mind. and also understand that science too is a religion, as was nazism, communism. remmber the latter with those HUGE images of their deity, a man-in-power? hint hint

these ideologies that pretend to have shicked off the religious indoctrination of 'real religious dogma' are fooling them selves. you cannot suck off your spiritual needs. but the irony is that the 'religion' such ideologies deny is the same scam-religion that shuck off authENTIC spiritual experience. DIRECT spiritual experience. a communal emotional expression and in unity with Nature.....that NEEd has been and still is suppressed, and what takes its place are patriarhcal religions and ideologies--where the so-called athiest BEHAVIOUR reveals the hidden unconscious intentions

also, research about Nazism...you will find they vry much did base their horrendous vision on mythology--of northern sky gods, and mystic masters. seriously

 

[cole grey]

I believe it actually derived from "bind together, again." The problem is that we all make mistakes, and sometimes re-link to the worst ideas of the religions, at the cost of loosening the links to the best ideas.

respect, yo

 

[Prester John]

all 'religion' basically means is 'bind togther'.......so keep tha in mind. and also understand that science too is a religion, as was nazism, communism. remmber the latter with those HUGE images of their deity, a man-in-power? hint hint

these ideologies that pretend to have shicked off the religious indoctrination of 'real religious dogma' are fooling them selves. you cannot suck off your spiritual needs. but the irony is that the 'religion' such ideologies deny is the same scam-religion that shuck off authENTIC spiritual experience. DIRECT spiritual experience. a communal emotional expression and in unity with Nature.....that NEEd has been and still is suppressed, and what takes its place are patriarhcal religions and ideologies--where the so-called athiest BEHAVIOUR reveals the hidden unconscious intentions

also, research about Nazism...you will find they vry much did base their horrendous vision on mythology--of northern sky gods, and mystic masters. seriously

Naughty, whatever the root words that make up the word Religion, it has a modern context and in that context science is not a religion. Nice try though. Perhaps you can define what you see science as then we can decide whether it meets the criteria for religion. Of course lacking a god or supernatural elements it is gonna be a hard job.

Science is not worshipped, it is by its very nature open to discussion and questioning. When a scientist suggests a possibility, his experiments are designed to refute that possibility, not confirm it. Its this basis that allows scientific method to work. Evidence? he asked typing on his computer connected to the internet. Yes scientific method works.

Your referal to "so called athiestic behaviour" is insulting. Too many bloody thetans, sorry dropped into fantasy mode there. The athiest doesn't believe because there is no reason for him to believe.

 

[Godless]

Damn Cole, even Brutus can see and understand my ideology, perhaps if you took your head out of your arss, you've could have seen it!!.

Ggggssss This is the first time were Brutus and I can somewhat see eye to eye. Well except for the satan bit, but for the rest right on Brutus!. You were able to see the similirarities between the state and church;

Godless.

 

[Godless]

Where Does Evil Come From?

Evil is not a force; it is a human value. There will be evil for as long as good people have faith in authority.

I bring this topic to your attention because I am tired of seeing good people allowing themselves to get screwed. I am tired of seeing good people, who out of ignorance and naiveté support the two worst criminal organizations in human history: the Church and the State. And I am especially tired of being victimized by these two organizations because the majority of Americans have such a strong faith in them that they willingly give them license to commit their crimes.

I am aware of the emotional attachment most people have to Church and State. And that is why life is more difficult than it has to be. No two organizations have done more to perpetrate evil than these two. For proof, just scan the history books. Common everyday crimes hardly merit the historian’s attention. http://www.usbible.com/Satan/where_does_evil_come_from.htm

Thus from the above essay, and many opinions as well, the state! as in Communism, fascism, Nazism, et all, can be looked upon as a form of religion. Basically by converting one form of mysticism, i.e. the god consept to another i.e. The state!.

G.

 

[cole grey]

Damn Cole, even Brutus can see and understand my ideology, perhaps if you took your head out of your arss, you've could have seen it!!.

I get the connection. I was, mostly, just messing with you. "Group-think" is what allows the bad to become truly evil. People make idols for themselves, and commit terrible acts in their name, yes.
I do think that if religion is entirely demonized we will lose something very important, but the desire of people to follow other humans so blindly that they raise them up to the status of gods, is a very pitiful one. How can we get past it though? Within modern spiritual belief systems there is actually less destructive group-think happening than with that encouraged by governments. What do we do about that? How can we encourage mature, positive behavior? Fear of hell is less of a factor in how people act these days than fear of losing their livelihood is. Actually it has probably always been this way for most people throughout the ages. (people usually take care of the most immediate issues first)
It seems like much of the argument here is from theists saying basically, "you have to believe for yourself, God can't really be learned." Then the atheist says, "that's not good enough. You have to match all of your ideas up with the scientific evidence, or throw it all away." How can this discussion be turned to face the true issue - people aren't very comfortable with thoughts they perceive as being abnormal. The more people they can find that agree with them the happier they are. First, the theists have to stop demonizing all atheistic belief, and the atheists have to stop demonizing theistic belief. Then all of us together can attack the true "satanic" powers of this world without one group feeling that their ideas will have to be abandoned.

 

[duendy]

Naughty, whatever the root words that make up the word Religion, it has a modern context and in that context science is not a religion. Nice try though.

d___ it was meant to be deeper than a 'nice try though'. i am encouraging you to look at root meaning of words, and thus of behaviour. Modifications really just MASK the deeper roots. that si what i am trying to explore

Perhaps you can define what you see science as then we can decide whether it meets the criteria for religion. Of course
lacking a god or supernatural elements it is gonna be a hard job.

d___ Scientific revolution properly began with Galileo, who is considered the father of modern science, because he was first to combine scientific experimentation with use of mathematical language......He wanted to scientifically explore reality which he believed "is written in that great book which ever lies before your eyes".....But he felt that the only way we could really learn it was by understand its language which be believed was mathematics....via the geometric characters of triangles, cicles, etc

Noiw, His 'doctrine' was that, "whatever cannot be measured and quantified is not scientific, and in post -Galilean science this came to mean: "What cannot be quantified is not real." This has been the most profound corruption from the Greek view of nature as 'physis', which is alive, always in transformation and not divorced from us. Galileo's program offers us a dead world. Out go sight, sound, taste, touch, and smell, and along with them have since gone esthetic and ethical senisbility, vaulues, quality, soul, consciousness, spirit. Experience as such is cast out of the realm of scientific discourse. Hardly anything has changed our world more during the past four hundred years than Galileo's audacious program."(Uncommon Wisdom: A New Synthesis of Mind and Matter, by Fritjof Capra)

So one can see this deliberate reaction against the previous religion as becoming a religion in itself. it has its own dogma. Beliefs etc, that in reality dont really exist. As in regards they are an ASPECT of a greater whole, a whole that INCLUDEs sensual subjective experience of reality


Science is not worshipped, it is by its very nature open to discussion and questioning.

d___hmmm, sounds nice on paper, but in reality science and state are one, and there is a massive political will to make sure scientific endeavour doesn't contradict the line politics wants to achieve. ie., conveyor-belt conformist fascism!
Also, not many average people can understand science-schpeak, so it is like an elitist religion of scientists

When a scientist suggests a possibility, his experiments are designed to refute that possibility, not confirm it. Its this basis that allows scientific method to work. Evidence? he asked typing on his computer connected to the internet. Yes scientific method works.

d___Who for?

Your referal to "so called athiestic behaviour" is insulting. Too many bloody thetans, sorry dropped into fantasy mode there. The athiest doesn't believe because there is no reason for him to believe.

But what belief has he given UP is the most important question. If he didn't understand originary religious experience in the FIRSt place, due to its oppression by a scaM-relgion, then can you not see the ironic farce of the situation when the a-THEIST rejects that mis-take only to throw out all spiritual receptivity. from there his BELIEf IS that. a belief in a spiritless dead world. if he believes in mechansitic science that is

 

[Prester John]

The root meaning of words is interesting from a historical pov but it doesn't bind the word to that meaning. Now it may be desriptive but it is not definitive. Words change in their meaning so you have to examine their current meaning. eg If i call you a Philistine i am not calling you a resident of Philista.


Again with your description of science you seem more interested in its historical aspects, not what it actually is. You seem to rail against science without understanding what it is. A futher clue to your lack of understanding is your accusation of science-spheak.

Science is just observation, if science offers no evidence for the existence of the soul, it is because the soul if we have one has no effect on the world we live in. You accusation of science as soulless is a retreat to the dark ages. Science is about understanding, looking at a flower and knowing how it was formed, not just saying oooh pretty! The sense of wonder is enhanced not dimished by knowledge. Scientific advances allow us to live longer, healthier and more comfortable lives so we have more time to appreciate the wonders around us.

Science at its core questions itself all the time. This is how it achives its successes (internet cough). It is this openness to question itself, as a whole that leads to progress, yes we may actually have it wrong. This is a strength, not the weakness that only the certain thiest can pretend.

As to what has been lost, nothing, science is the candle that has lead us out of fear (of disease for example, no not completeley but better now than 100 yrs ago). We have gained, science is accessable to all who want to understand, it is not the province of a few special book keepers who control, it is for the masses!

love

PJ

 

[duendy]

The root meaning of words is interesting from a historical pov but it doesn't bind the word to that meaning.

d___But it DOES. I am saying it does. you are entitled to your opinion about this, but i don't agree with it, especially when the words are very significant for our oresent situation.

Now it may be desriptive but it is not definitive. Words change in their meaning so you have to examine their current meaning. eg If i call you a Philistine i am not calling you a resident of Philista.

ell, at the moment we aint talking about Philistines, we are talking about words like 'religion' and 'spirituality' and what is their root meanings.
for example, 'King' is an interesting word to investigate the source. The root is a PICTURE of a BEE! it doesn't take Sherlock to know there aint no KING bees only queen Bees. right? right

Again with your description of science you seem more interested in its historical aspects, not what it actually is.
d___Both!

You seem to rail against science without understanding what it is. A futher clue to your lack of understanding is your accusation of science-spheak.

d--Don't presume to know what i understand, though you are revealing more what YOU don't understand about what i MEAN.

Science is just observation, if science offers no evidence for the existence of the soul, it is because the soul if we have one has no effect on the world we live in.

d__Prestor john, you cannot have absorbed what i communicated in my previous post. there is only so much effort i can give to try and encourage your understanding. i cant uderstand FOR you. HOw can one 'measure' soul? can you plese tell us this?

You accusation of science as soulless is a retreat to the dark ages. Science is about understanding, looking at a flower and knowing how it was formed, not just saying oooh pretty!

d___ you are being very superfcial here. And obviously you have never looked at a flower in ecstasy. it is a profoundly much more deeper experience than '"ooh how pretty". and also, i am not particularly demonizing a mechanical anlysis of flower, i am rather saying that is only a facet of what a flower IS. surely you can understand this....?

The sense of wonder is enhanced not dimished by knowledge. Scientific advances allow us to live longer, healthier and more comfortable lives so we have more time to appreciate the wonders around us.

d___oh, for WHO. have you any idea the misery for many many many on this planet in this age of science. so for who, the affluent white middle class westerners, and their appliance of science?
Also, time and again i hear this religious chanyt coming from science enthustiasts of how we live longer now. well, maybe for Westerners as i say, but what is the QUALITY of life, and what does it mean for ALL species ANd Nature people living longer and thus gobbling up yet more resources? did the clever scientists think about that? and doesn't this dream of longer and longer life ('immortality') not remind you of the dream of errr religion?

Science at its core questions itself all the time. This is how it achives its successes (internet cough). It is this openness to question itself, as a whole that leads to progress,

d___ytou make it all sound so innocent prestor john. but again, if you'd bothered to read my previous post, i have already answered this naiveity already. it is not hroic science having freedom to opnly ask questions bla bla. it is rather the amalgamation of science and STATE and an industrial fascism agoin on!

yes we may actually have it wrong. This is a strength, not the weakness that only the certain thiest can pretend.

d__ YES. you have got it VERY ERy VERY wrong. you are fukin up Nature is how wrong you got it

As to what has been lost, nothing, science is the candle that has lead us out of fear (of disease for example, no not completeley but better now than 100 yrs ago). We have gained, science is accessable to all who want to understand, it is not the province of a few special book keepers who control, it is for the masses!

d___ hah....and you claim you are not a religion. plese reread what you just typed.


love

PJ

)()()()()()()()( )

 

[Godless]

I get the connection. I was, mostly, just messing with you.

My apolegies; I took you seriously, you come across as a smart fella, you startled me. I couldn't fathom putting you in the same catagory as Brutus, brainless.

I do think that if religion is entirely demonized we will lose something very important, but the desire of people to follow other humans so blindly that they raise them up to the status of gods, is a very pitiful one.

This sounds like contradictory, ever since the begining of religious rhetoric it's point has been to raise some of its patrons to the status of gods, martyrs, saints, saviors. It is not about demonizing religion to the point of extinction. It's about surviving the religious rhetoric that are imposed by force via the government.

How can we get past it though? Within modern spiritual belief systems there is actually less destructive group-think happening than with that encouraged by governments.

You have to be kidding? Don't you see the current trend of tying in religious rhetoric to government mandates?. We have a pundit in office who believes he was destined to be president by god. The seperation of "church & state" is been violated by this idiot!. By using government money to support church initiatives. If anything these idiots want to bring revelations to life, by making things worse for the dwindling middle class, wars, perpetual enemy, and dwindling our Bill of Rights for security. Bad trade off.

How do we pass it? By education, by realizing myth and mythological ideologies are nothing more than ancient ingnorance with little if any wisdom. That have hindered humans in unmesurable magnitude. I believe that by the time Jesus was born, we should have had airplanes and a very civil society as today. We are 2500 years behind human innovations because of religious dogmas demonising progress.

How can this discussion be turned to face the true issue - people aren't very comfortable with thoughts they perceive as being abnormal. The more people they can find that agree with them the happier they are. First, the theists have to stop demonizing all atheistic belief, and the atheists have to stop demonizing theistic belief. Then all of us together can attack the true "satanic" powers of this world without one group feeling that their ideas will have to be abandoned.

There is no homogeny between two very different idealogies. One accepts thus far scientific evidence, while the other depends entirely upon faith. One can distinguish mythology while the other entirely depends on it. Each believes the other to be the evil entity. In order to have homogeny and realize or learn true evil they each have to look within themselves as individuals, learn from the past. Hystory is the best teacher. Thus far, we know of all the atrocities brought forth to humanity via religious rhetoric and giving omnipotent state power to statists idealogies. We know that they don't work. Only more people need to realize this.

(I've run out of time we'll continue this latter)

Godless.

 

[Prester John]

Prestor john, you cannot have absorbed what i communicated in my previous post. there is only so much effort i can give to try and encourage your understanding. i cant uderstand FOR you. HOw can one 'measure' soul? can you plese tell us this?

I'll take just this point, your last sentence expresses my point exactly. We can only measure (observe) that which affects the universe we live in. If it doesn't affect the universe then we have no way of knowing it exists and it makes no difference to our lives. Thus the soul does not exist, or if it does exist it doesn't matter because it doesn't affect anything.

cue special pleading.

 

[duendy]

I'll take just this point, your last sentence expresses my point exactly. We can only measure (observe) that which affects the universe we live in. If it doesn't affect the universe then we have no way of knowing it exists and it makes no difference to our lives. Thus the soul does not exist, or if it does exist it doesn't matter because it doesn't affect anything.

cue special pleading.

Prester, it has to be said, that your self-confessed worldview ala mechanistic science EPITOMIZIS xactly what i am meaning. about how the transition to science bought about this idea that soul/consciousness has no meaning because it can't be measureed and thus quantified

in REALITy is has central, primal ESSENTIAL meaning for us and universe
i am assuming you aint a test tube. am assuming you have loved, and cried, and wondered, and etc? so........that had/has no meaning?....when you see people starving to death on the news on your TV, what about that? do you feel sad, helpless, angry....does THAt have no meaning cause you can't put it in a test tube or measure it?

so what are you saying?

(ps. btw, when i say 'soul' i am not meaning the same definition the patriarchal christians define it as. I am reather defining more how Indigenous peoples do, as completely related with Nature, and is the inner FEELING OF Nature)