What aspects of the atheist religion do you like/dislike?

[pmoseman]

Ya, switching two words around doesn't change anything.

 

[swilow]

^Interesting posts TBH.

Is it reasonable to define a term using that term itself? It becomes tautological and you become aware that you are talking around the definition of words. Does it make sense to say that, for me to believe in something all that is required is belief? I mean, yes, it literally makes sense, but it doesn't tell us much about what a belief is.

 

[methamaniac]

a. All that is required by atheism is not believing in a god

Define "god" and what it means to not believe in god so we are on the same page.

b. All that is required by atheism is believing there are no gods.

Is this a 100% lack of belief?
If so, would this not be the same as someone making the truth claim god (s) (however defined) 100 % do not exist"?

text book definition of believe, the reason for, the essence of, is confidence in a thing or person.

regards to (a.) Atheists have a lack of confidence in something which is a thing or person; so the phrasing does not describe a belief

In regards to (b.) Non-gods do not exist and do not fulfill the basic requirement of being things or persons; so that cannot be believed in.

Neither phrasing leads to the conclusion that atheism is a belief system and we have consistent meanings that coincide with standard definition

IMO and in reality,

Atheism does in fact use a firm cofidence IN something . ie unknown natural/mechanism force.
( btw , a thing does not necessarily have to be an object or person to be subject to belief)
If you posit there is no thing above the natural. (aka supernatural), then it is exactly the same as saying everything has a naturalistic causation.
Therefore, when it comes to things like the origin of life/universe, you have a firm belief that an unknown natural force/mechanism exits that has to be the causation. Unless you have any evidence of this unknown mechanism/force ( *or can explain exactly how known natural forces could explain said origins), you are square in the faith/strong confidence in belief camp.
Everytime you come to something that defies a naturalistic explanation, your belief system kicks in based on your worldview.

Its like saying that the ocean and the sky are the same colour because they are blue.

(Does it? Someone, extract the nonsense there quickly! )

you said it I didn't

exhibit faith of sorts, though they are faiths that are polar opposites. In that sense, may be it is an equivocation fallacy to discuss the spectrum of faith as one singular concept.

What they believe are polar opposites, not their faith.
The amount of conifindence used in belief I would say are equal.

do have a lot of respect for the way you express your views and have backbone and conviction.

Likewise☺

 

[pmoseman]

Atheism does in fact use a firm cofidence IN something . ie unknown natural/mechanism force.
( btw , a thing does not necessarily have to be an object reaching nJun jj to be subject to belief)

You have sexual feelings for your mom and dad. You don't want to have sex with them; so you obviously have had a sexual relationship with them for years and are sexually active with your grandparents as well.

If you posit there is no thing above the natural. (aka supernatural), then it is exactly the same as saying everything has a naturalistic causation.
Therefore, when it comes to things like the origin of life/universe, you have a firm belief that an unknown force/mechanism exits that has to be the causation. Unless you have any evidence of this unknown mechanism/force ( *or can explain exactly how known natural forces could explain said origins), you are square in the faith/strong confidence in belief camp.
Everytime you come to something that defies a naturalistic explanation, your belief system kicks in based on your world view.

No. I could posit we are the gods and the magic in this world does not exist in nature below us. There can be other possibilities I have not considered.

I have my reasons for believing in the unknown. I can prove that it exists.

I have no reason to believe in a god and so I do not. I do not.

....

A god is a thing which has attributes and shows up on occasion, if only to start the universe or to be locked away forever in the void by some other god. They are incognito and have great and far reaching power and are indestructible.

You can believe in them, as they have definition and meaning.

This is a definition from the dictionary, which I will accept at any point, with or without the worship, but generally with (according to the dictionary).

2 : a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship; specifically : one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality

 

[methamaniac]

You have sexual feelings for your mom and dad. You don't want to have sex with them; so you obviously have had a sexual relationship with them for years and are sexually active with your grandparents as well.

Do whut? ?

No. I could posit we are the gods and the magic in this world does not exist in nature below us. There can be other possibilities I have not considered.

Positing you are God and and magic exists above the natural laws we observe.......
yeah that's congruent with atheism

have my reasons for believing in the unknown. I can prove that it exists.

Point is you have reasons for believing in the unknown. Reason being there is no known mechanism that can explain our existence and all the complexity and symbiotic relationships we can observe. Positing an intelligent entity is responsible for things we can not explain with all the intelligence we can muster as a species, doesn't seem irrational to me.

god is a thing which has attributes and shows up on occasion, if only to start the universe or to be locked away forever in the void by some other god. They are incognito and have great and far reaching power and are indestructible.

You can believe in them, as they have definition and meaning.

This is a definition from the dictionary, which I will accept at any point, with or without the worship, but generally with (according to the dictionary).

2 : a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship; specifically : one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality

So your definition does include the supernatural.
If an atheist belives in the supernatural would they still be an atheist?
According to your definition of atheist they wouldn't.

 

[pmoseman]

Point is you have reasons for believing in the unknown. Reason being there is no known mechanism that can explain our existence and all the complexity and symbiotic relationships we can observe.

You are athiest.

So your definition does include the supernatural.
If an atheist belives in the supernatural would they still be an atheist?
According to your definition of atheist they wouldn't.

Not just mine but any half decent god should be included in the supernatural. If you worship a natural god then that would be reconciled as atheism and it is still atheism though you believe in the supernatural. Atheists simply doubt there is a supernatural god, if you will, and being able to disprove supernatural gods would be atheism at its best.

The supernatural is a set of fantastic explanations for the unknown. Doubting the supernatural is skepticism and you can certainly have non-skeptical atheists.

 

[methamaniac]

You are athiest.

No sir , but it seems you may be in the theism camp tho :

I could posit we are the gods and the magic in this world does not exist in nature below us

just mine but any half decent god should be included in the supernatural. If you worship a natural god then that would be reconciled as atheism

Believing nature is god or god is of nature is pantheism.
According to your own definition of God, you must posit the supernatural.........

2 : a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers.....

.......this is why I asked you to define "god"

and it is still atheism though you believe in the supernatural. Atheists simply doubt there is a supernatural god, if you will, and being able to disprove supernatural gods would be atheism at its best

Ok, so according to you, what really seperates an atheist and a theist is defining the supernatural.
It's not a question of whether or not the supernatual exists or not -just the defining qualities of the supernatural.

supernatural is a set of fantastic explanations for the unknown. Doubting the supernatural is skepticism and you can certainly have non-skeptical atheists.

Supernatural is that which transcends the natural.
As pertaining to our discussion, it would that which is above and not subject to nature/natural laws.

 

[pocketsevens]

The thing I hate most about atheism is that it is just like a religion. They're as argumentative and close-minded as any Christians I know. I don't understand them as a religion because it seems like their only purpose is to tear down other people's beliefs, and what's the point of that? If someone has a religion that makes them feel peaceful and happy, what is the point of taking that away from them? Why have meetings every week just to confirm your nonbelief and cause arguments?

What I like about atheism is the fact that they support "free thought" although sometimes their actions contradict that.

I think all organized religion causes problems.

 

[pocketsevens]

A beautiful interpretation of God, thanks! I agree about personifying God. I think it's just something people did to make the idea easier to comprehend and imagine. Saying we are "made in his image" because it's too hard to imagine a God that isn't at all like us. But why do we do that?

I think God is not a single being, but more like a huge group of different entities or yes, energies. Nothing in the world is the way it is because of ONE thing. No ONE cell evolved to make us what we are today, and no ONE human make all the technologies that allow us to live the way we do today. It even takes two people just to create another person, so why are we so fixated on the notion of one God?

 

[pmoseman]

What I like about atheism is the fact that they support "free thought" although sometimes their actions contradict that.

Actions, the bone-headed argumentative side of internet atheism?

 

[pmoseman]

A beautiful interpretation of God, thanks! I agree about personifying God. I think it's just something people did to make the idea easier to comprehend and imagine. Saying we are "made in his image" because it's too hard to imagine a God that isn't at all like us. But why do we do that?

I think God is not a single being, but more like a huge group of different entities or yes, energies. Nothing in the world is the way it is because of ONE thing. No ONE cell evolved to make us what we are today, and no ONE human make all the technologies that allow us to live the way we do today. It even takes two people just to create another person, so why are we so fixated on the notion of one God?

I think there are many gods in the bible and most times it refers to the Lord, which I think is different from God.

 

[flyhighk]

The thing I hate most about atheism is that it is just like a religion. They're as argumentative and close-minded as any Christians I know. I don't understand them as a religion because it seems like their only purpose is to tear down other people's beliefs, and what's the point of that? If someone has a religion that makes them feel peaceful and happy, what is the point of taking that away from them? Why have meetings every week just to confirm your nonbelief and cause arguments?

What I like about atheism is the fact that they support "free thought" although sometimes their actions contradict that.

I think all organized religion causes problems.

If all religion did was "make people feel peaceful and happy" then barely anyone would intervene. But look around you, look at all the damage and trouble religion causes, that's why atheists often tear down false beliefs.

Meetings and discussions are productive and intellectually stimulating. They're not just for confirming nonbelief or causing arguments.

 

[ForEverAfter]

If all religion did was "make people feel peaceful and happy" then barely anyone would intervene. But look around you, look at all the damage and trouble religion causes, that's why atheists often tear down false beliefs.

Nonsense.
Religion makes billions of people happy.

Look around me?
I don't see religion doing any harm around here (at all). Never do.
Sure, if I look on the television (or open a history book) I see the harm.
But, then, I see democracy "doing harm" also... Yet democracy isn't a popular target.

It would be a huge undertaking, but I'd really like someone to try and back-up the opinion that religion is doing more harm than good. It seems, to me, like that's just what people want to belief. Like, have you actually investigated it? Or are you just repeating what popular media tells you verbatim?

Everybody focuses on the harm that religion does. Just like with social observations, we focus on injustice (rape and murder). Most anti-religious people have no idea what the religious world is like, because they've never allowed themselves to get close to it.

I can give you an endless series of examples of how men have acted badly throughout history.
So, are men bad (relative to women); as religion is bad (relative to atheism)?

 

[pmoseman]

You have to look for it. Don't expect your immediate area to be filled with examples.

Assume the statement, "religion does more harm than good", is true in all instances; then a single instance where religion is objectively better than without religion is all you need. That would probably be a lot simpler, although it needs to be a very strong example.

The first step would be finding something good that religion does for someone; not just by happenstance, but something consistent that those without religion rarely (<1/1000) experience.

On the other hand, show me a case of religion doing harm to someone, under the previous conditions.

The fact Hitler was either a Jew or an Infidel isn't going to make the cut. Either way it is not an easy thing to pull off. I suspect that most of the time religion is simply an aside without much material value. Social constructs that use religion as a division would be a good example. I think one could objectively show personal harm comes directly out of social outcasting determined by religious affiliation but I suppose social outcasting occurs frequently even without religion, religion just happens to be used in that role.

Would certain cultural practices which are cruel be quite as horrible without religious backing? And is that backing we consider a religion per se or something disguised as religion. I would value religion more if it was not so easily manipulated, by those in power. Theoretically the morality of religion could do good.

It is an important question to someone considering entering the profession. Perhaps there is more research on this area than one would guess.

... but yes, do please back that statement up if you can.

 

[ForEverAfter]

You have to look for it. Don't expect your immediate area to be filled with examples.

Why? My immediate area is filled with examples of good stemming from religion, so why do I have to search to find the bad? In person, I've never seen any bad (in my entire life). I live in Melbourne, Australia. You tell me how religion is bad here.

Assume the statement, "religion does more harm than good", is true in all instances

It's a general statement, so it can't be true in "all instances". That doesn't make any sense.

; then a single instance where religion is objectively better than without religion is all you need.

Where religion is objectively better than without religion?
What? That sentence is seriously difficult to decipher.
You mean a single example of religion doing good?
I can give you thousands, that I've personally observed. But that's just circumstantial.

Although, I suspect you're saying an example where the world would be better off with religion?
How do you expect me to do that? Neither of us have any idea what the world would be like.

The first step would be finding something good that religion does for someone; not just by happenstance, but something consistent that those without religion rarely (<1/1000) experience.

Why does it have to be something that those without religion rarely experience?
If religion inspires charity, why do the non-religious have to be utterly uncharitable?
There's some seriously flawed logic in your post.

On the other hand, show me a case of religion doing harm to someone, under the previous conditions.

The fact Hitler was either a Jew or an Infidel isn't going to make the cut. Either way it is not an easy thing to pull off. I suspect that most of the time religion is simply an aside without much material value. Social constructs that use religion as a division would be a good example. I think one could objectively show personal harm comes directly out of social outcasting determined by religious affiliation but I suppose social outcasting occurs frequently even without religion, religion just happens to be used in that role.

Would certain cultural practices which are cruel be quite as horrible without religious backing? And is that backing we consider a religion per se or something disguised as religion. I would value religion more if it was not so easily manipulated, by those in power.

I'm not suggesting that religion hasn't done harm (or harm hasn't been done in the name of religion).
But, how much? And how much good has been done? (You're not answering these questions, at all.)

Theoretically the morality of religion could do good.

Theoretically? You're being crazy.
What: you think no good has ever come from religion?
Please go and do some Googling. You're WAY off the mark.

It is an important question to someone considering entering the profession.

What profession?

Perhaps there is more research on this area than one would guess.

Not really. Frankly, I don't know how an educated adult could possibly be unaware of the enormous amount of good that has been done in the name of Christianity alone. (Not to mention Buddhism, Hinduism and Judaism.)

No offense, dude, but you don't know what you're talking about.
Google the word "saint".

but yes, do please back that statement up if you can.

Maybe you should back up your own statements. I suspect that more good has come from religion than harm, but I'm not convinced of that and that's not what I said.

You're making an extraordinary statement that requires some sort of explanation.
Are you honestly suggesting that no good has come from religion?
If not, how much good do you think has come from religion?
And, have you - honestly - looked into it? (At all... ?)

 

[pmoseman]

I live in Melbourn, Australia. You tell me how religion is bad here.

http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2009/s2725782.htm

It's a general statement, so it can't be true in "all instances". That doesn't make any sense.

It is not necessarily a general statement. If you think of spirituality doing more harm than good, in a single person's life, in a given year.

I am just trying to think of a way to quantify the statement.

Where religion is objectively better than without religion?
What? That sentence is seriously difficult to decipher.

An individual with religion, better off, than a person without religion: societal issue, social class, illness being with religion better than without.

Why does it have to be something that those without religion rarely experience?

It is very unusual to be a lone survivor aboard a plane crash. If the lone survivor having prayed before taking off that they would survive is not evidence of divine providence, nothing is, but is it a benefit of worship? If I recall, from church, the biggest benefit is received after you die. It is mainly old testament where there is a promise of immediate revenge on the heathens, correct? Jesus said you have to die first.

I'm not suggesting that religion hasn't done harm (or harm hasn't been done in the name of religion).
But, how much? And how much good has been done? (You're not answering these questions, at all.)

Nor would I attempt it. These are difficulties for someone who wants to make the statement about religion doing more harm than good.

Theoretically? You're being crazy.
What: you think no good has ever come from religion?
Please go and do some Googling. You're WAY off the mark.

Theoretically if there is a bird which can't fly and lives in water, would you can it a bird? It doesn't have to be a thing which exists, just theoretically something that could exist. Theoretically, praying might actually lower your odds of winning the lottery.

What profession?

A religious profession: preacher, nun, Messiah. They would want to know before they start whether religion actually benefits people. There is probably some previous research to that effect.

Not really. Frankly, I don't know how an educated adult could possibly be unaware of the enormous amount of good that has been done in the name of Christianity alone. (Not to mention Buddhism, Hinduism and Judaism.)

No offense, dude, but you don't know what you're talking about.
Google the word "saint".

This goes back to something needing to be out of the ordinary. When you live in a society predominated by religious anecdote you don't have many counter examples of people considered saints, who also turn out to be atheists, but that is to be expected.

Maybe you should back up your own statements. I suspect that more good has come from religion than harm, but I'm not convinced of that and that's not what I said.

You're making an extraordinary statement that requires some sort of explanation.
Are you honestly suggesting that no good has come from religion?
If not, how much good do you think has come from religion?
And, have you - honestly - looked into it? (At all... ?)

That is what I am saying. You can't say religion has done more harm than good without backing it up.

 

[ForEverAfter]

It is not necessarily a general statement. If you think of spirituality doing more harm than good, in a single person's life, in a given year.

I am just trying to think of a way to quantify the statement.

An individual with religion, better off, than a person without religion: societal issue, social class, illness being with religion better than without.

Objection: circumstantial.
Sustained.

(What's your point?)

It is very unusual to be a lone survivor aboard a plane crash. If the lone survivor having prayed before taking off that they would survive is not evidence of divine providence, nothing is, but is it a benefit of worship? If I recall, from church, the biggest benefit is received after you die. It is mainly old testament where there is a promise of immediate revenge on the heathens, correct? Jesus said you have to die first.

You're lumping all religions together and making general statements that only (arguably) apply to certain religions.
I never said praying to a God to save you from a plane crash made sense.

You're doing something that a lot of people on this sub-forum do, when discussing religion.
When convenient, the conversation ceases to be about religion and becomes a conversation about fundamentalists.
(I suspect) because they're easy targets?

For the record: Christianity (because, I guess that's what we're talking about now?) does not encourage prayers for intervention.
In fact, it does the opposite: you should accept God's will, rather than insisting upon intervention; God works in mysterious ways.

Have you read The Book of Job?

If I recall, from church, the biggest benefit is received after you die. It is mainly old testament where there is a promise of immediate revenge on the heathens, correct? Jesus said you have to die first.

That's not what the church teaches (from my experiences), no.
And - at one point - I was studying theology and religious education at university.
It's easy to misunderstand passages in the Bible, as an outsider.

A lot of the atheists who shit on Christianity in this sub-forum would be surprised, I think, if they bothered to go and talk to a priest.
People who are brought up without God only get to know Christianity through Ned Flanders and other fundamentalists.

We should not fear death.
Death is beautiful. It is beyond extraordinary.
I have personally experienced it nearly a dozen times.

The anti-religious assume that heaven and hell were invented to trick people into doing good.
You know how people (religious and non-religious alike) say, "When you die, your life flashes before your eyes."
Well, it does. And you're faced with everything you've ever done. Every guilty feeling you've ever repressed.
The more good you do in life, the easier death is; if you sin, you will pay for it on your deathbed.
This is just the transition from life to thereafter; either way the final destination is "heaven".

Christianity very clearly states that you are rewarded in life and death.
The anti-Christian argument that Christianity devalues life is bullshit.
Don't bother quoting passages from the Bible, to try and disprove this.
I'm not going to play that game with you.

I challenge you to go speak to a priest.
But, do so with an open heart.
Try to learn something.

You can't say religion has done more harm than good without backing it up.

I'm objecting to the numerous implications (in your posts and others) that religion does more harm than good.
I'm not required to back up your statements. You are.

Back-peddle, if you like, and pretend that you haven't been arguing against religion.

...

Do me a favor, though.
When you're dying (hopefully decades from now), remember this conversation.
Because I won't be there to say, "I told you so."

 

[pmoseman]

I called Christianity your religion but can what you directly experience accurately be called a belief?

 

[ForEverAfter]

can what you directly experience accurately be called a belief?

Yes, because it requires interpretation.
In that sense, everything is a belief.

I believe that I am here, at my computer, typing this.
Before I woke up this morning, I believed in my dream.

I have experienced near-death, not the finality of death.
So my understanding of the latter is very much a belief.

 

[pmoseman]

Very elegant. Is anything not a belief?