Discussing Atheism and atheistic beliefs

[Times Roman]

The problem with the Bible is that it lays down the framework of what is right and wrong for people. But the notion of right and wrong itself has an implied sense of universality to it; in order for that notion to work, everyone must believe in the same right's and wrong's. However, today's society is a clash of cultures... you have people coexisting who come from different cultures and, therefore, who have very different notions of right and wrong. One could argue that there are some universal right's and wrong's, but for the most part, you can't have a single set of culture-based rules in a society made up of people from different cultures.

some of the commandments, imho, are universal truths.

5. honor your father and mother - the people who raised you and cared for you when you were defenseless and unable to truly care for yourself. As they age, they too may need assistance. Part of the circle of life

6. You shall not murder

7. You shall not commit adultery - this is universal in the sense that you have vowed to remain monogamous and true to your spouse. To violate this is to violate your oath.

8. You shall not steal - it all boils down to this. Taking something that does not belong to you. Murder is stealing someone's life.

9. Do not bear false witness against your neighbor

10. you shall not covet your neighbor nor his belongings nor his family

Finally, something in my wheelhouse. TR, you are correct. Most atheists would technically be agnostic. Some atheists will tell you god does not exist. Most of us will say, there is no proof that god exists. Almost every atheist I know will freely admit that if there is ever scientific proof of a god, they will change their opinion. For whatever reason it's much easier for me to believe we simply don't know YET, what came before the big bang. I'm ok saying I don't know. This is much more plausible than the invisible sky wizard theory.

Most of society doesn't understand the meaning of the word agnostic so we all get lumped together.

And nobody is trying to keep you from praying in public. Get real. Myself, and many other atheists want to keep your god (which ever one that happens to be) away from our government. Separation of church and state is exactly that. If you allow a Christian symbol on state property you have to allow all religious symbols and that gets really, stupid really fast. If we only allow one type of religion then the state is endorsing a religion and that is forbidden by the constitution.

I've never heard of anyone trying to remove bibles from library's. If you have an article that backs up this claim I would like to read it and then I will tell you it's stupid.

I think the literal meaning of the separation doctrine is that no public money will be used to support any particular religion. politicians are free to express religious views, of course.




Now, back to my original thought.

It seems to me that many atheists are really against religion as opposed to for a particular philosophical belief system. Also, it seems to me that many atheists were born into a religious family, and become atheist as a form of rebellion without doing the heavy work of developing, in my opinion, the necessary framework for such an extreme viewpoint.

Many atheists feel strongly about their view, and I'd like to know why. Is it based on critical thinking and rationality, or is it emotionally based like the religious true believers have developed?

[jay94]

some of the commandments, imho, are universal truths.

5. honor your father and mother - the people who raised you and cared for you when you were defenseless and unable to truly care for yourself. As they age, they too may need assistance. Part of the circle of life

6. You shall not murder

7. You shall not commit adultery - this is universal in the sense that you have vowed to remain monogamous and true to your spouse. To violate this is to violate your oath.

8. You shall not steal - it all boils down to this. Taking something that does not belong to you. Murder is stealing someone's life.

9. Do not bear false witness against your neighbor

10. you shall not covet your neighbor nor his belongings nor his family

I disagree with some of these. I have some pretty strong opinions (which could easily perceived by some as 'evil') about certain things, but I don't really feel comfortable discussing them.

[Times Roman]

I disagree with some of these. I have some pretty strong opinions (which could easily perceived by some as 'evil') about certain things, but I don't really feel comfortable discussing them.

I worded it carefully. the one I thought most would have an issue with, if any issues, would be #5 as there are a lot of crappy parents out there. which is why I added my .02 in there "the people who cared for you when you were defenseless". if you were abused or if your parents didn't care for you as they should, then the way I worded it would/should indicate then it doesn't apply.

I don't give a fvck, #6 is universal

#7 I had to word carefully too. I used the phrase "vowed to remain monogamous". If you are in a relationship that both parties agree does not apply, then it doesn't apply. But I personally think very few marriages start out that way. they may evolve that way, and eventually run into trouble, but I doubt very many start that way.

#8 is universal. period

so is #9 and #10

which could you possibly disagree with?

by virtue of you post saying you disagree, but don't want to talk about it, means you do want to talk about it only if egged on...

....so I'm egging. which one do you disagree with?

[jay94]

I worded it carefully. the one I thought most would have an issue with, if any issues, would be #5 as there are a lot of crappy parents out there. which is why I added my .02 in there "the people who cared for you when you were defenseless". if you were abused or if your parents didn't care for you as they should, then the way I worded it would/should indicate then it doesn't apply.

I don't give a fvck, #6 is universal

#7 I had to word carefully too. I used the phrase "vowed to remain monogamous". If you are in a relationship that both parties agree does not apply, then it doesn't apply. But I personally think very few marriages start out that way. they may evolve that way, and eventually run into trouble, but I doubt very many start that way.

#8 is universal. period

so is #9 and #10



which could you possibly disagree with?

by virtue of you post saying you disagree, but don't want to talk about it, means you do want to talk about it only if egged on...

....so I'm egging. which one do you disagree with?

I need to think a lot more about things before giving my actual opinion about each of these, and sadly, at the moment, I don't have enough time to do that. But I will answer, just not now.

[Deal Me In]

Now, back to my original thought.

It seems to me that many atheists are really against religion as opposed to for a particular philosophical belief system. Also, it seems to me that many atheists were born into a religious family, and become atheist as a form of rebellion without doing the heavy work of developing, in my opinion, the necessary framework for such an extreme viewpoint.

Many atheists feel strongly about their view, and I'd like to know why. Is it based on critical thinking and rationality, or is it emotionally based like the religious true believers have developed?

I struggle with the concept of being against religion. I try not to be, but there are times when I get so frustrated I do lash out against all religions. This is something some atheists struggle with.

You are right to a point. Almost all of us were brought up with some form of religion. For me, it was catholic. I became an atheist because I simply don't believe. If I don't belief, how can be religious? It had nothing to do with rebellion. It would be easier to believe.

Most atheists refer to themselves as rational thinkers. We believe what we can prove. Nothing more, nothing less. In my experience, what separates most atheist from believers is we are capable of saying, "I don't know." This statement seems to really bother religious people. They have to have an explanation for everything. When they can't explain something, "baby jesus works in mysterious ways." That makes no sense.

Now, many believers think that atheist look down on them. I will try and explain why.

Imagine if you met me and after several conversations you came to conclusion that I was an intelligent, rational person. Then one day I told you I believed in santa claus. Not believed like a 6 year old, but I truly believed there was a jolly fat man that lived at the north pole with a bunch of elves and once a year he got in sleigh pulled by 8 flying reindeer and delivered toys to all the good little boys and girls of the world. No matter what you told me, I would not be swayed. You could point out that reindeer don't fly. A fat man can't fit down a chimney. You couldn't circumnavigate the globe in one day. Nothing would change my mind. You would think there was something wrong with me. Something seriously wrong with my ability to reason.

This is how atheists think about believers. You are simply trading one imaginary friend for another. This baffles us.

The definition of "faith" is the intentional suspension of critical thinking. I simply can't suspend my critical thinking long enough to believe in a supreme being without proof.

[Times Roman]

I struggle with the concept of being against religion. I try not to be, but there are times when I get so frustrated I do lash out against all religions. This is something some atheists struggle with.

You are right to a point. Almost all of us were brought up with some form of religion. For me, it was catholic. I became an atheist because I simply don't believe. If I don't belief, how can be religious? It had nothing to do with rebellion. It would be easier to believe.

Most atheists refer to themselves as rational thinkers. We believe what we can prove. But you can't prove that there isn't a god either. Nothing more, nothing less. In my experience, what separates most atheist from believers is we are capable of saying, "I don't know." This statement seems to really bother religious people. They have to have an explanation for everything. When they can't explain something, "baby jesus works in mysterious ways." That makes no sense.

Now, many believers think that atheist look down on them. I will try and explain why.

Imagine if you met me and after several conversations you came to conclusion that I was an intelligent, rational person. Then one day I told you I believed in santa claus. Not believed like a 6 year old, but I truly believed there was a jolly fat man that lived at the north pole with a bunch of elves and once a year he got in sleigh pulled by 8 flying reindeer and delivered toys to all the good little boys and girls of the world. No matter what you told me, I would not be swayed. You could point out that reindeer don't fly. A fat man can't fit down a chimney. You couldn't circumnavigate the globe in one day. Nothing would change my mind. You would think there was something wrong with me. Something seriously wrong with my ability to reason.

This is how atheists think about believers. You are simply trading one imaginary friend for another. This baffles us.

The definition of "faith" is the intentional suspension of critical thinking. I simply can't suspend my critical thinking long enough to believe in a supreme being without proof.

1) There is no rational way possible to disprove a metaphysical being. It's like trying to prove there are not ghosts or that there are not other people on other planets. In order to prove there are not other people on other planets, we would have to know where every planet is in the universe, and have first hand factual information that no people live there. It aint going to happen.

2) Because we cannot prove there is not a metaphysical being, then how is it possible for an atheist to factually say there is no metaphysical being? Statistically, the odds of there being a metaphysical being is not zero, therefore, it's possible. And because it is a statistical truth that there could be a metaphysical being, then for an atheist to attempt to factually say there is NOT a metaphysical being would make that statement illogical and therefore non factual. And since it is a non factual statement, it is also not rational. Because the atheist is passionate about their non factual position, then in my humble opinion, their position is no more superior to that of an emotional, non rational religious belief.

3) Critical thinking demands uncertainty, and therefore, from a rational approach, the only position that makes rational sense is that of the agnostic.

This is the flow of critical thinking. One step at a time. Thought out. Concise. Rational.

[Deal Me In]

1) There is no rational way possible to disprove a metaphysical being. It's like trying to prove there are not ghosts or that there are not other people on other planets. In order to prove there are not other people on other planets, we would have to know where every planet is in the universe, and have first hand factual information that no people live there. It aint going to happen.

2) Because we cannot prove there is not a metaphysical being, then how is it possible for an atheist to factually say there is no metaphysical being? Statistically, the odds of there being a metaphysical being is not zero, therefore, it's possible. And because it is a statistical truth that there could be a metaphysical being, then for an atheist to attempt to factually say there is NOT a metaphysical being would make that statement illogical and therefore non factual. And since it is a non factual statement, it is also not rational. Because the atheist is passionate about their non factual position, then in my humble opinion, their position is no more superior to that of an emotional, non rational religious belief.

3) Critical thinking demands uncertainty, and therefore, from a rational approach, the only position that makes rational sense is that of the agnostic.

This is the flow of critical thinking. One step at a time. Thought out. Concise. Rational.

Yes, that what I said. Most atheists are actually agnostic. Few people know the difference so we simply refer to ourselves as atheists. It's not factually accurate but it's the group we have been placed in.

In the clip I provided, Dawkins states that he has 7 levels of belief. Number 1 is, "there is a god and nothing will convince me otherwise." Number 7 is, "there is no god and nothing can convince me otherwise." Every atheist I know is actually a 6. I have not seen any proof there is a god but there is a very small possibility that one exists.

[Bonaparte]

1) There is no rational way possible to disprove a metaphysical being. It's like trying to prove there are not ghosts or that there are not other people on other planets. In order to prove there are not other people on other planets, we would have to know where every planet is in the universe, and have first hand factual information that no people live there. It aint going to happen.

2) Because we cannot prove there is not a metaphysical being, then how is it possible for an atheist to factually say there is no metaphysical being? Statistically, the odds of there being a metaphysical being is not zero, therefore, it's possible. And because it is a statistical truth that there could be a metaphysical being, then for an atheist to attempt to factually say there is NOT a metaphysical being would make that statement illogical and therefore non factual. And since it is a non factual statement, it is also not rational. Because the atheist is passionate about their non factual position, then in my humble opinion, their position is no more superior to that of an emotional, non rational religious belief.

3) Critical thinking demands uncertainty, and therefore, from a rational approach, the only position that makes rational sense is that of the agnostic.

This is the flow of critical thinking. One step at a time. Thought out. Concise. Rational.

Denying the existence of a higher being is a matter of practicality. I don't know any atheists who claim to be 100% sure that there is no higher being, but we just refuse to waste our time worrying about it/praying to one, since it seems very unlikely and we see no reason why there would be one. Also, explaining to people what "agnostic" means is a pain in the ass, so I just started telling people I was atheist after a while.

[Metalject]

Denying the existence of a higher being is a matter of practicality. I don't know any atheists who claim to be 100% sure that there is no higher being, but we just refuse to waste our time worrying about it/praying to one, since it seems very unlikely and we see no reason why there would be one. Also, explaining to people what "agnostic" means is a pain in the ass, so I just started telling people I was atheist after a while.

We learn and we progress, and while our understanding is limited to what's in front of us, this does not make what seems unlikely, unlikely.

Think through the course of human history and how many things seemed highly unlikely? The idea that the world was round or that man would ever stand on the moon wasn't something anyone could understand let alone comprehend. The idea that you could take out someone's heart and replace it with another, complete lunacy. But all these things, we now look at them as simple, they're not even exciting to us. And in our own arrogance we often view those in the past as small minded. What about in 100 years or 500 years? As we learn and experience more and more will those people not view us as small minded? Think of how big of a deal cellphones have been, no one really thinks about it now since we're so used to them but in years to come we'll look as moronic as a caveman being excited about a wheel. The point - as humans, we have a very limited understanding.

[Juced_porkchop]

We learn and we progress, and while our understanding is limited to what's in front of us, this does not make what seems unlikely, unlikely.

Think through the course of human history and how many things seemed highly unlikely? The idea that the world was round or that man would ever stand on the moon wasn't something anyone could understand let alone comprehend. The idea that you could take out someone's heart and replace it with another, complete lunacy. But all these things, we now look at them as simple, they're not even exciting to us. And in our own arrogance we often view those in the past as small minded. What about in 100 years or 500 years? As we learn and experience more and more will those people not view us as small minded? Think of how big of a deal cellphones have been, no one really thinks about it now since we're so used to them but in years to come we'll look as moronic as a caveman being excited about a wheel. The point - as humans, we have a very limited understanding.

very well put! love the post!

[Times Roman]

Denying the existence of a higher being is a matter of practicality. I don't know any atheists who claim to be 100% sure that there is no higher being, but we just refuse to waste our time worrying about it/praying to one, since it seems very unlikely and we see no reason why there would be one. Also, explaining to people what "agnostic" means is a pain in the ass, so I just started telling people I was atheist after a while.

not disagreeing with you. and no problems with anyone making a leap of faith and saying no metaphysical being. but it's the leap of faith aspect that makes atheists and true believers "birds of a feather" and therefore one shouldn't be casting stones at the other due to their particular position. I've seen the rocks fly both ways, and it makes no sense to me.

It's like arguing over the best color. one side says red, the other side says blue, and each side adamantly says the other side is wrong? WTF?

[thisAngelBites]

Many atheists feel strongly about their view, and I'd like to know why. Is it based on critical thinking and rationality, or is it emotionally based like the religious true believers have developed?

I have never met an atheist who is atheistic based on emotion (and I'm not really going to enter the discussion about whether people who don't believe in gods should call themselves atheists or agnostics, because I don't think that matters), but perhaps there are such people.

I think it has not been very carefully expressed here, but all the atheists I know have made that choice for rational reasons, based on what evidence seems to show. In addition, I think they would change their views should convincing evidence for the existence of gods be clearly shown.

For myself, I might wish to derive great comfort from the belief that there is some benevolent, patriarchal figure that loves me and is looking out for me, that is purposefully directing my life down an intentional road that I might not be able to foresee or understand. But if I stop and set aside my desire that this is true, I see no reason to believe.

I suspect that people plainly wish that such gods do exist, and that it underlies a lot of belief. And I think that quite a bit of religious doctrine is quite irrational in ways that seem to suspiciously belie the vagaries of human thought, even though it is attributed to omniscient, omnipotent supernaturals.