Is Atheism good?

[Kraska]

I guess I should say that I cannot believe in things if I find the evidence is so strongly against them, even if I wanted to believe. On that note, I don't feel bad about not believing in a god, souls, spirits, and so forth. I don't a believe a god actually resolves any fundamental problem of existentialism, so that makes no difference. A god is not a necessary premise to morality, so God is not important there, either. Given the state of the world, I of course am lead to question what kind of crazy or deranged god would subject humanity to what parts of it experience on a day to day basis and really find a lack of meaning more comforting than the notion that we have a sadistic omnipotent overlord. Regarding the after life, I find death worrisome no matter you look at it. An eternal afterlife is as disturbing to me as oblivion.

So, I'm okidoki without religion, thank you very much.

You blame God for the state the world is into?
We, the human beings, created this world. With all its atrocities.
Even most of the so called natural disasters are created by us.

 

[redacted]

You blame God for the state the world is into?
We, the human beings, created this world. With all its atrocities.
Even most of the so called natural disasters are created by us.

Then what does God even do?

 

[Magic Poriferan]

You blame God for the state the world is into?
We, the human beings, created this world. With all its atrocities.
Even most of the so called natural disasters are created by us.

If God is omnipotent and God is our creator, then he/she/it is the reason we are here creating the suffering, and God is refusing to intervene to make things better. I've said before that God is not omnipotent or God is not benevolent, but it's pretty clear God can't be both.

 

[iwakar]

You blame God for the state the world is into?
We, the human beings, created this world. With all its atrocities.
Even most of the so called natural disasters are created by us.

By that logic parents aren't responsible for children, networks aren't responsible for ratings, and farmers aren't responsible for harvests. Blame and credit are two sides of the same Responsibility coin. Do you mean to tell me that the common God we speak of is exempt?

 

[Magic Poriferan]

A well considered and good post.

I agree with you that God and the promise of an afterlife do not solve existential problems or death anxiety, at least definitely not in any experiential way, I dont feel that eternity is more, or as, terrifying than oblivion.

I dread oblivion more but even if it could be irrefutably proven that the afterlife was wonderful and waiting on you after death it doesnt remove the need to die to get there. Which is horrible.

I don't just dread dying, I dread an eternal afterlife, even in heaven.

On the other hand I dont see any crazy or deranged God, the whole God in the dock thing to me just belies a lack of understanding of what God is and also a kind of anthropomorphism which is mistaken, although if you are to judge using that criteria then no God is preferable to a mad or wicked one. Although I would say that a mad or wicked deity is no deity at all but something else. A pretender. Which is entirely possible.

Now you're sounding like a gnostic.

Anyhow, you can't deny that many, probably most theists have a rather anthropomorphic idea of God. At least in the USA, I recall data showing that only a quarter of religion people believe in a God that was neither interventionist nor judgmental.

Morality can be considered apart from God, although as a believer I dont do that, I do think that properly understood the morality which stems from belief in God is radically humanistic, radically ecological and balanced, it does not demand too much sacrifice, although it does demand a proper and true accounting, both consciousness and conscience.

To me, if God is an omnipresent thing that never punishes nor rewards, never forces thing in a tangible way, and it cannot be proven or disproven exist, then it is irrelevant, and I could care less whether or not this so-called God exists and consider the discussion a waste of time.

 

[Kraska]

I think it is thrilling and inspiring that human beings can be good without the help or threat of some sort of omniscient omnipotent being surveying them constantly.

This is what your question sounds like to me: What a miserable existence you must live, not believing in outlandish lies to make yourself feel less shitty about the truth. How do you manage that?

Here's the thing. I don't want some stagnant, dogmatic mythology to comfort me. Sure I might want to believe that we all go to a magical land of candy and happy after we die, but I'm not going to believe it just because I want it to be so. That is rather foolish don't you think? It reminds me of when children want a toy and the parents say no, I don't have the money for that. And the child counters with: "But I want it, you have to!" But the child isn't going to get that toy, because that's just the inescapable fact of the matter. Besides, religion doesn't just create nice comforting lies. It can create horrible nasty lies like unbaptized babies go to limbo when they die, if you worship the wrong God you burn and suffer for all eternity, etc.

Religion seems all happy and loving NOW. That's because its powers are waning. Not so long ago before this, not believing could cost you your life. They forced their dogma down our throats and had a monopoly and our minds when they were strong. We have become more educated and have discovered so much more about the world. The bully can't push us around anymore because we can hold our own. Now it's saying: "Pfft all that opression, hellfire, and violence? Ah that was the old us, that's in the past man, chill out. I just wanna be yer bud! Jesus just wants to rap with ya man." It has to take that tactic if it wants to survive.

I don't believe in God. I believe with education, science, logic, and a thirst for self-improvement, we will make the world a better place. There is no need for God.



The war on terror is a terrible example for you to prove your point. George Bush is not an atheist he is a Conservative Christian. And he actually framed the war on terror as a "Crusade". Many people in the United States supported attacking them based on religious differences. There was a great deal of anti-Islamic sentiments at the time, and even today. Besides, I think you're confusing secularism with Atheism. You're attaching ideologies to Atheism, when Atheism is not attached or associated with anything political. Atheism is not secular politics. And this religious extremism thing is not a 21st century phenomenon. Look at the crusades, the Spanish Inquisition. Look at all the holy wars fought over the last couple milennia.

That being said, if you aren't capable of defending your points than I guess I will have to do it for you. War and ignorance does not require Religion to happen. It is about fear and ignorance, and lack of education. But here's the thing, by claiming to have all the answers and scaring people with threats of damnation, Religion perpetuated this fear and ignorance to further their own agenda. That is almost the entire basis of religion, a tool to keep the masses in check. Rational, empirical thought does not do this. It does not claim to have all the answers. But when it does find definitive answers, they are based on rigorous testing and logic. And if you use logic and empiricism to convince people of a plan of action you are not preying on their ignorance and fear. You are educating them. That is why I would rather use science as my guidepost. Sure it doesn't have all the answers yet, but they don't just make shit up. Besides it is always moving forward and discovering more. It only grows stronger and forces Religion to give more and more ground. The opposite will never be true. Science won't have to do the awkward: "Oh that limbo thing we said a while ago? Just ignore that now".




Here's the thing. The world is better. It is less violent and murderous than it has been in a long time and this trend shows no sign of stopping.

http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/steven_pinker_on_the_myth_of_violence.html

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...ence-has-stopped-making-sense/article2186573/


That's the sad thing, that the world is still so terrible, and yet it has never been better in that respect. Medicine is making magnificent advances. They can remove tumours and correct tremors with ultrasounds now! Just because violence and disease still exist doesn't mean that science and reason is failing. Because unlike religion, Science doesn't claim to have all the solutions, they're simply just working towards finding them.

What has religion ever done to cure illness? When Mother Teresa was sick and dying, she didn't pray to be healed and stay in one of her sick beds at a Sisters of Charity location. She went to one of the finest hospitals in the United States.

You don't need faith to accept science because it works and actually provides verifiable evidence.

Very interesting post indeed.
But again you like most of the people like you fail to understand one thing. The church as an institution runned by corrupted people with private agendas is one and God and faith is something else. You like to use the atrocities the church did in the past taking advantage of people's stupidity as an argument against religion.

Now, if you would have paid more attention at my earlier post, you would have seen that I wrote that manipulation have many forms. The war of terrorism is one of the best examples of political manipulation. I never said that Bush was an atheist or anything.

About the world being a less violent place, think again.
Have you seen the latest cartoons? Ben 10, Batman and the others? Smash that, kick this, puch the other one, throw the bad guy into a pile of boxes. Kids are indoctrinated with violence since early childhood so those articals are nonsense. Stop reading only things that you want and look around you.

 

[Kraska]

This is a point of confusion when discussing the question of God. I don't choose to believe atheism. It isn't something I look to for help in my life or for comfort, and it doesn't make me feel better. It is simply the best reasoned sense I can make of reality. I don't believe what pleases me to think or to fulfill a personal desire. My conclusions are a reflection of what I am able to honestly understand about reality.

There is a question of how relevant it is to have a worldview that makes you feel good. I can see an argument in favor of that, but for some reason whether it makes me feel good, bad, or indifferent is not relevant. Trying to understand reality as it is, whatever that may be seems like the approach that would lead an individual to identify real problems to solve.

Have you ever thought that you can belive the reality as it is and at the same time belive in God as well?
I for example accept the Big bang theory and the evolutionist one and I will belive other theories as well as long as science comes with some decent proof.
But those theories are no proof against God.

 

[redacted]

Have you ever thought that you can belive the reality as it is and at the same time belive in God as well?
I for example accept the Big bang theory and the evolutionist one and I will belive other theories as well as long as science comes with some decent proof.
But those theories are no proof against God.

Are you saying God has no causal relationship to reality?

 

[Lark]

I don't just dread dying, I dread an eternal afterlife, even in heaven.

I dont, I dont even dread an existence which would be entirely cerebral or consciousness based but without physical or feeling aspect.

Although if it where an existence without God that would be a different story and for all eternity? It doesnt bare thinking about.

Now you're sounding like a gnostic.

I dont mean to, I dont know a lot about gnosticism.

Anyhow, you can't deny that many, probably most theists have a rather anthropomorphic idea of God. At least in the USA, I recall data showing that only a quarter of religion people believe in a God that was neither interventionist nor judgmental.

I believe that God could be both interventionist and judgemental but why what criteria or measure? If God is responsible for creation then I would expect him to act as some of the deep greens suggest their Gaia spirit does, ie human suffering could be a result of failing to check our numbers or behave in congruence with eco-systems.

If there's as many anthropomorphic theists as atheists then that's disappointing.

To me, if God is an omnipresent thing that never punishes nor rewards, never forces thing in a tangible way, and it cannot be proven or disproven exist, then it is irrelevant, and I could care less whether or not this so-called God exists and consider the discussion a waste of time.

You mistake my point I think, morality should not be based upon seeking to avoid the wrath of God and incur his favour, God isnt like some sort of celestial lab coated behaviourist and it is entirely possible to live a Godless morality and still be moral or ethical and upstanding but as a believer I would make my moral choices based upon God's teaching, personally I believe that if you're an atheist and believe the whole thing is a process of alienation of human traits to an imaginary friend you could still live God's teaching as I understand it and have a good life.

Eric Fromm makes much the same point in his book Man For Himself, an enquiry into the psychology of ethics, the whole book is praise for the old testament teaching to love others as you love thyself.

However, while an atheist or agnostic could adopt that morality because it seems sensible to for me, as a believer, it only really is satisfactory because I know it is God's teaching as relayed by his prophets and son, which as I understand it was in many ways himself in person, although I know there's even believers challenging that thinking now.

 

[Kraska]

I've never thought about atheism, I've never thought about God either. I never believed in God even as a kid. & I went to church & all that. It just never even entered my thinking, the concept of God. I mean, where would He be? It's like the idea of the perfect father figure.... purely fantastical. My personality type is RCUAI, & one of the items on there is "atheistic/agnostic tendencies"... so I've just never bothered with the God scene.

You really confuse me. You never thought about atheism but you also never thought about God either. So you simply chosed to be atheist because of you personality type that says you have atheistic tendencies?

 

[Lark]

Have you ever thought that you can belive the reality as it is and at the same time belive in God as well?
I for example accept the Big bang theory and the evolutionist one and I will belive other theories as well as long as science comes with some decent proof.
But those theories are no proof against God.

To be honest the big bang and evolution dont really explain origins despite suggesting they do, properly understood they explain from the point of or from the point after origins.

 

[Kraska]

If denial helps you deal with the harsh realities of life, then power to you.
Like I said, I can't lie to myself, so it wouldn't work for me.

So what proof do you have that there is actually nothing after death?
Because if you call that a reality then you must have some solid proof.

 

[Kraska]

How is atheism a form of extremism?

Atheism is the default state for a person

Atheism in my vision at least means to blindfully belive everything science gives you and denie eveything that opposes it.

 

[King sns]

It's not good or bad, I always view it as a closed mindedness though. There are a lot of things that we can't see as humans with our small scientific eyes. I don't think atheists have their beliefs because it makes them "feel good" -it's just how they think about the topic. The opposite is when people believe in God and go to church just because the idea of possible eternal salvation makes them "feel good." I can fathom that view a little better but feel that it is largely based on fear and prevents open speculation- (just as much as being atheist prevents it.) You have to do mental flip flops to stay within the bounds of your beliefs and still continue to think about it on a completely honest level. I think most every modern person is somewhere in between, though.

 

[redacted]

Atheism in my vision at least means to blindfully belive everything science gives you and denie eveything that opposes it.

Whoa whoa whoa.. this is not atheism at all, nor does it match scientific convention. Science isn't some authority figure. In fact, the most core assumption of science is "questioning everything is good". That being said, I do take some scientific stances for granted -- I have neither the will nor the ability to work through every proof in every discipline. But you can bet that every 19 year old breaking into a field is trying as hard as he or she can to disprove currently held beliefs. So the beliefs that stand have been questioned by thousands of the greatest minds in every field. And even then, I am tentative about believing what I believe and am open to completely rejecting notions I've taken for granted in the face of new evidence.

There is nothing blind about science that is not even more blind about religion.

 

[Edgar]

So what proof do you have that there is actually nothing after death?

You cannot prove a negative. I cannot prove to you that there is no afterlife anymore that you can prove to me that there are no unicorns and mermaids.

Because if you call that a reality then you must have some solid proof.

Reality is based on proof, not the absence of proof. What I believe to be real is what I can observe with my own eyes or can logically justify.

The concept of justice in the afterlife as described in major religions seems ludicrous to me. People die (leave their physical bodies) just so they can be punished or rewarded in sensuous ways? How does one feel the burning of hellfire or the sexual pleasures of 72 virgins without a body? And how does one retain memories after death, so they know for what they are being punished? People lose their memories after getting roofied or by falling down a flight of stairs. Dying seems a lot more dramatic. And what is the point punishing or rewarding someone when he doesn't even remember what he did to earn that?

 

[redacted]

So what proof do you have that there is actually nothing after death?
Because if you call that a reality then you must have some solid proof.

Let's turn this around.

What proof do you have that there is actually something after death? Because if you call that a reality then you must have some solid proof.

You shouldn't use this argument because it applies equally to your stance. (And in fact, the burden of proof should go to positive claims, not negative ones.)

Let's all forget about proof for a second and remember Occam's Razor. The simplest explanation consistent with evidence is the best. Since both belief in the afterlife and un-belief in the afterlife are consistent with all the evidence we have, we should default to the simple explanation... which is, when our brains shut down, that's it -- with this belief we don't have to create an entirely new universe to explain how our consciousness is transferred to the non-physical realm, etc.

I mean, imagine I said "when you die, you turn into an invisible rock on some island in the middle of the Pacific Ocean and maintain your consciousness but you lack the ability to communicate. You can, however, fly around, but if a human instrument could observe an effect you have on the environment, you lose this ability". You'd probably think this was completely crazy, but it's a theory just as consistent with evidence as any other theory regarding the afterlife.

 

[Beargryllz]

Atheism in my vision at least means to blindfully belive everything science gives you and denie eveything that opposes it.

Atheism is the lack of a belief in god(s)

You are making into your own construct while ignoring the meaning. You have invented your own notion of what atheism is, and it is completely separate from atheism.

Blindfully believing everything science gives you would be a unique belief structure, completely separate from atheism, and it would be worthy of skepticism by anyone, especially an atheist.

 

[Munchies]

Atheist beleive in disbeleif. Hypocrites. Better off admiting you don't know for sure so why can't they just admit they don't know, and not beleive in anything?

 

[iwakar]

Atheism is the lack of a belief in god(s)

Actually, atheism would be the disbelief in god(s), whereas agnosticism is the lack of belief concerning god(s).

Otherwise, yeah 'n stuff.