Atheism Thread

Transhuman Plus

Proficient
Dec 28, 2012
89
70
23
33
When people in America say they believe in "god", more often than not they are referring to a Christian god. There's nothing wrong with structuring your argument to the audience, and it certainly doesn't mean I'm blind to all the metaphorical blood each other religion has on their figurative hands.

And I won't apologise that Christianity is the poster-child for religion having a disastrously negative impact on society. It is the leader in suffering.
 

PacMonster1

Proficient
Mar 6, 2013
52
40
23
33
philly
Right but when phrasing an "all religion is bad and deserves of maximum ridicule of those who follow it" point of view, framing all religion under one, is a weak argument. The point being, if you dislike Christianity (and it sounds specifically like you mean Catholicism and some sects of Protestantism) then just say that, or form a better all encompassing argument.

Jewish people have had the raw end of the stick numerous times in history, none of it having to do internally with their religion but with external people's problems. In fact it was their faith that got Jewish people through some very tough times they had.

The family-centric and peace practicing Buddhist religion can hardly be seen as having "metaphorical blood" on its hands. How about Hinduism (though some dark chapters of sacrifice are in that one...technically).

I'm not religious nor believe in organized religion (silly rules are silly), but faith does have its moments of practicality.

Essentially I'm saying, yes when stupid people do or say stupid things or try to prevent human progress that should be talked about, criticized, and stopped. When people aren't saying stupid things and just happen to follow a particular religion which may or may not influence their life choices independent of other people, then don't aggressively lump them in with the crazies.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Titmar

Indie Anthias

Master
Jan 14, 2013
117
77
218
The more impractical, unlikely, and/or offensive a belief is, the less respect it deserves. Religion fit those three criteria so perfectly that the respect it deserves is a negative value: it deserves ridicule. At the same time, if I were to legitimise religious beliefs even momentarily, who's to say I'm not complicit in or apathetic to the suffering that occurs daily due to the influence of religion? I can wake up knowing I'm not apathetic to the Catholic Church giving Africans AIDS through misinformation, or Christians shaming homosexuals into suicide, or Christians stunting the general intelligence and willingness to learn of an entire swath of people, or Christians impeding scientific research, or any other of the plethora of harms they inflict.

I don't know man, that approach just doesn't seem effective to me.You can't simply beat ideas to death with verbal brute force, and attempting to do so always (this is a generalization I am comfortable with) causes holders of the idea to fortify their position. Drives them into cults, ultimately... makes it much harder to ever get them to entertain your own point of view, which is what you want them to do, isn't it? In fact, this seems so obvious to me that I am very prone to suspect belligerent arguers of not really wanting to have their idea accepted by their opponents at all, but are really just enjoying the feeling of power in beating up on others... call it a form of masturbation, or just being a troll.

Certainly this is not the case with you....

You shouldn't assume that entertaining a perspective automatically validates or endorses it. As Aristotle said, "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." It may feel repugnant if you're not used to it but I believe that this is the only thing that works. It is the principle of discourse... and it's virtue is precisely that it is not warfare. Belligerence / dismissiveness / ridicule are warfare.
 

Indie Anthias

Master
Jan 14, 2013
117
77
218
A bit of what I think.

I think atheists are right but not very poetic (Sam Harris sounds like a fucking DARE cop to me). I don't think spiritual concepts like souls or god are real in a dualistic sense (on a different plain of existence form the material world). And I am not a Deist. I think spiritual concepts are powerful psychological phenomena that maintain cohesiveness between people. This is Carl Jung's theory of archetypes. In that sense, they are real enough, and I am very interested in them. Some more than others, I am a voracious picker and chooser. Some religious ideas are only interesting to me as an anthropologist, some are invaluable metaphors that I personally take direction from.

I would be a Christian if they would let me. Most of Christian doctrine is appealing to me when taken metaphorically. But most Christians I know at least see literal belief in the resurrection as an irreducible part of it. Alan Watts talked about this as the "appeal to historicity", which Buddhists do not rely on. This is why I have a much easier time being a Buddhist. Buddhism has gotten bogged down with religion where it has been long established, but it was not originally a religion. Buddhism was Hinduism stripped of religion, for export to cultures where Indian culture would not fit. Hinduism is appealing to me as well because it represents an alternative cosmology, that I think is valid and useful. It is the view of the world as theater, as opposed to the fully-automated machine we think it is. I feel that life is a game, and Hindu cosmology is harmonious with me.

Taoism is . Animism is a wonderful way to view the world, and can't be said to be wrong if taken metaphorically. I think we should all adopt metaphorical animism, our impact on the world would be a lot... healthier.

If you still want to call me an atheist after all that, you are technically right but I personally don't have much use for the label.
 

Transhuman Plus

Proficient
Dec 28, 2012
89
70
23
33
I don't know man, that approach just doesn't seem effective to me.You can't simply beat ideas to death with verbal brute force, and attempting to do so always (this is a generalization I am comfortable with) causes holders of the idea to fortify their position. Drives them into cults, ultimately.

So you're saying that the group for which "It's true because it makes me happy" is a legitimate argument aren't fortified in their positions. And that the groups for which metaphorical canabalism and literal human sacrifice are not just accepted but flouted aren't cults. What an embracing perspective.

... makes it much harder to ever get them to entertain your own point of view, which is what you want them to do, isn't it?

The debate will never be as important to me, because I'm not deluded enough to think that the outcome determines where our immortal souls spend eternity. When evidence and logic are ignored, the ultimate outcome is always an impasse.

In fact, this seems so obvious to me that I am very prone to suspect belligerent arguers of not really wanting to have their idea accepted by their opponents at all, but are really just enjoying the feeling of power in beating up on others... call it a form of masturbation, or just being a troll.

Here I thought that I was calling Roche out on being a dick. Is this a religious debate now? Did I blink, and did this become a debate? No. No it didn't.
Jewish people have had the raw end of the stick numerous times in history, none of it having to do internally with their religion but with external people's problems. In fact it was their faith that got Jewish people through some very tough times they had.

Yeah, and Israel isn't introducing segregated "Palestine only" buses. And they haven't been giving Ethiopians birth control for years, specifically to limit their numbers. And they haven't been secretly discarding Ethiopian blood donations. And they don't drop bombs in densely populated neighbourhoods in Gaza. Thank god they have their Jewish faith to re-affirm that they're god's chosen people, excusing this behaviour.

The family-centric and peace practicing Buddhist religion can hardly be seen as having "metaphorical blood" on its hands.
What's a little slavery and serfdom between a master and their subject.
 

Indie Anthias

Master
Jan 14, 2013
117
77
218
So you're saying that the group for which "It's true because it makes me happy" is a legitimate argument aren't fortified in their positions. And that the groups for which metaphorical canabalism and literal human sacrifice are not just accepted but flouted aren't cults. What an embracing perspective.

Maybe I should have said 'drives them further into cults'. But not everyone who is now entrenched started off that way, ya know.

The debate will never be as important to me, because I'm not deluded enough to think that the outcome determines where our immortal souls spend eternity. When evidence and logic are ignored, the ultimate outcome is always an impasse.

So you participate for your own amusement. That's fine, I guess.

Here I thought that I was calling Roche out on being a dick. Is this a religious debate now? Did I blink, and did this become a debate? No. No it didn't.

Not a religious debate, but a debate about arguing styles. I am responding to one specific thing you said, not your entire discussion with Roche. I took a logical extension from what you said about the importance of ridiculing fools, and your elaboration that I asked for, to assume that if you think people have wrong-headed ideas that cause demonstrable harm, that you would want to change those ideas. Apparently I was wrong about that, as you suggested above.
 

PacMonster1

Proficient
Mar 6, 2013
52
40
23
33
philly
Yeah, and Israel isn't introducing segregated "Palestine only" buses. And they haven't been giving Ethiopians birth control for years, specifically to limit their numbers. And they haven't been secretly discarding Ethiopian blood donations. And they don't drop bombs in densely populated neighbourhoods in Gaza. Thank god they have their Jewish faith to re-affirm that they're god's chosen people, excusing this behaviour.

Are you suggesting those very recent (chronologically speaking) developments are because of their religion? While "protecting holy land" might have been an excuse long ago it isn't anymore. Fighting is not always driven by religion and just to prove my point all you could come up for as a negative for Jewish people are non-religious policies not even carried out by the religion but by people of a specific geographic location.

What's a little slavery and serfdom between a master and their subject.

Again, are you suggesting this happened in early history because of the religion?

If these were the best counter examples you could come up with I'm disappointed in you. I mean sure, you said them in that "my word is law" sarcasm you do but it was so lacking in conviction that I'm surprised you bothered even responding. So basically your hatred of Catholicism encompasses the other religions just because that makes it more convenient to argue that way. I get the generic "all religion is lies" mantra but we aren't talking generics here. I provided specific religions that don't fit your all evil mantra and you hardly countered.
 

Transhuman Plus

Proficient
Dec 28, 2012
89
70
23
33
Not a religious debate, but a debate about arguing styles. I am responding to one specific thing you said, not your entire discussion with Roche. I took a logical extension from what you said about the importance of ridiculing fools, and your elaboration that I asked for, to assume that if you think people have wrong-headed ideas that cause demonstrable harm, that you would want to change those ideas. Apparently I was wrong about that, as you suggested above.

I don't over-estimate the power of discussion to enlighten, especially in a religious debate.

Are you suggesting those very recent (chronologically speaking) developments are because of their religion? While "protecting holy land" might have been an excuse long ago it isn't anymore. Fighting is not always driven by religion and just to prove my point all you could come up for as a negative for Jewish people are non-religious policies not even carried out by the religion but by people of a specific geographic location.

"Protecting the holy land" is still a go-to excuse. Ever heard of religious Zionism? Differing theistic ideals are clearly a factor in government approved Israeli racism towards the Palestinians.

Again, are you suggesting this happened in early history because of the religion?

I wouldn't call Tibet before 1950 "Early history". Help yourself to a god-damn history book.

If these were the best counter examples you could come up with I'm disappointed in you. I mean sure, you said them in that "my word is law" sarcasm you do but it was so lacking in conviction that I'm surprised you bothered even responding. So basically your hatred of Catholicism encompasses the other religions just because that makes it more convenient to argue that way. I get the generic "all religion is lies" mantra but we aren't talking generics here. I provided specific religions that don't fit your all evil mantra and you hardly countered.

I mean, if excusing atrocities/ racism and engaging in slavery aren't strong enough social evils, I guess I should give up.
 

a bored teen

Adept
Jan 20, 2013
440
101
48
Requiem
To me it seems through the methods of evolution (I mean evolution not natural selection) the world was formed through chaos and randomness maybe even by accident. Then could some one explain to me how we actually have order today then. Science is predictable not random, evolution Is extreemly random therefore why do we teach it as science. Evolution is a theory not fact. Also what Darwin shows is natural selection not evolution. Evolution takes in mutations and things of the such which are bad things. Also the Big Bang theory, if the mass was stable what made it unstable? Why was it made unstable?
 

PacMonster1

Proficient
Mar 6, 2013
52
40
23
33
philly
"Protecting the holy land" is still a go-to excuse. Ever heard of religious Zionism? Differing theistic ideals are clearly a factor in government approved Israeli racism towards the Palestinians.

First off, no it isn't. Currently the go to excuse for animosity is reciprocal violence by both parties prompting continued animosity. Hamas commits an act of terror somewhere, Isreal responds by bombing some populated area, thus continued fighting. While I, nor you, can speak for Isreal you can't claim religion is the sole motivator just as I can't claim with absolute certainty it isn't, so it's a moot point regardless.

Secondly, instead of expanding your point all you did is defend your poor one, Isreal doesn't speak for all Jewish people the same as Jesse Jackson doesn't speak for all black people. You brought up a geo-political conflict as an excuse to condemn an entire religion followed by many more people than that of the population of Isreal (who all aren't bombing Palestine anyway, just the military does that).

I wouldn't call Tibet before 1950 "Early history". Help yourself to a god-damn history book.

I like how you avoided the question. Mostly because your point was full of crap. Their religion was not the cause of whatever social-economic system they had. And again your example is a tiny subset of people who may or may not have followed the religion. I could say all atheists are evil based on the horrible acts of a few atheist nutjobs, but then I'd be generalizing and generalizations are bad aren't they ;)


I mean, if excusing atrocities/ racism and engaging in slavery aren't strong enough social evils, I guess I should give up.

Again I could name several "atrocities" or racist events carried out by completely secular people, That argument has so many holes it sank to the bottom of the sea long ago
 

Transhuman Plus

Proficient
Dec 28, 2012
89
70
23
33
First off, no it isn't. Currently the go to excuse for animosity is reciprocal violence by both parties prompting continued animosity.

I said "A" go-to excuse. Not "The" go-to excuse. But way to deliberately misconstrue what I've said.

Hamas commits an act of terror somewhere, Isreal responds by bombing some populated area, thus continued fighting. While I, nor you, can speak for Isreal you can't claim religion is the sole motivator just as I can't claim with absolute certainty it isn't, so it's a moot point regardless.

See, as I've just said, I clearly don't think it's the sole motivator. Of course, it's clearly "A" motivator, which means it isn't a moot point. If religious Zionism is a factor in the continuation of the Israel-Gaza conflict and racist Israel policies, then it's clearly not faultless.

Secondly, instead of expanding your point all you did is defend your poor one, Isreal doesn't speak for all Jewish people the same as Jesse Jackson doesn't speak for all black people. You brought up a geo-political conflict as an excuse to condemn an entire religion followed by many more people than that of the population of Isreal (who all aren't bombing Palestine anyway, just the military does that).

When I'm backing up my earlier statements that Israel's horrendous human-rights record is in part because of Judaism, I'm backing up my earlier statements. When I'm pointing out that Judaism is at ends with logic and evidence,THAT'S when I'm condemning the entire religion. You'll know it when you see it, I promise.

I like how you avoided the question. Mostly because your point was full of crap. Their religion was not the cause of whatever social-economic system they had. And again your example is a tiny subset of people who may or may not have followed the religion. I could say all atheists are evil based on the horrible acts of a few atheist nutjobs, but then I'd be generalizing and generalizations are bad aren't they ;)

Lamas definitely excused, took part in, and profited from serfdom. I never once said or implied that Buddhism or Buddhist teachings were he basis of serfdom in Tibet.

Again I could name several "atrocities" or racist events carried out by completely secular people, That argument has so many holes it sank to the bottom of the sea long ago

Give it a rest Pacmonster, you're embarrassing yourself.
 
Jan 29, 2013
195
99
48
Any atheists on this website? If so discuss your thoughts on atheism and religion, and possible oppression from religious people. (Dont blatantly hate on religion though, keep it civil)
Are non atheists invited to discuss oppression from religious people while not hating on religion itself?
 

Indie Anthias

Master
Jan 14, 2013
117
77
218
Lamas definitely excused, took part in, and profited from serfdom. I never once said or implied that Buddhism or Buddhist teachings were he basis of serfdom in Tibet.

It sure seems like you implied it just by bringing it up. I think this goes back to this post:
What's a little slavery and serfdom between a master and their subject.
in response to this:
The family-centric and peace practicing Buddhist religion can hardly be seen as having "metaphorical blood" on its hands. How about Hinduism (though some dark chapters of sacrifice are in that one...technically).

Why else would you have mentioned it?

I'm just going to latch onto Buddhism here because it is an easier case to make, and if successful the principle may be extended to the other things you have been talking about.

Isn't it easier (more parsimonious) to assume that, where Buddhism is present with atrocious behavior, it is a coincidence and other complications carry the full weight of explanation, since there are many more examples of Buddhism NOT accompanying atrocities? And that Buddhism itself (to the degree that it can be reduced to an independent or cohesive entity) is in fact blameless? The average Buddhist is no more of a shithead than you or I.


Another thing. What's embarrassing about arguing a position?
 

Transhuman Plus

Proficient
Dec 28, 2012
89
70
23
33
Why else would you have mentioned it?

Because Buddhist practitioners were content with, engaged in, and their religious influence furthered serfdom in Tibet.

I'm just going to latch onto Buddhism here because it is an easier case to make, and if successful the principle may be extended to the other things you have been talking about.

Isn't it easier (more parsimonious) to assume that, where Buddhism is present with atrocious behavior, it is a coincidence and other complications carry the full weight of explanation, since there are many more examples of Buddhism NOT accompanying atrocities? And that Buddhism itself (to the degree that it can be reduced to an independent or cohesive entity) is in fact blameless? The average Buddhist is no more of a shithead than you or I.

Karma has been used to rationalize racism, caste, economic oppression, birth handicaps and everything else. Taken literally, karma justifies the authority of political elites, who therefore must deserve their wealth and power, and the subordination of those who have neither. It provides the perfect theodicy: if there is an infallible cause-and-effect relationship between one's actions and one's fate, there is no need to work toward social justice, because it's already built into the moral fabric of the universe. In fact, if there is no undeserved suffering, there is really no evil that we need to struggle against. It will all balance out in the end.
-David Loy

Another thing. What's embarrassing about arguing a position?

"Atheists kill people" is no more an argument against atheism than "Dog-lovers kill people" is an argument against dogs, and the fact he used is as a "counter" to me listing the social evil of the two religion he cited shows he either doesn't understand the difference or doesn't want to. It's like he jumped into the discussion and just assumed because I'm arguing that Religion X allows/contributes to/causes social evil Y, that it's the entirety of my argument against them, and I'm being unfair to all the "docile" religions.
 

ShockBolt21

Master
Feb 1, 2013
1,097
346
166
USA- Eastern Time Zone
I really don't think that it makes any sense to believe in God. There is no proof, or even any evidence, to suggest a divine presence, and most people who believe in God only do so because they were told to. Also, Is anything actually solved by answering the unanswered questions of the universe with more unanswerable questions? Why not admit that we just don't know?

Here's what I think- the presence of modern science eradicates the notion of god. I heard this quote once somewhere, and I feel like it perfectly describes my beliefs.

The concept of religion is completely illogical and makes no sense.

Evolution
I'd like to clear some things up about evolution. It has not actually been proven, but there is a huge amount of scientific evidence to support it. There is no evidence to support creationism. That is why schools choose to teach their students evolution today, and why I find it irrational that people today still choose to believe in creationism when every last bit of evidence points to evolution.
Well if evolution is soooo true, and we evolved from monkeys, than why aren't today's monkeys evolving into half-human monkey people? How do you explain how a banana fits perfectly in the hand, and has a tab so it can be peeled open, and changes colour to indicate ripeness?
The reason that not every monkey has evolved is because they are perfectly capable of surviving on their own. The 'goal' of evolution is to stay alive and reproduce, and monkeys can do that just as well as we can, or close. The only way for all monkeys to evolve is for every single monkey that didn't mutate to die, and there was nothing to cause that, which is why monkeys still exist today.

As for the bananas, it is beneficial for plants to have their fruits eaten, as it helps to spread their seeds.
 
Last edited:

Fuzzle

Wuschelig
Jan 10, 2013
1,854
1,023
512
Under the Traveler
The reason modern monkeys do not continue to evolve is because they are perfectly capable of surviving on their own. The 'goal' of evolution is to stay alive and reproduce, and monkeys can do that just as well as we can, or close. The only way for all monkeys to evolve is for every single monkey that didn't mutate to die, and there was nothing to cause that, which is why monkeys still exist today.

As for the bananas, it is beneficial for plants to have their fruits eaten, as they help to spread their seeds.


Actually, as long as the rule "survival of the fittest" is applied to a species (which is the case when looking at monkeys in their natural habitat) evolution will not stop.

Evolution is a very slow process and is driven by 2 factors: The pressure of mutation and the pressure of selection.

Mutations are changes of the DNA structure that !randomly! occur and have no specific purpose, it's a passive process. Most mutations do not change the genetic outcome of the individual since only a small percentage of DNA code is actually important, in fact cells in your body mutate this very second (that's also the reason why cancer is not really a disease that can be cured with medicine, it's a cell randomly mutating its genetic material, translating to proteins that "tell the cell" to multiply exponentially).

Mutation pressure is the amount of mutagenic material in the individuals surroundings, causing a higher mutation rate of the cells (UV light for example). Mutation will only affect an individual that mutates early in development or even before both gametes fuse (another thing to note is that the older the organism, the higher the mutation rate, that's why the risk of a handicapped child is higher when the parents are older). A higher mutation pressure indicates a higher rate of evolution.

Selection pressure is an important factor in the surroundings of a group of idividuals of one species. If by coincidence an individual mutates so that it has an advantage over the others because it doesn't need as much food to survive, it's chances of passing on his genetic material depend on the pressure of selection. If the group of individuals is living in a friendly environment where more than enough food is present the mutated individual doesnt have an actual advantage over the other individuals in his group. The group doesn't have to adapt to its surroundings to survive, therefore the selection pressure is low and the mutated individual will most likely have the same chance of passing on his material as the other individuals.
A rapid change of the environment (a drought, less food available) causes a higher death rate among the other individuals in the group, therefore the selection pressure is high. The individual with the highest chance of survival (our mutated individual) is higher likely to pass on his genetic material and his successors will also have that advantage of having to consume less food. This would most likely lead to spreading the mutated material among the population, allowing it to survive more efficiently. If the mutated individuals become unable to fertilize the non mutated individuals it would potentially lead to the extinction of the original species because the mutated and the normal individuals are in competition with each other (same food sources, same habitats).

This process is of course very unlikely and that's why evolution is so slow. In reality mutations that change the phenotype are usually a disadvantage causing the individual/genetic material to go extinct. If you think about it: There theoretically could have been early humanoid apes that developed the first step to the ability to fly. The reason you cannot fly today is because it was no advantage for the species, because it was only the first step.
Changes through mutations are usually very slight as well. A species will not suddenly grow wings and fly, that's a series of many random mutations, that either A we're an advantage, B didnt change the fitness of the individual, C were developed in an environment with low selection pressure.

Coming back to the statements made:

The reason modern monkeys do not continue to evolve is because they are perfectly capable of surviving on their own.
A: Evolution did not stop for modern monkeys, it's just too slow for us to see/happens in very small and rare steps.

The only way for all monkeys to evolve is for every single monkey that didn't mutate to die, and there was nothing to cause that, which is why monkeys still exist today.
A: The only way for all monkeys to evolve is for one monkey or a series of monkeys to mutate (or experience a chain of mutations for that matter). The advantages over the rest of their species can lead to the extinction of the modern population. The mutated monkeys would take their place. However, this is very unlikely and such a slow process. On top of that, we humans manually change natural selection to our liking, causing this scenario to be almost impossible.

As for the bananas, it is beneficial for plants to have their fruits eaten, as they help to spread their seeds.
A: True but I would have to look up the benefits for the plant on the internet. The green color indicates the consumer the non-ripeness of the fruit, keeping the consumers away until he seeds are fully developed.

Well if evolution is soooo true, and we evolved from monkeys, than why aren't today's monkeys evolving into half-human monkey people?
A: Because evolution is slow and !random! you cannot predict the next step of their evolution process. Also we are talking here about thousands of generations of the species only to change slight things.

How do you explain how a banana fits perfectly in the hand, and has a tab so it can be peeled open, and changes colour to indicate ripeness?
A: Most likely the body of the consumer changed other than the fruit adapting to the consumer. The plants' way to spread its seeds is through its consumers eating the fruits and pooping out the seeds again in random and new locations. The reason Bananas are not as big as a house is because the plant is at an advantage if as many consumers as possible eat its fruits and spread the seeds. The plant did not plan this out, the form and behaviour of the plant are the outcome of millions of random mutations that gave the plant an advantage over the other plants of their species.

Transhuman Plus ShockBolt21
 
  • Like
Reactions: Stab Her Son

Jebus

Propane Specialist
Staff member
Jan 10, 2013
1,127
1,248
511
United States
I know I'll probably look like shit for not writing an essay here but all I can say is that I lost 3 at least friends from some form of Christianity. Because their parents force-fed their religious beliefs down their throats, they took it all in. After they discovered/realized I was an atheist, they told me pretty much the same shit, "I cannot be associated with you anymore." or "My parents won't let me around you anymore."

I'm sorry, because of that, I have no tolerance for bible-thumping assholes anymore. I won't shove my belief down your throat as long as you don't do it to me.
 

Fuzzle

Wuschelig
Jan 10, 2013
1,854
1,023
512
Under the Traveler
I know I'll probably look like shit for not writing an essay here but all I can say is that I lost 3 at least friends from some form of Christianity. Because their parents force-fed their religious beliefs down their throats, they took it all in. After they discovered/realized I was an atheist, they told me pretty much the same shit, "I cannot be associated with you anymore." or "My parents won't let me around you anymore."

I'm sorry, because of that, I have no tolerance for bible-thumping assholes anymore. I won't shove my belief down your throat as long as you don't do it to me.

must be bad being an americanand all, we dont have such a thing here, or very rarely
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jebus