Freedom From Atheism

I want to help you understand the world around you and atheism better, and I want to understand how someone can have the ideas you have, so let's talk.

in other words, TheSamantha, Writer is saying "I want to patronize you and show you how my view is the correct view, and how you're crazy and misguided, so let's talk so that I can convince you how intellectually superior I am, and maybe you'll follow my thoughts from here on out, as logic and reason are the only things that comprise reality". Don't let yourself be fooled by Writer's "I want to help you" bullshit bait. Who else says "I want to help you in your misguided ways?" Religious missionaries.


I don't know what you mean by "no concept of hypocrisy in atheism", but we are not banned from using that word or even being victim to it. I am an atheist and I have been a hypocrite about many things throughout my life, it's a fairly common state of a affairs for all humans I imagine. Certainly we strive to not be hypocrites the same way we strive to not be liars, but I imagine it's like that pretty much no matter what your views on the existence of a deity are.

But it's not intellectually honest to be a hypocrite, Writer. Quit preaching intellectual honesty and personal integrity unless you can live up to it. You sound like a Christian.

TheSamantha is completely correct. There is no room for hypocrisy with any concepts in Atheism, which you have illustrated just by being you, Writer. You have gone on and on about intellectual honesty and integrity, preaching not being a hypocrite to your words, etc., and suddenly, you act as if this can be allowed in Atheism. Clearly it can, as you are being a hypocrite right now. It was only a few posts ago that you were praising Atheism's tradition of an unflinching questioning of anything that appears to be hypocritical, such as religious authority and dogma.

Just face it, you guys have ethics, a shared world-view of the Universe and what reality ultimately is and comprises of, including its history, a belief system, and Churches. There's nothing that's not screaming RELIGION with Atheism, other than their denial to label themselves as one.

 

If they worship Zeus then it stands to reason Zeus is their God.
Jesus, then its the Christian God
Buddha then its Buddhism.
My moral source? This is not about me or 'my' religion.

Unless atheists believe murder is a good thing which is outside the philosophical reach reach of an atheist model.

In the religious world murder is not good, it is evil, therefore more murder = more evil. Stalin was an atheist and atheists of our times are liable for the murder approaching 100 million.

as Stalin and several others have proven they murder anyone for any reason.

Works great for settling arguments, at lease as long as they have bigger guns or power to impose their 'beliefs' on others through gubbermint agencies.

yes the he was judge jury and executioner. Anything to maintain and oppress opposition to his whims.

Does not change the fact he was an atheist who murdered millions. Fine he was an atheist autocrat. That is a pointless position.

So atheists pick and choose or cherry pick where they are willing to be rational?
It places a quality on life that atheist lacker models cannot.

And that is different from someone who believes in God how exactly?

in a manner of speaking, however I lean more toward proving points and issues than playing footsie in parlor tea time banter-fests that relentlessly fail coming to a rational reasoned conclusion.

 

well they call themselves nonreligious despite they operate with all the prerequisite elements of a religion. For atheists its unjustifiable rejection of principles and the sad part is that they accomplish this using doublethink semantics..

 

[SIZE=12pt]I think all religions are belived in God. Its an undeniable fact that all the religions on this earth claim to be from GOD. Hadhrat Muhammad (SAW), Moses, Jesus, Krishna, Buddha, Baba Nanak and every religious leader taught people to believe and worship GOD. Although all religions have slight differences in the attributes they ascribe to God, but all the religions hold the common view that there is a God who has created this universe. History tells us that even those ancient religions that no longer exist in this world, they also held the view of God, whether they were in ancient America, or in jungles of Africa or in England, or in Java or Sumatra, or in Japan and China or in Siberia or in India. It is an important point that what's the reason for this thought provoking unity among so varied religions? In the ancient times people were not linked together through any means of communication or transport, then how is it possible that people living in isolation thousands of mile away from each other, held the common view about the existence of God? Many of the lands were even not discovered at that time.Even now it is difficult for two persons to completely agree on any issue, then how come this universal unanimity regarding existence of God? All these facts lead us to the only possible conclusion that not only there is a living God but also that God has always manifested Himself through some means to his men to make them believe in Him. Historians agree that if there is such universal unanimity about any issue then there is no reason to disagree with it. Another fact worth noting is that there have been a small number of atheists all the times, this proves that the 'existence of God' is not related to any psychological need of human beings. In this world, one can lead ones life without acknowledging the existence of God, though he will be attempting to close his eyes to the very obvious and clear truth.[/SIZE]

 

Full Definition of religion

1. 
   1 a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
   
2. 
   2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
   
3. 
   3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness
   
4. 
   4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith ~ merriam-webster
   

1. Commitment and devotion to Reason and Materialism
2. Atheist Churches (and I would also argue public education)
3. Atheists obviously conform to their belief in no God
4. Atheism is the belief in no God, and there is faith that since there is no evidence, there is no God

 

Yes I agree. The only possible argument between lack of belief vs. belief in no God is Weak vs. Strong Atheism. But overall, lack of belief in a God equals belief in no God in my opinion, in the same way that not being hungry also equals being full.

 

If it is so obvious then why is there the need for such cryptic and violent scripture as the old testament be interpreted differently than what appears at face value of it's message?

This is a god who would drown the entire population of the earth, women, children, animals?

Deuteronomy 17
If there be found among you, within any of thy gates which the LORD thy God giveth thee, man or woman, that hath wrought wickedness in the sight of the LORD thy God, in transgressing his covenant; 17:3 And hath gone and served other gods, and worshiped them, either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded; 17:4 And it be told thee, and thou hast heard of it, and inquired diligently, and, behold, it be true, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought in Israel; 17:5 Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die.


The God of the Bible also allows slavery, including selling your own daughter as a sex slave (Exodus 21:1-11), child abuse (Judges 11:29-40 & Isaiah 13:16), and bashing babies against rocks (Hosea 13:16 & Psalms 137:9).

 

You can't say there is a universal agreement about the existence of god and use that as an argument against atheists, when atheists by existing disqualify you from saying there is a universal agreement about the existence of god.

 

You mean the God of the Old Testament. The Bible is the words of men seeking God, and it reflects the perspectives and different authors at different times with different agendas. The flood you mention in Genesis is based on Mesopotamian folklore: the tales of Atrahasis, Ziusudra, and Gilgamesh. It's interesting to compare the nuances among them. The Sumerian and Babylonian gods decided to wipe out humanity because humans were being too rowdy. But one of them, the irrepressible Enki, warns one of the humans who builds an Ark. Genesis, of course, is more moralistic and has one God running the whole show--giving fuel to generations of skeptics to ask how He could change his mind. There is also the important inclusion of a covenant in Genesis outlining the future relationship between God and humans: the laws of Noah which still bind Gentiles, as well as Jews, to a moral code. (BTW, the flood never happened, so don't be too critical).

Many of the practices condoned in the Old Testament are appalling, but you leave out the parts involving justice and concern for the poor and marginal which are some of the most stirring penned by man and account for why Jews and Christians continue to be so attached to the book. Slavery and baby bashing are awful, but if you compare Greek sacred literature of the same vintage, some of that is pretty nasty, too, by modern standards: Cronos eating his children, harpies consuming Prometheus's liver just for bringing fire to humans, Greeks using deceit to get inside the walls of Troy and massacring the inhabitants, Ulysses and his crew blinding the Cycolps, Oedipus and Elektra being sexually attracted to opposite sex parent, not to mention the seduction and rape of human girls by Zeus and Apollo, etc. Christianity gained ground because by comparison Yahweh seemed to have some morals. Pretty strong stuff, but where would Freudian and Jungian psychology and Saturday matinees be without it? These myths plumb the depths of the morass that's the human psyche and give us something to be appalled about.

 

The God is merciful. First is the mercy which was manifested for man without any action having proceeded from man; for instance, in the creation of the earth and heaven and sun and moon and planets and water and air and fire, and all those other bounties upon which man's life and survival are dependent. Without doubt all these bounties are a mercy for man which have been bestowed upon him without any right, through pure grace and beneficence. This is the grace which came into operation even before the coming into being of man who had no kind of hand in it.
The second type of mercy is that which follows upon the good actions of man. For instance, when he supplicates God earnestly, his prayer is accepted, and when he cultivates the earth laboriously and sows the seed, Divine mercy fosters the seed, with the result that a large quantity of grain is gathered. In the same way careful observation would show that Divine mercy accompanies every one of our righteous actions whether they are religious or secular. When we labor according to the laws prescribed by God, Divine mercy comes into operation and makes our labor fruitful.

 

God was merciful for creating the conditions necessary for the existence of humans which god created? That makes no sense; if god had not created those conditions, then he could not have created humans. That's like saying "I know my mother loves me because she had an egg that was fertilized by a sperm and 9 months later I came out of her" . . . all you are describing is necessary initial conditions, not "mercy".

Prayer has been shown to actually be more harmful than not praying in some studies . . . http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/31/health/31pray.html?_r=2

 

And at other times, it has been successful. The difference may have to do with a number of factors, but I think it's clear that Prayer and Placebo have some kind of effect.

http://plim.org/PrayerDeb.htm

 

Yeah, way to ignore the issues I brought up in favor of a useless and uncalled for sermon.

 

To get rid of Religion

 

That seems to be the goal of the so-called "New Atheists' (Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, Hitchens, et al), but not necessarily that of all or most atheists.

 

Actually they are after faith-based thinking, not religion per se, as a set of rituals and communities and aesthetics and such.

 

I didn't ask who they say their God is, that much is obvious. I asked what is the source for their morals.

You are saying that all atheists lack a moral source, which is a pretty outrageous claim. I am an atheist, and fittingly today, Wednesday, is the day where I volunteer at my local hospital bringing food, blankets and comfort to bed ridden patients. I'll try and consider why I bother to alleviate human suffering if there is no Thor, God of Thunder in the sky above me to reward me for doing so. You say this isn't about you or your religion, but you've made it about me, so why don't you enlighten everyone here, and explain why you're a better person than me for having a belief in your head about the existence of a deity.

So you agree that the murders of Joseph Stalin could not have been motivated purely from his atheism, as atheism does not speak to whether or not murder is to be acted upon. I'm glad you finally understand. You can have profoundly ethical atheists who are perhaps also humanists, or you can have profoundly unethical atheists such as stalin, who are perhaps also nationalists, racists, ideologues, etc.

If that's your metric for measuring evil then the grand prize for evil goes to the Almight God Himself, who single handedly destroyed virtually all life on earth by forced submersion underwater leading to drowning and cardiac arrest, because he wasn't pleased with his own creation. Then after a second go he still wasn't that thrilled and ended up wiping out a few tribes here and there as well, cuz they were dicks.

Reminds me of the Catholic Inquisition mostly. Or rule under the Ayatollah Khomeini. Both pious sources of morality no doubt, because when asked "do you believe in a god", their answer is in the affirmative, which alone magically bestows and bequeaths one with a superior morality in every issue and domain.

It's the opposite; if he had instead believed in Krishna, and been the revolutionary autocrat of the Soviet Union, then his murders would have been in the name of Krishna.

Most do, yes. It's called being human and fallible. Many atheists are conspiracy theorists, I'm sure there are atheist flat earthers. Does that mean that atheism leads to belief in flat earth? No. Atheism is the lack of a belief in a deity.

Atheists are not the ones most known for compartmentalization of rationality; that award goes to those who employ faith as a tool for "understanding" the universe.

Ok, I'm going to assume here you never finished high school. In case you didn't know, throughout most of human history, the most pious, god-fearing men on the planet, allied with the powers of the state to form structures which enforced mandatory belief in the deity chosen by said state alliance. For 99% of human history, believing in God simply was a position you had to reasonably hold to avoid very real punishments, ranging from social ridicule and banishment to outright corporal torture and murder. So historically, believing in God was not a position of rebellion or going against society. For most of history, atheists, and there have been a lot of them since the beginning, have had to hide their views and hide their persons from the light of discourse for fear of the moral actions of pious god fearing men such as yourself.

So I ask you again, what is the source of morality for someone who believes in Zeus?. Simple question, I merely ask upon you to expand your point that atheists "have no moral source".

 

If that's your metric for measuring evil then the grand prize for evil goes to the Almight God Himself, who single handedly destroyed virtually all life on earth by forced submersion underwater leading to drowning and cardiac arrest, because he wasn't pleased with his own creation. Then after a second go he still wasn't that thrilled and ended up wiping out a few tribes here and there as well, cuz they were dicks.

Not a great measuring stick for evil. Would you say that Tsunami's are evil per se? Because you're making it sound like that with this hypothetical argument about God. Murder by dictators is rather different than that. It's best to look at Religious texts from a place of valuing Mythology as a way of communication in more ancient times, rather than obsessively looking at all of it literally.

Atheism is the lack of a belief in a Deity

Not only is Atheism a lack of belief in a God, but its more pure form is THE BELIEF THAT THERE IS NO GOD. Weak Atheism is the more cowardly form, where they have a belief in no God, but aren't willing to admit that it's actually a belief.

​Atheists are not the ones known for compartmentalization of Rationality; that award goes to those who employ Faith as a tool for "understanding" the Universe

I would call using Rationality as your measuring stick towards whether all things in the Universe are either true or untrue a compartmentalization of Rationality. I love how you're suddenly willing to be hypocritical when you've gone on and on about bashing being hypocritical. Suddenly, you're allowed to be irrational to match your argument, when you earlier stated that you are devoted to Reason and being intellectually honest?

Also, faith is still required in the ultimate assertions of Atheists. You don't actually know whether God does or doesn't exist, but you have a faith that God doesn't exist based on the fact that there is no sound evidence.

Ok, I'm going to assume here that you never finished High School...

Here it is yet again, Zzap, this is the part where Writer tries to submerge and suffocate you with his "intellectual superiority". He feeds off of this sense of having his head on straight a little more than you. Problem is, 99 percent of human history hasn't even been about the Christian God.