Why Atheism?

[Totenkopf]

The only real rational or sane conclusion is not the delusion of nonexistence, but rather the admission that b/c one has no empiracal evidence, they refuse to entertain the notion of God or gods. Ultimately, science is ill prepared to deal with metaphysical questions. There is also the problem, hinted at in Mace's post, that there are soooo many religions. If you don't grow up in one and stick with it, how do you pick the right one in the end? Sometimes disillusionment is enough to sour people on the concept of God/gods. Sort of like JJ's "what have you done for me lately.." lyric. SA's menagerie of little beasties notwithstanding, the perceived absence of a benevolent otherwordly being is often enough to make people decide that it CAN'T exist, not merely that it doesn't. And ultimately, in a modern society of anything goes if it makes you "happy", it's no wonder many would shed a belief in religion b/c such things are too limiting. Also the sense of "empowerment" that one can live life more or less on their own terms w/o having to worry about there being some kind of reckoning in an afterlife.

[Nancy Allen``]

If, if in some hypothetical otherworld the existence of a deity was proven rationally through tangible evidence and logical reasoning... then yes, people who denied this conclusion would be well served by their theistic counterparts pointing out that they were being irrational in their atheism.

 

But as regards THIS world, the real world... no religious person has ever presented one shred of evidence to support their assertion that their own personal Flying Spaghetti Monster is real.

 

No religious person has ever presented a logical argument to support their assertion that the skydaddy of their choice is actually up there.

 

So the only rational opinion to hold is that there is no god or gods. In other words, to be atheist.

 

And that gives Atheists the right and duty to tell Christians they arn't going to heaven, that when they die they'll be worm food in the ground? That's kind of forcing your beliefs on others.

[Samnmax221]

And that gives Atheists the right and duty to tell Christians they arn't going to heaven, that when they die they'll be worm food in the ground? That's kind of forcing your beliefs on others.

Not so much a duty, just a right called freedom of Speech. I'm not going to stop speaking my mid just because some whiney cultist is offended by it.

[Nancy Allen``]

I can accept freedom of speech but do Atheists believe they do not have responsibilities that go along with those rights? For example making jokes about bombs and hijacking on an airplane is not only an abuse of that freedom it's illegal. Would the way some people on both sides of the religious fence go on also be considered an abuse on freedom of speech?

[Samnmax221]

I can accept freedom of speech but do Atheists believe they do not have responsibilities that go along with those rights? For example making jokes about bombs and hijacking on an airplane is not only an abuse of that freedom it's illegal. Would the way some people on both sides of the religious fence go on also be considered an abuse on freedom of speech?

Calling Religion Bull**** is not the same thing as joking about an explosive device on a plane.

[Nancy Allen``]

So you are saying Christians can go up to Atheists and go "because of your unholy acts YOU WILL BE CAST OFF INTO THE LAKE OF FIRE!" You would be able to wear that?

[Samnmax221]

So you are saying Christians can go up to Atheists and go "because of your unholy acts YOU WILL BE CAST OFF INTO THE LAKE OF FIRE!" You would be able to wear that?

Hear it from my Grandma all the time, she doesn't know I'm an athiest, but the point is that even though she thinks I'm still a practicing Lutheran she still thinks that I don't have enough respect for family values, as thus will go to hell.

[Nancy Allen``]

Do you believe she has a right to say it to you?

[Samnmax221]

Do you believe she has a right to say it to you?

Of course, and I invoke my right not to give a damn.

[Nancy Allen``]

Good, that clears that up then. You don't think it's one rule for you and another for everyone else the way some others do.

[Windu Chi]

Of course, and I invoke my right not to give a damn.

I always implement that right, not to give a damn or as I like to say it, ''I don't give a flying f**k''.

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

What caused 2+2=4? What caused pi to be 3.141596...?

Numbers are a human invention, the universe doesn't give a damn how we measure it or its contents - humans caused two plus two to equal four and pi to equal ~3.14.

[tk102]

That answer fails jmac. We invented the symbols, we discovered mathematics. I suppose you'll say circles are a human invention also.

 

However, that aside, I'd rather hear more responses directly related to the topic of this thread.

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

That answer fails jmac. We invented the symbols, we discovered mathematics. I suppose you'll say circles are a human invention also.

I was going for the whole "is the circle really there, or is it just the cones and rods in our eyes telling us it's there" thing, because in that case, the circle is a human invention.

[Spider AL]

I'm responding to Chase's comments in the Swamp in this thread, to stay on-topic.

 

Originally Posted by Chase Windu in this thread:

But if no person knows everything. In the vast amount that people don't know, which is a whole f***ing crap load, there still could be proof of god. I'm under the impression that a true athiest would know everything and still come to the conclusion that there is no god. That's the point I was trying to make. Or are you just saying that from what you know and have seen you have come to the conclusion that there is no god without knowing everything?

Once again, I have to say (and I'm not trying to be unpleasant here) you are missing the point that I and others have made.

 

The point is: I don't need to know everything in order to rationally be an atheist. Because as a rational human being, I only believe in something when its existence can be demonstrated through tangible evidence and/or logical reasoning. There is no evidence that deities exist. There is no logical argument that supports the assertions that deities exist. Therefore, rationally, one must be atheist- that is, one must not believe in the existence of deities.

 

Let me try to make this position as clear as I possibly can. Bear in mind that I am not being flippant, I am merely making a point in the most stark, clearly delineated way that I can:

 

Say I tell you that our planet is truly ruled NOT by humans, but by super-intelligent, psychic and sentient slices of cheddar cheese who all live on the floating island of Mandango somewhere above Manhattan!

 

You would naturally reject this assertion. Why? Because there is no evidence nor logical argument to suggest that we are lorded over by nefarious portions of fromage. I have made an assertion based on no logical nor tangible evidence.

 

Therefore, if you believe in a god or gods without ANY evidence to base this belief on, logically speaking, you MUST also believe in the sentient slices of cheese. And the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Why? Because logically they are the same thing. They are beliefs without basis in fact.

 

Originally Posted by Chase Windu in this thread:

If one needs proof that god exists then I, as a believer, say that everything is a testimony of god. Like how did everything come into being? If there was a big bang there would have to be something for it to explode into. It's hard to think about there being absolutely nothing. That's why in scripture god says "I am that I am". He probably says that because the human mind isn't capable of conceiving something so great and has no beginning or end or that doesn't have any physical form in this dimension, the heavenly dimension, or any other state. Which is probably one of the reasons god said to let everything testify of him, which from what I've seen it does in many cases from what I know from scripture.

No offence Chase, but with this paragraph, you have just stated almost literally that "there are lots of things we don't know and can't explain... so there must be a god."

 

This is a total non-sequitur, and it is NOT a logical argument for the existence of any deity. I could say- just as easily- "There are lots of things we don't know and can't explain... the sentient slices of cheddar cheese must be behind it all."

 

Originally Posted by Chase Windu in this thread:

This has been an educational conversation. I can't make you change your beliefs and I don't want to force my beliefs down your, or anybody else's, throat. I'm merely trying to get behind atheist beliefs.

 

I just have a few questions for any atheist here. You don't have to answer but I am just curious and don't really want to debate it and I'll just leave things as they are. The question is, do you celebrate Christmas, or whatever, and why? considering what Christmas is.

I personally don't celebrate Christmas. I spend time with my family who do celebrate Christmas, but I don't buy presents for anyone and I refuse to receive any. This is because I don't believe in the commercial side of Christmas, and I don't believe in the religious side of Christmas.

 

As for the moral spirit of Christmas... I try to have goodwill for all men throughout the year, not merely in the month of December. Therefore while I quite like the Christmas spirit, it is something of an irrelevance.

 

-

 

Originally Posted by tk102:

There are limits to what we can logically determine. Where did the universe come from? Has it always been there? Ontologically, the creation of the universe from nowhere makes no sense unless there was something outside the universe...and something to cause that cause... ad-infinitum. So if existence of an infinite regression of causes is something modern logic is okay with, it seems to me, there is nothing precluding existence of God in the same manner.

First of all, once again, atheism isn't the idea that "The existence of a God is impossible", any more than the existence of the sentient slices of cheddar cheese is "impossible".

 

Atheism is the rationally arrived at opinion that deities don't exist. There's an important and instantly identifiable difference, that many religious people confuse. Why do we say that God and the sentient slices of cheddar cheese don't exist? Because there's no evidence to suggest that they do.

 

You use the words "there is nothing precluding the existence of God", but rational thought in this matter isn't about "precluding" the existence of anything. I don't have to find evidence that "precludes the existence" of the sentient slices of cheddar cheese before I state that they don't exist. Why? because there's never been any evidence to suggest that they DO exist.

 

Furthermore, though the esoteric disciplines of astro-physics and cosmology are almost entirely theoretical in nature, they CANNOT be compared to religious theories. Because these scientific disciplines are at least attempts to understand the universe in a rational and logical manner. Religious theories are not. End of story.

 

Originally Posted by tk102:

Why is mathematics and logic true? What caused 2+2=4? What caused pi to be 3.141596... ? Are these nonsensical questions? Are they nonsensical because we can't step outside our own logical/mathematical set of rules to answer them? Is this the same reason we can't prove the existence of a transcendental being?

Why is the truth true? Why is what is... what is? That's an interesting question. It's not nonsensical.

 

But such questions do NOT suggest or imply the existence of a deity. I fail to see how they do.

 

Originally Posted by tk102:

This same critique could also apply to many atheists who don't have a sense of humility.

 

@Mace MacLeod: Your words resonate with me greatly, though I tend towards Hinduism's "both-and" dialectic.

 

Another question for atheists: Do you dismiss then all accounts of near-death experiences, ghosts, possessions, electronic voice phenomena, auras, ESP, and, I guess, The Force? (last one was a joke ) I mean, you almost have to dismiss them outright, don't you?

As regards ghosts, possession and EVP... there's never really been any serious evidence to suggest that they're real phenomena. So I am quite comfortable in saying that I don't believe in their existence.

 

I'll be totally honest, I'm not sure what you mean by "auras". You could mean several things.

 

ESP... That's an interesting question. There's certainly subtle communication between people that is non-verbal, most of which we don't fully understand. But it's still standard sensory communication. There has never been replicable, tangible proof that truly extra-sensory communication is possible. As long as it remains merely anecdotal I cannot comfortably say that I believe in it.

 

As regards humility... humility isn't relevant to the question of whether a person is thinking rationally, so no, the same critique would not be applicable to atheists.

 

-

 

Originally Posted by Nancy Allen``:

I can accept freedom of speech but do Atheists believe they do not have responsibilities that go along with those rights? For example making jokes about bombs and hijacking on an airplane is not only an abuse of that freedom it's illegal. Would the way some people on both sides of the religious fence go on also be considered an abuse on freedom of speech?

Personally I don't think "jokes" or other innocuous mentions about bombs or hijackings should be illegal anywhere. I don't think jokes will ever cause panic anywhere, so they're never an abuse of free speech. I DO think that someone who tries to stir up a panic on a plane by actually CLAIMING that there are bombs or hijackers on a plane should be charged with something, because trying to cause a physically dangerous situation or actively, directly inciting people to commit violence IS the ONLY abuse of free speech.

 

But as regards the free speech of atheists... Atheists have the absolute inviolable moral right to puncture any illogical delusion that they come across, no matter who the religious person might be, or what erroneous beliefs they hold.

 

Originally Posted by Nancy Allen``:

Good, that clears that up then. You don't think it's one rule for you and another for everyone else the way some others do.

"Some others"? What others? The people I've seen holding a double standard on this matter are uniformly religious. I've never seen an atheist try to restrict the free speech of religious people. I HAVE seen religious people try to restrict the free speech of atheists.

[Nerd_Annhilator]

I honestly couldn't care for believing in any religion. To me its a time wasting preoccupation which in my mind would make life less enjoyable and by far less interesting.

 

To me, religion is wishful thinking for people who aren't truly satisfied with life and hope for something better. Not good. Every single minute of my life has been good no matter how miserable/depressed/angry I've been in the past. Why? Because I'm alive and I can think. I'm not treating my life as some path to good or evil. Its both, all the time, and its good. I wouldn't like it any other way.

 

Going to a catholic school my entire life I can honestly say I would not at any point want to be a part of christianity, and I'm not going to say that I know every teaching of every other religion but I know that the general idea is the same, and I don't care for it. I see no benefit.

 

Arguments, comments, concerns, etc accepted.

[Windu Chi]

Numbers are a human invention, the universe doesn't give a damn how we measure it or its contents - humans caused two plus two to equal four and pi to equal ~3.14.

You know, Jmac most mathematicians, I bet

believe the mathematics we discover here is the same everywhere else in our universe, at lease.

The same mathematics for every civilization in our universe.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

As Richard Dawkins said, it's better to see this world as something to be enjoyed, rather than as something to be endured before eternal bliss.

[Samuel Dravis]

FWIW, I don't consider life something to be endured; I think it's fascinating. Besides, I need to play videogames and I doubt they will be available in anyone's version of the afterlife.

[Nancy Allen``]

Personally I don't think "jokes" or other innocuous mentions about bombs or hijackings should be illegal anywhere. I don't think jokes will ever cause panic anywhere, so they're never an abuse of free speech. I DO think that someone who tries to stir up a panic on a plane by actually CLAIMING that there are bombs or hijackers on a plane should be charged with something, because trying to cause a physically dangerous situation or actively, directly inciting people to commit violence IS the ONLY abuse of free speech.

 

That is why there are rules on freedom of speech, why there are limits on the right to bear arms. Should it extend to something like Atheists shouldn't try and destroy the hopes those who practice religion have? To answer that question think whether or not you want religious people bashing at your door because of your views, saying that you'll burn in hell for attacking, upsetting and tormenting religious people because of their belief. Do you want that? Can you wear that? If not then the answer of whether or not attacking others because they follow religion should be clear.

 

But as regards the free speech of atheists... Atheists have the absolute inviolable moral right to puncture any illogical delusion that they come across, no matter who the religious person might be, or what erroneous beliefs they hold.

 

Without having any respect to their right to follow religion, even if it's not your belief or something you disagree with? Okay, if someone went after you because they felt your views are illogical would you say it's their inviolable moral right?

 

"Some others"? What others? The people I've seen holding a double standard on this matter are uniformly religious. I've never seen an atheist try to restrict the free speech of religious people. I HAVE seen religious people try to restrict the free speech of atheists.

 

Some Atheists believe they are a law onto themselves, they can do it but others can't, there may be examples even here on this forum but I really cannot be bothered to look even in some bid to muddy their name. The Muslim religion demands that people in their countries assimilate into their culture: women have to wear the full abayas, they cannot go anywhere unescorted, they cannot drive or ride in the front seat, ect, yet Muslims in other countries demand they act in accordance with their homeland rather than the culture of the country they are in. However in this case I'm speaking generally, religion is not the issue here but how some people regardless of religious, racial, sexual, whatever excuse you want to come up with, think they can act any way they like and no one else can.

[narfblat]

But as regards the free speech of atheists... Atheists have the absolute inviolable moral right to puncture any illogical delusion that they come across, no matter who the religious person might be, or what erroneous beliefs they hold.

 

"Some others"? What others? The people I've seen holding a double standard on this matter are uniformly religious. I've never seen an atheist try to restrict the free speech of religious people. I HAVE seen religious people try to restrict the free speech of atheists.

Your wording shows that you have as little respect for religious beliefs as some of the religious do for atheism. Those you might consider "religious zealots" have the same moral right and duty to "educate" atheists as atheists do to "puncture delusions".

 

Some atheists do try to restrict the rights of religion. Both sides need to step back, and offer a little understanding of the other.

 

a final note: we aren't Vulcans - Logic aint everything.

[Ray Jones]

Why is mathematics and logic true? What caused 2+2=4? What caused pi to be 3.141596... ? Are these nonsensical questions? Are they nonsensical because we can't step outside our own logical/mathematical set of rules to answer them?

What caused God to be there? Why is he a single deity? Or are there more? Is he alife?

 

Another question for atheists: Do you dismiss then all accounts of near-death experiences, ghosts, possessions, electronic voice phenomena, auras, ESP, and, I guess, The Force? (last one was a joke ) I mean, you almost have to dismiss them outright, don't you?

What does this have to do with the possible existence of a god? I could have like a ton of explanation why ghosts exist without that there must be a god. If would be a god, then he surely has better things to do than creating auras. Do non-atheists dismiss possible rational explanations for those "phenomenas"?

[Jae Onasi]

Sigh, I was hoping for something a little more positive.

 

(with some snippage) Now, the terms of that question imply several things. First, they imply that the (religious) questioner formulates his or her beliefs based on whether they "like" those beliefs, or because those beliefs are "more attractive" to them. Their beliefs are not based on logic or evidence, in other words, but on the arbitrary emotional gratification that those beliefs provide.

 

Therefore there is also an inherent implication that the concept of "right" or "truth" is taking a serious back-seat in the mind of the religious person.

 

Secondly, they imply that the questioner has not taken the usual statements of atheists on board at all.

 

In my opinion, this limiting factor has already been described in this very post, namely that religious people believe what is palatable for them to believe, that which bolsters their self-image, gives them a sense of superiority over the rest of humanity, and a sense of belonging to an elite group. Whatever is emotionally/psychopathologically attractive to a religious person, they will believe. And in general terms, this mindset is unlikely to be limited to purely theological areas of thought.

 

This chain of reasoning would suggest that being religious is to be self-serving in an extremely obstinate way. It also explains why religious people will NOT see reason in the matter: Their level of self-investment in their delusion is simply too great to allow them to stray from the path.

 

That's quite a lot of assumptions for something I never intended in the least. You've taken a series of questions, made assumptions about them that are incorrect, and proceeded to make some unpleasant comments based on those erroneous assumptions. I never implied anything remotely related to what you are commenting on here. Next time, please consider confirming my intent before you make assumptions like that.

 

All I wanted to do was ask for people's personal experiences with atheism. My goal was not to attack atheism or defend theism. I just wanted to know how people individually resolve some of the difficulties inherent in atheism and how they've come to embrace this worldview so that I might have a better perspective and understanding of those views on an individual basis. I have some lovely, dear friends who happen to embrace atheism/agnosticism, but when we get together we catch up on each others' lives and are busy with the activities in our history group, so I don't get the opportunity to discuss philosophy/theology with them to any great degree. Further, the forum here is an international community, and I wanted to get opinions with an international flavor. I did not ask for, nor did I want, an indictment of faith or those who hold faith. Your response is very telling about the attitudes of some atheists and how far your empathy apparently extends. Would you want to be on the receiving end of the attitude you take in this post or many of the others? Since you know that the way you word your posts to me is upsetting when you have the option to say the same thing in a more considerate manner even when your opinion is diametrically opposed to mine, why do you choose to continue to cause distress? Is this a moral way to deal with your peers or express your views?

 

Now if you'd like to share your experiences vis-a-vis your own decision to follow the atheist view and how you resolve some of the inherent difficulties (which all worldviews have), I'd be happy to listen to what you have to say because I'm genuinely interested in hearing those. If you want to debate the merits of or disdain for theism/atheism itself, however, this is not the thread for it and you should move the discussion to one of the (many) threads that handle that debate.

 

Throughout the times you've discussed religion, you've seemed to imply Christians are more moral, to put it bluntly.

Sorry, that was bad writing then. I certainly don't consider you immoral, since I've not seen you engage in immoral behavior. I know plenty of very moral atheists/agnostics (my aunt and uncle, my friends Tim and Sean, and my college soulmate/best bud 'Ubu' being wonderful examples). I unfortunately know plenty of immoral Christians/name-your-faith. I'm talking about subjective vs. objective morality. With Christianity, a, b, and c are always 'right', and x, y, and z are always wrong. There is a set standard created by God that humans should follow for maximum benefit both to themselves and to society. It doesn't matter where or when I am in the world. With humanism, the standard can and does change--what's wrong today was right 50 years ago (e.g. segregation) and vice versa. What's right in one part of the world is wrong here. Borrowing a line from Zacharias, in some cultures we're taught to love our neighbors. In other cultures we're taught to eat them. If we know some things are objectively 'good' and other things are objectively 'evil', then there has to be a set standard. I'm trying to be careful not to say atheists are immoral--I don't believe that. What I think I want to know is how atheists address the changes in morality that occur over time in that case--what if you disagree with the change, and what if no change happens on something you feel needs to be in the moral code?

Heh, I know atheists have friends/families. And I'm honored to have my friends/family of whatever religions/non-religious flavor, too. Probably a better way of asking that was 'what, if anything, do atheists use in place of the tools like prayer/times of worship/other supports unique to religion?' Is knowing a friend is thinking of you before you, say, go into surgery an equivalent to having a friend pray for you?

 

@Sam--which of the Natural Laws would you like to follow? What if I don't agree with the laws you like? What if mine conflict? Who's right at that point? How do those types of questions get resolved without creating inconsistencies?

 

@DE--when the admins were prowling around for victi-er, volunteers in the Kotor forum, I didn't duck fast enough.

 

I don't necessarily choose to do good because God said 'Do good or I'll smite you into the ground so fast you'll be smoking.' I just happen to think Christ is a very cool example to follow. And yeah, I have and will still mess up. I get frustrated, angry, sad, depressed, annoyed just like anyone else, and sometimes even at God. Religion doesn't impart an immunity to committing bad deeds--we still have free will, for good or ill.

 

I'm of the general opinion of 'suck the marrow out of life', though that may be as much due to seeing lots of people pass on at work as anything else. I don't think we should be hedonists, but I don't believe religious life was meant to be austere, cold, and devoid of pleasure, either. If it was, I don't think Song of Solomon would be in the Bible.

 

And I am seriously past my bed time so I'm going to set this down for a bit and come back to it after I get some kind of sleep....

[Spider AL]

Originally Posted by Nancy Allen``:

That is why there are rules on freedom of speech, why there are limits on the right to bear arms. Should it extend to something like Atheists shouldn't try and destroy the hopes those who practice religion have? To answer that question think whether or not you want religious people bashing at your door because of your views, saying that you'll burn in hell for attacking, upsetting and tormenting religious people because of their belief. Do you want that? Can you wear that? If not then the answer of whether or not attacking others because they follow religion should be clear.

Of course I can "wear that". We've already established this.

 

Secondly religious people already knock on my door and tell me I'm going to hell... just for not sharing their beliefs. I don't feel the need to prevent them from doing this. They're just delusional, after all. They're not harming anyone by threatening them with eternal damnation.

 

Originally Posted by Nancy Allen``:

Without having any respect to their right to follow religion, even if it's not your belief or something you disagree with? Okay, if someone went after you because they felt your views are illogical would you say it's their inviolable moral right?

/me bangs his head on his desk

 

Yes Nancy, this is what I've been saying all along... ANYONE has the right to point out logical deficiencies in ANYONE ELSE'S arguments. It's an inviolable moral right.

 

Of course, in reality religious people have no logical arguments to offer to support their delusional position. But if any religious person here can point out logical flaws in my atheist arguments... I'd be very grateful to them.

 

Originally Posted by Nancy Allen``:

Some Atheists believe they are a law onto themselves, they can do it but others can't, there may be examples even here on this forum but I really cannot be bothered to look even in some bid to muddy their name. The Muslim religion demands that people in their countries assimilate into their culture: women have to wear the full abayas, they cannot go anywhere unescorted, they cannot drive or ride in the front seat, ect, yet Muslims in other countries demand they act in accordance with their homeland rather than the culture of the country they are in. However in this case I'm speaking generally, religion is not the issue here but how some people regardless of religious, racial, sexual, whatever excuse you want to come up with, think they can act any way they like and no one else can.

... Muslims aren't atheists Nancy, so how does this little example support your claim that atheists try to restrict the right to free speech of religious people? Answer: it doesn't.

 

Seriously, you haven't posted any examples yet, and we can't really discuss your assertions in any meaningful way until you do.

 

-

 

Originally Posted by narfblat:

Your wording shows that you have as little respect for religious beliefs as some of the religious do for atheism. Those you might consider "religious zealots" have the same moral right and duty to "educate" atheists as atheists do to "puncture delusions".

I don't have ANY respect for delusions like irrational beliefs that there is a god, why the heck would I have respect for that? It's wierd and unsupported by reason. I DO respect the RIGHT to delude oneself. But I also have a right- and frankly a moral duty- to point out how nonsensical such beliefs are.

 

As for religious people "educating" atheists, I wish they could. I really do. But they have no logical arguments to support their position, so they can't educate anyone in any meaningful way.

 

Originally Posted by narfblat:

Some atheists do try to restrict the rights of religion.

Got an example to go with that assertion? Besides, we were discussing the right to free speech specifically. Religious campaign groups routinely try to have free speech legally curtailed so that people can't criticise their beliefs. Can you find an atheist campaign group that has done the same? I think not.

 

Originally Posted by narfblat:

Both sides need to step back, and offer a little understanding of the other.

Your post would seem to suggest that when you say you want atheists to offer "understanding" to religious people, you REALLY want them to shut up and to not point out logical deficiencies in religious concepts. Not going to happen.

 

Originally Posted by narfblat:

a final note: we aren't Vulcans - Logic aint everything.

Neither is morality "everything", in that one can survive while simultaneously being amoral.

 

But both morality and rational thought (logic) are desirable. And frankly, logic is ABSOLUTELY necessary for one to be moral.

 

Essentially when you say "logic isn't everything" you're saying that "making sense isn't everything", and also that "being moral isn't everything".

 

They're everything to me. I want to be moral and rational. If you don't, that's your burden.

 

-

 

Originally Posted by Jae Onasi:

That's quite a lot of assumptions for something I never intended in the least. You've taken a series of questions, made assumptions about them that are incorrect, and proceeded to make some unpleasant comments based on those erroneous assumptions. I never implied anything remotely related to what you are commenting on here. Next time, please consider confirming my intent before you make assumptions like that.

No offence, but your intent has nothing, NOTHING whatsoever to do with it. My initial post was an analysis of your text. Not your "intent".

 

If you can find any logical flaw in my analysis of your text, let's discuss it. But I don't care about your intent. I care about what I can actually read.

 

Originally Posted by Jae Onasi:

Your response is very telling about the attitudes of some atheists and how far your empathy apparently extends. Would you want to be on the receiving end of the attitude you take in this post or many of the others?

Sure I would. I have no problem with logical debate and utilitarian attitudes to debate. It would make something of a change, in fact.

 

Originally Posted by Jae Onasi:

Since you know that the way you word your posts to me is upsetting when you have the option to say the same thing in a more considerate manner even when your opinion is diametrically opposed to mine, why do you choose to continue to cause distress? Is this a moral way to deal with your peers or express your views?

Listen, to be moral in a discussion forum one must debate by the rules.

 

But it would be quite IMMORAL for me to gloss over the truth; to bend facts out of fear that you or anyone else might be irrationally upset by them.

 

And make no mistake, this recurring theme in your posts that "Your argument is invalid because it upsets me"... I don't consider it to be rational or valid in any way.

 

Originally Posted by Jae Onasi:

Now if you'd like to share your experiences vis-a-vis your own decision to follow the atheist view and how you resolve some of the inherent difficulties (which all worldviews have), I'd be happy to listen to what you have to say because I'm genuinely interested in hearing those. If you want to debate the merits of or disdain for theism/atheism itself, however, this is not the thread for it and you should move the discussion to one of the (many) threads that handle that debate.

Sigh. The topic is "Why Atheism?" and all my posts have been firmly on-topic. It would be nice if you actually engaged me in a logical debate for once, instead of just telling me to "go away".

 

Originally Posted by Jae Onasi:

What I think I want to know is how atheists address the changes in morality that occur over time in that case--what if you disagree with the change, and what if no change happens on something you feel needs to be in the moral code?

Your assertion that non-religious morality is changeable or subjective is a nonsense. Morality is (and must be) logically arrived at, is objective, universal and has nothing to do with theism. For more detailed argument go to this thread: Moral Relativism

 

Originally Posted by Jae Onasi:

Is knowing a friend is thinking of you before you, say, go into surgery an equivalent to having a friend pray for you?

I suppose in theory, if one is deluding oneself into believing that prayer will have ANY practical effect at all, it might actually trigger a placebo effect in oneself, speeding one's recovery by making one's attitude more positive. In this respect, the prayer-friend might actually have a more positive effect than the thinking-of-you-friend.

 

Sometimes delusions can be very very powerful indeed. People will die for delusions, live for delusions, go to war for delusions and change their lives for delusions.

 

But there are other, better ways of improving one's lot than deluding oneself. Rational positive thinking, for one. This would produce an equally positive effect, and one wouldn't have to lie to oneself in the process.

[Nancy Allen``]

No I haven't put up any examples of Atheists acting as though they can act how they like, and I really am not going to be drawn into a debate over whether or not someone had said as much here. And no Muslims are not Atheists, but they were used as a clear example of those who act their own way and demand that others allow them to. I used them as an example of people who are a law onto themselves because they demand others live by their way in their countries and yet are not prepared to live by the standereds of any country they go to.