The Atheist thread

[TSPenguin]

Well you are right... But the mod team is standing by with fire extinguishers. HUGE ones... So keep it civil. The thread is going well so far.

 

[TMac3000]

I am a Christian. Obviously, I feel that I can say so on this forum without fear. If I die, and find that the atheists were right, then I will lie in the cold ground for all eternity. Awfully boring, but otherwise it doesn't sound so bad. If the atheists die and find out that I am right...

Now then, my question is: Who is taking the bigger chance?

 

[SiberianTiger]

I am a Christian. Obviously, I feel that I can say so on this forum without fear. If I die, and find that the atheists were right, then I will lie in the cold ground for all eternity. Awfully boring, but otherwise it doesn't sound so bad. If the atheists die and find out that I am right...

Now then, my question is: Who is taking the bigger chance?

What if you die and find yourself thrown into Mumbo-Jumbo's cauldron for bad worshipping of this deity during your lifetime? Our chances are exactly equal.

 

[Artlav]

I am a Christian.
...
If the atheists die and find out that I am right...

Now then, my question is: Who is taking the bigger chance?

Well, it evens out, because if you die and find out, that Muslims are right...
Same chances.

 

[GregBurch]

The absence of belief is agnosticism. Atheism is the belief that there is not a god.

Many people use these words this way, but I (and at least some others) don't. I perceive "agnosticism" to be the suspension of the question: "Maybe yes, maybe no." Approaching the theistic proposition like any other, I can't remain in such a suspended state: I conclude that the evidence and logical support for the theistic proposition is lacking -- as I see it, utterly lacking.

Except for the number of people who accept it, I cannot distinguish 1) the proposition that there is an invisible purple monkey sitting on my shoulder, who hides from all attempts to detect his presence, from 2) the proposition that there is a "god" as he/she/it is defined by what people call "religion." I am not agnostic about the invisible purple monkey proposition.

 

[Juanelm]

I like it, original

I learned recently that term "atheist" could be confusing or even out dated.

1) atheist = non-theist ?
and/or
2) atheist = anti-theist ?
and/or
3) atheist = a theist ?

Thank God for spell check or I'd be lost.

:lol: Nice

 

[Urwumpe]

Forget religions and all the counter stuff: The real source of all evil is finally something else: Lack of respect.

When religions don't respect people who don't believe in them, they will cause evil.
When atheists don't respect people, who have faith, they will cause evil.
etc.

Why should I write in this thread, that I am Christian? If I am already considered an idiot, should I now be also considered a Christian idiot here? Or atheist? I can also be an atheist idiot easily.

This thread is finally the best way, to drag out all the worst in the users.

 

[GregBurch]

This thread is finally the best way, to drag out all the worst in the users.

I honestly don't understand this attitude. Ideas about religion are expressed as assertions. They are statements about the world. Why should discussion of the truth or falsity of such statements be taboo?

 

[ar81]

Considering how religions have become a commercial activity where money is traded for salvation after death, a transaction where there are no refunds after you die, no wonder why atheists are atheists.

You have silly things, like Moses David sect where he proposed the "third international theory" during cold war where Mohamar Khaddafi was flattered, and he invited Moses David there to Lybia. But promiscuous sexual behavior made that even Khaddafi could not withstand public claims, so he threw them out of Lybia.

Moses David claimed that US was the land of the antichrist and money was evil. But guess what. Moses David demanded followers to give all their goods and money to the sect, and while followers behave like beggers with some fliers in the bus, he had a high-life lifestyle. He was involved in a scandal of child abuse, and Mexican branch of the sect was too.

Later the sect started to trade sex for money.

When you see these kind of aberrant organizations which call themselves religions, no wonder why becoming atheist is the only way to remain decent in US.

 

[Juanelm]

I have a question for those who live in Europe. I've read that the level of atheism in many countries there tends to be relatively high compared to the Americas (more than 12%). Is this true? What type of atheists would be these, those that simply do not think about gods, or those that negate the existance of gods?

When you see these kind of aberrant organizations which call themselves religions, no wonder why becoming atheist is the only way to remain decent in US.

Bold assertion there. I would say for me it is one of the reasons, not exactly the main. Learning about things like jonestown, and about things that happen in churches my own frends belong to certanly affect my views.

 

[simonpro]

To be honest I'd say that the majority of people I know here in Europe simply don't care about God.
It's not that they're atheist or religious, they just have more important things in their lives than bothering whether or not god exists.

 

[GregBurch]

To be honest I'd say that the majority of people I know here in Europe simply don't care about God.
It's not that they're atheist or religious, they just have more important things in their lives than bothering whether or not god exists.

That's my impression, too. But it leads me to a question I don't know enough to have any kind of opinion about -- with the steady erosion of the influence of traditional religion on the lives of modern Europeans, what are the sources of moral values for average people? My personal experience is that the vast majority of people don't spend much time thinking about moral questions -- they simply apply the values they have to the moral issues in their daily lives in a fairly unreflective way. For people raised and who live in a religious culture, those are the values they absorb through exposure to the religion they grow up with, and that they hear espoused in their churches. For the modern secular European, what is the source of those values?

 

[Urwumpe]

I hope you don't mind if I answer your post in inverse order... it makes it simpler:

Why should discussion of the truth or falsity of such statements be taboo?

Because there is no truth and no falsity in religion and all topics which deal with it. Religion is always true - even if you believe in the flying spagetti monster.

So, what you basically do, you invite people to question the truth in believes, other people have, which can only be done successfully, if you are ignorant. You invite people to be free of respect toward each other.

It will start as "I am X", will go to "I am X and you are not", and finally end at "You are not". Why? because it is impossible to be wrong. You are not encouraged to be respectful towards people, even if you don't agree to their faith, as you are always right in such a discussion - and they can in your eyes always be wrong.

I honestly don't understand this attitude. Ideas about religion are expressed as assertions. They are statements about the world.

I would go one step further: They are expressed as assumptions. And Assume makes an ass out of you and me.

 

[bujin]

I have a question for those who live in Europe. I've read that the level of atheism in many countries there tends to be relatively high compared to the Americas (more than 12%). Is this true? What type of atheists would be these, those that simply do not think about gods, or those that negate the existance of gods?

I'm not sure whether they would label themselves as "atheists" as such, but the woman who started the "atheist bus campaign" (her name escapes me at the moment...) was on BBC News this morning and said that at the last census, about 23% of people in the UK answered "none" to the religion question.

Compared to the USA (not sure about the rest of the Americas), the attitudes towards atheists over here is not as aggressive. There are, of course, people fighting on both sides, but in the main, people don't really care. The UK is not so much a Christian country any more. It's quite secular these days, where people are free to belong to whichever religion they wish, or no religion at all, and most people aren't bothered.

I'm an atheist, but my sister belongs to an evangelical Christian church. She (or rather, her family) pays their tithe to the church, goes to church every Sunday and my brother in law takes a very active role. I don't have a problem with that at all. I have no problem with anyone being any particular religion.

However, there are two things that will make me step in and challenge religion - (1) when they try to push their beliefs onto me, and (2) when they spread mistruths deliberately to either boost their own beliefs or undermine others.

Examples of (1) isn't just those people who stand on street corners preaching or come knocking on the door. It also includes advertisements about religion, which is why I don't see the atheist bus campaign, or other atheist advertising as "preaching" as such - I see it as an attempt at pushing back. It's quite funny how (particularly in America) signs which preach eternal damnation in Hell for lack of belief (even if thinly veiled in Biblical verse) are perfectly fine, yet if an atheist sign states that there "probably is no God" is erected, there's an outcry from the local Pastor to the effect that the atheists are being intolerant...

Examples of (2) are pretty obvious - particularly the attempts to get creationism taught in school science lessons. It's been quite high profile in America with the Dover trial, and other state boards (particularly Texas of late). But it's also a battle that is raging in the UK. It's a bit more stealthy here - every now and then the topic will arise. Mostly, though, it gets shot down straight away. But they keep trying, and while they keep trying, we will keep fighting.

On a personal level, I would label myself as an atheist, with the term meaning that I do not see any need for a supernatural being of any kind to have any role in the creation or development of the universe or life within it. I think there are a lot of logical fallacies in theistic belief (that God created the universe and takes an active part in its everyday existence - answering prayers, performing miracles, etc...) whether tied with Biblical creationism (as some of the more fundamental religious people believe), or whether tied with scientific understanding of the universe, as the more liberal religious people believe (e.g. the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Pope, scientists like Ken Miller, etc...). To me, it simply doesn't add up.

But that's my belief. Religious people may well have their own answers to what I perceive as logical fallacies, and that's fine.

 

[TSPenguin]

That's my impression, too. But it leads me to a question I don't know enough to have any kind of opinion about -- with the steady erosion of the influence of traditional religion on the lives of modern Europeans, what are the sources of moral values for average people? My personal experience is that the vast majority of people don't spend much time thinking about moral questions -- they simply apply the values they have to the moral issues in their daily lives in a fairly unreflective way. For people raised and who live in a religious culture, those are the values they absorb through exposure to the religion they grow up with, and that they hear espoused in their churches. For the modern secular European, what is the source of those values?

Common Sense

Unfortunately, there are more and more people all over the world who's set of values and morals is undefined until called upon. Usaly those people simply ignore politics and religion.

 

[bujin]

That's my impression, too. But it leads me to a question I don't know enough to have any kind of opinion about -- with the steady erosion of the influence of traditional religion on the lives of modern Europeans, what are the sources of moral values for average people? My personal experience is that the vast majority of people don't spend much time thinking about moral questions -- they simply apply the values they have to the moral issues in their daily lives in a fairly unreflective way. For people raised and who live in a religious culture, those are the values they absorb through exposure to the religion they grow up with, and that they hear espoused in their churches. For the modern secular European, what is the source of those values?

It is true that most people don't spend much time thinking about moral questions. That holds whether people are religious or not.

I don't see religion as being the source of moral code anyway. I think morality predates religion, probably by many thousands of years. So rather than relying on any "religiously inspired" code of morality, we're just using our natural instincts honed through hundreds of thousands of years of evolution.

 

[Urwumpe]

For the modern secular European, what is the source of those values?

Do you really need a church to realize, that stealing is bad? Is killing good, unless you believe in the ten commandments?

I think, you overestimate the moral power of religions. The rules inside the bible are said to be dictated from god, but when you think longer about it, you might get the impression, that they are actually the distillate of our experience in living in groups.

In my darker moments, I would even claim, that the religions are even just a way, to brainwash us from our morals. Religion can take doubts from you. Killing is naturally bad and we have a natural resistance against killing other humans (unless we are mentally ill) - but religions can reduce the resistance if you can expect a reward for the action.

 

[GregBurch]

Again, I'm not trying to be combative, and there may be a language barrier here, but I honestly find what you've written to be ... incomprehensible. You write:

Because there is no truth and no falsity in religion and all topics which deal with it. Religion is always true - even if you believe in the flying spagetti monster.

I've spent my whole life studying religion. Various religions make mutually incompatible truth assertions about the world. That's simply a fact. To say that "religion is always true" seems to drain all meaning from the word "truth."

So, what you basically do, you invite people to question the truth in believes, other people have, which can only be done successfully, if you are ignorant. You invite people to be free of respect toward each other.

I see this assertion all the time, that questioning the truth value of religious assertions is "disrespectful." Again, I don't get it. Sure, there is always the possibility of emotional hurt when a cherished belief is questioned. But there are people who cherish their belief that vaccinating children is against the will of god. Should that belief be "respected?" There are people who believe that god commands that men should have power over women and that a woman should not have the same legal rights as a man. Should that belief be "respected?" There are people who believe that abortion clinics should be bombed, because god commands it. Should that belief be "respected?"

It will start as "I am X", will go to "I am X and you are not", and finally end at "You are not". Why? because it is impossible to be wrong. You are not encouraged to be respectful towards people, even if you don't agree to their faith, as you are always right in such a discussion - and they can in your eyes always be wrong.

I would go one step further: They are expressed as assumptions. And Assume makes an ass out of you and me.

This seems like an admirable expression of tolerance. But what happens when you are asked to be tolerant of intolerance? How do you ever find a moral foundation for drawing a line beyond which you cannot accept religious belief as the foundation for action? If your creed is "What's true for you is true for you," then can you never act to stop someone from doing violence in the name of their god?

Do you really need a church to realize, that stealing is bad? Is killing good, unless you believe in the ten commandments?

I think, you overestimate the moral power of religions. The rules inside the bible are said to be dictated from god, but when you think longer about it, you might get the impression, that they are actually the distillate of our experience in living in groups.

In my darker moments, I would even claim, that the religions are even just a way, to brainwash us from our morals. Religion can take doubts from you. Killing is naturally bad and we have a natural resistance against killing other humans (unless we are mentally ill) - but religions can reduce the resistance if you can expect a reward for the action.

I'm pretty sure I don't need a church to tell me what's right and wrong. My question wasn't one about the substance of moral values, but is basically one of social anthropology. Where do modern, "unchurched" Europeans get their values? When parents teach their children right and wrong, what do they cite as the authority for the values they teach? Do average European parents engage in philosophical discussions with their children, explaining that values derive from this or that foundation? Are they expressed as a matter of the Golden Rule and nothing else?

This is a genuine, non-combative question: I'm really curious about how moral values are taught in contemporary, secular European homes and schools.

It is true that most people don't spend much time thinking about moral questions. That holds whether people are religious or not.

I don't see religion as being the source of moral code anyway. I think morality predates religion, probably by many thousands of years. So rather than relying on any "religiously inspired" code of morality, we're just using our natural instincts honed through hundreds of thousands of years of evolution.

There are certainly some basic moral values that seem to recur in primitive human societies, although every one I've ever read about couples some kind of supernatural sanction with them. But most of the primitive societies we've studied end up being pretty damned tribally brutal: There may be tender mercies shown to the members of one's close kin group, but outside that, things usually get pretty nasty. I wonder where the values that get "universalized" come from for "average" secular people. What do AVERAGE secular parents tell their children is the reason it's better to be generous to strangers, or forgiving to those who harm them ...

 

[bujin]

There are certainly some basic moral values that seem to recur in primitive human societies, although every one I've ever read about couples some kind of supernatural sanction with them. But most of the primitive societies we've studied end up being pretty damned tribally brutal: There may be tender mercies shown to the members of one's close kin group, but outside that, things usually get pretty nasty. I wonder where the values that get "universalized" come from for "average" secular people. What do AVERAGE secular parents tell their children is the reason it's better to be generous to strangers, or forgiving to those who harm them ...

To be perfectly honest, I don't remember particularly well what I was told as a kid as to why I had to be good. I was, of course, taught religion in school (and even went to Sunday School, despite my family not really being religious*) and that was always used as a reason to be good, but I think I've pretty much always been an atheist - the biblical stories were never the main reason I have grown up with a strong sense of what is right and wrong. I think it must really be part of my empathic nature. I have always felt really bad if I upset someone. I absolutely hate it when people get upset because of something I have said or done. I don't think I was ever taught to feel like that. It's just how I work.

I don't really think parents, in general, need to tell someone why it's better to be good. Young children are impressionable, so it usually suffices to say "it's good to be good", and they'll believe it without questioning why. It's only the more philosophical among them who actually question that later in life.

I think the "golden rule" speaks for itself. If you deprive a child of its favourite toy for a while if he/she misbehaves, it learns that if he/she does bad things, bad things will happen to him/her. I bit like Pavlov's dogs... :lol:

* I mentioned my sister earlier - she married into a very religious family, but wasn't particularly religious before that.

 

[Urwumpe]

Where do modern, "unchurched" Europeans get their values? When parents teach their children right and wrong, what do they cite as the authority for the values they teach?

Do you need any authority for such basic rules? You need such authority, when you want to explain abstract and often illogical rules like "no abortion, no sex before marriage, no stem cell research, death penalty is justice".

Also, from an academic point of view (which only applies as background noise), Europe's morals are stronger shaped by both churches and enlightenment, with enlightenment dominating. Just for example the "German Idealism", which is pretty dominant in it's values in the German constitution.


That background noise is an important difference to the USA, IMHO... Only very few religious leaders in Europe have the chance to argue without reason unchallenged and unpunished - even the Pope needs to rely on reason for his rulings. In the USA, religious leaders have less restraints, as they have more authority in the society.