The Atheism Thread - Part 6

[Schlosser85]

I posted this in the agnostic thread but it bears reposting:

I just read this in Founding Faith by Steven Waldmen:



My own words follow:

Mary Dyer was convicted of wrongdoing and banished from Massachusetts. She later returned and when confronted she refused to repent and was hanged. Do you all want to know what her and the others only crimes were? They were Quakers in Puritan Massachusetts in the 17th century when it was illegal to be Quaker. Some other punishments for being Quaker:

Yep.

And we all know Reverend Wilson didn't believe a word that was coming out of his own mouth.

He saw an opportunity to make an example of someone, punish a woman who dared to be anything other than subservient, and subjugate a minority while backing it up with the Bible, defending and strengthening his own power and that of his male class. That's all it was to people like him, and it's all it is today to a lot of the powermongers in the Christian Right. It's nothing to do with religion. It's a tool for them to gain power and wealth.

If you think people like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson and Ralph Reed give two ****s about God, I have a bridge I'd like to sell you.

 

[Snow Queen]

Is anyone else amused by how bad religious arguments can be? Not that I think I've ever seen a convincing one, but goodness, how outright bad some of them can be.

I used to look up this stuff all the time; now its just an occasional thing.

But yeah check this guy out. His advice for witnessing to atheists.

[YT]UnJPBCORTg8[/YT]

Set aside all the intellectual arguments

Just start from the position that the bible is true and proceed to tell atheists that they know god exists, and give them bible quotes to tell them they're suppressing the truth

Look, don't tell me what I know, when I'm telling you I don't know it. It's just insulting and disrespectful. When I'm telling you that I don't know that god exists you're telling me that I'm a liar.

I'm interested in an actual pathway to finding out whether or not this is true. Just asserting that it is true isn't convincing.

And OF COURSE the comments are disabled.

I think I just lost brain cells watching this video. I love how he continually says that this is the truth but offers no supporting evidence to back up his claims.


"Their issue isn't that there isn't enough evidence, it's that they hate God." About as much as I hate unicorns.

Also, I love this logic of answering "how do you know this book is true?" with quoting the book. Yes, because believing something that cannot be verified is true because it says so is going to convince everyone.

 

[Schlosser85]

There is nothing scarier than an idiot with no clue what the hell he's talking about who is unshakably convinced that he has "THE WORD".

 

[SilentWarriorZ]

Seriously I do want valid answers too for our existance as science has proven its grounds far but sometimes things feels so ****** that they do make me think that earth must be a Jail for fallen Angels .

 

[regwec]

There is nothing scarier than an idiot with no clue what the hell he's talking about who is unshakably convinced that he has "THE WORD".

I think that "The Word" appeals to two types of people: the unscrupulous and the gullible.

 

[Shikamaru]

Seriously I do want valid answers too for our existance as science has proven its grounds far but sometimes things feels so ****** that they do make me think that earth must be a Jail for fallen Angels .

You know, this is the exact same thought I had when I first became an atheist. The idea of us being all alone on this planet with no one to answer our prayers and wishes was something that really frightened me. I felt as if there wasn't any hope or true justice in the world.

However, I then started to analyse the alternative possibility - that being the premise that religions propose (specifically the Abrahamic religions) and realized what a horrible version of reality that would be. To quote the late Christopher Hitchens, it would essentially be like living in a celestial version of North Korea and Oceania (from 1984; not the real Oceania). A world in which everyone is being watched during every second of their lives, where people can be judged and punished solely based on thought crime, where everyone is in the control of a figure who can never be questioned, can never be overthrown, who acts as judge, jury, and executioner. Furthermore, this figure not only demands its people to worship him, but also creates them sick and then orders them to get cured. All of this excludes the primitive morals present in these religions in the first place (homophobia, genital mutilation, etc.). There is, however, one difference between any human dictator and the dictator proposed by the Abrahamic faiths: God's rule is eternal, both before and after death.

When I started to look at things from that perspective, a lot of those previous feelings regarding atheism went away. I think the biggest misassumption people make is the belief that, without religion, there isn't anything beautiful or attractive about life and the universe. I couldn't disagree with that more. No one should ever make that mistake. If anything, admitting that we don't have all the answers yet only adds to the complexity of the mystery, which in turn adds to the fun and motivation of discovering the truth.

 

[SpideyVille]

You know, this is the exact same thought I had when I first became an atheist. The idea of us being all alone on this planet with no one to answer our prayers and wishes was something that really frightened me. I felt as if there wasn't any hope or true justice in the world.

However, I then started to analyse the alternative possibility - that being the premise that religions propose (specifically the Abrahamic religions) and realized what a horrible version of reality that would be. To quote the late Christopher Hitchens, it would essentially be like living in a celestial version of North Korea and Oceania (from 1984; not the real Oceania). A world in which everyone is being watched during every second of their lives, where people can be judged and punished solely based on thought crime, where everyone is in the control of a figure who can never be questioned, can never be overthrown, who acts as judge, jury, and executioner. Furthermore, this figure not only demands its people to worship him, but also creates them sick and then orders them to get cured. All of this excludes the primitive morals present in these religions in the first place (homophobia, genital mutilation, etc.). There is, however, one difference between any human dictator and the dictator proposed by the Abrahamic faiths: God's rule is eternal, both before and after death.

When I started to look at things from that perspective, a lot of those previous feelings regarding atheism went away. I think the biggest misassumption people make is the belief that, without religion, there isn't anything beautiful or attractive about life and the universe. I couldn't disagree with that more. No one should ever make that mistake. If anything, admitting that we don't have all the answers yet only adds to the complexity of the mystery, which in turn adds to the fun and motivation of discovering the truth.

It's been a little over three years since I officially left my church and the biggest thing I always look back on now, and how I know that I can't go back to trying to live that lifestyle is the idea of knowing I will never be free. And I believe there is even a verse in the bible that states that we are no longer "slaves of sin, but slaves of God" and it really baffles my mind for how appealing that actually seemed at the time. It's almost to say this isn't great, but it's better than the alternative, and looking back now at what I want out of life an myself, I'd much rather have a feeling that I'm in control of my own destiny and actions as opposed to feeling compelled to behave a certain way because there are eyes watching me somewhere. And its so hypocritical considering that the Bible states that God gives Man free will, and yet we are expected to deny that.

 

[regwec]

I think that growing out of religion can be frightening when you have previously seen your diety as the source of "good" within other people. That is likely to dissipate, and be replaced by something like euphoria, when you realise that most ordinary people tend to have a large measure of goodness all by themselves.

 

[michael1975]

You should all worship Pastafarian.

 

[Thundercrack85]

It's weird, but even when I was religious, or at least, believed in some sort of god, I never saw him as a source of good in other people.

Perhaps I was always a bit of a deist.

I was never convinced that "God" was good, even when I believed he existed.

Believing in God is problematic enough, without trying to prove that he is "good".

 

[SpideyVille]

For me, it was more of a matter of what was "right", based on what I learned growing up. Like a lot of issues that I have with myself and others today stems from being raised by an overly protective "Christian" mother, which only got worse when I found my own church to further back out this twisted moral sense. As a result, I always judge people based on the things that they do as opposed to the kind of person that they are, and I hate it because even after being free from that mentality for years, there is still some root to it that is there in me because its all I've known for most of my life and I'm basically reteaching myself how to think.

I've gotten better at it now, and I've told a few people that had I still been in church, I most likely would have never became friends with them because they do things or have things that I was raised to believe was "wrong". But I always try to remind and ask myself that if I were never raised to believe in God, would I still have a problem with it.

 

[Dr.]

I was never convinced that "God" was good, even when I believed he existed.

Believing in God is problematic enough, without trying to prove that he is "good".

The “problem of evil” has always been an issue for theology. (That god is - simultaneously - omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent seems to be manifestly untrue.) However, if you assume that god is cruel or (at best) indifferent, then the “problem of evil” disappears. Of course, this results in a deity that most mainstream religions would heartily reject.

 

[Llama_Shepherd]

I think that growing out of religion can be frightening when you have previously seen your diety as the source of "good" within other people. That is likely to dissipate, and be replaced by something like euphoria, when you realise that most ordinary people tend to have a large measure of goodness all by themselves.

I don't know if this post was supposed to be tongue in cheek, but if not, very poor choice of words:

http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/in-this-moment-i-am-euphoric

 

[regwec]

I don't follow. Are you suggesting that the word "euphoria" is in some way out of bounds, because its derivative appears in an internet meme?

 

[Llama_Shepherd]

Of course not out of bounds, and it's not just the word, but the context. It's the epitomy (in internet culture) of the "neckbeard enlightened fedora-tipping" atheist.

Not saying you are, because you were likely unaware of its existence.

 

[Schlosser85]

I must join regwec in confusion.

 

[DarkSovereignty]

Apparently the word euphoric has become associated with pretentious atheistsr something...it's just a word people.

 

[Llama_Shepherd]

Nail on the head, I just thought I'd bring it up.

 

[Feenix]

I am no longer atheist.

I now worship the Illuminati.

 

[Perfect Cell]

I am no longer atheist.

I now worship the Illuminati.

And why shouldn't you? It's a pretty sweet roster:

 

[Warhammer]

That picture is so sweet.

 

[DarkSovereignty]

I am no longer atheist.

I now worship the Illuminati.

Subliminal occult imagery FTW!

 

[Feenix]

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2014/01/08/pastor-learns-the-price-of-atheism/?hpt=hp_c3

Interesting read.

 

[Feenix]

Should Bill Nye debate Ken Ham or is this just a useless endeavor?

I would say that Bill should just bow out. Creationists will use the "debate" and twist whatever Bill says to promote their ridiculous ideas.

It's a lose-lose for the Science Guy.

 

[Thundercrack85]

I think engagement is actually important. Creationists don't exactly have a lack of outlets.