Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Atheism

Atheism
December 27, 2008, 07:34:07 PM
What does everything think about atheism in their own perspective? I''ve been a well-devoted atheist for some time now, and I'm very confused why the staff at ANUS and CORRUPT bicker so much about this so called "problem" of atheism..... enlighten me please.

Re: Atheism
December 27, 2008, 09:32:08 PM
What does everything think about atheism in their own perspective? I''ve been a well-devoted atheist for some time now, and I'm very confused why the staff at ANUS and CORRUPT
biker so much about this so called "problem" of atheism..... enlighten me please.

I'll give you my two cents.

Atheism is as inconclusive as any religion. (And I'm using religion in a very generalized way.) Proclaiming that there is no god is just as irrational a belief as proclaiming that there is one.

What does matter is how these beliefs affect a given person: of particular concern is the average unconscious individual who cannot think for himself.

Atheism pushes people toward the 'rational' dogma like liberalism and science-ism, and both of these encourage our modern decadence, needless consumption, et cetera (i.e. "There's no god, I'm gonna do whatever the fuck I want! Bring on the motorized anal beads!!"). Not just that, but atheism isn't a very unifying belief. There's no doctrine to unite all "atheists" because atheism isn't an organized religion. It divides everyone and makes them weak individuals instead of strong groups of unified individuals.

In short, there are practical beliefs, and there are impractical ones. Choose the ones which make you better as a human being.

That's the magic of nihilism (tm).

EDIT: In my short life, I've seen many Christians (of all people) who were much more capable and level-headed human beings than atheists. Perhaps being a well-minded person and being religious are not mutually exclusive, but it does take a certain mind to transcend religious symbolism and to grasp what is meant by religions and their accompanying morals and virtues.

Re: Atheism
December 28, 2008, 07:13:34 AM
In my short life, I've seen many Christians (of all people) who were much more capable and level-headed human beings than atheists. Perhaps being a well-minded person and being religious are not mutually exclusive, but it does take a certain mind to transcend religious symbolism and to grasp what is meant by religions and their accompanying morals and virtues.

It seems to me (here in Czech Republic) that the "default setting" that people are born into is driven by atheism. As everyone in middle ages who didn't think of this was by default a christian, now he would be an atheist. That's partly because of seeming overflowing of the "religion market" and partly because of crowdist fear of looking different. The religious person then would be one thinking about such topic so much that he comes out with it. There are many aspects to be considered in reaching out to grasp the attention of god in yourself that i would not only say that "being a well minded person and being religious are not mutually exclusive", but in a sincere person, it has to come hand in hand. Of course (or at least i think it might be like this), religions are built as simple pieces of wisdom that speak to even the dumbest mind. But this is true only when there's one religion present. The religions that deal with the true, abstract, moral god (as one's will and self-control) must be first recognised and learnt - that's the point where the well-mindedness comes in handy. You know, it seems to me that many, if not all, religions offer the same goal and the same path to it, but when an inexperienced person is exposed to the seeming variety of them, he becomes confused and tries to run away to denial - and that's atheism.

Atheism is just a half religion, because it offers only the point of evidence, of being bound to the world somehow. Religions also have a historical context (that is something atheism cannot ever have by definiton) and a social one (that is something atheism denies). The only people able to go on without any belief (atheism or theism) are the Strangers of Albert Camus. But for them not to be random marionettes of butterfly effects from over the universe, some solid point of security (perhaps fantastic) is also needed. Sad old news is that today's society offers it in the form of money and all those matters.

Re: Atheism
December 28, 2008, 07:36:01 AM

Atheism is as inconclusive as any religion. (And I'm using religion in a very generalized way.) Proclaiming that there is no god is just as irrational a belief as proclaiming that there is one.

aye, my thoughts exactly.

sorry to sound borderline hippie here, but as one goes through life, there are so many uncertainties. Do I know if there is a God? No, I don't. Do I know that God does not exist? No, I don't. Could there just be a group of midget aliens who look like cockroaches deciding everyone's fate? A bit fantastic, but who is to say that I am completely wrong?

No human can answer these questions. They will probably exist until mankind's end. Until then, I believe in myself, my friends, and my loved ones. That to me is the best belief system anyone can have.

Re: Atheism
December 28, 2008, 08:37:53 AM
Quote from: My AIDS, Your Arse
Atheism is as inconclusive as any religion. (And I'm using religion in a very generalized way.) Proclaiming that there is no god is just as irrational a belief as proclaiming that there is one.

Really?  Not believing in fairy tales is just as irrational as believing in them?  I'm going to have to go ahead and disagree with you there.

Anyway, I have a number of problems with atheism.  First of all, the word atheist shouldn't even exist because it defines something by what it is not.  Second, most people who are atheists either keep the religious morals/values of their parents but try to act superior to everyone for realizing the magic space zombie isn't real, or they replace their old religious beliefs with some other form of insanity.  Lastly, I hate people who try to turn atheism into a religion.  This is mainly done by Secular Humanists and I assume everyone already knows why this is a failure of an ideology.

One last thing.  What exactly is a "well-devoted atheist?"  Atheism isn't an ideology or belief system.  Using religious language to describe your atheism is very telling.

Re: Atheism
December 28, 2008, 09:17:13 AM
Really?  Not believing in fairy tales is just as irrational as believing in them?  I'm going to have to go ahead and disagree with you there.
Perhaps you misunderstand religion as a whole? There is no importance in that the god actually exists, but in the faith and the religious feeling that connects one to the world and the other world. As said earlier, there is also the social aspect, binding people together. That's why many religions have/try to have impact on family life (marrying in churches speaks for all). Come on, it's a cliché, but people truly don't believe in fairy tales in terms of senile daddy smiling on them from the cloudy cloud and speaking about heaven. (ok, some do)

Lastly, I hate people who try to turn atheism into a religion.  This is mainly done by Secular Humanists and I assume everyone already knows why this is a failure of an ideology.
That's because its function is partly the same as of religion. As said above.

One last thing.  What exactly is a "well-devoted atheist?"  Atheism isn't an ideology or belief system.  Using religious language to describe your atheism is very telling.
What does it matter if some of us are atheists and some not? We're here to discuss things abstract from individual struggle, not to blab about someone's tastes in pink socks.

Re: Atheism
December 28, 2008, 10:32:57 AM
"Unbelief is for the mob."

Whilst this is provocative, it also has truth to it. It's way easier to un-believe than to believe, and the mob likes it simple.

How I view it: belief is a very natural thing. How can you know something you don't believe? Without belief, no true knowledge is possible, believe it or not. I don't like to see belief as an end-point, but as a stance which prepares for that which exceeds the status quo.

Re: Atheism
December 28, 2008, 10:49:20 AM
hard-line atheism is akin to fatalism in that it provides no reason to do anything noble. it also gives full leniency to extreme individualism, since it can only support that view of life which sees all humans as inherently the same, at least when compared to other species. additionally, it seems to be an attempt to not only approach, but fully know, an objective truth in human minds, which can ultimately only see the world in subjective terms. what nous said probably indicates its biggest fault, though; it's merely another easy way out.

Re: Atheism
December 28, 2008, 11:03:41 AM
Atheism is completely retarded. If religions were like a sports team, and a religious person said to an "atheist" what team do you support? The Atheist would basically say "I don't support any team". And then they treat their lack of a team like an actual team, and dress in shirts of that teams colours and stand at the side of a field every Sunday, cheering on their empty pitch. The idiots.

I like what this Fractal chap says, and Mr Nous too. Many people say that religion is an allegory of the real world, but that is just opinion. Fractal just pointed out that without the intermediary of religion, humans can't connect directly to the world. I think there is a lot of sense in saying something like that.

Also, it is clear that most of the world is atheistic as Nous pointed out. The Herd.

And you must believe what you know, otherwise you don't know it. Atheists' opinion that 'you can demonstrate certain specific things that are real regardless of whether the deluded individual believes them' is just garbage individualist blind faith. The hypocrites.

Re: Atheism
December 28, 2008, 11:25:46 AM
It seems to be one of the most wastefully time consuming syntactical problems. There are solid grounds to both the theist and the atheist argument, the latter especially when objecting to the God of the Judeo-Christians; one can't read philosophy very extensively without encountering a convincing method for either one. But particularly there is a point to atheism in being the systematic way of denying the myth about God, since the genealogy of ideas has brought us to the point where this idea is dead. Thus: God is dead.

To reject all religions and all their metaphysics has never been the mission of the atheists except in the most narrow-minded cases. Note that the one argument I wish to avoid here is the definition of a "true atheist". Misuse of the term is not my problem.

Re: Atheism
December 28, 2008, 12:11:39 PM
But particularly there is a point to atheism in being the systematic way of denying the myth about God, since the genealogy of ideas has brought us to the point where this idea is dead.
Thanks for pointing this out, i said earlier that atheism doesn't have historical context and i was apparently wrong. But, isn't this the historical approach only? Because "God is dead" effectively destroys some values, but doesn't replace them by anything one could live by. I think that the personal atheism has to be something more then just negation. But then again, i might be wrong because many people adopt "God is dead" and subscribe to material values. And i don't want to confuse atheism and idolatry.

Re: Atheism
December 28, 2008, 12:33:11 PM
This can all be summed up pretty succinctly, I think, to:

'God' has no clear definition, and is a term that can be arbitrarily applied to virtually anything. Taking a stance against something that is inherently incoherent is a waste of time.

So, what's really going on? Secular humanism needs to anthropomorphize its otherwise elusively intangible enemy, because without doing so, it has nothing coherent to attack morally. It doesn't take long before "Can God create a rock so heavy that even he cannot lift?" devolves into "I'm not going to worship a capricious, baby-killing sky daddy!" Decontextualization occurs, everyone assumes the terms they're using have clear definitions, and then "Women should be allowed to abort their babies because they have inalienable rights" slyly makes its way into the argument.

Silly.

Re: Atheism
December 28, 2008, 01:01:41 PM
And we return once again to the problem of education, will to be educated and that the uneducated fools are being heard more and more. To come to a conclusion in such argument as is the question of god, one must have great portion of knowledge and dedication. There are many approaches and in each of them the terms are defined quite clearly, but when someone comes to the problem as a whole and does not see the little nuances changing the meaning, confusion will occur.

and on a personal note: Sorry if i am a bit inarticulate here, it is late here and my eyes begin to close. I don't often engage in debates, but hey, thanks for this one, it's great and to the point!

Re: Atheism
December 28, 2008, 03:24:58 PM
Atheism is to embrace the fact that you are mortal and that there is no use in plaguing your mind with paranoid fantasies and guilt. I see nothing wrong with this.

Re: Atheism
December 28, 2008, 03:46:33 PM
Being an atheist simply means you don't believe deities exist.  It does not mean being anti-religious, although the two often go together.  Nobody has said anything about religions having no value to them, so arguing that they do is irrelevant to the discussion.

Also, saying that whether or not gods actually exist is irrelevant to religions is ludicrous.  Many religions (mostly the monotheistic religions) are completely obsessed with belief in a deity.  Many of them consider it to be of the highest priority.

I'm also seeing people in this thread conflate religion with morality/moral codes.  Morality does have an effect of unifying people and tribes to help society function, but that doesn't mean morals have to arise out of a religious context.