Support NeoGAF

[Kinitari]

But why are they still important? I'm not questioning that they are, just why.

I'm not suggesting that religion 'owns' something like charity, only that it provides context and understanding. Religious people don't question the value and purpose of something like that because thier religion answers those questions.

From a non-religous stand point, the answers I have in this thread so far are: Because earth is the only inhabitable world and we need to take care of it; Because doing something for the sake of doing it has more merit than doing it because a god has asked you to.

I don't want to talk about those two answers prematurely, I'm wondering if there's something I'm missing.

You're not missing anything per say, you're just... well not understanding.

It feels good helping someone else. It makes me smile. When I hug my girlfriend, I get a nice warm fuzzy feeling in my chest. When I achieve a goal I set for myself, I feel elated.

There are chemical reasons as to WHY all these feelings occur, basically automated positive re-enforcement, and we can thank evolution for that.

But being non-religious does not mean I immediately start asking myself "Why am I being a nice person, when I could be a mean person and not go to hell" - no, it just means that I do whatever it is I want to do, and luckily for me, what I want to do are what society deems as 'good' and 'nice' things.

In the end morality is all just subjective anyway, what is good and bad differs from person to person, maybe not severely, but in some form or another. Understanding that there is no 'universal good' or 'evil' makes life simpler.

For a last example, I will give you charity. When I give charity, the 'context' I need is knowing that somewhere out there a child, or an adult, or whomever will receive this money and be better for it. I did that, I helped them. And I know if I was in their situation, I would be forever grateful for the help. The last thing on my mind is thinking about how this is going to reward me in heaven.

The only thing I need to contextualize my good deeds is empathy.

Yeah, I have no problems with any of the above, really. But what happens in most of these gaf religion threads goes far beyond the realm of discussion and disagreement. There is no other topic on gaf (other than perhaps the "truthers") where that sort of vitriol is allowed from one group to the next.

Discussion is fine. Like I said, having you question my beliefs is fine since I question my own beliefs. All of us do.

If anyone is unreasonably mean, report them - they will probably get banned. I don't think anyone here wants people saying shit like "All Daoist are donkey fuckers that deserve to die in fires" - no, that will get your ass banned.

Please note - I do not think all Daoist are donkey fuckers that deserve to die in fires.

 

[Vinci]

While I agree with the general sentiment, I think it's rather cynical. Just because it might not help, doesn't mean we shouldn't try. Or else why do anything at all? Why not just keep the world in stasis.

Oh, I'm not trying to keep the world in stasis; I'm aware that's impossible. And yes, it's cynical, but I've seen a lot of really horrible shit in my life and honestly don't expect any group (or non-group) to suddenly make such things stop happening. So yeah, do I think the world will be in different shape with more atheists than religious folks? Sure, why not. Do I expect it to be necessarily better? In some ways, sure; in others, maybe not. It's worth taking a chance, I agree with that much. I'm pretty easygoing.

 

[SoulPlaya]

Move to Canada. Much less religious fanaticism here. The US deserves more brain drain anyway.

Atheist = automatically genius???? Too many Atheists on GAF assume much of what they know about religion is right (I'm talking about actual facts about the scriptures in the Bible, Qu'ran, etc.) yet are wayyyy off. I'm afraid to see what else Atheists assume they know.

In the end, just believe whatever the hell you want, as long as you leave other people alone.

 

[szaromir]

Well, it may not be part of your faith, but it is part of the faith for many.

Science has the right to address scientific claims made by various religions.

While the Bible's cosmology is proven wrong, it's also the least important part of it all and I'm not sure if it was ever meant to explain the world - it was insufficient for any curious people I think.
I don't think we would even have this discussion if the catholic church didn't try to make it so important in the past. When you think about it, aspects such as continuous nature of the world (not atomistic), the Earth being flat, the Earth being in the center of the Universe never appeared in Bible yet Church defended them.
Nowodays, when a church/religious organisation tries to make a scientific claim (of any sort), simply brainwashes their followers and is not a religion.

 

[Haly]

Atheist = automatically genius???? Too many Atheists on GAF assume much of what they know about religion is right (I'm talking about actual facts about the scriptures in the Bible, Qu'ran, etc.) yet are wayyyy off. I'm afraid to see what else Atheists assume they know.

In the end, just believe whatever the hell you want, as long as you leave other people alone.

 

[Asmodai]

Atheist = automatically genius???? Too many Atheists on GAF assume much of what they know about religion is right (I'm talking about actual facts about the scriptures in the Bible, Qu'ran, etc.) yet are wayyyy off. I'm afraid to see what else Atheists assume they know.

In the end, just believe whatever the hell you want, as long as you leave other people alone.

General trends, not assumptions.

The more highly educated a society, the less religious. Blame reality (or maybe God :lol ) for making it that way, not me for pointing it out.

Oh, I'm not trying to keep the world in stasis; I'm aware that's impossible. And yes, it's cynical, but I've seen a lot of really horrible shit in my life and honestly don't expect any group (or non-group) to suddenly make such things stop happening. So yeah, do I think the world will be in different shape with more atheists than religious folks? Sure, why not. Do I expect it to be necessarily better? In some ways, sure; in others, maybe not. It's worth taking a chance, I agree with that much. I'm pretty easygoing.

Except that the least religious countries on the planet are also the most prosperous. Don't you think that correlation might be just a bit more than coincidence?

 

[Count Dookkake]

While the Bible's cosmology is proven wrong, it's also the least important part of it all and I'm not sure if it was ever meant to explain the world - it was insufficient for any curious people I think.

It was so unimportant, they hid it in the first chapter.

 

[Hari Seldon]

General trends, not assumptions.

The more highly educated a society, the less religious. Blame reality (or maybe God :lol ) for making it that way, not me for pointing it out.

I don't think there is necessarily a causal relation between intelligence and atheism. I would argue that the more educated a society, the wealthier it is, and the wealthier it is, the less need of a society to have religion to cope with their shitty lives.


EDIT: Edited out correlation for casual relation because I'm stupid.

 

[SoulPlaya]

Now now, they aren't bronze age myths. The bronze age ended around 600 BC.

More accurately, they're ancient Jewish fairy tales. Get your facts straight! :lol



Move to Canada. Much less religious fanaticism here. The US deserves more brain drain anyway.



Really? There are a LOT of atheists around, as the thread title postulates. What have atheists ever done as a group that's evil? (and don't try "The Soviet Union", that was a political ideology.)

I gotta ask now that I think about it. Why can't you use the Soviet Union as an example? Yes, I understand that they were an ideological regime, but they were still Atheist. Unless, of course, your point is that an Atheist who doesn't have any ideological, political, monetary (etc.) desires wouldn't have any real motivation to harm others, which I would actually agree with you. But then again, how realistic is it to believe that there can a large group of people who are simply Atheist and nothing else, or are we simply talking in theories here?

 

[Kinitari]

Atheist = automatically genius???? Too many Atheists on GAF assume much of what they know about religion is right (I'm talking about actual facts about the scriptures in the Bible, Qu'ran, etc.) yet are wayyyy off. I'm afraid to see what else Atheists assume they know.

In the end, just believe whatever the hell you want, as long as you leave other people alone.

I don't see where he said that .

Too many everyone's in every place, assume they know something is the truth when in reality it is not the truth.

What would you be 'afraid' of us assuming we know for example? And your wording implies you'd be more afraid of 'us' (I hate implying that all Atheists are a part of a group, we're not, no more than all people who don't fly kites are a part of a non-kite flying group) - than you would be of religious people who think they know things for truth but to do not (see - major conflicts in American politics/Middle East).

That attitude of just... leaving everyone alone is a very nice one to have, but completely unrealistic. Discussion is important, secluding yourself and isolating your beliefs in your own personal world where you aren't threatened and are always right is silly. At least I think so. Growth as an individual and a society requires out ability to listen and communicate.

 

[SoulPlaya]

General trends, not assumptions.

The more highly educated a society, the less religious. Blame reality (or maybe God :lol ) for making it that way, not me for pointing it out.



Except that the least religious countries on the planet are also the most prosperous. Don't you think that correlation might be just a bit more than coincidence?

But you're pointing out a correlation, which doesn't signify a causal relationship. According to the SCIENTIFIC method, you're making a rash assumption.

 

[Vinci]

Except that the least religious countries on the planet are also the most prosperous. Don't you think that correlation might be just a bit more than coincidence?

So you're saying the economy is in the shitter right now because of religion?

 

[Beer Monkey]

I don't think there is necessarily a correlation between intelligence and atheism. I would argue that the more educated a society, the wealthier it is, and the wealthier it is, the less need of a society to have religion to cope with their shitty lives.

Do you know what correlation means?


Average intelligence predicts atheism rates across 137 nations

 

[SoulPlaya]

I don't see where he said that .

He said that Atheists moving away from Canada would cause a brain drain for the US. I took the assumption from it that he meant Atheists=smart people.

 

[Hari Seldon]

Do you know what correlation means?


Average intelligence predicts atheism rates across 137 nations

Err ya like SoulPlaya said I meant causal relationship.

 

[ATF487]

In the end, just believe whatever the hell you want, as long as you leave other people alone.

Yeah, this is what I want.

I'm an atheist, and I'm ok with other people believing in anything they want to. With two exceptions:

1) There is a real separation between church and state (which isn't really the case)
2) People don't try to 'save' me

 

[SoulPlaya]

So you're saying the economy is in the shitter right now because of religion?

Less religious countries are wealthier doesn't mean that religion causes poverty. Although, the notion that less religious countries are wealthier is obviously wrong when you look at the Oil states and the US.

 

[Kinitari]

I gotta ask now that I think about it. Why can't you use the Soviet Union as an example? Yes, I understand that they were an ideological regime, but they were still Atheist. Unless, of course, your point is that an Atheist who doesn't have any ideological, political, monetary (etc.) desires wouldn't have any real motivation to harm others, which I would actually agree with you. But then again, how realistic is it to believe that there can a large group of people who are simply Atheist and nothing else, or are we simply talking in theories here?

I'll use my point again. Atheism is a terrible word. It implies a sort of unity, a 'group' of people as it were. The Atheists. Atheists are individuals who are completely self-motivated and driven. That's the beauty of it - there is no driving factor influencing all Atheists to disbelieve, or to carry things out in the name of disbelief. We just don't believe and do whatever we want. 'Atheism' can't be held responsible for any heinous acts - because Atheism isn't anything. It's nothing.

 

[SoulPlaya]

Yeah, this is what I want.

I'm an atheist, and I'm ok with other people believing in anything they want to. With two exceptions:

1) There is a real separation between church and state (which isn't really the case)
2) People don't try to 'save' me

Same exact thing I want.

 

[proposition]

I pretty much completely hate the XKCD writer.

 

[chubigans]

I pretty much completely hate the XKCD writer.

I was thinking the same thing :lol

 

[Furcas]

I understand that not being tied to a set of rules can be liberating - you can do whatever you want where as before you had restrictions (in response to an earlier quote from another poster).

Rules? What rules? Even if there was a theistic god (and enough evidence for 'his' existence that a rational person would have to believe in 'him'), I would still have the choice between doing what he wants and doing otherwise. If this god threatened me with eternal suffering if I chose the latter, he would be the equivalent of a police force. If that's what you mean by 'rules', then I'm already "tied to a set of rules", in that I'll probably be punished by the forces of the law if I commit a crime. The only difference is that a god would be a more efficient policeman, what with being omniscient and omnipotent.

I just don't think its addressing whats at the heart of the matter: why be good?

A theist would answer: "Because God wants me to."
And I would ask: "Why do you care what God wants you to do?"
He might reply: "Because I'll suffer for eternity if I disobey him."
And I would ask: "Why don't you want to suffer for eternity?"
To which he would reply: "I just don't!"

That "I just don't!" simply means that the theist has understood what his axiomatic desire is, i.e. the fundamental reason why he behaves as he does. If you ask why someone has an axiomatic desire, the answer to your question won't have anything to do with morality, or even with cognition. It will have to do with evolutionary biology, with the way the individual was raised as a child, and perhaps with various non-cognitive events taking place in the brain. In this particular case, if the theist is like most humans, he doesn't want to suffer because individuals with genes that encourage getting hurt wouldn't have survived very long and thus couldn't have given birth to him and his ancestors.


Now, to answer your question: I want to be good because I just do!

Religion gives context to many of the better things in life: Kindness, charity, Family, Love, Peace.

That 'context' is useless fluff at best, and a dangerous delusion at worst.

What are those things like in when Religion is stripped away?

Reality is the same regardless of our beliefs about it. Those things are exactly the same with or without religion.

However, our perception of them is different depending on our beliefs about reality. To put it bluntly, since I don't delude myself with fairy tales about a supernatural tyrant, I perceive them correctly, while someone who does delude himself would perceive them wrongly.

 

[Dever]

While the Bible's cosmology is proven wrong, it's also the least important part of it all and I'm not sure if it was ever meant to explain the world - it was insufficient for any curious people I think.
I don't think we would even have this discussion if the catholic church didn't try to make it so important in the past. When you think about it, aspects such as continuous nature of the world (not atomistic), the Earth being flat, the Earth being in the center of the Universe never appeared in Bible yet Church defended them.
Nowodays, when a church/religious organisation tries to make a scientific claim (of any sort), simply brainwashes their followers and is not a religion.

Well it all depends on how literally you want to take the Bible. I'm pretty sure it mentions the earth having four corners and being a circle(Used by creationists sometimes to point out that the Bible knew about earth being round before people, even though a circle is flat). There's also the miracle of the sun stopping in it's tracks, implying that the sun is the one doing the moving instead of Earth. Of course these would be extremely easy to explain from a non-literal standpoint though, but it's still in there.

 

[charlequin]

Thinking rationally about reality makes us better. Religion asks us to eliminate this mode of thought, in favor of this idea of faith

This is not actually true, which is part of why many of history's great scientific achievements were made by scientists working as part of religious organizations. Reason itself is a wonderful aspect of the human existence and one whose pursuit is worthwhile, but religion has not actually stood athwart it in any consistent way over the long scope of human history.

The focus on "faith" as a replacement for reason is largely endemic to modern Protestant Christianity, and while every religion has its own endemic elements of foolishness, that particular focus (and the ascientific, pro-ignorance stance that people associate with foolishness like Young Earth Creationism) is a cultural force that is fairly particular to specific institutions and cultures of the modern day, not a broad quality which can be ascribed to all religions in all time periods.

a major facet of most religious thought is not thinking critically or rationally about something

Again, not really true. Elements of rational consideration, doubt, and analysis are quite common in many religious traditions. There are also a variety of religions which make no claim to the existence of unscientific "miracles" and which present their theology in culturally-bound terms rather than as a factual description of truth as applied to all people and all existence.

Ultimately "religion" (broadly bounded) is a field of abstracts, like art or philosophy: much as one can never "prove" that the Mona Lisa is the greatest painting, so too one can define God such that its existence is orthogonal to scientific questions, neither providing evidence for how physical existence functions nor disprovable by observational methods. I feel confident that just like there are scientists and artists (and often the two do not mix) there will always be theists and atheists, and it's better for 'em all to get along and stick to what they're good at (which in theists' case definitely means no retarded attempts to describe the nature of the physical world by referencing ancient texts written by dudes.)

it's about fucking time that the 'non-believers' had some kind of political power though.

I agree, actually. Atheists and agnostics make up a significant part of the population; they have beliefs that are at least as eminently reasonable as choosing to be religious, and I'd guess that the "natural" figure (how many people identify as atheist or agnostic when freed from cultural pressures to do otherwise) is higher, probably 30-40% -- it's ridiculous that people in this group are considered such a political liability in the US.

The popular mantra of religious believers like szaromir that religion and rationality exist in two separate spheres is nothing more than another attempt to protect their unjustified beliefs from criticism.

Well, I like to bring up my art example in these contexts. If someone said that the field of art criticism was in an entirely separate sphere from science, would you agree with them? What about music composition? Or, to take a more controversial example, interpretive history?

I wouldn't say that there's no intersection at all -- science can actually help religion get better by disproving old superstitions, while religion and non-religious ethical philosophy can help guide the development of science in areas of moral questionability -- but by and large they really do just aim to do different things, and inasmuch as either really gets into the other's grill it's to the detriment of everyone.

The vast majority of people believe in a God that actually has specific effects on our world. He created it, he "guided" it, he has feelings for people, he cures the sick, he sets up rules and a moral code for us to follow, you can telepathically communicate with it, he can do magic, and so on and so forth.

Do you have proof for this assertion?

I definitely can't prove the opposite, so I won't make a strong case for it, but for purposes of discussion I will offer a piece of anecdotal data. I (like, I think, many Americans) have a lot of family members who identify as Christians but are by no means tremendously enthusiastic about it: they go to church occasionally (mainly for holidays/big events), they don't make any serious attempt to follow "all" the "rules," they don't evangelize or get on peoples case for not being "good" enough at being Christian.

From conversations, I know a few of these people are just atheists in the making, but a lot of the other ones, when you press them, really aren't -- they have an underlying belief in a vaguely defined, emotional God that's more like an abstract concept than a living actor in the universe. Christianity is the culturally-familiar jacket they put on to explain it, but ultimately their real belief is a sort of vague Deist/pantheist belief rooted in the emotional and/or philosophical and with no claim to explain elements of the physical world.

My position (both as an atheist and a theist) has always been that there are quite a lot of people like this out there, that there will probably be people like this throughout humanity's existence, and that this belief -- even if it is "irrational" -- is basically unproblematic for the goal of a secular society that values learning and rational analysis; an atheist might find it stupid, but hey, I find it stupid that people like to eat peas but I still manage to get along with them.

It's up to the person to decide what they wish to do with their non-belief.

Of course it is. My argument isn't a one-true-Scotsman thing, it's that I honestly think people are dumb for trying to angrily evangelize atheism because a rational analysis rather clearly reveals that evangelism doesn't work except on the confused and easily manipulable.

Basically every hour of effort spent preaching to the choir (irony intended) by focusing on debunking ludicrous religious claims or pseudoscience would probably be better spent finding ways to concretely improve American science education at the K-12 level and to increase atheist visibility in society so as to allow the osmosis-acceptance effect to make atheism normal and accepted.

(I see a clear exception for fighting creationism since that goes hand in hand with the other stuff I suggest.)

 

[Agent Ironside]

The absence of guilt is great.

Pretty much sums up everything in the Atheist community. Best post in the thread.

 

[charlequin]

Except that the least religious countries on the planet are also the most prosperous. Don't you think that correlation might be just a bit more than coincidence?

C'mon! Correlation does not imply causation! This is really basic logical shit, man, and I want to see everyone use really impeccable logic in this discussion. :lol

 

[TheRagnCajun]

The only thing I need to contextualize my good deeds is empathy.
.

Probably the best answer yet. Most satisfying.

Altough I have a new problem: If we do good deeds out of an innate sense of empathy, which is there because of evolution, then wouldn't all the asshats eventually die out? And we would naturally evolve towards a more 'moral' society? Couldn't one argue that the asshats actually have the evolutionary advantage? I guess this actually tangents on a familair econimics problem: Adam Smith's 'society excells when every man serves himself' vs. John Nash's 'society excells when everyone cooperates' - not that I'm claiming to know those ideas indepth...

 

[KevinCow]

Pretty much sums up everything in the Atheist community. Best post in the thread.

Absolutely. We're all horrible shells of people who would go on murderous rampages for the hell of it if it wasn't for the Good Christian Government keeping us in check.

 

[TheRagnCajun]

A theist would answer: "Because God wants me to."
And I would ask: "Why do you care what God wants you to do?"
He might reply: "Because I'll suffer for eternity if I disobey him."
And I would ask: "Why don't you want to suffer for eternity?"
To which he would reply: "I just don't!"

That "I just don't!" simply means that the theist has understood what his axiomatic desire is, i.e. the fundamental reason why he behaves as he does. If you ask why someone has an axiomatic desire, the answer to your question won't have anything to do with morality, or even with cognition. It will have to do with evolutionary biology, with the way the individual was raised as a child, and perhaps with various non-cognitive events taking place in the brain. In this particular case, if the theist is like most humans, he doesn't want to suffer because individuals with genes that encourage getting hurt wouldn't have survived very long and thus couldn't have given birth to him and his ancestors.


Now, to answer your question: I want to be good because I just do!
.

lol I knew you were gonna answer that way by the time I finished reading. Thats fine if thats your answer, its not everyones answer, which is great too. I didn't expect there to be a universal answer for all non-religious people.

Really though, the question doesn't need to be asked 'Why don't you want to suffer in hell?' because the answer is self-apparent and satisfying.

Why someone would want to do a good deed, is not so self-apparent. I think its a good question to ask.

 

[charlequin]

Altough I have a new problem: If we do good deeds out of an innate sense of empathy, which is there because of evolution, then wouldn't all the asshats eventually die out?

I don't think actually justifying empathy on the basis that evolution produced it is a very good idea at all, because investigation continually reveals evidence that suggests that many different complex behaviors, some morally desirable and some rather less so, are in some way connected to genetic expression.

As far as I can tell (and evolutionary study of human psychology and sociology is an incredibly problematic field with a ton of bad information floating around) it is fairly likely that evolutionary pressures both helped lead to the creation of human societies but also to many anti-social behaviors that exist within them. Good with the bad, and all that.

 

[Asmodai]

I gotta ask now that I think about it. Why can't you use the Soviet Union as an example? Yes, I understand that they were an ideological regime, but they were still Atheist. Unless, of course, your point is that an Atheist who doesn't have any ideological, political, monetary (etc.) desires wouldn't have any real motivation to harm others, which I would actually agree with you. But then again, how realistic is it to believe that there can a large group of people who are simply Atheist and nothing else, or are we simply talking in theories here?

Pretending to be atheist because stating otherwise will result in your execution/deportation to work camps is no different than pretending to be Catholic so the Spanish Inquisition doesn't kill you.

Karl Marx and the minds behind communism were socialist, yes. The actual people were not.

And while there are not yet countries where atheists are the majority, the trends are going that way. If you want to know what countries specifically, just look at the United Nation's rankings of which countries are best to live in. Scandinavian nations and Canada generally top the list in that regard.

C'mon! Correlation does not imply causation! This is really basic logical shit, man, and I want to see everyone use really impeccable logic in this discussion.

I had a great university stats prof who said "Correlation does not imply causation" a thousand times.

Of course it's true, but given the number of examples where this case is true, a trend is not exactly a logical impossibility. If you want to believe that pure coincidence is responsible for the least religious countries all being the most prosperous, go ahead.

And "impeccable logic" in a religion thread? Why not ask the religious posters here to logically explain religious belief? :lol

lol I knew you were gonna answer that way by the time I finished reading. Thats fine if thats your answer, its not everyones answer, which is great too. I didn't expect there to be a universal answer for all non-religious people.

Really though, the question doesn't need to be asked 'Why don't you want to suffer in hell?' because the answer is self-apparent and satisfying.

Why someone would want to do a good deed, is not so self-apparent. I think its a good question to ask.

We all have different ethical perspectives. Some people ARE fine with stealing, killing, etc, both religious and atheist. We all have our own reasons for abiding by the law, or not abiding by it.

 

[John Dunbar]

lol I knew you were gonna answer that way by the time I finished reading. Thats fine if thats your answer, its not everyones answer, which is great too. I didn't expect there to be a universal answer for all non-religious people.

Really though, the question doesn't need to be asked 'Why don't you want to suffer in hell?' because the answer is self-apparent and satisfying.

Why someone would want to do a good deed, is not so self-apparent. I think its a good question to ask.

because what's good and what's bad is subjective. most people want to do "good", as in what they feel is right, regardless of their beliefs, but what that good is varies from person to person. you ask why would a non-religious person want to do good. well, why would a non-religious person want to do bad?

 

[Extollere]

I would be interested to hear about how you found more meaning and happiness in life outside of religion.

Hrmm. I thought I wouldn't reply, in that I couldn't write something down that I felt accurately displayed my reasoning for the way I feel about it, but I'll try to in short. My loss of faith correlated to a direct interest and study of cosmology, biology, history and science. Let me step back and just say that I don't believe science will replace faith for anyone who studies it, or that it offers any deeper insight for an individual who feels that they have insight and meaning in faith. For me, however, coming to grips with the reality of evolution, and the histories of religion and civilization offered me an insight that religious beliefs never gave me. I feel amazed that we are simply a by-product of the world and of evolution and not of an end.

Realizing that there is no personal god, deity, or authority to listen to my thoughts, satisfy or deny my wishes, or punish and reward my diligence, I felt free to rid myself of guilt and to take solace in the empty and entirely private place that is the mind. Of being non-religious, I am free of the concept of "sin" but I have never treated myself or those around me with more love and morally-aware behavior. I feel incredibly lucky to have a wonderful wife, but not blessed that I have a divine plan set out by God. Rather I feel the need to be more responsible, and the feeling that all consequences are of a cause controlled by me, and of others that I can't be controlled. I feel it more necessary than ever to reciprocate to others, to enjoy my life as it is, as all it ever will be, and as one that has an almost assuredly definitive end. I find more meaning and preciousness with time spent with others, more patience towards them.

I look at our Universe, and the ridiculously small planet and space we occupy. I'm amazed that the very thing looking up at the sky is the very thing that is of the sky. We are a very simple set of atoms and molecules made complex and conscious by the death of stars and the process of the Earth, and without any need of a creator. I don't feel insignificant in the scope of it all, but feel excited to be a participant of our galaxy and it's discoveries. In light of the long-term damages we are causing towards the Earth and each other, I remain optimistic about the future. I look at religion and find it's quarrels, it's demands, claims, wars, ignorance, intolerance, and self-fulfilling false prophesies to be very petty.

In short - I used to feel uplifted and loved by God through religion and prayer. I now realized that euphoria is very misleading, and indeed blinding. However dependent we find ourselves on it, I now believe it can be found elsewhere. That "spiritual uplifting" or whatever one might call it, can be found almost anywhere elsewhere. I found mine, for example, doing art, you know something productive. The point I make is that I look at religion, as tool, as a motivator, as anything you could use for something good personally and find it unnecessary. Contrarily it has been used globally as a means to do horrible things (killing and maiming aside even) we have seen world wide efforts many times over by Catholicism to denounce and even demolish contraceptives, and sex education in many impoverished countries. The way in which religion treats things that are so arbitrary and natural as sex is, in a manner as evil, or of something to be suppressed is absurd to me. Religion is, in my view, unnecessary for survival, advancement, and happiness, rather it has proven to be almost directly constringent with a suppression of happiness, expression, inquiry, education, morality, ethics, and advancement. Moderation, as we are seeing here in the West, may not stunt or suppress these things as it does elsewhere in the world, but my stance remains that it simply hasn't provided anything of good that can't be provided elsewhere. That's my opinion on the matter.

Personally I couldn't feel happier with the harsh cold realities of the world we live in, rather than to adhere to any kinds of wishful thinking of a happy afterlife or a supernatural god that loves me personally and listens to my prayers out of the 6 billion people on the Earth, or of the 1 billion people currently starving, or of the tens of billions before that, and of all the uncountable stars, solar systems and planets in the ever expanding Universe. My .02 cents on the issue anyways.

 

[VanMardigan]

Absolutely. We're all horrible shells of people who would go on murderous rampages for the hell of it if it wasn't for the Good Christian Government keeping us in check.

Which is why we have to keep praying. We have to keep the murderous baby eaters like you at bay!

 

[I <3 Memes]

You don't have to personally believe in a religion, but that is because you have been influenced by a culture that is largely religious. Our laws, customs, societal norms, are all Christian based. It would take many generations of Christians in the minority for us to see what moral values an atheist-based society develops, and if works better than a religious based one.

BS. Morals and ethics are based on being capable of empathy and compassion as well as the ability to properly judge fairness. Those are characteristics of the human brain. Unfortunately those characteristics aren't as strong or are completely absent in some people. We call those people sociopaths.

To claim that religion is the reason people treat each other with kindness is to ignore religion and religious teachings history of slavery and war as well as the subjugation of women, minorities, and people of different religions and races. The true and rightful treatment of our fellow human beings is something that (mostly) western societies are only just now on the cusp of and has been completely absent through most of human history. In fact our progressively improving treatment of our fellow humans has had to constantly push against religion to get there. And as mentioned in my earlier post, religion only follows along in an effort to remain relevant in the morals of it's times. I shouldn't need to tell you this, with the speed of the changes in this world today we have all seen it with our own eyes.

So where was religion to keep daughters from being traded or sold like cattle and defeated enemies from being used as slaves 1500 years ago?

 

[Furcas]

I think everyone as child asked questions such as "why is grass green? why do i exist? what is the meaning of my life? how does my a living organism function?"

Three of those questions have been mostly answered by science (and will be answered more and more completely as research continues, of course).

As for "the meaning of life", it's like asking about "the essence of beauty". It's a wrong question, a question that rests on false assumptions about reality. Meaning and purpose are things that exist inside a mind. I have my own purpose, you have yours, and if there was a god I expect he'd have his too, although I wouldn't really care if he did.

The others can't be answered by science and can't be answered only by religion/philosophy or other personal beliefs. Dismissing religious explanations 'a priori' seems silly to me.

We're not dismissing religious explanations a priori, we're concluding they're false a posteriori. Do you have evidence for them? No? Then come back when they do, and until then, shut up.

Well, I like to bring up my art example in these contexts. If someone said that the field of art criticism was in an entirely separate sphere from science, would you agree with them? What about music composition? Or, to take a more controversial example, interpretive history?

Notice I wrote 'rationality', not 'science'. I did so because people tend to think of science as a very limited methodology that only deals with stars and stuff that happens in a laboratory.

So, is art criticism in a separate sphere from rationality? No. Art criticism consists of picking a certain set of patterns, defining those patterns as "good art", and looking at art pieces to see if they fit those patterns. If they do, it's good art, if not, it's bad art.

Okay, okay, there's a bit more to it than that. The set of patterns isn't picked completely arbitrarily, it's partly a result of the way evolution has wired our brains to experience pleasure when perceiving certain patterns, so that art critics are performing a kind of intuitive evolutionary psychology.

Music composition is similar, except that instead of saying "good music", and "bad music", composers try to create something that fits the "good music" pattern. Intuitive evo psych + engineering.

I've no idea what interpretive history is.

I wouldn't say that there's no intersection at all -- science can actually help religion get better by disproving old superstitions

Religion is a bunch of superstitions plus a moral code based on those superstitions. What I mean by superstitions is, of course, unsupported and unjustified beliefs about reality. Get rid of these beliefs and you're either left with nothing, or with a secular moral code like secular humanism. Either way, it's not a religion anymore.

 

[TheRagnCajun]

Long Post.

Hey dude I don't think I can really give a reply to that now but I read it twice. Thanks for sharing.

 

[charlequin]

Of course it's true, but given the number of examples where this case is true, a trend is not exactly a logical impossibility.

C'mon, that's really fuzzy thinking. There are plenty of different plausible explanations I can think of with just a few minute's effort here:

• Becoming rich makes people more likely to be atheistic, so wealthy countries gain more atheists.
• Being atheist means someone is smarter and better at business, so countries with atheists perform better.
• There are other cultural ideas which are closely correlated with atheism, but not innately part of it, which result in a society becoming more successful.
• More people are atheist in poor countries, actually, but pressure to be perceived as religious is also much stronger so these countries underreport their atheist percentage.
• A lack of belief in God's existence is more common, but the concept of "atheism" is viewed differently in poorer countries, resulting in people whose underlying beliefs correspond with it to nonetheless report themselves as something different.

That list is varied enough that I certainly wouldn't want to draw any one of those conclusions out and hold it up as an accurate explanation of the fact without doing some cross-tabbing and otherwise trying to tease out the actual connection using (ahem) SCIENCE!

And "impeccable logic" in a religion thread? Why not ask the religious posters here to logically explain religious belief? :lol

Well, I would, and if they were smart they'd say something like my art example wherein religious belief is the adoption of a superficially fact-like abstract predicate that nonetheless is unsupportable through traditional logic but whose abstract truth can nonetheless be accepted by individuals!

We all have different ethical perspectives. Some people ARE fine with stealing, killing, etc, both religious and atheist. We all have our own reasons for abiding by the law, or not abiding by it.

I fully agree with this statement.

 

[Asmodai]

C'mon, that's really fuzzy thinking. There are plenty of different plausible explanations I can think of with just a few minute's effort here:

• Becoming rich makes people more likely to be atheistic, so wealthy countries gain more atheists.
• Being atheist means someone is smarter and better at business, so countries with atheists perform better.
• There are other cultural ideas which are closely correlated with atheism, but not innately part of it, which result in a society becoming more successful.
• More people are atheist in poor countries, actually, but pressure to be perceived as religious is also much stronger so these countries underreport their atheist percentage.
• A lack of belief in God's existence is more common, but the concept of "atheism" is viewed differently in poorer countries, resulting in people whose underlying beliefs correspond with it to nonetheless report themselves as something different.

That list is varied enough that I certainly wouldn't want to draw any one of those conclusions out and hold it up as an accurate explanation of the fact without doing some cross-tabbing and otherwise trying to tease out the actual connection using (ahem) SCIENCE!

Your "science" has no power here, in the internets! :lol

That said, we're not exactly going to be able to use deductive logic to conclusively prove that the less religious a country, the more successful. There aren't enough countries out there, each nation is a unique case.

I'm not understanding exactly where you disagree with me here. You say that atheists are more likely to be intelligent, wealthy, etc, but then don't agree that nations with more atheists are likely to be more prosperous? Bit confused about the disagreement here, if there is one.

Well, I would, and if they were smart they'd say something like my art example wherein religious belief is the adoption of a superficially fact-like abstract predicate that nonetheless is unsupportable through traditional logic but whose abstract truth can nonetheless be accepted by individuals!

Why don't you consider any of my unsourced posts in the future to simply be "fact-like abstract predicates that are unsupportable through traditional logic but whose abstract truth can nonetheless be accepted by individuals" such as yourself?

And yeah, I see what you're getting at. But then we are moving away from logic and into the realm of unicorns, leprechauns, and dragons.

I fully agree with this statement.

Charlequin and myself agree! The thread is now complete!

 

[charlequin]

To claim that religion is the reason people treat each other with kindness is to ignore religion and religious teachings history of slavery and war as well as the subjugation of women, minorities, and people of different religions and races.

This is true inasmuch as to claim any kind of true moral mandate for religion is obviously problematic, though the reverse (a claim that religion is the reason people treat one another with cruelty) is similarly flawed.

The true and rightful treatment of our fellow human beings is something that (mostly) western societies are only just now on the cusp of and has been completely absent through most of human history.

This, however, is not really true. The "one long and steady march of progress" myth is very useful for supporting many specific ideologies but it's not really good history.

Art criticism consists of picking a certain set of patterns, defining those patterns as "good art", and looking at art pieces to see if they fit those patterns. If they do, it's good art, if not, it's bad art.

That's... really not how art criticism works at all. :lol

Key to the concept of meaningful critique and analysis of artistic expression is the idea of an interface between the objective and the subjective -- the author/viewer distinction, the work-as-it-exists vs. the work-as-interpreted. It inherently admits to a structure in which things can be simultaneously "true" and "false," or perhaps more accurately both not true and yet "true" -- I could say "the First Brandenburg Concerto is the greatest work of Baroque composition," and that may be "true" in that people might agree with my statement, and it might be evidentially arguable in that one can demonstrate various factors that speak to or against that assertion, but ultimately it comes down to a fundamentally subjective evaluation whose "truth" is ephemeral in a way that scientific facts are not, but which is nonetheless recognized as a broadly legitimate form of "truth" by humanity.

When I, at least, make a religious statement, I'm making it in a form far more comparable to my Brandenburg assertion than to a scientific statement of fact, and I'm generally not shy either about distinguishing between assertions of this form (i.e. fundamentally subjective viewpoints cloaked in a language of objectivity in order to ease communication) and assertions of physical fact based in "faith," or in dismissing the latter as ill-thought-out and inaccurate.

 

[charlequin]

Y
I'm not understanding exactly where you disagree with me here.

It's not really that I disagree with you so much as that I am uncertain which of my explanations actually, uh, explains the correlation you point out and therefore I honestly wouldn't assert any one of them as correct without investigating further. That's it! :lol

 

[DevelopmentArrested]

So this is payback for real life? It all makes sense now! :lol

My beliefs ARE questioned in real life, including by me. Critical thought is also applicable in real life. I do not live in fairytale land.
I do wish I could convince believers to treat you better when you step outside so you don't have to bash me and my beliefs in here.

I just find it deliciously ironic yet egregiously revolting that a religious person would have the audacity to cry about being ostracized - do we not live in the same universe? Did you miss the thinly veiled thread title that says non-religion hit FIFTEEN percent? Are you geniunely going to dispute the claim that religion completely permutates every facet of society repressing 'non-believers' to not being able to voice their 'opinions' socially and politically or will you just smilie it off? Being 'godless' in America may be the greatest sin of all; it's pretty fucking ignorant and hypocritical for you to complain about the hivemind on GAF when in real life, it is the complete opposite. you can analyse the dissenting opinion's origin all the want - all I know is that it's easier to post on a message board then tell your grandpa to shove his space deity up his Depend'd ass. Should I go make a thread about all the religious adverts on this site - those impune on my beliefs after all. You need to listen to your tag more or work your critical faculties harder if your cheeks are that sore from this thread! Especially since you are acting like I am a cunt hair away from saying this. Finally, please spare the sanctimonious 'us Good Christians will save you' speech for the next mope; that brooding arrogance of pushing your imaginary friends onto others while wrongly assuming said beliefs are sacred, scrutiny-proof is what gets it 'bashed' in the first place. Constant thread derails like yours are what stops actual conversation anyways so huzzah!

 

[soul creator]

Do you have proof for this assertion?

I definitely can't prove the opposite, so I won't make a strong case for it, but for purposes of discussion I will offer a piece of anecdotal data. I (like, I think, many Americans) have a lot of family members who identify as Christians but are by no means tremendously enthusiastic about it: they go to church occasionally (mainly for holidays/big events), they don't make any serious attempt to follow "all" the "rules," they don't evangelize or get on peoples case for not being "good" enough at being Christian.

From conversations, I know a few of these people are just atheists in the making, but a lot of the other ones, when you press them, really aren't -- they have an underlying belief in a vaguely defined, emotional God that's more like an abstract concept than a living actor in the universe. Christianity is the culturally-familiar jacket they put on to explain it, but ultimately their real belief is a sort of vague Deist/pantheist belief rooted in the emotional and/or philosophical and with no claim to explain elements of the physical world.

why are you accusing people of being secret atheists/deists/pantheists?

The "moving target" nature of religions is what makes it a slightly annoying subject to discuss, lol. Obviously, I can point you to all sorts of polls and stats that show that monotheistic religions comprise the vast majority of believers on the planet. Also, the history of those religions, and the holy books of those religions strongly imply the existence of an active god that has all the characteristics that I described earlier.

Of course, like you mentioned, that doesn't necessarily mean literally every single individual that identifies themselves as part of a religion necessarily agrees with every single thing in the religion. But at some level, there has to be a "bare minimum" of beliefs to consider yourself a part of that religion, otherwise the label is useless. And as far as I can tell, for example, you have to believe in the actual resurrection of Jesus Christ, and that Jesus Christ is also God, if you want to be Christian. So yes, I consider that a supernatural belief with no evidence for it, so I'll usually be critical of it in internet discussions.

So if there's this huge group of people as you say that consider themselves part of that group, yet they actually don't hold that belief, then that seems...odd. A bunch of people claiming to be part of organizations they don't actually agree with, simply because there's too much of a social stigma to remove yourself from that organization, seems like a negative thing. It's like some person with liberal beliefs who thinks they have to vote Republican or refrain from criticizing Republican talking points or else they'd be ostracized in their community. Me coming along and saying, "hey, it's ok to not be a Republican, especially considering your actual beliefs don't seem to line up with the Republican Party", shouldn't be seen as some sort of crazy atheist "evangelism".

Of course, if people just genuinely get a kick out of religious rituals or whatever, that's fine. But if people take part in those religious rituals because they feel they're "culturally" required to, then that seems like a problem. Calling supernatural claims out for what they are is one way of lessening that. There's also the argument that all of these supposed "pretend" Christians give cover to the fundamentalists. If all of the "pretend" Christians actually defined themselves as non-Christians, then one could say that Christianity's irrational beliefs wouldn't be so protected in our country, and we'd be able to move much faster on certain issues (like gay rights). Because sure, getting rid of irrational beliefs won't magically cure everything, but at the very least we'll be able to agree on the common ground known as reality. Which will make discussions a little bit more productive between people.

And also there's also regional considerations to take into account as well. I think I saw in the PoliGAF thread that you live in Massachusetts, which will obviously have a slightly different religious bent in comparison to Texas, and within the black church (in which I grew up). Just to use my own anecdotal evidence, the vast majority of people in my area do actually see God as an active being in their lives, and not just some vague deistic force that started the universe and left things alone.

Seriously, just yesterday one of my facebook friends changed their status to "in a relationship". When someone asked who the lucky guy was, she replied "I'm in a relationship with THE LORD!"

"Oh that one is the main man!"

"yes Ma'am He's the BEST I EVER HAD!!!!"

That doesn't quite seem like "vague Deist/pantheist belief rooted in the emotional and/or philosophical" to me!

 

[charlequin]

Okay, way to spaz out there, Spazzy McSpaz.

 

[Asmodai]

It's not really that I disagree with you so much as that I am uncertain which of my explanations actually, uh, explains the correlation you point out and therefore I honestly wouldn't assert any one of them as correct without investigating further. That's it! :lol

Ach so!

I'll leave it up to the power of SCIENCE! to prove my assertions for me. Gotta love that science!

 

[Furcas]

Key to the concept of meaningful critique and analysis of artistic expression is the idea of an interface between the objective and the subjective -- the author/viewer distinction, the work-as-it-exists vs. the work-as-interpreted. It inherently admits to a structure in which things can be simultaneously "true" and "false," or perhaps more accurately both not true and yet "true" -- I could say "the First Brandenburg Concerto is the greatest work of Baroque composition," and that may be "true" in that people might agree with my statement, and it might be evidentially arguable in that one can demonstrate various factors that speak to or against that assertion, but ultimately it comes down to a fundamentally subjective evaluation whose "truth" is ephemeral in a way that scientific facts are not, but which is nonetheless recognized as a broadly legitimate form of "truth" by humanity.

Every single thing you mention here is reducible to a very clear statement about reality which is objectively true or objectively false. That you believe otherwise is just a symptom of semantic confusion.

There are facts about the concerto, such as "The first note of the opening movement is higher than the first note of the second movement".

There are facts about the mind of the concerto's composer, such as "Bach meant to inspire a feeling of melancholy with this sequence of notes".

There are facts about the minds of the listeners, such as "Bob and Sally felt profoundly moved as they listened to the concerto".

There are facts about the isomorphism between what you think of as good music and the concerto.

There are different facts about the isomorphism between what Bob thinks of as good music and the concerto. If you and Bob agree that it's "the greatest work of Baroque composition", the odds are that there is also an isomorphism between what you and Bob think is good music.

But if you and Bob disagree, it doesn't mean that the proposition "the First Brandenburg Concerto is the greatest work of Baroque composition" is both true and false. It means that "charlequin thinks the First Brandenburg Concerto is the greatest work of Baroque composition" is true, and "Bob thinks the First Brandenburg Concerto is the greatest work of Baroque composition" is false. There's nothing contradictory or ephemeral about it. These are statements about reality just like all other statements about reality. That we have incomplete knowledge of the mind may make it difficult to ascertain the truth of these statements, but that's irrelevant.

 

[subrock]

this article is relevant to this thread. I know it made my jaw drop.
New Jersey atheist couple forced to give up their adopted son because they dont believe in god.

 

[Fusebox]

Good to see the USA finally starting to get those statistics up. Lets hope in a few generations non-religion is the majority position.

With regards to the fear mongering, think about this...

Atheists have no pre-defined reason to kill anybody, and we rationally fear the consequences of local law.

Fundamentalist followers of the Abrahamic religions are expressly told who should be killed, how to avoid any spiritual repercussions for said killings, and that the law of God is the one true law.

I know what I'd rather have a majority of in my country.

this article is relevant to this thread. I know it made my jaw drop.
New Jersey atheist couple forced to give up their adopted son because they dont believe in god.

What the hell? That story can't be real, that's just.... mind blown.

In an extraordinary decision, Judge Camarata denied the Burkes' right to the child because of their lack of belief in a Supreme Being. Despite the Burkes' "high moral and ethical standards," he said, the New Jersey state constitution declares that "no person shall be deprived of the inestimable privilege of worshiping Almighty God in a manner agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience." Despite Eleanor Katherine's tender years, he continued, "the child should have the freedom to worship as she sees fit, and not be influenced by prospective parents who do not believe in a Supreme Being."

Disgusting. Poor kid just won the lottery in terms of a chance at a secular up-bringing and the legal system fucked it.

I thought you guys had a separation of church and state over there?!

 

[charlequin]

why are you accusing people of being secret atheists/deists/pantheists?

Well, I'm not going to accuse anyone of "secretly" believing in God when they say they don't or vice versa. I don't think making a judgment on what aspects of somebody's religion they seem to consider vital vs. superficial is totally unacceptable. :lol

The "moving target" nature of religions is what makes it a slightly annoying subject to discuss, lol.

Sure, although historically my response has always been that this is a good reason not to make generalizations about "religion" (the same way that it would usually be silly to, say, make generalizations about "government" that include everything from Liechtenstein to the US to Stalinist Russia.)

So if there's this huge group of people as you say that consider themselves part of that group, yet they actually don't hold that belief, then that seems...odd.

Well, religion is largely a cultural and community force. People don't, broadly speaking, go to church solely because they believe in God; they go to church to participate in a community and experience tradition-based ritual group activities that help them feel connected to the other individuals in said community.

For a lot of people who participate in churches with more... insistent theologies, this winds up in a conflict that eventually leaves them forced to make a choice. If your church insists on preaching against gay people but you're gay (or you know gay people and believe that there's nothing wrong with it) then you run into a problem that might drive you out of the church. But if you don't have a problem with the idea of God in general, and your church is Congregationalist or something and therefore isn't pushing anything too specific or difficult on you, why rock the boat?

I think there's a big premium placed by some people on not doing anything that in any way disagrees with one's own exacting ideals, or with treating any desire to be a part of a community-based group as some sort of insidious "pressure," but I just don't fly that way. Ideological purity is really difficult to maintain and being part of communities with people you disagree with about things is humanizing and beneficial.

But if people take part in those religious rituals because they feel they're "culturally" required to, then that seems like a problem.

I do agree, which is why I think atheist visibility is a good thing. Religions that aren't Protestant Christianity have been "mainstreamed" to some degree in America over the last fifty years (though there's still further to go) and I'd very much prefer to see agnosticism and atheism become respected viewpoints in the same way.

There's also the argument that all of these supposed "pretend" Christians give cover to the fundamentalists.

I don't really think that's accurate when you have groups like the UCC that actively preach tolerance, praise science, etc. But I generally believe that in most conflict situations it's better to have a moderate allied option that can bring people into your camp than to create a polarized situation where someone has to make a decision like "well, I believe in God, but all Christians hate gay people... how do I choose?"

That doesn't quite seem like "vague Deist/pantheist belief rooted in the emotional and/or philosophical" to me!

Sure! I hang out in circles that generally include people who, like, think education is a good idea, support arts funding, don't hate gays and non-whites, etc. etc. too so whether they're religious or not isn't really going to be a big determiner about whether they're totally fucking bugnuts. I'll admit that I'm probably painting a rosier picture than is accurate overall! But I mostly do that to try to bring some nuance to the conversation.

I certainly believe there are totally insane religious extremists and that fundamentalists of basically any stripe are a terrible thing for society, you definitely don't have to convince me on that. I just don't think you're ever going to have 100% of people not believe in God and that there are indeed many non-crazy ways to do that, so I like to encourage those (while simultaneously hoping that people who don't believe in God can express themselves and not be the victim of irrational fears and slurs.)

 

[X26]

Now and forever an agnostic