Support NeoGAF

[SoulPlaya]

People, I get what the THEORY of an Atheist is. I'm telling you, in the real world, it means nothing. Some people can, and most likely will, become extremist about it. Especially, when it seems like some Atheists in this thread can't even agree on what an Atheist is.

 

[SoulPlaya]

This is digressing, but according to an Iraqi coworker of mine you could safely practice Christianity openly in Iraq

Spoiler

under Saddam, not now

.

I don't know about "openly", but yes, Saddam was much better for Christians. Either way, my point wasn't about Saddam, Iraq's been a fucked up place FOR A LONG TIME.

 

[soul creator]

The problem isn't "religion" or the lack of it.

The problem is Extremism . An extremist atheist is just as bad as an evangelical Christian.

But Christians (and lots of other religions) have violent holy texts (with "god" often performing violent acts, in addition to "good" ones), thousands of years of practice, and the notion of an all-powerful god that can reward you in the afterlife that can potentially be used in support of their "causes", which makes it a little more relevant when determining what's more likely to foster extremism.

Sure, a random atheist can do all sorts of horrible things as well, which, as always, no one disputes. But that would largely be reduced to that individual being crazy, rather there being some sort of institutionalized, written down, historically relevant, socially sanctioned philosophical support for their actions.

women can be hateful towards men, but that doesn't change the fact that patriarchy is far more insidious and damaging and socially accepted throughout our history. So when working to lessen sexism, I'll primarily focus on patriarchy.

blacks can do hateful things towards white people, but that doesn't change the fact that institutionalized racism and white supremacy has been the dominant factor throughout American history. So when I want to lessen racism, I'll focus primarily on white privilege.

gays can do all sorts of horrible things, but that doesn't change the fact that strict adherence to heterosexual norms and social conventions has been primarily responsible for discrimination in our history. So when I want to lessen homophobia, I'd focus more on lessening heterosexual privilege.

I would think we'd want to focus on the actual, historical and current, primary forms of real-world "extremism" rather than some hypothetical version that might maybe happen in the future if the minority ever ends up becoming a majority.

Which I guess is an odd statement to make, because Soulplaya apparently thinks that's what we're doing, for some reason. By that logic, we should no longer work towards lessening any of the above things because hey, something else will just take it's place anyway. And they say we're the cynical ones, lol

 

[Kinitari]

The difference here is you believe 'Atheism' to be a variable, when it is essentially the lack of one. Atheism is the 'absence' of a belief in a god. Out of the myriad of reasonings for misanthropy, Atheism would eliminate Theistic arguments, though not necessarily religious ones.

Even in an Atheistic universe one would still have religions, merely Atheistic forms of them. This is why the goal for an Atheistic world is misguided, the term isn't sufficient nor is it realistic given that a biological predisposition exists that attempts to rationalize with nonsense than leave gaps in understanding.

This is why a secular world tends to be a more realistic goal. In this way all religions are equally bound by the lowest common denominator.

You say it a lot better than me. Secular Humanism and Atheism sort of goes hand in hand in my head, but it's necessarily the case for everyone.

 

[Kinitari]

I can accept that. But for every non-extreme atheist, there are those who represent themselves as atheist and take those extreme actions.

Same thing for Muslims, Jews, and Christians. There are plenty of "normal" practitioners, but there are also groups of extremists.

So then you run into an argument of semantics. Is the true definition of a Christian burdened by the representation of a bunch of extremists?

What, are you saying that there is a 1:1 ratio to docile Atheists and Violent killing ones?

 

[SoulPlaya]

The difference here is you believe 'Atheism' to be a variable, when it is essentially the lack of one. Atheism is the 'absence' of a belief in a god. Out of the myriad of reasonings for misanthropy, Atheism would eliminate Theistic arguments, though not necessarily religious ones.

Even in an Atheistic universe one would still have religions, merely Atheistic forms of them. This is why the goal for an Atheistic world is misguided, the term isn't sufficient nor is it realistic given that a biological predisposition exists that attempts to rationalize with nonsense than leave gaps in understanding.

This is why a secular world tends to be a more realistic goal. In this way all religions are equally bound by the lowest common denominator.

I actually agree with you about the secular world. Honestly, I don't think an Atheist world (the way it's described here) is even possible.

 

[KTallguy]

But Christians (and lots of other religions) have violent holy texts (with "god" often performing violent acts, in addition to "good" ones), thousands of years of practice, and the notion of an all-powerful god that can reward you in the afterlife that can potentially be used in support of their "causes", which makes it a little more relevant when determining what's more likely to foster extremism.

Firstly, not everyone that is a practicing Christian takes those passages in the bible seriously, or uses them as justification for committing violent acts.

Secondly, an Atheist can point at those holy texts and attempt to use those as proof that Christians are evil, and justify their own violent acts. It's really the same thing.

Your comments on Women, Blacks, and Homosexuals are very relevant. It takes time to move a societies values and mores, but in the end I would love to see everything 100% equal. (Someday...)

What, are you saying that there is a 1:1 ratio to docile Atheists and Violent killing ones?

No. But both types exist.

 

[DanteFox]

I think religious texts contain many instances of encouragement to commit crimes, be intolerant and unforgiving. They also contain many good messages about peace, loving yourself and your neighbor and the golden rule. It's a smorgasbord that people are free to pick and choose from.

You're not arguing against anything I said there, however.



The question is prompted by your belief that a god is necessary for those things. If it weren't, how is it a question? Rights are ideas. I believe we have the right to free speech. Luckily for me, this is in line with what the government is tasked with upholding. Rights are ideas that come from people. Why do they need to be anything in addition to that?

I think it's pretty easy to see, from the perspective of evolution, why morality was beneficial and selected for, don't you?

My initial post was kind of a test veiled as an argument. I just wanted to get a better idea of the way atheists think. I probably won't be able to get the people in here doing the mental acrobatics required in order to dismiss atheism as a mere triviality of the nazi movement.

As for the rights question, you're assuming a lot and kind of dodging the fundamental question hidden at the bottom. Yes rights are put forth by people. How do those people come to the conclusion of what those rights are? And even if you believe morality was evolved, how can you say to someone, that is wrong, or evil? Their morality is simply the product of evolution, just like their hair color, or height.

 

[Kinitari]

People, I get what the THEORY of an Atheist is. I'm telling you, in the real world, it means nothing. Some people can, and most likely will, become extremist about it. Especially, when it seems like some Atheists in this thread can't even agree on what an Atheist is.

Huh? I don't even know what you are saying. I am not trying to sound mean, maybe I am just slow. What are you trying to say?

And where are you getting the bold from? What makes you think that?

And how are Atheists not agreeing on what Atheism is - I mean... it's simple. It's just really hard to explain it to someone who doesn't want to hear it. It's 1 or 0. Believe in god or don't believe in god. That's it.

 

[SoulPlaya]

Huh? I don't even know what you are saying. I am not trying to sound mean, maybe I am just slow. What are you trying to say?

And where are you getting the bold from? What makes you think that?

And how are Atheists not agreeing on what Atheism is - I mean... it's simple. It's just really hard to explain it to someone who doesn't want to hear it. It's 1 or 0. Believe in god or don't believe in god. That's it.

I get it! My point is that in the real world, it means nothing. I'll give you an example. To me, anyone who kills someone cannot be Christian, it goes against the very definition of Christianity as far as I'm concerned. Yet, people still kill in the name of Christianity.

That can, IN REALITY, happen with Atheism as well.

 

[KHarvey16]

My initial post was kind of a test veiled as an argument. I just wanted to get a better idea of the way atheists think. I probably won't be able to get the people in here doing the mental acrobatics required in order to dismiss atheism as a mere triviality of the nazi movement.

As for the rights question, you're assuming a lot and kind of dodging the fundamental question hidden at the bottom. Yes rights are put forth by people. How do those people come to the conclusion of what those rights are? And even if you believe morality was evolved, how can you say to someone, that is wrong, or evil? Their morality is simply the product of evolution, just like their hair color, or height.

Are you suggesting religion or belief in god deliver us any more concrete moral pillars? If some book written thousands of years ago or simply a belief in god led us to the "right" or "proper" moral basis it should never change over time, but yet it has. What you're looking at isn't a question of theism or atheism.

 

[KHarvey16]

I get it! My point is that in the real world, it means nothing. I'll give you an example. To me, anyone who kills someone cannot be Christian, it goes against the very definition of Christianity as far as I'm concerned. Yet, people still kill in the name of Christianity.

That can, IN REALITY, happen with Atheism as well.

But nothing about atheism could be contorted to support killing anyone. The equality you're trying to demonstrate here is a flawed exercise.

 

[Kinitari]

I get it! My point is that in the real world, it means nothing. I'll give you an example. To me, anyone who kills someone cannot be Christian, it goes against the very definition of Christianity as far as I'm concerned. Yet, people still kill in the name of Christianity.

If someone kills in self defense, are they no longer a Christian?

That can, IN REALITY, happen with Atheism as well.

Huh?

 

[SoulPlaya]

But nothing about atheism could be contorted to support killing anyone. The equality you're trying to demonstrate here is a flawed exercise.

Get someone who is ignorant enough, and they can twist their disbelief (or lack of belief) in God into a hatred for anyone who has a belief in God. I'm sure you'll reply back by saying that this goes against the definition of Atheism, but that won't stop a person in the real world.

 

[KHarvey16]

Get someone who is ignorant enough, and they can twist their disbelief (or lack of belief) in God into a hatred for anyone who has a belief in God. I'm sure you'll reply back by saying that this goes against the definition of Atheism, but that won't stop a person in the real world.

This is like saying a person who likes baseball could distort that into supporting his rampage through a kindergarten, killing children. You're taking a person who is described as A, performs B and then connecting them somehow. It makes no sense.

 

[SoulPlaya]

This is like saying a person who likes baseball could distort that into supporting his rampage through a kindergarten, killing children. You're taking a person who is described as A, performs B and then connecting them somehow. It makes no sense.

I'm not connecting them, honestly. I understand that an extremist Atheist would be a wrong Atheist. This all goes back to the point that an Atheist world would be a better world. Extremism (as wrong as it is) is still possible in an world where people had no belief in God. If the theoretic definition of an Atheism was possible, then it could very be a much better world. Honestly, though, I don't think the theoretic definition of Atheism is possible on a worldwide scale.

 

[KHarvey16]

I'm not connecting them, honestly. I understand that an extremist Atheist would be a wrong Atheist. This all goes back to the point that an Atheist world would be a better world. Extremism (as wrong as it is) is still possible in an world where people had no belief in God. If the theoretic definition of an Atheism was possible, then it could very be a much better world. Honestly, though, I don't think the theoretic definition of Atheism is possible on a worldwide scale.

But the point is that extremism of whatever other belief an atheist has would not be motivated by or supported by their lack of belief in god. It just doesn't follow.

 

[soul creator]

I get it! My point is that in the real world, it means nothing. I'll give you an example. To me, anyone who kills someone cannot be Christian, it goes against the very definition of Christianity as far as I'm concerned. Yet, people still kill in the name of Christianity.

That can, IN REALITY, happen with Atheism as well.

One issue I find is, when you accept faith-based thinking and supernatural claims as "normal" or "virtuous", how can you actually say that person is "not a real Christian"? After all, God killed all sorts of people throughout the holy bible, and even almost had Abraham kill Isaac. So, one could say, "hey, in some situations, killing is actually ok". What if that killer thought God told them to do so? Christians see "personal revelation" as a valid form of evidence, so he do we determine that he's actually wrong? Why isn't his version of the religion the "right" one? "Faith" is inherently vague and unreliable, so it's not like you can provide some sort of solid religious reason to oppose his actions. Sure, you'd probably say that Jesus wouldn't like that, but maybe that was just your "personal revelation". Which one is the correct one? Why would your "personal revelation" take precedence over the killer's "personal revelation"?

Now of course, you'd likely disagree, and probably use some outside standard that has nothing to do with personal revelation, faith, or god's actions. Maybe you'd make some sort of golden rule argument. Maybe you'd say that killing people causes pain, and being a human being capable of empathy, we should do things to avoid pain. Maybe you'd say that god doesn't actually talk to people (that's just crazy!) and tell them to do things, so that's an obviously silly justification for killing.

In that case, congratulations, you have a secular moral code. Welcome to the club

Now sure, some random atheist person can be a horrible killer as well. But how does he justify it? One thing we can determine is that "God told me so" wouldn't be used as a reason, so it at least makes this a little easier to deal with and try to prevent in the future. Unless he's just crazy, which of course can apply to anyone, and isn't some inherent feature of atheism.

 

[SoulPlaya]

But the point is that extremism of whatever other belief an atheist has would not be motivated by or supported by their lack of belief in god. It just doesn't follow.

But it wouldn't detract their extremism, either, right?

 

[SoulPlaya]

One issue I find is, when you accept faith-based thinking and supernatural claims as "normal" or "virtuous", how can you actually say that person is "not a real Christian"? After all, God killed all sorts of people throughout the holy bible, and even almost had Abraham kill Isaac. So, one could say, "hey, in some situations, killing is actually ok". What if that killer thought God told them to do so? Christians see "personal revelation" as a valid form of evidence, so he do we determine that he's actually wrong? Why isn't his version of the religion the "right" one? "Faith" is inherently vague and unreliable, so it's not like you can provide some sort of solid religious reason to oppose his actions. Sure, you'd probably say that Jesus wouldn't like that, but maybe that was just your "personal revelation". Which one is the correct one? Why would your "personal revelation" take precedence over the killer's "personal revelation"?

Now of course, you'd likely disagree, and probably use some outside standard that has nothing to do with personal revelation, faith, or god's actions. Maybe you'd make some sort of golden rule argument. Maybe you'd say that killing people causes pain, and being a human being capable of empathy, we should do things to avoid pain. Maybe you'd say that god doesn't actually talk to people (that's just crazy!) and tell them to do things, so that's an obviously silly justification for killing.

In that case, congratulations, you have a secular moral code. Welcome to the club

Now sure, some random atheist person can be a horrible killer as well. But how does he justify it? One thing we can determine is that "God told me so" wouldn't be used as a reason, so it at least makes this a little easier to deal with and try to prevent in the future. Unless he's just crazy, which of course can apply to anyone, and isn't some inherent feature of atheism.

I'm a Christian Existentialist. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_existentialism

BTW, just to be clear, the old Mosaic laws don't apply to Christianity.

 

[DanteFox]

Are you suggesting religion or belief in god deliver us any more concrete moral pillars? If some book written thousands of years ago or simply a belief in god led us to the "right" or "proper" moral basis it should never change over time, but yet it has. What you're looking at isn't a question of theism or atheism.

If you believe in God, you most likely believe, like it says in the Declaration of Independence, that people are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights. It also makes sense to the theist why humans have morality (they believe we were all created in God's image). Notice I'm not saying you have to believe in God in order to have morality, I'm saying that (the three main monotheisms believe) that we were all given morality, independent of our belief in him. If you're an atheist, you believe _____________________.

I'll let you fill in the rest, since I'd imagine you're an atheist.

 

[KHarvey16]

But it wouldn't detract their extremism, either, right?

Of course not. Again, I don't see anyone who has argued the contrary.

 

[DevelopmentArrested]

Get someone who is ignorant enough, and they can twist their disbelief (or lack of belief) in God into a hatred for anyone who has a belief in God. I'm sure you'll reply back by saying that this goes against the definition of Atheism, but that won't stop a person in the real world.

millions dead over competitive invisible men in the sky yet no atheists killing believers: go figure. research should be mandatory before your next post as you continue to completely miss the point of atheism - there is no main ideology or set of tenets that they have to adhere to. by the same leap (lack) of logic you used, an atheist killer wouldn't be an atheist! it's fine that you think a no religion world wouldn't work (of course realistically it would never happen so it's a moot argument); of course it would not be an utopia but it's pretty easy to deduce through one or two elementary school history lessons that it would be a much better place. i have to point out once again the completely hilarious irony of your position. a religious person asking for real-world applications, proof and evidence is just fucking hilarious to me. your entire belief system is theoretical - what kind of credence in any conversation does it deserve?

 

[Kinitari]

I'm not connecting them, honestly. I understand that an extremist Atheist would be a wrong Atheist.

Atheist Extremism does not exist. An Atheist with violently extreme tendencies isn't a 'wrong' Atheist. Just a bad person.

This all goes back to the point that an Atheist world would be a better world. Extremism (as wrong as it is) is still possible in an world where people had no belief in God. If the theoretic definition of an Atheism was possible, then it could very be a much better world. Honestly, though, I don't think the theoretic definition of Atheism is possible on a worldwide scale.

You are being obscure and using a lot of 'maybe who knows' language. I mean... if I started saying "For all we know, tomorrow dogs could run rampant in the streets and start killing people, I mean it's completely in their power to, so it's something we need to worry about" - would you take me seriously?

And why is a theoretically Atheist world not possible?

 

[KHarvey16]

If you believe in God, you most likely believe, like it says in the Declaration of Independence, that people are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights. It also makes sense to the theist why humans have morality (they believe we were all created in God's image). Notice I'm not saying you have to believe in God in order to have morality, I'm saying that (the three main monotheisms believe) that we were all given morality, independent of our belief in him. If you're an atheist, you believe _____________________.

I'll let you fill in the rest, since I'd imagine you're an atheist.

We, as a society, have agreed that people deserve certain rights and we've structured ourselves in order to protect those. Even those who believe rights were endowed by a creator sure found ways to deny them to those they deemed unworthy, didn't they? Rights are a human concept. I don't understand what it is you're getting at.

 

[DevelopmentArrested]

We, as a society, have agreed that people deserve certain rights and we've structured ourselves in order to protect those. Even those who believe rights were endowed by a creator sure found ways to deny them to those they deemed unworthy, didn't they? Rights are a human concept. I don't understand what it is you're getting at.

I think he's trying to make a primitive circular argument that atheists cannot have morals, but is failing miserably. Secular humanism, evolutionary biology or just simple empathy are nice places to start. the most civil societies don't take their morals from scripture anyways; if anything a proper scan of the Bible would teach you that those bronze-age morals are pretty fucked up.

 

[SoulPlaya]

millions dead over competitive invisible men in the sky yet no atheists killing believers: go figure. research should be mandatory before your next post as you continue to completely miss the point of atheism - there is no main ideology or set of tenets that they have to adhere to. by the same leap (lack) of logic you used, an atheist killer wouldn't be an atheist! it's fine that you think a no religion world wouldn't work (of course realistically it would never happen so it's a moot argument); of course it would not be an utopia but it's pretty easy to deduce through one or two elementary school history lessons that it would be a much better place. i have to point out once again the completely hilarious irony of your position. a religious person asking for real-world applications, proof and evidence is just fucking hilarious to me. your entire belief system is theoretical - what kind of credence in any conversation does it deserve?

It's just funny to me to see a bunch of people who laugh at the faith that religious people have, yet have no proof that an Atheist world would be better. Unless, of course, you can give me proof that an Atheist world would be better, it's all faith.

 

[Staccat0]

I can't think of anything to say about this. I just wish people would stop treating me like a fucking asshole when they find out I don't like ghost stories.

It's just funny to me to see a bunch of people who laugh at the faith that religious people have, yet have no proof that an Atheist world would be better. Unless, of course, you can give me proof that an Atheist world would be better, it's all faith.

Proof eh?:lol
In an Athiest world there would still be tons of bullshit and wars, but you would probably have a harder time convincing a fool to fight for your cause if they don't think there is any reward at the end if they die.

Still, Athiests can be dicks to the religious. It must come from being hated or something.

 

[SoulPlaya]

Atheist Extremism does not exist. An Atheist with violently extreme tendencies isn't a 'wrong' Atheist. Just a bad person.



You are being obscure and using a lot of 'maybe who knows' language. I mean... if I started saying "For all we know, tomorrow dogs could run rampant in the streets and start killing people, I mean it's completely in their power to, so it's something we need to worry about" - would you take me seriously?

And why is a theoretically Atheist world not possible?

It's just from what I've studied in Psychology. A large amount of people in this world just need religion (or its equivalent) to explain what goes on in their lives.

 

[SoulPlaya]

Of course not. Again, I don't see anyone who has argued the contrary.

OK, so Atheism doesn't increase nor detract someone's extremism. Let me rephrase this. In an Atheist world, there could be people who believed that religious people should be killed. It isn't the fault of Atheism, but it could happen, right? Please, don't tell me that isn't possible, we've seen examples of people on Neogaf who feel this way.

 

[soul creator]

It's just from what I've studied in Psychology. A large amount of people in this world just need religion (or its equivalent) to explain what goes on in their lives.

but religions generally aren't even very good at that :lol

 

[Staccat0]

It's just from what I've studied in Psychology. A large amount of people in this world just need religion (or its equivalent) to explain what goes on in their lives.

This is true. I don't even think its a bad thing really. I think having faith in something could be nice and take the edge off a lot of shit. Aren't people just genetically predisposed to either having or not having faith?

 

[SoulPlaya]

I can't think of anything to say about this. I just wish people would stop treating me like a fucking asshole when they find out I don't like ghost stories.

Proof eh?:lol
In an Athiest world there would still be tons of bullshit and wars, but you would probably have a harder time convincing a fool to fight for your cause if they don't think there is any reward at the end if they die.

Still, Athiests can be dicks to the religious. It must come from being hated or something.

Usually, when people kill others, it has nothing to do with a reward at the end of life. Money, power, land, and hatred for hatred's sake are enough.

 

[KHarvey16]

OK, so Atheism doesn't increase nor detract someone's extremism. Let me rephrase this. In an Atheist world, there could be people who believed that religious people should be killed. It isn't the fault of Atheism, but it could happen, right? Please, don't tell me that isn't possible, we've seen examples of people on Neogaf who feel this way.

Um, sure? Who said it couldn't?

 

[Staccat0]

but religion generally aren't even very good at that :lol

I think he meant "give it meaning"
The religious don't give a fuck about explanations. They just want to feel better about dying, they to think something bad will happen to bad people and wish there was some good that comes from the shity things they deal with.
I can't blame them. It sounds nice! I don't have it in ME, but still... that shit would rock.

 

[SoulPlaya]

Um, sure? Who said it couldn't?

So, if these things can happen, why is it better than this world? Is it simply because "a belief in God" can no longer used as a reason to kill others? Even, though, people could still be killed for believing in a God (once again, not Atheism's fault).

BTW, my definition of An Atheist world is a world where religious people are a minority. I stand by my belief that a 100% Atheist world isn't possible.

 

[Staccat0]

Usually, when people kill others, it has nothing to do with a reward at the end of life. Money, power, land, and hatred for hatred's sake are enough.

Yes. That is why people kill other people.
However, in order to get another person to fight that fight FOR you (cuz you don't wanna die! and you gotta spend that money!), it helps if they get something for dying and its not really the "end". Religion has an impact on how courageous you are.
Thats why old religions promised great shit to people who died in war.

I'm not saying an Athiest world have less war. Just less soldiers.:lol Maybe more nukes though

 

[SoulPlaya]

Yes. That is why people kill other people.
However, in order to get another person to fight that fight FOR you (cuz you don't wanna die! and you gotta spend that money!), it helps if they get something for dying and its not really the "end". Religion has an impact on how courageous you are.
Thats why old religions promised great shit to people who died in war.

Lol, really? Do you know how many people died for Nazism, Communism, patriotism? You underestimate people's will. They don't need to believe in an afterlife to die for a cause.

 

[DanteFox]

I think he's trying to make a primitive circular argument that atheists cannot have morals, but is failing miserably.

wrong, I even stated as much in my last post.

 

[Kinitari]

So, if these things can happen, why is it better than this world? Is it simply because "a belief in God" can no longer used as a reason to kill others? Even, though, people could still be killed for believing in a God (once again, not Atheism's fault).

BTW, my definition of An Atheist world is a world where religious people are a minority. I stand by my belief that a 100% Atheist world isn't possible.

People have said this over and over and I don't know if you just don't get it, or are evading it.

An Atheist/Secular world != a Utopia. No one is saying that. All everyone is saying is that it completely reasonable to conclude that without religion playing a role in so many of today's moral issues, we would most likely be better off.

But sure, for all we know, without so many religion people hatin' - the earth might cave in on itself. I can't prove otherwise.

 

[DevelopmentArrested]

I think he meant "give it meaning"
The religious don't give a fuck about explanations. They just want to feel better about dying, they to think something bad will happen to bad people and wish there was some good that comes from the shity things they deal with.
I can't blame them. It sounds nice! I don't have it in ME, but still... that shit would rock.

Let me get this straight... you want to delude yourself to make life easier to live; you want to be taught to be content with not understanding the world? that's pretty weak-minded. the solace from a fear of death that religion gives irrational people is not worth the incredible toxic shit religion has done to society.

 

[madara]

Let me get this straight... you want to delude yourself to make life easier to live; you want to be taught to be content with not understanding the world? that's pretty weak-minded. the solace from a fear of death that religion gives irrational people is not worth the incredible toxic shit religion has done to society.

I am the Dragon. And you call me insane. You are privy to a great becoming, but you recognize nothing. To me, you are a slug in the sun. You are an ant in the afterbirth. It is your nature to do one thing correctly. Before me, you rightly tremble. But, fear is not what you owe me. You owe me awe.

 

[DevelopmentArrested]

I am the Dragon. And you call me insane. You are privy to a great becoming, but you recognize nothing. To me, you are a slug in the sun. You are an ant in the afterbirth. It is your nature to do one thing correctly. Before me, you rightly tremble. But, fear is not what you owe me. You owe me awe.

did you really just quote a Brett Ratner movie on me ?

 

[CENOBITE]

We must observe the niceties. Bow, Potter.

 

[madara]

did you really just quote a Brett Ratner movie on me ?

You wanted uwe boll instead? Quality to bible is about same no?

 

[LCGeek]

I think he meant "give it meaning"
The religious don't give a fuck about explanations. They just want to feel better about dying, they to think something bad will happen to bad people and wish there was some good that comes from the shity things they deal with.
I can't blame them. It sounds nice! I don't have it in ME, but still... that shit would rock.

The same could be said for anybody accepting a definition they can't truly know only until they die. Religious and spiritually minded people have a variety of reasons for their practices besides death. If anything accepting inexistence is far more touchy feely then the various natures of death based on various cultures or religion. Whatever floats your boat is my policy.

 

[methos75]

Who really cares, fact is that there is always going to be both religion and atheism, sooner or later both will hit an balance point and both sides just need to deal with that fact.

 

[SoulPlaya]

People have said this over and over and I don't know if you just don't get it, or are evading it.

An Atheist/Secular world != a Utopia. No one is saying that. All everyone is saying is that it completely reasonable to conclude that without religion playing a role in so many of today's moral issues, we would most likely be better off.

But sure, for all we know, without so many religion people hatin' - the earth might cave in on itself. I can't prove otherwise.

OK, then, it's just with the ways ome people talk on this board, you would think that Atheism would solve all of our problems. I disagree, though, I think the world would still be fucked up. It might be better here and there, though. WHO KNOWS???? Of course, this is all working under the assumption that there is no God, and that people choose a religion to make their lives better, and not because they genuinely believe that this is the true religion of God.

 

[Dever]

OK, so Atheism doesn't increase nor detract someone's extremism. Let me rephrase this. In an Atheist world, there could be people who believed that religious people should be killed. It isn't the fault of Atheism, but it could happen, right? Please, don't tell me that isn't possible, we've seen examples of people on Neogaf who feel this way.

Yes it's possible. If you're an asshole and you're religious, you're still an asshole. If you're an asshole and you're an atheist, you're still an asshole. But if you polled current atheists about things like gay rights, I wonder how many would think gays don't deserve equal rights? And how many would deny hospital care from their sick children? The "extremist" atheists are an... extreme minority, so much so that their very existence seems to be merely hypothetical in this discussion.

But yeah I don't advocate an atheist world. I think it would be at least somewhat better than we have now, but you should be free to believe whatever you want. I advocate a rational, secular world.

 

[SoulPlaya]

Yes it's possible. If you're an asshole and you're religious, you're still an asshole. If you're an asshole and you're an atheist, you're still an asshole. But if you polled current atheists about things like gay rights, I wonder how many would think gays don't deserve equal rights? And how many would deny hospital care from their sick children? The "extremist" atheists are an... extreme minority, so much so that their very existence seems to be merely hypothetical in this discussion.

But yeah I don't advocate an atheist world. I think it would be at least somewhat better than we have now, but you should be free to believe whatever you want. I advocate a rational, secular world.

I wonder if you polled Christians (won't generalize) about gay rights, and denying their children hospital care, you would be surprised. But come on, denying hospital care? Christian Scientists are a small ass group. And as we see with the developments in the Lutheran Church, being Christian /= against Gays.