For all the ex-religious.

[Moto]

My parents never forced any religion on me and aren't particularly religious themselves. My mom seems afraid to call herself an atheist because it unfortunately has a social stigma, but I can tell she is. My dad has sort of a casual belief in god, I think. I grew up believing in god just because I thought that you were supposed to, but I never took it very seriously. We never went to church. I guess as I got older and my critical thinking skills developed, I started increasingly thinking of god and religion in general as pretty ridiculous concepts. I called myself an agnostic for a while, but that was only because I was afraid to admit that I was an atheist. My friends in high school were almost all conservative christians. I don't know how that happened, but that's how it was. I didn't want to let religion get in the way of friendship, so I just kept that to myself. Now that high school and most of those friendships are in the past, I'm not afraid to call it what it is.

Anyway, I don't feel like the time I spent believing in god was wasted. I wasn't ever all that concerned with what god would think about certain things I would do, think, or say.

 

[Mogi67]

Atheists lead an existence based on skepticism. The scientific method is the main proponent of this; if a result cannot be re-done, then it cannot be proven. There is no faith involved. Faith is believing in something with only partial or no proof. All of science exists on the base of proof. If something cannot be replicated or proven, it doesn't deserve a place in books.

There's always the chance that all scientists are lying to us and in cahoots with this secret plan made by Satan to beat God once and for all, but if he can do that I think Satan is probably the better man.

Do they?
Faith is traditionally regarded as a question of certainty, not of plausibility or speculation. Faith in God involves a kind of certainty, it's more a matter of an assured trust than of keeping one's fingers crossed. Some form of trust is required to consider any evidence reliable. I don't think that it's possible for people to be wholly skeptical; americans who are atheists may have faith in democratic institutions,. there's a common presupposition on these forums that a wholly secular society would of its nature be more tolerant and less prone to violence than one shaped by religious faith, there's a sort of faith placed in a notion of moral good, etc. Hitchens writes in God is not Great that "our belief is not a belief...our principles are not a faith." Yet liberal humanism involves trust in humanity's rationality, desire for freedom, and so on.

I see what you're getting at with the scientific method, yet how many major scientific hypotheses which were once proven have been shown to be untrue, and isn't it likely that it is the same for modern science? Again, I'm not saying that science is a fruitless endeavor, I'm suggesting that there's a false dichotomy between faith and reason.

 

[Noodle]

Atheists have faith that when they die, they won't end up in another state of conscious existence. There is no evidence to support this theory.

 

[The Monkey]

Atheists lead an existence based on skepticism.

Atheists =/= scientists. Being an atheist doesn't say shit about what you believe in other than the non-existence of God(s).

Atheists have faith that when they die, they won't end up in another state of conscious existence. There is no evidence to support this theory.

The burden of proof lies on those who assess something (that there is an afterlife).

 

[Krynn72]

Atheists have faith that when they die, they won't end up in another state of conscious existence. There is no evidence to support this theory.

A: Not necessarily. Being an atheist just means you don't believe in any gods. It has nothing to do with any other beliefs.
B: There is evidence. Consciousness is is dependent on the brain. No brain = no consciousness.

 

[Xevrex]

So we went from theism to deism to atheism? I find it more rational to believe that something created us, but moved on. Of course, I could just being dousing myself in gasoline. Deism and atheism both seem reasonable, the only difference is whether some supernatural being created us or not.

 

[Noodle]

A: Not necessarily. Being an atheist just means you don't believe in any gods. It has nothing to do with any other beliefs.
B: There is evidence. Consciousness is is dependent on the brain. No brain = no consciousness.

Okay, I'm generalizing that most atheists don't believe in an afterlife.

Unless the consciousness alters its existence by moving into a separate realm.



I'm going to leave this thread with this:

 

[Krynn72]

Unless the consciousness alters its existence by moving into a separate realm.

Just like DVDs turn to pinecones when you shove them up your ass.

 

[GreatEmperor]

Wireless modems disrupt human consciousness, duh, you end up in Big Bad Beetleborgs land, until proven otherwise

Seriously all religion does is make people feel important, they dont want proof of anything they just want to delude themselves with outdated myths

 

[Mogi67]

Seriously all religion does is make people feel important, they dont want proof of anything they just want to delude themselves with outdated myths

You don't know anything about religion.

 

[15357]

I think I like Gen. George S. Patton's beliefs: If you're badass enough, you get another life.

 

[StarBob]

I think I like Gen. George S. Patton's beliefs: If you're badass enough, you get another life.

Num Bars you reference a lot of random historical Americans.

I don't know why.

 

[15357]

Num Bars you reference a lot of random historical Americans.

I don't know why.

Well, I don't know anything about European history, and you guys prolly won't be able to get any Korean references.

Besides, I have a strong interest in American military history: It takes a special kind of badass to become the most powerful country in the world. Until we usurp them, of course.

 

[CptStern]

Just like DVDs turn to pinecones when you shove them up your ass.

genuine lol. my office mate asked me what was so funny and I just made up some bs about an email from a customer

Atheists have faith that when they die, they won't end up in another state of conscious existence. There is no evidence to support this theory.

huh? the burden of proof is on "another state of consciousness" it's a given that it's not a supportable theory because there's absolutely no evidence to support it. the only logical conclusion is that there is no other state of consciousness after death. to say otherwise is to tread into the realm of the illogical (because there's nothing to support it)

 

[Noodle]

huh? the burden of proof is on "another state of consciousness" it's a given that it's not a supportable theory because there's absolutely no evidence to support it. the only logical conclusion is that there is no other state of consciousness after death. to say otherwise is to tread into the realm of the illogical (because there's nothing to support it)

By what system of logic? Forgive me for playing devil's advocate for a moment, but wouldn't an atheist believe that logic is nothing more than a learned system of responding to stimuli in order to help said being survive longer to reproduce?

If so, how the hell did we end up with so many atheists/bleeding-heart liberal combos?

 

[CptStern]

By what system of logic? Forgive me for playing devil's advocate for a moment, but wouldn't an atheist believe that logic is nothing more than a learned system of responding to stimuli in order to help said being survive longer to reproduce?

where did you get that? there is no separate definition of logic for religious people and non religious people. that's silly. and really must you and people like you contunally put this erroneous label on atheists that they're somehow a cohesive group. atheists by definition are non believers. there is no central philosphy EXCEPT "we dont believe". we have more in common with Santa Claus deniers than we do to religion

If so, how the hell did we end up with so many atheists/bleeding-heart liberal combos?

I dont know; evolution, evolving away from barbarism? mankind finally rising out of the mire of ignorance?

what gets me is why religious people ARENT bleeding heart liberals. I mean jesus certainly was a bleeding heart liberal (relatively speaking at that time) yet most christians bend over backwards to do the complete opposite

 

[Polaris]

how the hell did we end up with so many atheists/bleeding-heart liberal combos?

Only in America pal, here in Europe even the conservative right wingers are very often atheists.

 

[PvtRyan]

To play devil's advocate, don't atheists ironically lead an existence essentially based on faith? Much of knowledge is held through belief - trust is placed in the research and studies of scientists and specialists. It's common for people to place faith in concepts or ideals which do not expressly exist in reality, having certainty about things, like how liberal democracy is better than slavery.

Science is a field that should hold nothing greater than discovering truth or knowledge, yet today science is led to support trends in intellectual thought, one of which is the destruction of religion due to a supposed lack of rationality. But due to the scientific understanding of the world being based on a self-proclaimed entirety of reason there follows with it a presumption that one can find a source for the proof of life merely by reasoning. What I mean by this is that the "enlightened" humans of the world can now prove to others that it is "objectively good" to do certain things, like search for truth, for example.

Well, why should a thing be clearly good, especially without faith in the fact that it is good? This is the problem with the objectivity that comes along with the modern scientific understanding of life, it bases its claims on nothing to an extent. It's based on presupposed knowledge and a trust that this knowledge is true. Therefore, science cannot function without faith (though the same could be said of reason): faith is what drives humans to understand (or hope) that what they speak of is correct, and without this base of faith, perhaps nothing can stand. This is not to say that science should be discredited, but perhaps the "rationally" centered outlooks of modernism may not be all that rational to begin with.

Saying that truth doesn't really exist outside of math is technically valid, but also pretty meaningless in practice. While potentially everything that science holds as true could actually be completely wrong, you will never be able to know so, all you can do is your best to find the truth. To then claim that this is "faith" and imply that it is somehow equal to religion's faith (aka: "making shit up") or that you can't criticize religion's irrationality because reality is inherently uncertain (a distinction which is irrelevant in practice) and hence "science also requires faith" is pretty disingenuous.

 

[Noodle]

I dont know; evolution, evolving away from barbarism? mankind finally rising out of the mire of ignorance?

what gets me is why religious people ARENT bleeding heart liberals. I mean jesus certainly was a bleeding heart liberal (relatively speaking at that time) yet most christians bend over backwards to do the complete opposite

For what purpose? Where's the hard logic that says bleeding-hearts are moral? I see that as sort of an altruistic view with backing no stronger than that of most religions.

And yes, one would think that makes sense.

 

[CptStern]

For what purpose? Where's the hard logic that says bleeding-hearts are moral? I see that as sort of an altruistic view with backing no stronger than that of most religions.

And yes, one would think that makes sense.

hold up there. I/you said bleeding-hear liberals. jesus was indeed a liberal

and bleeding heart liberals are moral; that's why they're bleeding heart liberals ..moral in the jesus sort of way if you look at the bigger picture and not just the issues 9help your fellow man etc). just because they dont subscribe to your notion of morality (biblical) doesnt make it so. morality is not exclusive to religion

 

[Absinthe]

Because fundamentalists and Atheists fail to take into account the cultural context in which the Bible was written. That society and world view is very different from what we have today. To find the good stuff you have to dissect the cultural context and dig out the meaning.
We no longer keep slaves, have multiple wives, or stone our children when they disobey. We can eat whatever we like (BACON!!!!!!), and we no longer stone adulterers. All that was part of the culture of the times, but its not part of our culture.

I haven't skipped ahead to see if this was addressed, so my apologies if I'm beating a dead horse. But I would imagine that a book of authority from God himself would transcend time and apply to any era, culture, or situation. That you restrain yourself from owning slaves and abusing children is not a testament to a religion's flexibility, but glaring examples of how outdated the whole thing is.

 

[lord_raken]

I haven't skipped ahead to see if this was addressed, so my apologies if I'm beating a dead horse. But I would imagine that a book of authority from God himself would transcend time and apply to any era, culture, or situation. That you restrain yourself from owning slaves and abusing children is not a testament to a religion's flexibility, but glaring examples of how outdated the whole thing is.

The reasoning is that even if the Bible was divinely inspire someone still had to write it down as he understood it. The truth that transcends time and culture is still there but you have to dig around in the cultural context first.

Also, would you prefer if the bible tried to direct and dictate ever aspect of society and your personal life? ... F**K NO!. The truth in the bible is a set of guiding principles and stories.

If God spelled everything out in the Bible then there would be nothing left for us to discover for ourselves... and that would be boring.

Your concept of religion is based off of the fundamentalists ideology which makes up a VERY small portion of the Christians out there.

 

[Krynn72]

Yeah, most people just make up their own version of god and religion that suits the lifestyle they want.


Which is further proof that its all bullshit.

 

[Absinthe]

The reasoning is that even if the Bible was divinely inspire someone still had to write it down as he understood it. The truth that transcends time and culture is still there but you have to dig around in the cultural context first.

Also, would you prefer if the bible tried to direct and dictate ever aspect of society and your personal life? ... F**K NO!. The truth in the bible is a set of guiding principles and stories.

If God spelled everything out in the Bible then there would be nothing left for us to discover for ourselves... and that would be boring.

Your concept of religion is based off of the fundamentalists ideology which makes up a VERY small portion of the Christians out there.

God already dictates quite a lot of what should transpire in my personal life. If I were a believer, I probably would like an uber-specific manual on how to live and act appropriately to eliminate the chance of going to Hell. You can wax some poetic romanticism about "discovering" God's message and how that brings some measure of excitement to your existence, but I'm inclined to treat this a little more seriously. After all, we are talking about whether or not you're going to burn for the next ETERNITY.

That the Bible had to be transcribed through man only makes things murkier. I find it hard to believe that an all-powerful deity that can witness the infinite expanse of time couldn't force a few things into the Bible that we would find relevant in any modern era. You might reply to that saying that the Secret Lessons you speak of in the Bible still apply, but I'm not about to grant it any ownership over simple concepts like "Don't be a dick" and "Bludgeoning your neighbor isn't kosher".

I also think you make things exceedingly easy on yourself when you can just chalk up anything objectionable in the Bible to historical/cultural context and then arbitrarily decide that all the nice, warm, fluffy bits are the real enduring message. Not that I have personal objections to that, as I'd rather the world was full of more "moderates" who castrate their faith instead of literalist nutjobs who'd like us to socially regress into biblical times. But I do have to grudgingly give the fundamentalists a few points for consistency in their beliefs.

 

[Noodle]

hold up there. I/you said bleeding-hear liberals. jesus was indeed a liberal

and bleeding heart liberals are moral; that's why they're bleeding heart liberals ..moral in the jesus sort of way if you look at the bigger picture and not just the issues 9help your fellow man etc). just because they dont subscribe to your notion of morality (biblical) doesnt make it so. morality is not exclusive to religion

Jesus was a liberal, no doubt. And I know morality isn't exclusive to religion.

I'm simply questioning the origins of your bleeding-heart/atheist brand of philosophy. Jesus was sort of a reminder of it, but were the early biblical stories and morals one of the origins of bleeding-heart philosophies? Even Rand admitted that religion served as the earliest form of philosophy, and she hated religion. (Yes, I know most of you probably hate her as well.)

Also, if you believe in the superiority of logic (I'm assuming you do, and this is also why you're atheist.), then where is the hard logic in a bleedin-heart philosophy?

 

[Absinthe]

What exactly is it that you mean when you talk about bleedin' hearts?

If you're trying to imply that there is no logical reason for an atheist to have compassion or morals, you're being preposterous.

 

[Noodle]

What exactly is it that you mean when you talk about bleedin' hearts?

If you're trying to imply that there is no logical reason for an atheist to have compassion or morals, you're being preposterous.

I'm more or less implying that there's as much of a logical reason to have a bleeding-heart morality as there is for someone to believe in a God. It was proposed earlier that there is no logical reason to believe in a God, and that atheists in general tend to put logic before anything else. So please explain to me the hard logic behind a bleeding-heart morality.

 

[Krynn72]

I don't think anyone here understands what you mean by "bleeding heart morality."

 

[GreatEmperor]

@ Mogi67

OOOhh dead on there buddy, ive never heard of ANY of this shit before, its not like its everywhere, oh no, Only youre church study group has ever broached this crap to somebody. In fact these profound ideas are so foreign to this area that Ive lived my whole life without once hearing these little stories

And you yourself showed it is selfish fear that drives this stuff

 

[Absinthe]

I don't think anyone here understands what you mean by "bleeding heart morality."

This entirely.

Please repeat your question with a little less right-wing thug phraseology.

 

[Noodle]

OOOhh dead on there buddy, ive never heard of ANY of this shit before, its not like its everywhere, oh no, Only youre church study group has ever broached this crap to somebody. In fact these profound ideas are so foreign to this area that Ive lived my whole life without once hearing these little stories

And you yourself showed it is selfish fear that drives this stuff

/facepalm

Until you actual read the preceding conversation(s), I suggest you refrain from further... I'm not sure what to call it. Ignorance? Think before you type, dude.
I'm asking a legit question, not a rhetorical one.

This entirely.

Please repeat your question with a little less right-wing thug phraseology.

I suppose the short definition of "bleeding-heart" (and I wasn't aware that word was exclusive to right-wing phrasings), would be excessive compassion for the collective good. A sort of morality that values others over one's self to a great extent. Yes, Jesus would be considered a bleeding-heart.

And no, I'm not attacking the bleeding-heart mentality. I'm asking for the cold logic behind it.

I'm not sure how else I would phrase it and that definition might not completely do it justice.

 

[Krynn72]

Edit: Nevermind.

I'm not sure where you get your facts from Noodle, but I'm not so sure that very many atheists hold to the morality you're describing. As for the logic behind it... how is it not logical? The goal of humanity is to survive. Putting others before yourself supports that effort.

 

[Noodle]

Edit: Nevermind.

I'm not sure where you get your facts from Noodle, but I'm not so sure that very many atheists hold to the morality you're describing. As for the logic behind it... how is it not logical? The goal of humanity is to survive. Putting others before yourself supports that effort.

Most of the atheists I know also happen to be bleeding-heart liberals. I'm not entirely sure why, and I'd like to find out.

But what logic equates the collective survival of humanity with the benefits of the individual? And what logic makes that a moral system?

Come to think of it, what's the logical reason that I should give a damn about anything that happens after I'm dead and have ensured my genes will be passed on?

Also, everyone putting others first doesn't result in humanity's best route to survival. That's logical to me, for reasons that would take a different post in a different thread to explain. Rand said it best, although others have said it as well. Short version: Individualism is better than collectivism.

 

[Krynn72]

Well, for one I think you're mistaking people's idealism for something else. I could see many atheists being idealists as well, though that doesn't necessarily mean they put everyone ahead of themselves all the time. As with everything, its a matter of moderation. I doubt there are many people who would act entirely selflessly, just as there aren't many people who would act entirely selfishly. I'd wager its not even possible to do so.

That said, I still fail to see how it would be illogical to strive for the ideal world where people help each other more than they help themselves. If you can donate $10,000 a year out of your $40k salary, that does more good for the world and humanity than it would if you spent it on luxury items for yourself. Same with giving your time and efforts. How is that not logical?

 

[Noodle]

That said, I still fail to see how it would be illogical to strive for the ideal world where people help each other more than they help themselves. If you can donate $10,000 a year out of your $40k salary, that does more good for the world and humanity than it would if you spent it on luxury items for yourself. Same with giving your time and efforts. How is that not logical?

How IS it logical? Why do so? Why is excessive concern for the greater good a logical pursuit?

The point I'm trying to get at is that believing in the "Common Good" isn't too far on the logic scale from believing in "God".

 

[GreatEmperor]

/facepalm

Until you actual read the preceding conversation(s), I suggest you refrain from further... I'm not sure what to call it. Ignorance? Think before you type, dude.
I'm asking a legit question, not a rhetorical one.




I suppose the short definition of "bleeding-heart" (and I wasn't aware that word was exclusive to right-wing phrasings), would be excessive compassion for the collective good. A sort of morality that values others over one's self to a great extent. Yes, Jesus would be considered a bleeding-heart.

And no, I'm not attacking the bleeding-heart mentality. I'm asking for the cold logic behind it.

I'm not sure how else I would phrase it and that definition might not completely do it justice.

Yeah wasnt talking about YOUR post, it just didnt have the quote I was responding to there

But now I want to say this crap is not at all entailed by religion, it mostly serves to give people a reason to feel superior to others and seperate, like what you are doing with this moral high ground shit my man

 

[Noodle]

Yeah wasnt talking about YOUR post, it just didnt have the quote I was responding to there

But now I want to say this crap is not at all entailed by religion, it mostly serves to give people a reason to feel superior to others and seperate, like what you are doing with this moral high ground shit my man

I honestly have no clue what the hell you are talking about.

 

[GreatEmperor]

Might want to read the preceding conversations yourself than

 

[Shift]

But now I want to say this crap is not at all entailed by religion, it mostly serves to give people a reason to feel superior to others and seperate, like what you are doing with this moral high ground shit my man

What exactly are you bringing to this current discussion? Because you're just trolling at the moment.

 

[Maestro]

Might want to read the preceding conversations yourself than

I lol'd. The obvious trolling combined with the 'than' for a finisher. God damn this is some funny shit.