Thread: Benefits of Atheism

Originally Posted by Marvo

Parallel Unvierses?

I believe in that. Speaking of other planes, like a spiritual plane? Nah.

Loool It's pretty much the same concept, you know...

Not really. A parallel universe, could be another dimension just like this one, except that the cup besides has an atom, that sits 1 nanometer left, of how it is in this dimension. There is a parallel universe, for every possible difference in the universe, and since the universe is infinitely big, the possiblities are infinite. One of these dimensions could have other physical laws though, that allowed the possibility of something that resembles a spiritual plane. Hard to tell.

edit: but now, lets not hi-jack this thread.

So in response to people making their claims about things I might as well make mine. I believe in science and logic, and that reason and curiosity should dictate our beliefs more than an authority on the subjects. On the same hand, I'm believe with reason that not only is life in the universe for a very important transcendental purpose but that in order for the orchestration of the universe to begin a conscious decision was made, concluding some superior consciousness. My reasoning for us being important is that the universe is virtually designed for life, not randomness. Chaos theory cannot explain how the rate at which atoms speed up and slow down is just at the rate possible for life to be sustained. Many universal laws fall into such vital measurements that if they did not life on earth would not have made it a decade.

As far as the etheral plane, and a spirit, I'm just not sure though I'm really trying to find out.

Originally Posted by joey11223

LMAO! Phail!!:p ( this is actually at Jeremsyr)

Well at least you feel guilty for saying we have no emotions because you are religious:p

Since we feel no guilt.... maybe we should help them back up their claims by saying what ever the hell we want. Prepares PAC( Personal Attack Cannon):p

Charging..." No joe thats such a sick horrible thing to say, don't do it!!"
..." It's ok dude they told us we cant feel guilt so lets not ok"
...." Yeah ok..."
......

FULLY CHARGED!!!

Target Jeremsyr.... firing in 3....2.....1............cannon powering down....

damn it, it seems that i'd feel to guilty by upsetting you with horrible comments that i cant bring myself to do it. What is my religion? It cannot be Atheist as Atheists lack emotion because they have no God, what am i?:confused::p

serious question though, what am i? I don't believe in God so i am not guilty for my sins and not guilty that Jesus died, yet i feel guilt.. Am i some different type of human that is born with morals and emotions, are there any others like me?

Ignore the second paragraph of my post I guess. Read the first one. I guess I didn't explain it and should keep my posts shorter. You thought the second part of my post was replying to what I quoted but it wasn't, I was just adding something to my post. You ignored my actual reply to the post quoted, which in better words was like:

I believe we feel guilty when we do (and/or believe we did) something unloving to a person or God. All commandments in the Bible instruct you to not do certain things which are either unloving to a person or unloving to God.

Well at least you feel guilty for saying we have no emotions because you are religious:p

I've never said that you don't feel guilt and that you don't have emotions. What I meant was that Christians feel a lot worse about the bad things they've done. Everyone feels guilt (I hope) but I think I've already explained this enough.

I have noticed several times that atheists assert that religious individuals are blinded and believe only what they are told by their religious figures and literature, etcetera. It is true that I follow a religion, but that does not mean I accept all of its doctrines, volunteering myself to be indoctrinated by the religion. I actually consider myself a bit more objective, trying to look for truth, just like atheists say they are doing. The difference is I did not have to renounce God to do so. I do not accept everything. I do have my own personal opinions that might stray from my religion. I seek answers and I am willing to listen. I just do not see why I (or anyone else) have to discard religion to do so. Since no one can prove God does not exist, I choose to believe in him.

When it comes to morals and whatnot, my question is not so much whether atheists have them (clearly they do and I never said they did not). My question is what specifically gives them their morals? This leads into whether or not morals are subjective.

Then, of course, there is hope for an afterlife and a being that watches over His creations. It appears atheists just do not need it, which is fine. There are those that do need it. Why do so many atheists fight against this though? I have spoken with many IRL that get frustrated at the idea of God. Why does it matter?

Do not believe that it is the next evolutionary step either and that everyone will eventually discard the concept of a higher being. I am not saying it is or is not, however, there have been many that have described such a step, and it has yet to happen. It is unlikely that at the whim of science (unless it actually disproves God) that people will convert because they realized that they were wrong (because you have to prove it is wrong first hehe).

Now as for freedom from the oppression of God, there are some things that some disagree with and wish not to abide by. There are other things that religious organizations and societies have taken upon themselves to twist what the Bible, or other religious literature, has said in order for a certain view.

Let’s take masturbation, for example (since that is one that was mentioned). As far as I know, masturbation is not specifically mentioned in the Bible (I may be wrong though). It is often related to religion though. So, the real ones, in this case, that are restricting individuals that practice this are the societies and religions that are trying to apply a social control.

A similar circumstance is seen in the issue of cousin marriage. As far as I know, this is not at all a religious taboo; in fact, it might even be supported to a degree. This was a social issue, a method to spread the wealth and status (cousin marriage can keep it in the family).

The point is a lot of these restrictions are not actually from the religion, so much as from the followers/society.

Also, for the record, I agree that grief is not a religious emotion. I think it is far more a social and biological response. Though, religion can play a huge part in it.

I have noticed several times that atheists assert that religious individuals are blinded and believe only what they are told by their religious figures and literature, etcetera.
It is true that I follow a religion, but that does not mean I accept all of its doctrines, volunteering myself to be indoctrinated by the religion. I actually consider myself a bit more objective, trying to look for truth, just like atheists say they are doing. The difference is I did not have to renounce God to do so. I do not accept everything. I do have my own personal opinions that might stray from my religion. I seek answers and I am willing to listen. I just do not see why I (or anyone else) have to discard religion to do so. Since no one can prove God does not exist, I choose to believe in him.

When it comes to morals and whatnot, my question is not so much whether atheists have them (clearly they do and I never said they did not). My question is what specifically gives them their morals? This leads into whether or not morals are subjective.

Then, of course, there is hope for an afterlife and a being that watches over His creations. It appears atheists just do not need it, which is fine. There are those that do need it. Why do so many atheists fight against this though? I have spoken with many IRL that get frustrated at the idea of God. Why does it matter?

Do not believe that it is the next evolutionary step either and that everyone will eventually discard the concept of a higher being. I am not saying it is or is not, however, there have been many that have described such a step, and it has yet to happen. It is unlikely that at the whim of science (unless it actually disproves God) that people will convert because they realized that they were wrong (because you have to prove it is wrong first hehe).

Now as for freedom from the oppression of God, there are some things that some disagree with and wish not to abide by. There are other things that religious organizations and societies have taken upon themselves to twist what the Bible, or other religious literature, has said in order for a certain view.

Let’s take masturbation, for example (since that is one that was mentioned). As far as I know, masturbation is not specifically mentioned in the Bible (I may be wrong though). It is often related to religion though. So, the real ones, in this case, that are restricting individuals that practice this are the societies and religions that are trying to apply a social control.

A similar circumstance is seen in the issue of cousin marriage. As far as I know, this is not at all a religious taboo; in fact, it might even be supported to a degree. This was a social issue, a method to spread the wealth and status (cousin marriage can keep it in the family).

The point is a lot of these restrictions are not actually from the religion, so much as from the followers/society.

Also, for the record, I agree that grief is not a religious emotion. I think it is far more a social and biological response. Though, religion can play a huge part in it.

My question is what specifically gives them their morals?

The fact that we are human beings gives us morals. No ordinary human can kill another human, without feeling guilt, unless the human being killed is a nasty idiot who has killed the other human's entire family, or something like that.

Since no one can prove God does not exist, I choose to believe in him.

I suspect you believe in Allah, Shiva and the Flying Spaghetti Monster aswell then?

Hell yeah he does, i believe in the cheese theory.

Basicly if you get 50x10(to the 89) tonnes of mature cheddar, 24 tonnes of cherries, 56 tonnes of cream and 34 tonnes of jam. You can create a stable wormhole.

Basicly you mix all those ingredients together at 1000000000 degrees C. You'll see in the reactionchamcer that the cheese residue mixed with the other stuff starts to glow brighter and brighter until ZOOOMEBOOOME ya gots wormhole leading to a random location in the Universe. I mean this hasn't been proven to be wrong, we could never fathom such cheese! So until you give me true evidence that by using those exact weights, the laws of psychics in their particles doesnt change and they cannot create wormholes, i'll believe it, simple as.

Originally Posted by joey11223

Hell yeah he does, i believe in the cheese theory.

Basicly if you get 50x10(to the 89) tonnes of mature cheddar, 24 tonnes of cherries, 56 tonnes of cream and 34 tonnes of jam. You can create a stable wormhole.

Basicly you mix all those ingredients together at 1000000000 degrees C. You'll see in the reactionchamcer that the cheese residue mixed with the other stuff starts to glow brighter and brighter until ZOOOMEBOOOME ya gots wormhole leading to a random location in the Universe. I mean this hasn't been proven to be wrong, we could never fathom such cheese! So until you give me true evidence that by using those exact weights, the laws of psychics in their particles doesnt change and they cannot create wormholes, i'll believe it, simple as.

It would have to be true. We can't explain how the universe got here, so cheddar worm holes would have to exist. People who "choose" not to believe it just because it is ssssssssooooooooooo far fetched "choose" to be bitten by pirrhanas for eternity because the Flying Spaghetti Monster loved them so much he had himself cooked to death and right back to life so he could allow himself to change his own rules about whom to throw into the pirrhana infested pond he created. So don't eat pork.

Originally Posted by Koji

My question is what specifically gives them their morals? This leads into whether or not morals are subjective.

I could have gotten this idea from somewhere but if I did I forget where it was.

Anyway, I think that the moral system can be boiled down to "seek pleasure; avoid pain." Not too radical, if something is pleasurable then we label it as good and okay; if something causes pain, it's labelled as bad and not okay. I think that the moral system as a social construct arose when we as individuals began to recognize our fellow humans as individuals and began to expand the usual personal moral system into a social moral system. In other words, we began to expand the "If A causes pleasure, then A is good for me; if B causes pain, then B is bad for me," system into a "If A causes pleasure, then A is good for me and for others of my kind; if B causes pain, then B is bad for me and for others of my kind" system.

Therefore, it does not require a divine law to realize that killing someone or stealing something is bad to do. I know I would not like to be killed and I also know that I would not like anything of mine stolen, so I know that these two things are bad.

Admittedly, this is extremely simplistic but I'm just discussing the origins. But even today, this system functions with only a few additions, if any.

And also, absolutely any moral system is subjective. But that's a completely different discussion.

Originally Posted by Koji

Let’s take masturbation, for example (since that is one that was mentioned). As far as I know, masturbation is not specifically mentioned in the Bible (I may be wrong though). It is often related to religion though.

I don't think the actual act of masturbation is specifically mentioned (I may be wrong also) but I do know that Jesus said, and I'm paraphrasing, "If you look at a woman with lust in your eyes, you have already commited adultery." So to my understanding, the lusting after the woman while masturbating is the sin.

i do believe it mentions in the bible that man shouldnt waste his seed. As in those days having children was importantr and they may have assumed that you only had a limited amount of sperm to use.

Yeah, that does ring a bell. I stand corrected.

Originally Posted by Marvo

I suspect you believe in Allah, Shiva and the Flying Spaghetti Monster aswell then?

LOL, funny stuff, however, I did not say I believe in everything that cannot be refuted, that would just be silly =P

Originally Posted by gregash

Anyway, I think that the moral system can be boiled down to "seek pleasure; avoid pain."

I have come across this too. The problem with this philosophy is that it can be seen through eyes of relativity. One can apply an idea of "do unto others as you would have them do unto you", but others might very well escape this principle. Whether it is religion, society, or whatever institution that instills it, if one flees the idea in pursuit of their own, the answers they find to morals will likely become subjective.

The problem with the "seek pleasure; avoid pain" idea is that some might seek pleasure (mutually avoiding pain) at the expense of others. Though, a society might deem it as a deviance, it seems without a well established moral doctrine of some sort, it is completely contingent on the circumstances. This can even go as far as killing people for a "just cause", or worse.

I understand how some might think it is a born trait, but I question whether or not the morals many standby are inborn vice social/religious, seems to be more the latter.

Oh well, I think I got the answers I expected (and even did not expect). Thank you to those that contributed =)

I think morals are linked primarily to upbringing, and what we learn in the social situations we find ourselves in. Parents teach us right from wrong via the carrot and stick methods. At a young age i think you see the raw pleasure and pain scenario and how it works.

Id say as we get a little older and we find ourselves in more social situations we learn to be more empathetic and to understand others needs and pains. We see that other people have needs too and begin to realize that our actions can hurt others, we realize how we would feel in that situation and we feel guilt for harming them (in most situations).

This is all reinforced when we're older through the punishment we face for serious crimes (jail etc), but by this point most people will have developed (arguably been socially conditioned enough) to realise why certain actions are wrong and how they affect the victims of those actions.

ssooo, In my view emotions such as guilt will develop naturally anyway, but it may be overshadowed by aggression, I think the aim of most teaching is simply to get a balance biased to the side of things like peace and forgiveness as opposed to aggression and revenge. Just as the bible teaches this, we're also learning it at nearly every stage of our lives with or without religion.

This was written in a hurry so i might change my mind later

Benefits of Atheism.

Truth.


-

Really, such an emotional appeal has no logic value. Also, talk about love to victims of religious suicide bombers, people getting shot in Ireland for being of a slightly different religion, the tortured bodies of the 'wrong kind of Muslim' that show up on the streets of bagdad almost every morning.

Don't get me wrong, in most cases, something being so horrific doesn't mean it isn't true. We all like to think the holocaust didn't happen, but it did. However, if a scripture or group is saying they bring love, when they mostly bring pain and hatred, they refute themselves.

Originally Posted by Koji

I have come across this too. The problem with this philosophy is that it can be seen through eyes of relativity. One can apply an idea of "do unto others as you would have them do unto you", but others might very well escape this principle. Whether it is religion, society, or whatever institution that instills it, if one flees the idea in pursuit of their own, the answers they find to morals will likely become subjective.

The problem with the "seek pleasure; avoid pain" idea is that some might seek pleasure (mutually avoiding pain) at the expense of others. Though, a society might deem it as a deviance, it seems without a well established moral doctrine of some sort, it is completely contingent on the circumstances. This can even go as far as killing people for a "just cause", or worse.

So you're arguing that the moral system is subjective and relative to the individual? If that's the case, then I already agreed with you.

I was merely pointing out to you why the moral system as a whole does not rely on any religion's dogma. Like Rooj explained it, much clearer than I could by the way, personal experience and the development of empathy can easily explain the natural progression of a healthy moral individual regardless of the religious belief of said individual. So while an individual might assume a certain religion's moral system this does not mean that religion is the only or the original source of morals.

Originally Posted by Neruo

Benefits of Atheism.

Truth.

True. Meaning that it shows you that you don't know anything at all and that there is no need for a religion to make you better... whatever better is.

Well, I didn't read any of the posts aside from the first so forgive me if this is redundant but its my belief that no one should hold a certain belief because of what they can get out of it if its true; rather they should believe it because that is what makes the most sense to them. The nature of our species is that we can only really know what our senses report and we must make decisions based on that information. Your belief system should be the most logical and accurate description of the world based on what you observe, not what you hope exists.

Originally Posted by Neruo

Benefits of Atheism.

Truth.


-

Really, such an emotional appeal has no logic value. Also, talk about love to victims of religious suicide bombers, people getting shot in Ireland for being of a slightly different religion, the tortured bodies of the 'wrong kind of Muslim' that show up on the streets of bagdad almost every morning.

Don't get me wrong, in most cases, something being so horrific doesn't mean it isn't true. We all like to think the holocaust didn't happen, but it did. However, if a scripture or group is saying they bring love, when they mostly bring pain and hatred, they refute themselves.

Anyone claiming to know the truth is a fool and will never learn or accomplish anything worthwhile with their life. I hope you do not remain in your obtuseness forever.

Anyone claiming to know the truth is a fool and will never learn or accomplish anything worthwhile with their life. I hope you do not remain in your obtuseness forever.

Not putting words in his mouth but I think he meant the search for truth, not closing your mind or twisting evidence to fit a particular belief system.. Apologies if he didn't.

rather they should believe it because that is what makes the most sense to them.

I kinda disagree... I think they should remain openminded to the fact that even though it makes sense at the time, it could still be wrong.. in which case they shouldn't simply believe it(as in strong belief). We know there's still a long way to go yet, quantum mechanics, as fascinating as it is, still isn't making much sense, string theory's trying to unify everything. I think patience and an open mind is needed not logical beliefs that deny alternatives.

I hope i've understood you correctly...

Originally Posted by RooJ

Not putting words in his mouth but I think he meant the search for truth, not closing your mind or twisting evidence to fit a particular belief system.. Apologies if he didn't.



I kinda disagree... I think they should remain openminded to the fact that even though it makes sense at the time, it could still be wrong.. in which case they shouldn't simply believe it(as in strong belief). We know there's still a long way to go yet, quantum mechanics, as fascinating as it is, still isn't making much sense, string theory's trying to unify everything. I think patience and an open mind is needed not logical beliefs that deny alternatives.

I hope i've understood you correctly...

because you believe something which seems most logical based on your current data does not mean that your beliefs will not be altered the moment better data is obtained.

Also, it is my understanding that if someone claims that a benefit of atheism is truth, then they are simultaneously saying that the belief that there is no greater consciousness is truth.



edit: just to clarify, atheism is definitely not an absence of a specific belief system, that would be agnosticism. Atheism is a very clearly defined belief system that is based solely on the assumption that there is no greater consciousness.

Originally Posted by RooJ

I kinda disagree... I think they should remain openminded to the fact that even though it makes sense at the time, it could still be wrong.. in which case they shouldn't simply believe it(as in strong belief). We know there's still a long way to go yet, quantum mechanics, as fascinating as it is, still isn't making much sense, string theory's trying to unify everything. I think patience and an open mind is needed not logical beliefs that deny alternatives.

I hope i've understood you correctly...

You might not have, actually. You're in agreement with him. All he needed to add was "at the time". He never mentioned that once you commit to a belief, you need to be closed-minded about it. All he was saying is, using Pascal's Wager as an argument in favour of being religious is highly ignorant.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Also, it is my understanding that if someone claims that a benefit of atheism is truth, then they are simultaneously saying that the belief that there is no greater consciousness is truth.

edit: just to clarify, atheism is definitely not an absence of a specific belief system, that would be agnosticism. Atheism is a very clearly defined belief system that is based solely on the assumption that there is no greater consciousness.

The word atheism has many different explanations. So claiming that atheism is the truth doesn't mean that he's saying that there is no greater conciousness. It could mean just lack of belief in a greater conciousness.

I'm quite sure that almost every atheist would agree that there is a possibility that god might exist. I don't know how many religious people could agree to the possibility of a god not existing.

The fact I think atheism gives you the truth is because it shows you that no religion can. You can't know which one is ture, or if it's true at all. Why bother?