What does atheism offer?

I've been wanting to respond to the idea that atheists don't have a vision to offer theists in place of their belief in god/s because I don't think that's true a'tall. Atheists are constantly offering a vision of truthfulness relative to fantasy.
Is there a higher ethic than truthfulness?



To keep it timely, I rushed this out. ;)

edit: adding this excerpt from the article as an excuse to fix my spelling error:

Get it?

But then you went and posted something serious. Damn you! Oh, wait...I can't, I'm an atheist.

Oh well...good post!

edited to clarify while I listen to Feingold.

Most of these I believe and I am not an atheist. I cannot say I believe what is taught by most religions, feel it is my responsibility to be able to think for myself, but I try to follow the basic tenents behind most religion, be a good person rather than worship a "god/goddess". I am not an atheist but think this is a good list for most spiritualities.

Other than animism, which religions are rooted in something that doesn't include superstition or received wisdom?

Don't atheists recieve wisdom from others? Recieving wisdom from "god" can be seen as an allegory, since what is the definition of "god". I like how Allah breaks down to al-lah or "the all".

was all about superstition?

This DU thread on the subject:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=214x51650

And this explanation by Daniel Quinn of "modern" animism:
http://www.ishmael.com/Interaction/QandA/Detail.CFM?Record=715

I believe this is what greyl means when he refers to animism.

not hard facts?

nt

Normally, we don't brag about it. But it's true.

what about agnostic people? do they have superpowers?

And read Atlas Shrugged without combusting (but not always with a straight face).

OK, it's nothing that would get us membership in X-men.

i started reading that....found it rather boring.

that creative and productive people "defect" from civilization to start their own little Objectivist utopia somewhere in the mountains. In Rand's view, "creative and productive" refers to people (at one end of the spectrum) like Isaac Newton, Mozart, Ben Franklin, Picaso, Louis Pasteur, etc. At the other end of the spectrum are anti-creative parasites, like George Bush or Ken Lay. People who do nothing but tear down what others have built, and who live by sowing confusion, apathy, etc.

In Rand's view, a person should strive to fill their potential, whatever that potential was. Clearly, most people are never going to be Isaac Newton. Mostly, what she dreamed of was a society where average Joes knew enough to get the hell out of Isaac's way and let him be a genius, without, say, dragging him down or attempting to burn him at the stake, etc.

As a fiction writer, Rand had all the subtlety of an atom bomb.

She's a great author, made excellent points...i just didn't find Atlas Shrugged very attention-holding, but it's a good concept.

I would add that Atheism allows us to appreciate the inherent beauty of our world and our universe, without having to glue on some artificial meaning or made-up source for it all.

and this sentence has made me think: "allows us to appreciate the inherent beauty of our world and our universe, without having to glue on some artificial meaning or made-up source for it all."

I have to admit that when it comes to philosophical logic I am a tower of Jello. But if one is an atheist, how would one know whether or not faith in a higher power diminished appreciation for the inherent beauty of our world?

I only have my personal experience to call upon, and I have never been an atheist, but it is hard for me to conceive of having any more appreciation for the beauty of the universe. I don't think my experience of a higher power enters into my appreciation at all. I don't look around and say "wow, look what God did." I just look around and say...wow.

And especially today when the dogwoods are just coming into bloom here, the azaleas are in full bloom, and the cherokee rose vines are hanging on the trees along our road.

It allows you to experience the beuty of the universe without god. Of course, it also allows you to NOT experience the beauty of the universe without god, and pound nails into boards with your forehead without god. The real issue is, is atheism like a nature appreciation course, or is it merely a way to go about your business without god? Because I pretty much knew the latter all along.

me. I don't need somebody telling me, as happened to Adam & Eve, that acquiring knowledge is a mortal sin. Why would a god build a powerful brain into its creations, then punish them if they use it?

but so do many other faiths.

Mine, for example. I believe Adam and Eve are illustrative myths.

How should people live together? WHat's a good life? To say that an institution isn't going to define it for you doesn't answer the questions, it begs them. That's pretty much my feeling in a nutshell.

American society for example, includes people of many faiths and people with no religious faith. Yet for the most part we are able to agree on ground rules, such as prohibitions of murder, assault, robbery, and fraud. We also mostly agree on positive values such as supporting one's family and helping the less fortunate. There has been some erosion in values such as the latter, and a narrowing of others, for example by restrictively defining "family." However, this erosion seems to be coming from the religious right, who don't seem to experience imrpoved moral values as a result of their institutional indoctrinations.

I believe that good behavior should be motivated by understanding the effects of good and bad behavior on those around you. No gods are necessary to tell me that harming the people (and other creatures around me) is a bad thing, or the converse of that truth either.

What's a good life? I most definitely don't want that one answered for me by theocratic hierarchy. The answer to that should be unique to each individual, within the basic ground rules.

It was, what atheism has to offer. To put it in the same sentence structure of the article in the OP, you are saying, "Atheism let's you deside what's a good life, without getting the answer from a theocratic hierarchy". Okay, it's true. But your still left at a point where's there's as of yet no answer. In other words, there's a starting point and.....now what? We have to decide and....how does atheism provide anything that moves the ball forward?

You misunderstand what begging the question means.

"How should people live together? WHat's a good life? To say that an institution isn't going to define it for you doesn't answer the questions, it begs them."

The person are accusing of begging the question wasn't responding to those 2 questions.
Has anyone said that atheism says how people should live together or defines what a good life is?
You're missing the point that the 'offerings' of atheism are presented relative to theism just as being saved is presented relative to not being saved.

If you want to discuss the vaguely huge topic "how people should live together", you probably wouldn't hear atheism mentioned until someone else tried to argue that looking at some revealed divine wisdom was a better guide for how to live than looking at the successfully diverse community of life itself. Does that answer the begged question?

I expect they'll show up in a week or two here in VA.

I guess for me, the whole religion experience has been pretty negative, so it diminishes anything it is juxtaposed with. So much of religion (especially the fundy kinds) is devoted to making people ignore the physical reality around them and pretend there is something else instead, and I think this is quite destructive to the mind. If for example, a person tries to persuade themselves that the world was created 6,000 years ago in one fell swoop, they will use a huge part of their brain on efforts like denying the existence of fossils, or believing that their god is a trickster, trying to fool them. It makes a lot more sense to enjoy the truth and beauty inherent in the fossil. To pick one up from the ground and realize that you areholding a creature that waited 300 million years for you to find it, is a spiritual experience in itself.

In addition to the denial of reality problem, I have a problem with religion's second means of control, which is to make its subjects feel guilty for all sorts of things, which no human will ever be able to completely avoid. For example, the Catholic Church taught me as a tot that I was born tainted with "original sin," and I would carry that guilt forever, because of something a single distant ancestor (roughly 300 generations previous) had done. I was guilty merely for existing. However, some other guy (only 100 generations back) was somehow able to absorb or dilute this guilt, as if it is a commodity to be traded on the market, rather than the internal emotional result of harming somebody. By making sure that guilt is always there, the Catholic Church manipulates its subjects by promising some unattainable cleansing.

Then there is the whole reinforcement of prejudices, wherein each religion fosters an artificial suspicion or enmity of practitioners of all other religions. Not good.

Anyway, for me, the filter of unreality would be a sad substitute for trusting my senses.

the Catholic Church could never even begin to approach my mother in the guilt department.

I have some unique ideas about original sin. Or rather the belief in original sin (I don't really ascribe to the concept). I believe it is genetic. I encounter it even in atheists I know (really, more agnostic than atheist) when we talk about some things...the feeling that humans are by nature very unworthy.

I agree that a filter of unreality would be a sorry thing..and I'm happy to report I have never encountered this filter in my life.

The only negative experience I have ever had with religion is some of the shennanigans that can go on in a church with the usual backbiting, etc. Humans are humans and I encounter that at work and even in my family. But I'd have to say that some of my most wonderful moments have been in church and/or in prayer.

I personally find the concept of unburdening myself from my sins very comforting, and it isn't so much the absolution but more the sense that I have acknowledged them and try to do better, and I forgive myself.

But I feel that God is not "out there" but inside me, anyway.

that beauty in our world and our universe is appreciated by theists and other alt.spirituality.new-age believers, but that because beauty is inherent in the world, artificial meanings and non-rational deities are unnecessary to appreciating it. To my eyes, the sentence is a clear rebuttal to the commonly expressed believer attitude that skeptics, critical thinking advocates, rationalists, humanists etc, are divorced from the sublime aspects of being alive. (very common in the old Meeting Room discussions)
Simply, it's saying that atheism isn't the void that some imagine it to be, and that it's no leap into cold dark when someone acknowledges their atheism. The cherokee rose vines are no less amazing if one takes an honest, scientific, contemplative look at them.

Only you said it better than I could.

When I stand on a mountain top and gaze at the beauty of our planet, or experience the simple satisfaction of helping a stranded motorist with a jump start, the experience is every bit as rewarding for me, as it is for somebody who believes in god(s).

but I did want to mention that I don't think of atheism as a cold, dark place. I am sure we appreciate they beauty and mystery of life as equal travelers on the planet. I find atheists in general to be thinkers, and thinking will warm up that cold, dark place immensely.

As a matter of fact, the only time I ever really differ with an atheist is when I encounter one who believes he/she KNOWS the answer to the mystery, no debate allowed. (I don't like that characteristic in anyone, actually.) Because the bottom line..the final sentence...in any discussion on higher powers, the universe, the afterlife...it has to end with. Nobody knows. Which is why it is so much fun to discuss. We are all equally mystified. We are all equally clueless. We look around us, we look inside us, we take our childhoods and upbringing and we come to conclusions that work for us.

Amen.

I didn't intend to lump all theists together, I was just mentioning a common attitude toward atheists and skeptics from some believers of all ilks. You're among the short top of my favorites list of R/Ters, if that matters.

To be equitable, I guess there is a reciprocal attitude from atheists and skeptics toward believers of certain things. After all, what was the "Age of Enlightenment" about?

"the bottom line..the final sentence...in any discussion on higher powers, the universe, the afterlife...it has to end with. Nobody knows. Which is why it is so much fun to discuss. We are all equally mystified. We are all equally clueless. We look around us, we look inside us, we take our childhoods and upbringing and we come to conclusions that work for us."

I essentially agree with that nugget but would like to try to cut a couple new facets sometime.

It's simply another set of defining by negatives, namely, religion is bad and atheism "lets" the person be something else. It's just a careful structuring of a sentence of a definition of atheism that is "not that."

The fact that it's got to be "relative to fantasy" is pretty much my point. If you really had a vision to offer, you would actually show how being an atheist that causes one to be "treasuring the moment" or "taking responsibility" or "thinking for oneself" rather than saying in a number of different ways that allows one to avoid the errors of religious thought. In fact, if one removes the subordinate clause (I think that's right) of all the statements, you've pretty much got pap and pablum that wouldn't mean crap and would make the question that's being begged all the more evident.

On edit: "We can choose for ourselves what we think has value." That's only the question being begged. What has value?

that the OP phrased these advantages of atheism from kind of a religious perspective?

What I'm saying is that the OP's article is phrased to disguise a negative as a series of positives, that is, "Atheism allows you to be X, whereas religion causes you to be X". It's just a more complicated way of saying, religion has problems so if you don't have religion, you won't have religious problems. Okay. So?

What I'm saying is that defining oneself in the negative doesn't answer many questions and is a rhetorical and philosophical dead end.

The OP doesn't come through on what atheism has to offer in terms of a set of norms and morals and a positive agenda. It's a tough task: but that isn't even a start.

I have a kind of philosophical dyslexia that gets in the way of my understanding logic and arguments sometimes.

If you think those are negative, so be it.

That sounds like a bumper sticker. It's just begging another set of questions.

What does it mean to champion truth and humanity? And what is it about atheism that leads to that?

atheists have no organization, no common beliefs. They are joined only by a lack of belief. How can we say they champion truth and humanity? Some may be woeful liars, cheats and murders....

How is it possible to ascribe a set of values to people who have only one thing in common?

the postings in this forum.

You are being very logical - and ignored!

At least I leave work today with a smile!

Thanks,

:toast:

:-)

And indeed, they aren't. Is there anything more?

peace and salvation - exceptions to the general idea can be found. ;) (In my opinion, the idea of "salvation" is an enemy to humanity)

"How is it possible to ascribe a set of values to people who have only one thing in common?"

(Only one thing in common?) Considered atheism is typically the result of critical thought applied to ideas and proclamations about God that are prevalent in our culture. Anything in the world can be the subject of critical thinking, it just so happens that because "God" is such a ubiquitous concept there is a word for people who don't believe it.

Speak for yourself. I am a militant atheist. I'm just trying to bring the believers down to my base level of no morality/corruption. Stalin and me are tight.

You are, therefore, a fundamentalist atheist?

I am not an atheist and I do not have mental filters of superstition preventing me from directly experiencing reality or the debased idea I am innately sinful. I do not have any imaginary supernatural intervention rather than true love. I think for myself and chose what has value, and am working HARD on making our world a better place. I take responsibility for my behavior and teach others to do so, here and now and see that the choices I make impact my life, my future and the world. I treasure the here and now, because it may be all I have.


I do not agree that these characteristics means you are an athiest, and that if you do not, you hold the opposite characteristics you are religious. There are bad religions, bad people of religious and atheist beliefs.

"I do not agree that these characteristics means you are an athiest, and that if you do not, you hold the opposite characteristics you are religious."

What do you mean by "characteristics"? The OP doesn't include a list of the characteristics of atheists.

"There are bad religions, bad people of religious and atheist beliefs."

Of course there are bad people who are atheists. It makes no sense that their badness is due to their atheism, however. Have you ever heard of a group of atheists organizing to kill other humans to spread atheism?
Btw, which religions do you think are bad?

"Thou shalt not..."
"Thou shalt not..."
"Thou shalt not..."
etc.

Sinistrous

The religious have, "do this because god says so."

The atheist has, "there is no god".

Okay. Now what?

Whats the problem man. Nobody here is putting down religion. We are just having a friendly discussion. Why don't you just call off your dogs. Why are you atheist-bashing?

Evoman

Critical thinking and atheism aren't always relative to fantasy. Usually, as opposed to religion, they are both relative to reality. There's nothing wrong with that unless one is afraid to face the untruths that populate their belief system. Religions on the whole take an adversarial attitude toward the world, hence there stunning success at making the world a better place. /sarc

Thanks for obsessing on minutiae again. :hi:

Yet you can't get away from a negative defintion, atheism is NOT religion, now in that religion hasn't managed to make the world a better place and atheism is NOT religion. But where do we make the leap to how atheism makes the world a better place? That's the concept of having nothing to offer besides a negative, and as there have been atheist states before that were NOT better by any stretch of the imagination, I think that saying "no religion" doesn't come close.

This seems to be comparing positive of atheism to a bad religion. I am not an atheist, yet I hold to what OP wrote about atheism.

but there's nothing wrong with that.
It's ok to be against bad things, Inland. One shouldn't be riddled with guilt for being called "negative" for suggesting that your best friend not shoot heroin, not rob a bank, not commit adultery, or not smoke.
for example

I'd like to add a couple more

-Guilt-free masterbation

-Spend extra money on charities, and cut out the church middleman

-Do something productive on Sundays instead of trying to stay awake at church.

-Eat shellfish without fear

-Spend more time thanking those who cooked the food for you instead of god.

-No disappointment that envitably happens when you pray for something.

This last one is mine only.

-The comfort that comes with being a grain of sand on a semi-remarkable planet in the middle of nowhere. Within two or three generations, no one will even remember who I was. Within a 100 years, I may be just a name in a couple of records. That little fact gives me so much courage...I may as well give a speech in front of 1000 people. I may as well hit on that girl at the library. In a hundred years everyone is going to be dead so who cares if I fuck up. Live life to its fullest

I haven't found many people who think the way I do. But people around me hate thinking that life has no purpose or that they will die and will never be conscious again. I love it.

Just a perk of being atheist.

Evoman

you've GOT to explain the shellfish thing!

Personally, I too (I'm Episcopalian) feel insignificant and also enjoy the thought.

Leviticus....

Leviticus 11:9-12 says:
9 These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat.
10 And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:
11 They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination.
12 Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.

Deuteronomy 14:9-10 says:
9 These ye shall eat of all that are in the waters: all that have fins and scales shall ye eat:
10 And whatsoever hath not fins and scales ye may not eat; it is unclean unto you.

I really like garlic butter shrimp *grin* Abominations never tasted sooooo good.

56 years as an Episcopalian. Who knew?

Episcopalian is a cool word. It rhymes with Stallion.

but it does lead to some interesting limerick possibilities.

but then I do not attend an organized church and pray/ask only for myself to become the person I know I can be. I don't know what happens after I die, figure I am dead and that is that, and do not live a good life to be able to have a better life next, but live a good life because this is all I know for sure I will have as this concious being called uppityperson.

and I am not an atheist.

can you shoot x-rays from your eyes like we atheists? Um, no, I didn't think so. Come talk to me when your religion lets you do that *grin*

10 keV aimed straight for your heart!


Peace ~

Completely my own, and it does include a belief in a greater intelligence than the one commonly demonstrated by my fellow humans.

I always liked Penn Jillette's take on "this I believe".

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=%20%20%20%20%205015557

Here is one persons revelation:
Excerpt from Julia Sweeney's "Letting Go of God" Program Date 06/03/05
http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/2005/06/letting_go_of_g_1.html

Also, something that I wish everyone could watch (too bad this will never be shown in the U.S.:

The Root of All Evil? Episode 1: The God Delusion
http://www.greylodge.org/gpc/?p=331

And finally:

http://www.pointofinquiry.org/?p=36
Dawkin's take on Religion and fundamentalism.

There is a GREAT addition near the end of the mp3 where Point of Inquiry contributor Lauren Becker explores “defensive driving maneuvers” in a world where so many drive by faith and not by sight. A must hear...

Maybe it is our human nature to explain and attempt to persuade.

Here's a thought...I'm betting the 25% that believe in astrology are Democrats. What do you think?

Atheism helps us to see reality as it actually is, without the mental filters of superstition preventing us from directly experiencing it.

# Atheism opens us to experience our selves, without the debasing idea that we are innately sinful-we're all God's children and we're created in his image

# Atheism allows us to experience true interpersonal love, without any imaginary supernatural intervention-I have yet to have God fix me up on a date or help me make friends

# Atheism gives us the freedom to think for ourselves, to construct our own meanings. We each can choose what we think has value-we all come to our own decisions and beliefs and if they don't mesh exactly with the beliefs and decisions of others, so be it

# Atheism shows us that we can gain meaning by seeking to make our world a better place, for ourselves and our posterity-once again, we're stewards of God's world, and we live here for however long and we make it the best place we can

# Atheism teaches us to take responsibility for our behaviors in the here and now, not in an imaginary afterlife-did you ever hear of "do unto others as you would have them do unto you"?-once again, we live here and we have to take responsibility for our actions every day

# Atheism lets us see that we have to make choices about our future. No big daddy god is going to protect us from bad decisions-God helps those who help themselves/if you cross against traffic on a six lane highway, God ain't gonna pick you up and carry you to safety

# Atheism teaches us to treasure this moment, this life, and this world — because we realize that it’s all we have-as a Christian, I treasure each and every moment that I have on this earth

this list is not characteristic of all Christians

In other words, "religion allows me to smell the roses, with god" vs "atheism allows me to smell the roses, without god". It all circles back around to the implicit argumetn that doing something "with god" is inherently bad and doing without is inherently good. I see everyone smelling roses. So?

To a believer, loyalty to their personal god is sufficient reason.
They are being non-reasonable.

"loyalty to their personal god is sufficient reason."

Sounds like mystical bullshit to me.

It sounds like mystical bullshit to me. Having no meaning, it can't be discussed, much less disputed.

Add one more thing to the "no there there" category.

What does your church offer that the Church of Reason forbids?

"this list is not characteristic of all Christians"

It's duly noted that you saw this post from a Christian-centric angle.
There's more than one theism, ya know.

not beleiving in Santa Claus doesn't offer me anything either, I just don't. I'm an atheist because I do not beleive in any higher power, spiritual plan etc not because I'm looking for any "positives" out of it.

I have learned here on DU from my atheist co-posters.

It's all in the frame of reference. Atheism offers reality to those who are not founded in reality yet. We're beyond belief. :)

It's an interesting list, and I have to agree that atheism does make open the possibilities of the things you listed - but I think that's where it stops. I think it's up to most individuals whether or not they appreciate the implications of living a godless existence. For example, as an Atheist myself, I can think of several times where I have not really, truly thought for myself. In addition, do we really know what reality is? Personally speaking, I think a materialist standpoint here offers much more in understanding our surroundings than attributing everything to God - but we can still be deceived (e.g. we are not always accurate in our perceptions of our surroundings and the people in them).

In short, I think things might be a bit more complicated, that while atheism might be a necessary condition for at least a couple of the items listed, it is certainly not sufficient.

Atheism fails for lack of an afterlife, no immortal soul, an atheist cannot live forever. Furthermore, an atheist is not special. No personal saviour, no creator, no god to prey to in moments of need.

Sounds very selfish to me, believe in god to gain immortality and a special place in the universe.

Reality is reality. Wanting a thing does not make it so.

Atheism offers equality to all humans, no special god to prey to, no miracles, no punishment in hell, no reward in heaven. Time to give up selfishness.

Your list seems complete, I love some of the responses you have received. Selfishness runs deep in the believer.

:evilgrin: On edit, forgot my taunting devil

(as most of our discussions about faith end up)

What if...what if we create our own reality? What if our minds provide all our stimuli and our responses to it?

Where, for example, if I think I have an afterlife I do? If I think I am forgiven from my sins I am? And if I expect nothing, nothing happens?

And one last point... I do have personal reasons for my beliefs and they are important to me, but not really shareable in this forum. But real to me. Even without those elements, however, I'd probably choose to believe in something because I'm a good gambler. I actually make a lot of money playing poker. Now, if I'm wrong about the afterlife I won't even be disappointed. (I'll be in oblivion) I won't know a thing. But if I chose non-belief (in the face of the things that have happened to me to engender my belief) and in the end I find out..oops....it was true. Well, then I'd be quite consternated. Like not playing a good hand.

Now Grannie has been thinking too hard and has to have another cup of coffee before aggravating her students...

Pity it's a highly illogical one. "Believe because it costs you nothing, and it could pay off infinitely." Minimal risk, maximum reward. A win-win bet, right?

Wrong.

What if you picked the wrong god to believe in? Most gods are quite jealous, and if you don't believe in them, it's just as bad (maybe worse) than not believing at all.

What if the real god doesn't want people to believe in it? He'd much rather you focus all your energy on your fellow human beings, and not waste a second praying, going to church, anything like that.

Or, what about the possibility that the god you pick is quite easily able to see through your little charade of belief? Would a god who demands belief be OK with people who believe "just in case"?

Of course there's a flip side too. It DOES cost something to believe, even if you're just pretending. Tithing. Wasted time. Unnecessary inhibitions.

So you see, Pascal's Wager isn't quite so convincing.

Pascal.

I'll agree it is not 100% win/win. But I've lost a few hands with pocket aces. (not many) Nothing is certain.

I still like my odds, and I guess that's how we all choose to live our lives. We look at the odds and we make decisions.

I'm always intrigued when I go for my annual physical how my doctor uses odds to decide what to do with me. He'll tell me that, for example, a certain percentage of women with my family history develop problems with hormone replacement therapy, so we decide together to nix that. Maybe life is all about numbers.

One of my big worries is that I'll get to heaven and God is a cow, a turkey, a pig or a chicken. Then I'm in big trouble.

No harm in believing? Perhaps not for grannie but look about, you will see a world full of examples where a belief in god fails to improve the human condition. Perhaps you will be playing poker in hell for not being a fundamentalist, genuflecting to the image of Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell.

I honestly believe that if you could magically negate that portion of the brain that seems to yearn to worship a higher power, we'd all still be schmucks. Our schmuck-hood is genetic, a gift from our ancestors. War, greed, selfishness, pride...all those things would just find another outlet. Right now, organized religion gives a framework. (for some) For me, for my family, for the members of my church in general, our participation has been beneficial. The framework for us allows us to work together for the general good. And it provides a daily level of introspection and examination that I, at least, would not achieve without my spiritual training. It is a means to an end for me. And for me, and many others, it is as vital as breathing. I belong to a very liberal denomination and have never experienced real religious imprisonment. I'm not told what to do with my body, my family, how to vote, who to support, etc. And I went to a boarding school run by nuns, so that's saying something. But they were not Catholic nuns.

Back to the schmuck concept... an example is gangs. Gang members are largely (but not all) replete with schmuckiness and they do it without any help from God or religion.

Humans are tribal. We form alliances. Religions are basically alliances. If religion was gone, we'd find something else to fuss about.

I think the poker games in hell might be better than the ones in heaven, although in heaven I'd probably hit a few easier marks and make more money.

Atheism offers no god, no miralces, no punishiment in hell, no reward in heaven, no kidding.

Where I want to know is, where does atheism offer equality for all humans? I know the answer, of course, that you're going to give already. Religion is (inequality or other bad thing here), and atheism is not religion, therefore atheism offers (equality or the opposite of other bad thing here). Religion causes bad, atheism is not religion, ergo atheism causes good. It's faulty logic, and basically just the same faulty logic as the OP's article, the same unwarranted presumptions, and of course, the same self congratulation. YOu just aren't as windy and poetic about the entire thing.

I see all the "negatives" and see nothing but good things.

I suggest you simply enjoy your belief system, whatever it is, and leave the atheists alone. You've made it patently clear you don't like us.

It's not a framework to think within, no matter how hard some try to give that impression. Atheism is a word descriptive of belief concerning gods. Atheism is not like celibacy is to sex, it's like sugar-free is to imaginary lollipops.

Typically, theism precludes critical thought in areas that would weaken itself because atheism is a logical result of critical thought.

Noting that you don't bother to tell us what atheism has to offer, you simply hang nicety nice characteristics on atheists.

At best, and this is basically the usual self complimentary definition, atheism is the application of A critical thought, or critical thought in one area.

As you said, theism precludes critical thought in areas, but just in areas. Mostly areas about occurances a long ways away and having absolutely nothing to do with anything that matters. In the same way, atheists have critical thought in areas, but who knows if it's more than the stopped clock being right twice a day and completely unreliable on any other matter? I sure don't see the hands moving in this thread, so to speak.

Yeah, it's tough, isn't it, trying to both claim being right and that being right on one issue makes you superior in quality. Talk about your imaginary lollipops, wishful thinking and faith in matters unseen!

consider how superstition and theology have evolved through human history as a direct result of scientific discovery - applied critical thought. To noteworthy degree, modern religious attitudes and spiritual fads are also coincidental to critical thought. It is only because core faith has the built in immunity to being rationally questioned that theism can be called an absence of critical thought "in that area".

"As you said, theism precludes critical thought in areas, but just in areas. Mostly areas about occurances a long ways away and having absolutely nothing to do with anything that matters."

You can't be serious. I'm sure that if you apply yourself, you can think of some recent examples in the news of theism being cited as justification for murder.
Therefore, senseless murder is coincidental to theism.

Theists kill people, atheists aren't theists, ergo.....

Granted, you've added another step, so it's "Theists kill people, people who think critically don't kill people, atheists think critically because they aren't theists, ergo ..."

Really, you can't sop repeating yourself. All you do is say, religion/theism/thiests is/are bad, atheists don't believe in religion, THEREFORE they have this and that good quality". It doesn't follow, logically.

All you have said, unfortunately, is what you said at the beginning. An atheist doesn't believe in a deity, and nobody has shown it "offers" anything besides a "we're not them". The bottom line seems to be that atheism offers itself.

Your non-sequiturs, red herrings and strawmen are tiresome.
It's time for you to stop hanging off of my nipple.

You failed, not my fault for pointing it out.

What I see is someone who thinks "how can I refute this?" before they've even read and/or comprehended what they are determined to argue against. An absence of critical thought, iow.

That's critical thought now?

Fact is, why I chose to try to refute all your assertions is irrelevant, as long as I successfully did so.

Only a particularly bad argument is bolstered by a statement that those opposing it have a bad motive. Apparently, critical thought isn't something that you have towards yourself and your own ideas, because you would rather dismiss contrary arguments on irrelevant grounds.

refutations.

So, is there a higher ethic than truthfulness, or not?"

I don't think I have ever encountered someone so intransigent. At least your posts offer the casual reader the opportunity to observe logical fallacy. And, your posts have a certain degree of comic interest. I think I will include you in my favorites category.

The logical fallacy does not fall within Inland's posts.

Using the fallacious logic of the original post(er), Inland is right on the money. But because you disagree with what it tells you, you refuse to look at it.

Then again, just because one uses deductive or logical reasoning, doesn't necessarily make the conclusion the correct one.

Always curious how often those who disagree with the message, tend to belittle the messenger...almost as if they have no real argument.

FWIW- I don't think he needs lithium at all .

My only attack on the messenger, ad hominem, arouse with my comment about lithium. Yes a mortal sin, my hypocrisy. At least I can admit a logical fallacy, the poster I was responding too has posted a series of fallacies, refusing to accept any error in reasoning.

Sorry, trying to dismiss criticism of Inland's posts as ad hominem is clearly in error. Much of the criticism has been directed toward his fallacious reasoning.

And if you've never encountered anyone who disagrees, it's only because you don't get out more and spend too much time with that small minority, patting each other on the back with that presumption of superiority and getting offended that everyone else doesn't tip their hat to you.

Not surprisingly, you don't have anything of substance, so I guess you can go find your reassurance elsewhere. Bye bye.

:rofl:

This claim always cracks me up, i.e., the accusation that we atheists exhibit a "presumption of superiority" or "arrogance."

You mean like...oh, let's see...how about...claiming a very close personal relationship with an invisible yet omnipotent Somethingorother that created the entire Universe, yet still has time for a deep interest in the health and sex lives of every person on the planet?

It's not all atheists, just a few. It's the basis of the article in the OP.

Isn't it funny, though, that you aren't arguing against arrogance and superiority, but that it's deserved, because religion is so stupid.

But unfortunately, you didn't exactly score many points on your own behalf.

Your post speaks of an "invisible yet ominipotent...yet still has time..." Those attributes aren't mutually exclusive.

Have a good one.

But as usual, it didn't work.

I don't think I was asking you to agree or disagree. You seem unwilling or incapable of understanding a view which runs counter to your own. Sorry if the observation upsets you, I have argued with many people on this board, believer and non-believer, and your position seems to very intolerant. Again, an observation, brand me the evil atheist, how intolerant, ad hominem, etc etc. What ever floats your boat.

I have nothing of substance to say; what a hoot. Reduce my argument to nothing, then dismiss it as lacking substance. Sorry, I am unfamiliar with this type of reasoning.

As for the pat on the back, not getting out much, reassurance business, sorry to get you so upset. That is not my intention, I didn't mean to provoke you into such an attack. I am sure we can find peaceful coexistence.

Call somebody on bad logic and unwarranted presumptions and the assertions of victimhood and prejudice come out, ironically enough. I didn't reduce your argument to nothing. It had no substance to begin with. The entire point was for someone to provide something to understand about atheism besides the fact it is not believing in a diety. Everyone fails.

If atttitude were enough, there never would have been this thread.

Filled with logical fallacy, you avoid addressing the arguments made by atheists. Dismiss them as you will, I see no point in laboring the issue.

Or not, I give up.

A favorite? Redefine the argument to your liking and knock it down. You seem to be the only one making the nonsensical argument "Theists kill people, ergo, therefore etc etc.

I am trying to follow your rational line of thinking, but I am having difficulty. Take a breath, and make your point. Please refrain from analogy and colloquial discourse.

Your logic does not follow, you post misinterpretations of what is posted, I am beginning to wonder about you Inland. Any attempt at rational discourse seems lost upon your ears. In this case the straw man logical fallacy.

"Religion causes bad, atheism is not religion, ergo atheism causes good."

Yes, faulty logic. Your faulty logic.

After all, the challenge was for you to show the connection between atheism and equality. Nothing yet, huh?

Because I accurately characterized your illogic. It's not a straw man just because it's easy to knock down. It's easy to knock down because your posts are transparently, well, bad. In fact, it's just rewording the same faulty logic and unwarranted presumptions in different ways, as if sheer repetition makes it better.

Hence your multiple posts to me in this thread. Mind if this response stand for all? I wanted to highlight your logical, coolheaded post title and let people wonder about who is self medicating.

Sorry, but I find your logic to be in error. Moreover, I find your posts to be long winded, and difficult to follow.

The characterization of your straw-man logical fallacies holds. Perhaps you would like a link to definitions of logical fallacies, perhaps not.

Steam away if you like, trying to find a middle ground with you seems impossible, and quite frankly I don't care if you ever gain any understanding about atheism.

Really, save it. You're sad that I'm not angry enough. You're not looking for middle ground.

The entire point of this thread was what people are looking for, and that's where you can't come up with an answer besides insults and assertions of superiority.

And now, some lame assertion that I'm angry and just too confusing for YOU to explain your own statement how atheims relates to equality. It's all my fault there's no there there. Sure it is.

Buh bye.

Angry or not, it is none of my concern. You fail to address the issues, a recurring theme, instead you resort to logical fallacy. But you are not the only one given to such a crime, yet you seem incapable of arguing in any other way.

Sorry to get you so flustered, I will endeavor to more sensitive of your concerns in the future.

The fact that the last statistic is that "13% of Americans think Joan of Arc was Noah's wife" makes me very suspicious of the methodology.

They only way I can see a result like that coming up is through a multiple choice question, in which case the result is totally meaningless; and it makes me wonder how many of the others were obtained that way too.

More so, I'd say because the correct answer is supplied in a multiple choice queston.

Anyway, I don't think you're arguing that Americans don't believe a lot of stupid shit, are you?

that any particular answer is going to get a certain amount of clueless guessing?

That n percent of Americans ticking the box labelled "I think that evolution is not well supported by the evidence" is less disturbing than n percent of Americans volunteering the opinion that evolution is not well supported by the evidence.

N is high enough in this case that it would still be disturbing, but it wouldn't be *as* bad as it would be if the result were obtained by a more reliable method (which they may have been, to be fair - it may just be the Joan of Arc one that's MC).

People who do not believe in God do not have special advantages in achieving and believing what you say. While in some instances religion may keep some individuals down, for many it is something else. Atheists get depression, anxiety, eating disorders, various addictions, committ crimes, try to kill themselves, and can be generally unsatisfied with life because they have problems with one or several of your suppositions. For example, the Bible might not tell the atheist teenager that she is innately sinful but her parents have told her that she is bad anhd worthless her entire life. How does her unbelief in God save her from that?

human mistakes and "bad" behavior at all. The claim is that it is more truthful than theism.

"the Bible might not tell the atheist teenager that she is innately sinful but her parents have told her that she is bad and worthless her entire life. How does her unbelief in God save her from that?"

If all of her circumstances remained the same and she decided to believe in God, would that save her?

That it offers a better life than Theism. It may or may not offere her a better life than Theism. Theism might offer her a better life if she embraces the idea of a loving God, forgiveness for sins, and hope for a better future. Whether or not these things are true, a more positive outlook can change how we think, feel, and behave which may in turn change how people treat us for the better (I'm referring to people aside from the hypothetical parents.). Of course, she might embrace negative aspects of Theism and feel even worse. There are both good sides and bad sides of religion. A person embracing religion is not guarenteed to embrace the positiveness. A person embracing atheism is not guarenteed to embrace the positiveness and could just as easily embrace the negativeness.

but I don't agree that atheism offers any great visions or truths....but neither does religion.

There are more choices than these two, but you frame everything as though these are the only two possible choices- theism or atheism. It is clear in your post when you refer to truth vs fantasy.

Neither holds the all the truth or all the answers.

I agree that religion holds (too many) people back and limits them and controls them. No argument from me there. I agree there is too much bible based bs in our society and govt.

However, atheism is simply the flip side of that coin and just because there is no "belief' in god, doesn't free you up or lead you to the truth either. I would say in fact, it is even more limiting in a way than those who harbor belief in "God". At least they are already open to the idea/thought that there is more beyond our world of physical senses, even if the view is skewed.

For atheists, it always comes to the point of being unable to obtain "physical proof" for things simply beyond physical. That alone does not prove that anything beyond our physical senses does not exist, but it seems to be a leap that somehow defies "their logic" that most atheists are unable or unwilling to make. Again.... it doesn't make atheism better or worse, just a different filter through which people experience the world, but it makes NO allowances for what may be beyond.

Not all answers fit all people...neither belief nor lack thereof has the truth.

From your examples, I certainly don't see atheism offering any great or greater positive vision or truth in how one can live.

<<I certainly don't see atheism offering any great or greater positive vision or truth in how one can live.>>

For comples things like that, the answers can only be found in ASTROLOGY!! :rofl:

I believe all sorts of things without physical proof. Like the temperature of the sun, for instance.

We just need evidence - ANY evidence - to believe something. And of course, Carl Sagan's principle of "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" comes into play. I won't need much evidence, if any, to accept your claim that you have a quarter in your pocket. Of course, start making claims about the planets affecting our lives in undetectable ways, yeah, I'm gonna need a little more evidence.

That's the logic of the atheist/skeptic. I'm sorry that your pet beliefs don't meet the criteria, but that's no reason to blame or attack us. Just demonstrate them, and you'd be able to shut us up.

Doubt that would ever happen anyway.

Just trying to get you out of your limited black/white thinking. Thats all.

And as far as the "extraordianry beliefs/evidence" dealie...even thougth it is always paraded out it is actually so subjective to the point of meaningless. Does "extraordiary" have a scientif definition? Didn't think so.

My post was neither blaming or an attack. I was simply saying that I don't agree with the premise of the OP. You guys take everything so personally that if anyone holds a counter view, you seem unable to deal with it unless you bash the messenger. Interesting.

So I hold "pet beliefs" ...what do you call yours?

I can at least say that I have actually looked at things from your point of view . I just found it too narrow and lacking...in both truth and in relevance.

C'mon, Rosie, you're not nearly as noble as you make yourself out to be.

You were wrong about atheists' requirement for "physical" proof.

You ARE wrong about our shutting ourselves off to a world "beyond our physical senses." I love music, I love to read, and I love my wife. I can't detect or measure any of that, yet I enjoy it and acknowledge it. However, I know those experiences are confined to my mind. I don't claim they exist apart from it.

Seems to me you're making some hasty judgments about those who simply ask for evidence. Bashing the messenger, indeed.

Are you saying that music, books & your wife are not physical...that these are things you are not using the 5 senses to experience? Your hearing, your vision and sense of touch are not measurable physical experiences? That this is all in your mind....?


What I said was that you are closed to the idea of things existing "beyond the physical"- which simply means not being open to possiblities of anything existing beyond that which you can perceive using the 5 senses.
Yet love is one of those unmeasurable things that you seem to accept with no "physical proof". Why is that...because you experience this? Yet you'll bash others experience of spiritual matters. What is the difference? Love can't be measured...yet it is very real.


I am not making a judgement- just observing what atheists have said....and I realize that everyone has their own unique set of "beliefs" or "nonbeliefs" here, but the one thing you seem to agree on is that unless there is tangible evidence presented, there is nothing beyond this physical experience & existence. When I voice my opinion and tell you that I disagree with that pov, I am bashing and judging. Yet your comments are fine.

Again...interesting.


BTW, why use a diminutive nickname for me? Have I ever gone by the name "Rosie" here?
...and please, what in the world does my "nobleness" or lack thereof have to do with this discussion?
(oh right, bashing the messenger.....)

Yeah, quesions can be a pain in the ass, can't they?

I said my love for those things was not physical. Music, literature, my wife, all physically exist (as far as I can tell) and I can enjoy them using my senses. But my fondness for them is not physical. It's within my mind. That doesn't make the love I feel any less real (to me), but it does have important parallels with many of the claims that people make.

Likewise, if people who believed in gods recognized that gods are just like love - mental constructs that are plenty real enough to the believer, but do not have any basis outside the mind - I would be perfectly fine with their claims.

Let me try to explain once again, this is not necessarily about tangible evidence. Take my earlier example, for instance. I don't have to physically touch the surface of the sun to accept the fact that it's outrageously hot. Just a little understanding of how the mechanisms work to generate heat in the solar core is plenty sufficient. If such mechanisms can be explained, that constitutes evidence too. So for instance, if you could provide insight into the mechanism behind what makes astrology supposedly work, that would lead to skeptics beginning to accept it.

You think I'm bashing, I think you're bashing. You're the one who misstated the atheist/skeptic position and proceeded to make judgments.

moving forward.

It's about the effort and moving on.

Aside from the presumption of a deity and certain religious premises, religions put a huge deal of effort into philosophy. Even if one disagrees with the result, nobody can deny the thought put into right living and occasionally even putting the same into practice. Nobody that has actually listened to a sermon or sampled religious writings, that is, because anyone who thinks religion is stuck worrying about creation theories doesn't know how they work. Moreover, often one agrees with the result. Nobody REALLY thinks the Golden Rule is an oppressive piece of reactionary hatemongering, do they? Nobody REALLY thinks it's silly to try to put it into practice, do they?

Therefore to call atheism the flip side of religion, one has to specify which dimension. To me, and by this thread, atheism in and of itself is a philosophical and ethical dead end. As defined to huge discussion, it is just not belief in a god, but THEN what? Clearly, the heavy lifting of the questions of how one should live and why have just begun, not ended, with such a declaration.

Maybe it's "cheating" for the religious to start with "god wants us to be good", but hey, it's a start to a task I think is worth attempting, even with all the starts, stops and magnificent failures that only humans can bring to the table. It's the same sort of "cheating" that is served by DU, which, like a religion, has a certain set of presumptions that everyone is already on the same set of values. In any other section, for example, I don't have to begin with explaining why prejudice, even against christians, is a bad thing. We already agree it's a bad thing, and the methodists don't have to start at "don't kill, don't steal" either. But where's the start to atheism, where's the presumption available in a "don't believe that", the mere statement of a negative? It remains a negative.

It ties into a couple of different concerns of mine. One is that politically, something beats nothing, and atheism is defined as a lack of belief. Another is that while people may have bad ideas about atheists, the real fear of atheism is that it leads to nihilism, a fear that wouldn't be assuaged by the posts in this thread. Like I said before, a guy who puts a fish on a car says, "I believe in christianity" and the guy who puts the flying spaghetti monster on his car says "I believe in poking fun at christianity". I mean, it's fine as far as it goes, but as this thread shows, it doesn't go very far.

Another concern is as atheism is set up as "not that", it portrayed here as unnecessarily in conflict. The article in the OP is a fine example, in that it says, "you can enjoy xyz without the interference of a god". Well, what does it matter as long as you are enjoying xyz whether it's with or without god? The implication being that one can't do those things with religion interfering, which is, well, false.

Similarly, the effort to set up religion as irrational and deluded and downright evil in order to score debating points and have a good time doing it makes it really, really hard to climb down. The latest trend is to say that nothing a christian does is ethical, because it's for a reward. I mean, it's a really cute slam, for it does two things: it makes only the things an atheist does right ethical, and it ignores that atheist isn't bothering to define what is ethical or not. The fact is that the atheist too would like to borrow ethical rules from religion, e.g., the golden rule. But it's tough to concede that it makes sense or seems right when you just called the rules's inventors and aspiring followers THE PROBLEM on this earth of ours, deluded nutbags illogical killers that we should all be afraid of. So it's nothing, the very nihilism that actually worries voters.

Not all atheists, of course. The greatest modern thinkers and philosophers were atheists. But they didn't stop at "I'm not like them". That's what made them thinkers and philosophers. So give them, and the religious thinkers, their props.

Given any question which is stated clearly and specifically enough, with clearly defined terms, the answers are the same for everyone.

"What's your favorite flavor ice cream?" has different answers for different people. But that doesn't make The Truth About Ice Cream some mystically nebulous thing. Get more specific, like "What's today's favorite ice cream flavor for Joe Holistic of 7 Atlantis Ave., Harmonic City, MD, to the best of Joe's knowledge, from among all flavors he has tried?" and there's one specific answer (it could be "Joe is lactose intolerant and hates all ice cream") which is true for everyone. There's no issue of the answer "fitting" anyone or not. I suppose, for example, you could stomp your feet and insist that everyone's favorite flavor just has to be chocolate, and then the answer "pecan praline" won't "fit" your view of the world, but I don't see how such stubborn insistence would earn you some special right to have your own "private truth" for the question at hand.

I may not know the answer, or even how to go about obtaining the answer, but (further purely semantic games aside, such as arguing over what "favorite" means, for example) my ignorance of the answer, my possibly good or bad speculation regarding the answer, my possible disagreement with someone else who might have a different opinion, all have nothing to do with the universality of the ultimate answer, whatever that answer might be.

Make it clear enough what you mean by "God" and "exist", and God either exists or does not. This existence, or lack thereof, is a universal truth. I'm sorry if that's too "limiting" or "black and white" for you. That one person finds deeper purpose and meaning in life acting as if this particular version of God exists, and that another person goes on a different, wonderful "spiritual journey" by believing in a different god, gods, or no gods at all, has not a thing to do with what's ultimately "true", except by a very watered-down meaning of the word "true" which has more to do with individual perspective and taste than anything else.