Elliquian Atheists

[Braioch]

I thought those of us here that are atheist may enjoy this ^_^

[Niferbelle]

I hadn't seen that before. Just wow.

[Braioch]

I enjoyed it ^_^

[MasterMischief]

I found comfort in knowing I would return to exactly the same 'state' I was before birth.  Although, I am fairly disorderly now.   ;D

[Starlequin]

That was remarkably beautiful, Brai. Mahalo for sharing it.  :-\

[Braioch]

I'm glad you guys enjoyed.

Which speaking of, shameless plug here, but I have a tumblr specifically for atheism.

It may come of as anti-theist, but that isn't what I intend by it at all, it's just some of the points they make are good.

If interested, here's the link www.savedbythought.tumblr.com

[Oniya]

I thought those of us here that are atheist may enjoy this ^_^

I'm not even an atheist, and I enjoyed it.  I may have to swipe bits of it the next time someone asks me if I expect to go to Heaven when I die.

[Chaosengine]

I became an atheist a long time ago due in part to the reckless animosity of some of it's practitioners to wield their faith as a club against those they feel are inferior to themselves. I realize, of course, that this does not represent all the faithful, but I guess in my case, a few bad apples spoil the whole bunch. I have no choice but to hide my atheism, as those around me would misinterpret my lack of faith as an absence of morality and treat me accordingly. I have enough to worry about as it is.  :-(

[Apple of Eris]

I thought those of us here that are atheist may enjoy this ^_^

Fantastic! I absolutely ADORE that!

[Pumpkin Seeds]

The sentiment is touching, even for someone that is not an atheist.

[Ironwolf85]

The first part actually brought a tear to my eye. I am no athiest, but that is both touching and true.

it's also far better than the guys who when I talked in collage about someone close dying said "they are a rotting corpse in the ground dumbass, stop caring."

I would like to go on record saying I'm fine with athiests these being people who have chosen not to believe in a higher power, so long as they still believe in doing good on earth I think the big guy will still let them into heaven anyway so why should I judge?

it's anti-theists you know the "religion is the cause off all evil, and you're a moron for having faith" crowd, who i dislike. my counterargument is "religion is not the root of all evil, ignorance, dumbfuckery, and hatred are. The rest from religion to secular nationalisim is just an excuse used afterward."

[Sabby]

Ironwolf, Anti-Theists, or Militant/Extremist anything really, are just bad all around. I certainly don't support suppressing someone's religious rights, but I would see that those rights are kept in check. Saying something doesn't make sense, or is immoral, or shouldn't be taught in schools is not an attack or an infringement on rights.

A good Atheist would encourage logical thinking, and sadly, a lot of religious beliefs and practices range from harmless stupidity to absolutely abhorrent. It's not an attack on a person, it's simply pointing out a fact. Creationism not a valid science is a fact. But if you say that, for instance, the Christian Bible teaches messed up thought processes, and that those moral lessons should be updated or outright killed off, this is usually seen as an attack. And I can't see a way around this :/ faith is so personal it's near impossible to touch without the recipient withdrawing and putting up a wall. That walls a pretty big barrier to any kind of reasoning, which is why this is such a resilient and NASTY conflict, and likely won't go away any time soon.

So I totally agree with you :) Saying shit like all wars are for God is as acceptable to me as it is to the Pope.

[Koyume]

I thought those of us here that are atheist may enjoy this ^_^

Spoiler: Click to Show/Hide

Made me smile; it reminded me too of that quote by Ann Druyan about her husband's death. Lemme see if I can dredge that up real quick...

Spoiler: Click to Show/Hide

“When my husband died, because he was so famous & known for not being a believer, many people would come up to me — it still sometimes happens — & ask me if Carl changed at the end & converted to a belief in an afterlife. They also frequently ask me if I think I will see him again. Carl faced his death with unflagging courage & never sought refuge in illusions. The tragedy was that we knew we would never see each other again. I don’t ever expect to be reunited with Carl. But, the great thing is that when we were together, for nearly twenty years, we lived with a vivid appreciation of how brief & precious life is. We never trivialized the meaning of death by pretending it was anything other than a final parting. Every single moment that we were alive & we were together was miraculous — not miraculous in the sense of inexplicable or supernatural. We knew we were beneficiaries of chance… That pure chance could be so generous & so kind… That we could find each other, as Carl wrote so beautifully in Cosmos, you know, in the vastness of space & the immensity of time… That we could be together for twenty years. That is something which sustains me & it’s much more meaningful…

The way he treated me & the way I treated him, the way we took care of each other & our family, while he lived. That is so much more important than the idea I will see him someday. I don’t think I’ll ever see Carl again. But I saw him. We saw each other. We found each other in the cosmos, and that was wonderful.“

But yeah, I've been calling myself an Ignostic Naturalist for a while now, but for virtually all practical purposes I'm atheistic.

[Ironwolf85]

Ironwolf, Anti-Theists, or Militant/Extremist anything really, are just bad all around. I certainly don't support suppressing someone's religious rights, but I would see that those rights are kept in check. Saying something doesn't make sense, or is immoral, or shouldn't be taught in schools is not an attack or an infringement on rights.

A good Atheist would encourage logical thinking, and sadly, a lot of religious beliefs and practices range from harmless stupidity to absolutely abhorrent. It's not an attack on a person, it's simply pointing out a fact. Creationism not a valid science is a fact. But if you say that, for instance, the Christian Bible teaches messed up thought processes, and that those moral lessons should be updated or outright killed off, this is usually seen as an attack. And I can't see a way around this :/ faith is so personal it's near impossible to touch without the recipient withdrawing and putting up a wall. That walls a pretty big barrier to any kind of reasoning, which is why this is such a resilient and NASTY conflict, and likely won't go away any time soon.

So I totally agree with you :) Saying shit like all wars are for God is as acceptable to me as it is to the Pope.

agreed, creationisim is not a valid theory, nor should it even pe concidered as one. people need to be more open about their faith or lack-thereof, and willing to talk with others, debate, joke, and laugh.

I think the basic moral lession of the new testiment is exactly what jesus preached "love your fellow man, do good even when it's hard, and love god with all your heart." those are good lessons.

The OT was a lot more strict and harsh, especally by today's standards, but that's why there had to be a New One, somehow I notice all the bible bludgeoning is done with the old testiment, and maybe a bit of paul, it seems like he tries a little too hard sometimes.

[Sabby]

I think the basic moral lession of the new testiment is exactly what jesus preached "love your fellow man, do good even when it's hard, and love god with all your heart." those are good lessons.

Perfect example! I see this a lot. Now lets pretend you are a devout Christian. I ask this to you completely honestly, and am in no way attacking your faith, your beliefs, or you personally. Why should I love God?

There is a valid question, and almost every time I've seen it posed, it's been met with circular logic, and eventually the contradictions pop up. Like, if I bring forward something God really dropped the ball on, or something really horrible that I couldn't love someone for, I get a reason why that doesn't matter any more, or that it's been misinterpreted.

How do I interpret it?

Where's the amendment?

How do I find the valid verses?

Why would I believe one verse, when another can just be ignored?

When you say 'this is the basics', there is still holes, massive holes, which absolutely MUST be addressed in order for some people to even approach the topic, let alone accept God as their Lord.

So even when you cherry pick the nice bits and arrange them together into a minimalistic, nice, modern day friendly version of the Bible, tailored to convert a person who has lived in a cell underground all their life with no access to the outside world, it's still fatally flawed. We absolutely have the right, and the responsibility, to [Scientific Terms]question the fuck out of this crap[/Scientific Terms]

To condense all that, to go easy on religious agendas is not something we should do, and it absolutely should not be considered an attack. They are not special, and should be treated as rigorously as any proposed concept. If a scientist wants to tell me that fairies hold us to the ground and that we should measure gravity in fairy dust, I fully expect that theory to be tested, tossed and immolated. Why should a religious concept be treated any differently?

[Ironwolf85]

I completely agree we should "question the fuck out of this crap" that is known as the School of Theology, trying to figure that out, it's it's why we have so many diffrent religions & sects within various religions.

A religious concept should be tested if it can, but the problem is there is no method for properly testing one. This is because it's at least part philophy, and Scientific method does not work on philophy

One might as well try and disprove Stoicisim in anchent greece, or Confusionisim (it's actually a philophy, he was later deified by the chinese people.) in china.

Try using Scientific Method on Plato... you run into the same problem.

One of the big problems in modern theology is that in an ever changing world (think of how far the world's changed in the last 20 years alone.) faith is the one thing many people see as "never changing" even when it should grow and develop, it should change, as our understanding of the world around us does, and thus we redifine our place in it.

[Sabby]

Nonono, you misunderstand, when I say question the hell out of it, I'm not saying you demand a Theist justify their belief. That's just being a dick :/ I mean they try and apply a belief in any way to society, which is why I used the crazy scientist analogy. He's free to believe that gravity is controlled by tiny pixies. But if he wants to have the textbook definition of G-Force changed to P-Dust, then we have a problem. It's not a personal thing any more, and it should be opposed. If it cracks under the pressure of scrutiny, it DOES NOT FLY.

My problem is the crazy doctor and his Fairy Theory is getting a free ride because he wears a funny hat.

[Ironwolf85]

I agree. This is my problem with the Mega Churches here in the U.S.

Unless you can prove somthing like creationisim it does not belong in my text books. I persionally believe God being the author of reality and all that, that there's no reason he didn't write the rules on evoloution too. As I've said, I see god in the intricate designs of biology, the complexity of the world, and perfect mathmatics of the universe, even if I'm not smart enough to do advanced quantum physics. I just think the universe too ordered and complex to all be random chance.

Regardless of any theological implications, evoloution is a proven fact so covering your ears and going "Lalalalalalalajesuslovesmelalalalalalalala" isn't helping anything, nor encouraging the spiritual illumination and understanding of mankind which is the ultimate goal of theology.

[MasterMischief]

I just think the universe too ordered and complex to all be random chance.

Is god not more ordered and complex?

[Sabby]

That's another good one that pops up. Seeing God in the world because it's just too perfect to be chance. I have an analogy for this one I've been working on. Someone told me that life on this planet is too perfectly suited to their environment, natural selection couldn't have nailed it that good. This is my response.

Say I show you a room with a hundred dice. As far as you can see, they are all 6. I didn't move them, they landed on 6, and I placed them here. WOW you say. That's incredible! How could that ever happen by chance? It's just too perfect.

But would you find it so impressive if you stepped over here and looked out this window? That's the ocean. Filled entirely with dice. All of them rolled 1 to 5. The reason this room looks so perfect is because your only seeing the winning numbers.

In the case of life, about 92% of the species on the planet are extinct. They just didn't get a good roll of the genetics die. Simply unlucky, to not have gotten just the right genes, and the ones that did still died off some times. That 8% of species we see now are just incredibly lucky, and even they have nagging problems from genetic randomness.

[Evrem]

I think the leading logical fallacy that breeds religious fervor is addressed by the Anthropic Principle. Humans tend to see the universe and think that it fits us perfectly. The truth of the matter is that we actually fit it perfectly.

My loss of religious faith was driven by something far more beautiful and humbling than a god that may or may not exist. Just head over to google images and search "pale blue dot". That picture, and Carl Sagan's description of said picture, sums up humanity and religion for me perfectly.

[Sabby]

Evrem, you'd enjoy this then. It's a beautiful video.

Shock and Awe: A Former Christian Ponders the Cosmos

[Oniya]

In the case of life, about 92% of the species on the planet are extinct. They just didn't get a good roll of the genetics die. Simply unlucky, to not have gotten just the right genes, and the ones that did still died off some times. That 8% of species we see now are just incredibly lucky, and even they have nagging problems from genetic randomness.

If you want to take that one farther, check out the relative biomass of different classes.  God likes bugs.
Or the ability to adapt.  God likes viruses and bacteria.

[Hemingway]

I think the leading logical fallacy that breeds religious fervor is addressed by the Anthropic Principle. Humans tend to see the universe and think that it fits us perfectly. The truth of the matter is that we actually fit it perfectly.

I'll go one further, and say that we don't even fit it perfectly. Anyone arguing that the universe is "fine-tuned" for human life needs to explain why we inhabit just one speck of dust in the universe, one among so many that it doesn't even make sense to give a percentage. It's so close to nothing that, for all intents and purposes, it is. But even if that someone manages that, they'd still have to explain just how a world that's something like 69% salt water, which is more or less hostile to us, is designed with us in mind. And how, even in that 31% that's either land or fresh water, large stretches like the world's deserts and arctic areas would kill us in a matter of hours. In the end, if not for us making clothes, only a few percent of the earth would be habitable, and even those areas far from safe. All of this located in a galaxy which is on a collision course with its neighbor, the Andromeda galaxy. As Hitchens liked to put it, "some design".

And, speaking of Hitchens, to this discussion concerning anti-theists. Hitchens identified as an anti-theist. As does, if I remember correctly, Ricky Gervais. I'm not sure if Richard Dawkins has identified himself that way, but he certainly is, if Hitchens is. None of these people ever wanted to limit anyone's right to do anything. That simply isn't the anti-theist position. That makes it a strawman. To be "against" religion doesn't mean you're for its forcible abolition. Being an anti-theist, I would say, means nothing more than that you think the world would be a better place if there was no religion ( actually, even that isn't entirely accurate, but things are complicated enough as it is ).

If you want to take that one farther, check out the relative biomass of different classes.  God likes bugs.
Or the ability to adapt.  God likes viruses and bacteria.

It's funny - and by funny I mean hilariously tragic - isn't it, how some individuals like one recent US president manage to not believe in evolution by natural selection, and still recognize the danger posed by bird flu and other diseases. That's very literally textbook doublethink!

[Braioch]

None of these people ever wanted to limit anyone's right to do anything. That simply isn't the anti-theist position. That makes it a strawman. To be "against" religion doesn't mean you're for its forcible abolition. Being an anti-theist, I would say, means nothing more than that you think the world would be a better place if there was no religion ( actually, even that isn't entirely accurate, but things are complicated enough as it is ).

As an anti-theist myself, I completely condone this statement as it is my stance on the matter. Simplified, as most explanations of a stance usually are must be to avoid being all ranty. Still I do not wish to take out the rights of others to believe whatever they want to believe. (no matter what my opinion on said beliefs) I find religion, not necessarily faith, a poison and it has caused far more problems than it has solved throughout history. I think it's time that religion go back to the dark ages, faith is personal and independent, it doesn't seek to shove its world view on the majority, and I'm fine with that.