Atheists...

[Khethil]

Originally Posted by SantaMonica1369

Is God dead, or did he never exist?
How does your reasoning for being an athiest go?

I love it! Simple, honest questions that have simple, honest answers. I hope not to offend any honest believers out there, but my answer is straightforward and from the heart.

For me, there's just no reason to believe something so silly - one would think in the 3rd millennium that we'd be past such dumbness. Humans have such capacity for love, sharing, fellowship and discovery. As long as we hold to ancient myths, the longer we'll stay divided and at arms length to our brothers and sisters. Beliefs in god have the potential for giving great comfort to the individual, but they hurt our species in numerous ways.

Nice question. I hope my response is well-received.

[de_budding]

Heart felt and true- religion is all about a personal and therefor selfish salvation or enlightenment.

Dan.

[Arjen]

Dan, try to re-judge your statement and frame of reference untill you reach true skepticism: to postpone your judgement on the matter (indefinately).

Originally Posted by de_budding

Religion isn't really concerned with questions anymore; they've done there bit now they just sit back and work on their apologetics department, in fact the less questions the better as far as they are concerned... where as the older I get the more skeptical and inquisitive I seem to get.

In that case you are no atheist in the sense of the meaning of the word. Atheists have their opinion made up as well: there is no "God"; just as pantheists: everything (Nature) is "God", etc.

Allow me to clarify what I mean with this statement:

The lovers of "God" have no religion".

In this statement the definition of "God" does not exist is an atheist religion.

Also I'm open to change my perception and view at any time, and I often do entertain religious thoughts but, even thought they never lead any where because they are wrong I still entertain them from time to time.

From this statement I conclude that you have never really given such reasoning a chance, on the basis of "they are wrong".

I think the behavioral, social and historic side of religion speaks for itself, there was never any need to delve deeper than that, save the questions for experts who will at least accept the answer they get and not try to manipulate it into their world view.

There is a big difference between believing and religion. Take me as an example. I believe, but I have no clue what is going on; I have made no definitions and because of that have no religion.

Do you see my point?

[de Silentio]

Originally Posted by Khethil

For me, there's just no reason to believe something so silly - one would think in the 3rd millennium that we'd be past such dumbness. Humans have such capacity for love, sharing, fellowship and discovery. As long as we hold to ancient myths, the longer we'll stay divided and at arms length to our brothers and sisters.

So religion in and of itself keeps us divided as a race? Religion in and of itself isn't damaging, in fact, many religions (and churches for that matter) preach that we should unite, rather those who follow a certain religion do or not is not necessarily a product of that religion. I find that the Human desire to be better than their neighbor is more damaging than religion. Religion is just an easy target to point a finger at.

Those who find religious beliefs silly and dumb can be just as damaging to human relations as any religion.

[Khethil]

Originally Posted by de Silentio

So religion in and of itself keeps us divided as a race? Religion in and of itself isn't damaging, in fact, many religions (and churches for that matter) preach that we should unite, whether those who follow a certain religion do or not is not necessarily a product of that religion. I find that the Human desire to be better than their neighbor is more damaging than religion. Religion is just an easy target to point a finger at.

Those who find religious beliefs silly and dumb can be just as damaging to human relations as any religion.

Your point is well taken - please accept my sincere apology for what seems to have tweaked you.

My assertion is that one's religious views strike to the very heart of their existence - they're very personal and colors every perception, every thought, every input, every question. Once accepted, a theological view becomes a mantle they always wear. Given the voracity with which many religious humans cling, this itself becomes a point of divisiveness that drives wedges in communities, between coworkers, neighborhoods, nations and continents. Forgetting wars, it becomes a reason to gather those of like-mindedness to reinforce the tenuous beliefs they hold. Yes many religions preach embracement of all (hell, I think almost all do) yet their nature precludes this. What results is a club complete with secret handshake and decoder ring. When there are multiple organizations running around perpetuating this same divisiveness we end up with one over-riding result: Polarization. It is this divisiveness, perhaps moreso on a personal level, that I bemoan more than anything else.

Yes, I've heard the argument, "Religion is just an easy target to point a finger at" but look at what's happening in the world today - look at virtually any nation and you'll see conflicts labeled one thing, but that whose ownis ultimately comes down to cultural differences inspired by religion. Go to any period in human history and there it lurks; destroying the bonds that you and I might have.

And yes, you're right; my harsh judgment is perhaps another nail. I only wish for a day where we've shed such myths and embrace our mortality. It's my belief that if such a day were to come, we'd not only have more compassion and charity for each other, in recognizing and accepting our mortality it'd become a supreme motiviation for cherishing each and every moment of our lives.

Thanks for responding, and apologies again for any offense

[de Silentio]

Originally Posted by Khethil

Thanks for responding, and apologies again for any offense

No apology needed. It takes quite a bit to offend me. It was more of an offense to rhetoric than to me. By the way, this post was much better.

My assertion is that one's religious views strike to the very heart of their existence - they're very personal and colors every perception, every thought, every input, every question.

They do, as do all of our worldviews, rather they contain religious beliefs or not.

Once accepted, a theological view becomes a mantle they always wear. Given the voracity with which many religious humans cling, this itself becomes a point of divisiveness that drives wedges in communities, between coworkers, neighborhoods, nations and continents.

Again, I would not point the finger at religion, but at people. We all need someone to hate. It may be because they are a different race, different class, different religion, or even just because they are nicer. We are a divided species, and we will never be able to transcend the fact that we are prejudice at heart.

Now, it is important for a person to realize this, because once they do they can begin working for the better. But it is not common to question oneself, especially when it regards ones faults. Socrates felt it was important to 'Know Thyself' for a reason. (I know it isn't a quote of his, but it does sum up parts of his philosophy well)

Forgetting wars, it becomes a reason to gather those of like-mindedness to reinforce the tenuous beliefs they hold. Yes many religions preach embracement of all (hell, I think almost all do) yet their nature precludes this. What results is a club complete with secret handshake and decoder ring.

I would argue that 'like-mindedness' is a product of social evolution. Before mass transportation all most people ever experienced were those like themselves.

When there are multiple organizations running around perpetuating this same divisiveness we end up with one over-riding result: Polarization. It is this divisiveness, perhaps moreso on a personal level, that I bemoan more than anything else.

Like Americans and Britains promoting Democracy to the point where we try to 'liberate' nations who are clearly not ready for 'liberation'. Or Hitler and his anti-Semitic campaign. Or the KKK (even though they have religious roots, their 'hate' isn't religion driven). Or perhaps Gangs.

Polarization isn't religion based, religion is just a vehicle. If there wasn't religion it would be something else that separated us on mass scales. Like nationality maybe (oh wait, that already does separate us).

Yes, I've heard the argument, "Religion is just an easy target to point a finger at" but look at what's happening in the world today

I hate to keep driving the same point home, but this is the fault of the human being themselves again.

It's my belief that if such a day were to come, we'd not only have more compassion and charity for each other, in recognizing and accepting our mortality it'd become a supreme motiviation for cherishing each and every moment of our lives.

Now our beliefs may be separate us, but yours are hardly religious. However, I almost guarantee that our beliefs don't. Because we are rational enough to understand that differences are what makes life interesting.

There's something I learned early on that helped me keep my sanity: there are core beliefs that one should hold on to, and one should stick to these beliefs only after they have upheld personal scrutiny. After that all else is just fun and games.

[Holiday20310401]

Atheism is not believing in god right? Everybody here who is an atheist probably views god as completely illogical to believe in. I keep seeing people construe god with religion; believing that religion's immorality advocates for denouncing the existence of God. I belive in god but am completely against religion. I feel compelled to believe in god to be a representation of the transcendence mingled with the morality as a force of humanity that happens to be the best force to create virtue. But, religion has always created a false god in this sense; paganism, monotheism, etc. These idols that have a morality and basis for customs and reasoning that iare just plain out immoral do not represent god at all. Reading the bible demonstrates a lot of immorality like god evoking war.
Religion has always been about humans trying to use it as a moral influence to create a just cause for power.
God should be completely deviated from that, and therefore be a fundamental existence; the fundamental can have just as much potential as concrete.
So to base God as a parallel of the religion that announces it, is immoral, and to me atheism is a path that sort of comes forced upon from this stand point, like there is no god that corresponds to a 'sound' religion and culture. But most people here are basing the nonexistence of God as if religious implications should mean anything.
It is not important whether or not God has any concrete entity, that is irrelevant, God is the benevolence of humanity as an enlightening being of transcendence.
I'm never able to find the right context for this but, God is really a creation of fundamental essence envisioned by humanity's cognition to strive to keep it sane and benevolent, and moral; because the outcome of God is a virtuous biotic system. The outcome of religion is allegiance to faith, but ambiguous for many as to whether or not it is sound or not.
Religion should be about creating a lifestyle or 'culture' that demonstrates the way to be moral, sane, and benevolent; so as to create the most virtuous society.
If anybody disagrees I would rather see other's views because I would rather not offend anybody, I am simply stating a solution to what I believe is a harmful misconception.

[Holiday20310401]

Are you saying that the idea of god itself hurts humanity or the religions do? If god, then how?
This is in response to kethril's quote which is 'well recieved'.

[Aedes]

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

Honestly believing in a historical figure Noah who collected the animals, ect is silly. Bright kid to catch onto the absurdity; nine is very young to have such an independent intellect

That's the cool thing about kids. Nine year olds, if you read Piaget, are in the concrete operational stage of cognitive development. They think very pragmatically, which is why when they get together they spend more time on the rules than the game. So kids that age haven't really developed very abstract reasoning (though they're at the upper end of the concrete operational stage). Thus, they can ask extremely practical questions that can undermine all this abstract stuff we pontificate about.

[Khethil]

Originally Posted by de Silentio

Now our beliefs may be separate us, but yours are hardly religious. However, I almost guarantee that our beliefs don't. Because we are rational enough to understand that differences are what makes life interesting.

Well spoken. We obviously don't agree and that's ok; its the exchange that carries the worth. Despite my obviously strong feelings on the issue, I've come to a place in my atheism where I really don't want to change anyone's mind (as if I could!~), but I do enjoy a mature discussion that doesn't degrade into hostility. Thanks