Atheist Club. Begin.

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

Ditto science. In fact science is worse since it is almost universally accepted so few people would dare question it.

Yes I know that the basis of science is looking at how the world works and making refining and discarding theories.

That has nothing to do with the vast majority of people - amateurs - people on this website for instance - who will say this, that or the other is so because that's the conventional wisdom at the moment and science said so!

I think in spite of appearances we are almost on the same page. You use too many words for my liking.

You couldn't be more wrong about science. To prove my point, other than saying that science depends on the peer review process whereby people you dont know try to disprove what you are saying, take this statement:

Science is is the most consistently reliable way for assessing reality.

Note the words "consistently reliable." Think about what they mean. Let it sink in. Faith is not consistently reliable, even if it did work at all. If member of two opposing teams both have faith that they are going to win, how do you you recocile that only one will win? Is faith really consistently reliable?

 

[PKTrekGirl]

Actually, I opened this thread hoping to read some heartfelt stories about 'awakenings' - ie, along those very lines of 'why they become one', as you say. Or at least some rational discussions addressing the intellectual fallacies of religion. But with only a couple of exceptions (thanks, J. Allen, RAMA, and a couple of others - I have enjoyed reading those posts!), I'm just reading bitter diatribes about how "this or that 'religious person' made my life miserable".

Hardly productive, given that in most cases, an asshole is an asshole, with or without religion...and if you took religion away from them, they would only find some other way to justify their narrow-mindedness, their arrogance, or their bigotry.

Just like with anything else...if a person is fundamentally a jerkwad, they can turn pretty much ANYTHING into a Tool of Jerkwaddery - including, by the way, Atheism! To focus on the TOOL as the problem is only avoiding the issue: that the person USING that tool is, at their very core, a jerkwad. And would likely remain one in any event.

You didn't make this thread.
But I can see what your saying.

Nope. I didn't make this thread. But seems to me that sitting around acting just exactly like the people whose behavior you claim to despise (bitching about how 'they' are the problem, how 'they' don't know squat, how ignorant 'they' are, how 'they' don't respect my views) is sort of counter-productive, because such comments come off as the mirror image of...well...'them'.

Especially when you have people like myself reading the thread - people who are genuinely interested in contemplating some real reasons for embracing atheism. I mean, "Some religious person hurt me or disagrees with my politics, so WHAAAA!!" is not a good reason for embracing atheism. Atheism, to me, should be the result of a rational thought process. Not an emotional backlash against someone (specifically, a human being) who hurt your feelings or disagreed with your politics. In short, atheism should be about the issue of God - not about the church, or about people in the church, or about the politics of the church, or any of that. Because the church is not God. It is nothing but people. And NO ONE should 'believe' in people. Because people? Well, a whole lot of them are intolerant shitheads. Some of them religious intolerant shitheads who think everyone should think like they do, some of them non-religious intolerant shitheads who think everyone should think like they do. But all of them intolerant shitheads nontheless.

Anyway, as I commented earlier, I have really enjoyed reading some of the well-researched and thought-through ideas presented here - the intellectual discussions of the topic. And even the personal intellectual journeys that might have led a person to "no". Those have been very useful, and have caused me to think. Some interesting, and very worthwhile posts, those, and I really have a lot of respect for those making those kinds of arguments. I really hope to read more of those kinds....and less of the "I am an atheist because religious PEOPLE did XYZ." variety. Because what religious PEOPLE did has nothing whatever to do with the existence or non-existence of any sort of higher power/god/whatever you want to call it.

 

[auntiehill]

Actually, I opened this thread hoping to read some heartfelt stories about 'awakenings' - ie, along those very lines of 'why they become one', as you say. Or at least some rational discussions addressing the intellectual fallacies of religion. But with only a couple of exceptions (thanks, J. Allen, RAMA, and a couple of others - I have enjoyed reading those posts!), I'm just reading bitter diatribes about how "this or that 'religious person' made my life miserable".
..............................
Especially when you have people like myself reading the thread - people who are genuinely interested in contemplating some real reasons for embracing atheism. I mean, "Some religious person hurt me or disagrees with my politics, so WHAAAA!!" is not a good reason for embracing atheism. Atheism, to me, should be the result of a rational thought process.
Anyway, as I commented earlier, I have really enjoyed reading some of the well-researched and thought-through ideas presented here - the intellectual discussions of the topic. And even the personal intellectual journeys that might have led a person to "no". Those have been very useful, and have caused me to think. Some interesting, and very worthwhile posts, those, and I really have a lot of respect for those making those kinds of arguments. I really hope to read more of those kinds....and less of the "I am an atheist because religious PEOPLE did XYZ." variety. Because what religious PEOPLE did has nothing whatever to do with the existence or non-existence of any sort of higher power/god/whatever you want to call it.

Um...I really haven't seen anyone "crying" over how being ill-treated by religious people made them an atheist. It's just a chance for atheists to come together, really. It's hard, sometimes very hard, to be an atheist, particularly in my part of the country. Having a place to talk about it, and even joke about it, is nice. And I do joke about it a lot.

And I don't even remember "deciding" to be an atheist. I just always have been. My parents weren't religious; they taught me to look at the world and decide things for myself. They taught me their ethics and values, and as one would expect, a lot of this rubbed off on me. I was sent to religious schools as a teen, as these schools were the best available, and it was a huge shock to be thrown into this culture I did not understand. We then moved to Texas from the San Francisco area, which made it even worse. I was now the outsider in just about every way possible. I never mention my lack of belief to anyone, unless they specifically ask, because of the reactions I get 90% of the time. And trying to adopt and have social workers grill you about "how you expect to be given a child if you can't provide spiritual guidance?" Yes, I've had that conversation. I don't think any religious person has made my life miserable; it's just sometimes frustrating to have people betray you as evil or immoral (or whatever they happen to think) simply because you do not believe.

I can't describe any particular moment where it dawned on me that I had to "refuse" religion because it had never been thrust upon me to begin with. We had a Bible, a family heirloom, and I could look at it all I wanted when I was a kid, but to me it was just a book of stories.All I remember is finding it puzzling that people believed the stories so fervently, but in my very young mind, I equated it with the stories I'd heard about Santa Claus, leprechauns, ghosts, etc. They were fun to talk about, but deep down, I knew none of it was real. Religion in any form is a way of life that has always been completely, utterly alien to me. I looked at the world, saw how it worked, and realized that the "supernatural" simply did not exist.

I thought this thread was going to be a place to commiserate, not have to defend why I am the way I am. But I hope this at least explains it. My experience is probably rare, as I don't think many people in this country were brought in a similar fashion. But I could be wrong.

 

[Miss Chicken]

I remember the first time I realised I was an atheist though I didn't know the word and I might have already been an atheist before this. .

Someone gave me a chiildren's book of Bible stories. One of stories was Noah's Ark. It showed a picture of several people on top of a mountain with water all around. These people included children and babies in their mothers' arms. The Ark was sailing by and the people were obviously pleading to be rescued. However I realsied they weren't and I thought to myself "no God could be this cruel". So I put the book away with my mythology books and from then on I know I viewed Christianity in the same way as I viewed the Greek, Roman, Norse Gods etc.

 

[PKTrekGirl]

No. I don't agree. In fact, I think your position commits what social psychologists call the "fundamental attribution error."

All behaviour is the product of two things: character and circumstance. You're arguing that our behaviour is determined solely by character. That bad people just do bad things, no matter what they believe.

Nope. Never said that. And that is not what I believe. And further, I think that in your zeal to go on about psychology, you sort of lost interest completely in what I really said.

But just to clarify:
I believe that people of bad character can (and do), in fact, do good things. And people of good character can (and do), in fact, sometimes do bad things. No one is all one way or the other. And further, I will put forth my belief that circumstances often help to FORM character - the environment in which one is raised, for example, impacts character development in a huge way, and that is only one example. Finally, I will state my belief that it is utterly ridiculous to even postulate a theory that human behavior is so rigidly set on such immovable tracks, that NO circumstance can move a person in an alternative direction, counter to their fundamental character.

Human personality is not nearly as rigid as you are trying to imply I believe. And seriously - you are barking up the wrong tree, here, because as a CPA for a LOT of years, I have seen first hand, on a very personal level, how many, many people deal with all manner of issues surrounding their relationship with money - having it, not having it, having too much of it, wanting more of it, wanting others to think they have more of it, spending it, not spending it, generously giving it, greedily hoarding it, going thru it like water with nothing to show, using it to control others, being controlled by others using it. You name it. And believe me - NOTHING gives you a better window into human nature than watching what people actually DO when it comes to money, as opposed to what they say they believe. "Put your money where your mouth is!" = no greater line ever spoken, as far as I'm concerned. Because I have seen the whole spectrum of human behavior when it comes to that issue. Including, not at all incidentally, people of bad character doing 'the right thing' due to circumstance, and people of good character doing 'the wrong thing' due to circumstance.

However, all other things being equal, I DO believe that people of bad character will choose 'the wrong thing' MORE of the time than people of good character. I really felt that went without saying....but apparently you need it said, so I'm clarifying it here.

And these are the 'jerkwads' to which I primarily refer.

Doesn't mean they NEVER do or say anything good. But it DOES mean that fundamentally, they are jerkwads and we can expect jerkwaddery more often from them than from individuals of better character. And that these individuals who practice a high degree of jerkwaddery will often become very practiced at the use any tool at their disposal which will assist in justifying/rationalizing their bad behavior. And one of these 'tools' MAY be religion and/or the Bible (although not always - thus the difference between jerkwaddery as practiced within religion and jerkwaddery as practiced outside of it).

All I was trying to say here is that if a person is set on being a bigot, for example, he might well use the Bible, if he is able, to justify his actions. But if that Bible were taken from him, he would NOT instantly become a tolerant individual. Now would he? He would simply find another way to rationalize his behavior and beliefs.

You don't need a frakkin degree in psychology or a review of a case study to know THAT. Just educate yourself on the Bible and talk to a bigot for 10 minutes...and you can see first hand what his other rationalizations will be, once his Biblical 'positions' are defeated.

They don't need to justify their good behavior, of course...so that bit is pretty much moot and was not mentioned in my original discussion. But that does NOT mean I believe a person of bad character incapable of good in any circumstance.

Happy now?

 

[Amaris]

^ I agree.

 

[The Boy Who Cried Worf]

You post interests me. I never considered words in the context of communication. Words are obstructions that need to be removed in order to understand anything. Where can I find a person that knows no words, that I might have a word with him?

You use of 'appears to be' is correct since you misunderstood me.

Religion is dangerous because it allows human beings who don't have all the answers to think that they do.

Ditto science. In fact science is worse since it is almost universally accepted so few people would dare question it.

Yes I know that the basis of science is looking at how the world works and making refining and discarding theories.

That has nothing to do with the vast majority of people - amateurs - people on this website for instance - who will say this, that or the other is so because that's the conventional wisdom at the moment and science said so!

I think in spite of appearances we are almost on the same page. You use too many words for my liking.

Anyone who says science has all the answers doesn't know anything about science. If science did have all the answers we wouldn't have science anymore and since last I checked it is still going strong most scientists apparently believe there is a ton of things they still don't know.

 

[The Boy Who Cried Worf]

So, just to be clear, we're all getting together and patting each other on the back for how how much better we are than those stupid religious people, right?

On the contrary. I would absolutely reject the claim that adhering to or rejecting any particular belief system makes one intelligent(a sin I think on this board is most prominent among political liberals). There are plenty of intelligent believers and stupids atheists. The Rational Response Squad who were the Internet Atheist darlings a few years back were examples of stupid atheists. I respect the intelligence and reasoning of fundamentalist Christians like William Lane Craig and F.F. Bruce. C.S. Lewis is a man I find myself often agreeing with on non-religious matters. Even young earth creationists, the believers I have the least respect for, I would not say are universally stupid, but I do think they are people choosing to believe a dogma over established fact.

 

[Robert D. Robot]

Anyone who says science has all the answers doesn't know anything about science. If science did have all the answers we wouldn't have science anymore and since last I checked it is still going strong most scientists apparently believe there is a ton of things they still don't know.

I agree here VERY completely. Anyone who actually understands science (whether they work in it or simply have some interest in how science works as a tool for investigation) knows that science does not have all the answers, nor does it claim to (not to say that there aren't some arrogant individuals in science that would claim otherwise... they spoil it for the rest of us...). As a tool, it does assist us in the quest to find answers. And if you abide by science, even what we currently "know" is always up for revision.

This is not to say that some people do not understand and are living with some misconceptions. Actually believing that science has all the answers shows that the believer is making some misguided basic assumptions about the true nature of science.

 

[iguana_tonante]

Ditto science. In fact science is worse since it is almost universally accepted so few people would dare question it.

That has nothing to do with the vast majority of people - amateurs - people on this website for instance - who will say this, that or the other is so because that's the conventional wisdom at the moment and science said so!

I think in spite of appearances we are almost on the same page. You use too many words for my liking.

Gentlemen, I think we have found our new stonester1.

 

[Captain_Nick]

stop trollingme

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

We are not trolling you, man.

But you got to admit, implying science is worse than faith as a method of assessing reality is absurd. It actually deserves mocking. Unless you have faith alone that the doctors can help you with penicillin, or that it was faith alone that got rid of small pox.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Some time back, Wheaton posted an entry on his blog about how much he hates furries and gave some negative examples of his interactions with them at cons...

For a moment I misread that as "Whedon" and was preparing to nominate the guy for God Almighty.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

Wait, so because science isn't perfect, it's just as invalid and irrational as religion?



That's rich.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

But you got to admit, implying science is worse than faith as a method of assessing reality is absurd.

It's ridiculous enough to need no mocking.

Science is, at base, a method rather than a belief. There is no methodology worthy of the name associated with confirming supernatural beliefs.

 

[KJbushway]

Actually, I opened this thread hoping to read some heartfelt stories about 'awakenings' - ie, along those very lines of 'why they become one', as you say. Or at least some rational discussions addressing the intellectual fallacies of religion. But with only a couple of exceptions (thanks, J. Allen, RAMA, and a couple of others - I have enjoyed reading those posts!), I'm just reading bitter diatribes about how "this or that 'religious person' made my life miserable".

Hardly productive, given that in most cases, an asshole is an asshole, with or without religion...and if you took religion away from them, they would only find some other way to justify their narrow-mindedness, their arrogance, or their bigotry.


Just like with anything else...if a person is fundamentally a jerkwad, they can turn pretty much ANYTHING into a Tool of Jerkwaddery - including, by the way, Atheism! To focus on the TOOL as the problem is only avoiding the issue: that the person USING that tool is, at their very core, a jerkwad. And would likely remain one in any event.

You didn't make this thread.
But I can see what your saying.

Nope. I didn't make this thread. But seems to me that sitting around acting just exactly like the people whose behavior you claim to despise (bitching about how 'they' are the problem, how 'they' don't know squat, how ignorant 'they' are, how 'they' don't respect my views) is sort of counter-productive, because such comments come off as the mirror image of...well...'them'.

Especially when you have people like myself reading the thread - people who are genuinely interested in contemplating some real reasons for embracing atheism. I mean, "Some religious person hurt me or disagrees with my politics, so WHAAAA!!" is not a good reason for embracing atheism. Atheism, to me, should be the result of a rational thought process. Not an emotional backlash against someone (specifically, a human being) who hurt your feelings or disagreed with your politics. In short, atheism should be about the issue of God - not about the church, or about people in the church, or about the politics of the church, or any of that. Because the church is not God. It is nothing but people. And NO ONE should 'believe' in people. Because people? Well, a whole lot of them are intolerant shitheads. Some of them religious intolerant shitheads who think everyone should think like they do, some of them non-religious intolerant shitheads who think everyone should think like they do. But all of them intolerant shitheads nontheless.

Anyway, as I commented earlier, I have really enjoyed reading some of the well-researched and thought-through ideas presented here - the intellectual discussions of the topic. And even the personal intellectual journeys that might have led a person to "no". Those have been very useful, and have caused me to think. Some interesting, and very worthwhile posts, those, and I really have a lot of respect for those making those kinds of arguments. I really hope to read more of those kinds....and less of the "I am an atheist because religious PEOPLE did XYZ." variety. Because what religious PEOPLE did has nothing whatever to do with the existence or non-existence of any sort of higher power/god/whatever you want to call it.

I agree no-one should ever come to the I want to become non-religious for the wrong reasons. I thought about it and I explained here why I strengthened my non-believe.

 

[Sector 7]

I tried in my high school to start an atheist club, but never got the chance.
So here is my chance, welcome to trekbb's atheist club.
Come introduce yourself, you can be atheist, non-believer.
Come let of steam about issues you can't talk about else-where.
talk about your troubles, maybe you want to tell your family and you feel you can't.

You have as much right to be an atheist as I do to be a Christian. In my experience, the only difference is that I do not ridicule someone who is an atheist; however, every atheist I have known spends much time ridiculing those who believe in GOD. Hopefully, you are not one of them.

IDIC, y'all.

 

[iguana_tonante]

In my experience, the only difference is that I do not ridicule someone who is an atheist; however, every atheist I have known spends much time ridiculing those who believe in GOD.

I am the only one seeing the blaring contradiction in those statements?

 

[Shaytan]

This sthread is weird for a "club" of people who usually are very happy to not give a shit about those questions

I'm starting to think that a club of happy drinkers would be more fun.

 

[LitmusDragon]

I've mentioned it before in the thread, but as an Atheist I don't really see the point in proselytizing people (except maybe pointless arguing for entertainment value). Everyone already has all the information they need to become an Atheist. We've all been exposed to doctrine, just some of us choose not to believe in it.

Of course on the other hand I am not personally offended by people who hold religious beliefs. Religious organizations on the other hand, some of those I find offensive. Individual religious people though, not so much.