Pages: 1 2 3 4 5

 

Poll

Would the world be better off without atheists

Yes32%32% - 29
No. ( Yes, your just lying to yourself)67%67% - 61
Total: 90
2007-12-21 13:46:58
topthrill05
Member
+125|7015|Rochester NY USA

CameronPoe wrote:

topthrill05 wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

Why do atheists hate people who actually have faith in something?

I wouldn't say 'hate', I'd say 'look down upon'...

or 'seem to be more intelligent than' if you want to be really accurate.

[Flamewar]
I used to have respect for you. (Not that you care) But that statement changed my mind.

Not that I took offense, far from it. You just sound like a total fuck tard.

[FlamesThrown]
It's called joking topthrill05. I didn't mean it.
Well now I feel like a dumbass. Sorry of the mix up.

[Hands you some water to put out the flames]
2007-12-21 13:49:12
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|7019|SE London

stef10 wrote:

I base it on my own opinion and basic philosophy-If a thing came out of nowhere it has no meaning because there is not a creator with an idea for a product.
Why not?

What is this obsession with meaning anyway? Why do people try to attach meaning to everything? I suppose it's just a typical mental trait, an attempt to rationalise things in an easily comprehensible way.

If all of this is based on your personal philosophy, am I to assume that you believe in a God that is not described by any religion? Or have you just adopted someone else's philosophy? If you are not affiliated with any particular religion, then fair play to you, you believe what you believe independently and for your own personal reasons, which is something I can respect - blindly following someone else beliefs just seems mind bogglingly naive and closed minded to me.
2007-12-21 13:50:33
krazed
Admiral of the Bathtub
+619|7217|Great Brown North
this thread makes me lol
2007-12-21 13:56:21
stef10
Member
+173|6919|Denmark

Bertster7 wrote:

stef10 wrote:

I base it on my own opinion and basic philosophy-If a thing came out of nowhere it has no meaning because there is not a creator with an idea for a product.
Why not?

What is this obsession with meaning anyway? Why do people try to attach meaning to everything? I suppose it's just a typical mental trait, an attempt to rationalise things in an easily comprehensible way.

If all of this is based on your personal philosophy, am I to assume that you believe in a God that is not described by any religion? Or have you just adopted someone else's philosophy? If you are not affiliated with any particular religion, then fair play to you, you believe what you believe independently and for your own personal reasons, which is something I can respect - blindly following someone else beliefs just seems mind bogglingly naive and closed minded to me.
Its my idea, and I believe in a God from a religion, because that just seems reasonable to me.
2007-12-21 14:01:57
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|7019|SE London

stef10 wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

stef10 wrote:

I base it on my own opinion and basic philosophy-If a thing came out of nowhere it has no meaning because there is not a creator with an idea for a product.
Why not?

What is this obsession with meaning anyway? Why do people try to attach meaning to everything? I suppose it's just a typical mental trait, an attempt to rationalise things in an easily comprehensible way.

If all of this is based on your personal philosophy, am I to assume that you believe in a God that is not described by any religion? Or have you just adopted someone else's philosophy? If you are not affiliated with any particular religion, then fair play to you, you believe what you believe independently and for your own personal reasons, which is something I can respect - blindly following someone else beliefs just seems mind bogglingly naive and closed minded to me.
Its my idea, and I believe in a God from a religion, because that just seems reasonable to me.
It's not your idea, it's someone else's. It's your decision to support their beliefs, and to have faith in them, but it's not your idea. The very notion that it is is absurd.

If the ideas contained in any of the major religions seem reasonable to you (as fact), then you must be rather naive/gullible/mental.

Last edited by Bertster7 (2007-12-21 14:03:18)

2007-12-21 14:03:36
stef10
Member
+173|6919|Denmark
Take a couple of ideas so I can analyse.

its my idea about the philosophy part-did not take it anywhere else.

Last edited by stef10 (2007-12-21 14:05:37)

2007-12-21 14:11:10
SenorToenails
Veritas et Scientia
+444|6567|North Tonawanda, NY
This thread is ridiculous.  How can some of you guys actually say you "look down on" all religious people?  To say that anyone whose beliefs are different from yours is somehow less than you is so blindingly arrogant that it's disgusting.

On topic:  No, atheists as a group do not hate religious people.  It's just a few dickheads who call themselves atheist that make a bad name for the rest.  It's the same situation with any large group of people.
2007-12-21 14:26:10
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6842|North Carolina
I have a controversial and somewhat condescending idea that I must share.

I think religion overall is a good thing, but not for reasons you'd likely suspect.

I'm an atheist, but I believe most people just aren't capable of living in a sensible (at least vaguely moral) way without religion.  People need these ideas to give them hope and security in a fucked up world.  It's all too easy for most people to see the short nature of life and either contemplate suicide or just act out in selfishly evil ways if they have no deity to guide them toward some code of conduct.

Now, I didn't always feel this way, but the more I examine China, the more I understand how an atheist authoritarian government works.  A lot of previous governments ruled over their people via religion.  They found some way to link an authority figure with the god(s) in question, and voila, you have a person for which people are supposed to submit to.  Using brute force is the simplest means of controlling people, but if you can get them to believe the people in power are there because of God or whoever else up in the sky, then you have a much more thorough control over them.

Well, Marx took note of this and wanted to create a society whereby people would simply work together and not be troubled by religion, but he was a pretty naive guy if you think about it.  Lenin and Mao took his ideas and turned them upside down.  They figured out that if you take away religion altogether, you can essentially leave out the deity part and make yourself out to be a god.  That's basically how Kim Jong Il runs things right now, and while the Chinese government is much more subtle, it still maintains many similarities to the North Korean regime.

Basically, without religion or any hope beyond this life, you can make people more scared of death than they otherwise would be.  See, if you believe in some afterlife or reincarnation, death is ok, because you have a shot at starting over or finding some salvation through faith or benevolent actions.  If you're an atheist, death is just nonexistence.  About the only thing people fear more than nonexistence is eternal damnation, so basically, an atheistic authoritarian government can very successfully force people to follow its rules because they fear death.

Now that groups like the Falun Gong are rising in popularity in China, the government fears that their control over the people is slipping.  This is why they massacred the Falun Gong a few years ago.  Millions were killed (and organs were harvested) in an attempt to prevent this faith from spreading.

Anyway, what this all comes back to is that most people fear death to the point that they either need a religion to follow to give them hope (and a sense of morality) or they don't have a religion but instead do whatever is necessary to stay alive (like bowing down to oppressive leaders and such).

Given the poor state of much of the world right now, I think it's a good thing that so many people are religious, because it at least makes it more challenging for governments to control them.  Sadly, most people are still going to be controlled by one group or another, but in many cases, I'd rather they let an ideology or church control them than a government.

Granted, my feelings on the Islamic world are a bit different for obvious reasons.  They could stand to become a little more secular, if you ask me.
2007-12-21 14:33:09
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|7019|SE London

Turquoise wrote:

I have a controversial and somewhat condescending idea that I must share.

I think religion overall is a good thing, but not for reasons you'd likely suspect.

I'm an atheist, but I believe most people just aren't capable of living in a sensible (at least vaguely moral) way without religion.  People need these ideas to give them hope and security in a fucked up world.  It's all too easy for most people to see the short nature of life and either contemplate suicide or just act out in selfishly evil ways if they have no deity to guide them toward some code of conduct.

Now, I didn't always feel this way, but the more I examine China, the more I understand how an atheist authoritarian government works.  A lot of previous governments ruled over their people via religion.  They found some way to link an authority figure with the god(s) in question, and voila, you have a person for which people are supposed to submit to.  Using brute force is the simplest means of controlling people, but if you can get them to believe the people in power are there because of God or whoever else up in the sky, then you have a much more thorough control over them.

Well, Marx took note of this and wanted to create a society whereby people would simply work together and not be troubled by religion, but he was a pretty naive guy if you think about it.  Lenin and Mao took his ideas and turned them upside down.  They figured out that if you take away religion altogether, you can essentially leave out the deity part and make yourself out to be a god.  That's basically how Kim Jong Il runs things right now, and while the Chinese government is much more subtle, it still maintains many similarities to the North Korean regime.

Basically, without religion or any hope beyond this life, you can make people more scared of death than they otherwise would be.  See, if you believe in some afterlife or reincarnation, death is ok, because you have a shot at starting over or finding some salvation through faith or benevolent actions.  If you're an atheist, death is just nonexistence.  About the only thing people fear more than nonexistence is eternal damnation, so basically, an atheistic authoritarian government can very successfully force people to follow its rules because they fear death.

Now that groups like the Falun Gong are rising in popularity in China, the government fears that their control over the people is slipping.  This is why they massacred the Falun Gong a few years ago.  Millions were killed (and organs were harvested) in an attempt to prevent this faith from spreading.

Anyway, what this all comes back to is that most people fear death to the point that they either need a religion to follow to give them hope (and a sense of morality) or they don't have a religion but instead do whatever is necessary to stay alive (like bowing down to oppressive leaders and such).

Given the poor state of much of the world right now, I think it's a good thing that so many people are religious, because it at least makes it more challenging for governments to control them.  Sadly, most people are still going to be controlled by one group or another, but in many cases, I'd rather they let an ideology or church control them than a government.

Granted, my feelings on the Islamic world are a bit different for obvious reasons.  They could stand to become a little more secular, if you ask me.
So, you're saying religion is a control, for the greater good?

I agree to an extent, but I wouldn't say it's actually for the greater good, more for the convenience of those who established each religion - who were typically people with a degree of political significance, in which case what is good for society makes their lives easier. I'd say that is a part of it.
2007-12-21 14:40:37
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6842|North Carolina

Bertster7 wrote:

So, you're saying religion is a control, for the greater good?

I agree to an extent, but I wouldn't say it's actually for the greater good, more for the convenience of those who established each religion - who were typically people with a degree of political significance, in which case what is good for society makes their lives easier. I'd say that is a part of it.
Well, of course, it depends on the religion and the interpretation.  Like I hinted at, there are many interpretations of Islam that literally produce no good for this world.  The same could be said of certain forms of Christianity or any other religion.

I guess what I'm saying is...  in terms of control, religion is often the lesser of two evils when compared to government.

I strongly believe in Nietzsche's ubermenschen and untermenschen concept.  I believe most people are naturally untermenschen who will find themselves controlled in one way or another, and I'd rather they listen to their preacher more than any particular politician.  Granted, there are many preacher-politicians now (like Huckabee), which is why many governments (like my own) have become so messy.

I don't see religion as inherently good or bad, but I do see certain aspects of it as good, like how it can restrict the behavior of people who would otherwise act in irresponsible or evil ways.
2007-12-21 14:44:25
twiistaaa
Member
+87|7106|mexico

Mitch wrote:

First of all, if god wanted people to believe in him, he should just fucking prove himself. Free will, yeah right, he gives you 'free will' and then sends you to hell for making the wrong choice.
as well as not asking us if we actually want this life in the first place. he makes us knowing we are already going to hell? wtf? lol.

Last edited by twiistaaa (2007-12-21 14:44:47)

2007-12-21 14:46:27
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|7019|SE London

Turquoise wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

So, you're saying religion is a control, for the greater good?

I agree to an extent, but I wouldn't say it's actually for the greater good, more for the convenience of those who established each religion - who were typically people with a degree of political significance, in which case what is good for society makes their lives easier. I'd say that is a part of it.
Well, of course, it depends on the religion and the interpretation.  Like I hinted at, there are many interpretations of Islam that literally produce no good for this world.  The same could be said of certain forms of Christianity or any other religion.

I guess what I'm saying is...  in terms of control, religion is often the lesser of two evils when compared to government.

I strongly believe in Nietzsche's ubermenschen and untermenschen concept.  I believe most people are naturally untermenschen who will find themselves controlled in one way or another, and I'd rather they listen to their preacher more than any particular politician.  Granted, there are many preacher-politicians now (like Huckabee), which is why many governments (like my own) have become so messy.

I don't see religion as inherently good or bad, but I do see certain aspects of it as good, like how it can restrict the behavior of people who would otherwise act in irresponsible or evil ways.
Excellent points.

But the controls imposed by a government are determined by society (typically). It will be a collaborative effort subject to review. Religion is not subject to the same controls. Which is the problem I have with the controls imposed on the "untermenschen" by religion.
2007-12-21 14:50:18
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6842|North Carolina

Bertster7 wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

So, you're saying religion is a control, for the greater good?

I agree to an extent, but I wouldn't say it's actually for the greater good, more for the convenience of those who established each religion - who were typically people with a degree of political significance, in which case what is good for society makes their lives easier. I'd say that is a part of it.
Well, of course, it depends on the religion and the interpretation.  Like I hinted at, there are many interpretations of Islam that literally produce no good for this world.  The same could be said of certain forms of Christianity or any other religion.

I guess what I'm saying is...  in terms of control, religion is often the lesser of two evils when compared to government.

I strongly believe in Nietzsche's ubermenschen and untermenschen concept.  I believe most people are naturally untermenschen who will find themselves controlled in one way or another, and I'd rather they listen to their preacher more than any particular politician.  Granted, there are many preacher-politicians now (like Huckabee), which is why many governments (like my own) have become so messy.

I don't see religion as inherently good or bad, but I do see certain aspects of it as good, like how it can restrict the behavior of people who would otherwise act in irresponsible or evil ways.
Excellent points.

But the controls imposed by a government are determined by society (typically). It will be a collaborative effort subject to review. Religion is not subject to the same controls. Which is the problem I have with the controls imposed on the "untermenschen" by religion.
Well of course, but what makes all the difference is that religion is usually a voluntary thing.  While familial and societal pressures are involved, a country like mine or yours allows people to decide for themselves what to believe in.  If they willingly choose to let religion control them, then that is their freedom.  There are multiple levels of control as well.  As for myself, I just chose not to follow any religion while still keeping a distrustful eye toward the government.
2007-12-21 15:02:57
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|7019|SE London

Turquoise wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Turquoise wrote:


Well, of course, it depends on the religion and the interpretation.  Like I hinted at, there are many interpretations of Islam that literally produce no good for this world.  The same could be said of certain forms of Christianity or any other religion.

I guess what I'm saying is...  in terms of control, religion is often the lesser of two evils when compared to government.

I strongly believe in Nietzsche's ubermenschen and untermenschen concept.  I believe most people are naturally untermenschen who will find themselves controlled in one way or another, and I'd rather they listen to their preacher more than any particular politician.  Granted, there are many preacher-politicians now (like Huckabee), which is why many governments (like my own) have become so messy.

I don't see religion as inherently good or bad, but I do see certain aspects of it as good, like how it can restrict the behavior of people who would otherwise act in irresponsible or evil ways.
Excellent points.

But the controls imposed by a government are determined by society (typically). It will be a collaborative effort subject to review. Religion is not subject to the same controls. Which is the problem I have with the controls imposed on the "untermenschen" by religion.
Well of course, but what makes all the difference is that religion is usually a voluntary thing.  While familial and societal pressures are involved, a country like mine or yours allows people to decide for themselves what to believe in.  If they willingly choose to let religion control them, then that is their freedom.  There are multiple levels of control as well.  As for myself, I just chose not to follow any religion while still keeping a distrustful eye toward the government.
Today, that is the case. Traditionally, it was not. Religion is such a prevalent part of culture because it was mandatory for so long, along with the thematic elements that appeal to people (which all religions have, and are yet another reason to be distrustful of them).
2007-12-21 15:05:24
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6842|North Carolina
True...  I can't say that I trust religion either, but so far, it still doesn't quite have the power over my life that government does.  Granted, the Religious Right may end up changing that....

Last edited by Turquoise (2007-12-21 15:05:51)

2007-12-21 15:06:36
Graphic-J
The Artist formerly known as GraphicArtist-J
+196|6563|So Cal

DoctaStrangelove wrote:

Stalin, Mussolini, Hitler and Moa would cease to exist. That would be a good thing.
https://i44.tinypic.com/28vg66s.jpg
2007-12-21 15:26:52
Lai
Member
+186|6588
I'm a convinced third generation atheist and one of my better friends is a rather fanatic Jehova witness who believes I'm being ruled by Satan. She also said at some point she basically wasn't allowed to talk to me. On elementary school I took bible lessons, I've been to a Jesuite high-school (chapel and priests included), went to a Greek Orthodox service in the monastery I was staying and last week attended a Russian liturgical concert.

The fact that we atheists are allowed to hate, doesn't mean we always do



konfusion wrote:

What the fuck? I'm an atheist, I don't hate anyone except my ex right now...
I actually thing it's pretty cool that you can believe in something - because I can't get myself to believe in any god/higher power.

-konfusion
True, religion can provide comfort in the most desperate situations. I believe in chivalry as a system, but rather than providing comfort it just drives you further to despair when at some point you'll find yourself having to act even though strongly against your own health



The reason I do not believe in God can perhaps be best discribed by an example. A friend of mine once told me he was Catholic,.. I laughed. Not because he said he was Catholic, but rather because he said HE was Catholic. Not a bad guy at all, but if you'd know you'd understand. I asked him why. He said because it was baptized. I said that it was folly to consider yourself to be following some religion for a choice your parents made before your brains had even properly developped. He told me that in the end it was just about living up to certain rules. I asked him if that was what he believed (not that I found him wrong though), he might just as well call himself a Muslim or practisioner of any other religion that proclaims roughly the same rules. He said yes.

So the reason I do not believe in God is that I do not need a God to be a "good person", that I should not need a God to prescribe me these rules and I demand of myself that I be able to adhere to an unwritten code under any situation. It's a personal thing and everyone should decide for him/herself how they want to reach that goal, through religion, discipline or whatever. I often find that my personal values coincide more with those of religious people than with those of "fellow atheists". Perhaps it is because many who you call atheists aren't atheists at all; the application of the term "atheist" to a person suggest he/she has thought about it. Many of the moral-less people simply have not thought about it. There are immorals among "atheists" as there are hypocrits amongst people of all religions.
2007-12-21 16:24:07
TeamOrange
Don't be that guy
+84|6748
I don't think faith should be in politics, otherwise do as you please
2007-12-22 00:58:22
Drakef
Cheeseburger Logicist
+117|6799|Vancouver

stef10 wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

stef10 wrote:

I base it on my own opinion and basic philosophy-If a thing came out of nowhere it has no meaning because there is not a creator with an idea for a product.
Why not?

What is this obsession with meaning anyway? Why do people try to attach meaning to everything? I suppose it's just a typical mental trait, an attempt to rationalise things in an easily comprehensible way.

If all of this is based on your personal philosophy, am I to assume that you believe in a God that is not described by any religion? Or have you just adopted someone else's philosophy? If you are not affiliated with any particular religion, then fair play to you, you believe what you believe independently and for your own personal reasons, which is something I can respect - blindly following someone else beliefs just seems mind bogglingly naive and closed minded to me.
Its my idea, and I believe in a God from a religion, because that just seems reasonable to me.
Reason would not accept blind faith. Do you have faith, or logic? Faith would involve a committed idea that there is a god, without a possibility of being wrong. Of reason, there is little within that idea. It is possible that you have reasoned that there is a good chance of a god, as a logical conclusion, but you will admit that you may be wrong.

Either will find debate with atheists. Faith is difficult to accept for an atheist, because to allow for faith withholds reason. But, if you do reason that there is a god, atheists will debate whether that is reasonable, whether it is over an Abrahamic (or other human-based) god or over another one entirely. The religions that we are familiar with are often targeted by atheists, because there is little reason in these religions. The ones that do not provide as much detail find less debate, but are nevertheless something to be argued over.

Summarily, it is the ideas of reason and science that are behind atheism. I would be loathe to abandon reason to begin faith, because there is little reason to, as evidence. As I used as an example, I would not be so quick to believe in unicorns with faith, instead only with logic (the unicorn example is not mine, by the way, but thank you for the compliment. It is an oft-cited example by a fellow atheist). I would prefer to wait until we have deciphered more truths by means of science. It may not be in my lifetime, but it would be intellectually dishonest to abandon reason for faith because we do not know the truths- As it would be to believe lightning is a god throwing a weapon. Even hundreds of years ago, never mind all human history, that idea of the origin of lightning was believed until the modern world figured it out.
2007-12-22 01:04:42
fadedsteve
GOP Sympathizer
+266|6928|Menlo Park, CA
Why do people of faith think because they have a faith they somehow know more about life then those who dont . . . . .??

Why do they also think their morality is superior and just because their faith tells them that they are right. . . .??

I am a baptised Episcopalian, but I am by no means a bible thumper and the only time I go to church is on the holidays (with the family). People who argue about religion can be summed up by this sentence. . . .My imaginary god is better than your imaginary god, cause my god says so!!
2007-12-22 01:05:03
Defiance
Member
+438|7108

Any thread about religion (even barely slightly remotely related) boils down to the same argument.

Would the world be better without athiests? Yes.
Would the world be better without religion? Yes.
Would the world be better without religious nutjobs, whilst still allowing religion and athiesm and any knockoffs? Obviously, yes. I guess that's the same as asking for a little respect for one another over such trivial matters such as which book one reads, but someone with a lack of faith in humanity such as mine cannot say that without crying.

/cry.

fadedsteve wrote:

Why do people of faith think because they have a faith they somehow know more about life then those who dont . . . . .??

Why do they also think their morality is superior and just because their faith tells them that they are right. . . .??
The exaggeration to match yours is "people of faith can believe whatever the hell they want because they have faith." Faith, to me, is simply believing in something without any sort of basis of that belief. Otherwise, it would be called reason.

Last edited by Defiance (2007-12-22 01:06:47)

2007-12-22 01:05:50
GunSlinger OIF II
Banned.
+1,860|7081
the world would be better off without people
2007-12-22 01:11:54
Soldier-Of-Wasteland
Mephistopheles
+40|7093|Land of the Very Cold
Meh, I'm atheist, and I do respect whatever others believe in. My gf believes in God, and i'm super fine with that.
2007-12-22 01:12:05
madmurre
I suspect something is amiss
+117|7147|Sweden

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

the world would be better off without people
So true
2007-12-22 10:37:46
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6842|North Carolina

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

the world would be better off without people
Gunslinger wins again... 

 

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard