Theist or Atheist?

[Tatsu]

I can just speak for myself but for me that "root of evil" thing when it comes to organised religions comes from the countless wars (and other bad things like with hunt, inquisition, crusades or just the hassles in daily live for non-believers) in the past but also nowadays wars that are or were done in the name of the right god, the right believes or whatever. I personaly think that those believes are just an alibi for the real causes of the wars, like ressources and the usual stuff. Still, sending people into war for god sounds way better. Another thing is the daily brainwashing that is going on. Since childhood the believes of your regional religion get pushed into you and are named as the ultimate truth. I personally don't believe in god but I also think your believes (or what you don't believe) should come from your inside and in the end it's none of the other people's business. Still lots of people are just believers because it's common, because that's what they grew up with or what not. You get married in the church or get your baby babtised because that's the thing to do, not because you have the inner feeling of believing in the ritual. With lots of stuff (gay rights, how a family should be structured, the rules of men and women in society) the religious believes (god wants this and that, the bible (or the koran, or whatever other sources there are, depending where you live)) are named as points why other people should behave in a certain way. I personally don't mind if somebody believes that being gay is a sin and acts accordingly for his own life. But I fail to see why I should act accordingly to other people's believes since I don't feel like a god exists, and for sure not one that actually cares who is fucking with whom while on the other side of the earth people are dieing from starvation and while so much other shit is going on in our world.

 

For me personally organised religions were made up to keep people under controle. And it seems to work quite fine, either you act accordingly or this and that happens. None of it is proofable or disproofable but the less educated the people are the bigger is their fear. Another reason why I can't take organised religion in the way I know it seriously is the way it was created. Lofs of christian believes, figures, festivities, and legends are based on older religions. They were melted together to make Christianity attractive as offical believe in certain regions and that people would convert. I also think it's laughable if an institution like the catholic church (for example, the other institutions are not better or worse, the principle is more or less the same) sets high standarts what people should do but don't care to live by them themselves. That does not mean that, in christianity for example, every story in the bible is idiotic or people like Franz von Assisi are assholes. By far not, you can get good points from those believes and there were figures in the past who were amazing. But the whole concept of an organised religion is a scam for me.

[Padmapani]

Take me for example. My big big biiggg example was St Francis of Assisi... No question here, this guy existed and was a great spiritual influence for millions of people during almost 1000 years. He was influenced by Jesus, or that what was written about Jesus.

People like St Francis were, just like Buddha, and some other rare individuals, humans that could leave their ego 100% behind. They also wanted to spread love in an extremely good way. Because of him the first "hospitals" were started for instance.

yes of course. but as you say, that's not unique for christianity but rather universal for all religions and also valid for non-religious people or people acting independently of their religious beliefs.

 

also on the topic of what christianity has done for medicine: their caring for the sick (which led to the development of hospitals) of course was admirable and a great thing, but there's also the question of how people were thinking about diseases and the theories behind that. before christianity spread in europe, the greeks and romans made many advances in this field, had their own (for the first time in history non-supernatural, but of course also flawed theories on how disease works; the greek medicine also was sort of a template for some of the theories we now know as traditional-"asian"-medicines). but after christianity had become the dominant religion, the advances in medicine were mainly made outside of europe, mainly because the church-backed belief at the time was that diseases are either god's retribution for your sins or god testing you; also that the only way to get cured was through jesus and prayer, instead of taking the appropriate plant drugs that had been known to be effective for that kind of illness before. europe only started making advances in medicine again when we re-imported the ancient (roman and greek-based) scriptures from the arabic world a few hundred years later.

i think that our medicine would be a lot more advanced by now, if we had stuck with the roman gods

 

i'm very surprised now, i really didn't believe that i'd ever need the information from the utterly boring university course on the history of medicine ever again

[Panoptes]

Neither is yours.

 

 

So is mine.

 

 

Evidently.

 

 

Wow, what logical rhetoric. Clearly you're putting that education of yours to great use.

I know you don't have a strong argument against me but that doesn't mean you have to attack me personally. Lets keep it civil ok?

Enlighten me on how I'm acting like an extremist? Statistically atheists are smarter and less likely to become criminals. Your rapists preachers spread a binary worldview and threaten your every move with the flaming pits while encouraging you, like a donkey with a carrot, to be good with promises of eternal bliss. You agree with the halfwits who lived before the invention of the lightbulb. A time where the literacy rate was no more than 30%. They must have had it all figured out right?

[radi6404]

Panoptes, you talk about logic and objectivity but then say that athesits are generaly smarter and are less likely to do crime. That is such a generalisation and has nothing to do with religion. Whether someone is atheist or not has little to do with criminal activity, show me your evidence, that athesists are less liekly to do crime as people who believe in a religion. The only thing atheists don`t do is religious crime, but religion is not meant to be harmful anyway. Even the Islam is not meant to be harmful, it is the interpertation of some extremists that turn this religion in such a shadow and now you claim atheists are less criminal.

 

It is the other way round; atheists doing more crime as theists because they are colder in thinking. If you´d ask hard criminals if they are atheists or not, most would answer that they are atheists.

[angular_sound]

 

 

you can stop right there.

 

 

I find your reaction totally understandable and i would react exactly the same if i hadn't been in regular conversation with Kyle since 2006 : he's a longtime debunker of all conspiracy theories and only consult conspiracy theory and paranormal discussion groups to present his spiritual viewpoint wich DOES NOT make use of the supernatural.

 

And to get back to this topic i can say that i'm both a theist as i believe an advanced civilization can be a natural creative force in the universe and an atheist in the sense that i don't believe in the existance of any supernatural being such as those described by several religions.

[Panoptes]

Panoptes, you talk about logic and objectivity but then say that athesits are generaly smarter and are less likely to do crime. That is such a generalisation and has nothing to do with religion. Whether someone is atheist or not has little to do with criminal activity, show me your evidence, that athesists are less liekly to do crime as people who believe in a religion. The only thing atheists don`t do is religious crime, but religion is not meant to be harmful anyway. Even the Islam is not meant to be harmful, it is the interpertation of some extremists that turn this religion in such a shadow and now you claim atheists are less criminal.

 

It is the other way round; atheists doing more crime as theists because they are colder in thinking. If you´d ask hard criminals if they are atheists or not, most would answer that they are atheists.

All one has to do is look at the historical impact of religion. You're right radi, its not supposed to be harmful, its supposed to keep the masses opiated and subservient. Look up prison population religious affiliations and you'll notice that the top three in the States (which holds most of the worlds prison population) are protestant, catholic, and muslim. Atheists are below buddhists and mormons. As for atheists being smarter, I should rephrase my statement. The higher IQ one has the less likely he or she is to believe in god.

[ion1zed]

Panoptes, you talk about logic and objectivity but then say that athesits are generaly smarter and are less likely to do crime. That is such a generalisation and has nothing to do with religion. Whether someone is atheist or not has little to do with criminal activity, show me your evidence, that athesists are less liekly to do crime as people who believe in a religion. The only thing atheists don`t do is religious crime, but religion is not meant to be harmful anyway. Even the Islam is not meant to be harmful, it is the interpertation of some extremists that turn this religion in such a shadow and now you claim atheists are less criminal.

 

It is the other way round; atheists doing more crime as theists because they are colder in thinking. If you´d ask hard criminals if they are atheists or not, most would answer that they are atheists.

 

Where's your evidence?

[radi6404]

It depents how close people follow the religion. You have a point that religion earlier had more pressure on people, but religion was not the only thing having a lot of pressure on people. Any big force in a country had big pressure on people, kings, rulers, emperors. It is not only that religion had a big force on people earlier, other forces were strong earlier aswell, this is at least as far as I know.

[Panoptes]

It depents how close people follow the religion. You have a point that religion earlier had more pressure on people, but religion was not the only thing having a lot of pressure on people. Any big force in a country had big pressure on people, kings, rulers, emperors. It is not only that religion had a big force on people earlier, other forces were strong earlier aswell, this is at least as far as I know.

Religion was used to persuade people that killing was good during the crusades and hundreds of other occasions. "Kill the infidels because they don't believe in and respect our god" etc.... Dumb people are tricked into thinking they're doing good and so on.

[abasio]

I like my father's view on atheist vs religious morality.

That a moral atheist is more likely to be a truly moral person because he is not being moral just for some heavenly reward or fear of punishment but because that is what he thinks is right.

 

edit: he's catholic

[Rotwang]

I know you don't have a strong argument against me

Haha, very funny.

 

but that doesn't mean you have to attack me personally. Lets keep it civil ok?

Do you really think this is going to fool anyone? You're the one who called my religious beliefs (which I've barely mentioned in this thread, by the way) "lunacy", posted baseless stereotypes about my "type" and accused me of having sand in my vagina. But I'm the one who needs to keep it civil? Sure.

 

Your rapists preachers

Such civility.

 

spread a binary worldview and threaten your every move with the flaming pits while encouraging you, like a donkey with a carrot, to be good with promises of eternal bliss.

So you have no idea what Baptists actually believe, then? What a surprise.

 

You agree with the halfwits who lived before the invention of the lightbulb.

How silly of me - obviously everything people believed before the invention of the lightbulb was stupid. I'm sure that someone whose worldview is founded on logic would never believe in any pre-19^th Century superstitions such as gravity or calculus.

[Rotwang]

Glad to see smiley at the end . I don't know if it's belief itself, I think it's more about the way some folks are using it, the 'you're not believing in God, so you're going down' or 'my God has better apps than yours' type of people.

And what of the type of people who go around calling all believers "irrational", "cooks" [sic] etc.? Who accuse all religious folk of blind faith and dogmatism in the same breath that they state things they couldn't possibly know as if they were verifiable facts?

[ptn]

And what of the type of people who go around calling all believers "irrational", "cooks" [sic] etc.? Who accuse all religious folk of blind faith and dogmatism in the same breath that they state things they couldn't possibly know as if they were verifiable facts?

Yeah, those too. My statement was relating to Anoebis' post, 'there is no god, because I say so' people are also very enjoyable.

[desysko]

As some probably now, in my everyday job I am a history & Christian/Catholic religion teacher in high school.

 

Just wondering did you major in history? I've been thinking about getting into history for college and maybe teaching it. (I realize that this may not be related to the current discussion and sorry for any problems).

[Panoptes]

Do you really think this is going to fool anyone? You're the one who called my religious beliefs (which I've barely mentioned in this thread, by the way) "lunacy", posted baseless stereotypes about my "type" and accused me of having sand in my vagina. But I'm the one who needs to keep it civil? Sure.

 

 

Such civility.

 

 

So you have no idea what Baptists actually believe, then? What a surprise.

 

 

How silly of me - obviously everything people believed before the invention of the lightbulb was stupid. I'm sure that someone whose worldview is founded on logic would never believe in any pre-19^th Century superstitions such as gravity or calculus.

No.

 

Yes. Out with the old in with the new.

 

Yes I was raised Roman Catholic, being baptist isn't a radical change

 

No. But you're exaggerating my statement. When did I say nothing known back then was correct?

 

Trust me its nothing personal. I'm not saying these things to disrespect your beliefs. I see it as an obligation in some respects to help bring about the end of the abrahamic religions(and others) so my children's children don't have to deal with this crap. When I say your type I'm referring to individuals who are indoctrinated into theistic beliefs before they develop critical faculties. Happens to most of us unfortunately.

[Rotwang]

No.

No what?

 

Yes.

Yes what?

 

Yes I was raised Roman Catholic, being baptist isn't a radical change

Your rapists preachers spread a binary worldview and threaten your every move with the flaming pits while encouraging you, like a donkey with a carrot, to be good with promises of eternal bliss.

Baptists don't preach this. You have no idea what you're talking about.

 

No. But you're exaggerating my statement. When did I say nothing known back then was correct?

If you didn't mean to imply that nothing known back then was correct, then what exactly is the relevance of the fact that I agree with the "halfwits" who lived before the invention of the lightbulb?

 

Trust me its nothing personal.

It's nothing personal for me either. I'm just pointing out that your arguments are very stupid, that you're a hypocrite and that you don't possess even a superficial knowledge of the subject on which you're pontificating. For the children, you see.

[Panoptes]

No what?

 

 

Yes what?

 

 

 

Baptists don't preach this. You have no idea what you're talking about.

 

 

If you didn't mean to imply that nothing known back then was correct, then what exactly is the relevance of the fact that I agree with the "halfwits" who lived before the invention of the lightbulb?

 

 

It's nothing personal for me either. I'm just pointing out that your arguments are very stupid, that you're a hypocrite and that you don't possess even a superficial knowledge of the subject on which you're pontificating. For the children, you see.

no as in I don't intend on fooling anyone

 

I was joking around, yes such civility.

 

Right baptists don't have preachers. You still believe in Hell, heaven, and salvation... whats the difference? I really don't care enough to distinguish light gray from dark gray, its still damn gray.

 

How exactly am I being hypocritical? What "knowledge" am I missing rotwag. I find it hard to call info about cults knowledge. What am I so blind to?

[Rotwang]

no as in I don't intend on fooling anyone

That's not what I asked.

 

I was joking around, yes such civility.

Oh, that's fine then. You can say whatever you like and it'll be perfectly civil, as long as you're joking around.

 

Right baptists don't have preachers. You still believe in Hell, heaven, and salvation... whats the difference?

Baptists, like most other denominations that emerged from the reformation, believe in salvation through grace, not works. "[E]ncouraging you, like a donkey with a carrot, to be good with promises of eternal bliss" is nonsense.

 

I really don't care enough to distinguish light gray from dark gray, its still damn gray.

Right. All that matters to you is that Christians are definitely wrong, whatever the heck it is they're wrong about. What was that you were saying about my type being dogmatic?

 

How exactly am I being hypocritical?

You don't see a problem with calling for civility while you accuse me of having sand in my vagina and calling my friends rapists?

[Panoptes]

That's not what I asked.

 

 

Oh, that's fine then. You can say whatever you like and it'll be perfectly civil, as long as you're joking around.

 

 

Baptists, like most other denominations that emerged from the reformation, believe in salvation through grace, not works. "[E]ncouraging you, like a donkey with a carrot, to be good with promises of eternal bliss" is nonsense.

 

 

Right. All that matters to you is that Christians are definitely wrong, whatever the heck it is they're wrong about. What was that you were saying about my type being dogmatic?

 

 

You don't see a problem with calling for civility while you accuse me of having sand in my vagina and calling my friends rapists?

What are you asking ?

 

Right on.

 

So what one does, according to your belief doesn't impact whether you go to hell or not? If I don't confine my eternal faith in christ then I'm probably going to burn right? There's your donkey and carrot.

 

You calling me dogmatic tickles my pickle.

 

You're right on this one. Ten points for gryffindor?

[Panoptes]

All that matters to you is that Christians are definitely wrong, whatever the heck it is they're wrong about.

 

They're wrong about a lot of things. The church has held us back for millennia. Recent examples are stem cell research and LGBT equality. The list goes on. Missionaries used to baptize non-believers and kill them before they renounce the faith. This was done so they can be "saved." Some of you fetishize about the end of times and actively aim to bring it about. Don't forget the witch hunts, those were fun.

[Rotwang]

What are you asking ?

 

but that doesn't mean you have to attack me personally. Lets keep it civil ok?

Do you really think this is going to fool anyone? You're the one who called my religious beliefs (which I've barely mentioned in this thread, by the way) "lunacy", posted baseless stereotypes about my "type" and accused me of having sand in my vagina. But I'm the one who needs to keep it civil? Sure.

 

So what one does, according to your belief doesn't impact whether you go to hell or not?

Yes.

 

If I don't confine my eternal faith in christ then I'm probably going to burn right?

No.

 

There's your donkey and carrot.

It's not what you wrote, though, is it? See, if I were you right now I might take a moment to reflect on the fact that I wasn't familiar with the basic tenets of what I'd been calling "lunacy". But not you. You just soldier on.

 

You calling me dogmatic tickles my pickle.

Why? Are you suggesting that I'm the one who's dogmatic? If so, would you care to provide some statements of mine that you consider dogmatic? I could do the same for you, if you'd like.

[Panoptes]

 

 

 

Yes.

 

 

No.

 

 

It's not what you wrote, though, is it? See, if I were you right now I might take a moment to reflect on the fact that I wasn't familiar with the basic tenets of what I'd been calling "lunacy". But not you. You just soldier on.

 

 

Why? Are you suggesting that I'm the one who's dogmatic? If so, would you care to provide some statements of mine that you consider dogmatic? I could do the same for you, if you'd like.

I guess this is because baptists have varying views. So your morality isn't enforced by threat or reward?

 

What isn't what I wrote? Soldier on I will.

 

Yes, want proof? I haven't said much about my beliefs in the thread either, apart from displaying my distaste towards organized religion. I have no beef with "god" or spirituality.

Christian over here, raised C of E but now attending a Baptist Church.

[ouroboros]

 

As some probably now, in my everyday job I am a history & Christian/Catholic religion teacher in high school.

These kinds of discussion are very interesting and I have lots of them every year. But there is one thing that I simply can't get... Why do atheïst always have to "prove" and even "fight" to put their truth central!? And once you are influenced by something religious/Christian they are often declared "dumb" or "losers".

Take me for example. My big big biiggg example was St Francis of Assisi... No question here, this guy existed and was a great spiritual influence for millions of people during almost 1000 years. He was influenced by Jesus, or that what was written about Jesus.
People like St Francis were, just like Buddha, and some other rare individuals, humans that could leave their ego 100% behind. They also wanted to spread love in an extremely good way. Because of him the first "hospitals" were started for instance.

How can a human being say believing is dumb/stupid/bad/"the root of all evil" I even read here, when you follow that guy's philosophy?


ps: I am talking about Christianity here, I know some other religions have some more agression and less love-spreading inside of them
His writings, way of life and spirituality has a HUGE influence in my life. What is wrong with that? What can an atheist have against it?

st francis could just as easily have done what he did simply because it was a good thing to do. see thats a major issue i have with religion and spirituality. it dis-empowers people. his religious beliefs didnt do the things he did, HE did them. his religious beliefs were superfluous.

 

there is nothing religion provides humanity that humanity couldnt provide for itself, and probably do a better job of it. on the flip side of that religion is directly responsible for good people doing horrible things. it has never made horrible people do good things.

 

but this thread isnt about religion...its about the belief in a god or gods. religion stems from such belief, obviously, and my sentiment still stands.

 

there is absolutely zero reason to believe in any gods. which is why its called having faith, as faith is explicitly the belief in something for which you have no reason to believe.

i dont have faith...in anything. i see no value in it. i see no use for it. i see nothing which leads me to the conclusion that faith is something any human being should have about anything ever. especially when they are going to use that faith to belive in something which will shape the very way they live their life, and ultimately effect me personally.

 

if i believe something, i have a reason.

 

the world we live in has been at war for millennia, fulled almost exclusively by primitive superstition passed down generation to generation like some kind of cognitive virus. superstitions created by illiterate goat herders and frightened old men in a feeble attempt to gain some semblance of control over their environment. it has no value to us as a species and only holds us back.

 

just imagine how wonderful a world we could live in if people just lived their lives as if it was all they had. no worrying about offending a vengeful god, no hatred towards others because they arent pious enough, no judging people based on such meaningless things like what kind of food they like to eat or who they like to fuck.

 

how much more precious does our time here become once we see that its probably all we get?

 

[ouroboros]

[Rotwang]

I guess this is because baptists have varying views.

On this point Baptists agree with all major Protestant and Anabaptist denominations (and with Paul's epistles, for that matter).

 

So your morality isn't enforced by threat or reward?

Correct.

 

What isn't what I wrote? Soldier on I will.

You didn't write "If I don't confine my eternal faith in christ then I'm probably going to burn right? There's your donkey and carrot." until after I pointed out that Baptists believe in Sola Fide. You wrote that my preachers "encourag[e me], like a donkey with a carrot, to be good with promises of eternal bliss." You were wrong.

 

Yes, want proof?

 

[...]

 

Christian over here, raised C of E but now attending a Baptist Church.

 

Is this supposed to be an example of a dogmatic statement I've made? A post in which I dispassionately say what my religion is, in response to the question of what my religion is? Do you know what the word dogmatic means? Let's have a look at the third definition given there, shall we?

 

3: Asserting dogmas or beliefs in a superior or arrogant way; opinionated, dictatorial.

There is no god nor eternal bliss. After death you rot into the ground. Arent these things obvious? Its very sellfish and immature to have blind faith in this stuff.

O, and once you're dead, you are done. Non of that afterlife hocus pocus, I'll leave that to the cowards who can't face and accept their inevitable demise.

But I'm the one who's dogmatic? Sure...