Atheism
Posted 22nd August 2009 at 05:37 AM by Tansy
To me its what has always made sense realise it isn't the popular view of the world.
What I really wonder is why people of religious belief are so riled up and full of hatred for those of opposing beliefs, but those that don't believe have nothing to fight over?
I mean if there is only one god - who's is it?
What I really wonder is why people of religious belief are so riled up and full of hatred for those of opposing beliefs, but those that don't believe have nothing to fight over?
I mean if there is only one god - who's is it?
Total Comments 11
Comments
-
I don't believe that this is true, and I will tell you why. I used to be an atheist for many years, but I eventually began to suspect that something was missing from my life, that somehow my belief system was inadequate. At that time, I had decided that Christianity was full of contradictions and did not make any sense, so I decided to check out some other religions instead. I came across Buddhism, and I found it very interesting, although it didn't turn out to be what I had expected.Quote:What I really wonder is why people of religious belief are so riled up and full of hatred for those of opposing beliefs, but those that don't believe have nothing to fight over?
I cannot tell you what most Buddhists think about other religions, but I have read many articles and heard speechs by a considerable number that advocate spirituality, even if it comes from different religions. In fact, many Buddhists seem to acknowledge that their religion is not for everyone.
But that is just one example. When I got around to deciding that I was unwilling to commit to Buddhism, I considered Humanism, which you probably know about. Many atheists these days seem to be Humanists, although I am aware that being an atheist does not make you a Humanist. Anyway, I went to some forums and read some articles, and I became discouraged. Many of the Humanists took a militant anti-theist stance which I found distasteful, spiteful, and narrow-minded. What's more, they seemed to put too much emphasis on attacking Christianity in particular. The fact that there was a bias in their attacks was also disheartening. (There's a difference between anti-theists in atheists, to my mind. Atheists merely reject religion, while the anti-theist believes that religion must be abolished.)
I have learned through experience that many atheists are just as narrow-minded as some of the most hypocritical Christians. Many of the books written by anti-theist (The God Delusion, God is Not Great), conveys intense animosity towards religious ideas, much more so than you would ever find on typical televangelist channels. Read those books and tell me atheists have nothing to fight over.
One of my points is: people will be people, and there will be idiots, bigots, and hypocrites in every religion or "life-stance".
You could say, "So what, many atheists hate religion. But at least they don't bicker among themselves like so many Christians do!" This isn't true. There are many atheists with dramatically different philisophical beliefs. Some are moral relativists, others are moral objectivists. Some are nilhists, some are Objectivists. The only thing that all atheists share in common is their rejection to religious ideas.
I personally don't find atheism very sensible, because I think skepticism (rejecting what isn't proven) is unhealthy, because anything can be doubted and I believe that having no faith can quite possibly lead to madness.
There are people in this world that have convinced themselves of very strange things. Some people reject the reality of existence. And then there are the solipsists, who believe only in their mind. For all I know, their belief-system may be rather consistent. I may not have the intellectual prowess or the knowledge to disuade some of them, but I don't believe they are correct, and I think the important thing is that you believe in the right thing and have a healthy mindset. If you're belief-system fills you with despair, then change it.
I am also disheartened by the philisophical materialism which seems prevelant with many scientists and atheists today. There are many atheists and scientists that believe that nothing exists which can not be observed or tested, that what results in their experiments is not more than the sum of its parts. I think that the most important things in life can not be fully understood analytically or scientifically. If you believe that the only reliable knowledge is scientific knowledge, than you are missing something much larger and more important than a body of systematically researched knowledge. You would be missing life itself.
You will have to make that decision yourself. I am sorry, but I don't know of any better way to answer this question.Quote:mean if there is only one god - who's is it?
If you would like to continue this discussion, feel free to send me a PM. I won't mind.Posted 23rd August 2009 at 10:48 AM by Creabots
Updated 23rd August 2009 at 11:41 AM by Creabots (Clarification) -
I put it to creabots, that by defining science as materialistic, you're missing the point of science. As ideologies go, the scientific method is a pretty amazing thing. The pursuit of understanding by hypothesis, proof of the hypothesis, and building upon that understanding to reach even further onwards - the idea that through pooling our understanding and discoursing on them can propel us forward, together.
Now, far be it from me to suggest that the scientific community manages to live up to this ideal, entire. Humans are just as capable of weakness and cruelty as they are kindness and strength, and although there are many of us who hold true to what discipline we can, there are many who tarnish the profession.
However, as an ideology, as something to have faith in, Science is right up there with the whole pantheon of mystical magical beings who roll dice to decide our fates.
It's a tad disingenious to start tossing the argument about that without a God to worship, you're missing out. I'd like to know what the most important things in life that exist outside of the purview of science are, but before getting an answer, I'd like to ask any replying party to turn off their water, their electricity, cancel their healthcare, get rid of their car and everything else that the scientific method in application has produced for them because presumably none of that is important to them.
Just thinking about all this gets me worked up, because I already know the responses, and I also know that I could type my fingers down to stubs and none of it would make any difference because people will still harp on about the power of faith over proof, and because of that people will continue to be made to suffer.Posted 23rd August 2009 at 02:42 PM by mygoditsraining -
I think when people get the idea into their heads that the know something that someone else doesn't, they want to share it. Sometimes the need to share gets taken over by the need to prove and ultimately the need to force their knowledge on to others. This goes for theists and athiests alike, and for scientists and polemicists and children. I think it probably goes in the package with conscious intelligence.
Not everyone shoves their dogma down other people's throats, of course, but (surprise surprise) the ones who do are the ones you hear most from
Posted 24th August 2009 at 12:20 PM by Interference -
I think appreciation and acceptance of both objective and subjective views on reality are paramount for a full understanding of the Universe. I think it is unwise to try and separate them, as it is unwise to get attached to any specific doctrine/ belief, be that a religious or an atheist one. Buddha said: To be attached to a doctrine, even the Buddhist one, is to betray Buddha.
Why limit yourself when you can have it all?Posted 24th August 2009 at 01:26 PM by katiafish -
To be honest I am quite happy believing what I believe without coercing others, other people can believe in whatever they like as long as it doesn't cause them to hurt other people.
I abandoned finishing the God Delusion as while he makes some good points Richard Dawkins starts to sound like those heis dismissing and to me that isn't what I am about, however, even at an early age I was chased out of Sunday school for asking too many questions they couldn't answer!
I think no matter whatever your belief system you have a right of freedom to follow it, if if leads you to break any laws that hurt others then you should be dealt with, other wise carry on as you see fit.
It just annoys me when you hear the ex leader of a super power stating that those who aren't Christian have no morals especially when the founding fathers of his country signed a declaration that was teh government of said country should be secular, and I can't abide the hatred and intolerance that having a different viewpoint, on religion, particularly brings.
No matter your belief I'm with Karl Marx, it is a form of control.. maybe some people need it to moderate their excesses or help them cope, me I answer for myselfPosted 25th August 2009 at 08:00 PM by Tansy - Actually, I'd have no issue with Christians at all if they would read their book and try to get a better grasp of what the Christ was saying. Yes, I know, it's love your neighbour this and the weak will inherit that, but it's also look not to the needs of tomorrow, and by golly that's a profound and difficult notion to embrace. But He did embrace it and lived it (except for a wobbly bit right at the end, but He soon recovered His composure) and if you want to enter the Kingdom of True Enlightenment (or Heaven, as some folk call it), that would be a very good place to start.Posted 25th August 2009 at 09:14 PM by Interference
-
I'm recommending to everyone I get the chance at the moment (who I think might be interested) to read "The Case for God" by Karen Armstrong. Which is a badly chosen title in my view, as it doesn't attempt to persuade anybody that God "exists" - its main point is that even to say God "exists" is to seek to define God, which is a nonsense. It's a brilliant read that outlines where our modern religions have come from, and transcends both aetheism and deism in a very modern, and at the same time ancient (!) way.Posted 26th August 2009 at 10:53 PM by HareBrain -
I don't think the universe owes me an afterlife, but I'm owed an explanation. Common courtesy and all that...Posted 29th August 2009 at 06:52 AM by J-WO -
The explanation is:
Because I Said So.
That sounds like an interesting book HB - maybe the title was chosen in the (probably vain) hope that close-minded religious people would read it and get their mind widened? (I am not implying or stating that all religious people are close-minded btw in case anyone wants to get annoyed.)
Personally I believe everyone should follow their own path. Some people need religion, of whatever kind, and some people don't. It would be nice if everyone could "live and let live" but lets face it there are pushy people of every persuasion. Oh well.Posted 1st September 2009 at 09:46 AM by The Procrastinator - I suspect the concept most of us have of God is meagre in comparison with what the term was originally intended to represent.Posted 18th November 2009 at 11:43 AM by Interference
- Procrastinator, I think the title was probably chosen by the publisher to give the appearance that the book is part of the sales-generating religion-v-Dawkins "debate", when in my view it is something more subtle altogether.
Agree totally that those who feel the need to follow a religious path, whether through social or personal or genetic influences, should do so, but they should get rid of any idea that this choice is somehow superior to atheism. And vice versa.Posted 18th November 2009 at 07:08 PM by HareBrain
