You know why I am an atheist?

[TZ]

Because I watch too many good people I care deeply about suffer for no good reason. If there is a god (which obviously I don't think there is) he is a cruel entity.

[Boojatta]

1. Are you referring specifically to physical pain or are you referring to various kinds of suffering?

[TZ]

6. emotional...n/t

[Boojatta]

8. There are various kinds of emotional suffering.

For example, the character Raskolnikov in Crime and Punishment eventually suffers shame. Would the world be a better place if it were impossible for people to suffer shame regardless of their actions?

[texastoast]

2. I guess that is as good a reason as any

But then, if he/she fixed everything, would there be any free will at all?

[cyborg_jim]

34. What's so great about free will?

A standard Christian theology is that in Heaven free-will is either non-existent or unnecessary which makes it's value on Earth dubious.

[texastoast]

35. Right

It is just my opinion that "God" can't be blamed for stupid human choices. And whether or not you call it God (Christians saying God does it all and that we really have no free will), free will for humans does exist.

[cyborg_jim]

72. What type of free will?

If "God" is responsible for the physical rules of the universe then the only way he couldn't be blamed for stupid human choices is if those choices are ultimately arbitrary - i.e. if free-will is inherently random.

[texastoast]

77. No, if it is based on physical, then it would be concrete and thus not free

But then for me, you get to the argument of what is thought, assuming that the exercise of free will is based on thought.

[cyborg_jim]

78. How does the non-physical allow free-will?

If it operates on rules it is bound and ordered.

If it does not operate on rules it is free and chaotic.

Doesn't really matter what you call it. Saying, "thought gives me free will" is meaningless unless substantiated.

[texastoast]

79. Thought gives free will

to manifest in the concrete.

I'm thinking of picking up this pencil. My thoughts come from a concrete brain, but they are not ordered unless I use my will to choose to order them. Now I can choose to pick it up or not, and all the while I'm thinking about it, my will is just waiting for directions based on my thoughts. The will is separate from the thoughts and yet dependent on them. Once I think I'm going to pick it up, the concrete fingers are directed by my will to do so, or not. So even if my thought is to pick up the pencil, it is my will that directs the concrete to carry out that thought.

[cyborg_jim]

80. Does it?

Now I can choose to pick it up or not

And you arrive at this choice how? The mechanics of the central nervous system in directing the messages to your finger to enact the decision aren't relevant - the question is how you arrive at decisions and what it means for those decisions to be "free".

[texastoast]

81. You arrive at those decisions

by the thought process in a conscious state. And it only means what you choose for it to mean.

[cyborg_jim]

82. That's about as ambigious as it gets.

If you can't tell me what free will is how about what would characterise something that doesn't have it?

[texastoast]

85. There is no "meaning" to free will

Does that help? Anything "means" whatever we choose for it to mean. Free will just is. A tree just is. Now to some people a tree "means" shade, habitat, oxygen. To the next person, that same tree can "mean" leaves to rake, shading of flowers so they don't bloom, or a nuisance blocking the view.

Now one can choose not to exercise free will (and let Jim Jones tell you what to do, or follow a religious doctrine in contravention to one's own best interest), but even those choices to "give up" free will is one of free will. I don't know if I'm helping here.

[cyborg_jim]

88. Then it is as meaningful for me to say free will doesn't exist

I mean, you analogise to a "tree" as if somehow it were an impossible concept to pin down.

You say, "a tree means shade, habitat, oxygen," - well none of those things are exclusive to trees so they aren't exactly indicative of its particular nature.

"Leaves to rake," is a cultural attachment - i.e. it's an activity that arises as the consequence of the existence of trees which is undergone by humans. It is again not indicative of the nature of trees.

"Shading of flowers," is a consequence of the physical presence of trees in the competition of plants for sunlight to photosynthesize. AS it is for blocking a view. It still doesn't tell us much about the nature of tress itself.

You've talked around the tree, about its consequences on other things and impact on human culture but you've not even made a simple and imprecise statement like, "trees are tall, have a main trunk with lots of branches coming off it and leaves at the ends of these branches."

Thus far you have basically simply made a synonym out of "free will" and "choice" or "thought". It's just not going anywhere: apparently free will is just something "that is" - as any fule kno'.

[texastoast]

90. Yay!

That is exactly it!! You have the free will to reject anything and everything, accept as "truth" anything that you "believe,"and attach any meaning to anything.

[cyborg_jim]

92. Right - and so we're back to before where I asked HOW such a decision is made

You may choose X or Y. How does free will decide whether to choose X or Y?

[texastoast]

93. Free will does not do it

YOU do it. You HAVE free will. You exercise free will using what humans call choice utilizing the physical parts (neurons, synapses, etc.) (sometimes involuntarily at the outset as noted in one of the threads below) that perceive our definition of reality. As to the how part of the question, I guess joyously, resentfully, capriciously, whatever.

The YOU part of this is perhaps another discussion: Who/what is the driving force inside the physical? Is that YOU predestined to make the choices made? Is every reality present for use to choose among and will one exercise of free will change every single aspect of reality, at least within six degrees of Kevin Bacon?;-)

[cyborg_jim]

94. That is still a tautological statement

YOU do it. You HAVE free will.

Right - so under what circumstances would I NOT have free will so that I can distinguish what it is?

[heidler1]

83. How does that work with sexual arousal? How does it work with thirst,

going to the can. These things are beyond free will as you explain it, but consistent with most other animals.

[texastoast]

84. You choose

You can harness your mind to be conscious of that cocktail of hormones coursing through a horny body and know that those hormones are driving you, perhaps unconsciously. Once you examine that, you can choose what you want to do about it. People "are" not horny: they "have" horny, but a lot of times we think we "are." :loveya: (Notice the bugged eyes on the smiley? Yep, effect of hormones.)

Same with thirst. You can choose to drink water or not. If you don't for long enough, your body will shut down. Depending on one's sense of self-preservation, most folks will go find water, spit, urine, blood, plant juice, or whatever to preserve life. If you are stranded in the desert with no water, your choices are not to drink water and you have to act on that in whatever way. Some folks choose to sit still and die or sacrifice themselves for the life of another. Others choose to look for cactus and juicy bugs. YOUR will, freely exercised, will determine the consequences.

One of the sticking points in this for a lot of folks has to do with something like a child murder victim. Where is the free will in that? For the victim and the perp? Because surely no one would "choose" to murder a child nor would a child choose to be murdered. That one I take on faith, but faith for a lot of folks is not comfortable, nor even rational, and that is understandable. But it works for me on that (and that is a whole nuther thread).;)

[heidler1]

86. With arousal you have already picked up the pencil.

Your organs swell in preparation with out choice and with no conscious effort. Plus it is normal for a man to unconsciously give sexual needs some control about every 52 seconds for the young and viral. This happens even while you sleep, but perhaps less often. Some men can probably resist arousal, but those men may be have erectile dysfunction.
http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,23852554-952,00.html

[cosmik debris]

87. I was waiting for just the right time to post this.

http://www.landoverbaptist.org/2008/june/penisquestion.html

[heidler1]

89. I'd like to know why the kid needed a extra pair of pants.

How long do you suppose they keep these kids in the dark? I've seen dogs that would get a hard on if you played with them; because they were left alone too much, locked up in the back yard.

I thought that father in Austria, who built a basement room so as to have a sex slave of his daughter and she had his kids was bad, but this sounds worse to me. Did you ever hear what Church the Austrian belonged to?

[texastoast]

91. That's physical

Due to the hormonal cocktail (so to speak). That has nothing to do with free will. You can choose to master your cocktail using your will. And some people do that subconsciously in their sleep (wakeful dreaming). It depends on the level of mindfulness.

[DaveJ]

3. I'm not a frequenter of this group, but...

It's clear to me, that even those of faith indirectly indicate their beliefs are fictional. Most (except the most extreme) believe that there are many paths to God. I think * even said something like that. Well, then if everyone can pick their own path, and while they're at it believe in their own God, and all these Gods are different... seems obvious that it's all fiction. At the same time it's a necessary fiction for many. When I see people without direction ruining their lives with immoral socially destructive behavior, I wish that someone would have taken them to church every week to at least make them think about things a little more. I feel like I'm a better person for having been made to go as a kid, even though I don't believe it is real.

[Zebedeo]

12. Jesus was apparently one of the "most extreme."

Most (except the most extreme) believe that there are many paths to God.

Jesus said: "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." John 14:6

[varkam]

14. Jesus *allegedly* said.

Allegedly is an important word.

[DaveJ]

15. I agree... and he was quite effective apparently.

One must also consider the possibility that such statements may have been taken out of context.

If he was surrounded by folks who frequent underage slave brothels, for instance, well, comparatively speaking I might have wanted to say the same thing myself.

Those who believe those words literally are also extremists. Although I may be wrong, I would guess most Christians do not think that way.

[uberllama42]

18. I point this out frequently

but polls consistently show that between 45-55% of Americans believe that God created the world as described in Genesis, less than 10,000 years ago. I'm sure there is not an exact correlation between taking that story as literal and taking the entire bible as literal, but I'm also not willing to dismiss offhand the notion that a very large number of people read things like the verse from John at face value.

I can't speak to the context because I haven't read most of John. It may mean something quite different in context.

[Book Lover]

23. Yes, Zebedeo, that is what is written

Other things that are written say that there are many paths to God. How can one choose from these different writings?

[Zebedeo]

32. I'll adhere to what was said

by the dude who walked on water, raised Lazarus from the dead, changed water into wine, healed the sick, gave sight to the blind, cast out demons, claimed "I and the Father are one," was crucified and killed, arose from death, revealed Himself to many people, and then ascended into Heaven.

To the extent "other writings" contradict what this dude said, I'll disregard these "other writings."

But that's just me.

[Book Lover]

33. Fair enough

No one can say that you are inconsistent.

[MikeH]

69. If I were uncritical and totally selfish

If I were uncritical and totally selfish, I just might gladly accept God's so-called "gift" of "salvation" which can be obtained only by "accepting Christ", according to the so-called "word of God", aka the Bible.

However even if I accept such "gift" for purely selfish reasons, i.e. for fire insurance, or for hope of some kind of glory in the next life, I absolutely cannot and never could accept any obligation to worry about whether others are "saved" or "unsaved", and to tell others about the need to accept Christ, motivated by the concern that if I am derelict in my supposed obligation to tell others about Christ, they are liable to go to hell. I reject any such duty or obligation with all my being. I don't see how one can get any joy or enjoyment out of life if one has to have in the back of one's mind that others are either "saved" or "unsaved", and are going to hell if they happen to die "unsaved".

And I reject any so-called "gift" from God which is going to be denied to someone who, for whatever reason, happens to miss out on accepting Christ in this lifetime, or denied to someone who happens to guess wrong by adhering to a religion other than Christianity, or denied to an "unsaved" murder victim but given to the murderer if the murderer later "repents" and "accepts Christ".

Jesus allegedly walked on water, raised Lazarus from the dead, changed water into wine, healed the sick, gave sight to the blind, cast out demons, claimed "I and the Father are one," was crucified and killed, arose from death, revealed Himself to many people, and then ascended into Heaven. And Jesus allegedly said "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." John 14:6. We don't really know that he actually said and did these things.

Zeb said: To the extent "other writings" contradict what this dude said, I'll disregard these "other writings."

In other words, Zeb is simply guessing that the Bible is the correct "revelation" from God, and by guessing correctly, he is going to go to heaven. Those who guess wrong by following "other writings", according to Zeb, are headed to hell.

The Bible was written by fallible human beings, and I consider the Bible to exhibit human fallibility and human prejudice just like anything else that has ever been written. I don't see any reason to regard the Bible as some special source of absolute truth, not to be questioned.

Regarding the original post, I would consider myself to be a Deist. I have some philosophical reasons that I have trouble with accepting that our reason, intelligence, and moral sense are not rooted in some intelligence or some reality higher and greater than ourselves. (Though I admit that that might be just me.)

However by being a Deist, I do not adhere to any of the "revealed" religions, i.e. Christianity, Islam, etc. Deists consider any alleged revelation of God, such as the Bible, the Koran, etc., to be at best second-hand, or hearsay. And I am fully with them about that.

As far as Christianity itself is concerned, I tried it once, and even apart from my issues above which apply most specifically to fundamentalist Christianity, I found that my supposedly having had a personal relationship with Jesus Christ had been of no help to me in enabling me to deal with anything in my life that was a source of pain, frustration, or unhappiness in my life. Thus I came to feel that it was the right thing for me to part company with the Christian faith, and to absolve myself of any obligations specifically imposed by the Christian faith (as opposed to those incumbent on any good or moral person). I am as certain as I am of anything that that was the right and healthy decision for me.

[uberllama42]

17. I almost never went to church as a kid

And I think I turned out just fine. I learned empathy and compassion from my parents, who love me and cared for me as a child. I never learned a damn thing in church. It's totally possible that it helps a lot of people, but it's far from necessary.

[DaveJ]

19. What's with the attitutude?

It's obvious I never said it was necessary to go to church to be a good person. If that were my opinion, I would have stated it.

What I'm wondering is what you meant by saying "I never learned a damn thing in church." Why the expletive? It just seems sort of disrespectful to any church goers who might be reading it.

I seriously did not mean any disrespect to atheists by making mention of people who are immoral who didn't go to church as kids. If I did something wrong, blame me, but not church goers. I don't even go myself anymore, so don't blame them.

[uberllama42]

22. I don't mean to blame you for anything

I just don't think that there is a very high correlation between going to church and learning to be moral. Like I said, I'm sure it helps some people, but I have known many people who were brought up to be religious but are not notably moral.

My dissatisfaction with church doesn't apply to or override positive experiences that others have had. I don't think using the word "damn" deprives anyone of any benefits they derive from church attendance. I'm sorry if that offended you, and it was not my intention to do so.

All I did was disagree with the notion that church is a reliable method or moral improvement, and I really don't think I was that harsh about it. I don't mean to say that what you said was evil, I just don't think it's accurate.

[DaveJ]

25. At least I think I know our one point of disagreement:

I think if one could take a 'gang banger' back in time and put him in a family that took him to church every week, he would have turned out better. It's just an opinion and backward time travel is impossible, so there is no way to prove it. It just seems like common sense to me, having met a lot of losers who have no ability to think about moral issues and go around doing idiotic and criminal things, just out of ignorance.

If once can't learn morality in the home, a church is a good substitute.

Other than that, I think we agree on most everything.

If it helps, I'm also sure that if the guy would have had good atheist parents, he would have turned out better too. And if he would have had bad Christian parents, he would have turned out bad. Etc.

[Goblinmonger]

30. I would argue spurious relationship

If you take that same gang banger and put him with the same family that did everything the same EXCEPT that they took him to church every week, do you think he would have turned out differently just because that ONE variable was different? I don't think so.

Take him back in time and put him with a family that communicates with him, lives in an environment not conducive to gang related activities, spends quality time with him, sets goals and expectations for achievement and behavior, but DOESN'T go to church and I bet you will still see a better kid.

Church isn't the causality, it is an indication of a third variable.

[Zebedeo]

36. There's a song

by John Michael Montgomery that touches on this issue:

The Little Girl

Her parents never took the young girl to church
Never spoke of His name
Never read her His word
Two non-believers walking lost in this world
Took their baby with them
What a sad little girl

Her daddy drank all day and mommy did drugs
Never wanted to play
Or give kisses and hugs
She'd watch the TV and sit there on the couch
While her mom fell asleep
And her daddy went out

And the drinking and the fighting
just got worse every night
Behind their couch she'd be hiding
Oh what a sad little life
And like it always does, the bad just got worse
With every slap and every curse
Until her daddy in a drunk rage one night
Used a gun on her mom and then took his life

And some people from the city took the girl far away
To a new mom and a new dad
kisses and hugs everyday
Her first day of Sunday school the teacher walked in
And a small little girl
Stared at a picture of Him

She said I know that man up there on that cross
I don't know His name
But I know He got off
Cause He was there in my old house
and held me close to His side
As I hid there behind our couch
The night that my parents died


You might not agree with the message of the song, but it is a beautiful and touching song.

[trotsky]

39. Yeah, beautiful and touching.

If you think that stereotyping and bashing non-believers is beautiful and touching. You should be ashamed of posting such hate speech. PLENTY of church-going wife beaters in the world, Zeb.

[Zebedeo]

41. There is an inverse relationship

between church attendance and domestic violence. Or don't you believe in science?

Among the key findings: (1) regular religious attendance is inversely associated with the perpetration of domestic violence; (2) among men, this protective effect is evident only among weekly attenders, whereas among women, the protective effect also surfaces among monthly attenders; (3) although the estimated net effects of religious attendance are generally somewhat larger in models of self-reports of domestic violence, this link also remains strong and statistically significant in models of partner reports of violence; and (4) moreover, the inverse association between religious attendance and abuse persists even with statistical controls for measures of (a) social integration and social support, (b) alcohol and substance abuse, and (c) low self-esteem and depression.

On edit, see also this study.

[trotsky]

42. Sure, that's science. Just like "the Bell Curve" was "science."

Bigotry and prejudice wrapped up in a nice pre-defined study to guarantee the researcher's pre-determined conclusion. Sad to see you are still spreading hatred in the name of your savior, Zeb.

[Zebedeo]

43. Quite an accusation

Can you back it up?

You've just called a bunch of people bigots, including W. Bradford Wilcox of the University of Virginia Sociology Department, Nicholas H. Wolfinger of the University of Utah Department of Family and Consumer Studies, Christopher G. Ellison of the University of Texas at Austin and Kristin L. Anderson of Western Washington University. Plus all of the researchers who published the "several recent studies" that are mentioned in these publications.

You have anything to back that vile accusation up, or is it just more of your B.S.?

And, since these scientific results are merely driven by "bigotry and prejudice," you will easily be able to find numerous articles by real scholars condemning this bigotry and prejudice, and reporting the "real" truth about the matter, won't you?

[trotsky]

44. I only need to ask you to read the WHOLE STUDY itself.

Have you done so? Did you note the particular religious group in which the researchers noted an INCREASED correlation between religiosity and domestic violence? Surely if you've read the whole study and understand it so thoroughly, you will be able to tell me which group that is. Go ahead.

[Zebedeo]

45. Which study?

I don't have access to the full one on the Blackwell Synergy site. It says you have to have a subscription.

[trotsky]

46. Aw, bummer.

Kinda silly to quote a study that you think backs you up when you haven't even read the whole thing. Especially when you yourself are part of the one group that said study finds bucks the "trend" they found.

[Zebedeo]

62. Lutherans?

Let's see, you said that the study was:

Bigotry and prejudice wrapped up in a nice pre-defined study to guarantee the researcher's pre-determined conclusion

And now, you are touting the study? What does that say about you?

Shameful.

[trotsky]

64. Hardly.

Just turning it right back on you. If you don't like some of the results, then you should be ashamed for pushing the study.

[moggie]

61. On the other hand...

Quoted from "Sexual Abuse in Christian Homes and Churches" by Carolyn Holderread Heggen:

A disturbing fact continues to surface in sex abuse research. The first best predictor of abuse is alcohol or drug addiction in the father. But the second best predictor is conservative religiosity, accompanied by parental belief in traditional male-female roles. This means that if you want to know which children are most likely to be sexually abused by their father, the second most significant clue is whether or not the parents belong to a conservative religious group with traditional role beliefs and rigid sexual attitudes. (Brown and Bohn, 1989; Finkelhor, 1986; Fortune, 1983; Goldstein et al, 1973; Van Leeuwen, 1990)

[Goblinmonger]

48. I had two reactions to the lyrics

1. Same as trotsky's. I'll let him continue.

2. If Jesus has the ability to intervene, why didn't he do something a little earlier? How about do something to stop the drug/alcohol addiction? It's just all too convenient.

And before you shake your head and go off on some version of the god-shaped hole in my heart, it isn't true. I find many things very moving. I cried a slow mournful cry while I read Blindness and the exploration of human's inhumanity toward other humans juxtaposed amid a small group finding their humanity in the oddest of places. I cried an emotional release while I watched the Mia Michaels choreography on So You Think You Can Dance tonight. And I have cried tears of joy when my son won his final match at wrestling nationals this spring. None of them had anything to do with visions of Jesus.

Evoman, my crying doesn't make me any less of a man you beaner prick.

[Zebedeo]

63. Why doesn't God stop drug/alcohol addiction?

God could stop all self-destructive and harmful behavior by making it impossible. But then people would have no choice. We can see the consequences of such behavior. Maybe in this life, we can learn something about how to treat one another. I hope so.

[Goblinmonger]

67. So why'd he stop that kid

from getting shot by her dad? Wasn't that choice by the dad cut short? In my opinion, once you tell stories that your god gets involved in interventions, there is a pretty slim argument for free will.

[Zebedeo]

68. He didn't.

He just comforted her behind the couch, where she hid in such situations in the past. Read the lyrics, man.

[Goblinmonger]

74. Well, on second read, I guess you are right.

I assumed this was a Jesus saved me thing.

But if all he did was hold her, what's the big deal? Anyone could have done that who was there. And doesn't it seem like Jesus goes through a lot of crap materializing and all just to hold some kid? Why didn't he just send mind bullets to a neighbor to go over there and comfort the kid?

Basically, aside from the atheist-hating nature of the song, it is pretty much just claptrap.

[Evoman]

75. I wonder what would have happened if the dad had looked for the little

girl instead of just shooting himself. Would Jesus have run off like a wuss, or would he have defended her. He should defend her....it's not like bullets can hurt Jesus anyways. Unless they are silver bullets. But what is the chance the gun had silver bullets?

[Evoman]

55. Yeah...touching.

A little girls dad commits a murder-suicide. Such an endearing song.

Oh, but she is going to church now. Yay. And Jesus was there while the dad blew out the mom's brain in a drunken rage. How nice of Jesus to hold her while her parents died.

That drunken murderer of a father reminds me so much of my atheist dad. Well, except for the drinking thing. Oh, and the beating of the wife thing. Oh, and the slapping and cursing thing. He occasionally spanked me, but I don't remember a slap. Also reminds me of my grandpa the atheist. Except for him being an intelligent, kind man.

But they never took me to church. Or told me about Jesus. I had to read that myself, and judge the merit of the book without brainwashing and with a fully devoloped intellectual adult brain. However, I'm lost in the woods. So now I'm gonna have to kill my girlfriend and then kill myself.

But first, I'm gonna have a shot of whiskey. I haven't drank any alchohol for over 3 years, but its a good time to start.

[charlie]

56. The song's author checked into chemical rehab last month

Drearily predictable, innit? It's always the pious ones who make the baby Jesus cry.

[Evoman]

57. Haha..your kidding, right? THAT'S RICH.

I mean, I'm sorry that the guy is a substance abuser. It sucks for him and I'm glad he is in rehab.

But c'mon....

[charlie]

58. Yep. Message received.

Love Jesus and don't do drugs or you'll wind up rich and drying out in an addiction spa.

At least he didn't so far as to choose Hell. That was a disaster averted and reason to rejoice.

[DaveJ]

49. I never argued against a 3rd variable

Yeah, there may be a 3rd variable. If parents had taken this bad kid to church every week, it would have required some self discipline on their part. Maybe that's it.

I think religion is punishment against mankind's stupidity.

As was pointed out earlier, maybe 50% of Christians literally believe that non-Christian will go to Hell. That's really stupid, IMHO, and those are exactly the people who I would rather be going to church than not. I'd really hate to think what they would do without any spiritual help.

So, it may sound weird, but I have upmost respect for those who can acknowledge they believe in something they cannot PROVE. At least I know where those of faith stand. I know that atheists believe on something that's non-prove-able, but I don't know what that is, and more curious is that I doubt they know either.

[ohioINC]

4. everlasting conscious torment is not supported in scripture

Hell is the same as death. Those who go to hell only suffer in that they did not recieve immortality and therefore are punished eternally. There are other reasons to be atheist. Just remember our friends the catholics conscientiously translated manuscripts in order to create the idea of everlasting torment.

[Double T]

5. Don't blame the 'GREAT SPIRIT' for ALL the evil and ills of mankind.

The collective populations known as 'Humans' are responsible for a lot of their own suffering.

[Warpy]

7. Why I am an atheist

I have simply never seen any proof of interference by an all powerful being, benevolent or malevolent, and thus consider the whole idea irrelevant.

My lack of belief comes from a lack of evidence, which in turn generated a total lack of interest.

I don't get to make the rules for anyone else, and your own belief or lack of it ends at the surface of your skin, too.

[DaveJ]

11. Non-atheists (deists?) teach moral ideas

That's why I at least have some respect for theology. Even if one considers some of those moral ideas wrong, at least they involve deep moral thinking, which is something that more people can use in their everyday lives. I don't think it necessarily ends at the surface of their skin.

So, while I've never been to England, I believe it is there. I also have the mental ability (like all humans do) to believe in things I know are not real -- after all, as some like to say, "what is real anyway." (I took Philosophy 101 once)

Wouldn't most deists (not sure if that's the right word) say God transcends our notion of reality? If I wanted to be with folks who were to ask me if I 'believe' I would be able to say yes with full confidence. On the other hand if they got really obnoxious about it I might walk away.

[Warpy]

29. Morals or ethics?

The truth is that most atheists have arrived at a system of ethics by thinking things through. Do we want to live in the kind of world where everybody lies? Cheats? Steals? Kills? What the religious think of as a code of rules handed down by some god or other the atheist has arrived at through reason. They're the same rules, by and large, minus the silly ones aimed at control.

Not only that, but the believer delays judgment until after death. The atheist faces judgment every time s/he looks into a mirror.

I honestly don't care what theists or deists might say, it's really none of my business. I can only tell my own reality.

[DaveJ]

52. It's all the same then

Atheists seem to base moral their moral concerns on their lack of belief. A theist bases their moral concerns on belief.

Same difference, except one has an 'a' before it.

Others have no morals. Those are the ones who need help.

What concerns me is that a theist can admit they believe, and an atheist doesn't.

I'm not trying to be derogatory toward atheism, just trying to provoke thought. I want people to be good, and a good atheist is as good as a good theist. But, why not acknowledge that one can believe? I know atheists believe. They believe in their lack of proof, for instance. They may have read some other book, like Homer's Odyssey and believe in that without saying it. What's so hard about someone saying they believe? It's not taking anything away from what's already there.

[Warpy]

73. You missed the point

Atheist ethics came about because atheists thought things through and decided that a world where people treated each other like shit was probably going to be a shitty world in which to live.

There's no real belief there, just thinking things through.

Morality, on the other hand, is codified and handed out externally. It requires belief to enforce it.

That doesn't mean that believers can't be ethical. It just means that a lot of believers out there think they can chisel here and there since they won't be called to account for their actions until after they are dead.

Why should people who don't believe "admit" they believe? They don't.

[Beregond2]

9. Suffering

is explained in most religions as a necessary aspect of a dualistic reality. The only way to eliminate bad is to eliminate good, which would mean no creation at all. I don't think it makes sense to blame a creator for the fact that creation is only possible within certain parameters. It's like saying: "I reject you because you can't make square circles." Even an omnipotent God couldn't do impossible things.

Of course, this leads to all kinds of pain and injustice, and one can speculate forever on how God might compensate for that, balancing the scales through reincarnation, or an afterlife of rewards and punishments, etc. Personally, I don't think the details matter. I define faith as trust, trust that the truth, whatever it turns out to be, will justify and compensate for all the sufferings of this world.

[Growler]

10. I am an atheist

Because I can't imagine any being that is capable of creating the Universe actually needs our worship/reverence/understanding... so what's the point? Believe or don't believe -- the outcome is the same.

Besides, I find the leading model of God in our society (the Judeo-Christian one) really silly.

[Occam Bandage]

13. Disbelief in a single omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent God does not require atheism.

[TreasonousBastard]

16. The book of Job was written to answer this...

and on the surface shows a particularly callous God making an idle bet with Satan over how much suffering Job can take before renouncing God.

But when you get to see the nuances of the relationship between God and Job, it's not at all so simple.

It's not a human relationship where we can put human terms to it-- it is a divine relationship, and different rules apply. Job's "friends" don't understand this, but the mysterious stranger does, and eventually Job does, too.

Does this sound like a copout? A circular argument? Sure it does, but explaining suffering in religious terms is not to bring believers into the fold-- it is to comfort and explain to those already believing.

So, quite frankly I'm not sure I believe you when you say you are an atheist because of all the suffering, but suspect that is one more rationale you use for nonbelief. It may have been part of the path you travelled while exploring nonbelief, but as a reason it really doesn't stand up. Like belief, nonbelief does not need such rationalizing to justify it.

One believes or does not believe, and there sre winding paths that lead to one or the other.

[TZ]

21. I should have said ONE of the reasons I am an atheist...

I'm actively suffering tonight as are some very close friends, which is what prompted this post..

[bananas]

27. Sorry to hear that - what happened?

:hug:

[TZ]

28. I can't go into details

but I think I've lost my best friend for reasons that really have nothing to do with me...
Thanks for asking though.

[AlphaCentauri]

20. I'm a pagan

If I choose Christianity then the Islamic will say I'm a pagan.
If I choose Islamic then the Buddhism will say I'm a pagan.
If I chose Buddhism then the Jewish will say I'm pagan.
If I choose no God then everybody will say I'm pagan.
Please, can I be free? Can you NOT tell me how I should live MY life?

[Withywindle]

24. That's a good part of the reason why I'm a Pagan.

In this regard, at least, I do have some measure of humility. (supposedly a Christian virtue, but I've encountered too many Christian sects notable mostly for their lack of it). I've read the religious texts of many faiths, and accept the fact that I have no qualifications whatsoever to judge which, or if any, of them are correct.

I also have to conclude that if GOD, in the sense of one overarching spiritual being in charge of everything, *does* exist, then there would be no way any human mind could possibly comprehend how this being thinks. So I suspect all religious texts are clumsy human fumblings at expressing their idea of what the Divine might be like, obviously influenced by culture and history and aesthetics (something none of us can escape being), with a blend of genuine spiritual inspiration, cultural bias, wishful thinking, poetic license, and--in the case of various theologies on the punishment of sinners--schadenfreude. But there's no reason to think that the Divine, whatever it may really be, has any interest in any of these rather simian emotions.

So I do what I think most people do if they're being honest with themselves: choose those beliefs that resonate with me emotionally, and hope that I'll find out which (if any) were close to the truth when I die.

[Warpy]

31. Uh, Buddhists won't call you anything

Better pick another example.

[AlphaCentauri]

40. last time I was chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo I was in a temple

where I could be a Cristian and a Buddhist while I was in the "process of renouncing" to Christianity. I did not take it so serious but it was a good philosophical experience.

[Evoman]

26. I'm atheist because the concept of god is nonsense.

The problem of suffering is only one of those many little things than show me that Christianity and the "good god" concept is bunk, but not god in general. God, religion, and the supernatural are much larger concepts than just the pitiful religion that is Christianity. That they are larger concepts does not mean they are true concepts, or rational concepts.

Truth and knowledge has never come from ignorance.

[pegleg]

50. thank god we don't all think like you. nt

[Evoman]

54. Why? What would be the end result if everybody thought like me?

Please tell me what is wrong with what I think?

[bananas]

59. If everyone thought like you,

it would be like we're all psychic,
we'd all be like, "OMG! I knew you'd say that!"
because we'd all be thinking the same thing.

[Evoman]

66. Hehe

You say that, because you haven't seen the arguments I have with myself! You'd be suprised by the number of times it happens.

Still, funny comment.

[pegleg]

60. You are perfectly free to believe whatever you will. That is your right.

But first of all, religious arguments can never be won nor lost simply because there is no proof either way (at least in this life). And some people's reasoning ability leads them to conclude there is a divine presence or creator or god or God. So to me the idea definitely makes SOME sense, and to say that it is NONsense is, well, your right, but certainly not the final word. The end result of everyone thinking like you would be everyone thinking like you.

[Evoman]

65. So then why did you make your snide comment?

I am expressing my opinion, you are expressing your opinion. You can use "final word" language, but I cannot? Take for example:

"But first of all, religious arguments can never be won nor lost simply because there is no proof either way (at least in this life)"

Actually, religious arguments can be lost, it's just that religious people don't recognize they are losing. It's pretty straight forward: if you claim that there is no proof, then the only logical thing to do is to not believe, or remain neutral.

If you make a positive claim, then you automatically lose if you can't back it up. I mean, all our arguments are fun and everything, especially arguing about the nonsense god of the christians and muslims, but they are basically meaningless.

The reason not believing is the more rational and logical choice is really easy to understand. See if you can follow this.

1) You can't prove a negative. The burded of proof is on the person making the claim.
2) If you don't believe or remain neutral, then when that proof or evidence becomes available, you can easily change your mind and start believing. Actually, in this case, you would know something is true, not just believe it.
3) If you believe, it is literallly impossible to give you any proof that your claim is worthless. You will keep believing, and your mind won't be changed ever.
4)Not believing is more flexible, and is a lot more rational.

The way I see that most believers become unbelievers is when the cognitive dissonance gets to be too much, and you realize you have very little reason to believe in something that has no evidence. And thats a terrible way to treat your mind.

[pegleg]

70. Nonsense!

[Evoman]

71. Oh, are we playing Jeapordy? "What is god and religion?" nt

[Birdiesmom]

37. I'm learning something here -- thanks, guys

I'm a Christian, and I always thought that folks became atheists because Christians drove them to it by being jerks. It's good to hear that this isn't the case in most situations.

I've always felt that if Christians actually *followed* Jesus, and worried about the poor and justice for all nations (Christian or not) like Christ taught, they wouldn't have time to run around screaming about gays and abortion and birth control and other things Jesus said absolutely nothing about -- and wouldn't be alienating their own children and creating atheists.

For me, I've always seen religion as both a head and a heart thing, not just an intellectual decision. I certainly can't maintain my faith without both an intellectual and an emotional commitment, because either can fail me under different circumstances and stressors -- then, the other will have to carry me through. The Problem of Evil has existed since Day One -- how can an All-Powerful, loving God allow the innocent to suffer? Most atheists I've talked to see this as a major sticking point. And despite what most Christians will tell you, there are no easy answers.

The best one I've found, as a student of theology, is that God surrendered some of his omnipotence so that mankind could have free will, even though this means that bad decisions made by individuals will have repercussions lasting millennia, affecting untold millions of people. To me, this still does not explain why millions died in agony of the Black Plague, for instance, or why humans seem hot-wired for aggression towards each other. That's where the faith part comes in -- the faith that God does not want us to suffer, and that it isn't God's will, or fault, when we DO suffer. Unlike a lot of Christians, I don't believe that God is a puppetmaster, in control of every aspect of life, and decided that "Heaven needed another angel" when a child dies, for instance.

This doesn't explain everything. It doesn't explain a heck of a lot, actually. That's why they call it faith. If it could all be explained intellectually, it wouldn't be a religion, it would be a science.

I'm not saying this to convert anyone. Just sharing why I'm sticking with Christianity, despite the fact that good people do suffer for no good reason.

[MedleyMisty]

38. Am I weird because that's never really bothered me?

I think that stuff just happens. When my father died, it was because of all sorts of things - his genes, his environment, his decision to smoke, probably all sorts of tiny little things that he never thought about, a certain amount of chance, etc.

When our old apartment flooded and we lost most of our stuff, it was because we lived in a flood plain near a creek and it had rained a lot that summer so the ground was already saturated, so when a really hard rain came nature took its course.

I honestly don't feel a need for a reason beyond chance and reality - you can find out how tornados form with a quick search on the internet and tornados aren't sentient and they can't make moral choices about their paths. Same thing with all natural disasters or natural occurences like disease - my father's heart was not sentient. It couldn't think "Oh, I won't have a heart attack today because this guy has a seven year old daughter and no will so they'll lose the house after he dies."

Of course humans are sentient and can make moral decisions about causing suffering. I have spent my life researching the Holocaust and have read more survivor accounts than I can count. Honestly, I've been a hardcore misanthropist most of my life because I thought people were making decisions to cause suffering to others knowing the pain that they would cause and being able to feel the suffering of their victims and see the consequences of their actions - I thought that people who supported the war on terror could feel the pain and suffering of Afghans and Iraqis and enjoyed it. Like I assumed that they knew all the propaganda was propaganda and that they just liked the idea of causing major death and destruction and had a complete and full knowledge that the people they were hurting were individual human beings with thoughts and feelings and that they could imagine those feelings and empathize with them.

But the more that I read and learn about other people - I'm guessing that the Holocaust and all the other trillions of instances of humans causing suffering were caused by pretty much the same things that led to my father's heart attack - genetics, nurturing, circumstances, the basic randomness of the universe.

I don't need an external meaning. I think that my meaning is that I am here to experience being alive - no reason, no Creator other than a sperm and an egg and the random chance of how the genes got combined - and the random chance of how my parents met, and how their parents met and how those sperms and eggs combined, and so on back to the first chemical reaction that could be called life.

I feel that everything is interconnected and interdependent and that every action leads to another action - like the human who first smoked tobacco and told other humans about it is as responsible as anything else for my father's death. Plus the reactions and selections and genes that became tobacco. And the random chance of a human discovering it and deciding to try and smoke it. And all the little things that led to the tobacco companies and their propaganda and plus all the things that led to my father being born and raised here in North Carolina back in the days when tobacco was the major industry around here.

It all has the meaning that I give to it - that I am here to see it and be it and love it.

So I am an atheist because my world view does not need a god.

[anonymous171]

47. Ah, the good old "suffering problem"

As a Catholic, I will just respond by saying that "it's a mystery."

[moobu2]

51. I’m an atheist because there’s no such things as god's, angel's, devil's ...stuff like that

[DaveJ]

53. Gods, angels, devils.... Those are just words

It doesn't take their meaning into account.

[enki23]

76. right. those are only words. words that are used to mean things that don't exist.

and those things that don't exist that the words mean are themselves only things meant by words that are just words.

of course, the things signified by the things which are meant by the words that are just words are likewise not real. but those things which are signified by the things which are meant by the words that are just words are themselves only things which are signified by the things which are meant by the words that are just words.

those real things which do not exist are themselves only poorly reflected images of the things which are signified by the things that are meant by the words that are just words.

unfortunately, that can sometimes obscure the true unreality of the actual things which are in and under the things which are themselves only poorly reflected images of the things which are signified by the things that are meant by the words that are just words.

however, i believe the things that do not actually exist are themselves only hinted at by the things which are in and under the things which are themselves only poorly reflected images of the things which are signified by the things that are meant by the words that are just words.