Serious The Atheism/Agnosticism thread

That assumes that that particular religion requires or suggests its followers do so. Christianity, for one, doesn't. We're told to offer it, but in the end everyone gets to make their own choice. The only place and time where the God of the Bible required His followers to force His will on other people was if you chose to live within the Jewish Theocracy, ancient Israel.

That might explain why someone who generally likes libertarian principles might not force their religion on others, but it doesn't explain why anybody else shouldn't do so. I call bullshit on the whole "everyone gets to make their own choice" thing. Supposedly, if I don't believe in your god, he sends me to hell to torture me for all eternity. Blackmail doesn't seem like a choice to me. Anyone who cares at all about the "greater good" would only refrain from trying to convert people based on their own inability to do so. And apparently the Christian Right agrees with me on that. A far more compelling explanation is that most Christians aren't really into the whole "hell" thing, and aren't all that deep into their religion in general.

Belief isn't even a choice to begin with. The evidence that you accept leads you to make a choice on the gunpoint bet I mentioned earlier. There might be a choice on what evidence you accept, but even that seems sketchy.

I was also going to comment on that last claim, but it's so vague I'd better not bother.
 
Nah I'm sorry. I really don't give half a crap about what the Christian political lobby does, or what the church down your street does. Our holy book, the Bible, never once commands Christians to force their views on anyone. It tells us to talk to people, as emotionally and emphatically as possible. And it warns that the eternal consequences are serious. But if anyone wants to reject God's commands, that's their choice. If someone who calls themselves a Christian forces their beliefs on someone, politically or otherwise, it doesn't change the words of the Bible. They're doing it wrong. They shouldn't do it because the Bible tells them to not do it.
Joshua 24:15 (NASB) said:
If it is disagreeable in your sight to serve the Lord, choose for yourselves today whom you will serve: whether the gods which your fathers served which were beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you are living; but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.
 
Psalms 14:1 said:
The fool says in his heart, "There is no God."
John 3:14-19 said:
Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. ...

I've encountered quite a few Christians who see it as their duty to "save" me from the eternal fires of Hell, often quoting Psalm 14. The Old Testament tends to be more ambivalent towards nonbelievers as long as they stay out of the way of the Israelites, whereas the New Testament (which most Christians I've met believe to be more important) claims that those who do not believe will burn in hell, no matter what. In fact, there's a point somewhere in the bible (I can't remember where), in which a lawyer says to Jesus, "I've followed all the commandments, am I going to get into heaven?" and Jesus basically responds that no matter how good of a person he is, if he's a nonbeliever, he's damned to hell forever. It also doesn't help that Fox News keeps shouting "FASCISTS!!!!" whenever atheism is mentioned.
 
captkirby considering you posted a massive rant calling out an agnostic for forcing christianity on you its probably better you just bow out peacefully
why is it so bad to point out that a lot of times these discussions act like non-Judeo religions don't exist? I find that 'God' or 'god' is an extremely problematic term to use a in a discussion about atheism or agnosticism as neither of these terms reference 'god/God' formally. I find judeo-christian values routinely abhorent and part of the way I would like to defy the hegemony of these religions in my society is by never assuming their lingo. I think it is not unfair to claim that Judeo-Christianity is in some way being forced on me when someone says that atheism is 'the lack of belief in God.' It doesn't matter if it isn't a judeo-christian who forces it on me.
 
why is it so bad to point out that a lot of times these discussions act like non-Judeo religions don't exist? I find that 'God' or 'god' is an extremely problematic term to use a in a discussion about atheism or agnosticism as neither of these terms reference 'god/God' formally. I find judeo-christian values routinely abhorent and part of the way I would like to defy the hegemony of these religions in my society is by never assuming their lingo. I think it is not unfair to claim that Judeo-Christianity is in some way being forced on me when someone says that atheism is 'the lack of belief in God.' It doesn't matter if it isn't a judeo-christian who forces it on me.

while this is fair, what you're saying here is a far cry from

captkirby said:
That you capitalized god is in your post is selfish, you are only thinking of your religion while trying to act like you can somehow accurately speak for the religion of others. Your religion is not necessarily the holy one truth, no matter how much you think it is. Speaking for the godless while invalidating what I guess everything but Judaism/Christanity/maybe Islam? Please.


edit@polelover44 i think you missed the point of that passage pretty badly
 
Our holy book, the Bible, never once commands Christians to force their views on anyone. It tells us to talk to people, as emotionally and emphatically as possible. And it warns that the eternal consequences are serious. But if anyone wants to reject God's commands, that's their choice.

Blackmail is blackmail, no matter how "emotional" and "emphatic" it is.
 
I think whether or not laws that have repercussions are good or useful or moral or acceptable or not is a starkly different conversation than the one I replied to. He asked why all Christians who believe what the Bible says are not zealots who force their beliefs on everyone else in order to save them.
 
I am moving this discussion to this thread, because as admitted, this has little to do with the original topic.

"I perceive no existence of a god" isn't saying much at all - it's just you have no evidence, but that doesn't mean you actually think one way or another. I've always been taught atheism is just another religion - the lack of belief in a deity - and I stand by that.

Cutting down the the bone for this quote, I hope you don't mind.

Basically, yes, Atheism isn't saying much of anything, end of story. There really isn't much else to it.

As for Atheism being a religion, that's pretty much nonsense. A religion at the very least has to have some sort of message or doctrine or thought to it. Atheism just does not have this, it is just a description on how people view God claims. Did you know that Buddhists are technically Atheists? Buddhists do not subscribe to God claims and do not have it in their religion (not to mention they are spiritual as well). So according to you... what they are doubly religious now? I think its pretty clear that the thought that Atheism is a religion holds no water.

As for the rest of what you are saying, its pretty much trying to psychoanalyze people and what you feel they really believe. I am sorry but the only person that knows what I believe, is myself, don't try to tell me what I think.

I apologize in advance if any of this comes off as hostile.
 
Atheism is a religion like abstinence is a sex position.
^best Bill Maher quote

...or like "off" is a TV channel.

The entire claim that atheism is a religion is somewhat ridiculous, to be honest. Christians don't believe in Zeus; is that a religion? Of course not; it's simply the lack thereof.
 
It's pretty funny to see atheists try and tell religious folk what exactly a religion is, but it's funnier that none of you realize how much we are just busting your balls when we say atheism is a religion. It's really just more like, we would know dogma when we see it, and some of you atheists are dogmatic as all fuck.
 
It's pretty funny to see atheists try and tell religious folk what exactly a religion is, but it's funnier that none of you realize how much we are just busting your balls when we say atheism is a religion. It's really just more like, we would know dogma when we see it, and some of you atheists are dogmatic as all fuck.

Aww yes, the answer to the age old question WWJD is bust the balls of those who don't share your religious views. But in all seriousness, if you actually believe none of the people who say atheism is a religion are being serious, you vastly overestimate the intelligence of the average person. And of course some atheists are dogmatic, that is a flaw that many people have, and its not like being an atheist makes you a better person than the religious. I doubt anyone here would seriously claim that (remember its your religion that believes that a persons beliefs determine their morality). I think straw men are cute though, so its fine :).
 
its not like being an atheist makes you a better person than the religious. I doubt anyone here would seriously claim that (remember its your religion that believes that a persons beliefs determine their morality). I think straw men are cute though, so its fine :).

Well I don't, so I'm not too keen that you just used one on me. I said nothing about atheists and morality.
 
Well I don't, so I'm not too keen that you just used one on me. I said nothing about atheists and morality.

The straw man in this case was that of the dogmatic atheist, when the reality is that atheists are no more dogmatic than others. (I realize that you said some, but it is still sort of a straw man, you brought up people calling atheism a religion and then implied it was because of how dogmatic atheists are). Also perhaps morality was a bad choice of words on my part, but I meant it is pretty funny to call out atheists on "being dogmatic" when in general religions value dogmatic beliefs? (that might not make sense)
 
Neil Degrasse Tyson can call out dogmatic atheism but when I do I'm calling out strawmen? I'd rethink how you throw the concept around given how you just called the average person unintelligent. Anyway dogma is a very bad thing. I just have to admit that religion has had the lion's share of it until reddit came around. That's the joke.

I wonder if you can correctly identify the strawman in that paragraph...
 
Yeah I know...

It's still a pretty poor idea to found your worldview on the notion that you are smarter than most people.
 
vonFiedler said:
Neil Degrasse Tyson can call out dogmatic atheism but when I do I'm calling out strawmen?

It's pretty funny to see atheists try and tell religious folk what exactly a religion is, but it's funnier that none of you realize how much we are just busting your balls when we say atheism is a religion. It's really just more like, we would know dogma when we see it, and some of you atheists are dogmatic as all fuck.

Okay, you didn't really call out dogmatic atheism, you called out dogmatic atheists, and frankly I doubt Neil Degrasse Tyson sounded nearly as condescending while calling out dogmatic atheism. I am pretty sure that we both agree that dogmatic atheism is really stupid (and also fucking obnoxious, lol). But, and maybe this is just cause it is hard to decipher tone on the internet, I read your first post as "We are making fun of you cause atheists are dogmatic," which obviously doesn't really contribute to discussion in any way.

It's still a pretty poor idea to found your worldview on the notion that you are smarter than most people.

Also I didn't mean to insinuate the average person was unintelligent (although Bubblegum's post reminds me that they likely are, lol), I meant to say that the average person saying that atheism is a religion isn't "busting our balls" but actually believes that atheism is a religion. I don't see where this comes into play with my world views, however, as I actually haven't discussed my world views at all in this thread (I don't really consider atheism a world view, as it only points out something that I don't believe in).

Also yeah, r/atheism is a really dumb place to discuss religion, no argument from me.
 
The discussion was about whether atheism was a religion, I'm just saying that's where the notion likely originates. People who have an ax to grind and want others to be atheists regardless of whether the person really understands atheism, they are acting just like certain evangelists and so they get their balls busted.
 
The discussion was about whether atheism was a religion, I'm just saying that's where the notion likely originates. People who have an ax to grind and want others to be atheists regardless of whether the person really understands atheism, they are acting just like certain evangelists and so they get their balls busted.
What did anyone say to indicate that people should be "converted" regardless of whether they understand what atheism is? Frankly, the definition of an atheist is generally much simpler than the definition of, say, a Christian. I think the world would be a better place if everyone was an atheist, but it very much defeats the point to "convince" people that they're atheists if they don't understand the definition.

Anecdotally, it's usually the other way around; surveys consistently show that only a small percentage of people who lack belief in a god actually consider themselves atheists.
 
I'm an atheist who can't stand militant atheists that think all religious people are less intelligent than they are. I'm mainly an atheist because I don't think an idea created by man can exist if it's this big of an idea. I don't hate the idea of religion, and think it can actually help certain people become better people. (as long as they aren't assholes about it, of course)

I'm also agnostic, though. I think that if there was a higher being, it wouldn't resemble anything humanity could comprehend.
 
Hi. I've been atheist for as long as I've understood the meaning of the word.

Like others who have commented here, I find militant atheists obnoxious. In life, meaning is wherever you find it. Therefore, I respect all religious beliefs if it brings happiness to an individual without harming others. Atheism isn't exempt from this principle, as "harming others" includes wasting their time, or antagonizing/ridiculing them.

I've flirted with Buddhism in the past, as Buddhist teachings are consistent with how I choose to live.

In truth, to quote Gandhi; my religion is very simple. My religion is kindness.
 
I think that something a lot of militant atheist/agnostic folks seem to forget is exactly why people cling to religion in the first place: they're scared. Growing up in a household that had alcoholism, violence, and eventually homelessness, I can say the reason I clang to religion as a child was because I was truly and completely terrified of the world. Reassurance that, in the end, no matter how horrifying my life was I would see a place of great peace and security when I die was tantalizing to the point of obsession. Another example: I work in a nursing home as an aide. One of the residents I work with has late stage alzheimers, and lives in a constant state of anxiety and fear. When she's not telling us she's scared she's praying the rosary. She's retreating to the one thing in her life that gave her consistency and security as her mind deteriorates, which isn't exclusive to her situation. One could argue that fear of hell is another great decider of whether one is religious, but in my experience that's much less common than the desire for security. Point being, I think the means by which militant atheists/agnostics combat theocracy and ignorance is poorly done. They don't empathise with the true nature of why people are religious. They just assume that the religious person is stupid or beyond reach. I make the assertion, and have found success in reaching out to religious people (mainly young people suffering from depression) and showing them that there are other ways to fight the terror that is known as real life. I counsel them on ways to combat stress and fear by focussing on improving themselves for their own sake as opposed to hoping an invisible force will improve them when they acknowledge he is their lord and savior. I put emphasis on learning about the universe and how things work through observation instead of how a very old book tells them. Granted, it's infinitely easier to apply this to the young rather than the old, but you see my point. If we use empathy as a means of determining how we approach educating a religious person rather than just ignoring them or deeming them too stupid to think straight, we'll find much more success when trying to combat the theocracy and ignorance that's infiltrating our culture.
 
Back
Top