Atheism and irreligion thread

[Kirby101]

I go with the clock-maker theory, that God made the world and set everything in motion, and then left it alone. It's sort of like God's a scientist running an experiment and we're all ants. A scientist running an experiment with two groups of ants in two different environments doesn't really care about the ants who die. It's all just statistics.

You should read Richard Dawkins' "The Blind Watchmaker". There is no need to to add an outside agent to explain the workings of the Universe.

[Kirby101]

This is a question for atheists and believers alike. Is the default belief in a God where a non-belief must be developed, or is the default a non-belief which is changed when the idea of a God is introduced? Basically, which side needs the evidence? I'm drawing an analogy to the American legal system which says "innocent until proven guilty".

For me the evidence suggest a genetic instinct to believe in some religion. Or a combinations of several genetic factors. But it looks ubiquitous in human society.

[Kirby101]

See the main problem I have with this is we are applying our own view of morality to God or the Gods.

Why would the Gods view us as equals or even worthy of any degree of consideration? How many single-cell lifeforms do we casually kill with disinfectant every day without a second thought, or insects we squash for that matter, or animals we allow to die when we could save them? Maybe the Gods are indifferent, not evil.

I think Epicurus is speaking to the general idea of God. The one who dictates our morals and intervenes when sporadically.

[Kirby101]

Matthew 7:15

"Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves."

John 8:44

"He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies."

You can't play both sides of the fence. That doesn't work with the God of heaven, the God of the bible. Satan/the Devil always perverts God the father and his son Jesus Christ's words and truths.

You can say you believe in God, but it doesn't mean anything. Anyone can say they believe in God. There's two Gods, and you cannot serve two masters. Technically, the God who created all things in the universe, and saves people from their sins. Then the God of this world who is the Devil/Satan, also Lucifer, who is leading people in the world astray. If you aren't in abidance with the true God, the God who created all things, then your God is Lucifer. If you want the God who created all life to be your God, then you have to prove that you can repent of your sins and do things in abidance to him.

Your God sounds like a bit of a Dick.

[seismic-2]

This is a question for atheists and believers alike. Is the default belief in a God where a non-belief must be developed, or is the default a non-belief which is changed when the idea of a God is introduced? Basically, which side needs the evidence? I'm drawing an analogy to the American legal system which says "innocent until proven guilty".

Certainly some societies can develop without belief in a god or gods. However, it's more nearly the default for humans to try to look for explanations of what happens in the world around them, and without any scientific understanding of nature these phenomena must be attributed to the actions (or inactions) of sky gods, sea gods, underworld gods, harvest gods, pestilence gods, etc. (or a single god who controls all things). It is probably also normal to hope that death is not the end of everything, and believing in a god or gods can help give people such hope.

[Rob Allen]

We've already had a quote from Epicurus in this thread. I heartily recommend the book How to Be an Epicurean by Catherine Wilson. The chapter on religion is directly relevant here. https://www.amazon.com/How-Be-Epicur.../dp/1541672631

Also, here's a thread of humor for atheists from another forum. Some, but not all, posts are poking fun at religion in general or specific beliefs. The rest of that forum can be interesting but argumentative. https://www.city-data.com/forum/athe...ke-thread.html

[zinderel]

Agnostic, atheist, and humanist here.

I do not claim to Know.
I do not believe.
I think we are the cause of all of our own problems, and the source of all of our own knowledge and ‘blessings’.

Unlike many of my friends and family, I never ‘felt’ the presence of God, so ‘coming out’ as an atheist was Less a ‘coming out’ and more just an acceptance of reality. Not once in my memory can I say, “I felt God’s love.” Oh, I TRIED, for sure. I prayed DESPERATELY, repeatedly, until I cried and then prayed AGAIN. Every night I prayed to be straight. To stop getting bullied by classmates. To stop the physical and mental abuse at the hands of my parents. God either always said no, or wasn’t there. I had to deal with all of that on my own, or with the help of loving and supportive family members. Not ghosts, or spirits or angels or gods.

As I got older and saw the larger scale issues ‘God’ either ignored, allowed to happen, or directly caused, were ‘God’ real? I knew there was nothing like what I had been told up there watching over us. By the time I was 20, I stopped pretending and walked away from the faith that had never been there for me.

There may be a god/gods. But if so, I see no evidence that it/they care about us. So why should we care about them?

I like the teachings of Jesus and Buddha, but find that too many of the followers of those faiths tend to be either assholes or distant to the point of inneffectiveness, which...seems to run counter to the message of either fella...

And as someone raised by ‘Christians’, with family that were ACTUAL Christ-like Christians, nothing makes me madder than people claiming to be Christian while pissing on every message and teaching of the god they claim to follow.

[Malvolio]

You should read Richard Dawkins' "The Blind Watchmaker". There is no need to to add an outside agent to explain the workings of the Universe.

Ahh, I've read enough of Dawkins to really dislike his attitude. He seemed to have quite the chip on his shoulder toward anyone who believed in God.

[dancj]

This is a question for atheists and believers alike. Is the default belief in a God where a non-belief must be developed, or is the default a non-belief which is changed when the idea of a God is introduced? Basically, which side needs the evidence? I'm drawing an analogy to the American legal system which says "innocent until proven guilty".

My default for everything is to not believe in it until I have a reason to believe in it.

[Kirby101]

Ahh, I've read enough of Dawkins to really dislike his attitude. He seemed to have quite the chip on his shoulder toward anyone who believed in God.

Yeah, those uppity atheists, you never see hubris and condescension with believers.

Still, back to your basic assumption. Okay, whatever God there is does not intervene in the workings of the Universe. But why postulate a God at all. What makes you think it is necessary to have an outside agent involved at all?

[Malvolio]

Yeah, those uppity atheists, you never see hubris and condescension with believers.

Still, back to your basic assumption. Okay, whatever God there is does not intervene in the workings of the Universe. But why postulate a God at all. What makes you think it is necessary to have an outside agent involved at all?

1. I don't like believers who are all arrogant in their beliefs either. Didn't make it right for Dawkins to insult anyone who believed in God.

2. I just see too many patterns in nature for me to believe it all happened by random chance.

[Kirby101]

1. I don't like believers who are all arrogant in their beliefs either. Didn't make it right for Dawkins to insult anyone who believed in God.

2. I just see too many patterns in nature for me to believe it all happened by random chance.

My first comment was meant as a joke, not aimed at you.

Humans instinctively look for patterns, it is a survival tool. But they also see patterns were none exist, like the zodiac. This is one of the reasons religions begin. As I said, there are authors, like Dawkins, and others as well, who have written about why we don't need an intelligent agent to explain these things.

But all agnostics wrestle with these questions, so you are not alone.

[zinderel]

What are people's views on ghost hunter type TV shows? I use to believe in haunted houses but now I'm almost 100% certain there is no such thing. The sheer idiocy of these shows such as how the participants gather "evidence" destroyed by belief in haunted houses about a decade ago. Usually, the participants sit in a dark room frightening themselves while they claim to see and heard tons of stuff never picked up by recording equipment. Another thing, if these spirits are so weak they need to communicate through incomprehensible static bursts of a mistuned radio receiver they are nothing we need to be concerned about.

Like magic and gods, ghosts are made up. Ghost hunter shows are, therefore, peddling falsehoods and calling them facts. I think it was the Learning Network that got in trouble for running a ‘documentary’ about merpeople as if they were a real thing, so I have no idea how ‘ghost hunter’ shows can possibly get away with being called non-fiction. If they were like...SUPERNATURAL...and clearly labeled as fiction, I would have zero problems with them. It’s that they call themselves ‘scientists’ and ‘truth seekers’ while peddling nonsense and bad acting as fact that I have an issue with.

[Celgress]

Like magic and gods, ghosts are made up. Ghost hunter shows are, therefore, peddling falsehoods and calling them facts. I think it was the Learning Network that got in trouble for running a ‘documentary’ about merpeople as if they were a real thing, so I have no idea how ‘ghost hunter’ shows can possibly get away with being called non-fiction. If they were like...SUPERNATURAL...and clearly labeled as fiction, I would have zero problems with them. It’s that they call themselves ‘scientists’ and ‘truth seekers’ while peddling nonsense and bad acting as fact that I have an issue with.

One of many things that offend me about these ghosts hunters is they always find a "demon" or something equally bad. They never meet Casper rather they always meet Gozer. I suppose the worse the haunting the better the potential ratings.

[zinderel]

One of many things that offend me about these ghosts hunters is they always find a "demon" or something equally bad. They never meet Casper rather they always meet Gozer. I suppose the worse the haunting the better the potential ratings.

Exactly. Ghost hunter shows are no better than Ed and Lorraine Warren: fun fictions peddled as facts to the gullible. It’s snake oil salesmanship, and has no business being sold as non-fiction. I guess ‘Freedom of Speech’ or whatever, but I’m sorry...that shouldn’t protect outright lies sold as facts. Fraud is fraud, whether it’s a televangelist preying on people’s faith, or a ghost hunter preying on people’s fear of the unknown, or a grifter preying on a lonely widows trust for her inheritance...