Are atheists less civilized than normal members of society? - Page 22 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

For discussion of moral and ethical issues.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14990752
Snapdragon wrote:It must be really hard to remain an atheist when someone you really love dies.
I've never met anyone who's managed to do it for long.
:roll: Well now you have.

It's very easy to remain an atheist when someone dies. People die all the time and believing in some magical mystical being isn't any more comforting that believing they are simply dead and gone.

Assuming someone needs faith to sustain them is a very simplistic and naive point of view.
#14990776
Godstud wrote::roll: Well now you have.

It's very easy to remain an atheist when someone dies. People die all the time and believing in some magical mystical being isn't any more comforting that believing they are simply dead and gone.


It's very comforting, actually. I used to counsel bereaved parents.

Assuming someone needs faith to sustain them is a very simplistic and naive point of view.


Nah. It's just human nature.
#14990778
Snapdragon wrote:Nah. It's just human nature.
Isn't that what I said? :excited:

I know many who've lost loved ones and none of them turned to religion. I think people who turn to religion are simply more likely to be lapsed religious people, and not actually atheists.
#14990846
snapdragon wrote:It must be really hard to remain an atheist when someone you really love dies.
I've never met anyone who's managed to do it for long.

The first statement is false. If you were right, the number of atheist in the word would be very few as all of us have lost people that we love. Perhaps you have not met many.
Perhaps most importantly is that believing in some sort of god does not change that the surviving friends/family of the diseased person will continue to miss them and this is exactly the same whether you are a theist or atheist. As for the "fear of dying"... I don't see many people mourning and crying about that time that they used to "exists" prior to them being born.

Also... if theists really spent 5 minutes examining what the belief of a punish/reward afterlife really mean they would realize how silly it is. Do babies go to hell or heaven with a baby-like consciousness when they die? or somehow they "appear" as an adult in their teens? what about old people that die in their 100's all demented... do they recover brain function? what about people with mental illness, do their consciousness suddenly get "fixed" to a non-pathological functioning "mind"? what if a person have a brain surgery that damages their brain/personality ... and alter their behavior in such a way that pre-surgery they were "good" and post-surgery they were "bad" (or vice-versa) do they have a soul that splits in half and one part goes to one side or another to the other? or if a husband a wife that love each other one ends up going to the "good" place and the other to the "bad" place, does the person that goes to the good place get their memories of the other person completely deleted so they don't have to mourn in the "good" place (aka... otherwise it would be a torture to "exist" forever with such ever-lasting pain, it would certainly not be a good place if that's the case). It's funny how some religious people have such specific descriptions of what you are to expect and why, how but when it comes to the actual logistics... which are plain stupid, they don't have good answers for it.

What I think it is more likely is that some (not all) religious people end up growing without adequate coping mechanisms due to all of the magic belief that surrounds life and death, and that is truly sad.

Nah. Religion invented a problem and sold you a placebo solution.
#14990885
That shows a complete lack of knowledge about what religious people actually believe that it would be an exercise in futility to even try to answer it.

No clue whatsoever.
#14991226
Drlee wrote:That shows a complete lack of knowledge about what religious people actually believe.

No clue whatsoever.
Yes, it's baffling. Page 21 is filled with inarticulate discrimination. Here is a clear statement that cuts through personal biases & preconceptions: Religion isn't science, and that's okay. Intelligent people can be theists and lead a rational lifestyle. Atheists can be intelligent and lead an irrational lifestyle. The true conflict occurs when someone becomes militant, hence the crusades, hence the gulags. The true conflict occurs when someone seeks a monopoly on knowledge or its source(s).

As for the "fear of dying"... I don't see many people mourning and crying about that time that they used to "exists" prior to them being born.




So then, when you die, you’re not going to have to put up with everlasting nonexistence. Because that's not an experience. A lot of people are afraid that when they die they’re going to be locked up in a dark room forever and sort of undergo that. But one of the most interesting things in the world – this is yoga, this is a way of realization.

Try and imagine what it will be like to go to sleep and never wake up.

Think about that.

Children think about it.

It’s one of the great wonders of life.

What will it be like to go to sleep and never wake up?

And if you think long enough about that, something will happen. You will find out, among other things. That it will pose the next question to you. What was it like to wake up after having never gone to sleep?

That was when you were born.

You see? You cant have an experience of nothing; Nature abhors a vacuum. So after you're dead, the only thing that can happen is the same experience, or the same sort of experience of before you were born. In other words, we all know very well that after people die, other people are born.
And they're all you, only you can only experience one at a time.

Everybody is I, you all know you’re you.


-Alan Watts


snapdragon wrote:Nah. It's just human nature.
:up: I'm inclined to agree, hence why I said to forum image XogGyux: I think you have a problem with the human condition, not faith or religion.
Last edited by RhetoricThug on 01 Mar 2019 16:31, edited 3 times in total.
#14991251
The irony. The funny thing about this whole situation is that I bet something rather similar would occur if someone surrounded by a bunch of 8 years old's were to utter the words "I don't believe in Santaclaus" or, "I have no evidence for Santaclaus existence" etc. Bunch of temper tantrums, cries, accusations and insults. Someone needs to take his/her own advice and follow up with the "grow up". I seriously don't give a flying ass what you believe, but every time you share it with me, if it does not even meet the bare minimum for good quality evidence, logical thinking, etc it will be met with the same degree of incredulity, criticism etc.

[Zag Edit: Rule 2]
#14992097
XogGyux wrote:I seriously don't give a flying ass what you believe, but every time you share it with me, if it does not even meet the bare minimum for good quality evidence, logical thinking, etc it will be met with the same degree of incredulity, criticism etc.
So clearly you do care about what others believe. Furthermore, by definition mind you, a belief doesn't require solid evidence. There's overlap in the process of conceptualization. You can justify a belief. After-all, I attempted to share with you (on page 21 of this thread) the metaphysical notion of finite sensibility vs infinite potentiality, rendered again as "you only know what you've been told, not what you behold"

Belief is the state of mind in which a person thinks something to be the case regardless of empirical evidence to prove that something is the case with factual certainty. ... In epistemology, philosophers use the term "belief" to refer to personal attitudes associated with true or false ideas and concepts.

Perhaps you'll benefit from this material- The “ethics of belief” refers to a cluster of questions at the intersection of epistemology, ethics, philosophy of mind, and psychology.

The central question in the debate is whether there are norms of some sort governing our habits of belief-formation, belief-maintenance, and belief-relinquishment. Is it ever or always morally wrong (or epistemically irrational, or practically imprudent) to hold a belief on insufficient evidence? Is it ever or always morally right (or epistemically rational, or practically prudent) to believe on the basis of sufficient evidence, or to withhold belief in the perceived absence of it? Is it ever or always obligatory to seek out all available epistemic evidence for a belief? Are there some ways of obtaining evidence that are themselves immoral, irrational, imprudent?

The Ethics of Belief, https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-belief/


Again, religion isn't science and that's okay. BUT because you clearly give a flying &$# about what others believe, you feel the need to evaluate and judge their beliefs. Why do you feel responsible for propositional attitudes? What is so irrevocable about an opinion (despite militarized opinions)? It's just an opinion. The language of thought is highly opinionated.

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Belief

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/belief/
^Have look, might enhance or expand your perspective.


Language is an extension of thought.

We have to organize meaning for communication. The way in which a culture structures language will affect cognition. Linguistic determination is the idea that words limit thought processes. It would be more honest to say words rule social constructs, not individuals. This is a very tricky area of discussion because social constructs favor group consensus, not individual interpretation. Language is an operating system used to manage perception. Some language programs have more power than others. The legal system must use authoritative abstractions to define and constrain the will of the people. The language of law doesn't change unless the group (in-group, those in charge of the checks and balances, who hopefully represent their constituents. Gatekeeper of meaning. etc) favors a new interpretation of the law. Checks and balances stem from the rule of words and their meanings. Society uses words to rule over individuals.

By all means, a person can create a new language. But a new language, like any new idea, must be adopted by the group before it's given legitimate authority. The only area of study to which this doesn't apply is fiction. Hence the bifurcation, non-fiction and fiction. You can get away with almost anything in fiction, but it can take a long time for fiction to become non-fiction. People do rule over words and meanings, but the group filters the interpretation. This is certainly an epistemological and philological conundrum.


And thought is an extension of being present-



Civilized behavior and ethics involve a belief system.

A belief system is a set of mutually supportive beliefs. The beliefs of any such system can be classified as religious, philosophical, political, ideological, or a combination of these.

Alas, this
The irony. The funny thing about this whole situation is that I bet something rather similar would occur if someone surrounded by a bunch of 8 years old's were to utter the words "I don't believe in Santaclaus" or, "I have no evidence for Santaclaus existence" etc. Bunch of temper tantrums, cries, accusations and insults. Someone needs to take his/her own advice and follow up with the "grow up".
Doesn't apply. A belief system is more complicated than a children's fairy tale.
Last edited by RhetoricThug on 04 Mar 2019 22:12, edited 3 times in total.
#14992102
You will find that atheist are normal members of society & that many of the 'alternative' groupings of people are less civilised.

Atheist have no interest in pushing agenda's, or influencing the 'gullibles' into being mind-controlled, such groups are insular by nature, due to their views not being widely accepted by normal thinking people.
#14992103
Nonsense wrote:You will find that atheist are normal members of society & that many of the 'alternative' groupings of people are less civilised.
Will I find this? Where can I find information on this, are you sure this isn't your opinion? What do you mean when you say 'alternative' groupings of people? Are you ostracizing these groups because of a belief?

Satanists are normal members of society too.

By all accounts, Ted Bundy was a normal member of society.

What's your point, Nonsense? AH, but you see, it's YOUR point...

Atheist have no interest in pushing agenda's, or influencing the 'gullibles' into being mind-controlled, such groups are insular by nature, due to their views not being widely accepted by normal thinking people.
Sure, atheists are not well organized, but individuals can push personal agendas. Mind control exists outside of religion. I think you're pushing an agenda here. :eek:
Last edited by RhetoricThug on 04 Mar 2019 23:08, edited 2 times in total.
#14992105
RhetoricThug wrote:So clearly you do care about what others believe.

No, I do not, as a generality that is and in this case "others" refers to the general public, not family/friends/etc. I care what they do but not what they believe. More often than not, however, what they do is a reflection of what they believe. But from a purely analytical perspective, I don't give a crap about what they ultimately believe. I do care for what my friends/family believe for other reasons (aka forming bonds and more intimal connections, etc. Sometimes what a person believes might be a deal breaker for certain relationships. I don't go around befriending people that are openly racists or xenophobic for instance and I doubt I will be having any lasting romantic relationship with people that believe in magic or would teach that to possible future children.

Furthermore, by definition mind you, a belief doesn't require solid evidence.

Actually, we have been going through this for months now and I am surprised you keep making this strawman. Belief does not require any sort of evidence. Case in point... People believe in all sort of things. Vampires, werewolves, fairies, anal probing extraterrestrials, gods of all sorts, magic, zodiac/astrology, etc. There is no evidence for any.
On the other hand, belief can also be supported by evidence (e.g. murder case with a fingerprint, DNA evidence, video recording, witnesses, or a physic's theory with plenty of math and experimental evidence etc.
I don't understand why you keep making this strawman but you are right, it does not require solid evidence. However, for you to have a justified belief, it has to have a body of evidence that supports such belief. As a general rule we have beliefs that are proportional to the evidence (hence the famous quote, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence").

Again, religion isn't science and that's okay. BUT because you clearly give a flying &$# about what others believe, you feel the need to evaluate and judge their beliefs.

Dude... this is a forum, discussing and analyzing ideas is EXACTLY what a forum is. Like I have said before if you don't want to have your ideas challenged, evaluated and criticized, that's up to you. Keep them to yourself. I see the value of criticism and discussion and that is why I come to forums to discuss different topics and I am not afraid of people reciprocating and criticizing my ideas/statement.

What is so irrevocable about an opinion? It's just an opinion.

Again, you try to reduce everything to the same level and abuse equivocation every time you have a chance. At this point I won't keep repeating myself, there are 20 something pages of the same crap. I'll save time and refer you back to those previous posts rather than go in circles.
#14992108
RhetoricThug wrote:Sure, atheists are not well organized, but individuals can push personal agendas. Mind control exists outside of religion. I think you're pushing an agenda here. :eek:

Ridiculous claim. "Atheism" is not a world view, certainly not like most religious denominations are. Although there are many atheists that value, advocate and even perform activism surrounding freethought, rationality, and freedom from religion, this is not by any means some sort of dogma, requirement or even the result of being an atheist. The same way that people that don't believe in Santa Claus (let's call them asantaclauists) don't have an "agenda" atheists do not have one. Atheists don't have secret underground meetings with robes, secret handshakes and hidden messages inside US government papers. We are not illuminaty or masons or some crazy shit like that. The sense of prosecution is real indeed :lol: .

And funny enough, if you go to Youtube for instance, you will find that close to 95% of all "activists" atheists were actually born to the highly religious family and practiced devoted religion for most of their lives. Matt Dillahunty, Aaron Ra, and many others: https://blog.feedspot.com/atheist_youtube_channels/. If I were to guess, I think their activism is actually more related to the way that they were brought up as religious. Sermons and preaching were normal for them as religious people, it is not surprised that once they lost their belief they kept doing the same, just without the magical stuff in it.
#14992114
XogGyux wrote:Ridiculous claim. "Atheism" is not a world view, certainly not like most religious denominations are.
Right, description is not explanation. What is the mechanism behind atheism, rational science? Science is a physical methodology, and abstracts and incites a particular view of the world. The immaterial is not mechanistic by definition, but can be rationalized (because it doesn't require empiricism). Hence why I suggested the ethics of belief. You've continually cherry-picked my posts (neglect to address in totality) and bashed theists by insinuating that their belief in God(s) holds no scientific value. It's not an argument, because the ethics of belief cannot be scientifically validated.

Although there are many atheists that value, advocate and even perform activism surrounding freethought, rationality, and freedom from religion, this is not by any means some sort of dogma, requirement or even the result of being an atheist.
Although you don't represent all atheists (thank god), you've attempted to ridicule religion and restrict free thought. By sharing your world view, you've offered personal values and espoused an agenda.

Atheists don't have meetings with robes, secret handshakes and hidden messages inside US government papers. We are not illuminaty or masons or some crazy shit like that.
What you described occurs in many human institutions. For instance, court system, congress, parliament, etc. Again, society is a belief system.

Scientists get together in lab coats and abstract qualities and quantities from the natural world in order to approximate and establish scientific knowledge. All humans have priorities, because being present is an information bias.

I'm not against science, but I think religion is outside of its domain.

*Note for the reader, browse page 21 of this thread to hear read both sides of our lover's quarrel. :lol:

EDIT:
And funny enough, if you go to Youtube for instance, you will find that close to 95% of all "activists" atheists were actually born to the highly religious family and practiced devoted religion for most of their lives.
Meh, human nature, this kind of rebellious behavior is a correlation which occurs across other fields of human activity.
#14992140
RhetoricThug wrote:Right, description is not explanation. What is the mechanism behind atheism, rational science?

That is a silly question.
What is the mechanism behind asantaclauism? What is the mechanism behind azodiasm? What is the mechanism behind afairyism?
The mechanism behind not believing in something that has no evidence is exactly that, lack of evidence. Twenty + pages and you still stuck on the same note.
It seems religious people want to have a status in society where they get some sort of special treatment for irrational or unwarranted beliefs, they get a “pass” if you will.

Although you don't represent all atheists (thank god), you've attempted to ridicule religion and restrict free thought. By sharing your world view, you've offered personal values and espoused an agenda.

First I have not “attempted” to ridicule religion per se. I have pointed out that it is not different from other silly beliefs that people already agree that they are ridiculous. And I said atheists don’t have an agenda. I never said I don’t have an agenda. If by agenda you mean goal, I do have a goal. My goal is to share/evaluate ideas and discuss them objectively and to expand my knowledge and that of other in a systematic, rational/logical way.
What you described occurs in many human institutions. For instance, court system, congress, parliament, etc. Again, society is a belief system.

Scientists get together in lab coats and abstract qualities and quantities from the natural world in order to approximate and establish scientific knowledge. All humans have priorities, because being present is an information bias.

I'm not against science, but I think religion is outside of its domain.

*Note for the reader, browse page 21 of this thread to hear read both sides of our lover's quarrel. :lol:


I don’t know what you are trying to say here.
#14992146
@Nonsense, Well we atheists don't want to be ruled by religious spiral holes (That is how some of us view religion, well at least that is how I view it). In some religious societies, it is very hard for atheists to live comfortably. If some of us can't run, then we must do whatever we can to walk or crawl. It is far harder to be an atheist in the Middle East than it is in Deutschland for example, because of how hostile Islam is against atheism. Also, we atheists are normal thinking people. :)
#14992147
XogGyux wrote:That is a silly question.
What is the mechanism behind asantaclauism? What is the mechanism behind azodiasm? What is the mechanism behind afairyism?
It's not a silly question if thought is an abstraction and language is an extension of relativistic thinking.

We've been through this, meaning is a relationship. Atheism can only exist if there's theism. Again, what is the mechanism?

The mechanism behind not believing in something that has no evidence is exactly that, lack of evidence. Twenty + pages and you still stuck on the same note.
I haven't been around for 20+ pages, and I'm not going to read 20+ pages. But wow, if you've been at it for 20+ pages, you must really have an issue with what people believe. :eek:

It seems religious people want to have a status in society where they get some sort of special treatment for irrational or unwarranted beliefs, they get a “pass” if you will.
Really, explain?

We all seek status, perception management can be conscious and unconscious.


First I have not “attempted” to ridicule religion per se. I have pointed out that it is not different from other silly beliefs that people already agree that they are ridiculous.
Theology is more complex than so-called silly beliefs. Serious theologians concern themselves with the nature of reality and cosmogensis. Are you blind to the way you appear before others when you spew "santa clause, magic, yadda yadda yadda" over and over again as if it's some sort of philosophical treatise? Your approach is incomprehensibly overdone and completely ignores any form of reconciliation between immaterial and material reality. I've offered epistemological reasons for why empiricism doesn't apply when we discuss belief systems.

And I said atheists don’t have an agenda. I never said I don’t have an agenda. If by agenda you mean goal, I do have a goal. My goal is to share/evaluate ideas and discuss them objectively and to expand my knowledge and that of other in a systematic, rational/logical way.
Okay, Ayn Rand. ;)

SSDR wrote:Well we atheists don't want to be ruled by religious spiral holes (That is how some of us view religion, well at least that is how I view it). In some religious societies, it is very hard for atheists to live comfortably. If some of us can't run, then we must do whatever we can to walk or crawl. It is far harder to be an atheist in the Middle East than it is in Deutschland for example, because of how hostile Islam is against atheism. Also, we atheists are normal thinking people. :)
Humans generally do not wish to be ruled by authoritarian groups. Label/identities are incidental and relative to a situation. State, religion, etc; opposition emerges because humans seek a degree of personal freedom.

Normal thinking people, that's a good one. There's no such thing.
Last edited by RhetoricThug on 05 Mar 2019 01:19, edited 2 times in total.
#14992148
@RhetoricThug, And some of us view religion as a blockade to personal freedom. ;) And also, it doesn't add up when you say that "normal thinking people" is a "good one" yet "it doesn't exist?" There is no fixed human nature, and having no fixed human nature is a secularist viewpoint.
Last edited by SSDR on 05 Mar 2019 01:18, edited 1 time in total.
#14992149
SSDR wrote:@RhetoricThug, And some of us view religion as a blockade to personal freedom. ;)
And personal freedom is subjective and contested. Therefore we use belief systems to organize society.

having no fixed human nature is a secularist viewpoint.
Yes, it's a viewpoint. Once upon a time, behaviorists hoped to find a fixed form of human nature. Furthermore, social engineers wish to shape human behavior. Various belief systems, secular and non-secular, aim to control behavior. Religion is another form of control, so is a banking system or tax code.

And also, it doesn't add up when you say that "normal thinking people" is a "good one" yet "it doesn't exist?"
:eh: It's a good one, as in joke... because it doesn't exist.
Last edited by RhetoricThug on 05 Mar 2019 01:33, edited 3 times in total.
  • 1
  • 20
  • 21
  • 22
  • 23
  • 24
  • 28

MistyTiger, I've always liked talking to you. Do […]

EU-BREXIT

Honda decided to close Swindon, Nissan partly ret[…]

@Hindsite Nothing you said is an argument. Wha[…]

Very Serious People

Why not? I'm intrigued by this notion, actually. […]