[DrTacoMD]

This is probably a terrible idea, but whatever -- it's Monday and I'm waiting for some code to compile.

I've seen this idea before on a few different boards, and I thought it could be fun and helpful here (especially after seeing the various misconceptions and misinterpretations being thrown around in the Noah's Ark thread). It will also probably bring every troll on the entire board out of the woodwork, but it's worth it.

The idea of this thread: ask a question, get an answer! Anyone can ask a question about atheism, and another atheist or I will attempt to answer it. The more specific, the better, but broad questions may help get some more interesting discussion going. As far as I'm concerned, personal questions are fair game too (i.e. "what religion were you raised?").

Fellow atheists: like I said, please feel free to answer any question you'd like. Or hell, post a few of your own too -- why not? I'd love to see this clear up at least one or two misconceptions about atheism before it goes completely off-topic.

Now ideally, I'd like to see this be a mature, intelligent conversation about the views and opinions of the various atheists on the board. But realistically, I expect this to dissolve into a seething froth of "BARAK HUSSAIN 0BAMA WANTS TO STEAL UR BABY" and "YEAH BUT REGAN WASNT CONSERVITIVE CUZ HE FAKED THE MOON LANDING" within a couple of pages. So before that happens, let's try to get a few good discussions in.

I'll start us off with a question (I have my own answer, but I'll let someone else take it first): How can an atheistic society have moral rules and guidelines without higher laws like those set in the SACRED_TEXT?

Let the mayhem begin!

[stumblinmike]

Am I going to heaven?

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by stumblinmike 

Am I going to heaven?

By going to heaven, I think you mean if you'll die.

Yes, you'll die.

[imitchellg5]

How do atheists deal with personal loss? I went to a very open atheist's funeral once and it was very... odd. The eulogy focused primarily on what the person achieved academically. Nobody really ever mentioned relationships between friends and family, the person's impact on others, etc. Even family members were talking about what the guy did in high school to get a scholarship. Is this an atheist thing, or was it just an oddly dysfunctional family?

[The Final Dakar]

Why does it burn when I urinate?

[Oisín]

Originally Posted by imitchellg5 

How do atheists deal with personal loss? I went to a very open atheist's funeral once and it was very... odd. The eulogy focused primarily on what the person achieved academically. Nobody really ever mentioned relationships between friends and family, the person's impact on others, etc. Even family members were talking about what the guy did in high school to get a scholarship. Is this an atheist thing, or was it just an oddly dysfunctional family?

Just an oddly dysfunctional family.

Being an atheist has nothing to do with a lack of personal relationships. Just like religious people, atheists deal with personal loss in many, many different and idividual ways. Most of them are probably exactly the same, too, apart from the ones that involve prayer or various forms of communication with religious figures or deities (prayer, confession, talking to a priest, etc.).

[andi*pandi]

If you have ever read a sacred_text, was there anything you found educational or useful in living a moral life?

What do you think of kids in a high school/college setting refusing to read the Bible as a piece of literature? Are they whiny brats trying to get out of doing homework or completely within their rights?

[stumblinmike]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

By going to heaven, I think you mean if you'll die.

Yes, you'll die.

Bitchin! When I get to heaven, I am going to rat out all the evil "christians" to the boss. That is gonna be sweet.....

[Oisín]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

If you have ever read a sacred_text, was there anything you found educational or useful in living a moral life?

Not sure what you mean here … I’ve read (parts of) the Bible, for example, but I didn’t really find it ‘educated’ me any about my own morals, or living a moral life. Do you mean a ‘moral life’ specifically as a life based on morals that originate (partly) in sacred texts?

What do you think of kids in a high school/college setting refusing to read the Bible as a piece of literature? Are they whiny brats trying to get out of doing homework or completely within their rights?

Whiny brats trying to get out of homework (aka ‘teenagers’). They’re within their rights to refuse to take part in school prayers and suchness; but reading sacred texts (whether the Bible, the Qur’an, the Yajurveda, or any other sacred text) and thus learning about different religions is part of school and basic education.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Why does it burn when I urinate?

See your doctor. Might be a urinary infection.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by imitchellg5 

How do atheists deal with personal loss? I went to a very open atheist's funeral once and it was very... odd. The eulogy focused primarily on what the person achieved academically. Nobody really ever mentioned relationships between friends and family, the person's impact on others, etc. Even family members were talking about what the guy did in high school to get a scholarship. Is this an atheist thing, or was it just an oddly dysfunctional family?

Eh?

Are they Asian? Sounds like an Asian thing to me.


I'm curious why Christians mourn someone's death. If they are going to a better place like heaven, they should be celebrating the person's death.

[Atheist]

Originally Posted by imitchellg5 

How do atheists deal with personal loss? I went to a very open atheist's funeral once and it was very... odd. The eulogy focused primarily on what the person achieved academically. Nobody really ever mentioned relationships between friends and family, the person's impact on others, etc. Even family members were talking about what the guy did in high school to get a scholarship. Is this an atheist thing, or was it just an oddly dysfunctional family?

Sounds like a messed up family to me… I can't even fathom how his atheism has anything to do with it.

How do I deal with personal loss? I cry, feel sorry for myself for a bit and then get over it and move on. Everyone dies… it's just a matter of how and when.

[imitchellg5]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

I'm curious why Christians mourn someone's death. If they are going to a better place like heaven, they should be celebrating the person's death.

There is still a time for grief. However, most Christian funerals are a celebration of the life of the deceased. I've never been to one that was super mopey... a few tears here and there, but generally they've been respectfully celebrating the finer points of life.

[imitchellg5]

Originally Posted by Atheist 

Sounds like a messed up family to me… I can't even fathom how his atheism has anything to do with it.

The family was always proud (annoyingly so, even at the funeral) of their atheist beliefs, so I was wondering if the funeral was a byproduct of that.

[Oisín]

Originally Posted by imitchellg5 

The family was always proud (annoyingly so, even at the funeral) of their atheist beliefs, so I was wondering if the funeral was a byproduct of that.

But apparently no more proud of their atheism than they still had a religious ritual to say goodbye to a family member.

[imitchellg5]

Originally Posted by Oisín 

But apparently no more proud of their atheism than they still had a religious ritual to say goodbye to a family member.

I wouldn't necessarily call funerals a religious ritual... I'd say it's cultural.

[Oisín]

Originally Posted by imitchellg5 

I wouldn't necessarily call funerals a religious ritual... I'd say it's cultural.

I guess that depends on what exactly was meant by ‘funeral’. If it’s just an interment of an urn in non-consecrated earth, then sure. But would you really call that a ‘funeral’ at all? Could be just me, but I inherently associate a church and a churchyard inhumation with that word; otherwise I’d just call it a ‘burial’, I think.

[DrTacoMD]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Why does it burn when I urinate?

I can always count on you to bring class to any thread!

[DrTacoMD]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

If you have ever read a sacred_text, was there anything you found educational or useful in living a moral life?

This ties in a bit with my original question. I've read portions of the Bible, and I've noticed something interesting: if you look at the Bible as a whole, without all the mythology and church-ness that's been built up around it, it paints a moral picture that we really don't consider acceptable in modern times. People's interpretations of the Bible have been evolving for hundreds of years, always keeping relatively in step with society, but the literal text itself has not aged as gracefully. A common example: in Genesis 19:5-8, Lot asks a group of men to abstain from homosexuality, and makes them an offer:

"Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don't do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof."

But reading this was, in fact, educational for me, as it helped me realize that all morality is relative. What was considered acceptable many thousands of years ago would now be decried as abhorrent and vile. And it's a two-way street -- we won't stone a person to death for collecting sticks on the Sabbath (which Moses did in Numbers 15:32-36), but rape and murder are far more taboo today than they were during the age of the Old Testament. Morality also varies between modern cultures; women can't go topless in public in most of the US, while couples won't even kiss in public in India.

What do you think of kids in a high school/college setting refusing to read the Bible as a piece of literature? Are they whiny brats trying to get out of doing homework or completely within their rights?

Whiny brats. Refusing to actively worship God/Allah/Krishna is within their rights, but refusing to read the texts is not. At least no more than refusing to read any other text -- they have no justifiable reason to drag religion into the debate, other than because they will get their way.

[Uncle Skeleton]

1. What is your perception of religious people (collectively or as individuals)? Are most of them "good" or most of them "bad?" Is the world a better place or a worse place because of religion?

2. What is your perception of other atheists (ones you aren't invested in, such as family)? Good, bad, better place, etc?

3. Is Atheism a thing, or is it merely the absence of a thing? Do you feel camaraderie with other Atheists based on this alone, or is it more like you feel towards other people who share with you (for example) the absence of red hair or the absence of being Lithuanian (ie feel nothing in particular)?

4. If God (finally) appeared in an unambiguous way, would your reaction be generally positive (excitement/awe/joy/etc) or negative (remorse/embarrassment/despair/denial/etc)?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

See your doctor. Might be a urinary infection.

It's also a sign that he may need to eventually get his penis amputated.

[AKcrab]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

1. What is your perception of religious people (collectively or as individuals)? Are most of them "good" or most of them "bad?" Is the world a better place or a worse place because of religion?

I think most people are bad, religious or not, and the world would be better without religion.

2. What is your perception of other atheists (ones you aren't invested in, such as family)? Good, bad, better place, etc?

There are "good ones" and "bad ones".

3. Is Atheism a thing, or is it merely the absence of a thing? Do you feel camaraderie with other Atheists based on this alone, or is it more like you feel towards other people who share with you (for example) the absence of red hair or the absence of being Lithuanian (ie feel nothing in particular)?

It's the absence of a thing, and no; just being an Atheist doesn't automatically make you my buddy.

4. If God (finally) appeared in an unambiguous way, would your reaction be generally positive (excitement/awe/joy/etc) or negative (remorse/embarrassment/despair/denial/etc)?

I would be dumbfounded.

[el chupacabra]

I think it would make more sense to have an ask a deist thread.... Its the religious texts that most people have never read entirely through and constantly get misquoted. It's the atheists that trash talk and mock religious texts that they've never read; having no clue what they say yet feel entitled to judge them anyway... Its the religious people that walk on egg shells trying not to offend the atheists who are romping around throwing hissy fits everywhere they go. Whats this deep mystery that atheists think no one can understand about them? Is atheism really that hard to get?

[AKcrab]

Originally Posted by el chupacabra 

Its the religious people that walk on egg shells trying not to offend the atheists who are romping around throwing hissy fits everywhere they go.

Like how our money doesn't say "In God We Trust", and our pledge of allegiance doesn't state "under God", and how there is no more Christmas or Easter?

Those kinds of egg shells?

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by DrTacoMD 

This ties in a bit with my original question. I've read portions of the Bible, and I've noticed something interesting: if you look at the Bible as a whole, without all the mythology and church-ness that's been built up around it, it paints a moral picture that we really don't consider acceptable in modern times. People's interpretations of the Bible have been evolving for hundreds of years, always keeping relatively in step with society, but the literal text itself has not aged as gracefully. A common example: in Genesis 19:5-8, Lot asks a group of men to abstain from homosexuality, and makes them an offer:

"Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don't do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof."

But reading this was, in fact, educational for me, as it helped me realize that all morality is relative. What was considered acceptable many thousands of years ago would now be decried as abhorrent and vile. And it's a two-way street -- we won't stone a person to death for collecting sticks on the Sabbath (which Moses did in Numbers 15:32-36), but rape and murder are far more taboo today than they were during the age of the Old Testament. Morality also varies between modern cultures; women can't go topless in public in most of the US, while couples won't even kiss in public in India.

DrTaco, your understanding of scripture is superficial. Lot was begging those men of Soddom not to harm the men who were in his house because they weren't men. They were angels, and they were going to strike supernaturally at those men if they persisted (which occurred). Lot was so committed to protecting the angels so that they wouldn't bring judgment upon the city, he even offered his beloved virgin daughters to the mob to satisfy their desires. It was a desperate gambit on Lot's part, not an indication that it was normally permissible or normative to give one's daughters over to an unruly mob. Also, homosexual sex was one of many sins committed by the residents of those cities, but it wasn't even the most prominent according to ancient texts. The Talmud explains that the chief sin of the people of Soddom and Gamorah was that they had no respect for personal property. Their motto was, "what's mine is mine and what's yours is mine."

As for the prohibitions against performing work on the Sabbath, those are commandments of the Torah given to the nation of Israel specifically and exclusively, the nation that was taken by G-d out of Egypt and trained over a generation in the desert to be His holy nation with specific commands to carry out in their daily lives. Anyone openly transgressing the Sabbath as part of the holy nation represented an affront and a denial of the divine power manifested before the whole nation. Transgressing some of the most important divine commandments in public was thus completely unacceptable. It put the person transgressing at risk, the community at risk (of copy cat violations for one) and the nation as whole at risk. Just as shooting at a cop offers a high probability of serious injury or the death penalty on the spot in many countries, serious transgressions could be punishable by death according to Torah law. Note, however, that the death penalty even in biblical times was exceedingly rare for multiple reasons.

Your misconceptions about the Hebrew Scriptures are common and one of the reasons why the rabbis said that one of the most tragic days in history was when the Septuagint was created because the non-Jewish world would not be equipped to properly understand the context and meaning of what they were reading.

I do have some questions for atheists:
1. Is it important for you to declare yourself as an atheist? Do you believe in outing yourself as an atheist like Dawkins says you should?
2. How can you look at the majesty of the universe and everything within it and still deny even the possibility of its Creator?
3. Do you hate religious people? Look down upon them? How do you characterize your perspective of them generally?
4. What do you think will happen to you personally if/when you find out there is a Creator?

[Shaddim]

It's also a matter of hospitality. He would rather his daughters be violated than have his guests come to harm. They were under his roof, and thus they were his responsibility. This persists in some parts of the world, even today.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by imitchellg5 

How do atheists deal with personal loss? I went to a very open atheist's funeral once and it was very... odd. The eulogy focused primarily on what the person achieved academically. Nobody really ever mentioned relationships between friends and family, the person's impact on others, etc. Even family members were talking about what the guy did in high school to get a scholarship. Is this an atheist thing, or was it just an oddly dysfunctional family?

I don't think that funeral is representative of an `atheist funeral.' Some families start arguing about money when the body isn't even cold, but I wouldn't attribute that to religion -- or a lack of faith for that matter.

People deal differently with personal loss, regardless if they're believing in something or not. My mom, for instance, actually lost her faith when her twin brother committed suicide. To some people, it's consoling to know that there is life after death. To others, it's disturbing to cling to an illusion and they find comfort in accepting that things stop. Some people get angry and distant while others seek refuge among family and friends.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton

1. What is your perception of religious people (collectively or as individuals)? Are most of them "good" or most of them "bad?" Is the world a better place or a worse place because of religion?

I believe in an equidistribution of arsholes. Religious people are no better or worse than people that are either not particularly faithful (i. e. those that may identify themselves as, say, Christian, but don't actually follow any of the rituals except for weddings, funerals and such) or those that consider themselves atheist (i. e. those who have made the conscious decision not to believe in something).

I believe some people find solace in their beliefs. And I believe a significant portion needs faith to deal with the fears they harbor. I find there is a correlation between adherence to some strict interpretation of religious texts and fear as well as education. (Note that this is statistical evidence, not something that can be disproven by counter examples.)

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton

2. What is your perception of other atheists (ones you aren't invested in, such as family)? Good, bad, better place, etc?

That depends on the person, I don't think in terms of religion when I think of people. Very, very rarely does religion even enter my personal life. Ditto for ancestry, nationality. Only gender can be important at times

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton

4. If God (finally) appeared in an unambiguous way, would your reaction be generally positive (excitement/awe/joy/etc) or negative (remorse/embarrassment/despair/denial/etc)?

I know you can't prove or disprove the existence of god (or gods) and hence I believe it's best to work under the assumption that it doesn't matter if there is a god or not. Since you can interpret each and every event either way (you're lead down some divinely chosen path vs. pure chance), it's best not to waste brain cells on something you cannot decide anyway and accept things as they are without forcing yourself to give `significance' to these events.

If god (or gods) chose to reveal themselves to me, there'd be proof for god's existence and I'd have to rethink my outlook on life. Even though that'd be very interesting, I think it's very, very, very unlikely.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

1. What is your perception of religious people (collectively or as individuals)? Are most of them "good" or most of them "bad?" Is the world a better place or a worse place because of religion?

I think the 20% of religious nuts who makes the most noise.

I think there are many good religious people. But I think most people of faith are ambivalent with their religion. They are just in it because they are born into it or feel comfortable being part of a 'community' where they are accepted.

Having a religious believe doesn't make someone good or bad. Religious dogmatism is bad.

Religion can be scary. Look at those Muslim countries and how they treat women.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

2. What is your perception of other atheists (ones you aren't invested in, such as family)? Good, bad, better place, etc?

Who do I trust more to follow the law and do the right thing? Who commits more crime? Christian or an Atheist? I would say the same.

Who has lower divorce rates? Christians or Atheists? Atheists have much lower divorce rates.

Who do I trust more to in making judgement calls, logical decisions, or character judgements? Christian or an Atheist? I would say Atheist.

Why?

Divorce rates among Christians are 300% higher than Atheist.

80% of the US are Christians. 53% of Americans would not vote for an Atheist, 43% would not vote of a homosexual, but only 4% would not vote for a Catholic.

Some Americans Reluctant to Vote for Mormon, 72-Year-Old Presidential Candidates

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

3. Is Atheism a thing, or is it merely the absence of a thing? Do you feel camaraderie with other Atheists based on this alone, or is it more like you feel towards other people who share with you (for example) the absence of red hair or the absence of being Lithuanian (ie feel nothing in particular)?

Absence of a thing. No more camaraderie than sharing something in common and something to discuss. Atheist often share different views on life, philosophy, and their understanding of the world.

It's about sharing and exchanging ideas.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

4. If God (finally) appeared in an unambiguous way, would your reaction be generally positive (excitement/awe/joy/etc) or negative (remorse/embarrassment/despair/denial/etc)?

Depends.

If God came down here to kill all humans by drowning them or burning them alive, I would be scared.

If God came down here to make me King, I would be freaking excited.

If God came down here to grant me 3 wishes, I would be filled with joy.

[Atheist]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

1. Is it important for you to declare yourself as an atheist? Do you believe in outing yourself as an atheist like Dawkins says you should?

Nope. No need to make my atheism known unless I'm specifically debating faith/religion with someone. Unlike many theists who define themselves by their faith, my atheism is just one minor aspect of my identity. It doesn't make me who I am.

I'm not sure who appointed Dawkins the representative of atheists but I don't pay him much attention. I find him rather annoying actually.

2. How can you look at the majesty of the universe and everything within it and still deny even the possibility of its Creator?

How can you look at the majesty of the universe and everything within it and still deny even the possibility that it just happened spontaneously?

The Creator thing is such a pointless circular argument. Who created the Creator?

3. Do you hate religious people? Look down upon them? How do you characterize your perspective of them generally?

I certainly don't hate religious people and don't look down on them. Most of my closest friends and family are religious. I'm just confused more than anything. Imagine you look out the window every day and see the sky is blue but everyone else says it's green. I don't understand but accept that we have a different perspective.

4. What do you think will happen to you personally if/when you find out there is a Creator?

I suspect I would react with indifference.

[osiris]

I find the hundred-arm statues in Kyoto oddly Ray Harryhausenesque, yet it is claimed that Buddhism is a philosophy and not a religion. imo the Buddhist philosophy is somewhat akin to Arthur Schopenhauer's Study in Pessimism - that suffering is just a part of life, there's nothing you can do except embrace and deal with it, and it is important not to let the BS of life get to you. It is also important that you not make others suffer just because you are suffering.

I feel that modern religions love their suffering so much that they feel compelled to share that suffering with others - especially with non-believers or those of a different faith.

The hypocrisy is often astounding, particularly when you reflect upon the past 1000 years.

So my question is this, dear Atheists: are you an Atheist because you simply doubt the 'bearded guy theory' or is it because of humanity's gross misinterpretation/implementation of what the bearded guy may have said? What if it was a bearded gal? Or maybe an ominous black slab hovering in space, but without the beard - maybe a nice mustache? Or no slab?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by osiris 

So my question is this, dear Atheists: are you an Atheist because you simply doubt the 'bearded guy theory' or is it because of humanity's gross misinterpretation/implementation of what the bearded guy may have said? What if it was a bearded gal? Or maybe an ominous black slab hovering in space, but without the beard - maybe a nice mustache? Or no slab?

I doubt because I don't see what it offers me. I am going to live life in a way I think is right, and I'm going to be a happy person, with or without your fancy bearded sky-lady slab-monster looking over my shoulder. If it wants my faithful devotion above and beyond doing the right thing here on earth, then in my opinion it doesn't deserve it.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by osiris 

I find the hundred-arm statues in Kyoto oddly Ray Harryhausenesque, yet it is claimed that Buddhism is a philosophy and not a religion. imo the Buddhist philosophy is somewhat akin to Arthur Schopenhauer's Study in Pessimism - that suffering is just a part of life, there's nothing you can do except embrace and deal with it, and it is important not to let the BS of life get to you. It is also important that you not make others suffer just because you are suffering.

I feel that modern religions love their suffering so much that they feel compelled to share that suffering with others - especially with non-believers or those of a different faith.

The hypocrisy is often astounding, particularly when you reflect upon the past 1000 years.

So my question is this, dear Atheists: are you an Atheist because you simply doubt the 'bearded guy theory' or is it because of humanity's gross misinterpretation/implementation of what the bearded guy may have said? What if it was a bearded gal? Or maybe an ominous black slab hovering in space, but without the beard - maybe a nice mustache? Or no slab?

Buddhism doesn't have any Gods.

There are religions based off or branch off of Buddhism.

Shinto is the dominate religion of ancient Japan.

Shinto - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There are Shinto Gods.
There are Hindu Gods.
There are Daoist Gods.

Buddhism is just a philosophy. There aren't any God(s).


1000 arms? Different variation of the Bodhisattva/Goddess.

Guan Yin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It's more folklore than anything else.

[osiris]

You answered everything except my question, which was not about the God or gods of Buddhism.

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Buddhism doesn't have any Gods.

There are religions based off or branch off of Buddhism.

Shinto is the dominate religion of ancient Japan.

Shinto - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There are Shinto Gods.
There are Hindu Gods.
There are Daoist Gods.

Buddhism is just a philosophy. There aren't any God(s).


1000 arms? Different variation of the Bodhisattva/Goddess.

Guan Yin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It's more folklore than anything else.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by osiris 

You answered everything except my question, which was not about the God or gods of Buddhism.

I wasn't answering your question. I was correcting you.

Buddhism is a philosophy.

It's open source.

It doesn't require you to believe in God(s) nor does it exclude you from believing in God(s).

You can combine Buddhism philosophy with other religions if you want.

Syncretism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[osiris]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

I doubt because I don't see what it offers me. I am going to live life in a way I think is right, and I'm going to be a happy person, with or without your fancy bearded sky-lady slab-monster looking over my shoulder. If it wants my faithful devotion above and beyond doing the right thing here on earth, then in my opinion it doesn't deserve it.

That's a great answer "doing the right thing here on earth."
Another problem I see with religion is that doing the right thing means killing the other guy because he's not believing the same thing you're believing. (even though the big 3 believe in the same God of Abraham and all that. It's puzzling.)

[osiris]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

It's open source.

That's brilliant.

[Chongo]

Is Humanism a religion?
Has the sexual revolution been a success?
Are former atheist who become deists (like Antony Flew) considered heretics? YouTube - Anthony Flew - The Honest Ex-Atheist

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

1. Is it important for you to declare yourself as an atheist? Do you believe in outing yourself as an atheist like Dawkins says you should?

I don't like people forcing each other on other people. This includes religious people forcing the topic on others as well as non-religious people or atheists doing the same. If someone asks, I answer truthfully. But I don't feel the need for a `coming out.'

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

2. How can you look at the majesty of the universe and everything within it and still deny even the possibility of its Creator?

I think you're misunderstanding something. Atheism does not mean you're rejecting the possibility that there is a god. You're saying that `probably there is no god.'

Secondly, there need not be a `creator' to create beauty. What we think of as beautiful is a personal reaction to input. A mathematical proof can be beautiful, a physical system can have beautiful features, a painting can be beautiful, a city landscape. However, beauty is so personal if you go down to the details: in photography, I prefer pictures with people in it by far to (what I consider as sterile) pictures of architecture. For others, it may be reversed. You may find black metal beautiful to listen to, but I hate it and find it obnoxious.

If such a creator is indeed responsible for the existence of beautiful objects, (s)he is also responsible for ugliness (e. g. natural disasters). This would put god (or gods) more in a neutral position (think of the gods of ancient Greece).

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

3. Do you hate religious people? Look down upon them? How do you characterize your perspective of them generally?

Why would you hate others based on their beliefs? As long as they tolerate others and their points of views, I have no beef with people who are religious. Of course I do react to people who do not show mutual respect, perhaps because they think I `lack a moral compass' (a common misconception).

How I characterize people depends on how they interact with me. As I've said before, for the most part, it doesn't matter whether someone is religious. Among my friends, I can really think of only two or three occasions when religion became a problem.

I can only think of two exceptions to this attitude: (1) Abuse/crimes committed in the name of some religion and (2) bigotry.
The first one is often a problem of how religion is organized and not a problem of the religion per se. The Vatican's treatment of pedophile priests falls into this category. This was not a problem that Catholics are particularly susceptible to becoming pedophiles, but rather how the Church has dealt with pedophile priests. We can find tons of other examples, e. g. terrorism by radical Muslim groups.

The second one occurs when people who claim to lead very moral lives violate some of the core principles they seek to protect. Politicians with a religiously motivated anti-gay stance who turn out to be gay themselves fall in this category. What rubs me the wrong way is the implicit claim (which in case of politicians, for instance, is made public) to be morally superior is arrogant. And it sets you up for a high fall.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

4. What do you think will happen to you personally if/when you find out there is a Creator?

… then I may change my points of views.

[BadKosh]

Atheism is just another religious viewpoint.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Atheism is just another religious viewpoint.

That's not a question.

[osiris]

Is post modern impressionism a religion?

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by osiris 

Is post modern impressionism a religion?

Only if you enjoy cutting yourself.

[Oisín]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

1. Is it important for you to declare yourself as an atheist? Do you believe in outing yourself as an atheist like Dawkins says you should?

Dawkins is that super-brainiac guy in the wheelchair, right? I didn’t know he had anything to say about atheism, so that part of the question doesn’t apply to me.

For the rest: no. I see no reason to declare myself as an atheist. I don’t even particularly consider myself an atheist—that would imply a choice to active renounce religion; it’s more a question of religion never having been present in my life or had any relevance to me. This is of course partly also because I come from a country where the majority of people are not believers. Ironically, though, we still have a national church, and you’re automatically born into it, unless your parents have decided to actively leave the church before you’re born.

(I’m still a member of the national church of Denmark, for some reason. Mostly because I can’t be bothered to quit, I guess)

2. How can you look at the majesty of the universe and everything within it and still deny even the possibility of its Creator?

This question seems rather irrelevant to me. The creator (note non-capitalisation) of this universe is, to me, the universe itself. I’ve never bothered wondering what or who created the universe, though I do find it fascinating/scary to consider what might lie beyond it, or what lay beyond it when it wasn’t there. I’m nowhere near smart enough to be able to accomodate questions like those, though, so I usually just let them be and remain content in the knowledge that however it came about, the universe is here now, and is a magnificent place.

3. Do you hate religious people? Look down upon them? How do you characterize your perspective of them generally?

Why would I hate someone just because they believe in something I don’t? I don’t hate straight people, or blond(e)s, or mathematically inclined people, so why should I hate religious people?

I don’t think I come across that many religious people in real life (though I guess it’s possible that I do, without realising that they’re religious), so I don’t think I have much of a ‘perspective’ of them in general. Also, I wouldn’t really call it looking down upon someone, but I do find it strange that someone’s mind can work in a way where the existence of deities or the like can find natural spaces; that someone can actually believe in them. I’m utterly incapable of understanding or imagining that way for a mind to work, and as such, it naturally seems less ‘real’ (and therefore, by extension, inferior) to how my own mind works. But I think we all feel like that whenever there’s some concept or issue where someone else works in a different way than we do.

4. What do you think will happen to you personally if/when you find out there is a Creator?

Well, I guess if it were to turn out that there is some kind of being or force that actually created this whole thing … then I guess there is. I’d love to ask him/her/it how (s)he/it did it, and to get lots of answers about a lot of things science can’t explain (or hasn’t explained yet). But ultimately, I don’t think it would make much difference for me. Obviously, I’d be forced to believe in its existence, but I don’t think it would make me any different.

But this is all very hypothetical—surely even most religious people would agree that there can never be any certain, tangible way for humanity as a whole to have final confirmation that there is a Creator/God, or that the sacred_text is true through-and-through.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

If you have ever read a sacred_text, was there anything you found educational or useful in living a moral life?

I read religious texts all the time. Nothing sticks out as educational, but when I finally understood "The Fire Sermon," it was pretty enlightening.

What do you think of kids in a high school/college setting refusing to read the Bible as a piece of literature? Are they whiny brats trying to get out of doing homework or completely within their rights?

I've never heard of this occurring.

Originally Posted by el chupacabra 

I think it would make more sense to have an ask a deist thread.... Its the religious texts that most people have never read entirely through and constantly get misquoted.

Just yesterday I caught Doofy misquoting and misunderstanding a key NT text. The facts: most people have never read the entire Bible, and neither believers nor atheists are more prone to understanding it. Moreover, many parts of religious texts are impossible to completely understand, because a key context has been lost or translation difficulties or substandard writing by the original author, etc.

It's the atheists that trash talk and mock religious texts that they've never read; having no clue what they say yet feel entitled to judge them anyway.

Ha ha ha no.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

DrTaco, your understanding of scripture is superficial. Lot was begging those men of Soddom not to harm the men who were in his house because they weren't men. They were angels, and they were going to strike supernaturally at those men if they persisted (which occurred). Lot was so committed to protecting the angels so that they wouldn't bring judgment upon the city, he even offered his beloved virgin daughters to the mob to satisfy their desires. It was a desperate gambit on Lot's part, not an indication that it was normally permissible or normative to give one's daughters over to an unruly mob. Also, homosexual sex was one of many sins committed by the residents of those cities, but it wasn't even the most prominent according to ancient texts. The Talmud explains that the chief sin of the people of Soddom and Gamorah was that they had no respect for personal property. Their motto was, "what's mine is mine and what's yours is mine."

These are some of the *many* interpretations that arise because the original context has been entirely lost. And it raises many more questions than it answers, like: can't supernatural beings like angels protect themselves from puny humans? Was Lot's desperate gamble ultimately correct? Is it ok to do a certain lesser evil to prevent a possible greater evil?

Lastly, while the Talmud is interesting for historical reasons, it rarely provides accurate explanations of Torah law. Don't take this personally, but the Talmud is far, far less historically reliable than any element of the Bible.

As for the prohibitions against performing work on the Sabbath, those are commandments of the Torah given to the nation of Israel specifically and exclusively, the nation that was taken by G-d out of Egypt and trained over a generation in the desert to be His holy nation with specific commands to carry out in their daily lives. Anyone openly transgressing the Sabbath as part of the holy nation represented an affront and a denial of the divine power manifested before the whole nation. Transgressing some of the most important divine commandments in public was thus completely unacceptable. It put the person transgressing at risk, the community at risk (of copy cat violations for one) and the nation as whole at risk. Just as shooting at a cop offers a high probability of serious injury or the death penalty on the spot in many countries, serious transgressions could be punishable by death according to Torah law. Note, however, that the death penalty even in biblical times was exceedingly rare for multiple reasons.

First, your claims about the death penalty in ancient Israel are wrong. The death penalty was routine in the ancient world. Second, your entire answer *confirms* moral relativism, that what's moral for Jews is different than what's moral for everyone else. Naturally, I think this is absurd. I'm not an advocate of moral relativism.

Your misconceptions about the Hebrew Scriptures are common and one of the reasons why the rabbis said that one of the most tragic days in history was when the Septuagint was created because the non-Jewish world would not be equipped to properly understand the context and meaning of what they were reading.

The Septuagint is one of the most important literary events in history. And I'm certain that the rabbis in question didn't say this for many, many years after the translation was done.
Is it important for you to declare yourself as an atheist? Do you believe in outing yourself as an atheist like Dawkins says you should?
If it comes up, I'll mention it. I've never read Dawkins, so I've never heard of this notion before.

How can you look at the majesty of the universe and everything within it and still deny even the possibility of its Creator?Textbook question-begging.
Do you hate religious people? Look down upon them? How do you characterize your perspective of them generally?
It entirely depends on the content of their beliefs. The more literalist the belief, the more they disgust me and/or I pity them. The more they wish to drag religion into politics, the worse the disgust gets. When I hear about the worst abuses going on in the Islamic world, then hate surfaces. If you'd like to know the last time I felt something like hate for a Jew, it was a picture I saw of a teenaged orthodox Jew throwing wine at an elderly Palestinian in Jerusalem during Purim. Because you know his parents taught him that.

What do you think will happen to you personally if/when you find out there is a Creator?
I'm not worried about it. Emotions are funny things.

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

It's also a matter of hospitality. He would rather his daughters be violated than have his guests come to harm. They were under his roof, and thus they were his responsibility. This persists in some parts of the world, even today.

So in other words, Lot was a complete ass?

Originally Posted by osiris 

I find the hundred-arm statues in Kyoto oddly Ray Harryhausenesque, yet it is claimed that Buddhism is a philosophy and not a religion.

It would be more correct to say some branches are more like philosophy and other branches are more like religion.

So my question is this, dear Atheists: are you an Atheist because you simply doubt the 'bearded guy theory' or is it because of humanity's gross misinterpretation/implementation of what the bearded guy may have said? What if it was a bearded gal? Or maybe an ominous black slab hovering in space, but without the beard - maybe a nice mustache? Or no slab?

God is a philosophically impossible concept. Also, religion tends to be a vector for tyranny.

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Buddhism doesn't have any Gods.

There are religions based off or branch off of Buddhism.

Buddhism is just a philosophy. There aren't any God(s).

1000 arms? Different variation of the Bodhisattva/Goddess.

Guan Yin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It's more folklore than anything else.

Many misconceptions to clear up. First, the historical Buddha did acknowledge the existence of the Vedic gods, but he denied the existence of an omnipotent creator God. He also regarded the Vedic gods as irrelevant to achieving Nirvana, so he saw the issue of personal religion to be insignificant. When it comes to "folklore," there's a wide range of Buddhist views on Bodhisattvas. Many Buddhists worship these beings just as others worship their god. Simply put, if a particular branch of Buddhism worships Bodhisattvas, then that branch is more like a religion than a philosophy, but it doesn't really stop being "true Buddhism" as long as the teaching of Buddha are essentially intact. (Pure Land Buddhism is a good example of a complete departure from Buddhism, since they regard Nirvana as impossible now and replace it with the worship of Bodhisattvas.)

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Buddhism is a philosophy. It's open source.

It doesn't require you to believe in God(s) nor does it exclude you from believing in God(s).

You can combine Buddhism philosophy with other religions if you want.

Syncretism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yes, you can combine, but the mixture of Buddhism with "creator God" religions is really thorny. If a Christian adopts Vispasana as a practice, fine, but the essential teachings of the Buddha make a belief in God impossible. I don't think "open source" is a helpful way of viewing Buddhism.

Is Humanism a religion?
I don't know or care.

Has the sexual revolution been a success?
Success. Just wear a condom for crying out loud! The automotive revolution is also a success, but you should still wear your damn seatbelt.

Are former atheist who become deists (like Antony Flew) considered heretics? YouTube - Anthony Flew - The Honest Ex-Atheist
The word heretic is meaningless to an atheist.

[The Final Dakar]

I have a couple of questions: What do you (self-identifying atheists) consider to be the key differences between an agnostic and an atheist? Do you use or approve or us terms such "hard atheist"?

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

So in other words, Lot was a complete ass?

I won't shit on someone's hospitality customs just because they differ from my own. In many parts of the world, people were given complete protection when they lodged under someone's roof, and were treated as if they were close family.

[Oisín]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

I have a couple of questions: What do you (self-identifying atheists) consider to be the key differences between an agnostic and an atheist? Do you use or approve or us terms such "hard atheist"?

1. Something about categorically stating that there is no god vs. claiming we can never really know either way? Usually not much of a difference to me.

2. Never used it, not sure what exactly it would refer to, so I’m not sure whether I’d approve of it or not (unless it be an atheist with a hard-on, in which case I fully approve).

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

I won't shit on someone's hospitality customs just because they differ from my own. In many parts of the world, people were given complete protection when they lodged under someone's roof, and were treated as if they were close family.

Hey, wouldn't it be great if Lot's daughters also got treated like they were close family?

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Oisín 

1. Something about categorically stating that there is no god vs. claiming we can never really know either way? Usually not much of a difference to me.

2. Never used it, not sure what exactly it would refer to, so I’m not sure whether I’d approve of it or not (unless it be an atheist with a hard-on, in which case I fully approve).

I would say your level of disinterest uncommon. I imagine you were honestly getting Dawkins and Hawkins mixed up, which is hilarious.

I don't find the perspective too informative (how could it be), though it is refreshing.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

I have a couple of questions: What do you (self-identifying atheists) consider to be the key differences between an agnostic and an atheist? Do you use or approve or us terms such "hard atheist"?

These days, "non-believer" is my word of choice.