Atheism Examined

Okay, I will talk about myself personally, then. That is, anything seemingly claimed as a fact below is likely not (I'm not looking anything up). This is all only my personal opinion: Atheism is a term used (and created) by believers of any deity to identify those who do not believe in their deity. It is not a way of life, or a creed, or even a motto. Simply an identifier used by believers to signify others who do not believe as they do. Actually, less than that. The term doesn't take in all deities in any way. Only the deity(s) specifically put forth by those who believe in said deity(s). No. Not at all. It is not a position of any sort. No one goes to atheist-school to become an atheist. We are only labelled so by the people who believe in something else. Just because someone calls me something, has no bearing whatsoever on my philosophical position(s). Like this:-------------------------
*explains a God*
"Do you believe in my God?"
"No."
"You're an atheist, then."
"Okay."
-------------------------That's it. Just something other people call us because we don't accept what they believe in. Simply an identifier used by others. No. Just the ability to not believe in everything you hear, and the courage to proclaim such. Not at all. For an in-depth answer, feel free to browse the "Social Issues and Creation/Evolution" forum. There are multiple threads defending atheist-related morality. [Shameless plug]Even one started by myself.[/Sp] I sat myself down one day. And considered my options. I considered what many other people believed. I considered what many others have told me. I considered the chances that they could all be right, the chances that one of them were right and the chances that none of them were right. I thought about history. I thought about how error-prone human thought is. I thought about being honest with myself. That's what it came down to for me. I'm honest with myself. If someone asks me "do you believe in God?" I ask them to explain the God they are inquiring about. I have yet to receive an answer that is fulfilling or convincing to me. So I get labelled as an atheist. After reading this thread, I think it's obviously "no"

I'm not sure about the others you mention, but I'm positive that atheism is not "a way of life". It certainly does not contain beliefs or any practices. At most it contains a single belief, that the God presented by whoever does not exist. Simply disagreeing with a single person, or even a billion people, over one thing is hardly a way of life.As far as I know, it's simply something that a religious person calls me when I do not agree with them.

I am an ex-christian atheist. Ex-Catholic, to be precise. Although I think your questions were more geared towards crashfrog, I'll answer anyway. I wouldn't deny that he thought he was atheist at one point. But regardless, no, I wouldn't rule out the possibility of me ever returning to the church. Or joining any other religion, for that matter. Although I do feel that re-joining the Catholic church (or any sect of Christianity) is highly unlikely. I think, if anything, I'd be more geared towards an eastern philosophy of some sort. I can't really answer this question. I'd like to think "no". But, well, I can't imagine myself going back to christianity. If I did, I would have to lie to myself, or be dishonest with my own thoughts. I do not understand how I could do that, and live with myself. It's not that I think christianity is bad or evil, or that no one should be a part of it. Just that it's not for me, and I don't see how I could reconcile myself with it's beliefs. I suppose, yes. Although, well, this can be said about anything so it's really kind of meaningless and trivial. This is a theme that I constantly think about as I live my life. Anyone can beome whatever they wish (mentally speaking) if they put their minds to it and start making the decisions needed to put them on that path. The first step would be wanting or desiring it.

Fair enough, it certainly is possible to know and understand what is right and wrong, and still choose to do the wrong thing. These are people we characterize as "bad" or "evil". That is all most people need. To do the right thing simply because it's the right thing to do. And this is the exact reason why we have these laws. Because some people are bad people. And without these laws, these bad people will take advantage of the good people. Laws are not created to help the good people do good, they are created to stop the bad people from being bad. Because it is not the right thing to do, and it will prevent us from living in a cohesive, workable society.Some people are good people, they do not need laws or preventative measures to "keep them in line" or to allow them to work with others in a productive manner in which society can thrive and grow.Some people (like this hypothetical you) are bad people. They are selfish and uncaring. Laws are needed to curb their personal desires so that they too can work in a productive manner in society and still help it to thrive and grow. Without those laws, these bad people would destroy society and we would never have progressed to the point we are today in technological development or international relations or health care or even personal polite-ness.This is all really kind of obvious. And did not require any mention of any god or any set of absolute morals.In fact, the way this hypothetical person is bad, and needs laws to act in a good way. I would say that some religious people are bad, and need their religious rules to act in a good way.Of course, there are atheists who are bad, and need laws to act in a good way. But without any religious rules to also follow it is more difficult for an atheist to do good, just because it's good.

Yes. ...that was my point. However, they are not any morally superior to the theist who does good because it is the right thing to do. As well, the theist who does good because it is the right thing to do is morally superior than the atheist who only does good because of the fear of social laws. Perhaps. I don't have any documentation, and I don't really see how this could really be tested. Sure, we hear of lots of bad people in the news. But, for every 1 bad person on the news... there are thousands of people watching that news we never hear about who could be either way. In my experience, I've found most people are good, and do right because that's what's right. I've also lived a stereotypically sheltered life. I don't see how. We could never have become a global society, or much of any society at all, without social structures and social laws. I can, however, imagine a society creating social structures and social laws and becoming a thriving society without religion. I believe this has even been accomplished by some cultures in history.Religion is not mandatory. Sure, it's a path we can take to create those social laws and structurs. But it is certainly not the only path.Could you name something we have in society, that we need in order to be a society, that is provided only by religion?If all you've meant to say is that religion has helped our particular society in creating those social structures and providing another means by which bad people can be scared into a beneficial place in society... then, well, I agree with you. For this reason, I agree with PaulK when he says to you: On which I would even elaborate to say that you are a bad person. You are one of these theists that are only doing what is good because you are afraid of the punishments of your religious structure.In this case, any atheist who does good simply because it is good, along with any theist who does good simply because it is good, are equally morally superior to you.If you really had a firm structure of right and wrong, if you really wanted to be a good person, and seriously considered other people's feelings as equal to your own. It would not matter if you were religious, or atheist, or even a human being. You would be good, and do good simply because it is the right thing to do.With what you've just said, if you are actually interested in being a good person then you have some work to do. Being good, and doing right because it is the right thing is very difficult. It is not easy, or trivial. It requires constant attention and awareness of others. However, the benefits of a truly clear conscience and the uplift received from helping others, and receiving help from others simply because you know they want to help you can be overwhelmingly calming. Of course, doing good in order to reap those benefits is a pitfall that can easily bring anyone right back to a selfish level.

I agree. Which is why I'm an atheist.I would say though, that "reaching goodness" isn't religion's only purpose. I believe it is used by many as a source of comfort and companionship. There are probably many other uses for such a large part of our society as well. I agree with this statement as well. But just because we can come up with a possible selfish motivation for an act does not mean the one who did that act used that particular motivation.

Be assured, I am extremely thankful for it everyday. I am not naive to the acts of which we are capable of on others. I do not think so. I think we would have one less path in which to develop our structure. But I do not think it would decrease anything, or leave us without anything if we had simply used another path to get here. On a simple over-looking glance, I do not see anything in our current moral social structure that is only available through religion. However, it would be an interesting discussion on another thread perhaps... I agree. I don't really see how either of our positions on this opinion could actually be proven. I agree with you here. Without going to society and saying "society has deemed this unacceptable", I have absolutely no position to say that anything is actually wrong, or right even.But what is your alternative? I submit to you that society is all we have. Would your alternative be God? Something that cannot even be shown to another person? Something that cannot be proven? Something that there is a possibility (no matter how large, or small...) that this God could be made up? Or may even be just a creation from our ancient society in the first place?I submit that our thoughts of being "good"... our thoughts of striving to be the best we can be... our thoughts of somehow becoming more than we are... our thoughts of constant improvement...
I submit that these thoughts are extremely important. I put forward that they are the most important thoughts our society currently has. With this in mind, I am not able to let any of it possibly rely on something that has any chance (no matter how slim) of being a falsehood.I further submit, that if there is some being, some force, some judgement waiting for me... for us. If that being would blame me, for striving to be the best me I can be, using any and all resources I come across, and making sure I'm not taking chances with extremely important thoughts. If I was so blamed... then this being isn't worth the life I would have lived sucking up to it.My important thoughts, this human society's important thoughts... are too important to leave to chance.I can show you society. I can prove that society exists. I can give you, or anyone... show you, or anyone... exactly why I do the good things I do. It is not because something says to do it "or else". It is because, with all the knowledge humans have collected over the thousands of years we have been on this planet... we have decided that these are the right things to do.Yes, since society is all we have. And "us" is all there is to communicate with... why should anything else be used? What's wrong with using the only available measuring stick (our own society) to guide our own advancement?Wow... that got preachy. I apologize

I am actually slightly inclined to agree with you here. As far as our deep past is concerned, anyway. I do not fully conceed the point, because, well... I hope it isn't right But I really don't know much about this kind of early-history, and I wouldn't be able to support any assertions I would make. The point I'm trying to make, is that I personally find these thoughts... let's sum them as "human advancement"... as very important. Perhaps even the most important. Do we agree on that?With these important ideals, I cannot honestly-intellectually leave their guidance and further development up to chance.When we leave them up to a God (any God, really) there is a chance that this God is nothing more than a fabrication from our ancient society. I deem these thoughts of human advancement too important to hand them over to something that may be (no matter how slim) false. I need to be sure that these important ideals are being developed on concrete grounds, with evidencial support. Society (our laws and regulations) are on these concrete grounds. Society is real. Society is the largest, most powerful real thing we know of. I cannot take the chance of letting a possible falsehood lead our human advancement. I must allow our largest, most powerful, most capable known force (society) deal with them.I am saying that handing these things over to Religion, or God, is taking a chance... hoping that these things are real, and beneficial. I would rather hand these things over to Society, which we know to be real, and beneficial.Now, if you could prove that God, or any higher being/force is real and has a better standard for us to be living up to... that's something else entirely and something I would be extremely interested in learning about. Yes, but there's a chance that it really isn't there, as well. God cannot be proven. Society can. Society is the most powerful, beneficial force that has been proven in all of human existance. I will put my most important efforts into Society, rather than something which no one can show me even actually exists, or even something that I cannot show to anyone else that it actually exists.That is, my important thougts are so important, that I must even prove to myself that I am not fooling myself with how I deal with them. As I said above, I am slightly inclined to agree with you on this point. However, we are here now, and (regardless of how) we are past that point. We know things now that we did not know then. To me, we must use our current knowedge to the best of our abilities. If that means laying to the side some very helpful things from the past before they hold us back, then so be it. Tradition cannot be allowed to stand in the way of the importance of human development.

I got wrapped up in talking about my point, I forgot to answer the second part of your question I hope my previous post has explained what I mean about leaving them to chance. Now the consequences of doing so:If we leave our important thoughts of human advancement up to Religion and/or God without concrete proof that these things exist we are basically gambling with our most important ideals. These important thoughts are too important to me to leave them in any situation where I do not know for sure that they stand on good, solid foundations.And what if Religions were nothing more than a long-forgotten human fabrication? We would be pushing our most important ideals into an extremely out-dated hole. I cannot take that chance, no matter how small it may or may not be.And then there's the worst possible situation. Someone from Religion says they have found an Absolute structure or regiment to which all our values and important ideals should always adhere. I refer to this scenario as Stagnation. How can we possibly know we have the best, that we have found the greatest way for the human race to live, if we stop looking for alternatives? The very second we start thinking "I am good, I have nothing else to strive for" is the same second we become lost in our own ego.There can always be one better way to do things. Or one nicer thing we could do for someone else. I would rather spend my life trying to figure as many of these things out as I can, and possibly even helping the human race to advance even the slightest amount in figuring these things out... then spending my life thinking we know how best to live, and we are ready to relax and gloat in it. I am deathly afraid of Stagnation, and not only where my morals or this worldly sense of goodness is concerned.

Yes, I do have two standards there. However, if you would like to point out the flaws in not wanting to "hope I'm right with the most important things in my life" and being okay to "hope I'm right with some trivial point I've already half-conceeded"... I'm all ears There's nothing wrong with having different standards with things of vastly different importance. I have not been entirely clear on what I've been meaning by "Society". I think you know exactly what I'm talking about, but I'll try to explain it anyway, since you did point out my flaw I do not mean to say that I am giving my thoughts of morality up to society, and letting them decide what is best and what is not. It is not an ouput-only system. I do not just listen to society and take for granted that it has come up with the best solutions. It is more of a very involved feed-back-system. That is, society has it's thoughts on what is moral, I take those thoughts, scrutinize them, and feed them back into society. With everyone doing this, we end up with progress, in the beneficial direction. This is why things like prejudice and descrimination are being corrected. Society once thought these things are fine. People like you and me knew better, and they got together, sometimes even forming laws, and have produced our current society. This current society is not best yet, but it is getting better.I am not so much taking society's morals for granted (I find that equally as bad as taking Religious morals for granted) as I am basing my morals on proven societal rules from the past 5000+years, and adding in my own thoughts that will hopefully continue our beneficial progress. When I say Society, I am not talking about a snap-shot of our current modern system. I am talking about the entire feedback process... from 5000+ years ago, and still very much in-progress today.So, to specifically address your question:
If Society chose to go the Religious route, I would take this as "wrong" and "bad" for human advancement, and strive to make people aware of this, and hopefully get Society back on track in an evidence-based beneficial path.In balance to this, I am certainly open to being persuaded by my fellow Society-members that I am wrong, and am actually pushing Society in the wrong direction. However, in order to convince me, they will have to be able to actually convince me with valid evidence."A black man is as much a human as a white man and should be able to vote, go to school, and ride the same bus"... to me, is painfully obvious, and Society is moving in the right direction when it supports such things."Gay people are wrong and shouldn't be allowed to get married because this book says so"... to me, is painfully incorrect, and Society is moving in the wrong direction if it supports such things. I agree with you again. But I must point out that just because "people over there" are doing bad things, does not give us an excuse to continue the same practices when we know better, and are capable of correcting those problems. I would have thought such a practice would be obvious, no? You really do like to pick out the obvious points, eh?
Yes, I agree again. If the Fundy's are right, then human advancement (trying to be the best, most caring and benevolent society we can be) is not the most important thing. I guess I'm just lucky that it's rather simple to show that the Fundy's aren't right. If you truly are teetering on this edge... perhaps you should be in the Noah's Ark threads? I would think, again obviously, that this would depend on what we mean by human development, and what we mean by tradition.I agree that if we mean bigger skyscrapers by human development and public heath care by tradition, then no it is not good.However, if we mean becoming the most benevolently advanced human society possible... which I did when I said that... and tradition is nothing more than something we did in the past that we no longer need... which I also meant when I said that... then I think you're just trying to attack my tank with your feather

I actually think it's a good thing to keep around as well. I mentioned briefly in a reply to Tazmanian Devil that Religion can be very useful to people on the terms of "a source of comfort and companionship" ...and even strength. These, I would not discount. These are powerful supports that every person should be entitled too. And if some people can only find them in Religion, then I'm glad Religion is around to provide that for them.My main concern is when Religion starts meddling in things it really shouldn't be meddling in. School curriculums and social morals come to mind here.Basically, I think it's about time Relgion got the talking to it deserves: "Know your role". Get out of politics. Get out of education. Put your efforts into those places where they are supposed to be... helping people. I don't really want to destroy anything. I do understand how important, and useful a church can be. But it is obvious in our society today that many churches are reaching beyond this, and being taken advantage of by bad people to further certain corrupt, personal ideologies. And the church won't do anything to stop their own because they see it as "showing a weakness" or something.If I had my way... churches and Religion would remain... as a place where people can go, share their beliefs, share their lives, get strength from each other... all the things a Religion should be providing. But Religion would not be allowed to set educational standards, nor would they be allowed to sway political power. These important notions of our growth would be left to those things we can actually show to be correct and right. No showing, no accepting.Well.. not even that is true. A Religion certainly should be allowed to have a voice in education or political power. But only so much as they can show why it should be that way. Just because they are "The Church" or that "This Book" says so... No. Just No. That doesn't count, and only leads us into Stagnation. If they want to get involved with these important aspects of our lives, they need to follow the same standards everyone else does. Only promoting those notions which can be shown to be correct.

Yes it does.I cannot rest my most important ideals on a being, or power that has any chance of not being real. These things are too important to leave to any amount of chance. True. Well, not literally, but to your point... yes, I agree. However, if people were all good we would have the exact same result. And if we kept to those 5 commandments, we would enter into Stagnation, which is unacceptable. We need a flexible, growth-friendly system. I never said Society "was good". I said it's the best we have. It's the best, concrete, proven method available to us. And, it also has the ability to adapt into something even better. Again, I agree.
Yet these commandments were around long before Jesus. They've been a part of Society since almost the very beginning. It's enforcing and getting people to understand these rules that is difficult. And Religion is doing a horrible job at it. Society is doing much better, and will continue to prove itself. Religion cannot be allowed to get in the way of promoting these rules. Rules it itself claims to follow. Yet, it does not. Religion should stick to doing what it's good at. Helping people. It should not allow it's representatives to broaden that and start taking advantage of people. A system that allows such things, is not good enough for me to trust and put my efforts towards for promoting the most important ideals of human advancement.

For the most part, on a surface-skimming view, yes. Yet, if we delve a bit deeper, and start looking into it. We see that Religion (or, at least, the religion you're talking about here) has already laid it's head to rest in Stagnation. It thinks it has the answer. It doesn't want to change, it doesn't want to adapt. This is wrong, and horribly gets in the way of advancing humans to be more caring, more loving, and better. No, that is not the only difference, and the result is vastly different.Religion believes it has "the answer". It no longer looks for better ways of doing things. It is unchanging, stagnant. This results in people wallowing in their own egos, no longer striving for anything that may increase our knowledge towards being a better, more caring, loving, working society.
Religion has no evidence, or any reasons for why they do things. They do things because "God wants us to". This is not a concrete reason, cannot be shown to another person. And it certainly is not good enough for me to rest the most important things in this world upon.Society is constantly looking for things to correct. Right now we're in the process of correcting Gay/Lesbian rights. Right now we're still in the process of correcting racial rights. There is no end point, no final resting place. When these things are finally corrected (maybe... 50-60 years from now) we will find other things that are still incorrect, and we will work on those. We will always be looking for one more thing that will increase our freedom, increase our love for fellow human beings. Sometimes this means creating laws, sometimes it means dismantling them. It doesn't matter, progress in the right direction is being made.
Society doesn't make a move unless things have evidence. People must be able to show others what the problems are, and how to correct them. This is incredibly important. It ensures that our most important ideals are grounded. That they are not being abused by corrupt people. Religion has morals against this as well, but just look at what Religion is doing to stop the people that are doing this within it's ranks... nothing.We can also look at how much Religion has tried to stop the progress of correcting racial rights. Or how it is even now trying everything it can to stop the progress of Gay/Lesbian rights. These people are humans and deserve every last bit that you or I are capable of having. What possible right does any one person have to say to another: "I'm allowed to do this, but you are not". Show me how that is possibly a correct, or righteous or in any way "good" position to hold.

Yes, I would be concerned if someone had a social moral that I disagreed with, regardless of them mentioning their religion. I don't think morals and religion are connected. Well, they are connected as much as "religious people haves morals" and "non-religious people have morals" are connected. People have morals. People can also have religion... to get the two mixed up and intertwinned... is asking for the sort of religious corruption we have today. Yes, I would be concerned. And, in fact, I'm not really up on the abortion issue, and really don't have a stance either way. Yet, I would expect either side to sway me by showing me why and not just because "This guy who we see every week said so...". No, not at all. We're only talking about it because this is a Religiously-connected website. Yet, it is very common for people who do not actually have reasons for what they do to use Religion as a reason... and be accepted for it. They need to show this, then. Agreed. My beef isn't with Religion. It is with people who do not use actual reasons to put forward their own agendas. It's just the way things are that Religion makes this extremely easy for people, and is abused as such very often, and the actual Religious leaders aren't doing anything to prevent, stop or even hinder it. Fix that, and I have no problem with Religion Only the ones that are inhibiting us. Of course... "inhibiting" covers a lot of things. I think I've detailed what I'm talking about already. Neither do I have anything against Tradition. What I have a problem with, is corrupt people abusing others. Tradition, and especially Religious Tradition makes this extremely easy. Hence, my surface-seeming problems with Religion. Exactly. But what is Religion doing to stop it? If anything... it's promoting it because it (in an indirect way) promotes the Religion. This is horribly wrong, and indeed is a very large problem with Religion and how it is ran. I already conceeded how Religion can set these standards... by showing that they are better. I too had a Catholic education, and found it very well put-together. No one ever said that doing the right thing was also going to be easy. No I'm not, and it's extremely different. I too must show that this is correct, and right, and good. And with Society's proven track record of correction and moving in a benevolent direction... so far I have. Not simply a Religion. Bigger... an entire way of life. No more relying on the possibility of one person being currupt and taking over. Things must be shown and proven to our fellow members of Society before they can take affect. The good thing for me is that a working system similar to this is already in place. All we need to do is use it correctly. I am idealistic. Perhaps extremely so. But isn't everyone? Aren't you.. by disagreeing with me just simply living with your own ideals?But what is better?Me... living with extreme ideals that promote love and good fellow-human relationships... even if these ideals are never met in my lifetime.You... living in the current system, not trying to make any of it better, and simply wallowing in the fear that "I'm not able to change anything, so what's the point anyway?"I'm going to live like me. I would rather strive for excellence and fail (perhaps even miserably so), then sit on my thumbs and accept currupt philosophies from currupt personal agendas....And I'm doing this by typing to one person on an internet forum Yes, I know this is unrealistic, and extremely idealistic. But, instead of saying how I'm unable to actually implement it... are you able to find an actual problem with it?

Yes, yes, all very true. Saying "this" or saying "that" doesn't make it so. And yes, one bad apple doesn't mean you throw out the whole bushel or whatever saying works here. But let's look at what's happening. Of course it isn't the big picture. But it is a very clear picture of the problems existing in Religion. And of course these problems exist elsewhere. Yet, Religion is an extremely large part of our culture, and should be held accountable to stand by it's own lessons."I'm allowed to do this, but you are not"Sounds extremely contradictory to "Do unto others..."The fact remains that some Religions, right now, are very loudly saying "I am allowed to marry the person I love, but you are not."Stop your playing with words and generalizing and face the issue. This is clearly, and obviously wrong. It is not complicated. All you have to do is treat people equally. Exactly my point. Your advice? Do nothing? Quibble over how hard it is to figure out and sit this one out? No. We can discover what is right, by showing how it is right. We can also discover what is wrong by showing how it is wrong.Not allowing gay people to marry is wrong. We allow straight people to marry. If we do not allow gay people to marry, we are saying "gay people are not equal to straight people".

quote:

---

Gay people are equal to straight people. All people are people. All people have equal rights.

---

Stop clouding things and show me what is wrong with that.