What do you get from being atheist?

[PureX]

You should start a spreadsheet for the members of RF to be able to keep track of your nonsense.
Like I already told you long ago, I am not a subscriber to the snake oil you are so desperate to sale.

Which I also find rather strange.
I find you to be rather intelligent and engaging on pretty much all other topics.
But once you get started on atheism, it is right straight down a rabbit hole.

I approach all these topics the same way. I look for the BS hiding behind the unquestioned presumptions. The snake oil you drank was the delusion that atheism is nothing. And then you were foolish enough to try and defend it, instead of actually contemplating the valid criticisms of this kind of nonsense. And now you've fallen so far down that nonsensical rabbit hole that you don't even know which way is out. And of course you have a cadre of knee-jerkers down that hole along with you throwing more mud in you eyes as they, too, try to defend this nonsense. All because they're too afraid to stand up and defend their own atheism.

Theism is not theology, and us not religion. Theism is the philosophical proposition. Theology is the study of the various possibilities that proposition opens up for us, and religions are the practical enablers of one's chosen theology. Each is related to the idea of 'God', but each is a very different manifestation and response to that idea. Atheism is then the antithetical to the theist proposition. That means it is the contrary proposition that no God/gods exist in any way that effects human existence. It's all very clear and logical until you drink the snake oil that claims atheism is nothing, and then you're foolish enough to try and defend nothing. Which leaves you having to attack because you can't defend nothing. So you attack religion, instead. Because it's easy, and you have nothing else. But religions are just enablers, so all there is for you to attack are images, and symbols, and stories, and rituals, and platitudes and beliefs. Nothing of any actual intellectual substance, though. And there you remain stuck. An atheist that's really just anti-religious because he defines atheism as nothing.

And that has to attack anyone that dares to point out that attacking religious images and symbols and stories and platitudes is just a silly waste of time. But a waste of time that you're stuck with because you call yourself an atheist and then define atheism as nothing. So that you've dismissed your own validity even before the discussion began.

 

[ChristineM]

I approach all these topics the same way. I look for the BS hiding behind the unquestioned presumptions. The snake oil you drank was the delusion that atheism is nothing. And then you were foolish enough to try and defend it, instead of actually contemplating the valid criticisms of this nonsense. And now you've fallen so far down that nonsensical rabbit hole that you don't even know which way is out. And of course you have a cadre of knee-jerkers down that hole along with you throwing more mud in you eyes as they, too, try to defend this nonsense. All because they're too afraid to stand up and defend their own atheism.

Theism is not theology, and us not religion. Theism is the philosophical proposition. Theology is the study of the various possibilities that proposition opens up for us, and religions are the practical enablers of one's chosen theology. Each is related to the idea of 'God', but each is a very different manifestation and response to that idea. Atheism is then the antithetical to the theist proposition. That means it is the contrary proposition that no God/gods exist in any way that effects human existence. It's all very clear and logical until you drink the snake oil that claims atheism is nothing, and then you're foolish enough to try and defend nothing. Which leaves you having to attack because you can't defend nothing. So you attack religion, instead. Because you have nothing else. But religions are just enablers, so all there is for you to attack are images, and symbols, and stories, and rituals, and platitudes and beliefs. Nothing of any actual intellectual substance, though. And there you remain stuck. An atheist that's really just anti-religious because he defines atheism as nothing.

And that has to attack anyone that dares to point out that attacking religious images and symbols and stories and platitudes is just a silly waste of time. But a waste of time that you're stuck with because you call yourself an atheist and then define atheism as nothing. So that you've dismissed your own validity even before the discussion began.

Methinks you doth protest to much.

 

[McBell]

I approach all these topics the same way. I look for the BS hiding behind the unquestioned presumptions. The snake oil you drank was the delusion that atheism is nothing. And then you were foolish enough to try and defend it, instead of actually contemplating the valid criticisms of this kind of nonsense. And now you've fallen so far down that nonsensical rabbit hole that you don't even know which way is out. And of course you have a cadre of knee-jerkers down that hole along with you throwing more mud in you eyes as they, too, try to defend this nonsense. All because they're too afraid to stand up and defend their own atheism.

Theism is not theology, and us not religion. Theism is the philosophical proposition. Theology is the study of the various possibilities that proposition opens up for us, and religions are the practical enablers of one's chosen theology. Each is related to the idea of 'God', but each is a very different manifestation and response to that idea. Atheism is then the antithetical to the theist proposition. That means it is the contrary proposition that no God/gods exist in any way that effects human existence. It's all very clear and logical until you drink the snake oil that claims atheism is nothing, and then you're foolish enough to try and defend nothing. Which leaves you having to attack because you can't defend nothing. So you attack religion, instead. Because you have nothing else. But religions are just enablers, so all there is for you to attack are images, and symbols, and stories, and rituals, and platitudes and beliefs. Nothing of any actual intellectual substance, though. And there you remain stuck. An atheist that's really just anti-religious because he defines atheism as nothing.

And that has to attack anyone that dares to point out that attacking religious images and symbols and stories and platitudes is just a silly waste of time. But a waste of time that you're stuck with because you call yourself an atheist and then define atheism as nothing. So that you've dismissed your own validity even before the discussion began.

Nice little sermon.

Perhaps it is just me, but it appears you lack reading comprehension.
Exactly what part of "I am not a subscriber to the snake oil you are so desperate to sale" did you not understand?

I am an atheist simply because I lack belief in god(s).
All that other nonsense you attach to atheism is your snake oil baggage, not mine.

 

[PureX]

Nice little sermon.

Perhaps it is just me, but it appears you lack reading comprehension.
Exactly what part of "I am not a subscriber to the snake oil you are so desperate to sale" did you not understand?

I understood it fine, as you obviously subscribe to the 'atheism = nothing' nonsense, and so you must blindly reject any reasonable, sensible criticism of it.

I am an atheist simply because I lack belief in god(s).

Like I said, it's a meaningless, empty definition and therefor a meaningless, empty statement.

All that other nonsense you attach to atheism is your snake oil baggage, not mine.

All I attach to the term is a simple, logical, definition. But of course you can't tolerate that, or even consider it.

 

[Trailblazer]

If disbelieving in deities made me miserable, I'ld still disbelieve in deities... "not feeling miserable" is not a proper rational justification for believing something.

If believing in deities made me miserable, I'd still believe in deities... "not feeling miserable" is not a proper rational justification for believing something.
... and sometimes it IS miserable believing in the deity.

 

[Colt]

I saw this question (or one very like it) over the last few days. I can't remember in which thread, or who asked the question, and it doesn't matter. But it does bring up something that I think is really important to the endless arguments between theists and atheists. (I'm not picking any particular theism, no individual religion.)

The reason the question is interesting is because it seems to make a deep assumption, but one that doesn't really seem appropriate -- and that deep assumption is that there is "something useful, something good, something valuable or precious" in holding a belief (or beliefs) about deities, and that the same must hold true about NOT holding such beliefs.

Let me try an example or two: if I don't have any theistic belief, I have my Sundays (or Fridays, or Saturdays or longer periods of religious observance) free. If I don't have any theistic belief, I am free to do anything I like (including murder and rape!).

This is analogically false!

I understand that having a belief in a loving deity, or a saviour, or an afterlife in a heaven or Valhalla can feel comforting and precious. I can see how having a set of rules (positive and negative) can feel as if difficult questions have been pre-decided or answered for you. I can even see how those rules might help you feel more comfortable rejecting -- or even mistreating -- those who aren't like you in those rules.

But here it is: there is nothing to be gained, nothing of value, nothing to provide comfort or guidance, in not believing in deities. We don't get anything from it. It doesn't comfort us, or frighten us. It demands nothing of us. It does not inform our morals any more than it informs our food preferences.

Which brings us the question that theists will immediately ask: "so why disbelieve, why not believe in a deity and gain all the benefits I feel I get?"

And the answer is perfectly simple: because we cannot change our belief on the basis of hoped-for benefits -- any more than theists can change their beliefs on the basis of a desire to be free of all those commandments and rules. To pretend to accept the idea of a deity gives us nothing, because it is pretense. The only thing that can change a deeply-held belief is convincing evidence to refute that which informs those beliefs. And therein lies a deep, deep blockage -- "convincing" is totally subjective: what convinces me isn't necessarily what convinces you.

Seems to me that Atheists who join a "religious forum" do so to get attention! and a kind of target practice with the religious people that they mock and look down on.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Seems to me that Atheists who join a "religious forum" do so to get attention! and a kind of target practice with the religious people that they mock and look down on.

Speaking for myself, I joined because I was trying to accept religion.

I hated to see my then-wife sobbing at the thought of her husband going to Hell, so I was looking for any way to become Christian. I was running into obstacles that prevented me from accepting it; I couldn't sort them out on my own, so I went looking for believers who, I hoped, had figured out rational ways to reconcile all the issues I was having with accepting faith.

Turns out my hope was misplaced.

 

[Colt]

Speaking for myself, I joined because I was trying to accept religion.

I hated to see my then-wife sobbing at the thought of her husband going to Hell, so I was looking for any way to become Christian. I was running into obstacles that prevented me from accepting it; I couldn't sort them out on my own, so I went looking for believers who, I hoped, had figured out rational ways to reconcile all the issues I was having with accepting faith.

Turns out my hope was misplaced.

Are you willing to believe in a power greater than yourself?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Are you willing to believe in a power greater than yourself?

I'm willing to accept any conclusion supported by evidence and reason.

What does your question have to do with my post?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Seems to me that Atheists who join a "religious forum" do so to get attention! and a kind of target practice with the religious people that they mock and look down on.

You are entitled to your own assumptions -- whether they have anything to do with reality or not. In this case, not.

It might have been nice if you'd actually read the OP (I have to assume you didn't). There is no animosity towards theists in it, no mocking, no looking down on -- not in the least. It tries very hard to be explanatory about two things: that atheists do not believe in God because the can't, and that that is the only reason for being atheist -- there really is nothing to gain from atheism itself. Even an interest in philosophy to make up for what atheism doesn't provide is a separate thing, and I know many atheists who are completely uninterested in philosophy.

And as I've explained too often to believe you still haven't seen it, my deepest interest is in humanity, and humanity has been mostly religious throughout history, up to this current moment. It probably isn't obvious to you, but I have nothing to learn from spending my time among people who think exactly as I do.

 

[McBell]

I understood it fine, as you obviously subscribe to the 'atheism = nothing' nonsense, and so you must blindly reject any reasonable, sensible criticism of it.

Like I said, it's a meaningless, empty definition and therefor a meaningless, empty statement.

All I attach to the term is a simple, logical, definition. But of course you can't tolerate that, or even consider it.

Problem here is that you are so busy dictating to me what I think, believe, etc. that you are completely unable to notice the fact tht you actually do not know anything about me other than the fact that I lack god beliefs.

All this other nonsense you keep shoveling about me is nothing more than your transference.

Don't get me wrong.
It makes for rather comical entertainment.

Your need to call it meaningless because you can not understand it is again a you problem.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

To paraphrase a common retort: 'some of our best and most valued friends are Christians.'

We've dined with them. We''ve vacationed with them. We've spent hours working with them at soup kitchens and nights sitting with them while helping out at homeless shelters.

I've marched with them and sat-in with them and have even been arrested with them.

I would far rather share time with them than with those who promote such a pathetic and distorted profile of faith communities.

It's sad, really. Some of my best friends are Christians, too. And Jews and Muslims and others. I've worked alongside them at Second Harvest, I've eaten with them, and I've gone to Church and Synagogue with them when they married -- or sadly died. I've worn the white Kippah out of respect for the community. (It is not my fault I've not been invited to a Mosque for similar reasons, but I'd certainly go, and be respectful.)

I hope that my posts in this thread have not promoted distored views of faith communities.

 

[flowerpower]

Have you thought about venturing back into religious practice? What are your thoughts on spirituality?

At this very precise moment in time (literally as the time ticks, and I expect my thoughts to change enormously within the next half hour or so) - my thoughts on spirituality are that true spirituality requires a form of authentic human experience that not everyone really arrives at in their lifetime.

Sounds quaint, but it reminds me of one of the good old 90s Simpsons episodes where Bart sells his soul and, at the end of the episode, Lisa tells Bart: "some philosophers believe that no one is born with a soul; you have to earn one through suffering, and thought, and prayer".

To answer your former question - yeah, I've spent the last couple of years (the last 12 months in particular) toying with the idea of venturing back into religious practice. I even started praying again at some points. What I've noticed however, is that - although I know a lot of the lingo - I'm an absolute spiritual baby. With this changed or renewed perspective of mine, I have epiphanies all day long and think things like "well **** - I really shouldn't have prayed for that - I can see why that is one of the ten commandments, etc".

As much as organized religion has a lot of terrible things to answer for that a lot of people might find unforgivable, my own human experience has started to afford me the ability to see how and why a lot of the rules and guidelines that I once thought were simply cynical instruments invented to control the masses are actually important to people as individuals and genuine pathways to spiritual transcendence.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Seems to me that Atheists who join a "religious forum" do so to get attention!

What attention?

and a kind of target practice with the religious people that they mock and look down on.

I could say the exact same thing about theists, and I'ld probably have a far easier time supporting it.

 

[PureX]

Problem here is that you are so busy dictating to me what I think, believe, etc. that you are completely unable to notice the fact tht you actually do not know anything about me other than the fact that I lack god beliefs.

I can only respond to what you write. Maybe you don’t see or know yourself as well as you imagine.

 

[ChristineM]

What attention?

The attention of some religious people who delight in misrepresentating and abusing atheism.

 

[McBell]

I can only respond to what you write. Maybe you don’t see or know yourself as well as you imagine.

I know enough about myself to know you don't know jack **** about me other than I lack a belief in god.
All that other bovine feces you have assigned to me is nothing more than you trying desperately to stuff me into your anti-atheist box.

So your idea that you know me better than I know me is nothing more than wishful thinking on your part.
And "wishful thinking" is giving you the benefit of the doubt.

 

[PureX]

The attention of some religious people who delight in misrepresentating and abusing atheism.

How can we misrepresent nothing?

 

[McBell]

How can we misrepresent nothing?

Just take a looksie at your many sermons in this thread alone...

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

How can we misrepresent nothing?

By pretending it is something, for starters