Why Atheism is Appealing

[Bob the Unbeliever]

While Huxley's rationale obviously shouldn't be taken to represent all atheists, it is not at all uncommon to see people (especially those in pragmatist and postmosernist waters which look for things they consider more important than "truth") to reject a worldview such as Christianity precisely because it imposes restrictions which they do not like.

There is ONE and ONLY ONE thing that the christianity I practiced in the last 20 years or so, was that it required WORSHIP.

The church I belonged to accepted gays, and marriage equality. It rejected the very evil Hell Theology outright. It was pretty accepting, really, of a wide range of peoples. The only real restriction, was that you did not make an odious azz of yourself in public and bring the church into that.

But worship? I now see that ALL worship is what slaves do for their masters, after their minds are broken into slavery.

So that is pretty much it, behavior-wise. Apparently you don't know any actual .. atheists.

 

[Apologes]

There is ONE and ONLY ONE thing that the christianity I practiced in the last 20 years or so, was that it required WORSHIP.

The church I belonged to accepted gays, and marriage equality. It rejected the very evil Hell Theology outright. It was pretty accepting, really, of a wide range of peoples. The only real restriction, was that you did not make an odious azz of yourself in public and bring the church into that.

But worship? I now see that ALL worship is what slaves do for their masters, after their minds are broken into slavery.

So that is pretty much it, behavior-wise. Apparently you don't know any actual .. atheists.

I know from our previous interactions that you're not one to make a sound argument, but I simply have to marvel at these pathetic attempts at cheap shots about my personal life.

 

[ChristineM]

I know from our previous interactions that you're not one to make a sound argument, but I simply have to marvel at these pathetic attempts at cheap shots about my personal life.

Read sound to me, about the church he used to attend and the outlook he now has on religion, i guess learned from that religion

Nor did i see anything personal, only what can be gleaned from the open book of your posts. Perhaps a little paranoia is creeping in?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

"there were no gays in biblical times?" then why have a verse denouncing men laying with other men, surely if there were no gays, there would not be a verse such as this?

Because they werent gay. Just two straights practicing promiscuity.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

It's been cataloged so far by biologists that over 300 different species display homosexual behaviors. Yet we seem to be the only species that discriminates against such behaviors. Go read Biological Exuberance, by Bruce Bagemihl to get better acquainted.

To add

Clownfish, wrasses, moray eels, gobies and other fish species are known to change sex, including reproductive functions. A school of clownfish is always built into a hierarchy with a female fish at the top. When she dies, the most dominant male changes sex and takes her place.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

If you are reducing yourself to the level of a bilogical species and forgetting that you're made in the image of God, it's your choice, not mine.

Where in the bible does it define gays and straights before They had sex with each other?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

How did you deduce that?!

Because what it suggests is idiotic.

It’s irrational not to accept a conclusion just because you dislike the implications if it were true.

Turn it around and apply the same thought process to yourself:

Maybe deep down, you know that Hinduism is true, but you just love hamburgers too much, so you call yourself a Christian?

Or maybe you realize that God really wants you to follow Islam, but you like sleeping in too much to do the Fajr prayer every day.

Or do you reject Buddhism because finding a job that’s in line with the Noble Eightfold Path would mean too much of a pay cut?

Think about how insulting these examples would be toward you; you’re being just as insulting to the atheists - actually, to non-Christians generally - who are reading this thread.

I was merely posting a quote from Huxley, which I think has some merit. It says nothing about idiocy. Atheism just fits a lifestyle (of freedom) that many want.

I don’t care what the source is. Aldous Huxley isn’t in this thread; you are. You’re the one who was trying to make a point here.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

I know from our previous interactions that you're not one to make a sound argument, but I simply have to marvel at these pathetic attempts at cheap shots about my personal life.

If by "sound" what you really mean is "agrees with your personal biases" then you are correct.

I see that instead of addressing my arguments, you go on the personal attack. Ironic, considering you think I'm "attacking you" instead of criticizing Christianity...

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

I know from our previous interactions that you're not one to make a sound argument, but I simply have to marvel at these pathetic attempts at cheap shots about my personal life.

Nice dodge at ignoring my main point: WORSHIP is for slaves.

What now?

 

[ChristineM]

To add

Clownfish, wrasses, moray eels, gobies and other fish species are known to change sex, including reproductive functions. A school of clownfish is always built into a hierarchy with a female fish at the top. When she dies, the most dominant male changes sex and takes her place.

You just ruined Finding Nemo ... ;-)

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Besides sexual freedom, a huge problem they have with Christianity is its view of homosexual relationships. In a culture where SJWs have become louder than ever suh views are often rejected based on their lack of political correctness rather than some argumentative defficiency.

I think it has more to do with visibility. It’s a lot easier to maintain a belief that God hates gay people when “gay people” is just an abstraction and not “Mark who I volunteer with and Tracy the mom who bakes the awesome brownies for my kid’s school’s bake sales.”

Visibility of LGBT people puts a human face on homosexuality, which makes it much harder to maintain the belief that LGBT people should be condemned. This creates a conflict with the idea of a benevolent god who condemns homosexuality; that conflict can be resolved a few different ways, but one of them is to just throw out the idea of a god altogether. If the only reason the person believed in God in the first place was a religion they now believe is wrong, why would they stick with it?

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

I think it has more to do with visibility. It’s a lot easier to maintain a belief that God hates gay people when “gay people” is just an abstraction and not “Mark who I volunteer with and Tracy the mom who bakes the awesome brownies for my kid’s school’s bake sales.”

Visibility of LGBT people puts a human face on homosexuality, which makes it much harder to maintain the belief that LGBT people should be condemned. This creates a conflict with the idea of a benevolent god who condemns homosexuality; that conflict can be resolved a few different ways, but one of them is to just throw out the idea of a god altogether. If the only reason the person believed in God in the first place was a religion they now believe is wrong, why would they stick with it?

Why indeed. I find that people who do deep introspection on this subject, as often as not, do not stick with the original religion.

I know I didn't. I was raised in the Assemblys Of God cult. But as I grew up, and learned more about how the universe worked, I found more and more that that cult simply did not work for me-- and indeed, it didn't work for the majority of those who clung to it, but they stayed anyway. Which in retrospect, I often wonder about even now.

Stubbornness? Willful ignoring?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Because what it suggests is idiotic.

It’s irrational not to accept a conclusion just because you dislike the implications if it were true.

Turn it around and apply the same thought process to yourself:

Maybe deep down, you know that Hinduism is true, but you just love hamburgers too much, so you call yourself a Christian?

Or maybe you realize that God really wants you to follow Islam, but you like sleeping in too much to do the Fajr prayer every day.

Or do you reject Buddhism because finding a job that’s in line with the Noble Eightfold Path would mean too much of a pay cut?

Think about how insulting these examples would be toward you; you’re being just as insulting to the atheists - actually, to non-Christians generally - who are reading this thread.

I don’t care what the source is. Aldous Huxley isn’t in this thread; you are. You’re the one who was trying to make a point here.

I just posted what Aldous Huxley wrote, and asked for comments.
I guess I got em.

I get your point, I knew it when I posted it. I think subconsciously, though, what people desire does influence their view, whether they want to accept it or not.

Like, for example, the religious: not wanting to accept their dead loved ones are dead, non-existent. “No, they’re living somewhere else.”

But the Bible actually states the dead are dead, ‘to dust they return’ (Genesis 3:19; etc., etc.), but who really believes that, among Bible believers? They interpret the Scriptures in a way that supports the view they want!

And so it goes, with just about everything!
(This probably sounds disjointed, going from one thing to another ....I apologize. I have a hard time putting my thoughts on paper, I’d much rather talk to people face to face!)

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Tit 1:15
To the pure, all things are pure, but to those who are corrupted and do not believe, nothing is pure. In fact, both their minds and consciences are corrupted.

Cool. Before hand without even getting to know me I'm labeled as having a corrupt mind and conscience. Is that how they build rapport with strangers where you come from?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

(Sorry, my quote feature ain't workin)
@Bob the Unbeliever wrote:
"are not biblical wives supposed to be entirely submissive to their "lord and master" husbands? "

.....Just as biblical husbands are to be entirely loving to their wives! -- Ephesians 5:25-33. (Vs.28 especially)

Is that a bad situation? My wife doesn't think so....she's happy.

Because I love her, I consider what she wants all the time. And she usually gets it!

 

[Trailblazer]

Cool. Before hand without even getting to know me I'm labeled as having a corrupt mind and conscience. Is that how they build rapport with strangers where you come from?

I do not think that was personal to you. That is how some Christians think of people who do not believe in Jesus and the Bible the same way they do.

 

[Apologes]

Read sound to me, about the church he used to attend and the outlook he now has on religion, i guess learned from that religion

Nor did i see anything personal, only what can be gleaned from the open book of your posts. Perhaps a little paranoia is creeping in?

So it was evident from my post that I don't know any actual atheists? Hm, I wonder how you geniuses make that inference. I wonder even more how you are able to claim that making comments about who I know or am associated with isn't personal and how trying to discredit my post on the basis of those meddlings isn't a fallacious cheap shot.

All of these are rethorical questions of course since it is painfully obvious to anyone with but a modicum of critical thinking that making assertions about one's association (or lack there of) with a given group of people is a judgement about one's private affairs (who they know and who they're in contact with). These assertions could only be answered by appealing to one's personal affairs which one may be disinclined to share.

Not that it's any of your business, but my best friend is an atheist, communist and a materialist with my highschool friends being all anti-theistic metal heads. An inquisition into my private life answered by revealing things about my private life.

Totally not private and totally paranoid. Right. Needless to say, my ignore list will get bigger thanks to the immaturity of a couple more members.

 

[ChristineM]

So it was evident from my post that I don't know any actual atheists? Hm, I wonder how you geniuses make that inference. I wonder even more how you are able to claim that making comments about who I know or am associated with isn't personal and how trying to discredit my post on the basis of those meddlings isn't a fallacious cheap shot.

All of these are rethorical questions of course since it is painfully obvious to anyone with but a modicum of critical thinking that making assertions about one's association (or lack there of) with a given group of people is a judgement about one's private affairs (who they know and who they're in contact with). These assertions could only be answered by appealing to one's personal affairs which one may be disinclined to share.

Not that it's any of your business, but my best friend is an atheist, communist and a materialist with my highschool friends being all anti-theistic metal heads. An inquisition into my private life answered by revealing things about my private life.

Totally not private and totally paranoid. Right. Needless to say, my ignore list will get bigger thanks to the immaturity of a couple more members.

You wonder? I am assuming you wrote your own posts?

Ahh you mean anyone who does not agree with you personal thinking. Ok

So are you basing your finger pointing at all atheists on your knowledge of your best friend. FYI, there are about 1.2 billion atheists ans similar unaffiliated people out there. They are all individual.

Oh jolly good, can't abide criticism of those he criticises so put them on ignore.

 

[Apologes]

You wonder? I am assuming you wrote your own posts?

So you refuse to provide an inference and merely assert it as obvious.

Ahh you mean anyone who does not agree with you personal thinking. Ok

I see that even after more than 4000 posts you've yet to learn how to properly respond to other people's posts by dividing the quotes so that it is clear which paragraph you're responding to. Like this, even the little intelligibility that could be found in your (typically substance-less) posts gets lost.

So are you basing your finger pointing at all atheists on your knowledge of your best friend. FYI, there are about 1.2 billion atheists ans similar unaffiliated people out there. They are all individual.

As usual, you're either purposefully misrepresenting what I said or really suffer from a serious lack of reading comprehension. I never said anything in that post went for most atheists, let alone all. Further more, the examples of my friends were just there to prove the point that the remark in question was one about my personal life as well as false. Convenient that you'd completely fail to address what was the point of contention in the first place and are now switching the topic. Forget learning how to make intelligible responses, at least learn how to read.

Oh jolly good, can't abide criticism of those he criticises so put them on ignore.

Oh jolly good, not all criticism is worth responding to. Especially not one coming from people who go by constantly attacking strawmen instead of paying attention to what I'm actually saying. The ignore list happens to be a convenient little thing made so that the drivel that such people spout doesn't appear in my alert feed. You weren't the one I ignored, as I tend to give people quite a lot of chances before I choose to cut them off, but you're definitely on your way. Don't expect any further replies from me in this thread.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I get your point, I knew it when I posted it. I think subconsciously, though, what people desire does influence their view, whether they want to accept it or not.

Like, for example, the religious: not wanting to accept their dead loved ones are dead, non-existent. “No, they’re living somewhere else.”

How does what you desire influence what you believe?