Why do you come here? (To atheists)

[EddyM]

Indeed, what about it is illogical?

Everything.

Also, how?

Glad you asked dear. I'm here to help you out. Come let's slowly break this down together...

Firstly the word God has millions of definitions and no two people understand it exactly the same either.

Meow Mix said...

When a large percentage of humanity believes in what seems to me the equivalent of the tooth fairy or magical pixies, I start getting interested in the motive and justification behind such widespread beliefs.

If most of the world believed in invisible dragons to the point that it influenced their politics, their morality, their core values/beliefs, and their taboos, I bet almost anyone who didn't believe in those invisible dragons would for sure be investigating the strange matter on a website to talk about the invisible dragons.

You put "God" and "invisible dragons" in the same category. Based upon your own understanding of the two terms. You consider "invisible dragons" to be non-existent or imagined things. The difference between you and the theist is that you consider "God" as well to be imagined whereas the theist considers "God" to be "true"(whatever that means).

You felt a similar mental experience over the concept of "invisible dragon" and "God".

You decided just because you don't consider God to be "real" according to how "realness" applies to everyday objects that you perceive within this universe. "God" must be the product of human imagination rather than an entity arising in the human mind through any type of realization or as a result of any rational process.

So in order to easily discard "God", you equate it with an object which does not exist normally in this world and is widely accepted by everyone, including theists to be as so. You do this in order to (what you think you can)"demonstrate"(as) the "absurdity"(according to you) of the concept of "God".

That's your only outlet. And you know deep down this is dishonest.

Even imagined things are not all the same, even if we base "realness" according to our perception of this world. Somethings require more imagination than others. Somethings are more distorted from what is considered to be "normal" in this world.

You see how beautiful is this? You deny God, and in turn as a result you lack something; the ability to discriminate between things on a higher level.

You lag behind in evolution, while I move ahead of you.:hearts:

Is it illogical by way of contradiction, excluded middle, fallacy, or what...?

My sweet, all these technical terms that are seemingly intellectual and usually them being exquisitely in latin don't scare or impress me.

 

[Meow Mix]

You put "God" and "invisible dragons" in the same category. Based upon your own understanding of the two terms. You consider "invisible dragons" to be non-existent or imagined things. The difference between you and the theist is that you consider "God" as well to be imagined whereas the theist considers "God" to be "true"(whatever that means).

You felt a similar mental experience over the concept of "invisible dragon" and "God".

You decided just because you don't consider God to be "real" according to how "realness" applies to everyday objects that you perceive within this universe. "God" must be the product of human imagination rather than an entity arising in the human mind through any type of realization or as a result of any rational process.

So in order to easily discard "God", you equate it with an object which does not exist normally in this world and is widely accepted by everyone, including theists to be as so. You do this in order to (what you think you can)"demonstrate"(as) the "absurdity"(according to you) of the concept of "God".

That's your only outlet. And you know deep down this is dishonest.

Oh my. I hope you understood that I qualified my statement with the little terms "seems to me," signifying that I was indeed speaking about my subjective perception on the matter?

I'll assume that you didn't, else it would be you who is being dishonest for making it seem as though I thought I was speaking objectively.

The original question was why atheists come to this board. I drew an analogy using invisible dragons because of their absurdity -- god concepts are absurd to me, so why would I discuss them? My response goes on to explain that it seems important to discuss something that I find absurd if most of the rest of the world believes it and that it colors their perception of morality and life.

My post was not illogical -- you just read it in a way that it wasn't intended, it seems.

That's putting it nicely for all the snobbery that was rife in your post.

 

[crocusj]

Oh my. I hope you understood that I qualified my statement with the little terms "seems to me," signifying that I was indeed speaking about my subjective perception on the matter?

I'll assume that you didn't, else it would be you who is being dishonest for making it seem as though I thought I was speaking objectively.

The original question was why atheists come to this board. I drew an analogy using invisible dragons because of their absurdity -- god concepts are absurd to me, so why would I discuss them? My response goes on to explain that it seems important to discuss something that I find absurd if most of the rest of the world believes it and that it colors their perception of morality and life.

My post was not illogical -- you just read it in a way that it wasn't intended, it seems.

That's putting it nicely for all the snobbery that was rife in your post.

In my day (which has long past,sadly) it was called moving the goalposts, now it's "on a higher level"...good luck with this one 'cos he's coming your way....

 

[Dirty Penguin]

If you don't believe in god, or subscribe to a religion... why come to a religious forum to take time from your god-less life and discuss religion?

First there is no rule baring Atheist from this forum.

Second there is much more going on here at RF than just religion

Third theist DON'T have a monopoly on a forum such as this

Fourth if people just simply wanted someone to agree with their mythic stories then why are they here? Why are they not solely a member of a same faith forum?

Fifth the threads we normally engage in are designated as (Debate) threads.

I come here to learn from atheist and theist alike but that doesn't mean I have to agree with either.

(Post Script: Ant Empire is agnostic-atheist, so yeah, not trying to be offensive, I've been asked this question (Been jumping around religious forums for a while) just wondering how you'll react, or if you will. Maybe you'd never thought about it like that..?)

No offense taken but this isn't the first time the question was asked and it won't be the last.

 

[LuisDantas]

Just because some cultures use concepts more than others doesn't mean that those concepts are culturally dependent. Concepts can come from a culture and be applied elsewhere.

Sure. But it is inaccurate, if not all-out misleading, to claim that such is the case with the concept of God. The Abrahamic God is somewhat similar to the Zoroastrian god and some interpretations of a very few Hindu Deva - and that is about it. Deva in general, Kami and most other so-called deities are concepts very dissimilar to that God.

Atheism is applicable to any religion/culture that claims the existence of gods.

Of course. But it is not always a meaningful concept.

 

[Penumbra]

Sure. But it is inaccurate, if not all-out misleading, to claim that such is the case with the concept of God. The Abrahamic God is somewhat similar to the Zoroastrian god and some interpretations of a very few Hindu Deva - and that is about it. Deva in general, Kami and most other so-called deities are concepts very dissimilar to that God.

Of course. But it is not always a meaningful concept.

It's often a meaningful concept.

Things like Ishvara, Bhagavan, Krishna, Vishnu, Shiva, Shakti, Saguna Brahman, and others are things that an atheist by definition would not believe in.

Things like deva and kami are in a similar class to Greek gods and other pagan gods and therefore under most definitions of atheism would not be believed in. They're things that are worshipped as personified forces of nature.

The concept of Brahman as a whole is one of the things that arguably bends the definitions a bit, partially because there is significant diversity among the various religions and schools of religion that have that concept.

I'm not sure why you're using the god of Abraham as a starting point for gods.

 

[crocusj]

Shall I tell you why...I'm an old guy who knows it all, or at least knows all he needs to know, or at least assumes he knows all he needs to know. And let's face it, you cannot continually argue with all your friends or they will cease to be such. So here I am...other forums are much less civilised (and can be fun because of that) but the antagonism prevalent there means the chances of learning something I didn't know are zero. The people here are very nice, though the OP is a little disingenuous - religious debates can be a bit sterile and circular but along the way all of us can learn something about the other (if not take on-board anything about their beliefs) and that is always better than the alternative. So the answer to why we should be here is the obvious "why not?".

Memo to self...stop posting while drunk...

 

[dust1n]

Well why would you join a Pokemon fan club if you wish Pikachu was never invented?

To dismantle the Pokeman fan club?

 

[LuisDantas]

It's often a meaningful concept.

Things like Ishvara, Bhagavan, Krishna, Vishnu, Shiva, Shakti, Saguna Brahman, and others are things that an atheist by definition would not believe in.

Sorry, but I must again disagree. Those concepts are not necessarily believed in as much as used as forms of expression.

Things like deva and kami are in a similar class to Greek gods and other pagan gods and therefore under most definitions of atheism would not be believed in.

Of course. But then again, do you really think most people who used those concepts necessarily believed in their literal existence?

That would be more than a bit weird, after all.

They're things that are worshipped as personified forces of nature.

Again, that is not necessarily due to belief in their literal existence as much as a contemplation activity.

Even many Christians don't really believe in God as much as acquire the fear of admitting - even to themselves - that they do not.

On this matter, I recommend a look at Chapter 4 of "The Authoritarians" by Bob Altemeyer.

The Authoritarians

The concept of Brahman as a whole is one of the things that arguably bends the definitions a bit, partially because there is significant diversity among the various religions and schools of religion that have that concept.

I'm not sure why you're using the god of Abraham as a starting point for gods.

Because the Abrahamic faiths are basically alone in insisting that actual belief in god is important.

 

[Penumbra]

Sorry, but I must again disagree. Those concepts are not necessarily believed in as much as used as forms of expression.

Of course. But then again, do you really think most people who used those concepts necessarily believed in their literal existence?

That would be more than a bit weird, after all.

Again, that is not necessarily due to belief in their literal existence as much as a contemplation activity.

Even many Christians don't really believe in God as much as acquire the fear of admitting - even to themselves - that they do not.

On this matter, I recommend a look at Chapter 4 of "The Authoritarians" by Bob Altemeyer.

The Authoritarians

I've specifically talked to a lot of Dharmic followers that said they do believe in things like that.

You're casting a wide net over an extensive and diversified set of beliefs. To say that those concepts are not believed is an error. In any religion, there are a variety of levels of literalness.

Some people seem to idealize Dharmic religions and assume that everyone who follows them takes a purely metaphorical and deeply philosophical path, but just like anywhere else, there are a variety of types.

Atheism and theism remain valuable concepts in Abrahamic, Dharmic, and other religions.

Because the Abrahamic faiths are basically alone in insisting that actual belief in god is important.

Abrahamic religions tend to be particularly bad at dogmatic insistence on belief, but that doesn't have anything to do with definitions of gods.

Bhagavad Gita 4:40
"But ignorant and faithless persons who doubt the revealed scriptures do not attain God consciousness; they fall down. For the doubting soul there is happiness neither in this world nor in the next."

 

[SnifferOuter77]

I can't bring myself to believe that all of Christianity sprung from a simple hunch. Or some douche deciding to spread some rumor about some invisible dude watching us. Everybody on here talks about the origins of religion being a scam for money. Sorry, but there is no such scam-artist with mass-mind-control powers to hypnotize a planet into praying to spiritual entities for thousands of years to come. I mean hell, if you believe that, God's not too far of a stretch after all. Christianity is obviously founded on events that shocked and awed people of that day. If an underwater city can be discovered off the coast of India and not even be in the news anymore less than a month later... there must have been some pretty astounding events taking place during the roots of all belief systems.

 

[gnomon]

Apparently I come here to merely kill some time.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I can't bring myself to believe that all of Christianity sprung from a simple hunch. Or some douche deciding to spread some rumor about some invisible dude watching us. Everybody on here talks about the origins of religion being a scam for money. Sorry, but there is no such scam-artist with mass-mind-control powers to hypnotize a planet into praying to spiritual entities for thousands of years to come. I mean hell, if you believe that, God's not too far of a stretch after all. Christianity is obviously founded on events that shocked and awed people of that day. If an underwater city can be discovered off the coast of India and not even be in the news anymore less than a month later... there must have been some pretty astounding events taking place during the roots of all belief systems.

Rant much.....

 

[Meow Mix]

I can't bring myself to believe that all of Christianity sprung from a simple hunch. Or some douche deciding to spread some rumor about some invisible dude watching us. Everybody on here talks about the origins of religion being a scam for money. Sorry, but there is no such scam-artist with mass-mind-control powers to hypnotize a planet into praying to spiritual entities for thousands of years to come. I mean hell, if you believe that, God's not too far of a stretch after all. Christianity is obviously founded on events that shocked and awed people of that day. If an underwater city can be discovered off the coast of India and not even be in the news anymore less than a month later... there must have been some pretty astounding events taking place during the roots of all belief systems.

People were shocked and awed when Esclepius routinely turned water to wine, but archaeologists are pretty sure that it had something to do with the monks blowing wine through tubes into the statue's bowl

Yep, it's pretty apparent that people were even MORE gullible back in the day than they are now and that's saying a lot!

(There are a fair number of people who actually think David Blaine and Chris Angel are performing REAL magic! Unbelievable!)

 

[SnifferOuter77]

Rant much.....

Lately? Yeah dude. Nonbelievers are showing up on this sight for fun with no intention to learn or spread anything worth reading. They just try to discredit not only belief systems, but facts and actual discoveries being made as well. Like this one for example: THERE HAVE BEEN NO ACCOUNTS OF ANY OTHER "DRUG" THAT HAS SENT SO MANY MINDS TO THE SAME "PLACE" AS DESCRIBED BY THOSE EXPERIENCING DMT. But whatever you do, don't go try it... it's illegal!
There, that better England?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Lately? Yeah dude. Nonbelievers are showing up on this sight for fun with no intention to learn or spread anything worth reading. They just try to discredit not only belief systems, but facts and actual discoveries being made as well. Like this one for example. THERE ARE NO ACCOUNTS OF ANY OTHER "DRUG" SENDING SO MANY MINDS TO THE SAME "PLACE" AS DESCRIBED BY THOSE WHO EXPERIENCED DMT.

Every drug has its own unique psychoactive effects. DMT is no different in this regard from LSD, alcohol or ethene.

 

[SnifferOuter77]

People were shocked and awed when Esclepius routinely turned water to wine, but archaeologists are pretty sure that it had something to do with the monks blowing wine through tubes into the statue's bowl

Yep, it's pretty apparent that people were even MORE gullible back in the day than they are now and that's saying a lot!

(There are a fair number of people who actually think David Blaine and Chris Angel are performing REAL magic! Unbelievable!)

MeowMix you've got to be one of my biggest fans. And don't even get me started on Chris Angel. It doesn't take an archaeologist to come up with a "magic trick" to turn water to wine. I've seen it done recently without your tube idea, and still wasn't really impressed. I don't go by the Bible though, it's subject to human error just like anything else man has touched. Honestly you should've used a crazier example, like the Red Sea parting. Better arguement(for someone who goes by the Book).

 

[SnifferOuter77]

Every drug has its own unique psychoactive effects. DMT is no different in this regard from LSD, alcohol or ethene.

If you even knew how far off you are, you'd laugh hysterically at yourself. When you said LSD I just said whatever... but alcohol? Dude, you're talkin out your ***.
What drugs generally do is block the receptors in your brain, causing dopamine to build up putting the brain in a cloudy, euphoric state we call being high. DMT does NOT block your receptors, but pumps oxygen right through them. LSD comes from mold btw, so that's an entirely different ballpark than any etheogen. But alcohol dude, really? Go home.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Lately? Yeah dude. Nonbelievers are showing up on this sight for fun with no intention to learn or spread anything worth reading. They just try to discredit not only belief systems, but facts and actual discoveries being made as well.

If we showed up in same faith threads then you'd have a legit beef with us but that's not normally the case. We enter into DEBATE threads. You know what they say....? Can't stand the heat...yada yada yada.......

As far as "discrediting facts"...well, if they do it with evidence then what's the matter? Again, if it's in a debate thread then it's fair game. This issue isn't one sided either. Theist can, have and will continue to do the same.


Is there any reason why non-theist shouldn't be allowed here?

 

[Meow Mix]

MeowMix you've got to be one of my biggest fans. And don't even get me started on Chris Angel. It doesn't take an archaeologist to come up with a "magic trick" to turn water to wine. I've seen it done recently without your tube idea, and still wasn't really impressed. I don't go by the Bible though, it's subject to human error just like anything else man has touched. Honestly you should've used a crazier example, like the Red Sea parting. Better arguement(for someone who goes by the Book).

My point is just that people were and are gullible. There's probably enough people living today who believe Chris Angel has magic powers to match the number of people who thought Jesus Christ had magic powers. All that needs to happen is for them to live in the same locale during a time of religious reform in a world-spanning empire and get some Emperor who needs a new god to win his military battles to take up the name and bam... we'll have ChrisAngelism spread across teh globe.