So you're an atheist. Ok, what next? [Archive]

m_huber

26th January 2008, 01:42 AM

If you live your life for a purpose, and that purpose is grounded in a lie, then have you made good use of your life? Arguably, there is no truly good endeavor. Medicine only delays the inevitable. Death will come to all beings, to all species, and even to the universe. Belief in some form of higher power or afterlife is an attempt to make life meaningful. However, if no deity exists, then those who believe in that deity are certainly doing nothing to "make the world a better place." I find meaning and purpose in simply enjoying the world as it actually is. I am much less confused and disturbed by the world than I was when I still believed in God.

"Rescuing others" is not what atheism is about. Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a deity. Many religions attempt to "rescue" the "perishing," but atheists have no dogma comparable to the Great Commission. Some do choose to actively convert believers to non-belief (Randi and Dawkins immediately come to mind), but that is a personal choice.

I would suggest that Daniel Dennett, Thomas Hobbes, Immanuel Kant, Frederick Neitche, and numerous other famous and well-educated philosophers have already answered your question with regard to values. Your library probably has a nice section on atheism.

Graham Ross

26th January 2008, 01:42 AM

Let's say you've lived at least a couple of decades, you've examined the options, and you've arrived at the conclusion that Santa doesn't exist.

Well.
Here you are.

What do you do now?
Let's say you then spend a few years trying to rescue other humans from what you (not they) regard as stupidity.

Ok. Then what?

What can you do that is positive?
Are there any specifically asantaist 'values'?
Are there any specifically asantaist charities that endeavour to improve the plight of individuals?[/QUOTE]

plumjam

26th January 2008, 01:46 AM

plumjam

26th January 2008, 01:47 AM

Arguably, there is no truly good endeavor.

Folks, this is where atheism, taken to its extreme, leads you.

Really, need I say any more? :rolleyes:

86kam

26th January 2008, 01:50 AM

you've arrived at atheism.

Well.
Here you are.

What do you do now?
Live life to it's fullest, make the best of your genetic lottery winning..

Let's say you then spend a few years trying to rescue other humans from what you (not they) regard as stupidity.
Ok. Then what?
Why do you characterize atheists as some kind of crusader type? Most atheists I know are merely concerned with truth and facts. How many atheist missionaries do you know?

What can you do that is positive?
I help, or try and help someone everyday... that's what I do that's positive.. no god required.
Are there any specifically atheist 'values'?
Like a set of rules such as laid out in the bible?? I don't think so. You seem to be making the error of equating atheism with some kind of belief system, morality, or philosophy. I think It isn't. Atheism, at it's kernel, is lack of belief in a deity, pointe finale, that's it, that's all.

Are there any specifically atheist charities that endeavour to improve the plight of individuals?
(I don't think I've heard of any. Whereas religious charities there are thousands.)
What religious affiliation is the Red Cross? UNICEF?

lupus_in_fabula

26th January 2008, 01:56 AM

Let's say you've lived at least a couple of decades, you've examined the options, and you've arrived at atheism.

Well.
Here you are.

What do you do now?
Let's say you then spend a few years trying to rescue other humans from what you (not they) regard as stupidity.

Ok. Then what?

What can you do that is positive?
Are there any specifically atheist 'values'?
Are there any specifically atheist charities that endeavour to improve the plight of individuals?
(I don't think I've heard of any. Whereas religious charities there are thousands.)

Well, it's up to you. What next?
Preferably positive.

Humanism, if you like.

Graham Ross

26th January 2008, 01:58 AM

Are there any specifically atheist charities that endeavour to improve the plight of individuals?
I don't think I've heard of any.

Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (http://www.gatesfoundation.org/default.htm)

Now you have.

plumjam

26th January 2008, 02:02 AM

[QUOTE]Live life to it's fullest, make the best of your genetic lottery winning..

do you remember entering a lotter before birth? no. thus it was not a thing of chance.

Why do you characterize atheists as some kind of crusader type? Most atheists I know are merely concerned with truth and facts.
being concerned with truth and facts does not necessitate atheism, so that is not a plausible atheist characteristic

How many atheist missionaries do you know?

we hear about them all the time on this forum, and they're admired by the majority.. such as Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris etc..

I help someone everyday... that's what I do that's positive.. no god required.
sure, but I bet becoming atheist did not in any way help you in this regard

Like a set of rules such as laid out in the bible?? I don't think so. You seem to be making the error of equating atheism with some kind of belief system
of course it's a belief system, commonly it's a belief in exclusive materialism

Atheism, at it's kernel, is lack of belief in a deity, pointe finale, that's it, that's all.
sorry, but that's just naive. Lack of belief in certain things, such as the spiritual, commonly promotes beliefs and values based on a world view based on their opposite.. i.e. materialism

What religious affiliation is the Red Cross?
the clue is in the question

UNICEF?
that's an intergovernmental organisation covering all nations, with their varying religions, so it couldn't be religious
it's not exactly a charity as the term is commonly used

plumjam

26th January 2008, 02:04 AM

Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (http://www.gatesfoundation.org/default.htm)

Now you have.

does that derive it's identity or inspiration from atheism?

plumjam

26th January 2008, 02:05 AM

Humanism, if you like.

what are the great contributions of humanism to humanity?

Tricky

26th January 2008, 02:05 AM

Let's say you've lived at least a couple of decades, you've examined the options, and you've arrived at atheism.

Well.
Here you are.

What do you do now?
Continue with my life.

Let's say you then spend a few years trying to rescue other humans from what you (not they) regard as stupidity.

Ok. Then what?
I continue to live, love, create, laugh, cry, give, accept, enjoy... in short, just about everything you do.

What can you do that is positive?
Lots of stuff. Did you see that thread the The Atheist started to help a fellow forumite down on their luck?

As for myself, I am fairly active in social causes, especially environmentalism. I write my congresscritters. I teach. As it turns out, my family requires a good deal of help from time to time, so I spend a lot of effort on that. What sort of positive things are you looking for?

Are there any specifically atheist 'values'?
No. Values are values. It doesn't matter where you get them from. Mine are probably similar to yours, except the one where you try to perpetuate your choice of myths. I don't spend a lot of time on that one.

Are there any specifically atheist charities that endeavour to improve the plight of individuals?
No. The charities I give to are, for the most part. secular, not atheist. I even occasionally give money or time to religious charities, though I try to be sure the money is not used to proselytize. A lot of the things I do are for environmental causes, but I also help out when there are disasters. I spent many hours helping the victims of Katrina.

But I don't do any of it in mercenary hopes of some reward from God. I do it because it is the right thing to do and because I love people.

Are there any specifically atheist charities that endeavour to improve the plight of individuals?
Not many. They aren't as interested in self-promotion as religious charities are. Most atheists simply do their good deeds without advertising atheism. We have nothing to sell.

Well, it's up to you. What next?
Preferably positive.
I'll continue doing what I'm doing. If there's a flaw in my methods, perhaps you could point it out to me.

skoob

26th January 2008, 02:10 AM

so it's basically an emptiness, a nothingnessKind of. The word "atheist" doesn't say anything about a persons beliefs, values or hair colour. All it means is lack of one particular belief. An atheist might believe in absolutely nothing or they might believe in absolutely everything except for deities.

The word "atheist" only makes sense from a theist perspective. If there were no theists, there would be no reason to point out that a person lacks theist beliefs. Calling someone "non-Nepalese" only makes sense from a Nepalese perspective. It is only useful to distinguish people from Nepal from everybody else. In some situations it might be useful to consider people as either Nepalese or not -- if you are discussing things that are unique for Nepalese people. However, being non-Nepalese doesn't really say anything about a person except for their lack of Nepalese nationality. If Nepal didn't exist, there would be no non-Nepalese people.

SezMe

26th January 2008, 02:16 AM

Well, it's up to you. What next?
Preferably positive.
Try to leave the world a little better off than when I arrived. However you want to measure "better".

Which, speaking of "better", is far, far "better" than trying to proselytize some poor sods into thinking that playing a harp forever is a good thing.

Graham Ross

26th January 2008, 02:16 AM

does that derive it's identity or inspiration from atheism?

Well it is a secular charity. And Bill Gates is an atheist. So, yes.

plumjam

26th January 2008, 02:18 AM

Continue with my life.

I continue to live, love, create, laugh, cry, give, accept, enjoy... in short, just about everything you do.

Lots of stuff. Did you see that thread the The Atheist started to help a fellow forumite down on their luck?

As for myself, I am fairly active in social causes, especially environmentalism. I write my congresscritters. I teach. As it turns out, my family requires a good deal of help from time to time, so I spend a lot of effort on that. What sort of positive things are you looking for?

No. Values are values. It doesn't matter where you get them from. Mine are probably similar to yours, except the one where you try to perpetuate your choice of myths. I don't spend a lot of time on that one.

No. The charities I give to are, for the most part. secular, not atheist. I even occasionally give money or time to religious charities, though I try to be sure the money is not used to proselytize. A lot of the things I do are for environmental causes, but I also help out when there are disasters. I spent many hours helping the victems of Katrina.

But I don't do any of it in mercenary hopes of some reward from God. I do it because it is the right thing to do and because I love people.

Not many. They aren't as interested in self-promotion as religious charities are. Most atheists simply do their good deed without advertising atheism. We have nothing to sell.

I'll continue doing what I'm doing. If there's a flaw in my methods, perhaps you could point it out to me.

That's all fine.. but none of that, as far as I can see, is derived from a belief in atheism, rather it's derived from you examining your conscience as any decent theist would do also.
Atheism does not encourage mankind to see equal value in our fellow beings, yet theism does, quite insistently.
Atheism remains silent on the matter, as it does on so many other important issues.
Thus those who are atheists will be less likely to be regularly exposed to the positive moral exhortations typical of theism.
That doesn't mean any individual atheist is bound to be more immoral, but the general influence will be in that direction.

plumjam

26th January 2008, 02:24 AM

Kind of. The word "atheist" doesn't say anything about a persons beliefs, values or hair colour. All it means is lack of one particular belief. An atheist might believe in absolutely nothing or they might believe in absolutely everything except for deities.

The word "atheist" only makes sense from a theist perspective. If there were no theists, there would be no reason to point out that a person lacks theist beliefs. Calling someone "non-Nepalese" only makes sense from a Nepalese perspective. It is only useful to distinguish people from Nepal from everybody else. In some situations it might be useful to consider people as either Nepalese or not -- if you are discussing things that are unique for Nepalese people. However, being non-Nepalese doesn't really say anything about a person except for their lack of Nepalese nationality. If Nepal didn't exist, there would be no non-Nepalese people.

It's really not as simple as that.
There may be some atheists with all kinds of other unusual beliefs, but in practice (in this forum, certainly) atheism almost always goes along with a positive belief in the philosophy of exclusive materialism.
The moral systems derived from exclusive materialism have proved to be disastrous.
Possibly this is why atheists now are so reluctant to admit to explicitly tying their atheism to anything non-negative.

Graham Ross

26th January 2008, 02:26 AM

plumjam

26th January 2008, 02:27 AM

Well it is a secular charity. And Bill Gates is an atheist. So, yes.

going by that logic Live Aid was inspired by unkempt Irish single fatherhood.

plumjam

26th January 2008, 02:28 AM

So we should expect to see a higher rate of atheists in prison than theists, right?

did you win a high school trophy for the long jump?

Undesired Walrus

26th January 2008, 02:30 AM

what are the great contributions of humanism to humanity?

Italian Neo-Realism.

Undesired Walrus

26th January 2008, 02:35 AM

zooterkin

26th January 2008, 02:36 AM

It's really not as simple as that.
There may be some atheists with all kinds of other unusual beliefs, but in practice (in this forum, certainly) atheism almost always goes along with a positive belief in the philosophy of exclusive materialism.
The moral systems derived from exclusive materialism have proved to be disastrous.
Possibly this is why atheists now are so reluctant to admit to explicitly tying their atheism to anything non-negative.

Do you live near a farm? I imagine it would be handy for the amount of straw you must need.

plumjam

26th January 2008, 02:36 AM

Italian Neo-Realism.

well, I'd never heard of it.. so I Wiki'd it, and it turns out to be a film movement starting in 1943 and ending in 1951.
I don't know, maybe it did some good. But it couldn't have been very much.

Graham Ross

26th January 2008, 02:38 AM

It's really not as simple as that.
There may be some atheists with all kinds of other unusual beliefs, but in practice (in this forum, certainly) atheism almost always goes along with a positive belief in the philosophy of exclusive materialism.

Butter usually goes along with bread. Going by your logic, butter and bread must be the same thing.

Tricky

26th January 2008, 02:39 AM

That's all fine.. but none of that, as far as I can see, is derived from a belief in atheism, rather it's derived from you examining your conscience as any decent theist would do also.
I would venture to say this is the same with you. Oh sure you give God credit, but do you honestly think your morality would be different if the only thing different about you was that you had a different view of religion? If so, then you might want to consider if you really are a good person at heart or if you're doing it for praise.

Atheism does not encourage mankind to see equal value in our fellow beings, yet theism does, quite insistently.
LOL. You think so? I think some theists do, while other theists hate and murder our fellow human beings. Some even use their theism as an excuse. Western Christianity is not this way as much as it used to be, but it is still very much self-serving.

Atheism remains silent on the matter, as it does on so many other important issues.
What matter are atheists required to keep silent on? You seem to continue to object because atheism is not an organized church that makes press statements. If anything, atheists are more moral than theists because they don't seek recognition when they do something good.

Thus those who are atheists will be less likely to be regularly exposed to the positive moral exhortations typical of theism.
Having been exposed to theists all my life, I've discovered that they are just humans. Some of them are more moral than others. Some of the "positive moral exhortations typical of theism" amount to people who blame natural disasters on sinners. Some theists exhort people to send money to their television mission. Some prey on the elderly and grieving by promising them communication with the dead that they cannot deliver.

This whole "Theists are more moral than atheists" tack is a losing one, Plumjam, and a thinly veiled insult at people who, for the most part, are every bit as moral as you. And you are by no means the first theist to make such insulting statements. Is insulting those who don't share their religion part of their "positive moral exhortations"? It sounds pretty hateful to me. I'm glad most theists don't feel this way.

That doesn't mean any individual atheist is bound to be more immoral, but the general influence will be in that direction.
Actually, it suggests that theists are basically immoral, and must be herded into morality by making them believe a myth. Of course, this is not true, but I caution you about pursuing this line of logic. It will backfire on you.

plumjam

26th January 2008, 02:40 AM

And I resent the idea I have no desire to help others because I am an Atheist, and thus follow no values. Working in the homeless sector, with a dear colleague being an Atheist too (An ex-heroin addict who quit it not because of Christ but himself), I have to stick a strong, stiff middle finger up at you.

yeah, but the point is that neither of you were so inspired by atheism that you chose to go into working with the homeless, whereas some people who wouldn't otherwise have dreamed of doing that are so inspired by theism that they go into that area.

WDB

26th January 2008, 02:40 AM

It's really not as simple as that.
There may be some atheists with all kinds of other unusual beliefs, but in practice (in this forum, certainly) atheism almost always goes along with a positive belief in the philosophy of exclusive materialism.
The moral systems derived from exclusive materialism have proved to be disastrous.
Possibly this is why atheists now are so reluctant to admit to explicitly tying their atheism to anything non-negative.

Can you cite some evidence to support your apparent belief that atheism is synonymous with materialism. It's certainly not true of the atheists I know.

Undesired Walrus

26th January 2008, 02:42 AM

well, I'd never heard of it..

No wonder.:rolleyes:

so I Wiki'd it, and it turns out to be a film movement starting in 1943 and ending in 1951.
I don't know, maybe it did some good. But it couldn't have been very much.

Oh, so now it is some good is it? Tell me, when a man picks hair from his head, at which stage does he go bald? Is it when 3,142 hairs have been removed or 3,143?

It produced The Bicycle Theives, often called the greatest film of all time, and Sight And Sounds Number One Film of all time. There is also a very interesting scene in a church. It says a lot.

Undesired Walrus

26th January 2008, 02:49 AM

yeah, but the point is that neither of you were so inspired by atheism that you chose to go into working with the homeless, whereas some people who wouldn't otherwise have dreamed of doing that are so inspired by theism that they go into that area.

Is it better to do things because they are the right things to do or because you feel God will approve?

Undesired Walrus

26th January 2008, 02:59 AM

And yet somehow, when the Pope, God's supposed representative on Earth, says that you shouldn't save yourself from AIDS with condoms, this isn't a black stain on Christian 'values'.

plumjam

26th January 2008, 03:03 AM

[QUOTE]I would venture to say this is the same with you. Oh sure you give God credit
I don't give God credit for anything.

but do you honestly think your morality would be different if the only thing different about you was that you had a different view of religion? If so, then you might want to consider if you really are a good person at heart or if you're doing it for praise.
on a personal level, in my case (which is the only case I can speak about with any authority) I would say that throughout my adult life, even when I was an atheist, I was reasonably moral, with my faults. Theism, however, has tended to reduce my feeling of separation from other sentient beings, resulting in a greater feeling of empathy and compassion.
It'll be different for every individual, but I believe that is the general trend.

LOL. You think so? I think some theists do, while other theists hate and murder our fellow human beings. Some even use their theism as an excuse.
If and when they do that they're wrong. It's a practice much more common and intense in moral systems which expressly forbid theism.

Western Christianity is not this way as much as it used to be, but it is still very much self-serving.
Is it? Or is it just that your mind focuses on the self-serving bits rather than the huge charitable part?

What matter are atheists required to keep silent on? You seem to continue to object because atheism is not an organized church that makes press statements.
There is no central dictat, but then that is not needed. They commonly keep silent on the consequences of moral and political systems that have shared their exclusive materialism.

If anything, atheists are more moral than theists because they don't seek recognition when they do something good.
well, we just saw Bill Gates

Having been exposed to theists all my life, I've discovered that they are just humans. Some of them are more moral than others.
Agreed.

Some of the "positive moral exhortations typical of theism" amount to people who blame natural disasters on sinners. Some theists exhort people to send money to their television mission. Some prey on the elderly and grieving by promising them communication with the dead that they cannot deliver.
Yeah. Some.

This whole "Theists are more moral than atheists" tack is a losing one, Plumjam, and a thinly veiled insult at people who, for the most part, are every bit as moral as you. And you are by no means the first theist to make such insulting statements. Is insulting those who don't share their religion part of their "positive moral exhortations"? It sounds pretty hateful to me. I'm glad most theists don't feel this way.
If you interpret all this as insulting that's your prerogative. It wasn't meant as an insult; I started the thread to try to get atheists to face up to the 'what next?' aspect of their belief system... which IMO is basically a big nothing.
I would never say any individual atheist is likely to be less moral than any individual theist. But there is massive denial about the dangers of exclusive materialism when that philosophy is allowed to be expressed in the form of moral and political systems.
I don't believe this has yet been fully admitted or reflected upon by the great majority of atheists.
Further to that, the kind of politicking in favour of exclusive materialism going on recently.. if that were translated into political power, I'm sure the great majority of atheists here would be horrified by the end results.
Sure, it's not likely to get far off the ground, but the likely consequences if it did are not something ever honestly addressed here.

plumjam

26th January 2008, 03:09 AM

No wonder.:rolleyes:

Oh, so now it is some good is it? Tell me, when a man picks hair from his head, at which stage does he go bald? Is it when 3,142 hairs have been removed or 3,143?

It produced The Bicycle Theives, often called the greatest film of all time, and Sight And Sounds Number One Film of all time. There is also a very interesting scene in a church. It says a lot.

that's great. It's all had such an impact on humanity that for some reason society has been hiding all this from me for all my 36 years :rolleyes:

linusrichard

26th January 2008, 03:10 AM

Let's say you've lived at least a couple of decades,
Yes, 3.
you've examined the options, and you've arrived at atheism.
Yes.
Well.
Here you are.

Indeed. Here, as you adeptly point out, I am. I am here. Here I am.
What do you do now?
Well, I'm trying to balance law school with being a husband and a new dad, which is challenging, but a lot of fun. Also I try to hang out with friends, play some Wii, maybe do some reading, see a movie now and then.
Let's say you then spend a few years trying to rescue other humans from what you (not they) regard as stupidity.
That's an interesting description of what a lawyer does, actually, although I don't think it applies to all lawyers. I suppose it could also be an description of what a parent does, in a sense. So, as a new parent and a soon-to-be lawyer, maybe I will spend a few years doing that.

Or did you mean proselytizing for atheism? Why would I spend a few years, or even a few minutes, doing that?
Ok. Then what?
Retirement, travel, more reading.
What can you do that is positive?
Mainly raise my daughter the best I can. Career-wise, some lawyers are in a position to do very positive things. Think Ralph Nader, think Gideon's Trumpet, think The Buffalo Creek Disaster. I don't know if I'll be in that position, but I can hope! Maybe I could get into politics, if the American public can overcome its bigotry enough to consider voting for an otherwise qualified atheist (http://atheism.about.com/od/atheistbigotryprejudice/a/AtheistSurveys.htm).
Are there any specifically atheist 'values'?
Of course not. Assuming you don't believe in leprechauns, are there any values you hold that directly flow out of your nonbelief in leprechauns?
Are there any specifically atheist charities that endeavour to improve the plight of individuals?
Not that I'm aware of. But I'm pretty sure there are secular (non-religious) charities. Bill Gates gives billions through his foundation, and he's at least an agnostic, maybe an atheist. Warren Buffet is an atheist and he gives billions as well. It doesn't matter to me if a charity is administered by theists or atheists, as long as it's administered well. Also, there's nothing stopping me from giving to a religious charity - again, presuming it's administered well. If I make enough money, I could even start my own atheist charity. Red Nothing? No, what's the point? If I start a charity, it would be secular, of course, but there's no reason it would have to be specifically atheist. Do you know of any charities specifically devoted to a nonbelief in leprechauns? Isn't it the case that most charities completely ignore the question of the existence of leprechauns? That would be my charity's position on God.
(I don't think I've heard of any. Whereas religious charities there are thousands.)
Indeed. I think some of those charities are probably fine, and when I start making some money, I wouldn't be surprised if some of my charitable giving goes to religious charities.
Well, it's up to you. What next?
Preferably positive.
Raising my daughter. Completing my degree. Establishing my career, and hopefully making a positive difference through my work. Further service through politics, if it seems feasible (not likely). Charitable giving. Retirement. Travel. The pleasures of growing old with my family. Dying in my sleep at an advanced age. And that would be it!

Is this what you were looking for?

plumjam

26th January 2008, 03:12 AM

Is it better to do things because they are the right things to do or because you feel God will approve?

if they are the right things God will approve. your conscience will help you to work it out

plumjam

26th January 2008, 03:14 AM

And yet somehow, when the Pope, God's supposed representative on Earth, says that you shouldn't save yourself from AIDS with condoms, this isn't a black stain on Christian 'values'.

there is a whole self-consistent rationale behind that which would need a whole other thread to go into.

plumjam

26th January 2008, 03:17 AM

Can you cite some evidence to support your apparent belief that atheism is synonymous with materialism. It's certainly not true of the atheists I know.

Exclusive materialism. A materialism which denies the possibility of supposedly non physically verifiable entities like souls, gods, God, demons etc..
I am speaking to this forum, and my experience of this forum is that every atheist I have spoken to or read has been an exclusive materialist.

plumjam

26th January 2008, 03:21 AM

linusrichard,

I was going to answer your long response, but what you wrote was about 80% facetious and not particularly related to atheism, so I decided not to.

Thanks anyway, and good luck in your job and pastimes.

:D

linusrichard

26th January 2008, 03:24 AM

Really, need I say any more? :rolleyes:

Assuredly no.

plumjam

26th January 2008, 03:25 AM

Try to leave the world a little better off than when I arrived. However you want to measure "better".
Is that inspired by your atheism, or would you have done that anyway?

Which, speaking of "better", is far, far "better" than trying to proselytize some poor sods into thinking that playing a harp forever is a good thing.
you have a pretty inadequate view of religion, those proselytizers must have been crap

86kam

26th January 2008, 03:27 AM

do you remember entering a lotter before birth? no. thus it was not a thing of chance.
Are you serious? Prove one has to be cognizant to win something? Ever get a lotto ticket for a birthday gift?

being concerned with truth and facts does not necessitate atheism, so that is not a plausible atheist characteristic
Big fat effin strawman here, I'm not surprised. Where did I say that being concerned with facts necessitates atheism??? Try R.E.A.D.I.N.G. what I stated.. I stated:
Most atheists I know are merely concerned with truth and facts.
You are bordering on cognitive dissonance here...

we hear about them all the time on this forum, and they're admired by the majority.. such as Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris etc..
They state their views publicly, wonderful. Where do they go out of their way to turn people from one belief to another... I am remembering something I learned about catholics and native americans, there's a hint.....

sure, but I bet becoming atheist did not in any way help you in this regard
Stop moving those goalposts. That wasn't the original question was it??

of course it's a belief system, commonly it's a belief in exclusive materialism
There is no "belief" in atheism... how can it be a belief system??? If it's a belief system, what are the tenets and doctrine?? Even a child can figure this one out. It is a position held based on the evidence.

sorry, but that's just naive. Lack of belief in certain things, such as the spiritual, commonly promotes beliefs and values based on a world view based on their opposite.. i.e. materialism
Incorrect. Atheism is simply lack of belief in a deity. Any other philosophy is simply subjective reasoning. Stop throwing all your strawmen about... the crows will come a calling.

the clue is in the question
Concerning the Red Cross?? Oh Please... do enlighten me.:rolleyes:

that's an intergovernmental organisation covering all nations, with their varying religions, so it couldn't be religious
it's not exactly a charity as the term is commonly used
Really? What does UNICEF do then? You distort the role to suit your argument.. It is ABSOLUTELY a charity, one can donate, one can claim said donation on a tax form. You lose on ALL counts..

Graham Ross

26th January 2008, 03:28 AM

dglas

26th January 2008, 03:28 AM

That's all fine.. but none of that, as far as I can see, is derived from a belief in atheism, rather it's derived from you examining your conscience as any decent theist would do also.
Atheism does not encourage mankind to see equal value in our fellow beings, yet theism does, quite insistently.

Ehhhntt!!! Dead wrong!
If there is anything that distances humanity more from itself than religion, I cannot imagine it. From the farcical self- and other-hatred represented by original sin (intrinsic evil) to the devaluation of humans below that of a delusional webwork of lies. This is precisely what I am talking about when I speak of philosophies being tools, not truths. Philosophies exist to serve people, not the other way around. As tools philosophies can be powerful servants. As "Truths" philosophies can be enslavement machines.

Atheism remains silent on the matter, as it does on so many other important issues.
Thus those who are atheists will be less likely to be regularly exposed to the positive moral exhortations typical of theism.
That doesn't mean any individual atheist is bound to be more immoral, but the general influence will be in that direction.

Again, entirely mistaken. One can derive or acquire one's values from any of a number of sources. I see no particular reason why one should derive one's values from the webwork of lies and anti-humanity hatred that is religious truth-think. That so-called morality is a means to an ends - the subjugation of humanity to one philosophy, which cannot but be a serious error.

Better, I would say, to recognize that one's values are a result of the persons around you, the reasonable expectations you have of them and that they have of you and attempts to try to universalize these, and do away with the nonsense of "objective morality" grounded in a psychopathic monstrosity.

Positive secular values? Longer life spans with better quality of living, progress in terms of human efficacy, a better tomorrow for our children. That some cannot (scratch that!) refuse to see these things as positive without the gawd element is not a sign of an atheist's failure - it is a symptom of an attempt to define all things in terms of gawd and render meaningless anything that does not derive from it. It is a shoehorning of positive human traits into the wrong shaped slots.

The future is not meaningless. Children are not meaningless. Other people are not meaningless. We can perceive them as having value in themselves, entirely without gawd. In fact, we must do away with gawd to allow their value to become clear, rather than subordinate to some miscellaneous, anonymous, third-rate, ill-conceived, cynical, anti-human dogma. People are more than cogs in a dogmatic machine; more than a means to an end. It is not the atheist's failure that the religious cannot (will not) see this.

Atheism doesn't necessarily lead to these particular values, but without it we don't even have a chance of reaching them - the lie of "Truth" gets in the way.

In reality, religious thinking is so rife with contradictions and incoherencies that it does not, in fact, consistently prohibit or encourage anything at all. To those who say that without gawd, there is no guiding light, the only proper answer is to point out just how dim that "light" is, that light that advocates murdering children and killing non-believers on sight, indoctrinating the young with self-hatred and terror, covering up sexual abuses, the list or exemplary morality goes on and on and on. If that's morality, it's time to leave morality by the wayside and come up with something better. There's a reason that "light" is so dim; it is not founded in humanity. It is the subjugation of humanity - the sickness that infects us when we elevate philosophies to Truths and think them more important the people.

It's time to do better, and we can do better...but not until we have pulled ourselves from the quagmire of superstition, horror, hatred, cruelty, self-loathing and subjugation of humanity that is religion, and the symbol and icon of that anti-human thinking, gawd.

Atheism is the first step towards a morality for living, breathing, loving, multi-faceted, full-living-colour humanity, not just abstracted pawns in a two-dimensional black & white dogmatic scheme.

Religion qua pre-packaged morality is a deliberate failure to accept responsibility for one's attitudes, not just one's actions, but one's attitudes. How many more young women have to die of cancer caused by HPV before we realize that the "high road" is a dead end?

linusrichard

26th January 2008, 03:29 AM

linusrichard,

I was going to answer your long response, but what you wrote was about 80% facetious and not particularly related to atheism, so I decided not to.

None of it was facetious.

Most of it was unrelated to atheism because your open-ended questions ("What do you do now?"; "What can you do that is positive?") had nothing to do with atheism. Open-ended questions elicit longer responses. The questions you wrote that did relate to atheism were easily answered with a "yes" or a "no," so I didn't write much about them. That's the root of the disparity. If you want people to write more about atheism, ask more open-ended questions about atheism.

Modified

26th January 2008, 03:30 AM

if they are the right things God will approve. your conscience will help you to work it out

You could use that logic to justify all sorts of nasty behavior.

lupus_in_fabula

26th January 2008, 03:32 AM

what are the great contributions of humanism to humanity?

Recognizing that we don’t need to invent celestial beings and arbitrary doctrines thereof in order to enjoy life to the fullest; recognizing the also numinous nature of life without devaluing that with supernatural explanations; realizing that our short existence here is exceptional and real, and we can make the best of it, towards ourselves and others, without having to rely on celestial dictums.

In short: everything in terms of goodness that theist claim to have a prerogative for, is a faculty all humans can share, without religious incantation.

Or as I would perhaps put it: Wake up and smell the coffee!

Tricky

26th January 2008, 03:32 AM

on a personal level, in my case (which is the only case I can speak about with any authority) I would say that throughout my adult life, even when I was an atheist, I was reasonably moral, with my faults. Theism, however, has tended to reduce my feeling of separation from other sentient beings, resulting in a greater feeling of empathy and compassion.
It'll be different for every individual, but I believe that is the general trend.
For me, it was just the opposite. But it shouldn't surprise you that whatever you belive now, you feel that it is the right way. Otherwise, why would you believe it?

If and when they do that they're wrong. It's a practice much more common and intense in moral systems which expressly forbid theism.
They don't think they're wrong. And I don't think you can support your second statement. Religious wars have been going on since the earliest recorded history. (Note: In this space we can insert a long discussion about Stalin and Pol Pot. It's been done. Let's not derail.)
Is it? Or is it just that your mind focuses on the self-serving bits rather than the huge charitable part?
I see both. But church charities also benefit the church. Where do you think they got all those nice buildings? They are not totally altruistic. Of course, if you can show me some elaborate atheist temples, I'll concede this point.

There is no central dictat, but then that is not needed. They commonly keep silent on the consequences of moral and political systems that have shared their exclusive materialism.
No they don't. They just don't announce their atheism. The reason is that a good idea should stand on its own, not be propped up by an appeal to false authority.

well, we just saw Bill Gates. Where did Bill Gates announce that his charity was in the name of atheism? Somebody else mentioned it. As far as I know, he doesn't advertise his beliefs at all. Very moral of him.

If you interpret all this as insulting that's your prerogative. It wasn't meant as an insult; I started the thread to try to get atheists to face up to the 'what next?' aspect of their belief system... which IMO is basically a big nothing.
I answered your question about what's next. But I honestly don't understand how you can say that atheists tend to be less moral than theists without it being insulting.

Now if I said, "It is my observation that theists tend to have lower intelligence than atheists," would you find that insulting?

I would never say any individual atheist is likely to be less moral than any individual theist. But there is massive denial about the dangers of exclusive materialism when that philosophy is allowed to be expressed in the form of moral and political systems.
Do you think so? I have the idea that you are switching between two different definitions of materialism. We aren't all in the Ayn Rand "get what you can for yourself" boat. Scientifically, materialism only states that there is no evidence for anything beyond the material world. That has no moralistic connotations whatsoever. Once again, doing something good for a spiritual reward is less moral, IMO, than doing it because of pure empathy. It is like the child who will only do their homework if their parent is watching.

I don't believe this has yet been fully admitted or reflected upon by the great majority of atheists.
It has not been admitted because it is not true. It's been reflected on plenty.

Further to that, the kind of politicking in favour of exclusive materialism going on recently.. if that were translated into political power, I'm sure the great majority of atheists here would be horrified by the end results.
Maybe you'd better define what you mean by "materialism" before we go on here. It almost sounds as if you're using it as a synonym for greed.

Sure, it's not likely to get far off the ground, but the likely consequences if it did are not something ever honestly addressed here.
You've been here fewer than six months. I think you would be surprised at the number of things that have been honestly addressed here. Unless by "honest" you mean "agreeing with you".

plumjam

26th January 2008, 03:37 AM

None of it was facetious.

Most of it was unrelated to atheism because your open-ended questions ("What do you do now?"; "What can you do that is positive?") had nothing to do with atheism. Open-ended questions elicit longer responses. The questions you wrote that did relate to atheism were easily answered with a "yes" or a "no," so I didn't write much about them. That's the root of the disparity. If you want people to write more about atheism, ask more open-ended questions about atheism.

why doesn't it surprise me that you're a lawyer?
everyone else has implicitly recognised that the 'what next' is obviously related to how atheism affects the 'what next' :rolleyes:

plumjam

26th January 2008, 03:39 AM

You could use that logic to justify all sorts of nasty behavior.

it's up to your own conscience whether you would use that to justify nasty behaviour or not

plumjam

26th January 2008, 03:42 AM

Recognizing that we don’t need to invent celestial beings and arbitrary doctrines thereof in order to enjoy life to the fullest; recognizing the also numinous nature of life without devaluing that with supernatural explanations; realizing that our short existence here is exceptional and real, and we can make the best of it, towards ourselves and others, without having to rely on celestial dictums.

In short: everything in terms of goodness that theist claim to have a prerogative for, is a faculty all humans can share, without religious incantation.

Or as I would perhaps put it: Wake up and smell the coffee!

sounds nice enough, but rings hollow to me. It's all surface, with no deeper meaning or directionality.

Tricky

26th January 2008, 03:44 AM

sounds nice enough, but rings hollow to me. It's all surface, with no deeper meaning or directionality.
Are you not capable of finding your own direction? Must you be given one?

plumjam

26th January 2008, 04:03 AM

[QUOTE]For me, it was just the opposite. But it shouldn't surprise you that whatever you belive now, you feel that it is the right way. Otherwise, why would you believe it?
People can go for years believing something in a pretty superficial way, all the time with the uneasy feeling that there's something wrong with it.

They don't think they're wrong. And I don't think you can support your second statement. Religious wars have been going on since the earliest recorded history. (Note: In this space we can insert a long discussion about Stalin and Pol Pot. It's been done. Let's not derail.)
well, yeah, but that's more avoidance isn't it.. whenever atheism has been tried on a grand scale it has been disastrous, much worse than any religious abuses in the past.

I see both. But church charities also benefit the church. Where do you think they got all those nice buildings?
cathedrals etc are generally built to glorify God, many took many decades to build, so the original instigators were dead at completion

Of course, if you can show me some elaborate atheist temples, I'll concede this point.
You're adding to my argument here. Atheists are not inspired enough by their atheism to want to build even a shack in the back garden.

I answered your question about what's next. But I honestly don't understand how you can say that atheists tend to be less moral than theists without it being insulting. we've had this conversation before, and i've never made that accusation on any individual level, but remember the moral funneling concept.

Now if I said, "It is my observation that theists tend to have lower intelligence than atheists," would you find that insulting?
not at all, in fact to some extent it would make some sense.
intellectual types are more apt to identify with their head than their hearts or souls, whereas often 'simpler' people identify more with their hearts and thus find that the spiritual approach to life resonates more with them. There are plenty of famous saints who were not intellectual, or academic.. many were semi literate or illiterate altogether.

Do you think so? I have the idea that you are switching between two different definitions of materialism. We aren't all in the Ayn Rand "get what you can for yourself" boat. Scientifically, materialism only states that there is no evidence for anything beyond the material world. That has no moralistic connotations whatsoever. Once again, doing something good for a spiritual reward is less moral, IMO, than doing it because of pure empathy. It is like the child who will only do their homework if their parent is watching.
do you really think religious people generally do things because of that? I agree with you that it's better to do it out of empathy. Spiritual practice is a tried and tested millenia old method of developing one's existent empathy.

Maybe you'd better define what you mean by "materialism" before we go on here. It almost sounds as if you're using it as a synonym for greed.exclusive materialism in the philosophical sense, i.e. denying the possibility of things like Gods, the afterlife, objective morality.. etc
Not consumerism.

You've been here fewer than six months. I think you would be surprised at the number of things that have been honestly addressed here. Unless by "honest" you mean "agreeing with you".
perhaps, but my experience is that the moral consequences of exclusive materialism (atheism) have not been adequately faced.

plumjam

26th January 2008, 04:05 AM

Are you not capable of finding your own direction? Must you be given one?

talking about objective meaning and directionality, not the subjective 'life's what you make it' meaningless 'meaning' and 'directionality.

plumjam

26th January 2008, 04:06 AM

ok folks, lots of answers, cheers... going for a kip now

Dr Adequate

26th January 2008, 04:07 AM

Let's say you've lived at least a couple of decades, you've examined the options, and you've arrived at atheism.

Well.
Here you are.

What do you do now? Lunch.

lupus_in_fabula

26th January 2008, 04:08 AM

sounds nice enough, but rings hollow to me. It's all surface, with no deeper meaning or directionality.

Meaning and directionality is what we make of it. There are people who are uncomfortable with ‘is’ and will rather live in ‘ought’ regardless of how preposterous such ambition might form into. I guess it says more about the person than the actuality of the situation thou. Unless you can’t find solitude in existence (in and of itself), then you might be searching endlessly, and never endingly projecting what's not there. A waist of this precious existance I think.

cyborg

26th January 2008, 04:08 AM

well, yeah, but that's more avoidance isn't it.. whenever atheism has been tried on a grand scale it has been disastrous, much worse than any religious abuses in the past.

plumjam, you may want to open your eyes to the UK.

You see those people in Newcastle on the street? Most of them couldn't give less of a **** about religion.

Just an FYI.

Lord Emsworth

26th January 2008, 04:18 AM

Nogbad

26th January 2008, 04:32 AM

Lunch.

:)

Coffee and doughnut for me

I need it because I am completely baffled by this oneupmanship of good deeds.

Ecclesiastes 1:2 springs to mind.

linusrichard

26th January 2008, 04:42 AM

why doesn't it surprise me that you're a lawyer?
everyone else has implicitly recognised that the 'what next' is obviously related to how atheism affects the 'what next' :rolleyes:

Oh, obviously I recognized that that's what you were going for. But I didn't think I had an obligation to give you the answers you were fishing for. I gave you honest answers to the questions you actually asked. If you don't like the answers you're getting, maybe you should be asking different questions.* Or maybe, if you're not satisfied with honest answers, you shouldn't ask questions at all.

They weren't honest questions. You weren't looking for answers, you were looking for confirmation of your worldview. You were looking to make a point. When my honest answers to your dishonest questions showed the flaws in the point you were trying to make, you dismissed them as "facetious" and dismissed me as a "lawyer," and made :rolleyes:.

What is it you're trying to do here, anyway?

*Is that from a movie?

DOC

26th January 2008, 04:43 AM

Why do you characterize atheists as some kind of crusader type?

I imagine he did because many are:

Madeline Murray O'Hare was a atheistic crusader who led the campaign to kick prayer out of schools.

All these new books coming out by atheists (like Hitchens) are on a crusade against Theism. For example Hitchens even attacked Nobel Prize winner Mother Teresa -- that sounds like a crusader to me.

The ACLU is on a Crusade to remove all religion from public areas. (like manger scenes at Christmas)

You seem to be portraying modern atheists as some laid back, passive, live and let live group when the evidence is otherwise.

Atheists have the right to be on crusades, but don't deny they are on crusades.

You seem to be making the error of equating atheism with some kind of belief system, morality, or philosophy. I think It isn't. Atheism, at it's kernel, is lack of belief in a deity, pointe finale, that's it, that's all.[/b]

The "American Atheists" organization would disagree with you. The definition of atheism they put on their website does have a belief system and a specific philosophy. I counted the words "believe or beliefs" about 8 times in the definition of atheism they have on their site.

From American Atheists website:

The following definition of Atheism was given to the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Murray v. Curlett, 374 U.S. 203, 83 S. Ct. 1560, 10 L.Ed.2d (MD, 1963), to remove reverential Bible reading and oral unison recitation of the Lord's Prayer in the public schools.

“Your petitioners are Atheists and they define their beliefs as follows. An Atheist loves his fellow man instead of god. An Atheist believes that heaven is something for which we should work now – here on earth for all men together to enjoy.

An Atheist believes that he can get no help through prayer but that he must find in himself the inner conviction, and strength to meet life, to grapple with it, to subdue it and enjoy it.

An Atheist believes that only in a knowledge of himself and a knowledge of his fellow man can he find the understanding that will help to a life of fulfillment.

He seeks to know himself and his fellow man rather than to know a god. An Atheist believes that a hospital should be built instead of a church. An Atheist believes that a deed must be done instead of a prayer said. An Atheist strives for involvement in life and not escape into death. He wants disease conquered, poverty vanquished, war eliminated. He wants man to understand and love man.

He wants an ethical way of life. He believes that we cannot rely on a god or channel action into prayer nor hope for an end of troubles in a hereafter.

He believes that we are our brother's keepers; and are keepers
of our own lives; that we are responsible persons and the job is here and the time is now.”

http://www.atheists.org/Atheism/

Atheists have the right to have all of these beliefs but people shouldn't deny atheists have beliefs (which happens a lot in these threads).

H3LL

26th January 2008, 04:55 AM

Just keep busy.

The alternative...

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/3180479b1f8501ec2.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=10388)

is wasting time and doing nothing useful.

.

Mojo

26th January 2008, 05:01 AM

Why not ask DOC (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3363538#post3363538) what he'd do if he thought he would get away with it without suffering divine retribution?

UnrepentantSinner

26th January 2008, 05:04 AM

Avoid wasting any more time of my life responding to insipid questions like the OP?

cyborg

26th January 2008, 05:16 AM

Atheists have the right to have all of these beliefs but people shouldn't deny atheists have beliefs (which happens a lot in these threads).

Do you understand the difference between a class and an instance?

calebprime

26th January 2008, 05:18 AM

Yes, 3.

Yes.

Indeed. Here, as you adeptly point out, I am. I am here. Here I am.

Well, I'm trying to balance law school with being a husband and a new dad, which is challenging, but a lot of fun. Also I try to hang out with friends, play some Wii, maybe do some reading, see a movie now and then.

That's an interesting description of what a lawyer does, actually, although I don't think it applies to all lawyers. I suppose it could also be an description of what a parent does, in a sense. So, as a new parent and a soon-to-be lawyer, maybe I will spend a few years doing that.

Or did you mean proselytizing for atheism? Why would I spend a few years, or even a few minutes, doing that?

Retirement, travel, more reading.

Mainly raise my daughter the best I can. Career-wise, some lawyers are in a position to do very positive things. Think Ralph Nader, think Gideon's Trumpet, think The Buffalo Creek Disaster. I don't know if I'll be in that position, but I can hope! Maybe I could get into politics, if the American public can overcome its bigotry enough to consider voting for an otherwise qualified atheist (http://atheism.about.com/od/atheistbigotryprejudice/a/AtheistSurveys.htm).

Of course not. Assuming you don't believe in leprechauns, are there any values you hold that directly flow out of your nonbelief in leprechauns?

Not that I'm aware of. But I'm pretty sure there are secular (non-religious) charities. Bill Gates gives billions through his foundation, and he's at least an agnostic, maybe an atheist. Warren Buffet is an atheist and he gives billions as well. It doesn't matter to me if a charity is administered by theists or atheists, as long as it's administered well. Also, there's nothing stopping me from giving to a religious charity - again, presuming it's administered well. If I make enough money, I could even start my own atheist charity. Red Nothing? No, what's the point? If I start a charity, it would be secular, of course, but there's no reason it would have to be specifically atheist. Do you know of any charities specifically devoted to a nonbelief in leprechauns? Isn't it the case that most charities completely ignore the question of the existence of leprechauns? That would be my charity's position on God.

Indeed. I think some of those charities are probably fine, and when I start making some money, I wouldn't be surprised if some of my charitable giving goes to religious charities.

Raising my daughter. Completing my degree. Establishing my career, and hopefully making a positive difference through my work. Further service through politics, if it seems feasible (not likely). Charitable giving. Retirement. Travel. The pleasures of growing old with my family. Dying in my sleep at an advanced age. And that would be it!

Is this what you were looking for?

None of it was facetious.

Lunch.

Oh, obviously I recognized that that's what you were going for. But I didn't think I had an obligation to give you the answers you were fishing for. I gave you honest answers to the questions you actually asked. If you don't like the answers you're getting, maybe you should be asking different questions.* Or maybe, if you're not satisfied with honest answers, you shouldn't ask questions at all.

They weren't honest questions. You weren't looking for answers, you were looking for confirmation of your worldview. You were looking to make a point. When my honest answers to your dishonest questions showed the flaws in the point you were trying to make, you dismissed them as "facetious" and dismissed me as a "lawyer," and made :rolleyes:.

What is it you're trying to do here, anyway?

I was going to answer, then I saw this exchange with linusrichard. My answer would have been merely a variation on his, with some individual differences. They weren't honest questions.

thatguywhojuggles

26th January 2008, 05:28 AM

I used to be able to pick up some great recipes in threads like this one. What's up guys??

Bluefire

26th January 2008, 05:50 AM

Let's say you've lived at least a couple of decades, you've examined the options, and you've arrived at atheism.

Ok

Well.
Here you are.

Obviously

What do you do now?
Let's say you then spend a few years trying to rescue other humans from what you (not they) regard as stupidity.

That's quite the assumption. I don't debate religion to "save" people. I do it as a hobby, and as a mental exercise. Also, I have a strong interest in ideas/philosophy, and religion is obviously part of that.

What can you do that is positive?

Live my life to the fullest extent possible.

Are there any specifically atheist 'values'?

No, because Atheism is not a philosophy. It is a position on one specific question.

Are there any specifically atheist charities that endeavour to improve the plight of individuals?

Not Atheist, because that kind of charities are held together by a common thread that is more comprehensive than one specific position on one question. There are alot of specific charities that are not specifically religious.

Well, it's up to you. What next?
Preferably positive.

Live the life you have. Be productive, make friends, fullfill your dreams if you have any.

I think you are sort of asking the question "no god? Well, then what is the meaning of life?"

To me, life doesn't need a meaning "higher" than itself. Eg. the meaning of life is itself, eg living. Have as much fun and experiences as you want. I specifically do not think that the meaning of life is to be a "charity".

I would also say that religion doesn't help in this question at all (eg. if you can not find a meaning in a life on earth without a god: What meaning would there be in a life with god after this life?).

So what am I doing? I work hard (as a software engineer). I help people that have value for me (mostly family). I try to train up hobbies that I think are fun (I'm shooting a gun at a club, and I train the Piano as well as some composing) . I debate different stuff intellectually, and occasionally I party and let loose.

I do not subscribe much to the stereotype of what one should do to be "good":
- I do not personally give much to charity (and I'm not the slightest embarrassed by that). My life is mine, and I help the ones that mean something to me.

If you need to know my philosophy, I consider myself highly influenced by Ayn Rand and her philosophy objectivism. Atheism is but a small part, and by far not the most significant part of it.

Bluefire

26th January 2008, 05:54 AM

Folks, this is where atheism, taken to its extreme, leads you.

Really, need I say any more? :rolleyes:

The hell it is. Atheism is one position on one question. The questions of morality is a question answered by a philosophical system. There are several philosophical systems , that have an atheistic position, that gives moral quidance, and definitions of what is good.

Bluefire

26th January 2008, 05:59 AM

yeah, but the point is that neither of you were so inspired by atheism that you chose to go into working with the homeless, whereas some people who wouldn't otherwise have dreamed of doing that are so inspired by theism that they go into that area.

I am also not inspired by my ahomeopathy to start a charity. And I am not inspired by my adowserism, also, curiously not my ademonism either.

As we can see, there is obviously no ademonist charities. As such, not believing in demons implies a big void... :rolleyes:

linusrichard

26th January 2008, 06:00 AM

Atheists have the right to have all of these beliefs but people shouldn't deny atheists have beliefs (which happens a lot in these threads).

First, let's leave the ACLU out of it. The ACLU is not an atheistic organization. They defend civil liberties for all, including Christians:
http://www.mauinews.com/story.aspx?id=26128
http://web.archive.org/web/20050308170613/http:/www.aclu-wa.org/Issues/freespeech/News-SpokTransit.html
http://www.aclu.org/religion/schools/20174prs20050920.html

Next, the others you mention, O'Hair was just an individual. Hitchens is just an individual. American Atheists is just a group. They can claim to speak for all atheists, but they don't really. I think you are a Christian - would you like me to post what Latter Day Saints thinks a Christian is and try to hold you to it? Or (far worse) Westboro Baptist? Or World Church of the Creator? Of course not. If I'm talking about Christians in general, I'm going to use a generally applicable definition of Christian. You have to believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ, maybe virgin birth, crucifixion and resurrection, and that he is some kind of redeemer or messiah. Same idea with atheists. Atheists for Jesus is an atheist group. Church of Satan is basically an atheist group. I think the Raelians are too. That doesn't make me responsible for their beliefs, or them for mine.

Hitchens might be on a "crusade" (I don't know, I'm no fan of Hitchens), but if he is, it's not The Atheist Crusade, it's just an atheist's crusade.

Bluefire

26th January 2008, 06:07 AM

everyone else has implicitly recognised that the 'what next' is obviously related to how atheism affects the 'what next' :rolleyes:

Atheism only has a small effect on the "what next". The effect is more of the fact of no eternal life -> this life is more valuable. Atheism (or rather, a(personal god theism)) itself also inspires one to take full responsibility for making what one wants happen. When I was religious I often prayed for stuff I wanted instead of working to get it.

Other than that it's a question of philosophy, not a question of atheism.

Bluefire

26th January 2008, 06:09 AM

talking about objective meaning and directionality, not the subjective 'life's what you make it' meaningless 'meaning' and 'directionality.

How does religion give you that?
In what way is the eternal life with god "meaningful", in a way that this life would not be?

Bluefire

26th January 2008, 06:14 AM

I imagine he did because many are:

Madeline Murray O'Hare was a atheistic crusader who led the campaign to kick prayer out of schools.

All these new books coming out by atheists (like Hitchens) are on a crusade against Theism. For example Hitchens even attacked Nobel Prize winner Mother Teresa -- that sounds like a crusader to me.

The ACLU is on a Crusade to remove all religion from public areas. (like manger scenes at Christmas)

You seem to be portraying modern atheists as some laid back, passive, live and let live group when the evidence is otherwise.

Atheists have the right to be on crusades, but don't deny they are on crusades.

Some atheists are (not many, not nearly as big percentage as christians though). I think it is appropriate. Because if you think that this life matter, and humanity matters, then ideas matter alot.

The "American Atheists" organization would disagree with you.

The "American Atheists" organization would be wrong. What they describe seems to be some outline of what could be a humanist philosophy.

DanishDynamite

26th January 2008, 06:19 AM

DanishDynamite

26th January 2008, 06:22 AM

so it's basically an emptiness, a nothingness
What is "basically an emptiness, a nothingness"? Your life as an atheist?

Sleepy

26th January 2008, 06:24 AM

Might as well just go about my life..
yeah, nothing positive then

Oh, life? That's some negative **** right there man. You need yourself some reeeligiyoooon, brother!

Akhenaten

26th January 2008, 06:29 AM

Let's say you've lived at least a couple of decades, you've examined the options, and you've arrived at atheism.

No, that's where I started

Well.
Here you are.

You mean "There you are." No way am I where you are.

What do you do now?

Whatever I feel like, mostly

Let's say you then spend a few years trying to rescue other humans from what you (not they) regard as stupidity.

Let's not. I have no interest in any such thing. Stupidity is its own punishment - why would I interfere?

Ok. Then what?

I'll die

What can you do that is positive?

In most people's opinion, as above.

Are there any specifically atheist 'values'?

No.

Are there any specifically atheist charities that endeavour to improve the plight of individuals?

Yes

(I don't think I've heard of any. Whereas religious charities there are thousands.)

Read more. Believe less.

Well, it's up to you. What next?

Nothing

Preferably positive.

I'm absolutely positive.

Upchurch

26th January 2008, 06:37 AM

What religious affiliation is the Red Cross?
the clue is in the question
I haven't read the entire thread, but has this truely uninformed response been addressed?

The Red Cross (http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_cross) was started in Switzerland. The name and its symbol comes from a reversal of the Swiss flag's colors. It is not a Christian affiliated organization. Or with any religion, for that matter.

If you are looking for a secular non-religious charity, the Red Cross is one of the best.

Fitter

26th January 2008, 06:42 AM

First, let's leave the ACLU out of it. The ACLU is not an atheistic organization. They defend civil liberties for all, including Christians:
http://www.mauinews.com/story.aspx?id=26128
http://web.archive.org/web/20050308170613/http:/www.aclu-wa.org/Issues/freespeech/News-SpokTransit.html
http://www.aclu.org/religion/schools/20174prs20050920.html

DOC can never leave the ACLU out of it. Next we'll hear from the famous historian Suetonius how Elvis was one of the disciples or some such thing. Please don't do anything to discourage his belief though, as it appears that his fear of eternal damnation is the only thing keeping the rest of us safe.

Abdul Alhazred

26th January 2008, 06:47 AM

Atheism is neither a comprehensive philosophy of life, nor the absence thereof. Nor an epistemological or ontological position such as "materialism".

Atheism means not being gullible about one particular thing.

Ichneumonwasp

26th January 2008, 06:48 AM

Exclusive materialism. A materialism which denies the possibility of supposedly non physically verifiable entities like souls, gods, God, demons etc..
I am speaking to this forum, and my experience of this forum is that every atheist I have spoken to or read has been an exclusive materialist.

Then you need to read more closely. What you have experienced is not materialism but monism. The denial of the "non-physical" does not derive from an exclusive reliance on "materialism" (whatever that is) but on the incoherence of dualism.

Would you like to defend dualism? I, for one, would be very interested to hear how dualism could work when closely examined. So, launch away.

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

26th January 2008, 06:52 AM

Well, it's up to you. What next?
Exactly the same things I did after I stopped believing in the Easter Bunny. And the same things I plan to do after I stop believing in the invisible pink hamster orbiting Neptune.

~~ Paul

H'ethetheth

26th January 2008, 06:55 AM

Is that inspired by your atheism, or would you have done that anyway? In other words, we learn the following:

- Atheist does something good: Atheist would have done so anyway, and is not inspired by atheism.
- Atheist does something bad: Atheist has no morals, and is therefore inspired by his atheism.

How does this work for theists?

- Theist does something good: Theist has theistic morals, and is therefore inspired by his theism.
- Theist does something bad: Theist would have done so anyway, and is not inspired by theism.

From this of course follows that:

a) Theism is good.
b) Atheism is bad.

Also,

- 500 g chicken breast, diced
- 500 g mie noodles
- 800 g broccoli, in bits
- garlic to taste
- 1 onion, diced finely
- 1 generous amount Kechap Manis (sweet soy sauce)
- 2 dollops Thai sweet chilli sauce
- 125 ml crème fraiche
- curry powder
- Sambal Ulek
- some vegetable oil

Brown the chicken breast, garlic and onion in vegetable oil, add chilli sauce, stir for a while until it gets hot, add Kechap and Broccoli, and stir. Put a lid on the wok and let it simmer until the broccoli are cooked to taste. In the mean while, prepare the mie noodles according to the instructions no doubt supplied with the noodles. Season the chicken mixture with more Kechap, sambal and curry powder to taste. Add the creme fraiche, et Bon appétit!

JoeEllison

26th January 2008, 06:59 AM

tumnus

26th January 2008, 07:01 AM

what a nasty, mean-spirited and spiteful thread.

It shows off the last desperate throw of someone trying to argue with a theist agenda, then getting some stabs in. for example, evolution can't be true, it must be god, else how horrible the world would be. (that's not a strawman but an actual argument i've heard)

The most inspiring quote to me was from Carl Sagan, talking of Kepler: "he prefered the truth, even if it was uncomfortable, to his most cherished fantasies or hopes" (paraphrased cos I dont want to dig it up just yet)

So what if there is a god? To me it doesnt really answer any of my questions, just let's someone else worry about them while I try hard to serve him. Its not so much an answer to my problems as much as an opiate, stopping me thinking about it. Which I admit, some people do need.

So what if there is no god, looking out for you? Well, there's not much you can do about it, is there? Best stop whining about it, grow some 'cohones', and act like a man. I was born with a spinal tumour which nearly crippled me, I don't whine about it. Just play the cards that are dealt.

*hmmm, i'm reminded of The Godfather, when Marlon Brando admonishes the singer Johnny Fontaine*

jjramsey

26th January 2008, 07:04 AM

When Hemant Mehta had his "motivational poster contest," (http://friendlyatheist.com/2007/11/06/friendly-atheist-contest-8-atheist-haiku/) my contribution (attached) had the slogan "Atheism: Sometimes you got to knock stuff down before you build things up." Of course, atheism by itself is negative, but atheism is just a clearing out of certain false beliefs that can get in the way of correctly understanding the world around us. Bulldozers are "negative" in a sense, too, but they are often necessary for construction.

Eskarina

26th January 2008, 07:05 AM

Let's say you've lived at least a couple of decades, you've examined the options, and you've arrived at atheism.

Well.
Here you are.

Yes, here I am. Hello! :)

What do you do now?
Let's say you then spend a few years trying to rescue other humans from what you (not they) regard as stupidity.

Rescue humans from stupidity? I'm not Sisyphos.

Ok. Then what?

What can you do that is positive?

Continue with my work and my life? I'm just saying, you know...

Are there any specifically atheist 'values'?

Are there any speffic values at all?

Are there any specifically atheist charities that endeavour to improve the plight of individuals?
(I don't think I've heard of any. Whereas religious charities there are thousands.)

What's to stop someone from going to a senior citizen's home and spend a day with one of the old folks there? Picking up litter? Donating money to AI? And what does that have to do with religion?

Well, it's up to you. What next?
Preferably positive.

I'll continue doing my work in adult aducation and enjoy the fact that religion doesn't come into it.

blobru

26th January 2008, 07:06 AM

I used to be able to pick up some great recipes in threads like this one. What's up guys??

take:
one half-pint theist

stir in:
two-bits semi-sweet chocolate guru
several tonnes spiritual superiority derived therefrom
one dose delusion whatever feelings of emptiness and self-loathing led you to guru / God must be universal

strain fragile ego yolks
beat until tender & spongey

fill void with goo
half-bake
frost with "love"
project onto others

... voilà ...
1 divine OP!

DanishDynamite

26th January 2008, 07:12 AM

take:
one half-pint theist

stir in:
two-bits semi-sweet chocolate guru
several tonnes spiritual superiority derived therefrom
one dose delusion whatever feelings of emptiness and self-loathing led you to guru / God must be universal

strain fragile ego yolks
beat until tender & spongey

fill void with goo
half-bake
frost with "love"
project onto others

... voilà ...
1 divine OP!
Almost as idiotic as Ignoring someone, is posting ******** posts on a thread.

Ichneumonwasp

26th January 2008, 07:15 AM

This sort of negative thread tells us much more about plumjam than I think he means to let on. Clearly, his life is empty and meaningless, and only religion keeps him from killing himself. He has little interest in helping other people, and projects that feeling onto atheists. His intentional misunderstandings and projections allow him to avoid examining his own life.

He's had all of this explained to him before. He isn't stupid, so clearly he's having a bad week, and is looking to prop up his own emotional state by pretending that he has more in his life by being a theist, because of his claim that atheists have less. It is pretty pathetic, and we should all feel a little bit sorry for him.

I usually don't like taking such an approach, but after reading this thread I think I have to say, "Spot on". It is pretty pathetic, especially since this has all been explained to him repeatedly.

ETA:

To which he is likely to respond, "Oh, how typical of all those atheists, negativity, negativity, negativity."

Plumjam, please examine the beam in your own eye.

ohp

26th January 2008, 07:23 AM

Let's say you've lived at least a couple of decades, you've examined the options, and you've arrived at atheism.

Well.
Here you are.

What do you do now?

Devoid of all morals, and unguided by a book of truth, I rampage the earth, causing pain and suffering to my fellow man - inflicting malicious acts on people, such as cutting a hand off someone who stole from me, stoning my adulterous wife, and letting my injured children die for want of a blood transfusion. I persuade people that condoms are laced with HIV, so they should have unprotected sex, and I spend none of the money I was given to relieve the pain of the dying, because I get a kick out of pain and suffering.

Only kidding, I don't think I could be that malicious!

JoeEllison

26th January 2008, 07:30 AM

I usually don't like taking such an approach, but after reading this thread I think I have to say, "Spot on". It is pretty pathetic, especially since this has all been explained to him repeatedly.

ETA:

To which he is likely to respond, "Oh, how typical of all those atheists, negativity, negativity, negativity."

Plumjam, please examine the beam in your own eye.

It isn't as though I much enjoy it either... but at some point, you have to realize that not everyone views the world in the same way that you do. For instance, if you were to ask the questions that plumjam asks, it would be because you actually want an answer. You would listen to the answers, take them as serious and honest answers, and try to gain some knowledge from it. He is just asking so that he can bash atheists and make himself feel more complete by calling atheists less than him. If you conduct yourself with him as though he shares your motives, you'll get nothing but frustrated.

By the same token, plumjam could use a lesson in seeing things from another person's perspective. He has a giant hole in his life, that he fills with religion. He seems to be asking how atheists can live with that gaping abyss in themselves, without religion to fill it. He doesn't understand that, at least for many atheists, that hole simply doesn't exist. We don't need to find something to fill a hole that we don't have.

Arkan_Wolfshade

26th January 2008, 07:36 AM

. . . And the same things I plan to do after I stop believing in the invisible pink hamster orbiting Neptune.

~~ Paul
That's just crazy talk.

Ichneumonwasp

26th January 2008, 07:43 AM

It isn't as though I much enjoy it either... but at some point, you have to realize that not everyone views the world in the same way that you do. For instance, if you were to ask the questions that plumjam asks, it would be because you actually want an answer. You would listen to the answers, take them as serious and honest answers, and try to gain some knowledge from it. He is just asking so that he can bash atheists and make himself feel more complete by calling atheists less than him. If you conduct yourself with him as though he shares your motives, you'll get nothing but frustrated.

By the same token, plumjam could use a lesson in seeing things from another person's perspective. He has a giant hole in his life, that he fills with religion. He seems to be asking how atheists can live with that gaping abyss in themselves, without religion to fill it. He doesn't understand that, at least for many atheists, that hole simply doesn't exist. We don't need to find something to fill a hole that we don't have.

Excellent points.

calebprime

26th January 2008, 08:03 AM

Almost as idiotic as Ignoring someone, is posting ******** posts on a thread.

Can't you give us a tasty Danish recipe?

also, what 8-letter word did you intend here?

meshugah?

thatguywhojuggles

26th January 2008, 08:32 AM

...

Also,

- 500 g chicken breast, diced
- 500 g mie noodles
- 800 g broccoli, in bits
- garlic to taste
- 1 onion, diced finely
- 1 generous amount Kechap Manis (sweet soy sauce)
- 2 dollops Thai sweet chilli sauce
- 125 ml crème fraiche
- curry powder
- Sambal Ulek
- some vegetable oil

Brown the chicken breast, garlic and onion in vegetable oil, add chilli sauce, stir for a while until it gets hot, add Kechap and Broccoli, and stir. Put a lid on the wok and let it simmer until the broccoli are cooked to taste. In the mean while, prepare the mie noodles according to the instructions no doubt supplied with the noodles. Season the chicken mixture with more Kechap, sambal and curry powder to taste. Add the creme fraiche, et Bon appétit!

Thats more like it! :D Now, what the heck is a Sambal Ulek?? Is it like a Neptunian Slug?

blobru

26th January 2008, 08:35 AM

Can't you give us a tasty Danish recipe?

also, what 8-letter word did you intend here?

meshugah?

No, pretty sure he meant "********"! (Though the recipe doesn't really call for that... maybe in Denmark, pickled?)

Gord_in_Toronto

26th January 2008, 08:52 AM

Unlike Upchurch I have just read the entire thread(I read fast) and all I can say is that,
"Folks you are trying to edcate someone who thinks Men Should Sit on the Toilet to Pee."

Pah!

Jimbo07

26th January 2008, 08:54 AM

damn!

:mad:

ETA: Gord, PM...

Nogbad

26th January 2008, 08:58 AM

Devoid of all morals, and unguided by a book of truth, I rampage the earth, causing pain and suffering to my fellow man - inflicting malicious acts on people, such as cutting a hand off someone who stole from me, stoning my adulterous wife, and letting my injured children die for want of a blood transfusion. I persuade people that condoms are laced with HIV, so they should have unprotected sex, and I spend none of the money I was given to relieve the pain of the dying, because I get a kick out of pain and suffering.

Only kidding, I don't think I could be that malicious!

You weren't fooling anyone - nobody could be that twisted.

Eskarina

26th January 2008, 09:18 AM

Unlike Upchurch I have just read the entire thread(I read fast) and all I can say is that,
"Folks you are trying to edcate someone who thinks Men Should Sit on the Toilet to Pee."

Pah!

Men Who Sit On The Toilet To Pee Do Not Need Edyucashuon!!!!

Bah, Humbug!

UnrepentantSinner

26th January 2008, 09:54 AM

what a nasty, mean-spirited and spiteful thread.

Ooops, I thought I'd accidently clicked on a thread where a skeptic who was a theist had posted.

But it's trolljam, so nevermind.

UnrepentantSinner

26th January 2008, 09:57 AM

Thats more like it! :D Now, what the heck is a Sambal Ulek?? Is it like a Neptunian Slug?

How dare you! Sambol Olek is the 2nd tier hot cock sauce produced by the Huy Fong company - ironically in California.

thatguywhojuggles

26th January 2008, 10:09 AM

How dare you! Sambol Olek is the 2nd tier hot cock sauce produced by the Huy Fong company - ironically in California.

Valuable information... so this thread is not a total waste of space.

tumnus

26th January 2008, 10:13 AM

Ooops, I thought I'd accidently clicked on a thread where a skeptic who was a theist had posted.

But it's trolljam, so nevermind.

Oh no, don't get me wrong. I've got plenty of time and respect for skeptics who are theists. I've compassion enough to realise people need stuff to get through the day, or may approach a problem from a completely different direction to me.

Its just the OP was followed up with loads of vicious little barbs that just seemed to go "Nyaarr, Nyaarr!" I can tell the difference between that and someone honestly attempting to find out some answers (whatever their beliefs).

Mark A. Siefert

26th January 2008, 10:23 AM

How dare you! Sambol Olek is the 2nd tier hot cock sauce produced by the Huy Fong company - ironically in California.

"CALI-FORN-I-A!"

"Git a rope!"

anticonspiracy911

26th January 2008, 10:42 AM

Let's say you've lived at least a couple of decades, you've examined the options, and you've arrived at atheism.

Well.
Here you are.

What do you do now?

Live?

Let's say you then spend a few years trying to rescue other humans from what you (not they) regard as stupidity.

Ok. Then what?

Live?

What can you do that is positive?
Are there any specifically atheist 'values'?
Are there any specifically atheist charities that endeavour to improve the plight of individuals?
(I don't think I've heard of any. Whereas religious charities there are thousands.)

Well, it's up to you. What next?
Preferably positive.

I'm sorry, but what is your point? Are you trying to tell me that if I don't have some grand model that shows many layers of life after this life that my whole premise of there being no god is useless? This is my favorite question because I get asked this a lot. Why is there life? Why is there a universe? I don't know. Does it have to have a grand purpose in the end? And even if there was a God those two questions are still not answered until God tells us himself. What was the purpose of God creating life? Why did he create a universe? Was he just bored? Why did he leave the universe humanless for billions of years? These questions still aren't answered any more conclusively even if we say in some magical land there is a God controlling everything. So I don't know what the point of this thread is. Did you expect us to stumble, not give you a grand model of life, then through that have us reconsider that hey, maybe this whole God business isn't so bad afterall? Honestly, explain the intent behind this thread.

Beerina

26th January 2008, 11:09 AM

does [Bill Gates' charity] derive it's identity or inspiration from atheism?

At this point, may I remind you of the old saying that atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby.

Without it, it isn't "driving" any behavior per se. You're just not doing "religious" things in addition to your daily life.

Most "religious" types view their religion like the government: they donate to it, and some arm somewhere "out there" goes about helping people.

26th January 2008, 11:16 AM

[Plumjam] has a giant hole in his life, that he fills with religion. He seems to be asking how atheists can live with that gaping abyss in themselves, without religion to fill it. He doesn't understand that, at least for many atheists, that hole simply doesn't exist. We don't need to find something to fill a hole that we don't have.

Says it all, really.

That seems to be the basic misunderstanding many theists have about atheists.
And there stated very well and clearly.

Perhaps the reason for this misunderstanding is the position of religion that morals and personal value stem from a higher power.

Atheists don't generally have this belief (although there are some who support personal transcendence). This appears to be an inconcievable concept to many theists, which I think is why they seem willfully blind to such explanation.

Are you reading this, PlumJam?
Are you comprehending it?

Atheism is not a code of morals, or a system of beliefs. It is a lack of belief. Trying to argue otherwise is pointless.

Further, it seems to me that most atheists are willing to "live and let live", so long as religion doesn't interfere with the well-being of others, and so long as theists don't endlessly try to convince us that we're wrong. I know I don't generally go into a discussion about why I don't beleive unless somebody tries to tell me I'm ignorant, or empty, or foolish, or somehow "less".

Esperdome

26th January 2008, 12:08 PM

The "American Atheists" organization would disagree with you. The definition of atheism they put on their website does have a belief system and a specific philosophy. I counted the words "believe or beliefs" about 8 times in the definition of atheism they have on their site.

From American Atheists website:

The following definition of Atheism was given to the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Murray v. Curlett, 374 U.S. 203, 83 S. Ct. 1560, 10 L.Ed.2d (MD, 1963), to remove reverential Bible reading and oral unison recitation of the Lord's Prayer in the public schools.

“Your petitioners are Atheists and they define their beliefs as follows. An Atheist loves his fellow man instead of god. An Atheist believes that heaven is something for which we should work now – here on earth for all men together to enjoy.

An Atheist believes that he can get no help through prayer but that he must find in himself the inner conviction, and strength to meet life, to grapple with it, to subdue it and enjoy it.

An Atheist believes that only in a knowledge of himself and a knowledge of his fellow man can he find the understanding that will help to a life of fulfillment.

He seeks to know himself and his fellow man rather than to know a god. An Atheist believes that a hospital should be built instead of a church. An Atheist believes that a deed must be done instead of a prayer said. An Atheist strives for involvement in life and not escape into death. He wants disease conquered, poverty vanquished, war eliminated. He wants man to understand and love man.

He wants an ethical way of life. He believes that we cannot rely on a god or channel action into prayer nor hope for an end of troubles in a hereafter.

He believes that we are our brother's keepers; and are keepers
of our own lives; that we are responsible persons and the job is here and the time is now.”

http://www.atheists.org/Atheism/

Atheists have the right to have all of these beliefs but people shouldn't deny atheists have beliefs (which happens a lot in these threads).

While I agree with AA's sentiments, (and I've been a member both in the O'Hare days and modern day), they do not represent ALL atheists, only a subset of atheists. And also, you could find humanists who support this philosophy amongst agnostics, deists, and even theists. If someone came up to me and said they were an atheist but couldn't stand AA's definition of an atheist, I would agree, they are painting with too broad a brush.

plumjam

26th January 2008, 12:22 PM

Well, lots of responses. Sorry, but too many directed to me to answer individually.
Some were decent enough. Unfortunately most were facetious and/or ad hominem and/or entirely negative.
Apparently, me even having the gall to ask such questions shows I have 'a giant hole' in my life. :rolleyes: Lol.

For the quibblers who keep arguing that atheism is not a belief system as such, please get real and quit the pedantry. I did explain that the atheism on this board, in my experience, has always come pre-packaged with a positive belief in exclusive materialism. This is a point that people are studiously avoiding.

Maybe I should say instead then: so you're an exclusive materialist and therefore an atheist, what next?

PAC

26th January 2008, 12:32 PM

I give to charity (never religious ones for obvious reasons). I like to think I perform charitable acts. I like to think I add positively to our community. I do so because I believe this is right. I BELIEVE not some magical being in the sky telling me to believe! When I die I will end but the world will go on.
Do you fail to see the beauty and wonder of an athiest doing what they believe is right because they believe? You look at the good done by religion.
I think this good is destroyed by the damage religion does.

I suggest you try letting go of the silliness of religion and find the strength of being you. The rewards on this earth can be satisfying. Let it go! There is nothing after this life. That is reality. Why not accept it, put it behind you and lead your life rather than the life religions attempts to force upon you.

You are looking for positive answers. What can be more positive than living a satisfying life for yourself and those close to you?

Most atheists are not missionaries. We are not out to recruit. We see the positive that could be in a world without the demons of religion. What could be more positve than a world without religion?

tumnus

26th January 2008, 12:35 PM

Well, I dunno, whatever floats your boat I suppose. I'm quite passionate about music, and it makes me feel free. I like travelling and seeing new things, and the backs of lady's calves.

Also you could try earnestly trying to piece together how this all came about, by looking around you and trying to find if there are any clues left over. I'm filled with a burning desire to find this out, and I won't be fobbed off by easy answers, or the creation myths of different cultures (although I love to read about them). We are quite curious primates, after all!

cyborg

26th January 2008, 12:56 PM

Maybe I should say instead then: so you're an exclusive materialist and therefore an atheist, what next?

The baby eating commences.

Tricky

26th January 2008, 12:56 PM

For the quibblers who keep arguing that atheism is not a belief system as such, please get real and quit the pedantry. I did explain that the atheism on this board, in my experience, has always come pre-packaged with a positive belief in exclusive materialism. This is a point that people are studiously avoiding.

Skepticism is a philosophy. Atheism is applying that philosophy toward religion. Would you call skepticism about N-rays a belief system? I somehow doubt it. Is your lack of belief in the divinity of Zeus a "belief system"?

As to materialism, I'd still like your definition. I gave you mine earlier, but since I'm a nice guy, I'll do it again. Materialism is the position that there is no evidence for anything beyond the physical universe.

I fail to see how that would have any affect whatsoever on morality, unless you are only being moral for supernatural, i.e. unmaterial rewards.

plumjam

26th January 2008, 01:15 PM

Skepticism is a philosophy. Atheism is applying that philosophy toward religion. Would you call skepticism about N-rays a belief system? I somehow doubt it. Is your lack of belief in the divinity of Zeus a "belief system"?

As to materialism, I'd still like your definition. I gave you mine earlier, but since I'm a nice guy, I'll do it again. Materialism is the position that there is no evidence for anything beyond the physical universe.

I fail to see how that would have any affect whatsoever on morality, unless you are only being moral for supernatural, i.e. unmaterial rewards.

well, I did give my definition of exclusive materialism.. a position which holds to the impossibility of 'extra-material' realities, such as the soul, God, the afterlife, objective morality, objective meaning etc..

IMO it's a morally empty system. It cannot accommodate objective meaning or morality, and therefore the individual is left to 'make it up as he goes along'. It's no surprise then that such a belief system does not, in fact cannot be a genuinely inspirational factor in people's lives.
When exclusive materialists manage to be good, inspired people they do so not due to their belief in exclusive materialism, but rather in spite of it.

This represents a central contradiction in their lives.
On the surface they believe in exclusive materialism and therefore atheism. Yet in practice, in living their day to day lives they act as though they are not exclusive materialists and therefore atheists, but rather theists.

Those who do not live with and manage this central contradiction (i.e. who live and act as a belief in exclusive materialism would truly warrant) are literally free to make up meaning and morality as they see fit.. and that is where things start to go a bit crazy.

So, in short, you may be atheists but fortunately you have the good sense to live as theists.