What does atheism offer in place of Christianity's many beliefs?

[A Christian Sceptic]

So in this post:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=113235

the person found this fliar:
http://www.revivalmovement.org/acatalog/info_115.html

I thought this quote was interesting:

You want us to throw away our Bibles. You tell us not to believe what parsons say about religion. You advise us to think as you do and be like you. Now before we take your advice we have a right to know what good we shall get by it.


What would your answer be to that old lady?

[Dragoonster]

What would your answer be to that old lady?

I'd tell her that moral systems are arbitrary no matter the source and she could throw her Bible away and still adhere to the same standards, and still feel good about doing so, if she believed they were right for whatever reason.

Or I'd tell her and the atheist who was offended that happiness is subjective and I could be happier than them killing children if I were a psychopath but that doesn't mean they should kill children. Unless they're exactly like me and happiness is the only thing humans should strive for.

Actually the real thing I'd tell her is "whatever, do what you want", wish her well, and get on with my life.

I didn't drop in on that other thread but the question of how that tract got into his room for him to wake up to was never answered. I'd be offended if anyone broke into my room and left anything in it. :eek:

[kerikiwi]

Being an absence of belief in deities, atheism replaces nothing.
I would ask if you 'believe' in rain because it does you good to hold that belief, or because all the evidence suggests that rain is real.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

The truth? For does not the Bible say that the Truth shall make you free?

[godofpie]

You will receive the truth. It is up to you to decide weather or not it is good or bad. Now go away old lady and quit interrupting my self serving speech.

ETA: Dang Canuck beat me to it!

[kerikiwi]

I'd be offended if anyone broke into my room and left anything in it. :eek:

What? Anything?
I can think of somethings that would please me greatly. :D

[Kopji]

So if the truth is a bitter drink you should spit it out?

Surely the martyrs who died in the name of their faith believed that it was true, and not just something good for you? And don't those who slaughter innocents in the name of God at least have the integrity to be true believers?

But this woman's question reduces religion to a question of whether it does good or not. Who is the judge of this good? How cynical, dark, and empty religion is, if the reason for it becomes one of "it is good for you to believe" rather than "this is true".



"Any fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius - and a lot of courage - to move in the opposite direction." - Albert Einstein

[Hokulele]

My, what a selfish question that old lady is asking.

[bokonon]

What would your answer be to that old lady?
Remember when you learned the truth about Santa Claus? What replaced that belief?

Truth. The real world.

And the truth is, the real world has a lot to offer.

Instead of standing in line at the mall to bargain with a play actor in a padded red suit who can't offer anything but empty promises, you can get to know your friends and relatives a little better. Or watch a movie, read a book, walk in the woods, explore a museum, play music, accomplish something.

You're an adult now. Don't waste the only life you'll have dreaming about how things will be better when you're dead.

There's the world. If you're going to find happiness (and there's no guarantee that you will), you'll have to find it there, or inside yourself.

[Dragoonster]

What? Anything?
I can think of somethings that would please me greatly. :D

Good point! I wouldn't even bother to ask where they came from or why they came from :drool:

[Marquis de Carabas]

What would your answer be to that old lady?
Guilt-free orgies.

[X]

Nothing. Everything. Reality.

The universe is a vast and marvelous place, full of wonders beyond comprehension.
Why waste time obsessed with a book written by people who thought a small flat Earth was all there was?

[Edmund Standing]

What does atheism offer in place of Christianity's many beliefs?

Atheism doesn't 'offer' anything, as atheism is not a belief system. Not believing in God/s can have many positive effects but there is no implied 'reward' in atheism, unlike the childish wish fulfillment found in claims that we don't really die and will actually spend eternity in some kind of paradise if only we have 'faith'.

[FireGarden]

What would your answer be to that old lady?

Sometimes I'm happy, sometimes I'm not.

. “Sir,” she said again, “I ask you to answer my question. Are you happy? You want us to throw away our Bibles. You tell us not to believe what parsons say about religion. You advise us to think as you do and be like you. Now before we take your advice we have a right to know what good we shall get by it. Do your fine new notions give you much comfort? Do you yourself really feel happy?”

I'm not actually in the same position as the atheist in the story. I don't go around telling people to give up their faith. I don't tell people to "throw away their Bibles and not to mind what preachers said". I don't tell people to think like me.

I just tell people why I don't believe, or why I disagree with their reasons for believing. If they agree with me, that's great. If they don't, I can live with that too.

I wouldn't argue that my lack of belief is a source of happiness. I certainly don't see it as a source of sorrow.

The true Christian is the only happy man, because his conscience is at peace.

Something that would truely trouble my conscience would be lying to myself. That would be a source of sorrow.

So I suppose the happiness I "gain" from atheism is the happiness of not having a source of sorrow.

[dglas]

Efficacy. A future. Possibilities.

[westprog]

Atheism doesn't 'offer' anything, as atheism is not a belief system. Not believing in God/s can have many positive effects but there is no implied 'reward' in atheism, unlike the childish wish fulfillment found in claims that we don't really die and will actually spend eternity in some kind of paradise if only we have 'faith'.

It's certainly true that atheism isn't a belief system, but some kind of system for living one's life is necessary, even on an informal basis.

Atheists may have a core belief that it doesn't matter what one does, but in practice they act as if it did, for the most part.

[cyborg]

Quality - not quantity.

[Darat]

Nowt.

[Darat]

...snip..

Atheists may have a core belief that it doesn't matter what one does, ...snip...

What a complete and utter strawman.

[Filippo Lippi]

Being an atheist I try not to talk to fictional characters

[brodski]

Atheists may have a core belief that it doesn't matter what one does,

And Christians may have the view that unbelievers should be tortured to death for their own good. However that doesn't reflect mainstream modern belief, what was your point?

[westprog]

What a complete and utter strawman.

I'm going by what numerous atheists have posted here - that in a materialist universe morals are a matter of choice, not fixed rules.

(I know that there are atheists who might not believe this - hence the "may").

[westprog]

And Christians may have the view that unbelievers should be tortured to death for their own good. However that doesn't reflect mainstream modern belief, what was your point?

I think that my point was on the following line which was snipped.

[Autolite]

What does atheism offer in place of Christianity's many beliefs?

Reality...

[Edmund Standing]

in a materialist universe morals are a matter of choice, not fixed rules.

That is indeed true, but in practical terms it is clear that atheism doesn't lead to a kind of atavistic blood lusting, rapist psychopathology. Technically, morals are 'chosen', but within the context of community, and within the context of a legal system.

Of course morality is clearly 'chosen' in the same way in a 'theistic universe' where we see all too often a moral relativism far worse than that which atheists are often accused of. God is love, we hear. We also hear that God has said 'I will send famine and wild animals against you, and they will rob you of your children; pestilence and bloodshed shall pass through you; and I will bring the sword upon you. I, the Lord, have spoken' (Ezekiel 5:17 (http://bible.oremus.org/?passage=Ezekiel+5%3A17)). We hear that God commands that we shall not kill, yet we also read that, commanded by God, the Israelites 'devoted to destruction by the edge of the sword all in the city, both men and women, young and old, oxen, sheep, and donkeys' (Joshua 6:21 (http://bible.oremus.org/?passage=Joshua+6%3A21)).

I've never understood the theistic argument that 'without God, people cannot be moral' or the claim that 'you just make it up as you go along'. It seems that with God, in practical terms 'morality' gets way more subjective, and potentially way more dangerous.

[westprog]

That is indeed true, but in practical terms it is clear that atheism doesn't lead to a kind of atavistic blood lusting, rapist psychopathology. Technically, morals are 'chosen', but within the context of community, and within the context of a legal system.


Which is what I said.


Of course morality is clearly 'chosen' in the same way in a 'theistic universe' where we see all too often a moral relativism far worse than that which atheists are often accused of. God is love, we hear. We also hear that God has said 'I will send famine and wild animals against you, and they will rob you of your children; pestilence and bloodshed shall pass through you; and I will bring the sword upon you. I, the Lord, have spoken' (Ezekiel 5:17 (http://bible.oremus.org/?passage=Ezekiel+5%3A17)). We hear that God commands that we shall not kill, yet we also read that, commanded by God, the Israelites 'devoted to destruction by the edge of the sword all in the city, both men and women, young and old, oxen, sheep, and donkeys' (Joshua 6:21 (http://bible.oremus.org/?passage=Joshua+6%3A21)).

I've never understood the theistic argument that 'without God, people cannot be moral' or the claim that 'you just make it up as you go along'. It seems that with God, in practical terms 'morality' gets way more subjective, and potentially way more dangerous.

Potentially way more dangerous than Pol Pot? I don't see it, myself.

[Edmund Standing]

Potentially way more dangerous than Pol Pot? I don't see it, myself.

Because you don't want to see it. In reality, the number of people killed by Pol Pot pales in comparison to the number killed in the name of God/s throughout history. And what's the bigger danger to human life right now? Atheism or religious fanaticism?

It's also worth noting that Pol Pot killed in the name of a 'pure' Communism, and sought to 'purge' anyone perceived as a threat to this, not in the name of atheism. The Israelites did the same thing in the name of religious 'purity':

If you hear it said about one of the towns that the Lord your God is giving you to live in, that scoundrels from among you have gone out and led the inhabitants of the town astray, saying, ‘Let us go and worship other gods’, whom you have not known, then you shall inquire and make a thorough investigation. If the charge is established that such an abhorrent thing has been done among you, you shall put the inhabitants of that town to the sword, utterly destroying it and everything in it—even putting its livestock to the sword. All of its spoil you shall gather into its public square; then burn the town and all its spoil with fire, as a whole burnt-offering to the Lord your God. It shall remain a perpetual ruin, never to be rebuilt.
(Deuteronomy 13:12-16 (http://bible.oremus.org/?passage=Deuteronomy+13%3A12-16))

No-one is a Pol Pot devotee now, but the book where this material is found is owned and revered by millions.

[brodski]

I think that my point was on the following line which was snipped.

I'm afraid it wasn't.

The mainstream of atheist thought (if such a thing can be said to exist) is not nihilism, if you can find nihilists who act as if nihilism is not true, then you have damaged the arguments of nihilists, not atheists.

[billydkid]

How about an honest respect for the truth of things?

[westprog]

Because you don't want to see it. In reality, the number of people killed by Pol Pot pales in comparison to the number killed in the name of God/s throughout history.

However, the number of people killed by secular ideologies in the twentieth century dwarfs the number killed in religious conflicts.

And what's the bigger danger to human life right now? Atheism or religious fanaticism?


Here's a tip about the Maoists, Stalinists, etc. They haven't gone away, you know.

It's also worth noting that Pol Pot killed in the name of a 'pure' Communism, and sought to 'purge' anyone perceived as a threat to this, not in the name of atheism. The Israelites did the same thing in the name of religious 'purity':



Pol Pot didn't act "in the name of atheism". That would be an unlikely thing. He did act in the name of an ideology which was explicitly atheist.

No-one is a Pol Pot devotee now, but the book where this material is found is owned and revered by millions.

And there are plenty of communists out there too.

I simply don't see how the idea that religion is the ultimate source of evil in the world can be supported for a moment, given what any reasonably educated person must know by now.

[Hindmost]

Sunday's off--can sleep in, play golf, ski, etc.

No religous tenets that are completely incongruous with science. Freedom from magical thinking. Freedom from Christian dogma and that holier than thou stuff. (we are going to heaven and you're not) and so much more...

glenn

[Hindmost]

However, the number of people killed by secular ideologies in the twentieth century dwarfs the number killed in religious conflicts.

...snip...



Its the number of people killed by totalitarian regimes...not secular ideologies.

Setting an arbitrary boundary doesn't change the fact that religious ideologies have killed more people throughout the centuries.

glenn

[Ichneumonwasp]

However, the number of people killed by secular ideologies in the twentieth century dwarfs the number killed in religious conflicts.



Here's a tip about the Maoists, Stalinists, etc. They haven't gone away, you know.



Pol Pot didn't act "in the name of atheism". That would be an unlikely thing. He did act in the name of an ideology which was explicitly atheist.



And there are plenty of communists out there too.

I simply don't see how the idea that religion is the ultimate source of evil in the world can be supported for a moment, given what any reasonably educated person must know by now.

I hope you will permit me to rant a bit.

I know that you are not suggesting that people are being killed because of critical thinking; but that people die because of religion is much closer to the truth than the statement that people die because of atheism. "Perfection", I think, lies at the core of the religious traditions that kill most adroitly, perfection either on earth or in the next life (sometimes by means of deliverance from dangerous ideas that interfere with the promotion of perfection and sometimes by direct promotion of utopia).

Stalin, Pol Pot, etc. committed the same "crime" to which religious fundamentalists ascribe -- they were true believers. In almost every case where mass killing occurs, it appears to be caused by a desire to create utopia on earth or to ensure utopia after death. Stalin and Pol Pot (it probably isn't completely fair to cite those two individuals alone, though, since the movements were much more widespread and involved millions themselves) seemed to think that a few sacrifices were necessary to create a new world order that would allow the perfectibility of man. The same appears true of the French Revolution.

That is the problem, as I see it. Not religion, not atheism, not communism; but the desire to sacrifice others for what is considered the ultimate good -- utopia. We can strive to improve our lot, but utopia is an illusion, and a dangerous one at that. There is a reason why Thomas More did not spell this word with the extra 'e' at the beginning. There is a reason why his book is satire.

What folks here promote is critical thinking, not set ideology (except for the ideologies that none of us can see because they underlie the program of critical thinking). What most here rail at is blind faith in the ultimate perfectibility of man and in the idea of utopia. Some religious folks believe this occurs after death. Some believe that we must found the perfect society here on earth first. Some non-religious folks make the same error and believe that man can be made perfect through a social program or re-learning exercise. Faith in that idea is dangerous, because what's a few lives lost if we attain perfection?

The problem is not that atheism kills. It is not that atheism does not provide breaks on killing. The problem is the wacky idea that we can found the perfect future instead of this doggy world which we inhabit. The reason that many religions do not kill as they did in the past is because they have lost their power to promote these ideas on any scale. There are obvious exceptions, and I am sure that you, like the rest of us, can spot the true believers who wish to wipe the infidel (the pollution) from the scene and permit the heady future to flower in power and glory.

The reason that many fear the rhetoric of folks who promote "a return to the Christian values that founded this great country" is because those sentiments are laced with the same utopian thinking that Osama binLaden and his cohorts spout. Religions are still a big danger because they are so effective at disemminating such ideas -- in part, because they house them within a more comprehensive world view that allows utopia to seem a viable idea. But this requires suspension of critical thinking and rejection of the real world, rejection of science. Many of the folks here quickly jump on those attacks against science (in part), I think, because they realize that the dangerous utopian idea, that great killer, is the motivation for the anti-science attack. That is what under-girds Sam Harris', Richard Dawkins', Christopher Hitchens', and many forum members' attacks on faith. That is the big fairy tale from which we wish the world would awaken.

[slingblade]

Atheists may have a core belief that it doesn't matter what one does, but in practice they act as if it did, for the most part.

Theists may have a core belief that it does matter what one does, but in practice they act as if it doesn't, for the most part.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

You will receive the truth. It is up to you to decide weather or not it is good or bad. Now go away old lady and quit interrupting my self serving speech.

ETA: Dang Canuck beat me to it!

We learn to be quick in the snow and the cold else we freeze to death! :D

[SonOfLaertes]

Its the number of people killed by totalitarian regimes...not secular ideologies.

glenn

Exactly. These totalitarian regimes have replaced religion with their own ideology which they brutally insist the populace follow. Religion is supressed; but so are many other customs and practices these regimes see as a threat to their ability to exert control.

Oddly enough, the religions that some of these Communist regimes are suppressing bear little resemblance to Religion as practiced in the West. There is no Christ, no Bible (for the most part). True Believers here would scoff at the religious practices Pol Pot's victims followed before the genocide, but have no problem insisting that Pol Pot forced Atheism on that same populace.

Westprog, atheists in general are not in any way united by a strict ideology which they insist everyone else follow. A few may be Maoists, or Communists, others may be Fascists, most are probably something in between.

Times change, history is fluid. Here in the Western world it has become far more likely that, if a totalitarian regime were to arise in a time of economic catastrophy, this regime would be Fascist in nature with a strict religious core (especially here in the U.S., possibly elsewhere). This regime would believe that it is their Destiny to force True Religion and Order on a world that has lost its Way. This scenario is at least as plausible as a "Pol Pot" type scenario.

Do not try to paint us a picture of the past 50 or 100 years and say "this is the result of Atheism". Times change, history is fluid.

[a_unique_person]

So in this post:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=113235

the person found this fliar:
http://www.revivalmovement.org/acatalog/info_115.html

I thought this quote was interesting:


What would your answer be to that old lady?

We are right back where we have always been, having to create our ethical system. While creating a god was a convenient means of getting around the many problems experienced in doing so, a god was only ever going to be a short term solution to our long term problem.

[A Christian Sceptic]

. “Sir,” she said again, “I ask you to answer my question. Are you happy? You want us to throw away our Bibles. You tell us not to believe what parsons say about religion. You advise us to think as you do and be like you. Now before we take your advice we have a right to know what good we shall get by it. Do your fine new notions give you much comfort? Do you yourself really feel happy?”



Just to clarify:
Hey everyone - I left out the bolded part above because I'm not solely wanting to know whether atheism makes you happy or not. I quoted the rest because that's the question I was interested in hearing your responses too.

Because, when someone approaches someone who has organized their life around a belief of some sort - maybe the belief and hope that they will see their dead loved ones in heaven some day, for example - and when someone expects them to abandon that belief what do you expect atheism to put in it's place?

ETA: And yes, thanks to everyone who is answering.

[hgc]

Remember when you learned the truth about Santa Claus? What replaced that belief?


Jesus! At last, I understand Christmas! Santa is Jesus for the little tykes.

[tsig]

So in this post:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=113235

the person found this fliar:
http://www.revivalmovement.org/acatalog/info_115.html

I thought this quote was interesting:


What would your answer be to that old lady?

She's free of the weight of the bible.

BTW you sure this isn't a Jack Chick script?

[Marcus]

However, the number of people killed by secular ideologies in the twentieth century dwarfs the number killed in religious conflicts.

Perhaps one day the world will be free of religion, and there will be no divinely inspired killings at all. That won't be an argument for the reinstatement of religion.

Watch out for those atheist suicide bombers.

[SonOfLaertes]

Just to clarify:
Hey everyone - I left out the bolded part above because I'm not wanting to know whether atheism makes you happy or not. I quoted the rest because that's the question I was interested in hearing your responses too.

Because, when someone approaches someone who has organized their life around a belief of some sort - maybe the belief and hope that they will see their dead loved ones in heaven some day, for example - and when someone expects them to abandon that belief what do you expect atheism to put in it's place?

ETA: And yes, thanks to everyone who is answering.

For most of us it is not the belief itself that is the issue, it is the evangelization of that belief. It is the insistence that that belief should by Right pervade our shared government, media, and culture. In this context it is as wrong for someone to approach a Believer and insist that he/she throw away her Bible as it is as wrong to insist that a non-believer be led in prayer by their teacher, or their President.

Believers believe in their Divine Right, their reponsibility, to spread their Word and integrate it into everything said and done, anywhere. When those who believe differently push back, sometimes overzealously, why is it our responsibility to give the other side of the debate a sense of closure?

[A Christian Sceptic]

For most of us it is not the belief itself that is the issue, it is the evangelization of that belief. It is the insistence that that belief should by Right pervade our shared government, media, and culture.


Could you elaborate on how you feel people want their believes pervading the government, media, and culture? Doesn't everyone who has a belief of any sort, just by simply being involved in government, media, and culture bring those beliefs with them? Or are you talking in a more organized sense - as in Laws of some sort? If so, what sort of laws pertaining to media and culture are you thinking of?

Thanks.

[Safe-Keeper]

Atheists may have a core belief that it doesn't matter what one doesStrawman. The "atheists have no morals" stance is found only outside of atheism, primarily in Christian fundamentalist groups who are only to happy to spout it to keep people clinging to their god. Yes, atheists ourselves, as individuals and societies, choose what is right and wrong, but here's the thing: in doing so, we act just like theists. Two hundred years ago, Christians were all too happy to keep slaves, keep women from voting, and excusing spousal rape because marriage, in their eyes, allowed the man to have sex at any time. Christian beliefs change over time, just like atheist beliefs. The only difference is that we, unlike certain Christians, don't live in a fantasy world where morals have never, ever changed.

However, the number of people killed by secular ideologies in the twentieth century dwarfs the number killed in religious conflicts."Secular ideologies". What an exceptionally odd way to put it. "Secular" means "not related to religion". The seven tenets of the Red Cross, and the Red Cross' Geneva Conventions, are unrelated to God and thus secular, as the Red Cross is a secular organization. Amnesty is a secular organization. Doctors Without Borders is a secular organization.

Lots of people these days take "Secular" to mean "evil" or "anti-theist" or whatever. It doesn't. It simply means "unrelated to religion", the way the song Happy Birthday is unrelated to religion.

But yes, the number of people killed by the Communist dictatorships in the 20th century dwarfs (at least according to you) the number of people killed by the democracies you compare them to. The problem is, comparing dictatorships to democracies makes for a very unjust comparison. If you want to prove that atheism is worse than theism, you need to compare either theist dictatorships to atheist dictatorships, or theist democracies to atheist/secular democracies.

[Hindmost]

Exactly. These totalitarian regimes have replaced religion with their own ideology which they brutally insist the populace follow. Religion is supressed; but so are many other customs and practices these regimes see as a threat to their ability to exert control.

Oddly enough, the religions that some of these Communist regimes are suppressing bear little resemblance to Religion as practiced in the West. There is no Christ, no Bible (for the most part). True Believers here would scoff at the religious practices Pol Pot's victims followed before the genocide, but have no problem insisting that Pol Pot forced Atheism on that same populace.

Westprog, atheists in general are not in any way united by a strict ideology which they insist everyone else follow. A few may be Maoists, or Communists, others may be Fascists, most are probably something in between.

Times change, history is fluid. Here in the Western world it has become far more likely that, if a totalitarian regime were to arise in a time of economic catastrophy, this regime would be Fascist in nature with a strict religious core (especially here in the U.S., possibly elsewhere). This regime would believe that it is their Destiny to force True Religion and Order on a world that has lost its Way. This scenario is at least as plausible as a "Pol Pot" type scenario.

Do not try to paint us a picture of the past 50 or 100 years and say "this is the result of Atheism". Times change, history is fluid.

What religious people on this forum also forget about is the reason communism abandoned religion. The religious govt. of the Czars was incredibly opressive and that lead to rejection of religion.

glenn

[SonOfLaertes]

Could you elaborate on how you feel people want their believes pervading the government, media, and culture? Doesn't everyone who has a belief of any sort, just by simply being involved in government, media, and culture bring those beliefs with them? Or are you talking in a more organized sense - as in Laws of some sort? If so, what sort of laws pertaining to media and culture are you thinking of?

Thanks.

My statements come from my experience with posters on internet forums, and also from personal experience with members of the mega-churches springing up everywhere. A common theme I hear is that prayer should be allowed in schools - and here they mean Christian prayer specifically, they would be horrified to learn that Islamic prayer would also be allowed. All favor any change in the U.S. Constitution which would allow prayer in school, the Ten Commandments displayed in our courts, Creationism taught in place of Evolution as Science. I know for a fact that many of these mega-churches have workshops which work towards rallying members to work towards those ends. I was told of a workshop to rally people to boycott the Science channel, due to programming on evolution.

You seem to be a reasonable person with Christian beliefs which I cannot and would not say are wrong. You also seem to be able to engage in open-minded dialog where participants actually weigh the validity of points made on both sides. Such debates can and should be heated and contentious, in the end we all learn something and our own beliefs will have been imperceptibly and incrementally changed - made a tad better and more complete, irregardless of our conclusions.

Some, maybe most, of the "mega-church" people are incapable of such dialog, almost by definition. They would change the laws of my country to integrate their particular brand of Christianity with our Law. They will not and cannot hear of evidence against their beliefs. They would force their beliefs on the rest of us, and they are becoming more organized and their numbers are growing with repect to older, more established, less evangelical branches of Christianity such as Catholicism, Lutheranism, etc.

I believe that people such as Dawkins have gained popularity due to angst over the rising influence of these mega-churches, and their sudden pervasiveness in the U.S. government. In the current administration you do not get appointed and bring your beliefs with you; you get appointed because your beliefs conform to a certain rigid interpretation of Biblical law. 10 years ago the government of the U.S. was made up of people who brought myriad beliefs and interprations of those beliefs with them. This natural and excellent arrangement has now been subverted.

[Edmund Standing]

Here's a tip about the Maoists, Stalinists, etc. They haven't gone away, you know.

When they start flying planes into buildings and suicide bombing buses, trains, market places, polling stations, etc. I might take this comment seriously.

[kerikiwi]

I would ask A Christian Sceptic: why should anything be put in the place of an abandoned superstition?
When we successfully excise a cancer, do we stand around asking:'hmm, now, what shall we put in its place?'

[FireGarden]

That is the problem, as I see it. Not religion, not atheism, not communism; but the desire to sacrifice others for what is considered the ultimate good -- utopia. We can strive to improve our lot, but utopia is an illusion, and a dangerous one at that. There is a reason why Thomas More did not spell this word with the extra 'e' at the beginning.

That was worth looking up:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utopia

Thanks.

[Darat]

I'm going by what numerous atheists have posted here - that in a materialist universe morals are a matter of choice, not fixed rules.

(I know that there are atheists who might not believe this - hence the "may").
And so what if they do? That does not lead to the strawman position you tried to ascribe to atheists i.e.

"... a core belief that it doesn't matter what one does.."

[Foster Zygote]

I'm going by what numerous atheists have posted here - that in a materialist universe morals are a matter of choice, not fixed rules.

It has been my observation that morals are rarely fixed rules among those who subscribe to a spiritualist universe either. It seems to me, correct me if I'm wrong, that you are conflating this belief in the subjectivity of morals with an amoral "anything goes" attitude. This is virtually never the case among the many atheists that I have encountered. Just because someone might think that morals are determined by us and not some form of natural law (which are numerous and varied) does not mean that person does not subscribe qualitative value to morals. One can think that morals are a product of our evolution and still give very sound reasons why it is wrong to cause suffering to others.

[articulett]

What does lack of belief in astrology offer in the place of horoscopes?
What does non-Scientology offer in place of "clearing" via e-meters?
What does evidence based medicine offer in place of witchdoctors?

What does pharmacology offer in place of placebos?

What does skepticism offer in the place of many woo beliefs?

Ummm... a better chance and finding true and useful information that can be honed by time? A mature way of living in a real world?

What the hell does Christianity offer that is exclusive to Christians? Where's the evidence that it does anything good or valuable or adds more than it detracts from humankind? Where is the evidence of truth or usefulness or value into it's myriad of non-agreed upon teachings?

Why do theists ask such inane questions? Does their religion teach them this in order to avoid asking the big scary question (is their woo true).

What does Christianity offer in place of reincarnation? Who cares?

Why are theists so lame in understanding that atheism is just a lack of belief-- exactly like their "lack of belief" in whatever it is they "lack belief" in. Zeus? Allah? Demons? Reincarnation, Thetans? Who needs to put stuff in the place of stuff that doesn't exist in the first place???

You can lead a woo to knowledge, but you can't make him think.

[Civilized Worm]

Atheism offers you freedom from the ultimate bogeyman.

[articulett]

Yep... and an all you can eat buffet of fruit from the tree of knowledge. :D

Delish!

[Kil]

Letting go of magical thinking may not necessarily lead to happiness. So what? There are other rewards that might not interest a person who puts happiness at the top of the list of things to be.

Plus, there are plenty of happy people content enough to sit around and drool on themselves. And I doubt that those folks are all people of faith… Again, so what?

[Hindmost]

Could you elaborate on how you feel people want their believes pervading the government, media, and culture? Doesn't everyone who has a belief of any sort, just by simply being involved in government, media, and culture bring those beliefs with them? Or are you talking in a more organized sense - as in Laws of some sort? If so, what sort of laws pertaining to media and culture are you thinking of?

Thanks.

The first thing that comes to mind is the intelligent design people trying to put intelligent design into the classroom.

http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2007/12/evolution-battl.html

glenn

[A Christian Sceptic]

My statements come from my experience with posters on internet forums, and also from personal experience with members of the mega-churches springing up everywhere. A common theme I hear is that prayer should be allowed in schools - and here they mean Christian prayer specifically, they would be horrified to learn that Islamic prayer would also be allowed. All favor any change in the U.S. Constitution which would allow prayer in school, the Ten Commandments displayed in our courts, Creationism taught in place of Evolution as Science. I know for a fact that many of these mega-churches have workshops which work towards rallying members to work towards those ends. I was told of a workshop to rally people to boycott the Science channel, due to programming on evolution.


OK - I understand people's concerns about religious laws. I have many of those same concerns. (For example: I do not want prayer led and sanctioned by public schools.)

I was wondering about the other two in your list. Your concern over media and culture. What would those be?

[Ichneumonwasp]

Could you elaborate on how you feel people want their believes pervading the government, media, and culture? Doesn't everyone who has a belief of any sort, just by simply being involved in government, media, and culture bring those beliefs with them? Or are you talking in a more organized sense - as in Laws of some sort? If so, what sort of laws pertaining to media and culture are you thinking of?

Thanks.

Have you not listened to the fundie rhetoric? This country was founded on Christian principles, they say, and not on secular ideas despite what is actually in the Constitution (for Americans). What we need, they say, is prayer back in schools and a return to the "good old days" when Christian principles ruled the land. We need, so they say, to wedge creationism into the school curriculum, so as to supplant that evil Darwininsm which is the root of all the evil in this secularized world.

[A Christian Sceptic]

What does lack of belief in astrology offer in the place of horoscopes?
What does non-Scientology offer in place of "clearing" via e-meters?
What does evidence based medicine offer in place of witchdoctors?

What does pharmacology offer in place of placebos?

What does skepticism offer in the place of many woo beliefs?

Ummm... a better chance and finding true and useful information that can be honed by time? A mature way of living in a real world?

What the hell does Christianity offer that is exclusive to Christians? Where's the evidence that it does anything good or valuable or adds more than it detracts from humankind? Where is the evidence of truth or usefulness or value into it's myriad of non-agreed upon teachings?

Why do theists ask such inane questions? Does their religion teach them this in order to avoid asking the big scary question (is their woo true).

What does Christianity offer in place of reincarnation? Who cares?

Why are theists so lame in understanding that atheism is just a lack of belief-- exactly like their "lack of belief" in whatever it is they "lack belief" in. Zeus? Allah? Demons? Reincarnation, Thetans? Who needs to put stuff in the place of stuff that doesn't exist in the first place???

You can lead a woo to knowledge, but you can't make him think.

Thanks for your kind reply. So - is your answer "Who cares?"?

[Civilized Worm]

No, her answer is that one belief doesn't have to be replaced by another, it can simply be given up.

[blobru]

So in this post:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=113235

the person found this fliar:
http://www.revivalmovement.org/acatalog/info_115.html


"fliar"? (yeah, that's an abbreviation for what I thought too when I when read the flier.)

BTW, the linked flier's author was a Dr J C Ryle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Charles_Ryle); according to wiki, J C Ryle was Archbishop of Liverpool from 1880-1900; (kind of funny to reread the tract in mock Beatles accent).

I thought this quote was interesting:
You want us to throw away our Bibles. You tell us not to believe what parsons say about religion. You advise us to think as you do and be like you. Now before we take your advice we have a right to know what good we shall get by it.

What would your answer be to that old lady?

So I'm an atheist evangelist? Sounds like... umm... fun (Also Spake Blorobrustra)?

Ok, normally, I wouldn't tell her to throw away her Bible. Just to maybe make some room on the shelf for other viewpoints and cultures.

But given Dr Ryle's pompous title "How to Find Happiness", and the implication that the atheist [me] was trying to rob the flock of happiness becauseHe was trying to persuade them that there was no God and no devil, no heaven, and no hell, no resurrection, no judgment, and no life to come.

I might just tell her to chuck the 'Good' Book and start from scratch, as three of the seven items on that list of a Christian's prerequisites for happiness -- the devil, hell, and judgement -- I consider absurdly and pointlessly cruel and dangerous concepts (I assume as part of his scenario she believes everything Ryle does).

From a sampling of his writings, Bishop Ryle's Xtianity appears to be the logical working out of Mark 16:16: "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned." -- James 2:17: "Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead." -- and Revelation 20:12: "...and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works." That is, all who have faith and do the works (commandments, sacraments), go to heaven; everyone else goes to hell.

Can't say then that I have too much sympathy for the Bishop's or the old lady's beliefs. Why should the old bird's happiness depend on the certainty that the billions of people who disagree with her, who don't accept Christ as their savior, will be judged evil and burn in Hell? Is the knowledge that someone like (to use an anachronistic but instructive example) Anne Frank will be resurrected from her deathcamp ashes, just so she can be thrown into a pit of fire and brimstone by Jesus, really essential to the happiness of Christians? Apparently it was to the those who followed the Bishop's teachings in the late 19th century. (I wonder how many Xtians still do?)

So on second thought I guess I'd tell the old bag that if that's what it takes for her to find happiness, she can replace her many Christian beliefs with just this one certainty: she is a wretched, selfish, heartless, pious, ignorant pinhead, as is her Archbishop of Liverpool and all other Christians who share these beliefs.

Ugly old biddy...

You know what, on third thought? -- I'd tell her I don't care what she believes... she can go ***** herself... it makes me sick just to share a planet with her and her ilk.

Then of course I'd probably go and have a good long cry because according to Bishop Ryle I can never know true happiness. :)

[articulett]

http://richarddawkins.net/article,1206,A-Look-at-Regent-University,Bill-Moyers-Journal

What do you put in place of the delusional notion that the Emperor is wearing clothes?

What do you put in place of nobility ruling by "divine decree"?

What do you put in place of rain dances and hold superstitions?

In America, Christians feel entitled to privileges they do not want for other religions and they certainly do not want for atheists. They want freedom of speech for their inanity, but they would like to shut those who don't agree with them up.

ETA-- as Blobru said... Ann Frank will burn eternally-- but Hitler won't-- he believed in Jesus. Religion is so damn comforting for the inane, ain't it? I wouldn't try to take it away from people... but like their fetishes, it's something I'd rather not know about lest it make me think less of them. I think ones time and energy during life can be spent much better, myself. But it may be too late for the little old lady in the hypothetical given the years of brainwashing she's been subject too. If you've spent your life looking forward to "heaven", then I can see why you'd resent having someone suggest it is a delusion when you imagine you will soon be rewarded for your "faith".

[Wowbagger]

The Humanist Manifesto is signed by many atheists and agnostics and similar non-faith-related folks: http://www.americanhumanist.org/3/HumandItsAspirations.php

The main message I gleam from it: Morality is NOT relative, it is tested, through time, by human societies. We are good, because it pays to be good, no matter if there is a god demanding it or not.

It is arrogant to assume one needs religion or bibles to be a good person. Arrogant, and prone to needless paranoia.

If you want awe and wonder, science dishes it out in spades. Read a good science book, let your head spin at the non-intuitive, yet tested to be real, results it develops. Then, let your imagination run wild with the questions that have not, yet, been answered.

[A Christian Sceptic]

ETA-- as Blobru said... Ann Frank will burn eternally-- but Hitler won't-- he believed in Jesus.

Blobru? I don't think I'm familiar with that Christian Theologian.

[Ichneumonwasp]

Blobru? I don't think I'm familiar with that Christian Theologian.

I take it from your answer that you think Christian theologians are capable of knowing who and who does not go to hell.

[Olowkow]

What would your answer be to that old lady?


"Huh? Lady you've got the wrong guy. All I ever said was religion was [insert appropriate adjective here]."

[Silentknight]

I thought this quote was interesting:

You want us to throw away our Bibles. You tell us not to believe what parsons say about religion. You advise us to think as you do and be like you. Now before we take your advice we have a right to know what good we shall get by it.


What would your answer be to that old lady?

Don't throw away your bible. Just put it on the shelf for the time being and read something else. Read some other points of view, and start thinking for yourself. Once you've expanded your horizons and learned to look outside your existing worldview, come back to your bible and read it cover to cover. Then tell me what you think of it.

[A Christian Sceptic]

I take it from your answer that you think Christian theologians are capable of knowing who and who does not go to hell.

Some claim too. I think God only knows. ;) But, be that as it may, I'd look to Christians to find out what Christians believe and why, and not non-Christians.

[Foster Zygote]

However, the number of people killed by secular ideologies in the twentieth century dwarfs the number killed in religious conflicts.

Rather than go into this argument again I will simply link to this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=90829). The first few pages cover most of what I feel needs to be said.

[schlitt]

Remember when you learned the truth about Santa Claus? What replaced that belief?

Truth. The real world.

And the truth is, the real world has a lot to offer.

Instead of standing in line at the mall to bargain with a play actor in a padded red suit who can't offer anything but empty promises, you can get to know your friends and relatives a little better. Or watch a movie, read a book, walk in the woods, explore a museum, play music, accomplish something.

You're an adult now. Don't waste the only life you'll have dreaming about how things will be better when you're dead.

There's the world. If you're going to find happiness (and there's no guarantee that you will), you'll have to find it there, or inside yourself.

Great response.

What do you think ACS?

[fuelair]

So in this post:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=113235

the person found this fliar:
http://www.revivalmovement.org/acatalog/info_115.html

I thought this quote was interesting:


What would your answer be to that old lady?You do not get a thing from it except what you get any time you go with truth rather than being happy with untruth.

[A Christian Sceptic]

Great response.

What do you think ACS?

A belief in Santa has never been a foundation of my life / worldview. But if it had been and someone was asking me to stop believing in him (Santa), I'd ask the same question - what does not believing in him have to offer me instead of believing in him and any of the benefits I would have apparently felt were important enough to build my life upon.

Because simply nothingness wouldn't be as compelling as the possibility that maybe I'd be getting a present.

[blobru]

... ETA-- as Blobru said... Ann Frank will burn eternally-- but Hitler won't-- he believed in Jesus. ...

Whoa, didn't quite say that. Bishop Ryle [and by association his old lady] believe mortal sins send you to hell: even if Hitler had confessed all his sins, he committed suicide, another mortal sin, so come the Judgment Day Jesus will be a-tossin' Adolf into the fiery abyss, according to Ryle. And then He'll be a-tossin' Anne Frank in right after him, again according to Bishop Ryle (not Archbishop Ryle, btw, as I sometimes refer to him in the earlier post).

Blobru? I don't think I'm familiar with that Christian Theologian.

Me neither, thank *****! If being a Christian Theologian allows me to somehow believe in eternal damnation for non-believers with a clear conscience and a loving smile... no thanks.

Some claim too. I think God only knows. ;) But, be that as it may, I'd look to Christians to find out what Christians believe and why, and not non-Christians.

So do I of course. That's why, to find out what the old lady believed, what beliefs we were asking her to re-examine, I read some of Bishop Ryle's writings. (As did you, I'm sure; else it's a bit of a fool's errand, eh?)

It's chilling, to me at least, to think a little over a century ago this god-fearing sadist was a high-ranking bishop. And to think that even today the Anglican Church and several Xtian publishers hold him in high regard.

I posted about a kid's book he wrote called the Two Bears, in the thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3691904#post3691904) that provoked this one. It tells the story of God sending two she-bears to maul forty-two children who had dared to razz the prophet Elisha about his baldness (see 2 Kings 2:23-24). Ryle concludes this a good reminder to children to always take religion seriously. The book is intended for eight-year-olds, and is sold in many online Xtian bookstores. Here's the cover of the spring edition:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1718348265b527be3c.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=12150)

Cute aren't they? I wonder if the picture's taken just before or just after they kill the children at God's behest? It's really the ideal bedtime story. What eight-year-old wouldn't sleep better knowing if he giggles during Sunday School God will have him torn to bits by a she-bear?

(And if you think this only intended as a scary fairy tale, this is from the opening paragraph: "Stories in other books are often only 'make-believe', and tell us things that never really happened. Stories out of the Bible, you must remember, are true, every word. Never forget that!")

I defy anyone who's listened to this audio file (http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=112807136200) to say reading this to an eight-year-old isn't tantamount to child abuse (morally, if not legally). :mad:

[Ichneumonwasp]

Some claim too. I think God only knows. ;) But, be that as it may, I'd look to Christians to find out what Christians believe and why, and not non-Christians.

Yes, I can definitely accept that. But I see two problems with that answer: (1) most of the people commenting here are former Christians, so it isn't as though they do not know the theology, and (2) it is hard to find any Christian who, when pushed to define his or her beliefs, can do so in coherent fashion in this forum. I've met many who are more than willing in real life where it is considered in very poor taste to challenge belief but few here where challenge of belief is the name of the game.

Of course, you may always argue that Articulett was wrong and that most Christians do not think that Hitler will find himself in glory. But, then, there seem to be so very many opinions.

[Marcus]

Some claim too. I think God only knows. ;) But, be that as it may, I'd look to Christians to find out what Christians believe and why, and not non-Christians.
Knowing the actual information(which persons are going to hell) would be more useful than knowing what someone believes. If it is a real phenomenon, it should be independent of what anyone believes.

[Dunstan]

A belief in Santa has never been a foundation of my life / worldview. But if it had been and someone was asking me to stop believing in him (Santa), I'd ask the same question - what does not believing in him have to offer me instead of believing in him and any of the benefits I would have apparently felt were important enough to build my life upon.

Because simply nothingness wouldn't be as compelling as the possibility that maybe I'd be getting a present.

I propose a new hypothetical Religion X. Its principles are as follows:

1) An all-knowing, all-loving, all-powerful Creator
2) No commandments or sins whatsoever. The moral rules are equivalent to those ascribed to Straw Atheists, i.e. do whatever you feel like.
3) A blissful afterlife in paradise for everyone.

Basically, Religion X offers you all the "presents" that Christianity does, but with none of the obligations. It's Straw Man Atheism plus a heavenly afterlife. Under your "what does it offer me" criterion, it is superior to Christianity.

Care to convert? I suspect not. And yet you should, if you truly base your beliefs on "what makes me feel good."

[blobru]

I hope you will permit me to rant a bit.

I know that you are not suggesting that people are being killed because of critical thinking; but that people die because of religion is much closer to the truth than the statement that people die because of atheism. "Perfection", I think, lies at the core of the religious traditions that kill most adroitly, perfection either on earth or in the next life (sometimes by means of deliverance from dangerous ideas that interfere with the promotion of perfection and sometimes by direct promotion of utopia).

Stalin, Pol Pot, etc. committed the same "crime" to which religious fundamentalists ascribe -- they were true believers. In almost every case where mass killing occurs, it appears to be caused by a desire to create utopia on earth or to ensure utopia after death. Stalin and Pol Pot (it probably isn't completely fair to cite those two individuals alone, though, since the movements were much more widespread and involved millions themselves) seemed to think that a few sacrifices were necessary to create a new world order that would allow the perfectibility of man. The same appears true of the French Revolution.

That is the problem, as I see it. Not religion, not atheism, not communism; but the desire to sacrifice others for what is considered the ultimate good -- utopia. We can strive to improve our lot, but utopia is an illusion, and a dangerous one at that. There is a reason why Thomas More did not spell this word with the extra 'e' at the beginning. There is a reason why his book is satire.

What folks here promote is critical thinking, not set ideology (except for the ideologies that none of us can see because they underlie the program of critical thinking). What most here rail at is blind faith in the ultimate perfectibility of man and in the idea of utopia. Some religious folks believe this occurs after death. Some believe that we must found the perfect society here on earth first. Some non-religious folks make the same error and believe that man can be made perfect through a social program or re-learning exercise. Faith in that idea is dangerous, because what's a few lives lost if we attain perfection?

The problem is not that atheism kills. It is not that atheism does not provide breaks on killing. The problem is the wacky idea that we can found the perfect future instead of this doggy world which we inhabit. The reason that many religions do not kill as they did in the past is because they have lost their power to promote these ideas on any scale. There are obvious exceptions, and I am sure that you, like the rest of us, can spot the true believers who wish to wipe the infidel (the pollution) from the scene and permit the heady future to flower in power and glory.

The reason that many fear the rhetoric of folks who promote "a return to the Christian values that founded this great country" is because those sentiments are laced with the same utopian thinking that Osama binLaden and his cohorts spout. Religions are still a big danger because they are so effective at disemminating such ideas -- in part, because they house them within a more comprehensive world view that allows utopia to seem a viable idea. But this requires suspension of critical thinking and rejection of the real world, rejection of science. Many of the folks here quickly jump on those attacks against science (in part), I think, because they realize that the dangerous utopian idea, that great killer, is the motivation for the anti-science attack. That is what under-girds Sam Harris', Richard Dawkins', Christopher Hitchens', and many forum members' attacks on faith. That is the big fairy tale from which we wish the world would awaken.


That's a rant? *****! Where's all the cuss-words?

:) (sorry.)

I've been thinking something similar actually, everytime I see a thread degenerate into some ludicrous atrocity & body count sweepstakes between theism and atheism.

I think you summed up the real problem as well as I've ever seen. Utopia: the belief in perfection. And the danger: if everyone's "perfect", everyone's the same, hence absolute uniformity must be enforced. The means to absolute uniformity is the elimination of heresy. And of course you eliminate heresy by eliminating heretics.

The only difference between the purges of the Church and the purges of the State is God's address: heavenly, earthly, the "God" who demands perfection is the same. It's no accident that the leaders of totalitarian states are portrayed as perfect, that people come to see them as 'gods', as the perfection of the ideology. No one worships an ideology. Only seeing the ideology perfected inspires. Which is the paradox of "religion" (religion defined as an ideology built around a perfect individual).

When a religion has little power, just one species of belief among many competing for recruits, trying to survive, the focus is typically on doing good, on attracting recruits. In the modern West most of us had the dumb luck to be born into, pluralism -- democracy, free enterprise -- amounts to skepticism about perfection, and forces religions to improve or perish. But religions, with their need to believe in a perfect leader, are fundamentally unskeptical, and undemocratic. Give power to any religion, secular or clerical, and it no longer has to improve, for it is by its own definition perfect. The focus shifts from attracting recruits to maintaining perfection. One maintains perfection by eliminating imperfection, the imperfect. The perfect leader has the duty to define "perfection" for all, and condemn the imperfect, for having the wrong belief, culture, gender, race, etc. And we all know what happens next.

So to the danger of belief in Utopia, the perfect community, I would add the danger of belief in Apotheosis, the perfect leader, the 'god'-man. Every 'god' who demands to be worshipped gives followers an excuse to exterminate the imperfect. Followers only worship 'perfect' examples of their ideology. Or rather fallible, human leaders who believe they are perfect. Or speak in the name of perfection. Human, vain, sometimes brilliant, generous; jealous, deluded, sometimes violent leaders. And, for better and/or worse, obedience becomes virtue, and followers do whatever they're told.

[Silentknight]

However, the number of people killed by secular ideologies in the twentieth century dwarfs the number killed in religious conflicts.

Rather than go into this argument again I will simply link to this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=90829). The first few pages cover most of what I feel needs to be said.
Westprog, here's another thread on the same topic (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3391392#post3391392). Please read over why your argument sucks before you post it again as if nothing ever happened. By your logic, one could argue that religious ideologies inevitably result in the Holocaust, the Inquisition, the Crusades, the Conquistadors, western slavery, Hezbollah, Al-Qaeda, etc. But that wouldn't make a very sound argument, now would it? :rolleyes:

[A Christian Sceptic]

Care to convert? I suspect not. And yet you should, if you truly base your beliefs on "what makes me feel good."

Hmmm ... sory for the misunderstanding, but I've never said that's what I base my beliefs on.

[billydkid]

Listen to your own question. Essentially you are asking, what does atheism offer in place of a particular shared fantasy and delusion? You ask questions with the presumption that Christianity is actually offering something important to a happy and meaningful existence which could not be further from the truth.

[Dunstan]

Hmmm ... sory for the misunderstanding, but I've never said that's what I base my beliefs on.

I don't expect you do (though the post I quoted sure sounded like it). I don't believe that anyone really bases his or her views on such a thing. But that's what the "what would you offer in its place" question on which this thread is based seems to assume. Otherwise, as many in this thread have pointed out, it's a silly question.

[articulett]

The woo often do that... they start threads with insincere questions designed to preach their beliefs... and infer the answer they "believe in". They have no interest in actual answers... just propping up their delusion.

It's smarmy and dishonest, but what else are you going to do when you want others to believe your woo, and you have no evidence in favor of it's truth? The woo value beliefs over the truth... they are sure they have something to teach while blind to all that they could learn if they weren't so certain that they knew everything already.

[bokonon]

I propose a new hypothetical Religion X. Its principles are as follows:

1) An all-knowing, all-loving, all-powerful Creator
2) No commandments or sins whatsoever. The moral rules are equivalent to those ascribed to Straw Atheists, i.e. do whatever you feel like.
3) A blissful afterlife in paradise for everyone.

This is a good response to the Christians who insist that, deep down, atheists really do believe in the Christian God, and only reject the idea because that will give them permission for whatever immoral behavior the Christian wishes to project.

Obviously, the easier course would be to invent a god who endorses the behavior one wishes to adopt. "An angel led me to some "Golden Plates" and a fossilized BabelFish, and guess what? God wants men to have lots of wives!" Mohammed got the word from an angel in a cave, and the next thing you know, he was deciding who the tribe should murder, and taking nine-year-olds as brides. David Koresh and Jim Jones claimed to be theists.

God can be a very authoritative-sounding ventriloquist's dummy. It isn't as though he's going to write a letter to the editor saying you got it wrong.

[A Christian Sceptic]

I don't expect you do (though the post I quoted sure sounded like it). I don't believe that anyone really bases his or her views on such a thing. But that's what the "what would you offer in its place" question on which this thread is based seems to assume. Otherwise, as many in this thread have pointed out, it's a silly question.

I don't think that if someone asked you to drop or abandon any of your philisophical / political / religious / whatever beliefs it would be a silly question for you to ask what they are offering to takes it place. All people have fundamental beliefs they build their life around. (They're not all religious beliefs though).

[A Christian Sceptic]

The woo often do that... <snip>
knew everything already.

Atheists often do that... they start threads with insincere questions designed to preach their opinions... and infer the answer they "believe in". They have no interest in actual answers... just propping up their delusion.

It's smarmy and dishonest, but what else are you going to do when you want others to believe your opinions, and you have no evidence in favor of it's truth? The atheists value beliefs over the truth... they are sure they have something to teach while blind to all that they could learn if they weren't so certain that they knew everything already.

[Dunstan]

I don't think that if someone asked you to drop or abandon any of your philisophical / political / religious / whatever beliefs it would be a silly question for you to ask what they are offering to takes it place. All people have fundamental beliefs they build their life around. (They're not all religious beliefs though).

Yes, it would be a silly question. There isn't some Law of Conservation of Beliefs that says you have to replace one belief with another, unless you want to be pedantic and say that "there is no evidence for pink unicorns" is a "belief" that replaces the belief "pink unicorns exist."

The right questions are "what is wrong with my belief? What evidence do you have against it?"

[Ichneumonwasp]

I don't think that if someone asked you to drop or abandon any of your philisophical / political / religious / whatever beliefs it would be a silly question for you to ask what they are offering to takes it place. All people have fundamental beliefs they build their life around. (They're not all religious beliefs though).

I'm sorry to be mean, but for someone who does not appear to be stupid, how could you get it so very wrong? Dunstan provided the better answer, but this is just so wrong, so very, very wrong I felt the need to underline what he said.

[Ichneumonwasp]

So to the danger of belief in Utopia, the perfect community, I would add the danger of belief in Apotheosis, the perfect leader, the 'god'-man. Every 'god' who demands to be worshipped gives followers an excuse to exterminate the imperfect. Followers only worship 'perfect' examples of their ideology. Or rather fallible, human leaders who believe they are perfect. Or speak in the name of perfection. Human, vain, sometimes brilliant, generous; jealous, deluded, sometimes violent leaders. And, for better and/or worse, obedience becomes virtue, and followers do whatever they're told.

Yes, yes. It looks to me the best snake oil on the market. Highly seductive, the most seductive idea I know. How do you argue against the idea of paradise? The real world seems so ............ shoddy, taudry, so fallen.

Reality is a tough sell to those who fall for the gilded message.

[articulett]

Who's asking someone to drop their beliefs anyhow?

Are any of us skeptics hanging around in religious forums or psychic forums or whatever telling people to "drop their beliefs"?

To me, Christianity is like Scientology or Truther stuff or homeopathy. I think it's all wacky, and I can't see a reason to "believe" any of it.

Yes, it would be nice if the majority believed things for good reasons and nobody thought that "believing in" unsupportable things was special or good or worthy of going on about-- but I think that may be asking too much of people who have been immersed for some time-- especially people who would rather "believe in" something then understand what is true.

What does your brand of Christianity offer that all the myriad of beliefs one could feel good about "believing in" don't? If I were picking a belief for feel good purposes, I think I'd aim for one of the reincarnation things-- it seems more fair... makes more sense... no dead guys on crosses-- no "original sin".

[A Christian Sceptic]

Who's asking someone to drop their beliefs anyhow?


The atheist in the flyer.

[a_unique_person]

The true Christian is the only happy man, because his conscience is at peace.



Is the "true Christian" any like the "True Scotsman"? :)

I found my conscience was only at peace when I gave up trying to constantly believe in this thing called "faith". Once I did that, I felt greatly relieved, since I felt a lot saner.

[a_unique_person]

The atheist in the flyer.

;)

[JoeEllison]

The atheist in the flyer.

We've got the "flier atheist" and "Jesus"... any other fictional creatures you'd like to introduce to the discussion? Unicorns, perhaps? Maybe some "compassionate conservatives"? :cool:

[schlitt]

A belief in Santa has never been a foundation of my life / worldview. But if it had been and someone was asking me to stop believing in him (Santa), I'd ask the same question - what does not believing in him have to offer me instead of believing in him and any of the benefits I would have apparently felt were important enough to build my life upon.

Because simply nothingness wouldn't be as compelling as the possibility that maybe I'd be getting a present.

I guess it all comes down to "The truth hurts".

Some people would rather persist with belief in a comforting delusion than face the truth. That is fine, but when they try to impose their delusion on others, problems arise.

To me Atheism is liberating, but you would have to see the world from my perspective to understand that. Conversely without me understanding your logic/reasoning and every piece of information that goes into your thought processes I cannot understand why you would choose a comforting delusion over the truth. (As is see it from my perspective)

[slingblade]

A belief in Santa has never been a foundation of my life / worldview. But if it had been and someone was asking me to stop believing in him (Santa), I'd ask the same question - what does not believing in him have to offer me instead of believing in him and any of the benefits I would have apparently felt were important enough to build my life upon.

Because simply nothingness wouldn't be as compelling as the possibility that maybe I'd be getting a present.

And how many Christmasses without a present from Santa have to go by before you realize simple nothingness, seasoned with false hope, was all you ever had?

[fishbob]

What would your answer be to that old lady?

Grow up. You are old enough to think for yourself.

[Darat]

Anyone know why the atheist in the tract wasn't happy? Had his dog just died, had he just lost his job, got a bad diagnosis from his Doctor or what?

[articulett]

His neighborhood was infested with delusional religious folk, and he just wanted someone smart to talk to?

His internet connection was down and he had no invisible friends to converse with?

Someone rang the doorbell too early to spread the "good news"??

[linusrichard]

The answer to the question posed by the thread title is "nothing."

The answer to the old lady's question is "I have no idea how it might benefit you. If you think you'd be better off continuing to believe something that's untrue, it's no skin off my nose."

Of course, I wouldn't have to answer the old lady's question, because I, like most atheists outside of fliers, don't go around telling people to stop believing in God.

[arthwollipot]

It's a ridiculous premise anyway. The flier was written by a Christian, obviously, with a beef. The atheist in the flier is a caricature - a fictional exaggeration which bears little resemblance to real life people. Much like the atheist professor in the Professor vs Christian straw-story, about which I've written a rebuttal, to which I will link when I get home. If I remember.

In short, I reject the premise of the question.

[Mobyseven]

The atheist in the flyer.

So the only atheist you could find who fits the criteria is a fictional caricature in a piece of pro-Christian propaganda?

Way to epic fail.

[JoeEllison]

So the only atheist you could find who fits the criteria is a fictional caricature in a piece of pro-Christian propaganda?

Way to epic fail.
But it is a triumphant epic fail! And that's all that matters! :D

[Darat]

Well as long as it makes him happy*





*This is meant as joke on the central premise of the flyer rather than an attack on A Christian Skeptic.

[arthwollipot]

It's a ridiculous premise anyway. The flier was written by a Christian, obviously, with a beef. The atheist in the flier is a caricature - a fictional exaggeration which bears little resemblance to real life people. Much like the atheist professor in the Professor vs Christian straw-story, about which I've written a rebuttal, to which I will link when I get home. If I remember.

In short, I reject the premise of the question.Here it is: The Professor and the Christian (http://www.arthwollipot.com/articles/sciencereligion/professor/).

[A Christian Sceptic]

So the only atheist you could find who fits the criteria is a fictional caricature in a piece of pro-Christian propaganda?

Way to epic fail.

The OP was based on part of this flyer. And the question was from the flyer. I didn't quote the whole flyer because I think it's a silly flyer. And I didn't quote the part about Happiness because I think that's silly too. But I did like that question that I did quote and I thought it would be interesting to hear some thoughts from anyone interested. Some people have made some interesting posts - many though have just been off-topic posts - like yours.

So tell me again why It's an Epic Fail?

[arthwollipot]

So tell me again why It's an Epic Fail?Because the whole premise of the question is based on a massive strawman. Atheists aren't like that.

[Mobyseven]

The OP was based on part of this flyer. And the question was from the flyer. I didn't quote the whole flyer because I think it's a silly flyer. And I didn't quote the part about Happiness because I think that's silly too. But I did like that question that I did quote and I thought it would be interesting to hear some thoughts from anyone interested. Some people have made some interesting posts - many though have just been off-topic posts - like yours.

So tell me again why It's an Epic Fail?

Because you are arguing not against an actual atheist, but against a fictional caricature of an atheist, from pro-Christian propaganda.

If you can't even base your criticism in reality, you've boarded the good ship HMS Epic Fail. All aboard now!

[A Christian Sceptic]

Because you are arguing not against an actual atheist, but against a fictional caricature of an atheist, from pro-Christian propaganda.

If you can't even base your criticism in reality, you've boarded the good ship HMS Epic Fail. All aboard now!

I'm not arguing against anyone with the OP - I'm asking a question. Well - actually - I'm asking what peoples answers to the question in the flyer would be. If it's not appropriate to you or you don't have an answer then don't post.

[articulett]

Christian Skeptic... you came to this forum and chose that screen name. Nobody told you to drop your beliefs. In fact you've started many threads with the sort of lame questions that woo come here and ask... stuff they don't really want the answer to.

You have a view about what an atheist is that is not supported by the evidence... and you want to convince us and yourself this view is true... and that your beliefs are better in some way or truer or make you nicer or give hope or something.

No matter how many times you are corrected, you hang onto the atheist stereotype you've been indoctrinated to believe in... and then play dumb or vague or change the subject when the topic gets uncomfortable or someone tries to pin you down on your shiftiness.

You might be hiding your motives from yourself, but to me you sound like any other preachy type coming here pretending to sort of be interested in conversation while sure he has something to teach and nothing to learn. You might read some posters you find admirable and try to sound a little more like them, because you sound like... plumjam.

Maybe you want to sound like plumjam... Hey, maybe he can talk you into the religious text he's "into" (mehar baba?) (Say, maybe he can replace that hypothetical lady's need for woo after the hypothetical atheist takes her faith away by (gasp) not deferring to it!)

I'm sure there's a steady stream of gurus eager to indoctrinate those eager for "faith". Atheists tend not to be eager for faith. There is no indoctrination. You know how you don't believe in astrology or rain dancing or crystal healing? That's exactly like what atheism is.

Of course, I've said this all before... but theists prefer their strawman version of what an atheist is. It helps them feel "superior" rather than-- gullible... they imagine themselves heroes fighting against those evil atheists trying to take faith away from little old ladies while refusing to offer a scintilla of heavenly promises in return.

[A Christian Sceptic]

Christian Skeptic... you came to this forum and chose that screen name.


Yeah - one of my wiser moments. :rolleyes:

Actually - since I had originally intended posting only one question it seemed like a good way to cut to the chase. Little did I know ...


Nobody told you to drop your beliefs.


Who cares if no one did. People ask all sorts of hypothetical questions here. Why can't I?


In fact you've started many threads with the sort of lame questions that woo come here and ask... stuff they don't really want the answer to.

You have a view about what an atheist is that is not supported by the evidence... and you want to convince us and yourself this view is true... and that your beliefs are better in some way or truer or make you nicer or give hope or something.


Really? What's my view? Please tell me.


No matter how many times you are corrected, you hang onto the atheist stereotype you've been indoctrinated to believe in... and then play dumb or vague or change the subject when the topic gets uncomfortable or someone tries to pin you down on your shiftiness.


Please tell me the stereotype I have.


You might be hiding your motives from yourself, but to me you sound like any other preachy type coming here pretending to sort of be interested in conversation while sure he has something to teach and nothing to learn. You might read some posters you find admirable and try to sound a little more like them, because you sound like... plumjam.


Oh - now you're just trying to flatter Plumjam. :)


Maybe you want to sound like plumjam... Hey, maybe he can talk you into the religious text he's "into" (mehar baba?)


Why would he need to talk me into it? It sounds interesting.


Of course, I've said this all before... but theists prefer their strawman version of what an atheist is. It helps them feel "superior" rather than-- gullible... they imagine themselves heroes fighting against those evil atheists trying to take faith away from little old ladies while refusing to a scintilla of heavenly promises in return.

The question isn't a strawman - it's a simple question from a silly flyer. And the question was quoted in such a way to seperate it from the point of the flyer (which was that Atheists can't be happy - which I don't agree with).

[schlitt]

When a belief ceases to make sense, it does not require a belief in its place to negate a resulting change in perception. The change in perception itself may induce unwanted realizations or emotion, but the liberation brought about by knowledge of being closer to reality should at least be some consolation.

[arthwollipot]

I'm not arguing against anyone with the OP - I'm asking a question. Well - actually - I'm asking what peoples answers to the question in the flyer would be. If it's not appropriate to you or you don't have an answer then don't post.Well, you've had a similar answer to your question from a number of people:

Why should atheists require something to replace Christian beliefs?

Any of us could go on for ages about what it is about atheism that makes us happy. But that's not what you were asking for. You asked what atheism offers in place of Christian beliefs. Atheism doesn't "replace" Christianity.

Take two hypothetical people - one of them is a Christian and one of them is an atheist. They have identical views on morality, law, happiness and purpose. One of them has additional beliefs over the top of that. Or for a different metaphor, two clowns. Both of them wear makeup, but only one of them wears a hat.

Atheists and Christians aren't all that different. Christians just have this belief structure which sits above everything that they have in common.

[articulett]

What would your answer to the flyer be if someone asked what Christianity offered in lieu of "reincarnation"? What would you think of people plying you with those kinds of questions-- with the assumption that Christianity is trying to take away something cool like "reincarnation".

You ask a lot of questions on par with that kind of question. So let's hear your answer to that.

Christians did take away a lot of Native peoples' religions. What did they offer in it's place? Go ahead... answer for the not-so-hypothetical Christians in that real-life scenario-- before presenting your straw man caricature of atheism and ignoring all of our answers in response yet again.

Surely you will show us how you expected us to respond, and we will listen to your response the way you listen to ours.

To me, it always sounds like you are trying to convince yourself that your straw man version of atheism is true... as is your special cleaned-up personal brand of Christianity.

[articulett]

This reminds me of that thread where ACS asked what would make him stop believing in Christianity. It was a goofy question. The answer: the exact same thing that would make Tom Cruise stop believing in Scientology... and the thing that would make the Muslim Extremists not be Muslim... or that deprogramming thing they hope to do with the polygamous Mormon kids they've rescued.

The questions are fake questions. It's as sincere as Tom Cruise saying, "go ahead... see if you can shake my faith in Scientology... when you can't-- that's proves it's true!"

It's so... smarmy... vapid... shallow...vaguely insulting--not really meant for dialogue... just meant to prop up a delusion of moral superiority coupled with (ha) humility. At least that's how it sounds to me.

After a while, all the woo sort of sound the same to me. They infer more than they say, and their questions are never meant to be answered-- they never hear the answers anyhow. And they avoid all similar questions addressed to them. I don't like the way they treat posters I like --people who go out of their way to be nice in a way I no longer can be.

[articulett]

Well, you've had a similar answer to your question from a number of people:

Why should atheists require something to replace Christian beliefs?

Any of us could go on for ages about what it is about atheism that makes us happy. But that's not what you were asking for. You asked what atheism offers in place of Christian beliefs. Atheism doesn't "replace" Christianity.

Take two hypothetical people - one of them is a Christian and one of them is an atheist. They have identical views on morality, law, happiness and purpose. One of them has additional beliefs over the top of that. Or for a different metaphor, two clowns. Both of them wear makeup, but only one of them wears a hat.

Atheists and Christians aren't all that different. Christians just have this belief structure which sits above everything that they have in common.

Ah yes... but it's magical haberdashery! -lLike the Pope hat-- only holier. (Or so the hatted clowns would like to believe). I prefer the freedom of being hatless. Clowns are silly... clowns with hats are bordering on sickeningly silly.

:bananapartyhat:

[arthwollipot]

Ah yes... but it's magical haberdashery! -lLike the Pope hat-- only holier. (Or so the hatted clowns would like to believe). I prefer the freedom of being hatless. Clowns are silly... clowns with hats are bordering on sickeningly silly.Indeed. The question really has to be asked - why does a clown need a hat? Aren't they silly enough hatless?

[Dragoonster]

After a while, all the woo sort of sound the same to me. They infer more than they say, and their questions are never meant to be answered-- they never hear the answers anyhow. And they avoid all similar questions addressed to them. I don't like the way they treat posters I like --people who go out of their way to be nice in a way I no longer can be.

Little wonder, as since you apparently have them all on ignore you're only privy to the weaker or more exploitable arguments that others choose to respond to. "they never hear the answers anyhow" is just fantastic irony btw.

another btw, this is a test to see if articulett is now ignoring me so I can get on with deciding whether to respond or not respond to any of his/her posts. Please no one quote this, it'll ruin the experiment ;)

[arthwollipot]

Articulett has explained her ignore policy at length. I have no problem with it.

[Mobyseven]

I'm not arguing against anyone with the OP - I'm asking a question. Well - actually - I'm asking what peoples answers to the question in the flyer would be. If it's not appropriate to you or you don't have an answer then don't post.

The answer's not appropriate to any atheist that isn't the imagined fiction of a fundamentalist Christian.

You've been told what atheism offers in the place of Christianity - nothing. Why this is somehow a bad thing is beyond me, unless you accept the premise of the flyer that atheists aren't really happy - and if you accept that premise, you haven't been paying a great deal of attention to what people have been explaining to you.

[Dragoonster]

Well, you've had a similar answer to your question from a number of people:

Why should atheists require something to replace Christian beliefs?

Any of us could go on for ages about what it is about atheism that makes us happy.

Nothing particular about my atheism makes me happy. I responded way long ago in this thread, but my response was something like "do whatever you want". I could care less if the theist is happy, as long as he doesn't interfere with my happiness.

But that's not what you were asking for. You asked what atheism offers in place of Christian beliefs. Atheism doesn't "replace" Christianity.

Take two hypothetical people - one of them is a Christian and one of them is an atheist. They have identical views on morality, law, happiness and purpose. One of them has additional beliefs over the top of that. Or for a different metaphor, two clowns. Both of them wear makeup, but only one of them wears a hat.

Atheists and Christians aren't all that different. Christians just have this belief structure which sits above everything that they have in common.

Sort of agree. If Christianity happens against not-quite-all odds to be correct though, isn't the atheist wearing the hat?

[Gazpacho]

What good will you get by it? How about Sunday mornings, and all the time you would otherwise spend turning mental somersaults to reconcile doctrine with the world around you?

Aside from that, it's a free country and nobody's holding a gun to your head to believe either one thing or another. It's not my place to say what someone will believe if they decide to quit Christianity. Do your own spiritual journey.

[FireGarden]

Indeed. The question really has to be asked - why does a clown need a hat? Aren't they silly enough hatless?

It's so they can kick it while trying to pick it up.

[tsig]

A belief in Santa has never been a foundation of my life / worldview. But if it had been and someone was asking me to stop believing in him (Santa), I'd ask the same question - what does not believing in him have to offer me instead of believing in him and any of the benefits I would have apparently felt were important enough to build my life upon.

Because simply nothingness wouldn't be as compelling as the possibility that maybe I'd be getting a present.

You seem to have a very selfish view of life.

It's not all about you.

[Soapy Sam]

ACS- One thing you may not appreciate in full:- While being a Christian (or, I suppose, a Muslim, or whatever), tends to be a very important , even definitive aspect of a person's life and personality, being an atheist is no more important to me (I can speak only for myself), than being 1m 830mm tall. It's just one of many trivial but true facts that describe me.

Atheism in itself offers me nothing. Not believing in gods is about as important to me as what colour of shirt to wear today. (Grey, since you ask).

The world is way too interesting for that sort of silliness.

What that old lady would lose by shedding her irrational belief structure is fundamental to her nature. What I lost, by dumping that baggage at around the age of seven, was nothing of importance to me at all.

I find that this assymmetry of perceived value is one of the barriers to communication between the superstitious and the non-superstitious or the believer and the non-believer. To my mind, I gave up nothing of value at all. To her mind, she would lose something of great value and replace it with simple uncertainty. This perhaps says something about our value systems, but nothing at all about the actual truth value of either view.

[articulett]

Yes... that's what I notice.

To me a belief has no value unless it's true or useful. To theists, the belief, itself, is valuable--whether it's true or not!

It's like they "need" to believe in some sort of magic and if it's not one faith, it's another.

[A Christian Sceptic]

You seem to have a very selfish view of life.


Because if a belief in Santa was a fundamental belief for me I'd hope for a present?


It's not all about you.

When it comes to Santa it is - as long as you're good.;) :p

<pre-emptive strike>
That's a joke.
</pre-emptive strike>

[godless dave]

You advise us to think as you do and be like you.

I don't advise that at all. I would advise that old lady to think for herself and be who she wants to be.

As to what atheism offers in place of Chrisitianity's many beliefs: no beliefs. Living without beliefs is a great way to live.

[homer]

My take on this is that religion is the problem if you choose to include godless religions like communism . Nazis were not atheists at all since they had a belief system in some weird gothic nonsense . Irrational belief is the problem, whether it is from old religious texts or a little red book .

'Stupidity kills '

[rocketdodger]

I think the question is very illuminating.

To ask what does atheism offer one must also ask what does religion offer -- this implies a (possibly subconscious) realization that all belief systems are adopted not according to "truth" but self-benefit.

So for this religious group to ask the question, they are admitting the arbitrary nature of their beliefs. So is ACS.

[godless dave]

Nazis were not atheists at all since they had a belief system in some weird gothic nonsense .

Most of them were Christians, but you're right, some subscribed to some weird racist mysticism dreamed up by Hitler, Himmler, and others.

[articulett]

Hitler considered himself Catholic.

It's weird... theists seem to think that people need a "belief system". It doesn't so much matter what it is-- (except, of course, they are all sure they have the "true one")-- they just think that people are in need of "beliefs". It seems like such a weird thing. "Gee, what beliefs did you get saddled with?"

"Bummer, no blood transfusions-- you should try Buddhism"

"It's too bad you were born Jewish, because pork is really yummy".

"I'm glad I'm not Mormon, I don't think I want to share a husband in the 'celestial kingdom'".

"It sucks that you're Amish, man, because the internet is totally rad!"

"Look, Bundy accepted Christ as his personal savior-- so he got 'accepted into heaven'--thems the rules!"

Theists make no sense to me. They really don't. This isn't a logical or coherent way to think--I can't believe adults tried to sucker me into this stuff. And then when you point out it doesn't make sense, it's all "part of the mystery" and "who are you to think you can understand god".

(Heck, I can't even understand theists... and it's not for lack of trying-- it's because they really, truly don't make sense.)

[arthwollipot]

Nothing particular about my atheism makes me happy. I responded way long ago in this thread, but my response was something like "do whatever you want". I could care less if the theist is happy, as long as he doesn't interfere with my happiness.Kind of. But there are aspects to atheism which do make me happy. Like for example the realisation that the universe isn't the creation of a small-minded, paochial, deity who set it all in motion just for us. That allows me to see the universe for what it really is, and marvel.

Sort of agree. If Christianity happens against not-quite-all odds to be correct though, isn't the atheist wearing the hat?No - all it means is that only people wearing hats can join the club.

It's so they can kick it while trying to pick it up.Nice. :)

[Robin]

So in this post:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=113235

the person found this fliar:
http://www.revivalmovement.org/acatalog/info_115.html

I thought this quote was interesting:
Originally Posted by Here's a quote
You want us to throw away our Bibles. You tell us not to believe what parsons say about religion. You advise us to think as you do and be like you. Now before we take your advice we have a right to know what good we shall get by it.

What would your answer be to that old lady?
Hmmm... this just popped up during a search.

I should say (given the original question was 'are you happy?'):

"Thank you for your concern, I am overall very happy. I don't think that my happiness has anything whatsoever to do with my atheism. I wish you happiness too.

I don't think I ever advised you to think as I do or be like me, I should very much like everybody to be themselves.

And I cannot think of any good you can get by disbelieving, or believing for that matter, in God.

But I am sure you will agree that no-one should judge the truth or falsity of any matter by the good they will get from it."

[arthwollipot]

What does atheism offer in place of Christianity's many beliefs?

Freedom from evangelism. Atheists feel no need to convert people to atheism. That is the fallacy of the original story.

[westprog]

Atheists feel no need to convert people to atheism.

That one can be disproved just by a cursory glance at this forum.

[Dragoonster]

What does atheism offer in place of Christianity's many beliefs?

Freedom from evangelism. Atheists feel no need to convert people to atheism. That is the fallacy of the original story.

I hope you're not serious. "Atheists" have many variations. And some do try to convert theists to atheism. As do many rationalists trying to convert wooists to anti-wooism. Both excellent activities imo, btw. But you can't just call yourself an atheist and wash your hands of activism, if you actually do seek to change others' views based on your lack of belief in god.

If you're an activist atheist, own up to it.

[Soapy Sam]

I don't know. I think many atheists are honestly baffled by belief and fail to realise how important it is to the believer.
Imagine if person q revealed that he thinks the world is flat and doesn't rotate: 99.9% of people, atheist or not, would suppose him to be kidding. Arguing him out of it would not imply a Copernican missionary zeal, merely a trivial level of everyday common sense.
I would never try to argue someone out of a belief system that really mattered to them, no matter how stupid I thought it. But if they thought today was Wednesday and I knew it was Thursday, then yes, I'll try to put them right.

[arthwollipot]

My point is that Christians have a belief that people who don't share their beliefs will suffer for all eternity. They genuinely want to "save" people from that fate. Hence, they will evangelise. Atheists have no belief that people who aren't atheists are going to suffer in any way.

Of course I'm generalising both sides of the fence. I'm over it.

[Rasmus]

Atheists have no belief that people who aren't atheists are going to suffer in any way.

I have seen many religious people suffer because of their religion. They would have been much better off without all those insane ideas planted in their heads.

[articulett]

I've seen many people suffer because of other peoples' religion too.

[krazyKemist]

So in this post:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=113235

the person found this fliar:
http://www.revivalmovement.org/acatalog/info_115.html

I thought this quote was interesting:
Originally Posted by Here's a quote
You want us to throw away our Bibles. You tell us not to believe what parsons say about religion. You advise us to think as you do and be like you. Now before we take your advice we have a right to know what good we shall get by it.
What would your answer be to that old lady?

My answer would be :

"Keep your bible, lady. If you're asking that question, it can only mean one thing : you have not reached sufficient maturity yet to think by yourself, and want me to think for you. I have no desire to become your new guru.

If one day you reach that maturity, come back to me and I'll be happy to discuss my ideas and argue them with you."

I do not think it is possible to brainwash somebody into thinking for him/herself. A certain level of self-motivation is necessary for that. The sad fact is that some people will always surrender their thoughts to somebody else and distrust their own innate moral filters. And there is not much me or anyone can do about it. Those people scare me to no end, for what they enable charismatic leaders to do...

[rocketdodger]

That one can be disproved just by a cursory glance at this forum.

Correct, but there is a big difference here:

Most theists feel the need to convert people to theism because they are afraid they might be wrong -- converting otherwise intelligent people to theism reinforces their own beliefs.

Most atheists feel the need to convert people to atheism because they are afraid of people interfering with their lives in the name of theism -- converting people to atheism removes that threat.

In general, theists fear the idea of atheism. In general, atheists fear the behavior of theism.

[-Fran-]

Here it is: The Professor and the Christian (http://www.arthwollipot.com/articles/sciencereligion/professor/).

Great writing!!

[JoeTheJuggler]

I'm an atheist who has several different Bibles on his bookshelf. I certainly don't want anyone to throw their Bibles away.

As for the question in the OP, I would say that atheism offers the same thing that sobriety offers to a recovering alcoholic: the ability to see and experience reality, and the ability to reason with a clear mind.

[Silentknight]

I found myself dwelling over the OP when the question came to mind again.

Atheism itself is simply the disbelief in worshiped beings called gods. It literally has nothing to offer. But that's just the point. Atheism can offer precisely nothing in the place of the false and potentially dangerous beliefs found in certain brands of Christianity or other religions. In some cases, nothing is better than something.

Where you go from that point is entirely up to you.

[Mister Agenda]

I haven't given up my own bible, why would I want anyone else to give up theirs? I'm the last person to tell someone they need to get rid of a book.

Generally we atheists write books or articles or posts that theists have to go to the trouble of reading, or maybe have lectures or appear on shows that people have to go to or watch, or argue with people who bring up religion first, though I think we'd rather argue with other atheists. In other words, we talk to people who are interested in what we have to say, and most of us would find the idea of a teacher using their position to break the faith of religous students to be an abuse of their position, going door-to-door ludicrous, and 'street-preaching' to be a sign that one should have a few tests run.

And anyway, mere atheism, LIKE MERE THEISM, doesn't provide a replacement for anyone's belief system. If you give up your faith in a theistic religion, you will have to think for yourself to find a new belief system, if you think you need one, even if it is only shopping for the secular philosophy or nontheistic religion that best suits you.

[a_unique_person]

So in this post:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=113235

the person found this fliar:
http://www.revivalmovement.org/acatalog/info_115.html

I thought this quote was interesting:


What would your answer be to that old lady?

In reference to the actual topic title, there is no god, all the beliefs are manufactured by humans anyway. I see no reason why creating beliefs based on no faith in a non-existent god would be any worse those created while believing in a non-existent god.

[Dysphemist]

To most of the people in here saying "there is so much more out there", and the like, I say this: There is an enormous possibility that religious belief can, in fact, give more to a person than what people call the 'real' world ever could. Sometimes it helps a little to be more accepting of people with faith... faith of any kind.

Think about this: wouldn't you love to know that someone is always watching and caring for you? That someone will always be there, in spirit, to support and encourage you? That when you die, you won't just be gone, but you will have something after?
Just how you know, you truly believe that there is nothing else (as I do), wouldn't you love to know that there is actually something? This is why I hate it when atheists rage over those with faith - they don't realise that. And there is much more to religion than just the belief in a supernatural being as well...

[articulett]

Wanting something to be true and believing it to be true doesn't make it true. The hijackers really believed that they were doing as Allah wanted and their families believe that they are being rewarded for their bravery right now--they've even had dreams which they consider "proof". Magical thinking is for children.

The atheist isn't raging or ranting... you've just been brainwashed to hear any questioning of faith as such to protect the notion that faith is good or a means of knowledge or "saves" you.

Tom Cruise KNOWS Scientology is the experts of the mind. You can't really know that which isn't true. Primitive people "knew" the earth was flat. They didn't "know" about DNA. You can believe all you want that your thoughts make airplanes fly or that the moon is made of cheese. It doesn't make it so.

[Beerina]

being an atheist is no more important to me (I can speak only for myself), than being 1m 830mm tall.

I converted that to inches, and saw a little more than 32 inches tall. Jesus! Then I realized I forgot the 1m part. :eek:

[articulett]

Where's the evidence that religion gives people something that the real world never could?

Can it give you something more than believing in "wishing on a star"?

[-Fran-]

Think about this: wouldn't you love to know that someone is always watching and caring for you? That someone will always be there, in spirit, to support and encourage you? That when you die, you won't just be gone, but you will have something after?


Love it? It would completely freak me out to know that someone... or something was watching me all the time, that I can't even see and keep an eye on :eye-poppi And you wouldn't even get away when you die? What a nightmare. And caring, support and encouragement? I would not trust the intentions of such a creature and its weird interest in me! Stalkers say they want your best too...*



*being half serious, half tongue in cheek here. :)

[articulett]

To me, I cannot see a reason to treat any religion differently than scientology nor any religious claims different than Tom Cruise's claims that "Scientologists are the experts on the mind" and "there are no such things as chemical imbalances". Somehow, people don't hear criticism of that woo as religion bashing. But no-one gives a reason to treat any religious claim or woo differently. And yet when we treat religious woo in general the way we'd treat Scientology in particular-- the apologists get up in arms--hearing things that aren't there. It is suddenly elevated to "religious bashing"-- not because it's any thing different than what skeptics do to other woo-- but because of the culture meme that religious woo is worth protecting from such scrutiny.

Why? Why should we be skeptical, critical, or mocking of Scientology, rain dances, psychics, but not other woo? Aren't all supernatural claims woo? Aren't all gods and divine truths "supernatural"?

[Rasmus]

To most of the people in here saying "there is so much more out there", and the like, I say this: There is an enormous possibility that religious belief can, in fact, give more to a person than what people call the 'real' world ever could.

Funny how so many people are perfectly okay without religion if they haven't subjected to it when very young. Yes, alcohol might give something to the addict that sobriety can't ...

Sometimes it helps a little to be more accepting of people with faith... faith of any kind.

What does that have to do with anything?

Think about this: wouldn't you love to know that someone is always watching and caring for you?

Uh... no. It took me years to stop my parents from doing pretty much that, thank you very much.

That someone will always be there, in spirit, to support and encourage you?

In spirit? What does that even mean? I've seen fairly bad times and I had a lot of real support and encouragement from real people. I wouldn't want to trade that for the support and encouragement "in spirit" that you speak of, I don't think.

That when you die, you won't just be gone, but you will have something after?

What, with a fair chance of that something being eternal hell fire? No.

Even otherwise: No. Eternity is a pretty long time. It drags out and goes on and on and on ... what would I have to look forward to after the first 5000 years or so?

Just how you know, you truly believe that there is nothing else (as I do), wouldn't you love to know that there is actually something?

There already is something. There is an entire universe of something. It is big and exciting.

I don't think the offers being made for after my physical death are a good thing. I'd rather learn to accept that this live will end than having to deal with another life never ending.

That aside: I love to know stuff, yes. "Knowing" implies that I have an idea of what things are actually, really like. It is grossly dishonest to compare that to wanting for things to be this way or that and sneaking in the knowledge about it. At least be honest and ask me if I wouldn't love for things to be one way or another. (And if there was an eternal life, I'd find out about it soon enough. It might actually be more exciting still to live this one not knowing it, don't you think?)

This is why I hate it when atheists rage over those with faith - they don't realise that.

I do realize that alcohol makes the addict happy. I think that is incredibly sad and nothing worth of respect or support.

And there is much more to religion than just the belief in a supernatural being as well...

Yes. More lies.

[thaiboxerken]

That one can be disproved just by a cursory glance at this forum.

The forum has a religion section where people will definitely talk about their beliefs, or lack of beliefs, and why they think they are correct. I've seen no evidence of atheists trying to convert theists in the forum.

Also, there is no doctrine in atheism that tells people to convert all other people into atheists.

[Dragoonster]

The forum has a religion section where people will definitely talk about their beliefs, or lack of beliefs, and why they think they are correct. I've seen no evidence of atheists trying to convert theists in the forum.

Then you're for lack of a better word, myopic. Evidence exists on this very page:

I have seen many religious people suffer because of their religion. They would have been much better off without all those insane ideas planted in their heads.

I've seen many people suffer because of other peoples' religion too.

Not to mention the obvious primary motivation (some) atheists would ever argue that theism is not to be believed--they want the theist to stop believing in theism.
Also, there is no doctrine in atheism that tells people to convert all other people into atheists.

Very true!!! Atheism isn't anti-theism. Some (not all, plenty own up to it) anti-theists however use atheism as a "logical safety net" or get-out-of-commitment-free card.

"religion is a ridiculous belief, theism leads to evil, theists are gullible or ignorant"

"so you want to convert theists to atheism"

"Oh--no, I'm just an atheist! I just have a lack of belief! How could that possibly lead to me arguing against anything or for anyone to stop believing in anything!?"

"Oh okay, I'm sorry, you're just an atheist, not an anti-theist. BTW, I think theism does good for mankind in this way..."

"religion is a ridiculous belief, theism leads to evil, theists are gullible or ignorant. You're arguments should be mocked"

Repeat thousands of times.

There's quite a lot of rational dissonance or insincerity/dishonesty in the above, which takes place quite often here from what I've seen (or seems quite often because those who use it post quite often). Some atheists are using atheism's "lack of belief" as a false logical superiority when it comes to rhetoric.

I'm objectively a libertarian when it comes to converting people, and subjectively extremely anti-theist btw. But I only argue the former here, partly in order to avoid the dubious subjective-objective cheats that I note above. Maybe one month I'll argue from the latter as an experiment, but I'll sure as hell plainly state that I'd like religion to dissapear from the Earth entirely and that's my goal in arguing against religion.

All my arguments here could be considered strawmen, but if a reader thinks it applies to them, maybe it does.

[articulett]

Made up quotes aren't as valid as actual quotes of real people.

What you extrapolate isn't there in the real words.

"Subjective evidence" isn't evidence at all. It's an inference.

Sadly, you don't have actual evidence--never had never will... don't even seem to know what the word means; You can't tell a fact from an inference (and everything else that is not a fact).

Your opinions about yourself and your "methods" are opinions... not facts. They are not shared opinions. Learn the difference between a fact and everything else (opinion, belief, mottos, myths, lies, delusions, spin, thoughts, notions, suggestions, feelings, faith, inferences, pablum, semantics, extrapolations, etc.) Your reasoning is sloppy because you are more interested in believing in this "opinion" you have of yourself and others versus that you've imagined the motives of-- and it's all in your head... not in reality --so no one hear can change your delusion. Recognizing your errors in thinking is the first step in correcting it, you know.


Still no clue... and yet so certain that you are totally "clued in". Just like my sig.

You sound like a commercial ever trying to sell your view.

I fast forward through commercials. Back on ignore. Converse with those who want what you are selling. Atheism is a lack of god belief. Critical thinking is not atheism. You need to understand the latter and quit confusing it with the former. Rationalism is not atheism. Humanism is not atheism. Atheism is as "inspirational" as non belief in Scientology or psychic powers. RSL is not motivated by his non-belief-- but by his understanding that magical thinking harms trusting people. Is Randi "anti-woo"? Isn't religion woo? Is RSL "anti psychics"? Is Anonymous "anti-scientolgy"? Are cult awareness groups, "anti-cult"? Your double standard is showing. Education is the ONLY means we have of overcoming mass ignorance. Yours has failed you. Being pro education is not being "anti" anything except ignorance. Get thyself a clue.

I'm sure someone will quote you if you make sense to someone other than yourself. I shan't be an audience for your silly spin commercial.

[thaiboxerken]

Not to mention the obvious primary motivation (some) atheists would ever argue that theism is not to be believed--they want the theist to stop believing in theism.

Do you really think this ploy would work on me? You've only shown evidence of opinions, albeit harsh opinions, about religion and the religious. That is hardly evidence of attempts of conversion. In a religious discussion forum, you're going to see all kinds of opinions about all religions and the non-religious. It's inevitable.


Very true!!! Atheism isn't anti-theism. Some (not all, plenty own up to it) anti-theists however use atheism as a "logical safety net" or get-out-of-commitment-free card.

I doubt it. What kind of "safety" does atheism provide? WTF does "get out of commitment" mean? It seems to me that you are trying to imply that atheists are immoral.


"religion is a ridiculous belief, theism leads to evil, theists are gullible or ignorant"

"so you want to convert theists to atheism"

"Oh--no, I'm just an atheist! I just have a lack of belief! How could that possibly lead to me arguing against anything or for anyone to stop believing in anything!?"

"Oh okay, I'm sorry, you're just an atheist, not an anti-theist. BTW, I think theism does good for mankind in this way..."

"religion is a ridiculous belief, theism leads to evil, theists are gullible or ignorant. You're arguments should be mocked"

Repeat thousands of times.

And you have thousands of strawman conversations that never took place. Why are you so dishonest?


There's quite a lot of rational dissonance or insincerity/dishonesty in the above, which takes place quite often here from what I've seen (or seems quite often because those who use it post quite often). Some atheists are using atheism's "lack of belief" as a false logical superiority when it comes to rhetoric.

Why do you hate the fact that lack of belief is logically superior to belief in absurdity without evidence? Atheism is the skeptical position about gods.


I'm objectively a libertarian when it comes to converting people, and subjectively extremely anti-theist btw. But I only argue the former here, partly in order to avoid the dubious subjective-objective cheats that I note above. Maybe one month I'll argue from the latter as an experiment, but I'll sure as hell plainly state that I'd like religion to dissapear from the Earth entirely and that's my goal in arguing against religion.

I'd like all fat people to become fit and healthy, does that mean I'm trying to convert people?

All my arguments here could be considered strawmen, but if a reader thinks it applies to them, maybe it does.

I'm glad you can see the strawmen you are building, but why build them if you know it's a dishonest tactic?

[godless dave]

I've seen many people suffer because of other peoples' religion too.

That's what I'm most worried about. If religious people contented themselves with just believing in their stories, and a small minority do just that, they wouldn't bother me. It's the demanding everyone believe as they do, and burning the ones that don't at the stake, that concerns me.

[godless dave]

Having a negative opinion of religion is not the same as an attempt to convert people to atheism.

[krazyKemist]

Sometimes it helps a little to be more accepting of people with faith... faith of any kind.

As an atheist, I lack faith in god(s). I can have faith in other things, like the goodness of some human beings, fairies, astrology, whatever. Just no god(s).

Think about this: wouldn't you love to know that someone is always watching and caring for you? That someone will always be there, in spirit, to support and encourage you? That when you die, you won't just be gone, but you will have something after?

That sounds like wanting a substitute for an all-powerful parent. Like we imagine our dads to be when we're three years old. As an adult, no, I do not need that, thanks. Kids' wishes are okay for kids. They're pretty bland when you're grown up.

Just how you know, you truly believe that there is nothing else (as I do), wouldn't you love to know that there is actually something? This is why I hate it when atheists rage over those with faith - they don't realise that. And there is much more to religion than just the belief in a supernatural being as well...

The imagination of the afterlife by religious people are pretty mundane and boring, when not openly scandalous/immoral (as in the heaven where you get to witness the suffering of your fellow non-believing human beings in hell as a reward. Pretty noble and inspiring, that is.:cool:).

Most atheists do not rage against beliefs as such, but at the (sometimes outrageous) behavior of believers. Such behaviors include proselytising, which I feel, when it is directed at me, like an agressive type of publicity. Another is to impose their views on science, education and the likes. I have nothing against belief per se as long as it remains a private endeavour.

[articulett]

If people were as private about their beliefs in invisible entities as they were about their fetishes, I think everyone would be happier. You would see no enraged atheists, that's for sure. Never would they be trying to convert... we'd just assume that people were rational in the same way we assume people don't believe in rain dances until their irrationality was put on display.

[DeusPhasmatis]

http://xkcd.com/167/

If you don't have the courage to find your own way in the world, then it's already too late for you.

[krazyKemist]

If people were as private about their beliefs in invisible entities as they were about their fetishes, I think everyone would be happier. You would see no enraged atheists, that's for sure. Never would they be trying to convert... we'd just assume that people were rational in the same way we assume people don't believe in rain dances until their irrationality was put on display.

Such a thing does exist ! :D Until some time ago (I'd evaluate it to, maybe until 5 to 10 years ago) people here (Quebec, Canada) would not speak about their beliefs publicly, and that includes politicians and entertainers. There were even some shows which were openly blasphematory (there were some protests, mostly from old people with too much time on their hands, lamenting ye good olde tymes). I guess that comes from us being a former catholic theocracy (as a trace of this, we have developped a swear word vocabulary entirely made up of church words; I don't know if it is unique, anyway it's deeply satisfying:D).

Now, since we have entered a kind of national identity debate (or maybe it has leaked up from the south, or both, I don't know), it has creeped back on the scene. But I'm keeping hope, so far the debate remains respectful.

[articulett]

Then no atheist would need to say anything... and theists and apologists couldn't claim they were being discriminated against just because people treat their woo the same way they treat all other woo.

It sounds heavenly. It's not that they want the freedom to believe-- they want us to defer to it or not to say it's crazy or not to laugh at it. They want us to by into the lie that the "faithful" are more moral or "good" or ennobled or saved-- or at least not roll our eyes at such thinking. They want to be free to spread their "scary atheist" stereotype so they can offer themselves or their faith or their opinion as the remedy and feel humble and holier than thou in the process. They want us to care when they are offended by our "blasphemy" regarding characters we don't believe in.

They enjoy casting judgment on others, but it only works when people buy into their delusion. It's hard to pretend to be enlightened if others don't buy into it. It's hard to see yourself as a peacemaker or leader when people find you self important, delusional, and daft (and can put you on ignore :) )

Who cares if someone is delusional. Just keep it to yourself like your fetishes, folks.