Atheism 2.0 - Atheism using Religions perks.

[Protagonist]

The thing about Atheists is that they generally make many of the same fallacies as religious folk. This is in fact, why I consider Atheism to be a religion. They have principles, people who spread their gospel out to all mankind, and a view on providence and how the universe operates on a spiritual level.

As for the morality of religion in general: Religion has no particular ethics, it's a tool like any other for one to better themselves by creating understanding or illusion of understanding of the spiritual nature of the cosmos and the purpose of its believer.

As for Christian Ethics, I can testify first-hand that an extensive reading and re-reading of the bible does not make one into an atheist. Despite everything, I still hold God to an ethical standard that I would find utterly unreachable in humans.

As for the topic of religious extremism, there's only ever been one Christian extremist. His name was Jesus Christ. I do not consider mimicking him to be at all immoral.

As for the topic of "if I found out God doesn't exist, would I rape and murder?" No. The way I see it, whether or not God exists is somewhat irrelevant: we must act like he does. Even barring that, the Atheist equivalent of my worldview would be Objectivism (my main and basically only criticism of which is its materialistic, atheistic nature). Even barring that, I don't want to get arrested.

To turn the tables: If you found out that God existed, what would your response be?

[Brovo]

Protagonist said The thing about Atheists is that they generally make many of the same fallacies as religious folk. This is in fact, why I consider Atheism to be a religion. They have principles, people who spread their gospel out to all mankind, and a view on providence and how the universe operates on a spiritual level.

Except no.

Atheism is not a religion by any stretch of the imagination. It is the antithesis to religion: It abandons the preface of faith, doesn't demand you to conform to any rituals or beliefs apart from lack of belief in a deity, it doesn't demand you to spread its non-existent gospel (as there is no "book of atheism"), and the only way they tend to view the universe is... Whatever way they want to. I know atheists who think there's alternate universes and atheists who think ghosts are real and so on. They're not "lesser atheists" just because they believe those things which are part of their spirituality: They're atheists. Because they don't believe in a deity.

That's it. Cut. Stop the presses there's nothing else to say about it. You can't form a religion off of something that tells you not to believe in shit and doesn't tell you how to live your life or otherwise. You can't be considered a collector of nothing.

Protagonist said As for the morality of religion in general: Religion has no particular ethics, it's a tool like any other for one to better themselves by creating understanding or illusion of understanding of the spiritual nature of the cosmos and the purpose of its believer.

The premise of religion is that it has a series of edicts and rules you must follow in order to achieve a sort of enlightenment or afterlife or otherwise. That's a core tenant of religion, that typically separates it from merely being spiritualistic.

Protagonist said As for Christian Ethics, I can testify first-hand that an extensive reading and re-reading of the bible does not make one into an atheist.

It made me an atheist. In all seriousness no, it doesn't always make you atheist, but when I was agnostic I gave it a read, and the things in the bible appalled and disturbed me. It also left far more unanswered questions than gave me answers. I liked some bits of it, and as a series of short stories that occasionally referenced each other it was a good read, but to consider it... Real?... I couldn't even begin to fathom that.

But, then, that's just me, I don't try to tell Christians how to live their lives beyond treating me as an equal person and not attempting to proselytize children in the classroom, really. That's all I ask for.

Protagonist said Despite everything, I still hold God to an ethical standard that I would find utterly unreachable in humans.

Really? Because part of my personal morality is in holding no one over any other one in the face of law. If you commit a murder, be you rich or poor, young or old, ugly or beautiful, deity or mortal, you get the same sentence, and the same judgement.

Protagonist said As for the topic of religious extremism, there's only ever been one Christian extremist. His name was Jesus Christ. I do not consider mimicking him to be at all immoral.

Right. Sure. We'll go with that.

There are also still Christian extremists today, they just aren't considered acceptable by the majority of their fellow Christians. Which is good, it means the majority of people do not derive their morality from the stone age book that tells them to murder people from working on Sunday, but rather on modern principles which evolved over a span of time. The Bible was, indeed, part of this cycle, and it has some very good lessons in it that I would teach children, too. (Lots of the Jesus stuff definitely works to the modern day, save total subservience to parents and that slavery is O.K., those concepts are obviously outdated.)

Protagonist said As for the topic of "if I found out God doesn't exist, would I rape and murder?" No.

Good. You're at least somewhat rational and grounded.

Protagonist said The way I see it, whether or not God exists is somewhat irrelevant: we must act like he does.

You mean murder people? Cuz' no seriously he does kinda do the whole "full genocidal" thing. A lot.

Unless you mean Jesus Christ, in which... Sure, he's a bit pacifistic for my tastes and he occasionally twitches and has "dad moments", but he's otherwise pretty chill, I'd totally listen to a seminar from him about how to treat my neighbours n' stuff, and he'd be fairly safe around kids aside from trying to tell them all to worship him absolutely constantly.

Protagonist said Even barring that, the Atheist equivalent of my worldview would be Objectivism (my main and basically only criticism of which is its materialistic, atheistic nature). Even barring that, I don't want to get arrested.

The atheist equivalent is definitely more founded in a mixture of societal and empathetic norms. Laws evolve as society becomes more complex and all that jazz. Still, no law is infallible in the face of an atheist, take that as you will, this bothers some people.

Protagonist said To turn the tables: If you found out that God existed, what would your response be?

If I discovered that a deity existed: "Holy shit, really? Kickass, who is it?"
If I discovered that the Judeo-Christian deity existed: "Holy shit, really? Eh... Okay. Now I know he exists. Still not going to worship him until I get a few answers though. Hey can we talk to him? I'd like to know what happened, were some of those genocides incidental edits or something? What did he do, and what did the editors of the bible do? And what does he do nowadays?... Does he have a concept of time? Does he feel emotions? What's his favourite colour? Does he love ferrets like I do? Ah... Whatever. Still. Thanks for making me a living thing, but I hope you don't mind me living my own life by my own morals until I can get some of the nastier shit in the bible settled mate."

At the end of the day I'd still be who I am and so on. It'd mostly be "oh okay so he's real." I'd adjust the world view and instead of calling myself atheist, I'd have to call myself a non-affiliated believer. In these sense that, if I discovered he was real, I'd believe it, but I wouldn't worship him, because he strikes me as being fallible based on what I know. I'd need to talk to him, and who knows what would come from that conversation save God, obviously.

[Gwazi Magnum]

Protagonist said The thing about Atheists is that they generally make many of the same fallacies as religious folk. This is in fact, why I consider Atheism to be a religion. They have principles, people who spread their gospel out to all mankind, and a view on providence and how the universe operates on a spiritual level.

Only if you're referring to something like atheism+. But then even, that's not really a Religion but rather third wave feminists uniting as atheists.

Atheism itself is strictly not believing in a God, it is the lack of religion or theism (Hence: A-theist). There is no code or gospel to spread around, granted many atheists tend to default to science to treat as fact. But that's not a matter of having a gospel of codes and morals to spread, that's a matter of "Here's what we experimented/tested, here's what we proved to be true". But you'll even get many atheists claim stuff like "Ghosts are real", "Aliens have landed on earth", "The Moon landing was a fake", "Spirits are real", "We will reincarnate" etc. None of which are proven by science, none of which are beliefs that atheism demands anyone to have, but you get it all the time.

Protagonist said As for the morality of religion in general: Religion has no particular ethics, it's a tool like any other for one to better themselves by creating understanding or illusion of understanding of the spiritual nature of the cosmos and the purpose of its believer. As for Christian Ethics, I can testify first-hand that an extensive reading and re-reading of the bible does not make one into an atheist.

Except you know, all the ethics of stoning disobedient children, killing those who work on Sunday or eat fish, rape victims who don't scream loud enough, supporting slavery and the rape of virgin women etc. Granted, you've also got the stuff such as shall not kill, steal, covet etc. But the Bible is full of ethics and values it tries to teach people.

Reading the Bible may not turn everyone into an atheists, but a lot of people do become atheist as a result. It is a common result of reading the Bible.
Oddly enough, if you go into enough religious debates you'll often find that atheists know more about the Bible than Christians do on average... And I'd be lying if I said personal experience didn't verify this for myself, most of my family who is christian either never bothered to read the bible, or decided it was irrelevant to being a Christian. But most atheists I know have had experience with the Bible, may it have been out of pure curiosity, the reason they became an atheist, or looking to better understanding who they may debate against.

Protagonist said Despite everything, I still hold God to an ethical standard that I would find utterly unreachable in humans.

I assume by this you mean he is so moral/upright we cannot even compare or understand? If so, I'd like to ask why the genocide of children, rape victim's and non-Christians is seen as a moral act. Especially considering they are most likely going to burn for eternity, not be happy up in heaven.

Protagonist said As for the topic of religious extremism, there's only ever been one Christian extremist. His name was Jesus Christ.

Not much I can really say here... Brovo already pointed out most of the extremist's.
Though I would also like to draw at least some attention to the KKK and the Westboro Baptists.
A good amount of Nazi's too.

Protagonist said As for the topic of "if I found out God doesn't exist, would I rape and murder?" No.

That's the reaction I expected out of people :P
It's always nice when expectations like that actually hold up.

Protagonist said The way I see it, whether or not God exists is somewhat irrelevant: we must act like he does.

Why?

If God doesn't exist, why must we act as he does rather than on a moral structure that has been debated and reasoned out?

Protagonist said To turn the tables: If you found out that God existed, what would your response be?

Assuming proper proof/evidence was given?
I'd look to find out which God, then try to find any holes/flaws with the Religion I could find and ask said God to explain why they are there.

How I think of them afterwards depends on their answer. But how I live my day to day life would largely be the same, I'd recognize _______ God as fact just like anything else in Science and move on with my life.

[Protagonist]

Brovo said
Really? Because part of my personal morality is in holding no one over any other one in the face of law. If you commit a murder, be you rich or poor, young or old, ugly or beautiful, deity or mortal, you get the same sentence, and the same judgement.

I consider God to be a "great guy", yes. Though, you kind of have to buy into the Bible's morality to understand why. For example, a tenet of the Christian religion is that humanity is inherently evil. The way I see it, God doesn't punish people, so much as they're allowed to opt-out of his aid.

So yes, I do see why atheists dislike God's morals. On another note, people with a skewed sense of morality might find decent people to be immoral. So, it shouldn't be that surprising that a perfect being might irk imperfect creatures somewhat.

On the topic of Christian Extremism: I was challenging the term "Extremist". Many of these so called 'fundamentalists' act more like the Pharisees than Jesus and use methods that Jesus would likely not approve of. As such, they are hardly 'Christian'.

Bravo said
I'd like to know what happened, were some of those genocides incidental edits or something? What did he do, and what did the editors of the bible do? And what does he do nowadays?... Does he have a concept of time? Does he feel emotions? What's his favourite colour? Does he love ferrets like I do? Ah... Whatever. Still. Thanks for making me a living thing, but I hope you don't mind me living my own life by my own morals until I can get some of the nastier shit in the bible settled mate."

I'd imagine God would answer these questions like yay: (of course, these are hypothetical. I'm don't consider myself a prophet)
1. It's theoretically possible that some were. The Bible doesn't necessarily have to be 100% accurate for the 'point' to be true. The Genesis flood might be an example of this. Every religion has a flood story, and Judaism was still breaking away from its parent religion at the time the book of Genesis was written (same goes for the book of Job). I'm not saying I think they're necessarily wrong though, however, I don't consider someone saying Noah's flood never happened to be outright blasphemy per say. However, something like say, the book of Exodus is pretty straightforward biblical canon.

2. He probably does more than could actually be described to humans. He's an omnipresent being, after all. In general, he manages the universe (and in my opinion, the multiverse as well). If you mean 'why does he not do miracles today like in old?', I'd imagine the answer is simply that God doesn't consider very overt alterations to the cosmos to be necessary at the moment, possibly even harmful. After all, if he heals a sick person, he stops a doctor from doing the same (which might have bad consequences for the doctor). And arguably, many natural events could have God's influence in them. After all, who made the Doctor? Other than BBC, of course.

3. God actually does not experience time in the sense that humans do. "A day for God is a thousand years, and a thousand years a day"

4. He does. "For God so loved the world", after all. At the very least, he feels anger and compassion. However, his emotions might not necessarily function like human emotions do. He is, after all, a timeless omniscient being. How he thinks would obviously be a mystery to humans.

5. God probably doesn't have one. Color is essentially an illusion of light; fairly meaningless to him. Even if he does have a favorite color, it might not necessarily be one that human eyes can perceive. (some organisms perceive colors that human eyes can't). Jesus probably did have a favorite color, however. I have a haunch it's white, but I have zero evidence to back that up.

6. God probably loves ferrets as much as you do, yes.

[Gwazi Magnum]

[So Boerd]

Has anyone been able to prove the existence of human rights yet?

[Brovo]

So Boerd said
Has anyone been able to prove the existence of human rights yet?

[So Boerd]

That's like using the Bible to prove God.

By the way, on the topic of founding documents,

"...that [all men] are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights"

[Brovo]

So Boerd said
That's like using the Bible to prove God. By the way, on the topic of founding documents,"...that [all men] are endowed by their with certain inalienable rights"

Except no. You asked for evidence of human rights, I gave you one. If you tried to murder me, you would be punished for violating my human right to live.

Humans made human rights. If you're talking about some sort of higher, indomitable "collective" of human rights that some sky daddy made, no, of course there aren't any. If you murder me, the universe isn't going to suddenly strike you down with the hammer of the flying spaghetti monster, you could legitimately get away with it.

As for "human rights" in the sense of morality: Empathy, sympathy, and our being social animals, in combination with an ever evolving society that grows more and more complex, requires a more advanced set of laws and guidelines by which to live our lives, which includes human rights.

This is pretty simple shit mate.

As for that document, that [all men] are endowed by their creator, you'll note they didn't say God. Or a Goddess. Or even a deity. You can construe creator to mean all sorts of things and that was the intent of it. If you believe your creator was your parents, it still works. If you believe your creator was the Judeo-Christian God, then it still works. That is the purpose of that document. Plus I'm not saying the document is perfect, I'm not saying that the things on it are without flaw, and I'm not saying it's a universal truth. I'm also not using it to prove that there is an invisible sky daddy watching over us all that you can't ever see, hear, or touch: I'm using it to prove that there are human rights which we created. Because if you murder me in front of the police, they'll arrest your ass. For violating my human rights.

[So Boerd]

Brovo said
Except no. You asked for evidence of human rights, I gave you one. If you tried to murder me, you would be punished for violating my human right to live.Humans made human rights. If you're talking about some sort of higher, indomitable "collective" of human rights that some sky daddy made, no, of course there aren't any. If you murder me, the universe isn't going to suddenly strike you down with the hammer of the flying spaghetti monster, you could legitimately get away with it.As for "human rights" in the sense of morality: Empathy, sympathy, and our being social animals, in combination with an ever evolving society that grows more and more complex, requires a more advanced set of laws and guidelines by which to live our lives, which includes human rights.This is pretty simple shit mate.As for that document, that [all men] are endowed by their creator, you'll note they didn't say God. Or a Goddess. Or even a deity. You can construe creator to mean all sorts of things and that was the intent of it. If you believe your creator was your parents, it still works. If you believe your creator was the Judeo-Christian God, then it still works. That is the purpose of that document. Plus I'm not saying the document is perfect, I'm not saying that the things on it are without flaw, and I'm not saying it's a universal truth. I'm also not using it to prove that there is an invisible sky daddy watching over us all that you can't ever see, hear, or touch: I'm using it to prove that there are human rights which we created. Because if you murder me in front of the police, they'll arrest your ass. .

Clearly the point is lost on you. Why should I afford you human rights?

Because "better" is subjective, give me any objective criteria by which to measure it (including the percentage of people who self-identify as happy) and I can craft you a society which maximizes any number of those criteria by not respecting human rights, a society in which you would not want to live regardless of its superior consequences.

[Brovo]

So Boerd said
Clearly the point is lost on you. Why should I afford you human rights?Because "better" is subjective, give me any objective criteria by which to measure it (including the percentage of people who self-identify as happy) and I can craft you a society which maximizes any number of those criteria by not respecting human rights, a society in which you would not want to live regardless of its superior consequences.

Again you're speaking in terms of perfection when I'm not. What defines human rights varies from culture to culture, nation to nation, person to person. And you should afford me human rights by measure of the fact that it is necessary for civilization? O.o I do not understand how this is a question. If I work with you and give you human rights equal to mine, and you extend the gesture, we are strengthened through a mutual desire to exist with as many undisturbed freedoms and independence as is possible.

Or we can not do that and go back to old testament racial genocides because the voices in our head told us to do that. You know, barbarism and all that. If you prefer that, go right ahead, my society however will object to that.

[So Boerd]

Brovo said
Again you're speaking in terms of perfection when I'm not. What defines human rights varies from culture to culture, nation to nation, person to person. And you should afford me human rights by measure of the fact that it is necessary for civilization? O.o I do not understand how this is a question. If I work with you and give you human rights equal to mine, and you extend the gesture, we are strengthened through a mutual desire to exist with as many undisturbed freedoms and independence as is possible.Or we can not do that and go back to old testament racial genocides because the voices in our head told us to do that. You know, barbarism and all that. If you prefer that, go right ahead, my society however will object to that.

Let me be clearer. I offer you, right now, a Matrix-like existence hooked up to a machine. For the purpose of argument, all stimuli are perfectly simulated. Your loved ones are perfectly simulated. You can design this completely artificial and completely realistic world however you like, but once you enter you can never leave. Robots will attend to the maintenance of the machine while you are unconscious.

Two questions:
1. Would you do it?
2. Would you be in favor of forcing everyone to use it?

[Brovo]

First of all... What does this have to do with human rights, really?

Second of all... I have no reason to force everyone to use this device, and it would be violating their right to choose for themselves, so... No.

Also, personally, I would not use this device. I like the real world just fine, thanks, but if others wanted to use it... Meh.

[So Boerd]

Brovo said
First of all... What does this have to do with human rights, really?Second of all... I have no reason to force everyone to use this device, and it would be violating their right to choose for themselves, so... No.Also, personally, I would not use this device. I like the real world just fine, thanks, but if others wanted to use it... Meh.

The compulsion was what had to do with human rights.

You grant everyone the right to choose even when you have no reason to. Consequentially by every objective measure, the right to choose worsens their quality of life. They have more pain, more privation, in reality.

So your belief in a fundamental right to choose (and the supremacy of reality over fiction) that must be respected has no basis in either observable fact or in consequences. You freely admit it is a fabrication of humanity and continue to irrationally subscribe to it, then turn around and mock the religious.

[Brovo]

Strange that you see pain, turmoil, sorrow, and such things, as being bad things. They are the things one uses to understand problems and give meaning to joy and life. I mean look at wealth as an example: The richest people in the world can afford literally anything they want. Any item, as many pretty trophy waifus and prostitutes as they desire. They could buy friendships, even, and never worry about running out of money for them. They could save anything they care for, or at least give it the best possible fighting chance with an army of doctors and lawyers and so on... And yet some of them still manage to be depressed. Unhappy. And so on.

Joy means nothing without pain. Victory means nothing without obstacles. We are mortal creatures that live to do that which we wish to, but without obstacles, struggle, pain, setbacks... Life has no meaning.

As well, your personal bias is showing when you state that their lives are worse. According to who, you? Me? The skydaddy? It is their life. Let them choose to do with it as they please so long as it does not infringe on someone else's life. If they wanna drink until their liver bursts, let them. If they wanna become professional boxers and risk brain damage later on in life, let them. If they want to play every video game ever and be fat fucks, let them. I can still laugh at that, or scratch my head in confusion, but then, I am not any I'd those people. The fat guy might actually like being fat. The boxer might actually enjoy the thrill of being injured.

You and I are not gods. We do not get to arbitrarily decide what is the "best life", consensus gets to judge that, and it is up to you, me, and whoever else, to try and argue our case if we feel it is important enough.

And -that- is democracy in action. Human rights come into play to prevent tyranny of the majority.

[So Boerd]

Brovo said
Strange that you see pain, turmoil, sorrow, and such things, as being bad things. They are the things one uses to understand problems and give meaning to joy and life. I mean look at wealth as an example: The richest people in the world can afford literally anything they want. Any item, as many pretty trophy waifus and prostitutes as they desire. They could buy friendships, even, and never worry about running out of money for them. They could save anything they care for, or at least give it the best possible fighting chance with an army of doctors and lawyers and so on... And yet some of them still manage to be depressed. Unhappy. And so on.Joy means nothing without pain. Victory means nothing without obstacles. We are mortal creatures that live to do that which we wish to, but without obstacles, struggle, pain, setbacks... Life has no meaning.As well, your personal bias is showing when you state that their lives are worse. According to who, you? Me? The skydaddy? It is their life. Let them choose to do with it as they please so long as it does not infringe on someone else's life. If they wanna drink until their liver bursts, let them. If they wanna become professional boxers and risk brain damage later on in life, let them. If they want to play every video game ever and be fat fucks, let them. I can still laugh at that, or scratch my head in confusion, but then, I am not any I'd those people. The fat guy might actually like being fat. The boxer might actually enjoy the thrill of being injured.You and I are not gods. We do not get to arbitrarily decide what is the "best life", consensus gets to judge that, and it is up to you, me, and whoever else, to try and argue our case if we feel it is important enough.And -that- is democracy in action. Human rights come into play to prevent tyranny of the majority.

So you have an unsupported belief that you cannot prove, which is unfalsifiable (that people always do what makes them happiest), yet guides your life. Welcome to the team!

Let me keep up the role of the atheist for your own personal god. I can see the appeal of never ceasing to ridicule the beliefs of others.

You act as if the Id does not exist and that people have all information. I do not believe in the freedom to choose, I believe in science! Free will does not exist, we are all chemical sacks. We will make the choices for them aimed at maximum psychological health and maximum happiness as measured by physiological responses in the brain indicating happinss.

[Brovo]

The Id, Ego, Superego model is outdated. Has been for years. Just so you know.

Also, atheistic towards human rights?... What?... Uhh... Okay. That's a new one.

Also... I already told you. Human beings made Human rights. They aren't perfect and they vary from society to society. There is no such thing as universal human rights, or human rights without exceptions, and so on... But hey, once again you are in love with your no true Scotsman. You also just can't seem to get past the whole idea that god is in no way comparable to beliefs on how human beings should be treated by other human beings from the perspective of a human being.

This is so irrational. It would be like if I implied that your Christianity made you a rapist. Because other Christians rape people. Just... Wow. Okay.

Also, really?... Atheistic to human rights? Like not killing each other, or respecting individual choices... What kind of insane god complex do you have to sincerely believe this?

[So Boerd]

Also, really?... Atheistic to human rights? Like not killing each other, or respecting individual choices... What kind of insane god complex do you have to sincerely believe this?

I am pretty sure I said "play" precisely because I don't sincerely believe this. And I applied "atheist" to something unrelated to religion.

Youu also just can't seem to get past the whole idea that god is in no way comparable to beliefs on how human beings should be treated by other human beings from the perspective of a human being.

Why should I? I have seen no evidence.

You are allowed to disbelieve religion for intuitive reasons. You are not logically allowed to claim you are any more rational in so doing.

respecting individual choices.

Back to our regularly scheduled programming.

-Puts back on insufferable "I believe in science" guy hat-

Free will is scientifically impossible. If your behavior is random, you are not responsible. If your behavior is predetermined by previous factors beyond your control, you do not have free will. Choice does not exist, so why should it be respected?

[Brovo]

Arguments about free will are philosophical not scientific... Nature vs nurture and all that jazz. And.. really? You realize atheism is not believing that deities exist, end statement, right? If you were to apply non-belief to, say, human rights, this is obviously insane. This is literally saying you don't believe killing people is wrong or that other people deserve some level of respect and independence in their lives. This is literally textbook sociopath. It is so absolutely irrelevant a comparison.

Also, bringing up old arguments without refuting. Topkek.

No seriously though. If you believe human rights and a belief in a deity are even remotely comparable, you are completely insane.

[So Boerd]

By all means, determinism can be empirically verified. But free will is already philosophically impossible in the absence of a supernatural being.

Go ahead, be rational. Prove free will is possible without souls. I will wait.