Losing my Religion

a reply to: Ghost147

that's because it's personal. you experience it as an individual and you grow in knowledge regarding it, as an individual.

a reply to: undo

You don't need to sign up for anything to have that defense as you put it.


You are a theist = belief in god or gods.

No one can attribute anything to that other than what it means, however if you choose to define yourself further than that then whatever definition that descriptor may hold can be assessed for its merits.

a reply to: Annee

so people who don't believe in a god can't be accused of anything. like i said, bulletproof. the perfect religion. nothing can be blamed on you, not because you are forgiven or even acknowledging you make mistakes, but because "no religion". that's the entire defense. it's absolutely brilliant in its simplicity.

originally posted by: undo
a reply to: Annee

so people who don't believe in a god can't be accused of anything. like i said, bulletproof. the perfect religion. nothing can be blamed on you, not because you are forgiven or even acknowledging you make mistakes, but because "no religion". that's the entire defense. it's absolutely brilliant in its simplicity.

AGAIN, "lack of belief" is not a belief - - Period.

You want to crucify someone for lack of belief?

a reply to: Annee

why would i want to do that? i believe you're a god even if you don't lol

originally posted by: undo
a reply to: Annee

why would i want to do that? i believe you're a god even if you don't lol

I believe everyone is their own god - - but that's a different subject.

originally posted by: Annee


I believe everyone is their own god - - but that's a different subject.

it is?

originally posted by: undo
doesn't that kinda make you unimpeachable because no matter what an individual atheist does, none of it can ever be blamed on their lack of belief in a god, since their lack of belief in a god, has nothing to do with their behavior? and in fact, it actually makes them superior to people who do believe in a god, because, well, humans do bad things but only people who believe in a god can be accused of doing bad things, since in their case the word "belief" is involved and atheists don't believe in anything.

man it's like the perfect defense. can't be blamed for anything but can sure as hell point out everyone else's faults. i'd say i want to sign up for the defense part, but i don't think i understand it yet.

What's funny is that this is all absolutely correct. You pretty much nailed every aspect of Atheism (and i'm not being sarcastic, you really did), the only issue is that you're coming from a view that has taught you to believe that Atheism is a belief system, thus the sarcastic tone.

Considering it is not a belief system, what you said is absolutely true!

Since Atheists don't believe that a god exists, that also means that Atheists don't believe that Morality comes from god. This isn't taught in "the book of Atheism", usually Atheists come to a conclusion on their own that "if morality doesn't come from god, it must be a natural phenomena."

According to many religions, God is the only one that can allow people to be moral, and to set the moral values of life -in one aspect or another. So, if I don't believe in god, and I never have (this being me personally, not Atheism generally - as many Atheists were once Theists), then according to the religions which claim that Morality comes from God, I (being an atheist) can never commit a moral action even if I put my mind to it.

I'd like to assume I have committed at least one moral action in my life, but I have a feeling you're not going to believe me either way. Because, if you do believe me, and also believe in a religion in which morality comes from God, or gods teachings, then believing that I've committed at least one moral action would technically be blasphemous.

The thing is, we actually know why morality exists from a natural sense (again, I can elaborate if you're interested). Since it's a natural thing, any person on earth can tell when a person has committed a "bad" action that would otherwise be deemed immoral; so long as they don't have a psychological issue that is.

The reason why some religious people may be considered morally-incorrect, is because many of the writings within their sacred texts suggest to take away basic human rights. You know, stuff like saying that Slavery is a good thing, child abuse is good, spousal abuse is good, women are not equal, the color of your skin matters if you want to go to heaven, rape is acceptable so long as you pay the father of the rape victim a fee. You know, some people would consider any of those -if not all of those things- completely immoral.

And that's why Atheists (who are not bound by scripture) can come to the conclusions that you've suggested.

originally posted by: undo

originally posted by: Annee


I believe everyone is their own god - - but that's a different subject.

it is?

Yes it is.

This thread is about religion.

dp

originally posted by: undo
a reply to: Ghost147

that's because it's personal. you experience it as an individual and you grow in knowledge regarding it, as an individual.

Yes, that's what I just said. The issue is that because scripture can be interpreted in any matter by infinite individuals, it takes away from it's divinity.

If there are exact things in which one must follow to be accepted into a fantastic afterlife, or be eternally tortured because they didn't follow them, you would think that they would have made the rules more clear. However, as you clearly agree with me, they do not make it clear, thus anyone can interpret these absolute rules any way they wish.

Divinity is supposed to be perfect. If everyone comes to a different conclusion about one sentence, then it is beyond imperfect. Furthermore, if the threat of being tortured for all of eternity is lingering over your head if you don't follow it correctly, then the bible itself is dangerous to its followers because if it's impossible-to-follow instructions.

a reply to: Ghost147

assumption. i don't believe original sin is quite how it is taught, so the concept of moral behavior is not, in my view, directly connected to the original sin concept. being or not being moral, is taught in nature and at home, because as spiritual beings stuck in a natural setting, we learn by trial and error with nature and society, how to increase the lifespan of our dna hacked bodies. if i hit the mean dog, the mean dog is going to bite me, for example. we learn to commiserate thru common experience. the only time these parameters change is when someone convinces us that we are above morality, such as the case where parents teach their children that it's okay to abuse others because they are __________ fill in the blank.

a reply to: Ghost147

it absolutely does not take away from its divinity, rather it proves the information is about each person not about the world at large.

a reply to: misskat1

Hey good for you. The Red Pill is always the harder one to swallow - most people prefer to stick with blissful ignorance than to have their fundamentals challenged.

I'm afraid I cannot comment on helping you through deconversion as I have never been a theist. I have, however, only in recent years become a proper skeptic and I can attest to the value of such a philosophy in sorting the wheat from the 'BS'.

george lucas came up with a type of education where all forms of specialization had hands on each problem that needed to be solved. for example, if the project was to determine how an ancient structure was built, all different skill sets would be brought to the table, including artists, engineers, historians, anthropologists, philosophy and so on. the rationale being that science was being hampered by its exclusivity.

i theorize the reason why it is kept so exclusive is that it is easier to control the data stream that way.

originally posted by: undo
a reply to: Ghost147

assumption. i don't believe original sin is quite how it is taught, so the concept of moral behavior is not, in my view, directly connected to the original sin concept. being or not being moral, is taught in nature and at home, because as spiritual beings stuck in a natural setting, we learn by trial and error with nature and society, how to increase the lifespan of our dna hacked bodies. if i hit the mean dog, the mean dog is going to bite me, for example. we learn to commiserate thru common experience. the only time these parameters change is when someone convinces us that we are above morality, such as the case where parents teach their children that it's okay to abuse others because they are __________ fill in the blank.

Again, I agree. I particularly agree with this last sentence you wrote.

" the only time these parameters change is when someone convinces us that we are above morality, such as the case where parents teach their children that it's okay to abuse others because they are __________ fill in the blank."

That's exactly what many Atheists have concluded when it comes to the moral teachings within religion. This directly applies to what I said in the post you're responding to:

"The reason why some religious people may be considered morally-incorrect, is because many of the writings within their sacred texts suggest to take away basic human rights. You know, stuff like saying that Slavery is a good thing, child abuse is good, spousal abuse is good, women are not equal, the color of your skin matters if you want to go to heaven, rape is acceptable so long as you pay the father of the rape victim a fee. You know, some people would consider any of those -if not all of those things- completely immoral. "

It looks like you're finally understanding our position.

Now, if you can answer this question correctly, and sincerely, I will finally withdraw from this conversation:

Is Atheism a Belief System; Why, or why not?

originally posted by: undo
a reply to: Ghost147

it absolutely does not take away from its divinity, rather it proves the information is about each person not about the world at large.

Really? Alright, tell me if you believe that this is acceptable or not?

Deuteronomy 22:28-29: If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.

Now, if what you say is true, there will be other individuals who view that passage differently, perhaps even mirroring your response.

Personally - and despite being a non-believer - I view all rape as disgusting, intolerable actions that could never be considered moral or acceptable. The thing is, I don't follow a book in which all my beliefs or non-beliefs derive from that actually teaches (LITERALLY) that rape is acceptable so long as the father of the rape victim is paid.

If someone reads this, follows the bible undoubtedly, and believes that this is acceptable behaviour, then the bible is now a dangerous tool. Thus, not divine.

a reply to: Ghost147

well you would first have to ask me what it is i believe about the old testament. in my view, the sumerian texts describe who was who in the old testament. enki-ea was a jehovah in the bible who created humans and gave them procreation, warned the noah figure of the flood and told him how to escape it, and brought down the tower of babel, not because he wanted to keep humans ignorant but because enlil (i discuss him in the next sentence) was trying to force a world order under the auspices of one leader, which had lead to a great deal of suffering in the past. and enlil was a jehovah in the bible who i think was in reality, satan, and it was him who decreed the flood, demanded human life spans be shortened, set up a system of laws so difficult to keep that you could easily be disobeying one while trying to keep the other, and frequently is seen killing people in ways that very much mimic humans at their worst.

a reply to: undo

I'll ask again, since you must have missed it:

Is Atheism a Belief System; Why, or why not?

As for your posts, all you needed to say was "no I don't believe that part". In which case, others in fact do believe! Is it not distressing at all that what would usually be considered completely revolting, anti-moral behavior could be mistakenly read as absolute fact, if not a necessity?

Honestly, you're response just sounds like you're dodging the question.

originally posted by: Ghost147
a reply to: undo

I'll ask again, since you must have missed it:

Is Atheism a Belief System; Why, or why not?

As for your posts, all you needed to say was "no I don't believe that part". In which case, others in fact do believe! Is it not distressing at all that what would usually be considered completely revolting, anti-moral behavior could be mistakenly read as absolute fact, if not a necessity?

Honestly, you're response just sounds like you're dodging the question.

atheism is a belief in no beliefs. i can't justify your position for you, only you can do that. and frankly, i don't think there's enough evidence to state emphatically that there is no gods, particularly since i think we are all gods. if i said there were no gods, i would be disinheriting myself and everyone else, to their rightful heritage. i can't do that for you, since you can only make that choice for yourself.

if i said the guy who did that was posing as the jehovah who created us, when he was in fact, the bad guy, that is in no way dodging the question. that answers it quite well and even explains why it's so disgusting.

originally posted by: undo
atheism is a belief in no beliefs.

Right... Just as not collecting stamps is a form of collecting.

I believe in ghosts. Other Atheists do not. How can I accomplish this if Atheism is "a belief in having no beliefs?"

I'm afraid you still do not understand (or is it that you are forcing yourself not to accept the fact that atheism only applies to a lack in belief in a god because doing so would somehow mess with your view in how the world works?).

originally posted by: undo
i can't justify your position for you, only you can do that.

Believe me, we've been doing that. Some people just don't want to listen.

originally posted by: undo
and frankly, i don't think there's enough evidence to state emphatically that there is no gods, particularly since i think we
are all gods.

Yes, that's why you're a Theist and we are Atheists.

originally posted by: undo
if i said the guy who did that was posing as the jehovah who created us, when he was in fact, the bad guy, that is in no way dodging the question. that answers it quite well and even explains why it's so disgusting.

My mistake then. However, you must see then why religion is dangerous due to other people who don't feel the same way you feel about their texts?