Why are Atheists...Atheists?

See, it's not so much "The Higher Power" that I have a problem with, it's his typical followers.

They all talk the talk, but so few walk the walk.

We agree. It is also what "his typical followers" make of God. I sound condemnatory and I am! But I also have been there right amongst them. For me to stand up and at times take a stand, is my way of making a "living amends" to those I proselytized to when I was religious.

The irony is; I also questioned everything that I was being taught, from a young age. But it took me a long time to step away from it.

reply to post by xXMakaXx

So what is it that "athiests" believe in?I've always been a little confused by that.

Well, perhaps ask some of the ones on this very thread. My experience is that many atheists are hurt people.

reply to post by bigbert81


Don't know bout others, but the concept of Humanist seems to infer the thought that other natural creatures are not of equal value as they are usually considered to lack the reasoning ability of humans and therefore are inferior. Humans first.

If one believes that all life is sacred, purposeful, and equal then that seems to not qualify with a humanist but as something else.

At least that's what I gather from what little I've read on the subject. If I am off base then by all means learn me up.

reply to post by LockwithnoKey

natural creatures are not of equal value as they are usually considered to lack the reasoning ability of humans and therefore are inferior. Humans first.

I for one share the Buddhist beliefs that all life is sacred, however, when it comes down to it, humans are first.

I would kill many, many animals to save your life, and any one else's, just as I expect other people should do.

It's about focusing on people and society and our civilization. About helping each other out to grow and live together. This is the most basic of societal cultures.

Putting animals equally would end animal testing. Animal testing has saved countless lives, and without it, our medical research would stop.

reply to post by LockwithnoKey


The speciesism of humanism is one of the things that makes posthumanism/transhumanism more appealing to me, but on the other hand, I don't feel humanism has fully run its course to allow transhumanism to progress as it ought.

reply to post by asilvahalo

It also seems to imply that God did not care about those who did perish.

It is a hard thing to reconcile. When I took him out of the box I started to see him in a different light. My father was a tough, strong character, a bit of a butt-kicker. I have come to like those qualities. He could take you or leave you, it took some effort to get his attention. But once you did, he really cared. He was not at all codependent!

It reminds me of God.

reply to post by LockwithnoKey

There also seems to exist a confusion of a creation "God" or intervening "God" vs. a force, an order, natural presence of flow, what have you.

I think it is a relief to let God be who he is, and that he lets us be who we are! It is the outside world that tries to break that connection.

I don't fall into any of these categories. I am an atheist because I find all of the arguments for the existence of God unconvincing. I remember, as a child, hearing God stories and feeling uncomfortable because they were told to me as truth yet I felt no sense of truth in them. (Truth was, and remains, very important to me.) Later, I discovered that lots of people don't believe in God, and I knew instantly that I was one of them. When I got a bit older I got very interested in religions - beliefs, history, how they've changed - but the more I found out the more I became sure they were all fundamentally wrong. There's plenty of wisdom in most of them, but it's easy enough to live a good, honest, worthy life without a religion and without a belief in God or Gods.

reply to post by theendisnear69


You and I have such similar views and our past in this area is related. Only you found out quicker and responded quicker. It took me years to leave organized religion. I never felt the need to look for another faith. I was fine on my own.

I am not saying that there is no higher being or anything (there has to be something out there) but if this "god" wants me to bow down and follow him based on faith, than I can't do that.

I have learned something that has become very valuable to me about my relationship with God. I am under the very strong impression that he doesn't like the piety either!

The more open I am with him and honest, the more he seems to thrive on it! I am saying; if I am angry at him, I tell him so. I no longer fear the lightning is going to hit me - theory.

Many times I have told him that I think he needs to be turned into CPS. If it were humanly possible, at times I wouldn't hesitate.

He can also come off as a super underachiever, LOL! The object to me and the challenge, is to attempt to get acquainted with this Higher Power, Intelligent Designer, for who he is and not what I was taught.

I guess the irony is; I have a much better understanding or inkling of him than I did when I was religious.

reply to post by AshleyD

As for the question in your title, it seems you answered similarly with how I was planning to answer so there is not much more I can say. I can't agree with everything you said but this is one rare occasion where we agree more than usual.

Well, that says something about us, doesn't it? We can agree to disagree but then admit when we do! Thank you for your post.

reply to post by bigbert81


Why am I not a humanist? Is it that cut and dried? An either - or, proposition?

Can I not fit somewhere in-between? Use the mind and our free will to be incorporated into a reality that fits with a divine existence also? From what I can tell, it is obvious that, that, is exactly what God is or has been encouraging, at least on some level. Mankind creates the rules! Don't you find that interesting?

Humanism entails a commitment to the search for truth and morality through human means in support of human interests. In focusing on the capacity for self-determination, humanism rejects the validity of transcendental justifications, such as a dependence on belief without reason, the supernatural, or texts of allegedly divine origin.

I have definite thoughts regarding the Bible, now that you bring it up, lol!
www.abovetopsecret.com...'

Are we exchanging one boxed belief system for another?

Originally posted by bigbert81
reply to post by LockwithnoKey

 

natural creatures are not of equal value as they are usually considered to lack the reasoning ability of humans and therefore are inferior. Humans first.

I for one share the Buddhist beliefs that all life is sacred, however, when it
comes down to it, humans are first.

I would kill many, many animals to save your life, and any one else's, just as I expect other people should do.

It's about focusing on people and society and our civilization. About helping each other out to grow and live together. This is the most basic of societal cultures.

Putting animals equally would end animal testing. Animal testing has saved countless lives, and without it, our medical research would stop.

I fully respect that line of reasoning, however I see it slightly differently.

I do not believe that humans are the greatest contribution to the planet, early humans mimicked the animals that they encountered, traveled in packs, learned of edible plants and other similar traits from the very life that is now considered inferior in the overall scheme.

So, if we are superior then why would we learn from them instead of the opposite?

Many of our diseases, virus', and such have actually been the result of humans tampering with nature through experimentation or ignorance.
Thus, only through the same means can the solution thought to be reached, such as animal testing. If it is to determine a cure for a human, then why not use a human for the testing?
All we are, all we have, all we know has derived its origins from nature. So, I would not sacrifice one life for another as I do not feel it is logical.

However, if any life tries to control or extinguish another then I am fully ready to issue death.
I think life is life, heck even plants deserve some credit...

reply to post by asilvahalo

The speciesism of humanism is one of the things that makes posthumanism/transhumanism more appealing to me, but on the other hand, I don't feel humanism has fully run its course to allow transhumanism to progress as it ought.

Excuse my naivety, but could you explain this to me?

reply to post by LockwithnoKey

Thus, only through the same means can the solution thought to be reached, such as animal testing. If it is to determine a cure for a human, then why not use a human for the testing?

Apparently, you need to learn a bit more on this matter. It's not so simple and cut and dry as you are thinking. You might want to check and see all the studies being done right now, and THEN decide if you want to suggest a fellow human in them. Until you do, I cannot take your opinion on wanting to test on humans instead, seriously. You think we can and should honestly do all the research and testing on humans? C'mon. How many people do you think we should kill off in the name of testing so that we can save others?

And as far as learning, are you really going to equate learning from to equality? Early, early humans might, MIGHT have gained survival knowledge from watching animals, but I'm sure you'll agree that those times are long, long gone. It doesn't mean an animal is smarter or equal to a person.

Tell me, how many animals would you kill to save another human life? Also, would that number go up if you knew that person?



[edit on 5/23/2008 by bigbert81]

reply to post by MatrixProphet


You of course can be.

It was more of an advertising effort for you.

Humanists usually act in the way that we ARE alone, whether we are or not, or believe or not. We rely on ourselves and each other to further ourselves, and don't sit around waiting for Jesus to come back or for God to fix things.

I choose to follow my own path. I choose to judge every human equally, something which religion deprives one off. I choose to make my own mistakes and to learn of those same mistakes. I choose to find my own god. I choose to lead my own life, and not to be dictated to by somebody whom I've never met.

Originally posted by bigbert81
reply to post by LockwithnoKey

 

Thus, only through the same means can the solution thought to be reached, such as animal testing. If it is to determine a cure for a human, then why not use a human for the testing?

Apparently, you need some education on this matter. It's not so simple and cut and dry as you are thinking. You think we can and should honestly do all the research and testing on humans? C'mon. How many people do you think we should kill off in the name of testing so that we can save others?

And as far as learning, are you really going to equate learning from to equality? Early, early humans might, MIGHT have gained survival knowledge from watching animals, but I'm sure you'll agree that those times are long, long gone. It doesn't mean an animal is smarter or equal to a person.

Tell me, how many animals would you kill to save another human life? Also, would that number go up if you knew that person?

[edit on 5/23/2008 by bigbert81]

Well I'm glad that you think that you are the one to educate me.

As far as the present distance from natural beginnings goes, how do you think that we have our present knowledge? Did it not originate from earlier people and then get built upon and augmented throughout time?

So, basically your saying that humans can create a problem and then murder another form of life to further our own advancement towards a solution. Pretty ignorant if ya ask me. Your sayin that if a human hurts you that's bad, but if a human hurts you and you can gain benefit from hurting something else that it's justified?

No way! Humans can be evil, nature can only be nature. Nothing more or less. If so much life existed before humans entered the picture, then why would we be superior if they were first in line? Why do we rely on them more than they do us? (excluding domesticated of course) As well as if we learned from them would that not mean that they already possess something we needed? Therefore it could be viewed that they were superior before we were.

I would kill a person for a reason long before I'd kill an animal for nothing.
As I stated before, ANYTHING that tries to control or extinguish life is bad, and I would respond as such. Be it people place or thing.

reply to post by LockwithnoKey


The way I said that, I think was a bit too direct. I did not mean disrespect, just that you might want to see how many and what tests are being done before you start thinking your brothers and sisters should be the ones tested on.

So, basically your saying that humans can create a problem and then murder another form of life to further our own advancement towards a solution. Pretty ignorant if ya ask me. Your sayin that if a human hurts you that's bad, but if a human hurts you and you can gain benefit from hurting something else that it's justified?

I think it's funny how you classify all people together. It would seem that it would be ok for me to die in order to pay for another's mistakes.

And I find it very hard to believe that you would not kill an animal to save a person. If that's true, then I don't want to know you.

reply to post by MatrixProphet


I have to agree with you that deep emotional truama can cause people to stop believing in GOD.

reply to post by bigbert81


Thank you for revising your statement. I appreciate it.

No, I do not believe that you should die because of anothers mistake.
However, nor do I believe that animals should suffer the same fate.

If a man makes a problem for another man, should that man not be responsible for his actions? Is it the place of all other life forms to receive the torture, death, and loss of freedom? All due to the actions of another of which they are not responsible.

And yes, I repeat. I would kill an animal if it tried to kill another wrongly.
The animals include people as well. I have seen humanity at it's best and at it's worst, and the animal kingdom only has survival and replenishment. Not judgement and spite.

I really don't understand the excessive value placed on human life. It is thought that we are above all else, and therefore do not need to consider morality. I feel that all life must earn it's respect and people at large are still a ways off. People are the single most destructive force in the animal kingdom.
I've never seen an ostrich go shoot someone for hitting on their girlfriend...