I am an atheist, ask me anything.

Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:^^ I find that they really believe they have a soul but won't admit it. That's why they believe they matter in their godless and purposeless unverse.


Actually we all live in the same universe.

my life has what purpose I make of it -- as does yours.



So does a bug, mouse or cow .



and as you may have noticed, bugs, mice and cows and other creatures have distinct abilities and limitations.

We Humans have big brains and can stand upright, which allow us to do all sorts of things other animals can't. We can speak and write and invent and farm and study science and make up stories.

Our ability to tell stories came before learning advanced science, but science is catching up. Now we can more easily recognize the difference between stories (myth and fiction) and fact, but religion - a system based on myth, in the absence of science) still has indue influence on many people. thankfully that is waning.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:^^ I find that they really believe they have a soul but won't admit it. That's why they believe they matter in their godless and purposeless unverse.


Actually we all live in the same universe.

my life has what purpose I make of it -- as does yours.



So does a bug, mouse or cow .


Not PP, but yes, this is true. You are not more important than those things are, except to yourself and your loved ones. That doesn't mean you should give humans less respect or importance, but that you should think more carefully about the lives of other creatures and treat them respectfully.


Finally! An atheist who owns the obvious big picture of his ideology! Individual humans are not more important than bugs , cows , weeds , rocks and a pile of poop. All the feelings... The opinions ... The pollution and the disruption just waste time and make waste. In the universe, the individual human is of zero to negative value and a reasoning human should feel no guilt for killing a human any more than a cow or bug. Guilt is an illusion created by centuries of religious doctrine.


Another pp atheist, who agrees that all creatures should be treated with respect: I disagree that guilt is an illusion. Guilt is a useful emotion - it alerts a person that they are thinking or doing something that conflicts with other beliefs or values they hold. It provides the impetus to reflect on beliefs, values, and actions. Since we - atheists - don't have one higher being or priest telling us what we should believe or feel, we have to decide for ourselves what we think is right and what matters, and feelings of guilt - like all feelings - can help us figure that out.



But if another atheist feels that living creatures (including plants) are not worthy of respect his belief is just as valid as yours.


You're right. They may feel that way. We have laws in place to protect people and animals against the most egregious harms. And for the rest of it - we can only live the way we feel is right, try to be around others who share our values, and try to convince those who disagree. There is no hammer that I can wield to make other people think that animals are worthy of moral consideration. I can only try to convince them.

But, no, there's no higher power I can invoke to try to convince them. I have to use reason and rhetoric. It may not work.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Do you believe that there are things that are intrinsically right (or wrong) ?

I ask because that's where I get stuck.

For me it is not so much the existence of a god that is crucial for meaning and purpose, rather the existence of some transcendent universal moral code that is not dependent on my whims or feelings (or anyone else's).

In the absence of this transcendent immutable moral code (kind of equivalent to the laws of physics but for morals), I find it hard to have a reference point against which to measure what's good or bad. In such a case, to me, the nihilistic position seems the most logical position, since nothing can now be said to be 'better' or have 'more value' than anything else.

For me, it does not even matter what the code is as long as I can believe in the existence of one true 'reference code' (even one that no human has ever dreamed of). Otherwise I feel like someone trying to measure the lenght of an object with a constantly changing measuring tape.

But then, once you believe in such a thing, you have already violated the 'no belief w/o proof' rule...and you might as well believe in a god that is the 'incarnation' of such moral code.

whatever floats your boat. did you learn all of that^^ in church or did you come up with it on your own?

So there it is why I can't quite be an atheist ...


whatever floats your boat. did you learn all of that^^ in church or did you come up with it on your own?



The fact that I feel the need to for some immutable objective moral code that does not depend on anything or anyone but it is simply the TRUTH is something that I just feel.

As a child, I took for granted that such a thing existed. Growing up I realized that there is no proof that such a thing really does exist, everything and anything can be doubted, including the statement "there is no absolute truth".

However, I don't think anyone can really live a normal and happy life based on such an all-doubting attitude. If someone punches me in the face for no reason, I will feel that is wrong wrong wrong absolutely wrong, no matter how much "philosophy" tells me that really that is not the case.
But rationally, I can't justify that.

To take what OP said as an example, let's say the code is "if it hurts someone is bad, if it makes them happy, good".
Well, Sayz who? Where did you get that from? How do you know that is the real thing? It seems to me that believing that is "the code" is kind of a leap of faith.

So I find my position incoherent if I say I don't believe in God because there is no proof, but I believe that this is the "code" to live by...since I have no proof for that either.



Anonymous
For clarification, belief in:

- God
- Soul
- Afterlife

Need not to go together.

Ancient Israelites believed in a monotheistic God but had no expectations of an afterlife for a long part of their history. The idea or soul/afterlife was sort of imported from Hellenistic culture, and it is a relatively late development in the Bible (first mention probably in Daniel).

Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:^^ I find that they really believe they have a soul but won't admit it. That's why they believe they matter in their godless and purposeless unverse.


Actually we all live in the same universe.

my life has what purpose I make of it -- as does yours.



So does a bug, mouse or cow .


Not PP, but yes, this is true. You are not more important than those things are, except to yourself and your loved ones. That doesn't mean you should give humans less respect or importance, but that you should think more carefully about the lives of other creatures and treat them respectfully.


Finally! An atheist who owns the obvious big picture of his ideology! Individual humans are not more important than bugs , cows , weeds , rocks and a pile of poop. All the feelings... The opinions ... The pollution and the disruption just waste time and make waste. In the universe, the individual human is of zero to negative value and a reasoning human should feel no guilt for killing a human any more than a cow or bug. Guilt is an illusion created by centuries of religious doctrine.


Another pp atheist, who agrees that all creatures should be treated with respect: I disagree that guilt is an illusion. Guilt is a useful emotion - it alerts a person that they are thinking or doing something that conflicts with other beliefs or values they hold. It provides the impetus to reflect on beliefs, values, and actions. Since we - atheists - don't have one higher being or priest telling us what we should believe or feel, we have to decide for ourselves what we think is right and what matters, and feelings of guilt - like all feelings - can help us figure that out.



But if another atheist feels that living creatures (including plants) are not worthy of respect his belief is just as valid as yours.


You're right. They may feel that way. We have laws in place to protect people and animals against the most egregious harms. And for the rest of it - we can only live the way we feel is right, try to be around others who share our values, and try to convince those who disagree. There is no hammer that I can wield to make other people think that animals are worthy of moral consideration. I can only try to convince them.

But, no, there's no higher power I can invoke to try to convince them. I have to use reason and rhetoric. It may not work.


Why would you try to convince someone to think like you?
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:^^ I find that they really believe they have a soul but won't admit it. That's why they believe they matter in their godless and purposeless unverse.


Actually we all live in the same universe.

my life has what purpose I make of it -- as does yours.



So does a bug, mouse or cow .


Not PP, but yes, this is true. You are not more important than those things are, except to yourself and your loved ones. That doesn't mean you should give humans less respect or importance, but that you should think more carefully about the lives of other creatures and treat them respectfully.


Finally! An atheist who owns the obvious big picture of his ideology! Individual humans are not more important than bugs , cows , weeds , rocks and a pile of poop. All the feelings... The opinions ... The pollution and the disruption just waste time and make waste. In the universe, the individual human is of zero to negative value and a reasoning human should feel no guilt for killing a human any more than a cow or bug. Guilt is an illusion created by centuries of religious doctrine.


Another pp atheist, who agrees that all creatures should be treated with respect: I disagree that guilt is an illusion. Guilt is a useful emotion - it alerts a person that they are thinking or doing something that conflicts with other beliefs or values they hold. It provides the impetus to reflect on beliefs, values, and actions. Since we - atheists - don't have one higher being or priest telling us what we should believe or feel, we have to decide for ourselves what we think is right and what matters, and feelings of guilt - like all feelings - can help us figure that out.



But if another atheist feels that living creatures (including plants) are not worthy of respect his belief is just as valid as yours.


You're right. They may feel that way. We have laws in place to protect people and animals against the most egregious harms. And for the rest of it - we can only live the way we feel is right, try to be around others who share our values, and try to convince those who disagree. There is no hammer that I can wield to make other people think that animals are worthy of moral consideration. I can only try to convince them.

But, no, there's no higher power I can invoke to try to convince them. I have to use reason and rhetoric. It may not work.


Why would you try to convince someone to think like you?


This is really getting off topic - but there are all sorts of reasons I might try to convince someone to think like me. One big one for me is that I care a lot about animals, and I am troubled by norms that allow for, say, treating farm animals badly. I'd like to see a cultural consensus grow that pigs and cows deserve decent lives, even if ultimately they will be killed for food. I guess basically, I'd like to minimize pain and suffering in the world, and that takes convincing.

I'm not out proselytizing to friends about this, if that's what you're imagining. I work in this field.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
The fact that I feel the need to for some immutable objective moral code that does not depend on anything or anyone but it is simply the TRUTH is something that I just feel.

As a child, I took for granted that such a thing existed. Growing up I realized that there is no proof that such a thing really does exist, everything and anything can be doubted, including the statement "there is no absolute truth".

However, I don't think anyone can really live a normal and happy life based on such an all-doubting attitude. If someone punches me in the face for no reason, I will feel that is wrong wrong wrong absolutely wrong, no matter how much "philosophy" tells me that really that is not the case.
But rationally, I can't justify that.

To take what OP said as an example, let's say the code is "if it hurts someone is bad, if it makes them happy, good".
Well, Sayz who? Where did you get that from? How do you know that is the real thing? It seems to me that believing that is "the code" is kind of a leap of faith.

So I find my position incoherent if I say I don't believe in God because there is no proof, but I believe that this is the "code" to live by...since I have no proof for that either.
But you do have supporting proof of your "code". You have lots of actual data to drawn from as your proof. You can witness someone being bunched/hurt and see the results. You yourself may have been bunched or bunched someone and can relate/draw from those feelings. Living life itself forms and defines your code according to your life experiences.



Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
The fact that I feel the need to for some immutable objective moral code that does not depend on anything or anyone but it is simply the TRUTH is something that I just feel.

As a child, I took for granted that such a thing existed. Growing up I realized that there is no proof that such a thing really does exist, everything and anything can be doubted, including the statement "there is no absolute truth".

However, I don't think anyone can really live a normal and happy life based on such an all-doubting attitude. If someone punches me in the face for no reason, I will feel that is wrong wrong wrong absolutely wrong, no matter how much "philosophy" tells me that really that is not the case.
But rationally, I can't justify that.

To take what OP said as an example, let's say the code is "if it hurts someone is bad, if it makes them happy, good".
Well, Sayz who? Where did you get that from? How do you know that is the real thing? It seems to me that believing that is "the code" is kind of a leap of faith.

So I find my position incoherent if I say I don't believe in God because there is no proof, but I believe that this is the "code" to live by...since I have no proof for that either.

Whoops, screwed up the quoting in above post

But you do have supporting proof of your "code". You have lots of actual data to drawn from as your proof. You can witness someone being bunched/hurt and see the results. You yourself may have been bunched or bunched someone and can relate/draw from those feelings. Living life itself forms and defines your code according to your life experiences.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:It was actually a triple blind study....

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2802370/

I think NIH is pretty credible... Or should I say not "no good"


For the record, the triple blind study of 1802 patients that sought to determine whether intercessory prayer influenced recovery after coronary artery bypass graft surgery showed that "the knowledge of being prayed for was associated with a slightly but significantly higher rate of postsurgical complications."
Anonymous
Finally! An atheist who owns the obvious big picture of his ideology! Individual humans are not more important than bugs , cows , weeds , rocks and a pile of poop. All the feelings... The opinions ... The pollution and the disruption just waste time and make waste. In the universe, the individual human is of zero to negative value and a reasoning human should feel no guilt for killing a human any more than a cow or bug. Guilt is an illusion created by centuries of religious doctrine.


Another pp atheist, who agrees that all creatures should be treated with respect: I disagree that guilt is an illusion. Guilt is a useful emotion - it alerts a person that they are thinking or doing something that conflicts with other beliefs or values they hold. It provides the impetus to reflect on beliefs, values, and actions. Since we - atheists - don't have one higher being or priest telling us what we should believe or feel, we have to decide for ourselves what we think is right and what matters, and feelings of guilt - like all feelings - can help us figure that out.


+1 from New Poster (NP?)

The beauty of being an atheist is that we aren't limited to the ethics of one religious tradition. We can learn from thousands of years of human history and pick the best ideas that have been discovered/created? so far. For most of us humans we long to find happiness and a sense of purpose. From the Mennonites/Amish, I've learned the joy of a less materialistic lifestyle and from Eastern thought the contentment found in solidarity. From my Evangelical Christian parents, I learned to have fun getting caught up in the emotion of music, and from my Hindu friends, I've learned to respect and appreciate nature. I could go on.

To the hurting person on here who thinks that a human is of negative value, I can see their point. Overpopulation is a growing issue, and there are way too many people now who think indiscriminate consumption is the path to happiness. Our world and grandchildren desperately need more conscientious people who work to improve the health and fertility of soil, instead of covering the land with more asphalt, pollution, and big-box stores. Good humans give back to nature more than they take. This is how I seek to derive my value and self-worth; permaculture.
Anonymous
liamw wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Finally! An atheist who owns the obvious big picture of his ideology! Individual humans are not more important than bugs , cows , weeds , rocks and a pile of poop. All the feelings... The opinions ... The pollution and the disruption just waste time and make waste. In the universe, the individual human is of zero to negative value and a reasoning human should feel no guilt for killing a human any more than a cow or bug. Guilt is an illusion created by centuries of religious doctrine.


Another pp atheist, who agrees that all creatures should be treated with respect: I disagree that guilt is an illusion. Guilt is a useful emotion - it alerts a person that they are thinking or doing something that conflicts with other beliefs or values they hold. It provides the impetus to reflect on beliefs, values, and actions. Since we - atheists - don't have one higher being or priest telling us what we should believe or feel, we have to decide for ourselves what we think is right and what matters, and feelings of guilt - like all feelings - can help us figure that out.


+1 from New Poster (NP?)

The beauty of being an atheist is that we aren't limited to the ethics of one religious tradition. We can learn from thousands of years of human history and pick the best ideas that have been discovered/created? so far. For most of us humans we long to find happiness and a sense of purpose. From the Mennonites/Amish, I've learned the joy of a less materialistic lifestyle and from Eastern thought the contentment found in solidarity. From my Evangelical Christian parents, I learned to have fun getting caught up in the emotion of music, and from my Hindu friends, I've learned to respect and appreciate nature. I could go on.

To the hurting person on here who thinks that a human is of negative value, I can see their point. Overpopulation is a growing issue, and there are way too many people now who think indiscriminate consumption is the path to happiness. Our world and grandchildren desperately need more conscientious people who work to improve the health and fertility of soil, instead of covering the land with more asphalt, pollution, and big-box stores. Good humans give back to nature more than they take. This is how I seek to derive my value and self-worth; permaculture.



Does that mean that you will go off grid and live in a cave if I buy you the land, only catch no running water, erosion sucks, I will allow a composting toilet however. No wind power as windmills can harm birds. But I guess if you can find a way to use solar without taking up any of the animals land then that would be ok.


Yes. You got it. That's exactly what it means. Everything to extremes, nothing in moderation, no balancing of needs and wants.
Anonymous
liamw wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:^^ I find that they really believe they have a soul but won't admit it. That's why they believe they matter in their godless and purposeless unverse.


Actually we all live in the same universe.

my life has what purpose I make of it -- as does yours.



So does a bug, mouse or cow .


Not PP, but yes, this is true. You are not more important than those things are, except to yourself and your loved ones. That doesn't mean you should give humans less respect or importance, but that you should think more carefully about the lives of other creatures and treat them respectfully.


Finally! An atheist who owns the obvious big picture of his ideology! Individual humans are not more important than bugs , cows , weeds , rocks and a pile of poop. All the feelings... The opinions ... The pollution and the disruption just waste time and make waste. In the universe, the individual human is of zero to negative value and a reasoning human should feel no guilt for killing a human any more than a cow or bug. Guilt is an illusion created by centuries of religious doctrine.


Another pp atheist, who agrees that all creatures should be treated with respect: I disagree that guilt is an illusion. Guilt is a useful emotion - it alerts a person that they are thinking or doing something that conflicts with other beliefs or values they hold. It provides the impetus to reflect on beliefs, values, and actions. Since we - atheists - don't have one higher being or priest telling us what we should believe or feel, we have to decide for ourselves what we think is right and what matters, and feelings of guilt - like all feelings - can help us figure that out.



But if another atheist feels that living creatures (including plants) are not worthy of respect his belief is just as valid as yours.


You're right. They may feel that way. We have laws in place to protect people and animals against the most egregious harms. And for the rest of it - we can only live the way we feel is right, try to be around others who share our values, and try to convince those who disagree. There is no hammer that I can wield to make other people think that animals are worthy of moral consideration. I can only try to convince them.

But, no, there's no higher power I can invoke to try to convince them. I have to use reason and rhetoric. It may not work.


Why would you try to convince someone to think like you?


This is really getting off topic - but there are all sorts of reasons I might try to convince someone to think like me. One big one for me is that I care a lot about animals, and I am troubled by norms that allow for, say, treating farm animals badly. I'd like to see a cultural consensus grow that pigs and cows deserve decent lives, even if ultimately they will be killed for food. I guess basically, I'd like to minimize pain and suffering in the world, and that takes convincing.

I'm not out proselytizing to friends about this, if that's what you're imagining. I work in this field.


I enjoy eating meat, and if a dear has to die to make that happen well so be hit, however I don't trophy hunt does that make me a monster lol


I don't know why I keep responding to you. Probably because I am procrastinating. I do not eat meat, personally, but I am fine if other people do. I'd like to see the factory farming system changed so that fewer animals are eaten and those who are raised for meat are treated better during their lives. That's my set of values. I am also fine with hunting of animals like deer, turkeys, etc. - those who would likely overpopulate if their populations weren't kept down. Seems to me that if more meat eaters hunted and killed their own food, that'd be better for everyone (except the individual deer who are killed).

But, look, I wear leather, and I don't think too hard about where it comes from. I go to the zoo. I'm not totally consistent, either.
takoma
Member Offline
Specifically on the issue of the blind study about effectiveness of prayer:

Radio, TV, cell phones, lasers, microwaves, etc allow transmission of sound, light, heat, etc in ways that would probably once have seemed a miracle. Why does one need to believe in God to accept the posssiblility that the combined concentration of many people, or even just one, might actually have a physical effect?

As a scientific principle, I think it is fundamental to accept "I don't know why" as a step on the way to knowlege. Even if you believe there must be a purpose to life, does it follow that we know that purpose?
Anonymous
If I were an atheist and I kill you for your possessions is there any reason I should feel guilty?
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:If I were an atheist and I kill you for your possessions is there any reason I should feel guilty?


Look, someone - you? - keeps asking this same question in the same way, over and over. Do YOU think there is anything wrong about killing a person, beyond because religion tells you it's wrong? Or do you think the only thing that makes killing wrong is that you're told not to in the bible?

If the latter, then, 1. hot damn!, and 2. I hope you would still choose not to kill, because it's against the law, and for other reasons. But it also sounds like you might have some sociopathic tendencies. Atheists aren't the same as sociopaths.
post reply Forum Index » Religion
Message Quick Reply
Go to: