Do "believers" only believe because they are conforming? [ATHEISTS ONLY]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well this thread is a new low in childishness, efforts to manufacture a false sense of outrage, and general pointlessness.

Already the insults against faith have been just as bad as anything on that other thread. But who cares about that, not me. Just pointing it out for the record.

The truly sad thing about this thread is the only "point" is a transparent desire to annoy people of faith and for retaliation.

If you *really* want to know what religious people think, the dumbest way to go about it is to build walls (are theists Mexico?) against their views so that you can speculate among your uninformed selves.

And what's with the whining that any theist who comes here to tell you what SHE actually thinks is really telling YOU what to think. Unbelievably stupid.

I started a thread on the feedback forum about how we need usernames on this one. I don't know if it's technically possible.

Not just this thread. "Atheism" per se is a huge troll on religious belief.

Disagree, and I'm a Christian. Some people don't have faith and don't troll. OP is a troll, but it doesn't follow that all atheists are trolls.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you want to hear from atheists only, the Religion board may not be the best place for you. But you knew that.

I wonder how quick it will take Jeff to delete this troll thread.

Well if he's going to start deleting, then he has his work cut out for him on the other thread.

You yourself just admitted it's merely a retaliation thread. You've also tried to prevent other people from answering. I think you'll find your attempt at trolling is not turning out the way you'd hoped

ALL atheist threads directed to religious people either overtly or by implication (as this one clearly is--"LOOK AT ME, I'M FUTILELY TRYING TO YOU RELIGIOUS PEOPLE FROM THE DISCUSSION") are in a sense "retaliation." Atheism is a reaction to religion, an attempt to negate it, not simply (as atheists often claim) a non-belief in god. People who don't believe in god don't believe in god but have absolutely no need to constantly broadcast it. Atheists are sort of like those people without kids who declare themselves "childfree." They spend all of their time explaining and justifying why they DON'T have children and why that's O.K. and how discriminated against they are by people who have kids. It's all very butt hurt.

I'd wager most of us don't believe in pink elephants yet for some reason we don't feel any need to argue about the non-existence of pink elephants with people who do believe in them.

This is wrong. *Some* atheists do that but not most. You just are more aware of that subset because they are being loud and obnoxious. Perhaps you should give it a clarifying label such as militant atheist?

As a reasonable person who does not have faith and for whom the definition of atheist applies I am not willing to cede the term to your definition.

But, reasonable non-militant atheist PP, you're doing precisely the thing you claim to not be doing. It's not a matter of your polite manner of expressing your viewpoints as an atheist vs. a militant atheist doing so in a much more insulting manner.

You're arguing about why people who are religious should make fine distinctions among different brands of atheist or varieties of atheism--militant vs. "nice" atheist. Why do you even care?

There IS no "militant" atheist vs. "nice" atheist. An "atheist" is someone who doesn't believe in god, or so we are led to believe. Not someone who has to argue with people to disprove they are the militant variety. What is the point of that? Who cares if you're a militant atheist or a "nice" atheist? Who cares if religious people think militant atheists are representative of all atheists, or not?

Who exactly do you think you're trying to prove that you're not one of those "militant" atheists to, and why are you trying to prove it?

A religious person's focal point in a discussion with an atheist about metaphysics is going to be about the metaphysics, because the religious person care about the religious aspect of belief. An atheist doesn't believe in religious metaphysics, so all you're trying to do is start an argument that "not all atheists are militant." Who cares?

[Anonymous]

"That said, I don't think PP should go to church if she disagrees with it. Even if she just thinks it's s waste of her time and would rather find peace sitting in her garden with a cup of coffee. I find your tone offensive, and I say that as a believer."

Of course as you call yourself a believer, I understand perfectly why an atheist "faking it" in church for their mom's sake would be very offensive to you. But that's not the issue. The issue is why it would be offensive to the atheist, who thinks the whole religion thing is a sham anyway. If an atheist believes everything going on in a church is a giant delusional sham anyway, the sham isn't made any worse by an atheist pretending to be part of it.

Why not? If it would make the atheist's mom happy, why not go to church and sit there next to mom for an hour? To an atheist, it should be exactly like going to a movie you don't want to see with your mom, just to keep her company and to make her happy. As far as I am aware that doesn't violate any ethical principals.

[Anonymous]

"OK the bit about child-free people is just mean. My sister and her DH are child-free by choice and have never once said these things. "

Then how do you know they are "child-free by choice"? Because at some point they did justify it, or attempted to justify it, to you, as something other than "we don't have kids."

You actually proved the point I was trying to make so thanks PP!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"That said, I don't think PP should go to church if she disagrees with it. Even if she just thinks it's s waste of her time and would rather find peace sitting in her garden with a cup of coffee. I find your tone offensive, and I say that as a believer."

Of course as you call yourself a believer, I understand perfectly why an atheist "faking it" in church for their mom's sake would be very offensive to you. But that's not the issue. The issue is why it would be offensive to the atheist, who thinks the whole religion thing is a sham anyway. If an atheist believes everything going on in a church is a giant delusional sham anyway, the sham isn't made any worse by an atheist pretending to be part of it.

Why not? If it would make the atheist's mom happy, why not go to church and sit there next to mom for an hour? To an atheist, it should be exactly like going to a movie you don't want to see with your mom, just to keep her company and to make her happy. As far as I am aware that doesn't violate any ethical principals.

PP here. I never said I would find it offensive for an atheist to sit in church faking it. I wouldn't.

But, faking it means going through the motions of kneeling and standing and singing and reciting at the right times. That's a lot to ask. I take your point that it might make her mom happy, but is lying to her mom really a good answer?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"OK the bit about child-free people is just mean. My sister and her DH are child-free by choice and have never once said these things. "

Then how do you know they are "child-free by choice"? Because at some point they did justify it, or attempted to justify it, to you, as something other than "we don't have kids."

You actually proved the point I was trying to make so thanks PP!

You're embarrassing religious people like me. My sister and her DH freely say they're "too selfish" to have kids and would rather spend their money on early retirement, lots of travel, and his private plane. Happy now?

[Anonymous]

I don't think it's an issue of conformity so much an issue of sentimentality, emotional attachment (even if the experience growing up was negative).

It's very hard for someone to discard completely religious ideas they were raised on just like it's difficult for someone to cut ties with family, even when that family is cruel to them and their experience was unhappy.

It is the familiar. It's very difficult to walk away from the familiar.

It's not so much an issue of conforming to an ideal because that implies that you have to actively do something. It's the fact that inertia takes hold, as does a fear of having to completely remake your worldview.

It's far easier to simply fall back on what has been handed to you and sort of drilled into you, even if you aren't completely satisfied with it.

I think it's the same with all aspects of life, not just religion. Even people who aren't really suited or happy with typical family life end up walking the same path that they grew up seeing (getting married, buying a house, having kids).

It's not so much that they are actively conforming but, rather, that it takes a lot more effort and energy and uncertainty to forge an unfamiliar path.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Well this thread is a new low in childishness, efforts to manufacture a false sense of outrage, and general pointlessness.

Already the insults against faith have been just as bad as anything on that other thread. But who cares about that, not me. Just pointing it out for the record.

The truly sad thing about this thread is the only "point" is a transparent desire to annoy people of faith and for retaliation.

If you *really* want to know what religious people think, the dumbest way to go about it is to build walls (are theists Mexico?) against their views so that you can speculate among your uninformed selves.

And what's with the whining that any theist who comes here to tell you what SHE actually thinks is really telling YOU what to think. Unbelievably stupid.

I started a thread on the feedback forum about how we need usernames on this one. I don't know if it's technically possible.

Op here - I fully support usernames.

[Anonymous]

I have not read many of the responses from either of the threads. I am, quite frankly, disturbed that so many people overlook the simple fact that someone pretending to believe in a higher power in order to appear to conform is not, in fact, a believer. And someone pretending not to believe in a higher power when they actually do, so as to appear to be a nonconformist, is not an atheist.

Actual belief does not follow pretension. They are two totally different things. People believe what they believe, regardless of what show they put on to the wider world.

And yes, surprising as it is, there are a variety of deeply held beliefs in the word that are come by honestly. Accusing those who claim different beliefs than your own of putting on a show is incredibly ignorant.

[Anonymous]

OP here.

Wow - so many respectful theists popped on here to show that they care. I'm touched. Looks like the unhinged theist (who still somehow can't reply properly?!) chimed in too. So kind.

Just can't stay away, huh? Why are you so drawn to atheists? Makes you start to wonder....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Well this thread is a new low in childishness, efforts to manufacture a false sense of outrage, and general pointlessness.

Already the insults against faith have been just as bad as anything on that other thread. But who cares about that, not me. Just pointing it out for the record.

The truly sad thing about this thread is the only "point" is a transparent desire to annoy people of faith and for retaliation.

If you *really* want to know what religious people think, the dumbest way to go about it is to build walls (are theists Mexico?) against their views so that you can speculate among your uninformed selves.

And what's with the whining that any theist who comes here to tell you what SHE actually thinks is really telling YOU what to think. Unbelievably stupid.

I started a thread on the feedback forum about how we need usernames on this one. I don't know if it's technically possible.

To be fair, don't think OP should have posted this but they have literally used am anti atheists posts verbatim to reply. Here you are all saying its crazy offensive. Over on the other thread I'm being told that groundhog is far more hateful than the original anti atheist poster that said everything this post is based on

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't think it's an issue of conformity so much an issue of sentimentality, emotional attachment (even if the experience growing up was negative).

It's very hard for someone to discard completely religious ideas they were raised on just like it's difficult for someone to cut ties with family, even when that family is cruel to them and their experience was unhappy.

It is the familiar. It's very difficult to walk away from the familiar.

It's not so much an issue of conforming to an ideal because that implies that you have to actively do something. It's the fact that inertia takes hold, as does a fear of having to completely remake your worldview.

It's far easier to simply fall back on what has been handed to you and sort of drilled into you, even if you aren't completely satisfied with it.

I think it's the same with all aspects of life, not just religion. Even people who aren't really suited or happy with typical family life end up walking the same path that they grew up seeing (getting married, buying a house, having kids).

It's not so much that they are actively conforming but, rather, that it takes a lot more effort and energy and uncertainty to forge an unfamiliar path.

This all makes a lot of sense.

Holds true for me too - wasn't brought up with religion so I do find that comfortable. And while I'm not dissatisfied I really haven't put any effort into exploring other paths. There just never seemed to be any point IMO.

OP

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well this thread is a new low in childishness, efforts to manufacture a false sense of outrage, and general pointlessness.

Already the insults against faith have been just as bad as anything on that other thread. But who cares about that, not me. Just pointing it out for the record.

The truly sad thing about this thread is the only "point" is a transparent desire to annoy people of faith and for retaliation.

If you *really* want to know what religious people think, the dumbest way to go about it is to build walls (are theists Mexico?) against their views so that you can speculate among your uninformed selves.

And what's with the whining that any theist who comes here to tell you what SHE actually thinks is really telling YOU what to think. Unbelievably stupid.

I started a thread on the feedback forum about how we need usernames on this one. I don't know if it's technically possible.

To be fair, don't think OP should have posted this but they have literally used am anti atheists posts verbatim to reply. Here you are all saying its crazy offensive. Over on the other thread I'm being told that groundhog is far more hateful than the original anti atheist poster that said everything this post is based on

I was wondering if anyone would notice...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not sure why others do what they do but I can answer as someone who's mother is super religious. I do not feel compelled to conform. Maybe it's because she relies on me and there is a different power play(?) but I just won't do it. I love her and she loves me, she tells me often that she is grateful for all that our family does for her, but I will not go to church and pretend to believe in anything just to make her happy. And she has accepted this.

If it makes your mom happy to play "let's pretend" at church once a week, why not do it once in a while JUST to make her happy? As an atheist, you're not violating any principal by simply going to church with your mom and sitting there while the religious rituals are occurring. Just sitting in church can't make an atheist "magically convert" into a person who believes in god. (I don't think--if it does, probably not really an atheist in the first place.)

What's wrong with attending a function for which you don't believe in the metaphysics of, JUST to make your mother, who you love, and who loves you, happy? Nothing's wrong with it. We all do things to make our moms happy now and then that we think are silly or ridiculous or that we don't agree with, don't we?

I mean you're not afraid that some Holy Water will accidentally splash you and turn you into a god bot are you?

What about other religious based rituals like weddings and funerals? Does this mean you never go to a religious themed wedding or funeral because you are afraid that being within close range to a bunch of god bots will turn you into a god zombie?

LOL

You're not much of an atheist if you're afraid of setting foot inside a church with your mom. Nothing's going to "happen" to you. God isn't going to pop out from behind a stained glass window and give you an epiphany.

I'm the PP quoted above. I never said I was afraid of stepping foot in a church. You projected that idea and ran with it. I do plenty of things to make her happy that I might not enjoy. I just draw the line at going to church. I'm not sure why the boundaries I have set bother you so much.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think it's an issue of conformity so much an issue of sentimentality, emotional attachment (even if the experience growing up was negative).

It's very hard for someone to discard completely religious ideas they were raised on just like it's difficult for someone to cut ties with family, even when that family is cruel to them and their experience was unhappy.

It is the familiar. It's very difficult to walk away from the familiar.

It's not so much an issue of conforming to an ideal because that implies that you have to actively do something. It's the fact that inertia takes hold, as does a fear of having to completely remake your worldview.

It's far easier to simply fall back on what has been handed to you and sort of drilled into you, even if you aren't completely satisfied with it.

I think it's the same with all aspects of life, not just religion. Even people who aren't really suited or happy with typical family life end up walking the same path that they grew up seeing (getting married, buying a house, having kids).

It's not so much that they are actively conforming but, rather, that it takes a lot more effort and energy and uncertainty to forge an unfamiliar path.

This all makes a lot of sense.

Holds true for me too - wasn't brought up with religion so I do find that comfortable. And while I'm not dissatisfied I really haven't put any effort into exploring other paths. There just never seemed to be any point IMO.

OP

This presumes that theists don't actually believe, instead they're all doing it for the hegge/comfort and are lying to boot. So instead it doesn't make sense and it's also insulting. Two birds, good job.