Should I become an atheist and why?

[Wootah]

Should I become an atheist and why?

What are the benefits, practices, beliefs? Any good conversion stories?

[William]

Strictly speaking, atheism as a mindset is simply lack of belief in gods.

A mindset is an "established set of attitudes, esp. regarded as typical of a particular group's social or cultural values; the outlook, philosophy, or values of a person; frame of mind, attitude, [and] disposition." It may also arise from a person's worldview or philosophy of life.

[Clownboat]

It just so happens that the thing you listed as being wrong, all are established as being wrong by Christianity.

Where does the Bible establish that genocide is wrong? I can show where it was ordered.
Where does the Bible establish that slavery is wrong? Obviously the Bible can and has been used to justify it.
Where does the Bible establish where sacrificing your child is wrong? I can show where it was accepted.

The Bible does claim to kill homosexuals. Which proves my orginal point: The problems arise when humans pretend that there is a god concept that informed them of what is moral.

We have a foundation for that.

Any foundation that can be used to justify the atrocities mentioned, should be discarded for being immoral.

However without a foundation, what exactly are you appealing to to establish these things are wrong?

You must be kidding me! Do you know that it is wrong to rape children, or would you be on the fence about it if not for the Bible?
Raping children is wrong. No foundation needed.
Killing homosexuals is wrong. Your foundation is evil and for you to pretend that a god desires such things again proves my point.

Is it your mere opinion? Anyones personal opinion can be wrong... Is it society? Societies opinion can be wrong, we have many examples. Is it an appeal to emotions? Emotions can mislead us, we have many examples. What is it?

When a mechanism is not perfect, it is foolish to then offer up an even worse mechanism.
Societies may not always be correct, but you are no longer allowed to kill homosexuals or own humans as property. So society does win out as far as end results.

I believe we understand these things are wrong because God has established his truth that these things are wrong

Demonstrably wrong. Again, do you need a God to tell you that raping children is wrong. Seriously?

when Jesus revolutionized the thinking of western civilization 2000 years ago, saying not to hurt children (Matthew 18:6), Not only not kill people but not to hate people (Matthew 5:21), that all people are equal (Galatians 3:28), that know one has right to cast a stone (John 8).

You're silly if you believe people just walked around hurting children and killing others until Jesus suposedly said what you claim he did.

I completely agree with you that there IS an objective morality with these issues, and it is no surprise that anyone of us should appeal to such things for Jesus Christ has influenced the truth we know today, but without God where is it you can establish any truth?

The same place you are without Allah having established his truth in you. Do you need Allah to establish truth in you? "No" you say? Well, let's follow that to its logical conclusion.

The Nazi's thought they were doing the world a favor by killing Jew's, and surely it was rationalized by the science of natural selection. How would you be able to go agianst a rational argument that would use science like that? How can you establish foundational truth?

Holy Monkeys! Was genocide wrong when the Hebrew God ordered it, or only when the Nazi's do it? I don't think you realize how much this hurts your own argument.

You answer Coke... And so be it... But how is it Coke would be any different then Mountain Dew or Dr. Pepper? It is all the same... Anyone's ideas influenced by the fizzing in their brain, has root in all human experiences. How would one fizz be more valid then another?

The point is to use your brain. Relying on desert goat herders to inform you of what is moral could have you owning humans, commiting genocide like the Nazi's and stoning humans.

I blame man for codifying those rules into a book which allowed superstitious people to perpetuate a barbaric practice. Rules that must be followed or face an invisible beings wrath. - KenRU

It is sad that in an age of freedom some people are enslaved by the nomads of old. - Marco

[Clownboat]

PupleKnight wrote that he would prefer some god existed and bequeathed us with universal morality. I see his point, as it would save us all from having to make things up as we go along and develop some type of moral compass from the position of complete ignorance.

Now, could you imagine if PurpleKnight picks a god, lets say the Shia Muslim version of Allah and now feels justified to impose this GOD GIVEN morality on to you? Perhaps via electing officials that will pass laws that are deamed worthy from the said God.

Let's pick a god and go with it is to only pretend to know morality IMO.

Atheism itself doesn't appear to influence moral choices at all.

I'm not sure how not believing in a god concept would influence morals. That would be a very odd expectation.

Theism however, adds the notion of an influencing god-mind into the mix, which allows for some progress to be made towards doing things because it is good to do those things, rather than for the sake of - even survival, or because a supposed mindless process allows for it.

Except for when humans pretend that these morals are justified because they come from a god.
Then we get genocide, slavery and murder as being acceptable when such things are not. How is it even possible that I know genocide, slavery and murder is wrong when I don't have a god concept to claim as justification for such things? Surely that suggest that this can be done without the gods.

[Clownboat]

Here is the options, God exist and has established truths that include justice, right and wrong and morality, and God made all people and all people ought to understand such values.

What god concept are we to assume provided the correct morals and how did you arrive at this conclusion?
Should we be stoning homosexuals?

[William]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #136]

Meantime, even with the addition, Atheism's only role is to lack belief in gods. It has nothing to do with defining morality or preventing irrational rules or morality based on some arbitrary belief about pleasing a non existent being.

Ideally it would do that.

Atheism is not an ideal. It is simply a lack of belief in gods.

I agree with Diogenes. Ideally lacking a belief in gods would prevent people from falling back on those gods as a reason for morality that can't be disputed and justifying any random belief.

Atheism is not an ideal. It is simply a lack of belief in gods.

Ideally this would force people to think and have good, reasonable reasons for moral rules.

Because atheism is not an ideal, but simply a lack of belief in gods, as a position it doesn't hold any idealist ideals of idealism.

What is an ideal?
satisfying one's conception of what is perfect; most suitable.
existing only in the imagination; desirable or perfect but not likely to become a reality.
a person or thing regarded as perfect.

But it doesn't do that because people don't want to think.

No. Atheism doesn't do that because that is not what atheism does. Atheism doesn't do anything. It is simply a lack of belief in gods.

One can and should argue along the lines of "well if atheism doesn't do those things, what is it that can do and is doing those things?"

Skepticism? Perhaps. But skepticism can still close up peoples mindsets if it is used incorrectly - say as a device for maintaining an anti-theist position...skepticism then becomes a misused application.

But it doesn't do that because people don't want to think. Instead of redefining the reasons why we ought not to murder in terms of rationality and logic, people replaced "don't murder because God said not to" with "don't murder because of course don't murder what is wrong with you everybody knows don't murder." In other words, we replaced "because God" with "you can't ask that question, dummy."

I only wish most people advocating that we don't have to have the answer to why murder is wrong were as forthright about it as Brunumb. He flat-out says, we don't need to know the answer to why something is morally wrong, it just is. I respect that.

If only it were that simple.

That is idealistic.

For example, "thou shalt not kill" also doesn't explain why murder is wrong. The best a rule/law can achieve is to get us thinking - as individuals - about why 'thou shalt not' - not for the purpose of finding loopholes or for finding justifications for when and where 'thou shalt kill' but there is no known position anyone can adopt re the positions available re the questions of GOD or existing within a created thing, which have shown us conclusively, why thou shalt not. "Just because" is not to be confused with being the answer.

From my currently preferred position [currently because it allows for the potential to change] Agnostic Neutral gives me the best opportunity to stay the straight and narrow course while being ready to come to a stop as the rocks of reason present themselves in my path.

For example - the ideal you presented, and to which I agreed with;

PK: I would prefer some god existed and bequeathed us with universal morality.

I think that this is a perfectly valid point while Diogenes thinks it is "sad" and explains why.

Diogenes: We do not need a 'God' to tell us some universal morality. We already have it. We have evolved to believe in a universal morality. This has happened thru natural selection.

While I think the argument Diogenes gives re evolution is valid, I also understand that the questions of GOD and existing in a created thing are also valid, even that some minds have sorted themselves in a group which believes in something which has not yet been validated.

That in turn gets me wondering about where such belief stems from, and because Diogenes appears to be what folk refer to as "an atheist" I check out the definition of Atheism, only to discover that it is simply the lack of belief in gods, which technically include Human babies and AI
and even Agnostic Neutrals, I find nothing therein which could motivate anyone to believe that we do not need a 'God' to tell us some universal morality.

So, if the belief isn't coming from Atheism directly, where is is coming from?

I have meet minds who openly boast that they are anti-theists and have no qualms about making that clear to minds around them.
Because of these encounters, I have been able to identify that this belief does not [cannot] come from the position of atheism. It comes from the position of anti-theism.

While this can and does cause confusion among the theists - especially the religious ones - that is here nor there re the agenda of anti-theists, because they will use any method to confuse the enemy.

[Theists do well to avoid those particular rocks, but not all succeed.]

Agnostic Neutrals do better, in that we come to a full stop, and listen to what those rocks are saying, and whether what is said, is reasonable and thus valid.

This may be because the positions [anti-theism and Agnostic Neutral] have something in common. Both lack belief in gods.

The difficulty I am having is that the ideal "I would prefer some god existed and bequeathed us with universal morality." and the response "We do not need a 'God' to tell us some universal morality." after first writing "This is sad.", doesn't tickle the dragons tail sufficiently for me to change from lacking belief in gods, to actively fighting for a world that has no theism in it - "ideally speaking", for that is the ultimate point such an agenda as anti-theism can arrive at.

However, I would also tweak "I would prefer some god existed and bequeathed us with universal morality." to "I would prefer some god existed and that is the reason why we developed morality.", which is - admittedly - a different kettle of fish, so I have empathy for the anti-theist dislike for wishful thinking re the 'bequeathing" bit, because it infers such hasn't already been "bequeathed" already through the process of natural selection and DNA and blah blah blah...

So, my ship is still at Full Stop...but the engine is chugging away, keen to get on with its journey along the path of Agnostic Neutralism, on the waves of the Great-ish Sea of Human Experience.

[William]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #143]

Now, could you imagine if PurpleKnight picks a god, lets say the Shia Muslim version of Allah and now feels justified to impose this GOD GIVEN morality on to you? Perhaps via electing officials that will pass laws that are deamed worthy from the said God.

Let's pick a god and go with it is to only pretend to know morality IMO.

The position of Agnostic Neutral agrees that this would not be ideal. I do no think that is what PK is arguing though.

Atheism itself doesn't appear to influence moral choices at all.

I'm not sure how not believing in a god concept would influence morals. That would be a very odd expectation.

Exactly.

Theism however, adds the notion of an influencing god-mind into the mix, which allows for some progress to be made towards doing things because it is good to do those things, rather than for the sake of - even survival, or because a supposed mindless process allows for it.

Except for when humans pretend that these morals are justified because they come from a god.
Then we get genocide, slavery and murder as being acceptable when such things are not. How is it even possible that I know genocide, slavery and murder is wrong when I don't have a god concept to claim as justification for such things? Surely that suggest that this can be done without the gods.

In the position of Agnostic Neutralism, I recognize the difference between theism and religious idealism. This helps me to also understand that being anti-theist is not an expression of atheism - strictly speaking.

Indeed, it is plausible that in the ideal world anti-theism points to, such rules of morality that [as you point out] employ genocide, slavery and murder as being acceptable when such things are not, could be twisted to suit the effort to rid the world of theists.

Slippery slopes either way, and historically hard to see the difference in activity from either theism or anti-theism.

Lines get blurred, and I am focused upon keeping my vision as clear as possible. I can lack belief in gods, and not have to be anti-theist about it.

[Purple Knight]

However, I would also tweak "I would prefer some god existed and bequeathed us with universal morality." to "I would prefer some god existed and that is the reason why we developed morality.", which is - admittedly - a different kettle of fish, so I have empathy for the anti-theist dislike for wishful thinking re the 'bequeathing" bit, because it infers such hasn't already been "bequeathed" already through the process of natural selection and DNA and blah blah blah...

Honestly I prefer it to be dictatorial. I prefer to know exactly where my rights come from and how much of them I get so I can defend them. Mere reasons we develop morality allow those reasons to be reinterpreted to serve the reinterpreter. And then I just have to do whatever he says because, since I don't have a solid basis for my rights, I can't in good conscience defend them. Someone will argue he can cut off my limbs because we developed morality for this reason and that reason so it turns out cutting off my leg is righteous. And then I just have to let him have it, unless I have an airtight logical defence he accepts.

[William]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #147]

Best get about finding that airtight reason. What position do you think would best serve you in this quest?

[brunumb]

However, I would also tweak "I would prefer some god existed and bequeathed us with universal morality." to "I would prefer some god existed and that is the reason why we developed morality.", which is - admittedly - a different kettle of fish, so I have empathy for the anti-theist dislike for wishful thinking re the 'bequeathing" bit, because it infers such hasn't already been "bequeathed" already through the process of natural selection and DNA and blah blah blah...

Honestly I prefer it to be dictatorial. I prefer to know exactly where my rights come from and how much of them I get so I can defend them. Mere reasons we develop morality allow those reasons to be reinterpreted to serve the reinterpreter. And then I just have to do whatever he says because, since I don't have a solid basis for my rights, I can't in good conscience defend them. Someone will argue he can cut off my limbs because we developed morality for this reason and that reason so it turns out cutting off my leg is righteous. And then I just have to let him have it, unless I have an airtight logical defence he accepts.

I thought this might be of interest to you Purple Knight (and others of course):

[Shem Yoshi]

But if scientific materialism is true, and the physical world is all there is, and humans consciousness is nothing more then a brain fizzing with chemicals... Then what does it matter what you believe?

A lot, if it means demonising certain groups of people, restricting their human rights, encouraging hate and even the killing of some people. Religious belief is not as benign as you might like to think it is. For example, hop across to Nigeria where believers are killing people believed to be witches. Maybe flying planes into buildings because your god says it's a good thing doesn't really matter.

Even if we are just brains fizzing with chemicals (enough already) we are still thinking, feeling and caring beings who deserve to live out whatever life we have in the best way possible.

For clarification... Do you believe abortion is ok?

I am not opposed to abortion.

Well like your opinion that aborting fetus's is ok, I suppose Nigeria believes killing witches is ok.

Nope. Not Nigeria. Christian pastors and believers in Nigeria. There is a big difference between a fetus and a person accused of being a witch.

Well i would like to point out "Nigeria" was still a correct description of the people. And just to clarify, killing witches can be shown to go against Christ teachings (John 8 and the New Testament as a whole), no matter if they identify as Christians or not.

But even if that is so (and do please explain how John 8 teaches not to kill witches),

It seems to be that the death penalty for sins against laws of Moses were taken away by Jesus Christ. This is clearly illustrated in John 8:1-11, for a law that would sentence someone to death was committed, and Jesus rightfully pointed out that no one was in the right to condemn as all are guilty (“Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.”~Jesus, John 8:7), and it just so happen that the one person who could throw a stone, Jesus, instead forgave the woman and said "Go sin no more"... And this is reflected throughout the New Testament as well, for example the sins Paul brought up at the end of Romans 1 that "deserve death", are met with the conviction in Romans 2 and 3 that all are guilty, and then Grace is spoken of...

It seems to be that Christianity brought in a forgiveness of sins that deserved death, and an understanding that all are guilty even the accusers. For example by the laws of Moses everyone on the planet is guilt of death every week. We can see this in work on the Sabbath, which is a death sentence. The laws of Moses sentenced to death anyone who works on the Sabbath, and in modern Orthodox Judaism "work" is come down to a scientific term, like that cant drive their cars on the sabbath because it is "work" in a scientific term.

Well "work" in science is defined as a Force times a Distance equals Work (F*D=W), for example picking up something that has weight is picking up a force and moving it some distance, that is work. Well everyone who gets out of bed on Saturday is doing work, lifting their body up out of bed.

By the laws of Moses all are condemned to death. Jesus was the price of that death sentence, a pardon for sin being the "lamb of God", and the era of Grace was ushered in through Christianity. There is nothing in Christianity that suggest the death penalty of sin is not paid for, and should be carried out. Christianity is the forgiveness of those sins.

So i dont think any Christian killing people by the laws of Moses is justified, and Christ showed this himself in John 8:1-11, and on the cross and the Resurrection (like Luke 24:47).

If we lived by the laws of Moses, everyone would be sentenced to death every week, Jesus fulfilled those laws and forgave sins. Not to mention the laws of Moses require a sacrifice, which was Christ and is no more.

it is better to be an atheist because (as a basis of Thought) atheism as a mindset goes with rationality, skepticism and reason and thus,does not credit supernatural, Alternative science and magical claims, so killing witches would not be a Thing (though debunking them as rationality debunks dowsing, astrology and crop circles as well as miracles, religion and Gods from outer Space, would be) that it would have to disclaim as nothing to do with us and not our fault.

Just because atheism doesn't believe in supernatural things, doesn't mean they dont exist. You are just picking Mountain Dew over Dr. Pepper... And the truth is, is that western civilization doesnt believe in killing those who break Mosaic laws because Jesus Christ ushered in the new era, it certainly isnt because atheism, which is more or less a modern thing... The values of Christianity are those that built the west, and i believe you are piggybacking off those values when you bring up these issues that everyone agrees about, like not killing witches.

None the less, just because you barrow Christian values, you also discredit supernatural things, but just becuase you dont believe in supernatural things, like for example the evilness and deception of Satan, it certainly doesnt mean those things dont exist.

Further more, on materialism, as i have been discussing in the thread, there is no real reason to adopt objective values, like it is wrong to kill woman you disagree with. People kill woman all the time, and even the government sentences people to death all the time, and on materialism (that rejects the supernatural) there is no reason to adopt objective values.

You suggest it is wrong to kill witches, but what if someone simply disagrees with you? You wont point to Christ who says no one can throw a stone.

You say that is wrong, but what if they say YOU are wrong?

Mountain Dew or Dr. Pepper?