The Joy of Atheism

[Jagella]

Christian apologists like William Lane Craig and Ravi Zacharias like to tell people that life without God (the Christian God) is absurd and without a moral basis. It will lead to immorality and social disruption. It will harm the individual in this life and especially in the supposed hereafter. Society itself will crumble without the ties that only God can provide.

Allow me to give my own version of what it's like to live without God which in a very real sense is the life we all live although many of us may not realize it.

I was a born-again, Pentecostal Christian in the mid 1980s. I read the Bible believing everything it said, I prayed, I exercised faith, I regularly attended church, and I eagerly looked forward to meeting Jesus "in the air" to leave this sinful earth and to live forever with Jesus in paradise.

Something was wrong, however. I kept having these feelings that what I was believing wasn't true, and that I was crazy for believing it. My life as a Christian went from good to bad as I saw the hypocrisy of my fellow Christians and the failure of prayer. The miracles I read about in the Bible seemed to belong to another world and surely not this world. I learned that the faith healers were fake stealers ripping off poor, old, and sick people. Perhaps worst of all was the terrible thoughts I had that all those non-Christian people in the world were destined for eternity in a lake of fire if they didn't repent and believe the gospel.

Like I feared, I started having some emotional problems. I became angry toward people especially those Christians I began to see as hypocrites and sinners. One night I remember having a nightmare about God. I was in a misty void, and I called out: "Is that you, Lord?" I woke up with a shudder. I told my pastor about the nightmare and that before my mind goes Christianity goes.

Christianity soon went, all right. I studied my Bible, and I was beginning to find errors in it. I discovered contradictions, false prophecies, and worst of all atrocities ordered by God. My pastor was unable to provide any good explanation for them. Finally one day it dawned on me that there's just no way that the claims of Christianity are true. The God of the Bible cannot exist--it's logically impossible.

I soon found myself an atheist. Gone forever was that invisible monster in the sky and all his little monsters. The lake of fire was a myth used to frighten fools into belief. It was a lie--the biggest lie ever inflicted on humankind. I was so lucky to be free of that evil, the evil that never again haunted my dreams.

So my becoming an atheist is the best thing I've ever done. I love being free of the gods and the ridiculous myths that liars use to try to make them seem real. It's so much better being the best person I can think of being.

So as for all of you, why not join me in freedom from the gods and religion? Stay home Sunday mornings and get some good sleep. When you get up, have a good breakfast. If you have a partner, invite him or her over for a nice visit. Order some pizza, crack open a beer or softdrink, pop a good movie into the DVD player--maybe a good porn flick--and enjoy yourself. If you're both consenting adults, then have some great sex together. It doesn't matter what kind of sex; it can be straight, gay, or lesbian. Just make sure to have a good time and make the best out of this one short life we all have.

There's so much more I can tell you about living as an atheist, but for now let me ask...

Why not join us and experience the joy of atheism?

[Jagella]

[Replying to post 1 by Jagella]

Why not join us and experience the joy of atheism?

Because the rational case for atheism is found wanting.

In that case I'll start believing in Thor. That way I will no longer be an irrational atheist! I will be so much more logical as I look to the sky listening for Thor's hammer.

[Jagella]

[Replying to post 57 by AgnosticBoy]

You have no proof that no gods exist based on the type of argument that you provided. Your argument is inductive. Of course it relies on some evidence of which some of it is valid and some of it may not be.

I'm not sure why you have a problem with inductive logic. It's possible that error can result from objective logic. Is that your main reason for rejecting inductive logic? Is it safe to say that you do not use inductive logic?

But it does not preclude the possibility that new evidence may come up and show that the conclusion is wrong.

Do you then reject Einstein's Theory of Relativity because it's possible that some day we might discover matter than moves faster than light? All those experiments that demonstrate Einstein's theory does not convince you?

There's always room for new evidence and with that new evidence may come non-physical and/or supernatural phenomenon.

Sure, and if we ever have that evidence, I will adjust my thinking accordingly.

Now of course, I don't completely rule out that there may be something completely non-physical/omnipotent out there, but I'd even consider an advanced civilization (much more advanced than us) to be gods.

If you're going to describe "gods" as ETs, then I might say that they're very possible.

[AgnosticBoy]

I'm not sure why you have a problem with inductive logic. It's possible that error can result from objective logic. Is that your main reason for rejecting inductive logic? Is it safe to say that you do not use inductive logic?

Inductive logic doesn't necessarily equal "objective logic" because the premises are not always based on scientific observations or evidence. Either way, my problem is not with induction but rather it's with you using it as proof. Induction is not about 100% certainty or proof.

Do you then reject Einstein's Theory of Relativity because it's possible that some day we might discover matter than moves faster than light? All those experiments that demonstrate Einstein's theory does not convince you?

Again, I don't reject any conclusion or view simply because it's based on inductive logic. I only reject your claim that inductive conclusions are proof.


The problem here is that you're not factoring in that there different levels of certainty.

There's always room for new evidence and with that new evidence may come non-physical and/or supernatural phenomenon.

Sure, and if we ever have that evidence, I will adjust my thinking accordingly.

Now of course, I don't completely rule out that there may be something completely non-physical/omnipotent out there, but I'd even consider an advanced civilization (much more advanced than us) to be gods.

If you're going to describe "gods" as ETs, then I might say that they're very possible.[/quote]

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 1 by Jagella]

Christian apologists like William Lane Craig and Ravi Zacharias like to tell people that life without God (the Christian God) is absurd and without a moral basis. It will lead to immorality and social disruption.

They aren't alone. The old school atheists like Nietzsche pointed this out as well. Nietzsche knew that the alternative was to make ourselves gods, and that would created some problems; not the least of which was who would decide what was right and what was wrong? The assumption here is that you don't agree with them, but then you say:

pop a good movie into the DVD player--maybe a good porn flick--and enjoy yourself. If you're both consenting adults, then have some great sex together. It doesn't matter what kind of sex; it can be straight, gay, or lesbian. Just make sure to have a good time and make the best out of this one short life we all have.

Yes, live for yourself and whatever pleasure you can glean from life regardless of whether the person is married or not; regardless of whether it will destroy their marriage or not. regardless of whether it could be just one more vector for the spread of disease or not. That's what it means to say,

Just make sure to have a good time...etc.

Now I know what a lot of people would say to that. They would say that I'm trying to point out that there can be no moral standard without God. Nothing could be further from the truth. You claim that you were disgusted with the hypocrisy within the church, but then you don't seem to have a problem with it if you've dispatched religious beliefs to the trash. The implication is that there really isn't anything wrong with any of this, right? If that's the case, then there will necessarily be a loss of morality and social disruption. You just don't care, nor do I. I couldn't care less, but then I'm not the one who thinks these Christians and those few intelligent atheists don't know what they're talking about. They plainly do and your post supports those claims.

Your description of peering into a misty void, and calling out to God is not unusual among mystics, although they tend to stick around to see what they're able to receive from the Void. While the experience can be terrifying, those who are ready for a real adventure don't run to their pastor for instruction on what to do, or how to proceed.

So now, instead of having your mind go prior to Christianity, you now get to watch your mind go after Christianity; it doesn't seem like much of an improvement, but hey, if you enjoy what you're doing, that's all that really matters right?

Just remember that psychopaths, sociopaths, cannibals etc. all enjoy what they're doing too...

[Jagella]

[Replying to post 62 by shnarkle]

Yes, live for yourself and whatever pleasure you can glean from life regardless of whether the person is married or not; regardless of whether it will destroy their marriage or not.

Some marriages ought to be destroyed. If people are unhappy in their marriages, then they should divorce and seek a new partner. (Not necessarily in that order.) Maybe Jesus had this idea in mind when he said: "I have not come to bring peace, but a sword...and one’s foes will be members of one’s own household."

Jesus was no advocate of family values, now was he?

regardless of whether it could be just one more vector for the spread of disease or not.

Everybody should practice safe sex. I recommend the use of condoms if you're not sure about your partner. Condoms can save lives.

The implication is that there really isn't anything wrong with any of this, right?

I say let people decide what's right and wrong. That's what we do anyway in our legislatures and courts. Biblical "morality" is simply no longer relevant. We no longer stone to death people who work on Saturday. As we evolve, our morals evolve along with us. Happily we've left the barbarism of all those religious loonies behind.

If that's the case, then there will necessarily be a loss of morality and social disruption.

Actually, from a moral standpoint we're getting better. We've forsaken slavery and segregation, for one thing. Women have also attained rights they never had before. Do you have a problem with racial minorities and women advancing in society, or should we just go back to the good ol' days of protestant white men having all the advantages?

You just don't care, nor do I. I couldn't care less, but then I'm not the one who thinks these Christians and those few intelligent atheists don't know what they're talking about. They plainly do and your post supports those claims.

You will see more of those posts!

Your description of peering into a misty void, and calling out to God is not unusual among mystics, although they tend to stick around to see what they're able to receive from the Void. While the experience can be terrifying, those who are ready for a real adventure don't run to their pastor for instruction on what to do, or how to proceed.

Sorry, but I don't want to relive the nightmares Christianity gave to me.

...if you enjoy what you're doing, that's all that really matters right?

Not really. Social justice, education, and peace mean a lot to me too.

Just remember that psychopaths, sociopaths, cannibals etc. all enjoy what they're doing too...

Take, eat; this is my body...Drink from it, all of you; for this is my blood...

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 62 by shnarkle]

Yes, live for yourself and whatever pleasure you can glean from life regardless of whether the person is married or not; regardless of whether it will destroy their marriage or not.

Some marriages ought to be destroyed.

Ought? I thought you were done with all that preaching nonsense.

If people are unhappy in their marriages, then they should divorce and seek a new partner.

Should? Sounds like you've gone from the frying pan into the fire, dude.

Jesus was no advocate of family values, now was he?

That's a question that only someone quite concerned with Jesus could ask. I thought you were done with all those nightmares.

regardless of whether it could be just one more vector for the spread of disease or not.

Everybody should practice safe sex.

Should? Hey if I wanted to hear a preacher, I'd go to church. Perhaps you've missed your calling. If so, a church would be the preferred venue for that kind of nonsense.

I recommend the use of condoms if you're not sure about your partner. Condoms can save lives.

Great, now it's about saving people. How about saving it for church, dude?

The implication is that there really isn't anything wrong with any of this, right?

I say let people decide what's right and wrong.

I say people don't have to decide if they don't want to. I say terms like "right" and "wrong" are for those who prefer to pass judgment on others, and while a church is probably the best place for that, one obviously doesn't need to go to church to pass judgment on others.

Biblical "morality" is simply no longer relevant.

Yeah, that boat sailed long ago along with individual morality and morality in general.

We no longer stone to death people who work on Saturday.

No, we stone people for no reason whatsoever. We walk into churches and blow as many people away as we can. If you're looking for a good reason to stay away from a church, there's the best one I can think of.

As we evolve, our morals evolve along with us.

Until we can discard them altogether. They're a relic from a forgotten and primitive past.

Happily we've left the barbarism of all those religious loonies behind.

Except for those few tragic souls that can't seem to stop talking about them.

If that's the case, then there will necessarily be a loss of morality and social disruption.

Actually, from a moral standpoint we're getting better.

Only insofar as we've become non moral.

We've forsaken slavery and segregation, for one thing.

Uh, no dude, we still have both. Being forced to work for someone else against your will is slavery and it's been the law of the land for a while now. Segregation is also quite common today. Our prison population is growing by leaps and bounds and they're routinely segregated from society at large as well as within the system. We segregate children in schools by grades. We segregate children from adults. We segregate women from men, although in some cases that's changing. Why they chose a bathroom for the venue of their first battle is a bit baffling though.

Women have also attained rights they never had before. Do you have a problem with racial minorities and women advancing in society,

if that were true they wouldn't be rioting for being segregated out of society by a lack of employment opportunities, gentrification, racism, etc. The problem lies within those who are so insulated from women and minorities they get all their information from online or the mass media telling them that everything is better now that we've passed all these laws; might as well be back in some silly church thanking God that we're all equal now.

or should we just go back to the good ol' days of protestant white men having all the advantages?

We never left those good ol' days.

...if you enjoy what you're doing, that's all that really matters right?

Not really. Social justice, education, and peace mean a lot to me too.

Could have fooled me.

Just remember that psychopaths, sociopaths, cannibals etc. all enjoy what they're doing too...

Take, eat; this is my body...Drink from it, all of you; for this is my blood...

[/quote]

I should have added people who've never taken a liturature class as well.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 64 by shnarkle]


Moderator Comment

The tone of your post is uncivil. You may be making some very good points in post #64 here, but it's hard to tell buried beneath all the sarcasm.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Jagella]

[Replying to post 64 by shnarkle]

We've forsaken slavery and segregation, for one thing.

Uh, no dude, we still have both. Being forced to work for someone else against your will is slavery and it's been the law of the land for a while now. Segregation is also quite common today. Our prison population is growing by leaps and bounds and they're routinely segregated from society at large as well as within the system. We segregate children in schools by grades. We segregate children from adults. We segregate women from men, although in some cases that's changing. Why they chose a bathroom for the venue of their first battle is a bit baffling though.

You have a point there, but let's just say that segregation is much less severe than it used to be and that slavery has been abolished in developed countries. So contrary to what religious doom-sayers have to say about modern morality, we are actually better off today than in the past.

As for "preaching" right and wrong, it's a common misconception that atheists don't have ideas of right and wrong. We do have our moral ideas; it's just that we often disagree with religiously-based moral ideas.

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 64 by shnarkle]

We've forsaken slavery and segregation, for one thing.

Uh, no dude, we still have both. Being forced to work for someone else against your will is slavery and it's been the law of the land for a while now. Segregation is also quite common today. Our prison population is growing by leaps and bounds and they're routinely segregated from society at large as well as within the system. We segregate children in schools by grades. We segregate children from adults. We segregate women from men, although in some cases that's changing. Why they chose a bathroom for the venue of their first battle is a bit baffling though.

You have a point there, but let's just say that segregation is much less severe than it used to be and that slavery has been abolished in developed countries.

You can say what you want, but saying it won't change the facts. Segregation is nowhere near less severe. The only differences are in what our laws state and in what regards they are stated. Racial segregation is against the law, but the fact is that there are still plenty of organizations that discriminate and segregate based upon race, e.g. NAACP, BET, etc. Segregation isn't restricted to race either. There's gender segregation, financial segregation etc. Walk into any establishment that requires money wihtout any and you'll soon find yourself being escorted to the door. Gender specific bathrooms are becoming less of an issue and the battle lines are being drawn now up in Canada as well as in a number of university campuses in the US to erase the lines which identity or distinguish the male from the female, e.g. gender specific pronouns etc. Even so, women are still prevented from competing in drag queen contests, men's sporting events and vice versa.

Slavery is alive and well in first world countries as is evidenced by the high demand for human trafficking as well as the slave labor force the US employs from Central And South America. In addition to those blatant examples the US now forces people to not only associate with, but work against their will; for those they don't want to associate with in the first place. This is the law of the land.

How is this possible? Because there is no essential change in what constitutes slavery. What has changed are the prejudices and criteria of the collective morality of the country. In other words, those who are a part of the priveledged class have changed, at least in theory. In practice, things are effectively the same. When anyone has to work against their will, they are a slave. I'm not referring to the prison population here, but to private individuals employed or running their own businesses.

The farther one looks back in time the more they will find that they no longer have the freedoms they had back then. Try walking in and out of the US without a passport. Try driving around without a seatbelt, driver's license, insurance, registration. etc. Try working or running a business without a license from the state. Try not paying property taxes for a while and you will find out who really owns "your" home. You are granted a place to live is solely at the discretion of the State which can be revoked at any time. We've simply transfered our enslavement, morality, ethics, etc. from the Church to the State.

So contrary to what religious doom-sayers have to say about modern morality, we are actually better off today than in the past.

An assertion in need of proof, and btw, I'm not a religious doom sayer either. I"m not religious nor am I a doom sayer.

As for "preaching" right and wrong, it's a common misconception that atheists don't have ideas of right and wrong.

I'm not working under that assumption.

We do have our moral ideas; it's just that we often disagree with religiously-based moral ideas.

Ah, yes it would seem that there are those who disagree with the religiuos simply because they're religious, which isn't much of a reason, but more of a form of admitted prejudice. The problem with disagreeing with a moral idea which has a standard that transcends our ideas of right and wrong, is that the one we're admittedly replacing it with can't be any better. We simply assign a value to something and assert it is as a given. It isn't, and it can't be proven either, or we would have done it long ago.

I honestly couldn't care less if someone is religious or not. I'm more interested in what they're actually doing and why. Labels mean nothing to me especially when one can see how misleading they can be to those who are incapable of critical thought. I'm not suggesting that you fit that description. This isn't directed at you personally.

[Jagella]

[Replying to post 67 by shnarkle]

The farther one looks back in time the more they will find that they no longer have the freedoms they had back then. Try walking in and out of the US without a passport. Try driving around without a seatbelt, driver's license, insurance, registration. etc. Try working or running a business without a license from the state. Try not paying property taxes for a while and you will find out who really owns "your" home. You are granted a place to live is solely at the discretion of the State which can be revoked at any time. We've simply transfered our enslavement, morality, ethics, etc. from the Church to the State.

I certainly agree that there are many very serious injustices in the world, but nevertheless we have made very significant progress in mitigating those injustices. We no longer have slavery in America, of course, and the "whites only" public places are gone. Even violence, contrary to popular opinion, is down according to some people like Steven Pinker.

...I'm not a religious doom sayer either. I"m not religious nor am I a doom sayer.

Good, but you do seem to hold opinions they do.

Ah, yes it would seem that there are those who disagree with the religiuos simply because they're religious, which isn't much of a reason, but more of a form of admitted prejudice.

I disagree with much of what religion claims because after 30+ years of studying what they say, I've found that not only is what they say wrong factually, it is very often wrong in a moral sense. People get hurt. I don't like that. I want it to stop.

The problem with disagreeing with a moral idea which has a standard that transcends our ideas of right and wrong, is that the one we're admittedly replacing it with can't be any better.

I've replaced moral standards with better ways of acting ethically. It's not hard at all. Just use the ol' noggin.

Labels mean nothing to me especially when one can see how misleading they can be to those who are incapable of critical thought. I'm not suggesting that you fit that description. This isn't directed at you personally.

If I am incapable of critical thought, as you are obviously implying, then that fact has nothing to do with what we're discussing. I could be the most uncritical thinker in the world, but that doesn't mean that we're not better off morally nowadays.

But hey, there's nothing like delivering a good hard slap to the face of those we disagree with to make one feel better!