Some questions to the "atheists/non-believers"
- Thread starter Aldebaran
- Start date
Confidence in your god gives you confidence in your ability to influence events. And that helps you deal with them.
But confidence in the power of yourself and your ability to deal with events also helps you deal with them.
They both give you confidence... and they both give you hope.
So it seems that it doesn't really matter what you believe... as long as you really believe it.
But confidence in the power of yourself and your ability to deal with events also helps you deal with them.
They both give you confidence... and they both give you hope.
So it seems that it doesn't really matter what you believe... as long as you really believe it.
To elaborate on something I earlier started.
Religion is a mechanism of handing down your insecurities and placing it in the form an impossible figurehead, that through following settles your problems. There is nothing wrong with this, this works for millions, much like the concept of money: incoming vs. outgoing and finding a balance where you favour the increase of incoming.
Since "most" all religions seem to at some point derive themselves from the old testament, which essentially is a user manual on how to conduct yourself socially amungst others in a somewhat draconian manner; it is my believe that a long time ago, a bunch of wise men decided: "Hey, why don't we formulate an organic system for manipulating and controlling the masses in a conscientious manner that helps them as individuals grow". Obviously, this isn't really how it happened but something on those lines. After several centuries of the stories being told around fires, the stories began to drift astray from eachother, geographically; placing emphasis on certain parts from the original, because it was their (story teller's) opinion that more weight should be applied on such matters. Eventually, the wise people who formulated such a concept no longer existed and their legacy only existed in folk stories handed down, of who this god guy is and what he does.
I could rant on for days about this, but I'm sure I'd have some obnoxious person cherry-pick quotes, passing their idle humour upon my opinion.
Background history: I have been brought up part of my life in a roman catholic society with much involvement in church activities. The rest of my life I have spent learning about other faiths and religions. I un-endlessly find it interesting to learn about new cultures. However, I do not find it interesting to be mocked for my lack of faith or my opinions, now seeing the distinct similarities between different faiths and seeing the transparency in the whole god figure.
In retrospect, I envy those who have simple lives feeling that warmth in hope given by following a god figure. Although, I now see that there is no such thing and I am discomforted by curiosity.
Religion is a mechanism of handing down your insecurities and placing it in the form an impossible figurehead, that through following settles your problems. There is nothing wrong with this, this works for millions, much like the concept of money: incoming vs. outgoing and finding a balance where you favour the increase of incoming.
Since "most" all religions seem to at some point derive themselves from the old testament, which essentially is a user manual on how to conduct yourself socially amungst others in a somewhat draconian manner; it is my believe that a long time ago, a bunch of wise men decided: "Hey, why don't we formulate an organic system for manipulating and controlling the masses in a conscientious manner that helps them as individuals grow". Obviously, this isn't really how it happened but something on those lines. After several centuries of the stories being told around fires, the stories began to drift astray from eachother, geographically; placing emphasis on certain parts from the original, because it was their (story teller's) opinion that more weight should be applied on such matters. Eventually, the wise people who formulated such a concept no longer existed and their legacy only existed in folk stories handed down, of who this god guy is and what he does.
I could rant on for days about this, but I'm sure I'd have some obnoxious person cherry-pick quotes, passing their idle humour upon my opinion.
Background history: I have been brought up part of my life in a roman catholic society with much involvement in church activities. The rest of my life I have spent learning about other faiths and religions. I un-endlessly find it interesting to learn about new cultures. However, I do not find it interesting to be mocked for my lack of faith or my opinions, now seeing the distinct similarities between different faiths and seeing the transparency in the whole god figure.
In retrospect, I envy those who have simple lives feeling that warmth in hope given by following a god figure. Although, I now see that there is no such thing and I am discomforted by curiosity.
scathed said:
If there is no such thing as a god figure then why do you refer to yourself as having a "lack of faith"?
If that's how you feel then maybe it's not curiosity that discomforts you... but the search for something to have faith in?
frogwoman
No amount of cajolery...
excellent post
and i think one leads to the other (if u believe) like, if you believe in yourself and are confident, you are more likely to think that G-d is on "your side" and will help you..and likewise if u have a strong faith u're gonna be more likely to believe that you can accomplish things by yourself through what G-d's given you
of course if you're an atheist that doesnt really apply but it could do for whatever they find important, like whatever gives them fulfillment and happiness - like if you have people you trust with anything and have confidence in, you're more likely to have confidence in yourself...
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
inflatable jesus said:
I'm fine with it up to the point where they start burning unbelievers at the stake.
frogwoman
No amount of cajolery...
yeah but thats a very extreme example and you know full well most religious people aren't like that
im fine with atheists as long as they dont say im deluded or whatever or make bullshit assumptions that i have low self esteem and use religion as a crutch or have a mental illness or hate them or something.
which is all things that i read regularly on this site and moreover the people doing it often seem to be really self rightious and angry about it, and it seems like they have issues that go way beyond religion. you can believe whatever you want as long as you don't try and make me feel bad for believing something different or try and push your crap down my throat, and that goes for ANYONE.
im fine with atheists as long as they dont say im deluded or whatever or make bullshit assumptions that i have low self esteem and use religion as a crutch or have a mental illness or hate them or something.
which is all things that i read regularly on this site and moreover the people doing it often seem to be really self rightious and angry about it, and it seems like they have issues that go way beyond religion. you can believe whatever you want as long as you don't try and make me feel bad for believing something different or try and push your crap down my throat, and that goes for ANYONE.
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
frogwoman said:
No, it's more of a metaphor for where absolutist beliefs tend to lead.
inflatable jesus
I used to be carried in the arms of cheerleaders
OrignalSinner
I think your quite correct in saying that religious belief is often a source of personal strength, and that confidence in one's convictions allows a person to acheive much.
What I'm not so convinced about is if we can consider this to be a good thing.
It's good for the person themselves, but rarely for the people around them. There are countless examples of people who unflinching belief in the rightness of their actions that have caused misery and pain for everyone affected by them.
That's one reason why I think religious convictions should always be examined critically. There is a very real danger that they will lead to foolish actions if they are not.
I think your quite correct in saying that religious belief is often a source of personal strength, and that confidence in one's convictions allows a person to acheive much.
What I'm not so convinced about is if we can consider this to be a good thing.
It's good for the person themselves, but rarely for the people around them. There are countless examples of people who unflinching belief in the rightness of their actions that have caused misery and pain for everyone affected by them.
That's one reason why I think religious convictions should always be examined critically. There is a very real danger that they will lead to foolish actions if they are not.
frogwoman said:excellent post
and i think one leads to the other (if u believe) like, if you believe in yourself and are confident, you are more likely to think that G-d is on "your side" and will help you..and likewise if u have a strong faith u're gonna be more likely to believe that you can accomplish things by yourself through what G-d's given you
What about the countless unspeakable atrocities committed "with God on one's side"? Is confidence ok then? Nah. It leads to "blind" faith without considering consquences of action ("it's ok - God knows best and everything will work out fine in the end"). That's why religion should constantly be questioned, challenged and criticised.
If there's one God, how come he's happy to be Jesus in one religion and not in another. Is religion therefore dependent on your location in the world? Not good for an omnipresent being.
frogwoman
No amount of cajolery...
Nickster said:
well when atrocities are being committed you have to ask yourself whether its in accordance with moral values (which are the moral values that atheists as well as religious people hold) and which are central to the religion.
you have to ask yourself whether what is happening is committed due to a love of G-d or a greed for power and a desire to subjugate others. and you will find, that in most of the cases where people have been persecuted in the name of G-d that it is something to do with the person twisting the religion to justify their own doings, or worshipping something inside themselves that makes them feel that way, hate, fear and ignorance.
for people like that its never about loveing and serving G-d through helping other people and maintaining your self respect, it's about using religion to create an acceptable facade for YOUR own actions - it's "whatever helps you sleep at night".
one can use the example of communism, the fact that Stalin committed atrocities and murdered people doesn't mean communism is a bad idea or that it's wrong for people to aspire to that way of living, it means that Stalin was consumed by power and wanted to use the doctrines of communism to justify what he was doing.
umm no no no ... this is what people don't understand, it doesnt work that way at all
it's about the character of the person on the inside, whether they are a good person.
G-d doesn't mind whether you are an atheist or a hindu or a muslim or christian or whatever, he doesn't actually mind what you believe as long as you are a good person that helps other people.
im a jew, i dont eat pork, do certain things on the sabbath, i believe certain things, about historical events for instance, i go to synagogue, i try and follow g-d's teachings as much as i can, and i try and behave in a way that is acceptable to him, ie by helping other people out when they need it being a good friend, voluntary work, looking out for those i love, that sort of thing
now there might be a person thats a muslim, wears a headscarf etc, follows all the rules of their religion, believes in its doctrines, has faith in g-d and tries to behave in that same way ... does that mean that either one of us is better than the other or that one of us is right or wrong? no it doesn't.
G-d doesnt care whether we eat pork or whether we don't, or what objects we put in our houses to remind us of him, it doesn't matter how you worship him...and someone who denies his existence may be far closer to him than they can imagine, in the way that they behave towards other people
and self confidence is great but it also means the self confidence to admit that you're wrong and to be open minded about things, and willing to accept that other people do have other points of view, and not to feel threatened by it.
its really hard for people to understand this, and a lot of people don't but if they did it would sort out a lot of problems in the world !
frogwoman
No amount of cajolery...
having said that thoughts and beliefs do affect the way people behave.
if say someone was in a fundamentalist group that thought that there should be jihad in the uk (or something similar) well i don't think that you could say that they were religious in any way, since if they did take their religion seriously they would believe in all parts of it (like the ones that said don't kill and treat other people the way you'd like to be treated)
and you'd have to examine the reasons why they got that way ... but you can't blame the way those people think on religion alone imo.
if say someone was in a fundamentalist group that thought that there should be jihad in the uk (or something similar) well i don't think that you could say that they were religious in any way, since if they did take their religion seriously they would believe in all parts of it (like the ones that said don't kill and treat other people the way you'd like to be treated)
and you'd have to examine the reasons why they got that way ... but you can't blame the way those people think on religion alone imo.
inflatable jesus
I used to be carried in the arms of cheerleaders
There's a couple of things I disagree with there Frogwoman.
Firstly, I think it's inaccurate to say that 'true' position of Judaism is the hippy all-loving, it doesn't matter how you worship, so long as you're a good person aproach. Even if it is a popular one.
Certainly it's doesn't hold that much water to me when some sects of your religion believe that all contact with the gentiles should be avoided. Those sects may even have a greater claim to the title of 'true interpretation' of Judaism.
Also, even amongst the non-orthodox religious Jews, conversion to another religion still seems to be a gigantic taboo. I don't think that's really consistent with the 'it doesn't matter what you believe' line.
Secondly, and equally I don't think that the jihadi position is any less 'true' an interpretation of Islam than the friendly peace loving one. Again, from what I've read, the Qu'ran discusses at length the rules for a (military) jihad and when one can fight in one and they certainly don't strike me as particularly restrictive rules. It also seems to state quite clearly that jihad is the responsibility of all Muslims and that the grand plan is for a worldwide Muslim state with toleration for Christians and Jews as lesser citizens within it.
If there is an inconsistency between that and the moral rules about how a Muslim conducts himself, it's not a failure of interpretation. It's a failure of the text itself.
I probably don't need to add this disclaimer, or shouldn't anyway. But I'm not suggesting that all Muslims are raving mad suicide bombers, merely that their religion does not forbid them to be. I tend to think that the fact that most muslims seem to be reasonably decent people, is in spite of their religion rather than because of it. Same goes for Christians and jews, and probably everyone else.
Firstly, I think it's inaccurate to say that 'true' position of Judaism is the hippy all-loving, it doesn't matter how you worship, so long as you're a good person aproach. Even if it is a popular one.
Certainly it's doesn't hold that much water to me when some sects of your religion believe that all contact with the gentiles should be avoided. Those sects may even have a greater claim to the title of 'true interpretation' of Judaism.
Also, even amongst the non-orthodox religious Jews, conversion to another religion still seems to be a gigantic taboo. I don't think that's really consistent with the 'it doesn't matter what you believe' line.
Secondly, and equally I don't think that the jihadi position is any less 'true' an interpretation of Islam than the friendly peace loving one. Again, from what I've read, the Qu'ran discusses at length the rules for a (military) jihad and when one can fight in one and they certainly don't strike me as particularly restrictive rules. It also seems to state quite clearly that jihad is the responsibility of all Muslims and that the grand plan is for a worldwide Muslim state with toleration for Christians and Jews as lesser citizens within it.
If there is an inconsistency between that and the moral rules about how a Muslim conducts himself, it's not a failure of interpretation. It's a failure of the text itself.
I probably don't need to add this disclaimer, or shouldn't anyway. But I'm not suggesting that all Muslims are raving mad suicide bombers, merely that their religion does not forbid them to be. I tend to think that the fact that most muslims seem to be reasonably decent people, is in spite of their religion rather than because of it. Same goes for Christians and jews, and probably everyone else.
inflatable jesus said:
1. "jihad" is not only "military", aimed at fighting others. Jihad is in essence the very personal "war" against your human weakness.
2. The rules for the outward jihad are very restrictive. There is no permission for any attack on anyone unless they attacked you first. Furhtermore every fighting must stop as soon as teh other party stops.
NO IT DOES NOT. (sorry for caps, can't use bold etc.. since "scripts" are disabled.)
NO IT IS NOT.
YES IT DOES.
"Islam and suicidal terrorism:Analysing connections"
http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=152746
You may think what you want, but these are such biased uniformed statements that I don't even want to spend time to reply.
salaam.
OriginalSinner said:
No it absolutely does not. All relies on and depends of God. Believing in God does not give anybody any "power" over anything.
Has nothing to do with yes or no believing in God or with having yes or no a religion. Self-confidence is merely a question of self-knowledge.
salaam.
fudgefactorfive
New Member
Oh yes it does!
inflatable jesus said:
Valid in a secular society.
1. Allah/God is not a "being" and hence also not a "supernatural being".
2. Not only the "world". Everything.
Yes. Just like so many things can be made up and which peaple can choose to believe or not.
Food regulations are not a question of "not wanting" but were meant to contain warnings considering health risks. I can agree that many people completely forget/forgot about this or don't even know it.
Wrong.
I'm not informed about Buddhism or Sikhs. I don't think Buddhism is religion (to begin with) and furthermore I don't see anything "silly" in no matter which religion if it is aimed at worshipping the Creator of All.
You may find it tragic. Believers can find it tragical that you don't believe
I think my view on techniques and attitudes in order to be "the bigger man" largely differs from yours.
You can't challenge what you don't know about without coming across as uninformed and very superficial (at best).
If you don't want to make the effort or don't have the time to study such issues, you can always question them. An enterily different approach and attitude.
salaam.
fudgefactorfive
New Member
So this started off as some monotheist asking why atheists are defensive but is now a monotheist acting defensive and insisting that atheists are wrong. That about sum it up?
fudgefactorfive
New Member
No, you started a thread to ask questions, seemingly, saying you wished to understand the "defensive atheist" point of view.
Ever since then you've engaged in a monotony of "you're wrong, you're wrong, you're wrong", for the most part, not to mention a recent development of shouty capital letters and mild ridicule ... in short, most of things you accuse "non-believers" of. No?
Also, your posting style of breaking people's posts up into a small snippets and giving dismissively brief replies like "Wrong" and "NO IT ISN'T", numbering your points, etc., is also more or less guaranteed to invite defensiveness and/or derision. Trust me on that one - it's the same all over these forums.
Basically, you people bring it on yourselves. You don't come across to me as someone that wants to understand anything. You come across as someone bearing the flaming torch of righteousness against the heathens.
I also reserve the right to experience a special and very particular sense of hilarity at the spectacle of people trying to force modern day biology, cosmology and physics to be compatible with dusty religious texts dating back from more than a millenium ago. It's just a kind of revisionism, isn't it?
Ever since then you've engaged in a monotony of "you're wrong, you're wrong, you're wrong", for the most part, not to mention a recent development of shouty capital letters and mild ridicule ... in short, most of things you accuse "non-believers" of. No?
Also, your posting style of breaking people's posts up into a small snippets and giving dismissively brief replies like "Wrong" and "NO IT ISN'T", numbering your points, etc., is also more or less guaranteed to invite defensiveness and/or derision. Trust me on that one - it's the same all over these forums.
Basically, you people bring it on yourselves. You don't come across to me as someone that wants to understand anything. You come across as someone bearing the flaming torch of righteousness against the heathens.
I also reserve the right to experience a special and very particular sense of hilarity at the spectacle of people trying to force modern day biology, cosmology and physics to be compatible with dusty religious texts dating back from more than a millenium ago. It's just a kind of revisionism, isn't it?
inflatable jesus
I used to be carried in the arms of cheerleaders
Well, I didn't really have you down for the diva-tantrum type, particularly considering that you don't care about opinions that you think are false. But the toys went flying out the pram pretty spectacularly there didn't it?
However, over the entire course of Islamic History these principles have been to justify many wars, battles and other violent acts some with only the most tenuous claims to be defensive.
If the rules are incredibly restrictive, they've done a realy shit job of restricting.
Since, I was aiming for short snappy lines in that last post, I'll even try to explain a little more clearly what my position is.
1. The Qur'an states explicitly that jihad (by the sword, under the aforementioned 'justified' circumstances) is a muslim's responsibility.
2. The Qur'an contains a number of contradictions leaving them open to violent and destructive readings as well as happy smiley ones.
3. I've seen no evidence that Islam has a greater claim or tendency to prohibit violent acts than any other monotheistic religion. Christianity and Judaism both have rules against murder, but like Islam that rule tends to mean it is wrong to murder, except when it is justified. Mohammed had men killed and not just in self defence. Why should any other Muslim not claim the same right to determine when their murders are justified?
4. I think it is just plain stupidity to imagine that every problem one encounters or decision one can make should be resolved by reference to the words and actions of a flawed human that lived a millenia and a half ago and was caught up in a series of wars and conflicts. I think that trying to do so leads to a great many avoidable problems.
No offence chief, but comments like that I expect to find in some shitty chatroom from some idiot teenager in Texas, not on a bulletin board that can provide interesting debate.
Everyone is biased. If you think you're not, then you're deluded.
If you don't want to reply, then don't. But don't attempt to pass of that infantile sneering as a reasonable response.
However, over the entire course of Islamic History these principles have been to justify many wars, battles and other violent acts some with only the most tenuous claims to be defensive.
If the rules are incredibly restrictive, they've done a realy shit job of restricting.
This isn't a pantomime so if you have anything to add other than huffery, you're going to have to explain your objection.
Since, I was aiming for short snappy lines in that last post, I'll even try to explain a little more clearly what my position is.
1. The Qur'an states explicitly that jihad (by the sword, under the aforementioned 'justified' circumstances) is a muslim's responsibility.
2. The Qur'an contains a number of contradictions leaving them open to violent and destructive readings as well as happy smiley ones.
3. I've seen no evidence that Islam has a greater claim or tendency to prohibit violent acts than any other monotheistic religion. Christianity and Judaism both have rules against murder, but like Islam that rule tends to mean it is wrong to murder, except when it is justified. Mohammed had men killed and not just in self defence. Why should any other Muslim not claim the same right to determine when their murders are justified?
4. I think it is just plain stupidity to imagine that every problem one encounters or decision one can make should be resolved by reference to the words and actions of a flawed human that lived a millenia and a half ago and was caught up in a series of wars and conflicts. I think that trying to do so leads to a great many avoidable problems.
No offence chief, but comments like that I expect to find in some shitty chatroom from some idiot teenager in Texas, not on a bulletin board that can provide interesting debate.
Everyone is biased. If you think you're not, then you're deluded.
If you don't want to reply, then don't. But don't attempt to pass of that infantile sneering as a reasonable response.
inflatable jesus
I used to be carried in the arms of cheerleaders
Aldebaran said:
Nonsense. It's doubly imortant in a theocratic state.
Allah is a figment of your imagination. There is no more reason why I should accept that he created everything any more than I should accept that the easter bunny did.
BTW the term I used is fine. If you object to it, explain why.
That wasn't what I was suggesting at all.
What I was suggesting is that if you accept the notion that the Abrahamic monothesitic text is the literal word of God. You have to work quite hard to ignore all the utterly bizzarre rules and suggestions that are attributed to God. You also have to ignore the entirely logical and reasonable alternate explanation that they were added in by flawed humans and reflected flawed human opinions on certain matters.
What the hygene laws represent to me is a decent example of this. If you look at them as the medical folk-wisdom of the day, then fine, but you also have to then accept that those ideas are irrelevant, outdated and of no use to anyone. If you think that these are God's decree's then you really have to use your imagination to work out why he needed to get involved in this particular debate. Did the shrimp do something to really piss him off or what?
Equally...
Firstly don't be a dick.
Secondly, if you read the whole Christian Bible and don't cherry pick the nice bits, you find rules like this:
If two men are fighting, and the wife of one of them, coming to the help of her husband, takes the other by the private parts; Her hand is to be cut off; have no pity on her.
Now. What seems more likely to you? That this is the literal word of God. That the all-powerful creator of the world thinks you should chop of women's hands if they touch another man's cobblers even when clearly there is no sexual implications whatsoever? Or that these texts were written by a bunch of backward, misogynistic arseholes with strong ideas about hygene and sex.
If you go for option one. Then really, what kind of crazed psychopath are you worhsipping? And why is he such a misogynistic wanker?
fudgefactorfive said:
Yes.
No.
1. I reply on the contenance of posts. If people are wrong I can hardly say they are right. Maybe in your world such things happen but not in mine.
2. I used capitals to put emphasis on parts of my reply, explaining why I use them instead of an other method.
3. "mild ridicule"?
"Habits" on this forum is what others do which is not my concern to begin with and furthermore I am not familiar with it. If you don't like my style of writing then do not read my posts, written in a language I never studied and being very severely dyslexic at that.
Dividing posts helps me to read them and to reply to the points raised. In my view, contrary to what you say about it, doing so also helps to stay at the point and hence at the topic too.
How I come across is your problem if you judge wrong. Which you do.
By the way: In my reasoning the word "heathen" does not exist. (Interesting that it exists in yours.)
Why would there be any "force" needed to see biology, cosmology, physics but for what they are? (You are the one who is hilarious, really. Hardly my fault, is it?)
salaam.
fudgefactorfive
New Member
Aldebaran said:
Fair enough. See ya!
Aldebaran,
Your responses all seem to take the form "this terrible thing religious people do is not authorised by their religious text". Mostly, I get your point, which appears to me to be "the good guys of this religion are different from the bad guys". Fair enough. However, one of the many problems atheists have with religions is "why do you need a 'divine being' to tell you to be a good person"?
When religious people start hairsplitting over "yes, they are of my/other religion and bad but that is because they have the wrong interpretation of the sacred text" the non-religious start thinking "throw it away and start again, it clearly doesn't work if it can be mis-interpreted that badly..."
Your responses all seem to take the form "this terrible thing religious people do is not authorised by their religious text". Mostly, I get your point, which appears to me to be "the good guys of this religion are different from the bad guys". Fair enough. However, one of the many problems atheists have with religions is "why do you need a 'divine being' to tell you to be a good person"?
When religious people start hairsplitting over "yes, they are of my/other religion and bad but that is because they have the wrong interpretation of the sacred text" the non-religious start thinking "throw it away and start again, it clearly doesn't work if it can be mis-interpreted that badly..."
Similar threads
