Atheism Discussion Thread

[Risottia]

"Thou shalt not kill. Thou shalt not steal."

*flip some pages*
"Exterminate all men. Rape all the women older than twelve. Enslave all the kids. Steal all stuff and all land.".

It is more accurately translated to “Thou Shalt Not Murder”, actually.

Debatable and debated, forsooth, without even coming to a definitive answer.

Also, a genocide is made of multiple accounts of murder, and the OT says it's ok as long as you murder people whose land and homes you stole.

[Albrenia]

Darkmatter 2525 has uploaded a new video. This one is about how anti-theists are often compared to various Communist despots. Thoughts?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5GjCRWeG_AQ

I've never quite understood the logic behind anti-theists. They hold religion to be "excessively dogmatic" and "oppressive" and yet they dogmatically assail people simply for believing in something different. Doesn't that defeat the whole purpose?

I dislike it when people bludgeon (figuratively or literally) the religious for their beliefs. The beliefs themselves, however, can be criticised without it being an attack on the believer.

[The Grims]

I've never quite understood the logic behind anti-theists. They hold religion to be "excessively dogmatic" and "oppressive" and yet they dogmatically assail people simply for believing in something different. Doesn't that defeat the whole purpose?

I dislike it when people bludgeon (figuratively or literally) the religious for their beliefs. The beliefs themselves, however, can be criticised without it being an attack on the believer.

How can one claim the morals and teachings of a religion are worthless and/or vile while at the same time not attacking the people who willingly follow said teachings ?

[Mujahidah]

I've never quite understood the logic behind anti-theists. They hold religion to be "excessively dogmatic" and "oppressive" and yet they dogmatically assail people simply for believing in something different. Doesn't that defeat the whole purpose?

I dislike it when people bludgeon (figuratively or literally) the religious for their beliefs. The beliefs themselves, however, can be criticised without it being an attack on the believer.

If you call my beliefs despicable, you are insulting me. One can simultaneously not hold ill-will towards religion while being irreligious.

[Albrenia]

I dislike it when people bludgeon (figuratively or literally) the religious for their beliefs. The beliefs themselves, however, can be criticised without it being an attack on the believer.

How can one claim the morals and teachings of a religion are worthless and/or vile while at the same time not attacking the people who willingly follow said teachings ?

Because the vast majority of people I know who are 'of faith' are nice people who would never lock people up in a torture dungeon for eternity? Their God may not live up to them, but they're good people nonetheless.

[Constitutional Technocracy of Minecraft]

I dislike it when people bludgeon (figuratively or literally) the religious for their beliefs. The beliefs themselves, however, can be criticised without it being an attack on the believer.

If you call my beliefs despicable, you are insulting me. One can simultaneously not hold ill-will towards religion while being irreligious.

Well, I have no problem with people being religious and finding emotional comfort in religion, I'm just against many common religious beliefs, especially ones which blatantly contradict each other.

[The Grims]

How can one claim the morals and teachings of a religion are worthless and/or vile while at the same time not attacking the people who willingly follow said teachings ?

Because the vast majority of people I know who are 'of faith' are nice people who would never lock people up in a torture dungeon for eternity? Their God may not live up to them, but they're good people nonetheless.

You misunderstand. If you were to tell a follower of religion X his deity (that he loves) is unworthy of worship, nonexistent or whatever you are automatically also attacking them personally.

[Albrenia]

Because the vast majority of people I know who are 'of faith' are nice people who would never lock people up in a torture dungeon for eternity? Their God may not live up to them, but they're good people nonetheless.

You misunderstand. If you were to tell a follower of religion X his deity (that he loves) is unworthy of worship, nonexistent or whatever you are automatically also attacking them personally.

They can take it that way if they choose. That they feel offended on the part of their faith is not under my control. As it is, I'm not a fan of just walking up to people and screaming "GOD IS -EXPLETIVE-' at them. In a debate or discussion though, my opinion will be shared.

I'm not personally offended when they talk about 'godless degeneration of society' or similar stuff. The door swings both ways.

[The New California Republic]

Because the vast majority of people I know who are 'of faith' are nice people who would never lock people up in a torture dungeon for eternity? Their God may not live up to them, but they're good people nonetheless.

You misunderstand. If you were to tell a follower of religion X his deity (that he loves) is unworthy of worship, nonexistent or whatever you are automatically also attacking them personally.

Nope. You can attack beliefs without attacking someone personally. Hence why the Moderation team are constantly saying "attack the post, not the poster"...

[Big Jim P]

Me and Pope Joan seem to get along just fine.

Pope Joan is a pretty easy going guy. Heck, he'd probably get along pretty well with even Satan himself

That is essentially what I said.

[Big Jim P]

Me and Pope Joan seem to get along just fine.

Amen! Or whatever.

Amen from you and a Hail Satan from me.

[The Parkus Empire]

Pope Joan is a pretty easy going guy. Heck, he'd probably get along pretty well with even Satan himself

That is essentially what I said.

Well you aren't quite Satan himself. although I am sure Pope Joan would support his daughter if her hubby were such

[Topoliani]

If there is no god, then why does sleep exist?

No universe where there isn't a loving god would this gift exist.

[The New California Republic]

If there is no god, then why does sleep exist?

No universe where there isn't a loving god would this gift exist.

There is no God, because on Monday morning the alarm clock interrupts sleep and you have to drag yourself into work...

[The Tomerlands]

Depending on how you look at it, I am an atheist AND a polytheist.

How?

[Topoliani]

If there is no god, then why does sleep exist?

No universe where there isn't a loving god would this gift exist.

There is no God, because on Monday morning the alarm clock interrupts sleep and you have to drag yourself into work...

The Alarm Clock and Mondays is an invention of the Satan-Stalin of time.

[The New California Republic]

Depending on how you look at it, I am an atheist AND a polytheist.

How?

Like he said, it depends on how you look at it. You need to squint your eyes really hard to see it...

[Albrenia]

I wonder if Atheism shows a strong correlation with other sorts of disbelief, for example are there many Atheists who believe in things like ghosts, karma, aliens, OBEs or NDEs?

Myself, I don't believe in ghosts, metaphysical karma, psychics or things like OBEs. I suspect aliens exist, but are so far away I'll be long dead before we discover them, if we ever do.

[Reikoku]

Depending on how you look at it, I am an atheist AND a polytheist.

The same, really.

Darkmatter 2525 has uploaded a new video. This one is about how anti-theists are often compared to various Communist despots. Thoughts?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5GjCRWeG_AQ

I've never quite understood the logic behind anti-theists. They hold religion to be "excessively dogmatic" and "oppressive" and yet they dogmatically assail people simply for believing in something different. Doesn't that defeat the whole purpose?

I've yet to find any atheist who actually does this outside of internet strawmen.

[Philjia]

Depending on how you look at it, I am an atheist AND a polytheist.

How?

It's one way of reading the ideals of Anton LaVey, founder of the Church of Satan.

[Geneviev]

Because the vast majority of people I know who are 'of faith' are nice people who would never lock people up in a torture dungeon for eternity? Their God may not live up to them, but they're good people nonetheless.

You misunderstand. If you were to tell a follower of religion X his deity (that he loves) is unworthy of worship, nonexistent or whatever you are automatically also attacking them personally.

Not really. As a representative of myself (no generalisations will be possible here) and a theist (is that the word?) I will not be offended in 95% of debates. The other 5% are saying that I'm a bad person because of my religion. You can criticise what I believe in as long as you don't go for ad hominem. Just wanted to clarify that.

Have a nice day. Happy Friday the 13th.

[Happy Christian Land]

"Atheist and theist perspectives on political issues and current events."

Just jumping in without reading most of the thread (which is always a bad idea, I know), but... Does this really work as a talking point? There are very progressive Christian denominations (whose progressive values are driven by their faith), as well as atheists on the alt-right.

[Happy Christian Land]

I wonder if Atheism shows a strong correlation with other sorts of disbelief, for example are there many Atheists who believe in things like ghosts, karma, aliens, OBEs or NDEs?

Myself, I don't believe in ghosts, metaphysical karma, psychics or things like OBEs. I suspect aliens exist, but are so far away I'll be long dead before we discover them, if we ever do.

I share your disbelief, though I''m not sure what those acronyms at the end stand for. Religion is about the only thing unsupported by science that I do believe in, and even there I maintain a healthy degree of skepticism.

[Lower Nubia]

Again, typical of the 21st century to impose our individualism onto 15th century BCE collectivism. Notice that this isn’t a cultural aspect, but a universal set of actions followed by people of varying cultures. Due in part to a universal set of qualities: poor populace, low total populace, low literacy, low food and water, and low resources. Over 60% of the modern worlds population have collectivist leanings and these countries are all poor, (Japan seems to be centerfield for this one). Egypt’s population wasn’t innocent.

The narrative placed the Egyptian nation as forcing the Israelites into slavery (a harsh slavery based on daunting manual labour, where Pharoah illustrates that the labour would hault the growth of the Israelites “lest they increase”, so in other words he worked the women and men to death, this lasted 80 years, the slavery lasted roughly 300 years) while also the Egyptians themselves were all commanded to propagate the murder of the Hebrew newborns. This irritable idea that the Egyptians were innocent is ridiculous, all members of that society were warned. From the first 9 plagues came warning, the “innocent” Egyptians had plenty of opportunity to repent and free the Israelites, Pharoah himself hardened his heart along with the entire nation of Egypt, which even the Philistines understood to be true as in Samuel 6:

“Wherefore then do ye harden your hearts, as the Egyptians and Pharaoh hardened their hearts? when he had wrought wonderfully among them, did they not let the people go, and they departed?”

Even While non of the Egyptian peoples sought anything against Pharoah, whose tenuous role as elected by the gods would be called into question by the plagues. Finally all first borns had a price placed upon them from Egyptian to Israelite as in Numbers 3:12:

“And I, behold, I have taken the Levites from among the children of Israel instead of all the firstborn that openeth the matrix among the children of Israel: therefore the Levites shall be mine; Because all the firstborn are mine; for on the day that I smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt I hallowed unto me all the firstborn in Israel, both man and beast: mine shall they be: I am the Lord.”

What’s even more interesting that you say: “kills them when he wishes to” but in reality he only punished them after they had committed terrible crimes. As previously eluded too, God does not flip flop on this, he has cut himself off from the world due to sin and is therefore not some magic fairy where all your problems disappear even if you’re an ardent follower. The cost is high, what is given was necessary and it was sufficient to do what was needed, that’s all God needed to do, but even then, He provides more than they deserved. God’s methods specificallly play on the human weakness, to illustrate the failure of man to provide for himself, which is exactly what man wants because of his sin.

It’s ironic isn’t it? The Egyptians would not only have seen it as a just punishment, but the only necessary punishment. Yet you claim to be for the Egyptian position, even though the very qualities of your judgement, they would reject. If individual states provide legitimacy within the law, then who are we to judge the Egyptian’s own position on what is proper and true according to their law? We present ourselves as a more sophisticated and intellectual people’s, a mantle we only hold because we have more to sustain that sophistry, not because we’re a better or more noble populace today than then.

Your final objection has been dealt with on the CDT, so stop sticking to the fundamentalist canard.

I'm usually of the mind that 1 reply is enough (for two responses each) but due to how common a retort this is across the Old Testament I thought it should be put to rest.

So, in short, the children of Egypt had it coming because they were born into a society which committed evil. Nice. They should have repented their little baby hearts, they were warned! Just saying "they weren't innocent' doesn't make it so. The firstborn would have included newborns and young children

No, you make the distinction that because they were killed, that they were being punished. This isn't true, their deaths were the consequence of another crime, a logical conclusion(1)* from the very actions of the Egyptians themselves. A judge has a murderous father executed for his crimes, even though the father would no longer be able to support his children - because he is gone they now starve. Is the Judge culpable for the law He must enact and the consequence it now produces? You would say: "Yes, the judge should compensate the children by adopting them or providing them some form of support within the law system." This wasn't the question, are the deaths of the Children on the judges hands? Even if he gives the father a jail sentence they'd still starve, but the judge cannot permit the father to not at least be jailed. Now what do you notice? The actual cause of this problem was the murderous father, but we've forgotten him in this discussion and focus is moved to the judge. The issue with this is that the children have suffered because of the consequences of their fathers actions, because their only support has died, yet if the Judge adopts and protects them, the only person who has committed evil is the father, the judge has provided for the children to the best of his abilities. What evil is therefore committed by the judge? None, why have I made this analogy? Because of the nature of the punishment against Egypt:

An assumption, to an atheist, losing your life may be seen as great loss, but to a theist death just opens up the next life, which means you see their deaths as punishment, for they have lost everything. Yet this makes no sense to the theist, because death opens up the next life so the firstborns have lost nothing: ultimately their deaths would of happened at the dead of night, peacefully in their sleep (they wouldn't suffer some horrific death and from such a peaceful death what more could an atheist ask for?) Their death was quick and peaceful. Depending on the theological bent they would of ended up in the arms of God, assuming they had not committed terrible sin, which seems unlikely seeing as the majority were children. If we move this to the analogy, then the Judge has provided for the children, while punishing the father, thus is culpable of nothing, he has both followed Egyptian law(1) and given to the innocents. The real punishment was against the nation of Egypt, not the children, which is itself reciprocation for their actions against the Israelite's. Thus, the people who deserved the punishment, got punished. Your appeal only works by tugging heart strings: "Oh God had killed the new borns!" yet to be honest all that happened to them is their material form loosed the immaterial, where they now stand with God, they have literally only gained from the action, they've lost nothing, but the parents, the perpetrators of the crimes, they'd lost everything. Assuming the analogy above to be correct, the adoption of the children to be true, what evil was committed by God? (Do not react to this, before reading (1))

They need not repent (though if they could, the general action would be, they should - yet again, it's unlikely they even needed or even could), they were not the intended audience for the judgement. They were not punished.

Another issue with all this is you assume that God was not merciful, yet even the narrative reveals plenty of Egyptians repented by a couple plagues and turned to Moses' warning and no doubt the final plague warning:

"Send therefore now, and gather thy cattle, and all that thou hast in the field; for upon every man and beast which shall be found in the field, and shall not be brought home, the hail shall come down upon them, and they shall die. He that feared the word of the Lord among the servants of Pharaoh made his servants and his cattle flee into the houses: And he that regarded not the word of the Lord left his servants and his cattle in the field."

Notice that God even warns them further, to take their cattle into shelter, even here he was giving the Egyptians time. He didn't immediately cause the hail but would also give time for the Israelite's to pack their animals away and also the Egyptians. God was continually merciful, but no, you think he was this great evil and are we continuing to forget that the Israelite's were still being worked to death?

God provided 9 occasions for the Egyptians to repent and they refused, thus God humiliated them by their own laws(1) and by their own gods. If the families who had firstborn males (because firstborn girls were not executed) had listened to Moses they and their family would be fine, again, plenty of warning and mercy was dished out before the final act. What sympathy do I have for them? None, they saw the signs, they knew of the insult to Pharaoh and their gods, they knew they had been bested and had been warned. What illegitimacy was proffered against them? None.

, as well as less well off Egyptians with zero part to play in the grand evils of the more wealthy.

The only issue with this, is it is not true. Remember the Rwandan Genocide? it was committed by rich and poor, a lack of wealth does not inhibit your ability to undertake state sanctioned murder. The midwives presented in Exodus 1:15, were Hebrew midwives, they would of been as poor as the rest of the Hebrews, yet they were tasked with the genocide. You make no logical conclusion, that being poor, stops you from committing murder. Pharaoh, alongside the rest of the wealthy would not of roamed the Hebrews villages with knives. No doubt, Pharaoh had never laid a finger upon a single Hebrew. He only sanctioned, but never directly committing, the murders. They'd have left that to the common folk, the soldiers (made up predominantly of the lower classes), and any who sought favour with the Egyptian pantheon and the Pharaoh (just as he had asked of the midwives). Those who did not partake, plenty of time was given them to evade the danger, don't forget that.

Finally here is where the collectivist culture comes in, because ancient peoples allegiance is towards their group and then themselves (we today work on "me first, then them") the Egyptians would almost always be in universal agreement with their groups actions, because that was the requirement of being part of the group. Thus, when Egypt committed sin, the common Egyptian populace would be in agreement with the states actions because that is who they'd identify as, those who did not (who would be an exceptional minority) could find their independence in Moses, or flee. Yet for a collectivist culture group actions yield group consequences. With Egypt's execution by forced labour of the Hebrews would come the compliance of the groups populace, thus punishment is given communally, not individually, but even then, Egypt had plenty of time to repent.

I also doubt the Egyptians who lost their children would have thought "Well, it's a fair cop." so nice work putting words in the mouths of ancient people. Even if they did, being beaten into accepting an entity's will is not proof of the will being moral.

This illustrates that you lack understanding of ANE law codes. I made this point clear when I said:

Notice that this isn’t a cultural aspect, but a universal set of actions followed by people of varying cultures. Due in part to a universal set of qualities: poor populace, low total populace, low literacy, low food and water, and low resources.

(1) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This has nothing to do with culture, but the foundation for all ANE cultures, which the Egyptians themselves would belong to and therefore obey. Remove the bias, the Egyptian or Israelite position and place the punishment on neutral ground. The Israelite and Egyptians would have had similar responses, the same quality of law through which they'd judge other cultures. an example of some of these law codes can be summed up:

The Teaching of Ankhsheshonqy (AEL 3: 159–84) was discovered on a long papyrus scroll written in the late 1st century b.c. The beginning of the text and the top lines of all twenty-eight columns are lost. The citation of lines, some in sequence, on two papyri of 2d century b.c. date suggests that the original goes back to the early Ptolemaic period. ... There are striking parallels between some maxims in the two compositions. The most significant themes concerning the wise man versus the fool and the certainty of retribution, together with two formulations of the Golden Rule.

The golden rule was a common theme within ANE law codes and was found across cultures. The problem with your statement is that the golden rule allows reciprocation of punishment. For example: if the Egyptian nation, under Pharaoh, sanctions the execution of another groups children, then by logical fiat if the enemy ever could do so to the Egyptians they would be justified. The nature of reciprocation means that whatever action the Pharaoh took he implicitly agreed that it could be done to his own people (though as pointed out, the nation itself was also guilty, not just Pharaoh).

As this is the nature of Egypt's very law system, the execution of the newborns to punish the nation of Egypt would be entirely justified by the Egyptians themselves, due to the previous and continued (there's little evidence that Pharaoh stopped the hard labour) execution of the Hebrews and their Children.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In short, just more excuses for an evil act of God. He didn't need to kill anyone, at all. Any omnipotent and all powerful God could have easily freed all of Israel without taking a single innocent life... or guilty life for that matter.

No excuses, just misunderstandings on your part. Yes, any Omnibenevolent God could, but a God's whose benevolence is tempered by His Just nature, would see the continued sin in man as a rejection of that God's aid, thus, God isn't going to help, because we continue to tell him to "piss off", so who is God to reject our free will? Man has decided to go his own way, to reap what he sows. As I've said before, want God to bless and give you great riches? Go and sin no more. And even then, it will only be in the hereafter.

[Albrenia]

-snip-

Still unconvinced, sorry. Babies are born with Original Sin and I highly doubt Egyptian youths would have had any ceremony to remove that so... yeah. He wasn't being merciful by sending most of them to Hell 'peacefully'. If you don't believe in Original Sin, this point obviously doesn't stand, but enough people do that it bears mentioning.

The rest is just a bunch of stuff about ancient law of the area which I don't really care about. An eternal, omnipresent and omnipotent God doesn't need to use ancient law to punish people. He chose a barbaric way of punishing a people, and he doesn't have the 'of the time' excuse the people of that time do.

Finally, I still find it hard to believe that ANY people, at ANY time of history, would be entirely fine with their children being killed in the night - even if they killed other's children previously. Even murderers generally disapprove of themselves or those they hold dear being murdered.