Atheism Discussion Thread:Tipping the Fedora

[Medwind]

I'm not only an atheist, I also don't believe in people, our institutions or any hope for this world.

Also the meaning of life is to simply reproduce. All the other supposed "meanings of life" people have come up with are garbage

Never give up, march on, no matter the odds until we can no more. Realizing our own mortality and limits, pass the torch to the next generation for they be better and get a little further. And repeat, until we're there.

That is by no means easy and its as slow as the first steps some aquatic creature might have done billions of years ago as it tried to move itself onto the land. But it is nonetheless necessary.

There where? Lol, where are you trying to go?

[Andsed]

Sweet Atheism thread! Honestly just a simple Atheist here. I never really believed in god cause I guess I just could not believe it for some reason.


Your acting like just leaving your family is easy. It´s not and can be very emotionally difficult. It is not being a coward to not tell your family and it is ridiculous to suggest that.

Things are only hard if you make them hard imo.

No it´s fucking hard because your leaving the people who you grew up with and raised you on bad terms. It is not easy because your walking away from the people who are supposedly closest to you and have been with your for your entire life because they don´t accept you. You clearly have no idea what your talking about if you think that leaving your family behind is easy.

[Medwind]

Things are only hard if you make them hard imo.

No it´s fucking hard because your leaving the people who you grew up with and raised you on bad terms. It is not easy because your walking away from the people who are supposedly closest to you and have been with your for your entire life because they don´t accept you. You clearly have no idea what your talking about if you think that leaving your family behind is easy.

I've done it mate lol (although different reasoning than what's here, and eventually linked up later in life, but besides that no contact, disownment, etc.) Point is, you choose what to care about, if you dgaf about other peoples opinions it's real easy.

[Andsed]

No it´s fucking hard because your leaving the people who you grew up with and raised you on bad terms. It is not easy because your walking away from the people who are supposedly closest to you and have been with your for your entire life because they don´t accept you. You clearly have no idea what your talking about if you think that leaving your family behind is easy.

I've done it mate lol

Then you should understand why it is not an easy thing to do for many people.

[LiberNovusAmericae]

Let's hope this thread lasts a good long time.

[Alvecia]

No it´s fucking hard because your leaving the people who you grew up with and raised you on bad terms. It is not easy because your walking away from the people who are supposedly closest to you and have been with your for your entire life because they don´t accept you. You clearly have no idea what your talking about if you think that leaving your family behind is easy.

I've done it mate lol (although different reasoning than what's here, and eventually linked up later in life, but besides that no contact, disownment, etc.) Point is, you choose what to care about, if you dgaf about other peoples opinions it's real easy.

You might want to sit down for this, brace yourself.

Different people have different experiences.

[Kowani]

Life is meaningless. Make it mean whatever you want it to mean.

For example, my meaning is to be happy, and to have other people be happy, because I like being happy and think others should get a chance to like it as well.

But life's purpose since the moment it began was to keep existing. Think about it, everything reproduces. It's an inherent drive in all beings to preserve their species, so that could be called a meaning of life

…No. A function of life is to reproduce. Purpose, no.
And speaking of which, homosexuals by your definition have just been opened up to a loooot of theistic discrimination.

[Vivolkha]

While I oppose religion in nearly all cases, eliminating religion altogether requires some very brutal methods (see below) - for me, this is more of an ideal than a possible goal, at least on the mid term.

Many Communist regimes attempted to destroy religion but by the 1980s they had kind of given up, instead attempting to minimize their influence and undermine their doctrine. Official harassment and discrimination against religious believers was rife, as you pointed out. Side note, check the religious controls and other repressive religious legislation of the PRC today.

For a more hardline approach at destroying religion, see Communist Albania under Enver Hoxha, the only Eastern Bloc country that did outlaw religion and try to eliminate it completely, at a time where many other Communist countries were content with just keeping it under strict control.

Why do you want to destroy religion?

Well, here are several of my points.

Religion is unnecessary. Initially, religion attempted to explain how the world originated and works as well as establish a set of morality rules. In the modern world, science has routinely contradicted religious teachings on the origin of the world and laws of the Universe. Several proven/likely theories (Big Bang, evolution, non-geocentrism) have then been comically retrofitted into religious teachings even if it directly contradicts them (I'll go on this later). Furthermore, morality can exist without religion. We are human beings, we are social animals - we require the attention and care of others to survive. That alone justifies the creation of a set of rules that separate "good" from "bad" (admittedly this is heavily oversimplified).

Religion is arbitrary. It hangs on a deliberately unprovable set of beliefs because otherwise it would be long discredited. And from this arbitrary set of believes it derives arbitrary rules. Other positive rules in religious morality ("do unto others as you would have them do unto you") are subject to my previous point and do not even require religion in the first place to exist per se. Arbitrary religious rules can be harmful to health and at times directly contradict human biology. For eample, the tradition of purdah is harmful to women's health. In Christianity, sexually deprived priests have occasionally turned to abusing children. While religion depends on a series of unprovable beliefs, these points and the one on science signal that many beliefs behind religion are outright false and hence the rules derived from them are largely arbitrary.

Religion is an obstacle to progress. For one, there are always people that deny proven scientific facts on favor of those arbitrary religious beliefs (in its efforts to dismantle secularism in Turkey, Erdoğan has eliminated evolution from curriculums). Indonesia is home to the most climate change deniers in the world due to an overt focus on religious education. Developed societies tend to shift to rational thought, an approach that has brought LGBT rights and women equality to the table (both of which contradict major religions, by the way) and, not coincidentally, secularized quickly in the sense that the percentage of religious believers dropped drastically (with the notable exception of the United States, which continues to be very religious by Western standards).

Also, major religions are the ultimate form of control, as it threatens people with the literally worst possible punishment: eternal suffering in hell.

Why does religion survive, then? For one, because it relies on beliefs that can not really be proven nor discredited effectively (though note above that the balance is tipped towards the latter). But the main reason is because it offers human beings (false) hope against what, for most of us, is our biggest fear: death. It is only natural that an intelligent life form is scared of its permanent death and disappearence, else it would not survive (what is the point of fleeing predators?). And religion offers easy answers to very difficult questions related on this topic.

I won't point out the relationship between religion and violence/terrorism because the same can be done with a wide range of ideologies and beliefs, some of which strongly oppose religion (Communism).

[Kowani]

Snip

This post is infinitely better than my own when I was asked the same thing.

[Jean-Paul Sartre]

Medwind, your privilege is showing. I’ve talked to people who have been in religious cults who have to worry about things worse than just the potential of disownment when their parents figure out they’ve seen Oz behind the curtain. Do you actually have anything to contribute here, or are you going to continue to be not listen to those of us with more experience about this than you?

[Attempted Socialism]

What part was unclear? I think that there is a current (Since the late 90'ies, I'd say) upsurge in religious activism in the US partly as a backlash to losing the younger generations. Thus making the current wave of fanaticism a passing phenomenon. I don't think the US will "get to Denmark" (To borrow from Fukuyama), but "none of the above" (In some fashion or other) is the fastest growing "religion" in the US and it seems to me that the younger generations will soon experience a plurality of non-believers.

Interesting. What is unclear to me is how your first sentence related to Pacomias post. They said they felt the need to shout bullshit every time they hear someone speaking about religion, and you said that that follows your impression from US media? I don't understand how you're connecting those dots. Regardless, can you post sources saying that atheism is the fastest growing religious preference? Some charts and graphs estimating future growth would also be useful if you have them.

I affirmed their "that's how bad it has gotten". Sorry about the confusion.
Anyway, there's no single authoritative source on religion in the US, as the US census doesn't include it. However, numerous polling companies do ask about it. Take, for instance, Gallup, where "none" grew from 0% in the 50'ies to 5-10% in the 90'ies and to around 20% now (The same poll also tracks whether religion can solve todays problems, further down - 2018 was the first year on record it went below 50% yes-answers!). What has driven that, most of all? Pew can answer that for us: Millennials. Each age cohort is mostly constant in religiosity, but each generation is less religious than the previous. There's ample reason to think this trend will persist.

Interesting. What is unclear to me is how your first sentence related to Pacomias post. They said they felt the need to shout bullshit every time they hear someone speaking about religion, and you said that that follows your impression from US media? I don't understand how you're connecting those dots. Regardless, can you post sources saying that atheism is the fastest growing religious preference? Some charts and graphs estimating future growth would also be useful if you have them.

Not to speak for them, but it's not atheism that the fastest growing "religion", but the "nones".

Which is to say that when asked what their religious position is, they would not identify with any of the choices presented.
This does mean that they don't identify with any of the major religions, but also that they do not identify with atheism either.

Though often "none", "atheist", and "agnostic" can be grouped into the same category, which can skew the numbers.

True, but "what religion do you believe in?" with the answer being "none" is functionally equivalent to atheism. People might not use the word for connotations, but I see no substantial difference. Pew also groups them together, with subdivisons for people explicitly atheist or agnostic.

[Sensorland]

Well, here are several of my points.
-snip-

Well said! These are just a few of the reasons I'm an anti-theist as well.

[North German Realm]

I'm not arguing about the merits of a personal god. I'm talking about the logic behind the existence of gods. Whether or not gods exist in general (I can't answer that. I don't know.) is not the same as whether there is "One God". The logic behind the existence of any supreme being is shaky at best, but the argument that "only one supreme being can exist" is illogical by its very nature. When you make an argument on why a god should exist, but don't extend it to the gods you don't want to exist (say, when you argue that God exists but Zeus, Odin, Set, etc. don't) you're intentionally suspending your use of logic. At least in my opinion.

Well, the argument is based off of religious doctrine, so if God exists, according to him he is the only God, and he also never lies, so in that case there can be no other Gods. I agree with you in that if there can be one there *theoretically* could be more than one, but if you follow an abrahamic religion then you believe there is only one, and just because it's possible that there could have been more doesn't mean there actually are more. Y'know what I'm saying? Idk, I just don't see it.

The argument isn't based on religious doctrine. One requires to prove that "God" exists before giving it religious attributes.This is the mistake you (and most Abrahamics) make. You prove your god could exists before giving him attributes like "the best, greatest, and only god ever". There are arguments on why there can only be one god, but most of them require suspension of critical thought in their basis.

[Geneviev]

No it´s fucking hard because your leaving the people who you grew up with and raised you on bad terms. It is not easy because your walking away from the people who are supposedly closest to you and have been with your for your entire life because they don´t accept you. You clearly have no idea what your talking about if you think that leaving your family behind is easy.

I've done it mate lol (although different reasoning than what's here, and eventually linked up later in life, but besides that no contact, disownment, etc.) Point is, you choose what to care about, if you dgaf about other peoples opinions it's real easy.

You're lucky then. The thing I'm most afraid of right now is my parents finding out that I don't believe because it's not easy. Most people don't want to lose their families or risk their safety.

[Philjia]

I've done it mate lol (although different reasoning than what's here, and eventually linked up later in life, but besides that no contact, disownment, etc.) Point is, you choose what to care about, if you dgaf about other peoples opinions it's real easy.

You're lucky then. The thing I'm most afraid of right now is my parents finding out that I don't believe because it's not easy. Most people don't want to lose their families or risk their safety.

If your family isn't Catholic or Orthodox Christian, announce you've converted to Quakerism.

[Page]

I've done it mate lol (although different reasoning than what's here, and eventually linked up later in life, but besides that no contact, disownment, etc.) Point is, you choose what to care about, if you dgaf about other peoples opinions it's real easy.

You're lucky then. The thing I'm most afraid of right now is my parents finding out that I don't believe because it's not easy. Most people don't want to lose their families or risk their safety.

I won't lie to you, it's a shitty thing to be out of the closet as a nonbeliever with religious parents.

Mine were "moderate" Catholics and I was subject to a good deal of emotional abuse, guilt-tripping, and extortion.

There's no shame in staying in the closet if the closet is warm and safe.

[Alvecia]

Interesting. What is unclear to me is how your first sentence related to Pacomias post. They said they felt the need to shout bullshit every time they hear someone speaking about religion, and you said that that follows your impression from US media? I don't understand how you're connecting those dots. Regardless, can you post sources saying that atheism is the fastest growing religious preference? Some charts and graphs estimating future growth would also be useful if you have them.

I affirmed their "that's how bad it has gotten". Sorry about the confusion.
Anyway, there's no single authoritative source on religion in the US, as the US census doesn't include it. However, numerous polling companies do ask about it. Take, for instance, Gallup, where "none" grew from 0% in the 50'ies to 5-10% in the 90'ies and to around 20% now (The same poll also tracks whether religion can solve todays problems, further down - 2018 was the first year on record it went below 50% yes-answers!). What has driven that, most of all? Pew can answer that for us: Millennials. Each age cohort is mostly constant in religiosity, but each generation is less religious than the previous. There's ample reason to think this trend will persist.

Not to speak for them, but it's not atheism that the fastest growing "religion", but the "nones".

Which is to say that when asked what their religious position is, they would not identify with any of the choices presented.
This does mean that they don't identify with any of the major religions, but also that they do not identify with atheism either.

Though often "none", "atheist", and "agnostic" can be grouped into the same category, which can skew the numbers.

True, but "what religion do you believe in?" with the answer being "none" is functionally equivalent to atheism. People might not use the word for connotations, but I see no substantial difference. Pew also groups them together, with subdivisons for people explicitly atheist or agnostic.

I think much the same to be honest, but I’m willing to allow people their illusion in the matter.

[Page]

I'm not only an atheist, I also don't believe in people, our institutions or any hope for this world.

Also the meaning of life is to simply reproduce. All the other supposed "meanings of life" people have come up with are garbage

I wouldn't even call reproduction the meaning of life. It's a thing that living things do, but that's not a meaning, it's a phenomenon.

Myself, I'm quite content to never reproduce. I just embrace existentialism and the freedom it confers..

[Neko-koku]

I'm not arguing about the merits of a personal god. I'm talking about the logic behind the existence of gods. Whether or not gods exist in general (I can't answer that. I don't know.) is not the same as whether there is "One God". The logic behind the existence of any supreme being is shaky at best, but the argument that "only one supreme being can exist" is illogical by its very nature. When you make an argument on why a god should exist, but don't extend it to the gods you don't want to exist (say, when you argue that God exists but Zeus, Odin, Set, etc. don't) you're intentionally suspending your use of logic. At least in my opinion.

Well, the argument is based off of religious doctrine, so if God exists, according to him he is the only God, and he also never lies, so in that case there can be no other Gods. I agree with you in that if there can be one there *theoretically* could be more than one, but if you follow an abrahamic religion then you believe there is only one, and just because it's possible that there could have been more doesn't mean there actually are more. Y'know what I'm saying? Idk, I just don't see it.

The main logical problem with Abrahamic religions has always been their inability to distinguish between monotheism, polytheism and deism.

A = "There exists at least one deity"
B = "There exists at least one theistic deity"
C = "There exists one and only one theistic deity, namely the Abrahamic God"
C' = "The Abrahamic God exists"

A != C'

[Geneviev]

You're lucky then. The thing I'm most afraid of right now is my parents finding out that I don't believe because it's not easy. Most people don't want to lose their families or risk their safety.

If your family isn't Catholic or Orthodox Christian, announce you've converted to Quakerism.

That would be very hard for them to believe, given that this is the first time I heard of Quakerism.

[Neko-koku]

I'm not only an atheist, I also don't believe in people, our institutions or any hope for this world.

Also the meaning of life is to simply reproduce. All the other supposed "meanings of life" people have come up with are garbage

I wouldn't even call reproduction the meaning of life. It's a thing that living things do, but that's not a meaning, it's a phenomenon.

Myself, I'm quite content to never reproduce. I just embrace existentialism and the freedom it confers..

Yeah. Breedism is simply nonsense. I actually care a lot about improving science. All "muh bloodlinez" eventually die out. Yet knowledge can survive the extinction of muh bloodlinez. Love knowledge and truth.

[Kowani]

If your family isn't Catholic or Orthodox Christian, announce you've converted to Quakerism.

That would be very hard for them to believe, given that this is the first time I heard of Quakerism.

It’s the best form of Christianity.

[Page]

That would be very hard for them to believe, given that this is the first time I heard of Quakerism.

It’s the best form of Christianity.

Quakers do have a lot going for them but I'd say Unitarian Universalism is the best form of Christianity. Back when I was 18 I got into it because I still couldn't let go of the idea of there being a god and an afterlife. But I eventually realized that even though it's a pretty way to view the universe, it's no less fake than the Catholic Church I abandoned. Still, UU has all of the tolerance and goodness you could ask for.

[Kowani]

It’s the best form of Christianity.

Quakers do have a lot going for them but I'd say Unitarian Universalism is the best form of Christianity. Back when I was 18 I got into it because I still couldn't let go of the idea of there being a god and an afterlife. But I eventually realized that even though it's a pretty way to view the universe, it's no less fake than the Catholic Church I abandoned. Still, UU has all of the tolerance and goodness you could ask for.

Oh, that one’s pretty good as well.

[Neko-koku]

Why do you want to destroy religion?

Well, here are several of my points.

Religion is unnecessary. Initially, religion attempted to explain how the world originated and works as well as establish a set of morality rules. In the modern world, science has routinely contradicted religious teachings on the origin of the world and laws of the Universe. Several proven/likely theories (Big Bang, evolution, non-geocentrism) have then been comically retrofitted into religious teachings even if it directly contradicts them (I'll go on this later). Furthermore, morality can exist without religion. We are human beings, we are social animals - we require the attention and care of others to survive. That alone justifies the creation of a set of rules that separate "good" from "bad" (admittedly this is heavily oversimplified).

Religion is arbitrary. It hangs on a deliberately unprovable set of beliefs because otherwise it would be long discredited. And from this arbitrary set of believes it derives arbitrary rules. Other positive rules in religious morality ("do unto others as you would have them do unto you") are subject to my previous point and do not even require religion in the first place to exist per se. Arbitrary religious rules can be harmful to health and at times directly contradict human biology. For eample, the tradition of purdah is harmful to women's health. In Christianity, sexually deprived priests have occasionally turned to abusing children. While religion depends on a series of unprovable beliefs, these points and the one on science signal that many beliefs behind religion are outright false and hence the rules derived from them are largely arbitrary.

Religion is an obstacle to progress. For one, there are always people that deny proven scientific facts on favor of those arbitrary religious beliefs (in its efforts to dismantle secularism in Turkey, Erdoğan has eliminated evolution from curriculums). Indonesia is home to the most climate change deniers in the world due to an overt focus on religious education. Developed societies tend to shift to rational thought, an approach that has brought LGBT rights and women equality to the table (both of which contradict major religions, by the way) and, not coincidentally, secularized quickly in the sense that the percentage of religious believers dropped drastically (with the notable exception of the United States, which continues to be very religious by Western standards).

Also, major religions are the ultimate form of control, as it threatens people with the literally worst possible punishment: eternal suffering in hell.

Why does religion survive, then? For one, because it relies on beliefs that can not really be proven nor discredited effectively (though note above that the balance is tipped towards the latter). But the main reason is because it offers human beings (false) hope against what, for most of us, is our biggest fear: death. It is only natural that an intelligent life form is scared of its permanent death and disappearence, else it would not survive (what is the point of fleeing predators?). And religion offers easy answers to very difficult questions related on this topic.

I won't point out the relationship between religion and violence/terrorism because the same can be done with a wide range of ideologies and beliefs, some of which strongly oppose religion (Communism).

Well, a religion in practice is a set of memes. Just like other sets of memes they evolved over time. Evolution doesn't really select for factual accuracy on matters irrelevant to personal lives. Moreover it tends to select for natalism and high tribal asabiyyah. Religion can not solve the problem of defection in Iterated Prisoners' Dilemmas. However it could create an illusion that IPDs don't actually exist which promotes in-group cooperation. So usually a religion is a package consisting of unfalsifiable statements on reality and tribal ethics (which generally includes breedism).