Atheists, the new Catholics?

[Kubanator]

...an atheist would not care about any words which held no power.

Not that I want to speak for an entire group, but that's a nice thought, unfortunately even moderist religion impacts our lives in a big way - mostly in reference to the entire secularist vs. freedom of expression governance style, notably in public office.

To quote myself:

..any words which held no power. They would care about something that could change their lives, such as stem cell research, or gay marriage.

Things that Organized religion affects.

Honestly though, why the hell would you even try? Faith works for so many people, it causes strife, but it brings millions and billions of people together under one banner that honestly might not even look at each other otherwise, and that's something that I can get behind. Atheists might be joined under a unifying cause, but honestly, what have atheists ever done as a group? How many soup kitchens feed people who are under their luck because of atheists? How many houses are built in New Orleans every day because of people who don't believe in a god? How many people stop drinking or shooting up or wasting their lives because of the lack of faith?

No, faith does save people, even if it's illogical. Ultimately that's what it comes down to. An atheist could never understand why someone would give up all their worldly possessions and wealth to sit down and take care of people less fortunate than them, someone willing to sacrifice their own well-being just to aid others.

So essentially, people are evil and won't help others unless god makes them do it? It's insulting to humanity to say that every act of good is done due to religion.

 

[benoitowns]

If you wouldn't mind extrapolating, and giving a half asses answer. Those types of answers are easier to refute.

 

[NotMemorable]

What I have to say specifically to YOU, NotMemorable, is that YOU are the close minded one. If Hell is just a place where God is not present, then we have nothing to fear. Also, If YOU are wrong, you would have wasted your one and only life devoting yourself to a nonexistant deity. I will live my life accordingly and morally, but I will primarily look out for myself, and live in the now. If life is an arbitrary test, then I will show this immature God who is intolerant of disbelievers that I don't need to please others to be happy with myself.(as in God) If you are too narrow minded to see, the majority of Christians and even Baptists, Catholics, Orthodox, are tolerant of people. (minus the whole gay thing, the muslim thing, the abortion thing, the black people thing, and the polytheism thing) They show that they are more tolerant and accepting than this spiteful, childish God. Maybe He is nothing like as the Bible tells, but that won't change how I behave throughout my life. Even if science proved there was a God, I would follow my morals and know that should understand, or else God is a pretentious ass.

That particular post was in referance to an if scenario. The scenario assumed that there is in fact irrefutable evidence that the biblical God exists and that the bible is the absolute translation of the word of God(that's how I interpeted it anyways). If that's the case Hell isn't merely absent of God, no it's a place of suffering. I think it that was a misunderstanding of my beliefs (either through fault of yours or mine, doesn't really matter). I don't consider myself close minded, if you do please elaborate more.

Again, if I saw any reason to assume that God (in the biblical sense) was in fact real (or that there's a large chance of him being real) I'd be the first to pray to him.

(I'm an Atheist)

 

[Godheads_Lament]

...an atheist would not care about any words which held no power.

Not that I want to speak for an entire group, but that's a nice thought, unfortunately even moderist religion impacts our lives in a big way - mostly in reference to the entire secularist vs. freedom of expression governance style, notably in public office.

To quote myself:

..any words which held no power. They would care about something that could change their lives, such as stem cell research, or gay marriage.

Things that Organized religion affects.

Whilst I agree in principle, it's unfortunate that the organised part isn't entirely necessary. I'm not unfamiliar with plenty of incidents whereby, very broadly, those in a position of power (notably parents) extend their beliefs onto (notably, their children) in a way that is not necessarily derived of organised religion. For instance, there was an incident of a mother refusing to allow her son to receive chemotherapy for leukemia on the basis that she was a spiritual person and wanted to heal him with crystal therapy/herbs (the extact details escape me).

The same can be said for parents forcing veganism onto their children. Now, these are an entirely different debate but the reason I brought them up is to illustrate that concepts that may (or may not) be religious, but not necessarily derived from organised ideology (or religion). And therefore we do not need organised religion to demonstrate a detrimental effect on, at the very least, an individual scale - and potentially on a society-wide scale. Perhaps the veganism anaology wasn't a great choice.

...at least I think I've answered what you were trying to say.

 

[hobo_welf]

Honestly though, why the hell would you even try? Faith works for so many people, it causes strife, but it brings millions and billions of people together under one banner that honestly might not even look at each other otherwise, and that's something that I can get behind. Atheists might be joined under a unifying cause, but honestly, what have atheists ever done as a group? How many soup kitchens feed people who are under their luck because of atheists? How many houses are built in New Orleans every day because of people who don't believe in a god? How many people stop drinking or shooting up or wasting their lives because of the lack of faith?

No, faith does save people, even if it's illogical. Ultimately that's what it comes down to. An atheist could never understand why someone would give up all their worldly possessions and wealth to sit down and take care of people less fortunate than them, someone willing to sacrifice their own well-being just to aid others.

So essentially, people are evil and won't help others unless god makes them do it? It's insulting to humanity to say that every act of good is done due to religion.

Sorry, I can see why you thought that. Let me try to clarify.

Religion has brought on a fuckton boatload gigantically incalculably larger sum of selfless acts than atheism. I've met religious fanatics that were willing to do just about anything for someone who needed them. I've never met an atheist who was selfless or kind or giving. Or even that nice, honestly. I've met people who happened to also be atheists who were nice, but never someone who stylized themself an atheist.

Maybe I've just met too many shitheads, but more than likely, logic prevents hardcore atheists from doing something that will bring no return to them.

 

[benoitowns]

oops must have looked at the wrong persons post when i replied DAMN well w/e sorry and uhhh bible never said place of suffering it said place of torment which is inferred as suffering. now i have to copy and paste my argument to someone elses post. ahh fuck it

 

[Kubanator]

Sorry, I can see why you thought that. Let me try to clarify.

Religion has brought on a fuckton boatload gigantically incalculably larger sum of selfless acts than atheism. I've met religious fanatics that were willing to do just about anything for someone who needed them. I've never met an atheist who was selfless or kind or giving. Or even that nice, honestly. I've met people who happened to also be atheists who were nice, but never someone who stylized themself an atheist.

Maybe I've just met too many shitheads, but more than likely, logic prevents hardcore atheists from doing something that will bring no return to them.

I help x person. My image is boosted, person x likes me more. Person x, in his elevated mood, chooses to help someone, that person chooses to help someone else, and so on. The world becomes better, and since I live in the world, I profit from the improved world. I donate to help homeless people integrate back into society. More low-wage workers for my small business. I decide to begin buying wheat from third world nations. I donate to third world economies. They build up a primary sector, making raw materials cheaper, making my factories make more money.

The donator always benefits from a donation. The only difference is that one admits it's for his own good, and one pretends it isn't. To do it to appease God is selfish, because you are looking to get into heaven. To do it to appease your own morality is selfish because it makes you happier.

Now let's look at organized religion missionaries feeding people in Africa. They go there, give them food, then convert them to Christianity. They don't just give the food and leave, they specifically choose to instill their beliefs in other people in exchange for food.

 

[Godheads_Lament]

Sorry, I can see why you thought that. Let me try to clarify.

Religion has brought on a fuckton boatload gigantically incalculably larger sum of selfless acts than atheism. I've met religious fanatics that were willing to do just about anything for someone who needed them. I've never met an atheist who was selfless or kind or giving. Or even that nice, honestly. I've met people who happened to also be atheists who were nice, but never someone who stylized themself an atheist.

Maybe I've just met too many shitheads, but more than likely, logic prevents hardcore atheists from doing something that will bring no return to them.

I help x person. My image is boosted, person x likes me more. Person x, in his elevated mood, chooses to help someone, that person chooses to help someone else, and so on. The world becomes better, and since I live in the world, I profit from the improved world. I donate to help homeless people integrate back into society. More low-wage workers for my small business.

Now let's look at organized religion missionaries feeding people in Africa. They go there, give them food, then convert them to Christianity. They don't just give the food and leave, they specifically choose to instill their beliefs in other people in exchange for food.

This, plus altruism seems to have evolved quite seperately and independently from religion altogether. Additionally, I'm inherently going to be distrustful of someone if their ulterior motive in helping people is effectively to help themselves, i.e. into personal gain in terms of an afterlife. However, saying that I do recognise that altruism effectively evolved across large populations because the potential (or rather, desire) for repayment remained.

 

[NotMemorable]

]Honestly though, why the hell would you even try? Faith works for so many people, it causes strife, but it brings millions and billions of people together under one banner that honestly might not even look at each other otherwise, and that's something that I can get behind. Atheists might be joined under a unifying cause, but honestly, what have atheists ever done as a group? How many soup kitchens feed people who are under their luck because of atheists? How many houses are built in New Orleans every day because of people who don't believe in a god? How many people stop drinking or shooting up or wasting their lives because of the lack of faith?

I can see where you're coming from in the sense that religion has positive effects. I agree, but only in a personal sense. Sure organised religion has brought people under the same banner, but under that banner it has caused wars and alot of destruction (and it still does) aside from that it restricts science. Faith can bring great peace to a person but when harnassed by a government it can become a weapon of mass destruction.

 

[hobo_welf]

]Honestly though, why the hell would you even try? Faith works for so many people, it causes strife, but it brings millions and billions of people together under one banner that honestly might not even look at each other otherwise, and that's something that I can get behind. Atheists might be joined under a unifying cause, but honestly, what have atheists ever done as a group? How many soup kitchens feed people who are under their luck because of atheists? How many houses are built in New Orleans every day because of people who don't believe in a god? How many people stop drinking or shooting up or wasting their lives because of the lack of faith?

I can see where you're coming from in the sense that religion has positive effects. I agree, but only in a personal sense. Sure organised religion has brought people under the same banner, but under that banner it has caused wars and alot of destruction (and it still does) aside from that it restricts science. Faith can bring great peace to a person but when harnassed by a government it can become a weapon of mass destruction.

And I might have mentioned something similar to that in an earlier post. Religion has had both positive and negative effects on humankind, something I'm not arguing with.

Sorry, I can see why you thought that. Let me try to clarify.

Religion has brought on a fuckton boatload gigantically incalculably larger sum of selfless acts than atheism. I've met religious fanatics that were willing to do just about anything for someone who needed them. I've never met an atheist who was selfless or kind or giving. Or even that nice, honestly. I've met people who happened to also be atheists who were nice, but never someone who stylized themself an atheist.

Maybe I've just met too many shitheads, but more than likely, logic prevents hardcore atheists from doing something that will bring no return to them.

I help x person. My image is boosted, person x likes me more. Person x, in his elevated mood, chooses to help someone, that person chooses to help someone else, and so on. The world becomes better, and since I live in the world, I profit from the improved world. I donate to help homeless people integrate back into society. More low-wage workers for my small business. I decide to begin buying wheat from third world nations. I donate to third world economies. They build up a primary sector, making raw materials cheaper, making my factories make more money.

Well if you put it like that... why aren't there more atheists like you?

Or better yet, when are you going to put that marvelous plan into action?

 

[Kubanator]

Well if you put it like that... why aren't there more atheists like you?

There are millions. They aren't called donors though. A CEO is an philanthropist. He provides a method of survival for thousands of his employees. The priest who simply demands money of his subjects so that it can be wasted feeding a family for another day. Why rely on the hard work of others to sustain an unsustainable cycle, when you can provide a method of sustained wealth, while also generating self-wealth. The reason is lack of ability or lack of reality. Either the priest is incapable, or is disillusioned about what a CEO really is.

Or better yet, when are you going to put that marvelous plan into action?

When I get a job.

 

[hobo_welf]

Well if you put it like that... why aren't there more atheists like you?

There are millions. They aren't called donors though. A CEO is an philanthropist. He provides a method of survival for thousands of his employees. The priest who simply demands money of his subjects so that it can be wasted feeding a family for another day. Why rely on the hard work of others to sustain an unsustainable cycle, when you can provide a method of sustained wealth, while also generating self-wealth. The reason is lack of ability or lack of reality. Either the priest is incapable, or is disillusioned about what a CEO really is.

Or better yet, when are you going to put that marvelous plan into action?

When I get a job.

I'm sorry, when you talk about wasted potential and end the post like that the irony just jumps out at me.

 

[Kubanator]

I'm sorry, when you talk about wasted potential and end the post like that the irony just jumps out at me.

I'm 17.

 

[hobo_welf]

I'm sorry, when you talk about wasted potential and end the post like that the irony just jumps out at me.

I'm 17.

Dude don't make excuses. When I was seventeen I got thrown out of my house(again) and got a job waiting tables and playing guitar at a hole-in-the-wall Italian restaurant. It's just fine to not have a job, actually I'd say most of the time it's better than having a job(the obvious exception being payday), but you can't really talk about people wasting their potential and then round it out like that.

The whole put money in the coffers thing is a bit self fulfilling, but it's better than doing nothing. A far cry better than doing nothing.

Which is what I'm doing! Calling you a hypocrite and then preaching is turning me in a hypocrite.

Are we still having fun?

 

[Kubanator]

Dude don't make excuses. When I was seventeen I got thrown out of my house(again) and got a job waiting tables and playing guitar at a hole-in-the-wall Italian restaurant. It's just fine to not have a job, actually I'd say most of the time it's better than having a job(the obvious exception being payday), but you can't really talk about people wasting their potential and then round it out like that.

The whole put money in the coffers thing is a bit self fulfilling, but it's better than doing nothing. A far cry better than doing nothing.

Which is what I'm doing! Calling you a hypocrite and then preaching is turning me in a hypocrite.

Are we still having fun?

You agree that that x -> a, and then say that only x -> a. That is incorrect. For example, not working could be considered acceptable if it lead to more efficient working later. Ie, due to the decreased pressure on me during these years, I manage to get into university x, and become a CEO, as opposed to a manager at McDonalds. You're looking at the instantaneous result, and refusing to look to the future. Also, hypocrisy =/= invalidated argument.

 

[hobo_welf]

Dude don't make excuses. When I was seventeen I got thrown out of my house(again) and got a job waiting tables and playing guitar at a hole-in-the-wall Italian restaurant. It's just fine to not have a job, actually I'd say most of the time it's better than having a job(the obvious exception being payday), but you can't really talk about people wasting their potential and then round it out like that.

The whole put money in the coffers thing is a bit self fulfilling, but it's better than doing nothing. A far cry better than doing nothing.

Which is what I'm doing! Calling you a hypocrite and then preaching is turning me in a hypocrite.

Are we still having fun?

You agree that that x -> a, and then say that only x -> a. That is incorrect. For example, not working could be considered acceptable if it lead to more efficient working later. Ie, due to the decreased pressure on me during these years, I manage to get into university x, and become a CEO, as opposed to a manager at McDonalds. You're looking at the instantiates result, and refusing to look to the future. Also, hypocrisy =/= invalidated argument.

Cute theories and forumulae, but really everything you've said so far is shit until it actually happens. People can say they're going to do whatever they're going to do but until it happens, it's only so much words and equals signs.

 

[Kubanator]

Cute theories and forumulae, but really everything you've said so far is shit until it actually happens. People can say they're going to do whatever they're going to do but until it happens, it's only so much words and equals signs.

Uh, not really theory. We established it as true. What x -> a means that if condition x is true, as in if someone is working, a is true, meaning they are helping society. What I said was that working is not the only way to help society. Also, according to you, saving money has no purpose as there is no immediate benefit and you are also denying the value of an education. That is ignorance. Really, this is pointless. My point is still true, regardless of my level of hypocrisy, and this discussion is redundant.

 

[hobo_welf]

Not at all. I'm saying that you can say that eventually you'll get a job and contribute to society and buy grain from third world countries and do all sorts of magical things, but I'm pretty sure you're still sitting on your ass posting on the Escapist.

And for someone who's been around for less than two decades, you sling that word ignorance around like it's an old friend.

 

[Kubanator]

Not at all. I'm saying that you can say that eventually you'll get a job and contribute to society and buy grain from third world countries and do all sorts of magical things, but I'm pretty sure you're still sitting on your ass posting on the Escapist.

And if I was a devout catholic, I'd be out saving orphans.

And for someone who's been around for less than two decades, you sling that word ignorance around like it's an old friend.

Age = capability. War = peace. Slavery = freedom. 2 + 2 = 5. B.B! B.B! B.B! B.B!

 

[hobo_welf]

Not at all. I'm saying that you can say that eventually you'll get a job and contribute to society and buy grain from third world countries and do all sorts of magical things, but I'm pretty sure you're still sitting on your ass posting on the Escapist.

And if I was a devout catholic, I'd be out saving orphans.

And for someone who's been around for less than two decades, you sling that word ignorance around like it's an old friend.

Age = capability. War = peace. Slavery = freedom. 2 + 2 = 5. B.B! B.B! B.B! B.B!

If this was /b/ I would simply post a facepalm. Since it isn't, I concede, you are obviously smarter than I, enjoy your atheistic views living in your mothers house jobless contributing jack shit to everything except the Escapist forum, where you are obviously god of reason with perception rivaling that of Sherlock Holmes.

etc etc etc