No matter how open-minded...

[Michael Hirst]

Money, more specifically what people will do to each other for the sake of money. It's sickening to see how people will kill each other for what at the end of the day is bits of paper with imaginary value attached. When you die all the money in the world is useless and looking at things from that logic makes religious people seem a lot more sensible really.

 

[iLikeHippos]

I don't understand Atheism. I mean, if you're going to be disobedient to the church and think 'freely' as if the term did not apply to religious people to begin with, why not take the better option from the motto of 'not giving a fuck' towards 'I'll improve the world from now on'?

I am talking about conversion towards other non-religious groups such as Zen-Buddhism and the many other varieties of non-religious beliefs with actual benefits and education.
EDIT; And to clarify, I am meaning not in the means of remaining in open thoughts to the world and never let your thirst for knowledge be snuffed, MERELY, but rather in real knowledge you can take to heart and use as a way of life.
For instance, I read a book named "Yasuragi" meaning calmness and peace in Japanese, which had its roots in Zen-Buddhism and Japanese traditions and such. It taught me ways to keep at heart, as in remaining non-violent, practice meditation and many other useful tricks, which I have observed we do so lack in the Western World, and it indeed did empower me. When I attempted Nihilism for example, which is a cousin of Atheism, I was given no such things, only but a dark gloomy vision on life with no further improvement. Real knowledge, which you can use and live by, not just as a matter of perspective. Live without a God, or Live without a God and improve your very well being and the world alike.

As it stands, I feel we just have one big boring group with little personality here. And I'm not just saying this because I am grumpy in some sort of way; it just seems like a far more logical conclusion, and as Atheists often describe themselves as highly logical I'd very much assume this theory would hit home, no?
But than again, logic sometimes comes down to ones own personal preferences, experiences and ideals, so it might just be me.

So what's stopping you people? What's your excuse?
(It might also be interesting to know people convert daily in the West towards these values)

Edit; It might be difficult to phrase, but I only have good intentions; it's not in means to flame.

 

[JoJo]

And that terrible human trait that's sort of like... Well, let me give you a scenario.

-- You are charged with protecting a town. A deadly zombie virus breaks out in the town. There are 200 people in the town. 75 of them are infected. You have a chance to kill all the 75 zombies almost instantly, ending the zombie infection, and saving the town and the world. The villagers won't let you, because it's their friends and family. And human rights and shit.

Why don't people overcome their 'bawwwww Disney movie ethics' and think of the greater good? 75 UNDEAD people, or 7 billion UNDEAD people? DAMN YOU DEMOCRACYYYY

Okay, I know this probably isn't the purpose of the thread but you've aroused my curiosity now, could you give some real life examples of this trait? People can be surprisingly hard-nosed and unempathetic when life is on the line.

 

[TheDooD]

I don't understand why people want to be miserable. I'm baffled by the idea of someone being spoon fed help for their problems and shoving it away like a child not wanting to eat his vegetables. Why would anyone want to dwell in their misery? I understand mourning and being upset and depressed over short periods of time, or mild extended periods, but why do people just want to be miserable? Is it so they can always get attention for their problems? Are they really not upset and just being dramatic? Why would anyone not at least try to be happy? Even when I was super depressed, I fought every day for joy and putting myself in a place where I could be happy (which I am at now.) If people care about you and are trying to help you feel better, why would you turn that away? It makes my head hurt!

It pretty much the fact that you don't want deal with other people's opinions. Sometimes people just don't want to be spoon fed help because the help they're trying to give might not be the help they really need as well. The problems are normally deep seeded and in no real way have a one trick pony to try to fix it.

The belief that good deeds are pointless without exclusive personal profit.

and

The belief that human beings in their natural state are not violent selfish animals. I cannot accept the humanist belief that humans will preserve each other simply because it's morally correct. The only reason that one homo erctus would save another homo erectus is if he knew that the dying erectus may be of future use, or that the social exclusion brought upon him by not saving him would prove to much. Every human action boils down to the desire to mate. Any action can be unraveled to a point at which it is revealed as nothing more than an attempt to ensure or improve reproductive success.

I'm like this only because people abused my kindness and willingness to help. Yet when I need their help in turn there's always a catch or they just aren't up to it. Which really pissed me off to the point where I don't help anybody unless there's money or goods involved and I take my payments before I do the good deed.

 

[Mau95]

German grammar...
IT MAKES NO SENSE!!

Edit: So many people saying they can't understand religious people. Here is a slightly logical answer:
If [insert deity here] does exist: you will go to heaven or be reborn as a cow or something.
If it doesn't exist: doesn't matter now that you're dead, does it?

German grammar makes total sense, although it depends on where you're from.

The people that dont get religious people: where are you from? Most religious people I know are alright, rly.

I dont get some weird fetishes.

German grammar makes sense, but it's pretty damn complicated compared to other languages

Ever tried to learn Dutch? My first language, and German is rather similar.

German is my first languague. I know how it works, but you have to admit it's way more complicated than some other languagues.

I repeat: Dutch? It depends on what you're used too, really. Maybe I just have an aptitude for languages.

 

[Fiskmasen]

Americans. How can an entire country be so completely and utterly ignorant towards the rest of the world? I have no idea, but it rubs me the wrong way.

 

[dfphetteplace]

I don't understand people who do things 'out of the goodness of their heart'. There's no profit for the doer, unless the doer has the ideas of favours in mind, it just seems illogical to me.

Why is it illogical? You do things that are nice to others because it is the right thing to do and it may help make the world a better place. There is no mystery to it unless you are a sociopath.

 

[hazabaza1]

Oh god, this thread stinks so much of hate and stupidity, it hurts.

 

[Scrythe]

That being an atheist ceased to be "I simply don't follow relegion/God/whatever" and became this [http://mlkshk.com/r/CEK] attention-seeking douchebaggery.

That if you fall under an American political party, you absolutely must follow EVERYTHING that party believes.

That "guilty pleasure" is now "irony".

 

[ImperialSunlight]

If you assert the existence of something, the burden of proof is on you, not on the sceptic.
At this point, the discussion usually diverges, as the faithful argue on the philosophical level for the existence of a god, while being unable to prove his existence on a physical level - whereas the materialist (that many atheists are) requires to accept the proposition that a god exists.

The problem with this argument is that atheists also make an assertion, the assertion that no god/goddess/etc. could exist. They give no proof other than that there is no proof. The belief in spiritual beings has existed for thousands of years, it is a paradigm that atheists wish to diverge from, yet they have no evidence against it. The faithful argue on a philosophical level because, by definition, God etc. cannot be known or observed physically. Thus the lack of physical evidence is meaningless.

The problem here is that one posits the existence of an (omnipotent, omniscient & omnibenevolent) being that is clearly outside the realm of nature, whereas the other requires a natural proof as he refuses that things outside his physical reality have or should have an impact on him.

For one, not all religions hold that their spiritual being is omnipotent, omniscient and benevolent. There are also religions (Ancient Greek, for example) that claim that their gods are represented in nature. Regardless, the requirement of a natural proof in order to consider the possibility of a divine being that cannot be observed in nature is simply contradictory. I do not claim that they should believe in a divine being because it is possible but I don't understand the logic in denying it based on a lack of evidence that should not exist.

The discussion can't even agree on the same topic, which makes science & faith not be direct opposites, but very compatible, provided faith takes a step back when science proves something in the natural world. The refusal to accept logic as it pertains to natural facts or the models we build to explain them is ununderstandable for someone firmly rooted in the scientific method; thus the statament that faithful are illogical.

I don't think I was discussing something like this in my original post but what do you mean by "The discussion can't even agree on the same topic"? Also, The denial of scientific discovery usually comes from a dogmatic, literal reading of sacred texts, for example, assuming that the story of Adam and Eve should be seen as historical fact rather than as an allegory. Without looking at the texts in such a literal way, one can better reconcile religion and modern science. Also, the idea that science can find any kind of fact, that can be proven without any doubt is dogmatic in itself. While future developments may prove a "natural fact" to be incorrect, science holds it as absolute fact that cannot be disputed.

All that said, i refuse your implication that the lack of an immortal moral law means atheists are morally bankrupt. We see intrinsic value in good deeds, and there are humanist and social-evolutionary reasons why "doing good" is worth doing. In contrast, the refusal of an immortal moral law absolves me of having to push it unto someone else who may not share those laws or beliefs, and that is A Good Thing!

I never really said that atheists are without morals. All I meant to say was that atheists have no reason to be think morally, considering that they believe that we just rot in a hole when we die, regardless of what we do in life. While pushing ones beliefs on others is indeed wrong, there are some times when you have to. Cannibals, serial killers, etc. often believe that what they are doing is right. I suppose it's pushing our moral beliefs on others if we arrest criminals?

That evangelical behaviour of religious people is the root of many evils committed by faithful. The opinion that my, and only my, belief is the One Truth, is one of the most damaging ideas ever known to mankind - regardless of whether it's rooted in faith, though it usually is.

Many religions do not believe that their religion is the "One Truth" (Hinduism, among others). Those that do such things are usually either not going by the actual religious teachings ("thou shalt not kill", for example) or extremists who should not represent the rest of the community. That some of the religious people believe that they are right has no bearing on the argument of whether divinity exists.

Most churches have their own version of extra ecclesiam nulla salus - that dogma that my faith is The One True Faith is the cause and justification for all evil done by good men of faith; and that is the true crime of religions against humanity: It makes good people do bad things.

As I said previously, many religions do not believe this and with those that do, most do not act on it, besides extremists and the ignorant and, as I said, it has no meaning in the argument atheists are posing.

 

[JoJo]

I don't understand Atheism. I mean, if you're going to be disobedient to the church and think 'freely' as if the term did not apply to religious people to begin with, why not take the better option from the motto of 'not giving a fuck' towards 'I'll improve the world from now on'?

I am talking about conversion towards other non-religious groups such as Buddhism and the many other varieties of non-religious beliefs with actual benefits and education.
Seriously, if every fucking Atheist converted towards a much more knowledgeable way of life, I seriously doubt this world would look gloomier than it actually is.

As it stands, I feel we just have one big boring group with little personality here. And I'm not just saying this because I am grumpy in some sort of way; it just seems like a far more logical conclusion, and as Atheists often describe themselves as highly logical I'd very much assume this theory would hit home, no?

So what's stopping you people? What's your excuse?

I'll admit I'm a little confused with what you've written here. I think the problem is that you're thinking of atheists as a homogeneous group like protestants or Shia muslims, whereas in reality the only thing that unites atheists is the lack of belief in God. Being an atheist doesn't prevent someone from having a more complicated philosophy alongside their non-theistic beliefs, humanism and nihilism are two good examples of very different philosophy's based on Atheism. Atheism's motto isn't not giving a fuck, by definition it has no motto.

From my own personal experience I'm an Atheist and I like to think I do my bit to improve the world, I try to help other people when I can and I do weekly voluntary work with my community so that's a start to improving the world, I hope.

Also just a note, Buddhists don't believe in God but they aren't non-religious as they believe in souls and reincarnation.

 

[scorptatious]

People that like to nitpick about America and how it does things. Like our dating system.

The only difference I can see is that we use the month and day in a different order. Is that really something worth complaining about? Or am I missing something here?

 

[Pearwood]

People who draw erotic fanart of underaged girls or, worse, make older characters appear much younger. WHY?! There's too many people doing it to just slap the paedophile label on every single one of them... so why? Same goes for fan fiction. Dear authors of Chibi-Usa's Seventh Birthday and Diamond Pokemon - please get hit by a bus.

Also every quote from a real life person as opposed to being taken from some obscure internet forum to be hosted on this site. [http://fstdt.com/Default.aspx] The fuck is wrong with those people?

The only difference I can see is that we use the month and day in a different order. Is that really something worth complaining about? Or am I missing something here?

It can get confusing if you use dates like 03/11. Am I talking about 3rd November or 11th March? And it's really weird hearing an American say "ah-LOOOM-in-um" but yeah it's just weird not really worth making a fuss over.

 

[Scrustle]

People that like to nitpick about America and how it does things. Like our dating system.

The only difference I can see is that we use the month and day in a different order. Is that really something worth complaining about? Or am I missing something here?

It's un-intuitive. Or to me it is. It makes sense to go day/month/year. It goes in order of how specific it is. It doesn't annoy me that much but I think that way is better.

OT: I agree with the OP. It doesn't make sense to me that anyone would not like music for it's inherent value. Although I can kind of get it. I was never really that interested in any specific type of music until I was about 13 and found stuff that I liked. Pretty much everything before then just didn't resonate with me at all. But the only way I can conceive that someone just doesn't like music would be that they have never heard or gone looking for something they like.

 

[Purkki]

I don't understand people who don't understand what open-mindedness really means.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T69TOuqaqXI

Talking about tolerance, I don't get it why people argue over religions. It's a religion damn it, not a political conversation!

 

[LarenzoAOG]

I don't understand why people continually try to overreach themselves, I suppose it's human nature but I've never heard anyone say "I think I have enough," Why can't people be happy with what they've got?

 

[monkey_man]

Yeah I don't like religion. It makes no sense to me, and it's all written hundreds of years ago by some people you can't really trust. There are no sources to verify the truth, but this book filled with contradictions and impossible things happening.
Everyone knows the Matrix is real anyway.

 

[Rastien]

I think I can understand most people's motives, even if I don't share them. But I will never understand people who deny themselves happiness in some way.

Well shit... this post was like dumping a cold bucket of water on my head and waking up. So few words spoken but very true.

Thank you.

 

[ImperialSunlight]

It is illogical for one to assert belief in something when there is no evidence backing up said belief. It is not illogical to be skeptical of a claim brought forth which has no evidence to back it up. In fact, disbelief is the default position.

Atheism is also a position, the position that divinity cannot exist. This claim has the same amount of evidence as that of religion, as such, the default position is not disbelief but indecision.

The burden of proof lies on the person making the claim, they need to prove to others why their claim is true, not the reverse. you can never, ever prove conclusively that something does not exist, but you can prove that something does exist, and so it is on the person making the claim to prove that their claim exists. If they don't give good enough evidence, then people are justified in not believing the claim.

How would one prove conclusively and unquestionably that something exists?

I can't speak for other atheists, but personally, I don't "assume" that religions are false, I look at the evidence that I can see, and I make a judgement on whether I think they have any merit or not. And so far, every religion presented to me has failed to pass my standard of truth, with either blatant contradiction, or just plain lack of evidence. If you can prove to me that your religion is true then I will convert to your religion. I am not closed to the possibility of a God existing, I just know that the gods of today's modern religions cannot exist, because their holy books and their sects are all extremely vague and contradictory on what their God actually is.

If you do not believe in a spiritual being but acknowledge the possibility of one, you are not atheist but agnostic.

Also it is extremely naive to think that some two thousand year old book written over the course of hundreds of years is the only source of morality. Morality is socially constructed, it is not divinely constructed.

If there is no God, god, goddess, etc. then there can be no all encompassing moral truth. This means that, since after we die according to atheism, we all end up as nothing, there is no point to being moral because we all end up the same in the end. Now, I am not saying that the Bible, the Quran or whatever other holy book's morality is the truth. It is that the acknowledgement of a moral truth that exists beyond human understanding makes us strive to be as moral as possible. Moral laws are created by society as a direct response to our yearning for an ultimate moral law, so while this moral law may not exist, if we do not acknowledge it's existence, our laws are meaningless.

 

[spartan231490]

Honestly, I've been trying to find something to post for several days, and I have had a problem. While I generally don't use the ability much, I have the ability to understand someone else's point of view on almost anything. I almost universally disagree with them, but I can wrap my head around it.

So, several days of thinking later, I have finally figured out the one thing that I just cannot wrap my head around no matter how hard I try. Normally, I wouldn't even post it, but I think that it is particularly applicable to many of you here on the escapist.

I cannot wrap my head around atheism. I cannot understand the belief that there is no supreme power. I see evidence of the divine every single day, I see evidence of the divine in science, not proof, never proof, but always evidence. Agnostics, I understand, but to actively say that there is nothing, and that there couldn't be, I just can't wrap my head around it.