Coverting to Atheism or Becoming Bright

[DougShrapnel]

At some point in the near future reason will win out over superstition, and a xtian, or other religious person, will lose thier faith and will be LOST. I would like to help those who want to break away from the need for a God. I don't really know how yet perhaps you can help.

Meaning - Without a God, there is no meaing for life.

Worth - The uncoditional love the God gives means you are worthy.

Morals - The idea of absolute morality comes from God. How does one know of the actions to take if there is no GOd?

Prayer - Prayer is very beneficial to the religous. How can the benefits of prayer be maintained.

Commaraderie/Belongingness - A scence of belonging to a Chruch and society as a whole

Afterlife - Worm feed, possiblity of hell?

Ephemeralness - The span of life, and the deacy of works.

Forgiveness - How does one confess and recieve forgiveness,

Justice - God will make sure that the evil doers are punished.

Freewill - If we are just animals we have no free will.

Strength - Much strength is derived from unswaying belief.

Suffering - God has a plan.

Raising Children - One of the legitimizers of religion

Death/others - They are no longer in a better place.

Family - Dealing with family

Self - Part of ones identity is religion.

Aloneness - Mankind has always sensed that he cannot stand alone. That mysterious forces will not let him alone, but affect him at every step. He has known that he must stand alongside the gods, the kings or queens amongst them, or with the one imaginative being that brought the whole thing into existance.

Thats all i can think up now. Any ideas?

Yeh, cleaning out the brain of "beliefs" is painful, at least it was for me. I think there will always be religion though. I saw something on TV, I think on PBS, that said that alot of people have a part of their brain that promotes the belief in a higher power. It's hard for evryone to overcome a hardwired trait.
Shooby

[DougShrapnel]

I've read about the section of the brain that promotes religous beliefs. When that part part of the brain was stimulated with electrods most people would have a religous experience. It's function isn't logical, but it does exist, and is the main reason why people have deep personal experiences and unfounded beliefs.

"Converting to atheism"? What strange phraseology. Do you "convert to asantaclausism" if you find a lack of evidence in that myth, too?

Also, "atheism" as a religion is based on just as feeble a premise as christianity, because beyond the realms of the universe nothing can be known (at least not now and likely ever due to its nature). So, a "religious" belief that there is NO being beyond the universe has no evidence. Agnosticism is more appropriate.

Main Entry: 1ag·nos·tic
Pronunciation: ag-'näs-tik, &g-
Function: noun
Etymology: Greek agnOstos unknown, unknowable, from a- + gnOstos known, from gignOskein to know -- more at KNOW
: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and prob. unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god

[DougShrapnel]

I didn't like the wording of the title myself but since the term bright hasn't caught on yet, i had to put some perspective on it. It was a diservice to do so. And I apologize.

Atheism has always be misdifined. The term is commonly used to describe hard atheism, there is no god. Athiesm is truely a lack of belief in god. Although fun, the point of the post isn't to agrue sematics.


When a society decides to accept a religious doctrine, they accept to take more than just the belief in God. In essence the religious people look around and agree with each other to not only take in the religious prophet as their messiah but also agree on the beliefs espoused by him. This benefits society.

Anyone that would argue or make public their dissention from societies agreement, has a responsibility to not only site reasons for why said prophet is false, but must also explain to some degree the doctrines of said prophet. To argue against belief without replacing the moral fabric of the belief is to do a disservice to those you are trying to educate, and society as a whole.

[ QUOTE ]
When a society decides to accept a religious doctrine, they accept to take more than just the belief in God. In essence the religious people look around and agree with each other to not only take in the religious prophet as their messiah but also agree on the beliefs espoused by him. This benefits society.

Anyone that would argue or make public their dissention from societies agreement, has a responsibility to not only site reasons for why said prophet is false, but must also explain to some degree the doctrines of said prophet. To argue against belief without replacing the moral fabric of the belief is to do a disservice to those you are trying to educate, and society as a whole.

[/ QUOTE ]

What the hell does that all mean?

First, "societies" don't accept religious beliefs. Society is aterm to describe a group of people, and they must accept beliefs individually. Your assertion that "religious people look around and agree with each other" somehow benefits society is also completely unsupportable. And lastly, your assertion that "to argue against belief without replacing the moral fabric of the belief is to do a disservice" is completely crap, no offense. So if I say that there is no Santa Claus, I must replace the moral fabric that a belief in Santa Claus has built - i.e., such as all those little kids doing good to be on Santa's list, and the warm fuzzy feelings of the holidays, etc.? Either I am misinterpreting your post, or it is about as 1984ish a scenario as one can imagine (you must agree with the elders and not speak out against them because "society" benfits from their lies!).

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
First, "societies" don't accept religious beliefs. Society is a term to describe a group of people, and they must accept beliefs individually. Your assertion that "religious people look around and agree with each other" somehow benefits society is also completely unsupportable.

[/ QUOTE ] I'm not sure how to agrue this.

[ QUOTE ]
And lastly, your assertion that "to argue against belief without replacing the moral fabric of the belief is to do a disservice" is completely crap, no offense. So if I say that there is no Santa Claus, I must replace the moral fabric that a belief in Santa Claus has built - i.e., such as all those little kids doing good to be on Santa's list, and the warm fuzzy feelings of the holidays, etc.?

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes if you where to tell kids that believe in Santa that there is no Santa. You would be vindictive, and ethically wrong.

[ QUOTE ]
Either I am misinterpreting your post, or it is about as 1984ish a scenario as one can imagine (you must agree with the elders and not speak out against them!).

[/ QUOTE ] Yes it is a misinterpretation. What I'm saying is, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Ethically, if one were to convince someone to lose the belief in God. They have a responsibility to also put forth replacements beliefs that are bundled with religious belief. For instance morals.

You may speak out, but be aware of the consequences of someone striped of their foundations.

Obviously concepts such as "personal responsibility" and "freedom of speech" are lost on you then?

So, don't state your beliefs (either spoken or written) because some people might listen and be convinced. But it's not their responibility for weighing your words against those of society, it's your responsibility to now deal with their shaken beliefs.

So, repression of all views counter to society's elders is now a virtue we should strive for!

Great, let's go back to the days of silencing men like Copernicus and Galileo, Luther, and every person who chose to challenge the lies of the elders.

What a wonderful world it would be.

[ QUOTE ]
So if I say that there is no Santa Claus, I must replace the moral fabric that a belief in Santa Claus has built - i.e., such as all those little kids doing good to be on Santa's list, and the warm fuzzy feelings of the holidays, etc.?

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes if you where to tell kids that believe in Santa that there is no Santa. You would be vindictive, and ethically wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't say I'd tell kids. What if I just wrote a book about the North Pole and didn't include the fictional aspects of Santa Clausism? Am I again morally obligated to go along so as not to "hurt society"? Do you see the absurdity of your claims that one MUST support the myths of society or be responsible for the well-being of those who's faith in these myths are shaken? This is frightening stuff. You should see if they are still hiring at the Thought Police.

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
Obviously concepts such as "personal responsibility" and "freedom of speech" are lost on you then?

So, don't state your beliefs (either spoken or written) because some people might listen and be convinced. But it's not their responibility for weighing your words against those of society, it's your responsibility to now deal with their shaken beliefs.

So, repression of all views counter to society's elders is now a virtue we should strive for!

Great, let's go back to the days of silencing men like Copernicus and Galileo, Luther, and every person who chose to challenge the lies of the elders.

What a wonderful world it would be.


[/ QUOTE ]

I am disappointed in myself for not being able to make my points clearly. I will try harder.

I will first try to set out some of my beliefs and you may be better able to see where I am coming from.

Personal Responsiblity - Freewill. Free will is not something giving to you by God. Free will is something that you earn thru hard work and study. Each time you learn something new, a different perspective, you increase your freewill. If you don't understand this about freewill, and aren't lucky enough to be brought up with the belief that education is good. You have no freewill. And allthough you will be held accountable for your actions, you really never had the ability to respond.

Freedom of Speech - You have heard that you can't yell fire in a crowed theatre. This is a similar case.

Yes, State your beliefs, but try to understand as much as possible of the effects they are likey to cause.

The point is when you argue against the belief in God, you are not only arguing against that belief. If you want to convince someone you have to also argue morality, death, mores, laws.... In order for you to convince someone.

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
I didn't say I'd tell kids. What if I just wrote a book about the North Pole and didn't include the fictional aspects of Santa Clausism? Am I again morally obligated to go along so as not to "hurt society"? Do you see the absurdity of your claims that one MUST support the myths of society or be responsible for the well-being of those who's faith in these myths are shaken? This is frightening stuff. You should see if they are still hiring at the Thought Police.

[/ QUOTE ]
I can tell you are getting angry, and logic and anger don't mix. What is so wrong with saying that one should have a little personal responsiblity for their actions.

None of your points are intellectually honest, in my opinion.

Meaning - Without a God, there is no meaing for life.

This is false logic. You are saying that WITH a God, life has meaning. What meaning? The chance to worship God for all eternity? How is that life more meaningful than living on earth? What exactly is the "meaning to life" under a religious mindset? What purpose in the universe or beyond do you serve? A creation of a supreme being meant for eternal worship of that being is real "meaning"?

Worth - The uncoditional love the God gives means you are worthy.

False logic. Your worth is cheapened by conventional religious doctrine. You are just a creation of a higher being who must follow that being's code of conduct or be cast into an eternal fire. If you follow the code of conduct, you can worship the being for eternity. How is that self-worth?

Morals - The idea of absolute morality comes from God. How does one know of the actions to take if there is no GOd?

Morality is not based on God's teachings alone or society's which do not accept God's teachings wouldn't have similar moral codes. The Inuits/Aborigines/Chinese/Apache/etc. never knew Christianity or the 10 Commandments but still had a society built on a moral code.

Prayer - Prayer is very beneficial to the religous. How can the benefits of prayer be maintained.

If there is no God directing day-to-day events, then prayer isn't beneficial, its a waste of time. Might as well argue that watching cartoons is beneficial.

Commaraderie/Belongingness - A scence of belonging to a Chruch and society as a whole

There are other organizations, you know? And these other organizations don't profess to be the "one true organization" and all non-members will suffer for all eternity. Such a spirit of belongingness -- the Crips would be proud.

Afterlife - Worm feed, possiblity of hell?

Worshipping an almighty being for infinity? How is this a wonderful afterlife?

Ephemeralness - The span of life, and the deacy of works.

Whatever that is meant to say.

Forgiveness - How does one confess and recieve forgiveness,

Ummm, from real people versus imaginary friends.

Justice - God will make sure that the evil doers are punished.

Not in your lifetime, so why should you care? Justice still is administered on earth. Just because religion exists doesn't mean we have no punishment on earth.

Freewill - If we are just animals we have no free will.

If we have to choose between living according to God's code of conduct or burning in hell for all eternity, are we really free then???

Strength - Much strength is derived from unswaying belief.

Strength based on lies is not strength. It's cowardice in that it must invent comfortable myths to face life.

Suffering - God has a plan.

Apparently the plan is for billions to suffer on earth, and more billions to suffer through eternity. How noble.

Raising Children - One of the legitimizers of religion

Animals raise their young too, unless you are arguing that mice believe in God also.

Death/others - They are no longer in a better place.

They are either worshipping for eternity or burning for eternity. Neither seems a "better" alternative to me.

Family - Dealing with family

You are really reaching. I don't see what this even means? Only christians have families or can deal with them? There are only several billion counterexamples out there right now.

Self - Part of ones identity is religion.

So what? Part of the Russian citizens identity was the Communist Party, or the 1930s German felt identity as part of the great Fatherland. Doesn't mean it was a good thing to identify with.

Aloneness - Mankind has always sensed that he cannot stand alone. That mysterious forces will not let him alone, but affect him at every step. He has known that he must stand alongside the gods, the kings or queens amongst them, or with the one imaginative being that brought the whole thing into existance.

Or, ignorant and weak men have felt unable to stand alone in their thoughts and beliefs.

Thats all i can think up now. Any ideas?

No, I think you hammered out a compelling case for promoting ignorance.

[ QUOTE ]
What is so wrong with saying that one should have a little personal responsiblity for their actions.

[/ QUOTE ]

How is not speaking your beliefs because others are too stupid to think for themselves a form of responsibility?

The problem lies in the doctrine, the idea that my god is bigger than your god, or you can only get a ticket to heaven at my church etc. People contaminate everything that they touch. Religion will always exist due to the fact that people need hope. People are inherantly lazy, they don't want to do the work it takes to overcome the Ego and face the real truth.

[DougShrapnel]

Thank you for taking the time to answer these.


I think your answers on Morals was usefull, As well as Comaraderie.

Your answers on prayer was just incorrect.

And everthing else was just a refutation with little insight.


Am I really that wrong in trying to think up better ways to convince people that there is no need for a belief in God. I think the world would be a better place without that belief.

[DougShrapnel]

The responsible part is speaking your beliefs and then also being able to answer the questions previously answered(incorrectly) by the religion.

For instance my personal belief in freewill, is more correct, than the one given in the bible.

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
or you can only get a ticket to heaven at my church etc

[/ QUOTE ] or if you don't believe you will go to hell. Argumentum ad Baculum always bothered me.

[ QUOTE ]
People are inherantly lazy, they don't want to do the work it takes to overcome the Ego and face the real truth.

[/ QUOTE ] Or they don't know how, or see any benefit

[ QUOTE ]
Am I really that wrong in trying to think up better ways to convince people that there is no need for a belief in God. I think the world would be a better place without that belief.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't even know what your asking anymore. I agree the world would be better without it. So argue each point you see fit. This laundry list you've created doesn't mean anything if you confront a christian, though. They won't say "but I like to pray, does your belief system have anything that makes me feel good, too?" It isn't a swap meet. "I'll give up my beliefs even though I like religious organizations if you have a better organization for me." I don't even understand your point anymore, frankly.

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't even understand your point anymore, frankly.

[/ QUOTE ] I'm not sure if you every did, I am much closer to making it clearer. And in the end I might have a new tactic, or I may have dragged you down a dead end.

I have certain premises, one of which is that religion benefits society in some way otherwise it would not continue to exist.

Another is that when you are agrueing the existance of God with someone, you have the extra burden not only to make a logical case to remove the belief in God, but also to remove all the benefits. The benefits of a incorrect belief may outweight the benefits of being correct.

I've allready made my case, athough not well enough, but you were willing to play along with the ethical responsiblity one has when changing ones mind.

Prayer for instance benefits the practitioner by focusing the mind, much as affirmations do.

Although no one would admit to it being a swap meet, I think some people act that way.

I still havne't fully explained my position or point, where else am I lacking?