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.