Beliefs, Non-Beliefs, Worldviews and Philosophy v2.0

[tehdrewsus]

That's great for you! I have no problem with Christians like yourself. However I suspect that if a marriage equality bill was to be enacted in your state or a federal marriage equality bill was to be enacted your father (and potentially yourself) would vote/lobby against that. At that point you would be imposing your beliefs on others. If that's not the case then I'm sorry for projecting that on you.

A vote is not imposing your beliefs, you're basically being asked your opinion by means of ballot. The popular opinion gets the nod.

I think people from all walks of life and religions should practice their faith individually, not let the church be a middle man between you and the God you believe in. Today churches are nothing more than corporations, it's all about money to them.

The mega churches (Joel Osteen, Creflo Dollar, etc), sure. I go to a small church wherever everyone loves each other and Jesus too, Our offerings keep the lights on and help pay for utilities, church maintenance, events, helping the needy, etc. Not a cent of profit in it.

Having said all that, I'm a Christian. I love everyone, regardless of their beliefs/lack thereof, orientation, etc. I believe it's best for me, and I enjoy sharing why it is - if I'm asked. I don't impose my beliefs on others or ridicule them for theirs. I lived a non-religious life for a long time, and I wouldn't go back.

 

[Under_The_Mayo]

I agree. This is why I don't like intolerant Atheists.

Objectively, atheists are ultimately useless and serve no purpose other than hate, spread hate and reject/spit on other people's beliefs/spirituality. They have every right not to believe in a god. But when they look down on theists and try to convince believers that what they believe in is "wrong" or "stupid", then atheists prove they aren't worth anyone's attention or respect. Because they become no better than cult extremists.

Atheists base their disbelief on lack of proof, saying things like "I'll believe in god when I see him/her/it or when science proves him/her/it". Of course, anyone with an IQ higher than 60 understands that science and empiricism cannot research, prove or disprove anything that is of the metaphysical realm. Whether these primitive atheists are aware of it or not remains uncertain to me. Regardless, they continue to believe that matter is all that matters and that there is no such thing as a human soul, a designer, a purpose to life or an afterlife. So being atheist is essentially accepting to live a meaningless materialist YOLO life with no purpose or spirituality.

So again, Atheism is an utterly useless and pointless doctrine with no other purpose than hating on, discrediting and devaluing other cultures and their spiritual beliefs. It is unneeded and it is more cancerous than all religions combined. Considering its only goal is to provoke, agitate, increase tensions and encourage theists to adopt more extremist positions to defend their views and their fundamental rights.

Hooray. You've shown your ignorance of Atheism in the most accurate way possible. Thank you.

 

[DevilMaySpy]

The mega churches (Joel Osteen, Creflo Dollar, etc), sure. I go to a small church wherever everyone loves each other and Jesus too, Our offerings keep the lights on and help pay for utilities, church maintenance, events, helping the needy, etc. Not a cent of profit in it.

Having said all that, I'm a Christian. I love everyone, regardless of their beliefs/lack thereof, orientation, etc. I believe it's best for me, and I enjoy sharing why it is - if I'm asked. I don't impose my beliefs on others or ridicule them for theirs. I lived a non-religious life for a long time, and I wouldn't go back.

My dad has a megachurch and he openly announces where the money is going. In addition to the utilities, tithes and offerings have covered hospital bills for cancer patients, car notes for people getting repoed, college scholarships, and rebuilding torn down projects. All mega churches aren't about embezzlement.

 

[Espio]

I'm a moderate Libertarian, which basically means I am for limited government, more rights for others and minding my own business for things that do not concern me like who you love or other private matters that cause no objective harm.

I respect everyone's religious beliefs, but I do not tolerate people trying to force their views on me as that is disrespecting my beliefs. I love discussing issues with Christians, Muslims, Jews, Atheists, Buddhists, Agnostics etc because I feel like everyone has a unique take on world affairs and there's so much variation across every belief system.


I'm Agnostic. In other words, I am unsure if a God/Goddess or Gods exist and don't really care because for me there's really no way to know about there being a divine or not. I'm also not Atheist because I also do not feel I can rule anything out at present.

I am making it a goal to read every religious text from across the globe over the course of the next couple years too.



I am a huge advocate for freedom of religion and freedom from religion. I think secularism is a great thing.

Might add onto this later.

 

[tehdrewsus]

Hooray. You've shown your ignorance of Atheism in the most accurate way possible. Thank you.

sounds more like he's describing anti-theism, not atheism.

 

[tehdrewsus]

My dad has a megachurch and he openly announces where the money is going. In addition to the utilities, tithes and offerings have covered hospital bills for cancer patients, car notes for people getting repoed, college scholarships, and rebuilding torn down projects. All mega churches aren't about embezzlement.

I should have put "some of" in front of that. sorry.

 

[Under_The_Mayo]

sounds more like he's describing anti-theism, not atheism.

Even still. Anti-theism is about being active in trying to get rid of theism. It's not about hating. It's not about taking away people's rights. It's about trying to stop the negative effects of theism. There's no hate involved in the campaign to keep creationism out of science class, to keep religious beliefs out of the rights of gays to marry, etc.

 

[CrimsonShadow]

Even still. Anti-theism is about being active in trying to get rid of theism. It's not about hating. It's not about taking away people's rights. It's about trying to stop the negative effects of theism. There's no hate involved in the campaign to keep creationism out of science class, to keep religious beliefs out of the rights of gays to marry, etc.

That sounds like taking away people's rights to me.

Otherwise it wouldn't be called anti-thesim -- it'd just be called democracy. If you are against people having beliefs (which is what the term means) then you may as well be against free speech or anything else.

P.S. I wasn't taught creationism in Science class. What science class do they teach that in?

 

[STB Shujinkydink]

Really? Wow. Who wrote it then?

Governments, whoever was in power. It's changed lots over the years and people have omitted sections and said some things don't apply anymore which is funny cause it's "the word of god" lol. Those people are so fickle

@Cal-EL I'm kinda confused as to what I'm doing to set a bad example? Disagreeing with others beliefs? Sharing my opinion? Just because you don't want to hear something doesn't mean I shouldn't say it. I'm not forcing it on anyone, it's just what I think

 

[Under_The_Mayo]

That sounds like taking away people's rights to me.

Otherwise it wouldn't be called anti-thesim -- it'd just be called democracy. If you are against people having beliefs (which is what the term means) then you may as well be against free speech or anything else.

P.S. I wasn't taught creationism in Science class. What science class do they teach that in?

School districts regularly try to insert creationism into science classrooms. There's constant litigation about it, the most famous being the Dover case of 2005.

And no, it is NOT about taking away rights. It's about protecting rights, and being active trying to get people to leave their beliefs behind. There is no force, there is no law restricting what you can believe. It is anti-theism because it's against belief, but there is no force behind it. It's about conversation and not being shy to challenge people's beliefs. And being against belief is nothing at all like being against free speech. No one is saying that you can't believe what you believe.

 

[rev0lver]

Atheists base their disbelief on lack of proof, saying things like "I'll believe in god when I see him/her/it or when science proves him/her/it". Of course, anyone with an IQ higher than 60 understands that science and empiricism cannot research, prove or disprove anything that is of the metaphysical realm. Whether these primitive atheists are aware of it or not remains uncertain to me. Regardless, they continue to believe that matter is all that matters and that there is no such thing as a human soul, a designer, a purpose to life or an afterlife. So being atheist is essentially accepting to live a meaningless materialist YOLO life with no purpose or spirituality.

I disagree with pretty much every part of this.

First of all, why is evidence for religion only in the metaphysical realm? Evidence doesn't even have to come by a strict interpretation of the scientific method. If someone/something can display divine power then it displays divine power. But when the world we live in, that we see, has behaved 100% within scientific law, it's hard to reasonably believe in a separate actor. The scientific method exists in this case to show that things that supposedly happened by a divine force happened naturally, or at least could have logically happened naturally.

Secondly, the basis for everything, from what we can physically touch, to our thoughts that create human connections, is matter. That doesn't mean we can't create a higher meaning from it. The reason I have a hard time accepting religion that teaches the existence of a soul is because of this. The way I see it, the whole concept of this becomes illogical when looking at cases of brain damage, particularly in the classic case of Phineas Gage. If you're not familiar, Gage was a railroad construction worker whose head was impaled in an accident. He survived, but with extensive damage to his frontal lobe. Following this and to the end of his life, his personality changed dramatically. He became erratic, impulsive, and bitter, due to damage to his brain's areas regulating emotion. Though it's hard to know the extent of this or how much was actually true, we've seen many similar cases with brain damage in the present. The idea of a soul makes it so that your thoughts and actions are guided by this sort of sub-brain that exists mystically within you, later to be sent to another plane of existence to be judged. But this is demonstrably untrue. Our personalities are complex, but are created by these systems that exist within the brain. It's hard to grasp as we don't want to reduce our entire lives to simple natural causes, but again, it doesn't mean we can't use these systems to create higher meanings for ourselves and our world.

Thirdly, I don't think it means we have to accept a "materialist yolo life". As an atheist, I do believe that we only live once, but not necessarily with the meaning of that sense of the phrase. I believe life should be enjoyment, but that as this is our only time in existence, we should help everyone live their lives the best they can, and help future generations have a better world for them. Having a life limited to a few decades doesn't mean one has to be selfish.

 

[rev0lver]

That sounds like taking away people's rights to me.

Otherwise it wouldn't be called anti-thesim -- it'd just be called democracy. If you are against people having beliefs (which is what the term means) then you may as well be against free speech or anything else.

P.S. I wasn't taught creationism in Science class. What science class do they teach that in?

I wasn't taught creationism but my school was expressly forbidden from teaching anything about evolution. Our biology textbook had about a paragraph mentioning it but it was never brought up in the classroom. And this was at least until 2010, idk if it's changed but probably not

 

[Under_The_Mayo]

I disagree with pretty much every part of this.

First of all, why is evidence for religion only in the metaphysical realm? Evidence doesn't even have to come by a strict interpretation of the scientific method. If someone/something can display divine power then it displays divine power. But when the world we live in, that we see, has behaved 100% within scientific law, it's hard to reasonably believe in a separate actor.

Revolver you're so MILITANT! Stop trying to take away my rights!

 

[CrimsonShadow]

School districts regularly try to insert creationism into science classrooms. There's constant litigation about it, the most famous being the Dover case of 2005.

And no, it is NOT about taking away rights. It's about protecting rights, and being active trying to get people to leave their beliefs behind.

That's an oxymoron though -- you're restricting free thought and free speech, while saying you're protecting rights. It's one thing to say you favor democracy and want to keep legal actions separate from people's religious beliefs (which is fair); it's another to say you're anti-belief and trying to make people to leave their beliefs behind. One sounds like democracy, and the other like fascism.

 

[Under_The_Mayo]

That's an oxymoron though -- you're restricting free thought and free speech, while saying you're protecting rights. It's one thing to say you favor democracy and want to keep legal actions separate from people's religious beliefs (which is fair); it's another to say you're anti-belief and trying to make people to leave their beliefs behind. One sounds like democracy, and the other like fascism.

Crimson, where did I say that we want to restrict free thought? Trying to convince people to change their minds is basic communication and debate. That's the entire point. You're really overreacting. No one is throwing you in jail, or denying you a job or a family or a house. It doesn't matter what you believe. That's your right. Simply trying to convince someone that they are wrong is not the same as forcing them.

 

[CrimsonShadow]

Crimson, where did I say that we want to restrict free thought? Trying to convince people to change their minds is basic communication and debate. That's the entire point. You're really overreacting. No one is throwing you in jail, or denying you a job or a family or a house. It doesn't matter what you believe. That's your right. Simply trying to convince someone that they are wrong is not the same as forcing them.

Because on one hand, you're saying that you're protecting rights -- and if that's the case, people should have a right to believe in a higher power if they so choose. Then on the other hand, you said you're anti-theist, which means you're basically against people believing in a higher power. It's like me saying I promote equal rights, but I'm racist. Haha

 

[Under_The_Mayo]

Because on one hand, you're saying that you're protecting rights -- and if that's the case, people should have a right to believe in a higher power if they so choose. Then on the other hand, you said you're anti-theist, which means you're basically against people believing in a higher power. It's like me saying I promote equal rights, but I'm racist. Haha

You can support equal rights while being a racist in your views. I'm not one, but it's not a contradiction. And Crimson it's like you aren't reading anything I said. I'm in total agreement that people have a right to believe in a higher power. But it's not fascism to try to get them to stop believing. It would be fascism if we punished them for believing. Anti-theists think the world would be better without faith, and they'll work towards that in a way that isn't forcing anyone.

It goes like this. "I think you're wrong, you think you're right. I'll be glad to talk to you about why you're wrong if you let me, and maybe I can change your mind. If you don't, then fair enough." If you think that's fascism, then you need to take a history class or even just get out a dictionary.

 

[CrimsonShadow]

You can support equal rights while being a racist in your views. I'm not one, but it's not a contradiction. And Crimson it's like you aren't reading anything I said. I'm in total agreement that people have a right to believe in a higher power. But it's not fascism to try to get them to stop believing. It would be fascism if we punished them for believing. Anti-theists think the world would be better without faith, and they'll work towards that in a way that isn't forcing anyone.

It's not that I'm not reading, it's that every other thing you say contradicts the thing you said before it.

Example:
"You can have racist views, and still support equal rights"
followed by
"I can't have fascist views unless I'm actively punishing people for believing and forcing them not to believe"

So you're basically saying.. You can have racist beliefs, but not act on them. But it's not possible to have fascist beliefs unless you're actually acting on them.

This is the latest example of a contradiction that doesn't make any sense

 

[Under_The_Mayo]

It's not that I'm not reading, it's that every other thing you say contradicts the thing you said before it.

Example:
"You can have racist views, and still support equal rights"
followed by
"I can't be a fascist unless I'm actively punishing people for believing and forcing them not to believe"

So you're basically saying.. You can have racist beliefs, but not act on them. But it's not possible to have fascist beliefs unless you're actually acting on them.

This is the latest example of a contradiction that doesn't make any sense

Fascism is about authoritarianism. Racism is about racial inferiority. They are completely different. So yes, you can have racist opinions, but support a non-racism civilization structure. And you can have fascist beliefs but not act on them. But simply wanting people to not believe in their superstitions has nothing to do with authoritarian rule, because nothing about our opinion wants to control what other people think.

I think the world would be better if people stopped believing in psychic powers. And I'll call out someone who does believe in it, to tell them why it's nonsense, because it's a dumb and sometimes harmful superstition. And if they don't listen to me, then oh well. This makes me a fascist apparently?

 

[Rodrigue]

So, let me get this straight: you can change religions and that's fine, but it's impossible for someone to stop being gay or convert to homosexuality?

See that's the point that most people miss. You're not born religious.

 

[Vulcan Hades]

Hooray. You've shown your ignorance of Atheism in the most accurate way possible. Thank you.

No no no, you got it all wrong. I've done this thread a great service by effectively separating worthless intolerant atheists from inoffensive atheists. My opinion or your opinion doesn't matter here. What's important is that we will know who the scumbag atheists are.

See people can't say they respect other people beliefs then start arguing with them for 2 pages about why they feel they are wrong or stupid for believing in "fairytales" or believing in something metaphysical. Any time an atheist tries to question someone else's belief and/or asks them to provide scientific proof to back up their belief they fall into the "worthless" category and prove they in fact do not respect other people's beliefs since they are actively trying to discredit, ridicule and devalue those beliefs.

If most atheists just sat in their corner with their own little insignificant belief then I would have no reason to hate them. But it's the fact that too many of them are trying to impose their views to the believers that truly makes them the scum of the earth. I'm 100% agnostic even if I believe the chances of an intelligible designer not existing is almost 0%. But for example my mom is religious and I hate it when my atheist brother or someone else tries to convince her that the bible she reads and her god is full of shit. I mean it's ok if you don't personally share their belief but why try to take away something that makes them happy and gives them hope? My mom doesn't play video games and doesn't take drugs so religion and god is like her passion and it's her way to find inner peace, comfort and just feel good in general. Spitting on her belief is spitting on her entire life. Why is it your business that some people believe in these things? Just let them and keep thinking you are intellectually superior.

I still think Atheism is ultimately pointless. Their only common and universal belief is that they do not believe in the existence of a deity. Ok... Well that's a super interesting, imaginative, useful and constructive point of view! Not. It's like saying you don't like MK in a MK board. Who cares, good for you? Do you want a cookie? What's your purpose? Are you trying to convince MK players that MK sucks? No? Then why do you exist? And why do you feel the need to keep telling MK players that you don't like MK?

However it's important to note that I only hate Explicit and Aggressive Atheists. Any other kind of Atheism might as well be considered Agnostic or "inoffensive".

Also, I completely understand that religion is more important in the US which makes atheists a prouder minority (between 4-8%) while they are becoming a majority in Canada. Here a lot of people will look at you weird for being anything other than atheist. Which also explains why there is a growing hate towards Explicit/Aggressive atheists since they are becoming more and more "convinced", condescending towards Christians and racist towards immigrants, especially Arabs/Muslims. These types of atheists are convinced that they know better than everyone else (because they have science on their side) and they firmly believe that the world would be better without any religion or without religious people. They are becoming more and more extremist so people who believe in equality are fighting back against ignorance, xenophobia and intolerance. Laic/Secular Agnostics refuse to let their multicultural nation or country be defined by intolerance/atheism of any kind.

You guys simply haven't experienced Atheism at its strongest and final form. It's absolutely disgusting, unhealthy and might as well be considered a terrorist/hate group at that point.

 

[Under_The_Mayo]

What's important is that we will know who the scumbag atheists are.

However it's important to note that I only hate Explicit Atheists.

You guys simply haven't experienced Atheism at its strongest and final form. It's absolutely disgusting, unhealthy and might as well be considered a terrorist/hate group at that point.

The one throwing around scumbag, hate, worthless, and calling atheists a terrorist/hate group is accusing me of fascism. I think we're done.

 

[Juffalo]

I grew up as part of the christian church.

I've seen a lot of good and bad from people professing to be Christians.

My mom burned my codex:Eldar in the kitchen sink because it was "evil", I had some random dude show up to a pickup volleyball game and try to start evangelizing people with the threat of hellfire. But for every crazed zealot I've met someone in the church that is great person.

In my experience the message in the bible (as a whole) is a good one, but that hasn't stopped people from using it as an excuse to do bad things (RIP my codex eldar). People are capable of being moral without religion, and people can be huge assholes in their pursuit of atheism.

At the end of the day we're all human, and I think that people's failings are a result of their humanity regardless of whichever belief set they subscribe to. If religion is a positive influence that helps you become a better person that that's great and you should stick to those values. I think Jesus taught a philosophy of love and that will always be part of my worldview even if someone could present me with irrefutable evidence that there is no God.

I don't blame Jesus for the burned corpse of my codex, that was my mom's fault.

 

[rev0lver]

So, let me get this straight: you can change religions and that's fine, but it's impossible for someone to stop being gay or convert to homosexuality?

There are a lot of people who have tendencies toward both, probably a larger amount than those who are actually gay, and they largely identify as straight. Those people can choose who they wish to be with and it's often the opposite sex. But just as there are many who are 100% straight there are many who are 100% gay.

If there was a way for me to stop being gay I would try it

And I have tried

 

[rev0lver]

I grew up as part of the christian church.

I've seen a lot of good and bad from people professing to be Christians.

My mom burned my codex:Eldar in the kitchen sink because it was "evil", I had some random dude show up to a pickup volleyball game and try to start evangelizing people with the threat of hellfire. But for every crazed zealot I've met someone in the church that is great person.

In my experience the message in the bible (as a whole) is a good one, but that hasn't stopped people from using it as an excuse to do bad things (RIP my codex eldar). People are capable of being moral without religion, and people can be huge assholes in their pursuit of atheism.

At the end of the day we're all human, and I think that people's failings are a result of their humanity regardless of whichever belief set they subscribe to. If religion is a positive influence that helps you become a better person that that's great and you should stick to those values. I think Jesus taught a philosophy of love and that will always be part of my worldview even if someone could present me with irrefutable evidence that there is no God.

I don't blame Jesus for the burned corpse of my codex, that was my mom's fault.

This. And I agree, Jesus was a great philosopher who taught kindness and love. As an atheist I don't hate Jesus, I just don't think he did supernatural stuff.