God? Don't be silly!

[old.Tohtori]

I disagree completely. You need a belief system to act like a total wanker - and since we've already established that atheism is the absence of a belief system then it wouldn't happen.

If you're continuing to argue that atheism is the "belief that there's no god" however, I'll remove myself from this thread, never to return again

No no,(while i said it's a way of life, not belief ), i meant that any group of people with similar interests will become, eventually with enough power and support, a dangerous entity to those in the lesser group.

Religion isn't bad, god isn't bad, group of humans with same goal = dangerous

 

[DaGaffer]

I reckon, if he came along now (as what I thought the question was) I think most of us would try to fight him.

Die, yes, but fight

Yeah well we've already discussed in other posts your levels of misplaced optimism I don't have a high opinion of humanity en masse, especially if their personal comfort and safety is threatened; look at how many silly bastards are sleepwalking into a police state because of misplaced fears, imagine what it would be like if it was a giant with a flaming sword?

 

[Scouse]

i said it's a way of life, not belief

"Way of life" implies a concious choice. Same thing as a belief.

Atheism doesn't require a concious choice...

 

[old.Tohtori]

"Way of life" implies a concious choice. Same thing as a belief.

Atheism doesn't require a concious choice...

Way of life implies a way of life, atleast i imply it as simply a way of living your life

Atheism DOES require a sort of choice, the choice not to if you will.

You do come to the decision via elimination, but it's still a choice to drop belief.

How that belief came to your life first, is another issue.

 

[nath]

"Way of life" implies a concious choice. Same thing as a belief.

Atheism doesn't require a concious choice...

Indeed - once again, newborn babies are atheists.

Toht, I can see what you're saying - holding personal beliefs *can* be harmless. A child honestly thinking 2+2=5 is likely not going to result in any deaths. However, it demonstrates a flawed way of thinking, and for the sake of intelligence it makes sense to try and correct people.

Organised religion is a whole different kettle of fish, but it's never been my intention to discuss that, far too easy.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Indeed - once again, newborn babies are atheists.

Toht, I can see what you're saying - holding personal beliefs *can* be harmless. A child honestly thinking 2+2=5 is likely not going to result in any deaths. However, it demonstrates a flawed way of thinking, and for the sake of intelligence it makes sense to try and correct people.

2+2=5 thinking is harmful due to math not working like that, god thinking has no such "downside" unless it's made into an issue.

Newborn babies are atheists(atleast until we can talk to them in a profound manner, they might be buddhist reborn damnit), but most people, i'd say almost every person, doesn't stay in that state. So it becomes a choice to be an atheist/agnostic.

Actually i can't think of many things outside "basic natural instincts" that aren't a conscious choice

 

[nath]

I don't see what you mean? 2+2=5 is harmful because it's not correct? Because maths doesn't work that way? But believing in something that has no evidence is incorrect, the world does not work that way.

Someone could go their entire life thinking 2+2+5 and it wouldn't be harmful to anyone, it might cause some issues but it wouldn't necessarily out-wardly cause harm, just because the thought process is incorrect.

 

[old.Tohtori]

I don't see what you mean? 2+2=5 is harmful because it's not correct? Because maths doesn't work that way? But believing in something that has no evidence is incorrect, the world does not work that way.

Someone could go their entire life thinking 2+2+5 and it wouldn't be harmful to anyone, it might cause some issues but it wouldn't necessarily ******dly cause harm, just because the thought process is incorrect.

I'll try to explain it;

If a person believes 2+2=5, it becomes an issue in future math problems, shopping, and other areas of life. It becomes a problem, inconvinience if you will.

If a person believes in god, there's no such effects unless the person does something in gods name, or someone makes an issue of the god.

 

[Scouse]

Atheism DOES require a sort of choice, the choice not to if you will.

You do come to the decision via elimination, but it's still a choice to drop belief.

No no No!

 

[old.Tohtori]

No no No!

Then what is it?

It just happens that one day you wake up and belief is gone?

it's as conscious of a choice as becoming a vegetarian.

Or am i missing some nuance of "conscious choice"?

I've never seen so much protest against saying "you chose to become an atheist".

 

[Scouse]

If a person believes in god, there's no such effects unless the person does something in gods name, or someone makes an issue of the god.

Really? Then why did Tony Blair lie about his strong religious beliefs before coming into office in 1997, only to re-avow them when leaving and starting all his "faith" shit...?

If you believe in a religion then you vow to live your life a certain way - in accordance with those beliefs. THAT is why he lied through his teeth - because strong religious convictions make you unsuitable for such a position.

 

[Scouse]

Then what is it?

It just happens that one day you wake up and belief is gone?

it's as conscious of a choice as becoming a vegetarian.

Or am i missing some nuance of "conscious choice"?

You assume that there was belief in the first place. Which there ISNT always.

In my particular case I did wake up and the belief was gone. Simply gone. No choice, no intellectualising. Just gone.

I'm done with this. This was settled, IMHO, on page 1.

 

[nath]

It's the same - the 2+2=5 will only be an issue if that person does something with maths. Believing in something that has no evidence, God or any other spirituality, demonstrates a flawed way of thinking. A willingness to accept that which has no proof - nothing to back it up. I think that's a really dodgy way to think in this day and age. Simply believing in God could be quite benign, but if you're capable of accepting things without evidence you're incredibly vulnerable to all sorts of other possibly more dangerous thinking.

I don't have a problem with the believe that there's a heaven and a benevolent creator that loves us all. That's fluffy and lovely. I have a problem with the mindset that allows you to arrive at that conclusion.

Then what is it?

It just happens that one day you wake up and belief is gone?

it's as conscious of a choice as becoming a vegetarian.

Or am i missing some nuance of "conscious choice"?

I've never seen so much protest against saying "you chose to become an atheist".

I don't understand. You acknowledged earlier that newborns are atheist - clearly they can't make a choice, so why does it become a choice later in life? Surely you're still simply *not* making the choice to become religious.


The reason for the protest is that suggesting one chooses to become an atheist somehow drags atheism on to the same level as religion, when it's not. It's not simply another form of religion, as many religious people would like to think. It's the lack of one.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Really? Then why did Tony Blair lie about his strong religious beliefs before coming into office in 1997, only to re-avow them when leaving and starting all his "faith" shit...?

If you believe in a religion then you vow to live your life a certain way - in accordance with those beliefs. THAT is why he lied through his teeth - because strong religious convictions make you unsuitable for such a position.

Because he's a politician?

Now you're mixing things and making generalisations on VERY thin ice.

You assume that there was belief in the first place. Which there ISNT.

I'm done with this. This was settled, IMHO, on page 1.

Like i said, if you've lived your whole life an atheist, then you didn't choose it.

If you turned to an atheist later, then it is a choice. It's as simple as that.

You can't say what a newborn baby is, because you can't bloody well ask it, no proof, no go.

It's the same - the 2+2=5 will only be an issue if that person does something with maths. Believing in something that has no evidence, God or any other spirituality, demonstrates a flawed way of thinking. A willingness to accept that which has no proof - nothing to back it up. I think that's a really dodgy way to think in this day and age. Simply believing in God could be quite benign, but if you're capable of accepting things without evidence you're incredibly vulnerable to all sorts of other possibly more dangerous thinking.

I don't have a problem with the believe that there's a heaven and a benevolent creator that loves us all. That's fluffy and lovely. I have a problem with the mindset that allows you to arrive at that conclusion.

That would mean you've got a problem with about 95% of the people on this earth, because most humans don't need absolute proof to believe something.

Seems kind of, don't take it too personally, but SEEMS arrogant.

I don't understand. You acknowledged earlier that newborns are atheist - clearly they can't make a choice, so why does it become a choice later in life? Surely you're still simply *not* making the choice to become religious.

The reason for the protest is that suggesting one chooses to become an atheist somehow drags atheism on to the same level as religion, when it's not. It's not simply another form of religion, as many religious people would like to think. It's the lack of one.

As far as proof goes so far, yes, you can call newborns atheist, but it's not proven. Like i said. You could call a newborn a christian with as much proof.

And as i SAID, if you're an atheist your whole life, then you don't make a choice. Otherwise, it IS a choice.

It doesn't have to be dragged anywhere, but it IS a choice if you've not lived with it your whole life.

 

[Scouse]

If you turned to an atheist later, then it is a choice. It's as simple as that.

In my particular case I did wake up and the belief was gone. Simply gone. No choice, no intellectualising. Just gone.

You're trolling IMHO Toht. Either that or I'm a big liar.

As far as proof goes so far, yes, you can call newborns atheist, but it's not proven. Like i said. You could call a newborn a christian with as much proof.

Yep. Trolling. Newborn indians are definately not christian. Religion is learned. Period.

 

[Tom]

What a perfectly silly argument.

 

[old.Tohtori]

To put it mroe clearly;

We can't tell what a newborn baby is, there's no proof which one way.

So, if it was christian, then grown in an atheist family, he would choose chritianity.

If he was atheist, then grown up in a christian family, he would choose atheism.

Without proof of what a newborn baby is, buddhist, atheist, christian, vegetarian...we have to assume that dropping a religion or taking on religion is a choice.

Christ sake scouse...it's not trolling and don't try and twist my point with grasping to technicalities. I used the word christian in an example manner.

And yes, i do call bullshit on ti being as simple as "went to bed christian, woke up next day and poof it was gone".

 

[Scouse]

We can't tell what a newborn baby is, there's no proof which one way.

Christ sake scouse...it's not trolling and don't try and twist my point with grasping to technicalities. I used the word christian in an example manner.

It's not "grasping to technicalities". It's called seeing reality and not resorting to absolutely ridiculous arguments in an attempt to prove a point.

Babies. Are. Atheist. At. Birth.

Religion. Is. Learned.

That. Is. Fact.

Cya

 

[TdC]

You can't say what a newborn baby is, because you can't bloody well ask it, no proof, no go.

err no. the proof lies in the fact that once it reaches an age where it can tell you about itself said child will know nothing about anything except what it was educated on. eg, religion is taught through emulation, peer pressure and education, just like most other things. ergo, a newborn baby has no idea of anything except instinct driven ones.

at some point it will then progress from...

mummy/daddy say X
to
person I respect says X
to
I want to find out about X for myself

(or not)
Hopefully.

 

[Ch3tan]

Toht, I was not born a Hindu, my parents were not. They choose to be, they were taught to be and grew up accepting that belief. I was not born a Hindu, I was taught Hinduism but it did not sit right with me, no other beliefs did either. I do not believe in religion, but that does not mean I believe in something else. I am not choosing not to believe, I simply cannot fathom belief in what I find to be some ridicluous ideas.

You are still beating a broken drum, why can you not just accept that your view on this is not shared by everyone, and that it does not fit everyone. You cannot oversimplfy everyone's lack of belief, or decisions or life choices into one little "you are an athiest and you believe in not believing" package.

 

[nath]

That would mean you've got a problem with about 95% of the people on this earth, because most humans don't need absolute proof to believe something.

Seems kind of, don't take it too personally, but SEEMS arrogant.

The difference is, things that I believe, all of them, can be proven if I really need them to be. I've never been to Australia so it could not exist, yet I believe it's there. If I wanted to, I could book a ticket and fly there, all the while watching us get there out of the window. Yes it could all be a conspiracy, but that's less likely than Australia actually being where they say it is.

Religion, spirituality, God, all of these things never stand up to probing, because there's nothing to probe.

You might be right that a large majority of the people on this planet believe things that cannot be proved, but this is a faulty way of thinking. If that makes me pre-edit snotty or post-edit slightly arrogant, then so be it. It doesn't change the facts.

 

[old.Tohtori]

You are still beating a broken drum, why can you not just accept that your view on this is not shared by everyone, and that it does not fit everyone. You cannot oversimplfy everyone's lack of belief, or decisions or life choices into one little "you are an athiest and you believe in not believing" package.

I can accept exceptions like i've said, but majority is a different drum.

You can accept, i hope, that a person who was christian and then becomes an atheist, makes a choice to be one.

That's the whole point people seem to arguing against.

If i say "i'm religious", every single person on this thread generalizes it too.

You might be right that a large majority of the people on this planet believe things that cannot be proved, but this is a faulty way of thinking. If that makes me pre-edit snotty or post-edit slightly arrogant, then so be it. It doesn't change the facts.

Quite, i'm not discussing individuals, i'm discussing majorities since we're talking generally about things, not on a personal level.

Now if we were talking, say, ch3tans life, i'd say "you didn't choose to be an atheist, just didn't choose anything else". But if i'm discussing atheism, the majority is the defining factor when talking general things.

Jsut like science is based on "reasonable show of things being what they are".

 

[Krazeh]

You can accept, i hope, that a person who was christian and then becomes an atheist, makes a choice to be one.

Only in as much as they realise that their beliefs do not hold upto scrutiny and can therefore no longer follow them.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Only in as much as they realise that their beliefs do not hold upto scrutiny and can therefore no longer follow them.

Aye, but still a choice.

Brain damage not included ofcourse.

 

[Scouse]

Ignoring the fact of my experience I see

 

[nath]

Only in as much as they realise that their beliefs do not hold upto scrutiny and can therefore no longer follow them.

Exactly, and that's the point. What I've understood from what you've been saying, Toht, is that atheism is on a par with religion in that it's another thing we choose to believe.

I think that's what we've been arguing - not that no one chooses to be an atheist, presumably some people do, but that that choice is another belief. It's as Krazeh put, very well I might add, the religious beliefs they once had do not hold up to a more scientific approach and as such that existing belief is dropped. *Not* replaced by a new belief.

If you weren't suggesting atheism is just another belief, then that's fine - but that seems to be a common religious defence and it's really not accurate.

 

[Krazeh]

Aye, but still a choice.

But the choice isn't about choosing to become an atheist, the choice is about accepting that your religious views/belief do not hold upto scrutiny and can no longer be believed. Becoming an atheist is just returning to the default position.

 

[nath]

Oh also, if I were to see someone wearing a wig, I may think "that person has a full head of hair". If that person then takes off the wig, I would think "oh, it was fake after all". That wouldn't be a choice, so much as it was revealed that the previous thought process was incorrect.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Ignoring the fact of my experience I see

No, i'm calling it bull as you tell it. There's reasons to everything, like i said, you didn't just o to be a christian and then without any reason, wake up next morning an atheist.

Exactly, and that's the point. What I've understood from what you've been saying, Toht, is that atheism is on a par with religion in that it's another thing we choose to believe.

I think that's what we've been arguing - not that no one chooses to be an atheist, presumably some people do, but that that choice is another belief. It's as Krazeh put, very well I might add, the religious beliefs they once had do not hold up to a more scientific approach and as such that existing belief is dropped. *Not* replaced by a new belief.

If you weren't suggesting atheism is just another belief, then that's fine - but that seems to be a common religious defence and it's really not accurate.

I'm not STILL suggesting that, way of life != belief while belief = way of life.

Choice to drop something or choice to take upon something is still a choice.

You make a conscious decision, or in atheist case, "deduct from variables" that you want to do X or not to do X. Everything is a choice, if we take out animal instinct.

But the choice isn't about choosing to become an atheist, the choice is about accepting that your religious views/belief do not hold upto scrutiny and can no longer be believed. Becoming an atheist is just returning to the default position.

And that's glorifying atheism to a fault, unless ofcourse you base every choice in life on basic instinct.

Default position is living in woods with the wolves. No modern society person can say that they just revert to basic animal instincts.

Oh also, if I were to see someone wearing a wig, I may think "that person has a full head of hair". If that person then takes off the wig, I would think "oh, it was fake after all". That wouldn't be a choice, so much as it was revealed that the previous thought process was incorrect.

You're trying to, again, mix religion, life choices and science.

EDIT: But how about we drop the choice thing...we can't agree on that without going into detail of what IS a choice.

 

[Krazeh]

And that's glorifying atheism to a fault, unless ofcourse you base every choice in life on basic instinct.

Default position is living in woods with the wolves. No modern society person can say that they just revert to basic animal instincts.

That doesn't even make sense. If you're going to try and refute a point you could put a little more effort into it.

The default position when it comes to religion/beliefs etc. is to have none. This is how we're born and everything we later believe is taught to us by others. Now given that atheism is the lack of belief in God then it is clearly the default position i.e. that we have when we are born.

You don't choose to have a lack of belief, you can only choose whether or not to believe what others tell you.