Why are you an atheist?

[Vile Atheist]

yet, it's none of my business (because i'm not a theist and i dont propose to know how others should live) what this moth-person does with hir time or mutterings. and to be fair, prayer has been an effective component of religions that are false for centuries, simply because talking to yourself has incredible psychological results. ever since i stopped praying i just had to shift the conversation to myself in order to reap the benefits of all this "needlessly encumbering" mutterances. if this person would have brought up emerson or socrates i doubt you would have gotten so defensive. please dont succumb to the knee jerk fundamentalism, when you are the one who is free of that.

How am I making her prayer any of my business? I merely stated it was an encumberance. I did not actively encourage or discourage her. And I doubt anything I say would, either.

Furthermore, talking to yourself does have psychological benefits, but it can also be a symptom of some mental illnesses. There is also a huge difference between talking to yourself (which can be a convenient mode of remembering things to do or to vent personal frustration) and talking to an imaginary friend.

Besides, your line of reasoning goes down the road of "If it feels good, do it". Sure talking to yourself (or an imagined deity) may FEEL good. But it might also be psychologically damaging. Drugs can make someone feel good too. Should we all start doing drugs?

 

[yourhopeboundheart]

why shouldn't someone do what feels appropriate to them?

 

[Aquitaine]

I'm technically Agnostic, do I count?

 

[Vile Atheist]

why shouldn't someone do what feels appropriate to them?

That's a broad statement. We have laws to protect people from other people and laws to protect us from ourselves. There is a reason for those laws.

If I feel it's appropriate to commit genocide, should I? If I feel it's appropriate to willingly spread AIDS in my community, should I do it? That's where your broad statement fails.

Concerning prayer, it probably has different effects on different people. And I'm not going to assume that her prayer is necessarily a negative force. But it is indeed an encumberance. Millions of atheists get along just fine without prayer. Why is that? Why are we able to sort out our problems and be thankful and ask for forgiveness without the need for prayer?

You may argue that different people have different needs. But someone who thinks they have to rely on prayer to get them through the day may grossly underestimate their mental fortitude and their thoughts and emotions may be affected as a result.

If she wishes to pray, that's her right and I don't object to it. But it's also my right to express how I feel about prayer.

 

[Alceste]

I was born with a pretty good BS detector. I went to church growing up, but belief in the literal truth of the mythology never "took", because it is quite plainly impossible. I inherited some Christian values - (love your neighbour, judge not lest ye be judged, hang out with hookers and ne'er-do-wells whenever you get the chance, travel a lot instead of getting a real job, have contempt for banks and bankers...)

I'm grateful to the church I grew up with for these values (and a lot of great practice singing harmonies in the choir), but I could not possibly believe that such an outrageous story was literally true. It never even crossed my mind to consider that it might be true, as far as I can remember.

I've also had some major spiritual highs, none of which required belief in a deity to occur. Meditation worked for me, although I haven't done it for years.

 

[yourhopeboundheart]

That's a broad statement. We have laws to protect people from other people and laws to protect us from ourselves. There is a reason for those laws.

If I feel it's appropriate to commit genocide, should I? If I feel it's appropriate to willingly spread AIDS in my community, should I do it? That's where your broad statement fails.

so you dont believe in morality, and you dont believe in human altruism. and you also dont believe there is a difference between personal behavior and behavior that affects others. ("my right to swing my fist ends at your nose.")
it is the godly who feel as though they must moniter and correct human behavior in order to be safe. and it's more often the godly who commit genocide and at least disrupt efforts to stop AIDS from spreading, and the main reason they do it is because somebody wasnt following the rules that they made up.

 

[Willamena]

Yay for generalizations (not).

 

[monta]

Once I tasted evil and it was good, ever since my whole being has cried out for more MORE MORE :drool:

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I'm in it strictly for the groupies.

 

[Vile Atheist]

so you dont believe in morality, and you dont believe in human altruism. and you also dont believe there is a difference between personal behavior and behavior that affects others. ("my right to swing my fist ends at your nose.")
it is the godly who feel as though they must moniter and correct human behavior in order to be safe. and it's more often the godly who commit genocide and at least disrupt efforts to stop AIDS from spreading, and the main reason they do it is because somebody wasnt following the rules that they made up.

I have no idea where you got all that from. Mind explaining? Because you're far off in left-field.

 

[Vile Atheist]

so you dont believe in morality

I never said nor suggested that. On the contrary, I believe very strongly in it.

and you dont believe in human altruism

Again, I never said nor suggested that. So I have no idea where you got this from.

and you also dont believe there is a difference between personal behavior and behavior that affects others. ("my right to swing my fist ends at your nose.")

Again, I never said that nor suggested it and on the contrary, I do believe there is a huge difference.

However, the point was your broad statement of "why shouldn't someone do what feels appropriate to them?" does not distinguish between personal and impersonal actions. That's where your statement fails and that was my entire point. But I guess you'd rather continue to be dishonest.

it is the godly who feel as though they must moniter and correct human behavior in order to be safe

What exactly do you mean by "correct human behaviour" and what gives you a right to do so? What happened to "Why shouldn't people do what feels appropriate to them"? So not only are you dishonest, you have directly contradicted yourself.

What happens if I do something that "feels appropriate" to me, but you feel it "needs correcting"? What gives you the right to dictate how I should act?

and it's more often the godly who commit genocide

Amen, brother. Couldn't agree with you more.

and at least disrupt efforts to stop AIDS from spreading, and the main reason they do it is because somebody wasnt following the rules that they made up.

Oh? Like all those godly people at the Vatican who want to discourage Africans from contraceptive use? You mean THOSE godly people and their "efforts to stop AIDS from spreading"?

 

[yourhopeboundheart]

content:
it's your assumption that humans are incapable of behaving in altruistic fashion with one another, aside from within the confines of the law (guilt morality, which is not morality), or committing genocide.

correct was not an adjective, correct was used as a verb. and those who choose to correct are the ones responsible to explain what on earth 'correct' could possibly mean (in noun sense).

the original problem i had with your statement was that you were attempting to "correct" behavior in that you could call encumbering... when it's not encumbering you...

 

[Vile Atheist]

content:
it's your assumption that humans are incapable of behaving in altruistic fashion with one another, aside from within the confines of the law (guilt morality, which is not morality), or committing genocide.

correct was not an adjective, correct was used as a verb. and those who choose to correct are the ones responsible to explain what on earth 'correct' could possibly mean (in noun sense).

the original problem i had with your statement was that you were attempting to "correct" behavior in that you could call encumbering... when it's not encumbering you...

I didn't assume anything of the sort. In fact, I strongly believe in acting altruistically (especially from an evolutionary standpoint).

I know it was used as a verb. Which is why I described it as a verb. And even still, nobody has the right to modify another's behaviour - unless that behaviour is illegal or harmful to others and/or themselves. And even then, this is why we have the judicial system. I don't care how they justify it. And it's odd that you claim that it's okay for people to dictate how others should live their lives, so long as they back-up their claims of what is "correct human behaviour". Especially when I can back up my statement of prayer being an encumbrance.

I didn't attempt to "correct" anything. I described prayer as an encumbrance because it does not work (supported by experimental data). At best, it's a waste of time. Regardless of what you claim prayer does for you or others, the data suggests otherwise. But I did not tell lunamoth to stop praying. That was an unsubstantiated inference you made and are now trying to attribute to me. I said it was an encumbrance. Nothing more. Nothing less. I did not say anything about altruism or morality.

You asked "Why shouldn't someone do what feels appropriate to them?"

And I offered the counterpoint that what is "appropriate" to some people, will not be "appropriate" to others, connected with the point that something you feel is "appropriate" may affect others in negative ways - either directly or indirectly. I gave direct examples. Genocide and willful spread of AIDS.

There are people in this world who support both. It "feels appropriate" to them, but I'm sure you and I would agree that these are immoral acts.

Your statement was way too broad. That was the point. It needs an important qualifier to make it true.

"Why shouldn't someone do what feels appropriate to them, so long as they don't hurt other people?"

So I don't know where you got all this BS that I don't believe in morality from. I DO believe in morality. Which is why people should not just do what merely "feels appropriate" to them. But they should only do what "feels appropriate so long as it doesn't hurt others". I'm sure you'll agree with that?

 

[yourhopeboundheart]

But they should only do what "feels appropriate so long as it doesn't hurt others". I'm sure you'll agree with that?

i dont agree with that.
i feel that individuals should do what feels appropriate to them, as long as it doesnt hurt others, if they feel that that is an appropriate stipulation. everything could hurt someone else, my walking across the grass hurts the grass in one sense, but not to the extent that it would morally hinder my walking across it. hurting others is just as inevitable as benefiting others (the grass breathes in carbon dioxide and breathes out oxygen, not because it benefits oxygen-breathing-organisms but because it benefits the grass). now, if the grass had the idea that 'god' told it to blow up an abortion clinic and it found some means to do so then i would have to call into question the grass' reasoning- but eventually that particular grass would be weeded out (pun totally inteneded) of the gene pool because it didn't fit accurately into a workable system of mutually beneficial behavior with it's fellow organisms. this process would probably involve other organisms behaving as they felt appropriate even though it might hurt the deranged-fundamentalist-grass-nuts. but if the grass decided to talk to itself from time to time (even if it had delusions that i was talking to a great bush in the sky), in order to feel better about humans stepping all over it on their way to the mailbox, then i could hardly say that i would pull it up and burn it in a pile.

 

[Vile Atheist]

i feel that individuals should do what feels appropriate to them, as long as it doesnt hurt others, if they feel that that is an appropriate stipulation.

I don't quite understand the difference between what I said and this. If people should do what feels appropriate to them, would they not feel it's an appropriate stipulation already?

everything could hurt someone else, my walking across the grass hurts the grass in one sense, but not to the extent that it would morally hinder my walking across it. hurting others is just as inevitable as benefiting others (the grass breathes in carbon dioxide and breathes out oxygen, not because it benefits oxygen-breathing-organisms but because it benefits the grass).

I sort of get what you're trying to say here. Actions do have direct and indirect consequences. This is why we also need to examine intent of action, the knowledge of the person committing the action, and their measures to prevent harm.

As for your grass example, I disagree. If you are aware that your walking across the grass "hurts" the grass, walking across the grass is a deliberate act with full knowledge of the harm it would cause and I would consider that to be an immoral act. But grass isn't hurt when you walk across it. And we know it isn't.

now, if the grass had the idea that 'god' told it to blow up an abortion clinic and it found some means to do so then i would have to call into question the grass' reasoning- but eventually that particular grass would be weeded out (pun totally inteneded) of the gene pool because it didn't fit accurately into a workable system of mutually beneficial behavior with it's fellow organisms.

Not at all. Those fundamentalists who choose to blow up the abortion clinic pass on their ideas to their children who grow up learning no other viewpoint. And the longer they keep this viewpoint, the harder it is for them to relinquish it. It's self-propagating. The only force that wanes it is knowledge. Specifically, knowledge of the harm those ideas and their resultant actions do to others. Once we gain the knowledge that we are hurting someone, we are more inclined to cease whatever action we were previously doing.

this process would probably involve other organisms behaving as they felt appropriate even though it might hurt the deranged-fundamentalist-grass-nuts. but if the grass decided to talk to itself from time to time (even if it had delusions that i was talking to a great bush in the sky), in order to feel better about humans stepping all over it on their way to the mailbox, then i could hardly say that i would pull it up and burn it in a pile.

But most people do accept some form of "People should do whatever feels appropriate to them, so long as it does not hurt others". And anyone who desires any restrictions beyond this has a totalitarian mindset. They wish to control the benign actions of others for no other purpose, other than to enforce what they believe to be moral. If other people act in a course of action that "hurts" fundamentalists, that too is immoral.

 

[yourhopeboundheart]

i just really think you dont get it. i'm sorry if i'm not articulating myself correctly- but maybe if you weren't in argument-mode it would be easier for you to get it.

this discussion is starting to turn into a morality debate rather than an interference debate which is what it started out as. the initial reason for my speaking up was not for the person you were interfering with, but for you. i just dont want you to imagine someone murmuring to themselves as your problem... and i dont want those who are free from one rigid moral structure to be bound by yet another rigid moral structure. our brains are just too big for that.

 

[Vile Atheist]

i just dont want you to imagine someone murmuring to themselves as your problem...

The murmuring by itself is not my problem, encumberance or not. But when the murmuring turns into action that affects me directly, or indirectly through people I know and love, then it does become my problem.

 

[yourhopeboundheart]

The murmuring by itself is not my problem, encumberance or not. But when the murmuring turns into action that affects me directly, or indirectly through people I know and love, then it does become my problem.

and i couldn't agree more. and that is the unfortunate problem of living in a world that has experimented in superstition.

 

[MissAlice]

Why am I an atheist?

Well I guess you could argue that my position says agnostic but I pretty much fit in with the definition of atheism...A lack of belief in the existence of God or gods. Although for most atheists it is a doctrine or belief that there is no god. I choose the former only that science and discovery should never be about concluding but questioning through the tools that're availabe to us. Even proof of things changes in time whenever there is more that hasn't been sufficiently discovered given a set time.

Anyway, why am I an atheist. I grew up in a home where both my mom and dad questioned most doctrines of religion. I don't think they were atheist per say. My mom has been rather a mystic or someone who's found comfort in her own idea of spirtualism. My dad has this strange notion that god is only what we make of him/her. I have concluded based on so many catostrophic events and wars were mostly fueled by religion. If anything, the goodness of religion has done more damage than good.

On another notion, I've always found it difficult to feel or empathize from a book on its conception of god. I don't want to sound all sexist but women are practically non-existant in most prevalent religions. I don't know but growing up as a child, it was more natural for me to cry out for my mom whenever I was hurt or I was worried. The idea of god being a father type figure isn't all bad but it seems it is basically whatever a majority reflects off of it. In most male dominated societies, women are always going to be below a hierarchy. I find it almost laughable the way women are written off as if they weren't even part of the human race.

Also, the concept of god is too humanistic. If I were going to choose something divine or almost perfect, the most innocent thing I could think of would be animals and nature since they've done much of the contributing be it good or bad.

Ok I'm rambling....but there it is.

 

[Atreyu]

I certainly have not always thought this way. The constant desire to search for a way into heaven became a hinderance in my life. So like you I to found Scientific reasoning much more convincing than the book of mythology (the Bible). Then one day a came across the Satanic Bible and after reading it I new that there was no God and found the philosophies of Anton Levey seemed quite reasonable. Therefor I have been a Satanist ever since. Now I have freedom to live my life to the fullest.