Atheism is actually a religion (not an endorsement, strictly speculative)

[ilostabet]

About the free will thing, I noticed that for a few years that's been a big trend of atheists to start embracing the notion that free will is an illusion. Sam Harris is the person that really seems to have popularized the idea with the atheist crowd but the idea was already popular with a lot of people who were either New Atheists or on a similar wavelength as them.

The strange thing is that these people are also the ones screaming the loudest about the importance of truth, reason and science. I don't have see how truth can ever be arrived at if we're at the mercy of inputs from outside of us and our mind just passively accepts it like a wet sponge. Reason goes out the window as well for the same reason. Same goes with a lot of the humanitarian liberal ideas that these atheists love. These ideas are grounded in the individual being able to freely choose their actions and create their own destiny. If there's no free will, it seems like the logical outcome is that society should be like a dystopian 1984 or Brave New World one with a overpowering state that can freely program their citizens since hey - you don't have free will and every part of you is shaped by forces outside of you so having Big Brother determine your very being isn't really any different that happens anyways.

EDIT: Now that I think about it, I think Sam Harris actually has promoted 1984ish policies such as developing technology that allows to peer into people's minds to see what they are thinking so it can be determined if they are lying or not. Dawkins has also promoted eugenics. A lot of these New Atheists in addition to being liberals are also tech-utopians so they are attracted to these big scientific projects to "perfect" humanity. These sort of projects often clash with liberal ideals so every and now and then, you see the contradictions bubble up when one of these people are vomiting out ideas on Twitter or a podcast.

We should tell them to stop collecting royalties for their books and taking money for their talks. After all, they did not actually write them or are actually formulating those ideas. They were led by the invisible hand of random chemical reactions in their brains to put out those words, which ultimately, must also be meaningless. Be consistent atheists!

 

[ilostabet]

I disagree. I think any reasonably intelligent person that realizes this life is all we get, and there is no paradise or punishment waiting for us in some afterlife, tends to be as moral or MORE moral than a lot of religious people.

Morality is about distinguishing between right or wrong. Right or wrong (moral or immoral) can only exist if a higher law is provided (thou shall or shall not). By definition, atheists can only act in accordance with moral principles that already exist, but that morality cannot come from atheism. The only evaluation of action for a pure atheist (one who does not adhere to existing morality based on a religious system) is his own utility. Atheism is naturally amoral.

 

[etwsake]

Right and wrong is a product of civilization. I'm nice to people because it's the right thing to do, not because I'm afraid of being judged by some invisible force in the sky.

When I'm hungry, I don't kill and eat my neighbors because that would be considered uncivil. If I'm horny I don't run outside and rape the hell out of the first living thing I see. When I have to take a shit I don't just squat in the middle of the road.

There are places in the world where all of these things still occur, and it has nothing to do with religion. It has to do with being intelligent enough to understand the concept of civility.

But I guess if the threat of going to hell is keeping people from raping and eating each other, then that works too.

 

[ilostabet]

Right and wrong is a product of civilization. I'm nice to people because it's the right thing to do, not because I'm afraid of being judged by some invisible force in the sky.

When I'm hungry, I don't kill and eat my neighbors because that would be considered uncivil. If I'm horny I don't run outside and rape the hell out of the first living thing I see. When I have to take a shit I don't just squat in the middle of the road.

There are places in the world where all of these things still occur, and it has nothing to do with religion. It has to do with being intelligent enough to understand the concept of civility.

But I guess if the threat of going to hell is keeping people from raping and eating each other, then that works too.

You have it backwards - civilization is a product of morality, which is a product of Law.

I was talking of definitions: and by definition, if there is no moral law given, then there is no right or wrong. My right can be your wrong and vice versa. 'Niceness' or 'civility' are not absolutes. I can consider something nice or civil which you find abhorrent. In the absence of a Law given from above, there is no making sense of these statements. They are simply meaningless. Hence, atheism (which rejects the existence of a higher moral Law) is necessary amoral.

Besides this, it is obvious that the Law doesn't even have to come from on high to provide the framework for right or wrong action - it can be, and often is, just the threat of human law that inhibits people from committing crimes. But what is considered a crime depends on what the Law is. Without law there is no crime. You can consider something a crime, but that would be your personal judgement. This is what I mean: without law, there is only, ever, personal judgement.

 

[etwsake]

Yeah. It's pretty cool that someone collected all the stories and fables from the ancient world that inspired people to stop eating each other.

I think it's great that we have civilization. Obviously we agree there.

(I don't think I should post about this stuff any more. I'm gonna get banned and I don't wanna get banned.)

 

[911]

Right and wrong is a product of civilization. I'm nice to people because it's the right thing to do, not because I'm afraid of being judged by some invisible force in the sky.

When I'm hungry, I don't kill and eat my neighbors because that would be considered uncivil. If I'm horny I don't run outside and rape the hell out of the first living thing I see. When I have to take a shit I don't just squat in the middle of the road.

There are places in the world where all of these things still occur, and it has nothing to do with religion. It has to do with being intelligent enough to understand the concept of civility.

But I guess if the threat of going to hell is keeping people from raping and eating each other, then that works too.

Your belief system is a vestigial but corrupted remnant of Christian civilization. Your ancestors in Europe practiced slavery and human sacrifices, that was part of being civil from their perspective, before they were elevated through the teachings of Christ. As civilization, we are headed back to that primevial amoral stage, if those that are currently leading us have their way.

Modern atheism is inherently luciferian, it is gradually degrading Christian civilization, altering what is perceived as normal and righteous from generation to generation.

Eventually, if you have enough of a virtuous fiber in you, you will figure it out.

 

[Wutang]

One thing I’ve noticed is that atheists tend to behave like polytheists. Thus, Marxism is the end result of atheism: just a mass of identities, groups, clans, classes, and races jostling with one another, just like the Greek or Hindu pantheon. Thus, my position that the real conflict is monotheism v polytheism, with atheism being just a cope. Monotheism would also involve (edit: include as a subcategory) narcissism, which as Sam Vaknin has theorized is really an esoteric religion of the individual.

Another thing I notice is that militant atheists tend to be tolerant of polytheism. Polytheism doesn't inflame them as much as monotheism, especially the way Christianity does. Back when this place was a game forum, there was this very prominent member named soup. He fit the standard atheist portfolio: lived in a major city, was fascinated with pop science, into liberal politics (minus the feminism) and absolutely detested Christianity and God. He once stated that even if he could be shown that God existed, he would still hate Him. Also, he talked about how if he was forced to follow some sort of religion his first choice would be to pick the Norse pantheon and that he would look to figures such as Odin and Thor for guidance since he saw them as much more masculine.

Sometimes you'll see these sort of people saying stuff like "Hail Odin" when someone around their vicinity mentions something related to Christianity. Obviously, this is supposed to be meant in mockery and not a statement that they are actually Norse pagans but I feel behavior like this is revealing of what they are sympathetic towards. I vaguely remember a Stephen Fry video where he was talking about even though he's an atheist, he found Greek gods to be more palpable to him than a monotheistic one. It's a general attitude I've seen around atheists that are hostile to faith: they don't believe in any sort of polytheistic gods but they still are fascinated by them and just find them to be more cool than God. For me, this is further illustration of how polytheism really is ultimately just an early form of humanism, the deification of man and of self-worship.

 

[Sitting Bull]

polytheism really is ultimately just an early form of humanism

Indeed. That's perceptive.

 

[No-Designation Man]

I guess that means I'm not an atheist. I don't know if there's a God or gods. I just don't know and I'll never know. How can I say "there is no God" when I have no way to even conceptualize the ideas of eternity or infinity or creation or life itself? There's things I just can't understand or explain.

^^Humility is a sign of good character.
None of us have all the answers, nor can we.
Acts 17:27
Romans 11:33

I think it's arrogant to proclaim there's no god. I also think it's equally arrogant to proclaim that there 100% IS a god, and it just so happens to be the one you believe in.
I do, however, thoroughly reject all forms of organized religion as nothing more than myths and fables, or worse, systems to control vast amounts of people. I have no use for that, but if it brings you comfort and you're not hurting anyone, then I suppose people can believe whatever they want. Unfortunately, people DO hurt others in the name of their religions. At this point, I'd consider extreme left wing and extreme right wing political beliefs to be religions. Extreme left moreso than right. The right just tells people what they should do. The left actively prevents people from doing things.

I'm anti-religion more than anything else. I don't have a term for my beliefs, because I don't have any beliefs. But I appreciate Roosh allowing a section on other religions (beliefs, viewpoints) to remain on this site when he has made his own very clear. I'm not trying to break the "no blaspheme" rule,
but I'm just trying to offer a sane and reasonable counter-argument.

Which you did.
Your post was well thought-out and quite an understandable position to take, all things considered. Organized religion is something I have no involvement in, as the track-record of these institutions has left quite the foul taste in my mouth. Yet at the same time, Luke 18:13 applies fully to me; so who am I to think I'm anything special?

I used to want to fight about it, like those fedora'd neckbeards on the internet. But years ago I lost interest in such a futile waste of everyone's time. Nobody will ever convince other people to betray everything they believe in. Like I said, I just want to see people live peacefully, and leave each other alone.

I wear neither a fedora, nor sport a neck beard, so I agree with you about pointless squabbles that waste time!

From your entire post, it would appear that "Agnostic" would be the 'official' term to describe your viewpoints. Not that I'm suggesting you must label yourself as anything; it just fits. By your own words, "Atheist" does not fit you. You don't believe, nor disbelieve, yet simply question.

It's a start.
And if/when you get to the point where you need to look deeper into these things, that must be on your own terms; no one can/should push you into that prematurely.

 

[No-Designation Man]

You have it backwards - civilization is a product of morality, which is a product of Law.

I was talking of definitions: and by definition, if there is no moral law given, then there is no right or wrong. My right can be your wrong and vice versa. 'Niceness' or 'civility' are not absolutes. I can consider something nice or civil which you find abhorrent. In the absence of a Law given from above, there is no making sense of these statements. They are simply meaningless. Hence, atheism (which rejects the existence of a higher moral Law) is necessary amoral.

Besides this, it is obvious that the Law doesn't even have to come from on high to provide the framework for right or wrong action - it can be, and often is, just the threat of human law that inhibits people from committing crimes. But what is considered a crime depends on what the Law is. Without law there is no crime. You can consider something a crime, but that would be your personal judgement. This is what I mean: without law, there is only, ever, personal judgement.

An excellent analysis.

If there is no Absolute on which morality can be based, then morality becomes purely subjective. And "subjective morality" cannot be true morality, since true morality must be a universal concept that does not alter with time, or place.

Otherwise, "morality" becomes mobocracy; 'right and wrong' being solely determined by popular opinion and/or who has the power and weapons to enforce their personal viewpoint.

 

[No-Designation Man]

Atheists try to pretend they can have morality outside of God, but they cannot. Inevitably, "do what thou wilt" becomes the only law for them, because, literally, nothing matters. MOst of them are weak-minded and just glom their morality off their societies dominant morality, so atheists in Christian cultures magically have Christian-like morality (except about sex! and God!) and atheists in Islamic, Hindu, Jewish, and Buddhist societies do the same.

The actual hard atheists realize what their beliefs mean, and become Leopold and Loeb like.

Neither is a good person to have around you. They will turn on you when it suits them, and their lack of belief will allow them to justify it. Vox Day is right that atheism and autism are correlated.

Thoughts on Romans 2:14 ?

 

[TheMaleBrain]

Actually, "Woke" is a religion:

 

[infowarrior1]

Actually, "Woke" is a religion:

True Atheists as in having a void of religion is not very common. That void is often filled with the secular religions of communism or "Woke" as you would say. As demonstrated by the predominance of left ideology among those who attend Atheist conventions.

It seems that religion doesn't need any semblance the supernatural to actually exist.

Left ideology is the true religion of them who at the same time that claim to be Christian or any other religion.

 

[kel]

 

[R.G.Camara]

I disagree. I think any reasonably intelligent person that realizes this life is all we get, and there is no paradise or punishment waiting for us in some afterlife, tends to be as moral or MORE moral than a lot of religious people. Because they know the sanctity and preciousness of life. We only get this one, so life has more value to someone that doesn't believe in an afterlife than to someone that considers life a "rehearsal" or "test" for the real thing.



I guess that means I'm not an atheist. I don't know if there's a God or gods. I just don't know and I'll never know. How can I say "there is no God" when I have no way to even conceptualize the ideas of eternity or infinity or creation or life itself? There's things I just can't understand or explain.

I think it's arrogant to proclaim there's no god. I also think it's equally arrogant to proclaim that there 100% IS a god, and it just so happens to be the one you believe in.

I do, however, thoroughly reject all forms of organized religion as nothing more than myths and fables, or worse, systems to control vast amounts of people. I have no use for that, but if it brings you comfort and you're not hurting anyone, then I suppose people can believe whatever they want. Unfortunately, people DO hurt others in the name of their religions. At this point, I'd consider extreme left wing and extreme right wing political beliefs to be religions. Extreme left moreso than right. The right just tells people what they should do. The left actively prevents people from doing things.

I'm anti-religion more than anything else. I don't have a term for my beliefs, because I don't have any beliefs. But I appreciate Roosh allowing a section on other religions (beliefs, viewpoints) to remain on this site when he has made his own very clear. I'm not trying to break the "no blaspheme" rule, but I'm just trying to offer a sane and reasonable counter-argument.

I used to want to fight about it, like those fedora'd neckbeards on the internet. But years ago I lost interest in such a futile waste of everyone's time. Nobody will ever convince other people to betray everything they believe in. Like I said, I just want to see people live peacefully, and leave each other alone.

lol.

Define "more moral."

Note: Honestly failing to live up to a religious standard isn't hypocrisy, it's merely a product of our fallen nature. God forgives us if we strive, fail, and seek forgiveness. We are fallen, weak creatures, we are all sinners; even St. Peter sinned and denied Christ, but was forgiven. Hypocrisy, meanwhile, is stating that the standard is X and then having no intention to live up to X.

The problem is epistemological. How do you know what "good" is? Why is sacrifice good, if there is nothing after this world, nothing supernatural? The atheists fail on this question; they will talk themselves blue in the face without giving a straight answer.

But the answer is clear: without an Absolute Good, there is no reason for morality. It is all pure selfish impulse. If there is no God or afterlife, there is no absolute rule about what is good, it is only the here and now that matters. Raping a child or murdering thousands isn't evil in such a scenario, because there is no yardstick to measure it by.

Again, most atheists are weak-minded and just glom their definition of "good" off that of the dominant society, and remove the God parts and the parts they don't like (usually sexual restrictions). The smarter ones try to invent moralities, but all end up in hedonistic selfishn sadism, because that is what a world without God or an afterlife.

Atheism ultimately is demonic, not rational, because it leads to Pride. Selfishness becomes the #1 go. Do what thou wilt.

 

[2 Right Hands]

When I'm hungry, I don't kill and eat my neighbors because that would be considered uncivil. If I'm horny I don't run outside and rape the hell out of the first living thing I see. When I have to take a shit I don't just squat in the middle of the road.

There are places in the world where all of these things still occur, and it has nothing to do with religion. It has to do with being intelligent enough to understand the concept of civility.

I know I am strawmanning a bit one could say that a logical extrapolation of your statement is a scenario where you most certainly would eat your neighbours or rape a woman had you lived on a lone island, far away from any form of civilization. After all you would be the one defining what is moral.
Isn't that a correct assumption?

 

[Stone]

If atheism is false (and God exists), then promoting atheism is extremely evil.

And if atheism were true, then what would even be the point of promoting atheism? After all, there's no such thing as good and evil without God.

There is literally no scenario where promoting atheism does any good at all. It is either morally neutral or unspeakably evil. Those are the only two options.

And yet atheists who actively promote their beliefs to others claim to be moral people and say that you can have morality without religion.

I'm not sure I agree with this. I belive an atheist would point to the large loss of life throughout history over religious struggles. (Wars ect) Maybe the good that they would see by promoting atheism they are "freeing" themselves from religious society in which they may feel some poeple like themselves are being oppressed.

 

[Rob Banks]

If atheism is false (and God exists), then promoting atheism is extremely evil.

And if atheism were true, then what would even be the point of promoting atheism? After all, there's no such thing as good and evil without God.

There is literally no scenario where promoting atheism does any good at all. It is either morally neutral or unspeakably evil. Those are the only two options.

And yet atheists who actively promote their beliefs to others claim to be moral people and say that you can have morality without religion.

I'm not sure I agree with this. I belive an atheist would point to the large loss of life throughout history over religious struggles. (Wars ect) Maybe the good that they would see by promoting atheism they are "freeing" themselves from religious society in which they may feel some poeple like themselves are being oppressed.

OK, but why is it necessarily good if there is less war or if people are more "free"?

I say that war is good. War allows men to express their masculinity and fulfill their natural tendency for violence. I also say that freedom is bad. Humans are irresponsible and reckless creatures. We need totalitarianism in order to function properly. Freedom leads to chaos.

Of course, I'm playing Devil's advocate here. I don't actually believe these things. But without God (and therefore no objective good or evil), who is to say my idea (war is good, freedom is bad) is wrong?

Some might argue that what is "objectively good" is simply what benefits the human species.

But this is not true. Someone could come along and say we should nuke the planet and kill all humans. After all, humans negatively affect the ecosystem for other species. Without God, who's to say this person is wrong?

It could also be argued that certain practices such as abortion, euthanasia for the sick and the elderly, certain forms of eugenics (forced sterilization, etc.) are ultimately beneficial to the human species. That doesn't make it good.

But Rob, everybody knows human life is precious. We don't need God to tell us that.

Actually, no. It is just your opinion that human life is precious. It is an opinion that many people share, and ultimately this opinion comes from God and Christianity. Before Christianity, Europeans practiced human sacrifice. And now, after Christianity, we are again practicing human sacrifice (in the form of abortion, euthanasia, etc.). So without God, even an idea as obvious as "human life is precious" starts to become a lot less clear.

 

[Stone]

OK, but why is it necessarily good if there is less war or if people are more "free"?

I say that war is good. War allows men to express their masculinity and fulfill their natural tendency for violence. I also say that freedom is bad. Humans are irresponsible and reckless creatures. We need totalitarianism in order to function properly. Freedom leads to chaos.

Of course, I'm playing Devil's advocate here. I don't actually believe these things. But without God (and therefore no objective good or evil), who is to say my idea (war is good, freedom is bad) is wrong?

Some might argue that what is "objectively good" is simply what benefits the human species.

But this is not true. Someone could come along and say we should nuke the planet and kill all humans. After all, humans negatively affect the ecosystem for other species. Without God, who's to say this person is wrong?

It could also be argued that certain practices such as abortion, euthanasia for the sick and the elderly, certain forms of eugenics (forced sterilization, etc.) are ultimately beneficial to the human species. That doesn't make it good.

But Rob, everybody knows human life is precious. We don't need God to tell us that.

Actually, no. It is just your opinion that human life is precious. It is an opinion that many people share, and ultimately this opinion comes from God and Christianity. Before Christianity, Europeans practiced human sacrifice. And now, after Christianity, we are again practicing human sacrifice (in the form of abortion, euthanasia, etc.). So without God, even an idea as obvious as "human life is precious" starts to become a lot less clear.

You're right, pegans didn't value human life very much. I can see that life is precious is a religious teaching. I'm sure most (regardless of religion) agree with that statement. So if somebody were to cherry pick and say "I like these parts so i will follow those and i dont like these parts so i will ignore those" do you personally think that is a start to believeing? Or just as bad as disbelief? or worse than disbelief?

 

[Grey]

Christians understand that life is precious, but not everything. The humanistic extreme that life is to be preserved at any cost for any reason is wrong. The other extreme that life is nothing is also wrong.

Accepting elements of a philosophical\religious system selectively is irrational. Accepting that God Is, and that God has a plan and relationship with humanity, and that plan was expressed through the incarnation of God himself in the person of Jesus Christ has a lot of moral\ethical implications.

Ethical questions are then evaluated through that metaphysical framework, and more importantly with that end in mind. A Christian acts with the Kingdom of Heaven in mind, both for themselves and for others.

An ethos needs a teleos, a purpose, and end. It includes the answers to the questions 'why should we do\value\prohibit X' and answers to 'how does X help\hinder our collective aims'

Why is human life precious? Because God himself died to save whatever human life he could save. Why? To furnish the Kingdom of Heaven with people who have heavenly treasures.

So, through that filter we can evaluate questions of human life. Is an innocent with their whole life ahead of them worth saving at great cost? Yes, they may do great things for the Kingdom of heaven. Is it acceptable to execute an unrepentant criminal? Yes, they cause harm to other good people and are not themselves able to enter the Kingdom. Is it acceptable to fight in a war? Well then we get into if the war is a just war etc and what may come of it.

But the entirety of Christian ethos is to serve God and promote the Kingdom of Heaven. People who don't share that ethos don't have a reason to borrow any of their ethics. It's irrational for them to do so.

In the same way the entirety of Buddhist ethos is to acheive nirvana and break the cycle of re-incarnation. It makes no sense to respect Buddist ethics if you don't share Buddhist aims.

No pick-and-choose ethical system is going to be coherent. No pick-and-choose ethical system will work consistently towards any end. It's simply behaving randomly and nonsensically. To hold such an ethical system is to be utterly controled by whim, and to abandon reason altogether.