Poll: To atheists:What kind are you?

[Ultra_Caboose]

scotth266, I love that Ghandi quote. When ever I hear of Christian radicalists like hating gays or bombing abortion clinics, I think "Hmm, did Jesus go around doing this?"

I agree. As an atheist, I can say that I understand and can appreciate the true meaning of Christianity, but I completely despise the extremists who go to completely corrupt and insult the very thing they're trying to abide by. I think the band Rush said it best...

"What should've been our armor becomes a sharp and angry sword."

Religion, as best as I've ever been able to see it, is something that is meant to provide us with a sense of purpose and safety. You don't have to be afraid or scared. As long as you're a good person, [deity] will protect and guide you. Now, many people use it as a method of attacking those who see things in a different way, wasting any valid points their religion originally had.

To me, a better understanding of the world as a whole is best obtained by seeing things from every possible angle. I'm an atheist, but I am able to see and attempt to understand the world from a christian perspective and at the same time respect it. Bhuddist, Taoist, Pastafarian, learn as much as you can about how the people around the world see life and how to live it, and use the the culmination of all that you learn as a basis to live your life as best as you can, atheist or not.

Man, I can make some ramblin' posts...

 

[Housebroken Lunatic]

I prefer to call myself a sceptical agnostic.

This means that I don't take the very common atheist standpoint that the existence of godlike beings is flat out impossible. Im a man of science and intellectual pursuits, therefore I have realized that mankind is a limited species, only able to percieve three dimensions in real time. We know that there are a lot more dimensions than that, time being one of them. But we can't experience them (you can't see/hear/taste/touch/smell time, now can you?).

Now if no one (not even scientists) have been able to percieve these additional dimensions beside the three we can experience, where's the science behind refusing the possibility of the existence of godlike beings? It doesn't make any sense. They could very well exist, we could simply be too limited to actually percieve them. Someday we might develop tools which allows us to "see" beyond our own three dimensions and maybe then we can get a real answer, but as it is now, anything's possible.

The "sceptical" bit in my sceptic agnosticism on the other hand have found several flaws, faults and inconsistencies within pretty much every established religion there is, and any religious person wishing to go up in a theological debate with me will have their faith severly tested. I have even managed to persuade some religious people from either leaving their religion all together, or at least lower their temperature towards their religion to a more lukewarm belief. And this is not because I actually wanted them to do that, but because they were swayed by my arguments. I don't feel very guilty over it since they picked the theological fight with me in the first place, I didn't start it. : )

But, you can't have theological debates with everybody, and in fact I would get bored quite swiftly if I tried to. Some religious people aren't even interested in having them (many of my religious friends being these people), and I don't mind. They have their reasons for their faith, just like I have my reasons for believeing in what I believe in. It doesn't matter who have the most "logical" or "spiritual and just" reasons, it isn't really the point.

We live in free countries where you have the privilige of believe in whatever you want, regardless of how illogical it might seem. I respect that right, and I won't try to actively convert religious people into actively denouncing their faith. And at the same time I expect all religious people I encounter to realize that being religious isn't about "proving" that your religion is right, or proving that other religions are wrong. It' about faith, either you have it or you don't, and it's not mankinds job to judge the faith of others (even if many false priophets and religious zealots will have you believe that). If you live by your God's rules and keep your religion between you and your God, and leave everybody else to live anyway they want, everything will be fine. God will sort us all out in the end, and it has never been the religious man's job to save their heathen and heretic brethren from hell.

If we can all take these facts into consideration, im sure we can reach an understanding and live in peace and harmony with eachother rather than sitting around bickering about who has the most logical perception of reality and who has the "right" faith.

You may now send in the customary sniper to kill me where I stand. XD

 

[Cliff_m85]

What's wrong with people just randomly deciding which rules to not follow? That it's random. That they pick-and-choose their rules to follow. Whatever is convenient and fits into my schedule and life-style is the mantra.

It's not random, it's based on "Okay, these rules are no longer applicable in modern society, so we'll not be pricks and recognize them as such."

Believe it all or believe none of it, I say (albeit the rules that were literally told to be discarded).

You've pushed the Religious into a corner, where either they're not religious at all, or extremists. Does this really sound fair or logical to you?

Most religious types aren't gay haters, though Christians and Jews and Muslims and Mormons and (so on so on so on) should be. Their books are clearly state to murder those who have homosexual sex. So no, most religious types aren't gay haters, they are just pickers-and-choosers.

Personal interpretation, rules no longer applicable, etc.

Even if Freddy is an attention whore, how do you explain his congregation? And mentally ill I'd agree with, though kindly bite my tongue for further references to why he is. Yes, he is an asshole though. I agree completely with that.

His congregation is mostly close-family. The whole mentally ill thing, I wasn't just kidding with that. I think he may seriously have a problem. He's created this reality where he is the only holy man on earth, practically a demi-god, and that everyone will burn in hell while he parties it up with Jesus.

I thought god's law was more important that societal laws? *shrugs again*

No, the pickers-and-choosers are religious as well. I just don't respect them as much as those that say "You know, I may not agree with it but it is the word of God".

Who chooses what rules are no longer applicable? Why? What does it say that at one time the rule of stoning a homosexual to death was peachy? Or of Deuteronomy 22:27-29 that if you rape an unmarried virgin then she's your new wife (though you shall owe her father a handful of silver)? I'd argue that they should've never been applicable.

Most close family, but not all. It's not that easy to explain away.

 

[Cakes]

scotth266, I love that Ghandi quote. When ever I hear of Christian radicalists like hating gays or bombing abortion clinics, I think "Hmm, did Jesus go around doing this?"

I agree. As an atheist, I can say that I understand and can appreciate the true meaning of Christianity, but I completely despise the extremists who go to completely corrupt and insult the very thing they're trying to abide by. I think the band Rush said it best...

"What should've been our armor becomes a sharp and angry sword."

Religion, as best as I've ever been able to see it, is something that is meant to provide us with a sense of purpose and safety. You don't have to be afraid or scared. As long as you're a good person, [deity] will protect and guide you. Now, many people use it as a method of attacking those who see things in a different way, wasting any valid points their religion originally had.

To me, a better understanding of the world as a whole is best obtained by seeing things from every possible angle. I'm an atheist, but I am able to see and attempt to understand the world from a christian perspective and at the same time respect it. Bhuddist, Taoist, Pastafarian, learn as much as you can about how the people around the world see life and how to live it, and use the the culmination of all that you learn as a basis to live your life as best as you can, atheist or not.

Man, I can make some ramblin' posts...

Sir, you have just put together the greatest post I have ever read. You just described exactly how all should be, and you topped it off with a fucking Rush quote. I just wanted you to know you're awesome.

 

[scotth266]

In the past those that debunked portions of the Bible were thrown in jail. Now we just get apologetics to re-read it and streeeeeeeeeetch what the possible 'symbolism' could be. Who decides what is symbolism and what is reality? Noahs ark was disproved, so now it's symbolic. What of Jesus coming back to life? Oh, that's real. *shrugs* I don't get it. It wasn't symbolic until after it was debunked fully. People literally believed the literal text. People still shout out about Adam and Eve (not Adam and Steve). It's whatever is the most convenient at the time, I think.

Right, not homosexuals but homosexual sex. *rolls eyes* Hey guys, we hate the sin and not the sinner......can you please stay unhappy for the rest of your life? What's that? That the sin is a part of who you are? *mind explodes*

For the first bit, all I can say is that I'm not a theologian by trade: and the theologians are who decide what is and isn't meant to be taken literally. If they follow science sometimes, why is that a bad thing? The views of theologians also change over time, like I've said before: that's why one generation believes Adam and Eve, and the next considers it to be more of a story.

As for the second bit, all I can offer up are two things: first, platonic love, and second, the faith will adapt eventually. Some people are just determined to squash it before it has the chance to change.

 

[Boxey_Brown]

I claimed to be a "quiet" athiest just because I don't like to make a lot of noise about stuff like that, unless I'm certain it will be fun and no one will try to hit me

 

[Cliff_m85]

In the past those that debunked portions of the Bible were thrown in jail. Now we just get apologetics to re-read it and streeeeeeeeeetch what the possible 'symbolism' could be. Who decides what is symbolism and what is reality? Noahs ark was disproved, so now it's symbolic. What of Jesus coming back to life? Oh, that's real. *shrugs* I don't get it. It wasn't symbolic until after it was debunked fully. People literally believed the literal text. People still shout out about Adam and Eve (not Adam and Steve). It's whatever is the most convenient at the time, I think.

Right, not homosexuals but homosexual sex. *rolls eyes* Hey guys, we hate the sin and not the sinner......can you please stay unhappy for the rest of your life? What's that? That the sin is a part of who you are? *mind explodes*

For the first bit, all I can say is that I'm not a theologian by trade: and the theologians are who decide what is and isn't meant to be taken literally. If they follow science sometimes, why is that a bad thing? The views of theologians also change over time, like I've said before: that's why one generation believes Adam and Eve, and the next considers it to be more of a story.

As for the second bit, all I can offer up are two things: first, platonic love, and second, the faith will adapt eventually. Some people are just determined to squash it before it has the chance to change.

Adaptation isn't something that religion is particularly good at. "This is the word of God.......but not quite so much anymore" is the thought that floods my head when I hear about some person arbitrially deciding that (actual event) purgatory no longer exists.

 

[Trotgar]

I am an atheist/agnostic. I don't believe in God or gods, but I don't deny them either. They might or might not exist, but I don't know do they.

 

[Ultra_Caboose]

scotth266, I love that Ghandi quote. When ever I hear of Christian radicalists like hating gays or bombing abortion clinics, I think "Hmm, did Jesus go around doing this?"

blah blah blah RUSH blah blah philosophy blah blah flying spaghetti monster blah blah blah...

Man, I can make some ramblin' posts...

Sir, you have just put together the greatest post I have ever read. You just described exactly how all should be, and you topped it off with a fucking Rush quote. I just wanted you to know you're awesome.

Why thank you. I meant every word of it. Also, Rush is fucking awesome.

 

[Cakes]

I thought god's law was more important that societal laws? *shrugs again*

Not literally the word of God, important text by some wise men, so on and so forth. Or maybe what this God of theirs said was true to the time in which this book was written? I don't know.

No, the pickers-and-choosers are religious as well. I just don't respect them as much as those that say "You know, I may not agree with it but it is the word of God".

"This is the absolute, infallible word of God" isn't considered a necessary rule to many modern religious-types.

Who chooses what rules are no longer applicable? Why?

Societal norms. Women get to wear jeans now, so that part where Jesus said "If women start wearing jeans I'll ruin your shit" is no longer applicable.

What does it say that at one time the rule of stoning a homosexual to death was peachy? Or of Deuteronomy 22:27-29 that if you rape an unmarried virgin then she's your new wife (though you shall owe her father a handful of silver)? I'd argue that they should've never been applicable.

They were applicable in the ancient world.

Most close family, but not all. It's not that easy to explain away.

There are some 70 people there. It's not inconceivable that alongside his large extended family he found a handful more people as fucked up as he is.

 

[WayOutThere]

I voted for your fourth option.

I think that to just go out and bash people's beliefs is nothing but counter-productive.

On the other hand, I have no respect and, if fact, much distain for faith.

I do consider the possibility that a God or gods exist. We have no evidence one way or another and without evidence you do not make claims about reality period.

By now I have learned that many Escapists are atheists.

I noticed that too. I wonder why it is the case.

 

[AlexFromOmaha]

I like how the original poster didn't really ask about the views of atheists, but about how other people's atheism might threaten his comfortable little bubble. Narrow-minded from the word go. Awesome.

 

[Cakes]

Believe what you want to believe... just stay off my lawn and I'll stay off yours.

This is also how it should be done.

Why thank you. I meant every word of it. Also, Rush is fucking awesome.

Holy shit, Neil Peart. Saw them in Winnipeg during the Snakes and Arrows tour. Blew my mind.

 

[Cliff_m85]

I thought god's law was more important that societal laws? *shrugs again*

Not literally the word of God, important text by some wise men, so on and so forth. Or maybe what this God of theirs said was true to the time in which this book was written? I don't know.

No, the pickers-and-choosers are religious as well. I just don't respect them as much as those that say "You know, I may not agree with it but it is the word of God".

"This is the absolute, infallible word of God" isn't considered a necessary rule to many modern religious-types.

Who chooses what rules are no longer applicable? Why?

Societal norms. Women get to wear jeans now, so that part where Jesus said "If women start wearing jeans I'll ruin your shit" is no longer applicable.

What does it say that at one time the rule of stoning a homosexual to death was peachy? Or of Deuteronomy 22:27-29 that if you rape an unmarried virgin then she's your new wife (though you shall owe her father a handful of silver)? I'd argue that they should've never been applicable.

They were applicable in the ancient world.

Most close family, but not all. It's not that easy to explain away.

There are some 70 people there. It's not inconceivable that alongside his large extended family he found a handful more people as fucked up as he is.

I don't think I have much else to say on this subject because you just summed up my disdain subtly. Random people decide what is not applicable because now, for some reason, it's not moral to do in our society (though at one point rape was, apparently) and so it must be looked on as symbolism.

 

[heyheysg]

If you have religion for moral values, social gatherings, a peace of mind. I don't mind.

If you have religion to make money, to spout nonsense, to convert the whole world. Then you and me have a problem mate.

 

[Cakes]

By now I have learned that many Escapists are atheists.

I noticed that too. I wonder why it is the case.

It seems to be the case with many internet forums and such. I blame Satan.

 

[scotth266]

Adaptation isn't something that religion is particularly good at. "This is the word of God.......but not quite so much anymore" is the thought that floods my head when I hear about some person arbitrially deciding that (actual event) purgatory no longer exists.

All I can say is that the Church is akin to a short kid going through growing pains, and all the other kids around are looking at him yelling: "GROW FASTER!" It takes time, and a lot of weird philosophical/spiritual debates, for religions to adapt to new ideals, and it sometimes doesn't make much sense to anyone. All we do is try to make sure that what comes out at the end is a little closer to what Christ preached.

Our faith is something that even WE don't understand fully at times: we're constantly on a road to discover what it's all about.

I just wish people would be a bit more understanding of that, as opposed to getting all gung-ho anti-theism, and being just as trollish as our Fundies are. The best treatment for those guys is to ignore them and encourage the non-Fundies to stand up and take more active roles.

EDIT: Also, you are supposed to follow societal laws unless they fly directly against your faith. Sort of like the Constitution's views on following laws: you stick with them as long as they are reasonable, and you revolt as a last resort.

 

[fletch_talon]

My question is essentially this: why label yourself a Catholic, when there are things you disagree with in the Catholic belief system. It doesn't make sense to me, I don't consider myself a member of PETA, because even though I think animals deserve better treatment, I don't believe we should stop eating animal products entirely.

Actually, there's a simple answer for that question: they want to change the faith.

It's happened before, and I'm sure that it will happen again, likely within the next two popes.

That's an interesting point, certainly something I hadn't considered. Also it would enable people to adapt their beliefs without disappointing devout family and friends.

There's something I'm hoping you might be able to tell me. I have a couple of internet friends who are "Catholic" but disagree with some ideas. In their case, they don't agree with the "homosexuality is wrong" thing.
My question is essentially this: why label yourself a Catholic, when there are things you disagree with in the Catholic belief system.

Mostly, they consider the issues they disagree with minor enough to ignore, and since they've already been raised Catholic, why go through the bother of conversion?

Personally I don't see it as a bother. In fact its not even a conversion, because that would imply that you're jumping from one organised religion to another, and then you're likely to encounter the same problems. I just can't understand why people need to label their beliefs like this. Don't get me wrong, labels and classifications are important parts of society, but to do it to something so personal and varied like this seems silly to me.

 

[WayOutThere]

I like how the original poster didn't really ask about the views of atheists, but about how other people's atheism might threaten his comfortable little bubble. Narrow-minded from the word go. Awesome.

What semblance of a point you may have is drowned out by the fact that you're just enjoying being a jerk.

 

[Cliff_m85]

scotth266, I love that Ghandi quote. When ever I hear of Christian radicalists like hating gays or bombing abortion clinics, I think "Hmm, did Jesus go around doing this?"

I agree. As an atheist, I can say that I understand and can appreciate the true meaning of Christianity, but I completely despise the extremists who go to completely corrupt and insult the very thing they're trying to abide by. I think the band Rush said it best...

"What should've been our armor becomes a sharp and angry sword."

Religion, as best as I've ever been able to see it, is something that is meant to provide us with a sense of purpose and safety. You don't have to be afraid or scared. As long as you're a good person, [deity] will protect and guide you. Now, many people use it as a method of attacking those who see things in a different way, wasting any valid points their religion originally had.

To me, a better understanding of the world as a whole is best obtained by seeing things from every possible angle. I'm an atheist, but I am able to see and attempt to understand the world from a christian perspective and at the same time respect it. Bhuddist, Taoist, Pastafarian, learn as much as you can about how the people around the world see life and how to live it, and use the the culmination of all that you learn as a basis to live your life as best as you can, atheist or not.

Man, I can make some ramblin' posts...

I'm not sure how indepth you read the religious texts. The Bible does call for fear of the Lord. Islam has apostacy. Scientology has suppressive persons. Etc. It's not "you don't have to be afraid", it's quite the opposite really. Even as a good person it's not enough if you don't follow key rules.

I don't see how viewing the world as on the back of a giant turtle benefits anyone.