Preaching Atheism

[GamezRule]

Does it make me a theist in the fact that I believe that there is a guiding force in all our lives, and whether we choose to follow it is our choice. (kinda like Karma) If not, then I am an atheist.

 

[Souron]

And a bit more logical then ... Ellen? "In the beginning there was nothing. God said, 'Let there be light!' And there was light. There was still nothing, but you could see it a whole lot better."

Genesis accounts there being a formless ocean before God created light.

The creation of light was immediately followed by the separation of light and dark to form day and night. I don't know about the original Hebrew, but in English the passages can be taken to mean that God created day and night right when he said "let there be light".

 

[Souron]

Does it make me a theist in the fact that I believe that there is a guiding force in all our lives, and whether we choose to follow it is our choice. (kinda like Karma) If not, then I am an atheist.

That does sound religious. The idea that we will be held accountable for the balance of our good and bad deeds is a religious belief (in Karma), but the treatment of morality though the metaphor of accounting is not. Most spirituality is religious, but I'm not confident that all of it is.

Of course warpus will likely welcome you to the family (of atheists) as long as you don't call that force, or it's cause, God.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Still less cool than the biggest explosion ever.

 

[Birdjaguar]

This is mainly geared towards those I admit.
Believe in the possibility. Heh, like the way you worded that.
Most agnostics are atheists. So percentage wise I'm on track I think. And I am indeed promoting a specific part of atheism, the agnostic kind.

When promoting things, it is best to start with the benefits. That is why Christians talk about heaven and personal relationships with Jesus. So what are the benefits of atheism?

Perhaps you mean something else by "light up". Such as actual emotion of light. If so, then yes the microwave radiation that we see today was "lit up" shortly after the big bang. It was epochs after the big bang, but it was not long by today's standards. Things happened pretty fast back then.

My question was actually: "When did the stars first begin to shine?"

If there had been an observer, when would the night sky have been filled with light?

 

[cardgame]

The benefits of atheism are the avoidance/nullification of all the negatives of religion.

While googling I found this which sums up my opinion quite nicely

One can reasonably argue that it doesn't matter if there are "benefits" to atheism — either it's a reasonable position or not. Either gods exist or they don't. If there are no good reasons to believe in any gods, then we shouldn't do so even if there are no benefits to that — and even if it's detrimental in some fashion. This does not mean, however, that there aren't benefits anyway. Have you experienced any? Do you feel that atheism "benefits" you in any fashion? A forum member writes:

What are the best benefits of atheism/secularism, in your opinions? For me, it was the freedom to make my own decisions about everything, without the Catholic church looking over my shoulder saying whatever I was doing was "wrong." Of course, I didn't realize that until after I left the CC, but it certainly felt great when I did. Rather like the character Pinocchio; "Finally, I'm a free person, no strings attached!"
I suppose that whether or not one feels there are "benefits" to atheism or not will depend a great deal on one's religious background. If you come from a religious tradition which is very restrictive and/or authoritarian, then atheism may indeed feel very liberating. If, however, you come from a relatively liberal religious tradition, then you won't think that there was much that you ever needed liberating from.

edit - Here are some comments on that...

Being an atheist does have benefits. Being entirely selfish here…I have more time to spend with my family and friends.
Instead of sitting in a large room full of mostly strangers listening to someone tell us how evil we are, I can have more interactive communication with my family and friends than I can ever have listening to a sermon.
I no longer feel like I need to feel guilty for something I did not do. What impact does that have on the psychological health of millions? Depression? I don’t think you need to look too hard at religion to see where the roots of a great deal of depression develop.
Reason and logic: I don’t have to deny reality!

I could actually list quite a number of benefits, they are benefits to me, at least, but I think they are also benefits to my family and friends. These benefits make me into a better person for everyone to interact with. I am not going to try to “push” my beliefs onto anyone (like anyone has a right to do that anyway!) and I will be in touch with reality when you interact with me. All of reality, not just the parts I want to acknowledge because they fit into someone’s idea of what the universe should be like.

Atheism frees the minds of individuals to be reality based. No religion can make that claim in any way, shape or form.

I feel happy to be “allowed” to read ANY material rather than just JW books, to be able to think something through logically instead of applying my JW doctrine blinders then not having any room left to think. I appreciate allowing myself to value logical thought instead of having to abandon logic (which personally helps me feel grounded and stable) for faith.

I feel happy to be able to search for “truths” instead of trying to make the world around me fit into what I already “know”/believe. I find reality around me absolutely fascinating and learning more makes me even more appreciative of how amazingly complex life is. This is in contrast to feeling like I was in an world of fantasy that left me disconnected and in an unreal daze (that’s the best way I can describe the feeling).

I have all sorts of time to be kind and help others, whereas before I was only helping people to read the bible and begrudgingly so, as I was told who to talk to, how to talk to them, what to say, when to go etc.

I feel happy to have the freedom to be myself, to attempt to fully realize my thoughts and ideas without someone else’s ideas always crowding them out, leaving me feeling inadequate and insignificant.

I enjoy feeling like an individual not just a cog in a machine that really doesn’t make that much sense.

I enjoy having a peace I never felt with religion, a peace that allows me to sort through my memories and come to peace with the lack of control we can all face in life.

I appreciate being able to fully be myself, instead of stuffing all the parts of me that don’t fit with JW doctrine deep inside me, thus causing schisms and psychological damage.

I enjoy being able to learn about other religions and people and ways of life without committing”interfaith”. The diversity of people on this planet is shocking and beautiful and I am glad I don’t have to miss out on this.

That’s just to name a few things. No god should want their “children” to NOT experience these wonderful things.

 

[Tarquelne]

When promoting things, it is best to start with the benefits. That is why Christians talk about heaven and personal relationships with Jesus. So what are the benefits of atheism?

You get to have really nasty arguments with people online, all of whom claim to be pinnacles of reason and logic. So you get very high quality flame wars. All that rather than go to church.

You can skip Extreme Unction. A small but significant time savings at a moment when you're likely to already be busy and distracted.

Everything is all *your* fault. That may not seem like a benefit, but when you go into therapy it's really a big time saver.

Hmm... That's three strong points for convenience. I'll stop there, but it's why in an increasingly hectic world atheism is looking better and better.

My question was actually: "When did the stars first begin to shine?"

If there had been an observer, when would the night sky have been filled with light?

The answer might surprise you. Lets look at our Bible:

1:1 - In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

That's the Big Bang, of course.

1:2 - And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

That's the soupy state of the universe when things were too hot for any of the various "species" of particles-as-we-know-them to form. Eventually atoms condensed out of the mix - "recombination."

1:3 - And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

And after that there was a photon decoupling....

1:4 - And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

Which is what's referred to as God dividing the light from the darkness - the energy density had to fall far enough for photon's to "decouple" from the soup, the "waters", and come apart from matter. Matter being dark.

See, the ancient Hebrews know at *least* as much about the actual state of the world as the ancient Greeks. You just have to credit them when they're arguably right and then stop all further evaluation.

So you actually don't get *any* light until photon decoupling. Which is around the 400,000 year mark, IIRC. Which means God had plenty of time to hand mold the planet, install fault lines, oil, fossils... whatever, before flipping the switch.

 

[ParadigmShifter]

The first stars were just hydrogen and helium though, the heavier elements only occurred after the first generation of supernovae.

 

[Souron]

My question was actually: "When did the stars first begin to shine?"

If there had been an observer, when would the night sky have been filled with light?

Well when things were really hot, there was a lot of light being emitted. Then it cooled down. Then it clumped up into stars and galaxies. So it went sort of bright -> dim -> patches of brightness. I'm not sure how dark the dim stage got.

The Details of this are best looked up in a reference source, possibly Wikipedia, or something better organized. But maybe an astronomy enthusiast can paint a clearer picture than me. (I'm just a physics enthusiast)

 

[Ayatollah So]

@OP: Doubt? Boring. And so is belief.

on the other hand, by having a supreme moral authority, it becomes possible for their to be an absolute value for "morality."

Euthyphro, anyone? [/threadjack]
And, as Sesame Street warns us: Without the letter R, all your imaginary friends would be imaginay fiends.

Ellen? "In the beginning there was nothing. God said, 'Let there be light!' And there was light. There was still nothing, but you could see it a whole lot better."

Whence the quote? Monty Python?

So what are the benefits of atheism?

Elegance, explanatory power, etc - overall, the qualities that make for good hypotheses. And yes, this does depend on what experiences you have on hand to be explained.

 

[Souron]

1:2 - And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

That's the soupy state of the universe when things were too hot for any of the various "species" of particles-as-we-know-them to form. Eventually atoms condensed out of the mix - "recombination."

Doesn't quite fit. The image presented is of the heavens and the earth and a surface between them, much like the ocean and the sky. That's not in the technical account.

1:4 - And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

Which is what's referred to as God dividing the light from the darkness - the energy density had to fall far enough for photon's to "decouple" from the soup, the "waters", and come apart from matter. Matter being dark.

Except the next line:
God called the light day, and the darkness He called night And there was evening and there was morning, one day.

That suggests that the creation of light coincides with the start of the physical day and night cycle. If you really want to line that up with our understanding of cosmology, then that implies the creation of the sun and the earth.

So you actually don't get *any* light until photon decoupling. Which is around the 400,000 year mark, IIRC. Which means God had plenty of time to hand mold the planet, install fault lines, oil, fossils... whatever, before flipping the switch.

That's like mix and match with science and the literal interpretation of the bible. If you want to believe science, and the scientific method as primal sources of truth, they you gotta believe all of it. Otherwise you may as well follow last-Thursday-ism. That's fine too, as long as you don't use science to defend it. (Though if you do believe such, I'd point you to Eran, who had a nice thread on why that's not necessary).

 

[frekk]

Does it make me a theist in the fact that I believe that there is a guiding force in all our lives, and whether we choose to follow it is our choice. (kinda like Karma) If not, then I am an atheist.

That's not theism or atheism, it sounds more like pantheism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheism

 

[Tarquelne]

Except the next line:

I *said* you have to stop as soon as you find the "credit" part.

That's like mix and match with science and the literal interpretation of the bible.

Who'd be silly enough to do that?

 

[Askthepizzaguy]

Does it make me a theist in the fact that I believe that there is a guiding force in all our lives, and whether we choose to follow it is our choice?

No.

There, short answer. For the long answer, click below.

Spoiler :

If you're in a river, it is flowing and exerting force on you, and you on it. You can follow the course of the river, or swim to shore, or drown yourself in it. Just because the universe appears to have "guiding forces", that does not mean there is a diety spewing the river out of his tear ducts. However, it would seem to be evidence in favor of there being a river, because the force of the river's flow has an observable effect.

Likewise, the universe, while not seemingly babysat by an all-watching God that enforces morality, does not seem to be devoid of morality, probably because nasty things which cause death and destruction aren't good for the species, and it's kind of hard to spread your seed when you keep murdering your offspring. Evil seems to be naturally self-defeating. Either that or you eventually tick off enough people that they take care of you the hard way. And thus, morality is naturally selected for.

However, the observance of "guiding forces" such as these, which in my opinion are simply natural consequences, no more leads to the conclusion of the existence of God than it leads to the conclusion of the existence of The Great 17-headed Pink Dragon.

There's a bit of a leap in logic between:

A) The universe is here, we don't know how it got there exactly, and it seems orderly and with conflicting forces.

and

B) The universe was made by the god Jehovah who simply spoke it into existence, worked for six days making it, then rested, then apparently made it again but in a different order, created man who walked with the dinosaurs but then made the dinosaurs go away, and then created evidence that the dinosaurs lived for millions of years when it was really just a few days, and then later told his followers to say things that contradicted one another, and yet was all considered infallible. Also, he made whoopie with a middle eastern woman while she was asleep (omg raep) and she gave birth to the SON OF GOD who the people later killed because seriously we can't have sons of god running around and stuff. And that cleansed mankind of our sins, because we murdered God's son. Therefore, we are good people now. Then later on, God will kill people with fire and there will be an epic showdown between the armies of heaven and hell, live on pay-per-view.


You see, B doesn't necessarily follow from A. I'm not sure what kind of magic mushrooms one would have to be on to have B follow from anything, actually. If that really is the nature of the universe, then someone was drunk when they were writing the script.

Long story short, one can have beliefs about the universe that don't involve God.

(kinda like Karma)

Depends on what you mean by Karma. If you believe that on the whole, good actions lead to greater rewards, and evil acts will lead to suffering both internal and external, then that is entirely possible without a deity.

If you mean there is an unseen intelligence at work bringing justice to the universe (a thing I have yet to find any evidence of) then that is just another name for a supernatural external being/force/intelligence in charge of everything, another kind of caretaker god. I would categorize that as theism.

If the universe is a boat floating down the river of time, the atheist believes that there's no one steering, and that the river wasn't necessarily created out of dragon's tears. He also believes that just because you can't prove it WASN'T created out of dragon's tears, that doesn't mean that it was. An atheist believes that's false reasoning. I also can't prove it wasn't created last tuesday, but made to look exactly like a universe that is many billions of years old. That doesn't mean it was created last tuesday.

If the universe is a boat floating down the river of time, many theists I have spoken to seem to believe that not only did a dragon cry tears and make the river (where did the dragon come from?) but that there IS an invisible captain steering the ship, and that we are heading directly for a waterfall where 99% of the people on board the ship will certainly die, and the dragon knew that when he started crying, and those who die WILL be burnt by his fire-breath forever, but the dragon still loves you as long as you believe in his dragon eggs. That, or a similar mythology. Frighteningly similar, in fact. Quite scary if you haven't heard it a thousand times before.

I don't know where the river came from, and I don't know where it is going, and I don't pretend to. If the river came from a crying dragon, and the rest of that story is also true, then the dragon seems a bit sadistic and cruel to his creations, especially when the source of all doubt comes directly from the dragon who allowed free will and skepticism to exist. One might liken this caretaker deity to a parent who tells their child that Santa Claus exists, and then scolds them for believing it.

We are shown from birth certain things about the universe which are factual and easy to understand. We are then told very outlandish, contradictory things about supernatural beings from a myriad of religious sources. Apparently, to believe the wrong thing is to burn forever, and to believe nothing is to burn forever. Now if we trust our senses and our rational minds, which were granted to us by this unseen caretaker, and it leads us to the wrong conclusion, and we are then punished for it ETERNALLY and cruelly, then that caretaker is not a caretaker, but a bully with a magnifying glass burning ants and laughing about it.

I simply don't believe the universe, cruel as it is, is cruel enough to contain a God.

 

[mangxema]

Isn't Gravity just a theory? Or is it completely proven?

'Theory' is the most solid classification you can get, unless you can actually put an equation to it. If you can, then it's a 'law', but obviously that isn't possible in all situations (i.e., evolution). In these cases, regardless of how much evidence it has, it will still be 'just a theory' even if it's pretty damn clear it exists, as in the case of gravity.

 

[Whiskey_Lord]

Doubt is not the enemy of faith, it's apathy. People believe because they want to believe, and only apathy can truly destroy the desire to believe.

 

[aelf]

Most agnostics are atheists. So percentage wise I'm on track I think. And I am indeed promoting a specific part of atheism, the agnostic kind.

I always had trouble understanding how this can be the case. I guess that would mean agnostic but leaning on the side of not believing that God exists. But ultimately you can't honestly say, as an agnostic, that you know God doesn't exist, so you can't really be an atheist. A practical atheist perhaps (as in living your life as though there is no higher power), but not a bonafide one (as in actually having a strong intellectual position on whether God exists).

Now if you want to preach atheism, I assume you want people to agree, as a matter of intellectual inquiry, that God doesn't exist. So I'd say that preaching doubt (and therefore probably agnosticism) is somewhat different from preaching atheism.

 

[Bast]

Atheism is compatible with the great Dharmic religions of the world especially Buddhism and Jainism. So more power to you.

I like the Pope and some Catholic saints like Francis of Assisi. For me, it's more a history and culture than anything else. I like irreligious "cultural" Jews or Muslims too.

I can't stand born-again Christians, fundamentalist Islamists etc... They're the ones who have the most to lose from atheism and reason.

 

[Glassfan]

I was raised in the "question authority" generation. That's somewhat different from doubt, which is defined as; uncertainty; lacking confidence in; distrust. One can question authority (political, religious, scientific) and ultimately find it is correct or incorrect. Was Roosevelt wrong about leading us into WW II? No. Was President Johnson wrong about the VietNam War? Yes.

I can question the ecclesiastical authorities on their canon and practice, especially when it results in obvious abuse (sin) such as the protection of pedophile priests. All men are sinners. But the underlying nature of life is an open question that science or philosophy have no better answers that faith. I doubt science's ability to explain the higher meaning of life.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

@OP: Doubt? Boring. And so is belief.

I know I'd have an easier time promoting icecream. But I was prompted to promote atheism and this is what I came up with.

Whence the quote? Monty Python?

Ellen Degenerate.

I always had trouble understanding how this can be the case. I guess that would mean agnostic but leaning on the side of not believing that God exists. But ultimately you can't honestly say, as an agnostic, that you know God doesn't exist, so you can't really be an atheist. A practical atheist perhaps (as in living your life as though there is no higher power), but not a bonafide one (as in actually having a strong intellectual position on whether God exists).

Now if you want to preach atheism, I assume you want people to agree, as a matter of intellectual inquiry, that God doesn't exist. So I'd say that preaching doubt (and therefore probably agnosticism) is somewhat different from preaching atheism.

Atheism is nothing more or less than not having the believe God exists. When being unsure about the existence, you still can opt not to believe. And you can opt to believe as well, although many times the faith required needs to be absolute.

As a bus once said: "God probably doesn't exist" which is the atheistic version of agnosticism.

The theistic version is a more personal one I feel, and I don't think I can pursuade anyone towards or away form that. Often it's "There is no scientific proof for God, but my personal experience tells me there is a God". These people are very important to atheists because this is where atheists should get there inspiration for doubt from in the "probably does not exist" department.

I doubt science's ability to explain the higher meaning of life.

That's good. Just don't stop there. Also doubt man's ability to explain the higher meaning of life. In fact, doubt whether there is a higher meaning of life.