What difference does it make?

[DLH]

SIMPLY

What difference does it make whether OR NOT gods exist?

 

[DLH]

I'll let the first two sentences slide so that we can focus on the third. How does it follow that the existence of gods must affect everyone's view of origin, morality, meaning, and destiny? I don't think you can defend any part of that.

If someone had been raised by loving parents all of their life only to find out they were adopted they would go on loving their parents as they always had, but what would they think of their biological parents? That would depend upon their circumstances.

 

[Wiploc]

Lastly, if gods are just human constructs, then truth is entirely subjective.

NHC

How do you figure that? I don't believe you can support that claim.

If gods are human constructs, then truth has no external, unchanging foundation.

I can't tell if you're backpedaling.

Suppose Joe says a house is real but Sara says it is just a mirage.
They walk over to the house. Joe gives it a kick. It looks real, feels real, sounds real, so Joe thinks he's proven correct.
But then Sara says, "See, the foundation part of the house. It's not external. What's more, that foundation will change over time. It isn't unchanging. Therefore, the house isn't real."

You see my problem. You--if I understand correctly--undertook to show two things:
1. If any god exists, then morality is objective.
2. If no gods exist, then morality is subjective.

But your response brings in ideas about foundations, change, and externality. I don't see what any of them have to do with subjectivity vs objectivity.

Maybe you're right. But, if so, then I'd like an explanation. How do these ideas that you've added to the conversation relate to subjectivity? And, of course, how are they dependent on gods?

Without a divine authority, what is considered “true” is ultimately shaped by human perception, which is fallible and inconsistent. [emphasis added by wiploc]

Again, I can't tell whether you're changing the subject. Your original claim was that morality's objectivity requires the existence of one or more gods.

Are you now changing the subject from what is true to what people think is true?

If not, then how does the fallibility and inconsistency of human perception bear on the question of whether morality is
1. objective if gods exist, but
2. subjective if gods do not exist?

History shows that truth is malleable.

Is that supposed to be a true statement?

If it is true, then truth exists, right?

If, on the other hand, truth does not exist, then that was just meaningless babble, pointless for you to have written.

I think, if we want to have meaningful discussion, we must accept that truth exists .

If we can stipulate to that, then we can move on to the question of what gods have to do with morality.

In ancient Greece, slavery was considered natural and just. Today, it is condemned as a moral evil. If truth were truly objective, it would have always been wrong. Instead, human values changed, and so did the truth.

How do you figure that the truth changed just because human ideas changed?

The Catholic Church once taught that the Earth was the center of the universe. For centuries, this was accepted as fact. Only later did science prove otherwise. If truth were absolute, it would not shift with human discovery.

Truth didn't shift. Earth was never the center of the universe.
Opinion shifted, but truth did not.

But what does it have to do with baseball? Oh, I'm sorry, that was a quote from the movie Field of Dreams. Don't know how it got in here. I'll try again:

But what does this have to do with whether morality is
1. objective if gods exist, but
2. subjective if gods do not exist?

Morality also becomes subjective without a divine standard.

I understand that this is your position. I want to know why you take this position. What do gods have to do with morality?

If there is no god, what makes murder or theft objectively wrong?

You made a claim that you have yet to defend. You are the affirmative. You should explain what gods have to do with morality. Then I'll consider your claim. If I find it unpersuasive, I'll try to explain why.

Asking how something can be objectively wrong in the absence of gods does not support either your claim that the thing is objectively wrong in the presence of gods or that it is only subjectively wrong in the absence of gods.

I'm asking what gods have to do with it. And you, so far, are not addressing that topic.

Laws? Society? But laws change, and societies disagree. What is criminal in one country may be legal in another. Nietzsche recognized this dilemma when he wrote, “God is dead, and we have killed him.” Without a divine foundation, morality becomes a construct of power, not an objective truth.

Is it that you--I don't know how to say this. Do you worship power? Are you saying that slavery is right where it is legal and wrong where it is illegal? And this is why you think truth changes from one country to the next?

Even science, which seeks truth, is built on falsifiability rather than absolute certainty. Newtonian physics was once considered true,

Again, do you think it is true that Newtonian physics was once considered true? Will it be false if people quit believing it?

What if I believe that
1. no gods exist, and
2. morality is objective.
Does my belief make those true?

If belief makes things true, then haven't I won this debate?

... If there were an ultimate, unchanging truth, it would exist independently of human knowledge and would not be contingent on discovery.

I don't know what ultimate and unchanging and independence have to do with anything.

Are you saying that truth is not discoverable? No, you're not. You're saying that truth is truth regardless of whether we discover it. Right?

But doesn't that undermine your examples? If slavery was always wrong, then that truth wouldn't be undermined by the fact that there were times when it was accepted. Right?

Without a transcendent source, all truth is dependent on human consensus.

I don't know why you think that. What do transcendent sources have to do with anything, and what do gods have to do with transcendent sources?

If humans define truth, then by definition, it is subjective.

How is it different if gods define truth?

If you disagree, then demonstrate an unchanging, absolute truth that exists independently of human perception.

I do disagree. But I don't know that I should take the affirmative on anything that might distract you from supporting your own affirmative claims.

On the other hand, I don't want to seem stubborn or withholding, so, in case it somehow helps, I'll try to throw out an example. But I don't want this to devolve into a series of criticized examples that effectively "prove" we can undefine words until nothing is objective regardless of whether gods exist.

Example: The sun is bigger than the earth.

I think that is objectively true regardless of who disagrees, regardless of what people used to believe, regardless of whether the sun remains bigger than the earth, and regardless of whether gods exist.


Disclaimer and apology:

I've paraphrased you repeatedly. I hope I represented your positions accurately. But, often enough, I get told that I have misrepresened other people's ideas.

I hope I have not misrepresented you. I did not intend to misrepresent you. Anywhere I did misrepresent you, I hope you'll take the opportunity to clarify your position so that we can both be on the same page.

 

[remez]

SIMPLY

What difference does it make whether OR NOT gods exist?

Everyone has a worldview. All worldviews address origin, morality, meaning and destiny. Whether God exists or not would affect each area of everyone's wv. That is quite impactful.

I'll let the first two sentences slide so that we can focus on the third. How does it follow that the existence of gods must affect everyone's view of origin, morality, meaning, and destiny? I don't think you can defend any part of that.

Hello Wiploc,

I have been gone for years. And on my first post of return, I find you. The person I left off with in great discussion over the KCA. Glad you are still here. anyway....

Meaning....the meaning for my life is to know God and make him known. I'm certain you hold a different meaning to your life and are in no way motivated to know God or make him known. Unless things have drastically changed in the past 5 years.

 

[Wiploc]

SIMPLY

What difference does it make whether OR NOT gods exist?

Everyone has a worldview. All worldviews address origin, morality, meaning and destiny. Whether God exists or not would affect each area of everyone's wv. That is quite impactful.

I'll let the first two sentences slide so that we can focus on the third. How does it follow that the existence of gods must affect everyone's view of origin, morality, meaning, and destiny? I don't think you can defend any part of that.

Hello Wiploc,

I have been gone for years. And on my first post of return, I find you. The person I left off with in great discussion over the KCA. Glad you are still here. anyway....

Hey! Welcome back!

Meaning....the meaning for my life is to know God and make him known. I'm certain you hold a different meaning to your life and are in no way motivated to know God or make him known. Unless things have drastically changed in the past 5 years.

Your claim isn't that your belief in god affects your worldview. Your claim, if I understood it, was that there is no person whose worldview would be unaffected by the existence of any god.

One of my favorite gods is Xal-x, the god of quadratic equations. He didn't create the world; he showed up later. So I don't see how his existence affects anybody's origin. He requires that we worship quadratic equations. That dog won't hunt. It doesn't interest me; I reject it. I can't see that he affects my meaning or destiny at all.

Perhaps you'd like to retrench and just say that some gods affect some people?

 

[steve_bank]

Objective science is a demonstrable fact that is repeatable by anyone regardless of personal views.

Genetic mutations are a demonstrated fact.

Ohm's Law in electrical engineering us a demonstrated ted repeatable fact fact.

If the engines fail on a jet that it will loose altitude is a fact.

That bringing refined radioactive material together a certain mass will result in an expulsion is a inseminated repeatable fact.

That there is a god that created the universe is not a demonstrable fact.


God was displeased so he destroyed life he created with a flood, subjective bias. That a god may be all powerful does not make his or hers or its rules objective.

It makes them absolute in that follow the rules or face certain punishments.

Yahweh obviously has feelings and emotions.

I prayed to hod for some many and I found $20 on the street, god answered my prayer. The next day I prayed for money and got nothing.

Prayer is not a repeatable demonstrable objective fact. It is subecve interpretaion of events.

 

[Wiploc]

I'll let the first two sentences slide so that we can focus on the third. How does it follow that the existence of gods must affect everyone's view of origin, morality, meaning, and destiny? I don't think you can defend any part of that.

If someone had been raised by loving parents all of their life only to find out they were adopted they would go on loving their parents as they always had, but what would they think of their biological parents? That would depend upon their circumstances.

I don't follow. You claimed that the existence of any god would affect every person's view of origin, morality, meaning, and destiny. I asked you to support that claim. You started talking about adoption.

Help me see the relevance of your comment.

 

[DLH]

I'll let the first two sentences slide so that we can focus on the third. How does it follow that the existence of gods must affect everyone's view of origin, morality, meaning, and destiny? I don't think you can defend any part of that.

If someone had been raised by loving parents all of their life only to find out they were adopted they would go on loving their parents as they always had, but what would they think of their biological parents? That would depend upon their circumstances.

I don't follow. You claimed that the existence of any god would affect every person's view of origin, morality, meaning, and destiny. I asked you to support that claim. You started talking about adoption.

Help me see the relevance of your comment.

Sorry, I think you are confusing me with someone else. It wasn't me who made the comment on origin, morality, meaning, and destiny. In fact, I don't agree with that since I believe in the existence of a myriad of gods and see no evidence for such a view. I believe that was @remez, if I'm not mistaken.

The adoption reference was a simile of theism. I think if most theists discovered with certainty, as much as could be had, regarding the non-existence of God, they would continue to behave as if there were such a God because that is the behavior which they think had formed the person they want to be.

ETA: I think atheism has little if anything to do with theology, God, gods, or the Bible. I think it is about control. It isn't that they don't believe in gods as much as it is they want to be gods. Imatio Dei, Deus ex machina. Atheism, in my view, is strictly a sociopolitical frustration in a quasi-theocratic society.

 

[Swammerdami]

DLH, your position assumes that without a transcendent foundation, morality is completely arbitrary, yet you also acknowledge that atheists, even those like Dawkins and Harris, operate within ethical frameworks. You suggest that they unknowingly borrow from religious morality, as if ethical principles cannot exist without divine authority. This is where your argument contradicts itself. If morality is entirely dependent on God, then those who do not believe in God should have no ability to reason morally. Yet, we see that they do.

Morality is not a product of divine command but a result of human social evolution, rationality, and cooperation. If morality were solely dictated by God, then we would expect a single, unchanging moral law across all religious traditions and cultures. Instead, moral values shift over time—even within the same religions. Slavery, for instance, was once defended using religious texts, yet today, the same religious communities universally condemn it. If morality were truly fixed and divine, such changes would never occur. The fact that they do suggests morality is not dictated by a supernatural source but instead influenced by human progress and cultural understanding.

You argue that without a higher value, people could do whatever they want. But this is a misrepresentation of secular ethics. Even in the absence of divine law, actions have consequences. Societies function because moral structures arise from the need for cooperation and stability. Murder, theft, and dishonesty are discouraged not because a god prohibits them but because they disrupt social order and harm others. We see this not only in human civilizations but also in highly social animals like primates, which demonstrate behaviors such as reciprocity, fairness, and punishment for rule-breaking—all without religion. If morality required God, then animals would have no concept of cooperation or fairness, yet they do.

You suggest that morality requires transcendence, but what exactly do you mean by “transcendent value”? If you mean that moral truth must exist independently of human perception, then you must demonstrate such a truth that is universal, unchanging, and unaffected by cultural or historical context. If your claim is that God is that source, then you must also explain why moral teachings attributed to God have changed over time. If religious morality were truly objective, we would not see contradictions between different religious traditions on fundamental moral issues like war, justice, and human rights.

I don't think about religion much, so I'm agreeing with this and arguing in hopes someone will find any faults in my own thinking.

Buddhists do not generally believe in any "god" -- are they in a "religion"? Or just a "transcendent foundation" ? Although not believing in any gods, Buddhists generally seem VERY "moral" to me -- although I will not attempt to define "moral."

Does Christianity qualify as a "religion"? Instead of no God at all, seven different Christian sects seem to believe in seven different Gods, some nearly opposite from each other. Bob Dylan summed up some of the teachings of Jesus the Christ with

"So when you see your neighbor carryin’ somethin’​

Help him with his load"​

But it's easy to get the impression that many American "Christians" worship a God who will deliver a winning lottery ticket, or even help you take money from your neighbor.

Have there been any studies to help guess whether it is atheists or "Christians" who tend to be more "moral"?

Relative to its own populations, Zuckerman ranks the top five countries with the highest possible ranges of atheists and agnostics: Sweden (46–85%), Vietnam (81%), Denmark (43–80%), Norway (31–72%), and Japan (64–65%).

So Scandinavia is mostly atheist? Is it coincidence that those countries come out on top in the Happiness Index?

Is it the case that electing an avowed atheist to high political office is commonplace in Europe? Has it ever happened in the USA?

 

[steve_bank]

I'll let the first two sentences slide so that we can focus on the third. How does it follow that the existence of gods must affect everyone's view of origin, morality, meaning, and destiny? I don't think you can defend any part of that.

If someone had been raised by loving parents all of their life only to find out they were adopted they would go on loving their parents as they always had, but what would they think of their biological parents? That would depend upon their circumstances.

I don't follow. You claimed that the existence of any god would affect every person's view of origin, morality, meaning, and destiny. I asked you to support that claim. You started talking about adoption.

Help me see the relevance of your comment.

Sorry, I think you are confusing me with someone else. It wasn't me who made the comment on origin, morality, meaning, and destiny. In fact, I don't agree with that since I believe in the existence of a myriad of gods and see no evidence for such a view. I believe that was @remez, if I'm not mistaken.

The adoption reference was a simile of theism. I think if most theists discovered with certainty, as much as could be had, regarding the non-existence of God, they would continue to behave as if there were such a God because that is the behavior which they think had formed the person they want to be.

ETA: I think atheism has little if anything to do with theology, God, gods, or the Bible. I think it is about control. It isn't that they don't believe in gods as much as it is they want to be gods. Imatio Dei, Deus ex machina. Atheism, in my view, is strictly a sociopolitical frustration in a quasi-theocratic society.

Brother, Jesus will heal your pain and anger if you let him. Just open your heart and feel the love of Jesus. He forgives your anger and hatred.

 

[DLH]

Sorry, I think you are confusing me with someone else. It wasn't me who made the comment on origin, morality, meaning, and destiny. In fact, I don't agree with that since I believe in the existence of a myriad of gods and see no evidence for such a view. I believe that was @remez, if I'm not mistaken.

The adoption reference was a simile of theism. I think if most theists discovered with certainty, as much as could be had, regarding the non-existence of God, they would continue to behave as if there were such a God because that is the behavior which they think had formed the person they want to be.

ETA: I think atheism has little if anything to do with theology, God, gods, or the Bible. I think it is about control. It isn't that they don't believe in gods as much as it is they want to be gods. Imatio Dei, Deus ex machina. Atheism, in my view, is strictly a sociopolitical frustration in a quasi-theocratic society.

Brother, Jesus will heal your pain and anger if you let him. Just open your heart and feel the love of Jesus. He forgives your anger and hatred.

Kittens are the craziest people.

 

[steve_bank]

I feel your pain brother DLH. I feel your inner conflict. Open your heart and let Jesus in.

Find peace at last.

If you want to truly understand faith and religion DLH the great Mahalia Jackson. There is power in the music even for an atheist. I used to have a CD 0fn her songs. An oppressed people finding peace and hope in faith.



Moving up a littler higher ...spiritually.

[

If it does not move you at all you are spiritually dead. Resurrection is about spiritual rebirth.

That is if you want to talk about religion instead of quoting the bible.

 

[DLH]

That is if you want to talk about religion instead of quoting the bible.

I have about the same lack of interest in religion as I do politics. Opiate of the masses.

I will gladly take the Bible any day. I'll take the narrow path less traveled.

 

[steve_bank]

Hmmm very strange. Believe in the bile which is Judaism Jewish religion, but you reject religion.

Su8ds like cognitive dissonance.

Cognitive dissonance is a psychological term referring to the discomfort felt when holding conflicting beliefs or values, or when acting in ways that contradict one's own beliefs. This discomfort motivates individuals to reduce the dissonance by changing their beliefs, behaviors, or attitudes to achieve consistency.

A cryptic Taoist might say 'The religion of no religion'.

BTW has anyone signed up and posted on your web site, other than yourself?

I'll take peace of mind over self imposed misery any day.

 

[DLH]

Hmmm very strange. Believe in the bile which is Judaism Jewish religion, but you reject religion.

Su8ds like cognitive dissonance.

Cognitive dissonance is a psychological term referring to the discomfort felt when holding conflicting beliefs or values, or when acting in ways that contradict one's own beliefs. This discomfort motivates individuals to reduce the dissonance by changing their beliefs, behaviors, or attitudes to achieve consistency.

A cryptic Taoist might say 'The religion of no religion'.

BTW has anyone signed up and posted on your web site, other than yourself?

I'll take peace of mind over self imposed misery any day.

Well, you're not very bright, though.

 

[steve_bank]

DLH, your bible mojo just ain't working on me or anyone else. You can feel as intense and powerful as you please, it affects nothing. It is all in your head.

You said you never fit in. Maybe it is because a narrow religious ideological belief makes it impossible to get along with people.

I try and treat people as fellow human being regardless of beliefs. Or race, sexuality, or sex. I may not always get it back in return, but I believe it is the right thing to do.

It is called The Golden Rule, treat others as you want to be treated. It exists in secular p[philosophy and religion in deferment ways. No god required.

What does your bible god tell you to do with others who do not believe as you do?

 

[DLH]

DLH, your bible mojo just ain't working on me or anyone else.

I don't intend for it to. Do you think Jesus taught his disciples to convert unbelievers? To the contrary he instructed them to hide the truth from them.

You can feel as intense and powerful as you please, it affects nothing. It is all in your head.

I think you're so funny. Everything you say about me is a projection of your own limited obsession. You are your worst enemy. It's in your head, not mine. I don't have a dim witted us vs them mentality. I think atheism has an important purpose and intent. I think it should be respected and atheists should have a voice. Like many if not most theists like myself, atheists are idiots. But that's okay, they should still have a voice that is respected.

You said you never fit in. Maybe it is because a narrow religious ideological belief makes it impossible to get along with people.

I try and treat people as fellow human being regardless of beliefs. Or race, sexuality, or sex. I may not always get it back in return, but I believe it is the right thing to do.

It is called The Golden Rule, treat others as you want to be treated. It exists in secular p[philosophy and religion in deferment ways. No god required.

Uh-huh.

What does your bible god tell you to do with others who do not believe as you do?

You tell me.

 

[steve_bank]

In fa few sentences based on the bible how do you relate to fellow human beings who are not like you?
I doubt you can answer, all those like you can do is babble about Jesus this and Jesus that. No comprehension.

Jesus said the meek shall inherit the Earth, are you meek?

The phrase "Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth" (Matthew 5:5) is a key part of the Sermon on the Mount, where Jesus emphasizes the importance of humility and spiritual character for those who seek God's kingdom.

Are you childlike in faith?

In Matthew 18:3, Jesus states, "Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven." This signifies that to enter heaven, one must have a childlike faith, characterized by humility, trust, and openness, rather than a hardened, worldly perspective.

If you think Jesus tells you to convert others, that is an IDEOLOGY based in religion that you want to impose on others.

I generally align with freethought, try to look at things without looking trough an ideology.

Freethought - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

A freethinker holds that beliefs should not be formed on the basis of authority, tradition, revelation, or dogma,[2] and should instead be reached by other methods such as logic, reason, and empirical observation.[citation needed] According to the Collins English Dictionary, a freethinker is "One who is mentally free from the conventional bonds of tradition or dogma, and thinks independently." In some contemporary thought in particular, free thought is strongly tied with rejection of traditional social or religious belief systems.[3][2][4] The cognitive application of free thought is known as "freethinking", and practitioners of free thought are known as "freethinkers".[2] Modern freethinkers consider free thought to be a natural freedom from all negative and illusive thoughts acquired from society.[5]

The term first came into use in the 17th century in order to refer to people who inquired into the basis of traditional beliefs which were often accepted unquestioningly. Today, freethinking is most closely linked with agnosticism, deism, secularism, humanism, anti-clericalism, and religious critique.[6] The Oxford English Dictionary defines freethinking as, "The free exercise of reason in matters of religious belief, unrestrained by deference to authority; the adoption of the principles of a free-thinker." Freethinkers hold that knowledge should be grounded in facts, scientific inquiry, and logic. The skeptical application of science implies freedom from the intellectually limiting effects of confirmation bias, cognitive bias, conventional wisdom, popular culture, prejudice, or sectarianism.[7]

 

[lostone]

At least DLH admits to being somewhat of an idiot. More of us should do the same, or at least consider the possibility. OTOH, there is no justification for DLH being so confrontational on a message board dedicated to non-belief.

 

[Wiploc]

I'll let the first two sentences slide so that we can focus on the third. How does it follow that the existence of gods must affect everyone's view of origin, morality, meaning, and destiny? I don't think you can defend any part of that.

If someone had been raised by loving parents all of their life only to find out they were adopted they would go on loving their parents as they always had, but what would they think of their biological parents? That would depend upon their circumstances.

I don't follow. You claimed that the existence of any god would affect every person's view of origin, morality, meaning, and destiny. I asked you to support that claim. You started talking about adoption.

Help me see the relevance of your comment.

Sorry, I think you are confusing me with someone else.

My apologies.

It wasn't me who made the comment on origin, morality, meaning, and destiny. In fact, I don't agree with that since I believe in the existence of a myriad of gods and see no evidence for such a view. I believe that was @remez, if I'm not mistaken.

The adoption reference was a simile of theism. I think if most theists discovered with certainty, as much as could be had, regarding the non-existence of God, they would continue to behave as if there were such a God because that is the behavior which they think had formed the person they want to be.

Yes. There's a quote, something like this:
"In the metaphysical supermarket, most people choose their morality before choosing their theology."

ETA: I think atheism has little if anything to do with theology, God, gods, or the Bible.

Theists believe in gods.
Atheists (all non-theists) don't.

For some atheists (babies, for instance), atheism has nothing to do with theology, gods, or the bible.

We had a deconversion thread here once (in a prior incarnation of this website). By far the most common reasons for leaving theism were akin to, "I finally sat down and read the bible." So, for many of us, theology, gods, and bibles do have to do with our atheism.

Politics, I believe can be involved too. The Republican party claims the banner of religion, and then makes religion look bad. Bad enough that some people think, "If that's religion, I don't need it."

I think it is about control.

I'm not familiar with this idea, and it doesn't chime for me.

It isn't that they don't believe in gods as much as it is they want to be gods.

I think this dog won't hunt. I was raised by Christians, so the Christian god is the one I'm familiar with. The Christian god is unattractive. Evil, mean-spirited, petty, inconsistent, depraved.

Nobody should want to be like that.

Imatio Dei, Deus ex machina. Atheism, in my view, is strictly a sociopolitical frustration in a quasi-theocratic society.

Do you think people believe in a round earth because of their frustration with a quasi-flat earth society?

 

[DLH]

Theists believe in gods.
Atheists (all non-theists) don't.

That's what they say, but really it doesn't make a great deal of sense. In modern-day parlance there is some confusion about what a god is and then there's the question of what is meant by belief. As the Bible says, the demons know and shudder. It isn't necessarily about belief and gods, i.e. venerated. To me a far more reasonable conclusion - without having to get into specifics - is that theists claim to have gods and atheists claim not to.

For some atheists (babies, for instance), atheism has nothing to do with theology, gods, or the bible.

I don't think a baby has the capacity to believe or disbelieve much of anything. I don't think theism or atheism has much to do with theology, gods or the Bible. It's about control. A class struggle of sorts. A battle of world views neither side of which seem terribly concerned or informed about theology, gods or the Bible.

We had a deconversion thread here once (in a prior incarnation of this website). By far the most common reasons for leaving theism were akin to, "I finally sat down and read the bible." So, for many of us, theology, gods, and bibles do have to do with our atheism.

I've heard that a lot but you have to ask yourself why they were only then getting around to doing that. The answer is they study the Bible when it becomes important to them. If they want to believe or disbelieve it will serve their purpose, and that's good. I think it a personal responsibility, not group think, or riding the bandwagon, or any other thing.

Politics, I believe can be involved too. The Republican party claims the banner of religion, and then makes religion look bad. Bad enough that some people think, "If that's religion, I don't need it."

Right, and the politics gives some alternative justification for a worldview, like equality, freedom, democrisy, or any other obvious fixation which is, like religion used by Republicans and many other ruling classes for their own agenda. Religion is a tool. One of many.

I think it is about control.

I'm not familiar with this idea, and it doesn't chime for me.

Nevertheless, the evidence is pretty clear to anyone not having a dog in the race, i.e. theists and atheists. From the inquisition, crusades to modern-day "enlightenment."

It isn't that they don't believe in gods as much as it is they want to be gods.

I think this dog won't hunt. I was raised by Christians, so the Christian god is the one I'm familiar with. The Christian god is unattractive. Evil, mean-spirited, petty, inconsistent, depraved.

It sounds to me like you may be preaching to the choir, or to a crowd. The only time atheists really object to people believing in something they don't believe in is if those other people have sociopolitical control. Otherwise they do every aspect of the same thing. Mythology is the alleged objective, they teach their children religious holidays, ignorance - no matter what it is hold it up to a microscope metaphorically and it's obvious.

Nobody should want to be like that.

Right. And so no one is.

Imatio Dei, Deus ex machina. Atheism, in my view, is strictly a sociopolitical frustration in a quasi-theocratic society.

Do you think people believe in a round earth because of their frustration with a quasi-flat earth society?

[laughs]

In a way I think it's a rebellion and an objection to mainstream authority and beliefs. If you look at religion from an historical perspective it's pretty obvious that science is rapidly just becoming the new religion. Only with much more dangerous potential.

By the way, I should probably point out that I don't entertain such nonsesne.