Why is it so important for atheists that God does not exist?

[jab]

I've seen the "Atheism is a religion, too" arguments made as a way to silence the "Religion ruins everything" arguments.

religions civilized human race

or so religions like to claim. . . civilization, such as it is/ was, was based on an ever greater understanding of the material world and how to manipulate, develop it for human advantage. Reason and an increasingly accurate perception of the Universe civilized humanity.

 

[abaddon]

I guess I don't really value civilization the same way as some others. There's this assumption of "progress", where I think in most cases the right word is just merely "change".

Were hunter-gatherers savage beasts and moderns are these genteel sophisticated beings so much superior to them? Or are they just different sorts of people in different sorts of culture?

Sure, medicine's more effective lately than in the past. That's got jackshit to do with religion. Democracy's not necessarily improved from hunter-gatherers to now. It's the hierarchical cultures in between "cavemen" and modernity is where the ugly contrast lies (with religions that supported such lord-and-serf hierarchies). And modern democracies tend to be fairly plutocratic.

So... "civilized". Is it all it's cracked up to be? Nondomestic species living sustainably with the ecology = savage. Well-domesticated docile simps submissive to authorities: to bosses, to an excess of duties, to a slew of artificial "needs" = civilized.

That's a highly doubtful dichotomy. And "civilized" is not an unqualified good.

 

[jab]

Quote;
''Be nice to your pets because they’ll be judging you on their own sense of morality.
Dogs and monkeys prefer to spend time with people who do good things and help people, said university researchers.

The comparative psychologist tested dogs and monkeys to see if they have a set of ‘morals’.
In the study, dogs watched their owners struggling to open a container while an actor either helped, acted passively, or refused to lend them a hand
The actors would then offer the dog a treat with the study finding the pets were more likely to choose the one who did nothing than those who had refused.

Anderson told the New Scientist: ‘If somebody is behaving antisocially, they probably end up with some sort of emotional reaction to it.

Dog’s long relationship with humans might have made them more sensitive to our feelings.
Similarly, monkeys understood fairness and helpfulness. They would shun actors who refused to help other people with basic tasks when they offered treats.''

atheists existed for 1000s of years but you never writen moral code

False: Check out, for instance, William Godwin, or Utilitarianism--or Randian Objectivism, or Marxism

 

[jab]

"I find that atheists cannot stop telling me how I should live my life. They demand that that I should live to their beliefs (or lack thereof)."
Examples, please, to substantiate this finding of yours. Plain old substantiation--no transubstantiation needed.

 

[Malintent]

I too value truth. Yes, truth does not care whether we like it ru not. It just is. Thats why truth is important.

The repercussions. Depending on who you talk to, knowing whether there's a god or not entails a lot of possible repercussions that could very much affect me. Like, what I should value. How I should live, and what may or may not happen to me when I die. These are not small details.

Correct they are not small details. Truth has consequences, whether we accept them or not.

They cannot "leave it at that". For various reasons, many Christians seem to think that it's not good enough for them to live according to their religious beleifs, but demand that others - who do not share those belefs - should as well. This has caused qute a lot of harm in the past and present. Also, different religions have mutually excusive rules that they say must be followed. These religious groups are fond of legislating their beliefs, and I find this unacceptable.

I find that atheists cannot stop telling me how I should live my life. They demand that that I should live to their beliefs (or lack thereof).

Really? Could you give an example of this?

Yep. I'll bite. Let's go.

The OP never responded to this (that I can find).

Asked and Answered... Atheists care about their freedom from religious dictatorship. It is wrong to tell someone else how to live righteously. It is wrong to legislate based on faith.

Atheists do not do this to Theists. Theists are guilty of this against atheists AND other theists... and this is why atheists are forced to address infantile beliefs as they do. It is in defense of their liberty.

no one cares if you believe in fairies and ghosts. Everyone cares if you want to pass a law prohibiting the use of condoms because you think ghosts will be mad.

Actually Tigers did respond:

Sorry lads/lassies been away for a few days with work. Just thought that I'd pop my head to see if anyone is awake.

1. The insinuation/allegation that teaching children about God or religious beliefs is 'child abuse' (from dear friends Dawkins, Hitchens et al ) is one that I found most disturbing. It will be claimed that is not public policy yet but it well be in the future.
2. In Australia the calls are out for parliamentarians to not be allowed to 'allow their religious beliefs to influence public policy or laws'. Would it be that atheists had the same burden.

Thank you for finding that, Atheos.

I reject these examples. Neither illustrates anyone telling anyone else what they should believe or what laws should exist.
1) is about what one person does to another (spread misinformation to the young) - it is exactly the point I am making... so thank you.
2) is about legislation to ENSURE that 1) does not occur... perfectly my point... and core to American values... Nice Australia is catching up to the US, circa 1773

 

[Lion IRC]

LOL
Yeah, Abraham Lincoln never let his religious beliefs influence his policy decisions.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

LOL
Yeah, Abraham Lincoln never let his religious beliefs influence his policy decisions.

Lincoln was not a religious person but he understood the cultural significance of religion and used it to great success.

 

[Tigers!]

LOL
Yeah, Abraham Lincoln never let his religious beliefs influence his policy decisions.

Lincoln was not a religious person but he understood the cultural significance of religion and used it to great success.

So you'd be happy if Christians understood the cultural significance religion and use it?

 

[ideologyhunter]

Back to the OP, there's no one atheist slant, just as there's no one religious slant -- although we nontheists have far fewer schisms than the believers (understatement of the millennium & end times.) Why is it "so important that God doesn't exist"? Because a) the god stories don't harmonize with each other or observable reality and b) believers have historically imposed bizarre, cruel, and irrational consequences on societies. It's always been more about the believers than the fictions they hold to. Also I'll throw in c) for sheer entertainment value. There's nothing more wondrously curious than orthodox Mormons who believe in a carnival huckster sort of 'prophet' like Joe Smith and his excavated scripture -- or Scientologists with their Xenu -- or the inerrant Bible crowd with their literal acceptance of deranged Bible laws and tales o' gore. You could expand this list indefinitely. (I consider that to be just as tolerant as the squalling believers are to all the competing religions.)

 

[Kharakov]

Lincoln was not a religious person but he understood the cultural significance of religion and used it to great success.

So you'd be happy if Christians understood the cultural significance religion and use it?

Use it for the common good, or to get rich and avoid real work like many conservoparasites?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Lincoln was not a religious person but he understood the cultural significance of religion and used it to great success.

So you'd be happy if Christians understood the cultural significance religion and use it?

If they did it the way Lincoln did, sure, no problem. That would mean none would go to church or belong to an organized church.

 

[Ruth Harris]

So you'd be happy if Christians understood the cultural significance religion and use it?

If they did it the way Lincoln did, sure, no problem. That would mean none would go to church or belong to an organized church.

Well, that seems a little biased to me. Community is a common factor among humans; there are very few people who want no contact with others that have a compatible worldview. As an example - you are a member of this community

That being said, I had a discussion several years ago with a good online friend who was agnostic. She had just lost her life partner to a longstanding debilitating illness. I sent her my heartfelt sympathies and offered to pray for her if she did not find that offensive. Her words stuck with me; she said "Prayers are good. It is organized religion that gives me heartburn." That really caused me to think carefully about how I treat others who do not have the same viewpoint as I do.

So yes - it is a reality that organized churches can be very unfeeling at times. But keep in mind that there are members of those churches who really do try to understand how their attitudes and actions impact others.

Ruth

 

[Malintent]

If they did it the way Lincoln did, sure, no problem. That would mean none would go to church or belong to an organized church.

Well, that seems a little biased to me. Community is a common factor among humans; there are very few people who want no contact with others that have a compatible worldview. As an example - you are a member of this community

That being said, I had a discussion several years ago with a good online friend who was agnostic. She had just lost her life partner to a longstanding debilitating illness. I sent her my heartfelt sympathies and offered to pray for her if she did not find that offensive. Her words stuck with me; she said "Prayers are good. It is organized religion that gives me heartburn." That really caused me to think carefully about how I treat others who do not have the same viewpoint as I do.

So yes - it is a reality that organized churches can be very unfeeling at times. But keep in mind that there are members of those churches who really do try to understand how their attitudes and actions impact others.

Ruth

Yup, true. I am sure there are also White Supremacists that say once in a while, "maybe I should think about how harmful to others my actions are".

 

[RavenSky]

If they did it the way Lincoln did, sure, no problem. That would mean none would go to church or belong to an organized church.

Well, that seems a little biased to me. Community is a common factor among humans; there are very few people who want no contact with others that have a compatible worldview. As an example - you are a member of this community

That being said, I had a discussion several years ago with a good online friend who was agnostic. She had just lost her life partner to a longstanding debilitating illness. I sent her my heartfelt sympathies and offered to pray for her if she did not find that offensive. Her words stuck with me; she said "Prayers are good. It is organized religion that gives me heartburn." That really caused me to think carefully about how I treat others who do not have the same viewpoint as I do.

So yes - it is a reality that organized churches can be very unfeeling at times. But keep in mind that there are members of those churches who really do try to understand how their attitudes and actions impact others.

Ruth

Ironically, it is the sense of "community" that is the only good/valid thing about organized religions, at least to the extent that it is not exclusionary or harmful to those in or out of that community. The harm, I've found, typically comes from the religion part, not the community part.

 

[Underseer]

If they did it the way Lincoln did, sure, no problem. That would mean none would go to church or belong to an organized church.

Well, that seems a little biased to me. Community is a common factor among humans; there are very few people who want no contact with others that have a compatible worldview. As an example - you are a member of this community

That being said, I had a discussion several years ago with a good online friend who was agnostic. She had just lost her life partner to a longstanding debilitating illness. I sent her my heartfelt sympathies and offered to pray for her if she did not find that offensive. Her words stuck with me; she said "Prayers are good. It is organized religion that gives me heartburn." That really caused me to think carefully about how I treat others who do not have the same viewpoint as I do.

So yes - it is a reality that organized churches can be very unfeeling at times. But keep in mind that there are members of those churches who really do try to understand how their attitudes and actions impact others.

Ruth

I strongly disagree.

Organizations are more powerful, and thus organized religion is capable of greater harm, but the problem originates with certain teachings of religion. The organized group merely amplifies the problem.

Because religion isn't actually true, every religion has to train its followers to accept bad arguments, otherwise, they won't accept the conclusions. Therein lies the problem.

Humans are already sloppy thinkers prone to biases and fallacies, but in order to convince people of things that are not actually true, religion takes a bad thing and makes it worse. Religion tells people that their tendency for sloppy thinking is a good thing and that we should do more of it.

So now, followers have to believe that the bad arguments are actually good arguments, because if they are not, they lose the basis for clinging to conclusions that they have an emotional need for (the indoctrination process creates that emotional need). So they take those bad arguments and apply those bad arguments to other conclusions, which produces conclusions of unknown veracity.

If someone has a tendency to produce a larger number of bad conclusions, included among the bad conclusions will be bad moral conclusions. Because the group is trained to accept those specific bad arguments, they are unable to refute those bad conclusions.

This is not to say that atheists don't also produce our share of bad conclusions. The difference between atheists and theists is a difference of degree, and personally, I think it is a small one. The problem is that the indoctrination process will make groups that have great difficulty figuring out that they are wrong about certain conclusions or types of conclusions.

Those African evangelicals who are setting children on fire for witchcraft are not evil people, nor are they bad Christians. They accepted one bad conclusions on faith (that witchcraft is real), which in turn led to other bad conclusions which has unfortunately resulted in a large number (around a thousand) of children being burned to death (although some are killed with acid). The Christians killing those children genuinely think they are making the world a better place, so as far as they are concerned, they are choosing a moral good. Because faith told them that witchcraft is real, no amount of evidence can convince them that witchcraft is not in fact real. If you try to stop them from murdering children, I bet they would accuse you of working for Satan. Religion has given them many tools for rejecting your contrary conclusion.

And that is the problem with religion in groups or alone.

 

[Underseer]

Sorry, it is possible that I want clear about one thing.

In order to get people to accept certain specific religious truth claims, each religion teaches followers to accept certain bad arguments as valid. Those bad arguments then get applied to conclusions other than the original religious conclusions. Thus, religious indoctrination can produce a tendency for bad conclusions on other topics entirely, such as African evangelicals and witchcraft.

I have to imagine that the Evangelical missionaries who taught them to hate witchcraft had no idea that their teachings would lead to the murder of children.

Is that clearer?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

If they did it the way Lincoln did, sure, no problem. That would mean none would go to church or belong to an organized church.

Well, that seems a little biased to me. Community is a common factor among humans; there are very few people who want no contact with others that have a compatible worldview. As an example - you are a member of this community

That being said, I had a discussion several years ago with a good online friend who was agnostic. She had just lost her life partner to a longstanding debilitating illness. I sent her my heartfelt sympathies and offered to pray for her if she did not find that offensive. Her words stuck with me; she said "Prayers are good. It is organized religion that gives me heartburn." That really caused me to think carefully about how I treat others who do not have the same viewpoint as I do.

So yes - it is a reality that organized churches can be very unfeeling at times. But keep in mind that there are members of those churches who really do try to understand how their attitudes and actions impact others.

Ruth

I'm certain there were communities before there were churches.

 

[Ruth Harris]

Yup, true. I am sure there are also White Supremacists that say once in a while, "maybe I should think about how harmful to others my actions are".

Ironically, it is the sense of "community" that is the only good/valid thing about organized religions, at least to the extent that it is not exclusionary or harmful to those in or out of that community. The harm, I've found, typically comes from the religion part, not the community part.

Organizations are more powerful, and thus organized religion is capable of greater harm....

These quotes actually prove my point. Any organized community including churches and common interest groups such as the NAACP, the KKK, or the Freedom from Religion Foundation will as a group appear to be bent on excluding and/or denigrating those who are outside the group. But this does not mean that they should not have the right to form the group and exist, nor does it mean that the individual members are not people that we might like as individuals.

Sorry, it is possible that I want clear about one thing.

In order to get people to accept certain specific religious truth claims, each religion teaches followers to accept certain bad arguments as valid. Those bad arguments then get applied to conclusions other than the original religious conclusions. Thus, religious indoctrination can produce a tendency for bad conclusions on other topics entirely, such as African evangelicals and witchcraft.

I have to imagine that the Evangelical missionaries who taught them to hate witchcraft had no idea that their teachings would lead to the murder of children.

Is that clearer?

Yes, I understand what you are saying. But once again this is a common thing in any organized community. Groupthink can cause great harm if the individual members do not stop to consider the ramifications of applying the community's teachings to situations that were not originally considered by the founders or teachers. Typically this is a result of "proof texting" only certain parts of the community's foundational documents or teachings without properly including all of the applicable group principles. I will freely admit that Christianity has many adherents who cherry pick the Bible on a regular basis to support their own misguided agenda. But again, this is not true of all believers by far. The majority of us are really pretty decent people to be around

I'm certain there were communities before there were churches.

Sure there were. But that does not invalidate the premise that people who share a common interest have the right to form their own community.

Ruth

 

[funinspace]

I will freely admit that Christianity has many adherents who cherry pick the Bible on a regular basis to support their own misguided agenda.

Hey, are you talking about my in-laws? After all, they say Jesus taught that one should be armed, therefore Christianity directly supports the second Amendment. Seriously, saw it on their Facebook postings...

But again, this is not true of all believers by far. The majority of us are really pretty decent people to be around

Yep.

 

[Ruth Harris]

Hey, are you talking about my in-laws? After all, they say Jesus taught that one should be armed, therefore Christianity directly supports the second Amendment. Seriously, saw it on their Facebook postings...

You know, you and I could make a fair bit of money charging people to come see our families at gatherings

Ruth