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

[Keith&Co.]

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

You have it backwards.
Religions used to ask for blood sacrifice, virgins thrown into volcanoes, animals cut open for prophecy... That gets less bloody over time and civilization.

Civilization's growth tamed religion.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

religions civilized human race

You have it backwards.
Religions used to ask for blood sacrifice, virgins thrown into volcanoes, animals cut open for prophecy... That gets less bloody over time and civilization.

Civilization's growth tamed religion.

But it also served as a unifying force in that "this story that we tell helps bind us together as a people". They gave societies a sense of how they belonged in the world and how they interacted with each other. While that can be done just as easily with things such as nationalism, religion was one of the most commonly used tools to give communities a sense of self.

It was a useful tool to help us develop to where we are today, the same as the ability to hunt and skin animals and the ability to construct your own house from scratch were useful tools to help us develop to where we are today. Recognizing that fact doesn't mean that civilization hasn't grown beyond the need for these ancient tools anymore. If today, someone wants to learn to hunt or learn to build a house or worship some tree or sky daddy, they're fine hobbies that can make people happy, but their usefulness in helping civilization is now nothing but an historical artifact.

 

[bilby]

you know nothingness dont create life

You keep reasserting this bullshit as if you understand the atheist position.
You know nothing, syed.

But he demonstrably doesn't know nothingness.

 

[Syed]

religions civilized human race

You have it backwards.
Religions used to ask for blood sacrifice, virgins thrown into volcanoes, animals cut open for prophecy... That gets less bloody over time and civilization.

Civilization's growth tamed religion.

schools, universities, hospitals built by religious people

 

[Atheos]

You have it backwards.
Religions used to ask for blood sacrifice, virgins thrown into volcanoes, animals cut open for prophecy... That gets less bloody over time and civilization.

Civilization's growth tamed religion.

But it also served as a unifying force in that "this story that we tell helps bind us together as a people". They gave societies a sense of how they belonged in the world and how they interacted with each other. While that can be done just as easily with things such as nationalism, religion was one of the most commonly used tools to give communities a sense of self.

It was a useful tool to help us develop to where we are today, the same as the ability to hunt and skin animals and the ability to construct your own house from scratch were useful tools to help us develop to where we are today. Recognizing that fact doesn't mean that civilization hasn't grown beyond the need for these ancient tools anymore. If today, someone wants to learn to hunt or learn to build a house or worship some tree or sky daddy, they're fine hobbies that can make people happy, but their usefulness in helping civilization is now nothing but an historical artifact.

Well said. During construction builders often use scaffolding to make it possible to work in areas that would otherwise be very difficult. But there comes a time when the scaffolding has to be removed or it is simply in the way and makes it difficult to use the room. In the same way superstitions once bound people together in more primitive times and helped them deal with problems far beyond their technological capacity. But these superstitions have outlived their usefulness as technology has increased. Their continued presence dampens the pursuit of greater discovery and they must be relegated to the past if we are to continue making progress.

Religions are nothing more then highly organized sets of superstitions. Always have been.

 

[Syed]

You have it backwards.
Religions used to ask for blood sacrifice, virgins thrown into volcanoes, animals cut open for prophecy... That gets less bloody over time and civilization.

Civilization's growth tamed religion.

But it also served as a unifying force in that "this story that we tell helps bind us together as a people". They gave societies a sense of how they belonged in the world and how they interacted with each other. While that can be done just as easily with things such as nationalism, religion was one of the most commonly used tools to give communities a sense of self.

It was a useful tool to help us develop to where we are today, the same as the ability to hunt and skin animals and the ability to construct your own house from scratch were useful tools to help us develop to where we are today. Recognizing that fact doesn't mean that civilization hasn't grown beyond the need for these ancient tools anymore. If today, someone wants to learn to hunt or learn to build a house or worship some tree or sky daddy, they're fine hobbies that can make people happy, but their usefulness in helping civilization is now nothing but an historical artifact.

human need religions to preserved morals, morals preserved civilization

 

[Syed]

But it also served as a unifying force in that "this story that we tell helps bind us together as a people". They gave societies a sense of how they belonged in the world and how they interacted with each other. While that can be done just as easily with things such as nationalism, religion was one of the most commonly used tools to give communities a sense of self.

It was a useful tool to help us develop to where we are today, the same as the ability to hunt and skin animals and the ability to construct your own house from scratch were useful tools to help us develop to where we are today. Recognizing that fact doesn't mean that civilization hasn't grown beyond the need for these ancient tools anymore. If today, someone wants to learn to hunt or learn to build a house or worship some tree or sky daddy, they're fine hobbies that can make people happy, but their usefulness in helping civilization is now nothing but an historical artifact.

Well said. During construction builders often use scaffolding to make it possible to work in areas that would otherwise be very difficult. But there comes a time when the scaffolding has to be removed or it is simply in the way and makes it difficult to use the room. In the same way superstitions once bound people together in more primitive times and helped them deal with problems far beyond their technological capacity. But these superstitions have outlived their usefulness as technology has increased. Their continued presence dampens the pursuit of greater discovery and they must be relegated to the past if we are to continue making progress.

Religions are nothing more then highly organized sets of superstitions. Always have been.

without religions human would be like animals

 

[Tom Sawyer]

human need religions to preserved morals, morals preserved civilization

Not really. It's one way to develop a moral framework, but not a necessary part of it. Moral philosophy happens all the time without any religion entering into it and societies with higher instances of religious belief do not do better on any scale which measures moral behavior than those with less religious people in them. Morals are good things to have but backing up those morals with a "This is moral because God says so" isn't a needed addition to them. It helped out in the early stages of human development, but we've moved past it. Gods are redundant sludge which we really just need to wipe off of the bottom of our shoes.

 

[blastula]

human need religions to preserved morals, morals preserved civilization

Non-human animals have morals.

 

[Angry Floof]

What I don't understand is why the atheists can't leave it at that?

You've been here since 2005 and you don't understand why atheists "can't leave it at that"?

 

[rousseau]

It's not important for me.

Concluding that God doesn't exist is just a natural by-product of my reason. Outside of that, this fact is completely irrelevant to my life.

For American's this isn't the case because your country is filled with fundies who affect the economics of each other's lives

 

[Syed]

human need religions to preserved morals, morals preserved civilization

Not really. It's one way to develop a moral framework, but not a necessary part of it. Moral philosophy happens all the time without any religion entering into it and societies with higher instances of religious belief do not do better on any scale which measures moral behavior than those with less religious people in them. Morals are good things to have but backing up those morals with a "This is moral because God says so" isn't a needed addition to them. It helped out in the early stages of human development, but we've moved past it. Gods are redundant sludge which we really just need to wipe off of the bottom of our shoes.

religions is the only institute that teaches morality

 

[Syed]

human need religions to preserved morals, morals preserved civilization

Non-human animals have morals.

explain

 

[Keith&Co.]

religions is the only institute that teaches morality

You never heard of the rules of chivalry

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Often it has been societies that develop moral codes, often not so good. Ancient Sparta, the Mongols for example. Various tribal codes of morals. Many ancient Greek thinkers tried to create moral understandings based on logic and reason. Aristotle, Socrates, for example. The idea that only religion can create moral codes is not the way it has always been in history, nor have these religious moral codes been all that good.

 

[LordKiran]

Wow OP, talk about a loaded question.

 

[DBT]

Non-human animals have morals.

explain

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.''

 

[Syed]

explain

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

 

[DBT]

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

As atheists we are able to think for ourselves. We do not need someone to tell us that their imaginary god wants us to do this or that according to the rules of some self styled representative, pope, high priest or grand mufti.

Nor did you comment on the article on the morality of animals, preferring those who act fairly, are helpful and share.

 

[DrZoidberg]

It's pretty clear that atheism helps its adherents in various ways. If they feel it does then it does. There's no point arguing against that.

What I don't understand is why the atheists can't leave it at that?

Why is it so important for them that God does not exist? Why can't God exist?

It's not important to me that God does not exist. What is important to me is honesty. It has to do with communication. Anything that helps humans to communicate and connect is good. Anything that pushes people apart or adds confusion is bad.

If we look at all formulations of god, they're all pretty vague, catch-all Barnum statements. Either God is good or works in mysterious ways. "God is beyond all comprehension, so this is what God wants". At best that's poetry or metaphor. That's a kind of God that I actually believe in. But it's not a God that actually exists in the scientific sense of existing. Why not be honest about that?

What annoys me about theists is the persistent dishonesty and all the sophistry. Why all the mental gymnastics? Why not just go with the mystery? Or why try to force modern science into the Bible? That book was written in a specific context. We have a different context now. Either accept that the Bible isn't accurate or just update it to fit the the new data. Refusal to do either or these things makes it wrong. Wrong is bad.

Why can't the creation of the universe be just whatever God created? Why not God?

I'm absolutely fine with that. As long as we agree that process of how it happened is best described by science, I couldn't care less what labels we slap on that process.

If it makes you happy calling that force God... be my guest. I'm not sure that helps understanding the process. But hey... whatever floats your boat.