Dragon Ball Z Uncensored

[MADali]

I'm still an atheist, but I don't like being one.

I don't understand why atheists always equate their belief with something good. While they claim to have a belief system based on reason and logic, I find that they treat it very dogmatic. Almost no atheist writer disengages the reasoning for atheism with the benefits of it, which I think should not really be linked.

I can't remember any piece written by any atheist that does not say, I believe there is no God and here is why that's so awesome.

To me, that's just makes them not that different from religious people, because their reasoning for there being no God seems to be so closely linked to it making them feel better.

I don't think there is any God, but I wish there was. Or at least, I believed there was. I think it would be awesome to believe there is some entity that is watching over you and that will take care of you once you're dead. But I don't have any proof to support that, so I'm an atheist.

Discuss.

[Richard Cristopolis]

You should really read up one Whitehead and Process Thought, a philisophical belief that states that there is a God, but he's not so much all powerful as all creating, and mostly just sympathizes with his creations and wishes them the best.

And something about a grand memory after death, or something.

[Magic Juan]

This has been discussed at length in the chat, but uh, (heh hehe hehe) I'll definitely bite.

First of all, the benefits of atheism have been explained in most tracts that I've read. Sam Harris' The End of Faith is basically a manifesto for why atheism is required as an alternative to religious fanaticism for reasons of security and the continuation of the human species. A lot of atheists don't care for human survival, but it is a salient opinion.

But also, to be frank with you (not gonna suck Pat's dick) the whole "Atheists are arrogant" discussion is just a red herring. First of all, yes, it is wise to acknowledge the fact that shitty people exist, who happen to be atheists, and that atheists in the mainstream are probably bigger shitheads because they feel constantly marginalized in the intellectual sphere. But the fact of the matter is, while atheists are entitled to strong opinions, the echo chamber effect has promulgated this lie that atheists are abhorrent egoists who cannot live side by side with anyone religious. And since discussion on the internet always seems to be polarizing (Yeah, turn this stereotype up to 11), it always seems to look like atheist debate topics with either agnostics or people of religion are atomic aldp's bbq flame fest.

That mainly has to do with the generation proceeding ours having really bad internet manners because of a lack of general social acumen.

Anyways, I posted once that being an atheist is awesome because it's manly to embrace the fact that once your body ceases to function, all that exists is oblivion.

[Theldorrin]

I wish there were deities like in Dragonlance that gave me clerical powers.

Atheists don't wish there to be gods because they're talking about the religious gods which are almost universally awful.
_________________
@}-,-'- *~*~* Member of the FTU Elegant Tea Party Society *~*~* -'-,-{@

[Richard Cristopolis]

wik'pead:


God is not omnipotent in the sense of being coercive. The divine has a power of persuasion rather than coercion. Process theologians interpret the classical doctrine of omnipotence as involving force, and suggest instead a forbearance in divine power. "Persuasion" in the causal sense means that God does not exert unilateral control.[1]

Reality is not made up of material substances that endure through time, but serially-ordered events, which are experiential in nature. These events have both a physical and mental aspect. All experience (male, female, atomic, and botanical) is important and contributes to the ongoing and interrelated process of reality.

The universe is characterized by process and change carried out by the agents of free will. Self-determination characterizes everything in the universe, not just human beings. God cannot totally control any series of events or any individual, but God influences the creaturely exercise of this universal free will by offering possibilities. To say it another way, God has a will in everything, but not everything that occurs is God's will.[2]

God contains the universe but is not identical with it (panentheism, not pantheism or pandeism). Some also call this "theocosmocentrism" to emphasize that God has always been related to some world or another.

Because God interacts with the changing universe, God is changeable (that is to say, God is affected by the actions that take place in the universe) over the course of time. However, the abstract elements of God (goodness, wisdom, etc.) remain eternally solid.

Charles Hartshorne believes that people do not experience subjective (or personal) immortality, but they do have objective immortality because their experiences live on forever in God, who contains all that was. Other process theologians believe that people do have subjective experience after bodily death.[3]

Dipolar theism, is the idea that God has both a changing aspect (God's existence as a Living God) and an unchanging aspect (God's eternal essence).

[Magic Juan]

All of that is hippie bullshit.

[Richard Cristopolis]

Yeah...

[MADali]

[Fagzilla]

People are perversely fixated on the idea of a discrete being called "God," and (both atheists and theists) generally link the subject with that of whether or not consciousness continues after death, which seemingly hinges somehow on whether or not "God" exists, even though there is no reason to necessarily link the two issues whatsoever.

I guess I blame Western religion for this!

Actually, not even all of them. Christianity and Islam, basically.

There are atheists who believe that consciousness does not die with the body (BUDDHISTS), and there are theists who don't believe in survival (or who aren't even concerned about whether or not there is survival, ie, Jews).

Why does the God debate take place on the grounds of the world's dumbest, lowest-common-denominator religions?

THAT'S what bugs ME about atheists. They target the Santa Claus-type conception of God. Oooh, real intellectual stretch there.

But yeah, the other things you mentioned too.

[Magic Juan]

Because atheism is still a very weak ideology and its difficult to entice people to such a strong and logical point of view. I don't know MADali, I mean, you'd rather be religious, and all religious text documents the love for god and humanity as such a powerful reason to believe in spirituality.

[Magic Juan]

Oh boy, Isamic society...http://news.nationalpost.com/2010/11/20/graphic-anatomy-of-a-stoning/

[Theldorrin]

Also, I haven't heard an atheist say why it's awesome being an atheist aside from it being true and not fantasy. I would be very surprised if any of the mainstream ones said something else.
_________________
@}-,-'- *~*~* Member of the FTU Elegant Tea Party Society *~*~* -'-,-{@

[Magic Juan]

"Why does the God debate take place on the grounds of the world's dumbest, lowest-common-denominator religions?"

T???????

[Fagzilla]

Atheists don't actually argue against advanced conceptions of God, they argue against "glowing guy with a beard who punishes you for being bad."

They're like "that's not true! There's no glowing guy with a beard, and here's my REASONING!"

Oh, the angry beard guy doesn't exist?

Yeah, no shit.

That doesn't mean GOD doesn't exist. I mean, I know you have to define something in order to argue against it, but that's another problem with "debate" atheists: they take a particular definition of God and their whole stance is based on *that* being the definition.

[Seru]

God damn you're annoying.

Anyway, I hope we can make some serious headway on this sombre, thought provoking topic.

[Theldorrin]

Yeah, it's frustrating when people argue against something based on common definitions.

They should really try to take issue with all possible definitions of god. Like when Mike is called a gay anal god, they should take issue with that, too.
_________________
@}-,-'- *~*~* Member of the FTU Elegant Tea Party Society *~*~* -'-,-{@

[Magic Juan]

Ban Chris.

[Fagzilla]

Think I'll go check out that basketball thread!

[Magic Juan]

You are an infant. I mean seriously, you're really going to smugly suggest that I talk about Zoroastrianism to a Christian when I'm vested in the logical implications of atheism?

[Fagzilla]

No, with THOSE people you don't bother. There's no point.

You will never, ever, appeal to superbelievers with logic or data. People who believe that the earth is 6000 years old and that God hates fags or whatever shouldn't be dignified with debate. You're only frustrating yourself.

If they were capable of being appealed to or were at a different level of consciousness, the freely-available knowledge in the world would have changed them by now. You're not going to be the one to do it.

Better to channel your efforts into learning to accept and coexist with them, because they're here, they're queer, and they aint going anywheer.