My Atheism

[Nakor]

I don't know that this will generate much debate, but I thought I'd put it out there for discussion. I mention it here because, while I've been an atheist for a long time (5-6 years anyway) and I've had a stance something like this for most of that time, the debates here along with some recent reading have really allowed me to hammer it out. I think that says a lot of good about everyone here, and that includes everyone who has disagreed with me. After all, you can't really have a debate without those!

Here is my atheism in four points. Point number one is already a thread, but I'll put it here anyway.

#1: At any point where science and religion contradict each other, we must trust science over religion, because it is self-correcting.
#2: Ideas not substantiated by evidence should not be given weight.
#3: When there is something that science cannot currently explain, the best stance on that issue is "we don't know yet," not to create an idea that is not based on present evidence.
#4: I expect #1 from others, as to not follow that rule is to deny one's self the truth. However, I know that #2 and #3 are personal philosophies, and while I respect those who follow them, I do not expect them of anyone.

The thread that explains #1 if you haven't already read it

#2 is basically Russell's Teapot -- it is why I don't believe in unicorns or teapots in orbit or other silly things that don't necessarily contradict science, no matter how awesome unicorns are.

#3 is a philosophy I stand by because it encourages further searching for the truth, rather than making up something that fits and not bothering to work on what's really out there.

#4 is, of course, about tolerance. #1 is my absolute minimum -- I think nobody should actively believe something that is known to be untrue, such as the Earth being less than billions of years old or being flat or such, and we should do what we must to prevent more people from being deceived like this. But I don't actively oppose any beliefs that, however unlikely, don't contradict known facts.

Hopefully this serves as either food for thought or something to debate, but if nothing else, know that this community played at least a small role in hammering out my thoughts, and that alone ought to be worth something.

[bunnyfulwanderer]

I don't disagree with these values. but it really depends on what you mean as a contradiction of religion or occultism and science.

I never hold onto things that directly contrast scientific theory. however I do play around with ideas that are unproven, as a student of philosophy I like to explore all things, and while truth is very important, I take virtue of ideas as my borderline, if an idea has virtue but isn't supported. I can still appreciate the virtue of the idea. but that's becuase while I want to achieve truth, I'm not entirely preoccupied with being right. I'd be happier finding my own way through life and exploring the world around me .

anyway thanks for sharing. I have some growth to do and for what it's worth I like seeing you explore your ideas. granted arrogant as some may be (sorry to come off mean. but if you really would be disappointed in a hypothetical child for having religion, there's something seriously wrong here, are you saying you actively think you are smarter and/or better then all theists just becuase your not "crippled by unscientific views")

do you really think 16% of the world population is "enlightened" and the rest of the known world are just ignorant and never bothered to give this any thought?

www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html

Note: among the "nonreligious group" some may still be theistic.

Note 2: all in the spirit of debate and questioning.

[stephen5000]

Your points seems reasonable. I note that your points don't necessarily have to apply to a religion, but can be addressed to any set of beliefs.

Some comments:
Re#4: I'm all for tolerance of other peoples' beliefs. However, actions resulting from these beliefs are a different story, at least when said action does potential harm to others. I also oppose proselytism to an unsubstantiated belief (again especially if said belief would have a negative influence on the person's life, e.g. worrying about going to Hell).

Re#3: I really hate it when some people can't accept "We don't know (at least for now)" as an answer. Notably they might cling to a preconceived notion, and won't doubt it unless you can offer up some reasonable counter explanation. If you can't, they'll stick with their original belief, no matter how ludicrous. You can see this in the various "God of the Gaps" arguments put forward by some religious people; that is, when science fails to explain some phenomena, then God must have intervened and caused it to happen. It must be a different way of thinking than I'm used to; that one must have an answer to everything, even if it has to be made up.

[Nakor]

I certainly don't accuse 84% of the world of never thinking about this, nor of being wholly ignorant. I do think they're wrong, however. I could go into a whole debate on why I think there's no God, but I've basically already done that a few times over in the Religion thread. But as you can see from my first post, I have no beef with those who wish to believe in a god. I think they're wrong, but I won't take the initiative in trying to kill off religion. Only when asked or in an open debate will I argue those points.

To your point knocking me about being mildly disappointed at my children (should I ever have any) converting to a religion (if they did), it is because atheism is the most rational, logical stance. I don't think there's anything wrong with my having that opinion, and I never said I'd act on it. I specifically said I wouldn't be all that bothered.

As for what I mean as a contradiction... a contradiction. Any case where science says Y and religion/philosophy/not-science says Not-Y (or vice versa).

@stephen:

Agreed. I decided not to include anything on morals and ethics though, because frankly I'm not sure there are a lot of ways to reduce that into very simple rules without missing a lot, and it seems to be a bit of a different topic in some ways (although very tied in). The existence of a god is a point of fact -- meaning either there exist one or more gods, or there exist none. We don't have a certain way of knowing which, but it is definitely a true/false thing. That's just not true of morals or ethics, which makes them a lot more complicated.

[stephen5000]

Apr 6, 2010 2:12:40 GMT -5 @bunnyfulwanderer said:

do you really think 16% of the world population is "enlightened" and the rest of the known world are just ignorant and never bothered to give this any thought?

I would suggest that many people have grown up with certain beliefs about the world (religious or otherwise) and don't really question many of them, especially if they do not obviously contradict with science or known history.

[bunnyfulwanderer]

okay thanks for the clarification. I don't know me personally I try not to have any biases about people beliefs like my brother. great guy, but not much of a thinker. Christianity gives him comfort and I'm fine with that. granted. when he bitches at me for taking as book on my religion into the church for reading later after the service when I got dragged to Easter service and with the exception of having to leave when I got disgusted by an old testament reading I think he was being a little unreasonable...

also I want to note that one of the things that made me comfortable enough with a religion to consider taking it on was that the fact that it outright spoke against proselytizing and the indoctrination of children. That and I just felt a real affinity for it.

[bunnyfulwanderer]

Apr 6, 2010 2:50:26 GMT -5 stephen5000 said:

Apr 6, 2010 2:12:40 GMT -5 @bunnyfulwanderer said:

do you really think 16% of the world population is "enlightened" and the rest of the known world are just ignorant and never bothered to give this any thought?

I would suggest that many people have grown up with certain beliefs about the world (religious or otherwise) and don't really question many of them, especially if they do not obviously contradict with science or known history.

no disagreements here. I have an aunt that's proof of that. I left the religion I was brought up with.

[Deleted]

I'm a buddhist atheïst (hell yeah) XD
No seriously, let me explain:
I don't believe there's a god, but I do feel linked (is that a good word for this? I don't know) to the Buddhist belief. It's all basic logic that they "preach". They have values, just like the PogoTribe has and these values preach peace, loving your neighbour,...
They believe a person can become enlightened after years of self-reflection and studying, which seems truthful and basic logic to me.. So yeah, all those things make Buddhism a valid choice for me.

What attracts me most to Buddhism though, is that they aren't (and I don't know the English word for this) like Christianity, Islam,.. They don't say "We are right you are wrong TITSORGTFO!!" and neither do Buddhists try to convert you to their believes.

There's two problems I have with Buddhism though:

1) "If you achieve enlightenment, and thus become a Buddha, you can go to the Nirvana". I don't believe that, I think when you die it's just game over, goodbye.

2) This is just a minor problem though. The Buddhist religion as a story about the creation of the world, much alike other religions. I can't remember how it exactly goes, but it's something about 2 gods fighting and by doing that creating the world or sth, I don't know. Now the difference with for example Christianity is that they KNOW that the people who originally wrote these text didn't mean that literally. The idea of the gods in Buddhism is just a referral to the basic powers of nature and the basic values of society. The creation story is just a story to explain their values and ways of thinking and they know that and THEY DON'T DENY THAT, in contradiction to Christianity.
So yeah, that's why it's only a minor problem to me.

Another example of such a religion is the Shinto in Japan, though there's debate whether it's a religion or a philosophy..

[kernoll]

Apr 6, 2010 4:43:24 GMT -5 @crracktheskye said:

I'm a buddhist atheïst

I like you.

My beliefs are sometimes rly close to standarts of buddhism. That life is only pain and every suffering comes from desire for material wealth.
Also there are other great things about buddhism like trying to achive peace of mind and drinking tea.
BUT i just dont think there is any samsára. That part about suffering is only fact and converting to buddhism is only one of the ways to achive that goal... And in seventh century or when it was founded there werent many ways to run away from that suffering...

[Deleted]

Apr 6, 2010 7:24:24 GMT -5 kernoll said:

Apr 6, 2010 4:43:24 GMT -5 @crracktheskye said:

I'm a buddhist atheïst

I like you.

My beliefs are sometimes rly close to standarts of buddhism. That life is only pain and every suffering comes from desire for material wealth.
Also there are other great things about buddhism like trying to achive peace of mind and drinking tea.
BUT i just dont think there is any samsára. That part about suffering is only fact and converting to buddhism is only one of the ways to achive that goal... And in seventh century or when it was founded there werent many ways to run away from that suffering...

Thanks, I like you too You're on the moon

I thought Buddhism was older than Christianity lemme check...
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
yep, 5th century BCE (which is Before Common Era, to avoid Before Christ, interesting, right?), founded by Siddharta Gautama, who was a prince according to the tale. Really interesting tale btw

[kernoll]

I know a lot about Buddhism like spreading to China, three main Schools (Mahajana, Hinajana, Vadžrajana) and stuff. Its just rly long ago coz its some time since i was interested in religion...
Im still interested but only a bit...