Has your outlook changed since realising there is no God?

smcgiff

midlandsmissus wrote: »

No, I wouldn't look down on a Scientologist. I dont believe in their religion but maybe it might be a good lesson for whomever the person involved is in discovering whom they really are.

I do. Their founder said the best way to get rich was to found a religion and then came up with a crazy religion. He's got thousands of devout followers.

Says a lot about the intelligence of some humans.

gbee

philologos wrote: »

The Bible is a credible and a reliable document. The New Testament at least is the most reliable text in ancient history. Due to the sheer number of copies we have to compare we can see that there has been no significant alteration to the New Testament. .

I know someone in the Discovery Channel TV network who would argue that with you, mind you maybe not so much what was changed, rather what was selectively CUT OUT and discarded.

Christ changed the World, his ministry was slain and adopted by the most evil and corrupt empire of the time, the Roman Empire started the Holy Roman Catholic Church citing succession from Christ but the #church# proceeded with its vile ways right up to the present day, dividing peoples, destroying cultures, creating Islam, Inquisition, Imperialist Socialism and Ignorance.

nervous_twitch

Urgh, the condescension of the modern atheist is a particularly virile breed.

gallag

nervous_twitch wrote: »

Urgh, the condescension of the modern atheist is a particularly virile breed.

Yes I call to my fellow atheists to go on a global crusade killing anyone who does not share our views, wait, has that already been done.

gbee

philologos wrote: »

I just have to ask myself, do you know how Jesus encourages us to live on a Biblical level?

Do you?

Christ's first message is truth.

nervous_twitch

gallag wrote: »

Yes I call to my fellow atheists to go on a global crusade killing anyone who does not share our views, wait, has that already been done.

Ingenious argument, buddy, because that's exactly what I'm advocating.

humbert

For me the world just made a lot more sense. It does make listening to people like midlandmissus difficult. Lots of people have daft beliefs but are still very likeable. I don't respect their daft beliefs but I respect their other positive characteristics and overall I respect them.

However pseudo-believers like midlandmissus will insist that they believe in some sort of god and insist that you respect that belief. They will not give any rational or logical reason why this belief should be respected or even a rational or logical reason why they hold that belief but simply insist that all beliefs hold an equal right be respected whether they have been researched, analysed and reviewed or whether someone has pulled it out if their ass. This complete lack of respect for science and reason drives me up the wall.

smcgiff

nervous_twitch wrote: »

Urgh, the condescension of the modern atheist is a particularly virile breed.

Modern, eh - why not older atheists - oh right they'd have been burnt at the stake for much less.

Suppose we should be grateful for free speech.

So, thanks.

nervous_twitch

smcgiff wrote: »

Modern, eh - why not older atheists - oh right they'd have been burnt at the stake for much less.

Suppose we should be grateful for free speech.

So, thanks.

Why is it, if I'm not an atheist, I have to be a fundamentalist Christian?

smcgiff

nervous_twitch wrote: »

Why is it, if I'm not an atheist, I have to be a fundamentalist Christian?

The only assumption i've made is that you are a theist.

Shryke

nervous_twitch wrote: »

Urgh, the condescension of the modern atheist is a particularly virile breed.

You say with condensation toward a group of people who choose not to believe what you do. Well done.
I like that you threw "modern atheist" in there, just to try and pad that post. I mean those medieval atheists were so much less condescending...

I'm always impressed how people with faith will play up to people who don't believe, acting like both bully and victim.

Diabhal Beag

I wouldn't say I lost all belief in there being more to our existence than a random fluke but I did break off from the Catholic belief systems. I come from a stanch religious family so it was a big deal when they found out but they have taken it well. That said I never made a big deal over it as I'm not to kind of person who uses religion to feel better than anybody and it never comes up in conversation. I do go to anniversary masses and Christmas mass.

Feathers

humbert wrote: »

For me the world just made a lot more sense. It does make listening to people like midlandmissus difficult. Lots of people have daft beliefs but are still very likeable. I don't respect their daft beliefs but I respect their other positive characteristics and overall I respect them.

I always find this line of thinking a little ironic — people give out about Christians being 'patronising' because they believe they're going to heaven, while judging them to be 'daft' because they believe in God. Surely it's the same thing turned on it's head?

humbert wrote: »

They will not give any rational or logical reason why this belief should be respected or even a rational or logical reason why they hold that belief but simply insist that all beliefs hold an equal right be respected whether they have been researched, analysed and reviewed or whether someone has pulled it out if their ass. This complete lack of respect for science and reason drives me up the wall.

There's hundreds of books devoted to logically reasoning for a belief in God. There are also many great scientists who did/do believe in God. You always have irrational people, but to dismiss something they think to be true because they are irrational is itself irrational

I know plenty of people who voted 'Yes for jobs' — that's quite irrational. So is the Lisbon treaty a bad think by virtue of that fact?

nervous_twitch

smcgiff wrote: »

The only assumption i've made is that you are a theist.

Then why the references to stake-burning and suppression of free-speech? Is this automatically considered part of the theist's agenda?

Elaborating a bit; even in this thread, there is an overbearing attitude from many atheists that those who believe in anything are entertaining a juvenile delusion (equations with Santa Clause anyone?) and that the non-believers are the truly enlightened because they don't blindly accept faith and have made 'adult' considerations on things beyond what we know.

I was an atheist until I was about 16, when I realised that made as little sense as the alternative. I'm not a Christian. I don't subscribe to organised religion.

gbee

Shryke wrote: »

I mean those medieval atheists were so much less condescending...

I believe they sorted them out with a rope around the neck or made a bonfire out of them on cold days ...

daisybelle2008

philologos wrote: »

The whole atheistic relativist morality falls apart at the first hurdle. What about fieldshooting people in a city centre for a Sunday lunchtime activity? Who are you to say that this is wrong, after what's right for you is only right for you, this could be right for me? Unless of course there is an objective law giver and an objective judge.

I don't know how this example is proof that atheistic anything falls at the 'first hurdle'. You make a big assumption that this is black and white evidence of something

Lets take your sharpshooter example and say the sharpshooter says God told me to do it because he is feeling angry and judgemental again like he did in the Old Testament. Ye are not following his teachings so sharpshooting it is. He couldn't be arsed to muster up some loctus plagues so he sent me to prove his point. P.s I'm the second coming. This guy really 'believes' god told him.
What would your position be then? Is he going to hell?

humbert

Feathers wrote: »

I always find this line of thinking a little ironic — people give out about Christians being 'patronising' because they believe they're going to heaven, while judging them to be 'daft' because they believe in God. Surely it's the same thing turned on it's head?

I didn't say anything about Christians' attitude...

Feathers wrote: »

There's hundreds of books devoted to logically reasoning for a belief in God. There are also many great scientists who did/do believe in God. You always have irrational people, but to dismiss something they think to be true because they are irrational is itself irrational

I know plenty of people who voted 'Yes for jobs' — that's quite irrational. So is the Lisbon treaty a bad think by virtue of that fact?

Again, I didn't actually say that I though belief in God was irrational (which I do, but that's not the point I was making).

eth0

Back in my day there used to be a separate forum for this kind of drivel.

nervous_twitch

Shryke wrote: »

You say with condensation toward a group of people who choose not to believe what you do. Well done.
I like that you threw "modern atheist" in there, just to try and pad that post. I mean those medieval atheists were so much less condescending...

I'm always impressed how people with faith will play up to people who don't believe, acting like both bully and victim.

I didn't say anything with condensation(!). That aside, I have absolutely nothing but respect for those who have made an informed decision on what they do or don't believe - I have just noticed a growing trend amongst atheists (as atheism continues to grow exponentially) to be derisive towards those who feel differently.

Take for example the people who have said 'I instantly lose respect for someone who believes' - I would never dream of saying the reverse, because frankly I think it's a dim attitude to have. In the same way I would not entertain a theist who goes out of their way to belittle the non-beliefs of a.. non-believer.

gbee

nervous_twitch wrote: »

(equations with Santa Clause anyone?).

What clause are you trying to bring up?

Santa Claus is originally German. Though in turn is based on Norwegian and Russian characters

4zn76tysfajdxp

philologos wrote: »

If you have an issue with any of my posts, click the report post button which you'll find under my avatar and a mod will sort me out.

smcgiff wrote: »

Done, but only because you asked so nicely.

lol, reporting a religious person for saying they're religious in a thread about religion (or a lack of religion). So much for the mutual atherist self-appreciation society back slapping session, eh?

smcgiff

nervous_twitch wrote: »

Then why the references to stake-burning and suppression of free-speech? Is this automatically considered part of the theist's agenda?

Elaborating a bit; even in this thread, there is an overbearing attitude from many atheists that those who believe in anything are entertaining a juvenile delusion (equations with Santa Clause anyone?) and that the non-believers are the truly enlightened because they don't blindly accept faith and have made 'adult' considerations on things beyond what we know.

I was an atheist until I was about 16, when I realised that made as little sense
as the alternative. I'm not a Christian. I don't subscribe to organised religion.

I mentioned stake burning - there are of course other intolerant religions - in reply to you modern atheist jibe.

nervous_twitch

gbee wrote: »

What clause are you trying to bring up?

Santa Claus is originally German. Though in turn is based on Norwegian and Russian characters

Apologies. I blame Disney.

padd b1975

smcgiff wrote: »

I do. Their founder said the best way to get rich was to found a religion and then came up with a crazy religion. He's got thousands of devout followers.

Says a lot about the intelligence of some humans.

Sure does.

That guy is one smart cookie.

humbert

eth0 wrote: »

Back in my day there used to be a separate forum for this kind of drivel.

Paganism?

smcgiff

Cara Shrilling Can wrote: »

lol, reporting a religious person for saying they're religious in a thread about religion (or a lack of religion). So much for the mutual atherist self-appreciation society back sleeping session, eh?

what would have been wrong with that - why was it derailed? I feel... persecuted

Shryke

nervous_twitch wrote: »

I didn't say anything with condensation(!). That aside, I have absolutely nothing but respect for those who have made an informed decision on what they do or don't believe - I have just noticed a growing trend amongst atheists (as atheism continues to grow exponentially) to be derisive towards those who feel differently.

Take for example the people who have said 'I instantly lose respect for someone who believes' - I would never dream of saying the reverse, because frankly I think it's a dim attitude to have. In the same way I would not entertain a theist who goes out of their way to belittle the non-beliefs of a.. non-believer.

I can respect that attitude and I think it's a healthy one.
There is an increase in people who don't hold beliefs and maybe they're getting a little louder about it but religion is still much louder and continually derisive toward people who don't hold beliefs and to people who hold differing beliefs so I find that complaint fairly silly, and that's while ignoring all of human history which is something I could readily not do. Context does matter, and not just in stating beliefs but in actions and atrocities in the name of God.
Belief in the divine is all too often used to justify terrible crimes, actions that an atheist would not be able to preform the mental gymnastics to approve of. You can of course argue that someone would commit a crime anyway, and they might, there are bad apples all over, but that would be missing the point.
I think for the most part that it's great that atheism is coming more to the fore, and about time.

Feathers

humbert wrote: »

I didn't say anything about Christians' attitude...

Yeah sorry, wasn't so much directed at you rather than the thread as a whole — we've already had the 'Christains are condescending because they think I'm not going to heaven' post earlier.

humbert wrote: »

Again, I didn't actually say that I though belief in God was irrational (which I do, but that's not the point I was making).

humbert wrote: »

They will not give any rational or logical reason why this belief should be respected or even a rational or logical reason why they hold that belief but simply insist that all beliefs hold an equal right be respected whether they have been researched, analysed and reviewed or whether someone has pulled it out if their ass. This complete lack of respect for science and reason drives me up the wall.

OK, I picked you up wrong so. I thought that your point was you were annoyed that people wanted their belief in God respected, even though they hadn't researched it? Or were you talking about other things like homeopathy? (Just presumed your weren't in a religion thread).

IMO, there's a big difference between believing something without supporting evidence and believing something in spite of hard evidence to the contrary.

midlandsmissus

humbert wrote: »

For me the world just made a lot more sense. It does make listening to people like midlandmissus difficult. Lots of people have daft beliefs but are still very likeable. I don't respect their daft beliefs but I respect their other positive characteristics and overall I respect them.

However pseudo-believers like midlandmissus will insist that they believe in some sort of god and insist that you respect that belief. They will not give any rational or logical reason why this belief should be respected or even a rational or logical reason why they hold that belief but simply insist that all beliefs hold an equal right be respected whether they have been researched, analysed and reviewed or whether someone has pulled it out if their ass. This complete lack of respect for science and reason drives me up the wall.

Right so far I have said:
I'm not part of any religion, never have been.
I believe in god and spirituality (there's a whole HUGE spirituality movement OUTSIDE of religion, look it up)
I would never look down on anyone else no matter what they believe in.

Where exactly do you have the problem with?

Calling me a pseudo - believer is somewhat ironic give all the athiest venting about religion on here.

Are you saying if you dare to think for yourself outside of set religions you're a 'pseudo - believer'? :rolleyes:There is an extreme irony there because you as an atheist are in fact saying those in religions are 'real believers', which is a weird point to argue coming from an atheist.

Science is now starting to have alot of different studies on the afterlife by the way.

Rasheed

Cara Shrilling Can wrote: »

Ah but belief in Santa is "magical" for children. Apparently.

And is it not? Did it harm you to believe for a few years?

Ghost Buster

Irish Guitarist wrote: »

Why do you assume everyone that reads this has 'realised' there's no God?

No, just issues of arrogance and smugness.

There is no smugness or arrogance in the OP unless you choose to read such into it or have a chip on your shoulder and/or a persecution complex.

suicide_circus

keithg89 wrote: »

Chill the beans. Typical religious nut. I don't even know who Richard Dawkins is. Most of them were family I'm allowed judge them :pac:

Yeah religious nut, you got my number guy.
Total agnostic actually and think organized religion is pretty much bollix, i wouldn't judge people for their beliefs though.
I only come into conflict with religion when the fundies stone people to death or force creationism to be taught in schools as a science.

Ghost Buster

philologos wrote: »

No I don't. My particular God isn't imaginary

FYP and edited for you as your post could have been this brief.

midlandsmissus

Ghost Buster wrote: »

There is no smugness or arrogance in the OP unless you choose to read such into it or have a chip on your shoulder and/or a persecution complex.

To be honest I think people think it should have been phrased: 'For anyone on here who has come to the belief there is no God, how has your outlook on life changed'.

Not ' Has your outlook changed since realising there is no God' on a public forum with a variety of beliefs.

Shryke

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Right so far I have said:
I'm not part of any religion, never have been.
I believe in god and spirituality (there's a whole HUGE spirituality movement OUTSIDE of religion, look it up)
I would never look down on anyone else no matter what they believe in.

Where exactly do you have the problem with?

Calling me a pseudo - believer is somewhat ironic give all the athiest venting about religion on here.

Are you saying if you dare to think for yourself outside of set religions you're a 'pseudo - believer'? :rolleyes:There is an extreme irony there because you as an atheist are in fact saying those in religions are 'real believers', which is a weird point to argue coming from an atheist.

Science is now starting to show lots of studies confirming the afterlife by the way.

I don't think you know what pseudo-something means. Someone picking and choosing various bits of a faith because they're the parts they like is a weak kneed exercise, spirituality is even more vague and indefensible. Half notions of believing in "something" coupled with knee jerk "leave me alone" defensiveness because it's clearly daft and without even the remotest foundation, and that's why it comes across worse than believing in a main faith which at least puts a bit of effort into the whole affair.
I'd like to see these scientific studies please. (Ghost Busters wasn't a scientific study)

Chain_reaction

Rasheed wrote: »

And is it not? Did it harm you to believe for a few years?

My boyfriend was raised without "Santy" and turned out just fine.


Parents bought them gifts throughout the year etc. So they really didn't miss out on anything. His parents raised him amazingly well so I don't see it as being "mean" or the "child missing out".

gbee

Feathers wrote: »

Surely it's the same thing turned on it's head?

IMO, I can see differences.

efb

Do Windows give you a free upgrade if you're an atheist?

smcgiff

Midlandmissus,

Would you not look down on someone that believed women should not be allowed to drive, or if raped that it was their own fault if they had not travelled with a male relative?

mfceiling

Might throw this thread into the large haldron collidor to see what happens...

Chain_reaction

midlandsmissus wrote: »

To be honest I think people think it should have been phrased: 'For anyone on here who has come to the belief there is no God, how has your outlook on life changed'.

Not ' Has your outlook changed since realising there is no God' on a public forum with a variety of beliefs.

Maybe he ran out of character space.

midlandsmissus

Shryke wrote: »

I don't think you know what pseudo-something means. Someone picking and choosing various bits of a faith because they're the parts they like is a weak kneed exercise, spirituality is even more vague and indefensible. Half notions of believing in "something" coupled with knee jerk "leave me alone" defensiveness because it's clearly daft and without even the remotest foundation, and that's why it comes across worse than believing in a main faith which at least puts a bit of effort into the whole affair.
I'd like to see these scientific studies please. (Ghost Busters wasn't a scientific study)

I'm afraid it is you who is wrong, I am quite clear on what pseudo means:

The prefix pseudo- (from Greek ψευδής "lying, false") is used to mark something as false, fraudulent, or pretending to be something it is not.

See this is the particular bat**** atheist argument that drives me, in particular, nuts.

'All religion is crap, a load of ****, fools believing in skyfairy in the sky hur hur hur' 'They had no choice, born into it, if they were born in Iraq they'd be a muslim, no thought whatsoever put into it' etc etc

Hmm so come to me - a person who has decided to think for myself and study spirituality and study all religions and come to my own beliefs after a lot of thought, study and research. You'd think I'd be praised by athiests for my individual thinking, no?

No? Atheist response - ' a pseudo believer,picking and choosing,engaging in a weak kneed exercise, I am believing in something that is clearly daft without any foundation and now I am told that,... the main faiths 'at least put a bit of effort into the affair'.

You think we are illogical and irrational, we think completly the same about you.

And to top it off with 'The Ghostbusters are not scientific research'....arrogant atheist overload, would you talk to anyone like that?

Rasheed

Chain_reaction wrote: »

My boyfriend was raised without "Santy" and turned out just fine.


Parents bought them gifts throughout the year etc. So they really didn't miss out on anything. His parents raised him amazingly well so I don't see it as being "mean" or the "child missing out".

That's fair enough, every parent has the right to bring up their children how they like.

What I can't get my head around is that encouraging the belief in Santa is somehow damaging the child.

I can understand people not wanting their children to be taught about religion but to compare Santa to God is laughable.

Feathers

Shryke wrote: »

I don't think you know what pseudo-something means. Someone picking and choosing various bits of a faith because they're the parts they like is a weak kneed exercise, spirituality is even more vague and indefensible. Half notions of believing in "something" coupled with knee jerk "leave me alone" defensiveness because it's clearly daft and without even the remotest foundation, and that's why it comes across worse than believing in a main faith which at least puts a bit of effort into the whole affair.
I'd like to see these scientific studies please. (Ghost Busters wasn't a scientific study)

'Pseudo' means 'not genuine'. There's a big difference between someone pretending to be a believer, and someone who believes difference aspects of what's put forward as God.

If the poster said they went to mass but didn't believe in the resurrection, you could call them a pseduo-Christian, fine. You can't call someone a pseudo-believer because they said they're a theist who hasn't subscribed to a major religion though

gbee wrote: »

IMO, I can see differences.

Are you waiting for a "Such as?" response, or you'd prefer not to talk about it

Chain_reaction

midlandsmissus wrote: »

I'm afraid it is you who is wrong, I am quite clear on what pseudo means:

The prefix pseudo- (from Greek ψευδής "lying, false") is used to mark something as false, fraudulent, or pretending to be something it is not.

See this is the particular bat**** atheist argument that drives me, in particular, nuts.

'All religion is crap, a load of ****, fools believing in skyfairy in the sky hur hur hur' 'They had no choice, born into it, if they were born in Iraq they'd be a muslim, no thought whatsoever put into it' etc etc

Hmm so come to me - a person who has decided to think for myself and study spirituality and study all religions and come to my own beliefs after a lot of thought, study and research. You'd think I'd be praised by athiests for my individual thinking, no?

No? Atheist response - ' a pseudo believer,picking and choosing,engaging in a weak kneed exercise, I am believing in something that is clearly daft without any foundation and now I am told that,... the main faiths 'at least put a bit of effort into the affair'.

You think we are illogical and irrational, we think completly the same about you.

And to top it off with 'The Ghostbusters are not scientific research'....arrogant atheist overload, would you talk to anyone like that?

Well you've certainly levelled out the playing field insult wise there..

suicide_circus

smcgiff wrote: »

Midlandmissus,

Would you not look down on someone that believed women should not be allowed to drive, or if raped that it was their own fault if they had not travelled with a male relative?

It's a good point, personally my tolerance for peoples religious views end when they become law and impinge on the liberty of others.

seenitall

Yes, hugely.

There is no "back-up" for me anymore, no Plan B, no second or third chances. This ain't a dress rehearsal, baby, this is all there is.

From Catholic via agnostic to atheist, it has been a long, long journey, through most of my youth and adult years, actually.

The result is mostly positive, it feels hugely liberating and empowering, the realisation that I actually have no-one to answer to into some unimaginable "eternity", not to mention the fact that I am free to obtain happiness in any way I wish, restrictred only by my own judgement and the laws of the land, and no-one and nothing else.

At first it felt kinda lonely, as for such a long time I was used to praying to a God and had this belief that he would see me right somehow. It was almost like having a special imaginary friend, I suppose, and a bit of hope that there is someone out there who's listening and will sort stuff out for me. So, leaving that behind was scary.

But exhilarating scary. Worth it.

Shryke

midlandsmissus wrote: »

I'm afraid it is you who is wrong, I am quite clear on what pseudo means:

The prefix pseudo- (from Greek ψευδής "lying, false") is used to mark something as false, fraudulent, or pretending to be something it is not.

See this is the particular bat**** atheist argument that drives me, in particular, nuts.

'All religion is crap, a load of ****, fools believing in skyfairy in the sky hur hur hur' 'They had no choice, born into it, if they were born in Iraq they'd be a muslim, no thought whatsoever put into it' etc etc

Hmm so come to me - a person who has decided to think for myself and study spirituality and study all religions and come to my own beliefs after a lot of thought, study and research. You'd think I'd be praised by athiests for my individual thinking, no?

No? Atheist response - ' a pseudo believer,picking and choosing,engaging in a weak kneed exercise, I am believing in something that is clearly daft without any foundation and now I am told that,... the main faiths 'at least put a bit of effort into the affair'.

You think we are illogical and irrational, we think completly the same about you.

And to top it off with 'The Ghostbusters are not scientific research'....arrogant atheist overload, would you talk to anyone like that?

Ya I talk to everyone like that. Humor don't you know. Not arrogance cheers.
You've shown me that you can google pseudo which is great but still doesn't help me understand this "Calling me a pseudo - believer is somewhat ironic give all the athiest venting about religion on here.". I'm a bit fan of irony so maybe I'm missing my morning coffee.
I'm not sure what you think you mean by individual thinking. Logical thinking would make sense. Individual thinking doesn't mean anything necessarily.
Studying spirituality sounds pretty vague. Studying what exactly? How did logic bring you to this conclusion, and do you have a link to those scientific studies?

Ellis Dee

Sky Fairy calling Philologos, Sky Fairy calling Philologos -

When in hole, stop digging.:):):):)

Ush1

nervous_twitch wrote: »

Urgh, the condescension of the modern atheist is a particularly virile breed.

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/atheists.png