Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
They are not super wealthy or anything, but they make a decent living. Its a lot of different people I am talking about so some have a better living than others
Atheism becomes more common when people achieve a certain level of material well-being, I believe because they no longer feel as much of a need to ask the questions that religion is allegedly answering.
It's good that your friends and family no longer feel shackled by religion, but the real shackles were thrown off generations ago when personal freedom, safety, and well-being became more common.
Atheism becomes more common when people achieve a certain level of material well-being, I believe because they no longer feel as much of a need to ask the questions that religion is allegedly answering.
It's good that your friends and family no longer feel shackled by religion, but the real shackles were thrown off generations ago when personal freedom, safety, and well-being became more common.
remember, most atheist believe in "something more". most atheist are not about rejecting anything that reminds them of religion. Most of us don't care if there is a god or not.
I am not anti-religious because of what you said here. False hope can bring real strength. Militant atheism has nothing to offer in that area.
Atheism becomes more common when people achieve a certain level of material well-being, I believe because they no longer feel as much of a need to ask the questions that religion is allegedly answering.
It's good that your friends and family no longer feel shackled by religion, but the real shackles were thrown off generations ago when personal freedom, safety, and well-being became more common.
Ok. Two ideas in your posts
(1) atheism becomes 'enslaved' to a Dogma other religious. (Science and logic, wasn't it?)
(2) they only do this when they are not made desperate by poverty, for instance.
Assuming those are true, 'slavery' to what works, is of proven value and appears to be true is better to be 'enslaved' to than what is losing ground on evidential and even philosophical grounds all the time.
While it might be true that having no options left, one might in desperation turn to divine help from whatever god was indoctrinated into your head as a kid, that only explains why we have gods, not that they are true.
But this 'slavery' epithet is very odd. It's like saying that someone who wants to design and build a plane or car is 'slave' to mechanics and physics. Rather they are tools to help them do the job effectively. One might say that the sculptor is slave to the chisel and stone, or the artist to the canvas and oils, we use tools; we are not slaves to them. And science and logic are mental tools which we use according to the instructions, if we want to use them effectively.
Your argument sounds a bit like this 'atheism is a religion' apologetic. Many other things have spokespersons, books and meetings, but nobody calls them 'religions'. And even if that was the case, it would be 'religions' based on the solid foundations of evidence and logic (or production and marketing, or sports rules and training or whatever the organisation did) and not on unsound dogma and faith -claims.
(1) atheism becomes 'enslaved' to a Dogma other religious. (Science and logic, wasn't it?)
(2) they only do this when they are not made desperate by poverty, for instance.
Assuming those are true, 'slavery' to what works, is of proven value and appears to be true is better to be 'enslaved' to than what is losing ground on evidential and even philosophical grounds all the time.
While it might be true that having no options left, one might in desperation turn to divine help from whatever god was indoctrinated into your head as a kid, that only explains why we have gods, not that they are true.
But this 'slavery' epithet is very odd. It's like saying that someone who wants to design and build a plane or car is 'slave' to mechanics and physics. Rather they are tools to help them do the job effectively. One might say that the sculptor is slave to the chisel and stone, or the artist to the canvas and oils, we use tools; we are not slaves to them. And science and logic are mental tools which we use according to the instructions, if we want to use them effectively.
Your argument sounds a bit like this 'atheism is a religion' apologetic. Many other things have spokespersons, books and meetings, but nobody calls them 'religions'. And even if that was the case, it would be 'religions' based on the solid foundations of evidence and logic (or production and marketing, or sports rules and training or whatever the organisation did) and not on unsound dogma and faith -claims.
you, and other militants are a slave to th events that happened to you. I say slave because your whole world view is based on that event.
Militants like fundamental theist are slaves to how the feel about religion. Nothing much matters past those feelings.
Interesting question. I think there are some good observations about the societal and socioeconomic factors in play, at a broader level.
Speaking just for me personally, if I had to identify the single biggest source of "relief," it would be... the RESOLUTION OF COGNITIVE DISSONANCE. It became increasingly uncomfortable... indeed, psychologically untenable... for me to keep going through the motions, repeating things I had been taught since birth, singing songs of praise to entities I had no reason to think exist, reciting creeds and statements of faith, etc, etc. It became apparent (to me) that these behaviors were based on manmade myths and explanations and rituals, which were unsupported by the rational evidence that I would expect in support of any other belief. If I wouldn't drive to the grocery store or get on a plane without some evidence of the outcome (e.g., the car runs and groceries await, planes lift off, and so on), why would I think an afterlife awaited me for worshiping a manmade construct? I couldn't answer that honestly, and it was a relief to stop pretending. Not coincidentally, this same cognitive dissonance may also explain why some still-believers are threatened by admissions like mine...
Last edited by HeelaMonster; 03-16-2020 at 10:13 AM..
(1) atheism becomes 'enslaved' to a Dogma other religious. (Science and logic, wasn't it?)
(2) they only do this when they are not made desperate by poverty, for instance.
Assuming those are true, 'slavery' to what works, is of proven value and appears to be true is better to be 'enslaved' to than what is losing ground on evidential and even philosophical grounds all the time.
While it might be true that having no options left, one might in desperation turn to divine help from whatever god was indoctrinated into your head as a kid, that only explains why we have gods, not that they are true.
But this 'slavery' epithet is very odd. It's like saying that someone who wants to design and build a plane or car is 'slave' to mechanics and physics. Rather they are tools to help them do the job effectively. One might say that the sculptor is slave to the chisel and stone, or the artist to the canvas and oils, we use tools; we are not slaves to them. And science and logic are mental tools which we use according to the instructions, if we want to use them effectively.
Your argument sounds a bit like this 'atheism is a religion' apologetic. Many other things have spokespersons, books and meetings, but nobody calls them 'religions'. And even if that was the case, it would be 'religions' based on the solid foundations of evidence and logic (or production and marketing, or sports rules and training or whatever the organisation did) and not on unsound dogma and faith -claims.
If you had perfect knowledge of past, present, and future, would you have free will? Could you choose any outcome knowing exactly what will happen, and moreover, if you knew exactly the chain of events that made your personal preferences as they are? And could you still even believe in preferences with your perfect knowledge?
Many scientists are determinists. They believe there is no free will and we are just interactions playing out what was determined a long time ago (like infinitely long ago). I personally am not, but the "slavery" verbiage gets at that idea. If choice is an illusion given perfect knowledge, are you not a slave?
We see this in our own lives. When we are children we think anything is possible. As we age we realize our lives are highly constrained and many outcomes were never in the cards. As knowledge advances, perceived freedom recedes. Our perceptions converge with reality, and we realize we were always slaves.
Atheism is to me radical truth telling, especially about oneself.
It does not free you. It makes you a slave to data and logic.
At its most extreme atheism can lead to a deterministic view of life, with no free will. This is not certain, however, and in any case it is a shared state of all people and thus easier to accept.
The harder thing to accept are the questions of justice and status. Atheism means there is no justice, there is no afterlife, there is no leveling. Some people are born slaves and die slaves. There is no redemption.
The classic argument, which is not meritless, is that this knowledge should spur us on to build a better world. However that has limits. People born with biological disabilities or chronic pain will never be free of their bodies. And there is no solution for low status. Status is relative, and it will scale with efforts to eradicate it.
Religion is an attempt to solve these problems with belief systems. But stripped of belief the intractability of many problems is laid bare.
I am skeptical of atheists who seem to express excitement at the spread of atheism, as if it will usher in a new age. I think atheism should be couched in sobriety and resignation about much of the human condition. That can humanize you, so to speak, buy it is also very depressing.
When you stopped believing in Santa Claus, did you fell relieved? Or did you simply move on with your life?
I would also like to point out that if there is no God, then free will, the sort of free will that we actually experience, is an entirely natural state.
If you had perfect knowledge of past, present, and future, would you have free will? Could you choose any outcome knowing exactly what will happen, and moreover, if you knew exactly the chain of events that made your personal preferences as they are? And could you still even believe in preferences with your perfect knowledge?
Many scientists are determinists. They believe there is no free will and we are just interactions playing out what was determined a long time ago (like infinitely long ago). I personally am not, but the "slavery" verbiage gets at that idea. If choice is an illusion given perfect knowledge, are you not a slave?
We see this in our own lives. When we are children we think anything is possible. As we age we realize our lives are highly constrained and many outcomes were never in the cards. As knowledge advances, perceived freedom recedes. Our perceptions converge with reality, and we realize we were always slaves.
Since we don't have 'perfect knowledge' the question is pointless. Whether Free Will is an illusion or not doesn't alter the fact that we have a capability to make choices.
I don't see that you are going to get very far with this line.
Since we don't have 'perfect knowledge' the question is pointless. Whether Free Will is an illusion or not doesn't alter the fact that we have a capability to make choices.
I don't see that you are going to get very far with this line.
The example of the child believing anything is possible shows that you need not know everything to experience the loss of freedom that knowledge brings.
If free will is an illusion, then we do not in fact have the capability to make choices, but are simply the sum of inputs we have experienced.
When you stopped believing in Santa Claus, did you fell relieved? Or did you simply move on with your life?
I would also like to point out that if there is no God, then free will, the sort of free will that we actually experience, is an entirely natural state.
Santa Claus never promised a better life to people born into slavery with no hope. That example trivializes why many people believe in god and religion. It's not simply a matter of ignorance and gullibility; they want hope in the face of a situation that is hopeless.
Naturalness is an orthogonal concept to agency and causality. I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
