Is our entire existence driven by a fear of death?

I mean religion is fairly obvious with the afterlife factor, but virtually everything you do in your life is nullified by the fact that one day you will die and dwelling on that fact for to long would drive you fucking crazy, so art, work, family etcetera is simply illusions set up by the collective human mind to give purpose to an otherwise pointless existence... we are animals with gigantic ego's and we are really no different than any other animal on the planet.
So what gives us the right to think otherwise?

Is our entire existence driven by a fear of death?

I mean religion is fairly obvious with the afterlife factor, but virtually everything you do in your life is nullified by the fact that one day you will die and dwelling on that fact for to long would drive you fucking crazy, so art, work, family etcetera is simply illusions set up by the collective human mind to give purpose to an otherwise pointless existence... we are animals with gigantic ego's and we are really no different than any other animal on the planet.
So what gives us the right to think otherwise?

You've hit the nail on the proverbial head.

"Humanity's" existence is dependent on one variable: fear. When that fear goes, everything that they know themselves to be will die.

Is our entire existence driven by a fear of death?

I mean religion is fairly obvious with the afterlife factor, but virtually everything you do in your life is nullified by the fact that one day you will die and dwelling on that fact for to long would drive you fucking crazy, so art, work, family etcetera is simply illusions set up by the collective human mind to give purpose to an otherwise pointless existence... we are animals with gigantic ego's and we are really no different than any other animal on the planet.
So what gives us the right to think otherwise?

"Life and love are life and love, a bunch of violets is a bunch of violets, and to drag in the idea of a point is to ruin everything. Live and let live, love and let love FLOWER AND FADE and follow the natural curve which flows on, pointless."-D.H. Lawrence
Art, work and family are not distractions from some terrible truth, they are ways of making your brief and beautiful stay more enjoyable. Death does not nullify all that you did, it merely lets you know that your time for doing things is over.

Step 1: Preserve Existence of Self

Step 2: Preserve Existence of Species

Why? No reason, so we invented a reason. The story of religion...

Step 1: Preserve Existence of Self

Step 2: Preserve Existence of Species

Why? No reason, so we invented a reason. The story of religion...

Yup, simple as that.:rolleyes:

Death is an illusion; we have nothing to fear.

Once you grok that, life goes a lot more smoothly.

Yup, simple as that.:rolleyes:

Feel free to elaborate, I was just giving the most basic reason for religion. People have and always will look for purpose to life, misconceptions about the world led people in a belief in the supernatural world.

Here, I'll go into more depth for you, I posted this in another thread so take it within that context, I'm not attacking you, but someone else in this passage. However, it holds my feelings about religion.

God and religion are "the opiate of the masses" as Marx put it. Religion and God are for people who lack the ability to think and reason and would rather live as the saying goes "ignorance is bliss". Religion is just a cop out for how things really are because the reality is, life can be quite overwhelming at times and people need something (the opiate) to keep them from utter despair and depression, religion gives them hope in another world. This sounds good because it gives others hope but at what consequence? In return they deny the gifts of our current world in hopes of going to a place that doesn't exist. People will be fine with living a life of utter misery and pain and then die. The end. Not to mention the fact that these people go to extreme and horrific lengths to force these lies down other peoples' throats because, "god forbid" that those people actually find the truth and take away "our little fantasy world" and bring us back into reality. Religion is nothing more than the denial of reality. The reason people do it is because there just too fucking weak minded and lack the courage to step outside of mind control and acknowledge the reality of our current predicament. Religion tells people to be content with themselves, rather than be great. It preaches weakness and frailty over perseverance and strength. Religion is for the weak, reality is for the strong and deserving, and unfortunately not everyone can be in reality. So, enjoy living in the herd stuck in your stall waiting for "eternal life" in a world of lies and deceit while slowly wasting away into certain nothingness.

Feel free to elaborate, I was just giving the most basic reason for religion. People have and always will look for purpose to life, misconceptions about the world led people in a belief in the supernatural world.

Here, I'll go into more depth for you, I posted this in another thread so take it within that context, I'm not attacking you, but someone else in this passage. However, it holds my feelings about religion.

God and religion are "the opiate of the masses" as Marx put it. Religion and God are for people who lack the ability to think and reason and would rather live as the saying goes "ignorance is bliss". Religion is just a cop out for how things really are because the reality is, life can be quite overwhelming at times and people need something (the opiate) to keep them from utter despair and depression, religion gives them hope in another world. This sounds good because it gives others hope but at what consequence? In return they deny the gifts of our current world in hopes of going to a place that doesn't exist. People will be fine with living a life of utter misery and pain and then die. The end. Not to mention the fact that these people go to extreme and horrific lengths to force these lies down other peoples' throats because, "god forbid" that those people actually find the truth and take away "our little fantasy world" and bring us back into reality. Religion is nothing more than the denial of reality. The reason people do it is because there just too fucking weak minded and lack the courage to step outside of mind control and acknowledge the reality of our current predicament. Religion tells people to be content with themselves, rather than be great. It preaches weakness and frailty over perseverance and strength. Religion is for the weak, reality is for the strong and deserving, and unfortunately not everyone can be in reality. So, enjoy living in the herd stuck in your stall waiting for "eternal life" in a world of lies and deceit while slowly wasting away into certain nothingness.

I AM NOT ATTACKING YOU, BUT:
You claim, both in this statement and your original one to have totally figured shit out, which doesn't come off well. By saying things like "Religion is nothing more than...." or "the reason people do it is beacuse...." makes you seem close-minded. You do not have the authority (no one does) to make such broad oversimplifications of reality, and it just ain't that simple, however much we'd like it to be. Once again, I mean this in a helpful way, even sticking "in my opinion" in front of those phrases and taking out the "justs" and the "the truth is"'s would make your point a lot stronger. I'm sorry for the rudeness of my original response, and if you find this rude I am deeply sorry, I'm just saying it's much easier to listen to ideas than ideas construed as facts.;)

I AM NOT ATTACKING YOU, BUT:
You claim, both in this statement and your original one to have totally figured shit out, which doesn't come off well. By saying things like "Religion is nothing more than...." or "the reason people do it is beacuse...." makes you seem close-minded. You do not have the authority (no one does) to make such broad oversimplifications of reality, and it just ain't that simple, however much we'd like it to be. Once again, I mean this in a helpful way, even sticking "in my opinion" in front of those phrases and taking out the "justs" and the "the truth is"'s would make your point a lot stronger. I'm sorry for the rudeness of my original response, and if you find this rude I am deeply sorry, I'm just saying it's much easier to listen to ideas than ideas construed as facts.;)

I know what you mean and you have a valid point but it seems in the world (ESPECIALLY on totse) you have to come off as certain and concrete for anyone to even consider your argument.

I mean how can you persuade someone if it appears you haven't even fully convinced yourself? Thats how you lose an argument, by doubting your own beliefs. However, thats also how you gain more knowledge and how I came to my religious conclusions.

One you do in public, one you do within the realm of your own mind.

Im not so much saying that death makes your life meaningless, but more that as far as society goes, people wouldn't be motivated to participate if humanity collectivly decided that there was no afterlife.
Assuming some of you are religious, mabey you could tell me if your belief system would still hold up if there was no afterlife? Thats not saying your god does or doesn't love you but if he didn't feel the need to give you an afterlife would there still be any reason to worship him?
By that extention, would there be any reason to live by his code of ethics if he didn't reward you for it?

Im not so much saying that death makes your life meaningless, but more that as far as society goes, people wouldn't be motivated to participate if humanity collectivly decided that there was no afterlife.
Assuming some of you are religious, mabey you could tell me if your belief system would still hold up if there was no afterlife? Thats not saying your god does or doesn't love you but if he didn't feel the need to give you an afterlife would there still be any reason to worship him?
By that extention, would there be any reason to live by his code of ethics if he didn't reward you for it?

This is the familiar logical mud-pit of "If you don't fear god, you won't be ethical" and bullshit like that.

Atheists are _far_ more ethical than 99% of theists. The 1% that is on par with atheists are not theists in anything but name. Do you see Sagan pushing out giant books about how we should stone X, burn Y, and annihilate Z?

The fact that there is no afterlife is one of the major things that motivates me. I know I don't just get a magic second chance. It isn't nice to know, but the fact that I try hard to make everything count works wonders. This is one of the reasons why theists piss me off so much: they'll waste time in a church and waste mental cycles with all of this bullshit, and then they'll go to their deathbed thinking "oh, my life wasn't wasted, I'm ready to go fly up into the clouds, meet all my old friends that have died, and hang out with this jesus dude. Woohoo!".

I just find that repugnant. That wager thing should be reversed: It's far more damaging to waste your life on the possibility of there being a god than it is to have a full, accomplished life with as many regrets (it's always better to regret something you have done than to regret something you haven't done) as possible.

Fuck this afterlife dogma. I live in the here and now. I live in the real world.

I think your totally right. If an athiest does a good deed he does it for no other reason than because he thinks its the right thing to do, not for a reward; like a place in heaven or something like that. But the fact is the majority of soceity is religious and do you think te promice of an afterlife is the only thing stopping them going nuts...

I think your totally right. If an athiest does a good deed he does it for no other reason than because he thinks its the right thing to do, not for a reward; like a place in heaven or something like that. But the fact is the majority of soceity is religious and do you think te promice of an afterlife is the only thing stopping them going nuts...

No, I think it's the thing keeping them nuts.

One could argue that since atheists do moral deeds for no other reason besides their morality (whereas a theist does it out of fear/love of a god), atheists are the only moral people.

Im not so much saying that death makes your life meaningless, but more that as far as society goes, people wouldn't be motivated to participate if humanity collectivly decided that there was no afterlife.
Assuming some of you are religious, mabey you could tell me if your belief system would still hold up if there was no afterlife? Thats not saying your god does or doesn't love you but if he didn't feel the need to give you an afterlife would there still be any reason to worship him?
By that extention, would there be any reason to live by his code of ethics if he didn't reward you for it?

Punishment?

Fear of death is the driving force behind every major religion that has ever existed.

All religion is based in this, the most primal of human fears.

"You need not fear death, so long as you know your going to the right place when you die"

"How do I know that?"

"Swing by my place on Sunday, we will discuss it...OH, and bring your wallet."

"Humanity's" existence is dependent on one variable: fear.

Freud said it best when he said we were motivated solely by fear and rewards.

Atheists are _far_ more ethical than 99% of theists. The 1% that is on par with atheists are not theists in anything but name.

I would like you to support this claim. I personally have never seen statistic that has vaguely resembled this being proven by a study.

I think your totally right. If an athiest does a good deed he does it for no other reason than because he thinks its the right thing to do, not for a reward.

This is not entirely correct.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conformity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_relativism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operant_conditioning

I've put the links up just in case you are interested in where I get my bleiefs on this matter... I would quote something... but I'm lazy. [note: I'm not really using this as source material, there are a lot of things in these links I have not read, I am putting them in merely as a kind of overview.]

I can't really think where to look for more sources (and better ones) but I would hazard to guess that the reason that atheists do the right things IS for the reward or to avoid the punishement. It's behaviour that is universal amongst animals, avoidance of pain (punishment) is a core driving force in most living creatures. If you are not moral the culture will punish you.

Now, I'm not saying that atheists are only moral through fear of punishment (and saying all theists are moral only through fear of punishment is equally absurd) but this motivation affects many of us, chances are that your morality, like you religion, is governed by the society you live in. Some atheists I know are some of the most morally incosiderate and repugnant people I know, same could be said of theists (although I have less experience with theists).

In fact my only problem is the portrayal of atheists as somehow super-moral because they lack a God. Atheists are moral because we are brought up to be moral, not because they are atheists. Thesist are moral because they are brought up to be moral, not because they are theists.

Yes, a few people are truly good for the sake of being good, but these people are few and far between...

Our daily actions and decisions don't have to be motivated by a fear of death.... But, if you grew up in America, it is likely that some sort of fear was constantly pounded into your head, even if you weren't raised in a religious setting.

Every news program tells you that you should fear something. Your kids are going to school, what should YOU worry about? Ten things you need to know before you walk outside this morning. What's in your drinking water??

These fears are created for you, on top of the fact that you probably realized at a very young age that one day, you will die. So to deal with this miserable existence, many take to worshiping some imaginary being in the sky. If this life is going to be full of pain, fear, and suffering, spend your time practicing for the next life.

I think it's really stupid when people use an apostrophe for plurals... "ego's"

This creates an entire lifestyle completely motivated by self-interest. If you're nice to people, god says you're okay, even if the concept of kindness has devolved to looking the other way when we feel embarrassed for somebody. If we go to church and pray and confess, all is forgiven, and we can act the way we want.

I'm going to quit rambling now.

I would like you to support this claim. I personally have never seen statistic that has vaguely resembled this being proven by a study.

This has nothing to do with any study, it has to do with the logical conclusions one can draw from the theist belief system.

For starters, any good act from a theist can be attributable to their belief in a god. You raised the point that this conditioning isn't much different than atheist conditioning, but the key difference is, atheist conditioning prizes logic and rationality above things like mindlessly following conditioning. An atheist with the same conditioning as a theist can much more easily choose to disregard that conditioning.

My other main reason is the vast number of massive atrocities attributed to gods that are not only tolerated, but venerated by theists. In addition, the "moral atrocities" in most religions are equally immoral. Hatred of homosexuals is a good example of this.

I'm in contact with a number of very moderate christians and people that were raised by more adamant christians. These aren't people that are fire-and-brimstone types or are even that religious, but still have very warped views due to their theist conditioning. One of the people I know that was raised by very conservative catholic christians is now an atheist, but still doesn't think homosexuals should be allowed to have equal marriages to heterosexuals. The moderate christians I know range from this opinion to even more repressive ones. These are people that are not very religious (their daughter was getting "confirmed" or going through some other ridiculous ritual, and asked me what a symbol meant; I told her it was the icon of the sun god Ra, and she completely accepted that explanation, which speaks to the lack of piety in the family and also the lack of care the theist parents have about pushing their daughter through a ritual she clearly doesn't want to go through), but they still hold the theist "party line" about this and a number of other issues.

Fundamentally, I'm of the opinion that theism is immoral in itself, and shouldn't be encouraged in any way. I know I'm radical in that, and don't really see the point in pushing it. But even to a moderate, atheists do good things with far more of a choice than theists do, and making the choice to do good is the really important part of the equation here.

Is our entire existence driven by a fear of death?

I mean religion is fairly obvious with the afterlife factor, but virtually everything you do in your life is nullified by the fact that one day you will die and dwelling on that fact for to long would drive you fucking crazy, so art, work, family etcetera is simply illusions set up by the collective human mind to give purpose to an otherwise pointless existence... we are animals with gigantic ego's and we are really no different than any other animal on the planet.
So what gives us the right to think otherwise?

We are, in fact, nothing but glorified apes. That doesn't negate spirituality though. More, to me, it suggests that humans are not the only living entity with a relationship with God.

Check out the Biblical text called Ecclesiastes. Solomon's at the end of his reign and is dealing with the downfall of his ego as his human wisdom is pushed to its limits and crumbles to dust. Out of this failed wisdom, comes the fulfillment of God's promise to grant him wisdom: Solomon is humbled.

All is vanity!

This has nothing to do with any study, it has to do with the logical conclusions one can draw from the theist belief system.

What are these conclusions and how did you reach them?

For starters, any good act from a theist can be attributable to their belief in a god. You raised the point that this conditioning isn't much different than atheist conditioning, but the key difference is, atheist conditioning prizes logic and rationality above things like mindlessly following conditioning. An atheist with the same conditioning as a theist can much more easily choose to disregard that conditioning.

Not neccesarily, atheism is solely the disbelief in God, it is in no way neccesary for a atheist to prize logic and rationality. An atheist can lack logic and rationality, in fact, I can think of people who are atheists who do not prize either logic or rationality, and would quite possibly be largely ignorant of both. Of course this is anecdotal, so you can pass it by, but I'm sure there are other examples of atheists not prizing logic and rationality.

It is the conditioning not the belief that causes a person to be able to disregard condtioning. I will agree that a fundamentalist may very well find it almost impossible to overcome their conditioning due to fear of divine reprisal, but I would argue that this is a product of the conditioning and indoctrination rather than theism having it's hand in the process; If there were a particularly effective secret police in an atheist state, I think it likely that the atheist would find it just as hard to reject there conditioning, it's just in this case the secret police are onimpresent.

We can see theists who are free-minded and rational, so it cannot be theism itself that makes it hard for conditioning to be disregarded.

My other main reason is the vast number of massive atrocities attributed to gods that are not only tolerated, but venerated by theists. In addition, the "moral atrocities" in most religions are equally immoral. Hatred of homosexuals is a good example of this.

Hatred of homosexuals is not restricted to theism, once again, I can think of many homophobic atheists. Homophobia is a result of conditioning, and not due solely to theism. It is wrong to take a particular and make it a general rule, if this were right I could raise the same objection about atheists. Tolerance and acceptance of homosexuality is being accepted in many churches, hell, I even saw a gay priest with his wife, kissing his lover and hugging his children on TV the other day.

I'm in contact with a number of very moderate christians and people that were raised by more adamant christians. These aren't people that are fire-and-brimstone types or are even that religious, but still have very warped views due to their theist conditioning. One of the people I know that was raised by very conservative catholic christians is now an atheist, but still doesn't think homosexuals should be allowed to have equal marriages to heterosexuals.

I know atheists like this. It is not restricted to theism.


Fundamentally, I'm of the opinion that theism is immoral in itself, and shouldn't be encouraged in any way. I know I'm radical in that, and don't really see the point in pushing it.

I'm interested in hearing it if you feel the desire to expand on this.

But even to a moderate, atheists do good things with far more of a choice than theists do, and making the choice to do good is the really important part of the equation here.

I can't think of an argument against this at the moment, so I'll accept it, but I don't like it :mad:

This is a two-part post, because vbul can't handle the truth.

What are these conclusions and how did you reach them?


The conclusions are the ones in my post that you quoted in the post I responded to in my post that you quoted in your post that I am quoting now. I reached them by thinking about the observations I mentioned in my post that you quoted in your post that I am quoting now.

Heh, exact enough?


Not neccesarily, atheism is solely the disbelief in God, it is in no way neccesary for a atheist to prize logic and rationality. An atheist can lack logic and rationality, in fact, I can think of people who are atheists who do not prize either logic or rationality, and would quite possibly be largely ignorant of both. Of course this is anecdotal, so you can pass it by, but I'm sure there are other examples of atheists not prizing logic and rationality.

Atheism is solely the disbelief, not only in God (in the christian or monotheistic sense), but also in gods, the concept of gods, and spirituality in general. While this does not expressly prohibit illogical or irrational tendencies, atheists tend to self-select out into people that do prize those qualities. This is (in my opinion) because atheists that don't prize those qualities tend to lose "faith" in atheism and fall into theism.

It is the conditioning not the belief that causes a person to be able to disregard condtioning. I will agree that a fundamentalist may very well find it almost impossible to overcome their conditioning due to fear of divine reprisal, but I would argue that this is a product of the conditioning and indoctrination rather than theism having it's hand in the process; If there were a particularly effective secret police in an atheist state, I think it likely that the atheist would find it just as hard to reject there conditioning, it's just in this case the secret police are onimpresent.

I would disagree with that. I think conditioning towards theism and social pressure towards theism are very strong in "our society (I'm speaking from the point of view of middle-class "blue" state US).

However, what I was saying was that if you conditioned an atheist by bringing up a child with the same methods that are usually used to make children theist, I think the atheist would have more of a respect for logic and rationality, and therefore, if all of a sudden, atheism meant "flying spaghetti monster", they would be able to walk away from that. However, a theist is trained to be accepting of what "god" wants or what "god" does, and so even in the face of directly contradictory evidence, they will find some way to continue in step.

A good (anecdotal) example of this is the Noah story, particularly god flooding the earth. In the story, the waters cover every bit of land on earth, but scientific research and mathematics have shown that:

There is not enough water on the planet to do so.
If the earth was struck by a comet (a mass of pure ice, and thus with the lowest water to other mass ratio) big enough to bequeath the water on earth for a limited time (somehow let's assume the water left), the planet would be significantly scarred, if it remained in existence after the collision.


Given these facts, one of my friends attempted to convince a theist that her views on Noah and the Noah Story (her views being that they are fact and happened exactly as related in the bible) were false. She responded,

"The farther you get from a perfect world, the worse the world gets"

implying that science just magically changes when we move away from biblical times. This was also used to explain the "two of each kind" being used to create viable gene pools, when in reality it takes much more than just two animals.

Theist conditioning is static. Theists tend to look for support for conclusions rather than the other way around. Atheist conditioning is dynamic and provides more answers than theist conditioning (for example, "why is the sky blue" returns "because air refracts that wavelength of light" rather than "god did it", and "why do birds fly" returns "because that species found a niche that they could thrive in and adapted to fill it" rather than "god did it"), fostering a rational and logical way of looking at the world. While this is not universal, atheists, especially long-time atheists, tend to look for conclusions that are supported by observation. This means that if an aspect of atheist conditioning is wrong (for example, the sky is blue because of a chemical in the stratosphere rather than due to air particles refracting that wavelength), it can be more easily discarded. This is the basis for my statement that an atheist has more choice in their actions, and therefor, the atheist deserves the credit, not the conditioning.

We can see theists who are free-minded and rational, so it cannot be theism itself that makes it hard for conditioning to be disregarded.

This is just another type of theist justification. Typically, free-minded or rational theists are just theists that discard what is disproved in their conditioning, forsaking the means while retaining the ends. The conditioning isn't discarded, the facets that reinforce the conditioning are. This is actually a very good example of my point: these people, even though they have been proven wrong multiple times, persist in their belief in a god. The majority of theists are in some stage of this, usually.



Hatred of homosexuals is not restricted to theism, once again, I can think of many homophobic atheists. Homophobia is a result of conditioning, and not due solely to theism. It is wrong to take a particular and make it a general rule, if this were right I could raise the same objection about atheists. Tolerance and acceptance of homosexuality is being accepted in many churches, hell, I even saw a gay priest with his wife, kissing his lover and hugging his children on TV the other day.
And hatred of homosexuals is not the only theist fault. This ties into something I'll discuss later, so I won't continue on this bracket.


I know atheists like this. It is not restricted to theism.
I would again say that people who act without logic or cause, or who accept arguments based on less logic, aren't going to be atheists as long as those that highly regard logic and rationality. However, atheists are human, and can be mislead. I'm not claiming atheists are angels, I'm claiming that they're less likely to act on unsupported statements.

I'm interested in hearing it if you feel the desire to expand on this.

I look at the history of humanity, and the foremost thing I see is the rampant abuse of theism.

Humankind is blessed with a great gift: curiosity. By nature a human is inquisitive; any child will easily prove that. We've used that inquisitive nature to propel us from tree-dwelling apes to what we are now, and we will use it to propel us to what we will be in the future.

But theism takes that gift, that great, great gift, and squashes it. It says, "believe this, accept this set of explanations, and do not deviate from it" in the most strict form, and it says "accept this premise and construct all things in accordance to it" in a liberal form. Even in deism or the most loose sense of spirituality, a human will overlook some things or ignore a few unanswered questions because a few very fundamental questions are already answered.

Theism, unlike atheism, isn't just a belief in a deity. If theism were just the belief that there was a god, somewhere, it would be equal to atheism. But in practice, and possibly throughout history, all theists have assigned more to their god. This means that questions go unanswered, save "god did it".

This has both ethical and practical ramifications for me, and I find both of them reprehensible. Ethically, I think it's a waste of the gift of curiosity to answer things with a catch-all. Practically, humanity has already had a thousand-year dark age. There's a graph on the internet somewhere that shows the frequency of significant advances in science from the classical era to modern day, and there's a MASSIVE gap during the dark ages. Why? Because the priests had EVERYONE answering EVERYTHING with "god did it", and those who resisted weren't able to pass along what they had done.

If we go on just a linear scale, we could have had computers and technology centuries before now, if not half-centuries. Hell, some priests in Greece turning archimedes' inventions of calculus made us wait for Newton to do it all over again. What did that alone cost us?

Although I could go on and on about this, there are still other reasons why I think theism is immoral. The next one is the afterlife issue.

Humans have no reason to believe that there is an afterlife. I see this as a stronger pull towards atheism or at least acting like there isn't an afterlife than the pull of "if you guess wrong you'll go to hell" that theism preaches. I don't think there is an afterlife, because I haven't seen any evidence to support it. Theists, however (for the most part), act as though there is an afterlife. This justifies all of the practices that commonly go with theism as necessary, and in it's extreme is utterly sickening to me. I can't drive by a church that has a marquee like "This life is just a trial run" without feeling extremely pissed and getting sick. Even though that's just my convictions, logically it makes no sense to think of life as "a trial run". The fact that these people do might deprive them and humanity of all of the things they could do if instead of praying to get into some club, they go out into the world and do something.

The last main reason why I think theism is immoral is the topic we were discussing before. Theists do a lot of good things. They attribute this to a god, for the most part. This leads to a tendency to externalize good things out of humanity and into some deity. This leads to people thinking that things like an oppressive state are necessary, because "people are bad". It's the original sin outlook: People are bad, God is good, goodness comes from god, not from people, and therefore, out springs a well of horrible implications. People should realize that they can trust most, if not all, of their fellows to do the right thing, not because they've "found christ" under a table or something, but because people usually do the right thing, either for ethical or practical reasons. When you stand in line at a bus stop without a policeman nearby, do you,
push ahead because of the lack of police,
Not push ahead because god is watching, or
not push ahead because you aren't a downright asshole?

I know a lot of assholes, and most of them wouldn't even do something like that with people they didn't know.

People are good at heart -- theism or not, that's a truth. But if nobody believes that people are good, then people start acting defensively and end up causing less good in the world. Theism is a major part of that.

Then there are a whole slew of reasons why religion is bad. Religion promotes hierarchy, religion X believes Y which is bad (homosexuality comes in here -- yes, athests can be homophobic, but the sheer mass of downright horrible things viewed as "good" in christianity puts any bigoted atheist to shame), etc. But religion isn't theism, or at least theism isn't religion, so I won't go into those aside from mentioning a few there.

This really deserves its own thread, but I dislike making threads in this forum, so unless it's really wanted, I'd prefer to keep this limited. If you think that's a cop out, quote this part of the post and start a new thread. ;) I'd like to not hijack the current discussion.


I can't think of an argument against this at the moment, so I'll accept it, but I don't like it :mad:

This sounds snotty as hell to me, but you can't always like what's right. Accepting things that are backed up by logic and evidence is something very familiar to atheists, but not so much to theists. I don't know which of the two you fall in, but you seem to be very logical, and I trust you'll try to pummel the crap out of my arguments, and if they stand up, "accept" (in some form) them.

As I've read your post I've reaslised that I didn't/don't really have a goal in mind when I'm replying, so it's really just stuff that's popping into my head as I read. Other than that all I can say is that I jump when I see people suggesting that it is neccesary that a theist or atheist must act in a particular way, If only because I know that few years ago I would've instantly believed that an theist must completely lack all reasoning ability and an atheist claimed the sole ability to think....

Enough of me though :D



Atheism is solely the disbelief, not only in God (in the christian or monotheistic sense), but also in gods, the concept of gods, and spirituality in general.

I'll agree with the Gods part, but I don't think that it is neccesary for an atheist to reject spirituality, there are atheist religions, as well as atheists that believe in ghosts, etc...

Not sure how important that is though.


I would disagree with that. I think conditioning towards theism and social pressure towards theism are very strong in "our society (I'm speaking from the point of view of middle-class "blue" state US).

I can see where you're coming from, so I won't argue, I can see how theism could reinforce conditioning; I suppose the situation has an impact, and in an enviroment like the one you describe the impact of a theistic belief would probaly be greater.

I'd still see importance in how a person was conditioned.

However, what I was saying was that if you conditioned an atheist by bringing up a child with the same methods that are usually used to make children theist, I think the atheist would have more of a respect for logic and rationality, and therefore, if all of a sudden, atheism meant "flying spaghetti monster", they would be able to walk away from that. However, a theist is trained to be accepting of what "god" wants or what "god" does, and so even in the face of directly contradictory evidence, they will find some way to continue in step.

I think I largely agree, but i think that the important part is that the theist is 'trained' in that way, but that that is not a neccesary part of theism.

A good (anecdotal) example of this is the Noah story, particularly god flooding the earth. In the story, the waters cover every bit of land on earth, but scientific research and mathematics have shown that:

There is not enough water on the planet to do so.
If the earth was struck by a comet (a mass of pure ice, and thus with the lowest water to other mass ratio) big enough to bequeath the water on earth for a limited time (somehow let's assume the water left), the planet would be significantly scarred, if it remained in existence after the collision.


Given these facts, one of my friends attempted to convince a theist that her views on Noah and the Noah Story (her views being that they are fact and happened exactly as related in the bible) were false. She responded,



implying that science just magically changes when we move away from biblical times. This was also used to explain the "two of each kind" being used to create viable gene pools, when in reality it takes much more than just two animals.

I belief in this is a result of the conditioning, and the impact of the enviroment around her, I assume that you (and she) live in a heavily christian area? But I can't argue against her view, I can only say that her likelihood of choosing that particular interpretation is a probability effected by her surroundings and condtioning...

You know, I think I've realised I'm really only arguing that theism or atheism is largely a result of the enviroment... I'll carry on, but I'm not sure that I'm really adding anything anymore.

Theist conditioning is static. Theists tend to look for support for conclusions rather than the other way around. Atheist conditioning is dynamic and provides more answers than theist conditioning (for example, "why is the sky blue" returns "because air refracts that wavelength of light" rather than "god did it", and "why do birds fly" returns "because that species found a niche that they could thrive in and adapted to fill it" rather than "god did it"), fostering a rational and logical way of looking at the world. While this is not universal, atheists, especially long-time atheists, tend to look for conclusions that are supported by observation. This means that if an aspect of atheist conditioning is wrong (for example, the sky is blue because of a chemical in the stratosphere rather than due to air particles refracting that wavelength), it can be more easily discarded. This is the basis for my statement that an atheist has more choice in their actions, and therefor, the atheist deserves the credit, not the conditioning.

I'm not sure If I'm right here, but I think the tendency for atheists to be more rational and to favour logic is a result not so much of atheism but of the fact that prominent atheists and most 'atheist literature'* have been of a more rational and empirical leaning, and so the influence on atheism has been largely been rational and empirical. And so when someone identifies themselves as an atheist the greatest influence on how they identify how they should be is stated above. But really this is nothing more than a thought or idea, I have no way to back it up that wouldn't seem forced to me at the moment, so, you can ignore it as you choose :D

* I'm using this generally to describe books(philosophy books, science, etc) written by atheists, although not neccesarily with the intention of 'forwarding' atheism.


I would again say that people who act without logic or cause, or who accept arguments based on less logic, aren't going to be atheists as long as those that highly regard logic and rationality. However, atheists are human, and can be mislead. I'm not claiming atheists are angels, I'm claiming that they're less likely to act on unsupported statements.

I agree with this, but I'm not sure if I believe it's because of atheism, or because of the reason in the previous paragraph.

But yeah, I realise now that I'm not really arguing with you anymore more, just telling yuo some stuff I just thought, so feel free to tell me to fuck off :D

I would make a thread, but I also dislike making threads, so I'm gonna wait for someone else to do it, it was a good read though, and I can see where you are coming from, and agree with much of it.


This sounds snotty as hell to me, but you can't always like what's right. Accepting things that are backed up by logic and evidence is something very familiar to atheists, but not so much to theists. I don't know which of the two you fall in, but you seem to be very logical, and I trust you'll try to pummel the crap out of my arguments, and if they stand up, "accept" (in some form) them.

It was supposed to be half-joke, my bad, I'd just been reading a bit to much about freedom and choice at the time, but I can't think of anyhting that would stand up or be anyhting other than me going 'Maybe they both have a choice :eek:'

I thought it best for me t keep my mouth shut.

I would make a thread, but I also dislike making threads, so I'm gonna wait for someone else to do it, it was a good read though, and I can see where you are coming from, and agree with much of it.



It was supposed to be half-joke, my bad, I'd just been reading a bit to much about freedom and choice at the time, but I can't think of anyhting that would stand up or be anyhting other than me going 'Maybe they both have a choice :eek:'

I thought it best for me t keep my mouth shut.

Going to respond to this before before anything: I mean my comment sounded snotty as hell to me. Sorry for the miscommunication. :)

Going to respond to this before before anything: I mean my comment sounded snotty as hell to me. Sorry for the miscommunication. :)

Gotta love misunderstandings :rolleyes:

Thought it might've been meant that way, wasn't too sure though.

As I've read your post I've reaslised that I didn't/don't really have a goal in mind when I'm replying, so it's really just stuff that's popping into my head as I read. Other than that all I can say is that I jump when I see people suggesting that it is neccesary that a theist or atheist must act in a particular way, If only because I know that few years ago I would've instantly believed that an theist must completely lack all reasoning ability and an atheist claimed the sole ability to think....

Enough of me though :D

I'm not trying to say anything like that (though I know it must look like it). What I'm saying is, there are a lot of people that identify as atheists that aren't necessarily going to behave in the manner that an "atheist" behaves. I would think this is because of personal differences, and that those people won't identify with atheism for long.

A major theme in this is my proposal that people become atheist because of who they are, while you assert that people are who they are because they're atheists. It's a bit of a chicken or egg thing.


I'll agree with the Gods part, but I don't think that it is neccesary for an atheist to reject spirituality, there are atheist religions, as well as atheists that believe in ghosts, etc...

I absolutely disagree. I think that to actually be an atheist, you can't believe in any gods. Gods that have no real power and are tangential to life, like "spirits" or "ghosts". I absolutely reject the idea of "atheist religions". I'd really like to see that, actually. What the hell are they claiming as a doctrine? (Atheist groups aren't religions and don't count, though they should be able to file taxes as "religious" organizations.)
Not sure how important that is though.
I would argue that because they believe that they aren't atheists and won't remain atheists.



I can see where you're coming from, so I won't argue, I can see how theism could reinforce conditioning; I suppose the situation has an impact, and in an enviroment like the one you describe the impact of a theistic belief would probaly be greater.

I'd still see importance in how a person was conditioned.

Well, think about how pervasive theism is in (American) society. It's very easy to be a theist.


I think I largely agree, but i think that the important part is that the theist is 'trained' in that way, but that that is not a neccesary part of theism.
Well, would they be theist if they weren't trained in that way? If they weren't, is that a necessary part of theism?


I belief in this is a result of the conditioning, and the impact of the enviroment around her, I assume that you (and she) live in a heavily christian area? But I can't argue against her view, I can only say that her likelihood of choosing that particular interpretation is a probability effected by her surroundings and condtioning...
Like I said earlier, blue state. It isn't very environmental.


You know, I think I've realised I'm really only arguing that theism or atheism is largely a result of the enviroment... I'll carry on, but I'm not sure that I'm really adding anything anymore.
I would argue against the environment influencing atheism, unless all of the environmental theism influence is turned negative by an inquisitive mind that's offended by it. :)



I'm not sure If I'm right here, but I think the tendency for atheists to be more rational and to favour logic is a result not so much of atheism but of the fact that prominent atheists and most 'atheist literature'* have been of a more rational and empirical leaning, and so the influence on atheism has been largely been rational and empirical. And so when someone identifies themselves as an atheist the greatest influence on how they identify how they should be is stated above. But really this is nothing more than a thought or idea, I have no way to back it up that wouldn't seem forced to me at the moment, so, you can ignore it as you choose :D

* I'm using this generally to describe books(philosophy books, science, etc) written by atheists, although not neccesarily with the intention of 'forwarding' atheism.

But why are those atheists rational? Is it because they're atheists? Or is it because they're just rational? My argument is that atheists tend to be rational, and rational people tend to be atheists.

But yeah, I realise now that I'm not really arguing with you anymore more, just telling yuo some stuff I just thought, so feel free to tell me to fuck off :D

Why would I tell you to fuck off? Totse isn't just for arguing you know :)

Death is an illusion; we have nothing to fear.

Once you grok that, life goes a lot more smoothly.

Be more clear when you say something like this.

You probably mean: Your body dies, but your soul lives on.

Sorry for taking forever to reply, I would say I have a good reason.. I don't, unless being lazy is a reason.

I'm not trying to say anything like that (though I know it must look like it).

That's fine, I didn really think that you seriously did, I just like to point out the problems in thinking like that because some people will take it as a fact... Like I used to :D

What I'm saying is, there are a lot of people that identify as atheists that aren't necessarily going to behave in the manner that an "atheist" behaves. I would think this is because of personal differences, and that those people won't identify with atheism for long.

Yeah seems about right.

A major theme in this is my proposal that people become atheist because of who they are, while you assert that people are who they are because they're atheists. It's a bit of a chicken or egg thing.

In my opinion I think it may be a bit of both, in that a person may disbelieve in God , and identifying with atheism may become more 'typically' atheist because the ... 'Atmosophere' (for lack of a better word), surrounding atheism is commonly of a more scientific ,empirical type. For example if it was more common for texts written by atheists focused on irrationality then more atheists would be irrational.

But I'll leave that, it's nothing more than opinion really, and I have no way to really back it up.


I absolutely disagree. I think that to actually be an atheist, you can't believe in any gods. Gods that have no real power and are tangential to life, like "spirits" or "ghosts". I absolutely reject the idea of "atheist religions". I'd really like to see that, actually. What the hell are they claiming as a doctrine? (Atheist groups aren't religions and don't count, though they should be able to file taxes as "religious" organizations.)

I think the focus is often shifted onto the soul, sometimes blending in with a kind of pantheism, many 'religious' atheists probaly only believe in the ethical system, but I don't have any direct experience.... But, hey, here's some wiki for your browsing pleasure :D

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jainism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_humanism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism_in_Hinduism

Heh, now I've started looking I can't really find that much :S I'd also like to point out that I haven't really read through these, so when, on closer reading, they make everything I've said bullshit, I'm gonna pretend I didn't post it :rolleyes:


Well, would they be theist if they weren't trained in that way? If they weren't, is that a necessary part of theism?

I'm not sure. I think that it may be neccesary, or more neccesary, for 'communal' theism (by this I mean the large religion, where religion is a largely social thing) to do things more in this way. But I still think that as far as individual, or where theistic thought is more free, it is unnecesary, as a person can come to theism on there own without outside pressure.

However, I do see the possibility that people would follow the organised religions far less if they were'nt brought up in a specific way. I don't know how many people become theist without being brought up in that way.


Like I said earlier, blue state. It isn't very environmental.

Ah, sorry, I live in britain, so I kind of assumed something else, I see what you meant now though.


I would argue against the environment influencing atheism, unless all of the environmental theism influence is turned negative by an inquisitive mind that's offended by it. :)

I can see what you mean... I could offer various possibilities to that, but it would just be babbling.

It could be that the enviromental effect on atheism is more of a secondary quality, something exerting influence after a person realises their atheism, for example we all naturally react against ideas that oppose our own, it may be that when a person becomes an atheist the irrationality of many theists forces them further towards rationality.


But why are those atheists rational? Is it because they're atheists? Or is it because they're just rational? My argument is that atheists tend to be rational, and rational people tend to be atheists.

I'd have to agree with that. But I still see a possibilty that after becoming an atheist (that phrase sounds wrong to me :S) an atheist may be driven to more of an 'extreme' of rationality by the influence of other atheists. I can see the problem with what I'm saying though.

To summarise, I can see what your saying, I do agree with what you say above, but I think that a tendency may exist for atheists to focus more on rationality because of the surrounding atheist enviroment is rational. I see that problem arises though because it may be easier to say that atheists are focused more on rational thought to begin with and atheism is kind of a secondary quality in relation to that.

Why would I tell you to fuck off? Totse isn't just for arguing you know :)

Awww, crap, now how am I supposed to sit on my horse and pretend I'm awesome for using less insults :D

There no point in fearing death. The only things you should fear are those that will make the rest of your life living hell. And our entire existence is merely for the continuation of our species.

There no point in fearing death. The only things you should fear are those that will make the rest of your life living hell. And our entire existence is merely for the continuation of our species.

amen to that dont live life in fear live it and live it hard make the best out of every day dont look back. live for what makes you happy not what other people think is right.