Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
FREE E-BOOKS
Get the book "Why There Is No God" and one more book for FREE!
Sign up below for the Atheist Republic Newsletter to get the books.
Record Your Message!
Record your voice here for it to be aired on the Atheist Republic Voicemails Podcast.
Send us your views and opinions, your personal stories, messages of support, comments on recent news, or any comments you would like to share about your part of the world.
Note : By clicking record you are allowing us to broadcast your message on any of our platforms.
Affiliate Disclaimer
Links to atheist related books, shirts and movies and other atheism related products are affiliate links.
All proceeds will go to keeping the Atheist Republic website up and running; providing resources, advocacy, community tools and encouragement to atheists all over the world.
God does still very much exist, in the minds of many, and that is nearly as good as existing.
Some would rather simply live, and not be saddled with the theistic - or atheistic - needs of others. How is it harmful to not want to embrace victimhood, and instead, embrace life?
_Some would rather simply live, and not be saddled with the theistic - or atheistic - needs of others. How is it harmful to not want to embrace victimhood, and instead, embrace life?_
"Embracing life while you live surrounded by lies, is embracing a fake life.
Atheism forces its ideology on nobody and so it victimizes nobody."
I am afraid your philosophy has no place in this board. It is worse even than agnosticism!!
So now it's Dimitrios Trimijopulos who alone decides what has a place in this board or not? I didn't get that memo.
apparently a lot of memos are getting lost...
- I seem to be having technical issues, but this reply is intended for Dimitrios -
Maybe for you my philosophy is worse, but then, I will be the judge of wether my life is well lived - being that it will make no difference in the outcome, and all. I'll still die.
Your quote was interesting. I'd like to know: was there a time when you "embraced a fake life," and how did you realize you were doing so? If you'd be open to sharing some of how you became athiest, I'd be happy to listen.
Additionally, I'm committed to treating your story - and your opinion - with respect.
“Your quote was interesting. I'd like to know: was there a time when you "embraced a fake life," and how did you realize you were doing so?”
The expression “embracing life” is yours, not mine. You said that by being beyond the victimizing ideologies of theism and atheism you are embracing life. So, what life are you embracing if you do not know who you are, because theists and atheists do believe something about themselves (no matter whether right or wrong) while you seem to have no belief at all except for that nihilistic philosophy of yours.
“If you'd be open to sharing some of how you became athiest, I'd be happy to listen.”
I did not BECOME an atheist. I was born an atheist as everybody else and it happened that my genes were allergic to Christian indoctrination and so I have been negative to religion since I was an infant (it is a Greek custom to baptize kids when still infants and it is also a custom for the godfather of the child to present the child with a golden Christian cross attached to a golden chain to be worn as a necklace. That golden cross, according to my mother, I refused to wear and I never did). ;-)
“Additionally, I'm committed to treating your story - and your opinion - with respect.”
Thank you, that is very polite on your part. I treat with respect persons but not their opinions when I happen to regard their opinions wrong.
You're welcome.
Solid job refusing that gold chain, too. Especially in a country as historically traditional as Greece.
So what motivates you to compel agnostics to change their minds? How is combating agnosticism more important than resisting active indoctrination?
“So what motivates you to compel agnostics to change their minds? How is combating agnosticism more important than resisting active indoctrination?”
Active indoctrination!!
I suggest that you listen carefully to agnostics. They all say the same things and support the same dogmatic philosophy. They are not actually freethinking persons, they are not individuals, they are a flock following their agnostic (read ignoramus) shepherds.
They do not like theism but cannot get rid of the fear of God and agnosticism solves their problem. Nonetheless, they are the ones who can be converted to atheism. Theists are lost cases, all of them!
Agnostics must learn that they should tell their own children (and the children of the theists) that there is no God, and not that they do not know whether there is a God or not.
As for my motivation… I hate lords/gods. A few thousand years back the lords were called gods. Today the same lords are in power but they call themselves gods only behind locked doors (a look at the dome of the Capitol tells the whole story. :-D
In short: I am an advocate of Euhemerism which is the only atheistic theory ever proposed.
"In short: I am an advocate of Euhemerism which is the only atheistic theory ever proposed."
Please, there are other atheistic theories. How about the theory that everything theistic is completely made up? More of a hypothesis, I know, but still atheistic and still as valid a Euremerism. I happen to agree with Euremerism as regards real events and people who have been exaggerated into supernatural events/persons; but it's not the only atheistic theory.
“I happen to agree with Euremerism as regards real events and people who have been exaggerated into supernatural events/persons; but it's not the only atheistic theory.”
In that case you know that Euhemerism is unique because it admits the existence of the persons who later became the gods.
To prove, beyond all doubt that modern religion is a hoax, the existence of the earthly “gods” is indispensable. The people knew of the existence of the earthly ones (killers and rapists) who then became heavenly when it was told that they climbed a ladder each and went to live in the sky (evidence aplenty in the Pyramid Texts) .
So, for me, the advocate of Euhemerism, the God of our time is the Pope and therefore the God of the theologians remains a cunning but criminal hoax.
Euhemerism is too deadly a theory to be compared with the lukewarm philosophical theories proposed by ignorant, supposedly atheist, scholars.
"In that case you know that Euhemerism is unique because it admits the existence of the persons who later became the gods."
I wouldn't call it unique, but yes, that is the main premise of Euhermerism. I have no doubt that it is correct about many gods and events, but I also have no doubt that some of them were just plain made up from scratch.
I certainly don't need it to prove to me that religion is a hoax. I know that religion is a hoax based upon practicing many religions, openly and honestly, and finding that they are, so far, all full of shit. That's why I don't call myself an agnostic, I don't have doubt that there is no god. And that is based upon my own experience and an honest consideration of the nature of the transcendent: it isn't real.
“I wouldn't call it unique, but yes, that is the main premise of Euhermerism. I have no doubt that it is correct about many gods and events, but I also have no doubt that some of them were just plain made up from scratch.”
The point here is the concept of god/God. As long as it is considered a noble philosophical concept, which humanity would have produced no matter what the circumstances (“we are psychologically primed for religion” preaches the prophet of agnosticism, Dawkins), religion cannot be harmed.
On the contrary, religion will die out if the students in the Universities are informed that the concept of god is the product of special circumstances; that it is actually an accident, a joke, and a hoax. To prove that the God idea is a joke, it is absolutely necessary to prove that the gods were not considered immaterial beings originally and, that, only Euhemerism can do effectively with all the information available today.
“That's why I don't call myself an agnostic, I don't have doubt that there is no god.”
I am happy to hear that!
If you ever reach the stage of the militant atheist, we can start a community in G+ entitled “Atheists vs Agnostics” and… be done with agnosticism. :-D
What do you say?
- comment for Dimitrios-
So, whereas atheist reject and challenge theisim - and theist are open proponents of it - agnostics avoid the entire fight, and you're disgusted that they wont face their fear of god. Does that sound accurate?
I think it's generalizing to say that theist are lost causes, though. I was once 'a theist', and it took time for me to eliminate the space. How could you know no one would change?
I see though how Euhemerisim might be frustrating though: you'd propose how holy scriptures and icons are simply human-based historical things, and theist would be forced to concede that that could be the case. Agnostics, however, would hide behind ambiguity to keep god safe. Creating unnecessary unknowns where the are none, and knee-capping any discussion. Am I understanding your perspective?
“So, whereas atheist reject and challenge theisim - and theist are open proponents of it - agnostics avoid the entire fight, and you're disgusted that they wont face their fear of god. Does that sound accurate?”
That is close enough. You only have to add that agnostics are just another flock of persons unable to think entirely of themselves and in need of shepherds.
“I think it's generalizing to say that theist are lost causes, though. I was once 'a theist', and it took time for me to eliminate the space. How could you know no one would change?”
To the militant atheist the few persons of strong will and fine brains who manage to free themselves alone, are indifferent.
The militant atheist wants the real story of the God issue to reach the children of the theists. To fight theism on its own ground: to prevent the indoctrination by having academy telling the truth, at least to the students in the Universtities.
“I see though how Euhemerisim might be frustrating though: you'd propose how holy scriptures and icons are simply human-based historical things, and theist would be forced to concede that that could be the case. Agnostics, however, would hide behind ambiguity to keep god safe. Creating unnecessary unknowns where the are none, and knee-capping any discussion. Am I understanding your perspective?”
Yes, that is accurate!
A small correction though, I will amend the sentence “holy scriptures and icons are simply human-based historical things” to read “holy scriptures and icons are simply the result of an ancient hoax”.
Actually Dimitrios, to be specific, we are not born atheists, but rather more agnostic than anything. We are not born having an opinion on the existence, or lack of existence, of god(s). Ask a child who had never been introduced to religion if they believe in god or not; you'd likely get a response similar to "what, or who is god?"
Atheism is a conclusion.
_Ask a child who had never been introduced to religion if they believe in god or not;_
This line of thinking is called sophistry. ;-)
You should not introduce a child to the idea of God by asking about God’s existence. You wait for the child to speak of God by himself (according to Dawkins humans are psychologically primed for religion) and when s/he eventually decides that God’s existence is unknown, then you attach the label of agnostic. As long as no God is mentioned, the child is a born atheist who will never invent, or worse, feel the presence of God (as per arch-agnostic Dawkins).
Engel
"Actually Dimitrios, to be specific, we are not born atheists, but rather more agnostic than anything."
We are born agnostic atheists. That is a fact.
DIMITRIOS TRIMIJOPULOS
If u ask a child, does god exists?
The answer is obvious:
"What?"
The child in question does not know what are you talking about because he is a "not theist"(A-theist), and since he does not KNOW the subject well to be sure on anything about it, he is ALSO an agnostic.
He is an Agnostic Atheist.
"(according to Dawkins humans are psychologically primed for religion)"
It is his opinion, you cannot base any more assumptions and declare them as facts.
My opinion is that humans are psychologically primed to act like a sheep. Religion is just an exploit, that exploits that "trait".
"when s/he eventually decides that God’s existence is unknown, then you attach the label of agnostic."
You seem to forget that the default position is the unknown position.
The "feeling of driving a car" is UNKNOWN from the moment you are born, you do not decide upon it, but start getting more knowledge about it, to the point where you can finally DECIDE if it is STILL UNKNOWN or not.
The "God's existence" is UNKNOWN from the moment you are born, you do not decide upon it, but start getting more knowledge about it, to the point where you can finally DECIDE if it is STILL UNKNOWN or not.
Dimitios said: (according to Dawkins humans are psychologically primed for religion).
Jeff said: It is his opinion, …
When we say that we are born atheists we mean that the God idea is foreign to man and that if man was let alone s/he would have never come up with the God idea.
Now, if one is a theist he is expected to support the idea of the psychological priming: God saw to it that we would seek and find him!
So, the agnostic theist is a clever person because “I do not know if there is a God” means “to me, the existence of God is possible”
The agnostic “atheist”, on the other hand, who, like Dawkins, promotes the psychological priming idea, is either a krypto-theist, a naïve person, a sucker, or a dishonest person.
Conclusion: If ones declares to be an atheist he may not at the same time support cunning theological theories.
If the child is let alone, s/he will reach old age, die, and never mention God: too absurd and ridiculous an idea for mentally healthy humans.
"When we say that we are born atheists we mean that the God idea is foreign to man and that if man was let alone s/he would have never come up with the God idea."
We agree. i disagree with Dawkins on some things too, even hitches did. Though that does not mean that the argument you are proposing has any more validity.
"So, the agnostic theist is a clever person because “I do not know if there is a God” means “to me, the existence of God is possible”
“I do not know if there is a God” Not correct
“I do not know if there is a Theistic God” Is an agnostic A-theist(Not-Theist)
" means “to me, the existence of God is possible”-- incorrect
"means that the existence of Theistic God is possible"-- better but wrong
No it does not mean that:
It just means that since we do not know everything that exists, we do not know if it is possible or not.
One of the few things we know for sure is that "I THINK THEREFOR I AM".
"cunning theological theories."
There is no cunning theological theories, the problem is that you lack to understand that the default position is the unknown position.(agnostic position)
You start from knowing nothing and you keep learning to the point where you can say something like:
We KNOW something exists/not exists (Gnostic)
OR remain in the NOT KNOW position(unknown position) if it is possible or not.(Agnostic)
There is a very obvious difference between:
- knowing that something is possible(Gnostic)
- not knowing if something is possible or not(Agnostic)
Currently the "god existence topic" falls under, "we do not know" if a theistic god exists or not, since we do not know all the type of theistic gods imaginable.
Until we define all the theistic gods possible, we cannot logically show that they are impossible to exist, thus we are forced to not know yet if a theistic god exists or not. Thus we are Agnostic.
"If the child is let alone, s/he will reach old age, die, and never mention God: too absurd and ridiculous an idea for mentally healthy humans."
We agree but it does not support your claim at all. The child is an Agnostic Atheist not a Gnostic Atheist, he does not know if a theistic god exists or not.
This is what happens when theists loose their mind and think that the default position is the position of believing in a claim.
They think that if you do not believe, then you are automatically claiming that it does not exists.
Unfortunately this false mentality spreads like virus even in the Agnostic/Gnostic subject.
“means that the existence of Theistic God is possible”
You obviously are fond of philosophical terms, but the above one you are making wrong use of.
The theistic God is the God of the Bible.
The God you mean is the deistic God.
“It just means that since we do not know everything that exists, we do not know if it is possible or not.”
We may not know everything that exists but we may know whether an idea, a theory, a proposition or a claim is right or wrong; whether it is a lie, a hoax or just a joke.
I am telling you “I met a DOG three blocks down”, you heard “I met a GOD three blocks down” and you spread the news of a god having appeared in the town. I come to you and I tell you that you did not hear well but you insist that it does not matter because since we do not know everything that exists, we cannot know if it was actually a dog or a god that I had seen.
How do you like that reasoning?
That is the agnostic’s reasoning. :-D
"The theistic God is the God of the Bible."
Not necessarily, in fact the god of the bible is defined depending on who is making the claim.
According to MY reading of the bible a theistic christian god is all knowing and all powerful but evil(but pretends to be good) and we are his play things in a totalitarian system where worshiping him is the most important thing.
Conclusion:
There is an infinite number of variations that can be made from any theistic god which might be falsifiable.
"The God you mean is the deistic God."
No, a deistic god is undefined, it has no character, it can be even money or just energy.
The concept of a prime mover is one of the few things most deists agree about when it comes to a deistic god.
A Theistic god is a very very very small part of all the possible gods imaginable.
A Theistic god is different from a Deistic god, but a Theistic god is a very very small part of all the possible Deistic gods imaginable.
A Deistic god is also a smaller part of all the possible gods imaginable.(although we cannot know for sure until we define what a deistic god is)
"We may not know everything that exists but we may know whether an idea, a theory, a proposition or a claim is right or wrong; whether it is a lie, a hoax or just a joke."
Not if that theory/idea makes the claim on what exists or doesn't, like the "theistic god's existence" claim does.
We can reject the general idea but we cannot be 100% sure without proving it and make a claim that no such thing can possibly exist, especially when the "thing" is not yet defined.
"How do you like that reasoning?
That is the agnostic’s reasoning. :-D"
That is the reasoning of someone who does not understand what reason means.
I have explained to you many times the reason why you are 100% wrong, not just my opinion, I proved it to you that you are making an extraordinary claim that "you know everything" when you claim that "you know that there is no possible theistic god".
You are just dodging this argument completely and instead changing the subject.
I did not hear you wrong, you never understood what agnostic really means and derived wrong conclusions.
You were and still are an agnostic yourself, you just don't know it.
“Not if that theory/idea makes the claim on what exists or doesn't, like the "theistic god's existence" claim does.”
According to you, any theory/idea can be a hoax, lie or a joke but not one that makes a claim on what exists or does not exist. So, when an idiot, liar, crook or mentally ill person makes such a claim, you are going to respect it although you know you are dealing with an idiot, liar, crook or mentally ill person.
Very interesting, indeed!
I did not say to respect it, but to reject it.
The difference is that, in rejecting a claim, you are not making a claim of your own.
But if you claim the opposite, "Theistic god does not exist", then you are making a claim yourself.
Then you either support it with evidence or you are no better then the "idiot, liar, crook or mentally ill person."
confirmed "traitor to atheism"
Are we still discussing the buy-bull as if it wasn't a tome of malarkey from some ass cavern in the desert?
I own a bible, read the entire thing as well: biggest reason to become an atheist ever. Like the old testament has all these obnoxious and unreasonable laws (killing homosexuals Leviticus 20:13) or marrying a rapist to their victim (forgot that verse). And people say jesus came to abolish those laws. But jesus actually said (if he even was real) in matthew 5:17-18 to still keep the old testament and laws. That means still do all those things. Why don't Christians still do that? Because theyre either uninformed of their own religion, or their just selective of what they choose to preach. Jesus would not be happy about that. Plus we don't even know who wrote the gospels. Literally. And there are major differences in the bible when it concerns the resurrection: who was in the tomb? who went in first? Who was there? Was jesus there? Were there angels? Etc?
We actually have more documents about jesus: enough to fill a shoe box. yea. not a lot. Plus within those documents, there are as many differences as there are words in the new testament. Some documents say jesus "didn't" rise from the grave. Why didn't that make it into the bible? Because when it was put together hundreds of years later after jesus is theorized to of been executed, people were even then selective of what they wanted people to believe.
Also, we know that whoever did write the gospels didn't witness the events that are found in the gospels. They heard it from others. The gospels from what we found were written 50-80 years after jesus is theorized to of been executed. With a life expectancy of 30-40 years back then, it's probably not reasonable to believe that the disciples wrote them. They wouldn't of lived long enough to consider them the authors. If they were even real themselves. Plus there's no secular evidence of any of the miracles in the bible ever happening. Exodus of moses? No archaeological, written, or any recorded evidence it happened outside of the bible. Kind of makes you wonder why such a big event didn't make it into the recorded history for the Egyptian culture. Plus the genesis story is not coherent at all with the big bang or the nebular hypothesis. The bible puts earth before the light (sun). But the big bang and the nebular hypothesis would have the sun before the planet (earth). So which one is more plausible? Science with evidence? or a book of lies and no evidence? I choose science. Who's with me?
“So which one is more plausible? Science with evidence? or a book of lies and no evidence? I choose science. Who's with me?”
The duty of science is to help you understand an ancient text (I am referring only to the Hebrew Bible); what do you mean by “science is more plausible than an ancient text? The question you pose is also meaningless.
You mentioned the book of Deuteronomy and so I am asking you: “Do you think that the writer of the book of Deuteronomy wrote the entire collection, and if not, who wrote the rest?".
There is a theory that the Bible scholars proposed which is known as “The Documentary Hypothesis”, have you heard or read about that theory?
As regards the Christian literature, all you English speaking guys do not take into consideration the fact that the Christian literature was all written in Greek (by writers who most probably did not speak or write Hebrew or Aramaic) and that there is not even a shred of papyrus, or leather or any other writing material, inscribed in Hebrew by the original Christians who are supposed to have been Israelites.
The hoax of the gospels is small potatoes compared to the hoax that managed to persuade every one that Christianity was a Jewish fruit. :-D
What science and the standard we have for determining history says there is not enough evidence to say jesus rose from the grave. We have more evidence magic happened at the salem witch trials than we do that jesus existed and rose from the grave, and we've already ruled out magic happening at Salem. So how does that look on the part for your jesus? Not very good. I pose that there is no secular evidence for the miracles in the bible ever happening as determined by science and historians. The same set of standards that let us rule out magic at salem, that let us know cesar ruled Rome, that Lincoln was the 16th president, is the same standard used to say jesus rising from the grave and the existence of god is not plausible. Whoever wrote the text does not matter: origin does not determine validity. If a 4 year old said the earth revolved around the sun, would we not believe it because of where we heard it from: a 4 year old? To do that would be silly. So whoever wrote the bible, its books, the gospels and etc does not matter; what matters is what they claimed to occur actually happen? From the evidence outside of the self contradicting bible says, we can say no. Also, you know there are also forgeries in the bible? I am not making this up. Look up more of the fallacies of the bible, and see how it compars to the quran, the vedas, and etc: they are all full of fallacies. I refuse to beleive a book without outside evidence confirming it's validity. I refuse to believe a book that claims to be inspired by god, but gets facts wrong about scientific elements and knowledge. If we can't trust it in those contexts, why should we trust it spirituality? And I am aware of the documentary hypothesis. It explains all the contradictions in the bible concerning what to do and not to do. Back to the forgeries: Especially suspect are the so-called pastoral epistles, 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus. Because these made it into the Bible under Paul’s name, some find reasons to insist that they must be authentic. However, there is wide agreement among many Bible scholars that they differ so much from Paul’s vocabulary, style, and teachings that they could not be by him.
And Not only does the Bible have many contradictions, some of them are clearly intentional.
An Old Testament example is found in Psalm 51. That psalm was written after Babylonia destroyed Jerusalem (and its Temple that had been built by Solomon) and led the city’s inhabitants off to exile. Since the Temple was no longer available for sacrifice, the author of Psalm 51 offers comfort in Verses 16 and 17 by saying God does not even desire sacrifice but only a contrite heart.
But then, in a clearly intentional contradiction, someone who disagreed with that came along and added, immediately afterward, Verses 18 and 19 saying that God would be delighted by sacrifices that would follow a rebuilding of Jerusalem.
So with all of this, I'm not going to give that book any authority over my life. Not with that many fuck ups. You have not been able to prove any claims made in the bible concerning god and etc. Until you do, we can say miracles never happened and that god is not real.
Read the bible. In Matthew 26:11, the fool called Jesus stated, "The poor you will always have with you, but you will not always have me." and thereby justified and condemned millions of people to unnecessary abuse over 2000 years. The Bible is the source for most abuse inflicted upon millions and, in concert with the Koran ,condemns us all to abuse on earth and a magic hatred for eternity. Read these books to understand why the world suffers and how the suffering might be checked.
I haven't read all the way through the bible. It really is super lame. The version that interested me most though was the KJV of the Skeptics Annotated Bible (SAB). I still reference it from time to time.
Pages