Religion/Spirituality What Are the Benefits of Atheism?

[you're NOT "n!ggas"]

this fukk ass thread what are you wantin to hear op? you already agree that religion doesn't=morals. sooooo??? what do i need religion for if i can learn morals elsewhere can that be a benefit? cuz religion also teaches to kill nonbelievers, the world was created in 6 days, women's dignity aint worth shyt, etc. religion teaches a TON of weird shyt, not just morals. religion ultimately divides people, and yes hinders progress. atheism/non religion don't. you bring up the likes of malcolm x and others that have their life changing moments and thats cool, i guess you'd have us all on that one if it weren't for the fact that people have life changing events in secular therapies, support groups, etc. religion sure does alot to change able bodied, cognizant people like malcolm x but what it do for the disabled? what does it do for the poor and hungry?


































lets pray for em :romo:

 

[Johnny Kilroy]

this fukk ass thread what are you wantin to hear op? you already agree that religion doesn't=morals. sooooo??? what do i need religion for if i can learn morals elsewhere can that be a benefit? cuz religion also teaches to kill nonbelievers, the world was created in 6 days, women's dignity aint worth shyt, etc. religion teaches a TON of weird shyt, not just morals. religion ultimately divides people, and yes hinders progress. atheism/non religion don't. you bring up the likes of malcolm x and others that have their life changing moments and thats cool, i guess you'd have us all on that one if it weren't for the fact that people have life changing events in secular therapies, support groups, etc. religion sure does alot to change able bodied, cognizant people like malcolm x but what it do for the disabled? what does it do for the poor and hungry?

This thread isn't about morals. I simply asked what the benefits of atheism were. Not sure where you got all this and since it's mostly irrelevant it seems like a big waste of time. But I'll respond anyway.

Religion doesn't teach kill nonbelievers. Only an idiot would say something like that. Religion teaches CONVERT nonbelievers. How can you convert someone who's dead? No religion TEACHES kill nonbelievers. That's just dumb and I'm not gonna waste my time on that.

You say religion divides people. I can agree with that only if you'll agree that atheism divides people just as much. In the sense that atheism is just another religion, just far less organized. Atheists have their set of beliefs, no? And they're on that same "I'm right, you're wrong" tip, no? So they are as much a part of this "division" you speak of as any religion person.

And then you asked what religion does for the needy? Are you serious? You've never heard of charity? You've never heard of Catholics providing free health care and all that?

All that typing and you still haven't made one case for you religion/belief system.

 

[Sensitive Blake Griffin]

technically no, i wasn't. I believed in god still it wasn't my brightest moment.


As for prison rates...
There are more people who believe in religion in general so i'd expect to see that.

I was taking a stab at the "benefits" of being an atheist. I don't see any. In fact, there's one large liability. If you're an athiest and you're wrong, well that's a convo with God i don't want to be in on.

If you believe and you're wrong well... you're dirt so who cares

It's not like any human knows what characteristics God possesses, and I don't see why you'd be so scared to have that conversation if you indeed met Morgan Freeman. I'd be like, yo, I never saw any proof for your existence so I didn't believe, my bad homey. And if it's the God I WANT, he would say "No problem breh" and his face would morph into for a split second. Any other response and that God.

And if god is all knowing and made me.. he should know exactly why I think the way I do..

 

[NoMayo15]

Religion doesn't teach kill nonbelievers. Only an idiot would say something like that.

Um... some do. I mean, for example, if you belong to a sect of Christianity in which you believe the Bible is the infallible word of God, and it's a good barometer for morality, then there are MULTIPLE verses that say things like "if there is a town that worships a different god, burn it to the ground" and "kill your mother/father/wife/sister/brother if they ever try to convert you to another religion". Whether or not believers choose to ignore these moral laws is irrelevant.

How do you both claim ignorance of holy books, and an understanding of these religions?

 

[Johnny Kilroy]

Um... some do. I mean, for example, if you belong to a sect of Christianity in which you believe the Bible is the infallible word of God, and it's a good barometer for morality, then there are MULTIPLE verses that say things like "if there is a town that worships a different god, burn it to the ground" and "kill your mother/father/wife/sister/brother if they ever try to convert you to another religion".

How do you both claim ignorance of holy books, and an understanding of these religions?

I have a basic understanding. I know "thou shalt not kill" is one of the 10 commandments. I know anybody who interprets your referenced verse (out of context BTW) in that manner is a psychopath. And I know a lot of religious people, none of whom have ever tried to kill me.

 

[NoMayo15]

I have a basic understanding. I know "thou shalt not kill" is one of the 10 commandments. I know anybody who interprets your referenced verse (out of context BTW) in that manner is a psychopath. And I know a lot of religious people, none of whom have ever tried to kill me.

In what context is killing someone for simply following a different religion a morally "good" thing?

And it's not just one verse, it's a repeated theme throughout the Bible. God commands specific people to kill those he views as abominations for worshiping other gods, and it's also part of the other moral laws outside the ten commandments. If someone did such a thing, I agree they are crazy, but in their mind they might be justified especially if they thought their god has asked such a thing before. It doesn't matter if the people you know haven't tried to kill you ... yet. The point is it's in their holy scripture (as are a lot of contradictory tenets), but they have chosen to ignore it. Some religious people don't ignore it, and we see the repercussions of that in honor killings and the like.

 

[Johnny Kilroy]

In what context is killing someone for simply following a different religion a morally "good" thing?

And it's not just one verse, it's a repeated theme throughout the Bible. God commands specific people to kill those he views as abominations for worshiping other gods, and it's also part of the other moral laws outside the ten commandments. If someone did such a thing, I agree they are crazy, but in their mind they might be justified especially if they thought their god has asked such a thing before. It doesn't matter if the people you know haven't tried to kill you ... yet. The point is it's in their holy scripture (as are a lot of contradictory tenets), but they have chosen to ignore it. Some religious people don't ignore it, and we see the repercussions of that in honor killings and the like.

I don't believe that verse to mean that. And I'm not a Christian anyway so I have no obligation to defend it or interpret it for you.

And when does something being justified in one's head automatically mean it's not crazy? Didn't that dude Son of Sam say he got orders from a dog to kill people? I'm sure he could justify his actions in his head too.

To me, it all boils down to common sense. Killing and murder is not the same thing. So is the Bible teaching people to raid villages and murder (as in cold blood) everyone within? I highly doubt that. Might some idiot think that? Certainly. But why would you want to align your thinking with that of an idiot?

If Christians are supposed to "spread the gospel", who are they spreading it to if they kill everyone?

Can any religious person vouch for these malicious teachings? Is there anyone who can say they learned how to shoot at Sunday school? You're saying religion teaches these things but I simply don't agree.

On the flip side, the Bible says don't commit murder. Atheism doesn't teach this so is it morally acceptable for an atheist to commit murder? If no, why not?

 

[NoMayo15]

I don't believe that verse to mean that. And I'm not a Christian anyway so I have no obligation to defend it or interpret it for you.

Very well. How do you categorize yourself, if I might ask?

And when does something being justified in one's head automatically mean it's not crazy? Didn't that dude Son of Sam say he got orders from a dog to kill people? I'm sure he could justify his actions in his head too.

To me, it all boils down to common sense. Killing and murder is not the same thing. So is the Bible teaching people to raid villages and murder (as in cold blood) everyone within? I highly doubt that. Might some idiot think that? Certainly. But why would you want to align your thinking with that of an idiot?

What is "common sense"? At a certain time in the past, believers used scripture to justify these actions. They thought it was a good moral code because it came from the infallible word of god. This has happened in the past, and I believe still continues today is various third world countries. You say their idiots, but how can they be idiots for following the words of the almighty, the alpha and omega. To them, it would be idiotic for someone NOT to follow every word of God. My point is the Bible is the big book of multiple choice. People pick and choose which parts they want to follow and ignore the others. It has so many contradictory teachings that two people could belong to the same belief system, but have a different moral code. So, let me quote you from a different thread -- "And what makes you right and them wrong?"

On the flip side, the Bible says don't commit murder. Atheism doesn't teach this so is it morally acceptable for an atheist to commit murder? If no, why not?

Well, ignoring your terrible paraphrasing of the bible's stance on murder, atheism doesn't teach anything. Atheism is simply a response to a claim of the existence of gods. If you want to talk about the morality of atheists, you should really look at secular humanism as I think most atheists adhere to something like it. Of course that's not absolute, and each individual atheist has their own moral guidelines. You present it as if since atheism doesn't teach not to murder then it's okay to murder. That's false. Atheism is neutral.

 

[Johnny Kilroy]

Very well. How do you categorize yourself, if I might ask?

Said it in the OP, just a question asking agnostic.

What is "common sense"? At a certain time in the past, believers used scripture to justify these actions. They thought it was a good moral code because it came from the infallible word of god. This has happened in the past, and I believe still continues today is various third world countries. You say their idiots, but how can they be idiots for following the words of the almighty, the alpha and omega. To them, it would be idiotic for someone NOT to follow every word of God. So, let me quote you from a different thread -- "And what makes you right and them wrong?"

Jesus was the first Christian. If Christianity taught to kill all non-Christians then he would have been the ONLY Christian. Common sense.

Well, ignoring your terrible paraphrasing of the bible's stance on murder, atheism doesn't teach anything. Atheism is simply a response to a claim of the existence of gods. If you want to talk about the morality of atheists, you should really look at secular humanism as I think most atheists adhere to something like it. Of course that's not absolute, and each individual atheist has their own moral guidelines. You present it as if since atheism doesn't teach not to murder then it's okay to murder. That's false. Atheism is neutral.

I know. Atheism doesn't teach anything at all. And by your own logic, without God, there are no atheists. So if there is no God, how can there be atheists?

Also, what is the atheist's purpose of following a moral code? And how does an atheist determine right and wrong? Is it wrong to kill my neighbor and take his food? Isn't that evolution? Survival of the fittest?

 

[daze23]

I know. Atheism doesn't teach anything at all. And by your own logic, without God, there are no atheists. So if there is no God, how can there be atheists?

Also, what is the atheist's purpose of following a moral code? And how does an atheist determine right and wrong? Is it wrong to kill my neighbor and take his food? Isn't that evolution? Survival of the fittest?

did you look into secular humanism before typing this?

 

[NoMayo15]

Jesus was the first Christian. If Christianity taught to kill all non-Christians then he would have been the ONLY Christian. Common sense.

First, Jesus was a jew that was murdered for speaking against the church. Christianity didn't form until after he (supposedly) proved his divinity by returning from the dead. Also, the religion is in a way a subsect of Judaism, borrowing much from that religion as well. But it's not that Christians ONLY killed all non-believers ... if you look at the inquisition, people were basically given an ultimatum -- believe in my god, or die. If you eliminate as many in the out-group as possible, or make them at least follow your dogma, then it's easy to see how the in-group might grow larger.

I know. Atheism doesn't teach anything at all. And by your own logic, without God, there are no atheists. So if there is no God, how can there be atheists?

Wha? No. Did you not listen (read)? I said, atheism is a response to A CLAIM ABOUT GODS! Without God CLAIMS, there are no atheists. Atheism is not evidence of a God, rather evidence that people make shyt up to feel better about the universe and life & death. I'm having a hard time believing you are really agnostic ... at least how agnostics are usually defined. For the most part they've researched some of this basic stuff.

Also, what is the atheist's purpose of following a moral code? And how does an atheist determine right and wrong? Is it wrong to kill my neighbor and take his food? Isn't that evolution? Survival of the fittest?

An atheist follows a moral code for the same reason anyone else does. Self-preservation, empathy .... realizing that if we killed, raped, or annoyed others that there are 6 billion other people who might wanna do something as equally detrimental to us. The main difference between atheists and theists on the case of morality, is our only motivations are based on real, tangible consequences that manifest in the real world. Theists, generally speaking, also fear something that hasn't been, and perhaps can't be proven to exist.

An atheist determines right from wrong by the same means anyone else does. Well, one, we're taught from a young age by society as to which actions are deemed acceptable, and which are not. And that changes as we grow up and ethical questions get more complex. Personally, my sense of morality comes from a weighing of the positive consequences for any action to the negative or harmful ones. If something I do harms someone, then generally I'll view it as something not to be done, and vice versa. Very basic, "common sense" stuff as you like to view it.

Evolution doesn't say you should kill your neighbor, and that's not survival of the fittest. As a matter of fact, the reason our species was able to survive was our ability to reason, and work together in small communities. Ultimately, it's not beneficial to club someone over the head and take their stuff because a larger force might try to reciprocate, and we have inherent empathy. Evolution works such that it's not always the biggest, fastest, smartest always survives. It's about what's best at adapting to it's enviroment at a given time in Earth's history. Dinosaurs aren't around anymore. Our intelligence might be our own demise, as we've created WMD's, and have been at the brink of nuclear war many times in the short time of their creation. Good questions though.

 

[Eastside Get The Money]

I was taking a stab at the "benefits" of being an atheist. I don't see any. In fact, there's one large liability. If you're an athiest and you're wrong, well that's a convo with God i don't want to be in on.

If you believe and you're wrong well... you're dirt so who cares

To me that's not believing or having faith, that's just having it in your corner like an insurance policy

 

[Johnny Kilroy]

First, Jesus was a jew that was murdered for speaking against the church. Christianity didn't form until after he (supposedly) proved his divinity by returning from the dead. Also, the religion is in a way a subsect of Judaism, borrowing much from that religion as well. But it's not that Christians ONLY killed all non-believers ... if you look at the inquisition, people were basically given an ultimatum -- believe in my god, or die. If you eliminate as many in the out-group as possible, or make them at least follow your dogma, then it's easy to see how the in-group might grow larger.

I'm no expert in Christianity by any means but I'm pretty sure Jesus had followers while he was alive and I don't think they were calling themselves Jews. I think Jesus was a Hebrew, not necessarily a Jew.

I also wouldn't say Christianity "borrowed" from Judaism. As I tried to inform your fellow atheist in a previous post, Jews, Christians and Muslims all worship the same God. I would call what the Romans did "borrowing" from the Greeks but Jesus never established some "new God", he was talmbout the same God the Jews were already worshiping.

The statement "believe in my God or die" doesn't even make sense. If you're "believing" under duress then you're not really believing and thus must die anyway.

Wha? No. Did you not listen (read)? I said, atheism is a response to A CLAIM ABOUT GODS! Without God CLAIMS, there are no atheists. Atheism is not evidence of a God, rather evidence that people make shyt up to feel better about the universe and life & death. I'm having a hard time believing you are really agnostic ... at least how agnostics are usually defined. For the most part they've researched some of this basic stuff.

Yeah I stepped out after I posted that and thought about it. You're right. If there was no BELIEF in God there would be no atheism would have been much more accurate. Atheism completes the dichotomy.

But damn, homie, you say "they at least researched the basic stuff" like I'm fukkin clueless out here. I'll be the first to tell you I'm far from an expert but I know a lil something. I'm just out here trying to make sense of it all.

An atheist follows a moral code for the same reason anyone else does. Self-preservation, empathy .... realizing that if we killed, raped, or annoyed others that there are 6 billion other people who might wanna do something as equally detrimental to us. The main difference between atheists and theists on the case of morality, is our only motivations are based on real, tangible consequences that manifest in the real world. Theists, generally speaking, also fear something that hasn't been, and perhaps can't be proven to exist.

An atheist determines right from wrong by the same means anyone else does. Well, one, we're taught from a young age by society as to which actions are deemed acceptable, and which are not. And that changes as we grow up and ethical questions get more complex. Personally, my sense of morality comes from a weighing of the positive consequences for any action to the negative or harmful ones. If something I do harms someone, then generally I'll view it as something not to be done, and vice versa. Very basic, "common sense" stuff as you like to view it.

But what are the negative consequences of killing my neighbor? He's dead so I don't have to worry about him killing me back. And even if I did, or worried about anyone else, then my morality would also be based on fear. As you said self preservation. But how does that stop someone from just killing more? If I have the biggest gun and the fastest draw, that should take care of my self preservation, sans the "morality" part.

When I said "common sense" you challenged me on it. So why are some things common sense and others not? Especially when we were talking about the same thing- murder. From a non-Biblical/religious point point of view, murder being immoral is "common sense" but if one reads the Bible and deems it common sense that it isn't instructing him to kill, that's not? I don't understand that.

And in all honesty, morality has nothing to do with this thread. I asked about the benefits of atheism and morality was deemed not to be. So that should be that.

Evolution doesn't say you should kill your neighbor, and that's not survival of the fittest. As a matter of fact, the reason our species was able to survive was our ability to reason, and work together in small communities. Ultimately, it's not beneficial to club someone over the head and take their stuff because a larger force might try to reciprocate, and we have inherent empathy. Evolution works such that it's not always the biggest, fastest, smartest always survives. It's about what's best at adapting to it's enviroment at a given time in Earth's history. Dinosaurs aren't around anymore. Our intelligence might be our own demise, as we've created WMD's, and have been at the brink of nuclear war many times in the short time of their creation. Good questions though.

See again, you're talking about fear. So does all morality come from fear? And what is this "inherent empathy"? I'm not even saying I disagree but in a subject where people love to ask for proof, that statement is typed on shaky ground. I can't see inherent empathy and I've never seen it proved scientifically. Are we the only creatures with this inherent empathy? That would be weird seeing as how we're the only creatures who kill in cold blood.

So that raises another question. We've talked about "right", now what about "wrong"? Where does it come from? If morality comes from "inherent empathy" and common sense then how on Earth does one develop immorality?

 

[Johnny Kilroy]

did you look into secular humanism before typing this?

My man daze stay bringin the heat.

IDK though, that seems a lil like human-centrism to me. So on one ed of the spectrum we have people claiming humans are as insignificant as any other species on the planet and then this is placing a huge burden on us and giving us a great deal of responsibility.

In all honesty, I don't think I agree with that philosophy. I believe I'm either small and insignificant, like everything else, or if I'm greater than there must be something greater than me because I'm not the greatest nor am I the custodian of the Earth. I know it doesn't claim that, but that's kinda how I would take it. Like we have the most responsibility on the planet. So I need to be careful not to set forest fires but first things first we need to make sure the Earth stays in orbit. That's beyond me.

But I do agree with their take on holidays though because we always had a Christmas tree growing up but the only time the Lord's name was ever mentioned in our house was in vein .

 

[you're NOT "n!ggas"]

This thread isn't about morals. I simply asked what the benefits of atheism were. Not sure where you got all this and since it's mostly irrelevant it seems like a big waste of time. But I'll respond anyway.

Religion doesn't teach kill nonbelievers. Only an idiot would say something like that. Religion teaches CONVERT nonbelievers. How can you convert someone who's dead? No religion TEACHES kill nonbelievers. That's just dumb and I'm not gonna waste my time on that.

You say religion divides people. I can agree with that only if you'll agree that atheism divides people just as much. In the sense that atheism is just another religion, just far less organized. Atheists have their set of beliefs, no? And they're on that same "I'm right, you're wrong" tip, no? So they are as much a part of this "division" you speak of as any religion person.

And then you asked what religion does for the needy? Are you serious? You've never heard of charity? You've never heard of Catholics providing free health care and all that?

All that typing and you still haven't made one case for you religion/belief system.

yeah they do teach to kill people . thats why the old testament is riddled with war and murder. thats why the crusades happened. thats why jihadists do the shyt they do. it might not be as many people that FOLLOW these kinda rules anymore but its still in the "holy" bible, quran, etc is it not? you know, "the word of god"? bad as those kinda scriptures are, i wonder what would happen if someone tried to remove em so there's another advantage. since i get my morals from elsewhere, i'm not subject to the constant revisions/cop-outs that religious people have to. "oh that was in bible times though. no no, it says not to drink in excess" and all that kinda bullshyt.


nonbelievers DO NOT divide as much as religious people, the fukk is you talmbout the fight for jerusalem has been the source for the loss of literally countless lives and there isn't a single shred of evidence to verify what makes it so holy. point me in the direction where nonbelievers are divided "just as much"


religion has charity. word, so that means there's no secular charities too? thats shyt done by religious people anyways, i thought you were askin about the benefits religion itself does. like how malcolm x was a criminal before and the noi turned his life around. and again thats great for him but i still gotta ask: what does it do for disabled, poor, and needy? its cool that a healthy, able-bodied man can change due to religion but why can't it do anything for the people who AREN'T evil or criminals? those that were just born in fukked up predicaments and probably lose faith in god/religion when they see how someone who doesn't live right continues to be blessed and even credit it to god?