Arguing with God believers is beyond pointless

[fr0d0]

(I thought you were continuing in an existentialist vein g-mark)

[g-mark]

Interesting. I was thinking about this earlier.

The question to myself was: What belief or doctrine do I follow or use? I have yet to find the one belief that details the sum of my views.

In a way I am an existentialist that also believes in rationalism and empiricism. I find it hard to place my thoughts in one defined category.

For instance:

For my own personal beliefs relating to my morals, I would use an existentialist view.

For matters concerning science, the Universe, and physical phenomenon I would use a rationalist or empiricist view.

But then again at a certain level of though, ideas and science become illogical. The dynamics of a system becomes non-linear (Known as Choas Theory).

Therefore, for this particular idea I suppose I was using a combination of doctrine/methods.

What is this type of belief/doctrine/method called?

[dtango]

It's just a label, man. Some letters arranged in a way to identify someone who lacks a belief in whatever.

Not so for all atheists!
If you decide to answer the question “Why do people believe in gods?” by trying to find out what was originally told about gods, you’ll find yourself looking into humanity’s prehistory.
An atheist gets rid of preconceptions and so he is free to ask questions and find answers for himself.
As an example: What actually is Original sin?
The concept is neither Christian nor Jewish because it is very old. A believer does not only believe in gods, he also believes in a series of irrational dogmas.
The following verse is found in a Sumerian myth:

Never has a sinless child been born to its mother(“Man and his god”, verse 102)

According to the Egyptian tradition, a “sinful” man is one who possesses certain defects or faults on his body.
Our illustrious experts on hieroglyphic texts tell us that the funerary texts are “sheets of papyrus covered with magical texts (Faulkner) or magic incantations of the most phrenetic sort (Lichtheim). Is it so?
The man who faces his Judging gods assures them the following:

The unmolested words asfet and Maat allow the text to transmit a reasonable meaning. The man pleads “not guilty” on the basis of the absence of asfet in his body or the presence of Maat on it. That means that the gods hate asfet and welcome Maat.
Asfet is the original sin!

The concept of the original sin seems irrational, but since its wake can be traced into the texts, we are obliged to consider it as the faded out memory of some experience of the past. Memories of the past are not concepts of the imagination or the meditation and therefore susceptible to investigation.
“Atheist” is not just a label, but you can very well be a god. We are all children of the gods, remember?

[Edwardo Piet]

Well perhaps it could just be that people have got a lot to learn in live...and a lot of them never grow up in terms of maturity of attitude, mentality, etc?

And I don't believe anyone ever fully grows up and is fully mature... cos if they are...at what point do you go from being 'immature' to being 'mature'?

I think people mature and learn as they live through life...the longer you live HOPEFULLY the more you mature....and since no one lives forever no one gets fully and entirely mature - people always die before they've learnt everything and are '100%' mature.

And as I said, if there are totally mature people around - at what point did they, and others like them, go from 'immature' to 'mature'?

I think some people are more mature from others...and we have a lot to learn and no ones perfect...but I don't think anyone is 100% mature (or immature for that matter), it's all a matter of degree and it's a vast spectrum I think... - kind of subjective..who has enough maturity to declare who is and isn't mature and it be totally objective? And certainly who has enough maturity to declare themselves or others totally mature (or immature).

Hope you get my point and it's not a digression..I think perhaps the original sin idea might come from the fact that people aren't perfect, no one is, and we've all got a lot to learn, no one is fully mature - but I think the original idea has got perverted into some godly bollocks about being punished (as in eternal punishment for example) before you've actually done anything wrong.

I think, just as a suggestion, 'original sin' may be a perversion of this...like guilt or shame or wallowing in self pity a bit - like the human race is beating itself up for all the shit its done in the past in order to try and correct its mistakes...and ends up perverting the whole idea that we are basically not perfect...

I dunno, just a suggestion. I'm not sure exactly else why original sin would be created if it's not indeed about guilt; and humans trying not to make mistakes so blaming themselves and using this stupid idea of original sin to enforce or protect themselves? I dunno.

Thoughts? In case I've said at least SOMETHING interesting or brought something interesting up there? Any value in it?

EvF

[Dotard]

His query was "What's the point in being Atheist?"

In this context I am questioning the need for a "point". That 'Atheist' is nothing more than a discriptor.

If he requires a point for atheism then dtango's post makes a interesting stab at it.

I, personally, see no need for a 'point of'.

[Edwardo Piet]

His query was "What's the point in being Atheist?"

Well yeah, but I believe I already answered that part here:

The point is: what is the point of being a theist?

The point is that I think the alternative is MORE pointless - and atheism frees you up from believing in complete and total nonsese (in respect to the supernatural and "God", etc)...

And also atheism tends to quite often be a by-product of rationality and skeptical thought

Although the definition for atheism is simply not believing in God, everything else is optional.

EvF

Don't remember him coming back at it?

[Dotard]

The point of atheism is alternative is MORE pointless!

Yes. I see that now. Excellent point and definately needs to be in a sig.

[Edwardo Piet]

There is no 'point' to atheism in and of itself, it is simply not believing in Gods...but there is no silly or stupid superficial point to it either therefore :p

[g-mark]

Now that is very interesting. Your answer was very good.

The point is that I think the alternative is MORE pointless

What are tha alternatives?

Are there other alternatives apart from religion?

[Edwardo Piet]

Different philosophies I guess (minus the supernatural bullshit)...I don't know many of them (I know a few but not off the top of my head and I know little about them)...

There are atheistic philosophies but none of them are required for atheism, hence it is not actually part of atheism in and of itself.

Secular humanism being one example I believe.

EvF