*trigger warning* What if atheism's not all it seems?

[Minimalist]

Did you ever consider the person who has just lost their home, or their family, whose life is completely empty and whose only consolation is the hope that maybe there is a loving god out there who cares for them?

Obviously, the irony in that statement is lost on you.

[Little Rik]

Not atheism as such but atheists in general follow a typical set same same as an organized religion.
No question about it.
None of whatsoever.
Their dogmas are totally different but dogmas are indeed.
Just to mention fews.
When we die is all over.
The consciousness is a product of the brain.
NDEs are the product of a brain devoid of blood and oxygen.
Nobody created the universe and it can run without a God.
And the list of unproven claims taken as full truth goes on and on.
If this set of dogmas don t follow dogmas that religions carry on then tell me what it is?

[The Grand Nudger]

Not atheism as such but atheists in general follow a typical set same same as an organized religion.  
No question about it.  
None of whatsoever.  
Their dogmas are totally different but dogmas are indeed.  
Just to mention fews.  
When we die is all over.  
The consciousness is a product of the brain.  
NDEs are the product of a brain devoid of blood and oxygen.  
Nobody created the universe and it can run without a God.
And the list of unproven claims taken as full truth goes on and on.  

b-mine.

The bolded bit is the -only- thing, in your entire post, common to atheists.

If this set of dogmas don t follow dogmas that religions carry on then tell me what it is?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion#C...efinitions

-You're welcome.

[Little Rik]

Not atheism as such but atheists in general follow a typical set same same as an organized religion.  
No question about it.  
None of whatsoever.  
Their dogmas are totally different but dogmas are indeed.  
Just to mention fews.  
When we die is all over.  
The consciousness is a product of the brain.  
NDEs are the product of a brain devoid of blood and oxygen.  
Nobody created the universe and it can run without a God.
And the list of unproven claims taken as full truth goes on and on.  

b-mine.

The bolded bit is the -only- thing, in your entire post, common to atheists.

If this set of dogmas don t follow dogmas that religions carry on then tell me what it is?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion#C...efinitions

-You're welcome.

---

You are welcome too brother Khem.
Unfortunately you are dead wrong.
By believing in all those dogmas that i mentioned in my previous post plus many others you guys fall automatically in the trap of
dogmatic believers which means that you and religions share the same world of fantasies.
Different fantasies of course nevertheless fantasies.

[Fake Messiah]

 
Their dogmas are totally different but dogmas are indeed.  
Just to mention fews.  
When we die is all over.  

Actually atheist stance is "I don't know". Also it's not over because part of us does live if we have descendants as genes and sometimes even memories. Like instincts, they are sort of memories of our ancestors.

 The consciousness is a product of the brain.

What else is it product of? Kidneys? I mean if you look at computer it has only the hard parts in it and yet it does create form of intelligence and one day people will probably create a conscious computer.

 Nobody created the universe and it can run without a God.

Did you find something in the universe that can't be run without god? And I think it's so strange that religious people cling to creation, that it must be exclusively god's work, when in past almost everything was "explained" as working of some god. Like the wind - people used to believe that there is a giant god blowing wind with his lips and lungs and yet every religious person is happy with rational explanation of wind. They don't insist it must be god's deed. They don't say when every time someone turns on ventilator that he is playing god. Why is that?

[pocaracas]

As long as we're meant to be triggered.... why not?

When we die is all over.  

This is not a dogma, it is an observation.
Anecdotal tales of a few very select individuals (one!) who report (indirectly) on the afterlife provides us with no trustworthy reason to think that death is not the end of life.

The consciousness is a product of the brain.  

Again, it is an observation.
Brain dead people are not conscious.
Some forms of brain damage also lead to non-consciousness.
Other forms of brain damage have consciousness altering features.
Brain chemistry alterations lead to alternative mind states.
Brain electromagnetism alterations lead to alternative mind states.

There are so many... so many links between the brain and our awareness, our thinking capabilities, our consciousnesses... that it seems ludicrous to deny that the brain generates our consciousness.

But... if you have an alternate version of the origin of consciousness, feel free to present your findings to the scientific community as a research paper and collect you Nobel Prize.

NDEs are the product of a brain devoid of blood and oxygen.  

Most brains devoid of oxygen just stop working - a fade to black, like a dreamless sleep.
Some either during the oxygen deprivation state, or during the reoxygenation phase, or both phases, produce what have been called NDEs.

Nobody created the universe and it can run without a God.  

Why would the Universe not be able to run without a god?
Again, present your findings in the form of a research paper and collect your Nobel Prize!

And the list of unproven claims taken as full truth goes on and on.  
If this set of dogmas don t follow dogmas that religions carry on then tell me what it is?

Maybe it's just a list of claims that follow from the non-existence of any deity, given (and this is the important bit) that such existence hasn't been shown to be true.

Try to work the right way around these things.

[Sal]

But amidst all of my unwavering sense self-assurance and intellectualism, I now see in hindsight that I failed to ask myself one very important question - what makes me so sure of my beliefs?

Evidence, and in case of god belief, lack thereof. If someone is unable to demonstrate their god exists, I will default on that position: So long there's no evidence for your god, I will withhold judgement on its existence. Plus, if god wants to tell me of its existence, let it do it, not you.

I pose the above question to you today because I want you to consider this deeply. I now cringe at my past self, how arrogant and facetious I acted towards a topic which I, and every single one of you reading this post, have absolutely no certainty of. We are all clueless.

You might be, I take all the evidence I can access, form hypothesis that follows the evidence and come to conclusions thereof.

This brings me to my next point: whether you are willing to see this or not (and I too remember wincing years ago when people said this but I now see their reasoning) - atheism follows almost all of the characteristics of an organised religion. It provides you with a sense of certitude, like you have figured out the universe; it gives you a community to belong to; there are bishop-like figures, think Dawkins, Krauss, etc etc., you make statements which you don't know are true for sure. - and finally: non-believers should be ridiculed because their views are *obviously* wrong and yours are completely, unquestionably correct - right?

Wrong. I'm content with not knowing; apparently you are not, so you've decided there's a sky wizard. Good for you.

Finally, to wrap up this post, I want to make one more point: if you are to fully embrace the cold harshness of rationalism and scientific reasoning as a guide for your philosophical views, you must see that in doing this you also accept that in nature there are no concepts of good or bad - the only guide you can get from it is to take what you can get and maximise your own happiness. No justice, no reward for good, or judgement for bad. Just do as you please. This is what rationalism looks like in practice - not ideal for a cohesive society.

Typical theistic fear-mongering, "Oh you have no morals", or "without God, how do you know good from bad". It should be obvious to anyone that hasn't been (or escaped) theistic security blanket thumb-sucking childish thinking that we know good from bad from experience - from experiencing harm and what harm does, i.e. consequences of one's actions and how they impact others, like a fucking normal human being.

[possibletarian]

Hi, all

I used to frequent these forums just over two years ago when I was a staunch atheist myself - I used to post anti-religion memes on Facebook, thought Richard Dawkins was super cool, laughed at the *obviously* intellectually inferior religious fools (because the only measure of one's intelligence is whether they refute a god and submit themselves to the great and glorious concept of ~rationalism~ - right?), and generally, I acted like a very proper atheist.

But amidst all of my unwavering sense self-assurance and intellectualism, I now see in hindsight that I failed to ask myself one very important question - what makes me so sure of my beliefs?

I pose the above question to you today because I want you to consider this deeply. I now cringe at my past self, how arrogant and facetious I acted towards a topic which I, and every single one of you reading this post, have absolutely no certainty of. We are all clueless. We can guess, yes - we can ponder and theorise what the answer could be. But ultimately the answers we all come up with are nothing short of personal opinion or hope. Spouting out statements full of 100% assurance, as I see so many atheists do, like "There is no afterlife - deal with it" or "God doesn't exist - now enjoy life" demonstrate an almost - dare I say - religious sense of certainty?

This brings me to my next point: whether you are willing to see this or not (and I too remember wincing years ago when people said this but I now see their reasoning) - atheism follows almost all of the characteristics of an organised religion. It provides you with a sense of certitude, like you have figured out the universe; it gives you a community to belong to; there are bishop-like figures, think Dawkins, Krauss, etc etc., you make statements which you don't know are true for sure. - and finally: non-believers should be ridiculed because their views are *obviously* wrong and yours are completely, unquestionably correct - right?

Beyond this, I wish to understand the following: why is such visceral contempt held towards the idea of daring to have some hope that this universe may have a greater meaning beyond this one? Did you ever consider the person who has just lost their home, or their family, whose life is completely empty and whose only consolation is the hope that maybe there is a loving god out there who cares for them? Their opinion is no less valid than yours, and most of these people hold no ill will towards anyone. They choose (and I can completely understand why) to be optimistic and hopeful in what can be a sad and confusing world rather than desperately trying - quite strangely - to promote the idea of a universe devoid of any greater meaning at all. I ask you to please consider this the next time you laugh at such people.

Finally, to wrap up this post, I want to make one more point: if you are to fully embrace the cold harshness of rationalism and scientific reasoning as a guide for your philosophical views, you must see that in doing this you also accept that in nature there are no concepts of good or bad - the only guide you can get from it is to take what you can get and maximise your own happiness. No justice, no reward for good, or judgement for bad. Just do as you please. This is what rationalism looks like in practice - not ideal for a cohesive society.

I'm not sure about you, but given that our views on the world are personal choice due to our lack of knowledge about it all, I'd take a creed which at its core promotes love, justice, and selflessness towards others over a world view that's equally unprovable but is rooted in nothing more than a cold, every-man-for-himself cesspit.

I would be interested to hear your thoughts.

Best wishes,
- Z

Atheism doesn't have to seem to be anything, it's not a way of life or religion, it has no beliefs of it's own.

Simply put atheism is the lack of belief in a god, it needs no qualification or justification, belief in a god however does and when some kind of proof a god exists is put on the table then atheists can look at it again.

As for trusting science and discovery something we take advantage of day in and day out,  what else would you suggest and why?

[Cyberman]

A wild Rikachu appears!

My cue to leave.

[Whateverist]

I tend to lose interest when a thread goes full on Rikky.