Dirty

I don't see how atheism is a cult any more than christianity or islam or any other religion. You seem to have a warped sense of what atheism is. I imagine you view atheism as some big club or something. "The group of the non-grouped"... Do you not understand that being an atheist just means that you don't believe in a God. If you have a disbelief of God, you are an atheist. It isn't a choice, that's just what you are by definition. It isn't some club that people subscribe to. Some people don't want to be called atheist for whatever reason but it doesn't change that they are.

Groups OF atheists exist. If a religious group wants to put out their message, why don't you think its okay for an atheist group to do the same? I think it's stupid for either group to advertise like the example you talked about, since all it does is turn the non-believers off even more, but why can one group promote their "message" and the other group can't? I feel like atheists like that are more concerned with showing people that they can be good people and live great lives without a religion. Which is entirely true and I don't really see a problem with it other than thinking religious advertising of any kind is stupid.

Your comment on competition is just stupid, what are they competing for? Competing to gain what? More members? There's no prize here. I'm not allying myself with anyone. I don't believe in God, that's all there is to say about it. I used to be more anti-religion, and now I'm more uncaring. Some people are helped by their beliefs and are raised a certain way. So although I think their beliefs might be stupid, I don't care enough to bash them or try to change their views. You just have this strange view of atheism and I don't get it.

Schranz bass

WHat is this? The 13th century? Forget atheism. It is false reasoning.

Secular humanism is more appropriate.

Try it out

Dirty

Replace one label with another one. Man, you're so edgy. What exactly makes atheism false reasoning? An atheist is someone who does not believe in a God. How many times am I gonna have to say that for you and crukster to understand? You can apply whatever label you want to people who don't believe in God, but there's already a perfectly suitable word for it and that word is "atheist."

Schranz bass

Because the belief in God is irrelevant. Society has to move out of the paradigm of supernatural belief;

ergo:

atheism is an erroneous concept.

I hope that wasn't too edgy.

Dirty

What it lacked in edginess it made up for in stupidity. Belief in God is irrelevant? Religion is a gigantic part of pretty much every major culture on this planet so I fail to see how that is not somewhat relevant. "Forget atheism." What exactly is that supposed to mean? Forget the term used for people like myself who don't believe in God? You seem to be one of those people like crukster who thinks atheism is some crazy ideology or big club or something.

TockTockTock

I think someone is going to get banned out of this... somehow. Or at least get a slap on the wrist.


It's a cult! They sacrifice sheep to their god that they don't believe in.

Schranz bass

Quit with the name calling. I could insult you, too, and I assure you, I have a lot greater literary dexterity than you, but could you please raise the tone of your messages? I am not your enemy.

Sometimes I find it frustrating when talking about religion because I have to sift through all the 'stock phrases': reactionary phrases from a set stock of words and ideas which always miss the point. It seems that many folks react to any opposition to piety with aspersion and traditional thinking; they simply cannot grasp the notion of a way of life without religion.

Just because it is popular doesn't mean it is relevant. You are about to prove it. Watch, it will be enoyable. I think many other people will join in what is to come.

Dirty, the belief in God and religion is for what purpose? To derive morals and meaning in life, yeah?
From your standpoint, is humanity going in a healthful direction?
Do you think we have set society up in a way that is conducive to ecological, aesthetic, moral, and ideological impetus?

Let's start with the status quo:

Nearly every message and every intention in marketing, television, and popular music is to encourage people to be more egotistical; to "buy this car because it defines you. This is happiness, this is status. This is what 'beautiful' women look like. This is what makes you enviable", et cetera. Do you agree with that? Here's an example: a while ago I saw an advertisement on tv for the Pontiac Vibe car. In the commercial a person drove the Vibe beside a bus. Music was playing in the car and a man sitting in the bus was moving his head to the beat playing in the Vibe. Something else happened, but I don't remember. What is the message there? 'If you drive this car, people will think you are cool and will be more likely to stare at your car when you drive by.'

Surely you have seen such advertisements? I could list hundreds, quite literally, but I don't want to type so much. This is a topic that should be discussed orally.

Here's the current aesthetic standard:

Have you noticed that so many people refer to some women as 'beautiful'? Beautiful should not be a superfical description. It is much deeper than that. Beauty is kalon. The prevalent notion of beauty is superficial. This makes the standard of what is beautiful, much lower. A 'beautiful' woman is....very capable of sharing her DNA and producing a healthy, attractive baby who will most likely be able to carry on the 'seed'.

'Beautiful' is a word to describe something, or someone, that evokes love. It is the essence which is beautiful, not facial symmetry. This smattering of beauty is everywhere, yeah?

This is where society is. The aesthetic standard is much lower; people are very apt to see 'beauty' in simpler things. Surely you agree that this mentality is a product of impulsive, primitive, unintellectual propensity?

The current aesthetic paradigm is encouraging people to pursue a higher role in the status quo. It is distracting people from being individuals; from being morally and socially deep, and fervent. I think it also creates neurosis.

Religion and belief in God is not the cure to all that.

What do you think is better?

Dirty

Don't start with the whole "victim" card. I said your post had stupidity in it and if you can't handle that, I would suggest leaving the internet. Get off your high horse, your pretentious attitude towards religion nauseates me. Religion certainly is relevant in society, some form of it exists in every major culture on this planet. Religion is a huge influence on behavior and cultural norms so for you to say it isn't relevant just makes no sense. Maybe you don't want it to be, but it certainly is without a doubt. I'm an atheist but I realize how relevant religion is in every culture, it isn't that hard to realize. I don't live in a world of hypothetical nature where a non-religious Earth exists because that is never going to happen.

Now you are talking about things that basically boil down to marketing strategies with all the talk of advertisements and stuff. You don't define "beauty," it's subjective. Not everything has to be lumped into "beautiful" or "not beautiful," there can be levels of it surely. And I don't think religion is looked at by many people to be the "cure" for the lower standard of beauty we have...and I don't think there's anything wrong with seeing beauty in simple things either. My whole beef was that you said something along the lines of "forget atheism, that's so 13th century." But as long as there are still millions of religious folks, "atheist" is a perfectly suitable word to describe non-believers such as myself. I think you are more arguing for a religion-less society, which I would actually support, but again I don't live in a hypothetical fairyland of a world and I'm looking at this realistically.

Zaqarbal

It depends on why you do that. I think there are three possible causes:

1. Bucause you honestly think it's the right thing. That is, due to a sincere own moral conviction.
2. Just because it's an order. A supposed order dictated by a supposed god through a supposed prophet (a goathers-village's local boss, a carpenter's hippie son in the Middle-East, an Arab syphilitic cameller, etc...) in a supposed certain way.
3. A kind of "intermediate way": the neurotic (or hypocrite) way. You actually behave as you want, but using a self-deception as an alibi. That is, you like to think you do things because you follow religious commandments, although deep in your mind you know that's not true. Catholic priests call this way scholastic, but it's actually the same thing with a politically-correct name.

I support the principles of Liberal Democracy (those from Enlightment to the present). Therefore, I defend freedom of cult and freedom of expression. However, if someone ask me what is more desirable or preferable to me, my opinion is: I wouldn't like to live in a society where people just obey orders, as if they were robots, or expected an afterlife reward. Because as Goya said (and painted): The sleep of reason produces monsters. And neither I like hypocrisy.


A priori you're right. But bear in mind that the term atheist is mainly used in cultural contexts where monotheistic religions are predominant and they've been the main source for moral rules for the past 17 centuries.

A backward movement, because Ancient Greeks already said that human moral principles can be established through a rational process. And towards year 60 Seneca enunciated the main guideline of that what we nowadays call secular humanism:

"Man should be sacred to the man"


And, by the way, perhaps afterwards he drank a good glass of wine. After all, it was Seneca who wrote:

"Wine is a perfect cure for heaviness and sorrow" (Epistulae morales ad Lucilium)




Sadly, this moral philosophy was replaced, three centuries later, by dogmas from Abrahamic religions. As a result, many people do (or don't do) things just because they think they are fulfilling "divine orders" from a supposed god. And by the way, some say God don't want us to drink alcohol. Well, that's their loss.

__________________

crukster

The only one that's relevant is the first one, imo. Although I didn't really get what you're getting at by the third one. Sounds the same as the second.

But that doesn't mean to say it has to be independtly formed. If you read it somewhere, for argument's sake the Bible, you could then say, "This makes sense to me, I believe it's right so I'll apply it"

Because a "carpenter's son" said it does it make it any less applicable? Doesn't matter who says it, what matters is what's said. He's a prophet in my eyes because of the things he said and did. Not the other way around.