• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Atheist literature that has shaped your life [W:229]

It is not atheist books as much as it is dogma, religious books themselves, and lack of reason in them to believe the stories as a way of life to begin with that put me away from faith. Why should I believe it because it is written sometimes very idiotically in a religious book? Somethings downright insult my intelligence just for reading it. For me religious books are books written for slaves whom must give up in this life and adjust to the unsatisfying things in this life and be fooled that they will have it better in afterlife.

But the most things that put me away from religion is the communications that I use to make with its representatives as well followers. The points, issues, "counterarguments" are really a very great struggle to level with much less understand. They are based severely on the assumption that if there was no religion man is lowest scum sucking dip **** that could not possibly be even imagined. But it is religion itself that keeps man from undergoing these presumed innate tendencies to do lower than animal immoral behaviors.

These are the means that religions emphasizes their role. Sadly though it works. Like I was speaking to another religious person the other day, I was speaking about why I do not need religion for I have no need to be bound by its limitations. The counterargument came fiercely that to the contrary I need religion because "one cannot be as free, for if one was free they would do horrible things such as take a crap in public eye, on front of everyone, right in the middle of the city center."

Clearly assumptions do not meet. I assume that people learn potty training from parents, or caregivers, while the other party stressed that it is religion's work to teach you where to **** otherwise they would go to hell. At one point one just cannot continue with this form of communications and leaves them be (sometimes disgusted from attempting to do so in the first place!).
 
Last edited:
DDD said:
It is not atheist books as much as it is dogma, religious books themselves, and lack of reason in them to believe the stories as a way of life to begin with that put me away from faith. Why should I believe it because it is written sometimes very idiotically in a religious book? Somethings downright insult my intelligence just for reading it. For me religious books are books written for slaves whom must give up in this life and adjust to the unsatisfying things in this life and be fooled that they will have it better in afterlife.

But the most things that put me away from religion is the communications that I use to make with its representatives as well followers. The points, issues, "counterarguments" are really a very great struggle to level with much less understand. They are based severely on the assumption that if there was no religion man is lowest scum sucking dip **** that could not possibly be even imagined. But it is religion itself that keeps man from undergoing these presumed innate tendencies to do lower than animal immoral behaviors.

These are the means that religions emphasizes their role. Sadly though it works. Like I was speaking to another religious person the other day, I was speaking about why I do not need religion for I have no need to be bound by its limitations. The counterargument came fiercely that to the contrary I need religion because "one cannot be as free, for if one was free they would do horrible things such as take a crap in public eye, on front of everyone, right in the middle of the city center."

Clearly assumptions do not meet. I assume that people learn potty training from parents, or caregivers, while the other party stressed that it is religion's work to teach you where to **** otherwise they would go to hell. At one point one just cannot continue with this form of communications and leaves them be (sometimes disgusted from attempting to do so in the first place!).
Click to expand...

LOLS ... according to many believers, not only do we go around crapping in public, we all are totally devoid of any moral code ....it makes you wonder what THEY'D be like without their faith!
 
marywollstonecraft said:
LOLS ... according to many believers, not only do we go around crapping in public, we all are totally devoid of any moral code ....it makes you wonder what THEY'D be like without their faith!
Click to expand...

Exactly, they might try to prove how much they "need" religion by overemphesizing their "freedom" by doing the public harm. Then I start thinking that religion is more about the uneducated and the immoral to begin with. This should be the case, but then every now and then you see very educated people in the group.
 
Guy Incognito said:
No, no, no. "Gnosticism" isn't about the ability to know. You're thinking of epistemology. "Gnosis" is a Greek word that pertains to spiritual knowledge specifically. It's not general knowledge, it's more akin to the buddhist concept of Enlightenment.

"Agnosticism" is a neologism coin by Aldous Huxley specifically to describe the belief that the truth of theism is unknowable.
Click to expand...

Actually it was Thomas Henry Huxley.
 
JC Callender said:
Have you ever read "The Question of God" by Armand Nicholi? It's a mock debate between C.S. Lewis and Freud.
Click to expand...

It's a mock debate? No.

JC Callender said:
You're agreeing that being well read and educated can disabuse religious notions, but C.S. Lewis is incredibly well read and educated. You should visit his Wiki page to learn more about him, because it seems like you're contradicting yourself.
Click to expand...

Just because it can doesn't mean it does. Being more educated, does tend to lead one to be less religious (source and source). I also never claimed C.S. Lewis was neither well read, or educated. I was saying, reading arguments from some of the more popular apologists, can increase an atheist's debate skills by giving them more familiarity with common arguments.
 
So why would I believe your source when I can look at C.S. Lewis and realize that an extremely smart guy can not only become Christian, but an excellent Christian apologist? What went wrong with Lewis in your mind?

zgoldsmith23 said:
It's a mock debate? No.



Just because it can doesn't mean it does. Being more educated, does tend to lead one to be less religious (source and source). I also never claimed C.S. Lewis was neither well read, or educated. I was saying, reading arguments from some of the more popular apologists, can increase an atheist's debate skills by giving them more familiarity with common arguments.
Click to expand...
 
JC Callender said:
So why would I believe your source when I can look at C.S. Lewis and realize that an extremely smart guy can not only become Christian, but an excellent Christian apologist? What went wrong with Lewis in your mind?
Click to expand...

Why are you saying something went "wrong?" Those are your words, not mine. I also said it tends to make one less religious - there are certainly exceptions to the rule (see: C.S. Lewis). Of course, C.S. Lewis never depended on evidence for his axiomatic, blind acceptance of the "god" hypothesis.
 
Something obviously went wrong because you assume that more educated people tend to be less religious. What went wrong with Lewis? Why instead of becoming less religious did he become an excellent Christian apologist? Also, where is your evidence that there is no God?

zgoldsmith23 said:
Why are you saying something went "wrong?" Those are your words, not mine. I also said it tends to make one less religious - there are certainly exceptions to the rule (see: C.S. Lewis). Of course, C.S. Lewis never depended on evidence for his axiomatic, blind acceptance of the "god" hypothesis.
Click to expand...
 
JC Callender said:
Something obviously went wrong because you assume that more educated people tend to be less religious. What went wrong with Lewis? Why instead of becoming less religious did he become an excellent Christian apologist? Also, where is your evidence that there is no God?
Click to expand...

More ≠ all. Scientific burden of proof is on the person making the positive claim.
 
I've got God is Not Great and I'd recommend it. It's Hitchens and a great read.
 
Paschendale said:
No book drove me towards atheism moreso than the bible did.

Why I Believed looks interesting, though. I'll have to check that one out.
Click to expand...

I think that once a person begins to read the Bible with a critical mind, the process is in motion. Critical thinking is kind of the tool that leads one toward atheism. That's not a tool that most people are willing to give up. I can't think of any one book that opened a door in my thinking. Mostly the books I took to confirmed what I already felt. I found more critical thinkers and they tended to be atheists.
 
JC Callender said:
Also, where is your evidence that there is no God?
Click to expand...

Zgoldsmith's reply to you that the burden of proof is on you, not on us, on the question of god's existence is correct. The default position is the null hypothesis. If you want to claim that a god exists, then you must offer evidence. The same is true of proving that cats exist, but fortunately evidence is ubiquitous.

However, I will extend to you the same offer I extend to many theists. If you will posit a clear and concise definition for god, I will do one of two things. Either I will provide evidence to show how this defined god cannot exist, or I will show how this definition posits a god that does not interact with humanity. I need to add this caveat because people like to posit gods that are merely "the creator of the universe" or "the source of goodness" or other such vague ideas that disqualify this god from being the source of any kind of religious notions in humans. Such a god still means that religions are all wrong and oughtn't to be used as justification for anything. So, I offer you the chance to posit any god you like, and I will serve up evidence to disprove it. Even better if you can offer some evidence in support of this god (no assertions of self-evidence or "creation means a creator", we all know that's not really evidence), but that's not required. Just a definition that includes a god that we should care about the existence of.
 
spud_meister said:
It'd be pretty difficult to write a book about a lack of belief. I'd imagine most of those books deal primarily with religion, rather than atheism.

As someone who's never been religious, I prefer, as an atheist, to be separated from the anti-religious.
Click to expand...

I am hostile to the notion of religion because it is so regularly used as a tool to engender hostility toward me or other people toward the goal of institutionalizing their code. It is perfectly logical to be hostile toward a thing that is so apt to doing harm.

I am sure you disagree about religion being apt to doing harm, and therefore disagree about the need for hostility. But, please, don't pretend that there isn't a basis for those who feel it is a net harm in society.

If religious people wouldn't try to inflict their religion on others legislatively, I'd be all "Let's live and let live". So would most other atheists who are also currently anti-religionists. They invite the hostility when they attempt to control others. One of the most permanent ways to undercut religious influence is to destroy faith, so that is what I will continue to seek to do.

The culture war can end at any time. They can stop trying to control others, and then anti-religionists can stop their efforts. Easy peasy.
 
Dezaad said:
I am hostile to the notion of religion because it is so regularly used as a tool to engender hostility toward me or other people toward the goal of institutionalizing their code. It is perfectly logical to be hostile toward a thing that is so apt to doing harm.

I am sure you disagree about religion being apt to doing harm, and therefore disagree about the need for hostility. But, please, don't pretend that there isn't a basis for those who feel it is a net harm in society.

If religious people wouldn't try to inflict their religion on others legislatively, I'd be all "Let's live and let live". So would most other atheists who are also currently anti-religionists. They invite the hostility when they attempt to control others. One of the most permanent ways to undercut religious influence is to destroy faith, so that is what I will continue to seek to do.

The culture war can end at any time. They can stop trying to control others, and then anti-religionists can stop their efforts. Easy peasy.
Click to expand...

Except to those who do that, religion is a tool, not the cause. There is no difference between someone using religion as an expression of their politics than using fear as the AGW crowd does or others do Ad nauseam. It is all about obtaining and exercising power. Gun control freaks threaten that they are going to take guns away and Gun rights nuts threaten to overthrow the government or go down swinging if they try to take guns away. We even have threads from leftists threatening revolution if the rich aren't soaked in taxes or riots if Zimmerman is found not guilty.

The culture war will never end, and that you think you can issue a self-serving ultimatum is laughable. If it is not one thing, it will be another no matter where you are on the political spectrum. Here is a clue for you--the "very liberal" agenda is no less "an attempt to control others" that you find unacceptable than the very conservative agenda. It is just a matter of details.
 
Fisher said:
Except to those who do that, religion is a tool, not the cause. There is no difference between someone using religion as an expression of their politics than using fear as the AGW crowd does or others do Ad nauseam. It is all about obtaining and exercising power. Gun control freaks threaten that they are going to take guns away and Gun rights nuts threaten to overthrow the government or go down swinging if they try to take guns away. We even have threads from leftists threatening revolution if the rich aren't soaked in taxes or riots if Zimmerman is found not guilty.

The culture war will never end, and that you think you can issue a self-serving ultimatum is laughable. If it is not one thing, it will be another no matter where you are on the political spectrum. Here is a clue for you--the "very liberal" agenda is no less "an attempt to control others" that you find unacceptable than the very conservative agenda. It is just a matter of details.
Click to expand...

All legislation is an attempt to control others. I am just undercutting the basis on which they choose to found their attempts. They are welcome to attempt to undercut my basis, and they attempt to do so regularly. I, however, don't try and pretend that my basis should be afforded some kind of gentle treatment, and people would rightly laugh at me if I did. They try to pretend their basis (faith) should somehow be immune to attack. Through the reasons given in my earlier post and this one, I am disabusing them of that notion.

As to some imagined ultimatum: I choose to do what I will on a solid basis, and explain further what will cause me to change course. If that is what you think an ultimatum is, so what. It is still a valid basis on which to be hostile to faith. I am well aware that they won't stop. I am just declaring that because they won't, neither will I.

You have just admitted that religion is a political tool. Think on that. I have said nothing more, really. And as much as possible, I will attempt to deprive my political opponents of their most effective tools, just like everyone else does.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom