Created to decide

“We are all created…”

Lost me right there. I scanned and saw the ‘G’-word a few times.

NOPE!

Should i welcome those who choose fantastical obfuscation over the search for real solutions? I don’t think that’s something i should encourage. But lots of people apparently think i should. I don’t think we should be embracing misguidance and falsehoods.

I’m not the community. I’m just one mostly irrelevant person who has never seen any valid reason to assert that our existence has divine origins or innate purpose.

If you’re deciding to go around claiming that some “God” “created” us all, for some “purpose,” then be prepared to face criticism.

It’s always good to expect resistance when claiming things you can’t prove, and have zero evidence to support.

If believing in some “God” makes you feel better, then go right ahead. But some of us need actual solutions, not to spend our lives praying for what will never happen.

I am of the opinion that anyone resorting to prayer, or trying to encourage others to do so, is actually only contributing to the problem, rather than accepting the reality that we must find real solutions, instead of just pretending like some imaginary friend is going to come and make things better, or that our suffering is the miraculous intent of some deity.

If anything, we are “created to survive and procreate.” We are created by other humans, who engaged in intercourse (or possibly accidentally combined their respective reproductive materials). Most of us are here because our parents liked sex, not because some “God” had a purpose for each of the countless billions of us. Our existence does not necessitate any purpose.

Lots of people don’t even get the luxury of “deciding,” and just have to do what is required for survival, due to the alternative being death.

Religion can cause vast amounts of harm in subtle ways. For example, convincing a majority of the population to believe falsehoods, and subsequently basing their entire perceptions of life and the world, on something that is not true, resulting in all of their actions during their lives, being motivated by wrongness. Wouldn’t you say: wrongness begets wrongness?

Encouraging the rose-colored glasses and false constructs, thereby perpetuating the prevention of real solutions for what is wrong with the world, is, IMO, “significant harm.” Billions of lives and multiple generations… and through such a subtle vector as “tolerance” and “faith.” Black is White. Up is Down. Left is Right. In is Out.

I don’t think it’s up to me to choose what someone else is allowed to believe… but in that same vein, if i see someone who looks misguided, is it not my duty to my fellow human beings, to help correct their misguidance, even if that results in an unbearably dismal and bleak realistic world view?

We need to be willing to see the source, in order to properly correct the problems. I realize that not everyone wants the problems solved… but i do, and i consider the opposition my enemy. So by offering corrections, i’m giving people a chance to be an ally, instead of just immediately and permanently waging war. It’s unfortunate that most choose to take a defensive stance as an enemy, fighting for something that is wrong.

Aside from these points and ideals, i saw so many things about the OP, upon which i could have cast some quite harsh light… but my heuristics identified the problem right away, and i didn’t need to do so. Plus, PainNlife nailed a good bit of it.

If it’s okay for people to “go around believing in gods,” then it should also be okay for me to “go around trying to correct them.”

If it’s okay for people to “go around” obfuscating the world’s problems, as an act of policy, then it should be okay for me to have a policy of revealing them and pointing them out.

I agree, but consider the alternative. Is refraining supporting my cause, or hindering it? Or worse, am i helping “the enemy” by just letting it go?

It’s maddening, to say the least.

There’s a term called “memetic parasitism.”

“Those people” don’t even realize that they are preventing themselves from thinking any other way… even though that is the entire point of “Faith.” It is to insist on not thinking what is more likely, when there is no evidence or basis for believing whatever it is, in which you’ve chosen to place faith.

And if everyone goes through life being completely irrational and refusing to accept that reality is anything other than what they want to believe (faith), then what types of extended impacts might that cause for everyone else who has to share this same planet?

It’s simple: they can choose to see reality and start trying to help solve the problems… or they can choose to continue contributing to the causes of those problems. One of those is acceptable, while the other, imo, is not.

Just as anyone has the right to decide to refuse to accept reality, i have a right to “judge” people based on whether or not they are willing to accept reality.

One of the huge conundrums in this realm, is what to do about the elderly. Do you explain to them, the error of their beliefs, so close to their ending, after holding that belief as true, for so much of their lives? Or do you strategically avoid interacting with them, in order to shelter them from inadvertent disclosure of such things, with the side-effect of making them feel shunned?

This is just one particular aspect of the harm that religion can do, on such an immense scale, through quite subtle means.

@SB:

Exactly. Nice sharp ranty post.

@Persephone:

It’s ironic that you’re essentially playing Devil’s Advocate, for God.

Part of the problem with your suggested approach of working on all the non-religious problems, is that religion is so entrenched and established, that it will make a fight out of everything with which it disagrees, and the premises and ways of defining what is or isn’t a “problem,” become very important. Religious people perceive and define problems very differently than non-religious people, because the basis of perception is almost completely incompatible, save for a few key overlaps, like that we just generally shouldn’t hurt each other, or take what isn’t ours. It’s prohibitively complicated.

I don’t think the effort here is misplaced. I don’t think it’s entirely futile, even if the particular individual cannot be adequately swayed. I view this as a process that will most likely require several generations of slamming reality into people’s faces, and refusing to accept such outrageous claims as valid or appropriate.

But don’t forget: the power of destruction is arguably the most important of all. If you can destroy, you can use fear of destruction as a tool, to persuade people to cooperate with your demands. Or, if they refuse, you can simply destroy whatever they build, or even the people themselves, and thus “dominate” your competition. This is why human weapon technology is so advanced. We know that killing each other and razing structures is highly effective in eliminating or minimizing obstacles to whatever “we” might want to do.

@SB:

It’s a very unpopular stance you’re taking, which is similar, if not identical to mine, and i think you have done “our side” justice with your way of expressing it.

I mean, yeah, people who aren’t ready to “get it” might think you’re “crazy,” but that doesn’t make them right, and i find it difficult to validate the judgements of fantastically irrational minds. The majority can be as wrong as the weakest link, just like any other chain.

Also: in my youth, i might have taken “anarchy” more seriously, and portrayed myself as a supporter… but anarchy requires faith in humanity (or the power to reliably destroy any would be attackers), which decades of life on earth has all but entirely erased. Someone has to be the leader, because “most people are stupid,” and so if we let the stupid majority decide what happens, stupid things will happen. It would be nice if we could have a way that is acceptable for everyone, to choose the correct leaders… but you know what they say about knowledge, power, and corruption. I doubt it is possible to successfully implement any non-corrupt gov’t. I’m certain it’s impossible for idiots and savages to appropriately govern themselves.

So it all comes back to power. I just wish we could find a way to get the best mix of power, integrity, and good intentions. It will never be perfect, but i do still have enough “faith in humanity,” to believe that, while implausible, it is technically still “possible,” that the world could be a far better place, if enough effort were applied to the right areas, by enough people, with appropriate preparation.

And as long as there are large organizations obstructing and obfuscating the sources of the worlds most troubling problems, we will never make any significant progress toward that goal. And so the world remains as hideous and repulsive as it is, until something allows it to change. My life will end before any of this is corrected… but someone has to lay the groundwork, so i guess it might as well be me. If i don’t do it, who will? Will anyone? Probably not. If we all just leave it up to anyone else, and assume someone else will do what we won’t, then nothing ever gets done… and the problems only worsen.

“… if these actions were not undertaken with the guise of religious beliefs…”

Yes, exactly. Under the GUISE of religion. Removing that layer of abstraction would allow us to more clearly observe the actual source, which in turn allows more appropriate solutions to be crafted. However, often those beliefs are literally the cause and basis of actions, and not “just a guise.” Religious types love to parrot “everything happens for a reason!” But often the things people wonder about and wish to avoid, happen /because/ people believe in a God. Ergo: certain things (some terrible) happen, because people act on their belief in a God (which is entirely unsupported by any evidence in observable reality).

See what i’m getting at?

SB has a firm grip on this topic.

“It is a misconception that religious indoctrination is responsible for all the evil in the world.”

This, in itself, is another layer of misconception. As SB pointed out, this is not the assertion we are making, but even if it were, it would be largely valid. Belief is the motive for action. Remove the source of the offending action, and the offending action will cease.

OR, it will reveal itself to be motivated by something else, and show the previous “belief” as merely a convenient excuse, instead of the actual cause.

When we assert that religious indoctrination is the cause of *much* of the world’s problems (the point of doing so, is that it is easy identify a false belief as a problematic source of motivation), we are not saying “religion is everything that is wrong.” We are instead acknowledging the vast array of negative impacts it has, does, and will continue to cause, if not corrected. The counter-argument from the religious, basically amounts to opposing correction, thus, supporting continued detriment to the world.

This is one of those things that falls against the razor. They can either acknowledge their past mistakes and pledge to change, or they can insist on remaining wrong, and choose to continue causing me and countless others, unnecessary pain. Anyone who insists on remaining wrong, is not my friend. It’s not that i want enemies, but that they simply insist on staying their course, regardless. It’s tantamount to saying “i don’t care if it hurts you, i’m doing it anyway.” The whole point is that we should all care not to hurt each other unnecessarily, and strive to reduce instances and severity of needless suffering. The ‘God crowd’ loves to excuse themselves from the responsibility of their own actions, by saying “god works in mysterious ways!” or “he is testing us, we suffer more because he loves us so much!”

We cannot allow that type of irrational mindset to remain so prevalent in the world, or it will continue to produce exactly what needs to be eliminated.

*People* are responsible for the way things are, Not any “God.”

Therefore, it is up to People, not any “God,” to decide to choose to act differently. Meanwhile, the religious keep ignoring the problems, turning their back on knowledge, rejecting and preventing solutions that might otherwise be allowed to occur. If they refuse to alter their course, then the problems cannot be solved, and the rest of us are just stuck with it. That is unacceptable to me, and many others. That is the point.

@Persephone:

Right, but the young are sheltered from the “evil atheists,” while being indoctrinated into the systems that will convince them to reject any ideas that conflict with their indoctrination.

People should never be taught to blindly trust.

And you’re right, i won’t be holding my breath awaiting apologies. I will instead persistently assert the illegitimacy and incorrectness of their fallacious position, and “judge” them as not my friends, while offering them a choice to learn differently, and “defect” from their psychological prisons.

Commenting in web discussions falls somewhere between “holding my breath” and “shouting from rooftops.” So, here i am. 😉

“…just so long as their actions don’t adversely impact me I don’t care.”

Well, i mean, “their actions” DO adversely impact me, though often in quite subtle ways… but sometimes it’s blatantly overt.

It does affect me, which is why i care at all. As i said before: If it was truly “irrelevant,” then it would not matter to me. But it is relevant, because it affects me, and has often shown itself to be the source of some of my most important and difficult obstacles.

As an atheist, i want nothing more than to never have to think or care about “religion” ever again. But i can’t escape its impacts. I’m a wounded, cornered animal, ready to rip faces off. But without that scenario having been imposed upon me by an environment i did not choose to create, i would have been a far more “easy going” person. If i wasn’t cornered, i wouldn’t feel an overwhelming compulsion to escape. If i wasn’t attacked, i wouldn’t feel the need to defend. If i thought the attacks would just go away on their own, i wouldn’t need to counter-attack, or worry about any fight at all. I would just be free to be me… if not for the impacts that religion and the religious have chosen to impose upon me.

In order to abandon my position as an assertive atheist, i would have to stop caring about people, to allow them to be wrong and continue needlessly complicating the world, motivated by obvious lies. I would have to not care. I can only fabricate so much artificial apathy in myself. I can’t figure out how to just completely not care at all, without leading myself toward my own demise.

As Layne Staley sang: “one who doesn’t care, is one who shouldn’t be…”

The debate could be said to have already been won by atheists, because theists cannot allow a reasonable debate to run its course.

Or, the debate could be said to never have been allowed to occur at all, for a similar reason.

Obfuscation is a very effective tactic for someone who does not want truth revealed. But even better, when the protected system is designed in such a way that it discourages all doubt, and values “faith” above evidence, while also demanding evidence to disprove its own baseless assertions… it’s a brilliantly secure system, and even the “hackers” have trouble dealing with all its self-contradictions.

The fact of the matter is, those who claim faith in unsubstantiated claims, while also demanding proof of the contrary, without ever proving their own claims, do not even value evidence in the first place. Theism demands absolute evidence from Atheism, while requiring none from itself… while being based purely on the requirement of lacking, and even ignoring valid evidence.

So, either the debate never happened, or the debate was won the first time someone suggested “the burden of proof rests upon the claimant,” and Theism was unable to sufficiently rebut.

The illusion is that Theism is somehow still valid, via prevention, obstruction, obfuscation, and disruption of the so-called “debate.”

Being unable or unwilling to properly identify and/or acknowledge validity of one’s own ideals, is a heavy indicator of poor judgment. I find it well within my right to “judge” people, based on their indications of poor judgment. I cannot place my well-being in the hands of someone who very obviously displays irrationality and poor judgment. Therefore, i must avoid the bible-thumpers, because there is an increased probability of them causing me problems through poor judgment.

When the debate is allowed to proceed to completion, it will be very obvious to anyone with reasonable judgment, who is the “winner.” Until that happens, it can be said that the Atheists would like to continue the debate, but Theists cannot make a valid argument, or even present a defensible position on this matter. They simply insist on asserting their claims as “true,” citing what is conveniently known as “faith,” and ignoring the illegitimacy of their own beliefs and motives, in favor of maintaining access to whatever benefits it provides them.

And on that note: i can’t blame them for wanting to maintain access to their benefits. But identifying that motive also means they are actually reasonable and rational, and so the rest is largely just a show, making their entire position completely disingenuous.

They want things to stay the ways they are, because the way things are continue to benefit them, and they don’t care how negatively or severely that may impact anyone else.

I want things to change, to become more beneficial for myself, as well as everyone else *in the long run,* because the ways things are now, has been and will remain vastly detrimental to me, and many others who share similar experiences and views.

At some point, we have to decide who is “right,” and who is “wrong,” and Why.

I think we have to base right and wrong on reality and reason, not on fantasy and “faith.”

Just hoping things work out for the best, is not a valid solution to problems.

Let’s get back to the OP.

I do think we “are supposed to” make our own decisions.

I do Not think we typically have the choice of what or whether to feel. Sometimes we just feel things involuntarily, but we almost always have the choice of what, or whether to do about it.

Not everyone is inherently important, but we all should perceive the invaluable chance to live a life, and the way we interact with our world, and with others, can indeed be very important. We all share an environment, we’re all similar, and many of our actions and interactions and influences do indeed intersect, often outside of our realm of perception and influence. In these ways, we are certainly “linked.” You could say everyone is linked to and through everything they encounter in their lives, and even sometimes, linked to people or things they’ll never encounter, except through extended impacts of the actions of another (actions which, lets not forget, are always motivated by belief, to varying degrees).

But as for the rest… i think we should all learn, understand, and appreciate the value of doing the right thing, purely for the sake of doing the right thing, and not based on fear of supernatural punishment, or upon expectation of a supernatural reward. We should do what’s right, for ourselves, for others, for the sake of doing what’s right… but we have to know what that is, first, before we can appropriately direct our efforts. Plenty of people are misguided enough to believe they are doing what’s right, when they are in fact, actually needlessly harming others, and basing their need to act in such ways, upon farcical and unsubstantiated beliefs, or expectation of “heavenly” rewards, or fear of “eternal damnation.”

Bodies in motion tend to stay in motion. Those who seek truth, tend to find it.

Bodies at rest, tend to stay at rest. Those who have decided to firmly affix to a static belief, tend to continue believing that.

What is wrong, tends to remain wrong, unless the unstoppable force finds a way to move the immovable object.