Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Talizvar wrote:
Messy I know but talking about feelings: thinking there is some kind of afterlife sure beats the alternative: you die, you cease to exist, you oversized colony of cells die and rot.
If you are wrong in either condition it sucks.

Many people think along the lines that if there is no afterlife then that is a horrible thought, so they believe there is one. Unfortunately just because it might be horrible doesn't mean it's not true.

I am an atheist, always have been. But I have begun to get more interested in the subject of religion recently and have been looking into things more. The more I do research, the more convinced I am that there is no God of any sort.

One thing that does it for me (at least about the Christian religion) is that we know for a fact the Earth is billions of years old, that life evolved, therefore there was no genesis, no garden of Eden. That's a major part of the old testament out with. If there was no garden of Eden, there was no talking snake, no eating of the forbidden fruit, so there was no original sin. If there was no original sin, there was no need for Jesus to save us, so the new testament is out as well.

The fact that for the most part people share their religions with their parents and that religion just happens to be the one true religion, well that was very lucky for them, wasn't it? Good job they weren't born in a different country where the dominant religion is one of those false ones, because they would grow up believing that one. If we had been born in ancient Greece we'd believe in Zeus, if we lived in 11th century Norway, we'd believe in Thor and so on.

The fact that we look back and say how silly peoples beliefs were back then, yet those people believed just as strongly that they were right as people do today of their own religions. It's clear to me that todays religions will be looked back on with the same view that we have of the old religions, it's just a matter of time.

I'm Atheist personally

PredaKhaine wrote:

Evil & Chaos wrote:


And that "better place" you want to go to is simply a state of existence where you spend your eternity in endless praise of your jealous*** owner, or being tortured by your owner if you annoyed him during your brief eyeblink of breathing - It's such a depressing view of existence, to me, reducing humanity to the level of a Pavlovian creature, longing for death and a reward that will never come, and if it does come it will be intellectually void.

Thats one view of it - heaven is what you make of it.

All things are what you make of them. That's existentialism. :-)

The main point of heaven is to keep people in line.

I agree, promise of reward in the afterlife for favourable behaviour in real life, is a method of control.
That's how we got the Divine Right of Kings - the peasents were happy that the King had all the power and comfort, because God wouldn't have had them born poor if he wanted them to live in comfort.

There are some good rules in there too - thou shalt not kill is a fairly good piece of advice if you live in a community.

Note the rule in Biblical Hebrew is actually "You shall not Murder". Killing other humans is permitted. Indeed it is often directly ordered by God himself, after the giving of the Decalogue.

Heaven and Hell were the big sticks people used to justify their rules.

I agree. It's part of how you can tell they're human creations.

There are still some useful rules in the 10 commandments.

Honor thy father and thy mother.
Thou shall not kill/murder.
Thou shall not commit adultery.
Thou shall not steal.
Thou shall not bear false witness against your neighbor

Great rules for living in a society, broadly.
You shouldn't honour your father and mother if they're evil, mind you. And stealing to save a life would be okay, etc.

Thou sall not covet your neighbor's wife (or anything that belongs to your neighbor).

I have some problems with this rule.
Firstly, it lumps your neighbour's wife in along with his property, his slaves, and his livestock - his owned chattel, in other words.
Secondly, it punishes thought-crime.
Thirdly, coveting can be a root cause for ambition. There's nothing wrong with seeing that your neighbour has a nice new car, and thinking "If I work hard I can have that car too".

The Decalogue also has nothing to say on some significant moral issues:
Where is : You shall not commit genocide
Where is : You shall not rape
Where is : You shall not take slaves

The reason they're not there is that, not long after giving the Ten Commandments to Moses, God comes back to Moses and tells him to commit genocide on a nearby nation of people (God specifically includes babies in the list of types of people to kill). God says to rape their women, and take the women of breeding age that survive the rape as slaves.

It's another reason you can tell that the Bible is a bronze-age human-made (specifically man made) artifact, and not divinely given - You have to ignore the huge swathes of the Bible that's honestly just evil, to the find the 5% that's good and say "aha! *this* is the true heart religion!".

And that 5% that's left? It's just good common sense - There's nothing uniquely religious to the command "Do not murder people".
"Do unto others as you would have them do to you" does appear in the Bible (both in the Old Testament and the New), but it also appears in every other moral philosophy and religion we're aware of, going back to the earliest writings we have, long before the Hebrews began their search for the answers to life's questions.

I'm also convinced all people *are* pavlovian creatures.

I believe we can rise above our base natures and don't have to act only on instinct, "salivating" at the thought of a reward after we die (just so long as we obey the power structures around us in this lifetime, to the obvious benefit of those power structures).

Evil & Chaos wrote:

I'm also convinced all people *are* pavlovian creatures.

I believe we can rise above our base natures and don't have to act only on instinct, "salivating" at the thought of a reward after we die (just so long as we obey the power structures around us in this lifetime, to the obvious benefit of those power structures).

After all that, I find out you're more of an optimist than I am

Human nature is inherently selfish. Finding out its better to cry 'fire' in some areas if you're being raped as people will respond much faster is an entirely depressing thought.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_Yell_Fire

PredaKhaine wrote:

Evil & Chaos wrote:

I'm also convinced all people *are* pavlovian creatures.

I believe we can rise above our base natures and don't have to act only on instinct, "salivating" at the thought of a reward after we die (just so long as we obey the power structures around us in this lifetime, to the obvious benefit of those power structures).

After all that, I find out you're more of an optimist than I am

I find I'm typically much more of an optimist than most religious people. Something to with less fatalistic acceptance of arbitrary (and unchallengeable) rules, I suspect.

Human nature is inherently selfish. Finding out its better to cry 'fire' in some areas if you're being raped as people will respond much faster is an entirely depressing thought.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_Yell_Fire

And I'd never argue that human psychology couldn't do with some better education - I'd argue we might do better as a society if we had dedicated Moral Philosophy classes in schools, instead of Religious Education classes (RE as a subject can be shunted over to the History department, because it is impossible to understand History without the context of religion as a consistent motivating factor behind many world events).

RE in schools is useless.

You either get taught by an atheist who doesn't care about the subject matter in the slightest or you get taught by a believer who forces it on kids who couldn't care less.

'How to be a good person and why you should try' should be taught somewhere in every school.
So would you offer people a reward for being a good person?

Here in Oklahoma religion is not part of our school education AFAIK.

In Germany in the 90s we did have RE. We were split up into 3 groups. Catholics and Lutherans both got RE, and everybody else (and people that didn't want RE) got "Ethics" or "Morality" or something along that line.

Evil & Chaos wrote:
I find I'm typically much more of an optimist than most religious people. Something to with less fatalistic acceptance of arbitrary (and unchallengeable) rules, I suspect.

I'm pessimistic because experiences in life have taught me to always prepare for the worst. That way if the worst happens you're prepared. If it doesn't, its a nice surprise.
Thats nothing to do with religion, more common sense.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
Here in Oklahoma religion is not part of our school education AFAIK.

In Germany in the 90s we did have RE. We were split up into 3 groups. Catholics and Lutherans both got RE, and everybody else (and people that didn't want RE) got "Ethics" or "Morality" or something along that line.

Thats sounds like better sense than when I was a kid - we were lumped into one class regardless of beliefs - bar Jehovahs witnesses (we had one). There were no other religions in our school back then.
It was taught by a a very nice christian man who couldn't control his class in the slightest. The net effect was the amount of atheists in the class grew significantly over the 5 years of secondary school.

PredaKhaine wrote:
So would you offer people a reward for being a good person?

Yup - they get to be part of a prosperous forward-thinking western society. Practical Karma is its own reward, just as long as most people "do unto others as you would have them do to you".

Here in Oklahoma religion is not part of our school education AFAIK.

Here in the UK we technically have an official state religion (Anglicanism). This means that RE normally gets taught as fact by school teachers.
As PredaKhaine says, this has the entirely predictable effect of creating a lot of atheists.

At the last census, 25% ticked "no religion" on the form, and according to polling another 35% or so ticked "christian" for cultural reasons rather than because they believe in the tenets of Christianity (like, "there is a god").

Evil & Chaos wrote:

PredaKhaine wrote:
So would you offer people a reward for being a good person?

Yup - they get to be part of a prosperous forward-thinking western society.

Buts thats something most people take for granted.
Would you offer people personal physical gain for being good people?

If the only reason people are good is because of a reward then that says something about them doesn't it.

PredaKhaine wrote:

Evil & Chaos wrote:

PredaKhaine wrote:
So would you offer people a reward for being a good person?

Yup - they get to be part of a prosperous forward-thinking western society.

Buts thats something most people take for granted.
Would you offer people personal physical gain for being good people?

I would look to educate them to understand that if everyone (or, almost everyone) obeys The Golden Rule, then they'll get back what they gave, a thousandfold. There are atheist-majority countries like Sweden that don't seem to have descended into Darwinian anarchy after they threw off the mind-shackles of faith.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Shredder wrote:
If the only reason people are good is because of a reward then that says something about them doesn't it.

Indeed, you're not actually inculcating "goodness" in people. You're just making them behave in the manner you want them to because they're afraid of being tortured by a demon named Lucifer for all eternity.

Evil & Chaos wrote:

PredaKhaine wrote:

Evil & Chaos wrote:

PredaKhaine wrote:
So would you offer people a reward for being a good person?

Yup - they get to be part of a prosperous forward-thinking western society.

Buts thats something most people take for granted.
Would you offer people personal physical gain for being good people?

I would look to educate them to understand that if everyone (or, almost everyone) obeys The Golden Rule, then they'll get back what they gave, a thousandfold. There are atheist-majority countries like Sweden that don't seem to have descended into Darwinian anarchy after they threw off the mind-shackles of faith.

I'm not sure I agree with the golden rule - do I therefore need to be punished or re-educated?

(I actually don't - I think it creates an impression of a 2 way contract. Like giving a birthday present and expecting one back)

I think a better rule would be to treat others better than you expect to be treated. But thats far too idealistic

PredaKhaine wrote:
I'm not sure I agree with the golden rule - do I therefore need to be punished or re-educated?

(I actually don't - I think it creates an impression of a 2 way contract. Like giving a birthday present and expecting one back)

A 2-way contract is a pretty sensible way to look at it I think. That's what society is - a contract to behave within the expected norms of that society.
If you transgress those norms, you're going to either end up with the norms moving (racism or homophobia becoming unacceptable springs to mind), revolution (the rules are not moved, but entirely replaced with incompatible rules), or anarchy (the rules are breached so often as to become meaningless).

I'd submit that the various atheist-majority counties in the world tend to show that it's more often the former, than the latter two, that happens.

I think a better rule would be to treat others better than you expect to be treated. But thats far too idealistic

We can call that one the Titanium rule, if you like (The Platinum Rule and The Silver Rule are already taken, as variations on The Golden Rule). :-)



“Do unto others 20% better than you would expect them to do unto you, to correct for subjective error.”

― Linus Pauling

Evil & Chaos wrote:

PredaKhaine wrote:

(I actually don't - I think it creates an impression of a 2 way contract. Like giving a birthday present and expecting one back)

A 2-way contract is a pretty sensible way to look at it I think. That's what society is - a contract to behave within the expected norms of that society.
If you transgress those norms, you're going to either end up with the norms moving (racism or homophobia becoming unacceptable springs to mind), revolution (the rules are not moved, but entirely replaced with incompatible rules), or anarchy (the rules are breached so often as to become meaningless).

Its the expectation of giving to receive I don't like - If you do something nice for someone, you automatically expect the same in return. It would be nice to live in a society where if someone did something nice for you, they did it through sheer altruism. Not because they gave you something and now they want it back - like a society of loan venders...

Evil & Chaos wrote:

“Do unto others 20% better than you would expect them to do unto you, to correct for subjective error.”
― Linus Pauling

Awesome quote

since when did this start being a discussion on social contract and not one about religion? Besides, the concept of the social contract is silly and prone to failing stress-tests *cough* egypt *cough* *sneeze*gaza strip*sneeze*

PredaKhaine wrote:

Evil & Chaos wrote:

PredaKhaine wrote:

(I actually don't - I think it creates an impression of a 2 way contract. Like giving a birthday present and expecting one back)

A 2-way contract is a pretty sensible way to look at it I think. That's what society is - a contract to behave within the expected norms of that society.
If you transgress those norms, you're going to either end up with the norms moving (racism or homophobia becoming unacceptable springs to mind), revolution (the rules are not moved, but entirely replaced with incompatible rules), or anarchy (the rules are breached so often as to become meaningless).

Its the expectation of giving to receive I don't like - If you do something nice for someone, you automatically expect the same in return. It would be nice to live in a society where if someone did something nice for you, did it through sheer altruism. Not because they gave you something and now they want it back - like a society of loan venders...

I'd agree that there is a strong element of self-interest to the general application of the golden rule.
However I think that it's unavoidable - wanting to live in a more peaceful and happy world is an inately selfish act.

If you're not going to motivate someone to be good out of fear (of being burned alive in Hell for all eternity), then appealing to their self-interest seems a fairly logical philosophy. The only people who don't want to live in a happy, peaceful world are the religiously ideological, mad people, and arms dealers.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 poda_t wrote:
since when did this start being a discussion on social contract and not one about religion? Besides, the concept of the social contract is silly and prone to failing stress-tests *cough* egypt *cough* *sneeze*gaza strip*sneeze*

Since we decided that one of the main functions of religion in the real world is to form a de-facto social contract.

Egypty and Gaza hardly count as examples of a failing (unified) social contract, because both situations are examples of opposed religious views causing friction (broadly speaking).

 Shredder wrote:
If the only reason people are good is because of a reward then that says something about them doesn't it.

I always liked this man, his quotes are something to chew on:

Robert Heinlein

"Morals — all correct moral laws — derive from the instinct to survive. Moral behavior is survival behavior above the individual level."

"All societies are based on rules to protect pregnant women and young children. All else is surplusage, excrescence, adornment, luxury, or folly, which can — and must — be dumped in emergency to preserve this prime function. As racial survival is the only universal morality, no other basic is possible. Attempts to formulate a "perfect society" on any foundation other than "Women and children first!" is not only witless, it is automatically genocidal. Nevertheless, starry-eyed idealists (all of them male) have tried endlessly — and no doubt will keep on trying."

"It is a truism that almost any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so, and will follow it by suppressing opposition, subverting all education to seize early the minds of the young, and by killing, locking up, or driving underground all heretics."

"Sin lies only in hurting others unnecessarily. All other "sins" are invented nonsense. (Hurting yourself is not sinful —just stupid.)"

"There is no conclusive evidence of life after death. But there is no evidence of any sort against it. Soon enough you will know. So why fret about it?"

I'm very atheist. Though I've ended up playing as what is essentially the church in 40K, which in hindsight is kinda funny.

 Troike wrote:
I'm very atheist. Though I've ended up playing as what is essentially the church in 40K, which in hindsight is kinda funny.

One of the reasons I hate Space Marines, their cult like ideology and 'burn first, ask questions never' attitude. Very dark ages Christianity.

 Shredder wrote:

 Troike wrote:
I'm very atheist. Though I've ended up playing as what is essentially the church in 40K, which in hindsight is kinda funny.

One of the reasons I hate Space Marines, their cult like ideology and 'burn first, ask questions never' attitude. Very dark ages Christianity.

This actually kinda came up in a thread before, so I'll post my thoughts on it. Personally, I think it's allright to admire those sorts of traits if it's fictional characters that have them. For example, if those Marines were real and hurting real people, then we would most likely rightfully depsise them. However, since they're fictional, we can appreciate aspects of their zealot themes- the dedication to duty, the righteous rage and the refusal to back down, all things that appeal to the average Space Marine fanboy. On a similar note, we don't go around accusing Ork fans of supporting football hooligan riots or Khorne fans of liking senseless bloodshed IRL.

Don't get me wrong, if those traits put you off then feel free to dislike them, but it needn't put you off entirely. Like I said, I'm an atheist but I've come to love a group of fanatical warrior zealots.

Can you make a chapter that keeps on bugging the cult mechanicum and telling them "look guys, it's not the omnisiah. It's just basic engineering!" and then arguing against the Sisters of Battle before telling Chaos to bugger off because they are not real? (I truly say this in jest)

Space Marines are probably the most atheist branch of the imperium anyway though.

 d-usa wrote:
Can you make a chapter that keeps on bugging the cult mechanicum and telling them "look guys, it's not the omnisiah. It's just basic engineering!" and then arguing against the Sisters of Battle before telling Chaos to bugger off because they are not real? (I truly say this in jest)

Would they have power fedoras and engage SoBs and Chaos alike in fierce debate over wireless transmissions?

I too, am of course joking. Obviously those are just stereotypes.

 d-usa wrote:
Space Marines are probably the most atheist branch of the imperium anyway though.

Probably true. What's funny though is that a casual obsserver would never realise this, what with all the cries of "purge!", "cleanse!" and all that. Plus they have Chaplains and also dub some of their enemies as "heretics". I suppose it says something about how heavily 40K draws from its influences that the main human faction of non-believers really isn't all that recognisible as such to us modern people.

 Troike wrote:

 Shredder wrote:

 Troike wrote:
I'm very atheist. Though I've ended up playing as what is essentially the church in 40K, which in hindsight is kinda funny.

One of the reasons I hate Space Marines, their cult like ideology and 'burn first, ask questions never' attitude. Very dark ages Christianity.

This actually kinda came up in a thread before, so I'll post my thoughts on it. Personally, I think it's allright to admire those sorts of traits if it's fictional characters that have them. For example, if those Marines were real and hurting real people, then we would most likely rightfully depsise them. However, since they're fictional, we can appreciate aspects of their zealot themes- the dedication to duty, the righteous rage and the refusal to back down, all things that appeal to the average Space Marine fanboy. On a similar note, we don't go around accusing Ork fans of supporting football hooligan riots or Khorne fans of liking senseless bloodshed IRL.

Don't get me wrong, if those traits put you off then feel free to dislike them, but it needn't put you off entirely. Like I said, I'm an atheist but I've come to love a group of fanatical warrior zealots.

Ha, yeah I get what you're saying. After all my main army is Dark Eldar and they're not exactly the nicest of people. In fact there aren't any nice factions, that's why it's grim dark.

While I do try to worship His Noodliness every second day or so, I am by all sensible means an atheist.

I can tolerate religion in other people as long as they don't oppress others.

 TheCustomLime wrote:
Atheist. I'm an atheist because I see our culture and race is the macro sense. As in, current religions are just another phase in the evolving beliefs of mankind. My realization of this made me also realize that soon our religions will fade and new ones will replace them. After reaching this mindset I couldn't continue worshipping god in earnest. I

Geez hasn't happened for a while has it?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

treslibras wrote:
While I do try to worship His Noodliness every second day or so, I am by all sensible means an atheist.

I can tolerate religion in other people as long as they don't oppress others.

The fact that you mentioned "tolerance" and "religion" when most of the world is religious doesn't speak well.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
Can you make a chapter that keeps on bugging the cult mechanicum and telling them "look guys, it's not the omnisiah. It's just basic engineering!" and then arguing against the Sisters of Battle before telling Chaos to bugger off because they are not real? (I truly say this in jest)

Space Marines are probably the most atheist branch of the imperium anyway though.

Sometimes sentient seeming AIs are basic engineering? Yeah.....


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Shredder wrote:

 Troike wrote:
I'm very atheist. Though I've ended up playing as what is essentially the church in 40K, which in hindsight is kinda funny.

One of the reasons I hate Space Marines, their cult like ideology and 'burn first, ask questions never' attitude. Very dark ages Christianity.

That's dark age Christian ideology? What? Never got within a solar system of being that extreme.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Talizvar wrote:

 Shredder wrote:
If the only reason people are good is because of a reward then that says something about them doesn't it.

I always liked this man, his quotes are something to chew on:

Robert Heinlein

"Morals — all correct moral laws — derive from the instinct to survive. Moral behavior is survival behavior above the individual level."

"All societies are based on rules to protect pregnant women and young children. All else is surplusage, excrescence, adornment, luxury, or folly, which can — and must — be dumped in emergency to preserve this prime function. As racial survival is the only universal morality, no other basic is possible. Attempts to formulate a "perfect society" on any foundation other than "Women and children first!" is not only witless, it is automatically genocidal. Nevertheless, starry-eyed idealists (all of them male) have tried endlessly — and no doubt will keep on trying."

"It is a truism that almost any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so, and will follow it by suppressing opposition, subverting all education to seize early the minds of the young, and by killing, locking up, or driving underground all heretics."

"Sin lies only in hurting others unnecessarily. All other "sins" are invented nonsense. (Hurting yourself is not sinful —just stupid.)"

"There is no conclusive evidence of life after death. But there is no evidence of any sort against it. Soon enough you will know. So why fret about it?"

I remember a quote of how different man is from every other animal. Whereas nature subjugates every other animal we subjugate it. Mankind is above fighting for survival.......

I worship the dark gods! My personal patron being Tzeentch gotta live the plans even if you are being manipulated in a grander plan than yours (in all seriousness agnostic. I don't give one flip whether a god, gods, or flying spagetti monster lives I'll live my life how I believe it to be right. If one chooses that is wrong then so be it. I'll help my friends, work for a tomorrow, and live my days trying to strive for better whatever such an arbitrary word means)

 TheSaintofKilllers wrote:
Geez hasn't happened for a while has it?

When mankind explores the realms of the gods, man learns there are no gods and the ones which come to replace the old gods live in ever more remote parts of the universe until we come to the gods of today who don't live on mountains or in lakes but who exist outside of space and time itself and have no physical presence in the universe.

It is very hard to disprove something for which there is no proof of its existance or non-existance. At least for those who believe that there is something there despite a lack of any kind of evidence for there being anything in existance at all...

But then it is not our place to disprove your claims, but for you to prove them.

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 TheSaintofKilllers wrote:
Geez hasn't happened for a while has it?

When mankind explores the realms of the gods, man learns there are no gods and the ones which come to replace the old gods live in ever more remote parts of the universe until we come to the gods of today who don't live on mountains or in lakes but who exist outside of space and time itself and have no physical presence in the universe.

It is very hard to disprove something for which there is no proof of its existance or non-existance. At least for those who believe that there is something there despite a lack of any kind of evidence for there being anything in existance at all...

But then it is not our place to disprove your claims, but for you to prove them.

I didn't make a claim......
But regardless Mankind is very new in its scientific knowledge.
Far too new to even disprove God's chilling only 50 light years away.

 TheSaintofKilllers wrote:

treslibras wrote:
While I do try to worship His Noodliness every second day or so, I am by all sensible means an atheist.

I can tolerate religion in other people as long as they don't oppress others.

The fact that you mentioned "tolerance" and "religion" when most of the world is religious doesn't speak well.

No idea what you want to say. (Could be a language thing.)