Have you noticed that there are really two types of religious people?
There are people who believe their religion is true, and then there is the larger group of people who believe their religion is part of their identity.
This is why atheists are hated. The second type of religious person thinks that the atheist must be trying to identify with evil. Atheists only ever end up talking to the first type of religious person.
First type of religious people are wrong.
Second type is stupid.
>Let us call this unknown something: God. It is nothing more than a name we assign to it. The idea of demonstrating that this unknown something (God) exists, could scarcely suggest itself to Reason. For if God does not exist it would of course be impossible to prove it; and if he does exist it would be folly to attempt it. For at the very outset, in beginning my proof, I would have presupposed it, not as doubtful but as certain (a presupposition is never doubtful, for the very reason that it is a presupposition), since otherwise I would not begin, readily understanding that the whole would be impossible if he did not exist. But if when I speak of proving God's existence I mean that I propose to prove that the Unknown, which exists, is God, then I express myself unfortunately. For in that case I do not prove anything, least of all an existence, but merely develop the content of a conception.
>Kierkegaard primarily discusses subjectivity with regard to religious matters. As already noted, he argues that doubt is an element of faith and that it is impossible to gain any objective certainty about religious doctrines such as the existence of God or the life of Christ. The most one could hope for would be the conclusion that it is probable that the Christian doctrines are true, but if a person were to believe such doctrines only to the degree they seemed likely to be true, he or she would not be genuinely religious at all. Faith consists in a subjective relation of absolute commitment to these doctrines.
religion is a coping mechanism once you face your failure of your life, just like other contrived fantasizes, your faith in the scientific method included.
Religions are meant to leave material-bodily hedonism, travels, concerts, foods, sex and so on, for a spiritual hedonism, through prayers for theists and mediation for atheists.
Plenty of material hedonist love to think of themselves as less hedonistic than they are, since it improves their hedonism in thinking that they are not animals...most people who claim to be religious are not all, it is just the way they are.
In buddhism, you even leave this spiritual hedonism, after you have gained it, which is called jhanas, since you understand that this bliss from prayers, which is just a great, but not perfect concentration-stilness, are not personal nor permanent and that you are still prone to avidity and aversion.
Pic is what Nassim Taleb thinks. Thoughts?
Atheism is in itself a rejection of family and one's own culture.
Agnosticism likewise represents doubt.
I think this is why so many teenagers flirt with these beliefs as they go through adolescence because they are dissatisfied with their place in life.
Those that step back from their edgyness ultimately find some love and place within their families
what about atheists in an atheistic family and culture?
Only if your family and culture are religious, and exclude you if you are not.
For many people, their family is not religious, or doesn't reject the child who is not.
So I would say that your conjecture would only apply to strongly religious family, it's not a universal human property.
On paper, let's say an atheistic family in the Soviet Union, a teenager would find his edgyness in studying/following Christianity. They would still be rejecting their family as they ultimately believe they would ascend into Heaven while their family would go to Hell.
Now if we're talking about a nonchalant liberal household I ultimately think love and belonging can be shared over a few generations.
But the long term cohesion of that family will ultimately break apart in the long term. As individual members may adopt the beliefs systems of their spouses and be pulled into their spouses family units over their birth family.
I'm not talking about physical exclusion though. Spiritual exclusion, while not malevolent, is still a rejection.
I'm not talking about physical exclusion either, I mean "love and place within families" is not exclusive to religious households.
And like I said, while such thing is commonplace and accepted today.
It is not long lasting, people without faith will inevitability need a values system to keep them bound to their families and their culture.
>But the long term cohesion of that family will ultimately break apart in the long term.
Like how families do en masse right now in Christian America thanks to divorces on an industrial scale?
>Atheism is in itself a rejection of family and one's own culture
and that there is the textbook example of an Outside Context problem, from someone who cant understand the idea.
Go to 1/2 of europe, and the entire culture, of everyone there is predominantly secular. People going to churches are the minority, people dont pray, perple dont mention gods at all - except to curse. (in the words of Pratchett, "Jesus Fucking Christ!" feels a lot better than "Oh, random fluctuations in spacetime!" as a curse, even if you have absolutely no belief in JC.)
Trying to say that it is "rejection of family and one's own culture" is laughably parochial and blinkered.
no problem, in america we already have a value system based upon faith in the American Dream
"Values systems" are not exclusive to "faith" either.
Humans inherently make up their own values based on life experience and empathy.
Religion is in fact a subset of ethics, not the other way around.
No, OP, they're hated because they believe stupid things:
"Half of all atheists and agnostics say that every person has a soul, that Heaven and Hell exist, and that there is life after death. One out of every eight atheists and agnostics even believe that accepting Jesus Christ as savior probably makes life after death possible. These contradictions are further evidence that many Americans adopt simplistic views of life and the afterlife based upon ideas drawn from disparate sources, such as movies, music and novels, without carefully considering those beliefs. Consequently, the labels attached to people - whether it be ‘born again’ or ‘atheist’ may not give us as much insight into the person’s beliefs as we might assume."
>muh identity
You were fucking born into it, you never had control over it, you were essentially brainwashed from birth. What's so special about that? It's meaningless.
>trying to put a label on atheists and atheism
It's just a rejection of fairy tales. It's not a belief system.
Yes along with the undertones of societal decadence that is sweeping the country. Individualism is a trait Americans value more than anything else yet the lack personal responsibility has made the family weak.
Love and belonging are still important to Americans but the the disconnection created by the internet has made people not appreciate their families.
Yet the demographics in Europe are forever changing right now.
Yes Europeans blossomed in overt secularism in the aftermath of WW2 but now that is changing. Islam, with its conservative and family controlling values, will become a dominating aspect in European society in the coming decades.
This is very much because European families are brittle.
Yet the current political movements sweeping across the nation seem to suggest otherwise. Confidence in fairness, in the establishment, in society itself is failing.
I can agree with that but faith, being intrinsic to humans since our evolutionary ancestors like buried their dead and painted on cave walls, is biologically rewarding.
People who submit themselves to a higher power and following a values system are rewarded beyond their own life (in theory). That assurance of eternally belonging to your family as well as your spiritual creator is a powerful feeling.
>not asking Jesus what you want for Christmas
>the literal state of mind and cognitive process you walk around with and interact with external reality in accordance to, a huge part of what determines how you feel,is meaningless because a freewill/deterministic duality exist and you're not entirely in control of creating your identity
such a pleb view
We don't choose who we are, yet the lack of choice is what makes identity and the family that raises you far from meaningless.
Familial love is the balance between the biological impulses of being owned/controlling others and consensual endearment you hold towards your loved ones in spite of that impelling biology.
>freewill/deterministic duality
What a spook.
it is what it is friend
Yes but the problem is that "identity" religious people can't actually say "yes of course I know it's all nonsense, just stop killing my buzz". Their identity prevents them from ever saying such a thing, even though their behaviour screams it.
And so in the end, they can only be treated as if they really believed it. Furthermore, they provide cover for the people who really believe it, by acting just like them.
American atheists are hated because they're incredibly obnoxious and annoying faggots who are both extremely arrogant and incredibly stupid.
Like regular Americans, only more so.
>Le brainwashed from birth maymay
Because an atheist family having atheist kids isn't brainwashing, Amirite guys! REMEMBER TO UPBOAT MY BOST :DDDD
It isn't.
There are more than two types of Religious people.
Atheists are hated because they are unaware of just how mindbogglingly autistic they are.
there are actually millions of religious people
I really hate this culture
>Atheists are hated because they are unaware of just how mindbogglingly autistic they are.
But that's not really true. At least for me. I know that I am an atheist because I am autistic. Autism is the tendency to take things literally.
But honestly, what other way is there to take these claims about historical miracles and the future of the world? Metaphors? Metaphors for WHAT?
Don't you understand that if you act on the basis of an idea, then you basically are giving it the power of a literal truth?
Well, force feeding children a simplistic and dogmatic ideology that discourages apostasy is an integral component of raising a child in a religious household, not raising a child in an atheistic household, so I'd have to disagree with you.
This really is only the case with really religious households. there are tons of families that are only a casually religious environment
I personally believe nothing and laugh superiorly at people who do.
>dat image
Does she not know that most homeless people tend to be mentally ill?
A white person can only be mentally ill willfully because their privilege protects them from experiencing the social stigma of mental illness.
>Atheism is in itself a rejection of family and one's own culture.
Uh....no.
It's simply the rejection of man-made religion and gods. Period.
Family and culture exists without the need for man made fabrications about creation, death, and all those other issues religion tries to monopolize.
Atheists are hated because they are a minority and religious people are the majority.
There are people who hold to religion as part of their identity; but who don't believe their religion is true?
Are they more common than the religious people who believe in their religion?
>Family and culture exists without the need for man made fabrications about creation, death, and all those other issues religion tries to monopolize.
If anything, religion tries to replace and usurp the family. It's already gotten to the stage where people think religion and family are synonymous.
>Have you noticed that there are really two types of religious people?
>There are people who believe their religion is true, and then there is the larger group of people who believe their religion is part of their identity.
Nigga what? I believe my religion is true, and it is the most important part of my identity. I put my religion above 'white' and 'male' and even 'American'.
Which is ironic, considering the gods I worship, but still. These 'two groups' you speak of have massive overlap.
He is an experiment you can try.
Go around a catholic heavy area in western Europe or America. ask around and find out how many people observed lent and did not eat meat for the whole 6 weeks.
>I can agree with that but faith, being intrinsic to humans since our evolutionary ancestors like buried their dead and painted on cave walls, is biologically rewarding. People who submit themselves to a higher power and following a values system are rewarded beyond their own life (in theory). That assurance of eternally belonging to your family as well as your spiritual creator is a powerful feeling.
I can agree with that, sure. But these people shouldn't claim atheists are wrong because they aren't playing their game. I think religious people aren't curious of the world as much as they say they are, because the more you learn about it, the more atheism becomes obvious and sensical. I think to them life is politics first, description. They want to know what's right more than they want to know what is.
These days the Church says we must only abstain from meat on Fridays during Lent, and on Ash Wednesday.
If the Church actually decreed total abstinence from meat during all six weeks of Lent, that would be a different matter.
You write like a woman.
Awww, did I upset you?
Why don't you pray to your fake ass imaginary Jew Gods to make the feels stop hurting, sunshine.
>I believe my religion is true, and it is the most important part of my identity. I put my religion above 'white' and 'male' and even 'American'.
I can't help but feel that you are giving the game away. I definitely agree that if a specific religion was true, that would be the most important fact in the whole universe. But would it be an important part of someone's identity?
The idea of (for example) Christianity being true, is so staggeringly important that it would eclipse science. In fact it would be PART of science. The foundational principle of science.
So how is it that your evidence for your religion (if it's good evidence) isn't being screamed from the rooftops?
I feel that religious people really just want to make a religion seem "plausible", then cultural pressure will do the rest.
Culture itself is a man made creation so indeed, rejecting faith also means rejecting one's innate culture.
Family on the other hand is somewhat more, it is biology and yet the values that hold it together are intrinsically tied to a greater faith in a religion and/or culture.
Unlike the point of this entire thread, I don't mean to demonize atheists and agnostics I often feel I am in the latter category myself. An atheist/agnostic who backs their beliefs, respectfully and morally, can be a very beautiful soul of a human.
Perhaps even kinder than a holy man who has never walked away from faith. Yet I do think such thinking should be temporary. Love is what matters in the end.
Nothing else does.
>so indeed, rejecting faith also means rejecting one's innate culture.
Bullshit.
You don't need religion to create laws, customs, norms, educational systems, games, art, or any other aspect of culture. Nor do you need stupid fucking fake ass religion to create family bonds and cohesion.
Pull your head out of your ass.
Ya'll mother fuckers need Nietzsche
The fuck out of here with your high school bullshit...
How do women type?
Oh. Well, I'm not a monotheist, so I don't think my religion is mutually exclusive with other religions.
Except for monotheistic ones of course, which should be eliminated, ideally through massive bloodshed. If you think your god is 'the only god' then yeah, sure, I guess I see your point.
like
Actually, more like this:
>Dawkins
So why is he talking about anything that's no biology again? I never understand him & whatever makes him think he's better at philosophy than others.
>There are people who believe their religion is true, and then there is the larger group of people who believe their religion is part of their identity.
>...The second type of religious person thinks that the atheist must be trying to identify with evil.
>Atheism is in itself a rejection of family and one's own culture.
What?
What about the Atheists for whom religion is part of their identity. The "Cultural Christians". Plenty of Atheists sing praises to Baby Jesus and exchange Xmas Gifts.
Look at Senator Sanders, the Cultural Jew.
These folks are embracing their cultural heritage, not evil. They just happen to be the ones who "get the joke".
>This is why atheists are hated.
Are atheists hated? I think you are projecting.
Many christians take religious writing literally.
Thus he is objectively wrong, easily proven by citing any of those literal christians.
People are born atheist and have to be taught religion.
>americans are stupid, this i hate atheists
What.
>Islam, with its conservative and family controlling values, will become a dominating aspect in European society in the coming decades.
No, it wont.
People are born without language, Maths, speech, knowledge or anything else for that matter. Everyone of these things has to be taught one way or another, negligence is just one of those ways. If you're born and your family is religious you are born religious, and if they're atheists you're born atheist because the values are there before you even came out of your mother's womb, just like you're born American even though you don't speak a word of English, don't know what freedom is and how capitalism works.
It certainly will, you'd have to be willfully ignorant to see the influx of 4+ million people who are very strong believers and breeders in a mere 2 years as something that doesn't change European culture.
>If you're born and your family is religious you are born religious, and if they're atheists you're born atheist
No, this isn't true. You are born atheist, and if your family is religious, you are taught religion. If not, you remain an atheist.
I can see what you are attempting, but its intellectually dishonest and you are trying to fool me, other readers, and possibly yourself.
It's called cultural warfare and the reaction to the invasion will be nasty. It's a pendulum and right now it's swinging back and will swing back in a couple years or less.
>It's called cultural warfare
Heeere we go.
Oh shut it. I'm not saying it's some grand conspiracy. Every time two very different cultures meet and interact this happens. There are points the cultures agree on and there are points where they butt heads. Problem is this time it's got the under current of fanatics intentionally inciting violence. Cultural warfare doesn't mean it will include open violence in the streets, only that there will be push from both sides over ingrained beliefs and traditions.
In the United States and other third world countries, yeah. In Canada, Australia, Europe, etc not so much.
Spooked to the core.
atheism is a form of religion
then how come every civilization in history has developed religious beliefs?
Religion developed out of our own ignorance, as a species.
People couldn't explain natural phenomena, like lightning, thunder, or earthquakes. People couldn't explain the origin of the galaxy (because they didn't know we lived in a universe), the planet, or life itself. So out of ignorance, they created "gods" and religions to explain all that shit.
They figured that man creates man, through birth, and that man also creates tools, therefore, it must be reasonable to conclude that something had to create everything else in the universe, and if not man, then "gods". Idiots still hold this belief to this very day.
Sure...in the same way that not believing in Santa Claus is a religion......which means not at all.
But they developed it differently.
You have people who think of Gods as OMG PERFECT CAN DO NO WRONG, and you had people who believe they are just superhumans in the sky.
And then there are people who do not believe in gods yet their beings are called gods because of western scholars misinterpreting their shit.
Hell the term "religion" is heavily biased in favor of its western definition.
Interesting, and I agree with him but it's hard to take him seriously when his writing style is so obnoxious