poverty has decreased overall in my lifespan, and broadly speaking people have gotten worse, the world more morally unhinged, life more tedious and grey.

even doing what seems to be the right thing seems to be the wrong thing. I enjoy your linking of subconscious stuff to karma stuff. it'd be wonderful if we were our own judges.

Another way I think of it is: imagine a world without lack, where the freedom to be without something, whatever it is, doesn't exist. Wouldn't that be more horrifying than poverty? It would to me.

the very boring answer is that human life can only exist between certain poles, and possibly in recent years we've moved into pointlessness, and overdevelopment. I liked the early 00s, but even then we were in a decadent space. Maybe we should just choose one decade and loop it. the late 80s and early to mid 90s were nicely plaed between enough and not too much

You don't need religion to have morals, if you don't know the difference between right and wrong, you lack empathy, not religion.

a lot of people are existentially or biologically nonempathetic, hence my general position about slippery atheism or the substitution effect of satanism.

An accurate measurement of morality is likely impossible, but I dare say I'd rather be alive today than at any other time in history.

Even the recent past (ie: first half of the 20th century, particularly ~1935-1945) can be considered an era of immorality that dwarves the supposed epidemic of immorality of today.

Most of this is because of material causes and capitalistic political machinations, not anything else though. Poverty may have decreased on paper but the costs of so much has gone up.

You're good - I wasn't trying to poke holes in anything, just wanting to get clarification on what you meant in your earlier post.

I think I more-or-less totally misread your statement, "When I look around and ask myself if there's anything on this planet or universe that I don't have or cannot have access to, I can pretty confidently say no." I'm still a little unsure, but some of what you say in the quote above actually sounds like a response to the "problem of evil": As other commenters say in this thread, a common (and truly powerful) objection to the usual theistic worldview is that God's goodness can't clearly be reconciled with the misery, confusion, imperfection, and suffering that pervade human and animal life; but to sort of echo your statements above, a possible clue to a response may be found in the positives that often accompany these evils (for example, compassion, growth, and constructive cooperation in view of deprivation and tragedy, progress and achievement in view of challenge).

Myself, I'm not sure what to make of the problem of evil. I don't think it's patently unreasonable to believe it justifies atheism, and I do think it would take a pretty unimaginative and childish faith not to be at all disturbed by it. I'm aware of some at least semi-respectable philosophical strategies to address it. (The upshot of the best one, AFAIK, is that we shouldn't presume to know whether or not life's evils can be ultimately absorbed, "canceled out," or somehow necessitated by a greater overall good; for all we know, it may be part of the "frail, finite, creaturely" package to be deprived of the requisite insight/perspective for an informed judgment on this. Hence, theism/religion is more a matter of hope than knowledge.)

I was raised a Catholic but stopped believing in 'God' at 11. I was forced into that because my father was Catholic and despite being a devout believer he was a very successful neurologist. This was ironic because it was his medical library that introduced me to the facts of neurology and biology, which was also what made me doubt ALL religious texts. The realization that the Bible got everything wrong on the subjects of cosmology, biology, zoology - it actually claims that Cows which mate in front of striped sticks would produce baby Calves that resembled Zebra's - convinced me no part of religion ( or its any extension ) is true.

I may have gone on a bit of a tangent there but didn't want to write an essay. Put simply, I was talking about the diversity of creatures, foods, habitats, things to do and explore. In terms of experiences, material wants and needs, I find it hard to come up with anything that I couldn't get if I wanted it. Considering we seem to be the only planet that's not a lifeless ball of dust, that seems... unlikely.

But I'm very aware of my own confirmation bias and that other may read those same facts as evidence against a creator, as in why would a creator make a universe that's 99.9% barren.



Yes, absolutely. That's why it's hard for me to even see the question itself as genuine. Do we really want answers to these kind of questions or are they asked only to justify the answers we have already made up in our minds? And even if think we're sincere in our searching, the answers we find only seem to confirm our aims and beliefs.

I think maybe "seek and you shall find" rather than being a biblical mandate for religious seeking might have been the pre-scientific version of confirmation bias.



I haven't come across that - do you have a citation for where in the Bible it occurs?

Genesis 30:39.

I am spiritual. I was raised in an extremely muslim family and I quit Islam last year after realizing that the verses they taught us at school and at home were cherry picked. I read the Quran and found out how Allah wasn't that all loving god as he always claims in many verses. Sometimes I think I still believe in God but I refuse to worship him.

I'm both atheist and anti-theist - nothing unusual for a long-term black metal fan. Check the book Seven Types of Atheism by John Gray for an interesting dissection of christian undertones hidden behind an atheist's facade.

As much as intelligence is controversial given its definition and attempts to quantify it, there is a negative correlation between religious beliefs and intelligence. It basically means that religious people are more likely to have their imagination more developed than math skills, but it's not the rule, everyone is different...

Creationism is unscientific because it cannot be verified empirically, nor it can be falsified. I suppose a lot of you know about god of the gaps argument and the (blind) watchmaker.

There is a nice paragraph from a book about religion and ecology:

What do you know about Islam?

I get where you're coming from here and say all this as someone who hasn't bought religion hook-line-and-sinker. I find a lot of the bible to be attempts at relaying broad truths/supposed truths more or less cryptically to a (largely) downtrodden and illiterate audience. Discarding it wholesale just because the analogies are absurd when taken at face value is somewhat short sighted. (Can't speak to the zebra thing, however. That seems just dumb.)

In all fairness, it must be said that the best basis for an interpretation is always the text in its original form and language. The bible versions we know are only translated interpretations of interpretations. Remember, for example, the Horns of Moses:

Source 1
Source 2

Here's one presumably reasonable interpretation of the verse in question, one among many I suppose.

our creature comforts are overflowing, but things are kind of overripe and oversaturated now. It probably just seems normal for younger people, and maybe it was always like this. anyway it seems possible there are other places than here, and plausible that there will be an accounting for all of us, and many other things we can't verify. It seems better to move a bit more to some kind of theism, and have some kind of religion as a part of society's operation, but I'm not advocating to pressure people into things, or that I'm right, or even that it matters. I just kind of think atheism is such a strong position, and if it's incorrect, you lose quite a lot going along with it. I suppose that's the case with lots of things.

+1
Never had a believe during my whole life and I've read the bible and koran when I was a grown up
It is impossible to believe to those entities described by those books, can't stand in logic.

Atheism is not a strong position, it's not even a position. It's just the default mindset. You don't have to do anything and you are an atheist.

you could equally argue that religious sensations and corresponding brain structures are the default. these things probably vary as other traits vary.

Ironically, it's not uncommon for many atheists (at least in predominately Christian countries) to be fairly well-versed in the Bible (or at least more so than that of their Christian counterparts). My own readings of the Bible are, unsurprisingly, what prompted my initial doubting of its truthfulness.

Indeed. It could be fair to ask an atheist such as myself why they rejected every religious argument that was ever presented to them. It could also be fair to ask a theist why they accepted one religious argument and rejected every other religious argument they were ever presented with.

I'm not sure I'd agree that atheism is the default mindset. If we broaden the term 'mindset' just a little to include disposition, we could say all creatures come into the world with the awareness of their creator. A baby knows it has a mother which it has emanated from, and will seek to have its needs met by her for quite a long time after being born. You could say this is a kind of inner 'knowing' that it has not created itself. Independence from the mother has to be learned, and even then, it is really only replacing one form of dependence with another.

Might this be why much (but not all) of humanity believes in a creator in the first place? Perhaps it's a result of the parent/child dynamic (coupled with the dreaded reality of mortality)? Not surprisingly, humanity has referred to its gods as 'mother' or 'father' and rarely as 'it'.

Indeed. There's a saying that 'monotheists are actually atheists to every other religion except their own' and that 'atheists just take it one step further'.

It's obviously true that there exist many religions with incompatible teachings, none standing out as more glaringly (in)credible than the others; after all, every major religion has many sincere, intelligent, knowledgeable followers capable of producing thoughtful and sophisticated defenses. (And of course every religion has many practitioners who'd fit the opposite description.)

On the one hand, I think this should probably be unsettling to anyone who subscribes to one specific religious tradition. (What should be the Christian's attitude to religions which seem equally defensible at first sight, but which deny or do not accept the unique divinity of Jesus?)

But on the other hand, I think it's worthwhile to consider the possibility that the world's religions tend to have a good deal of overlap in the way of general outline, and tend to diverge mostly on nitty-gritty doctrinal specifics, not so much on the basic attitude and orientation.

Not saying his interpretation is exactly correct (I did see one author poke fun at his expression "more eternal"), but here's how William James illustrates what I'm getting at:

Possibly. Or it could be the reverse. That is to say, the parent/child dynamic might be one that evolved out of the natural reality of one thing not having existence unless it extends from another (which ultimately must be God, an original "It" that was not created). Or it could be neither. I think Defenestrated earlier pointed to emergent existence which doesn't fit neatly into our notions of cause and effect.

this conversation is operating at quite a high level. one reason I'm not an atheist is because no blind watch maker could develop a system like this where everything is so consistently disappointing. Im definitely here as a punishment, which implies other realms, other dimensions, other choices, and also that all our decisions and words and deeds are being monitored. there is a cosmic accountant!

catholics and satanists both believe in a female god(dess), which is probably why there's such a strong feedback between those two organisations. And the maternal projection thing, I think that was discussed in depth by a guy called Feuerbach, if anyone has a chapter of his feel free to help me remember the details

Good luck on the responses that come to anyone who seriously asks this question.

You're "definitely here as a punishment"? Punishment for what?
When (and where) did you engage in behavior that warrants punishment in this earthly realm?

Most of us have done enough to deserve some kind of ongoing existential reshaping, or outright punitive experience. Maybe as mentioned earlier, we're punishing aspects of ourselves. I certainly deserve it, even without Catholic levels of guilt. Catholics do shame rather than guilt, so maybe that's fair.

It would also chime in with my unenthusiastic view of most religions (even if I readily accept that doing without them makes things even worse), as well as bemusement with atheism and satanism, both of which share space with different kinds of humanism.

I would welcome anyone's comments about the intersection between atheism, satanism, and humanism.

Some atheists (secular humanists, transhumanists) believe (sic!) in progress myth (that humanity advances itself, strives towards better forms of society etc.), whereas most satanists are egocentric and some of them are misanthropes and don't care about humanity, manifesting a(nti)human attitude. Some satanists are atheists. It is difficult to make connections when the in-group differences might be bigger than the out-group.

I was somewhat involved for a while in the secular humanist community (we didn't have a "nasty breakup"; it was just that COVID hit, my interests had been gradually shifting, and I quietly lost touch) - but even then, I wasn't totally sure what to make of the labels "secular humanism" or "humanism." I think in practice it amounts to a few tenets/tendencies:

1. Things that matter to human beings, matter.
2. You don't need to be religious to recognize (1).
3. No religion has the authority to dictate the conduct and beliefs of its non-adherents.

Originally I thought these all had a kind of "duh" quality; like, "of course" all decent people think these things, they go without saying, anyone who takes issue with them is an inconsequential crank. (But ever since Trump got elected, I've been a lot more hesitant to brush aside the cranks as "inconsequential.")

does anyone want to turn this around on to metal and alternative belief systems, specifically in regard to in group and out group differentials? I find that a very inciteful observation, and would welcome any comments about how satanism, atheism, and metal intersect.

I'm sorry to hear someone else's journey into humanism was interrupted by life itself. Perhaps older heads would recognise that humanism is a journey you should be past by a certain age anyway? Maybe this applies to everything else too.

If progress is a myth then what are you saying is the reality?

the reality is stagnation, decay, dehumanisation, and boredom. Other people might see the same view, and see other things including 'progress' which only means movement toward a goal. No-one really can come up with a goal, it's all just blind drift, or maybe not. People just like their little garden-universes, and all the tedious nonsense that goes on inside them. A lot of deep thinkers argue it's just mortality-avoidance, the big stuff, the little stuff. they're probably right.

the originator of the thread should probably wrestle it back into the direction he/she finds meaningful. usually people mention Nietzsche more often.

There's definitely a lot of horrific stuff going on in the world... I just can't really see the alternative to that as worshiping a religion or a God or anything either. I think that's really warping the whole debate to take it in that direction.

If there's metaphysical justification for such things or biological reasons or governmental reasons, who's to say, but the big questions revolve around these things, and no amount of debate will really bring things to a full-stop. I shouldn't get involved, or talk about the world, or music, or write any reviews, or argue any cases for one thing or another, but I do, and that effort in itself is similar to why a creator being might create, or why something might manifest out of quantum flux.

By the exact same token a creator being might instantly wish to uncreate, or act as his opposite or tease other lifeforms or abuse them. I can understand that also, even if it's not something I would do. People suck, and we don't deserve a magnanimous Big Someone to save us. I did prefer life in previous decades where we were less far down the road of every idiot having access to dangerous information.

I democratisation Satanic? Do atheists have their own hierarchy?

What system would you develop if you were in charge?

How is Athiesm a cult? The literal definition of an atheist is “a person who does not believe in the existence of a god or any gods”.
We're all born without a belief in God or Gods and only take on these beliefs usually due to indoctrination. Of course we as humans are an introspective and perceptive species so obviously the questions of existence and it's apparent meaning did come up and people started trying to under the Universe and world they live in which is why we have so many different belief systems and mythologies as people have tried connecting the dots and filling in the blanks on how we came to be and why we're on this planet.

There are atheists that still follow some form of superstition or sprituality.

Academic Atheism - Intellectual activities such as reading, discussion and healthy debate are at the heart (or brain) of the Academic atheist’s self-image. These atheists prefer to associate with others who have the same intellectual approach to life, even if their opinions are different, as long as they are well-informed. They often engage with others, both online and in person, around topics of mutual interest, including skepticism and freethought

Anti-Thiesm - Doesn’t just disbelieve religious claims but is actively, diametrically and categorically opposed to them and to the influence they have on the world. The Anti-Theist “proactively and aggressively” asserts his or her view, challenging religious ideology as dangerous ignorance that harms human dignity and well-being, and tends to see individuals associated with religion as “backward and socially detrimental.”

Nonthiesm - Someone who does not believe but also doesn’t care about religious belief, organized atheism or the raging debates between the two.

Ritual Athiesm/Agnosticism - doesn’t believe in God or an afterlife but finds some rituals or other traditions, even those associated with religion, to be beautiful or useful. It might be something rooted in Eastern religions, such as yoga or meditation, but just as often these people find beauty and meaning in the traditions of their own culture or family.

Seeker Agnosticism - Recognize that it’s hard to make confident statements about metaphysical beliefs. They see open-mindedness as a major virtue, recognize the limits of human knowledge and experience, and embrace uncertainty. Some say they miss being a believer in some way, whether the social benefits, or the emotional ones, or the connection it gave them to friends and family. Some continue to identify as religious or spiritual, even though they do not believe in God.

Activist Athiesm - These people want to change the world. It’s not just atheist-related issues they’re interested in. They are engaged in the struggle for civil rights (including feminism and LGBT rights), environmental concerns, animal rights and other prominent social issues.



Hope that helps