Atheists are much more......................

Funsterdelux

........I have this feeling dunno what it is, but I think that non-believers are more in touch with their "spiritual" side, I know that its not a word synonymous with atheism but i like to use it anyway.
Like the other day i was talking to someone about "big brother" and that person watched it a lot while I wouldnt at all, and when asked why i didnt watch it, I replied " its not good for the soul", thats coming for a person who doesnt believe in a soul.

Does anyone share or understand my thoughts?

Zombrex

Funsterdelux wrote:

Does anyone share or understand my thoughts?

Not really .. maybe you mean atheists are more interested in improving their own personal morality, since they don't believe it comes from something exterinal?

Funsterdelux

Yes, thats hinting close alrite

monkeyfudge

Are there any atheists who enjoy watching big brother?

I'd be interested to know if somone was willing to renounce god... but let that junk into their life.

Zombrex

monkeyfudge wrote:

Are there any atheists who enjoy watching big brother?

I'd be interested to know if somone was willing to renounce god... but let that junk into their life.

Grace is my new God ... I worship at the alter of her perfectly formed behind

Funsterdelux

Good question, well I dunno many other atheists like myself who watch that bs, I know good few agnostics and a la carte catholics all rite, who do.=, but they dont count.

Wait a minute,..................whos Grace?

*showing his ignorance*

Zombrex

Funsterdelux wrote:

Good question, well I dunno many other atheists like myself who watch that bs, I know good few agnostics and a la carte catholics all rite, who do.=, but they dont count.

Wait a minute,..................whos Grace?

*showing his ignorance*

Complete bitch, but by God what an ass

Funsterdelux

What bout the aforementioned arse?, now thats a sour gob, if ever i seen one.

Dades

I alway say "reading is good for the soul". I don't believe in a soul, but I guess what I mean is reading is good for you as a person. Though I don't believe non-believers are more spiritual - unless you're talking about ones that have other irons in the fire such as Buddhism.

Oh yeah, "get Grace out!"

Zombrex

The Atheist wrote:

Oh yeah, "get Grace out!"

Over Nikki? I don't think so! "Big brother I need my bottled water! I am so sick! I need my bottle water! wah wah wah" :rolleyes:

Not that I watch Big Brother or anything ... ahem ...

Anyway, back on topic

I don't believe in a physical soul, but the idea of a metephorical "soul" to mean ones mental and emotional state and health is handy (rather than having to say "Big Brother is bad for your mental and emotional health", you just say "BB is bad for the soul")

stevejazzx

Funsterdelux wrote:

........I have this feeling dunno what it is, but I think that non-believers are more in touch with their "spiritual" side, I know that its not a word synonymous with atheism but i like to use it anyway.
Like the other day i was talking to someone about "big brother" and that person watched it a lot while I wouldnt at all, and when asked why i didnt watch it, I replied " its not good for the soul", thats coming for a person who doesnt believe in a soul.

Does anyone share or understand my thoughts?

Totally on track with you here, although the original post is highly generalised
I know what you mean. BB is bad for the soul, no doubt...it's such an ugly modern woe, why can't people see it for it really is. It's not entertainment, it's not fun, it's just a highly corporate enterprise that plights the lives of deperate monomaniacs together for the willful corruption of our senses.
I don't konw who are more perverse, the makers, the housemates or the viewers...I suppose the makers are, they're the people who profit from all the senselessness and in some cases pain that comes from the show. Then again if people could grow up and find some real interests i.e reading books, maybe more excercise, a craft - anything worthwhile or even vaguely artistic then BB would have zero viewers and be defunct....sadly the lazy generic zombie masses stare on wondering who will evicted next! Newsflash it doesn't matter. none of it matters people, now come on.
Incidentally getting back to the original point about how religous people tend to be less spiritually inclined, that is a very complex affair but I think the overview has merit. Especially considering that the more extreme one is religously the less likely one is to question the laws of ones religon, I think people need to constantly reacess rights and wrongs, morally and spirtually, and being tied into a religous order certainly restrains that process.

Funsterdelux

Your hitting the nail on the head there Steve

pH

Whether BB's good, bad or neutral for the soul, it's very damned addictive. I haven't watched it for 2 years (Watching Cameron win was just too much for me!!!!) but started again this year and I'm a complete addict.

There's something so primal about BB, I'm certain this weeks eviction is going to be one of those special TV moments. Get Grace out!!!

You'll be glad to know however as a smug atheist, I also use the housemates position on religion to influence my otherwise irrational,baseless and prejudiced views, hence Aisleyne gets no love from me.
http://bigbrother.digitalspy.co.uk/article/ds9519.html

Dades

pH wrote:

hence Aisleyne gets no love from me.[/url]

But pH - look at the grass!

Big Brother is the ultimate victimless crime. It the modern day equivalent of the Colosseum.

Meanwhile back OT...

stevejazzx wrote:

I think people need to constantly reacess rights and wrongs, morally and spirtually, and being tied into a religous order certainly restrains that process.

That's a good point. Non-believers perhaps spend more time reflecting on things that would be "spiritual" in a religious context, because of the lack of guidance.

Zillah

I very much agree with Wicknight's sentiment that Atheists are required by their own decisions to form a personal morality rather than merely subscribing to a higher authority. In that sense I find Atheist to be morally superior, they take responsibility for their own actions, their own decisions and cannot escape blame when they do wrong. A fanatical religious person is by definition less responsible for their morality.

Obviously there are exceptions, but as a general rule I find it to be so. An Atheist, simply by their status as such, has shown a capacity to think for themselves and to be introspective.

Conar

monkeyfudge wrote:

Are there any atheists who enjoy watching big brother?

I'd be interested to know if somone was willing to renounce god... but let that junk into their life.

I'm a complete atheist, born an atheist and will sure as hell die an atheist!
I also watch big brother! I find it interesting watching the way the housemates go on and how they react to certain situations.
I know a lot of people think its pure junk, but its interesting and it conatins real people with real attitudes!

Thats what I think anyway!

BTW I do agree that our lack of spiritual guidance from above can make us want to develope our own morals in our own ways, in our own good time!

Rev Hellfire

Zillah wrote:

An Atheist, simply by their status as such, has shown a capacity to think for themselves and to be introspective.

I'm not so sure that statement is totally valid. You're working on the assumption (and one that is wrong I believe) that those so ascribe themselves as atheists have all heavily researched the arguments and drawn an informed conclusion.

While certainly there are many who post on this board that seem to have great knowledge on the subject, I’m not sure they are representative of ‘atheists’ as a whole. Just as those who describe themselves as christians may not have given it much thought and are simply following their peers.

Just as you would say many are following the herd when it comes to believing I suspect it’s equally valid to say that many proclaim to atheists are merely following another herd (one which is more popular in this day and age) and little thought has gone into it other than voicing the usual sound bites.

Scofflaw

Rev Hellfire wrote:

I'm not so sure that statement is totally valid. You're working on the assumption (and one that is wrong I believe) that those so ascribe themselves as atheists have all heavily researched the arguments and drawn an informed conclusion.

While certainly there are many who post on this board that seem to have great knowledge on the subject, I’m not sure they are representative of ‘atheists’ as a whole. Just as those who describe themselves as christians may not have given it much thought and are simply following their peers.

Just as you would say many are following the herd when it comes to believing I suspect it’s equally valid to say that many proclaim to atheists are merely following another herd (one which is more popular in this day and age) and little thought has gone into it other than voicing the usual sound bites.

I think we can say that those people aren't atheists, or certainly won't be when their first major life-event (death of someone close, for example) happens.

There are atheists in foxholes, but there are no pretend atheists.

OT, I think television as a whole is "bad for the soul".

cordially,
Scofflaw

growler

Rev Hellfire wrote:

I'm not so sure that statement is totally valid. You're working on the assumption (and one that is wrong I believe) that those so ascribe themselves as atheists have all heavily researched the arguments and drawn an informed conclusion.
.

Not sure about that, professing a lack of belief in a society where "belief" is expected, is indicative of putting some thought into the rejection of of the great sky pixie. "Heavy Research" is hardly necessary to come to a logical and, imo, instinctive conclusion that its all bollox. An believer who after a little introspection, perhaps soon after a life changing moment, is no less valid an atheist than someone who has spent a life rejecting religion, no ?


I would expect anyone who (pardon the language) religiously watches BB to be wholly incapable of the type of introspection and analysis necessary to come to an informed decision on the existence of a god thing. Then again ,I hate it and its fans with a passion because I feel it morons on tv for the entertainment of morons, and anyone who says its a useful real time sociological study would be better off getting off their fat arses and going to talk to some people who aren't obsessed with achieving their 15 minutes of fame.

Zillah

Rev Hellfire wrote:

I'm not so sure that statement is totally valid. You're working on the assumption (and one that is wrong I believe) that those so ascribe themselves as atheists have all heavily researched the arguments and drawn an informed conclusion.

While certainly there are many who post on this board that seem to have great knowledge on the subject, I’m not sure they are representative of ‘atheists’ as a whole. Just as those who describe themselves as christians may not have given it much thought and are simply following their peers.

Just as you would say many are following the herd when it comes to believing I suspect it’s equally valid to say that many proclaim to atheists are merely following another herd (one which is more popular in this day and age) and little thought has gone into it other than voicing the usual sound bites.

With a little introspection I agree that I'm allowing my own preferences to skew my point.

I'll revise what I said to only include "atheists who came from religious families and became atheist despite those influences have shown a capacity to think for themselves and to be introspective."

Better?

growler wrote:

and anyone who says its a useful real time sociological study would be better off getting off their fat arses and going to talk to some people who aren't obsessed with achieving their 15 minutes of fame.

Because analysing the urge for fame and power has no place in sociological studies. :rolleyes:

Scofflaw

Zillah wrote:

With a little introspection I agree that I'm allowing my own preferences to skew my point.

I'll revise what I said to only include "atheists who came from religious families and became atheist despite those influences have shown a capacity to think for themselves and to be introspective."

Better?

Nope. I come from an atheist family! On the other hand, I had the usual religious education at school, and I was unaware that most of my family were atheists until I was an adult.

I think you might have to go for "those who have become atheist through thoughtful denial of theism, rather than fashion or upbringing", although we're perilously close to a circular definition!

cordially,
Scofflaw

Asiaprod

The Atheist wrote:

I alway say "reading is good for the soul". I don't believe in a soul, but I guess what I mean is reading is good for you as a person. Though I don't believe non-believers are more spiritual - unless you're talking about ones that have other irons in the fire such as Buddhism.

Oh yeah, "get Grace out!"

Terry Pratchett is great for the soul:D, read Small Gods.
I think being spiritual is a personal thing. As a Buddhist I very rarely, if ever, find myself in a debate on this issue. I sure don't think about it much.

Zillah

Scofflaw wrote:

Nope. I come from an atheist family! On the other hand, I had the usual religious education at school, and I was unaware that most of my family were atheists until I was an adult.

I think you might have to go for "those who have become atheist through thoughtful denial of theism, rather than fashion or upbringing", although we're perilously close to a circular definition!

Aha! No. Read again. The "only" part was outside the quotations, and so my defintion was inclusive, rather than exclusive. I didn't rule anyone out of the definition, I merely included that which I most wanted to define.

Dades

Asiaprod wrote:

Terry Pratchett is great for the soul:D, read Small Gods.

Curiously - I am currently reading it. My first Pratchett.

This type of discussion is always precarious. The misconception (as witnessed from Playboy recently) is that atheists believe themselves to be smarter. The reality is much greyer than that. Sure some probably do, but as with every belief there are a multitute of sub-types.

The one thing a genuine atheist or indeed agnostic share is having undertaken a thought process to reach a conclusion. Obviously a group of people who share the same conclusion from that thought process are going to believe they are right. And oddly may come across as a group of people who think they are right - as does any group with a shared idea, inside or outside of a church.

Meh.

Funsterdelux

The Atheist wrote:

Curiously - I am currently reading it. My first Pratchett.

And oddly may come across as a group of people who think they are right - as does any group with a shared idea, inside or outside of a church.

Meh.

Well, I dont like the idea of a "group", my thoughts are that Atheists are individuals.

Rev Hellfire

Funsterdelux wrote:

Well, I dont like the idea of a "group", my thoughts are that Atheists are individuals.

As are Christians, but you all share a common idea which groups you. It’s not like theirs much room for manoeuvring if you're an atheist as far as beliefs are concerned.

Funsterdelux

Rev Hellfire wrote:

As are Christians, but you all share a common idea which groups you. It’s not like theirs much room for manoeuvring if you're an atheist as far as beliefs are concerned.

Your bold, stand in the corner.

Conar

growler wrote:

I would expect anyone who (pardon the language) religiously watches BB to be wholly incapable of the type of introspection and analysis necessary to come to an informed decision on the existence of a god thing. Then again ,I hate it and its fans with a passion because I feel it morons on tv for the entertainment of morons, and anyone who says its a useful real time sociological study would be better off getting off their fat arses and going to talk to some people who aren't obsessed with achieving their 15 minutes of fame.

Are you taking the piss?
Thats the most ridiculous statement I've come accross in a long time.
You actually believe that if a person watches big brother that they're "wholly incapable of the type of introspection and analysis necessary to come to an informed decision on the existence of a god thing."?
Get a grip!
What do you base this theory on?
Thats the same type of blanket view that I expect to see in an argument with a racist or religious nut.
Why do you try to make Atheism some kind of elitist club?
It should not even be a club, just some people that share a point of view on a topic. You should enter next years Big Brother, they love having "morons on TV" as you put it!

One other thing to add, you infer that "introspection and analysis" are neccessary to be a true atheist. I disagree!
In order for me to believe in God it would require a lot of introspection and analysis, but to be an atheist comes completely naturally to me.

Dades

Funsterdelux wrote:

Well, I dont like the idea of a "group", my thoughts are that Atheists are individuals.

You can't escape the "definition", as that's what it is.
But you're right in that beyond that - what you do is up to you.

Conar wrote:

You should enter next years Big Brother, they love having "morons on TV" as you put it!

Steady... that's thinly veiled that one is!

Conar

The Atheist wrote:

Steady... that's thinly veiled that one is!

I know, and I apolgise for that remark but I was quite angered by his/her comments.
I took great offence to the fact that he/she implies that because I watch big brother that I am not a true atheist.
I honestly do not feel the need to be part of an atheist group, but I most definitely am not part of ANY of the 'groups' that one must be part of if they are not an atheist.
He/she may well be very intelligent and I do not doubt their beliefs or lack thereof but I do not want to be classed in the same group as someone with that kind of elitest attitude.

Funsterdelux

My theory is, Skinner likes dog food.
Remember what opinions are like people, yes thats right, arseholes, everyone has one but they dont all smell nice.

growler

growler wrote:

I would expect anyone who (pardon the language) religiously watches BB to be wholly incapable of the type of introspection and analysis necessary to come to an informed decision on the existence of a god thing. Then again ,I hate it and its fans with a passion because I feel it morons on tv for the entertainment of morons, and anyone who says its a useful real time sociological study would be better off getting off their fat arses and going to talk to some people who aren't obsessed with achieving their 15 minutes of fame.

has anyone twigged that I don't like BB?

Conar, I never mentioned "groups" elite or otherwise, I don't feel like I belong to a global group of aetheists, nor did I say that anyone who watches BB is incapable of being an aetheist, I did say however that I believe people who religiously watch BB to be morons incapable of the necessary introspection.
Maybe its good for the soul but it has to be bad for the brain.

Dades

Conar wrote:

I took great offence to the fact that he/she implies that because I watch big brother that I am not a true atheist.

I think thats probably reading too much into it on a personal level. I watch BB as the missis has it on 9pm every night, as do others here it seems.

Growler obviously has a bee in his bonnet about it. (Maybe they rejected his application )

growler

The Atheist wrote:

Growler obviously has a bee in his bonnet about it. (Maybe they rejected his application )

the cheek of them !

However I am still hopeful of getting onto

Non Entity Nympho Car Park

it's way better, each week contestants face complex intellectual challenges involving parking cars and navigating the Car Park maze ! instead of evictions you get to push the loser off the top floor!
My only concern is that my present lack of a self esteem problem / gender issue / mental illness / cosmetic surgery / low IQ / pron stardom may preclude me from joining the elite of society in providing quality entertainment to the masses. I live in hope.

I'll drop it now and switch to E4... I'm sure you're a very smart atheist conar.

stevejazzx

The atheist rulebook:

1. Absolutely no wathching of the T.V. show big brother
2. Refute the existence of god and or deitieis in general
3. Give Catholics in a particular a hard time, rose from the dead...yeah right!
4. Love thy neighbour/Still making fun of the catholics here:D
5. All tv soaps are strictly forbidden.
6. Finally a true non believer must back his/her non beliefs by memorising various Woody Allen quips about Gods apparent non existence and spout them as their own at one of the many elite atheist dinner parties one attends.

Notice the 'big brother' rule has overtaken the 'there is no god rule' and moved into top position.....interesting

Funsterdelux

Nice one Jazzx, there is no big brother, only older brothers.

Scofflaw

stevejazzx wrote:

The atheist rulebook:

1. Absolutely no wathching of the T.V. show big brother
2. Refute the existence of god and or deitieis in general
3. Give Catholics in a particular a hard time, rose from the dead...yeah right!
4. Love thy neighbour/Still making fun of the catholics here:D
5. All tv soaps are strictly forbidden.
6. Finally a true non believer must back his/her non beliefs by memorising various Woody Allen quips about Gods apparent non existence and spout them as their own at one of the many elite atheist dinner parties one attends.

Notice the 'big brother' rule has overtaken the 'there is no god rule' and moved into top position.....interesting

Dang. That's me out in the cold again, given I hate Woodie Allen almost as much as I hate Milan Kundera. I've never seen Big Brother, though.

sadly,
Scofflaw

robindch

> given I hate Woodie Allen

Mostly, I'd back you up on this. Though I'd suggest you make an exception for "Love and Death" which is very, very funny, even if some of the russian cultural references which abound throughout the film, are a trifle obscure.

lostexpectation

Rev Hellfire wrote:

I'm not so sure that statement is totally valid. You're working on the assumption (and one that is wrong I believe) that those so ascribe themselves as atheists have all heavily researched the arguments and drawn an informed conclusion.

I have to disagree with this notion that you have to study something like this to form a view.

Rev Hellfire

You have to study something to have an informed view.

Zombrex

stevejazzx wrote:

The atheist rulebook:

1. Absolutely no wathching of the T.V. show big brother
2. Refute the existence of god and or deitieis in general
3. Give Catholics in a particular a hard time, rose from the dead...yeah right!
4. Love thy neighbour/Still making fun of the catholics here:D
5. All tv soaps are strictly forbidden.
6. Finally a true non believer must back his/her non beliefs by memorising various Woody Allen quips about Gods apparent non existence and spout them as their own at one of the many elite atheist dinner parties one attends.

Notice the 'big brother' rule has overtaken the 'there is no god rule' and moved into top position.....interesting

You forgot

7. Must own sword or large stabbing instrument, such as knife or sharp patato peeler

the real ramon

Rev Hellfire wrote:

You have to study something to have an informed view.

I would agree with wholeheartedly here, you can come up with the idea that there is no God, but mightn't fully be aware of all the philosophical possibilities of that unless you research it - RTFM'ing is always the first thing you should do, and this would go for anything imo.

I think meself that our education system doesn't put enough emphasis on researching and critical thinking, which is a shame - it opens up so many possibilities. After a hit-and-miss education history myself I've only recently found a love for learning and bought a copy of the encyclopaedia Brittanica CD-ROM and have been looking up everything from Atheism and Unitarianism to Arctic Cultures. I feel I have been missing out on so much that I've applied to go back to college as a mature student (All those wasted years!:( ) Still I can't get enough knowledge now and am relishing the idea of working my brain

Optimistically (borrowingthis idea of signing off from you Scofflaw - It's a great idea - hope you don't mind!),
the real ramon

Scofflaw

the real ramon wrote:

Optimistically (borrowingthis idea of signing off from you Scofflaw - It's a great idea - hope you don't mind!),
the real ramon

flattered,
Scofflaw

Tar.Aldarion

Funsterdelux wrote:

........I have this feeling dunno what it is, but I think that non-believers are more in touch with their "spiritual" side, I know that its not a word synonymous with atheism but i like to use it anyway.
Like the other day i was talking to someone about "big brother" and that person watched it a lot while I wouldnt at all, and when asked why i didnt watch it, I replied " its not good for the soul", thats coming for a person who doesnt believe in a soul.

Does anyone share or understand my thoughts?

I only had time to skim replies quickly, it's quite late, so excuse me if somebody sad this. People seem to be lumping god existing and a soul existing together, this doesn't have to be the case. A 'soul' can exist without god as they are mutually exclusive. Religion may have coined the term 'soul' but that doesn't mean there is or isn't what somebody would call a 'soul', if a god does not exist.

Are we the sum of our parts, or are we something else? Is Life a spark of the soul etc?
I suppose it depends on what one means by soul.


EDIT: How can somebody watch something as inane as BB?

MagnumForce

Firstly, Big Brother is terrible, the first series was however interesting because it was new and provided a thoughtful view of the human psyche and our behaviour. After that it became a money making tool for the creators(well, idea stealers really) and a terrible grasping chance at fame for the "contestants". The contestants in the most recent of series have been chosen purely so that Channel Four would get ratings.

Secondly, I have been an Atheist all my live, coming up on twenty years next month, and i find it odd that people are trying to define the parameters of an Atheist and are saying that one must show great thought an introspection to live as an Atheist (i know thats not exactly what people are saying so dont point out they flaws here, just joining the conversationand its alot to keep up with, you know what i mean really). I've grown up as an Atheist as i mentioned, i wasnt raised as an Atheist, i was just raised, there was no mention of religion or anything, i had the choice of course and i was exposed to it in school etc but it never really meant anything because i was just living my life. I didnt need to think about whether I believed in a Deity or not, or what benifits/disavantages I would have in not believeing in one.

I think by definition that an Atheist should not need to be defined. You dont need to study to become the perfect Atheist, you just have to live. I continue living my life as i have since i was born, not even thinking about religion(except when it gets in my way). And that should be the perfect Atheist. Why bother discuss it, why have a forum, we have nothing to discuss for christs (damn religion creeping in) sake.

"How was your day today as an Atheist?"
"Fine, thank you, i didnt think about a deity once, i did however spend some time think about the fact that I dont have one and how it affects me"
"Well done, your a perfect Atheist!"
"Thank you, i look forward to activly not having a religion tomorrow also"
"Very Good, here's a gold star!"

I dont get it. Just live!

And yeah i know there are some reasons to have an Atheist/Agnostics Forum, just not for this kind of thing.

This is way off the topic of the original post really...

Rev Hellfire

Atheist is a statement of fact ( in this case the non-existance of god(s) ), not some liftstyle choice.

It's a nonsense to say "I think by definition that an Atheist should not need to be defined".

MagnumForce

Rev Hellfire wrote:

Atheist is a statement of fact ( in this case the non-existance of god(s) ), not some liftstyle choice.

Thats what im saying! its not something that should be actively excersised, just something you happen to be, like male or female, infact even more so because its not even there, its an absense of belief, its like men walk around all day not being women, but they dont go analysing it, and say you have to dig deep within yourself to truly understand being a man, no, that would be silly, you just are one

Rev Hellfire wrote:

It's a nonsense to say "I think by definition that an Atheist should not need to be defined".

its not nonsense, its just an oxymoron, employed to get my point across.

Conar

I agree that Atheism is not something that we should need to think about.
I was also born atheist so its just something that I have always been. I have never had any reason to believe in God, just like I didn't feel the need to research Santa Claus's existance. Its just something I know and accept.
I think that maybe Atheism is only something that you need to research if you were previously religious.

samb

I agree with you Magnumforce, as I have also always been an athiest (not the usual scenario for our generation in Ireland). But there are plenty of topics for athiests/agnostics to discuss. Mainly discussing religion and how we must deal with in Politics, Schools, Hospitals and Medicine, Terrorism etc etc.. so this forum has a place

MagnumForce

Conar wrote:

I think that maybe Atheism is only something that you need to research if you were previously religious.

Possibly, research might not be the right word though, cos its not like theres a history or structure to look into, more like just find out from Atheists peers how they feel and how Atheist's lives compare to their religious life, but theres not too much you need to know though, just the whole there aint no God(s) thing.

samb wrote:

There are plenty of topics for athiests/agnostics to discuss. Mainly discussing religion and how we must deal with in Politics, Schools, Hospitals and Medicine, Terrorism etc etc.. so this forum has a place

Word, it just shouldnt be a place for dicussing things like "What Atheism means to me" or "How to be a good Atheist" or things like that, because these things, despite people trying, logically can not be discussed, due to the fact they cannot be applied to an anti-belief. But by all means, it's great that theres a place for Atheists to talk about the foolishness (or problems if you will) caused by religion, e.g. war, violence and discrimination.

samb

ye, that was what I agreed on