# Lobsang, what is it with you and atheism? **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [October 14, 2004, 8:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lobsang-what-is-it-with-you-and-atheism/269170 "2004-10-14T08:20:52Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![t-keela](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/a3d4f5/32.png) [@t-keela](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/t-keela)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2004, 1:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lobsang-what-is-it-with-you-and-atheism/269170/61 "2004-10-14T13:52:28Z")
> [@Testy](#): > > t-keela. > **We could leave if it weren’t for some serious medical issues with my wife** but in truth it isn’t all \*that[/] bad, despite the time I spend complaining about it. I have a belief that morality and social standards are great things but have an intense dislike of _enforced_ morality and standards. > > My own thoughts are that the misuse of religion is inevitable, people being what they are, and that religion is not in the same class as other belief systems due to its lifespan and its “contagiousness” for lack of a better word. I’d be interested in the societies without religion. The only example I can think of would be the Soviet Union but my belief was that they had a religion, it was simply suppressed. > > Regards > > Testy I’m sorry to hear about your wife. My wife had MD and I lost her recently. I hope she gets better soon. Y’all will be in my thoughts. Man that is a hard thing and it will test what you believe. I’ve had a hard life myself and have been a devout atheist at one time in my life, for several years in fact. I’m not gonna try to convert anyone here but…well, nevermind. Your opinion about the abuses of religion are exactly right. I don’t deny it. As matter of fact, I think I already went there. That doesn’t exclude the possible existence of a greater power though. It just proves that men are sheep and their leaders are corrupt. It’s politics, pure and simple, always was and probably always will be. I suppose you can tell that I’m not exactly orthodox or fundamental? Yet make no mistakes…I know what I know, heh at least I know what I believe, and I believe what I know. It’s been a pleasure and if you’d like feel free to write sometime. My address is listed. Sometimes you just need to yack w/ a stranger. t/k ---
**Author:** ![Testy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c37758/32.png) [@Testy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Testy)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2004, 2:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lobsang-what-is-it-with-you-and-atheism/269170/62 "2004-10-14T14:04:13Z")
> [@Metacom](#): > > Because the OP, and therefore this thread, are about religious belief in general. Fundamentalist beliefs are a subset of religious beliefs that are easier to discredit then religious belief in general. Arguing against a position (fundamentalist religious beliefs) that differs from the position **Airman** was taking (religious belief in general) is a fallacious tactic, and one that bothers me (a non-fundamentlist Christian) greatly, because I’m incredibly fucking sick of people thinking it’s OK to equate “religious” with “fundamentalist.” My point is that fundys are an inevitable result of all religions. (excepting Buddism) If you defend religion as a definite good then you must als be ready to live with some level of fundmentalism. I regret it if that offends you. Regards Testy ---
**Author:** ![Podkayne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/edb3f5/32.png) [@Podkayne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Podkayne)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2004, 2:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lobsang-what-is-it-with-you-and-atheism/269170/63 "2004-10-14T14:05:09Z")
> [@calm kiwi](#): > > Oh I am sorry. I thought being an atheist meant being able to decide ones own ideas without consulting a “god”. I didn’t realise it mean you had to get rid of your own values. For the record, I’m not a christian gone wonky, I was bought up as an atheist. Is this in response to my post? Nowhere did I say that you have to give up you values to be an atheist. That was kind of the point. My point is that an atheist does not have to subscribe to any _particular_ value system. Obviously that’s not the same thing as saying that no atheist subscribes to any value system. You seem to be arguing (correct me if I’m wrong) that because _you_ (and _some_ other atheists) have a particular system of values, being an atheist requires that a person have a similar system of values. This is simply not true. The only _requirement_ for being an atheist is not believing in a supreme being. Period. ---
**Author:** ![Desmostylus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c57346/32.png) [@Desmostylus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Desmostylus)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2004, 2:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lobsang-what-is-it-with-you-and-atheism/269170/64 "2004-10-14T14:06:16Z")
> [@Metacom](#): > > Because the OP, and therefore this thread, are about religious belief in general. Fundamentalist beliefs are a subset of religious beliefs that are easier to discredit then religious belief in general. Arguing against a position (fundamentalist religious beliefs) that differs from the position **Airman** was taking (religious belief in general) is a fallacious tactic, and one that bothers me (a non-fundamentlist Christian) greatly, because I’m incredibly fucking sick of people thinking it’s OK to equate “religious” with “fundamentalist.” That’s a bit silly. You can still believe in God, and not feel compelled to defend creationism. You can also believe in God, and not feel compelled to defend the actions of abortion clinic bombers, or predatory priests. Condemning any of those beliefs or actions is not an attack on “religious belief in general”. ---
**Author:** ![Testy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c37758/32.png) [@Testy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Testy)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2004, 2:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lobsang-what-is-it-with-you-and-atheism/269170/65 "2004-10-14T14:16:25Z")
> [@t-keela](#): > > I’m sorry to hear about your wife. My wife had MD and I lost her recently. I hope she gets better soon. Y’all will be in my thoughts. Man that is a hard thing and it will test what you believe. I’ve had a hard life myself and have been a devout atheist at one time in my life, for several years in fact. I’m not gonna try to convert anyone here but…well, nevermind. > > Your opinion about the abuses of religion are exactly right. I don’t deny it. As matter of fact, I think I already went there. That doesn’t exclude the possible existence of a greater power though. It just proves that men are sheep and their leaders are corrupt. It’s politics, pure and simple, always was and probably always will be. I suppose you can tell that I’m not exactly orthodox or fundamental? Yet make no mistakes…I know what I know, heh at least I know what I believe, and I believe what I know. It’s been a pleasure and if you’d like feel free to write sometime. My address is listed. Sometimes you just need to yack w/ a stranger. t/k Yes, I was just about to pick up you not being overly fundamental. 😛 I must admit that I sometimes wish I had a faith. My wife has invasive thymoma which keeps invading no matter how much surgery, chemo, and radiation we do. I’m dreading this with my whole being and am startled by her acceptance of her impending death. Not to say she won’t fight but she has a sort of “what-will-be” attitude. Thanks for the invite to chat, I’ll take you up on that and likewise, “it’s been a pleasure.” Amazing the number of religious people I have as friends and how well we get along. I suppose we each have either a secret hope the other will “come around” or maybe it’s just an “he’s OK in spite of” attitude. All the best Testy ---
**Author:** ![Metacom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ecae2f/32.png) [@Metacom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Metacom)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2004, 2:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lobsang-what-is-it-with-you-and-atheism/269170/66 "2004-10-14T14:20:03Z")
> [@Desmostylus](#): > > Condemning any of those beliefs or actions is not an attack on “religious belief in general”. Yes, exactly. That’s why doing so in a discussion of “religious belief in general” is a strawman. 😛 ---
**Author:** ![calm\_kiwi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/9fc348/32.png) [@calm\_kiwi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/calm_kiwi)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2004, 2:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lobsang-what-is-it-with-you-and-atheism/269170/67 "2004-10-14T14:30:43Z")
> [@Podkayne](#): > > Is this in response to my post? Nowhere did I say that you have to give up you values to be an atheist. That was kind of the point. My point is that an atheist does not have to subscribe to any _particular_ value system. Obviously that’s not the same thing as saying that no atheist subscribes to any value system. > > You seem to be arguing (correct me if I’m wrong) that because _you_ (and _some_ other atheists) have a particular system of values, being an atheist requires that a person have a similar system of values. This is simply not true. The only _requirement_ for being an atheist is not believing in a supreme being. Period. No what I said was not in response to your post. Being a atheist does not require any set of values. I must admit I am a teensy bit relieved when crims find god in prison. For some reason the worse the place the more likely the finding of god (maybe that is why he is behind the fridge 😃 ). I like to think this may show something…or then again I don’t care. Atheists dont HAVE to believe anything. No one HAS to believe anything. I just would like to think that oneday we all wish the best for everyone. Hey kill em if you like…I’m not going to hell. See isn’t nice better! ---
**Author:** ![JRDelirious](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jrdelirious/32/9531_2.png) [@JRDelirious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JRDelirious)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2004, 2:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lobsang-what-is-it-with-you-and-atheism/269170/68 "2004-10-14T14:31:37Z")
> [@Desmostylus](#): > > You can still believe in God, and not feel compelled to defend creationism. I believe **Metacom** was taking exception to an _apparent_ process that tends to happen in these discussions, wherein the atheist side ignores that, dismisses all the moderate theists, and jumps all the way into casting the religious worldview as “creationism and using Scripture to describe the natural world”. And **Testy** , as per the multigenerational persistence and “contagiousness” of religion, that may have something to do with something deeply embedded in the structure of the human psyche, that theistic religions happen to fill up with greater efficiency than mere political programs. It’s been over 20 years since I read Durkheim but it seems that human societies _will_ at some point develop a form of worship, or centered-around-ness, or exaltation, of _something_ that is perceived as providing a purpose: can be gods, but can also be the Nation, or an ideology, or making money, or “honour”, or the pursuit of pleasure, or an aesthetic, etc., lest anomie set in. The best you can hope for is that the “something” be something sensible and humane and empowering. ---
**Author:** ![Desmostylus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c57346/32.png) [@Desmostylus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Desmostylus)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2004, 2:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lobsang-what-is-it-with-you-and-atheism/269170/69 "2004-10-14T14:51:13Z")
> [@JRDelirious](#): > > I believe **Metacom** was taking exception to an _apparent_ process that tends to happen in these discussions, wherein the atheist side ignores that, dismisses all the moderate theists, and jumps all the way into casting the religious worldview as “creationism and using Scripture to describe the natural world”. Well, yes. And as nothing of the kind has actually happened in this thread, I feel justified in calling out **Metacom** as the one who set up the strawman. This being the Pit and all, I should probably call **Metacom** a brain-dead loser, as well. ---
**Author:** ![Zsofia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/7bcc69/32.png) [@Zsofia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zsofia)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2004, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lobsang-what-is-it-with-you-and-atheism/269170/70 "2004-10-14T18:32:15Z")
I’m sorry, I know everybody else is way past this, but this just burns my biscuits. > [@t-keela](#): > > Some folks would argue that love doesn’t exist. It is just a chemical reaction etc. etc. You know what? > like **A/D** said…“wasted time” if you believe that’s true. 🙂 So a feeling you get from chemical reactions dosen’t exist? What on earth do you think “love” is, a “love” field made out of magical “love” particles? It irritates me when people think that the fact that your emotions have an organic, chemical origin makes them less valid or true in your experience. Just because it isn’t mystical dosen’t make it false or base. ---
**Author:** ![Lord\_Ashtar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ea924/32.png) [@Lord\_Ashtar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lord_Ashtar)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2004, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lobsang-what-is-it-with-you-and-atheism/269170/71 "2004-10-14T18:42:20Z")
> [@Zsofia](#): > > So a feeling you get from chemical reactions dosen’t exist? What on earth do you think “love” is, a “love” field made out of magical “love” particles? Obviously, you didn’t watch Smallville last night (betcha nobody in this thread gets this). ---
**Author:** ![Misnomer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/misnomer/32/14897_2.png) [@Misnomer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Misnomer)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2004, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lobsang-what-is-it-with-you-and-atheism/269170/72 "2004-10-14T19:32:36Z")
> [@Exgineer](#): > > I don’t care if “In God We Trust” is printed on our currency, and I’m not going to stiff a waitress on her tip because she wrote “God bless you” on the back of my recipt. They’re just words on pieces of paper, and have no practical impact on my life. I completely agree with you about the waitress scenario, but I think you’re oversimplifying the currency issue. Just my $0.02, of course. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Lobsang](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobsang/32/4067_2.png) [@Lobsang](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobsang)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2004, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lobsang-what-is-it-with-you-and-atheism/269170/73 "2004-10-14T19:51:37Z")
> [@](#): > > First you started this thread, and that didn’t go well at all for anybody. > > Now you started this thread, which is just a different tack on the same subject. Just for clarification, those threads were started quite far apart. > [@](#): > > It’s abundantly clear that you’re an atheist. I think by now we all understand that. Why are you unable to accept that some people have found a place for God, even though you have not? Why are you so determined to attempt to demonstrate that believing in God is a detriment? I don’t believe it is harmful to the individual, I believe it is harmfull to the human race. And I _strongly_ believe God doesn’t exist. So I naturally want to argue that he doesn’t exist. > [@](#): > > That’s not an unreasonable assumption on your behalf, but it’s not quite correct. It’s not about bliss, it’s about peace. There are no 72 virgins waiting for us, no Heavenly Bordello, not even a Heaven Lamborghini dealership or Golden Corral, just eternal rest, and the opportunity to intercede on occasion on behalf of the living (if you believe in saints, which I do). OK. That helps my belief about the end for Atheists. That it is _also_ eternal peace. Because not being aware is kind of the ultimate peace isn’t it? > [@](#): > > Thinly veiled jabs aside (which that was), there are countless Catholics that have contributed to knowledge in the past. To discount their contributions because they believe in something as quaint as Creationism or a Higher Power is absolutely ridiculous. Attempting to figure out the why of things does not require the dismissal of belief in God. But it helps. I apologise if I didn’t put much thought into that statement though (the one you are replying to there) > [@](#): > > Give it a rest. You’re not asking the questions to learn, you’re asking so you can draw people into fights so you can espouse your particular worldview on them, maybe convince them of what you perceive are the fallacy of their beliefs. You don’t believe, great. Wonderful. I and lots of others do (although my faith was shaken a bit this week and I’m still resolving it). Accept it and move on. I guess you are right about me there. But as I said earlier, my strong belief in the non-existence of God makes me want to argue that case. That and the horrible effects of Fundemental Religion. I guess seeing hundreds of children murdered makes me kind of hate fundementalism, and yes, even less fundamentalist religion. I don’t want to offend individuals. But I accept that my strong desire to argue against theism probably does. I recognise that ‘It is the fact that’ and ‘I believe’ are not the same thing (heck, I’m trying to argue that very fact). My point is I recognise this even in my own case. Finally. I will refrain from bringing up Atheism if I have no new ‘material’ or significant knowledge for the debate. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2004, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lobsang-what-is-it-with-you-and-atheism/269170/74 "2004-10-14T19:59:18Z")
> [@Testy](#): > > My point is that fundys are an inevitable result of all religions. (excepting Buddism) If you defend religion as a definite good then you must als be ready to live with some level of fundmentalism. I regret it if that offends you. > > Testy Aren’t Buddhists atheists? I seem to remember from my college class in Eastern religions that they were originally, at least. Perhaps that is the reason. ---
**Author:** ![Lobsang](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobsang/32/4067_2.png) [@Lobsang](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobsang)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2004, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lobsang-what-is-it-with-you-and-atheism/269170/75 "2004-10-14T20:15:17Z")
> [@gobear](#): > > What young Mr. **Lobsang** fails to get is that atheism is not the automatic default of a reasonable person. One can be an intelligent person and be a theist at the same time. I’ve spent my whole life in a society which finds belief in God almost comical, almost as ‘silly’ as belief in santa or the tooth fairy. So yes, while I recognise that there are intelligent Theists, I have a hard time understanding how they can be theists. > [@](#): > > Certainly there is no compelling evidence against God’s existence any more than there is any compelling evidence for His existence Pardon? There’s a massive shitload of compelling reasons to believe he doesn’t exist. And not a single good reason to believe he does in my experience. > [@](#): > > but one cannot prove that a wise Creator didn’t use evolution as His divine tool to form humanity. By that rationale one cannot prove that a sausage the size of the moon, with a face, is hiding it’self from us behind the sun. But It’s a pretty far-fetched thing to believe. It is my opinion that the existence of God is also far-fetched. That his non-existence cannot be proven is not a very good argument to suggest he almost certainly does exist. It’s just an argument that there _might_ be a giant sausage. > [@](#): > > **Lobsang** (who really needs to re-read Pratchett because he clearly missed the messages of freedom and tolerance in his books). I am very tolerant except on this issue. I am sorry about that. ---
**Author:** ![Excalibre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/898d66/32.png) [@Excalibre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Excalibre)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2004, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lobsang-what-is-it-with-you-and-atheism/269170/76 "2004-10-14T20:22:15Z")
> [@Testy](#): > > My point is that fundys are an inevitable result of all religions. (excepting Buddism) If you defend religion as a definite good then you must als be ready to live with some level of fundmentalism. I regret it if that offends you. > > Regards > > Testy How many fundamentalist Shintoists are there? Radical Daoists haven’t caused much trouble up in my end of the woods, nor have crazed Sikhs, Zoroastrians, Jains, Unitarians, practitioners of Voodoo, or Baha’is. Only certain religions have spawned fundamentalism, and while I’m not terribly inclined to blame the religion (since plenty of evil people are evil for reasons entirely unrelated to religion), plenty of religions are quite free of that sort of nonsense; I suspect only certain religions have the characteristics needed to lead to that kind of thing. ---
**Author:** ![Eve](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/9e8a1a/32.png) [@Eve](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eve)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2004, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lobsang-what-is-it-with-you-and-atheism/269170/77 "2004-10-14T21:24:10Z")
> [@Lobsang](#): > > I am very tolerant except on this issue. I am sorry about that. Actually, if you read Sam Harris’ new book, _The End of Faith_, he says that being “tolerant” of theism is a huge problem, one that leads to fundamentalism and theocracies. You can question—or even ridicule—someone’s political beliefs, their taste in clothing, even their weight, and it’s considered “discourse.” But to question the validity or common sense of their religion? Except in a forum like the SDMB it is _not done_. This joint is the exception. ---
**Author:** ![Brutus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/91b2a8/32.png) [@Brutus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brutus)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2004, 10:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lobsang-what-is-it-with-you-and-atheism/269170/78 "2004-10-14T22:01:08Z")
Wait, so now I have to be hostile to religion? Damnit, being an atheist is getting tougher all the time. ---
**Author:** ![t-keela](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/a3d4f5/32.png) [@t-keela](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/t-keela)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2004, 10:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lobsang-what-is-it-with-you-and-atheism/269170/79 "2004-10-14T22:08:39Z")
> [@](#): > > I’m sorry, I know everybody else is way past this, but this just burns my biscuits. > > So a feeling you get from chemical reactions dosen’t exist? What on earth do you think “love” is, a “love” field made out of magical “love” particles? It irritates me when people think that the fact that your emotions have an organic, chemical origin makes them less valid or true in your experience. Just because it isn’t mystical dosen’t make it false or base. Rather than burning your biscuits or allowing yourself to be irritated from what you think I said. Try reading it again without blinders. Then show me exactly where you get the fairytale description that you put forth. BTW It may help you to know that I have an advanced degree in biological psychology. I **never** at any time said …well practically everything that you accused me of. Read it again. > [@t-keela](#): > > Some folks would argue that love doesn’t exist. It is just a chemical reaction etc. etc. If you’d like, I’ll interpret it for you as I am not always as precise with my wording as I sometimes should be. What I was trying to say is that while love may be explained by science as a complex system of chemical reactions and electrical impulses in the brain. That does not deny the fact that the emotion we call love exists. It isn’t enough to claim something does NOT exist because you can explain the phenomenon scientifically. Love is more than a bunch of glial cells and neurotransmitters and chem/elect impulses. These things are true, there’s no denying that. So we must then agree that the human emotion love does exist, my first point. Is it **just** chemistry? Well of course we have feelings because of our chemical reactions but man has also combined a multitude of these feelings and added his own ideas and concepts to these base emotions. Love is more than JUST the feelings he derives from his initial impulses. It is NOT ONLY what he feels that defines his love for another. It is what HE DOES to express these feelings as well. I could go on and on about the concept of love. My point was simply this. **Zsofia** Love exists and it is more than a simple feeling. Sorry if I confused you. I hope this wasn’t a waste of time. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![yosemite](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/3ab097/32.png) [@yosemite](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yosemite)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2004, 10:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lobsang-what-is-it-with-you-and-atheism/269170/80 "2004-10-14T22:34:08Z")
> [@Eve](#): > > You can question—or even ridicule—someone’s political beliefs, their taste in clothing, even their weight, and it’s considered “discourse.” Well, it might be “discourse” when the subject is politics, but ridiculing someone else’s taste in clothing or their weight is usually considered “being an asshole.” [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lobsang-what-is-it-with-you-and-atheism/269170.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lobsang-what-is-it-with-you-and-atheism/269170.md?page=5)