[Northman]

I am an atheist, and many flat-Earthers I have talked to get angry at me for it. What is wrong with Atheism? Do I REALLY need a religion to be moral? What If I don't agree with any religious moral principles (homosexuality, gender equality, etc.)?

[Rama Set]

Good start to a conversation, but maybe this should be in Philosophy, Religion & Society?

[Roundy]

You won't have that problem here, my friend.  A lot of FEers here are atheist.  Now, I assume that being an atheist you are a FEer yourself? 

[Rounder]

Now, I assume that being an atheist you are a FEer yourself?

What does one have to do with the other?

[Charming Anarchist]

You have talked to many flat-Earthers, have you??   and they give a shit about your faith, do they? 
Okee dokee.  We will just pretend there is no shillery going on here. 

Do I REALLY need a religion to be moral?

Reality check:  You do not need to be moral. 

Here is a challenge for you:  Define the words "religion" and "moral" for yourself.  Try to be as clear as possible so that a person who has never heard those words before will understand you. 

[Roundy]

Now, I assume that being an atheist you are a FEer yourself?

What does one have to do with the other?

Well, RE science has gotten itself into a bit of a pickle, imho.  In explaining the wonders of the universe down to almost the minutest detail, you've created a number of variables that, if even off slightly, would not have allowed life to exist (no, I'm not talking about the so-called "Goldilocks zone", you guys have covered that one brilliantly; what I speak of is more a "Goldilocks universe", a universe that was juuuuuuuust right for life to exist).

It just makes much more sense for such a universe to have been created, because otherwise you're looking at a statistically impossible coincidence that things turned out so perfect for life.  And if it was created, there is a creator, QED.

So it really makes no sense for me to be a REer and not believe in God.

On the other hand, FET is so wide-open and unexplored, its deepest mysteries have yet to be revealed.  It may come about that after exhaustive research into the origins of the universe we will run into the same issue.  But there's no reason to assume it at this point, so it's perfectly reasonable to be a FEer and also be an atheist.

Do I REALLY need a religion to be moral? What If I don't agree with any religious moral principles (homosexuality, gender equality, etc.)?

I see that you were probably a "one and done", but I thought this was worth addressing too in case you do come back.  It's easy to be religious and disagree with some of your religion's doctrines about morality.  I know lots of people who are able to achieve this.  All you have to do is turn your brain off and pretend it makes sense to pick and choose what you want to believe out of whichever book it is that you believe in that was supposedly transcribed by an infallible God.  That's all!

[rabinoz]

Well, RE science has gotten itself into a bit of a pickle, imho.  In explaining the wonders of the universe down to almost the minutest detail, you've created a number of variables that, if even off slightly, would not have allowed life to exist (no, I'm not talking about the so-called "Goldilocks zone", you guys have covered that one brilliantly; what I speak of is more a "Goldilocks universe", a universe that was juuuuuuuust right for life to exist).

It just makes much more sense for such a universe to have been created, because otherwise you're looking at a statistically impossible coincidence that things turned out so perfect for life.  And if it was created, there is a creator, QED.

So it really makes no sense for me to be a REer and not believe in God.

You say "Well, RE science has gotten itself into a bit of a pickle, imho" when rather than "RE science", what you are really criticising is "modern Cosmology".
In my opinion at least the only connection between "modern Cosmology" and whether the earth is flat or a globe is that it would be completely irrelevant if the earth were flat.

For most people the flat ~ globe issue was settled over two millennia ago and rotating earth 300 to 400 years ago.
Astronomers up to the start of the 20th century were restricted to the solar system and our own galaxy. The distances to some stars could be estimated by parallax, others had been guessed simply on the basis of apparent brightness.

But, my point is that all these people simply accepted the Heliocentric Globe as a given.

If you restricted you criticism to "modern Cosmology has gotten itself into a bit of a pickle," I would be much more in agreement, though some recent observations (gravitational lensing and gravitational waves - a bit more questionable so far) are certainly interesting.

But I don't think that the flat ~ globe issue is connected with modern Cosmology.

[Rounder]

Well, RE science has ... a "Goldilocks universe", a universe that was juuuuuuuust right for life to exist ... makes much more sense for such a universe to have been created ... And if it was created, there is a creator, QED.  So it really makes no sense for me to be a REer and not believe in God.

On the other hand, FET is so wide-open and unexplored ... it's perfectly reasonable to be a FEer and also be an atheist.

I think your logic is unique (as in "You're all alone in this") and the majority of FE and RE do not think/believe the way you've proposed.  What I've seen here and elsewhere is that the more strict or fundamentalist one's belief in God, the more likely one is to engage in "God versus science" thinking, starting with evolution and ending with six-literal-day-creation and what that means about the nature of the universe.  They'll be happy if the razor's edge value of some cosmological value causes a scientist to believe there must be a Creator, but they'll still not believe the "Big Bang and billions of years" model that got him there.  And the more science one rejects, the more plausible it seems that God created just for Man a unique flat disc at the center of a tiny universe.  The more science one accepts, on the other hand, the more plausible it must seem that Man arose by chance on an otherwise unremarkable round rock much the same as billions of other round rocks, orbiting a star no different than a billion-billion other stars, located in a place NOT at the center of anything, much less the center of EVERYTHING.

Plus: The only people I've ever seen here at TFES who have invoked theological arguments to support one side or the other have been Flat Earthers.  It goes all the way back to Rowbotham himself, who spends a good part of Earth Not A Globe Chapter XIII trying to demonstrate that Hell is a real physical place under the ocean of the earth (singular 'ocean' used on purpose, go read Chapter XII to see why) and quotes extensively from the Bible throughout the book, listing these citations under the heading "Scripture Proofs" in his index.

[Love]

If one is on a bus and the bus is going a steady speed one's relative velocity will be the same as the busses and they will be able to move around the compartment as if they were on solid ground.  When acceloration is induced the velocity changes; since you are going from o acceleration to magnitude greater than zero there is a change in acceleration.  This change is called a jerk.  If you were on this same bus and it speeded up or slowed down you would find it very difficult to keep your balance and you would need something to hold onto.  The same would happen if you turned a corner.  You would feel the change in acceleration meaning you would feel the jerk.

Engineers define the jerk as J(t)=da/dt.  In three space acceleration is a vector quantity and the Del operator working on the acceleration vector components produces a gradient.  The gradient defines the magnitude and direction of the jerk.  Consider a point on the surface of the earth.   The velocity of this point at any given time is a summation of vectors.   We go around the moon just as much as it goes around us.   Therefore there is a tangential velocity vector from orbiting the moon.  Same with the sun.   Same with galaxy rotation...and perhaps, galaxies are rotating around something.  Anyway, these velocity vectors change therefore there is acceleration.   And it is clear that the acceleration vectors have to change also.  Thus we are subject to jerks.   But, nobody ever feels any jerks.  I find this strange.   A bus speeds up only a few miles an hour and it almost knocks you over.

[Love]

What is wrong with atheism is that it is nihilism.  Religion provides unifying political principles; basically a hierarchy and division of labor without which civilization would be impossible.  I define politics as the art of getting large numbers of people to build and maintain civilization.  Materialism/atheism are incapable of inspiring the masses therefore they are feckless with respect to being effective politically.

Is civilization a good thing? 

[JohnDavis]

My problem with atheism is that it delivers on none of the promises that support such a bold move.

They promise it is more reasonable, and yet I see as many fallacies come out of atheist reasoning as I do fundamentalist religion. They claim its equally moral, and yet I don't see this in the actions of atheists or out of non-religiously based groups in general like science. They say religion is so often hate based - and yet again the rhetoric of the atheist matches if not outstrips this hate. They are also a tyrannical belief - they will not tolerate religion existing side by side with atheism. They say there is some sort of war between religion and reason - this is patently against history and fact.

In general, I find the atheist is as faithful and dogmatic as any follower of a religion. They rely far more on how intelligent they think they are compared to folks they paint to look like they believe Zeus is throwing around lightning bolts. Mostly I'm against it because there is no real benefit. Like Love pointed out religion has served us quite well over the years. Atheism has yet to contribute anything. They believe what they do because they were taught it and gobbled it up whole.

[Jura-Glenlivet]

My problem with atheism is that it delivers on none of the promises that support such a bold move.

They promise it is more reasonable, and yet I see as many fallacies come out of atheist reasoning as I do fundamentalist religion. They claim its equally moral, and yet I don't see this in the actions of atheists or out of non-religiously based groups in general like science. They say religion is so often hate based - and yet again the rhetoric of the atheist matches if not outstrips this hate. They are also a tyrannical belief - they will not tolerate religion existing side by side with atheism. They say there is some sort of war between religion and reason - this is patently against history and fact.

In general, I find the atheist is as faithful and dogmatic as any follower of a religion. They rely far more on how intelligent they think they are compared to folks they paint to look like they believe Zeus is throwing around lightning bolts. Mostly I'm against it because there is no real benefit. Like Love pointed out religion has served us quite well over the years. Atheism has yet to contribute anything. They believe what they do because they were taught it and gobbled it up whole.

Atheism promises nothing.
For me it was the realisation that the universe is much simpler and more beautiful than I had been taught.

It isn’t more reasonable, it is reason. A word you have to suspend in respect to religion.

It is only as moral as the person practising, the same as religion.

Hate again is a human failing, that is why it is in all we do, but I don’t see bloody sectarian conflict between scientific factions, only on paper.

I tolerate the religious, both in society and in my family, I was bought up as one, most of us were.

Contributions to anything? It’s an abstract, it’s people not believing in something, what is it meant to do? As for atheist's contributing, some do some don’t, the same as the religious community.
Alan Turing, Stephen Hawking, Thomas Edison, make your own mind up.

Religion has served us well, up to a point. At its best it can comfort the grieving, bring people together, promote tolerance, encourage learning and was the precursor to science. You don’t need me to list the antithesis of these points, they are well documented and that is the point. If the whole world suddenly went atheist, Buddhist, Baptist or typist the bad would do bad, the good would do good and most of us would carry on in-between.

What it will never do is get us to the truth, because there is no creator, it’s just wishful thinking by those afraid of dying.

[Robaroni]

Hate is not a human "failing". The root of hate is fear, is fear a human failing?

Socialized religions are non-moral, that is, they contain both moral and immoral individuals. Religions are not God, they are man's interpretation of God and their frailties and inequities do not disprove the existence of God. The proof of God is that man is capable of love, belief in God does not require the abandonment of reason.

To believe in God is not necessarily driven by a fear of death, it can simply be a belief that something exists beyond man.

There is a preponderance of evidence that the earth is round. In order for it be flat there would have to be millenniums of liars along with photos, first hand accounts, satellites in orbit, etc. that would have to be ignored or otherwise explained to accept a flat world. Socialized religions are based on faith and faith is blind acceptance of the unknown. For this reason individuals who live by faith are more willing to accept a flat world.

R

[Jura-Glenlivet]

Fear is not a failing, translating that fear to hate, is.

I'm not sure how the existence of love is proof of god, the evolutionary explanation, that an intense feeling towards those who share genes, or those who may serve as conduits to the future of them, or even those in a close community sharing resource and danger thereby creating a cooperative and protective group that is more liable to survive than an individual, would explain love without the need of god.

[Robaroni]

Fear is not a failing, translating that fear to hate, is.

I'm not sure how the existence of love is proof of god, the evolutionary explanation, that an intense feeling towards those who share genes, or those who may serve as conduits to the future of them, or even those in a close community sharing resource and danger thereby creating a cooperative and protective group that is more liable to survive than an individual, would explain love without the need of god.

Xenophobia, fear of the strange or uncommon. What are we fearing? We are fearing the unknown, it's a defense mechanism and the root of that fear in the brain is the amygdala. We hate those who don't perceive reality as we do. Our reality is threatened we are afraid. Is that a failing or a protection mechanism? Greed, we fear not having enough, food, air, whatever. Is it a failing or a defense mechanism?

Your child needs your heart to survive, do you give it? Sure, we all do. Science? Science says let the weak die and have more healthier offspring for a better chance of genetic survival. Self preservation, man's greatest drive, even single cell organism strive for self preservation but we still give our life for the dying child. We do it because our love for our child is greater than our own existence. What are we thinking, pondering, our genes? We only see the dying child and our belief that Sartre's eternal nothingness awaits us is unimportant.

R

[TotesNotReptilian]

Xenophobia, fear of the strange or uncommon. What are we fearing? We are fearing the unknown, it's a defense mechanism and the root of that fear in the brain is the amygdala. We hate those who don't perceive reality as we do.

Meh. Speak for yourself...

Science? Science says let the weak die and have more healthier offspring for a better chance of genetic survival. Self preservation, man's greatest drive, even single cell organism strive for self preservation but we still give our life for the dying child.

That's not what "science" says. The process of evolution tends to reward preservation of the species, but it doesn't necessarily instill an innate drive to preserve the species or self above all else.

T

[Robaroni]

Xenophobia, fear of the strange or uncommon. What are we fearing? We are fearing the unknown, it's a defense mechanism and the root of that fear in the brain is the amygdala. We hate those who don't perceive reality as we do.

Meh. Speak for yourself...

Science? Science says let the weak die and have more healthier offspring for a better chance of genetic survival. Self preservation, man's greatest drive, even single cell organism strive for self preservation but we still give our life for the dying child.

That's not what "science" says. The process of evolution tends to reward preservation of the species, but it doesn't necessarily instill an innate drive to preserve the species or self above all else.

T

"Self-preservation is a behavior that ensures the survival of an organism.[1] It is almost universal among living organisms.[citation needed] Pain and fear are parts of this mechanism. Pain motivates the individual to withdraw from damaging situations, to protect a damaged body part while it heals, and to avoid similar experiences in the future.[2] Most pain resolves promptly once the painful stimulus is removed and the body has healed, but sometimes pain persists despite removal of the stimulus and apparent healing of the body; and sometimes pain arises in the absence of any detectable stimulus, damage or disease.[3] Fear causes the organism to seek safety and may cause a release of adrenaline,[4][5] which has the effect of increased strength and heightened senses such as hearing, smell, and sight. Self-preservation may also be interpreted figuratively; in regard to the coping mechanisms one needs to prevent emotional trauma from distorting the mind (see: defence mechanism.)
Even the most simple of living organisms (for example, the single-celled bacteria) are typically under intense selective pressure to evolve a response to avoid a damaging environment, if such an environment exists."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-preservation

Speak for myself about what? That a challenge to our reality angers us? Anger is fear, (unfulfilled expectations). That those living in a reality that doesn't fit our paradigm scares us? It does.

What is more important in your life than loving and being loved? What is life worth without compassion? If everyone you love disavowed ever loving you, what would your life be worth?

R

[Robaroni]

That's not what "science" says. The process of evolution tends to reward preservation of the species, but it doesn't necessarily instill an innate drive to preserve the species or self above all else.

T

Is math science? What's the probability of letting the child die and impregnating 100 women? 
"Innate drive"? You walk down a path in the woods and step on a snake, immediately you jump back. Is thought involved? No, the brain short circuits to the fear center. Now you look down and see it is only a stick, now we are thinking.
Your child is dying are you functioning through an innate response. You're thinking my child is dying, I' m not interested in more offspring, I'm not interested in the gene pool theory or any other theory, I'm in the immediate, the reality of right now. I'm an atheist but I don't care that I believe I face an eternal void. The dying child isn't a scientific theory it's a reality that I'm confronted with.

You want to give me a theory? You save your child because of a theory? No, you do everything you can to save you child out of complete and utter compassion. We all do. Loving and being loved is the core of human existence.

R

[TotesNotReptilian]

Xenophobia, fear of the strange or uncommon. What are we fearing? We are fearing the unknown, it's a defense mechanism and the root of that fear in the brain is the amygdala. We hate those who don't perceive reality as we do.

Meh. Speak for yourself...

Science? Science says let the weak die and have more healthier offspring for a better chance of genetic survival. Self preservation, man's greatest drive, even single cell organism strive for self preservation but we still give our life for the dying child.

That's not what "science" says. The process of evolution tends to reward preservation of the species, but it doesn't necessarily instill an innate drive to preserve the species or self above all else.

T

"Self-preservation is a behavior that ensures the survival of an organism.[1] It is almost universal among living organisms.[citation needed] Pain and fear are parts of this mechanism. Pain motivates the individual to withdraw from damaging situations, to protect a damaged body part while it heals, and to avoid similar experiences in the future.[2] Most pain resolves promptly once the painful stimulus is removed and the body has healed, but sometimes pain persists despite removal of the stimulus and apparent healing of the body; and sometimes pain arises in the absence of any detectable stimulus, damage or disease.[3] Fear causes the organism to seek safety and may cause a release of adrenaline,[4][5] which has the effect of increased strength and heightened senses such as hearing, smell, and sight. Self-preservation may also be interpreted figuratively; in regard to the coping mechanisms one needs to prevent emotional trauma from distorting the mind (see: defence mechanism.)
Even the most simple of living organisms (for example, the single-celled bacteria) are typically under intense selective pressure to evolve a response to avoid a damaging environment, if such an environment exists."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-preservation

Yes, that agrees exactly with what I said. Please notice: nowhere did it say that self preservation is man's greatest drive, above all else.

Speak for myself about what?

"We are fearing the unknown" ... "We hate those who don't perceive reality as we do."

Don't include me in your we. Be careful about projecting your own fears/hatreds onto everyone else. Yes, most people probably fear the unknown to some extent. The hatred part seems a bit too extreme to generalize to everyone though.

What is more important in your life than loving and being loved? What is life worth without compassion? If everyone you love disavowed ever loving you, what would your life be worth?

Sonny, true love is the greatest thing in the world - except for a nice MLT - mutton, lettuce, and tomato sandwich, where the mutton is nice and lean and the tomatoes are ripe. They're so perky, I love that.

R

T

[TotesNotReptilian]

That's not what "science" says. The process of evolution tends to reward preservation of the species, but it doesn't necessarily instill an innate drive to preserve the species or self above all else.

T

Is math science? What's the probability of letting the child die and impregnating 100 women? 

Depends on your definition of science. I would say that math is a type of science. As for your second question... I have no earthly idea, and I have no idea why it is relevant.

"Science says" is a common phrase used by people who don't have the first clue what "science says". Just try to avoid it, please. Science has many definitions, but it isn't a force of nature. It doesn't tell people what to do, although people can act on knowledge gained through scientific pursuits.

"Innate drive"? You walk down a path in the woods and step on a snake, immediately you jump back. Is thought involved? No, the brain short circuits to the fear center. Now you look down and see it is only a stick, now we are thinking. Your child is dying are you functioning through an innate response. You're thinking my child is dying, I' m not interested in more offspring, I'm not interested in the gene pool theory or any other theory, I'm in the immediate, the reality of right now. I'm an atheist but I don't care that I believe I face an eternal void. The dying child isn't a scientific theory it's a reality that I'm confronted with.

I think you are confusing the word "innate" with "instinctual" "reflexive".

You want to give me a theory? You save your child because of a theory? No, you do everything you can to save you child out of complete and utter compassion. We all do. Loving and being loved is the core of human existence.

No, you don't save your child because of a theory. You save your child because most people have an innate desire to protect their children. They love their children. Evolution is just a theory that explains how this innate desire, or love, originated in our species.