Is it possible to be atheist and MGTOW?

[VileNordParticipant 766]

As an atheist, not only are you responsible for living your purpose in life, you are also solely responsible for creating your purpose in life. As far as the question of particles which rob us of true free will, I always defer to Descartes when he said “I think therefore I am.” Realistically I think it is safe to say that even if our consciousness is prisoner to our brains biology, there is jacks~~~ that we can do about it, so we might as well ignore the notion all together and simply act as though we do have free will. This is certainly congruent with MGTOW principles.

Lust for comfort suffocates the soul

[WandersmannParticipant 27]

As an atheist, not only are you responsible for living your purpose in life, you are also solely responsible for creating your purpose in life. As far as the question of particles which rob us of true free will […]

An atheist is “a person who disbelieves [strong atheist] or lacks belief [weak atheist] in the existence of God or gods”. No mention of purpose or free will. You could believe in some sort of intrinsic purpose (rather than defining your own) and be an atheist. You could also believe in free will and be an atheist. Or not believe in evolution. Or wear a hat. Or be a MGTOW.

[BrbParticipant 5]

According to atheism “this is it” and in that aspect all things are material in one way or another.  This includes the brain and all thoughts and impulses attributed to it.  If this is the case than one’s view of “personal sovereignty” is directly caused and affected by particles more or less.  This in turn leaves the “particle” to be the sole decider and not the individual himself.  However, for those of you who will state “some particles are different than others thereby superior” would still be submitting to the will of the “particle” or “dark matter.”

 

Let’s just start out with your definition of atheism. It’s not a belief that “this is it”, its a non-belief in the supernatural until there is evidence that proves otherwise. The rest of your statement is a fallacy of composition in that you believe that simply because everything is material and within the natural realm, that somehow they cannot be governed by laws of nature that we have not figured out yet. Just because we don’t yet understand how conscience and determinism affect us, doesn’t mean they are supernatural elements.

[LordReillyParticipant 18]

I am an atheist, and I’ve always look at it as ‘Seeking truth’ more than simple ‘Not believing in a God’. In this way it is just like MGTOW, in that being a MGTOW we must first find the truth around us, which has brought all of us here.  Being an atheist means that I’ve looked at the truth around religion and found it to be a lie.  I see no evidence of a God, not even supporting evidence, which means it’s not even a theory.  By definition a theory has supporting evidence to support the claim, religion doesn’t even have that.  Similarly MGTOW’s have seen the truth around them in regards to feminists and see no evidence to support their claims.  We even see and call our the lies that happen everyday.  In my mind being a MGTOW and an atheist are about the same thing, seeking truth.  Well that’s my .02 cents anyway.

[John DoeParticipant 743]

Glad the discussion heated up.

First off no one really answered my question about particles determining our free will.  The only thing I am getting is that atheists do not have a rational reason for their beliefs.

Mcloco:

Go far enough down in scale and there is no will beeing put on anything by anything.

We leads me to how can an atheist have personal sovereignty without free will.  Without the lack of will how can one have personal sovereignty?

 

Gonegalt:

If I analyze things too closely all of the time then the rest of my life will pass by without me experiencing much joy in it – I’ve spent my fair time doing just that but since I know the answers are unknowable I’ve chosen not to overdo it, so whether I drank that 4th beer out of free will or because I had no choice I really don’t care.

I don’t think anyone, including myself, is overanalyzing anything.  However, my question is still not answered.  Great speech to nowhere though.

Wandersman:  You are either an atheist or you are not.  A girl cannot be “partially” pregnant.  She either is or isn’t.

Vilenord:  Good to have you back.

As an atheist, not only are you responsible for living your purpose in life, you are also solely responsible for creating your purpose in life.

If one follows your advice, would they be following a set of rules, thereby not really creating their own purpose in life but rather listening to another’s?

Realistically I think it is safe to say that even if our consciousness is prisoner to our brains biology, there is jacks~~~ that we can do about it, so we might as well ignore the notion all together and simply act as though we do have free will.

What about the truth?

BRB

The rest of your statement is a fallacy of composition in that you believe that simply because everything is material and within the natural realm, that somehow they cannot be governed by laws of nature that we have not figured out yet.

Would man still have free will if he “figured” out those laws.  If there are laws defining free will, is there really free will or just laws.

Brb / Lord Reilly :

You both bring up the need for evidence in order to believe.  What would be the requirements for that evidence exactly?

Is not evidence subject to interpretation?  Is not interpretation often subjective?

[GoneGaltParticipant 361]

John: best of luck in your quixotic quest for absolute truth. I’ve exhausted my interest on your topic.

 

[John DoeParticipant 743]

Good luck in giving a convincing argument.  I am sure next time you will figure out what you are talking about.

[JohnnyWayneParticipant 70]

I think it’s fallacy to ask if a person can be one thing that is unquantifiable and undefined (athiest) while also being another thing that is unquantifiable and undefined (mgtow). Either or both can only be defined according to each individual person’s definition. Therefore the question leads to no answer.

[TheNinjaUWannaH8Participant 386]

[BrbParticipant 5]

First off no one really answered my question about particles determining our free will.  The only thing I am getting is that atheists do not have a rational reason for their beliefs.

I know it must be hard to understand since you have been indoctrinated into a mindset where everyone has a belief, but let me reiterate what I said. Atheist do not need a rational reason for their beliefs, because they are non-believers. We DO NOT BELIEVE in the supernatural, until there is evidence that proves otherwise. You are asking for a rational reason in not believing something that isn’t there.

In terms of your ideas of free will, Dr. Krauss explains it far better than I could, as he is a physicist who is on the forefront of understanding those laws. “Everything I know about the world tells me there is no such thing as free will. The world behaves as if there is free will, so it doesn’t make much difference. Just like the particles in a room, we can discuss them statistically, and they behave as if they can do things they are not being forced to do, just like we behave as if we have free will because we live in a very complex world where there are so many factors influencing any of our decisions that we can’t trace that free will down to it’s source. The difference in a world where we act as if we have free will and one where we really do have free will is so minimal that it’s a question for philosophers to worry about.”

You both bring up the need for evidence in order to believe.  What would be the requirements for that evidence exactly?

Is not evidence subject to interpretation?  Is not interpretation often subjective?

 

You can’t believe in something without evidence. Belief without evidence is faith, which is pointless since that is a personal choice and not an objective truth that can be quantified in any way. You faith in something does not make it true. My belief in MGTOW is based on my observations of my friends and their families and the system that is designed to cripple them. The requirements of evidence are no different in this case than any other theory that has ever been proposed. It has to be able to go through several generations of the scientific method (Observe, Hypothesize, Predict, Experiment & Reproduce) which eliminates interpretation and any form of subjective bias.

[WandersmannParticipant 27]

First off no one really answered my question about particles determining our free will.  The only thing I am getting is that atheists do not have a rational reason for their beliefs.

 

We leads me to how can an atheist have personal sovereignty without free will.  Without the lack of will how can one have personal sovereignty?

I posted the definition of atheism twice here and you still don’t get what it means but interpret irrelevant things into it. “Weak” atheism isn’t even a belief but a lack of belief.

 

You are either an atheist or you are not.  A girl cannot be “partially” pregnant.  She either is or isn’t.

Straw man. I suggest you learn what atheism actually means including the difference between “strong” and “weak” atheism and address my arguments.

 

You both bring up the need for evidence in order to believe.  What would be the requirements for that evidence exactly?

Is not evidence subject to interpretation?  Is not interpretation often subjective?

Modern technology is possible because of our scientific understanding of the universe, which has little to do with blind faith or subjective interpretation. Educate yourself on rationality, the scientific method and scientific evidence. Scientific theories/laws are supported by observations and experimental evidence unlike the belief in God, fairies, Santa or unicorns.

 

I think it’s fallacy to ask if a person can be one thing that is unquantifiable and undefined (athiest) while also being another thing that is unquantifiable and undefined (mgtow). Either or both can only be defined according to each individual person’s definition.

How is atheism “unquantifiable and undefined”? I quoted the definition twice here.

 

We’re getting lost in irrelevant discussion here. Atheists can be MGTOW because “a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods” can obviously still go their own way. Why the heck would irrational faith in a god/gods be required? Let me remind you once again not to interpret irrelevant s~~~ into atheism.

[GoneGaltParticipant 361]

John: Your arrogance is laughable. My responses were given in an attempt to explain my honest views, yet the best you can do is sneer because my answers don’t meet your lofty standards. In your second post you whined because people weren’t flocking to meet your demands to discuss the topic yet when they did respond, you responded sarcastically and judgementally, as you did with Keymaster.

2nd post: I am really disappointed in the lack of discussion in this topic. I could barely get even an imaginative response which really makes me questions (sic) Atheism even more.

response to KM: Apparently it affected you enough to share your beliefs, to study history, and develop a personal philosophy … Now you state it does not affect you.  Make up your mind.  I don’t understand what you are saying, and I don’t think you do either.

The ego you must carry around with you must be quite a burden when the great unwashed are unable to respond satisfactorily to even the simplest of your questions. Your responses here classify you to me as a G1J (Grade 1 Jackass). I will discuss almost anything with almost anyone except those without a clue as to how to treat people decently. So please accept my apology up front for not responding to anything you post here in the forums again – feel free to return the favor – PLEASE??? 🙂

[TYEParticipant 291]

This thread got heated quickly ! My stance is…well I don’t really have a stance, because I just don’t give a dam anymore. My life is full of fact, and theory Christianity to me is a set of ideas, or morals nothing more. I can’t prove that a God does, or doesn’t exist nor can any Atheist. I don’t have to prove anything that’s beyond human capabilities of proving, and when technology comes into existence that will allow me to test my theories I will change my beliefs accordingly. Until that day comes nobody has the right to tell me what does, and doesn’t exist without 101% factual evidence. I don’t think love exists, and until someone can 100% prove it does my stance on it shall remain. You can easily be an Atheist MGTOW, because MGTOW doesn’t seek to destroy your beliefs instead it is up to you to decide where MGTOW fits within your life style.

Personally I think Atheism, and Religion are wrong when it comes to the sensitive topics of our creation. I would rather say “I don’t know…yet” this makes a hell of a lot more sense than gambling, because as I recall MGTOW prefer not to gamble. Arguments like this are silly we’re all human, and we often forget that. Humans have a small fraction of the Universes knowledge yet we arrogantly walk around as if we’re “Gods” with all the answers. My personal opinion is that MOST not all Atheist are arrogant, and full of themselves just like the religious. Let’s say I asked everyone here right now to pick a number 1-10, and who ever guesses the number i’m thinking gets a million dollars. If one person guesses 2, and another one 3, but the number I was thinking is 6 should I give the person who chose 3 the million dollars?! No. I clearly stated that the person to guess the number i’m thinking get’s the million dollars. I will not give someone a pat on the back, and a good job just for half Assing either you get it right, or you don’t get it at all.

[games are for girlsParticipant 13]

religion is for the feeble minded. All systems of belief are stupid by definition.

[WandersmannParticipant 27]

@OldAtHeart

Personally I think Atheism, and Religion are wrong when it comes to the sensitive topics of our creation. I would rather say “I don’t know…yet” this makes a hell of a lot more sense than gambling, because as I recall MGTOW prefer not to gamble.

Then you’re an atheist because in a broad sense atheism is a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods. Take the American Atheists organization for example:

The reason no one asks this question [What is atheism?] a lot is because most people have preconceived ideas and notions about what an Atheist is and is not. […]

 

Atheism is usually defined incorrectly as a belief system. Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods. Older dictionaries define atheism as “a belief that there is no God.” Some dictionaries even go so far as to define Atheism as “wickedness,” “sinfulness,” and other derogatory adjectives. Clearly, theistic influence taints dictionaries. People cannot trust these dictionaries to define atheism. The fact that dictionaries define Atheism as “there is no God” betrays the (mono)theistic influence. Without the (mono)theistic influence, the definition would at least read “there are no gods.”

 

http://atheists.org/activism/resources/what-is-atheism

[TYEParticipant 291]

I agree that by definition i’m an Atheist, but I also think that the term is extremely falsified. Feminist say all the time they’re for equality, but their actions show the total opposite. Most Atheist just don’t have a lack of belief in a God, or God(s), but instead they have a strong belief in mans ability to find out the answers. The religious may worship God(s), but what can be worse than worshiping a human being?! I agree with Science on the things that I can prove 100% without a doubt, but I would never automatically claim their theories as facts EVERYTHING should be questioned. My personal opinion is that Atheist believe in using Scientific methods, and only believe in what Humans can prove. Atheism has all the characteristics of a religion, and I will continue to identify it as one. I don’t necessarily have a issue with the original Atheist term, but I would like for Atheist to stop hiding behind the term when it’s clear they have a strict set of belief(s). Atheist are even anti-religious perhaps I haven’t met enough Atheist that aren’t this way, but from what i’m seeing it’s showing a belief pattern Pro Science, and Pro Human.

[WandersmannParticipant 27]

Feminist say all the time they’re for equality, but their actions show the total opposite. Most Atheist just don’t have a lack of belief in a God, or God(s), but instead they have a strong belief in mans ability to find out the answers.

Even the atheists you describe lack belief in God or gods so they don’t contradict the definition as opposed to many feminists. “The only common thread that ties all atheists together is a lack of belief in gods and supernatural beings. […] Atheists come in a variety of shapes, colors, beliefs, convictions, and backgrounds.”. If @john Doe means something different than “a lack of belief in God or gods” he should provide a clear alternative definition.

 

I agree with Science on the things that I can prove 100% without a doubt, but I would never automatically claim their theories as facts EVERYTHING should be questioned.

You seem to have a poor understanding of the scientific method. It doesn’t proof anything “100% without a doubt”. No theory can ever be considered final but at best overwhelmingly probable because new contradicting evidence might be discovered.

Furthermore you don’t have to put faith in scientific theories but examine the evidence and adjust your confidence accordingly. And again, this has nothing to do with atheism unless you want to propose an alternative definition.

[John DoeParticipant 743]

I sense I will probably be banned soon or put on non participatory status due to this thread.  With that being said, from the start I wanted this thread to be controversial because without controversy it is difficult to sort out what people believe and don’t believe.  I did not force my beliefs at all on anyone, I just expect everyone to question to own.  Unless intellect and will are invested, beliefs means nothing.  I will respond as usual until I am “voted” off the island.

 

Brb:

Atheist do not need a rational reason for their beliefs, because they are non-believers

You just stated that you had a set of beliefs then said you do not believe in the supernatural.  Well you belief in just the natural I am assuming.  Which again leads me back to my previous question regarding “this is it” (which I should have pointed as material reality to avoid confusion).

I am asking why you believe “this is it” rather than asking why the lack of belief.

The difference in a world where we act as if we have free will and one where we really do have free will is so minimal that it’s a question for philosophers to worry about.”

You are limiting your answer to the standpoint of a physicist, however the physicist clearly states his field does not cover it.

In regards to the “minimal” difference that is a subject up for debate.  Even a “minimal” thing such as a small splinter can drive a man mad.  Minimal is not to be derided as unnecessary.

You can’t believe in something without evidence.

Actually you can, that is why it is called belief.  However evidence is subject to interpretation.  But you knew that.  So your argument is based around the scientific method.  However that is a philosophy in how the world is to be understood.

The requirements of evidence are no different in this case than any other theory that has ever been proposed.

Which is my point.  The majority of evidence points to theory rather than fact.  The modern scientific community is obsessed with theory rather than fact.  Google the history of the scientific method and you will find that is was more the result of philosophers.  The scientific theory is a product of certain philosophers.

Gonegalt:  I thought you were tired of this thread?

Your arrogance is laughable. My responses were given in an attempt to explain my honest views, yet the best you can do is sneer because my answers don’t meet your lofty standards.

I never offered any standards at all in the thread.  I am simply saying your philosophical views “cave-in” on their own reasoning that is all. Nothing more or less.

In your second post you whined because people weren’t flocking to meet your demands to discuss the topic yet when they did respond, you responded sarcastically and judgementally, as you did with Keymaster.

As far as I know keymaster is not even on this thread so I do not know what evidence you are point to.  With that being said, as seen on a lot of previous posts, I have a lot of respect for what he is doing here and I agree with him on a lot of things.  However, I will not agree with anyone just because of their position.  That would not make me a MGHOW.

Your responses here classify you to me as a G1J (Grade 1 Jackass).

I always viewed myself as an intellectual dick.  But beggars can’t be choosers.

Old at heart:

This thread got heated quickly!

That is not a bad thing.  I implied it would at the beginning paragraph.  This is a discussion about philosophical/theological/etc. beliefs.  Without the arguer giving 100% effort no one walks away with anything.

My stance is…well I don’t really have a stance, because I just don’t give a dam anymore.

Everyone has a stance, it just happens whether you are passive or aggressive about it.  You care more than you think.  Everyone does.  These questions are one of the few most important things to reflect on in life.

 

[Anonymous 23]

Hi John Doe, apologies for the late response, I’m more of a reader than a writer.

You are part of history my friend, just as I am. You just stated in this line that in some way shape or form you were effected.
Now you state it does not affect you. Make up your mind. I don’t understand what you are saying, and I don’t think you do either.

I’ll clarify – Religion doesn’t affect me in a way that I consider to be detrimental to my life, so I have made the decision to care as little as possible about it.

I have quite wild ideals, in that my ideal future would be for all forms of Religion & National identity to be renounced entirely, the entire human race uniting under one banner as citizens of the planet earth, all collectively using our individual minds to better ourselves as a whole, pursuing knowledge. What is your opinion on a future like this?

[KeymasterKeymaster]

We are not going to “ban” you for a religious debate. You can go back and forth on the existence or non-existence of any God all you like. And this is exactly why my father told me never to discuss politics or religion with anyone.

We’ve banned 3 people out of 5030 for suggested or endorsed violence.
We were hoping it would be 0, but some people, you know….

The only way you’ll be “banned” for a religious debate is to suggest someone nukes a religion or endorses violence again that religion. After all, the bible says “thou shalt not kill”…. but more men have been killed in the name of god than for any other reason.

Another good reason why religious debates are a f~~~ing waste of time.
Like speaking to a feminist. Pointless.

If you keep doing what you've always done... you're gonna keep getting what you always got.

[Author]

Posts