The Idiot's Guide to Atheism

[Amaretti]

Browsing around this forum has been enlightening as to how most people perceive atheism and the rampant misconceptions about it.

Atheism is the most distrusted minority of all, even though atheists make up the predominate number of leading scientists and physicists - the people making our medicine and toasters. Only 49% of people would vote for an otherwise qualified atheist.

It is no wonder then, that people do not really understand atheism or atheists. So I'd like to set the record straight, because I am fed up of seeing people distort the definition of atheism through sheer ignorance.


Misconception #1: Atheism is a religion

Atheism is the direct opposite of theism (monotheism and polytheism are extensions to describe types of theism). Theism is not a religion, and neither is atheism. This should be pretty obvious, but it's one of the most common misconceptions I see.

You can have religions within atheism - like Buddhism - the same way you can have religions within theism - like Christianity or Judaism. But atheism and theism do not in themselves constitute a religion. Lumping all atheists together into a religion is the same as lumping theists together into a religion - a religion that would consist of Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, etc. It does not make sense and you run the risk of offending a lot of people.


Misconception #2: Atheists don't have morals

Another very, very prevailent misconception, and one that is based off religious prejudice rather than any actual evidence or logic. As an atheist, my morals are as good as anyone else's. I don't murder, rape or steal because I simply can't bring myself to do it. I don't want to inflict pain on other people.

People who accuse atheists of being immoral only cast a bad light of themselves. To say such a thing would mean that the person believes religion is the only thing stopping them from committing crimes. And if religion is the only thing between them and anarchy, they reveal themselves to be very unstable individuals.

Morality is pretty much universal. There are pygmies in the jungle that have no religion and very little contact with the outside world, but when studied on their sense of morality, it was found that they hold the same morals as the average modern American.

So the insistence that religion is needed for morality is faulty, and the insistence that atheists are immoral is an insistence that lacks any kind of validity other than one's own prejudice against atheists.


Misconception #3: Atheists hate god

At most, the most common attitude of atheists towards god is apathy. Atheists feel for god what they feel for fairies and Santa Claus. This is not a slight to theists or meant to deride their beliefs - this is just the best way to describe how atheists feel. The way you would dismiss someone talking about their belief in Bigfoot or the way you look at photographs of 'real' fairies with incredulity is how atheists regard God. Atheists don't dwell on it. They figure god is up there with the tooth fairy and the easter bunny and leave it at that.

Some atheists may very well have a resentment towards religion or the concept of god, maybe because they are a victim of religious intolerance or perhaps dislike the way some people have acted on behalf of religion. Then there are atheists who are vocal and condescending of religion and theism - like Richard Dawkins. I have no problem with people voicing their beliefs forcefully, but the result is that a lot of people now seem to think atheists are all like Dawkins is perceived to be: arrogant, absolutist and anti-theist.

Please remember that atheism, like theism, refers to a wide range of very diverse individuals. Atheists only share one notion - the lack of belief in god. Aside from that, there is nothing to link these people together. They come from all different cultures, depart from all kinds of religions, for many different reasons and do not particularly share any other belief outside the disblief of god(s). Generalising the motives, attitudes and behaviour of atheists will get you as far as generalising the motives, attitudes and behaviour of theists, as in, it won't get you anywhere. The terms atheist and theist refer to too diverse a people to pin down with generalisations beyond the definition of 'atheism' and 'theism'. Outside that, there is virtually nothing to connect these people.


Misconception #4: Atheists think themselves gods

I struggle to understand this one. It pops up often enough that it should be addressed, but I honestly fail to understand how choosing not to believe in god for whatever reason means you fancy yourself to be god. I can safely say most atheists probably consider themselves just as important and insignificant as the next guy. The idea that atheists consider themselves godly when the whole point of being an atheist is that you don't believe in gods in contradictory. Your typical atheist probably feels as godly as your typical theist... which is to say, not very.

This would just be one of those false generalisations stemming from ignorance of what atheism is about.


Misconception #5: Atheists usually had a bad childhood involving religion

This may be the case for some, but it's hardly the main reason. I personally came to atheism on my own after extensive studying of science and Religious Education. A fairly peaceful and gradual conversion that was very non-traumatising.



I don't have the time or patience to go over the others, but here are some common atheist myths to chew on, which hopefully people will understand are false without needing to be told:

Atheists worship Satan.

Atheists have simply never tried to find God.

Atheists are just refusing to accept divine authority.

Atheists believe in God, they're just denying it for some reason...

Atheism requires faith.

Atheists are just denying reality - they're living in a fantasy.

Atheism is a result of a brain chemical imbalance.

Atheists believe life is meaningless and pointless.

Atheists are oppressing my religion.

Atheism and secularism is the same thing.

Atheism is responsible for the greatest crimes in human history.

Atheists think everything in the universe arose by chance.

Atheism has no connection to science.

Atheists are closed to spiritual experience.

Atheism is communism.

Atheists ran over my dog.


Thank you and have a nice night.

[MartialHorror]

May I remind you this is simply your view on the matter.

While I agree most theists generalize like this(often including me) this is simply an ideal version of how an Atheist see's himself.

Just like how an ideal Christian would be.....well, Christ-like.

[Bishop]

Do people actually believe #3-#5?

But never-the-less you said it Beanie, religious people think tat Athiest just have a personal vendetta out for god. I hate when you try to talk logicaly in a conversation and they your lost or you or mis-guided, the arrogants is mind racking to the point of violence.

You should of put up the history of Athiesm like:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athiesm

[MartialHorror]

Do people actually believe #3-#5?

But never-the-less you said it Beanie, religious people think tat Athiest just have a personal vendetta out for god. I hate when you try to talk logicaly in a conversation and they your lost or you or mis-guided, the arrogants is mind racking to the point of violence.

You should of put up the history of Athiesm like:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athiesm

May I point out that Atheists generally bring these assumptions on themselves. Generally, every debate I have with an atheist leaves me thinking all Atheists are assholes, because few have even attempted to prove me wrong.

I try to not do that in general, but what we feel and think are two different things(generally). I don't think Atheists are all assholes, bigots, ect. I do feel that way often though. Why? Because Atheists seem to enjoy giving theists that impression.

[Hell On Earth]

Very insightful, I've never judged people that are atheist because I have no reason to. They're people with a belief and I can respect that. Sometimes I find religion to be suspect. I'm glad that you shed some light on the truth of what goes in the mind of a atheist.

[Bishop]

May I point out that Atheists generally bring these assumptions on themselves. Generally, every debate I have with an atheist leaves me thinking all Atheists are assholes, because few have even attempted to prove me wrong.

I try to not do that in general, but what we feel and think are two different things(generally). I don't think Atheists are all assholes, bigots, ect. I do feel that way often though. Why? Because Atheists seem to enjoy giving theists that impression.

Well, You shouldn't put people in a category based off of just their dogma. Many people have many different personalities but share a belief in common. I understand what you mean when you say some or most of the atheist you met may act like assholes but that's just a select few that actually have other problems and apply them to this. Also many Atheist can be arrogant just like theist and you can witness first hand how some open-minded atheist may feel when talking to some religious people.

I, like others, approve of all people's beliefs as long as it doesn't interfere with people's lives in a negative way. Christianity has saved many people I know from going down a dark path so I would be a bigot to sit here and criticize it but mainly to the point: When people are in a debate they may tend to leave a distasteful impression on each other, that's just how it is.

[Pareto]

Read, yeah. (http://brentrasmussen.com/log/node/363)

MartialHorror: As said, there is only one definitive link between atheists, and that is the lack of belief in god(s). Your statement that "this is simply your view on the matter" is ironic, since you provide your own subjective view afterwards.

What the heck do you mean "this is simply an ideal version of how an Atheist see's himself"? I don't see anything at all about what atheists should be, just five points that are factual, and several other points that also have nothing to do with what atheists ought to be.

Another common one I've heard is that atheists are angry, and my reply: whichever ones are indeed angry have many reasons to be so.

Beanie: I'd give you +rep if I thought it meant anything. :)

[Bishop]

Read, yeah. (http://brentrasmussen.com/log/node/363)

MartialHorror: As said, there is only one definitive link between atheists, and that is the lack of belief in god(s). Your statement that "this is simply your view on the matter" is ironic, since you provide your own subjective view afterwards.

What the heck do you mean "this is simply an ideal version of how an Atheist see's himself"? I don't see anything at all about what atheists should be, just five points that are factual, and several other points that also have nothing to do with what atheists ought to be.

Another common one I've heard is that atheists are angry, and my reply: whichever ones are indeed angry have many reasons to be so.

Beanie: I'd give you +rep if I thought it meant anything. :)

Well Beanie's main point here wasn't to tell you what the Atheist think, but what atheist DON'T think. He, like countless others, is sick of people making these idiotic misconceptions about atheist and made a thread to stop the fallacies from flowing from theist mouths.

[FinalDragon13]

wow 3 through 5 just proves how ingnorant a lot of people are. I would never have thought that about an athiest before reading this. Athiesm is who you are, and i respect that.

[MartialHorror]

First off, I've never been someone to ignore the problems with Christians and christianity. I bitch at them too.

You know what though, it's not most, it's EVERY ONE I'VE MET. But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, the only atheists who generally look for trouble(like on these forums) are the only ones who will make themselves known(generally as assholes)

Nevertheless, the fact I never hear any other Atheists to tell an idiotic Atheist to shut up. I've heard TERRIBLE comments from certain Atheists to Christians(or any other followers of a religion) and the closest I've seen to an Atheist telling another Atheist to shut up is Sakura Kaiju(from here), oh wait...she's an agnostic.

As I said though, I know its not right to generalize and I never hold it against anyone for simply being Atheist. I only hold it against them when they start fitting into my generalizations.......which they generally do eventually.

So maybe these generalizations wouldn't be so bad if there was some diversity among them. If certain Atheists stood up against other Atheists. On any controversial topic in religion,you will always have Christians disagree(same with Islam, Judaesm, ect).which is why most anti-Christian generalizations don't work. Even in things like homosexuality, there will be always a bunch of christians who defend it.

With Atheists, this is never the case. Hence, the typical debater will assume they all agree with the person who flames...they just don't necessarily speak out against it. And I view indifference to be just as bad as anything evil.

[Pareto]

I'd venture that there often isn't anything to say on the specific topic "against" other atheists. Can you point out to me some instance? A fallacious argument is a fallacious argument, so if I ever saw one, I would point it out no matter who was the source. I have done so "against" other atheists; one specifically was absolutely unhelpful and antagonistic and I told him so.

[MartialHorror]

Read, yeah. (http://brentrasmussen.com/log/node/363)

MartialHorror: As said, there is only one definitive link between atheists, and that is the lack of belief in god(s). Your statement that "this is simply your view on the matter" is ironic, since you provide your own subjective view afterwards.

What the heck do you mean "this is simply an ideal version of how an Atheist see's himself"? I don't see anything at all about what atheists should be, just five points that are factual, and several other points that also have nothing to do with what atheists ought to be.

Another common one I've heard is that atheists are angry, and my reply: whichever ones are indeed angry have many reasons to be so.

Beanie: I'd give you +rep if I thought it meant anything. :)

I constantly hear Atheists bitching about being generalized, yet never do anything about it. When Elton John made some anti-Christian claim due to its stance on homosexuality(actually it was against religion in general), Christians rose up and claimed they did not feel that way.

And yeah, it's my view. It's the impression Atheists have given me.

If I were to say if everyone was CHristian, it would be a better place, that would be my ideal view on how I view Christians. But that wouldn't be true.

His post is simply "The perfect Atheist". A positive stereotype if you will. Maybe the ideal view isn't the correct phrase, but he's automatically assuming these are true or untrue.

Which is my point. He's presuming Atheists do or don't fit into this category, which makes it entirely ideal. Maybe he's entirely 100% right, but he has no basis because Atheists give these impressions with usually no one to claim otherwise. If an Atheist says "Religious people are idiots", Atheists aren't going to rise up and point out not everyone necessarily feels that way.

For the record, I've never heard an Atheist claim to be god........the closest thing I've heard if "God was made in mans image", but thats not claiming to be god....I guess Satanists do believe this......and they are Atheists.....but Satanism is simply a religion inside of Atheism.

Edit: look at every Atheist thread in this forum. Lol, at one point, a bunch of them were making fun of me for attempted suicide once. I'd like to think any decent human being wouldn't be that......dense. But no Atheist took liberty to seperate themselves from that kind of trash.

[martryn]

Well, my best friend was an atheist. Then he found God. He's a Christian now. I do see a change in him. Before he was inclined to cheat at games. His motto was if you're not cheating you're not trying hard enough. He also made fun of people a lot. He was also rather rowdy and loved to party. And he liked to bull shit. He was really good at it. He really is a changed person now. He's... honest. He was going through a really hard time, probably at an all time low, and then he found God, and I've never seen him happier. He's got goals, ambitions, that sort of thing.

I agree that being an atheist doesn't really make you a different person, or that you're a bad person, but from personal experience I've seen that being a Christian does change you, and makes you a better person and a happier person.

I have to agree with MartialHorror here in that there are some really assholish atheists out there. Some Christians give Christianity a bad name, but there are tons of atheists out there too that make people without God out to be pretty bad.

[Bishop]

You know what though, it's not most, it's EVERY ONE I'VE MET. But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, the only atheists who generally look for trouble(like on these forums) are the only ones who will make themselves known(generally as assholes)
Well you simply need to meet more, some are assholes because of personal choice.

Nevertheless, the fact I never hear any other Atheists to tell an idiotic Atheist to shut up. I've heard TERRIBLE comments from certain Atheists to Christians(or any other followers of a religion) and the closest I've seen to an Atheist telling another Atheist to shut up is Sakura Kaiju(from here), oh wait...she's an agnostic.
Vice Versa: I've heard and been a victim to religious people making unjust comments because they have lost an arguement or just don't agree with my beliefs. The thing that makes the most mad about some religious people is how they are, let's say christian, and swear like a pirate and then say others are going to burn in hell.


As I said though, I know its not right to generalize and I never hold it against anyone for simply being Atheist. I only hold it against them when they start fitting into my generalizations.......which they generally do eventually.Who are these people you speak of? I've hardly see that many where as you can make a clear hypothesis about the 'general athiest. I know of four ass-holes but that's not nearly enough to stir up this.

So maybe these generalizations wouldn't be so bad if there was some diversity among them. If certain Atheists stood up against other Atheists. On any controversial topic in religion,you will always have Christians disagree(same with Islam, Judaesm, ect).which is why most anti-Christian generalizations don't work. Even in things like homosexuality, there will be always a bunch of christians who defend it.Look at all teh peado threads and Gays and some religious one, they are feeled with Athiest going against athiest. Though I really don't see how that matters because personall belief on a topic other than faith should really be connected. Because he's an asshole I shouldn't have the responsibility to shut him up. And there are many diverse athiest.

With Atheists, this is never the case. Hence, the typical debater will assume they all agree with the person who flames...they just don't necessarily speak out against it. And I view indifference to be just as bad as anything evil.These statments are very baseless seeing as you can go to many threads and prove yourself wrong. I just hope this isn't your conclusion.

[Bassoonist]

I have seen #1 and #2 used so many times it's not even funny.

Who actually believes that atheists don't have morale? Seriously... That's really sad... They think that because we don't follow the Bible that we have no morals.

I have morals... I just choose them myself.

[martryn]

Vice Versa: I've heard and been a victim to religious people making unjust comments because they have lost an arguement or just don't agree with my beliefs. The thing that makes the most mad about some religious people is how they are, let's say christian, and swear like a pirate and then say others are going to burn in hell.

Christianity has rules. It's not so much the common sin that takes people to hell, it's their refusal of God. There is no bigger insult than to be the most powerful thing in all of existence and then be ignored by a race of people that you created because you wanted company or whatever the reason.

[Bishop]

Christianity has rules. It's not so much the common sin that takes people to hell, it's their refusal of God. There is no bigger insult than to be the most powerful thing in all of existence and then be ignored by a race of people that you created because you wanted company or whatever the reason.

Yes, that is true, but does that give you the right to denounce some one else because, in your opinion, they made an incorrect choice? I know you think it's very disrespectful to the christian god to just ignore him after all he has done for you but as it says in the bible we have a choice.

[MartialHorror]

Well you simply need to meet more, some are assholes because of personal choice.


Vice Versa: I've heard and been a victim to religious people making unjust comments because they have lost an arguement or just don't agree with my beliefs. The thing that makes the most mad about some religious people is how they are, let's say christian, and swear like a pirate and then say others are going to burn in hell.


Who are these people you speak of? I've hardly see that many where as you can make a clear hypothesis about the 'general athiest. I know of four ass-holes but that's not nearly enough to stir up this.

Look at all teh peado threads and Gays and some religious one, they are feeled with Athiest going against athiest. Though I really don't see how that matters because personall belief on a topic other than faith should really be connected. Because he's an asshole I shouldn't have the responsibility to shut him up. And there are many diverse athiest.

These statments are very baseless seeing as you can go to many threads and prove yourself wrong. I just hope this isn't your conclusion.

1) I probably know more Atheists than you do...........or at least have met enough.

2) The difference between an asshole Atheist and an asshole Christian is that the asshole Christian will be shot down by another Christian.

3) Here? Char-Aznable, Schism, DarkAdonis, Sedated Peon, HyugaHinata, Mecha Kisame, and some gay guy(can't think of his name all the sudden.....) who was a big player in the God=Santa thread. That's to name some of the more memorable ones(whom I clashed with several times). Occasionally Mizura and Robotkiller fall into these boundries. My experiences have been worse on imdb.com.....avoid any movie dealing with religion at all cost. The religious people are mostly like naive 12 year olds while most of the Atheist there are like.....Hitlers

4) I go into just about every religious one and have never seen it. On things like homosexuality, that really is an entire different topic in itself.

5) i still view indifference to be just as bad as evil.....I'd blame the guy who stood around and did nothing just as much as the rapist who actually did the act. But I still would like to remind everyone that even if 1,000/1,000 Atheists are all assholes, it doesn't mean I have the right to generalize. As I said, what I think and what I feel are two different things.

[martryn]

Yes, that is true, but does that give you the right to denounce some one else because, in your opinion, they made an incorrect choice?

No, it doesn't, and I make no excuse for my brethren. As Christians, they shouldn't judge. That was pretty paramount in the teachings of Christ. Course, it's still my belief that you heathens will go to hell. Sorry. I'm not denying you membership or anything, it's just the way things are.

[Bishop]

[QUOTE]1) I probably know more Atheists than you do...........or at least have met enough.
Maybe, but alot isn't the majority.

2) The difference between an asshole Atheist and an asshole Christian is that the asshole Christian will be shot down by another Christian. Depends on what nation and what dogma is in the majority. If your in an athiest nation that the scenario switches.

3) Here? Char-Aznable, Schism, DarkAdonis, Sedated Peon, HyugaHinata, Mecha Kisame, and some gay guy(can't think of his name all the sudden.....) who was a big player in the God=Santa thread.
That's to name some of the more memorable ones(whom I clashed with several times). Occasionally Mizura and Robotkiller fall into these boundries. My experiences have been worse on imdb.com.....avoid any movie dealing with religion at all cost. The religious people are mostly like naive 12 year olds while most of the Atheist there are like.....Hitlers
You met 6 guys and this justifies your way of thought? I've met more religious guys on this thread that act like assholes.

4) I go into just about every religious one and have never seen it. On things like homosexuality, that really is an entire different topic in itself.
I've seen it many times, just don't ask me to pinpoint them. But it's there just have to read between the lines as some means are hidden.

5) i still view indifference to be just as bad as evil.....I'd blame the guy who stood around and did nothing just as much as the rapist who actually did the act. But I still would like to remind everyone that even if 1,000/1,000 Atheists are all assholes, it doesn't mean I have the right to generalize. As I said, what I think and what I feel are two different things.Well at least your open-minded, that's good.

No, it doesn't, and I make no excuse for my brethren. As Christians, they shouldn't judge. That was pretty paramount in the teachings of Christ. Course, it's still my belief that you heathens will go to hell. Sorry. I'm not denying you membership or anything, it's just the way things are.Case and Point.

[martryn]

Depends on what nation and what dogma is in the majority. If your in an athiest nation that the scenario switches.

Show me this atheist nation of yours.

I've met more religious guys on this thread that act like assholes.

More guys in this thread? That are assholes? Other than me for calling you out on this, who else do you have in your line-up?

[Cardboard Tube Knight]

Do people actually believe #3-#5?

But never-the-less you said it Beanie, religious people think tat Athiest just have a personal vendetta out for god. I hate when you try to talk logicaly in a conversation and they your lost or you or mis-guided, the arrogants is mind racking to the point of violence.

You should of put up the history of Athiesm like:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athiesm

Not saying I believe them all of the time, but the thing is that a lot of the time the ones I have met have had to seem some disdain for God, like they believe in him but just hate him. I know this isn't supposed to be the case, but a lot of these wannabe atheists running around acting that way.

[MartialHorror]

1) True

2) on the internet, there are enough Atheists to rival Christians....

3) I said they were the names I remembered due to my constant clashing with them.

4) You biased, hence, you may see something as it. My views came from seeing these things. Never trust an Atheist to make an unbiased, honest claim about Atheism. Never trust a Christian to make an unbiased, honest claim about Christianity. You're on the defense here, if you wish to make a point, find proof.

[Sammy-Jo]

Well, my best friend was an atheist. Then he found God. He's a Christian now. I do see a change in him. Before he was inclined to cheat at games. His motto was if you're not cheating you're not trying hard enough. He also made fun of people a lot. He was also rather rowdy and loved to party. And he liked to bull shit. He was really good at it. He really is a changed person now. He's... honest. He was going through a really hard time, probably at an all time low, and then he found God, and I've never seen him happier. He's got goals, ambitions, that sort of thing.

I agree that being an atheist doesn't really make you a different person, or that you're a bad person, but from personal experience I've seen that being a Christian does change you, and makes you a better person and a happier person.

I have to agree with MartialHorror here in that there are some really assholish atheists out there. Some Christians give Christianity a bad name, but there are tons of atheists out there too that make people without God out to be pretty bad.

I agree that Christians as a whole tend to seem happier than most atheists.

However, and I seem to be quoting this a lot, but...

"The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one." ~George Bernard Shaw

I'd rather live my life according to what I believe to be reality, rather than place my faith in what I see as fairies and fantasies.

Because even if the fairies and fantasies could make me happier than I am now, it can be dangerous to trust and believe in them. Some people claim their personal fairies talk to them and tell them to do things, which can sometimes have dangerous results (http://www.topix.net/content/cbs/0055387216119878465822684425012014319323). Others believe that their personal fairies will heal their sick loved ones, and so they may not get the medical care they need (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=940CEFDE1F39F930A15752C0A960958260).

I don't think there's any need to mention the violence done in the name of these fairies and fantasies, which I believe to be nonexistent :amuse.

I'm not saying all, or even most, believers would take it that far. However, at best, religious beliefs cloud our view of the world and make us intolerant towards others that don't believe as we do.

Hmmm....Of course, any system of belief can do that :wink. It's just that belief in something like capitalism or socialism involve real factors in the real world. With belief systems like christianity or judaism, it's all (or so, it seems to me) air, fluff, and a deep faith in that which cannot be seen.

You know what I really think is wrong, though? Indoctrinating children from birth. I was raised a protestant christian, and even though I'm an atheist now, a lot of times, I have to reevaluate the way I'm looking at things, because I was indoctrinated from birth, and so beliefs that were forced on me as absolute truths sometimes still haunt me today...

...I think we should raise our children to think independently and choose their own belief systems, whether these end up being religious or otherwise :P.

[martryn]

Case and Point.

Sorry, one of the most obvious tenets of Christianity is if you don't believe in God, or if you don't accept Christ as your Lord and Savior, then you're most likely going to hell. That's a personal belief, and some Christians think differently. Hate Christians because of it if you will, but like I said, it's not that we personally have anything against you, or that we wish you ill.

However, at best, religious beliefs cloud our view of the world and make us intolerant towards others that don't believe as we do.

This is opinion. In my opinion, my belief makes me see the world much clearer, and makes me more tolerant of other's and their believes. You can make the same arguments you made against atheists.

Indoctrinating children from birth. I was raised a protestant christian, and even though I'm an atheist now, a lot of times, I have to reevaluate the way I'm looking at things, because I was indoctrinated from birth, and so beliefs that were forced on me as absolute truths sometimes still haunt me today...

...I think we should raise our children to think independently and choose their own belief systems, whether these end up being religious or otherwise

I would disagree to the highest extreme. I think all children should be raised Christian. It's much more comforting for a child that way. Plus, if you don't teach them young they won't be exposed to it as much so they won't be able to make those decisions at the appropriate age with all the information they need.

[Pareto]

Sorry, one of the most obvious tenets of Christianity is if you don't believe in God, or if you don't accept Christ as your Lord and Savior, then you're most likely going to hell.
Fair enough.

I would disagree to the highest extreme. I think all children should be raised Christian. It's much more comforting for a child that way. Plus, if you don't teach them young they won't be exposed to it as much so they won't be able to make those decisions at the appropriate age with all the information they need.
Firstly, simply comforting is not always the best thing to do, especially when it's solely for the purpose of comfort. Teaching them to cope is often a good thing to do, so they can deal with things on their own. (Yes, I realize comforting children is often what should be done.)

And how is Christianity (and Christianity alone) so comforting? "If you don't love Jesus Christ with all your heart, you will end up being tortured forever!"

Too often, "exposing" = indoctrination. Shouldn't they be exposed to all information then? (I personally think children shouldn't be too significantly exposed to religion at a young age, and then they should learn come high school. At this point, they are more or less able to think for themselves.)

[martryn]

Teaching them to cope is often a good thing to do, so they can deal with things on their own. (Yes, I realize comforting children is often what should be done.)

Children needing to cope is even more reason to bring them up with a strong faith.

And how is Christianity (and Christianity alone) so comforting? "If you don't love Jesus Christ with all your heart, you will end up being tortured forever!"

It's comforting to know that you're never alone, and that there is always someone who will listen to your problems. Its comforting to know that no matter how bad it seems there is light at the end of the tunnel and that God will make sure that in the end, everything will come out right. It's comforting to know at least God always understands why you do the things you do, and that he'll forgive you when you make mistakes, even when it seems no one else will.

Shouldn't they be exposed to all information then?

What? On all religions? Heh, I don't think so. There are many very obscure religions out there, and giving them too much information is likely to confuse them.

What I don't understand is why you people never question why Muslims are brought up in Islam or why Jews are brought up in Judaism, but you always jump the Christian's case when they want to raise their children Christian. I won't hide information from my kids. But at the same time I believe in God and Christ 100% and I'm not going to tell my kids that I might be wrong when I don't think I am. I'll let them come to their own decisions, but I'd be lying to say that it won't be a biased one.

[Firedraconian]

Children needing to cope is even more reason to bring them up with a strong faith.

This seems similar to the 'Mommy went away' rather then 'Mommy died' argument. Children can frequently deal with more 'adult' matters then most adults would think, mostly because adults tend to have a desire to keep children innocent out of an ideal... but I digress.

I disagree with bringing up children with a strong faith. I would rather bring them up with strong morals, ideals, dreams, sense of curiosity... rather then tell my children that this is so, I would much rather have them question and find out truths for themselves.

It's comforting to know that you're never alone, and that there is always someone who will listen to your problems. Its comforting to know that no matter how bad it seems there is light at the end of the tunnel and that God will make sure that in the end, everything will come out right. It's comforting to know at least God always understands why you do the things you do, and that he'll forgive you when you make mistakes, even when it seems no one else will.

But... that's not true. Or, rather, I should say, it's not definitely true. It's entirely possible that you are alone, that no one is listening, that there is no light, and things won't turn out okay. Thinking otherwise might be comforting, but there is a limit to comfort and reality.

People need to realize that if they want things to turn out okay, they need to work toward it. Not just trust that their gods will do it for them and make everything all right. A security blanket is nice when you're a kid, but it won't protect you, and you need to learn to protect yourself.

What? On all religions? Heh, I don't think so. There are many very obscure religions out there, and giving them too much information is likely to confuse them.

Not all, then, but more then one. Rather then teach them about just Jehovah, why not mix in some Zeus or Odin? Some Ra is always nice. Maybe teach them about the life of Buddha, or the Paths to Enlightenment.

I'll let them come to their own decisions, but I'd be lying to say that it won't be a biased one.

And you're... okay with that? To give your children biased information on life-changing decisions just to influence them to make the same decision you did? A bit selfish, isn't it?

[Pareto]

Children needing to cope is even more reason to bring them up with a strong faith.



It's comforting to know that you're never alone, and that there is always someone who will listen to your problems. Its comforting to know that no matter how bad it seems there is light at the end of the tunnel and that God will make sure that in the end, everything will come out right. It's comforting to know at least God always understands why you do the things you do, and that he'll forgive you when you make mistakes, even when it seems no one else will.
And no matter how good you are, it's never good enough.

I have no authority on how other people raise their children or live their own lives. If they deem it better to feel comforted for comfort's sake, that's their prerogative. The problem is when those beliefs have adverse effects on others.

What? On all religions? Heh, I don't think so. There are many very obscure religions out there, and giving them too much information is likely to confuse them.

What I don't understand is why you people never question why Muslims are brought up in Islam or why Jews are brought up in Judaism, but you always jump the Christian's case when they want to raise their children Christian. I won't hide information from my kids. But at the same time I believe in God and Christ 100% and I'm not going to tell my kids that I might be wrong when I don't think I am. I'll let them come to their own decisions, but I'd be lying to say that it won't be a biased one.
Because Christianity is predominant in North America. Rest assured that similar criticisms apply to all religions and forms of indoctrination.

As for the bias, why should you feel a need to bias their decision? All you need to do is imbue in them a sense of rationality, and let them come to their own conclusions. If what one believes is the truth, it will hold itself up as a solid pillar. If what one believes is false, it is better that one knows sooner rather than later.

[Odie]

And you're... okay with that? To give your children biased information on life-changing decisions just to influence them to make the same decision you did? A bit selfish, isn't it?

The classic mindset of a religion that is notoriously selfish in history... heh.

[Jin-E]

I think this was a pretty good description on how the "ideal" Atheists should be.

In every ideology there are people that are extremists and those who are more moderate inclined. Atheism is of course no exception. Like you mentioned, i think the misconceptions are largely due to some hardcore arrogant individuals(such as Dawkins) who spread dogmatic claims and dismiss anything contrary to their views. I think its the radical minority fault that people have a distorted view on atheists philosophy and moral values.

So just like the Islamic and Christian faiths had some bad apples during the history that has given their religions denominations a bad name, so has the case been with those profesing to be atheists.

And a final note: While religious people have erronous views regarding atheists, the same could also be said about atheists views on believers. Examples of this would be the claim that only dumb, uneducated and gullible people believe in a God or that Religion is the cause of all evil.

[Turnip Girl]

It's nice to be more than just a godless heathen. :)

Stupidity, arrogance and ignorance are common to people with all kinds of beliefs, or lack thereof. They're just human flaws; not the result of religion (or not having a religion).

[Zabuzalives]

Ass i said multiple times before some atheists (who are very anti-religion) just seem the same as those conservative christians to me.

Like they know the truth, and are better because realizing that. Having this whole "high horse" behaviour for being atheist. And regularly trying to convert people to their "truth"

Or to quote Turnip Girl
"Stupidity, arrogance and ignorance are common to people with all kinds of beliefs, or lack thereof. They're just human flaws; not the result of religion (or not having a religion)"

The ironic part is that those "atheists" (a better word would be anti-religionists..lol) call believers stupid/arrogant/ignorant while completely unaware that they themselves are acting stupid/arrogant/ignorant.

[Adonis]

Ass i said multiple times before some atheists (who are very anti-religion) just seem the same as those conservative christians to me.

Like they know the truth, and are better because realizing that. Having this whole "high horse" behaviour for being atheist. And regularly trying to convert people to their "truth"

Or to quote Turnip Girl
"Stupidity, arrogance and ignorance are common to people with all kinds of beliefs, or lack thereof. They're just human flaws; not the result of religion (or not having a religion)"

The ironic part is that those "atheists" (a better word would be anti-religionists..lol) call believers stupid/arrogant/ignorant while completely unaware that they themselves are acting stupid/arrogant/ignorant.

You do know that generalizing a group of people who lack a commonly-shared singular belief other than a disbelief in God(s) is asinine, right?

And yes, befor you say it, I know that some Atheists do it, too. My answer: your point is?

[Amaretti]

I've been busy so I couldn't reply before. I've added a little extra to the top of the OP.

MH, you've completely missed the point of this thread haven't you? Your generalisations of atheists based off the limited number you have met is not justifiable. I have been an asshole to you in the past, and this is because you have spewed some of the most outragiously false accusations against atheists I have ever heard.

Perhaps the reason why you perceive atheists to be assholes is because you spend a lot of time deriding them and pre-emptively offending them? It's a vicious circle. If I was to make a thread saying all the christians I have met are assholes - therefore 'generally' all christians are assholes, I could expect a large backlash of angry christians telling me to go to hell. Would they have confirmed my suspicions that christians are assholes? Yes. Does that actually mean then that all christians are assholes? No.

If you stopped generalising atheists and took a more respectful attitude, you would probably find that atheists are perfectly civil towards you. But when you are not civil to begin with, don't be shocked if people call you out on it.

3) Here? Char-Aznable, Schism, DarkAdonis, Sedated Peon, HyugaHinata, Mecha Kisame, and some gay guy(can't think of his name all the sudden.....) who was a big player in the God=Santa thread. That's to name some of the more memorable ones(whom I clashed with several times). Occasionally Mizura and Robotkiller fall into these boundries. My experiences have been worse on imdb.com.....avoid any movie dealing with religion at all cost. The religious people are mostly like naive 12 year olds while most of the Atheist there are like.....Hitlers

a) Nice to know you have defined him by his sexual orientation only.

b) Hitler being a christian and all...

Also, a lot of the religious people here are assholes too. Martryn can barely go one post without swearing and thinks blowing up small countries with nukes is an acceptable way for america to flex its muscles. Believe It rabidly goes after everything and anything remotely related to homosexuality in order to tear it apart. Blaze can barely think beyond what his bible tells him to think. You, while more moderate than the average, can't seem to stop tarring all atheists by the same brush as the ones you don't like. Fear0 is just plain insulting of atheism and tries to argue that it is a religion. TLA likes to try and convert people by sending them to his bodybuilding bud's website, and usually departs debates with the desire to tell people who don't agree with him that we're all going to burn in hell.

That's a fair few christian assholes here on NF. Should I supposed that 'generally' all christians are even remotely like these guys? That all christians do is hate gays, hate women, hate atheists, spread slander and falsities about them, constantly tell people they are going to hell, and reverently support George Bush?

I'm sure you'd agree that I shouldn't use the christians I meet here as a cross-section of christians everywhere. You know that not all christians are like this. I know that. So why do you insist on making a double-standard of atheists?

As I said the equivalent of atheism is theism. To generalise theism would be lumping Christians and Muslims and Hindus together - diverse people that really should not be lumped together beyond their shared belief in gods. To lump atheists together is no better. Atheists are just as different from one another and diverse as theists.

[mislead]

I'm going to nitpick semantics a bit. Let's start by distinguishing between antitheists, atheists and agnostics.

Most of the people mentioned in this thread as "asshole atheist debaters" usually fall into the first cathegory, which is characterized by the notion that not only does God not exist, but religion is by itself wrong and detrimental to human culture. Dawkins is a prominent example of this. Note that this view isn't even remotely as popular in reality, as it would seem from examining message boards.

An atheist, on the other hand, is characterized simply by his/her belief in God's nonexistance. Yes, it is a belief. Whatever Ockham's Razor may dictate, there doesn't seem to be a way to either prove or disprove the existence of an abstract God, and thus atheists aren't really different from theists in this matter. I'm specifically pointing this out, since I do often see people identifying themselves as atheists, and claiming that their outlook is somehow more "scientific" than theism, which simply isn't true.

Finally, an agnostic simply doesn't care. This is an easy, undeclarative point of view, though epistemologically valid. It can be seen as simply avoiding the question, and quite often it is just that. Most agnostics follow a "there's no way for me to know" approach to all metaphysics. They usually aren't too vocal in debates like this, simply because in lack of interest in the subject. Agnostics make up a surprisingly large chunk of society, both from the "mild atheist" and "mild believer" sides.
There's also another type of agnosticism, derived from logical positivism, which basically claims that the question "Does God truly exist?" is simply senseless, but that's not a thing I'd like to get into here.

Note: I'm not trying to "idealize" anything, just classify human beliefs more accurately, than just throwing them into a unified bag labeled "Atheism".

[Bishop]

Show me this atheist nation of yours.

http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_atheist.html


More guys in this thread? That are assholes? Other than me for calling you out on this, who else do you have in your line-up?I meant forum. I don't consider you an asshole.

I do often see people identifying themselves as atheists, and claiming that their outlook is somehow more "scientific" than theism, which simply isn't true.
I'm sure you may be thinking when they say that they think there is proof of no good. The fact may be that they read the bible and seen some very odd, or misconscrewed things that, in their mind, isn't possible. Science has proven some id not many things in the bible wrong (Adam and Eve) but on the other hand it has proven some events to be true. For the most part, when people say this they are basically saying to you "I want proof and have to see it to believe it."

And the athiest you probably spoke with might of never picked up a bible in the first place and just watched the discovery channel and that's why they believe there is no god.

[mislead]

I don't really care about what's written in the Bible - that's just one version of a theistic God.
However, philosophers did, for the last 2500 years, try to prove the existence of an abstract theistic God, apart from any religious dogma. Needless to say, they have failed. They have also failed to disprove it though, so the issue is still up in the air.

[Bishop]

I don't really care about what's written in the Bible - that's just one version of a theistic God.
However, philosophers did, for the last 2500 years, try to prove the existence of an abstract theistic God, apart from any religious dogma. Needless to say, they have failed. They have also failed to disprove it though, so the issue is still up in the air.

Well I think the reason that this peanut isn't cracked yet is because of funding of scientist. Scientist have to simply prove how Humans came to be(evolution from monkeys) or how the universe came to be. Of course those Philosophers didn't have the technology we have now and the technology we have now may not compare to what it will be in 10 years.


Seeing as how a large part of the world is religious I can see why people aren't breaking their necks to find the truth about religion. Like one of my previous hypothesis that if the world was informed, with proof, that there is no god then people would flip. I'm still looking for links and ways I can make this seem more credible.

[Haruko]

I have a friend (I am NOT referring to me, seriously) who basically embodies all of those misconceptions except for the first one as it is impossible to embody that. What I mean is he is an atheist who is all those misconceptions.

[mislead]

Well I think the reason that this peanut isn't cracked yet is because of funding of scientist. Scientist have to simply prove how Humans came to be(evolution from monkeys) or how the universe came to be. Of course those Philosophers didn't have the technology we have now and the technology we have now may not compare to what it will be in 10 years.


There's no need for God to create the universe, and no need for him to interfere with biological evolution. Actually, the current Catholic stance on evolution, is that, while biologically it all transpired as science describes it, at some point there was a need for an "ontologic jump" - God infusing the still - animal human with an immortal soul "in his image". So, as you can see, it is extremely easy to reinterpret any kind of scientific discovery for it to be consistent with broad theism.

[Giorno Giovanna]

To tell you the truth, Atheists are atheists and I don't really mind if they don't believe in God (though it saddens me that they don't), because it is their choice and as long as they don't make fun of those that believe in God, I am cool with them and I know not to press my beliefs on them, though that is the LAST THING I would do to anyone since I believe everyone has a free choice.

I will say this, that I have seen some discussions in this forum in which that atheists were being rude to Christian posters but at the same time, certain Christian posters also brought on themselves by acting immature and via their actions proving the atheist's point.

My point is, whether you believe or don't believe, we should respect each other and have mature discussions and if you're an atheist, you should not go in and be rude to a Christian or ridicule what they believe because if you do act like jerks then people will mis-cast you and if you are a Christian, you should not press your beliefs to someone who does not want to believe in God and we should act mature and polite like Jesus would want us to act. Heck, why don't both sides ask interesting questions in order to understand both sides.

My sister does not believe in religion (she knows God exists but does not believe in what religion taught her) and I go to church, but you know what, she respects my beliefs and I respect her lifestyle and sometimes, I even listen to her music and when she's down, I try to comfort her without pressing my beliefs onto her, and that is because we have made a compromise and we are mature enough to respect our beliefs, and not flame each other like ignorant bigots.

Sorry if this may sound off-topic but I had to get this off my chest because I hate it that every time there is a religious topic about Christianity, it turns into a somewhat flame war between atheist and christians and destroys what could have been a nice discussion, and I am pretty sure that both sides can respect each other as long as you guys know where to draw the line.

Peace out, god bless.

[Bishop]

There's no need for God to create the universe, and no need for him to interfere with biological evolution. Actually, the current Catholic stance on evolution, is that, while biologically it all transpired as science describes it, at some point there was a need for an "ontologic jump" - God infusing the still - animal human with an immortal soul "in his image". So, as you can see, it is extremely easy to reinterpret any kind of scientific discovery for it to be consistent with broad theism.

Yes but that's your religion's perspective, which doesn't count at all in the true discovery. You have to keep religion out of the search for the truth, other wise you'll just find an illusion.

Sorry if this may sound off-topic but I had to get this off my chest because I hate it that every time there is a religious topic about Christianity, it turns into a somewhat flame war between atheist and christians and destroys what could have been a nice discussion, and I am pretty sure that both sides can respect each other as long as you guys know where to draw the line.
Well it is true that most of the recent threads have become flame wars but so far this thread has remained respectful to a certain extent.

[Van den Budenmayer]

Communists were atheists.

There's no need for God to create the universe, and no need for him to interfere with biological evolution. Actually, the current Catholic stance on evolution, is that, while biologically it all transpired as science describes it, at some point there was a need for an "ontologic jump" - God infusing the still - animal human with an immortal soul "in his image". So, as you can see, it is extremely easy to reinterpret any kind of scientific discovery for it to be consistent with broad theism.
I read this s-f short story about a planet where technology defied all religious stuff, e.g. they could resurrect anyone. The only religious beings were computers who only believed in god and no dogma. Just sayin'.

[Giorno Giovanna]

Well it is true that most of the recent threads have become flame wars but so far this thread has remained respectful to a certain extent.

True, and I hope it stays that way.

[Goodfellow]

This thread is made out of win and thruth^^

Well, personally I think of myself as a humanist more than an atheist. I don't know, god just seem so, well trivial. He might exist, he might not exist, but really, he would have no effect on my life, existing or not. There is no point in him, beliving in him would be like beliving in the postman, it doesn't matter if you belive in him, if he exist, he exists, if he doesn't, he doesn't. Big deal (if you disagree, sure, you may disagree, whatever makes you happy). There is though, point in humans. As far as I know, God haven't been the guy doing all of the deciding in human history. God haven't pushed the frontier of science, making a better living for the everyday Joe. God isn't the one that created nukes able to kill a good deal of earth's population. Humans did. Therefore I find it logical to focus on humans, not gods, becouse focusing humans might actually make life worth living.

I have no reason to live a "good" life becouse of the prospect of a possible life after death. I live a "good" life based on the fact that I want to be nice towards people, and respected as a human being.

And cracking some jokes is fun too^^

[mislead]

Yes but that's your religion's perspective, which doesn't count at all in the true discovery. You have to keep religion out of the search for the truth, other wise you'll just find an illusion.


Well it is true that most of the recent threads have become flame wars but so far this thread has remained respectful to a certain extent.

First off, it's not "my religion", since I'm not a Christian by any length, nor do I consider myself as a follower of any other organized religion. I only brought up that stance as an example. I've also never suggested mixing science and broad metaphysics; actually I'm trying very hard to distinguish between these in this thread.

The reason why we don't understand each other, is your liberal usage of the extremely broad term "truth". This is actually a good thing to discuss here, since a lot of people (and I don't mean just atheists) seem to have problems grasping what exactly empirical science can tell us about the shape of our world. The limitations of the empirical approach also constitute the fact that God's existence can neither be proved, nor disproved in terms of science.

[MartialHorror]

I've been busy so I couldn't reply before. I've added a little extra to the top of the OP.

MH, you've completely missed the point of this thread haven't you? Your generalisations of atheists based off the limited number you have met is not justifiable. I have been an asshole to you in the past, and this is because you have spewed some of the most outragiously false accusations against atheists I have ever heard.

Perhaps the reason why you perceive atheists to be assholes is because you spend a lot of time deriding them and pre-emptively offending them? It's a vicious circle. If I was to make a thread saying all the christians I have met are assholes - therefore 'generally' all christians are assholes, I could expect a large backlash of angry christians telling me to go to hell. Would they have confirmed my suspicions that christians are assholes? Yes. Does that actually mean then that all christians are assholes? No.

If you stopped generalising atheists and took a more respectful attitude, you would probably find that atheists are perfectly civil towards you. But when you are not civil to begin with, don't be shocked if people call you out on it.



a) Nice to know you have defined him by his sexual orientation only.

b) Hitler being a christian and all...

Also, a lot of the religious people here are assholes too. Martryn can barely go one post without swearing and thinks blowing up small countries with nukes is an acceptable way for america to flex its muscles. Believe It rabidly goes after everything and anything remotely related to homosexuality in order to tear it apart. Blaze can barely think beyond what his bible tells him to think. You, while more moderate than the average, can't seem to stop tarring all atheists by the same brush as the ones you don't like. Fear0 is just plain insulting of atheism and tries to argue that it is a religion. TLA likes to try and convert people by sending them to his bodybuilding bud's website, and usually departs debates with the desire to tell people who don't agree with him that we're all going to burn in hell.

That's a fair few christian assholes here on NF. Should I supposed that 'generally' all christians are even remotely like these guys? That all christians do is hate gays, hate women, hate atheists, spread slander and falsities about them, constantly tell people they are going to hell, and reverently support George Bush?

I'm sure you'd agree that I shouldn't use the christians I meet here as a cross-section of christians everywhere. You know that not all christians are like this. I know that. So why do you insist on making a double-standard of atheists?

As I said the equivalent of atheism is theism. To generalise theism would be lumping Christians and Muslims and Hindus together - diverse people that really should not be lumped together beyond their shared belief in gods. To lump atheists together is no better. Atheists are just as different from one another and diverse as theists.

1) I've pointed out a few times here even though its entirely my experience, I still don't have the right to generalize. This is the third time(at the least) I've stated this in this thread.

2) Er, can you name some of these accusations? And as I said, I spew these out because generally '
-Only the asshole Atheists are making themselves known
-Non of these rumored nice Atheists are attempting to calm the asshole Atheist down. If you want to see a funny thread, read DA's "Is Christ the ultimate sacrifice thread" and see how bad Atheists can be.

3) I've explained why using Christians is a bad analogy. If a Christian was an asshole, there will be some other Christian to tell them to shut up.

4) Er, actually no, I first had NO problem with them, then I started debating against them and with the exception of one person(Robotkiller; whom I apologized too), they were the ones who started bitching. Generally for no reason, either.

a) It was the only thing I could remember him by.......I just remember him mentioning he was gay. Otherwise, the only thing I know about him is that he is an Atheist.....which in this thread, is kind of vague.

b) Actually, Hitler was very Anti-Christian......at least in the sense how Christianity is. He was a Christian in his own way, but thought that instead of preaching love and peace, it should be about bitching against the Jews. And what was your point? Christians, Jews, and Atheists all think he was a terrible asshole......hence, I used him as a comparison.

Er, actually, Martyrn can go a few posts without those, I've been reading his posts here. I'm overly critical of TLA and Blayze and I'm not even sure who fear0 is.......But thats 4.........even I posted more than that. And generally I'm there to counterattack 2 of them.

My double standard of Atheists? Didn't you read my post? As I've stated, the problem is that none of these so-called good Atheists are bothering to do anything about the bad ones. If a Christian said something out of line, another Christian will tell him to shut up. But Atheists generally don't do anything, and then threads like these show up where they wonder why everyone generalizes about them....

[Bishop]

First off, it's not "my religion", since I'm not a Christian by any length, nor do I consider myself as a follower of any other organized religion. I only brought up that stance as an example. I've also never suggested mixing science and broad metaphysics; actually I'm trying very hard to distinguish between these in this thread.
My apologies, simple misunderstanding.

The reason why we don't understand each other, is your liberal usage of the extremely broad term "truth". This is actually a good thing to discuss here, since a lot of people (and I don't mean just atheists) seem to have problems grasping what exactly empirical science can tell us about the shape of our world. The limitations of the empirical approach also constitute the fact that God's existence can neither be proved, nor disproved in terms of science.

We understand each other perfectly, also, I don't recklessly use the word 'truth'. Truth in this instance is not broad, it's the truth about how humans got here on this planet and truth as to how the planet came to be.
And as for the latter part of your post: Not yet.

[Cardboard Tube Knight]

I think this was a pretty good description on how the "ideal" Atheists should be...

...And a final note: While religious people have erronous views regarding atheists, the same could also be said about atheists views on believers. Examples of this would be the claim that only dumb, uneducated and gullible people believe in a God or that Religion is the cause of all evil.


That's the whole point here, I could post something about the ideal Christian, or the ideal Jew or Muslim. But the truth of the matter is, unless everyone is the ideal, all you're saying is that this is what we should be like. When atheists post banners on school campuses making fun of Christ of Mohammed, I think they deserve criticisim.

If you had a white pride group on a campus making fun of other races, they would get into to trouble. The thing I see here a lot at the forums is offensive topics put under the guise of discussion, which are almost slated to incite anger in someone. Then when someone gets angry, there's always an atheist to say "Oh look at those crazy theists, they can't keep themselves calm or in control," knowing full well that they have been offensive.

Case in point: the thread Jesus Christ the Ultimate Sacrifice? Meh. I've Seen Better... (http://forums.narutofan.com/showthread.php?t=165828)

By some, that might be considered really offensive. But if someone says that they're painted as being over sensitive. "Oh its just religion," or "Oh this is only the internet".

Well to some of us our religion is a serious thing, because if its not, you might as well just be an atheist. God's not just for when you need shit, or Sunday. He's not just some word you say before dammit, and if you're serious about something like that, you don't like to see it mocked.

[Goodfellow]

Yeah, about this mean atheist stuff, I actually have to admit. I laught at the cost of religious people :(
It's true. I think they are funny. And somewhere, I think most of the vocal atheist think it's funny as well :(
Those who don't laugh at religious people, sometime, are so dull, that they would never even bother reading a "angry atheist" post^^


Yes, this is over the top generalization, so maybe some of the dutiful atheist in this forum could tell us about their own experience. Do you make fun on the religious peoples behalf?

[MartialHorror]

LOL!

It appears DarkAdonis is to thank for the constant generalizing of Atheists......

[Cardboard Tube Knight]

Well if you think atheists don't make fun of other groups or that they all have nothing against people who do believe in something look at this note posted by someone on facebook:


Beware of dogma.
God is just pretend.
Recovering catholic.
Nothing fails like prayer.
The christian right is neither.
I believe in life before death.
Religion is myth-information.
Religion stops a thinking mind.
My karma ran over your dogma.
So many christians, so few lions.
Blasphemy is a victimless crime.
One nation under god = theocracy.
God, protect us from your followers.
There is no sin greater than ignorance.
Come the rapture, can I have your car?
Fundamentalism stops a thinking mind.
Doing my part to piss off the religious right.
Religions are just cults with more members.
Your kids and my taxes go to St. Pedophiles.
He's your god. They're your rules. You burn in hell.
At first they burn books. Eventually they burn people.
I've got nothing against god. It's his fan club I can't stand.
Fundamentalism means never having to open your mind.
When religion ruled the world they called it the dark ages.
Believe those who seek the truth. Doubt those who find it.
Guilt, fear and mass insanity. Three cheers for christianity.
You found god? If nobody claims him in 30 days, he's your's.
To err is human. To really screw things up you need religion.
The only problem with baptists is they don't hold them under long enough.

orignal note here (http://utsa.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=2223960077&ref=mf)

[Bishop]

Well if you think atheists don't make fun of other groups or that they all have nothing against people who do believe in something look at this note posted by someone on facebook:



orignal note here (http://utsa.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=2223960077&ref=mf)

So that One person must represent all?
There are plenty of assholes out there no matter what religion. You don't have to prove that there are some bigot athiest around this forum because everyone knows it, just like every one knows there are religious people like that in the forums.

[Amaretti]

My point is, whether you believe or don't believe, we should respect each other and have mature discussions and if you're an atheist, you should not go in and be rude to a Christian or ridicule what they believe because if you do act like jerks then people will mis-cast you and if you are a Christian, you should not press your beliefs to someone who does not want to believe in God and we should act mature and polite like Jesus would want us to act. Heck, why don't both sides ask interesting questions in order to understand both sides.

My sister does not believe in religion (she knows God exists but does not believe in what religion taught her) and I go to church, but you know what, she respects my beliefs and I respect her lifestyle and sometimes, I even listen to her music and when she's down, I try to comfort her without pressing my beliefs onto her, and that is because we have made a compromise and we are mature enough to respect our beliefs, and not flame each other like ignorant bigots.

Sorry if this may sound off-topic but I had to get this off my chest because I hate it that every time there is a religious topic about Christianity, it turns into a somewhat flame war between atheist and christians and destroys what could have been a nice discussion, and I am pretty sure that both sides can respect each other as long as you guys know where to draw the line.

Peace out, god bless.

QFT. I really admire you and your sisters acceptance of one another. Me and my sister are atheists while our parents are strong christians, and sometimes it's hard to find a compromise but generally it's much better for everyone when you don't enforce your beliefs on others. I don't make a fuss when my parents pray at the dinner table and they in turn don't make a fuss about how they think their children are going to hell.

So yes, I would very much like this thread to remain civil, as my post was not aimed at disparaging christians but to correct the damaging misconceptions about atheism.


Communists were atheists.

And?

You really don't want to go down that road, unless you want people pointing out exactly who the KKK, Hitler, the crusades and the spanish inquisitors were affiliated with.

Well if you think atheists don't make fun of other groups or that they all have nothing against people who do believe in something look at this note posted by someone on facebook:

No one says they think that. You're just leaping on an opportunity to disparage atheists. You really think there aren't christian sites out there that make it their business to bash atheists? Only today I cam across one that offered a guide on "How to attack Atheists".

It goes both ways. One note on some site does not speak for all atheists, just as that 'How to Attack Atheists' guide does not speak for all theists.

[diglossiablues]

Well if you think atheists don't make fun of other groups or that they all have nothing against people who do believe in something look at this note posted by someone on facebook:


Yeah, sometimes that happens. I bet I could turn on the TV and find atheists being attacked either implicitly or explicitly by one of the vast number of talking heads spewing culture war rhetoric. So it's not like this kind of thing doesn't go both ways.

[Cardboard Tube Knight]

So that One person must represent all?
There are plenty of assholes out there no matter what religion. You don't have to prove that there are some bigot athiest around this forum because everyone knows it, just like every one knows there are religious people like that in the forums.

But the common brush that the atheist is painted with is the one above, the one where he is smarter and not inciting the theist to argue, that's simply not true. I mean what I am saying is that unless everyone fits into the ideal, why make a post telling us that the ideal is what people are?




I don't have anything against atheists that keep to themselves or only have kind discussions with people, its the kind that want to make fun of others, like someone mentioned earlier that I have a problem with. The thing I see happening in this thread is the same thing that happens in a lot of others.

If I had posted a thread about "An Idiots Guide to Catholocism" every atheist would be in there talking, some of them would be blasting it. And I wouldn't even post that thread because how many people do you know that fit into the definition of a true practicing Catholic? Or any other religion for that matter.

So why would you think a belief system, or lack there of, where there were no rules about what you think, other than you don't believe in God, would all fall under generalization like the one made at the start of this post?


No one says they think that. You're just leaping on an opportunity to disparage atheists. You really think there aren't christian sites out there that make it their business to bash atheists? Only today I cam across one that offered a guide on "How to attack Atheists".



I'm not disperaging atheists, but I am saying this thread loses because it is wanting us to believe that all atheist hold the same beliefs. There are many kind of people out there calling themselves atheists. I have seen some that believe in ghosts, others believe the idea of ghosts is poposterous, some even believe we were put here by aliens...so you can't tell me that all people in this group fit under these guidlines, or even most people, unless its true.

Also, the 'How to Attack an Atheist' thing, I didn't say all Christians are good, I simply said all atheists are not good either and this post seems to have little reason to be around other than some atheist trying to prove to us gullible Christians we're not right about who they are...

[diglossiablues]

I don't have anything against atheists that keep to themselves or only have kind discussions with people, its the kind that want to make fun of others, like someone mentioned earlier that I have a problem with. The thing I see happening in this thread is the same thing that happens in a lot of others.


I don't have any problem with religious people that keep to themselves and have kind discussions with people, it's the ones that call others immoral (evil), deny science with faith, or try to minister the good word that I have a problem with. The thing I see happening in this thread is the same thing that happens in alot of others.

*This kind of statement doesn't really get us anywhere, does it?

[Cardboard Tube Knight]

I don't have any problem with religious people that keep to themselves and have kind discussions with people, it's the ones that call others immoral (evil), deny science with faith, or try to minister the good word that I have a problem with. The thing I see happening in this thread is the same thing that happens in alot of others.

*This kind of statement doesn't really get us anywhere, does it?

Actually it does, because the statement shows that threads like this have been posted before, if you want to talk about it, find it and revive it...

And then about what you said, a lot of religious people will go out and try to spread their religion, whether it be only little bikes in suits, or with a sword. The thing about it is that they should always go with the first way, the nice way, and if people don't it except it, screw them. It's not your responsibilty for the salvation of others.

But anyone can call others immoral, sometimes faith does deny science, and what's wrong with ministering to people, you have atheists out there who do pratically the same thing by pointing out rather biased points about what's wrong with the concept of God.

[Amaretti]

If I had posted a thread about "An Idiots Guide to Catholocism" every atheist would be in there talking, some of them would be blasting it. And I wouldn't even post that thread because how many people do you know that fit into the definition of a true practicing Catholic? Or any other religion for that matter.

Did you read the first post at all? This is not a guide of how to be a good atheist - that would be impossible since there is no atheist dogma to follow - it is correcting the common misconceptions about atheism that people hold.

If you can't understand how those five points are misconceptions or if you think they're true, then you really do not understand atheism at all.

[Goodfellow]

So, anyone checked out the homesite for Pastafarianism (flying spagetti monster). They got some pretty funny hate mail^^

Edit: No one noticed the spellingerror right?

[Bishop]

But the common brush that the atheist is painted with is the one above, the one where he is smarter and not inciting the theist to argue, that's simply not true. I mean what I am saying is that unless everyone fits into the ideal, why make a post telling us that the ideal is what people are?
We have already discussed the purpose of the thread, it isn't about ideal atheist.




I don't have anything against atheists that keep to themselves or only have kind discussions with people, its the kind that want to make fun of others, like someone mentioned earlier that I have a problem with. The thing I see happening in this thread is the same thing that happens in a lot of others. Your wrong, this thread hasn't went deep into ignorance nor arrogance; people are just having regular discussions, your just analyzing it wrong. No one had flamed any one or tried to make anyone out to look like a fool.(Maybe one person)



If I had posted a thread about "An Idiots Guide to Catholocism" every atheist would be in there talking, some of them would be blasting it. And I wouldn't even post that thread because how many people do you know that fit into the definition of a true practicing Catholic? Or any other religion for that matter. You don't know that for sure and you won't until you actually make that thread, baseless predictions get you no where.

So why would you think a belief system, or lack there of, where there were no rules about what you think, other than you don't believe in God, would all fall under generalization like the one made at the start of this post?
I wouldn't.


I'm not disperaging atheists, but I am saying this thread loses because it is wanting us to believe that all atheist hold the same beliefs. There are many kind of people out there calling themselves atheists. I have seen some that believe in ghosts, others believe the idea of ghosts is poposterous, some even believe we were put here by aliens...so you can't tell me that all people in this group fit under these guidlines, or even most people, unless its true.

You have to read all the pages, this thread talks about many things all pertaining to one topic. Also the OP was trying to stop the fallacies, not say how all atheist or the ideal atheist thinks. Also read the second page and a poster (green avatar) categorizes the groups.

Also, the 'How to Attack an Atheist' thing, I didn't say all Christians are good, I simply said all atheists are not good either and this post seems to have little reason to be around other than some atheist trying to prove to us gullible Christians we're not right about who they are...
You seriously believe that?

[Shevek]

To tell you the truth, Atheists are atheists and I don't really mind if they don't believe in God (though it saddens me that they don't), because it is their choice and as long as they don't make fun of those that believe in God, I am cool with them and I know not to press my beliefs on them, though that is the LAST THING I would do to anyone since I believe everyone has a free choice.
Why not make fun of stupid people? :nod

Peace out, god bless.
Amen, brother.

It's comforting to know that you're never alone, and that there is always someone who will listen to your problems. Its comforting to know that no matter how bad it seems there is light at the end of the tunnel and that God will make sure that in the end, everything will come out right. It's comforting to know at least God always understands why you do the things you do, and that he'll forgive you when you make mistakes, even when it seems no one else will.
Hitler: Oh God, today I killed 2500 jews, gays and other people You hate. You do forgive me, right?
God: Sure. No problem.

Actually, Hitler was very Anti-Christian......at least in the sense how Christianity is. He was a Christian in his own way, but thought that instead of preaching love and peace, it should be about bitching against the Jews. And what was your point? Christians, Jews, and Atheists all think he was a terrible asshole......hence, I used him as a comparison.
Perhaps he'd read the old testament. As for antisemitism, it's a fine old christian tradition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_and_antisemitism).

[diglossiablues]

Actually it does, because the statement shows that threads like this have been posted before, if you want to talk about it, find it and revive it...

And then about what you said, a lot of religious people will go out and try to spread their religion, whether it be only little bikes in suits, or with a sword. The thing about it is that they should always go with the first way, the nice way, and if people don't it except it, screw them. It's not your responsibilty for the salvation of others.

But anyone can call others immoral, sometimes faith does deny science, and what's wrong with ministering to people, you have atheists out there who do pratically the same thing by pointing out rather biased points about what's wrong with the concept of God.

Yes, there are atheists who do that & there's religios people who do that -- that was my whole point.

And so what? It isn't like being an atheist automatically makes some better than a religious person. On the same token it's not like being religious makes someone better than a person who is an atheist. Some people from both sides of this thing do exactly what they would accuse the other of doing (including me, I wouldn't try make myself exempt from that kind of behavior.)

So again, how does pointing this out get us anywhere?

[Cardboard Tube Knight]

Did you read the first post at all? This is not a guide of how to be a good atheist - that would be impossible since there is no atheist dogma to follow - it is correcting the common misconceptions about atheism that people hold.

If you can't understand how those five points are misconceptions or if you think they're true, then you really do not understand atheism at all.

And some of those things are pretty close to the truth, the one about them hating God, because it seems like a lot of them talk about him as if they hate him.

And don't say its because they don't believe he exists. Because I can talk about someone who doesn't exist pretty bad, doesn't mean my hate for him doesn't.

A lot of atheists I know did have strictly religous parents that wouldn't let them do anything they considered fun or saw other less religious kids doing. The atheist group on campus purposly recruits these people...

Some atheists are narcassitic...

Atheism isn't a religion, but it is a belief system. Even though you don't believe in God, you believe in something. Science or what have you.

Atheist have morals, all societies have some moral code, this one is just stupid. I think what you are referencing is the argument by many theists, myself included that atheists have no where to get morals except for society or themselves. And sometimes what society thinks is right isn't. I say you need an outside governing source for morals, but that doesn't mean that just because you don't have that, that you also don't have morals.

A lot of atheist are more moral than theists, Hell they can't go get forgiven when they fuck, they have to actually be careful...

[Amaretti]

And some of those things are pretty close to the truth, the one about them hating God, because it seems like a lot of them talk about him as if they hate him.

Then they are anti-theistic as well as atheistic. Those are two completely different things and you shouldn't be confusing them.

A lot of atheists I know did have strictly religous parents that wouldn't let them do anything they considered fun or saw other less religious kids doing. The atheist group on campus purposly recruits these people...

I could say the very same for a lot of the christian people I know. It goes both ways. What's your point?

Some atheists are narcassitic...

That's not an exclusive atheistic trait. There are plenty of theists who are narcissistic. Again... what's your point?

Atheism isn't a religion, but it is a belief system. Even though you don't believe in God, you believe in something. Science or what have you.

Atheism is to be without belief in god. That is what the A stands for. And are you saying that you do not believe in science? Believing in science is hardly an exclusive atheist thing to do.

Atheism refers to too wide and diverse a people to make sweeping generalisations about. The exact same can be said for theism. There is only one generalisation you can make about atheists - and that's that they don't believe in god. There is no other prerequisite to being an atheist, and atheists may have nothing else in common save for that single lack of belief.

You can keep trying to disparage atheism, but everything that can be said about atheists can be said about theists.

[Eoph_dono]

Not all religiouse people precive us like this but i hate to say that it is mostly the non-leaders of the groups that do.

preists accept me, but the masses in the masses (pun) dont and i find this hypocritical.

also I have morals they just dont involve burning down abortion clinics and bombing buildings (yes i know this is an extream case... im just making a point)

why would athiests worship satan? think about that for five fucking seconds!

I dont consider myself a god... I just dont consider myself quite human... I belive that you arn't born human, you earn that right.

I am not exactly an athiest - as the saying goes there are no athiests in fox holes...(figure it out)

[Eoph_dono]

oh I pray all the time... just not to god, I pray to my own reasoning and abilitys and i consider a prayer a promise to yourself

[Bishop]

Not all religiouse people precive us like this but i hate to say that it is mostly the non-leaders of the groups that do.

preists accept me, but the masses in the masses (pun) dont and i find this hypocritical.

also I have morals they just dont involve burning down abortion clinics and bombing buildings (yes i know this is an extream case... im just making a point)

why would athiests worship satan? think about that for five fucking seconds!

I dont consider myself a god... I just dont consider myself quite human... I belive that you arn't born human, you earn that right.

I am not exactly an athiest - as the saying goes there are no athiests in fox holes...(figure it out)

Well, as you well know, alot of religious people are unaware of how Atheist(and similar beliefs) live and think.

[Giorno Giovanna]

Why not make fun of stupid people? :nod


Amen, brother.


Hitler: Oh God, today I killed 2500 jews, gays and other people You hate. You do forgive me, right?
God: Sure. No problem.


Perhaps he'd read the old testament. As for antisemitism, it's a fine old christian tradition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_and_antisemitism).


1. Because it's not fair and it kind of makes you ignorant, don't you think?

2. Thank you

3. Yeah, I am pretty sure that this is how it went:notrust . If God forgave Hitler, i.e if Hitler ever asked for forgiveness which I highly doubt, then he would forgive him because God is a forgiving God, not because Hitler was doing his "bidding"

4. A fine old tradition that only Mel Gibson follows. Besides, not all Christians are the same, Geez why can't people get that already?

[Gunners]

This seems similar to the 'Mommy went away' rather then 'Mommy died' argument. Children can frequently deal with more 'adult' matters then most adults would think, mostly because adults tend to have a desire to keep children innocent out of an ideal... but I digress.

How do you work that out? I guess I am a Jehovas witness so I see death as a sleep. But kids having faiths helps them cope with things better it did me anything which happened anyway. If you would like to know how it helped me cope just ask.

I disagree with bringing up children with a strong faith. I would rather bring them up with strong morals, ideals, dreams, sense of curiosity... rather then tell my children that this is so, I would much rather have them question and find out truths for themselves.

No I would rather raise my child with Morals. You are supposed to raise your children not leave them too find the truth for themselves, do you know why? They can choose a totally fucked up path that leads too looting killing and raping. As parents it is your job to guide your children and that's what I would do.

But... that's not true. Or, rather, I should say, it's not definitely true. It's entirely possible that you are alone, that no one is listening, that there is no light, and things won't turn out okay. Thinking otherwise might be comforting, but there is a limit to comfort and reality.

Not being true is your opinion. To the people who beleive god is with them, god is really with them. I know if I ask god to be with me he is with me and it makes me feel better.

People need to realize that if they want things to turn out okay, they need to work toward it. Not just trust that their gods will do it for them and make everything all right. A security blanket is nice when you're a kid, but it won't protect you, and you need to learn to protect yourself.
People do realise that. Most christians probably work for things too. God will give me what I need to if I ask for something I should work for like winning the lotto, I won't get it. Praying to god for strength is not wrong, praying for protection is not wrong also.

You are assuming people use God as a security blanket which isn't true. Some people probably see it like that but it is no diffrent to a spoilt child askin his parents to pay his debts.

Not all, then, but more then one. Rather then teach them about just Jehovah, why not mix in some Zeus or Odin? Some Ra is always nice. Maybe teach them about the life of Buddha, or the Paths to Enlightenment.
Because you are taught that in school? I was anyway and I have books in my libary downstairs. Once again you are making asumptions. Oh and naturally you are going to raise your children in what you think is right. You think christianity is wrong so you don't think people should teach it too their kids. You forget christians ( rightly so) think they are correct so it is their business to teach their kids what they beleive is correct.

And you're... okay with that? To give your children biased information on life-changing decisions just to influence them to make the same decision you did? A bit selfish, isn't it?

How is it selfish? It happens all the time. Politics, brand usages, media, opinions on people. You think its selfish because you disagree with christianity. If he was raising his children telling them god didn't exist would you find that ''a bit selfish''?

I am going to take a stab that if you had kids you would be slightly biased when it comes to issues pertaining god.

[Amaretti]

No I would rather raise my child with Morals. You are supposed to raise your children not leave them too find the truth for themselves, do you know why? They can choose a totally fucked up path that leads too looting killing and raping. As parents it is your job to guide your children and that's what I would do.

Morals with a capital M, huh? So you think teaching kids religion and stopping them from thinking for themselves is what stands between them and looting, killing and raping?

I don't know if that's what you meant, but that's the impression I'm getting.

[diglossiablues]

Morals with a capital M, huh? So you think teaching kids religion and stopping them from thinking for themselves is what stands between them and looting, killing and raping?

I don't know if that's what you meant, but that's the impression I'm getting.

Hahah -- don't you know that we can't teach children advanced math, because if they learn that there are no absolutes they'll surely turn to a life of crime.

[Eoph_dono]

Pls do not refer to all religion the same

I have found that the only bad ones are:
Cristianity (all of it even lutheranism)

Islam (not all of it only the extreamists)

they are the only bad ones... until i find somthing wrong with somthing else

Cristianity- to sum all of their flaws up : Hypocritical, Ignorance worshiping (eve takes the apple of knowledge and ruins the garden of paridice, oh and they just forgave Galilio a little while ago...), and extreamists (not all)

to sum up all their good points- um... life after death and the ten commandments... that is about it...

Islam - to easy

good points- er... it is old... oh and they talk about peace and everything and fair treatment of women... tobad the countrys dont follow that kuran...

[Eoph_dono]

er i know im going to get neg reps... maby i should leave (oh and i know that not all cristains and muslims are the same... i am just going by the most extreame cases)

[mislead]

Pls do not refer to all religion the same

I have found that the only bad ones are:
Cristianity (all of it even lutheranism)

Islam (not all of it only the extreamists)

they are the only bad ones... until i find somthing wrong with somthing else

Cristianity- to sum all of their flaws up : Hypocritical, Ignorance worshiping (eve takes the apple of knowledge and ruins the garden of paridice, oh and they just forgave Galilio a little while ago...), and extreamists (not all)

to sum up all their good points- um... life after death and the ten commandments... that is about it...

Islam - to easy

good points- er... it is old... oh and they talk about peace and everything and fair treatment of women... tobad the countrys dont follow that kuran...

I do believe that you have just provided an exemplification of this thread's critics' assessment of atheism. Even though it's really antitheism.

[diglossiablues]

Pls do not refer to all religion the same

I have found that the only bad ones are:
Cristianity (all of it even lutheranism)

Islam (not all of it only the extreamists)

they are the only bad ones... until i find somthing wrong with somthing else

Cristianity- to sum all of their flaws up : Hypocritical, Ignorance worshiping (eve takes the apple of knowledge and ruins the garden of paridice, oh and they just forgave Galilio a little while ago...), and extreamists (not all)

to sum up all their good points- um... life after death and the ten commandments... that is about it...

Islam - to easy

good points- er... it is old... oh and they talk about peace and everything and fair treatment of women... tobad the countrys dont follow that kuran...

And this is where it goes too far -- the Galileo thing is more complicated than him being imprisoned just for his astronomy. It also discounts the good that religion can inspire people to do. You gotta get past knocking entire groups -- make fun of tendencies if you want to, make fun of individuals if you want... just do it in the specific rather than by making sweeping generalizations.

[Amaretti]

Pls do not refer to all religion the same

I have found that the only bad ones are:
Cristianity (all of it even lutheranism)

Islam (not all of it only the extreamists)

they are the only bad ones... until i find somthing wrong with somthing else

Cristianity- to sum all of their flaws up : Hypocritical, Ignorance worshiping (eve takes the apple of knowledge and ruins the garden of paridice, oh and they just forgave Galilio a little while ago...), and extreamists (not all)

to sum up all their good points- um... life after death and the ten commandments... that is about it...

Islam - to easy

good points- er... it is old... oh and they talk about peace and everything and fair treatment of women... tobad the countrys dont follow that kuran...

Now this is what I'm trying to point out is wrong - false and negative generalisation. Saying christians are hypocrital, ignorant and extremist (terrorist?) is just as bad as christians claiming atheists are arrogant, god-hating heathens.

EDIT: Also it's just occurred to me that this proves MH wrong. He maintains that atheists don't correct or reprimand each other... obviously the fact that three atheists in a row did just that should debunk that ridiculous claim.

[amaterasujutsu]

May I point out that Atheists generally bring these assumptions on themselves. Generally, every debate I have with an atheist leaves me thinking all Atheists are assholes, because few have even attempted to prove me wrong.

I try to not do that in general, but what we feel and think are two different things(generally). I don't think Atheists are all assholes, bigots, ect. I do feel that way often though. Why? Because Atheists seem to enjoy giving theists that impression.

Why would we have to try to prove that you are wrong? There is no point in trying to prove that you are wrong. Over religious people lack tolerant. While this may sound extreme (and I don't mean to offend) they don't tolerate anything beyond the teaching of their religious faith. We (I don't think I can speak for...) Atheists have more tolerance simply because we accept other ideas.

[Razgriez]

How do you work that out? I guess I am a Jehovas witness so I see death as a sleep. But kids having faiths helps them cope with things better it did me anything which happened anyway. If you would like to know how it helped me cope just ask.

Hmm...

No I would rather raise my child with Morals. You are supposed to raise your children not leave them too find the truth for themselves, do you know why? They can choose a totally fucked up path that leads too looting killing and raping. As parents it is your job to guide your children and that's what I would do.
I think your misinterpreting what he said. Sure children may choose the fucked up path of violence and ignorance, but thats only if you fully neglect them and treat them as if they dont exist. They will undoubtly will go seek out another type of lifestyle to fill in the gap that their parents are not providing. Hes talking about giving them some sort of guidence to become successful in life but allow them to make their own choices of how to run their own life. They maybe your kids but they will grow into adults as well and you cant run their lives forever. He wants to guide his kids in the right direction and let them choose for their selves instead of having complete control over what they do and force them into something they may not fully want to do.

But hey, the way you want to be a parent is totally different then others. Run with it even if others oppose the way you like to do things. After all, thats your choice and you wouldnt want others making your choices for you now would you?


Not being true is your opinion. To the people who beleive god is with them, god is really with them. I know if I ask god to be with me he is with me and it makes me feel better.
I think I shouldnt share my opinion on this one.


Because you are taught that in school? I was anyway and I have books in my libary downstairs. Once again you are making asumptions. Oh and naturally you are going to raise your children in what you think is right. You think christianity is wrong so you don't think people should teach it too their kids. You forget christians ( rightly so) think they are correct so it is their business to teach their kids what they beleive is correct.

Your going to do the same right?

EDIT: Also it's just occurred to me that this proves MH wrong. He maintains that atheists don't correct or reprimand each other... obviously the fact that three atheists in a row did just that should debunk that ridiculous claim.
I dont understand where he could get that assumption in the first place when athiests dont even have any sort of organization and we are more so independent.

[mislead]

EDIT: Also it's just occurred to me that this proves MH wrong. He maintains that atheists don't correct or reprimand each other... obviously the fact that three atheists in a row did just that should debunk that ridiculous claim.

I'm not really an atheist, so I guess I shouldn't count. I'm closer to atheism than to theism though.

[Bishop]

Judism FTW...

http://img392.imageshack.us/img392/1182/1165098054327jm6.gif

[Giorno Giovanna]

Judism FTW...

http://img392.imageshack.us/img392/1182/1165098054327jm6.gif


I don't know whether I should be offended or not, but whatever the case, that post was funny as hell.:laugh

[Gunners]

Morals with a capital M, huh? So you think teaching kids religion and stopping them from thinking for themselves is what stands between them and looting, killing and raping?

I don't know if that's what you meant, but that's the impression I'm getting.



Nah I read the initial post wrongly. I assumed it was saying he wouldn't teach them morals either. He would let them choose that for themselves.

I think your misinterpreting what he said. Sure children may choose the fucked up path of violence and ignorance, but thats only if you fully neglect them and treat them as if they dont exist. They will undoubtly will go seek out another type of lifestyle to fill in the gap that their parents are not providing. Hes talking about giving them some sort of guidence to become successful in life but allow them to make their own choices of how to run their own life. They maybe your kids but they will grow into adults as well and you cant run their lives forever. He wants to guide his kids in the right direction and let them choose for their selves instead of having complete control over what they do and force them into something they may not fully want to do.


Yeah I misread the post.

I think I shouldnt share my opinion on this one.
Ohhh please do. :)

Your going to do the same right?
Yeah I will raise my children telling them of Jah not force it down when it isn't needed but in my whole manerism, yes.

[Pareto]

I'm going to nitpick semantics a bit. Let's start by distinguishing between antitheists, atheists and agnostics.

Most of the people mentioned in this thread as "asshole atheist debaters" usually fall into the first cathegory, which is characterized by the notion that not only does God not exist, but religion is by itself wrong and detrimental to human culture. Dawkins is a prominent example of this. Note that this view isn't even remotely as popular in reality, as it would seem from examining message boards.
Especially since atheists/agnostics are only around 15% of Canada and the US.

An atheist, on the other hand, is characterized simply by his/her belief in God's nonexistance. Yes, it is a belief. Whatever Ockham's Razor may dictate, there doesn't seem to be a way to either prove or disprove the existence of an abstract God, and thus atheists aren't really different from theists in this matter. I'm specifically pointing this out, since I do often see people identifying themselves as atheists, and claiming that their outlook is somehow more "scientific" than theism, which simply isn't true.

Finally, an agnostic simply doesn't care. This is an easy, undeclarative point of view, though epistemologically valid. It can be seen as simply avoiding the question, and quite often it is just that. Most agnostics follow a "there's no way for me to know" approach to all metaphysics. They usually aren't too vocal in debates like this, simply because in lack of interest in the subject. Agnostics make up a surprisingly large chunk of society, both from the "mild atheist" and "mild believer" sides.
There's also another type of agnosticism, derived from logical positivism, which basically claims that the question "Does God truly exist?" is simply senseless, but that's not a thing I'd like to get into here.
If this is so, then I am an a-leprechaunist, and an a-teapot-in-orbit-around-Neptune-ist. While the term "agnostic" is used in many ways, the most useful, I've found, is on a different scale than the atheist-theist one. Either you believe in a God or you don't believe in a God, and whether or not you think that we can know if a God exists makes you an agnostic or not. If you don't have a formed opinion on whether or not you think a God exists, you aren't even on the theist-atheist scale.

But the common brush that the atheist is painted with is the one above, the one where he is smarter and not inciting the theist to argue, that's simply not true. I mean what I am saying is that unless everyone fits into the ideal, why make a post telling us that the ideal is what people are?
What thread are you reading? :huh

I don't have anything against atheists that keep to themselves or only have kind discussions with people, its the kind that want to make fun of others, like someone mentioned earlier that I have a problem with. The thing I see happening in this thread is the same thing that happens in a lot of others.
[Likewise, I have no problems with religious people that keep to themselves or only have kind discussions with people, it's the kind that want to shove their beliefs into the government and law system, impacting others, that I have a problem with.]

I'm not disperaging atheists, but I am saying this thread loses because it is wanting us to believe that all atheist hold the same beliefs. There are many kind of people out there calling themselves atheists. I have seen some that believe in ghosts, others believe the idea of ghosts is poposterous, some even believe we were put here by aliens...so you can't tell me that all people in this group fit under these guidlines, or even most people, unless its true.
You're absolutely right that atheists do not share the same beliefs overall. There is only one thing they share - the fact that they don't believe a God exists. This was stated clearly in the original post, so I have no idea why you'd think it "want[s] us to believe that all atheist hold the same beliefs":
Please remember that atheism, like theism, refers to a wide range of very diverse individuals. Atheists only share one notion - the lack of belief in god. Aside from that, there is nothing to link these people together. They come from all different cultures, depart from all kinds of religions, for many different reasons and do not particularly share any other belief outside the disblief of god(s). Generalising the motives, attitudes and behaviour of atheists will get you as far as generalising the motives, attitudes and behaviour of theists, as in, it won't get you anywhere. The terms atheist and theist refer to too diverse a people to pin down with generalisations beyond the definition of 'atheism' and 'theism'. Outside that, there is virtually nothing to connect these people.
While atheists may (or may not) disproportionately have some given characteristic, this is not because of atheism. Correlation != causation.

Also, the 'How to Attack an Atheist' thing, I didn't say all Christians are good, I simply said all atheists are not good either and this post seems to have little reason to be around other than some atheist trying to prove to us gullible Christians we're not right about who they are...
Many people simply don't know exactly what atheism entails. The point of this thread is to inform.

But anyone can call others immoral, sometimes faith does deny science, and what's wrong with ministering to people, you have atheists out there who do pratically the same thing by pointing out rather biased points about what's wrong with the concept of God.
Biased?

[Monomyth]

I've often been accused of being a satan worshipping, I also noticed that your transition to atheism was very similiar to mine. A fine guide indeed; Overgeneralization is the cancer that's killing our society, and your post seems to sort out most of the common misconceptions.

If my rep was worth anything you'd better believe you'd be getting some.

[Dimezanime88]

"Theist just are scared that if there is a God, they won't go to heaven for not believing him 100%." lol Like a neutral ground. Noticed I quoted that, so don't start flaming me.:) But yea, this seems to be an interesting topic. I agree with the first post as I have come to such situations before. And MH, you say atheists are usually assholes because they don't even try in proving you wrong in your debates? What about vise versa?

[Holmium]

Um where to start... I think all this is quite funny, it looks like Christians think that Atheists are evil small men lurking around in your toilet, nah not really. But this is the first time I see how Atheists is looked at from a Christian view, witch is suprising for me, because I live in Sweden, and as you may recall from an earlier post, is the country with most Athesist. But that was from many years ago, I whould say we are like 90% atheists now. And why is that so? Why is the rating of atheists higher in Sweden and hole of europe then Amercia? (this is alittle of topic but bear with em). Becuase we know what Christianity can do to you. And why is that? We learn european history in school, and if you know that history you know why the word "god" is litterly pissed on here. And why is atheists making fun of other religion (the ones with "gods" in them), because we find it fucking redicelus and brainwashing. But can I respect them? Yes. I have a friend in school that is Islamic. And I respect him, but I still find him quite stupid. What more is there..... ah. Do I hate god? No I don't, you can't hate something that dosen't exist. And now you are sitting there and thinking, ooh, we will see, we will belive when he is burning in hell and I will be the one laughing. Oh please wake up! You are living in hell right now, it won't be any better then this! Do what you can and make sure your children maybe, MAYBE will have it alittle better than you do.

Living as a atheist works perfectly, just look at Sweden again, 90% atheists, no one is starving, we have like 100 murders per year and one of the best school system in the world.
And last, live long and work hard my fellow humanbeings. Then maybe we will make this a better place, because no one will help us execpt for our self.

Sorry for my spelling.

[Bishop]

Um where to start... I think all this is quite funny, it looks like Christians think that Atheists are evil small men lurking around in your toilet, nah not really. But this is the first time I see how Atheists is looked at from a Christian view, witch is suprising for me, because I live in Sweden, and as you may recall from an earlier post, is the country with most Athesist. But that was from many years ago, I whould say we are like 90% atheists now. And why is that so? Why is the rating of atheists higher in Sweden and hole of europe then Amercia? (this is alittle of topic but bear with em). Becuase we know what Christianity can do to you. And why is that? We learn european history in school, and if you know that history you know why the word "god" is litterly pissed on here. And why is atheists making fun of other religion (the ones with "gods" in them), because we find it fucking redicelus and brainwashing. But can I respect them? Yes. I have a friend in school that is Islamic. And I respect him, but I still find him quite stupid.



I'll say it for them:

This guy DOES NOT represent atheist or how they think. Just one person with his own opinion

[mislead]

Told ya antitheists are (just like fanatical Christians) overrepresented on message boards. Hence, it was inevitable for some of them to wander into this thread.

[Holmium]

Yes I am sorry for that one, I just... I read thru the all the post and my blood just started pumping and I had to spill it out, and Im sorry for it.

[Firedraconian]

Pfft. Atheism is just as short-sighted as theism. There's no way to know either way, and picking one god to worship on the off-hand that the one you pick is the right one is just silly. It's like walking into a rat poison shop and hoping the unmarked container you're licking is sugar.

Which is why Vercanism rules. Go Vercanism!

[Amaretti]

Um where to start... I think all this is quite funny, it looks like Christians think that Atheists are evil small men lurking around in your toilet, nah not really.

The people who hold these misconceptions against atheists are not necessarily christian, and no where is there any reason to think all christians are feel that way about atheists.

Living as a atheist works perfectly, just look at Sweden again, 90% atheists, no one is starving, we have like 100 murders per year and one of the best school system in the world.

I agree that Sweden is one of the best if not THE best country in the world in terms of healthcare, education and crime, etc. I wouldn't necessarily say this is because the majority of the population is non-religious, but it certainly proves the point that a country comprised mostly of atheists can function perfectly well and better than the average, even while some theists maintain that a civilisation without religion would descend into anarchy/corruption/immorality.

Which is why Vercanism rules. Go Vercanism!

I am thinking of converting to vercanism.

[Sammy-Jo]

^ Ummm.....wtf is vercanism :huh?

I don't really see atheism being as short-sighted as theism. It's rather, instead of picking one god out of the many, I realize that humans created the gods, and it's highly unlikely to the point where I'm almost 100% certain that they don't exist.

On the off-chance that some kind of higher beings exist, obviously they won't give a damn whether or not we believe in them or not.

I mean, why should they care?

So really, if you want to live your life in (what I believe to be) a cocoon of delusion, that's your right, and I really don't have any problem with it. I have friends who are believers, and I can discuss things with them just like I can with my friends who are nonbelievers. It's not that big of a deal, really.

I know it sounds offensive for me to say "cocoon of delusion," but actually, it's not like I think I'm any better. We're all products of society and our various beliefs. I might be atheist, but I have beliefs of my own that are most likely delusional, so there's no reason for me to discriminate against those that have religious delusions :huh. It's not like we can ever know what's truth and what's not anyways, so why make a big deal out of it? And being a believer certainly doesn't mean that you're any more or less intelligent.

[Firedraconian]

Vercanism basically says that all the gods are real, and that people give their soul to whatever god they worship. So, Christians worship Jehovah, so when they die, Jehovah gets their soul and they go to heaven or hell. Buddhists get reincarnated, Mythists or whoever worships the Greek/Roman gods gets to cross the River Styx into Hades, Lifestreamists return to the planet, etc. Atheists, for example, give their soul to no one, and thus cease to exist upon death.

[Bishop]

And who made this trash up?

[Sammy-Jo]

Vercanism basically says that all the gods are real, and that people give their soul to whatever god they worship. So, Christians worship Jehovah, so when they die, Jehovah gets their soul and they go to heaven or hell. Buddhists get reincarnated, Mythists or whoever worships the Greek/Roman gods gets to cross the River Styx into Hades, Lifestreamists return to the planet, etc. Atheists, for example, give their soul to no one, and thus cease to exist upon death.

Hmmm...Sounds like fun, picking which god gets to take you in the "afterlife"....But do you honestly believe that every god man has created is real :huh?

[Pareto]

Jokes sometimes don't translate well over the intrawebs :(

[EXhack]

Vercanism basically says that all the gods are real, and that people give their soul to whatever god they worship. So, Christians worship Jehovah, so when they die, Jehovah gets their soul and they go to heaven or hell. Buddhists get reincarnated, Mythists or whoever worships the Greek/Roman gods gets to cross the River Styx into Hades, Lifestreamists return to the planet, etc. Atheists, for example, give their soul to no one, and thus cease to exist upon death.

I'm making a faith where I become a powerfull God after I die.

[Shevek]

1.Why not make fun of stupid people? :nod

2. Amen, brother.


3. Hitler: Oh God, today I killed 2500 jews, gays and other people You hate. You do forgive me, right?
God: Sure. No problem.


4. Perhaps he'd read the old testament. As for antisemitism, it's a fine old christian tradition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_and_antisemitism).

1. Because it's not fair and it kind of makes you ignorant, don't you think?

2. Thank you

3. Yeah, I am pretty sure that this is how it went:notrust . If God forgave Hitler, i.e if Hitler ever asked for forgiveness which I highly doubt, then he would forgive him because God is a forgiving God, not because Hitler was doing his "bidding"

4. A fine old tradition that only Mel Gibson follows. Besides, not all Christians are the same, Geez why can't people get that already?
1. How does that make me ignorant (a bit rude perhaps?)? People who believe there's a god are ignorant.

3. If Hitler had put me in one of his concentration camps, I'd be quite upset if god would have forgiven Hitler for doing that. If someone is going to forgive Hitler then it's me. And how hard is it to forgive something that has been done to someone else? "I hereby forgive Stalin for killing X million humans." Very hard. Not.

(Yep, "What is thy bidding, my Master?" That's how it went... :nod )

4. Mel Gibson was born 11 years after Hitler died, so I don't get your point. No not all christians are the same, but why do you think antisemitism spread in Europe?

[Booster Beetle]

1. How does that make me ignorant (a bit rude perhaps?)? People who believe there's a god are ignorant.


Because there are no learned believers out there? Just because people look at the world around them and draw different conclusions than you does not make them ignorant.

[MartialHorror]

FUCK!

This is the third time I've tried writing this post with this damn new keyboard and I keep deleting this text.

Quickly to the point

Two people responded to me and I have responces to both

1) The old testament was about Gods pact with the Jews. Hence, saying maybe Hitler read the OT and got his ideas there is beyond the most idiotic thing I've ever heard.

2) lol, overly religious people lack tolerance? I am overly religious and I am open to science, religion and sexuality(to a degree). Closed minded people maybe? Sure, but anyone who is closed minded is a jackass regardless of religion.

And I've seen many atheists in this right and if you've ever read some of Darkadonis or char-aznables posts you would have to be an idiot to believe that. Atheists arent any more accepting than Christians are. For some reason, more closed minded assholes seem to be flocking towards the atheist side than christian. I'm not sure why........maybe its because of the youth.

[Amaretti]

And I've seen many atheists in this right and if you've ever read some of Darkadonis or char-aznables posts you would have to be an idiot to believe that. Atheists arent any more accepting than Christians are. For some reason, more closed minded assholes seem to be flocking towards the atheist side than christian. I'm not sure why........maybe its because of the youth.

Taking the actions of two individuals and generalising the rest as a result... le sigh...

There's no stopping you, is there?

[Booster Beetle]

And I've seen many atheists in this right and if you've ever read some of Darkadonis or char-aznables posts you would have to be an idiot to believe that. Atheists arent any more accepting than Christians are. For some reason, more closed minded assholes seem to be flocking towards the atheist side than christian. I'm not sure why........maybe its because of the youth.

I'd argue that at some level Atheists should be more tolerant than people of faith simply because they don't have any religious dogma to restrict them. There is no Bible telling them that homosexuals are an abomidation, for example. In theory they can look at things with a slightly more open mind.

This isn't always the case though.

I don't agree that close minded assholes are drawn more towards atheism, I think that perhaps the fact that they are a minority and considered somewhat counter-culture can lead to some atheists becoming fairly abrasive, plus the fact they just happen to stand out a little more...at least online. I think there are more than enough close minded asshats for both groups, frankly.

[Giorno Giovanna]

1. How does that make me ignorant (a bit rude perhaps?)? People who believe there's a god are ignorant.

3. If Hitler had put me in one of his concentration camps, I'd be quite upset if god would have forgiven Hitler for doing that. If someone is going to forgive Hitler then it's me. And how hard is it to forgive something that has been done to someone else? "I hereby forgive Stalin for killing X million humans." Very hard. Not.

(Yep, "What is thy bidding, my Master?" That's how it went... :nod )

4. Mel Gibson was born 11 years after Hitler died, so I don't get your point. No not all christians are the same, but why do you think antisemitism spread in Europe?


This is why many people do not like atheists or non-believers and believe them to be assholes.

1. How does believing in God makes me ignorant? Believing in God does not make your ignorant, forcing your belief down someone's throat is ignorant of the person's view on life and also try to ridicule someone's belief, which you are doing right now, is being ignorant. Try looking up ignorance in the dictionary and you'll see what you are doing is exactly what being ignorant is

2. One, for Hitler and Stalin to gain forgiveness, then would have to repent and also sincere about being sorry, which I know they never did so your point fails. Also, you're going to tell me it's easy to forgive someone who killed this many people. Yeah, and I'm Gandhi.:notrust

3. Really? My god, you must have been right there when it happened, right? Tell me, did Hitler shit his pants when he saw the Allies bust his plan, huh?:nuts

4. But he still showed anti-semitism, which was my point. Also, ever heard of something called idiocy? The only reason why anti-semitism rose form Christians is because of how Jews treated Jesus. It has nothing to do with Christianity especially since God freed the Jews and even gave them their land and Jesus never persecuted the Jews, so it's not a Christian tradition, just a result of the bad side effect of religion.

Seriously, why does someone always has to ridicule one's beliefs is beyond me and I just think it's idiotic and pathetic to do so unless you have nothing else to do.

[MartialHorror]

I'd argue that at some level Atheists should be more tolerant than people of faith simply because they don't have any religious dogma to restrict them. There is no Bible telling them that homosexuals are an abomidation, for example. In theory they can look at things with a slightly more open mind.

This isn't always the case though.

I don't agree that close minded assholes are drawn more towards atheism, I think that perhaps the fact that they are a minority and considered somewhat counter-culture can lead to some atheists becoming fairly abrasive, plus the fact they just happen to stand out a little more...at least online. I think there are more than enough close minded asshats for both groups, frankly.

Beanie, I used those two as obvious examples that are easy to find. NF isnt the only place I go to you know. Those are two most extemes also.

Yes, ideally, Atheists should be better. They've seen religion screw up and claim that without it, life would be better. Yet every atheist I've ever meet has proven one thing, religious or atheist, assholes are still assholes.

Yeah, your probably right. We probably hear more from atheists simply because its a minority. Not necessarily because they are assholes.

[Giorno Giovanna]

Taking the actions of two individuals and generalising the rest as a result... le sigh...

There's no stopping you, is there?

While I don't neccessarily agree with what MartialHorror did, I kind of understand his argument. Generalization happens from experience and point of view and while not every atheists are the same, if a person argues with atheists that always acts like assholes, then his point of view will be that atheists are assholes and thus he will end up generalizing them as such. That is not his fault, it's just the way things are.

People tend to generalize alot of things due to experience and the same current situation can be twisted around. If an atheist argues with Christians that come off as ignorant and overzealous bigots, then that will form his point of view on them and cause him/her to generalize Christians as such.

What both sides could do is just understand each other and respect each other. MartialHorror should not generalize all atheists based on two people but then again, maybe the atheists he is arguing against should try to not come off as assholes and come up as someone more level-headed. Then, that will change his mind and point of view.

I am not condoning what he is doing as right, but just trying to explain as to why he may have such a generalization on atheists.

[diglossiablues]

SwordD & MartialH:

The same can be said for why some atheists can be abbrasive -- being in the minority & having assumptions made about you means you end up having to cover the same ground with people over and over again. It gets old & sometimes is just easier to be flippant. Not that this excuses the behavior.

At some point we just gotta get over ourselves, because there's a lot more we all have in common than not.

[Bishop]

So, how many of you guys are atheists then?

[Giorno Giovanna]

SwordD & MartialH:

The same can be said for why some atheists can be abbrasive -- being in the minority & having assumptions made about you means you end up having to cover the same ground with people over and over again. It gets old & sometimes is just easier to be flippant. Not that this excuses the behavior.

At some point we just gotta get over ourselves, because there's a lot more we all have in common than not.


Oh trust me, I can understand what you mean, sometimes I want to get mad at other people too, it's just that you have to know that not everyone agrees with you and the best way to have a respectable discussion is to be level-headed and not have to be extremely rude. And you are right, we do have alot in common, and heck I would say the only thing that separates an atheist from a theist is that one does not believe and one believes, that's it.

[diglossiablues]

Bishop: I am, but more of what you might call a weak atheist though: there's no way to prove there is or is not god(s)... I strongly suspect there's no higher powers, but I'm not absolutely positive.

[Pareto]

Closed minded people maybe? Sure, but anyone who is closed minded is a jackass regardless of religion.
I'd argue that at some level Atheists should be more tolerant than people of faith simply because they don't have any religious dogma to restrict them. There is no Bible telling them that homosexuals are an abomidation, for example. In theory they can look at things with a slightly more open mind.

This isn't always the case though.

I don't agree that close minded assholes are drawn more towards atheism, I think that perhaps the fact that they are a minority and considered somewhat counter-culture can lead to some atheists becoming fairly abrasive, plus the fact they just happen to stand out a little more...at least online. I think there are more than enough close minded asshats for both groups, frankly.
Don't be so open-minded that your brains fall out. (http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2005/10/the_appeal_to_b.html)

Yes, ideally, Atheists should be better. They've seen religion screw up and claim that without it, life would be better.
I will speak for myself and a few others I know here: religion is rooted in irrationality, only one manifestation of irrationality, a symptom. Simply eliminating religion will not make the world better any more than putting a band-aid on a cut will fix the cut. To really fix the problem, we must strike at the root.

And talk about "assholes" is really getting old. Can we stop?

Yeah, your probably right. We probably hear more from atheists simply because its a minority. Not necessarily because they are assholes.
You hear more from atheists because you are on the internet, and atheists tend to be "liberal" (I'll use the vague term for once) and the internet has a greater proportion of "liberal" and young people than IRL. IRL, atheists are the last minority it's acceptable to hate.

Bishop: I am a "weak atheist" in general, but a "strong atheist" when it comes to certain self-contradicting gods.

[Shevek]

Sorry for being an asshole. Although I don't really understand why you think I am one.


1. Ignorance
Ignorance is a lack of knowledge. Ignorance is also the state of being ignorant or uninformed.

For example, "Bill lost the debate because he was ignorant of that subject." In such a case the term is not pejorative, and may even be used as a self-descriptive term, as in, "I am ignorant of English history." Another definition states that ignorance is the choice to not act or behave in accordance with regard to certain information in order to suit ones own needs or beliefs. For example, "I know better but I choose to ignore that and act in a way that behooves me." Ignorance is often misinterpreted as a synonym of stupidity, and is as thus often taken as an insult, when really it is, in its correct form, not an insult at all but a criticism.

Wikipedia

Perhaps made you a bit less ignorant about the meaning of the word ignorant... :)


2. If Hitler asked for forgiveness (and why should he? The jews killed Jesus (that is, God, and at the same time his son) and god himself hates gays) is not the main point. The point is that the idea that god can forgive wrongdoing towards anyone except himself is ridiculous. If someone abuses you only you can forgive her/him. Otherwise you've completely redefined the word "forgive".


3. "?" and see my last answer.


4. Done by christians? Check. Because the jews killed the star of christianity? Check. A tradition? Check.

As for "Jesus never persecuted the Jews". He... was one.


If you think my criticism have showed christianity to be ridiculous, then perhaps it is. That's hardly my fault, I didn't create it.

[diglossiablues]

Bishop: I am a "weak atheist" in general, but a "strong atheist" when it comes to certain self-contradicting gods.

I like this way of phrasing that -- mind if I borrow it in the future?

[Booster Beetle]

So, how many of you guys are atheists then?

I am, though I suppose if you want to get technical I generally identify myself as a secular humanist when asked.

Edit: Thanks, Pareto. I think I have actually read that before, but I lost the link some time ago.

[mislead]

Don't be so open-minded that your brains fall out. (http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2005/10/the_appeal_to_b.html)


I will speak for myself and a few others I know here: religion is rooted in irrationality, only one manifestation of irrationality, a symptom. Simply eliminating religion will not make the world better any more than putting a band-aid on a cut will fix the cut. To really fix the problem, we must strike at the root.



But do we really want to get rid of irrationality? Not that I think it's possible by any means, but do we want it gone that badly? I always thought the value of rationalism came from it being universal, and thus making communication between humans possible. However, lots of valuable human creations are for the most part irrational (like for example, art, in general).

[Giorno Giovanna]

Sorry for being an asshole. Although I don't really understand why you think I am one.


1. Ignorance
Ignorance is a lack of knowledge. Ignorance is also the state of being ignorant or uninformed.

For example, "Bill lost the debate because he was ignorant of that subject." In such a case the term is not pejorative, and may even be used as a self-descriptive term, as in, "I am ignorant of English history." Another definition states that ignorance is the choice to not act or behave in accordance with regard to certain information in order to suit ones own needs or beliefs. For example, "I know better but I choose to ignore that and act in a way that behooves me." Ignorance is often misinterpreted as a synonym of stupidity, and is as thus often taken as an insult, when really it is, in its correct form, not an insult at all but a criticism.

Wikipedia

Perhaps made you a bit less ignorant about the meaning of the word ignorant... :)


2. If Hitler asked for forgiveness (and why should he? The jews killed Jesus (that is, God, and at the same time his son) and god himself hates gays) is not the main point. The point is that the idea that god can forgive wrongdoing towards anyone except himself is ridiculous. If someone abuses you only you can forgive her/him. Otherwise you've completely redefined the word "forgive".


3. "?" and see my last answer.


4. Done by christians? Check. Because the jews killed the star of christianity? Check. A tradition? Check.

As for "Jesus never persecuted the Jews". He... was one.


If you think my criticism have showed christianity to be ridiculous, then perhaps it is. That's hardly my fault, I didn't create it.


1. So let me get this straight. Because I believe in God, I am uninformed and lack of knowledge. Damn, no wonder I'm in college studying software engineering.:notrust

2. God does not hate gays, he just does not condone the whole men-men or female-female relationship. God hates sin, not the person hence why he can forgive anyone as long as they repent and also are sincere in their pardon. Also, how is it ridiculous to forgive? Are you saying it's better to hold a grudge? Let me ask you, would you not want to be forgiven for something you did in which you felt sorry for?

3. You obviously did not understand it then, but maybe it's because I lack knowledge and thus my logic is obviously that of a monkey's level.

4. Again, it was brought by religion back in the Middle Ages. Do Christians still persecute Jews? No, or else I highly doubt anyone would have cared about the Holocaust and bother trying to take the Jews out of the concentration camps.

Also, how is it a tradition if it is not being practiced today? It's really pathetic that you are making generalization based on the idiocy of people back 20+ years.

5. Yes, you did not create that but that does not give you the right to act like an ass.

[Pareto]

I like this way of phrasing that -- mind if I borrow it in the future?
Go ahead :)

But do we really want to get rid of irrationality? Not that I think it's possible by any means, but do we want it gone that badly? I always thought the value of rationalism came from it being universal, and thus making communication between humans possible. However, lots of valuable human creations are for the most part irrational (like for example, art, in general).
To be clear, there is one aspect of life considered irrational but that we wouldn't like to eliminate. That one aspect is emotion. If we had no emotions, we would have no drive to do anything - we would be like robots. The way I see it, a general goal in life is to maximize "good" (ie. pleasurable/desirable) emotions while minimizing "bad" ones. However, the process must be within a rational framework.

Sword Dancer: One can be ignorant in only certain areas. I consider myself ignorant when it comes to (off the top of my head) making wallets.

[Kevinthewiseone]

I agree that Atheism is misunderstood but my premise is still that Atheist don't believe a higher power is influencing whether it is divine or alien in nature. Also i am not ignorant to the fact that my idea might me not be right but at least we can share our ideas here in these forums. Of course also there is the fact that the bible was created by a bunch of scholars around 700 A.D. from story's that were passed down through the generations. That is why i can't completely trust the bible as it is know epically since we keep finding new papers (Dead sea Scrools) on stuff from that time its odd but some of the ideas in "the davanci code make more since to me then what is currently said to the truth regarding god and Jesus. Well either way it still a good book to read just for the fun of reading. lol sorry got a bit off subject.

[mislead]

To be clear, there is one aspect of life considered irrational but that we wouldn't like to eliminate. That one aspect is emotion. If we had no emotions, we would have no drive to do anything - we would be like robots. The way I see it, a general goal in life is to maximize "good" (ie. pleasurable/desirable) emotions while minimizing "bad" ones. However, the process must be within a rational framework.


Would you be as kind as to elaborate on the bolded part? Does religion, as a broad term, fit into this so-called framework?

Personally, I always thought of the rational mind as a kind of effective tool. Much of our civilization has grown from the extensive use of this tool by various gifted individuals. But that doesn't mean we need to equip the mind with other prerogatives of control over our lives.

[Shiron]

I agree that Atheism is misunderstood but my premise is still that Atheist don't believe a higher power is influencing whether it is divine or alien in nature.
Err, this isn't necessarily true. You can be an atheist and believe that aliens created the world with no problem. Now, do most atheists believe that? I don't believe so. But whether or not you're an atheist has nothing to do with rather you believe that or not; you could be an atheist or a (mono/poly)theist and still believe or not belive it. I'm not seeing how disbelieft in the existence of gods effects whether one would believe it or not. They could quite possibly be in the minority, sure, but to say that no atheists believe that? I wouldn't go that far, since that's just generalizing atheists and associating them with a belief (or rather in this case, a disbelief) that they don't all have, which is what this thread is trying to avoid.

And I believe someone, I think it was Bishop, asked "What kind of atheist are you guys?" Well, I suppose I would be an agnostic antitheist, at least from the descriptions that MisleadSun gave. It might sound like kind of a weid combo (at least to me, when I think about it), but that's what I am.

[Shevek]

1. So let me get this straight. Because I believe in God, I am uninformed and lack of knowledge. Damn, no wonder I'm in college studying software engineering.:notrust

2. God does not hate gays, he just does not condone the whole men-men or female-female relationship. God hates sin, not the person hence why he can forgive anyone as long as they repent and also are sincere in their pardon. Also, how is it ridiculous to forgive? Are you saying it's better to hold a grudge? Let me ask you, would you not want to be forgiven for something you did in which you felt sorry for?

3. You obviously did not understand it then, but maybe it's because I lack knowledge and thus my logic is obviously that of a monkey's level.

4. Again, it was brought by religion back in the Middle Ages. Do Christians still persecute Jews? No, or else I highly doubt anyone would have cared about the Holocaust and bother trying to take the Jews out of the concentration camps.

Also, how is it a tradition if it is not being practiced today? It's really pathetic that you are making generalization based on the idiocy of people back 20+ years.

5. Yes, you did not create that but that does not give you the right to act like an ass.
1. Are you implying god is engineered software? Because otherwise your knowledge in the field of software engineering is quite irrelevant.

2. God hates this, god doesn't hate that; God is mass murder of gays, if that's not hating I don't know what is. If I want to be forgiven for something, I don't ask god for forgiveness - I could as well ask Chuck the Plant. If I've hurt someone, and want to be forgiven, I ask him/her to forgive me.

4. If you re-read the whole discussion you'll see it was about Hitler (nope, not Godwin's law this time). So if the tradition lives today is irrelevant for the discussion.

5. Second time I'm called an ass(hole).

[Adonis]

FUCK!

This is the third time I've tried writing this post with this damn new keyboard and I keep deleting this text.

Quickly to the point

Two people responded to me and I have responces to both

1) The old testament was about Gods pact with the Jews. Hence, saying maybe Hitler read the OT and got his ideas there is beyond the most idiotic thing I've ever heard.

2) lol, overly religious people lack tolerance? I am overly religious and I am open to science, religion and sexuality(to a degree). Closed minded people maybe? Sure, but anyone who is closed minded is a jackass regardless of religion.

And I've seen many atheists in this right and if you've ever read some of Darkadonis or char-aznables posts you would have to be an idiot to believe that. Atheists arent any more accepting than Christians are. For some reason, more closed minded assholes seem to be flocking towards the atheist side than christian. I'm not sure why........maybe its because of the youth.

Yeah, because I represent all Atheists. Anyone who uses 10-20 atheists to cast judgement on MILLIONS is...there's no polite way to say it, an idiot.

To say, I've seen Atheists do this or Theists do that is meaningless because they represent but a small part of the accused group. If you've only met elitist, arrogant, close-minded atheists, that's shitty luck, not proof that all or even most atheists are this way.

And based on the fact that I go to a CATHOLIC High School, I'd say I know more Christians than you do Atheists so my generalization, though still biased and ill-conceived, would be more correct than yours.

[Pareto]

Would you be as kind as to elaborate on the bolded part? Does religion, as a broad term, fit into this so-called framework?

Personally, I always thought of the rational mind as a kind of effective tool. Much of our civilization has grown from the extensive use of this tool by various gifted individuals. But that doesn't mean we need to equip the mind with other prerogatives of control over our lives.
A rational framework means that you use reason to achieve your goals, living your life in a reasonable manner. You don't simply follow emotion wherever it takes you, like a fool, off the edge of a cliff.

If reason leads one to a certain religion, it would fit in, although it would twist your life around it since religion would then be the primary motivation, superceding biology. Christian apologetics try to rationalize Christianity. I have talked with some Christians who seriously do so, but too often, people believe out of not even a semblance of rational thought, even if there are apologetics, as I said.

I'm slightly confused about your second paragraph ("But..." implies something contrary, but then your last sentence seems to agree).

[Shevek]

FUCK!

This is the third time I've tried writing this post with this damn new keyboard and I keep deleting this text.

Quickly to the point

Two people responded to me and I have responces to both

1) The old testament was about Gods pact with the Jews. Hence, saying maybe Hitler read the OT and got his ideas there is beyond the most idiotic thing I've ever heard.
1. (I guess you're writing to me?) I never said that. What I said/meant was that a god of "love and peace", which MartialHorror seems to think is the true christian god, isn't the god of the OT.

[Kevinthewiseone]

Err, this isn't necessarily true. You can be an atheist and believe that aliens created the world with no problem. Now, do most atheists believe that? I don't believe so. But whether or not you're an atheist has nothing to do with rather you believe that or not; you could be an atheist or a (mono/poly)theist and still believe or not belive it. I'm not seeing how disbelieft in the existence of gods effects whether one would believe it or not. They could quite possibly be in the minority, sure, but to say that no atheists believe that? I wouldn't go that far, since that's just generalizing atheists and associating them with a belief (or rather in this case, a disbelief) that they don't all have, which is what this thread is trying to avoid.

And I believe someone, I think it was Bishop, asked "What kind of atheist are you guys?" Well, I suppose I would be an agnostic antitheist, at least from the descriptions that MisleadSun gave. It might sound like kind of a weid combo (at least to me, when I think about it), but that's what I am.

ok well i haven't seen what MisleadSun described but from what i read it is described that Atheists don't believe deity's exist and that there are different shades of Atheism such as weak or strong.Atheists. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheist

Either way Atheism is a religion with some variance to each person who claims to be an atheist. Just like in any other relgion

[Amaretti]

ok well i haven't seen what MisleadSun described but from what i read it is described that Atheists don't believe deity's exist and that there are different shades of Atheism such as weak or strong.Atheists. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheist

Either way Atheism is a religion with some variance to each person who claims to be an atheist. Just like in any other relgion

No, there's no either way about it. You're making a huge error. If you'd read the first post you would know this is the number one misconception people hold over atheism. All it means is that you have not taken the time to understand what atheism is. That ignorance does not excuse you to keep from learning the true facts.

Atheism is not a religion. Repeat it after me. NOT A RELIGION. It's not a religion the same way theism is not a religion. They are nouns depicting a single belief, not a system of beliefs with doctrine and teachings that are needed to constitute a religion.

Please stop perpetuating this idiotic misconception.

[Shiron]

ok well i haven't seen what MisleadSun described but from what i read it is described that Atheists don't believe deity's exist and that there are different shades of Atheism such as weak or strong.Atheists. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheist

Either way Atheism is a religion with some variance to each person who claims to be an atheist. Just like in any other relgion
Yes. However, an alien and a deity are two very different things.

And no, atheism not a religion; all it is is a belief (or rather, a disbelief actually) and nothing more, much the same way theism, monotheism, and polytheism aren't; there may be atheist, theist, monotheist, and polythesit religions, but they aren't actually religions themselves.

[amaterasujutsu]

1.

2. God does not hate gays, he just does not condone the whole men-men or female-female relationship. God hates sin, not the person hence why he can forgive anyone as long as they repent and also are sincere in their pardon. Also, how is it ridiculous to forgive? Are you saying it's better to hold a grudge? Let me ask you, would you not want to be forgiven for something you did in which you felt sorry for?


Tell me, how do you know that God does not condone the whole men-men or female-female relationships?

Yep, if you say you are sorry then it is okay to commit a crime or something?

[Kevinthewiseone]

No, there's no either way about it. You're making a huge error. If you'd read the first post you would know this is the number one misconception people hold over atheism. All it means is that you have not taken the time to understand what atheism is. That ignorance does not excuse you to keep from learning the true facts.

Atheism is not a religion. Repeat it after me. NOT A RELIGION. It's not a religion the same way theism is not a religion. They are nouns depicting a single belief, not a system of beliefs with doctrine and teachings that are needed to constitute a religion.

Please stop perpetuating this idiotic misconception.

Right i get the point, that it is not a religion. but people who are Atheists might or might not believe in some religious ideas or ideals.



Yes. However, an alien and a deity are two very different things.

And no, atheism not a religion; all it is is a belief (or rather, a disbelief actually) and nothing more, much the same way theism, monotheism, and polytheism aren't; there may be atheist, theist, monotheist, and polythesit religions, but they aren't actually religions themselves.


Again i understand this fact. but you still may or may not believe in something for an example that aliens created this world.

[Amaretti]

Right i get the point, that it is not a religion. but people who are Atheists might or might not believe in some religious ideas or ideals.

If they are part of an atheistic religion like Buddhism, yes.

[Kevinthewiseone]

If they are part of an atheistic religion like Buddhism, yes.

ok i guess i was getting that confused just a tad. lol

[Firedraconian]

It seems to me that several people in this thread are more agnostic then atheistic. Instead of 'There are no gods, period', it seems like 'There might be gods, might not, I dunno. No way to be sure', which is agnostic, not atheistic. I, for example, am an agnostic.

[Pareto]

It seems to me that several people in this thread are more agnostic then atheistic. Instead of 'There are no gods, period', it seems like 'There might be gods, might not, I dunno. No way to be sure', which is agnostic, not atheistic. I, for example, am an agnostic.
If this is so, then I am an a-leprechaunist, and an a-teapot-in-orbit-around-Neptune-ist. While the term "agnostic" is used in many ways, the most useful, I've found, is on a different scale than the atheist-theist one. Either you believe in a God or you don't believe in a God, and whether or not you think that we can know if a God exists makes you an agnostic or not. If you don't have a formed opinion on whether or not you think a God exists, you aren't even on the theist-atheist scale.
From what I've seen, you are an agnostic atheist.

[Sammy-Jo]

It seems to me that several people in this thread are more agnostic then atheistic. Instead of 'There are no gods, period', it seems like 'There might be gods, might not, I dunno. No way to be sure', which is agnostic, not atheistic. I, for example, am an agnostic.

Well, I don't believe in absolute truths....So it's a little ridiculous for me to claim it's an absolute truth that gods don't exist :amuse.

It's highly unlikely, and, I believe, completely useless and a waste of time to believe that gods may exist...

...Do you think it's equally possible either way? Or are you leaning more towards one side than another?

Maybe this makes me an agnostic atheist, if such a thing exists :P.

[Goodfellow]

It seems to me that several people in this thread are more agnostic then atheistic. Instead of 'There are no gods, period', it seems like 'There might be gods, might not, I dunno. No way to be sure', which is agnostic, not atheistic. I, for example, am an agnostic.

Kind off. But it's really more like "I can't see the point god, why bother?" than as a believe in him, not him or maybe him.

He might exist (but I think that it kind of logic fallency), he might not exist, there might be a chance that he exist but we are mearly humans and are unable to tell are all rather irrelevant to me. I see the point faith, religions and believes, atleast a little, but I do not see the point in god.

I think that's what Secular humanism is about to some extent (and if it isn't, then big deal, that's what I'm about, and yes, i'm aware that it's about more that that as well)

[MartialHorror]

Yeah, because I represent all Atheists. Anyone who uses 10-20 atheists to cast judgement on MILLIONS is...there's no polite way to say it, an idiot.

To say, I've seen Atheists do this or Theists do that is meaningless because they represent but a small part of the accused group. If you've only met elitist, arrogant, close-minded atheists, that's shitty luck, not proof that all or even most atheists are this way.

And based on the fact that I go to a CATHOLIC High School, I'd say I know more Christians than you do Atheists so my generalization, though still biased and ill-conceived, would be more correct than yours.

I was using you as an example of "Atheists are more tolerant". Although it wasn't just you who I was referencing too in other posts, mainly your sacrifice thread which had too many Atheists ignoring your childlike behavior while slamming all the Christians.

I went to a Christian high school as well..........so nice try.

Shevek: Your opinion. Imo, God was simply pissed off during most of the OT. Christ pointed out the people back then were worse than the people of present time........and yeah, God shows them miracles and they worship a golden cow........

[Amaretti]

I went to a Christian high school as well..........so nice try.

So how does that mean you know more atheists than DA knows christians? Unless you went to an atheist school (though no such place exists) it's unlikely you've come into contact with more atheists than christians, especially considering atheists are a small minority compared to the overwhelming christian majority.

I think you've misunderstood what DA was saying there...

[MartialHorror]

He said he probably knew for Christians than I did.

I dont know how many Christians he actually knows. I've probably debated with 50-75 Atheists total.

[sadated_peon]

He said he probably knew for Christians than I did.

I dont know how many Christians he actually knows. I've probably debated with 50-75 Atheists total.

No he didn't

"I'd say I know more Christians than you do Atheists "

[Pareto]

Well, I don't believe in absolute truths....So it's a little ridiculous for me to claim it's an absolute truth that gods don't exist :amuse.
If there are no absolute truths, then that itself is an absolute truth. It is a self-refuting statement.

Shevek: Your opinion. Imo, God was simply pissed off during most of the OT. Christ pointed out the people back then were worse than the people of present time........and yeah, God shows them miracles and they worship a golden cow........
God doesn't seem to be very Godly. Stuff like:
http://img166.imageshack.us/img166/7641/godthroneabsurdfe6.jpg

[Shevek]

Shevek: Your opinion. Imo, God was simply pissed off during most of the OT.
Bad morning temper?

The same goes for me, does that make me extra godlike? Can't you start worshipping me instead; I mean it's not like that False christian god has ever helped you, is it? :amuse

[Adonis]

I was using you as an example of "Atheists are more tolerant". Although it wasn't just you who I was referencing too in other posts, mainly your sacrifice thread which had too many Atheists ignoring your childlike behavior while slamming all the Christians.

My immature behavior? For how many pages did Christians harp on my age before they even attempted to counter my argument? Whether I acted childishly or not, most of my posts had an argument, a valid one, behind it which I supported.


I went to a Christian high school as well..........so nice try.


And that proves...

I was arguing that I knew more Christians than you know Atheists. As Beanie said, your point would only be a good counter if you went to an Atheist high school.

[Giovanni Rild]

My immature behavior? For how many pages did Christians harp on my age before they even attempted to counter my argument? Whether I acted childishly or not, most of my posts had an argument, a valid one, behind it which I supported.



And that proves...

I was arguing that I knew more Christians than you know Atheists. As Beanie said, your point would only be a good counter if you went to an Atheist high school.

I never harped on your age. My issue with you was always you being way to harsh on Christianity

[mislead]

A rational framework means that you use reason to achieve your goals, living your life in a reasonable manner. You don't simply follow emotion wherever it takes you, like a fool, off the edge of a cliff.

If reason leads one to a certain religion, it would fit in, although it would twist your life around it since religion would then be the primary motivation, superceding biology. Christian apologetics try to rationalize Christianity. I have talked with some Christians who seriously do so, but too often, people believe out of not even a semblance of rational thought, even if there are apologetics, as I said.

I'm slightly confused about your second paragraph ("But..." implies something contrary, but then your last sentence seems to agree).

Guess I didn't make myself clear enough (which isn't that hard, taking my sucky English into account). I'll try a simplistic comparison then. Take hammers. A hammer is a useful tool, and grants a human wielding it additional capabilities. However, that doesn't mean that we should shape our lives to fit "a framework of hammerness"(whatever the hell that would be).

I'd really like to move this discussion elsewhere, because it's not only offtopic, but also a bit too broad. Or, we can just agree to disagree on the matter.

[Sammy-Jo]

If there are no absolute truths, then that itself is an absolute truth. It is a self-refuting statement.

Well, I'm glad you think what I said was an absolute truth.

But there are those who would be inclined to disagree with you :P.

[Shevek]

Well, I'm glad you think what I said was an absolute truth.

But there are those who would be inclined to disagree with you :P.
What's the difference between an absolute truth and a non-absolute truth?

[Firedraconian]

Well, there are moral truths. I suppose. There are personal truths. Sort of. And I guess religion is, in and of itself, a non-absolute truth...

[Bishop]

What's the difference between an absolute truth and a non-absolute truth?

Pepsi is better than coke cola=non-absolute truth.(Like a majority opinion)

Pepsi is a cola=absolute truth(it's a fact)

[diglossiablues]

Pepsi is better than coke cola=non-absolute truth.(Like a majority opinion)

Pepsi is a cola=absolute truth(it's a fact)

No it's not.

It may be what you can call a fact, but it's not an absolute truth.

What a cola is (rather what it means for something to be a cola), is subject to consensus. It's a cola because the majority of us implicitly agree on a cola having certain qualities - we also agree that pepsi has qualities that make it cola-like enough to be called a cola.

[Firedraconian]

Really, the Pepsi>Coke thing isn't a truth, absolute or otherwise. That you consider one to be better then the other is a truth. That one is better then the other is an opinion. See the difference?

[Shevek]

Pepsi is better than coke cola=non-absolute truth.(Like a majority opinion)

Pepsi is a cola=absolute truth(it's a fact)
Eh, "non-absolute truths" doesn't seem to be truths at all. They're what the dictionary calls "opinions".

[Pareto]

Guess I didn't make myself clear enough (which isn't that hard, taking my sucky English into account). I'll try a simplistic comparison then. Take hammers. A hammer is a useful tool, and grants a human wielding it additional capabilities. However, that doesn't mean that we should shape our lives to fit "a framework of hammerness"(whatever the hell that would be).

I'd really like to move this discussion elsewhere, because it's not only offtopic, but also a bit too broad. Or, we can just agree to disagree on the matter.
Edit: the analogy isn't coming out very well. PMs or a new thread?

Well, I'm glad you think what I said was an absolute truth.

But there are those who would be inclined to disagree with you :P.
I said "If". There are two possibilities:
"There is no objective reality." is true.
"There is an objective reality." is true.

However, if the first is true, it is then false, a lot like the liar's paradox.

[mislead]

Edit: the analogy isn't coming out very well. PMs or a new thread?

A new thread'll probably turn out more productive. A lot of people who name themselves "Atheist" here like to use "rationalism" to justify their beliefs, so discussing what "rationalism" really is, and what are it's limitations, should be pretty interesting. That, and my exam session ends tomorrow, so I'll be able to participate properly.


I said "If". There are two possibilities:
"There is no objective reality." is true.
"There is an objective reality." is true.

However, if the first is true, it is then false, a lot like the liar's paradox.

That's what usually happens if you try to express truthiness of a statement in a language, using that language itself. Whenever you try to to that, Tarski and Godel will rise from their graves and lay the smackdown upon you.

[Pareto]

What has it to do with the words?

[Sammy-Jo]

I said "If". There are two possibilities:
"There is no objective reality." is true.
"There is an objective reality." is true.

However, if the first is true, it is then false, a lot like the liar's paradox.

Hmmm...It's kind of hard to explain what I mean.

It's like, I think the world is just made up of people with different opinions and different reasons for having those opinions, so we can't say any one opinion is the correct one....Or so I think, but what I think is not absolute truth...

...Which contradicts itself again, of course.

Well, whatever. It's an interesting thing to think about, but in the end, it's kind of a waste of time :amuse.

[Pareto]

What you're trying to say is that in all empirical instances, we cannot determine an absolute truth?

[mislead]

Everything. "Truth" is merely a property of words, and describes the relation between statements and "reality".

[Pareto]

But statements derived completely out of logic must be absolutely true.

[Shevek]

Reductio ad decaying Gödelium...

[mislead]

But statements derived completely out of logic must be absolutely true.

You mean tautologies? If so, then "absolutely true" really means "True for all imaginable realities" basically. Still, they're not really interesting, since being universally true only means that they're devoid of any kind of information, and thus irrelevant.

[MartialHorror]

My immature behavior? For how many pages did Christians harp on my age before they even attempted to counter my argument? Whether I acted childishly or not, most of my posts had an argument, a valid one, behind it which I supported.



And that proves...

I was arguing that I knew more Christians than you know Atheists. As Beanie said, your point would only be a good counter if you went to an Atheist high school.


Er, I said I was complaining about how many(if not all) of those atheists backed you up. Christians were also bitching at the other christians who were bringing up age.

Oh, sorry, my bad.

Other person, my comment on God in the OT had nothing to do with his 'godliness', simply that he has a temper. Its pointless to bring up what you consider God to be(or should be) and compare him to the one presented in the Bible.

[martryn]

But statements derived completely out of logic must be absolutely true.

I have serious issues with this statement, but I don't feel like looking up the context of it. This statement, taken alone though, is false.

[Pareto]

Other person, my comment on God in the OT had nothing to do with his 'godliness', simply that he has a temper. Its pointless to bring up what you consider God to be(or should be) and compare him to the one presented in the Bible.
The point trying to be made, I think, is that God's nature as revealed through the Bible and the world appears to be contradictory. Perfection doesn't lend itself to pettiness, for instance.

martryn: I'd like to know how.

[MartialHorror]

The point trying to be made, I think, is that God's nature as revealed through the Bible and the world appears to be contradictory. Perfection doesn't lend itself to pettiness, for instance.

martryn: I'd like to know how.

Please re-explain this. Somehow Gods attitude makes him impefect? In the Bible, God caused lots of death. People automatically attack this when the people he generally destroyed were dangerously stupid and/or evil.

Sodom and Gomorrah were implied to be all rapists and did other terrible things. God gave Egypt like 9 chances before finally unleashing the death plague.Imo, the reason why he did all these things because they were a threat to the future. If one of these places took over the world, who says we would be any different now? Thats generally how a Christian explains it.

[martryn]

martryn: I'd like to know how.

Look back at the ancient Greeks. All they had was logic and they were wrong about a lot of things. Logic alone isn't enough. So nothing completely logical must be absolutely true. Especially in something like physics, where things seem to defy logic all the time.

[mislead]

Look back at the ancient Greeks. All they had was logic and they were wrong about a lot of things. Logic alone isn't enough. So nothing completely logical must be absolutely true. Especially in something like physics, where things seem to defy logic all the time.

I'm really lost on the "all they had was logic" part, care to elaborate?
Aristotlean logic had been replaced over 100 years ago too, mainly by Whitehead and Russel's work.

Also, physics doesn't defy logic, it defies "common sense" - our preconceptions and intuitions about reality. Logic by itself cannot be contradicted by anything empirical, since it claims nothing about "reality" whatsoever.

[Firedraconian]

Logic is limited by our knowledge. If I drop a piece of metal, it would seem logical to me that it would fall. But maybe there's a magnet above me, and it goes up instead. This runs counter to my logic, but it was limited by my lack of knowledge about the magnet. Had I known, it would have seemed logical for it to fly up, as it did.

So while certain things seem logical, they make in fact be illogical, and we simply lack important information.

[mislead]

Logic is limited by our knowledge. If I drop a piece of metal, it would seem logical to me that it would fall. But maybe there's a magnet above me, and it goes up instead. This runs counter to my logic, but it was limited by my lack of knowledge about the magnet. Had I known, it would have seemed logical for it to fly up, as it did.

So while certain things seem logical, they make in fact be illogical, and we simply lack important information.

It would seem that "logic" is another concept that warrants it's own thread, with all these misconceptions floating about.

And no, there is nothing logical about a piece of metal falling. It's simply intuitive - gravity is something completely natural, we expierience it all the time. We do not expect the piece of metal to fall because it's logical, we expect it to fall because it's consistent with how objects have been behaving in the past.

[Pareto]

Please re-explain this. Somehow Gods attitude makes him impefect? In the Bible, God caused lots of death. People automatically attack this when the people he generally destroyed were dangerously stupid and/or evil.

Sodom and Gomorrah were implied to be all rapists and did other terrible things. God gave Egypt like 9 chances before finally unleashing the death plague.Imo, the reason why he did all these things because they were a threat to the future. If one of these places took over the world, who says we would be any different now? Thats generally how a Christian explains it.
Why exactly did he need to kill all of these people? Why not just snap his fingers and make them good? In fact, why not just snap his fingers and eliminate all evil altogether? If God is all good, omnipotent, and omniscient, there should be no evil at all. Any evil is a sign of imperfection.

...
:)

[Sammy-Jo]

Why exactly did he need to kill all of these people? Why not just snap his fingers and make them good? In fact, why not just snap his fingers and eliminate all evil altogether? If God is all good, omnipotent, and omniscient, there should be no evil at all. Any evil is a sign of imperfection.

Well actually, that one's pretty easy to answer.

Answering from the point of view of a theist, god allows for there to be evil in the world so that we know what good is. Good in the case of christianity would be heaven. After all, how would we know that heaven was good if we did not know what was not good?

Besides, again according to the christian religion, god intended for life on earth to be a sort of test, to see if we can resist temptation from all the evils in the world, and ask for forgiveness/repent when we let ourselves give in to these temptations, since humans are not perfect.

It's like preparation for the "next life," which is eternal life in heaven. And if we had not seen and been tempted by evil on earth, how would we know that heaven was good?


Hmm....But I don't believe there is any such thing as pure evil or pure good anyways :amuse.

[Pareto]

God could instill in us the knowledge without our needing to suffer, being omnipotent. And see the "For those who believe..." thread for my response to the other part.

[Char-Aznable]

I feel the need to jump into this little thread. Nice work on it btw nicely thought out. Its true that there is alot of ignorance but hey thats the world right? We Atheists are guilty of it too. I used to think Satanism was worshipping Satan but its not, thats Luciferians (I feel I spelt that wrong). Why should we all hate each other for what we believe/ don't believe in. I just just choose to not care, I get shot down by Christians (ignorant ones not being the Christian community as a whole) for speaking my mind to them. And I being a disgruntled bastard shoot them down because I'm tired of being shot down. All this does is cycle ignorance and spite. So why can't we all just stop? Pride? Stupidity?

Awaiting MartialHorror's snappy rebuttal.

[Insipidipity]

I'm a bit behind, but I'll discuss some of the earlie points I didn't really see touched upon.

I think this was a pretty good description on how the "ideal" Atheists should be.

While I agree most theists generalize like this(often including me) this is simply an ideal version of how an Atheist see's himself.

Just like how an ideal Christian would be.....well, Christ-like.
There's nothing "ideal" about the description whatsoever. It is a generalization. What has been said is no different from saying:
Misconception: Christians are Protestant.
That is noit an idealization, that is a truth. There is no equivalence nor implication in the claim At the same time, there is no claim of mutual exclusion. A Christian can be Protestant and an athiest can worship Satan, but neither are intrinsic parts of Christianity or atheism.

The analogy is flawed. You might as well say an ideal Christian is someone who believes Christ existed. There is nothing ideal about that, that is simply a generalization that seeks avoid attributing any specific attributes of a particular branch of Christianity as an intrinsic part of Christianity itself.

On the other hand, atheism is a single characteristic, thus is has a much wider range of flexibility than any system of beliefs will ever have such as any religion and thus you will see a far greater range of them and thus the generalizations are generally nonsense.

2) The difference between an asshole Atheist and an asshole Christian is that the asshole Christian will be shot down by another Christian.
That's simply because your "asshole atheists" are pretty much the only ones who give enough of a shit about it and generally explicit atheists enough to actually speak. The only atheists that care enough to speak out against them are other "asshole atheists" so it's not going to be a noticeable phenomenon.

An atheist in of itself is very different from a member of religion. A Christian may want to avoid a bad appearance of their religion whereas an atheist generally does not group himself with other atheists under some blanket of atheism. Atheism is such a broad range of people that most simply have no motivation to speak up.

-----------

And furthermore, what's the deal with all this crap I keep seeing people pull about communists being atheists therefore atheists do bad? Communists don't act for the sake of atheism, they do it for the sake of communism. Practically nobody is going to fight for a cause they DONT have beliefs in....

On top of that practically no group calling themselves communist has ever been truly communist yet people are willing to make generalizations about communists based on them yet argue the actions of those who do act in the name of certain religions aren't truly of that religion. China and Russia weren't really communists but we judged them as so. Defend a Communist and you will be an outcast in most of society. Defend a Christian and you'll be heralded by many.

And finally, people speak of communists doing bad so that excuses religious groups? IIRC, "communist Russia" got quashed during the Cold War.

So cut the references to Communism...It's nonsense on so many fronts.

*When I say religious groups, I mean certain ones, not all of them, I'm a religious person myself and I make a point not to generalize all religions, but that doesn't mean that there's never been a religious group that's misbehaved.

[Trias]

Interesting. Some people think "evil" as "imperfection". Such a humanistic way of thinking.

"If it allows evil it can't be omnipotent or perfect" is no better than "We are here so God is obviously there" argument (which, unlike many would like to understand as if I am, I am not trying to defend), in my humble opinion.

Insipidipity / I think the problem about Communism is, that, as you've pointed out, Communism was failed to be adjusted into communities that tried it; Russia and China. That was not communism at all. Even though I think it's far from perfect, a properly adjusted and practiced communism is VASTLY different from what people perceive as communism.

Though main problem is, those two countries called themselves communists too, and nothing's better than getting infamous by yourself when it comes to getting infamous.

People generally use the word "communism" as the "failed communism" that Russia and China tried to adjust, because they simply don't know about the idea of communism and Russia & China didn't do any help at all, nor did the US Cold War Propoganda.

Many people think "oh, that's not so bad?" when you explain idea of communism to them, even when they were shouting you "communist scum" a minute ago. Seeing how different the communism they know and the real one is. I'm not a communist (in the real meaning or the image one) but still, I find it amusing that people misperceive idea of communism.

And, "Communism = Atheism thus Atheism is bad" is such a retarded thing, because;

a) Communism is not as bad as you think
b) It's no better than saying "Christianity = Crusaders thus Christianity is bad" or "Al Queda = Islam thus Islam is bad"

When a belief (or non-belief, if you like to define it as that) or ideal is adjusted differently than it should've been, it's a retarted thing to blame the belief or ideal itself there.

In Russia and China examples, both Communism and Atheism was adjusted in a wrong way. Well... Anyone who knows the real concept of communism knows how idea of Communism was adjusted in a wrong way, but I guess I'd need to explain Atheism.

I think pretty much most of the atheists would agree that, concept of blindly following a belief or ideal is not within the borders of logic, and a child having the same religion as their parents or people being forced to believe in something, is unacceptable as well.

Though, the failed adaptations of Communism pretty much done the same thing, spreading atheism as a goverment policy, which, pretty much, contrasts with logic and freedom of atheism itself.

That's why it's retarted to say either Communism or Atheism is bad because China and Russia were failed examples; neither Communism nor Atheism were adjusted as how they should've been, in those examples.

[Pareto]

Interesting. Some people think "evil" as "imperfection". Such a humanistic way of thinking.
It is an imperfection if God is supposed to be all-good.

[Bishop]

No such thing as good and evil. No such thing as Evil. Give me an example of evil and I'll break it down

[martryn]

It is an imperfection if God is supposed to be all-good.

God is supposed to be all everything. He encompasses the infinite. Comprehending the nature of God is impossible. By very definition God is perfect and is lacking in nothing.

How did this thread get railroaded into a disprove God thread?

[Giovanni Rild]

No such thing as good and evil. No such thing as Evil. Give me an example of evil and I'll break it down

Hitler, Grigori Rasputin, Saddam Hussein, Pol Pot, Joseph Stalin, Caligula.

[Trias]

It is an imperfection if God is supposed to be all-good.

He is not supposed to be like that, as far as I know, in all mono-theistic religions.

What I'm trying to say here is though, if you're trying to disprove God, do it in a logical way, if you say such a thing, it's like saying "I'd believe in god... but I don't believe in god just because there are evil things and god can destroy evil things if he's omnipotent... thus there's no god" which is illogical at best.

Because if God does indeed exist, its logic or motivations can't be understood by human minds, which would mean that argument is not valid. If God doesn't exist... what's the point of arguing about whether he's good or not?

In both cases, that's not a good way when trying to disprove God, and all I'm saying you should use one that other person can't simply say "no, God isn't" but actually think over it.

[Pareto]

No such thing as good and evil. No such thing as Evil. Give me an example of evil and I'll break it down
I'm not sure what you mean, but I used evil as a catch-all. I could perhaps amend it to pain and suffering or something.

Comprehending the nature of God is impossible.
So how are so many people sure they know what God wants?

He is not supposed to be like that, as far as I know, in all mono-theistic religions.
Fair enough, but I'm not trying to disprove the existence of all gods. As I said a while back, I'm a weak atheist in general, but a strong atheist with respect to certain gods. In this case, discussion is about the Judeochristian God, who is supposed to be omnibenevolent. Trying to disprove all possible gods would be a futile affair.

[martryn]

So how are so many people sure they know what God wants?

What do you mean? Other than the things he's told us he wants? We can't.

[Pareto]

Unless he speaks to the entire world, I'm disinclined to think we know what he wants, since it seems to vary with every person you ask.

Edit: and see below.

[Insipidipity]

What do you mean? Other than the things he's told us he wants? We can't.
Assuming "the things he's told us he wants" is really "what he wants" is an attempt to "comprehend the nature of God". For all you know, your god could say the opposite of what he means...

I don't think people really understand the ramifications of such claims as "we can't understand God's nature" or "God is beyond logic". It makes any posits about him unsupported, even claims of the existence of something which you can't understand the nature of is an attempt to understand the nature and bounded by human's ability to know.

[Sammy-Jo]

God could instill in us the knowledge without our needing to suffer, being omnipotent.

If we assumed that good and evil existed and that it was possible to "know" both of them, then if god instilled this knowledge within us, we'd already know everything, thus making life on earth pointless.

If he had chosen to instill us with this knowledge, we'd all be in heaven right now with the knowledge that it was good, because we would have a knowledge of evil.

Again, assuming that a god existed, the very fact that we exist on this earth, and it is supposedly all according to his plan, proves that he had a plan in mind, if he created us and the earth for a purpose.

Or, maybe he was just bored.

It is an imperfection if God is supposed to be all-good.

But you are a human. How should you know what the gods should do if they are supposed to be all-good? Why is your idea of all-good or all-evil correct? How would you be able to comprehend what the "right" thing to do is?

[MartialHorror]

Why exactly did he need to kill all of these people? Why not just snap his fingers and make them good? In fact, why not just snap his fingers and eliminate all evil altogether? If God is all good, omnipotent, and omniscient, there should be no evil at all. Any evil is a sign of imperfection.


:)

Evil was brought in my imperfect beings, not God. First off, you are presuming evil is a sign of imperfection. That REALLY depends on how you view to two and really dont even have to do anything with eachother.

if God exists and is all powerful, but is evil, he is still perfection. He's just evil.

Once again you are assuming how you view God should be the same as how the Bible describes him. I wish my parents were wealthy and never yelled at me. But I got the opposite. Hence, God isn't how you wish him to be. If I could choose how he would be, I'd say the same thing. But reality and idealism are two different things.

Anyway, God seems to have put himself in a "Balanced situation", letting good or evil to co-exist while not letting one dominate the other. He can make himself known to many, but it doesn't always work.

Moses showed Gods power, but did the Egyptians recognize it as such? While Paul saw Christ and did convert. Even if Exodus is entirely fiction, the point is how even though seeing him in his glory, people will reject him anyway in the religions.

Why doesn't he just snap his fingers? Because he's giving us the choice. Like the spoiled little brats, we want everything done for us I guess.....

lol, Char-Aznable, my issue with you is that you don't voice your opinion, you act like a total asshole. You make DarkAdonis look like Ghandi........

[Firedraconian]

If the gods created everything, they created evil.

Descartes broke down the perfection/evil thing. If I'm recalling my studies correctly, perfection is having all traits maxed out, so to speak. Thus, being all powerful is more 'perfect' then just being powerful. Being all knowing is more 'perfect' then just having knowledge, and so forth. Descartes proposed that 'good' is a positive, whereas 'evil' is merely the absence of 'good'. Therefore, a perfect god cannot be evil, as the lack of goodness is an imperfection.

Besides the illogical reasoning in the gods being unwilling to assert their existence because it didn't work in the past, skepticism is not a bad thing. If I hear a voice in my head that says she's Elune, goddess of the moon, and that I should worship her, it's not necessarily the voice of a god. I might just be insane from playing too much World of Warcraft.

Spoiled little brats? Yes, let's use that analogy. Because everyone knows that a father who spawns a bunch of kids, wanders off, returns only to beat them when they do bad things, and otherwise lets them hurt themselves, fight each other, and kill each other while watching and doing nothing.... is just trying not to raise spoiled children. Apparently, heaven forbid anyone takes responsibility for their own creations.

[Pareto]

If we assumed that good and evil existed and that it was possible to "know" both of them, then if god instilled this knowledge within us, we'd already know everything, thus making life on earth pointless.

If he had chosen to instill us with this knowledge, we'd all be in heaven right now with the knowledge that it was good, because we would have a knowledge of evil.
Something like that (though the question of why he'd even bother to make us is something else).

Again, assuming that a god existed, the very fact that we exist on this earth, and it is supposedly all according to his plan, proves that he had a plan in mind, if he created us and the earth for a purpose.
A plan which defies all sense.

But you are a human. How should you know what the gods should do if they are supposed to be all-good? Why is your idea of all-good or all-evil correct? How would you be able to comprehend what the "right" thing to do is?
We can derive morality independent of a god. This is why people treat slavery and misogyny as bad things despite their permeative nature in the Bible.

Evil was brought in my imperfect beings, not God. First off, you are presuming evil is a sign of imperfection. That REALLY depends on how you view to two and really dont even have to do anything with eachother.

if God exists and is all powerful, but is evil, he is still perfection. He's just evil.
See FD's post.

As well, even assuming something can be perfect and perfectly evil, the omnibenevolent trait (plus omnipotence and omniscience) entails that there be no such evil.

I wish my parents were wealthy and never yelled at me. But I got the opposite. Hence, God isn't how you wish him to be. If I could choose how he would be, I'd say the same thing. But reality and idealism are two different things.
I'm not sure where you get off telling me this.

Anyway, God seems to have put himself in a "Balanced situation", letting good or evil to co-exist while not letting one dominate the other. He can make himself known to many, but it doesn't always work.

Moses showed Gods power, but did the Egyptians recognize it as such? While Paul saw Christ and did convert. Even if Exodus is entirely fiction, the point is how even though seeing him in his glory, people will reject him anyway in the religions.
This puts something of a hamper on the omnipotence area.

Why doesn't he just snap his fingers? Because he's giving us the choice. Like the spoiled little brats, we want everything done for us I guess.....
Considering he put us in this crappy situation...(see "For those who..." thread).

[Giovanni Rild]

If the gods created everything, they created evil.

Descartes broke down the perfection/evil thing. If I'm recalling my studies correctly, perfection is having all traits maxed out, so to speak. Thus, being all powerful is more 'perfect' then just being powerful. Being all knowing is more 'perfect' then just having knowledge, and so forth. Descartes proposed that 'good' is a positive, whereas 'evil' is merely the absence of 'good'. Therefore, a perfect god cannot be evil, as the lack of goodness is an imperfection.

Besides the illogical reasoning in the gods being unwilling to assert their existence because it didn't work in the past, skepticism is not a bad thing. If I hear a voice in my head that says she's Elune, goddess of the moon, and that I should worship her, it's not necessarily the voice of a god. I might just be insane from playing too much World of Warcraft.

Spoiled little brats? Yes, let's use that analogy. Because everyone knows that a father who spawns a bunch of kids, wanders off, returns only to beat them when they do bad things, and otherwise lets them hurt themselves, fight each other, and kill each other while watching and doing nothing.... is just trying not to raise spoiled children. Apparently, heaven forbid anyone takes responsibility for their own creations.

Free will. Remember that. If God forced people to not sin, it would just be plain mind control

[Pareto]

"The doubter says:

"I could never follow Stalin. He puts people in the Gulag."

That is what doubters tell themselves to rationalize their rejection of
Stalin. But the truth is that Stalin does not send anyone to the Gulag.
It is those who have hardened their hearts against him who send
themselves to the Gulag through their bourgoise attitudes and
counterrevolutionary actions. This was not Stalin's plan at all. He
truly wants everyone to go the Worker's Paradise. And it grieves him
that so many harden their hearts against him. But he will not force
anyone into the Worker's Paradise against their wishes, he respects
their free will.

So if you don't want to go to the Gulag, just open your heart to the
love of Stalin. And stop resisting him."
What a terrific fellow. (http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/a452cb8d34a6ffe4)

[Dionysus]

Hm. I've never experienced discrimination based on being agnostic (one and the same, to some, with atheism). It highly depends on the country. I'm sure that's come up.

Anyways, rates of "no religion" are rising in this country and all hell isn't breaking loose. Of course, there are differences in what is a moral action. But, hell, we're essentially talking about cultural differences.

I also hear a lot (specifically here) about altheists being rude or are assholes. Again, I haven't noticed anymore assholism in the atheism camp in Canada, but one explanation, if this phenomenon exists elsewhere, is defensiveness. If people are so distrustful and discriminatory towards atheists, I'd imagine the number of people on soapboxes screaming "god is dead" would be higher than in a more tolerant setting.

Discrimination breeds activism. (And anger, and lots of other things.)

[Giovanni Rild]

"The doubter says:

"I could never follow Stalin. He puts people in the Gulag."

That is what doubters tell themselves to rationalize their rejection of
Stalin. But the truth is that Stalin does not send anyone to the Gulag.
It is those who have hardened their hearts against him who send
themselves to the Gulag through their bourgoise attitudes and
counterrevolutionary actions. This was not Stalin's plan at all. He
truly wants everyone to go the Worker's Paradise. And it grieves him
that so many harden their hearts against him. But he will not force
anyone into the Worker's Paradise against their wishes, he respects
their free will.

So if you don't want to go to the Gulag, just open your heart to the
love of Stalin. And stop resisting him."
What a terrific fellow. (http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/a452cb8d34a6ffe4)

I find your comparison of God to Stalin disgusting.

[Sammy-Jo]

Something like that (though the question of why he'd even bother to make us is something else).

Well, yes. But, we'd have to assume that we as humans could not ever understand something like that.

A plan which defies all sense.

You merely have the sense of a human, so you could not possibly comprehend the gods or deem their actions as sensible or not :P.

We can derive morality independent of a god. This is why people treat slavery and misogyny as bad things despite their permeative nature in the Bible.

Many theists would beg to differ on that one. They'd tell you that our morality comes from god, and that we need religion to give us our morals.

Scary, that there are people who think that way. But, if a god had created us, then we'd have to assume that he'd have the power to bestow morality upon us, and make it so that we could not be moral without him.


Edit: I like your comparison of god to Stalin :P.

[martryn]

Assuming "the things he's told us he wants" is really "what he wants" is an attempt to "comprehend the nature of God". For all you know, your god could say the opposite of what he means...

And for all you know my shit could smell like roses. Great argument there. I go with what I know from faith. Other than that, I don't dwell on it.

Spoiled little brats? Yes, let's use that analogy. Because everyone knows that a father who spawns a bunch of kids, wanders off, returns only to beat them when they do bad things, and otherwise lets them hurt themselves, fight each other, and kill each other while watching and doing nothing.... is just trying not to raise spoiled children. Apparently, heaven forbid anyone takes responsibility for their own creations.

God has a purpose for what he does. He is thinning out the population of those that have faith and those that don't. It's just about the only way he can without taking our free will.

A plan which defies all sense.

Exactly. We're not meant to understand God's plan entirely because we're not God. It's rather cocky of us to assume we can fathom what God has in store for us. I think Insi... whatever, said something to that same effect. Though I think he's on the other side of the argument.

As well, even assuming something can be perfect and perfectly evil, the omnibenevolent trait (plus omnipotence and omniscience) entails that there be no such evil.

And we need to define evil here. What makes someone evil, and does God do these things, is God even capable of doing these things, that would make him evil? Is evil... murder? Stealing? Lying? God destroys, but he creates. he can't really murder something that he created. And we're not talking parent and child, as in that analogy the child grows to become the parent, which we shall not. We're talking more computer programs. It's not murder if we delete a program we've written, is it? Can God steal, given that all belongs in his domain anyway? Has he ever had need of lying?

This puts something of a hamper on the omnipotence area.

There's one, and then there's the other. I liked the way they described it in Bruce Almighty. Free Will encompasses alot.

Considering he put us in this crappy situation...(see "For those who..." thread).

He put us in Eden. We're the ones who fucked up. We're the ones that keep fucking up. Can we blame God for our own inability to be good? He gave us the free will to be good, but can we just be good people?

[trunks_lover29]

Fair enough, but I'm not trying to disprove the existence of all gods. As I said a while back, I'm a weak atheist in general, but a strong atheist with respect to certain gods. In this case, discussion is about the Judeochristian God, who is supposed to be omnibenevolent. Trying to disprove all possible gods would be a futile affair.

Personally I'm inclined to believe that all religions are inherently the same and everyone is just worshiping a different version of the Divine. At their cores all religions want the same thing (with the exception of psedo-religions such as Satanism) and that is to treat others well, live in harmony and thus reach heaven/englightenment. When people loose sight of this they begin to nitpick at all the things that makes other religions different than theirs...then trouble breaks loose.

Hm. I've never experienced discrimination based on being agnostic (one and the same, to some, with atheism). It highly depends on the country. I'm sure that's come up.

Anyways, rates of "no religion" are rising in this country and all hell isn't breaking loose. Of course, there are differences in what is a moral action. But, hell, we're essentially talking about cultural differences.

I also hear a lot (specifically here) about altheists being rude or are assholes. Again, I haven't noticed anymore assholism in the atheism camp in Canada, but one explanation, if this phenomenon exists elsewhere, is defensiveness. If people are so distrustful and discriminatory towards atheists, I'd imagine the number of people on soapboxes screaming "god is dead" would be higher than in a more tolerant setting.

Discrimination breeds activism. (And anger, and lots of other things.)

About 20% of the worlds population are aethiest, and I can't say that I've met an aethiest that was any meaner/more disrespectful than some of the Christians that I have met.

I did a study on campus once and found that there were more Christians from the previous generation than my own, but I found that the previous generation was less likely to pray than my own. Interesting tidbit to think about.

[Giovanni Rild]

Well, yes. But, we'd have to assume that we as humans could not ever understand something like that.



You merely have the sense of a human, so you could not possibly comprehend the gods or deem their actions as sensible or not :P.



Many theists would beg to differ on that one. They'd tell you that our morality comes from god, and that we need religion to give us our morals.

Scary, that there are people who think that way. But, if a god had created us, then we'd have to assume that he'd have the power to bestow morality upon us, and make it so that we could not be moral without him.


Edit: I like your comparison of god to Stalin :P.

This is why the two groups don't get along.

[Ishin Shishi]

This has been an interesting read. I commend Beanie for making such a lucid and well thought out post. Without giving much heed to semantics, I'd say I'm an atheist. I've definitely been a victim of all those misconceptions (as labeled by Beanie) from time to time. I can also safely say that I pretty much corroborate everything Beanie mentioned.

I was born a Hindu (You're most likely to be born a Hindu because Hinduism doesn't concern itself with turning people to Hinduism, i.e. religious conversions, etc). My mother is very religious, and my father is kind of religious. So I guess I was brought up in a semi-religious environment. However, my parents never enforced religion on me.... something I only realised fairly recently. My Dad would often tell me stories from the Mahabharata or Ramayana (both are Hindu holy scriptures) and enjoyed them. In fact, IMO this stuff would make awesome anime/manga! The funny thing is, my Dad never told me those stories in a religious context, but for my amusement. Like all holy books, they're pretty much stories that try to impart wisdom/morals, whatever you want to call it.

I also went to a catholic school which was a lot of fun. It was extremely secular and there was no effort made by the school to push Christianity. Somewhere along the way (I was probably 13 or so), I pretty much decided that I do not believe in God. Initially, I guess it was science and rationality that brought me to that decision. I willingly accept that such reasoning is far from being infallible, and my thoughts on the matter have changed over the years. The only thing that hasn't changed is that I still absolutely do not embrace God.

In short, there was no real trigger for me to become an atheist. It's not because I had a bad experience with religion or God or anything like that. My thoughts on the matter were decided by me, and I definitely do not identify myself as a part of a group (Although, unfortunately, the term "atheist" is used to refer to a group.) I also have morals I live by, and these coincide with a lot of religious teachings. In fact, I'd say I'm more moral (I realise this term is subjective) than the average person. It really isn't true that religion is the only way to become a good person, or be happy.

Some things I'd like to address on this thread:
MartialHorror said, and I paraphrase, "When atheists spew garbage on threads, other atheists do not condemn their behavior. Christians on the other hand make sure they check such behavior by fellow Christians."

This, in all likelihood, has to do with the fact that atheists don't see themselves as being a part of a group. I would presume that at least. I certainly don't. Atheists aren't really representing anything. If I see an asshole atheist, I think, "idiot" and move on. I definitely do not think, "Oh, my God! This jerk is violating the sanctity of atheism!!" or "Tsk-tsk... this is not how an atheist must behave." There's nothing that ties me to other atheists. The fact that most atheism isn't organized means it doesn't even meet the criteria for generalizations.

@MisleadSun - IMHO, atheism and anti-theism can never be mutually exclusive. For example, if any atheist was attacked by a theist for not believing in God, the atheist will invariably make anti-theistic comments to defend himself. I would for sure. It's not possible to be an atheist without having anti-theistic thoughts. It's impossible to believe in something and at the same time embrace something that contradicts your belief. Whether you're vocal about them or not is another matter.
On the other hand, I would often partake in religious ceremonies to keep my folks happy. I did not embrace God, but I was essentially being anti-antitheistic. So I am capable of being anti-theistic and not.

Some thoughts on Christians...

Well, I don't know how many Christians are this way, but I really really hate it when they try and cajole me into turning to Christianity. They do it with irritating frequency, too. It's extremely disrespectful and extremely arrogant. Why not accept me the way I am? It also annoys me when Christians say, "I accept all people, even people who don't believe in God. (but I do feel sorry for them..)"
What in hell is that? If Christians are flabbergasted about why so many atheists are assholes to them, I'm pretty sure this is exactly why. If you didn't judge the "non-believers" you'd have a lot less people judging you.

[Pareto]

I go with what I know from faith.
Well there's your problem.

Exactly. We're not meant to understand God's plan entirely because we're not God. It's rather cocky of us to assume we can fathom what God has in store for us. I think Insi... whatever, said something to that same effect. Though I think he's on the other side of the argument.
And if God is playing one hell of a trick? Maybe he wants to devour our souls in the afterlife, and turn us into donkeys.

And we need to define evil here. What makes someone evil, and does God do these things, is God even capable of doing these things, that would make him evil? Is evil... murder? Stealing? Lying? God destroys, but he creates. he can't really murder something that he created. And we're not talking parent and child, as in that analogy the child grows to become the parent, which we shall not. We're talking more computer programs. It's not murder if we delete a program we've written, is it? Can God steal, given that all belongs in his domain anyway? Has he ever had need of lying?
Yes, that's all we are - computer programs, doing exactly what God made us do.

He put us in Eden. We're the ones who fucked up. We're the ones that keep fucking up. Can we blame God for our own inability to be good? He gave us the free will to be good, but can we just be good people?
The other thread is already in this discussion.

As to your neg rep, words fail me.



I find your comparison of God to Stalin disgusting.
I find your God disgusting.


Well, actually I find him nonexistant, but that doesn't quite have the same ring.

[martryn]

Well there's your problem.

Actually, it's my solution. Faith has never caused any problems before, and has helped me out in the past.

And if God is playing one hell of a trick? Maybe he wants to devour our souls in the afterlife, and turn us into donkeys.

I'll take my chances, thanks. I mean, if I'm right and you're wrong, then I have an afterlife in heaven and you'll be in hell. If you're right and I'm wrong, we're both going to burn.

Yes, that's all we are - computer programs, doing exactly what God made us do.

In a way, yeah, we are. I mean, our intellect and comprehension is nothing compared to God's. Though God gave us free will, so we're a little more advanced than computer programs of today.

As to your neg rep, words fail me.

Don't call my God disgusting. I'm sorry, but that's hella offensive and marks you as one of the asshole atheists that MartialHorror was talking about. I don't see the "religious" people in the thread being insulting to you atheists, so I don't see why you feel you have any right to insult us and our believes. Believe what you want, we're not trying to actively convert you, we're simply responding to your inquiry, giving you our point of view. Damn.

[Giovanni Rild]

Well there's your problem.


And if God is playing one hell of a trick? Maybe he wants to devour our souls in the afterlife, and turn us into donkeys.


Yes, that's all we are - computer programs, doing exactly what God made us do.


The other thread is already in this discussion.

As to your neg rep, words fail me.



I find your God disgusting.


Well, actually I find him nonexistant, but that doesn't quite have the same ring.
Intolerant jerks like you cause wars, not religion.

[Adonis]

Intolerant jerks like you cause wars, not religion.

Not to instigate but you never countered his God=Stalin comment. You simply stated your disgust at it.

[Giovanni Rild]

Not to instigate but you never countered his God=Stalin comment. You simply stated your disgust at it.

There's nothing to counter. Stalin was a damn dictator. He didn't value human lives. He was a monster.

Anybody not on the pipe can tell that Pareto is anti-Christian.

[DragonJ]

Intolerant jerks like you cause wars, not religion.

"It's not God that irks me, I just can't stand his fan club."

There's nothing to counter. Stalin was a damn dictator. He didn't value human lives. He was a monster.

As opposed to the Old Testament God?

[Adonis]

There's nothing to counter. Stalin was a damn dictator. He didn't value human lives. He was a monster.

Anybody not on the pipe can tell that Pareto is anti-Christian.

His being anti-Christian is irrelevant.

He made an argument that God is comparable to Stalin, which is a more valid argument than you think, and you made no attempt to refute it.

[Giovanni Rild]

His being anti-Christian is irrelevant.

He made an argument that God is comparable to Stalin, which is a more valid argument than you think, and you made no attempt to refute it.


Because it's bullshit to say the least.

If someone told me elephants can take off and fly, I would not have to disprove them as that is complete nonsense.

[DragonJ]

Because it's bullshit to say the least.

If someone told me elephants can take off and fly, I would not have to disprove them as that is complete nonsense.

No, not really.

The Old Testament God seems like a monster to me. He also doesn't seem like he values human lives very much, and his laws are basically that of a dictator.

[Pareto]

Actually, it's my solution. Faith has never caused any problems before, and has helped me out in the past.
Good for you :) Hey, I don't wish you'd die or anything. Honestly. (Yes, honestly.)

I'll take my chances, thanks. I mean, if I'm right and you're wrong, then I have an afterlife in heaven and you'll be in hell. If you're right and I'm wrong, we're both going to burn.
Oh dear. Pascal's Wager.

If we're both wrong, maybe I'll go to a heaven and you'll burn in hell. See, the problem is that you assume only your God is possible - it is a false dichotomy between your God and no Gods.

Intolerant jerks like you cause wars, not religion.
Patently false. War is complex and may arise from a multitude of factors and circumstances. If you're talking about, say, cultural genocide or what have you, still patently false: I hold that each person has the right to life and liberty, and one has no right to infringe upon another person's rights; genocide is clearly in violation of this.

Don't call my God disgusting. I'm sorry, but that's hella offensive and marks you as one of the asshole atheists that MartialHorror was talking about. I don't see the "religious" people in the thread being insulting to you atheists, so I don't see why you feel you have any right to insult us and our believes. Believe what you want, we're not trying to actively convert you, we're simply responding to your inquiry, giving you our point of view. Damn.

Are you not intolerant of bigotry? So too am I intolerant of other forms of irrationality, and I am well justified in doing so. I may very well seem rude right now, and I certainly can get angry, but is this not natural when one sees truth and reason slandered, a crime against all of humanity, an egregious sin committed? But that is the least of it. Truly, it gets my goat when theft continues unabated and even encouraged by its victims who don't know any better, when individuals are dying from hindrances to science, when innocent children are outright slaughtered in the name of some god or another. What good person can stand it?

I am a rationalist, a skeptic, and an atheist. I wish that there existed an all-loving, all-caring, all-powerful being - God knows the world could use it. But the world itself refutes this, every time a person cries out with intolerable pain, endures unbelievable suffering, and dies a horrible death. And every moment, every thought, every wisp of energy spent praising a being who would let this happen is one not spent on people, people who need it infinitely more than an all-powerful entity; it is one spent on worshipping Cruelty incarnate. And it is outrageous.


I hope, Indignation, you take your own advice.

[Giovanni Rild]

Good for you :) Hey, I don't wish you'd die or anything. Honestly. (Yes, honestly.)


Oh dear. Pascal's Wager.

If we're both wrong, maybe I'll go to a heaven and you'll burn in hell. See, the problem is that you assume only your God is possible - it is a false dichotomy between your God and no Gods.


Patently false. War is complex and may arise from a multitude of factors and circumstances. If you're talking about, say, cultural genocide or what have you, still patently false: I hold that each person has the right to life and liberty, and one has no right to infringe upon another person's rights; genocide is clearly in violation of this.



Are you not intolerant of bigotry? So too am I intolerant of other forms of irrationality, and I am well justified in doing so. I may very well seem rude right now, and I certainly can get angry, but is this not natural when one sees truth and reason slandered, a crime against all of humanity, an egregious sin committed? But that is the least of it. Truly, it gets my goat when theft continues unabated and even encouraged by its victims who don't know any better, when individuals are dying from hindrances to science, when innocent children are outright slaughtered in the name of some god or another. What good person can stand it?

I am a rationalist, a skeptic, and an atheist. I wish that there existed an all-loving, all-caring, all-powerful being - God knows the world could use it. But the world itself refutes this, every time a person cries out with intolerable pain, endures unbelievable suffering, and dies a horrible death. And every moment, every thought, every wisp of energy spent praising a being who would let this happen is one not spent on people, people who need it infinitely more than an all-powerful entity; it is one spent on worshipping Cruelty incarnate. And it is outrageous.


I hope, Indignation, you take your own advice.

People like you irritate me. The very definition of someone anti-religion. Some who blames religion for all the problems in the world.

I didn't kill anybody, I didn't inflict suffering on anybody, I never forced my religion on anybody, I never committed a crime against humanity.

So please stop blaming My damn religion for the world's problems. I won't deny that they were bad people involved in my religion, but they shouldn't define the rest of us.

They are bad apples in every tree.

Your indignation is unjustified. I'm fucking tired of people of people like you blaming a entire culture for th sins of a few.

If a atheist serial killer started killing a whole mess of people that was religious, I wouldn't start saying all atheists are killers.

You are wrong

[cygnus]

hahaha......religious debate is an oxymoron....

[Giovanni Rild]

hahaha......religious debate is an oxymoron....

As long as people has squat for respect, this will go on forever.

[martryn]

Not to instigate but you never countered his God=Stalin comment.

God is not Stalin. Where's the comparison coming from? I mean, I could write a book in the ways God and Stalin are different.

The Old Testament God seems like a monster to me. He also doesn't seem like he values human lives very much, and his laws are basically that of a dictator.

Give an example of this. And then tell me how God isn't justified to do whatever the hell he wants since he's God!

If we're both wrong, maybe I'll go to a heaven and you'll burn in hell. See, the problem is that you assume only your God is possible - it is a false dichotomy between your God and no Gods.

But I have faith that I'm not wrong. You honestly don't believe there is any way you're going to heaven, mainly because you don't think heaven exists.

but is this not natural when one sees truth and reason slandered, a crime against all of humanity, an egregious sin committed?

What are you talking about? More people believe in something that can't be proved than disbelieve it. How is this a crime against humanity, to have faith in God, when more than half of the world's population worship him? God is part of society, and a part of what makes us human.

Truly, it gets my goat when theft continues unabated and even encouraged by its victims who don't know any better, when individuals are dying from hindrances to science

What are you talking about? Don't try to sound smart, don't try to dress your words, just spit out specifics of what you mean. I could go ahead and make a list of the world's evils too and then lay the blame on non-Christians, but I shan't, as it's not anything one group can own up to.

when innocent children are outright slaughtered in the name of some god or another.

Is this a bash against Islam? Seems to me you're referring to radical Muslims. Great, stereotyping the entire religion? For all I say about Islam in other threads, they still worship the same God as I, and they still preach a message of peace. What the radicals do in the name of Islam is not God's fault.

But the world itself refutes this, every time a person cries out with intolerable pain, endures unbelievable suffering, and dies a horrible death.

Read the Book of Job.

And every moment, every thought, every wisp of energy spent praising a being who would let this happen is one not spent on people, people who need it infinitely more than an all-powerful entity; it is one spent on worshipping Cruelty incarnate. And it is outrageous.

The divine machinations are nothing we can understand, as I and others have been saying all along. God is not letting people suffer, he's letting our life's play out. He is testing our faith and our resolve. Instead of looking at all the evils in the world, of the sickness, and the hunger, first look at what causes it. Sometimes illnesses are our own damn fault. Hunger most certainly is a plight of humanity. Perhaps these are things that must happen to set some sort of cosmic stage. It's not God's fault if you touched a hot stove as a child, as that experience teaches you. Perhaps we're being taught. I don't know.

So now we're all supposed to be these great humanitarians? Huh? I can assure you, churches give back to the community. Look at your own life and tell me the things you've done since you have all this time you saved from not praising God. List all the things various atheists have done for humanities good, and then compare that to a list of things done in God's name, or by Christians, Jews, or Muslims.

[Pareto]

People like you irritate me. The very definition of someone anti-religion. Some who blames religion for all the problems in the world.
I certainly realize that if religion was simply wiped out today, the world would hardly be a utopia. As I've said before, the root is the issue.

I didn't kill anybody, I didn't inflict suffering on anybody, I never forced my religion on anybody, I never committed a crime against humanity.
In rejecting reason, you contribute to the problem. (Though if you've come to your religion by way of reason, I'd like to hear it.)

So please stop blaming My damn religion for the world's problems. I won't deny that they were bad people involved in my religion, but they shouldn't define the rest of us.

They are bad apples in every tree.

Your indignation is unjustified. I'm fucking tired of people of people like you blaming a entire culture for th sins of a few.

If a atheist serial killer started killing a whole mess of people that was religious, I wouldn't start saying all atheists are killers.

You are wrong
I didn't simply say "christianity is teh devil!!111". I didn't say all religious people go out on murdering sprees. I fully realize that they are often very nice and well-intentioned people. I did say that such irrationality being mainstream is a problem. The widespread acceptance of faith allows many ills to persist and fester.

[Giovanni Rild]

I certainly realize that if religion was simply wiped out today, the world would hardly be a utopia. As I've said before, the root is the issue.


In rejecting reason, you contribute to the problem. (Though if you've come to your religion by way of reason, I'd like to hear it.)


I didn't simply say "christianity is teh devil!!111". I didn't say all religious people go out on murdering sprees. I fully realize that they are often very nice and well-intentioned people. I did say that such irrationality being mainstream is a problem. The widespread acceptance of faith allows many ills to persist and fester.

You sound like a dictator.

[martryn]

In rejecting reason, you contribute to the problem.

What problem? I don't see what you're referring to as the problem being.

I did say that such irrationality being mainstream is a problem. The widespread acceptance of faith allows many ills to persist and fester.

How is it irrational to believe in a higher power? When has there been a time when religion was NOT around and prevalent? How is having faith a contribution to the ills of the world? Where do you get off on this stuff?

[OniTasku]

Ah, the never-ending animosity between Christians and Atheists/Agnostics. Really, I don't get it. Being an agnostic myself, I thought it was one of the common values to really not hold much value or thought of others beliefs (and some such things). So essentially, shouldn't we really not take to heart what others say?

Or maybe that's just my take on the philosophy of it.

[Giovanni Rild]

Ah, the never-ending animosity between Christians and Atheists/Agnostics. Really, I don't get it. Being an agnostic myself, I thought it was one of the common values to really not hold much value or thought of others beliefs (and some such things). So essentially, shouldn't we really not take to heart what others say?

Or maybe that's just my take on the philosophy of it.

Well, Pareto thinks we are destroying earth by Being religious. And said some pretty offensive things.

[OniTasku]

Well, Pareto thinks we are destroying earth by Being religious. And said some pretty offensive things.

It's a petty argument, at best. Really to offer such a notion is laughable, as if you really want to sum why Earth is being destroyed, the answer is mankind itself. Take not offense of such things, as it's really not worth working yourself or anyone else up over. That, and you are loyal to your beliefs...and him/her is well...loyal to his/her disbeliefs and the such.

[Zabuzalives]

I certainly realize that if religion was simply wiped out today, the world would hardly be a utopia. As I've said before, the root is the issue.

In rejecting reason, you contribute to the problem. (Though if you've come to your religion by way of reason, I'd like to hear it.)

I didn't simply say "christianity is teh devil!!111". I didn't say all religious people go out on murdering sprees. I fully realize that they are often very nice and well-intentioned people. I did say that such irrationality being mainstream is a problem. The widespread acceptance of faith allows many ills to persist and fester.

Many ills to presists and fester? Care to name a few?
Also the thought that if your religious you are "rejecting reason" is retarded.

[Adonis]

God is not Stalin. Where's the comparison coming from? I mean, I could write a book in the ways God and Stalin are different.

And I'm sure many could write a book on how their behaviors are similar. Thus, we have a moot point.



Give an example of this. And then tell me how God isn't justified to do whatever the hell he wants since he's God!

So, according to you, God is justified in anything he does simply because he's God? Sounds Authoritarian to me...



Read the Book of Job.

Such a shitty moral.

Even if you're a devout worshipper of the lord, he'll essentially cause you hellish torture and misfortune to win a bet against Satan.

He'll even go as far as to directly kill your entire family but then expect your devotion.

Please, don't mention the fact that Job got double of evrything in return. You can replace cows and homes but you can't replace families. That, and the fact that God killed the innocent family of agood man to prove a point is sickening.

[sadated_peon]

"The doubter says:

"I could never follow Stalin. He puts people in the Gulag."

That is what doubters tell themselves to rationalize their rejection of
Stalin. But the truth is that Stalin does not send anyone to the Gulag.
It is those who have hardened their hearts against him who send
themselves to the Gulag through their bourgoise attitudes and
counterrevolutionary actions. This was not Stalin's plan at all. He
truly wants everyone to go the Worker's Paradise. And it grieves him
that so many harden their hearts against him. But he will not force
anyone into the Worker's Paradise against their wishes, he respects
their free will.

So if you don't want to go to the Gulag, just open your heart to the
love of Stalin. And stop resisting him."
What a terrific fellow.

I find your comparison of God to Stalin disgusting.
I find your God disgusting.
I found this very interesting.

It is one of the cutting points that forced the believer out of true context of accepted rationality and back to circular logic.

The justification for god sending people to hell that they convinced themselves was based on a fair and rational code was thrown back at them, when that fair and rational code was display in another context.

It results in them having to fall back on the cyclic argument of god being all good to substantiate his good actions. Where gods actions are good because god is good, and god is good because god’s actions are good.

Where here, god’s actions are not justifiable in themselves, but only but the point that they are actions of god.

And finally, that god is disgusting exposing the fallacy that actions are justifiable because they are god’s action. Seeing as the previous argument stripped gods actions as support for his goodness, there is no defense against the criticism.

Instead the responses were personal insults and indignation against the concept, no argument, just hatred over pointing out the failing of their own belief to show their god as good.

Very entertaining.

[mislead]

Yay! Flamewar!

...

And it's not like only the "asshole atheist debaters" are to blame here. Well, it was inevitable, I guess. Have fun.

[MartialHorror]

Something like that (though the question of why he'd even bother to make us is something else).


A plan which defies all sense.


We can derive morality independent of a god. This is why people treat slavery and misogyny as bad things despite their permeative nature in the Bible.


See FD's post.

As well, even assuming something can be perfect and perfectly evil, the omnibenevolent trait (plus omnipotence and omniscience) entails that there be no such evil.


I'm not sure where you get off telling me this.


This puts something of a hamper on the omnipotence area.


Considering he put us in this crappy situation...(see "For those who..." thread).


1) Yes, God created evil(or the capacity for evil). But it was humans who brought it into their domain.

2) It simply means God is not evil.

3) on what? The idealism V reality thing or the parent thing?

4) No, not if he created those rules. Changing a human being like that would be an abuse of power.

5) No, humans put themselves in a crappy situation. God just let us do so.

[Zephos]

Because it's bullshit to say the least.

If someone told me elephants can take off and fly, I would not have to disprove them as that is complete nonsense.

In a debate you would tell him to back himself up or concede.
Which is why this isn't comparable to that at all.
Stating elephants fly, is a true or false statement.

Saying God is comparable to Stalin isn't. You do in fact have to confront that arguement. Wether you like it or not.
Otherwise your just conceding to him.

[Sammy-Jo]

God is not Stalin. Where's the comparison coming from? I mean, I could write a book in the ways God and Stalin are different.

Why don't you just try countering his argument, point-for-point?

Give an example of this. And then tell me how God isn't justified to do whatever the hell he wants since he's God!

On second thought, if you're going to counter using arguments like this, don't even bother.

How is it irrational to believe in a higher power? When has there been a time when religion was NOT around and prevalent? How is having faith a contribution to the ills of the world? Where do you get off on this stuff?

Are you implying that prevalence of an idea means the idea is rational? Is it then rational to believe that certain races are inferior to others? Racism is quite prevalent.

Don't call my God disgusting. I'm sorry, but that's hella offensive and marks you as one of the asshole atheists that MartialHorror was talking about.

It's just an opinion, like yours that we're all going to hell. There's no need to get all defensive about it...I understand that christians think I'm going to hell, but I'm not going to get all worked up about something that I believe has no ground in reality. You could say the same about the belief others may have that your god is disgusting.

Well, Pareto thinks we are destroying earth by Being religious. And said some pretty offensive things.

Is that a reason to get all defensive? If you don't believe religious people are destroying the earth - if you think it's total nonsense - then a single , simple, calm reply should do. I'm not saying don't defend your religion, but these flame wars go on because people freak out about it.

If Pareto or anyone else believes that, they can't prove it, and so going back and forth about it is quite useless. Religion, of course, is not destroying the earth, it's not the cause of all of our problems, and religious people are not all intolerant and irrational. Responding to comments from people who would like to claim so is only adding fuel to the fire of baseless opinions.

[Firedraconian]

Jeeze, you people. Had to dig through five pages just to find my last post.

The comparison to Stalin is simply saying that Stalin denies responsibility for putting people in the gulag, whatever that is. He says that people disobey him, and put themselves there, similar to how Jehovah says people disobey him and put themselves in hell.

Clearly, there are many difference between Stalin and Jehovah. One is human, one is a possibly fictional deity. The point of an analogy is to draw comparisons between unlike things.

Moving on.

I'm not really sure when this topic derailed from 'Common Misconceptions About Atheists' to 'let's see who can insult each other in the stupidest way', but if we've learned anything, it's that common misconceptions are common for a reason.

[Amaretti]

Thanks guys for derailing the topic and wanking all over it. :notrust

[Pareto]

Hey, your first post said it all.

Will reply later, class now.

[Insipidipity]

This has been an interesting read. I commend Beanie for making such a lucid and well thought out post. Without giving much heed to semantics, I'd say I'm an atheist. I've definitely been a victim of all those misconceptions (as labeled by Beanie) from time to time. I can also safely say that I pretty much corroborate everything Beanie mentioned.

I was born a Hindu (You're most likely to be born a Hindu because Hinduism doesn't concern itself with turning people to Hinduism, i.e. religious conversions, etc). My mother is very religious, and my father is kind of religious. So I guess I was brought up in a semi-religious environment. However, my parents never enforced religion on me.... something I only realised fairly recently. My Dad would often tell me stories from the Mahabharata or Ramayana (both are Hindu holy scriptures) and enjoyed them. In fact, IMO this stuff would make awesome anime/manga! The funny thing is, my Dad never told me those stories in a religious context, but for my amusement. Like all holy books, they're pretty much stories that try to impart wisdom/morals, whatever you want to call it.

I also went to a catholic school which was a lot of fun. It was extremely secular and there was no effort made by the school to push Christianity. Somewhere along the way (I was probably 13 or so), I pretty much decided that I do not believe in God. Initially, I guess it was science and rationality that brought me to that decision. I willingly accept that such reasoning is far from being infallible, and my thoughts on the matter have changed over the years. The only thing that hasn't changed is that I still absolutely do not embrace God.

In short, there was no real trigger for me to become an atheist. It's not because I had a bad experience with religion or God or anything like that. My thoughts on the matter were decided by me, and I definitely do not identify myself as a part of a group (Although, unfortunately, the term "atheist" is used to refer to a group.) I also have morals I live by, and these coincide with a lot of religious teachings. In fact, I'd say I'm more moral (I realise this term is subjective) than the average person. It really isn't true that religion is the only way to become a good person, or be happy.

Some things I'd like to address on this thread:
MartialHorror said, and I paraphrase, "When atheists spew garbage on threads, other atheists do not condemn their behavior. Christians on the other hand make sure they check such behavior by fellow Christians."

This, in all likelihood, has to do with the fact that atheists don't see themselves as being a part of a group. I would presume that at least. I certainly don't. Atheists aren't really representing anything. If I see an asshole atheist, I think, "idiot" and move on. I definitely do not think, "Oh, my God! This jerk is violating the sanctity of atheism!!" or "Tsk-tsk... this is not how an atheist must behave." There's nothing that ties me to other atheists. The fact that most atheism isn't organized means it doesn't even meet the criteria for generalizations.

@MisleadSun - IMHO, atheism and anti-theism can never be mutually exclusive. For example, if any atheist was attacked by a theist for not believing in God, the atheist will invariably make anti-theistic comments to defend himself. I would for sure. It's not possible to be an atheist without having anti-theistic thoughts. It's impossible to believe in something and at the same time embrace something that contradicts your belief. Whether you're vocal about them or not is another matter.
On the other hand, I would often partake in religious ceremonies to keep my folks happy. I did not embrace God, but I was essentially being anti-antitheistic. So I am capable of being anti-theistic and not.

Wow, I felt practically the same way growing up. The whole mother believing in gods and telling stories for wisdom/morals. The whole being born a Buddhist(although I found growing up that being Buddhist didn't necessarily require I believe in all the superstition and deities and whatnot my parents did so I didn't really have any reason to abandon it as a whole)

You make a good point about atheists not feeling part of some atheist group, which summarizes my thoughts better than I could. I guess I'd compare it to believers in the Loch Ness Monster. I would bet that of the camps of people who believe in Nessy, those who make loud arrogant claims would be shut up by those who believe but would rather not be that way. On the other hand, someone who simply doesn't believe in Nessy has no reason to shut up another person insulting beliefs in Nessie because it's not like they made an active choice not to believe in Nessie, so they have no connection to others.

Although I do have to critique your comment to MisledSun, while antitheism(assuming you meant antitheism as an opposite of theism rather than an opposition to god) would be considered a subset of atheism and thus it can't be mutually exclusive as a whole, a passive/negative/implicit atheist is generally mutually exclusive to an anti-theist). Only an active disbelief would generally lead one to go from disbelief to hatred. Even then, you can have a disbelief in gods while not opposing the institutes behind them. It's probably not mainstream, but I'd far from call it impossible.

[Bishop]

Well, this arguement started off of something very trivial. I mean if you are religious and some one says something distasteful about your god then just look the other way because, in yuor beliefs, they will get their's. If you're an athiest or something similar just debate with them calmly and logically as possible without saying the forbidden words. 'You're close-minded' 'You're arrogant' 'You're stupid'

On topic: What the hell is wrong with you guys? Beanie posted a very nice pst to start it off and it got bastardized and misconscrewed to this? I mean time after time I seen people say he was saying this or that while he simply ststed what he ws sick of religious people thinking of his dogma. Most of you are older than 16, act like it please.

[Ishin Shishi]

Although I do have to critique your comment to MisledSun, while antitheism(assuming you meant antitheism as an opposite of theism rather than an opposition to god) would be considered a subset of atheism and thus it can't be mutually exclusive as a whole, a passive/negative/implicit atheist is generally mutually exclusive to an anti-theist). Only an active disbelief would generally lead one to go from disbelief to hatred. Even then, you can have a disbelief in gods while not opposing the institutes behind them. It's probably not mainstream, but I'd far from call it impossible.
My bad. Like I said, I arrived at atheism on my own and therefore haven't explored the exact meaning of these terms. 'Atheist' is just a word that best describes what I became on my own. Reading yours and MisleadSun's posts again, it's obvious that I erroneously understood the meaning of antitheism. I thought of it as an opposition to God.

[mislead]

My bad. Like I said, I arrived at atheism on my own and therefore haven't explored the exact meaning of these terms. 'Atheist' is just a word that best describes what I became on my own. Reading yours and MisleadSun's posts again, it's obvious that I erroneously understood the meaning of antitheism. I thought of it as an opposition to God.

Ironically enough, "opposition to God" would be a form of theism(!), because, to be able to oppose something, it is required for that thing to exist first. The term "antitheism" is actually quite straightforward in its meaning - it's literally "against theism", which translates into opposing all religious ideas. I have yet to meet an antitheist, who wouldn't be an atheist at the same time, though I can somewhat imagine how that could work.

[Ishin Shishi]

Ironically enough, "opposition to God" would be a form of theism(!), because, to be able to oppose something, it is required for that thing to exist first. The term "antitheism" is actually quite straightforward in its meaning - it's literally "against theism", which translates into opposing all religious ideas. I have yet to meet an antitheist, who wouldn't be an atheist at the same time, though I can somewhat imagine how that could work.
Well, what I meant is, "opposing the belief in the existence of God." I'm essentially saying that you cannot not believe in God without opposing/rejecting the notion that God exists because that's inherently contradictory. I don't know if that makes any sense...

[martryn]

I wash my hands of this thread.

I'm not trying to prove the existence of God to anyone, and I'm not trying to force religion on anyone, but you atheists seem to take some sort of sick pleasure in making fun of our God, disrespecting our religion, and trying to disprove everything we say. That's being an asshole. So in summary, MartialHorror's post on all the atheist assholes is pretty spot on.

For you liberal thinkers who call yourselves atheists, why can't you be accepting enough that some people have opposing view points? For all the shit you guys fling, it still appears the few Christians on the forum are more tolerant.

[Firedraconian]

*cough Believe It! cough*

[Zephos]

I'm not trying to prove the existence of God to anyone, and I'm not trying to force religion on anyone, but you atheists seem to take some sort of sick pleasure in making fun of our God, disrespecting our religion, and trying to disprove everything we say.

How do you know what religon they are? And this is truly asinine.
I want one example of mockery.
Getting pissy from unfavorable sounding points such as the Stalin comparison is incredibly immature. Why are you on a discussion forum?

That's being an asshole. So in summary, MartialHorror's post on all the atheist assholes is pretty spot on.

Try again.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasty_generalization

For you liberal thinkers who call yourselves atheists, why can't you be accepting enough that some people have opposing view points?

This is a debate forum. This is a place of rebuttals, and scrutiny. Don't come on if you acn't stand the thought of analyzed opinions.

For all the shit you guys fling, it still appears the few Christians on the forum are more tolerant.

And again.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasty_generalization

[Insipidipity]

For you liberal thinkers who call yourselves atheists, why can't you be accepting enough that some people have opposing view points? For all the shit you guys fling, it still appears the few Christians on the forum are more tolerant.
Wherever you find an openly explicit atheist, you'll find he follows not too far behind an openly arrogant theist who himself can't accept people have opposing views. For instance, no atheist I ever met would ever call to add "one nation without a God" to the Pledge of Allegiance, the opposite is not true. I find it is generally Christian people who fling shit when someone actually doesn't agree with what they say.
Actually only an antitheist would even openly provoke such beliefs without a theist provoking it first. And those are only the one who were formerly of theistic beliefs and then turned against them.

[Pareto]

God is not Stalin. Where's the comparison coming from? I mean, I could write a book in the ways God and Stalin are different.
Analogies are fun! The comparison was aptly noted by sadated_peon.

But I have faith that I'm not wrong. You honestly don't believe there is any way you're going to heaven, mainly because you don't think heaven exists.
So? Some Hindu has faith that he's not wrong. But here's the thing: one or more of you is wrong. And there are practically infinite possibilities for the characteristics of a God-like being. It could very well be that I'm going to heaven and you're going to hell. Pascal's Wager is useless (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_wager#Criticisms_of_Pascal.27s_wager).

What are you talking about? More people believe in something that can't be proved than disbelieve it. How is this a crime against humanity, to have faith in God, when more than half of the world's population worship him? God is part of society, and a part of what makes us human.
And everybody believed that the Sun revolved around the Earth. What makes us human is our biology.

What are you talking about? Don't try to sound smart, don't try to dress your words, just spit out specifics of what you mean. I could go ahead and make a list of the world's evils too and then lay the blame on non-Christians, but I shan't, as it's not anything one group can own up to.
Let's see. This "teach the controversy" bullshit, astrologers and alleged psychics bilking people out of large sums of money and time, resistance to science, use of taxpayer dollars in doing it all, etc. etc. etc. (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article571206.ece)

Is this a bash against Islam? Seems to me you're referring to radical Muslims. Great, stereotyping the entire religion? For all I say about Islam in other threads, they still worship the same God as I, and they still preach a message of peace. What the radicals do in the name of Islam is not God's fault.
Of course not. He doesn't exist.

The divine machinations are nothing we can understand, as I and others have been saying all along. God is not letting people suffer, he's letting our life's play out. He is testing our faith and our resolve. Instead of looking at all the evils in the world, of the sickness, and the hunger, first look at what causes it. Sometimes illnesses are our own damn fault. Hunger most certainly is a plight of humanity. Perhaps these are things that must happen to set some sort of cosmic stage. It's not God's fault if you touched a hot stove as a child, as that experience teaches you. Perhaps we're being taught. I don't know.
When he has omnipotence and omniscience and doesn't stop it, he can't be good. Does a loving father let his kids inflict grief on, torture, or kill each other?

So now we're all supposed to be these great humanitarians? Huh? I can assure you, churches give back to the community. Look at your own life and tell me the things you've done since you have all this time you saved from not praising God. List all the things various atheists have done for humanities good, and then compare that to a list of things done in God's name, or by Christians, Jews, or Muslims.
1. Atheists (and secular organizations) have done quite a bit, actually. There are plenty of atheist charities.
2. This has absolutely nothing to do with the truth of the matter. I could donate $50 to charity in the name of Xenu, but that wouldn't make Xenu exist.

You sound like a dictator.
Please do elaborate.

What problem? I don't see what you're referring to as the problem being.

How is it irrational to believe in a higher power? When has there been a time when religion was NOT around and prevalent? How is having faith a contribution to the ills of the world? Where do you get off on this stuff?
See above.

Many ills to presists and fester? Care to name a few?
Also the thought that if your religious you are "rejecting reason" is retarded.
See above.

And religious people aren't all automatically rejecting reason; I said something on this on another thread.

If Pareto or anyone else believes that, they can't prove it, and so going back and forth about it is quite useless. Religion, of course, is not destroying the earth, it's not the cause of all of our problems, and religious people are not all intolerant and irrational. Responding to comments from people who would like to claim so is only adding fuel to the fire of baseless opinions.
Well, I did back up what I said just now.

For you liberal thinkers who call yourselves atheists, why can't you be accepting enough that some people have opposing view points? For all the shit you guys fling, it still appears the few Christians on the forum are more tolerant.
This sounds a lot like the "teach the controversy!" defense.

[MartialHorror]

hmmm, not sure if I responded to this.

But the point that Atheists dont belong to a group is a good point. Unfortunatly, thats why we generalize..........

So it works as a double edged sword for you. or at least the ones who care when they are generalized

[Amaretti]

But the point that Atheists dont belong to a group is a good point. Unfortunatly, thats why we generalize.........

You generalise because atheists aren't a group...?

You realise that makes no sense whatsoever, right?

[Giovanni Rild]

[COLOR="DarkOrchid"]@Pareto: You don't want any freedom to what you don't deem Logical and reasonable. You are completely unaccepting of other's beliefs or political stand. You know who you remind me of?


Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of human failure.

~Hitler~

http://library.flawlesslogic.com/religion.htm

[Amaretti]

@Pareto: You don't want any freedom to what you don't deem Logical and reasonable. You are completely unaccepting of other's beliefs or political stand. You know who you remind me of?




~Hitler~

http://library.flawlesslogic.com/religion.htm


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_Law

[DragonJ]

Give an example of this. And then tell me how God isn't justified to do whatever the hell he wants since he's God!

Gee, all the things about smiting and killing and vengeance and all that jazz seems like God doesn't really care about human lives. So why isn't Stalin justified do whatever the hell he wants since he's got the power?

If your answer is "because he'll go to hell", whoop-de-doo. God holds himself to a double standard then, and turns out existence sort of sucks.

[Giovanni Rild]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_Law

I don't care about Godwin's Law. Pareto's stance on religion is very similar to Adolf Hitler's stance.

[DragonJ]

I don't care about Godwin's Law. Pareto's stance on religion is very similar to Adolf Hitler's stance.

That's a bit better context.

Calling someone "Hitler" isn't going to go over well.

But ultimately, it's still incorrect to label Pareto's stance very similar to Hitler's stance.

From the webpage you linked to...

The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity's illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity. Bolshevism practices a lie of the same nature, when it claims to bring liberty to men, whereas in reality it seeks only to enslave them. In the ancient world, the relations between men and gods were founded on an instinctive respect. It was a world enlightened by the idea of tolerance. Christianity was the first creed in the world to exterminate its adversaries in the name of love. Its keynote is intolerance.

---

Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of human failure.

---

If today you do harm to the Russians, it is so as to avoid giving them the opportunity of doing harm to us.

---

One may ask whether the disappearance of Christianity would entail the disappearance of belief in God. That's not to be desired. The notion of divinity gives most men the opportunity to concretize the feeling they have of supernatural realities. Why should we destroy this wonderful power they have of incarnating the feeling for the divine that is within them?

---

I especially wouldn't want our Movement to acquire a religious character and institute a form of worship. It would be appalling for me, and I would wish I'd never lived, if I were to end up in the skin of a Buddha!

If at this moment we were to eliminate the religions by force, the people would unanimously beseech us for a new form of worship. You can imagine our District Leaders giving up their pranks to play at being saints! As for our Minister For Religion, according to his own co-religionists, God himself would turn away from his family!

---

We'll see to it that the churches cannot spread abroad teachings in conflict with the interests of the State. We shall continue to preach the doctrine of National Socialism, and the young will no longer be taught anything but the truth.

---



Those are just some highlights from the first section I read. I really don't see how Pareto's views are similar to Hitler's; perhaps, you'd care to elaborate?

Hitler's views on religion actually make a lot of sense (besides the Nazi propaganda); it's his execution of those views (among other things) which don't make any sense and cause us to view him (rightfully) as a monster.

[Ishin Shishi]

But the point that Atheists dont belong to a group is a good point. Unfortunatly, thats why we generalize..........
Like Beanie pointed out, this really doesn't make sense.

[Amaretti]

I don't care about Godwin's Law. Pareto's stance on religion is very similar to Adolf Hitler's stance.

You are comparing Pareto - a forum-goer who doesn't agree with you - to a mass-murdering genocidal lunatic who is as close to the embodiment of evil as you will ever get.

That is a shitty comparison and you should be ashamed of yourself for it.

The reason Godwin's Law was invented was to point out the rather blindingly obvious fallacy of making comparisons to Hitler. It's a cheap, revolting tactic to use the weight of all the baggage that comes along with a person like Hitler to add unfounded gravitas to a petty, unrelated squabble. If you'd bothered to read through the link I have you, you would understand how stupid and unnecessary that comparison was.

You've proven that this thread has gone on too long and you people have completely trashed it's orginal intent with your stupid little quarrels. Kindly take your bickering elsewhere or else get back on topic.

[Giovanni Rild]

That's a bit better context.

Calling someone "Hitler" isn't going to go over well.

But ultimately, it's still incorrect to label Pareto's stance very similar to Hitler's stance.

From the webpage you linked to...



Those are just some highlights from the first section I read. I really don't see how Pareto's views are similar to Hitler's; perhaps, you'd care to elaborate?

Hitler's views on religion actually make a lot of sense (besides the Nazi propaganda); it's his execution of those views (among other things) which don't make any sense and cause us to view him (rightfully) as a monster.


Similar in the way that Pareto believes that religion is basically messing over the human race and it's got to go. No matter what other people got to say about it.

@Beanie: I wouldn't expect you to not try to distort what I am trying to say. I'm gone.

[DragonJ]

Similar in the way that Pareto believes that religion is basically messing over the human race and it's got to go. No matter what other people got to say about it.


Hitler used his religious stance to justify mass murder and genocide. Hitlers used his religious stance to justify the war against Russia and the rise of his Nazi Party. Until Pareto massacres six million Jews because of his religious stance, there is no justification for your comparison.

You can claim many people have similar religious views as Hitler, if you're generalizing that far. That is irrelevant. What matters is what becomes of those views.

And what Beanie said.

[Pareto]

Hitler didn't drink or smoke! I don't either!

shit well i guess i better go roast some jews

and you should drink and smoke, cause hitler didnt and you dont want to be like hitler do you

[Amaretti]

Hitler didn't drink or smoke! I don't either!

shit well i guess i better go roast some jews

and you should drink and smoke, cause hitler didnt and you dont want to be like hitler do you

You should totally add Indi's Hitler comparison to your sig or something. :laugh I've never been compared with Hitler. I'm kinda jealous...