Why Atheism?

[Nancy Allen``]

Just looking at SkinWalker's post again I'd just like to comment on religion (Christianity) being taught in public schools. Right here is an example of the issues I have with Atheist beliefs in pushing their views on others, as the proposal is that Christian religion is taught to school children, religion being pushed onto others, especially impressionable minds, with no regard to them or their families being of Jewish faith, Muslim, ect or choosing not to follow religion at all, to be Atheist. That is exactly the issue I'm talking about with the belief of pushing your views onto others, and I agree with those who are against the idea and say that religion should be something that is a choice, not pushed upon in schools. If you want to have religion in schools I'm all for it, have religious groups that students can take part of if they so wish. But to force upon them religion as part of the education process, in my view it goes beyond education and goes more into the direction of indoctrination.

[Samuel Dravis]

If atheism is the default position, and I have no reason to believe it isn't, then there is no beliefs being pushed on anyone. Teachers that go out of their way to say that there ARE NO gods, however, are out of line; they're not leaving it at simple lack of belief, they're pushing a belief in no gods.

[Jae Onasi]

We have enough trouble just teaching our kids to _read_, much less address anything metaphysical.

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

We have enough trouble just teaching our kids to _read_, much less address anything metaphysical.

If we put the same amount of money into education and health care as we do blowing the **** out of one another, that wouldn't be a problem. The U.S., for example, has an annual defense budget of $466 billion, not including additional funding allocated by Congress frequently. In addition to this, the Department of Defense also... absorbed $1.1 trillion that it will not account for.

 

If atheism is the default position, and I have no reason to believe it isn't

There's a multi-million dollar mosque that's part of Boston Latin, a public school here in Boston. So, in addition to the teachers who say there are no gods, there are those who say there are gods and administrative faculty who waste the taxpayers' money on places of worship (no offense, but that money could have bought a hell of a lot of books and other supplies for other schools in the area that have 40 kids to one teacher and 20 usable books per class).

[Jae Onasi]

If we put the same amount of money into education and health care as we do blowing the **** out of one another, that wouldn't be a problem. The U.S., for example, has an annual defense budget of $466 billion, not including additional funding allocated by Congress frequently. In addition to this, the Department of Defense also... absorbed $1.1 trillion that it will not account for.

I won't argue with you on that--I'd much rather address domestic issues than pay for a war.

There's a multi-million dollar mosque that's part of Boston Latin, a public school here in Boston.

How in the world did they ever get _that_ past the ACLU and the courts?

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

How in the world did they ever get _that_ past the ACLU and the courts?

Heh, it's Boston, contesting something like that in court is considered racist and/or anti-Muslim in many parts of the city/areas around the city (*cough*Cambridge*cough*).

[Jae Onasi]

Anti-religion charges have never stopped the ACLU before.

[Spider AL]

Originally Posted by Nancy Allen``:

Now the truth of Atheism the way Spider AL sees it is that Atheism is fananticism. Fananticism is mindless, fananticism is dangerous, fananticism is stupid

One cannot be fanatical about logic and reason in the sense that you're using the word, Nancy.

 

Dictionary.com definition:

 

fa·nat·ic /f?'næt?k/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[fuh-nat-ik] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation

-noun 1. a person with an extreme and uncritical enthusiasm or zeal, as in religion or politics.

-adjective

 

Atheists cannot qualify as "fanatics" on the subject of atheism by this definition, because atheism is BASED on critical thinking. Rational thinking. Fanaticism is by its very nature uncritical.

 

Originally Posted by Nancy Allen``:

Imagine damning another human being simply on the grounds that he didn't think like you.

An atheist can obviously not damn anyone in the religious sense, as we don't believe there's a hell. So the only remaining sense is to "harshly condemn". And if you show me where I've "condemned" anyone, your assertion won't be discarded as the spurious nonsense that it clearly is.

 

Originally Posted by Nancy Allen``:

If our aim in life is to seek peace, it is impossible to achieve it by fananticism. Peace and fananticism are incompatible.

Which is exactly why unquestioning faith in a religion... or ANY delusion for that matter, is not a good thing. Because as long as there are religious or political fanatics, be they fundamentalist Christians or US/UK neoconservatives... There will be no peace.

 

So atheism is good, as is politically dissident activism. Because they're both logical and rational positions to hold.

 

Originally Posted by Nancy Allen``:

As for the cheese question you're obviously blind because for the last time I have said that no one follows such a religion, so any creditbility it might have is basically null and void. Christianity, Judism, Islam, Buddism ect have a following of hundreds of millions making it something a lot of people believe in. Does it make it any more of a truth?

This is supposed to be your answer to the cheese question?

 

"Lots of people believe in God, so there must be something to it"? That doesn't make any sense. It's not logical. When people believed the earth was flat, that didn't make it flat. People have believed all sorts of stupid things throughout history... That didn't make them RIGHT. If the number of people who believe in something in ANY WAY affects its rightness or wrongness, that means that Christianity was a wrong belief when christians were in the minority in Roman times... but is right now, because it's the largest religion in the world? That doesn't make any goldarned sense.

 

But frankly as Mace pointed out, this isn't even a real answer to the cheese question. It's just illogically dodging the question. You asked me "Can you prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that god doesn't exist?" And I retorted: "Can you prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the sinister sentient slices of cheddar cheese from the island of Mandango don't exist?" And of course, the point was that NO negative can be disproven. You cannot prove that something "does not exist", no matter how ludicrous that something is. That doesn't mean that it exists.

 

So logically if you believe in "God" you must also believe in the slices of cheese, because there's EXACTLY the same amount of evidence to support both beliefs. i.e: NO evidence. End of line.

 

Originally Posted by Nancy Allen``:

For all I know when you die all that happens is you become worm food in the ground. What a horrible thought for so many people, if they want to believe in there being something more is that so bad?

Lying to yourself is never good, Nancy.

 

If you tell yourself that after you die you'll go to heaven, or valhalla... or wherever the heck your religion of choice tells you you're going, then you're essentially lying to yourself. You're wasting your life in pursuit of a goal that can only be attained after you're dead. Instead, a rational man tries to give his LIFE meaning... within his own lifetime.

 

Originally Posted by Nancy Allen``:

But is there any truth in such beliefs or are they insane ramblings that Atheists must wipe out? I cannot judge how valid any one religion might be but the fact so much has been written on all of them and how much is believed to be true. Have any of you tried looking at religious scripts and seeing what they have to say?

It's close to a truism that a large number of atheists know more about the bible and other religious texts than most religious people do. Especially the history of such texts that is not often taught in the religious community. So what's your point?

 

Originally Posted by Nancy Allen``:

That's five points where he's either said Atheists should persecute those who follow religion or otherwise say they're deluded. And by the way he's of the opinion that he isn't arrogant, condescending and trollish. Well with the mods permission would he be willing to have a poll where people can say whether or not he is these things?

First, as several people have already noted, the quotes of mine you posted DON'T support your wierd assertion that I'm in any way "forcing" religious people to discard their theism.

 

As to the second, the mods have already ruled on the issue, but I am perfectly willing to defend my arguments and my own person at ANY time. So if you wish to debate me on the topic of me, feel free to PM me and I shall converse with you at great length.

 

Originally Posted by Nancy Allen``:

You want an end to the arguement? Just say that you can accept that others follow religion

By "accept that others follow religion", what do you mean?

 

Isn't it the case that to you, "accept that others follow religion" really means "never ever point out the fact that religion is illogical, because it upsets some people when you do that"?

 

If I'm incorrect in this assessment, feel free to correct me.

 

-

 

Originally Posted by jmac7142:

The bad part about debating morality is that morality doesn't have a set definition, personally, I'd rather make their lives a bit easier by teaching them what is and is not socially acceptable.

Of course morality has a "set definition". An objective definition, in fact.

 

Go to this thread: Moral Relativism

 

The topic was argued to death, and the point that morality is objective, logically arrived at and MUST be universal... was logically proven therein. Any claims that morality is "subjective" in any way, are erroneous.

 

Originally Posted by jmac7142:

There's a multi-million dollar mosque that's part of Boston Latin, a public school here in Boston. So, in addition to the teachers who say there are no gods, there are those who say there are gods and administrative faculty who waste the taxpayers' money on places of worship (no offense, but that money could have bought a hell of a lot of books and other supplies for other schools in the area that have 40 kids to one teacher and 20 usable books per class).

If this is as you say it is, then it is a perfect example of how organised theistic religions seek to invade and infect the secular education system with their irrational nonsense. It's almost exactly comparable to the "intelligent design" situation.

 

-

 

Originally Posted by Jae Onasi:

That is a church doctrine, not something specified in the Bible. Some view church doctrine on par with the Bible, I do not (Biblical doctrine supersedes church doctrine), though I recognize its importance on a number of spiritual matters.

Transubstantiation is a ludicrous belief surrounding a ludicrous ritual, itself based on some fairly odd-sounding passages from the bible.

 

The bible is "church doctrine" itself, in that it is a selection of documents written by proto-churchmen collected over a period of centuries. It is essentially the violent, mysoginistic and altogether morally reprihensible Judaistic old testament, with the much more philosophical stories about the character of Jesus crassly stuck onto the end of it. It is a mass of contradictions, it is perennially mistranslated from the source languages and- in short- it is not the "word of god", but the word of some random men.

 

Therefore I find your assertion that the bible should be given more weight than the rituals practiced by the church in more recent centuries... to be a nonsense.

 

Originally Posted by Jae Onasi:

The only thing I've determined is that the studies needed better design (note that's not 'better designed to prove prayer', but simply 'better designed to get a definitive answer'). However, since this is the realm of metaphysical rather than physical, it's going to be hard to create a good physical design.

Once again, the burden of proof is on those who make outlandish, irrational claims to PROVE the validity of those claims. There is simply no logical, rational evidence that prayer is an intrinsically effective practice.

 

But in terms of gleaning the "definitive answer" that you desire, we already have it. Because in rational terms, until the existence of a thing is demonstrated by logical argument and/or tangible evidence, it effectively does not exist.

 

Originally Posted by Jae Onasi:

I would not call the debate between Dawkins and Zacharias a 'win' for Dawkins. Dawkins was on the defensive a large part of the time, though he did state his points well and I found his arguments interesting. I was impressed with their civility to each other, and that is the model I think of as something to which this forum could aspire. I cannot imagine that we would be so completely unable to achieve that.

Please post a link to a source for this debate, I have never seen nor heard of this one, and I'd be most interested in seeing it/reading it.

 

That aside, I highly doubt that a debate between Dawkins and Zacharias would result in anything but a "win" for Dawkins, quite simply because debates are won by the most rational, logical arguments, and I have never heard a single rational, logical argument to support uncritical clinging to outmoded superstitions. Ever. Not from Ravi Zacharias, not from the current Archbishop of Canterbury, nor from any other religious "luminary". I wait patiently for some religious bod to present something based on logic, in other words.

 

Of course, EVERY debate Dawkins has ever had on the subject has been hailed by the religious set as a victory for his opponent. And in each case that I've observed, Dawkins' opponent came out with nothing but irrelevant, dogmatic nonsense. So why did the religious folk claim victory for their side? Because they're irrational when it comes to the subject. If they were not... they'd be atheists.

 

-

 

Originally Posted by MasterRoss08:

Please by all means give some examples. Im pretty sure with schools it involves intelligent design. So how about an idea here just dont teach anything involving creation. Have classes that will teach it but not have it as manditory to teach it. So basically just let the parents decide what they want there child to take etc. Thus both sides win.

The concepts of evolution and natural selection are vitally important to the study of biology. They should be taught to all schoolchildren.

 

"Intelligent design" is not science. There is no logic to it. It's thinly veiled creationism, and therefore it should be taught only in churches. Not in our schools, which are supposed to be places of real learning.

 

And under such a system as you describe, only irrational religious people would "win". The side of reason and logic would lose. Bigstyle.

 

Originally Posted by MasterRoss08:

Well, I would go for intelligent design myself but from a stand point

that both dont have enough evidence to some from both sides why not either teach both or none all together.

Ross, the fact is that intelligent design has NO evidence to support it as a concept.

 

Evolution has a great deal of evidence to support it as a concept.

 

So be rational: Which theory do you choose to accept as working fact and operate under? Is it the theory with quite a lot of evidence to back it up... or some nonsense theory that doesn't have any evidence to back it up?

 

You've chosen the latter. But that's not a rational choice.

[SkinWalker]

I am unfamiliar with the Dawkins / Zacharias debate. Can anyone provide me with a link or citation I can find in my library? A transcript of the debate or a podcast would be ideal.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

Ditto.

[Nancy Allen``]

If you condemn people simply on the basis that they don't think the way you do then you are a fanantic. That is what fananticism is, to condemn others simply on the basis that they do not think the way you do.

 

As for what I mean by accepting that others believe in religion, I mean...just that. Being able to accept that people choose to follow religion. That is doesn't matter whether or not people choose to delude themselves. To say to yourself "oh well, they choose to follow that belief, or that belief, not my problem". As I said, if you persecute others because of their religion then you are guilty of causing the exact same problems religion is blamed for, and bring down Atheism by your persecution in the process.

[SkinWalker]

There's a difference between "persecution" and criticism. When religion seeks to influence secular life, or when a single religious cult seeks to influence others, then they warrant logical and reasoned critique.

 

The problem that the reasoned position encounters time and again is that the religious adherents cry foul that their "sacred beliefs" are being criticized or even ridiculed. They think their's is a position that should be hands-off and I don't buy it. Indeed, I speak out against it.

[Mace MacLeod]

The problem that the reasoned position encounters time and again is that the religious adherents cry foul that their "sacred beliefs" are being criticized or even ridiculed. They think their's is a position that should be hands-off and I don't buy it. Indeed, I speak out against it.

Couldn't have said it better myself. And I tried.

To add a bit more to my original post, one of the reasons I can't accept any religion in particular is that there's a tendency some religious people have to think only in the most literal terms. "I believe in X. As I know that my particular bit of religious dogma was beamed down directly from God's own fax machine, X is unquestionably true, therefore everything else is by definition wrong. Contradicting X or saying it's wrong is offensive to me, and should never be done."

Add delusions of persecution, and that brings us pretty much to where this thread's at now.

[Nancy Allen``]

Would it surprise you if I said I was Atheist, that I stood for the beliefs of Atheism? That's why I'm so passionate about the belief some Atheists have that they have the right to persecute religion and be intolerent of religion, because that belief really does give Atheism a bad name.

[Jae Onasi]

I am unfamiliar with the Dawkins / Zacharias debate. Can anyone provide me with a link or citation I can find in my library? A transcript of the debate or a podcast would be ideal.

 

I'll try to find it, because _I'd_ like to hear it again. I was listening to the debate while driving through Chicago a few years back and couldn't stop anywhere to copy down the relevant info. Likely it's at the rzim.org site, if you don't mind sifting through the other stuff to get to his apologetics topics. I'm at work atm and can't do an extensive search til I get home.

[ET Warrior]

That's why I'm so passionate about the belief some Atheists have that they have the right to persecute religion and be intolerant of religion, because that belief really does give Atheism a bad name.

You're just being silly here. No matter what anybody else says, you seem to be under the assumption that anything anyone says against religion is persecution. This is not the case. Criticism != Persecution. It has nothing to do with the fact that religious people think differently, it has to do with the fact that religious people try to push their dogma onto everyone else. Not all religious people do this, of course, and I have no qualms with those who want to believe whatever they want to believe, so long as they don't push it on others.

 

I have many friends who are quite religious, and we get along just fine, because they don't bother me about my beliefs and I don't bother them about theirs. But once they start trying to teach intelligent design, or do anything else to push their dogmatic agendas onto anyone else, I take offense and have the right to speak out against it.

[Mace MacLeod]

Would it surprise you if I said I was Atheist, that I stood for the beliefs of Atheism? That's why I'm so passionate about the belief some Atheists have that they have the right to persecute religion and be intolerent of religion, because that belief really does give Atheism a bad name.

But you're not Atheist, and you don't stand for the beliefs of Atheism, as you've made very clear in this and many other threads. If you were, you wouldn't be continually harping on this imaginary "persecution" kick you're presently on. Nobody is persecuting you or forcing you to abandon your religious beliefs. You can wrap your head around that any day now.

[MasterRoss08]

it has to do with the fact that religious people try to push their dogma onto everyone else.

Well well well dont we have touchy people here.

I wouldnt say that only religious people are the only touchy ones here.

I find it hard to believe that people get so worked up with people only trying to

spread in some views ( even some i believe in) good news. You feel as though

your the ones getting attacked here about people in your oppinon trying to

force there beliefs on you. I can also say some people are forcing your

beliefs on others. With banning prayer in schools, even trying to get rid

of the pledge of aliegance etc. So dont go saying that religions are

the only ones that do this. And besides it feels to me as though you =anyone that is against religion take offence to this (forcing beliefs). And besides why you

all(against religion) getting so worked up about this(forcing beliefs) .

In my oppinon your term of forcing beliefs is over done. Anyone can

participate in the democratic process of are goverment to try and improve life.

So I would like to know why you all think this is the end of the world with

people that you think are crazed people do to your view that peoples

religions are delusional( which makes them idiots from what im taking it as)

[Jae Onasi]

Here's where atheism loses me:

1. It cannot explain the origin of the universe.

2. It cannot, in a satisfactory way, address abiogenesis in a manner that requires less faith than religion, i.e. it's so statistically improbable that theism is more probable. If you want an entire thread on stats/molecular biology/biochemistry/cellular physiology I can oblige.

3. I prefer to think that I was put here for a purpose rather than think that I'm some cosmic accident--atheism does not offer me the same meaning in life. And before that gets jumped on with a vengeance, let me state that there are a zillion people who obviously find meaning in life outside theism. I just find it far more difficult in my case to do so.

4. I prefer a set objective of right and wrong, not something based on what feels good at the moment or an ethic which constantly experiences change. If you look at a naturalist view, even with the empathy/morality paradigm, things change, i.e. in a naturalist view, man has changed and developed over time. Our ability to reason has changed over time. Our ability to empathize has changed over time. If the level of empathy is tied to morality and empathy changes, then the level of morality changes. Among individuals--if their ability to empathize is different, and clearly there are individuals who have more empathy than others, how is a set level of morality maintained?

There can be no sliding scale for evil, because if there is, then nothing can truly be condemned as evil--someone somewhere will always declare that x act is 'right for him' or 'right for that situation' and therefore not evil to him, even if it's the most reprehensible act to the majority of the rest of us.

 

Turns out I had the wrong atheist who was debating Zacharias--it was Bernard Leikind, not Dawkins. I suspect Leikind mentioned Dawkins which may be where I got that misconception. And why yes, I _had_ forgotten Dawkins doesn't do debates like that...which is too bad, because I think his arguments could be honed even more with the give-and-take. My apologies for the confusion. Link http://shop2.gospelcom.net/epages/rzim.storefront/458b3dda0016557d271d45579e7c0691/Product/View/DVD15 for the description of the DVD (which you may be able to get through the library, and some of the big churches in Houston may have it in their church libraries, but I don't know if they let non-members borrow from their libraries).

Description: "Ravi debates the difficult question, "Is There Meaning in Evil & Suffering" at the Faith and Science Lecture Forum. Ravi's address is followed by a rebuttal from three panelists: Dr. Bernard Leikind, a plasma physicist, senior editor at Skeptic Magazine and a renowned atheist; Dr. Jitendra Mohanty, one of India's most noted Hindu philosophers and a distinguished professor at Emory University in Atlanta; and William Lane Craig, a noted author, Christian philosopher and apologist. After the rebuttals and Ravi's response, the audience asks questions. (2 hrs, 33 minutes)"

 

The arguments were still fascinating, however, and Leikind made some very interesting points. Mohanty was not quite as prepared as the other participants and did not do as well in the debate as a result, but the others put a lot of time and effort into the research needed for their points, and I appreciated the work all of them did because it made the discussion very lively and intriguing.

 

Edit: Can download the mp3 free of the debate--it's in 4 parts.

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

[Emperor Devon]

I don't why I'm even bothering with this, since you only responded to one point in my previous arguments...

 

1. It cannot explain the origin of the universe.

 

Neither can religion. The typical response I hear is 'God created it.' Whenever I ask 'where did God come from, then?' I have never heard anything other than 'God is infinite. He always existed.'

 

Quite impossible. Both atheism and religion offer huge questions that cannot be sufficiently explained. In enough time, however, it's inevitable that the origin of the universe will be discovered. How long that'll take I can only guess, but far sooner than the origin of something I don't even think exists.

 

How God could even create the universe is another unanswered question. I've not seen any logical explanation for how there be a being with such tremendous power either.

 

2. It cannot, in a satisfactory way, address abiogenesis in a manner that requires less faith than religion, i.e. it's so statistically improbable that theism is more probable. If you want an entire thread on stats/molecular biology/biochemistry/cellular physiology I can oblige.

 

I wouldn't mind. Biology isn't my specialty.

 

Regardless of the improbability of life existing, it still happened. But again, the existence of a supreme being who can do anything is an even more improbable occurence than regular mortals like us. How can something with an infinite lifespan exist? How can this same being create planets on a whim? I doubt any scientist can give a rational explanation for how that's possible.

 

3. I prefer to think that I was put here for a purpose

 

Ah, the key difference. I don't factor my personal opinion into the existence of reality.

 

atheism does not offer me the same meaning in life.

 

Atheism isn't intended to offer you any meanings, philosiphies, or hidden messages to put it bluntly. Just simple facts.

 

Personal opinion does not and should not factor into how one perceives reality. I could declare right now 'the sky is green!' and say that the evidence I had to support that was that I think it's green. Opinions, naturally, shouldn't count at all towards such an idea; if I looked outside and the sky was green, then that statement would obviously have merit.

 

Religion, no offense inteded, is actually much more similar to that example than you might consider. There's no definite proof there's a God, but His followers feel He exists, so that's enough for them.

 

I prefer a set objective of right and wrong, not something based on what feels good at the moment or an ethic which constantly experiences change.

 

That statement is quite biased, and does not take all facts into consideration at all.

 

What about laws? Those aren't inspired by religion, but they've done a far better job at enforcing order than any examples Christ has provided.

 

Not only that, but the fact that man came up with religion provides even further credence towards my statements. All people who claim they're following examples provided by God are really following ones that simple mortals came up with, whether they realize it or not. I have already stated why God cannot exist.

 

Among individuals--if their ability to empathize is different, and clearly there are individuals who have more empathy than others, how is a set level of morality maintained?

 

That's a great question to ask an anarchist.

 

There can be no sliding scale for evil, because if there is, then nothing can truly be condemned as evil--

 

What is it our earthly laws are for, then? If you rob someone's house, you obviously should have to give back what you've stolen and pay something additional. Common sense alone can tell you that.

 

Religion provides an indefinitely inferior set of laws. The Ten Commandments are far too vague to actually be applied to our reality; while they can serve as inspirations, it's impossible to say they can deal with specific instances.

 

Religion provides far less in the way of that. Does it say anywhere in the Bible what the penalty should be for selling twelve pounds of cocaine? Or fifty pounds? It had some humane principles, but it's been left to man and not the supernatural to come up with crime and punishment.

 

The Bible is outdated in any event. You yourself have agreed on this.

[SkinWalker]

Here's where atheism loses me:

1. It cannot explain the origin of the universe.

 

 

I don't see why atheism would try to. Science seeks to, but science and atheism are hardly synonymous terms regardless of how many scientists are atheist. Moreover, none of the religious cults of the world can realistically explain the origin of the universe. Many think they do, but not a single one has provided empirical explanation that can be tested. Instead, many religious cults (perhaps even most) have superstitions that explain the universe that range from cosmic corn to Ptah spoke it into existence to Yawheh and Elohim said "let there be light." None, of course, offer a real explanation but, rather a superstition. Atheism, therefore is the logical choice. Agnostic-atheism, specifically.

 

2. It cannot, in a satisfactory way, address abiogenesis in a manner that requires less faith than religion, i.e. it's so statistically improbable that theism is more probable. If you want an entire thread on stats/molecular biology/biochemistry/cellular physiology I can oblige.

 

 

Again, why would it. Science has many hypotheses that offer viable and tenable explanations for abiogenesis (see Dawkins' The Selfish Gene and Sagan's Cosmos) that, of course haven't been demonstrated, though they are very tenable. But there's no reason for atheism to try and explain such a thing. Atheism isn't science. The vast majority of atheists aren't scientists and do not attempt to be so bold as to make wild claims they are under-educated on or unable to support. There are, perhaps, many atheists who *can* explain abiogenesis, but atheism itself could give less than a hill of beans. Interestingly enough, religious cults are also unable to explain abiogenesis. Nor should they be expected to, but there are many who do expect them to and those within religious cults that pretend to explain such matters. None, absolutely none, of them have ever offered a single verifiable or testable explanation that was even tenable. Not a single one. Yet they keep making claims. Atheism is, again, the logical and reasoned choice.

 

3. I prefer to think that I was put here for a purpose rather than think that I'm some cosmic accident--atheism does not offer me the same meaning in life.

 

 

Not being an atheist, I wouldn't expect you to have a clue as to what atheism could offer you with regard to your "purpose" in life. But I would hardly hold that against you. One doesn't choose atheism because they're looking for purpose in life. One settles on atheism and agnosticism (and, in my opinion, the only logical choice is agnostic-atheism) because of logic and reason. Religious explanations are no longer tenable and to them or perhaps never were. But you are correct that many, many people find purpose without religion. Every single atheist and agnostic I know -and I know many- feels a purpose and feels that their lives are meaningful. For some, its an understanding that they are part of a greater social collective called humanity and that if they do their part, they may have some lasting effect that can ensure the society's survival and well-being.

 

 

4. I prefer a set objective of right and wrong, not something based on what feels good at the moment or an ethic which constantly experiences change.

 

 

 

My first thought then, is why choose a religious version of morality. If ever their was a moral relativist outlook, it seems to be with religion. I worry about the religious nutters that feel that their god(s) want them to die for them or kill for them. And I'm not just speaking of Islamic fundamentalists. I cannot count the number of Christians I've encountered in my life that believe they would be willing to die for their gods or that their gods demand the most from them. I'm even appalled when I hear Christians say things like "god first, family second, then my job." Bull. Family first. Always. If your god spoke to me in the middle of the night and asked for a sacrifice of my kid on the altar, I wouldn't got the path of Abraham, I'd tell him/her to kiss it.

 

If the atheists are right, and there are no gods, then that would mean that morality is a human concept not a divine one. Moreover, the very fact that the non-religious appear to have higher moral standards than the religious provides evidence that morality is just that: a human condition and not one that is divinely given. If it were, the gods that inspired morality are among the most incompetent and don't deserve worship.

 

For those that find the need to lean on religion to supply them with their morality, my opinion is that it says more about their own moral convictions and ability to interact on a positive and appropriate social level with their fellow man than not. But I accept that there are those among us that cannot find their moral center without believing that they'll answer to a "higher power." But its these individuals that continue to cause the most problems for society time and time again. The prison system is full of religious criminals and nearly absent of the non-religious, which are disproportionately represented in prisons and jails.

 

Finally, when it comes to moral center, I worry about end times nutters, of which there are a great many (anecdotally, there could be a strong correlation noted simply by observing the popularity of the Left Behind series of the ironically named Christian fiction genre). These people see no reason to leave a positive legacy or make decisions today that have value in posterity. Global warming, the price of oil, toxic waste, resource depletion, wetlands destruction, fiscal management in government, social programs designed to last decades, etc, etc. -none of these hold true meaning to believers in the end times mythology.

[Nancy Allen``]

You're just being silly here. No matter what anybody else says, you seem to be under the assumption that anything anyone says against religion is persecution. This is not the case.

 

Not at all. I am under the assumption that some Atheists believe they have the right to persecute religion. Prove me wrong please.

 

But you're not Atheist, and you don't stand for the beliefs of Atheism, as you've made very clear in this and many other threads. If you were, you wouldn't be continually harping on this imaginary "persecution" kick you're presently on. Nobody is persecuting you or forcing you to abandon your religious beliefs. You can wrap your head around that any day now.

 

Reply to post impossible. Reason: arrogant and condescending tone too great.

[SkinWalker]

I can also say some people are forcing your

beliefs on others. With banning prayer in schools,

 

There is no ban on prayer in public schools, moreover, I would be against such a ridiculous thing.

 

... people that you think are crazed people do to your view that peoples

religions are delusional( which makes them idiots from what im taking it as)

 

I'm not sure who said that religious adherents are "crazed." I didn't see that term used in the thread. Also, I think you may have a misunderstanding as to what the word "delusion" means. Simply put, it is a misguided belief. There are hundreds of mainstream religions in the world that are actively adhered to. Many vary to such a degree that they can be characterized as contradictory to each other. Most believe their own cult to be the appropriate and only correct one. Obviously they cannot all be right. Would you consider the adherents of a small Polynesian religion that believed in making regular sacrifices to their volcano god and engaging in anonymous sex during an annual festival to be correct in their beliefs? Would you not see them as deluded in their beliefs, even if you respect their right to believe it?

 

Perhaps you might be tempted to answer that question with some sort of convenient dodge, claiming to respect the beliefs of other cultures; understanding those that haven't heard "the Word;" etc., but those responses don't wash. This culture has "heard the Word," and they boiled the missionaries and had them for their festival's feast.

 

Christianity is deluded. Period. Much of the biblical mythology is based upon claims that simply don't pan out when the evidence is evaluated. Archaeologically, the so-called Wandering Israelites of the Late Bronze Age didn't exist and neither did the places and peoples they claimed to encounter. The Noachian Flood myth was borrowed heavily from the much older Sumerian and Chaldean myths of deluge, such as the Gilgamesh story.

 

And so one and so on. I could go on and on about the anonymous authors of the gospels not being eyewitnesses, etc., but I suspect you might not even read what I wrote. At the very least, you would write off my words as the trappings of satan.

[SkinWalker]

Not at all. I am under the assumption that some Atheists believe they have the right to persecute religion. Prove me wrong please.

 

The definition of persecution is to cause suffering or oppress. The only thing I've seen any of the atheists in this thread admit to was feeling the need to criticize, question and challenge the claims of religion. And that is a right that I not only feel I have, but one I demand. Still, the assumption you state above is your own assertion and, therefore, the burden of proof lies not with others to prove a negative but for you to prove a positive. If you're saying that atheists believe they have the right to "persecute," that is, to cause suffering and oppress the religious, then I ask you to quote that passage from this or any other thread in the forum or, for that matter, any other source on the internet or public media.

 

That simply isn't in line with the humanistic beliefs of most well-known and influential atheists and certainly something that I've seen called upon here.

 

Persecution of the religious would be requiring that they close their churches; restrict establishment of churches within 500 meters of liquor stores and cigar shops; ban public television from airing religious programs on Sunday; ban public newspapers from publishing a Religion section in their Sunday paper; make neighborhood proselytizing an offense punishable by fine or imprisonment; fining anyone caught soliciting donations for faith-based organizations; requiring that faith-based organizations go to the bottom of the list in awarding public contracts; or requiring stickers in all bibles even at church that offer a disclaimer that the contents of the book involved with explaining creation is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. The material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered.

 

That, my friend, would be persecution. But I'm all for the sticker.

[Nancy Allen``]

I think we all, me included, need to have it spelt out whether Atheists believe they have the right to persecute religion. Not discuss or debate, but out and out persecute religion. The way Middle Eastern Muslim terrorists persecute those who do not believe their blashemus Islamic fascism. Do Atheists believe they have a right to persecute religion in this way? Yes or no? I'm almost positive the answer is no but reading some of the posts I need confirmation.