Your view on Atheists

[Achilles]

I seem to remember something being said about how people will pick apart arguements in a debate forum. Now the burdon of evidence on whether religion is to blame for enviromental destruction, and that Atheists are blameless in it, is on you.

It certainly would be, if that was the claim being made. Since I don't see anyone making that claim, I'm not sure what this is referencing.

 

What has been presented? An interpretation of a quote from the bible by someone who wants to portray religion as some great evil. Now if you want this to be taken seriously you will show us solid evidence.

What has been presented is that there is a group of christians that believe that the bible gives them free reign to do whatever they would like with the earth's natural resources. I have made my argument (the existence of such a group) and supported it with evidence. If you would like to present a counter-argument or question my source, then feel free. I look forward to reading your response.

[Nancy Allen``]

The evidence you provided said that we are to use the planet's resources as we see fit. That would apply irrelevent of religion. Atheists arn't card carrying members of Earth First, the Sierra group and the like are they? Nor is lack of religion a magical tailsman making them blameless for what is done to the enviroment is it? Nowhere does it say anything about not bothering to sustain the enviroment or that what enviromental damage they cause doesn't matter. On the specific bible quotes it is not saying we are to abuse the enviroment, we are to use it responsibly. If you can find it get what's known as the Quest bible, it's a study bible that answers many of the questions raised from reading specific passages.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

I don't think either Achilles (despite the dominions page he linked to) or ET Warrior is saying that the only reason people are not being environmentalistic is that they're fundies. Nor did I, as a matter of fact, despite my End Timers assertion. Achilles and ET's responses came as a response to your 'stewards of the Earth' assertion. They're saying that while an environmentalist finds arguments for his cause in the Bible, those opposed to environmentalism will, too.

[Achilles]

The evidence you provided said that we are to use the planet's resources as we see fit.

The evidence that I provided shows that there is a sub-set of christians known as dominionists and they believe that any kind of environmental stewardship is in direct opposition to god's will.

 

You can either accept this, present out counter-argument that would attempt to disprove the existence of such a group, or attempt to discredit my source. Or you could repeat yourself again. Or trying to change the subject to something other than what we were discussing.

 

Atheists arn't card carrying members of Earth First, the Sierra group and the like are they?

I don't recall anyone making the claim. Also, I'm not sure what this has to do with the argument.

 

Nor is lack of religion a magical tailsman making them blameless for what is done to the enviroment is it? Nowhere does it say anything about not bothering to sustain the enviroment or that what enviromental damage they cause doesn't matter. On the specific bible quotes it is not saying we are to abuse the enviroment, we are to use it responsibly. If you can find it get what's known as the Quest bible, it's a study bible that answers many of the questions raised from reading specific passages.

I'm really having difficulty following along. I'm not sure how any of this addresses the interpretation of the bible that we were discussing.

 

They're saying that while an environmentalist finds arguments for his cause in the Bible, those opposed to environmentalism will, too.

Exactly.

[Prime]

Now the burdon of evidence on whether religion is to blame for enviromental destruction, and that Atheists are blameless in it, is on you.

For crying out loud, Nancy, no one ever made that claim!

[TK-8252]

This thread is going too fast for me to keep up with, so I'm not really going to try to join in, but I would like to ask why is the word "atheist" being capitalized by some of the debaters as if it were a proper noun? Atheism is not an organization of any kind, like Christianity or Islam. Stop treating it as if it were. You don't capitalize monotheism or polytheism, so why treat atheism any differently?

 

I think it shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what atheism is by those who capitalize it as a proper noun. Not just the stucture of the word, but what it means.

 

Sorry, I just had a bone to pick.

[Nancy Allen``]

For crying out loud, Nancy, no one ever made that claim!

 

No, but by saying religion says to wreck the enviroment, as Ann Coulter said and atheists put forth (notice the small a?) it's as if they have done nothing wrong which is at best fallicious.

[Achilles]

No one has attempted to make it comparative except you. I'm sure that there are a lot of atheists out there that aren't very "green", but that doesn't really matter because the argument had nothing to do with atheists.

 

This isn't about which group is better than the other, rather it's about "some christians are using the bible as justification for poor management of natural resources and 'earth stewardship'". Thus far you have not addressed the actual argument. However you have managed to bring up this completely irrelevant argument several times.

 

So, are you contesting the existence of this group of christians? Is your stance that they don't exist?

 

@TK-8252: I try not to capitalize any ideology unless it begins a sentence. If I've slipped a few times and managed to offend you - my apologies.

[tk102]

No, but by saying religion says to wreck the enviroment, as Ann Coulter said and atheists put forth (notice the small a?) it's as if they have done nothing wrong which is at best fallicious.

The closest I could find anyone saying such a thing, aside Ann Coulter, was when Achilles made the supposition that the Bush administration believed in the rapture and was trying to bring it about.

In thread references

Post 96

Post 203

 

Can we agree:

1. A president has the power to help or harm the environment and begin wars in the Middle East.

2. Achilles has pointed to Kyoto and Iraq and linked them to Bush's theistic beliefs and suggested they could be part of bringing about the rapture.

3. Nancy has suggested that atheists could and have also hurt the environment.

 

My corollary: An atheist president could also start a war in the Middle East. Someone on a forum somewhere may believe he's trying to bring about the end of the world.

 

rather it's about "some christians are using the bible as justification for poor management of natural resources and 'earth stewardship'".

I'm sure some atheists use science for their own nefarious purposes as well. Maybe someday eugenics will be a good science reason for an atheist president to go to war against the impure societies. We could suppose things all day. The bottom line that I am hearing is that atheists simply don't trust the motives of theists because it seems no one has the definitive guide for Bible interpretation.

[Nancy Allen``]

I am contesting how creditble a piece from the bible that had been twisted around to say 'Earth is yours. Take it. Rape it. It's yours.' is as evidence. One quote from a bigot does not a case make. Now you don't like atheists being put on trial over how well they manage the enviroment, but nonetheless the question must be asked on how well they manage the enviroment.

[Achilles]

The closest I could find anyone saying such a thing, aside Ann Coulter, was when Achilles made the supposition that the Bush administration believed in the rapture and was trying to bring it about.

Et tu, teekay?

 

My corollary: An atheist president could also start a war in the Middle East. Someone on a forum somewhere may believe he's trying to bring about the end of the world.

Yes, but said forumite would not be able to make the argument that said atheist president's actions are religiously motivated.

 

ADDED BY EDIT:

I'm sure some atheists use science for their own nefarious purposes as well.

Red herring :evil6:

 

I'm sure your point is accurate and true, however I'm not sure how it relates to the argument regarding the existence of dominionists.

 

Maybe someday eugenics will be a good science reason for an atheist president to go to war against the impure societies. We could suppose things all day. The bottom line that I am hearing is that atheists simply don't trust the motives of theists because it seems no one has the definitive guide for Bible interpretation.

I would venture to guess that you'll find some moderate and liberal christians that don't trust fundamentalist christians on the same grounds. Therefore, I think it's inaccurate and potentially a little unfair to categorize this as an "atheist" problem.

 

END A.B.E.

 

I am contesting how creditble a piece from the bible that had been twisted around to say 'Earth is yours. Take it. Rape it. It's yours.' is as evidence.

You won't hear any argument from me. I think my point all along was to show that the bible is not credible at all. If you want to argue the interpretation, then I imagine that you would have better luck taking your complaints to those doing the interpreting. Just be prepared for a potentially violent episode of "he said/she said" as they will be quoting from the exact same book as you.

 

One quote from a bigot does not a case make.

Ann Coulter is just one example. While her language is extreme, it does represent the viewpoint of many. Don't kill the messenger.

 

Now you don't like atheists being put on trial over how well they manage the enviroment, but nonetheless the question must be asked on how well they manage the enviroment.

If you would like to talk about how atheists manage the environment, I'd be more than happy to join you. However we should probably start similar threads on how blond-haired people manage the environment, etc.

[Nancy Allen``]

So why haven't you been able to provide anything better? Look, I know you want you portray religion as some great evil, you really do. But something to keep in mind is that let's say for example religion was successfully eliminated. What then? Would wars break out between atheists whose 'religion' is science and atheists whose 'religion' is law?

[tk102]

Yes, but said forumite would not be able to make the argument that said atheist president's actions are religiously motivated.

I take from argument: We should not trust those who have power and are religiously motivated because the source of their inspiration can be twisted to whatever interpretation seems fitting.

 

Okay.

 

But it begs the question of whether atheists are any more immune to corruption if given power? A skillful athetist politician could wrap himself around scientific reasoning to justify whatever action he sees fit. If he already has power, what difference does it make whether there is a scientific review process that is objecting to his claims?

 

If there is no difference between theists and atheists when it comes to corruption in power, your arguments while true, don't back your implied assertion that theists are more harmful than atheists.

Red herring

I think this post explains its pertinence.

Et tu, teekay?

What can I say, you guys look like you're having too much fun without me.

 

Edit:

Therefore, I think it's inaccurate and potentially a little unfair to categorize this as an "atheist" problem.

Sorry didn't mean to imply an atheist problem -- I thought we were talking about theists vs. atheists not dominionists vs. everybody else. I was just trying to show a flip side. In that case substitute "non-dominionists" in for atheists throughout this post and the last.

[Achilles]

So why haven't you been able to provide anything better?

Regarding what? Dominionism?

 

If the link that I provided before was insufficient, here's the wiki. It only makes a passing reference to environmental concerns, which is why I originally provided the much more detailed Religious Tolerance page.

 

Look, I know you want you portray religion as some great evil, you really do.

Actually, my goal is "unnecessary". I don't consider religion, in and of itself, evil anymore than I consider software "evil". Most religion is bad software.

 

But something to keep in mind is that let's say for example religion was successfully eliminated. What then? Would wars break out between atheists whose 'religion' is science and atheists whose 'religion' is law?

I'd be happy to explore this with you further.

 

If the world suddenly admitted that there was no tooth-fairy, would that precipitate an international catastrophe? Most of us give up the notion when we are kids, but are our view regarding economics forever tainted? Would wars break out now that fifty-cent pieces, silver dollars, and 2 dollar bills are taken out of circulation?

 

If the only reason that you do good in this world is because you think that god is watching, then I would contend that your goodness is based on a system of rewards and therefore not genuine. Despite our disagreements, I don't think for a second that you would turn into a cannibalistic serial-killer if you ever lost your faith and you would probably continue to be a good person no matter what. Is your faith in mankind so fragile that you cannot extend the same presumptions to them?

 

Some people probably would come unhinged, but these people already had screws loose anyways. The unfortunately reality is that their religiousity probably did more to hide their problems than help them.

 

I'll leave it to you to take it from here.

 

*****

I take from argument: We should not trust those who have power and are religiously motivated because the source of their inspiration can be twisted to whatever interpretation seems fitting.

I would definitely say that's part of it, but probably not the biggest nor most important part.

 

The argument is that we should not trust those who have the power and are religious because the general public should be able to trust that those in power are going to make the best, most rational, decision using all the information that is available with the goal of serving the greatest good. Therefore, if the people in power have uniformly expressed a profound belief in something that is irrational, and values a belief system that completely contradicts the best information available, how can we trust that their decisions are being made with the welfare of all people in mind?

 

The fact that their source of moral fortitude is so completely open to interpretation is simply arsenic in the frosting on the crazy-cake.

 

Okay.

 

But it begs the question of whether atheists are any more immune to corruption if given power?

No, absolutely not. No more than left-handed people would be (and also no less so).

 

If I had to make an educated guess, I would say that individual values are the key. I would posit that you are much less likely to have a hodge-podge, pre-packaged, contradictory system of values if you are an atheist than if you are a theist, but I don't want to speak too highly of atheists (in general) or too critically of theists (in general).

 

A skillful athetist politician could wrap himself around scientific reasoning to justify whatever action he sees fit. If he already has power, what difference does it make whether there is a scientific review process that is objecting to his claims?

Sure, but what if the general public grew up in an environment in which they weren't taught to allow others to think for them or that refusal to submit to authority would lead to eternal damnation? Do you think that would have some impact on said politician's success? Do you know any atheists that don't question authority? (Feel free to use me as an example )

 

If there is no difference between theists and atheists when it comes to corruption in power, your arguments while true, don't back your implied assertion that theists are more harmful than atheists.

I think your argument, while true, tends to address components where mine tends to look to the system as a whole.

 

I really think we're getting dangerously close to needing a new thread

 

I think this post explains its pertinence.

You took all the fun out of my inside joke.

 

What can I say, you guys look like you're having too much fun without me.

The more the merrier.

 

Edit:

Sorry didn't mean to imply an atheist problem -- I thought we were talking about theists vs. atheists not dominionists vs. everybody else. I was just trying to show a flip side. In that case substitute "non-dominionists" in for atheists throughout this post and the last.

Sounds like too much work. You win

 

 

Thanks for reading.

[tk102]

...we should not trust those who have the power and are religious because the general public should be able to trust that those in power are going to make the best, most rational, decision using all the information that is available with the goal of serving the greatest good. Therefore, if the people in power have uniformly expressed a profound belief in something that is irrational, and values a belief system that completely contradicts the best information available, how can we trust that their decisions are being made with the welfare of all people in mind?

Hmm. That seems coherent and consistent. The only area I could think to argue against is on the assumption that the rational decision is equivalent to the best decision or would serve the greatest good. But that'd come across as irrational.

 

Sure, but what if the general public grew up in an environment in which they weren't taught to allow others to think for them or that refusal to submit to authority would lead to eternal damnation? Do you think that would have some impact on said politician's success?

Touché!

Sounds like too much work. You win

I don't think so.

EDIT: Whoops. I should have just combined posts. Could a moderator please fix this? Thanks in advance.

Redhawke taught me how to do this once... click point click.

 

Cheers.

 

You have learned well padawan. - RH

 

As long as you don't do that to someone else's post incorrectly. --Jae

[Achilles]

Hmm. That seems coherent and consistent. The only area I could think to argue against is on the assumption that the rational decision is equivalent to the best decision or would serve the greatest good. But that'd come across as irrational.

I think you and I have yet to agree on a definition for "rational" so I'll assume that any contention stems from that.

 

FWIW, I don't think all leaders with religious tendencies fit the profile that I outlined above. For instance, Chris Dodd considers himself a devout roman catholic, however I've heard the man speak many times and I would feel perfect comfortable with him in the driver's seat (even though I'll most likely be voting for Obama).

 

Redhawke taught me how to do this once... click point click.

 

Cheers.

Thanks!

[Samuel Dravis]

I think tktktktktk means that a rationally made decision may not be the best possible in absolute terms, which can be true. Still, such a decision is going to be consistently better overall than decisions (guesses?) you'd come to through non-rational means.

 

You people have been busy on this thread. ^_^

[Achilles]

I think tktktktktk means that a rationally made decision may not be the best possible in absolute terms, which can be true. Still, such a decision is going to be consistently better overall than decisions (guesses?) you'd come to through non-rational means.

Right. I view "sacrifice 100 to save 1,000,000" as a rational decision. Sucks for the 100 (especially if I am one of the 100), but the greater good is served by saving the million.

 

Reading tea leaves to help make the decision? Not so much.

 

You people have been busy on this thread. ^_^

We wanted to make sure you had plenty to read when you got back.

[Nancy Allen``]

I'll try this again. Let's look at things from a diffirent perspective. Rather than look at religion as something that commands action how about looking at it as something that without any specific word of god has people rushing to it's defense. fighting, killing for it. Those who don't read the scripttures that say to smite the non believers but do so out of defense of their religion. Okay, now with that in mind people can become that devoted to so many things aside from religion. Are you a little quick to reply to Darwin criticism for example? I'm not saying it's a bad thing, and certainly that alone will make you as bad as some people have been. What I'm saying is especially if it is your single minded interest then it can be very easy to become obsessed with it, attacking others for the slightest percieved criticism of your...for lack of a better word, fanaticism.

[Achilles]

I'll try this again. Let's look at things from a diffirent perspective. Rather than look at religion as something that commands action how about looking at it as something that without any specific word of god has people rushing to it's defense. fighting, killing for it. Those who don't read the scripttures that say to smite the non believers but do so out of defense of their religion. Okay, now with that in mind people can become that devoted to so many things aside from religion. Are you a little quick to reply to Darwin criticism for example? I'm not saying it's a bad thing, and certainly that alone will make you as bad as some people have been. What I'm saying is especially if it is your single minded interest then it can be very easy to become obsessed with it, attacking others for the slightest percieved criticism of your...for lack of a better word, fanaticism.

I can't say for sure, but I think I'm following a little better this time.

 

The problem with this argument is that it's entirely hypothetical. Religion does make commandments. Trying to imagine it as something different and then compare that to something else doesn't gain us anything greater understanding of either subject. It's like saying, "imagine that guns fired lollipops instead of bullets. Since lollipops don't kill people, guns are just as dangerous as candy stores". While the logic may appear sound on the surface, the whole argument hinges on guns firing lollipops instead of bullets. In this case, the whole argument hinges on religion not having commandments to kill. As much as we want that to not be the truth, it's still the truth no matter what.

 

People can become fanatical about things other than religion, but that isn't a case for the argument that religion doesn't promote fanaticism.

 

Thank you for taking the time to reframe your argument.

[Nancy Allen``]

Intolerance for other beliefs is fananticism. Condemning others because of what they believe or what they think is fananticism.

[Achilles]

I appreciate that, but I'm not sure how it moves the conversation forward. The last time I checked the three abrahamic monotheisms all had ideologies based on intolerance and condemnation, which has been my position all along.

[Nancy Allen``]

Then raise it with those who refuse to allow other people's beliefs in society. Atheism is just as much to blame for it as religion.

[Achilles]

Then raise it with those who refuse to allow other people's beliefs in society.

I'm afraid you'll need to be a little more specific. For some reason the only examples I can come up with consist of christians repressing jews and muslims, muslims repressing christians and jews, and...well, I can't think of any examples of jews repressing christians or muslims, but I'm sure someone will be happy to jump in if an example exists. Also any of the above repressing "pagan" religions.

 

Or to put it more bluntly, "I already am".

 

Atheism is just as much to blame for it as religion.

Using Einstein's definition of insanity, I am about to show that I've truly lost my mind by asking you to provide an example and expecting you to come back with something that hasn't already been shown to be not applicable. *hangs head in shame*

[Nancy Allen``]

Here's a link that directly applies to atheist hatred of religion.

 

http://www.carm.org/atheism/atheistattacks.htm

 

Now, as we have combated racial and sexual intolerance, as we have combated intolerance of other religions, we must also combat the hatred and intolerance of religion period.

 

Name-calling is flaming here. Don't do it again--this is a warning. --Jae