Any atheists here who were once believers?

[Mazulu]

However, there are those who pretend to be scientifically literate who attempt to merge and align their ridiculous beliefs with science, showing only to well their dishonesty and lack of integrity and morals.

Like I said, it takes a significant knowledge to be able to align one's religious beliefs with scientific facts. Oh, and I'll pass on your red herring.

 

[Mazulu]

But, not to worry...

Truth be told, it was everybody killing everybody historically. Romans were often atheists, yet they loved death and gore in the Colosseum. The violence of the dark ages came from that. Also the warring tribalism everywhere in the world. Violence is not caused by religion. Although admittedly, religion gives everything more meaning and purpose.

 

[(Q)]

Romans were often atheists, yet they loved death and gore in the Colosseum.

That is entirely false, Romans were extremely superstitious and embraces all kinds of myths.

Violence is not caused by religion.

Yes, it is. Religion makes good people do bad things.

 

[wegs]

Truth be told, it was everybody killing everybody historically. Romans were often atheists, yet they loved death and gore in the Colosseum. The violence of the dark ages came from that. Also the warring tribalism everywhere in the world. Violence is not caused by religion. Although admittedly, religion gives everything more meaning and purpose.

Religion causes a lot of division, Mazulu. To deny that, isn’t being true to yourself. You have to accept that religious history has a bloody past. Religion shouldn’t cause violence, or division, is a better way of putting it, but it does.

That doesn’t mean I don’t respect religion. Religion becomes a problem, and has caused wars, when it intrudes into others’ lives who don’t believe the same religion, or don’t believe in religion and/or a god concept, at all.

Religion makes people ''protective'' of god. But, really, they are merely protecting their own ideas of god. Would an almighty God need protecting or defending?

 

[Mazulu]

Religion causes a lot of division, Mazulu. To deny that, isn’t being true to yourself. You have to accept that religious history has a bloody past. Religion shouldn’t cause violence, or division, is a better way of putting it, but it does.

That doesn’t mean I don’t respect religion. Religion becomes a problem, and has caused wars, when it intrudes into others’ lives who don’t believe the same religion, or don’t believe in religion and/or a god concept, at all.

Religion makes people ''protective'' of god. But, really, they are merely protecting their own ideas of god. Would an almighty God need protecting or defending?

I know lots of people, including myself, who are religious, but do not commit acts of violence. Do these worshippers look like they want to kill anyone? Where are there guns?

In contrast, there is much violence and war that is committed for reasons other than religion, like land, resources, prestige, patriotism, the desire to rape pillage and burn.

 

[spidergoat]

I know lots of people, including myself, who are religious, but do not commit acts of violence. Do these worshippers look like they want to kill anyone? Where are there guns?


In contrast, there is much violence and war that is committed for reasons other than religion, like land, resources, prestige, patriotism, the desire to rape pillage and burn.

Those are at least desires for real things.

 

[wegs]

Truth be told, it was everybody killing everybody historically. Romans were often atheists, yet they loved death and gore in the Colosseum. The violence of the dark ages came from that. Also the warring tribalism everywhere in the world. Violence is not caused by religion. Although admittedly, religion gives everything more meaning and purpose.

http://now.msn.com/atheists-more-compassionate-than-believers-study-finds

 

[Mazulu]

http://now.msn.com/atheists-more-compassionate-than-believers-study-finds

Atheists are compassionate because the faithful are watching. The faithful are compassionate because God is watching. It sounds like it works.

 

[wegs]

Atheists are compassionate because the faithful are watching. The faithful are compassionate because God is watching. It sounds like it works.

Of course, there are exceptions.

Old saying this reminds me of: a true test of character is when a person does the right thing even when no one is watching.


Maybe that is where we can all agree.
Religious and non religious...believers and non believers...no matter what we believe, it comes down to choice and character.
The concept of a god "watching" shouldn't be the main motivator to do good in the world.

That is what that article hinted about, I think.

 

[Balerion]

Atheists are compassionate because the faithful are watching. The faithful are compassionate because God is watching. It sounds like it works.

Why would the faithful have any impact on an atheist's behavior?

 

[Mazulu]

Why would the faithful have any impact on an atheist's behavior?

We're supposed to believe there are no dumb questions.

 

[Balerion]

We're supposed to believe there are no dumb questions.

Feel free to smartify me with this patently obvious answer that I'm missing.

 

[Yazata]

Atheists are compassionate because the faithful are watching. The faithful are compassionate because God is watching. It sounds like it works.

I agree with Balerion. Why would an atheist even care if "the faithful" are watching?

The thing that keeps people on the same page isn't so much religious belief as its everyone (or most everyone) having a conscience.

Obviously social pressure is important too. There's lots of less-than-nice things that people are tempted to do, but don't, because they are concerned about what other people will think. But I don't think that it makes a whole lot of difference in that regard what religious beliefs those other people have or don't have.

 

[wynn]

Why would the faithful have any impact on an atheist's behavior?

Well, if you get apprehended by a "faithful" teorrist who ties you down, then his behavior kind of has an impact on your behavior ...


I don't agree with Mazulu. However -

I agree with Balerion. Why would an atheist even care if "the faithful" are watching?

Given that there is quite a bit of interaction between "the faithful" and atheists, the atheists apparently do care what the "faithful" do. Probably not in ways that Mazulu suggests, but certainly in ways that people care about what other people do.

 

[wynn]

As I've mentioned many times before, scientists are crappy communicators, especially with laymen. In science, a theory is a hypothesis that has been proven true beyond a reasonable doubt. The theory of relativity. The theory of plate tectonics. The theory of evolution. All have mountains of evidence. In the case of evolution it actually has evidence gathered independently from two different disciplines: paleontology and genetics. This is one of the most solid theories that has ever been discovered. The odds of it ever being falsified are of the same order of magnitude as all the atoms in your chair moving in the same direction so it rises off the floor.

[And of course the "crappy communicators" comment comes in when we hear scientists talking loosely about "String Theory," which is nothing but a clever hypothesis supported by no evidence except arm-waving. Universities have begun training a new generation of science writers to stand between these linguistically-challenged PhDs and the general public.]

The divine creation hypothesis has zero evidence. In fact, its supporters entreat us to cast aside our rationality and accept a hypothesis so remarkable that it automatically invokes the Rule of Laplace: "Extraordinary assertions must be supported by extraordinary evidence before anyone is obliged to treat them with respect."

This is, literally, a no-brainer. People who believe in divine creation should have their heads examined to see if their brains are not fully developed. The rest of us learned to laugh at fairytales like Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy when we were six or seven years old.

Indeed. The leaders of all the major Christian sects (including the Pope) have conceded that virtually all of the fables in the Bible are metaphors--which, as every educated person knows, does not diminish their power in the slightest.

Especially the divine creation: Jesuit universities (and mainline Protestant-affiliated universities) have been teaching evolution for decades, and now plate tectonics as well.

In other words: Get with the program!

You get with the program!

Except for some Christian-directed people, no religionists have ever proposed religious doctrines to be arrived at by some kind of process that is much like the current Western scientific one.
Except for some Christian-directed people, no religionists have ever proposed religious doctrines to be theories.

Religious doctrines are generally not intended to be taken as hypotheses or as theories. They are usually intended to be taken as revelations from God Himself.

Now, one may accept them as such revelations or not. But it is simply wrong to universally think of religious doctrines as theories, or to judge them as such.

Including the Pope, the Archbishop of Canterbury, and the heads of virtually all the relatively sane branches of Christianity and the other Abrahamic religions.

Jesuit universities have been teaching evolution for decades. So have the mainline-Protestant universities, such as USC and Occidental.

Even churchgoers and their leaders have accepted the fact that the fairytales in the Bible are metaphors. This does not dilute their power.

Why should those Christians (and perhaps some people from other religions) be considered supreme, representative of all religion, true, the ones who set the norms?

 

[Mazulu]

The faithful have a very strong effect on the behavior of atheists. That's why atheists complain incessantly that they've religion makes people kill everyone else. That's why atheists whine continually that they've never experienced God so they don't believe in God. That's why atheists attack believers by calling their beliefs fairy tales. All this whining and complaining, "Oh! I don't understand what they mean by the Holy Ghost! They must be making it up.", all of this vitriol is: behavior. Duh!

 

[wynn]

Wasn’t any disrespect intended. All religions, in my opinion, are manmade constructs.

You do realize that to some people, this is a very offensive view you present here.

My reply to Jan was to state that he tells atheists, agnostics, etc…that they are wrong to not believe,

And you tell us that nobody can know the truth about God.
!!

he has made claims that if one believes in evolution, one mustn’t be a theist,

Not mustn't: cannot, as in "it is impossible to be a theist and also believe in TOE".

I’m confused as to how why we should accept others’ beliefs as ‘true.’

Can you tell us, finally, why you think that we should accept your beliefs as true"
For example, why do you think that we should accept your claim that "nobody can know the truth about God"?

My intent wasn’t to state that anyone is ‘wrong,’ but that it’s wrong to state that if one doesn’t hold some type of spiritual or religious belief, that we are wrong.

Oh, PC.

But, to infer that it (belief/religion) is somehow necessary in life, or to infer that atheists/agnostics are wrong to not believe in ‘some type of god,’ can be insulting and offensive, as well.

Why would that be offensive?
Can you explain?

My reaction to demi gods, was because Jan uses Scripture to back up his beliefs, and I was taken aback that he believes in more than one god, and yet uses the Bible. It had nothing to do with people believing in whatever they like...it had to do with specifically Jan's use of the Bible, and yet also believes in more than one god. So, to believe a slice of one religion over here, and another over here...this shows me, that religion is rather a whimsical thing.

Or maybe you simply need to read up on religions a bit more, to see that there are religions that contextualize and incorporate other religions.

And apparently, you missed that Jan quotes more than just the Bible. He also quotes from other scriptures.

I think religion would gain more respect, if it stopped presenting itself as truth. Objective truth, it is not. Subjective truth, yes.

You do realize that to some people, this is a very offensive view you present here.

 

[wegs]

It is my opinion and I have stated as such throughout.
You don't like my opinion so you are offended.

You have offended me and others too. Guess that happens when religion is the topic.

No one knows the truth about a god, gods, or any variation thereof. I stand by that.
At best, mankind speculated and continues to...as to what he/it may be like.

Perhaps you have a broader definition of "truth" than me. Truth to me means..verifiable. Measurable.
No one has verified with certainty who or what god is.

Doesn't mean he doesn't exist. Just means for now, he is whoever someone believes him/it/they to be. Beliefs aren't truth, Wynn. Well, it might be truth to someone who believes the vision of god they hold, but that's not universal/objective truth.

That's what I'm trying to say. When I was practicing Christianity, I thought it was 'truth.' But, certainly not universal truth, or objective truth. It was actually, just my opinion as to who god was at the time.

 

[Mazulu]

This is, literally, a no-brainer. People who believe in divine creation should have their heads examined to see if their brains are not fully developed. The rest of us learned to laugh at fairytales like Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy when we were six or seven years old.

Fraggle rocker has no idea where the big bang came from or how the physics constants are enforced. Whatever spit out the bb, whatever enforces the physics constants/laws, is invisible and undetectable (like a lot of things that science does know about). Science can't create universes, and nature wasn't here to create itself, so what created the big bang? Whatever did create the universe, hopefully it won't be anything that takes offense to Fraggle's comments about "laugh at fairytales like Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy".

 

[(Q)]

The faithful have a very strong effect on the behavior of atheists.

Yes, the faithful cause immense conflict and suffering in the world. That's why atheists reject their ideologies. That is the strong effect.

That's why atheists complain incessantly that they've religion makes people kill everyone else. That's why atheists whine continually that they've never experienced God so they don't believe in God. That's why atheists attack believers by calling their beliefs fairy tales. All this whining and complaining, "Oh! I don't understand what they mean by the Holy Ghost! They must be making it up.", all of this vitriol is: behavior. Duh!

LOL. Still haven't visited Earth to see what's really going on?