The best article on Atheism I have read

[VitalOne]

Vitalone,

That’s what can be done if one has power.

Ok, are you defending your atheists beliefs or something?

So is one worse than the other because of head count? I would consider the killing of a single person to be equally bad as either of them.

Really? So killing a billion people is equivalent to killing one person? Right...

Atheism means nothing more than a disbelief in gods. It is not a doctrine or a religion. An atheist can be the worst and the best in society. Implying that all atheists must be bad because one of them is a murderer is a logical fallacy.

Exactly, that's my point. But this logic is only applied to atheists, not to people of other religions.

The pope at the time interpreted the bible to mean that “love your enemies” only applied if your enemies were also Christian. If they weren’t and wouldn’t convert then it was fine to butcher and murder them. The inquisition interpreted the bible yet another way and deemed it was OK to persecute and torture people because if the victims were innocent then they would be rewarded in heaven. Muslim suicide bombers interpret their Quran to allow them to kill enemies of Islam and the reward will be found in heaven. Remember also that Hitler tried to exterminate the Jews because of his interpretation of the bible – he considered himself a Christian. Where is the logic in any of that? And where is the logic to conclude that a god exist?

Ambiguous religious texts can be interpreted many ways depending on the intent of the interpreter, and if he is a good salesman then the gullible will follow. Both the Crusaders and the inquisitors believed they had full biblical support at the time and considered themselves Christian.

First, I never proposed that God existed through any logic. Secondly, the Quran exclusively, directly, states its ok to kill if someone fights you, and in many other instances, there is no "interpretation" needed.

Clearly the Church did not really care about the Bible and pursued their own agendas. You would need to seriously distort Biblical scriptures in certain ways to make the intepretations the Pope did. The Church simply distorted the Bible so that it fit into their agendas. Jesus says to not judge or condemn others, and praises forgiveness. Yet were these things upheld by the so-called "Christians" throughout time?

It doesn't matter that the Crusaders believed it was justified, the point I'm making is how do you blame a religion for others actions when the religion promotes actions opposite of what is being carried out? Atheists constantly cite this as an example of the "evils" of Christianity.

I would suspect that if Jesus were alive today that he would not have agreed to invade Iraq and kill so many people. Yet Bush has and he considers himself a Christian - where is the logic in that?

Like I said, people modify their interpretations of religion so they can carry out their agendas and still be "holy". There is really no logic in that. The point I'm trying to make is that it really has little or nothing to do with religion, it's the person's own agenda, their own desire that it has to do with it.

 

[VitalOne]

Vitalone,

"Only the atheist recognizes the boundless narcissism and self-deceit of the saved"

"Only the atheist realizes how morally objectionable it is for survivors of a catastrophe to believe themselves spared by a loving God while this same God drowned infants in their cribs"

"Consequently, only the atheist is compassionate enough to take the profundity of the world’s suffering at face value"

So are you saying that one of more these are not true?

Yes, being atheist means that you deny the existence of God(s). It does not mean that you are compassionate, "morally objectionable", or that you have the intelligence to recognize anything.

This is just like how Christians say that atheists have no moral values, or that only Chrisitans recognize charitability and want peace.

This is the irony I was trying to illustrate.

 

[Cris]

Propaganda: from webster -

2 : the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person

3 : ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause;

I'd like to explore this further to see how both sides use these tactics. I could perhaps argue that if the allegations are true then the action might be justfied. But if it is deliberately untrue, vicious rumor, or twisted logic, or anything with the intent to maliciously decieve then we have an issue.

 

[Lord Insane]

Like I said, people modify their interpretations of religion so they can carry out their agendas and still be "holy". There is really no logic in that. The point I'm trying to make is that it really has little or nothing to do with religion, it's the person's own agenda, their own desire that it has to do with it.

I do see your point , Vital , but these people are using religion like a weapon and religous people like puppets - wouldn´t it be better if people were freeing themselves from this abuse by giving up religion , and move on, to what is really important (in my mind) , this world, that we are living in ?

I do not underestimate, that some of the western worlds moral has a foundation in christianity , but now we have accepted this moral and can move one step further , forget the religion and cope with the real world - make a good society for all , without the abuse from religion !!!

What good do you see in religion today ????????

Religion is obsolete , hopefully in 40 years USA will be like Denmark - stronger,safer for everyone, richer, more peacefull, offering not only equality, but actually equal opportunities for everyone .... and much more secular than today .........

 

[Cris]

Vitalone,

Really? So killing a billion people is equivalent to killing one person? Right...

Yes very much so. The individual is paramount. Without respect for the individual then the whole group is doomed.

The initiator has crossed the boundary from good to bad whether a billion or just one is the target. It is not a matter of degree.

 

[Cris]

Vitalone,

That’s what can be done if one has power.
”
Ok, are you defending your atheists beliefs or something?

Nope, it’s just an observation. If someone hates something specifically then as a dictator you are free to rule against it. However, had I been in Stalin’s position I would not have banned religion. I certainly would not have any faith based initiatives though. Instead I would have heavily encouraged and invested in the antidote to religion – education, science, and rational humanitarianism.

“ Atheism means nothing more than a disbelief in gods. It is not a doctrine or a religion. An atheist can be the worst and the best in society. Implying that all atheists must be bad because one of them is a murderer is a logical fallacy.
”

Exactly, that's my point. But this logic is only applied to atheists, not to people of other religions.

Not sure if we are in agreement or not on this. The atheist perspective is negative with respect to theism. Whereas theist religions have specific dogmas to follow, so it is possible to reference them as a group set with specific attitudes and properties, not so with atheists regarding issues other than theism. However, in the article the references you quote regarding atheist sets are specific about atheist attitudes towards theism. E.g. -

Only the atheist recognizes the boundless narcissism and self-deceit of the saved" - Atheist opposing theist dogma.

"Only the atheist realizes how morally objectionable it is for survivors of a catastrophe to believe themselves spared by a loving God while this same God drowned infants in their cribs" - Atheists opposing theist perceptions and illogic.

"Consequently, only the atheist is compassionate enough to take the profundity of the world’s suffering at face value" – Atheists opposing the theist dogma that god has a plan.

First, I never proposed that God existed through any logic.

Do you realize that the only alternative is illogic? Is that what you meant?

Secondly, the Quran exclusively, directly, states its ok to kill if someone fights you, and in many other instances, there is no "interpretation" needed.

Yet many Muslims will disagree with you on that interpretation. The distinctions are subtle.

Clearly the Church did not really care about the Bible and pursued their own agendas. You would need to seriously distort Biblical scriptures in certain ways to make the intepretations the Pope did. The Church simply distorted the Bible so that it fit into their agendas. Jesus says to not judge or condemn others, and praises forgiveness. Yet were these things upheld by the so-called "Christians" throughout time?

But there are some 22,000 different Christian sects and cults all of whom have their own interpretations of Christianity and what the bible says. All of them are following their own agendas according to their interpretations. Because Christianity only has a fantasy foundation with a highly ambiguous text as a guide then the followers all feel free to interpret according to their feelings. Some will tend towards pacifism and other towards violence, e.g. Pat Robertson asking that a foreign head of state be assassinated.

You will be seriously challenged to demonstrate one true interpretation of what Christianity is. And within the changing cultures, fashions, and evolution of society values, some aspects will be emphasized more than others at any given time. For example throughout most of the past 2000 years it was fear of hell that drove Christianity, the idea of “love everyone” is a relatively modern emphasis.

It doesn't matter that the Crusaders believed it was justified, the point I'm making is how do you blame a religion for others actions when the religion promotes actions opposite of what is being carried out? Atheists constantly cite this as an example of the "evils" of Christianity.

And quite right. Christianity is in a constant state of change. That you disagree with the way it was interpreted 1000 years ago is irrelevant – it was the Christian religion.

Like I said, people modify their interpretations of religion so they can carry out their agendas and still be "holy". There is really no logic in that. The point I'm trying to make is that it really has little or nothing to do with religion, it's the person's own agenda, their own desire that it has to do with it.

You cannot separate the two. Religion is man made to suit his perceived needs. As the needs change then the religion will be altered and interpreted accordingly.

 

[Mosheh Thezion]

Atheists like to oppose things... especially if it scares them.

-MT

 

[Cris]

Mosheh,

Atheists like to oppose things... especially if it scares them.

BS. Same mistake - you are making a broad generalization about all atheists that can't be true. It is meaningless.

 

[Silas]

As for the term Omnibenevolent. God does not love everyone and i have not put forward that He does. Time and time again in scripture it is revealed that God hates. Although God hates He also is forgiving for those who are repentant and trust in Him.

Thank you Adstar for reminding us why we atheists do not worship such a despotic, narcissistic, if-you're-not-with-Me-you're-against-Me tyrant.

I do think that the article is overly sanctimonious about what "only atheists" do, which is actually an unjustified extension of the beliefs and actions of a few people who were eager, without any deep thought, to express their increased faith in God in the face of disaster, to all theists, many of whom were certainly brought to the brink of unfaith by events as massive as the Holocaust or as small as a personal tragedy. But it does give some excellent examples of how God-think gives rise to irrational thinking, or thinking about God and religious matters in a qualitatively different way to other items of everyday life. Simply as an example, I cite Adstar's reverence for a God who hates those who don't love and worship Him. It should scarcely be necessary, but apparently is, to point out that such characteristics, when applied to such figures as Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, are not listed amongst those leaders' admirable traits.

The United States is the nation that upon its foundation formalised the evil of accepting without question the leadership of any individual without accountability and without the demonstrable consent of the governed. The United States is the nation with up to 40% of its population that believe fervently in the democratic freedom from tyranny promised by the Constitution, but whom are at exactly the same time perfectly willing to subject themselves to the absolute rule of Jesus Christ, if and when he comes. The atheism article isn't perhaps a very good demonstration of the benefits of atheism, but it is a good demonstration that there is an inconsistency in the way people regard the elements of their religious belief when compared with the way they regard the elements of their actual life.

 

[charles cure]

It gives a pure definition of atheism and describes it's honesty. It also looks at the nature of fundamentalist and 'religious moderation' beliefs, the harm it does to politics, the conflict it creates around the world and the misguided notion by theists that say a religion is needed for a society to be healthy, despite the evidence saying the complete opposite.

http://www.truthdig.com/dig/item/200512_an_atheist_manifesto

if youre into that, read his book. its called The End of Faith. its basically everything in that article expounded. really excellent book.

 

[Mosheh Thezion]

Hea lets face it... Atheists dont like even the idea of God, or Hell or an after life...

they are comforted by the idea that after death there is nothing.....

personnaly... i don't find that comforting.

-MT

 

[KennyJC]

Hea lets face it... Atheists dont like even the idea of God, or Hell or an after life...

Some don't like the idea, some are indifferent to it. Most probably just don't believe it due to lack of proof.

they are comforted by the idea that after death there is nothing.....

Why are they comforted? I can't say I am comforted by that, but I accept it.

personnaly... i don't find that comforting.

That explains a lot. People create a fantasy in order to comfort themselves from reality.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Hea lets face it... Atheists dont like even the idea of God, or Hell or an after life...

they are comforted by the idea that after death there is nothing.....

personnaly... i don't find that comforting.

-MT

Allow me to contradict this assertion. As an atheist, I find the concept of 'God' and the after-life very attractive... and attractiveness does not equal truth (which is a core problem with 'belief').

Truth on the other hand isn't always attractive... I find the notion that my conciousness ends upon death unattractive and quite true. I can accept the truth or waste a huge chunk of my time partaking in one of the worlds fantasies (christianity, judaism, wiccan, islam, etc.).

 

[VitalOne]

I'll respond to the rest later, but first

Only the atheist recognizes the boundless narcissism and self-deceit of the saved" - Atheist opposing theist dogma.

"Only the atheist realizes how morally objectionable it is for survivors of a catastrophe to believe themselves spared by a loving God while this same God drowned infants in their cribs" - Atheists opposing theist perceptions and illogic.

"Consequently, only the atheist is compassionate enough to take the profundity of the world’s suffering at face value" – Atheists opposing the theist dogma that god has a plan.

Ok, but an atheist can oppose something without being compassionate, morally objectionable, or recongnizing anything. That's the biased in the article.

I could've stated it as "Consquently, only the atheist is cruel enough oppose the idea that God has a plan" instead of saying "Consequently, only the atheist is compassionate enough to take the profundity of the world’s suffering at face value". I'm just pointing out the clear biased in the article.

The article tries to make atheists look like good natured people, when in reality being atheist simply means you deny the existence of God or Gods, it does not make you a good or bad person.

This is what I meant when I said it's just like any other biased Christian, Islamic, etc... article. This is really making atheism seem like more of a religion.

 

[audible]

The article tries to make atheists look like good natured people, when in reality being atheist simply means you deny the existence of God or Gods, it does not make you a good or bad person

ah but it does, because firstly your more sensible, you head is not ruled but fantasy.
secondly your morally superior, as you do good because you wish too, not to gain favour with a fantasy being.
thirdly the atheist is more caring, he know that this is the only life one gets, and therefore is opposed to killing.

 

[VitalOne]

ah but it does, because firstly your more sensible, you head is not ruled but fantasy.
secondly your morally superior, as you do good because you wish too, not to gain favour with a fantasy being.
thirdly the atheist is more caring, he know that this is the only life one gets, and therefore is opposed to killing.

See, this is the same type of biased theists use, yet atheists envy. An atheists is someone who denies the existence of God or Gods. It does NOT mean that they will do good because they wish to, or that they are opposed to killing, or that they are more sensible.

I could easily do the opposite, and make statments biased against athiests, like this:

Atheists enjoy ridiculing others, because they feel everyone is wrong, except for them.
Atheists do not care to do good or bad, because to them who really gives a shit?
Atheists do not care about anyone or anything, because since there is no afterlife, there is no punishment nor reward for any actions. Therefore, if you can kill and get it away with it, there are no consequences, and who is to say you are a good or bad person?

Note, the above is just a demonstration of using the same tactics. My point is that these biased tactics are useless, why not gain the unbiased truth.

 

[KennyJC]

See, this is the same type of biased theists use, yet atheists envy. An atheists is someone who denies the existence of God or Gods. It does NOT mean that they will do good because they wish to, or that they are opposed to killing, or that they are more sensible.

I could easily do the opposite, and make statments biased against athiests, like this:

Atheists enjoy ridiculing others, because they feel everyone is wrong, except for them.
Atheists do not care to do good or bad, because to them who really gives a shit?
Atheists do not care about anyone or anything, because since there is no afterlife, there is no punishment nor reward for any actions. Therefore, if you can kill and get it away with it, there are no consequences, and who is to say you are a good or bad person?

Note, the above is just a demonstration of using the same tactics. My point is that these biased tactics are useless, why not gain the unbiased truth.

The way I can sum up atheism in a perhaps general but in my view accurate way would be that atheism results in a stable and healthy society. Atheism results in a sensible society and less aggressive society. Chances are when you turn on the news you will hear of violence between the Middle East and America. If both those regions were secularized then there would not be such tensions. That is not being biased, these are just facts.

Sure religion is stupid and it's annoying why everyone has to be politically correct regarding religion, but those are minor annoyances when you see it's effecting the world in a hugely negative way. Rational people need to speak out against it.

 

[VitalOne]

The way I can sum up atheism in a perhaps general but in my view accurate way would be that atheism results in a stable and healthy society. Atheism results in a sensible society and less aggressive society. Chances are when you turn on the news you will hear of violence between the Middle East and America. If both those regions were secularized then there would not be such tensions. That is not being biased, these are just facts.

Sure religion is stupid and it's annoying why everyone has to be politically correct regarding religion, but those are minor annoyances when you see it's effecting the world in a hugely negative way. Rational people need to speak out against it.

Haha, this is a very funny, foolish, ridiculous claim of yours

Stalin was an organic atheist. He told a friend of his, that there was no God, and gave him a book on evolution. Through your logic, he should've been nonviolent, and not agressive, however he is responsible for 5-10 million deaths.

The Soviet Union banned all religion...but did that result in a more peaceful, less agressive society? (NOPE!)

China is an officially Athiest nation, therefore through your logic, China should be a perfectly peaceful, non-agressive country, haha, now thats funny.

Most of the world is Theist, therefore the majority of all wars should indeed involve theists, it's only logical.

Your views only re-instate the biased that "atheists enjoy ridiculing others, because everyone is wrong, except for them".

The only thing you can assume to be true about any atheist is that they deny the existence of God or Gods...that's all. That's a unbiased truth. Snap out of your biased. You seem to be using the same mentality and tactics that the Church uses.

 

[Cris]

Mosheh,

Hea lets face it... Atheists dont like even the idea of God, or Hell or an after life...

they are comforted by the idea that after death there is nothing.....

personnaly... i don't find that comforting.

Crunchy summed up your error there quite accurately. An attractive idea doesn't mean its true, and nothing says that truth must be pleasant.

 

[KennyJC]

Haha, this is a very funny, foolish, ridiculous claim of yours

Stalin was an organic atheist. He told a friend of his, that there was no God, and gave him a book on evolution. Through your logic, he should've been nonviolent, and not agressive, however he is responsible for 5-10 million deaths.

The Soviet Union banned all religion...but did that result in a more peaceful, less agressive society? (NOPE!)

China is an officially Athiest nation, therefore through your logic, China should be a perfectly peaceful, non-agressive country, haha, now thats funny.

Most of the world is Theist, therefore the majority of all wars should indeed involve theists, it's only logical.

Your views only re-instate the biased that "atheists enjoy ridiculing others, because everyone is wrong, except for them".

The only thing you can assume to be true about any atheist is that they deny the existence of God or Gods...that's all. That's a unbiased truth. Snap out of your biased. You seem to be using the same mentality and tactics that the Church uses.

You really are making this easy for me.

Dictatorship is not good wether it be a religious or atheist dictatorship. Any leader that forces atheism on it's citizens is clearly not anymore rational than any religion.

I am talking about atheism that citizens are free to choose in free democratic societies.

If you go back and check the topic 'most americans will be non christian in 2035', you will see an article that countries with high levels of atheism are also the countries with the highest social health and social security. That is just a fact, and I'm getting fed up having to repeat it to fundies.

"High levels of organic atheism are strongly correlated with high levels of societal health, such as low homicide rates, low poverty rates, low infant mortality rates, and low illiteracy rates, as well as high levels of educational attainment, per capita income, and gender equality. Most nations characterized by high degrees of individual and societal security have the highest rates of organic atheism, and conversely, nations characterized by low degrees of individual and societal security have the lowest rates of organic atheism.

Organic atheism is that which is voluntary and not forced by government"