The Ego of the Atheist

JDawg said:
OK, I'm way late on this thread, but I can't help myself.

I don't believe any atheist admits to being one in order to ridicule or shame theists. At least, that's not what they should be doing. If an atheist is discussing the matter, it's because the matter needs to be discussed.

We need to start having these conversations in public forums. It's one thing to have faith in your own personal savior, but we need to start having open and honest discussions about the terrible things that can, and inevitably do, come from organized religion. From the countless, never-ending, genocidal wars in the Middle East, to the evangelicals trying to put Creationism in our schools in the US, we need to start making it clear that religion, at most, should be a personal venture not fit for any public forum.

You can be a good person without religion, and so saying a person "is of faith" needs to stop being talked about as a virtue. George W. Bush's faith is why stem cell research isn't funded on a federal level, so faith can really screw things up when its values are forced upon a society.

You can have your God, but don't tell me that my kids have to learn about it in a public school, and don't tell me that we're not trying to cure diseases because your faith says life begins at conception. Enough with the BS.
Click to expand...
*************
M*W: Yea for stem cells! Excellent post. I agree with you on all counts.
 
pharaohmoan said:
As mentioned in my OP the atheist resorts to his mantra 'prove it'! I'm here that's proof enough for me.
Click to expand...
The challegne, then, is to prove that a magical supernatural being is the most reasonable explanation for you being here.
How do you prove you love someone or that you are in love?
Click to expand...
You provide evidence with your behavior, of course. Flowers is a nice start. Donating an organ is probably faster, though.
 
JDawg said:
OK, I'm way late on this thread, but I can't help myself.

I don't believe any atheist admits to being one in order to ridicule or shame theists. At least, that's not what they should be doing. If an atheist is discussing the matter, it's because the matter needs to be discussed.

We need to start having these conversations in public forums. It's one thing to have faith in your own personal savior, but we need to start having open and honest discussions about the terrible things that can, and inevitably do, come from organized religion. From the countless, never-ending, genocidal wars in the Middle East, to the evangelicals trying to put Creationism in our schools in the US, we need to start making it clear that religion, at most, should be a personal venture not fit for any public forum.

You can be a good person without religion, and so saying a person "is of faith" needs to stop being talked about as a virtue. George W. Bush's faith is why stem cell research isn't funded on a federal level, so faith can really screw things up when its values are forced upon a society.

You can have your God, but don't tell me that my kids have to learn about it in a public school, and don't tell me that we're not trying to cure diseases because your faith says life begins at conception. Enough with the BS.
Click to expand...


Its a democracy. Why don't you keep your atheism to yourself? You may find that gives less power to fundamentalists
 
SAM,

First, I don't live in fear of fundamentalists, nor should I. Second, I would gladly keep my atheism to myself if it were not under constant attack. I am force-fed faith. I have to watch my President veto important bills that would fund progressive research into medicine just because of his faith. I have to watch as they put a sheet of paper amounting to Christian Propaganda in biology textbooks in Alabama schools, and watch as they fight for "equal time" for their creation myths to be taught to MY kids in public schools.

No, I'm sorry, staying in the closet does nothing to prevent the religious fundamentalists from trying to force their faith on me. From moral values to their actual creation myths, we have to constantly fight to keep those things separate from our government.

It's time for theists to keep their religion to themselves.
 
So you're in a democracy. You vote, other people vote. Maybe there are people who gnash their teeth because abortion is legal, but short of moving somewhere where it isn't, they have to put up or shut up. Why should anyone have a disproportionate influence? Do you pay more taxes than they do? What makes you so ginormously important? Because you think you're right? Take a number.
 
SAM said:
Is the new approach working? Or do you like it too much to overlook that?
Click to expand...
Between two uncertain strategies, the honest one that hasn't been tried yet is preferable to the lying one that has failed in the past.
 
Yeah, the grass is always blacker on the other side.

I like how doctors who used to insist infants don't feel any pain now insist fetuses don't.
 
SAM said:
I like how doctors who used to insist infants don't feel any pain now insist fetuses don't.
Click to expand...
Yeah, theists (most of those doctors were theists) have never been trustworthy with regard to anesthesia. They seem to have some built in reluctance to ameliorate pain, subvert the will of God. The pain of a toothache should be felt by the dental patient, as God's warning against vice and sugar. Advanced cancer patients should be protected from addiction to opiates, in case of miracle.

It's a crippling frame of mind.
 
iceaura said:
Yeah, theists (most of those doctors were theists) have never been trustworthy with regard to anesthesia. They seem to have some built in reluctance to ameliorate pain, subvert the will of God. The pain of a toothache should be felt by the dental patient, as God's warning against vice and sugar. Advanced cancer patients should be protected from addiction to opiates, in case of miracle.

It's a crippling frame of mind.
Click to expand...

Clearly doctors are useless when it comes to patients. :p
 
S.A.M. said:
So you're in a democracy. You vote, other people vote. Maybe there are people who gnash their teeth because abortion is legal, but short of moving somewhere where it isn't, they have to put up or shut up. Why should anyone have a disproportionate influence? Do you pay more taxes than they do? What makes you so ginormously important? Because you think you're right? Take a number.
Click to expand...

The implications of a God-fearing society are clear. We have numerous examples throughout history, and right in front of our faces. Religion breeds intolerance and oppression. Speaking specifically of the Abrahamic religions, they generally degrade women and stomp on human rights.

It has nothing to do with thinking I'm right. It has to do with going by the evidences presented before us, and seeing which path is the correct one to take for progress as a society and welfare as a people.

Also, the people who gnash their teeth at things like abortion and gay rights only do so because they find moral justification ONLY in their Bibles. If those things are to influence legislation, then we are effectively a theocracy. I'm not saying the religious should be hanged in the streets, I'm only saying their moral values need to be kept out of Washington.
 
As far as deities go, I have one of two choices. #1...yes gods exist, #2....no they don't? I choose the latter. Everyone has an equal choice. Religion or espousing non-religion are not choices, they are extensions of #'s 1 & 2.

What can I say about Gods' existence, what can I say about gods' non-existence? Ans: Nothing of any substantial fact.

Are you a moron for believing or not believing in God? Nah. Are you a moron to try and prove or disprove it? yah
 
pharaohmoan said:
Instead of seeking spirituality they want proof handed to them on a plate.
Click to expand...

The one thing I hate about religious zealots is that they think spirituality is for the religious only. Quit trying to humanize the unknown by giving it a name.
 
I think we just can't stand having our opinions challenged. So you give a shit about theists giving spirituality a name. Is it really important? They could call it 'Hank' and I wouldn't care. It means nothing. We need to be totally apathetic when it comes to the beliefs of others.
 
We need to be totally apathetic when it comes to the beliefs of others.
Click to expand...

I disagree. Apathy may be better than sympathy, but I think society stands to gain more when we put pressure on the religious to keep their faith in their homes and churches, rather than in the public forum.
 
JDawg said:
I disagree. Apathy may be better than sympathy, but I think society stands to gain more when we put pressure on the religious to keep their faith in their homes and churches, rather than in the public forum.
Click to expand...

I'm not singling out atheists. Both sides need to be apathetic. Total apathy to the beliefs of others includes everybody whether you agree with someone or not. I guess the only way that's possible is if everyone kept their religious feelings to themselves...highly unlikely I understand.
 
1. The evidence of atheist societies is like a holocaust ad nauseum compared to any theocracy on earth

2. There is no moral justification for any laws outside religion. Not pedophilia, nor rape nor murder. Everything is "natural" as it exists in nature.
 
Last edited:
SAM:

1. The evidence of atheist societies is like a holocaust ad nauseum compared to any theocracy on earth
Click to expand...

There are no atheist societies.

2. There is no moral justification for any laws outside religion. Not pedophilia, nor rape nor murder. Everything is "natural" as it exists in nature.
Click to expand...

Laws aren't based on things being unnatural. They are based on things being morally wrong.

Morally good does not equate to "natural" or "unnatural". That is the [enc]Appeal to nature[/enc] fallacy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top