Why atheism makes you mean

[S.A.M.]

Only atheists have the ego to nominate themselves as God.

Japan, New Zealand, Scandinavian societies

Those are dying societies. I bet they have negative population replacement. Unless they revert to theism, they have no future.

 

[GeoffP]

Not true - Satanism is a theistic religion which explicitly disavows responsibilities to others....Responsibility is just pressure to act, and can easily be pressure to act wrong.

Good points, and not particularly well commented to by Sam.

I don't deny any of that. However, right and wrong are both subjective values. You may consider it wrong, does not necessitate they should.

So how can you have a common denominator for prosociality? Which side of the fence would you like to argue from?

Sure they did, but they only collapsed from outside intervention, not internal implosion. Also, none of them collapsed in favour of an atheistic society [barring Ataturks massacres in Turkey]

Which were actually based in theism.

Those are dying societies. I bet they have negative population replacement. Unless they revert to theism, they have no future.

Says who? Birth rate is a trend. The only problem would be if some radical, supremacist theists invaded them.

 

[SkinWalker]

Wow, an unexpected bit of BS and a dodge from SAM. I'm shocked. Shocked to find... [/Claude Rains]

 

[spidergoat]

Overpopulation has no future. The growth necessary for a capitalistic society is not sustainable.

 

[GeoffP]

Agreed with both of those posts.

 

[S.A.M.]

Doesn't matter much if most of your population is aged. These are just cursory searches

Japan

New Zealand

Europe

 

[Zephyr]

All atheist societies. From the Carvakas, to the Soviet Union, to the Chinese to the Cambodians, to the Vietnamese.

A lot of people actually attribute the collapse of the Soviet Union to the cold war. You know, that decades long war whose goal was to destroy communism? Even if internal pressure was the final straw, the war may have contributed to that internal pressure in the first place. Secondly, when did China collapse?

Only atheists have the ego to nominate themselves as God.

Are you calling Jesus an atheist?

 

[S.A.M.]

A lot of people actually attribute the collapse of the Soviet Union to the cold war. You know, that decades long war whose goal was to destroy communism? Even if internal pressure was the final straw, the war may have contributed to that internal pressure in the first place.

You think the fact that people had to stand in line for bread and required walls to be kept in had anything to do with it?

Are you calling Jesus an atheist?

Not at all. But the Romans who nominated him, probably were. [I'm a Muslim, remember?]

 

[Medicine*Woman]

Human beings can be deeply effected and or mentaly wounded when they believe their short life will cease to be one day forever. it has been well documented and known for a very long time that humans take death very seriously. One of the typical atheist stances is to sweep the subject under the rug and try your hardest to get on with life and not think about your mortal death.

*************
M*W: I think you misunderstand atheists and what they believe. The fact is that we are all alive now and, at some point, each of us will die. Not a pretty picture, but the truth. There is no need to worry about death. It's gonna happen whether we fret about it or not.

Humans do take death seriously. It marks a finality to one's existence. So to say that atheists "sweep the subject of death under the rug," is not the case at all. We accept death as a normal and expected part of life. You make it sound like atheists as a group are all in denial of death. I think it tends to be the opposite. Those who fear death sweep it under the rug, and I ask, what are they afraid of?

It is not very complicated it is quite simple, that's a big reason why elderly people get very grumpy and cold hearted, they know the time is nearly up and it effects there everyday life sometimes to serious degrees. Humans do not wish to give up the life they have been given so soon, it can make people very bitter and resentful knowing the life they have will be taken from them and there is nothing they can do to stop it.

*************
M*W: Elderly people tend to get "grumpy and cold-hearted," because they are old and likely sick or just plain worn out. I don't think it has anything to do with their life about to come to an end that makes them cranky.

Many people who do not have faith in an afterlife will sometimes turn to science hoping there will someday be a way to increase there lifespan or give them immortality. This is one reason why some people might see science as a type of brotherhood or cult, something they can put faith in to save them and the loved ones that surround them, when death and immortality is concerned it can sway people to form groups of brotherhoods searching and aiming for a thing to save them from death.

*************
M*W: I don't see the point in believing in an afterlife. That only gives false hope which is perpetuated often by their religions.

Science as a type of membership in a "brotherhood" to save one from death (not likely) is an odd thing to say. There are some science fanatics who have their heads frozen for posterity in the hopes they'll be coming back. For now, there's not much hope in that direction, but who knows what will be scientific fact in another couple of millenia? For the immediate future, we are all subject to mortality.

Atheists can turn very bitter without hope, I don't blame them not everybody is strong enough to be happy and nice while deep down thinking they are forever doomed to be dead and non existent. when confronted by a person who has hope and faith in god and an afterlife it can trigger a nasty jelous fueled reaction towards the theist. There are many excuses to defend your bitterness but I can see through the guises.

*************
M*W: Atheists are atheists, because it was a conscious choice on our part. No one forced us to be atheists. In fact, that is something impossible to do. It is our choice. Therefore, I don't understand why you think atheists are bitter. We're not in the business of trying to fool ourselves that there is any kind of hope at surviving death! That is the hope of theists. In fact, believers hope there is a god or something greater than themselves to save them from their demise or at least give them a comfy place to believe they go to when they're dead. That is false hope. Atheists just don't feel that way. Atheists just don't have that "doomed" feeling. I am taking a liberty here of speaking for all, and I apologize to those who are of some other belief. The finality of life for atheists is not in death but in reason. There is no loss of hope, no bitterness, no tomorrow. It is what it is, and atheists see death for what it is.

I think you are putting your own feelings and thoughts on death on atheists. I also think there is a smidgen of atheism in each of us, even if some theists don't understand it. I've always been curious about religious folk crying their hearts out at funerals. Even their bible tells them to rejoice. I guess it's mainly because they feel the loss of a loved one, but if they really believed in their god, you'd think they would at least express some happiness for their journey. If there were a god, death needn't been the end. Thus far, no one has come back and told us otherwise.

 

[iceaura]

so what of, say, humans being accountable to the something greater than themselves, like the planet?

They are.

you can't draw up general social guidelines of what is considered right and what is considered wrong in regard to the individual from communism?

Sure you can. Lots of them, all kinds.

Mao himself confessed, the most important ideological support of the communist regime in China is Darwin's theory of evolution.

Bullshit.

All atheist societies. From the Carvakas, to the Soviet Union, to the Chinese to the Cambodians, to the Vietnamese.

Collapsed? The Vietnamese "society"? The Cambodian "society"? The Soviet Union "society"? The Chinese "society"? They were "atheist societies" (all of them,clear through?) and then they just collapsed (when?) from internal problems?

But the Mayans, being theists, were brought down by outside agency of some kind ?

You're jumping the shark there.

btw:

One could even lay the fall of empires to a greater egoism on the part of the ruler who then saw himself as god.

Some forms of theism appear to be not so good, eh?

Not at all. But the Romans who nominated him, probably were.

No, they probably weren't.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

I've never seen atheism breed this type of mean-ness:

"
A man identified as Sheik Youssef al-Ayeri said the killings are in line with Islam.

"It's all right for Muslims to set the infidels' castles on fire, drown them with water .... and take some of them as prisoners, whether young or old, women or men, because it is one of many ways to beat them," he wrote in the al-Fallujah forum.

"

 

[S.A.M.]

I've never seen atheism breed this type of mean-ness:

"
A man identified as Sheik Youssef al-Ayeri said the killings are in line with Islam.

"It's all right for Muslims to set the infidels' castles on fire, drown them with water .... and take some of them as prisoners, whether young or old, women or men, because it is one of many ways to beat them," he wrote in the al-Fallujah forum.

"

Ever visited a gulag?

btw, that was probably an israeli masquerading as a Muslim. Could I have a link to the forum? I'd like to investigate and check with the forum admin. You can PM me it.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Ever visited a gulag?

Gulags are an "in-the-name-of-communism" invention.

btw, that was probably an israeli masquerading as a Muslim. Could I have a link to the forum? I'd like to investigate and check with the forum admin. You can PM me it.

You'll have to get the original link from a news agency. As far as I can tell, the forum is no longer online. Google "Sheikh Youssef al-Ayeri" and pick a news agency of your choosing.

 

[S.A.M.]

I did. This is what I got. Interesting pattern

http://www.google.com/search?q=Shei...s=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

 

[Crunchy Cat]

I did. This is what I got. Interesting pattern

http://www.google.com/search?q=Shei...s=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

Everyone likes that quote apparently. Give one of the news agencies a call and get the original URL.

 

[S.A.M.]

No everyone has that quote. Its very interesting when everyone has the same quote within a day with no access to the person in question.

 

[lightgigantic]

iceaura

“
Originally Posted by light
so what of, say, humans being accountable to the something greater than themselves, like the planet?
”
They are.

you would agree that they are willing to forgo some liberty for the sake of the planet?
“

Originally Posted by light
you can't draw up general social guidelines of what is considered right and what is considered wrong in regard to the individual from communism?
”
Sure you can. Lots of them, all kinds.

then its not clear why you suggest communism doesn't approach any moral ethics ....
“

Originally Posted by light
Mao himself confessed, the most important ideological support of the communist regime in China is Darwin's theory of evolution.
”
Bullshit.

for your enlightenment
http://www.pekingduck.org/2006/10/social-darwinism-nationalism-and-humiliation-in-modern-china/

 

[iceaura]

so what of, say, humans being accountable to the something greater than themselves, like the planet?
”
They are.
”
you would agree that they are willing to forgo some liberty for the sake of the planet?

Doesn't matter whether they're willing or not.

Sure you can. Lots of them, all kinds.
”
then its not clear why you suggest communism doesn't approach any moral ethics ....

What isn't clear about the situation ? You can build many different "moral ethics" on a communistic economic base - from Amish or Mennonite to industrial Bolshevik to the Red Guard to an Israeli kibbutz. Everything from military tyranny to San Francisco commune. None of these are "approached" any more than another.

for your enlightenment
http://www.pekingduck.org/2006/10/so...-modern-china/

What does that have to do with Darwin's theory of evolution? Or "confessions" by Mao?

edit in: seriously: How in hell do you guys manage to screw up this kind of stuff continually? I didn't even have to Google check to know that Mao never "confessed" his ideology was based on Darwin's theories. Some fundie says something like that, it's bullshit, every time. But how does it happen? How does a weblink about some guy asserting (plausibly) that Huxley's debunking of Social Darwinism was misunderstood by the Maoists in an influential way turn into a "confession" by "Mao" that his ideology was based on Darwinian evolution?

 

[lightgigantic]

iceaura

Originally Posted by light
so what of, say, humans being accountable to the something greater than themselves, like the planet?
”
They are.
”
you would agree that they are willing to forgo some liberty for the sake of the planet?
”
Doesn't matter whether they're willing or not.

whether they are willing or not simply indicates the consequences .... remarkably similar to the basis for forgoing certain "liberties" for the sake of coming in to line with god's nature

“
Originally Posted by light
Sure you can. Lots of them, all kinds.
”
then its not clear why you suggest communism doesn't approach any moral ethics ....
”
What isn't clear about the situation ? You can build many different "moral ethics" on a communistic economic base - from Amish or Mennonite to industrial Bolshevik to the Red Guard to an Israeli kibbutz. Everything from military tyranny to San Francisco commune. None of these are "approached" any more than another.

so communism (in the marxist sense) plus darwinism equals what in terms of modern history?
“

Originally Posted by light
for your enlightenment
http://www.pekingduck.org/2006/10/so...-modern-china/
”
What does that have to do with Darwin's theory of evolution? Or "confessions" by Mao?

edit in: seriously: How in hell do you guys manage to screw up this kind of stuff continually? I didn't even have to Google check to know that Mao never "confessed" his ideology was based on Darwin's theories. Some fundie says something like that, it's bullshit, every time. But how does it happen? How does a weblink about some guy asserting (plausibly) that Huxley's debunking of Social Darwinism was misunderstood by the Maoists in an influential way turn into a "confession" by "Mao" that his ideology was based on Darwinian evolution?

maybe you should dust off your google browser or something

"The official Chinese nationalistic view in the 1920s and 1930s was heavily influenced by modernism and social Darwinism, ..... "

If you think that is the view of a fundie, you've just lumped in over 99% of modern historians ....

 

[GeoffP]

The only thing stranger than Sam's argument is her paranoia.

Again: how do we know wider cooperation isn't just reciprocal altruism or the exercise of power and restraint?