Oli has done the work for me as well, thanks.
Why do atheists hate Jesus?
- Thread starter John J. Bannan
- Start date
But this does not have much to do with society, you know that. I am saying that we cannot or would not have survived without belief.
You cannot know an infinate possibility, that is belief. So you proved my point.
Name one single Atheist from birth to death and i will give you one million dollars.
I don't think humans could have survived without observation and hypothesis. Certainly there were some beliefs that were developed that it would be a mistake to doubt, like the signs of a tsunami. However, most of the beliefs were are talking about are more nebulous. You can survive quite well without knowing the origins of the planet, just look at how well all the other animals survive without it.
I didn't say I was without all belief, but I recognize which are based on evidence and which are just for fun. (Belief in infinite possibilities can be proven.)
I didn't say I was without all belief, but I recognize which are based on evidence and which are just for fun. (Belief in infinite possibilities can be proven.)
There is no point in this last challenge. What in the world would that prove?
As for your statement concerning we would have not survived without faith (I assume your "belief" to actually mean faith, which is believing in something without evidence. If this is not the case, then ignore what follows):
We'll go ahead and give you the benefit of the doubt, even though all you've given us is an unsupported and bold claim. Even if our ancestors needed faith to survive, that does not in any way mean we should stay in that system if we have no need of it further. That's like driving somewhere and then refusing to get out of the car due to its necessary part in getting you to where you are.
So that leads us to today, where faith, aside from what you say, is not at all necessary to our existence in the slightest. Weren't we debating this topic earlier? I asked you if 'love' was your answer to "what part of human life requires faith?". Did you not see that? If not, then go back and read my response. If so, then answer; is love a human aspect where faith is necessary?
So once again you avoid the most obvious statement in my post. Yes, of course it would be love.
I wouldn't say I avoided it, I wouldn't say that at all. I bolded it and then even asked you about it to make sure. Weird reasoning you have there.
I'm so relieved we finally settled on an answer, albeit an extremely naive and incorrect one, as I'll show momentarily.
This theist defense is usually along the lines of this path of debate:
Theist: "Do you love your wife/kid/pet?"
Denouncer of Faith:"Yes."
Theist: "Prove it."
The implication is that love cannot be proven and that when you love somebody it's only through faith.
The more thoughtful observer will note that the knowledge of love between a person and another IS derived from evidence. I'll let my good friend Dawkins elaborate:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n5h_P7aBU7E
By 1:01, your answer is completely disproven by common sense.
Last edited:
John J. Bannan:
Dawkins wasn't talking about child abuse as in child sexual abuse. He was just saying that brainwashing is bad. It seems you disagree.
You'll have a hard time establishing that. You can't re-run history minus religion, so how do you hope to prove that civilisation is better than it would have been without religion? Isn't it equally plausible that things might have been much better without it?
Democracy is a choice. It's not the only option. Look at North Korea, for example. Do you think its political system is objectively superior to democracy?
Then would it be ok for me to indoctrinate you, if I thought it was good for you?
Because you've provided zero supporting evidence. How do you explain good atheists? (Do you believe atheists can even be good?)
SHow me why the odds are better with religion. Explain.
How many atheists are you close to, personally?
Dawkins wasn't talking about child abuse as in child sexual abuse. He was just saying that brainwashing is bad. It seems you disagree.
You'll have a hard time establishing that. You can't re-run history minus religion, so how do you hope to prove that civilisation is better than it would have been without religion? Isn't it equally plausible that things might have been much better without it?
Democracy is a choice. It's not the only option. Look at North Korea, for example. Do you think its political system is objectively superior to democracy?
Then would it be ok for me to indoctrinate you, if I thought it was good for you?
Because you've provided zero supporting evidence. How do you explain good atheists? (Do you believe atheists can even be good?)
SHow me why the odds are better with religion. Explain.
How many atheists are you close to, personally?
Well it's obvious why you don't.
I said the IMPLICATION of this from the mouth of the theist is that love requires faith, NOT that I think it does. You should look before you leap next time.
What I can see that our discussion has come to an end. As for who 'won', I guess we'll leave that up to people's opinions.
I didn't say anyone knew everything: I implied that I'd like to.
There is a difference.
And that's a false statement anyway: how many people know relativity (for example)?
There are always unknowns, that's why learning is a never-ending process.
Religion tells you "It's this way, you don't need to question and there are no facts to support it. Just accept it".
Science says "We think it's this way and this is the supporting evidence, if you've got a better explanation tell everyone".
Evidently not intimately enough.
You tell me to be open-minded and follow it up with that?
Humanity is humanity.
Religion is one facet of that.
Supporting data?
You cannot know the possibilities or you cannot know there are?
Subtle difference.
I'd be a candidate, but I haven't died yet, so there's a slight chance (always a possibility of anything happening).
But $1M is no good to me when I'm dead - give to a cats' home.
Addendum:
Love does not require faith: it's a chemical imbalance in the brain.
You can brainwash people with Western culture.
Dawkins has massively simplified the matter by talking about encouraging doubt - which is a typical sleight of hand trick played by Europeans - and would then impose massively destructive ideas such as individualism, laissez-faire economics, free-thinking, democracy, etc...
It is clear that in the right circumstances Dawkins would even impose Christian values if he thought it necessary.
The hypocrisy is simply mind-boggling.
This has nothing to do with the truth since there is no such thing... it's all about maintaining Western power.
You're attempting to place Western culture and religion in the same boat when there are blindingly obvious distinctions that prevent this from being so. While extreme nationalism breeds the same kind of dogmatic thinking as indoctrination of religion, the government of the united states (the Western culture I assume you're referring to) does not attempt to stifle the consideration of and open-mindedness towards other cultures with threats of eternal damnation or the likes. There is no ominous warning over the heads of US citizens against learning of other cultures, or even preferring and leaving the country if they so desire. Religion does not advocate this freedom in the slightest. Across the spectrum of religions, it is overwhelmingly the case that the convert, the excommunicated, the heretic, etc are all treated as hostiles and worthy of whatever punishment their belief system has in store for them.
You can brainwash people with Western culture, sure. But I could also theoretically brainwash people with Eastern culture by the same token, or any culture for that matter. The crux of the matter is that techniques like the one mentioned above are what religions permeate to the masses and subsequently incarnate the serious brainwashing with. Religion, therefore, is the predominantly pernicious and responsible catalyst of delusion, not your claim of Western culture, as little water as that claim may hold.
I'd just like to point out as Oli did once before of the connotations you ascribe here (individualism, free-thinking = massively destructive).
Even if I was to somehow donate a decent sense of propriety to this grotesquely blatant instance of libel (which it is poor of, at best), I'd say you were extremely misinformed. I, having read his most recent book and heard several discussions, debates, and talks by the man, find it not at all obvious that he would ever impose Christian values, in any circumstance. I'm curious, have you read any of his books? It's okay if you haven't. But if you haven't, then it's fair to say you don't know much of what you are talking about; if this is so, you are, at a minimum, ill-educated.
If you're telling me that there is no truth, I hope you realize you're simultaneously asking me not to believe you.
Last edited:
When Dawkins talks about critical thinking as applied to religion, he is not promoting any of those other things like Democracy or "individualism", those are entirely different subjects. Could you explain your accusation of hypocracy?
John J. Bannan
Registered Senior Member
You call teaching "indoctrination" or "brainwashing" because you don't like being told what to do. Fine. Be a rebel. However, the rest of society benefits from teaching on principals of good and bad - SO THAT WE CAN CO-OPERATE AND MAKE LIFE BETTER FOR EVERYONE. Being on the same page promotes organization. Rebels generally prefer anarchy and chaos, which is a throw back to the stone age. Go ahead, live in your caves.
THAT'S an interesting theory. Let's see, I'm an atheist...yet I have a job as a SERVER at a restaurant. I don't mind being told what to do at all. There goes your theory. I DO mind however being told what to believe when said belief is logically irreconcilable with surmounting evidence.
So essentially you are in favor of a robotic human race? Everyone with the same beliefs, with the same ideas, with the same "good" and "bad"? All in the name of organization and cooperation? There was once a man who thought along these lines you know, his name was Hitler.
News flash: Jesus was a rebel. Maybe now you'll second guess your stereotypic attitude towards them. Who am I kidding, you probably won't.
There's a difference between teaching (this is what happens when... and this is how we know) and indoctrination (this book says... and you can't question).
And religion is the only arbiter and instiller of notions of good and bad?
Only the religious co-operate and try to make life better?
And organisation begets committees and stultification.
Wrong. Rebels prefer to decide for themselves.
Anarchy and chaos are just two of the near limitless choices to rebels.
John J. Bannan
Registered Senior Member
You are a rebel only in that you don't like being told what is good and bad. Jesus never rebelled against being told what was good or bad. Jesus cited scripture as his teacher on what was good or bad. Jesus rebelled against supposed authorities on what was good or bad, but did not rebel against scripture. A robotic human race is a joke. Since when has the human race ever been robotic? Ha! I am in favor of teaching our children right from wrong. I guess I must be nuts?