If you're atheist why brother so much with G-d?

your links to these facts?

 

how do you hate that which does not exsist?

 

but your not a religious scholar so how to you come to this conclusion? but its not ok for me to generalize all athiest ride the christian G-ds nuts harder then any other religions G-d.

If you were christian why would you hate god? for the laws he layed down in the old testament like stoning sinners? which would concluded you to hate him for that?which later on in the new testament jesus reforms the laws.

 

How did I come to that conclusion? How did you miss this conclusion, would be a better question. You claim to be arguing for (and somewhat educated in) christianity, but you don't EVEN know that islam, judaism, and christianity all share the same original tie to the same god, through the abrahamic covenant? Again, same god, can't ride it harder or softer, same guy.

While I may ride the same god, I do ride christians, because they're the ones I live among. If I had contact with muslims, they would get the same riding.


Why would I hate god? look at the world, look what happens each and every day. Look what's happend since the beginning of fucking time, you think any of it's right? The very fundamentals of god testing people and their free will and all is fucked beyond belief, I can have free will, but I'm not allowed to use it FREELY? Why are things that feel nice sins? Remember the morning star... and how he was banished by god for seeing the truth about god, and made a scapegoat? (I mean, i don't believe in satan any more than god, but the story tells of god being RIGHT in banishing the good guy.... what an evil fuck, i would hate him)

This hatred would be far reaching, from what is happening at this moment all over the world to what happened for thousands of years all over the world, a better question would be, how can you accept god as anything other than evil?

Stop trying to play word games and talk around peoples points, you're just trying to discount those you disagree with, not disPROVE them. This is just a feelgood ploy for you and those with their heads as far in the sand as you. If you want to do your religion credit, argue with some honor, so that your argument has meaning.

 

I'd wager that all violence is a result of fanaticism.

But I don't understand how enthusiasm towards what is observable in the universe is irrational. Which would have to be true for the word fanatic to fit.

Please explain....

 

Enthusiasm towards what is observable in the universe is not in the least irrational. It describes my own attitude, and that of a great many people of all faiths and non-faiths around the world. The problem is in your notion that religion poses a particular danger of violence, that atheist movements do not, that atheists can't be irrational, and that irrationality is the source of fanaticism and violence. I tend to agree with you that only systems of belief, as opposed to isolated beliefs, have a propensity toward violence. Let's take them one at a time.

Quakers and Methodists have no history of violence and an impressive history of opposing it. No amount of convoluted rationalization could convince me that they pose any greater threat of violence than you or Sam Harris do. In fact, I think they pose less of a danger of violence than you or Sam Harris do because you are both fanatics who have an irrational fear of religion. Irrational fears can easily lead to violent actions to defend against perceived threats from people who pose no realistic threat. We've already established that Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot were mass murderers as well as being atheists. Atheism was an integral part of the ideology that led them to mass murder. They were not religions, despite Harris' view to the contrary, because they did not believe in a supernatural being. Naturalists like Carl Sagan pose no threat of violence at all, because he was not a paranoid, god-hating fanatic. I'd fly on the same plane with people like him any time, but I'm not to sure about flying with you or Harris. I also question the notion that only irrational people can be violent.

Rationality is subject to definition, but in politics and economics it is defined as calculating behavior to achieve personal or collective goals of wealth, status, power, or pleasure. In this sense, Stalin was a highly rational and effective leader. He espoused Marxism-Leninism, but he was no wild-eyed ideologue. Yet he was a mass murderer, responsible for more deaths than Hitler and bin Laden combined. And he was an atheist. Eighteenth and nineteenth century statesmen resorted to constant warfare to achieve territorial gains and preserve the balance of power among nations. They were highly calculating, and not motivated by religion. Yet they used violence as a matter of course in the exercise of statecraft.

I tend to agree with you that single beliefs don't pose the same threat that systems of belief do. An athiest who simply doesn't believe in God and leaves it there does not pose a threat, unlike the atheist who believes that religion is a menace to society and therefore must be opposed, or that we must prevent parents from bringing their children up in a religious tradition. The same goes for theists who simply believe in God and don't go further to say we must burn the Qur'an because it differs from the true Word of God. Many people have a belief in a Higher Power but no institutional affiliation nor elaborate belief system to define it further. They seem pretty laid back and unlikely to cause trouble.

 

I was wondering what qualified as quality and duration since you suggest that those are legitimate motivators.

 

In regard of how to deal with what is "wrong with the world" we should know the what is wrong is always some measure of discomfort. Comfort is a state of being not a measure of environment. All anxiety is caused by the misapprehension of what is so.

"Confronting the enemy" does nothing to establish comfortable being, it just creates confrontation. We find those most agreeable whom we agree with, like being calls unto like being. People find that they can be comfortable with people who are comfortable with themselves. A mind without anxiety is wholly kind.

 

If you're anxious of something or someone, stay away from it/them.

 

The word fanatic requires irrational enthusiasm.

We live on the same planet earth don't we? You cant even begin to refute all the evidence for religions persecution.

Every human being is inherently capable of violence. We are animals, after all.
I don't know how many times i'm going to have to repeat to you that this is about reasons for violence, and not the actual instances of violence themselves.

We have gone over the fact that you cant apply intrinsic ethical values to an action several times, and for the sake of not having to explain it again, I hope you remember.

If there was proof for gods existence, there would be no atheists. If you want to single out the belief that there is no god and include nothing else, then no, an atheist cannot be irrational.

I think you are poking at the fact that irrationality cant manifest THROUGH atheism. The belief simply doesn't function that way. You cannot jump from "There is no god" to "I should slaughter all the Jews", and if someone does, it is a mistake to say Atheism is the cause.

The only conclusion you CAN draw from atheism, is that there is no god.

Fanaticism by definition requires irrationality. Violence is seen in nature all the time.

Irrational violence in humans is due to enthusiasm toward many things, be it religion, racism, nationalism, ect. If there are no feelings towards any of these subjects, they wouldn't be acting on them.

You can not include atheism in this list because it is a reasonable conclusion. People can not point to god and tell me why I should regard. I will only explain to them that there is nothing there.

Quakers and methodists are willing to accept nonviolence, but why? If it was written that they should destroy the planet, rather than live like they do, they either wouldn't be around anymore, or Quaker would be interchangeable with any other popular terrorist group.

Is the fear really irrational? They are willing to fly planes into buildings, cut off heads, detonate themselves in crowds, overturn hundreds of years of legislation...

If people are willing to pray, what else are they willing to do?

They are doing these things because they don't understand the truth about it. This is the case for Quakers as well as the Islamic.

Atheism doesn't command the grounds to declare violence. I can only say this so many ways before i begin to repeat myself.

It simply isn't possible, because it is a conclusion arrived at through understanding.

For example, Two men in a room both say "All men are equal", how then, would they arrive at the conclusion that the statement "All men are equal" means they should fight each other?

They wouldn't. The only way to arrive at a conclusion like that through what "All men are equal" posits, is to gravely misunderstand the meaning. And thats exactly what your doing with Atheism.

 

Like most fanatics, you don't see yourself as one, but you and Sam Harris are fanatics nonetheless, and bigots, too boot. You make irrational arguments generalizing from certain brands of relgion to all of them. You say that atheism does not per say provide the basis for violence, and I would agree. Neither does Christianity. How would you reason from "love they neighbor' and "turn the other cheek" to violence? to me, these are the very essence of Christianity. There are many Christian congregations who preach and practice these principles. There are very few who condone or use violence. So your bigotry,like most, is rooted in your ignorance.

You claim that there is nothing inherent in non-belief in God that can lead people to cause trouble, but you've illustrated why this isn't true through your own bigoted posts defaming Christians. I happen to think you're right about mere non-belief, but merely believing there's no God isn't what you do. Even a simple meme like that can mutate into something virulent, and you've shown us how. From the simple premise, you go on to elaborate a rationale for distrusting believers. Distrust often leads to dislike and even hatred, and hatred breeds violence. You, yourself, may not be violent or potentially violent, but the viral memes you're spreading are certainly potentially harmful.

The fact that people are willing to pray has nothing to do with violence or fanaticism. You don't understand the truth about prayer. You seem to suggest that it is irrational to believe in anything for which there is no scientific proof, which is in itself an irrational belief. A person dying of cancer is not irrational in trying a treatment which hasn't yet been found scientifically to be safe and effective. Many who pray are not asking favors from God. For lots of Christians like me, prayer may take the outward form of talking to an external God, but it can be primarily a form of guided imagery ,or way of focusing and clarifying our thoughts, aspirations and resolve. Do you find the serenity prayer offensive? Do you feel the same way about meditation? Even Sam Harris does that. At worst, its roots are non-rational, not irrational, and even if it were irrational it would not provide the basis for violence or fanaticism. Lots of lunatics are completely harmless. To be afraid of them all, because a few go berserck is to manifest an irrational fear of the mentally ill--another form of bigotry. Even if you, yourself aren't violent, by spreading your anti-religious bigotry to others, you're dangerous. Capish?

 

i don't concern myself with god at all. it just doesn't exist in my life. however, the other people still associate atheism with god either in the form of denial of god, or believing there is no god--both of which are wrong assumptions. atheism is lack of any kind of belief. it's a lack of religion and therefore lack of god. i'm an atheist not because i don't believe in god. i'm an atheist because i don't believe.

 

Then you are agnostic, or closer than atheist. Or just "nonbeliever, though I dislike that term for how PC it is.

 

It is apparent to me, judging by numerous interweb discussions on this subject, most people tend to simply invent or co-opt whatever definition of Atheism they please and base all judgement upon that supposition...

...and so round and round we go.

God or no god,
I think from now on I'mma be a I-don't-give-a-fuckist .

ZWeace:

 

double post.

 

no. i have zero spirituality in me, whereas agnostics are usually quite spiritual people. agnostics also have nothing against belief or religion in general. i don't believe anything and I'm anti-organized religion. I know what I am.

 

So immature!

Who is ready for a wholly human understanding? Don't look to the atheists alone for forgiveness, we are still a pack animal!
I can forgive everything, I can create in perfect calm, but I'd need help, from the manipulators too, who in the storm of their hearts would have me a destroyer!

Fellow bell-wethers, life alone is forgiving! lol

 

Well an atheist BELIEVES there is no god. So you don't seem to know.

 

Faith by definition is not understanding the subject for which you have faith. You don't have to understand "love they neighbor" and "turn the other cheek" to follow it. And this is exactly why you have the same "Love they neighbor" politicians and citizens voting down prop 8 and the pompous assholes in New York trying to stop the mosque from being built. I also think the ridiculous amount of denominations in many religions express this fact.

To you, loving doctrines from Christianity are its essence, but thats just your opinion about it. There are proverbs in every bible i can think of that say you shouldn't lie, so should we talk about facts that contradict the bible, or make something up and slap gods name on it?

The problem is being satisfied with not understanding things. Coincidentally, religious belief is riddled with misunderstanding.

I guess thousands of years of oppression (and counting) isn't enough to signify any of this.

Your not even trying to explain why the dislike or hatred would not be warranted, which would have to be true for "Bigot" to fit, so i'm ignoring this paragraph. I am staying with my position because I know that neither of us can explain why someone should feel one way or another about something.

Cut out the feelings and lets talk logic.

But they would be irrational in thinking the treatment is safe and effective.

There are strong grounds for marginal error in both prayer and this 'random cure cocktail' based on the fact that there is no proof towards the ladder. No prior indication and basically no reason to do it in the first place, unless it was some sort of trial and error with dying patients as test subjects.

The reasons people think god answer's prayers has and would provide the basis for violence.

This is getting confusing. You seem to be agreeing with me that they go berserk because they are lunatics. And then you call my apprehensiveness irrational.

 

We can't understand everything, but I think we can make a a daily effort to understand as much as we can by constant, critical study and reflection. "Faith" shouldn't be a lazy person's excuse for believing nonsense.

Absolutely we should talk about facts that contradict the Bible, as I've done in numerous posts in the Christian forum and Sanctuary. We should also talk about the numerous passages of the Bible that contradict the Bible.

In my opinion, the only excuse for being satisfied with not understanding things is lack of the means for obtaining the information.

That's right.

Feelings are inevitable for humans. They are best controlled by being aware of them.[/Quote]

But they would be irrational in thinking the treatment is safe and effective.When they're terminal, they might be willing to take a chance, if the alternative is just dying.

There are strong grounds for marginal error in both prayer and this 'random cure cocktail' based on the fact that there is no proof towards the ladder. No prior indication and basically no reason to do it in the first place, unless it was some sort of trial and error with dying patients as test subjects.
[/Quote] You draw an unrealistic dichotomy between scientific proof and blind faith. In the courtroom and the administrative process, decision makers operate on the basis of "preponderance of eveidence' (in civil cases), probable cause and substantial evidence (in administrative decisions). Most people think this is rational. It beats doing nothing when there's plenty of evidence you're dealing with perceived risks to public safety.

They could also provide the basis for preventing it.



This is getting confusing. You seem to be agreeing with me that they go berserk because they are lunatics. And then you call my apprehensiveness irrational.[/QUOTE]You're confused because you're not paying attention. I said "even if"--an indication that I'm dealing with a hypothetical situation.