What I don't understand..

How athiests smugly comment that THEY haven't caused wars/poverty/problems like religion has.. Whenever I'm in an athiest vs theist type discussion, especially related to Islam, athiests always pitch in about all of the bad which religion has done to the world, and as a result all religious people are almost tainted because of their religion. I hate it how theres always someone, somewhere, yabbering on about the sins of religion.
(I'm not saying anyone on here does this, but I know a lot of people who do..)

They do this even when I point out that religion can be an excuse, not cause, for war, but most wars/conflicts that spring to mind are not related to religion at all..both major world wars, the expanding of the Roman Empire, the thirty years war...

Athiests aren't a cohesive group with a set belief system (system, not just one belief) or with similar ideologies, so are you even able to compare athiesm to a certain religion and say that athiests are better in ANY category?

I'm gonna start rambling soon, but my question is essentially do you believe athiests are better than theists? Please explain why, because I'm really at a loss to work out how one can justify that view while taking everything into consideration. Secondly, if you do believe athiests are better than theists and refuse to believe otherwise, aren't you just as bad as the theists who refuse to listen to, for example, solid facts on things such as evolution, jesus etc?

 

And just what miracles would these be?

 

Atheists are just as welcome to being correct as religious folk, to me. I was a very informed, logical, and cunning atheist, who could tie most people up in knots with their own words when they defended their faith.
Well, just cuz you never saw a miracle is no reason for michael to be so rude.
I have seen too many to allow me to choose to be atheist any longer. Saw them all my life, but just felt amused before. This year it got serious.
I have many that defy logic, and most would just call me either nuts or a liar, so I will instead share some basic ones. What is in a drop of water? magnify it a trillion times, and it becomes an awesome, to me, miraculous thing.
How about a blade of grass, Edison said when we can make one, he'll be impressed.

 

People are people, in every religion or non-religion. If you use your religion or lack thereof as an excuse for any kind of hate you are a fool. If you lump all people of a particular religion or non-religion into one stereotype or judge them as a whole, you are a bigger fool.

 

It doesn't mean your "nuts," but aren't psychology, probability, and perhaps a hidden desire to experience these miracles, much better explanations than an invisible god in the sky?

To me it looks like two hydrogen atoms bonded to an oxygen atom.

That day isn't that far off. It's already possible if you count cloning, and we are no more than 10-20 years from being able to create life from scratch in the laboratory.

 

nanotech should be capable of creating grass, shouldnt it?

as for the topic..
anyone saying religion is the cause of all war, is stupid. and anyone who says athiest dont cause war, also are. although, i think the main thing that people focus on, are that (i cant think of any, but there may well be) not many athiests start wars, due to their belief. while many wars have been caused due to a religious belief, how many have been started because someone wasnt happy that people didnt agree with their disbelief? (if that made any sense).. i think this is where people come from in this kind of debate.. while religion has started a lot of wars, its also bonded a lot of people together and created a lot of good in the world.. most things in the world have pro's and con's right?

and michael, its people like you who keep me far from being religious. while you dont seem as fanatical as the likes of cambell, you seem just as self-righteous. you call athiests (as a group, a large stereotype) ignorant, while i bet you would ignorantly refute anything from any belief system apart from your own. people like blackguard have it sorted. they know what they believe, but have the integrity to discuss, debate and consider what others have to say. you call athiests stupid and ignorant, how do you stand on agnostics? are they one in the same to you?

 

When I think of fundamentalist religious zealots I think of brainwashed, conditioned morons who only spout their nonsense because they lack the intelligence to fully understand the WHOLE world around them, rather than their own dillusional "pretty fluffy bunny" world.

 

If there are miracles all around us (Michael seems to say there is a large quantity of miracles), then are they miracles? definition: "Specifically: An event or effect contrary to the established constitution and course of things, or a deviation from the known laws of nature; a supernatural event, or one transcending the ordinary laws by which the universe is governed." If there are so many 'miracles', they clearly are a part of the natural course of things, not contrary to this course, and thus are not miracles.

I'm religious, don't get me wrong, but the only thing I consider to be a miracle in a world like this is the utter ignorance of many people, athiests and theists alike.

 

I am humbled, and thank you for your compliment. I feel I still need to learn much more.
Re: nanotech
If Edison meant 'make from scratch', then we'd need to take basic elements, make proteins, make dna, then chromosomes, etc. I am doubtful we could do that.
That is just my take on his meaning though, and could be wrong.

 

"there are 2 ways to live your life, as though nothing is a miracle, and as though everything is a miracle." Albert Einstein


I do agree that there is no lack of those who refuse to think for themselves, but I accept that that is their path. Ignorance is bliss they say.
I have seen things that defy science all my life, and they likely number in the hundreds, but what do I call them if not miracles?

 

Call 'em neat. "Miricles" are usually associated with somethin diety-like. Now, I don't believe in dieties, but when I see somethin "miraculus" I'm not goin to automatically dismiss it. An honestly, they really don't phase my faith (or lack thereof, I should say). When I see or hear of somethin like that, my responce is usually along the lines of "Damn, that's cool." Jus cuz we can't explain why somethin happens, doesn't mean there isn't a scientific explanation. We're only hindured by our lack of knowladge on the mechanisms of the universe.

 

I mean what do I call them to denote that they are different. An exotic car is neat. A spherical house is neat. But when I say miracle, I mean an event that flies in the face of what scientists believe is possible, like an exact view of a future scenario, or astral travel, etc.
But it was only in reply to the comment that if miracles are numerous, they aren't miracles. I guess I disagree, they still are to me.

 

oy...
stupid atheists...
from buddha & mahavira clear up to bertram russell & carl sagan...


thank goodness for smart christians, from the bishop of alexandria (who had the great library burned, after having the chief librarian, hypatia, crully murdered) to the likes ron reagan, pat robertson, & george dubya bush...

 

heh, mhmm. We're the stupidest people on earth, we are. Atheists are so foolish. (not that Michael's argument from miracles hasn't been shown to be ridiculous by almost every philosophy of religion book written by an atheist, and not that the vast majority of theistic philosophers haven't realized that arguing from miracles is a completely absurd thing to do).

But there you have it.

And as for the person who started this thread: It goes both ways. Many atheists bring up the immorality of theism because it has been the cause or *a* cause of atrocities in the past, and theists attempt to say that atheists are immoral by necessity (e.g. Maritain), and cannot be ethical without God.

The difference of course is that the theistic argument is mostly against atheists individually, while the atheistic argument is usually against theism as a concept. The set of beliefs within various perspectives of theism have certainly influenced war and other atrocities throughout history - and while we see atheists doing atrocious things as well (e.g. Mao and Stalin), we do not see them doing it on account of their atheism (but rather for some other odd reason - like Mao's views on the desirability of constant revolution, and Stalin's paranoia, etc.).

This, however, does not mean one individual is more moral than the other if they are compared as theist vs. atheist - because the morality of individuals comes down to their individual actions, and certainly neither is immoral by necessity because of which ever title they carry. Simply, the usual atheistic argument is that the application of theism as a concept has led to many atrocities because of the set of certain beliefs found therein, which many people have taken to extreme measures (sometimes mistakenly so - e.g. Hitler's anti-semitism is not necessarily supported by scripture, and is certainly not supported to the degree which he took it to, and sometimes rightly so - e.g. the Salem Witchcraft Trials are very much supported by scripture).

In short, if a person argues that either a theist or atheist is immoral individually simply because they are a theist or an atheist, they are wrong. If they argue that theism or atheism are immoral as applied concepts, they may or may not have a valid argument.

- Laz

 

Couple of things, I am so glad that you at least make your sarcasm clear enough for me to see it. thanx.
re Buddha: The way I see it he was a theist who taught not to spend time on the pursuit of understanding God, as it was a futile goal.
I thought Hypatia was the Dean of Sciences at the Library, and a master of all of them. She was the most learned person on earth, quite possibly, from my readings.
Cyril and his good Christians flayed the flesh from her bones with abalone shells.

 

Yeah, I think that's the problem. With theists there's a full common belief system and set of rules, and thus you could argue anything done by one religious person echoes the feelings/wishes of their entire religion. *remembers being called jesus killer* A bit of a shaky argument, but there's no way for theists to reverse that to attack athiests, unless the actions of one person were directly related to their belief that g-d does not exist...

So maybe my real problem is I can't historically throw it back in their faces that athiests are just as bad. I'd like to think athiests are just being smug and irrational though . However, I do think that if in order to attack beliefs you have to resort to blaming their beliefs for events that happened of one person's own bat, you're on shaky ground yourself.

Thank goodness for the smart athiests, from those who killed great scientists such as archimedes (who says theists have all the fun in killing great contributors to mankind?), to those who oppose gay marriage and stem cell research (not that I in any way approve) despite their eyes being 'opened' by science, to those who murder, rape, bomb, cheat on, decieve, and assualt innocent people, JUST LIKE THE REST OF US.

 

I have never met a single atheist opposed to gay marriage or stem cell research (and I know a lot of atheists). Do such people actually exist? If so, what possible rationale could they offer to justify their positions? At least when Christians argue against civil rights, they can just pull out their Bible and find the appropriate passages.

I doubt that more than 1% of atheists actually hold those positions you listed.

 

Well, my dear, you don't know too many people. I love how you only address what you know you can respond to, rather than considering the point. However..

Should you properly examine both stem cell research and gay marriage you'd find a far more complex issue than 'the bible says its bad' vs advancement of the human race. You really want a list of reasons? Cause even if I should go to a bunch of athiests and ask them how they feel, it would be inadmissable as I can't prove they think that way (or that they're actual people), so any athiests opposing either please speak up if you wish. I only like to give valid reasons, but many people are content with deluding themselves, so sorry if the following offends anyone, most of it is not representative of my personal views. This is by no means a comprehensive list of reasons against either stem cell research or gay marriage anyway.

Stem cell research:
- whether you believe people have a soul or not, or babies deserve to live or not, many people percieve destroying an embryo as killing a human being. Suprisingly, not only theists have a problem with this
- Stem cell research is considered a gateway to cloning, and many scientists believe that the best use of cloning would be to 'breed' a being identical to ourselves, cut out all of its organs, and implant them in other people. Suprisingly, not only theists have a problem with ignoring the rights of another human being (whether it was engineered or not).
- Many people consider removing the life of one, to improve the life of another, not only unethical but also a situation in which we lose more than gain.

Gay marriage:
- one of the initial purposes of marriage being LEGAL, not just RELIGIOUS, was to ensure that the father of the baby was responsible for the child. This is inapplicable to gays, and is a purely legal issue. Suprisingly, not only theists are interested in law.
- The other main purpose of making marriage a legal bond was that in order to get better (educated/healthier/safer etc) children, the government provided assistance in the form of subsidies for married couples. This goes on today. The government would have to provide subsidies for gays, and in many cases, get no return on their investment. Gay marriage would destroy the purpose of governmental subsidies, in many eyes.
- Despite what you may think, there are just as many ignorant athiests who believe homosexuality is unnatural, as there are ignorant theists. Theists can use their religion as an excuse, athiests can't, just because there is an excuse there doesn't make either group better.
- Should gays have children, they will surely be raised gay and there will be more homosexuals. I'm suprised anyone at all believes this, but if you want to get nasty, an athiest gave me that reason.
- Many people believe that marriage is a bond between a man and a woman. Suprisingly, not just theists believe this

Just because athiests don't believe in g-d, it doesn't mean they are level headed, informed people. And just because someone opposes something, it doesn't mean there aren't legitimate reasons for that to be opposed. Like i said, athiests murder, rape, bomb, cheat on, decieve, and assualt innocent people, JUST LIKE THE REST OF US. Just because you don't, doesn't mean that a group that you identify with doesn't either. That's what we like to call ignorant, idealistic stereotyping.

 

Those against stem cell research should also be against egg-eating.

 

Wow, such hostility from an innocent comment that I made. I only inquired if such people actually existed, as I've never met a homophobic atheist in my life. I won't get drawn into a pissing contest between you and Laz, no matter how much you try and bait me.

Most of the reasons you offer why atheists might oppose stem cell research and gay marriage are just plain stupid. So stupid, in fact, that even Christian fundamentalists have stopped trying to use them. Stem cell research a "gateway" to reproductive human cloning, resulting in the murder of the clone and the harvesting of their organs? You've gotta be kidding me. Occasionally I listen to The 700 Club for comic relief, and that's a new one even to me.

Overall, that is correct. However, they do tend to be more level-headed on issues like stem-cell research and gay marriage because they can rely entirely on logic rather than their religion.

Again, all I said was that I have never met a single atheist opposed to stem cell research or gay marriage. Even aside from people I know, I can't think of a single secular pundit in the mainstream media that holds the positions you described, which makes me wonder if such people actually exist. As I said before, I doubt more than 1% of atheists hold those positions.