This seems apt for this thread, or at least on the subject of some atheists being douchebags: <iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/1SINJTza98w" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> Personally, I try to take Neil deGrasse Tyson's approach, but sometimes it's really, really hard.
That is your opinion whether my quality of life sucks compared to your society and it's so-called advancements. What is your argument? That I need to thank doctors whom I never seen for being alive? I was writing in response to a poster who is pissed off that people thank God for being alive instead of doctors and scientists. I simply stated that I've never been to a doctor. Therefore, I thank God for being alive.
semantics I'd define God as sentient and supernatural. There is probably a root cause to existence outside of known physics but by definition there is no information available before the big bang. Without information there is no perception, no theory, no knowledge, only imagination. So for me, my reality and logic begin there. Without evidence I have no basis for truth. Militant agnostics are frustrated by the lack of evidence and logic in the process of religion; that somehow these myths are supposed to end the questions without facts and that they somehow empower some ancient arbitrators of morality to decide what is to be universally accepted forever. People write the tenets of morality for a reason. Civil justice could be it's own higher power. The fact moral behavior results in a more satisfactory life should be as much motivation as any myth. (Hell is a guilty conscious)
And yet, many people's life choices are driven by a belief in God. Without that, those people that discovered those processes and advances may never have committed their lives to the profession they did. You can't untangle faith and actions for many people.
I think this is it in a nutshell why some atheists are very annoying. The idea that Religion = bad, Atheism = good. While a lot of bad things have been done in the name of religion lets not forget that regimes like Mao's and Pol Pot's used atheism to justify horrible atrocities. My own problem with these type of arguments is the idea of a dichotomy that you if you accept science and rationalism then you have to be atheist and if not you are deluded, or the flip side that if you are moral then you have to be religious and if not you have no moral basis. I believe that as humans we are far more complex than just being empirical or spiritual and that there is a place for both in the human experience. I don't see belief in God(s) as conflicting with acceptance of science. As thinking beings there are questions that cannot be answered through empiricism and as rational (pertaining to thought) we are driven to ask questions about existence that are beyond the scientific method to answer.
OK, we're on the same page now. Well, that's your perogative. I submit that if you think it makes sense to not believe in God (i.e. isn't stupid) then you're not super convinced or convicted to your beliefs. Depending on your perspective, that may be a good or bad thing. I don't call people stupid for their beliefs, FYI, I call their beliefs stupid (if they are that improbable). Tons of brilliant people believe stupid things sometimes, smart people are allowed to be wrong/irrational sometimes. If I wasn't 99.99% sure of my beliefs, I wouldn't consider most religions stupid/wrong/irrational. Fort Worth is a pretty conservative cowtown, so, I have my doubts. I attribute your experience to selective bias, it's pretty natural to take more notice of something that is offensive to you, etc. Driving around inner Houston (a relatively liberal place compared to FW) I see nothing near that ratio you speak of. One thing you might want to consider is that most of the atheist merch that is available takes direct aim at religion, because that is a pretty basic part of antitheism, disproving religion and promoting secularism. However, if you're a theist, 99% of your options have nothing directly to do with atheism. How does one cleverly argue against 'nothing' via bumper sticker anyway? And for that matter, why would you want to when something promoting your own religion says by its very nature that everything which opposes it is incorrect? I'm guessing if theists had atheists crapping all over their ability to live their lives the way they wanted (take your pick of any number of laws based on religious scripture that suck), you'd see a lot more anti-atheist swag running around. "Pushing a lifestyle on someone else"... you may want to critically consider that statement and understand how it relates to the anti-theist nature of the secular movement. This is what I mean by perspective. Put yourself in the shoes of a nontheist for a moment or two. (just not the 15 year old internet kind)
I'm glad Cowboy_Bebop showed up. He basically represents everything the OP was talking about. He's the ignorant, hot-headed jerk that screams and stamps his feet and trolls. Notice how for the secular community of this board, he's really the only one that acts this way. I'm pleased by that fact. If you think I'm insufferable, spend a few posts talking to him and then reconsider.
I don't have an argument. I'm just saying that it doesn't matter who you thank for being alive, it doesn't necessarily mean that you are right. Even if you've never benefited from modern medicine and technology, it doesn't mean "therefore god is responsible for you being alive and healthy". Thank your parents for teaching you. Thank your community. Thank yourself. I don't have an issue with you thanking god though. It's fine whether I agree or not. It's your life, you can thank whatever you want.
You’re reaching so far here you’re about to dislocate something. So now that hundreds of years of results prove that medical science trumps faith in God when it comes to helping folks live your recourse is to suggest that God still gets credit because he made the scientists want to become scientists? The ever shrinking god…
I didn't suggest anything of the sort. You're creating strawmen. I did suggest, however, that people's faith drives them in life. And a lot of progress over the past thousands of years has been driven by people who believed in God. To dismiss that is silly. Much destruction has been caused by both believers and atheists. Much progress has also resulted by both. When people claim to be somehow superior to others because they are certain that their beliefs are correct and others are merit-less and destructive, they are no better than the people they criticize for being close-minded or inferior.
Tired of this trope. Lack of belief in God has never caused anybody to destroy anything. Belief in God, on the otherhand, not so much. It's disingenuous to suggest the record of historical violence by either group is similar, especially violence in the name of their respective ethos. You may claim this was not your intent, that you're just pointing out happenstance, but based on the context of your comment, you seem to be couching this statement as causality. I have no problem with someone who has legitimately better beliefs/values claiming theirs are superior to someone else who has less credible beliefs/values. Not everything is equal, and to act as such is silly and backwards. It's a worthless, throwaway statement to lump those people together for the sake of forced fairness. Being correct/certain and being closed minded are not mutually inclusive, you know.
The movements to stamp out religion and religious believers in various communist revolutions would likely disagree. The problem is that atheism is no move provable than a belief in God. It is only arrogance that makes people believe one is somehow inherently superior to the other.
It's a good thing lack of belief in God has nothing to do with stamping out religion. What you're talking about is totalitarianism, not atheism. Atheism is not positive disbelief. Been over this many times. No, sometimes it's legitimately being better. Like, being for slavery vs. against slavery. Sometimes belief systems are inequal, it happens.
And yet, the reasons specifically stated for the mass murders were belief systems. It's no different than people using religion to justify murder. Evangelical atheism - the people targeted in the original article in this thread - certainly is. The very definition of atheism is "belief that God does not exist", so your definition is not universally shared. What you seem to describe is more akin to agnosticism. Not surpirisingly, agnostics tend to be less militant or belittling of others. Certainly - but that doesn't apply here. Atheism and religion mirror each other in many ways - more than either side cares to admit. Each is based on an unprovable underlying faith. Slavery and non-slavery are not similar in any way.
The atheism associated autocratic regimes has always been used to reduce the opposing political influence of organized religion. It just allows the State to assume the position of the self-affirmed higher power. Atheist and Agnostics generally suspect any source of self-determined power other than maybe democratic humanism. I think religion being the opiate of the masses is a good thing. The uncertainty of life and certainty of death is debilitating without distraction and hope. If everyone only acted in their own animalistic self-interest life would be chaos Just keep it voluntary and government secular. Religion as science is bad science. Religion as current morality is archaic. Religion as government is discriminatory
Lack of belief in God did not compel these people destroy anything. FFS, I am going to murder those s**theads at Miram Websters with my bare hands. You said: So, it absolutely applies here. The belief that there is no god (positive disbelief) has quite a bit of evidence going for it. Can there ever be enough to disprove God? Probably not. But if you look at the evidence, you find a compelling case against the existence of God (God, in this case, being an infallible, omnipotent, possibly benevolent supernatural deity). The case for existence of God doesn't stack up nearly as well. These two separate beliefs are very much dissimilar, and I find no fault in someone criticizing a belief system that is backwards, merit-less, or destructive when it is. Just because neither can be proven, does not mean they are equal.
Donny with the KO. Every ****ing thread on this topic rehashes the same ridiculous arguments. That Donny keeps replying is either impressive or insane.
