So I'm agnostic but..

Atheists love to make the claim that their lack of a belief in God isn't a belief in itself, but what they really mean is that atheism is the lack of belief by an entity that is able to believe in things in the first place.

A disbelief is not really a belief. I don't know or claim whether any gods exists. I do however find it unlikely based upon what evidence there is to support a god postulation or lack of evidence.

This is what they are positively asserting -- unless they want to make the claim that, for ex., ashtrays and puppy dogs are atheists. Ergo, atheists are making a positive claim that their belief that God doesn't exist is true. That is a truth claim that atheists have to defend just as much as people of faith have to defend their beliefs.

Nope.

If I were to tell you that France doesn't exist, there are ramifications to that idea.

Of course that would be silly because the existence of France can be proven hence proving the opposite to be wrong. That is not the case for anything supernatural.

It's NOT like asserting there are no green gnome Elvis impersonators doing the hula in my kitchen. No one believes there are such gnomes in my kitchen, no one puts any energy into defeating that idea. Richard Dawkins isn't writing books about how those gnomes in my kitchen don't exist. But atheists put a lot of energy into denying that God exists.

It is because there are many arguments that impact various people in a society with a whole variety of religious beliefs or lack thereof. It seems to me that certain religions breed inherent arrogance due to a "Us versus Them" mentality. Many claim to be the Truth. None can back that up with providing supporting scientific evidence or really even logical arguments to make somewhat of a foundation to prove what is claimed to be true. Fallacious logic is quite often presented in place of solid argumentation.

It's a lifestyle, complete with bumper stickers, T-shirts, message boards, feelings of superiority, and arrogance.

Sounds a lot like the religious in my area.

It's an identity. I don't know anyone who defines himself as someone who doesn't believe in -- and spends hours and hours on the internet proselytizing about not believing in -- carnivorous undersea unicorns, for ex. But that's what atheists do when it comes to the almost UNIVERSAL human belief in God.

Its not a nearly universal of a belief in the Christian God. What is seemingly universal is cultures throughout history forming their own beliefs on how the world works and whatever they believe exists beyond this existence.

That is really what the whole foundation that many religious people often use to show that their arguments are correct. "This has to be law because that is what God said!" Ok. So there is evidence to suggest the god being exists right? Definitely want to be sure of something like that. No? Oh then claiming moral superiority based on one god claim out of the thousands of others gods presented throughout human history really doesn't hold water.

Further ramifications of denying God's existence were best put by Nietzsche:
"When one gives up the Christian faith, one pulls the right to Christian morality out from under one's feet. This morality is by no means self-evident... Christianity is a system, a whole view of things thought out together. By breaking one main concept out of it, the faith in God, one breaks the whole: nothing necessary remains in one's hands."

Denouncing any religion does not mean that one has to ascribe to some chaotic lawless or amoral foundation. Atheism is not Nihilism.

This is ultimately arguing objective vs subjective based morality. Of which throughout history it is shown that morality itself is subjective based on the fact that much of the morality in the Old and New Testament to not be objective and unchanging. Morality changes as societies grow and evolve. Certainly there are some things that do not change much because they do have valid importance to flourishing societies. Certain societal norms that the people in the bible prescribed to are simply no longer acceptable. Slavery as one example. Biblical age of consent is another quite easy example as well.

When you think about that, and consider that the idea that individuals have intrinsic value, that human life is sacred and made in the image of God, when you consider the entire system of laws and ethics that have undergirded Western civilization -- the most beautiful, advanced civilization in the world (you can tell because that's where most of the rest of the world is trying to immigrate to) -- then yanking God out of the picture is not remotely close to denying the existence of gnome Elvis impersonators, or flying spaghetti monsters, as the snotty atheists are so wont to refer to.

All societies are built on foundations of earlier societies. Same as with religions. What is claimed to be unique moral by various religions is based on prior social norms of early civilizations. All the way to early social constructs of family and community in order to be better able to survive and flourish in a world where these things are not easily had without some societal control.

As an aside, there's a dearth of scientific evidence for a multitude of things. Why do you like strawberry ice cream? Why do you love your mother or your wife or son? Why are you conscious at all? Why do we respond to Beauty? What IS Beauty? All the things that make life work living are the things that can't be stuck under a microscope and measured. Doesn't mean they don't exist and aren't important. Science is a TOOL (one invented by Christians, BTW. Even the scientific method was invented by a monk!); it isn't the answer to the meaning of life. It tells us HOW many aspects of the world works; it doesn't -- and can't -- answer the question of why the world exists in the first place.

Some of those things are indeed being studied to give a better understanding of how things work. Some of the more philosophical "Why" questions perhaps do not even have an answer other than it is our own subjective perspective that we decide for ourselves. There might not be a definitive reason why the earth exists. But there is a definitive how. Even if we do not know every minutiae of that as of yet.

The case of beauty, or taste, has a variety of different possibilities for instance they could well be something outside of our control as such is what genetic predispositions may exert. But all of that aside to assert that all of these questions can be answered by invoking a god is an Argument from Ignorance fallacy more specifically a God of the Gaps argument. As time goes on those gaps get smaller and smaller. Such as we no longer need to use Thor to explain lightning and thunder. Or other gods to explain natural processes.

There is a lot not well understood at this point but science does help further those understandings much more reliably than religious postulations.

People never do evil so completely & cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction

reply share

add reply

formatting help

Atheists love to make the claim that their lack of a belief in God isn't a belief in itself, but what they really mean is that atheism is the lack of belief by an entity that is able to believe in things in the first place.

A disbelief is not really a belief. I don't know or claim whether any gods exists. I do however find it unlikely based upon what evidence there is to support a god postulation or lack of evidence.

Atheists are doing more than expressing a disbelief; they are expressing a belief as I said in the exactly next quote from me.

This is what they are positively asserting -- unless they want to make the claim that, for ex., ashtrays and puppy dogs are atheists. Ergo, atheists are making a positive claim that their belief that God doesn't exist is true. That is a truth claim that atheists have to defend just as much as people of faith have to defend their beliefs.

Nope.

Yup. What about what I said is wrong? Or are you claiming that ashtrays are atheists? If you are not making the claim that ashtrays are atheists, then what you are really claiming is that atheism is disbelief in God by something that is able to think. That is a positive claim. You are also asserting that your belief is true, that God does not exist. That, too, is a positive belief. Both require proofs as much as any other positive belief. I think you know this, which is why you tried to blow right by it with a simple "nope."

If I were to tell you that France doesn't exist, there are ramifications to that idea.

Of course that would be silly because the existence of France can be proven hence proving the opposite to be wrong. That is not the case for anything supernatural.

An argument doesn't have to be sound to be logical and rational. "Proof" is one thing; good evidence is another. But both the ideas that "France does not exist" and "God does not exist" are truth claims. Truth claims are either true or false. Neither of those statements is like saying, "My ass is true" or "Water is true."

It's NOT like asserting there are no green gnome Elvis impersonators doing the hula in my kitchen. No one believes there are such gnomes in my kitchen, no one puts any energy into defeating that idea. Richard Dawkins isn't writing books about how those gnomes in my kitchen don't exist. But atheists put a lot of energy into denying that God exists.

It is because there are many arguments that impact various people in a society with a whole variety of religious beliefs or lack thereof. It seems to me that certain religions breed inherent arrogance due to a "Us versus Them" mentality. Many claim to be the Truth. None can back that up with providing supporting scientific evidence or really even logical arguments to make somewhat of a foundation to prove what is claimed to be true. Fallacious logic is quite often presented in place of solid argumentation.

Atheism also impacts various people in a society as a whole. And in my experience, it is atheists who breed arrogance and an "us vs them" mentality. Read what you write about religious people, for ex. -- most likely even your own ancestors! If you want arrogance, go talk to the families of the atheist Stalin's victims, or Hitler's victims (and before you make the claim that Hitler was Christian: no, he wasn't. He was baptized as a baby, but rejected Christianity entirely. Like any politician with many Christians in his constituency, he gave it some lip service, but he was very much against Christianity. Through and through).

It's a lifestyle, complete with bumper stickers, T-shirts, message boards, feelings of superiority, and arrogance.

Sounds a lot like the religious in my area.

I'd really, really love to know what Christians in your life have come off as "arrogant." I really would. Most that I've met are very much the opposite. Or if you're claiming that Christians (with Christianity being the only religion I defend. Unlike the claim that some -- many -- atheists make, religions are, quite obviously and clearly, not at all alike except in superficial ways) are "arrogant" because they believe they know that God exists, that He died for us, etc., I'm not seeing how your argument can possibly be true. Knowing something, especially something like THAT, is a source of humility, not arrogance.

Was it "arrogance" that inspired Christians to invent hospitals, soup kitchens, and orphanages (while pagans were exposing their babies on rocks to die)?

It's an identity. I don't know anyone who defines himself as someone who doesn't believe in -- and spends hours and hours on the internet proselytizing about not believing in -- carnivorous undersea unicorns, for ex. But that's what atheists do when it comes to the almost UNIVERSAL human belief in God.

That is really what the whole foundation that many religious people often use to show that their arguments are correct. "This has to be law because that is what God said!" Ok. So there is evidence to suggest the god being exists right? Definitely want to be sure of something like that. No? Oh then claiming moral superiority based on one god claim out of the thousands of others gods presented throughout human history really doesn't hold water.

? No Catholic or Orthodox makes that argument, and it's Catholics and Orthodox that constitute classical Christianity. But even that Evangelical-style argument doesn't fit here at all. What does the statement "This has to be a law because that is what God said" have to do with my having said that atheism is an identity, which implies -- rather, is an implication of the fact -- that it's more than a "non-belief"?

And what's with the idea of "moral superiority"? Knowing what is moral doesn't make one act morally. It should, and typically does, motivate one to act morally, but doesn't, in se, make one morally superior.

And yes, there is all kinds of evidence that God exists, so your facile "no?" is just that -- facile -- as is your lumping God and all gods together, as if there's no difference whatsoever between, say, Thor and Jesus. Seriously?

Further ramifications of denying God's existence were best put by Nietzsche:
"When one gives up the Christian faith, one pulls the right to Christian morality out from under one's feet. This morality is by no means self-evident... Christianity is a system, a whole view of things thought out together. By breaking one main concept out of it, the faith in God, one breaks the whole: nothing necessary remains in one's hands."

Denouncing any religion does not mean that one has to ascribe to some chaotic lawless or amoral foundation. Atheism is not Nihilism.

This is ultimately arguing objective vs subjective based morality. Of which throughout history it is shown that morality itself is subjective based on the fact that much of the morality in the Old and New Testament to not be objective and unchanging. Morality changes as societies grow and evolve. Certainly there are some things that do not change much because they do have valid importance to flourishing societies. Certain societal norms that the people in the bible prescribed to are simply no longer acceptable. Slavery as one example. Biblical age of consent is another quite easy example as well.

I could say "I'll let you argue with Nietzsche," but I'll bite: I never said that denouncing religion means that "one has to ascribe to some chaotic lawlessness or amoral foundation" in terms of intent or desire. But it's exactly what it means in fact. Denying God doesn't mean the atheist is going to go out and lie, murder, rape, and steal -- but it does mean he'll have no sound and logical philosophical argument against it. Or, if you disagree, give us all a sound and logical argument why slavery is wrong, why it's wrong to leave your babies on rocks so they'll die, why human life has any more value than that of a cockroach (you can ask atheists like Peter Singer for assistance with those last two).

When you think about that, and consider that the idea that individuals have intrinsic value, that human life is sacred and made in the image of God, when you consider the entire system of laws and ethics that have undergirded Western civilization -- the most beautiful, advanced civilization in the world (you can tell because that's where most of the rest of the world is trying to immigrate to) -- then yanking God out of the picture is not remotely close to denying the existence of gnome Elvis impersonators, or flying spaghetti monsters, as the snotty atheists are so wont to refer to.

All societies are built on foundations of earlier societies. Same as with religions. What is claimed to be unique moral by various religions is based on prior social norms of early civilizations. All they way to early social constructs of family and community in order to be better able to survive and flourish in a world where these things are not easily had without some societal control.

Societies are built on foundations of earlier societies (except for the first society, obviously), but that doesn't mean that unique religious ideas are the result of prior social norms.

BTW, the closer we get to becoming an atheist society, the closer we get to totally eliminating the family in order to "be better able to survive and flourish."

Further, of all of these "social constructs" and family types that've existed throughout various cultures and History, some work better than others when it comes to civilization-building. See, for ex., this online book: http://www.fisheaters.com/garbagegeneration.html

As an aside, there's a dearth of scientific evidence for a multitude of things. Why do you like strawberry ice cream? Why do you love your mother or your wife or son? Why are you conscious at all? Why do we respond to Beauty? What IS Beauty? All the things that make life work living are the things that can't be stuck under a microscope and measured. Doesn't mean they don't exist and aren't important. Science is a TOOL (one invented by Christians, BTW. Even the scientific method was invented by a monk!); it isn't the answer to the meaning of life. It tells us HOW many aspects of the world works; it doesn't -- and can't -- answer the question of why the world exists in the first place.

Some of those things are indeed being studied to give a better understanding of how things work. Some of the more philosophical "Why" questions perhaps do not even have an answer other than it is our own subjective perspective that we decide for ourselves. There might not be a definitive reason why the earth exists. But there is a definitive how. Even we do not know every minutiae of that as of yet.

The case of beauty, or taste, has a variety of different possibilities for instance they could well be something outside of our control as such is what genetic predispositions may exert. But all of that aside to assert that all of these questions can be answered by invoking a god is an Argument from Ignorance fallacy more specifically a God of the Gaps argument. As time goes on those gaps get smaller and smaller. Such as we no longer need to use Thor to explain lightning and thunder. Or other gods to explain natural processes.

There is a lot not well understood at this point but science does help further those understandings much more reliably than religious postulations.

They can study these things using the tools of science all day and all night for the next 5 billion years, and they will won't find the answers. The answers aren't amenable to science. Why questions can't be answered with science, which is why view marked by scientism (as opposed to a respect for science) can never satisfy the human spirit, the need for purpose and meaning. Along the same lines I said earlier, about our getting further and further away from Christianity, the further we get from it, the weaker and more pathological our societies get.

People never do evil so completely & cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction

Tell that to the atheists Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Mao Tse Tung, etc. And please don't lump all religions together and put Christianity in the same pot with Islam or post-Temple Judaism. (and before anyone thinks of going there, as someone always does, the Crusades were defensive wars if there ever were defensive wars in the course of History. Islam spread by the sword from the beginning, and had to be fought back after it had warred its way all up into Tours, France. If Christians hadn't fought back, then European and European-derived people would be under Shariah law right now and would be throwing homosexuals off of buildings, wrapping their women in black from head to toe, with slits for eyes, and not allowing them to drive cars. So unless that idea appeals to you, you should be grateful to the Crusaders for saving Europe. Also, don't even mix traditional Christianity as it stood for 1500 years with Protestantism, which is 500 years old.)

reply share

add reply

formatting help

Atheists are doing more than expressing a disbelief; they are expressing a belief as I said in the exactly next quote from me.

Some maybe...but not myself. As I will explain below.

Yup. What about what I said is wrong? Or are you claiming that ashtrays are atheists? If you are not making the claim that ashtrays are atheists, then what you are really claiming is that atheism is disbelief in God by something that is able to think. That is a positive claim. You are also asserting that your belief is true, that God does not exist. That, too, is a positive belief. Both require proofs as much as any other positive belief. I think you know this, which is why you tried to blow right by it with a simple "nope."

Lets keep this reasonable. Ashtrays are non-sentient. Well at least based on the evidence we have of them.

I am not proclaiming my perspective of Agnostic Atheism to be true. My stance is based upon the amount of scientific evidence which is the highest standard that we know exists.

So nope.

An argument doesn't have to be sound to be logical and rational. "Proof" is one thing; good evidence is another. But both the ideas that "France does not exist" and "God does not exist" are truth claims. Truth claims are either true or false. Neither of those statements is like saying, "My ass is true" or "Water is true."

No an argument does not have to be logical. But for it to be a good one it does. For myself I disbelieve in gods because there is no good evidence which to base their existence on.

Just so this is clear. I do not know if any gods exist. But I do not believe they do because there is no evidence currently to suggest otherwise.

Atheism also impacts various people in a society as a whole. And in my experience, it is atheists who breed arrogance and an "us vs them" mentality. Read what you write about religious people, for ex. -- most likely even your own ancestors! If you want arrogance, go talk to the families of the atheist Stalin's victims, or Hitler's victims (and before you make the claim that Hitler was Christian: no, he wasn't. He was baptized as a baby, but rejected Christianity entirely. Like any politician with many Christians in his constituency, he gave it some lip service, but he was very much against Christianity. Through and through).

Atheism only represents a small percentage in my country which is the US. The overwhelming majority are Christian as evidenced by polls conducted. Athiest don't have any relevant sway upon this country other than a rational voice.

I see trying to equate bad people in history as representation of atheism is still a popular fallacy. Especially love how so many try to distance Hitler from theism altogether. He is not a good example of religious-like zealotry is he? It must be evil atheism! Despite the facts.

Never mind the countless deaths throughout history perpetuated by utilizing religion as justification.

But really it is meaningless in this exchange. Nice pull of the Hitler card. Sure to show you have won this small debate!

I'd really, really love to know what Christians in your life have come off as "arrogant." I really would. Most that I've met are very much the opposite. Or if you're claiming that Christians (with Christianity being the only religion I defend. Unlike the claim that some -- many -- atheists make, religions are, quite obviously and clearly, not at all alike except in superficial ways) are "arrogant" because they believe they know that God exists, that He died for us, etc., I'm not seeing how your argument can possibly be true. Knowing something, especially something like THAT, is a source of humility, not arrogance.

Was it "arrogance" that inspired Christians to invent hospitals, soup kitchens, and orphanages (while pagans were exposing their babies on rocks to die)?

Easily. Those Christians who have expressed their god as the only true god. Because...they say so? No evidence to support their position.

Arrogance I see when certain Christians are confronted with logic and facts. Especially young earth creationists. Those who view Biblical literalism and such as the truth. Some wear these beliefs as flawless indestructible armor. So there is evidence to support their position? Nope.

? No Catholic or Orthodox makes that argument, and it's Catholics and Orthodox that constitute classical Christianity. But even that Evangelical-style argument doesn't fit here at all. What does the statement "This has to be a law because that is what God said" have to do with my having said that atheism is an identity, which implies -- rather, is an implication of the fact -- that it's more than a "non-belief"?

In politics it is very much used. Especially as was evidenced by the same sex marriage fiasco.

And what's with the idea of "moral superiority"? Knowing what is moral doesn't make one act morally. It should, and typically does, motivate one to act morally, but doesn't, in se, make one morally superior.

It is the belief of moral superiority based on the belief that a god who has no evidence to suggest the existence of as being the ultimate answer towards morals.

For Christians God is who decides what is good and what is evil. There has to be something to decide what is evil or not because humans are incapable of doing so.

And yes, there is all kinds of evidence that God exists, so your facile "no?" is just that -- facile -- as is your lumping God and all gods together, as if there's no difference whatsoever between, say, Thor and Jesus. Seriously?

There is no scientific evidence that suggests a god exists. So yes Thor and the Christian God share this. While they are different attempts at describing different things they are also quite a like based on the likelihood of their existence using currently available evidence.

I know you are atheistic towards Thor. Perhaps an Atheist towards all other ideas of gods and spiritual ideas. Except that one that you believe to be true. With out evidence to back that up.

I could say "I'll let you argue with Nietzsche," but I'll bite: I never said that denouncing religion means that "one has to ascribe to some chaotic lawlessness or amoral foundation" in terms of intent or desire. But it's exactly what it means in fact. Denying God doesn't mean the atheist is going to go out and lie, murder, rape, and steal -- but it does mean he'll have no sound and logical philosophical argument against it. Or, if you disagree, give us all a sound and logical argument why slavery is wrong, why it's wrong to leave your babies on rocks so they'll die, why human life has any more value than that of a cockroach (you can ask atheists like Peter Singer for assistance with those last two).

I always find it fascinating that the value of being a human being is considered to be tied to a belief in one specific god.

Most life itself seems to do just well without the idea of a god. Unless other forms of life have their own godly beliefs. Rat god! Ant god! Bee god! Dog god!

Ok so no sound and logical philosophical arguments...

Slavery is wrong by our current standards due to the recognition of our current society that all humans are alike and should be protected as such, correct? Was it wrong in the past? That would be modern societal values judging older ones. Which is easy to do because we have a greater body of knowledge of which to make decisions upon.

The same with biblical age of consent. Ironically enough the bible does not really address it. Because that concept was not an important part of the culture then. Our modern idea is better not because of some god saying it is but because we have a better understanding of ourselves.

Not sure why you are obsessed about paganism and maybe other cultures that used human sacrifice as appeasing whatever deities. Logically it is irrational. And it is not a behavior that helps grow and maintain a prosperous society. It is wrong because its harmful to humans. And is evidenced by the amount of prospering societies where human sacrifice exists currently. Clearly its not very popular for a reason.

But really if you need a god to tell you that killing babies or other humans is an evil act then by all means keep believing in that god.

I am only saying it is not necessary for those who are capable of rational thought and human empathy.

Societies are built on foundations of earlier societies (except for the first society, obviously), but that doesn't mean that unique religious ideas are the result of prior social norms.

Yes it does. Everything social is built upon prior social functions. Which also includes religious ideas.

BTW, the closer we get to becoming an atheist society, the closer we get to totally eliminating the family in order to "be better able to survive and flourish."

I assume you have some evidence to support this nutty idea. And no...A Tin foil hat does not count.

Further, of all of these "social constructs" and family types that've existed throughout various cultures and History, some work better than others when it comes to civilization-building. See, for ex., this online book: http://www.fisheaters.com/garbagegeneration.html

Of course not all social constructs prove to be beneficial to society. That is just common sense. Just like the function of natural selection in evolution, society also functions in a similar manner when finding what is beneficial or detrimental.

They can study these things using the tools of science all day and all night for the next 5 billion years, and they will won't find the answers.

Not all questions are answerable. Many theists can invoke a supernatural answer for questions like why this universe exists but it does not mean that it is a good answer. Especially if it is not supported by reliable evidence.

Literally anyone can make a claim like "My god created this universe out of love for water slides and nachos" and be on equal evidentiary ground based on the scientific evidence to support the claim.

The answers aren't amenable to science. Why questions can't be answered with science, which is why view marked by scientism (as opposed to a respect for science) can never satisfy the human spirit, the need for purpose and meaning.

The same can be said for theism. Why questions that are answered with unsubstantiated assertions are no better. This is where Agnosticism is a far more valid belief than any other belief that claims answers to what maybe completely unknowable. Or just a silly question that might not mean anything.

Along the same lines I said earlier, about our getting further and further away from Christianity, the further we get from it, the weaker and more pathological our societies get.

Based on what evidence?

Tell that to the atheists Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Mao Tse Tung, etc. And please don't lump all religions together and put Christianity in the same pot with Islam or post-Temple Judaism.

Hitler wasn't an Atheist. Literally nothing in his book or actions suggest that he was anything else but a deranged theist of some sort. Besides none of those people were driven by atheism. It was all about power. Not a disbelief in a deity.

Christianity is a religion therefore it is not inappropriate to compare it with other religions. Especially when they all have equal evidence to support their claims.

When I decided that Agnostic Atheism to be the most honest perspective to have based on the lack of evidence to back what theism posits it maybe somewhat interesting to note that despite my disbelief in a deity I did not turn into an amoral serial killer. Or end up in prison because of a lack of belief in a divine reward/punishment plan.

(and before anyone thinks of going there, as someone always does,

Similar to how you try to use Stalin and others in an argument?

(and before anyone thinks of going there, as someone always does, the Crusades were defensive wars if there ever were defensive wars in the course of History. Islam spread by the sword from the beginning, and had to be fought back after it had warred its way all up into Tours, France. If Christians hadn't fought back, then European and European-derived people would be under Shariah law right now and would be throwing homosexuals off of buildings, wrapping their women in black from head to toe, with slits for eyes, and not allowing them to drive cars. So unless that idea appeals to you, you should be grateful to the Crusaders for saving Europe. Also, don't even mix traditional Christianity as it stood for 1500 years with Protestantism, which is 500 years old.)

I don't typically bring up the crusades. Maybe the Spanish Inquisition sometimes. Nice preemptive defense there though. Typically I use examples of witch burning and other examples of heretical executions. Or perhaps those who believe that they are doing divine good by shooting or bombing clinics. Even the satanic panic modern witch hunt of the West Memphis 3. Or religious terrorists as is the case with 9/11 and the more recent Paris attacks.

The quote is not specific to one religion. Which is pretty apparent if one can read. Anywhere that religion is used to justify terrible acts the quote is proven to be accurate. That is not saying that religion is evil which seems like what you think it says. It says what some people do in the name of their religion is evil done with the belief it is righteous.

People never do evil so completely & cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction

reply share

add reply

formatting help

Lets keep this reasonable. Ashtrays are non-sentient. Well at least based on the evidence we have of them.

I am not proclaiming my perspective of Agnostic Atheism to be true. My stance is based upon the amount of scientific evidence which is the highest standard that we know exists.

So nope.

My bringing up ashtrays is very reasonable. The standard line about how saying "atheism is a lack of belief in God" is not a statement of belief and, so, requires no defense, is actually the statement, "atheism is the lack of belief in God by a sentient being," which is a positive belief and does require defense. Or, you could rephrase atheism positively by saying something such as "atheism is the belief that what exists does so for no reason," which also requires belief. My point is that saying that atheist assertions don't require defending because they're negative assertions is wrong.

No an argument does not have to be logical. But for it to be a good one it does. For myself I disbelieve in gods because there is no good evidence which to base their existence on.

Just so this is clear. I do not know if any gods exist. But I do not believe they do because there is no evidence currently to suggest otherwise.

You misread me. I nowhere said that an argument, in order to be good, doesn't have to be logical; I said in order for it to be sound it does (and requires true premises).

And there is evidence for the existence of God. You say, repeatedly, in your post that there isn't, but there is. There are the classical arguments (the Prime Mover, etc.); there's the fact of human nature, which universally seeks God; there's the very fact of consciousness; there's the fact that morality actually does require God (note that I said morality does, not that an atheist can't behave morally. Natural virtue exists even aside from supernatural virtue); there's the evidence of civilizations and their nature given the cults (or lack thereof) that they're built around; there are problems such as irreducible complexity; there's sociology, which shows that classical Christianity (Catholicism and Orthodoxy) gives us societies in which the things most often considered "good" (e.g., intact families, health, ordered societies, etc.) are present because of the principles derived from the Christian cult; there are people's experiences of God; there are NDE experiences; there are things such as the Shroud of Turin; there's science itself, etc. A few articles concerning that last category:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/newsweek/science_of_god/scienceofgod.htm

http://viral.buzz/video-checkmate-atheists-scientists-discover-god/

http://www.wsj.com/articles/eric-metaxas-science-increasingly-makes-the-case-for-god-1419544568


And to show that being a scientist doesn'tm in se, entail atheism, there are these:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/23/us/scientists-speak-up-on-mix-of-god-and-science.html?_r=0

http://aleteia.org/2014/06/26/25-famous-scientists-on-god/

Atheism only represents a small percentage in my country which is the US. The overwhelming majority are Christian as evidenced by polls conducted. Athiest don't have any relevant sway upon this country other than a rational voice.

I see trying to equate bad people in history as representation of atheism is still a popular fallacy. Especially love how so many try to distance Hitler from theism altogether. He is not a good example of religious-like zealotry is he? It must be evil atheism! Despite the facts.

Never mind the countless deaths throughout history perpetuated by utilizing religion as justification.

But really it is meaningless in this exchange. Nice pull of the Hitler card. Sure to show you have won this small debate!

I live in the U.S. as well and know that the zeitgeist on college campuses is marked by secularism and atheism just about right down the line, with respect given, of course, to Muslims and Jews -- none given to Christians (who are popularly seen as idiots. In spite of the fact that it was Christianity that built Western Civilization, gave the world science (even the very scientific method was invented by a Franciscan monk), etc.) And most of the U.S's Christians aren't traditional Christians (or good Christians); they tend to be Evangelical, and the like, and are as likely to use contraception, have sex outside of marriage, and get abortions and anyone else (so be happy!). So secularists have major sway in this country.

I think you're being disingenuous by saying that my having mentioned Stalin, etc, al, is "fallacious" and a mater of "equating" bad people "as representations of atheism" when you have, as your sig line, "People never do evil so completely & cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction." It's doubly off when you consider that in the case of the Communists I mentioned -- who killed millions and millions more people than Hitler ever dreamed of, most of them in the West being Christians -- atheism is a major part of Communism. Ever read Marx? "Opiate of the masses" and all that? Religion as the means to keep people distracted from their own suffering as a class? Etc.?

And Hitler wasn't a Christian. Sorry. He rejected Christianity, considering it to be nothing but a branch of Judaism and a font of weakness. Look it up.

As to all these "countless deaths throughout history perpetuated by utilizing religion as justification": with regard to traditional Christianity, got examples of those "countless" deaths? I'm not going to defend the likes of Islam or Evangelicalism; I see the obvious fact that religions are not alike. I think only one is true (something that doesn't make me at all "arrogant"; it's not as if I invented traditional Christianity, so what could I possibly have to be "arrogant" about?)

Easily. Those Christians who have expressed their god as the only true god. Because...they say so? No evidence to support their position.

Arrogance I see when certain Christians are confronted with logic and facts. Especially young earth creationists. Those who view Biblical literalism and such as the truth. Some wear these beliefs as flawless indestructible armor. So there is evidence to support their position? Nope.

See? There you go again, acting as if Christians don't deal with "logic" and "facts," accusing us of "arrogance" and saying we have "no evidence" to support our position. And again, don't equate American Evangelical fundamentalists and Zionists with people who practice traditional Christianity.

But speaking of arrogance, you're there saying there is no God, with no evidence to disprove His existence, you name-call those who believe differently, and then you accuse those whom you name-call of being "arrogant." The word projection comes to mind.

It is the belief of moral superiority based on the belief that a god who has no evidence to suggest the existence of as being the ultimate answer towards morals.

For Christians God is who decides what is good and what is evil. There has to be something to decide what is evil or not because humans are incapable of doing so.

No well-catechized Christian thinks of himself as "morally superior" just because he knows whence morality comes. But in the Christian's view, morality does come from God; in your view it comes from -- you. Or Pol Pot. Or Hitler. Or all of the above, with the strongest person's view winning out, becoming law, and becoming "morality." I mean, right now we live in a world in which a woman's killing her own child in her womb is considered a "right" in the most powerful country on earth (and I am a woman, BTW).

There is no scientific evidence that suggests a god exists. So yes Thor and the Christian God share this. While they are different attempts at describing different things they are also quite a like based on the likelihood of their existence using currently available evidence.

I know you are atheistic towards Thor. Perhaps an Atheist towards all other ideas of gods and spiritual ideas. Except that one that you believe to be true. With out evidence to back that up.

See above.

I always find it fascinating that the value of being a human being is considered to be tied to a belief in one specific god.

Most life itself seems to do just well without the idea of a god. Unless other forms of life have their own godly beliefs. Rat god! Ant god! Bee god! Dog god!

Wrote a man who lives in the U.S., where millions of unborn humans are murdered in their mother's wombs.

But morality does require God. Anything else comes down to your opinion against another's. Or let's hear you prove to me that this line is true: "Murder is wrong." And do it in such a way that Jeffrey Dahmer, people who blow up abortion clinics, Stalin, Hitler, George Bush, Muslim jihadists would accept as true.

Ok so no sound and logical philosophical arguments...

Slavery is wrong by our current standards due to the recognition of our current society that all humans are alike and should be protected as such, correct? Was it wrong in the past? That would be modern societal values judging older ones. Which is easy to do because we have a greater body of knowledge of which to make decisions upon.

What knowledge do we have now (and that you apparently think we didn't have 'then') that makes for a sound argument that "Slavery is wrong"? Prove it. Your saying "it is wrong by our current standards" says nothing of its morality. I'm not asking "what laws do we have about slavery nowadays?" That is easily looked up in Wikipedia. I'm asking you to prove that slavery is immoral, and that murder (the killing of innocent human life, by definition) is wrong. Prove that women are of equal value as men. Prove what you say, as a matter of "fact," that "all humans are alike."

The same with biblical age of consent. Ironically enough the bible does not really address it. Because that concept was not an important part of the culture then. Our modern idea is better not because of some god saying it is but because we have a better understanding of ourselves.

You first have to define what is "good" and "true" to have any inkling as to whether we have a "better" understanding of ourselves, and whether what we do now is "good." I'm not sure what you're getting at with the age of consent, so let's keep it simple. Explain to me how, based on this "better understanding of ourselves" that you think we have nowadays, we've come up with ideas of morality that are "better" than some other ideas of morality. How are you defining what is "better"?

Not sure why you are obsessed about paganism and maybe other cultures that used human sacrifice as appeasing whatever deities. Logically it is irrational. And it is not a behavior that helps grow and maintain a prosperous society. It is wrong because its harmful to humans. And is evidenced by the amount of prospering societies where human sacrifice exists currently. Clearly its not very popular for a reason.

I wasn't referring to human sacrifice to appease any deity; I was referring to people who'd leave their (usually) female babies out on rocks to die because the babies were unwanted. This was a common practice in ancient Rome.

But really if you need a god to tell you that killing babies or other humans is an evil act then by all means keep believing in that god.

I am only saying it is not necessary for those who are capable of rational thought and human empathy.

Does that include unborn babies? Or do your morality and empathy have a chronological cut-off point?

In any case, I'm not talking about what "I" need; I am talking about philosophy. You cannot prove to me, neither philosophically nor, especially, using the tools of science, that the taking of an innocent human life is wrong. I can prove it if you accept a few premises (e.g., "God exists" being the first one), but you can't prove it.

Yes it does. Everything social is built upon prior social functions. Which also includes religious ideas.

You disregard revelation out of hand. Not much I can do about that.

BTW, the closer we get to becoming an atheist society, the closer we get to totally eliminating the family in order to "be better able to survive and flourish."

I assume you have some evidence to support this nutty idea. And no...A Tin foil hat does not count.

http://family-studies.org/marriage-in-decline-yglesias/

https://www.boundless.com/sociology/textbooks/boundless-sociology-textbook/family-12/recent-changes-in-family-structure-94/the-decline-of-the-traditional-family-533-3394/

To see why this is important, see the link I posted earlier: http://www.fisheaters.com/garbagegeneration.html

Of course not all social constructs prove to be beneficial to society. That is just common sense. Just like the function of natural selection in evolution, society also functions in a similar manner when finding what is beneficial or detrimental.

As an atheist, you're still stuck having to prove what "beneficial" means here. What is the Good? You have a utilitarian idea in mind? What? Whatever it is, you can't prove whether X or Y is truly Good or beneficial.

Not all questions are answerable. Many theists can invoke a supernatural answer for questions like why this universe exists but it does not mean that it is a good answer. Especially if it is not supported by reliable evidence.

Literally anyone can make a claim like "My god created this universe out of love for water slides and nachos" and be on equal evidentiary ground based on the scientific evidence to support the claim.

Re. evidence: see above. And keep working on proving, using the tools of science, that the taking of an innocent life is wrong, or that slavery is wrong, or that women are of equal value to men, etc.

The same can be said for theism. Why questions that are answered with unsubstantiated assertions are no better. This is where Agnosticism is a far more valid belief than any other belief that claims answers to what maybe completely unknowable. Or just a silly question that might not mean anything.

The (traditional) Christian's answers aren't "unsubstantiated," and your asserting otherwise, often, doesn't make it less the case.

If you consider Agnosticism to be a "far more valid belief than any other belief that claims answers to what maybe completely unknowable," why do you call yourself an atheist rather than an agnostic? Not getting that...

Along the same lines I said earlier, about our getting further and further away from Christianity, the further we get from it, the weaker and more pathological our societies get.

Based on what evidence?

Based on the premises that human life is precious to God and that He made it to be and to know, love, and serve Him in this world so we can be happy with Him in the next, I say that we're becoming weaker and more pathological given the state of the family and marriage, the fact that murdering children in utero is considered a "right" in too many places, the stuff written about at the link I posted (http://www.fisheaters.com/garbagegeneration.html), the fact that suicide is the 10th leading cause of death in the U.S. (and the 3rd leading cause of death for people between 15 and 24), the fact that masculinity is treated as pathological and men (at least European and European-derived ones) are treated as evil, the fact that Westerners aren't having enough children to replace their own populations, the fact that old people are being euthanized in various Western countries, the fact of the death of romance and love and the rise of "hook-up culture" which leaves people empty and miserable, the fact that European nations don't have enough hope to even defend their cultures against Islamic overtaking of their lands and culture, the fact that, unlike you, most people want and *need* a reason for living that goes beyond the temporal, but are not being taught that reason, the fact that we live in a youth-obssessed time in which physical beauty is just about everything and people are thrown away after they begin to look old, the fact that so many (most?) of us are on some sort of SSRI, the fact that our work is typically demeaning (if we're lucky enough to get work in the first place -- and enough of it to pay off the 50K of student loan debts)-- I could go on a long, long time.

Hitler wasn't an Atheist. Literally nothing in his book or actions suggest that he was anything else but a deranged theist of some sort. Besides none of those people were driven by atheism. It was all about power. Not a disbelief in a deity.

Christianity is a religion therefore it is not inappropriate to compare it with other religions. Especially when they all have equal evidence to support their claims.

When I decided that Agnostic Atheism to be the most honest perspective to have based on the lack of evidence to back what theism posits it maybe somewhat interesting to note that despite my disbelief in a deity I did not turn into an amoral serial killer. Or end up in prison because of a lack of belief in a divine reward/punishment plan.

He was either an atheist or pagan. He definitely wasn't Christian. The "none of those people" you refer to (Communists) were most certainly driven by atheism, with atheism being one of the foundations of Marxism.

Your assertion that all religions have equal evidence (i.e., none) to support their claims simply isn't true. See above.

Agnosticism is honest, but atheism isn't. Well, unless you can prove that God doesn't exist. And good luck with that. But to your point, as I've said before, traditional Christianity firmly asserts that natural virtues exist outside of the Church. The fact that you're not a serial killer isn't surprising. But the fact remains that you can't prove, using science, that the taking of innocent life is wrong.

(continued below; I got truncated LOL)

reply share

add reply

formatting help

My bringing up ashtrays is very reasonable. The standard line about how saying "atheism is a lack of belief in God" is not a statement of belief and, so, requires no defense, is actually the statement, "atheism is the lack of belief in God by a sentient being," which is a positive belief and does require defense. Or, you could rephrase atheism positively by saying something such as "atheism is the belief that what exists does so for no reason," which also requires belief. My point is that saying that atheist assertions don't require defending because they're negative assertions is wrong.

Its not reasonable at all. Its silly. If I say I do not believe in a god I do not have to proof the non existence of one. Because believe it or not Atheism does not state that there are no gods. Only a disbelief in gods.

And there is evidence for the existence of God. You say, repeatedly, in your post that there isn't, but there is. There are the classical arguments (the Prime Mover, etc.); there's the fact of human nature, which universally seeks God; there's the very fact of consciousness; there's the fact that morality actually does require God (note that I said morality does, not that an atheist can't behave morally. Natural virtue exists even aside from supernatural virtue); there's the evidence of civilizations and their nature given the cults (or lack thereof) that they're built around; there are problems such as irreducible complexity; there's sociology, which shows that classical Christianity (Catholicism and Orthodoxy) gives us societies in which the things most often considered "good" (e.g., intact families, health, ordered societies, etc.) are present because of the principles derived from the Christian cult; there are people's experiences of God; there are NDE experiences; there are things such as the Shroud of Turin; there's science itself, etc. A few articles concerning that last category:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/newsweek/science_of_god/scienceofgod.htm

http://viral.buzz/video-checkmate-atheists-scientists-discover-god/

http://www.wsj.com/articles/eric-metaxas-science-increasingly-makes-the-case-for-god-1419544568

No. None of that is scientific evidence for the existence of gods.

And to show that being a scientist doesn'tm in se, entail atheism, there are these:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/23/us/scientists-speak-up-on-mix-of-god-and-science.html?_r=0

http://aleteia.org/2014/06/26/25-famous-scientists-on-god/

That was never an argument of mine. But I will agree that just because someone holds a religious belief it does not mean they are incapable of working in the science field. The only requirement to working in the sciences is to do science. Utilize the scientific method.

I live in the U.S. as well and know that the zeitgeist on college campuses is marked by secularism and atheism just about right down the line, with respect given, of course, to Muslims and Jews -- none given to Christians (who are popularly seen as idiots. In spite of the fact that it was Christianity that built Western Civilization, gave the world science (even the very scientific method was invented by a Franciscan monk), etc.) And most of the U.S's Christians aren't traditional Christians (or good Christians); they tend to be Evangelical, and the like, and are as likely to use contraception, have sex outside of marriage, and get abortions and anyone else (so be happy!). So secularists have major sway in this country.

Secularist have a sway only in pointing out secular ideas that are apart of the nations founding principles.

I think you're being disingenuous by saying that my having mentioned Stalin, etc, al, is "fallacious" and a mater of "equating" bad people "as representations of atheism" when you have, as your sig line, "People never do evil so completely & cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction." It's doubly off when you consider that in the case of the Communists I mentioned -- who killed millions and millions more people than Hitler ever dreamed of, most of them in the West being Christians -- atheism is a major part of Communism. Ever read Marx? "Opiate of the masses" and all that? Religion as the means to keep people distracted from their own suffering as a class? Etc.?

Nope. If you can actually read the signature it does not equate religion as evil. Only those who use religious beliefs to justify evil. Once again these dictators did not in the name of atheism. But in the name of their own maniacal search for absolute power. It is not "I don't believe in god! So I am going to kill a lot of people!".

And Hitler wasn't a Christian. Sorry. He rejected Christianity, considering it to be nothing but a branch of Judaism and a font of weakness. Look it up.

Didn't say he was. But he did believe in some twisted sense of theism and supernatural. Definitely not "evil" atheist. More like evil theist. And no i don't try to make the case that because he was an evil theist it does not mean that theism itself is evil. Unlike some people who try to equate Atheism as being evil by using ridiculous examples of bad people who happen to have hold atheistic perspectives.

As to all these "countless deaths throughout history perpetuated by utilizing religion as justification": with regard to traditional Christianity, got examples of those "countless" deaths? I'm not going to defend the likes of Islam or Evangelicalism; I see the obvious fact that religions are not alike. I think only one is true (something that doesn't make me at all "arrogant"; it's not as if I invented traditional Christianity, so what could I possibly have to be "arrogant" about?)

All religions have had someone within who have done evil with the justification of divine justice. Yes even christianity...whatever branch you consider to be true or traditional. I'm not sure which flavor that you enjoy.

See? There you go again, acting as if Christians don't deal with "logic" and "facts," accusing us of "arrogance" and saying we have "no evidence" to support our position. And again, don't equate American Evangelical fundamentalists and Zionists with people who practice traditional Christianity.

There is no scientific evidence that points to any gods existence. So really when someone claims otherwise that a god definitely exists that argument has nothing to support the position outside philosophical arguments which consequently is not scientific evidence.

But speaking of arrogance, you're there saying there is no God, with no evidence to disprove His existence, you name-call those who believe differently, and then you accuse those whom you name-call of being "arrogant." The word projection comes to mind.

No I'm not saying there is not a god. Feel free to go over the exchanges we have had or even my post history to see that. You see how that works? I'm not claiming anything other than there is no scientific evidence currently to support that any gods exist. Because that is a fact.

If there was scientific evidence then it would be a very different conversation. Mostly one dealing with which idea of a god is it? Would it be a Norse pantheistic version? Mormon? The Force from Star Wars version? Angry Old Testament God?

See above.

Indeed. See above.

Wrote a man who lives in the U.S., where millions of unborn humans are murdered in their mother's wombs.

You are assuming that I think abortion to be moral. Which I do not except in cases extreme cases of life and death or perhaps even situations with pregnancies as the result of rape. Those I believe to be morally up to the woman in their particular position.

But morality does require God. Anything else comes down to your opinion against another's. Or let's hear you prove to me that this line is true: "Murder is wrong." And do it in such a way that Jeffrey Dahmer, people who blow up abortion clinics, Stalin, Hitler, George Bush, Muslim jihadists would accept as true.

I don't believe murder is always wrong. Either did the God in the bible. Although expressed through commandments it does seem contradictory.

Especially evident by the high value you have the crusades as being justified.

Is it an evil act to kill an evil person who enters your house with the intent to murder?

I would not say so.

But morality does require God. Anything else comes down to your opinion against another's. Or let's hear you prove to me that this line is true: "Murder is wrong." And do it in such a way that Jeffrey Dahmer, people who blow up abortion clinics, Stalin, Hitler, George Bush, Muslim jihadists would accept as true.

No its not just one person opinion it is society as a whole. Murder is not always wrong. Its not as simple as thou shall not kill. Using God as some authority figure really does help either because well there is no evidence to say that there is real consequences outside those put into place by society. Case in point would be prison statistics that show the majority of inmates to have some form of theism.

What knowledge do we have now (and that you apparently think we didn't have 'then') that makes for a sound argument that "Slavery is wrong"?

Yes the idea that slavery is wrong because it treats certain people as below or above others. In the bible this was not much of a moral issue because it was the social norm. We in this current society consider slavery to be immoral because our perspectives have changed by gaining knowledge about humanity as a whole. Ultimately I would say that knowledge through experience has enabled modern society to empathize with each other more. The more information that we have the better we can decide upon social issues.

I'm asking you to prove that slavery is immoral, and that murder (the killing of innocent human life, by definition) is wrong.

Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being by another. That is pretty much decided by the courts. As mentioned before I do not believe murder to be an easy yes or no moral issue. There are times that I believe it is morally right to commit murder as it is defined. Murder of innocents is much easier to say is morally wrong because it affects the innocent in society. Murdering innocent people is not the best way to help a society flourish. You can see that by how well the society that Hitler tried to work exists today. Social evolution at work. It wrong because society says so.

Prove what you say, as a matter of "fact," that "all humans are alike."

I'm not going to address each and every point because well the same rationality goes into all of those situations but this one was worth noting.

If you are a human you are part of a species which by a simple definition is alike to each other.

Species - a class of individuals having some common characteristics or qualities; distinct sort or kind.

I wasn't referring to human sacrifice to appease any deity; I was referring to people who'd leave their (usually) female babies out on rocks to die because the babies were unwanted. This was a common practice in ancient Rome.

I apologize for that misunderstanding. My reply is still relevant with dealing with the rationale of why these things are morally wrong...Especially so by our current societies standards.

You disregard revelation out of hand. Not much I can do about that.

Not much evidence for the relevance of revelation either.

http://family-studies.org/marriage-in-decline-yglesias/

https://www.boundless.com/sociology/textbooks/boundless-sociology-textbook/family-12/recent-changes-in-family-structure-94/the-decline-of-the-traditional-family-533-3394/

To see why this is important, see the link I posted earlier: http://www.fisheaters.com/garbagegeneration.html

Sure there are many issues especially with poverty and social relationships there. But that is not tied to secularism. That is tied to socioeconomic reasons which is often times referred to as a vicious cycle.

And the idea of family is indeed changing. It does not mean that families are dissolving only that the concepts of family are evolving as society does as well throughout time.

As an atheist, you're still stuck having to prove what "beneficial" means here. What is the Good? You have a utilitarian idea in mind? What? Whatever it is, you can't prove whether X or Y is truly Good or beneficial.

What is good? Is it just something a god says or is there something else like a rational behind it? Same thing for beneficial. What ideas are good for people in a society? Is looking out for everyone within a society within reason a worthy endeavor? I would say it is. Its definitely not perfect but it is working out thus far.

Based on the premises that human life is precious to God and that He made it to be and to know, love, and serve Him in this world so we can be happy with Him in the next, I say that we're becoming weaker and more pathological given the state of the family and marriage, the fact that murdering children in utero is considered a "right" in too many places, the stuff written about at the link I posted (http://www.fisheaters.com/garbagegeneration.html), the fact that suicide is the 10th leading cause of death in the U.S. (and the 3rd leading cause of death for people between 15 and 24), the fact that masculinity is treated as pathological and men (at least European and European-derived ones) are treated as evil, the fact that Westerners aren't having enough children to replace their own populations, the fact that old people are being euthanized in various Western countries, the fact of the death of romance and love and the rise of "hook-up culture" which leaves people empty and miserable, the fact that European nations don't have enough hope to even defend their cultures against Islamic overtaking of their lands and culture, the fact that, unlike you, most people want and *need* a reason for living that goes beyond the temporal, but are not being taught that reason, the fact that we live in a youth-obssessed time in which physical beauty is just about everything and people are thrown away after they begin to look old, the fact that so many (most?) of us are on some sort of SSRI, the fact that our work is typically demeaning (if we're lucky enough to get work in the first place -- and enough of it to pay off the 50K of student loan debts)-- I could go on a long, long time.

You win rants hands down.

He was either an atheist or pagan. He definitely wasn't Christian. The "none of those people" you refer to (Communists) were most certainly driven by atheism, with atheism being one of the foundations of Marxism.

Hitler was a theist of some sort.

Still obsessed with communism I see.

And how evil I must be because I don't believe in gods therefore I might as well be an evil dictator.

Your assertion that all religions have equal evidence (i.e., none) to support their claims simply isn't true. See above. .

I looked up again and saw no scientific evidence offered. Somehow when you keep referring to non-evidence does not change it to scientific evidence. Interesting.

Agnosticism is honest, but atheism isn't. Well, unless you can prove that God doesn't exist. And good luck with that. But to your point, as I've said before, traditional Christianity firmly asserts that natural virtues exist outside of the Church. The fact that you're not a serial killer isn't surprising. But the fact remains that you can't prove, using science, that the taking of innocent life is wrong.

Agnostic atheists are atheistic because they do not hold a belief in the existence of any deity and agnostic because they claim that the existence of a deity is either unknowable in principle or currently unknown in fact.

Which is currently unknown based on the best quality of evidence that we have.

You seem to have a real hard time with understanding what atheism or even agnostic atheism really is.

People never do evil so completely & cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction

reply share

add reply

formatting help

(Continued)

Similar to how you try to use Stalin and others in an argument?

No, not like that at all. As I said, atheism was integral to Marxist thought. And the Crusades were defensive wars.

I don't typically bring up the crusades. Maybe the Spanish Inquisition sometimes. Nice preemptive defense there though. Typically I use examples of witch burning and other examples of heretical executions. Or perhaps those who believe that they are doing divine good by shooting or bombing clinics. Even the satanic panic modern witch hunt of the West Memphis 3. Or religious terrorists as is the case with 9/11 and the more recent Paris attacks.

The quote is not specific to one religion. Which is pretty apparent if one can read. Anywhere that religion is used to justify terrible acts the quote is proven to be accurate. That is not saying that religion is evil which seems like what you think it says. It says what some people do in the name of their religion is evil done with the belief it is righteous.

I'd love to quiz you on the Spanish Inquisition. Most people have that all wrong as well (did you know why it was called? How long it lasted? What "The Black Legend" is? How ecclesiastical courts compared to secular courts of the day? The actual execution rates? etc.?)

And, yeah, I often use preemptive defenses because the slurs against Christianity are typically repetitive, going over the same old stuff. Flying Spaghetti Monsters, the Inquisition, the Crusades, blah blah, mostly from people who don't have a clue what they're talking about.

Sure, some people -- especially those in false religions -- do some nasty stuff "in the name of religion." And some people do some nasty stuff in the name of atheism. Or Zionism. Or for money. People are like that.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

It's you who doesn't know what "agnostic" and "atheist" mean. From Merriam-Webster:

agnostic

1 : a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god

2 : a person who is unwilling to commit to an opinion about something <political agnostics>


atheist

: one who believes that there is no deity

You also can't follow a conversation, totally distorting the meaning of the word "murder," which I even defined a few times (hint: it's the taking of innocent life, not "killing" in se. I.e., killing an aggressor in self-defense is not, by definition, murder, since an aggressor isn't innocent). And you actually say that you believe murder is not always wrong, an assertion that goes to prove my point about the need for something other than your opinion, or my opinion, or Hitler's or Stalin's opinions, as to what constitute the True, Good, and Beautiful.

You also keep repeating your idea that there is no scientific evidence for the existence of God, ignoring links I posted that show otherwise.

Therefore, I think it's a waste of time debating with you. So ciao.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

It's you who doesn't know what "agnostic" and "atheist" mean. From Merriam-Webster:

agnostic

1 : a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god

2 : a person who is unwilling to commit to an opinion about something <political agnostics>


atheist

: one who believes that there is no deity

Yes I posted the full definition of Agnostic Atheism for you already. I refer you to that. Also interesting to note the atheist does not read as: one who states there is no deity.

Only a disbelief in one.

So no I don't believe in any gods but I don't know if any exist. So I do not state that gods don't exist. Therefore do not have to defend the position of that claim.

You also can't follow a conversation, totally distorting the meaning of the word "murder," which I even defined a few times (hint: it's the taking of innocent life, not "killing" in se. I.e., killing an aggressor in self-defense is not, by definition, murder, since an aggressor isn't innocent).

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/murder

the crime of deliberately killing a person

How am I distorting that?

Or what maybe a better question is how are you distorting it?

And you actually say that you believe murder is not always wrong, an assertion that goes to prove my point about the need for something other than your opinion, or my opinion, or Hitler's or Stalin's opinions, as to what constitute the True, Good, and Beautiful.

No because I addressed what you define as murder as well. And showed how it is considered immoral by utilizing rationality and empathy.

I know I let it pass before and it maybe too late because I suppose you've ran away but how would you decide the morality for Age of Consent? Do you agree with what the bible says for that?

You also keep repeating your idea that there is no scientific evidence for the existence of God, ignoring links I posted that show otherwise.

Those links do not constitute scientific evidence. Scientific evidence is evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis. Such evidence is expected to be empirical evidence and interpretation in accordance with scientific method.

None of what you posted is anywhere close to scientific evidence. What you posted are individuals subjective reasoning based in theistic philosophy.



Scientific evidence is not something you define yourself. It is an already defined standard which is used to determine the best likelihood for a conclusion. As such when using DNA evidence in a court its never based on 100% matches it is always some degree of likelihood that no matter how high it is it is not an absolute yes or no. But its pretty close.

Therefore, I think it's a waste of time debating with you. So ciao.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rY0WxgSXdEE



Live Long and Prosper

People never do evil so completely & cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction

reply share

add reply

formatting help

And that's why I'm a closeted atheist.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

Sure, some people -- especially those in false religions

So, all of them, then. There is no such thing as a "true religion".

reply share

add reply

formatting help