Soviet & Maoist Communism are definitely atheistic systems. Are they not True Atheists? If so, I hearby declare that nothing evil has been done by True Christians. Anyway, it is because of their official atheism that Communist rulers have persecuted believers & destroyed/desecrated/commandeered religious buildings.
Atheists no more believe in Communism than they believe in a god, and frankly, I am tired of attempts like these to tie the two together. Communism is a form of government-Atheism is the absence in the belief in a god.
Again I ask, can you come up with any large-scale atrocities that were carried out in the name of Atheism?
But atheism has always been central in communist theory, hasn’t it?
The thing that bugs me about atheist zealots is that they have Anger Mommy issues and they take it out on the rest of the world and then want to be considered the “rational voice” in an argument. LMAO
No, absolute belief in the Communist form of government is central to Communist theory. They view any dogma other than Communism to be competition, and competition is a threat. If a large group of atheists got together and didn’t tout Communism as a form of government, they would be put down as fast as any religious group.
Atheism has frequently been central in non-theocratic totalitarianism for a simple reason: totalitarian governments abhor any kind of non-governmental power structures. The Chinese leaders, for example, repress the Falun Gong not because they hate religion, but because they fear outside power. They want to substitute a cult of personality for religious fervor. They don’t want the competition.
I don’t think that says anything about the effect of atheism on society.
The Earth will eventually get fried by the sun. The universe will eventually be nothing but decaying protons. Yeah, the universe is big and we’re small, but it is the religious people who say the whole thing was created just for us. Who’s humble again?
Well, I was coming in here to say what** WeirdDave** said, but since you ask I’ll give it a shot.
No, I don’t believe they’re fools. I can’t speak for all religions, but raised Christian I’ll just say that it is centered around the notion of faith. We don’t need “scientific proof” God exists because we have faith in our decision to believe in a higher power.
So now we may be discussing semantics, but the definition of an atheist is “one who** believes ** that there is no deity”. Not the same as knowing. I’m sure in one’s own head, when you don’t believe in a God, you’d be rather sure of yourself to the point where you could say “sure I know there’s no God”, but when asked to prove this you’d say something like “look at all the terrible stuff that goes on”. For the atheist scientist gathering evidence of this fact that doesn’t help them much.
A person who has faith in what they believe is really under no burden of proof to prove something they already believe in, unless they’re some fundamentalist zealot trying to witness to the scientist. I can’t really speak for that person though.
I’ll never understand the tired old argument “You can’t know if there’s a god or not! Saying otherwise makes you arrogant/or means you have as much faith as the believer” Why or why won’t this total pile of BS die? There’s tons of things I don’t believe in, i.e. Bigfoot, Loch Ness Monster, Zeus, Bast etc etc. And nobody thinks I’m arrogant for not believing in them yet when it comes to this one god I hear that same crap over and over.
Either god has some traits we can define him by (in which case I’ve yet to see anything truly convincing) or god is undefinable (in which case it’s not unreasonable to not believe in him because how can I believe in something completely beyond definition other than ‘oh yeah he’s around we just can’t prove it!’) either way I don’t see how I’m suddenly being irrational for saying there is no god until I’ve seen it proven otherwise.
It’s not on the atheist to ‘prove’ there isn’t a god. The default position is there isn’t something until proven otherwise.
Where do you draw the line on believing vs knowing by the way? Is it ok to know there’s no Bast? Is it ok to know there’s no bigfoot? I do believe (heh) that you are playing a semantic game to make positions seem equivalent when it’s simply not the same thing at all.
Though in a way I do agree that an atheist who uses such a weak argument like ‘why do bad things happen’ is pretty lame.
Well, I admitted outrightly that it seemed likes semantics to me, because honestly, I do kind of see it as the same thing. Both on the fundy zealot, and the atheist zealot side (I’m starting to hate that word). I don’t believe it’s really my responsibility to prove anything based on my faith. If the scientists and philosophers want to argue back and forth (I kan’t remember which ones were which anymore), let them. This is just MHO.
(bolding mine)
Everyone seems to be missing my point. Nowhere in the portion of the OP I’m talking about does it say anything about anyone asking anyone else for proof. Nowhere does it say anything about atheists who call theists fools (as in Weirddave’s post). All it says is, and again I quote:
IOW, a person is an arrogant fool who says there is no higher purpose. I’m not sure how that can be read in any way other than, “to actually be an atheist is to be an arrogant fool.”
But, the OP says it’s ok to think there is no god, just that it’s not ok to know there is no god. Why is that? I assume it’s because the whole idea of god is that god is sort of outside of normal modes of detection, interaction, and comprehension. So, how can one say he knows there is no god when there’s no way to prove it?
However, by that same logic, how can one say he knows there is a god?
I mean, sure, it’s all belief, all perspective, etc etc etc, but unless you think that everyone in the world, theist and atheist alike, is agnostic, then you have to concede that at some level it’s absolutely fine for people to say they know something about god. And if that’s so, then what’s so inherently wrong about knowing there isn’t a god (aside from the fact that it’s a conclusion you disagree with)?
Atheists don’t need ‘scientific proof’ either. Hell, I’d put “atheist who goes on about ‘proof’ that God doesn’t exist” on my list of pet peeves, though I don’t think I know anyone who does that.
[what follows is not meant to be disparaging at all]
Imagine someone came up to you and said, “we’re all in the Matrix! This world is nothing but stimulated thoughts given to you by machines who are somehow getting a net gain of energy from your body by keeping it in a pod and feeding it a ‘life’ that exists only inside your head!”
Well, you’d probably ‘know’ he was wrong. And yet, he could be right, when you think about it, though you’d have no way of actually knowing for a fact one way or the other.
As a thought exercise it’s interesting to think about what the implications would be if we were all in the Matrix, but I would never ask of someone that he not claim that we’re not in a Matrix because he can’t prove it.
Similarly, I don’t see how you can on one hand admit that there is no way to actually know for a fact one way or the other if there is a god, and then demand that those who don’t think there is a god couch their statements in “I thinks” and “maybes” while giving people who believe a free pass to claim that god exists.
ETA: oh, I almost forgot, if someone uses ‘bad things happen’ as some sort of proof that God doesn’t exist, than he or she clearly has no idea what he or she is talking about.
I’m not going to get into the stuff about whether religion is bad but this part is fucking retarded. There’s nothing “arrogant” about observing that there is no evidence or demonstrable necessity for a “purpose” in the universe.
I would argue that it’s far more arrogant to assume that a few hairless monkeys floating around on an insignificant speck of dust going around one insignificant star out of hundreds of billions in one insignificant galaxy out of hundreds of billions have a magical, special “purpose” in the universe. That the universe is all about THEM. That is some hysterically egotistical thinking right there.
The argument from evil is only “pretty lame” if God is not defined as both omnibenevolent and omnipotent, as it usually is.
Oh, and the OP can kiss my atheist ass.
Word on that. The POE is insurmountable. It’s never been overcome and never can be. For an omnimax god, it’s a logical checkmate.
Right, but only if you start with the assumption that you have an idea of what God is supposed to be like. It doesn’t prove that there is no god, just that if there is, it’s likely that he’s not the all knowing, all powerful, and all benevolent god that some people make him/her/it out to be.
That’s not what he said. You don’t know something just because you lack evidence for its opposite.
The problems with religions is that some members can develop a belief that non-members are the cause of evil. Then the non-members are labeled “the enemy.” Then the desire to “cleanse” begins, and that’s where it gets ugly.
When I see people go over-the-top with blaming Outside-Of-My-Own-Belief-ers, I get the creeps. And that’s the feeling I get when people blame a religion, or all religion, for society’s ills. That’s a frighteningly fertile soil for the “let’s eradicate the evil doers” attitude. With the seething hatred I’ve seen among some atheists, I wonder if they are just weekly meetings away from organizing a bombing.
Most atheists are highly rational and believe in that which is observable. That is very practical. Religion, to me, is more like a philosophy. I personally adore many of the words of wisdom from Jesus and from Buddha. Much of the teachings from both make a lot of sense in the pursuit of a peaceful and happy life, nothing more. Regardless of a person’s religion, or lack thereof, I wish that more people would focus on pursuing a philosophy that made their lives more peaceful. Dwelling on that which negatively affects the world around us, only makes the limited years we have in this world much less pleasant.
Oddly, out of all of the religious (or non-religious) philosophies out there, the only group from which I have only met nice, level-headed, polite members is…The Church of Satan. They don’t actually worship or believe in Satan or anything, they just see humans as natural creatures with instincts. Every time I’ve met an actual member, they have been very kind, never tried to convert me, and simply explained that their belief system is a reaction to the extremism and oppression brought on by zealots of opposing beliefs. I can respect that, because it isn’t an attack at all, it is simply a different philosophy. No hostility, no patronizing attempts to insult you out of your own beliefs, just live and let live.
Bear in mind, I’m not endorsing any religion, here. I’m just pointing out that even those who oppose one another can do so respectfully. That saves a lot of time and prevents a lot of pointless stress.
If it makes you feel any better, a lot of us think you’ve got a decent shot at going to heaven in spite of your non-belief. As long as you act in moral ways, God probably doesn’t care why you do so nearly as much that you just do right by others. As for belief necessary to get into heaven… if you can stand in front of God on judgment day and still deny him, you might be in trouble, but it’s hard to believe you won’t see the light if there’s one to see. Not all of us picture you in hell. Not all of us even believe in hell, anyway.
And one can apply the principle in so many of life’s affairs.
Republicans: Napalm innocent villages, engage in scandalous sexual behavior, scare pregnant women, believe in God, hate science and negroes, carry guns and defend school shootings as a Second Amendment right.
Democrats: A bit effete at times, but want the best for everyone. Intelligent, reasonable, and wise.