Atheist zealots annoy me to no end.

[Gozu]

@bbs2k

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.

Agreed. Some posters should keep that in mind.

[Gozu]

@Eonwe

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.

Incorrect.
Higher Power(s) != God
God != “my religion’s deity(ies)”

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?

Incorrect. “Knowing” things can be dangerous. Knowing the meaning of everything particularly so. Remember when countless european “doctors” knew about bad humours needing to be bled out?

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.

Depends on which God they’re talking about.

[Liberal]

@MaxTheVool

I’ve never seen anyone credibly argue that Stalin or Mao did the evil things they did because their atheism motivated them to do so.

Mao is pretty easy. Very vocal about religion and the fact that religious people were “reactionary”, code for “counter-revolutionary”.

From Time Magazine:

For decades, the People’s Republic really only had one higher power: Mao Zedong. After the 1949 Communist revolution, Mao declared that religion was a “feudal superstition” with little place in a modern Marxist society. Although five official religions were allowed—Buddhism, Taoism, Islam, Catholicism and Protestantism—they were tightly circumscribed and had to express fealty to the Communist state before any divine entity. During the 1966-76 Cultural Revolution, believers of these watered-down religions were attacked. Red Guards razed thousands of temples, churches and mosques. Shanghai’s Jing’an Temple was converted into a flour factory and portraits of the Great Helmsman replaced those of the Buddha.Not to worry, though. Faith is making a comeback in post-Mao China:

By allowing—and even condoning—such overt expressions of spirituality, China’s leaders are finally catching up with the country’s religious revolution. Even by the government’s own conservative estimate, China now has more than 200 million worshippers of all faiths, double the number just nine years ago. The inroads made by apocalyptic Christian cults in China’s countryside have garnered more international attention, but the larger trend is the renaissance of Buddhism and folk religions, which blend Taoism, Confucianism, shamanism, ancestor reverence and local-deity worship into a potent mix of spirituality. More than half of the nation’s believers follow these local faiths. “China’s religious traditions are much longer than its Communist past,” says Yang Li, an assistant professor of religion at the Chinese University of Hong Kong. “People still remember the old rituals and now they want to practice them again.”

[Gozu]

[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]

@Gozu

To those who know there is/are no higher power(s):

Man has always looked upon this infinitely awe-inspiring universe and felt humbled, and rightfully so. What kind of an arrogant fool dares to say there is no higher purpose, that all is meaningless in absolute terms? It boggles the mind. You don’t know SHIT so STFU.

[snip]this part is fucking retarded.

You’re retarded!

There’s nothing “arrogant” about observing that there is no evidence or demonstrable necessity for a “purpose” in the universe.

Agreed.

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.

Agreed.

I guess you just misunderstood what I said because you’re not saying anything I disagree with.

[Gozu]

@MrDibble

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.

Only if it’s shiny and metallic will I consider it.

[Gozu]

@Eonwe

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.

Some people should re-read that about a trillion times, perhaps they will have an “AAAAAH!” moment.

[MaxTheVool]

(By the way, are you planning to respond to my post #103?)

@Liberal

@me

I’ve never seen anyone credibly argue that Stalin or Mao did the evil things they did because their atheism motivated them to do so.

Mao is pretty easy. Very vocal about religion and the fact that religious people were “reactionary”, code for “counter-revolutionary”.

I guess I don’t see the cause and effect.

If someone in the US today becomes a Christian, and then becomes VERY Christian, it’s a very likely (although not definite) and clearly direct outcome that they are likely to start doing things like opposing teaching of evolution in public schools. Why? Because Christianity is organized (or at least, many segments of it are) into large organizations with missions and rules and leaders and objectives and agendas. Most Christians join or belong to one of those organizations. And those organizations have various goals which I think are bad/evil/damaging. Thus, extreme/fundamentalist Christianity leads (although not inexorably) to those particular bad things.

By constrast, what happens when someone becomes more and more atheistic? First of all, that hardly has any meaning. Once someone doesn’t believe in God, they don’t believe in God. I mean, they might go from soft atheism to hard atheism, but that’s really not comparable to the experience that someone has when converting to Christianity, then attending more and more services, going to bible study, etc. And there are no large atheist organizations with agendas that are in any way comparable to various fundamentalist Christian churches. In particular, if the two atheist sins we’re dicussing here are (1) being a condescending asshole, and (2) being Mao/Stalin, I’m fairly certain there is no large atheist organization which openly espouses a position of either “you should be a condescending asshole” or “you should be a ruthless communist dictator”.

[Gozu]

@Charger

**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. ** [snip]

I agree with everything I bolded. I suppose we think fairly alike which means you’re a very insightful and interesting person

[Voyager]

@Gozu

1- You don’t know that. We know pathetically little about the universe.

2- Nothing but? The universe right now is nothing but <insert whatever>.

3- I started a great debate thread on this, You’re welcome to participate in it.

Well, that is the general consensus, and it’s the entropy which is the issue.

Incorrect. Imaginary mono-ideological group is imaginary.

I’m speaking of Western religions. I don’t know what Buddhists believe, but no doubt it is more reasonable. However you don’t have to be a Bible literalist to believe this. The Catholics, accepting theistic evolution, agree with science but still think the game was crooked so that we came out the end. Unfalsifiable, but still not humble.

Humble people are humble. Beware of false dichotomy.

Also, I am one of the humblest people that have ever lived

First statement is true - but people believing in western religions aren’t. Second statement isn’t - I’m more humble than you, so there!

[Gozu]

@CarnalK

Pffffffft. Maybe God should have gazed about and felt humbled. Oh wait, he can’t do that cuz he’s omnipotent. How silly of me to suggest.

Maybe nonsense nonsense nonsense nonsense unrelated to quote

Seriously dude, nonsense.

[Voyager]

@Lightray

Ahem. That should be: “God is just a hypothesis.”

Unless that joke falls under the “there aren’t as many atheists as Christians, therefore atheists may behave in the same stupid manner that some Christians do without expecting to be called on it” meme that’s going on here. 'Cause if you’re going to mock Christians for misusing the term “theory”, you shouldn’t misuse it yourself in your mockery.

Ahem. The joke doesn’t work unless it parallels what the creationists say. I’m quite aware of the difference and have lectured people on it many times.

I hope you don’t logically analyze the Daily Show in the same way.

[Leaper]

OK, I understand that, because some Christians constantly declaim their moral superiority over atheists, that naturally defensive atheists feel moved to declaim their moral AND intellectual superiority over Christians.

Still, I can at least somewhat understand the OP’s POV. I know where it comes from, and I sympathize, but even I get annoyed occasionally. (Or maybe it’s just because of Der Trihs. :D)

[Gozu]

@Bryan Ekers

I don’t get why the OP lists some things that are cool and some things that inspire a “fuck you” when they’re the same things.

Or at least I can’t see the difference. Is the only distinction between a tolerable atheist and a zealot atheist that the former keeps his mouth shut?

SIGH! Have faith in what you wish, believe what you wish but do not be arrogant enough to KNOW when the vast majority of the human population disagrees with you (whether you’re an atheist, agnostic, deist, pastafarian, christian, muslim, buddhist, etc.) That’s foolish arrogance and it annoys me. Doesn’t mean you’re bad or evil or that I won’t like/love you : nobody’s perfect.

IE: I believe my former roommate stole my iPhone (because of overwhelming circumstancial evidence) but I do not know, not even in my own mind do I condemn him. It would be arrogant. I might be wrong.

[Gozu]

@Diogenes the Cynic

It’s not arrogant to assume something doesn’t exist until some kind of necessity or evidence can be shown.

Depends on the something. Assuming life outside this planet doesn’t exist is arrogant, despite it meeting your criteria.

Assuming that there is no galaxy where 100 immortal monkeys with typewriters are going to recreate the works of shakespeare is not arrogant.

Is it arrogant to say you “know” that smurfs don’t exist?

It’s arrogant AND stupid. Of course they exist. I watched the cartoon. They’re blue and small

[Gozu]

@Princhester

Religion can be and is used as a means of manipulating others. Any number of megalomaniacs have dressed themselves up in religion, claimed to speak for a god and used that to convince others to do their bidding.

It’s a bit hard for an atheist megalomaniac to convince other atheists that they must do something because the god they don’t believe didn’t tell him that they should do so.

Furthermore, religion is a bunch of people who believe in a doctrine, and groups of people with something like that in common are a megalomaniac’s dream because they are (to a degree) herdable.

A bunch of people whose only common feature is a lack of a belief in something is like a bunch of animals whose common feature is not being frogs. Consequently, atheism does not amplify herdability.

Good post! Agreed.

[Gozu]

@PaulParkhead

Yes, apparently. Atheists should be seen and not heard.

Apparently, you’re a lying idiot

I LOVE APPARENTLY!

[askeptic]

@Gozu

Depends on the something. Assuming life outside this planet doesn’t exist is arrogant, despite it meeting your criteria.

That is not true. There is no reason to assume that since life exists here it MUST exist elsewhere. It is not arrogant to assume that, in the absence of evidence, that life exists only here. I don’t know whether or not life exists other places, hell, I don’t even know how to define life, but if someone makes an assumption that if life exists here it must necessarily exist elsewhere, I just smile…

[Syntropy]

@Gozu

SIGH! Have faith in what you wish, believe what you wish but do not be arrogant enough to KNOW when the vast majority of the human population disagrees with you (whether you’re an atheist, agnostic, deist, pastafarian, christian, muslim, buddhist, etc.) That’s foolish arrogance and it annoys me. Doesn’t mean you’re bad or evil or that I won’t like/love you : nobody’s perfect.

But, as gonzomax’s link showed in post 131, the “vast majority of the human population” does NOT disagree. Hell, the “vast majority of the human population” seems rather ambivalent. It’s just a vast majority in certain places. Like (unfortunately) the US, and the US is not even close to representing the “vast majoirty of the human population.” 'Twould be arrogant to believe otherwise.

[Gozu]

@Der Trihs

If that was true, we would not be religious. Religion is about NOT understanding the universe, the meaning of life, or anything else. It’s about making up an egotistical fantasy world and denying any and all aspects of reality that contradict it.

Non-sequitur. You fail.

So you have mathematical proof that Christianity has saved more lives than it’s taken ? You have proof that the good it’s done outweighs the evil ?

No. (Strawman argument. You fail.).

I don’t see how that’s even possible; there isn’t enough good available to be done for that to be true.

Unity -> specialisation -> efficiency -> resources -> babies++ (think roman empire, Tang dynasty, ancient Egypt, etc.)

When I look at Christianity, I see a grim, grey disease, a mind-virus of fear and despair and hate that has spread itself across the world, spreading by bloodshed and destruction and coercion and lies. Slaughtering millions, enslaving millions more, destroying cultures and art and languages. Crushing much of the world under it’s malignance, and corrupting the parts of the world it doesn’t control outright. It has spent two millennia making humanity as miserable as it could; it is the enemy of any form of happiness not gotten by harming others. It has twisted humanity beyond repair, as far as I can tell; we are creatures immersed in hatred, of ourselves, the universe and each other, and we will never rise above what Christianity and it’s spawn have made of us. That is my honest opinion of Christianity; the “flip side” you refer to.

Scapegoating christianity so you don’t have to confront the ugliness of the human nature YOU SHARE WITH ALL THE MONSTERS? Weak.

I cannot imagine any good that could come from it that would make up for that.

You lack imagination then. A common flaw.

Yes, they are rather Borgish, and the more religious they are, the more Borgish they are. And yes, they are forced to believe; that’s why people make a point of infecting children, before they are able to defend themselves.

Too much wrongness in this statement for me to answer succintly as its premises are flawed. I’m sure someone already did anyways. I’m reading and answering sequentially.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@Gozu

SIGH! Have faith in what you wish, believe what you wish but do not be arrogant enough to KNOW when the vast majority of the human population disagrees with you (whether you’re an atheist, agnostic, deist, pastafarian, christian, muslim, buddhist, etc.) That’s foolish arrogance and it annoys me. Doesn’t mean you’re bad or evil or that I won’t like/love you : nobody’s perfect.

Wait, you’re telling me I’m not allowed to confidently know things if I’m in the minority, at the risk of annoying you?

That’s rather arrogant of you. Tell you what, YOU can “know” whatever you want and I promise not to potentially get annoyed until you actually try to codify your knowledge into law.