Yeah, I don’t get why badger seems to assume the atheist thought process is “bzzzz, whirrr, click - destroy all humans”, and then backs away from it when challenged.
I went completely over your head, I will try one more time. Their was no eveil implication made regarding athiests. I failed to really give much explanation trying to keep my OP short. Lets say the world was in a horrible crises, food shortages, disease, rampant criminal activity, competition for resources just to survive. Some tough deciions had to be made based on sound scientific research that inorder to save the planet and the human race 1/2 the population must die or we loose all. As a believer I would proably fail to make that decision. You very well may feel the same, but I can imagine without god in the equation being able to make that decision on who would go. I can’t do any better than this so I aplogise if it is still not clear.
Not backing away, just looking closer at what I posted as opposed to how I really see a situation. My post was exagerated and hypothetical to get the process going.
It’s perfectly clear to me-you seem to think that because atheists aren’t guided by an entity that(if the stories are to be believed) once committed near planetary genocide that they are more likely to kill off half the population to save the world.
If it makes you feel better I can imagine a lot of extremists doing the same thing, just easier for me to imagine an athiest doing this fully sane and basing his decision on sound scientific research. Not saying it is true, just easier for me to imagine!
And this is exactly the kind of thinking that keeps leading to terrible results. Trusting a higher power that may or may not exist to solve problems does exactly two things: jack and shit. It may actually *worsen *the problems, at times.
Just think: what if we had just thrown our hands up in powerlessness at the repeated smallpox epidemics and simply trusted a just and fair god would sort things out eventually ? Wouldn’t have eradicated that sucker, that’s for sure.
And yet we did. And we had to do questionable things to get it done - I’m sure plenty of victims were given horrible medication and bad advice over the centuries on a trial-and-error basis to see what worked. The first, tentative inoculation against smallpox involved making people snort ground up variola scabs. To this day, I still can’t fathom the thought process of whoever cooked that one up (it was 15th century China, they sure didn’t know about immunoglobulin, let alone how it works). Or the ideas that must have popped up and been tried before, that this idea sounded like it was reasonable and worth a shot.
Literally every single technological advancement in the history of mankind, from knapped flint and agriculture to the Curiosity mission, is us going “You know what ? Fuck this gay earth. This bit’s no good, we can do something better/more/different/fix it”. If we’d trusted in a higher power to sort things out for us all along, we’d still be perma-starving hunter gatherers with an 80% infant mortality rate.
Or maybe just all dead of starvation, because killing an auroch to eat it is not all white ethically speaking and god will make the hunger go away somehow…
It is quite clear but framed like this your argument makes no more sense than before. Your premise is that a belief in God (or a god if you prefer) makes it harder to make a decision involving the deaths of some to save others (that you postulate the death of half the world population has no real bearing on the dilemma). As people have told you over and over in this thread there is absolutely no evidence from history that that is the case.
What there is evidence for from history is that people with strong religious views have no problem with contemplating the deaths of others in a higher cause. There is an argument to be made that belief in a life to come actually makes this easier but, personally, I don’t think it makes a blind bit of difference. For a higher cause human beings are quite capable of rationalising a belief that horrendous acts are the moral course of action. Whether the higher cause is religious or humanist the result is the same.
So your point is that if killing lots of people were the right decision, you still couldn’t do it but think atheists could.
But do you agree that killing lots of people isn’t the right decision right now? Because I think that’s where a lot of people are hung up here. It’s not what’s best for humanity, and you seemed to be saying that you think it is.
Hardly.
Doesn’t that mean your religion makes you weak? Besides, it’s a fairly remote hypothetical, isn’t it? So much so that I don’t see how you can honestly use it to make any kind of statement about atheism.
“Let’s say aliens come to Earth and only left-handed people can talk to them…”
“Let’s say all metal vanishes and only colorblind people can find it again…”
“Let’s say all dogs go wild and only libertarians can whisper to them…”
Anyway, I don’t get what it is about being a believer that would prevent someone from making dramatic sacrifices. Isn’t the bible full of stories about that sort of thing? In fact, historical religious sacrifices were often done for far less important reasons than, say, saving the human race.
I don’t believe or follow the bible, my concept of god is so abstract I effectively have no concept. I just believe a higher power exists.
And yes my belief in a higher power would make me weaker if faced with a decision like this I would likely fail the test and leave it on his shoulders to do what he does best. On a second note, I am allready too weak to make this decsion, leaving it on gods shoulders would allow me to live with myself for not making it.
I do believe in capital punishment where there are no lingering shreds of doubt. Aside from that I believe humaity should work to save each other the best way we know how.
So your faith would lead to you make the wrong choice, you believe the correct choice would be easier for an Atheist. And that concerns you.
What on earth are we talking about?
But this is saying something about you, not about general differences in judgement and behaviour as between atheists versus believers.
The only solution is for you to quit believing.
What really concerns me is all the animosity I have seen on this sight directed at believers, maybe I wrongly projected that into the thread.
Too bad OP’s not a city boy, born and raised in south Detroit.
Please, what is it you want to debate?
How to live by finding emotion?
There is a lot of animosity toward believers on this site.
The problem is not with recognizing or acknowledging that, but in allowing one’s thoughts to fall into the same error and expressing animosity toward all non-believers. There are also many posters on this site who firmly do not share in any spiritual beliefs, but who are quite tolerant of those who do believe. That they are not as loud as those who are hostile should not make a rational believer fall into the trap of assuming that the louder and more hostile posters represent a uniform set of opinions.
Nothing, I am done!