It gives a pure definition of atheism and describes it's honesty. It also looks at the nature of fundamentalist and 'religious moderation' beliefs, the harm it does to politics, the conflict it creates around the world and the misguided notion by theists that say a religion is needed for a society to be healthy, despite the evidence saying the complete opposite.

http://www.truthdig.com/dig/item/200512_an_atheist_manifesto

It gives a pure definition of atheism and describes it's honesty. It also looks at the nature of fundamentalist and 'religious moderation' beliefs, the harm it does to politics, the conflict it creates around the world and the misguided notion by theists that say a religion is needed for a society to be healthy, despite the evidence saying the complete opposite.

http://www.truthdig.com/dig/item/200512_an_atheist_manifesto

It's overall pretty good. The author does seem to have a sense of morality, 'good', and 'evil' which appear to be emotionally based and I think it leads him to into some futile subjective arguments. I think a little time and maturity will weed this aspect out of his position.

What's wrong with the presence of pathos and ethos in one's arguments?

Started to read it but could only take about 6 parragraphs. Very simplistic. God is mean therefore God does not exist and bad things happen so God does not exist. Both arguments have no basis. It is like saying hitler never existed because it is reported he did bad things, why do they bother using such arguments? weather God is nice or mean has no bearing on His existance or otherwise.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

weather God is nice or mean has no bearing on His existance or otherwise.

Then you are forgeting the god is omnibonevelent argument. Bad things happen so god can't be omnibonevelent therefore god is a contradiction to being all good. :rolleyes:

Godless

I would suggest that the problem is that people actually think that God takes direct action in our lives.....

where i would propose that God, gives us life.. and the will to live it.. but after that, doesnt get much involved.. and chooses to watch the show as it were.

thus.. its up to us.. to choose to be Godly, and good.
otherwise.. if God gave us proff... then faith would have little meaning, since fear would make us all believers.

-MT

fear would make us all believers.and thats is exactly what religion is faith out of fear, "fear of dying and there being nothing, fear of gods wrath for not being righteous, etc...
your talking out of your hat man, make sense.

the atheist is the reasonable man, he has no fear of stupid inane imaginings, it would be infantile to do so.

the only reason adstar did'nt read on, was fear.

are you fearless???

Only fools are fearless... All brave men, know fear.. but what makes them brave is their ability to overcome it.

Atheists are reasonable.. yes.. and base their views on Logic and reason generally..
thus they are welcome in my Church, but they must be open to discuss theory...
and theory.. can suggest a God of somekind.

and any refusal to contemplate a God... is in itself.. closeminded, and fearful.

since in truth... we cannot be sure either way.

-MT

I have come to this forum and others for a good few years, I don't think this web site could have given me a new argument for the non-existence of God that i have not already heard. ;) So it wasn't a matter of fear it was a matter of mind numbing boredom at the same old stuff.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

As for the term Omnibenevolent. God does not love everyone and i have not put forward that He does. Time and time again in scripture it is revealed that God hates. Although God hates He also is forgiving for those who are repentant and trust in Him. That is where God's benevolence comes in through the Messiah Jesus. While that benevolence is open to those that God hates it is only open to those who recognize their state of being and accept the Messiah Jesus as their savior.

So no God is not Omnibenevolent to all mankind but all mankind have the ability to access God's benevolence.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

Started to read it but could only take about 6 parragraphs. Very simplistic. God is mean therefore God does not exist and bad things happen so God does not exist. Both arguments have no basis. It is like saying hitler never existed because it is reported he did bad things, why do they bother using such arguments? weather God is nice or mean has no bearing on His existance or otherwise.

I think he was being hypothetical there. People mosly pray to avoid bad things happening, yet when bad things happen it strengthens their faith bizzarely. That part of the article you read was about the nature of belief.

I have come to this forum and others for a good few years, I don't think this web site could have given me a new argument for the non-existence of God that i have not already heard. So it wasn't a matter of fear it was a matter of mind numbing boredom at the same old stuff.

How do you know since you only read 6 paragraphs?

As for the term Omnibenevolent. God does not love everyone and i have not put forward that He does. Time and time again in scripture it is revealed that God hates. Although God hates He also is forgiving for those who are repentant and trust in Him. That is where God's benevolence comes in through the Messiah Jesus. While that benevolence is open to those that God hates it is only open to those who recognize their state of being and accept the Messiah Jesus as their savior.

So no God is not Omnibenevolent to all mankind but all mankind have the ability to access God's benevolence.

Congratulations for following the scriptures to their exact text. This means you are allowed to keep slaves. Martyrs can find the same justification by following ancient text literally. If you read further you would see that the author gave at least some respect to fundies who actually follow their rules as is written by 'God', or as you yourself would say, "proper christians". It is the moderates he is most harsh on.

What's wrong with the presence of pathos and ethos in one's arguments?

If they express the argument then nothing. If they are presented as the proof of an objective argument then there is a problem.

Thanks for the clarification - I didn't actually bother reading the argument itself, but it was something I was hung up on.

np :)

...theory.. can suggest a God of somekind.


I've never seen a theory even imply the existence of 'God'. I would be interested to hear more about it... how is 'God' being defined and what theory suggests its existence?


...any refusal to contemplate a God... is in itself.. closeminded, and fearful.


Should a 'God' be contemplated any more than the average fantasy (ex. 'tooth fairy', 'easter bunny', and 'St. Nick')? If so, what is the reason for doing so?

I think it's obvious why a God is contemplated more than the average fantasy. Because your said examples are easily observed as not being true (it wasn't Santa that had been giving you presents on the night of Eve), where as it's difficult to disprove the validity of records of miracles millenias past.

I would think that 'God' would be the easiest thing in reality to observe; however, what I was seeking was a reason why 'God' should be contemplated more than the average fantasy.

Remember, we're not talking about a life form that existed in the past, performed some 'miracles', and died. We're talking about a life form that is supposed to exist at this very moment and whom should be self evident.

Kenny,

Yes a very good article.

Mosheh,

and any refusal to contemplate a God... is in itself.. closeminded,Take care on this. It is because atheists have contemplated the concept of gods that has led them to their disbelief in the idea. Conversely the theist has totally closed his/her mind to any alternatives other than a god it.

The mark of the wise man is the ability to consider many things without having to accept them as true.

Is your mind open to any other solutions and explanations other than a god did it?

Mosheh,

and theory.. can suggest a God of somekind.But not in a scientific sense since you require substantial evdidence to qualify as theory. You mean the laymans idea of theory which includes fantasy and wild speculations, and those are of doubtful value.

Adstar,

Very simplistic. God is mean therefore God does not exist and bad things happen so God does not exist. No Adstar, that’s not what is being said, you’ve missed the point. The argument there was looking at the irrational manner in which believers come to their conclusions; you probably should have read more than the first 3 paragraphs.

What an elegant reading. This final paragraph says it all:

Atheism is nothing more than a commitment to the most basic standard of intellectual honesty: One’s convictions should be proportional to one’s evidence. Pretending to be certain when one isn’t—indeed, pretending to be certain about propositions for which no evidence is even conceivable—is both an intellectual and a moral failing. Only the atheist has realized this. The atheist is simply a person who has perceived the lies of religion and refused to make them his own.

A very interesting article , KennyJC ,

As a countryman of Kierkegaard, I have to say, that his writings are more than 150 years old , today we try to focus on his existentialism and tries to forget his christianity ( a bit like the Sartre school ) ..... if he had written anything like this today , we would have kicked his butt ....

As a European I did not know, that , anyone holding an office in USA has to "at least pretend " that they believe in god - in Denmark we have a christian political party, that normally gets 2 % of the votes ...

If any politician claims he is a believer , he normally looses votes in Denmark , because we then think, he is a bit strange in his head , out of touch with reality - NOBODY with a chance of winning the election , would dare to claim that he was a believer - it would be pure political suicide .......

It is truly amazing, that so many believes in god and goes to church in USA (44 %) - priests and churches in Denmark would thank god ,( crying and on their knees ) if just 5 % of the population would turn up in church on sundays ......
It is like reading about Denmark 40 - 60 years ago ........

Also interesting with this GOD GENE - is it a disease - or at least a genetic disorder to be a christian ????????

How many ways can we argue god or no god? Who has the burden of proof? I would lay that at the feet of believers, we're all atheists at birth. For the same reason someone wanted to believe in god, I stayed atheist. The article was great but I think it safe to say it was born out of frustration, the same frustration most atheists feel when we see logic replaced with illogic. I personally see god belief as the scourge of mankind, no amount of reasoning can ever convince me a god exists, likewise the theists. Excuse me if I'm wrong but I believe it was Cris or maybe Kennyjc who stated in another thread that the ratio of atheists to theists is getting tighter....I only hope that this trend is a sign people are liking the atheist argument.

Paraclete,

You are making Denmark sound very attractive. And I hear similar stories about many countries in Europe.

I've lived here in the USA for the past 10 years and am eligible to apply for citizenship if I wish. Haven't decided yet. In many ways the USA is quite advanced, technology perhaps, but socially and culturally you are perhaps not far wrong in that 40 year estimate. I'm British and of course cannot help making comparisons.

But there are other less obvious issues and really not so important, but a trend nevertheless, where the USA is behind -

Big issue here now is offering free bank checking accounts. That had become standard in the UK some 30 yars.

Cell-phone technology - my kids in the UK had the more advanced phones in the UK some 10 years before the USA had the equivalent, and they are still behind.

Washing machines and kitchen appliances. These generally look like antiques when compared to European designs and styles. Having built seevral kitchens in my various homes in the UK I was astonished at the apparent backwardness of such things over here.

Oh and fridge/freezers that are just not produced in a size to match any other kitchen equipment and until recently came in about two different styles, now there is perhaps 4 - LOL.

Domestic electrical system - LOL. Amazingly primitive. Only recently has there been any choice in the styles of light switches. And the dangerous power plugs are a joke.

There's a lot more. But for religion - yes I think the USA is currently in a very immature state right now. Not heldped by very powerful political lobby groups. Not quite sure how they will break away from this backwardness and irrationality.

Cris ,

I think it has something to do with society, Denmark has some of the best social security in the world , education is free (you have to pay for your books in university though) , hospitals and doctors are free ......
You can walk alone in the parks here in the capital Copenhagen at night without being afraid of being mugged .....

Denmark right now has the strongest economy of Europe - and one of the strongest economies in the world - in 15 -20 years we will have paid all of our national debt....
and we will be one of the very few countries in the world , that has no national debt ...

You do not have to be afraid in daily life and try to resort to god ........
Also so many people here are very well educated (free education) , and somehow it seems that high education and a scientific understanding of the world counters religion ......

I have actually had patients from USA , that tried to fake insanity, for not being send back to USA from Denmark - simply because they felt they had a much better and easier life here ......

I think (hope) that USA will develop itself into something like this one day ......

You can't beat Scandinavia...

Right now in Denmark everybody is getting IP-phones (computerphones) as a supplement to mobile phones ....

For the last year it has been absolutely free for me to phone to all of my friends and family (worldwide) , because they have a computerphone at www.skype.com
(a danish/swedish invented company, that has just been sold to ebay for billions of dollars), and when I phone to an ordinary phone in USA I only pay a few cents per minute ....

The 2 inventors (one danish ,one swedish) had the dream, that everybody should be able to call for free all over the world using their computer ....

Yup I have done the same or very similar but I use VONAGE and my regular phone. With that I also have a virtual London phone number that all my family in the Uk can call but it rings here in California but they only get charged local call rates which are free with their current plans.

The uptake of such services is not as fast as I'd thought. Quite a bit of opposition. Issues with emergency call numbers has been a legal issue.

Voice quality with Vonage is indistinguishable from regular land lines.

Issues with emergency call numbers has been a legal issue.

Also true for Skype, who has a disclaimer for working in emergency cases.
(with skype you can get a real telephonenumber too - but there is a small fee for that....)
So I still keep my mobile phone, just to be sure .....

Sorry KennyJC, for using your thread for non-religous smalltalk ....

It gives a pure definition of atheism and describes it's honesty. It also looks at the nature of fundamentalist and 'religious moderation' beliefs, the harm it does to politics, the conflict it creates around the world and the misguided notion by theists that say a religion is needed for a society to be healthy, despite the evidence saying the complete opposite.

http://www.truthdig.com/dig/item/200512_an_atheist_manifesto

This is just like any other Christian, Muslim, etc...biased article making it seem as if atheism is a belief system and a religion. Ironic that atheists enjoy using the same fundemental tactics used by Theists to promote their propaganda.

Vitalone,

This is just like any other Christian, Muslim, etc...biased article making it seem as if atheism is a belief system and a religion. So would you expect an article on atheism to be pro-religious instead?

Vitalone,

Ironic that atheists enjoy using the same fundemental tactics used by Theists to promote their propaganda. Why is that ironic? Propaganda isn't necessarily false. But can you show any particular passage that would demonstrate something false?

Vitalone,

So would you expect an article on atheism to be pro-religious instead?

Possibly, if it was biased against atheism. You would think that atheists would want the unbiased truth, but nope.

Vitalone,

Why is that ironic? Propaganda isn't necessarily false. But can you show any particular passage that would demonstrate something false?

Atheists always hate it when Chrisitians present propaganda in their face, just stating the irony.

There is a lot wrong with the article. For instance, it makes it seem like God is the causer of all good, and therefore if bad exists, then God cannot exist eventhough the Bible itself states that God created good and evil. Also it makes the "Christian" God seem like Zeus or Thor when clearly in the Bible he is not.

Anyone could easily write another article against atheism, I mean what if someone brought up atheistic communism and the Soviet Union and how millions died through that? I mean Stalin was an atheist and he killed more people than Hitler and atheists are always saying society is better off without religion.

It is hardly propaganda. The article brought fourth facts regarding the fragile and irrational nature of belief in Gods, and showed how secular countries outperform that of religious countries in both security and social health.

Athiesm can be the persuit of such security which can be seen in for example Scandinavian countries like we were saying. That doesn't count as a religious beleif system, it is based on the real world.

I mean what if someone brought up atheistic communism and the Soviet Union and how millions died through that?

That was not atheism, atheism does not lead to communism, atheist's political idealogies varie from all spectrums of politics. Also you should read your history a bit more, these people were extremely religious when communism took over, all that their government did is replace god with the state, the state became the omnipotent power over them. Furthermore compared to the history of christianity, those millions killed by communism is a small number compared to the slaughter comited by christians in their early days of christiandom.

Godless

That was not atheism, atheism does not lead to communism, atheist's political idealogies varie from all spectrums of politics. Also you should read your history a bit more, these people were extremely religious when communism took over, all that their government did is replace god with the state, the state became the omnipotent power over them. Furthermore compared to the history of christianity, those millions killed by communism is a small number compared to the slaughter comited by christians in their early days of christiandom.

Godless

Stalin was known to be an atheist and banned all religion. Also, Stalin is responsible for killing more than 5-10 million people, more than even Hitler.

Ofcourse, to atheists, this simply means that he was a bad person, and it has nothing to do with atheism. Ofcourse, the Crusuaders, even though there is a multitude of Biblical evidence to completely denounce their actions are considered to be Christians killing because they're Christian. Where is the logic??

It is hardly propaganda. The article brought fourth facts regarding the fragile and irrational nature of belief in Gods, and showed how secular countries outperform that of religious countries in both security and social health.

Athiesm can be the persuit of such security which can be seen in for example Scandinavian countries like we were saying. That doesn't count as a religious beleif system, it is based on the real world.

Haha, this is clearly a foolish, false statement. Anyone skilled or unskilled in literary analysis can clearly tell you there is definitely biased propaganda in this article. And I say that 100% certainty.

Here are just some of the biased statements used to promote atheistic propaganda in that article:

"Only the atheist recognizes the boundless narcissism and self-deceit of the saved"

"Only the atheist realizes how morally objectionable it is for survivors of a catastrophe to believe themselves spared by a loving God while this same God drowned infants in their cribs"

"Consequently, only the atheist is compassionate enough to take the profundity of the world’s suffering at face value"

Ofcourse, anything for "atheism" is all good and truthful to the atheist. :rolleyes:

Vitalone,

Stalin was known to be an atheist and banned all religion. That’s what can be done if one has power.

Also, Stalin is responsible for killing more than 5-10 million people, more than even Hitler. So is one worse than the other because of head count? I would consider the killing of a single person to be equally bad as either of them.

Ofcourse, to atheists, this simply means that he was a bad person, and it has nothing to do with atheism.Atheism means nothing more than a disbelief in gods. It is not a doctrine or a religion. An atheist can be the worst and the best in society. Implying that all atheists must be bad because one of them is a murderer is a logical fallacy.

Ofcourse, the Crusuaders, even though there is a multitude of Biblical evidence to completely denounce their actions are considered to be Christians killing because they're Christian. Where is the logic??The pope at the time interpreted the bible to mean that “love your enemies” only applied if your enemies were also Christian. If they weren’t and wouldn’t convert then it was fine to butcher and murder them. The inquisition interpreted the bible yet another way and deemed it was OK to persecute and torture people because if the victims were innocent then they would be rewarded in heaven. Muslim suicide bombers interpret their Quran to allow them to kill enemies of Islam and the reward will be found in heaven. Remember also that Hitler tried to exterminate the Jews because of his interpretation of the bible – he considered himself a Christian. Where is the logic in any of that? And where is the logic to conclude that a god exist?

Ambiguous religious texts can be interpreted many ways depending on the intent of the interpreter, and if he is a good salesman then the gullible will follow. Both the Crusaders and the inquisitors believed they had full biblical support at the time and considered themselves Christian.

I would suspect that if Jesus were alive today that he would not have agreed to invade Iraq and kill so many people. Yet Bush has and he considers himself a Christian - where is the logic in that?

Vitalone,

"Only the atheist recognizes the boundless narcissism and self-deceit of the saved"

"Only the atheist realizes how morally objectionable it is for survivors of a catastrophe to believe themselves spared by a loving God while this same God drowned infants in their cribs"

"Consequently, only the atheist is compassionate enough to take the profundity of the world’s suffering at face value"So are you saying that one of more these are not true?

Vitalone,

That’s what can be done if one has power.

Ok, are you defending your atheists beliefs or something?


So is one worse than the other because of head count? I would consider the killing of a single person to be equally bad as either of them.

Really? So killing a billion people is equivalent to killing one person? Right...


Atheism means nothing more than a disbelief in gods. It is not a doctrine or a religion. An atheist can be the worst and the best in society. Implying that all atheists must be bad because one of them is a murderer is a logical fallacy.

Exactly, that's my point. But this logic is only applied to atheists, not to people of other religions.


The pope at the time interpreted the bible to mean that “love your enemies” only applied if your enemies were also Christian. If they weren’t and wouldn’t convert then it was fine to butcher and murder them. The inquisition interpreted the bible yet another way and deemed it was OK to persecute and torture people because if the victims were innocent then they would be rewarded in heaven. Muslim suicide bombers interpret their Quran to allow them to kill enemies of Islam and the reward will be found in heaven. Remember also that Hitler tried to exterminate the Jews because of his interpretation of the bible – he considered himself a Christian. Where is the logic in any of that? And where is the logic to conclude that a god exist?

Ambiguous religious texts can be interpreted many ways depending on the intent of the interpreter, and if he is a good salesman then the gullible will follow. Both the Crusaders and the inquisitors believed they had full biblical support at the time and considered themselves Christian.

First, I never proposed that God existed through any logic. Secondly, the Quran exclusively, directly, states its ok to kill if someone fights you, and in many other instances, there is no "interpretation" needed.

Clearly the Church did not really care about the Bible and pursued their own agendas. You would need to seriously distort Biblical scriptures in certain ways to make the intepretations the Pope did. The Church simply distorted the Bible so that it fit into their agendas. Jesus says to not judge or condemn others, and praises forgiveness. Yet were these things upheld by the so-called "Christians" throughout time?

It doesn't matter that the Crusaders believed it was justified, the point I'm making is how do you blame a religion for others actions when the religion promotes actions opposite of what is being carried out? Atheists constantly cite this as an example of the "evils" of Christianity.


I would suspect that if Jesus were alive today that he would not have agreed to invade Iraq and kill so many people. Yet Bush has and he considers himself a Christian - where is the logic in that?
Like I said, people modify their interpretations of religion so they can carry out their agendas and still be "holy". There is really no logic in that. The point I'm trying to make is that it really has little or nothing to do with religion, it's the person's own agenda, their own desire that it has to do with it.

Vitalone,


"Only the atheist recognizes the boundless narcissism and self-deceit of the saved"

"Only the atheist realizes how morally objectionable it is for survivors of a catastrophe to believe themselves spared by a loving God while this same God drowned infants in their cribs"

"Consequently, only the atheist is compassionate enough to take the profundity of the world’s suffering at face value"

So are you saying that one of more these are not true?

Yes, being atheist means that you deny the existence of God(s). It does not mean that you are compassionate, "morally objectionable", or that you have the intelligence to recognize anything.

This is just like how Christians say that atheists have no moral values, or that only Chrisitans recognize charitability and want peace.

This is the irony I was trying to illustrate.

Propaganda: from webster -

2 : the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person

3 : ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause;

I'd like to explore this further to see how both sides use these tactics. I could perhaps argue that if the allegations are true then the action might be justfied. But if it is deliberately untrue, vicious rumor, or twisted logic, or anything with the intent to maliciously decieve then we have an issue.

Like I said, people modify their interpretations of religion so they can carry out their agendas and still be "holy". There is really no logic in that. The point I'm trying to make is that it really has little or nothing to do with religion, it's the person's own agenda, their own desire that it has to do with it.

I do see your point , Vital , but these people are using religion like a weapon and religous people like puppets - wouldn´t it be better if people were freeing themselves from this abuse by giving up religion , and move on, to what is really important (in my mind) , this world, that we are living in ?

I do not underestimate, that some of the western worlds moral has a foundation in christianity , but now we have accepted this moral and can move one step further , forget the religion and cope with the real world - make a good society for all , without the abuse from religion !!!

What good do you see in religion today ????????

Religion is obsolete , hopefully in 40 years USA will be like Denmark - stronger,safer for everyone, richer, more peacefull, offering not only equality, but actually equal opportunities for everyone .... and much more secular than today .........

Vitalone,

Really? So killing a billion people is equivalent to killing one person? Right...Yes very much so. The individual is paramount. Without respect for the individual then the whole group is doomed.

The initiator has crossed the boundary from good to bad whether a billion or just one is the target. It is not a matter of degree.

Vitalone,

That’s what can be done if one has power.
”
Ok, are you defending your atheists beliefs or something?Nope, it’s just an observation. If someone hates something specifically then as a dictator you are free to rule against it. However, had I been in Stalin’s position I would not have banned religion. I certainly would not have any faith based initiatives though. Instead I would have heavily encouraged and invested in the antidote to religion – education, science, and rational humanitarianism.

“ Atheism means nothing more than a disbelief in gods. It is not a doctrine or a religion. An atheist can be the worst and the best in society. Implying that all atheists must be bad because one of them is a murderer is a logical fallacy.
”

Exactly, that's my point. But this logic is only applied to atheists, not to people of other religions.Not sure if we are in agreement or not on this. The atheist perspective is negative with respect to theism. Whereas theist religions have specific dogmas to follow, so it is possible to reference them as a group set with specific attitudes and properties, not so with atheists regarding issues other than theism. However, in the article the references you quote regarding atheist sets are specific about atheist attitudes towards theism. E.g. -

Only the atheist recognizes the boundless narcissism and self-deceit of the saved" - Atheist opposing theist dogma.

"Only the atheist realizes how morally objectionable it is for survivors of a catastrophe to believe themselves spared by a loving God while this same God drowned infants in their cribs" - Atheists opposing theist perceptions and illogic.

"Consequently, only the atheist is compassionate enough to take the profundity of the world’s suffering at face value" – Atheists opposing the theist dogma that god has a plan.

First, I never proposed that God existed through any logic. Do you realize that the only alternative is illogic? Is that what you meant?

Secondly, the Quran exclusively, directly, states its ok to kill if someone fights you, and in many other instances, there is no "interpretation" needed.Yet many Muslims will disagree with you on that interpretation. The distinctions are subtle.

Clearly the Church did not really care about the Bible and pursued their own agendas. You would need to seriously distort Biblical scriptures in certain ways to make the intepretations the Pope did. The Church simply distorted the Bible so that it fit into their agendas. Jesus says to not judge or condemn others, and praises forgiveness. Yet were these things upheld by the so-called "Christians" throughout time?But there are some 22,000 different Christian sects and cults all of whom have their own interpretations of Christianity and what the bible says. All of them are following their own agendas according to their interpretations. Because Christianity only has a fantasy foundation with a highly ambiguous text as a guide then the followers all feel free to interpret according to their feelings. Some will tend towards pacifism and other towards violence, e.g. Pat Robertson asking that a foreign head of state be assassinated.

You will be seriously challenged to demonstrate one true interpretation of what Christianity is. And within the changing cultures, fashions, and evolution of society values, some aspects will be emphasized more than others at any given time. For example throughout most of the past 2000 years it was fear of hell that drove Christianity, the idea of “love everyone” is a relatively modern emphasis.

It doesn't matter that the Crusaders believed it was justified, the point I'm making is how do you blame a religion for others actions when the religion promotes actions opposite of what is being carried out? Atheists constantly cite this as an example of the "evils" of Christianity.And quite right. Christianity is in a constant state of change. That you disagree with the way it was interpreted 1000 years ago is irrelevant – it was the Christian religion.

Like I said, people modify their interpretations of religion so they can carry out their agendas and still be "holy". There is really no logic in that. The point I'm trying to make is that it really has little or nothing to do with religion, it's the person's own agenda, their own desire that it has to do with it. You cannot separate the two. Religion is man made to suit his perceived needs. As the needs change then the religion will be altered and interpreted accordingly.

Atheists like to oppose things... especially if it scares them.

-MT

Mosheh,

Atheists like to oppose things... especially if it scares them.BS. Same mistake - you are making a broad generalization about all atheists that can't be true. It is meaningless.

As for the term Omnibenevolent. God does not love everyone and i have not put forward that He does. Time and time again in scripture it is revealed that God hates. Although God hates He also is forgiving for those who are repentant and trust in Him.Thank you Adstar for reminding us why we atheists do not worship such a despotic, narcissistic, if-you're-not-with-Me-you're-against-Me tyrant.

I do think that the article is overly sanctimonious about what "only atheists" do, which is actually an unjustified extension of the beliefs and actions of a few people who were eager, without any deep thought, to express their increased faith in God in the face of disaster, to all theists, many of whom were certainly brought to the brink of unfaith by events as massive as the Holocaust or as small as a personal tragedy. But it does give some excellent examples of how God-think gives rise to irrational thinking, or thinking about God and religious matters in a qualitatively different way to other items of everyday life. Simply as an example, I cite Adstar's reverence for a God who hates those who don't love and worship Him. It should scarcely be necessary, but apparently is, to point out that such characteristics, when applied to such figures as Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, are not listed amongst those leaders' admirable traits.

The United States is the nation that upon its foundation formalised the evil of accepting without question the leadership of any individual without accountability and without the demonstrable consent of the governed. The United States is the nation with up to 40% of its population that believe fervently in the democratic freedom from tyranny promised by the Constitution, but whom are at exactly the same time perfectly willing to subject themselves to the absolute rule of Jesus Christ, if and when he comes. The atheism article isn't perhaps a very good demonstration of the benefits of atheism, but it is a good demonstration that there is an inconsistency in the way people regard the elements of their religious belief when compared with the way they regard the elements of their actual life.

It gives a pure definition of atheism and describes it's honesty. It also looks at the nature of fundamentalist and 'religious moderation' beliefs, the harm it does to politics, the conflict it creates around the world and the misguided notion by theists that say a religion is needed for a society to be healthy, despite the evidence saying the complete opposite.

http://www.truthdig.com/dig/item/200512_an_atheist_manifesto


if youre into that, read his book. its called The End of Faith. its basically everything in that article expounded. really excellent book.

Hea lets face it... Atheists dont like even the idea of God, or Hell or an after life...

they are comforted by the idea that after death there is nothing.....

personnaly... i don't find that comforting.

-MT

Hea lets face it... Atheists dont like even the idea of God, or Hell or an after life...

Some don't like the idea, some are indifferent to it. Most probably just don't believe it due to lack of proof.

they are comforted by the idea that after death there is nothing.....

Why are they comforted? I can't say I am comforted by that, but I accept it.

personnaly... i don't find that comforting.

That explains a lot. People create a fantasy in order to comfort themselves from reality.

Hea lets face it... Atheists dont like even the idea of God, or Hell or an after life...

they are comforted by the idea that after death there is nothing.....

personnaly... i don't find that comforting.

-MT

Allow me to contradict this assertion. As an atheist, I find the concept of 'God' and the after-life very attractive... and attractiveness does not equal truth (which is a core problem with 'belief').

Truth on the other hand isn't always attractive... I find the notion that my conciousness ends upon death unattractive and quite true. I can accept the truth or waste a huge chunk of my time partaking in one of the worlds fantasies (christianity, judaism, wiccan, islam, etc.).

I'll respond to the rest later, but first

Only the atheist recognizes the boundless narcissism and self-deceit of the saved" - Atheist opposing theist dogma.

"Only the atheist realizes how morally objectionable it is for survivors of a catastrophe to believe themselves spared by a loving God while this same God drowned infants in their cribs" - Atheists opposing theist perceptions and illogic.

"Consequently, only the atheist is compassionate enough to take the profundity of the world’s suffering at face value" – Atheists opposing the theist dogma that god has a plan.


Ok, but an atheist can oppose something without being compassionate, morally objectionable, or recongnizing anything. That's the biased in the article.

I could've stated it as "Consquently, only the atheist is cruel enough oppose the idea that God has a plan" instead of saying "Consequently, only the atheist is compassionate enough to take the profundity of the world’s suffering at face value". I'm just pointing out the clear biased in the article.

The article tries to make atheists look like good natured people, when in reality being atheist simply means you deny the existence of God or Gods, it does not make you a good or bad person.

This is what I meant when I said it's just like any other biased Christian, Islamic, etc... article. This is really making atheism seem like more of a religion.

The article tries to make atheists look like good natured people, when in reality being atheist simply means you deny the existence of God or Gods, it does not make you a good or bad person ah but it does, because firstly your more sensible, you head is not ruled but fantasy.
secondly your morally superior, as you do good because you wish too, not to gain favour with a fantasy being.
thirdly the atheist is more caring, he know that this is the only life one gets, and therefore is opposed to killing.

ah but it does, because firstly your more sensible, you head is not ruled but fantasy.
secondly your morally superior, as you do good because you wish too, not to gain favour with a fantasy being.
thirdly the atheist is more caring, he know that this is the only life one gets, and therefore is opposed to killing.

See, this is the same type of biased theists use, yet atheists envy. An atheists is someone who denies the existence of God or Gods. It does NOT mean that they will do good because they wish to, or that they are opposed to killing, or that they are more sensible.

I could easily do the opposite, and make statments biased against athiests, like this:

Atheists enjoy ridiculing others, because they feel everyone is wrong, except for them.
Atheists do not care to do good or bad, because to them who really gives a shit?
Atheists do not care about anyone or anything, because since there is no afterlife, there is no punishment nor reward for any actions. Therefore, if you can kill and get it away with it, there are no consequences, and who is to say you are a good or bad person?

Note, the above is just a demonstration of using the same tactics. My point is that these biased tactics are useless, why not gain the unbiased truth.

See, this is the same type of biased theists use, yet atheists envy. An atheists is someone who denies the existence of God or Gods. It does NOT mean that they will do good because they wish to, or that they are opposed to killing, or that they are more sensible.

I could easily do the opposite, and make statments biased against athiests, like this:

Atheists enjoy ridiculing others, because they feel everyone is wrong, except for them.
Atheists do not care to do good or bad, because to them who really gives a shit?
Atheists do not care about anyone or anything, because since there is no afterlife, there is no punishment nor reward for any actions. Therefore, if you can kill and get it away with it, there are no consequences, and who is to say you are a good or bad person?

Note, the above is just a demonstration of using the same tactics. My point is that these biased tactics are useless, why not gain the unbiased truth.

The way I can sum up atheism in a perhaps general but in my view accurate way would be that atheism results in a stable and healthy society. Atheism results in a sensible society and less aggressive society. Chances are when you turn on the news you will hear of violence between the Middle East and America. If both those regions were secularized then there would not be such tensions. That is not being biased, these are just facts.

Sure religion is stupid and it's annoying why everyone has to be politically correct regarding religion, but those are minor annoyances when you see it's effecting the world in a hugely negative way. Rational people need to speak out against it.

The way I can sum up atheism in a perhaps general but in my view accurate way would be that atheism results in a stable and healthy society. Atheism results in a sensible society and less aggressive society. Chances are when you turn on the news you will hear of violence between the Middle East and America. If both those regions were secularized then there would not be such tensions. That is not being biased, these are just facts.

Sure religion is stupid and it's annoying why everyone has to be politically correct regarding religion, but those are minor annoyances when you see it's effecting the world in a hugely negative way. Rational people need to speak out against it.
Haha, this is a very funny, foolish, ridiculous claim of yours

Stalin was an organic atheist. He told a friend of his, that there was no God, and gave him a book on evolution. Through your logic, he should've been nonviolent, and not agressive, however he is responsible for 5-10 million deaths.

The Soviet Union banned all religion...but did that result in a more peaceful, less agressive society? (NOPE!)

China is an officially Athiest nation, therefore through your logic, China should be a perfectly peaceful, non-agressive country, haha, now thats funny.

Most of the world is Theist, therefore the majority of all wars should indeed involve theists, it's only logical.

Your views only re-instate the biased that "atheists enjoy ridiculing others, because everyone is wrong, except for them".

The only thing you can assume to be true about any atheist is that they deny the existence of God or Gods...that's all. That's a unbiased truth. Snap out of your biased. You seem to be using the same mentality and tactics that the Church uses.

Mosheh,

Hea lets face it... Atheists dont like even the idea of God, or Hell or an after life...

they are comforted by the idea that after death there is nothing.....

personnaly... i don't find that comforting.Crunchy summed up your error there quite accurately. An attractive idea doesn't mean its true, and nothing says that truth must be pleasant.

Haha, this is a very funny, foolish, ridiculous claim of yours

Stalin was an organic atheist. He told a friend of his, that there was no God, and gave him a book on evolution. Through your logic, he should've been nonviolent, and not agressive, however he is responsible for 5-10 million deaths.

The Soviet Union banned all religion...but did that result in a more peaceful, less agressive society? (NOPE!)

China is an officially Athiest nation, therefore through your logic, China should be a perfectly peaceful, non-agressive country, haha, now thats funny.

Most of the world is Theist, therefore the majority of all wars should indeed involve theists, it's only logical.

Your views only re-instate the biased that "atheists enjoy ridiculing others, because everyone is wrong, except for them".

The only thing you can assume to be true about any atheist is that they deny the existence of God or Gods...that's all. That's a unbiased truth. Snap out of your biased. You seem to be using the same mentality and tactics that the Church uses.


You really are making this easy for me.

Dictatorship is not good wether it be a religious or atheist dictatorship. Any leader that forces atheism on it's citizens is clearly not anymore rational than any religion.

I am talking about atheism that citizens are free to choose in free democratic societies.

If you go back and check the topic 'most americans will be non christian in 2035', you will see an article that countries with high levels of atheism are also the countries with the highest social health and social security. That is just a fact, and I'm getting fed up having to repeat it to fundies.

"High levels of organic atheism are strongly correlated with high levels of societal health, such as low homicide rates, low poverty rates, low infant mortality rates, and low illiteracy rates, as well as high levels of educational attainment, per capita income, and gender equality. Most nations characterized by high degrees of individual and societal security have the highest rates of organic atheism, and conversely, nations characterized by low degrees of individual and societal security have the lowest rates of organic atheism.

Organic atheism is that which is voluntary and not forced by government"

You really are making this easy for me.

Dictatorship is not good wether it be a religious or atheist dictatorship. Any leader that forces atheism on it's citizens is clearly not anymore rational than any religion.

I am talking about atheism that citizens are free to choose in free democratic societies.

If you go back and check the topic 'most americans will be non christian in 2035', you will see an article that countries with high levels of atheism are also the countries with the highest social health and social security. That is just a fact, and I'm getting fed up having to repeat it to fundies.

"High levels of organic atheism are strongly correlated with high levels of societal health, such as low homicide rates, low poverty rates, low infant mortality rates, and low illiteracy rates, as well as high levels of educational attainment, per capita income, and gender equality. Most nations characterized by high degrees of individual and societal security have the highest rates of organic atheism, and conversely, nations characterized by low degrees of individual and societal security have the lowest rates of organic atheism.

Organic atheism is that which is voluntary and not forced by government"

Actually, you are making this easy for me. The countries with high levels of social health, that have high organic atheism, isn't because of atheism itself, it's because the people freely chose to be atheist. When anything is forced upon a person it is bad. When someone freely chooses to be something OBVIOUSLY social health will be higher, as will suicide rates be lower. It's only logical. It has nothing to do with denying the existence of God or Gods.

Your logic is still flawed. You're saying that atheism itself causes these things when it isn't the fact that they deny the existence of God, therefore social health is up. It's the fact that the society is free and allows people to freely choose to be whatever they want. As you said, organic atheism is what people FREELY CHOOSE to be.

So my assertion is correct, it is not atheism itself, because when atheism is forced upon a person, these so-called benefits all drop. You agree with this assertion, yet you still claim atheism itself is better...this is illogical.

That may even be true, afterall if I was born and raised in America I would stand high risk of being an idiotic fundie. Although you have not allowed for the possability that a lack of religion is what results in a safer and improved society in the first place.

Either way, if religious faith is only the result of hardship, why should it be worth anything in a secure and healthy secular world? Fundies normally say a strong faith in religion is needed to keep law and order, but the facts say that is not true.

Even if atheism is the result of nothing else but a safe society, then that doesn't disguise the fact that secular countries are not likely to start invading other countries and drop bombs, unlike current tensions in the middle east, and well... America versus the rest of the world. Can you see Sweden wanting to kill all infidels or Austrailia wanting to invade New Zealand to check if they have weapons of mass destruction? :D