Why do atheists follow false beliefs?

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Fraggle Rocker. You may not claim religion is false, but the majority of the atheist on this website certainly do. They say God does not exist - not that we can't prove that God doesn't exist. Don't blame Abraham for the downfall of Egypt, I think the Romans had a pretty big hand in that. Besides, isn't Abrahamic religion supposedly based on monotheism created in Eygpt? The destruction of the Incas and Aztecs had far more to do with gold for the Spanish empire than religion. Also, let's not forget smallpocks.
Humanism fails to take into account man's natural evil side. It's premised on the belief that man can be taught to be good. It's unnatural and false, because it doesn't believe man has an inherent evil and violent side. Therefore, humanism is not a natural product of man's nature, but false brainwashing just like any other religion. And there's the rub - atheists don't recognize the similarity between the invented foundations of religion and humanism.
There is no way humans are genetically programmed to care about the welfare of the pack and all its members. Perhaps parents are programmed to care about their children, but certainly not the rest of society. I certainly don't feel that way. Criminals don't feel that way. Society doesn't feel that way. Why would we as a nation continue to spit out toxic gases into the air damaging the planet, if we cared about the people in China? Certainly organized effort is more effective than singular effort, but that does not mean that genetically we are pack animals. Being in a tribe may be another man made idea - not a genetic instinct.
You equate civilization with genetic pack behavior. Tribal behavior may be nothing more than a man made cultural behavior - not genetic. Again, I would choose my own safety over the safety of almost all others. I don't see any instinct to the contrary.
Since when is monotheistic religion a dismal failure? Why are so many billions of people around the world worshipping one God if this were true? There would be no modern civilization without monotheism. Remember the Spirit of '76? All men are created equal under the natural law of God? In the name of God, political machines created our civilization. When has the name of humanism created anything of the sort?
So, it's not good for the pack for the uglies to be having sex with the good looking chicks? Tell that to the uglies.
Humans are not pack-social in the sense that they give their right arm for the pack. And humans are very successful, thank you.
Why is humanism better than religion? Both transcend instinct. Both have similar philosophies. Both are man made inventions not based on instinct (unless of course God does exist - then you better watch out). Yet atheist claim religion is false, but don't understand how false their own belief is as their belief is not based on nature.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Atheist's, for the most part, don't really make claims that gods don't exist. They simply don't believe the claims of theists that gods DO exist.

Demonstrate YOUR god exists, and you'll make believers out of them all.

Have you got any sources to back up that claim?

Indoctrination. And, for the record, those billions of people may worship one god, but they don't agree on the multitude of "one" gods claimed to exist.

No, there would be no modern civilization as we know it today. Had religion not been invented, mankind would be far more advanced as a society, possibly having rid itself of hunger, disease and famine by now. Had mankind been built on rationale, reasoning and critical thinking, with the scientific method as it's guide... well, one can only imagine our world today.

Unfortunately, mankind has been plagued by the ignorance and oppression of religion, sadly, a tragedy of global proportions.

Remember the Dark Ages.

When will the oppression of religion allow such a thing?

No, both are diametrically opposed to one another. Even the simplest of concepts is obvious, life is preferred with humanism while death and the afterlife is the preferred state of theists.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Claiming god is false does not equal claiming religion is false.

Religion is simply the measure of devotion to a particular philosophy. Meaning, humanism can be considered a religion. Communism can be considered a religion. Stoicism can be considered a religion. Any philosophical idea can be taken to religious extremes.

Theology is merely an aspect of metaphysics, a branch of philosophy. It's a small part of general philosophy.

You are correct, sir.

Humans have a bad streak, but it doesn't mean people don't have a natural sense of altruism. We're pack animals, inherently. Altruism is part of our nature.
And because of our advanced minds, we can be taught to broaden our "pack" to be the whole of the species, and thus our altruistic tendencies can be extended to all of humanity. That is the core functioning principle of Humanism.

Humanism is a religion. It just doesn't make theology an important aspect of it. It concentrates almost entirely on ethics and aesthetics.

Tell that to other pack animals, like chimps, or wolves.
We are altruistic to our respective packs. Whether that pack is "the family", "the clan", "the tribe" or "the ethnic group". Humanism's aim is to broaden that pack idea beyond all that, to "the species".

Monotheism has generally failed to established good morals or ethics, and generally they are intolerant to other beliefs or ideas.
This is, of course, not uniform, but it is the general result of the "one true god, and no other ones" mentality inherent in most monotheistic faiths.

Argumentum ad populum. A logical fallacy.

The renaissance and enlightenment, for one. Their achievements were established on the precept of the betterment of all humanity, not just the people of their petty principalities.

 

The reason atheists follow false beliefs is because they don't really care about what's true or false, they just care about ridiculing religion...there are lots of things atheists easily accept without evidence because they don't care, all that matters is that they ridicule religion

 

Really, you could actually go higher. Not just the Amerindian civilizations, but the Christians also obliterated Egyptian, Roman, and Greek civilizations.
In addition to the many cultures of old Europe. The Celts, the Gaels, the Saxons, and Alemannians; the Norsemen, and the Balts.
They were almost uniformly replaced with Romanized, and later, Frankish, cultural aspects, by invading Christian hordes.

 

Well that's easy, atheists easily accept abiogenesis without evidence, knowing that it "could've possibly happened in some unknown way" is good enough, as long as something is not religious and some scientists believe it, evidence doesn't matter to atheists, they'll believe in anything without evidence as long as it has no connection to religion or spirituality...they easily critically question "how can God be causeless?" but have no problem with energy being causeless and always existing...they say there's no reason to believe in something if there's no evidence but don't adamantly speak out against many scientific theories which have no evidence...atheists only care about making religion appear false and ridiculing religion...

 

"The idea of Akhenaten as the pioneer of a monotheistic religion that later became Judaism has been considered by some scholars." 'http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akhenaten Eygpt may have been the inventors of monotheism - not Abraham.

 

Abramhamic religion did not destroy the Eygptians. It fell to the Persians in 343 BC after the last native Pharaoh, King Nectanebo II, was defeated in battle. Later, Egypt fell to the Greeks and Romans, beginning over two thousand years of foreign rule. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egypt

 

Conquistadors were helped by smallpox and other European diseases which weakened the native population. Unknown in the Americas at the time, Native Americans lacked the antibodies to fight them. Diseases are estimated to have killed unknown thousands of natives during the 15th and 16th centuries.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conquistador

 

The 16th and 17th centuries are sometimes called "the Golden Age of Spain" (in Spanish, Siglo de Oro). During the sixteenth century, Spain held the equivalent of US$1.5 trillion (1990 terms) in gold and silver received from New Spain. It was often said during this time that it was the empire on which the sun never set. The unwieldy empire of this Golden Age was controlled, not from distant inland Madrid, but from Seville. The Habsburg dynasty squandered the American and Castilian riches in wars across Europe for Habsburg interests, defaulted on their debt several times, and left Spain bankrupt (with the tensions between the Empire and the people of Castile exploding in the popular rebellion of the Castilian War of the Communities (1520–22). The Habsburg political goals were several:

Access to American (gold, silver, sugar) and Asian products (porcelain, spices, silk)
Undermining the power of France and containing it in its eastern borders.
Maintaining Catholic Habsburg hegemony in Germany, defending Catholicism against the Reformation
Defending Europe against Islam, notably the Ottoman Empire.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Empire

 

Humanism clearly rejects deference to supernatural beliefs in resolving human affairs but not necessarily the beliefs themselves; indeed some strains of humanism are compatible with some religions. It is generally compatible with atheism and agnosticism but doesn't require either of these. Agnosticism or atheism on their own do not necessarily entail humanism; many different and sometimes incompatible philosophies happen to be atheistic in nature. There is no one ideology or set of behaviors to which all atheists adhere, and not all are humanistic.[4][5]

As humanism encompasses intellectual currents running through a wide variety of philosophical and religious thought, several strains of humanism allow it to fulfill, supplement or supplant the role of religions, and in particular, to be embraced as a complete life stance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism

 

Humanism features an optimistic attitude about the capacity of people, but it does not involve believing that human nature is purely good or that each and every person is capable of living up to the humanist ideals of rationality and morality. If anything, there is the recognition that living up to one's potential is hard work and requires the help of others.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism

 

The idea of "Man the Hunter" is the generally accepted paradigm of human evolution, says Sussman, "It developed from a basic Judeo-Christian ideology of man being inherently evil, aggressive and a natural killer. http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/38011.php

 

Fraggle Rocker. Everything I posted is based on evidence. This is far from unscientific. Moreover, your claim that biology proves that man is a pack animal - not a lone hunter is clearly belied from the above site which points out how new that theory is and how the common theory is that man was a hunter. Your statements about Egypt being destroyed by Abrahamic religion is clearly not historical. Indeed, some scholars contend Eygpt created Abrahamic religion. And your conception that the Pope was behind the destruction of the Aztecs and Incas is belied by the fact that most of the gold went to the Spanish Empire - not the Pope. Please stop acusing me of unscientific thinking, as the above sites should prove to you. You must leave room for disagreements between those using the scientific method. Not everyone thinking like a scientist is going to agree with you.

 

Yeah, I've pointed this out to him before. Is he home schooled or something?

 

Uh, did you happen to notice that your link contradicts your premise?
"Humans Evolved To Be Peaceful, Cooperative And Social Animals, Not Predators"

 

The article contradicts my premises. But often, contradictory articles include comments about the opposition, as is the case with this article. The point of the link is to show that the theory of man the pack animal is relatively new compared to the established theory of man the hunter. Fraggle Rocker claims that there is no debate, that it's only man the pack animal. He also belittles me for my supposed lack of education in biology, but then attempts to pull the blinds over others pretending there is no debate on this issue.

 

Absolutely brilliant. In fact, society itself is a false concept, right? So why should atheists take part in that lie?

In truth, society is not a false concept, but a naturally-selected attribute of human function. Equality and rules against murder are derivative of this function; without equality, society is untenable, and murder only serves to undermine the utility of the human social endeavor.