Why do atheists follow false beliefs?

Well, if there is no God, then isn't religion a man made idea? Why should atheists be so anti-religious because it's "false", when humanism is just as "false" and yet left unchallenged?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Humanism isn't false. It's not true either. Such judgements don't make any sense. It's a strategy based on perception of the reality of human society. Religion, on the other hand, is based on faith in a holy book and the principles therein, rigid, unchangeable, and often supernatural. It's impossible to be a fundamentalist humanist.

If religion consisted only of a moral code for society, I think that's fine. I happen to admire the humanistic principles described by Jesus.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I will only argue that it is an idea based on reason and compassion, rather than the antiquated and out-dated doctrines of religious cults that seek to exclude various populations of humanity from its principles.

What ideas are not? Please present evidence to support your answer.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Well, if humanism isn't true, then why do you follow it?

 

Evolution is not a man made idea. It's an idea whose truth is clearly evidenced by study of the animal kingdom. Obviously, any idea must be in our heads, and therefore is "man made" in the sense that its our idea. However, some ideas have evidential support, and others don't.

 

Because I've reasoned it to be the most true philosophical method of living in the world. I see no other way that can be reasoned to be "more true."

However, should another way emerge and be demonstrably "more true" through reason and critical thought (two characteristics apparently unique to humans on this world), I'll give it due consideration.

Do you have such a philosophy? One that is more reasoned and compassionate than humanism?

 

Humanism has evidential support. Just look at a society that practices justice and takes care of it's poor and compare than to one that doesn't. Which would you rather live in? Which is a better place to raise children and have a happy life?

 

I would think the philosophy of survival of the fitest is "more true" than humanism, because that is what our genetic backgrounds are actually based on. Don't get confused about what philosophy is preferrable, over which philosophy is "more true" in the sense of evidential support. I would accept a humanist philosophy over an evolutionary philosophy any day of the week. However, my preference does not affect how "true" those philosophies are to the animal kingdom.

 

Spidergoat. I'm not questioning which philosophy I prefer, only which is more "true". Obviously, pre-WWII Poland was a nicer place than Germany, but that didn't stop the Germans from killing millions of Poles.

 

Just because cooperation is a possible strategy for evolutionary success doesn’t mean that it will be taken to an infinite extreme. A species can cooperate to an extent but still have some competition. I don’t know why you seem to think it would be perfect cooperation or nothing.

 

Evolution is no basis for moral behavior, as you stated in the beginning. I think at this stage in our development, we can do a little better than that.

 

What's more important than sex to evolution?

 

Evolution is clearly not a top choice of a basis for moral behavior, but is the only basis upon which our genes are made from.

 

What's so undeniable about the effects of humanism, such that they are true? You may like humanism, but kinder gentler people and countries have been destroyed and replaced by apparently more effective ideologies.

 

Yeah, and sometimes animals with camouflage are spotted by predators and eaten. Clearly camouflage is useless as an evolutionary survival strategy, because it doesn't work perfectly all the time.

 

Who is trying to say humanism is true? It's a strategy for ultimate survival. Kinder, gentler countries have been destroyed by other countries THAT DON'T PRACTICE IT.

 

Again, what's so instinctual about Humanism?

 

It may not be instinctive.

 

Well, if humanism isn't instinctual, than it has less basis for being "true" in the sense that it derives from evolution. That's my whole point. Thanks.

 

There are animals that practice humanistic values, such as Bonobos. There are also those that are more warlike, like chimps. It's up to us. Since modern nuclear warfare has apocolyptic consequences, I would conclude that evolution will not ultimately favor this lifestyle.