Serious Problems with Atheism

[Pat Mustard]

You don't even get to first base, do you.  Religion (all religions, not just yours) is merely bullshit.  Religious people can be - and the higher up they go in the chain the more frequently they are - miserable sons of bitches.  As the saying goes "no one has ever been stoned to death by atheists."

Well if we want to look at the moral argument, when people blame religion for bombings and wars in general, they seem to ignore the tragic history of the 20th century, which saw more deaths from acts of violence and oppression than all previous centuries put together. These were systematically inflicted on millions of people by their own governments. Names like Stalin, Mao Zedong, and Pol Pot have become infamous, all atheists. So to say that atheism is this harmless belief system, is very flawed indeed.

Stalin was Eastern orthodox, was born one and died one. There was a period between 1924 and 1941 where he professed atheism, but he got rid of that when he needed the church.
Pol Pot was a strange blend of catholic and buddhist, born a buddhist and educated in catholic school. He never for one day gave up religion.
Mao was the only one who gave up any of what would traditionally be considered religions, but then again, he did try to build a religious cult with himself as the focus. He thought himself god.

Must try harder before you pin the sins of religious fucktards like yourself on atheists. Like finding some atheists, for example.

[Asmodee]

Actually, I just found this article with accompanying video from the middle of 2016 where they were having this conversation and Neil DeGrasse Tyson brings it up and it looks like he still isn't convinced.  I think every time he explicitly brings it up he gets a huge backlash from people who aren't ignorant on the matter and just kind of keeps his mouth shut for a few years, according to what I've been able to dig up.  That is probably why I remember a look of skepticism while saying the right things.  It was probably within the "foot extraction" period following saying something stupid.

So no, I do not believe he has gotten wise to the idea the "big pharma" is buzz word for "Listen to me because there's a bad guy over there!", which actually doesn't lend credibility.

They did bring up some good points, though, and they do have some legitimate reasons for not trusting the science, unfortunately.  The government has repeatedly been complicit in hiding the facts about health risks from us.  From lead in gasoline (I did some research on that history a couple of months ago and, let me tell you, it is absolutely fascinating.  Spoiler, GM is the bad guy here and adding lead to gasoline was a successful attempt to shut out ethanol so that partners Dupont  and Exxon [a different name then] could make more money) to cigarette smoke.  People don't trust the government when it comes to our health.  And they never trust big business.  And both are with good reason as they have colluded repeatedly to sacrifice the health and safety of the American people for profit.  Hell, Reagan was all set to kill the plans to remove lead from gasoline in the '80s until a big blowup uncovered it and actually forced a speeding of the process instead.  If you can't trust corporations do do the right thing, and you can't trust the government to tell you when they're not, what reasons do you have to believe either when they're telling you that you need something?  Especially when that thing fucks with your immune system in ways you simply don't understand.

[Pulse]

Well if we want to look at the moral argument, when people blame religion for bombings and wars in general, they seem to ignore the tragic history of the 20th century, which saw more deaths from acts of violence and oppression than all previous centuries put together. These were systematically inflicted on millions of people by their own governments. Names like Stalin, Mao Zedong, and Pol Pot have become infamous, all atheists. So to say that atheism is this harmless belief system, is very flawed indeed.

Stalin was Eastern orthodox, was born one and died one. There was a period between 1924 and 1941 where he professed atheism, but he got rid of that when he needed the church.
Pol Pot was a strange blend of catholic and buddhist, born a buddhist and educated in catholic school. He never for one day gave up religion.
Mao was the only one who gave up any of what would traditionally be considered religions, but then again, he did try to build a religious cult with himself as the focus. He thought himself god.

Must try harder before you pin the sins of religious fucktards like yourself on atheists. Like finding some atheists, for example.

To say Stalin was a Christian is really dishonest, even Wikipedia describes his religion as " Atheism, formerly Georgian Orthodox", Ceauşescu launched a persecution of religion in Romania to implement the doctrine of Marxist–Leninist atheism, while Pol Pot banned religious practices in Cambodia. I am perturbed you deny history so readily.
Again this information is all from Wikipedia.

[AceBoogie]

I agree with all of this but am always dumbfounded by the sense of entitlement the part I bolded represents.  It is as if there was some general agreement that everything in the world should be comprehensible to our species.  The universe owes us answers so where attempts to actually discover what they are fall short assuming whatever you like becomes reasonable.  Well, it isn't reasonable to reasonable people.

That's the interesting thing... That's religion.... isn't it? Humans, and the human experience, is above all else except for god, of course... right? I mean god created us... We are his children, so we are clearly very important, are we not?

To then find out that the universe is indifferent to us is more than likely earth shattering for many theists.

[Thumpalumpacus]

To say Stalin was a Christian is really dishonest, even Wikipedia describes his religion as " Atheism, formerly Georgian Orthodox", Ceauşescu launched a persecution of religion in Romania to implement the doctrine of Marxist–Leninist atheism, while Pol Pot banned religious practices in Cambodia. I am perturbed you deny history so readily.
Again this information is all from Wikipedia.

The fact remains that they didn't kill in the name of atheism, generally -- though Stalin did expropriate much OC property, and pursued a pogrom against the Anabaptists.

How many Christians have killed in the name of Christianity? The Crusades, the 30 Years' War, the witch hunts that ravaged 17th-century Europe, the Native American genocide ... and that's just Christian religious violence. There's also the murderous violence of the "pagan" NaZis -- most of whom were indeed Christian -- which was instigated by an anti-Semitism originally kicked off by -- you guessed it! -- Christians.

Note that when theists actually got their hands on industrialized death, their death toll compared to Mao and Stalin. If you're going to argue from consequences regarding atheism, you have to accept it for theism as well.

Personally, I'd just as soon you stick to presenting evidence, but I'm not going to hold my breath.

[Crossless2.0]

You don't even get to first base, do you.  Religion (all religions, not just yours) is merely bullshit.  Religious people can be - and the higher up they go in the chain the more frequently they are - miserable sons of bitches.  As the saying goes "no one has ever been stoned to death by atheists."

Well if we want to look at the moral argument, when people blame religion for bombings and wars in general, they seem to ignore the tragic history of the 20th century, which saw more deaths from acts of violence and oppression than all previous centuries put together. These were systematically inflicted on millions of people by their own governments. Names like Stalin, Mao Zedong, and Pol Pot have become infamous, all atheists. So to say that atheism is this harmless belief system, is very flawed indeed.

Bolded by me.

To say that atheism is a belief system this far into this thread is not only flawed but disingenuous and self-serving. But do let me know if you notice any atheists here defending Stalin, Mao, or Pol Pot, and I'll gladly excoriate them -- not in the name of atheism but of simple human decency. No god is needed for that.

[Pat Mustard]

Stalin was Eastern orthodox, was born one and died one. There was a period between 1924 and 1941 where he professed atheism, but he got rid of that when he needed the church.
Pol Pot was a strange blend of catholic and buddhist, born a buddhist and educated in catholic school. He never for one day gave up religion.
Mao was the only one who gave up any of what would traditionally be considered religions, but then again, he did try to build a religious cult with himself as the focus. He thought himself god.

Must try harder before you pin the sins of religious fucktards like yourself on atheists. Like finding some atheists, for example.

To say Stalin was a Christian is really dishonest, even Wikipedia describes his religion as " Atheism, formerly Georgian Orthodox", Ceauşescu launched a persecution of religion in Romania to implement the doctrine of Marxist–Leninist atheism, while Pol Pot banned religious practices in Cambodia. I am perturbed you deny history so readily.
Again this information is all from Wikipedia.

Well then why did he reintroduce orthodoxy as the state religion after 1941? Why did he have a deathbed confession?

As I said, fucktard, don't pin the sins of your ilk on me.

[Asmodee]

Well if we want to look at the moral argument, when people blame religion for bombings and wars in general, they seem to ignore the tragic history of the 20th century, which saw more deaths from acts of violence and oppression than all previous centuries put together. These were systematically inflicted on millions of people by their own governments. Names like Stalin, Mao Zedong, and Pol Pot have become infamous, all atheists. So to say that atheism is this harmless belief system, is very flawed indeed.

Bolded by me.

To say that atheism is a belief system this far into this thread is not only flawed but disingenuous and self-serving. But do let me know if you notice any atheists here defending Stalin, Mao, or Pol Pot, and I'll gladly excoriate them -- not in the name of atheism but of simple human decency. No god is needed for that.

It always amuses me when theists think that if they can find just one example where what they're saying is right it means they are right in all cases.  For SOME ATHEISTS, yes, it can be a belief system.  To to hold atheism as a belief system is not a requisite for being atheistic, which, I believe, is exactly what you just said.

I think it's a symptom of the black and white, right or wrong, all or none thinking much theism, particularly Christianity instills.  After all, prove Jesus was not a real person and the whole system falls apart.  If their faith says you can't touch alcohol at all, prove Jesus drank or that the wine at the wedding wasn't "strong grape juice" and their entire belief system falls apart.  Prove just ONE THING they believe to be wrong and their entire faith is garbage because that's how their belief works.  It's all or none.  So they think they can apply that shit to reality.  After all, their magical belief are "reality".

[Angrboda]

To encode Information ALWAYS requires Intelligence and to deny this obvious observation is to deny reality.

That's not remotely true. "Dumb" evolutionary algorithms have been used to produce complicated neural nets that play checkers using only iteration, variation, and selection.

An evolutionary algorithm has taught itself how to play the game of checkers without using
features that would normally require human expertise. Using only the raw positions of pieces on
the board and the piece differential, the evolutionary program optimized artificial neural networks
to evaluate alternative positions in the game. Over the course of several hundred generations, the
program taught itself to play at a level that is competitive with human experts (one level below
human masters). This was verified by playing the best-evolved neural network against 165 human
players on an Internet gaming zone. The neural network’s performance earned a rating that is
better than 99.61 percent of all registered players at the website. Control experiments between the
best-evolved neural network and a program that relies on material advantage indicate the
superiority of the neural network both at equal levels of look-ahead and CPU time. The results
suggest that the principles of Darwinian evolution may be usefully applied to solving problems
that have not yet been solved by human expertise.

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/9814/4b...788d1b.pdf

Speaking of denying reality, you're also denying the power of biological evolution to encode information with that statement. But then, that was expected.

[Alex K]

Why was Stalin able to set up a cult of personality? Possibly because the people were primed by church indoctrination to serve and worship leader figures unquestioningly? It's not like Stalin's theism or atheism is very relevant for the validity of atheism. Who knows, maybe Christianity does make better (as in, somewhat less horrible) dictators than atheism as some bad apologists seem to argue - all I can sayto that is no thanks, you can keep your Dictators.