The End Game of Atheism

[Cato]

Mao was a man, not a god. Worshiping him as a god does not negate the fact that the Communist government of China was/is Atheistic.

I don't know what you look like, so let's assume your skin is blue. Do you consume food because your skin is blue? Or is there a more rational explanation?

My point is that isolating one trait of an individual and then assigning that trait as the motivation/reason for a particular behavior is unreasonable unless you can demonstrate how that trait results in the behavior described.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Present me with someone who is born with a concept of God and, when presented with the concept that no God exists proceeds to accept it as trustworthy, thus following the areligion of the person that was presented to him/her. In other words, if religion is a brainwashing process then Atheism is also.

Let's get this straight. You mean to say that children are born with the concept of god. And if one encounters one of these children one should then bring them to your church and let them learn of your god. Why don't you ask the child what is god like? Since she already knows. What if she has a concept of a god but it's different from jesus? Do you then bring her to all the religious places and help her identify which religion she's meant to be in? Or allow her to start her own? I don't understand. Because clearly you're saying telling a child she doesn't have an imaginary friend is brainwashing, but telling her her imaginary friend is the same as yours, and that he speaks to you, is not.

I was never born with a concept of god.

The local demographic of the area I was born in indicates that, if I were, I should have been born with a foreknowledge of either the christian god, Jewish god or the Islamic god (East London) [of varying sects of all religions]. As it happens I've never once had any sort of a belief in any of them [or any god], throwing that theory out of the window.

But I don't want to derail this thread, it's crazy enough as it is.

[max-greece]

Hardly - Mao was a virtual Godhead of the state with every citizen expected to have his little red book with them at all times.

Mao was a man, not a god. Worshiping him as a god does not negate the fact that the Communist government of China was/is Atheistic.

No - you are missing the point. Atheists don't do worship. We don't worship Gods or men who behave like they are Gods (with the associated capricious lack of respect for human life). By definition therefore, China was not atheist. It merely replaced God with Mao and then ascribed to him all sorts of miraculous brave actions he almost certainly never did.

[ShadowWolf1986]

Present me with someone who is born with a concept of God and, when presented with the concept that no God exists proceeds to accept it as trustworthy, thus following the areligion of the person that was presented to him/her. In other words, if religion is a brainwashing process then Atheism is also.

Let's get this straight. You mean to say that children are born with the concept of god. And if one encounters one of these children one should then bring them to your church and let them learn of your god. Why don't you ask the child what is god like? Since she already knows. What if she has a concept of a god but it's different from jesus? Do you then bring her to all the religious places and help her identify which religion she's meant to be in? Or allow her to start her own? I don't understand. Because clearly you're saying telling a child she doesn't have an imaginary friend is brainwashing, but telling her her imaginary friend is the same as yours, and that he speaks to you, is not.

I was showing the person I was responding to that if religion is brainwashing then Atheism is too. In fact I copied what he said and changed a few words, so you should be asking him these questions, in reverse. You're also assuming God is imaginary. Your bias is showing, but then again, you are an Atheist.

[Mister Agenda]

Regarding the evolution question, here is the full definition referred to:

ev·o·lu·tion
/ˌevəˈlo͞oSHən/Noun
1.The process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the...
2.The gradual development of something, esp. from a simple to a more complex form.

Meaning two is not talking about biological evolution only, it is merely talking about change, and is the sense one would be using if talking about 'the evolution of the modern automobile', for instance. In biological evolution, it is not that unusual to evolve to a simpler form, as is often the case with parasites.

The second definition talks about the development of something from a simple to complex form. According to evolutionists, we evolved from much simpler forms and continue to development into more and more complex forms. Why wouldn't we eventually evolve into transcended godlike beings then?

Because evolution is biological and transcendant beings aren't. That sounds more like a transhumanist thing, like uploading your mind into a superior android body or something. The only thing biological evolution selects for when you get down to it is reproductive success. We're not going to evolve laser eyes or telekinesis.

[ShadowWolf1986]

Mao was a man, not a god. Worshiping him as a god does not negate the fact that the Communist government of China was/is Atheistic.

I don't know what you look like, so let's assume your skin is blue. Do you consume food because your skin is blue? Or is there a more rational explanation?

My point is that isolating one trait of an individual and then assigning that trait as the motivation/reason for a particular behavior is unreasonable unless you can demonstrate how that trait results in the behavior described.

Tell all your boys that. Most Atheist assume, and at least one has in this thread, that religion causes wars, suffering, strife, etc.

---

Mao was a man, not a god. Worshiping him as a god does not negate the fact that the Communist government of China was/is Atheistic.

Jesus was a man (if he even was that), not a god. Worshipping him as a god does not negate the fact that Christians are Atheistic. Yes you read that right, Atheist with a capital A.

Mister Agenda Wrote:
Regarding the evolution question, here is the full definition referred to:

ev·o·lu·tion
/ˌevəˈlo͞oSHən/Noun
1.The process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the...
2.The gradual development of something, esp. from a simple to a more complex form.

Meaning two is not talking about biological evolution only, it is merely talking about change, and is the sense one would be using if talking about 'the evolution of the modern automobile', for instance. In biological evolution, it is not that unusual to evolve to a simpler form, as is often the case with parasites.

The second definition talks about the development of something from a simple to complex form. According to evolutionists, we evolved from much simpler forms and continue to development into more and more complex forms. Why wouldn't we eventually evolve into transcended godlike beings then?

I've responded to this, which you've promptly ignored.

Except Jesus said He was God. Do I really need to bring out all the Scriptures that say that? Please, just trust me on that one because I know how much scorn Atheist hold for Scriptures. Save yourself a throbbing vein in the forehead.

---

Mao was a man, not a god. Worshiping him as a god does not negate the fact that the Communist government of China was/is Atheistic.

No - you are missing the point. Atheists don't do worship. We don't worship Gods or men who behave like they are Gods (with the associated capricious lack of respect for human life). By definition therefore, China was not atheist. It merely replaced God with Mao and then ascribed to him all sorts of miraculous brave actions he almost certainly never did.

Replacing God with a man is what Atheism is from my point of view. You can't see it because you say God was never there to begin with. It seems we are at an impasse on this one.

[pineapplebunnybounce]

I was showing the person I was responding to that if religion is brainwashing then Atheism is too. In fact I copied what he said and changed a few words, so you should be asking him these questions, in reverse. You're also assuming God is imaginary. Your bias is showing, but then again, you are an Atheist.

So we're all in the business of brainwashing, but yours is superior to ours? oops, did i let my bias show? So did you! I thought that's what we're all doing!

And quit with the capital A atheist, I don't feel worthy of that.

Tell all your boys that.

I'm no one's boy.

But I don't want to derail this thread, it's crazy enough as it is.

There's no rail XD.

Except Jesus said He was God. Do I really need to bring out all the Scriptures that say that? Please, just trust me on that one because I know how much scorn Atheist hold for Scriptures. Save yourself a throbbing vein in the forehead.

Did you not go to school because you thought it was brainwashing you? I responded to your claims of evolution with scientific evidence and theories. I don't give a shit about your scriptures, you can trust me on that too.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

I was showing the person I was responding to that if religion is brainwashing then Atheism is too. In fact I copied what he said and changed a few words, so you should be asking him these questions, in reverse. You're also assuming God is imaginary. Your bias is showing, but then again, you are an Atheist.

This is disingenuous.

If we take the definition of atheism to mean a lack of belief in a god or gods [as I subscribe to], then can you please explain how I, being born with no knowledge of a deity in any form, can be brainwashed into lacking a belief in said deities?

Your are also allowing your own biases to creep through. "...you are an atheist" is a crass generalisation that has no place in debate.

[Nine]

Tell all your boys that. Most Atheist assume, and at least one has in this thread, that religion causes wars, suffering, strife, etc.

The Crusades.. I'm sure that would have happened without religion...

[ShadowWolf1986]

The second definition talks about the development of something from a simple to complex form. According to evolutionists, we evolved from much simpler forms and continue to development into more and more complex forms. Why wouldn't we eventually evolve into transcended godlike beings then?

Because evolution is biological and transcendant beings aren't. That sounds more like a transhumanist thing, like uploading your mind into a superior android body or something. The only thing biological evolution selects for when you get down to it is reproductive success. We're not going to evolve laser eyes or telekinesis.

Most Theology says that man is more than just a biological being, that he has a soul, which is not made of biological material. If I may, what if the soul exists in a higher dimension that cannot be interacted with by the five senses? If so, why wouldn't our "souls" be evolving also? Eventually it could shed the biological body because it is no longer needed.

Just a thought, and I have nothing to back up any of it except for deductive logic.