Atheism, the short lived idea?

[Ashendant]

True, now that I rationalise everything, I used to get so annoyed and angry when Christians would say things I thought were ridiculous, I was going to throw it all in! They are just idiots, and then I realised it helps them to live a 'good' life, so why should I call them an idiot, perhaps I am in the idiot. So you are right if I was an atheist I would be impatient and call everyone 'idiots' if they believed in something ridiculous, but I am working on being patient with people, even if I am in the middle of a Bible study and they ask to pray so that the devil will stop it from raining!

I eat meat, they are drinking milk still....

That's the whole illusion of religion, it doesn't actually help them live a good life, it just lets them live a life in blissful ignorance

[Autumnlicious]

True, now that I rationalise everything, I used to get so annoyed and angry when Christians would say things I thought were ridiculous, I was going to throw it all in! They are just idiots, and then I realised it helps them to live a 'good' life, so why should I call them an idiot, perhaps I am in the idiot. So you are right if I was an atheist I would be impatient and call everyone 'idiots' if they believed in something ridiculous, but I am working on being patient with people, even if I am in the middle of a Bible study and they ask to pray so that the devil will stop it from raining!

I eat meat, they are drinking milk still....

Remember that atheism doesn't preclude one from making a stupid. Just like getting vaccinated doesn't magically make you truly immune to common diseases. However, the process of deconversion is usually powered by skepticism and logic.

[Anomalocaris]

That's not his point if you were an atheist would you prefer to live in a Christian country or in a islamic country, i would choose Christianity because it's tame nowadays unlike islam

Christianity is only tame because it has been largely unable to overcome the inroad rational secular enlightenment has made in most of the Christian world's educated classes, consequently it has been unable to preserve any public administration which genuinely does not distinguish between what is Christian and what is good in any country of consequence.

If there were again to be a Christian theocratic administration in a country of any consequence, as Christian conservatives of all stripes works with all their animal cunning to bring about, I have little doubt Christianity in such a state will turn fundamentalist and regain most of its 11th century virulence every bit as fast as the NAZI regime in Germany revealed its genocidal tendencies after 1933.

[solja247]

That's the whole illusion of religion, it doesn't actually help them live a good life, it just lets them live a life in blissful ignorance

Indeed. I just smile and nod my head, I used to be one of them, so I cant talk...

Remember that atheism doesn't preclude one from making a stupid. Just like getting vaccinated doesn't magically make you truly immune to common diseases. However, the process of deconversion is usually powered by skepticism and logic.

Its over-skepticism. I had done a couple of days research into the historicity of Moses, Joseph and David and I was going to throw it all in. I am at a Chrstian University (Not one of those crazy ones) and I asked the OT scholar there some hard questions. I said, 'You do realise there is zero evidence for a historical Moses, Abraham and Joseph.' He said, 'I know, does that mean they didnt exist?' My skepticism collapsed, I had no reason to be overy-skeptic or doubt the existence of Abraham, Joseph and Moses...From then on it was nearly a straight path back to theism.

Why sould the doubt become the answers?

Christianity is only tame because it has been largely unable to overcome the inroad rational secular enlightenment has made in most of the Christian world's educated classes, consequently it has been unable to preserve any public administration which genuinely does not distinguish between what is Christian and what is good in any country of consequence.

You do realise 'secular' countries were still very much so Christian? Everything was closed on Sunday! It has only been recently that people shop and do other things on Sunday, so I would be careful...

If there were again to be a Christian theocratic administration in a country of any consequence, as Christian conservatives of all stripes works with all their animal cunning to bring about, I have little doubt Christianity in such a state will turn fundamentalist and regain most of its 11th century virulence every bit as fast as the NAZI regime in Germany revealed its genocidal tendencies after 1933.

I will admit the holocaust is Christians fault, if you admit Pol pot's regime was caused by atheism.
Fundies are never going to get that power, even if they did, the worse thing they would do is ban abortion and homosexuality...

[Isurus]

Its over-skepticism. I had done a couple of days research into the historicity of Moses, Joseph and David and I was going to throw it all in. I am at a Chrstian University (Not one of those crazy ones) and I asked the OT scholar there some hard questions. I said, 'You do realise there is zero evidence for a historical Moses, Abraham and Joseph.' He said, 'I know, does that mean they didnt exist?' My skepticism collapsed, I had no reason to be overy-skeptic or doubt the existence of Abraham, Joseph and Moses...From then on it was nearly a straight path back to theism.

I don't think atheists are trying to disprove the existance of specific human beings. I would not sit here and argue that there was not someone, during biblical times, named ""Moses, Abraham, or Joseph". I'm sure there were plenty; and, there may have well been a religious leader of the Hebrews/Israelites named Moses...ect. But that point is irrelevant. I think what atheists are trying to convey is the lack of evidence that these people were anything more than just that; people.

[downbeatplumb]

I will admit the holocaust is Christians fault, if you admit Pol pot's regime was caused by atheism.
Fundies are never going to get that power, even if they did, the worse thing they would do is ban abortion and homosexuality...
[/quote]

Fundies ruled once, it was called the dark ages and lasted for over a thousand years.

And they did much worse than a ban a couple of things.

[thesummerqueen]

Its over-skepticism. I had done a couple of days research into the historicity of Moses, Joseph and David and I was going to throw it all in. I am at a Chrstian University (Not one of those crazy ones) and I asked the OT scholar there some hard questions. I said, 'You do realise there is zero evidence for a historical Moses, Abraham and Joseph.' He said, 'I know, does that mean they didnt exist?' My skepticism collapsed, I had no reason to be overy-skeptic or doubt the existence of Abraham, Joseph and Moses...From then on it was nearly a straight path back to theism.

Why sould the doubt become the answers?

You do realize there's zero evidence for unicorns, bigfoot, dragons, and leprechauns, right? Am I still supposed to just shrug and say "that doesn't mean they don't exist..."

No offense, but that is the most bullshit reason to not be skeptical. Every true skeptic I know is quite willing to change their mind in the face of hard evidence. The reason they don't say "eh...there's no evidence, but it doesn't hurt to believe it anyway" is because in some cases it CAN hurt. There's no evidence that vaccines cause autism, yet people are believing it anyway and now choosing to let their children risk horrible diseases we worked hard to cure.

There IS a reason to be overly-skeptical - especially of biblical figures. The second you put a person in a leadership role, you give them power over you. Jews, Christians, and Muslims listen to the teachings of these people as prophets - you better damn well ask for evidence of their existence and how they got their information. Why is this person telling me I have to eat food prepared a certain way, or wear only a certain type of clothing? Then I get to decide if it's best for me. Obama could march his way into my office right now and tell me that I should be doing A, B, and C and I'd still look him straight in the face and say "Really? Why?" and I suspect the rest of you would too. I think this is probably because he's still alive, not long dead like Abraham. But you know Obama exists, so why don't you trust his judgments? (Rhetorical question, I don't know your political affiliation. I guess a better metaphor might be Pat Robertson. Who trusts that guy? He quotes a lot of things from the same book you use, but he's alive and obviously exists...guess we're allowed to mistrust him for the thieving bastard he is.) Anyway, I digress.

You were arguing based on something science needs (evidence) and your scholar was arguing based on faith. They're two different things.

I don't understand this concept of "overly skeptical". The nearest I can equate it with is people who are actually conspiracy theorists, and they're not overly skeptical at all, except of the truth. They're quite unskeptical of their own views.

[The Omnissiunt One]

Its over-skepticism. I had done a couple of days research into the historicity of Moses, Joseph and David and I was going to throw it all in. I am at a Chrstian University (Not one of those crazy ones) and I asked the OT scholar there some hard questions. I said, 'You do realise there is zero evidence for a historical Moses, Abraham and Joseph.' He said, 'I know, does that mean they didnt exist?' My skepticism collapsed, I had no reason to be overy-skeptic or doubt the existence of Abraham, Joseph and Moses...From then on it was nearly a straight path back to theism.

Why sould the doubt become the answers?

Wow. You're easily convinced. It seems that you're going by the old mantra 'Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.' Well, sometimes it is. If we can reasonably expect there to be some historical evidence of Moses' existence, then not finding any surely suggests that he didn't exist. It isn't strong evidence, for sure, but it's enough to make you doubt. Doubt isn't an answer; it's just a default position when all the available answers are clearly bollocks.

[orogenicman]

You are a product of nothing and mere chance.

Atoms are not nothing, and natural selection is not mere chance.

[solja247]

You do realize there's zero evidence for unicorns, bigfoot, dragons, and leprechauns, right? Am I still supposed to just shrug and say "that doesn't mean they don't exist..."

I think the idea is more complicated than this, the idea of God is found in every culture, whether it be a Rainbow serpent or YWH. But we know that these things are made up, we dont know if God is made up. Santa was clever marketting by Coca-cola but God is much more complicated. You can say that God was an evolutionary tool to help us get to the next state, however, you dont have empirical evidence to back that up. I have empirical evidence that bigfoots and dragons dont exist, but God is on a completely different level.

No offense, but that is the most bullshit reason to not be skeptical. Every true skeptic I know is quite willing to change their mind in the face of hard evidence. The reason they don't say "eh...there's no evidence, but it doesn't hurt to believe it anyway" is because in some cases it CAN hurt. There's no evidence that vaccines cause autism, yet people are believing it anyway and now choosing to let their children risk horrible diseases we worked hard to cure.

I believe to be objective you cant be a skeptic. I have seen how some skeptics here say that X didnt exist because there is no empirical evidence (Neither is there for Socrates, they just chop and choose their skepticsm). Also if you reject the idea of X existing, you have already made your mind up that he doesnt exist. Its like the belief in Santa Claus, we dismissed this idea that Santa Claus was real with a belief, we were being as objective as we can be and we didnt see any reason to believe in Santa or to think he is real. This is how I propose we discern the 'truth' we start with a belief eg. There is a God, untill there is empirical evidence or strong arguments not to believe in a God, a belief is more objective and perhaps more rational. So Im not overtly skeptic because I would not be objective and I would go insane (I would question my own absolute existence)

There IS a reason to be overly-skeptical - especially of biblical figures. The second you put a person in a leadership role, you give them power over you.

Wow. You're easily convinced. It seems that you're going by the old mantra 'Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.' Well, sometimes it is. If we can reasonably expect there to be some historical evidence of Moses' existence, then not finding any surely suggests that he didn't exist. It isn't strong evidence, for sure, but it's enough to make you doubt. Doubt isn't an answer; it's just a default position when all the available answers are clearly bollocks.

Its enough to make me doubt, slightly. However, that doubt shouldnt become the answer, I have no reason to doubt that a man by the name of Moses didnt exist and was a leader of a clan called the Hebrews. I just disagree with Descartes, skepticism is not the answer.

Atoms are not nothing, and natural selection is not mere chance.

If the metorite did not crash into earth and destroy the dinosaur regime, about 40 million years or so would you be typing on your computer?