Atheisim

[Sideline]

Three. The implication is that there is no logical reason for the atheist to live unselfishly. If this life is all that there is why whould you give all that you have away in order that others would enjoy what you once had?

I realized I couldn’t log off without coming back to this one point.

If there were a pay off for acting unselfishly, then it wouldn’t be unselfish. Like the other poster, you are actually making the case that only an atheist can truly be altruistic because they are the only ones that stand to gain nothing from it. When I do something for others, I am doing it for others.

 

[AntiTheist]

One, I believe that atheism isn’t an intellectual problem, even though it has many intellectual symptoms. Atheism is a problem of the will, the human heart. I know this because I use to be one. Intellectual arguments won’t ultimately change the mind of an atheist. They have closed their heart to God’s love and God is not a tyrant. He’ll let them have their way. Whether they come back to their senses only God can really know.

If you say so, buddy. I’ll settle for some evidence.

Religious belief is relevant. “There are no atheists in foxholes…”

foxholeatheists.org/

There is no evolutionary or practical benefit to self-sacrifice. So why do it?

I already answered this. Because people don’t base their actions on their evaluation of evolutionary benefits. They base their actions on their values and emotions, which are, by their nature, not rational.

Deferring to the natural world as an example of sacrifice or even morality is difficult. For every species who fight and sacrifice to protect their young there are many others who outright kill their young for no apparent reason. The same reason is why I neglect to appeal to nature on morality. The natural world is red in tooth and claw.

I didn’t say that we should sacrifice ourselves for others because there are examples in nature…I said that there are examples in nature, and therefore we should not be surprised when the human animal exhibits similar behavior for similarly irrational reasons.

Three. The implication is that there is no logical reason for the atheist to live unselfishly.

Again, people do not base their actions on “logic” – most people operate on the basis of values and emotions, which are, by their nature, not rational.

 

[connorj1994]

j1akey addressed this post quite well, but as far as this goes: I’ve never “preached there is no god” in schools or the workplace, and I’m not aware of any cases where people have done so – I’d be against it, if there were cases of this silliness.

Well maybe I didn’t choose my words correctly. What i mean’t was in my biology class I was to learn about evolution (which is a theory not a fact, just as creationism is). But you need faith to believe in either. So what is the big deal? If they are both thing you need faith to trust in? Both can be considered myth. merriam-webster.com/dictionary/myth and if you go on the atheist website you will find on of their goals is to take myths out of the class room.

 

[AntiTheist]

What i mean’t was in my biology class I was to learn about evolution (which is a theory not a fact, just as creationism is). But you need faith to believe in either.

You’re wrong on a lot of points here:

1. Evolution is both an observed fact and a theory.
2. A “theory,” in science, means an explanation of observed facts that is very well-supported by evidence. A “theory” is the highest level in science – you need a ton of evidence in order to call something a “theory.” Other examples include the theory of gravity and germ theory.
3. There is so much evidence in favor of evolution that, in the words of Dobzhansky, a Christian biologist, “nothing in biology makes sense without it.”
4. Since Christians can and do accept evolution – many Catholics being the most obvious example – there’s no direct connection between atheism and evolution, so it’s simply flat-out wrong to equate teaching the best scientific knowledge we have with “preaching atheism.”

If I were you, I would pick up a copy of Dawkins’ “The Greatest Show on Earth,” and actually read up on the vast amounts of evidence of which you seem to be utterly unaware.

 

[Sideline]

AntiTheist;6575664:

Well maybe I didn’t choose my words correctly. What i mean’t was in my biology class I was to learn about evolution (which is a theory not a fact, just as creationism is). But you need faith to believe in either. So what is the big deal? If they are both thing you need faith to trust in? Both can be considered myth. merriam-webster.com/dictionary/myth

and if you go on the atheist website you will find on of their goals is to take myths out of the class room.

Sorry, but this is like saying that believing that that there are four elements as opposed to believing modern atomic theory is just a matter of faith.

Evolution is a theory in the scientific sense, whereas creation is not. Evolution can and has made thousands of predictions that would test the veracity of the theory and it has passed every one. Creationism makes not testable predictions, so tests have ever been done. Creationist often try and garner scientific justifications for their assertions, but they are almost always unsuccessful, or else they over extrapolate their findings over to broad an area.

A theory in the scientific sense is the highest level of support a set of observations and hypotheses can attain. It is not the same as a hunch, guess, hypothesis or supposition. In order for something in science to achieve the status of a theory, it has to be a comprehensive set of observations, explanations and predictions that can withstand rigorous scrutiny by several independent means. You’ve probably heard of the Law of Gravity, but what you probably don’t know is that those laws are only a minor sub-set of the theory of gravity. Atomic Theory is also a theory, but to claim it isn’t factual is simply perverse.

Another mistake is to assume that evolution is the same as an atheist belief. Most atheists accept evolutionary theory, but not all do (Stalin didn’t, for instance.) Also most people who accept evolution as fact are believers, and mostly Christian at that.

 

[Sideline]

If I were you, I would pick up a copy of Dawkins’ “The Greatest Show on Earth,” and actually read up on the vast amounts of evidence of which you seem to be utterly unaware.

Great post, I had started my post by the time it came up so I didn’t see it. If I had, I wouldn’t have bother posting.

I would also add that there is also Why Evolution is True by Jerry Coyne for those who can’t bring themselves to read a Dawkins book on principle (I can understand that, by the way. I had ceased being a Catholic for a decade before I could read one of his books.) And there is also **Only a Theory **by Kenneth Miller, a brilliant, Catholic, biologist. I haven’t read that one, but I’ve read other works of his and they are very good. Not only is he Catholic, but he describes himself as a “Goldwater Republican”, so I think he might be less objectionable to most people on this forum than Dawkins.

I’m not sure Miller’s book is expressly about the facts of evolution, but it does discuss the battle between the science and ideology of Evolution vs. Intelligent Design.

 

[cyberwolf001]

My issue with atheism is that many are very much anti-religion. I have seen a growing number wish to have a law passed forbidding people to make claims of supernatural abilities (i.e. having or being a channel for such)

This includes: Tarot readers, psychics, faith healers, Catholic Priests, Buddhist Monks ect.

This would be in addition to a ban on all public displays of piety and the sell or religious scriptures.

Atheism looks like a religion, walks like a religion, talks like a religion, wants to use the law to suppress competing view points like a religion, wants the same rights as any religion and like some forms of Christianity denies being a religion while doing the above.

Therefore it is a religion and a threat to all other faiths.

 

[j1akey]

connorj1994:

Well maybe I didn’t choose my words correctly. What i mean’t was in my biology class I was to learn about evolution (which is a theory not a fact, just as creationism is). But you need faith to believe in either. So what is the big deal? If they are both thing you need faith to trust in? Both can be considered myth. merriam-webster.com/dictionary/myth and if you go on the atheist website you will find on of their goals is to take myths out of the class room.

I still have problem trying to figure out why creationists call creationism a theory. It’s not a theory in the scientific sense at all. Creationists change the facts to fit the theory, science chances the theory to fit the facts. There hasn’t been a single SHRED of evidence to support creationism so how can anyone possibly justify calling it a valid scientific theory that is on par with the theory of evolution.

I found a chart that I thought was pretty entertaining that illustrates the evolution vs creationism argument pretty well.

http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/images/c/c7/Cr-vs-evo.gif

And this is essentially true. The only arguements I’ve ever heard from a creationist is:

a. Evolution can’t explain this so God must have done it. This is just a bad arguement because evolution can explain it but people haven’t bothered to look up the information.

b. Poking holes in arguements for evolution and claim victory when people don’t plug them or flat out reject the counter-argument altogether.

Poking holes in other theories is not science, it nit-picking at something until you get your way while rejecting reality in favor of the supernatural. Even IF they could come up with an argument that evolution couldn’t explain, and I stress ‘IF’, lack of evidence for one theory is not evidence of another.

 

[AntiTheist]

My issue with atheism is that many are very much anti-religion. I have seen a growing number wish to have a law passed forbidding people to make claims of supernatural abilities (i.e. having or being a channel for such)

If you’re talking about preventing people from fraudulently advertising supposed abilities that they are making money from – for example, making tarot readers correctly state that their silliness is for “entertainment purposes only” – I see absolutely no problem with that.

But you directly state that you think a “growing number” want “a ban on all public displays of piety and the sell or religious scriptures.” Not only would such a ban be grossly unconstitutional and unamerican, it doesn’t have a chance in hell of succeeding, and I would certainly fiercely oppose it.

So I ask you to produce evidence that a “growing number” of people are in favor of a law that bans “all public displays of piety and the sell or religious scriptures.”

If you come back with stories of atheists fighting to keep “displays of piety” off of government buildings and publicly owned property – instead of the much more radical claim that you make in your post – we’re all going to have a good laugh at you.

Atheism looks like a religion, walks like a religion, talks like a religion

Besides not believing in god, name one tenet of atheism.

 

[Justin1982]

Besides not believing in god, name one tenet of atheism.

Science seems to be one and to say it’s not only explains your view, much like how some Christians accept certain teachings within Christianity. You have to have faith in humanity, that it is telling you the full story much like how we have to believe that we are getting the full story.

 

[Langdell]

I think atheism is wrong in the sense of being incorrect. I also think it’s morally wrong for some people, depending on their circumstances.

.

 

[dianaiad]

I realized I couldn’t log off without coming back to this one point.

If there were a pay off for acting unselfishly, then it wouldn’t be unselfish. Like the other poster, you are actually making the case that only an atheist can truly be altruistic because they are the only ones that stand to gain nothing from it. When I do something for others, I am doing it for others.

You have just identified the problem I have wih this argument that atheists are…(insert all manner of negative stereotypes here). Please don’t get me wrong on this; I am very much a theist. I have a deep and abiding belief in both God and in an afterlife.

However, while I have known selfish atheists, I have also known incredibly selfish theists…and it seems to me that both are selfish for fairly much the same reasons. However, an atheist who lives an "other-centered’ life, that is, who considers that others are as important as he, who are in need of his aid–and he is willing to GIVE that aid, does it for the best of all reasons; simply because that other person needs the aid. I have, unfortunately, met too many theists who do so because they are trying to earn heavenly brownie points. In fact, the most self centered atheist in the planet is less selfish than a theist whose earthly actions are centered upon earning a place for himself in heaven.

Think about it…isn’t that the ultimate expression of selfishness? That’s not helping others out of love. It’s using others for one’s own, personal, eventual gain. This is especially true, I think, for those theists who believe that family and friendship ties are broken at death and that heaven is about himself and a personal reward/relationship with God.

Would I make the choices I make now if I no longer believed in God? I hope so. I think so…but either way, it seems obvious to me that an atheist who gives up his life (either literally or through life works) for his fellow man must be more beloved of God than He is of someone who figures that dying is simply walking through a door to a differnent sort of existance. After all, the atheist believes that he really IS giving everything. The Theist believes that he is about to get an 'attaboy."

Diana

 

[rwillenborg]

Huh…this is a tough one to answer.
Do I think atheism in incorrect? Yes. The same way that if you told me 2 + 2 = 5.
Atheists say there is no God or gods. Factually, I believe this to be an erroneous conclusion.

But as far as atheists themselves, I don’t really have a problem. They’re just wrong on some of their premises.

So, yes to both??

 

[Sideline]

You have just identified the problem I have wih this argument that atheists are…(insert all manner of negative stereotypes here). Please don’t get me wrong on this; I am very much a theist. I have a deep and abiding belief in both God and in an afterlife.

Thank-you so much for writing this! You have no idea how much it means to me when people of faith say things like this. :thankyou:

However, while I have known selfish atheists, I have also known incredibly selfish theists…and it seems to me that both are selfish for fairly much the same reasons.

I agree completely.

However, an atheist who lives an "other-centered’ life, that is, who considers that others are as important as he, who are in need of his aid–and he is willing to GIVE that aid, does it for the best of all reasons; simply because that other person needs the aid.

In all fairness, my roommate did point out something to me that I hadn’t considered when wrote my previous post. She reminded me that I am being rewarded for doing good deeds when people thank me for the help. I am also being rewarded like this: :console:

Would I make the choices I make now if I no longer believed in God? I hope so. I think so…but either way, it seems obvious to me that an atheist who gives up his life (either literally or through life works) for his fellow man must be more beloved of God than He is of someone who figures that dying is simply walking through a door to a differnent sort of existance. After all, the atheist believes that he really IS giving everything. The Theist believes that he is about to get an 'attaboy."

I can’t say for sure, but you seem like someone who would still be caring if you didn’t believe in God.

 

[Sideline]

Science seems to be one and to say it’s not only explains your view, much like how some Christians accept certain teachings within Christianity. You have to have faith in humanity, that it is telling you the full story much like how we have to believe that we are getting the full story.

Uhm… so… you… don’t believe that science comes up with correct answers?

It really seems like you are saying that you can believe in what Christianity teaches, or what science has uncovered, but not both. That’s a scary dichotomy.

 

[Jmfgarcia]

I don’t have any trouble with normal atheists, but i try to elude rude atheists, as Richard Dawkins.

I believe that science and religious faith are not mutually excludent. Both are two things completly diferents, with diferents applications. I think in the evolution theory, big bang theory and god as primary cause.

 

[callmecharles]

I just wanted to throw out some thoughts on the whole ‘selfishness’ debate several users have gotten into:

I’ve examined myself countless times on this matter (perhaps in a self absorbed way, heh), and have to concede that I’m a very selfish person. I’m not sure that I buy into this true selflessness that many, theist and atheist alike, put stock in.

Take the individual who jumps on a grenade to save his friends. His actions are heroic, but there is some payoff for him. Surely he isn’t thinking about the glory of war stories that will be told twenty years down the line, but he might be thinking something along the lines of: “This’ll make everyone grateful, which in turn makes me look great.” Even the most selfless acts have a layer of selfishness to them.

Perhaps I’m just transposing my own traits onto others. I hope that is the case. But I’ve come to believe that this true selflessness, if it exists, is nothing short of a gift from God. It runs contrary to our nature.

If I’m not mistaken, St. Paul has a very relevant quote on this matter. He talks about attempting to do things out of true love for God, and that if we can’t do that, just do the right thing for our own selfish reasons. (It’s been quite some time since I’ve read whatever verse that was, so there might’ve been some confabulation on my part there.)

 

[rwillenborg]

I don’t have any trouble with normal atheists, but i try to elude rude atheists, as Richard Dawkins.

I believe that science and religious faith are not mutually excludent. Both are two things completly diferents, with diferents applications. I think in the evolution theory, big bang theory and god as primary cause.

Richard Dawkins IS rude!
Goodness gracious, even when I was an atheist, I steered clear of that one. I’m cool with atheists, it’s grumpy old men that trouble me!!

 

[rwillenborg]

I just wanted to throw out some thoughts on the whole ‘selfishness’ debate several users have gotten into:

I’ve examined myself countless times on this matter (perhaps in a self absorbed way, heh), and have to concede that I’m a very selfish person. I’m not sure that I buy into this true selflessness that many, theist and atheist alike, put stock in.

Take the individual who jumps on a grenade to save his friends. His actions are heroic, but there is some payoff for him. Surely he isn’t thinking about the glory of war stories that will be told twenty years down the line, but he might be thinking something along the lines of: “This’ll make everyone grateful, which in turn makes me look great.” Even the most selfless acts have a layer of selfishness to them.

Perhaps I’m just transposing my own traits onto others. I hope that is the case. But I’ve come to believe that this true selflessness, if it exists, is nothing short of a gift from God. It runs contrary to our nature.

If I’m not mistaken, St. Paul has a very relevant quote on this matter. He talks about attempting to do things out of true love for God, and that if we can’t do that, just do the right thing for our own selfish reasons. (It’s been quite some time since I’ve read whatever verse that was, so there might’ve been some confabulation on my part there.)

I have for a long time taken an interest in these sorts of stories. Who doesn’t find them fascinating, right? And it seems like these situations, for example, as you described above, of a person jumping on a grenade, happen in an instant. Every time they interview the person after they say something along the lines of ‘I wasn’t thinking about myself. I wasn’t even really thinking. I just…jumped.’
I think you find that alot. Maybe I’m wrong, but I think most often all of these ‘calculations’ which we presume people are making in their heads, they simply aren’t because of a lack of time. Some even say afterwards that if they HAD time to think about it, they might not have done it.
I think that is very telling.

And then you get situations which unfold much more slowly. A very dear friend of mine donated one of his kidneys to a co-worker’s daughter. His co-worker had told him about his daughter’s situation and my friend just went to the hospital to get tested to see if he was a match. To his completely shock, he was. Now, to give up one of your kidneys, to a complete stranger nonetheless, you would think might be a difficult decision. It does, after all, come with some health complications and risks. And my friend said ‘Are you kidding me? Easiest choice I ever made.’ Because here he was, and HE was basically the cure for this little girl. How could anyone say no to that? He wasn’t thinking about the accolades, that’s for sure. Aside from me, he didn’t tell anyone - even the girl’s father, his co-worker, didn’t know that he was the donor. And the only reason he told me was because he needed me to watch his dogs while he was in the hospital and I wouldn’t agree to it until he told me why.
Anyway, I think some people just have a very clear sense of what is Right and what is Wrong in situations. And they simply choose to do what is Right, regardless of the cost.

 

[Michael_Francis]

Sticky: Temporary Ban on Evolution/Atheism Threads
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)