Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
When did you last hear of a soup kitchen run by atheists?
Or of any "good" thing done by atheists?
Atheists are not like the religious. They don't work in groups. That's why you don't hear of it. As already stated, they volunteer as individuals because they feel that it is the right thing to do...unlike Christians, who appear more interested in being patted on the head by baby Jesus for what they do than helping because they want to. I'm atheist and if you would like to DM me I will happily tell you what 'good' for others I have done in my life and, although I don't know anything about you, I'll wager my last cent that it's far more than you have done
...and for your information. Here is a list of non-religious aid organisations from around the world...that don't use donations for PREACHING.
I heard that someone went on a shooting spree in the name of atheism. Let me know when you invalidate atheism, okay?
You heard? So you have no evidence yourself?
And yes, it is possible for an atheist to kill in the name of atheism, that is the problem with in group / out group morality. But there are no rules in atheism that says you must kill outsiders. Atheism is simply not believing in gods.
If you take atheism to its rational conclusion, if this life is the only one we have, then life is important, and should not be taken merely because someone is different.
It seems to me that 1 percent of the evil done in the name of religion does not discount the 99 percent of good that it does. But you never hear about the good things, right? How often are good things reported? Never. You know that, don't you? Atheists only focus on the negative aspects of religion, as if there are no positives which greatly outweigh them.
All of this grandstanding for atheism won't get anyone anywhere.
More rubbish. First, your 99% is just an invented figure. People do good regardless of whether they are religious or not. And people giving aid because it is their 'Christian duty' are more likely doing so because it is the correct thing to do.
Second, I have often pointed out that religion can be a force for good.
Third, you are simply moving the goal posts. Religion can not only be a force for doing wrong, it is often part of their laws and practices. So while 'good in the name of religion' is often people just doing what is the right thing to do, the negatives embedded within many religions far outweigh the good.
And they need to be addressed by the religious. All these excuses for religion won't get anyone anywhere.
Religion causes people to unite together in community.
So does any common interest.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OzzyRules
It causes them to search their minds for the perfect and optimum solutions to problems, and to focus on the betterment of society. No one should find fault with that.
We wouldn't find fault if it was true. Unfortunately it is not.
Ozzy is of course playing the only cards he has as appeal to the Bible (except as some good things in it) isn't in his deck.
I don't know jow whether we had "Who made everything then?" yet (plus denigrating science to make Goddunit look a credible alternative) or it's to come, but right now it's "We need religion, true or not".
The whole programme of arguing that there would be too little good done with an atheist society and you need religion for a good society is pretty demonstrably untrue. We actually have a secular -run society which religion leeches off and claims the credit for running it. If not that it was the 'basis' for human morality (it wasn't - it leeched off that, too,(1). What's wrong with this - apart from it not being true, which is really the bottom line - is that religion, if it does get control of a society, cripples people mentally so they can't be good, moral or able to cope without it. Secularism makes people able to do good without having to be organised into doing it, able to be moral for reasons other than "God says so" and able to cope with life because of an ethical structure that doesn't depend on religion. Deconverts to atheism almost always see how dropping dependency on the church replaced this weakness with a mentally stronger mindset, though losing the love affair with the god in their head could be painful.
I won't go into the ways that religion pretends to support family life but instead treats it like cult -members, nor the almost inevitable "Jesus saved me from the gutter" stories - which I may suspect are anecdotal as much as the "My mutha was dyin' of cancer, see..." stories, but will note how Ozzy has been playing the double -standards game of picking up the evils done by atheists (real or "I heard something about..." invented) and implying that this describes atheism in general, while waving away or just denying any of the endless list of evils done by the religious if not in the name of religion.
It's very unfortunate that Ozzy, who seems to be one of the non -religious believers, will still fight hard (and dirty) for the religion he doesn't appear to actually believe in. But there's a "Bright " side in that "nones" seems to be on the increase, and they (I believe) ARE more receptive to the idea of atheism, humanism and secularism, while indeed many irreligious theists, while being "Nones" in thought (perhaps like Ozzy here) will still after a pause, put down 'Christian', rather than 'None'.
I can sympathise with those atheist spokesbods who realise that the mere name of atheism has been blackened so badly worldwide and almost toxically in the US, that the mere name will elicit total opposition, while "agnostic" seems to be ok, though it says pretty much the same - no need to have religion. I can understand why they feel that adopting a different name would help the cause of irreligion hugely. The US and the world has been conditioned to react with hostility to the mere name "Atheist" and all sorts of associated evil pops up (2). I get it, but I think it's wrong. The thing to do is correct the perception of the word atheist. Though that is really trying to do it the hard way . In any case, the more acceptable word is there: "Humanist". (secularist is almost as bad as atheist) which includes atheism but also covers theists who accept the value of secularist thought, society and ethics. It also includes irreligious theism (which "Agnosticism" really means) but not exclusively.
As we see with so very many non -religious theists (3...let's make this parenthetical comment a foopnote), though they clain to be non -religious, they plainly are supporters of it as fiercely as if they were religious.
(1) and it's the same trick is claiming that religion deserves the credit for science.
(2) wickedness, immorality, violence, social chaos, collapse of civilisation and invasion by the NazicommieIslamic hordes (name your own) just waiting for Satan to weaken the protection of the nation under God so they can invade and enslave us all.
(3) Though I am beginning to suspect that, because they reference the Bible so much, they actually regard it as a guide to life and morals, but saying they don't actually believe it means they avoid having to argue for it.
Which they are probably aware is a lost cause, by now.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 06-07-2018 at 04:10 AM..
Reason: finally after an hour, all typus correctes.
I'm still not sure why the belief in imaginary things is so bad. Shouldn't the person's actions be the final factor?
There are many in this subforum who have false views of many things. You might even call it IMAGINARY. Big time. But I don't let their false views bother me or make me think any less of them. I do however try to help them understand where their thinking might be in error. No good deed goes unpunished though.
We actually have a secular -run society which religion leeches off...
"Run" is the key word. Those in power, correct?
But what about all the people needed to actually DO all the things that keep our world running? Such as bringing us our food from the earth, making our clothing, and building our shelters. Good luck finding a mass of atheists who would be willing to do that. Atheists can sit in their easy chairs at their "work"-places and continue to laugh at all these silly people.
I'm still not sure why the belief in imaginary things is so bad. Shouldn't the person's actions be the final factor?
There are many in this subforum who have false views of many things. You might even call it IMAGINARY. Big time. But I don't let their false views bother me or make me think any less of them. I do however try to help them understand where their thinking might be in error. No good deed goes unpunished though.
On my First board, I used the sig-motto "The truth is important" because (like "why live if there is no Meaning?") the 'why prefer facts to fairytales?' was something i needed to address. It ought to be obvious, but there is a long debate one can have about how believing false ideas can actually be helpful. To me, wanting to know as much as I can is better than pick a fave belief and stick with it, which is is betraying myself, my brain and everything I am and live for. That sounds awfully pompous, I know but it's true and it's the key to both internal strength and humility, because (like science) immediate correction of mistakes strengthens the internal mindset while struggling to prop up demonstrably wrong ideas eats the mindset from the inside out.
And at the same time, putting up you hand to a mistake immediately serves to remove 'Pride' and makes being wrong not something to regard with horror (I won't even go into the theist idea that God is telling them the truth so they CANNOT EVER admit to being wrong or this self -delusion implodes immediately) but something to thank people for because it makes the mindset better.
If you will forgive me an analogy, it's like someone who thanks the mechanic for picking up a fault with the car and correcting it and someone who luvs his car so much that he will start a fight with anyone who points out that the wheels are coming off.
This idea that the truth is important and valuable and also useful is so often the same logical conclusion that other atheist spokesbods (there, I've Said It ) come to, as in Matt Dillahunty (who since he saw that studying "Philosophy" - which really is knowing the misuse of philosophic fallacies in a sophisticated form to make a case for religion - was really necessary if you want to cope with ALL apologetics, is probably one of the best atheist apologist ever) says: "I want to believe as many true things as possible, and disbelieve as many false thing as possible".
How do we decide what's true of not> !00% certainty is of course not possible, and is merely a metaphor for Faith. And Faith (picking a theory you like or being fed one as a kid, and then refusing to listen to anything that contradicts), is a terrible way of trying to get at the truth. The only method (beating even the mind -experiments of philosophy, which is the only other method that's a close second) that produces reliable, consistent results that stand up to hard examination, is science, even if finding 'errors' means that they are built on (1) by later information and revisions.
to sum up or save aonther wearingly long convoluted explanation
(z) turning the Ptolemaic system inside -out was the LAST time sience was "Wrong" (and even Ptolemy was a great improvement of the Bronze -age snow -dome of the Bible.)
(a - again ) there are many religions, but only one science.
I had to go into detail because religion relies so much on denigrating science as a reliable basis for building models of reality in hopes to make "Faith" look like a credible (or rather the only remaining) way of building a mental model of reality.
I think 'thinking less of them' is a bit well -poisoning as it implies that atheists consistently deprecate the religious. In fact it is the claims and the reasoning -not the person - that we deprecate, and they take it personally, of course. I know what you mean by 'no good deed goes unpunished', but that's an Individual problem. With social change campaigns, individual efforts get absorbed in the holistic mental gene -pool
(1) as can't be repeated too often, Einstein and Newton even are still valid, despite Bohr's quantum, as each adds to the other, just as Copernicus and Kepler are still valid despite the later cosmological discoveries, and of course Darwin is valid as indeed are his forebears who knew about evolution but had no theory of how it worked, just as Darwin discovered how it worked, but knew nothing of the genetic mutations that enabled it to work.
P.s false views of many things. You might even call it IMAGINARY.. A detail, false views can be misperceptions/illusions of Real things. e.g patterns and regular structures in nature, as well as selected correlations into meaningful events or pareidolia (bugga, I knew I couldn't spell that) is not the same thing as imaginary which itself isn't the same as delusionary.
A mirage is an illusion - a real thing misinterpreted. E'g, a mirage, or the appearance of solidity of matter and indeed everything the universe appears to be.
A delusion is a mental thing - believing that Someone is following you about, spying on you and poisoning your reputation to anyone who will listen (I won't go into how one gradually identified a claim as delusonary rather something that is really going on).
An imagined thing is a bit related, to both of those, where Unknowns are filled with comforting or convenient explanations that have no validity but are things we know of, or have delusions, about projected into the unknowns (like where did the universe come from?) or unexplaineds like 'what makes lightning or comets?'. There are still people today who think that lightning or comets are signs of divine displeasure or prophetic warnings.
But don't you go 'deprecating' such persons, now, just because of their odd beliefs.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 06-07-2018 at 05:21 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
" side in that "nones" seems to be on the increase, and they (I believe) ARE more receptive to the idea of atheism, humanism and secularism, while indeed many irreligious theists, while being "Nones" in thought (perhaps like Ozzy here) will still after a pause, put down 'Christian', rather than 'None'. 
. In any case, the more acceptable word is there: "Humanist". (secularist is almost as bad as atheist) which includes atheism but also covers theists who accept the value of secularist thought, society and ethics. It also includes irreligious theism (which "Agnosticism" really means) but not exclusively. 
) come to, as in Matt Dillahunty (who since he saw that studying "Philosophy" - which really is knowing the misuse of philosophic fallacies in a sophisticated form to make a case for religion - was really necessary if you want to cope with ALL apologetics, is probably one of the best atheist apologist ever) says: "I want to believe as many true things as possible, and disbelieve as many false thing as possible".
!00% certainty is of course not possible, and is merely a metaphor for Faith. And Faith (picking a theory you like or being fed one as a kid, and then refusing to listen to anything that contradicts), is a terrible way of trying to get at the truth. The only method (beating even the mind -experiments of philosophy, which is the only other method that's a close second) that produces reliable, consistent results that stand up to hard examination, is science, even if finding 'errors' means that they are built on (1) by later information and revisions.
) there are many religions, but only one science. 
