Atheist, Politics and God

a reply to: Krazysh0t

just as an aside: atheism as a major world view developed most dramatically during the enlightenment. they began judging ancient history based on their understanding of science, which at the time, hadn't developed the science of archaeology, nor did they know the first thing about genetics, many physics issues, flight, or space related sciences. so the question for many (yours included) is - how can you call something impossible and therefore mythological, when many of the so-called impossibilities are actually easily proven with science today? example: flying in the sky, impregnation without intercourse (artificial insemination), copying a lifeform in your own image (cloning) and so on.

a reply to: undo

Faulty reasoning. Just because we have overcome things that were thought to be impossible before doesn't make all claims that humans have dreamed up in the past to be likely true.

Occam's Razor says that the version with the least amount of assumptions is likely the correct one. God is a complete assumption since there is zero evidence for its existence. Don't get me wrong though, I don't for a second claim that God doesn't exist, just that I'm not going to say God does exist either.

a reply to: undo

Doesn't the discovery and use of those scientific breakthroughs, the science of flight, cloning and In vitro fertilization, demystify and expose any beings claiming to be "God(s)" as fraudulent?

originally posted by: undo
if either atheism or theism leads to atrocities by the state, the obvious answer is, each human being needs to be free to decide for him or herself, and no one group/single individual should be allowed to make law for everyone else. you decide what your destiny is, not the state. you decide when to die, not the state. the state is darth vader on steroids.

some theistic religions lead to atrocity by the state...

Islam for instance... yeah those beheading videos freak me out a little bit, bu that is not all of Islam, they are warring amongst eachother in like 3 main factions.

I have come to admit and have to accept all of Islam is not bad.

a reply to: Prezbo369

Differences in beliefs led to the atrocities you mention, not specifically the rejection of the multiple claims for multiple gods.

Unless you can show that specifically the lack of belief has led to the atrocities?

Then the same should be said of theism. Differences in beliefs.

originally posted by: AinElohim

originally posted by: undo
if either atheism or theism leads to atrocities by the state, the obvious answer is, each human being needs to be free to decide for him or herself, and no one group/single individual should be allowed to make law for everyone else. you decide what your destiny is, not the state. you decide when to die, not the state. the state is darth vader on steroids.

some theistic religions lead to atrocity by the state...

Islam for instance... yeah those beheading videos freak me out a little bit, bu that is not all of Islam, they are warring amongst eachother in like 3 main factions.

I have come to admit and have to accept all of Islam is not bad.

No ALL religions lead to atrocity by the state. Christianity is JUST as littered as Islam is with theocracies that have committed atrocities against its citizens. The Inquisition and witch hunts come to mind. Judaism get its start as a wandering band of mercenaries (no they weren't wondering bands of slaves like they like to claim but guns for hire). Even Buddhism has its share of crazies in charge.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: undo

Faulty reasoning. Just because we have overcome things that were thought to be impossible before doesn't make all claims that humans have dreamed up in the past to be likely true.

Occam's Razor says that the version with the least amount of assumptions is likely the correct one. God is a complete assumption since there is zero evidence for its existence. Don't get me wrong though, I don't for a second claim that God doesn't exist, just that I'm not going to say God does exist either.

but that was the reasoning that was used to discount it.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: undo

Doesn't the discovery and use of those scientific breakthroughs, the science of flight, cloning and In vitro fertilization, demystify and expose any beings claiming to be "God(s)" as fraudulent?

dunno. depends on if it was ever meant to be mystical in the first place. "mystical" assumes it's not explainable with science and i'm thinking that may be a false narrative. the supernatural concept is perhaps misunderstood, as to me it sounds like nature that's been accelerated in some fashion.

a reply to: undo

No, the reasoning used to discount god is simple, no evidence exists to corroborate the claim. In the world of proof and evidence, the person making the claim produces the evidence. Religion makes the claim of god, so they have to produce the evidence. No evidence is forthcoming, therefore existence is denied.

Technically an atheist isn't making a claim. They are just rejecting someone else's claim. The reason for this is that an atheist wouldn't exist if no one was making a claim that god exists. There is no need to actively think about what we don't believe in, especially if no one imagines it.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

wrong part of the argument. the original argument against ancient texts in general, is that the events described in them were scientifically impossible, and they made these decisions using 18th century scientific understanding, before even the advent of archaeology.

so the question goes back to: are we tilting with strawman narratives in the first place.

a reply to: AinElohim

sorry not interested in a theocracy.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Prezbo369

Differences in beliefs led to the atrocities you mention, not specifically the rejection of the multiple claims for multiple gods.

Unless you can show that specifically the lack of belief has led to the atrocities?

Then the same should be said of theism. Differences in beliefs.

Then maybe you shouldn't have singled out atheists.....what you seemingly meant to say was as the world is made up of only atheists and theists, people in general of all types and creeds lead to atrocities....

a reply to: undo

But they still ARE scientifically impossible. Science hasn't changed to a degree that says otherwise since the 18th century. In fact newer science continues to say they are scientifically impossible. So I'm not sure what you are getting at here.

originally posted by: AinElohim

no game sir/ma'am

I only debate in the Socratic method, when I see someone here educated enough in philosophy I will oblige.

That's my favorite method!

I think you just can't find a way to explain all the immoral acts of God!

Oh well.. few theists make the attempt.

Instead they blame atheists entirely for the woes of the world.

Atheism has lead to the most destructive wars?
Christopher Hitchens and Peter Hitchens: God and War (2008).

Jump to 1:40:40-1:48:45 for relevant part or click above link.
(Not sure how to embed YouTube videos to start at certain time)

a reply to: Prezbo369

Then maybe you shouldn't have singled out atheists.....what you seemingly meant to say was as the world is made up of only atheists and theists, people in general of all types and creeds lead to atrocities....

But I'm talking about atheists. When we speak about something, we usually single that something out.

I stated explicitly that history has shown political atheism to have a horrible track record when it comes to ethics. Because you feel singled out does not mean my statement is any less true. In the same paragraph I said both atheism and theism do not belong in ethics, and that both have failed in that regard. So cheer up; you're in good company.

But who cares about history right?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: undo

But they still ARE scientifically impossible. Science hasn't changed to a degree that says otherwise since the 18th century. In fact newer science continues to say they are scientifically impossible. So I'm not sure what you are getting at here.

artificial insemination (virgin birth) not impossible. cloning (creating in the image of) is not scientifically impossible. flying in the sky is not scientifically impossible. destroying whole cities in a single moment, not impossible. invisibility, not impossible. raising people from the dead, not impossible. not sure on the multiplying of food (bread and fish), though.

originally posted by: undo
raising people from the dead, not impossible.

Hmm wat?

Since when?

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Prezbo369
But I'm talking about atheists. When we speak about something, we usually single that something out.

You're kinda missing the point. You say that both theism and atheism led to atrocities, and as both groups encompass every individual that has ever existed, you may have just said 'people with heads lead to atrocities'....

I stated explicitly that history has shown political atheism to have a horrible track record when it comes to ethics. Because you feel singled out does not mean my statement is any less true. In the same paragraph I said both atheism and theism do not belong in ethics, and that both have failed in that regard. So cheer up; you're in good company.

But who cares about history right?

Well you do have to get it right....

The rejection of the existence of God's doesn't lead to anything except the rejection of the existence of Gods.

Anything else attached to that viewpoint is entirely separate and unrelated.

Stain et al did those things because they were maniacs, to blame it on a lack of God's makes about as much sense as blaming it on their moustaches.

originally posted by: AinElohim

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
Most atheists are just as kind and caring as believers...
Tolerant too.

I don't believe that...

When you get down to that which matters most, they fall short and fail in morals and ethics.

Also history teaches us that this is something we should be very cautious of, unbelievers are dangerous in my opinion.

Sensing a threat of danger invokes preemptism...

You hit a new high score in WRONG here.

www.livescience.com...
www.livescience.com...
news.sciencemag.org...