Why are Atheists Atheists?

Lonewolf37,

As you can see from previous posts, there has been no suggestion from this side of the argument that atheists feel themselves more intelligent than the 'faithful'. On the contrary, we have had to defend ourselves against accusations from GreatTech that the opposite is true.

Looking at the situation in a slightly different way, atheists see that there are many different religions throughout the world who's followers believe in a multitude of different 'Gods' (all of whom they claim to be the creator) and in different holy books, which present different values and philosophies. Simply, you cannot all be correct.

Virtually all argument on this thread in support of the 'existence of God' has been from a Christian point of view. Equally it could have been from an Islamic, Jewish, Buddhist or Hindu perspective - but it has not. One could deduce from this that those religions are more tolerant than Christianity, however history negates that proposition.

If we overlook for one moment the distorted interpretation of the Koran by such as OBL for political ends, then we see that Christianity (one of the youngest of the world's religions) is the most vocal in claiming the high ground. This is in spite of the fact that the Christian holy book, has been re-written and translated over the centuries, with amendments to content and context admitted by all concerned. Also without question is the fact that the New Testament was written a considerable time after the events that it depicts, and it is evident that at least some of the gospels, if not all, were written by other than those who's views they represent. It is also beyond question that there are other gospels which were deleted from the Bible in appeasement to the Romans. Therefore to say that the Bible is the unalterable word of 'God' is a very shaky argument.

Simply put, most atheists have examined the world's religions and made the conscious decision that all of them are flawed (a concept you would agree with, with the exception of your own religion). That is not to say that any atheist does not agree with the standards of behaviour laid down by any or all of the religions of the world. Atheists see that all the religions of the world have been responsible, at one time or another for the deaths of many millions of people, simply because their foe (victims?) have dared to disagree with their beliefs.

In fact the religion that stands out as the most peaceful is Buddhism. An odd situation, really, as Buddha insisted that he was neither 'God' nor an incarnation of 'God'. This fact is overlooked by most present-day followers of Buddha, although there still exists branches of Buddhism that recognise that part of his teachings.

The fact there is a balance between elements of the universe could just as easily be explained by the laws of equilibrium - laws which dictate that two elements in opposition will find their own (predictable) balance. This does not infer that an omnipotent being created the balance or the physical laws the govern that balance.

I agree with your philosophical point that proof destroys faith, and this quite rightly explains the Christian church's opposition to scientific enquiry throughout the centuries. That it is scientific enquiry which has lead to the elimination of many diseases and advanced mankind on this planet, puts the church at odds with humanity. In hindsight, it becomes obvious that the motivation for the church's actions are not the work of your God, but the power hungry aspirations of the church's human leaders throughout Christian history.

Also of concern to atheists, is that much of what theists say about their Gods is based on a fear of the actions of their God (usually in an afterlife). Is this not oppression as exhibited by most dictatorships and many monarchies (merely an institutionalised form of hereditary dictatorship). One could therefore say that you believe in oppression as a legitimate form of rule over humanity.

You say that it is a simple thing to have 'faith' (in your particular God), but to atheists that would be to abandon logic and reason. When logic and reason are lost all that is left is chaos. This has often been paraphrased as 'When logic and reason are lost all that is left is faith.' Ergo, in this context Faith=Choas.

The Winged Wombat


[edit on 14/4/07 by The Winged Wombat]

The Winged Wombat, I never suggested that theists are more intelligent than atheists. I have suggested that theists frequently are more developed Spiritually than atheists and atheists frequently are more developed scientifically. Theists are frequently good at wisdom while atheists are frequently good at knowledge.

There is no accurate measure of intelligence unless it is measured by God and we were all created equal.

Still comparing me with OBL is ridiculous. If you scrupulously read this thread, you will find this claim to be false, mendacious, and spurious.

Originally posted by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal

I am God

Who are you? What is the weather going to be in each part of Antarctica in the next 3.000017874927463564 seconds?

Originally posted by GreatTech

Still comparing me with OBL is ridiculous. If you scrupulously read this thread, you will find this claim to be false, mendacious, and spurious.

Personally I found the comparison to be none of those things ... I found it somewhat accurate and amusing.

The obvious point being made that there are certain individuals in every religion that are extremely righteous and can not see any point of view but theirs. In fact this self-centered lifestyle and approach has become prevalent in many aspects of the world.

Personally, I think if there is really a god out there somewhere. His true intentions and any true teachings or words that he attempted to give us have long been manipulated by humans for their own purposes. Power corrupts, including the power that most religions and churches have held over their members.

Originally posted by GreatTech

Who are you? What is the weather going to be in each part of Antarctica in the next 3.000017874927463564 seconds?

I Am. God is I Am according to you, is "HE" not? Well I am I am too, therefore I am God and I command you to view me as the Existence.

What is the weather going to be in each part of Antarctica in the next 3.000017874927463564 seconds?

Duh....... Cold !

Oh Dear, I must be God too (maybe I did create the universe after all), well you learn something new every day.

[edit on 15/4/07 by The Winged Wombat]

[edit on 15/4/07 by The Winged Wombat]

Originally posted by SmallMindsBigIdeas

Originally posted by GreatTech

Still comparing me with OBL is ridiculous. If you scrupulously read this thread, you will find this claim to be false, mendacious, and spurious.

Personally I found the comparison to be none of those things ... I found it somewhat accurate and amusing.

OBL is apparently very violent, a criminal, and anti-American. I am one probably one of the least violent people in history, a law-abiding citizen, and pro-American. End of story.

God Bless!!!

GreatTech,

Throughout this debate you have claimed everything from morality and wisdom to longer lifespan exclusively for the followers of your particular faith. Casually dropping in your claim of high IQ, at the very least, infers that you think you have greater intelligence (which neither infers wisdom or the correctness of your argument) than those to whom you preach. You have continually failed to address any comparison between you 'God' and any other religion's 'God' as if atheism only applied to a non-belief in your 'God'. Therefore, I can but conclude that you believe that any concept of 'God' is the sole right of your particular religion.

You have responded in such a way that I have no choice but to believe that you feel that logic/reason and 'God' are mutually exclusive. While this may be true of any attempt to prove the existence of a 'God', it is not true of life or history.

I feel that you have exhibited a trait becoming all too prevalent today. Let me call it 'magic bullet syndrome'.

This trait seems to have begun with the discovery of penicillin. It was going to cure all the diseases of the world! Likewise genetics. The internet was supposed to bring the world together in greater understanding and freedom of information. In contrast, it has highlighted the problems of the interpretation of the written word and the translation of language, while providing a broader platform for those who wish to spread mis-information, untempered and unfettered by accountability or verification.

The current magic bullet seems to be Omega3 fatty acids, which is claimed, among other things, to improve the intelligence of one's unborn children. Billions of dollars are being spent on research into this, while overlooking the basic reasoning that if all this could possibly be true then the children of Japan's (or any other country's) coastal fishing fleets must be the most intelligent people on earth! (a case not evident). In fact the situation around the Port of Sydney, Australia, is that the children of the local fishermen (who consume a diet very high in fish - and therefore Omega 3) are in far greater danger of mercury poisoning than of winning a Nobel Prize.

You appear to have adopted the object of your worship (whatever you wish to call it) as your magic bullet (and I'm sure you are not alone in that) for all that could possibly happen in the universe, or personally to yourself, while excluding all logic and reason.
On a person level, I would be interested in your personal opinion of your opponents within this debate - not your assessment of their intelligence (U2U me by all means, if you wish). Do you consider us the work of your 'God', the 'children of the Satan', aliens, people sent by your 'God' to test your faith, a figment of your imagination, something else perhaps?

GreatTech, there is no magic bullet, there never was and there never will be. Each problem of humanity must be tackled individually with ALL the resources at our disposal, always keeping in mind the consequences of the 'cure'. All too often the 'cure' has created more problems than the 'disease'.

The Winged Wombat

Originally posted by GreatTech

OBL is apparently very violent, a criminal, and anti-American. I am one probably one of the least violent people in history, a law-abiding citizen, and pro-American. End of story.

God Bless!!!

GreatTech,

And there are still similarities in your thought patterns with OBL - you have merely pointed out your differences, without addressing the similarities. And incidentally OBL obviously does not see himself as a criminal, because he sees himself as doing his 'God's' work and justifies his actions accordingly - much the same as yourself, really.

So being pro-American is a 'good' attribute, is it? If you took the time to look, you would find that most of the world disagrees with American policy. In this respect you are far outnumbered - and if you are outnumbered in your view and still persist, then that is not democratic. A very xenophobic view, I'm afraid. Are you suggesting that Nationalism is a wonderful thing? Adolf Hitler did - it worked for him for a while. Personally I think Nationalism is one of the most divisive influences in history - when I see sports such as the Olympic games, I don't see competition between nations, I see competition between individual athletes, otherwise it is just an institutionalised form of war (which indeed its origins may have been). That, for instance, Tiger Woods is a superb athlete and a talented exponant of his game, reflects in no way at all on the fact that he was born in America.

Which laws do you obey, 'God's' or America's ? Are America's laws and justice system perfect (remembering the incarceration rate in America v the rest of the world)? If they are not perfect and you aspire to 'God's' perfection, why do you comply with America's laws?

I feel you left out something from your last line.....

'God Bless America (and sod everyone else)'

If, as you claim to believe, in a almighty creator/God then nationality, or ethnicity should not come into your thinking (for your faith expounds that we are all created equal) and certainly not into any discussion of your 'God'. By linking the two you are claiming 'God' exculsively for your country.

The Winged Wombat


[edit on 15/4/07 by The Winged Wombat]

Originally posted by GreatTech
OBL is apparently very violent, a criminal, and anti-American.

alright

I am one probably one of the least violent people in history, a law-abiding citizen, and pro-American. End of story.

you completely miss the comparison, he was saying that you're a religious extremist just like OBL

One thing that bothers me particularly is the concept of nationality. A nation or country is only a geographical region, defined by an arbitrary border. These borders have been redefined throughout human history and will continue to be so. The policies of a 'country' can only be defined as the collective views of the people who live within the country, as defined by its borders, and expressed for those people by the elected, or otherwise, representatives of that country.

Most country's borders are defined by geography, however others are quite arbitrary, especially in the Middle East. The borders of most of the ME countries were actually set by agreement between the Imperial powers during the early to mid 20th Century (Britain, France, etc). To speak, for instance, of the country of Iraq, is somewhat deceptive, because the borders of Iraq were never set by Iraqis (rather they were set by Britain) and since Britain no longer administers Iraq, then it is only political considerations that maintain those borders. Ethnically the Middle East has changed little in the last 2000 years, when it was essentially one single 'country'.

Therefore, to say that one is pro- or anti- any particular country is a political statement, for one is saying that one's views are in agreement with the views as expressed by the country's representatives.

To say, for instance that one is pro-America, or anti-America is an over-simplification. One may be pro-America's lifestyle, or anti-America's foreign policy, but one must be specific. To say that one is pro-America is to encompass everything that happens within the physical borders of America - the good, the bad and the irreconcilable.

In GreatTech's case, to be pro-American, does that mean that he wants America to win more gold medals than anyone else at the next Olympics, or does it mean he endorses George Bush's foreign policy (he has stated that he does not), or perhaps it means that he thinks that America's incarceration rate (higher than any other developed country) is a 'good' thing? One must be specific. Perhaps GreatTech regards the term 'Pro-American' as one of the almost infinite number of meaningless labels that are placed on people these days.

Go ahead, put a label on me, and I will guarantee that the label will include things that I am not.

The Winged Wombat


[edit on 16/4/07 by The Winged Wombat]

I’m going to give GreatTech what he wants. You’re right GreatTech. I as an Agnostic Atheist am absolutely furious with the God of the Bible. My anger towards this pathetic God is beyond your imagination. His cowardice and jealous behaviour is just infuriating. I hate him with all my heart and I’d much rather side with Satan simply out of spite.

Now the problem is this, I don’t actually believe the God of the Bible exists; therefore everything I wrote above really has no relative meaning.

If we make pretend that a God exist there are several other God’s I hate with all my being, just as there are some I’m indifferent towards and there are a few I even rather like. However, the God of the Bible is an asshole.

May you suffer in Hell,

All the theories of God are uninformed, imo, because God is beyond human minds to grasp, if real. If not, nothing changes for me. It is a moot point. Atheists likely are atheists because they see the idea that there is no God makes the most sense to them. It is hard to find a more rational view, to me anyway. They don't buy it, thats why.

Originally posted by GreatTech
The Winged Wombat, I never suggested that theists are more intelligent than atheists. I have suggested that theists frequently are more developed Spiritually than atheists and atheists frequently are more developed scientifically. Theists are frequently good at wisdom while atheists are frequently good at knowledge.

There is no accurate measure of intelligence unless it is measured by God and we were all created equal.

Still comparing me with OBL is ridiculous. If you scrupulously read this thread, you will find this claim to be false, mendacious, and spurious.

It is like a circle with a dot in the center, the dot is God, and the circle is all the different faiths. I heard that once, and liked it. Atheists are no less Godly or spiritually advanced than any other people, and faith has got nothing to do with wisdom. Knowledge is nothing without charity, love, compassion, etc. It is my recently accepted view that knowledge is not worth a thing compared to love. I see no difference in scientific potential or spiritual growth in any group as a whole, its a personal thing.

Originally posted by BlackGuardXIII
All the theories of God are uninformed, imo, because God is beyond human minds to grasp, if real.

i just want to point out that there are no THEORIES dealing with god, just a bunch of hypotheses

The Winged Wombat, why do you characterize me as an extremist? Notice that in this thread I have never suggested that one religion is better than another (I happen to be Catholic, as I have learned more from this religion than any other). I only sometimes encourage people to believe in God. This might be considered altruism in the earth-life point of view and the afterlife point of view. The benefits of belief in God are short-term, medium-term, long-term, longest-term, and Eternity. This may not be fully evident in the short-term (a period of penance), but clearly seen in the medium-term, long-term, longest-term, and Eternity.

You are impressive verbally, but frequently you twist words around. Often I wonder if you would say that Mother Teresa is very much like Charles Manson, Ted Bundy, and OBL. Words can be so misused and because of this I am a lover of mathematics where words are rarely misused. Please do not jump to conclusions where there is no evidence.

By the way, I love all people including Australians and alway want the best for all in the earth-life and the afterlife.

How do we discourage violence? One approach is to encourage people to believe in the afterlife as what you did to others you receive back in full. Just my humble belief.

Originally posted by GreatTech
Please do not jump to conclusions where there is no evidence.

You believe in god but you don't like others "jumping to conclusions where there is no evidence". Isn't that the underlying definition of a religious faith??

Originally posted by SmallMindsBigIdeas
You believe in god but you don't like others "jumping to conclusions where there is no evidence". Isn't that the underlying definition of a religious faith??

SmallMindsBigIdeas, as I asked earlier in this thread: how do you prove that you exist? Do you need a reference point? Is this reference point infinite or finite in time?

GreatTech,

Oh we're back on that again are we?

The proof that I exist is that you wish to convert me. If I did not exist then you would be trying to convert something that doesn't exist, and that would be just plain silly - just like the question! Therefore in this context, you are the reference point of my existance, because I believe that you exist. You can even take this further and say that the reference point of my existance is that 'MY belief' - yep - that I believe you exist, therefore, logically I must exist, because you debate with me. QED.

The problem with the written word is that it can be interpreted in a multitude of ways. I am retired, but for twenty years I worked in a profession that was governed by a written set of rules - several volumes, in fact. During that twenty years, I observed those rules entirely re-written three times. The job didn't change, so I can only interpret those volumes of rules as a failed attempt to write down how the job was done. The proof of this is to actually do the job one is required to be taught one-on-one by an experienced exponent of the job. The real problem was that people existed who would quote the rules while watching a disaster happen before their eyes instead of looking at the basic reason for the job and the basic aim of the job. Often, parts of the rules had to be re-written to cover a specific situation, only to be re-written again because that solution adversely affected, or contradicted so many of the other rules! The job was Air Traffic Control, and the basic tenet is 'Stop the aluminium tubes from hitting one another!' If you do that - you win - you are a success. If you have to break the rules to do it, then the rules ARE wrong! From this kind of example, perhaps you can see the limitations of the written word - always open to different interpretations or alternatively far most wide sweeping than the writer ever intended. In fact millions of people worldwide are employed specifically to 'mis-interpret' very carefully written tax laws for the benefit of their clients (they call them loopholes - but they are merely the limitations of written language). I'll leave you to work out the limitations of a 'Holy Book' written about 2000 years ago in a different and now extinct language.

Once again you did not address the points directed at you (but then I guess you never will - even to yourself). Which laws do you obey, those of the Catholic Church, or the laws of America, where they are in conflict?

I know quite a considerable amount concerning Catholicism - my wife is one - and she doesn't behave as you do. (and I'm particularly pleased SHE is not celibate !). I call you a religious extremist, because your behaviour and attitude fit the definition of a religious extremist - look up the definition for yourself. Then examine your behaviour. My wife isn't - you are!

We are not bending your words, simply quoting them back to you as we interpret them (obviously an interpretation you don't want to hear or address). Every time you make a sweeping statement, you must remember that it may not only apply to what YOU want it to apply to (if that makes any sense, when written). You may well believe that we are talking to one another, but we aren't - we are using the written word with all the inherent limitations that implies.

How do you know you love Australians - how many have you met - what do you know of Australia? - Do you even know where it is ? (I ask this because there was a street survey done in the USA - by an Australian TV station - and about 90% of respondents thought we were somewhere in Europe or on the Asian continent - with the caviat that I'm wary of such things because all TV stations edit their material to suit the story they wish to tell).

The threat of retribution has been proven NOT to be a deterent to crime or violence, therefore your statement is incorrect. As someone said today concerning the shootings in Virginia..... after killing the first two people, the shooter had no deterent at all in shooting the rest - he was already facing life in prison (or had the crime been in another State, the death sentence - and presumably, if he believed in an afterlife, then 'God's' wrath). The ONLY deterrent to violence is tolerance and understanding.

Once again I'll re-introduce OBL. Since he believes he is doing HIS 'God's' work and he believes that when he dies, he will go to a glorious afterlife due to his committment to his 'God' - then where is the deterent? (Please note - I am not comparing OBL to you in any way here - just using him as an example - I could equally use an example from the Spanish Inquisition, but that would involve the Roman Catholic Church - and I wouldn't want you to take the example personally).

No, I don't see any similarities in the utterances of the four people/characters you mentioned, but I do see similarities in the utterances of OBL and yourself. Live with it! Saying that OBL is violent and you aren't violent does not address anything I said, because I didn't say you were violent, and never intended to say such a thing because I don't believe that you are violent. Stop trying to read into something things that just are not there. 'I see similarities in the utterances of OBL and yourself' - it is a statement of what I see - not a point of debate - unless you wish to dispute that it is what I see!

The Winged Wombat
PS - I have examined this post very carefully, in case I might have 'twisted any of your words', but I cannot see any instance of it - by all means advise me of any specific words that you feel I might have 'twisted'

[edit on 17/4/07 by The Winged Wombat]

Originally posted by GreatTech
I would say glory, ecstasy, and happiness to all no matter what there beliefs. Do you want the real truth to the following two questions?

Why are atheists atheists? God.

Why are theists theists? God.

We are all along for the ride!!! (I dare to say that Eternal Conversion is possible for any being in any fraction of a second). If you coughed most of the night two months ago, why? God. If you had an accident in your pants three months ago, why? God. If you kissed your wife last night, why? God. If you saw your son smile this morning, why? God.

Since you believe that atheists are atheists because God made them so, what is the point of trying to convert them? Isn't that going against God's plan since God made them that way?

Since everything we do, have done or are going to do is by God's will, then Free Will is a lie. It doesn't matter what we do, it was God who directed our actions.

For you to come here and argue your points to the atheist and for atheist to answer your questions back is a design by God.

Question is what is the point? What do we learn from all of this. we are in for a roller coaster ride? A computer game? What is there to judge when our actions are not our own? a simulation only for you?

Good acts done by God, Bad acts God is not responsible.

How exactly does this make you a better person? Sounds like a brainwashing simulation to me.

Can't question Gods designs? Best defendsive statement ever invented, nothing can argue against that. I guess we don't have to take responsiblity for any of our actions.

You are right, sometimes I do envy the religious....