Support NeoGAF

[speculawyer]

Well, then, can you talk to Asmodai and clear him up, lol? But, of course, the ideal world would be a secular world where people left their beliefs to themselves.

I agree. But there are too many people who push their views on others through laws or violence.

 

[kevm3]

Are you honestly implying that countries like Saudi Arabia are richer than Western European states like Switzerland?

The darker purple the color, the higher the GDP per capita, the more prosperous the nation. Tell me if your Gulf oil states are the most prosperous. They aren't even close.

I almost can't believe how ignorant you are. That is not an insult, it is a fact. If anything you should be embarrassed to enter a discussion of which you know next to nothing about. For your own sake, educate yourself.



I gave you general trends, you wrongly assumed I was talking in absolutes. Your fault, not mine.

But was atheism responsible for the wealth in a country such as Switzerland or did it develop after the country had already developed considerable wealth?

To me, it seems wealthy societies are more tolerant ones due to less need for a strict ideology for members to adhere to for immediate survival. These wealthier, tolerant societies are ones where a greater variety of beliefs can flourish, including nonbelief. We can flip the coin and say that many of the greatest civilizations had a strong religious element to them, including the Greeks and Romans. This isn't to say that their faith was the direct cause of their great civilization. It IS to say that the greatness of a civilization ultimately rests on the tolerance of its members to create new ideas... and that intolerance isn't exclusive to 'the religious.' You can have highly tolerant and diverse societies that have a predominant religion, and you can have secular societies that are highly intolerant. It ultimately comes down to whether a society's leaders choose to brace tolerance or intolerance... neither of which is exclusive to belief of a God or inbelief. Elevation of an ideology, whether its a secular ideology or a religious one, above concern for humanity is where these tragedies ultimately derive.

 

[DevelopmentArrested]

Well, then, can you talk to Asmodai and clear him up, lol? But, of course, the ideal world would be a secular world where people left their beliefs to themselves.

Sounds perfect to me. You want atheists to just not care (easier to believe when you have no counterpart or critical responses); while I want people to be allowed to believe what they want - just to keep it to their fucking selves. capiche?

Communist leaders in Russia were atheist and they did all kinds of terrible things similarly to how religious people carried out terrible things.

They did it because they were atheist right - in the name of religion or lackof and all? please stop falling into the same fallacy.

 

[SoulPlaya]

I don't think so? Maybe, but I mean... it's seems weird to call it that. It's just not believing.



No. It's just... nothing. Atheism shouldn't even be a word.



That's exactly what it is. It's nothing.


I guess if you wanted to word it like that you could. But I don't see why you would.



If you are truly Atheist you don't believe in any religions yes. But are you claiming that caring about religion is now also a tenant of Atheism? (ugh)



I specifically said that I cannot 'prove' anything that will ever happen in the future, as that is theoretically impossible. But I mean, why would homosexuals still be persecuted in a secular world?

OK, I get what Atheism is. It's founded on the idea (whatever you want to call it) that we are born with no "concept" of God in our minds. And Atheists simply stick to that state of being. No belief in God, good or bad, right? But, if you can still be an Atheist who is against religion, can't you become extremist? Can't you persecute religious people for their beliefs? These things are possible, right? Well, then, we could just be trading in one persecution for another.

 

[Druz]

OK, I get what Atheism is. It's founded on the idea (whatever you want to call it) that we are born with no "concept" of God in our minds. And Atheists simply stick to that state of being. No belief in God, good or bad, right? But, if you can still be an Atheist who is against religion, can't you become extremist? Can't you persecute religious people for their beliefs? These things are possible, right? Well, then, we could just be trading in one persecution for another.

Hahaha.. I like how you're smearing things together in your conquest for bullshit.

 

[KHarvey16]

OK, I get what Atheism is. It's founded on the idea (whatever you want to call it) that we are born with no "concept" of God in our minds. And Atheists simply stick to that state of being. No belief in God, good or bad, right? But, if you can still be an Atheist who is against religion, can't you become extremist? Can't you persecute religious people for their beliefs? These things are possible, right? Well, then, we could just be trading in one persecution for another.

Do you honestly see this as a strong argument?

 

[SoulPlaya]

Yeah, the royal family of Saudi Arabia rolls in cash from oil money, so clearly it's the richest country on the planet, even if 90% of the population lives in abject poverty. :lol

I'm done wasting time with you. You don't make an effort to understand even the most rudimentary concept, instead asking misguided and irrelevant questions time and time again.

No offense, man, but if we took a survey here, I think you're the one who would come off looking silly. You're the one just making up shit now. 90% of the country lives in poverty? Your whole original concept was dumb to begin with. You're trying to argue that being Atheist makes you wealthier, and you tried to prove a causal relationship by pointing out correlations. You need to learn some basic concepts.

 

[BobsRevenge]

OK, I get what Atheism is. It's founded on the idea (whatever you want to call it) that we are born with no "concept" of God in our minds. And Atheists simply stick to that state of being. No belief in God, good or bad, right? But, if you can still be an Atheist who is against religion, can't you become extremist? Can't you persecute religious people for their beliefs? These things are possible, right? Well, then, we could just be trading in one persecution for another.

Actually we are born with a concept of spirituality. There is a spiritual part of the brain that is activated by thought about spirituality and such. (edit: Evolutionarily this makes sense because in the course of human history the concept of spirituality is pretty obviously selected for in most societies.)

But the idea is that since there isn't any scientific support for a God there is no reason to believe one exists. Its basically applying the scientific method to spirituality.

Persecution is a human tendency, and evolutionarily it makes sense that it exists. It will happen regardless of religious beliefs.

 

[SoulPlaya]

Do you honestly see this as a strong argument?

Of course not, all I'm trying to point out are possibilities, and trying to show how unpredictable the future can be. I'm simply trying to show that one can't be so absolute in thinking that Atheism would make the world better.

 

[soul creator]

OK, I get what Atheism is. It's founded on the idea (whatever you want to call it) that we are born with no "concept" of God in our minds. And Atheists simply stick to that state of being. No belief in God, good or bad, right? But, if you can still be an Atheist who is against religion, can't you become extremist? Can't you persecute religious people for their beliefs? These things are possible, right? Well, then, we could just be trading in one persecution for another.

I don't think anyone's disputed that it's certainly possible that random atheists can be asshole extremists. All people are saying is that none of that follows from atheism in and of itself, since, well, atheism is just a descriptor.

Now, an atheist can be an asshole extremist due to some other authoritarian and restrictive ideology. Which, once again, no one disputes. And you'll probably likely find that a lot of modern atheists are against those ideologies as well, precisely because they act like authoritarian religions, even if they don't technically have gods :lol

Even in the most fair and equal society that's completely free from patriarchy, you'd still have some misogynists. But that doesn't all of a sudden mean that discouraging patriarchy is therefore pointless and we should never strive for it, or that I simply have "faith" that removing patriarchy would lead to a better society.

You seem to be trying to force people into absolutes when no one is even arguing that.

 

[Sibylus]

OK, I get what Atheism is. It's founded on the idea (whatever you want to call it) that we are born with no "concept" of God in our minds. And Atheists simply stick to that state of being. No belief in God, good or bad, right? But, if you can still be an Atheist who is against religion, can't you become extremist? Can't you persecute religious people for their beliefs? These things are possible, right? Well, then, we could just be trading in one persecution for another.

Someone who doesn't believe in God(s) could do extreme and horrible things, yes. But what you need to realize is that there is no commandment or tenet of atheism that calls for horrible things, nor does it even technically call for good things either. Atheism is lack of belief in God or gods, that's as far as it extends.

Everyone on the planet being atheistic isn't going to make the world a better place. A large portion of the world being secular humanists, however, that would probably make things a lot better.

 

[KHarvey16]

Of course not, all I'm trying to point out are possibilities, and trying to show how unpredictable the future can be. I'm simply trying to show that one can't be so absolute in thinking that Atheism would make the world better.

Looking at this from the perspective of the sort of person who would argue the world would be a better place without religion, your argument is a bit like contending that not standing in a lightning storm isn't a guarantee you won't be hit by lightning. It isn't a meaningful thing to say really.

 

[speculawyer]

You can also see where it'd make things worse.

I am an atheist, but I'm not against religion at all. The vast majority of religious people are extremely nice and not fanatical.

Yeah . . . and all those criminals, alcoholics, and drug abusers that are saved by <fill in religion> . . . that is great. More power to them. I'm glad it works for them.

 

[SoulPlaya]

I don't think anyone's disputed that it's certainly possible that random atheists can be asshole extremists. All people are saying is that none of that follows from atheism in and of itself, since, well, atheism is just a descriptor.

Now, an atheist can be an asshole extremist due to some other authoritarian and restrictive ideology. Which, once again, no one disputes. And you'll probably likely find that a lot of modern atheists are against those ideologies as well, precisely because they act like authoritarian religions, even if they don't technically have gods :lol

Even in the most fair and equal society that's completely free from patriarchy, you'd still have some misogynists. But that doesn't all of a sudden mean that discouraging patriarchy is therefore pointless and we should never strive for it, or that I simply have "faith" that removing patriarchy would lead to a better society.

You seem to be trying to force people into absolutes when no one is even arguing that.

Asmodai said this, "Nope. Read the definitions again. Many forms of atheism are considered an active rejection of theism."

Was he wrong?

 

[kevm3]

I don't think anyone's disputed that it's certainly possible that random atheists can be asshole extremists. All people are saying is that none of that follows from atheism in and of itself, since, well, atheism is just a descriptor.

Now, an atheist can be an asshole extremist due to some other authoritarian and restrictive ideology. Which, once again, no one disputes. And you'll probably likely find that a lot of modern atheists are against those ideologies as well, precisely because they act like authoritarian religions, even if they don't technically have gods :lol

Even in the most fair and equal society that's completely free from patriarchy, you'd still have some misogynists. But that doesn't all of a sudden mean that discouraging patriarchy is therefore pointless and we should never strive for it, or that I simply have "faith" that removing patriarchy would lead to a better society.

You seem to be trying to force people into absolutes when no one is even arguing that.

I can see where you're coming from. I also believe it can be said that just as there are atheists who embody different personality characteristics, on a similar note, theism can't be painted with a such a broad brush either. There are those who use their faith to persecute others and to attempt to enslave them with their beliefs. There are also those who have a belief in God, but keep their beliefs to themselves while respecting the beliefs of others.

I think what ultimately happens between the different sides is that the sides start creating caricatures of each other formed from the worst elements of each side and attack that as a reason why that side shouldn't exist. "Atheists are evil, they are faithless. They want to kill babies!" "Christians are intolerant murderers who lead crusades to force their beliefs on others!"

At the moment, I can understand why many atheists react in the fashion they do to the mainstream theistic society because they are often cast as black sheep if they let their belief, or rather, lack thereof, be known.

Intolerant majorities, especially those, who back their beliefs with violence is the true cause of much of the strife in the world.

 

[Fusebox]

OK, I get what Atheism is. It's founded on the idea (whatever you want to call it) that we are born with no "concept" of God in our minds. And Atheists simply stick to that state of being. No belief in God good or bad, right? But, if you can still be an Atheist who is against religion, can't you become extremist? Can't you persecute religious people for their beliefs? These things are possible, right? Well, then, we could just be trading in one persecution for another.

What I bolded is spot on, but being an 'extreme' Atheist is a misnomer, there's no way to be extreme about a yes or no question. Atheism doesn't automatically imply an actively anti-religious stance.

 

[Kinitari]

OK, I get what Atheism is. It's founded on the idea (whatever you want to call it) that we are born with no "concept" of God in our minds. And Atheists simply stick to that state of being. No belief in God, good or bad, right? But, if you can still be an Atheist who is against religion, can't you become extremist? Can't you persecute religious people for their beliefs? These things are possible, right? Well, then, we could just be trading in one persecution for another.

Yes it is completely possible to be a secular/atheist extremist that wants to kill all religious people or something. And it is something that we need to seriously worry about preventing, it is such a prevalent issue today, imagine what it will be like in a world much more secular/atheist than it already is. It's frightening is what it is.

If you did not catch my sarcasm, I'll be clearer. It's is completely possible, but very improbable. We can make up all sorts of things to worry about, but it doesn't mean we should worry about them.

 

[SoulPlaya]

Looking at this from the perspective of the sort of person who would argue the world would be a better place without religion, your argument is a bit like contending that not standing in a lightning storm isn't a guarantee you won't be hit by lightning. It isn't a meaningful thing to say really.

I just don't get how an Atheist world would be better. Wars over land, power, and money will still happen. Crimes will still happen, hatred would still be rampant, as would persecution. Thereotically, you could still have persecution. All it takes is a couple Atheist extremists (by using Asmodai's definition, it's a real possibility) to do terrible things. Then, bam, you've still got the same horrible world. Once again, it only takes a small minority of extremists to do these things. Put them in a poor, uneducated area (unless, of course, you believe atheism=money and education) and you've got a powdered keg. Of course, it would be a more scientific world, but that doesn't necessarily mean a good thing (science is neither bad nor good, it is what it is).

Remember, it only took a small group of religious fanatics to start fucking things up.

 

[SoulPlaya]

What I bolded is spot on, but being an 'extreme' Atheist is a misnomer, there's no way to be extreme about a yes or no question. Atheism doesn't automatically imply an actively anti-religious stance.

Yes it is completely possible to be a secular/atheist extremist that wants to kill all religious people or something. And it is something that we need to seriously worry about preventing, it is such a prevalent issue today, imagine what it will be like in a world much more secular/atheist than it already is. It's frightening is what it is.

If you did not catch my sarcasm, I'll be clearer. It's is completely possible, but very improbable. We can make up all sorts of things to worry about, but it doesn't mean we should worry about them.

The Atheists on NeoGAF really need to get together and figure this all out.

 

[Kinitari]

The Atheists on NeoGAF really need to get together and figure this all out.

I did not mean that you can be 'extreme' in your Atheism, I meant you can be an 'extremist' (i.e. someone who goes around killing all people who are religious) and be Atheist. And even that was a sarcasm heavy reply.

I just don't get how an Atheist world would be better. Wars over land, power, and money will still happen. Crimes will still happen, hatred would still be rampant, as would persecution. Thereotically, you could still have persecution. All it takes is a couple Atheist extremists (by using Asmodai's definition, it's a real possibility) to do terrible things. Then, bam, you've still got the same horrible world. Once again, it only takes a small minority of extremists to do these things. Put them in a poor, uneducated area (unless, of course, you believe atheism=money and education) and you've got a powdered keg. Of course, it would be a more scientific world, but that doesn't necessarily mean a good thing (science is neither bad nor good, it is what it is).

Remember, it only took a small group of religious fanatics to start fucking things up.

We seem to be going in circles so lets be clearer.

Wars would still happen most likely, crimes would still happen most likely, hatred etc would all still happen, sure. But many heinous and morally bankrupt ideals born from religion would cease to exist or have meaning. You are going to extremes, the world would not turn into a Utopia - but it is not unreasonable to think that many of the stupid things we go through today would no longer be issues.

Theoretically, we could all die tomorrow. Does that mean we should give up our life long aspirations?

You're thinking about things in unnecessary extremes and ignoring the actual point.

Remove religion, and a lot of problems go away. Not all, but a lot. It does not mean we should also ignore all the other problems, or allow new problems to crop up because we got rid of 1 of them. If there were a bunch of anti-religious fanatics that killed people that popped up, then -they- would be the next problem that needed to be removed. We don't just... stop after religion.

 

[soul creator]

I just don't get how an Atheist world would be better. Wars over land, power, and money will still happen. Crimes will still happen, hatred would still be rampant, as would persecution. Thereotically, you could still have persecution. All it takes is a couple Atheist extremists (by using Asmodai's definition, it's a real possibility) to do terrible things. Then, bam, you've still got the same horrible world. Once again, it only takes a small minority of extremists to do these things. Put them in a poor, uneducated area (unless, of course, you believe atheism=money and education) and you've got a powdered keg. Of course, it would be a more scientific world, but that doesn't necessarily mean a good thing (science is neither bad nor good, it is what it is).

Remember, it only took a small group of religious fanatics to start fucking things up.

gays in the US would have more rights

 

[SoulPlaya]

I did not mean that you can be 'extreme' in your Atheism, I meant you can be an 'extremist' (i.e. someone who goes around killing all people who are religious) and be Atheist. And even that was a sarcasm heavy reply.

So, theoretically you can't be an Atheist extremist, but practically (meaning REAL WORLD), you could be an Atheist . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . extremist.

 

[soul creator]

So, theoretically you can't be an Atheist extremist, but practically (meaning REAL WORLD), you could be an Atheist . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . extremist.

I can be a bald headed extremist as well, does that mean a lack of hair can lead to extremism?

 

[SoulPlaya]

gays in the US would have more rights

Probably, still would be a fucked up world. I'm sorry, it's just that Atheists on NeoGaf always sound so adamant about Atheism. The way they make it sound, it's as if Atheism would make the world WAYYYYYY better, I had no idea it was simply about gay rights in the US (not to downplay that issue).

 

[methos75]

gays in the US would have more rights

Not true, people could just as easily find another reason to hate them. Human history has shown again and again that we take every ideal we create, and eventually muck it up and turn it into an evil, no reason to think that becoming an atheist dominated world would somehow change this fact. It isn't religion that has harmed the world, its our nature and our incessant need to place the blame on others and lash out on them that has. We are who we are.

 

[SoulPlaya]

I can be a bald headed extremist as well, does that mean a lack of hair can lead to extremism?

You'd be surprised. :lol

OK, I honestly would be curious to see an Atheist world at work, but if one person gets killed BECAUSE of their religious beliefs. Then, I'll be pissed off at you guys.

Remember, theory /= reality.

 

[KTallguy]

The problem isn't "religion" or the lack of it.

The problem is Extremism . An extremist atheist is just as bad as an evangelical Christian.

 

[Beer Monkey]

I just don't get how an Atheist world would be better. Wars over land, power, and money will still happen. Crimes will still happen, hatred would still be rampant, as would persecution. Thereotically, you could still have persecution. All it takes is a couple Atheist extremists (by using Asmodai's definition, it's a real possibility) to do terrible things. Then, bam, you've still got the same horrible world. Once again, it only takes a small minority of extremists to do these things. Put them in a poor, uneducated area (unless, of course, you believe atheism=money and education) and you've got a powdered keg. Of course, it would be a more scientific world, but that doesn't necessarily mean a good thing (science is neither bad nor good, it is what it is).

Remember, it only took a small group of religious fanatics to start fucking things up.

What percentage of atheists are extremists who will apologize and tacitly accept such horrible behavior?

What percentage of theists do this?

I can't give any evidence beyond anecdote to support to what I think, but from my perspective even if atheists are really mostly the same they are missing one major motivation to be an asshole. The "GOD says it is OK" rationalization.

By far, the atheists I know are the least interested in rationalizing or turning a blind eye towards shit like contrived war and genocide compared to the theists I know.

Anecdotal? Sure. Is your experience different? Do you have any other evidence to the contrary?

My personal friends and acquaintances are about 50/50 divided between atheists and theists. How many atheists do you know personally? Have they shown signs of being total assholes who have no respect for human life? Most I know value human life more because they believe it is finite and limited to our physical existence on this planet. Too many of the theists I know think that life only starts when you die.

I personally would only want to be in a foxhole with an atheist.

 

[KHarvey16]

I just don't get how an Atheist world would be better. Wars over land, power, and money will still happen. Crimes will still happen, hatred would still be rampant, as would persecution. Thereotically, you could still have persecution. All it takes is a couple Atheist extremists (by using Asmodai's definition, it's a real possibility) to do terrible things. Then, bam, you've still got the same horrible world. Once again, it only takes a small minority of extremists to do these things. Put them in a poor, uneducated area (unless, of course, you believe atheism=money and education) and you've got a powdered keg. Of course, it would be a more scientific world, but that doesn't necessarily mean a good thing (science is neither bad nor good, it is what it is).

Remember, it only took a small group of religious fanatics to start fucking things up.

An atheist extremist doesn't make any sense. A psychopath or criminal who happens to be an atheist, sure, but an atheist extremist sounds like someone who has less of a belief in god than anyone else. It's like, "my empty bag is more empty than yours!"

No, of course a secular society will not prevent war or bad things. I don't think anyone has argued that.

 

[speculawyer]

Probably, still would be a fucked up world. I'm sorry, it's just that Atheists on NeoGaf always sound so adamant about Atheism. The way they make it sound, it's as if Atheism would make the world WAYYYYYY better, I had no idea it was simply about gay rights in the US (not to downplay that issue).

It is not the atheism itself that makes anything better. It is the hardcore devotion to facts, logic, and science that would make things better. And the lack of religious based bigotry and violence that would make things better.

If someone appreciates science, is non violent, tolerant, and religious . . . that would be great.

 

[Beer Monkey]

OK, I honestly would be curious to see an Atheist world at work

Lucky you. Most of us are stuck in a theist world and they fuck it up, guaranteed.

 

[DevelopmentArrested]

Remember, theory /= reality.

A religious person would know this tenet best!

Not true, people could just as easily find another reason to hate them. Human history has shown again and again that we take every ideal we create, and eventually muck it up and turn it into an evil, no reason to think that becoming an atheist dominated world would somehow change this fact. It isn't religion that has harmed the world, its our nature and our incessant need to place the blame on others and lash out on them that has. We are who we are.

Completely erroneous; religion been shitting on homosexuality forever. no religion = gays can marry, less discrimination, etc. Next!

 

[SoulPlaya]

What percentage of atheists are extremists who will apologize and tacitly accept such horrible behavior?

What percentage of theists do this?

I can't give any evidence beyond anecdote to support to what I think, but from my perspective even if atheists are really mostly the same they are missing one major motivation to be an asshole. The "GOD says it is OK" rationalization.

By far, the atheists I know are the least interested in rationalizing or turning a blind eye towards shit like contrived war and genocide compared to the theists I know.

Anecdotal? Sure. Is your experience different? Do you have any other evidence to the contrary?

My personal friends and acquaintances are about 50/50 divided between atheists and theists. How many atheists do you know personally? Have they shown signs of being total assholes who have no respect for human life? Most I know value human life more because they believe it is finite and limited to our physical existence on this planet. Too many of the theists I know think that life only starts when you die.

I personally would only want to be in a foxhole with an atheist.

I actually met an Atheist a couple years back who thought religious people should be killed. His rationalization? "The world would be a better place", and he didn't need God to justify it.

He was a serious asshole, though.

 

[Kinitari]

Not true, people could just as easily find another reason to hate them. Human history has shown again and again that we take every ideal we create, and eventually muck it up and turn it into an evil, no reason to think that becoming an atheist dominated world would somehow change this fact. It isn't religion that has harmed the world, its our nature and our incessant need to place the blame on others and lash out on them that has. We are who we are.

Can you think of a reason to hate homosexuals in a secular/atheist world?

You'd be surprised. :lol

OK, I honestly would be curious to see an Atheist world at work, but if one person gets killed BECAUSE of their religious beliefs. Then, I'll be pissed off at you guys.

Remember, theory /= reality.

People get killed because of their religious beliefs now. It will always happen, and we will always have to prevent it. This isn't all that difficult of a concept to understand, you don't -stop- trying to make the world a better place after you have solved 1 problem.

 

[methos75]

A religious person would know this tenet best!


Completely erroneous; religion been shitting on homosexuality forever. no religion = gays can marry, less discrimination, etc. Next!

Yeah, but as I have said any idea can turn bad. People could just as easily think up an even worse reason to hate on gays. As I said, we are an hurtful evil species, that is fact

 

[DevelopmentArrested]

I actually met an Atheist a couple years back who thought religious people should be killed. His rationalization? "The world would be a better place", and he didn't need God to justify it.

He was a serious asshole, though.

A thought? A fucking thought? :lol Guess what.. there are people who have actually killed others because of their belief in the wrong gods.

 

[KTallguy]

An atheist extremist is someone that hates anyone who believes in god, and pushes their beliefs on others. And that hatred can extend to violence too.

"Believe in God or you're going to hell!"

and

"If you believe in god you're a moron and should die!"

are two sides of the same coin.

 

[Sibylus]

It is not the atheism itself that makes anything better. It is the hardcore devotion to facts, logic, and science that would make things better. And the lack of religious based bigotry and violence that would make things better.

In other words, the catching on of secular humanism. The other atheists in this thread likely are secular humanists themselves, but for whatever reason didn't really distinguish the two. The lack of belief in something isn't sufficient to define a whole world-view.

 

[SoulPlaya]

It is not the atheism itself that makes anything better. It is the hardcore devotion to facts, logic, and science that would make things better. And the lack of religious based bigotry and violence that would make things better.

If someone appreciates science, is non violent, tolerant, and religious . . . that would be great.

Science wouldn't make things better. Science is science. It's neither good nor bad, it depends on who uses it. The worst weapons we have came about through science.

One last thing, cuz I gotta go to do work, but I think many of you are living a world of theory. Don't ever underestimate what people can become extremist about (go to the gaming side for proof). Just because it goes against the theoretical definition of Atheist doesn't mean it won't happen. We have extremist Muslims, yet people swear that they aren't true Muslims. We could just as well have extremist Atheists, even if they aren't following true Atheism, but rather a crude, fucked up, DEFINITION of Atheism.

 

[KHarvey16]

An atheist extremist is someone that hates anyone who believes in god, and pushes their beliefs on others. And that hatred can extend to violence too.

"Believe in God or you're going to hell!"

and

"If you believe in god you're a moron and should die!"

are two sides of the same coin.

Doesn't make sense. There is nothing about atheism that says an atheist must dislike people who believe in god. Therefore, hating anyone who believes in god is not an extreme form of atheism, but just of something else. Seriously, the one and only required defining characteristic of an atheist cannot be taken to an extreme.

 

[DanteFox]

The idea of "beliefs" being attached to atheism is nonsensical. Atheism does not lead to anything. It is simply the lack of a belief in a god.

Look at the very thing you said: "They lacked a belief in god, saw themselves as establishing religion-free utopias and saw their actions as logical extensions of this lack of belief."

The bolded portion is the ONLY thing related to atheism there, the other things that follow are not implicit or required to be atheist.

none of the things people have used to justify religious evil are necessarily implicit or required to be religious, either. do you believe (like Richard Dawkins) that religion tends toward the destructive rather than the constructive?

To answer your last question I need to first ask you to demonstrate why a god is necessary to have morals or rights.

And why is that? Why can't you just tell me where you think they come from?

I'm not saying God is necessary to have morals or rights, but I'd just like to know how an atheist society might scientifically/evolutionarily/etc. imbue its people with rights or how an atheist says to someone "you shouldn't have done that".

 

[Beer Monkey]

I actually met an Atheist a couple years back who thought religious people should be killed. His rationalization? "The world would be a better place", and he didn't need God to justify it.

He was a serious asshole, though.

I know multiple Christians who believe that every Muslim, Atheist, and "anybody else who won't convert except maybe Jews because they are God's chosen people" could be wiped off the face of the planet and that it would be God's work.

 

[SoulPlaya]

A thought? A fucking thought? :lol Guess what.. there are people who have actually killed others because of their belief in the wrong gods.

SERIOUSLY??????? Holy shit!!!! See, I'm just a a Christian who was born in Iraq. My people NEVER faced any persecution.

Catch the sarcasm?

 

[Atrus]

You have faith, my man. The faith that an Atheist world would be better than a religious one. Since you have no proof of that, you are going simply off faith.

The difference here is you believe 'Atheism' to be a variable, when it is essentially the lack of one. Atheism is the 'absence' of a belief in a god. Out of the myriad of reasonings for misanthropy, Atheism would eliminate Theistic arguments, though not necessarily religious ones.

Even in an Atheistic universe one would still have religions, merely Atheistic forms of them. This is why the goal for an Atheistic world is misguided, the term isn't sufficient nor is it realistic given that a biological predisposition exists that attempts to rationalize with nonsense than leave gaps in understanding.

This is why a secular world tends to be a more realistic goal. In this way all religions are equally bound by the lowest common denominator.

 

[Sibylus]

Science wouldn't make things better. Science is science. It's neither good nor bad, it depends on who uses it. The worst weapons we have came about through science.

One last thing, cuz I gotta go to do work, but I think many of you are living a world of theory. Don't ever underestimate what people can become extremist about (go to the gaming side for proof). Just because it goes against the theoretical definition of Atheist doesn't mean it won't happen. We have extremist Muslims, yet people swear that they aren't true Muslims. We could just as well have extremist Atheists, even if they aren't following true Atheism, but rather a crude, fucked up, DEFINITION of Atheism.

"Religion is evil and I'm going to kill religious people because the world needs it" can't exist as definition of atheism, it's a definition of a fucked up world-view. Atheism alone can't define a world-view. Non-belief in gods, that's it.

 

[KTallguy]

Doesn't make sense. There is nothing about atheism that says an atheist must dislike people who believe in god. Therefore, hating anyone who believes in god is not an extreme form of atheism, but just of something else. Seriously, the one and only required defining characteristic of an atheist cannot be taken to an extreme.

I can accept that. But for every non-extreme atheist, there are those who represent themselves as atheist and take those extreme actions.

Same thing for Muslims, Jews, and Christians. There are plenty of "normal" practitioners, but there are also groups of extremists.

So then you run into an argument of semantics. Is the true definition of a Christian burdened by the representation of a bunch of extremists?

 

[SoulPlaya]

I know multiple Christians who believe that every Muslim, Atheist, and "anybody else who won't convert except maybe Jews because they are God's chosen people" could be wiped off the face of the planet and that it would be God's work.

So, they're just as bad as each other . . . . . . . . or maybe it's that religion isn't the problem, but rather extremism?

 

[DevelopmentArrested]

Catch the sarcasm?

Nope, other thing I could catch from you is an IQ drop.

So, they're just as bad as each other . . . . . . . . or maybe it's that religion isn't the problem, but rather extremism?

wait... it's extreme for religions to have disdain for ones that aren't their own, now? bu bu bu it's just a few rotten apples right? :lol

 

[Beer Monkey]

SERIOUSLY??????? Holy shit!!!! See, I'm just a a Christian who was born in Iraq. My people NEVER faced any persecution.

Catch the sarcasm?

This is digressing, but according to an Iraqi coworker of mine you could safely practice Christianity openly in Iraq

Spoiler

under Saddam, not now

.

 

[KHarvey16]

none of the things people have used to justify religious evil are necessarily implicit or required to be religious, either. do you believe (like Richard Dawkins) that religion tends toward the destructive rather than the constructive?

I think religious texts contain many instances of encouragement to commit crimes, be intolerant and unforgiving. They also contain many good messages about peace, loving yourself and your neighbor and the golden rule. It's a smorgasbord that people are free to pick and choose from.

You're not arguing against anything I said there, however.

And why is that? Why can't you just tell me where you think they come from?

I'm not saying God is necessary to have morals or rights, but I'd just like to know how an atheist society might scientifically/evolutionarily/etc. might imbue its people with rights or how an atheist says to someone "you shouldn't have done that".

The question is prompted by your belief that a god is necessary for those things. If it weren't, how is it a question? Rights are ideas. I believe we have the right to free speech. Luckily for me, this is in line with what the government is tasked with upholding. Rights are ideas that come from people. Why do they need to be anything in addition to that?

I think it's pretty easy to see, from the perspective of evolution, why morality was beneficial and selected for, don't you?