luvluv

If not, why do you guys seem fixated on that fact?

That seems to me to be a good reason to be an anti-theist, but not an atheist (though most of you are probably both). But even if you guys are right and God is bad (which He ain't) that is not a logical grounds upon which to disbelief. In questions as to His existence, his character is irrelavent.

So a corallary to my question:

If there was a theistic religion which demonstrated a philosophy that was, to our thinking, morally perfect, and which went MUCH FURTHER in leading it's adherents to moral perfection than simple atheism... would you still be opposed to that religion?

If something which you do not believe to be true, God(again, you folks admit you do not KNOW there isn't a God) produces greater benefits than what you believe to be true, (atheism)... would you still be against it? Even if it produced great good in the world?

MadMordigan

If something which you do not believe to be true, God(again, you folks admit you do not KNOW there isn't a God) produces greater benefits than what you believe to be true, (atheism)... would you still be against it? Even if it produced great good in the world?

The dangers of accepting bullshit as fact are more onerous than almost any good that could come from such an acceptance.

WhiteKnight

You seem to be arguing from a utility perspective. A question of existence is one of fact, not utility.

It would probably also be useful if everyone believed that if they broke the law, they would be caught and punished immediately. This is demonstrably not true.

Just my two cents...

luvluv

Mad:

"The dangers of accepting bullshit as fact are more onerous than almost any good that could come from such an acceptance."

Care to slap some meat on that assertion, my good friend?

White Knight:

"You seem to be arguing from a utility perspective. A question of existence is one of fact, not utility."

Which is kind of my point. If that is true, why do so many people on here feel it is necessary to villify God? If his supposed badness is relevant to their unbelief, would his goodness be relevant to an adoption of belief?

WhiteKnight

I do not think non-believers villify God, in the sense you are suggesting. I have been accused many times of "hating God". Each time I must clarify that I cannot hate that which I do not believe exists. What you see as villification, I see as the logical implications of various descriptions of God.

The question of utility is (for me) entirely separate. I freely admit that a religion which is false could have tremendous utility. I do not think such a religion yet exists.

Scotty

I would say no. The only reason you get a lot of "God is evil" is because of examples. These are examples for people other then atheists (except for informational purposes).
It is just a book of examples of things that don't make sense as a whole (unless you cut out the parts that don't make sense, which I think many people do).
I am not anti-theist, I am anti-forcing people to have somebody elses opinion on a non-existant entity, especially when taught as fact.

So, "God" being evil has nothing to do with my decisions, it was the people that made all of the difference.

-Scott

David Gould

The evilness of the Christian god, apparant by his actions as described in the bible, led me to atheism.

My main problem was that a good God and hell appeared incompatible.

I tried to reconcile them and failed.

However, this did not turn me into an atheist - rather, I was a tormented Christian.

My research, however, lead me to Thomas Paine. As he demonstrated convincingly that the foundation of Christianity was a lie, my torment and my Christianity vanished.

Thus, atheism is not justified by God being evil. Atheism is justified by God not in fact existing.

Sandy

I'm far from fixated on anything but to answer your question, why do you think my atheism needs to be justified to you?

It seems to me you've made an error. I don't believe god is bad. I see no evidence of a god or anything supernatural. What I do see is that the god of the bible IS bad. There's the difference. Believing an actual god is bad and reading about a god and coming to the conclusion that he is bad are two entirely different things.

Fortunately, or unfortunately, depending on how you wish to look at it, we all don't think alike. My idea of moral perfection may differ from yours and Joe Blow down the street may have an entirely different view of moral perfection from yours or mine.

To which greater benefits do you refer? What you might consider a greater benefit may not be acceptable to me. These "greater benefits" I guess would be attractive to you if you are unhappy with your life and want more. Some of us are content with what we have and have no need to look for greater benefits.

Considering the historical track record religion has with humanity I've yet to see the greater good.

Pomp

luvluv,

No, of course, the nonexistent god does not have to be evil to justify nonbelief in its existence, any more than Santa or the Tooth Fairy need to be evil to justify nonbelief in their existence. Belief in the nonexistence of such entities is justified by the complete lack of evidence for their existence.

Speaking only for myself, I find pointing out the cruel nature of the Xian god concept useful for one reason: Xianity is usually sold not by rational argument but by emotional appeal. Another emotive appeal is often the best way to counter an emotive appeal.

Very few Xians believe in their god because they have objectively examined all the evidence and come to the reasoned belief that their god likely exists. The vast majority of them were indoctrinated into the Jesus cult as children and identify belief in that cult as "good" to the extent that they are unwilling to honestly examine any evidence that might invalidate that belief. For such people, the realization that the god they worship would be considered, by modern secular standards, a sadistic monster, often provides the necessary jolt to counter the conditioned response to reject evidence and cling to faith.

The realization that the character of Yahweh, as depicted in the Judeo-Xian Bible and Xian dogma, behaves like a tyrant does not justify nonbelief, but it can inspire one to examine the evidence that does justify nonbelief. If you were to somehow conclusively demonstrate that Yahweh's behavior is perfectly compatible with the just and loving god you claim to worship, I would not become a Xian because there is still the matter of the complete lack of evidence for Yahweh's existence, but I would have to find another way to counter the emotional appeals your religion makes.

Pomp

luvluv,

Oops, I forgot to address the second half of your post.

If there was a theistic religion which demonstrated a philosophy that was, to our thinking, morally perfect, and which went MUCH FURTHER in leading it's adherents to moral perfection than simple atheism... would you still be opposed to that religion?

The question is, would I be opposed to the perpetuation of a lie that inspired its believers to behave in a manner that I considered good? Yes, I would oppose such a system of behavioral control.

The only way to perpetuate such a lie would be to teach people to rely on the authority of the liars rather than on their own reasoning. People who accepted that authority would be deprived of the mental toolkit with which we distinguish truth from falsehood. What is to stop any charlatan from taking advantage of their gullibility, as the gullibility of the religious has been taken advantage of time and time again to perpetuate all sorts of inhumane agendas? The whole of human history has been a slow, painful climb out of superstition and authority and into reason and freedom. There is a reason that we no longer burn witches, torture those who disagree with our cults to death, or treat women as baby factories. We are no longer the slaves of arbitrary authority, and I am disgusted at the thought that there are those who would drag us back down into such debasement.