Sue Sponte

Why does one need "faith" to not believe something?

Do you actually believe that atheists have some obligation to disprove a negative, or is it that your faith simply doesn't allow you to accept the possibility that you are wrong? Or that other religions are right? Or that God will punish those that chose to blindly follow some ancient scribblings, rather than use the brain that you believe he gave you?

So only athiests commit crimes? You've invented this fiction to avoid incongruence between your beliefs and reality.

You left out just a few here, such as Japan. But did it occur to you that the majority of citizens in these countries are religious as well (albeit not Christian), rather than Atheists? They, too, follow a God.

Please link to this evidence for the former. And try to keep in mind that one cannot prove the latter.

The sun is made of Cheetos. Prove me wrong.

Aquila ka Hecate

Sue,
I sometimes think that Radorth MUST be a huge Infidel Troll.

But I'm probably wrong.
Sadly, and maddeningly, many rabid theists seem to want so badly to project their own failings and bad habits onto others that we quite often get the 'atheism takes faith' argument swilled around in front of us.

Just ignore it-although it won't go away, it will probably save you from wanting to rip the head off the next passing theist today.

ybnormal

Maybe, just maybe you misinterpret what "some Atheists" are actually doing.

Maybe, instead of attempting to de-convert xians, some Atheists are using the xian's words to alert other Atheists who continue to use oxymorons like, "harmless Xtians".

Bill Snedden

I agree; which is why most atheists I know don't make that positive statement. They say either, "I don't believe that a God exists" or something similar.

Now, now. Besides the fact that modern jurisprudence would certainly find this "father" guilty of child abandonment and abuse, Iran and Iraq both have that same God (remember Abraham?). Russia is no longer "officially" atheistic, so I think you're probably referring to the Soviet Union, but in any event, the CCCP, China, and North Korea all had/have a god too, except they call theirs "Karl Marx" or "Mao Tse Dong".

Equating the evils of Communism to atheism is about as veridical and effective as blaming Hitler's atrocities on his Christianity. It is certainly true that Communism is atheistic and it is certainly true that Hitler called himself a Christian, however to argue that atheism and/or Christianity were the driving forces behind their actions is simply incorrect. Neither atheism nor Christianity necessarily entail Communism or Hitler, respectively.

As for converted gang members, how about all those secular humanists who never would have stolen your car in the first place?

Really? There is some evidence that inter-generational families encumber a greater amount of risk than otherwise. I'm also aware of the Grandmother Study, which seeks to examine the relationship between quality of life and grandmotherly caregiving, but there's no religious content to the study and the results aren't due for another three years. Do you have a reference to support your assertion?

Regards,

Bill Snedden

Radorth

Before responding to the annoyingly rational and intelligent Bill Sneddin, I shall warm up with this one.

I'm simply saying that atheists make all sorts of assertions without any evidence. (Read the Biblical Crit forum sometime) As far as religions go, I have no use for anything which supposes human willpower can make much difference in major world problems. Unpolluted Christianity does not require any human effort to make things better. It offers imputed righteousness, a "new nature" and depends entirely on grace and revelation to prevent self-destruction. Nothing else compares with it.

I use my brain plenty. I invented and patented the first aluminum bike frame which BMX racers couldn't break. Until I came along, the pros all rode 6 lb steel frames. I'm presently working on a unique idea for eliminating rail crossing deaths and derailments.

Rad

Radorth

I'm glad you don't post much Bill. I don't have time to think hard with all my other projects/responsibilities

Well they don't act like it, or allow that there could be one, or give any credence to the Christian evidence. IMO agnostics are a world ahead of them in thoughtfulness and demeanor.

Yeah people pronounce God guilty of lots of things no matter what he does. He worked miracles for the Israelites and all they did was whine and make idols the minute Moses stepped out for a smoke. I still say the ACLU would go after him in court if he tried to intervene much in human affairs. We have the picture of Jesus crying over Jerusalem, saying how often God would have "gathered you together as a hen gathers her chicks." That is just how God feels, I think. There are many dilemmas created by physical interventions and we hear arguments like "he should have made bullets do u-turns" etc when these dilemmas are pointed out.

Thank you.

I'm not speaking strictly there. Hey man, if atheists can make a better country without any Christians around, I say go for it. I'm merely saying we "suspect" what it will be like and we have no evidence not to suspect it will be similar to non-Christian countries who go against Christ's teachings. (Called stupid and unfair here as you know)

I'll read your link later and critique it if I reasonably can. I was comparing the evidence for the value of praying grandmothers to the evidence that God DOES NOT exist, and I think mine is as good or better. More after I read your stuff, and decide if those old black ladies praying "Lord have mercy!" all the time are keeping you out of serious tribulation.

Rad

Sue Sponte

That isn't what you said. And this concept that there is a unified "atheist" who speaks the atheist gospel is misplaced.

Besides, assuming I made a number of assertions without any evidence, that would tend to indicate that I may be wrong, but adds no evidence that you are right. "Others do it, therefore when I do it I'm right."

Quite the optimistic world view you have.

Human effort is required for anything. Following Christianity itself is "human effort", so I'm not following.

Glad to see some ol' fashion human effort resulted in an improved product.

braces_for_impact

To suppose that christianity is moral is a big mistake. Have you ever read "Why I am not a christian" by Bertrand Russel? I think he sums it up pretty well.

Plenty of countries that are predominately christian have more than there share of immoral faults in domestic and international affairs.

This thread has so many classic unfounded assumptions about atheists I don't know where to start...faith, evidence, morality...sheesh!

Were you testing your BMX aluminum frame without a helmet?

Stephen T-B

Intelligence and beliefs are unconnected.
Some quite bright people are Mormons (I dare say) and some quite bright people are, or have been Scientologists. Indeed, every crack-pot religion and cult has drawn followers of considerable intelligence.
I’m sure we can all think of examples.
So Radoth, please accept that in casting aspersions upon your religious beliefs, we are not casting aspersions upon your intelligence.
I have tried to argue - unsuccessfully I fear - that Belief, or rather the conviction that a particular god exists, lies somewhere more deeply imbedded than the mental powers we employ to get by in everyday life.
We do not choose to have or not to have that conviction.
Radoth has it. I don’t, and the distinction does not make him cleverer than me, nor me cleverer than him; it does not make him better than me, nor does it make me better than him.
We are, in this respect, simply different.

The abundantly wise Bill Sneddon says that most atheists refrain from saying: “There is no god.”

For me, the issue isn’t complicated.
Is a troop of elephants in my attic? When I say “No, there is not,” I am stating an abundant truth; I am conveying an actual fact - not a belief.
And when I say: “There is no god” I am stating an abundant truth; I am conveying an actual fact - not a belief.
Now this is the odd thing: when Radoth states “There IS a god,” he too is conveying an abundant truth; an actual fact - not a belief.

The difference is, my statement is rational.

Bill Snedden

Actually, "atheist" and "agnostic" are not mutually exclusive. I describe myself as an "atheist agnostic". I do not deny that there could be or might be god(s), but I do not believe in any.

As in politics (and probably just about every other human endeavor where values are concerned), there are dogmatists and moderates. I count myself among the moderates and find it a far more reasonable position to take. I think a lot (I would hope a majority, but I really can't say) of other atheists/agnostics feel the same way. It's why I don't spend much time (if any) arguing for atheism or even against theism simpliciter.

If he is purported to have done things for which we could legitimately call him "guilty", then are we not within reasonable bounds to do so?

I would find it very difficult to acknowledge paternal love in a father who regularly abused his children, even less in a father who, despite his unlimited ability to protect, chooses rather to allow his children to come to harm through no fault of their own.

I realize that there are any one of a number of theodicies that attempt to come to grips with these issues, but even should they succeed in explaining away natural evils (IMO, for the record, they don't), and thus demonstrate they do not seem to me to bridge the gap between agapic and paternal love.

But I digress. My comment was really meant as an aside. It's really beside the point.

How could this possibly be a better country with no Christians? With whom would we argue then? How boring! Variety is, after all, the spice of life, no?

I certainly wouldn't deride your generalization as "stupid". "Unfair" might be more apropos. Certainly "unreasonable" comes to mind. I would say that you're remembering the hits and forgetting the misses, except that there just haven't been enough truly secular AND democratic societies from which valid generalizations can be made. A review of the historical record should demonstrate quite amply that Christianity is no guarantee of peace or prosperity; quite the contrary, I'm afraid. There is no ideology of which I'm aware, religious or otherwise, that has any definitive correlation with "better country." And that was my point...

The physicist Steven Weinberg said, "With or without [religion] you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." Weinberg oversimplifies, but I think he's on the right track although I don't think "religion" is quite broad enough.

I think the danger to which Weinberg really alludes is authoritarianism, which can wear either a religious or secular face. IMO, the idea that "wrong" necessarily equals "evil" with the corollary that even the possibility of innocent mistake can be dismissed is one of the most insidious errors to creep into human thought. Religious worldviews may be somewhat more susceptible to this than other worldviews (demonstrated by both Christian and Islamic fundamentalism), but it can be seen in secular worldviews as well (i.e., Communism and dogmatic Objectivism).

Hehehe....pre-trib rapture? Let's hope!

Seriously, I didn't intend that link as a "defense" for you to critique, merely to show that there was some evidence contrary to your claim and I had not seen any to support it. As that link isn't even directly on point (no religious connection in the study), I'd be much more interested to see some empirical evidence to support the claim that "old black ladies praying" leads to a higher quality of life. Not just for them, for there's plenty of evidence to support that hypothesis, but for the society as a whole.

As for "evidence that God DOES NOT exist", I would say that depends upon how one defines "God." IMHO, the concept of the "omnimax" Christian God is vitiated by the POE, however, this does not defeat theism simpliciter, or even more liberal or unorthodox forms of Christianity.

Regards,

Bill Snedden
-----------------------
"Between believing a thing and thinking you know is only a small step and quickly taken." Mark Twain