I am an atheist

[azlan88]

This post is a little late, but in actuality, our predominantly Christian country has the best health care for elders and children alike, and ours is the wealthiest country in the world. Predominantly atheist countries like Communist China, Cuba, North Korea, and even Canada are actually struggling in these areas, so I don't know where you get off saying that atheist countries have the best of these things. Further, as far as crime rates go, assuming that atheist countries have lower crime rates, is it not a crime to throw Christians in jail and torture them for practicing their faith? And have you thought that most people living in Communist countries are actually kind-hearted Christians? According to Voice of the Martyrs, an underground Christian organization, the Chinese populace is rapidly becoming Christian, in fact being the fastest growing church in the world!

 

[Sanitarium]

Predominantly atheist countries like Communist China

Cuba

Socialist State

North Korea

Socialist State. Oh and read this

so I don't know where you get off saying that atheist countries have the best of these things.

hmmmm.... at least you didn't start talking about Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin et al....or were you saving that for your next post?

You know what the problem is? You are doing the same thing many Christians do when talking about Atheism - they do not distinguish between the BELIEF of anti-theism and the POSITION of Atheism. They are not the same thing. You can be an Atheist without being an anti-theist. You can be an anti-theist without being an Atheist. In fact, most religious people are anti-theist against all religion that is not their own. A manifestation of this is proselytizing (sp?)

So tell me, what is Socialism? What is Communism? They are beliefs and practices. Just because the majority (or official position) of some countries that practice them is Atheism, does not make the practices and beliefs that are seperate from that "inherently Atheist" or "attributable to Atheism." This is a non-sequitur.

but in actuality, our predominantly Christian country has the best health care for elders and children alike, and ours is the wealthiest country in the world.

Saudi Arabia, a totally Muslim country, as FREE excellent health care for everyone. Wow all that oil money. They're better than the US, therefore they MUST be right huh?

Also, it doesn't matter what the 'majority religion' is in America, because it was founded with separation of Church and state. Therefore it would incorrect to attribute such things to Christianity, because the truth is, they came about from the secular nature of the US governments.

 

[coelacanth]

Also, normally, I do not tend to partake of these foundational faith discussions. The reason is because I believe what the bible says about humanity before we come to faith. ( I include myself, as a one time unbeliever ) That no unbeliever may understand the truths in the bible unless they are "spiritually" enlightened. Which requires a work of God in the heart; and only after the choice has been made to understand the Bible as it is revealed by God, not by humanity. Therefore, Christians can share their faith and insights with you, however, as a professed atheist, you may never understand any of them. So the whole exercise could be useless.

What if it was a foundational faith discussion regarding how you became “spiritually enlightened� Do you view it as a personal experience that cannot be expressed or should be kept private, or find other barriers to this sort of discussion?

If you are merely looking to go rounds with others about issues you have knowledge about to excerise your intellect, I wonder why you would choose Christians as sound thinkers to debate with, and why you would desire to discuss atheism if ( as you say, it is a logical yet subjective choice as your ideology ). How can people who have turned away from your worldview as "error" possibly offer you worthy opponents? I am honestly interested in your answers, I am not goading you at all.

There are Christians who are sound thinkers (I’m sure you weren’t implying that there aren’t ;) , and I am hoping to find them. There are many different things I would like to discuss besides atheism. I do not presuppose that I have all the answers, I only acknowledge that at this point atheism seems far more realistic and reasonable to me than Christianity. I crossed over to my way of thinking from Christianity, and someone who has done the opposite might have a compelling reason. Given the magnitude and age of the Christian tradition, there are going to be some good thoughts and arguments that I have never encountered before. Would you suggest retaining my worldview without any further challenges? As I said, I like a challenge, and being shown new information or arguments have the potential to make me re-evaluate my position. The Bible has had profound historical effects on society and continues to greatly affect society. I think exploration of people’s modern interpretations is of great value, as well as worth thinking about verses and interpretations that I had not previously considered in depth. I do the same with Buddhism and other practices as well.

If you desire fairness, then you need to play by the rules you set. Phil Zuckerman's book <snip> As an intellectual, you can find much weighter works to debate with, that are not so filled with error.

What works would you suggest?

Also, we can all quote statistics till we are blue in the face and talk theoretically about societies ills, we will be bored in no time. So what? We have all heard it before. BLAH BLAH BLAH...

Ok, let’s drop that line, then.

why don't we let our discussion go to the truly subjective and more interesting level immediately? How is your life better (using whatever premises you want ) without God? I would be ready to talk along those lines with you.

Awaiting your reply... bonnie

It was a search for truth and reality that brought me to my current position. Nice fringe benefits are that my intellect is not stifled or driven to complacence by filling in gaps of knowledge with “God did itâ€Â. I have the freedom to think for myself and explore the world without having to hold up everything against the yardstick of the Bible as a guide. I value and enjoy my life more without religion. If I were to follow the instructions of the Bible, it would violate my conscience and principles; I can constantly follow and develop my conscience without the conflict of reducing my integrity by acting against my morals. All the things that religion promises, I did not get until I became an atheist. Freedom, truth, beauty, joy… they are all better for me on this side of the fence.

 

[coelacanth]

Yes, my apologies to coelacanth. I know this is a serious issue which deserves to be discussed as such.

lol, no worries

 

[coelacanth]

This post is a little late, but in actuality, our predominantly Christian country has the best health care for elders and children alike, and ours is the wealthiest country in the world. Predominantly atheist countries like Communist China, Cuba, North Korea, and even Canada are actually struggling in these areas, so I don't know where you get off saying that atheist countries have the best of these things. Further, as far as crime rates go, assuming that atheist countries have lower crime rates, is it not a crime to throw Christians in jail and torture them for practicing their faith? And have you thought that most people living in Communist countries are actually kind-hearted Christians? According to Voice of the Martyrs, an underground Christian organization, the Chinese populace is rapidly becoming Christian, in fact being the fastest growing church in the world!

Bonnie has a point. This one could go on forever, and there are many things here I would question and disagree with, but if we are going to do this, it would have to go to a different thread at this point... I know I brought it up, and I'll continue if you like, but a new thread would be good. Unfortunately, there are no totally reliable and clear-cut sources of information used for comparison of the contributions of atheism or theism to society IMO. It looks like more sophisticated research is being aimed in that direction, though.

 

[sheshisown]

Is it wise to segregate the world's countries into specified religious / non-religious entities, properous or poor because of such?

Certainly a solid argument can be made for religion in every country of the world. Isn't that what atheists find stifling, and call biased? There simply is no country that is not religious. There is also no country which is purely atheist.

Why doesn't the tack of debate go to the absolute issues that can be irrefutable though subjective? We can all easily enuf discuss how we are prospered, or made poor, by our choice of ideology...

Any takers? I will be pleased to begin~ having been a "practicing" atheist for 32 years prior to my conversion to Christ~ I have a differing experience in each ideology that reflects my current status and my previous one.

bonnie

 

[coelacanth]

To be more specific, anti-theists are people you as Christians are more likely to hear from. Your typical atheist is far less likely to challenge you. If you are a Christian reading this, most Christians do not go out of their way to disparage other faiths directly any more than the average atheist disparages a faith that they do not hold. When an atheist who is also an anti-theist confronts you, it would be unwise to assume that all atheists are confrontational in the same way, or even that they hold the same beliefs.

This is something I can say Amen to. Most atheists (from experience) have no interest in debating someone's belief at all, but the picture one gets on the net is of the complete opposite. Its a shame that negative stereotypes are so hard to break.

Stereotypes are hard to break. I can only be myself, though, and I am one of the outspoken ones. I would hope that anyone who finds out that another person self-describes as an "atheist", that no conclusions are drawn other than that the person lacks belief in a personal God.

Maybe this is phrased like a stereotype in itself, but I always assume before I meet people that EVERYONE is unique and different from other people ;)

 

[coelacanth]

Is it wise to segregate the world's countries into specified religious / non-religious entities, properous or poor because of such?

Certainly different countries have different attributes based on governmental structure, history, wealth, availability of resources, and a wide variety of other things. All we really have available to look at is statistical trends, and you're right, no objective controlled experiments.

Certainly a solid argument can be made for religion in every country of the world. Isn't that what atheists find stifling, and call biased? There simply is no country that is not religious. There is also no country which is purely atheist.

I think you are lumping all atheists together here, and making it look like theists wouldn't find bias where atheists would. But looking at trends and statistics and interpreting them is not biased. Presuppositions are biased, though.

 

[sheshisown]

What causes bias? A personal bent.

All interpretation of any statistical data becomes jaded by the worldview ( of personal agenda ) of the interpreter.

As you clearly stated; there again are no objective controlled experiments that would ever give us a synonomous thread of statisics without some bias.

To think that any human being can function entirely without bias is an unreasonable ideal in itself, wouldn't you agree? :shades

Catagorization is the first constant of all statistical trends... if catagorizing atheists is unfair in your estimation... then catagorizing christians or christian countries or atheist countries are unfair as well.

On what basis may we continue to draw conclusions without assuming some catagories ?

bonnie :shades

 

[azlan88]

Sanitarium, I respectfully see where you're coming from on Socialism, but you're incorrect. Cuba and North Korea are Communist. Socialism is in fact the building block of Communism. The doctrine of the Fabians, and Lenin, was to infest world economies with lots and lots of Socialism. But I didn't come here for an argument. I wanted a discussion, but you still dodged my earlier questions. How has atheism inspired people to do great good and selfless deeds like Christianity has? Nobody would die for atheism, because atheism has nothing to offer any more than the Pagans who bowed before Nebbacadnezzar's image. They betrayed their gods for Nebacadnezzar's image of gold because their gods offered them nothing. But the Jews' God offered a personal relationship with a loving Father, a Heavenly Father from whom derives every good thing. So the jews were steadfast in the face of firey opposition, even unto death in a firey furnace. And the Communists did much more in the name of atheism. Don't you see? Atheism's history is blood-soaked with the deaths of millions, is accounted with forced indoctrination of the youth into atheism, children having been taught in schools to hate the names of God and Jesus. Atheism is very old, but its stains run deep. Its history is in fact very shallow, never having brought forth people who carried out great exploits for justice, or young men who died for their enemies, or great painters who could paint so vividly across the ceiling of a mighty Cathedral. But it was by the name of Jesus that all these great things were done.

 

[Sanitarium]

I didnt 'dodge' the question at all. I chose not to answer it. Seeing as you can't understand a simple thing like Atheism =/= Anti Theism (which I have explained before on this forum) I saw that it was pointless to discuss anything more sophisticated. Although I see from your response that you have dodged addressing the point - accusing Atheism of the crimes of Communism. I am trying to decide whether you simply just don't get it, or you are being deliberately obtuse on this.

What you are doing is no different to me saying "you worship 3 gods!" over and over again, and not listening to any of your clarifications. I'd look pretty ignorant and arrogant if I persisted in that, wouldn't I?

 

[azlan88]

Hold on. You say that you are inviting us to talk about atheism, but when I ask good honest questions, you choose not to be challenged by them? I would answer any honest question or challenge you have concerning Christianity. Other than that, you seem like a straight shooter. But I have to be tough when making an argument. I think you're not answering my question because atheism has never shone forth the goodness and grace that is seen in Christian people and doctrine. I'm not attacking atheists personally. I love atheists, but I cannot love atheism.
But I'm not willing to let go of the fact that atheism is the root of many atrocities commited against Christians. Without a God, there are no restrictions to what a man can do to meet his own ends. Atheism actually means in its original Greek, "without-a god." Not even men's laws have kept people from expressing the evil in their own hearts. Atheism is actually an enabler of evil, not a restricting force.

 

[sheshisown]

Okay~

Azlan... I just want to clarify for you (because as you stated you came in late in the discussion) that the particular person who invited others to an open forum of questioning his atheism was not Sanitarium, but rather, Coelacanth. You may address that poster with your question directly, and probably get an answer. Since Sanitarium did not offer his atheism for open questioning, I do not think we can expect him to comply.

Also if you are going to make the point that all Communists were, or are, atheists I think you may lose before you begin your argument brother.

Because of this very point~ I have been seeking to avoid generalizing countries, religions, and now political ideologies... We must be careful to make our arguments as true to fact and fair to people indivdually, and as groups, as possible. That is why using our sunjective experiences is best. No one can argue with it, and it provides actual life examples of the consequences of ideas. that is afterall what we are ultimately discussing in this thread from my perspective.

Also... there will always be generalising in every argument. :nod However, let's try not to say ALL or NEVER or EVERY unless we are speaking of the absolute truths found in the word of God. Then we can NEVER err, even if no one agrees with us. :yes

Sanitarium... would you be willing to make an attempt to answer the question Azlan has asked? Afterall he has stated his question twice, and it has nothing to do with the other comments he has made. :shades

I personally would be very interested to hear the benefits of atheism in your personal lives...

sheshisown (moderator)

 

[Sanitarium]

Part 1/2

How has atheism inspired people to do great good and selfless deeds like Christianity has?

You seem to expect that I can (or should) give a grand pronouncement for all Atheists - but I cannot and I wouldn't dare, because Atheism is simply a lack of belief - it has no doctrines no 'rules' to adhere to. Therefore I cannot speak for all, because Atheism tells you what someone does *not* believe but not what they do believe. However I can answer from my own viewpoint. I do not speak for all Atheists.

Atheism, to me, is not an absolute; if there is presented such evidence to me that god does in fact exist, then I will of course, change my mind. So far though, nothing convincing has yet been presented. There is nothing after this life, no afterlife. Therefore I try to make the most of this life because as far as I know, it is the only 'shot' we get. I try to make the world a better place in any small way that I can - and no, despite what you claim, it is not a selfish pursuit- I try to make the world better for ALL people, regardless of their race, religion, location, gender etc. It does not matter to me that they threaten me with "hell" because I know it's only their indoctrination or fear of the unknown (death) that is talking.

I do not see that religions promote 'selfless' deeds, because they use the 'carrot and the stick' (heaven and hell & punishment and reward) to convince you to act the way you do. From my perspective, this is the complete driving force behind religions - they define for you (black and white, 100% no exceptions) what is "good" and what is "evil", and these are unchanging absolutes. If you want to 'rack up rewards' (mansions and gold/jewels in heaven isn't it?) then you do the "good" deeds. If you do the "bad deeds" then you rack up 'punishment points' and are in danger of being turned away from Jesus on JD (Judgement day). Islam of course, takes this to the extreme - it's an entirely 'works based' religion - literally on JD, you face up to Allah, and he weighs all your 'good deeds' against your 'bad deeds'. If your good deeds outweigh your bad deeds, you get into heaven (unless Allah changes his mind for you. Also, Muslim women have a few more caveats but who's counting?)

So in Islam, it's a lot more blatant, but in Christianity it is the same. From my perspective, you cannot truly call it a 'selfless act', because you are doing it for a reward (eternal life, heaven, gold and stuff). Now, it's a given that I may not be aware of all the selfless acts so can you please elaborate on what i have missed? What 'selfless acts' are you talking about, where you're not doing it to 'please Jesus' in order to get your reward?

Try looking at it a different way: Let us say that Jesus came and said "just accept I am god, and that I die to cover your sins and you are saved." That's it. No rules, no 'treat people <like this>', no OT etc... Let us say further, that you believed this. Would you still do these 'selfless acts' if you were not told to do so in order to be saved (and get a reward). ie. no matter how you treated people you'd still be saved if you accepted?

Nobody would die for atheism, because atheism has nothing to offer any more than the Pagans who bowed before Nebbacadnezzar's image.

No, because Atheists do not believe in an 'afterlife' - this life is all we have. I find it strange that you compare Atheism with paganism, because paganism and Christianity are actually a lot closer - sure you changed the rituals, and removed the Earthly representation of your deity, but it is the same. Rituals, incantations, followers, afterlife etc.. Atheism simply means that you do not believe any of this. Atheism IMO has much to offer over religion - rationality, evidence-based, working to make this world a better place for ALL people, it breaks down the barriers we create (ie. the self segregation of the religions), et cetera. I find that many religious people 'just don't bother' even trying to make this world a better place, because 'the end is near!!' - they tend to focus more on converting people, but again, this does not improve humanity, nor is it a 'selfless act.'

But the Jews' God offered a personal relationship with a loving Father, a Heavenly Father from whom derives every good thing. So the jews were steadfast in the face of firey opposition, even unto death in a firey furnace.

There is just as much evidence for the existence of the Judeo-Christian god, as there is for the pagan gods that were abandoned. Just because your god is more 'personal' (in your texts) than say Allah or Hubal, Al Uzza etc.. does not make the same non-evidence (claims only) anymore acceptable to a rational person. This is a common tactic so I have seen - Christians say "my god is right because he's a PERSONAL god" or they say "no, YOU have a religion, but I have a 'relationship" - do you who say this, truly think it is convincing, or constitutes evidence?

And the Communists did much more in the name of atheism.

You posit that Communists did things 'in the name of Atheism' yet you have not provided any evidence of this. Please enlighten me - what *are* the doctrines of Atheism? What are our 'rules'? Where do we go to 'church'? You admit on the one hand that it was the belief in and practice of Communism is responsible, and in the same breath you also blame Atheism. Let me give you an example: Christian priests (including Protestant Pastors) are molesting boys in the name of Christianity!. Do you agree with that statement? If not, why not? Don't worry I don't believe it either. The church did their utmost to protect these guys, at the expense of the innocent children; and because of this, the priests believed (see that word? believed?) it was perfectly acceptable for them to use their position within the Church in order to molest boys. It is incorrect to tie this to Christianity, because the bible does not say "you can molest little boys" [or something similar]. So you need to look at the beliefs to find the cause of the effect if you truly wish to make your case.

Since, as I have said, Atheism has no dogmas, no doctrines, no 'holy books', no rituals etc.., and it is simply a lack of belief, it would be incorrect to assign anything as being 'caused by Atheism.' You need to find out what the person/group believes in addition to them being an Athiest in order to find out what the actual cause is. This is why I have previously brought up my example of Anti-Theism & Atheism. The cause of "I hate religions" is not Atheism, but Anti-Theism - however many religious people do not make this distinction, and falsely charge the effect ("I hate religions") to Atheism, which cannot be the cause because it is not a belief but a lack of one.

Don't you see? Atheism's history is blood-soaked with the deaths of millions, is accounted with forced indoctrination of the youth into atheism, children having been taught in schools to hate the names of God and Jesus.

Firstly, read above (I'm not typing all that again lol).

Secondly, I am absolutely gobsmacked with your hypocrisy here. Every single thing you have written above can be demonstrably attributed to Christianity's history (along with that of many other religions). To have the gall to falsely charge Atheism (lack of belief remember?) with the ABSOLUTE VERY THING your own religion is 100% guilty of is complete hypocrisy.

Now let's start:

Atheism's history is blood-soaked with the deaths of millions

You have only presented evidence thus far that can be attributed to actual BELIEF systems; ie. Communism, and nothing that you can attribute to Atheism. Indeed you cannot attribute anything to Atheism, because again, it is a lack of belief and not a belief. Since people act on their BELIEFS and not their LACK thereof, any 'deaths of millions' must be attributed to such a belief. Now some brief examples to show the hypocrisy of your statement:

Christianity:
The Crusades? Done in the name of Christianity.
The Inquisition Done in the name of Christianity.
The Salem Witch Trials Done in the name of Christianity.
The ongoing mass murder of Africans in Africa Done in the name of Christianity.
Pogroms against the Jews Done in the name of Christianity to revenge against the "Christ killers."

Islam:
One word: Jihad Done in the name of Islam
The ongoing genocide of the people of Darfur done in the name of Islam.

This is not to count all the kidnappings, beheadings, mass murder of Islam's own adherents, attacks against Dhimmi's, terrorism, forced conversions (Islam was spread by the sword), etc.. justified by the Quran & practised by Good Muslims (bad people). Also we're not going to count the "dark ages" - which is DIRECTLY correlated with Christianity.

Now I have just given a handful of examples from two religions - both from the Judeo-Christian lineage. There are so many other instances and examples, and they are all directly attributed to the religion (ie. not cultural, not because of 'closet Atheists pulling the strings etc..).

It is also of interest to note that the Holocaust was aided and abetted by a Christian church, who were still on their anti-Jewish pogroms. They opened up their archives to assist the Germans in finding out who had Jewish lineage. Also it's interesting to note that Hitler was never ex-communicated. Atheists and Christians love to debate whether Hitler was an Atheist or a Christian, but it really doesn't matter for Atheists, because it was his beliefs (regardless of whether they were "Christian" or not) that caused him to go after the Jews, and not his lack of them (Atheism) - so to charge Atheism with the 'holocaust' as some Christians do is to be woefully ignorant at best, or deceptive at worst.

 

[Sanitarium]

Part 2/2

is accounted with forced indoctrination of the youth into atheism

This is again hypocrisy. No one can be "indoctrinated" into Atheism, because IT HAS NO DOCTRINE. It is simply a lack of belief in god. On the other hand, Religion, especially Islam & Christianity are undeniably GUILTY of this very thing!
Have you seen the movie Jesus Camp? Sure, its an extreme example, but still done in the name of Christianity. What about Hell House? How about This video? Children being taught to parrot the tenets of the religion of Islam. More Islam Indoctrination videos of Children here (for example). You can find more on Youtube.

You talk of forced indoctrination, but you would be a liar if you denied that your religions are guilty of forced indoctrination. I myself was forcibly indoctrinated into Christianity all throughout my childhood. Many of you teach your children that you should only be good to others so that they are rewarded, that hell awaits sinners, Many of you teach children that morality is ALWAYS black and white with no exceptions, you don't teach children to think for themselves; you think they are little clones of you, and you want to 'save' them from what you believe (faith) is going to 'happen when they die.' You don't say "well I believe this, but you can make up your own mind" (like all Atheists I've talked to do), you say "this is the absolute truth and you MUST believe it or you will burn forever."

You are responsible for raising up these children to be productive, good members of society, but instead many of you spend your time threatening them about an [alleged] afterlife. Sure, some of you were probably indoctrinated yourselves - you weren't given a choice either, but that is the way it goes. It can be seen as a form of abuse. The cycle repeats. There are some though, that actively chose to take (on faith) this belief, and yet they STILL force their children to accept what THEY take on faith. Sure, some of you may say "oh they don't *have* to follow", but of course, if they do choose to leave Christianity there will be repercussions from some of you to them - you don't love your children unconditionally (even though you say you do). Islam takes it a little bit further; they completely disown (or murder) apostates.

You cannot tell me that anything I have said above is NOT TRUE, because I have experienced it all all of it - I have not spoken with my family since 2004. Neither of them were born into Christianity - my father was raised a non-practising Greek orthodox and my mother with no religious belief (Atheism). My father converted before he got married and my mother converted when I was born prematurely. They raised ALL SEVEN of their children to believe the FACT (yeah FACT) that Christianity is the TRUTH (TM) and that any deviation will end you in hell. Etc...etc...

Even if you come back with the argument that "oh they're not true Christians" (no true Scotsman fallacy), my point is STILL valid, because you claim that children are 'forcibly indoctrinated' in the 'name of Atheism.' Well you sir/ma'am are a hypocrite, because RELIGION is the one that is doing that very thing.

Oh, and by the way - I asked my mother about her upbringing when I was considering Agnosticism (I did not tell her this) and she simply said "we never talked about religion." So, to claim that children are 'forcibly indoctrinated into Atheism' really does seem quite absurd. Logically, if you don't believe then it 'just wouldn't come up' as my mother experienced.

UNLESS of course, your Atheist parents are also Anti-Theists - in which case that IS a belief (the belief that all religions are wrong), but then you would HAVE to attribute the 'indoctrination' to Anti-Theism and NOT to Atheism. Therefore you are still wrong.

children having been taught in schools to hate the names of God and Jesus.

Can you please provide examples of this? You have specifically charged that:
(a)Children have been (are still?) being taught in school to hate the names of God and Jesus
(b) That Atheists are responsible for this.
Can you please provide evidence this is the case? I don't work with faith remember?

Atheism is very old, but its stains run deep.

No this is untrue. Atheism has never been accepted - always crushed (when made apparent) by the religious majority. Atheism also has 'no stains' you do not understand what Atheism is. Fortunately I have elaborated in great length above.

Its history is in fact very shallow, never having brought forth people who carried out great exploits for justice, or young men who died for their enemies

How do you know? Even in our modern age, Atheism is not accepted. Have you heard of The Out Campaign? Why do we need such a thing if Atheism is accepted? Why should Atheists be 'afraid to be known'? It's because of all the persecution from the religious majority all throughout history. In fact, in order to avoid being persecuted/killed, many Atheists/Agnostics/Deists had to pretend to follow (usually) Christianity in order to avoid repercussions.

or great painters who could paint so vividly across the ceiling of a mighty Cathedral. But it was by the name of Jesus that all these great things were done.

Tell me about the founding fathers of the United States. Deists weren't they? ie. no 'personal god'. In fact, the treaty of tripoli explicitly states that the US was 'not founded as a Christian nation.'. So, unless you don't consider the founding of the US and the constituion to be a "great thing", then I guess you still have a point. Until I bring my next point of course.

Tell me, did Jesus paint the Sistine Chapel? No, of course not. It was a human being. Who had most of the money in those days? The Catholic Church. Hence they were the ones who commissioned the painting of the sistine chapel. Just because the content happens to be religious, this is no reason to attribute the (admittedly beautiful) work of MEN to your Jesus. In the Middle East there was a similar situation. Since the majority of the inhabitants (ie. during the golden age) were Muslims, and the Muslims were the richest (Jizya, Zakat, raids etc...) they were the ones commissioning artists, crafters, etc.. to build Islamic artwork, architecture, mosques, paintings etc.. Does this prove that 'all the achievements' made there (by HUMANS) should be attributed only to Allah? Does this prove Islam to be right and Christianity to be wrong? No, of course not.

The gifted people of the time were commissioned (mostly) by the leaders of the dominant religions to create religious works, whereas those places that have a different dominant religion, we see that they are the ones who were able to afford to hire these people to create the grandiose achievements.

What you have simply done is this: You have looked at what the dominant religion in the West was at the time these things were created, and said "ah! That must have been because the religion was Christianity! Therefore it's because of Jesus!". This is a mass generalization. The fact of the matter is that these people were/are gifted whether they are Muslims, Christians, Jews, Atheist, Deist - and they are still gifted even if they are working on a piece for a religion they don't believe in or were indoctrinated into (ie. no choice). These people were/are gifted whether god exists, and they were/are gifted if he does not.

Another way to show what you are saying:
1. This is a Christian forum
2. It contains a lot of excellent and accurate information on it that refutes Islam.
3. One of the people responsible for posting that information here is Sanitarium
4. Therefore, Christianity is responsible for excellent rebuttals against Islam.

Do you agree with that line of reasoning? I don't. Why? Because I'm an Atheist that posts here after I was invited to (by the most coolest guy on the planet. Gabe rocks!!!!!). Granted I was not commissioned to post here, but I contribute your board and to the knowledge of Christians here, so according to your logic, I'm a Christian because (a)the majority of people here are (b)I'm contributing to something "Christian themed."

I think you're not answering my question because atheism has never shone forth the goodness and grace that is seen in Christian people and doctrine.

I have answered above at the request of a moderator. However, to be brutally honest with you, I did not think responding was worth my time. You can believe whatever you want and I don't care, because I'm not an anti-theist; but I simply did not think it was worth my time bothering to write a HUGE response that you would (a)probably never read (b)that your indoctrination prevents you from accepting (because it conflicts with what you already believe).

but I cannot love atheism.

That's right. You cannot love what you do not understand. You seem to think Atheism is a 'competing religion.' I do hope I have clarified for you above.

But I'm not willing to let go of the fact that atheism is the root of many atrocities commited against Christians.

Hypocrisy and lies.

Without a God, there are no restrictions to what a man can do to meet his own ends.

You Christians always make this claim, and you CLAIM to get your morality from the Bible. However this is not the case. You seem to cherry pick what you want to follow (what fits with your own morality) and explain away or use cultural relativism (or "oh jesus replaced that!") to dismiss what you do NOT want to follow (ie. you realise it's immoral).

Otherwise you'd all be out there picketing with Westboro Baptist church. I submit that you ARE using your own morality - and you first use it on the commands of the Bible despite your protestations to the contrary.

Atheism actually means in its original Greek, "without-a god." Not even men's laws have kept people from expressing the evil in their own hearts. Atheism is actually an enabler of evil, not a restricting force.

Answered in-depth above. Please stop making yourself look foolish!!

 

[Sanitarium]

Sanitarium... would you be willing to make an attempt to answer the question Azlan has asked? Afterall he has stated his question twice, and it has nothing to do with the other comments he has made. :shades

I personally would be very interested to hear the benefits of atheism in your personal lives...

sheshisown (moderator)

Done at your request. Thanks

 

[coelacanth]

What causes bias? A personal bent.

All interpretation of any statistical data becomes jaded by the worldview ( of personal agenda ) of the interpreter.

As you clearly stated; there again are no objective controlled experiments that would ever give us a synonomous thread of statisics without some bias.

To think that any human being can function entirely without bias is an unreasonable ideal in itself, wouldn't you agree? :shades

Catagorization is the first constant of all statistical trends... if catagorizing atheists is unfair in your estimation... then catagorizing christians or christian countries or atheist countries are unfair as well.

The conclusion here does not follow from the premises. See below.

On what basis may we continue to draw conclusions without assuming some catagories ?

bonnie :shades

You raise good points. But some important distinctions to be made.

First of all, I was condemning the categorization of atheists based on an unwarranted extrapolation of the definition of atheism, a term used in human discourse, to necessarily include a logical approach to statistical analysis. What sanitarium and I have said many times is that “atheist†really says nothing more than that a person lacks religious beliefs. The comparison you make between two forms of “categorization†is an unfair juxtaposition. There is an entire science of demography that is useful in politics, marketing, etc. that offers aggregate and probabilistic information regarding large groups of people. True, it cannot predict actions or explain their causality for a single individual based on categories. While statisticians cannot ideally design experiments on this issue (due in no small part to the impracticality of the scale of the experiment and the ethical implications of doing so), they can engage in statistical sampling, looking for frequency of occurrence of certain beliefs and actions. Statistical induction can then occur, and investigation of a null hypothesis remains a good and healthy idea (expanded on below). Statistical significance of various correlations can be mathematically calculated. You seem to be questioning the conclusions of my statistical induction, and, fair enough. I agreed that in this instance experiments to clarify causality cannot feasibly be performed. However, we have to work with the data we have available. Central point of this paragraph: the two categorizations you held up next to each other to demonstrate fairness are, to be cliché: “apples and orangesâ€Â.

Pure and unapplied mathematics does have legitimate claims to proofs without bias. From a philosophical standpoint regarding anything in existence, I am unaware of anything that has really been demonstrably true about existence without bias greater than or even equal to DesCartes’ famous “I think, therefore I am.†Any beliefs advancing beyond that are subject to philosophical criticism, including criticism of the assumption that the “real world†actually exists in any physical capacity, thereby casting doubt on anything believed about the real world. However, I choose to persevere under the assumption that it is real, and have found reality to be consistent enough to presuppose its physical/material existence (if it is not, then my treatment of it as real is not much of a waste). Now, assumptions and presuppositions are the road to bias, so we must be careful. Statistical analysis can be done mathematically to demonstrate likelihood and probability without bias, and in peer-reviewed journals to double-check that the analysis was performed correctly. Furthermore, what I advanced was exploratory data analysis, which is “an approach to analyzing data for the purpose of formulating hypotheses worth testing†(wikipedia) and “is the process of using statistical tools (such
as graphs, measures of center, and variation) to investigate data sets in order to
understand their important characteristics.â€Â

If such “categorizations†cannot be advanced as hypotheses, it would be a roadblock to discovering correlations between various phenomena (such as poverty and academic success, or racism and political success) and discovering underlying reasons for statistically significant disparities in order to identify and ultimately remedy real world problems. I would therefore contend that, even given human bias, we can ascertain a degree of certainty through investigation and the scientific method that has shown itself to be unequivocally useful, while the applied science of demographic analysis continues to develop greater and greater accuracy.

So, all in all, demographic analysis is extremely useful, and I have admitted that in this case the data could and should be better. On the basis of its usefulness as representative of reality and beneficial in application of conclusions, we may continue to draw conclusions, and test them as hypotheses, while assuming categories.

 

[coelacanth]

Sanitarium, looks like you did some homework in answering that post Thanks.

sheshisown, it seems like you were most interested in my answer to the "personal benefits of atheism", is there anything you would like me to expand on?

 

[Gabe]

I'm an Atheist that posts here after I was invited to (by the most coolest guy on the planet. Gabe rocks!!!!!).

LOL. Thanks, Sani.

 

[Sanitarium]

Sanitarium, looks like you did some homework in answering that post Thanks.

NP! Sorry I think I inadvertantly killed your thread