I’ve been hearing much lately from atheists about how religious people are silly because we believe in invisible things.
Of course, we do. I believe in all sorts of invisibilities like radio waves. I can’t see them but I know they’re there. Sound. I’ve never seen sound but once again I’m confident it’s there. Wind. I can’t see it but I recognize its effects.
Our eyes are limited. There are many things we do not see. Atheists, I believe, put much too much confidence in their eyes and ears. They are more than a little intolerant of those who believe in God.
This from the Houston Chronicle is a shining example of an intolerant atheist:
Some days it seems as if candidates are running for the nation’s office of first cleric rather than commander in chief. It is ironic that believing in invisible beings and hearing their voices is viewed as a qualification for an office in the West Wing when traditionally it qualified one for a room in a psychiatric ward. However, the majority of Americans seem to want a candidate who believes in God as well as America.
Isn’t that so sweet of her? Remember, insulting Christians is fine. Now, as if she didn’t start off stupidly enough she contradicts herself quickly as she continues:
We atheists are a small and misunderstood minority. Only 3 percent to 9 percent of Americans report that they do not believe in God. Professor Benjamin Beit-Hallahmi’s review of psychological studies reveals that atheists are less authoritarian and suggestible than religious believers, less dogmatic, less prejudiced, more tolerant of others, law-abiding, compassionate, conscientious, highly intelligent and well educated.
Some religiously inclined mistakenly believe that atheists are amoral. However, we atheists tend to subscribe to the highest moral principles and do so without being motivated by fear of hell or hope of heaven.
Firstly, without God how does one judge which moral principles are the “highest?” Whose benchmark? Also, if you’re so tolerant and unprejudiced what’s with suggesting all religious believers seek residence in the looney bin.
She continues:
Another benefit of having an atheist president is that bloodshed could be less likely. Some of the most brutal episodes in world history, including the Crusades, the Inquisition, witch burnings, genocides and bombings by Christian and Islamic fundamentalists, have been conducted in the name of God. Other countries might well be more trusting of our motives if religious subtexts were absent.
Does this writer have editors? Has she not noticed the…uhm…20th Century? Stalin’s Russia, Hitler’s Germany, Mao’s China, Pol Pot’s Cambodia. Those atheistic fellows ran up a pretty good body count according to the history books. Let’s compare every witch burning that occurred in the history of man with a good afternoon by Stalin or Hitler.
Not realizing she’s rapidly approaching the world record of idiotic things said right in a row, the writer continues:
If religious tests were no longer required for public office and more atheists were elected, believers could focus more on their traditional realm of feeding the hungry and clothing the poor.
Hmmm…who told humans they should feed the hungry and clothe the poor. Uhmm. Anyone remember?
December 17, 2007 at 4:36 pm
Radio waves, sound, and wind can all be proven that they exist with this pesky little thing called “evidence”. Perhaps we atheists should not use the word “invisible”, since you get hung up on it so much. Perhaps we should use the word “non-existent”. Because that’s what we really mean.
“Faith” can be defined as “lack of reason”. We atheists simply want some evidence before we believe. Isn’t that reasonable? “I feel it in my heart”, and “the bible says so” doesnt count. If you can give us ANY evidence at all, we might be more inclined to listen.
December 17, 2007 at 5:26 pm
Also, you trot out the old “Atheists kill people” stories. The problem with your agrument is that these horrible people did not kill people BECAUSE of atheism.
However, religions constantly use god as an excuse to kill non-believers or witches, etc. You know the history as well as I do.
Hitler never renounced his Roman Catholicism, and killed the Jews because he thought god said he should create a master race. I’m not sure where atheism falls into play there.
Also, many of the examples ytou give have moustaches. Perhaps that’s where the evil tendencies lie.
Atheism is simply the lack of belief in any god. You do not (I assume) believe in Siva, Zeus or Mohammed. You are atheistic towards those religions. I just believe in one less god than you.
December 17, 2007 at 5:29 pm
It is unfair to say atheists are intolerant. The truth is nobody can consistently live up to the standard of tolerance that is commonly demanded. That is to never say anything is immoral or unreasonable. As many have pointed out, even saying intolerance is wrong already puts you in violation of some people’s notion of tolerance.
December 17, 2007 at 5:38 pm
Scott,
Atheist and theists have killed people. I disagree with the theists who have done so. You disagree with the atheists who have done so. The point is atheists constantly trot out the most immoral theist in history. To point out that 100% of atheist regimes have been worse than even the worst theist regimes is just keeping the argument historically factual.
Hitler did express hatred for the Catholic church and for all christian churches. So in what sense does that not renounce his Catholicism? One reason he hated Jews was because they brought christianity to the world. So he didn’t profess actual atheism like Stalin did but he was against every religion out there.
December 17, 2007 at 6:04 pm
Actually, faith isn’t a lack of reason, as God makes sense. There isn’t anything that contradicts the Christian concept of God, and getting to a “prime mover” is a simple rational process.
You ask for evidence, well, that’s fine. However, the type of evidence that we would offer isn’t the type that you would accept. I would offer the order to the universe and the beauty and reason of humanity as evidence of God. I would offer the impossibility of a universe spontaneously jumping into existence. I would offer His providence, but you would say that it is just coincidence.
The evidence is really all around you, if instead of constantly trying to explain away God, you try to look for Him.
I don’t “feel God in my heart”, because that is ridiculous, that generally isn’t how God works, and from an Atheists perspective it is difficult to tell where the bible as a historical record ends and where anecdote enters. However, you don’t need these things to realize there is God, all you need is reason. (However, to realize there is a Christian God, there is a leap of faith.)
I would disagree with you about the nature of atheistic regimes. You see, when a human isn’t a spritual being and is just a cog in a great machine, a way of getting the “perfect society”, well, then, it is much easier to kill them. Isn’t it odd how Catholics have never come up with utopian dreams, but atheists are alsways striving to perfect humanity. The fact of the matter is that Catholics, and Christians, recognize the fallen nature of man, and his situtation, and are realistic about the political possibilities.
Also, when speaking about Atheism and politics, it is important to note that Atheistic political philosophies invariably view the state as God, and as such, there is nothing that they are restrained from doing. Introducing the concept that there is nothing the constrains or punishs human action, as a practical matter, is a recipe for a brutish and perverse society, whose longevity is in question. Perhaps you may be enlightened enough to behave well without a God, but not everyone is like you. God is important to help maintain order in society. Read “The Clouds”, by Aristophones to halp you grasp what I am saying.
You completely misrepresent Hitler. Perhaps he didn’t formally renounce his Catholicism, but he did manage to kill millions of them, and create a Atheistic regime. He may have, at times, used language implying mandate from God, but he never believed it. Read “Mein Kampf” and “Hitler”.
Your point about Atheism is idiotic. Atheism means not believing in any God, so that would mean that we are not atheistic because we believe in our God. Also, Mohammed is not a god, he is His prophet.
Tolerance is not lynching someone for doing something that is against you morals, it is nothing more nothing less. Anything more is enabling. Atheists are just as intolerant as everyone else, they are just intolerant about different things, such as Christian intolerance towards abortion, or towards homosexuals. They are intolerant about us being intolerant, but there is more. If someone doesn’t act in the way that atheists view as acceptable, you can be sure that person will bear the consequences. That is intolerance. All I am saying is that no-one can claim to be tolerant, because every group has mode of behavior that they enforce, one way or the other.
December 17, 2007 at 6:39 pm
“the type of evidence that we would offer isn’t the type that you would accept.” You mean reality? Because that’s what I accept.
And my comment is “idiotic”? Really? You do not believe in other gods. You are atheistic towards those gods. I am atheistic towards your god. I’m not sure why you don’t understand that. My moustache comment was idiotic, however.
My intolerance of religion appears when it gets pushed on me. Keep it out of schools & government, and I’ll be pretty happy. But that’s practically impossible, since so many religious folks let god guide them in all their decisions.
More intolerance comes from religious hypocricy. Either the bible is your basis or it isn’t. You can’t just pick and choose passages that suit your life and expect people to respect you because you’re a “good Christian”.
The birth of Jesus was heralded with “Peace on Earth,” yet Jesus said, “Think not that I am come to send peace: I came not to send peace but a sword.” (Matthew 10:34) “He that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.” (Luke 22:36) “But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.” (Luke 19:27. In a parable, but spoken of favorably.)
Is Jesus Mr. Peace or Mr. Sword?
“If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.” (Luke 14:26)
How many people here hate their parents? Well, you’d better or Jesus doesn’t want to deal with you.
He irrationally cursed a fig tree for being fruitless out of season (Matthew 21:18-19, and Mark 11:13-14). He broke the law by stealing corn on the Sabbath (Mark 2:23), and he encouraged his disciples to take a horse without asking permission (Matthew 21).
The “humble” Jesus said that he was “greater than the temple” (Matt 12:6), “greater than Jonah” (Matthew 12:41), and “greater than Solomon” (Matthew 12:42). He appeared to suffer from a dictator’s “paranoia” when he said, “He that is not with me is against me” (Matthew 12:30).
hypocricy hypocricy hypocricy
I encourage everyone on this site to actually read the bible. There’s no better arguement for atheism.
December 17, 2007 at 6:56 pm
scott,
Killing anyone is demonstrably un-Christian. You cannot argue, however, that killing is unatheistic.
To say that Stalin, Hitler, and Mao didn’t kill because of atheism is to believe that philosophy has no practical applications. If one believes that people are no more important than trees, you might understand why that person would make me a little nervous.
now, as afar as proof goes. I believe that God created the universe. You obviously believe that a magic rock blew up and created the universe. We differ on that.
December 17, 2007 at 7:39 pm
The thing about atheism that many religious people seem to misunderstand, is that there is only one tenent involved with being atheist. The only ONLY belief you need to qualify is not to believe in god. That’s it. Anything else is up to you. So killing cannot be called “Atheistic” or not.
Atheists belive that this is the only life we have. We must make the most of it, and try to get along with others. Christianity says that there is a life beyond this. Then why waste time? Why not kill others to speed their journey to the lord? Especially sinless children. Let’s get them to heaven, quick! The poor don’t need help, they just need to die soon, so god can welcome them!
And basically, you’re saying without god, there can be no morality. So you’re telling me that if you didn’t have god in your life, you’d be running through the streets killing people? Are you really afraid of that? Think of all the Christians you know. They would all start raping, stealing and killing if there were no god for them?
Really?
Really?
Honestly?
Of course not. Why? because people are basiacally good. Prior to the year 33AD, before Jesus died, how did humanity survive? Were people just wandering through the streets killing each other? No. Why? Because people are basically good.
But that’s not enough to get into heaven. You must accept Jesus. So I can be a killer, but I like Jesus, so I’m OK. If I’m truly sorry for living a scumbag life on my deathbed, I’m in!
Killing has nothing to do with god, atheism or Christanity. It has to do with whether or not you are a killer. Simple as that.
December 17, 2007 at 8:06 pm
So if everyone is the same with or without God what is your objection then to us believing in God?
Atheists always want their beliefs every which way. Religion has tortured and oppressed people for centuries, they say.
And then in the next breath they argue that people are basically good and that religion has not changed morality one iota.
December 17, 2007 at 10:08 pm
Atheists belive that this is the only life we have. We must make the most of it, and try to get along with others.
How does the last part follow. Why should you try and get along with others. If somebody is helping you make the most of life then you want to get along. If not then why would that be important?
And basically, you’re saying without god, there can be no morality.
That is just silly. Christians don’t say that. Atheists claim Christians say that. I have yet to hear one document the claim. If somebody did say it they would be wrong.
December 17, 2007 at 11:14 pm
Matthew-
I have no objection to you believing in god. I object to your position that atheists are more inclined to be amoral. Morality existed before god was invented.
So because I respect all life, including trees, that makes you nervous? Because I think that this is the only life we have and I respect it and nourish it?
I’d like to see your evidence that proves that believing in god makes you instantly “better”. The 9/11 attackers believed in god.
So my objection is to religious people giving other religious people a pass because they “believe in something”, but atheists are instantly “not good” simply because we think for ourselves.
“Religion has tortured and oppressed people for centuries, they say. And then in the next breath they argue that people are basically good and that religion has not changed morality one iota.”
That might be what “they” say. I say people are good to begin with. But religion as a whole does not make anyone a “better” person. Prisons are filed with people who believe in god. The threat of going to hell did not persuade them, because they can just apologize and “get out hell free”.
And Randy-
What you’re saying is: “If I didn’t believe in god, I would not be nice to people”. I’m nice to people because I want to be. I believe that people want to be good.
“And basically, you’re saying without god, there can be no morality.” is exactly the point the original post is trying to make. Did you read it?
I’ve enjoyed this back-and-forth, and may come visit again. I don’t expect to change anyone’s mind, and I wasn’t invited here. I crashed your party. Good luck to all of you, and I hope you have a great new year!
December 18, 2007 at 3:17 am
I do wonder if folks like Scott realize that the opportunity to develop his particular philosophy and worldview is very much the fruit of the Judeo-Christian tradition that is/was the underpinning of western civilization.
Atheists are always so confident that we modern human beings are just PREDISPOSED to morality and being nice to other people!
He benefits from the Christian tradition in all kinds of ways but just doesn’t see that. Many Brights don’t seem to live up to the name.
December 18, 2007 at 4:00 pm
And Randy-
What you’re saying is: “If I didn’t believe in god, I would not be nice to people”
No, I didn’t say that. What I asked is why being nice to people followed from what you were saying. I didn’t see it. There is still an impulse to be nice but that only goes so far. The question is whether you philosophy drives you to be nice even when you don’t have that impulse. Then there is another question of what is nice and what isn’t. Christianity uses the term loving rather than nice because often love does not fit the feeling of niceness.
“And basically, you’re saying without god, there can be no morality.” is exactly the point the original post is trying to make. Did you read it?
I did read it. It didn’t say that. Read it again. It talks about tolerance and atheists. That has more to do with their arguments than their morality. They accuse Christians of condemning things but they condemn their fair share as well. That is nowhere near saying atheists are incapable of moral behaviour.
December 18, 2007 at 8:23 pm
Criticism isn’t intolerance. Intolerance is being prejudiced against someone because of their beliefs and persecuting, torturing, and killing them because of those beliefs.
Almost all Christian cults believe they are the true Christian cult and until recently were willing to kill each other because of this.
That is true intolerance!
December 19, 2007 at 5:10 pm
Criticism isn’t intolerance. Intolerance is being prejudiced against someone because of their beliefs and persecuting, torturing, and killing them because of those beliefs.
That is not the definition being used in society today. Even luke warm praise is considered intolerant.