To all atheists

One word: love.

What sort of love?

 

[bendoe]

One word: love.

What does love prove?

 

[Sanctuary]

What sort of love?

I'd best describe it as a brotherly love - at least that's what it should be (Christianity).

Sadly quite a few churchgoers have simply become judgmental hypocrites. It's not what it should be. I don't, and CAN'T, blame people for their perspectives on Christians, as it's only our own faults.

I don't push things on people to try to prove them wrong, I push it because I care about them. That's where I think the key difference is. Atheists don't gain anything from trying to disprove people, but Christians lose something by doing nothing at all.

 

[Jimmy]

Atheists don't gain anything from trying to disprove people, but Christians lose something by doing nothing at all.

Religion is a destructive force, used to enslave the minds of children by teaching them that evidence and reason are superseded by faith and authority. By advocating irreligion, I'm fighting for the liberation of people from irrational beliefs. What does a Christian gain by forcing their religion upon their peers? A spot in heaven? The Christian is motivated in spreading their message due to their own selfishness, whereas the atheist is motivated because they actually care about their fellow man.

 

[Basic_All_Day]

This is very easy to answer. It is purely because religion is bad for our race, plain and simple. There have been no technological or species advancing discoveries made in the name of religion. Why? Because they're just here so they can die and go have a life after death.

No one who believes in a stable afterlife really cares about future generations or the advancement of the human species. They're simple minded baboons who are self-centered in everything they do, yet proclaim to be doing good, whether they admit it or not.

Atheism promotes the search for the truth, regardless of whether or not you like the answer you receive. Most Atheists are content in life, and will do anything they can to help contribute in a positive manner with truly pure motives. It also is a stable way for people to unite and cast out ignorance and the prevarications that prevent our race from accelerating.

But, this is not to the point. A large number of current Atheists do not disbelieve in deities, they just have a strong hatred for a religion that believes in one. Most of them are basing their beliefs on this hatred, rather than on the solid facts. There's nothing wrong with that, however, as all religion should be abolished.

"Religion is the opiate of the masses."

Even if you are not religious, you cannot deny that religion has majorly aided society throughout history. If for nothing else, it served to keep the poor in line during the Middle Ages, subsequently allowing for technological advancements within society because the elite did not have to focus on how to quell those damned poor people.

 

[capper4lyf]

Religion is a destructive force, used to enslave the minds of children by teaching them that evidence and reason are superseded by faith and authority. By advocating irreligion, I'm fighting for the liberation of people from irrational beliefs. What does a Christian gain by forcing their religion upon their peers? A spot in heaven? The Christian is motivated in spreading their message due to their own selfishness, whereas the atheist is motivated because they actually care about their fellow man.

100% agree with you. I experienced this with the Mormon church, its so stupid how they do it to almost make you feel guilty and isolate you . I would rather kill myself then live in Utah, Salt Lake city.

 

[raziaex]

I agree with you Jimmy, but its what they believe in. If you were a flat-earth believer, I don't think you would like someone to tell you you are an idiot and that its fake, would you?
Even if you think its the dumbest thing you ever heard, I think it should be respected anyway.

Of course I wouldn't like it. But let's be honest. If you told me that dinosaurs existed within 6000 years of our current date; that the earth was flat; or that babies were delivered by flying birds rather than true conception - then yes; I will flat out tell you that you are a fucking retard; whether you enjoy it or not.

 

[raziaex]

"Religion is the opiate of the masses."

Even if you are not religious, you cannot deny that religion has majorly aided society throughout history. If for nothing else, it served to keep the poor in line during the Middle Ages, subsequently allowing for technological advancements within society because the elite did not have to focus on how to quell those damned poor people.

Any examples? Find one.
Honestly... If ANYTHING, history shows just how crude and medieval religious faith has been in holding back progress and advancement...

 

[Sanctuary]

Religion is a destructive force, used to enslave the minds of children by teaching them that evidence and reason are superseded by faith and authority.

Don't categorize all religion together, as their not all the same. I am more than willing to believe evidence and reason, hence why I became a Christian. So let me ask you this: have you ever seen a miracle?

By advocating irreligion, I'm fighting for the liberation of people from irrational beliefs. What does a Christian gain by forcing their religion upon their peers? A spot in heaven?

I sure hope that last bit's a joke. If not, you have quite a bit of research to do my friend. The problem is 'Christianity' has become unbelievably distorted and mangled in society. And you're completely right, it's almost to the point where it's a battle between religions and beliefs. It's honestly a sad thing to see. I don't want to "force" my religion on anyone if it's just going to enforce their previous thoughts about Christianity/God.

The Christian is motivated in spreading their message due to their own selfishness, whereas the atheist is motivated because they actually care about their fellow man.

What kind of people are you hanging around with? If they've given you this bad of an impression about Christianity, I don't see how they can call themselves Christians at all. Are you sure it wasn't some type of jehovah witness or something?

To be perfectly honest, the only atheists I've seen have just been out to prove themselves right to look better; not helping anyone or anything out.

 

I'd best describe it as a brotherly love - at least that's what it should be (Christianity).

So you don't love people for something, you just "love them generally" -- which is the same as saying you don't love them at all, you just owe a debt to them for no reason.

I don't push things on people to try to prove them wrong, I push it because I care about them. That's where I think the key difference is. Atheists don't gain anything from trying to disprove people, but Christians lose something by doing nothing at all.

If you care about people so much then wouldn't you agree that it's important not to lead them down the wrong philosophical paths? Afterall, incorrect ethical and political and epistemological theories throughout the ages have lead to more death and destruction than any other factor in human society. Don't you think the first thing you'd want to be doing, if you really cared about people, is sitting down and having a look at your premises, especially your epistemology?

Incidentally, here is a quick tip: your epistemology is based entirely on a lack of sensory evidence. In other words its based on literally nothing. The basis for your entire hierarchy of beliefs is a lack evidence. (You refer to is a faith.)

Logically, in day to day life, the Christian epistemology works like this (and I'm not joking):
I cannot look in this room, but I want to believe there is a chair in that room, therefore there is a chair in that room.
I cannot see what's behind me on the freeway, but I want to believe that there are no cars behind me, therefore there are no cars behind me.

 

[Sanctuary]

So you don't love people for something, you just "love them generally" -- which is the same as saying you don't love them at all, you just owe a debt to them for no reason.

I love people for who they are; I don't need a specific instance to love someone. They didn’t do anything to earn the love – it wasn’t purchased – it’s just given. I wouldn’t ever have to meet you Mr. Sythe, yet if one of us had to die for whatever reason, I’d gladly take your spot if I could.

If you care about people so much then wouldn't you agree that it's important not to lead them down the wrong philosophical paths?

Ironically enough I agree, yet that's exactly why I try to share my faith.

Afterall, incorrect ethical and political and epistemological theories throughout the ages have lead to more death and destruction than any other factor in human society. Don't you think the first thing you'd want to be doing, if you really cared about people, is sitting down and having a look at your premises, especially your epistemology?.

For my sake, use the most basic vocabulary you can muster up. I don't want to have a thesaurus open every time I try to respond.

Epistemology is basically the study of valid information, correct? What is true/false?

I have honestly tried to do as much research on the topics as possible as of late, as I've for whatever reason had a sudden desire to do so. I've come to a personal conclusion that out of all religions Christianity makes the most sense to me. So I was at the point where I believed it's either A) Christianity, or B) Nothing (atheism).

I'm not one to deny logic. I believe what I see, and that again is exactly why I'm a Christian at this moment. So as I asked Jimmy earlier, have you ever seen a miracle? Something that defies all logic, common sense, and you just can't explain it?

Incidentally, here is a quick tip: your epistemology is based entirely on a lack of sensory evidence. In other words its based on literally nothing. The basis for your entire hierarchy of beliefs is a lack evidence. (You refer to is a faith.)

Logically, in day to day life, the Christian epistemology works like this (and I'm not joking):
I cannot look in this room, but I want to believe there is a chair in that room, therefore there is a chair in that room.
I cannot see what's behind me on the freeway, but I want to believe that there are no cars behind me, therefore there are no cars behind me.

It's not based on nothing. I've done plenty of research on not only the Bible, but the Qur'an as well. Before I was even a Christian, my goal was to simply prove it all wrong. I was determined to find inaccuracies, flaws, anything. The Qur'an as multiple inaccuracies, one of those being a character that was supposedly associated in Pharaoh’s court: Haman. Haman's mentioned several times in the Qur'an, yet interestingly enough there have been absolutely no findings of him anywhere in Egyption history. Contrary to that, thanks to Archaeology, Biblical stories are looking to be more and more fact than fiction. If you have an hour to kill, I'd recommend watching this -

[YOUTUBE]NWawVUZg3Es[/YOUTUBE]

How is that not evidence?

 

I love people for who they are; I don't need a specific instance to love someone. They didn’t do anything to earn the love – it wasn’t purchased – it’s just given. I wouldn’t ever have to meet you Mr. Sythe, yet if one of us had to die for whatever reason, I’d gladly take your spot if I could.

So you unconditionally "love" people, i.e. you don't love them. You just have an unconditional debt to them. As I said before, love is an involuntary response to virtue. You have to love something about a person; the concept requires a feature or trait you admire.

But let's get to the meat of this. Altruism, apart from having no justification, is also just flat out impracticable. Allow me to demonstrate:

If there is someone who has less material wealth than you, then, under altruism, you should give what you have to them. -- In other words the basic rule of altruism is that you should swap with anyone who has less than you: You should always swap down.

So say you swap your house for a cardboard box. Then you swap your box for the pavement, then the pavement for some mud. You swap your spot at the soup kitchen for the garbage cans out back, and the garbage cans out back for the dump. Get where I'm going with this? There is always going to be someone more destitute than you, until you get to the absolute poverty line, where altruism does not stop. It says: no, give up your life so that another may live in your place. So you swap your life for death. That's point one.

Point two: in every altruist transaction there is a loser. Altruism has no win-win transaction. The guy who accepts the gift is by definition selfish, if the guy who gives the gift is selfless. So this forces half the population to be evil at any one time, and if you include "making someone do evil" as a sin, then under altruism everyone is evil.

So not only does the moral code logically lead you to death, but it also requires that one or both of the parties be immoral for every moral transaction.

Point three: There isn't any justification for altruism, it just 'is'. Just like 'god' or 'the state', it is an unquestioned unreasoned inconsistent moral absolute crammed down the throats of young children such that slave owners (church and rulers) can control their chattel more effectively.

Just to illustrate the insanity of it all: you are taking moral instruction from a book written 2000 years ago and living in a society with a political structure centered around slavery developed 6000 years ago. Do you take your medical advice from doctors trained from books 2000 years old? No? Well then why do you take your ethical and political advice from said same books, and without any rational justification? It's completely mad.

If you want to free yourself of this idiocy please read Atlas Shrugged. I guarantee it will sort things out for you.

It's not based on nothing. I've done plenty of research on not only the Bible, but the Qur'an as well. Before I was even a Christian, my goal was to simply prove it all wrong. I was determined to find inaccuracies, flaws, anything.

No, you misunderstand. It is based on literally nothing. I.e. the absence of something. "Taken on faith" means "accepted with no evidence." Faith is the absence of evidence.

The root of your belief hierarchy is that "god exists", and that "his existence must be accepted purely on faith." The religion is even called "a faith" in reference to the fact.

The Qur'an as multiple inaccuracies, one of those being a character that was supposedly associated in Pharaoh’s court: Haman. Haman's mentioned several times in the Qur'an, yet interestingly enough there have been absolutely no findings of him anywhere in Egyption history. Contrary to that, thanks to Archaeology, Biblical stories are looking to be more and more fact than fiction. If you have an hour to kill, I'd recommend watching this -

I don't know why you read any of them or what they have to do with "god". Were they written by "god"?

How is that not evidence?

Again, what has the bible to do with "god"? Even if it has historical factualities in it, that is completely irrelevant to the topic. I have read plenty of fiction which contains factually accurate material. It does not logically follow that these writings constitute evidence of aliens or time travel, likewise it does not logically follow that the bible constitutes evidence of super-human beings.


Let's change gears slightly on the topic, because I think I have already established in pretty concrete terms why your position is unarguable (namely that by its own statements it's based on nothing).

Why do you believe in the magical sky daddy? What prompts you to give up your happiness for this illogical nonsense?

 

[Seesta crook]

I dont care waht other people think.

Im in the U.S.A and one of the good things about this country is freedom of religion so what they think is fine with me.

 

[Sanctuary]

So you unconditionally "love" people, i.e. you don't love them. You just have an unconditional debt to them. As I said before, love is an involuntary response to virtue. You have to love something about a person; the concept requires a feature or trait you admire.

But let's get to the meat of this. Altruism, apart from having no justification, is also just flat out impracticable. Allow me to demonstrate:

If there is someone who has less material wealth than you, then, under altruism, you should give what you have to them. -- In other words the basic rule of altruism is that you should swap with anyone who has less than you: You should always swap down.

So say you swap your house for a cardboard box. Then you swap your box for the pavement, then the pavement for some mud. You swap your spot at the soup kitchen for the garbage cans out back, and the garbage cans out back for the dump. Get where I'm going with this? There is always going to be someone more destitute than you, until you get to the absolute poverty line, where altruism does not stop. It says: no, give up your life so that another may live in your place. So you swap your life for death. That's point one.

Point two: in every altruist transaction there is a loser. Altruism has no win-win transaction. The guy who accepts the gift is by definition selfish, if the guy who gives the gift is selfless. So this forces half the population to be evil at any one time, and if you include "making someone do evil" as a sin, then under altruism everyone is evil.

So not only does the moral code logically lead you to death, but it also requires that one or both of the parties be immoral for every moral transaction.

Point three: There isn't any justification for altruism, it just 'is'. Just like 'god' or 'the state', it is an unquestioned unreasoned inconsistent moral absolute crammed down the throats of young children such that slave owners (church and rulers) can control their chattel more effectively.

Just to illustrate the insanity of it all: you are taking moral instruction from a book written 2000 years ago and living in a society with a political structure centered around slavery developed 6000 years ago. Do you take your medical advice from doctors trained from books 2000 years old? No? Well then why do you take your ethical and political advice from said same books, and without any rational justification? It's completely mad.

If you want to free yourself of this idiocy please read Atlas Shrugged. I guarantee it will sort things out for you.


No, you misunderstand. It is based on literally nothing. I.e. the absence of something. "Taken on faith" means "accepted with no evidence." Faith is the absence of evidence.

The root of your belief hierarchy is that "god exists", and that "his existence must be accepted purely on faith." The religion is even called "a faith" in reference to the fact.


I don't know why you read any of them or what they have to do with "god". Were they written by "god"?

Again, what has the bible to do with "god"? Even if it has historical factualities in it, that is completely irrelevant to the topic. I have read plenty of fiction which contains factually accurate material. It does not logically follow that these writings constitute evidence of aliens or time travel, likewise it does not logically follow that the bible constitutes evidence of super-human beings.


Let's change gears slightly on the topic, because I think I have already established in pretty concrete terms why your position is unarguable (namely that by its own statements it's based on nothing).

Why do you believe in the magical sky daddy? What prompts you to give up your happiness for this illogical nonsense?

You're obsessed with arguing, no matter what the topic. Sythe, no matter what you say I still love you man. I owe you nothing, you owe me nothing, I still love you. Maybe the word "love" doesn't fully describe it, and I apologize for that. But by my definition of it, I love you. You simply cannot argue this with me.

You still haven't answered my question. Have you ever seen a miracle?

 

[raziaex]

You're obsessed with arguing, no matter what the topic. Sythe, no matter what you say I still love you man. I owe you nothing, you owe me nothing, I still love you. Maybe the word "love" doesn't fully describe it, and I apologize for that. But by my definition of it, I love you. You simply cannot argue this with me.

You still haven't answered my question. Have you ever seen a miracle?

The fact that he's answering your points precisely and with great detail doesn't stem from any assumable 'obsession'. Don't you think that's quite an ignorant (and quite arrogant) claim? That simply because someone else is able to knock down your argument; they must be 'obsessed'?

You don't literally 'love' him. I'm sure he can agree with that. Perhaps you do, in a highly exaggerated sense; but otherwise I think that is quite ridiculous. Just the way you can say you love a supremely invisible being that supposedly creates and destroys anything at will. Yes; hint the irony please.

And what sort of question is that? A miracle? What do you define as a miracle? What do you serve to even prove with that? And don't even start with miracles with regards to faith; because they're pretty much either bullshit or scientifically explainable in one way or another. Thus the term 'miracle', in this sense, is actually completely out of the question.

 

[Sanctuary]

The fact that he's answering your points precisely and with great detail doesn't stem from any assumable 'obsession'. Don't you think that's quite an ignorant (and quite arrogant) claim? That simply because someone else is able to knock down your argument; they must be 'obsessed'?

You don't literally 'love' him. I'm sure he can agree with that. Perhaps you do, in a highly exaggerated sense; but otherwise I think that is quite ridiculous. Just the way you can say you love a supremely invisible being that supposedly creates and destroys anything at will. Yes; hint the irony please.

And what sort of question is that? A miracle? What do you define as a miracle? What do you serve to even prove with that? And don't even start with miracles with regards to faith; because they're pretty much either bullshit or scientifically explainable in one way or another. Thus the term 'miracle', in this sense, is actually completely out of the question.

Nope, I love him. I love you too.

A miracle is what people assume it to be. Something you can't explain with logic or science. And no, it's not out of the question. Obviously you've never experienced something of that nature.

YOU can claim something I say is bullshit, but if I've SEEN it with my own two eyes, I know it to be true.

 

[Missing End]

Despite only thinking that religion could be ignorance, maybe for some it gives hope.

 

[gtdarkpunisher]

You're obsessed with arguing, no matter what the topic. Sythe, no matter what you say I still love you man. I owe you nothing, you owe me nothing, I still love you. Maybe the word "love" doesn't fully describe it, and I apologize for that. But by my definition of it, I love you. You simply cannot argue this with me.

You still haven't answered my question. Have you ever seen a miracle?

Nope, I love him. I love you too.

A miracle is what people assume it to be. Something you can't explain with logic or science. And no, it's not out of the question. Obviously you've never experienced something of that nature.

YOU can claim something I say is bullshit, but if I've SEEN it with my own two eyes, I know it to be true.

I'm assuming you have your own meaning for love. As love doesn't just exist by saying you love random people. As Sythe said, that's basically empty/false love; saying it doesn't make it true unless that what you believe.

He's not obsessed with arguing. He's simply digging into the topic with the most possible details to show flaws in your logic and show what you're literally saying. Once you claim the idea or what you said is your personal opinion or belief, then it can't be argued against.

 

[Weloverange]

I just don't believe, I just don't think I'll ever believe too.

 

[Xeox]

I believe in freedom of belief, meaning I don't run up to every Atheist I see and call him an idiot for believing in no God, so I expect them not to come up to me and say "You idiot why do you believe in God"

Also, I would like to worship however I please. I do not like when people say Religion is bad, because like anything else the leaders do not neccessarily reflect the views of the followers. For example, if you were an American, would you like all people to believe Americans are exactly like George Bush? Would you like to be labeled by someone because of only one person? Should one person be able to sum up a whole group? No, so please do not bash religion.