Atheist Views.

[F1fan]

No. I'm talking about all oppression of religious people by the irreligious, among which the atheists are.

Explain what you mean by this. Give examples.

No, if they followed divine commands they wouldn't do what they do. The reason they do is that they have no proper morals.

The 9-11 hijackers were following divine commands. ISIS follows divine commands. The Taliban follows divine commands, too. Paul Hill and Scott Roeder were following divine commands when they killed abortion doctors.

So following divine commands is better?

 

[F1fan]

agreed


I am theist and I am pro all that stuff (except for abortion)

Pro Evolution.
Pro Science.
Pro Abortion.
Pro LGBT.
Pro Birth Control.
Pro Vaccinations.
Pro Climate Change.


But I reject abortion because I think it´s wrong to kill innocent humans, this has nothing to do with religion, atheist in general accept this “moral rule” too.

Are you an atheist? Are you pro all that stuff?

It's not like "sign up for internet today and get a free abortion because everybody wants one". It's actually pro-FREEDOM. I understand abortion is morally ambiguous. No one likes it. But the USA values freedom and part of this is a woman's right to end a pregnancy. Don't like it, don't have one.

 

[lukethethird]

Because atheists see spiritual beliefs as irrational / delusional a lot of the time as part of their worldview.

Wrong, many atheists are spiritual and many are religious.

 

[Mock Turtle]

So you're not that familiar with the history of the Soviet Union then? It's quite an interesting story actually, that of the Soviets and the Russian Orthodox Church.

In 1941, with the Nazi tanks at the gates of Moscow, Stalin the pragmatic atheist, was wise enough to recognise what a powerful weapon the Russian people's faith in God could be. So he revived the outlawed Orthodox Church; the sacrifice of the Russian people during WWII was extraordinary. It has been said that all people of faith have courage, but few nations have ever shown greater collective courage than Russia between 1941-5

After the war, faith in anything other than atheist political orthodoxy was actively discouraged once more. But religious faith in Russia remained strong.

Perhaps you missed the bit and some others where they tend to have less regard for religions. I thought that might cover my sins of omission. I did know about how religion was treated for a period, and no doubt like some other countries, they generally weren't in a majority though, even if the Soviet Union was one of the largest doing so - and China of course.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

This comes from another thread where a theist talked about imposing atheist views on others.

Lets remind people atheists only have one view to impose, they lack belief in or positively state there are no gods.

That is it, full stop, the end, the parrot has gone to meet its maker!

Pro Evolution.
Pro Science.
Pro Abortion.
Pro LGBT.
Pro Birth Control.
Pro Vaccinations.
Pro Climate Change.
Wales being the best rugby team in the world.(fact)

Not one of the above is an atheist view, there are probably more theists who hold the above views than there are atheists and it is very possible for an atheist to not support any of them.

What about pro abortion?

 

[Justanatheist]

What about pro abortion?

Pro abortion is not the best way to describe it, but think on this, the largest group of people having abortions in the US is people who identify with a religion.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yes there is.

No, there isn't.

They typically support homosexuality, abortion, lewdness, poor behaviour, using intoxicants and gambling, for example.

That's true for a lot of theists either.

Do all atheists think that? No

Then don't pretend otherwise.

. But do all theists object to homosexuality? No.

Which is when they ignore their religious scriptures. And thank goodness most theists cherry pick their scriptures in that sense.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Are you familiar with the term retronym? It's similar to what you're describing. Before electric guitars, what we call acoustic guitars today were simply called guitars. Before water skiing, snow skiing was just skiing. Before digital clocks, analog clocks were just clocks.

New one to me - we need a word for this though - as to pre-beliefs in such. Or would 'people' just do.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No, if they followed divine commands they wouldn't do what they do.

Au contraire. Following "unquestionable commandments" is exactly what leads to authoritarian dictatorships.

Every theocracy I have ever heard, was an authoritarian form of rule of that reason only.
And I wouldn't want to live in any of them. I'ld choose a secular democracy over any theocracy of any religion any day of the week.

The funny part is that most theists would actually do the same....

The reason they do is that they have no proper morals.

You are the morally bankrupt one. You have effectively abandoned your moral compass in favor of medieval unquestionable "commandments". You have replaced moral reasoning with mere obedience to a perceived authority.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

This comes from another thread where a theist talked about imposing atheist views on others.

Lets remind people atheists only have one view to impose, they lack belief in or positively state there are no gods.

That is it, full stop, the end, the parrot has gone to meet its maker!

Pro Evolution.
Pro Science.
Pro Abortion.
Pro LGBT.
Pro Birth Control.
Pro Vaccinations.
Pro Climate Change.
Wales being the best rugby team in the world.(fact)

Not one of the above is an atheist view, there are probably more theists who hold the above views than there are atheists and it is very possible for an atheist to not support any of them.

I sort of agree with you.

However, I am not pro-abortion. I think abortion should be made available for those who really want it, but I am much more in favour of being smart about your sexual activities and avoiding the need for abortion. Thus, I am certainly pro birth control for those who want to get it on, but don't want to become parents. I am especially pro men taking their own responsibility for birth control, rather than leaving everything up to the woman.

I think you must have meant "pro climate change remediation." I'm certainly not pro climate change.

And football? Meh!

Going a tad further, I am very much in favour of those who are religious basically keeping it between themselves and their gods, rather than trying to saddle the rest of us with their beliefs.

 

[Justanatheist]

I sort of agree with you.

However, I am not pro-abortion. I think abortion should be made available for those who really want it, but I am much more in favour of being smart about your sexual activities and avoiding the need for abortion. Thus, I am certainly pro birth control for those who want to get it on, but don't want to become parents. I am especially pro men taking their own responsibility for birth control, rather than leaving everything up to the woman.

I think you must have meant "pro climate change remediation." I'm certainly not pro climate change.

And football? Meh!

Going a tad further, I am very much in favour of those who are religious basically keeping it between themselves and their gods, rather than trying to saddle the rest of us with their beliefs.

Yes I did not phrase that the best, but I think people understand what I mean.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Because atheists see spiritual beliefs as irrational / delusional a lot of the time as part of their worldview.

Unfortunately for many religious ideas, in societies and cultures that have well-learned the importance of relying on evidence and cogent production and distribution of such, these "spiritual beliefs" do end up looking like irrational positions being held. And until there is sufficient evidence backing claims made of such extraordinary measure there will really be no reason for anyone who already thinks they are irrational to think differently.

Think about the initial serious/public presentation of the idea that the world was round. This was an extraordinary claim at the time, but the maker had good, solid, empirical evidence that they could produce to anyone who was capable of understanding. And so, those who didn't understand got angry, because the "round earth" challenged some of their long-held beliefs and scriptures, and because they couldn't understand the evidence, or refused to, they sought to discredit or even harm this person. Once enough people got their minds around the evidence, and more ideas for how to present this to the "layperson" were imagined and employed, then it became the more common knowledge that the Earth was round. And now it is those still claiming the earth is flat that must produce evidence to convince the majority... except that their evidence remains ever in a terrible and insufficient state - because the flat Earth simply isn't real, and so doesn't follow the patterning and modeling of reality. Hmm... interesting that... sounds familiar, doesn't it?

Anyway - you could try to make this an analogy to theism/atheism, whereby you put the theist in the position of the round-earther, and claim that it will only take finding the right evidence to make all the current deniers change their minds. And that would, honestly, do the trick in the vast majority of cases! However, expecting to be believed before you get to that point of evidence, just because you have feelings for the idea, isn't going to work.

Finally, atheists aren't in the business of actively harming anyone who presents an extraordinary claim and tries to provide evidence for it. You're more likely to simply be told that you aren't believed, or, perhaps, that you are being irrational. This is only the normal dissemination and back-and-forth discussion of ideas that we language-endowed humans have been engaging in for thousands of years now. Some people have the belief of others on their side, and some others have not. Some have good evidence, and some have not. Just because you find yourself in the "have not" bunch does not mean you are being "hurt" by those who tell you so.

 

[Magical Wand]

This comes from another thread where a theist talked about imposing atheist views on others.

Lets remind people atheists only have one view to impose, they lack belief in or positively state there are no gods.

That is it, full stop, the end, the parrot has gone to meet its maker!

Pro Evolution.
Pro Science.
Pro Abortion.
Pro LGBT.
Pro Birth Control.
Pro Vaccinations.
Pro Climate Change.
Wales being the best rugby team in the world.(fact)

Not one of the above is an atheist view, there are probably more theists who hold the above views than there are atheists and it is very possible for an atheist to not support any of them.

While it is perfectly correct that these ideologies (and scientific theories) are not part of atheism, the majority of non-religious people hold many of these beliefs (particularly, pro LGBT and pro abortion).

Quote from Pew Research: "Self-identified atheists also tend to be aligned with the Democratic Party and with political liberalism."

 

[Shakeel]

But you said in your original post that theist god believers hold those views,

I dont remember what I said.

So there is no c

No, there is. Correlations doesn't mean two things go hand in hand without exception

 

[viole]

This comes from another thread where a theist talked about imposing atheist views on others.

Lets remind people atheists only have one view to impose, they lack belief in or positively state there are no gods.

That is it, full stop, the end, the parrot has gone to meet its maker!

Pro Evolution.
Pro Science.
Pro Abortion.
Pro LGBT.
Pro Birth Control.
Pro Vaccinations.
Pro Climate Change.
Wales being the best rugby team in the world.(fact)

Not one of the above is an atheist view, there are probably more theists who hold the above views than there are atheists and it is very possible for an atheist to not support any of them.

Pro climate change? That is the only exception in my case, with the possible exception of the whales thing, since I have zero clue of rugby.

I am definitely not pro climate change. I find it suboptimal that the weather gets warmer.

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

But I reject abortion because I think it´s wrong to kill innocent humans, this has nothing to do with religion, atheist in general accept this “moral rule” too.

I would not generalise. This atheist here does not equal fertilised eggs with human beings, or children. Same with those little sleeping cute beings, looking more like a baby than a fish, that anti-abortionists show at them rallies, among all those crosses.

So, let's test the consistency of your position.

Are you also against disposing In Vitro fertilised eggs, positively screened for genetic diseases? If yes, do you then think it is a moral imperative to implant them in a woman, somehow, so that that innocent human will be born?

Ciao

- viole

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

Unfortunately for many religious ideas, in societies and cultures that have well-learned the importance of relying on evidence and cogent production and distribution of such, these "spiritual beliefs" do end up looking like irrational positions being held. And until there is sufficient evidence backing claims made of such extraordinary measure there will really be no reason for anyone who already thinks they are irrational to think differently.

Think about the initial serious/public presentation of the idea that the world was round. This was an extraordinary claim at the time, but the maker had good, solid, empirical evidence that they could produce to anyone who was capable of understanding. And so, those who didn't understand got angry, because the "round earth" challenged some of their long-held beliefs and scriptures, and because they couldn't understand the evidence, or refused to, they sought to discredit or even harm this person. Once enough people got their minds around the evidence, and more ideas for how to present this to the "layperson" were imagined and employed, then it became the more common knowledge that the Earth was round. And now it is those still claiming the earth is flat that must produce evidence to convince the majority... except that their evidence remains ever in a terrible and insufficient state - because the flat Earth simply isn't real, and so doesn't follow the patterning and modeling of reality. Hmm... interesting that... sounds familiar, doesn't it?

Anyway - you could try to make this an analogy to theism/atheism, whereby you put the theist in the position of the round-earther, and claim that it will only take finding the right evidence to make all the current deniers change their minds. And that would, honestly, do the trick in the vast majority of cases! However, expecting to be believed before you get to that point of evidence, just because you have feelings for the idea, isn't going to work.

Finally, atheists aren't in the business of actively harming anyone who presents an extraordinary claim and tries to provide evidence for it. You're more likely to simply be told that you aren't believed, or, perhaps, that you are being irrational. This is only the normal dissemination and back-and-forth discussion of ideas that we language-endowed humans have been engaging in for thousands of years now. Some people have the belief of others on their side, and some others have not. Some have good evidence, and some have not. Just because you find yourself in the "have not" bunch does not mean you are being "hurt" by those who tell you so.

I appreciate the post. I'm feeling relieved by some of these replies as initially, upon me not understanding at the start of the thread, I um, "may" have thought atheists may not have really thought their thoughts through on the subject. But this subject has shown me that not only have they thought their thoughts through, and the vast majority of them valid, but it's probably even to the point that we can have open dialogue on the subject in the future.

 

[leroy]

It's not like "sign up for internet today and get a free abortion because everybody wants one". It's actually pro-FREEDOM. I understand abortion is morally ambiguous. No one likes it. But the USA values freedom and part of this is a woman's right to end a pregnancy. Don't like it, don't have one.

Freedom to kill an innocent human?....that sounds like NAZI Germany......nothing to do with the freedom that USA values.

Quite honestly I am impressed that this is even a controversial topic........

 

[leroy]

I

So, let's test the consistency of your position.

Are you also against disposing In Vitro fertilised eggs,

Yes

do you then think it is a moral imperative to implant them in a woman, somehow, so that that innocent human will be born?

Ciao

No.


So explain the inconsistency....

Why is this analogous to abortion?


Anticipating your answer.....

There is a moral difference between:

1 killing a human (abortion)

2 not saving a life (like in your in vitro example)

#1 is a moral imperative .......#2 would be a nice thing to do, but you are not obligated to do it.

 

[F1fan]

Freedom to kill an innocent human?

Misleading and inaccurate question. You can look up Roe v Wade to see what the Supreme Court said about this issue.

....that sounds like NAZI Germany

What does, being deliberately misleading and distorting the facts?

......nothing to do with the freedom that USA values.

Actually the SC says it does. Your religious view has no authority over the ruling. The law stands, but you are free to not have an abortion.

Quite honestly I am impressed that this is even a controversial topic........

It is right wing extremists making it a controversy. Oddly it's really controversial when they kill abortion doctors.