Atheists Do It Better

[Audie]

So an atheist believes, feels there is no God. So I suppose if in a foxhole, an atheist started praying, that make them a hypocrite. Claiming to be a atheist and going to church. Hypocrite!

I bet there's never been a Christian who saw the tanks
coming and said "Glory be, I is about to receive
eternal life!*

* (or reasonable facsimilie thereof)

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I don't believe the rules allow me to refer to other threads with the express purpose of criticising a specific poster's views.

Although, you'll find on many threads about religious history that almost all atheists here hold very negative views that are a) completely out of step with secular scholarship (if not downright fabricated) b) completely impervious to change.

The same people will then go on other threads and be aghast when religious folk put their own ideology preferences above scholarly expertise.

Actually, I don't believe that to be entirely accurate. Indeed, there are atheists who hold negative views, some for their own dogmatic reasons, but hardly "almost all atheists" fit into that category. In fact, I have found that when an atheist argues against some particular point in religion, or some peculiar tenet of belief, that they usually provide fairly sound arguments based on what can observed in the world around us for their views.

And that speaks to your second point: most atheists are no more "impervious to change" than anyone else (although it's generally true of humans that only wet babies really like change). What they are, however, is impervious to change without being given a valid reason. Usually, quoting some scripture or other, is not enough reason, although this point seems lost on many believers.

 

[Salvador]

Professor of psychology Benjamin Beit-Hallahmi profiled a likely atheist to be this person - “We can say that atheists show themselves to be less authoritarian and suggestible, less dogmatic, less prejudiced, more tolerant of others, law-abiding, compassionate, conscientious, and well-educated. They are of high intelligence, and many are committed to the intellectual and scholarly life.”

1. HAPPINESS
Scandinavian countries tend to be the least religious countries of the Western world and yet are consistently ranked the highest in the polls that measure a happiness index.

2. INTELLIGENCE
Atheists tend to have higher IQs

3. BETTER JOBS
This follows from the previous reason - more intelligent people tend to do better in the workplace.

4. SELF-ESTEEM & SELF-RELIANCE
These are two sides of the same coin. Atheists are not being told that they are guilty and sinful, as is the case with many religious teachings.

5. PROGRESS
Atheists tend to value scientific discovery more

6. HEALTH
Atheists believe in science and would not stand in the way of medical treatments on religious grounds.

7. PEACEFULNESS
Atheists do not start wars or commit acts of terrorism for religious reasons, just to prove their deity is the correct one.

8. SCEPTICISM
Atheists are generally skeptical and tend to look at issues from a rational, often scientific standpoint that demands proof.

9. SOCIAL ISSUES
Atheists tend to be very involved in social justice issues.

10. BETTER SEX
It wouldn't be a worthwhile list if it didn't talk about sex. There have been studies that showed atheists having better sex lives than religious people simply due to not feeling guilty about it.
10 Reasons Atheists Do It Better

Biggest benefit of being an atheist is in not having to justify your life or choices according to some relic of a book.

Not to be too serious but, I never understood the "benefits" of religious belief or really what benefits religion might provide which couldn't be easily obtained without religious belief.

Good points you've provided about how and why atheists overall are better people than theists. ...

There's zero evidence of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, highly benevolent supernatural deity; so then, there's good reason for us to be atheists rather than theists.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

It's totally fine... I didn't make the claim without having examples in mind.

Examples:

Claiming belief in God is the same as believing in a Cosmic Superman, Leprechauns, sky-fairies, Thor.

Claiming belief in the creation story in Genesis is the same as believing in God-Magic.

I can provide 4 examples. In at least 2 of them, the poster was teasing and making fun of the belief in God.

In the one of the other examples, it's a boarder-line case of teasing, but it was grossly misrepresenting other people's religious beliefs.

In the last example, I think the poster was trying to help, but was in actuality proselytizing Atheism.

If you want quotes, PM me.

But none of these is dogmatic in the least. On the contrary, belief in the absence of any evidence at all in anything, be it gods (including Thor), supermen, leprechauns, fairies, all constitute the same sort of thing -- acceptance of an idea for which you have no evidence.

Unless you can provide some evidence that the creation story in Genesis happened in anything even remotely like the way it is therein described, then Genesis is indeed not history, nor any other sort of fact whatever. There is an absolutely immense amount of science available right now, on the internet, that can show you that, if you only looked. There is nothing but Genesis to refute all that science, all that patient learning and accumulation of knowledge, facts and evidence.

You need a better understanding of what the word "dogma" actually means, because I don't think it means what you think it does. DOGMA (noun): a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true. That is to say, stuff you are to believe in the absence of evidence. And that's just what an acceptance of religious creeds and stories is.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Lets look at the definition...

Definition of hypocrite
1 : a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion
2 : a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings

No virtue, no religion, no beliefs. I suppose it might still be possible but I suspect it'd be really hard.

I've seen this happen pretty regularly with certain atheist secular humanists arguments which turn hypocritical. Not something defined by atheism per say but defined by the beliefs and virtues idealized within secular humanism.

 

[dybmh]

But none of these is dogmatic in the least. On the contrary, belief in the absence of any evidence at all in anything, be it gods (including Thor), supermen, leprechauns, fairies, all constitute the same sort of thing -- acceptance of an idea for which you have no evidence.

Unless you can provide some evidence that the creation story in Genesis happened in anything even remotely like the way it is therein described, then Genesis is indeed not history, nor any other sort of fact whatever. There is an absolutely immense amount of science available right now, on the internet, that can show you that, if you only looked. There is nothing but Genesis to refute all that science, all that patient learning and accumulation of knowledge, facts and evidence.

You need a better understanding of what the word "dogma" actually means, because I don't think it means what you think it does. DOGMA (noun): a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true. That is to say, stuff you are to believe in the absence of evidence. And that's just what an acceptance of religious creeds and stories is.

Most respectfully, I agree with everything you said. But you are prejudging me. You don't know what I believe or what was said in each of the specific circumstances.

I think you have me confused with someone else.

 

[dianaiad]

So says those who think god makes it all right for them and they will live for eternity - without any proof whatsoever.

I'm not the one claiming to be smarter than anybody else, better educated than anybody else and downright better than everybody else at pretty much everything.

Oh, and 'tu qouque' is a fallacy, remember? Atheists who are as intelligent and well educated as y'all claim to be would know that, and, er, not commit it.

Just sayin.'

 

[Nakosis]

I've seen this happen pretty regularly with certain atheist secular humanists arguments which turn hypocritical. Not something defined by atheism per say but defined by the beliefs and virtues idealized within secular humanism.

I'd like to know. Maybe I am guilty of it myself. Secular humanism is just the idea that man is capable of determining his own morals. I'm not sure how one would end up being hypocritical in that regard.

I can understand how anyone could be a hypocrite about stuff, however something about atheist arguments? Apparently people do see them as being hypocritical. I just can't think of a specific example at the moment.

 

[dianaiad]

Not true. I consider myself the most modest person in the Universe.

Joking aside, who has a more inflated ego: someone who thinks she is here for no particular reason at all, or someone who believes that the whole Universe has been created for her by an infinite divinity who has a plan for her?

Ciao

- viole

Bit of a false dichotomy going on there, as well as a tu quoque fallacy.

Dang, folks as smart as atheists claim to be should know better than to commit either fallacy.

 

[dianaiad]

I benefit of not having to deal with guilt.

That's not atheism. That's sociopathy. One need not be a theist to understand the difference between right and wrong, and to feel guilty when one does 'wrong.'

However, I happen to think that atheists...given that they almost universally claim that the only definition of atheism is 'lack of belief in a god or gods,' come in all levels of intellectual ability....and character flaws/achievements, just like the rest of us.

Now if I only didn't know so many atheists who are convinced that aliens crash landed in Area 51....

 

[Augustus]

Actually, I don't believe that to be entirely accurate. Indeed, there are atheists who hold negative views, some for their own dogmatic reasons, but hardly "almost all atheists" fit into that category. In fact, I have found that when an atheist argues against some particular point in religion, or some peculiar tenet of belief, that they usually provide fairly sound arguments based on what can observed in the world around us for their views.

I agree "almost all" was probably a poor turn of phrase, many would have been better.

I'm not really talking about religious belief though as I'm an atheist, but religious history: stuff that actually happened.

And that speaks to your second point: most atheists are no more "impervious to change" than anyone else (although it's generally true of humans that only wet babies really like change). What they are, however, is impervious to change without being given a valid reason. Usually, quoting some scripture or other, is not enough reason, although this point seems lost on many believers.

Again I'm not talking about quoting scripture, but scholarly papers and texts; the kind of thing that "Rationalists" are supposed to value yet suddenly get dismissed out of hand if they contradict the emotionally comforting myths shared by many atheists on certain topics.

 

[Nakosis]

In my understanding, “I am this body” is the default notion for most people. When one gets clue that waking bodies and dream bodies are equally transient, the so-called traditional measures of well being (as enumerated in the OP) lose meaning.

Empirical sciences really cannot plumb the depth of that alternative knowledge.

Superhumans: The remarkable brain waves of high-level meditators

Theism-atheism dichotomy is an example of the superficial understanding.

One need not be a theist to meditate. Obviously physically we are transient. No one sticks around forever.

IMO that depth is the subconscious mind. I think science is starting to make inroads into understanding man's subconscious. It is just difficult because what we are consciously self-aware of what is going on in our subconscious. Conscious awareness is such a small part of who we are. The vast majority of the self is hidden away from rational thinking.

 

[Nakosis]

That's not atheism. That's sociopathy. One need not be a theist to understand the difference between right and wrong, and to feel guilty when one does 'wrong.'

However if you don't do wrong, nothing to feel guilt about right?
I look at it differently, I don't intent to do wrong. My intention is to do the right thing to the best of my ability. However if I do something "wrong", it's not really my fault since my intent was to do the right thing. I didn't know enough, wasn't smart enough, basically wasn't able at the time to do the right thing. So you can't really blame me for not doing something I was not capable of doing.

On the other hand, if I intended to do "wrong" then it's what I wanted to do, for whatever nefarious reason, what's there to feel guilt about in doing what I intended to do?

However, I happen to think that atheists...given that they almost universally claim that the only definition of atheism is 'lack of belief in a god or gods,' come in all levels of intellectual ability....and character flaws/achievements, just like the rest of us.

Honestly, I agree. Atheists are as likely to run the gamut of human nature as anyone else. Unfortunately though nobody trusts an atheist, even though they are as likely to be as trustworthy as anyone.

Now if I only didn't know so many atheists who are convinced that aliens crash landed in Area 51....

What are you talking about? Of course they did.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

If an Atheist claims to value Facts over beliefs, and then ignores Facts in favor of beliefs, that is hypocritical.

Correct?

I'm answering out of turn, but I would agree with that statement. And if you ever showed me where I, who thinks of himself as a rational atheist, has done so, I'd be happy to re-examine myself.

For example, the day somebody shows me some "real Fact" about the existence of God, I will take another very hard look at my disbelief -- but so far, nobody has done anything remotely like that.

 

[dybmh]

I'm answering out of turn, but I would agree with that statement. And if you ever showed me where I, who thinks of himself as a rational atheist, has done so, I'd be happy to re-examine myself.

For example, the day somebody shows me some "real Fact" about the existence of God, I will take another very hard look at my disbelief -- but so far, nobody has done anything remotely like that.

Thank you for your reply. I appreciate that very much.

 

[ChristineM]

Generally speaking, when a person engages in hate speech it is a sign of weakness in their argument. So, when a person does this, I don't feel obligated to report them. It doesn't offend me, personally. It discredits the speaker.

If other people are offended by it, then they can report it.

Dont leave it for others.

 

[ChristineM]

I'm not the one claiming to be smarter than anybody else, better educated than anybody else and downright better than everybody else at pretty much everything.

There could be a very good reason for that.

Oh, and 'tu qouque' is a fallacy, remember? Atheists who are as intelligent and well educated as y'all claim to be would know that, and, er, not commit it.

I dont know one atheist who makes such claims except in humour as has happened on this thread. On the contrary, the claim seems to derive from non atheists with an inferiority complex.

Just sayin'

 

[ChristineM]

Not really enough atheists to go around. Get back to me after we've elected our first atheist president.

In america you are going to have to level the playing field and change outdated and bigoted attitudes of some states in electing or employing an atheist into public office first

 

[ChristineM]

OK. That makes sense. Can I take it one step further and get your feedback?

If an Atheist claims to value Facts over beliefs, and then ignores Facts in favor of beliefs, that is hypocritical.

Correct?

Can you give examples or is this just a hypothetical?

 

[ChristineM]

So an atheist believes, feels there is no God. So I suppose if in a foxhole, an atheist started praying, that make them a hypocrite. Claiming to be a atheist and going to church. Hypocrite!

Rather like claiming god is good then killing or mutilating or raping someone in the name of god?