Problem with atheism

[Magic Man]

That is exactly the intolerance that I was speaking about.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I took that as a joke, or at least only half serious.

But I do think we'd be better off without organized religion, even if everyone wasn't an atheist.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

That is exactly the intolerance that I was speaking about.

haha I misread that to mean that there are no atheists.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Maybe I'm wrong, but I took that as a joke, or at least only half serious.

But I do think we'd be better off without organized religion, even if everyone wasn't an atheist.

Unorganized religion could be just as destructive as organized religion, and perhaps even more so.

 

[Sum1sGruj]

It's certainly the cloak they all stand under when they commit these atrocities. You can argue all you want on philosophical points or the emotional or mental state of the person or persons doing what they do but throughout history we see a lot of these things centered around religion.

Well seeing how Vietnam and Japan are practically secular, I don't know what you are getting at. China's perfectly secular and look hoe screwed that country is civilly.
Muslim extremists are twisting religion to have people kill themsleves. The runners have the religious degree of an ant. Osama was a CIA tactitian.
Yay for non God-fearing people!

Abortion clinic bombings by Christians has everything to do with religion.

Oh yeah, what's that verse..
Thou shall bomb abortion clinics.

At least we didn't invent the nuclear bomb and have countless lives' worth of blood on our hands.

Protesting the legalization or gay/lesbian marriage by Christians has everything to do with the Christian ideology as well as their homophobic mentality.

The only reason being is because marriage is a religious thing. Believe it or not.

Jews and Muslims fighting in Israel over a piece of land has everything to do with religion. A mosque sits where a supposedly prophesied Jewish temple is to be built. There are other land issues but this is one of the hot button ones.

At least they are not raping the land and trying to justify it with weak excuses.

]Human nature is one thing but when these humans work in a group with specific ideologies and agendas and goals their religious convictions can't be dismissed.

Not believing in God has an agenda all it's own.

 

[waitasec]

Unorganized religion could be just as destructive as organized religion, and perhaps even more so.

i guess the problem lies with religion then...
no religion, no problem

 

[Magic Man]

Unorganized religion could be just as destructive as organized religion, and perhaps even more so.

I disagree, but that's fine with me, too. Let's just get rid of all religion, then.

 

[Magic Man]

Oh yeah, what's that verse..
Thou shall bomb abortion clinics.

Whether or not you find that verse in the Bible, people bomb abortion clinics due to their religious beliefs.

At least we didn't invent the nuclear bomb and have countless lives' worth of blood on our hands.

You should have read the posts after yours. A few people pointed out that, in fact, Christians, along with others, did invent the nuclear bomb.

The only reason being is because marriage is a religious thing. Believe it or not.

Not in this case, it's not. We're not talking about the religious ceremony. We're talking about a legal contract.

Not believing in God has an agenda all it's own.

Can you name one thing that is on the agenda of all people who don't believe in God?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Well seeing how Vietnam and Japan are practically secular, I don't know what you are getting at. China's perfectly secular and look hoe screwed that country is civilly.

Actually none of these are "perfectly" secular as Christianity exist in each of these countries. A little research will dispel the myth that Christianity is non existent in these countries.

Muslim extremists are twisting religion to have people kill themsleves. The runners have the religious degree of an ant.

The point is they terrorize and/or kill in the name of their religious convictions. See we don't assume that their dogma doesn't play a part in their actions. We know that they do. It's not the only factor. Some factions have a host of reasons why they dislike America and Americans and believing we're evil infidels according to their religion is one of them.

Oh yeah, what's that verse..
Thou shall bomb abortion clinics.

This is cute. Again...the fact of the matter is they use their religion as an excuse to kill.

At least we didn't invent the nuclear bomb and have countless lives' worth of blood on our hands.

Stop it. Your ignorance is killing me. Do you think it was simply one person who worked on the Manhattan Project? No....There were plenty of people working on that. Many of them were theist. I think one military guy overseeing the project was the son of a pastor.

The only reason being is because marriage is a religious thing. Believe it or not.

But it's not exclusive to any particular religion. There's nothing wrong with those of the same sex engaging in a civil union. Civil unions can be conducted in a manner as to not "infringe" on any core belief of the Abrahamic religions.

At least they are not raping the land and trying to justify it with weak excuses.

Theist on a large degree do. It's not the minority of Atheist on this planet that are responsible for the current state of affairs. Fighting in Ireland=theist, in Jarusalem=theist, in the US=theist.....

Atheist aren't even remotely responsible for most of the stuff you keep spouting out....

Not believing in God has an agenda all it's own.

I don't believe in gods...and I have no agenda..and certainly not against those who do. Here at RF I state my view and the believer will most likely remain a believer....It's OK with me.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Well seeing how Vietnam and Japan are practically secular, I don't know what you are getting at. China's perfectly secular and look hoe screwed that country is civilly.

No, China is not secular. Secularism is about a separation between church and state. In China, you have direct government regulation of religions and churches, as well as government antagonism toward religion.

Secularism leaves religion alone. A perfectly secular government is blind to religion; it gives religion no special treatment or regard, positive or negative. That's definitely not the situation in China.

 

[Orias]

i guess the problem lies with religion then...
no religion, no problem

That is why the South and South West region of Asia is in continual turmoil.

That is also why the gas prices in the U.S.A rise and fall in drastic measures, because they need money to fund their wars and how else get that money besides the natural resources they possess?

Oh yes, I would like to add in that after Moammar Gadhafi has fallen the rebels of all of the states will most likely turn their attack on Palestine.

And its sure not because of the economy

 

[waitasec]

That is why the South and South West region of Asia is in continual turmoil.

That is also why the gas prices in the U.S.A rise and fall in drastic measures, because they need money to fund their wars and how else get that money besides the natural resources they possess?

Oh yes, I would like to add in that after Moammar Gadhafi has fallen the rebels of all of the states will most likely turn their attack on Palestine.

And its sure not because of the economy

well let me re-phrase then...
no religion...no ambiguity....

 

[Witch9]

That is also why the gas prices in the U.S.A rise and fall in drastic measures, because they need money to fund their wars and how else get that money besides the natural resources they possess?

In Canada, gasoline prices rise and fall because of obscene profiteering by the oil companies. Every time the price of crude oil goes up by even the slightest amount, the price at the pump goes up instantly, by a greater proportion. When the price of crude goes down, it takes weeks or months for the price at the pump to change, and it never goes down as much as the crude oil price does.

Meanwhile, while everyone blames it all on Venezuela and the oil-producing countries in the Middle East, oil company profits soar.

 

[Orias]

In Canada, gasoline prices rise and fall because of obscene profiteering by the oil companies. Every time the price of crude oil goes up by even the slightest amount, the price at the pump goes up instantly, by a grater proportion. When the price of crude goes down, it takes weeks or months for the price at the pump to change, and it never goes down as much as the crude oil price did.

Well it does cost more money for the conversion rate between crude oil and gasoline, which is why the fluctuation in prices is understandable.

However, the oil companies profiteer because thats what companies do, gain profits, otherwise they wouldn't be businesses.

Meanwhile, while everyone blames it all on Venezuela and the oil-producing countries in the Middle East, oil company profits soar.

It is the blame of the countries in the Middle East. Venezuela has little to do with oil production, as OPEC (Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries) is the main source of oil prices and the revenue of companies such as BP, and Exxon Mobile.

The conflict in Libya has actually lowered oil prices since the rebels control the oil fields, and guess what they use to fund their war? Oil, and they sell it to us dirt cheap. Of course, once Iraq comes back online many of the other OPEC countries will see the low standard price for what oil is selling at and the will need to lower their prices just to compete.

As for the high prices of oil, that has a lot to do with the high inflation rate of the U.S which is partners with companies in Canada, the U.K, and the European Nation. Mainly though, the companies need to sell at a constant rate in order to actually gain a profit, and since the Western worlds currency is worth more than most of the rest of the world, prices will always be higher.

Unless you consider countries like Germany where they are paying almost an upwards of $10 a gallon. But the standard MPG in automobiles in Germany is also required to be a minimum 50 MPG, versus the U.S's standard 35 MPG.

The auto industry and oil industry go hand in hand and are a large part for the high prices, but in sum the biggest reason is OPEC.

well let me re-phrase then...
no religion...no ambiguity....

Actually I liked your first statement better.

 

[Orias]

No, China is not secular. Secularism is about a separation between church and state. In China, you have direct government regulation of religions and churches, as well as government antagonism toward religion.

Secularism leaves religion alone. A perfectly secular government is blind to religion; it gives religion no special treatment or regard, positive or negative. That's definitely not the situation in China.

Actually China does enforce a Marxist-Leninist's party system, which is secular to an extent that it at least allows people to a less than comforting standard of worship.

 

[redcom11]

To all my friends who insist on stating that the point of singularity it was a pin point, etc. etc. Please read more. Firstly, this pin point is of immense mass and its size is infinity in the negative. If you have any fundamental understanding of calculus, you will understand what it means. Else, learn calculus.

Secondly, Stephen Hawkins in his much celebrated book and subsequently arrived at the conclusion that 'information' was destroyed in black holes (the reverse of this process is true for big bang). This is the closest mathematical computation for the birth of the universe we have!!!

This mathematical formula (which is the best we have) also has the biggest paradox ever. Its called the 'information paradox'. It means that information is destroyed.

This had severe and critical implications on science as we know it, the world as we know it.

The definition of big bang that is being presented here is TEN YEARS OLD.

Since then, Hawkins has explained the destruction of information on parallel universes. Some with black holes, like our, other without. These two universes negate each other and so theoretically information is not lost. However, in our universe it is lost, since we have not one, but many black holes.

Prof. Susskind has provided an alternate theory that negates the entire Hawkins stance. Which is true, probably Susskind, BUT Hawkins is yet to present his mathematical logic for the parallel universe theory.

Incidentally, when information is destroyed it means....poof. you are left with nothing. NOT A POINT, OR A PIN POINT, OR THIS POINT OR THAT POINT.

Now after talking to some people here, i realize that they posses the most basic knowledge and understanding of the subject. They have not read anything in contemporary science. And when they claim that at the point of singularity there was a singular this or that.......they actually have no blooming idea what they are talking about.

I can bet my bottom dollar that of all the atheists floating around here, perhaps one or at best two, will even know the formula that back up singularity or thermodynamics or anything.

Its a complete waste of time even attempting to debate here. The quality of intellect is very poor. And worse, there is grave paucity of open minds.

Sorry After Glow, I was enjoying our conversations. Good luck to you. Hopefully we will touch base soon.

 

[darkendless]

Its a complete waste of time even attempting to debate here. The quality of intellect is very poor. And worse, there is grave paucity of open minds.

Sorry After Glow, I was enjoying our conversations. Good luck to you. Hopefully we will touch base soon.

You're in the wrong thread if you're expecting a debate on particle physics.

The problem I have with what you've said is that often the best minds don't need to point out what you have.

 

[Orias]

To all my friends who insist on stating that the point of singularity it was a pin point, etc. etc. Please read more. Firstly, this pin point is of immense mass and its size is infinity in the negative. If you have any fundamental understanding of calculus, you will understand what it means. Else, learn calculus.

Yes, an infinitesimally small point would be smaller than a pin head.

"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality."-Albert Einstein

Secondly, Stephen Hawkins in his much celebrated book and subsequently arrived at the conclusion that 'information' was destroyed in black holes (the reverse of this process is true for big bang). This is the closest mathematical computation for the birth of the universe we have!!!

Blacks holes also expel radiation.

This mathematical formula (which is the best we have) also has the biggest paradox ever. Its called the 'information paradox'. It means that information is destroyed.

What makes it the best mathematical formula?

It can't be much of a paradox if it can't be proven true.

This had severe and critical implications on science as we know it, the world as we know it.

Such as...?

The definition of big bang that is being presented here is TEN YEARS OLD.

The seed of the BB was postulated in 1929, what's your point?

Since then, Hawkins has explained the destruction of information on parallel universes. Some with black holes, like our, other without. These two universes negate each other and so theoretically information is not lost. However, in our universe it is lost, since we have not one, but many black holes.

Because he knows what other Universes are like, including our own :no:

Prof. Susskind has provided an alternate theory that negates the entire Hawkins stance. Which is true, probably Susskind, BUT Hawkins is yet to present his mathematical logic for the parallel universe theory.

What's mathematical about it?

Incidentally, when information is destroyed it means....poof. you are left with nothing. NOT A POINT, OR A PIN POINT, OR THIS POINT OR THAT POINT.

And your trying to practically argue a theory?

You say "when information is destroyed", it should be "if information is destroyed".

Sure, your theories sound all fine and dandy but this completely negates the Law of Conservation of Energy.

Now after talking to some people here, i realize that they posses the most basic knowledge and understanding of the subject. They have not read anything in contemporary science. And when they claim that at the point of singularity there was a singular this or that.......they actually have no blooming idea what they are talking about.

I have been told I possess the tongue of a Serpent.

I can bet my bottom dollar that of all the atheists floating around here, perhaps one or at best two, will even know the formula that back up singularity or thermodynamics or anything.

I'm not an atheist, but the law of thermodynamics doesn't back up your position either, so nice try.

Its a complete waste of time even attempting to debate here. The quality of intellect is very poor. And worse, there is grave paucity of open minds.

To be open, One must be closed.

You speak of intellect, as if it actually possessed any meaning or applied to you more than anyone else.

 

[Sum1sGruj]

To all my friends who insist on stating that the point of singularity it was a pin point, etc. etc. Please read more. Firstly, this pin point is of immense mass and its size is infinity in the negative. If you have any fundamental understanding of calculus, you will understand what it means. Else, learn calculus.

The tenth dimensional singularity. Nice.

 

[gnomon]

To all my friends who insist on stating that the point of singularity it was a pin point, etc. etc. Please read more. Firstly, this pin point is of immense mass and its size is infinity in the negative. If you have any fundamental understanding of calculus, you will understand what it means. Else, learn calculus.

Secondly, Stephen Hawkins in his much celebrated book and subsequently arrived at the conclusion that 'information' was destroyed in black holes (the reverse of this process is true for big bang). This is the closest mathematical computation for the birth of the universe we have!!!

This mathematical formula (which is the best we have) also has the biggest paradox ever. Its called the 'information paradox'. It means that information is destroyed.

This had severe and critical implications on science as we know it, the world as we know it.

The definition of big bang that is being presented here is TEN YEARS OLD.

Since then, Hawkins has explained the destruction of information on parallel universes. Some with black holes, like our, other without. These two universes negate each other and so theoretically information is not lost. However, in our universe it is lost, since we have not one, but many black holes.

Prof. Susskind has provided an alternate theory that negates the entire Hawkins stance. Which is true, probably Susskind, BUT Hawkins is yet to present his mathematical logic for the parallel universe theory.

Incidentally, when information is destroyed it means....poof. you are left with nothing. NOT A POINT, OR A PIN POINT, OR THIS POINT OR THAT POINT.

Now after talking to some people here, i realize that they posses the most basic knowledge and understanding of the subject. They have not read anything in contemporary science. And when they claim that at the point of singularity there was a singular this or that.......they actually have no blooming idea what they are talking about.

I can bet my bottom dollar that of all the atheists floating around here, perhaps one or at best two, will even know the formula that back up singularity or thermodynamics or anything.

Its a complete waste of time even attempting to debate here. The quality of intellect is very poor. And worse, there is grave paucity of open minds.

Sorry After Glow, I was enjoying our conversations. Good luck to you. Hopefully we will touch base soon.

Never before has so much fecal matter been collected into such a confined space. I do believe that the post is reaching a point of critical mass. Worrying about the number of atheists who can regurgitate a mathematical formula on demand is nonsense in any debate except for one regarding how many atheists can regurgitate a mathematical formula on demand.

On to the OP about the problem with atheists. The OP was a strawman. Specifically set to describe those portion of atheists that are jerks and why are they like that.

Simple answer. Because they are jerks. Pretty much a condition in all groups humans divide themselves into because, if anyone should be surprised by this, humans are jerks.

 

[Oneatatime]

It isn't unreasonable to expect people not to demean an entire group though based on ignorance. I know many atheists are annoyed or become frustrated when atheism is called a belief system. Even from this thread, it is clear that some atheists become annoyed when atheists are lumped together. Those problems are created by people who are ignorant about atheism.

If an atheist does something, one should not assume it defines atheism. Yet people do based on the same ignorance that is used to demean an entire religion based on a few individuals.
That is a great point. And I think it supports one thing that I've been saying. People should be judged according to their actions, not their belief system or lack of belief system.

A good point. And that is why I believe people should be judge by what they do, not what they may hide behind. If the religious are not bound to adhere to the practices and beliefs of their religion, if they can freely pick what they want to take from the Bible or from tradition, and if they willing move the goalposts to suit them, then I think it is quite obvious that the religion is not dictating what they do. Thus, I see no reason to blame a religion, or demonize a religion based on the actions of people who claim to follow the religion, but are instead acting up on their own ideas.

Fair point Fallingblood.

I've been thinking on this issue today and I feel that I've been arguing for what I want to be true rather than the more complex reality of the religious world. There isn't a huge difference between how an atheist and theist decide their morality in that individuals make their own decisions on what is moral, immoral or in the grey area inbetween, and its unfair to prejudge someone on the basis of their religion or a stereotype of their religion.

I can't even claim that my morality is not influenced by religion because I grew up in a Christian country and environment and innevitably this will have shaped my views and beliefs even if I didn't believe in God. The Christianity I grew up with wasn't the Christianity of the Bible read literally but the moderate peaceful tolerant kind generally promoted in my home country. It cherry picked the nice stuff, chucked in a bit about God and Jesus and set aside the intolerance and discrimination.

Thanks for the discussion