Atheists and theists are the same.

[Galaxiom]

In Australia I would say the main motivation would be:

3) Remove any religious or Bible classes in schools.

Personally I would recommend Bible studies in school. Not a sanitised study led by the believers but a study of what is actually written in this hideous book. Reading the Bible was by far the greatest motivation of my atheist sentiments.

No person with any legitimate sense of morality could possibly read this book and continue to be ambivalent about Abrahamic faiths let alone argue that they have philosophical advice to offer humanity.

The only teachings the Bible has to offer is to show how easily so many people can be manipulated by self satisfied bigotry and fascist attitudes.

 

[Pauldohert]

Personally I would recommend Bible studies in school. Not a sanitised study led by the believers but a study of what is actually written in this hideous book. Reading the Bible was by far the greatest motivation of my atheist sentiments.

No person with any legitimate sense of morality could possibly read this book and continue to be ambivalent about Abrahamic faiths let alone argue that they have philosophical advice to offer humanity.

The only teachings the Bible has to offer is to show how easily so many people can be manipulated by self satisfied bigotry and fascist attitudes.

Perhaps you took it too literally.

Which bit didn't you like?


The ego of the atheist keeps getting bigger - the only ones with intelligence and morality?

 

[Adam Caramon]

Personally I would recommend Bible studies in school. Not a sanitised study led by the believers but a study of what is actually written in this hideous book. Reading the Bible was by far the greatest motivation of my atheist sentiments.

In a perfect world, that would be great. But I'd rather not even give the fundies a chance by bringing bibles into schools.

I was never religious in the first place, but one of my big "ah-ha" moments came from studying the religions that came before Christianity. It becomes very apparent how much is adopted from earlier faiths.

Perhaps you took it too literally.

Isn't it supposed to be taken literally?

Any religious person who doesn't believe in evolution should have to look no farther than their own faith organization to see how they have continually evolved to stay relevant.

 

[Galaxiom]

Perhaps you took it too literally.

Which bit didn't you like?

The ego of the atheist keeps getting bigger - the only ones with intelligence and morality?

Joshua and his people committed a genocidal massace of a least 32 tribes in the name of fulfilling the Will of God. To this day people use this same pathetic excuse to perpetrate attrocities. Today Joshua would be tried for crimes against humanity. Those who worship his God might as well worship Adolph Hitler.

Joshua went on to explain how no woman or child could enter the building where the precious booty of the conquest had ever been held. Biblical philosophy is sick philosophy that reflects the most primitive of human willfulness devoid of the slightest essence of sophisticated morality.

The apologists continue to pretend that those who criticise it have simply taken it too literally but a book of stories that are open to interpretation to fit anything the reader cares to believe in is at best dangerous but in reality worse than worthless.

The ego of the religious has and continues to dominate this planet. Religious belief underlies the deepest problems in humanity.

Most "Christian" believers have NEVER READ THE BOOK but accept the iterpretation of the mesmerised ordained. I implore you all to read it and be enlightened.

 

[Pauldohert]

Joshua and his people committed a genocidal massace of a least 32 tribes in the name of fulfilling the Will of God. To this day people use this same pathetic excuse to perpetrate attrocities. Today Joshua would be tried for crimes against humanity. Those who worship his God might as well worship Adolph Hitler.

Joshua went on to explain how no woman or child could enter the building where the precious booty of the conquest had ever been held. Biblical philosophy is sick philosophy that reflects the most primitive of human willfulness devoid of the slightest essence of sophisticated morality.

The apologists continue to pretend that those who criticise it have simply taken it too literally but a book of stories that are open to interpretation to fit anything the reader cares to believe in is at best dangerous but in reality worse than worthless.

The ego of the religious has and continues to dominate this planet. Religious belief underlies the deepest problems in humanity.

Most "Christian" believers have NEVER READ THE BOOK but accept the iterpretation of the mesmerised ordained. I implore you all to read it and be enlightened.

Certainly some people are taking it too seriuosly.

 

[Kryst51]

Most "Christian" believers have NEVER READ THE BOOK but accept the iterpretation of the mesmerised ordained. I implore you all to read it and be enlightened.

I don't agree with the tone of your comments here, as everyone well knows. But this I do agree with, no person should should trust the words of another regarding anything unless they have seen it for themselves.

Aside: I would love for people to take your advice here and read the Bible, you know it says of itself that it will never come back void, that means that whenever the Word goes out, it will call people to God. Of course, I know ya'll don't agree with me as I don't agree with you, but that is OK.

 

[dan-cat]

That is because an atheist finds it absurd that an intelligent person can so confidently believe that all of this was created on the whim of some magical being.

You'd probably have more chance of understanding another's beliefs if you stop using your own interpretative terms to describe them. An atheist does not subscribe to creationism so must use the creationists definition of it to address it correctly. Magic and whims have nothing to do with creationism, these are just terms you choose to discredit it.

I would like to know the answer, but for the moment the theories alone are enough for me.

You think there is a singular but as yet unknown answer to everything?

Fascinating how staunch atheism likes to nibble on it's own tail.

 

[Pauldohert]

You'd probably have more chance of understanding another's beliefs if you stop using your own interpretative terms to describe them. An atheist does not subscribe to creationism so must use the creationists definition of it to address it correctly. Magic and whims have nothing to do with creationism, these are just terms you choose to discredit it.




You think there is a singular but as yet unknown answer to everything?

Fascinating how staunch atheism likes to nibble on it's own tail.

Well said Mr Cat.

Irony sums its up perfectly.

 

[dan-cat]

Reading the Bible was by far the greatest motivation of my atheist sentiments.

A very dangerous foundation to ground your sentiments. I think this is why you come across as so angry. You seem to refuse to accept the possibility of building your outlook on the world on something benign.

 

[dan-cat]

Well said Mr Cat.

Irony sums its up perfectly.

I thank u.

It's something that always stops me from fully accepting atheism.

Intelligent Design must be wrong because matters must be proven by theory.

The more the universe is proven to be encapsulated by theory, the more it conforms to the symptoms of design. That is to say, bound to a pre-existing rule-base.

How does knowing the universe conforms to structures make it more ridiculous to think of it as conceived?

 

[Lightwave]

How does knowing the universe conforms to structures make it more ridiculous to think of it as conceived?

We as gods to ants...

QED : it is not impossible there may be others are as gods to us..

 

[Lightwave]

PS

I thank u.
Intelligent Design must be wrong because matters must be proven by theory.

I think you mean experimental evidence!

 

[dan-cat]

We as gods to ants...

QED : it is not impossible there may be others are as gods to us..

and how does this approach make viewing our microcosm as a design more ridiculous?

 

[dan-cat]

This I think is why on first impressions it seems to be a contradiction to be religious and yet involved in sciences. The definition of science being the conclusion of theory backed by experimental evidence.

Not at all. There can be many factors to make a certain process work.

There is nothing wrong in believing X was created by Y and then go on to study how the required steps to achieve X actually work.

 

[speakers_86]

You'd probably have more chance of understanding another's beliefs if you stop using your own interpretative terms to describe them. An atheist does not subscribe to creationism so must use the creationists definition of it to address it correctly. Magic and whims have nothing to do with creationism, these are just terms you choose to discredit it.

I figure if I use the simplest terms possible, maybe people will understand why I don't believe it. If something is created from nothing, that is pretty close to magic.

You think there is a singular but as yet unknown answer to everything?

Fascinating how staunch atheism likes to nibble on it's own tail.

Of course there is an answer to everything. It is possible that we may never understand how things came to be, be there is hope. After all, science can describe what happened up to a few fractions of a second after the big bang.

As far as going in circles, that is bound to happen. Especially since you and I are after the same thing.

 

[Mike375]

I figure if I use the simplest terms possible, maybe people will understand why I don't believe it. If something is created from nothing, that is pretty close to magic.

So are you saying if there is no superior being the answer is magic? Of course you would be right and that is the reason many of us will pick a superior being as the only logical answer.

 

[Rabbie]

So are you saying if there is no superior being the answer is magic? Of course you would be right and that is the reason many of us will pick a superior being as the only logical answer.

Yes you have a right to believe in a superior being.
I think it is possible(even probable) that there are many beings in the the universe that are superior to us but I don't believe they are supernatural. I don't believe in magic or any other supernatural forces. Everything has an explanation even if we don't know what it is yet.

It always amazes me how religions that are based on the essential humbleness of their god manage to have their chief priests built up as people of high status who do not seem at all humble.

 

[Mike375]

Yes you have a right to believe in a superior being.
I think it is possible(even probable) that there are many beings in the the universe that are superior to us but I don't believe they are supernatural.

But if those superior beings are in "a world" that has different natural laws to us then they might be supernatural as compared to us, that is, above our natural laws.

 

[Lightwave]

Not at all. There can be many factors to make a certain process work.

There is nothing wrong in believing X was created by Y and then go on to study how the required steps to achieve X actually work.

I should have qualified..

That is why on first impressions (to me) it seems like a contradiction

Now I 'm older I don't particularly see it as a contradiction

 

[Lightwave]

and how does this approach make viewing our microcosm as a design more ridiculous?

It doesn't that's exactly my point

But the act of design of life does not prove religion...

Is Craig Ventor now a god?