10 Myths Many Religious People Hold About Atheists, Debunked

Religion is so handy! Because is requires a suspension of logic and rational thought, it is easy for unscroupulous people to USE those of a religious bent to do their dirty work. Kings used religious nuts go attack muslims in an attempt to gain land and riches. ben Ladin uses religious nuts to attack the EVIL DEVILS in America. Without the suspension of belief that is required by the religions of the world, MAYBE people would be a little harder to get to go to war. It is worth a shot anyway.

 

No, a religion is NOT a form of belief, duh! Religion is a QUITE specific form of belief, which is NOT met by Atheism. Religion requires a belief in god, it requires a doctrine which defines that belief. That doctrine may be written, as in the bible, or it may be orally defined as in Jim Jones. Atheism IS a part of an individuals philosophy, NOT a religion. My Philosophy of life includes MANY things, such as "barking dogs will bite" and "no god or gods exist". Those are two tiny parts of my philosophy of life and in no way does either make me religious.

 

The problem is that there is no evidence of god whatsoever. Bigfoot is more likely to exist than god is.

 

The creationists did not win a landmark case, Scopes lost the case because it was against the law to teach evolution and that particular court was not in a position to overturn a law.

So I fail to see any relevance in that comment.

I have listened to quite a few debates with Craig, however he brings little new material to the table.

 

Of note Scopes' conviction was overturned on appeal and eventually, years later, the law was challenged in a lawsuit filed by teacher Gary L. Scott and the Tennessee legislature quickly repealed it.

 

As are many atheists ie (hateful, bigoted and stupid people) For example, what proof do you have that a Christian did the damage? Your eagerness to sentence convict and punish is evidence that you may suffer some of the bad traits you attribute to Christians!


Rev A

 

Compare the deaths (motes) from secular wars to so called religious wars (splinters) and maybe you may see clearly enough to remove the mote from your own eye first ?

Rev A

 

Very true, however I was referring to the one particular court case.

 

What secular wars were waged on the basis of secularism?

They were waged for economic and political gain. Nothing more.

 

On that note, interesting avatar you have.

 

A good example.

A great reason to stay a far ways away from a completely closed minded and dark age away such as the South.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KdOpKv9D7rA"]Top Gear US Special: Challenge "Alabama" - YouTube[/ame]

 

How about <<< Mod Edit: Off Topic >>> you actually back that bit of propaganda up with something other than an insulting statement of your own faith?

You are an atheist. We already KNOW you do not believe in God. Self evident, prima facie, you name it.

As a Christian, it is also self evident that I believe in God. So how would you respond to such statements like, "Jeez atheist, we know that grass is green, so therefore God is clearly real."

You see, ai just picked some random true thing and declared theevidence for both true, based solely on my word. That is both an appeal to authority and the guilt by association fallacy.

Tell me, how is the opposite, picking some random false thing and stating it actually totally evidenced than not equally fallacious?

How about you actually examine the evidence for God? Go ahead and join the tin foil hat conspiracy of the Jesus Myth. Deny that there are any miracles, callings, answered prayers, and scoff in the face of thousands of documented tales of life changing events found by people who embrace a relationship with God.

At some point these repeated denials that there is no evidence smacks of little more than sheer obstinance. It belies the claimed objectivity of atheism, because we clearly see fallacy rather than analysis.

In short, debate. Please don't expect anyone to simply stand there and take being accused of being an illogical moron unswayed or disinterested in facts merely because you have a different faith choice.

 

There was nothing insulting about my post at all.

As for evidence of bigfoot we have both reported sightings as well as physical evidence and we do know that large primates do exist. There is no such evidence for the existance of god.

http://www.bfro.net/gdb/show_FAQ.asp?id=408

Does that establish that bigfoot exists? Of course not but there is certainly more evidence of bigfoot than there is of god.

 

Oh, you don't think making disparaging, fallacious comparisons that denigrate the intelligence of your opponent to be sound debate? I disagree.

Its the equivalent os saying, only a stupid moron thinks that way! What pray tell are we supposed to debate in that statement? What is objective or dispassionately rational about such statements?

Now, if you were a standard run or the mill atheist propagandist that would be expected. You are not, are you? So why, when we know that you are capable of actually debating, should anyone tolerate gratuitious smears instead?

Its pretty simple, the discussion is about God, or how atheists are actually commited multiculturalists ... ho run around deintellectualizing all other faith groups by comparing their beliefs to big foot.

Nope nothing insulting there, pure objective curiosity and intent to engage on an even keel? Really?

Please, take a stab at any of your claims:

1. The tales of Gilgamesh are the foundation of the Hebrew Bible?

2. In a world that has spiritual Buddhism, polytheist Hinduism, as well as christianity and Islam, please demonstrate how this is an evolutionary process.

3. Feel free to demonstrate the evidential claims and display of evidence reference Big foot and then demonstrate how exactly this evidential trial is in any way similar to God? Do people claim to have found Gods foot prints in the forest?

There is nothing wrong with most if your opinions, but the blind dumping of opinions without support is well below the standard of what debate actually looks like.

 

Not to defend religion, but there have been plenty of atrocities committed by non religious states as well.

The old Soviet Union, China etc.

Yes they were committing acts based on political reasons, but still I think the point im trying to make is that human beings will find reasons to want to kill each other, regardless of whether or not there is faith involved or not.

I love Sam Harris the author, but it is the thing I disagreed with in his book The End of Faith. Yes religious extremists with nukes is downright scary, but so is a radical atheist dictator who wants to conquer.

As for this whole "proof" debate. Of course there isn't any proof of God. There are scriptures where people claim to have spoken to God but besides that there is nothing but blind faith. If you are a Religious person that doesn't disprove your beliefs either, so I dont understand why that is such a major issue to you. At the end of any religious argument it always comes down to "well I have faith" from the religious person, so why not just stick with that?

Its not a good enough argument from my perspective but thats not the point. If you are happy with your faith then why bother to defend it against people who dont believe in it?

 

Unless the "atheist" dictator is following an "atheist doctrine" that requires him to do X, we are talking about applies and oranges.

As you said the Soviet Union pursued things with a political motivation, not because they had a "religious" idea that required them to do so. A Muslim is "required" to nuke a city to secure a place in paradise.

 

They are not required. Young Muslim men get brainwashed by the extremist leaders into committing heinous acts by people who use religion as a part of that brainwashing.

I agree with you that religion is playing a big part in this. I agree that religion can be dangerous. I just happen to also think that social and economic issues are playing a part in all of this as well.

 

I made a simple and factual statement and never mentioned anyone's beliefs. If a person feels that their beliefs are denigrated by a factual statement then I would think it's time for them to review their beliefs. There is certainly nothing in my statement that was intended to offend anyone as I merely cited a known fact supported by emperical evidence.

Should athiests really be required to ignore all facts when addressing "god" in a discussion? Can a belief in god only exist if facts are ignored? That seems to be the case if "facts" can be interpreted as being insulting.

 

My point is that there are holy books that used used to justify heinous acts. Religion is the basis for that belief. Atheism suffers from no such short comings.

 

This would actually violate the Islamic teachings but there are some acts of violence or other acts that violate the Rights of Individuals that are perpetuated in the name of religion and it is not specific to any specific religion.

Personally I find it offensive when I have a "No Solicitors" sign on my door and members of religious organizations knock on my door trying to sell me their religion. Hey, if I wanted to be bothered by saleman of any kind I wouldn't have "No Solicitors" posted on my door. Any salesman, regardless of the product they're selling, is violating my right to privacy but since I've only been bugged by religious saleman I do have a specific complaint.

 

I do agree that if we had worldwide atheism that the world would be a much more peaceful place.

But it will never be 100% peaceful. Humans find reasons to kill each other no matter what. In order to find peace you would have to have a system that could: Eliminate money altogether, eliminate religion, eliminate psychopathic, psychological disorders, eliminate greed and the desire for possession, legalize all mental stimulants (drugs lol), eliminate world hunger and yet do all this without the Government being overbearing on people.

Its just not ever going to happen.

 

I appreciate the fallacious appeal to authority again. Now, as I have asked you three times go ahead an prove it.

Please examine the evidential record for Big Foot, including supposed foot prints, sighting etc. And use that basis to declare big foot unlikely.

Then compare ... foot prints in the forest, sighting large furry creatures in the woods, and then please demonstrate the relevance of said evidence to God?

After all God claims miracles, callings, answered prayers, and hasbsent Prophets, which seems relatively disparent body of evidence compared to big foot.

So please, enough with the dictates, let's see the pudding.

 

Yep, atheists can just make up whatever they want to justify their crimes.

Only atheists would think a lack of standards was a good thing.

 

I think if you go through my posts in here that you can see that although I am an Atheist that im not a militant or aggressive Atheist.

With that said, this post of yours is somewhat insulting. I know that murder, rape, stealing, fraud, etc etc are all non acceptable behaviors. And not because I had a book of "standards" to tell me this, but because I know how I feel when certain things are done to me, or the thought of certain things happening to myself or loved ones.

Saying you are somehow more moral than an Atheist because you had a book of guidelines is a very insulting statement. Especially since I DO have morals and I dont behave well just because God told me to, but because I choose to. Doesn't that then make me even more moral than you are?

 

You make such silly claims and never back them up with anything more than a rant and a poorly thought out conspiracy theory.