Is an atheist a better person?

[Jack]

The truth I know is only about myself. You can't know the truth of others. You're not privy to that. You don't know me.

That's true to a point. I can, though, choose to trust you and trust that what you've posted here is the truth as you perceive it. You've disdained lying, so I can, if I wish, perceive you as an honest person who isn't lying when you said:

I think theists are more of a person.

That gives me a bit of insight into how you think, what you think, a little bit of who you are. You're most likely an honest person who honestly feels she's "more of a person" than an atheist.

I try to be an honest person, too. And I honestly feel I am no better or worse than any other human in most respects (as long as we dismiss the anomalies like Adolph and Dalmer).

So there's this debate in a nutshell. So far the atheists appear to be in agreement that atheism doesn't make anyone "more of a person". You, as a theist, believe theism makes one "more of a person". While I applaud your willingness to represent the theistic viewpoint, I will continue to disagree with your opinion.

[linda_mary_13]

God is the never ending quest for that wisdom and enlightenment and doesn't need you, therefore you can't reach It but you can reach Him. Who is Him? The Father of our Lord and Savior, Jesus, the realm humans are capable of reaching.

[Tycoon]

God is the never ending quest for that wisdom and enlightenment and doesn't need you, therefore you can't reach It but you can reach Him. Who is Him? The Father of our Lord and Savior, Jesus, the realm humans are capable of reaching.

What wisdom and enlightenment? What are you talking about?!!?

Your teachings are vague and intended to confuse.

[Jack]

God is the never ending quest for that wisdom and enlightenment and doesn't need you

Theists can't even convince me that gods exist, so how can an such an unproven entity be an end to a quest for enlightenment? First prove to me there are gods or is a god. Then prove to me which god is the true god or convince me that gods are even possible. Then you can propose that your god or some god(s) is the goal of my quest.

[linda_mary_13]

I regret any hurt or anger I may have caused by that simple statement. Please let me clarify my words. I do not mean that an atheist is less of a person in terms of goodness or worthiness or stature. I believe that atheists are less in terms of their belief, which is LACK of belief. This deficiency I believe is ultimately measurable.

Actually, I believe self proclaimed atheists aren't really atheists just like self proclaimed men of God are not really men of God. Isn't it common in science to prove the positive you approach it from proving the negative or something like that. To even ponder the question of God only to conclude He doesn't exist is to search for Him' even if you haven't found Him. I don't know what I am. I know what I'm not. I'm not an atheist. But can I reach the realm of Jesus? Maybe not. Faith alone is not enough. I am deficient in acts, patience, and much more.

From a person of faith's perspective, God is in us, and you say God is not in you. At the end of our season both realities will exist. Perception is reality.

[Thanatos]

Quote by: linda_mary_13 I regret any hurt or anger I may have caused by that simple statement. Please let me clarify my words. I do not mean that an atheist is less of a person in terms of goodness or worthiness or stature. I believe that atheists are less in terms of their belief, which is LACK of belief. This deficiency I believe is ultimately measurable. Actually, I believe self proclaimed atheists aren't really atheists just like self proclaimed men of God are not really men of God. Isn't it common in science to prove the positive you approach it from proving the negative or something like that. To even ponder the question of God only to conclude He doesn't exist is to search for Him' even if you haven't found Him. I don't know what I am. I know what I'm not. I'm not an atheist. But can I reach the realm of Jesus? Maybe not. Faith alone is not enough. I am deficient in acts, patience, and much more. From a person of faith's perspective, God is in us, and you say God is not in you. At the end of our season both realities will exist. Perception is reality.

Would I became more of a person by holding blind faith in the nonexistence of god?

Or would you rather I explain WHY I feel so sure instead of you informing me that I can't possibly have a why behind my beliefs?

...so therefore I already am a real person for not having shown you backup for my beliefs...wait...

Its all so clear to me now. As long as I don't continue to argue with you I should stay a real person. Excuse me while I see if Volconvo has an ignore function so that I will never be tempted to lose my humanity.

[Jack]

I regret any hurt or anger I may have caused by that simple statement.

I didn't mean to suggest you had. You haven't. Most of us are accustomed to being misunderstood, misquoted and judged (and obviously found wanting) by theists. I happen to be a gay, left-handed, white, male, American, ex-military, liberal (small "l"), atheistic Aquarian. I'm quite comfortable with knowing others are uncomfortable with at least one facet of my personality. Christians aren't the only people on the planet who feel those like me are less than "fully human". That's why I debate these issues. I want to make them think about their bias and question whether or not it has any basis in reality. I endeavor to present my arguments in such a way that they will reconsider their narrow-minded beliefs.

I believe that atheists are less in terms of their belief, which is LACK of belief.

We don't lack belief in general. We lack a specific belief, the belief that gods exist. We lack that belief for good reasons based on the fact that religion (i.e. belief in a god) is a matter of faith (also called wishful thinking) and not physical, testable, verifiable evidence. We prefer to be reasonable and practical. Is that a fault? Is that sufficient reason for anyone's god to condemn us?

Actually, I believe self proclaimed atheists aren't really atheists just like self proclaimed men of God are not really men of God. Isn't it common in science to prove the positive you approach it from proving the negative or something like that. To even ponder the question of God only to conclude He doesn't exist is to search for Him' even if you haven't found Him.

So then you would also conclude that speculating on the existence of leprechauns (and concluding there's no evidence to suggest they exist) actually exposes a belief in leprechauns? I can debate and speculate about all kinds of things that I firmly and for good reason do not believe exist beyond the bounds of speculation.

Perception is reality.

Our perception is our personal reality. But our perception does not create external reality, at least to my way of thinking. This is actually a philosophical issue that's been debated for centuries. I can only express my own thoughts about it.

[Tycoon]

I regret any hurt or anger I may have caused by that simple statement. Please let me clarify my words. I do not mean that an atheist is less of a person in terms of goodness or worthiness or stature. I believe that atheists are less in terms of their belief, which is LACK of belief. This deficiency I believe is ultimately measurable.

And it is my belief that anybody who hold beliefs simply because they are more comforting needs to get a grip.

Actually, I believe self proclaimed atheists aren't really atheists just like self proclaimed men of God are not really men of God. Isn't it common in science to prove the positive you approach it from proving the negative or something like that. To even ponder the question of God only to conclude He doesn't exist is to search for Him' even if you haven't found Him.

No, it is not the search for God, it is the search for an answer, and we reach a different answer than you do.

From a person of faith's perspective, God is in us, and you say God is not in you. At the end of our season both realities will exist. Perception is reality.

Perception is not reality. People can have different perspectives, but in truth, only one is correct.

[Century 25]

Quote by: Morality Games It is more like this: on basis of the available evidence, there is no indication God exists, and available evidence is so important to the determination of truth in the world, this is all one needs to positively confirm the non-existence of God. But if the available evidence changed so the reverse appeared true, that God exists, then their high regard for the totality of available evidence as a means of evaluating the truth of information would immediately flip atheists to theists. Agnostics are also like that, with the exception we don't think the amount of evidence available is commanding enough of an authority to make us positively say God doesn't exist.

Agnostics have doubt. A true "atheist" has none. It is quite cut & dried.

The.. lol, "logic" behind deists "beliefs" must date back to the earliest sentient human animal. They couldn't deduce cause & effect. It was just way.. way beyond their knowledge.. their database.

It seems later on that (as always) there were those ready, willing & able to cash-in, as it were, on the use of fear - that plus the ever viable "carrot" of some grand "eternal, heaven-reward" scam.. in order to use the naive for.. same old.. same old.. greed, power.. control.

The real mystery has been, why.. with all of the science & logical.. critical minds, has such utter nonsense persisted into the atomic, space faring.. high tech world..?? I would say the reasons are quite the same. Fear & brainwashing.. inculcating the very youngest minds. Minds that are like empty, available space on your hard drive. How many GB or terabytes.. are packed with spam..? They grab them shortly after birth, the baptisms, christenings.. etc, then the real brainwashing gets rolling. The "holy communions" the bm's (bar & bat) .. etc..etc..

As for:

"But if the available evidence changed so the reverse appeared true, that God exists, then their high regard for the totality of available evidence as a means of evaluating the truth of information would immediately flip atheists to theists."

- That is just impossible. There never was "evidence" of a deity. However, there is plenty of the reverse.

Even the believers use their "god" as the force behind storm, floods, earthquakes.. "acts of god" they say. Well.. I guess the old master is bored.. needs some grisly deaths to chuckle over. The typhoon & quake in China.. With a "friend" like that looking out for you, who needs enemies..?

.

[linda_mary_13]

Quote by: Thanatos Would I became more of a person by holding blind faith in the nonexistence of god? What is blind faith? Faith of a person poor in spirit? Faith of a person not willing to be thoughtful of his faith? Please define. Or would you rather I explain WHY I feel so sure instead of you informing me that I can't possibly have a why behind my beliefs? I can't believe an atheist is complaining about someone questioning the why of his beliefs when you slice and dice the theist suggesting we're insecure, closed minded bla bla bla bla bla regarding our beliefs. ...so therefore I already am a real person for not having shown you backup for my beliefs...wait... Its all so clear to me now. As long as I don't continue to argue with you I should stay a real person. Excuse me while I see if Volconvo has an ignore function so that I will never be tempted to lose my humanity.

You are who you are.

[linda_mary_13]

Sorry, I included my commentary within the quote. Just learning the computer. Be aware the above quote has my opinion inserted within the quote. Won't do that again.Was trying to address line by line.

[gela]

What is blind faith? Faith of a person poor in spirit? Faith of a person not willing to be thoughtful of his faith? Please define.

I have faith in Jess.
The reason I have faith in her is because she has proven to me before that she is responsible, and strong. I have faith that she will do well.

This is what we would call reasonable faith.

I have faith in god.
Even though his book has many proven contradictions, within itself, and within reality.
Even though he has given me no evidence of truth. Even though his book expresses a nasty desire to send anyone who doesn't have faith in it to an eternity of torture. Even though it has caused huge amounts of suffering and hatred throughout history.

This is an example of blind faith.

[rez]

Quote by: linda_mary_13 God is the never ending quest for that wisdom and enlightenment and doesn't need you, therefore you can't reach It but you can reach Him. Who is Him? The Father of our Lord and Savior, Jesus, the realm humans are capable of reaching.

Real deep linda, real deep. You sure do say a whole lot, but certainly don't have the ability to make any of these facts relevant to a 21st century man. Only a theist could take a thing that is complex and make it shallow and vague. How about you get a clue, so we can have real discussions that actually get us somewhere? Do you know what I mean? Do you know why an atheist is a better person? An atheist takes real world problems, and solves them with real world solutions.

Abortion
war
stem cell research
death penalty
reliance on technology

These are all real world problems, in which religion has no business being involved in. Abortion is wrong because god says so has to be the most intellectually bankrupt excuse I ever heard. It is equivalent to a child taking a reading comprehension test and writing in Bible quotes for the answer.

It is no coincidence that every theist (not including agnostics like Helio, Fangrim and the like) on this messageboard have a hard time comprehending any of the posts that go on in god threads. Dhtmstr, logan, loser etc have not the slightest clue what is going on, yet the debate is constantly being bogged down by their lack of reasoning. Most of the time its the others correcting them with simple things like definitions and basic facts. I have no problem with correcting them and guiding them to the right answer, but when they respond they act like you are crazy and make even more claims without reasoning or evidence.

[Rainbow]

Quote by: rez Only a theist could take a thing that is complex and make it shallow and vague.

Your statement phased out all your afforts, so far.
Who is that "better" person then (as the label for this thread may suggest) :
- Atheist
or
- Theist
???

Would be fair to state that there is No "better" person, at all, since we ALL make mistakes ? what renders a religious and/or non-religious approach as a completely Ir-Relevant, instead and indeed ?

[SoylentGreen]

Quote by: Rainbow Your statement phased out all your afforts, so far. Who is that "better" person then (as the label for this thread may suggest) : - Atheist or - Theist ??? Would be fair to state that there is No "better" person, at all, since we ALL make mistakes ? what renders a religious and/or non-religious approach as a completely Ir-Relevant, instead and indeed ?

The thread isn't a general question of who is better so the fact that we all make mistakes is irrelevant.
It asks specifically if atheists (Those who lack a belief) or theists (those who have an unsupportable belief) is better.
Consider that theists are only supporting a bias and a superstition , that they insist that they bound for a better afterlife than atheists, without any proof of such.
Any one basing their life on superstition cannot make a claim for being better just misguided.

[rez]

Quote by: Rainbow Your statement phased out all your afforts, so far. Who is that "better" person then (as the label for this thread may suggest) : - Atheist or - Theist ??? Would be fair to state that there is No "better" person, at all, since we ALL make mistakes ? what renders a religious and/or non-religious approach as a completely Ir-Relevant, instead and indeed ?

I made my case Rainbow. We should not look to theists to solve real world problems and we should definitely not look to theists to give real world explanations. However, they do provide explanations (Creationism) and they do try to solve real world problems (don't give Africans condoms, stem cell research, war, and abortion)

They fail at every single category. Their solutions do not work. Africans won't stop spreading aids because they don't have condoms. A giant conscious being didn't create the universe in 7 days. This is not to mention all the other religious explanations for creation out there (Of course, Christians think their the only ones with a creation story)


The funny thing is, I can maybe agree with some of their positions like being against abortion or stem cell research. However, I base my position on real world facts and not easily refuted logic.

For instance I could say that stem cell research is bad because it can go to far. Should me alter the gene sequence of every human being? What are the consequences of that? How would that effect nature? Should one human have the perfect features because their parents could pay for it?

Instead a theist will simply argue that its not moral because humans have souls and spirits and that we should look to Christ to guide us...

Do you see a difference in those two arguments? They need to get with it.

[oracle13]

In response to Rez, you need to differentiate between different kinds of theists before you make the comments you've made.

For example, someone who is a Deist and believes that there is a supernatural being that created the universe, in order to explain the currently inexplicable problem of cosmogony. We may disagree with his jumping to unfounded conclusions about his belief in a supernatural being. However he clearly has no commitments towards any kind of moral guidelines which a practicising Catholic might.

What you really are saying is that theists who bring their faith into debates about politics and ethics are not fit to partake in the discussion of these issues. Theists who do not attempt to use their belief in God as some kind of moral or political objective standard do not fall under your generalisation.

[linda_mary_13]

Quote by: gela I have faith in Jess. The reason I have faith in her is because she has proven to me before that she is responsible, and strong. I have faith that she will do well. This is what we would call reasonable faith. I have faith in god. Even though his book has many proven contradictions, within itself, and within reality. Even though he has given me no evidence of truth. Even though his book expresses a nasty desire to send anyone who doesn't have faith in it to an eternity of torture. Even though it has caused huge amounts of suffering and hatred throughout history. This is an example of blind faith.

This is an example of a person who has put little thought towards their faith.

[Tycoon]

This is an example of a person who has put little thought towards their faith.

On the contrary, it is an example of a person who understands the definition of faith and has given it much thought.

You are the one who has given out your faith without considering why.

[linda_mary_13]

Quote by: rez Real deep linda, real deep. You sure do say a whole lot, but certainly don't have the ability to make any of these facts relevant to a 21st century man. Only a theist could take a thing that is complex and make it shallow and vague. How about you get a clue, so we can have real discussions that actually get us somewhere? Do you know what I mean? Do you know why an atheist is a better person? An atheist takes real world problems, and solves them with real world solutions. , Abortion war stem cell research death penalty reliance on technology These are all real world problems, in which religion has no business being involved in. Abortion is wrong because god says so has to be the most intellectually bankrupt excuse I ever heard. It is equivalent to a child taking a reading comprehension test and writing in Bible quotes for the answer. It is no coincidence that every theist (not including agnostics like Helio, Fangrim and the like) on this messageboard have a hard time comprehending any of the posts that go on in god threads. Dhtmstr, logan, loser etc have not the slightest clue what is going on, yet the debate is constantly being bogged down by their lack of reasoning. Most of the time its the others correcting them with simple things like definitions and basic facts. I have no problem with correcting them and guiding them to the right answer, but when they respond they act like you are crazy and make even more claims without reasoning or evidence.

Wow, obviously too deep for you but I'll try to address some of your confusion.

21st Century Man is too busy focused on themselves and expediency rather than the root of real world problems.They spend all their time putting bandaides on issues they don't have time to look at, what the problem actually is or their afraid it may crimp their lifestyle.

Abortion - the ultimate act of selfishness. No matter how you try to justify it., it is choosing self over another. Do we ever pose the abortion problem in this light? No. We try to justify and bandage.

The Root - is that a biblical term or scientific. I guess it depends on who uses it. Do you get any clues from a term like that? Would a teacher accept a paper using a term like this to answer real world problems or dismiss it as a clueless, bible quote?

The only lack of reasoning I see right now is in the rant you just made.