Is an atheist a better person?

[rez]

Quote by: 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.

I did.

Quote by: rez It is no coincidence that every theist (not including agnostics like Helio, Fangrim and the like)

Helio, Fangrim are deists basically.

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 generalization.

teehee. Sorry, but -- I agree with the fact that theists bring their faith into debates about politics. God created everything and thus god would be the perfect thing to go to for guidance in such matters. I can't think of any character better then the creator of the universe to go to for help. The fact of the matter is we have to consider what we know about the state of superstitious/religious behavior.

Theists are superstitious. They are no different then people who believe in Vishnu, witchcraft, Allah, genies, black magic, demons, ghosts, and lucky charms. We also know that people believe in different things. Gamblers believe the troll they put ontop of their slot machine will help them win, but the Christians and Muslims know that don't work. Some gamblers might not be Christian and might think speaking words and pointing your head up to the sky doesn't help the dying.

Either way none of their little beliefs work. And even though they are all the same each individual looks at it like they are the right ones and eevrybody else is the wrong ones. Point is I couldn't carry a normal conversation about real world problems with these type of people.

As for the theists who do not use their god for real world problems. Well they are just fakes that are part time religious followers. They are the ones who know that superstitious behavior is unhealthy and can only be used when talking about subjects such as Philosophy. However, even then they become handicapped by such thinking. I sure as hell couldn't carry a conversation about human nature with this type of person either.

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: rez Do you know why an atheist is a better person? An atheist takes real world problems, and solves them with real world solutions.

Nonsense. Theists do the same every day. Consider the fact that every President of the United States has been, at minimum, a theist. Every problem successfully solved by our government has been solved by theists. While I decry the recent encroachment of religion into government and am a firm believer in the separation of church and state, you cannot deny that theists have, throughout our history, solved innumerable "real world" problems.

Take another example - Mother Theresa. Her nuns fed, clothed, and nursed millions, not by sitting in a convent praying, but by getting out among the people, getting their hands dirty, and helping them.

Frankly, your view on this issue is obviously clouded by your thinly veiled hatred of theists in any form.

Quote by: rez 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)

More nonsense. You ascribe behavior to "theists" that are actually shared by a tiny subgroup of a religion that is itself a small percentage of theists. I'll do the same for your group: Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, and their followers were atheists. Therefore, all atheists are brutal, murderous communists. Sound good?

I would think a member of a group that is discriminated against every day in our country (discrimination which I vehemently oppose, by the way) would be a bit more sensitive towards lumping large groups of people together without regard for their individual beliefs.

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)

See above. What you mean is a subset of Christians believe god created the universe in 7 days.

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.

Sure you do. Everyone thinks they do, just like everyone thinks they're a good driver - but that obviously can't be true, can it?

[rez]

Quote by: tivodan1116 Nonsense. Theists do the same every day. Consider the fact that every President of the United States has been, at minimum, a theist. Every problem successfully solved by our government has been solved by theists. While I decry the recent encroachment of religion into government and am a firm believer in the separation of church and state, you cannot deny that theists have, throughout our history, solved innumerable "real world" problems.

Quote by: rez Believing someone without asking for backup is a problem. Luckily their attitude does not translate into modern day society. Theists won't buy a car solely on what the sales man says, a theist wont try to fix their broken car with a prayer etc. They won't apply their horrible logic to things in everyday life. However, when it comes to philosophy they are horrible. They lack any honesty and they lack any common sense.

Take another example - Mother Theresa. Her nuns fed, clothed, and nursed millions, not by sitting in a convent praying, but by getting out among the people, getting their hands dirty, and helping them.

Again, read above. I also I remember reading certain letters by Mother Theresa wrote about the Church. I think is what about questioning her religion. I will have to try and find it.

More nonsense. You ascribe behavior to "theists" that are actually shared by a tiny subgroup of a religion that is itself a small percentage of theists. I'll do the same for your group: Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, and their followers were atheists. Therefore, all atheists are brutal, murderous communists. Sound good?

Ive made my point in previous posts. I split the part time theists up from the full time theists.

Atheism is an individualistic philosophy. People are responsible for themselves. Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao killed people in their own name. They didn't and couldn't attribute their killing to anything else but themselves.

I would think a member of a group that is discriminated against every day in our country (discrimination which I vehemently oppose, by the way) would be a bit more sensitive towards lumping large groups of people together without regard for their individual beliefs.

Tivodan, you are a smart guy, but I am not going to give you wiggle room on this one. You are a part time theist. True theists don't have individual beliefs, if that were the case they wouldn't have a standard book to read from with a specific amount of commandments and rules listed.

Sure you do. Everyone thinks they do, just like everyone thinks they're a good driver - but that obviously can't be true, can it?

I bring in facts that are contained in evolutionary psychology, chemistry and biology. Three very important subjects that contain very important information that could help solve and understand the problems I listed. It is simple, in order to understand human nature, you have to understand how it evolved and what it evolved from.

[SoylentGreen]

linda_mary_13 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.

No we don't pose it in this light because of your unsupportable assumption that a bunch of cells is another person.
As for selfishness wouldn't you say that trying to push a superstition on people regardless of the fact that it makes no sense kind of selfish.

[SoylentGreen]

tivodan1116Theists do the same every day. Consider the fact that every President of the United States has been, at minimum, a theist. Every problem successfully solved by our government has been solved by theists.

What a joke why not put the blame where it really belongs.On a system that would never allow any person to be elected if they didn't lie about believing in god.

[linda_mary_13]

A couple of points.

What do you think Jesus means when he ends some of his parables with the words, "he who has ears, let him hear." Jesus acknowledges that perceptibility is individual and not all theists will hear the words. Those who do may either unite a basic theist belief or maybe enhance one but you make a false assumption that all theists believe the same way or even in the same thing.

Secondly, pushing things on other people is what humans do in every aspect of life. Vote Democrat, Eat Low Fat, Smoking, No Smoking, porn, clothes, you name it. Is it low fat items at fault or just normal human nature to share, care, overpower, manipulate? Don't use bad behavior as an argument as to whether God exists or not.

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: rez Ive made my point in previous posts. I split the part time theists up from the full time theists.

But among "theists", there are millions of different beliefs. It would be different if you said "Fundamentalist Creationist Christians", I would then be more likely to agree with your characterizations.

Atheism is an individualistic philosophy. People are responsible for themselves. Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao killed people in their own name. They didn't and couldn't attribute their killing to anything else but themselves.

I understand that. What I am saying is that there are as many different beliefs of "theists"... they are nearly as individualistic. The only thing the term "theism" binds them to is belief in some sort of supernatural "higher" power.

Tivodan, you are a smart guy, but I am not going to give you wiggle room on this one. You are a part time theist. True theists don't have individual beliefs, if that were the case they wouldn't have a standard book to read from with a specific amount of commandments and rules listed.

But "theists" do not have a standard book to read from. I can name, offhand, 20 different books that "theists" read that contain their religious beliefs, since the term "theists" represents thousands of different belief sets.

And what is a "part-time theist"? Theists can't ascribe to the theory of evolution? Theists can't support a strong wall of separation between church and state?

I bring in facts that are contained in evolutionary psychology, chemistry and biology. Three very important subjects that contain very important information that could help solve and understand the problems I listed. It is simple, in order to understand human nature, you have to understand how it evolved and what it evolved from.

And I do. However, those subjects don't really answer the "ultimate" questions... Why are we here? Where did the universe come from? What happens to our "us-ness" when we die?

I bring in all of those facts, too. To do otherwise would be to deny that God's plan for us included our intelligence - God wants us to use the full capacities of our minds and there is nothing in my religion that says developing and using science to its fullest extent is anything less than acceptable in the eyes of God. I'm not alone either - over 10,000 clergy in the United States have signed a letter saying as much (and in fact urging our schools to teach things like evolution as fundamental scientific truths).

As with most atheists, your arguments against theists begin with mis-defining who "theists" are and what "they" believe - in your case, ascribing to all "theists" beliefs held by only a tiny percentage of people who would be included in such a group.

[SoylentGreen]

linda_mary_13Those who do may either unite a basic theist belief or maybe enhance one but you make a false assumption that all theists believe the same way or even in the same thing.

I made no assumption on what theisits believe. I stated that superstitious nonsense has no credibility.

Vote Democrat, Eat Low Fat, Smoking, No Smoking, porn, clothes, you name it.

Then how about naming things that don't exist like god or spaghetti monsters. There is no bad manners in pointing out that I have no belief in your jesus in a debate.

[linda_mary_13]

The bad behavior I was referring to was the "pushy Bible thumping" Christian. Their normal human behavior should not influence your conclusions about God. Spreading the gospel does not include throwing your pearls in a pig sty.

[Century 25]

...Back on topic:

Quote by: HelioPrime Well this might be a questionable topic but I've noticed a trend among select atheists on the boards. Normally I assume religious debate is mostly between theists and non theists and neither can prove anything to the other. However select atheists seem to speak in a manner not directly debating theists, but assuming that religions is only a drawback that people should hopefully sometime in their life move beyond. This statement isn't debated as a points, its used as a fact. To use Jack as an example: One of my fondest hopes for humanity is that it will grow out of its infantile obsession with all superstition, which includes religion, and spend more time wondering at a world without the bias of ancient nonsense blinding their senses. Each person can only advance beyond mythology and superstition for themselves. Especially for those raised as theists, the journey can be long or short, the result of decades of learning and understanding, or it can come in a flash of insight. However arrived at, it's a point a person has to reach on their own. - I find this odd because its not a point of debate. It's relation of personal opinion as if its a given fact that everyone should understand and those who don't agree with it clearly haven't developed to the proper point. I'm wondering is this true and why? Do atheist feel thats its no longer needed to debate religion, and the major focus is just getting people to "wake" up to your reality?

So, to sum it up you ask: "I'm wondering is this true and why? Do atheist feel thats its no longer needed to debate religion, and the major focus is just getting people to "wake" up to your reality?"

Yes. Wake up.. think these over:

1. Religion is harmful because it claims knowledge of an absolute truth about what it is to be human. By definition such a claim is dangerous. It leads to immoral decision-making and excludes new insights into what it is to be human.
.
2. Religion blocks the development of rationalism as the guiding principle of human development.
.
3. Religion hinders the development of scientific knowledge.
.
4. Religion gives a distorted view of reality by claiming false things to be true.
.
5. "Reality conflict" produces real emotional distress - with damage to individuals and their families. The faithful suffer stress because the evidence of their senses and experience conflicts with their religious beliefs. An extreme example of such a conflict: in theory religions welcome death as the ultimate salvation - in practice few of the faithful seem to be very keen on it.
.
6. Religion creates and reinforces rifts between different communities. It spreads from generation to generation like a computer virus and perpetuates these rifts over many generations.
.
7. Vices develop when people are forced to keep different aspects of their humanity in separate compartments. Vices are created when natural behaviour is defined as sin.
.
8. Religion discourages the development of democratic systems of government, freedom of expression and the evolution of society. Because religious organisations are hierarchical and the guys at the top are always right this encourages an undemocratic mind-set. Perhaps this is why so many religions are so tolerant of war - the ultimate imposition of power over others.
.
Then ask yourselves.. " Why am I not be an atheist?" If ya can show a good reason to swallow the nonsense.. bring it on
.

[SoylentGreen]

linda_mary_13Spreading the gospel does not include throwing your pearls in a pig sty.

And just who exactly are you referring to as a pig sty, madam.

[oracle13]

Sorry, but -- I agree with the fact that theists bring their faith into debates about politics. God created everything and thus god would be the perfect thing to go to for guidance in such matters. I can't think of any character better then the creator of the universe to go to for help.

No, it is perfectly possible to believe in an awful, childish God who created the universe and then left. My sister is an example. This God obviously has no 'teachings' as such and its impossible to be a follower of his religion. To believe in him/it is still to belong to the theist group in your definition.

The problem you see with theists being involved in ethical debates is that they would bring their own objective moral standard to the debate - and I see a big problem with this too. However the kind of deist who I've outlined would not have this problem at all, they could clearly understand moral problems in their proper subjective sense.

Yes, I agree with your argument that full-blown practising religious fundamentalists who cite their support for certain positions concerning contemporary issues (abortion, death penalty etc etc) should often have the foundations of their beliefs criticised as they provide little to no reasonable moral justification for beliefs - I would disagree, for example, with implementing the commandment thou shalt not kill to the abortion debate.

Similarly, however, as Tivodan has pointed out, ethical and political issues are ultimately completely UNANSWERABLE by science. Science can certainly help us understand the issues that we are debating about, which may in turn affect our moral judgements - but only because they give or remove support to pre-existing values, which have very little to do with science. Whether you take a deontological or a consequentialist moral position will have a lot more to do with your stance on the abortion debate than whether you understand the science behind the growth of an unborn foetus.

I am suspicious, from your posts, that you believe that a full understanding of 'human nature' would immediately give rise to a 'correct' moral standard? Is that what you believe?

[rez]

Quote by: oracle13 No, it is perfectly possible to believe in an awful, childish God who created the universe and then left. My sister is an example. This God obviously has no 'teachings' as such and its impossible to be a follower of his religion. To believe in him/it is still to belong to the theist group in your definition.

Waste of time to even mention this group of people. They basically don't believe in god in my opinion. They just has some small logical issues to figure out.

The problem you see with theists being involved in ethical debates is that they would bring their own objective moral standard to the debate - and I see a big problem with this too. However the kind of deist who I've outlined would not have this problem at all, they could clearly understand moral problems in their proper subjective sense.

And thus they shouldn't even be mentioned here because they basically don't believe in god.

Yes, I agree with your argument that full-blown practising religious fundamentalists who cite their support for certain positions concerning contemporary issues (abortion, death penalty etc etc) should often have the foundations of their beliefs criticised as they provide little to no reasonable moral justification for beliefs - I would disagree, for example, with implementing the commandment thou shalt not kill to the abortion debate.

If you weed out all the silly deists from the theist camp, then you only have these people left.

Whether you take a deontological or a consequentialist moral position will have a lot more to do with your stance on the abortion debate than whether you understand the science behind the growth of an unborn foetus.

Disagree.

I am suspicious, from your posts, that you believe that a full understanding of 'human nature' would immediately give rise to a 'correct' moral standard? Is that what you believe?

well atleast a senseable standard.

[oracle13]

Waste of time to even mention this group of people. They basically don't believe in god in my opinion.

Except that they do. They just don't believe in the teachings of any major church.

Any person who believes in God but DOES NOT believe that their God imposes an objective moral standard on them is outside your definition, as you have admitted. Of course it is worth talking about them, don't just sweep the contradiction under the rug. It reduces the credibility of your claim, which I dispute, that theist = bad, atheist = good.

in my opinion, person with a belief in god that causes their moral and political beliefs to be influenced = bad, person outside of that definition = good.

Thus superstitious belief isn't in itself isn't bad, only when you use it to justify moral or political decisions.

Disagree.

Well, here's an example.

A deontologist's view on abortion is dependent on exactly which rights an unborn foetus is entitled to. If he believes that all human beings have the right to life, as many deontologists do, then the key question for him in the debate is when exactly the unborn foetus becomes 'a human life.' This is a question that science can help us with.

However, a consequentialist might look at the circumstances that the baby would be born into. It turns out that the mother was raped, she is only 16 years old, is completely cut off from her family and has no means of providing for the child. The consequentialist might argue that the foetus clearly must be aborted in order to promote the greatest amount of happiness for this young girl, and to avoid the inevitable sadness that such a burden would cause her (not to mention the psychological effects on the child of growing up with the knowledge that he/she was the result of a rape).

Even if the consequentialist decides that abortion is wrong as the baby could be put up for adoption, the entire debate revolves around the kinds of value judgement people make. (There is, not as of yet, a science of happiness, and to be honest, I hope there never will be).

So in this case while science does have a role to play, within the confines of a pre-determined moral system, it has no role to play in choosing which moral system should be used.

well atleast a senseable standard.

Do you believe in free will?

[linda_mary_13]

Quote by: SoylentGreen And just who exactly are you referring to as a pig sty, madam.

The pig sty is not a who but a place.

[Rainbow]

Quote by: SoylentGreen 1. 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. 2. 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.

#1
I think you had better re-read this initialized thread's first post.

#2
We have no idea on afterlife. We guess it, only.
What we know is, that a person ceases its presence - within the Universe and/or Environment - as the result of broken molecular bonds.
It applies to us ALL : Atheists and Theists :-)
What happens to those (freed) atoms ? I have no idea.

[Rainbow]

Quote by: rez 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.

My previous post (addressed to you) carried a request, that goes as follow :
- your approach : Theists
- my approach : some Theists
Adjust your expression(s), please, since the word "Theists" - in this case, indicates "ALL the Theists", since no condition has been applied.

In this post, you raise enormous amount of aspects and/or issues.
Are you suggesting I should become (a sort of) national teacher ? :-) and explain to some guys the base of Logic ? :-)
(Time is running out. I will be back :-) and continue.)

[SoylentGreen]

Quote by: Rainbow #1 I think you had better re-read this initialized thread's first post.

I did and see no inconsistency. Theists have a wonderful habit of pointing out that whatever contradiction in their belief is being argued on just happens not to be their particular belief. Part of the pick and choose thing they have concerning religion, and how their belief stands on shifting sand.

linda_mary_13 The pig sty is not a who but a place.

A place? Now your comment makes even less sense to me. could you please rephrase.

oracle13Similarly, however, as Tivodan has pointed out, ethical and political issues are ultimately completely UNANSWERABLE by science.

Well of course it is.. Anyone seeking such answers through science is displaying a complete ignorance of science , what it is and can do.
However e do have other branches of learning that are more suitable to an understanding of ethical and political issues. They are referred to as the humanities subject and encompass things like psychology, sociology, political studies and philosophy.
That is how we come to understand the nature of ethics and politics not through a baseless superstition.

[Red]

Would you prefer to be led by someone who believes that they would be punished for all their wrongs (even after death), or someone who believes that once death is achieved, all is over?

Personally, I find people learn most acutely through pain, and would prefer someone who was wary of it to be leading me, regardless of the validity of their thoughts.

[Marconius]

Quote by: Red Would you prefer to be led by someone who believes that they would be punished for all their wrongs (even after death), or someone who believes that once death is achieved, all is over?

I would prefer to not be led at all, and to make my own decisions. If I had to be led I would prefer the person base their judgements on logic instead of superstition.

Quote by: Red Personally, I find people learn most acutely through pain, and would prefer someone who was wary of it to be leading me, regardless of the validity of their thoughts.

Really? What if they believed that if they didnt sacrifice someone every day they would be punished for their wrongs?