Those condescending atheists

[JustKari]

There's certainly more than that.  If "suffering is bad" becomes the highest standard to which we attain, then there's no reason for us to exist at all.  Non-existence would trump suffering.

To be fair, I didn't read the rest of your post.  I just wanted to pick on this one thing.

Haven't seen you in a while.  Good to see you.

[MFA]

Haven't seen you in a while.  Good to see you.

  Thanks!

[Patriot]

Good and Evil exist independent of any specific religion.

The simple proof of that is that Good and Evil existed before Christ.

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

Seems like if you follow that simple rule it is easy to decide whether you want to be good or evil ....... religion is secondary to any precept that violates that rule.

[Ricko]

I'll add my 2c of thoughts here. I think I'd be considered more agnostic then athiest. I was raised Catholic and spent 8 yrs in a Catholic grade school and I began to "question the validity" in 2nd or 3rd grade probably...silently in my mind of course . There were so many inconsistancies and contradictions in things we learned in school. In religion class we'd talk ablut the biblical origin of man and then in science/history class they'd be teaching us about evolutionary theory and the two seemed to contradict each other. And then there were all of those "other" religions and I began to question...who's right?? Now I'm at mid-life and my thoughts are that nobody is right and nobody is wrong, religion/faith exists in your heart and if it makes you happy, go with it.

Anyway, I think my religious upbringing gave me a good set of values to carry on with. I think the Ten Commandments are some good basic rules to live by and as the poster above says, do unto others as you would have done to you. In my younger years I liked to think there was more good then evil in this world but honestly, as I grow older and see all the BAD things that happen in this world, I'm thinking it's more the other way around .

[Yawn]

I noticed patroit posted in a long string of threads in this forum but, for some strange reason, ignored THIS thread 

[Patriot]

I noticed patroit posted in a long string of threads in this forum but, for some strange reason, ignored THIS thread 

I liked Ricko's post.

Here's a chap who has an open mind.

Realizes there is this religious BS, but hasn't really taken the time to think it through and decided to just muddle his way through feeling more or less secure that if there is a God of the Organized Religions, this God will understand his confusion.

Naturally, I might be wrong in this opinion. But, that's how I see it.

[Yawn]

'bout time you showed yourself in this thread about those annoying and pompous/elitist followers of the Atheist Religion! 

[Solar]

'bout time you showed yourself in this thread about those annoying and pompous/elitist followers of the Atheist Religion! 

Atheists are funny about God and guns, the only time they acknowledge both are necessary is when someone is breaking into their home.
The first thing they do is call someone that has one, and Pray to God they get there in time.

[Patriot]

Atheists are funny about God and guns, the only time they acknowledge both are necessary is when someone is breaking into their home.
The first thing they do is call someone that has one, and Pray to God they get there in time.

Might be true about Agnostics. Not true about Atheists.

However, I understand that you're attempting to be hilarious. 

[MFA]

Good and Evil exist independent of any specific religion.

The simple proof of that is that Good and Evil existed before Christ.

Illogic alert!

[walkstall]

Illogic alert!

MFA, I think s/he is new at this.   

[Darth Fife]

There's certainly more than that.  If "suffering is bad" becomes the highest standard to which we attain, then there's no reason for us to exist at all.  Non-existence would trump suffering.

To be fair, I didn't read the rest of your post.  I just wanted to pick on this one thing.

Indeed, "suffering is bad" can hardly be used as an absolute.

The Black Plague caused untold suffering, but the descendants of the survivors benefited from an stronger immune system.

Christ, himself, suffered and died on the Cross.

There are, of course many, many more examples...

[Alexander]

Last night, I had a heated discussion over the Net about the nature of God in society. As I'm fond of using the Moral Lawgiver argument (probably one of the most effective around there) I've argued that it is impossible for society to define "good", and that if God doesn't exist, every thing is permitted, and in that cases of communism & nazism, if atheism is true, we should be morally indifferent to it and shouldn't show disgust against it.
The atheist response? He told me my argument was "irrelevant" and I had "cute, but not valid arguments". Curiously, he never answered my question: Should we've evolved in a society where rape is permitted and normal, would you do it?

The Moral Argument is one of the most popular, and most effective, among laymen. However, I think what William Lane Craig and his followers fail to realize is that the Moral Argument is only effective on an emotional level. I don't even really view it as an argument for God's existence, but rather as an argument against objective moral values. So, I would have to agree with your friend that this argument is largely irrelevant in the debate over the existence of God. It would be more relevant in a debate about ethics.

I countered: "Nope, as far as I know, nobody worshipped Spiderman for more than 5000 years and died for him. Out of the 12 apostles, 11 were brutally killed. If they knew that Christianity was false, they would repudiate it & profess paganism."

As you might imagine I don't find this to be a very compelling argument. However, I have tried to look into it further in the past and I've never found the basis for most of these claims.

I'm confused as to why atheists are very keen to recruit others in their cause. I know hobbits don't exist, but I never spend my whole time convincing others they don't exist.

The condescending nature of this statement is rather ironic considering the title of your post, don't ya think? Anyway, if you lived in a country where 90% of people believed in hobbits you would probably change your tune. If you were barred from holding political office in your state for not believing in hobbits, would you spend more time talking about it? What if lawmakers based their policy decisions on their belief in hobbits and used this as a reason to limit the freedoms of certain individuals? What if families disowned their children for not believing in hobbits? What if people were killed around the world for not believing in the right hobbit? What if all of your friends and family members believed you would be tortured for not believing in hobbits? This is exactly the situation we are in today with God. Don't pretend to not understand that. I think you are fully aware as to why atheists care about this issue. But believe me, I'd be hard pressed to try and think of a less important question than 'does God exist' to be perfectly honest, but unfortunately the actions of some people have made it a question I cannot ignore. And I think you understand this, because after all, atheists don't go around talking about hobbits either. We don't have labels we attach to people based on whether or not they believe in hobbits.

"I will not attack your doctrines nor your creeds if they accord liberty to me. If they hold thought to be dangerous - if they aver that doubt is a crime, then I attack them one and all, because they enslave the minds of men." - Robert Ingersoll

Kierkegaard was right in saying that a lone atheist man, without his peers, would suddenly realise there is a God, so that's why they had to stick together.

Being an atheist living in the Bible belt, I am about as lone as it gets when it comes to my beliefs, but that doesn't change anything. Not sure why that would matter anyway. Everybody knows that you are more likely believe the things that your friends and family do, that doesn't say much about the truthfulness of the belief. Hell, you could even switch the quote to say, "A lone Christian man, without his peers, would suddenly realize there is no God, so that's why they had to stick together" and it would probably be even more accurate. This seems like a weird thing for a Christian to say since they put so much emphasis on community.

Also, I'll never go into debates again, as Proverbs 29:9 says: If a wise man goes to court with a foolish man,
the fool rages or scoffs, and there is no peace.

Doesn't the Bible say Christians must always be prepared to defend their faith? And, does this mean William Lane Craig and Dinesh D'Souza should stop debating?

[Murph]

Isn't being a militant atheist somewhat hypocritical? I'm just kinda wondering if there is some sort of obligation to spread the faith, or lack therof among atheists.

[Solar]

Isn't being a militant atheist somewhat hypocritical? I'm just kinda wondering if there is some sort of obligation to spread the faith, or lack therof among atheists.

Well said.