Evidence for God from Science

SnowDrops wrote:

narnia4 wrote:Has there been an atheistic system of government (not just secular, atheistic) that hasn't been a colossal failure and a negative force in the world? I can't think of any off the top of my head.

Well, to be fair, has there been any Christian government like that? Though I'm not sure there has been any Christian government at all. As for atheistic governments (in general), only Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union come to mind - those are the obvious ones.

Well you obviously have countries that began by a group of people that were predominately Christians and were founded on Christian values, a country like the US. In England the "church of England" is the officially established religious institution. Greek orthodox is the official religion in Greece, etc.

Obviously this doesn't necessarily have a lot to do with what people in that country or the government ACTUALLY believe, but I think it works as a small point against what some of Steve here is saying.

Echoside wrote:Maybe it's because I'm agnostic, but I read that with the same painful sarcasm many atheists use when talking about Christianity.

This.

I think it's really hypocritical to allow and cheer for this kind of blatant mockery and disrespect of a 1/6th of the world population but whine and moan when someone says something bad about Christians.

edit: of course, this post will likely get deleted and I will receive a warning. But neo-x can get away with calling atheists stupid and immoral.

Read his first post. He said the 'stupidness of the atheist system'. I didn't see anything about calling 'atheists stupid'. Granted, its harsh and might not be the best wording. But it isn't the same thing and I think there's a decent enough difference to make note of it.

Would you be as offended if he said the 'wrongness of the atheist system'?

Okay, that may have been a misrepresentation (still, it is the equivalent of calling Christianity stupid, which I don't think anyone would like). But he did call them evil.

there is no painful sarcasm, these very traits above are what the modern atheists harbor, most of them at least.

"Evil" doesn't appear on the first page of the thread. It appears on the second, but he didn't say it.

MarcusOfLycia wrote:"Evil" doesn't appear on the first page of the thread. It appears on the second, but he didn't say it.

Come on, now. He claims that they support the mass murder of religious people.

Now, since I know some anklebiter will shout at me how atheists have no "objective morality", I won't say that this is necessarily an accusation of immorality [1]. But if you can't see how accusing a group of people of supporting genocide is insulting, I'm afraid I can't do anything to change your mind.

[1] But arguably, it is. Even if genocide is not objectively wrong, it is still how almost all modern societies define "evil". And it is evil on the Christian moral code, which neo-x happens to subscribe to.

There are tons more mischaracterizations and insults in the first post that should be apparent to any reasonable individual.

Why is it 'objectively wrong' by atheistic standards? Eugenics is a purely atheistic philosophy that was primarily opposed by religious people. It is still supported by radical Islamists in the middle east and some radical atheists today.

Why do you consider it evil? Isn't it just an aspect of natural selection?

I didn't say it was objectively wrong. I already covered all this.

Then how is it evil? Only you are inferring that.

I agree, it -is- evil, but why would something being evil make it not exist?

Okay, I already explained all this, but here I go again.

1. It is evil by societal standards. Philosophical quibbling of whether evil is objective or relative is irrelevant to the discussion.

2. Genocide is evil on the Christian moral code, which neo-x subscribes to. Ergo, he was saying that, on his view, atheists are evil. This is tantamount to directly saying that they are evil. By your logic, even if he directly called them evil, this wouldn't matter because there is no right and wrong on the atheist's view.

3. Even if it wasn't 'evil', it is still a massive insult.

but why would something being evil make it not exist?

I don't understand this question.

Noah1201 wrote:1. It is evil by societal standards.

Why does society have these standards?

Noah1201 wrote:Okay, I already explained all this, but here I go again.

1. It is evil by societal standards. Philosophical quibbling of whether evil is objective or relative is irrelevant to the discussion.

2. Genocide is evil on the Christian moral code, which neo-x subscribes to. Ergo, he was saying that, on his view, atheists are evil. This is tantamount to directly saying that they are evil. By your logic, even if he directly called them evil, this wouldn't matter because there is no right and wrong on the atheist's view.

3. Even if it wasn't 'evil', it is still a massive insult.

but why would something being evil make it not exist?

I don't understand this question.

1. You claimed that Neo-X made a claim that 'atheists are evil'. He did no such thing. When I pressed you on it, you said that he didn't say it explicitly but he implied it. When I pressed you on that, you suggested that evil doesn't really exist (the part you don't understand), and that it really is just a societal standard that says its wrong. So we have come to the conclusion that society disagrees with a position that has been held nearly exclusively by atheists. And I am left wondering: Where do you object to this, if this is all that is happening?

2. What if I believe it is evil to lie? I do, in fact, believe that it is evil to lie. I have, also in fact, lied in the past. So we are at the point where, according to your logic, I must assume that I am an evil person for it. As a consistent Christian, I accept this conclusion. I believe humanity has a tendency towards evil, atheist, Christian, or whatever else. The propensity to hold evil beliefs may or may not confer evil onto individuals, but individuals are most certainly evil in their natural state. However, if an atheist (or yourself), were to take issue with this claim that the actions of atheists are evil, I become confused. You are fighting against something you don't believe is there. Why spend the energy on it?

3. Once again, why is it insulting? GK Chesterton wrote a book on "Eugenics and other Evils" over 100 years ago, going off on how evil the ideas were and how modern atheists and materialists were pressing these ideas in Europe as the 'next' step in human evolution. It led to WW1 and WW2, the deaths of millions, and plenty of problems we still deal with today. He was right in calling it evil. And the OP is correct in stating that this idea has been favored by atheists (perhaps not in modern times, but certainly in the past). Some atheistic countries still prefer this viewpoint. And there is no inherent quality, outside of what you call 'societal acceptance', reserved for judgement of the idea in a purely materialistic world.

There's a conundrum here, if I can point it out. On the one hand, you argue against the objection to evil as it is observed because it is 'a massive insult'. On the other hand, you deny the existence of evil and substitute it with 'societal acceptance'. It is quite common for societies to accept evil things (the murder of humans based on their geographical position in relation to their mother comes to mind). So there is really no way to go and defend someone as 'societaly acceptable' when those standards change. If you want to argue against calling someone's actions evil because it is evil to do so, then you have to accept evil. And if you do, you have to accept the immaterial, as evil is not a tangible, materialistic concept. And if you do that, you have to admit that those actions that Neo-X was writing about truly were evil. Its a circle. Where do you want to draw the line?

---

Now, as I said in another post, the wording may have been poor. To be honest, I've spent more time talking to you than reading the initial post because I found fallacy in what you wrote. There may be things to argue with legitimately in what he said, but I did not find that your objections were to those possibly legitimate things.

My, my my

The atheists speak finally.

Well what can I say, I am flattered with all the "evil" deeds being associated with me.

First, Marcus got you head on and explained. I think he understood my stance very well. (Thanx for your support Marcus )

okay for this,

Noah1201 » Mon Aug 15, 2011 6:13 am

Echoside wrote:
Maybe it's because I'm agnostic, but I read that with the same painful sarcasm many atheists use when talking about Christianity.

This.

I think it's really hypocritical to allow and cheer for this kind of blatant mockery and disrespect of a 1/6th of the world population but whine and moan when someone says something bad about Christians.

edit: of course, this post will likely get deleted and I will receive a warning. But neo-x can get away with calling atheists stupid and immoral.

Why do you feel it is wrong? I mean, don't you atheists make fun of religion. Have you never wrote, magical being, invisible friends, aliens, fairies and host of other things to define religion. Here in this very thread, we heard, how religious people have low IQ to begin with. But hey, where exactly did you see us moan? HEY DOES ANYONE HERE SAW US MOAN AND SCREAM WHEN WE were CALLED IDIOTS FOR BELIEVING IN INVISIBLE THINGS???

Please point it out. And for surfing this forum, you should already know that no matter how idiotic the question may be, it is always posted. No one stopped you, right?

Please state how do you think atheists are 1/6 of the world population? Last I head atheist were 4 percent of the entire world population.

But neo-x can get away with calling atheists stupid and immoral.

I'm running no where, my friend. And I will state again, I think atheism is stupid, yes, if that includes you, sorry, can't do anything about it. After all, if religion is a hoax, myth or fairy tales, doesn't that make us stupid. I mean, even if you do not like to say it out loud (out of any ethics) you still believe it and often imply it. I'm just saying it out loud. The system of atheism is flawed. It doesn't make sense, it is build on the same premise as religion, only in a different direction.

But if you can't see how accusing a group of people of supporting genocide is insulting, I'm afraid I can't do anything to change your mind.

Ca't you see or have you never read an atheist's discription of religion. Seriously, forgive my remark but you earned it.

You accuse religion all the time of genocide killing,isn't that insulting? Atheists complain that religion is filled with violence, war, injustice, rape, genocide, innocent killing, and you refer to our history to prove your point. Talk about "MASSIVE INSULT", huh. And If I say that atheism is stupid and evil and immoral, based on your 100 history, then I am being rude and hypocritical, going against social ethics. wow! This kind of made me

You insult people with religious beliefs and when the table is turned you complain. Because it is not social, come on, give me a break. when you mock religion by saying, aliens and magical beings, aren't you insulting us???? But if I write something like this, then whoa! I'm suddenly the bad guy, accusing innocent people. well how about the rest of the 4 billion people who do believe in such a thing as a "magical being"? don't you insult their wisdom, or emotions or belief. Implying that they are stupid, immoral, prone to kill...etc etc. And now all of a sudden you are feeling insulted...that's something. Who is being hypocritical???

Look, Im just being fair. So what I have to say, stop whining and complaining. You get what you sow. If you do not like it, I can't help it. I am projecting the same lens on atheism that you project on religion. I am weighing you on the same scale. what, you don't like it? I can't see why it is wrong of me to do so. After all you guys do it. If you are not happy to get the same level of respect you give to others then it is not my problem.

And up till now, I'm only seeing the atheists whining in this thread because atheism got disrespected by a christian. And if you are so sensitive about it, go think about this the next time you write "magical being" to a person who believes in his God and see if you might be disrespecting him. And if you do realize then come back and complain and I will gladly usher you an apology.

Happy now?

This is what happens when someone brings up OM. They deny it and then the next second they turn around and say you insulted them or other moralities are "primitive" or other such nonsense. You can't have your cake and eat it too!

Btw calling atheism immoral is hardly an insult when atheists have so readily admitted it. Well, except Sam Harris - and just look at the nonsense that started coming out of his mouth (Debate with WLC)...