Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I meant if a truth were destructive, etc. Although considering the suicide rates, low fertility rate, low generosity, etc atheism is arguably something of a maladaptive trait in a Darwinian sense. It's not uniquely maladaptive, but maladaptive all the same.
Atheists and other rational thinkers are actually just as, if not more generous than Christians, it's just that we all don't have the silly and childish need to brag about it (Strangely, Jesus himself said not to brag publicly about making alms, so it seems in that sense we are more "Christ-like" than the Christers).
And of course we must keep in mind that Christian "charity" is really just a front for their propaganda machine, to oil the gears of proselytizing and foisting Christianity on the world, assimilate & destroy native cultures and "false beliefs", and of course a vain attempt to collect brownie points in heaven. Whereas atheists, humanists and freethinkers help others because, well, it's just the human thing to do..
Oh yeah BTW, the bit about suicide rates is pure Xian B.S. straight out of the stock fundie handbook of lying for Jebus.
I meant if a truth were destructive, etc. Although considering the suicide rates, low fertility rate, low generosity, etc atheism is arguably something of a maladaptive trait in a Darwinian sense. It's not uniquely maladaptive, but maladaptive all the same.
As I said earlier, I could challenge you on all these points, but it would drive us further off topic. So for now, I'll simply demur.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas R.
As for the other it doesn't have to go one way. If the Nicene Creed is true would you become a Christian? Or would that be a jump too far for you to accept? The question is in many ways ridiculous as nothing can prove this, that, or the other.
I can say unequivocally that I would become a Christian if I thought the balance of evidence supported the Nicene Creed. I wouldn't even need a metaphysical certitude. All I would require is a preponderance of the evidence supporting Christianity, and I would become a Christian.
Because the big draw of atheism is that it's true. And if I instead believed Christainity were true, I would be a Christian. I would have no need for Atheism.
In fact, by definition, I could not be an atheist if I believed in God.
I want to know the truth, whether that truth makes me happy or makes me sad.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas R.
Still if you absolutely need an answer if it were shown that there were no God I suppose I would either become a "Humanistic Catholic" (Accepting natural law through reason, meditation on nature or positive actions by historical saints rather than supernatural, etc) or adopt a mixture of Taoism and Confucianism. Chinese philosophy appeals to me in a way few non-Catholic things do. If I went that route I might seek an "elixir of immortality" as is traditional for Taoism or get my head frozen.
You are, perhaps unintentionally, avoiding my question.
My question isn't "what would you do if you knew there was no God." My question is, "if there was no God, would you want to know that, or would you prefer no one told you, and you keep believing in a God that didn't exist?"
Because from your earlier post, you implied that ignorance is bliss, and if there were no God, mankind would be better off not knowing that fact. Does that count for you to? Is ignorance bliss to you, such that you would not want to know the truth, if the truth is that there is no God?
Atheists and other rational thinkers are actually just as, if not more generous than Christians, it's just that we all don't have the silly and childish need to brag about it (Strangely, Jesus himself said not to brag publicly about making alms, so it seems in that sense we are more "Christ-like" than the Christers).
And of course we must keep in mind that Christian "charity" is really just a front for their propaganda machine, to oil the gears of proselytizing and foisting Christianity on the world, assimilate & destroy native cultures and "false beliefs", and of course a vain attempt to collect brownie points in heaven. Whereas atheists, humanists and freethinkers help others because, well, it's just the human thing to do..
Oh yeah BTW, the bit about suicide rates is pure Xian B.S. straight out of the stock fundie handbook of lying for Jebus.
I agree that I haven't seen much evidence that Christians are more generous. I bet the same national level data he uses to support suicides would show exactly the opposite in terms of generosity. For example, I think Japan gives more aid per capita (as a percentage of GDP) than any other country in the world. The U.S. is one of the stingiest.
But I also question whether higher levels of generosity would help a species survive at any rate. Generosity might run counter to the ideas of survival of the fittest.
"Families with no religious association tend to exhibit very low fertility (Mosher et al, 1992)" from the Princeton study. This is quite possibly just a start.
Now difficulties are that these are often about general irreligiousness rather than atheism in specific. Generally though highly atheistic places, like most of Eastern Europe, have some of the lowest fertility rates. There are outliers, like France whose fertility rate is at replacement, but generally is the case. They also tend to be higher in suicide and lower in generosity. On the plus side atheists tend to recycle more and more atheistic places tend to have less problems relating to ethnocentrism or homophobia. Still as bad as ethnic or racial prejudice is it's not quite maladaptive in the Darwinian sense of reproducing and nurturing one's genetic descent.
Anyway as for the original statement about "positives of Christianity" I got distracted on that as that was not what most on the thread wished to discuss. The idea of "loving your enemy" seems largely unique to Christianity. I admire Chinese culture, but the Confucians did not believe anything like that. Enemies were to get "justice" not love. Christianity (By that I mean the religion of Christianity, not some verse you can find in the Pentateuch) took a stronger stance against infanticide than most any religion. In Pagan Rome the father had ultimate right and in theory he was even allowed to kill his adolescent children if he wished. Christians also were generally better to the disabled. In the eleventh century the severely disabled monk Herman of Reichenau translated science works, introduced the astrolabe, wrote hymns, did math, etc. So far as I know only the Taoist, and maybe the Stoics, had any similar disabled figure. The first play written by a woman was written by a German nun. A poor woman may have had much more chance getting an education in a convent than she would ever have in the highly classist ancient Rome. In Medieval France a religious order was even set up for women who wanted to flee their abusive husbands.The idea of rules and restrictions for "just war" came largely from Christianity. International law likely originates with Christian thinkers such as Hugo Grotius and Father Suares. One of the first statements against the slave trade was by a sixteenth century Pope. Then there's the Medieval University system, creating alphabets for several languages, homeless shelters, food-aid, etc.
Oh yeah BTW, the bit about suicide rates is pure Xian B.S. straight out of the stock fundie handbook of lying for Jebus.
I am not a fundie and the suicide rate issue is statistically supportable. You need to separate "I don't like it" from "That's B.S." Many things one dislikes are nevertheless true. Granted maybe the truth about atheist suicide rates is a "destructive truth" and you'd be better off ignoring it. Further if it comforts you there are outliers. British suicide rates are relatively low, but they have a good percent of atheists.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxcar Overkill
My question isn't "what would you do if you knew there was no God." My question is, "if there was no God, would you want to know that, or would you prefer no one told you, and you keep believing in a God that didn't exist?"
Because from your earlier post, you implied that ignorance is bliss, and if there were no God, mankind would be better off not knowing that fact. Does that count for you to? Is ignorance bliss to you, such that you would not want to know the truth, if the truth is that there is no God?
Your question is a meaningless hypothetical, I probably gave it more respect than it really deserves.
Besides I did answer it. You need to read a bit less narrow a fashion. (That might be impossible for you, but try) That I said I'd go be Confucian/Taoist or "Humanistic Catholic" means that in that case I'd accept there was no God if such a thing were true. (It's not. Your certainty it is true is interesting, but not persuasive)
Then why do the fundies keep trying to "bring me into the fold" when they are told I am not interested? Another christian lie as to whose choice it is?
You are not alone on this forum and on this particular thread. Looking at my stats, (Thanks city data for them) there are quite a few readers and posters.
In addressing the subject matter, the whole benefits from it even though some of the whole may not.
Because some object doesn't mean it should go away.
The fundies, as you label them have the same right you have in addressing any issue with their views as you do yours.
The question is, which person is the bigger of the two, or say more mature of the two, and which one has more heart without respect to religion.
Yes, and true, my hope would be that perhaps my views may be of help and not of condemnation, in understanding things about God.
Besides I did answer it. You need to read a bit less narrow a fashion. (That might be impossible for you, but try) That I said I'd go be Confucian/Taoist or "Humanistic Catholic" means that in that case I'd accept there was no God if such a thing were true.
I have to read narrowly to avoid being accused of assuming too much.
Because I think your statement here strongly undercuts your earlier argument in this thread, in which you said:
Quote:
If atheism were a truth that has no value than it is truth best left ignored.
Because you now admit that, even if it held no value, you would not want to ignore the truth, (assuming arguendo that atheism is true.)
Assuming arguendo that atheism is true, is that enough of a reason for people to believe it? Early you said no, but now, for you, you say yes.
I have to read narrowly to avoid being accused of assuming too much.
Because I think your statement here strongly undercuts your earlier argument in this thread, in which you said:
Because you now admit that, even if it held no value, you would not want to ignore the truth, (assuming arguendo that atheism is true.)
Assuming arguendo that atheism is true, is that enough of a reason for people to believe it? Early you said no, but now, for you, you say yes.
I'm editing because I was too generous in my original version.
Re-reading I found what I originally said was "a downright destructive 'truth' is something I might indeed choose to ignore. Not reject, but 'live as if it wasn't true.'" So for one I said "might" and for another I said I would not "reject" such a truth, but I would live as if it wasn't true.
In the other post the only thing contradictory is the idea I'd switch to Confucian/Taoism. This indicates a possible change, but it doesn't indicate I'd live as or identify as an atheist. Because I wouldn't. The option of identifying as atheist was never mentioned by me and is not going to be mentioned. There is literally nothing that can make that happen, not even disbelief in God. Further my first option was essentially to still live as a Catholic albeit a Humanistic one. And I only gave that answer because you were so persistent.
Basically your question was treated way way more seriously by me than it deserved. I allowed your persistence, and my obsessive need to not drop things, cloud my judgment. I should've simply given you a polite sneer or jeer and been on my way. That I treated some impossible hypothetical as much of anything is likely a foolish error on my part. One I hope I never repeat.
Last edited by Thomas R.; 09-29-2009 at 04:43 AM..
Of course atheists have a lower fertility rate! They are not brainwashed into thinking you HAVE to have a ton of kids. I knew a few pentecostal women who were depressed over having so many kids but could never speak up!
1. The statistics have shown that, for instance, atheist marriages fail far less than those attended and blessed by religion.
2. Doctors are well aware and supportive of "the power of psotive prayer", however they also note the documented numbers, to wit: those on which fervent family and congregational prayers are focused "fail", medically speaking, at the exact same rate as those who list "no denomination" or "atheist" on their hospital charts.
Of course a fervent and positive belief in anything, even virgin sacrifice, would have a measurable and coincidental positive effect on healing. The mind, in other words, can have a positive effect on the body.
3. More educated, and thus more atheist, countries, such as France, Sweden, Switzerland, Germany and others always have lower birth rates, not lower "fertility". Nothing physiologically deficient here. They simply choose to limit the number of children they bring into this world. By direct comparison, countries with large illiterate and poverty-stricken populations (Mexico, Afghanistan, many countries in S. America, and much of rural America) cling to religion and it's promises. The father-figure thing runs it's course where curiosity and critical thinking are actively suppressed.
4. Religion has not, however, ever produced unambiguous and documented miracles, such as the regeneration of a lost limb, or the return to life of a truly, actually [not just technically] dead person. One with no measurable signs of life, plus a drop of core body temp to below 20˚ C, for over one hour. That would be a miracle. Doesn't happen. [now don't go and link me to episodes where children, submerged in ice water, survived. I mean where a warm body dies and is left in the room, and it's core temp falls of it's own accord. That's DEAD. Life causes heat; in death that heat is lost. Fact.]
5. Atheism is not a lifestyle, a dedication, a "belief", nor, most notably, any sort of structured organized religion. Except in the micro-case of some nut-ball atheists, of which there are precious few marching the streets with placards, as compared to the legions of, shall we say, "over-dedicated" religious zealots and educators.
6. The positive aspects of religion are precisely the same as the positive aspects of, say, the Shriners Club, the International Gyro Organization, or any other fellowship organization that chooses to actively assist their fellow man. The absence of any International Atheist Fellowship organization is living proof that atheists simply DO NOT BELIEVE in something, and thus do not choose to celebrate or formalize it as a religion requires.
7. For every person in need of a personal experience with God, and who thus assign a random experience to a Godly and supernatural one, there are, on a daily basis, uncountable legions of experiences that continually disprove the existance of a compassionate God or historical but probably mythical Jesus figure.
8. The stated "proofs" of people's personal communication and experiences with God are always ambiguous. [They would have to be, after all, since there is, in fact, no God, now wouldn't they?]
Getting a job after praying to God is NOT unambiguous. A cancer remission is NOT unambiguous. Not being killed in Iraq is NOT unambiguous. Other than God personally appearing to a group of folks, "sparkling in" like a Star Trek transporter room event, with the CNN cameras rolling, and followed by the re-invigoration of, say, John F. Kennedy and Elvis in 2009 right there on international video, it's been a no-show.
Can I be positive about religion? Well, yes, to a limited degree. The consequential fellowship and cameraderie that attends community church groups, especially in a small town such as where my family lives, generates communal assistance, hospice and family aid programs. Absent the organizational environment of the Church, such programs would probably not be as prolific as they are, but I do object, as noted above by others, to the insidious and attendant follow-up prayers and "invites" to join the congregation. As if god were specifically responsible for the goodness in man. Who then is responsible for the organized or singular goodness in millions of atheists, the godless Inuit, Buddhists or Shintoists?
A once-friend of mine who became a born-again Christian said that without his personal God, his life would be meaningless. That is, of course, positive proof of a deep psychological and personal need rather than convincing evidence that there is a God. But since it obviously helped him, I'll grant that it was a "positive thing".
Absent an omnipotent father figure, this person would be very depressed and disfunctional. Plus, upon his conversion, his S. Baptist wife of long standing finally began returning his intimate affections, which to me amounted to blackmail....
Praise The Lord! Oh, and Attend Thy Husband's Needs!! [S. Baptist mandate]
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Or...... alternate "statistics"....
[S. Baptist mandate]
