[adamrules247]

(Original post by NYU2012)
Being an atheist doesn't force one to be naturalist, no. There can be things outside of the physical universe which affect the universe but are not a 'God'.

Well I'd have to disagree with you here but we can agree to disagree here.

I'm not trying to wriggle my way out of justifying anything. Why mention it? Again, this thread is on atheism and religion - kind of the perfect place to bring up atheism.

You're wriggling again! So are you defining atheism as only a lack of belief or a denial of the existence of God?

No. Having the belief that there is no God does not force or drive anyone to accept anything.

Well it clearly does. If I am an atheist I am therefore forced to say that every religion in the world in correct in the claims it makes about the existence of God. It also forces me to accept that Jesus of Nazareth lied when he claimed to be God and that Mohammed was a fraud. Or that the claim of the Catholic Church, that it in infallible in the interpreation of Scripture is wrong. Or do you argue that an atheist could accept that Jesus of Nazareth was the son of God and still be an atheist.

Religious beliefs encompass far more than 'There is a God' - they encompass all the beliefs associated with that particular religion. I.e. Catholics don't believe simply 'God exists' - the Aztecs didn't merely believe 'Gods exist'.

I'd agree but all of these beliefs flow from the claim about God and who He is.

Atheism is simply the belief that there exists no god. Full stop.

Except, of course, as we have seen, it forces you to make certain statements; such as the three listed above.

[Agenda Suicide]

(Original post by adamrules247)
That's called "list of wealthiest charities", no the ones doing the most work Charity has never been about throwing money at a problem but about actually fixing it. Correct, it's a religion, well observed, however it does a huge amount of charity work.

You think that's all it's schools do? How sadly mistaken you are. The Catholic Church is at the forefront of women's education, for example, if it didn't exist then women in the third world would simply receive no education, often because of strong Islamic presences.

You also seem to misunderstand my point about hospitals. What I mean is, especially in Africa but also elsewhere, they pay for, build, and run the hospitals themself. With no "other people". Providing care to all. I seriously suggest you look up what the RCC actually does in the third world as it is quite amazing.

Hmmmm, pretty sure you asked me what atheism contributes. I answered with the fact, stating about the wealth.

You claimed that was not the case.

I showed you proof.


You are now moving on to a different area trying to stop yourself looking stupid in a terrible attempt at using patronising language to make me look stupid. Then you have the cheek to try and slip in an attack at Islam.


Good luck with your religion, it must really open your mind. Without religion we'd be nowhere!

[goussberry]

(Original post by domino0806)
Sanity.

AND open-mindedness (more so than religions)

[adamrules247]

(Original post by Agenda Suicide)
Hmmmm, pretty sure you asked me what atheism contributes. I answered with the fact, stating about the wealth.

Actually I never asked that at all. This isn't my thread, I'm merely interesting in the discussion.

You are now moving on to a different area trying to stop yourself looking stupid in a terrible attempt at using patronising language to make me look stupid. Then you have the cheek to try and slip in an attack at Islam.

Chill. I was merely pointing out that you were mistaken about what the Catholic Church does with regard to it's charity work. And it wasn't a dig at Islam. It's an objective fact that in some Islamic countires women's access to education is restricted, or do you deny this?

Good luck with your religion, it must really open your mind. Without religion we'd be nowhere!

I like to think I'm reasonably open minded. I did after all choose my religion after growing up in a secular environment. And for the record, if we'd had this conversation a year, when I was an agnostic, I still would have pointed that info out about what the Catholic Church does.

[NYU2012]

(Original post by adamrules247)
Well I'd have to disagree with you here but we can agree to disagree here.

Then I would suggest picking up an introductory metaphysics book, such as "Metaphysics" by Peter Van Inwagen.

(Original post by adamrules247)
You're wriggling again! So are you defining atheism as only a lack of belief or a denial of the existence of God?

No, I never said it was exclusively such a thing. A lack of belief in God encompasses atheism - as well as other beliefs. None of these beliefs would force you to accept anything.

(Original post by adamrules247)
Well it clearly does. If I am an atheist I am therefore forced to say that every religion in the world in correct in the claims it makes about the existence of God. It also forces me to accept that Jesus of Nazareth lied when he claimed to be God and that Mohammed was a fraud. Or that the claim of the Catholic Church, that it in infallible in the interpreation of Scripture is wrong. Or do you argue that an atheist could accept that Jesus of Nazareth was the son of God and still be an atheist.

That's just being pedantic - the intrinsic meaning of atheism would make all of these things true - as it is a belief that no god exists. All of these statements are simply true if no god existed.

But this is no way states that you're forced to accept anything beyond a belief that no god exists. Everything you've stated above merely is a part of having a belief that no god exists.

(Original post by adamrules247)
Except, of course, as we have seen, it forces you to make certain statements; such as the three listed above.

Which is no way proves anything which you're attempting to say atheism 'requires one to agree with'

[garfeeled]

as an atheist my self i obviously dont believe in god but there are hundreds of atheists that have done wonders to society.

Dirac (theoretically proved antimatter)

paul bert ( oxygen toxicity)
robert cailliau (internet)
sean M carroll (dark energy and general relativity)

Bill gates (charity)
francis chick (co-discoverer of D.N.A structure)
thomas edison
Einstein
Hugh everett 111 (many worlds interpretation)
pierre simon laplace (mathmaticaly anticipated other galaxies and black holes)

need i go on.

plus the reason atheists tend talk about the negative effects of religion is because it kinda cancels out all the good eg

the church prevented hundreds of advances in medicine and science, galileo and william harvey
Crusades

hosni mubarak
king abdullah
talat pasha
bashar al assad
muammar qaddafi
osama bin laden
saddam hussein
haj amin al husseini
idi amin
ruhollah khomeini
sun myung moon
david koresh
pat robertson
matthew hale
michael bray
paul jennings hill
marshall herff applewhite jr
jim jones
charles coughlin
fred phelps
to name a few

[adamrules247]

(Original post by NYU2012)
Then I would suggest picking up an introductory metaphysics book, such as "Metaphysics" by Peter Van Inwagen.

I'm already reading a commentary on Aquinas' metaphysics, thanks.

No, I never said it was exclusively such a thing. A lack of belief in God encompasses atheism - as well as other beliefs. None of these beliefs would force you to accept anything.

Well if it's no exclusively atheistic, which we agree, then it is not worth mentioning.

That's just being pedantic - the intrinsic meaning of atheism would make all of these things true - as it is a belief that no god exists. All of these statements are simply true if no god existed.

Exactly, so claims naturally flow from it! Including a rejection of various religions (I'm not including Buddhism here as I think it's a mistake to call it a religion, however I digress), and their claims to truths. Now, unless you are an atheist and also a postmodernist, because you believe those claims are false, it naturally follows that because they are not true. Now, in the same line with religious people who make this claim, it naturally follows that some atheists will think that religion can be harmful, because it is unture, while others will not. Like some religious people will believe that because a certain other religion is not true then they will believe it is harmful but others will not.

But this is no way states that you're forced to accept anything beyond a belief that no god exists. Everything you've stated above merely is a part of having a belief that no god exists.

Except of course I've already given you three examples which they would be forced to reject.

[NYU2012]

(Original post by adamrules247)
Now, in the same line with religious people who make this claim, it naturally follows that some atheists will think that religion can be harmful, because it is unture, while others will not.

That doesn't logically follow, at all.

You need to posit something which atheism DOES NOT teach in order to arrive at that conclusion, namely:

'That which is untrue is 'harmful'' (a very very very odd claim, to say the least - which I doubt many atheists agree with)


And viola, we see the problem - atheism in no way teaches such a thing. Therefore, such beliefs do NOT follow from atheism.

Some atheists may think such things, but it is not because atheisms teaches these things.
Again, therefore, such beliefs do NOT follow from atheism.

[Aeyuin]

The only way christians doing charity can be recognised as an act separate to the rest of the human race is if this act was caused as a result of being christian.

If you believe that is true, then saying these people would NOT have contributed positively to people's lives otherwise is not something to boast about.

Despite the flaw in trying to group people based on the absence of a similarity, atheists are people, and people live by their own sense of moral code, enacting both good and bad deeds. Surely those that showed charity and kindness based on their own sense of what's right, rather than the teachings of god, are more commendable as they are being compassionate without the belief that they will be rewarded?

[prog2djent]

(Original post by Camel)
As a born again Christian.

I have big respect for many denominations of christianity, but these are the worst of the worst. If they are celebs they are faking, if they are not they usually jump right in at the deep end and become the most homophobic, sexist and hate filled from nothing. Is it beacuse they have less expirience? Because, in my expirience, the most qualified, or well read, tend to be very liberal christians, aside from in the non-coastal US states.

[KingMessi]

(Original post by Miracle Day)
http://www.hoover.org/publications/p...w/article/6577

Read this. Shows there's a significant difference between Christians doing charity work, and atheists

And of course that couldn't be because a) There are more of the religious than there are of the atheists, and, even more significantly, b)The religious are an organised faction through which charity events and ideas can be organised - not to mention the pressure of collections at church, etc.

[jmenkus]

Reason.

Also, implying that you can't be charitable just because you don't believe in God is a laughable fallacy and only exposes your own narrow-mindedness.

[Cannotbelieveit]

Hmm...How about it's modernising society, humanity is finally beginning to move on from religion, which might have had a place in society 500 years ago, but not in the 21st Century. Also atheism brings some common sense into the world.

[gigascript]

They may have a broader outlook on things and could be more open minded to more scientific things, which can lead to life-saving cures. a christian may believe that this is 'playing god' which in their opinion is bad. im agnostic. atheists on the other hand have gone against god to try and find out how the universe was made and how it works. i think this is a good contribution to society as it has given the knowledge-thirsty human race some food for thought.
i hope i havent offended you or anyone else, this is just my opinion x

[cgraham15]

I guess it allows a for a less strict way of living, and giving the knowledge to everyone that if they leave a religous community then they will still be accepted by some people.

[adamrules247]

(Original post by NYU2012)
That doesn't logically follow, at all.

Well of course it does. Humans naturally attach themselves to "truths" with a tribal mentality.

You need to posit something which atheism DOES NOT teach in order to arrive at that conclusion, namely:

'That which is untrue is 'harmful'' (a very very very odd claim, to say the least - which I doubt many atheists agree with)

First of all I said "some", id est not all. Secondly go onto the athiest society forum here and tell me they don't think that religion is untruthful and not harmful. Thirdly, isn't the whole idea of education, certainly at it's most basic form (so not for more abstract, more advanced subjects) of transmitting truths. And would you not find it harmful if YEC was taught as a viable theory in a science lesson? (this example has nothing to do with the theism/atheism debate, it's just an abstract example of truth). I know I sure wouldn't allow it.

And viola, we see the problem - atheism in no way teaches such a thing. Therefore, such beliefs do NOT follow from atheism.

So you're trying to argue that an atheist could believe that Jesus is the Son of God whilst no believing in God. We both no that's logically impossible.

Some atheists may think such things, but it is not because atheisms teaches these things.
Again, therefore, such beliefs do NOT follow from atheism.

But they can, and do, which is my point.

[NYU2012]

(Original post by adamrules247)
But they can, and do, which is my point.

And? Just because they do doesn't mean that this something which atheism teaches or which an atheist is logically obligated to agree to

It just so happens that some people do believe this - which is not a result of atheism, but rather is the result of another belief that 'that which is untrue is harmful' - which is a very very very odd claim to hold.

In fact, atheists don't believe that 'that which is untrue is harmful' - some atheists may believe something similar, but I doubt that there's any significant number believe such things, as it's quite a silly thing to believe.

For something to be harmful it must cause physical or psychological injury in some way. Something's being untrue does not cause it to be harmful - that makes no sense.

2+2=5 is untrue - but it's very clearly not harming me.

[Dagnabbit]

I'm a Christian and I have this to say on the subject:


Atheism has allowed people to honestly question whether the Bible, Qu'ran etc. is the absolute truth and this has stopped 'nominal' believers. These are people who go to the religious rituals and ceremonies without any real firm belief. Yes, churches are struggling in some areas but this, I feel, is revealing more of a true number of how many people are actually Christian.

On the converse, people who are Muslim, Christian etc., have been influenced by the rise in atheism to find evidence and defences of their faith.

So I think atheism has contributed plenty to the field of theology and related issues and this is just one area of society!

[samuelrichards]

People are still charitable and help feed the poor...... there is a difference between morality and religeon

[POWCATTY]

me
i volunteer. i give money to charity. i work in a care home wiping peoples arses for pennies. i help old ladies cross the street. i offer free tutoring to people in my classes. i cook and babysit for my family for free. i give out first aid to people. im going to be a doctor.
im an atheist. i do these things because its kind. people need help, and im in a position to offer it. i give what i can because it is right, not because a god says it is right and to do it, or because i will go to heaven.
not that all theists do good deeds because god said so!!! im just generalising, stereotying even.
as an atheist with no religious friends, this is my view on this aspect of religion. when christians etc say that they (as a whole) do charity etc, im assuming they do it because in the bible god said it was right and that if they do good in their life they will go to heaven (at least this is whati remember the general meaning to be). obviously this is not applicable to every single christian, probably not even the majority, but im just arguing what OP said and they went and lumped you all in together.

in a way, atheists tend to get overlooked....some of them do good but because it doesnt have a reason behind it (ie religion) its sort of forgotten? at least...that tends to be what i do :/
i do think it is really strange how believing in one different thing can make such a change to some peoples mentality though....like you get atheists such as richard dawkins, then you get major theists too...like...someone...(sorry... i dont know any :/) and they get really wound up about eachothers views etc...does make me laugh sometimes. i do wish that people could just believe what they want without people trying to convert them to christianity/atheism. if you want to discuss them....discudd them, but there shouldnt be any'this is right because...' 'youre wrong because...'. thats just silly and, tbh, childish.

sorry for the essay

edit: major theist....the pope!!! ...i think he would count, yes???