Atheism is a religion

[Yugo]

Well played, sir. Well played. 

[Vidar]

Vidar, I think your logic is flawed in that you basically assume atheist and intelligent to be synonyms.

History only proves that most people can't handle themselves without fighting. It's not the existence of religion that causes the problems. Stupid people can be told they have to kill others for whatever reason (be it a God, their Nation or even, ironically, things like freedom and human rights). Once more, that has nothing to do with religion. If the stupid people in question are atheists, that only leaves out one excuse to get them to kill others. And if you're dealing with thinking religious people, then no one will convince them to kill others because God says so. The problem is not religion, it's stupidity and gullibility.

You have a valid point there. People can be made to do stupid and immoral things in  the name of many things. It's just that religion has been, and in some parts of the world still is, used to justify man's inhumanity to other human beings. With religion removed, it suddenly becomes much harder to make people suicide-bomb a schoolbus full of children, or to fly a plane full of people into a tall building. The carrot of heaven and the stick of hell are to some people much more powerful incentives than a flag ever could be.

Finally, if the reason for atheists to deny the existence of a supernatural being is, as you say, lack of evidence, then they shouldn't affirm His/Her/Its/Their inexistence either, as there is just as little evidence on that respect.

Technically we would have to be called agnostic about god. But we must then have this same technical agnosticism for Thor, Zeus, the tooth fairy, the easter bunny, Santa Clause, and a small china teapot in orbit around the sun between mars and earth. There is no evidence for their existence either.
You can never prove the nonexistence of anything, which is why the burden of proof lies with the person making the positive claim. The claim(s) in this case is the existence of a specific god, and that the holy scriptures attached to this god are also completely accurate.
For an example of the 'burden of proof' thing, I would refer to Carl Sagan's book "the Demon haunted world", specifically the chapter about the Invisible Garage Dragon. He manages to explain it much better than I can.

So far no God has revealed him/her/itself thoroughly enough to satisfy science, and all the holy books ever written are riddled with inaccuracies, and fantastic claims that are impossible to verify, or have been found to be outright lies.
To me, the chance that the Christian god really exists is so small, that I may well call myself an atheist regarding him, just as I'm an atheist to all other gods that have ever (non-)existed.

[King Of Hearts]

...as well as other non deistic belief systems.

[Vidar]

...as well as other non deistic belief systems.

Like the buddhist faith? If so, you would be correct, sir.

[Prof B Hunnydew]

Vidar, I think your logic is flawed in that you basically assume atheist and intelligent to be synonyms.

History only proves that most people can't handle themselves without fighting. It's not the existence of religion that causes the problems. Stupid people can be told they have to kill others for whatever reason (be it a God, their Nation or even, ironically, things like freedom and human rights). Once more, that has nothing to do with religion. If the stupid people in question are atheists, that only leaves out one excuse to get them to kill others. And if you're dealing with thinking religious people, then no one will convince them to kill others because God says so. The problem is not religion, it's stupidity and gullibility.

Finally, if the reason for atheists to deny the existence of a supernatural being is, as you say, lack of evidence, then they shouldn't affirm His/Her/Its/Their inexistence either, as there is just as little evidence on that respect.

Technically we would have to be called agnostic about god. But we must then have this same technical agnosticism for Thor, Zeus, the tooth fairy, the easter bunny, Santa Clause, and a small china teapot in orbit around the sun between mars and earth. There is no evidence for their existence either.
You can never prove the nonexistence of anything, which is why the burden of proof lies with the person making the positive claim. The claim(s) in this case is the existence of a specific god, and that the holy scriptures attached to this god are also completely accurate.
For an example of the 'burden of proof' thing, I would refer to Carl Sagan's book "the Demon haunted world", specifically the chapter about the Invisible Garage Dragon. He manages to explain it much better than I can.

So far no God has revealed him/her/itself thoroughly enough to satisfy science, and all the holy books ever written are riddled with inaccuracies, and fantastic claims that are impossible to verify, or have been found to be outright lies.
To me, the chance that the Christian god really exists is so small, that I may well call myself an atheist regarding him, just as I'm an atheist to all other gods that have ever (non-)existed.

The Problem with Christian beliefs is that the early Church near it's start fell into two camps.  One, which want to spread the word and the faith far and wide as quickly as possible, and another, which wanted to keep it true to the message of Yeshau.    Jesus(Yeshau) said that he was here to forfill the law, and not change or abandon it. The true selfless path of the Jesus is hard road, even now, and there were not many takers and only a true few followers every year. The other early church was easier to follow because the people didn't have to change too much.  The Roman authorities in the beginning, were mixing the early Christian up with the Jews and because of the Jesus' "betrayal" by the Jews, this early Roman Catholic Church want to distant themselves from the Hebrew faith.  So, many traditions and rites of the Jews, were change or abandon.  The RCC mixed the Hebrew Holy days and rites with the local pagan faiths, mainly the wider sun worshipers, to attract many new followers...In time, Christmas, and Easter replace many Hebrew Holy days. Even SUNday replace the Sabbath.  A goddess-like woman giving birth to a god-king was also added to the Roman Catholic faith.  Later emperors and kings saw one religion would unifying of their conquered lands and then many became followers with a knife to their backs.   As time goes on, the Church goes thru a period that it was the only one, who could read the holy books of the bible, and the Church could said it said anything it need to said.  Ultimate power corrupts even the saintly.   The Protestants saw many hypocritical practices of the Roman Catholic Church and revolted against it, but they follow many of the same rites as the Catholics to be daughters of the same faith. 

Islam is the bastard stepchild of the Abraham, but they were also spread their faith by the sword of war in the 6th century. 

It is only now that we are challenge this old traditions, and information on that the early Christians' believe has come to the surface. (maybe God want us to know this and raise this questions about the Church.  God wants the faithful and that you have choice.)

Atheist forget that the Church is made of men and men are not GOD.  The Acts of the Church/religion are the act men and not God.  God has given everyone a life, and the freedom to follow his way or not.  The problem is that we forgot that God is not alone, that another is working to destroy everything in existence, thinking he can replace God with himself and remake the universe into his own version.  Satan cares not if we don't believe in him.  He knows he will not get the final prize,so he will destroy everything, so God will get nothing.  Satan also has the power to blind us, mainly because we, man, want things the easy way.  God has let us follow our own path of doing things, so we can learn what heartaches we can cause to ourselves.  We, Man, will not learn this, if God hands us that knowledge.  We have rejected God since Adam and Eve.  He has told us thru Israel and Jesus about himself and his way over the last six thousands years, and we have only take what we feel like we can do, when we feel like we can do it.

Man as a whole is self-servicing from the beginning, Man follows the laws of society, because he benefits from the peace and order that civilization.  One can't be on his guard 24/7, but once society is seen as not being a benefit to oneself, and punishment is far from swift.  The mob rules.  One must fall to the law of jungle for survive.  Katrina showed us that.  What would have happen if help was even slower in arriving there? 

The atheist maybe right, that price of sin is death, non-existence.  No Human is in Heaven or Hell right now, and will not be until Judgement.  Now, death is to sleep inside God the father.  When Judgement comes, we will be awake and ask "Are you humble enough to ask forgiveness and take responsibility for your sins?  Have you learned anything in seven thousand years?"  Well, truly humble will get the prize, to be brothers/sister of Yeshau, and be true children of God, to be like God, the father.  That is the meaning of life.

PBH

"We all must choose our own path, no one can choose it for us."= Leia Organa

[Reese Tora]

Satan as the adversary is also an invention of the RCC, though.

If you remove the church, should you also remove what the church has written? and, if that's the case, what do you have left?

It's not that atheists forget that the church and the religion are different things so much as atheists see no evidence outside of the church for god's existence, and what is available from the church amounts to arguments from authority, circular logic, and unverifiable(or verifiably false) claims.

[Prof B Hunnydew]

Oh It is funny that but the debate over the question of God, never seem to include the adversary...and he was around before the RCC.  He was just not named Satan, he is in the Old Testament, a main player in the Book of Job for one.

Now, then I can removed the Church (RCC) and her daughters, without removing the Bible.  In fact, I need the Gospels, or the Apocalypse of John, if I'm to believe in Jesus .  Believe me, the book can confusing, yet it never lies, one should only look at the whole book.  It maybe the only source of the words of God, but one must work to find God and believe.  It is written plain English for you.

In most cases, it is a history book, and it only covers the last six thousand years.  It doesn't tell us how the Earth was made, but only how God clean up the mess of Satan's rebellion which destroyed the Earth.  Adam and Eve could have been made just as Genesis says, but the rest of the world could have been evolved.  It never said how God created theEarth, just that he did do it.  Why the men of science must be so negative of God, and the churchgoers so afraid of any advance in science or any new idea.  is beyond me.

I find it hard to believe that Earth and moon just happen to be in the right orbit for liquid water.  Their masses are just right so that the Earth keeps spinning and not becomes almost tidal lock like Venus.  The Earth's magnetic field is just strong enough to keep solar flares and cosmic rays at bay.  This universe is a very lonely place, if all these things have to happen to support life long enough to get intelligent life.  Well, Carl Sagan would think differently.

On another Note, Religion has been excuse for war, murder and genocide.  But Science has also had that honor as well.  Darwinism is also a religion or theory that people have used to keep the lower classes down, enslave the poor and approve of genocide unpopular races by the Nazi, and others.  Charles Darwin didn't approve that thinking, but Einstein didn't approve of nuclear weapons either.  Humans don't need excuses to murder,hurt or steal from each other, but it helps one to sleep at night.  Darwinism is also an excuse for not growing spiritalyl or morally.. After all we are just animals, Aren't we?..

PBH

[Cvstos]

PBH: Darwinism as an excuse for lack of growth? I really don't see it like that.  I suppose one could say that it's all in how you interpret the message (just like religion), but in my own view using Darwinism as an excuse for lack of growth is like using a report on the health benefits of eating vegetables to justify an all-beef diet.  After all, did Darwin not say "It is not the strongest of species that survive, nor the most intelligent, but the one most responsive to change."

Life changes constantly.  Nothing stays the same forever.  If one does not grow, learn, and adapt to these changes, one cannot expect to thrive!

[Reese Tora]

Though you may find it hard to believe that these tings could come about without some supernatural influence, consider that it's happened, the odds are now 1:1; if it hadn't happened just so, it may ahve happened anoher way that could have developed life, and it could have happened on any of the trillions of other planets that no doubt exist elsewhere in the universe.  There could be a billion other sets of conditions thata would have brought about sentient life that we are as yet unaware of, and while the odds may be one in a billion that our conditions occurred, there are still 999,999,999 other possibilities that would have worked just as well.

As an aside, many scientists are religious people, and have no problem being rational and also believing in god.  Likewise, many people of many faiths are comfortable with science and scientific advances, and it's typically only leaders and fundamentalists who object, and only where they percieve it to interect with their beliefs or sphere of influence.

Oh, and 'Darwinism', as it's used by creationists and the like(and they're the ones who use it, generally speaking), is a pretty straw man they've built.  The Nazis believed that they were a superior race as ordained by god, and that, as such, they had a right, or even a mandate, to remove the 'inferior' races.
(hey, quick, someone invoke Godwin's law! Oh, wait, calling on it like that negates it. )

[Vidar]

PBH:
"Darwinism" is not a religion, or a theory. The word has no meaning. It was made up by the likes of Ken Ham and Ben Stein.
The theory of evolution is a scientific theory. It is the best explanation science can offer for the diversity of life on earth. It doesn't say god does not exist, and it doesn't impede growth of any kind, so what do you mean with "Darwinism as an excuse for a lack of growth"?

Believe me, the book can confusing, yet it never lies, one should only look at the whole book.  It maybe the only source of the words of God, but one must work to find God and believe.  It is written plain English for you.

Of course, the bible as it is today doesn't contain all the gospels. The used to be at least 16 of them, but during the councel if Nicea the RCC voted on which books to include in the current bible, and which ones to discard. Most of these apocryphs have been lost over time, so good luck with looking at the whole book.
Oh, and as for the bible never lying, look here: http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/

In most cases, it is a history book, and it only covers the last six thousand years.  It doesn't tell us how the Earth was made, but only how God clean up the mess of Satan's rebellion which destroyed the Earth.  Adam and Eve could have been made just as Genesis says, but the rest of the world could have been evolved.  It never said how God created theEarth, just that he did do it.  Why the men of science must be so negative of God, and the churchgoers so afraid of any advance in science or any new idea.  is beyond me.

Genesis most certainly does pretend to have the whole story on how earth was made.

If we really where specially created, we would expect to find a lot more anomilies in our own physiology and genetic makeup, but we don't. All the evidence points to us having evolved on earth without the need for god.

Not all men of science are negative about god. Kenneth Miller is a devout catholic, and an evolutionary biologist.

I find it hard to believe that Earth and moon just happen to be in the right orbit for liquid water.  Their masses are just right so that the Earth keeps spinning and not becomes almost tidal lock like Venus.  The Earth's magnetic field is just strong enough to keep solar flares and cosmic rays at bay.  This universe is a very lonely place, if all these things have to happen to support life long enough to get intelligent life.  Well, Carl Sagan would think differently.

It's not so hard to believe that amongst the hunreds of billions of stars there is a planet with the right conditions for life to exist. The Drake Equation seems to suggest that there are many planet out there wich can support life as earth does. Of course, one such planet is right here in the solar system. We call it "earth".
We might not be the only one, but we won't know that until we find life out there in the rest of the universe.
That the universe is a lonely place is apperent. The universe is not finetuned for life, otherwise we would have found more of it by now.

On another Note, Religion has been excuse for war, murder and genocide.  But Science has also had that honor as well.  Darwinism is also a religion or theory that people have used to keep the lower classes down, enslave the poor and approve of genocide unpopular races by the Nazi, and others.  Charles Darwin didn't approve that thinking, but Einstein didn't approve of nuclear weapons either.  Humans don't need excuses to murder,hurt or steal from each other, but it helps one to sleep at night.  Darwinism is also an excuse for not growing spiritalyl or morally.. After all we are just animals, Aren't we?..

"Darwinism" is a made-up word. It is not a religion. The theory of evolution is not "darwinism", does not revere anything supernatural, holds nothing sacred, and does not allow blind faith.
Social darwinism was a stupid idea that some people put toghether from a profound misunderstanding of evolution.

BTW. the Nazi-thing:

This is a nazi belt buckle. All nazi soldiers wore them. It says "Gott mit uns", which means "God with us".
Also, in his book Mein Kampf Hitler states that he though he was doing god's work by exterminating the jews.

Ben Stein's equation of science and nazism is a bold-faced lie, and I'm deeply saddend to see that you have fallen for it.

[Alondro]

Well, ultimately we'll all find out who was right after we die.

Because if a god does exist, it's really not going to matter if we believe or not.  It'll be like an ant shouting at a human "I don't believe in you, so you can't squish me!"

SQUISH!

I like Sekhmet's way of doing things.   

[Vidar]

Well, ultimately we'll all find out who was right after we die.

Because if a god does exist, it's really not going to matter if we believe or not.  It'll be like an ant shouting at a human "I don't believe in you, so you can't squish me!"

SQUISH!

I like Sekhmet's way of doing things.   

Pascal's Wager has been squished so many times in so many ways, it surprises me that anyone still thinks up variations on it.

On top of my head are a few flaws already: how do you know you worship the right god? Every religion claim to worship the right god, or gods, and they all have holy books and fantastic claims of miracles and promises of infinite torment or pleasure depending on whether you wordhip one of them and no other god.
How do you know what the proposed god in Pascal's Wager wants? Does he/she/it even reward faith without evidence of his/her/its existence?

[Alondro]

You don't know.  You just hope you get it right!  And if yer wrong... SQUISH!  Or burninate.

But, what're ya gonna do?  The being with the most power wins.  I'll be all like:  Damn, so it was Cthulhu all along?  Oh well, I gonna get my soul eated now.   

And if aetheists are right, nothing will happen and I'll be dead forever... which is gonna suck because then I'll never know I was wrong in that case... since if I'm dead and can't be reborn/resurrected/reincarnated/etc., I can't know anything.

That's where faith comes in.  No matter what you believe, you must still have faith in many things related to it, because even now our understanding is heavily flawed.  Simply look at how surprising other solar systems we've discovered have been.  All the models were wrong and many revisions have had to be made in the past decade.  And how many more surprises will we find as we explore?  There was a report last week that light and energy, and therefore mass, in many distant galaxies has been greatly underestimated due to an underestimation of how much is blocked out by great clouds of dust and gas.  Depending on exactly how much extra mass is found, it could be a very big problem for modern cosmology, not to mention if so much was blocked and the light is a part of the calculation of distance, is it possible too that the distances are way off?  I must wait and see exactly what the implications end up being as the discrepancy is sorted out.

Basically, my main interest is to know the absolute truth.  People have faith in the Big Bang too.  It's got evidence, yes.  But it could be a misinterpretation of facts that just happen to fit that theory.  And there are some fundamental issues with it that aren't resolved, not the least of which is what triggered the event in the first place?  And what was the expansion expanding into?  The newest thing is to believe that there was nothing outside the universe, not even space.  But there is nothing whatsoever to prove that, no evidence at all, not even mathematics to prove that there can be such a lack of everything.  That is something that must be taken on faith in order for the rest of the theory to work.  Frankly, the theories passed around to explain the creation of the universe through physics require just as much faith as believing in God, because in all cases, there is simply no way to prove these things because they are beyond the capacity to get any information on them.

Another thing to note about the Bible.  It is not one book.  It is a collection of books put together over thousands of years, which includes a great number of re-translations and books (such as the Kings and Chronicles) which were written by a nation trying to boost up its own prestigue.  Each nation claimed a god helped them win battles, even those they lost!  We have to sort through the information to find the true character of God.  If we are to assume Jesus was the Son of God, then we have only to look at his actions to see what God is like.  Many people balk at the notion of Jesus being a human sacrifice.  But that is wrong.  He was not a sacrifice at all in the pagan sense of it.  He was a supplement, he paid the price for all, replacing the law's demand that all who sin must die by being the one who was innocent and died instead.  I see it quite clearly as a loophole placed in the law to allow for just such an out, not that it was easy.  Jesus asked if the cup could be taken away from him in the garden of Gethsemene.  In a way, his connection to divinity made it harder for him as muchas it made it easier.  Imagine having the power to save yourself with a thought and destroy all those who tormented you and not using it? 

Honestly, could any of us have resisted the urge to exterminate the ones hurting us?  I certainly couldn't.  Buddhists devoted to pacifism can, in many cases... and perhaps they are the ones in the world closest to the character of God.  Jesus himself did say He had sheep we know not of.  The one thing I am sure of is that those who stand up and claim to the the only ones who will be saved are almost assuredly the ones most likely to be lost.  It was not for nothing that Jesus called their equivalents during him time 'a generation of vipers'.

[Vidar]

You don't know.  You just hope you get it right!  And if yer wrong... SQUISH!  Or burninate.

But, what're ya gonna do?  The being with the most power wins.  I'll be all like:  Damn, so it was Cthulhu all along?  Oh well, I gonna get my soul eated now.   

And if aetheists are right, nothing will happen and I'll be dead forever... which is gonna suck because then I'll never know I was wrong in that case... since if I'm dead and can't be reborn/resurrected/reincarnated/etc., I can't know anything.

If there is a god, and he's going to punish me for all eternity for drawing the wrong conclusions based on the evidence available to me, then he deserves no respect, he deserves my absolute and complete contempt. What you are proposing isn't mercy, or justice, but utter totalitarianism, and a complete disregard for the limits of humanity. Limits you claim we were made with by him.
The only reason a god would punish his own creation for being flawed after he made it flawed in the first place would be base sadism. The god you propose is worse than the Satan proposed by Christian doctrine. Even if he would exist, I would resist him even if it would cost me  my soul.

That's where faith comes in.  No matter what you believe, you must still have faith in many things related to it, because even now our understanding is heavily flawed.  Simply look at how surprising other solar systems we've discovered have been.  All the models were wrong and many revisions have had to be made in the past decade.  And how many more surprises will we find as we explore?  There was a report last week that light and energy, and therefore mass, in many distant galaxies has been greatly underestimated due to an underestimation of how much is blocked out by great clouds of dust and gas.  Depending on exactly how much extra mass is found, it could be a very big problem for modern cosmology, not to mention if so much was blocked and the light is a part of the calculation of distance, is it possible too that the distances are way off?  I must wait and see exactly what the implications end up being as the discrepancy is sorted out.

Science doesn't know everything, and it  never claimed to do so, but it has brought humanity further than anything before it. Christian doctrine reigned supreme for 900 years, and during those 900 years everyone was afraid of god, and Satan, and the inquisition, and hell.
When this evil doctrine was finally shed by intelligent men humanity finally started to make some progress again, in spite of the church's best efforts to halt it and drag it back into the dark ages.
Science has lengthened the live of everyone. It has raised the standards of living across the world, and it lets us explore the universe in ways Christian doctrine never let us imagine.
Each discovery made by science brings humanity closer to understanding the universe and everything in it. We may never understand everything, but we would be all the much more foolish and cowardly if we wouldn't at least try.
Science doesn't know what it will find next, and if it will find something that will require the rewriting of all the science-books ever written, it will be hailed as the greatest scientific breakthrough ever, and it will be an enrichment to all of humanity, and it will not be suppressed as heresy. Scientists don't hold to some doctrine with blind faith, but will always be prepared to review even their innermost convictions if the evidence is counter to them, unlike those clinging to religious doctrine as if it will save them from oblivion.
Science is an attempt to find out the truth based on observations of reality, and not on ancient stories written down by bronze age savages. It's a continuing work in progress, and it has brought humanity far beyond any pitiful religious doctrine.

Basically, my main interest is to know the absolute truth.  People have faith in the Big Bang too.  It's got evidence, yes.  But it could be a misinterpretation of facts that just happen to fit that theory.  And there are some fundamental issues with it that aren't resolved, not the least of which is what triggered the event in the first place?  And what was the expansion expanding into?  The newest thing is to believe that there was nothing outside the universe, not even space.  But there is nothing whatsoever to prove that, no evidence at all, not even mathematics to prove that there can be such a lack of everything.  That is something that must be taken on faith in order for the rest of the theory to work.  Frankly, the theories passed around to explain the creation of the universe through physics require just as much faith as believing in God, because in all cases, there is simply no way to prove these things because they are beyond the capacity to get any information on them.

If you want to know the truth, you will go by the evidence, and not by stories written thousands of years ago. New discoveries are made all the time, and these discoveries demand that we revise our beliefs to reflect the evidence, and not deny the evidence when it conflicts with our errant beliefs.
The big bang might be a misinterpretation, but it is still better supported by the evidence than any creation story in any holy book of any religion ever was.
We don't quite know what caused the big bang but that doesn't mean it didn't happen, and it also doesn't mean that your particular god exists or had anything to do with it.
The latest theories suggest that our big bang is but one in many big bangs and that there are many universes beyond our own, each with their own laws of physics and forever beyond our reach and observation. We have no way of verifying this, and as such it is classified as merely a hypothesis, and not a fully fledged scientific theory, but it is still better supported by the evidence than anything that says "goddidit".
Scientists know that they will have to revise any theories about the conception of the universe as new evidence presents itself, and they are prepared to do so. They don't hold on the blind faith, but base their beliefs on the available evidence, and are ready to revise their beliefs whenever needed, unlike those clinging to religion for their imagined "salvation".
Just so you know, there is no evidence for the existence of you particular god, just as there is no evidence for Allah, the Jewish Abba, the Greek, roman, or Norse pantheons, Zoroaster, the flying spaghetti monster, the invisible pink unicorn, and Russel's teapot but you can't disprove any of them either. Just what makes you think you picked the right god?

Another thing to note about the Bible.  It is not one book.  It is a collection of books put together over thousands of years, which includes a great number of re-translations and books (such as the Kings and Chronicles) which were written by a nation trying to boost up its own prestigue.  Each nation claimed a god helped them win battles, even those they lost!  We have to sort through the information to find the true character of God.  If we are to assume Jesus was the Son of God, then we have only to look at his actions to see what God is like.  Many people balk at the notion of Jesus being a human sacrifice.  But that is wrong.  He was not a sacrifice at all in the pagan sense of it.  He was a supplement, he paid the price for all, replacing the law's demand that all who sin must die by being the one who was innocent and died instead.  I see it quite clearly as a loophole placed in the law to allow for just such an out, not that it was easy.  Jesus asked if the cup could be taken away from him in the garden of Gethsemene.  In a way, his connection to divinity made it harder for him as muchas it made it easier.  Imagine having the power to save yourself with a thought and destroy all those who tormented you and not using it? 

The bible is an incomplete, contradictory, and flawed book, written by numerous authors, may of them bigoted savages, and selected by voting during the counsel of Nicea, as tough the truth could be revealed by popular vote, like the election of George W. Bush. As such, it needs to be held up to the best possible evidence, and judged accordingly. So far it has a very bad track record, and I don't see it improving any time soon, as it is never reevaluated or corrected when new evidence is discovered that conflicts with it.
The best available evidence doesn't even suggest that the Jesus described in the bible ever even existed. Likely he was a character made up from an amalgamation of various self-appointed messiahs that roamed around Israel during the roman occupation. Historians have a library full of documents describing the situation of Israel at the time, and no mention is made of the biblical Jesus. If he really was dangerous and important enough to crucify him instead of a mass-murderer (Barabbas), then some mention would have been made somewhere, but it just isn't there. Therefore, your assumption that Jesus was the son of God is a far stretch indeed, since the evidence doesn't even suggest that Jesus even existed.
Until solid evidence to the contrary turns up, I will not be convinced that he did.

Honestly, could any of us have resisted the urge to exterminate the ones hurting us?  I certainly couldn't.  Buddhists devoted to pacifism can, in many cases... and perhaps they are the ones in the world closest to the character of God.  Jesus himself did say He had sheep we know not of.  The one thing I am sure of is that those who stand up and claim to the the only ones who will be saved are almost assuredly the ones most likely to be lost.  It was not for nothing that Jesus called their equivalents during him time 'a generation of vipers'.

The irony here is that Buddhists don't believe in any god. All the 28 Buddhas were human beings who gained their wisdom by looking at the world around them, and not by desperately holding on to doctrine as their salvation. They still managed to cling to far too much mysticism, and many of them committed suicide based on this mysticism, like the ' living mummy' type of Buddha's.
You are right about one thing, though. The truth may be persued, but never possessed, and anyone claiming to have the absolute and total truth should immediately be distrusted. Remember that the next time you hear your preacher talk form the pulpit.
Oh, and just so you know, no scientist claims to know the absolute and total truth. That is why they are always prepared to revise even their most deeply held beliefs, if the evidence points elsewhere.

btw. It's spelled "atheists", and not "aetheists". We have nothing to do with the aether.

[Gabi]

I'm not speaking about Christianity. I'm not Christian myself. I'm speaking about religion in general, and freedom of thought.

And some scientists do believe too much in their theories. As do too many people who are not scientists and would argue to death that something is true because a scientist said it was.

You say "it would be hard" to get atheists to kill others. Well, hard or not it is happening. Just change the excuse and that's it. Only the most fanatics would kill for religion and in their case it's because something's wrong with them, not with religion itself. And atheists who predicate the abolition of all belief systems -and thus the negation of freedom of thought- are just as fanatic. You in particular may not be willing to kill for it, but I wouldn't be surprised if someone following that train of thought eventually did.

[Brunhidden]

and many religious fanatics probably don't care or believe one whit of what they're killing for- its just an excuse, a front, a cover, so they can claim they're not monsters

[Prof B Hunnydew]

Whoa Gabi, dear.  I agree with you, I have a few friends lose their jobs because they believe in God or thought to question Darwin's Theory.  We let fanatics from the 60's become professors and teach their ideas to our children, but bring the idea of a god into the universities.  And you looking at the gates with your research work thrown in your face.  But I will let Ben Stein tell that story, yes he is over the top on somethings.  But so is Michael Moore.

Okay I am Sorry to bring up Darwinism.  It is a poor way of thinking, and it is so last century.  The Fanatics was on both side are what is polarizing the country, the world.  We are getting so angry at each other over the little difference, we all have.  I think God is the only one, keeping us from killing each other and exploding the World.  

Okay, And Science doesn't always advance as you say.  Einstein's theories were not approved of by the wider scientific community until later in his life.

PBH

[Cvstos]

Okay, And Science doesn't always advance as you say.  Einstein's theories were not approved of by the wider scientific community until later in his life.

PBH

But what you say there proves that it DOES advance - Einstein's theories were eventually accepted.  What you have to remember is that in theoretical physics (and many other areas of science) there are always a lot of new conflicting theories. A theory becomes accepted only after their proponents have demonstrated it to be more accurate than the competition.

[Vidar]

I'm not speaking about Christianity. I'm not Christian myself. I'm speaking about religion in general, and freedom of thought.

And some scientists do believe too much in their theories. As do too many people who are not scientists and would argue to death that something is true because a scientist said it was.

You say "it would be hard" to get atheists to kill others. Well, hard or not it is happening. Just change the excuse and that's it. Only the most fanatics would kill for religion and in their case it's because something's wrong with them, not with religion itself. And atheists who predicate the abolition of all belief systems -and thus the negation of freedom of thought- are just as fanatic. You in particular may not be willing to kill for it, but I wouldn't be surprised if someone following that train of thought eventually did.

You are free to believe anything you want. No one who matters denies you that I should hope.

Everything scientists say should be critically considered, and not blindly followed or dismissed out of hand. Do research, look at the evidence, and try to poke holes in their theories as best as you can. If you can disprove a theory, more power to you. If you can't then maybe you should concede that they might be right, and learn something new in the process. It's part of how science works.

Please find me an example of an atheist killing religious people based on his atheism. I can't find any.

People who kill for their religion often not only use their religion to justify their own inhumanity towards those not following other faiths, but can even claim to have absolute authority to do so based on their holy books.
For example, the Quran advocates the conquest and elimination of everything that isn't Muslim, and Muslim terrorists use this not only as an excuse, but as the very basis for what they do. they feel that their god wants them to do this, so they do, whether they like doing it or not. They are even willing to die for it in the process.

Atheists who want to abolish all religions are fucking idiots who need to STFU and get an education on freedom of thought and religion. These atheists are fortunately very rare. I doubt that even Christopher Hitchens, who has some very strong opinions about religion, would want to abolish religion.
Indeed, we support the freedom of religion, and the right of everyone to believe what they want. We would also like to see that atheism is publicly accepted, and not openly discriminated against. George Bush the first made a statement about atheists in America that I find quite chilling. He answered on a question about whether he thought atheists could be patriots with the following answer: "No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."
If a similar remark would have been made about any religious group he would have killed off his political career right there and then. Instead of that happening, he then became president of the USA.
Atheists pay taxes like everyone else. We have jobs, families, houses, and we are registered voters, yet here was the future president stating flatly that in spite of all this atheists are unpatriotic non-citizens. This sort of bigotry hurts. contrary to what some people seem to believe, we atheists have feelings too. </rant>

But I will let Ben Stein tell that story, yes he is over the top on somethings.  But so is Michael Moore.

Michael Moore exaggerates a lot, but at least he has some idea what he's talking about.
Ben stein is either an outright liar, or he has done absolutely no research about evolution. In a recent interview he flatout stated that the theory of evolution should not just account for the diversity of life on earth, which is what evolution does, but that it should also explain things like gravity, stellar and planetary formation, the origin of life, and emotions such as love. None of these are part of evolution, but of a list of other scientific disciplines. Of course, the sockpuppet tv-show host just kept nodding his head and agreeing with Stein a lot instead of mentioning things such as astronomy, cosmology, physics and biochemistry.
Ben Stein is not out to inform, but to line his pockets with the money from the gullible masses that believe in young earth creationism.

If you really want to learn more about evolution, and science in general, I can reccomend a youtube channel called "potholer54". He has made a series of videos that explain science in a nutshell quite clearly. Be advised that he is also rather frustrated by the claims of biblical literalists and young earth creationists, so expect the odd remark lambasting such beliefs.

[Gabi]

I'd never heard of discrimination against atheists before (except from a guy who had mental problems, so I don't think it really counts). Most people I've met in real life -and even online, I think- are atheists, including my parents (officially Jewish, but they believe there is no God so I'd say that makes them atheists regardless of their roots). I think that if someone were discriminated for being an atheist here in Buenos Aires all the local newspapers would cover the story.

But then again, we don't have Bush here. No offense meant to your country, but I think he's a bigot, and he would be one no matter what he believed. He's probably still trying to create big scandals based on ridiculous things to divert the public attention from the serious problems.

[Mao]

I generally shudder when there's a nation being led by someone with strong religious inclinations or any convictions really.  It's just a motive for abuse.  It's also why I don't desire any form of power or responsibility as I know that, despite my hard work to the contrary, I'd be no better.  I don't like any organization or forced structure but I'm forced to live with it for now as it's the world I live in.

Ultimately I think if humanity were a lot smaller and more spread out, such that the need for such systems wasn't necessary, we'd all be better off.  It'd be easier to avoid situations in which people tried to force their structures on one another.  However this is a sadly idyllic and inherently flawed wish.  Anyway, I've never been good at expressing my thoughts clearly or concisely so I'll let others who are far more eloquent and well spoken get back to it. 

Edit:  Btw, thank you to all of you who have been participating in this conversation.  It's been a great read and I've had the opportunity to enjoy a lot of different well thought out and reasonably well researched points of view.

[llearch n'n'daCorna]

FWIW, management were discussing closing this a while ago, on grounds of religious arguments tend to devolve into shouting matches pretty much all the time.

It's pleasant to be proven wrong. Please, continue to exceed our wildest dreams. ;-]

[Alondro]

I'd say the clostest thing to an atheist government killing a religious one would be Communist China's invasion of Tibet, where monks were slaughtered for no reason.

While many of the people of China may have a religion they follow (mostly Buddhist), the government is officially atheist.  In the Soviet Union, there were also plenty of accounts of the KGB arresting people (and making them disappear) of many religious faiths the atheist leaders felt were dangerous to their control.

And let us also not forget that the French revolution was very much founded by 'enlightened' individuals... who then went on to behead thousands, even children who had done nothing other than belong to an aristocratic family.

Again, atheism will solve nothing.  Human nature will always find a way.  If there is no god a t all, then the only way to explain religion's ability to lead people to violence is that it must be an inherent part of human nature.  Without any god to influence them, the people's actions can only be attributed to their own willingness to kill.  The belief that humans are inherently good in spite of thousands of years of evidence to the contrary?  Now THAT requires blind faith!

[llearch n'n'daCorna]

Again, atheism will solve nothing.  Human nature will always find a way.  If there is no god a t all, then the only way to explain religion's ability to lead people to violence is that it must be an inherent part of human nature.  Without any god to influence them, the people's actions can only be attributed to their own willingness to kill.  The belief that humans are inherently good in spite of thousands of years of evidence to the contrary?  Now THAT requires blind faith!

Er... Yes, people are inherently evil, and kill each other for no good reason.

Believing people are inherently good in the face of thousands of years of evidence doesn't require faith, it requires blind ignorance.

Believing people can rise above their baser instincts, and manage to create beauty, peace, etc, despite all the many reasons for not doing so? That requires faith.

... at least IMHO.

[Sunblink]

Believing people are inherently good in the face of thousands of years of evidence doesn't require faith, it requires blind ignorance.

Believing people can rise above their baser instincts, and manage to create beauty, peace, etc, despite all the many reasons for not doing so? That requires faith.

... at least IMHO.

Llearch, I think you've reached a new level of awesome in my mind. You too, Gabi.

(although I'm more of the mindset that humans are more neutral and easily influenced than evil. But I am not a philosopher)

I'll think of a more constructive post later.

~Keaton the Black Jackal

[Gabi]

Thank you, Keaton.

And llearch.

And Keaton, I'm with you on that one, with the added remark that not all humans are alike. The possibilities to create and to destroy, to help and to hurt, are always present. So are the instincts (in both directions).  I think the choice is up to each one of us at each turn in our lives, and not everyone will make the same choices.

[Yugo]

Every person has the same type of choices to make, we all just take different paths for different reasons. People are generally easily influenced, so it's not always a well-thought out decision that's made. People are neither inherently good nor evil, but it's up to them to think and figure out for themselves what lies on the side of good and what does not. Unfortunately, they're often told by other people and it becomes similar to a rote exercise, without having actually thought out for themselves the reasons why that particular thing might be good or bad.

Think about it and decide for yourself.

[Vidar]

FWIW, management were discussing closing this a while ago, on grounds of religious arguments tend to devolve into shouting matches pretty much all the time.

It's pleasant to be proven wrong. Please, continue to exceed our wildest dreams. ;-]

That's one of the things I like about this forum. in spite of our wildly different beliefs, we are capable of supressing our more base instincts, and not start typing in all-caps about how a person of differing opinion is a dirty little hussy, in spite of some of these beliefs and opinions lying very close to the heart.

Which brings me to the next point:

Believing people can rise above their baser instincts, and manage to create beauty, peace, etc, despite all the many reasons for not doing so? That requires faith.

... at least IMHO.

The very thread you just posted this in is an antithesis to your statement. We are rising above our baser instincts and turning this into a shouting match.

[llearch n'n'daCorna]

Ah, but see - I believe small groups of people can rise above their baser instincts.

Larger groups? Those are just mobs.

[Prof B Hunnydew]

Amen

PBH

I will have to read up a little more.  I am rusty and out gun right now. 

But I will add one thing... Every civilization has had to face destructive events and/or changing political/cultural structures.  With growth and age, Society became more restrictive and greater tyrannical rules to "fight" these changes in attempts to keep the status quo.  Soon, you have civil unrest(civil war), invasion of barbarians(terrorist), and/or climatic calamities(climate change), which will make the supporting the society impossible.

The 21st century Earth is no different, we just has no where to run, this time.  Much like ancient Easter Island's inhabitants found themselves.  The true test of a person character is how they act when the lights have gone out.