Why are atheists thought ill of?

[Blackmail!]

Would you say that theists are wrong in believing in God?

If they think it improves their lives and those around them, then no.

It is their concern, their burden, not mine. They chose it. I didn't.

---

For some people, believing in something can enhance their humane qualities. For some others, it doesn't, it can even have the reverse effect.

It doesn't mean everything is relative, though: some religions are clearly worst than some others too, depending on their ideological dogmas.

But we have to always differentiate the individual (the person), and the way he is influenced by society, unless we want to commit sophistries or gross generalizations.

 

[Take Five]

I do not think the nature of the universe is subjective. I believe that humans and their perception and ideas are imperfect. This accounts for all disagreement, not an alleged subjective nature of the universe.

 

[Take Five]

If they think it improves their lives and those around them, then no.

It is their concern, their burden, not mine. They chose it. I didn't.

If I think stealing candy from a toddler who is right next to me instead of walking two miles and paying for candy with my own money will improve my life and the lives of others, is that ok too?

 

[Giggly]

Just a reminder that things are not completely black or white on this issue (i.e. christians think ill of atheists or they don't). Just like there are some atheists who don't mind that christians are christian and are just not bothered much by christians, there are christians who don't mind that atheists are atheists and are just not bothered by them. Point is, to be careful with painting with a wide brush.

 

[Blackmail!]

If I think stealing candy from a toddler who is right next to me instead of walking two miles and paying for candy with my own money will improve my life and the lives of others, is that ok too?

Does it improve the life of the toddler? Does this behavior respect the Kantian categorical imperative?

Obviously not.

So either you are just playing with words just for the sake of contradiction, either you haven't understood anything in life, as an individual.

In either possibilities, that would make you very arrogant indeed.

 

[garbage]

If I think stealing candy from a toddler who is right next to me instead of walking two miles and paying for candy with my own money will improve my life and the lives of others, is that ok too?

I'd caveat the post you're replying to with ".. as long as it's not detrimental to others."

I'd certainly also view a religious person's intrusion or persecution of an atheist, or an atheist's judgment and criticism of a religious person, as detrimental.

 

[heart]

If I believe that the dinosaurs are not extinct on Earth and you believe that the dinosaurs are extinct, only one of our beliefs is in agreement with reality. So one of us would be wrong.

If you believe in purple dinosaurs as your religion but you keep this to yourself and you don't inflict it on everyone else, then I don't care what you believe in.

People should not be afraid of taking a definitive stance on the issues. Sometimes people, actually everyone at least once, is wrong about something. You need not pretend and hide disagreement in order to avoid hurt feelings.

It's not about pretending and hiding to avoid disagreement, it is that religion is a very subjective thing, personal and not provable. So what's the point?

But it goes further for me. I want to have my own unique vision in these matters, I don't want to share with others and I don't want others forcing their views on me.

 

[Blackmail!]

I do not think the nature of the universe is subjective. I believe that humans and their perception and ideas are imperfect.

This is the point. While I can only agree with these two sentences, the rest shows us you are obviously confusing objective and subjective truths.

Anyway, since humans are very imperfect creatures (indeed!) there is no way they can contemplate the "objective truth" of the universe. They can only define models of the universe, and compare them, test them so they can hope to determine which one is less false than the other. You know that science is based on falsifiability, don't you?

Thus, we have to take into account intra and intersubjective factors, even when we try to "suspend or own judgment" (Husserlian Epoche).

 

[Take Five]

Does it improve the life of the toddler? Does this behavior respect the Kantian categorical imperative?

Obviously not.

So either you are just playing with words just for the sake of contradiction, either you haven't understood anything in life, as an individual.

In either possibilities, that would make you very arrogant indeed.

If the agent thinks, which I wrote, he is doing a good thing and improving the life of the toddler, even if in actuality he is not, the Kantian CI would take intent into consideration, as Kantianism is not consequentialism. Not that we all agreed Kant is the end all be all to ethics anyway. The point being that you said the agent is wrong in doing my described action, while you think a similar agent in the situation pertaining to the belief in God is right either way, whether he believes or not. So in one instance you claim their is some degree of objectivity, while in the other you plead subjectivity. So it has been revealed that you do believe in objectivity, at least in some cases, meaning that telling someone that he or she is wrong in doing something, corrresponding to an objective reality, would not make someone arrogant.

Arrogance is making oneself feel more important or better than others by diminishing the value of others and projecting one's superiority.

As I see it, and as others apparently see it, saying that something is wrong is completley OK. But people may get upset at this kind of speech.

So I'll say it clearly: I think atheism and the atheists who agree with atheism are simply wrong.

 

[Take Five]

If you believe in purple dinosaurs as your religion but you keep this to yourself and you don't inflict it on everyone else, then I don't care what you believe in.

This does not mean the religion is right or wrong.

 

[heart]

This does not mean the religion is right or wrong.

Can a religion be right or wrong? How does one prove it?

 

[garbage]

As I see it, and as others apparently see it, saying that something is wrong is completley OK. But people may get upset at this kind of speech.

So I'll say it clearly: I think atheism and the atheists who agree with atheism are simply wrong.

I think you saying that something is wrong is completely OK, too. I respect your belief that atheism and atheists wrong.

Back to the subject of the thread, though, it's when this mindset becomes personal that atheists themselves become thought ill of and when real damage has the potential be done.

 

[Take Five]

This is the point. While I can only agree with these two sentences, the rest shows us you are obviously confusing objective and subjective truths.

Anyway, since humans are very imperfect creatures (indeed!) there is no way they can contemplate the "objective truth" of the universe. They can only define models of the universe, and compare them, test them so they can hope to determine which one is less false than the other. You know that science is based on falsifiability, don't you?

Thus, we have to take into account intra and intersubjective factors, even when we try to "suspend or own judgment" (Husserlian Epoche).

This surpasses even my arrogance.

The fact--yes fact-- that humans are imperfect accounts for the disagreement among humans about the objective nature of the universe. While humans cannot know everything, we do have a capacity for knowledge, e.g. of the fact that we are imperfect. Our inability to attain full understanding does not disqualify the universe from being objective. e.g. people used to think the world was flat, we now know this not to be true, but that does not mean people who did think the world was flat 1000 years ago were right.

So the question of whetherr God exists can and does have an objective answer, even though our imperfect selves cannot reach a full comprehension of God. So of an atheist and a theist, one must be objectively wrong. I side with the latter.

 

[Take Five]

I think you saying that something is wrong is completely OK, too. I respect your belief that atheism and atheists wrong.

Back to the subject of the thread, though, it's when this mindset becomes personal that atheists themselves become thought ill of and when real damage has the potential be done.

I'm a little hazy on what you mean. If you mean that persecution of atheists is wrong, then I wholeheartedly and sincerely agree. Moreover, I hope you would agree with me that persecution of any group is objectively wrong.

That being said, I do believe that atheism is inherently sinful, as sin is something that deteriorates one's relationship with God. Total rejection, I think you would agree, tends to deteriorate relationships.

 

[ptgatsby]

So the question of whetherr God exists can and does have an objective answer, even though our imperfect selves cannot reach a full comprehension of God. So of an atheist and a theist, one must be objectively wrong. I side with the latter.

No assertion carries weight without evidence. You are asking if your belief is wrong. I can answer this in two ways;

1) I don't agree with it because.... (and here I'd going into my bayesian view of knowledge)

2) Your belief is wrong because you are brainwashed. You either let people misguide you, just accepted it or never challenged it.

You are essentially asserting #2, changed for atheists. It doesn't acknowledge that #1 can result in different views of the same 'objective' knowledge. We both hold subjective information on something objective... #2 doesn't deal with that, it simply attacks the person to explain the lack of agreement.

That's the issue here, not that there is or isn't an objective truth.

 

[Take Five]

Can a religion be right or wrong? How does one prove it?

Religion cannot be absolutely proven, at least not by me. However, human inabilty to prove something is not the deciding factor for the truth or falsehood of something. And I think through dialogue, we can increase understanding and avoid terrible things from happening. This will have better outcomes than ignoring the issue. This is why people look and should look outside of themselves for religious and spiritual enrichment.

 

[Take Five]

No assertion carries weight without evidence. You are asking if your belief is wrong. I can answer this in two ways;

1) I don't agree with it because.... (and here I'd going into my bayesian view of knowledge)

2) Your belief is wrong because you are brainwashed. You either let people misguide you, just accepted it or never challenged it.

You are essentially asserting #2, changed for atheists. It doesn't acknowledge that #1 can result in different views of the same 'objective' knowledge. We both hold subjective information on something objective... #2 doesn't deal with that, it simply attacks the person to explain the lack of agreement.

That's the issue here, not that there is or isn't an objective truth.

That's the issue between you and me. However you are wrong in your assumption that I think all atheists are brainwashed or misguided by other people, etc. To the contrary, I think people are more often misguided by themselves. This would result in errors of the understanding, and opposite descriptions of the same objective thing cannot be both correct. I think theism is a fuller and more accurate understanding of things than atheism. And because I think that, of course I think atheism is wrong.

 

[Blackmail!]

So in one instance you claim their is some degree of objectivity, while in the other you plead subjectivity. So it has been revealed that you do believe in objectivity, at least in some cases, meaning that telling someone that he or she is wrong in doing something, corrresponding to an objective reality, would not make someone arrogant.

No, that's plain sophistry.

Question is: do you really believe what you wrote?

(If you were ENTP, chances are you could be joking)

So I'll say it clearly: I think atheism and the atheists who agree with atheism are simply wrong.

Does falsifiability apply to religion?

I tried to give you a hint, but it seems you are confusing many basic notions of epistemology.

To believe is not to know.

---

Have you even noticed I observe religions only through socio-anthropology, and NOT through theology or metaphysics?

 

[garbage]

I'm a little hazy on what you mean. If you mean that persecution of atheists is wrong, then I wholeheartedly and sincerely agree. Moreover, I hope you would agree with me that persecution of any group is objectively wrong.

That being said, I do believe that atheism is inherently sinful, as sin is something that deteriorates one's relationship with God. Total rejection, I think you would agree, tends to deteriorate relationships.

Oh, yeah, I agree with you here. I just wanted to tie this back into the original question of why "atheists are thought ill of."

What I mean is that when a belief that something is wrong manifests as a judgment and persecution of the person, that is when atheists (or believers) are thought ill of.



To further respond to the initial inquiry of the thread, as to why it occurs, the can be generalized. It seems that people tend to see one difference between "their group" and "the opposing group" and also see other, more threatening differences where they don't appear.

This happens all the time, for good and for bad.

Take skin color. Many subconsciously assume that those who share our skin color share many other aspects of our personality or beliefs, which can manifest itself as "hanging around" others with our skin color. This is actually true to a certain extent, due to common sociological and other factors, but the perceived similarity--or, at least, the perception that we have more in common with those of our skin color than those who do not share our same skin color--is often overblown.

Throughout history, this has even been done with eye or hair color to a lesser extent.

(Speaking in the general "we" here: )

Since Christianity is associated with morality, if we're Christian, we assume other Christians to be moral as well. We also see these two similarities as interlinked; the perception can then arise that those without Christianity cannot be moral. And that's where atheists becoming "thought ill of" begins.

 

[Take Five]

No, that's plain sophistry.

Question is: do you really believe what you wrote?

(If you were ENTP, chances are you could be joking)



Does falsifiability apply to religion?

I tried to give you a hint, but it seems you are confusing many basic notions of epistemology.

To believe is not to know.

Let me give you a hint. You come off as insanely pompous and I think you are talking out of your ass.

Oh that's sophistry! nice comeback. you say one thing and then are inconsistent. you know it too, don't you?