Jagella

Then why read it? Jagella

What you're saying here is equivocation. I was accused of trying to start a "club," and now you say I am defining atheists as a "group." Actually, atheists are a group of people who don't believe in gods. It's odd that you cannot see the impact beliefs can have on a person's actions. September 11 should have made that clear to all. If you tell people that their beliefs are their top priority, then people are a lesser priority. Speaking of straw-man arguments! Please direct quote me (copy and paste) rather than make something up. Jagella

Earlier you said: I never asked anybody to join a club. You were putting words into my mouth. It just seemed to me that you were putting it that way to avoid acting on the issues I've raised throughout this thread. Jagella OK. You caught me. William Lane Craig put me up to this. We fundamentalist Christians want to reinstate the inquisition, and atheists are at the top of our hit list. Jagella

I must interpret what you're saying here as your not caring about about people being fair, honest, open-minded, or peaceful. Will you care if you are not treated fairly in court? Are you apathetic that a salesperson is honest with you when you buy a car? Won't you care if you are discriminated against because you are an atheist? And if peaceful behavior means nothing to you, then you won't mind one bit about being a victim of a violent crime--possibly attacked by religious terrorists. OK. Suit yourself. Jagella

I don't know if the communism of the early Christians led to social problems, but Christianity often has resulted in spcial problems. Is that a joke, or are you serious? Jagella

Religious people often are very offended by my opinions on religion. My skepticism about their claims tend to be upsetting to them. Disagreements are not what I normally think of as intolerance. Trying to stifle free expression is very intolerant, in my opinion. Criticizing people is not necessarily an "attack." Unlike an attack, criticism can be very uplifting and constructive. I'm hoping that we atheists can do better than the religious. I'm not sure why you object to my expecting atheists to be rational, just, and peaceful not to mention truthful. What moral tenet on my list do you have a problem with? Jagella

Religion can inspire hatred toward anybody. Did I say it cannot inspire hatred? Jagella

I'm focusing on how many atheists act because lately I've experienced firsthand how intolerant and irrational many of them might be. That kind of behavior bothers me a lot. Regarding euthanasia, I think it's dangerous because what is a "good" death and who should be allowed to die this good death often is decided by those other than the presumed beneficiaries (the elderly, the sick, and the disabled). Euthanasia does not have a good track record. Finally, your telling me not to say "we atheists" is an example of such intolerance. May I ask which of my views you find repugnant? Free expression? Jagella

Did I say that atheists--because they are atheists--have persecuted religious believers? I'm just open to the possibility that atheism can cause hatred toward theists. You should be open to that possibility as well. As for atheists persecuting religious people, just check your favorite search engine for examples. There's always a possibility that their being atheists did cause them to persecute believers. Again, please keep an open mind to possibilities. Jagella

Well, you can nitpick about how theism is lost, but if one loses religious faith, then the ills of such faith are no longer a factor in that person's life. That's important in a person's moral growth. I'm discussing atheists respecting justice, rational thought, and peace for the simple reason that many atheists do not respect these important elements of a civilized society. One dangerous ideology that many atheists support is that of euthanasia. While I certainly understand people wishing to control their own destinies, granting death to the elderly and disabled is not my way of solving their problems. I debated this issue with some atheists years ago in a forum, and I was insulted and cursed at. That's not my idea of people who are compassionate or reasonable. I'm not persecuting anybody. That's silly. I just wish atheists would set good examples of how people should think and conduct themselves. I fear that we atheists will make the same mistakes as the religious. Jagella

Yes, you don't need atheists to persecute religious people, but you sure don't need atheists to join the effort to persecute the religious. I don't know if scientists are as open to truth as you seem to assume. For example, I recently debated the philosophy of mathematics in another science forum. My position proved to be very unpopular there. My stance that math is invented rather than discovered was dismissed as "lunacy." I argued as logically as I could and presented the best evidence I know of to support my position. The moderator there warned me to "stop posting crap." I was insulted numerous times. Their responses were almost completely devoid of any rational arguments or evidence. The entire thread was censored by the moderator at least twice. What does this example demonstrate? I see some obvious parallels between this behavior and that of fundamentalist Christians. Many Christians will irrationally lash out at unbelievers--and so will some of those who claim to represent science. Both groups will censor heretical ideas. Let us atheists and those who respect science not go down that road. Jagella

Yes. I've "invented standards" that I'd like people to follow. I'd like people to be rational, just, and peaceful. Do you have a problem with that? I really don't wish to get into a lengthy debate about communism. My point is that many atheists can adopt dangerous ideologies. We atheists should address that issue. I think that giving up belief in gods is a step in the right direction, but it isn't enough. We need to make sure we don't make the same mess of the world as the religious have done. Jagella

Many atheists criticize religion for its many evils including violence, bigotry, fanaticism, and irrationalism. Obviously, we should take care not to be violent, bigoted, fanatical, or irrational. No, atheists should not preach "dangerous ideas." That's a strange question. Why do you ask? You are correct that communism is not inherently atheistic, but many communists have been atheists. The two views go together according to Marx. I should point out that communism isn't necessarily bad, but those who have espoused it don't have very good track records. In any event, I hope that as we shed the straight jacket of religion we do not don the straight jackets of any other nefarious ideologies. Jagella Again, I think that we atheists should take care to act rationally and morally. People may then be more likely to free themselves from religion. Jagella

People can be irrational, cruel, and stupid. Atheists can be that way along with theists. As for doing something evil as a result of a lack of belief, I suppose lack of belief that people should be treated well might result in evil. In addition, some people might need belief in a punishing god to keep them from hurting others. I've had at least one person tell me that that is his case. By the way, if you ever debate a Christian regarding the atrocities of Stalin, and she blames those atrocities on Stalin's atheism, then ask her if she would commit genocide if she lost her belief in God. If she says yes, then it exposes her mentality, if she says no, then she confirms that atheism might not have been Stalin's motive. Finally, I happen to see people as basically good. If we were not generally good, then we could not survive. Jagella What does what mean? If you are referring to doing evil "in the name of atheism," then it might refer to a person who has such a fanatical commitment to atheism that she or he might hurt others if those persons are seen as a threat to atheism. I don't know if I agree that merely because I cannot cite examples of evil in the name of atheism, then such acts do not occur. Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence in this case. Would you like me to try ask.com to see if I can find examples of evil inspired by atheism? I don't believe that there is any "atheist ideology," but many atheists may adhere to ideologies that might be dangerous. Communism is an obvious example. In any case, we atheists need to practice what we preach. If we don't, then we are no better than religionists. Jagella

That's right, and we atheists need to take care not to act that way too. I'm not comparing "crimes in general" which some atheists have committed to the crimes committed in "the name of religion." I'm speaking of crimes against unbelievers. Some atheists have persecuted the religious. That's my view of atheism. Other people may have different definitions. Sometimes people do things that may seem absurd to you. I see no reason why nobody could commit a crime in the name of atheism although I know of no examples. Jagella

Great response! I love science, but I hate intolerance of differing points of view. Jagella

What are those definitions, and who defined them? Depending on which god we are considering, it is often claimed that there is evidence. Mormons have their eyewitnesses to the gold tablets given to Joseph smith by an angel. Fundamentalist Christians have their Bible prophecies. Muslims have a Koran written by an apparently illiterate man. I find none of this convincing, but I don't dismiss it out of hand either. That's the way it should be in my opinion. I agree that such intolerance is abhorrent, but haven't some atheists committed the same crimes against those who disagree with them? As far as I know, John Lennox has never killed an unbeliever. In any case, I'm not saying that the religious are being picked on. I'm just investigating the claim. Jagella

I don't know of any evidence for any gods that I find convincing, but the apologists claim they have evidence. What is or is not credible evidence is an issue in itself. What bothers me about this issue is that science itself may get a bad reputation as being narrow-minded and elitist if it is seen as having an atheistic agenda. I hope you agree that science has no authorities. If censorship and dogma are some of the ill effects of religion, then such ills should have no place in science either. Jagella

Are you asking me or the apologists? If the religious are being treated unfairly, then that's wrong even though they may have been unjust to others. If deference is unearned, then don't offer it. At the same time I say give them the chance to earn respect. If anybody says something that is false, then expose it as false. If they refuse to be scrutinized, then let them know that you cannot accept what they say until they allow their claims to be scrutinized. You are free to laugh and dismiss claims, but that's not my approach. Of course you can dismiss any claim. You have no burden of proof, but if evidence is offered, then fairly consider it. Jagella

Actually, I believe Lennox is alluding to the "psychology of atheism" that is espoused by some Christian apologists. The basic claim is that some people have an emotional aversion to the idea of God and reject the idea out of bitterness or wanting to be free of God. While I may not fully agree with such a claim, it does seem to me that atheism can be very emotionally charged. Such emotion can lead to bias and the refusal to fairly consider evidence that may prove one's predispositions to be wrong. I hope that atheists, especially those atheists that may be scientists, will approach the issue of the existence of gods coolly and rationally. Jagella

If we use your definition, then we need to know the facts before science gets off the ground. There is no proof that life exists beyond the earth, so such life's existence cannot be a fact? Yes. That is a problem as far as science is concerned. Nevertheless, I think it might be a good idea to continue to investigate religious claims. Jagella

Hi friends: As some of you may be aware, it is common for religious apologists and creationists to claim that their views are treated unfairly by those who follow a secular agenda. John Lennox, for example, has said that atheism is wishful thinking in that it is the hope that atheists will never have to meet God. As a result, secularists have a bias against the supernatural and treat it unfairly by censoring it especially in regard to science. Although I am an atheist, I must agree with Lennox in that I do hope I will never encounter his god! Atheists are as human as the religious and have biases and can act irrationally. I know I'm like that. Nevertheless, I do try to keep an open mind and dispassionately consider evidence whether it is consistent with my predispositions or not. So is religion being unfairly excluded from the arena of modern thought? Is any mention of gods automatically to be censored from scientific discourse? Jagella

I agree that it's important to know what a computer is doing. It's entirely possible to make errors with a computer. Would you agree that it may be best to start out with pen and paper and then check your results with a computer? I often take that route. My background in math involves algebra, geometry, trigonometry, linear algebra, abstract algebra, calculus, and statistics. Jagella

Yes, but I also prefer responses that are intelligent, honest, and relevant. Many people just rant. Jagella

One of the most interesting and perhaps disturbing issues I'm aware of is that of online behavior. I've witnessed and experienced firsthand a lot of bullying. I can honestly say that I make an effort to discuss issues sensibly and courteously both online and offline. I discuss and debate online because it gives me an opportunity to intelligently exchange ideas with other like-minded people and with those who may disagree, or at least that's what I hope to do. Allow me to post an example of a recent effort on my part. On a "science" forum (not this one) another member started a thread about the nature of mathematics. Is it invented or discovered? I take the stance that math is essentially invented. I soon found that my opinion is very unpopular with most of the other members in that forum. I made my best efforts to substantiate my position logically and with evidence, but I was told that what I was arguing was "lunacy." I met few if any intelligent counterarguments. Even the moderator told me to "stop posting crap" (whatever that means). So why do people act like this? Some people posit that the anonymity and distance of the internet makes people more likely to speak their minds. Other people might simply enjoy being rude to others. Since ideas are exchanged online, it is inevitable that many people will encounter opinions that they find objectionable. Many seem to find those who disagree with them to be objectionable. So how should we act online? I might ask everyone to be intelligent and courteous, and I hope that isn't asking too much. Jagella