Atheism going bad?

[Darwin]

There are support groups for what are considered victims of religion,and indeed many people are or have been victims of religious sects but can atheism (or agnosticism,for example) go bad? Obviously to become a victim of atheism is a bit hard for it is not a religion,practically meaning that social structures&hierarchy,herd formation is unlikely to happen,and thus less vulnerable to go awry.Nobody can bust you for not being secular.
But seriously,ever run to people like these (if they exist) ?

[c4ts]

Not really.

[Darwin]

Perhaps.
Some claim to have been "victims of atheism" but this might refer to their present thoughts about it,after probably having turned to christianity.
Oh well...

[Yahweh]

I've never heard of anyone being a victim of Atheism.

There is no obligation to pay any money to a religious group (such as tithing in Mormomism).

There is no crazy mythology to distort and skew a person's understanding of reality.

Atheism is moral-neutral, I couldnt imagine some acting immoral in the name of atheism. (Casual note: Fortunately most people ignore the parts of the bible that glorify genocide.)

I've never heard of a single instance where someone killed or harmed another person in the name of atheism. (Atheist jihad sounds kinda silly anyway.)

There is an "all people are equals" mentality associated with atheism. There is no gender bias, religion bias, sexual orientation bias, etc. associated with atheism.


The only "bad" thing I can see coming from atheism is the fact (not really a fact, just something I'm judging my observation of the people around me) that atheists have a higher tendency to be pessimists.

[Darwin]

"Atheism is moral-neutral, I couldnt imagine some acting immoral in the name of atheism. (Casual note: Fortunately most people ignore the parts of the bible that glorify genocide.)"

And unfortunately it seems that at least some operate on a variation of a black&white fallacy as far as this goes.
There´s no doubt that an atheist might act in ways immoral,but what I have problem with is the suggestion that they did it because they were atheists ("now was not this guy an A...").
Now it seems that supposedly they would not have done that,should they have subscribed to a religion,and if they do not...
Now I might go as far as to agree with those that religiousity may prevent immorality (as we know it) in a case or two,but I have never heard of immorality in the name of atheism,yet we have enough examples of cruelty closely associated with religion.

"The only "bad" thing I can see coming from atheism is the fact (not really a fact, just something I'm judging my observation of the people around me) that atheists have a higher tendency to be pessimists."

It might be.You could think that an atheist is more likely to reject "wishful thinking" of sort.


Maybe I should alter my question to ask;when&how do you think atheism can go bad?

[Dancing David]

I don't know that atheism has a shelf life. Usually expires with the belief holder.

I am thinking of asking what discrimination against Xians means in another thread.

"They took me in this room, they gave me all this food and a comfortable chair, then they told me there is a material world and that the rules of science apply to it... then they had this really dull speaker who spoke about natural selection.. they were real nice to me. They told me I could believe what I wanted and that they wouldn't share my belief."

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by Yahweh
There is an "all people are equals" mentality associated with atheism. There is no gender bias, religion bias, sexual orientation bias, etc. associated with atheism.


I know of only two people who proclaim themselves to be atheists and constantly hate, taunt, and deride people who hold any sort of religious belief whatsoever. One of them posts regularly to this board. The other is an a**hole I knew in high school, whose mouth eventually got him injured.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi
I know of only two people who proclaim themselves to be atheists and constantly hate, taunt, and deride people who hold any sort of religious belief whatsoever. One of them posts regularly to this board.
That's just the typical arrogant know-it-all teenage mentality.

The other is an a**hole I knew in high school, whose mouth eventually got him injured.
Sounds remarkably similar to this story (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=22336), here's a quote:
I did not actually begin the discussions in that area, a kid in my room asked me questions about stuff (because he knew I was smart). I did make some progress on one kid (who later attacked me to show off to other roommates) by introducing the "evidence" concept to him.

[Mike Drisco]

In Alabama the atheists are out there everyday supporting a Federal judge's decision to forcibly remove the 10 Commandments monument. So in this case, the Atheists are supporting the omnipotent federal government. I personally believe that a reliance on the wisdom of Big Government is as big of a threat to mankind as blind faith in any other "deity". Besides the U.S Constitution never says that States or their agencies cannot favor one religion it only says that "Congress shall pass no law ...".
The judge in this case, Myron Thompson, is legislating from the bench regarding the 10 Commandment issue in Montgomery but in Birmingham (my home town) stands Vulcan the Roman God of metal-working or something, supported by both Federal, State, County, and City funds. I don't see people in the Atheist movement nor Federal Judges raising hell about that one. It doesn't seem very consistant to me. It seems he only focuses on "popular" religions. It makes atheists seem hateful instead of principled.

Personally, I'm tired of participating in "reform movements". The best I can do is to reach my own conclusions and proceed with the wisdom I have gained to live the most fulfilling life I can.

I was discussing with one of my atheist friends just how costly it is to spend a lot of effort attempting to educate a public that doesn't even understand the problem. I've pretty much concluded that "movement" people particularly atheists must be clinging to some sort of "yeah, it sacrifices my time and money but it's for a good cause". It seems like they are reaching for immortality and respect by future generations. This seems ironic to me. An atheist of all people should understand that the best we can do is find fulfilment in this life by pursuing rational self-interest.
Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one. - Charles Mackay

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by Yahweh

Sounds remarkably similar to this story (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=22336), here's a quote:


It is in no way similar. The a^2 (that's, "Aforementioned A**hole") in question wasn't a victim of somebody trying to show off for anybody else, nor was he singled out because of his beliefs (or lack thereof). He had a fresh mouth which, while certainly employed during his "debates" on atheism, was also put to use in several other subjects; and he couldn't take "shut up and sit down already" for an answer (perhaps he couldn't understand such primitive language). Somebody got tired of putting up with it, or he spewed something without thinking, and the folks involved explained the situation in terms he could understand.

[Fun2BFree]

Atheism with no belief in a final judgement and a cosmic referee could lead to any horrible act--the reason this does not happen is that most people who come to the atheist point of view do so for reasons based on their valuing the supremacy of all rational thought...all morality flows from rational thought --so while atheism as an independent belief system could "go bad" it generally does not because those who hold to be atheists are better described as rationalists.

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by Mike Drisco
In Alabama the atheists are out there everyday supporting a Federal judge's decision to forcibly remove the 10 Commandments monument. So in this case, the Atheists are supporting the omnipotent federal government. I personally believe that a reliance on the wisdom of Big Government is as big of a threat to mankind as blind faith in any other "deity". Besides the U.S Constitution never says that States or their agencies cannot favor one religion it only says that "Congress shall pass no law ...".
The judge in this case, Myron Thompson, is legislating from the bench regarding the 10 Commandment issue in Montgomery but in Birmingham (my home town) stands Vulcan the Roman God of metal-working or something, supported by both Federal, State, County, and City funds. I don't see people in the Atheist movement nor Federal Judges raising hell about that one. It doesn't seem very consistant to me. It seems he only focuses on "popular" religions. It makes atheists seem hateful instead of principled.

Personally, I'm tired of participating in "reform movements". The best I can do is to reach my own conclusions and proceed with the wisdom I have gained to live the most fulfilling life I can.

I was discussing with one of my atheist friends just how costly it is to spend a lot of effort attempting to educate a public that doesn't even understand the problem. I've pretty much concluded that "movement" people particularly atheists must be clinging to some sort of "yeah, it sacrifices my time and money but it's for a good cause". It seems like they are reaching for immortality and respect by future generations. This seems ironic to me. An atheist of all people should understand that the best we can do is find fulfilment in this life by pursuing rational self-interest.

That federal judge is thoroughly in line with judicial precedent.

Could you please report to us the last time someone was beaten or killed in Alabama for not kowtowing to the Vulcanists?

[rachaella]

Originally posted by Mike Drisco
So in this case, the Atheists are supporting the omnipotent federal government.

I do believe the atheists would probably speak out against the monument regardless of where the "omnipotent federal government" stands and perhaps a glancing at the constitution of Alabama would do you some good, seeing that it specifies the government shall not support one religion over another:

"Sec. 4. That no religion shall be established by law; that no preference shall be given by law to any religious sect, society, denomination, or mode of worship; that no one shall be compelled by law to attend any place of worship, nor to pay any tithes, taxes, or other rate, for building or repairing any place of worship, or for maintaining any minister or ministry; that no religious test shall be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under this state; and that the civil rights, privileges, and capacities of any citizen shall not be in any manner affected by his religious principles." ( http://www.legislature.state.al.us/misc/history/constitutions/1875/1875_1.html )


Plus I highly doubt that very many consider the statue of Vulcan to have much religious significance seeing that it is a relic from a religion of the past now called "mythology". The blind goddess of justice is a very common statue at courthouses but is not of offense to anyone because it is not representative of a religion that currently holds much weight here in the US. I do not believe anyone in government has any plans to try to indoctrinate citizens to the religions of Ancient Greece of Ancient Rome, nor would a justice claim that the basis of our justice system comes from doctrines of those religions. However, the intentions of Justice Moore are clearly to promote judeo-christian morals.

[RCNelson]

Well, there's the Raelians (http://www.rael.org/english/index.html).
Atheistic group believes in alien creators (http://www.rickross.com/reference/raelians/raelians69.html).

The issue of Atheism vs. Theism is not as important as the issue of free thinking vs. blind faith.

[c4ts]

Originally posted by RCNelson
Well, there's the Raelians (http://www.rael.org/english/index.html).
Atheistic group believes in alien creators (http://www.rickross.com/reference/raelians/raelians69.html).

The issue of Atheism vs. Theism is not as important as the issue of free thinking vs. blind faith.

Don't the Raelians have a big statue of Jesus with a double helix molecule in their compound?

[Mike Drisco]

Originally posted by arcticpenguin

That federal judge is thoroughly in line with judicial precedent.

Could you please report to us the last time someone was beaten or killed in Alabama for not kowtowing to the Vulcanists?

All Hail - Judicial Precedent.

- and -

No I can't. So what?


Don't get me wrong. I don't approve of the Ten Commandments sitting out in front of an agency that is supposed to dispense Justice. I don't think people could get fair trails there. And Judge Roy Moore, the 10 Commandments opportunist Judge is silly. But I also know that the U.S. Constitution says nothing regarding what a State can or can't do regarding religion.

If Federal judges aren't compelled to consult the U.S Constitution then we no longer have a nation of laws but rather a nation of power groups making capricious laws. Such a system is called anarchy or even worse tyranny when such lofty terms such as Judicial Precedent are used in an attempt to sanitize blatently illegal acts. Judicial Precident makes sense in Common Law not in rulings that clearly violate constitutional provisions.

The country at one time was individual States unified in a very limited way to a federal government in fact those limitations are spelled out in the U.S Constitution. Did you know that the 10 Commandments are on display in the U.S Supreme Court? But illegal in Alabama.

I'm suppose I'm naive but I want consistency. It's up to those people in Alabama to dump that Judge and that biased Commandment display. Bowing down to Big Government is the same as kneeling in church to me.

Aesop had a moral (I think from the "Hart and the Hunter"), that basically said that "If you let someone use you for your benefit then you can expect them to use you for their benefit". (By indirectly giving them your permission or establishing a precedent)

Atheist groups that let government do their work for them by violating laws can surely expect that one day the government will somehow persecute Atheists by violating the law.

I think the Alabama Athiest would do better spending their time disproving the miraculous than getting too political. (I wonder when some church will step up to the plate and attempt to win the Million Dollar Challenge?)

I personally do not have a stake on the outcome either way. The only conclusions I have reached are to let the people of the world go whichever way they want, do what I beleive to be in my best interest without hurting anybody else and parry the blows heading my way.

[Fun2BFree]

Originally posted by Mike Drisco


But I also know that the U.S. Constitution says nothing regarding what a State can or can't do regarding religion.



Well then what you know is some other document...the Constitution prohibits some religious things very very clearly in every level of the United States.

Article VI-"...no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

That is crystal clear about religious testing being forbidden at every level of government as a qualification for office. State governments are "under" the United States as outlined earlier in the same article. So your statement that the "U.S. Constitution says nothing regarding what a State can or can't do regarding religion." is demonstrably false.

As for whether or not the States can establish religion as prohibted to Congress in the First amendment this is admittedly less clearly established but to date the 14th amendment has been used (correctly or not) to extend all Federal government restrictions to hold to the State governments as well-but i agree that this is less firmly a refutation of what you said...but Article VI is enough to show your statement to be an inaccurate generalization.

[RCNelson]

c4ts:
Don't the Raelians have a big statue of Jesus with a double helix molecule in their compound?
It wouldn't surprise me if they did. They think Jesus was contacted by space aliens like the Raelian founder.

From the Raelian web site (http://www.rael.org/english/index.html):
[QUOTE]The messages dictated to Rael explain how life on Earth is not the result of random evolution, nor the work of a supernatural 'God'. It is a deliberate creation, using DNA, by a scientifically advanced people who made human beings literally "in their image" what one can call "scientific creationism". References to these scientists and their work, as well as to their symbol of infinity can be found in the ancient texts of many cultures. For example, in Genesis, the biblical account of creation, the word "Elohim" has been mistranslated as "God" in the singular, but it is a plural, which means "those who came from the sky".

Leaving our humanity to progress by itself, the Elohim nevertheless maintained contact with us via prophets including Buddha, Moses, Jesus and Mohammed, all specially chosen and educated by them. The role of the prophets was to progressively educate humanity through the messages they taught, each time adapted to the culture and level of understanding at the time. They were also to leave traces of the Elohim so that we would be able to recognise them as our creators and fellow human beings when we had advanced enough scientifically to understand them. [/B]

[Mike Drisco]

Originally posted by rachaella
[B]

I do believe the atheists would probably speak out against the monument regardless of where the "omnipotent federal government" stands and perhaps a glancing at the constitution of Alabama would do you some good, seeing that it specifies the government shall not support one religion over another:

"Sec. 4. That no religion shall be established by law; that no preference shall be given by law to any religious sect ...

Yes the Atheists were protesting the Ten Commandments display long before the federalies got involved.

You are right rachella, I stand corrected regarding the lawfulness of the display according to the Alabama Constitution. Thank you for clarifying that for me.

I don't have to be right, only teachable.

I'm curious as what Roy Moore will offer to debut the charges that he violated Section 4 if those are the charges, heck they should be. He is a pretty kooky guy, I think he will try to say the term "inherent rights" in the U.S. Constitution is an indirect acknowledgement of God. He can't seem to get out of his mind that God is described in the Bible ONLY. Unfortunately for them, so do most of the people in Alabama.

That is one of the reasons I decided to get the hell outta there.

[espritch]

I'm suppose I'm naive but I want consistency. It's up to those people in Alabama to dump that Judge and that biased Commandment display. Bowing down to Big Government is the same as kneeling in church to me.

Well, if by consistency you mean legal precedence (the name for consistency in Law), I think that the precedence of Federal court decisions trumping state courts is pretty well established. Of course all of Judge Moore's fellow state justices also ruled in favor of removing the monument, so the point is moot.

Also, I doubt any atheist has any interest in bowing down to Big Government. They are interested in making sure no one uses either the State or Big Government as tool of coercion to force them to kneel in any church. The most effective way to do that is to make sure the separation of church and state is strictly enforced.

[evildave]

Where's T'ai Chi?

I wonder why he hasn't added something about the hundreds of millions of victims of Communism, which he'll claim was driven by atheism?

Rather than the existing economic differences in many poor nations, where stirring hatred between the "haves" (who are usually in power using ruthless means) and "have nots" (who are usually more numerous) is easy and profitable (now the new Maoist/Marxist/etc-ist regime needs Soviet (historic) or Chinese (current) arms, trade, etc., and training to be at least as ruthless as the overthrown government) For the cost of a few hundred crates of guns, they can get more regional instability, additional resources with no international oversight on their exploitation, and more local soldiers to go help in other regional overthrowings of governments. What a deal!

[Mike Drisco]

Originally posted by Fun2BFree
[B]
Article VI-"...no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

That is crystal clear about religious testing being forbidden at every level of government as a qualification for office. State governments are "under" the United States as outlined earlier in the same article. So your statement that the "U.S. Constitution says nothing regarding what a State can or can't do regarding religion." is demonstrably false.



You are right, I overgeneralized. The U.S Constitution does say something about what a State can do regarding religion in regard to religious testing to any office or public trust at any level of government wothin the U.S.

Would you folks believe I used to be a law student? I was.

I think I'm a little myopic in regard to legalities so I best just shut up on these legal issues. Alabama as well as other Confederate States were deconstructed during the Reconstrution era. And as a person from Alabama I am a product of a culture who distrusts Federal interference at the State level. My ancestors were among those who had their homes burned as Sherman crossed Georgia - they never forgot nor did their children who were my great grandparents. There is still a lot of cultural pride in being descendents of the Confederacy movement in the South. Irrational? Sure. In fact it was just a few years ago that Alabama elected its first Republican governor, one way or another it was because Lincoln was a Republican. And it has nothing to do with the slavery issue or lingering racism but rather the right of self-determination. Honestly, as despicable as the Ten Commandment display is I am more offended by Federal Judges imposing their wills by reaching into States affairs.

So anyway, I sincerely appreciate the clarifications to my misunderstandings about these legal issues. It's always good to learn something about myself even if I have to do it in a semi-public forum for all to see. So I'm overly defensive about States Rights and Federal power. I'll work on it. Onward!

[Fun2BFree]

Mike-

Since you do seem to be interested in getting past the self-delusions that come with indoctrinated prejudices allow me to take exception to the notion that the Civil War was over States Rights against the Federal government...you have heard that so often you never likely thought about what the state wanted the right over...It was indeed about the States' Rights--but it was not over Federal Government it was the State's Rights over Human Rights--plain and simple--the South felt that individual states should determine what human rights were--who could or could not be a slave....the North felt that was a basic human right not subject to local preference--and not needing Federal law to insure it...it was an extension and continuation of the same issue fought over as outlined in the Declaration of our nation that all men are created equal with certain rights --endowed by the Creator if you like -though certainly no Creator is necessary to recognize the common humanity of all peoples. Thes South felt this was something best left to the locals...They were wrong.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Mike Drisco
I don't have to be right, only teachable.

Dont feel bad, Mike Drisco. :rub:

Philosopher Yahweh says the learning is fundamental, its good and healthy, and it turns people into educated people.