Login or register
Login or register
Login / Create Account
Email is optional and is used for password recovery purposes.
Click to Create Account
Login to FJ
Stay logged in
Click to Login
Log in/Sign with Facebook.
Log in/Sign up with Gmail.
Remaining character count: 4000
[ + ]
Image or Video File:
Shortcuts: "C" opens comments. "R" refreshes comments.
Record voice message?
Click to start recording.
Enter Captcha Code:
Scroll to comment?
Back to the content 'Pretty much'
I return to attempt to bring some sense.
Herr Bonaparte was not an atheist, he fell into a similar category with Jefferson. Both men questioned miracles and such things as the virgin birth, but did not declare the lack of a divine being.
On the matter of atheism itself, the ideology has caused humanity much heartache and has held us back in many facets (similarly to how there's the strange belief that faith has held us back). I call to attention the death tolls of Mao Zedong, Joseph Stalin, and Pol Pot. There are others but I will limit my list to these. Aside from staggering death tolls associated with their regime, they also suppressed free thought and scientific advancements that they considered threatening.
The next argument will be: But Dwarfman they were evil dictators atheism had no influence on their actions! I tend to agree, men have amazing capacities for evil no matter their faith (Yes atheism is a faith and doesn't answer every question in the universe like any major religion). You can't judge those you have opposing view points with differently from how you judge your peers. Life isn't black and white, nothing is truly good or evil, all a matter of perspective. As for my defense of world religions I give you a link to a previous thread. Should you wish to debate, I have time but I will ignore the Hurr Durr you're a theist and thus an idiot posts.
Faith.....a faith...... Some thing that requires a personal belief in something regardless of the lack of empirical evidence
Atheism is the only thing that requires no belief, personal or otherwise... so their would be no need for faith to choose not to belive something.
An organization, collective mindset, philosophical school of thought, way of thinking, etc.
A faith is the one thing it cannot be
You have faith in the value of your money. You have faith in your government. Science? Faith in a sense. We have a set of rules for it, measurable variances etc etc. But often in the course of our history we learn that what we believed is wrong, start over. Difference with science is we can press boundaries, we KNEW that splitting the atom was impossible, we circumvented it. Is time even real or is it an invention of man? No one can truly answer life's questions. Are theists crazed lunatics at times? Yes, but the faith vs. science debate is an American invention. As for people like you well: When performing missionary work take care not to be eaten by cannibals.
I just want to point out that red thumbing someone just because they make a point different than your own makes you a pretentious self assured jackass. I am merely participating in discourse, I did not thumb you down, i read your post and i chose to make a point about an element of it, thumbs have no place in this discussion.
But I see what you are saying but their are two very distinct meanings to the words faith that don not cross over. To have faith in something implies a lack of empirical evidence.
It is virtually impossible to state that money has no value in the world of trade. It is a fact that people exchange it for goods and services. Therefore I do not have faith in money, there is evidence outside myself that supports it.
Science is a field where the only thing that truly matters is testing hypothesis, and collecting data to further our understanding. It is not faith, it is a process, or method of collecting information to be further studied
Faith is a word that overuse in the english language detracting from its true meaning. it is all about possessing a strong personal conviction or belief in something despite information and data saying otherwise.
I believe that the Neo Atheist movement is very weak with many of its views and people misunderstand different things about it. Science is not a philosophy, a belief or a religion, It is the pursuit of understanding through factual evidence. It neither confirms nor denies the existence of any divine forces and does not rely on them because they cannot be studied in true scientific terms.
The war on science as a whole in this world comes from a true misunderstanding of what it is. It is not like religion or belief, though many treat it like it is. It is the collection of information through time, based on the scientific method. IT is allowed to be wrong and change as time goes on simply because it is a pursuit of understanding the world and sometimes technology proves elements wrong.
T'ain't me dude.
No. I bring to your attention the following things: Those dictators disliked religion because it lessened the total power of their magical fairy princessistrations in the eyes of the people. For example, Stalin made himself revered to the point that he was practically a demigod. You claim that atheism has caused humanity "heartache"--specifically the deaths of innocents. If not for religion, the following things would not have taken place: the Holocaust, the greatest atrocity in the history of the world, 9/11, the Crusades, the thousands of Israeli and Palestinian deaths, the war in Afghanistan, among countless wars, genocides, and murders that pitted opposing religions against each other, too many to list. Another way that religion has caused humanity "heartache" is in the realm of the sciences. I could go on for about ten pages, but I'll keep it short: if not for religion, our society could have reached its current scientific understanding of the universe more than twenty years ago. Both atheism and religion have caused problems, but religion has caused many more.
I suggest you read the linked thread before you mouth off again, I went into the advancement of humanity thing. You immediately deflect the actions of the dictators listed above as political maneuvers, yet do not take into account the political implications of the "religious" atrocities you list.
9/11: Osama was an enemy of the soviets long before us, hence why we armed the nutcase. Without them he turned to the Americas as we were just another evil imperialist empire to him. Being a crafty son of a bitch he used religion to lure the simpler members of society to his cause.
Crusades: European economies had been stagnant for centuries. Aside from the riches plundered from the Muslim countries, Knightly orders rose to power bringing new jobs/wealth to the entirety of Europe. War is profitable, it's why the Romans loved it so much. Veil your profit motive in God's grace and you sudden have an army.
Adolf: If you study his checked past you will see he fell into the National Socialist movement by chance. That said he adopted this new found philosophy and found a scapegoat to begin his reign of terror.
Countless other wars? I'd love to hear them, here's my list:
Mongol Hordes: Nonreligiously motivated conquerors, reduced the world's population immensely.
Spanish colonization: God? Eff that they have gold.
Samurai Invasion of Korea: Japan unified and needed to expand, repeated in 1900s
Martha come to power on India: Throw out foreign Mughal rulers
WWI: A family feud between ancient noble families
Brushfire wars of the 1900s: USA vs. USSR.
So you choose to disassociate the crimes of atheists from their political motivations, yet do not do the same for "religious" wars? Under those terms you are no better than those crazies that suggest rape victims shouldn't be allowed to abort because it's "God's will". Have a nice day my bigot friend.
>WWI: a family feud
No. Just no.
How else would you describe it? They made a complex web of alliance and the leaders of most of these nations were related. It basically was a family feud.
I can't even argue with you, you're that stupid. I'm surprised someone with such a small amount of intelligence actually knows how to operate a computer.
You fall into the: Hurr Durr you're a theist category. I presented an argument and provided evidence to back up my points. You resorted to name calling. Who is the lesser being here hmmm? Sorry I don't take your cookie-cutter atheist remarks on face value.
See top comment. (#7)
"Faith vs. Science is a purely American invention perpetrated by a few nut bags from mega churches."
Back to the content 'Pretty much'
Top in 24 Hours
Retail jobs suck
Lazy trust fall
Not a cat, repeat, not a cat.
cooking with gas
Bitch got served
Women don't use the word fetish
Did I just meme someone into Christianity?
How to hold an N64 controller
Best headline ever.
Anon dates a furry
Anthropology is Racist
Anon's favorite weapon
Cutest Hug Ever!
Alright Dan, you go do that
Anon plays Rust
Anon explains difference between STEM and non-STEM
Fembot makes good point