Theists: What should we do with Atheists?

[malorum]

For a variety of legal and ethical reasons I would generally condemn the burning of atheists who endanger the eternal salvation of our children.

The question remains: What should we do with these minions of Satan, if we are to protect our families from their deceitful secular philosophy?

Suggestions please....

[Borodog]

One word: compounds. Lock yourselves away in a compound. That always turns out well.

[malorum]

[ QUOTE ]
One word: compounds. Lock yourselves away in a compound. That always turns out well.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am familiar with the idea of burning heretics. You just reminded me that they still do this in the US. cool.

I'm just not sure its the best solution for atheists.

[New001]

I hear atheists hate money. In fact, they hate it more than anything in the world. Send lots and lots of money.

I can give you my address if you'd like.

[soko]

Just curious how you know who the atheists are? Do you go around asking every person you know what their belief in god is before you decide wether to associate yourselves with them?

[malorum]

[ QUOTE ]
Just curious how you know who the atheists are? Do you go around asking every person you know what their belief in god is before you decide wether to associate yourselves with them?

[/ QUOTE ]


Perhaps by applying the principles set out in the Inquisitors manual:

[ QUOTE ]
4. Concerning the outward signs by which they can be recognized to some extent:

It should also be recognized that, as Augustine says in Against Fausus, "men cannot be bound together in either a true or false religion unless they are joined by common participation in some signs or visible sacraments." Thus the Beguins observe certain special practices of this sort, and display certain modes of behavior in speech and other areas through which they can be recognized by others.


[/ QUOTE ]

common participation in some signs or visible sacraments:

Posting on two plus two is an initial danger sign. Then a thorough analysis of all posts would be appropriate. If suspicisions are arosed there are a variety of options. Personally I'm not keen on torture; Psychometric testing might be one way forward.

[Mr_J]

Interesting, as the world would actually be better off without religion. Some of the worst acts in history have been committed because of religion.

[malorum]

[ QUOTE ]
as the world would actually be better off without religion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Poll Pot, and Stalin would have agreed with your vision of Utopia.

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
The question remains: What should we do with these minions of Satan, if we are to protect our families from their deceitful secular philosophy?

[/ QUOTE ]

Secular philosophy is the ish!!!! Isn't the nonsecular world what this country is fighting against right now??

EDIT: By "this country" I mean the US...sometimes I forget myself in the internet /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[Mr_J]

Over the course of history religion has been beneficial to the individual but harmful to humanity. War has been harmful to the individual but beneficial to humanity. Of course they haven't been mutually exclusive.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
War has been harmful to the individual but beneficial to humanity.

[/ QUOTE ]

How has war been "beneficial to humanity"?

[Mr_J]

It's not the wars themselves, but what they have caused. Of course since religion has caused many wars, you could argue that religion has some of the same effects as war itself.

The problem isn't actually religion, it's humans ourselves. It's just that religion isn't beneficial because of our nature.

As for how wars have been beneficial. The atomic bomb. This is a horrific invention, but it might have been the best thing for us. For the first time in our history it is unlikely that full scale war will break out anytime soon, simply because it would have the ability to totally destroy us all. This allows us to develop in other ways which will be very benefical to our species, shorterm and hopefully (unless nuclear war breaks out) longterm. War has brought as many other technological advances as well, I just thought I'd state an interesting one (one that seems terrible but might ultimately do us good).

We are at a stage where my post above is now reversed. War can destroy us all where religion will do more good than harm.

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
Interesting, as the world would actually be better off without religion. Some of the worst acts in history have been committed because of religion.

[/ QUOTE ]


While I tend to agree with you don't forget aethyists such as Hitler, Marx's writings, Mao, Lenin and other aeythist communists.

Religion has also saved quite a few lives because of morality. I might be wrong, but w/o monotheistic and buddist writing I think our world today would be much worse.

Thoughts?

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
Interesting, as the world would actually be better off without religion. Some of the worst acts in history have been committed because of religion.

[/ QUOTE ]
Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot...
Nice try, but I think the atheists have the lead in sheer body counts.

Somewhat off topic: How can you call yourself an atheist? That means you are affirming the non-existance of God. How can you absolutely affirm something in the negative?

[Matt R.]

[ QUOTE ]
Somewhat off topic: How can you call yourself an atheist? That means you are affirming the non-existance of God. How can you absolutely affirm something in the negative?

[/ QUOTE ]

BCPVP,
You're going to get a lot of, "Do you believe there is an invisible flying pink elephant in your room?" responses from this. Just to warn you. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[MidGe]

The title of this thread examplifies my response on the other thread "Atheists, stop insulting theists".

I only wish that theist saw that they had nothing to do with atheists but just leave us well in peace. Unfortunately, this is against most religious positions that always try to interfere with those that do not share their madness.

I never see atheist standing on the corners of street preaching that god is no more. I don't see atheists telling religious people which part of their particular teachings they ought to not practice and try to make it a law of this land. And in some rare case they may do so (polygamy) but then it is not done in the name of atheism but in the name of societal benefits and still allows the practice bewteen conenting adult altough without state sanction or benefits.

In a simple sentence, I do not wish to change my life in anyway to be in accordance with the wishes of a chimera of very dubious morals.

[soon2bepro]

[ QUOTE ]
Over the course of history religion has been beneficial to the individual but harmful to humanity. War has been harmful to the individual but beneficial to humanity. Of course they haven't been mutually exclusive.

[/ QUOTE ]

i'd say its the complete opposite: religion has been harmful to the individual but beneficial to humanity, and war has been beneficial to the individual (or rather some individuals) but harmful to humanity

[benjdm]

Stalin was an atheist. I won't fight on that one.

But Christians get Hitler.

http://www.nobeliefs.com/Hitler1.htm

[MaxWeiss]

...and realize that the time for such silliness like an imaginary friend for adults (i.e. god) should and eventually will come to an end.

Then you must kill yourselves because you realize that your fear of dying and your need for religion actually prevented you from living at all in the first place. You might as well just get it over with. I mean you're going to play with your imaginary friend for eternity anyway, right? Or is suicide not allowed--I'll kill you then, if you would prefer.

[MaxWeiss]

Also, I just picked up a copy of "The End of Faith" by Sam Harris. Wonderful book. I think you'd like it even if you are annoyed with me for my previous post.

[LadyWrestler]

Having fun, boys and girls? /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[purnell]

[ QUOTE ]
What should we do with these minions of Satan, if we are to protect our families from their deceitful secular philosophy?

Suggestions please....

[/ QUOTE ]

/images/graemlins/laugh.gif Minions of Satan? I don't think so.

1) Pray for them.

2) Lead by example and avoid hypocrisy. This is the hard part.

The rest is between them and God.

[chezlaw]

let he who is without sin ...

chez

[MidGe]

Have you ver noticed how divided the theists are. they seem at each other throats. Atheists, on the other hand, seem to easily coexist without hassling each other.


Must be in the beliefs.

/images/graemlins/smile.gif

[its420yo]

burn us all, since christians dont believe in global warming /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[guimoman]

To love god is to love all of his children. Even the great mourning star was loved by god.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
To love god is to love all of his children. Even the great mourning star was loved by god.

[/ QUOTE ]

Was? Does God no longer love Lucifer, then?

[Rduke55]

I would say religion (whether or not there is a god) was essential for society to develop (nothing makes a hierarchy better than a religion). I always wonder what would happen if the "religion is the cause of all war and misery in the world"-folks got their wish and there never was religion. I'd guess we'd either be extinct or fighting off cave bears or something. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[tyrus72]

[ QUOTE ]
The question remains: What should we do with these minions of Satan, if we are to protect our families from their deceitful secular philosophy?

[/ QUOTE ]

You could always try loving your neighbor and praying for them if you really want to follow Christ's alleged teachings.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
I would say religion (whether or not there is a god) was essential for society to develop (nothing makes a hierarchy better than a religion). I always wonder what would happen if the "religion is the cause of all war and misery in the world"-folks got their wish and there never was religion. I'd guess we'd either be extinct or fighting off cave bears or something. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe that human societal development is inevitable because of a handful of simple conditions, that humans prefer more goods to less, that they prefer goods sooner to later, that they can form long range plans and reason out the likely consequences thereof, and that complex language allows mankind to communicate (and hence cooperate). I don't think religion is required at all.

It seems most likely to me that religion is a misfiring of mankind's pattern recognition, logical deduction, cause and effect, and explanatory mechanisms. Many animals are built to look for and try to take advantage of "patterns" in nature (hence you can train your dog to do tricks for treats). Sometimes they are "tricked" into making incorrectal causal associations, and you get things like supersticious birds (one of my favorite studies of all times).

Under conditions of ignorance of the actual, complex scientific, explanations for effects in his environment, man's natural logical deduction wiring attempts to assign cause and effect relationships to events that essentially have no discernable cause. His explanatory mechanism remedies this by creating unobservable causes, spirits, demons, Gods and Goddesses to try to construct a consistent world view of cause (e.g. Rain God) and effect (e.g. a drought) in order to attempt to leverage that knowledge for his benefit (e.g. appease the Rain God through supersticious activities like rain dances, prayer, human sacrifices, etc).

This is exactly the process mankind uses to leverage understanding of real cause and effect relationships in his environment for his own benefit (it storms after the sky gets dark and cloudy and there is thunder, so take shelter when it gets dark and cloudy and there is thunder).

It's easy to see how man's natural wiring can be tricked into assigning causes that don't exist to effects he doesn't understand and end up creating bizzare behaviors to try to leverage his "knowledge" in order to try to affect future events.

[hmkpoker]

NotReady, GodBoy...this is the part where you kindly explain to this guy why it's not useful to write things like this.

[protoverus]

[ QUOTE ]
For a variety of legal and ethical reasons I would generally condemn the burning of atheists who endanger the eternal salvation of our children.

The question remains: What should we do with these minions of Satan, if we are to protect our families from their deceitful secular philosophy?

Suggestions please....

[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously, the original post is meant to stir the pot and not much else. But to answer the question, we should love them, teach them, turn the other cheek when we are wronged, in fact, give all we have for their sake.

How do you protect your families from deceitful philosophy? You, as the parent, teach them to put on the full armor of God...belt of truth, shield of faith, helmet of salvation etc...

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I would say religion (whether or not there is a god) was essential for society to develop (nothing makes a hierarchy better than a religion). I always wonder what would happen if the "religion is the cause of all war and misery in the world"-folks got their wish and there never was religion. I'd guess we'd either be extinct or fighting off cave bears or something. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe that human societal development is inevitable because of a handful of simple conditions, that humans prefer more goods to less, that they prefer goods sooner to later, that they can form long range plans and reason out the likely consequences thereof, and that complex language allows mankind to communicate (and hence cooperate). I don't think religion is required at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that there's no way that it was inevitable. I see your point but I still think that we were pretty much wired up for the small-band level of social structure (especially the interrelated and "Big Man" type of groups). It takes a great deal to get over that hump. It's just not plausible IMO and I definitely can imagine some serious adaptive valleys to overcome. And the language (not complex language, but the EXTENT of the complexity) and other advancements are thought by some to have really come about after agriculture.
I still think that religion was needed.

[ QUOTE ]
It seems most likely to me that religion is a misfiring of mankind's pattern recognition, logical deduction, cause and effect, and explanatory mechanisms. Many animals are built to look for and try to take advantage of "patterns" in nature (hence you can train your dog to do tricks for treats). Sometimes they are "tricked" into making incorrectal causal associations, and you get things like supersticious birds (one of my favorite studies of all times).

Under conditions of ignorance of the actual, complex scientific, explanations for effects in his environment, man's natural logical deduction wiring attempts to assign cause and effect relationships to events that essentially have no discernable cause. His explanatory mechanism remedies this by creating unobservable causes, spirits, demons, Gods and Goddesses to try to construct a consistent world view of cause (e.g. Rain God) and effect (e.g. a drought) in order to attempt to leverage that knowledge for his benefit (e.g. appease the Rain God through supersticious activities like rain dances, prayer, human sacrifices, etc).

This is exactly the process mankind uses to leverage understanding of real cause and effect relationships in his environment for his own benefit (it storms after the sky gets dark and cloudy and there is thunder, so take shelter when it gets dark and cloudy and there is thunder).

It's easy to see how man's natural wiring can be tricked into assigning causes that don't exist to effects he doesn't understand and end up creating bizzare behaviors to try to leverage his "knowledge" in order to try to affect future events.

[/ QUOTE ]

But I agree with this logic. A great reason of why religion began.

[Rduke55]

And also, the new-ish field of neuroeconomics talks a lot about the kinds of problems humans had/have with acting rationally in regards to economics and society.
One of their great points in this regard is when some behavior seems irrational, putting into an evolutionary context sheds a lot of light on it. The idea with a lot of these behaviors was that it was rational (in the adaptive sense) way back when and that's why it was selected for and we haven't gotten rid of it.
I'd imagine Borodog and others would find this field interesting to look at. My exposure to neuroeconomics actually one of the reasons I'm an AC-doubter (and pro-"religion was needed for society to form" type). Unfortunately, my knowledge of it comes from either talks or journal articles that I get through my university and aren't available to the public, but a google search may have something useful.

[madnak]

Okay, how about music? Do you know anything about music? Why on earth did we develop music?

[Borodog]

My gut tells me that music developed through sexual selection.

[HajiShirazu]

As an atheist my personal suggestion is to flood us with nearly infinite amounts of booze, hookers, and free downloadable entertainment.

[NFKB1]

malorum

Be honest, who raped you as a kid, was it your father or your uncle...or priest perhaps?