Pope blames atheism for all the worlds problems.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
Nature causes both pain and pleasure. I don't see how it is easier for man to spread awful pain than to alleviate the suffering he causes.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then you're ignorant, or have no imagination.

I can traumatize a person within minutes such that the very best professional help will take years to repair the damage. Damage from severe enough trauma causes irreparable damage, and while evidence on torture is lacking, anecdotal evidence and extrapolation from the effects of relatively "tame" experiences indicate that severe, sustained torture can destroy the mind.

And the body? Same deal. It's easy to shatter a bone. It can be done in minutes, probably seconds if you know how. Hey vhawk, how long does it take to put back together? 1 hour? 2 hours? Ooh, maybe 2 hours and 15 minutes? And it's easy, right? And the quality of the repair is excellent, ldo.

Thankfully the vast majority of people choose to do more good than harm - if it were the other way around... I don't want to think about it.

[ QUOTE ]
If an atheist is convinced that life on the whole is much more painful than pleasurable, I don't see why he would not commit suicide. It would be the reasonable thing to do.

[/ QUOTE ]

My life isn't more painful than pleasurable. But it was. I was actively suicidal for over a decade, and it was rough. Suicide is hard, I doubt you understand how hard it is. We really aren't built to kill ourselves, or even to consider it as an option. From your beliefs, I suppose God's twisted sense of humor prevents him from allowing such an easy escape. And oh, because of religious poison most of the world believes that committing suicide will result in eternal torture. That's something of a disincentive.

But the more important issue - we're doing better. Most people in the developed world are never raped or tortured, they never suffer from plagues, they don't see loved ones killed on a regular basis, they never starve or go hungry for months at a time. We've persevered and conquered the brutal existence that we knew in nature and especially during early civilization. Chances are that, during most of human history, if you had suggested a pain/pleasure view of utility, people would have thought you were crazy. Only the wealthy ever thought that way, it just wasn't how the world was perceived. People had to find value in life beyond pleasure, because what pleasure they had was meager.

Of course, nature still has its way with us. Though we do what we can to support happiness, all of our efforts are eventually counteracted. Disease finds us, entropy takes everything (and everyone) we value away from us, our constant needs overwhelm us and the limited means to meet those needs frustrate us, and those who try to help us often do more harm than good... And occasionally (very rarely in areas where need isn't a major concern) a bad apple deliberately makes things worse.

But it's the nature of our existence that causes the vast majority of our suffering - and it's our personal power and our compassion that allow us to overcome it despite the odds. So I'm comfortable saying that if a God is responsible for the nature of our reality, then God is evil and humans are good. Thankfully I don't believe that - any gods that exist are probably in the same boat we are.

[Peter666]

So you've given us your theory on the evil in nature (which the major religions agree with) plus a proposed solution:

"it's our personal power and our compassion that allow us to overcome it despite the odds."

Which is what religion proposes to do, although they go to God for help, whereas you summon the giant within Anthony Robbins style.

Unless you can demonstrate that you're happier than a religious theist, why on earth should they take atheism seriously?

[VarlosZ]

[ QUOTE ]
Unless you can demonstrate that you're happier than a religious theist, why on earth should they take atheism seriously?

[/ QUOTE ]

How is that relevant? Nobody decides to be an atheist (or to be in agreement with any other spiritual/philosophical belief) because he thinks it will make him happier. People simply "become" atheists when, for whatever reason, they don't believe that any gods exist.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
People simply "become" atheists when, for whatever reason, they no longer believe that any gods exist.

[/ QUOTE ]

hmmmmm... I've always thought we were born atheists. Oh, ok, you're taking it from the point where they've been brainwashed and conditioned and now re-become atheists. A born-again atheist?

luckyme

[soon2bepro]

There's no such thing as an atheist. There's rational people who ask for extraordinary evidence before believing in extraordinary claims, and there's irrational people who take pride in being certain about their beliefs in extraordinary claims without the slightest shred of evidence.

[VarlosZ]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
People simply "become" atheists when, for whatever reason, they no longer believe that any gods exist.

[/ QUOTE ]

hmmmmm... I've always thought we were born atheists. Oh, ok, you're taking it from the point where they've been brainwashed and conditioned and now re-become atheists. A born-again atheist?

[/ QUOTE ]

"Become" is in quotes because it's an imprecise tool for describing the situation; your objection is one of the ways in which it's lacking. I erred in using the phrase "no longer," because I wasn't necessarily talking about conversions. I've edited and replaced it with "don't."

That said, I don't think your preferred terminology -- "born atheists," along with, I'm sure, 'atheism is not a belief' -- is the necessarily correct one. Of course I see what you're saying, but there are other ways of expressing that information that don't convey a semantic advantage to your position. Alternate phrasings will surely have their own drawbacks, but I'm skeptical about turns of phrase which, IMO, cloud discussion about concepts and/or imperceptibly change the discussion into one about the tools used to express those concepts.

And, heh, predictably, I'm not a fan of the "brainwashed" usage, for similar reasons. I know what you mean by it and I (mostly) share your concerns. However, we already understand the process to which you're applying that label, so wouldn't it be preferable to exaplain what you find objectionable about that process? In my experience, using that kind of label leads to debates along the lines of:

"See, it fits this definition from dictionary.com."
"Nuh-uh."

I think it's better to use more neutral terminology, even if it seems to you too sympathetic to the other side of the debate, so that you don't get stuck arguing about the symbols rather than the concepts.

[ILOVEPOKER929]

[ QUOTE ]


Unless you can demonstrate that you're happier than a religious theist, why on earth should they take atheism seriously?

[/ QUOTE ]

This statement reminds me of this quote:

"The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one."

George Bernard Shaw

[Peter666]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


Unless you can demonstrate that you're happier than a religious theist, why on earth should they take atheism seriously?

[/ QUOTE ]

This statement reminds me of this quote:

"The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one."

George Bernard Shaw

[/ QUOTE ]

Not surprising, coming from the man who recommended Josef Stalin for the Nobel Peace Prize.

If happiness is not a person's main goal, then I don't think they're human.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
So you've given us your theory on the evil in nature (which the major religions agree with)

[/ QUOTE ]

Uh, the major religions believe that God created nature. Therefore, if this is true, then the major religions believe that God created evil. Thus, evil is God's choice, not man's choice. Which refutes the attempts at theodicy earlier in the thread. If I'm not mistaken, you don't believe God is omnibenevolent, or even particularly benevolent at all. So it might not concern you that God created evil, or that God made reality evil.

But I'd argue that the problem of evil is relevant for any compassionate person, and if evil was God's choice, then the standard responses to the problem are refuted. It also means that God (if God exists) cannot be omnix3.

We could get into questions about the so-called "sinful nature" of man, etc etc, but Benedict himself sometimes waves away the problem of evil with the fallacious "oh well that's man's problem, not God's" [censored].

[ QUOTE ]
Which is what religion proposes to do, although they go to God for help, whereas you summon the giant within Anthony Robbins style.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course, of course. The imaginary man-in-the-clouds has a proven track record, while human ingenuity has never gotten us anywhere.