Atheist Desire to Disprove God

[BigRed]

I agree there are many atheists out there who are not doing this. But it seems to me that the new atheists like Harris, Dawkins, and Hitchens, are really going out of their way to negate the value, contribution, of religion -- positing a world without religion, in an almost militant and aggressive style.

They wear Scarlet A's on their jackets, and blame most of society's ills on religion.

My question is this: why do some atheists (mostly new atheists), feel a need to do this. Is it a general want to help mankind awaken from their foolish belief in deities? Do they really think that people will not be faithful after they read their works?

Also it seems to me from reading their books - which are all titled like God is not Great and the God Delusion, etc. -- that their attacks are not necesarrily on God, but on organized religion -- and a specific Judeo-Christian "white bearded man in the sky" version of God; they focus on the ill deeds of man and rather ignore the foundations of Christianity's messages. Doesn't this kind of look biased, because God is such a vague term -- that the titles of their books be more centered on organized religion and the wrongs done in the names of faith, rather than faith itself?

Thoughts?

Many of the problems of this world are caused by religion.
Think about it........
All the wars and discrimination caused by one religion against all others.
Wasted Capital Expendatures building religious buildings that could have been used to build our infrastructure. Look at third world countries with huge church buildngs while the people live in slums.
Book burning, banning movies, keeping people from knowledge.
Religious soldiers are brainwashed to think that they will go to Heaven if they die. Maybe if they knew the truth soldiers will be reluctant to fight in wars.
Suppression of Science. For example, as our population is getting older and older more people are affected by degenerative diseases. All Scientists acknowledge that stem cell research offers the best hope for finding curesfor degenerative diseases. But the religious are suppressing research.
Treating women as second class citizens.
Discriminating against Homosexuals.

 

[waitasec]

I personally don't think they fully understand what they are attempting to refute.

i think the ideology that a deity is actually concerned with faith is what they are refuting...

 

[outhouse]

Faith itself isn't the problem IMO,its the doctrine of organised religion that is the problem,this is very evident in Africa and the Catholic Church's stance on contraception

I thought i was the only one who realized how many millions the pope is killing with his stance on contraception.

deet dee dee

lets not protect ourselves from disease and lets breed like rats in a country so overpopulated the have no avalible resources for a means to survive properly

 

[outhouse]

I agree there are many atheists out there who are not doing this. But it seems to me that the new atheists like Harris, Dawkins, and Hitchens, are really going out of their way to negate the value, contribution, of religion -- positing a world without religion, in an almost militant and aggressive style.

They wear Scarlet A's on their jackets, and blame most of society's ills on religion.

My question is this: why do some atheists (mostly new atheists), feel a need to do this. Is it a general want to help mankind awaken from their foolish belief in deities? Do they really think that people will not be faithful after they read their works?

Also it seems to me from reading their books - which are all titled like God is not Great and the God Delusion, etc. -- that their attacks are not necesarrily on God, but on organized religion -- and a specific Judeo-Christian "white bearded man in the sky" version of God; they focus on the ill deeds of man and rather ignore the foundations of Christianity's messages. Doesn't this kind of look biased, because God is such a vague term -- that the titles of their books be more centered on organized religion and the wrongs done in the names of faith, rather than faith itself?

Thoughts?

asketikos

that is because they see exactly how religion impacts society in a negitive way.

they have no blinders on.

there are still people out there that think the earth is 6000 years old and trust me they spread this lie to children.

the same goes for the creation myth, this is a huge problem. Ignorance breeds ignornace.



what you need to know that is a fact is religion is the one who fights science progress and reality when it can, all because it goes against a 3000 year old sheep herders guide for a moral life.

I wont even get into religious wars because there os only a real percentage you can trace back to religion, most of that is power and money and land grabbing

 

[waitasec]

I thought i was the only one who realized how many millions the pope is killing with his stance on contraception.

deet dee dee

lets not protect ourselves from disease and lets breed like rats in a country so overpopulated the have no avalible resources for a means to survive properly

god did say be fruitful and multiply..however, he didn't say he cared if you were able to sustain life or not
:yes:

 

[Erebus]

Dawkins et al have their uses. Fundamentalism is dangerous and if they can do something to dissuade people from accepting political agendas with a fundamentalist attitude at heart, then good luck to them. Just don't expect to be blown away by their knowledge of religion (except perhaps the negative elements of the Abrahamic religions).

Having said that, I strongly suspect that the horsemen have little to no interest in the more harmless religions anyway.

 

[Eliot Wild]

It seems to me that Atheism is mostly a reactionary position, at least when it targets organized religion, or faith, or whatever we want to call it.

If organized religion never interfered with scientific research and advancement, or if organized religion never singled-out people because of sexual preference or other benign lifestyle choices, or if organized religion never sought to influence politics and force its dogmatic will on others, or if organized religion never sought to incite violence in the name of this particular God or another, then I daresay there would be very few atheists taking potshots across its bow.

If theists kept mostly to themselves and never allowed their religious beliefs to press their weight on nonbelievers, I don't think atheists would view religion as a threat.

But as it stands right now, many organized religions are still trying to burn witches at the stake, metaphorically speaking. We have finally attained a particular platform of enlightenment--one in which many people realize a very important functional truth: it is best to place a wedge between religious thought and poli-social conventions.

Why? Because we have learned separating state and relgion is most conducive to religious freedom and individual liberties, not to mention to peaceful coexistence between differing faiths. If individual religions were satisfied with regulating only their own and leaving outsiders the personal liberties to make unconstrained choices for themselves, then I for one believe they would suffer far fewer attacks from certain atheists. Perhaps attacks would stop altogether.

 

[outhouse]

god did say be fruitful and multiply..however, he didn't say he cared if you were able to sustain life or not
:yes:

because it was never the word of god and had no divinty in one sentance

if god wanted us to know "real" information instead of ancient mythical information he/she would have wrote a self updating book [dont tell bill gates... lol ]

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I agree there are many atheists out there who are not doing this. But it seems to me that the new atheists like Harris, Dawkins, and Hitchens, are really going out of their way to negate the value, contribution, of religion -- positing a world without religion, in an almost militant and aggressive style.

Do they? I would never describe Dawkins or Hitchens as militant about anything they believe (or disbelieve).

They wear Scarlet A's on their jackets, and blame most of society's ills on religion.

Again, do they? There's a difference between claiming most of societies ills are caused by religion, and claiming that religion is one of the biggest contributors to societal ills, and do so with unwarranted justification.

My question is this: why do some atheists (mostly new atheists), feel a need to do this. Is it a general want to help mankind awaken from their foolish belief in deities? Do they really think that people will not be faithful after they read their works?

The reasons behind their words are many. Firstly, it is because as a society we have an unspoken rule about treating any subject relating to people's beliefs with kid's gloves for fear of "offending believers". Secondly, it is to encourage people who are already atheists to accept that their position is just as warranted (if not moreso) than any theists, and they have just as much a right to be outspoken of their opinions as any theist; "atheist" has become a naughty word, and not just to the deeply religious, but there is a baffling feeling among many atheists that they need to somehow mask or apologize for their point of view purely because it runs contrary to the deeply-held beliefs of others. Thirdly, because it is proven that society functions better utter secular law inspired by the notion of the common good than by religious laws inspired by the dreams of ancient superstition and tradition, or fear of an ephemeral afterlife. Fourthly, because there is a lot of misinformation and misgivings that people in general have about both religion and atheism. Fifthly, because these last few years especially have demonstrated that unwarranted, irrational belief structures can and do have consequences in the real world, and it is time we started questioning those beliefs and their validity so as not to justify those beliefs which cannot be justified by merely feeling unable to speak out against them.

Also it seems to me from reading their books - which are all titled like God is not Great and the God Delusion, etc. -- that their attacks are not necesarrily on God, but on organized religion -- and a specific Judeo-Christian "white bearded man in the sky" version of God; they focus on the ill deeds of man and rather ignore the foundations of Christianity's messages. Doesn't this kind of look biased, because God is such a vague term -- that the titles of their books be more centered on organized religion and the wrongs done in the names of faith, rather than faith itself?

Are you sure you read the books? They talk specifically about belief in God in extensive detail, and while they focus a lot on wrong perpetrated in the name of religion (God is not Great, especially), they devote most of their time to expelling theistic arguments for the existence of God, and explaining why the issue of God's existence or non-existence is an important enough subject to warrant objective analysis, and that we owe it to ourself to put as much scrutiny into the subject of our acceptance of the existence or nonexistence of a deity as we would to the existence or nonexistence of gravity.

"God" is not a vague term, it's a very straight-forward concept, and it is a very straight-forward claim about God that they are refuting.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It seems to me that Atheism is mostly a reactionary position, at least when it targets organized religion, or faith, or whatever we want to call it.

Kinda.

I agree that in a world where nobody believes in god(s), it wouldn't be necessary for an atheist to come up with a concept of deity just to say she doesn't believe in it.

However, I think that the more positive viewpoints that normally fall under the atheist umbrella can stand self-supported even in a world without religion: freethought, skepticism and humanism are positive assertions of their own, not responses to someone else's viewpoint.

 

[ellenjanuary]

Not about disproving god. That ain't gonna happen. It's about having a real-world motivation for a real-world action.

 

[gosweep]

Ahh u guys should take it easy now. OMG. why does atheists disaprove God?
em, em, em well i dont know/
but just check dis out.
2 COrinthians 4 vs 3 - 5
But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: 4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them. 5 For we preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord; and ourselves your servants for Jesus' sake.

Is my answer O.K?

 

[LuisDantas]

It just occurred me that to some degree we feel pushed into finding ways of disproving God, since it happens fairly often of others pressuring us into believing in him.

 

[waitasec]

It seems to me that Atheism is mostly a reactionary position, at least when it targets organized religion, or faith, or whatever we want to call it.

If organized religion never interfered with scientific research and advancement, or if organized religion never singled-out people because of sexual preference or other benign lifestyle choices, or if organized religion never sought to influence politics and force its dogmatic will on others, or if organized religion never sought to incite violence in the name of this particular God or another, then I daresay there would be very few atheists taking potshots across its bow.

If theists kept mostly to themselves and never allowed their religious beliefs to press their weight on nonbelievers, I don't think atheists would view religion as a threat.

But as it stands right now, many organized religions are still trying to burn witches at the stake, metaphorically speaking. We have finally attained a particular platform of enlightenment--one in which many people realize a very important functional truth: it is best to place a wedge between religious thought and poli-social conventions.

Why? Because we have learned separating state and relgion is most conducive to religious freedom and individual liberties, not to mention to peaceful coexistence between differing faiths. If individual religions were satisfied with regulating only their own and leaving outsiders the personal liberties to make unconstrained choices for themselves, then I for one believe they would suffer far fewer attacks from certain atheists. Perhaps attacks would stop altogether.

:clap
i agree wholeheartedly...

i think this post should start a new thread called
theist desire to prove god...


whatdoyouthink?

 

[Alceste]

It just occurred me that to some degree we feel pushed into finding ways of disproving God, since it happens fairly often of others pressuring us into believing in him.

Yeh, sounds kind of right. When a person is quoting scripture at me to pressure me into believing or behaving the way they would like me to, my reaction is "where is your evidence that what is written in your book is any more pertinent and valuable to me than pithy saying scribbled on a bathroom wall by a merry drunk?" When no evidence is forthcoming, I assume it falls to me to determine the relative value of the two forms of offered wisdom myself. From my perspective, both methods of conveying spiritual insight have roughly equal merits and shortcomings.

 

[Thief]

I think you're taking as given your own specific ideas about Heaven that wouldn't normally be shared by other people.

Anyhow, even if (as implausible as it sounds) all atheists really were just worried about feeling somewhat self-conscious in Heaven, if they're really out to just pick a positive outcome, why wouldn't they go for a Heaven without judgemental angels and saints instead of no Heaven at all?

A spirit that lacks discretion?...let me think.....well...no.

I believe in an afterlife.
Others have gone before me.

They know the territory...the language...and the scheme of things.

When you get there you either fit in ...or you don't.

The only way to avoid this is....
Make denial...and then be dust.

 

[nonbeliever_92]

Most atheists I met or heard of don't have a desire to disprove god but a desire to see the hold loosen that Religion has on society.

 

[Orias]

I agree there are many atheists out there who are not doing this. But it seems to me that the new atheists like Harris, Dawkins, and Hitchens, are really going out of their way to negate the value, contribution, of religion -- positing a world without religion, in an almost militant and aggressive style.

They wear Scarlet A's on their jackets, and blame most of society's ills on religion.

My question is this: why do some atheists (mostly new atheists), feel a need to do this. Is it a general want to help mankind awaken from their foolish belief in deities? Do they really think that people will not be faithful after they read their works?

Also it seems to me from reading their books - which are all titled like God is not Great and the God Delusion, etc. -- that their attacks are not necesarrily on God, but on organized religion -- and a specific Judeo-Christian "white bearded man in the sky" version of God; they focus on the ill deeds of man and rather ignore the foundations of Christianity's messages. Doesn't this kind of look biased, because God is such a vague term -- that the titles of their books be more centered on organized religion and the wrongs done in the names of faith, rather than faith itself?

Thoughts?

I've been saying this for some time now.

Most atheists will tend to disagree with you if you try and provoke any sincere inquisition on their behalf. They will just see you as an enemy to their "master plan".

But thus, I do realize that there is a select few out there that will listen and attempt to understand, rather than those that say they understand and push irrelevant points.

It's much like people that think, just because they can understand the propteries of quantum mechanics, they can understand the consistancy of spirituality.

There is ascribed knowledge and achieved knowledge, spirituality seems to be a built in drive capable of being ignorned and disacknowledged and misunderstood as "faith" and illogical in proposition.

If you ask me, most people that consider themselves "atheists" arn't really atheists, just people looking for something to conform to, much like all other people. Of course, this is a generalized statement and does not apply to a lot of people.

But what do I know? I'm just an irrational irreligious theist

 

[Kilgore Trout]

If you ask me, most people that consider themselves "atheists" arn't really atheists, just people looking for something to conform to, much like all other people.

This is simply nonsensical. People looking to conform don't adopt unpopular views held by a tiny minority - they do what is considered normal by the majority. Additionally, the mere absence of belief in one thing doesn't really provide enough structure or substance for people to conform around.

 

[nonbeliever_92]

The mere absence of belief in one thing doesn't really provide enough structure or substance for people to conform around.

I beg to differ, I'm holding an Atheist Mas tonight. Anyone's welcome to come. There shall be Koolaid and graham crackers there to symbolize the blood and body of Charles Darwin.