Why Do Atheists Preach??

[Audie]

Are you asking for refutation of religion or refutation of gods?

If you just want refutation of religion you should be seeking out members of specific religious sects and asking them the basis for refuting other specific religious sects. I'm sure Southern Baptists can give you a whole bunch of refutations of Mormon or Catholic religious views. I'm sure Shiites can give you a whole bunch of refutations of Sunni religious views.

Martin Luther gave a long list of things refuting Catholicism over five Centuries ago. Have you ever read any of his works?

Prolly didnt read his own post, as you said,
"refute religion" does not even make sense.

 

[Spiderman]

Wouldn't it be equally unwise to believe in the wrong God?

That would depend on God's opinion not mine!

Were God to exist, it may be that he is pleased that a creature is seeking him and paying him homage, even if he doesn't have the correct Dogma!

I'm not into Dogma or Scripture. I'm into the golden rule, abiding by the law, being compassionate and forgiving towards people and animals, and staying sober.

 

[ecco]

But if God were to exist, i would not see it as being wise to dedicate oneself to proving he/it doesn't exist.

Wouldn't it be equally unwise to believe in the wrong God?

That would depend on God's opinion not mine!

You claimed it would be unwise "to dedicate oneself to proving he/it doesn't exist". You didn't make a qualification regarding god's opinion then. Please try to be consistent.

Were God to exist, it may be that he is pleased that a creature is seeking him and paying him homage, even if he doesn't have the correct Dogma!

Were God to exist, it may be that he would be displeased that a creature
were paying homage to a false god.

I'm not into Dogma or Scripture.

Yet you state your religion as Amish. Surely the Amish have Dogma and Scripture.

 

[SomeRandom]

I've met with many proffesionals, and sometimes they make things worse, and have met non-proffesionals who are far more helps, free of charge.

It just makes me less confident that a person necessarily knows what they are talking about because they spent their lives studying something or have a license.

Professionals are humans too. They make mistakes, they can be greedy or short sighted. No need to throw the tub water out though.

 

[SomeRandom]

Dawkins is fighting fire with fire. Stupidity with stupidity. An atheist that preaches does so for the same reason a theist does it. To promote their beliefs.

Dawkins is a curmudgeonly old grandpa. He seems more reactive though, given he goes on debates and not door to door.

I miss Hitchins. There was a man with integrity. Now, he was knowledgeable on the subject of religion, which is a loathsome thing, but like Dawkins, ignorant of the Bible outside the teachings that are well documented as being pagan, or outside of original Christian teachings. Hitchens didn't preach atheism, he knew better. He had the integrity to call it what it is. Anti-theism.

No doubt the Hitch was heads and shoulders above Dawkins. He will be missed. Also literally EVERY sect of Christianity says that about Bibles they're not fond of. Forgive me if I do not agree with your assessment. But sure, Hitchens was more about anti-theism. He also clearly had 0 F's to give. Such a ******.

I think you mean atheism? Science is a scam.

Yeah, just like the internet and the computer I am currently using made possible with *le gasp* science. Total scam. Industrial revolution, scam. Medical Science scam. Dinosaurs scam. Cars, scam. TV, scam. Chemistry, total scam. Geology, scam. Planes which rely on physics to literally fly, total scam. We're both having the same dream. Watch out lest ye wake up.

LOL. Another gifted intellectual gymnastic artist trying to define nothing for us.

Pretentious artsy type, thank you very much. Science is outside of my normal realm of interest.
Also I vaguely recall being shown a video similar to this in like grade 9 Physics class. I'd hardly call concepts taught to 14 year olds intellectual, but you know you can if you like.
Oh and do beware, the following video might cause people to *le gasp* learn something. Heaven forbid we eschew the misinterpretations of science of either side here. Idiotic, I know.

 

[Spiderman]

You claimed it would be unwise "to dedicate oneself to proving he/it doesn't exist". You didn't make a qualification regarding god's opinion then. Please try to be consistent.





Were God to exist, it may be that he would be displeased that a creature
were paying homage to a false god.



Yet you state your religion as Amish. Surely the Amish have Dogma and Scripture.

LOL!

I'm not Amish.

It was a joke.

I think God appreciates people who seek the truth even if they are confused about it.

I hope God isn't the jerk so many Muslims and Christians think he is, but I can't prove it!

 

[nPeace]

2% of scientists are against evolutionary biology, and far less than 1% of biologists. I wouldn't call that 'many.'

It would depend on what you consider many to be - 100, 200,... 600 etc. so I guess it depend on perspective.

For example, if 300 leaves fell in my yard, and I took a rake and swept them, and collected them in bags, I might say, that's not many.
If I was asked to collect them one by one, that's a different story.

Yet those 300 leaves is a very small percentage of the leaves on the tree itself, but they are still many.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

2% sounds pretty high. I have never heard that before. That is a lot.

It was a pew research article that I forget the title of. This one is old and it's improved since then but it says 97%.
http://www.people-press.org/2009/07/09/section-5-evolution-climate-change-and-other-issues/

 

[ADigitalArtist]

It would depend on what you consider many to be - 100, 200,... 600 etc. so I guess it depend on perspective.

For example, if 300 leaves fell in my yard, and I took a rake and swept them, and collected them in bags, I might say, that's not many.
If I was asked to collect them one by one, that's a different story.

Yet those 300 leaves is a very small percentage of the leaves on the tree itself, but they are still many.

I agree that it depends on if you're looking at volume or ratio but I tend to look at ratio when you're doing comparisons.
As in, compared to the amount of scientists that accept evolution, those that don't are a drop in the bucket. Not many. Especially not many scientists in the field of biology, who have the most expertise in te subject relevant to evolutionary study.

 

[Audie]

I agree that it depends on if you're looking at volume or ratio but I tend to look at ratio when you're doing comparisons.
As in, compared to the amount of scientists that accept evolution, those that don't are a drop in the bucket. Not many. Especially not many scientists in the field of biology, who have the most expertise in te subject relevant to evolutionary study.

I agree that it depends on if you're looking at volume or ratio but I tend to look at ratio when you're doing comparisons.
As in, compared to the amount of scientists that accept evolution, those that don't are a drop in the bucket. Not many. Especially not many scientists in the field of biology, who have the most expertise in te subject relevant to evolutionary study.

Of importance here is that of the scientists who
reject ToE none have a science-related reason,
as in contrary data.

And their reason for rejecting will always
be found to be religious in nature.

I say "always"; maybe someone can
identify an exception.

It does not seem possible to reject ToE
while still being intellectually honest.

Exception sought.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Of importance here is that of the scientists who
reject ToE none have a science-related reason,
as in contrary data.

And their reason for rejecting will always
be found to be religious in nature.

I say "always"; maybe someone can
identify an exception.

It does not seem possible to reject ToE
while still being intellectually honest.

Exception sought.

Well there are those earth-seeded ancient aliens types.

 

[nPeace]

I agree that it depends on if you're looking at volume or ratio but I tend to look at ratio when you're doing comparisons.
As in, compared to the amount of scientists that accept evolution, those that don't are a drop in the bucket. Not many. Especially not many scientists in the field of biology, who have the most expertise in te subject relevant to evolutionary study.

Hopefully you are not fooled by the numbers. Sometimes they don't always reveal the truth. That's not relevant though, at least not to me.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Hopefully you are not fooled by the numbers. Sometimes they don't always reveal the truth. That's not relevant though, at least not to me.

Numbers are, at least, more relevant to me than belief being the driving force behind objection. But in the end, I seldom stray to this part of the forum due to how irrelevant it is to me.

 

[Shad]

I was musing this question a few weeks ago. Dawkins, Krauss, etc, they literally preach atheism under the guise of science. Not only is this "scientism" (yes it's a valid term, check if you don't believe me) but preaching atheism is also not a very "atheist" thing to do. Let me explain, if I may.

An atheist simply lacks belief in a deity or deities - including but not limited to - his own lack of belief. In short, an atheists position is one of uncertainty. So why then, do they preach? I believe it is because they are not essentially atheist, but rather, misotheist. Misotheism is an hatred of God(s) and a love of, and for, anything Godless.

I postulate, that it is not atheists who preach, but misotheists who claim to be atheist!

Further, just now I wrote above that an atheist simply holds a position of "uncertainty". Unlike the Agnostic, who hasn't resigned from searching for answers, the atheist has resigned his or herself from learning other ways to substantiate their belief, or lack thereof in God(s).

It is push back against the many religious agendas.

Those two fools in your videos often challenge Dawkins and Krauss to debates. They provide a platform for the very thing they complain about. Ironic that only after Hamza was exposed as more of a fool than he seemed the complaints start coming out about preaching.

 

[Augustus]

People are religious because their parents, grandparents, aunts and uncles, siblings and peers are religious.
People are religious because they are indoctrinated from birth into beliefs in a god.
People are religious because all their lives they are exposed to the "factuality" of GOD.

These a few of the more basic reasons, it's considerably more complex than that though. We could consider teh psychology and neuroscience behind it, the cultural dimensions, etc.

I'll state we would be better off without religion... None of the above required speculation or subjectivity. None of the above is based on value judgments or ideological preferences.

Given it would affect the worldviews and cultures of most of the world's people and would be replaced with things as yet unknown, there are few things more speculative or laden with value judgements than the idea we would be better off without religion.

Stating it with certainty and considering it 'objective' is a mark of an ideologue.

 

[Augustus]

Ironic that only after Hamza was exposed as more of a fool than he seemed the complaints start coming out about preaching.

Much as I have a strong dislike for Mr Tzortzis, the video was a bit more sophisticated than his old comedy routines about scientific miracles and the like (that he ended up disowning after they were found to be causing some people to leave Islam after investigating the science). Still has his usual sophistry and certainly won't have mass appeal, it is better designed form a communications perspective though for a certain type of viewer.

Strange that he still seems to speak as a moral authority though given that the Ashley Madison hack showed he had an active account with a site based around organising extra-marital affairs.

 

[Gallowglass]

A bit shrill yourself, bud!

Of course they dont refute religion. This is equivocation
on your part, auto-confuse.

Cant refute "religion". See dictionary.
No more than they can refute football, or
music.

What do you expect?

All but one religion is automatically shown to
a phony, if only one can be true. Right?

Now, which is the right one?

Everyone points to theirs. Tres amusant.

Ah the people who love to assume only one religion can be right. That's always fun. The only religions that say no other religion can be right are the ones who say that there is an absolute truth and they have it. The Romans married Mercury off to Rosmerta when they found a new religion. They didn't say everything the Gauls believed was false. In areas of Scotland, especially in the Isles, the Norse invaders went, "Hey that girl over there is strong and attractive. I will marry her. Oh she worships that god? Cool." Shinto didn't throw fits. Vodun, even forced to be syncretic by Christians, never condemned Christianity. Buddhism has some people who feel other faiths are bad, but mostly they don't care what other faiths you have.

 

[Milton Platt]

I was musing this question a few weeks ago. Dawkins, Krauss, etc, they literally preach atheism under the guise of science. Not only is this "scientism" (yes it's a valid term, check if you don't believe me) but preaching atheism is also not a very "atheist" thing to do. Let me explain, if I may.

An atheist simply lacks belief in a deity or deities - including but not limited to - his own lack of belief. In short, an atheists position is one of uncertainty. So why then, do they preach? I believe it is because they are not essentially atheist, but rather, misotheist. Misotheism is an hatred of God(s) and a love of, and for, anything Godless.

I postulate, that it is not atheists who preach, but misotheists who claim to be atheist!

Further, just now I wrote above that an atheist simply holds a position of "uncertainty". Unlike the Agnostic, who hasn't resigned from searching for answers, the atheist has resigned his or herself from learning other ways to substantiate their belief, or lack thereof in God(s). I recently found a verse in the Qur'an in chapter 52 verse number 35 and 36:

35: Or were they created by nothing, or were they the creators [of themselves]?
36: Or did they create the heavens and the earth? Rather, they are not certain.

I found this to be of damning relevance. The unique and marvelous rhetoric in these two verses is simply, masterful. Verse 35 poses two questions, each referring to the creation of the human being.

Or were they created by nothing? Nothing being the absence of everything, including the metaphysical. So there is no idea mind! Even a child can tell us, "from nothing, nothing comes" (yes I know, I'm also quoting a certain philosopher) so the answer to this first question, is a loud resounding NO. From Nothing, Nothing Comes!

or were they the creators [of themselves]? Paradox, it's kike saying "a mother gave birth to her self" - so again, the answer is NO.

Next, the following verse takes the attention away from the human and towards the universe itself.

Or did they create the heavens and the earth? Any of us would concede here the answer is again NO. But it's an humbling turn of rhetoric. How mankind has deluded himself into thinking he is all important, the genesis of wisdom, the accumulated total of knowledge - when in reality, man only has a pixellated insight - blindsided by hubris.

The final part of this verse is what really tickles my brain though: Rather, they are not certain! God revealed this over 14 centuries ago! The atheist hinges his whole belief on the principles of uncertainty. But at least he's honest with that. The misotheist (Dawkins, Krauss et al) just hates God(s) and pushes his/her world view onto everyone else, without realizing they have turned into what they themselves mock - preachers!

This video just came out, I've finished watching it now and it's a real gem!

Quoting verses from an old book is not the way to support your assertions about atheists, unless you are simply speaking to others who already give any weight to the verses.

Atheism is not monolithic. There are atheist who simply reject the god claims presented thus far as unsubstantiated. They are not uncertain in their rejection of the claims.

There are other atheists who will state that they do,not believe any gods exist. Perhaps some of them are uncertain to varying degrees, but others are not uncertain. However, it is the degree of uncertainty that matters.
I am not 100% certain of anything, save maybe a few logical absolutes, etc., but that does not mean I need to believe unsubstantiated claims.

 

[LuisDantas]

It would depend on what you consider many to be - 100, 200,... 600 etc. so I guess it depend on perspective.

For example, if 300 leaves fell in my yard, and I took a rake and swept them, and collected them in bags, I might say, that's not many.
If I was asked to collect them one by one, that's a different story.

Yet those 300 leaves is a very small percentage of the leaves on the tree itself, but they are still many.

This is a good example of grasping at straws, you know.

Statistically, given how many scientists there are and this reading for the word "many" that you propose, you could attempt to put a veneer of legitimacy to literal thousands of other fringe and worse claims.

That does not make them any more reasonable.

 

[LuisDantas]

True!
But if there really is a creator who wants his human creatures to have faith in him, it would seem very foolish to put so much time and energy into convincing people that he/it doesn't exist.

Actually... it would make perfect sense if he had any awareness of the dangers of theism.

I will go so far as to say that if Abraham was even roughly correct in his conception of deity then it must follow that God does indeed put a lot of effort into convincing people that It does not exist.

And I can hardly fault It for doing so. It would, after all, be aware of Theism and its consequences in the real world.

It makes sense to be an atheist though, beings that God is silent and most people never hear a clear message from him or witness medical and scientific miracles.

So, I'm not by any stretch saying atheists don't have sufficient reasons for their disbelief, or that anyone is stupid.

But if God were to exist, i would not see it as being wise to dedicate oneself to proving he/it doesn't exist.

It makes sense to be an atheist because it comes naturally and has no serious challenge from anything in the real world.

Not for everyone. But for plenty of people.

It helps that it has no downside to speak of, of course...