Has atheism made the world a better place?

[VoVoDoCo]

>NSG thread about religion
>nearly 400 replies

I got a bad feeling about this Scoob.

Nietzsche was an atheist and his philosophy has absolutely made the world a better place, or at least more tolerable for me anyway. So atheists have that going for them I guess

zoinks

Rikey

[Lower Nubia]

If God made all the nukes vanish or fed all the hungry, that wouldn't address some core issues. Humans wouldn't love each other enough not to make weapons designed to kill the masses or even just share some of their surplus. We wouldn't love each other enough and would result in the exact same situation as before. He gives us free will so we freely love each other and it is not forced to love each other. He wants us to actually care about each other, actually have each others back, not let a brother die because he is of a different race. If the problems vanished, we would never love since we'd be set for eternity. But we must love and work together to solve problems, out of love and not force.

If God truly wanted us to do those things, and to do them in his name, then he should show himself. I’d be much more apt to do what he says if he could prove his existence. As of now, all I have is the Bible, which is a translation of a translation of a translation of a translation of scattered manuscripts. We don’t even have any original manuscripts that the Bible is based on. If you really wanted us to get to know him, and to do good works in his name, then he picked the absolute worst method of communication.

I mean.. he did. Let me introduce Jesus Christ. God on Earth.

[Strobemark]

Lord of mercy, no no no no no

DEUS VULT

[Lower Nubia]

Lord of mercy, no no no no no

DEUS VULT

By the Pope!

[Estanglia]

If God truly wanted us to do those things, and to do them in his name, then he should show himself. I’d be much more apt to do what he says if he could prove his existence. As of now, all I have is the Bible, which is a translation of a translation of a translation of a translation of scattered manuscripts. We don’t even have any original manuscripts that the Bible is based on. If you really wanted us to get to know him, and to do good works in his name, then he picked the absolute worst method of communication.

I mean.. he did. Let me introduce Jesus Christ. God on Earth.

So, he showed himself. 2000 years ago, in a time where nobody here existed, people didn't fully understand natural phenomena, and where the only methods that could "prove" he's the son of God that could be passed down to future generations effectively amounts to "trust us guys, this here is 100% correct".

[The Emerald Legion]

I mean.. he did. Let me introduce Jesus Christ. God on Earth.

So, he showed himself. 2000 years ago, in a time where nobody here existed, people didn't fully understand natural phenomena, and where the only methods that could "prove" he's the son of God that could be passed down to future generations effectively amounts to "trust us guys, this here is 100% correct".

Well. One of those ten commandments is to not question your parents. So he probably figured it wouldn't be a problem.

Or possibly it's just the Aesir/Vanir are the real gods and Odin treats wars like a football match to pass the time when they're not trying to keep the forces of cosmic chaos from destroying reality as we know it.

[Neutraligon]

If God truly wanted us to do those things, and to do them in his name, then he should show himself. I’d be much more apt to do what he says if he could prove his existence. As of now, all I have is the Bible, which is a translation of a translation of a translation of a translation of scattered manuscripts. We don’t even have any original manuscripts that the Bible is based on. If you really wanted us to get to know him, and to do good works in his name, then he picked the absolute worst method of communication.

I mean.. he did. Let me introduce Jesus Christ. God on Earth.

Sorry, Jesus was an impostor. Further, any claim about Jesus is simple hersay. That is the problem with revelation. For anyone who has not experienced revelation it is nothing more then claim by another person, with no reason to believe that the person actually experienced anything divine. For Jesus, I was not alive during that time, and there is no evidence left over that Jesus (as described in the bible) existed, let alone was divine. I have no reason to believe this story, and as such it cannot be used to say that god has appeared.

[Dylar]

I mean.. he did. Let me introduce Jesus Christ. God on Earth.

So, he showed himself. 2000 years ago, in a time where nobody here existed, people didn't fully understand natural phenomena, and where the only methods that could "prove" he's the son of God that could be passed down to future generations effectively amounts to "trust us guys, this here is 100% correct".

And something tells me that if He came back right here, right now, you and every other atheist would still not believe Him to be God.

[Nakena]

I mean.. he did. Let me introduce Jesus Christ. God on Earth.

Sorry, Jesus was an impostor. Further, any claim about Jesus is simple hersay. That is the problem with revelation. For anyone who has not experienced revelation it is nothing more then claim by another person, with no reason to believe that the person actually experienced anything divine. For Jesus, I was not alive during that time, and there is no evidence left over that Jesus (as described in the bible) existed, let alone was divine. I have no reason to believe this story, and as such it cannot be used to say that god has appeared.

He does appear however in the Talmud as well. With some interesting details about both his life and as well his ancestry.

[Estanglia]

So, he showed himself. 2000 years ago, in a time where nobody here existed, people didn't fully understand natural phenomena, and where the only methods that could "prove" he's the son of God that could be passed down to future generations effectively amounts to "trust us guys, this here is 100% correct".

And something tells me that if He came back right here, right now, you and every other atheist would still not believe Him to be God.

Nice generalisation you got there.

[VoVoDoCo]

If God truly wanted us to do those things, and to do them in his name, then he should show himself. I’d be much more apt to do what he says if he could prove his existence. As of now, all I have is the Bible, which is a translation of a translation of a translation of a translation of scattered manuscripts. We don’t even have any original manuscripts that the Bible is based on. If you really wanted us to get to know him, and to do good works in his name, then he picked the absolute worst method of communication.

I mean.. he did. Let me introduce Jesus Christ. God on Earth.

That’s laughable. He chose a time without cameras and recording equipment. In his attempt to show he was the one true God he chose the method of communication that’s literally the god of every major religion shows: ancient manuscripts over a one-on-one conversation with us.

And it’s worth mentioning that the historicity of Jesus is under dispute. Jesus was a common name, some parts of the crucifixion don’t make sense, and there’s some claims mean the New Testament that never happened, or at least there’s no evidence of happening.

[Nakena]

I mean.. he did. Let me introduce Jesus Christ. God on Earth.

That’s laughable. He chose a time without cameras and recording equipment. In his attempt to show he was the one true God he chose the method of communication that’s literally the god of every major religion shows: ancient manuscripts over a one-on-one conversation with us.

And it’s worth mentioning that the historicity of Jesus is under dispute. Jesus was a common name, some parts of the crucifixion don’t make sense, and there’s some claims mean the New Testament that never happened, or at least there’s no evidence of happening.

To be fair he does appear as historical figure in the Talmud and roman sauces but is described vastly different and, probably somewhat more plausible and realistically. Also apparently this: https://robinhl.com/2011/11/06/jesus-son-of-pantera/

[VoVoDoCo]

That’s laughable. He chose a time without cameras and recording equipment. In his attempt to show he was the one true God he chose the method of communication that’s literally the god of every major religion shows: ancient manuscripts over a one-on-one conversation with us.

And it’s worth mentioning that the historicity of Jesus is under dispute. Jesus was a common name, some parts of the crucifixion don’t make sense, and there’s some claims mean the New Testament that never happened, or at least there’s no evidence of happening.

To be fair he does appear as historical figure in the Talmud and roman sauces but is described vastly different and, probably somewhat more plausible and realistically. Also apparently this: https://robinhl.com/2011/11/06/jesus-son-of-pantera/

“So Tiberius Iulius Abdes Pantera is indeed a possibility as Jesus’ father. The only thing we know for certain is that Mary’s husband Joseph wasn’t the father, and that Mary was already pregnant when they married. It could have been rape, or Mary may have been a wild young teen who fell for a handsome man in a uniform, even if he was part of an occupying army. It happens.“

Interesting read. But two things:

1. Christians should out right reject that, Since his mother was supposed to be a virgin allegedly, and his dad is supposed to be gone. The first person really matter though, since they’re actually isn’t a prophecy that says that he has to be virgin born if I’m not mistaken.
since his mother was supposed to be a virgin allegedly, and his dad is supposed to be gone. The first person really matter though, since there actually isn’t a prophecy that says that he has to be virgin born if I’m not mistaken.
2. Skeptics have been saying for a long time but it’s possible that she cheated on Joseph and then said that an angel came to her To cover it up. Well it’s interesting to pin it on our potential man, it doesn’t really do too much to change the fact of the historicity of Jesus is very much in question Well it’s interesting to pin it on our potential man, it doesn’t really do too much to change the fact that the historicity of Jesus is very much in question.

[Rojava Free State]

If God truly wanted us to do those things, and to do them in his name, then he should show himself. I’d be much more apt to do what he says if he could prove his existence. As of now, all I have is the Bible, which is a translation of a translation of a translation of a translation of scattered manuscripts. We don’t even have any original manuscripts that the Bible is based on. If you really wanted us to get to know him, and to do good works in his name, then he picked the absolute worst method of communication.

I mean.. he did. Let me introduce Jesus Christ. God on Earth.

Someone nobody in the present day has seen

[VoVoDoCo]

That’s laughable. He chose a time without cameras and recording equipment. In his attempt to show he was the one true God he chose the method of communication that’s literally the god of every major religion shows: ancient manuscripts over a one-on-one conversation with us.

And it’s worth mentioning that the historicity of Jesus is under dispute. Jesus was a common name, some parts of the crucifixion don’t make sense, and there’s some claims mean the New Testament that never happened, or at least there’s no evidence of happening.

To be fair he does appear as historical figure in the Talmud and roman sauces but is described vastly different and, probably somewhat more plausible and realistically. Also apparently this: https://robinhl.com/2011/11/06/jesus-son-of-pantera/

Also the Talmud was written in fourth century. That’s only barely more credible than a schizophrenic on the street corner preclaiming that he is Jesus. There may be more to it but I haven’t read the Talmud or studied it

[Rojava Free State]

So, he showed himself. 2000 years ago, in a time where nobody here existed, people didn't fully understand natural phenomena, and where the only methods that could "prove" he's the son of God that could be passed down to future generations effectively amounts to "trust us guys, this here is 100% correct".

And something tells me that if He came back right here, right now, you and every other atheist would still not believe Him to be God.

We wouldn't cause there's already plenty of crazy guys in mental hospitals who said the same thing

[Trollzyn the Infinite]

Secularism has made the world a better place.

'Atheist' is just a label people with a superiority complex latch onto because they figure it's easier to dump on us religious folks by claiming we're "dumber" than they are for having faith in anything other than the physical and visible by championing "science, logic, and reason" like they're a torch illuminating a dark cavern.

So I'm not accused of "All [ X ] Equals [ Y ]": obviously not all Atheists are smug assholes who think they're better than non-Atheists and that religion is totally evil and should be destroyed, but unfortunately those folks seem hard to come by (from my experience, anyway).

[Rojava Free State]

Secularism has made the world a better place.

'Atheist' is just a label people with a superiority complex latch onto because they figure it's easier to dump on us religious folks by claiming we're "dumber" than they are for having faith in anything other than the physical and visible by championing "science, logic, and reason" like they're a torch illuminating a dark cavern.

So I'm not accused of "All [ X ] Equals [ Y ]": obviously not all Atheists are smug assholes who think they're better than non-Atheists and that religion is totally evil and should be destroyed, but unfortunately those folks seem hard to come by (from my experience, anyway).

Most atheists aren't against people believing in a God so much as They are against people believing in disturbing shit and trying to make public policy based on said beliefs. at least from my experience as an atheist with several atheist friends, I can say this. I haven't done a poll of atheists so I wouldn't know if this rings true worldwide. It's why I never had an issue with mormons or Quakers despite them being religious

[Bear Stearns]

I'm atheist and even I see the problems with homosexuals, jews, muslims, evangelicals, catholics, etc.

[Rojava Free State]

I'm atheist and even I see the problems with homosexuals, jews, muslims, evangelicals, catholics, etc.

How is being an atheist that doesn't like islam, Christianity or Judaism a contradiction?

[Bear Stearns]

I'm atheist and even I see the problems with homosexuals, jews, muslims, evangelicals, catholics, etc.

How is being an atheist that doesn't like islam, Christianity or Judaism a contradiction?

I don't hate them because of their belief in God. I hate them because I think they're shitty people and anti-American.

[VoVoDoCo]

Secularism has made the world a better place.

'Atheist' is just a label people with a superiority complex latch onto because they figure it's easier to dump on us religious folks by claiming we're "dumber" than they are for having faith in anything other than the physical and visible by championing "science, logic, and reason" like they're a torch illuminating a dark cavern.

So I'm not accused of "All [ X ] Equals [ Y ]": obviously not all Atheists are smug assholes who think they're better than non-Atheists and that religion is totally evil and should be destroyed, but unfortunately those folks seem hard to come by (from my experience, anyway).

Most atheists aren't against people believing in a God so much as They are against people believing in disturbing shit and trying to make public policy based on said beliefs. at least from my experience as an atheist with several atheist friends, I can say this. I haven't done a poll of atheists so I wouldn't know if this rings true worldwide. It's why I never had an issue with mormons or Quakers despite them being religious

The latest group of atheist influences, like Mr. atheist, genetically modified skeptic, Tell tale, etc. explicitly make a point to not be an asshole to people of a religious slant and they tell all their fans to follow suit. The last major generation of atheist influencers and propagators, the likes of Hitchens and Dawking were a little more rude in that regard, but that’s probably because they come from a more academic background, which often carries with it a very pompous and snooty Vibe. I’ve noticed the same thing with Christians. The less educated they are the more friendly they are with criticism. Like you I don’t have a statistic to back that up, but that’s just been my experience.

[VoVoDoCo]

Well, friendly with criticism probably isn’t the best phrase. But at least the less offended they are that somebody disagrees with them. I don’t really know what I’m trying to say lol

[Nakena]

Well, friendly with criticism probably isn’t the best phrase. But at least the less offended they are that somebody disagrees with them. I don’t really know what I’m trying to say lol

The problem comes more with certain attitudes and "my way is right and yours wrong" taken-for-grantedness.

[Europa Undivided]

It doesn't have anything to do with the world's advancement.