Has atheism made the world a better place?

[Lower Nubia]

Your last two questions are answered on the CDT. Your first question is pointless. Why should he have to show himself again? Just to convince people today? When there are plenty of convinced people today anyway?

I wouldn't say He 'has' to show Himself today, but I am saying it would be in His creation's best interests to do so. Assuming one of the most common religions is the true one, that leaves 1 Billion souls at maximum with any chance of salvation, and six times that many at least to end up in whatever version of Hell is on offer.

Despite what many self-righteous believers may claim, most nonbelievers would actually change their tune if shown clear evidence of divinity which would be trivial for an omnipotent being to display.

As to the original question, I agree with an earlier poster who said Secularism is what has made the world a better place, since Atheism can be championed by many, and some of them are not even nearly on the 'good' side of any alignment scale (the Chinese Government, for example).

Your first first 9 words make the rest of your first paragraph pointless.

If God showed himself today, it would be the end times.

[Makdon]

Your first first 9 words make the rest of your first paragraph pointless.

If God showed himself today, it would be the end times.

Why? Why couldn't God show up without it being the end of times?

[VoVoDoCo]

God, being God, certainly had the right to. But when I say that There is no evidence for God, and you said that God was on earth thousands of years ago, that’s not good enough for me. The untested observations of uneducated and illiterate peasants thousands of years ago It’s just not convincing to me.

Ahh, the true reason. I want God to show himself to ME. So do I, but I’m not high and mighty enough to expect such an event, just for me.

You have something of chronological snobbery about, the ‘peasants’ 2000 years ago weren’t illiterate. Otherwise we wouldn’t have a wealth of literature on the subject.

Here’s the thing, It’s not exactly me being high and mighty. I’m not saying that I’m so important the guy needs to do what I say. I’m saying there’s no reason to believe in him so I’m not going to. I can’t control what is and is not convincing to me.

I guess there is a little bit of pride involved. Assuming that he loves me, and then I’m a human being worthy of dignity, I think I am worthy of being provided enough evidence to make a sound decision on the subject. I don’t think not believing should warrant me going to hell and being separated from god forever.

[Albrenia]

I wouldn't say He 'has' to show Himself today, but I am saying it would be in His creation's best interests to do so. Assuming one of the most common religions is the true one, that leaves 1 Billion souls at maximum with any chance of salvation, and six times that many at least to end up in whatever version of Hell is on offer.

Despite what many self-righteous believers may claim, most nonbelievers would actually change their tune if shown clear evidence of divinity which would be trivial for an omnipotent being to display.

As to the original question, I agree with an earlier poster who said Secularism is what has made the world a better place, since Atheism can be championed by many, and some of them are not even nearly on the 'good' side of any alignment scale (the Chinese Government, for example).

Your first first 9 words make the rest of your first paragraph pointless.

If God showed himself today, it would be the end times.

Not if He didn't want it to be. I guess leaving billions of one's children to fall into damnation just because one couldn't be arsed to say hello once in a while is fine though.

[Neanderthaland]

Yes. Faith is antithetical to the search for truth. Faith is the belief that you already know the truth. And resistance to being persuaded otherwise.

Which is why no less than three of the Stanzas of the Havamal talk about the importance of understanding the world around you, keeping your wits, and the importance of wisdom.

And that's three I can think of off the top of my head out of more than a hundred.

Meanwhile, it's commentary on faith is 'Better not to Pray at all than to pray too much. The gods will give you nothing you won't have to repay.'

Yes. Faith is antithetical to the search for truth. Faith is the belief that you already know the truth. And resistance to being persuaded otherwise.

How convenient to your ideology but that wasn’t my question. Are you suggesting that religions don’t want truth. That they search for a lie and not a genuine reality? You’ll say yes, but it’s obvious if you ask someone why they’re religious and they’ll say: “it’s the truth.”

Faith in the truth negates your statement anyway.

Just as you have faith that you have found the truth.

Faith in having found the truth as part of your ideology is a bit more ubiquitous amongst ideologies than you’re letting on.

Let's keep in mind that for most of human history, a discussion like this one concerning the truth of religion would have been impossible. Religious authorities wouldn't allow it.

That's not the behavior of someone who seeks truth. You can protest all you like, but your actions speak otherwise.

[Neanderthaland]

Your first first 9 words make the rest of your first paragraph pointless.

If God showed himself today, it would be the end times.

Why? Why couldn't God show up without it being the end of times?

And why hasn't the world ended all those times he showed up on toast?

[Makdon]

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

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

Very nice generalization. Also, how are any of those "anti-American"? Some of the founding fathers were probably on par with todays evangelicals

[VoVoDoCo]

I wouldn't say He 'has' to show Himself today, but I am saying it would be in His creation's best interests to do so. Assuming one of the most common religions is the true one, that leaves 1 Billion souls at maximum with any chance of salvation, and six times that many at least to end up in whatever version of Hell is on offer.

Despite what many self-righteous believers may claim, most nonbelievers would actually change their tune if shown clear evidence of divinity which would be trivial for an omnipotent being to display.

As to the original question, I agree with an earlier poster who said Secularism is what has made the world a better place, since Atheism can be championed by many, and some of them are not even nearly on the 'good' side of any alignment scale (the Chinese Government, for example).

Your first first 9 words make the rest of your first paragraph pointless.

If God showed himself today, it would be the end times.

It would only be end times because his genocidal ass said it would be. It would only be in times because his genocidal ass said it would be

[Atlantarctica]

Yes, but it's more of my opinion than a fact...

[Neanderthaland]

Yes. Faith is antithetical to the search for truth. Faith is the belief that you already know the truth. And resistance to being persuaded otherwise.

How convenient to your ideology but that wasn’t my question. Are you suggesting that religions don’t want truth. That they search for a lie and not a genuine reality? You’ll say yes, but it’s obvious if you ask someone why they’re religious and they’ll say: “it’s the truth.”

Faith in the truth negates your statement anyway.

Just as you have faith that you have found the truth.

Faith in having found the truth as part of your ideology is a bit more ubiquitous amongst ideologies than you’re letting on.

I also find it interesting that religious people have so little confidence in faith as an argument, that they try to inflict it on their opposition.

"The foundations of your belief are terrible! JUST LIKE MINE!"

[Lower Nubia]

I’m sorry, he has to appear now because of cameras? Why not in one thousand years time when their are portable genetic identifiers and holographic imaging, which can accurately quantify not just origin, but also allow vastly superior and more trustworthy means of recognition for future generation, after the year three thousand?

Your last paragraph is literally ahistorical and proports pseudo-historical opinion.

He does not have to. Assuming he exist, he can do it if he wants to. But if he is interested in proving that he exist in a world that is becoming more secularize every day, then it’s in his own best interest to prove himself.

Skepticism relies on changing your views when the evidence becomes more substantial in favor of one proposition over another. It would be better for God to show them self at every stage of development. It would be better for God to show them self at every stage of development.

-Back when we didn’t invent the camera, he should’ve given us profound scientific insights that would improve in the legitimacy of his knowledge over the random guessing‘s of other religions. But we didn’t see that. We read about a diety that tells us to put the blood of the dead birds in our house to ward off infection, a god that tells us that a bunch of prophets came to life when Jesus died but failed to tell us what happened after, a god that tells us in genesis that the earth is older than the Big Bang (assuming the light that he talks about in Genesis is the Big Bang).

-When we invented cameras, he should’ve shown himself for all the world to see. In front of live audience is across the world, he should’ve broken the laws of physics with ease. when we invented cameras, he should’ve shown himself for all the world to see. In front of live audience is across the world, he should’ve broken the laws of physics with ease. He should’ve breaking the laws of physics and showing it to be an object of his design,He should’ve breaking the laws of physics and shown it to be an object of his design. But we didn’t see that. Instead we began taking pictures of a natural world. This world, based on the available evidence, is completely natural. It is made out of natural components and has a natural explanation for its existence. Its origins can be assumed to be natural. That’s what we see.

- When we invent portable genetic identifiers and holographic imaging, and assuming God exist, you’ll be able to provide even more evidence of his existence. It should be overwhelming, and become more overwhelming over time. That’s what you would expect to see from God that wants to prove he exists. But we don’t see that.

As far as my last paragraph being a historical, which parts? I would say the Bible‘s account of profits coming back to life is a historical. Some historians have been confused at the aspect of how Pontius pilot planned this crucifixion on the Sabbath. if it was common for the Jews to complain about crucifixions being on the Sabbath, then why would he do it for Jesus? If it’s because he usually just ignores them, why did he agree to let Jesus go early because of the Sabbath? Also, the Bible is the only source to my knowledge that paints Pontius pilot in such a favorable image. He would kill just for fun, but the Bible paints him as somebody that hates his job. There are things in the New Testament that are questionable, to say otherwise is pseudo historical.


I apologize if something didn’t make sense, I’m using voice to text

Your first five words make your statement pointless.

I’m not refuting this, but a) Skepticism is not a search for truth, it can easily be a search for internal biases. Which are of course, not a search for truth. b) if I tell a 1st century man about antibiotics, i’ll die poor and alone as a madman. You’re naive to assume people would listen to a man proclaim some futuristic insight, which doesn’t at the same time make them appear completely insane. c) your third paragraph is literally the book of Revelation. You’re literally wanting what will happen in the future, to happen. d) (fourth paragraph) no. Notice that you utilise that as further evidence, rather than as the logical extent of your current statement, appearing in a time where the evidence is actually irrefutable, rather than today, where it isn’t. E) I meant ahistorical as in we don’t know what happened to Jesus. We know. He died on a cross.

I admire that text to speech.

[Lower Nubia]

How convenient to your ideology but that wasn’t my question. Are you suggesting that religions don’t want truth. That they search for a lie and not a genuine reality? You’ll say yes, but it’s obvious if you ask someone why they’re religious and they’ll say: “it’s the truth.”

Faith in the truth negates your statement anyway.

Just as you have faith that you have found the truth.

Faith in having found the truth as part of your ideology is a bit more ubiquitous amongst ideologies than you’re letting on.

I also find it interesting that religious people have so little confidence in faith as an argument, that they try to inflict it on their opposition.

"The foundations of your belief are terrible! JUST LIKE MINE!"

No. To me it is a strength. To you it is a weakness, that’s why I use it against YOU, because you do not value it.

[Lower Nubia]

Your first first 9 words make the rest of your first paragraph pointless.

If God showed himself today, it would be the end times.

It would only be end times because his genocidal ass said it would be. It would only be in times because his genocidal ass said it would be

Why bother showing yourself, and not ending the evil of the world? The difficult bit is that humans are pretty evil... so... getting rid of evil means... oh no. Oh NO.

[Albrenia]

It would only be end times because his genocidal ass said it would be. It would only be in times because his genocidal ass said it would be

Why bother showing yourself, and not ending the evil of the world? The difficult bit is that humans are pretty evil... so... getting rid of evil means... oh no. Oh NO.

Why bother? The aforementioned saving of literally billions of human souls, for one. Even if He didn't get all of us, surely preventing some of His beloved creations from an eternity of horror is worth getting out of bed for?

[Lower Nubia]

Why bother showing yourself, and not ending the evil of the world? The difficult bit is that humans are pretty evil... so... getting rid of evil means... oh no. Oh NO.

Why bother? The aforementioned saving of literally billions of human souls, for one. Even if He didn't get all of us, surely preventing some of His beloved creations from an eternity of horror is worth getting out of bed for?

God will show himself to humanity, all at once.

Also the same time the world ends.

It’s almost as if God wants to do what you want, but you’re also complaining about what else he’s going to do with the time of appearance.

[Neanderthaland]

I also find it interesting that religious people have so little confidence in faith as an argument, that they try to inflict it on their opposition.

"The foundations of your belief are terrible! JUST LIKE MINE!"

No. To me it is a strength. To you it is a weakness, that’s why I use it against YOU, because you do not value it.

Not buying it. I see this technique all the time, Creationists use it especially when trying to refute science.

At it's core it is an attempt to muddy the waters, to make science and rationality appear just as unsupported and arbitrary as religion, but it belies a lack of confidence in faith. And it's telling that you use it in a discussion of truth.

[Albrenia]

Why bother? The aforementioned saving of literally billions of human souls, for one. Even if He didn't get all of us, surely preventing some of His beloved creations from an eternity of horror is worth getting out of bed for?

God will show himself to humanity, all at once.

Also the same time the world ends.

It’s almost as if God wants to do what you want, but you’re also complaining about what else he’s going to do with the time of appearance.

Well, yeah. I'd complain if a firefighter wanted to save me from a burning building, but only if he could chop my head off too while he did it too.

Saving billions of souls from horrible torment = good.
Killing everyone = bad.

[Makdon]

God will show himself to humanity, all at once.
Also the same time the world ends.
It’s almost as if God wants to do what you want, but you’re also complaining about what else he’s going to do with the time of appearance.

It seems a bit late for God to save people if he immediately destroys the world. Then there's no time for anyone to reform, and no one ends up being saved. Anyways, using your specific religious beliefs as proof of your religious beliefs seems... questionable

[Neanderthaland]

Why bother? The aforementioned saving of literally billions of human souls, for one. Even if He didn't get all of us, surely preventing some of His beloved creations from an eternity of horror is worth getting out of bed for?

God will show himself to humanity, all at once.

Also the same time the world ends.

It’s almost as if God wants to do what you want, but you’re also complaining about what else he’s going to do with the time of appearance.

So all those times that people have had visions of God they were just hallucinating then?

[Lower Nubia]

No. To me it is a strength. To you it is a weakness, that’s why I use it against YOU, because you do not value it.

Not buying it. I see this technique all the time, Creationists use it especially when trying to refute science.

At it's core it is an attempt to muddy the waters, to make science and rationality appear just as unsupported and arbitrary as religion, but it belies a lack of confidence in faith. And it's telling that you use it in a discussion of truth.

Oof. Poisoning the well there a little? Saying it’s akin to creationism? I just pointed out the faith dynamic of every ideology. Which is just obvious. Science is a different kettle of fish m8, working on different principles, with different goals and ultimately no one of truth equates Atheism =/= science. Which is what your claim was about, that “atheism searches for truth” - paraphrase, notice not “science searches for truth” (in a very specific fashion) which I agree with, but atheism, was you claim.

[Lower Nubia]

God will show himself to humanity, all at once.

Also the same time the world ends.

It’s almost as if God wants to do what you want, but you’re also complaining about what else he’s going to do with the time of appearance.

So all those times that people have had visions of God they were just hallucinating then?

You say that everyone who sees God is hallucinating anyway, I just go one less than you.

[Lower Nubia]

God will show himself to humanity, all at once.
Also the same time the world ends.
It’s almost as if God wants to do what you want, but you’re also complaining about what else he’s going to do with the time of appearance.

It seems a bit late for God to save people if he immediately destroys the world. Then there's no time for anyone to reform, and no one ends up being saved. Anyways, using your specific religious beliefs as proof of your religious beliefs seems... questionable

This assumes a Baptist fundamentalist position on Salvation (that we all say the sinners prayer). Not necessarily a Catholic/orthodox/Anglican one which are relatively the same.

[Lower Nubia]

God will show himself to humanity, all at once.

Also the same time the world ends.

It’s almost as if God wants to do what you want, but you’re also complaining about what else he’s going to do with the time of appearance.

Well, yeah. I'd complain if a firefighter wanted to save me from a burning building, but only if he could chop my head off too while he did it too.

Saving billions of souls from horrible torment = good.
Killing everyone = bad.

Good thing the end times don’t kill you per se, they just move you into the next stage of life. But nice false equivalence.

[Neanderthaland]

Not buying it. I see this technique all the time, Creationists use it especially when trying to refute science.

At it's core it is an attempt to muddy the waters, to make science and rationality appear just as unsupported and arbitrary as religion, but it belies a lack of confidence in faith. And it's telling that you use it in a discussion of truth.

Oof. Poisoning the well there a little? Saying it’s akin to creationism?

Creationists are the main group that uses this technique.

I just pointed out the faith dynamic of every ideology. Which is just obvious.

A lie.

Science is a different kettle of fish m8, working on different principles, with different goals and ultimately no one of truth equates Atheism =/= science. Which is what your claim was about, that “atheism searches for truth” - paraphrase, notice not “science searches for truth” (in a very specific fashion) which I agree with, but atheism, was you claim.

Atheism isn't an ideology, and can properly be described as having no content.

My claim was not "atheism searches for truth." It was that "truth is the only virtue atheism concerns itself with." Namely the untruth of religious claims.

Which is why religious people have, for most of human history, not allowed atheists to speak at all. Which is not the behavior of a group that actually cares about truth.

[Neanderthaland]

So all those times that people have had visions of God they were just hallucinating then?

You say that everyone who sees God is hallucinating anyway, I just go one less than you.

Did I say that? Quote me saying that.