In Defense of Atheism

youtube.com/watch?v=fdVucvo-kDU

Not meant towards you, but towards the video: That’s stupid.

A lot of the people who they showed to say “These people are FOOLS??!?!?!” were cited as doing a lot of things to promote atheism. From a religious perspective, that IS foolish.

A lot of the people they showed to say “These people are EVIL AND VILE???!?!?!??!” were actors, actresses, writers, etc. People whose main role in society is not one of abolishing evil or vileness.

And in my opinion, foolishness does not have to do with intelligence, but rather wisdom. It’s certainly intelligent to discover so many scientific things, to advance technology, but it’s unrelated to wisdom.

Pretty cool song, though.

Makes sense to me.

Many religions are so poisoned and old.

Better it would be – to start a new, making fresh, liberated ideas, in modern time.

But wait, there’s more.

All statistics there listed about divorce and prison statistics, had to do with only the USA, and thus, only were to do with Christendom.

This “in defense of atheism”, would be more accurately worded as:

“It would be better to have nothing than it would be to have Christendom.”

blackwell-synergy.com/links/ … 8294.00015

Religion is not limited to Theism.
Theism is not limited to Christendom.
Etc.

10.26.06.1609

Hogwash! According to Merriam-Webster…
By definition, “intelligence” is the ability to learn or understand or to deal with new or trying situations : to reason; also : the skilled use of reason; and as a secondary meaning: the ability to apply knowledge to manipulate one’s environment or to think abstractly as measured by objective criteria. (etc.)
By definition, “wisdom” is the accumulated philosophic or scientific learning : accumulation of knowledge; having the ability to discern inner qualities and relationships : having insight; and having a good sense of judgement. (etc.)
By definition, “knowledge” is the fact or condition of knowing something with familiarity gained through experience or association such as the acquaintance with or understanding of a science, art, or technique. (etc.)

So thus, I ask you: Would you say that it is unwise to further the development and progress of humanity?

Would you not call Mark Twain a wise man?

[size=84]BTW: Nice little movie… although it seems to need more.[/size]

10.26.06.1610

That pig represents the true ego that the check can’t cash… or just barely. Thus, just a reminder… be sure to wash your ego off in the shower when you get up in the morning… otherwise it’ll snork and oink its way into your personal life, and on this site as well!

Wow… I can’t believe I just wrote that… LOL! :laughing:

Sagesound, isn’t the definition of wisdom one that’s been highly debated philosophically? Socrates, one of the most well-known philosophers, used to say that he was wise because he realized that he knew nothing.

10.26.06.1614

The definition of wisdom is clear, but the interpretation of the definition is what has been highly debated. Obviously we can’t just leave it to “the accumulated philosophic or scientific learning”… we need to interpret that across a broad spectrum of topics.

So again, I restate the question: Would you say that it is unwise to further the development and progress of humanity?

I thought the video was interesting. I thought it portrayed a very defensive posture very similar to the evangelical response to liberalism in the early 20th century. There actually wasn’t much substance to the argument but clearly there as a whole lot of fear that the “other side” is gaining ground. To me the video says that athiests must feel that things are not going so well for them these days. And I can’t say I’m too disappointed about that. If athiests had a little more confidence in their position they wouldn’t feel the need to make such a defensive video. Do any athiests agree? I feel the same way when I hear Christians worry about liberal theology. The war is pretty much over on that topic and we shouldn’t be so defensive.

Some of the substance of the video was just silly. The 0.2% of the prison population that is athiest can either mean that atheists rarely do anything wrong or that incarceration has a strange way of making people seek solice in religion. I’ll leave you to decide which is the more likley.

As already noted above, the OT definition of a “fool” is not someone who is “unintelligent” but someone who is “morally” unintelligent. In the OT a wise man is defined as someone who OBEYS God, not someone who has a PhD in astrophysics. I agree completely with the bible quote. By this definition, Francis Crick, James Watson, Carl Sagan and the rest of the people noted are FOOLS. That they may have some plaques on their walls or scraps of paper from certain universities is completely irrelevant. In God’s eyes they are simply fools as they place no value in seeking or obeying him. I’m not sure why Sage has such a hard time understanding this point.

10.26.06.1616

[size=84]Wow Ned… I really didn’t expect you to pull a stunt like this. I am impressed. [/size] :laughing:

If certain denominations of Christians or Muslims had a little more confidence in there position, they wouldn’t feel the need to defend their position and offend other positions at the same time. Really Ned, your argument has no logic. I could easily argue that (to my knowledge; meaning that as much as I have read or heard) since the Buddhists have never commited to an act of religious aggression or never make a solid effort to defend their position against the attacks of some Christian apologists, that they are by default, better and holier than a Christian that sets him or herself up to be.

You forgot a third probability… that the 0.2% in prison forsake religion due to feeling of the immediate authority punishing them for actions they may feel they were unjustly punished for. In any case, you are correct that more clarification should have been applied to the athiest percentage and the Christian percentage. After all, the 75% of Christians could include up to 40-50% of born-again religion-seekers.

I understand the OT meaning, but let me get this straight for a moment: You are saying (above) that all those people in the video have absolutely no concept of morality and ethics or an almost non-existant valuation of morality and ethics simply because they are athiest, according to the OT meaning.
So by your argument, you are stating that Mark Twain was not a wise man because he had the moral sense to see that slavery of African-Americans was wrong, unlike the Southern Plantation Owners who were “good” and “descent” Christians.
Hmmm… gee Ned, it looks more like you’re the one who has a hard time understanding the overall point.

For the record, Mark Twain did not have an overall theistic belif, but was intrigued in the idea of a pervading supernatural presence. Although he has been declared an athiest by default, his beliefs were truly considered to be unclassifiable.

The video has a defensive posture. Most of it responds to comments about athiests in the bible or by other people that may make an athiest feel attacked. I offered my personal opinion that these kind of arguments do nothing to help your position, since they clearly spring from fear that the other side is winning. So while you attempt to present a strong defense, the motivation betrays an underlying weakness. That’s my opinion on the video, and on similar defensive posturing, take it or leave it. Maybe the video will shore up the “belief” of a swithering athiest ,or encourage the athiest “faithful”, but most religious people will probably just laugh at it. I doubt that’s a good outcome for you.

I’m saying that the bible defines a certain type of morality. The foundation of such morality (wisdom) is belief in the biblical God. If you don’t have that, then you have nothing of value. You may create a different foundation and a completely different ethical construct to guide your life, but by biblical standards the foundation and construct is worthless, even if you are a nice (or clever) person. Indeed the very biblical quote may be taken as a definition of sorts, “the fool says in his heart there is no God”, the antithesis of biblical wisdom is atheism. It’s not hard to understand.

For the record, Mark Twain did not have an overall theistic belif, but was intrigued in the idea of a pervading supernatural presence. Although he has been declared an athiest by default, his beliefs were truly considered to be unclassifiable.
[/quote]

Again it comes down to your defintion of “wisdom”. The bible is clear that a wise man OBEYS God and a foolish man does NOT. It’s a pretty simple definition, I’m not sure why you are having such a hard time understanding it. Whether people are clever, write novels, or campaign for nobel causes does not change this simple definition. If a person doesn’t believe and obey God then they are foolish. Of course anyone is free to reject the definition and reject the bible completely. But the definition is pretty simple and logical.

I thought the video was interesting, but ultimately a little silly. Ucci has mentioned before (and it is something that I fundamentally agree with) that stating that one is an atheist isn’t really saying anything at all. If you asked someone which religion they were and they answered, “Well, I’m not a Buddhist” the amount of information gathered is pretty near zero.

Similarly, atheism is merely stating what one isn’t. There needs to be corrolary philosophies to go along with that. Now, usually we think of atheism as being the same as secular humanism (which is largely what the speaker seems to be talking about) which makes good sense but it isn’t a 1:1 relationship.

In that vein, I would rather see people push for clarifying the good points of secular humanism (or other atheistic philosophies) rather than try to establish atheism as a default by challenging religion. The video started to do this, but it needed to go further, not merely by extolling the virtues of atheism (read: secular humanism) but also by filling out how these virtues are indeed superior to theistic virtues (in the case of this video, read: Christian virtues).

10.26.06.1618

[size=84]Curious Ned, why did you come here if you were not aiming to speak on matters that would result in a conflict? Why did you chose to create this conflict of opinion?[/size]

Your point? The information about the movie asserted that this was a defensive work… it’s no wonder it has a defensive posture. Have you considered the possibility that the person that made this video did so in response to a Christian who made the attack with the out-of-context use of biblical passages? Have you also considered the possibility that the person who made this video did so in an attempt to formulate a pre-meditative defense so that just in case a Christian happens to use the mentioned out-of-context passage, the bases are already covered?

The twice-fold use of the word “you” suggests that you mean that I personally hold the position in question. Have I ever stated that I was an atheist? Regardless… it’s clear that your opinions do nothing to help your position, since they clearly spring from the fear that those who do not think as you do are better than you or at least make you feel that they are better than you.

Your opinion does not amount enough value to be taken or left. Whatever outcome you may suggest that this video will present, and given the fact that outcomes have already presented themselves, I have yet to meet an outcome that was not good for me. However, I don’t believe that “most” religious people will laugh it off, although I wouldn’t care if they did. I think that “most” religious people will either defend their position, seeing the athiest defense as an attack (as you seem to have; a similiar attitude in this example youtube response video), or flat out ignore it believing that “fools” make “foolish things” and are not worth the time to dilly-dally over. As you clearly fall under the former catagory, I have to ask: why do you give a damn? If you’re so sure of your belief, why not let it be like a Buddhist or Christ?

Essentially, you’re stating that it doesn’t matter what morality a person holds, it only matters where that morality came from. To you it doesn’t matter if a Christian and an Atheist (or even all other religious beliefs) hold the same morals (such as murder is wrong), because in your mind, those same morals did not come from the same source. If this is really what you’re saying, then it’s not hard to understand your position.

I never said I didn’t understand your “definition.” I understand it quite well… it’s just that I don’t accept that definition. It holds no value to me. To me “wisdom” is not what you think it means. To me the definition is very simple and very logical, while your definition is utter nonsense. It is archaic, obsolete, and behind the times. This is the present looking to the future, not the past. The future doesn’t need people like you Ned, and it won’t have people like you, because in the future, people like you will either die out or cause the annihilation of life on this planet.

Take a shower Ned…

My point was that defensive posturing rarely comes off as well as intended since by it’s very nature it betrays a certain fear that the other side is winning or threatening to win. But we seem agreed that the video was pretty defensive. Maybe you simply like this kind of posturing more than I do.

You have presented no evidence to refute the idea that a “fool” is defined as an athiest in the bible. Therefore, your “out of context” point seems mistaken. And I think it more likely that the video-maker felt threatened by Christianity in general rather than living in fear of a gang of Christian thugs who roam his neighborhood and harrass athiests. But as neither of us can be sure, it doesn’t really matter.

Thanks for the therapy. Can we get back to the discussion now?

This would be a fairly accurate summation of my opinion of the video.

Your question isn’t very clear, but if you’re asking why I responded to this thread, it was probably just to say I thought the video was silly and did nothing to advance the noble athiestic cause. I didn’t say I cared about the cause.

I’m not a pragmatist in matters of salvation and biblical understanding. I think the source of our morality is the single most important issue, and explains why athiests are described as “fools” in the bible. God will simply not tolerate nice people who do not acknowledge him, however good they think they are.

That being said, I’d rather have a well-behaved “foolish” athiest living next door than a violent Christian. So I can appreciate that in a pluralistic society, societal ethics may be defined by non-biblical parameters. And I’m probably OK with that for the most part. But the original point was whether athiests are fools. And I think the bible clearly states that they are.

Well, each to their own Sage-boy! It doesn’t matter whether you accept my definition. I’m just saying that my definition is biblical and completely logical. If you don’t like it, tough luck.

Greater minds than you have predicted the demise of Christianity over the centuries. But for some reason it just keeps on going! And I suspect it always will… :slight_smile:

Ned, I dare you to find a moral transgression done by one of these atheists.

Okay - I’m one of them. An atheist. This video is tawdry, trite and beneath the dignity of any self-respecting non-theist. Good middle-school project, I suppose. I’d give it a “C” if it was highschool students, though. Has all the polemic force of a whoopie cushion.

Good production values, and it makes its point. Just that I can’t muster a greater response than “So what?”

Sure it makes “sense”. Low standard.

The culture wars aren’t religious; they’re cultural. This is mere politics.

10.26.06.1620

That remains to be seen for the both of us. Is not the best offense a good defense?

Wow Ned, you’re right on that point. I have yet to present evidence on a topic I have spoken of… good form. However, what makes this situation unique is that there is no evidence. You are challenging me to come up with evidence that should only be found within the bible to contradict that a “fool” is an aetheist. Being as such evidence does not exist, my ability to produce the evidence is nullified. So, given this condition, I could make the case that the bible is fallible, biased, contradictory, (etc.), and by proving that it would instantly debase not only your religious beliefs, but your position in the discussion as well. Thus, if your position has no value, then the idea that a “fool” is defined as an aetheist is refuted.
In retrospect, your case was defeated before you ever made it.

Sure! No problem.

It’s interesting how you catagorize your fear. Fear is the ultimate drive in Christianity and Islam. Reasoning: subconciously you fear that your god will punish you if you do not maintain the act of worship to it… in this case, the form of worship is in the self-proclaimed acknowledgement that there is only one source of morality and it comes from your god, and that if you do not acknowledge that then you will be punished.

“Sage-boy?” LOL! Whatever floats your boat Ned…

Christians have trampled other religions over the centuries in an attempt to permanantly stamp them out, but for some reason they still live on…
I never said Christianity would die out, just people like you Ned. Just people like you.