Originally Posted by cardboard adolescent (Post 689140)

of course they're not, they're too busy cashing in on the new wave of pseudo-intellectual atheism to actually be pissed off. but if you're implying that atheists all just sit around and muse about how clever they are, i can guarantee that there have been millions of people with a "nothing is true, everything is permitted" attitude that have committed countless atrocities that haunt us today. the real difference is the religious commit atrocities for some half-thought out semi-coherent reason, whereas the areligious commit atrocities just for the hell of it.

Originally Posted by JayJamJah (Post 689144)

What I enjoy about atheists compared to Christians is that I usually don't know who the devout Atheists are, the devout Christians make sure to fill in any gray area.

Originally Posted by sleepy jack (Post 689146)

What "areligious atrocities?"

Originally Posted by sleepy jack (Post 689150)

I think in many of those cases, bar serial killers or killing sprees which are senseless, there were other motivations there. In the case of Stalin they were political and as for political assassinations they were obviously political and had more to do with a specific ideology then Atheism. You can't be motivated by non-belief to act.

Originally Posted by cardboard adolescent (Post 689147)

a 'devout atheist' would basically have to say that there is no way that god could possibly exist given the world we know, which really just means they are pissed off at God/want to indict him for suffering. it doesn't really make sense. if there is no God, what is there to be devout about?

Originally Posted by sleepy jack (Post 689155)

I think that's more what any passionate Atheist does though. They argue against religious institution from an intellectual stand point. Look at Marx, or Nietzsche, or Freud. They didn't blow up any Churches to my knowledge but rather pointed out what was psychologically wrong with religious people in the case of Freud or pointed out that religious institutions were a means to control sheep or oppress the proletariat, in the case of the formers.

I think Atheists, because there's no religion there, have to form their own morality and in many cases (e.g. Camus, Sartre) they appear to be much more humanistic and moral then most theologians. People who senselessly kill are depraved and sick, but they can be of all religious or non-religious kinds and still be disturbed.

Originally Posted by JayJamJah (Post 689159)

devout is a poor choice of word. However your presumption of atheists is incorrect. The majority of atheists I;ve been in contact with believe in the idea of "God" as a human construct and only oppose any religious based perception of God. For those Atheists, it's not so much a matter of "we know we're right" as it is "we know you're wrong "

Originally Posted by cardboard adolescent (Post 689161)

Nietzsche basically supports slavery, as long as the master is intellectually superior. Camus and Sartre seem like nice enough guys, but they were French intellectuals who were in the right place at the right time, could say what heretics had been saying for ages and finally not get stoned for it. If there's no basis on which to base moral judgments, you probably will just conform to your society since that seems to take the least work. You could flip out and decide to kill as many sleep-walkers as possible, though. You only need one pissed off VT student for every thousand apathetic existentialists for non-belief to show its destructive side.

Still, I think everyone believes in God on a deep enough level, I don't think things could make sense otherwise. As such I believe every destructive act is a futile 'f you' to God.



the word 'God' is just a human construct, but the 'idea of God,' namely, the idea of a creator and intelligent purpose to reality, can't really be something we 'create,' it's something we 'discover,' though this discovery may just be a projection for our self-awareness onto external reality. to say 'i know you are wrong' means 'i know i am right,' because if you didn't have personal beliefs to contrast the incorrect ones to, how could you say they are wrong? atheism is a belief, which is why it's not agnosticism, but it's a belief which relies entirely on the religious system it is thrown at.

Originally Posted by Wayfarer (Post 689194)

This makes no sense whatsoever. If there is no God, you can't blame God for religious deaths; you can blame religion for them. This is why they're "religious deaths". They'd not have occurred if not for religion, or if they did, they'd have occurred for reasons outside of religion. Religion is absolutely to blame, whether or not God exists.

Originally Posted by JayJamJah (Post 689203)

Atheism is not a belief it is non-belief. I've never identified my self as someone positive there is no "God" discovered or created.

As for the notion that saying you're mean implys, I'm right, no.

The simplest example is this: If you say 6754 x 3244 = 21 I know you're wrong, I may not know the right answer, but I can still spot a wrong one.

Not trying to make a semantically charged argument here, do you see my point?