This is a clever way to depict the viewpoints of many atheists in the world. I do not know very many atheists, but they would probably agree with these sayings. It does make sense that being an atheist would remove those things from one's life. It all is just a matter of opinion. www.sundayassemblysandiego.org…
Who, Christians or atheists? Because while I know Stalin was an atheist, Hitler was a Christian. The crusades were for Christians as well, a majority of wars in human history were over... religion! A Christian priest even said something along the lines of,"And with the growing number of atheists, i can only hope they don't treat us as bad as we did them." And who are you to say most atheists aren't good people? Have you done a scientific study that proves your point? There are good atheists and bad ones, just as there are good Christians and bad ones.
I honestly do not see love, kindness and understanding sprouting wherever atheists are but if you guys are proud of that...
Also, evolution goes against natural laws (supernatural), nobody saw how life began and we cannot see or observe it but people still believe in despite that (faith) and is therefore "magic". Anybody can just say "there are MOUNTAINS of INDISPUTABLE evidence...moron." or go into gory details but the facts are facts: nobody was there to witness the beginning of life or see the progressive change of one KIND into another which is what evolution implies.
I see your comments everywhere, but this one seems particularly irrelevant. Besides the fact that your entire argument is a straw man, it has nothing to do with Atheism. Atheism is not evolution("ism"), and evolution is not abiogenesis. Entirely irrelevant, let alone inaccurate.
This comment was made a year ago. I've learned a little bit more since then. At the time, my tactics was based on imitating the unbeliever's argument styles, which is almost always the straw man (from what I've personally seen.)
I know my original comment has problems, I was impatient and that resulted in the clunkiness of the entire thing. But my main goal is to be more open about biblical beliefs, and although I'm no scientist or great speaker, I try my best.
I do believe in the biblical account of creation, and it is a fact that no man has ever witnessed the beginning of life or observed the unscientific progression of evolution because it is impossible as it dictates millions of years to occur.
Is this view of evolution inaccurate? Or were you referring to my generalization of atheists/evolutionists (which the deviant who made this deviation "Atheism" is also guilty of), or that Raymond Damadian is not a creationist who invented the MRI?
I, unlike many other Atheists, try not to over generalize the beliefs of Theists, although I understand why so many Atheists do this. The reason for it being that the Bible, when taken literally, cannot stand up to criticism. It is only when the Bible is open to interpretation that it becomes more difficult to invalidate, and when the "meaning" behind the Bible starts to become subjective depending on each individual who reads it, then there is really very little to argue about. A book open to such a wide range of interpretations is, for all intensive purposes, meaningless. It is only when taken with a certain degree of literalness that the Bible starts to have objective "meaning". For this reason, many Atheist attack the literal words of the Bible, rather than the personal beliefs of a particular Theist.
Evolution is the result of scientific observation and experimentation. It, in and of itself, is not an observation. While it is true that macroevolution, by definition, cannot be observed within a human lifespan, the very observable process of microevolution is accepted by nearly everyone, including many Biblical literalists. Many people reject macroevolution, because it requires a time scale much much greater than the Bible allows, but they also fail to realize that macroevolution is identical to microevolution, only on a larger time scale. In this way, evolution has been observed, but many people deny that this is evolution with invalid arguments about "kinds" and "genetic potential". "Show me a chicken give birth to a cow!" This is simply an incoherent request, which I hope you've never made.
I was mostly referring to your generalization of Atheism, as I don't particularly enjoy trying to teach evolution to Youth Earthers. I would say that any automatic connection made between Atheism and the acceptance of evolution is, in itself, inaccurate. There are Theists who accept evolution and there are Atheists who reject it. The deviant who made this ad is guilty of a few falsehoods; Some religions are Atheistic, some Atheists are superstitious, and some Atheists can be irrational. We are human after all. I don't know why you always bring up Raymond Damadian. Unless someone said that "Theists don't make good scientists". Then I accept your defense, although it is irrelevant to our current discussion. The person who made this ad, though, didn't say that Theists can't be scientists, although someone else might have.
Then how do you explain London Underground Mosquitos, which are different from regular mosquitos and appeared over the time the London underground was created or the worms that can survive in radiation?
The London Underground Mosquitoes are still mosquitoes. It's called species, they can adapt to different environments and doesn't in any way disprove my argument about kinds changing into another kind.
I also don't know how radiated worms popped up. You should try being more clear so I can make a proper reply.
Your comment on the fact that we've never witnessed evolution first hand is disproven by the mosquito, the worm (found near Chernobyl) and also most bacteria and viruses. As for the beginning of the world, I can admit that I have no sure answer for it, but that doesn't suddenly prove anything like god, I just go with the most likely answer, I mean, we weren't there to see Tutankhamen rule over Egypt which makes it possible his artefacts are frauds but they are most likely not, have you ever though about them being frauds?
An illogical request. Atheism, by definition, "removes" religion, superstition, and the irrational way of thinking endorsed by most religious institutions from an Atheistic individual. The individual who made this piece of graphic art in no way implied that you, or people like you, are malevolent, hopeless, or intolerant. That was all you.
I am less interested in the personal beliefs of the artist and more interested in why you felt the need to, without prior provocation on this page, make an offensive and hasty generalization about the adherents of Atheism in general. If this piece had attacked your beliefs at all, then I would understand your need to lash out. But the inoffensive nature of this particular piece justifies no attack.
Couldn't you have made such a shot on a page which actually insults religion? By itself, this page makes no such offensive comments, and those who read your comment see nothing but unprovoked religious intolerance toward Atheistic beliefs.
An internet comment is better than a sword to the neck, which used to be Christianity's way of attacking non-believers. When atheists are chasing you with violent intent you can complain a little more legitimately.
DaynjaDogFeatured By OwnerMar 15, 2014Hobbyist General Artist
Why the hell would you click on this? You just clicked on this piece of art that clearly said "Atheism" and then you get all annoyed because YOU clicked on a piece of art that was CLEARLY on the subject of something YOU don't like.
Compassion, hope and tolerance are genetical features found in all sane humans and countless other species. Human beings created religion, so how could it be something sprititually given? And your statement is also disproven by the fact that the most secularized country today (Sweden) is also one of the most equal, socially just, economically balanced and has the world's highest taxes. You think lack of compassion and hope would cause that? Compare it to the christian U.S, which is everything but socially just, economically balanced nor ethically rational.
They did not get "elected". They only got a few mandates. And it's not completely malplaced, as sweden do have one of the highest immigrant rates in the world, relatively to its population. The only reason Sweden's population is increasing is because of immigration..
Tell me. Would there be any change in warfare if soldiers didn't believe they'd come to fairyland when they get killed?