Are atheists afraid of judgement?

I have to go to work guys but Happy thanksgiving to you all! We don't always have to agree for for us to wish each other the best! Have a good time with your families and make the best of the holiday! Catch you later! 😮‍💨 😊 💃

Originally posted by The MISTER
I'm a christian who believes in the Bible and it's command not to judge others. I won't judge people's souls but I do wonder about their minds.

Are you one of those people who pretend they're stupid and aren't just trolling the hell out of people because you do it with what you think comes across as being polite?

No, atheists aren't afraid of judgement from what you define as god. That's the whole point of being an atheist. What bothers me is that they aren't afraid of your concept of god, but they are afraid to admit they're atheists.

Originally posted by skekUng
Are you one of those people who pretend they're stupid and aren't just trolling the hell out of people because you do it with what you think comes across as being polite?

No, atheists aren't afraid of judgement from what you define as god. That's the whole point of being an atheist. What bothers me is that they aren't afraid of your concept of god, but they are afraid to admit they're atheists.

Also, who elected you the atheist president? Some people may have become atheists because they resented the fear tactics of some churches. Eternal torture is explained to young children. Dismissing the idea might be relieving, I was curious as to whether it was a factor.

Especially when the no God theory essentially equals that we're a one in a zillion freak occurrence that has no uniqueness. Our luck seperates us from the creatures that do not enslave other species and reshape the total terrain for their habitat. This existence is not possibly a gift that we need appreciate being given, it is only a rare opportunity to be exploited to the fullest. 😮‍💨

Originally posted by The MISTER
Especially when the no God theory essentially equals that we're a one in a zillion freak occurrence that has no uniqueness. Our luck seperates us from the creatures that do not enslave other species and reshape the total terrain for their habitat. This existence is not possibly a gift that we need appreciate being given, it is only a rare opportunity to be exploited to the fullest. 😮‍💨

That sounds dangerously close to an argument often used by creationists to attack evolution, saying that we couldn't just be here by "chance." A thorough knowledge of natural selection actually yields numerous credible possibilities for our current existence, none of them owing to a higher deity.

Originally posted by Digi
That sounds dangerously close to an argument often used by creationists to attack evolution, saying that we couldn't just be here by "chance." A thorough knowledge of natural selection actually yields numerous credible possibilities for our current existence, none of them owing to a higher deity.

Originally posted by Mindship
I tend to refer to multiple-universe theories (eg, chaotic inflation), when I encounter arguments involving Intelligent Design; and also how the LHC may begin to shed some empirical light on those theories. Man, I wish they'd fire that thing up full-blast, already. Could happen in 2012.

Indeed, fingers crossed.

The old airplane-in-a-tornado analogy popped into my head when I read his post, though. And it's really a shame, because that's really how a lot of people see our existence in terms of scientific possibility. Without an understanding of the flaws in the argument, it's no wonder plenty of people believe in creationism or directed evolution.

Originally posted by The MISTER
😆 You don't know me very well! I could give a rats a#@ about seeming polite. I just don't jump to conclusions like a retard. More people should try it. Expressing hasty judgments is a dunce move, wouldn't you agree? If the topic wasn't important to me then I wouldn't be being as serious as I've been on this thread. The idea was to understand atheists better. I've learned that they have valid reasons for not wanting to hear any "religions" ideas of where they came from and for what reasons. I explained this new appreciation for the perspective of those who call themselves atheist to a cousin over the holiday.

Also, who elected you the atheist president? Some people may have become atheists because they resented the fear tactics of some churches. Eternal torture is explained to young children. Dismissing the idea might be relieving, I was curious as to whether it was a factor.

Especially when the no God theory essentially equals that we're a one in a zillion freak occurrence that has no uniqueness. Our luck seperates us from the creatures that do not enslave other species and reshape the total terrain for their habitat. This existence is not possibly a gift that we need appreciate being given, it is only a rare opportunity to be exploited to the fullest. 😮‍💨

Apparently you elected me president of atheists. I made no judgements. I only asked a question.

You are polite. But, you also seem to be saying, like most theists, that people just can't comprehend what you know to be true so basically anything they say is ignorant of the reality to which you subscribe.

If people became atheists because they were affraid of theological scare tactics, then they never really became atheists. If you still have a fear or dread of "God", then you aren't an atheist. They didn't just get lazy one day and stick their head in the sand. Otherwise, they're no different than the majority of theists. The wisest people know they don't know what happens after you die, but they also know the people selling that knowledge as certainty are no smarter or better connected to the afterlife than themselves. This is why it's a cyclical argument. You say you know. Someone says you can't know for sure. You say you do. They ask how. You say it's in the bible. There is no room in your argument for you to be wrong, so you intentionally ignore anything but your own certainty. That is lazy. It's just as lazy and dishonest as any atheist who says he became one because he's scared of "God's" judgement. Asking if people became atheists because they're affraid of judgment is only a way to get people to say it's possible (themselves also not understanding atheism) so you can tell them those people aren't really atheists. You're not stupid. You know what you're doing.

In your last paragraph you demonstrate very nicely your lack of knowledge of anything but the doctrine espoused by those in your religion that propogate ignorance of other species, intentionally or not, for the benefit of keeping people as followers. Many, many species behave in both manners you used as examples.

I'll kinda echo what Skek said. Leaving a religion because you dislike their tactics is not equivalent to atheism. All it shows is that you still don't actually understand atheist thinking, or you're pretending not to.

And while it's redundant to point out at this point, it's also completely true that an actual atheist would never be afraid of judgment. Lapsed theists, sure. But you can't fear something you don't believe in.

This sentence is also particularly disturbing:

Originally posted by The MISTER
I've learned that they have valid reasons for not wanting to hear any "religions" ideas of where they came from and for what reasons.

...the implication being that atheists simply won't listen to theistic arguments, at least if I read the statement correctly (and its context).

MISTER, you're still very confused, or you're not doing a good job of not seeming confused. You'd be better off asking questions instead of making assumptions.

Originally posted by Digi
I'll kinda echo what Skek said. Leaving a religion because you dislike their tactics is not equivalent to atheism. All it shows is that you still don't actually understand atheist thinking, or you're pretending not to.

And while it's redundant to point out at this point, it's also completely true that an actual atheist would never be afraid of judgment. Lapsed theists, sure. But you can't fear something you don't believe in.

This sentence is also particularly disturbing:

...the implication being that atheists simply won't listen to theistic arguments, at least if I read the statement correctly (and its context).

MISTER, you're still very confused, or you're not doing a good job of not seeming confused. You'd be better off asking questions instead of making assumptions.

Originally posted by Digi
That sounds dangerously close to an argument often used by creationists to attack evolution, saying that we couldn't just be here by "chance." A thorough knowledge of natural selection actually yields numerous credible possibilities for our current existence, none of them owing to a higher deity.

Originally posted by The MISTER
Evolution does not even begin to explain the origins of the universe and it is there where humans grasp at straws. ...

There is a simpler answer: there is no origin. Are you grasping at straws?

Originally posted by The MISTER
Evolution does not even begin to explain the origins of the universe and it is there where humans grasp at straws.

Evolution makes no attempt to explain the origins of the universe, it's like blaming your dishwasher for not being a toaster oven.

That being said, we have good explanations about the early history of the universe, and there are hypothesis about the origins which are just as valid if not more than anything a Religion has brought. You may claim that we come into meta-physics there, and I do think you are right, but there's no reason to assume your philosophy on that is better than anyone else's, the problem with a God is that it is an extraordinary claim, that brings so many questions with it, that it is in no way a satisfying explanation.

Regardless, evolution never was and still isn't a threat to a God in general, at the time and even now, through so called young earth creationists and even more cunning Intelligent Design advocates, it is a huge threat to certain literal interpretations of the Bible and specifically the Christian God, with the creation story and the Noah's flood, and the general lack of evidence for any design, but it is not and has never been God vs. Evolution, it has been "outdated, unproven or even disproven magical assumptions on the origins of life" vs. Evolution, and Evolution has pretty much won that one in the Western World, and on account of being as true as anything we have ever known in the history of the world will most likely win out unquestionably in the future.

Which is not meant to attack you, just clarify that Evolution is not an attack on God or an explanation of the origin (if there is one) of it all.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
There is a simpler answer: there is no origin. Are you grasping at straws?

Originally posted by The MISTER
There is no origin, huh? Cute. As a realist though I must conclude that not only everything that I come into contact with has an origin, everything else does as well. We have no evidence that anything lacks an origin, just evidence that we don't agree on what those origins are. Saying there is no origin is like saying that this is all just a dream. Though it may be the case the reality is that it is more than likely not true. Ignoring reality is important to many people. Are you one of them?

So, if everything has an origin, then what is the origin of God? Now, what the bible says is that God has no origin. Therefore your statement that all things have an origin is untrue. Also, if there is one thing (God) without an origin, then there can be a second thing, the universe.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Evolution makes no attempt to explain the origins of the universe, it's like blaming your dishwasher for not being a toaster oven.

That being said, we have good explanations about the early history of the universe, and there are hypothesis about the origins which are just as valid if not more than anything a Religion has brought. You may claim that we come into meta-physics there, and I do think you are right, but there's no reason to assume your philosophy on that is better than anyone else's, the problem with a God is that it is an extraordinary claim, that brings so many questions with it, that it is in no way a satisfying explanation.

Regardless, evolution never was and still isn't a threat to a God in general, at the time and even now, through so called young earth creationists and even more cunning Intelligent Design advocates, it is a huge threat to certain literal interpretations of the Bible and specifically the Christian God, with the creation story and the Noah's flood, and the general lack of evidence for any design, but it is not and has never been God vs. Evolution, it has been "outdated, unproven or even disproven magical assumptions on the origins of life" vs. Evolution, and Evolution has pretty much won that one in the Western World, and on account of being as true as anything we have ever known in the history of the world will most likely win out unquestionably in the future.

Which is not meant to attack you, just clarify that Evolution is not an attack on God or an explanation of the origin (if there is one) of it all.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
So, if everything has an origin, then what is the origin of God? Now, what the bible says is that God has no origin. Therefore your statement that all things have an origin is untrue. Also, if there is one thing (God) without an origin, then there can be a second thing, the universe.

It's not like you're wrong I just wonder that if an origin isn't required then whatever didn't require it is supernatural even if it was the universe that was supernatural. Something supernatural happened is what we can conclude about a lack of an origin. Supernatural meaning something that is real yet unexplainable.

Originally posted by The MISTER
You make a good point there. 😮‍💨

It's not like you're wrong I just wonder that if an origin isn't required then whatever didn't require it is supernatural even if it was the universe that was supernatural. Something supernatural happened is what we can conclude about a lack of an origin. Supernatural meaning something that is real yet unexplainable.

Why would something supernatural have to happen in order for the universe to have no origin? It seems you are artistically inserting an obstetrical into what would otherwise be a very simple statement: the big bang was a change, and not an origin.

Well, I'm glad you appreciated the post. The problem with Noah's Ark though is that it is impossible. The size of the ark would be impossible, the natural changes would be completely poisonous to most life including humans, there'd be a lot of evidence left behind, yet there is none. Noah's ark either is metaphorical, or on a much, much smaller scale.

The behemoth is hardly a perfect description, rather it is an incredibly vague description that could fit a lot of animals. And evidence shows that humans and dinosaurs did not exist at the same time, so I am not sure how he could have showed Lot 4000 years ago.

You are right, that as we are limited by our senses, which we can not always trust even in this framework, ultimately something will require faith. We can however discuss the size of the leap of faiths and the apparent outcomes from our beliefs. And anyone must admit that the scientific method and logic had an unprecedented and unrivaled success in human advancement.

Additionally very few people believe that humans are the supreme authority of anything, if you meant that that's what atheists or scientists believe in that is a mis-characterization.

Originally posted by Digi
creationism

directed evolution.

Pardon the multi-syllabic, multi-hyphenated phraseology. I was trying to make this as clear as possible without seeming like I'm splitting hairs or lapsing into overt paradox.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Why would something supernatural have to happen in order for the universe to have no origin? It seems you are artistically inserting an obstetrical into what would otherwise be a very simple statement: the big bang was a change, and not an origin.