Is Atheism/Evolutionism Dangerous? Questions for Unbelievers

by Perry 156 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Perry

  I'm not going around killing physically weaker individuals

  Yet, you believe this is what happened to make possible your existence, right? You see what I'm getting at? Many people just do not connect with this heritage of violence that athiests maintain gives them freedom from religious servitude. Many wonder if athiests have split personalities since there is such cognitive dissonance between what they believe is their origins and what they publically practice.

  The next logical question is how do you know when you are "doing good"? What do you base that on? If you do good, but I maintain that it's bad, how do you know the difference as an "evolved athiest"?
• 

  mia_b

  "Did Hitler not say that any race who would not fight for it's survival, was not worthy of living, citing "survival of the fittest"?" warlock - hitler was a catholic and was supported by the catholic church
• 

  Narkissos

  Is mankind dangerous? -- Question to the global ecosystem.

  Is life dangerous? -- Question to the universe.

  Is the universe dangerous? -- Question to the multiverse; or to the gods?
• 

  nicolaou

  Yet, you believe this is what happened to make possible your existence, right?

  Wrong. As I said earlier, that is just one part of the evolutionary process. If you want to dumb things down so that you don't have to consider all the complexities that's your choice but don't expect me to play by your myopic standards.

  Many people just do not connect with this heritage of violence that athiests maintain gives them freedom from religious servitude.

  'Heritage of violence'? Your assertion, that's all. What gives me 'freedom from religious servitude' is nothing but rationality and reason, something that your meanderings seem to lack.

  Many wonder if athiests have split personalities since there is such cognitive dissonance between what they believe is their origins and what they publically practice.

  Good argument! Rather than try to understand the atheist just accuse him of having mental aberrations!

  The next logical question

  The next?!! Where was the first one?

  how do you know when you are "doing good"? What do you base that on?

  What a loaded question. We all know when we are doing good or bad, we may feel guilt or pride and we have a conscience - not god given but evolved over millions of years.

  If you do good, but I maintain that it's bad, how do you know the difference as an "evolved athiest"?

  I know because I am neither amoral nor a fool.
• 

  Perry

  Good argument! Rather than try to understand the atheist just accuse him of having mental aberrations!

  Nicolaou, with all due respect, I am trying. But it appears that your "evolvement" has simply naturally selected you to be more likely to avoid questions. Are you wanting me to accept that you know when you're doing good because you "just know"? In your opinion is this a good method of guidance to teach children? Why wouldn't it be if its good for you? Am I supposed to impose my version of "good" on children and then once they are 18 say, "now forget all that and 'just know' when you are doing good".

  This is one of the reasons why I asked if it was dangerous.

  If the violence and cold realities that accompany the natural selection process was not good as you maintain, how do you morally or ethically justify your existence? I mean, if it wasn't a good thing for you to get here (by whatever means necessary) what makes you a good thing now that you have arrived? You are good right?
• 

  LittleToe

  skyking:

  Were do I start. You forget all the modern wars are divided by religion.

  Chechnya?

  Perry;
  Lumping Atheism with Evolution muddies the waters.
• 

  Abaddon

  Long time Perry... you still need to get your nails cut, silly Parrot.

  Does the belief that there is no all-loving Diety in which to be accountable to make it easier or harder to treat and judge others they way that you want to be treated and judged?

  Depends on the person, just as whether the belief that there is an all-loving Diety which one is accountable to makes it easier or harder to treat and judge others they way that you want to be treated and judged depends on the person.

  Since evolution supposes that life and ultimately man who is at the top of the chain got here through a process of the fittest dominating and killing off the weaker, and since most modern evolutionists in democracies no longer think that this is good to practice, how do you deal with the fact that you are a living contradiction of your own belief since you pronounce the same thing both good and bad?

  PLEASE, study evolution. Your above statement shows you need to, and proceeding further would be like discussing Chess with someone who approaches it with the attitude the rules are like Chequers.

  "life ... got here through a process of the fittest dominating and killing off the weaker" is a mischaracterisation. In most populations those that survive and whose characteristics come to dominate the population over generations do so by being better at reproducing in the environment the population is in than other members of the population. If killing is done it is normally the environment that kills. Very few species kill each other; it is not a good way of surviving. And species which co-operate together can often have better survival propects than those that don't.

  I think if you use Evolution textbooks as a source, rather than anti-evolutionary information (I assume you got the mistatement from the latter rather than misunderstanding the former), you will see you've mischaracterised evolution and made the assumption frequently parrotted by anti-evolutionists that not believing in the tooth fairy makes you morally unprincipled.

  If you doubt me and can't be arsed to do the research, just look at the religious affiliation of prisoners. There is no support whatsoever for evolutionists being more likely to be in jail than believers.
• 

  BlackSwan of Memphis

  Personally, I have known both athiests/unbelievers and religionists/believers whose ideas and decisions based on those ideas made them seem quite dangerous to me, and the reverse is also true. So there ya go.

  ~Merry

  what the hell is up with these threads lately? Is <<fill in blank>> dangerous?

  anything, anyone can be dangerous. Any philosophy can be dangerous when taken to extremes. Even atheism.
• 

  Perry

  Seems like most posters agree that the practice of good and/or bad has little or nothing to do with our view of origins whether accidental and violent, or purposeful and benevolent.

  So, is the following a fair statement:

  The "A" man does some good (because he just knows) as an abberation to, or in spite of, the violent parts (not withstanding the other parts) of his origin; while the "G" man can do virtually no good at all when compared to the infinite benevolence of his view of his origin.

  Aren't both positions contradictions? I can't see how either position could possibly justify the bearers' continued existence.
• 

  Scully

  Perry:

  My recent reading list has included the following:

  Can We Be Good Without God? by Robert Buckman, MD
  The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins

  Both authors address your questions, Buckman from the point of view of a social humanist, and Dawkins from the point of view of a scientist who believes in the process of natural selection.

  A lot of people who are "believers" have some gross misunderstandings of evolution and natural selection. For example, Dawkins explains that natural selection does not occur by "random chance", as many creationists/believers would think it does. Both authors discuss how religion may have developed and how morality may have developed in the human species.

  You can probably find both books available at your local public library. You'll find some enlightening answers about atheism and evolution if you take the opportunity to read them.

  Now to answer your question:

  Is Atheism/Evolutionism Dangerous?

  I personally think it all depends on the individual. You can have good atheists and bad. You can have good religious people and bad religious people. Believing in God doesn't necessarily stop people from murdering others, or being abusive to women and children and animals. For the religious person, all they have to do is "repent" before their death and God will forgive them.

  Atheism and/or humanism requires a great deal of self-awareness, being in touch with one's own values and ethics, and personal accountability for one's own actions. For example, I no longer abide by the JW euphemism to "wait on Jehovah" when I want to change something in my life. I take responsibility for figuring out what exactly needs to change, what steps are required to achieve that change, and putting the plan in action to effect the change that I want. I know that I cannot fall back on the "just following orders" excuse if I treat someone else poorly, or if I do something that goes against my own principles - I will have to live with the understanding that I caused harm to someone else, and that I don't get a do-over.