A bit of a philosophical type of question....(2 cents welcome)

[ItsAChiaotzu]

It's neither, how much you value life is based on your own predispositions and though your faith/lack of may affect it, generally you'll form an opinion regardless of what your faith says.

I would say however that an Atheistic view places less spiritual meaning on human life as opposed to life in general, while Christians and other religions generally keep humans in higher regard to other animals.

 

[cuddly_tomato]

...Which I conclusively proved to be false. You then responded not by admitting that was an error, but by quoting scripture Dawkins. This is not the action of a so called "free thinker", or of someone who is capable of critical thinking. This is the action of someone whos mind is already made up, and will, in his own mind, adjust the facts to suit himself, not adjust his own position so it tallies with the facts.
Your excessive theophobia has been pointed out by more people than just myself. You really need to find a way to overcome your hatred.

I can't respond to your arguments. All I do is just refute all the false assumptions you make... Am I too vague in my posts? First off, I didn't "admit I made an error, but by quoting Dawkins". I tried to paraphrase Dawkins a scientist, you disagreed, so I pointed out it wasn't actually my own argument.

I do not consider books of Richard Dawkins to be "the word of god". They are scientific, I've read some of them and I found them very interesting and educative. I quoted him the same way you quoted New York Times, and I didn't accuse you of blind belief in everything written in that source. But you did.

Of course I did. Dude, I am going to explain this too you one more time, and before you respond please consider the fact you are making yourself look very foolish - you made the assertion that the communist ideals of Stalin had nothing to do with atheism, I PROVED this wrong, you then responded by quoting Dawkins as if that somehow rendered that proof invalid. The parallels between you and a religious extremist are clear for all to see. If I presented fossils of Homo Erectus to a creationist to explain that humans did indeed evolve from apes, he would quote the Bible to 'prove' that this was wrong.

You do exactly the same in the face of irrefutable evidence. Ergo, you are a fundamentalist.

About my "theophobia" (maybe the first time I even hear this word): Yes, I am strongly against religion. What you call hatred I call activism. I try to at least change the public opinion on religion and blind faith. But not violently. By using logical arugments, science and reason. Because I value human life (yay me trying to get back to the topic and only sounding pretentious). It is my opinion, which can be changed by reasonable arguments. So far I've heard none.

What I call hatred you call activism? Well what a religious extremist calls justice you call hatred. You can play semantics all you like, the fact is your motivations are nothing more than bigotry and hatred of people who have a view point different than yours. I don't care what your religion is, I don't want to know, I just don't want you being an atheist-witness and trying to shove it down everybody elses throats. You are just the same as those people who hand out Jesus pamphlets and warn everybody they are going to Hell unless they switch - you are saying they belong to an evil culture and are holding the world back unless they switch.

You are trying to aggressively convert people not of your faith too your faith. Ergo, you are just the same as any religious extremist who does the same. If you respond with "well that's because my beliefs are right and theirs are wrong" see the part about being a fundamentalist.

There are also other atheists who believe in UFO...

Absolutely blatant strawman fallacy. To imply that atheists who disagree with Dawkins are somehow on the lunatic fringe (you didn't say it, but that was the clear implication), just demonstrates that in your eyes everything that Dawkins says 'is gospel'.

There are also many people who claim that Dawkins is aggressive, hating and ignorant. If you actually read his books or just watch some interviews with him, you'll find that this is not the case. Truth be told, when I first heard about him and was presented with his ideas, I thought he was "full of shit", too. But I'm not in a position to defend his credibility, I was just referencing a scientific source. Show me another which contradicts it and I will take it into consideration. Thanks for being polite and reasonable with me.

What is your opinion of H. Allen Orr [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H._Allen_Orr]? An evolutionary biologist who has won the following awards:-

Orr has been the recipient of a Guggenheim Fellowship, a David and Lucile Packard Fellowship, an Alfred P. Sloan Foundation Postdoctoral Fellowship, and a Rockefeller Foundation Scholar in Residence Fellowship at Bellagio Study Center, Italy. He was awarded the Dobzhansky Prize by the Society for the Study of Evolution and the Young Investigator Prize by the American Society of Naturalists. He was also named Professor of the Year in Natural Sciences by the Student Association at University of Rochester in 2002. In 2008 he was one of thirteen recipients of the Darwin-Wallace Medal, which is bestowed every 50 years by the Linnean Society of London.

What did he have to say about "The God Delusion" and Dawkins?

As you may have noticed, Dawkins when discussing religion is, in effect, a blunt instrument, one that has a hard time distinguishing Unitarians from abortion clinic bombers. What may be less obvious is that, on questions of God, Dawkins cannot abide much dissent, especially from fellow scientists (and especially from fellow evolutionary biologists). Indeed Dawkins is fond of imputing ulterior motives to those "Neville Chamberlain School" scientists not willing to go as far as he in his war on religion: he suggests that they're guilty of disingenuousness, playing politics, and lusting after the large prizes awarded by the Templeton Foundation to scientists sympathetic to religion.[2] The only motive Dawkins doesn't seem to take seriously is that some scientists genuinely disagree with him.

Despite my admiration for much of Dawkins's work, I'm afraid that I'm among those scientists who must part company with him here. Indeed, The God Delusion seems to me badly flawed. Though I once labeled Dawkins a professional atheist, I'm forced, after reading his new book, to conclude he's actually more an amateur.

Want more?

One reason for the lack of extended argument in The God Delusion is clear: Dawkins doesn't seem very good at it. Indeed he suffers from several problems when attempting to reason philosophically. The most obvious is that he has a preordained set of conclusions at which he's determined to arrive. Consequently, Dawkins uses any argument, however feeble, that seems to get him there and the merit of various arguments appears judged largely by where they lead.

And in reference to your comments regarding communism and Stalin, and Dawkins opinion of them...

While Dawkins touches on each, his modus operandi generally involves comparing religion as practiced?religion, that is, as it plays out in the rough-and-tumble world of compromise, corruption, and incompetence?with atheism as theory. But fairness requires that we compare both religion and atheism as practiced or both as theory. The latter is an amorphous and perhaps impossible task, and I can see why Dawkins sidesteps it. But comparing both as practiced is more straightforward. And, at least when considering religious and atheist institutions, the facts of history do not, I believe, demonstrate beyond doubt that atheism comes out on the side of the angels. Dawkins has a difficult time facing up to the dual facts that (1) the twentieth century was an experiment in secularism; and (2) the result was secular evil, an evil that, if anything, was more spectacularly virulent than that which came before.

.....

In any case, it's hard to believe that Stalin's wholesale torture and murder of priests and nuns (including crucifixions) and Mao's persecution of Catholics and extermination of nearly every remnant of Buddhism were unconnected to their atheism. Neither the institutions of Christianity nor those of communism are, of course, innocent. But Dawkins's inability to see the difference in the severity of their sins?one of orders of magnitude?suggests an ideological commitment of the sort that usually reflects devotion to a creed.

Read it yourself.

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/19775

Those are the words of an internationally reknowned scientist, not some whacko looking at UFOs, or someone who said a few things that some people liked and then got an honorary doctorate. According to Wikipedia "Orr is said to be one of the few evolutionary biologists ever to have made fundamental contributions about how changes occur within lineages over time, and about how lineages split to result in new species". He is worth your time and your attention. Read that NY book review of 'The God Delusion' that I just linked, apply some true critical thought, and then we will start over.

 

[Rokar333]

Don't worry, I'm not some brainwashed [religious] person who, when confronted with evidence against his faith, just doesn't listen.

I'm sorry, I don't think I understand you, so let's get this straight.

You are antireligious because, ... why? Are you really that butthurt that other people have different opinions? Will changing someone's opinion on religion really change their opinion on other social issues that you happen to be for? What harm does it cause you when other people choose to believe in a diety? Are you like one of these fucktards?

http://www.xkcd.com/610

You are trying to change someone's opinion by calling them brainwashed morons? Or do you just admit that you are trying to preach to a choir?

You're trying to use Dawkins as a scientific source? Nobody has called you on this bullshit because?

I have concluded that you sir are a fucktard.

 

[Serge A. Storms]

Don't worry, I'm not some brainwashed [religious] person who, when confronted with evidence against his faith, just doesn't listen.

I'm sorry, I don't think I understand you, so let's get this straight.

You are antireligious because, ... why? Are you really that butthurt that other people have different opinions? Will changing someone's opinion on religion really change their opinion on other social issues that you happen to be for? What harm does it cause you when other people choose to believe in a diety? Are you like one of these fucktards?

http://www.xkcd.com/610

You are trying to change someone's opinion by calling them brainwashed morons? Or do you just admit that you are trying to preach to a choir?

You're trying to use Dawkins as a scientific source? Nobody has called you on this bullshit because?

I have concluded that you sir are a fucktard.

Do you just follow cuddly around whenever he gets into a religious debate?

 

[cuddly_tomato]

Do you just follow cuddly around whenever he gets into a religious debate?

Doubt it. Just that when I see that a religious 'debate' has taken a certain route I tend to put my oar in to clear up certain.... errors that people like tend to make, and as you can imagine that happens all the time here. I have posted in at least 40 religious threads on this forum (literally), and he has posted in but 2 of them.

 

[Serge A. Storms]

As far as who values life more, that depends on the individual and the religion/philosophy that that individual goes by. For a person that has religious belief, they may value life exactly as it is described in a religious text (which could be a lot or very little depending on the religion) or they could have a general religion along with a personal philosophy. Bridging the gap between traditional Christianity, and, say, Ludwig Wittgenstein would be damn near impossible. By the same token, an atheist could be one that still views all people as having intrinsic value, in which case it could still vary wildly, or they could be a nihilist and not value life at all. I lean towards nihilism, but I don't expect many people to go that way and I guarantee most atheists are not nihilist or anything remotely resembling nihilism.

 

[Serge A. Storms]

Do you just follow cuddly around whenever he gets into a religious debate?

Doubt it. Just that when I see that a religious 'debate' has taken a certain route I tend to put my oar in to clear up certain.... errors that people like tend to make, and as you can imagine that happens all the time here. I have posted in at least 40 religious threads on this forum (literally), and he has posted in but 2 of them.

I see it becoming more of a trend in the near future.

 

[Superhyperactiveman]

Yeah, the fact here is that atheists are just going to say atheists and believers are just going to say believers...

Unfortunatley, the problem is that you're trying to answer a question about value of life using reason and logic, when value for life is, in and of itself, completely illogical. When you think about it, it makes no sense to care about life, when you could be so much better off if you could dispose of life whenever it got in the way. A value for life comes from the other pole of human understanding: faith (For non-philosophy students, the two ways we understand the world are reason, that which we deduce through logic, and faith, that which we cannot reason to, yet accept. And before I get targeted, even atheists have and use faith... just not faith in God.)

And, for the record, I HATE how pro-choice people always throw rape in the faces of pro-life people. Of all abortions nationwide (in the United States), only about 2% (I don't recall the exact number, but it's somewhere in that general area) of the pregnancies are the result of rape. The other 98% are just people having sex irresponsibly (be it unprotected, pulling out, teenagers who aren't ready, or otherwise people having sex in a situation where they are not prepared, in one form or another, to have a baby)

I'm not saying you can't have your opinion or that you're going to Hell for it. I'm just saying stop playing the rape card, because not only does it count for a very small percentage of the total number of abortions, but it does not, in any way, explain why abortion should be open to people of different circumstances. That arguement gets on my nerves to no end.

 

[Rokar333]

Do you just follow cuddly around whenever he gets into a religious debate?

Are you following the threads I post in? Because I have to admit, this is getting a little weird.

 

[Serge A. Storms]

Do you just follow cuddly around whenever he gets into a religious debate?

Are you following the threads I post in? Because I have to admit, this is getting a little weird.

Can I lick your gash?

 

[Snowalker]

An athiest. Don't let the Fundamentalists lie to you. We value life far more than anyone who believe in eternal life. FAR MORE.

Yeah, well, I'm not an atheist, but yeah what this guy said.

And I personally think chritstians going out and yelling "I'm a christian, you should be one too!" really don't know shit about their religion. Christianity teaches that one should be meek and humble.

 

[bcponpcp27]

In my opinion, an atheist. Christians make most of their decisions (ideally) with the AFTER life in mind. The value of life is very small in comparsion to getting to the after life for them. Their entire goal of life is to make it to heaven, to be with god forever.

An atheist has no after life, this is all he gets. If you don't make the most of it and make your mark in your 80 years here, your done. No second chance, no living forever as a spirit, your just gone.

 

[Serge A. Storms]

Reading through this thread, I've got a sneaking suspicion that some of the people here consider valuing life a virtue of some sort.

 

[oppp7]

There's good and bad on both sides. Sorry to tell you this, but life isn't just black and white.

 

[feversk]

Of course I did. Dude, I am going to explain this too you one more time, and before you respond please consider the fact you are making yourself look very foolish - you made the assertion that the communist ideals of Stalin had nothing to do with atheism, I PROVED this wrong...

Did you not read my all of my last post? I wrote that Stalin happened to be an atheist. I knew it before you told me. I am not arguing against your arguments. I admit that my first post about atheists valuing life more than religious people sounded very closed-minded. However, it was a quick, generalized answer (and it's actually true in many cases). I like to play the devil's advocate.

you then responded by quoting Dawkins as if that somehow rendered that proof invalid.

No.

I won't bother to answer to this again, read my last post.

If I presented fossils of Homo Erectus to a creationist to explain that humans did indeed evolve from apes, he would quote the Bible to 'prove' that this was wrong.

...And that's why I'm very different from a fundamentalist.

You do exactly the same in the face of irrefutable evidence. Ergo, you are a fundamentalist.

Please, give a proof of me dismissing a solid argument just because I don't like it.

What I call hatred you call activism? Well what a religious extremist calls justice you call hatred. You can play semantics all you like, the fact is your motivations are nothing more than bigotry and hatred of people who have a view point different than yours.

No. If you see it that way, you are very mistaken.

I don't care what your religion is, I don't want to know, I just don't want you being an atheist-witness and trying to shove it down everybody elses throats.

I wrote this several times already:
I am irreligious. That means I have no religion. Worldview /= organized church.

You are just the same as those people who hand out Jesus pamphlets and warn everybody they are going to Hell unless they switch - you are saying they belong to an evil culture and are holding the world back unless they switch.

Except my arguments are based on reason, science and critical thinking. Not violence, brainwashing and fear. There are many reasons why religion is dangerous. I see it daily. Around me, in the news, looking at history...

You are trying to aggressively convert people not of your faith too your faith. Ergo, you are just the same as any religious extremist who does the same. If you respond with "well that's because my beliefs are right and theirs are wrong" see the part about being a fundamentalist.

I. Have. No. Faith.

I. Am. Irreligious.

Are you even listening to me? You are the one that is fundamentalist in this discussion. You just won't change your already made-up ideas.

There are also other atheists who believe in UFO...

Absolutely blatant strawman fallacy. To imply that atheists who disagree with Dawkins are somehow on the lunatic fringe (you didn't say it, but that was the clear implication), just demonstrates that in your eyes everything that Dawkins says 'is gospel'.
My only intention of writing this was saying that even of one is an atheist, it doesn't mean that whatever he said I would consider true, or that he's automatically right, which was your implication.

Also, I'll repeat myself and make it more visible to you, so you will hopefully see it: I do not consider books of Richard Dawkins to be "gospel". I do not consider anything to be "holy", "gospel", or "the word of god".

Read that NY book review of 'The God Delusion' that I just linked, apply some true critical thought, and then we will start over.

Critical thought is my second name, dude. I might look into it.

 

[Erja_Perttu]

Reading through this thread, I've got a sneaking suspicion that some of the people here consider valuing life a virtue of some sort.

Oh, woe betide the world should that ever happen.

 

[Woem]

An athiest. Don't let the Fundamentalists lie to you. We value life far more than anyone who believe in eternal life. FAR MORE.

Not all religious people are fundamentalists (with or without a capital F). I think religious people might have an advantage because of what William James describes as a moral holiday: a day where you as a person might have certain difficulties can leave worldly troubles off your mind and let God deal with them. An atheist can do no such thing because he doesn't have a God to take care of things. But said atheist will think the believer a fool exactly because of this. So I don't think that anyone can answer the OP question, it's something that everyone should make up for his own.

 

[literallyanythingelse]

As for early-term abortions (the large majority of abortions in general) I just don't get why you want to have people ruining their lives because they made a mistake. It's a clump of cells without a brain, feelings, consciousness, anything. It's like scratching off a few skin cells with your finger nail.

I can fully understand people who are opposed to late-term abortions, hell, I even sort of agree with that (unless there's a serious enough reason to do so). But they make up the vastly minor number of all abortions.

Alright, let's just say I'm opposed to late-term abortions in most situations and move to the early term stuff.

How does it ruin somebody's life to have a kid and put it up for adoption? I realize pregnancy is very painful, but many women seem to be able to manage it just fine. And no, after the moment of conception, a fertilized egg is NOT directly comparable to a few skin flakes. The skin cells will not develop into a fully-functioning member of society given time. The fetus will.

And again, how is it a "mistake" to have a child? You don't have to keep it-that's what adoption agencies are for. Why should the child suffer for the parent's stupidity? (Keeping in mind that I'm referring to the majority of early-term abortions, which do not involve the mother's life being at stake or the possibility of rape.)

Why should the majority suffer for the sake of the minority?

Because we're living in democratic states where minorities have to be protected?
And why is abortion making "the majority" suffering? Who are you talking about? The fetuses?

Yes. The fetuses which, given time, will become human beings like you and me. Every person alive on this planet once was one. We should be thankful our parents did not consider us mistakes. Or, if they did, that they at least allowed us to live long enough to find people who cared about us.

Besides, it makes no mathematical sense to punish those with more years yet to live over those who've had a good 15+ years already to prove their worth to society. It's not my choice to make, but I'd take the kid's life over the mother's any day of the week, purely on the child's potential. The mother we already have the measure of, but the child could be another Einstein. Why sacrifice that?

Could be another Einstein - could be another Hitler...

 

[TheHitcher]

Think I'd go with an athiest as they aren't being lead by religious believes that would influence their behaviour in the world.

 

[Samurai Goomba]

Could be another Einstein - could be another Hitler...

Well, at least you're contributing something new and original to the discussion with your one-sentence post after quoting my mountain of text and wasting page space.

Oh wait, you're not.