Attenboroughs Reason For Atheism

[rkwright]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1320861463' post='2333817']
The Atheist message to the world is tolerance and love.
[/quote]

Why? If I am an Atheist why should I tolerate idiots? or love my enemies. I'd much rather just kill them and live in peace.

BTW this is a totally serious question. I see all morality as derived from God. No God, No morality.

[Mark of the Cross]

[quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1320854679' post='2333749']
(like a man leading a dance, he cannot be a tyrannical leader of the dance or it'll be clumsy and they'll fall all over each other)
[/quote]
Like!

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1320861463' post='2333817']
The Atheist message to the world is tolerance and love.
[/quote]
That's illogical. If there is no God then why do disabled people need to live? They should all be euthanized so as not to degrade the gene pool. And people who have low IQ or behave dangerously on the road are a threat to the gene pool. Why would it be a betrayal for a person to have sex with other partners. It is only a betrayal because in religion a man and his wife are 'one flesh'! Obviously they have separate bodies, so what are we talking about. We are talking about one spirit. The first step in humanity becoming one with God from which all things were made. Why should we show love and tolerance to the third world. Nature is thinning the population which prevents over population and only the fittest will survive. Show me one instance where tolerance and love is beneficial to a Godless world. You might say it brings peace but that will never happen. The fallen man by original sin has a nature of engaging in domination and wars. Better to do as Rkwright says and kill off all that we perceive as threats to our evolution.
Atheists can and often are moral they just can't reconcile it with atheism.

I find Mr Attenburoughs conclusion puzzling. As a naturist he should use scientific and philosophical thinking. He is doing neither, his conclusion is rash and misinformed obviously based on an ill informed view of religion.

Edited November 9, 2011 by Mark of the Cross

[Socrates]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1320861463' post='2333817']
The Atheist message to the world is tolerance and love.
[/quote]
I'm pretty sure that was what Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Ho Chi Minh, Kim Il-Sung, Pol Pot, [i]et. al[/i] were trying to get across.

[MithLuin]

[quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1320854679' post='2333749']
okay, so this is a bit off topic, the topic is actually more about parasitic creatures who by their nature cause pain and suffering in other creatures, especially when they do so to humans...[/quote]

Obviously, this thread may go on to address other aspects of atheism and world views in general, but I'd like to focus on parasites for the moment.

In particular, I give you the cordyceps fungi. Go to youtube and search for 'zombie ants.' You'll find this:

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XuKjBIBBAL8[/media]

You'll note that it is narrated by Sir David Attenborough, which is [i]*probably*[/i] why it was the first example to come to mind. That, and...zombie ants. No contest, really....

So, the cordyceps fungi is pretty intrinsically cruel; it takes over the insect's brain and forces it to commit suicide...particularly in a way that will help to spread the fungi to the rest of the ant colony. WHY does the world need the cordyceps fungi? Welllll, funny you should ask. They do help to keep populations in check. Get too many of one particular type of ant in the jungle, and chances are a cordyceps fungi (tailored to their species, I might add) will find them and decimate the hive. Cordyceps fungi help maintain and actively promote biodiversity in the jungle. That's good for the overall health of the jungle, though, obviously, not for the poor ant that ends up zombified.

['Zombie snails' is also an interesting youtube search.]

Somehow, no one complains when the victim of devious parasitic wasps is...cockroaches.

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RHsSqsqJtZg[/media]
Note that the cockroach is alive throughout almost all of this; alive and powerless to resist. That initial sting makes it unable to walk away under its own power. The cockroach is led to its tomb and buried alive...with the wasp's eggs. The larvae hatch and eat the (still trapped and alive) cockroach...which, yeah, is then dead. So, an interesting twist on the 'buried alive' horror is being buried alive and slowly consumed by your enemy's spawn.

But, hey, it's just a cockroach.

But that's the point - parasites are often only effective against a particular species. If that species dies out, the parasite will, too. But...if that species TAKES OVER THE WORLD, that parasite will be around to help...cull the herd. It's like having natural predators present in an ecosystem, but often ickier.


But back to humans....

If you don't want your child to get mauled by leopards, you likely try your best to keep the child away from places where a leopard may happen upon him or her. If you don't want your child to get eye parasites, you keep them out of freshwater ponds in east Africa. [Standard advice for people traveling in third world nations, actually.]

But why are there such killer diseases (and parasites) in Africa? Humans have lived there much longer than we've inhabited most of the rest of the world, and, well...the local parasites are well adapted to affecting us. Parasites haven't just 'always been here'; you don't get eye worms from swimming in freshwater ponds in North America. We aren't the most numerous life form around, of course (I'm sure the nematodes take that prize), but we are quite successful, and it makes sense that nature would have some 'checks and balances' to keep us...in our place.

Pleasant? No, of course not. But the majority of organisms are not parasitic; that relationship is actually rather rare, considering. I don't see how you could study nature and come away with a fluffy view of 'lion laying down with the lamb' being normal. But...that's kinda the point of Christianity. Nature is fallen, and if you want the leopard and the kid to play together, you have to visit God's holy mountain.

[musturde]

[quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1320792853' post='2333392']
the atheist would object to our explanation because the atheist would see life in this world as the ultimate good, pleasure and comfort as the ultimate goods. so if God does not provide unending non-suffering life in this world, He can't be all-good by their standards of goodness. but those things are not ultimate goods, our argument is that there is an ultimate higher good. [/quote]
This is not true. We cannot define what all atheists believe. It's hard to even define what all Christians believe with one statement and Christianity is an actual religion. Nietzsche, an atheist, wrote about the importance of suffering and how good ultimately comes from it. One can't say that all atheists believe that constant comfort is something one should seek or that suffering is always bad.

[quote] I wouldn't alter my argument all that much for an atheist, it's the same argument. we expect that there will be suffering in this world because we believe sin has corrupted nature. [/quote]
Actually, this brings up questions for believers. To what extent has nature been corrupted? In the example given by the op, it seems that this creature was made to only survive off of human suffering. Therefore, God must have made it that way. To say our sin made it that way does not convince me. Perhaps God made this creature specifically to punish the fall of man or maybe he made it possible for such an organism to be evolved into because of our sin. This doesn't make God malevolent. Perhaps the organism has another function we're unaware of. I don't think the organism itself can be evil.

[quote]anyway, I don't really understand how we're supposed to alter the argument for an atheist. this isn't just to make a theist feel better about it, this is what we believe and the essence of the argument with the atheist is simply that they don't believe in eternal goodness outside of this life, and therefore something like this would present a problem for believing in ultimate goodness at all. [/quote]
Just because they don't believe in eternal goodness outside of this life doesn't mean they're not worth arguing with. God is the creator of human reason. I believe things can be argued logically in a way that anyone can understand it.

[quote] but if there is eternal life, something like this can be meaningful; but if all life is mortal, all is meaningless. it's the simple disagreement between the atheist and the theist, and it doesn't really have to do with parasites--it has to do with whether there is life after death. [/quote]
I've enjoyed reading your views on a number of issues but I have to disagree with you here. I believe atheists are worthy of our dialogue and that proving the worth of suffering does not require one to believe in an afterlife.

[quote]
accept that there is life after death, and this is not necessarily a problem; don't accept that there is life after death, and you're not going to believe in God anyway so this doesn't really prove or disprove anything to you.
[/quote]
You have a point. I think that even if we could answer the problem of evil, one ultimately needs faith to believe in God. However, I feel like atheists are often treated as if they're choosing to be atheists for greedy reasons, simply because they don't want the responsibilities associated with believing in a God. I don't believe this is the case. If there are atheists like this, then fine, one does not need to waste his or her time arguing with these individuals. However, I feel that if even theologians like Thomas Aquinas devoted time to arguing the existence of God in a way that all people could accept it, then we shouldn't ignore this method of reasoning.

[stevil]

[quote name='rkwright' timestamp='1320864926' post='2333844']

Why? If I am an Atheist why should I tolerate idiots? or love my enemies. I'd much rather just kill them and live in peace.

BTW this is a totally serious question. I see all morality as derived from God. No God, No morality.
[/quote]
Atheists tend to be tolerant of people regardless of their level of intelligence. The best way to conquer your enemy is to make them your friend. If that is not possible it is then best to avoid them unless they present a physical threat.
In general Atheists are very law abiding citizens, they realise that this life is their only life and they don't want to waste it in prison. For an understanding of the consequenses of Atheism one only has to look towards the trends of secular law. Law not based on religious belief becomes instead a law based on much discussion and thought, an inclusive law that looks to represent the diversity of people within society. It is our aim not to repress, but to embrace diversity and incorage individualism whilst also setting ground rules to promote a functioning society.

Anyway, I only brought up the quote as it was posted in an earlier post on this thread, it is actually a very strong reason why I sotpped reading the bible. Firstly I am not looking for god, but I was interested in the Christian Mythology, so I started to read, but found the begining of the bible quite silly and getting to the quoted statement, quite sexist, encouraging of torture and punishing people for deeds performed not by them but others. I found this a terrible message and hence stopped reading.

I think this derail has gone on long enough, sorry to the original poster. Please get back to god's plan of intentionally creating organisms to attack, cripple and maim, human beings.

Edited November 10, 2011 by stevil

[Aloysius]

okay, so is this parasite specifically designed to only tunnel through human eyes? I was not under that impression, it sounds like it just has to tunnel through eyes in general to survive, and sometimes that means human eyes.

musturde, I was framing it based upon explaining to an atheist why an all-good God would create creatures that cause such suffering. I think the answer lies in a different understanding of why suffering is good and what kind of suffering is pointless. even if an atheist might have some degree of respect for suffering as beneficial, it would be more along the lines of "what doesn't kill us makes us stronger"; whereas the suffering I was talking about is "even what does kill us makes us better". one who doesn't believe in an afterlife views death as a final end, and thus sees no point in the type of suffering described here. so while there might be some counter-example to some of the absolute interpretations of what I was saying about atheists and suffering/life/and comfort, I still think it applies to the reason an atheist would not accept the argument, because the argument is based upon the premise of an afterlife.

stevil, I was describing what Christianity proclaims to those who are suffering: it proclaims that their suffering has meaning. what would be your message to someone suffering, someone dying? tolerance and love? that's even further off topic, and it's just vague platitude.

[stevil]

[quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1320928419' post='2334238']
stevil, I was describing what Christianity proclaims to those who are suffering: it proclaims that their suffering has meaning. what would be your message to someone suffering, someone dying? tolerance and love? that's even further off topic, and it's just vague platitude.
[/quote]
I hope that Euthanasia becomes legal one day, I am sure it will. We offer a humane approach to a dieing non human animal and yet we force humans to suffer.
I would classify this option as showing love to the suffering person.

Edited November 10, 2011 by stevil

[Mark of the Cross]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1320948371' post='2334338']
I hope that Euthanasia becomes legal one day, I am sure it will. We offer a humane approach to a dieing non human animal and yet we force humans to suffer.
I would classify this option as showing love to the suffering person.
[/quote]
I don't think Euthenasia is illegal because theists don't agree with it. It's the problem of deciding who needs it, who should decide and its propensity for corruption. There will never be agreement, people will be getting murdered while others are still suffering because of disagreement. Would you like to play a pseudo god and be one who decides who lives and who dies, I wouldn't! It's a mine field of problems even in the atheist viewpoint.

[quote]Just because they don't believe in eternal goodness outside of this life doesn't mean they're not worth arguing with.[/quote]
Maybe I missed something! Who said or inferred otherwise? I don't believe I could ever change the view of an atheist, but I would certainly always where possible give it a good try.

[stevil]

[quote name='Mark of the Cross' timestamp='1320954885' post='2334423']
I don't think Euthenasia is illegal because theists don't agree with it. It's the problem of deciding who needs it, who should decide and its propensity for corruption. There will never be agreement, people will be getting murdered while others are still suffering because of disagreement. Would you like to play a pseudo god and be one who decides who lives and who dies, I wouldn't! It's a mine field of problems even in the atheist viewpoint.
[/quote]
The suffering patient, the head doctor, and a psychologist

[MithLuin]

Euthenasia would often be a decision that is made by next of kin, not the patient themselves. That is currently how decisions about removing people from life support and discontinuing treatment go. If the patient does not qualify for hospice and wishes to end his or her own life (but is not actually...dying), it is generally called assisted suicide.

There is a difference between allowing someone to die (hey, we're all going to die someday....) and actively killing a person. There is a huge opportunity for abuse if you are allowed to 'kill off' patients who are not actually dying. I think euthanasia flies in the face of the medical profession.

But back to parasites.

[Vincent Vega]

Of all of the compelling reasons for atheism, this is not among them.

[stevil]

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' timestamp='1320996829' post='2334797']
Of all of the compelling reasons for atheism, this is not among them.
[/quote]
There is only one compelling reason for Atheism.
Disbelief in the stories/evidence for Theism, non acceptance for the requirement to choose faith without evidence.

[Aloysius]

indeed, you would tell the suffering person that their suffering had no ultimate meaning, and they should alleviate it by death. that's sort of my whole point summed up in a nutshell then. to the atheist, suffering has no ultimate meaning (outside of this life at least), and therefore on that premise creatures like parasites are bad and evil. if suffering has ultimate meaning, particularly out of this life ultimate meaning, then parasites are not something which are bad or evil, because the suffering they cause as part of the suffering and hardship caused by the whole of the fallen world are good for us in the light of eternity.

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1320999697' post='2334798']
There is only one compelling reason for Atheism.
Disbelief in the stories/evidence for Theism, non acceptance for the requirement to choose faith without evidence.
[/quote]
Hm. No.