Atheist aren't people their evolutionary monkey hybreds. Only Christians are people. People are created not morphed. 
I'm joking. Really I am.
Careful though, there is a thing called Poe's Law you know.
I for one am an African Ape and quite happy to accept that fact!
In my experience christians that have actually read the bible and practice what they preach tend to be very good people.
Many are, but in my experience the niceness or otherwise tends to come from the nature of the person to begin with (Nature and/or Nurture - separate issue). People can interpret the bible (like anything else - good example; people read Karl Marx's Communist Manifesto and interpreted it such a way that he reacted by declaring "I am not a Marxist" based on the way they were acting as a result) and be the nicest people, although if too serious about it (in my opinion) rather deluded with the feeling they need to "save" the rest of us - Nice can still be annoying and insulting. Or they can be right wankers. It all depends.
The ones that become christian to further a cause or think it some how makes them better than everyone else are indeed assholes. The same goes for science. Most atheists I've met have been jerks but the only reason I knew they were atheists in the first place is because they were so militant about it.
Not all of us though, eh?
There's militant and there's militant, and it depends what you are militant, or passionate, about, and why. Me; I am passionate about Reason, and thus feel the need to stand up to abuses of, and attempts (realised or not) to undermine its value and proper usage. Religion comes directly under fire because it tends to commit this attack against Reason far too much. That religious people can be perfectly nice and wonderful people is beside the point, but not ignored entirely or forgotten. Some theists I have talked to, even though they are making many of the same outrageous claims as the worst zealots, I tend to feel sorry for rather than at all "militant" again personally; I see that they are victims of indoctrination, and do not, can not, see the harm they are doing.
That sounded harsh, so a few nice words: Not all theists and religious folks do this though, most probably do not, they simply believe what they believe and try to live their lives, letting everyone else do the same. I may disagree with the reasons they believe as they do, and will gladly say so if (and only if) the conversation comes up, but will only become "militant" if they "fire the first shot."
AS it happens; mine and my wife's best friends just happen to be Catholics. And yes, they know my position on the matter, even had the odd conversation on it (and I never pretend to be any less emphatic than I truly feel) and friends we remain.
One more word on this: I frequent the Richard Dawkins forum (Just became a "Veteran Member" actually,) in fact it is from there that I was "poached" to engage you lot here. And they are by in large the nicest group of people I have had the pleasure to meet and get to know - almost all of them atheists. And sadly it is the theists (not all, but I would say a slight majority) are the ones who tend to be the most abusive and insulting, at least when their Faith gets pushed too far - Its an emotional response, not a rational one; Cognitive Dissonance responses are all too common. Most often you find them accusing us atheists of being mean, insulting etc. when we argue against their claims and arguments. But that is what the forum is for; Rigorous rational debate. That can get uncomfortable for some people at times, especially when they are not used to their cherished belief coming under such uncensored critical scrutiny. Their belief has been protected by Faith, and been protected from reason, not subjected to it, it has gotten far too much of a free ride. A few theists love it though, they to relish the cut and thrust of heated, but rational and fair, debate.
and i agree, in principle but I'm on the other side of that fence. To me its kind of like trying to prove an emotion. You could tell me all day long that theres no such thing as,dare I say , Love but with out something to back your claim it would fall on deaf ears. I know it exists, I've experienced it but I can't in any way prove it. That doesn't mean its doesn't exist. I would assume its an emotion every one has felt and therefor it shouldn't have to be proven. Thats kind of were I'm at with the whole God thing.
Actually Love is quite testable and open to investigation. Just because it is not a physical thing does not change that. Although there is a nature to it that many miss; they call it "love," and interpret this as it sounds, a Noun - and actual thing. Which it is not; it’s an experience, a function of things. You can not "experience" love as such (although we use that very term) instead we experience things (other people, things...) in a particular way, the way of love.
We could go on all day about this, big subject.
But the evidence for love can be discovered - that's how we know (or think we know, because evidence doesn't equal proof) that someone loves us for instance. How? Magic? A mystical connection? Sounds poetic, but hardly. We can tell by the evidence of our senses; the way the talk to us, their body behaviour, their scent even (if we weren’t so busy disguising that with spays and perfumes) things like that. With out such evidence we would never know. Something I heard recently:
There is a term for Knowing someone loves us without any evidence (like that above): Its called Stalking
By the same token, if someone told you that they loved you, would you just believe them? I wouldn't; not without some sign - Evidence, to confirm it.
This is a common analogy for theists defending their belief in god(s) sans evidence - sometimes this is clearly a dishonest tactic (seen a few of those) at other times they truly believe it, as you no doubt do. But is simply doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
Now I am happy to admit that perhaps there is no evidence for god(s), no way to get evidence for him - Yes, even if he/she/it does truly exist - but the burden of proof (or evidence or reasoning) is still on the one making the positive claim. Especially when in my case, and that of most (but not all) atheists, my position and claim is not "there are no gods" but rather "I do not accept your claim that there are gods." the latter is an entirely different ballgame than the former.
Since we are at this point I might as well add this: Those who make the claim that there are no gods, do take on (effectively accepting it with the claim) a certain burden of proof. Basically in saying that they are claiming that there is some positive reason to believe as they do and they have it. They are claiming to have a reason to believe as they do, thus have the duty to present this reasoning (evidence or whatever it might entail) before anyone can be expected to accept their claim. This, of course, is the exact same burden as the one on the theist who claims there is a god or gods.
You will however find that many such atheists (who are in something of a minority in my experience) when pushed, reveal that their real claim is that there is no reason to believe in gods, so they reject that claim. They are making a mistake in making claims beyond their actual belief/view/opinions in my opinion.
This quote (again):
"If an entity X is postulated to exist, and no substantive evidence capable of withstanding intense critical scrutiny is present to support the postulated existence of entity X, then the default position is to regard entity X as not existing until said substantive supporting evidence becomes present." - Calilasseia (RichardDawkins.net forum)
Sums up my view on the matter, at least to a certain degree. For me; I see no evidence or reason to believe in any gods, nothing that points to the plausibility of any such thing. As such I see it as irrational to believe in such things. For me, most definitely, most irrational for me to believe in them, as I have in my possession no Reason (no supportive reasoning or evidence) to do so. And as far as I can tell, no one else has either - many have claimed that they do of course. But if so, then why have they failed to provide it? Or worse, provided claims and arguments that fall apart under the most cursory rational examination?
Logic and reason are the monkey wrenches in my quest for blissful ignorance.
I know what you are saying. And that I have found is an all too common thread in religion through the ages - "Ignorance is bliss, reason and logic are hard."
I'm afraid that that is why so many people fall for religious rhetoric and New Age type fantasies as well - the desire for easy answers, or an excuse to avoid facing them. Fine by me, to a degree, exept when they try to force or push it on others: especially their children - children are natural scientists, eager to learn, religious indoctrination can stifle that curiosity - even turn the naturally inquisitive (the next Darwin or Newton perhaps?) into lovers of Blissful Ignorance.
I am glad that I for one abhor wilful ignorance and love Reason and Logic with a passion
To me Ignorance is not bliss - It is an opportunity to learn and dispel that ignorance. And I find no discomfort in being ignorant and wholly perplexed about anything. I love it as a matter of fact – not the perplexity, but the potential opportunity it promises; to learn something new!
For some Ignorance is a blessing, something to enjoy, for me (and many others, scientists especially) it is a challenge to try to over come. And for many of us that challenge is not a thing to fear and dread, some something to savour and enjoy.
Thats kind of my point. For example, and I make it ridiculous on purpose, I know that 45% of traffic accidents involve alchohol. I know the other 55% are caused by sober drivers. Logically I can deduce that I am 5% safer riding with some one thats drunk over someone thats sober.
(By the way, I'm enjoying this pleasant conversation, so realise that when I come down hard on anything, it is not in anger or in attack, Just driving the point home and displaying how serious I take it. I am not one to pull my punches - even in the most pleasant of conversations.)
I get your point; people can misuse (abuse) the tools of reason. It is the duty of the Reasonist (lover of Reason) to stand up and let it be known when such transgressions occur. Otherwise this rubbish only spreads.
Your example send me back to my studying of Statistics (it was my minor before switching to Philosophy actually.) There is a saying in Statistics"
"You can Prove anything with Statistics!"It is of course a Warning, not a boast; a warning that people can all too readily use the tools and various results of statistics and twist them to their own desired conclusions. A warning to be on the look out, and be prepared for it, and not to be to ready to just accept it at face value.
A life lesson for us all.
If you take away some ones crutch they fall down unless they never needed the crutch in the first place.
Right, so they scramble for the nearest available replacement. And there are so very many people ready and waiting to hand them a new crutch to lean on. What is needed is they need to be taught how to walk without one at all.
This is one of my real passions - Education: Children need to be taught, and as early as possible, the fundamentals of philosophy. This is the tools and techniques of argument, reasoning and critical thinking.
Not only will this give an unimaginable boost to their subsequent education (kids are simply not taught, at least not adequately, how to learn - then we get upset that they aren't learning anything in school?! Facts and figures aren’t much good if you haven't learned how to process and use them) but to their day to day lives. Including the "inoculation" against the woolly thinking to be found in all those cults, religions, and all that "new age" (although so much of it is very old indeed) woo like numerology, Crystal healing, astrology, and the list goes on....and on....
And the benefits to them, and society as a whole, would be simply astounding! Well, compared to the way things stand at present.
But sadly so many parents (and not just them of course) feel, and have been indoctrinated themselves to feel and pass on that feeling (viral meme), that they feel the must indoctrinate their children to believe just as they do. How does that achieve anything but the stifling of progress?!
It be hooves me here to point out that I most adamantly agree with Richard Dawkins stance against the Labelling as children by the religion of their parents. And how this is something that should get the same type of recognition as the similar efforts of The Women's Lib movement against the masculinisation of words in common language - referring to our "common man", or :one man one vote" - What about bloody women, don't they count?!
One should feel the same kind of twinge of guilt or discomfort when one hears of a 4 year old being referred to as a protestant child, as one does (or should ) in hearing such male biased language.
Thats what I meant. Too much of what is accepted as science is sciencism. Kind of like the whale with legs thing.
Good. Uh, but what about "the whale legs thing"?
They did use to have 'em you know - they were kind of little horse like land mammals ya know. No (rational scientific) doubt about it - The best evidence for this has only been uncovered in the last 15 years or so - cool stuff too.
Your whole Y2K disortation was going so well and then you ended it with that. No where on the planet was there any significant problems caused by the Y2K "bug". Whether the computers were "cured" or not.
That's the point, they were "cured" (metaphors are cool - like computer virus - cured. Random fact - they were initially called computer bugs - because the first computers were huge machines and real bugs (moths and stuff) got caught in the gates etc. and cause the machines to go haywire
)If they hadn't been cured there would have been more problems. As I said, I was studying Information Science in university when this was going on (1999-2000) so we were kept abreast of the developments, and from the Information systems/technology side. Bill Gates and Microsoft (for all their other flaws) were really on top of the ball on this one (others as well of course) running around checking and fixing stuff, had teams of software and hardware engineers deducted to just this one issue. It was really a huge impressive effort. Sure there was over the top media hype, but these guys should be recognised for what they did. The problem is after the fact everyone just went "Oh it wasn't a big deal after all!" failing to notice the exhausted sweat dripping of the computer nerds (can ya picture it?) in the background, collapsing in exhaustion and relief its all over. Again its like my Rescue worker analogy (hey, I was a medic and my father was a fireman - I sue what I know) You see that no lives were lost, but fail to realise that this is only due to the dedicated efforts of a few good men. (We cheered them in our classes though
)
I'm not looking back and saying it wasn't a problem I said it from the 1st day the press got involved. I made a substantiall amount of money "immunizing"
peoples vehicles and computers from the Y2K virus by doing absolutely nothing. OK, I did update a program. I had a lot to lose if it turned out there was anything to the scare and guess what? No problems. I shouted from the highest roof tops that it was a scam and no one cared. The science was in and it was final. I even explained to the customers that they were throwing their money away but they felt it was worth it for there piece of mind. So its more like seeing a bunch of rescue workers standing around scratching there heads wondering were all the mayhem is and sayin" I tried to tell you".
Oh absolutely there was a load of crap flying around - personal computers and modern systems indeed!
Modern "1st world" built Planes falling out of the sky and all that ridiculous jazz. And sure, people got all freaked out, not just the silly End times crap, but the "No you gotta fix my computer, make it Y2K compliant". And Big business and capitalism being what it is; many unscrupulous people capitalised on it. That's typical, sad but typical.
Even those who were engaged in the big jobs (airlines, big financial firms, government and hospitals that had long histories, and thus possibly systems that relied on the old method) tried to assure people that the risks were relatively minor. No one listened, they never do - children the bloody lot of 'em.
There were things fixed that would have caused, what those involved would have called, major hassles. But they generally amounted to major headaches in records - not planes crashing or respirators shutting down or any of that rubbish. Major administrative hassles with figures (like bills and payments due etc.) getting all screwed up. That's largely due to the fact that everyone relies on whatever the computers spew out, to be honest. Remember the example I gave of the "overdue" video? - an example that the Y2K problem wasn't entirely fictitious; they weren't Y2K compliant, but luckily that was no big deal in their case - What's the bet that if that had been a major finance company or The U.S. Stock exchange or something big like that, that it would have caused chaos? And many of those big business clowns wouldn't have responded like the video store guy did (laugh it off and wipe it) - "I don't care the computer says you owe us 99 years in interest - pay up or we take your house!"
Again with the"too many quotes" - to be contiued.
