Are Atheists Starting to Overdo it?

[ruca]

<p><em>basks in epic win</em></p>

[UnleashedFury]

<p>We have two religion threads. One needs to die.</p>

[ruca]

<p>Yeah but i still won.</p>

[jaso9n2]

<p>

Okay, it’s actually a really good rhetorical technique to have many falsehoods in the same few words, so that the reader is overwhelmed and can’t identify them. I commend you, but i still see them… watching Expelled honed my skills. So:</p>

<p>1) 75% of USAns are Christian. You think christians think like that? Obviously not… so no, “people” (as in the general populous) do not think that atheism is the “height of logic”.
2) You basically just described a part of the Atheist platform—that all religions are BS until proven otherwise (“fairytales” or just folklore that can teach us about human nature)
3) “It’s not true.” Okay then, why don’t you tell us what makes it false? Nobody trusts you that much, Jason. You have to actually give reasons to back up your vast statements

</p>

<p>1) That’s how it’s presented, and yes, I think even some Christians feel that way. Christians champion faith, Atheists champion logic. It’s not true, but that does appear to be the accepted dynamic.</p>

<p>2) I wasn’t attempting to explain it in its entirety in that one quote. Considering that’s the line I hear most often (see: “How many of you believe in God” thread)</p>

<p>3) It’s a vast statement to say Atheists aren’t singularly logic-driven and Christians aren’t singularly faith-driven? </p>

<p>

Ehh… if you want to know why you’re wrong here, just look at the campaign trails Hilary, Obama and McCain are leaving. Each one goes through a religious phase, trying to put God on their side so that the American public will know that their beliefs are the same. I mean, look how controversial it is that there’s even a <em>tiny possibility</em> that Obama is Muslim. OMG, HOW HORRIBLE WOULD THAT BE…! It would be horrible because USAns tend to be xenophobic christians, lol. But whatever.</p>

<p>I think you’re right that atheism is gaining traction and becoming more well-known as an ideology. I certainly don’t see them evangelizing or putting down Christians, however.

</p>

<p>“From the Middle East” and “Muslim” aren’t the same thing. And I think that was largely propagated by people who assume he’s Muslim by his name. I don’t know what xenophobia has to do with anything, but it wasn’t a big deal for the majority of people (considering they’re voting for him).</p>

<p>You need to look harder if you don’t see them putting down Christians. It’s a little naive to even assume they don’t, considering “religion = fairy tales” is a “part of the Atheist platform”. That in and of itself is an insult.</p>

[StitchInTime]

<p><a href=“%5Burl=http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1060213137-post104.html]#104[/url]”>quote</a>…You need to look harder if you don’t see them putting down Christians. It’s a little naive to even assume they don’t, considering “religion = fairy tales” is a “part of the Atheist platform”. That in and of itself is an insult.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Most atheists’ concern is not “fairy tales” but with the public policy that many attempt to derive from religious doctrine. Public policies like the [teaching</a> of intelligent design in biology](<a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1060158376-post51.html]teaching”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1060158376-post51.html), opposition to [holistic</a> health (including sex) education](<a href=“http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1374/is_n2_v56/ai_18047687]holistic”>http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1374/is_n2_v56/ai_18047687) at an appropriate age in public schools and [blue</a> laws](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_law]blue”>Blue law - Wikipedia).</p>

<p>If religious doctrine/belief was as innocuous as the Easter Bunny or Santa Claus there properly wouldn’t be any concern. However, when a public policy’s foundation is based on a morality that has at its roots “believe this or that because it says so in this book (Bible, Torah, Koran…)”, non-believers have every right to question the policy’s foundation and its proponents. Particularly when science is uncovering that our shared morality ([The</a> Golden Rule](<a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1060188265-post86.html]The”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1060188265-post86.html)) is independent of religion.</p>

[Jarn]

<p>

I don’t know what xenophobia has to do with anything, but it wasn’t a big deal for the majority of people (considering they’re voting for him).

Obama isn’t a Muslim. There are a lot of people that wouldn’t vote for him if he was.</p>

<p>

It’s a little naive to even assume they don’t, considering “religion = fairy tales” is a “part of the Atheist platform”.

You use quotes as if you’re quoting the person you reply to, but what he said was that “the Atheist platform” was “that all religions are BS until proven otherwise.”</p>

[StitchInTime]

<p>Follow-up to [Post</a> #86](<a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1060188265-post86.html]Post”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1060188265-post86.html)

Science, independent of ‘testament’, is revealing the morality we all share:[‘Generous</a> players: game theory explores the Golden Rule’s place in biology’…](<a href=“http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1200/is_4_166/ai_n6151880]'Generous”>http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1200/is_4_166/ai_n6151880)

</p>

<p>[How</a> fairness is wired in the brain](<a href=“http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-05/ciot-hfi052808.php]How”>http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-05/ciot-hfi052808.php):</p>

<p>

In the biblical story in which two women bring a baby to King Solomon, both claiming to be the mother, he suggests dividing the child so that each woman can have half. Solomon’s proposed solution, meant to reveal the real mother, also illustrates an issue central to economics and moral philosophy: how to distribute goods fairly.</p>

<p>**Now, researchers at the California Institute of Technology have discovered that reason struggles with emotion to find equitable solutions, and have pinpointed the region of the brain where this takes place. The concept of fairness, they found, is processed in the insular cortex, or insula, which is also the seat of emotional reactions.</p>

<p>“The fact that the brain has such a robust response to unfairness suggests that sensing unfairness is a basic evolved capacity,”** notes Steven Quartz, an associate professor of philosophy at Caltech and author of the study, voicing a sentiment that anyone who has seen children fight over a treat can relate to.</p>

<p>“The movement to look into the neural basis for ethical decision making is only about seven years old,” Quartz says. “This is the first study where people made real decisions with real consequences.” </p>

<p>The subjects in the study, 26 men and women between 28 and 55 years old, faced a real-world moral dilemma. They started their participation in the experiment by reading a short biography of each of the 60 orphans at the Canaan Children’s Home in Uganda. The orphanage would receive a sum of money that would depend on decisions the subjects made. In the end, $2,279 was donated.</p>

<p>While a functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) machine scanned their brains for peak activity regions, the participants each had about eight seconds to decide how to distribute meals among groups of children in different scenarios. In one, their choice would grant either four extra meals to each of two children or six extra meals to one child. The children they didn’t choose would get nothing. In another scenario, the kids had been given extra meals and the subjects had to decide whether it was better to take six meals away from each of two kids, or ten meals away from one.</p>

<p>Ultimately the subjects’ brains made a choice, and Quartz and his collaborators got to peek into where that calculation was made. “You wonder what is happening at different levels–is your brain’s decision right or not”"</p>

<p>When they got to give food to the children, the study participants’ orbital frontal cortex, the reward region of the brain, lit up. When instead they had to take food away, the insula region–the emotional processor–was activated.</p>

<p>Quartz suggests that the insula was triggered by the inequity of the choices. The activity varied considerably across subjects, indicating that individual differences in moral sensitivity may be rooted in the strength of the biological responses, he adds.</p>

<p>“The emotional response to unfairness pushes people from extreme inequity and drives them to be fair,” Quartz says. This observation, he adds, suggests that “our basic impulse to be fair isn’t a complicated thing that we learn.”</p>

<p>This study, which appears in the May 8 early online edition of the journal Science, is the first to examine “neuroethics”–the neural underpinnings of moral decision making–with real-world consequences. It may also help guide how to make policy decisions about distributing resources. And, adds Jonathan Katz, chair of Caltech’s Division of the Humanities and Social Sciences, “It’s one of the first studies to bridge humanities research with social science and biology,” a central effort at Caltech.

</p>

[Skooby]

<p>Topic is old but…</p>

<p>I think there needs to be more critical thinking taught to kids at an early age.</p>

<p>Also, it seems as if more economically disadvangtaged people tend to believe in god than more successfull people. Just an observation.</p>

[DolorousEdd]

<p>

Topic is old but…

But nothing. Shouldn’t have bumped it.</p>

<p>

I think there needs to be more critical thinking taught to kids at an early age.

Yes, but critical thinking doesn’t mean atheism. Plenty of theologians have used logic to make arguments justifying the existence of God.</p>

<p>

Also, it seems as if more economically disadvangtaged people tend to believe in god than more successfull people. Just an observation.

Well, the most popular religion in the world says that rich people are going to Hell, so why should they be a part of it?</p>

[anon4382169]

<p>I can’t say I’m religious without some hipster liberal atheist calling me a ■■■■■■…</p>

[DolorousEdd]

<p>Most atheists I know are libertarians.</p>

[englishjw]

<p>To the OC89:</p>

<p>"In my experience, most atheists believe they are smarter than theists. Many act as if they have life’s mysteries all figured out and religious followers are just “sheep”. I also find the arrogance of atheists comical – as if there were some barrier of entry to joining their group. "</p>

<p>In my experience, it is atheists who are able to accept that we humans have very little “figured out.” But atheists don’t try to create explanations through things such as religion. It seems to be the theists who BELIEVE they have everything figured out. It has also been my experience that most atheists are very quiet about their beliefs (or lack thereof).</p>

[gettingridofson]

<p>englishjw: I agree with your point. The Theists think they have it all figured out based on their belief and what was written in a book. I lean more towards the science. We crawled out of the water and in the end we are worm food. That can be proven. The rest is just…faith? Sorry, I have none.</p>