Is Atheism/Evolutionism Dangerous? Questions for Unbelievers

by Perry 156 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • thetrueone

    It would seem that evolution should not be studied on it's own, there just is not enough information there to draw accruate conclusions and gain confidence on it's study or theory.

    It should be studied though with other sciences with an open mind set, such as geology, genetics, bio physics and even astral physics to name a few. Once an in deft study on those sciences

    has occurrded, then a confidence and a probability factor can be obtained from evolution theory and it's understanding. To study it on it's own is futile and unbelieveable for anyone to take

    on by it's self, there are to many missing pieces in the puzzle to make an accruate and truthful viewpoint.

    One bad thing that can be said about religion like the WTS. and others is that they have purposely thwaredt attempts for man to discover anything about this world and of himself.

    To quote from the WT " universities and collages are godless and immoral institutions and youth should be wise to stay clear of those places " .......something along those lines.

    Kind of like any knowledge gained there could and will weaken my power, authority and control and it would be best to avoid such an effort............just to use an example.

    Thankfully we can say that man has taken off the box from his head that religion has placed there and we can is now reap the awards in doing so !

  • Abaddon


    I never state anything from anyones point of view ... that's just my way ... It is my opinion

    I know it is your opinion. But it is not supported by the facts; you are attributing a belief as a concequence of evolutionary thought that is not supported by evolutionary thought.

    Evolutionary biology has actually shown humans are far more alike than our appearances might lead to believe; the difference between two Chinese people is the same on average as the difference between a Chinese person and a French person. We are one of the most genetically similar species; two pengins of a species will have twice the genetic difference than two humans.

    Any statement that evolutionary ideas could make someone feel more evolved than another person is either based upon a misunderstanding by the person stating this might occur, or by the person believing they are more evolved than another being an utter idiot who knows nothing about evolution.

    I do not think believers and non-believers are unlike (they dont see things on the same perspective but they have their own good and bad ways - that's where they are alike in the important matter).

    But you're not everyone - this is not about you or me, you are not under attack. Whilst evolutionary theories do NOT support someone feeling more evolved than another, it is a fact some religious beliefs do result in an equivalent feeling of supperiority on the part of some believers.

    And no I have no example of whoever evolutionist killed because of his belief.

    And all we need to do to find an example of someone killed by someone because of religious beliefs is turn the TV on. Harsh but fair, sad but true.

    You're saying evolutionary theory can lead to unhealthy beliefs when in fact the evidence is that such unhealthy beliefs AND actions come about as a result of some forms of religion.

    But to come back on my previous comment I was more talking about the way "some under evoluate" (lol) people think about the fact that some are under evoluate ... remember that I am black ... and that's probably my experience who is talking here ... But I know that the same problem exist with believers.

    Some morons will use any lie, or twist any fact to support their nasty hateful beliefs. You don't have to be religious to be hateful to your fellowman. But if they say that evolution supports their beliefs, they are lying. Don't condemn an entire theory for the actions of people who make claims that have nothing to do with that theory. Condemn the racist scum, as I'm sure we both do..

    but to me those who kill because of religious belief are not belivers ... (they are their own leader in the matter)

    I totally agree. Fundamentalistic religious beliefs are a form of self-idolatry.

    But guess What? I just can't adhere to the evolution process from the start ... if you think my statement do not stand because some scientists says this is how it works ... it won't change what I think ... Too much things are not coherent somehow (and I gave you my why = the potential is not reached on billion years to me their is a very intelligent restriction capacity into the process).

    As you said yourself evolution do not exclude God ... I'm not against the idea of evolution itself - I just can't believe in the form of evolution scientist are talking from the start ... (that's it) so then it's all about how we feel about it from our own experience.

    You're entitled to your own opinion, not your own facts - which is why I say what I say above. At the end of the day if your opinion is that, fine. Tell me evolutionary theory supports racism, or that the Earth was created 10,000 years ago (not saying you say that, just an example), well, as you may have noticed, I'll have something to say.

    My christianity is from heart, to me every personne who reachs the idea that we need to respect each other is a christian by heart - and just the way you are able to defend the position of those who are not believers because they have their right and are not bad because of that) is a christian position (phylosphically talking).

    It's not and will never be a religion for me ... it's a phylosophy or lets say a state of mind (means related to our spirit) ... and yeah the light is getting greater with the time and here we are ... religion is bulleshit ... God is everything ... Christ is Respect in every aspect (even the right to laugh, have fun or whatever ... since we don't hurt on purpose or by egoisme) it is that simple to me.

    LOL. My fiance says I'm the most Christian athiest she knows. She also thinks I'm allergic to religion. Hmmmm. Humph.

    I don't see the point of it. You don't need religion for belief. And I can't get why some people (not you) will deny the evidence that their supposedly god-given eyes and mind can discern and insist a creative myth written by a goatherd is right and science wrong. It really reduces god to a pathetic level, this vapid insistance it was this way or no way. They're effectively saying, "Well god, all the evidence points to the fact that the Universe works in this amasing way that actually allows the residue of solar fusion to become aware it exists, but hell, I can't believe you could do that. No, you had to do it the goatherd way, that's within your abilities, make man out of dust like a potter, that's all I can accept and there is no way you could create a Universe that 'designs' itself".

    With theists like that, who needs atheists? LOL

    I don't think you're like that, but it's an interesting conversation.


    Yes Mia, but he still based his genocide on "survival of the fittest".

    And? He was wrong. Evolutionary theory does not make it right to kill people. Being a homocidal maniac makes it right to kill people. Two things, different.

    It's like people who burnt witches to please god; they were wrong.


    Who are you to judge God so that I should follow your misdirection and judge Him as you tempt me to do? He is infinite in all respects. You are but a vapor.

    Who are you to judge the Invisable Pink Unicorn so that I should follow your misdirection and judge Her as you tempt me to do?

    Who are you to judge Allah so that I should follow your misdirection and judge Him as you tempt me to do?

    Who are you to judge Brahman so that I should follow your misdirection and judge Him as you tempt me to do?

    Perry, this is silly. You know we don't all believe in god like you. You know that whilst his existence may be obvious to you, it isn't to 'us', and so far no one has come up with clinching evidence. There's far more evidence from 150 or so years of evolutionary theory than there has been in the last 10,000+ years for god. Despite knowing your argument is utterly irrelevent to 'us', you still make it as though it is of relevence, and make riculous passive-aggresive statements like 'You are but a vapor'. And the Invisable Pink Unicorn thinks you're a very maughty boy too!

    And then to avoid answering difficult questions, you bail.

    Well done.

  • tetrapod.sapien

    perry said he did not want to put his God on trial. but considering that perry's god doesn't exist (gasp! a positive assertion!), i would say he bailed because he had the uneasy subconscious feeling that he alone was on trial. LOL

    that cognitive dissonance is a real b!tch.


  • Perry

    Well what can I say. Just a short re-cap. The atheist view was well represented here with excellent responses from posters who have given this a lot of thought. But not much was said about how we could even know if placing our notions of what is good or bad in the hands of social conditioners is dangerous or not; it was already conceded that truth and correctness is impossible to know from such a source, since notions of truth, good, and bad are likely, indeed must change from this fluid repository of morality. I will leave it to the reader to imagine the implications of such a truth.... and there are many, not the least of which is determining who are the "social conditioners" that the atheists get their knowledge of good and bad from and why are they more capable than God?

    Atheists accept this "reality" reasoning that the alternatives are worse, citing many religious errors and acts of God that they do not understand and "appear" to be evil. There is a great body of knowledge of theology that answer most of the atheists questions posed in this thread. The book "Systematic Theology" has been an essential tool in helping me to answer these questions. But, atheists are generally not interested in looking at larger, over-arching truths and goals that God has that allow him to appear to pronounce the same thing both good and bad. (see my illustration about dinner knives above)

    So, they judge God even though in their own view many past acts in a survival of the fittest origin is no longer considered "good" either. Thus they are GUILTY of the exact same acts of insanity that they accuse God of. (Ex. Atheists ancestors killing other groups or clans and taking their goods before they determined that was bad and learned to collaborate) News flash: They never did learn to collaborate! Just turn on the evening news for confirmation. Atheists say that it was good to move the species forward but now its bad. The reality is that it was bad then and it's bad now.

    Another common objection that I perceive when talking to my athiest friends is the claim that: to inquire into God's over-arching good that he is acheiving in some of his acts that appear bad is a waste of time because he doesn't exist anyway. They use simplistic images of flying spaghetti monsters etc. as proof. This is intellectually dishonest. The atheist has no trouble what-so-ever in allowing his mind to "imagine" the existence of God for the purpose of accusing God of attrocities. Why then does his mind sometimes close when presented with explanations of over-arching good and purpose that explain some of Gods movements? Why is it OK to assume God's existence for one purpose but bad to assume his existence for another purpose?

    Lastly....about judging God. If we are called "evil" by our own children at times when we (and most other adults) make decisions affecting them that we know to be good, even though they seem illogical to a three year old mind; does it not follow that the Infinite Mind and possessor of LIFE might make decisions that seem illogical to us? Of course it does. In fact, if that never occured, He wouldn't be much of an Infinite Mind would he?

    So logically, while I'm not in a position to ultimately judge God who is Infinite, I am somewhat suited to judge myself and to a lesser degree, other finite beings since I am such myself. This brings us full circle to the whole point of this thread. Is Atheism Dangerous?

    The atheist is therefore forced to conclude that their position (drawing upon ever-changing social conditioners for knowledge of good and bad) Is Very Dangerous. The question of the existence of God does not change this fact. It is moot, even if considered more dangerous.

    Most of the excellent objections that have been raised on this thread deserve a chance to be sorted out. I will do another thread directed toward Christians to address some of these inquiries.

    Thanks to everyone for excellent posts!

  • DanTheMan
    But not much was said about how we could even know if placing our notions of what is good or bad in the hands of social conditioners is dangerous or not

    Perry, in my previous posts I demonstrated how moral standards change for both believers and non-believers alike, and several others have made this point also. What is your response to this?

  • AuldSoul

    It makes no more logical sense to call Atheism or Evolutionism dangerous than it does to call Theism or Creationism dangerous.

    Belief systems aren't dangerous. Intolerance is dangerous. Belief systems of all stripes breed intolerant people.


  • Perry


    I see your point. Although this thread isn't about believers, I never meant to imply that the truths that are being revealed in this thread about the dangers of atheism are somehow different for believers or non-believers, otherwise they wouldn't be truths would they? They apply to both equally.

    Belief in God does not free oneself from the dangers and subsequent slavery of placing one's notions of good and bad outside himself and into the hands of other people. It takes something far greater than that to free a mind.

  • Paralipomenon

    I would not say Atheism is dangerous. To really embrace Atheism you need to come to terms with the fact that you are mortal and at some point will die. To be able to accept that and continue to live requires alot of humility.

    Contrast that with the Theist view that you don't really die. As a matter of fact, if you follow certain directions you will become immortal.

    In my opinion, wars are generally started by Atheists, but they are fought by Theists. Warmongers would have an incredibly hard time motivating people to go and die for them if everyone really thought they would just cease to exist after they died.

    Whoever said that Atheism is only dangerous to the faith of Theists, I completely agree. Atheists generally don't go around preaching about their beliefs, discuss it? Sure. Minster about it? To what end? You will have squandered your short life on something that has no personal meaning.

    Theists preach and proselize because they think they are garnering brownie points in heaven, or they feel sorrow that their neighbor is going to die. It is fine to squander your life dedicated to a god that will reward you with immortality.

    So no, I feel that Atheism breeds more "live and let live" philosophy and that religions, in a broad general sense, preach intolerance, guilt and fear mongering.

  • DanTheMan
    I see your point. Although this thread isn't about believers,

    Well, you can say that, but I think you're being a tad disengenuous with that statement...I'll let the readers decide whether or not your point in starting this thread was to show a contrast.

    You say that as an atheist I'm "forced to conclude" that I'm in a "very dangerous" position morally, being purely at the whim of these "social conditioners" you keep speaking of. I'm offended by this. It's as if you're stating that atheists are incapable of independent thinking. Just who exactly are these "social conditioners"? And what moral conclusions are they conditioning me towards? I'd like some real-world examples of what you're talking about.

  • Perry


    I never introduced the idea of "social conditioning" as a way of knowing good and bad. Another atheist threw that out there in answer to my question (see Hillary-step) not me. The other atheists seemed to agree, I don't recall any of them objecting to his answer. As far as I know you're the first.

    The question was how do you know what is good? What say you?

Share this