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

[cuddly_tomato]

--snip--

So do you agree that fundamentalist atheism has led to attrocities on par with those commited by religious fanatics?

By the way - extremist atheism is basically the same as fascism/communism, and I can prove this.

 

[Twitchycat]

I shall give a totally literal and correct answer, the only correct answer.
It is impossible to tell whether a person of religion or a atheist values life more because a quantitative way of measuring how much a person values life does not exist.

 

[feversk]

So do you agree that fundamentalist atheism has led to attrocities on par with those commited by religious fanatics?

Except that "fundamentalist atheism" is a nonsensical phrase.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2006/may/03/cananatheistbeafundamenta
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article1779771.ece

By the way - extremist atheism is basically the same as fascism/communism, and I can prove this.

Please do.

You are antireligious because, ... why?

I'm antireligious for the same reasons I'm against censorship, brainwashing by our leaders, for freedom of thought and for our future technological and scientific advancement.

Are you really that butthurt that other people have different opinions?

I wouldn't call being religious as an opinion. Liking a certain film is an opinion. Opinions should not be hereditary and enforced by the law (in some countries).

What harm does it cause you when other people choose to believe in a diety?

Ask a homosexual in America. Ask a woman in a muslim country. Ask a scientist in Victorian era. A also believe that believing in something imaginary (understand: something which is not based on evidence and reason) is not very sane thing to do...

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?

When someone is insane, you don't convince them. You either laugh at them or lock them up in an asylum.

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

Wait, I thought we were talking about the same Dawkins. The Dawkins that I am studying about in my psychology class and used as a (recommended) source in my text about evolutionary biology. The same Dawkins that was a professor at Oxford University.

I have concluded that you sir are a fucktard

The proper response to this would be:
NO U

I shall give a totally literal and correct answer, the only correct answer.
It is impossible to tell whether a person of religion or a atheist values life more because a quantitative way of measuring how much a person values life does not exist.

I quite like this answer.

 

[cuddly_tomato]

So do you agree that fundamentalist atheism has led to attrocities on par with those commited by religious fanatics?

Except that "fundamentalist atheism" is a nonsensical phrase.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2006/may/03/cananatheistbeafundamenta

You have just linked an article written by an atheist extremist, explaining that atheist extremism can't be true because all religions are bad. You ignored my question about attrocities commited by atheism.

You are proof of the fact that there can be atheist fundamentalists. You have also proved that your capacity for critical thinking is as low as your capacity to successfully dodge a question without anyone noticing.

By the way - extremist atheism is basically the same as fascism/communism, and I can prove this.

Please do.

Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Pol-Pot... they all sought to remove religious people from academic institutions and replace them with people who followed their own particular brand of thinking. Modern fundamentalist atheists (Harris, Hitchens, Myers, and too his credit, not Dawkins) are doing the exact same thing - insisting that anyone with religious beliefs not be allowed to hold office in academic institutions, regardless of how qualified they are to hold that office.

 

[feversk]

You have just linked an article written by an atheist extremist, explaining that atheist extremism can't be true because all religions are bad. You ignored my question about attrocities commited by atheism. You are proof of the fact that there can be atheist fundamentalists. You have also proved that your capacity for critical thinking is as low as your capacity to successfully dodge a question without anyone noticing.

And you are a fundamentalist conversationalist. You have already made up your mind, you disregard every counter-argument as being written by a biased person and you continue with your "I am right whatever you do" attitude.

Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Pol-Pot... they all sought to remove religious people from academic institutions and replace them with people who followed their own particular brand of thinking. Modern fundamentalist atheists (Harris, Hitchens, Myers, and too his credit, not Dawkins) are doing the exact same thing - insisting that anyone with religious beliefs not be allowed to hold office in academic institutions, regardless of how qualified they are to hold that office.

I give up. Not because you are right, but because I just realized that when you only know that a person is "an atheist" all you can tell about them is that they do not believe in any deity. Therefore, the argument in my first post (atheists value life more because it's the only thing they have) is a logical fallacy. It's like saying that vegetarians value life more because they don't eat meat, while the only reason for that could be that they just don't like the taste.

With all your ignorance and fundamentalism, you have (indirectly) managed to accomplish at least something...

Also, learn how to spell to/too.

 

[cuddly_tomato]

You have just linked an article written by an atheist extremist, explaining that atheist extremism can't be true because all religions are bad. You ignored my question about attrocities commited by atheism. You are proof of the fact that there can be atheist fundamentalists. You have also proved that your capacity for critical thinking is as low as your capacity to successfully dodge a question without anyone noticing.

And you are a fundamentalist conversationalist. You have already made up your mind, you disregard every counter-argument as being written by a biased person and you continue with your "I am right whatever you do" attitude.

You didn't make a counter argument. You were called out on something, then refused to answer because you realised you were wrong. You then asked me to die. After several people pointed out exactly how retarded this made you look, you adopted a more reasonable tone, but still refused to actually address what was said, instead throwing out even more extremist atheist quotes and links.

Ahem. I don't remember any communist propaganda that said anything about atheism. Stalin did what he did not because of a (non)religion, but because he could.

That, was wrong. It was proven. You wouldn't admit it, or even acknowledge it was you who said it. That is a little pathetic. But the fact you did side-step shows hope. Possibly, somewhere at the back of your brain, you realized you were wrong, you realized atheism can be lead to horror as easily as religion. If this is the case, you should bring that forward.

Nobody is asking you to believe anything. Nobody is even asking you to be silent about your own religious beliefs. All we are asking you to do is not behave like a dick towards religious people because you are not religious yourself. Is that really too much to ask?

Note: Before you respond by saying that I am being a dick towards you for being an atheist, I am not. I am being a dick because you behaved in a bigoted manner towards people who had done nothing to hurt you (religious people on this board) and also because you asked me to die, which wasn't nice.

 

[orangebandguy]

Both parties value life, they choose to live in different ways to each other is all. And beside religion is about eternal life is it not?

 

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

You have just linked an article written by an atheist extremist, explaining that atheist extremism can't be true because all religions are bad. You ignored my question about attrocities commited by atheism. You are proof of the fact that there can be atheist fundamentalists. You have also proved that your capacity for critical thinking is as low as your capacity to successfully dodge a question without anyone noticing.

And you are a fundamentalist conversationalist. You have already made up your mind, you disregard every counter-argument as being written by a biased person and you continue with your "I am right whatever you do" attitude.

Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Pol-Pot... they all sought to remove religious people from academic institutions and replace them with people who followed their own particular brand of thinking. Modern fundamentalist atheists (Harris, Hitchens, Myers, and too his credit, not Dawkins) are doing the exact same thing - insisting that anyone with religious beliefs not be allowed to hold office in academic institutions, regardless of how qualified they are to hold that office.

I give up. Not because you are right, but because I just realized that when you only know that a person is "an atheist" all you can tell about them is that they do not believe in any deity. Therefore, the argument in my first post (atheists value life more because it's the only thing they have) is a logical fallacy. It's like saying that vegetarians value life more because they don't eat meat, while the only reason for that could be that they just don't like the taste.

With all your ignorance and fundamentalism, you have (indirectly) managed to accomplish at least something...

Also, learn how to spell to/too.

Cuddly Tomato is being slightly rude, but I think he is basically making sense. People believing things (religious or anti-religious) is fine. Someone with an agenda based on either one...is an asshole. Motivated theists and atheists don't help anyone, all they do is present a laughably polarised argument/viewpoint...which can be devestating when given any kind of political power. Strong belief(in either) has often led to basic human decency being abandoned. Everyone should stop being so self righteous.
On topic. I suspect it is down to the individual.

 

[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.

Oh, woe betide the world should that ever happen.

I don't think the act of believing something should ever be considered a virtue of any nature. It's just being lazy.

 

[feversk]

You then asked me to die.

And you have no sense of humour.

After several people pointed out exactly how retarded this made you look, you adopted a more reasonable tone, but still refused to actually address what was said, instead throwing out even more extremist atheist quotes and links.

"...several people pointed out..." = 1 person calling me a fucktard.

You didn't make a counter argument. You were called out on something, then refused to answer because you realised you were wrong.

Ahem. I don't remember any communist propaganda that said anything about atheism. Stalin did what he did not because of a (non)religion, but because he could.

That, was wrong. It was proven. You wouldn't admit it, or even acknowledge it was you who said it. That is a little pathetic. But the fact you did side-step shows hope. Possibly, somewhere at the back of your brain, you realized you were wrong, you realized atheism can be lead to horror as easily as religion. If this is the case, you should bring that forward.

I wasn't wrong. Or are you really trying to say that if Stalin was for example a Christian, he would suddenly become a good person and he would lead Soviet Union to prosperity by non-violent means? Because you certainly imply so.

On the other hand, if you take the faith out of religious extremist's motivations, he would have no reason to hate. All he would have left is just natural hatred towards people from outside of his social group based on evolutionary instincts.

All we are asking you to do is not behave like a dick towards religious people because you are not religious yourself. Is that really too much to ask?

Note: Before you respond by saying that I am being a dick towards you for being an atheist, I am not. I am being a dick because you behaved in a bigoted manner towards people who had done nothing to hurt you (religious people on this board) and also because you asked me to die, which wasn't nice.

No, you are being a dick because your brain is trying to defend your beliefs.

Religious people are only hurting themselves, if not anyone else. The main part of being insane is not realising one's insanity. Society may tolerate religion, but I won't. The suffering has to stop.

...your own religious beliefs.

OK that's it. I'm not continuing this ridiculous "discussion". You have issues.

People believing things (religious or anti-religious) is fine. Someone with an agenda based on either one...is an asshole. Motivated theists and atheists don't help anyone, all they do is present a laughably polarised argument/viewpoint...which can be devestating when given any kind of political power. Strong belief(in either) has often led to basic human decency being abandoned. Everyone should stop being so self righteous.

So... What is a viewpoint of a motivated atheist with a laughably one-sided viewpoint? "I don't believe in god... Very very much"? And that's being an asshole? And ATHEISM IS NOT A FAITH-BASED POSITION, it says nothing about believing in anything.

Cuddly Tomato is being slightly rude, but I think he is basically making sense.

Slightly rude?

 

[targren]

I have to agree with Nietzsche on this one. In "Thus Spake Zarathustra" (Thomas Common translation), he calls the religious "Preachers of Death," insofar as, to them, life is something to be suffered through for the hope of better existence after death. (Pretty much all "afterlife" religions.)

Without the concept of an afterlife, the human who views life the way one might view an extremely long workday on a Friday afternoon (with the hope of "Almost done!", that is. If you enjoy your job late on a friday afternoon, or don't have weekends off, the analogy doesn't apply to you) is a human who is an utterly miserable person who would probably find death, afterlife or not, a merciful release.

 

[cartzo]

most atheists value life as a phenomanon, an amazing act of nature, something born from a single complex accidental molecule. religeous types see it as something that has been intelligently designed, in which case i would see it as slightly less amazing, werse they may value human life as a test.

so my answer is, atheist.