Being an atheist doesn't necessarily involve believing you're the highest being in the universe at all. It's just a way of viewing things, a perspective that sees life and the universe from a rational and even scientific point of view, but there's no necessary connection between being rational and arrogant.
I think you can find all kinds of atheists, some who are so arrogant they believe they have all the answers and even look down on other people's opinions, and others who, though having a solidly atheist perspective of things, realize that no human being can claim to have all the answers. I'm sure you'll be able to find both arrogant and humble atheists.

It is said human beings are complex. I say it's a complex challenge to be a human.

I don't know any atheists who think they are the highest being in the universe. I do know many christians who seem to think they are, though, because god created them as the highest being. An atheist has no reason to believe so. Personally, as an atheist, I know how small I am compared to the universe.

Morality doesn't come from god. Atheism simply means not believing in god. The definition doesn't say that atheists are immoral, have no skill of empathy etc. God is not the only possible reason to treat people well.

"If we are going to teach creation science as an alternative to evolution, then we should also teach the stork theory as an alternative to biological reproduction." (Judith Hayes)

As an Atheist, I don’t see myself as the highest being in this or another universe as things stand we may be the highest species known at this time, on this planet, but that could change.

A totally Atheist society, probably would and could develop a similar ethical and moral society to the one we have today, would it be a utopia, no, we would still have the miscreants, social misfits, that plague to-days theist based societies.

"The most potent weapon in the hands of the oppressor is the mind of the oppressed."

Actually, anthropocentrism is the core belief of religion. Atheism is its antithesis. I'd say you got it all wrong. Rules in an absolute atheistic society would be the result of a social compromise, with people accepting them because they know society as a whole would benefit from them, and not because they don't want to piss whatever deity off.

How can I believe in God when just last week I got my tongue caught in the roller of an electric typewriter? --Woody Allen

rules in an ABSOLUTE any society would still be man made..The soviets tried it>>YOU see GOD can put forth laws for man and man can put forward laws for man .But man is still man and i think that god will one day judge each of us.Man can judge our bodies ,even our minds (solitary confinement etc )but that spark of being is MINE and when i go to be judged i will go ALONE as will we all.

I think that such a society would hardly differ of today's one. We certainly would have the same values, regardless of what each individual thinks for himself as morally and ethically, or thinks that one would be a superman, in the sense of being a higher being.

How can I believe in God when just last week I got my tongue caught in the roller of an electric typewriter? --Woody Allen

so explain the moral decline in society, but while you are at it, notice how it runs parallel to the INCLINE of people adopting humanist and atheistic points of view and applying them to they way they live their lives and express/carry themselves.

you mean to tell me that there is NO association involved?

please, true empathy is without respect of self, sure you can have some sort of feelings about something that happens to someone, but you will never care about another more than you do yourself... MOST PEOPLE WON'T, even the one's who pretend to be Christian, Islam, Buddhist, Jewish, and whatever else you want to substitute... Why, because HUMANIST values have been DEEPLY injected into the roots of just about EVERY SINGLE ASPECT of our society in the past century, there is NO comfortable way to live without it... and in the past century, take a look at the decline.

~ PSYKO ~

do me a favor shaka, what does EVIL really mean, and where did it come from? what was the TERM created to represent? How has it changed and been altered to pack less of a blow when used?

answer all those questions why don't you.

~ PSYKO ~

Stalin shmalin ,marx and lenin were the ones i had in mind...I did not mention or say that ,or repeat any other of your "catch phrases" What i said actually was my understanding of the matters,i assumed it was taken as read that i too have this right..Like you stalin was brought up catholic,you seem to share other qualities as well,if they can be called qualities.

Stalin received a religious education. It went to a public school, had religion classes because I enjoy debates and pissing people off and went to church till the age of 12 or so, and mostly to run around and play with my friends. You can hardly compare me and Stalin.

As for the oh so brilliant arguments put forward by psyko - never a nickname was more fitting - your claim that the "moral decline in society" runs parallel to people's adoption of humanistic and atheistic points of view is not only unsubstantiated, but also intrinsically faulty as it rests on an a false assumption. What "moral decline in society?" I see none. The world is not in worse a shape than it has ever been before in its history. Unless you can prove otherwise, of course. I'm a Humanist and I'm not a killer, nor do I know of anyone who killed someone because the god he doesn't believe in told him to do so.

You want me to tell you where the concept of evil came from? You might as well ask me to separate every single grain of sand on this planet and put each of them in a different jar. The concept of evil came about at the dawn of the human civilisation, probably ever since our ancestors adopted a bipedal posture, causing a rapid increase in intelligence. Social interactions started to become increasingly complex, as the first communities formed and the need to coexist required those hominids to create a rough social code. Some things were good, others were bad. "Simple" as that. If you want a temporal indication of when that happened, that's hard to tell. Some 3.5 million years ago maybe, give or take a few hundred thousand years. The oldest known fossils of bipedal hominids are of australopithecines who lived some 3.7 million years ago in modern Tanzania. That I know of, at least.

How can I believe in God when just last week I got my tongue caught in the roller of an electric typewriter? --Woody Allen

An absolute atheist society or state (which is an utopia because after all, we’re still individuals) necessarily needs a totalitarian regime which has to substitute the common beliefs with themself. The regime, the leader would have a function like the golden calf then. We already experienced that in history more or less strict. And here it doesn’t matter much if you completely abolish all religious institutions because they are anyway powerless in such a society and the people already manipulated.

A society, a country where the majority of people truly believed in God, could never have worshipped tin gods like Hitler, Stalin or Mao. Not to forget that especially for Communism atheism in its common definition is a mainstay of its ideology. And it’s clear that an atheist society is prone to substitute its “abolished” belief with a new, artificial one which opens all doors for idolatry and the blind following of the evil aims of the totalitarian leader.
Therefore there is nothing wrong with stating that what under Stalin or Mao happened, also happened on the ground of atheism and its results, even if for some atheists this doesn’t fit in their system.

Men will always believe because living without believing is not possible. Therefore in case of doubt, if they are not able to think and feel for themselves, it is better that they believe in God, the absolute good (at least the Jewish-Christian) rather than in a person or an ideology.

The moral decline in society also speaks for itself. Today in the Western World we have the new phenomenon that the society is the advocate of atheism rather than the government. The result is regarding the morals equally bad.

You cannot say what an absolute atheistic society or state requires, for it has never been tried. What happened during the Nazi-Fascist regime in Germany or during the rule of Stalin in the Soviet Union has nothing to do with atheism, it was simply the result of two totalitarian ideologies. Hitler was a life-long Catholic and the Catholic Church actually helped him gaining and maintaining control; Stalin had a religious upbringing. Hitler felt his mandate was a divine one, and never failed to mention god in his speeches. The German people seemed to agree, and I'm sure most of them were actually believers. Stalin realised how powerful religion can be, so he simply substituted god with himself. That hardly qualifies as an atheistic society in my book, and stating that Hitler, Stalin or Mao did what they did in the name of atheism is dishonest and historically inaccurate.

You say that living without believing is not possible? How come I'm still alive then? How come I can actually think with my own head and live happily? As for your rants about this alleged moral decline, all I read are empty words.

How can I believe in God when just last week I got my tongue caught in the roller of an electric typewriter? --Woody Allen

Saying Hitler was a Catholic is like saying you would be a Catholic. Blasphemy. As I often mentioned, being born something doesn’t mean to truly be it. For the Catholic Church helping him, we already talked about that and it’s not the question here.
I further have no clue what you want to prove with saying that Stalin had a religious upbringing. It means nothing and certainly his mother was everything else than a believer.
Hitler’s understanding of God proves nothing either, only that I was right when saying that atheism demands a new god, a person being mad enough to believe being divine themself. It was the “god” of Nietzsche Hitler had in mind.
You just never achieve to distinguish between believing in some crap, claiming to believe and truly believing in God. It’s a big difference you fail to see. You have 80% or something of Catholics in Italy, how many do you think truly believe in the Catholic God? Less than 10% for sure. No true Catholic could ever have agreed with Hitler or with Mussolini. It’s idiotic to think otherwise.

Stalin indeed realised how powerful religion can be and so he simply substituted god with himself. That’s exactly what I was trying to say. And this could only happen on the fundament of atheism, for no serious orthodox believer could be moved to accept a person to be put in God’s position. So atheism was the precondition for this to happen.

You believe every day, you even get up at morning because you assume the world still exists and sun is shining. In fact, you can't know it for sure. You believe in scientific theories, you believe in things being right because you believe so. You believe in yourself, your ego. That’s enough to believe for you and it needs a quite high effort to believe in all that.

Shaka,you quoted Flomany:"You say that living without believing is not possible"then shaka,you ask then how am I alive..Shaka you have raised your NEED!!!It is not enough for you to ignore the belief (by many )in a supreme being,you have a "PASSION" to disprove any such existence...As it has been pointed out to you many times on the various channels,this for you is your BELIEF which shows clearly that you too cannot live without "belief".
"Empty words ".no shaka,YOUR religion simply rejects them,then you abandon the principle of live and let live,in favour of attack,because that is all you have...

"Hitler and Stalin were not real believers" is just a cheap excuse. "It's not my god's fault, they misunderstood!" Well, sorry dude, doesn't work. That's simply called fishing for an alibi, and you're pretty bad at that. As for Stalin's religious education, it means a lot but you simply wish to dismiss the fact. Oh, and the comment about Ekaterina Geladze is pretty absurd. She was a deeply religious woman, and hoped her son would become a priest. She died reproaching him never to have become one.

"No true Catholic could ever have agreed with Hitler or with Mussolini. It’s idiotic to think otherwise." Study some history. No, I mean, seriously. You need that.

"You believe every day, you even get up at morning because you assume the world still exists and sun is shining. In fact, you can't know it for sure. You believe in scientific theories, you believe in things being right because you believe so. You believe in yourself, your ego. That’s enough to believe for you and it needs a quite high effort to believe in all that. "

Yep, my first thought in the morning is always "phew, the world's still there. One of these days I really have to start believing in god, my life will be much easier then." I'll tell you what. You're so pathetic that it is nearly sickening. If your only argument against science is always that "it requires just as much faith" as a belief in god does, then it simply means you know shit about science. Absolutely nothing.

Do I believe in myself? Well, yes and no. I have my little issues with self-esteem too, every now and then. But you don't know me, so you can't tell. And, god willing (mwhahahahah XD emh...yeah...), you will never get to know me, and you'll never be able to tell. Which means I'll always be able to laugh at you for resorting to personal attacks when everything else fails. Bye hun

How can I believe in God when just last week I got my tongue caught in the roller of an electric typewriter? --Woody Allen

How can I believe in God when just last week I got my tongue caught in the roller of an electric typewriter? --Woody Allen

It’s no cheap excuse, it is a totally comprehensible, valid argument. People are called Catholic if they believe in the Catholic teachings. One Catholic teaching is that you shall not kill. Hitler killed millions. So can he be called Catholic? - No, certainly not. That was a very simple comparison now, so that you are able to understand it, although I’m aware that you don’t lack the understanding in general, but the will to understand things which collide with your BELIEFS.

Your “Stalin’s religion education pseudo-argument” is totally worthless. The education does in no way result in anything necessarily. There are people who had math in school, but can’t calculate properly. Stalin was said to read Marx while expected to read the Bible. Stalin killed thousands of monks and nuns. His mother was promiscuous and his father a criminal.

The one who permanently uses insults and personal attack is you, if you shouldn’t be aware of that. You obviously have no arguments and think you could cover that with phrases like “learn about history and science”, but in fact, if I didn’t know anything about it, you could confute my arguments easily and would not need this sad sort of polemics.

My only mistake is to waste my time with replying to things you write. There’s no discussion possible with such a brainwashed-by-himself, self-involved kind of person.

How can I believe in God when just last week I got my tongue caught in the roller of an electric typewriter? --Woody Allen

shaka:""The fact that you don't know me""shaka i do not wish to know you..I as a bit of an amature scientist concerned with stress related male hysteria find you clinically interesting...

I'm flattered.

How can I believe in God when just last week I got my tongue caught in the roller of an electric typewriter? --Woody Allen

You are simply not able to distinguish between the Catholic teachings and people who abused them. That’s a logical problem, but without any ability in logic how can you claim to know anything about science or here especially history? After all, science is based on logic.

Maybe you are similar to Stalin in the way that both of you had a traumatic experience with faith or people who abused their faith (nobody knows for sure). I couldn’t blame you for that, once a trauma has found its way into the subconsciousness, it will hardly find a way out.

However shaka, not all is lost .Your own former religion can help you,it starts off Bless me father for i have sinned,the rest is up to you.

I've had no trauma, unless living in a largely Catholic country, in which the Catholic Church is able and allowed to extend its filthy hand on political matters, can be considered a trauma. I simply grew older and grew out of Catholicism and religion in general. You can do that too, it's not too difficult.

You say it's a problem of logic? Hardly. I'd say it's you who are abusing the human ability of abstraction to rebuild reality in order to support and even praise the ideology you've embraced.

As for you, pietro...what can I say...I find blind acceptance of the original sin myth an insult to human intelligence. Feel free to accept it, if you wish to. That's a form of natural selection after all. But don't expect me to do the same, because there's no way I'm going to humiliate myself and my dignity that way.

How can I believe in God when just last week I got my tongue caught in the roller of an electric typewriter? --Woody Allen

Either way, the first part of this statement is explained by saying that shaka does not UNDERSTAND the principles and details of the christian faith, IN SPITE OF being brought up in the catholic environment. But if you ask me, catholocism is a perversion, very similar to satanism... but the is just MY OPINION formed from my experiences.

~ PSYKO ~

shaka! you are putting words in my mouth AGAIN.How many times must i repeatedly ask you to refrain from this..
I did not say it was a problem of logic ,i did not mention the word logic..
Yor comment on original sin: I do not accept how other religions see it and i have stated that several times...To me taken in contex ....original = first...the first sin mentioned in genesis was disobedience to the divine command...This has always been my opinion,um constantly!!

anyone who has the nuts to think for themselves(instead of being TOLD by someone else) can see that you are exactly right about the original sin part. :-)

~ PSYKO ~

How can I believe in God when just last week I got my tongue caught in the roller of an electric typewriter? --Woody Allen

It should be unnecessary to say that fighting is not allowed in the forums. Stop the fighting or I'll have to lock the topic.

It is said human beings are complex. I say it's a complex challenge to be a human.

"I wasn't referring to your post"Hmmm,shaka as always i am quick to bow to your superior command of the idiom.Please!, would you be prepared to share with us ,to which post,by whom,? were you referring..Just to keep things in context.