A Question for Atheists

[Ramadhan]

Also, noting that you are Christian, I wonder what the Muslims here think about your experience? Why should Eric get help from God instead of you guys, if Eric is praying to the wrong God or doing it in the wrong way?

Allah is ar Rahman and ar Raheem.

Even you, an atheist, who actively deny His existance is still being given oxygen to breathe.
It doesn't last forever though.
Mark my word.
Oops, by then it maybe too late.

 

[- Qatada -]

Also, noting that you are Christian, I wonder what the Muslims here think about your experience? Why should Eric get help from God instead of you guys, if Eric is praying to the wrong God or doing it in the wrong way?

Let me give you a brief bitesize illustration of Islam;


God is One. No matter what believers in a 'god' or 'gods' call Him, they believe in this 'Supreme Being'.

We believe Allah (arabic word for 'God') is the Supreme being who we should serve and obey, all other religions serve other created beings as associates with this God. I.e. christians serve Jesus, who is a slave and creation, and infact an honored Messenger of God. Polytheists serve hand made idols or nature. Other people serve their desires in preference to anything else.



Muslims are the only beings who submit to and serve the Supreme Being alone without associating His creation as partners to Him. This is why they -Muslims- are worthy of His exclusive reward.

On Judgment Day - God will reward those who served Him fully and sincerely. Anyone who worshipped/served Jesus, or even Muhammad [a creation of God], or any other human or created object [idol, or themselves etc] - they will be asked to get their rewards from that object, but that object will not be able to reward them because the objects themselves are created beings - expecting reward or punishment from God.



So true success is in serving the Supreme Being, who is One and the All Able. This is why Islam [submission to God] is the true way sent by God, with God sending Human Messengers' for centuries and millenia - calling people to serve Him only, calling to strengthening the family ties, helping those who are close to you, and the needy, encouraging the good and forbidding the evil etc.

This is the basic message of Islam, whoever submits in it will find success for his ownself; happiness in this life and the one to come. Whoever rejects it, then he has the choice to - but he will face the consequences of his ungratefulness.




Now in regards to your question;

God answers the prayers of His creation, no matter who are what religion they belong to. He even provides for them in this life, no matter what or who they are. He is so Just - that He will reward those who do good among them in this life accordingly, as a recompense for what they strived for.

If they strived for happiness, He will give them happiness. If they strived for wealth, He will give them wealth. If they strived for pleasure, He will make that path easy for them. Yet if they were sincere in wanting to follow His guidance, and strived for His pleasure and reward - He would reward them in this life AND the one to come. Since He is able to create endless happiness for His thankful slaves.

So when the disbeliever humbles himself to God and asks of Him, God will provide for them. If only he had asked for goodness in this life and the next, and believed - then he would get goodness in both abodes.


It is all a matter of mind choice , you can pick this world only, or pick both this world and the one to come. Whatever you strive for - you will get.



Peace.

 

[glo]

When I talked to my hubby about whether he thought there was any point in prayer, we had in mind communal prayer.

He felt that there were benefits in terms of sharing in each other's experiences and raising awareness of the needs of others, which in turn (hopefully!) leads to joining together in order to make a difference, help each other or others etc.

Can other atheists here identify with that notion?

 

[Pygoscelis]

Hi glo, by communal prayer do you mean like when people all join together and express wishes and fears they share in common? Sort of like a joint statement of "we all wish this, or we all feel that"? If so, then yes I agree that prayer can serve that function. It isn't needed for that though.

 

[IAmZamzam]

Let me ask you this then. If we can explain perception, personality, self awareness and decision making through biology, what is left to call the soul?

They cannot explain all of those things through biology, or at the very least not yet. Especially self-awareness, which is bizarrely and idiotically equated by materialists with the concept of the self itself, essentially telling us that you have to be aware of something in order to exist. "X=awareness of X" is illogical to the point of insipidity. The most fundamental subjective element of our experience--in fact, the very existence of purely subjective experience, has no conceivable scientific explanation, and it is much different and on a much more rudimentary level than "consciousness" itself, whatever that is--and even "consciousness", like dreams, gets "finally explained" routinely every few years, always differently, and said claims always being from individual overconfident quacks instead of the general medical community. Ask any single doctor or neurologist and they will tell you that anyone who claims to know very much about how either consciousness or dreams work is blowing smoke.

Not to mention that the soul is a very different and more essential, intuitive part of us than anything involving personality or biological perception or even emotion. In Islam we are taught that the temporary period of separation of the soul from a not-yet-resurrected body (al-barzakh) is an indescribable state without experience of any sort like we have now, and we will be so dislocated that when resurrected we'll have no idea how much time has actually passed. It'll be like waking up. Without the resurrection of the body nothing about heaven or hell would be the same even on an allegorical level. If you think that mental phenomena like self-awareness are spiritual then you're the one mistaking the divide between mind and soul.

 

[Pygoscelis]

They cannot explain all of those things through biology, or at the very least not yet.

Correct. Which is why I asked what when we can?

equated by materialists with the concept of the self itself, essentially telling us that you have to be aware of something in order to exist.

You are taking a semantic definition here and attempting to create a straw man out of it. I have never heard a materialist claim that you have to be aware of something in order for it to exist. Have you? Or are you trying to put those words in somebody's mouth so you can argue againsst them? There are millions things in the universe, planets even, that I am not aware of. That does not mean they don't exist.

"consciousness", like dreams, gets "finally explained" routinely every few years, always differently, and said claims always being from individual overconfident quacks instead of the general medical community.

Nothing gets "finally explained" by reputable scientists. Even theories as firmly established as the theories of Gravity and Evolution are open for revision or replacement with better evidence.

Ask any single doctor or neurologist and they will tell you that anyone who claims to know very much about how either consciousness or dreams work is blowing smoke.

No.... they would ask about the theory and do experiments to test it, seeing what evidence can be found for it. Science does not dismiss new ideas as "blowing smoke". Science explores new ideas.

Not to mention that the soul is a very different and more essential, intuitive part of us than anything involving personality or biological perception or even emotion.

A bold claim. No evidence. How would you make this falsifiable and run an experiment on this claim?

In Islam we are taught that the temporary period of separation of the soul from a not-yet-resurrected body (al-barzakh) is an indescribable state without experience of any sort like we have now, and we will be so dislocated that when resurrected we'll have no idea how much time has actually passed. It'll be like waking up. Without the resurrection of the body nothing about heaven or hell would be the same even on an allegorical level.

That is fine to believe if you wish, but acknowledge it for what it is; religious dogma.

 

[IAmZamzam]

Correct. Which is why I asked what when we can?

My answer, then, does not change. See above and below.

You are taking a semantic definition here and attempting to create a straw man out of it. I have never heard a materialist claim that you have to be aware of something in order for it to exist. Have you? Or are you trying to put those words in somebody's mouth so you can argue againsst them? There are millions things in the universe, planets even, that I am not aware of. That does not mean they don't exist.

I am a little surprised at just how much you're missing what I thought was a transparent point. Perhaps it's my fault. Let me put it as simply as I can. This is the view of people who try to use scientifically questionable claims about "consciousness" to disprove the soul or anything like that:

1. "Consciousness=self-awareness." (Or this is as much of a definition as you'll get out of them, anyway.)
2. "Self awareness=personal self." (Consciousness is what they presume to constitute personal existence--a notion that really wasn't popular until Locke proposed it as a bit of philosophy, I think, but never mind.)
3. "Therefore, we can explain the personal existence of a human in strictly materialistic ways by explaining how consciousness works."

The most fatal problem with this logic is in step #2. "X=awareness of X" is a concept that makes no sense at all, so the self could never essentially be defined rationally as "self-awareness".

Got it now?

Nothing gets "finally explained" by reputable scientists. Even theories as firmly established as the theories of Gravity and Evolution are open for revision or replacement with better evidence....

No.... they would ask about the theory and do experiments to test it, seeing what evidence can be found for it. Science does not dismiss new ideas as "blowing smoke". Science explores new ideas.

In theory, all of this is true. Although by "in theory", I really mean "in the fairyland of over-idealized academia in which the well known corruptions in the way science is usually practiced these days is magically nonexistent". No branch of academia is collectively as fair and open-minded to new ideas that contradict the things they've been taking for granted as you always hear atheists claiming scientists are. It's not in human nature for any group to be that way. Science is, by and large, a bloodthirsty race to get one's own results published first, or to discredit ideas one has personally decided need disproving for one's own reasons. And any scientist with a radical idea will be no better received than if he were proposing a radical idea to any other huge group of academic peers. Wake up and smell the coffee already!

A bold claim. No evidence. How would you make this falsifiable and run an experiment on this claim?

The only means of falsifying arguments made about nonphysical or physically unprovable things would be logical disproof. Got any?

That is fine to believe if you wish, but acknowledge it for what it is; religious dogma.

WHAAAA--? When did I not acknolwedge that? Where did I say it was anything else? What a silly, out-of-left-field accusation!!

 

[Salafi1407]

I have a few questions:

1. What is our purpose in life? Everything (living or not) has a purpose. EVERY single thing has a purpose. Wierd and wonderful purposes.
2. Where did we all come from? All the different types of creatures, humans, animals, insects, plants, it could not have simply fell out the sky? Or out some scientific tube of yours? Everything falls into place so perfectly where everyone fulfills their purpose justly, how? even if you throw me a scientific theory, i mean surely someone has to carry out that scientific experiment don't they? Does every creation not need a creator? We all know we have great great great great great great great grandmothers even though we have never seen them, right? How? because if they didn't exist we would not be here, even though we can never prove that they existed we just know. So surely that line has a beginning, someone has to create it all from scratch?
3. Death and afterlife. Believe in afterlife or not, no one in this world can deny death is a guarantee. So are you telling me after death that is it? We just vanish? There is no more for any of us? Some die young some die old,,, but once were gone, were gone? That is a sad sad sad depressing thought....

I know the answer to all the questions above and they very nicely link onto each other aswell and thats why I am muslim, but I would like to know what you think about that?

Also the mere existence of good and evil proves something doesn't it? Why are some good, some evil?

 

[Salafi1407]

An athiest philosopher once asked his muslim student....

"answer me 3 questions, 1- where is allah? can you prove his existence or have you ever seen him?
2- you say the devil is made out of fire and he will also end up in the hell fire, how can fire harm fire?
3- is it correct that you do not believe in fate and destiny, and that you believe we always have an option to do good or bad and that good actions will equal good rewards and vice versa"

The muslim student slapped the philosopher, and the philosopher was shocked and thought the muslim clearly had no answer so he resorted to violence, but the muslim then said....

"That was my answer, I have answered all 3 questions of yours with 1 slap. To answer question 1, when I hit you, did you feel pain? if so where is this pain you speak of? show me the phenomenon that is called pain? Show me its solid proof of existence.
To answer question 2, I hit you with my hand which is made out of mud, and your face is also made out of mud, then how did my mud harm your mud?
And to answer question 3, well was it written in your fate that you will get slapped today or was it because of an action (good or bad) that you committed."

 

[Pygoscelis]

The most fatal problem with this logic is in step #2. "X=awareness of X" is a concept that makes no sense at all, so the self could never essentially be defined rationally as "self-awareness".

I don't think any materialist is saying that x = awaremess of x here. Consciousness = Awareness of Conciousness? That'd be meta-conciousness I suppose. Even if they did, say that Consciousness = awareness of conciousness, that would not be saying that "x = awareness of x" in general. It would only be a claim in this particular context. And it is a claim I have never heard being made.

In theory, all of this is true. Although by "in theory", I really mean "in the fairyland of over-idealized academia in which the well known corruptions in the way science is usually practiced these days is magically nonexistent". No branch of academia is collectively as fair and open-minded to new ideas that contradict the things they've been taking for granted as you always hear atheists claiming scientists are.

We don't claim that scientists are. We claim that science is. The difference is important. Scientists are human and yes of course they are prone to make mistakes and have egos and pet theories. It is sometimes not until the next generation of scientists come along that major paradigm shifting breakthroughs happen. This is not a barrier imposed by science or the scientific method. It is a barrier imposed by the mis-application of it due to human imperfection.

Science is the best way of learning and figuring things out. Without science, and relying on "revelation" we would still be living in caves.

Science is, by and large, a bloodthirsty race to get one's own results published first, or to discredit ideas one has personally decided need disproving for one's own reasons.

Again, that isn't science. That is what hampers science.

And any scientist with a radical idea will be no better received than if he were proposing a radical idea to any other huge group of academic peers.

Not true. The difference between the scientists and that other group of academics is that the scientists would want to explain it away and debunk it with experiments. As the evidence mounts for the theory scientists will want to explore it more and more. They may not believe it but they will be intreagued by it and want to debunk or explain it. Quantum physics is like this. It makes very little sense to pretty much anyone, but it works, so scientists are passionate about figuring out exactly what is going on with it.

The only means of falsifying arguments made about nonphysical or physically unprovable things would be logical disproof. Got any?

Don't need any. See Russel's teapot and friends.

 

[Pygoscelis]

I have a few questions:

I have to wonder if these questions are genuine, because they have already been asked and answered in this thread a few times over.

1. What is our purpose in life? Everything (living or not) has a purpose. EVERY single thing has a purpose. Wierd and wonderful purposes.

The purpose of your life is the purpose you give life. Every single thing has a purpose you say? Depends entirely on perspective, as I wrote earlier in this thread just a page or so back. What is the purpose of a tree? To a bird it is a house. To a beaver it is building material. To a camper it is fuel for a fire. To a deer it is shelter or food. To future trees it is a means of coming into being.

2. Where did we all come from?

I don't know for sure. You don't either. I can admit I don't know. Can you?

Does every creation not need a creator?

If you presume something is created, then yes of course it needs a creator. Is your presumption valid? Takes you right back to the initial question, doesn't it?

So surely that line has a beginning, someone has to create it all from scratch?

Possibly. We really don't know. Maybe we were planted here by an alien race from another dimension. Maybe we evolved from earlier life on earth (science's current best guess).

So are you telling me after death that is it? We just vanish? There is no more for any of us? Some die young some die old,,, but once were gone, were gone?

Sure seems that way.

That is a sad sad sad depressing thought....

Only to you, and others who have never actually experienced said thought.

I know the answer to all the questions above

You think you do. You really really want to believe you do. But you don't. Not 100%. Not if you are sane. And though you won't admit it here, you know that's true.

Also the mere existence of good and evil proves something doesn't it?

It proves that we find some things socially constructive and empathically pleasing and other things socially destructive and empathically distressing. Nothing more. We do, and should, strive for the former.

As for your second post above, do you really want to play up the stereotype of the violent muslim? Making his point with violence? Really?

1. Pain itself is a psychological thing. We can show the sensory aparatus and the nerves firing and the neurons firing that go along with pain, but you are right that we can't show the sensation itself. Are you saying that God is a psychological sensation as well?

2. We are made of mud? That's silly. And there is little question that a hand hitting a face can cause harm, as can be seen in any boxing match. But when fire hits fire, it just makes for a bigger fire.

3. I don't understand what you are trying to say with this one. Something may have been lost in translation.

 

[Salafi1407]

Ok what is your purpose then?
Like I said I know the answers to all these questions and I am 100% sure, otherwise I would not be able to call myself a muslim.
Well big bang or small knock someone out there needs to do something to get things going, therefore we, the creation need to be created yes. You cannot answer that question because your scientists will never be able to answer that question.
How is it not a depressing thought that THIS is it? some live 2 months some live 80 years? Muslim or not you hear the majority go round rambling that life sucks, lifes a *****, you know why? because it is, the true peace, harmony and love is in the hereafter. And thats why we will never be at peace with ourselves or on a global context. Evil will ALWAYS exist in this world (proof of satan).
I am sane, like I said if I didn't believe in the Quran (which teaches us of all of these "questions of life" you scientists can never answer) I wouldn't be a muslim now would I? Like to us practicing people (muslim or christian or jew) you athiests seem insane and lost so its all about perspective.

I'm not an expert in this field but I know of 2 recent revelations in your so called athiest science world that were prophesized by the prophet (saw) over 1400 years ago!!! Childbirth and the purpose of mountains. Like I said Im no expert and I don't remember the details so inshallah a fellow muslim can help me out on this one.

The second post was something I heard, which I thought was funny and ALL of it makes a lot of sense at the same time in my opinion (whether you admit it or not in these forums, you know I'm right ) And I wanted to play up the stereotype of the ignorant, lost stuck up athiest

I know its a lost cause with you guys so I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

 

[IAmZamzam]

Pygoscelis, I accidentally erased most of the somewhat lengthy post I had here, so let me just sum up the same instead of typing the whole thing all over again.

1. The only coherent definition of "consciousness" you ever hear (in the higher, more abstract sense than the literal meaning of "awake-ness") is self-awareness. If you disagree with this assessment, then tell us your definition. Fully and clearly.

2. Science it itself only a method or profession or concept, and therefore only the scientists who practice it have any impact on anything. I don't expect to be able to pry off the rose-tinted glasses about scientists your atheistic preconceptions have welded onto your head, so I don't aim to try. The best I can do is perhaps just to tell you to bear in mind that human nature is the ultimate source or determining factor in anything that humans do.

3. Your "caves" comment is beneath refutation, and you should be ashamed of yourself. You do manage to be the only atheist I can remember ever coming across who is both courteous and scornful and historically snobby to a downright caricaturish degree, but that is cold comfort for me. How would you feel if someone told you that if we all listened only to the scientists then we'd all be living in a nuclear wasteland or something like that? No prizes for guessing whether you're going to seize and harp on the analogy or the semantics instead of recognizing the golden rule violation involved.

4. I've already gone over the "teapot" argument in my atheism article, which I wrote specifically so that I would not have to keep repeating myself.

I have to wonder if these questions are genuine, because they have already been asked and answered in this thread a few times over.

'Fore you accuse him take a look at yourself.

 

[Gator]

Hello,

I have a few questions:

1. What is our purpose in life? Everything (living or not) has a purpose. EVERY single thing has a purpose. Wierd and wonderful purposes.

If you mean some grand cosmic purpose, then my answer would be none.

2. Where did we all come from? All the different types of creatures, humans, animals, insects, plants, it could not have simply fell out the sky? Or out some scientific tube of yours? Everything falls into place so perfectly where everyone fulfills their purpose justly, how? even if you throw me a scientific theory, i mean surely someone has to carry out that scientific experiment don't they? Does every creation not need a creator? We all know we have great great great great great great great grandmothers even though we have never seen them, right? How? because if they didn't exist we would not be here, even though we can never prove that they existed we just know. So surely that line has a beginning, someone has to create it all from scratch?

I believe we are the result of natural processes.

3. Death and afterlife. Believe in afterlife or not, no one in this world can deny death is a guarantee. So are you telling me after death that is it? We just vanish? There is no more for any of us? Some die young some die old,,, but once were gone, were gone? That is a sad sad sad depressing thought....

Yes, we're gone and that's that. C'est la vie.

I know the answer to all the questions above and they very nicely link onto each other aswell and thats why I am muslim, but I would like to know what you think about that?

Also the mere existence of good and evil proves something doesn't it? Why are some good, some evil?

We'll I don't know the answers, but what I believe makes sense to me and describes the world pretty well in my view.

The good and evil question has a lot of facets that can fit either view. Because we believe they are good and evil.

Thanks for the questions!

 

[Trumble]

1. The only coherent definition of "consciousness" you ever hear (in the higher, more abstract sense than the literal meaning of "awake-ness") is self-awareness. If you disagree with this assessment, then tell us your definition. Fully and clearly.

Oh dear.. yet another of your famed strawmen. Same goes for premise 2. And the conclusion. Which can only, and 'transparently', be conciousness = personal self - please provide some references indicating who holds that position?!

You might find a definition in a dictionary but I'm not aware of any fixed or agreed one in science, cognitive or otherwise, psychology or philosophy not least because nobody, 'materialist' or otherwise, can actually agree what it is.

 

[IAmZamzam]

Everyone speaks of a permanent end of consciousness as though it would be a permanent end of existence. I wonder that you've never heard it before. Even more puzzling is this "famed strawmen" thing. Nothing I do is famous even at this board, let alone things I don't do.

As for there being no universal definition of consciousness, well, that was one of my points.

 

[Trumble]

Everyone speaks of a permanent end of consciousness as though it would be a permanent end of existence.

A permanent end of existence of what? 'Self-awareness'? 'the personal self'? The Soul? All three (or two, if the first two are assumed to be the same)? And what does the wonderfully vague "as though it would be"' mean? That a permanent end of consciousness results in a permanent end in the existence of whatever? That would be rather different, and weaker, claim than consciousness equals self-awareness equals the personal self.

The stronger claim you suggest 'everyone' is making doesn't even pass the first hurdle - although I'll happily accept that won't stop a few people making it! But if consciousness = self-awareness = personal self then the 'permanent' modifier is superfluous; any cessation of self-awareness must mean a cessation of 'the personal self', temporary or permanent, as they are the same thing. And does 'everybody' really claim that whenever we are not self-aware (or conscious); in a coma, under anesthetic or even in deep sleep, the 'personal self' completely ceases to exist only to pop up again out of nowhere when we regain consciousness? Where did it go?!

 

[IAmZamzam]

You're preaching to the choir. Problem is that anytime I find any scientific discussion at all on the subject of an afterlife (unless people are discussing NDE's), the disbeliever will always rebut by discussing the supposed mechanics of consciousness. For instance, you'll sometimes hear people at infidels.org and such places refer to works like Daniel Dennett's Consciousness Explained (a book which flat out denies the existence of qualia altogether; one may as well deny the existence of the sense of smell). If this is so unheard of to you, Trumble, then that's no indictment of you, but it also doesn't mean my own experience is any more limited or misleading than your own. You just haven't talked to and heard from the same people as I, apparently. Although you do admit that "a few" people do the things I'm describing, so perhaps your experience isn't so much different from mine as differently evaluated.

Buddhists aren't supposed to get hostile and argumentative; you might do well for some meditation right now. In any case stop pestering me for defenses or elaborations of arguments I'm not even making and in fact am arguing against. Or else refer me to even a few people who know me for these famous straw man attacks you speak of.

 

[Pygoscelis]

Ok what is your purpose then?

Depends on the day. My various purposes include being a good son, a good brother, a good friend, a good lover, a good professional helping out my clients, and many other purposes. I have no one single purpose. And the purpose in my life is what I decide it is.

Like I said I know the answers to all these questions

No you don't.

Well big bang or small knock someone out there needs to do something to get things going, therefore we, the creation need to be created yes.

Or perhaps it has always been. And if everything needs a creator, then who created the creator? You solve nothing, but only take one step back.

You cannot answer that question because your scientists will never be able to answer that question.

What makes you so sure of that? Perhaps they never will solve it. Perhaps they will solve it. Again, you don't know, but you choose to pretend you do. That is why you call it "faith".

How is it not a depressing thought that THIS is it?

All the more reason to treasure it. How is it not a depressing that one would choose to live their life as if it is a test or a waiting room, only to find it was all they had?

Muslim or not you hear the majority go round rambling that life sucks, lifes a *****, you know why? because it is

I disagree. I quite enjoy life.

I'm not an expert in this field but I know of 2 recent revelations in your so called athiest science world that were prophesized by the prophet (saw) over 1400 years ago!!!

If you deplore science then why do you seek to prove your prophecy by matching it to the results of science?

And I wanted to play up the stereotype of the ignorant, lost stuck up athiest

Only you didn't. You portrayed the atheist as asking three very fair questions, and doing it quite politely, and you portrayed the muslim as reacting with violence.

I know its a lost cause with you guys so I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

So you now admit that your questions were not genuine?

 

[Pygoscelis]

1. The only coherent definition of "consciousness" you ever hear (in the higher, more abstract sense than the literal meaning of "awake-ness") is self-awareness.

Is it? I am quite happy to allow you to define your terms however you like. It is the logic you then try to form from them that confuses me.

2. Science it itself only a method or profession or concept, and therefore only the scientists who practice it have any impact on anything. I don't expect to be able to pry off the rose-tinted glasses about scientists your atheistic preconceptions have welded onto your head, so I don't aim to try. The best I can do is perhaps just to tell you to bear in mind that human nature is the ultimate source or determining factor in anything that humans do.

You don't seem to understand what I was saying above. You seem to be reacting to something else entirely and we are talking passed each other at this point. We both agree that science is a method and procedure, and that humans are not perfect at applying and therefore often get flawed results.

3. Your "caves" comment is beneath refutation, and you should be ashamed of yourself.

I'm not. Sorry. I may have exagerated a bit there, but religion has more often than not been backwards looking and standing in the way of science and learning, from Galileo to Darwin to Stem Cell Research. Religion can inspire wonder and even research (ie, Mendel) but inevitably that research discovers something that doesn't jive with the dogma and at that point religion become the enemy of knowledge and learning.

When you claim to already know something (on faith), you tend to resist findings that clash with that understanding. As you pointed out, this is human nature, and even scientists do it sometimes (corrupting their application of science and slowing progress), but nobody takes it quite to the extreme that religion does. The concept of "Sacred Truths" is the most repressive force on discovery and learning imaginable.

You do manage to be the only atheist I can remember ever coming across who is both courteous and scornful and historically snobby to a downright caricaturish degree

Thank you.

How would you feel if someone told you that if we all listened only to the scientists then we'd all be living in a nuclear wasteland or something like that

That could happen. With or without religion that could happen. Mutually assured destruction (and perhaps some empathy) seems to be what has prevented it from happening thus far. I am not so sure that mutually assured destruction would hinder the radically religious though, who may not see death and the end of the world as such a bad thing, believing such things as the afterlife, and armagedon and judgment day.

instead of recognizing the golden rule violation involved.

The "Golden Rule" is not exclusive property of religion.

4. I've already gone over the "teapot" argument in my atheism article, which I wrote specifically so that I would not have to keep repeating myself.

You addressed it there by complaining that it offends your sensibilities. I'm sorry that it does, but that doesn't make the point any less valid.