For all the ex-religious.

[Mogi67]

Seriously. I see religion as the greatest roadblock facing the progress of the world today. This life is fleeting away one second at a time. And the longer religion stands in the way of science, the shorter my life is going to be. I see religion as a force that robs people of their life. My life. And that pisses me off to no end. I am in the bible belt New Mexico, and to even proclaim your non-belief is enough to have you pretty well ostracized from any social event. We have billboards with evolution crossed out in favor of creationism; we have churches where the only title is "jesus saves." We have little signs up everywhere proclaiming that abortion is a sin. I don't apoligize for my intolerance of those who believe in god. I see the strangling grip of the delusional, insane notions every day and its starting to make me intolerant.

.
Religion merely reflects human nature in all its dimensions. It's dishonest to suggest that historically religion has been either simply good or simply evil. But can we really believe that secular reason, without the constraints of an archaic faith, would naturally make society more just, more humane, and more rational than in the past? What evidence supports such an expectation?

 

[TheDude]

.
Religion merely reflects human nature in all its dimensions. It's dishonest to suggest that historically religion has been either simply good or simply evil. But can we really believe that secular reason, without the constraints of an archaic faith, would naturally make society more just, more humane, and more rational than in the past? What evidence supports such an expectation?

The fact that so much violence and hate are perpetrated in the name of religion is reason enough to abolish it. Besides that though, I know for a fact that many religious zealots believe in an afterlife. And by believing that, this world doesn't matter as much to them as it would if they knew it was their only life. That's being anticodtial, but logically it makes sense. If you have a safety net, you are more willing to jump off a building than without. Religion is that safety net, and we're throwing this planet off the building hoping that safety net is really there. That's a chance we can't take. When you look how small, how insignificant we humans are in the universe, it absolutely pathetic for us to still believe that help will come from some imaginary being. We are alone in the cosmos, and we have to do everything we can to survive as a race.

 

[leib10]

Some people find religion makes them happier. Let them be happier. Does it really require that much effort to ignore people with their bumper stickers that say "Jesus lives" and the crucifixes hanging from their rear-view mirrors? Or to politely say "No thanks" to the people handing out Gideon's Bibles? Or to keep in check your perceived superiority of logic and fact and not attack them for the things that make them happy? How much trouble, on a day-to-day basis, does religion cause in anybody's life? Would the world be better off without it? Would it be a more just, humane, moral, safer place?

Does religion cause conflict? Yes; just look at the Middle East today. Can religious people be ignorant and narrow-minded? Yes; many of them are. Do religious people slow progress? Depends on whether you happen to agree with them on an issue or not. But the vast majority of religious people are not going to directly harm anybody here on this forum due specifically to their religion. I just can't understand why atheists can't understand that. Why they purposefully have to go out of their way to push their own beliefs on theists (something most atheists vehemently attack them for). It's always seemed hypocritical to me.

 

[RidleyRockets]

Some people find religion makes them happier. Let them be happier. Does it really require that much effort to ignore people with their bumper stickers that say "Jesus lives" and the crucifixes hanging from their rear-view mirrors? Or to politely say "No thanks" to the people handing out Gideon's Bibles? Or to keep in check your perceived superiority of logic and fact and not attack them for the things that make them happy? How much trouble, on a day-to-day basis, does religion cause in anybody's life? Would the world be better off without it? Would it be a more just, humane, moral, safer place?

Does religion cause conflict? Yes; just look at the Middle East today. Can religious people be ignorant and narrow-minded? Yes; many of them are. Do religious people slow progress? Depends on whether you happen to agree with them on an issue or not. But the vast majority of religious people are not going to directly harm anybody here on this forum due specifically to their religion. I just can't understand why atheists can't understand that. Why they purposefully have to go out of their way to push their own beliefs on theists (something most atheists vehemently attack them for). It's always seemed hypocritical to me.

Atheists don't attack theists for pushing beliefs, they attack them for pushing bat shit crazy unfounded beliefs.

If you profess to believing bat shit crazy things don't be surprised when it's pointed out just how bat shit crazy they are.

Also i would say the less bat shit crazy things people believe the better.

Bat shit.

 

[Escaep]

Seriously. I see religion as the greatest roadblock facing the progress of the world today. This life is fleeting away one second at a time. And the longer religion stands in the way of science, the shorter my life is going to be. I see religion as a force that robs people of their life. My life. And that pisses me off to no end. I am in the bible belt New Mexico, and to even proclaim your non-belief is enough to have you pretty well ostracized from any social event. We have billboards with evolution crossed out in favor of creationism; we have churches where the only title is "jesus saves." We have little signs up everywhere proclaiming that abortion is a sin. I don't apoligize for my intolerance of those who believe in god. I see the strangling grip of the delusional, insane notions every day and its starting to make me intolerant.

Aliens may exist but mankind should avoid contact with them as the consequences could be devastating, British scientist Stephen Hawking warned Sunday.
"If aliens visit us, the outcome would be much as when Columbus landed in America, which didn't turn out well for the Native Americans," said the astrophysicist in a new television series, according to British media reports.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100425/sc_afp/scienceastronomyextraterrestrialhawking

 

[Noodle]

The fact that so much violence and hate are perpetrated in the name of religion is reason enough to abolish it.

What about the incredible amounts of charity and tolerance spread in the name of religion? The missions and schools in third world countries. The countless charitable organizations helping all sorts of people afflicted with various misfortunes. How many people have tolerated someone else because they follow their religious belief in tolerance?

 

[TheDude]

What about the incredible amounts of charity and tolerance spread in the name of religion? The missions and schools in third world countries. The countless charitable organizations helping all sorts of people afflicted with various misfortunes. How many people have tolerated someone else because they follow their religious belief in tolerance?

Tolerance spread in the name of religion? You are funny Noodle. I like you. :cheers: You mean the tolerance in the Balkans where Muslims and Christians are destroying each other each in the name of their god. Or are you talking about the tolerance in Ireland between the protestants and the catholics? or are you talking about the tolerance that Israel is demonstrating for Palestine. Or maybe the tolerance between the nuclear armed Pakistan and India. Or maybe you're talking about the tolerance the southern united states has for homosexual practices. Or maybe you're talking about the tolerance the Christians had for the heretics during the inquisition. Yeah, tolerance spread in the name of religion. Give me a break man. I was born 24 years ago, not yesterday.

And, as for charity, there is no doubt people do good things in the name of religion. But that's not because of religion. Those people are good at heart and have a need to do charity. But you don't need religion. Take doctors without borders as an example or the UN. In my biased experience too I've met a few missionaries and they are typically really messed up people who can't help themselves in the first place and feel a need to dominate others with their knowledge of a fairy tale.

And look at Saudi Arabia. They started radical Islam as we know it today. And the hand of that radicalization of the Muslim world was missionary work and money. If you think there's no agenda behind "charity" work, you are blind.

 

[99.vikram]

The fact that so much violence and hate are perpetrated in the name of religion is reason enough to abolish it. Besides that though, I know for a fact that many religious zealots believe in an afterlife. And by believing that, this world doesn't matter as much to them as it would if they knew it was their only life. That's being anticodtial, but logically it makes sense. If you have a safety net, you are more willing to jump off a building than without. Religion is that safety net, and we're throwing this planet off the building hoping that safety net is really there. That's a chance we can't take. When you look how small, how insignificant we humans are in the universe, it absolutely pathetic for us to still believe that help will come from some imaginary being. We are alone in the cosmos, and we have to do everything we can to survive as a race.

I agree with this, but I don't think there's any need to argue religion in public. Here's why:

The kind of religious person who pays attention to your argument is likely already a rational human being who you can debate on issues on public importance, and who does not support fundamentalism. So you're preaching to the choir.

Secondly, religion will continue to shrink in influence from now on, as it always has, until it disappears from the world like the foul pestilence it is. As science illuminates, religion receded into the shadows. Our efforts are not needed, this is a natural process.

TLDR; Stop attacking Noodle. This is not supposed to get personal.

 

[leib10]

Atheists don't attack theists for pushing beliefs, they attack them for pushing bat shit crazy unfounded beliefs.

If you profess to believing bat shit crazy things don't be surprised when it's pointed out just how bat shit crazy they are.

Also i would say the less bat shit crazy things people believe the better.

Bat shit.

My argument still stands. Even if it's the perception that their beliefs are ridiculous, why not just shake your head and walk the other way? Why do so many of them have to actively seek to ridicule them and strip away what makes them happy?

 

[63]

Why do so many of them have to actively seek to ridicule them and strip away what makes them happy?

I wouldn't say it's "so many of them". Just like the vast majority of religious folk don't go around handing out bibles (they always get me at the bus stop), the vast majority of atheists don't say a word. There are extremists in both groups.

 

[TheDude]

My argument still stands. Even if it's the perception that their beliefs are ridiculous, why not just shake your head and walk the other way? Why do so many of them have to actively seek to ridicule them and strip away what makes them happy?

Cause that's how we've been doing it for thousands of years. And when we look the other way too long, the religious rise up and decide that black magic exists and that they have to purge all the unbelievers. Religion, at its best, is an inate waste of time and resources. Maybe an inspiration for beautiful artwork if it gets really on a high horse; religion, at its worst, is unfortunantely what we see most. It involves pedos in all faiths, raping children for who knows what reasons. Jihad. Genocide. That is the unchecked religion you want us to embrace. Personally, as a human being and as a citizen of earth, I cannot stand by and give religion the chance to put me to the sword. Its high time we recognized that religion is a tool of irrationality, that makes people turn off their logical centers of thought and embrace the insane.

 

[Noodle]

Every single crime you've mentioned are flaws in human character, and are not going to go away if religion goes away.

 

[Sparta]

Jihad and crusades would tend go away if you got rid of religion. What with the killing in the name of God and all that.

 

[Krynn72]

No they wouldn't. They would just lose the name "jihad" and "crusade" and instead be called something else.

But i'm all for getting rid of God as a reason (excuse) for war. One less reason for war, and one less way for people to shift the blame for their horrible crimes off themselves.

 

[Shift]

Every single crime you've mentioned are flaws in human character, and are not going to go away if religion goes away.

Exactly.

TheDude can criticize theists for living in a fantasy world but he is living in one himself. Religion or not religion, there will be conflicts. A great philosopher once said that 'as long as mankind exists, there will be war' and its true, its in our very instinct. I mean you are talking as if religion is a perpetrator of all life's problems with the way you shoot your mouth of but no, life's problems, including the ones you have mentioned, as noodle stated, are because of flaws in human character.

And most the conflicts you mentioned have been going for hundreds of years, I sincerely doubt religion plays any role in the ingoing struggle. Its simply either a power concept, or they hate each other and none of them can remember why anymore, they just do. None of that will vanish if religion was not here. And the Crusades was not a holy quest to re-capture Jerusalem, that was a cloak so more knights would sign up because the pope stated that killing in the name of the crusade or dieing by its name would grant entrance to heaven, it was all falsely edited, as a lot of the teachings of christianity were at the time.

So as you atheists love to say us, get real. Religion or not, there will be many conflicts around the world. Religion or not, our technology will continue to increase regardless and science will always be at the forefront of that, and even theists themselves will make great contributions to that, as that has been the case already.

Oh and its just ignorant to suggest that those who believe in an afterlife will take this life for granted. Those, like myself, who have the ability to lead a good and happy life will take it and do just that, I intend to live this life to the full and enjoy every second of it. However there are those who don't have that luxury, who have nothing but misery in their everyday existence. Religion gives them hope, a prospect that despite their very shitty existence and suffering in this life, they are granted a better one in the next. And don't TRY and to downplay that card, because you couldn't even begin to sympathize with that sort of life. And I'm not just talking about the present, it has been the case for a great many years, back when life wasn't so easy and fair, when in lot of cases religion was all people had to cling to because they had nothing else, and despite the entireity of that predicament, they remained strong because of it.

 

[TheDude]

Exactly.

TheDude can criticize theists for living in a fantasy world but he is living in one himself. Religion or not religion, there will be conflicts. A great philosopher once said that 'as long as mankind exists, there will be war' and its true, its in our very instinct. I mean you are talking as if religion is a perpetrator of all life's problems with the way you shoot your mouth of but no, life's problems, including the ones you have mentioned, as noodle stated, are because of flaws in human character.

And most the conflicts you mentioned have been going for hundreds of years, I sincerely doubt religion plays any role in the ingoing struggle. Its simply either a power concept, or they hate each other and none of them can remember why anymore, they just do. None of that will vanish if religion was not here. And the Crusades was not a holy quest to re-capture Jerusalem, that was a cloak so more knights would sign up because the pope stated that killing in the name of the crusade or dieing by its name would grant entrance to heaven, it was all falsely edited, as a lot of the teachings of christianity were at the time.

So as you atheists love to say us, get real. Religion or not, there will be many conflicts around the world. Religion or not, our technology will continue to increase regardless and science will always be at the forefront of that, and even theists themselves will make great contributions to that, as that has been the case already.

Oh and its just ignorant to suggest that those who believe in an afterlife will take this life for granted. Those, like myself, who have the ability to lead a good and happy life will take it and do just that, I intend to live this life to the full and enjoy every second of it. However there are those who don't have that luxury, who have nothing but misery in their everyday existence. Religion gives them hope, a prospect that despite their very shitty existence and suffering in this life, they are granted a better one in the next. And don't TRY and to downplay that card, because you couldn't even begin to sympathize with that sort of life. And I'm not just talking about the present, it has been the case for a great many years, back when life wasn't so easy and fair, when in lot of cases religion was all people had to cling to because they had nothing else, and despite the entireity of that predicament, they remained strong because of it.

Yeah religion gives a hope for an afterlife. And the religious may be happier than the non-religious. The fact that a believer is happier than a sceptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one.
-- Bernard Shaw
Even if you are poor; even if you are homeless; even if you have no hope in the world; Living in a false reality isn't living a true life. I don't care how you dress religion. You can put as much lipstick on that pig as you want but its still gonna be a pig. also, You say that war is in our nature? What about the Netherlands? What about Sweden? It happens to be that the best places to live in the world also happen to be the most atheistic. I understand that religion gives people hope; but the hope in science should be far greater. A hand put to work solving the world's problems can do far greater good than a thousand hands clasped in prayer. You say that war is in our nature? You are right. But it's not exactly our nature that causes it. There are a lot of things in our nature that create war, such as greed and a longing for natural resources. But difference in ideas is also one of the causes. Perhaps irreconcilable ideas. One step to eliminating that cause of war is to eliminate idea boundaries. You do that with science, the universal idea. The one idea that is true across all countries and races and religions.

 

[RidleyRockets]

My argument still stands. Even if it's the perception that their beliefs are ridiculous, why not just shake your head and walk the other way?

Because that's the price you pay for saying bat shit crazy things.

Why do so many of them have to actively seek to ridicule them and strip away what makes them happy?

Just because it makes them happy doesn't mean in any way that it is true. If you don't care about the truth then fine. I happen to care a lot along with many other atheists so when someone starts talking about zombies, magic men, giant zoo boats and a 6000 year old earth i don't let it slide by.

It's also fun.

 

[CptStern]

My argument still stands. Even if it's the perception that their beliefs are ridiculous, why not just shake your head and walk the other way? Why do so many of them have to actively seek to ridicule them and strip away what makes them happy?

abortion, same sex marriage, separation of church and state, creationism in schools etc etc. when they're actively seeking to change society to suit their pov the ridicule is warrented, even necessary. frankly I think in these particular instances religion doesnt get as much criticism as they should

 

[Tyguy]

abortion, same sex marriage, separation of church and state, creationism in schools etc etc. when they're actively seeking to change society to suit their pov the ridicule is warrented, even necessary. frankly I think in these particular instances religion doesnt get as much criticism as they should

Pretty much this...

I'll agree, as I assume most non-theists here would, that there is a significant hatred towards religion and a lot of the times it is for the wrong reasons (e.g. to start a flame war). Shitting on somebody's faith is one thing but defending it's criticism for legitimate reasons (like what stern suggested) is entirely appropriate. When religion stands between our ability to improve life (stem cell research) it's a big problem, much larger than the impact of questioning faith in general.

There isn't some massive plot to make religious people unhappy. Obviously trolls will be trolls and shitting on religion just makes the days go by faster for some people but you cannot make the claim that religious morality/teaching does not impede scientific progress.

How exactly is it a roadblock? As far as I can see, technology is advancing just fine with religion a prospect in everyday life. Not mention there are some of the top scientists and doctors around the world, some of which I'm betting have made great contributions to science, who are theist.

Sure, some respectable scientists are religious. Francis S. Collins (who I believe is the head of the Human Genome Project) is religious, despite his work in sequencing the human genome. However, you can't use isolated examples to defend your claim. 97% percent of scientists of any particular field consider themselves atheist/agnostic. (I got this number from Religulous, I can't find it online)

Like I said, the goal isn't to convince grandma that her entire life was a lie. The goal is to be able to separate religion from science and politics.

 

[RidleyRockets]

Like I said, the goal isn't to convince grandma that her entire life was a lie. .

Well, that's not one of your goals...

 

[Noodle]

abortion, same sex marriage, separation of church and state, creationism in schools etc etc. when they're actively seeking to change society to suit their pov the ridicule is warrented, even necessary. frankly I think in these particular instances religion doesnt get as much criticism as they should

Because atheists totally aren't trying to change society to suit their pov? It looks the same from both sides of the fence. Each side is convinced the other is absolutely wrong and delusional and deserves no respect. Each side wants their way to be the way.

Also, creationism shouldn't be taught in biology classes. Maybe sociology classes, though.

 

[CptStern]

Because atheists totally aren't trying to change society to suit their pov?

nope, not at all. there is no cohesive group of atheists like there is with religion. maybe on an individual basis but that can be said about anyone.

It looks the same from both sides of the fence. Each side is convinced the other is absolutely wrong and delusional and deserves no respect. Each side wants their way to be the way.

this isnt true. stop labeling atheism as if it's a religion; it's not. it's simply not believing. there is no creed, or rules or codex it's just "this all sounds silly so I choose not to believe" ..that's it, nothing more

and I really dont mean to be condescending but this whole notion that atheists are "convinced" they're right is false; atheists just dont have anything that would even remotely prove the existance of god therefore the only people who are "convinced" of anything are religious people

Also, creationism shouldn't be taught in biology classes. Maybe sociology classes, though.

I'd rather it's not taught at all except maybe from a historical perspective

"do you believe that at one time people though the world was only 6000 years old? no really ..."

 

[TheDude]

A little video showing the Infallible word of god.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RB3g6mXLEKk&playnext_from=TL&videos=NkeAdn8yjP8&feature=sub

Also from Reddit:
"I ridicule religion because it deserves and needs to be ridiculed. Every religion makes unsupported and baseless claims about the nature of the universe (specifically human life) and then demands respect and that we refrain from questioning its word. There exist no greater obstacles in the pursuit of knowledge or the attainment of human liberties than the religions of our world.
We're surrounded by people who believe that the world is about 6,000 years old, and that humans either coexisted with dinosaurs or that God placed their fossils here. It matters that people believe this shit. A woman from Alaska who believes this shit was damn close to becoming our Vice President. We're surrounded also by Muslim fundamentalists issuing death threats to cartoonists, murdering their daughters for the crime of getting raped (yes, getting raped), and flying planes into buildings. The official Catholic position on condoms is not only that they're sinful, but that they actually increase one's likelihood of contracting HIV/AIDS. Catholic missionaries have spread this lie all throughout Africa, where the only information on condoms available to the villagers is that provided by the Catholic Church. I'll let you contemplate how many needless and painful AIDS deaths have occurred in Africa because of this nonsense; I don't have an exact figure. No longer can one read international news without learning of a new child rapist within the confines of the Catholic Church. It's just now being brought to the light that in 1985 the current Pope Benedict XVI (he was only a Cardinal at that time) signed an official Vatican document preventing the removal of a priest with a record of sexually molesting children; His Holiness was more concerned with, and I quote, "the good of the universal Church." The Pope, the alleged best of the best, is more worried about the appearance of the Church than whether kids are being systematically raped and abused under his watch.
I could continue this list, and could incorporate every other religion while doing so, but I don't think that would make my point here any more obvious. Respect is a privilege that's earned, and I can come up with no reason whatever to respect beliefs that are unsupported, that in many cases science has completely blown away, and that manifest as the sorts of atrocities I've just listed."
Edit: Initially I pasted a saved draft (e.g. an older draft) of the message. It was exactly the same except didn't include the few sentences about the age of Earth towards the beginning, as now seen.
Edit 2: Split the above text into paragraphs.

 

[Noodle]

nope, not at all. there is no cohesive group of atheists like there is with religion. maybe on an individual basis but that can be said about anyone.

Atheists are trying to secularize society, correct? Yes, I'm generalizing. No more than you're generalizing that all religious people are radically opposed to secularization. Personally, I favor a secular government. (But I'm also religious! Argh! Contradiction!)

There isn't a cohesive groups of religious folk aside from the numerous different religious organizations. Saying every Catholic believes every word of the Pope is like saying every American believes the exact same things Obama says he believes. The same rules of generalization apply to both sides, while it may not be an organized and labeled push, atheists generally push for the same associated ideals (separation of church and state, no creationism, etc) to the same degree as religious people push for the opposite ideals. Religion just seems like a more cohesive group simply because they have the vast majority. The percentages are probably the same.

this isnt true. stop labeling atheism as if it's a religion; it's not. it's simply not believing. there is no creed, or rules or codex it's just "this all sounds silly so I choose not to believe" ..that's it, nothing more

and I really dont mean to be condescending but this whole notion that atheists are "convinced" they're right is false; atheists just dont have anything that would even remotely prove the existance of god therefore the only people who are "convinced" of anything are religious people

I'm generalizing on behalf of religious people. They see atheists as being as delusional as atheists see them. (That doesn't mean I do. I don't really.)

Besides, atheists are "convinced" theists are wrong.

...or are you agnostic? Because that would make more sense. I think we might be using differing definitions of "atheist".

 

[CptStern]

Atheists are trying to secularize society, correct?

have they announced a date!?! no, man, I cant speak for every other non believer out there but there's definately NO agenda ..at least for the majority of us. I have a live and let live attitude IRL however as soon as it infringes on my life or to the detriment of society (anti-abortion, creationism etc) then I take notice. otherwise I couldnt care less what they do

Yes, I'm generalizing. No more than you're generalizing that all religious people are radically opposed to secularization.

huh? I never said that. in fact I was brought up catholic and as far as I know this has never come up

Personally, I favor a secular government. (But I'm also religious! Argh! Contradiction!)

There isn't a cohesive groups of religious folk aside from the numerous different religious organizations. Saying every Catholic believes every word of the Pope is like saying every American believes the exact same things Obama says he believes.

but they should. rules are worthless if you pick and choose what you want to follow. it kind of invalidates the whole thing; "if this is wrong, then why isnt this wrong" etc

The same rules of generalization apply to both sides

there is NO side! I have absolutely nothing in common with a coworker who also happens to be non-religious. it's just as valid to say we're in the same "group" because neither of us believes in santa claus. I'm sure you are also in this group. however we dont share ideals, there is no central tenent to our non-belief. there's fundamentally no difference between atheists and those who dont believe in santa cluas or the tooth fairy; our ONLY commonality is there's no evidence to support the existance of santa claus therefore we dont believe

while it may not be an organized and labeled push, atheists generally push for the same associated ideals (separation of church and state, no creationism, etc)

not because they dont believe but because those issues are pretty clear cut to anyone with some measure of intelligence; society shouldnt be ruled by superstition and we shouldnt teach ignorance in schools. even religious people should be against this (as you have already demonstrated). really, I dont care if it were the Spaghetti monster pushing their creation theory, it's not how I want society to function; by their rules and pov

to the same degree as religious people push for the opposite ideals. Religion just seems like a more cohesive group simply because they have the vast majority. The percentages are probably the same.

it seems like a cohesive group because it is a cohesive group. regardless of splinter groups or various factions underlying many of them share the exact same ideals but codified differently

I'm generalizing on behalf of religious people. They see atheists as being as delusional as atheists see them. (That doesn't mean I do. I don't really.)

self-delusion allows for lots of things

Besides, atheists are "convinced" theists are wrong.

but they are wrong. show my proof of the existence of a supreme being. the burden of proof lies with religion not the other way around

...or are you agnostic? Because that would make more sense. I think we might be using differing definitions of "atheist".

I'd rather not label non belief. but anyways what's a supreme being? to ants, we are supreme beings, does that make us gods? no, but to them we would seem as gods. I'd rather just say "I dont know" however do I believe it's a personal god that created this universe for our sake? absolutely not


some religious people think this of agnostics:

"Some sources use agnostic in the sense of noncommittal"

I dont agree with this because the alternative is that there's a chance the religious people are correct; I dont believe this. there's just no room in the bigger picture for their self-centric/ego fueled ideology

 

[Polaris]

Atheists are trying to secularize society, correct?

Well, I'm sure they would like to have a secular society... just like some folks 200 years ago...

 

[Noodle]

Okay, fair enough atheists are not a cohesive group. Although I still see similarities. It's not like either segment is immune from the basic rules of sociology and psychology.

I consider agnostics as following (for lack of a better word) the idea that us mortal humans have no possible way of knowing if there is a higher deity or not. Admitted ignorance.

I consider(ed) atheists as being a sure that there is no God as they religious people are sure there is one.

And why would you not be an agnostic because of the possibility that religious people are correct. It's like (from your point of view) there's an elephant floating above your head but you have no way of looking up. An agnostic simply follows the idea that you have know way of confirming the existence or non-existence of the elephant. A theist believes in the elephant and and atheist somehow knows for sure there is no elephant. (I know it's a shitty metaphor, but it's almost finals week and my brain is geared towards other things.)

 

[CptStern]

Okay, fair enough atheists are not a cohesive group. Although I still see similarities. It's not like either segment is immune from the basic rules of sociology and psychology.

I consider agnostics as following (for lack of a better word) the idea that us mortal humans have no possible way of knowing if there is a higher deity or not. Admitted ignorance.

again that would mean a personal god because under my pov there are lots of "higher beings" just as we're a higher being in comparison to an ant

I consider(ed) atheists as being a sure that there is no God as they religious people are sure there is one.

I'm absolutely sure there is no god; not as humans have described it. it's just far too improbable to take seriously

And why would you not be an agnostic because of the possibility that religious people are correct. It's like (from your point of view) there's an elephant floating above your head but you have no way of looking up. An agnostic simply follows the idea that you have know way of confirming the existence or non-existence of the elephant. A theist believes in the elephant and and atheist somehow knows for sure there is no elephant. (I know it's a shitty metaphor, but it's almost finals week and my brain is geared towards other things.)

that's an inaccurate analogy because it assumes the atheist is unaware of the existence of the elphant above his head; a more accurate analogy would be if there is no elephant

 

[Noodle]

again that would mean a personal god because under my pov there are lots of "higher beings" just as we're a higher being in comparison to an ant

A creator that exists both inside outside our perceivable realm of existence. Let's go with that definition.

A helpful tip: don't think of the God people preach that replaces evolution. Think of God as a being that made the big bang happen. Or at least made the matter that resulted in the bang.

I'm absolutely sure there is no god; not as humans have described it. it's just far too improbable to take seriously

That's probably because you take the descriptions too literally. And in theory, our definitions of probability and ability to describe things would be inadequate, but that's a different topic.

The idea that the burden of proof lays solely on the religious is faulty, anyway. Lack of proof within our realm of perception for one idea doesn't make the other idea correct by default. Again, that's why agnosticism would make more sense for you.

that's an inaccurate analogy because it assumes the atheist is unaware of the existence of the elphant above his head; a more accurate analogy would be if there is no elephant

Har har. I could have worded it better... for all three, there is no physical way for them to perceive the existence of an elephant over there head, or the absence of one. The elephant is outside their realm of physical perception, mostly because the elephant created their realm of perception.

Oh, forget the damn elephant analogy.

 

[Tyguy]

The idea that the burden of proof lays solely on the religious is faulty, anyway. Lack of proof within our realm of perception for one idea doesn't make the other idea correct by default. Again, that's why agnosticism would make more sense for you.

That's ridiculous. If I make a claim than the burden is mine to provide proof of the claim. You're saying that if somebody walked up to you and said "i just shit gold" you would inherit part of the responsibility to legitimize that claim. Not a chance.

Religion is much more prominent in this case but that doesn't make it any less accountable for itself.

 

[TheDude]

That's ridiculous. If I make a claim than the burden is mine to provide proof of the claim. You're saying that if somebody walked up to you and said "i just shit gold" you would inherit part of the responsibility to legitimize that claim. Not a chance.

Religion is much more prominent in this case but that doesn't make it any less accountable for itself.

But you'll go to hell if you believe that sort of nonsense. You don't want to go to hell do you? You'll burn for eternity. Trust me. You shouldn't question the existence of god cause he doesn't like that and you'll burn in hell.

 

[Noodle]

Okay, fine. I'm too weary-headed to keep debating intelligently.

And will someone please get rid of the damn troll?

 

[RidleyRockets]

I consider(ed) atheists as being a sure that there is no God as they religious people are sure there is one.

And why would you not be an agnostic because of the possibility that religious people are correct. It's like (from your point of view) there's an elephant floating above your head but you have no way of looking up. An agnostic simply follows the idea that you have know way of confirming the existence or non-existence of the elephant. A theist believes in the elephant and and atheist somehow knows for sure there is no elephant. (I know it's a shitty metaphor, but it's almost finals week and my brain is geared towards other things.)

Are you agnostic to shiva, thor, zues and any number of gods worshiped over the years or are you an azuesist etc?

I'm an atheist in the same way i'm an adigimonist. I cannot prove conclusively one way or the other that somewhere a single digimon may exist but the chances are so very, very tiny that I'll happily round down for the sake of argument.

 

[Mogi67]

That's ridiculous. If I make a claim than the burden is mine to provide proof of the claim. You're saying that if somebody walked up to you and said "i just shit gold" you would inherit part of the responsibility to legitimize that claim. Not a chance.

Religion is much more prominent in this case but that doesn't make it any less accountable for itself.

Why bother placing the burden of proof upon theists (Christians in this case) when they do not promote a tangible God? Does it matter? If proof of God's existence was made known, would it change anything? I don't think anyone would really give a shit

 

[Noodle]

Are you agnostic to shiva, thor, zues and any number of gods worshiped over the years or are you an azuesist etc?

I'm an atheist in the same way i'm an adigimonist. I cannot prove conclusively one way or the other that somewhere a single digimon may exist but the chances are so very, very tiny that I'll happily round down for the sake of argument.

How does one calculate the statistical probability like that? It seems like more of a gut feeling of unlikely.

 

[RidleyRockets]

How does one calculate the statistical probability like that? It seems like more of a gut feeling of unlikely.

Care to answer the question?

 

[Noodle]

Care to answer the question?

Well, if we're going on gut feelings...

 

[TheDude]

Well, if we're going on gut feelings...

Yes? I'm not trolling you; I am genuinely interested in your viewpoint. we all know there's no logic behind your reason, and breaking from those strangle holds of God will set your mind free. I may sound pretentious and condescending, but it is truly relieving to come to the realization that there isn't some being in the sky watching you masturbate and taking your name down in the book of sins.
By the way, what religion were you raised in? Cause you're right about Catholics. They have a lot of reason for disgust in their faith. But some of the lesser religions have none of the pedo scandals and therefore may not be disgusted with their faith.

 

[Absinthe]

Because atheists totally aren't trying to change society to suit their pov? It looks the same from both sides of the fence. Each side is convinced the other is absolutely wrong and delusional and deserves no respect. Each side wants their way to be the way.

Not a valid comparison.

An atheist can still have irrational reasons for believing in something. If they put forth an argument that is logically fallacious, they can be called out on it. All ideas are on an equal playing field that can be critiqued.

The problem with theists trying to shape society according to their theological beliefs is that you cannot challenge them with secularized reasoning. We've carved out a nice little apologetic hole for religion that says "Religious faith does not operate on reason, therefore you can't touch it". Suddenly every religious opinion is validated.

A secular argument against abortion is assailable.
A religious argument against abortion is not.

And sorry, but "not evident within our realm of perception" is the biggest load of hogwash I've ever heard. You would not permit that caveat in any other situation that demanded burden of proof. I don't know how on one hand you can say that God can't be verified in any meaningful way to humans, but still profess this certainty that he not only exists, but he exists in the particular way you choose to describe him. Instead of trying to pull the rug out from under the scientific method we use for everything else in life, why don't you just admit you're making a double-standard to justify your faith?

 

[lord_raken]

Yes? I'm not trolling you; I am genuinely interested in your viewpoint. we all know there's no logic behind your reason, and breaking from those strangle holds of God will set your mind free. I may sound pretentious and condescending, but it is truly relieving to come to the realization that there isn't some being in the sky watching you masturbate and taking your name down in the book of sins.

I think you have missed the point or are oversimplifying for the sake of your position.

The whole debate comes down to one point: Either you believe or you don't. There is no way to prove the the existence of God and there is no way to prove God doesn't exist. Therefore making claims on the existence of God not preceded by the phrase "I believe..." is presumptuous.

You (and many others) appear to have a distorted view of Christianity... Either that or you have committed the Fallacy of Composition and have assumed the all Christians (or religious people in general) are the same as the loudmouth fundamentalists we see on the news.

I know you were probably being sarcastic but... for the record, masturbation is not a sin. Neither is ogling pretty women, and man is not inherently evil. That's all fundamentalist BS.