Help me understand atheism

Realising what the answer to that last question might be - we die, the end - was the single most horrible and scary thought I've had in my life. It's not pleasant.

****ing agreed.
 
You know, you don't seem to realize that all you're doing is criticizing religion. Those are all things that THE PEOPLE YOU ARE AGAINST SAY / THINK / DO. Has nothing to do with the question of an existence of god. Really, **** RELIGION, FORGET IT, DISAGREEING WITH RELIGIOUS TEACHINGS != PROOF OF NON-EXISTENCE OF GOD.

Religions base their teachings on the following assumption: "There is a God."

I do not believe this assumption is quantifiably true. I do not believe that there is any evidence for any God. Repeat: I do not see any evidence for any God.

Therefore, I do not believe religious teachings are valid.

Why do you find this difficult to undestand? The notable absence of God from my experience of life came first; I didn't think "religion is wrong therefore God does not exist" but rather "God does not exist therefore religion is wrong."

Let's remind ourselves that ideas such as 'God' and 'heaven' are religious propositions; we can criticise them in the form we find them. If religion says 'Heaven exists and it is like this' then we can contradict it by noting that the conditions of 'like this' are impossible. So yeah, when I was talking about responses to heaven, I was critisising religion. That much is true:

( Religious people claim heaven exists and it is a visible flying city above the clouds
Mankind observes no flying city
Religious people are wrong )

But as well as disputing the Christian idea of heaven, I see no reason to believe in any other idea of heaven either. This follows the process described above whereby:

( Proposition: maybe heaven exists.
I see no evidence for heaven existing.
Heaven does not exist. )

This process works for many other things as well, by the way.

( Proposition: elephants can fly with invisible wings
There is no documented evidence of elephants possessing invisible wings
Elephants cannot fly with invisible wings)

or simply

( Proposition: Elephants can fly independently
There is no documented evidence of elephants flying under their own power
Elephants cannot fly independently )

Well, it's the only logical explanation isn't it? It wouldn't make sense if we were special but had no reason for it, would it? I'm not saying we do, I'm just trying to show that the whole "logical" bs of Atheism is really just hypocracy, because we don't really have enough knowledge to make assumptions of logic.
It's not the only logical explanation at all. There's no reason why we shouldn't be 'special' and there be no reason for it beyond, say, evolution (something there's a damn sight more evidence for than God).

We don't have enough knowledge, eh?
Well, could you tell me when we do have enough knowledge? How much is enough, by the way? I'd like to know.
 
We'll have enough knowledge when one of us is proved right.
 
Alternatively, we could act on our current provisional conclusions (unproven but evidenced) and invent medicine. :p

EDIT: Also, edited my previous post; I slightly misunderstood your post and have ammended my response.
 
Hmmm... You know what's the point of people like us trying to figure this stuff out anyway? People have been doing this for thousands of years. We won't know, we're prolly not even close. So it's anyone's opinion until it gets conclusively proven.

As you can see, I'm tired of this topic. You had some good points, I might have had some, but it really doesn't matter because we all see what we want. There's some deep laying hypocracy in all of us whether we admit it or not, and I want to stop it in myself. I'll just think what I feel, and I'll try not to impose my beliefs on others. In the end, BALLS.
 
Since people have been doing it for thousands of years I see no reason to stop. Seeing as I believe in the scientific method and all I can hardly just say "actually it's pointless to keep trying" because I believe that inquiry and argument are important; they help us reach better and better conclusions.

Plenty of things have been conclusively 'proven' (or else nothing ever can be); evolution's one of those things that has so much evidence it's close to proof.

And I think there's this further point: people believing in God for no reason, and basing their ethics on that, do real genuine tangible harm to real genuine tangible people. People have been burned for heresy, imprisoned for homosexuality, killed in wars, all in accordance with moral codes that are based on irrational belief systems. I'm not going to abandon these kinds of arguments because they have a real effect, however small, on the world. Right now, people are killing others for religious or irrational reasons and it's not really on.

BALLS, however, I can drink to.

Maybe...?

comic2-1120.png
 
Another one who thinks that because we dont believe in heaven or hell we can simply do as many evil things as we like and it doesnt matter??

I mean if i didnt belive i would :p

Bad as in minor things. bah

WHAT HAVE I DONE IN THSI THREAD?

LOCKE NOW
 
Essentially, if God and Heaven did exist, then Atheists wouldn't be condemned anyway, because the solice comes from the fact they are not causing any harm to others, they are just living by free will (comes from the Bible), living their lives to the max, but just choosing not to worship a higher order because the brain given to them told them thats it stupid.

Essentially God punishing people for that is rather contradicting, to be quite ****ing honest, the entire sodding religion is contradicting, the Bible says this and that near the start and then contradicts what it said later on, which leads me to believe that the Bible has been edited MANY times over its existance to the point that it just doesn't make any sense.

Examples:
-God is forgiving but will happily condemn billions to eternal torture.
-God gave us free will but we have to follow 10 rules to get into heaven (however they could really just be moral values that were set down).
-God is against gays even though it aint their fault most of the time, and again its free will.
-God gave us free will be we cant have sex until after marriage, not to mention this very rule goes against one of the very things that makes us human.
-As I said, God is against none believers, but again this is free will.
-God is against abortion, even though its free will, and having this option can save many teenagers from having their early lives ruined.

To name a few...

Well, if you see it from the point of view of a religious man, it was written down by a man, who can simply edit it to his own benefits. Was it God himself that came down adn wrote the bible? no, it was people
 
Do you remember before you were born?

That happens.

You cease to exist. There's no afterlife, there's no conciousness. You end. That might sound frightening, but I assure you--you won't exist to think about it.

I love you so much.
 
Do you remember before you were born?

That happens.

You cease to exist. There's no afterlife, there's no conciousness. You end. That might sound frightening, but I assure you--you won't exist to think about it.

Sounds blissful
 
So whats this all about.

No im not intrested in joining but what is it all about?
Are you sure now? The Church of Atheism down near me is pretty rockin'.

Because we have no god to fear we're basically amoral degenerates, so we sing hymns, (and by "hymns" I mean gangsta rap and death metal) take lots of heroin, f*ck each other senseless (regardless of gender) and then rape anyone and anything foolish enough to live within a 200 metre radius of the Church. If we try and walk any further than that, we collapse under the weight of our own addiction.
To wake ourselves up we pass around a crack pipe. To us, rocks of crack cocaine are quite literally the body and blood of Charles Darwin. That crazy motherf*cker.

Sometimes we go door to door to try and spread the word of atheism but whenever someone opens the door the desire to rape and steal overcomes our desire to enlighten.

I'm sure if you read our pamphlet "How to make the most of your fleeting existence" you'd join us.

Right now, people are killing others for religious or irrational reasons and it's not really on.
That sentence is so beautifully English :)
 
Are you sure now? The Church of Atheism down near me is pretty rockin'.

Because we have no god to fear we're basically amoral degenerates, so we sing hymns, (and by "hymns" I mean gangsta rap and death metal) take lots of heroin, f*ck each other senseless (regardless of gender) and then rape anyone and anything foolish enough to live within a 200 metre radius of the Church. If we try and walk any further than that, we collapse under the weight of our own addiction.
To wake ourselves up we pass around a crack pipe. To us, rocks of crack cocaine are quite literally the body and blood of Charles Darwin. That crazy motherf*cker.

Sometimes we go door to door to try and spread the word of atheism but whenever someone opens the door the desire to rape and steal overcomes our desire to enlighten.

I'm sure if you read our pamphlet "How to make the most of your fleeting existence" you'd join us.

Sarcasm?
 
Hmmm... You know what's the point of people like us trying to figure this stuff out anyway? People have been doing this for thousands of years. We won't know, we're prolly not even close. So it's anyone's opinion until it gets conclusively proven.

As you can see, I'm tired of this topic. You had some good points, I might have had some, but it really doesn't matter because we all see what we want. There's some deep laying hypocracy in all of us whether we admit it or not, and I want to stop it in myself. I'll just think what I feel, and I'll try not to impose my beliefs on others. In the end, BALLS.
Actually the weak atheist has it most correct. You see, the weak atheist essentially does not answer the question if there is a god. It is both illogical to assume there is or isn't a god because of a high degree of uncertaintiy for both. Therefor the weak atheist wins out on the most logical answer to the question "Is there a god"? with current information. Oddly enough the most logical way to answer the question is to not answer it at all. Holy shit, I just divided by zero.
 
Actually the weak atheist has it most correct. You see, the weak atheist essentially does not answer the question if there is a god. It is both illogical to assume there is or isn't a god because of a high degree of uncertaintiy for both. Therefor the weak atheist wins out on the most logical answer to the question "Is there a god"? with current information. Oddly enough the most logical way to answer the question is to not answer it at all. Holy shit, I just divided by zero.

Exactly what I do, but its classed as an agnostic lol.
 
Which apparently means the sentence reads fine up until the very last word, at which point I become immensely confused.
Kind of, yeah.
"Right now, people are killing others for religious or irrational reasons"
Fine.

"...and it's not really on."
"Now hold on a minute there, lads. This whole massacre-in-the-name-of-God business just isn't cricket."
 
Exactly what I do, but its classed as an agnostic lol.
Agnostic and Weak Atheist both essentially do the same thing. Not answer the question. But they do it differently. An atheist would simply say nothing to the answer. An agnostic would say "could be either".
 
Agnostic and Weak Atheist both essentially do the same thing. Not answer the question. But they do it differently. An atheist would simply say nothing to the answer. An agnostic would say "could be either".

No an aethiest would say no. A weak atheist would say "the evidence points against". An agnostic could say "There is not enough evidence to prove God's existance."
 
I disagree with the notion that agnosticism is the most correct stance on the issue.

If you are agnostic to one god you have to agnostic in concern to all of them, every single god that has ever been worshiped at any point in history. If some guy decides that Christopher Walken is the Lord of the Universe in human form then you have to be agnostic to this proposed diety as it cannot be proven either way what the true nature of Christopher Walken is.
 
No an aethiest would say no. A weak atheist would say "the evidence points against". An agnostic could say "There is not enough evidence to prove God's existance."
Atheist covers both weak and strong atheism.

Strong Atheist would say "God don't exist".
because, he believes god does not exist.


Weak Atheist could say "not say anything", "uhh whats a god?", "what are you talking about", "i do not know"
because he doesn't have a belief in a god. Essentially he tells you: I DONT KNOW!!!

Agnostic could say anything but something equaling "i'm not sure if there is or isn't a god."
because... an agnostic is someone who is unsure if there is a god or not. He tells you: Could be either, but im not taking sides.

I disagree with the notion that agnosticism is the most correct stance on the issue.

If you are agnostic to one god you have to agnostic in concern to all of them, every single god that has ever been worshiped at any point in history. If some guy decides that Christopher Walken is the Lord of the Universe in human form then you have to be agnostic to this proposed diety as it cannot be proven either way what the true nature of Christopher Walken is.
The most correct stance for any god you know of is either: Agnostic or Weak Atheist.
The only stance for any god you don't know about is: Weak Atheist. (unless you hold the belief that you believe or don't believe in every single variation of a "god")

Also I could be agnostic to the christian god, but believe in the islamic god.
 
Weak Atheist could say "not say anything", "uhh whats a god?", "what are you talking about", "i do not know"
because he doesn't have a belief in a god. Essentially he tells you: I DONT KNOW!!!

Um... that's an agnostic. Definition of an agnostic, someone who doesn't know whether there is a God or not. An aetheist is someone who believes that there isn't.
 
Um... that's an agnostic. Definition of an agnostic, someone who doesn't know whether there is a God or not. An aetheist is someone who believes that there isn't.
Surprise: Agnosticism is weak Atheism!
 
Um... that's an agnostic. Definition of an agnostic, someone who doesn't know whether there is a God or not. An aetheist is someone who believes that there isn't.

Theism = the belief in a personal god.

Collecting stamps = the hobby of collecting various kinds of stamps.

Atheism (according to you) = the belief there is no personal god.

Not collecting stamps (following your logic) = the hobby of not collecting various kinds of stamps.

See where your logic goes down the shitter?
 
No. Simply because you've attempted to combine hobbies and relgion.

There is no solid proof that God exists. Otherwise you couldn't "believe" in him.

There is no solid proof that he doesn't exist. Thus you must believe the fact that he doesn't exist.

Point Proven.
 
Um... that's an agnostic. Definition of an agnostic, someone who doesn't know whether there is a God or not. An aetheist is someone who believes that there isn't.
No you are wrong.
An Atheist by definition is the lack of belief in a god. Not the belief that there is no god. However people with the belief that there is no god classify themselves as Atheists, therefor we group Atheists into two categories. Strong and Weak. Strong hold a belief there is no god. Weak lack the belief that there is a god.

Agnosticsm and Weak Atheism have the same outcome, but are slightly different. For example, a baby who has never heard the word god nor understands what a god is is not agnostic however is a weak atheist.
 
No, not point proven.

See, the point is here: . <- that point.


















Your head is here: \o/ <- your head with your arms flailing about merrily


The point went WAY over your head.
 
No. Simply because you've attempted to combine hobbies and relgion.

There is no solid proof that God exists. Otherwise you couldn't "believe" in him.

There is no solid proof that he doesn't exist. Thus you must believe the fact that he doesn't exist.

Point Proven.
He is not combing hobies and religion. He is applying your logic to hobbies and religion.

An Atheist is someone who is not a theist. A is derived from greek. It means not. Theist means believes in god.

Atheist doesn't define anything beyond you not being a theist. That could mean you believe the god doesn't exist, or you don't hold any belief about that god.

Saying i'm an Atheist is like saying im an Aengineer.
Just becuase my job is not an engineer does not mean my job is not being an engineer. I could be a physics teacher.
Just because my belief is not that god exists, does not mean that my belief is that god doesn't exist.
 
An Atheist is someone who is not a theist. A is derived from greek. It means not.

No it doesn't.

Edit: I'll leave it for now. I believed what I was talking about when I first posted it, but now you've all just confused me.

Edit edit: And I'd wish you'd stop with the crap analogies. They don't work there, because you're confusing logic with belief. And what you're defining as an atheist is agnostic, someone who doesn't hold any belief about that God = agnostic. ie they could go either way.
 
Back
Top