Atheism Anyone?

[Heisenberg]

If someone said that to me, I wouldn't need a better argument.. If you have faith it does not give you a reason to use clinical insanity as an argument.

I agree with you that people with faith have responses like that. Partially responsible for the fact that the bible says "God always was" and they accept that as proof without ever stopping to think that if the bible explained how god himself came to be it would completely expose the bullshit that surrounds the christian religion.

Religion only promotes ignorance and murder on mass proportions all the while giving the people a reason to illogically and insanely justify such actions.

Is your goal to win the debate, or to create doubt? Religious people are used to having their faith attacked. In fact, after someones faith has been 'tested' they somehow become more entrenched and proud of it. A religious person will never change their world view simply because they were proven wrong. We can only hope to plant seeds of doubt that may grow and cause them to change their mind on their own, which is the exact way most of us came to the conclusions we have. I find this is best done by finding a neutral subject that you both agree on, like ghosts or psychic powers or even the Kennedy assassination conspiracy, and point out the errors of reasoning involved there. You can then go on to point out how belief in a deity makes the same mistakes. Why is it okay for religious conclusions to make these mistakes but not other subjects? In fact, you don't even give a pass to other religions when they make these mistakes, why is yours special? Again this doesn't immediately prove anything to a believer, but it is an excellent way to create doubt.

 

[sync0s]

Is your goal to win the debate, or to create doubt? Religious people are used to having their faith attacked. In fact, after someones faith has been 'tested' they somehow become more entrenched and proud of it. A religious person will never change their world view simply because they were proven wrong. We can only hope to plant seeds of doubt that may grow and cause them to change their mind on their own, which is the exact way most of us came to the conclusions we have. I find this is best done by finding a neutral subject that you both agree on, like ghosts or psychic powers or even the Kennedy assassination conspiracy, and point out the errors of reasoning involved there. You can then go on to point out how belief in a deity makes the same mistakes. Why is it okay for religious conclusions to make these mistakes but not other subjects? In fact, you don't even give a pass to other religions when they make these mistakes, why is yours special? Again this doesn't immediately prove anything to a believer, but it is an excellent way to create doubt.

I usually only get into religious debates with people when they question my atheism, or they speak on ignorance (for example denying evolution). If it's the latter, I don't discuss religious philosophy much, just the proofs evolution.

 

[undertheice]

Although I agree with your sentiment, I wouldn't let you get away with that question either as reasoning against god. It is a tautology. The premise assumes the conclusion. It really doesn't suggest anything meaningful, especially to a believer. Someone with faith could easily say yes, god can make a burrito so hot that he can not eat it, and then he can turn around and eat it, he is after all, god. Remember, people of faith are satisfied with ignorance and prone to magical thinking. I do not mean to belittle you but to help you perhaps construct a more productive argument.

it's nice to see that at least one other atheist here is unwilling to buy into these cliched attempts to belittle faith, though i do object to your blanket use of ignorance as an excuse. i understand perfectly, having used the same rationale myself, the reason for such an attack, but ignorance implies that some evidence is being willfully discounted and that really isn't the case. the question of god remains unanswered.

the more i deal with people of faith, the more i realize that they are ignoring nothing. they are admitting their own inability to understand the workings of the cosmos and using that "magical thinking" to put those questions to rest. they are just grateful for even the simplest of the joys of living and their faith is the expression of that gratitude. while some few may stubbornly hold to backward ideas and deny newly found truths, most are open to discovering how things work, the mechanics of existence, and simply refuse to accept that there is no "why" behind all of creation.

who do we thank for the wonder of it all? you and i may be satisfied with non-specific appreciation of the happy coincidences of our existence, but the generous heart often needs a more definitive target for its gratitude. for the believer, god is that target and the "why" for our dumb luck.

 

[TheGreenThumber]

the more i deal with people of faith, the more i realize that they are ignoring nothing.

They may not be ignoring things on purpose, but much more likely they just lack the ability to think deeply or rationally.


There is a reason why religiosity and intelligence vary inversely.

Atheist here btw. How the fuck do magnets work?

 

[undertheice]

They may not be ignoring things on purpose, but much more likely they just lack the ability to think deeply or rationally.

do we really need another example of ignorant atheism? consider that only 12% of americans consider themselves as atheists or agnostics. do you really feel yourself so superior to nearly nine out of every ten people in the nation? in the rest of the world that number is much lower, in some cases estimated to be as low as 2.5% of the population.

the stereotypical, but well advertised, image of backward, science denying creationist hicks may be convenient, but it is disingenuous at best. the vast majority of men and women of accomplishment, the scientists, philosophers, discoverers, entrepreneurs and leaders, have believed in a higher power. adhering to the belief in the superiority of the atheist mind is sheer hubris.

 

[Brazko]

How the fuck do magnets work?

The electron spin/motion of an atom creates a magnetic field called a Magnetic dipole. An accumalation of these dipoles aligned creates a magnetic domain. If all the magnetic domains in a object are aligned, the object will act like a magnet.

You know I was giving some deep thought about magnets, gravity, and cores.. I'm glad you asked that question. I'm starting to like my assumptions even more..

 

[TheGreenThumber]

do we really need another example of ignorant atheism? consider that only 12% of americans consider themselves as atheists or agnostics. do you really feel yourself so superior to nearly nine out of every ten people in the nation? in the rest of the world that number is much lower, in some cases estimated to be as low as 2.5% of the population.

the stereotypical, but well advertised, image of backward, science denying creationist hicks may be convenient, but it is disingenuous at best. the vast majority of men and women of accomplishment, the scientists, philosophers, discoverers, entrepreneurs and leaders, have believed in a higher power. adhering to the belief in the superiority of the atheist mind is sheer hubris.

Why do atheists make up 93% of the National Academy of Sciences in the US? Which includes 200 nobel peace prize winners and what not.

Albert Einstein, many of the founding fathers, Steven Hawking - Na they are all idiots.
/sarcasm

Or how about the fact that atheists make up less than 1% of the prison population, vs making up ~12% of the general population. Do you not think that committing crimes has to do with a lack of intelligence or morals on some level?


And saying that it is much lower in the rest of the world is false.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_atheism

Stop spewing uneducated lies hidden by rhetoric.

 

[zvuv]

i think being an atheist is the dumbest religon you could possibly follow, yes atheism is a religon atleast by some definitions. religon-"a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects" in this case a fundamental set of beliefs that there is no higher power.....

No. Thats the conclusion of atheism. The fundamental beliefs of atheism are about what can be accepted as fact. Most atheists dont believe that there is no 'God', rather they don't believe there is a God. A subtle but important difference.

.... i myself do not believe in religon but i do believe in god. as science doesnt do a good enough job of explaining the beginning of the beginning. so i feel the need to believe in god until science or something else offers something else moderately believable

Indeed science leaves many questions unanswered. Is it then better to just invent an answer for the sake of having one, or to simply say "I don't know" ?

 

[medicalmaryjane]

No. Thats the conclusion of atheism. The fundamental beliefs of atheism are about what can be accepted as fact. Most atheists dont believe that there is no 'God', rather they don't believe there is a God. A subtle but important difference.

i always thought this was the main difference between an agnostic and an athiest.

agnostics say they don't know if there is a god.
athiests DO NOT believe in god.

i do not believe in god but i call myself an agnostic to be more PC. calling yourself athiest is controversial, no one cares about an agnostic. it's nice.

i actually really like the principles of hinduism and taoism. I also love spinoza and i feel that his philosophies are relevant to the way i live. i think nature is a form of a higher being and that life connects us all but i dont believe it was created by an anthropomorphic being. that kind of belief imo is stupid and i lose all respect for people who believe there is a man sitting up in the clouds juding people.

i always thought believing in shit was stupid. why believe? go oout and find the answer and KNOW.

 

[zvuv]

@medicalmaryjane

Yes 'agnostic' is less confrontational than 'atheist'. Atheists eat babies while agnostics are just indecisive weasels


There is a range of skeptical positions that come under the umbrella of atheism and agnosticism. It's more important to understand a person's actual position than it is to be able to label him as atheist agnostic etc.

In very broad terms, the most common flavors of skeptical positions on the matter of the existence of God are:

Strong Atheism: Asserts that God does not exist.

Atheism: Does not believe that God exists.

Agnosticism 1 Unsure of the existence of God.

Agnosticism 2 Believes God is unknowable.

The Athiest position is that he sees no reason to believe in God any more than he does in unicorns but if confronted with a live unicorn or compelling evidence for God (what could this be?), he would reconsider. So yes, he doesn't claim absolute certainty and there is an element of doubt. Nevertheless this is a strong position. When we make plans we completely discount the possibility of unicorns showing up. The Atheist feels the same way about God.

Agnostic 1 is unconvinced but he considers the existence of God a serious possibility, something that needs to be taken into account.

None of these statements make a lot of sense until we define what we mean by 'God'. One can be an atheist about one kind of God and an agnostic or even a believer about another.

 

[medicalmaryjane]

@medicalmaryjane

Agnostic 1 is unconvinced but he considers the existence of God a serious possibility, something that needs to be taken into account.

if this is the case, i've been lying by saying i am agnostic.

i've always thought as an agnostic i don't believe and i don't disbelieve. the truth is that i do disbelieve. it would seem that i am an athiest. i just don't like to say it because it doesn't sound nice. as i said, i look down on people who believe in god. what could be more athiest than that? i think i will try saying i am athiest and see what comes of it - not that anyone regularly asks me.

 

[Stark Raving]

Here are the four main categories with regard to atheism vs theism:

Gnostic Atheist: Claims that a deity or deities do not exist, and does not believe in them.
Agnostic Atheist: Does not know whether a deity exists, but does not believe they do.
Agnostic Theist: Does not know whether a deity exists, but believes they do.
Gnostic Theist: Claims knowledge of the existence of dieties, and believes in them.

So you see, by saying you are agnostic you are not being dishonest about whether or not you are an atheist. Saying you are agnostic is saying that you don't know. Saying you're atheist is saying you don't believe.

 

[medicalmaryjane]

i am an agnostic athiest but i am almost gnostic athiest. sounds like i can keep saing i am agnostic.

 

[guy incognito]

God doesn't exist...

 

[TheGreenThumber]

God does exist...

God doesn't exist...

Now were gettin somewhere.

 

[Padawanbater2]

Why favor faith over results?