-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
To the Anti-Religious
- Thread starter Storm
- Start date
DarkSun
:eltiT
I'm tired of repeating myself... I'm tired of you guys not understanding where I'm coming from... So forgive me, but I give up.
You win. I take back everything I've said. Atheism is obviously more logical than any other viewpoint. And the rest of the world is deluded.
All the best.
Ciao. ^_^
You win. I take back everything I've said. Atheism is obviously more logical than any other viewpoint. And the rest of the world is deluded.
All the best.
Ciao. ^_^
rageoftyrael
Veritas
we would prefer it if you mean that. and i don't personally feel that everyone else is deluded. i think that it is reasonable, if not completely logical, to think that there is a god of some form. we have no evidence for it, but it could be true, so why not? it is only when you start to do things like name that god, or give that god specific attributes, that i believe you are entering into the realm of bs. Why do i believe that? Cause how could you possibly know?
And our point, is not that theists are fools,(well, maybe dogsgod thinks that, lol) but that their belief is not as reasonable as ours. They are taking a positive claim for which there is no proof, and believing. We, the atheists, are taking this positive claim, for which there is no proof, and not believing. We don't need proof he doesn't exist, we just need to see that there is a lack of proof to indicate that he does exist. That is what makes not believing more reasonable.
I personally, don't know if i've said this already, but i am not arguing this to make myself look better than theists, i'm just trying to point out, as are others, that disbelieving a claim for which there is no evidence is far more reasonable. You aren't going to agree darksun, you've proven that, but that's fine, there's nothing we can do about that, that we haven't already tried to do.
And our point, is not that theists are fools,(well, maybe dogsgod thinks that, lol) but that their belief is not as reasonable as ours. They are taking a positive claim for which there is no proof, and believing. We, the atheists, are taking this positive claim, for which there is no proof, and not believing. We don't need proof he doesn't exist, we just need to see that there is a lack of proof to indicate that he does exist. That is what makes not believing more reasonable.
I personally, don't know if i've said this already, but i am not arguing this to make myself look better than theists, i'm just trying to point out, as are others, that disbelieving a claim for which there is no evidence is far more reasonable. You aren't going to agree darksun, you've proven that, but that's fine, there's nothing we can do about that, that we haven't already tried to do.
PureX
Veteran Member
But that isn't necessarily why one would do such a thing. One might choose to give God a name and character for the purpose of quick and specific recall. Or one might choose to do it as a personal reminder of character traits one wishes to achieve in themselves. "God" is often used as an idealization of ourselves, both as a focus to help us identify our own ideals, and then as a model to help us achieve them. And part of that process might logically employ creating an image and "personality" for God that one could then aspire to become, themselves.
But what you continually misunderstand, and overlook, is that one can do so while remaining fully aware that they might be wrong. You all assume every time that the theist "believes" in God as though he knows that God exists. But most theists will admit that they don't know that God exists, and that they are choosing to live in accordance with that belief, consciously, for reasons of their own.
No one really cares about this sophistry but you and your ego.
Last edited:
Commoner
Headache
Well, my point was even less extreme, but I think DarkSun misunderstood me. I wasn't arguing that atheism is more resonable than theism per se, I was arguing that when you have no evidence for a belief, you cannot consider it resonable - and that saying that "believing in the inexistance" is equally unresonable is false. But I rarely meet theists that say there is no evidence for god.
rageoftyrael
Veritas
me and my ego? wow, why is it every time it appears as if you don't understand what someone says, you automatically pull out the word sophistry.
to address your other points though, purex, i would say that i'm fine with someone making up a positive being for which they can better themselves by emulating. i'm not fine with it once they act as if this being they made up is real. hopefully you notice the difference between the two. Like, i could emulate batman, cause he is a good guy. but he isn't actually real, is he? and i wouldn't make that claim.
As for your second point, we don't care if they are certain. They believe in something that there is no evidence of. Admitting you could be wrong does not make your belief any more rational. and if the point most people go to is not that they believe in god, they just believe in the morals, and etc... why don't they say so? why the claim of a god that actually exists?
I anticipate you are going to point out that atheists have no evidence that god doesn't exist. So we are obviously just as irrational, right? Wrong, and for the same reasons i've already stated. So if you have to bring it up, bring something new to the table.
to address your other points though, purex, i would say that i'm fine with someone making up a positive being for which they can better themselves by emulating. i'm not fine with it once they act as if this being they made up is real. hopefully you notice the difference between the two. Like, i could emulate batman, cause he is a good guy. but he isn't actually real, is he? and i wouldn't make that claim.
As for your second point, we don't care if they are certain. They believe in something that there is no evidence of. Admitting you could be wrong does not make your belief any more rational. and if the point most people go to is not that they believe in god, they just believe in the morals, and etc... why don't they say so? why the claim of a god that actually exists?
I anticipate you are going to point out that atheists have no evidence that god doesn't exist. So we are obviously just as irrational, right? Wrong, and for the same reasons i've already stated. So if you have to bring it up, bring something new to the table.
rageoftyrael
Veritas
no offense, commoner, but if you say to someone that their belief is not rational, it is a simple step to say that your own, opposite belief is rational. thus, more rational.
Commoner
Headache
None taken.
But I didin't justify it like that, you'd have to look back the last 20 pages or so (but mostly post #1201)to get what I was saying. What I wrote in my last point was simple the conclusion that I've made - not the actual argument for the conclusion. You should also note DarSun's argument that I am responding to, since it is not a typical one.
Last edited:
Vile Atheist
Loud and Obnoxious
Haven't had time to post much here on RF. Really busy nowadays. But I have been checking back from time to time to read some of the new posts.
As an atheist, I don't try to point out the flaws I see in theists thinking to boost my ego or because I feel some sort of superiority. I do it because I'm interested in truth.
I don't give a flying damn what people believe. But when a theist comes up to me and tells me that me and my family and my friends are all going to Hell if we don't accept their claims, it's reasonable and understandable to expect that I'm going to ask a few pressing questions.
If a belief in something - real or not - betters a person and doesn't harm anyone else, by all means they should go for it. But when they attempt to peddle that belief to me as fact, I have to step back and examine it and point out the flaws. Actually, I take that back. They don't even have to peddle those beliefs to me. They just have to claim them to be fact.
Often case when I'm discussing religion with a theist is I'll ask them to summarize their beliefs for me, I'll spot contradictions and present them and explain why they are not logically sound. And the corollary is just some hodgepodge ad hoc reasoning slapped together with no justification. There is a lot of "Maybe...." "Could have been...." and "I don't know". Which is a little odd because not long ago, they were just attempting to emphasize why I should believe them.
I'm not saying this is the case with ALL theists. But this does happen distressingly often to me. And eventually I back them into a corner of "I don't know" "I just believe" "I have faith", their last refuge where they think their beliefs are immune from intellectual scrutiny.
Sometimes they present an idea that goes against scientific knowledge. And when I point this out to them, they require special pleading. A good example is Creationism.
"The world was created in six days"
"We have very strong geologic evidence that isn't the case"
"Yeah, but to God a day is like......a GAZILLION YEARS"
And note how they require no proof for what they say. How do we know to God a day is like a gazillion years? This is what is ultimately frustrating to so many atheists. If an atheist makes a claim, they are expected to back it up with science. If a theist makes a claim, they aren't expected to back it up, just leave it down to faith.
The value I see in atheism is that it keeps you intellectually honest. If you don't see evidence for something, you don't believe in it. Why would you? And I've seen people argue that people have religious experiences. Well, okay. If there is one God, these experiences should be consistent. But they are not. Hindus have experiences pertaining to their religion. Jews have experiences pertaining to their religion. Christians have experiences pertaining to their religion. Muslims have experiences pertaining to their religion. And even atheists sometimes have experiences, but attribute them to a naturalistic cause.
By "atheist experience", I don't mean "I was high as a kite and saw Jesus". But I mean events like finding unexpected comfort in the face of a terrible loss. Or a feel-good experience like volunteering at a shelter house.
I've noticed that the atheists here have logically torn apart the arguments presented for God. And I'm sure some will contest to this. But the basis for my position is the fact that the main counter-argument is "You don't know either. You can't tell us what is real and what isn't."
Sorry, but someone else not being able to accomplish the impossible task of proving the non-existence of something does not validate your belief. And when you fail to present evidence to back up your own belief, people are justified in saying it isn't reality.
It might "work" for you. That's great. I - and I'm sure others here too - only ask that you do not present it as empirical fact, but as an emotional concept that you use to get from day-to-day. And I personally see nothing wrong with that. Atheists do this on some level too. Atheists just don't call this coping mechanism "God". But perhaps we deal with stress by venting frustration to a loved one, or by contemplating our troubles in a tranquil setting, or even mellowing out to music. We don't require anything to be labelled "God" and be attributed with mysterious properties in order to cope with the rigours of life.
So I really don't see why anyone should tear down another's belief for their ego's sake, unless they are attempting to present it as fact. And I don't mean this as a personal attack to PureX, but that is probably the source of hostility he is perceiving, what with his "Let's Present the Evidence" thread. Yes, by all means, present your evidence. But when pressed, don't fall back to "You can't prove it either", "I don't care about logic", "Contradictions are a-okay", "What does atheism have to offer in return?".
Like I said, I'm sure most people here are fine with your beliefs (probably most of the atheists here - like me - don't really give a damn about the beliefs of others until they attempt to dress them as factual). But you've tried to do just that.
We do not believe in God. The mere fact there is not a shred of empirical evidence to support this hypothesis is evidence enough that God probably doesn't exist. The mere fact that the predictions made by the God hypothesis have failed (I'm thinking of prophecies as predictions and I'm referring in particular to Christianity). Historical events don't really line up all that well with Biblical events. We cannot observe these supposed miracles. God hasn't shown himself. Not to mention the logical contradictions offered by a million versions of this hypothesis. If one fails, people have 999,999 more to fall back on.
You want atheists to "prove" YOUR God doesn't exist? Give us:
1) Evidence to support the existence of your God
2) Predictions made by your hypothesis and explain why they have been confirmed
3) Describe how it is falsifiable (i.e. What we could expect if your hypothesis wasn't true)
4) List any assumptions you make
Give us those four things and we can have a meaningful discussion, not just bickering back and forth "You prove it!" "No you disprove it!".
If you have no evidence to support the existence of your model of God, why should we give it a second thought?
As an atheist, I don't try to point out the flaws I see in theists thinking to boost my ego or because I feel some sort of superiority. I do it because I'm interested in truth.
I don't give a flying damn what people believe. But when a theist comes up to me and tells me that me and my family and my friends are all going to Hell if we don't accept their claims, it's reasonable and understandable to expect that I'm going to ask a few pressing questions.
If a belief in something - real or not - betters a person and doesn't harm anyone else, by all means they should go for it. But when they attempt to peddle that belief to me as fact, I have to step back and examine it and point out the flaws. Actually, I take that back. They don't even have to peddle those beliefs to me. They just have to claim them to be fact.
Often case when I'm discussing religion with a theist is I'll ask them to summarize their beliefs for me, I'll spot contradictions and present them and explain why they are not logically sound. And the corollary is just some hodgepodge ad hoc reasoning slapped together with no justification. There is a lot of "Maybe...." "Could have been...." and "I don't know". Which is a little odd because not long ago, they were just attempting to emphasize why I should believe them.
I'm not saying this is the case with ALL theists. But this does happen distressingly often to me. And eventually I back them into a corner of "I don't know" "I just believe" "I have faith", their last refuge where they think their beliefs are immune from intellectual scrutiny.
Sometimes they present an idea that goes against scientific knowledge. And when I point this out to them, they require special pleading. A good example is Creationism.
"The world was created in six days"
"We have very strong geologic evidence that isn't the case"
"Yeah, but to God a day is like......a GAZILLION YEARS"
And note how they require no proof for what they say. How do we know to God a day is like a gazillion years? This is what is ultimately frustrating to so many atheists. If an atheist makes a claim, they are expected to back it up with science. If a theist makes a claim, they aren't expected to back it up, just leave it down to faith.
The value I see in atheism is that it keeps you intellectually honest. If you don't see evidence for something, you don't believe in it. Why would you? And I've seen people argue that people have religious experiences. Well, okay. If there is one God, these experiences should be consistent. But they are not. Hindus have experiences pertaining to their religion. Jews have experiences pertaining to their religion. Christians have experiences pertaining to their religion. Muslims have experiences pertaining to their religion. And even atheists sometimes have experiences, but attribute them to a naturalistic cause.
By "atheist experience", I don't mean "I was high as a kite and saw Jesus". But I mean events like finding unexpected comfort in the face of a terrible loss. Or a feel-good experience like volunteering at a shelter house.
I've noticed that the atheists here have logically torn apart the arguments presented for God. And I'm sure some will contest to this. But the basis for my position is the fact that the main counter-argument is "You don't know either. You can't tell us what is real and what isn't."
Sorry, but someone else not being able to accomplish the impossible task of proving the non-existence of something does not validate your belief. And when you fail to present evidence to back up your own belief, people are justified in saying it isn't reality.
It might "work" for you. That's great. I - and I'm sure others here too - only ask that you do not present it as empirical fact, but as an emotional concept that you use to get from day-to-day. And I personally see nothing wrong with that. Atheists do this on some level too. Atheists just don't call this coping mechanism "God". But perhaps we deal with stress by venting frustration to a loved one, or by contemplating our troubles in a tranquil setting, or even mellowing out to music. We don't require anything to be labelled "God" and be attributed with mysterious properties in order to cope with the rigours of life.
So I really don't see why anyone should tear down another's belief for their ego's sake, unless they are attempting to present it as fact. And I don't mean this as a personal attack to PureX, but that is probably the source of hostility he is perceiving, what with his "Let's Present the Evidence" thread. Yes, by all means, present your evidence. But when pressed, don't fall back to "You can't prove it either", "I don't care about logic", "Contradictions are a-okay", "What does atheism have to offer in return?".
Like I said, I'm sure most people here are fine with your beliefs (probably most of the atheists here - like me - don't really give a damn about the beliefs of others until they attempt to dress them as factual). But you've tried to do just that.
We do not believe in God. The mere fact there is not a shred of empirical evidence to support this hypothesis is evidence enough that God probably doesn't exist. The mere fact that the predictions made by the God hypothesis have failed (I'm thinking of prophecies as predictions and I'm referring in particular to Christianity). Historical events don't really line up all that well with Biblical events. We cannot observe these supposed miracles. God hasn't shown himself. Not to mention the logical contradictions offered by a million versions of this hypothesis. If one fails, people have 999,999 more to fall back on.
You want atheists to "prove" YOUR God doesn't exist? Give us:
1) Evidence to support the existence of your God
2) Predictions made by your hypothesis and explain why they have been confirmed
3) Describe how it is falsifiable (i.e. What we could expect if your hypothesis wasn't true)
4) List any assumptions you make
Give us those four things and we can have a meaningful discussion, not just bickering back and forth "You prove it!" "No you disprove it!".
If you have no evidence to support the existence of your model of God, why should we give it a second thought?
dogsgod
Well-Known Member
I don't think theists are fools, I was one for many years, my problem is that I lose patients with believers that insist that there is such a thing as evidence for the non existence of things, especially things for which there is no evidence for the existence of in the first place, and particularly after it's been so clearly explained. I think certain theists are dense rather than fools, if there's any difference.
DarkSun
:eltiT
darkendless
Guardian of Asgaard
Yes but evidence is attainable. Its just expensive, much like the proton collisions to create anti-matter.
There is a big difference.
The string theory is also not yet accepted, peer reviewing continues to iron out inconsistencies. The best thing about science is that science prooves science.
dogsgod
Well-Known Member
And what does this have to do with the price of apples?
Mr Spinkles
Mr
Dark Sun,
Are you defending religion or criticizing string theory? It seems to me you can't do both at the same time.
Are you defending religion or criticizing string theory? It seems to me you can't do both at the same time.
Commoner
Headache
DarkSun
:eltiT
I'm not criticising String Theory.
Last edited:
DarkSun
:eltiT
Commoner
Headache
I think we've got a bit of a problem if we are going to now start debating quantum mechanics in a religious education forum.
Maybe you should explain how you see EPR being connected to the topic at hand? What are you trying to point out exacty?
EPR only presents a problem on a quantum level (even that only maybe) - but you're not trying to suggest (I hope) that it applies to our perception of reality.That's more that a bit of a stretch.
Maybe you should explain how you see EPR being connected to the topic at hand? What are you trying to point out exacty?
EPR only presents a problem on a quantum level (even that only maybe) - but you're not trying to suggest (I hope) that it applies to our perception of reality.That's more that a bit of a stretch.
Last edited:
monta
.
Quantum mechanics and general relativity are often discussed, what's the problem ?
Commoner
Headache
I meant in this topic specifically, it's off-topic. Or if is on topic, the poster should explain how it is on topic, not just post a link without an explanation.
Otherwise I love those topics!
Last edited: