To the Anti-Religious

[DarkSun]

No, actually the exact opposite of my disbelief in God.

I'm noticing a trend here...

 

[dogsgod]

10^-40m was an exageration. You're right, "as far as we know", these particles are point-like. I was just trying to get across that these particles are so miniscule that it would be virtually impossible to detect them. And then you have Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle too, which isn't altogether too encouraging.

The shorter the wave length the higher the energy. The smaller points produce a greater wallop on contact.

But this is all a red herring on your part, a distraction in order to avoid answering:
Originally Posted by dogsgod
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.


A believer is naive and gullible for suggesting that it requires faith to dismiss the claims of a theist.

 

[Commoner]

10^-40m was an exageration. You're right, "as far as we know", these particles are point-like. I was just trying to get across that these particles are so miniscule that it would be virtually impossible to detect them. And then you have Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle too, which isn't altogether too encouraging.

I'm really not getting the relevance, but I'll wait, since you've promised to explain.

Which model? The Classical Mechanical model.

No it didn't - it just showed that classical mechanics doesn't apply on a quantum level - just the same as you can't apply quantum mechanics to describe the motion of macroscopic objects. It just redefined its domain - but that happened once before with the theory of relativity - as classical mechanics doesn't apply at relativistic speeds. Classical mechanics is not invalid, it's just not a complete theory.

Not that scientists don't make mistakes - I hope you're not trying to point that out, that's clear to us all.

 

[dogsgod]

Atheists dismiss the claims of the theist because the theist can't produce. It's that simple, no faith required on the atheist's part, only doubt.

 

[rageoftyrael]

I was at work, when it occured to me. I started asking people a question. Keep in mind that all of these people are theists. Not only that, but i did not imply in anyway that this was a religious question. I merely asked them their opinion and once they gave it to me i thanked them. I asked them this, if i make up an imaginary friend, and tell you about him, is it more reasonable to believe this claim, or is it more reasonable to not believe this claim. i made sure they knew that i had no evidence to provide for the existence of my imaginary friend. That was part of the question. Every one of them said it was more reasonable to not believe this claim.

Now, to further explain my point. Not believing in something is not in and of itself a belief. The only time faith enters into the equation, when it comes to, let's say the christian god, for an atheist, is if they make their own counter claim, saying there is no god. To say there is no god is to admit that you believe for a fact that there is no god. This is faith on the atheists part. But most atheists simply do not believe, which is not the same thing as believing there is no god. And in this case, theists are just as reasonable in their belief of something without evidence as the atheists, because at this point, the atheist has come to a conclusion with no evidence as well.

That is the crux of our argument i would say. You are mistaking hard atheists as the mainstream atheist. The average atheist does not claim there is no god, they simply claim that they don't believe, because there is no evidence. Now, we will come off as if we are claiming that your god doesn't exist, because we will point out all the inconsistencies, the logical fallacies, and the lack of any empirical evidence. But that is usually because we are trying to tell you why we decided not to believe.

Essentially, as it's been said before, faith is required for believing in something without evidence. It has nothing to do with not believing in something. The only time faith enters the equation with an atheist is if they make their own claim, like there is no god. That is a claim, and they would have to prove it. They only evidence they could present is that there is no evidence of his existence, and that is by no means good enough for logical thinkers. So, i don't believe hard atheists either. Essentially, if you make a claim for or against god's existence, you are acting on faith. If you simply disbelieve these claims, faith does not enter into it.

 

[dogsgod]

How much faith is required to believe that there is no God vs the faith required to believe that there is bearing in mind that theists build churches in order to maintain their faith?

 

[Toutatis]

No, Religion is a sitraction, if you are an atheist, you are most likely to have no spirituality (logical), and spirituality is a need for humans, so even if your faith is "false" you believe in something, which fulfils that need, which is why atheists are usually angry/depressed people (not insulting, just saying from experience) and will tend to attack religious people, why? well they are sure that religion is bad, but they see religious people and are jealous of their faith, since they (atheists) cannot equal that faith.

Religion is neccessary, even agnotism is a step closer to being mentaly healthy, then atheism

 

[Nanda]

No, Religion is a sitraction, if you are an atheist, you are most likely to have no spirituality (logical), and spirituality is a need for humans, so even if your faith is "false" you believe in something, which fulfils that need, which is why atheists are usually angry/depressed people (not insulting, just saying from experience) and will tend to attack religious people, why? well they are sure that religion is bad, but they see religious people and are jealous of their faith, since they (atheists) cannot equal that faith.

Religion is neccessary, even agnotism is a step closer to being mentaly healthy, then atheism

Don't be ridiculous.

 

[UnTheist]

No, Religion is a sitraction, if you are an atheist, you are most likely to have no spirituality (logical), and spirituality is a need for humans, so even if your faith is "false" you believe in something, which fulfils that need, which is why atheists are usually angry/depressed people (not insulting, just saying from experience) and will tend to attack religious people, why? well they are sure that religion is bad, but they see religious people and are jealous of their faith, since they (atheists) cannot equal that faith.

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

Religion is neccessary, even agnotism is a step closer to being mentaly healthy, then atheism

YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT ATHEISM AND AGNOSTICISM IS

 

[Vile Atheist]

No, Religion is a sitraction, if you are an atheist, you are most likely to have no spirituality (logical), and spirituality is a need for humans, so even if your faith is "false" you believe in something, which fulfils that need, which is why atheists are usually angry/depressed people (not insulting, just saying from experience) and will tend to attack religious people, why? well they are sure that religion is bad, but they see religious people and are jealous of their faith, since they (atheists) cannot equal that faith.

Religion is neccessary, even agnotism is a step closer to being mentaly healthy, then atheism

1) How is spirituality logical?
2) Spirituality is not a need for humans. You just said that atheists have no spirituality and millions of athiests get along fine without it.
3) What exactly do I believe in that fulfills my non-existent need for spirituality?
4) I am not angry nor depressed.
5) In my experience, most atheists are indifferent towards religious people. Hostility only arises when religious people demand their beliefs be accepted as fact.
6) I'm not jealous of anyone's faith. In fact, I'd rather not have any in a deity. If I am to accept the existence of a God, I want evidence to support that. And that's not faith.
7) Atheists don't want to equal that faith.
8) Religion is not necessary. Millions of atheists get along fine without it.
9) What is the correlation between poor mental health and atheism and what is the causation?
10) Get a clue.

 

[Sententia]

Essentially I think non theists are not vocal enough.

 

[Madhuri]

Actually a lot of atheists have spirituality. Buddhists are a religious example of this, but even ordinary, solitary, atheists can have a sense of sprituality. Having different ideas doesn't make a person a non-spiritualist.

 

[Sententia]

Actually a lot of atheists have spirituality. Buddhists are a religious example of this, but even ordinary, solitary, atheists can have a sense of sprituality. Having different ideas doesn't make a person a non-spiritualist.

I thought that was a given? That is not to say that an atheist can also not be spiritual but saying one can be both an atheist and spiritual is like saying one can be both white and catholic.... Or black and baptist... I'm not following your logic here.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I'm not criticising String Theory.

Maybe you should be. And religion, too.

 

[Madhuri]

I thought that was a given? That is not to say that an atheist can also not be spiritual but saying one can be both an atheist and spiritual is like saying one can be both white and catholic.... Or black and baptist... I'm not following your logic here.

Sorry, I didn't realise you wrote before me. I was essentially responding to both was Toutatis and Maximus had written.

 

[YmirGF]

Actually a lot of atheists have spirituality. Buddhists are a religious example of this, but even ordinary, solitary, atheists can have a sense of sprituality. Having different ideas doesn't make a person a non-spiritualist.

I have never equated spirituality with theists in general; quite the opposite, actually. Most theists strike me as being spiritually bankrupt; hence their need for religion to buttress their inner lack.

 

[nonbeliever_92]

No, Religion is a sitraction, if you are an atheist, you are most likely to have no spirituality (logical), and spirituality is a need for humans, so even if your faith is "false" you believe in something, which fulfils that need, which is why atheists are usually angry/depressed people (not insulting, just saying from experience) and will tend to attack religious people, why? well they are sure that religion is bad, but they see religious people and are jealous of their faith, since they (atheists) cannot equal that faith.

Religion is neccessary, even agnotism is a step closer to being mentaly healthy, then atheism

Okay, seriously?

 

[YmirGF]

Okay, seriously?

Hehe. I am already on record as conjecturing that in many decades belief in god and religion may well be looked on as a form of mental illness.

 

[rageoftyrael]

if you believe that spirituality is required to be mentally healthy, and you think atheists aren't at all spiritual, then i can say with certainty that agnostics should not be considered any better, at least by your reckoning. if you go by the term many people who can't make up their minds use, when saying agnostic, they would appear to have even less faith, if you will, than even an atheist, cause they haven't even come to a conclusion.

 

[DarkSun]

Maybe you should be. And religion, too.

You completely missed the point... But oh well.