Why are most people who answer my questions atheists ?

[Valjean]

Does it have to be one or the other?

I think (haha) you are assuming a particular type of thinking, such that one cannot be both?

One is non-thought. It does not follow the rules of reason or logic. Moreover, it's often based on erroneous facts, or no facts.

Belief without evidence is not reasonable, it's belief based on nothing. It's imaginary, fantasy belief.

 

[LuisDantas]

Why are most people who answer my questions atheists ?​

It's very simple. Atheists think they already know everything. They worship science as the source of all truth, instead of God. So they believe that if science has not already resolved any question they encounter, it is just about to, ... or they just deem the question irrelevant.

I must be somnambulous.

 

[Audie]

When the definition fits ...
That's why I've differentiated between informed and ignorant atheists. An ignorant atheist can be swayed towards theism (so I don't argue that atheists don't become religious) but once you have arrived at atheism through reason and in knowledge of the facts and arguments, there is no rational way back.

Being raised without any religion, they
all seem equally bonkers to me.
The more i observe how the religious think
/ act, theless i can be like that

 

[LuisDantas]

Like many devout religious adherents, a great many atheists are equally unable to see themselves for what they are. They can only see themselves from within the warped conceptual paradigm that they have surrendered their minds to. It's quite easy to see this from the outside. But almost impossible to see it from within.

Gosh! And it is undetectable too! How awful!

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I see very few Christians and no Muslims at all Answering my questions is there mostly atheists here ?

You've seen two surveys now: Christian and atheist about 20% each and Muslim about 5%.

If most of your replies come from atheists, then they're the ones most interested in your topics. Well educated critical thinkers love a challenge.

I have nothing against atheists, but I’m not too sure why so many choose to gather on a religious forum.

You only need to ask. I'm enjoying myself. I seem to never get tired of looking at how people think, and I gain significant insights once or twice a year doing this. This is humanism school for me. The lecture part is reading the thoughts of the other critical thinkers and scientifically literate posters. The lab is the array of types of people we encounter here and how they think. Here, we see a spectrum of religious and humanist thinkers and can get a sense of what effect religion has on believers according to the religion, and how the believers compare to the irreligious intellectually and morally - that is, what benefit or harm does the religious life confer on the faithful.

I end this post with an example of an insight that results from reading thousands of opinions over several years, which introduces another benefit of posting on RF. Where else can one have candid, protracted (over years) discussions with believers? Contrast that with such discussions in meat space, say over dinner or at work or at a bar. It just doesn't happen.

Also, this is a helpful exercise for constructing arguments and improving writing skills.

when I was atheist, I did not discuss faith - religion, maybe but faith, never.

I'm the opposite (agnostic atheist here). Discussing religions doesn't interest me at all, although I benefit from reading people discussing their own religions, but discussing belief by faith DOES interest me. As I just mentioned, how people process information and how the willingness to believe by faith modifies thought is interesting to me.

It's called Pascal's Wager.

Pascal contends that a rational person should adopt a lifestyle consistent with the existence of God and actively strive to believe in God. The reasoning behind this stance lies in the potential outcomes: if God does not exist, the individual incurs only finite losses, potentially sacrificing certain pleasures and luxuries. However, if God does indeed exist, they stand to gain immeasurably, as represented for example by an eternity in Heaven in Abrahamic tradition, while simultaneously avoiding boundless losses associated with an eternity in Hell.

Here's a nice example of what is appealing here. You offered this as a means of reasoning an atheist into theism. This is a flawed (specious) argument, the refutation of which is interesting.

Apparently atheist forums are boring so they come here to hone their heckling skills.

Here's another benefit of this experience - seeing opinions like this one and the one following. What is it that makes so many of the believers so offended that atheists are here debating and disagreeing them? Look at the asymmetry here. Despite both making arguments, only one group has this emotional type of response. Your negative feeling about atheists is apparent. You define debate as heckling. Perhaps you see this post in those terms as well - as me heckling you. But you virtually NEVER see comments like yours and the next one coming from the humanistic critical thinkers.

This then is one of the insights one can glean participating here and surveying a large cross-section of religious and irreligious types to detect trends that emphasize the different ways different approaches to processing information affect personality.

It's very simple. Atheists think they already know everything. They worship science as the source of all truth, instead of God. So they believe that if science has not already resolved any question they encounter, it is just about to, ... or they deem the question irrelevant.

I guess that you don't like having your opinions challenged much, either. More emotionalism, hyperbole, and thinly veiled shots at atheists. Not a problem for the atheists, but I bet it doesn't feel too good for you.

Maybe you've noticed that people on this side of the aisle simply don't write to the believers like this. You might ask yourself why the mood and demeanor of the two are different. What accounts for that? Why do you interpret this activity as mean-spirited on the part of the unbelievers but we don't see the same resentment and accusations coming from the skeptics.

 

[Secret Chief]

When the definition fits ...
That's why I've differentiated between informed and ignorant atheists. An ignorant atheist can be swayed towards theism (so I don't argue that atheists don't become religious) but once you have arrived at atheism through reason and in knowledge of the facts and arguments, there is no rational way back.

So, by your distinction, a newborn kitten is an ignorant atheist? (And likely to remains so).

For me, that is nonsensical. I'm in agreement with the Encyclopaedia Britannica in which describes atheism as involving "critique and denial." Something a baby or kitten is clearly incapable of.

 

[Heyo]

So, by your distinction, a newborn kitten is an ignorant atheist?

Yep.

(And likely to remains so).

I'm not sure but I believe most cats are theists. They believe strongly that they are gods.

 

[Secret Chief]

Yep.

I'm not sure but I believe most cats are theists. They believe strongly that they are gods.

Edited my post. Sorry, promise to stop now.

 

[Valjean]

Oooh I think we've had a thread on this recently. Not everyone thinks this eg me. I consider an atheist to hold a particular position in regard to something. I do not consider a newborn baby to have arrived at any opinion on anything so cognitively sophisticated.

Is a lack of a particular position a particular position itself?
Is no position a position?

 

[Secret Chief]

Is a lack of a particular position a particular position itself?
Is no position a position?

Not to me.

 

[Audie]

So, by your distinction, a newborn kitten is an ignorant atheist? (And likely to remains so).

For me, that is nonsensical. I'm in agreement with the Encyclopaedia Britannica in which describes atheism as involving "critique and denial." Something a baby or kitten is clearly incapable of.

Its super simple.
I was never influrnced to adopt
irrational beliefs or magical thinking.

As i became aware of superstitions,
Chinese folk religion, Buddhist rituals,
Christiam beliefs, etc, I didnt start in believing in
any of them.
Your quote from Briticania is not an
authority on hows or whys of my thinking.

Especially the "deny" bit.

"Incapable" best describes the theist whose
entire construct of reality centers around "god"
and are rendered incalable of conceiving
of it not being so.

The challenge to this deeply ( purely)
emotional world view is intolerable.
"Death to atheists".

And of course, yes, denial that anyone really really
just doesnt believe.

Again, its incapacity.

 

[Secret Chief]

Its super simple.
I was never influrnced to adopt
irrational beliefs or magical thinking.

As i became aware of superstitions,
Chinese folk religion, Buddhist rituals,
Christiam beliefs, etc, I didnt start in believing in
any of them.
Your quote from Briticania is not an
authority on hows or whys of my thinking.

Especially the "deny" bit.

"Incapable" best describes the theist whose
entire construct of reality centers around "god"
and are rendered incalable of conceiving
of it not being so.

The challenge to this deeply ( purely)
emotional world view is intolerable.
"Death to atheists".

And of course, yes, denial that anyone really really
just doesnt believe.

Again, its incapacity.

So what about newborn kittens? Atheists or not?

 

[Sand Dancer]

And quite a few moved the other way

It happens but not as often. Mostly before people convert, they are just deistic/theistic. People tend to believe in a god, but not get caught up in the dogma of Christianity.

 

[Audie]

So what about newborn kittens? Atheists or not?

You go ask them. And plz dont address me at
all if its another dismissive trite quip.

 

[Audie]

It happens but not as often. Mostly before people convert, they are just deistic/theistic. People tend to believe in a god, but not get caught up in the dogma of Christianity.

Most " atheists" who go religious were raised in
religion, fell away, and were sucked back in.

 

[HonestJoe]

And, I’m not sure I would have been interested in their beliefs (to the point of joining a forum about it), even if there had been more religion around me when growing up:

Then what changed to lead you to join the forum now?

I respectfully suggest that you're treating atheists as a type of person rather than just individuals who happen to have one (of many) personal belief. I expect you've still much more in common with the past atheist you than you do with me.

I'm not here because I'm atheist, I'm here because the subject matter interests me.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yeah a bit, though I've tried to resist that. I have a large piece of Stilton and some port, plus nuts to go with it (for some reason the supermarkets deem Christmas to be over on 26th, and take the nuts off the shelves immediately. So I buy a few bags in advance.). Oh and some foie gras to eat with Sauternes on New Year's Eve. And there is some puff pastry in the freezer for making a Galette des Rois for Epiphany.

I buy my nuts after Christmas. They do not take them off the shelf here they slash the prices to get rid of what did not sell. The day after Thanksgiving and the day after Christmas are also excellent days to buy a turkey. I have bought fresh ones for under a buck a pound. And turkeys are amazingly easy to butcher at home. I separate it into breasts, legs, thighs, wings and back. The back has almost no meat that one can get at easily. But what I do is to break that in half and put one with each breast. The back is loaded with fat and that renders out for a turkey gravy. I cook that back a bit more than the breast so that the fat cooks out. I roast both on the same sheet pan and make a gravy from all of that glorious turkey fat and drippings. The breasts on their own are too lean. But the meat is actually really good when one has to worry only about the breasts getting done. And the next day the remnants of the back make an excellent stock for a soup and then that hard to get at meat does come out. Turkey is a versatile bird if you pan ahead. Oh, and the thighs and legs will go through a slow pan fry. That means very little added fat, just enough butter to get them started. They are fatty enough, along with the butter, to make their own drippings for gravy. But I do not save those bones. Perhaps I should. But even so, could bone on because some of the goodness will come out of the bone.

I am making a turkey today so I am getting my turk on early!

 

[osgart]

I'm at

I see very few Christians and no Muslims at all Answering my questions is there mostly atheists here ?

I'm an atheist, who happens to be religious for my own reasons.

 

[LuisDantas]

Atheism is just an aesthethical stance towards a very ill defined question.

It is hardly opposed to religiosity; as it happens, there are would-be religions that are opposed to it.

 

[Sand Dancer]

Most " atheists" who go religious were raised in
religion, fell away, and were sucked back in.

It could be that they rejoined on their own terms. I tried to do that, but realized that I couldn't even believe in a minimal way. It's just not where I am anymore.