NationStates

Seaxeland wrote:Hypocrites.

They moan about how religions is "intolerant" and "discriminatory" towards others, yet they themselves discriminate and are intolerant of religion itself. They are the very definition of hypocrisy.

Totally agree. They try to discriminate everyone who believes in God, and especially muslims. Being an Atheist, doesn't mean you can be a dick to other people.

My thoughts? My thought is that you certainly do enjoy religion bashing. Seriously, we don't need another religion bashing thread every week. That said, here goes.

Creepoc Infinite wrote:So, to everyone, religious and otherwise.
What are your thoughts on atheism, and why?

I think it's a group of well meaning people who seek an alternative solution to the universe to God. Some are assholes toward religious types, some are not.

My reasoning behind knowing Christians and likely all other religions are wrong is this:

The reasons why we cannot prove or disprove the existence of a god is because of this:
God is only a word. If you wrote on a piece of paper the word "GOD" other people would look at it and see different things, interpret the word as meaning something different. If you wrote a word like "GUN" everyone knows what it is.
God is a word with no clear definition, that's why we can't prove or disprove it. We don't know anything about this god to take any definitive stance on the issue of whether or not he exists.
That's why I am an Agnostic Atheist in that regard.
I don't know if there is a god, because we have no information on what the hell a god is.

By this logic, there are no abstract concepts at all. No love, no courage, no justice, no beauty. Ultimately false and a poor argument.

However, the problem arises when you take away the mystery and ambiguity surrounding the very basic and abstract concept of god.
If you define god in a way that we could test the definition, we wouldn't really disprove the existence of a god, we would just disprove the existence of that particular definition of a god.
Religions go as far to describe how god thinks, what he wants, what he looks like, how he operates, his personality, his involvement in human affairs.
These thing are described in the holy book or scriptures of this god.
Now we have something testable!
The Christians' problem is that they make positive assertions about what their god is like! If you can prove that god doesn't fit into just one of the Christian criteria, he becomes null and void no longer applicable for consideration.
They call god all powerful, this is impossible because can god create a boulder so massive even he himself cannot lift it?

A paradox. Lovely. A straw man really. God is restricted by a few common sense principles. Nearly every Christian you ask will acknowledge this.

They say he's omniscient, yet if he is all knowing, can he know that he doesn't know something? And if he did, he still would not know something

That doesn't even make sense. Your argument is that he doesn't know everything, because he wouldn't know if there was something he didn't know. You offer no reason that he wouldn't know everything, so you really didn't even make an argument here.

They say he's omnibenevolent, yet he has caused so much suffering and death and evil to transpire. You may argue that what he says is good, is good by definition, but when we say something is benevolent, we are applying it to the standards of today's morals, not the bible's

Caused is not the right word. He gave people free will, which is equal to allowing evil to happen, but he himself is not the cause of it. Also, there's an error in your logic. You don't get to decide whose morals we are talking about. People's morals change over time, but God's have not. This is the reason people ridicule them. God's morals will not conform to the rest of the world's arbitrary and ever-changing morals.

They say he's omnipresent, but he isn't because that means we would be him by definition and would have to both worship and not worship ourselves and him, he also Is described as not being omnipresent in the bible.

He's everywhere, and therefore that makes us God. Those are two unrelated variables, mate.

They say he makes miracle happen, yet there are more reasonable and more likely explanations for "miracles" occurring then the idea of a god intervening, and even so, there is no evidence of him actually committing these miracles.

Many of these alternative explanations are still in doubt. But beside that, there's this aspect of Christianity that atheists love to hate. It's called faith, and it is an integral part of Christianity. Perhaps this is foolish, and perhaps not. See, God doesn't want to interfere with our free will. He could reveal himself to everyone, but that would negate the faith aspect that has been the core of the religion for millennia.

Top this off with disproven ideas contained within the bible, stories with parallels with other, older mythologies that denotes some degree of plagiarism, the unreliability of the bibles's information, archaic rituals, magic, etc.

See, above comment.

They thought the earth is flat, diseases could be cured with spitting in the wound, dragons, sea monsters, unicorns, zombies

Thought Earth is flat: So did atheists, and everyone else. Remember Columbus? The guy who was convinced the Earth was round? He was Catholic.
Spitting: Also not solely a religious belief. Dragons, Sea Monsters, Unicorns, and Zombies: Are you even serious?!?! Learn something about Christians before you criticize them!

It is clearly false. The god of the bible cannot exist by definition because of the paradoxical nature of the Christian definition of god, as well as the unreliability, and clear plagiarism found in the bible.
That's why the Christian definition of god is not the right one, it is false because the definition makes no logical sense and the dogma and stories are clearly ripped from older religions.

You find it wrong because you made up reasons to convince yourself that it's wrong. That's fine, I don't judge you. I merely wish to point out that your arguments don't hold water, and it is obvious that you have no real understanding of Christianity or Christians.

Anglo-California wrote:

Dyakovo wrote:It depends. Do you believe it exists?

In reality, I do not. I've already stated I don't believe in a deity.

I realize that. I was addressing the hypothetical.

However, in the case of this scenario, I simply just do not know.

Without an answer to my question, I can't say for sure, but the most likely answer is that you're an atheist. Specifically an agnostic atheist.

Valaran wrote:

Dyakovo wrote:If you don't agree with what you said, why did you say it?

Yes. I actually know what the words I'm using mean.

I said I assumed that it was your view. You then underlined it and simply said "that's how it works." .... which is what I'm disagreeing with.

Gee, snark. Doesn't exactly offer a convincing argument - it jsut alienates who you are debating with and prevents common ground.

Its kinda a shame as usually I agree with you on a lot of stuff. But on this issue you are too uncompromising in your attempt to categorise everyone's views and stack them neatly into two camps.

You indicate that you're familiar with my posts and are surprised when I'm snarky?
Does not compute.

Valaran wrote:

Ifreann wrote:No one asked what you know. You were asked whether you believe.

It was a way to explain my reasoning for my later points rather than the answer.

Then you're an atheist.

Not having a strong opinion on religion & atheism would not equate to being an atheist for me. (I should have clarified in my previous post and said opinion, not belief)

You're an atheist if you don't believe in some god or gods. It's really as simple as that. You don't have to commit to it, or have a strong opinion, or claim any kind of knowledge or evidence.

This is, though. You either believe or you don't. There's no other option. You might not know the answer, and it might change over the course of your life, but there are only two answers.

I'm saying I don't know if I believe.

Which isn't agnosticism.

By your view then, agnostics have to be theists or atheists?

Of course. As must gnostics.

The definition is so abolsute that ambiguity must fall on the atheistic side?

What ambiguity? You obviously don't want to answer the question, but it is evident from your posts that you don't believe in any gods. So you're an atheist.

---

The Sanguinian Islands wrote:edgy, condesending, unkempt and rude

its one thing to not believe, but another to be ISIS level about it

You must have some very strange ideas about either ISIS, atheism, or both.

---

Anglo-California wrote:

Valaran wrote:

Since that basically is my view (I'm normally untroubled by questions of religion), I second this point. I'm not sure categorisation into two (and only two) sides is easy/possible.

Dealing in absolutes (you're either with us or against us) also sets a dangerous precedent.

You might as well call it a dangerous precedent for there to be people who own pets and people who don't. Oooh, spooky absolutes.

Kalifati Arab shqiptar wrote:

Seaxeland wrote:Hypocrites.

They moan about how religions is "intolerant" and "discriminatory" towards others, yet they themselves discriminate and are intolerant of religion itself. They are the very definition of hypocrisy.

Totally agree. They try to discriminate everyone who believes in God, and especially muslims. Being an Atheist, doesn't mean you can be a dick to other people.

Uh-huh. Sure. Show me where I've advocated discrimination.

Dyakovo wrote:You indicate that you're familiar with my posts and are surprised when I'm snarky?
Does not compute.

Fair enough there

I just didn't see a reason for you to be snarky... I was trying to be polite and respectful in my refutations. (sorry if I didn't quite always achieve that; it wasn't intentional)

Kalifati Arab shqiptar wrote:

Seaxeland wrote:Hypocrites.

They moan about how religions is "intolerant" and "discriminatory" towards others, yet they themselves discriminate and are intolerant of religion itself. They are the very definition of hypocrisy.

Totally agree. They try to discriminate everyone who believes in God, and especially muslims. Being an Atheist, doesn't mean you can be a dick to other people.

Oh there's better things to discriminate against than theists

Valaran wrote:

Dyakovo wrote:You indicate that you're familiar with my posts and are surprised when I'm snarky?
Does not compute.

Fair enough there

I just didn't see a reason for you to be snarky... I was trying to be polite and respectful in my refutations. (sorry if I didn't quite always achieve that; it wasn't intentional)

That was me being polite.

Kalifati Arab shqiptar wrote:

Seaxeland wrote:Hypocrites.

They moan about how religions is "intolerant" and "discriminatory" towards others, yet they themselves discriminate and are intolerant of religion itself. They are the very definition of hypocrisy.

Totally agree. They try to discriminate everyone who believes in God, and especially muslims. Being an Atheist, doesn't mean you can be a dick to other people.

I'm an atheist but many atheists (internet) seem to be reds (socialists and communists) and they act like this all the time. Nobody has right to say anything against them (at least they think so) while promoting individual freedoms (like freedom of speech). Can't take them too seriously.

Anglo-California wrote:

Kalifati Arab shqiptar wrote:Totally agree. They try to discriminate everyone who believes in God, and especially muslims. Being an Atheist, doesn't mean you can be a dick to other people.

Oh there's better things to discriminate against than theists

I agree. There's terrorists, murderers, aliens who want to kill everything, psychotic nuts with the same urge, etc. As an atheist, I wouldn't say it would lead to anything else in the world. It seems to fit for me, though, and I feel that as long as people can find other ways to answer the questions that churches and temples have historically responded to, there will always be a segment of the population that is atheist.

Seaxeland wrote:Hypocrites.

They moan about how religions is "intolerant" and "discriminatory" towards others, yet they themselves discriminate and are intolerant of religion itself. They are the very definition of hypocrisy.

Who are 'they''?

Some atheists are outspokenly pro-religion - they just don't believe in it for themselves.

Grave_n_idle wrote:

Seaxeland wrote:Hypocrites.

They moan about how religions is "intolerant" and "discriminatory" towards others, yet they themselves discriminate and are intolerant of religion itself. They are the very definition of hypocrisy.

Who are 'they''?

Some atheists are outspokenly pro-religion - they just don't believe in it for themselves.

I'd call them confused people if the belive that god doesn't exist while promoting it. Makes no sense.

To anyone who says atheism is bad: you must have met some real assholes, then.

The Sanguinian Islands wrote:edgy, condesending, unkempt and rude

its one thing to not believe, but another to be ISIS level about it

Right, because 'not believing' is pretty much exactly the same as beheading people.

Oh, wait...

Teemant wrote:

Grave_n_idle wrote:
Who are 'they''?

Some atheists are outspokenly pro-religion - they just don't believe in it for themselves.

I'd call them confused people if the belive that god doesn't exist while promoting it. Makes no sense.

Not at all. Why would I be lessened by someone else having the comfort of a knowing, loving, deity? I know many (actual) good Christians who abhor the intervention of faith into public life. These are not dipolar ideas. You can be pro-both.

Ifreann wrote:You're an atheist if you don't believe in some god or gods. It's really as simple as that. You don't have to commit to it, or have a strong opinion, or claim any kind of knowledge or evidence.

_____

Which isn't agnosticism.

Didn't say that bit was. The agnosticism applied in that I didn't have knowledge. But this was my personal extrapolation from it - since I define these beliefs on knowledge. Thus since I lacked knowledge here, I don't know what I believe currently.

And surely being an atheist is that you don't believe in any god/gods, not jsut some?

What ambiguity? You obviously don't want to answer the question, but it is evident from your posts that you don't believe in any gods. So you're an atheist.

I was posing those questions to you. And I don't know if I believe yet.... I wouldn't have said it was evident I don't believe in any gods.

Teemant wrote:

Grave_n_idle wrote:
Who are 'they''?

Some atheists are outspokenly pro-religion - they just don't believe in it for themselves.

I'd call them confused people if the belive that god doesn't exist while promoting it. Makes no sense.

Lacking belief in a deity or deities and recognizing that religion can be beneficial are not mutually exclusive position.

Dyakovo wrote:

Teemant wrote:
I'd call them confused people if the belive that god doesn't exist while promoting it. Makes no sense.

Lacking belief in a deity other deities and recognizing that religion can be beneficial are not mutually exclusive position.

There's reasons besides "the rulers killed all opposition" that religion's been around for 10,000 years or more.

Teemant wrote:

Grave_n_idle wrote:
Who are 'they''?

Some atheists are outspokenly pro-religion - they just don't believe in it for themselves.

I'd call them confused people if the belive that god doesn't exist while promoting it. Makes no sense.

Why doesn't it make sense?

It's entirely consistent to think that a certain form of structure is advantageous for the general populace, whilst simultaneously not believing in it's stated central belief. For example - if you think that religion serves a valid purpose as a cutch for people in emotional distress, or as a mechanism for promoting altruism, or even cynically thinking that it's just a good way to control people - none of that requires you to actually believe the beliefs of the religion.

Dyakovo wrote:

Valaran wrote:
Fair enough there

I just didn't see a reason for you to be snarky... I was trying to be polite and respectful in my refutations. (sorry if I didn't quite always achieve that; it wasn't intentional)

That was me being polite.

Oh

In which case, I appreciate it.

And for the record, I will likely reassess my views at some point. Me not knowing what to believe is (meant to be) temporary. I'm still collating arguments and the like, if you will, which is why I have no firm opinion.

Later I may well fall neatly (and without fuss) into one of those two camps. So either way, thanks for the debate; it was still instructive and helpful

Paid To Troll wrote:

Teemant wrote:
I'd call them confused people if the belive that god doesn't exist while promoting it. Makes no sense.

Not at all. Why would I be lessened by someone else having the comfort of a knowing, loving, deity? I know many (actual) good Christians who abhor the intervention of faith into public life. These are not dipolar ideas. You can be pro-both.

You speak the truth.

Dyakovo wrote:

Valaran wrote:
Fair enough there

I just didn't see a reason for you to be snarky... I was trying to be polite and respectful in my refutations. (sorry if I didn't quite always achieve that; it wasn't intentional)

That was me being polite.

If that's you being polite, then you must really like me. When you gonna pick me up for our date?

Grave_n_idle wrote:

Paid To Troll wrote:Not at all. Why would I be lessened by someone else having the comfort of a knowing, loving, deity? I know many (actual) good Christians who abhor the intervention of faith into public life. These are not dipolar ideas. You can be pro-both.

You speak the truth.

I certainly hope so.

Grave_n_idle wrote:

Teemant wrote:
I'd call them confused people if the belive that god doesn't exist while promoting it. Makes no sense.

Why doesn't it make sense?

It's entirely consistent to think that a certain form of structure is advantageous for the general populace, whilst simultaneously not believing in it's stated central belief. For example - if you think that religion serves a valid purpose as a cutch for people in emotional distress, or as a mechanism for promoting altruism, or even cynically thinking that it's just a good way to control people - none of that requires you to actually believe the beliefs of the religion.

Indeed. While I view religion as a crutch, as with actual physical crutches, I don't see a valid reason for denying it to people who do need it.