What are your thoughts on Atheism?

[Dyakovo]

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?

Okay. I laughed.

[Grave_n_idle]

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.

As with your parallel of physical crutches, it would be pretty perverse to deny others what they do need, just because you don't.

[Nekronia]

What are your thoughts on atheism, and why?

I am one. I feel as though people should be atheist or agnostic until one of the religions is proven to be objectively correct, as faith can make any belief system feel real. However, I have nothing against theists or anything. It's just not my cup of tea.

If you are one, what convinced you to be atheist?

Nothing. That's the whole point. I've never had a religion.

My family absolutely refused to admit that Santa and the Easter Bunny and all that existed until I was in... middle school? So I thought an invisible space wizard was just another one of those things like the magic fat man who can infiltrate billions of homes in one night and deliver objects sometimes larger than the chimney itself without anyone noticing. The whole thing seemed rather ridiculous to me, so it just had to be one of those things like Santa, right? You can imagine my face when I realized that the vast majority of the world believed this kind of thing or a variant of it. No one's proven any religion to me, so I'll stick with what's been proven by fact and evidence.


...why is it that whenever I explain my reasons for being atheist, I always sound like an neckbearded antitheist prick? I swear I'm completely chill with religious people. This is just my reason for not being one of them.

[Paid To Troll]

What are your thoughts on atheism, and why?

I am one. I feel as though people should be atheist or agnostic until one of the religions is proven to be objectively correct, as faith can make any belief system feel real. However, I have nothing against theists or anything. It's just not my cup of tea.

If you are one, what convinced you to be atheist?

Nothing. That's the whole point. I've never had a religion.

My family absolutely refused to admit that Santa and the Easter Bunny and all that existed until I was in... middle school? So I thought an invisible space wizard was just another one of those things like the magic fat man who can infiltrate billions of homes in one night and deliver objects sometimes larger than the chimney itself without anyone noticing. The whole thing seemed rather ridiculous to me, so it just had to be one of those things like Santa, right? You can imagine my face when I realized that the vast majority of the world believed this kind of thing or a variant of it. No one's proven any religion to me, so I'll stick with what's been proven by fact and evidence.


...why is it that whenever I explain my reasons for being atheist, I always sound like an neckbearded antitheist prick? I swear I'm completely chill with religious people. This is just my reason for not being one of them.

You sound like a neckbearded antitheist prick because hypertheist evangelicals have set the tenor of the conversation really well.

[Dyakovo]

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

I'm capable of being much more scathing and even stay within the rules while doing so...
I really don't care if irl you're willing to commit to saying either "I'm an atheist" or "I'm a theist" (well, unless We were to actually meet...), but if you misuse words here, I will call you on it. Also, whether you recognize it or not you already fit neatly into either the theist box or the atheist box. Everyone does. The fact that sometimes people change what box they fit in or aren't themselves sure what box they fit in does not in any way change this.

[The Smith Protectorate]

Now I'm no hater, and discussions like these are always good in bringing new ideas to the table but this OP is worryingly funny, your reasoning behinds these things have no relevance in a time where philosophers of old have battled for 2 millennia on this subjects, you start with referring to GOD as something someone would view differently which is what you'd expect, as there are multiple religions. However ask a specific Christian denomination and they'll give you the same answer within a certain degree, Whereas guns are universal and are used throughout the planet, as a weapon to kill or harm, persuade, etc. and people know in general there cons and pros. The idea of proving something should not be based on theory on what a planet full of difference thinks. it should be based on evidence or falsifiability (the latter which both suffer as neither God, as said, or the big bang can be proven to be false via experimentation, but evidence can disprove or credit both (another thread for another time). God is described the same universally throughout Christendom; a Creator.

Your first point: Yes he can, and that's the point of true power. He could but doesn't, to create something no single thing in creation could carry is a show of being all powerful, while also being the only one able to destroy such an object is equally a show of power. Not to mention it’s just another wheel of philosophy, round and round to no reasonable conclusion that everyone can agree on.

Your second point: if God was not all loving he wouldn't create heaven, the literal definition of perfection, which anyone can enter; Murderers, rapists, thieves, whatever and whoever. (Though they are judged for their crimes and it’s probably not pretty to be the person judged for being a murderer) not to mention that as punishment for human disobedience this is the earth we get; yet he still loves us to the point he would give us perfection for eternity, as long as we live on hate filled planet for 80 years. What human can say they've got that level of trade off without a price? But Gods love gives that for the simple price of belief. No arm or a leg.

Your third point: WHAT!? Adjective: omnipresent; ɒmnɪˈprɛz(ə)nt/Submit; (of God) present everywhere at the same time. widely or constantly encountered; widespread.
Why would god need to be us? He can be himself yet everywhere and anywhere and still fit the definition for omnipresent.

Your fourth point; there's only one ritual in the bible, to sacrifice an offering of blood on an alter and burn it where it is a lamb or two doves and the sacrifice of Gods son Jesus but for the good of humanity as he’s Omnibenevolent ^_^ (Though genesis does point to sacrifice of Isaac but only as a test of faith and Isaac was never actually sacrificed as god interceded on the matter, Genesis 22:1 to 14.)There’s no magic or spells. Miracles may be defined to us as magic. But to God it would simply be a re-Moulding of a world he already created which is simple to someone who is omnipotent ^_^, no man in the bible has ever performed a miracle without God behind him.

Your fifth point; Very rarely did Christians believe the earth was flat, Globuc Cruciger was the item held by kings in portraits while they held a sceptre in the other hand, remember primary school history lessons? Notice the orb is a sphere with a cross; denoting Gods rule over earth. Which if people had thought the earth was flat would be a cross on a plate, not a sphere. Not to mention that Greeks before Christ worked out the circumference of earth within 50-150 miles of accuracy. The idea of a flat earth came from Washington Irving (1783–1859) a best-selling novel writer who openly admitted he was "apt to indulge in his imagination". Then the people to stem this globally were John William Draper (1811–1882) and Andrew Dickson White (1832–1918) both evolutionists. With draper being a chemist, Publishing the idea in his book 'History of the Conflict between Religion and Science' (1874). Unicorns are the land versions of narwhals, not to mention fire breathing lizards. We already have the Carabid beetle which sprays a concoction of horrible solutions at its attackers all we need now is a spark and FIRE, which as electric eels should show, is not difficult in the animal kingdom and with 100's of species going extinct every year I would not be surprised if there were such things. Let’s be honest here Megalodon is the definition of scary sea monster, with the Leviathan just being the biggest. Zombies...The short answer is, no. The Bible has no reference to corpses being reanimated and existing in a continuing state of decomposition. Zechariah 14:12 is often referenced as foretelling an impending zombie apocalypse: "And this shall be the plague with which the Lord will strike all the peoples that wage war against Jerusalem: their flesh will rot while they are still standing on their feet, their eyes will rot in their sockets, and their tongues will rot in their mouths." The word plague, translated from the Hebrew word maggephah, literally means "pestilence"—a sickness. Given today's war tactics, it is entirely plausible that this verse describes biological warfare. And guess what been on the news lately. (Or it could be a special plague designed by God just for this circumstance). Whatever the case it does not indicate a zombie apocalypse.

Your sixth point: The paradoxical nature exists in all manners of the origins of the universe where both the bible and evolution have these issues, where one, the bible can be down to a matter of opinion on the nature of the verse. But evolution has to follow a set of rules which cripple the idea; "damage to introns can be disastrous, in one example, deleting four ‘letters’ in the centre of an intron prevented the spliceosome from binding to it, resulting in the intron being included. Mutations in introns also interfere with imprinting, the process by which only certain genes from the mother or father are expressed, not both. Expression of both genes results in a variety of diseases and cancers". Yet this line is the foundation for all progression within the evolutionary timeline. It’s these simple statements which create paradoxes across entire theories about how the universe works; it’s a simple double edged sword.

Trying to solve paradoxes like these have baffled the greatest philosophers for 2000 years, an NSG thread is not going to put a dent in this work, No constructive discussion can be based off a brief and incorrect viewpoint of why Religion fails in an OP. What that thread is on, however is up to the Thread maker.
I’m sure there are grammar mistakes and contradictions that people will point out are just so ‘typical’ + spelling mistakes, but meh I did this quickly.

[Murkwood]

Atheism? Hate it.

[Tagmatium]

edgy, condesending, unkempt and rude

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

Herpaderp.

You know of any militant atheist terrorist groups carving up nations and indulging in mass murders, then please do show them as evidence.

Otherwise, such blatant hyperbole does you no good, as all it serves is to make you look foolish.

[Ifreann]

Atheism? Hate it.

[Grave_n_idle]

Atheism? Hate it.

That's okay. Atheism loves you.

*nods*

[Murkwood]

edgy, condesending, unkempt and rude

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

Herpaderp.

You know of any militant atheist terrorist groups carving up nations and indulging in mass murders, then please do show them as evidence.

Otherwise, such blatant hyperbole does you no good, as all it serves is to make you look foolish.

The USSR's and China's anti religious campaigns, for one. As for terrorism, how about this?

[Paid To Troll]

Herpaderp.

You know of any militant atheist terrorist groups carving up nations and indulging in mass murders, then please do show them as evidence.

Otherwise, such blatant hyperbole does you no good, as all it serves is to make you look foolish.

The USSR's and China's anti religious campaigns, for one. As for terrorism, how about this?

Stalin did not do that in the name of Atheism. Nor did Mao. They purged anti-them people, because they wanted to be in charge.

[Distruzio]

"Oh. Great. More of this, then?"

Thats my general thought about atheism.

Of course, i have the same thought about someone thumping bibles.

[Tagmatium]

Herpaderp.

You know of any militant atheist terrorist groups carving up nations and indulging in mass murders, then please do show them as evidence.

Otherwise, such blatant hyperbole does you no good, as all it serves is to make you look foolish.

The USSR's and China's anti religious campaigns, for one. As for terrorism, how about this?

The poster I was quoting seemed to be implying that people who are vocally atheistic are acting in a manner akin to ISIS.

This is an absurd thing to assert, since being vocally and militantly atheistic is in no way the same as the monstrous activities of that particular terrorist organisation. Indeed, it's trivialising their actions in a manner that is particularly egregious.

[Murkwood]

The USSR's and China's anti religious campaigns, for one. As for terrorism, how about this?

Stalin did not do that in the name of Atheism. Nor did Mao. They purged anti-them people, because they wanted to be in charge.

It was in the name of spreading and strengthening State Atheism.

[Paid To Troll]

Stalin did not do that in the name of Atheism. Nor did Mao. They purged anti-them people, because they wanted to be in charge.

It was in the name of spreading and strengthening State Atheism.

No, it was in the name of spreading and strengthening Stalin and Mao. They did not give a shit about atheism as a concept, they just didn't want a church attempting to wrest control from them.

[Soviet Haaregrad]

Atheism seems the only logical position for me, although I'm strongly sympathetic to agnostic positions due to the impossibility of proving a negative. Who knows, maybe the gods are really just playing hide-and-seek with us and totally kicking our asses?

I understand many other people have a strong need to believe in external deities, but this is something I don't quite understand. I'm a materialist since the supernatural seems unlikely to me, it seems far more likely that rational explanations exist for all phenomenon in the universe, even if men lack the ability to comprehend the mechanics involved.

[Dyakovo]

Stalin did not do that in the name of Atheism. Nor did Mao. They purged anti-them people, because they wanted to be in charge.

It was in the name of spreading and strengthening State Atheism.

No, it wasn't. It was in the name of solidifying their personal power.

[Ereria]

I usually find people that calls them selves 'atheist' in real life to be people with repulsive personalities. I have not met one somewhat militant atheist or whatever you will call them that is a nice person. That's me though. People that rather say ''I don't really believe in anything'' or that they don't know seems to be like any other person. Of course im generalising and it's most probably militant atheists that are good persons.

[Grave_n_idle]

I usually find people that calls them selves 'atheist' in real life to be people with repulsive personalities. I have not met one somewhat militant atheist or whatever you will call them that is a nice person. That's me though. People that rather say ''I don't really believe in anything'' or that they don't know seems to be like any other person. Of course im generalising and it's most probably militant atheists that are good persons.

I refer to myself as an atheist. Then again, I've often been told I'm a douchebag, so I might actually be supporting your argument.

[Idzequitch]

I usually find people that calls them selves 'atheist' in real life to be people with repulsive personalities. I have not met one somewhat militant atheist or whatever you will call them that is a nice person. That's me though. People that rather say ''I don't really believe in anything'' or that they don't know seems to be like any other person. Of course im generalising and it's most probably militant atheists that are good persons.

I think that's a false correlation. Many atheists are perfectly pleasant people, but there are some of them who get rather nasty when debating matters of religion, or the origin of the world, etc. But since those are the forums that creationists see them in most often, they think of them as assholes, when they really aren't 95% of the time.

[Paid To Troll]

I usually find people that calls them selves 'atheist' in real life to be people with repulsive personalities. I have not met one somewhat militant atheist or whatever you will call them that is a nice person. That's me though. People that rather say ''I don't really believe in anything'' or that they don't know seems to be like any other person. Of course im generalising and it's most probably militant atheists that are good persons.

I think that's a false correlation. Many atheists are perfectly pleasant people, but there are some of them who get rather nasty when debating matters of religion, or the origin of the world, etc. But since those are the forums that creationists see them in most often, they think of them as assholes, when they really aren't 95% of the time.

[True American States]

Its morally bankrupted. I'm a former atheist.

[Paid To Troll]

Its morally bankrupted. I'm a former atheist.

[Tagmatium]

Its morally bankrupted. I'm a former atheist.

Why's it morally bankrupt?