Atheism: What's the point?

[Enadail]

Can we not just accept that athiests believe in atheism and theists believe in theism and neither are gonna have their minds changed by the other so it's pointless to argue?

Its not about what you believe, but how you act. Act like an ass in the name of religion, I'll blame religion for it.

Secondly, I and a lot of atheists are open to accepting a god exists, if there is evidence. Doesn't mean I'll worship that god, specially the Abrahamic one, but if I believe a god exists, I'm no longer an atheist.

1)So he's not allowed to voice his own opinion?

Sure he can. But when his opinion starts to interfere with my life, I'll fight back. I'm not gonna get run over just because someone thinks they're divine.

2)The majority rules, which is the most fair, if the majority are religious,tough shit, move

And history is all about the minorities fighting back.

3)Better it be religion than something as materialistic as land

Expect religious people are often extremely materialistic and there's nothing connecting a lack of religion with materialism... so... no. Unless I didn't understand that.

[Treznor]

Can we not just accept that athiests believe in atheism and theists believe in theism and neither are gonna have their minds changed by the other so it's pointless to argue? I don't see why people have to prove each other wrong considering it is not a factual based argument. It's all faith. I'd consider myself borderline agnostic from a catholic background but i don't argue with my background because some people realy do believe in it and enjoy believing in it

Sure. When the Pope stops speaking on the morality of medical issues, the Religious Right stop attempting to introduce legislation to enforce their morality and the world stops engaging in religiously-motivated violence, I'll stop pointing out what a bad idea religion turned out to be.

1)So he's not allowed to voice his own opinion?
2)The majority rules, which is the most fair, if the majority are religious,tough shit, move
3)Better it be religion than something as materialistic as land

(Not a religious person)

1) The pope doesn't have opinions. The pope sets policy. Currently, the Catholic Church's policy is that birth control is a sin, and AIDS can only be fought through abstinence, a course that has been repeatedly demonstrated to fail.
2) Not in a democracy. The tyranny of the majority is supposed to be tempered by democracy, which is why we have so many right-wing bloviators griping about "activist judges" when the judges rule against the majority to preserve the rights of minorities.
3) Material things can be negotiated. Religious principles are sacred. People don't negotiate over sacred things. Why do you think Jerusalem changed hands so many times over the centuries?

[Grave_n_idle]

2)The majority rules, which is the most fair, if the majority are religious,tough shit, move

'Majority rules' is the most representative, but not the most 'fair'.

I often see the argument made that the majority should hold sway. I always pay careful attention to who says it, and then try to make sure I bring it back to their attention when THEY are in the minority on an issue THEY are agitating for.

[Dimmakmmunication]

All i'm going to say is, you can't blame a religion for the retards that follow it.

Many people, like myself, don't agree with abortion but are not religious so its not just religion that make laws that people don't like

You can only listen to the minorities so much. It is the majority that are the most looked after.

Atheists say that religious people can be ignorant, atheists can be nearly as bad. Atheist are usually the ones who start these religious debate online being amazingly condescending to people who do believe.

[Enadail]

All i'm going to say is, you can't blame a religion for the retards that follow it.

Many people, like myself, don't agree with abortion but are not religious so its not just religion that make laws that people don't like

You can only listen to the minorities so much. It is the majority that are the most looked after.

Atheists say that religious people can be ignorant, atheists can be nearly as bad. Atheist are usually the ones who start these religious debate online being amazingly condescending to people who do believe.

Haha, I can't blame God for what religious people do. I can blame religion for what religious people do. Just like I can blame Communism for what Stalin did in Russia, I can blame Nazism for what Hitler did in Germany. I can blame xenophobia for what the Americans did to Japanese Americans in the second World War. You can blame the ideology for its followers actions.

As long as you have secular reasons to be against abortion, you and I can have a civil discussion. We might not agree, but hey.

And if you can only listen to the minorities so much, you're advocating might makes right. But what stops someone from taking all the might, but never giving rights? If you don't look out for minorities, you'll end up in a circle of civil unrest, wars, etc.

There are atheist who are nearly as bad, but to say the atheists start these arguments is just false. Religious people often wanna prove them right, and jump into these place to "correct the heathens". How often do you find these arguments on religious websites? Atheists don't care about goin out for a fight. Let people be crazy in their own homes.

But way not to address any of the points raised to you

[FreeSatania]

im not sure if it was this thread or another but anyway, someone asked a "scientist" (in otherwords someone who likes the idea of evolution but wants a nice title) to prove the sky is blue, and they said something like this

"you want prove ok ask anyone to look up and ask another and another and they will all tell you the sky is blue"

early in the same thread another one of the "scientists" said that using numbers to prove something, is not prove at all..... well u could say its just as hypercritical as some religious fanatics.

anywho before you "scientists" tell me that i have used the same argument to prove that the Bible does not Contridict blah blah blah, well you see, religion isnt science so i dont need scientific prove, and realy i dont need any prove.

just thought i would share this with you scientists, have fun with you little Chemistry sets and all that.
night.

And you believe that statement straight out without asking for further explanation as to why? Because it is in the why that we find the answers. Simply looking up is one way, but it doesn't answer the why.

The sky is blue because the atmosphere of the earth acts like a prism, filtering out all colours except blue. The exception exists for those who are colour-blind. The sky is still blue but they see it differently because of the way their brain processes the information their visual receptors pick up.

That covers the proof and why.

Religion when asked to prove a god, goddess, whether singular or plural, asks for faith and belief, but its proof is lacking and the why isn't answered adequately. It seems to boil down to "because we say so", which for some isn't a good enough reason.

Actually that doesn't completely cover it because it doesn't address the question of what is blue... or what is sky. The question of how something became blue is not relevant in defining blue. It's impossible to explain the process by which the sky became blue without citing the fact that it is. The reason the sky is blue is because the sky is blue in the real world.

If we attempt to explain blue we get into trouble fast. What is blue? Blue is a color. What is a color? A color is the perception of a frequency of visible light? What is perception? ... Now supposing I could complete hierarchy. It wouldn't be all that helpful because if I wanted to talk about the blueness of something I could not do it without resorting to using the word blue itself. If I said that the sky refracts light within the ranges of 606–668 THz am I saying the same thing as stating that the sky is blue? While it's reasonable to assume that the sky is in fact blue from such a statement I am not asserting anything about my belief that it is blue. I could in fact believe that the sky is actually red or not even know what colors are ... as long as I was correct about the frequency ranges involved the statement would be true.

Ultimately something is blue if and only if that something is in fact blue.

How is this related to a discussion about region?

Well either you believe in something or you don't. You will never be able to solve deep philosophical questions like the meaning of blue or the existence of god using scientific methodologies because 1.) We can not even define God and therefore falsify it. 2) Atheism is defined as a *beleif*. Even if I could prove the existence of god - that proof would say nothing about the belief of Atheists.

[Enadail]

Actually that doesn't completely cover it because it doesn't address the question of what is blue... or what is sky. The question of how something became blue is not relevant in defining blue. It's impossible to explain the process by which the sky became blue without citing the fact that it is. The reason the sky is blue is because the sky is blue in the real world.

If we attempt to explain blue we get into trouble fast. What is blue? Blue is a color. What is a color? A color is the perception of a frequency of visible light? What is perception? ... Now supposing I could complete hierarchy. It wouldn't be all that helpful because if I wanted to talk about the blueness of something I could not do it without resorting to using the word blue itself. If I said that the sky refracts light within the ranges of 606–668 THz am I saying the same thing as stating that the sky is blue? While it's reasonable to assume that the sky is in fact blue from such a statement I am not asserting anything about my belief that it is blue. I could in fact believe that the sky is actually red or not even know what colors are ... as long as I was correct about the frequency ranges involved the statement would be true.

Ultimately something is blue if and only if that something is in fact blue.

How is this related to a discussion about region?

Well either you believe in something or you don't. You will never be able to solve deep philosophical questions like the meaning of blue or the existence of god using scientific methodologies because 1.) We can not even define God and therefore falsify it. 2) Atheism is defined as a *beleif*. Even if I could prove the existence of god - that proof would say nothing about the belief of Atheists.

Common, this is a silly argument. Everything is perception and labels. If I say the sky is neela (Hindi for blue) does that make it less blue? Or if I use a completely random word, but I'm consistent, that doesn't change anything about the perception, just the label.

But yet again, theists constantly try to define God... thus it is falsifiable. Religion is a series of definitions. But YET AGAIN, atheism IS NOT a belief. It is the LACK of a belief. I do not believe god doesn't exist. I reject the belief of god. But you're right, atheism says nothing about what you believe in.

[Farnhamia Redux]

Well, if you were a Roman that believed in the Roman pantheon, wouldn't it be common sense that you would want to erase every trace of Jesus you could?

No.

Pull out a history book and look at how the Romans approached religion. It's far more likely that Romans would have incorporated Christianity into their circle of belief, with perhaps communal places of worship, and perhaps personal shrines of devotion.

Exactly.

[FreeSatania]

Common, this is a silly argument. Everything is perception and labels. If I say the sky is neela (Hindi for blue) does that make it less blue? Or if I use a completely random word, but I'm consistent, that doesn't change anything about the perception, just the label.

But yet again, theists constantly try to define God... thus it is falsifiable. Religion is a series of definitions. But YET AGAIN, atheism IS NOT a belief. It is the LACK of a belief. I do not believe god doesn't exist. I reject the belief of god. But you're right, atheism says nothing about what you believe in.

I'm not taking issue with atheism it's a perfectly reasonable thing to believe. The reason I'm picking on this is because some atheist (and I'm not pointing any fingers) try to assert that theism is somehow less logical a belief system than atheism without defining either - or even attempting to define a god which they do not believe in. The result is a meandering argument where the goalposts keep shifting ...

I'm simply trying to point out that logic is not a useful tool in solving this type of problem. And that this type of problem is ultimately unsolvable.

I don't see why you think it's a silly argument when you basically seem to agree with it.

[Enadail]

I'm not taking issue with atheism it's a perfectly reasonable thing to believe. The reason I'm picking on this is because some atheist (and I'm not pointing any fingers) try to assert that theism is somehow less logical a belief system than atheism without defining either - or even attempting to define a god which they do not believe in. The result is a meandering argument where the goalposts keep shifting ...

I'm simply trying to point out that logic is not a useful tool in solving this type of problem. And that this type of problem is ultimately unsolvable.

I don't see why you think it's a silly argument when you basically seem to agree with it.

I probably didn't understand you. But I still do think its silly I can agree with silly!

But still, logic can answer this type of question. It just can't prove anything.

[Bassyruk]

Well, if you were a Roman that believed in the Roman pantheon, wouldn't it be common sense that you would want to erase every trace of Jesus you could?

No.

Pull out a history book and look at how the Romans approached religion. It's far more likely that Romans would have incorporated Christianity into their circle of belief, with perhaps communal places of worship, and perhaps personal shrines of devotion.

No, they would have, because Christianity would not allow Christians to worship the emperor, or any other gods. And, you had to do that. So, they would have tried to destroy Christianity.

[Kryozerkia]

I'm not taking issue with atheism it's a perfectly reasonable thing to believe. The reason I'm picking on this is because some atheist (and I'm not pointing any fingers) try to assert that theism is somehow less logical a belief system than atheism without defining either - or even attempting to define a god which they do not believe in. The result is a meandering argument where the goalposts keep shifting ...

I'm simply trying to point out that logic is not a useful tool in solving this type of problem. And that this type of problem is ultimately unsolvable.

I don't see why you think it's a silly argument when you basically seem to agree with it.

I probably didn't understand you. But I still do think its silly I can agree with silly!

But still, logic can answer this type of question. It just can't prove anything.

Even if it doesn't prove anything, the key is making that thing comprehensible. Without being able to understand, theism seems illogical because it asks that we suspend belief in favour of an unknown, unseeable entity, which may not even exist, without provide us a valid reason, or a adequate answer to the question of "why".

[Farnhamia Redux]

Well, if you were a Roman that believed in the Roman pantheon, wouldn't it be common sense that you would want to erase every trace of Jesus you could?

No.

Pull out a history book and look at how the Romans approached religion. It's far more likely that Romans would have incorporated Christianity into their circle of belief, with perhaps communal places of worship, and perhaps personal shrines of devotion.

No, they would have, because Christianity would not allow Christians to worship the emperor, or any other gods. And, you had to do that. So, they would have tried to destroy Christianity.

If Christians had sacrificed to the Emperor, they would not have been prosecuted. It was their exclusiveness, not that of the Romans, that got the persecutions started. All the State required was a simple nod to the official cult of the reigning Emperor and that was it.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

....

You know that whole computer thing that you're using? It's entire construction and function is based on that "quantum physics crap." The many worlds interpretation of quantum theory is falsifiable, but only in extreme conditions, like perhaps some seen at the LHC. It is, however, supported by science that we do have incredible evidence for, it's called quantum field theory, and it is the most accurate physical theory ever formulated by man, so the existence of other universes is vastly more likely than your extremely specific claims about the inerrancy of the Bible, and the very existence of the many worlds interpretation shows conclusively that one need not postulate a god to explain the universe.

I thought that the many worlds interpretation was inherently unfalsifiable because there is absolutely no communication between these universes and ours.

Certain theories predict that at high enough temperatures, there exists a sort of "bridge" between them. If mass disappears at the LHC, then that will give us evidence. If we never see any missing mass in any experiment, even in experiments involving machines many times more powerful than the LHC, that's good evidence that there are no multiple worlds or higher dimensions.

[Ashmoria]

nothing in the new testament is in any way convincing of the existence of a particular person.

As a bonus, a lot of the stories told about Jesus were told before Jesus' time about Hercules, Mithras and other mythical figures. Once again, religion demonstrates its willingness to borrow whole cloth from competing religions to shore up interest.

What's most interesting is that the Romans kept meticulous records during that time period. They have records of Pontius Pilate and the crucifixions he ordered, but no mention of Jesus, Jeshua, Joshua or any other such individual from Nazereth whose punishment fit the description of the Biblical Jesus. So no, it really isn't common sense that Jesus ever existed. Just that someone was eager to create a figure like Jesus for religious purposes.

Well, if you were a Roman that believed in the Roman pantheon, wouldn't it be common sense that you would want to erase every trace of Jesus you could?

no.

they didnt erase the records of the many other cults that existed in the empire.

[Grave_n_idle]

Without being able to understand, theism seems illogical because it asks that we suspend belief in favour of an unknown, unseeable entity, which may not even exist, without provide us a valid reason, or a adequate answer to the question of "why".

And, in fact, often attacks you for asking.

[Enadail]

No, they would have, because Christianity would not allow Christians to worship the emperor, or any other gods. And, you had to do that. So, they would have tried to destroy Christianity.

So... Christians won't follow local customs... so its the ROMANS fault that they persecuted the Christians... Heck, ever heard of "when in Rome..."... wait... we're in Rome!

Regardless, the Romans would have never completely wiped traces of Jesus, cuz they wouldn't care. They'd get rid of the troublemakers and leave the rest be. It'd be like going to India, shooting a cow in the middle of the street, and wondering why a mob is attacking you.

[Farnhamia Redux]

nothing in the new testament is in any way convincing of the existence of a particular person.

As a bonus, a lot of the stories told about Jesus were told before Jesus' time about Hercules, Mithras and other mythical figures. Once again, religion demonstrates its willingness to borrow whole cloth from competing religions to shore up interest.

What's most interesting is that the Romans kept meticulous records during that time period. They have records of Pontius Pilate and the crucifixions he ordered, but no mention of Jesus, Jeshua, Joshua or any other such individual from Nazereth whose punishment fit the description of the Biblical Jesus. So no, it really isn't common sense that Jesus ever existed. Just that someone was eager to create a figure like Jesus for religious purposes.

Well, if you were a Roman that believed in the Roman pantheon, wouldn't it be common sense that you would want to erase every trace of Jesus you could?

no.

they didnt erase the records of the many other cults that existed in the empire.[/quote]
Nor did anyone go about deliberately erasing the records of early Christianity. Except, you know, other early Christians. There are quite a few writings it would be fun to have that we only know about through the writings of the Church Fathers against them.

Roman religion was not organized enough to be an either/or proposition. Sacrificing to the Emperor was very like saying the Pledge of Allegiance in the US.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

Can we not just accept that athiests believe in atheism and theists believe in theism and neither are gonna have their minds changed by the other so it's pointless to argue? I don't see why people have to prove each other wrong considering it is not a factual based argument. It's all faith. I'd consider myself borderline agnostic from a catholic background but i don't argue with my background because some people realy do believe in it and enjoy believing in it

No, because I'm not closed-minded, I'm just not credulous. I'm willing to believe in a god, as soon as we get some reliable scientific evidence that one exists. Most arguments for the existence of god are philosophical. That is not good enough. One cannot rely upon philosophy to prove the existence of any factual claim, UNLESS that philosophy is the scientific method.

[Ashmoria]

Nor did anyone go about deliberately erasing the records of early Christianity. Except, you know, other early Christians. There are quite a few writings it would be fun to have that we only know about through the writings of the Church Fathers against them.

Roman religion was not organized enough to be an either/or proposition. Sacrificing to the Emperor was very like saying the Pledge of Allegiance in the US.

aye.

only the christians cared enough to destroy records of the other sects of christianity.

[Farnhamia Redux]

Nor did anyone go about deliberately erasing the records of early Christianity. Except, you know, other early Christians. There are quite a few writings it would be fun to have that we only know about through the writings of the Church Fathers against them.

Roman religion was not organized enough to be an either/or proposition. Sacrificing to the Emperor was very like saying the Pledge of Allegiance in the US.

aye.

only the christians cared enough to destroy records of the other sects of christianity.

I'd really like to read Origen's Hexapla, six versions of the Old Testament current in the 3rd century placed side by side. But noooo ... though I do hear someone's editing the fragments together.

[Kryozerkia]

Without being able to understand, theism seems illogical because it asks that we suspend belief in favour of an unknown, unseeable entity, which may not even exist, without provide us a valid reason, or a adequate answer to the question of "why".

And, in fact, often attacks you for asking.

Ah, yes, punishing curiosity, those, I find this applies more to religion itself than to just theism.

[Bassyruk]

Without being able to understand, theism seems illogical because it asks that we suspend belief in favour of an unknown, unseeable entity, which may not even exist, without provide us a valid reason, or a adequate answer to the question of "why".

And, in fact, often attacks you for asking.

Ah, yes, punishing curiosity, those, I find this applies more to religion itself than to just theism.

Well, aren't you atheists trying to punish theists for believing in a God?

[Farnhamia Redux]

And, in fact, often attacks you for asking.

Ah, yes, punishing curiosity, those, I find this applies more to religion itself than to just theism.

Well, aren't you atheists trying to punish theists for believing in a God?

You're being punished for believing in God .. how, exactly?

[Grave_n_idle]

Well, aren't you atheists trying to punish theists for believing in a God?

No.

Indeed, being a tiny minority of the population - albeit, one that inspires disproportionate wrath - it's unlikely atheists are punishing anyone for anything.