Atheism and religious hate

[Kilobugya]

Also, you can prove elvis is dead.

No, you can't. Even if you show a body that is identified visually and by DNA testing, how can you prove it's a clone, a secret twin, a fake body made by God or aliens, ... ?

You can't prove God doesnt exist.

You can't prove anything. Hypothesis space is so huge that you can always find countless hypothesis behind anything. You can't prove the moon isn't made of cheese. You can't prove we are not living in the Matrix. You can't prove Santa Claus or Harry Potter aren't real. You can't prove the universe won't collapse if you don't give me $10 000 by tomorrow.

But while you cannot prove hypothesis about the real world, you can use the tools reason give us to tell apart hypothesis, reject some and keep others. Those tools are Occam's Razor (the simplest hypothesis is usually the best, and to claim a complicated hypothesis is true, you need lots of evidence backing it), evidence gathering and induction (every time an apple felled from a tree, it felled on the ground in a time that was the square root of its height, we can assume it'll hold for future apples) and falsifiability (if an hypothesis allows you to make predictions, then every time those predictions come true, your hypothesis is strengthened). The God hypothesis is absurdly complicated, it has no backing evidence and fails induction (all religious belief of the first 30k years of humanity, counting only Homo Sapiens, appears to be wrong), and it doesn't make any real falsifiable prediction (which is very bad), and the few ones it did (like the giant flood and Noah's Ark, or the 7 days creation) it ends being wrong.

So while we can't have any formal proof there is no god, all the evidence we can gather, and all the tests we can make to tell apart good from bad hypothesis end up strongly against the god hypothesis. Exactly like for the Matrix, Harry Potter, astrology, homeopathy, and still living Elvis hypothesis. So reason tells us to reject them all as vehemently.

[Kilobugya]

I can assume you're not a squirrel with a magic keyboard because such things do not happen/are not known to exist.

But you can't prove it. You can only assume it, because there is no evidence it does exist, and because it violates the otherwise coherent way the universe appears to work. Exactly the same of the God hypothesis.

As most religions do not have gods which are scientifically observable, this is very much different from whether God exists or not.

Most religions do have gods which are scientifically observable, because they have miracles. A miracle is God violating the laws of physics, and that's observable. Too bad no miracle was ever observed. But it is true that modern religion tends to lower their claim on miracle, the more science progress and can explain/observe things, the more the religion are forced to retract their claims. Christians of 500 years ago believed Noah's Ark and the flood were reals. Nowadays, only insane people like Sarah Palin believe in that, most christian will tell you "it was a sapient tale".

[Kilobugya]

Elvis was mortal in every way but his music

How do you know that ?

Give me some real hard evidence that God does not exist, and perhaps your anology will make sense.

Tale 1 : the aliens send to Earth an immortal robot that appears to be human on all account. The robot makes music that is way above what most man can do. Then the aliens stage the death of the robot, providing an artificial body grown in a lab.

Tale 2 : God sends his son to Earth. He makes a few miracle, and then he is crucified. People witness that Jesus is dead, but then he then raises from the dead.

You're asking me to prove tale 2 is false, well, prove me tale 1 is false.

Both are exactly at the same level : they violate Occam's Razor, they violate the way the universe usually work, and they have no evidence backing them. Both of them should be rejected equally.

[Kilobugya]

Atheism is based entirely on what we know, disregarding what we don't. No assumptions.

Well, actually, you can't do anything without any assumptions at all. You need something to start building upon. In maths it's called axioms, otherwise it's called assumptions.

Atheism requires a few assumptions that you can't build from nothing. It requires the assumption of Occam's Razor, it requires the assumption that things tend to repeat themselves, it requires the assumption that your senses, while error-prone, are somehow related to reality.

But those are assumptions every makes in daily life, including theists. When you're thirsty, you take a glass of water, put water from the sink or a bottle in it, and drink it. That requires many assumptions : assumption water will make less thirsty like it did in the past, assumption that the thing coming from the tap/bottle is water, assumption that it'll actually flow in the glass due to gravity like it did before, ...

The strength of atheism is that it doesn't make any additional assumptions over what people already do in their daily life (basically, first-order logic, Occam's Razor and the fact the universe is lawful).

[Zottistan]

I suppose. But if they convert someone during these ceremonies with their broader-than-usual preaching, the people are only going to leave again when they start attending mass regularly and see the usual style. And why should the church alter it preaching to include people who the church is opposed to? They are opposed to abortion, so surely it's in their best interests to preach against abortion rather than try to convert people who are pro-choice? Is the purpose of a religion not to spread it's doctrine rather than itself? Are they not more interested in keeping people out of hell than expanding their clientele?

The issue is, well the issue. That is the issues that church considers important. And yes, many parts of the church feel passionately about abortions. However, when did Jesus talk about abortions? For that matter, when did he talk about gay marriage? You can understand that there are some points that the church considers more important than others. And it's a bad church that talks about abortions every Sunday.

The point isn't about what Jesus actually talked about, it was about the church preaching its doctrine, which is not necessarily the same thing as what Jesus preached. Proof for this can be found in the fact that we have so many different takes on Christianity.
Different things matter more to different groups within the church.

Another point is to note that it's not abortion that prevents one from going to heaven in most mainstream Christian doctrines. It is widely assumed that everyone is at a default position of sinful. So basically no-one's getting to heaven as is. No amount of not aborting children is going to save you. It's only though the resurrection of Jesus that people are saved. And then from that 'salvation', no amount of aborting can stop you going to heaven.

Sorry, I'm not very well-read on that whole area. I thought that Jesus was already resurrected? Or is it symbolic resurrection?

Obviously, it now depends on what is involved in gaining that salvation. But it doesn't really involve abortions at all. Yes, it might help if you don't regularly wander around aborting women, but that's not the key message. So preaching against abortion may be useful if people are really unsure about it, or if they want the guidance, but really you're aiming to encourage people to get that salvation.

Again, I'm sure there are differences in the importance of the issue from group to group.

And I'm not sure what you mean about keeping people out of hell vs expanding clientelle. Surely doing one automatically means one is doing the other?

Not necessarily. Sort of a "rose by any other name" situation. One can be kept out of hell without being a Christian, yes?

[SD_Film Artists]

Assumptions, both sides have them,

Atheism is based entirely on what we know, disregarding what we don't. No assumptions.

No, that's called science. Atheism isn't science, although it is arguably a better friend to science than organised religion is.

[Seperates]

I don't persecute the religious. I just find it to be easier to be intellectually honest with myself if I am a de facto atheist. I am not strong enough to convince myself there is a "greater power" when no evidence has provided for it.

[Phocidaea]

I'm an agnostic and I hate, hate, hate, hate, hate, hate, hate, HATE atheists who can't respect peoples' right to religious freedom. I'm not religious and probably never will be, but why does that give me a right to ridicule, attack, and insult those who are?

If you're an atheist who attacks all religious people as being bigots, ignorant, or not accepting of differences... you need to walk to the nearest mirror, look at yourself in it, and ask "Am I really any better than them?"

[Zottistan]

I'm an agnostic and I hate, hate, hate, hate, hate, hate, hate, HATE atheists who can't respect peoples' right to religious freedom. I'm not religious and probably never will be, but why does that give me a right to ridicule, attack, and insult those who are?

If you're an atheist who attacks all religious people as being bigots, ignorant, or not accepting of differences... you need to walk to the nearest mirror, look at yourself in it, and ask "Am I really any better than them?"

Well, you have a right to insult anybody you want. As long as you're prepared to be insulted back,

[Mavorpen]

I'm an agnostic and I hate, hate, hate, hate, hate, hate, hate, HATE atheists who can't respect peoples' right to religious freedom. I'm not religious and probably never will be, but why does that give me a right to ridicule, attack, and insult those who are?

If you're an atheist who attacks all religious people as being bigots, ignorant, or not accepting of differences... you need to walk to the nearest mirror, look at yourself in it, and ask "Am I really any better than them?"

What are you talking about? Ridicule, insults, and verbal attacks have nothing to do with respecting other people's right to religious freedom. Until atheists are knocking down church doors and burning churches down, you're whining over nothing.

[Seperates]

I'm an agnostic and I hate, hate, hate, hate, hate, hate, hate, HATE atheists who can't respect peoples' right to religious freedom. I'm not religious and probably never will be, but why does that give me a right to ridicule, attack, and insult those who are?

If you're an atheist who attacks all religious people as being bigots, ignorant, or not accepting of differences... you need to walk to the nearest mirror, look at yourself in it, and ask "Am I really any better than them?"

I completely respect their freedom to be religious. Just as I expect them to respect my freedom to be blasphemous and irreligious.

[Ovisterra]

If you're an atheist who attacks all religious people as being bigots, ignorant, or not accepting of differences... you need to walk to the nearest mirror, look at yourself in it, and ask "Am I really any better than them?"

Fuck yes. Not only am I sexy bastard, but I'm a scientific sexy bastard.

[Mavorpen]

If you're an atheist who attacks all religious people as being bigots, ignorant, or not accepting of differences... you need to walk to the nearest mirror, look at yourself in it, and ask "Am I really any better than them?"

Fuck yes. Not only am I sexy bastard, but I'm a scientific sexy bastard.

Ovi, stop stating the obvious.

[Ovisterra]

Fuck yes. Not only am I sexy bastard, but I'm a scientific sexy bastard.

Ovi, stop stating the obvious.

Sorry.

[Seperates]

If you're an atheist who attacks all religious people as being bigots, ignorant, or not accepting of differences... you need to walk to the nearest mirror, look at yourself in it, and ask "Am I really any better than them?"

Fuck yes. Not only am I sexy bastard, but I'm a scientific sexy bastard.

Evidence?

[Ovisterra]

Fuck yes. Not only am I sexy bastard, but I'm a scientific sexy bastard.

Evidence?

How bout no.

In other news, they've taken "gullible" out of the dictionary.

[Mavorpen]

Evidence?

How bout no.

In other news, they've taken "gullible" out of the dictionary.

Me: HOLY SHIT, I CAN'T BELIEVE...

[Esternial]

Guys, seriously.

Back on topic, if there's still any left, or take it to the Eternal Thread.

[Seperates]

Evidence?

How bout no.

In other news, they've taken "gullible" out of the dictionary.

Lies! It's obviously a conspiracy.

Honestly though I wasn't even thinking that my post even dignified a response. And it was just meant to be somewhat ironic.

[Ovisterra]

Guys, seriously.

Back on topic, if there's still any left, or take it to the Eternal Thread.

My sexy body is always on topic.

But yeah, point taken.

[Seperates]

Guys, seriously.

Back on topic, if there's still any left, or take it to the Eternal Thread.

Yes, mom.

[Norstal]

By now I am sure you are wondering what the purpose of this thread is. My question to you is have you seen this coming tide? do you think it is a good thing or a bad thing? why or why not?

I'm an atheist and I kinda see where you're coming from.

Thing is, this is the fault of every sensible Christians/Muslims/etc. for not stopping their extremist brethren. I'm not going to argue (successfully) with extremist Christians. I can't convince them. It's up to moderate Christians to stop their own extremists from representing them. If you say you don't support what the WBC or every other crazy preacher out there, then fight them. Show that they're not true Christians or whatever.

But, I rarely see this ever happening. Even in NSG, moderate and otherwise rational Christians almost never correct their extremists. Being passive means you support them. In contrast, I see some atheists arguing with other atheists when they're wrong. However, since atheism isn't a dogma, I don't hold them to the same standards as I would with Muslims or Christians. It's a given that not all atheists are the same. And whilst it's also true that not all religious people are the same, they are bound to a dogma that is almost universal to that religion.

[Norstal]

I'm an agnostic and I hate, hate, hate, hate, hate, hate, hate, HATE atheists who can't respect peoples' right to religious freedom. I'm not religious and probably never will be, but why does that give me a right to ridicule, attack, and insult those who are?

If you're an atheist who attacks all religious people as being bigots, ignorant, or not accepting of differences... you need to walk to the nearest mirror, look at yourself in it, and ask "Am I really any better than them?"

There's also the problem of what an insult is. I see some posters get insulted when someone tries to have a rational discourse with them. To give an example, an atheist will get angry when someone explains what a god is, thinking they're trying to convert them. Theists also get angry when others try to explain that a universe can exist without a god.

I don't think this is a problem at all. If you feel they're insulting you, report them to moderation. If this is the real world, then I can somewhat understand.

[Sociobiology]

I'm an agnostic and I hate, hate, hate, hate, hate, hate, hate, HATE atheists who can't respect peoples' right to religious freedom. I'm not religious and probably never will be, but why does that give me a right to ridicule, attack, and insult those who are?

because you live in a country where you have a right to ridicule and insult ANYTHING.
Religion is nothing special.

If you're an atheist who attacks all religious people as being bigots, ignorant, or not accepting of differences... you need to walk to the nearest mirror, look at yourself in it, and ask "Am I really any better than them?"

pot and kettle.

Also I have never killed, assaulted, or advocated the the death or assault of anyone for disagreeing with my position. If most religious institution could say the same I would have less of problem with them. Absolute morality is dangerous, because it can justify any cruelty or harm.

[Czechanada]

I'm an agnostic and I hate, hate, hate, hate, hate, hate, hate, HATE atheists who can't respect peoples' right to religious freedom. I'm not religious and probably never will be, but why does that give me a right to ridicule, attack, and insult those who are?

because you live in a country where you have a right to ridicule and insult ANYTHING.
Religion is nothing special.

If you're an atheist who attacks all religious people as being bigots, ignorant, or not accepting of differences... you need to walk to the nearest mirror, look at yourself in it, and ask "Am I really any better than them?"

pot and kettle.

Also I have never killed, assaulted, or advocated the the death or assault of anyone for disagreeing with my position. If most religious institution could say the same I would have less of problem with them. Absolute morality is dangerous, because it can justify any cruelty or harm.

Only Obi-Wan deals in absolutes.