Expressing Atheism

[Creed Malay]

They *can't * look at its genitals,  it's too spry.

Respect my metaphor, damn you.

[space boy]

I'm sure everybody got your point, and I pretty much agree. Everyone who has ever posted in this topic is a total moron, apart from creed who has opened our eyes with this witty anecdote. But as thought provoking this little story might be, it isn't a perfect analogy. I won't go into detail because nobody reads posts that are longer than 5 sentences so why waste time. Why can't you all just admit that atheists are right with a chance of 99,9999%.

[Stupot]

Why don't Topsy and Henrietta just bring in a new, female cat.
If Tuesday Fucks its brains out, then I will happily hang up my atheist cape and go on a spending spree at the local Gideons outlet.

[MrColossal]

I don't believe they even have a cat in the first place... THAT is the point.

[voh]

Say you lock Tuesday in a steel soundproof box containing a radioactive substance, a geiger counter and a vial of gas set to be released when the geiger counter detects the radioactive substance decaying. There's a 50/50 chance of the gas being released.

Is Tuesday alive or not? Is this verifiable without compromising the situation within the box? Is the outcome such, if verified, that it was caused by the compromise?

And if it is unverifiable if Tuesday's alive, does God even exist?

I am so confused right now...

[Darth Mandarb]

I don't understand why everybody gets so up in arms over this.

Creed's metaphor is, in my opinion, perfect for this particular debate.

Atheists - you aren't ANY more correct than the religious people are.

Religion People - you aren't ANY more correct than the atheists are.

Atheists - you can't prove (no matter how you try) that [a] God doesn't exist.

Religion People - you can't prove (no matter how strong your faith) that [a] God exists.

It's nothing more than a matter of personal opinion.  One person's personal opinion is no stronger/weaker than anothers.

Everybody stop thinking you're better/right and just agree to disagree.

[Khris]

I'm not sure if you're referring to me, too. Just want to point out that I didn't try to disprove God. My position on this is simple: IMO it's very very likely that there's no God. (The chance that there's a God as described by the bible is even smaller, of course. Way smaller. Like 0.)

My point is, it's the religious people who make an extraordinary claim. So the burden of proof is on them. IMO it's simply not necessary to (try to) disprove God.

Seconding Eric, Creed's metaphor is perfect for a debate between two believers who believe in different Gods.

Being an atheist is different. Religious people often claim, atheists are just like them, but their god is science. But that's simply not true, there's a big difference.
Religious people believe in things that can't be proven nor disproven. Inexplicable things are miracles, end of story.
Atheists "believe" in things that can only be disproven, so called "scientific theories", like gravity or evolution. The key point being: every honest atheist/scientist would immediately ditch the whole, elaborate theory, if there's a singe piece of conclusive evidence against it. (Compare that attitude to religious beliefs!)
Plus, miracles are viewed as simply another phenomenon that can't be explained yet.

If the earth were suddenly populated by religious fundamentalists only, all scientific advancement would come to a screeching halt.
-Look! I've discovered some unknown [insert scientific term]! Let's research it!
-Why bother? God did it. Let's pray.
-Oh, right.

[Darth Mandarb]

I wasn't specifically saying that to you, just to everybody in general.

But the argument you made in your last post does prove the my point quite well.

To you, with your beliefs, what you said makes total sense to you.  That doesn't, no matter how obvious it is to you, make it "correct" and/or "accurate".  It's your belief, not somebody elses.  However, that doesn't mean you're "wrong" and/or "inaccurate" either.

For every conceivable argument an atheist can make against religion, a religious person can counter just as effectively based on their beliefs.  To an atheist, the religious person's arguments seem foolish and naive.  The religious person will think the atheists beliefs are the same.

So all the atheists on this board can make all the claims, state their beliefs, argue their points and the only thing it'll accomplish is making other atheists agree with you.  The religious people aren't going to start denying their god!  Just as, conversely, the religious people can argue their faith till they're blue in the face and all you godless heathens will just call them stupid

Seriously ... there's no winning this debate.  It is, however, a fun debate to take part in.

[Khris]

I can see and understand your point perfectly. That's doesn't change the fact that you obviously fail to see or understand mine.

For every conceivable argument an atheist can make against religion, a religious person can counter just as effectively based on their beliefs.  To an atheist, the religious person's arguments seem foolish and naive.  The religious person will think the atheists beliefs are the same.

The mistake you're making here is that you're putting religious and atheistic arguments/viewpoints/etc. on the same level, suggesting they're competing with each other like two different, contradicting sets of beliefs.
However, as I've tried to explain in my previous post, there's a fundamental difference between the two world-views.

The claims of an atheist are logical, rational conclusions based on observable facts. They can only be disproved.
The claims of religious people simply are not; they are extraordinary, supernatural claims specifically designed so that they can neither be proven nor falsified.

If the atheist (or hypothetical "perfectly atheist" scientist) encounters something inexplicable, he goes "I don't know the mechanisms behind this phenoma yet. Let's find out!"

To a truly religious person, there's no need to find a rational explanation. In the end, it's God's work, end of story.

Just like the previous example: the atheist doesn't argue about the form, color or existence of the cat's genitalia; to him there's simply no cat to begin with. Instead, he is trying to find a rational explanation for the phenomena that led Topsy and Henrietta to believe there's a cat.

[Darth Mandarb]

I, obviously, see the point you're trying to make ... I just don't agree with it.

It's not a mistake to put religion and atheism on the same level.  The debate going on in this thread is about comparing Atheism and Religion.  So, as far as this thread is concerned, they are on the same level.  They are what is being compared/debated.

You're so sure that what you believe is correct that you trivialize other's beliefs.

To a truly religious person, there's no need to find a rational explanation. In the end, it's God's work, end of story.

This statement totally proves my point.  You're extremely generalizing religious people.  My father is a religious person.  He believes in god and I've NEVER once heard him cast off something so casually.  In fact, I've met very few religious people like that.  A belief in a religion doesn't, by default, make somebody ignorant and/or close minded.  There are a LOT of ignorant and/or close minded religious fanatics sure, but there are just as many ignorant and close minded atheists too.

Me personally; I tend to lean more towards science than religion.  However, I think it's a bit odd to think that we humans are the highest form of life out there.  Sure, I don't have any solid, scientific, proof of God's existence ... but it's a tad naive (even foolish) to think that just 'cause I can't prove it, (s)he/it/God doesn't exist.

I don't argue for or against either side of this debate.  Rather I'm stating my opinion that this is a debate that will, 14 pages in, achieve nothing.

I look at it like this:  If, after death, there is "nothing" and you just simply end... then the point/proof will never be given 'cause it's just over after you die so there'd be no "I told you so!" possible.  However, if there is a heaven/hell and believing in a God gets you into Heaven rather than burning in eternal fire and damnation just 'cause I couldn't prove the big guy existed ... well ... it seems a safe bet to go with a God.

We're all gonna find out someday...

[Khris]

Precisely because atheism and religion were being put on the same level in this thread, I provided simple, logical arguments why this shouldn't be done.

I'm aware that I was generalizing religious people (and atheists, btw.), but it's necessary to do that to get my point across, otherwise this debate would have to take all different kinds of religious flavors into account, distinguish them from one another and so on. This would probably take 14 pages, if not many more.
I don't consider religious people as being close-minded or irrational in general, and I'm aware of the fact that there are many religious scientists.
But, and I'm repeating myself, this debate isn't about male cat vs. female cat, it is (or should be) about cat vs. no cat.

This thread is about expressing atheism, so when Cyrus barged in, spilling his textbook religious sermons about how "even us atheists will be forgiven", I decided to do exactly that, express my atheism.

Plus, I don't see how it's a bad thing to trivialize other's beliefs. To an atheist, believing in god is not different in any way from believing in mermaids, unicorns or Santa Claus.
Dawkins is criticized for talking about religion without having a theological education. The thing is, theology isn't even a subject in a scientific sense, like marine biology or astronomy.
From a strictly scientific viewpoint, theology is no formal field of education.

Your last paragraph is basically the same as Pascal's Wager. Going with God is not a safe bet at all. See it explained: http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Pascal%27s_Wager

[voh]

So all the atheists on this board can make all the claims, state their beliefs, argue their points and the only thing it'll accomplish is making other atheists agree with you.  The religious people aren't going to start denying their god!

I'd settle for one specific religious person to stop saying atheists are immoral, without question afraid of death and definitely going to hell until we embrace Christ.

Really, I don't aim all that high. I'm easily pleased.

[Babar]

You're all missing the point of Creed's story! In reality, Topsy is my beautiful, chocolate coloured labrador, and all that matters is you rub her belly when she flops on the floor in front of you.

I'm curious why non-religious people care when someone tells them "You are going to burn in hell for eternity!". I mean, if you don't believe in the existence of the place, why should it hurt you? The best reply would be "You are going to rot in mud for eternity!".

This being the real world, where atheists would not have any connection to any God, real world stuff is more important. Calling someone ignorant and close-minded is probably worse than telling someone "You are going to hell!", although one would probably be a good reply to the other. Then again, you'd be a very strange person to be hanging about that kind of people so much that you get told that you are going to hell so often.

[Nacho]

Who of the non-believers is scared of hell?

[Nikolas]

So all the atheists on this board can make all the claims, state their beliefs, argue their points and the only thing it'll accomplish is making other atheists agree with you.  The religious people aren't going to start denying their god!

I'd settle for one specific religious person to stop saying atheists are immoral, without question afraid of death and definitely going to hell until we embrace Christ.

Really, I don't aim all that high. I'm easily pleased.

Oh there are such religious people actually! I've met a few, online and in real life. It's not amazingly hard to find.
Not all are attempting to save the rest of us.
Not all consider that the atheist are an awful "species"

But really, atheists should stop projecting so much as well.

In all, religious in one side, atheists in the other, the thread dead...

[Babar]

That is what I mean! Nobody! Or at least, nobody should be. So then why does it matter?


DAMN YOU! DAMN YOU ALL TO HELL!

[Akatosh]

I think I'm going to believe in the ancient Egypt gods. At least, you know where you are with THESE guys, and you can argue for or against them in the same fashion as you can for any other belief. Also, some questions just don't occur if you have gods like that.

Q: How can they allow suffering to get in the world?
A: Duh, because they HATE you.

See? 

[Tuomas]

I don't think you can just choose to start believing in something. If so, it's not real at least, but fake belief, and thus makes no sense.

[Ashen]

This turned out to be a longer post than I meant, and while I was typing it, Tuomas made one of my points far more concisely then me...

I'm curious why non-religious people care when someone tells them "You are going to burn in hell for eternity!". I mean, if you don't believe in the existence of the place, why should it hurt you?

It's not so much being scared of the idea of going to hell, or having your feelings hurt by their opinion of you, it's more finding them forcing their beliefs on to you in the first place offensive. At least, I think that's what it is, I can honestly say I don't think I've ever been told I'm going to hell for not believing. The closest I think was when I was about 9/10, in the playground, when someone 'tricked' me into saying "I 8 (hate) god". I said something like "so what if I do?" (at least, that's how I remember it now, I know I was agnostic even then), they looked a bit startled and said "if you hate God, you die". I did mention we were 9 or 10, right?

"You're going to rot in mud" seems like a slightly childish response to me, it has the same slightly patronising, 'so there' sound (depending on context, obviously). Surely the better reply would be "No. No, I am not."

Can you actually choose what/if you believe? I said waaay back on page 2 that I class myself as an atheist, but I'm not sure how much of that is a choice. I don't believe in God or gods in any form I've yet heard of (and as far as I can remember never have, even when I believed in Santa and the Tooth Fairy). From that I took a conscious step (but only within the last couple of years) from 'not believing in the presence of' to 'believing in the absense of'. So, OK 'athesist' is a choice (but not quite a 'rational' one, it just 'felt' more right), 'agnostic' wasn't. The initial lack of belief, however, wasn't a rational decision any more than a deep and profound faith in whatever would be - you can probably rationalise it after the fact, but it's something that's either there or not. I could shop around and choose a religion that works for me, and maybe I'd become a better person because of it; but, barring some life-changing epiphany along the way, I'd only be a follower, not a 'believer'. And I definitely choose not to be a part of something that favours paying lip-service to some arbitary rules, over trying to be a better perSon on your own terms. Again, I'll paraphrase/misquote the Douglas Adams interview I mentioned last time - "If there is a god, and he's swayed by the 'fingers-crossed', 'just to be on the safe side' sort of belief, I think I'd choose not to worship him anyway." (Which, reading into it, is also one the arguments against Pascal's Wager - does saying "I believe' just to be safe, actually count?)


While it might've shifted towards it (perhaps inevitably), I don't think this thread was originally meant as 'Atheism vs. Religion: which is right". It was originally about expressing your atheism - and I think expressing your faith is a valid offshoot of that. The ' debate' may never be settled, but so what? Unless it devolves to everyone yelling 'You're going to Hell!', 'No we're not, you're just deluded fools!', the discussion itself is interesting enough to me.
(The most interesting and intelligent posts seem to be on the 'side' of atheists, but then I'm biased )

[voh]

I'm curious why non-religious people care when someone tells them "You are going to burn in hell for eternity!". I mean, if you don't believe in the existence of the place, why should it hurt you? The best reply would be "You are going to rot in mud for eternity!".

Because 'hell' is for bad people. If all atheists are going to hell, they're bad people. So, if a religious person tells me I'll be going to hell because I don't believe, they're judging me based on one simple fact. It doesn't matter whether hell exists or not, what matters is the connotation the theist places it in. Which is that I'm a bad person and will be spending time in eternal damnation for my wicked ways. And I don't like that. It actually pisses me off. Some atheists are assholes. Yes. Some theists are assholes. Equally yes. There's no difference there. Assholes are everywhere, in every religion and every culture.

I try to be tolerant, and respectful towards other's beliefs, but I do question them, yes. I, however, try not to offend anyone because it's everyone's personal choice what to believe.

And then, what I get back, is usually offensive in a multitude of ways. I'm immoral because I don't follow God. I'm without principles. I have no hopes or dreams. It's this hypocrisy I don't like. As an atheist I'm not allowed to say I think it's stupid to believe in something unverifiable (for example), but as a religious person, they're more than allowed (mostly from their own viewpoint) to tell me I'll be burning in hell together with murderers, rapists and megalomaniac dictators.

Does that sound fair to you?

That's why it annoys me. The meaning it carries (from THEIR religion) makes it an insult.

edit: Addendum!

Oh there are such religious people actually! I've met a few, online and in real life. It's not amazingly hard to find.
Not all are attempting to save the rest of us.
Not all consider that the atheist are an awful "species"

Nikolas, you quoted it yourself, and I'll quote it again.

I'd settle for !! one specific religious person !! to stop saying atheists are immoral, without question afraid of death and definitely going to hell until we embrace Christ.

See between the double exclamation marks? Yeah. ONE specific theist. And since all the things I listed (immorality, fear of death, etc.) were mentioned by Cyrus, that was who I was aiming for. As my previous post states, I'm not unaware of the fact that there's respectful theists as well - and my respect for them, because at least with them discussion and conversation is possible.