Why are you Atheist? page 137

3537 posts

Flag Post

I would have chosen Carl Sagan over anyone else. Darwin/Galileo were just informing people of theories that happened to go against religious teachings.

 
Flag Post

Lol I like how TheBSG, a MODERATOR, resorts directly to ad hominem as soon as his ATHEIST beliefs are questioned.

This is PROOF that all atheists suck at debating.

Think about it: If atheism was so “logical”, why are there so few of them?

 
Flag Post
No, I said Darwin’s agnosticism is atheism. Most theists are agnostic. The concepts are mutually exclusive, it’s just that all non-theistic agnostics are implicit atheists. Explicit atheism isn’t even a positive claim. Explicit Gnostic Atheism is the only case in which a claim is being posited by a non-theist. Individuals use colloquial definitions and applications of these terms, but those can be measured technically as I have done so every time the mistake is made on these forums.

Fair enough, although I wasn’t really talking about Darwin’s agnosticism specifically. I probably should have done a better job specifying that.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by ExemplaryReturns:

Lol I like how TheBSG, a MODERATOR, resorts directly to ad hominem as soon as his ATHEIST beliefs are questioned.

This is PROOF that all atheists suck at debating.

Think about it: If atheism was so “logical”, why are there so few of them?

Because you likely live in America, where there is a geographic area (Bible belt) named after the irregular number of Christians, where the public education systems can’t live up to other countries. You don’t have any other country to base your knowledge off of. Go to Norway or Singapore, learn a few things about the population there.

If your religion is so strong, why do you have to worry so much about basic knowledge destroying it? I don’t have a problem with Buddhism because they teach that if their religion goes against discoveries of the natural world, go with the discoveries of the natural world.

Plus, you have no real argument to debate here.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by issendorf:
Though why bring him up, I have no idea.

Because he arguably the highest profile atheist in the world.

But he is still alive. As such he is subject to human limitations, and cannot be the ‘god of atheists’, as was claimed by ExemplaryReturns. No being subject to strictly human limitations can be considered a god by definition, really. Darwin works better precisely because he is dead, and thus not subject to human limitations.

Originally posted by ExemplaryReturns:

Also, I know that none of you atheists will respond to this because you would have to examine your own beliefs, and atheists are incapable of detailed self-examination because Richard Dawkins (the god of atheism) wont let them.

I don’t really follow how Exemplary is claiming in this post that anyone, no matter how high profile, can be seen to be a god, when they have the same physical and mental limitations as the people who are supposed to be worshipping that individual. At best you have a celebrity, and yet we (in general) don’t have a tendency to pray to celebrities that they might grant our pleas.

I’m assuming Exemplary does however, as that’s about the only way that statement could make sense – if to Exemplary, being a celebrity is the same as being divine, and as such gives the celebrity automatic mental powers above and beyond other humans.

 
This post has been removed by an administrator or moderator
 
Flag Post

You guys do realize this guy is trolling, right?

 
Flag Post
But he is still alive. As such he is subject to human limitations, and cannot be the ‘god of atheists’, as was claimed by ExemplaryReturns. No being subject to strictly human limitations can be considered a god by definition, really. Darwin works better precisely because he is dead, and thus not subject to human limitations.

His tongue was firmly in cheek when he said that.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Darkscanner:

You guys do realize this guy is trolling, right?

Yup. People address trolls way too much on these forums.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by TheBSG:

Of course no one who disagrees with me would address my post. Every time someone on these discussions makes an astute point or asks a question about religion that pretty much reveals the convictions of others for what they are, the threads die for a month until someone makes a 2 sentence post that is a lot easier to disagree with.

- What makes the stories in your ancient textbook compelling in light and contrast to other non-scientific mythologies, as well as actual scientific discoveries?

- How do you distinguish your beliefs that lack no origins from other beliefs? Why don’t you believe every other self-reliant claim?

- How do you reconcile the uncertainties and disagreements within your own mythology and religious institutions?

- What is the actual practical application of your beliefs? Is the world really consistent with what you believe, or are you begging the question? What changes about science, technology, history, and philosophy because of your convictions? Are these compelling answers, or attractive ones? Does that difference matter?

- What experiences do you have that can be distinguished from the experiences I have that make your perspective somehow more enlightened?

Basically, all I want is for one single religious person to take responsibility for the beliefs they have instead of responding with questions, or creating an incredibly special circumstance comparable to a magician only being able to do tricks while your back is turned.

1. So do you have religion or Christianity alone in your fiery crosshairs?

It would also help if you specified what scientific discoveries (that aren’t theories) you are speaking of.

2. So by this you mean like how people try not to murder each other because that idea originated from discovering that murdering people isn’t a good idea? Also, religions have their own moral codes (10 Commandments, etc etc), the same way the “Atheist Church” (remember, this is only SOME atheists) has a moral code of not having a moral code that wasn’t made by themselves.

3. This question is literally impossible to answer as you didn’t elaborate as to WHAT uncertainties and disagreements that you want to be addressed.

4. Nothing has to change about anything. The difference between reasonable religion and reasonable atheism is solely believing in God vs not believing in God.

5. As if every religious person claims to have an enlightened perspective. If you want to talk to that group, get an interview with Hollywood or something.

6. I take full responsibility for my beliefs as you do with yours, according to my own understanding of what you’re trying to say.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by karmakoolkid:

FACE-PALM….that nearly caused me a concussion.

Originally posted by PatriotSaint:

facepalm

That isn’t my point!

Some atheists make atheism just like a religion.

If atheism is so much better, why are some people trying to make it function like a religion? With “expansionist goals and a wildly zealot congregation”.

If you want people to accept you for being “better” than “those religious hicks” than then act the part. You don’t need to try to convert people to the “Church of the God of Not Being God”.


I’m gonna go waaaaaay out on a tiny twig here and say the “YOU” being referred by ya is ALSO that (very likely,,,VERY SMALL) SOME PEOPLE ya somehow believe is sterotypically REPRESENATIVE of the whole?
For some people, atheism means NOTHING more than not believing in a god, and people who do more than that embarrass them and give them a bad name.

Aha.
So, YOU manage to blow a huge hole in YOUR VERY OWN "arguement.
YUP…it is indeed ONLY SOME atheists that behave the way YOU & I strongly believe they should NOT do so.
But, whatyagonnado?
That’s life.
That’s ppl.


You can believe that God does not exist and others can believe that God does exist, and if you really are better you will prove it.

W H Y ?
Why should any atheist do this?
Are YOU saying they should do it in order to support YOUR bias about atheists?
Why are YOU so intent on having “the tail wag the dog”?
Do YOU not realize that most any “group” is gonna have those “rotten eggs” in it?


Otherwise, so much for “equality”.

Ya know…from YOUR display above,,,
MY opinion is: YOU haven’t much of a clue as to what equality actually is.

“You” as in those who I said were “some atheists”. The end.

Back to the real discussion.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by PatriotSaint:

“You” as in those who I said were “some atheists”. The end.

Back to the real discussion.

WHAT discussion?
YOU didn’t do ANYTHING to defend YOUR point….whatever the hell it is.

I saw YOUR point as being: _I think atheists suck because SOME OF THEM are “bad”.

As I said, THERE WILL ALWAYS BE SOME BAD APPLES IN EVERY BARREL.
I suppose THAT also includes YOURS….eh?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by karmakoolkid:
Originally posted by PatriotSaint:

“You” as in those who I said were “some atheists”. The end.

Back to the real discussion.

WHAT discussion?
YOU didn’t do ANYTHING to defend YOUR point….whatever the hell it is.

I saw YOUR point as being: _I think atheists suck because SOME OF THEM are “bad”.


As I said, THERE WILL ALWAYS BE SOME BAD APPLES IN EVERY BARREL.
I suppose THAT also includes YOURS….eh?

Yeah. I never said I hated atheists. I said I disliked the ones you describe as the “bad apples”. Yeah, there are bad apples on all sides.

Calm down. Fix your CAPS LOCK key.

 
Flag Post

I want to know where this Church of Atheism is that you keep bringing up. As far as I know, atheists don’t congregate into mass cults to discuss their religion. In fact, the only time I ever figure out if someone is an atheist is if they feel comfortable telling me. Since I live in the south, coming out as an atheist to the mass public is worse than coming out as a homosexual. The atheist community doesn’t exist here because it can’t. For its own safety. The only safe haven for the atheist community is around Austin. Even there, the general atheist population won’t reveal their true beliefs to anyone that they don’t trust.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by PatriotSaint:

1. So do you have religion or Christianity alone in your fiery crosshairs?

It would also help if you specified what scientific discoveries (that aren’t theories) you are speaking of.

2. So by this you mean like how people try not to murder each other because that idea originated from discovering that murdering people isn’t a good idea? Also, religions have their own moral codes (10 Commandments, etc etc), the same way the “Atheist Church” (remember, this is only SOME atheists) has a moral code of not having a moral code that wasn’t made by themselves.

3. This question is literally impossible to answer as you didn’t elaborate as to WHAT uncertainties and disagreements that you want to be addressed.

4. Nothing has to change about anything. The difference between reasonable religion and reasonable atheism is solely believing in God vs not believing in God.

5. As if every religious person claims to have an enlightened perspective. If you want to talk to that group, get an interview with Hollywood or something.

6. I take full responsibility for my beliefs as you do with yours, according to my own understanding of what you’re trying to say.

1. I thought this question was kind of obvious. Why do you believe in your religion over any other religion? What about the Bible is more or less compelling than, say, the Mahabharata? Why do you choose to believe in certain scientifically false claims about your beliefs, but don’t believe obviously false statements from other beliefs? I can’t point to any scientific claim because it’s irrelevant what the claim is, and I don’t know what particular scientific beliefs you disavow in favor of your religion. Also, your implication that some science is less accurate because it’s a “theory” smells like every other argument from ignorance regarding the workings of science.

2. I have no idea what you’re trying to say here. I’ll just repeat the question and hope you understand: The bible is a book that says God is the supreme being. Nothing else says that, not in science, math, psychology. Nothing requires God to exist in our world except your book. Many other books profess knowledge of the universe, but equally lack any other reference to them besides their own textbooks. I’m not saying there aren’t other books that don’t mention them, I’m saying that there isn’t any physical, theoretical, or principle evidence of your belief. How do you not believe other ideas that lack origins?

3. Again, it doesn’t matter what the disagreements and inconsistencies are. There are 2 accounts of creation in the bible. A given individual sitting in a pew doesn’t believe in the same things as the next person sitting in the pew. There are thousands of different Christianities, and they’ve gone to war with each other over the meanings in a book. How do you maintain consistency, and declare your brand and flavor of interpretation as the right one, and theirs as wrong? What rule do you use?

4. What? Nothing about the world changes if we’re all Christians? So in general it doesn’t matter if I believe or not because the universe doesn’t care? That seems awfully inconsistent with what most Christians believe. I don’t really think you understand this, or any of my questions, really.

5. Literally every single Christian I have encountered that is willing to discuss the origin of their beliefs ends up professing knowledge that is literally inaccessible to everyone else. Every. Single. One. Tell me you haven’t had a “spiritual experience” that solidified your faith, and I’ll poop all over this room.

6. You still haven’t really explained why you believe in your religion over any other at all. Where does your belief start to make more sense, and every other religious belief doesn’t? What’s the turning point that makes you go “Aha! Jesus Christ is the son of the conscious universe and died so I could go to a place that is awesome when I die!” What causes you to believe that, but not believe that the universe is an exploded bubble on the side of Krishna?

 
Flag Post

4. Nothing has to change about anything. The difference between reasonable religion and reasonable atheism is solely believing in God vs not believing in God.

Reasonable by what measure however? I don’t believe there is a reasonable religion. I believe there are reasonable people, reasonable citizens, heck even good people that are religious. A reasonable religion, I however take issue with. As religion draws from faith, as opposed to reason, I dare say it is inherently irrational and stretches the limit of being considered reasonable. What would you say is this reasonable outline of a religious belief?

5. As if every religious person claims to have an enlightened perspective. If you want to talk to that group, get an interview with Hollywood or something.

Don’t they? I honestly find this point of contention a little surprising. You feel most religious people feel as if they have no communication with ‘God’ whatsoever? Whether this is ‘seeing his hand’ to ‘knowing his will’ or ‘feeling his presence’ what have you?

 
Flag Post

I need to reiterate the intentions of the 4th point: If the universe would look the exact same way as it does today without a creator as it does with one, how did you figure out there was a creator?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by TheBSG:

I need to reiterate the intentions of the 4th point: If the universe would look the exact same way as it does today without a creator as it does with one, how did you figure out there was a creator?

Well, we did not just come here with magic, logic. There has to be someone who created the heavens and the Earth. I don’t believe in the ‘Big Bang Theory’ as most atheists do.

 
Flag Post

There has to be someone who created the someone who created “heavens” and Earth. The cosmological argument is stupid, get over it. The Big Bang Theory is not concerned with the origin of the Universe, also. It only explains the development of the early Universe.

The Big Bang is a well-tested scientific theory and is widely accepted within the scientific community. It offers a comprehensive explanation for a broad range of observed phenomena, including the abundance of light elements, the cosmic microwave background, large scale structure, and the Hubble diagram for Type Ia supernovae.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by AllStarDominatio:
Originally posted by TheBSG:

I need to reiterate the intentions of the 4th point: If the universe would look the exact same way as it does today without a creator as it does with one, how did you figure out there was a creator?

Well, we did not just come here with magic, logic. There has to be someone

who created the heavens and the Earth. I don’t believe in the ‘Big Bang Theory’ as most atheists do.

An honest question here….
why do ya say SOMEONE?
Wouldn’t someTHING be (likely?) a better word?
 
Flag Post

To you with religious leanings, have you noticed those who are the harbingers of society all claim to be atheists? You may have also noticed they all have really oddball personal lives and political leanings. Sad, isn’t it?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by jhco50:

To you with religious leanings, have you noticed those who are the harbingers of society all claim to be atheists? You may have also noticed they all have really oddball personal lives and political leanings. Sad, isn’t it?

Aha…I get to be the first to tear into YOUR ingnorant RANTINGS.

To ANYONE w/ ANY king of “leanings”, how could ya have NOT noticed that the religious kooks are far-&-away the master harbingers of gloom-&-doom….as well as the “going-to-heaven” PROMISES (IF ya “donate” yer tithings like a proper Christian)?

Talk about some absurd “promises” by a religion….how about those 70 VIRGINS waitin’ for ya in “heaven”? Ya know, where the streets are paved w/ gold.

If one is to take the HOLY Bible as the Gospel, there sure as hell a lot of pretty weird shit there.

C’mon, jake-o….ya must have had a “snootfull” when ya hit the forum last nite.
The several posts ya made were hyperbolic, hypocritical, & biased as hell.
I esp. liked the one how the socialist Obama also wants to be “king”.
Do YOU not understand that those two ideologies are diametrically opposed?
Opps…I think I have just found the “source” of yer “problem”…..UNDERSTANDING.

 
Flag Post

I wouldn’t describe myself as atheist, agnostic, religious so much as completely indifferent to the notion. I believe in scientific truth just as much as I respect the historical significance of the church. I don’t deny the existence of God or long for it, because in the end, the portion of my life that matters – the part in which I’m living – is controlled solely through my own actions, and Lady Luck.

Religion is bad when its adherents force their principles on those who don’t believe in them.
Atheism is bad when those who associate with atheism consider the devoutly religious to be ignorant.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by jhco50:

To you with religious leanings, have you noticed those who are the harbingers of society all claim to be atheists? You may have also noticed they all have really oddball personal lives and political leanings. Sad, isn’t it?

I didn’t expect you to bring up any sources for that…
But, nevertheless, it would have been nice if you provided some to look a bit less ignorant.


Originally posted by AllStarDominatio:
Originally posted by TheBSG:

I need to reiterate the intentions of the 4th point: If the universe would look the exact same way as it does today without a creator as it does with one, how did you figure out there was a creator?

Well, we did not just come here with magic, logic.

Why not?

There has to be someone who created the heavens and the Earth.

Why the personalisation.
And you just said that you don’t believe in a solution that incorporates magic. And now you are here, claiming that there needs to be some really powerful person.

Really powerful… You mean, like magic?

I don’t believe in the ‘Big Bang Theory’ as most atheists do.

Why not? It’s a theory that tries to use evidence to find a solution that works without stuff like magic.
You should love it.

 
Flag Post

Well, EPR…I believe the word “PRESTO” was involved at some stage.

OR, was it vois là ?

I’m not sure….my ears were ringing from that big loud bang noise.