Atheists roll out ad campaign: "In the Beginning, Man Created God."

[Ajaxab]

I don't have a problem with the ad either. Something that provokes conversation or stimulates thought about important philosophical questions is a good thing.

I'll pull a JiMG here and post one question/thought and be out. Many toss around the idea of wanting evidence for God's existence. What constitutes evidence? Invariably that evidence is narrowly defined as scientific evidence when so many of the things we know in life hardly come from scientific evidence (the content of our dreams for example). It seems a bit short-sighted to pick and choose when to need scientific evidence for knowledge and when to set it aside. I'm out...

[Noop]

I believe in God but not religion. I am not sure what that makes me.

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by molson

What's the difference between an atheist and an agnostic then?

By definition, all agnostics are atheists. Atheism covers everything that is not "Theism" (by definition). In other words, if you are not a Theist (someone who believes in god(s)), you are an atheist.

In the past agnosticism had the same relationship with gnosticism. Somewhere along the lines, agnosticism became what people who said "I'm not sure." to the question "Is there a God?". And somewhere along the line, atheism got condensed in common usage to mean just those who said they asserted the non-existance of God(s).

So what's the difference? nothing really. (Edit: I should have said in common usage, they really isn't much difference between them. If you want to get philosophical/technical about it, they address two different things - but no one uses either in that way, at least on FOFC)

[sabotai]

If you want something that will really make you wonder what the hell agnosicism really is, read this: Agnostic theism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Noop

I believe in God but not religion. I am not sure what that makes me.

You are a Theist

[Karlifornia]

"That philosophy of athiests would have denied the possibility of other planets, of modern medicine, of black holes, etc, until there was scientific proof."

I don't think anyone is saying research can't be done. Who knows? Maybe the kingdom of heaven truly exists, and one day a new Galileo will discover it through some sweet ass telescope.

Ok, probably not, but I don't think any Atheist is condemning research into the unknown. All we're saying is that the unknown is simply the unknown, and how can you believe in something if you don't what it even is that you're believing?

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by sabotai

By definition, all agnostics are atheists. Atheism covers everything that is not "Theism" (by definition). In other words, if you are not a Theist (someone who believes in god(s)), you are an atheist.

In the past agnosticism had the same relationship with gnosticism. Somewhere along the lines, agnosticism became what people who said "I'm not sure." to the question "Is there a God?". And somewhere along the line, atheism got condensed in common usage to mean just those who said they asserted the non-existance of God(s).

So what's the difference? nothing really. (Edit: I should have said in common usage, they really isn't much difference between them. If you want to get philosophical/technical about it, they address two different things - but no one uses either in that way, at least on FOFC)

I see that the dictionary lists agnostic and athiest as synonyms, but I'm not sure I see how that is true. A theist believes in one or more gods. An athiest believes there is no god. An agnostic believes that the ultimate answer in unknown and unknowable by humans. To claim agnosticism and athiesm as synonymous only makes sense from a theistic point of view.

Edit: I also believe it is incorrect to call someone who says "I don't know" agnostic. That classification should be retained only for those who say "I can't know".

[molson]

Originally Posted by Karlifornia

Ok, probably not, but I don't think any Atheist is condemning research into the unknown. All we're saying is that the unknown is simply the unknown, and how can you believe in something if you don't what it even is that you're believing?

That sounds like what I thought was being agnostic, but now sabotai has confused me and I don't know what words mean what.

I was dicussing the affirmative belief that there is no god. Whatever that's called.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by Ajaxab

What constitutes evidence? Invariably that evidence is narrowly defined as scientific evidence when so many of the things we know in life hardly come from scientific evidence (the content of our dreams for example). It seems a bit short-sighted to pick and choose when to need scientific evidence for knowledge and when to set it aside. I'm out...

I don't know enough about dreams, or research into them, to speak on that point. At a glance, it seems like a good point. It doesn't seem as high on the list as religion because I am unaware of its usage as a weapon against others. If religion was as benign as dreams are (overall), it wouldn't be an issue.

[Ryan S]

Originally Posted by molson

There's a big difference between atheists and agnostics. Atheism is a belief. And possibiliy a religion.

Atheists do not believe in a higher power. Agnostics acknowledge that they have no way of knowing if there is a higher power. Neither is anything like a religion.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Ryan S

Atheists do not believe in a higher power. Agnostics acknowledge that they have no way of knowing if there is a higher power. Neither is anything like a religion.

It goes back to the definition - do atheists just "not believe in a higher power" or do they "believe there is no higher power". If it's the latter, it's just like religion. It's a specific view that can't be proven or disproven, and its based on faith. The only science in their favor would be the absence of knowledge.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by molson

It goes back to the definition - do atheists just "not believe in a higher power" or do they "believe there is no higher power". If it's the latter, it's just like religion. It's a specific view that can't be proven or disproven, and its based on faith. The only science in their favor would be the absence of knowledge.

It is the latter...a specific belief in no higher power.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by BrianD

It is the latter...a specific belief in no higher power.

I'm more of the 'I see no evidence of God, and until I do I am not going to bother' crowd. When evidence comes forward, I will weigh that evidence.

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by BrianD

I see that the dictionary lists agnostic and athiest as synonyms, but I'm not sure I see how that is true. A theist believes in one or more gods. An athiest believes there is no god. An agnostic believes that the ultimate answer in unknown and unknowable by humans. To claim agnosticism and athiesm as synonymous only makes sense from a theistic point of view.

Edit: I also believe it is incorrect to call someone who says "I don't know" agnostic. That classification should be retained only for those who say "I can't know".

I wouldn't call them synonyms either.

And that's the main difference between atheism and agnosticism (the bolded part). Atheism is the lack of belief in God(s). Someone who says "God does not exist" is an atheist, but someone who simply says "I don't believe in God but I guess it's possible" is also an atheist. Atheism vs. Theism is about belief, or the lack of in the case of the former.

Agnosticism (vs. Gnosticism) is about knowledge, not belief. An agnostic says that the existence of God(s) is either presently unknown or that it's impossible to know.

Combine them and you get a wide array of possible beliefs. "I don't believe in God but I think it could one day be proven either way." , "I believe in God but acknowledge it's on faith and that God can't be proven to exist." , "LOL, you religious nuts, God does not exist and I damn well know for sure he doesn't" , "ARH! Burn in the hell that I KNOW exists you heathen!"

Unfortunately, confusion over what the terms mean happens because there isn't a single term used for just one, set-in-stone belief and lots of people use them interchangeably/however they want to. People what all atheists to all be the same, all theists to all be the same, all agnostics to all be the same, but that's just not the case. There many, many brands to all of them, and many, many sub-brands to those. It gets messy when you try to categorize someone's belief structure...

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by molson

It goes back to the definition - do atheists just "not believe in a higher power" or do they "believe there is no higher power". If it's the latter, it's just like religion. It's a specific view that can't be proven or disproven, and its based on faith. The only science in their favor would be the absence of knowledge.

Atheism, by definition, is 'without theism'. So, it is not a religion. If it were a religion, then there wouldn't be atheists.

The burden of proof is on the people who believe in a god, gods, higher power, guiding hand, etc...not atheists.

Not sure how atheism equates to science. Atheism stops at not believing in a god or gods, that's it. People love to attach all sorts of 'extras' to atheism and atheists when there is nothing more to it than not believing in a god or gods. I think the sooner people realize that, it won't be so hard to understand atheism/atheists. It would be like me calling a catholic a jew. Why would I be wrong? You worship a god don't you?

Have people used science to become atheists or affirm their atheism? I don't think I would be wrong if I said, "Yes".

[molson]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

Atheism, by definition, is 'without theism'. So, it is not a religion. If it were a religion, then there wouldn't be atheists.

The burden of proof is on the people who believe in a god, gods, higher power, guiding hand, etc...not atheists.

Not sure how atheism equates to science. Atheism stops at not believing in a god or gods, that's it. People love to attach all sorts of 'extras' to atheism and atheists when there is nothing more to it than not believing in a god or gods. I think the sooner people realize that, it won't be so hard to understand atheism/atheists. It would be like me calling a catholic a jew. Why would I be wrong? You worship a god don't you?

Have people used science to become atheists or affirm their atheism? I don't think I would be wrong if I said, "Yes".

I'm not strictly addressing the term "atheism", I'm addressing those who affirmatively believe that there is no higher power. And to me, that's a belief. Which apparently there isn't a word for.

And who decides who has the "burden of proof"? I would say anyone with affirmative belief, including that there is no higher power, has a "burden of proof". Though I'm not entirely sure what exactly they're proving, and to whom.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by molson

And who decides who has the "burden of proof"?

This is simple. How do you prove the non-existence of anything?

If you cannot prove the non-existence of purple dragons, does that mean it is likely that they exist?

[molson]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

I'm more of the 'I see no evidence of God, and until I do I am not going to bother' crowd. When evidence comes forward, I will weigh that evidence.

By then it won't be "god" anymore, just like the planets and healing power of modern medicine have "advanced" into science.

I think it's just a different way of thinking. If I lived 5,000 years ago, I might wonder what's on the other side of an ocean, or in the sky. Today, the primary "unknowns" involve topics with spirtual connotations.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

This is simple. How do you prove the non-existence of anything?

If you cannot prove the non-existence of purple dragons, does that mean it is likely that they exist?

I don't think you understand what I'm saying. I'm not arguing for the existence of purple dragons, or god, or that they're "likely".

But yes, you can't prove the non-existence of anything (I guess, I mean, you can sometimes. I can prove there's no other people in my house right now). You also can't prove the existence of god (depending on your interpretation of god). That's the very nature of god. If you could prove it, it wouldn't be god anymore. It'd be "science".

"God" (to me, and many others), IS the unknown.

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by molson

It goes back to the definition - do atheists just "not believe in a higher power" or do they "believe there is no higher power".

Either. They both are, just two different types of atheism. The same way as someone who says "I believe in one god." and someone who says "I believe in many gods" are both Theists, just two different brands of theism.

Think of it this way. Atheism begins where someone just lacks a belief in a higher power. Where they go from there is up to them, but where ever they end up, even if it's at "God does not exist", they are still on the atheist side of the line.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Arles

I don't have a problem with the ad, but I agree there will be a backlash. It would be like H&R Block posting a sign throughout Chicago saying "You deadbeat homeless people need to get off your lazy butts, get jobs and stop being a dredge on society."

Now, without emotion, one could say H&R block is simply trying to stimulate critical thinking by the homeless in Chicago and have them realize they need to find a job. Then, maybe H&R Block gets a new customer from the effort.

But, realistically, it's a somewhat stupid idea as the backlash/boycotts from such an ad would more than cancel out any new clients for taxes. I see the same thing here. If people want to raise awareness about how a life without religion is possible and morale, more power to them. I just don't think this is the right way.

Good analogy, Arles.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by molson

I don't think you understand what I'm saying. I'm not arguing for the existence of purple dragons, or god, or that they're "likely".

But yes, you can't prove the non-existence of anything (I guess, I mean, you can sometimes. I can prove there's no other people in my house right now). You also can't prove the existence of god (depending on your interpretation of god). That's the very nature of god. If you could prove it, it wouldn't be god anymore. It'd be "science".

"God" (to me, and many others), IS the unknown.

So you asked who has the burden of proof, and then answered your own question. Clearly, those who think God does not exist do not have the burden of proof since no one can prove the complete non-existence of anything. Therefore, those who believe God (or purple dragons, or whatever it may be) exists have the burden of proving its existence.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

So you asked who has the burden of proof, and then answered your own question. Clearly, those who think God does not exist do not have the burden of proof since no one can prove the complete non-existence of anything. Therefore, those who believe God (or purple dragons, or whatever it may be) exists have the burden of proving its existence.

I don't get the relevance of the burden of proof thing still.

Obviously, to atheists, everyone has the burden of proof to change their mind. That's why they're athiests.

But to me, an atheist would have the burden of proof to change my mind, and to prove to me that there's no possibility of god. You say that's not possible, and I agree (that's why I'm not an atheist). I'd also say that it's impossible to prove the existence of god. Imagine a hypothetical world where there IS a god, or at least, some kind of spirtuality that humans can't comprehend but can vaguely perceive. How would you prove it's existence?

Athiests demand prove, but when you ask them to prove their affirmative position, they say, "it's not possible!".

So the athiest can't possibly be wrong, when it's framed like that. And for some, that's the reason to be an athiest, to me, that's the reason not to be.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by molson

But to me, an atheist would have the burden of proof to change my mind, and to prove to me that there's no possibility of god. You say that's not possible, and I agree (that's why I'm not an atheist).

I'm not following you here, but it doesn't have to make sense to me.

I'd also say that it's impossible to prove the existence of god. Imagine a hypothetical world where there IS a god, or at least, some kind of spirtuality that humans can't comprehend but can vaguely perceive. How would you prove it's existence?

Not my problem. I don't care what you think is out there, as long as you don't use your belief in it as a reason to control me, ultimately. Also, I'm curious why I would even need to care about this "...kind of spirtuality that humans can't comprehend but can vaguely perceive." Your burden of proof only matters if you want to believe that the existence of it requires me to conform to your religious dogma.

Athiests demand prove, but when you ask them to prove their affirmative position, they say, "it's not possible!".

You act like the inability to prove the non-existence of something is a cop-out. It is reality. Unlike the existence of God, it is a known truth that you cannot prove the complete non-existence of anything. The inability to prove the non-existence of something does not mean that it has any likelihood of existing. So, as pretty much any reasonable atheist would claim, it is very unlikely that God exists.

Like I've said before, I only demand proof from those who think their religious beliefs entitle them to force others to abide by their religious dogma. For instance, if I am supposed to believe that gay couples cannot wed because God does not approve, you need to prove to me that this God even exists. Otherwise, you might as well be asking me to accept laws based on what Gandalf the Wizard wants.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by molson

I'm not strictly addressing the term "atheism", I'm addressing those who affirmatively believe that there is no higher power. And to me, that's a belief. Which apparently there isn't a word for.

Well, here's the difference for me...I affirmatively believe that there is no higher power. However, my definition of higher power is no different than saying god, Thor, L Ron, etc... I don't attribute the unknown as a higher power, the unknown is just that, the unknown. I am an atheist because I do not believe in a higher power. However, there is a bit of symantics being used for the word believe. It's not the same 'believe' that is used by theists. My use of the word believe is more like using the word 'affirm', where as, a theists use of the word believe, is a 'feeling' or 'gut instinct' or 'it just seems right'.

And who decides who has the "burden of proof"? I would say anyone with affirmative belief, including that there is no higher power, has a "burden of proof". Though I'm not entirely sure what exactly they're proving, and to whom.

I don't think it's a matter of who decides, it's a matter of what's falsifiable, and in the context of theist vs atheist, it is the theists that have to bring the evidence.

My belief in the lack of the existence of a higher power, isn't from a gut feeling or a life time of brain washing or dogmatic principles, it's from actual evidence and that evidence leans more towards the non existence of a higher power. Just because we don't understand how something works, doesn't mean 'god did it' and if you are claiming that 'god did it' you better show some proof. Unfortunately, (well for the believers anyway) not one single shred of evidence has been put forward that can be attributed to 'god did it', for anything that we know.

Logically, the whole idea of a god or gods or higher power, just doesn't add up when you look at the available evidence. If someone wants warm and fuzzies, they can have at it. Doesn't change anything in the real world though.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by molson

So the athiest can't possibly be wrong, when it's framed like that. And for some, that's the reason to be an athiest, to me, that's the reason not to be.

The atheist can be wrong. However, it is likely that many would alter their views when provided with additional evidence. So far, nobody has found any good evidence (unfortunately). Maybe it will happen someday. However, history would appear to indicate otherwise. Throughout history, the number of Gods generally believed to exist has declined. The amount of events observed by humanity that is attributed to God(s) has also declined over time. The trend is certainly to believe in fewer deities and attribute less to them.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

The atheist can be wrong. However, it is likely that many would alter their views when provided with additional evidence. So far, nobody has found any good evidence (unfortunately). Maybe it will happen someday. However, history would appear to indicate otherwise. Throughout history, the number of Gods generally believed to exist has declined. The amount of events observed by humanity that is attributed to God(s) has also declined over time. The trend is certainly to believe in fewer deities and attribute less to them.

I agree with Tekneek here. An atheist can be wrong and like Tekneek said, if presented with some evidence, I think an atheist would be far more open minded to change.

I highly doubt many thesits are as open minded as atheists are simply because a theist relies on dogmatic principles and being told what to think. Those are two very hard things to over come. From the hard core fundamentalists to the christmas christians, even when presented with valid scientific evidence to the contrary of their religion, they will not change their minds.

[molson]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

I highly doubt many thesits are as open minded as atheists are simply because a theist relies on dogmatic principles and being told what to think. Those are two very hard things to over come. From the hard core fundamentalists to the christmas christians, even when presented with valid scientific evidence to the contrary of their religion, they will not change their minds.

Well if the only two choices are atheist and theist, I'm an atheist too, but there's pretty clearly a huge difference between what I'm saying and what you're saying. And I don't fit into your lumping here about being closed minded.

I'm not talking about atheist v. theist or atheist v. dogma. I'm talking about people who affirmatively believe that the universe is a highly specific way and won't accept any other possibility without scientific proof v. those that don't have such a specific belief about how the world is, and believe that the current state of science does not give us all the answers. So to me, it's atheist/theist together v. what I'm saying.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by molson

And I don't fit in to your lumping here about being closed minded.

I suppose it also depends on your definition of what being "open minded" is. Open minded means you're willing to weigh the evidence and alter your existing view based on it. Not the likelihood that you will buy into something with no evidence. That's more akin to being gullible than open minded.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

Sure. However, I wonder what the basis of their faith is. Would it be any different than believing in fairies and pixie dust? There is probably about the same evidence available for both.

Does the basis of their faith really matter? Does the basis of your atheism matter? It seems to me the conflict is in arguing over why someone should believe differently, rather than simply accepting that others will believe differently.

Atheists, I have found, have a tendency to look down on those with faith in a deity as less intelligent or capable of reason. It's a ridiculous argument when you consider the sheer number of geniuses throughout history that have had real faith in a god or gods, but that's ultimately the atheist message to believers: don't be so gullible and stupid.

The evangelical Christian might tell me I'm going to hell if I don't change my ways. The evangelical atheist will just tell me I'm a dumbass. Some people may choose to get more upset over what the Christian says, but to me that can be dismissed as prophecy. What the evangelical atheist says is just an insult.

Of course atheism offers its own salvation. Just don't believe, and you can be part of the Self-Chosen Ones. If you're an atheist, you're automatically intellectually superior to believers. It's a pretty seductive message... maybe even as seductive as believing in an eternal hereafter.

I guess this is the long way of saying that when atheists think they're asking probing and insightful questions to believers, they're really just coming off as douchey as a Jehovah's Witness on my doorstep.

How's that popcorn, Pumpy?

[molson]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

I suppose it also depends on your definition of what being "open minded" is. Open minded means you're willing to weigh the evidence and alter your existing view based on it. Not the likelihood that you will buy into something with no evidence. That's more akin to being gullible than open minded.

Fair enough, I think open minded means more than a willingness "to weigh the evidence and alter your existing view based on it". I think true open mindedness is more open that that, it means a willingness to accept the possibility that you might not have all the evidence, or that the evidence might not exist or be available to us.

To me, it's not being open-minded to say, "It doesn't exist, but if you scientifically prove it to me, I'll change my mind". (especially when there's no possibility of that kind of "scientific proof" in this particular field, and our current level of human understanding of the universe).

And like Cam said, it's certainly not open-minded to look down upon others who, IMO, often achieve benefits from more traditional dogma that atheists don't really understand. It's not always about faith or believing the literal words of a book.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

I agree with Tekneek here. An atheist can be wrong and like Tekneek said, if presented with some evidence, I think an atheist would be far more open minded to change.

I highly doubt many thesits are as open minded as atheists are simply because a theist relies on dogmatic principles and being told what to think. Those are two very hard things to over come. From the hard core fundamentalists to the christmas christians, even when presented with valid scientific evidence to the contrary of their religion, they will not change their minds.

An atheist, by definition, is just as dogmatic in their unbelief as a believer is in theirs.

And btw, why do the atheists always go after the Christians when there are so many other religions to go after? Isn't Wicca still one of the fastest growing religions right now? Why aren't you all mocking the idea of an Earth Goddess that encompasses everything and everyone on this wounded and delicate piece of interstellar wonderfulness? Or hey, since there's actually a group of fundamentalist religious types who would actually love to cut off your head and make an example of you to all the other infidels, perhaps you could reserve just a bit of your scorn and derision for the jihad-loving fundies in the Islamic faith? By all means, please keep mocking Christians in America, but you think you might be able to spread some of the ridicule around?

Sorry... I digressed.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

Does the basis of their faith really matter? Does the basis of your atheism matter? It seems to me the conflict is in arguing over why someone should believe differently, rather than simply accepting that others will believe differently.

As I have said before... Ultimately, I do not care what you believe in as long as you don't force your religious dogma onto me or the rest of society. Keep it voluntary and out of everybody else's business and we'll do just fine.

Atheists, I have found, have a tendency to look down on those with faith in a deity as less intelligent or capable of reason. It's a ridiculous argument when you consider the sheer number of geniuses throughout history that have had real faith in a god or gods, but that's ultimately the atheist message to believers: don't be so gullible and stupid.

I have a hard time with this one, as you should as well. The mere fact that so many brilliant people lived in a time before science could explain so much more is a sufficient explanation to me (and it should be for you as well). After all, they are only humans trying to make sense of the world. I don't blame people for thinking the Earth was flat before it was proven to be round. I will blame you for believing it to be flat AFTER we have the evidence otherwise. I won't blame you for not knowing about evolution before Darwin's On the Origin of Species, but I WILL blame you AFTER it. I don't fault people for their silly views before science could explain it. Once there is a viable scientific explanation, it is time to move on. It explains why less and less has been attributed to deities over time. Is there any reason to expect that trend to change?

The evangelical Christian might tell me I'm going to hell if I don't change my ways. The evangelical atheist will just tell me I'm a dumbass. Some people may choose to get more upset over what the Christian says, but to me that can be dismissed as prophecy. What the evangelical atheist says is just an insult.

I won't call you a dumbass. You sure make a lot of generalizations.

Of course atheism offers its own salvation. Just don't believe, and you can be part of the Self-Chosen Ones. If you're an atheist, you're automatically intellectually superior to believers. It's a pretty seductive message... maybe even as seductive as believing in an eternal hereafter.

It isn't about just not believing. It is about looking for evidence. It is about doing more than just imagining that a God did this or that, it is about questioning it and looking for evidence. It is far easier to just say "God did it" and move on. That is easy to see.

I guess this is the long way of saying that when atheists think they're asking probing and insightful questions to believers, they're really just coming off as douchey as a Jehovah's Witness on my doorstep.

How? What have I said that is "douchey" at all? I'm not trying to convert anybody. I'm comfortable knowing that the available evidence indicates that the existence of a God is extremely unlikely. Do you have evidence to the contrary?

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

And btw, why do the atheists always go after the Christians when there are so many other religions to go after?

Many do. If you had any insight into the non-believing community, you'd know that much.

Isn't Wicca still one of the fastest growing religions right now? Why aren't you all mocking the idea of an Earth Goddess that encompasses everything and everyone on this wounded and delicate piece of interstellar wonderfulness?

Sounds silly enough to me. I won't worry much until they start trying to push legislation forcing their dogma onto the rest of us, though. I guess that gets right to the heart of the matter for me.

Or hey, since there's actually a group of fundamentalist religious types who would actually love to cut off your head and make an example of you to all the other infidels, perhaps you could reserve just a bit of your scorn and derision for the jihad-loving fundies in the Islamic faith?

It is done all the time. There are more than a few blogs out there, ran by self-professed atheists, who are doing a complete analysis of the Qur'an. It is pretty evil shit, if you ask me. Again, your ignorance reveals itself.

By all means, please keep mocking Christians in America, but you think you might be able to spread some of the ridicule around?

Sorry... I digressed.

Your ignorance of this activity does not mean it is not happening. Learn to put together a decent Google search string, and you will find the activity you seek.

[Groundhog]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

The atheist can be wrong. However, it is likely that many would alter their views when provided with additional evidence.

Bingo.

[Arles]

This is a very interesting debate. My two cents on this is that Religion is not made to be proven or dis-proven. It has always been a way to explain the unknown and involves faith in something that has no "provable" method. Once it is defined enough to be proven, then you lose the faith aspect to it.

It's like asking someone who is alive what it feels like to be dead. Just because no alive person explain it, doesn't mean they won't ever be dead or have a certainly feeling right after being dead. It is just unknown. That's what religion is and why I don't see why it should bother people if person A thinks there is no God and person B thinks there are 50 Gods all wearing pink pajamas. It's also why a logical discussions on whether god exists are fairly useless. For people who believe in God, that belief is based on non-scientific faith and belief they choose to have to explain aspects of the unknown. Those who don't believe in God will never be shown scientific proof he exists so there's little reason for them to change their mind.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by Arles

It's like asking someone who is alive what it feels like to be dead. Just because no alive person explain it, doesn't mean they won't ever be dead or have a certainly feeling right after being dead.

We know they will very likely die because everyone else that we know about has died. You don't have to believe in death, but it is extremely likely to occur for you anyway. We have the data.

That's what religion is and why I don't see why it should bother people if person A thinks there is no God and person B thinks there are 50 Gods all wearing pink pajamas. It's also why a logical discussion on whether god exists are fairly useless. For people who believe in God, that belief is based on non-scientific faith and belief they choose to have to explain aspects of the unknown. Those who don't believe in God will never be shown scientific proof he exists so there's little reason for them to change their mind.

Hey, if they would just stop pushing religious dogma through the government, none of this would rise above the level of philosophical debates. The religious up the ante, by continuing to push their dogma upon the rest, which elicits a response from those who don't subscribe.

[Groundhog]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

An atheist, by definition, is just as dogmatic in their unbelief as a believer is in theirs.

This is absolutely 100% false. I take a great interest in all religions and if anything came out of any of them that hinted at some sort of basis in reality, I'd be forced to alter my views.

And btw, why do the atheists always go after the Christians when there are so many other religions to go after?

Because Christians make up the highest % and are most visible in the countries most of us are in? As Tekneek says though, it's not that it doesn't exist, it's just that for most of us it's Christianity that gets on our nerves enough to be vocal about.

Isn't Wicca still one of the fastest growing religions right now? Why aren't you all mocking the idea of an Earth Goddess that encompasses everything and everyone on this wounded and delicate piece of interstellar wonderfulness?

The Earth Godess is no more or less silly an idea than any other god I've ever read about.

Or hey, since there's actually a group of fundamentalist religious types who would actually love to cut off your head and make an example of you to all the other infidels, perhaps you could reserve just a bit of your scorn and derision for the jihad-loving fundies in the Islamic faith?

Yeah, they're silly too, and a good example of what happens when the fundies have too much power.

By all means, please keep mocking Christians in America, but you think you might be able to spread some of the ridicule around?

Would be only too happy to. Scientology anyone???

[Radii]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

Hey, if they would just stop pushing religious dogma through the government, none of this would rise above the level of philosophical debates. The religious up the ante, by continuing to push their dogma upon the rest, which elicits a response from those who don't subscribe.

This makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Your response to a person in power abusing that power to push faith-based legislation is to argue that their belief structure doesn't make sense? That's no time at all for a philosophical debate, its time for a discussion on the constitution and separation of church and state.


Also, stating that this is the reason that atheists respond is complete and utter bullshit. Just read any thread on religion on this forum. No one has to push their beliefs on anyone, all it takes is someone mentioning in passing that they are at peace with their faith and someone is going to come out of the woodwork and provoke them and tell them they believe in fairies and magic and that they are stupid.


Pretending that this kind of thing is one sided or is only about separation of church and state really takes a lot out of any argument you make.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

We know they will very likely die because everyone else that we know about has died. You don't have to believe in death, but it is extremely likely to occur for you anyway. We have the data.



Hey, if they would just stop pushing religious dogma through the government, none of this would rise above the level of philosophical debates. The religious up the ante, by continuing to push their dogma upon the rest, which elicits a response from those who don't subscribe.

What religious dogma is getting pushed through the government?

Also, I do apologize for my ignorance of the unbelieving community. I try, as you have implored believers to do, to not pay much attention to you.

[Radii]

dola, and I should point out that I agree with pretty much everything Cam has said, and he and I are almost 100% certainly on the opposite side of things as far as the philosophical debates go.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

We know they will very likely die because everyone else that we know about has died. You don't have to believe in death, but it is extremely likely to occur for you anyway. We have the data.

You missed the point above. I was talking about what it feels like to be dead. Just because we know people die doesn't mean we know what it is truly like to be dead. It is unknown.

Hey, if they would just stop pushing religious dogma through the government, none of this would rise above the level of philosophical debates. The religious up the ante, by continuing to push their dogma upon the rest, which elicits a response from those who don't subscribe.

What type of "religious dogma" in our government really bothers you? I guess this is what I don't understand. I'm not overly religious (rarely go to church) and am not even sure what religion I would be (certainly not Catholic), but I don't see a ton of persecution because I choose not to give up things for Lent, go to confession or take communion.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by Radii

This makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Your response to a people in power abusing that power to push faith-based legislation is to argue that their belief structure doesn't make sense? That's no time at all for a philosophical debate, its time for a discussion on the constitution and separation of church and state.

What? Of course. I am answering the question as to why people care about another's religious views. I care very much when someone promotes their religion with government force.

Also, stating that this is the reason that atheists respond is complete and utter bullshit. Just read any thread on religion on this forum. No one has to push their beliefs on anyone, all it takes is someone mentioning in passing that they are at peace with their faith and someone is going to come out of the woodwork and provoke them and tell them they believe in fairies and magic and that they are stupid.

That has more to do with the culture of FOFC than reality. No matter what a thread here is about, somebody will eventually try to stir up some controversy.

Pretending that this kind of thing is one sided or is only about separation of church and state really takes a lot out of any argument you make.

Really? Is there suddenly more evidence for the existence of God now?

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

What religious dogma is getting pushed through the government?

Give me a secular argument for not allowing same-gender marriage. Give me a secular argument for no alcohol sales on Sunday (which is still a reality in some areas of this nation). Those come to mind immediately.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by Arles

You missed the point above. I was talking about what it feels like to be dead. Just because we know people die doesn't mean we know what it is truly like to be dead. It is unknown.

So? Not sure I understand what your point is anyway. Do we really need to know? What impact will it have? Maybe one day we will find out. Maybe not. Who knows?

What type of "religious dogma" in our government really bothers you? I guess this is what I don't understand. I'm not overly religious (rarely go to church) and am not even sure what religion I would be (certainly not Catholic), but I don't see a ton of persecution because I choose not to give up things for Lent, go to confession or take communion.

Same gender marriage. Please give me an entirely secular argument for not allowing it. Give me a secular argument for teaching "creationism" in a science class.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by molson

Well if the only two choices are atheist and theist, I'm an atheist too, but there's pretty clearly a huge difference between what I'm saying and what you're saying. And I don't fit into your lumping here about being closed minded.

I'm not talking about atheist v. theist or atheist v. dogma. I'm talking about people who affirmatively believe that the universe is a highly specific way and won't accept any other possibility without scientific proof v. those that don't have such a specific belief about how the world is, and believe that the current state of science does not give us all the answers. So to me, it's atheist/theist together v. what I'm saying.

I'm definitely not saying that you specifically are close minded. Why give what you belive in a lable? If you don't know, then you don't know. I think that is a perfectly acceptable position. If you don't want to be called an atheist because you don't think you fit that definition, that's ok too. Maybe you fall more in line with deism?

Science has never claimed to give us all the answers. Are you looking for some form of unified answer to everything or is it a rhetorical question? But, what science has given us, has opened up so many more questions, which is a good thing. Heck, we don't even know exactly how gravity works, but, we do know that some devine intervention is not what's keeping us from flying off this planet.

However, religion DOES claim to have all the answers, especially the christian religion. They seem to take great pride in telling everyone that.

What other proof is there than scientific proof? I mean, there's ancedotal evidence and things like that, but, in regards to the mechanics of the universe, any joe schmuck can make up whatever they want, however, if it doesn't stand up to the scientific method, what is it at that point?

If I claim that unicorn piss cures cancer, how do I prove it? Well, first, I need a unicorn...and there starts the problems. If I claim praying to god cures cancer, some how that carries some form of value because so many people buy into it, yet, no one can produce anymore evidence for it than for the unicorn piss. So, other than the scientific method, how do we prove things or figure out how things work in this universe that we live in?

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by Groundhog

This is absolutely 100% false. I take a great interest in all religions and if anything came out of any of them that hinted at some sort of basis in reality, I'd be forced to alter my views.

I think you're confusing religion with a deity or deities. I haven't said any religion has (or is capable of) gotten it right.

Because Christians make up the highest % and are most visible in the countries most of us are in? As Tekneek says though, it's not that it doesn't exist, it's just that for most of us it's Christianity that gets on our nerves enough to be vocal about.

I think that's the most sincere statement in all of your answers. From where I agnostically sit, I see a lot of atheists that ultimately not only don't accept the divinity of Jesus Christ, but the "rules" that come with Christianity. To me, that's throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Yeah, they're silly too, and a good example of what happens when the fundies have too much power.

This is where you really lose me. There are individuals out there who cheered on the death of your countrymen at a nightclub in Bali, and who would be thrilled at the sight of your best friend killed in the name of their god.

They're not silly. They're murderers, and they are a far more populous and growing group than the Fred Phelps' of the world. But because Christians "annoy" you the most, they're going to be your #1 target. That strikes me as an immature and self-centered position based solely on your own experience rather than that of a shared humanity, which isn't a great selling point for letting your conscience be your guide.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

An atheist, by definition, is just as dogmatic in their unbelief as a believer is in theirs.

Incorrect Cam. Being dogmatic implies that I would be unwilling to change my views when presented with evidence to the contrary. THE definition of an atheist is: the non belief in a god or gods. That's it. It's that simple. Nothing more, nothing less.

And btw, why do the atheists always go after the Christians when there are so many other religions to go after?

What's that James Brown song? "Living in America".

Isn't Wicca still one of the fastest growing religions right now? Why aren't you all mocking the idea of an Earth Goddess that encompasses everything and everyone on this wounded and delicate piece of interstellar wonderfulness?

I have no idea how fast it's growing. Wicca is an f'ing joke though. It's for women who don't like to shave their legs or arm pits and for guys who are into Dungeons and Dragons, but don't like western religions.

Or hey, since there's actually a group of fundamentalist religious types who would actually love to cut off your head and make an example of you to all the other infidels, perhaps you could reserve just a bit of your scorn and derision for the jihad-loving fundies in the Islamic faith?

That is one religion I actually would not mind going away forever. They worship a pedophile... 'nuff said. However, 'they' are doing fine just by themselves by showing the world how feaking bat shit crazy they are.

By all means, please keep mocking Christians in America, but you think you might be able to spread some of the ridicule around?

Oh I do spread it around. However christians are rather prevalent here in America. And by christians, I lump mormons, jehova witnesses, catholics, protestants, baptists, and all the other christian sects into one.

Unfortunately, it is the christians trying to mold legislation and public education. I don't see jews trying to get bar mitzva classes in schools. I don't see muslims trying to get ramadan in schools. I don't see scientologists trying to get thetans in schools. I don't see wiccans trying to get the tree fairie into schools.

Sorry... I digressed.

No need to apoligize. You spoke your mind.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

Give me a secular argument for not allowing same-gender marriage. Give me a secular argument for no alcohol sales on Sunday (which is still a reality in some areas of this nation). Those come to mind immediately.

First of all, I hardly think that "no alcohol sales on Sunday" are being pushed throughout the country. Maybe the repeal of those laws, but when was the last time a law like that was actually enacted?

As for the actual argument, the Substance Abuse Policy Research Program says researches at the Behavioral Health Research Center of the Southwest found that in New Mexico, after the law was changed to allow Sunday alcohol sales:

-Both alcohol-related crashes and alcohol-related crash fatalities occurring between noon on Sunday and noon on Monday increased (by 29 and 42 percent, respectively) after the 1995 law allowed packaged alcohol to be sold on Sundays.

-Counties whose largest communities exercised the legislative option to disallow Sunday packaged alcohol sales had the lowest relative increase in alcohol-related crashes on Sundays.

Don't ask me if I think it's a worthy argument, but it's pretty clearly a secular argument against Sunday alcohol sales.

The same-sex marriage legislation is again largely an attempt to maintain the status quo, not set new law. Legally speaking, there have always been laws on the books providing who can and cannot get married, and not all of them have been based on Scripture (the eugenics movement in the 1920's is evident of that), but on a desire over what is best for "society". That is ultimately what today's argument over same sex marriage is about: two competing views of what is best for society. Again, you may not like the argument or find it persuasive, but the secular argument in favor of traditional marriage can be found in various places.

With that, I've got to get ready for work. I'll try to check in later tonight.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by Radii

dola, and I should point out that I agree with pretty much everything Cam has said, and he and I are almost 100% certainly on the opposite side of things as far as the philosophical debates go.

BTW, just wanted to say thanks. For whatever reason, we may disagree politically but seem to get along just fine philosophically. We need to investigate this further over alcohol (perhaps even on a Sunday) sometime!