|
MyLostTemple
United States2921 Posts
On March 28 2009 09:02 Wotans_Fire wrote:Here you go:
athiests believe in reasons, just not divine ones. if you're going to be so cynical at least know what you're talking about.
in other news the Jehovah witnesses came back, two of them this time. i had dissected the creationist book they gave me pointing out that most of the scientists in it were in fact atheist or agnostic making their arguments quite weak. i also pointed out the creator logical fallacy since we still don't know who created the creator. i got them to agree that you don't need to be religious to be a good person which then forced them to conclude that i don't need the bible to guide my life. Their final rebuttal was that i will be unable to goto heaven if i die if i don't accept this and said they would come back in a few weeks.
i'm going to buy the god delusion in korean and just give it to them next time.
|
On March 28 2009 13:46 Physician wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2009 09:02 Wotans_Fire wrote:
Here you go: Atheism is {the pic he posted} Let me put you on the spot Wotans_Fire. Do you agree with that definition of Atheism you posted?
Well, I don't know what do atheists believe would have triggered the spark? what do atheists believe that there was once nothing and it was triggered by scientific reasons alone? please enlighten me on how I am going to rot in the ground for eternity.
|
Atheists say they do not believe or disbelieve anything, because there is simply no reason/evidence to compel them to ask the question in the first place. However, the simultaneous and completely independent appearance of religion throughout all of history in every region of the globe brings up legitimate questions. While different religions contradict each other in their details, the same themes recur. So I don't think the answer is as simple as an obvious logical fallacy. Assuming we can even comprehend what we are talking about, it may disprove a specific interpretation of God. But I don't think that implies atheism. Not to mention that I highly doubt people become atheists because of the logical arguments or their objectivity. I think, in general, people believe what they believe from psychological experiences, from their experiences in childhood, and in general other non-rational means. For example, they may see examples of religious hypocrites. A hypocrite or bigot doesn't change the validity of an idea in the slightest.
|
On March 29 2009 20:57 Wotans_Fire wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2009 13:46 Physician wrote:On March 28 2009 09:02 Wotans_Fire wrote:
Here you go: Atheism is {the pic he posted} Let me put you on the spot Wotans_Fire. Do you agree with that definition of Atheism you posted? Well, I don't know what do atheists believe would have triggered the spark? what do atheists believe that there was once nothing and it was triggered by scientific reasons alone? please enlighten me on how I am going to rot in the ground for eternity.
Do you really think introducing God would solve this problem?
It's hard to conceive of something as existing eternally, but I would rather believe in a condensed clump of matter existing forever until it exploded than an omniscient, omnipotent God? Which do you think is more probable?
|
To reply to both of the above
I believe the notion of you can't prove god exists and I can't prove that he exists would be considered agnostic not atheist, but I may be wrong. Either way I don't like to classify to a set of beliefs, although there are decent theories like deism. So in other words I believe god is nature. This condensed clump of matter to become everything would be an extraordinary coincidence following my set of logic.
|
On March 29 2009 22:54 Wotans_Fire wrote:
To reply to both of the above
I believe the notion of you can't prove god exists and I can't prove that he exists would be considered agnostic not atheist, but I may be wrong. Either way I don't like to classify to a set of beliefs, although there are decent theories like deism. So in other words I believe god is nature. This condensed clump of matter to become everything would be an extraordinary coincidence following my set of logic.
I think atheists would agree that this is an extraordinary coincidence? I don't see how deism would offer a better solution to the problem you referred to?
By the way, I think most educated atheists would prefer to describe themselves as 'agnostic atheists', this meaning that although you can never know for sure, it is incredibly unlikely that there is any kind of god, so they don't believe in one.
|
Physician
United States4146 Posts
On March 28 2009 09:02 Wotans_Fire wrote:
Here you go: Atheism is {the pic he posted}
Since you avoided answering the question, let me rewind so we can move forward and not end up with a long line of wondering monologues. So here it goes again:
"Do you agree with that definition of Atheism you posted?"
Or let me phrase it another way. Is that your own definition of atheism too?
Let me put it yet another way: do you think that definition you posted is what the general consensus is for that word? Let's try yet another way: is that definition the one you will find, lets say in the best philosophy schools or theology schools? Or lets take a gamble here, is that the definition you will find in your average dictionary?
Even a simple "yes" or a "no" would do.
|
On March 30 2009 02:29 Physician wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2009 09:02 Wotans_Fire wrote:
Here you go: Atheism is {the pic he posted} Since you avoided answering the question, let me rewind so we can move forward and not end up with a long line of wondering monologues. So here it goes again: " Do you agree with that definition of Atheism you posted?" Or let me phrase it another way. Is that your own definition of atheism too? Let me put it yet another way: do you think that definition you posted is what the general consensus is for that word? Let's try yet another way: is that definition the one you will find, lets say in the best philosophy schools or theology schools? Or lets take a gamble here, is that the definition you will find in your average dictionary? Even a simple "yes" or a "no" would do.
I was reading the op and that poster came to mind because I thought it was funny and he was specifically asking for something to hand out. No I do not believe that is exactly the theory of atheism. I think I am not as educated as you may be in the field. However I always wonder if atheists can explain where their 'scientific' observations may originate, this could be my feeble superstitious mind though.
|
Physician
United States4146 Posts
On March 30 2009 03:11 Wotans_Fire wrote:
No I do not believe that is exactly the theory of atheism. I think I am not as educated as you may be in the field. However I always wonder if atheists can explain where their 'scientific' observations may originate, this could be my feeble superstitious mind though.
So your answer is "no". So we agree then that picture you posted is not the definition of atheism. It is an incoherent set of false assumptions and claims. It will of course not help intelligent discourse and might lead others to think your are ignorant or dumb. I know you are neither so why not avoid adding to the confusion and propagate falsehoods? As if we humans were not confused enough : (
|
when it comes to something personal like religion it's not about proving that facts support ur side of the argument because once u start atcking them like that they get defensive and wont' listen to u
a truly successful argument is one in which u convince they other guy that ur side is the one he needs to believe in not try to break him down w/ logic... that shit nvr works because ppl will nvr be won over just w/ logic
so yeah it's all about acting like u r open to his position and beliefs which makes him do like wise w/ ur and then slowly edge ur belief in there and replace his... he won't noe wat hit him
haha
|
Everyone in this thread needs to go watch religulous and come back. Dunno how some people can bash tasteless for being an atheist
|
In order to add some humour to this thread, I will say this, Tasteless. If I ever see you again with pink hair, your soul will certainly need saving. >
As for your problem, just simply thank them and say that you are not interested. By engaging in a religious discussion, you are simply giving them reason to try and "convert" you. By being short and to the point, they will see it is futile to waste any effort on you and they will go about their business elsewhere.
|
Arguing/debating against a religion that puts major stress on faith is like trying trying to destroy a city by building stronger walls around it. Even if you make much logical sense (which is expected), you will only make their faith stronger.
|
MyLostTemple
United States2921 Posts
On March 30 2009 12:44 Tom Phoenix wrote:In order to add some humour to this thread, I will say this, Tasteless. If I ever see you again with pink hair, your soul will certainly need saving. > As for your problem, just simply thank them and say that you are not interested. By engaging in a religious discussion, you are simply giving them reason to try and "convert" you. By being short and to the point, they will see it is futile to waste any effort on you and they will go about their business elsewhere.
actually i will probably die my hair again this year so you better star praying lol.
|
all nonsense aside, i would like to know one thing. please indulge me.
why is it worst to be an atheist (which is one extreme in a spectrum of beliefs) than to be a religious fanatic?( which is the other extreme)
simply because they are the 2 extremes does not in any way shape or form define them as "just as bad"
a fanatic can justify killing, or worse, through his religious beliefs.
Can an Atheist? well this question i will answer for you. No, an Atheist cannot.
I would rather someone who thinks along those lines, or has stated such to answer my question, i think i know where the Atheists, and secularists stand.
so again, just to be clear, tell me why exactly is it that an Atheist is "just as bad" as a religious fanatic?
edit: grammar
|
On March 30 2009 17:32 Etherone wrote:
all nonsense aside, i would like to know one thing. please indulge me.
why is it worst to be an atheist (which is one extreme in a spectrum of beliefs) than to be a religious fanatic?( which is the other extreme)
It isn't.
simply because they are the 2 extremes does not in any way shape or form define them as "just as bad"
They're both similar in the way of how the more extremely you toss yourself into one side, the more arguably ignorant you become.
a fanatic can justify killing, or worse, through his religious beliefs.
Can an Atheist? well this question i will answer for you. No, an Atheist cannot.
Well, that's because Atheists technically do not have "religious" beliefs. There have been instances of Atheistic governments persecuting and destroying religious organizations even if it wasn't based upon "religious" beliefs.
so again, just to be clear, tell me why exactly is it that an Atheist is "just as bad" as a religious fanatic?
They aren't, unless they are extremists as well.
|
On March 30 2009 17:32 Etherone wrote:
all nonsense aside, i would like to know one thing. please indulge me.
why is it worst to be an atheist (which is one extreme in a spectrum of beliefs) than to be a religious fanatic?( which is the other extreme)
simply because they are the 2 extremes does not in any way shape or form define them as "just as bad"
a fanatic can justify killing, or worse, through his religious beliefs.
Can an Atheist? well this question i will answer for you. No, an Atheist cannot.
I would rather someone who thinks along those lines, or has stated such to answer my question, i think i know where the Atheists, and secularists believe.
so again, just to be clear, tell me why exactly is it that an Atheist is "just as bad" as a religious fanatic?
What?
You do know Stalin, was an atheist. Also, satanists are atheists. And I would venture to say very few world leaders are religious as they may profess. They just use it to control the people to get them to do what they want. (interestingly, world leaders seem to have connections with satanism)
|
On March 30 2009 17:51 fight_or_flight wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On March 30 2009 17:32 Etherone wrote:
all nonsense aside, i would like to know one thing. please indulge me.
why is it worst to be an atheist (which is one extreme in a spectrum of beliefs) than to be a religious fanatic?( which is the other extreme)
simply because they are the 2 extremes does not in any way shape or form define them as "just as bad"
a fanatic can justify killing, or worse, through his religious beliefs.
Can an Atheist? well this question i will answer for you. No, an Atheist cannot.
I would rather someone who thinks along those lines, or has stated such to answer my question, i think i know where the Atheists, and secularists believe.
so again, just to be clear, tell me why exactly is it that an Atheist is "just as bad" as a religious fanatic?
What? You do know Stalin, was an atheist. Also, satanists are atheists. And I would venture to say very few world leaders are religious as they may profess. They just use it to control the people to get them to do what they want. (interestingly, world leaders seem to have connections with satanism)
i thought i was very clear, i would like for someone who sees Atheists as being " as bad as" religious fanatics to explain to me the logical reasoning behind that view
Hitler was a vegetarian, Stalin was also male. I believe I've made my point.
i would love to see some of the connections with satanism these world leaders have, unless of course it is the same type of connection you made previously.
and
which world leaders are you referring to?
edit: clarity
|
An easy modern day example would be North Korea. Their government is atheistic to the extremes and religion is not tolerated at up there; religious activity was smashed and destroyed. The Chosun Dynasty of Korea was also pretty atheistic, and they shot down Buddhism a lot at the beginning of the Dynastic rule, and when Christianity began to pick up near the end of the Dynasty, they made a lot of efforts into persecuting them.
|
On March 30 2009 18:28 Etherone wrote:Show nested quote +On March 30 2009 17:51 fight_or_flight wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On March 30 2009 17:32 Etherone wrote:
all nonsense aside, i would like to know one thing. please indulge me.
why is it worst to be an atheist (which is one extreme in a spectrum of beliefs) than to be a religious fanatic?( which is the other extreme)
simply because they are the 2 extremes does not in any way shape or form define them as "just as bad"
a fanatic can justify killing, or worse, through his religious beliefs.
Can an Atheist? well this question i will answer for you. No, an Atheist cannot.
I would rather someone who thinks along those lines, or has stated such to answer my question, i think i know where the Atheists, and secularists believe.
so again, just to be clear, tell me why exactly is it that an Atheist is "just as bad" as a religious fanatic?
What? You do know Stalin, was an atheist. Also, satanists are atheists. And I would venture to say very few world leaders are religious as they may profess. They just use it to control the people to get them to do what they want. (interestingly, world leaders seem to have connections with satanism) i thought i was very clear, i would like for someone who sees Atheists as being " as bad as" religious fanatics to explain to me the logical reasoning behind that view Hitler was a vegetarian, Stalin was also male. I believe I've made my point. i would love to see some of the connections with satanism these world leaders have, unless of course it is the same type of connection you made previously. and which world leaders are you referring to?
Are you asking for the logical reason why an atheist would hurt another person? Because for a religious fanatic, you are saying that there are religious reasons?
I think the logic behind it is pretty clear. As has probably been pointed out a number of times, an atheist belief is pretty independent with morals. So while an atheist may have what we consider positive morals, they can just as easily care only for themselves. They can, for example, murder millions of people with no problems because those people weren't any more important than any other animal.
The reason I bring up Stalin is because it brings up communism of course. Communism was an atheist system that caused more deaths than any other ideology. So it is quite relevant. The extremists you mention kill not because of religion, but because they fight for things like land and control. Religion is just used as a means of justification for what they do. Don't forget the US was founded by religious extremists as well.
The point is an atheist generally doesn't need to justify killing because there is nothing to justify. Of course most have added morals, so they may or may not feel guilty over such an action.
As for connecting world leaders with satanism, I don't think I need to do that to prove my point. And moreover, I don't think I could present any evidence that wouldn't generate pages of discussion arguing about it so just ignore that point.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i281.photobucket.com/albums/kk240/thebrew07/4chan/atheism.jpg)
