|
On February 01 2009 15:37 Dazed_Spy wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2009 15:32 IdrA wrote:k well you entirely went back on what you said at first so i guess theres no real discussion to be had here. I just don't like militant atheists I don't have a problem with people who debate on weather or not god exists, and takes the side of atheism. unless by militant you meant suicide bombing atheists or whatever, but if you did then you were talking about something that doesnt exist. christopher hitchens is about as militant as we get. You have a very bad comprehension of the english language. Debating on the existence or lack thereof of a divine being is not the same as being militant. Militant atheism is going around screaming that religion is false, people who follow it are blind fools, that it is the bane of human existence. Debating on the existence of god is debating on the existence of god. Jesus christ, pay attention for once rather than running your mouth.
no need to be condescending dumbshit
arguing against religion and going around telling people that religion is false is the SAME FUCKING THING. you're just trying to pull out of contradicting yourself by making it sound like one is more belligerent than the other.
|
Here is another fact: Atheism does not have to be taught, there is no sunday bible equivalent Atheism book study,
if you can think critically, which I assume you can, Dazed_Spy, tell me how people became Atheist or an non-believer?
|
On February 01 2009 15:58 IdrA wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2009 15:37 Dazed_Spy wrote:On February 01 2009 15:32 IdrA wrote:k well you entirely went back on what you said at first so i guess theres no real discussion to be had here. I just don't like militant atheists I don't have a problem with people who debate on weather or not god exists, and takes the side of atheism. unless by militant you meant suicide bombing atheists or whatever, but if you did then you were talking about something that doesnt exist. christopher hitchens is about as militant as we get. You have a very bad comprehension of the english language. Debating on the existence or lack thereof of a divine being is not the same as being militant. Militant atheism is going around screaming that religion is false, people who follow it are blind fools, that it is the bane of human existence. Debating on the existence of god is debating on the existence of god. Jesus christ, pay attention for once rather than running your mouth. no need to be condescending dumbshit arguing against religion and going around telling people that religion is false is the SAME FUCKING THING. you're just trying to pull out of contradicting yourself by making it sound like one is more belligerent than the other. No need to be condescending? Idra...you do that every damn day on these boards. I don't know why the hell you presume that a Debate is the equivalent of an argument, it is not. You already wrote (militant atheists, those who push their beliefs on others). That is an argument, that is forceful. A debate is just a reasoned discussion with point and counter point. The difference lies I suppose, in the motivation/emotions of the person doing it. If I am in a debate on weather or not god exists, that hardly equates me to attempting to convert the person, we are just having a discussion.On February 01 2009 16:09 rei wrote:
Here is another fact: Atheism does not have to be taught, there is no sunday bible equivalent Atheism book study,
if you can think critically, which I assume you can, Dazed_Spy, tell me how people became Atheist or an non-believer?
After this I've gotta go to bed. People change their views on god simply by re-evaluation of what they believe. Many people are born in Atheists households and are taught to believe in Atheism, so don't give me that crap. I know many people- quite a few teachers in fact- who have gone from militant atheism to religion and back again several times throughout their lives. It's the experience of the individual.
Edit2: Studies show atheists are on average smarter and have higher education than religious people. Studies also show Whites are on average smarter and have higher education than blacks. The answer to both, at least I think, falls on socioeconomics. Urban vs rural, lower/middle class vs uppermiddle/upper class cultural differences. That correlation does not prove a thing, and I don't think any study can actually prove it, so that remains purely my own hypothesis. Far too big a question to actually have a realistic answer for, on either side.
|
On February 01 2009 16:19 Dazed_Spy wrote:
If I am in a debate on weather or not god exists, that hardly equates me to attempting to convert the person, we are just having a discussion.
On February 01 2009 14:42 Dazed_Spy wrote:Tasteless, be a man, and convert. 
Erm....
|
On February 01 2009 16:27 LTT wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2009 16:19 Dazed_Spy wrote:
If I am in a debate on weather or not god exists, that hardly equates me to attempting to convert the person, we are just having a discussion.
Erm.... It was a joke. Hence the
|
On February 01 2009 15:40 rei wrote:
The difference between the majority of Atheists and Religious people is the ability to think critically. An example, Atheists don't believe shits just because someone tell them, they think critically therefore, they require evidence and logic, This is also the reason why most well educated people are Atheists. As evidence:You won't see anyone with an PHD goes Suicide bombing.
Somewhat untrue. Atheism has become rather popular with youth for various reasons, but often many of these young atheists are atheists just because other people are, or just simply for the reason of going against the general ideals of the generations before them.
I attended a Catholic school for high school, and a good half or so of the students weren't Christian at all. However, of this half, a very minuscule amount of these students didn't really have any clear reasons as to why they believed, or in this case, not believed. Often, when they did present their arguments they were horribly flawed, and often their attitudes was that "I do not believe and so I am better than the blind faithful". However, they were just as ignorant and blind as the more extreme Christians in the school.
This idea that atheists are all critical thinking individuals in this thread is extremely flawed. There are as many ignorant adherents in atheist circles as in religious circles, and both sides have extremely bright individuals as well, although they are rather hard to find and pick out from the common mass of fools.
There are many well educated and intelligent people that are religious. My mother, with a PhD in biology, was the one that taught me about evolution and many other scientific things when I was young. She is a devout Presbyterian. Although I have dropped my faith in Christianity, similarly to how my father did around my age, I can understand the faith of those that follow a religion and by no means are these faiths completely misguided and stupid. There are many religious individuals that think critically about their own faiths and their opinions guide them.
In response to your "You won't see anyone with a PhD go suicide bombing", that's also wrong. Just because you have a Ph.D and presumably "think critially" doesn't mean that you will act in a "moral" way. Often, intellectuals have a very firm stance on their beliefs and so they may often act in an extreme way without feeling much remorse for their actions. An example of this would be the Einsatzgruppen, murder squads of the Nazis. They moved into captured towns and localities and exterminated Jews. The group was not composed of criminals or sadists; they were drawn from the elite of the German middle class. There were more PhD graduates among the Einsatzgruppen proportionally than any other unit of the German army.
|
On February 01 2009 16:09 rei wrote:
Here is another fact: Atheism does not have to be taught, there is no sunday bible equivalent Atheism book study,
if you can think critically, which I assume you can, Dazed_Spy, tell me how people became Atheist or an non-believer?
Atheism is taught by some people; one can argue that these religion arguments is an attempt for both sides to not only defend their views but also to teach their views to the other side.
Individuals may become atheist for a number of reasons. They may come to believe that there is no such thing as a supernatural god. They may come to complete theological disagreement with the religion that they grew up in. Something may have occurred in their life which pissed them off and they lost faith in their god (common in Christianity).
You don't necessarily have to think hard to lose faith, really.
|
lol, hell, I've gone from being an atheist and back again my self more than like...4 times.
|
I'm fairly certain I will never become a Christian again as I have far too many issues with the religion itself, and I absolutely abhor the institutions of almost every Christian denomination. Catholicism is the only one with a decent system.
|
On February 01 2009 16:50 Dazed_Spy wrote:
lol, hell, I've gone from being an atheist and back again my self more than like...4 times.
Since you are sleep typing, would you mind sharing what exactly it is that convinces you to become a theist again? Is it always to the same religion? Have you dabbled with Wotan and Thor at all or is it always back to the Judeo-Christian deities?
|
It's all about Zeus, baby. Patricide ftw.
|
United States22883 Posts
On February 01 2009 16:19 Dazed_Spy wrote:
That correlation does not prove a thing, and I don't think any study can actually prove it, so that remains purely my own hypothesis. Far too big a question to actually have a realistic answer for, on either side.
It could, as an extension of anomie or other social disorders. Remember when Obama talked about people clinging to guns and religion? While it was a terrible thing for a politician to say, many sociologists would say that it fit the bill.
Also, I have no idea what rei is talking about. He tells you to read Dawkins' work and then says it doesn't need to be taught.
|
On February 01 2009 16:19 Dazed_Spy wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2009 15:58 IdrA wrote:On February 01 2009 15:37 Dazed_Spy wrote:On February 01 2009 15:32 IdrA wrote:k well you entirely went back on what you said at first so i guess theres no real discussion to be had here. I just don't like militant atheists I don't have a problem with people who debate on weather or not god exists, and takes the side of atheism. unless by militant you meant suicide bombing atheists or whatever, but if you did then you were talking about something that doesnt exist. christopher hitchens is about as militant as we get. You have a very bad comprehension of the english language. Debating on the existence or lack thereof of a divine being is not the same as being militant. Militant atheism is going around screaming that religion is false, people who follow it are blind fools, that it is the bane of human existence. Debating on the existence of god is debating on the existence of god. Jesus christ, pay attention for once rather than running your mouth. no need to be condescending dumbshit arguing against religion and going around telling people that religion is false is the SAME FUCKING THING. you're just trying to pull out of contradicting yourself by making it sound like one is more belligerent than the other. No need to be condescending? Idra...you do that every damn day on these boards. I don't know why the hell you presume that a Debate is the equivalent of an argument, it is not. You already wrote (militant atheists, those who push their beliefs on others). That is an argument, that is forceful. A debate is just a reasoned discussion with point and counter point. The difference lies I suppose, in the motivation/emotions of the person doing it. If I am in a debate on weather or not god exists, that hardly equates me to attempting to convert the person, we are just having a discussion
ya but its not ok for dumb people to be condescending
a debate and an argument are the same thing, one just has a more aggressive connotation. you are attempting to prove that you are right and the person you're talking to is wrong. they serve the same purpose, have the same outcomes, for all intents and purposes they are indeed the same. either you agree with atheists promoting their views or you dont. dont really know which, since youve espoused both positions within the last 2 pages.
|
Kentor
United States5784 Posts
any anti-theists around here? <3
|
opps I hit the wrong button and erased my entire post 
|
United States22883 Posts
I also belief that by teaching people how to think critically, and then provide them with empirical evidences, they will come to the conclusion that there is no god. This way, I will not be imposing my atheist belief on my students, whatever conclusion they come up with is their own. First of all, yes you are because they're "thinking critically" in the form that you're imposing on them.
Second, it's incorrect to assume people that believe in God do not think critically. A great deal of them acknowledge there is no logical basis for God, yet they do anyways. Arguing against faith gets you nowhere.
|
On February 01 2009 20:25 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +I also belief that by teaching people how to think critically, and then provide them with empirical evidences, they will come to the conclusion that there is no god. This way, I will not be imposing my atheist belief on my students, whatever conclusion they come up with is their own. First of all, yes you are because they're "thinking critically" in the form that you're imposing on them. Second, it's incorrect to assume people that believe in God do not think critically. A great deal of them acknowledge there is no logical basis for God, yet they do anyways. Arguing against faith gets you nowhere.
I have provided an example on what i mean by not imposing the teacher's believes on the students, in my previous post edited
Critical thinking refers to people's metacognitive ability. Most college students have this ability developed, however, some can only apply this ability in academic environment. A example of how to engage and develop student's metacognition or critical thinking kills: i'm teaching history from an American Text book (U.S. government's point of views), and then teach that same history again from other people's point of views (example: Takaki's book and his works). The students will then compel to question which version of these same events are what really happened? They will ask the question on why, how, and what. The students will not take whatever they read for granted, they will have their own reasoning and logic behind everything they learn. The teacher is not imposing anything on the students' believes, they just facilitate their learning.
and ya, it is incorrect to assume people that believe in god do not think critically, as Dawkins himself debated with a PHd in biology about religion vs atheism, which he proved the illogical conclusion of the god believer at the end, and ya it got him no where.
Edit: moved it here so you don't miss it jibba
@Jibba, I am referring to the fact that teaching evolution is not teaching atheism. Evolution is a theory it doesn't even talk about whether or not it should have an god. But the students who learn evolution and able to connect the dots on what they have learn from their bible study for example, they will come to the conclusion on their own that the bible is all a lie. In this sense, atheism is not taught, the theory of evolution is taught, atheism beliefs of the student after he study evolution is a logical deduction by the student alone. The teacher did not impose he/her beliefs into the teaching.
|
United States22883 Posts
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_R._Miller
Ken Miller is the molecular biologist who destroyed Intelligent Design in the Pennsylvania court system and continues to do so in tours, lectures, and books. I have met him personally and he is very, very, very intelligent and very, very sharp. He is as strong a proponent of evolution as you will find, and he is also Roman Catholic and he believes in God
You're making a terrible assumption that believing in religion = believing in creationism or any number of other extremely fundamentalist beliefs. There are millions of pluralists out there who have no problem accepting other religions, theories such as evolution and will likely maintain that their belief in God is irrational, as Professor Miller does. Faith is irrational.
|
@jibba I wrote this last night, i guess you missed it. and I tried to quote just now, and I fucked up on clicking edit and I screwed up my post. But here I agree with you 100% that there are many people who believe in religion yet does not believe in creationism.
Quote from last night:
There are many god-dis-believing people who go to church or some form of religious social gatherings. It is simply a necessity for most of them, because people usually do not isolate themselves from their friends just because they have different believes, for them it has nothing to do with the god in whatever religion them and their friends are worshiping. They consider themselves to be part of that religion, but they just don't belief in the "God" part. For example, these people will not kneel down and start praying to god and ask for help when shits go seriously wrong, because they know it is useless, and totally waste of time. I belief these people are Atheist too, even they claim they are part of whatever religion they are in. Many of my friends, all my relatives are god-dis-believing religious people.
edit: in case you miss my edit on previous post Jibba I need to make my claim about critical thinking more clear.
Critical thinking refers to people's metacognitive ability. Most college students have this ability developed, however, some can only apply this ability in academic environment. A example in non sciences nor religion related issues. How to engage and develop student's metacognition or critical thinking kills: let's suppose a teacher is teaching history from an American Text book (U.S. government's point of views), and then teach that same history again from other people's point of views (example: Takaki's book and his works). The students will then compel to question which version of these same events are what really happened? They will ask the question on why, how, and what. The students will not take whatever they read for granted, they will have their own reasoning and logic behind everything they learn. The teacher is not imposing anything on the students' believes, they just facilitate their learning.
PS. I guess we woke up about the same time hahahaha
|
On February 01 2009 20:25 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +I also belief that by teaching people how to think critically, and then provide them with empirical evidences, they will come to the conclusion that there is no god. This way, I will not be imposing my atheist belief on my students, whatever conclusion they come up with is their own. First of all, yes you are because they're "thinking critically" in the form that you're imposing on them. Second, it's incorrect to assume people that believe in God do not think critically. A great deal of them acknowledge there is no logical basis for God, yet they do anyways. Arguing against faith gets you nowhere.
fideism
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
