On August 01 2011 03:17 VIB wrote: Cyba you and all of you whining that atheism is a belief just like religion, have zero clue of what a proof or what science is.
Objectively absolutely nothing can be 100% proven true or false. So that we can actually solve real problems, we set standards of how much evidence we require to consider something true, even if it's not 100%, which never is. So scientists will consider some true when there's a lot of evidence for it.
Evolution for example, has shit tons of evidence for it. It's still not 100%, but it's so much that scientists consider it true. God on the other hand, has precisely zero evidence for it. So no matter how much you close your eyes and whine in your corner. At the end of the day, scientifically, there's no god.
I wasn't really saying that i was just saying that some people make atheism become a religion by acting the same way as religious people do.
And when it comes to science you should read up more, evolution is still a THEORY for example, yes it has alot of evidence which makes it a good theory. Same thing for relativity and so on you have evidence, measurements and so on that proove to some extent that your theory is either corect either close to beeing so. A scientific aproach can't be given to religion since it's all in the human mind.
Evolution as a scientific theory is as good as fact until you find me a a Precambrian chicken. PS. Gravity is also 'just' a theory.. lol...
On August 01 2011 15:31 JesusOurSaviour wrote:
On August 01 2011 10:27 jdseemoreglass wrote:
On August 01 2011 10:15 FeUerFlieGe wrote: People should keep their faith and lack of faith to themselves, no matter if they can give logical proof or not.
Faith should always be respected, until it attempts to contradict the conclusions that have been reached by science. I would never argue or contradict a person who chooses to believe in God. I would argue with someone who attempted to deny things like evolution because of their religious beliefs. There is a very clear difference between the two.
I am a Christian and a 2nd year medical student. I reject the age of the earth as posited by mainstream biologists. God created the world in 7 days, He spoke the world as we know it into existence.
) and no, Christians do not troll, we speak our mind. EDIT: My bad, will step out of this thread entirely now. If you want an answer, shoot me a PM. Otherwise my posts will be a one-way troll fest with no replies from me.
Age of the earth is not in the realm of biology but rather geology or physics.
Gravity is a force, Newton's theory of gravity is just a theory, and even if it was prooven corect by tons of measurements it prooved to be untrue in certain cases. => Theory of relativity, which explains even more shit is backed up by more measurements but still has it's blind spots => String Theory, which is a bit abstract and doesn't have that many good measurements.
Science is only something worth believing in because a true scientist understands how little he knows, that's why it's constantly improoving. If you just take everything as it is you belong in the dark ages -.-
That still does not explain your "just a theory" argument. In science there are only facts and theories. And they are different beasts. Theories are models of the world and facts are observations. Theory is as far as you can get in the scientific method.
And just to point out the Newtionian -> relativistic switch was not some total rearrangement. It was just pretty slight (although very important) change in terms of predictions to the Newtonian physics. In well established sciences new theories that replace old ones tend not to be revolutions but evolutions. So even if current theory of evolution was shown to be insufficient, new theory would keep the core of it anyway.
And evolution is also a fact. It was observed.
Wasn't arguing against evolution was just saying it's not a 100% prooven truth, it IS a theory it HAS observations to back it up that makes it a good a theory.
Ofcourse a new theory of evolution would keep the core and work on it. The entire point of the post was that science is an ongoing process, we don't even know everything about the things we do know. It's important to keep track of the limitations of science at any current time, too often it's the people who don't even understand it very well that think we know it all.
ill try to reply to all of you since you points are (vaguely) related. - first, how can you call yourself a skeptic and still advocate the certainties af atheism?. paradox much?. arent you suppose to be skeptic about atheism too?. - second, how can you claim youre capable of critical thinking when all you do if follow someone elses thoughts?. those were only to show that people are neither skeptic nor capable of critical thinking when it comes to their beliefs. mere sheeps on a crusade.
now, from what ive seen all your logic is based on 'the fact' that religion is bad/wrong, atheism is good/right and then just go from there; as if being right is an excuse for everything ... but w/e, ill go along. im not saying that religion is good or that atheism is bad. im saying that doesnt matter because atm their M.O is the same (preaching ideas expecting/hoping to get more followers).
1) most people cant think for themselfs so sooner or later will want/demand to be guided (in w/e direction their 'faith' goes) which means theyll need a leader. the free market (supply and demand) will make sure theyll get at least one. 2) the subjective side of any ideology, aided by the flaws in human nature, demands that sooner or later, any attempt at organizing it, giving it a structure, making it available to masses, to flat out fail (or be way off from what if was originally intended). it doesnt matter if its comunism, christianism, atheism, hinduism or w/e *ism. once it goes mainstream people change it, they change its values to fit their needs. atheism went from rejecting deities to being pro science. like wtf?
as an atheist, i cant understand why the fuck you people choose to bully christianity (mind you that i used christianity and not religion in general because i dont see you bulling budhism for example)?. do you get points for it?. - dont generalize anything. present your thoughts in a critical manner directly related to the issue. (religion?, is not specific) - dont expect people to agree with you. for an atheist that should not matter. you need to let people think for themselfs. (it should also not matter that they cant do that) - nope, atheism doesnt need organization, structure nor peer reviewing. science might but youre not supposed to be the defenders of science.
On August 02 2011 17:18 xM(Z wrote: ill try to reply to all of you since you points are (vaguely) related. - first, how can you call yourself a skeptic and still advocate the certainties af atheism?. paradox much?. arent you suppose to be skeptic about atheism too?. - second, how can you claim youre capable of critical thinking when all you do if follow someone elses thoughts?. those were only to show that people are neither skeptic nor capable of critical thinking when it comes to their beliefs. mere sheeps on a crusade.
now, from what ive seen all your logic is based on 'the fact' that religion is bad/wrong, atheism is good/right and then just go from there; as if being right is an excuse for everything ... but w/e, ill go along. im not saying that religion is good or that atheism is bad. im saying that doesnt matter because atm their M.O is the same (preaching ideas expecting/hoping to get more followers).
1) most people cant think for themselfs so sooner or later will want/demand to be guided (in w/e direction their 'faith' goes) which means theyll need a leader. the free market (supply and demand) will make sure theyll get at least one. 2) the subjective side of any ideology, aided by the flaws in human nature, demands that sooner or later, any attempt at organizing it, giving it a structure, making it available to masses, to flat out fail (or be way off from what if was originally intended). it doesnt matter if its comunism, christianism, atheism, hinduism or w/e *ism. once it goes mainstream people change it, they change its values to fit their needs. atheism went from rejecting deities to being pro science. like wtf?
Belief and acceptance are two very different entities. Atheism is my belief system, however, I am far more strict about what I accept.
First, there is no such thing as perfect knowledge of any physical observation. Take this from me, a physicist (but don't completely accept it). We can make logical conclusions - if A then B. But these conclusions are pure math, and a mathematical identity has nothing to do with the physical world, it's just a language tool. But any idea of the world must be rooted from an axiom. I can use a mathematical argument to say that "If A then B", which means that I know 100% that B must be true if A is, but I simply used a mathematical identity there. A is the axiom, and I can not be entirely sure if it's true. Therefore I cannot be entirely sure if B is true. That being said, any concept of our physical world is a theory. Evolution, Gravity, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster are all theories, and some have a stronger basis than others. If the evidence towards a theory is so compelling, and is the best candidate to explain phenomena by a long shot, it is an "accepted theory". It may, however still be wrong! Newton's "action at a distance" theory to explain gravity was the accepted model, but it turned out to be wrong (but still valid for calculations in certain limits).
Now that I got that out of the way, let me elaborate on my first sentence ("Belief and acceptance blah blah...") Belief is a personal choice, and one should always acknowledge that its foundation is quite weak. Acceptance should be exclusively reserved for "accepted theories", which I defined in the previous paragraph. Go to a very headstrong close-minded atheist, or a fanatic catholic, or any other analogous example, and they will claim that they "accept" their stance on theism, but keep in mind that they're not very strong representatives of that belief. One should always keep in mind the distinction between belief and acceptance.
The only reason I'm an atheist (the only "reason" one could ever adopt atheism) is that most arguments towards theism are fallacies of logic. Sure, many of them are compelling, and attractive, but they abandon critical thinking in their execution. Also, they are meant to defend an entity whose existence is beyond what can be measured in principle. Thus, I simply default to the simplest explanation, given all the credible evidence that actually does contribute towards the stance of theism vs atheism (which is none for either side).
Thus, I cannot make any arguments defending atheism. I can only debunk arguments for theism, and one might argue that those are the former type of arguments, but I'm simply saying there is no spontaneously inspired argument thereof. I can, however, spend months trying to steer you towards the things I accept (relativity, quantum field theory, etc...)
On August 02 2011 17:18 xM(Z wrote: ill try to reply to all of you since you points are (vaguely) related. - first, how can you call yourself a skeptic and still advocate the certainties af atheism?. paradox much?. arent you suppose to be skeptic about atheism too?.
Depends on how you define atheism. Very few atheists actually straight out say "The existence of a god is impossible.", meaning most of us are agnostic atheists. Though when we say that, uneducated people seem to believe that we're uncertain and eventually will pick something else - which is a grave misinterpretation of the meaning agnostic atheist. Being agnostic atheist sort of by definition means that you're skeptic of atheism. So your statement is actually false since we (most atheists) don't actually adhere to the skewed view of atheism that you have.
- second, how can you claim youre capable of critical thinking when all you do if follow someone elses thoughts?.
Atheism is a non-belief. No atheist is following anyone's thoughts.
"We're not selling anything, we're just not buying what you're selling."
those were only to show that people are neither skeptic nor capable of critical thinking when it comes to their beliefs. mere sheeps on a crusade.
I'll just point out again that atheism is not a belief, but a non-belief.
now, from what ive seen all your logic is based on 'the fact' that religion is bad/wrong, atheism is good/right and then just go from there; as if being right is an excuse for everything ... but w/e, ill go along. im not saying that religion is good or that atheism is bad. im saying that doesnt matter because atm their M.O is the same (preaching ideas expecting/hoping to get more followers).
From a scientific viewpoint atheism would be the "correct" standpoint, or the "most justified" standpoint. This would change in the future if someone produced proof that a deity exists. How could you possibly claim that the M.O. of atheism and religion is the same? This is utterly ignorant and just indicates that you have no clue what atheism is.
as an atheist, i cant understand why the fuck you people choose to bully christianity (mind you that i used christianity and not religion in general because i dont see you bulling budhism for example)?. do you get points for it?.
In my opinion we should scrutinize all religions. It is understandable though that most atheists in the western world are mostly critical towards Christianity since Christianity is the most wide-spread religion in the west. By the way, it isn't bullying. it's fair treatment. A religion shouldn't be given a free pass just because a lot of people are religious.
im pretty sure the only people who can say they have a purely logical take on the idea of god are agnostics. everyone else is using some faith. its impossible to know something doesn't exist anywhere unless you are omniscient. and if you're omniscient then youre probably god.
can still refute individual gods/religions, which is the same thing as saying 'any' god doesn't exist for those who believe in said god/religion.. they make no such distinction
On August 02 2011 17:18 xM(Z wrote: ill try to reply to all of you since you points are (vaguely) related. - first, how can you call yourself a skeptic and still advocate the certainties af atheism?. paradox much?. arent you suppose to be skeptic about atheism too?. - second, how can you claim youre capable of critical thinking when all you do if follow someone elses thoughts?. those were only to show that people are neither skeptic nor capable of critical thinking when it comes to their beliefs. mere sheeps on a crusade.
now, from what ive seen all your logic is based on 'the fact' that religion is bad/wrong, atheism is good/right and then just go from there; as if being right is an excuse for everything ... but w/e, ill go along. im not saying that religion is good or that atheism is bad. im saying that doesnt matter because atm their M.O is the same (preaching ideas expecting/hoping to get more followers).
1) most people cant think for themselfs so sooner or later will want/demand to be guided (in w/e direction their 'faith' goes) which means theyll need a leader. the free market (supply and demand) will make sure theyll get at least one. 2) the subjective side of any ideology, aided by the flaws in human nature, demands that sooner or later, any attempt at organizing it, giving it a structure, making it available to masses, to flat out fail (or be way off from what if was originally intended). it doesnt matter if its comunism, christianism, atheism, hinduism or w/e *ism. once it goes mainstream people change it, they change its values to fit their needs. atheism went from rejecting deities to being pro science. like wtf?
as an atheist, i cant understand why the fuck you people choose to bully christianity (mind you that i used christianity and not religion in general because i dont see you bulling budhism for example)?. do you get points for it?. - dont generalize anything. present your thoughts in a critical manner directly related to the issue. (religion?, is not specific) - dont expect people to agree with you. for an atheist that should not matter. you need to let people think for themselfs. (it should also not matter that they cant do that) - nope, atheism doesnt need organization, structure nor peer reviewing. science might but youre not supposed to be the defenders of science.
I do not think discussing this with you will lead to anything. You keep mixing up atheism and critical thinking, you generalize alot about what atheists are, and you project alot of false beliefs and ideas upon all who label themselves skeptic or atheist. It seems to me like you harbour some kind of resentment to what you call atheists.
And religion is not too unspecific for discussing this. No religion has any evidence going for their beliefs, why spend energy on separating them. They are all in the same boat.
On August 02 2011 19:35 Buff345 wrote: im pretty sure the only people who can say they have a purely logical take on the idea of god are agnostics. everyone else is using some faith. its impossible to know something doesn't exist anywhere unless you are omniscient. and if you're omniscient then youre probably god.
Are you agnostic on the idea of trolls, fairies, a teapot in an elliptical orbit around the sun? Because you can't truly know that those 3 things don't exist after all...
There is this hipster attitude nowadays of agnosticism being some cool third option of the "do you believe in a god?" question. The fact is atheism means without a god (and by extention - has no belief system), theism means with a god (so is a believer), and agnosticism means I don't know. How can you answer the question of do you believe in a god with I don't know? Do you not know the contents of your own mind? Belief isn't fact, its faith. Two very different beasts. Non belief is the rational default to anything outlandish until proof is shown. You can be an agnostic theist or agnostic atheist, which shows it isnt a third option. If you believe in a god you are a theist. If you believe in some god, somewhere but you don't think religions have a proper view on him/her, you are an agnostic theist.If you think god is everywhere and not a personal god, you are a deist. If you are anything else, you are an atheist.
Atheists are pretty commonly agnostic (because the default answer of science to any unknown question is "I don't know" with an addition of "we're working on it") in any case, because if a god was proven through logical or scientific means we would happily go along with it (we wouldn't do what the modern faithful do, and endlessly make excuses so that our non belief could survive ). But there is really an extreme lack of evidence for any current or historical god existing (of which there have been over 3700 religions), something the faithful literally can't understand because to them its "obvious" - but they don't realise that "obviousness" is the result of many years of conditioning into accepting the silly as truth, and fact and reason as silly when it comes to god.
The reason some may say "there is no god" is not an article of faith, its the same as saying there are no leprechauns - there is no evidence to suggest they exist, logically or empirically and while we can't search the entire universe for their existence, it's reasonable to say they don't exist. When that line of reasoning is applied to a god who scripture says takes a VERY active role in our lives, and loves us and answers prayers and all that, it is very easy to say that there's nothing to show for that and it's clearly false because the vast majority of the "evidence" (and I use that term very loosely here) is in a thousands of years old book written from the oral traditions of a particularly uneducated desert area of the world.
In fact my point above has been conceded by many modern believers to such an extent that god has become more and more ethereal and mysterious, if you speak a believer with a good education you will notice they've turned the distorting of reason into an art form in order to match what they've learned with their faith, and in fact it can be very hard to pin down what exactly it is that they believe. Their god is vastly different to the ever present and intervening god of the bible, that's for sure. And in previous points of history, their views of god would be branded heretical and would earn them a place in front of an inquisitor.
But that's not so surprising - the 19 men who flew planes into the twin towers and pentagon all had college educations. They rationalised their faith with their education too...
On August 02 2011 19:35 Buff345 wrote: im pretty sure the only people who can say they have a purely logical take on the idea of god are agnostics. everyone else is using some faith. its impossible to know something doesn't exist anywhere unless you are omniscient. and if you're omniscient then youre probably god.
Are you agnostic on the idea of trolls, fairies, a teapot in an elliptical orbit around the sun? Because you can't truly know that those 3 things don't exist after all...
You are misunderstanding about agnosticism. It's not saying "everything is possible", it's saying "there are no clear answers to metaphysical questions". Since god is a metaphysical being, above time and matter, then no one can say weither he exist or not in the eyes of an agnostic.
But since fairies, trolls and the likes are physical beings, then we can observe that they are not here.
On August 02 2011 21:22 sVnteen wrote: cool stuff but i dont really see why were in nihilism
Only partially. Nihilism is rejecting all religion, all morals, and saying life is meaningless. I say far from it. Reject religion sure, but morality is one of the best things humans have invented so why lump it in with one of the worst?
Life being meaningless, well, it depends what meaning you're trying to assign. If you're asking if we're here for a purpose - there's no reason to think that. If you're asking if life is worth living, well definitely. So much enjoyment can be had from life, and seeing our progression as a species is all totally engrossing. Let your senses feast while treating your fellow man how you want to be treated (which is not a philosophy "jesus" invented - confucious spoke about it hundreds of years previously and he didn't even invent it)
The irony about religious people saying atheists consider life meaningless is extreme - religious people believe that THIS life, our one life, only has worth because it ends and we have another life afterwards, and this life is merely a test to get to the next one. Can you not see the silliness in that? I think that degrades the hell out of our lives, it makes it frivolous, trivial, when really its all we've got.
That is why you get religious suicide bombers. Thats why you see fundamentalists saying "we love death more than you love life".
Life may not have meaning, in the religious sense, but it sure as hell has worth.
Edit@ Whitedog - Agnosticism is "I don't know". You can attribute that to anything, not just metaphysical questions. So ghosts, spirits, magic, summonings etc would fall into that category? What if the teapot in an ellipse orbit was a mystical one and couldn't be seen with the naked eye, couldn't be detected with the best telescope, nor the best scientific equipment? Or an ethereal ice cream factory on jupiter, where they make sundae's for ghosts? You surely can see the fallacy of that point of view.
And, even going along with your version, agnostics (or more precisely in your case, agnostic theists) seem to assume the metaphysical exists while all we have and all we know of as true, is physical. Agnostics then are as guilty of a belief system as much as theists are, especially when you say "god is a metaphysical being" - where does that information even come from? The bible shows a highly interactive/interfering god/dictator. If "he" actually still were like that, that would be proof enough no?
On August 02 2011 19:35 Buff345 wrote: im pretty sure the only people who can say they have a purely logical take on the idea of god are agnostics. everyone else is using some faith. its impossible to know something doesn't exist anywhere unless you are omniscient. and if you're omniscient then youre probably god.
Are you agnostic on the idea of trolls, fairies, a teapot in an elliptical orbit around the sun? Because you can't truly know that those 3 things don't exist after all...
You are misunderstanding about agnosticism. It's not saying "everything is possible", it's saying "there are no clear answers to metaphysical questions". Since god is a metaphysical being, above time and matter, then no one can say weither he exist or not in the eyes of an agnostic.
But since fairies, trolls and the likes are physical beings, then we can observe that they are not here.
Nope, agnosticism says : "I do not know whether God/... exists.". If you want to be self-consistent you also have to be agnostic about fairies, trolls,.... , because they might exist we just did not see them yet.
On August 02 2011 19:35 Buff345 wrote: im pretty sure the only people who can say they have a purely logical take on the idea of god are agnostics. everyone else is using some faith. its impossible to know something doesn't exist anywhere unless you are omniscient. and if you're omniscient then youre probably god.
Are you agnostic on the idea of trolls, fairies, a teapot in an elliptical orbit around the sun? Because you can't truly know that those 3 things don't exist after all...
You are misunderstanding about agnosticism. It's not saying "everything is possible", it's saying "there are no clear answers to metaphysical questions". Since god is a metaphysical being, above time and matter, then no one can say weither he exist or not in the eyes of an agnostic.
But since fairies, trolls and the likes are physical beings, then we can observe that they are not here.
Gnosticism and agnosticism are both positions with regard to knowlegde, not belief. It is perfectly possible to say: "I don't know whether the Christian God exists, but I believe in him because XYZ" making this person an agnostic theist. Many theists claim to "know" God exists however, for instance on the basis of their personal relationship with him and are thus "gnostic theists" (not to be confused with the religious sect). With atheism things become a bit more complicated since it is usually not clear to which god concept people are referring. An atheist might claim to know that a particular god does not exist (maybe because of a logical contradiction), so he would be a "gnostic atheist" with respect to this particular god. I have yet to meet an atheist who claimed to know with certainty that no god or gods would exist, however. So, in this general sense I would say that most atheists are agnostics.
On August 02 2011 17:18 xM(Z wrote: ill try to reply to all of you since you points are (vaguely) related. - first, how can you call yourself a skeptic and still advocate the certainties af atheism?. paradox much?. arent you suppose to be skeptic about atheism too?. - second, how can you claim youre capable of critical thinking when all you do if follow someone elses thoughts?. those were only to show that people are neither skeptic nor capable of critical thinking when it comes to their beliefs. mere sheeps on a crusade.
It sounds as if you're concept of scepticism is one in which a.) you are never allowed to develop a point of view and stand by it, since you 'stop' being sceptic the moment you reach a conclusion and b.) are never allowed to follow the thoughts of someone else but rather have to rely only on your own conclusions.
The fallacy of point a is that scepticism is not so much about having the same amount of scepticism towards everything and thereby constantly struggeling to reach any conclusive point at all, but rather the mindset you use to approach problems, namely the willingness to scrutinize your point of view when presented with new/other approaches/ideas/solutions/facts. Imho scepticism doesn't mean you are not allowed to be confident into a certain point of view, but rather that you are aware of why you think that way and willing to be critical about that way if faced with new information. In the case of the "certainty of atheism" this means that lots of people have by sceptical thinking (at least I hope you're atheist because you thought long and hard and not because your friends are ;D) come to the conclusion that he existence of a general kind of deity is - at least taking acount those informations available to us - rather unlikely, and the existence of any one of the deitys worshipped by the big religions of today downright silly. And as long as they reached that point through critical thinking they should very well be aware that they can't be sure it's the truth, but there's nothing wrong or even hyprocritical/paradox in defending their point of view and standing to it, as long as they're open to debate. The conclusion itself is even rather unimportant if you want to labeln someone as 'sceptic' or not, it's rather the way they came to this conclusion - critical thinking isn't defined by the final point of view you reach but rather by the way you reach (and sustain) it.
Your point B is pretty much were madness lies. It's one of the biggest inventions of humanity that we're able to transport knowledge/informations/idead through time by the means of media. It's downright not smart to not follow great thinkers to challenge you're views, learn something new, and agree or disagree with them. You're position implies that a 'sceptic' was never allowed to agree with anything anyone else has ever thought or said (because it wouldn't be their own thought anymore and thereby not 'sceptic') - but that basically forbids a sceptic to say or think anything at all... because most thougts you think have been thought, written down, debated, criticized, etc. and it can only be fruitful if you informe yourself about what other people had to say regarding the same topic. And if you agree with them or even cite them because they were able to express their thoughts a lot better then you are.. so what?
On August 02 2011 17:18 xM(Z wrote: ill try to reply to all of you since you points are (vaguely) related. - first, how can you call yourself a skeptic and still advocate the certainties af atheism?. paradox much?. arent you suppose to be skeptic about atheism too?. - second, how can you claim youre capable of critical thinking when all you do if follow someone elses thoughts?. those were only to show that people are neither skeptic nor capable of critical thinking when it comes to their beliefs. mere sheeps on a crusade.
now, from what ive seen all your logic is based on 'the fact' that religion is bad/wrong, atheism is good/right and then just go from there; as if being right is an excuse for everything ... but w/e, ill go along. im not saying that religion is good or that atheism is bad. im saying that doesnt matter because atm their M.O is the same (preaching ideas expecting/hoping to get more followers).
1) most people cant think for themselfs so sooner or later will want/demand to be guided (in w/e direction their 'faith' goes) which means theyll need a leader. the free market (supply and demand) will make sure theyll get at least one. 2) the subjective side of any ideology, aided by the flaws in human nature, demands that sooner or later, any attempt at organizing it, giving it a structure, making it available to masses, to flat out fail (or be way off from what if was originally intended). it doesnt matter if its comunism, christianism, atheism, hinduism or w/e *ism. once it goes mainstream people change it, they change its values to fit their needs. atheism went from rejecting deities to being pro science. like wtf?
Belief and acceptance are two very different entities. Atheism is my belief system, however, I am far more strict about what I accept.
First, there is no such thing as perfect knowledge of any physical observation. Take this from me, a physicist (but don't completely accept it). We can make logical conclusions - if A then B. But these conclusions are pure math, and a mathematical identity has nothing to do with the physical world, it's just a language tool. But any idea of the world must be rooted from an axiom. I can use a mathematical argument to say that "If A then B", which means that I know 100% that B must be true if A is, but I simply used a mathematical identity there. A is the axiom, and I can not be entirely sure if it's true. Therefore I cannot be entirely sure if B is true. That being said, any concept of our physical world is a theory. Evolution, Gravity, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster are all theories, and some have a stronger basis than others. If the evidence towards a theory is so compelling, and is the best candidate to explain phenomena by a long shot, it is an "accepted theory". It may, however still be wrong! Newton's "action at a distance" theory to explain gravity was the accepted model, but it turned out to be wrong (but still valid for calculations in certain limits).
Now that I got that out of the way, let me elaborate on my first sentence ("Belief and acceptance blah blah...") Belief is a personal choice, and one should always acknowledge that its foundation is quite weak. Acceptance should be exclusively reserved for "accepted theories", which I defined in the previous paragraph. Go to a very headstrong close-minded atheist, or a fanatic catholic, or any other analogous example, and they will claim that they "accept" their stance on theism, but keep in mind that they're not very strong representatives of that belief. One should always keep in mind the distinction between belief and acceptance.
The only reason I'm an atheist (the only "reason" one could ever adopt atheism) is that most arguments towards theism are fallacies of logic. Sure, many of them are compelling, and attractive, but they abandon critical thinking in their execution. Also, they are meant to defend an entity whose existence is beyond what can be measured in principle. Thus, I simply default to the simplest explanation, given all the credible evidence that actually does contribute towards the stance of theism vs atheism (which is none for either side).
Thus, I cannot make any arguments defending atheism. I can only debunk arguments for theism, and one might argue that those are the former type of arguments, but I'm simply saying there is no spontaneously inspired argument thereof. I can, however, spend months trying to steer you towards the things I accept (relativity, quantum field theory, etc...)
your 'belief <-> acceptance' theory assumes total free will (with no social/monetary constrains) and also relies on the subjects ability to procces the information (your information). that basically means one can not be forced in to atheism since he is in some way, impaired. (now, atheists, dont get your panties in a bunch because thats what religious people can say about you). since he can not (doesnt have the ability) to understand you what will you have him do: blindly believe (in) you just because youre a higher 'logical' beeing? (that means you are requiring faith from him, while being an atheist, while fighting against a belief system that requires faith). you can not make arguments about defending atheism but you can can make arguments about what atheism wants to achieve (a world free of faith) and about what is expected of the future atheist wannabeez. as an atheist, you should present your proof, your idea, then gtfo. those who can will follow but those who cant shall not be judged by you. not even if they believe in the spaghetti monster. you can say i am trying to redefine atheism but im merely pointing out it has became mainstream-ized and in a bad way.
On August 02 2011 17:18 xM(Z wrote: ill try to reply to all of you since you points are (vaguely) related. - first, how can you call yourself a skeptic and still advocate the certainties af atheism?. paradox much?. arent you suppose to be skeptic about atheism too?.
Depends on how you define atheism. Very few atheists actually straight out say "The existence of a god is impossible.", meaning most of us are agnostic atheists. Though when we say that, uneducated people seem to believe that we're uncertain and eventually will pick something else - which is a grave misinterpretation of the meaning agnostic atheist. Being agnostic atheist sort of by definition means that you're skeptic of atheism. So your statement is actually false since we (most atheists) don't actually adhere to the skewed view of atheism that you have.
now, from what ive seen all your logic is based on 'the fact' that religion is bad/wrong, atheism is good/right and then just go from there; as if being right is an excuse for everything ... but w/e, ill go along. im not saying that religion is good or that atheism is bad. im saying that doesnt matter because atm their M.O is the same (preaching ideas expecting/hoping to get more followers).
From a scientific viewpoint atheism would be the "correct" standpoint, or the "most justified" standpoint. This would change in the future if someone produced proof that a deity exists. How could you possibly claim that the M.O. of atheism and religion is the same? This is utterly ignorant and just indicates that you have no clue what atheism is.
as an atheist, i cant understand why the fuck you people choose to bully christianity (mind you that i used christianity and not religion in general because i dont see you bulling budhism for example)?. do you get points for it?.
In my opinion we should scrutinize all religions. It is understandable though that most atheists in the western world are mostly critical towards Christianity since Christianity is the most wide-spread religion in the west. By the way, it isn't bullying. it's fair treatment. A religion shouldn't be given a free pass just because a lot of people are religious.
no offence but you seem like a tool. saying "No atheist is following anyone's thoughts" then right after, post a video depicting someone elses thoughts then expect people to believe/follow them is ... ? (i have no words). are atheist thoughts not 'someone elses thoughts'?. you said "Atheism is a non-belief". in your religious context belief=faith and faith=a god, any kind of god. now, if all people will become godless, faithless and beliefless your statement will change to "Atheism is a non-" from there it can go two ways: 1) replace "belief" with anything worth non-fighting against (from your perspective) just to keep atheism alive (you know, doing the right thing science wise) 2) since atheism serverd its purpose it should dissapear. I know that logically, having serverd its purpose, atheism should dissapear but can you prove to me that the first case wont happen?. you know, without relying in your beliefs?. anyway, if atheism will perpetuate the 'non-xxx' stance pass god/gods it will become a thing (and from my perspective, a religious thing. in other words, im not-buying what youre not-selling). it has the same M.O. because it expects things from people while it should not.
On August 02 2011 17:18 xM(Z wrote: ill try to reply to all of you since you points are (vaguely) related. - first, how can you call yourself a skeptic and still advocate the certainties af atheism?. paradox much?. arent you suppose to be skeptic about atheism too?. - second, how can you claim youre capable of critical thinking when all you do if follow someone elses thoughts?. those were only to show that people are neither skeptic nor capable of critical thinking when it comes to their beliefs. mere sheeps on a crusade.
now, from what ive seen all your logic is based on 'the fact' that religion is bad/wrong, atheism is good/right and then just go from there; as if being right is an excuse for everything ... but w/e, ill go along. im not saying that religion is good or that atheism is bad. im saying that doesnt matter because atm their M.O is the same (preaching ideas expecting/hoping to get more followers).
1) most people cant think for themselfs so sooner or later will want/demand to be guided (in w/e direction their 'faith' goes) which means theyll need a leader. the free market (supply and demand) will make sure theyll get at least one. 2) the subjective side of any ideology, aided by the flaws in human nature, demands that sooner or later, any attempt at organizing it, giving it a structure, making it available to masses, to flat out fail (or be way off from what if was originally intended). it doesnt matter if its comunism, christianism, atheism, hinduism or w/e *ism. once it goes mainstream people change it, they change its values to fit their needs. atheism went from rejecting deities to being pro science. like wtf?
as an atheist, i cant understand why the fuck you people choose to bully christianity (mind you that i used christianity and not religion in general because i dont see you bulling budhism for example)?. do you get points for it?. - dont generalize anything. present your thoughts in a critical manner directly related to the issue. (religion?, is not specific) - dont expect people to agree with you. for an atheist that should not matter. you need to let people think for themselfs. (it should also not matter that they cant do that) - nope, atheism doesnt need organization, structure nor peer reviewing. science might but youre not supposed to be the defenders of science.
I do not think discussing this with you will lead to anything. You keep mixing up atheism and critical thinking, you generalize alot about what atheists are, and you project alot of false beliefs and ideas upon all who label themselves skeptic or atheist. It seems to me like you harbour some kind of resentment to what you call atheists.
And religion is not too unspecific for discussing this. No religion has any evidence going for their beliefs, why spend energy on separating them. They are all in the same boat.
im only criticizing mainstream-ized atheism for what it tries to achieve. i did not create 276343252 types of atheism: theoretical atheism, practical atheism, positive atheism, atheist existentialism, extreme atheism and so on and so forth. i only chose to ignore some/most of atheism nuances because were to subjective or were deviating from its original intent. atheism was suppose to fight the idea of god not fight the people who believe in one.
R. Dawkin is a tool for making atheists fight people instead of people ideas. Have you people not go out in the past years?. Atheists physically and psychologically hurt religious people. the fuck is that?. Having said that, I am an atheist. I do not believe that a god exists or will ever exist but i will never mock/kick be rude to those who believe in one.
On August 02 2011 23:14 xM(Z wrote: R. Dawkin is a tool for making atheists fight people instead of people ideas. Have you people not go out in the past years?. Atheists physically and psychologically hurt religious people. the fuck is that?. Having said that, I am an atheist. I do not believe that a god exists or will ever exist but i will never mock/kick be rude to those who believe in one.
What ? How many atheists are hurting physically religious people because of that difference ? When you compare it to how many christians hurt physically atheists it is quite a difference. The violence used is mainly on the side of christians.
Most of the psychological hurt suffered by christians is pretty hypocritical, because they suffer from things that others just take as they come, because they are used to the situation that religion cannot be mocked. I never saw someone actually targetting any specific person and psychologically hurting him because he was christian and again those instances would be small compared to the other way around.
"If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.”
However, we should of course try to have a peaceful and polite discussion, (but dear god please avoid becoming a martyr just because someone criticizes a belief you have ...)
On August 02 2011 22:00 mcc wrote: Nope, agnosticism says : "I do not know whether God/... exists.". If you want to be self-consistent you also have to be agnostic about fairies, trolls,.... , because they might exist we just did not see them yet.
That's true, but there's clearly a difference between a God and trolls, fairies - God exists (hypothetically) as the creator of the universe and is beyond matter and time, and thus would be difficult to spot or measure.
Meanwhile trolls and fairies are supposed to exist on Earth, so if they haven't been seen for X amount of time, the more time passes the less likely it is that they exist.
Agnostic is just too broad a term. Atheists and theists can both be agnostic about god - they just ascribe different percentages to the likelihood of God existing, which lands them on the theism or atheism side of the scale. That's why one would have to qualify it by saying that God is truly an unknown, because its hypothetical properties are beyond our ability to measure if it is indeed beyond time and space, while trolls, fairies, ghosts can be perceived on Earth, and therefore are subject to more skepticism and disbelief.
On August 02 2011 22:00 mcc wrote: Nope, agnosticism says : "I do not know whether God/... exists.". If you want to be self-consistent you also have to be agnostic about fairies, trolls,.... , because they might exist we just did not see them yet.
That's true, but there's clearly a difference between a God and trolls, fairies - God exists (hypothetically) as the creator of the universe and is beyond matter and time, and thus would be difficult to spot or measure.
Meanwhile trolls and fairies are supposed to exist on Earth, so if they haven't been seen for X amount of time, the more time passes the less likely it is that they exist.
Agnostic is just too broad a term. Atheists and theists can both be agnostic about god - they just ascribe different percentages to the likelihood of God existing, which lands them on the theism or atheism side of the scale. That's why one would have to qualify it by saying that God is truly an unknown, because its hypothetical properties are beyond our ability to measure if it is indeed beyond time and space, while trolls, fairies, ghosts can be perceived on Earth, and therefore are subject to more skepticism and disbelief.
Fairies and ghosts not really as they have similar magical abilities as god as far as detection goes.
And how do you know god's properties are beyond our abilities to measure. First you have to pick one and then you have to reasonably define his abilities and then we can discuss any measuring.
On August 02 2011 17:18 xM(Z wrote: ill try to reply to all of you since you points are (vaguely) related. - first, how can you call yourself a skeptic and still advocate the certainties af atheism?. paradox much?. arent you suppose to be skeptic about atheism too?. - second, how can you claim youre capable of critical thinking when all you do if follow someone elses thoughts?. those were only to show that people are neither skeptic nor capable of critical thinking when it comes to their beliefs. mere sheeps on a crusade.
I will agree with you here that a 'strong' atheist is just as bad as a theist. Your second point is completely bullshit however. How is following someones elses thoughts, after you've determined they are correct, a bad thing?
now, from what ive seen all your logic is based on 'the fact' that religion is bad/wrong, atheism is good/right and then just go from there; as if being right is an excuse for everything ... but w/e, ill go along. im not saying that religion is good or that atheism is bad. im saying that doesnt matter because atm their M.O is the same (preaching ideas expecting/hoping to get more followers).
Bullcrap, 'the fact' that religion is irrational follows from critical thinking. It is not the base for critical thinking or atheism.
1) most people cant think for themselfs so sooner or later will want/demand to be guided (in w/e direction their 'faith' goes) which means theyll need a leader. the free market (supply and demand) will make sure theyll get at least one. 2) the subjective side of any ideology, aided by the flaws in human nature, demands that sooner or later, any attempt at organizing it, giving it a structure, making it available to masses, to flat out fail (or be way off from what if was originally intended). it doesnt matter if its comunism, christianism, atheism, hinduism or w/e *ism. once it goes mainstream people change it, they change its values to fit their needs. atheism went from rejecting deities to being pro science. like wtf?
Err what? Atheism isn't an organization. An atheist is simply a person considering the possibility of a god very small. There are no leaders, no structure, no "atheist meetings in which we all sing and dance and praise the nonexistence of gods".
as an atheist, i cant understand why the fuck you people choose to bully christianity (mind you that i used christianity and not religion in general because i dont see you bulling budhism for example)?. do you get points for it?.
No one is bullying Christianity. You're free to believe whatever you want, up till the point where your belief starts to interfere with the lives of others.
- dont expect people to agree with you. for an atheist that should not matter. you need to let people think for themselfs. (it should also not matter that they cant do that)
We are providing the arguments that follow from critical thinking and skepticism to people, and if they bring counterarguments, we counter those. I'm not really sure what you are trying to say here...? Are you saying discussing is bad?
EPT
) and no, Christians do not troll, we speak our mind.
