|
United States7483 Posts
On August 24 2011 00:16 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2011 23:33 zalz wrote:
Atheists rank as one of the least trusted groups in America time and time again, i think lower then muslims even.
People used to say you can't be president if you ain't white but times are a changing. With that said, no atheist is going to win the presidency any time soon. Maybe some years down the road but not the 2012 election nor the 2016 election. I get the sense that the atheist image in American suffers quite a bit from the "militant" atheists whose atheism goes behind simply not believing in God and goes more towards trying to impose atheism upon everyone else by relentlessly denegrating religion (like a Bill Maher-type atheist). As far as I am concerned, these atheists aren't really different than any other religious lunatic.
How could they possibly be the same? They have millennium of evidence to support their opinions and claims, and science backs them up on it. Religious lunatics have no evidence at all. That makes a world of difference. Why would you label someone who takes the stance "belief in something without any evidence to support it is incredibly stupid" a lunatic? It's the only logically sound position to take -_-.
Regardless, it's sad, but America has become one of the most religious first world countries, most of the others have become far less religious than they used to be. At any rate, it won't be anytime soon, but a guy can dream.
|
On August 24 2011 03:07 Whitewing wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2011 00:16 xDaunt wrote:On August 23 2011 23:33 zalz wrote:
Atheists rank as one of the least trusted groups in America time and time again, i think lower then muslims even.
People used to say you can't be president if you ain't white but times are a changing. With that said, no atheist is going to win the presidency any time soon. Maybe some years down the road but not the 2012 election nor the 2016 election. I get the sense that the atheist image in American suffers quite a bit from the "militant" atheists whose atheism goes behind simply not believing in God and goes more towards trying to impose atheism upon everyone else by relentlessly denegrating religion (like a Bill Maher-type atheist). As far as I am concerned, these atheists aren't really different than any other religious lunatic. How could they possibly be the same? They have millennium of evidence to support their opinions and claims, and science backs them up on it. Religious lunatics have no evidence at all. That makes a world of difference. Why would you label someone who takes the stance "belief in something without any evidence to support it is incredibly stupid" a lunatic? It's the only logically sound position to take -_-. Regardless, it's sad, but America has become one of the most religious first world countries, most of the others have become far less religious than they used to be. At any rate, it won't be anytime soon, but a guy can dream.
I disagree. Atheism isn't really different from any other religion in that it's an ideological stance taken upon the existence and definition of the divine. Atheists can't prove the non-existence of God any more than religious people can prove the existence of God. The existence of God is still a question of faith, not a question of science. Moreover, science and religion aren't necessarily antithetical and mutually exclusive. It depends upon the religion.
The point that I'm making is that the "militant atheists" that I described in my first post (and you appear to be one of them from your post) are no better than the "religious lunatics" who seek to impose their faith upon other people because the "militant atheists" are simply intolerant of religion in general. They won't live and let live like they should.
|
On August 24 2011 03:17 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2011 03:07 Whitewing wrote:On August 24 2011 00:16 xDaunt wrote:On August 23 2011 23:33 zalz wrote:
Atheists rank as one of the least trusted groups in America time and time again, i think lower then muslims even.
People used to say you can't be president if you ain't white but times are a changing. With that said, no atheist is going to win the presidency any time soon. Maybe some years down the road but not the 2012 election nor the 2016 election. I get the sense that the atheist image in American suffers quite a bit from the "militant" atheists whose atheism goes behind simply not believing in God and goes more towards trying to impose atheism upon everyone else by relentlessly denegrating religion (like a Bill Maher-type atheist). As far as I am concerned, these atheists aren't really different than any other religious lunatic. How could they possibly be the same? They have millennium of evidence to support their opinions and claims, and science backs them up on it. Religious lunatics have no evidence at all. That makes a world of difference. Why would you label someone who takes the stance "belief in something without any evidence to support it is incredibly stupid" a lunatic? It's the only logically sound position to take -_-. Regardless, it's sad, but America has become one of the most religious first world countries, most of the others have become far less religious than they used to be. At any rate, it won't be anytime soon, but a guy can dream. I disagree. Atheism isn't really different any other religion in that it's an ideological stance taken upon the existence and definition of the divine. Atheists can't prove the non-existence of God any more than religious people can prove the existence of God. The existence of God is still a question of faith, not a question of science. Moreover, science and religion aren't necessarily antithetical and mutually exclusive. It depends upon the religion. The point that I'm making is that the "militant atheists" that I described in my first post (and you appear to be one of them from your post) are no better than the "religious lunatics" who seek to impose their faith upon other people because the "militant atheists" are simply intolerant of religion in general. They won't live and let live like they should.
You apparently don't know what atheism is. It's not an ideology, it's a lack of belief in a deity. Just like not collecting stamps isn't a hobby...
"Militant atheists" simply don't wish to live by a religious standard based on the morals or teachings of some bronze age tribesmen.
|
On August 24 2011 03:17 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2011 03:07 Whitewing wrote:On August 24 2011 00:16 xDaunt wrote:On August 23 2011 23:33 zalz wrote:
Atheists rank as one of the least trusted groups in America time and time again, i think lower then muslims even.
People used to say you can't be president if you ain't white but times are a changing. With that said, no atheist is going to win the presidency any time soon. Maybe some years down the road but not the 2012 election nor the 2016 election. I get the sense that the atheist image in American suffers quite a bit from the "militant" atheists whose atheism goes behind simply not believing in God and goes more towards trying to impose atheism upon everyone else by relentlessly denegrating religion (like a Bill Maher-type atheist). As far as I am concerned, these atheists aren't really different than any other religious lunatic. How could they possibly be the same? They have millennium of evidence to support their opinions and claims, and science backs them up on it. Religious lunatics have no evidence at all. That makes a world of difference. Why would you label someone who takes the stance "belief in something without any evidence to support it is incredibly stupid" a lunatic? It's the only logically sound position to take -_-. Regardless, it's sad, but America has become one of the most religious first world countries, most of the others have become far less religious than they used to be. At any rate, it won't be anytime soon, but a guy can dream. I disagree. Atheism isn't really different from any other religion in that it's an ideological stance taken upon the existence and definition of the divine. Atheists can't prove the non-existence of God any more than religious people can prove the existence of God. The existence of God is still a question of faith, not a question of science. Moreover, science and religion aren't necessarily antithetical and mutually exclusive. It depends upon the religion. The point that I'm making is that the "militant atheists" that I described in my first post (and you appear to be one of them from your post) are no better than the "religious lunatics" who seek to impose their faith upon other people because the "militant atheists" are simply intolerant of religion in general. They won't live and let live like they should.
The difference being that someone who believes in a god believes that way because of how they were brought up. Not because they logically choose that. The atheist doesn't believe in any specific god because a god has not shown itself to be real, or even possible.
|
On August 24 2011 03:25 Risen wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2011 03:17 xDaunt wrote:On August 24 2011 03:07 Whitewing wrote:On August 24 2011 00:16 xDaunt wrote:On August 23 2011 23:33 zalz wrote:
Atheists rank as one of the least trusted groups in America time and time again, i think lower then muslims even.
People used to say you can't be president if you ain't white but times are a changing. With that said, no atheist is going to win the presidency any time soon. Maybe some years down the road but not the 2012 election nor the 2016 election. I get the sense that the atheist image in American suffers quite a bit from the "militant" atheists whose atheism goes behind simply not believing in God and goes more towards trying to impose atheism upon everyone else by relentlessly denegrating religion (like a Bill Maher-type atheist). As far as I am concerned, these atheists aren't really different than any other religious lunatic. How could they possibly be the same? They have millennium of evidence to support their opinions and claims, and science backs them up on it. Religious lunatics have no evidence at all. That makes a world of difference. Why would you label someone who takes the stance "belief in something without any evidence to support it is incredibly stupid" a lunatic? It's the only logically sound position to take -_-. Regardless, it's sad, but America has become one of the most religious first world countries, most of the others have become far less religious than they used to be. At any rate, it won't be anytime soon, but a guy can dream. I disagree. Atheism isn't really different from any other religion in that it's an ideological stance taken upon the existence and definition of the divine. Atheists can't prove the non-existence of God any more than religious people can prove the existence of God. The existence of God is still a question of faith, not a question of science. Moreover, science and religion aren't necessarily antithetical and mutually exclusive. It depends upon the religion. The point that I'm making is that the "militant atheists" that I described in my first post (and you appear to be one of them from your post) are no better than the "religious lunatics" who seek to impose their faith upon other people because the "militant atheists" are simply intolerant of religion in general. They won't live and let live like they should. The difference being that someone who believes in a god believes that way because of how they were brought up. Not because they logically choose that. The atheist doesn't believe in any specific god because a god has not shown itself to be real, or even possible.
See, this is the typical post of an uninformed atheist. Not all people who are religious are religious because of how they were brought up. Faith is a choice that is made daily. In fact, it's common for people to change religions during their lifetimes, and everyone who is raised in a religious environment goes through an evolution of understanding of religion.
More importantly, there isn't any empirical, scientific, or "logical" proof that conclusively has disproven the existence of God. In fact, science hasn't even come close, and it may never get to that point. Again, this is why the existence of God is still a question of faith.
|
On August 24 2011 03:35 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2011 03:25 Risen wrote:On August 24 2011 03:17 xDaunt wrote:On August 24 2011 03:07 Whitewing wrote:On August 24 2011 00:16 xDaunt wrote:On August 23 2011 23:33 zalz wrote:
Atheists rank as one of the least trusted groups in America time and time again, i think lower then muslims even.
People used to say you can't be president if you ain't white but times are a changing. With that said, no atheist is going to win the presidency any time soon. Maybe some years down the road but not the 2012 election nor the 2016 election. I get the sense that the atheist image in American suffers quite a bit from the "militant" atheists whose atheism goes behind simply not believing in God and goes more towards trying to impose atheism upon everyone else by relentlessly denegrating religion (like a Bill Maher-type atheist). As far as I am concerned, these atheists aren't really different than any other religious lunatic. How could they possibly be the same? They have millennium of evidence to support their opinions and claims, and science backs them up on it. Religious lunatics have no evidence at all. That makes a world of difference. Why would you label someone who takes the stance "belief in something without any evidence to support it is incredibly stupid" a lunatic? It's the only logically sound position to take -_-. Regardless, it's sad, but America has become one of the most religious first world countries, most of the others have become far less religious than they used to be. At any rate, it won't be anytime soon, but a guy can dream. I disagree. Atheism isn't really different from any other religion in that it's an ideological stance taken upon the existence and definition of the divine. Atheists can't prove the non-existence of God any more than religious people can prove the existence of God. The existence of God is still a question of faith, not a question of science. Moreover, science and religion aren't necessarily antithetical and mutually exclusive. It depends upon the religion. The point that I'm making is that the "militant atheists" that I described in my first post (and you appear to be one of them from your post) are no better than the "religious lunatics" who seek to impose their faith upon other people because the "militant atheists" are simply intolerant of religion in general. They won't live and let live like they should. The difference being that someone who believes in a god believes that way because of how they were brought up. Not because they logically choose that. The atheist doesn't believe in any specific god because a god has not shown itself to be real, or even possible. See, this is the typical post of an uninformed atheist. Not all people who are religious are religious because of how they were brought up. Faith is a choice that is made daily. In fact, it's common for people to change religions during their lifetimes, and everyone who is raised in a religious environment goes through an evolution of understanding of religion. More importantly, there isn't any empirical, scientific, or "logical" proof that conclusively has disproven the existence of God. In fact, science hasn't even come close, and it may never get to that point. Again, this is why the existence of God is still a question of faith.
I chuckle quite a bit when I hear someone say that it has been proven that no god exists, or that there is tons of evidence in support of the idea. I agree with you that it is not much worse in my eyes than when a religious person is frustratingly close minded about their beliefs on right or wrong - just different sides of the same ignorance coin.
|
On August 24 2011 03:35 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2011 03:25 Risen wrote:On August 24 2011 03:17 xDaunt wrote:On August 24 2011 03:07 Whitewing wrote:On August 24 2011 00:16 xDaunt wrote:On August 23 2011 23:33 zalz wrote:
Atheists rank as one of the least trusted groups in America time and time again, i think lower then muslims even.
People used to say you can't be president if you ain't white but times are a changing. With that said, no atheist is going to win the presidency any time soon. Maybe some years down the road but not the 2012 election nor the 2016 election. I get the sense that the atheist image in American suffers quite a bit from the "militant" atheists whose atheism goes behind simply not believing in God and goes more towards trying to impose atheism upon everyone else by relentlessly denegrating religion (like a Bill Maher-type atheist). As far as I am concerned, these atheists aren't really different than any other religious lunatic. How could they possibly be the same? They have millennium of evidence to support their opinions and claims, and science backs them up on it. Religious lunatics have no evidence at all. That makes a world of difference. Why would you label someone who takes the stance "belief in something without any evidence to support it is incredibly stupid" a lunatic? It's the only logically sound position to take -_-. Regardless, it's sad, but America has become one of the most religious first world countries, most of the others have become far less religious than they used to be. At any rate, it won't be anytime soon, but a guy can dream. I disagree. Atheism isn't really different from any other religion in that it's an ideological stance taken upon the existence and definition of the divine. Atheists can't prove the non-existence of God any more than religious people can prove the existence of God. The existence of God is still a question of faith, not a question of science. Moreover, science and religion aren't necessarily antithetical and mutually exclusive. It depends upon the religion. The point that I'm making is that the "militant atheists" that I described in my first post (and you appear to be one of them from your post) are no better than the "religious lunatics" who seek to impose their faith upon other people because the "militant atheists" are simply intolerant of religion in general. They won't live and let live like they should. The difference being that someone who believes in a god believes that way because of how they were brought up. Not because they logically choose that. The atheist doesn't believe in any specific god because a god has not shown itself to be real, or even possible. See, this is the typical post of an uninformed atheist. Not all people who are religious are religious because of how they were brought up. Faith is a choice that is made daily. In fact, it's common for people to change religions during their lifetimes, and everyone who is raised in a religious environment goes through an evolution of understanding of religion. More importantly, there isn't any empirical, scientific, or "logical" proof that conclusively has disproven the existence of God. In fact, science hasn't even come close, and it may never get to that point. Again, this is why the existence of God is still a question of faith.
You missed my point. People get mad or disillusioned with their God sometime in their life and switch religions. You're right, it happens all the time. Because of what happens to them in their life they go searching for answers in religion. I don't have a problem with that.
What is an uninformed atheist? You act as if those of us in the US didn't grow up religious in one way or another. My point remains that you choose a single God out of the thousands available to you. Why choose that one God? Because of the influences from people in your life.
Edit: This is why I really dislike religion in politics. You have hard line people from both sides, but when it comes to religion you're making decisions based upon a "higher moral authority" and therefor have no accountability to the common man. This is bad in politics, there should always be accountability. A sense that your decisions reflect you, not your God.
Double edit: In response to your proof point. I only choose to believe in things that can be proven. You choose to believe in things that can't be proven. That's fine, but there's no need to be on a high horse here. You're right, there's no proof that a God doesn't exist, but why believe in something that hasn't shown itself to you? I believe in gravity because it has "shown" itself to me. Nothing from on high has shown itself to me. The only argument that has ever persuaded me that there may be a God was how did this all come into being (but then how did god come into being, oh you mean he's always been here? Then why can't the universe have always been here)
|
On August 24 2011 03:17 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2011 03:07 Whitewing wrote:On August 24 2011 00:16 xDaunt wrote:On August 23 2011 23:33 zalz wrote:
Atheists rank as one of the least trusted groups in America time and time again, i think lower then muslims even.
People used to say you can't be president if you ain't white but times are a changing. With that said, no atheist is going to win the presidency any time soon. Maybe some years down the road but not the 2012 election nor the 2016 election. I get the sense that the atheist image in American suffers quite a bit from the "militant" atheists whose atheism goes behind simply not believing in God and goes more towards trying to impose atheism upon everyone else by relentlessly denegrating religion (like a Bill Maher-type atheist). As far as I am concerned, these atheists aren't really different than any other religious lunatic. How could they possibly be the same? They have millennium of evidence to support their opinions and claims, and science backs them up on it. Religious lunatics have no evidence at all. That makes a world of difference. Why would you label someone who takes the stance "belief in something without any evidence to support it is incredibly stupid" a lunatic? It's the only logically sound position to take -_-. Regardless, it's sad, but America has become one of the most religious first world countries, most of the others have become far less religious than they used to be. At any rate, it won't be anytime soon, but a guy can dream. I disagree. Atheism isn't really different from any other religion in that it's an ideological stance taken upon the existence and definition of the divine. Atheists can't prove the non-existence of God any more than religious people can prove the existence of God. The existence of God is still a question of faith, not a question of science. Moreover, science and religion aren't necessarily antithetical and mutually exclusive. It depends upon the religion. The point that I'm making is that the "militant atheists" that I described in my first post (and you appear to be one of them from your post) are no better than the "religious lunatics" who seek to impose their faith upon other people because the "militant atheists" are simply intolerant of religion in general. They won't live and let live like they should.
There is no faith in being an atheist. If you require proof for non-existence of entities then you are doing it wrong. Ever heard of burden of proof or principle of parsimony ? If you reject those two concepts you reject rationality and it is pointless to discuss anything. If you do not reject them (and you don't reject them in your daily life, you may only reject them in philosophical discussions) then requiring proof of non-existence is nonsensical. It is not up to atheist to prove non-existence of God, but on theists to prove its existence. And until such time rational position is to default to nonexistence, because of the concepts mentioned above.
Also people you call "militant atheists" in great majority (like 99.99...%) take no physical action to change someone's beliefs or to force their beliefs on someone. The only thing they do is voice their opinions. They often do not respect religious people, but that is not forcing anything on anyone. The only reason you consider actions of those people in any way comparable to religious fanatics is because you were conditioned throughout your life into believing that religion and religious beliefs deserve respect more than for example opinion on high-frequency trading. And that is the reason you actually think that vocal atheists are forcing anyone to anything and you even call them "militant" even though the only thing they do is talk. And you compare people who voice their opinions and mostly want freedom of "belief" to people who want to institute theocracy, kill doctors, brainwash children, oppress gays and undertake a lot of physical actions to force their beliefs on others.
|
On August 24 2011 03:35 xDaunt wrote:
More importantly, there isn't any empirical, scientific, or "logical" proof that conclusively has disproven the existence of God. In fact, science hasn't even come close, and it may never get to that point. Again, this is why the existence of God is still a question of faith. The burden of proof for the existence of any god is not on atheists, but those who believe in said gods. You have it backwards. Logical proof is not a good term to use when discussing anything to do with faith. I could say I have logical proof no gods exist because I have never seen them and there is no verifiable evidence of them existing other than through word of mouth of people and books that can't be proven factual because there is no evidence of their contents happening. It would be like saying Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry exists or that there are a bunch of short dudes in a place called Middle Earth because there are books that say so, while nobody has ever seen either examples.
It's called skepticism, and it is the root of science. Nothing becomes scientific theory or law until it is verifiable with large amounts of quantifiable evidence, is reproducible, and sound logic behind it. Scientists don't touch religion because there is no empirical evidence to it, only personal beliefs.
Back on topic, the more I read I read about Bachmann the more disgusted I am. Seriously, "pray the gay away"?? How about accept people for who they are and not be closed-minded. I have a few gay friends and to think people would treat people like them so horribly because of something that is nobody's business infuriates me. If people like Bachmann keep getting popular like this the US is going to end up in the dark ages.
Edit: dude above me beat me to posting but it's good to see others think as I do.
|
Oh boy, the whole prove / disprove God discussion. Obviously anyone who honestly thinks it means anything that you can't gather evidence to disprove a non-existent thing isn't going to be swayed by any logical argument. All you can accomplish is derailing the entire thread.
|
On August 23 2011 03:23 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2011 03:05 KaZzZz wrote:On August 23 2011 03:01 jdseemoreglass wrote:On August 23 2011 02:44 KaZzZz wrote:
I just read on different sources that 40% of the Americans believe in creationism. Please tell me i didn't understand something or the figure is biased for any reason. Or it's the most unbelievable and saddest thing i have ever read. I had underestimated so much the percentage.
Since it's 40% of the whole population, i guess it's a vast majority of the Republicans. I don't know how to expresse clearly my felling, but it really scares me. It gives me the impression that there's a black sheep in the West, and it's the leader.
Oh and i'm agnostic, definitely not atheist. Please don't see there an heretic message. I'm not sure how we are defining creationism, but I don't quite understand why you would be terrified that people believe a God created the world. That has been the common belief of most of the world, not just the US, for most of history. Ofc by "believe in creationism" i don't mean "believe that there's a god" (or the percentage, i guess, would be way higher than 40% for the US). I mean "believe the world is 6 thousand years old" (is that a correct sentence ?). If that's our definition, then no, clearly 40% of Americans do not believe that the Earth is 6000 years old. And 63% of statistics are bullshit anyway...
From wiki :
Between 40-50% of adults in the United States say they believe in YEC, depending on the poll. According to a Gallup poll in December 2010, around 40% of Americans believe in YEC, with 52% among Republicans and 34% among Democrats. The percentage falls quickly as the level of education increases—only 22% of respondents with postgraduate degrees believed compared with 47% of those with a high school education or less.
|
Anyways..back to the topic...
Did anyone see John Hunstman on Pears Morgan? I thought he came off as a reasonable, decent guy, but too boring and well-mannered to become the republican candidate. I think he should boast about his military service more to get access to that key demographic, while at the same time arguing for the withdrawl from overseas engagements. I liked his stance on abortion, he was pro-life but he'd make an exception for the life of the mother or is she was raped. Of course these are all things you have to be against in the republican party.
|
On August 24 2011 04:16 Ben... wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2011 03:35 xDaunt wrote:
More importantly, there isn't any empirical, scientific, or "logical" proof that conclusively has disproven the existence of God. In fact, science hasn't even come close, and it may never get to that point. Again, this is why the existence of God is still a question of faith. The burden of proof for the existence of any god is not on atheists, but those who believe in said gods. You have it backwards. Logical proof is not a good term to use when discussing anything to do with faith. I could say I have logical proof no gods exist because I have never seen them and there is no verifiable evidence of them existing other than through word of mouth of people and books that can't be proven factual because there is no evidence of their contents happening. It would be like saying Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry exists or that there are a bunch of short dudes in a place called Middle Earth because there are books that say so, while nobody has ever seen either examples. It's called skepticism, and it is the root of science. Nothing becomes scientific theory or law until it is verifiable with large amounts of quantifiable evidence, is reproducible, and sound logic behind it. Scientists don't touch religion because there is no empirical evidence to it, only personal beliefs. Back on topic, the more I read I read about Bachmann the more disgusted I am. Seriously, "pray the gay away"?? How about accept people for who they are and not be closed-minded. I have a few gay friends and to think people would treat people like them so horribly because of something that is nobody's business infuriates me. If people like Bachmann keep getting popular like this the US is going to end up in the dark ages. Edit: dude above me beat me to posting but it's good to see others think as I do.
It's amazing how defensive some atheists get. I haven't placed the burden of proving God on anyone. I'm merely reciting the rather indisputable fact that no one knows whether God exists.
|
United States7483 Posts
On August 24 2011 04:10 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2011 03:17 xDaunt wrote:On August 24 2011 03:07 Whitewing wrote:On August 24 2011 00:16 xDaunt wrote:On August 23 2011 23:33 zalz wrote:
Atheists rank as one of the least trusted groups in America time and time again, i think lower then muslims even.
People used to say you can't be president if you ain't white but times are a changing. With that said, no atheist is going to win the presidency any time soon. Maybe some years down the road but not the 2012 election nor the 2016 election. I get the sense that the atheist image in American suffers quite a bit from the "militant" atheists whose atheism goes behind simply not believing in God and goes more towards trying to impose atheism upon everyone else by relentlessly denegrating religion (like a Bill Maher-type atheist). As far as I am concerned, these atheists aren't really different than any other religious lunatic. How could they possibly be the same? They have millennium of evidence to support their opinions and claims, and science backs them up on it. Religious lunatics have no evidence at all. That makes a world of difference. Why would you label someone who takes the stance "belief in something without any evidence to support it is incredibly stupid" a lunatic? It's the only logically sound position to take -_-. Regardless, it's sad, but America has become one of the most religious first world countries, most of the others have become far less religious than they used to be. At any rate, it won't be anytime soon, but a guy can dream. I disagree. Atheism isn't really different from any other religion in that it's an ideological stance taken upon the existence and definition of the divine. Atheists can't prove the non-existence of God any more than religious people can prove the existence of God. The existence of God is still a question of faith, not a question of science. Moreover, science and religion aren't necessarily antithetical and mutually exclusive. It depends upon the religion. The point that I'm making is that the "militant atheists" that I described in my first post (and you appear to be one of them from your post) are no better than the "religious lunatics" who seek to impose their faith upon other people because the "militant atheists" are simply intolerant of religion in general. They won't live and let live like they should. There is no faith in being an atheist. If you require proof for non-existence of entities then you are doing it wrong. Ever heard of burden of proof or principle of parsimony ? If you reject those two concepts you reject rationality and it is pointless to discuss anything. If you do not reject them (and you don't reject them in your daily life, you may only reject them in philosophical discussions) then requiring proof of non-existence is nonsensical. It is not up to atheist to prove non-existence of God, but on theists to prove its existence. And until such time rational position is to default to nonexistence, because of the concepts mentioned above. Also people you call "militant atheists" in great majority (like 99.99...%) take no physical action to change someone's beliefs or to force their beliefs on someone. The only thing they do is voice their opinions. They often do not respect religious people, but that is not forcing anything on anyone. The only reason you consider actions of those people in any way comparable to religious fanatics is because you were conditioned throughout your life into believing that religion and religious beliefs deserve respect more than for example opinion on high-frequency trading. And that is the reason you actually think that vocal atheists are forcing anyone to anything and you even call them "militant" even though the only thing they do is talk. And you compare people who voice their opinions and mostly want freedom of "belief" to people who want to institute theocracy, kill doctors, brainwash children, oppress gays and undertake a lot of physical actions to force their beliefs on others.
This is exactly correct, on every point.
It's amazing how defensive some atheists get. I haven't placed the burden of proving God on anyone. I'm merely reciting the rather indisputable fact that no one knows whether God exists.
Right, which is why the default logical position is to assume that he does not, much as the default logical position is to assume that there is no magical, invisible, flying unicorn in your bed room that is very good at avoiding detection. Anyone who chooses to believe in god is illogical. That doesn't mean we'll make laws banning religion, but we will voice that opinion.
At any rate, back on topic, none of the candidates seem like they'd do a good job, at all. I've also heard rumors Trump might throw his hat back in the ring again.
|
On August 24 2011 03:17 xDaunt wrote:
The point that I'm making is that the "militant atheists" that I described in my first post (and you appear to be one of them from your post) are no better than the "religious lunatics" who seek to impose their faith upon other people because the "militant atheists" are simply intolerant of religion in general. They won't live and let live like they should.
Yeah, in that particular regard I agree the two sides are the same.
However, the difference lies in the substance of what they're intolerant ABOUT. Ultimately, the this isn't a matter of opinions where everyone can have his own and the only difference between the opinions is how extreme someone is about his opinions.
It's a matter of facts and one side being right and the other being wrong. I think regardless of what everyone's personal choice in the matter is, we can all agree that spreading the WRONG ideas and information ultimately hurts the humanity and holds it back.
Yeah, we can be civil and tolerant for the sake of living in a civilized society and going about our day to day lives. But ultimately, somebody here is right, and somebody is wrong. And as much as many people would rather go around to avoid such an inconvenient situation and invent third side arguments and some sort of false compromise, in this particular matter that's just not how it works.
|
On August 24 2011 03:35 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2011 03:25 Risen wrote:On August 24 2011 03:17 xDaunt wrote:On August 24 2011 03:07 Whitewing wrote:On August 24 2011 00:16 xDaunt wrote:On August 23 2011 23:33 zalz wrote:
Atheists rank as one of the least trusted groups in America time and time again, i think lower then muslims even.
People used to say you can't be president if you ain't white but times are a changing. With that said, no atheist is going to win the presidency any time soon. Maybe some years down the road but not the 2012 election nor the 2016 election. I get the sense that the atheist image in American suffers quite a bit from the "militant" atheists whose atheism goes behind simply not believing in God and goes more towards trying to impose atheism upon everyone else by relentlessly denegrating religion (like a Bill Maher-type atheist). As far as I am concerned, these atheists aren't really different than any other religious lunatic. How could they possibly be the same? They have millennium of evidence to support their opinions and claims, and science backs them up on it. Religious lunatics have no evidence at all. That makes a world of difference. Why would you label someone who takes the stance "belief in something without any evidence to support it is incredibly stupid" a lunatic? It's the only logically sound position to take -_-. Regardless, it's sad, but America has become one of the most religious first world countries, most of the others have become far less religious than they used to be. At any rate, it won't be anytime soon, but a guy can dream. I disagree. Atheism isn't really different from any other religion in that it's an ideological stance taken upon the existence and definition of the divine. Atheists can't prove the non-existence of God any more than religious people can prove the existence of God. The existence of God is still a question of faith, not a question of science. Moreover, science and religion aren't necessarily antithetical and mutually exclusive. It depends upon the religion. The point that I'm making is that the "militant atheists" that I described in my first post (and you appear to be one of them from your post) are no better than the "religious lunatics" who seek to impose their faith upon other people because the "militant atheists" are simply intolerant of religion in general. They won't live and let live like they should. The difference being that someone who believes in a god believes that way because of how they were brought up. Not because they logically choose that. The atheist doesn't believe in any specific god because a god has not shown itself to be real, or even possible. See, this is the typical post of an uninformed atheist. Not all people who are religious are religious because of how they were brought up. Faith is a choice that is made daily. In fact, it's common for people to change religions during their lifetimes, and everyone who is raised in a religious environment goes through an evolution of understanding of religion. More importantly, there isn't any empirical, scientific, or "logical" proof that conclusively has disproven the existence of God. In fact, science hasn't even come close, and it may never get to that point. Again, this is why the existence of God is still a question of faith.
Surely you see how absurd the "absence of anti-proof" or whatever argument sounds, yes? Such logic suggests that until we can *disprove* something, we have to consider it as an idea?
If you are asserting that one cannot prove that there is no divine force to the world, then the logical conclusion is that it is possible there is some form of divine energy. To instead jump to "therefore the bible" or "therefore, god exists as described by religious group X", doesn't make any sense, and instead shows that you are basing your logic on preconceptions of your idea of the divine. There's as much physical evidence for the existence of Zeus as there is for the existence of any other god.
Until you're ready to admit that, claiming a particular god exists because contradictory evidence doesn't is absurd. To claim such a thought process is scientific in any way is even further flawed logic.
|
Can we get a Mod to lock this thread or change the title to "Yet another derailed thread about god/religion bashing because we can't focus on the topic at hand"?
|
First of all I'm not religious.
Now, saying things do not exist because you can not prove them with science is silly. With this logic, in the year 0, humans would not be made out of cells, because there were no microscopes to show this. Science is a helpful tool but it is not the ultimate truth, there is a lot it can't reach. Can you scientifically prove the existence or non-existence of an afterlife? You cannot. But I'm quite sure, that when you die, you'll figure out things aren't over yet. Assuming I am correct here, science just cannot prove it.
Rationality is subjective and there are some important areas science can not do anything with (yet). Saying something is false because it cannot be proven to be true just doesn't work. For someone who really likes science probably "god does not exist" is a very rational argument. For someone who grew up hearing things about this god all the time, "god exists" would be a rational argument.
I don't believe in god though, but I do believe in an afterlife. Talking about this more would derail this thread ever further, but I hope people understand what I mean.
|
On August 24 2011 04:38 MooseyFate wrote:
Can we get a Mod to lock this thread or change the title to "Yet another derailed thread about god/religion bashing because we can't focus on the topic at hand"?
Honestly, this thread has been a bit of a farce since it was started. Instead of discussing the merits of the republican candidates or each candidate's chances of receiving the nomination, this thread has generally been a "bash all things republican" thread.
|
On August 24 2011 04:49 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2011 04:38 MooseyFate wrote:
Can we get a Mod to lock this thread or change the title to "Yet another derailed thread about god/religion bashing because we can't focus on the topic at hand"? Honestly, this thread has been a bit of a farce since it was started. Instead of discussing the merits of the republican candidates or each candidate's chances of receiving the nomination, this thread has generally been a "bash all things republican" thread.
True. Not sure why I was looking for intelligent political discussion on TL anyway. Wishful thinking I guess.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
