Thread: Athiest vs religion? sorta

Originally Posted by Kromoh

Message to all people criticizing atheists: If you saw a child, say, spelling a word wrong, would you correct it? Probably yes. That's what the atheist mindset is. Correct the mistake so many people still make. I can say for everyone, but most atheists I know find religion extremely detrimental. I won't even get started on the list of bad things promoted by religion - let's save that for another thread.

That's fine, you're absolutely free to do that, but any atheist who does do that cannot criticise a Christian for trying to convert people. Well, they could, but they'd be being a hypocrite.

Also, "atheism" means "not theist", which means lacking the belief in a god. It's become a synonym to irreligious.

Also, yes, we do need a name for it. We need a name because it's a very distinctive and cohesive group. Just like there are colors of hair and baldness, there are religions and atheism.

Saying atheism is a religion is like saying bald is a hair color.

I agree with all of this. Atheism by definition cannot be a religion. I'd just like it recognised that those atheists who seek to convert others are just as bad as any Christian (or for that matter, any member of any religion) who tries to convert others.

Before you criticize, you should take some time to learn the opposing perspective better. Aka, what atheists think of religion.

Do you do this yourself?

Finally, just so you know, atheists tend to gang up, and tend to be inflammatory towards believers, because they are a minority. Just like gays or jews or blacks. You with me?

Again, you are completely free to be inflammatory and gang up, but you can't later criticise Christians for those same tactics without being a hypocrite. Wouldn't it be better to not be inflammatory or gang up in the first place so you actually hold some basis to criticise others on? Call me idealistic, but would it not be better if we were all not inflammatory and push our beliefs on to others? If behaviour like that wasn't around, it'd sure solve a lot of problems. I can't see any rational reason why any one person would support being inflammatory or ganging up, so if we can agree that the world would be a better place without such behaviour, why not start with yourself? There's no way you can make others be like that, but you hold complete control over your own actions and you are completely capable of not being inflammatory; of not ganging up; of being tolerant of other's beliefs. It is very, very possible to debate without pushing your belief's on others, or being inflammatory.

I realise this may be futile to say this in the most inflammatory, awe-inspiringly insane part of this forum . . . but can't we all just along?

lol k, I know most of the time athesists are particularly on the case of fundies, as they should be, was just making sure because religion in itself can be a wide umbrella term with many many shades of gray.

edit: to clear up, Im not quite an atheist per say...but not a part of any religion. Id say more of a wishful thinker that there is something, whatever it is, after death.

@ Kiza:


You know why it isn't hypocritical? Because all an atheist does is basically make the religious person question their beliefs. Make them try to offer some proof of the veracity of what they believe it. I always say, if God was real and showed himself to me, I'd believe it. But he never did, to anyone. Funny thing about faith: if it were true, it wouldn't be faith.

If the religious person can present no proof of the veracity of what they believe in, then let's face it, their belief doesn't stand. Don't forget the onus of proof is up to the person making the claim.

You do understand that, if the religious person had proof, the "attacks" by the atheists would have no effect, right? But here we are, 5000 years or more after the beginning of religion, thousands of internet discussions later. And yet there is no proof. You still with me? Atheists simply do not believe in something that's not confirmed - it's a thing called skepticism.

-------------------------------------------

Also, you're basically trying to convey that, say, a gay person that attacks prejudicial people has to accept attacks from prejudicial people too. See the problem here?

Originally Posted by Kromoh

@ Kiza:


You know why it isn't hypocritical? Because all an atheist does is basically make the religious person question their beliefs. Make them try to offer some proof of the veracity of what they believe it. I always say, if God was real and showed himself to me, I'd believe it. But he never did, to anyone. Funny thing about faith: if it were true, it wouldn't be faith.

I think I've said this too much in this thread: I'm not talking about all atheists, or atheists who debate with Christians, or atheists who try to make Christians question their belief. I am fully for the questioning of your own beliefs, whatever you believe or disbelieve in. I am talking about the militant atheists who seek to convert. There is a significant difference between making a person question their beliefs and actively trying to make them change their beliefs. Atheists like that are out there.

If the religious person can present no proof of the veracity of what they believe in, then let's face it, their belief doesn't stand. Don't forget the onus of proof is up to the person making the claim.

Yes, that's right. But if an atheist asserts that God does not exist without reference to any prior argument, ie. he says out of the blue to a Christian that God does not exist (I've seen this happen), then the burden of proof lies with the atheist making that claim. And that's the kind of atheist I am talking about: the atheist who wishes to convert believers, the atheist who wishes to destroy faith. Every group has its extremists and its fanatics, and that's the only thing I oppose, regardless of belief.

You do understand that, if the religious person had proof, the "attacks" by the atheists would have no effect, right? But here we are, 5000 years or more after the beginning of religion, thousands of internet discussions later. And yet there is no proof. You still with me? Atheists simply do not believe in something that's not confirmed - it's a thing called skepticism.

I'm not disagreeing with you here. I don't believe in God, and this is a major reason why I don't.

-------------------------------------------

Also, you're basically trying to convey that, say, a gay person that attacks prejudicial people has to accept attacks from prejudicial people too. See the problem here?

No, I'm not.

Let's say this prejudicial person is named Jim, and let's say this gay person is named Bruno. So Jim attacks Bruno on the matter of his sexual orientation. If Bruno responds in turn attacking Jim on the matter of Jim's sexual orientation, then Bruno is without basis to criticise Jim for his original attack. That is all I'm trying to get across here.

Originally Posted by Kiza

But if an atheist asserts that God does not exist without reference to any prior argument, ie. he says out of the blue to a Christian that God does not exist (I've seen this happen), then the burden of proof lies with the atheist making that claim.

Not really. By "claim" I mean claiming that something exists or is true. I can go and say "unicorns don't exist" and I don't need to prove anything - I mean, you can't even prove something doesn't exist, only that they exist - that's why science is skeptical. Or do you see your doctor saying "oh, I'm going to use this drug, it was never used before, but I believe it will work, so it will work"?

But, if I said "unicorns exist", I would have to prove it.

And that's the kind of atheist I am talking about: the atheist who wishes to convert believers, the atheist who wishes to destroy faith. Every group has its extremists and its fanatics, and that's the only thing I oppose, regardless of belief.

Faith is seen as detrimental by many atheists. I don't really see how it is "converting", if it is only showing the mistakes in the person's beliefs. It's not like you're teaching a new belief - atheism is a disbelief after all.

That said, I don't disagree that there are disrespectful atheists out there. However, I see many more disrespectful theists, especially towards other religions.

Let's say this prejudicial person is named Jim, and let's say this gay person is named Bruno. So Jim attacks Bruno on the matter of his sexual orientation. If Bruno responds in turn attacking Jim on the matter of Jim's sexual orientation, then Bruno is without basis to criticise Jim for his original attack. That is all I'm trying to get across here.

Say Jim attacks Bruno on the matter of his sexual orientation, and Bruno attacks Jim on the matter of his prejudice. Bruno's attack wouldn't be unjustified at all - much to the contrary, not condemning Jim's prejudice is a form of accepting it.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

Not really. By "claim" I mean claiming that something exists or is true. I can go and say "unicorns don't exist" and I don't need to prove anything - I mean, you can't even prove something doesn't exist, only that they exist - that's why science is skeptical. Or do you see your doctor saying "oh, I'm going to use this drug, it was never used before, but I believe it will work, so it will work"?

But, if I said "unicorns exist", I would have to prove it.

But you can prove that something doesn't exist: you can search every inch of every country and at the end if you find no unicorns, then you can say confidently, "Unicorns do not exist." But the unicorn and the drug analogy doesn't work, as the matter of gods is a metaphysical matter, and any matter that extends beyond the physical cannot be tested physically, which is the only way humans can test things.

Faith is seen as detrimental by many atheists. I don't really see how it is "converting", if it is only showing the mistakes in the person's beliefs. It's not like you're teaching a new belief - atheism is a disbelief after all.

That said, I don't disagree that there are disrespectful atheists out there. However, I see many more disrespectful theists, especially towards other religions.

Just because faith is seen as detrimental by many doesn't make that stance right. The act of trying to destroy another person's faith I personally find just as bad as Christians trying to convert atheists. I bet those Christians who attempt to convert others think they're showing the mistakes in other people's beliefs.

The last point, that there are more disrespectful theists, I think is beyond debate, since we can't count every theist and every atheist and determine the ratio of disrespect, so I think we can agree to disagree there.

Say Jim attacks Bruno on the matter of his sexual orientation, and Bruno attacks Jim on the matter of his prejudice. Bruno's attack wouldn't be unjustified at all - much to the contrary, not condemning Jim's prejudice is a form of accepting it.

Yes, I agree here. That's like an atheist attacking a Christian on the matter of their belief, and then the Christian attacking that atheist on the matter of the atheist's intolerance. The inverse of that, too. Once again, all I'm advocating here is respect for other's beliefs, regardless of your own. You can point out flaws in people's ideologies while still respecting them, yo.

But you can prove that something doesn't exist: you can search every inch of every country and at the end if you find no unicorns, then you can say confidently, "Unicorns do not exist." But the unicorn and the drug analogy doesn't work, as the matter of gods is a metaphysical matter, and any matter that extends beyond the physical cannot be tested physically, which is the only way humans can test things.

That doesn't prove anything except you were unable to find evidence of unicorns existing.

Philosophically, no one can assert "Unicorns don't exist", it would be more accurate to say "There's no reason to believe Unicorns exist". Pragmatically however, the former is often used, even if the person technically believes the latter.

all I'm advocating here is respect for other's beliefs

But there are beliefs out there that do not deserve respect. Why do the superstitions, prejucides and ramblings of ignorant bronze age men deserve respect? Why does the sad fact that many people also believe these ignorant men had knowledge and insight in to the workings of the universe that our best minds lack deserve respect?

Why do the inane and insane beliefs many religious people have - ones that would be considered a sign of mental illness if you replace "God" with any entity we know to be fictional, such as "Santa Claus" - deserve respect?

he says out of the blue to a Christian that God does not exist (I've seen this happen), then the burden of proof lies with the atheist making that claim.

That's not true because "there is no Christian god" is not a positive claim, nor is the premise "The Christian god exists" backed up with solid reasoning and evidence.

Compare that to the negative claim "Evolution is wrong"; the burden of proof is effectively reversed here because Evolution itself has stood up to the burden of proof in the first place.

Originally Posted by Kiza

But you can prove that something doesn't exist: you can search every inch of every country and at the end if you find no unicorns, then you can say confidently, "Unicorns do not exist." But the unicorn and the drug analogy doesn't work, as the matter of gods is a metaphysical matter, and any matter that extends beyond the physical cannot be tested physically, which is the only way humans can test things.

Ah, but see, that's how the world works. The person who is claiming existence must have proof, not the person denying it.

That said, the people DENYING existence have loads of proof. Those claiming it have little to none. See what i'm saying? It's not a debate in the scientific world, it's a blowout.

That said, science is really what we believe in. If science is wrong, we change it. Sure, there are things science can't explain. Things beyond us, like the beginning of existence, the afterlife if there is one, but we don't know. We don't say we do know and put a "truth" out there. We simply don't know, we don't say "Well it's obvious that you go to heaven/hell"

The thing is, both sides think they're right and are going to argue until their dying breathes because somehow I doubt we're going to have a Star Trek-like scenario where all humans are atheists.

Originally Posted by Kiza

Yes, that's right. But if an atheist asserts that God does not exist without reference to any prior argument, ie. he says out of the blue to a Christian that God does not exist (I've seen this happen), then the burden of proof lies with the atheist making that claim. And that's the kind of atheist I am talking about: the atheist who wishes to convert believers, the atheist who wishes to destroy faith. Every group has its extremists and its fanatics, and that's the only thing I oppose, regardless of belief.

And this is true. Many atheists only see the extremists. I have no problem with religion as long as it is not shoved down my throat. I have a policy of don't force it on me and I won't force it on you. I try not to convert, but when they force it on me I retaliate. I have led to the conversion of 24 people.

I have a catholic girlfriend and I am an atheist. What's the worst that will come out of her religion? Oh, she'll live by morals? That's horrible!

I see no problem with religion as long as it stays as your belief.