An Atheist's Perspective

[Batchfile]

Then why even entertain the idea? It's pointless and has no basis in reality.

Just because something has no firm ground to stand doesn't mean it can't be questioned. That's why it should be discussed, to give it firm ground. Or to at least give it a point.

It's like saying the future can't be debated since we can't prove it.

 

[RDK]

Discussing the future =/= discussing an imaginary deity. The present (objective reality) has everything to do with what happens in the future. The concept of a god does not.

Point being, we can argue about the future because it directly correlates to what's happening and what's observable right now. There's no point in arguing about the possibility of a god (outside of pure philosophical speculation) because there's never been any reason to believe in said god. Ever.

 

[Batchfile]

[COLOR="Red"because there's never been any reason to believe in said god. Ever.[/COLOR]

Life isn't enough for some people, they want more. They hope for God to a point of trusting it to exist.

Well, that's the casual reason.

 

[marthanoob]

It's like saying the future can't be debated since we can't prove it.

It can be debated because there is clear, consistent empirical evidence by which the future can be approximated by studying the past.
No strong empirical evidence in your case.

Edit: I just realized that I restated RDK's post. Meh.

Life isn't enough for some people, they want more. They hope for God to a point of trusting it to exist.

Well, that's the casual reason.

Yes, we know.

Are you going to put up any further defense for your point?

 

[Batchfile]

It can be debated because there is clear, consistent empirical evidence by which the future can be approximated by studying the past.
No strong empirical evidence in your case.

Edit: I just realized that I restated RDK's post. Meh.


Yes, we know.

Are you going to put up any further defense for your point?

Which one? I've said several. xD

The future can ONLY be predicted. Even if it's a accurate guess it's still only a educated guess.

Point being, you have nothing to lose but the possibility to gain in believing in a God. And nothing to gain and the possibility to lose in being atheist.

 

[Miller]

you have nothing to lose but the possibility to gain in believing in a God.

Or you know, when you die, you may finally realize "Ohh ****, i wasted my life believing in nonsense". Also even if you say being atheist, you cant gain anything, thats a contradictory to "Heaven" itself.

Since "God" is so forgiving, as long as you repent, you will be accepted into heaven. You really think I want to meet ****ing Hitler if there is an afterlife? Just thinking that someone like Hitler can be "accepted" into heaven is reason enough for me to believe its a load of crap.

 

[Deleted member]

What it boils down to is that religions require extraordiary faith while atheism does not. It only requires logic.

If people just opened up their eyes and applied Occam's Razor, we wouldn't have this problem.

Soo.. it requires logic to see that atheism is illogical? Lawlz.

 

[Aesir]

Wait what? Atheism illogical? How so?

There's no evidence to support the existence of a deity, so why would you subject yourself to the belief?

 

[Deleted member]

what are you, new?

 

[Aesir]

what are you, new?

No.

But you haven't answered the question, god is just as illogical as any other supernatural belief. The simple conclusion is that he doesn't exist, with out proper evidence to support the idea there's no basis for the belief.

 

[Deleted member]

you're just shooting yourself in the foot now. don't embarrass yourself.

 

[Aesir]

Lol.....

While we're at it, Faeries exist, as well as unicorns, hell the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow? Totally exists that's how I paid off my credit cards.

 

[marthanoob]

Point being, you have nothing to lose but the possibility to gain in believing in a God. And nothing to gain and the possibility to lose in being atheist.

The thought process you are following to arrive at your point is ridiculous.
You might as well believe in anything "good" that has no evidence of existence.
IMO there is nothing to gain in such obvious self-delusion. At this point, it seems to become subjective.

 

[Miller]

Lol.....

While we're at it, Faeries exist, as well as unicorns, hell the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow? Totally exists that's how I paid off my credit cards.

Let me ask why your a debater, your not bringing any discussion to the table.

 

[Aesir]

Let me ask why your a debater, your not bringing any discussion to the table.

Did you just read that post or something? the two previous posts of mine where bringing discussion but were just responded to with non-sense so I responded back with non-sense.

I was defending the position of atheism being logical and all I got as responses were "are you you new?" or "stop embarrassing yourself"

Pretty sure my posts were bringing discussion to the table.

 

[marthanoob]

Let me ask why your a debater, your not bringing any discussion to the table.

Aesir's post is perfectly relevant to the current discussion.

 

[Deleted member]

Aesir go read my DWYP thread. Hell, go read any of the threads that I've posted in regarding atheism. That's why I call you new - I'm sick of having to step in when you get a little too overexcited.

Marthanoob, Aesir's post is only relevant because I called him out.

I feel like Alt now.

True atheism is a position that is founded on fallacious reasoning, that is why it is illogical. Look up the fallacy of ignorance and come back to me. That's why you're new, that's why atheism does not require logic.

 

[Aesir]

Aesir go read my DWYP thread. Hell, go read any of the threads that I've posted in regarding atheism. That's why I call you new - I'm sick of having to step in when you get a little too overexcited.

Assume a bit to much are we? I'm not getting excited I'm calling you out. Considering I've been reading your responses since I've been in the DH I know exactly what your argument is and it honestly doesn't fly.

The problem with your whole argument against Atheism as being illogical is the simple fact that that you group all atheists together with Strong Atheists who claim there is no god, which is exactly where argument of ignorance comes in.

A strong atheist who asserts that there is no god has to prove their position. (burden of Proof) But since it's impossible to prove god doesn't exist beyond a reasonable doubt it's a fallacy no different then a Christian arguing that god does exist.

I think that's the type of Atheist your argument works against.

However against a weak atheist who only claim is simply a lack of belief in god/gods which ironically enough is the real definition of Atheism "lacking belief in god."

So again I'm saying atheism is logical because it's founded on logic.

example If you claim X exists, and I ask you for evidence of X and you have nothing to offer other then the knowledge is unknowable then you haven't exactly proven anything. On the other hand I can't offer negative evidence that proves he doesn't exist. But it isn't illogical to not believe in X.

I'm not claim there is no god, I'm only claiming that the lack of evidence for his existence is enough for me to warrant a disbelief in his existence.

Exactly how is that a illogical?

 

[snex]

Life isn't enough for some people, they want more. They hope for God to a point of trusting it to exist.

well i want to be the richest man in the world, but if i started going around telling people i owned a tower filled with gold coins that i swim in, id be committed to an insane asylum.

wanting something is not a valid justification to say it actually exists.

Point being, you have nothing to lose but the possibility to gain in believing in a God. And nothing to gain and the possibility to lose in being atheist.

but you dont KNOW this. it is just an unjustified assumption. the problem with pascal's wager is that it uses "we have no knowledge of god" as a premise, and then it goes on to assert knowledge of how an hypothetical god will treat us when we die. you cannot do this if your premise is that you cannot have knowledge of god. and if you get rid of that premise, the wager crumbles.

 

[AltF4]

A strong atheist who asserts that there is no god has to prove their position. (burden of Proof) But since it's impossible to prove god doesn't exist beyond a reasonable doubt it's a fallacy no different then a Christian arguing that god does exist.

You've got it completely backwards.

It's a fallacy to believe in things which cannot be disproven. It is not a fallacy to believe in something which cannot be proven.

The existence of a god is unfalsifiable. You cannot ever prove that no gods exist.

So the belief that some god exists is nonsensical. But the belief that none do can hold ground, given that there is other merit to such an assertion.


EDIT: Do try to keep separate the concepts of provability and truth. Something can be both unfalsifiable and false.

When we say something is unfalsifiable, what it does is not make that statement "false", but rather useless from any practical standpoint.

 

[Aesir]

You've got it completely backwards.

It's a fallacy to believe in things which cannot be disproven. It is not a fallacy to believe in something which cannot be proven.

The existence of a god is unfalsifiable. You cannot ever prove that no gods exist.

So the belief that some god exists is nonsensical. But the belief that none do can hold ground, given that there is other merit to such an assertion.

Isn't that what I said?

an atheist simply put believes in no Gods. It's a belief based on logical, since it's illogical to believe in something that isn't provable.

In essence everyone an atheist, just some take it one god further.

edit: I think we're in agreement, I'm just horrible at forming my thoughts in a way that everyone can understand.

 

[AltF4]

That may be the case, Aesir, but you're still saying it backwards!

It is NOT illogical to believe in something which cannot be proven.

it IS illogical to believe in something which is unfalsifiable.


For example, I believe the sun will rise tomorrow morning. There is no way for me to PROVE that it will, but I believe so. It is not illogical to hold that belief.

The Inverted Spectrum Hypothesis, on the contrary is unfalsifiable. There is no way to ever prove the hypothesis wrong. It would be illogical to actually believe the hypothesis to be true, because there is necessarily no basis for this belief to be formed upon.

 

[Batchfile]

Or you know, when you die, you may finally realize "Ohh ****, i wasted my life believing in nonsense". Also even if you say being atheist, you cant gain anything, thats a contradictory to "Heaven" itself.

Since "God" is so forgiving, as long as you repent, you will be accepted into heaven. You really think I want to meet ****ing Hitler if there is an afterlife? Just thinking that someone like Hitler can be "accepted" into heaven is reason enough for me to believe its a load of crap.

I knew somebody would say that 'A lifetime wasted".

But is it really? Just because you believed in something untrue doesn't mean it went to waste.

 

[Jack Kieser]

It does if you live your life in a way that you really didn't want to in the first place, which happens a lot. I'd rather live my life as a good person because it's my choice than live my life as a good person because I was blackballed into it by a fake guy.

 

[Batchfile]

It does if you live your life in a way that you really didn't want to in the first place, which happens a lot. I'd rather live my life as a good person because it's my choice than live my life as a good person because I was blackballed into it by a fake guy.

Most people aren't like that. And if they are that's screwed up. Because everyone should be a good person no matter what they believe in.

But most people take Religion as a casual fact in their day of life and accept it. Well, minus the more extreme religions.

 

[RDK]

Aesir go read my DWYP thread. Hell, go read any of the threads that I've posted in regarding atheism. That's why I call you new - I'm sick of having to step in when you get a little too overexcited.

Marthanoob, Aesir's post is only relevant because I called him out.

I feel like Alt now.

True atheism is a position that is founded on fallacious reasoning, that is why it is illogical. Look up the fallacy of ignorance and come back to me. That's why you're new, that's why atheism does not require logic.

But you're missing the point. There's no evidence to give us reason to believe that god(s) exist, and no way to actually prove whether they do or not. Theism is a belief based on a hypothetical, which is completely ridiculous when looked at from an objective standpoint.

 

[Batchfile]

The thought process you are following to arrive at your point is ridiculous.
You might as well believe in anything "good" that has no evidence of existence.
IMO there is nothing to gain in such obvious self-delusion. At this point, it seems to become subjective.

Not in this case. You can only have one Religion

well i want to be the richest man in the world, but if i started going around telling people i owned a tower filled with gold coins that i swim in, id be committed to an insane asylum.

wanting something is not a valid justification to say it actually exists.



but you dont KNOW this. it is just an unjustified assumption. the problem with pascal's wager is that it uses "we have no knowledge of god" as a premise, and then it goes on to assert knowledge of how an hypothetical god will treat us when we die. you cannot do this if your premise is that you cannot have knowledge of god. and if you get rid of that premise, the wager crumbles.

Wanting is believing. If you want to be rich, hell believe you're going to be rich. That's the ultimate way to look a life. If you ever want to reach a goal, you're going to have to believe in gaining it.

And since Religion is something that can't be proven or disproven, it's a logical way to take a stance on what happens when we die.

People like to debate about Religion because it can never be proved or or not. Endless hours of fun. 0.o

 

[snex]

Wanting is believing. If you want to be rich, hell believe you're going to be rich. That's the ultimate way to look a life. If you ever want to reach a goal, you're going to have to believe in gaining it.

thats not the equivalent. the equivalent to religion would be wanting to be rich, and therefore believing you actually are rich.

And since Religion is something that can't be proven or disproven, it's a logical way to take a stance on what happens when we die.

uh, no. if something cant be proven or disproven, then it is illogical to believe it.

when science sees a problem that we dont have an answer to, it says "ok, how can we go about solving this problem?"
when religion sees a problem that we dont have an answer to, it says "ok, lets make an answer up, refuse to test it, and say that anybody who disbelieves our answer is immoral.'

see the difference here?

People like to debate about Religion because it can never be proved or or not. Endless hours of fun. 0.o

the reason i debate about religion is because i want to live in a world where people make decisions that affect me based on EVIDENCE, not FANTASY. we all have to deal with the results of your stupid decisions, so why dont you educate yourself and be useful to society for a change.

 

[marthanoob]

Marthanoob, Aesir's post is only relevant because I called him out.

Actually, I was about to post a reply very similar to his in direct response to Batchfile.

Not in this case. You can only have one Religion

Can you expound on this point and how it refutes my point?

Wanting is believing. If you want to be rich, hell believe you're going to be rich. That's the ultimate way to look a life. If you ever want to reach a goal, you're going to have to believe in gaining it.

Are you being literal? Or attempting to draw a vague correlation of faith with success? That's false. I can go into detail if you want, but I trust you can find some simple examples yourself.

 

[Batchfile]

Most people arn't like that..


I would hate to be confronted by a religious person and be questioned. They have no right to be in my business.


How are people with Religion not contributing to society? It's like you're under the impression that they're leeches to society..

------

To the guy asking about my view on everything being good:

What I mean is, you can't look at everything in the same perspective. Religion is different from everyday do's-and-don'ts.

 

[RDK]

When he called for religious people to contribute to society, what he means is that you guys cloud scientific advancement with your dogmatic thinking and would rather attribute what happens in our world to a man pulling strings in the sky than what the actual, natural cause is.

Case and point, religion should have been left in the Dark Ages. It has no place in today's day and age.

 

[snex]

How are people with Religion not contributing to society? It's like you're under the impression that they're leehes to society..

plenty of religious people contribute to society, but imagine how *much more* they could contribute if their religions didnt cause them to make stupid decisions?

imagine if the catholic church encouraged condom use rather than told lies about condoms.
imagine if newton had abandoned his theological pursuits and spent that time instead on improving his math or physics.
imagine if francis collins (leader of the human genome project), instead of claiming that morality could not evolve and therefore must come from god, stopped using his sundays to waste time in church and actually study how morality came about.

the list can go on and on. every minute you spend on religion is a minute you could have spent doing something useful.

 

[marthanoob]

How are people with Religion not contributing to society? It's like you're under the impression that they're leeches to society...

They are in some ways, but they are also impeding progress in other ways.
Mrs. Palin thinks creationism should be taught in schools. I thought she was kidding. She's not.

What I mean is, you can't look at everything in the same perspective. Religion is different from everyday do's-and-don'ts.

I think you misunderstood me. My original point was that you might as well believe that you will in time obtain anything good, such as Aesir's examples of the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, or the fictional philosopher's stone.

 

[Batchfile]

plenty of religious people contribute to society, but imagine how *much more* they could contribute if their religions didnt cause them to make stupid decisions?

imagine if the catholic church encouraged condom use rather than told lies about condoms.
imagine if newton had abandoned his theological pursuits and spent that time instead on improving his math or physics.
imagine if francis collins (leader of the human genome project), instead of claiming that morality could not evolve and therefore must come from god, stopped using his sundays to waste time in church and actually study how morality came about.

the list can go on and on. every minute you spend on religion is a minute you could have spent doing something useful.

Different people have their different theories. I wouldn't let Religion control my life. And as far as I know it hasn't had make a harmful decision against myself or others.

 

[RDK]

And as far as I know it hasn't had make a harmful decision against myself or others.

Some of the worst things imaginable have been done with the best intentions.

Haven't you seen Jurassic Park?

 

[Batchfile]

I'm think differently then most people. I don't even recall making a Religion based decision OUTSIDE of Religion itself. Why? Because the two don't get along.

Then again when we make decisions based on other people's actions then yes, your decision was made out of somebody's other.

EX:

You're sitting at your lunch table and everyone around you is Christian. A gay person is sitting behind your table with a few friends. Then the gay person says something like "Oh my god that guy is hot". Then everyone at your table bursts out laughing and yelling things like '***' etc. And being the human you are you join in so you don't look bad to your friends.

Now, I would NEVER do something like that. Because that's really messed up. I don't care about people's sexuality. I'll be friends with a gay person and I'll defend them when I can.

So yeah, Religious people can be stuck up a-holes, which is pretty ironic because the thing with most Religions is being fair, loving, and understanding towards the people around you. Just some people take their own view on something like that and choose not to act on it.

It's like being a Democrat but not supporting some of the things a average Democrat would believe in. Because you're a Christian or what-not doesn't mean you are confined to EVERYTHING taught to you to believe in. Because the basis of being a Christian is a small requirement.

I think some people use Religion as a shield to be idiots..

 

[RDK]

You're sitting at your lunch table and everyone around you is Christian. A gay person is sitting behind your table with a few friends. Then the gay person says something like "Oh my god that guy is hot". Then everyone at your table bursts out laughing and yelling things like '***' etc. And being the human you are you join in so you don't look bad to your friends.

First of all, I wouldn't be sitting with a bunch of Christians in the first place. Second of all, I never do anything based on whether I'll look good to my friends. The friends I have are rightly called so because I don't ever need to worry about "fitting in" or doing something to make me look good.

Now, I would NEVER do something like that. Because that's really messed up. I don't care about people's sexuality. I'll be friends with a gay person and I'll defend them when I can.

Are you trying to say that religion is the only reason you wouldn't laugh at a gay person? If so, that's kind of sad. Hopefully you're mature enough not to laugh at someone just because they're have different viewpoints or lifestyles than you.

So yeah, Religious people can be stuck up a-holes, which is pretty ironic because the thing with most Religions is being fair, loving, and understanding towards the people around you. Just some people take their own view on something like that and choose not to act on it.

It's like being a Democrat but not supporting some of the things a average Democrat would believe in. Because you're a Christian or what-not doesn't mean you are confined to EVERYTHING taught to you to believe in. Because the basis of being a Christian is a small requirement.

You're looking at it the completely opposite way. People call themselves Christian because of what you believe in; not the other way around.

You don't call yourself something and then pick and choose what you want to believe in the available spectrum of doctrine.

I think some people use Religion as a shield to be idiots..

I use the word "idiot" as a synonym for "religious folk" anyway. Each to his own.

 

[Deleted member]

u mean we cant luaugh at teh gayz??

 

[RDK]

You can laugh at the gays all you want. I'm just saying that religious doctrine shouldn't be the only reason you do or don't do something.

It all goes back to are you doing something because that's what you feel is right or rational, or are you doing it because an ancient book told you to?

 

[Deleted member]

wut if i rly just do'nt liek teh gayz??