Ask an atheist

[SwastikaPyle]

I wouldn't go as far as saying every argument for 'theism' is a failure, since that would imply that we've somehow succeeded in proving it false (since neither one of us can really prove this either way).

Unless you replaced 'theism' with organized religion, than I pretty much agree.

 

[rvkevin]

I wouldn't go as far as saying every argument for 'theism' is a failure, since that would imply that we've somehow succeeded in proving it false (since neither one of us can really prove this either way).

Unless you replaced 'theism' with organized religion, than I pretty much agree.

I don't think it would imply it would be false. To say that every argument presented in favor of something has failed does not suggest that it does not exist, just that the belief of the claim is not warranted.

 

[MidnightAsaph]

The onus is on theism to prove itself true, which it cannot, which would mean it failed. This isn't to say that atheism is correct either. Proving a god untrue is harder than proving a specific god untrue, such as the Christian God.

I'm an agnostic atheist, by the way, and I can't stand religion.

 

[jivegamer]

I just have real problems when you run into situations like this:

*I'm sitting on my school library computer when the guy next to me hands me a pamphlet and says "Jesus loves you, and he died for our sins." He keeps on going and I say something like "my family's Lutheran" (I used to be) but he still goes on for a while until he found another person to do this to.

I...really just don't know how to respond. That's such a personal thing that I don't understand how someone who has full mental faculties would really say something like that in person, right next to you, without having spoken so much as a word to you before(I do consider it a bit different if you volunteer that information).

Am I such a fool that I don't know anything about the largest religion in the world and dominant religion in my country? Am I such a fool that I couldn't have made an informed decision about my faith by the time I was in college? What if I actually had another religion? Wouldn't that have made you feel embarrassed?

I've actually heard many Atheists claim that proselytizing theists are the good theists because, if they honestly believed you where going to hell, they should try to save you. I can see this, but there is a very real difference in the way you present something to another person. Let us consider two ways of asking someone else out:

1. Hey, would you like to go out for lunch tomorrow? I know this nice place on the corner of 5th and Broderick That has the most amazing baba ghanoush..

2. Wanna f*ck?

Quite a bit of difference, isn't there? I know, the intent is the same, but proper, socially acceptable presentation will let you know if the person is truly interested or not, as you'll probably be written off as obnoxious if you get into people's faces. I think it might be an idea to ask someone if they're "interested in religion" first. If they respond positively, they're probably not going to get offended. If they respond negatively, they're not in the mood. Just don't spring things onto people and make them feel so awkward.

 

[mountain_tiger]

The onus is on theism to prove itself true, which it cannot, which would mean it failed. This isn't to say that atheism is correct either. Proving a god untrue is harder than proving a specific god untrue, such as the Christian God.

I'm an agnostic atheist, by the way, and I can't stand religion.

[COLOR="#FFCBA"]Religion in itself isn't that bad. The only thing I really hate about religions is that they all basically say 'We're right and everyone else is wrong'. Surely if their god does exist, it shouldn't matter which religion they follow; they'd all lead to the same god...[/COLOR]

 

[Grim Tuesday]

[COLOR="#FFCBA"]Religion in itself isn't that bad. The only thing I really hate about religions is that they all basically say 'We're right and everyone else is wrong'. Surely if their god does exist, it shouldn't matter which religion they follow; they'd all lead to the same god...[/COLOR]

I fail to see how it matters anyway. If there is a god, woopee we get to go to hell (most of us I'd assume, considering how strict the requirements are). If there isn't a god, woopee we get to rot as a corpse in the ground.

 

[john!]

Not trying to brush you off GT, but if there is a God outside our universe, there will be so many different definitions for God and so many theories about how our universe came to be that it's pretty much useless trying to speculate whether the cause could be called God or not. I think the safest bet is to be agnostic about God itself and direct your criticisms towards some of the failings of organized religion (like kevin is doing), because ultimately that's what atheists want, the removal of organized religion. All I was trying to show is that the possibility of God's existence is out there.

So, lets let them continue killing each other over religion? I don't see the point. It's like saying why bother curing malaria, people will just die by a different disease. If you are able to eliminate one cause, it is worthwhile to do so. If people fight over economic, political, etc. problems, I think it is worthwhile to eliminate those problems as well. To say that people will become fanatic about something else once these problems have been eliminated is incorrect evident by the societal health of the Scandinavian countries.

OK, but I will hold it accountable when it's holy book tells believers to "strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them (referring to unbelievers)." and then the followers do so because their "god's word" told them to. Its one thing to be in the wrong, its an entirely different thing to advocate intolerance and violence.

And what's so wrong with people saying "I'm right and you're wrong," that is, as long as they provide sufficient reason or evidence to show that the they are correct and the other person is wrong. The problem with religion is that the latter is not included in the discussion, it literally falls flat on its face in trying to support itself with reason. Religion should be held accountable when its adherents hold to a dogmatic view and cause harm by it.

And I don't fully share your sentiment that man has a desire to say "I'm right and you're wrong." I don't mind if someone tells me that I'm wrong, as long as they also give sufficient evidence and reason for their claim. That way, instead of being wrong this one time, I can be right in the future, and it also increases my knowledge, which makes my decisions based on more accurate information. This is another fault of religion, it claims "I'm right and I can never be wrong;" with such resistance to change, it is unlikely for its adherents to be swayed by physical evidence and reasoned logic.

Intolerant? Examples are needed. The "new" atheists are in no way intolerant, criticism is not intolerance. Closed minded? Examples are needed. As for insults, they go both way, but are no way more prevalent on the atheist side, I suggest you learn to ignore them.

Why must there have been nothing? If by understanding physics, you mean understanding the Big Bang Theory, then you must know that at the Planck time, there was a singularity, and not nothing. So, what evidence do you have that there was nothing? I'll answer the rhetorical by saying, we know nothing before the Planck time, so trying to answer such a question is beyond the ability of anyone at this time and the laws of physics most likely break down at said time. By the way, there are several hypothesizes of how energy can come from nothing (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo). Basically, the sum of the energy in the universe is zero, meaning that it can come from nothing. "If you have nothing in quantum mechanics, you'll always get something." Its still very much an open question and to say otherwise is against the modern understanding of physics.

Who said anything about proof? Proof is really only applicable to mathematical models, in the real world, we use evidence to support claims.

- That would be fine if religion didn't provide many benefits to society and to individuals. Those have to be taken into account.

- Agreed. That's a problem with religion that has been reduced due to natural societal progress, and religions adapting to that progress. Religions today are (for the most part) much more tolerant than they were in past centuries.

- Religion can be argued for or against using logic. It's not exempt from this. There are plenty of religious apologists that can argue for whatever religion you please using reason, ask them not me.

- I'd imagine these are the kind of religious ppl you've encountered most in your life, which is too bad, because they're the minority. Most religious ppl in my life are similar to you. They take a scientific approach to religion (why do people try to separate the two?) and are definitely open to evidence. I've noticed that it's almost always the religious fundamentalists that are responsible for making others convert to atheism. Generally, the more intolerant the fundamentalist, the more intolerant the atheist. There are exceptions but that's generally how people behave.

- Really? The majority of atheists I meet online are very intolerant and instantly hostile to anybody who is religious. It's almost always the religious that argue reasonably and don't resort to ad-hominems, straw men, etc. This thread is an exception, which is why I'm still here.

- I thought Planck time was a unit of time, like a "tick" of the universe, like you could convert from seconds to PT and back. Also if you consider dark energy/matter, it's possible that the sum of energy/matter is zero.. I really don't know though... and there's still the problem of increasing entropy, and the expanding universe still needing an initial cause, etc. Theoretical physics is very fuzzy and imo is closely related to religion. Basically my response to GT.

- Question for you kevin: do you believe in extraterrestrial life? If so, why has none of it contacted us yet? We have no evidence for extraterrestrial life, but reasoning indicates that it likely exists. That's sort of how people like me view God.

 

[rvkevin]

- That would be fine if religion didn't provide many benefits to society and to individuals. Those have to be taken into account.

Name one tangible benefit that could not be produced by purely secular means?

- Religions today are (for the most part) much more tolerant than they were in past centuries.

I disagree about Islam. As for Christianity, it is still intolerant, but at least they're not torturing the unbelievers anymore, which is a major improvement.

- Religion can be argued for or against using logic. It's not exempt from this. There are plenty of religious apologists that can argue for whatever religion you please using reason, ask them not me.

I have heard the apologists argue, and I am not impressed. I have failed to see an apologist win a debate without using the "Hovind" method, that is, spew out so many fallacious statements that the opposing side doesn't have time to answer them all. Anyone want to present why its reasonable to follow religion?

Generally, the more intolerant the fundamentalist, the more intolerant the atheist.

And who would these intolerant atheists be?

- Really? The majority of atheists I meet online are very intolerant and instantly hostile to anybody who is religious. It's almost always the religious that argue reasonably and don't resort to ad-hominems, straw men, etc. This thread is an exception, which is why I'm still here.

Intolerance : unwilling to grant equal freedom of expression especially in religious matter
Were they locking your account because of your views? If not, they were not being intolerant. Criticizing someone, is not intolerance, even if they are fallacious arguments. Being offensive is not intolerance. Its only when they try to silence you does it become intolerance.

Theoretical physics is very fuzzy and imo is closely related to religion.

I highly doubt any results from theoretical physics is going to have any implication on morality or how to live ones life. For this reason, I fail to see how theoretical physics and religion could be farther apart.

- Question for you kevin: do you believe in extraterrestrial life? If so, why has none of it contacted us yet? We have no evidence for extraterrestrial life, but reasoning indicates that it likely exists. That's sort of how people like me view God.

No, but I believe it is likely to find other life. Them contacting us would assume that they are intelligent life. What's your definition of god? Are you a deist then?

 

[MidnightAsaph]

[COLOR="#FFCBA"]Religion in itself isn't that bad. The only thing I really hate about religions is that they all basically say 'We're right and everyone else is wrong'. Surely if their god does exist, it shouldn't matter which religion they follow; they'd all lead to the same god...[/COLOR]

Religion is bad, actually. Organized religion, at least. There's sexism, condemning homosexuals, etc. Also, remember that religion landed a plane in New York and killed hundreds.

As long as their is difference, there is conflict. I say, "Keep your religion to yourself and shut the **** up." That's my approach, at least. And remember, not all people it's bad. It's those **** fundies running around preaching bull****.

 

[_Keno_]

Question for you kevin: do you believe in extraterrestrial life? If so, why has none of it contacted us yet? We have no evidence for extraterrestrial life, but reasoning indicates that it likely exists. That's sort of how people like me view God.

I was just scanning and saw this.

I do believe that somewhere in the universe, merely by probability, there is another world with advanced life. (btw I really think there are many more than just one) For all I know, it may be near or far. However, even if there is an advanced species far beyond our current technology, it couldn't contact us physically...ever. The distances are just too great (unless you believe in that wormhole bs). Its possible with radio waves, but it would take many many many years for a single message to reach the other species.

Reason for alien life is based on the fact that it is possible for life to exist under certain conditions. And probability dictates that life probably exists in at least one other place in the universe. None of that logic can be used for a deity.

 

[john!]

Name one tangible benefit that could not be produced by purely secular means?

I disagree about Islam. As for Christianity, it is still intolerant, but at least they're not torturing the unbelievers anymore, which is a major improvement.

I have heard the apologists argue, and I am not impressed. I have failed to see an apologist win a debate without using the "Hovind" method, that is, spew out so many fallacious statements that the opposing side doesn't have time to answer them all. Anyone want to present why its reasonable to follow religion?

And who would these intolerant atheists be?

Intolerance : unwilling to grant equal freedom of expression especially in religious matter
Were they locking your account because of your views? If not, they were not being intolerant. Criticizing someone, is not intolerance, even if they are fallacious arguments. Being offensive is not intolerance. Its only when they try to silence you does it become intolerance.

I highly doubt any results from theoretical physics is going to have any implication on morality or how to live ones life. For this reason, I fail to see how theoretical physics and religion could be farther apart.

No, but I believe it is likely to find other life. Them contacting us would assume that they are intelligent life. What's your definition of god? Are you a deist then?

- Doing good in the hope of receiving a reward in the afterlife...

- This is why I would assume you have had unusually bad experiences with religious people. Almost all of the Christians I know are very tolerant. My cousin is an atheist and our whole family tolerates it, although they don't necessarily like it.

- I have heard the atheists argue, and I am not impressed. I hear them use fallacies also. That doesn't prove anything...

- I'm not going to ask you for the identity of all the intolerant Christians you've met, and you shouldn't ask me for the identity of all the intolerant atheists I've met. You're gonna have to take my word for it. In fact I believe a poll was held showing that atheists were the least liked minority in America. So there's my "evidence".

- That's not what intolerance means. It's like when you chose your own definition for "atheism". This is what intolerance means. That describes the way some atheists act towards the religious.

- Maybe, maybe not. I should probably have said "religious philosophy", as opposed to organized religion.

- It took the Earth ~5 bil. years to produce us. The Universe is ~14 bil. years old. Surely we aren't the first to become intelligent? I was just using that as an example. Also I already discussed the "definition of God" thing. But we're taking about organized religion...

 

[Grim Tuesday]

I was just scanning and saw this.

I do believe that somewhere in the universe, merely by probability, there is another world with advanced life. (btw I really think there are many more than just one) For all I know, it may be near or far. However, even if there is an advanced species far beyond our current technology, it couldn't contact us physically...ever. The distances are just too great (unless you believe in that wormhole bs). Its possible with radio waves, but it would take many many many years for a single message to reach the other species.

Reason for alien life is based on the fact that it is possible for life to exist under certain conditions. And probability dictates that life probably exists in at least one other place in the universe. None of that logic can be used for a deity.

What he said.

@John
I'm not in this thread to argue that organised religion should be abolished, a goal like that seems impossible to me, no matter the logic. I'm simply answering questions people ask and responding to topics I find interesting.

 

[rvkevin]

- Doing good in the hope of receiving a reward in the afterlife…

Ever hear of Jihad? They're doing what they think is good in hope of receiving a reward in the afterlife. The afterlife is not something that is tangible. And I'm not sure how that relevant to Christianity since it's salvation is not based on merit. Also, charity can be done by purely secular means, so I don't see why religion is necessary for it (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r58f3wfplHQ).

- This is why I would assume you have had unusually bad experiences with religious people. Almost all of the Christians I know are very tolerant. My cousin is an atheist and our whole family tolerates it, although they don't necessarily like it.

I'm not restricting Christianity to only the United States, or to individual members. In the most extreme example, the Ugandan legislation is intolerant of homosexuals. There are other examples of discrimination against homosexuals in the United States, which denotes intolerance. In politics, an atheist is unable to be elected President (http://www.gallup.com/poll/24832/Six-Americans-Think-US-Ready-Female-President.aspx) simply because the religious constituents won't vote for such a person. Discrimination against women (http://m.host.madison.com/mobile/article_932a56c8-36d4-11df-a17e-001cc4c03286.html). Not all Christians are intolerant, but as an organization or based on its text, it would be difficult to say that they are tolerant. Examples for Islam (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xi34wL4KIfo). By the way, this is what Harris says to the Christians you know, "By failing to live by the letter of the texts, while tolerating the irrationality of those who do, religious moderates betray faith and reason equally."

- I have heard the atheists argue, and I am not impressed. I hear them use fallacies also. That doesn't prove anything…

I wasn't talking about a single theologian not meeting his burden of proof, I was talking about every theologian I've listened to. I have not heard of a case for theism that has not relied on a fallacious argument. If you have someone to suggest, a debate or conversation on youtube, etc. I would be happy to listen to such an argument.

- I'm not going to ask you for the identity of all the intolerant Christians you've met, and you shouldn't ask me for the identity of all the intolerant atheists I've met. You're gonna have to take my word for it. In fact I believe a poll was held showing that atheists were the least liked minority in America. So there's my "evidence".

I was referring to the public sphere. I don't really care about anything that can't be confirmed.

Yea, I know about the study, but its kind of funny you mention it, since it pretty much points out people's prejudices about atheists and has little to do about atheists themselves. About the study, "Such perceptions 'tell us nothing about atheists themselves,' she said." and "Edgell said atheists are scapegoated in ways Catholics, Jews and Communists once were -- they are perceived to be on the other side of what Americans view as a symbolic moral boundary. 'They're associated with moral and social disorder,' she said."

In the report, "Moreover, acceptance or rejection of atheists is related not only to personal religiosity but also to one’s exposure to diversity and to one’s social and political value orientations." and "We believe that attitudes toward atheists tell us more about American society and culture than about atheists themselves" and, "Over our history, other groups have, perhaps, been subject to similar moral concerns. Catholics, Jews, and communists all have been figures against which the moral contours of American culture and citizenship have been imagined. We suggest that today, the figure of the atheist plays this role—although we emphasize that this is for contingent historical and institutional reasons, and we also emphasize that this is the case regardless of the morality and patriotism of actual atheists."

All this report shows is the prejudice against atheists among the general public. To say that atheists aren't to be trusted because of this study is no different than to say that African-Americans shouldn't be trusted based on a study conducted in the 1950's. All you are capturing is the general public's misconceptions about the group and the people conducting the study concur (http://www.soc.umn.edu/~hartmann/files/atheist as the other.pdf).

- That's not what intolerance means. It's like when you chose your own definition for "atheism". This is what intolerance means. That describes the way some atheists act towards the religious.

My own definition? More like I used a dictionary instead of Wiki (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/intolerantly). But I'll go ahead and use your definition.

Being closed-minded, I would doubt that it would describe the majority of atheists or even a small percentage. Just because we are quick to dismiss an idea, does not mean we are closed minded. I am quick to dismiss the flat-Earth hypothesis, alchemy, homeopathy, etc. but that does not mean that I would not investigate new evidence if it were to be discovered. As it is said, "What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."

I am not even sure why being intolerant (especially if you include harsh criticism to be intolerance, which I disagree that it does) of some actions would be considered bad. When a group is causing harm, I would hope people wouldn't tolerate such actions. In that regard I agree, atheists, well at least I, are intolerant of discrimination, willful ignorance, credulity, impediments to law enforcement, people forcing their belief's onto others, as well as other actions. But that doesn't apply to all religious philosophies, I am perfectly tolerant of people who follow Jainism, Ubuntu, the Dharma, humanism, etc. So I wouldn't say that atheists are intolerant to religion, just some religious philosophies (and only with when stretching the definition of intolerance to include harsh criticism, which I don't think is sufficient), since there are many religious philosophies that are either benign or positive. I think it would be more accurate to say that most atheists are more disrespectful to some religious beliefs rather than being intolerant of them. That would be one point that I wouldn't hesitate to concede, but I think its a misuse of the word to label most atheists as intolerant.

- It took the Earth ~5 bil. years to produce us. The Universe is ~14 bil. years old. Surely we aren't the first to become intelligent?

The time to believe a claim is when you have sufficient evidence to support it. So the question is "Do we have sufficient evidence to believe that there is intelligent life out there?" I would say no, until we find such, I won't believe in extraterrestrial life, especially intelligent life. By the way, you don't know how long it takes for the adequate conditions for life to form. The universe may have been unable to support life for the first eight billion years, so I think it is unwise to suggest that we were other forms of life that evolved before us.