It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
(JUMPS UP AND DOWN) Oi I have a question:

It seems to me that there are a fair number of atheists, or at least irreligious, people on the forum. Now, of course it depends on where you are in the world, but I think it is perhaps rather likely (or not very unlikely) that you might form part of a minority in your extended circle of friends and family. So my question is this: How do you your religious family members and friends feel about your absence of faith and having you around? Do they know? Are you a closeted atheist as it were? I wouldn't blame anyone if they were. I once read a study (forgot the name: something along the line of "Do you trust in atheists?") in which the study presented evidence towards the statement that atheists are the least trusted group in America, and I don't think it is restricted to America. Its not an absolutely damning study though : the sample sizes were quite small - most studies were with groups of 150ish people.
Yeah, don't trust the atheists, they use too much logic. The truth is, at heart, most people don't really believe that a bearded dude in the sky controls the universe. But it's socially unacceptable to admit this. I mean think about it, you'd look like an idiot if you formerly believed some desert dwelling jew died and came back to life cause his dad created every single solar system, every single sun and planet and living thing, and this god just happens to care if you work on Sundays and if you masturbate, or look at a woman and admire her ass. Doesn't he have larger concerns? Who the hell wants to admit to believing such nonsense?
Post edited February 02, 2014 by scampywiak
avatar
Soyeong: Have you even read the Bible?

I have no idea how you can say that just by looking at atheistic societies in the past century. Religion teach the importance of justice, yet somehow that gets flipped around in your mind.
avatar
Theta_Sigma: I am not going to bother delving into other situations, but since when was the Spanish Inquisition justice? I am not trying to be rude or condemn your beliefs, but I am curious how anyone could consider that mess as justice in any way, shape or form.
havent really read about spanish inquisition in detail, but that sort of things are always in huge part political. When religions go mainstream, they tend to get politized and often just serve as excuse for whatever it is that the powers that are want to get over with.

"Pure" religious war are quite rare actually i believe, its far more often about (geo-) politics really.

Like say the arab terrorism isnt -really- about religion, the actual cause for is tightly tied to oil and the politics + economics around it. Religion simply gives convinient excuse.
I'm agnostic and I hate both extremes of the "faith" (and get flak from both).

In one hand you have the religious fanatic that have the sick need of "converting" you and shoving "his" beliefs down your throat ("his" because he think it's his beliefs but in truth it's someone elses beliefs and he is just following them blindly)
In the other hand you have the atheist fanatic who insist in saying you are a moron because you believe in A or B at every opportunity he gets and still can't see he is not much better by believing blindly in science and the scientists (namely his god and their priests).

I hate you both. Both sides are full of shit and make ample use of what I call: "The ctrl+c and ctrl+v knowledge". Religious fanactics don't really know jack about anything and just repeat what the priests told them repeat: they don't have a personal opinion, their opinion is the one their religion dictactes.
Atheists fanactics don't really know jack about anything and just repeat what the scientists told them: they don't have a personal opinion and their opinion is what science (at the moment) dictates.

Atheists love to feel superior and to preach about free thinking and stuff. The truth is, most of them are so narrow minded as much as the very individuals they hate it so much: religious people. Most of them are so arrogant that even an arrogant bastard as myself get sick around them. You would think that an open minded person would be more tolerant of others, especially one that believes that nothing is set in stone and everything can change as new knowledge comes forth to shed more light on matters. But no. Instead of saying "I can't be sure of that but, based on our current knowledge I THINK it's this way" they go: "You are dumfuck for believing that. It's been proven that it's this way, you idiot".

Religious people are no less annoying. The very notion of critical thinking is a sin to them and they won't even try it. If religion was so good and really was the word of God then you would not have so many of them, but instead just one. So, in reality we have thousands of religions, all saying different shit about everything and still all claiming to be the truth. That's really stupid, if you ask me.

Everyone is free to believe in what they want: be it science or religion. But know this: both sides are slaves to someone else's opinion and most of you don't have your own.

Atheists: If you believe in evolution, the big bang and that sort of stuff without a single doubt, I have bad news for you: you have a religion.

Religious folk: If you can't question your beliefs and you can't do this or that because someone told you can't, I have bad news for you: you don't have free will and your mind is not your own. You are just a shell of a person, a husk, and you are indoctrinated.

Having said all that, I wish every single one of you a very nice day. Peace!
avatar
scampywiak: Yeah, don't trust the atheists, they use too much logic. The truth is, at heart, most people don't really believe that a bearded dude in the sky controls the universe. But it's socially unacceptable to admit this. I mean think about it, you'd look like an idiot if you formerly believed some desert dwelling jew died and came back to life cause his dad created every single solar system, every single sun and planet and living thing, and this god just happens to care if you work on Sundays and if you masturbate, or look at a woman and admire her ass. Doesn't he have larger concerns? Who the hell wants to admit to believing such nonsense?
I am not certain if you have problem with believing in some sort of higher power in the first place - or just the mainstream christian view on that.

The main problem i have with religions personally, is that people take to take the books, clerics and what nots at face value way to easily.

To be fair, I think the older religions were rather smart actually. Worshipping Sun God is totally cool from scientific point of view as well - i mean sun does factually give us life :)
avatar
s23021536: So my question is this: How do you your religious family members and friends feel about your absence of faith and having you around? Do they know? Are you a closeted atheist as it were?
I live in the northern part of Germany and here nobody cares if you believe in a god (or several) or not. In some of the smaller villages in the south it might be a problem to be openly atheistic but not here. Here, it is generally accepted that religion should be a private thing.

My parents and my mother's parents aren't very religious and don't really care that I'm an atheist. My sister is agnostic.

My father's parents might have cared but the topic somehow didn't come up back then, and now they're dead.

My husband is a Christian but not affiliated with any church. He is religious though. The topic does come up between us but not in a negative way. I respect his belief and can see that it can give him strength in difficult times. He can see that I'm completely alright with my lack of belief and understands that believing isn't something that can be taught or given to me.

We have a little son (2 years old) and have agreed that we will be open about me being an atheist and my husband being religious and will try to teach him that both is completely fine as long as both sides respect each other and treat each other well.
I do believe that knowledge about religion is important and will try to share my curiosity about different beliefs with my son.

My friends and colleagues also know that I'm an atheist, if they were present when that topic came up. Like I said before, religion is seen as a private matter here and isn't really talked about that much.
Post edited February 02, 2014 by Piranjade
avatar
Piranjade: I live in the northern part of Germany and here nobody cares if you believe in a god (or several) or not. In some of the smaller villages in the south it might be a problem to be openly atheistic but not here. Here, it is generally accepted that religion should be a private thing.

My parents and my mother's parents aren't very religious and don't really care that I'm an atheist. My sister is agnostic.

My father's parents might have cared but the topic somehow didn't come up back then, and now they're dead.

My husband is a Christian but not affiliated with any church. He is religious though. The topic does come up between us but not in a negative way. I respect his belief and can see that it can give him strength in difficult times. He can see that I'm completely alright with my lack of belief and understands that believing isn't something that can be taught or given to me.

We have a little son (2 years old) and have agreed that we will be open about me being an atheist and my husband being religious and will try to teach him that both is completely fine as long as both sides respect each other and treat each other well.
I do believe that knowledge about religion is important and will try to share my curiosity about different beliefs with my son.

My friends and colleagues also know that I'm an atheist, if they were present when that topic came up. Like I said before, religion is seen as a private matter here and isn't really talked about that much.
Well that certainly is commendable :) I cannot conceive of a healthier attitude in a household from that point of view. Here religion is also mostly a private matter. Apart from table prayers before meals, which is pretty universal, it only very rarely comes up in conversation. Nonetheless, the going-to-church-every-sunday story is pretty strong and in my family at least it is strongly frowned upon if someone doesn't go to church. To some people it even matters a lot to which protestant church you go from the four/five or so major denominations. I do get the idea though that religion is dying out among the younger generation.
avatar
s23021536: It seems to me that there are a fair number of atheists, or at least irreligious, people on the forum. Now, of course it depends on where you are in the world, but I think it is perhaps rather likely (or not very unlikely) that you might form part of a minority in your extended circle of friends and family. So my question is this: How do you your religious family members and friends feel about your absence of faith and having you around? Do they know? Are you a closeted atheist as it were? I wouldn't blame anyone if they were. I once read a study (forgot the name: something along the line of "Do you trust in atheists?") in which the study presented evidence towards the statement that atheists are the least trusted group in America, and I don't think it is restricted to America. Its not an absolutely damning study though : the sample sizes were quite small - most studies were with groups of 150ish people.
Czech Republic is one of the least religious countries in Europe so ... Yeah, atheists are most certainly not the least trustworthy people. Neither are theists tho, we're surprisingly tolerant. People are the least trustworthy people in general :-P

As for who in my surroundings is religious, let's just start with my wife :-P I don't know whether I'm atheist, agnostic or ... just whatever, but one of the things I value in life the most is logic, and when I am given an explanation that makes logical sense in relevance to everything else that has been explained to me, I tend to accept it. Now my wife doesn't quite work like that; she is far more ... Humanitarian as I can't seem to find a better word for it, and she did use to try and convert me to christianity (catholicism to be more specific) several times, and then she just gave up - so I went to church with her 'cause I didn't want her to go alone, I have never said anything negative about her faith and I was trying to be supportive (or just not talk about it at all, as, quite frankly, I don't really care about faith all that much, it's never had a place in my life, so ignoring it isn't very difficult for me)

So... What suddenly happened next? My wife started studying biology, persuading her parents of evolution and ... you know, all that crazy science stuff they never talk about home, stopped going to church pretty much altogether and I have taught her a lot of critical thinking, so now she's looking for problems in a statement before she accepts what's told to her. She is still religious, but not all that keen on Catholic church and the way Christianity presents itself in general.

So that's my of prolonged life with a don'tcarist and a theist.
avatar
pimpmonkey2382: Either way it would be god of the gaps, which is really weak anyway.
Not necessarily. As I said, the most basic beliefs are believed to have been non-theistic and animistic. It makes perfect sense when looking at the psychological development of individuals, particularly in small children with their common assumption that almost all occurrences are results of some intention, but not of a single complex entity nor a complex system of such. Of course you could still say that it's about filling gaps but I'd argue that there are no gaps, beliefs in animistic cultures are considered an extremely fundamental approach to everything, not just irrational explanations for the otherwise unexplainable.
Post edited February 02, 2014 by F4LL0UT
avatar
FAButzke: I'm agnostic and I hate both extremes of the "faith" (and get flak from both).

In one hand you have the religious fanatic that have the sick need of "converting" you and shoving "his" beliefs down your throat ("his" because he think it's his beliefs but in truth it's someone elses beliefs and he is just following them blindly)
In the other hand you have the atheist fanatic who insist in saying you are a moron because you believe in A or B at every opportunity he gets and still can't see he is not much better by believing blindly in science and the scientists (namely his god and their priests).

I hate you both. Both sides are full of shit and make ample use of what I call: "The ctrl+c and ctrl+v knowledge". Religious fanactics don't really know jack about anything and just repeat what the priests told them repeat: they don't have a personal opinion, their opinion is the one their religion dictactes.
Atheists fanactics don't really know jack about anything and just repeat what the scientists told them: they don't have a personal opinion and their opinion is what science (at the moment) dictates.

Atheists love to feel superior and to preach about free thinking and stuff. The truth is, most of them are so narrow minded as much as the very individuals they hate it so much: religious people. Most of them are so arrogant that even an arrogant bastard as myself get sick around them. You would think that an open minded person would be more tolerant of others, especially one that believes that nothing is set in stone and everything can change as new knowledge comes forth to shed more light on matters. But no. Instead of saying "I can't be sure of that but, based on our current knowledge I THINK it's this way" they go: "You are dumfuck for believing that. It's been proven that it's this way, you idiot".

Religious people are no less annoying. The very notion of critical thinking is a sin to them and they won't even try it. If religion was so good and really was the word of God then you would not have so many of them, but instead just one. So, in reality we have thousands of religions, all saying different shit about everything and still all claiming to be the truth. That's really stupid, if you ask me.

Everyone is free to believe in what they want: be it science or religion. But know this: both sides are slaves to someone else's opinion and most of you don't have your own.

Atheists: If you believe in evolution, the big bang and that sort of stuff without a single doubt, I have bad news for you: you have a religion.

Religious folk: If you can't question your beliefs and you can't do this or that because someone told you can't, I have bad news for you: you don't have free will and your mind is not your own. You are just a shell of a person, a husk, and you are indoctrinated.

Having said all that, I wish every single one of you a very nice day. Peace!
Where's that cartoon where the person decides to feel superior to both sides?
On xkcd.

Meanwhile, the onion has this : http://www.theonion.com/articles/something-to-chair-about,35064/
avatar
FAButzke: In one hand you have the religious fanatic that have the sick need of "converting" you and shoving "his" beliefs down your throat
I have not seen anyone try to convert me here, although I would not hate it, I think it would be pretty funny.

avatar
FAButzke: In the other hand you have the atheist fanatic who insist in saying you are a moron because you believe in A or B at every opportunity he gets and still can't see he is not much better by believing blindly in science and the scientists (namely his god and their priests).
No atheist believes anything blindly, we have evidence, we can verify things. We accept new evidence. Scientists actively try to find new explanations and disprove the old ones.

avatar
FAButzke: Atheists fanactics don't really know jack about anything and just repeat what the scientists told them: they don't have a personal opinion and their opinion is what science (at the moment) dictates.
So what about those scientists themselves, are they allowed to be atheists, will they prevail when the great agnostic judges them?

avatar
FAButzke: You would think that an open minded person would be more tolerant of others, especially one that believes that nothing is set in stone and everything can change as new knowledge comes forth to shed more light on matters.
Believeing in ridiculous crap that somebody just made up to get followers is not open minded, it is gullible. Even entertaining the notion that they could possibly be onto something is mind boggling.

avatar
FAButzke: But no. Instead of saying "I can't be sure of that but, based on our current knowledge I THINK it's this way" they go: "You are dumfuck for believing that. It's been proven that it's this way, you idiot".
If you really believe there is even the slightest miniscule chance that Xenu,Zeus, Yahwe and Ra really exist, then I wonder who is the "dumbfuck"?

avatar
FAButzke: Everyone is free to believe in what they want: be it science or religion. But know this: both sides are slaves to someone else's opinion and most of you don't have your own.
Yes except you of course...wtf

avatar
FAButzke: Atheists: If you believe in evolution, the big bang and that sort of stuff without a single doubt, I have bad news for you: you have a religion.
That is not the case. These are just good explanations, nobody blindly believes in them. If someone comes up with better explanations we have no problem ditching the old ones. That is exactly the difference to religion. You really call yourself an agnostic? Usually they don't say such silly things.

avatar
Brasas: I note you were the one bringing an obligation - "need to proof" - into the above. It's a strawman...
You don't need to prove the falsehood, unless you want to prove the falsehood (and you do, clearly). As agnostic you might find a less "demanding" position. ;)
I think you mixed me up with the guy who wants to quit, I can't disagree with anything you said.

avatar
Krypsyn: Nah, I'll pass. You have heard me respond to several of your hypotheticals, and I answered essentially the same way each time. I presume you can guess what my response would probably be at this point. If you can't... well... *shrug*
But I really wanted to hear how you explain that Xenu could theoretically really exist...please (insert cat pic)? Or maybe our new agnostic Fabutzke could take a crack at it?
avatar
jamotide: You don't have to "trust" any scientist, you can verify what they say, and if that is not possible nobody will believe them. That is the whole point of science.
[/quote_1167]
Unless you've personally verified every single experiment, you're trusting what the scientists say who did those experiments. If other scientists verify the first scientist's experiment, then that means that you're trusting a larger group of scientists. The fact remains that you have knowledge that is based entirely on what others have told you is true.
Fortunately for you, and everyone else, you're wrong. You know the bridge is safe because your trustworthy friend said so, and your friend knows it is safe because he did tests on it.
avatar
jamotide: Scientists could be lying too because hoaxes do appear from time to time. People still widely believe the lie that they only use 10% of their brain. If he is lying and you choose to cross, that just means that your faith was misplaced and that you had knowledge was incorrect.

Good! But try what again? Sounds like I succeeded.
avatar
jamotide: The first example you gave wasn't actually a case of circular reasoning. The second example would have been circular, but it wasn't actually something I said, and it was in fact something I disagreed with.

No, you are willfully refusing to explain.
avatar
jamotide: I did willfully refuse to explain in that response, but you are still willfully ignorant because I have already explain in this thread, and it is something you could easily look up. It starts with the mountain if historical evidence.
So what? How does that relate to my question of why some theories are cool with them and some aren;t.
avatar
jamotide: So people think that is stronger evidence that their interpretation of Genesis is true than there is for evolution. For instance, some people take rings in ice cores to be an indication of how many years have passed, like tree rings. However, those rings can actually form much faster than yearly cycles. So they are not against science, but they think that scientific evidence has been misinterpreted by scientists to indicate that the Earth is much older than it actually is.
What is there to understand? Gods laws and punishments are made pretty clear.
God is sovereign, so He has the right to take and give life as He sees fit. If someone in a country commits a capital crime and receives a capital punishment, that does not mean the government is a murderous 1984 dictatorship.
What was that about circular reasoning again?
You don't seem to be fully aware of what circular reasoning is, so I'm not sure what you're getting at.
avatar
monkeydelarge: What other evidence do you have other than the "evidence" in the bible? How come, Jesus didn't write anything in the bible, himself? How come, the Roman writers of that time, didn't write about Jesus but wrote about everything else?
Here is some evidence for Jesus from non-Christian sources.

http://www.probe.org/site/c.fdKEIMNsEoG/b.4223639/k.567/Ancient_Evidence_for_Jesus_from_NonChristian_Sources.htm
Post edited February 02, 2014 by Soyeong
avatar
jamotide: You don't have to "trust" any scientist, you can verify what they say, and if that is not possible nobody will believe them. That is the whole point of science.
[/quote_1167]
Unless you've personally verified every single experiment, you're trusting what the scientists say who did those experiments. If other scientists verify the first scientist's experiment, then that means that you're trusting a larger group of scientists. The fact remains that you have knowledge that is based entirely on what others have told you is true.

Scientists could be lying too because hoaxes do appear from time to time. People still widely believe the lie that they only use 10% of their brain. If he is lying and you choose to cross, that just means that your faith was misplaced and that you had knowledge was incorrect.

The first example you gave wasn't actually a case of circular reasoning. The second example would have been circular, but it wasn't actually something I said, and it was in fact something I disagreed with.

I did willfully refuse to explain in that response, but you are still willfully ignorant because I have already explain in this thread, and it is something you could easily look up. It starts with the mountain if historical evidence.

So people think that is stronger evidence that their interpretation of Genesis is true than there is for evolution. For instance, some people take rings in ice cores to be an indication of how many years have passed, like tree rings. However, those rings can actually form much faster than yearly cycles. So they are not against science, but they think that scientific evidence has been misinterpreted by scientists to indicate that the Earth is much older than it actually is.
avatar
Soyeong:

What is there to understand? Gods laws and punishments are made pretty clear.
avatar
Soyeong: God is sovereign, so He has the right to take and give life as He sees fit. If someone in a country commits a capital crime and receives a capital punishment, that does not mean the government is a murderous 1984 dictatorship.

What was that about circular reasoning again?
avatar
Soyeong: You don't seem to be fully aware of what circular reasoning is, so I'm not sure what you're getting at.
avatar
monkeydelarge: What other evidence do you have other than the "evidence" in the bible? How come, Jesus didn't write anything in the bible, himself? How come, the Roman writers of that time, didn't write about Jesus but wrote about everything else?
avatar
Soyeong: Here is some evidence for Jesus from non-Christian sources.

http://www.probe.org/site/c.fdKEIMNsEoG/b.4223639/k.567/Ancient_Evidence_for_Jesus_from_NonChristian_Sources.htm
Well let ask this, is there evidance that the Trojan War actually happened?
avatar
Brasas: You're being "smart" in selecting what to answer, but ultimately you keep conflating knowledge with belief. A very Garden of Eden situation...
I have not purposefully avoided responding to any statements in regard to this matter. What we know to be true are the things that we think are factual. If we think the evidence is sufficiently strong that we have confidence, conviction, or trust that they are factual, then we have formed the belief that it is true.
When you ask How can belief exist without a cause? You are basically rephrasing the eternal question of How can anything exist without a cause. You should be able to - theoretically at least, even if you don't believe it - understand that an atheist arguing with you rejects that there is a cause to the universe itself. Compared to that, stating that beliefs can kind of pop up from environmental accidents of chance is peanuts.
If the universe is eternal and always existed, then it does not have a cause. However, if the universe has a beginning, then something caused it. Similarly, our beliefs at not eternally held because at one point we didn't hold them and at a later point we do, so something must have caused that belief to being to exist. Even if a belief were to happen uncasued it would immediately be dropped because you would have no reason to continue believing it. It seems to me much more plausible that all beliefs are caused than what follows from saying events in our daily lives can happen in an uncased manner.
Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit is a very old argument, it's even scientific (conservation of energy, etc...) but it hides the real metaphysical dilemma.
What is it the real metaphysical dilemma that you think is being hidden?