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

×
Community
General discussion (archive)A Message to Atheists and Agnostics - I get you(2370 posts)(2370 posts)
(2370 posts)
Pages:
1
25
50
75
87
88
89
90
91
125
150
158
This is my favourite topic
Posted February 03, 2014
avatar
s23021536: (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.
Haven't answered that. But no, no problem with believers friends, family, or others. Actually I have more often tension with atheists on crusade than with believers. And when I argued aggressively with believers it was about political stances (backed by their beliefs, but this is arbitrary, as other believers back the opposite stance with their beliefs).

So. I've had cool discussion with priests (one who 'gets' atheism and its implication better than most atheists I know), with Christian friends (a long discussion on god that ended with me giving him arguments for god existence and him arguing against the existence of god - such swap in conversation demands a bit of mutual trust and ease, I suppose), and with most people it's not even a subject of discussion, past a couple of sentences we've said it all and ceased to care about it.

I know believers, I know no religious nuts, or litteral bible readers, and have no ultraconservatives amongst my friends. Most people around me, or in my circles, are atheists, some of them very self-satisfied, intolerant and hateful. If I was religious, I suppose i'd have access to their religious counterparts.

All in all, this is Switzerland. A secular society. No religion war here. But, again, not much creationism either.
Post edited February 03, 2014 by Telika
Posted February 03, 2014
avatar
Soyeong: I think taking things at face value is a problem that part of the human condition rather than something unique to theists. It's always good for people to be willing to critically examine what they are being told and to be willing to reevaluate what they believe, especially on matters that are most important to them.
avatar
TrollumThinks: It's funny - I have the same problem with (vocally opposing) atheists taking the books at face value. Worse, it's an English translation of the books with no regard for the original languages and cultures in which they were written. Thus they wrongly imply nuances of language and when that doesn't work, they just take it all literally.
In what way should they be taken, and even then what makes YOUR interpretation true?
Posted February 03, 2014
avatar
Telika: Haven't answered that. But no, no problem with believers friends, family, or others. Actually I have more often tension with atheists on crusade than with believers. And when I argued aggressively with believers it was about political stances (backed by their beliefs, but this is arbitrary, as other believers back the opposite stance with their beliefs).

So. I've had cool discussion with priests (one who 'gets' atheism and its implication better than most atheists I know), with Christian friends (a long discussion on god that ended with me giving him arguments for god existence and him arguing against the existence of god - such swap in conversation demands a bit of mutual trust and ease, I suppose), and with most people it's not even a subject of discussion, past a couple of sentences we've said it all and ceased to care about it.

I know believers, I know no religious nuts, or litteral bible readers, and have no ultraconservatives amongst my friends. Most people around me, or in my circles, are atheists, some of them very self-satisfied, intolerant and hateful. If I was religious, I suppose i'd have access to their religious counterparts.

All in all, this is Switzerland. A secular society. No religion war here. But, again, not much creationism either.
That certainly is interesting. I've had about 3 positive responses thus far and each (yours included) is roughly from central/northern europe. Not that that says anything in of itself, but it is consistent with what I've read about religious attitudes in those areas. Its very pleasant to hear about such open and tolerant attitudes. I dare say here it is a bit different in certain, not altogether insignificant, spheres. Some people in my family probably wouldn't want to attend a church of a different protestant denomination. In this one it is ok to have a band playing, and in this other one nothing other than psalms and whatever the other song book is are used. Thankfully, I think that these barriers are slowly eroding away, and the intolerant attitudes along with it.
Posted February 03, 2014
avatar
TrollumThinks: It's funny - I have the same problem with (vocally opposing) atheists taking the books at face value. Worse, it's an English translation of the books with no regard for the original languages and cultures in which they were written. Thus they wrongly imply nuances of language and when that doesn't work, they just take it all literally.
There is really no need for atheists to do any of that. For every passage of every religious book you can find a religious person to tell you a different explanation of it. So if I want to hear something funny, I can just ask a few religious people and then pick the one who's interpretation suits me best to deride the whole religion.
You think that is better than simply reading what is in the books they hand to me?

avatar
TrollumThinks: condemning the sin is encouraged, condemning the sinner is not.
Christians are supposed to be kind to sinners and show them a better way...not make them feel like crap.
In their minds they are. The see someone they care about in potential trouble (lake of fire). so they want to help him by getting out of that trouble.
Posted February 03, 2014
avatar
monkeydelarge: This level of skepticism is why I'm not wearing a tin foil hat and don't believe the tooth fairy takes the the teeth of children and gives them money in return.
avatar
Soyeong: It's perfectly rational to be skeptical of whether Jesus performed miracles, but you don't have to take your skepticism to the level where you refuse to try objectively examine any historical evidence even related to Jesus. A common line among people who think Jesus was a myth is to compare him to other gods, such as Horus, and say that Horus was born of a virgin, had 12 disciples, and had all of these other traits in common, so Jesus was copied. The problem is that if you actually look at what an ancient historian, such as Plutarch, has to say about Horus, it nothing in common with these lists of so-called similarities. The problem is they just unquestioningly accept anything that supports their views and don't bother to take history seriously.

Don't just claim Tacitus could be faked, therefore he's faked. The general consensus among both Christian and non-Christian historians is that Tacitus is authentic, so don't just dismiss him to blindly hold on to your beliefs. If you think Tacitus was altered, then show evidence for that. It's not enough to think Jesus was a myth, you need to show how it's even plausible for Christianity to have taken off within its historical environment if that were the case. Going by the historical evidence, I think it would been next to impossible for Christianity to have survived its inception if Jesus had not risen from the dead, so the idea that Christianity survived its inception while being based on someone who didn't exist is just really absurd.

There is a mountain of historical evidence for the events in the Bible, and no historical evidence around the tooth fairy, so anyone who has studied the history shouldn't find it difficult to figure out why Christians believe in God, but don't believe in the the tooth fairy.

I believe what I've seen, what I've experienced and what is backed up by science. Is that so wrong?
avatar
Soyeong: Nothing is wrong with that, but you should also believe what is supported by history.

I do wonder, if other figures from history truly existed.
avatar
Soyeong: Your welcome to do that, but I'd advise looking at what expert histories have to say before drawing any conclusions.

You do know, that people are capable of lying or exaggerating, right?
avatar
Soyeong: Of course, but that does not mean we should assume a priori that they are.

People also enjoy writing fiction. Two thousand years from now, if they find a capsule with comic books, they might think Batman was real. OR if they found a time capsule with a magazine about celebrities, they might think Justin Bieber is a god, we worshiped.
avatar
Soyeong: The genre of the Gospels is historiography. Lots of people today enjoy writing fiction, but that doesn't tell us about whether 1st century Palestinian Jews enjoyed writing fiction. For that, you'd have to look at other works that were written at the time. Furthermore, if they were writing a work of fiction, then there would have been a lot of things they could have easily done differently that would have made it a lot easier to find converts, starting with not have the central figure die a humiliating death generally reserved for criminals.
avatar
pimpmonkey2382: It doesn't need evidence. It just needs to be believed.
avatar
Soyeong: It true for any beliefs in general. You don't randomly have beliefs pop into your head uncaused, and neither does anyone else.
You do know that history is always rewritten by people in power? Do I seriously need to show you proof of this?
Post edited February 03, 2014 by monkeydelarge
Posted February 03, 2014
avatar
jamotide: snip...
Hey, you are the one ignoring parts and responding only what suits you. And also, you are the one mocking people so your own question apply to yourself: did some believer touch you in a funny place? And yep, you are in denial, I already told you of what, so your question is redundant and stupid. And the funny thing is that you talk about the real world as if you were living in it, the truth that you don't want to face is that you are living a lie. Fanatism is always funny, man. You are a jewel. =D

avatar
tinyE: All of a sudden I'm not a big Thundercats fan. :P
Careful or I'll let Panthro loose on yo ass =P
avatar
DrYaboll: ... snip
I didn't even bother to read your entire post because you clearly didn't read mine so your entire post was constructed based on misinformation. Neither did I say I don't believe in science nor I said I was a religious person. Try again. This time, read my very first post. Here I'll link it to you:

http://www.gog.com/forum/general/a_message_to_atheists_and_agnostics_i_get_you/post1249
Post edited February 03, 2014 by FAButzke
Posted February 03, 2014
avatar
jamotide: So what is your point, knowledge is irrelevant? Are we going epistomological now?
My point is that the bulk of scientific knowledge is based on things that have a high probably of being true, so if you can't knowledge of things being true based on their probability, then you've just thrown out the bulk of scientific knowledge, well done.
See this is the non-religious people's problem, incorrectly assuming that we think scientists getting something wrong means that that anything else is true.
Feel free to start quoting your people who've said that whenever you feel like getting around to being factual.
Oh we have a choice now? Ten commandments out of the window? Btw who makes those capital punishment laws again which mean that it is not murder? The penalty in many religions for not accepting gods is usually death, some choice!
Is God grabbing you by the arm and forcing you to follow the ten commandments? Murder is by definition unlawful killing, so lawful murder is an oxymoron.
Yes very easy and amusing, keep em coming. I have already explained to you that scientists don;t trust each other, they try to disprove each others claims. That is why you are using circular reasoning when you don't examine the bridge for yourself, and that is why I am not because I don't have to trust scientists. I am not sure why this is so hard for you to understand.
It's still ultimately a matter of faith because if other scientists verify the results of the first scientist's experiment, then it just means you're now trusting a group of scientists rather than just one. If there are any scientific facts that you hold to be true that you personally haven't verified, then you're taking it in faith. For instance, if an astronomer tells you all sorts of facts about the dimensions of things in our solar system, and you haven't personally verified it, then you're taking it on faith. If it's a fallacy to trust scientists or groups of scientists, then have once again called into question the bulk of science, well done.

Rather, circular reasoning is providing evidence for the validity of an assertion, which assumes the validity of the assertion. Surely you can do the difference between these two statements:

1.) I'm right because I'm right.
2.) I'm right because I've done scientific tests that validate that I'm right.

The second gives a valid reason for thinking that I'm right and doesn't just assume what I'm trying to prove.
How the fuck do you know?
I just explain it to you, weren't you paying attention?
Could be, though I don't think it's relevant to the question at hand. There are no known physical causes, but that does not mean there is no physical cause, and even if there were no physical cause, there it does not eliminate the possibility of an intelligent non-physical cause that we are unable to use science to detect. If it doesn't eliminate that possibility, then to use it against a proof for an intelligent non-physical cause is begging the question.
Do yourself a favor on look up quantum mechanics.
Exactly, because there is none.
Do you imagine that the books are blank or what?
Posted February 03, 2014
avatar
FAButzke: Hey, you are the one ignoring parts and responding only what suits you.
What? I used to do that here, but I was told not to, so now I do huge multiquote fests, and you are still not happy? Just tell me what I ignored, I will address it.

avatar
FAButzke: And also, you are the one mocking people so your own question apply to yourself: did some believer touch you in a funny place?
Not yet, but I'm not opposed. Brazil is really far away though ;(

avatar
FAButzke: And yep, you are in denial, I already told you of what, so your question is redundant and stupid.
I'm sorry, you said I am the one ignoring stuff and insulting people?

avatar
FAButzke: And the funny thing is that you talk about the real world as if you were living in it, the truth that you don't want to face is that you are living a lie. Fanatism is always funny, man.
It still seems like you don;t really grasp the whole concept of atheism. It is precisely the lack of fanaticism. Give me proof, and I will believe you immediately that Thor and Odin are out there. I will still not worship them or obey, but that's just my nature, not too keen on all powerful dictators.

avatar
FAButzke: You are a jewel. =D
Oh thanks, I;m actually pretty proud of myself, these threads are a big ego booster for me.

Btw... did your post have any substance? It feels like this was just trading barbs and mockery, I mean I like it, but you were the one complaining about it.
Posted February 03, 2014
avatar
monkeydelarge: You do know that history is always rewritten by people in power? Do I seriously need to show you proof of this?
Your historical illiteracy is really quite sad. We might as well just throw out all of history because we can't know anything about it. Do you want to be the fist to break the news to professional historians or should I?
Posted February 03, 2014
avatar
jamotide: Snip...
What for? Leave it be. I don't really care, I just thought I needed to point it out. But truth be told, the fact that you multiquote and still cut things out leaves something to be desired there. It's a lot of work for nothing if you still don't adress everything.

Yep, you are. What was that you've said before? "People deserved to be mocked?"

You may think that, yes. And you would be right. I'm not debating whether atheism is a belief system or not (it isn't) I'm debating the belief in science AS a religion. You may be an atheist but you believe in science, do you not? That's your religion. This is an interesting read if you are really interested in the theory behind what I'm trying to tell you: That I believe that Science is a religion (not to everyone, but to some people):

http://www.science20.com/florilegium/science_belief_religion_science_recent_research

And hey, just because I've complained about it doesn't mean I can't bite back. =D

And regarding Brazil, you would like it here. I live in a German colony called Blumenau. Why don't you come here and we crack open some beers and discuss this sort of thing while having a good time tempered with alcohol? =D Just wait until summer is gone, unless you do like the 40 degrees+ we're having here right now. Our political system is a mess and we have some major problems that need to be adressed but not all is lost (yet). The World Cup (a mistake having it here in my opinion) is right around the corner and in the middle of the winter. You would feel right at home.
Posted February 03, 2014
avatar
monkeydelarge: You do know that history is always rewritten by people in power? Do I seriously need to show you proof of this?
avatar
Soyeong: Your historical illiteracy is really quite sad. We might as well just throw out all of history because we can't know anything about it. Do you want to be the fist to break the news to professional historians or should I?
Yes, we should throw all history out of the window unless it is backed up by real evidence. The kind of real evidence archaeologists deal with all the time. Not just, some guy said this, possibly.
Posted February 03, 2014
avatar
monkeydelarge: Yes, we should throw all history out of the window unless it is backed up by real evidence. The kind of real evidence archaeologists deal with all the time. Not just, some guy said this, possibly.
So those in power systematically hunted down, destroyed, and rewrote all documented evidence, but didn't bother to plant any archaeological evidence?
Post edited February 03, 2014 by Soyeong
Posted February 03, 2014
avatar
FAButzke: What for? Leave it be. I don't really care, I just thought I needed to point it out. But truth be told, the fact that you multiquote and still cut things out leaves something to be desired there. It's a lot of work for nothing if you still don't adress everything.
So tell me what you want me to respond to, you shouldn't whine and then when I react say "aww shucks I don't care"

avatar
FAButzke: Yep, you are. What was that you've said before? "People deserved to be mocked?"
So this is the kind of stuff I am not supposed to ignore?

avatar
FAButzke: You may think that, yes. And you would be right. I'm not debating whether atheism is a belief system or not (it isn't)
Ok.. (reacting)

avatar
FAButzke: I'm debating the belief in science AS a religion. You may be an atheist but you believe in science, do you not? That's your religion.
You haven't debated it so far. You simply said it is, disregarded what I replied and then proceeded to whine about me ignoring you.


avatar
FAButzke: This is an interesting read if you are really interested in the theory behind what I'm trying to tell you: That I believe that Science is a religion (not to everyone, but to some people):
http://www.science20.com/florilegium/science_belief_religion_science_recent_research
Summarize it for me. Because after reading half of it I am not convinced you read it.

avatar
FAButzke: And hey, just because I've complained about it doesn't mean I can't bite back. =D
Agreed.

avatar
FAButzke: And regarding Brazil, you would like it here. I live in a German colony called Blumenau. Why don't you come here and we crack open some beers and discuss this sort of thing while having a good time tempered with alcohol? =D Just wait until summer is gone, unless you do like the 40 degrees+ we're having here right now. Our political system is a mess and we have some major problems that need to be adressed but not all is lost (yet). The World Cup (a mistake having it here in my opinion) is right around the corner and in the middle of the winter. You would feel right at home.
Yes.
Post edited February 03, 2014 by jamotide
Posted February 03, 2014
avatar
FAButzke: I didn't even bother to read your entire post because you clearly didn't read mine so your entire post was constructed based on misinformation. Neither did I say I don't believe in science nor I said I was a religious person. Try again. This time, read my very first post. Here I'll link it to you:

http://www.gog.com/forum/general/a_message_to_atheists_and_agnostics_i_get_you/post1249
Yes, yes it is. I havent even seen that post you've linked. I saw the post I quoted.

So, while blindly believing in what the scientists say about various stuff is akin to religion, what they say still makes much more sense than religion.

They have some basis to make that statements, and tbh most of it is reasonable.

You're right, however, that it cant be treated as the absolute truth, after all the big bang theory is nothing but...a theory. It cant really be verified directly, same as a lot of other stuff.

Their arguments however are definitely more compelling than what the theists state, and discarding it doesnt make sense, unless, of course, you're a scientist yourself and you have a better theory.

Hmm....tbh science is all about discarding stuff. Thats how it progresses - person X says: A, person Y says: you're wrong, its B. It will never stop, thats what it is all about. Constantly trying to find the fault in a theory, and make a better one yourself (or create an alltogether new idea that everyone is going to try to evaluate, find a fault and present the 'correct' version).
Post edited February 03, 2014 by DrYaboll
Posted February 03, 2014
avatar
DrYaboll: You're right, however, that it cant be treated as the absolute truth, after all the big bang theory is nothing but...a theory. It cant really be verified directly, same as a lot of other stuff.

Their arguments however are definitely more compelling than what the theists state, and discarding it doesnt make sense, unless, of course, you're a scientist yourself and you have a better theory.
A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation. So to say that something is nothing but a theory to to misunderstand what a scientific theory is. It's like saying gravity is nothing but a theory.

The big bang is a theistic theory because the big bang requires something that caused it.
Pages:
1
25
50
75
87
88
89
90
91
125
150
158
This is my favourite topic
Community
General discussion (archive)A Message to Atheists and Agnostics - I get you(2370 posts)(2370 posts)
(2370 posts)