Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I don't think we need bother define religion for the same reason we need not bother to define gods: They can both be virtually whatever people want them to be, and can be altered in an instant by the believer.

[Willfor]

Neither do we need to define atheism as even the people who subscribe to it can't agree amongst themselves what the hell they believe. Or what words are associated to what concepts. Or any number of things that would actually make this anywhere near something worth debating instead of what seems like an endless drone of semantics.

Let's all shake hands, it looks like we've come to an agreement.

[G-Flex]

Neither do we need to define atheism as even the people who subscribe to it can't agree amongst themselves what the hell they believe. Or what words are associated to what concepts. Or any number of things that would actually make this anywhere near something worth debating instead of what seems like an endless drone of semantics.

Let's all shake hands, it looks like we've come to an agreement.

Wait, so the agreement is to fail to ever have a constructive conversation, because we can't even define the words involved? Wonderful.

Also: Atheists don't need to agree on what they believe, because atheism is not a statement of belief. It's not some monolithic group with a mission statement and a holy book. It's just a word that means you don't believe in any gods. It means you aren't theistic. It's not hard to grasp.

[ECrownofFire]

This is interesting. I generally agree with most of it. Going by that, I'm much more spiritual than religious in general. Interesting way to put it though, that religion is more focused on rituals and such.

The website is kind of a laugh though. "Difference between Ancient Greece and Ancient Rome" for one.

[Willfor]

I've seen the statement put forward that "arguing on the internet is like participating in the Special Olympics."

I do not agree with this statement until it has been changed to "arguing on the internet without any common ground is like participating in the Special Olympics." Unless we have terms that we all can agree mean what everyone in the topic thinks they mean, then we run around in circles. Not being able to agree on even a definition means you might as well take your toys and go home.

Also, irreligion is not a statement of belief, whereas atheism is a statement of disbelief. Honestly, it's not that hard to grasp.

Oh damn, that shoe is totally on the other foot now.

[Farmerbob]

Atheism can only be a religion when any god proves it's existence and that Atheist still disbelieves in that god...

Heh, if a deity shows itself and proves itself, Atheism wouldn't be a religion, it would be stupidity.

 

[Farmerbob]

I agree that we're arguing mostly about definitions of words, which is silly.

No matter if you define Atheism as a religion or not, Atheism is an irrational belief structure because you simply cannot disprove the existence of an all knowing all powerful deity as defined by most monotheistic religions.  No matter how silly it might seem to give any sort of credence towards the possible existence of such a deity, flatly denying it's existence is not logical.  On the other side, believing in such a deity without proof of it's existence seems just as irrational.

I'm irrational about some things, everyone is to some degree.  With this in mind, personally I don't mind people being irrational, as long as they don't try pushing it on me, and so long as they are not actively hurting other people.

Trying to call an Agnostic an Atheist is a lot like trying to call someone who makes maps a Flat Worlder.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

No matter if you define Atheism as a religion or not, Atheism is an irrational belief structure because you simply cannot disprove the existence of an all knowing all powerful deity as defined by most monotheistic religions.  No matter how silly it might seem to give any sort of credence towards the possible existence of such a deity, flatly denying it's existence is not logical.  On the other side, believing in such a deity without proof of it's existence seems just as irrational.

I deny that rabid invisible ghost rats are trying to eat my feet. Am I being irrational? I can sense no rabid invisible ghost rats, nor is any effect claimed of the rat's actions observed. There's no reason to believe in the deadly, deadly ghost rats that could be skittering around you at this very moment, so why would the burden of proof be on the person denying the existance of the unspeakable ethreal vermin?

Now, go back and replace the rats with gods and their lust for your flesh with, say, hell. This is why atheism is not irrational.

[Shambling Zombie]

Just a thought, but one doesn't need to believe everything until it is disproven to be rational. I mean, I can't disprove that I have a green beard that disappears every time someone tries to perceive it in any way, and re-appears when noone is looking... it doesn't mean it's irrational to say "I don't have a green beard."

By the way, I don't have a green beard. Show me evidence of my beardedness, and I'll believe it.

edit: Wow, I was a bit slow to respond, hehe.

[G-Flex]

No matter if you define Atheism as a religion or not, Atheism is an irrational belief structure because you simply cannot disprove the existence of an all knowing all powerful deity as defined by most monotheistic religions.

You don't understand what "atheism" means and haven't been following the conversation.

"Atheism" does not imply the belief that a deity does not exist. It implies the lack of belief in a deity. Yes, there are atheists who strictly believe that there is no God, or no gods, but that does not account for all of them and the label does not imply that.


Also: It is still certainly rational to disprove the existence of specific gods based on the validity or consistency of their proposed characteristics.


Also: What MetalSlimeHunt said. Burden of proof isn't on someone denying the claim. If someone makes a claim with absolutely no evidence behind it, the rational thing is to deny its truth. This is not the same as saying "I know for sure that it isn't true and can prove it".

[Willfor]

With this in mind, personally I don't mind people being irrational, as long as they don't try pushing it on me, and so long as they are not actively hurting other people.

I am curious if atheists think this is as much passive-aggressive bullshit when it's directed at them as when it's directed to anyone else. I've never seen it used towards atheists before, and this is my first chance to actually see if they can see what [some of them] do themselves reflected in this statement. Hopefully with the eye-opening realization of what it actually sounds like to the person they say it to, but I don't hold out much hope on that front.

[Farmerbob]

No matter if you define Atheism as a religion or not, Atheism is an irrational belief structure because you simply cannot disprove the existence of an all knowing all powerful deity as defined by most monotheistic religions.  No matter how silly it might seem to give any sort of credence towards the possible existence of such a deity, flatly denying it's existence is not logical.  On the other side, believing in such a deity without proof of it's existence seems just as irrational.

I deny that rabid invisible ghost rats are trying to eat my feet. Am I being irrational? I can sense no rabid invisible ghost rats, nor is any effect claimed of the rat's actions observed. There's no reason to believe in the deadly, deadly ghost rats that could be skittering around you at this very moment, so why would the burden of proof be on the person denying the existance of the unspeakable ethreal vermin?

Now, go back and replace the rats with gods and their lust for your flesh with, say, hell. This is why atheism is not irrational.

The difference between your rats and something like one of the monotheistic deities as they are described is:

1) The deity has no need to interact with the world, and in fact has a logical reason to NOT interact directly with the world.
2) The deity is omnipotent and omniscient, able to perfectly hide itself from our existence.
3) A large number of people believe in the deity - it's not just random noise like foot-eating rats.

[Askot Bokbondeler]

No matter if you define Atheism as a religion or not, Atheism is an irrational belief structure because you simply cannot disprove the existence of an all knowing all powerful deity as defined by most monotheistic religions.  No matter how silly it might seem to give any sort of credence towards the possible existence of such a deity, flatly denying it's existence is not logical.  On the other side, believing in such a deity without proof of it's existence seems just as irrational.

I deny that rabid invisible ghost rats are trying to eat my feet. Am I being irrational? I can sense no rabid invisible ghost rats, nor is any effect claimed of the rat's actions observed. There's no reason to believe in the deadly, deadly ghost rats that could be skittering around you at this very moment, so why would the burden of proof be on the person denying the existance of the unspeakable ethreal vermin?

Now, go back and replace the rats with gods and their lust for your flesh with, say, hell. This is why atheism is not irrational.

The difference between your rats and something like one of the monotheistic deities as they are described is:

1) The rats have no need to interact with the world, and in fact have a logical reason to NOT interact directly with the world.
2) The rats are invisible, able to perfectly hide themselves from our existence.
3) A large number of people believe in many different things - it's just random noise like foot-eating rats.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

The rats work in mysterious ways. They have methods of getting at your feet without exposing their existance. Who are you to judge the actions of the almighty Rigr (Rabid Invisible Ghost Rats)?

[G-Flex]

What Askot said. Jehova isn't any different when it comes to the burden of proof compared to any one of the other literally infinite and uncountable ideas you could come up with. It doesn't matter that a lot of people already believe in him, and an infinite/uncountable number of hypothetical beings or entities could be thought up which also don't interact with the world much.