Print

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

[Muz]

Most religion practices can be put next to each other comfortably, especially the Abrahamic religions. Heck, my uni has a religious building and everyone's just fine with each other, even when the guys next door are a little loud.

But no religion seems to be able to sit next to atheism. Buddhism, hinduism seem a bit OK, since it seems that a lot of athiests became atheists in the first place just to take down Christianity or Islam. I've seen a few books on atheism which claim that religion is false based entirely on pointing out inconsistencies in the Bible.

Religious tolerance is all fine, until someone else claims that it doesn't exist and tries to illegalize them. Communism would've worked much better in Southeast Asia if it wasn't for the religion thing, and if they didn't turn to terrorism. There was one time when Malaysia considered basing their flag off the Soviet one, but decided to switch sides and base it off the American flag.

[CJ1145]

Hey, to any atheists here, I was hoping you could answer me a question: When you see a popular, well-known atheist talking, the subject is always "No God/Jesus", it seems. Why have I never seen them saying "Moses was a fake" or "Muhammad(sp?) never existed"? More importantly, why are they arguing the existence of someone whose existence has more evidence than Alexander the Great? It just doesn't make sense to me, why it seems the argument is so focused on Christianity.

And a second question, I've asked an atheist friend why he would be an atheist, and he said it "releases" you from the worry about God. My only response was WTF. It seems, no offense, stupid to say that. I'd rather believe in a God, and if he exists get into heaven than not believe, and if he exists go to hell.

Finally, if there is no god, why can't I take a gun and shoot you all? Why are there consequences? If we're evolved, then there is no point to morality, to justice. If the goal of atheism is to be free from God and enjoy life as it is, why don't you just break away from order and law as well? Aren't order and chaos, good and evil just creations of the human subconscious, like God?

PS: I realize my post may seem trollish, but I apologize, as I cannot word things well. Please understand that I am simply trying to learn your perspective, so I can have a bit better understanding of your beliefs and actions.

[Sordid]

Hey, to any atheists here, I was hoping you could answer me a question: When you see a popular, well-known atheist talking, the subject is always "No God/Jesus", it seems. Why have I never seen them saying "Moses was a fake" or "Muhammad(sp?) never existed"?

Because these speakers and their audiences come from western (= Christian) civilization. Jews are a tiny minority and most speakers are afraid to piss off the Muslims.

More importantly, why are they arguing the existence of someone whose existence has more evidence than Alexander the Great?

BWAHAHAHAHAA! Wherever did you get that idea?
Also, most atheists don't argue against the existence of Jesus, merely against his divinity.

And a second question, I've asked an atheist friend why he would be an atheist, and he said it "releases" you from the worry about God. My only response was WTF. It seems, no offense, stupid to say that. I'd rather believe in a God, and if he exists get into heaven than not believe, and if he exists go to hell.

And what if a god exists, but punihes those who belive in the god you believe in by sending them to hell, hm?

Finally, if there is no god, why can't I take a gun and shoot you all? Why are there consequences? If we're evolved, then there is no point to morality, to justice. If the goal of atheism is to be free from God and enjoy life as it is, why don't you just break away from order and law as well? Aren't order and chaos, good and evil just creations of the human subconscious, like God?

Because law and order serve a useful social function in allowing us to live together as a group. Duh.
More importantly, believe it or not, atheists do have some ethical codes that they follow, and by asking questions like that you're only showing off lack of such codes of your own. If the only thing preventing you from going out and shooting random people is because your daddy told you not to, well then I'm sorry but you're one monster of a human being.

[Il Palazzo]

Re: Sordid
This might be my personal point of view only, but I think that religion(or any belief) is becoming "dishonest" when it stops being used for ones spiritual development and starts being used towards achieving material gains.

And discussion is all great. However, religion vs atheism threads seem to focus on atheists telling the other side that they're stupid and/or brainwashed. That religion is the source of most of hate in the world.

As long as atheism will have an issue with what other people believe in.

Haven't I just explained that it doesn't?

You apparently think so, however there's this one glitch.
You see, instead of telling people that "there is no god", atheism should rather say, "look up the facts and figure it out yourself".
The problem here is that most people are too busy/tired/stupid/not caring to go through the trouble of learning enough physics, biology, philosophy etc. to make up their own ideas on the subject, and would rather seek ready-made answers provided by somebody who actually did learn all that stuff.
And the answer provided by atheists is: there is no god, but at this point it's no different from the answer: there is god, because here it's becoming just another belief system - people *believe* instead of knowing that there is no god, whith people willing to get really pissed off at anybody who calls them stupid for believing in what they chose.

Re:CJ1145
first question: if sombody is rised in an environment which has Christianity as a prevaling religion, then he most likely knows this religion best, and can debate it's fallacies better than e.g.Judaism's

second: or you can believe that there's no god and not worry about hell and heaven at all.

third: you take a gun and shoot people, you're going to be taken down and removed from the society. Self preservation is a reason enough to not shoot anyone.

(...and ninja'd by Sordid. Oh well)

[Ampersand]

Hey, to any atheists here, I was hoping you could answer me a question: When you see a popular, well-known atheist talking, the subject is always "No God/Jesus", it seems. Why have I never seen them saying "Moses was a fake" or "Muhammad(sp?) never existed"? More importantly, why are they arguing the existence of someone whose existence has more evidence than Alexander the Great? It just doesn't make sense to me, why it seems the argument is so focused on Christianity.

It's a cultural thing. If they were all born in Iran, and could get away with talking about it without getting their heads lobbed off, they would talk about Islam. Secondly, there is very little evidence for the existence of Jesus, at all. Hard to describe a lack of evidence, though

And a second question, I've asked an atheist friend why he would be an atheist, and he said it "releases" you from the worry about God. My only response was WTF. It seems, no offense, stupid to say that. I'd rather believe in a God, and if he exists get into heaven than not believe, and if he exists go to hell.

Your friend is an idiot. That isn't a reason not to believe. The lack of proof is enough. Prove it and I will believe that a god exists, though I won't worship him.

Finally, if there is no god, why can't I take a gun and shoot you all? Why are there consequences? If we're evolved, then there is no point to morality, to justice. If the goal of atheism is to be free from God and enjoy life as it is, why don't you just break away from order and law as well? Aren't order and chaos, good and evil just creations of the human subconscious, like God?

There are consequences because society has decided there are. You can't shoot me because my self-preservation instinct will make me shoot you first. If we're evolved, morality arises from the social instincts that have been developed over the aeons. It is demonstrable that cooperation, sharing, and shared responsibility helps the whole of a group of individuals survive better than they would alone. There have been countless studies on this, and it would behoove you to research these things independently before presenting this kind of argument.

PS: I realize my post may seem trollish, but I apologize, as I cannot word things well. Please understand that I am simply trying to learn your perspective, so I can have a bit better understanding of your beliefs and actions.

No offense taken.

Edit: Also, if the only thing preventing you from going on a shooting spree is the bible, you have serious mental issues.

[Muz]

This might be my personal point of view only, but I think that religion(or any belief) is becoming "dishonest" when it stops being used for ones spiritual development and starts being used towards achieving material gains.

Everything can be dishonest. If one wants material gains, they don't have to belief, they just have to claim to believe. That's probably the source of most crusades, terrorism, etc, etc.

And discussion is all great. However, religion vs atheism threads seem to focus on atheists telling the other side that they're stupid and/or brainwashed. That religion is the source of most of hate in the world.

I've felt that it's the main reason that separates atheists (those who don't believe in the existence of a God(s)) from agnostics (those who want more proof either way). They found a lot of hate and brainwashing in religion and chose to disprove it.

[Chutney]

If what makes you people an atheist is a lack of proof, then surely you must realize no origin story of the universe has proof, right?
We can't prove the Big Bang happened, we can't prove G-d just went 'click'. We can't prove that everything has just always been hanging around. Can't prove that there was a giant man who created humanity from his foot and armpits and an ice-cow who licked salt until gods were created.
All of these have a lack of proof, so which one DO you believe? (personally I'm a fan of the Big Bang, but the Viking one looks VERY appealing)

Honestly, believing in something is a matter of personal preference. You go with whatever you like best. Your arguments are basically equivalent to: Why would anyone like the Red sox? They are a very bad baseball team. It's unreasonable to like them because they aren't good. Yankees are the better choice because they are a good team!
And just like with religion, this preference towards a certain baseball team can be influence by: parents, region, friends, and experiences!

But y'all feel it's completely different, dontcha? Think religion is somehow mightier than choice in baseball teams, or books, or games. I doubt if I made a thread about "fans of red sox" it would get as much debate and attention as this.

[Ampersand]

Wrong.

The big bang is not an origin story, it is the best explanation given the evidence provided. If you are comfortable preferring a religious origin story for one reason or another, more power to you. That is your right. I however only believe in things I have evidence for, because I actually care whether or not what I believe is true.

More succinctly stated, Reality is not a matter of personal preference.

[G-Flex]

If what makes you people an atheist is a lack of proof, then surely you must realize no origin story of the universe has proof, right?
We can't prove the Big Bang happened, we can't prove G-d just went 'click'.

I didn't bother reading most of the rest of the post because you're ignoring too much of what has already been said in favor of being what amounts to a hopefully-unintentional troll, but I'll bite anyway.

First off, if there's no evidence for either of those things, it doesn't make sense to have any belief that EITHER happened. "We can't prove an alternative to God" doesn't make the case for God any better.

Secondly, there IS evidence that the Big Bang event happened. You could actually look it up, if you want, but I know you won't.

Of course, as far as what caused it, or some of the other details, nobody really knows, and it might not even really be possible to know, and anybody who claims with any kind of certainty that they know isn't being a very good scientist.


Baseball teams are an arbitrary choice because people like being allied to things as a sort of idle pastime. It doesn't really matter that much, in the long run, what the hell baseball team you like. As you can imagine, the subject of religion is just a BIT more consequential.

Also, it is true that nothing can be proven absolutely; you always have to have some sort of unfounded axiom that everything else builds off of. The question isn't whether or not your system of knowledge or philosophy is absolutely true as much as how actually useful it is. Empirical science is, as is PRETTY established by now, a very useful tool for explaining and predicting the behavior of the world around us. It has also been established, I think, that arbitrary religious belief does not have this quality, and in many cases actually acts contrary to this (see: young-earth creationism).


So yes, you go with "what you like best", but hopefully you like what you like because it actually works.

And if you really think that liking a certain sports team is as consequential and on the same basis as something like religion, you seriously don't know much about how the philosophical process works. Choice in that sort of thing should never be so arbitrary.

[Idiom]

At least such is my experience so far.

My experience, just a trend I see, is a good number of the hardcore atheists (ranging from "kill all religious people to solve world violence" to "relentlessly destroy peoples faith and lives"/"don't leave anyone alone as if they're under threat of death") were originally taught religion by their mums and that was completely destroyed by another atheist. They don't exactly stop being religious the way I see it, just completely flip from one side of the spectrum to the other with the same intensity.

Noone has ever been killed in the name of atheism.  Plenty of people have been killed in the name of religion.  I don't think these "hardcore atheists" actually exist.  Even Dawkins, a "Militant atheist" would never kill or hurt someone over their religion.

Not in the name of atheism, as a Marxist being assassinated doesn't automatically make the assassin a particular political ideology himself, but the extremely aggressive people that, whether you agree with what they say or not, say that they are atheists. I never said they do kill anyone, but that there are people who say they are atheists and look and sound more like skinhead neo-nazis. I've noticed a number of these people grew up with shaky religious foundations merely supported by their mums, and when it went to shit so did they.

And don't call it a religion. Atheism the atheists around here seem to follow is more of a set of beliefs.

Secondly, there IS evidence that the Big Bang event happened.

It's more like you find a body in the road with tire tread marks on his back, skid marks in the road, the smell of burnt rubber, some chipped paint on the ground from crumpled metal, and possibly even a thin trail of oil from a leak...
...but the car itself was never seen.

    Finally, if there is no god, why can't I take a gun and shoot you all? Why are there consequences? If we're evolved, then there is no point to morality, to justice. If the goal of atheism is to be free from God and enjoy life as it is, why don't you just break away from order and law as well? Aren't order and chaos, good and evil just creations of the human subconscious, like God?

There are consequences because society has decided there are. You can't shoot me because my self-preservation instinct will make me shoot you first. If we're evolved, morality arises from the social instincts that have been developed over the aeons. It is demonstrable that cooperation, sharing, and shared responsibility helps the whole of a group of individuals survive better than they would alone. There have been countless studies on this, and it would behoove you to research these things independently before presenting this kind of argument.

I've always considered most religious rules to be partly derived from the subconscious that reinforce this survival among other things. Also, if someone doesn't give a damn about group survival and have no afterlife consequences to fear, there is nothing stopping the individual from using the gun. Not everyone has cooperative survival instincts from birth.

[Ampersand]

No, they don't. That's why we put them in prison.

[Idiom]

No, they don't. That's why we put them in prison.

When we should throw them all on a deserted island filled with random weapons and hidden cameras everywhere. Each of them wears a collar that has a small explosive device as well as a tracking chip (and a camera for more footage), so if they try to cooperate or escape, off goes their head. The Navy has the island surrounded so even if they escape on a raft and disable the tracking chip and kill switch, they aren't getting too far. Pay per view as well as active betting.

The Romans had the right idea.

[SniHjen]

.........because I actually care whether or not what I believe is true.

Reality is not a matter of personal preference.

This!
This is why i'm a atheist, intellectual integrity.

[LegoLord]

As long as atheism will have an issue with what other people believe in.

Haven't I just explained that it doesn't?

Uh, sorry to burst your bubble, but awhile back weren't you and some other guy harassing me about my faith?  How I wasn't atheist?  I mean, one of you even posted a question asking if that made you an "ass hole."

[Grek]

I don't quite qualia are a valid concept. Where you experience redness, somebody vision imaired may experience grey or some other color, depending on their particular impairment. Thus the answer to the question of where the quale comes from is quite obviously "from one's mind, based on one's sensory apparatus". It's nothing more than a mental construct built from what our sensory organs tell us, and the mind is shaped by the structure of the brain, which in turn is a product of evolution.

It's pretty obvious that it comes from your mind. The important questions here are why and how do physical changes to the mind result in changes to qualia. Is it only human brain matter that can produce qualia?Any brain? How much brain do you need for this? Can non-brain materials produce changes in qualia? What is the physical difference between a thing that can produce or alter qualia and a thing that can't?