Print

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

[Idiom]

Yes, but only the theist believes the atheist is going to burn in hell.

I'm not seeing how that was a rebuttal, if it was meant to be. The theist genuinely believes in the atheists well being, while the atheist just believes that there's actually a better way to spend your final moments than what you've already found suites you. An aggressive atheist is disruptive, and if what they believe is true, then they are being dicks about it.

[Cheeetar]

An atheist may see a theist as wasting a significant portion of their only life on something useless that does not give them joy. An atheist may seek to free a theist to do what they want by teaching them that they don't have to do so and so or face eternal pain, and instead may enjoy life as they wish.

[Realmfighter]

I'm a nihilist.

People should do whatever makes them happy. If believing in a man who lives in the sky gives you comfort, you should go ahead and do it.

[Idiom]

An atheist may see a theist as wasting a significant portion of their only life on something useless that does not give them joy. An atheist may seek to free a theist to do what they want by teaching them that they don't have to do so and so or face eternal pain, and instead may enjoy life as they wish.

Only if the atheist is targeting the right theist. Completely impossible to do online, which is why spreading atheism is extremely disruptive online. You'd have to actually personally know the theist and have a fair understanding of their psyche to pick out the theists that would live better not under theism (Which isn't always atheism). If religion does not give people joy, they generally drift away from it on their own too, as I said earlier, people always gravitate towards what makes them happy on their own.

People should do whatever makes them happy. If believing in a man who lives in the sky gives you comfort, you should go ahead and do it.

Fuck yes. You can't go about and tell people what will make them happier, and you can't beat it into them with arguments either.

[Cheeetar]

An atheist may see a theist as wasting a significant portion of their only life on something useless that does not give them joy. An atheist may seek to free a theist to do what they want by teaching them that they don't have to do so and so or face eternal pain, and instead may enjoy life as they wish.

Only if the atheist is targeting the right theist. Completely impossible to do online, which is why spreading atheism is extremely disruptive online. You'd have to actually personally know the theist and have a fair understanding of their psyche to pick out the theists that would live better not under theism (Which isn't always atheism). If religion does not give people joy, they generally drift away from it on their own too, as I said earlier, people always gravitate towards what makes them happy on their own.

This applies to religious people as well. I was merely showing that there can be good intention to preaching atheism, as misguided and misdirected as it may be.

[Idiom]

I was merely showing that there can be good intention to preaching atheism, as misguided and misdirected as it is over anonymous and self-centered means of communication

Good intentions possible or no, the internet always makes it a self-centered crapfest of angry people that generates more angry people. If you personally know a theist who's very unhappy with his theism, and can offer him something without an aggressive approach, then feel free to open him up to alternatives.

[Pwnzerfaust]

That's sort of a problem, though. People often take offense at being told they're going to hell. I know I do. It's essentially saying, "Ha, I'm superior because all you heathens will BURN FOR-EVAR. Be more like me or else you'll be tortured for eternity!" Sure, that's not precisely what you say, but it's what you imply when you state that you believe non-Christians go to hell. Perhaps you can see how that is offensive and rude?

If you thought that someone was about to drink poison, would you try to stop him?

Not a valid analogy. A poison is a real, present, demonstrable threat. If a person was skeptical, you could show them that the threat exists. The same can not be said for the concept of hell.

[Sir Pseudonymous]

I wouldn't call myself an atheist, and certainly not an "agnostic" , though I am dead certain there is no higher power. Why am I so certain of this? Because there's no reason to postulate a god in the first place, outside of human emotion and drive to feel a sense of understanding and control, even if it's fabricated in your own head. Now, I can understand that drive, understand that that is intrinsically tied to what makes humanity what it is. Religion is natural, a matter of fitting the vast unknown into a limited schema. Hell, I'd assume anything capable of even the slightest degree of abstract thought possesses something we could call religion, even if it's not as complicated as what we manage to put together.

Really, the drive extends to philosophy, and even science. Philosophy is, of course, the same self-originating attempt at explanation religion is. Hell, the distinction between the two is rather thin, and changes depending on who you ask.

Science? Science is that drive constrained, subject to rigor and externalized standards and scrutiny. Hell, the average layman has to take it on faith that scientists, that doctors, know what they're doing. And that faith is reaffirmed by the fact that the process works, and has very noticeable impacts on their lives as a result. Prayer has never stopped a plague, medical technology has. Prayer has never provided food for the starving (well, I don't know, I'm sure there were cases of "pray to our god or we don't let you have any food" conducted by missionaries...), agricultural technology does.

Of course, we could go further: no unnatural consciousness has created or guided life, yet man has (synthetic bacteria (still an ongoing effort as far as I know, but still progressing...) and genetic engineering), from knowledge of how life works (admittedly still rather incomplete, but that knowledge base is ever growing). No spirit has animated the inanimate, given awareness or speech to unliving objects, yet mankind has, albeit to a limited extent. Really now, what does Man appear with all that in mind? Knowledge is our apotheosis, and it should be clear why I wouldn't call myself an atheist.

[dreiche2]

The theist genuinely believes in the atheists well being, while the atheist just believes that there's actually a better way to spend your final moments than what you've already found suites you. An aggressive atheist is disruptive, and if what they believe is true, then they are being dicks about it.

But that's just it, only the atheist thinks the theist is wasting a large portion of their life. The theist would tell the atheist he is wasting his life as an atheist.

Now you're being one-sided. Religion had and has a huge influence on societies beyond just personal life decisions. And in the eyes of many atheists, the net influence is clearly negative. This is debatable, but it seems a reasonable enough position to take, and then atheists have as good reasons as theists to spread their belief.

In that case, surely many of the arguments of an atheists aren't exactly driven by compassion for the religious person at the other side of the argument, but surely religious people interfering with other people's life aren't exactly always driven by pure compassion either.

[Cheeetar]

I wouldn't call myself an atheist, and certainly not an "agnostic" , though I am dead certain there is no higher power. Why am I so certain of this? Because there's no reason to postulate a god in the first place, outside of human emotion and drive to feel a sense of understanding and control, even if it's fabricated in your own head. Now, I can understand that drive, understand that that is intrinsically tied to what makes humanity what it is. Religion is natural, a matter of fitting the vast unknown into a limited schema. Hell, I'd assume anything capable of even the slightest degree of abstract thought possesses something we could call religion, even if it's not as complicated as what we manage to put together.

Really, the drive extends to philosophy, and even science. Philosophy is, of course, the same self-originating attempt at explanation religion is. Hell, the distinction between the two is rather thin, and changes depending on who you ask.

Science? Science is that drive constrained, subject to rigor and externalized standards and scrutiny. Hell, the average layman has to take it on faith that scientists, that doctors, know what they're doing. And that faith is reaffirmed by the fact that the process works, and has very noticeable impacts on their lives as a result. Prayer has never stopped a plague, medical technology has. Prayer has never provided food for the starving (well, I don't know, I'm sure there were cases of "pray to our god or we don't let you have any food" conducted by missionaries...), agricultural technology does.

Of course, we could go further: no unnatural consciousness has created or guided life, yet man has (synthetic bacteria (still an ongoing effort as far as I know, but still progressing...) and genetic engineering), from knowledge of how life works (admittedly still rather incomplete, but that knowledge base is ever growing). No spirit has animated the inanimate, given awareness or speech to unliving objects, yet mankind has, albeit to a limited extent. Really now, what does Man appear with all that in mind? Knowledge is our apotheosis, and it should be clear why I wouldn't call myself an atheist.

Actually, no. As far as I know, the only definition of atheist is one who is not a theist, or does not believe in god. Which would make you an atheist.

[alway]

Science? Science is that drive constrained, subject to rigor and externalized standards and scrutiny. Hell, the average layman has to take it on faith that scientists, that doctors, know what they're doing. And that faith is reaffirmed by the fact that the process works, and has very noticeable impacts on their lives as a result. Prayer has never stopped a plague, medical technology has. Prayer has never provided food for the starving (well, I don't know, I'm sure there were cases of "pray to our god or we don't let you have any food" conducted by missionaries...), agricultural technology does.

Give a man a fish and he eats for a day; Give a man a religion and he starves to death praying for a fish. Or something like that. 

[Andir]

You people really don't get this, do you? The existence of god is not decided by a popularity contest.

One could say the same about your claim to be more knowledgeable and "worthy" of discussing these points based on your education... because you read more books and appealed to more teachers?

I consider myself an Atheist, not because I don't think "God" exists but because there's no evidential reason to point out that he does.  You can argue all you like that makes me Agnostic, but I argue that agnosticism is still the "hope" that something exists or that there is an explanation for life besides being random bunches of matter.  Atheism to me is accepting that we are alone until proven otherwise and there's no point trying to figure out something that might not exist.  ie: You can't tell me giant space fairing moths might exist and expect me to change my life based on that idea alone.

[Leafsnail]

I have never in my life seen an atheist trying to convert someone do any good. Ever. In fact, I've only seen bad things come of it.

I suppose those living in those plymouth sects or hellfire cults would be just as happy if they weren't taken out of them?  Granted, it isn't necessary for someone to become atheist after leaving one of these cults, but people finding out that there isn't a God who will torture them for all eternity if they do wrong can have a postive impact.

(Quick note - I'm not saying the God all Christians worship is like this, merely the one worshipped by the cults/ sects mentioned above).

But at least they have respectable motivation to warn people that they're going to hell. The only reasoning atheists have of spreading atheism is... well... ? Because they know they're right and everyone else is "dangerous and erroneous"?

I'd have to disagree.  Just because you've had an idea that's instilled in your head does not mean you automatically have a respectable motivation to do something.

I'm not seeing how that was a rebuttal, if it was meant to be. The theist genuinely believes in the atheists well being, while the atheist just believes that there's actually a better way to spend your final moments than what you've already found suites you. An aggressive atheist is disruptive, and if what they believe is true, then they are being dicks about it.

I'd say this is a huge overgeneralization.  Many evangelists attempt to win converts for money or for a personal sense of superiority, while some people wish to convert people to atheism as part of a wider drive to make them more logical.  There certainly are Christians who genuinely want to save people from hell, but it is not universal.

As for the "atheist" label... eh.  I take it to mean "without a god", and I certainly do not believe in any.

[Sir Pseudonymous]

Actually, no. As far as I know, the only definition of atheist is one who is not a theist, or does not believe in god. Which would make you an atheist.

Well, I started it off with "Why am I an atheist?", but that didn't mesh well with the whole deifying humanity and the "technology is the apotheosis of man" stuff, so I rewrote the beginning. Didn't care for how it sounded, but it was more internally consistent.

[Idiom]

And in the eyes of many atheists, the net influence is clearly negative. This is debatable, but it seems a reasonable enough position to take, and...

...and in the eyes of many atheists is a big fat spotlight fallacy to support a giant negative proof fallacy that is the same damned fallacy that they criticize as a bunch of hypocrites. Debatable? You've got a handful or so of major historical or horrific events that religion was only one factor bogged in with socio-economic and political motivations weighed against many billion times that many days-per religious person in which nothing significant came of it. Whats there to debate? You're focusing on evidence on a scale of ~1:15000000000+, which is probably less than the theists have.

Just because you've had an idea that's instilled in your head does not mean you automatically have a respectable motivation to do something.

And in every case regarding religion with questionable motivations, religion is used as an excuse for manipulating political or economic factors. You can't blame the excuses, and you can't blame the tools. You can't seriously ignore all other factors and actual motivations either. Someone actually sat down and decided "I'm going to be dick". Religion, at least the ones I promote, don't actually encourage this on their own.

In that case, surely many of the arguments of an atheists aren't exactly driven by compassion for the religious person at the other side of the argument, but surely religious people interfering with other people's life aren't exactly always driven by pure compassion either.

Granted, but I've never seen it where an atheist was actually concerned about more than proving someone wrong, or a religious person is actually making an appeal that didn't include the well being of a person in question.

I wouldn't call myself an atheist... though I am dead certain there is no higher power.

There's not that many qualifications to fall under the category of "atheist".

I suppose those living in those plymouth sects or hellfire cults would be just as happy if they weren't taken out of them?  Granted, it isn't necessary for someone to become atheist after leaving one of these cults, but people finding out that there isn't a God who will torture them for all eternity if they do wrong can have a postive impact.

Hell, I don't even approve of those extreme religions. You don't even have to lead them away from God to get them somewhere happier. There's other arguably better religions to follow.