NationStates Jolt Archive

Has anyone else noticed that it is the atheists of this board who invade all religious threads, wildly attempting to disprove the existance of God and attempting to inflame believers with posts peppered with words like ignorance, blind, and sheep. Yet, they complain about a mythical situation where it is the christians who want to "shove religion down people's throats"?

Has anyone noticed how people on this board generalise all the time?

At least you can spell hypocrisy...

Has anyone noticed how people on this board generalise all the time?

At least you can spell hypocrisy...

It isnt a generalization. I never claimed all atheists invade religious discussions. I stated that the people who invade discussions to attempt to convert others to their religious view are atheist and not christian.

It isnt a generalization. I never claimed all atheists invade religious discussions. I stated that the people who invade discussions to attempt to convert others to their religious view are atheist and not christian.
1) Atheism isn't a religion

2) Christians do that a lot too...

3) From my experience, atheists are generally responding to assertions made by Christians (or people of other religions). What's wrong with that? Since when is questioning people's religious beliefs off-limits?

The thing I have noticed is that many come from a stand point of 'we know all the facts, you are poor mis guided children' then fail to accept many of the facts they fall back on are based on theory, accepted theory but theory none the less. I keep an open mind, I can say what I believe but accept that something way off field may actually be true.
I think many who (and yes it is a generalisation, but then all measures of human behaviour and other psudo sciences are based on generalisation) think of them selves as scientific are very blinkered and narrow in thier views.
Of course as ever I could be wrong!

Well I have no problem with people debating over religion as long as they try to base their arguments on logic, not just ideology. Discussing religion will inevitably bring hostility, but this is good because it forces people to openly question their beliefs. In the end, if you can defend what you believe you shouldn't be worried about discussion and criticism.

1) Atheism isn't a religion

Atheism is a religious view. I never claimed its a religion.


2) Christians do that a lot too...

Never seen that done on this forum. Unless you count when atheists do it to themselves while pretending to be christians in order to make christians look bad (DrunkCommies)


3) From my experience, atheists are generally responding to assertions made by Christians (or people of other religions). What's wrong with that? Since when is questioning people's religious beliefs off-limits?

Questioning isnt, but they invade discussions that have nothing to do with debating religion and attempt to prove that christianity is wrong. For example, the discussion about whether christians may eat pork was invaded by atheists attempting to use that opportunity to show that christianity is stupid. Also, I am reffering to the people who choose to attempt a debate where they use words like blind, sheep, stupid, and ignorance. When you resort to these tactics, you are not questioning the religious beleifs of others, you are attempting to shove your beleifs down their throat by labelling them stupid for believing something.

Nope, can't say I've noticed that.

Nope, can't say I've noticed that.

stick around, you'll see it.

I'd say that to a degree, there are times when atheism is "followed" as zealously as a religion, but not often.

The use of terms like "ignorance" and "sheep" are usually directed more towards those who refuse to consider anything outside of what they believe. I myself would not use it because it is hard to tell if a person is simply following blind faith or actively defending what they believe.

Atheism is a religious view. I never claimed its a religion.


Never seen that done on this forum. Unless you count when atheists do it to themselves while pretending to be christians in order to make christians look bad (DrunkCommies)



Questioning isnt, but they invade discussions that have nothing to do with debating religion and attempt to prove that christianity is wrong. For example, the discussion about whether christians may eat pork was invaded by atheists attempting to use that opportunity to show that christianity is stupid. Also, I am reffering to the people who choose to attempt a debate where they use words like blind, sheep, stupid, and ignorance. When you resort to these tactics, you are not questioning the religious beleifs of others, you are attempting to shove your beleifs down their throat by labelling them stupid for believing something.
Not being religious but being interested in religion (trying to read the bible cover to cover) I have to agree I have seen this alot. The stance that religion is just stupid and anyone who does not agree is also stupid is taken often.

I'd say that to a degree, there are times when atheism is "followed" as zealously as a religion, but not often.

The use of terms like "ignorance" and "sheep" are usually directed more towards those who refuse to consider anything outside of what they believe. I myself would not use it because it is hard to tell if a person is simply following blind faith or actively defending what they believe.
But the point of many religions is that blind faith should be enough. If that is how people want to live then why do others get so worked up about it?

I'd say that to a degree, there are times when atheism is "followed" as zealously as a religion, but not often.

The use of terms like "ignorance" and "sheep" are usually directed more towards those who refuse to consider anything outside of what they believe. I myself would not use it because it is hard to tell if a person is simply following blind faith or actively defending what they believe.

That's the way I see it too.

Not being religious but being interested in religion (trying to read the bible cover to cover) I have to agree I have seen this alot. The stance that religion is just stupid and anyone who does not agree is also stupid is taken often.

Rather than reading it cover to cover, you might consider reading it in chronological order (the order in which events take place, instead of the order in which the books were written). It gives you a much better understanding. Google chronological bible reading to get some plans you can print out that put the entire bible in chronological order.

The thing I have noticed is that many come from a stand point of 'we know all the facts, you are poor mis guided children' then fail to accept many of the facts they fall back on are based on theory, accepted theory but theory none the less.
i noticed this section, and i thought: isnt this the same with christians and other religions?

Atheism isn't a religion. It's the opposite of theism. You can be an athiest and religous.

But the point of many religions is that blind faith should be enough. If that is how people want to live then why do others get so worked up about it?

I think that it is due to the fact that people of all religious persuasions feel that it is wrong for people to believe other than them.

My opinion:

Because it is, in many cases dangerous. If they never think they can be motivated to do great wrongs (terrorism, oppression, etc.). I have no problem with believing, as long as you consider both sides.

Atheism isn't a religion. It's the opposite of theism. You can be an athiest and religous.

Technically, and applying to the majority of them, this is true. Still, there are some that will hold to it like an "ersatz religion" and fight theists equally as zealously as the theists fight hem.

i noticed this section, and i thought: isnt this the same with christians and other religions?
Yes but if some one bases what they believe on thoery and accept others may not agree then we are all happy, but when people don't accept everyone right to be wrong (I like that) then we have problems.

Well I have no problem with people debating over religion as long as they try to base their arguments on logic, not just ideology. Discussing religion will inevitably bring hostility, but this is good because it forces people to openly question their beliefs. In the end, if you can defend what you believe you shouldn't be worried about discussion and criticism.

The problem with that is faith is extra-logical. Logical thought relies on empirical observations. Literally, you believe it when you see it. Faith, by definition, is generally taken to be just the opposite - you see it when you believe it. I believe it is patently impossible to prove God, but I also believe that it is impossible to disprove God. Therefore, everyone who gets into these sorts of arguments is merely voicing an opinion - some are just more militant and self-righteous than others, which is whence the hostility springs.

Rather than reading it cover to cover, you might consider reading it in chronological order (the order in which events take place, instead of the order in which the books were written). It gives you a much better understanding. Google chronological bible reading to get some plans you can print out that put the entire bible in chronological order.
thanks for that, might just try it. I also want to look at other religous works, to compare and contrast. Off thread howevr I thought the Hebrew laws of land use and ownership were very socialist and people friendly, very interesting.

The problem with that is faith is extra-logical. Logical thought relies on empirical observations. Literally, you believe it when you see it. Faith, by definition, is generally taken to be just the opposite - you see it when you believe it. I believe it is patently impossible to prove God, but I also believe that it is impossible to disprove God. Therefore, everyone who gets into these sorts of arguments is merely voicing an opinion - some are just more militant and self-righteous than others, which is whence the hostility springs.

I agree with the belief that it is impossible to prove/disprove God, but faith and logic are reconciliable. Aquinas was able to do this in his works.

Has anyone else noticed that it is the atheists of this board who invade all religious threads, wildly attempting to disprove the existance of God and attempting to inflame believers with posts peppered with words like ignorance, blind, and sheep. Yet, they complain about a mythical situation where it is the christians who want to "shove religion down people's throats"?

That's not the same atheists. Just as some Christians are evangelical and some are not, some atheists are evangelical and some are not.

I agree with the belief that it is impossible to prove/disprove God, but faith and logic are reconciliable. Aquinas was able to do this in his works.

I sincerely enjoyed reading Aquinas, but I also disagree with the argument he makes, that there must have been some first cause, and that first cause must have been God. I believe it is overly simplistic to say this, considering the breadth and complexity of the natural world. Perhaps the first cause was merely the tendency of natural systems towards entropy and disorder? While I think God was whatever kick started this whole shebang, I also feel logic is too incomplete to create a watertight argument to that effect.

The thing I have noticed is that many come from a stand point of 'we know all the facts, you are poor mis guided children'
Well, that we could say about both sides, couldn't we? Neither side acknowledges the "proofs" of the other side when it comes to the question "Christianity VS Science"...

Little foot note: I'm atheist and ask all the Christians: What if the Hindu/Buddhists/ancient greek are right? What makes your belief supreme and "true"?

The problem with that is faith is extra-logical. Logical thought relies on empirical observations. Literally, you believe it when you see it. Faith, by definition, is generally taken to be just the opposite - you see it when you believe it.
[snip]


That is not necessarily true. There are people who believe before they have experienced and there are those who believe because they have experienced. For example, I know a family that had very little faith, just a general beleif that there might be a God. When their young daughter came down with a terrible incurable disease, they decided to go to our church and ask for prayer. Because their daughter was miraculously cured that week, they gave their hearts to the Lord. Their faith is based on having seen it first.

I sincerely enjoyed reading Aquinas, but I also disagree with the argument he makes, that there must have been some first cause, and that first cause must have been God. I believe it is overly simplistic to say this, considering the breadth and complexity of the natural world. Perhaps the first cause was merely the tendency of natural systems towards entropy and disorder?

A good point. Aquinas was writing in the 13th century, so his arguments were rooted in the knowledge of the time, which was quite limited. Still, the sheer complexity of the natural world and the questions around the origins of life raise the possibility. At the same time, you could also be correct. So, in general, I'd say I am undecided.

That is not necessarily true. There are people who believe before they have experienced and there are those who believe because they have experienced. For example, I know a family that had very little faith, just a general beleif that there might be a God. When their young daughter came down with a terrible incurable disease, they decided to go to our church and ask for prayer. Because their daughter was miraculously cured that week, they gave their hearts to the Lord. Their faith is based on having seen it first.
They may believe it, but it can't actually be proven, or empirically observed in a scientific sense.

They may believe it, but it can't actually be proven, or empirically observed in a scientific sense.

No, it can't. However, it is also true that it can't be empirically disproved. That is why I cannot discredit either side totally.

They may believe it, but it can't actually be proven, or empirically observed in a scientific sense.

Sure, but that has nothing to do with what I said or the post to which I was replying.

Perhaps the first cause was merely the tendency of natural systems towards entropy and disorder?
Interesting point of view, but wouldn't that assume that there was some sort of order/bound energy in the Beginning? That's what drives scientists insane and makes a grip for christian zealots. We can't empirically explain a thing we cannot see or reproduce and the beginning of time and space is just like that; and as long as it remains that way, there will always be an arguement about this problem...

That is not necessarily true. There are people who believe before they have experienced and there are those who believe because they have experienced. For example, I know a family that had very little faith, just a general beleif that there might be a God. When their young daughter came down with a terrible incurable disease, they decided to go to our church and ask for prayer. Because their daughter was miraculously cured that week, they gave their hearts to the Lord. Their faith is based on having seen it first.

This is not in contradiction to what I said, so my statement stands. The family is taking it on faith that their embrace of religion was the cause of their daughter's recovery. While that is a wonderful story, correlation is not causation.

Interesting point of view, but wouldn't that assume that there was some sort of order/bound energy in the Beginning? That's what drives scientists insane and makes a grip for christian zealots. We can't empirically explain a thing we cannot see or reproduce and the beginning of time and space is just like that; and as long as it remains that way, there will always be an arguement about this problem...

Personally, I do believe that there is some grand scheme we are following, and that that scheme was created by God. I am merely highlighting some logical alternatives which undermine the attempt to prove God.

This is not in contradiction to what I said, so my statement stands. The family is taking it on faith that their embrace of religion was the cause of their daughter's recovery. While that is a wonderful story, correlation is not causation.

The doctors couldnt explain it, they said its a miracle. A miracle is what they prayed for. It is obvious to see why they would believe that this was the cause for their daughters recovery. Regardless of whether it is the true cause or not, the fact remains the family does believe it is, and it isnt because they had faith first it is because they experienced something first.

Has anyone else noticed that it is the atheists of this board who invade all religious threads, wildly attempting to disprove the existance of God and attempting to inflame believers with posts peppered with words like ignorance, blind, and sheep. Yet, they complain about a mythical situation where it is the christians who want to "shove religion down people's throats"?

We Christians do do that (though "shove religion down people's throats" may be a bit strong). However, we have a convieniant little loophole:

We are supposed to. It's called being a Missionary. :D

We Christians do do that (though "shove religion down people's throats" may be a bit strong). However, we have a convieniant little loophole:

We are supposed to. It's called being a Missionary. :D

No, we do not. We teach people the word, we dont attempt to force them into believing by ridiculing them if they dont or calling them stupid or ignorant. We teach them what we believe, it is up to them if they believe it or not. The atheists I am reffering to on this thread are not ones who explain the concept of atheism, they are ones who verbally assault people to attempt to convert them. What they do is shoving their views on religion down people's throats. What we do is simply teaching what we know.

No, we do not. We teach people the word, we dont attempt to force them into believing by ridiculing them if they dont or calling them stupid or ignorant. We teach them what we believe, it is up to them if they believe it or not. The atheists I am reffering to on this thread are not ones who explain the concept of atheism, they are ones who verbally assault people to attempt to convert them. What they do is shoving their views on religion down people's throats. What we do is simply teaching what we know.

Could you quote some instances of atheists 'verbally assaulting' Christians to force their views upon them?

No, we do not. We teach people the word, we dont attempt to force them into believing by ridiculing them if they dont or calling them stupid or ignorant. We teach them what we believe, it is up to them if they believe it or not. The atheists I am reffering to on this thread are not ones who explain the concept of atheism, they are ones who verbally assault people to attempt to convert them. What they do is shoving their views on religion down people's throats. What we do is simply teaching what we know.

There are a hell of a lot of Christians on here, you cannot say that we all do this or that. All I'm saying is that if your not trying to convert atheists at least then you should be. Its our job to spread the Good News.

Yeeshh! I sound like a full churchie!

The doctors couldnt explain it, they said its a miracle. A miracle is what they prayed for. It is obvious to see why they would believe that this was the cause for their daughters recovery. Regardless of whether it is the true cause or not, the fact remains the family does believe it is, and it isnt because they had faith first it is because they experienced something first.

Note your own choice of words. They are taking it on faith that this was the cause for the recovery. There was no empirical reason to suspect that, say switching from Frosted Flakes to Mini Wheats was not the cause for the miraculous recovery instead. Since they can not say that their renewed belief and prayer absolutely is the only reason for their daughter's recovery and further that a lack of renewed belief and prayer would have precluded the possibility of a recovery, then causation can only be assumed, and not proven. My statement stands since their deduction that that specific change led to that specific result is unprovable, and therefore an invalid assertation.

Could you quote some instances of atheists 'verbally assaulting' Christians to force their views upon them?

No. Im not interested in pointing out any specific person. The people who do this know who they are, and if you have spent any time in the religious threads then you know who they are. I am not going to point fingers. Take a peek at any religious thread and you will find the attacks I am reffering to.

Note your own choice of words. They are taking it on faith that this was the cause for the recovery. There was no empirical reason to suspect that, say switching from Frosted Flakes to Mini Wheats was not the cause for the miraculous recovery instead. Since they can not say that their renewed belief and prayer absolutely is the only reason for their daughter's recovery and further that a lack of renewed belief and prayer would have precluded the possibility of a recovery, then causation can only be assumed, and not proven. My statement stands since their deduction that that specific change led to that specific result is unprovable, and therefore an invalid assertation.

If these people were scientists you would have a point. But they are not so you do not. The reason they have faith is because of an event that they experienced, plain and simple.

Atheism isn't a religion. It's the opposite of theism. You can be an athiest and religous.Zing ! We Have A Winner !

No. Im not interested in pointing out any specific person. The people who do this know who they are, and if you have spent any time in the religious threads then you know who they are. I am not going to point fingers. Take a peek at any religious thread and you will find the attacks I am reffering to.

I post more in religious threads than any others and I have to say I haven't seen that many atheists trying to force their beliefs upon others. Certainly no more than Christians.

If these people were scientists you would have a point. But they are not so you do not. The reason they have faith is because of an event that they experienced, plain and simple.

But it is not logically valid, so don't try to use their instance to build a case to be examined by more questioning sorts. Just because they overlook an alternative does not mean it is not there. Since their reason for having faith could very easily be false, they could be utterly backwards in their faith, hypothetically. Therefore, it is nothing more than plain old faith, as far as believing before seeing (was it not, afterall, after they began praying that the miracle happened?) is concerned.

Has anyone else noticed that it is the atheists of this board who invade all religious threads, wildly attempting to disprove the existance of God and attempting to inflame believers with posts peppered with words like ignorance, blind, and sheep. Yet, they complain about a mythical situation where it is the christians who want to "shove religion down people's throats"?

Are you assuming that everyone who makes anti-Christian remarks is an atheist?

Maybe (like posted elsewhere … but I have seen this before) it is social backlash … something like Newton’s laws but for social groups
Specifically the “equal and opposite reaction” atheists agnostics and the others take a lot of crap in daily lives and in certain places on the board … some of us tend to vent here (some of us (hopefully me included) try to just have a solid argument for the sake of debating or just because we deem it important to learn) I have learned massively in these sometimes deemed waste less threads

It just takes some work … but anyone can learn from other people

But anyways sorry for babbling … like I was trying to say … social backlash for 1) being preached to constantly and told we are wrong and 2) having them try to run our lives based on THEIR viewpoint
It makes for a frustrating situation … and we like others are human (and on this board the majority … now ya know what it feels like to be the minority in a religious type situation)

Are you assuming that everyone who makes anti-Christian remarks is an atheist?

No, but my post is only about those who are. The others are a whole nother issue.

Btw how can you consider it hypocrisy when the “side” has no cohesive doctrine other then a disbelief in a deity

The only real way atheism as a whole can be hypocritical is believing in a deity
(not saying individuals cant but as a whole)

Maybe (like posted elsewhere … but I have seen this before) it is social backlash … something like Newton’s laws but for social groups
Specifically the “equal and opposite reaction” atheists agnostics and the others take a lot of crap in daily lives and in certain places on the board … some of us tend to vent here (some of us (hopefully me included) try to just have a solid argument for the sake of debating or just because we deem it important to learn) I have learned massively in these sometimes deemed waste less threads

It just takes some work … but anyone can learn from other people

But anyways sorry for babbling … like I was trying to say … social backlash for 1) being preached to constantly and told we are wrong and 2) having them try to run our lives based on THEIR viewpoint
It makes for a frustrating situation … and we like others are human (and on this board the majority … now ya know what it feels like to be the minority in a religious type situation)

Thank you for answering in a respectful way. I cant say I expected that from one of the people of whom I was reffering. If only you would conduct yourself this way all the time, I and others like me, would be more inclined to take what you say seriously.

Btw how can you consider it hypocrisy when the “side” has no cohesive doctrine other then a disbelief in a deity

The only real way atheism as a whole can be hypocritical is believing in a deity
(not saying individuals cant but as a whole)

The hypocrisy is that you criticize christians for attempting to shove their religious views down your throat, but then you try to shove your religious views down peoples throats in the same way you complain about, or worse.

Maybe (like posted elsewhere … but I have seen this before) it is social backlash … something like Newton’s laws but for social groups
Specifically the “equal and opposite reaction” atheists agnostics and the others take a lot of crap in daily lives and in certain places on the board … some of us tend to vent here (some of us (hopefully me included) try to just have a solid argument for the sake of debating or just because we deem it important to learn) I have learned massively in these sometimes deemed waste less threads

It just takes some work … but anyone can learn from other people

But anyways sorry for babbling … like I was trying to say … social backlash for 1) being preached to constantly and told we are wrong and 2) having them try to run our lives based on THEIR viewpoint
It makes for a frustrating situation … and we like others are human (and on this board the majority … now ya know what it feels like to be the minority in a religious type situation)

Indeed. And since this seems like a time for justifying rants, here's mine:

When having an interesting discussion with Christian friends about Church denominations, I stated that I didn't really have an opinion on the differences due to the fact that I am an atheist. My good (and very Christian) friend Eileen turns and states, rather blatently, "You aren't an atheist. You're agnostic. You can't be an atheist unless you've researched all the religions conclusively, which you haven't."

What is it with Christians who absolutely deny the fact that there are some people without faith and quite happy with it, thank you very much, and NOT just 'unsure'? Indeed, how can SHE call herself a religious person when SHE has not investigated every religion, nor even every aspect of her Christian faith?

It may seem as though I am generalising, and I am - but you know you Christians are just itching to bite back when I say I am even more convinced that there is no god of any way shape or form, than you are that there is?

And just to define terms, for the quibblers:

Agnostic : 1. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God. 2.One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism. 3. One who is doubtful or noncommittal about something.

Atheist : 1. One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.

Atheism isn't a religion. It's the opposite of theism. You can be an athiest and religous.

Zing ! We Have A Winner !


No we don't definitions don't always make truths, The given definition of atheism is that it is the opposite of theism. the definition of theism is Belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in a personal God as creator and ruler of the world. (from dictionary.com) religion on the other hand is A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.(dictionary.com again) Atheism (Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods. or The doctrine that there is no God or gods. ) is a cause, priciple or view that there is no existing diety controling the flow of the world thus making it a religion in itself.

The hypocrisy is that you criticize christians for attempting to shove their religious views down your throat, but then you try to shove your religious views down peoples throats in the same way you complain about, or worse.
Ok, first of all Atheism is not a religion.

As for your observation of atheist attacking christian, yeah I've seen some examples. But they are generally aimed at a specific christian poster rather than the whole religion. When you try to have a discussion about religion and the other guy is reacting like a brick wall, frustration comes in.

Ok, first of all Atheism is not a religion.




Why does everyone insist on repeating that atheism is not a religion? That has already been established. But it is a religious view (the view that religion is wrong).

Ok, first of all Atheism is not a religion.

(snip)


refer to previous post.

The hypocrisy is that you criticize christians for attempting to shove their religious views down your throat, but then you try to shove your religious views down peoples throats in the same way you complain about, or worse.

We try to shove our 'religious beliefs' (make that 'lack of beliefs', thank you Mac) down your throats? That's absolute crock and bull hypocrisy. You want us to stop complaining, then YOU DO THE SAME - stop insulting us with trying to force Christian views on every single damn thing you bloody can!

Every time some enterprising young Christian comes up to me and says "God saves,' THAT'S an insult. Every time some politician forces his religious views on the public, THAT'S an insult. Every time someone quotes a Bible verse in relation to some comment or event, THAT'S an insult.

And no, this is not directed at you, although you've just have to grin and bear me thrusting my frustrations upon you.

Why does everyone insist on repeating that atheism is not a religion? That has already been established. But it is a religious view (the view that religion is wrong).

NO. It is NOT a religious view! It is an emotional, intellectual, spiritual and philosophical view. Atheists don't believe in deitical faith or deities themselves - the worship of these deities, i.e. religion, is only a minor factor.

Ok, first of all Atheism is not a religion.

As for your observation of atheist attacking christian, yeah I've seen some examples. But they are generally aimed at a specific christian poster rather than the whole religion. When you try to have a discussion about religion and the other guy is reacting like a brick wall, frustration comes in.
Yes but why? If that person has a faith then you will not be able to subject it to reasoned argument, so why bother? Or does the fact that some one else believes something other than you (not you specifically but the general you) make you insecure in your belief.
In other words if you are happy with your view, have expressed it and the other person is not going to move accept it.

Why does everyone insist on repeating that atheism is not a religion? That has already been established. But it is a religious view (the view that religion is wrong).
Because, I don't see how it can have a religious view if it's not a religion.

We disagree on the definition of religious view. Specifically, I make a distinction between religion and belief in a/some god(s). Atheism says that they don't believe a god exist, yes. I still disagree that it is a religious view because, if you ask me, a religious view means the view of a religion. And we have agreed that atheism is not a religion.

I would call it "their view" of "their belief", not "their religious view".

But we are splitting hair, really.

NO. It is NOT a religious view! It is an emotional, intellectual, spiritual and philosophical view. Atheists don't believe in deitical faith or deities themselves - the worship of these deities, i.e. religion, is only a minor factor.
It is a view of religions, or belief systems, or it is nothing. It is a view if not of religion of what?

Why does everyone insist on repeating that atheism is not a religion? That has already been established. But it is a religious view (the view that religion is wrong).

You're describing anti-theism more than atheism.

We try to shove our 'religious beliefs' (make that 'lack of beliefs', thank you Mac) down your throats? That's absolute crock and bull hypocrisy. You want us to stop complaining, then YOU DO THE SAME - stop insulting us with trying to force Christian views on every single damn thing you bloody can!

Every time some enterprising young Christian comes up to me and says "God saves,' THAT'S an insult. Every time some politician forces his religious views on the public, THAT'S an insult. Every time someone quotes a Bible verse in relation to some comment or event, THAT'S an insult.

And no, this is not directed at you, although you've just have to grin and bear me thrusting my frustrations upon you.
So because it is a view shared by many and has a name and collective works it cannot be quoted? Can we quote previous politicians or moral crusaders who have had movements we may not agree with named after them? Why is it an insult, they are providing the reasoning behind thier views, that would give you the bbasis to argue back. If they made a statement without reference it would require qualification. It is a group belief, we are all entitled to disagree.

Has anyone else noticed that it is the atheists of this board who invade all religious threads, wildly attempting to disprove the existance of God and attempting to inflame believers with posts peppered with words like ignorance, blind, and sheep. Yet, they complain about a mythical situation where it is the christians who want to "shove religion down people's throats"?i agree were are not "shoving religion down people's throats" they dont have to read the threads but they do

It is a view of religions, or belief systems, or it is nothing. It is a view if not of religion of what?

Once again, as I seem to be repeating myself, atheism is not a religious belief. It is the LACK of BELIEF in FAITH and DEITIES. The fact that deities most often have a belief system attached, i.e. a religion, is beside the point.

So because it is a view shared by many and has a name and collective works it cannot be quoted? Can we quote previous politicians or moral crusaders who have had movements we may not agree with named after them? Why is it an insult, they are providing the reasoning behind thier views, that would give you the bbasis to argue back. If they made a statement without reference it would require qualification. It is a group belief, we are all entitled to disagree.

I'm not saying that you shouldn't quote 'reliable' sources. I'm saying it's insulting to use religious doctrine to make a point, which I find overwhelminly offensive. I'm not saying that everyone should; only that I, personally, do.

Yes but why? If that person has a faith then you will not be able to subject it to reasoned argument, so why bother? Or does the fact that some one else believes something other than you (not you specifically but the general you) make you insecure in your belief.
In other words if you are happy with your view, have expressed it and the other person is not going to move accept it.
Usually, it comes in a discussion about something else. Take Gay marriage for example, atheist will argue about the law, about having the same benefit for everyone and some religious person will come in and say that being gay is a sin, that gay shouldn't marry. They stop there. They don't look at the problem that their view cause.

I am all for religious freedom but the law of the land must be upheld and Gays are being discriminated in my view. We go for five pages about all our different arguments and all we get in return is the same "gay is a sin" and a quote about Leviticus. You can see how we get tired and attack the religious belief that seem to cause that person to be so close-minded.

Once again, as I seem to be repeating myself, atheism is not a religious belief. It is the LACK of BELIEF in FAITH and DEITIES. The fact that deities most often have a belief system attached, i.e. a religion, is beside the point.
Did you read what I wrote? Do you not agree that it is a view, an out look and opinion or thought relating to religious belief. That is you look at it and find no merit in it, it is therefore a view of religion. In no way did I imply it was a religion it is however a stand on religion, again an athiests stand would be that they do not think (they believe) religions to be wrong (that is factually incorrect) that gods do not exist. This is a view of religion.

Did you read what I wrote? Do you not agree that it is a view, an out look and opinion or thought relating to religious belief. That is you look at it and find no merit in it, it is therefore a view of religion. In no way did I imply it was a religion it is however a stand on religion, again an athiests stand would be that they do not think (they believe) religions to be wrong (that is factually incorrect) that gods do not exist. This is a view of religion.

No, lack of belief in gods came before belief in gods. Someone who didn't eat fast food before it was made, and then still didn't eat it after it was made, would not be taking a stance on fast food by not eating it.

why do u do that?

Usually, it comes in a discussion about something else. Take Gay marriage for example, atheist will argue about the law, about having the same benefit for everyone and some religious person will come in and say that being gay is a sin, that gay shouldn't marry. They stop there. They don't look at the problem that their view cause.

I am all for religious freedom but the law of the land must be upheld and Gays are being discriminated in my view. We go for five pages about all our different arguments and all we get in return is the same "gay is a sin" and a quote about Leviticus. You can see how we get tired and attack the religious belief that seem to cause that person to be so close-minded.
There in is the problem with many of the religions. Want is written cannot be unwritten. I am not by any stretch of the imagination religious, but from my (incomplete so far) reading of the Bible I cannot see how you can be a Christian and think it is not a sin. I am happy for people to what they like as long as it has no negative impact on others. But if I were a Christian and stole, I could still be a Christian but one thats accepts what he has done is not within the teaching of the religion, i.e. a sin.
The problem with the Bible is that as the last pages tell you it is a sin to change what is written (and yes we are off on another epic there).

No, lack of belief in gods came before belief in gods. Someone who didn't eat fast food before it was made, and then still didn't eat it after it was made, would not be taking a stance on fast food by not eating it.
Not if you were a Christian, God and belief in God and freedom of choice came first etc etc. So we end in a curcualr arguement.
And they would be making a stance on fast food if it was offered and they refused it.

Did you read what I wrote? Do you not agree that it is a view, an out look and opinion or thought relating to religious belief.
No it isn't.

It is a view about the existence of a god. It has nothing to do with religion.
For example, Buddism is a atheist religion. So if a buddist is trying to force his notion about a lack of God, it would be a religious belief. If someone is trying to attack your notion that there is a god, it is not a religious belief.

Not if you were a Christian, God and belief in God and freedom of choice came first etc etc. So we end in a curcualr arguement.
And they would be making a stance on fast food if it was offered and they refused it.

But their stance on food as a whole would not be defined by one thing they rejected, rather by what they do eat. Atheism contains a vast collection of philosophies, not all of which are to do with religion.

Yes.

Atheists are always good, charming people to be around who dont flame and dont burden you with their belief. They are never sanctimonious in their delivery or patronising. They are always open minded and reasonable people who aren't at all bitter about anything in life.

Christians on the other hand are always stupid idiots who cant see that their God doesn't exist because science doesn't allow for him. They are inflammatory morons who should all be cut up for the harm they have done the world.

Ah sarcasm the greatest form of wit.

There in is the problem with many of the religions. Want is written cannot be unwritten. I am not by any stretch of the imagination religious, but from my (incomplete so far) reading of the Bible I cannot see how you can be a Christian and think it is not a sin. I am happy for people to what they like as long as it has no negative impact on others. But if I were a Christian and stole, I could still be a Christian but one thats accepts what he has done is not within the teaching of the religion, i.e. a sin.
The problem with the Bible is that as the last pages tell you it is a sin to change what is written (and yes we are off on another epic there).
Nevertheless, you can be a religious person who see Gay marriage as a sin, but still doesn't think it should be illegal. Basing his opinion of an equal right issue on your religious belief is not seeing the whole debate. This is why some atheist attack the relious view because it's equal to close-mindedness in their view. Especially in the US where there should be a clear separation of church and state.

The attacks come from effort to look at a specific issue from other perspective that what they percieve as a deluded notion.

Has anyone else noticed that it is the atheists of this board who invade all religious threads, wildly attempting to disprove the existance of God and attempting to inflame believers with posts peppered with words like ignorance, blind, and sheep. Yet, they complain about a mythical situation where it is the christians who want to "shove religion down people's throats"?
your post seems to imply that atheist or secular view points do not have a natural place on "religious threads," since you describe them as "invading." do you feel the atheist or secular position is naturally unwelcome in religious threads? why?

also, you seem to be claiming that there is no aggressive effort underway to legislate aspects of the Christian faith. this leads me to wonder where you live. please be aware that these forums are largely populated by people from the US, where there is a very aggressive Christian movement that is engaged in many activities and campaigns that they themselves identify as directed at forcing Christian religious beliefs into the American legal system. for Americans, the "myth" of forceful Christianity is very real, even though the majority of American Christians may not fully support these programs or groups.

But their stance on food as a whole would not be defined by one thing they rejected, rather by what they do eat. Atheism contains a vast collection of philosophies, not all of which are to do with religion.
It would depand on wether you saw religion as the one thing or as the main thing. Some Christians believe that the faith comes first and all other things in life or a cosequence of or are guided by that. It that way they would say by rejecting faith you reject it all. This is just me be argumentative mind you but it is what I like to do.
So if God and faith came first and none belief after then are you not rejecting belief and choosing the other, after all it is often much easier to accept a belief without question?

allow me to awnser as part pacifist they are NOT welcome if there going to dis or religions

It would depand on wether you saw religion as the one thing or as the main thing. Some Christians believe that the faith comes first and all other things in life or a cosequence of or are guided by that. It that way they would say by rejecting faith you reject it all. This is just me be argumentative mind you but it is what I like to do.
So if God and faith came first and none belief after then are you not rejecting belief and choosing the other, after all it is often much easier to accept a belief without question?

I don't think it's very fair to define atheism on the assumtion that God exists.

Did you read what I wrote? Do you not agree that it is a view, an out look and opinion or thought relating to religious belief. That is you look at it and find no merit in it, it is therefore a view of religion. In no way did I imply it was a religion it is however a stand on religion, again an athiests stand would be that they do not think (they believe) religions to be wrong (that is factually incorrect) that gods do not exist. This is a view of religion.

Just a technical point here:

Definition: \-ous\ [OF. -ous, us, -os, F. -eux, fr. L. -osus, and -us.
Cf. {-ose}.]
1. An adjective suffix meaning full of, abounding in, having,
possessing the qualities of, like; as in gracious,
abounding in grace; arduous, full of ardor; bulbous,
having bulbs, bulblike; riotous, poisonous, piteous,
joyous, etc.

Because atheism rejects the idea of religion, it cannot - by definition - be a religious view. It is a view against religion and therefore, not religious.

Source (http://www.hyperdictionary.com/search.aspx?define=ous)

Just a technical point here:

Definition: \-ous\ [OF. -ous, us, -os, F. -eux, fr. L. -osus, and -us.
Cf. {-ose}.]
1. An adjective suffix meaning full of, abounding in, having,
possessing the qualities of, like; as in gracious,
abounding in grace; arduous, full of ardor; bulbous,
having bulbs, bulblike; riotous, poisonous, piteous,
joyous, etc.

Because atheism rejects the idea of religion, it cannot - by definition - be a religious view. It is a view against religion and therefore, not religious.

Source (http://www.hyperdictionary.com/search.aspx?define=ous)

THANK YOU.

(Not quite the point I was trying to make, but it does the job. ;) )

The hypocrisy is that you criticize christians for attempting to shove their religious views down your throat, but then you try to shove your religious views down peoples throats in the same way you complain about, or worse.
But that does not make ATHEISM hypocritical just SOME PEOPLE

i agree were are not "shoving religion down people's throats" they dont have to read the threads but they do
You legislate your religion into the laws ... that is most deffinatly "shoving religion down people's throats"

your post seems to imply that atheist or secular view points do not have a natural place on "religious threads," since you describe them as "invading." do you feel the atheist or secular position is naturally unwelcome in religious threads? why?

also, you seem to be claiming that there is no aggressive effort underway to legislate aspects of the Christian faith. this leads me to wonder where you live. please be aware that these forums are largely populated by people from the US, where there is a very aggressive Christian movement that is engaged in many activities and campaigns that they themselves identify as directed at forcing Christian religious beliefs into the American legal system. for Americans, the "myth" of forceful Christianity is very real, even though the majority of American Christians may not fully support these programs or groups.

Thanks Bottle, I couldn't have said it better myself.

Just a technical point here:

Definition: \-ous\ [OF. -ous, us, -os, F. -eux, fr. L. -osus, and -us.
Cf. {-ose}.]
1. An adjective suffix meaning full of, abounding in, having,
possessing the qualities of, like; as in gracious,
abounding in grace; arduous, full of ardor; bulbous,
having bulbs, bulblike; riotous, poisonous, piteous,
joyous, etc.

Because atheism rejects the idea of religion, it cannot - by definition - be a religious view. It is a view against religion and therefore, not religious.

Source (http://www.hyperdictionary.com/search.aspx?define=ous)

Atheism rejects the idea of god, not all religions have god

Therefore you are wrong...

NEXT!

I've seen both Atheists and Christians be very rude or ignorant. Although i tend to sympathetic to the Atheist arguement, though i'm not an Atheist.

Atheism rejects the idea of god, not all religions have god

Therefore you are wrong...

NEXT!
re·li·gion Audio pronunciation of "religion" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (r-ljn)
n.

1.
1. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
2. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.

Then it is not necessarily a religion ... rather a philosophy such as Buddhism

Atheism rejects the idea of god, not all religions have god

Therefore you are wrong...

NEXT!
True. But it is still not pushing a religious belief to push an atheist view.

Let's make something clear:
You can have religious belief with an atheist view
You can have religious belief with a theist view
You can have no religion and an atheist view
You can have no religion and a theist view (In that you believe there is a god, but you don't follow a specific religion.)

And another nonsensical topic about religion, blah blah blah.

Discussions about religion should be banned.

True. But it is still not pushing a religious belief to push an atheist view.

Let's make something clear:
You can have religious belief with an atheist view
You can have religious belief with a theist view
You can have no religion and an atheist view
You can have no religion and a theist view (In that you believe there is a god, but you don't follow a specific religion.)

Also true

Good work Batman

I don't think it's "atheist hypocrisy" if there are atheist hypocrites. There are hypocrites of every possible belief or view. Should we make a thread about each one? I really don't see the point of this.

And another nonsensical topic about religion, blah blah blah.

Discussions about religion should be banned.
And yet you waste your time here to increase its length ... bitching about a thread by posting in it is hypocritical

I don't think it's "atheist hypocrisy" if there are atheist hypocrites. There are hypocrites of every possible belief or view. Should we make a thread about each one? I really don't see the point of this.
Exactly

Atheists have no set doctorine so they cant be hypocritical as a whole ... the only was is if they believed in a diety otherwise there is no organization to BE hypocritical

Exactly

Atheists have no set doctorine so they cant be hypocritical as a whole ... the only was is if they believed in a diety otherwise there is no organization to BE hypocritical

More so Atheist is a gaint alagamation of belifes from Humanism to Communism.

Its like bunching all Theists Together

More so Atheist is a gaint alagamation of belifes from Humanism to Communism.

Its like bunching all Theists Together
Yeah I understand the idea but still does not make the jump from hypocritical people to hypocritical belief

This is not in contradiction to what I said, so my statement stands. The family is taking it on faith that their embrace of religion was the cause of their daughter's recovery. While that is a wonderful story, correlation is not causation.

Actually, correlation isn't even shown here.

Yet, they complain about a mythical situation where it is the christians who want to "shove religion down people's throats"?
Fact is, some of them do.

Has anyone else noticed that it is the atheists of this board who invade all religious threads, wildly attempting to disprove the existance of God and attempting to inflame believers with posts peppered with words like ignorance, blind, and sheep. Yet, they complain about a mythical situation where it is the christians who want to "shove religion down people's throats"?

Frankly, unless you're the reincarnation of a deleted nation, then you've only been around for six months. You haven't been around here nearly long enough to notice how anything works here. Never have either group been worse, or louder, than the other. Yes, both sides have their loud, obnoxious members. But you need to get off this notion that the the Christians on this forum are quiet and peacefully discussing their religion until the mean, nasty old atheists come screaming into their threads. There are as many, if not more, proselytizing threads from Christians, extolling the virtues of Christianity and mocking anyone who would doubt them.

As for your assertion that atheists "invade" religious threads, if atheism is a religious view as you maintain, then they have every right to be in those threads, discussing their views of religion, no?

And I can't believe, if you really believe that there aren't any Christians here "shoving religion down people's throats", that you have already forgotten about VoteEarly/Decisive Action or Kahta. You remember them, right? "We are the Elect; you are all going to burn in hell"?

There is no hypocrisy because you've invented the whole scenario in your mind. Your views of this forum is hopelessly skewed by your personal beliefs.

We try to shove our 'religious beliefs' (make that 'lack of beliefs', thank you Mac) down your throats? That's absolute crock and bull hypocrisy. You want us to stop complaining, then YOU DO THE SAME - stop insulting us with trying to force Christian views on every single damn thing you bloody can!

Every time some enterprising young Christian comes up to me and says "God saves,' THAT'S an insult. Every time some politician forces his religious views on the public, THAT'S an insult. Every time someone quotes a Bible verse in relation to some comment or event, THAT'S an insult.

And no, this is not directed at you, although you've just have to grin and bear me thrusting my frustrations upon you.

As he/she pointed out, you are more than welcome to present what you believe so long as you aren't insulting other people. If hearing that other people believe differently than you is insulting then prepare to be insulted every time you enter any discussion.

Theism has at its core the belief that there are god(s).

Atheism has at its core the equally unprovable belief that there are no god(s).

To suggest that supporting atheism is any more or less logical than supporting Christianity is absurd. Name-calling is not a theological argument.

The one thing I find funny is that many Christians (and members of other religions as well) believe they see, hear and/or feel God and this enforces their belief. They see this as proof of their beliefs and use it as a logical (assuming they actually saw, heard or felt God) foundation for being so certain they are right. Atheists can have no such experience of the "NoGod" being seen or felt by them, so how do they explain being so sure?

writer's note: I don't actually believe you can trully and beyond doubt see, hear or feel God or it wouldn't be faith.

Atheism is a religious view. I never claimed its a religion.


Never seen that done on this forum. Unless you count when atheists do it to themselves while pretending to be christians in order to make christians look bad (DrunkCommies)



Questioning isnt, but they invade discussions that have nothing to do with debating religion and attempt to prove that christianity is wrong. For example, the discussion about whether christians may eat pork was invaded by atheists attempting to use that opportunity to show that christianity is stupid. Also, I am reffering to the people who choose to attempt a debate where they use words like blind, sheep, stupid, and ignorance. When you resort to these tactics, you are not questioning the religious beleifs of others, you are attempting to shove your beleifs down their throat by labelling them stupid for believing something.

Wow.

Somebody tried to discuss religion in the "christians may eat pork" thread?

No wonder you're so upset. :rolleyes:

The only time atheists attack first that I've noticed is a lone atheist who says something incredlby stupid and is told to shut up by the other atheists. Usually the christians start to flame the atheists.

Generally religious debate on this forum has been, I have found, relatively civil. Certainly there are extremists on both ends. However it's interesting to note that whilst there are several famous and well-remembered religious zealots ("votearly" and "khata" being some that spring to mind), there aren't that many prolific and virulent atheists that spring to mind. Most atheists which do attack Christian/other religion posters are generally "one-post wonders" who say something inflammatory or stupid, then realise that they're way out of their depth and run for the hills.

Generally religious debate on this forum has been, I have found, relatively civil. Certainly there are extremists on both ends. However it's interesting to note that whilst there are several famous and well-remembered religious zealots ("votearly" and "khata" being some that spring to mind), there aren't that many prolific and virulent atheists that spring to mind. Most atheists which do attack Christian/other religion posters are generally "one-post wonders" who say something inflammatory or stupid, then realise that they're way out of their depth and run for the hills.
I have had the same impression ... we may be persistant but entirly civil and most of the time open to many viewpoints (hell I am agnostic not even atheist and I see that)

As he/she pointed out, you are more than welcome to present what you believe so long as you aren't insulting other people. If hearing that other people believe differently than you is insulting then prepare to be insulted every time you enter any discussion.

Theism has at its core the belief that there are god(s).

Atheism has at its core the equally unprovable belief that there are no god(s).

To suggest that supporting atheism is any more or less logical than supporting Christianity is absurd. Name-calling is not a theological argument.

The one thing I find funny is that many Christians (and members of other religions as well) believe they see, hear and/or feel God and this enforces their belief. They see this as proof of their beliefs and use it as a logical (assuming they actually saw, heard or felt God) foundation for being so certain they are right. Atheists can have no such experience of the "NoGod" being seen or felt by them, so how do they explain being so sure?

writer's note: I don't actually believe you can trully and beyond doubt see, hear or feel God or it wouldn't be faith.


Because we see/hear/feel things that seem to fit with no-god we have the same eyes and ears and sence of touch but we just dont associate it automaticaly to any cause god or not
But the seeing/hearing/feeling part is still there

Has anyone else noticed that it is the atheists of this board who invade all religious threads, wildly attempting to disprove the existance of God and attempting to inflame believers with posts peppered with words like ignorance, blind, and sheep. Yet, they complain about a mythical situation where it is the christians who want to "shove religion down people's throats"?

I feel sorry for you, you've encounted the breed of athiest known as a complete c***. Not all of us are like that

I feel sorry for you, you've encounted the breed of athiest known as a complete c***. Not all of us are like that
There are crazies in every group most of us understand that

As he/she pointed out, you are more than welcome to present what you believe so long as you aren't insulting other people. If hearing that other people believe differently than you is insulting then prepare to be insulted every time you enter any discussion.

Theism has at its core the belief that there are god(s).

Atheism has at its core the equally unprovable belief that there are no god(s).

To suggest that supporting atheism is any more or less logical than supporting Christianity is absurd. Name-calling is not a theological argument.

The one thing I find funny is that many Christians (and members of other religions as well) believe they see, hear and/or feel God and this enforces their belief. They see this as proof of their beliefs and use it as a logical (assuming they actually saw, heard or felt God) foundation for being so certain they are right. Atheists can have no such experience of the "NoGod" being seen or felt by them, so how do they explain being so sure?

writer's note: I don't actually believe you can trully and beyond doubt see, hear or feel God or it wouldn't be faith.

Only those with hallucinations or delusions can know the truth? :rolleyes:

So, what if I say, my invisible pooka friend Harvey is the one true God? I have no evidence that he is or even that Harvey exists. But you can't absolutely prove he isn't or doesn't. And I know its true 'cuz the voices in my head say so. Apparently my position is as logical as Christianity and any criticism of my beliefs would be "inane."

Because we see/hear/feel things that seem to fit with no-god we have the same eyes and ears and sence of touch but we just dont associate it automaticaly to any cause god or not
But the seeing/hearing/feeling part is still there

Maybe I was unclear, many christians claim to be individually and clearly touched by God. I meant what I said quite literally. Basically, it's would be like if I've actually seen aliens and, thus, believed in them, I could never convince you that I saw them, most likely, but I would sure be zealous in my belief that aliens exist.

It isnt a generalization. I never claimed all atheists invade religious discussions. I stated that the people who invade discussions to attempt to convert others to their religious view are atheist and not christian.

to be fair, you did say "THE atheists of this board", which can easily be interpreted as generalisation

There are crazies in every group most of us understand that
The word MOST being key to that sentence

Only those with hallucinations or delusions can know the truth? :rolleyes:

So, what if I say, my invisible pooka friend Harvey is the one true God? I have no evidence that he is or even that Harvey exists. But you can't absolutely prove he isn't or doesn't. And I know its true 'cuz the voices in my head say so. Apparently my position is as logical as Christianity and any criticism of my beliefs would be "inane."

I didn't say it was right. I just said it makes being zealous logical. How would you explain your zeal if you don't see, feel or hear the invisible friend and no voice told you he was there and the one true God?

Maybe I was unclear, many christians claim to be individually and clearly touched by God. I meant what I said quite literally. Basically, it's would be like if I've actually seen aliens and, thus, believed in them, I could never convince you that I saw them, most likely, but I would sure be zealous in my belief that aliens exist.

Many people are zealous in the belief that aliens exist and have visited Earth.

Many people are also zealous in the belief that they've seen Elivis alive at the Piggly-Wiggly.

I know a woman who has long arguments with her teddy bear, who she zealously believes is arguing back.

Zealousness does not equal validity.

Many people are zealous in the belief that aliens exist and have visited Earth.

Many people are also zealous in the belief that they've seen Elivis alive at the Piggly-Wiggly.

I know a woman who has long arguments with her teddy bear, who she zealously believes is arguing back.

Zealousness does not equal validity.

Never said it did. I didn't say it means you should believe what they're saying. I don't. I was just saying it's funny that an atheist can be so zealous. I think zealous Christians are silly, but at least, it kind of makes sense. One can claim to KNOW aliens exist when they've seen (or think they have). How does one claim to KNOW (rather than believe) non-existence of anything?

Never said it did. I didn't say it means you should believe what they're saying. I don't. I was just saying it's funny that an atheist can be so zealous. I think zealous Christians are silly, but at least, it kind of makes sense. One can claim to KNOW aliens exist when they've seen (or think they have). How does one claim to KNOW (rather than believe) non-existence of anything?

You can't, so it's probably why both Christianity and atheism are called "systems of beliefs" because you believe in them. You can't know for sure whether or not God exists, so you should just believe what you want, no matter what someone from the opposite side thinks.

Never said it did. I didn't say it means you should believe what they're saying. I don't. I was just saying it's funny that an atheist can be so zealous. I think zealous Christians are silly, but at least, it kind of makes sense. One can claim to KNOW aliens exist when they've seen (or think they have). How does one claim to KNOW (rather than believe) non-existence of anything?

You can't, so it's probably why both Christianity and atheism are called "systems of beliefs" because you believe in them. You can't know for sure whether or not God exists, so you should just believe what you want, no matter what someone from the opposite side thinks.

I'll try this again with different wording:

1. You can know there is no evidence of God.

2. You can know that the existence of most conceptions of God is impossible or contradicts existing evidence.

3. You can logically support the view that belief that something exists in the absence of any evidence of its existence is unreasonable.

4. You can logically support the view that belief in something that is logically impossible and/or contrary to evidence is unreasonable.

5. Thus, you can logically conclude that belief in God is unreasonable.

6. Further, it is reasonable to hold that something does not exist if there is no evidence of its existence.

7. It is also reasonable to hold that something does not exist if its existence is logically impossible and/or contrary to evidence.

8. Thus, it is reasonable to believe that God does not exist.

Any questions?

I understand perfectly. :) On the one hand, what I was trying to say is that there's really nothing logical about believing in God at all. If you are a person who only believes in what you see, hear, feel, etc, then you probably aren't suited for an organized religion (not that there's anything wrong with that).

On the other hand, if you really want to believe that there's some higher form of life out there that keeps an eye on you, and believes in you when no one else does, and might even take care of you after you die, EVEN THOUGH there is no proof that such form of life exists, then organized religion will probably come rather easily.

In other words, any form of religion isn't for really realist, cynical people (not to say all atheists are).

I understand perfectly. :) On the one hand, what I was trying to say is that there's really nothing logical about believing in God at all. If you are a person who only believes in what you see, hear, feel, etc, then you probably aren't suited for an organized religion (not that there's anything wrong with that).

On the other hand, if you really want to believe that there's some higher form of life out there that keeps an eye on you, and believes in you when no one else does, and might even take care of you after you die, EVEN THOUGH there is no proof that such form of life exists, then organized religion will probably come rather easily.

In other words, any form of religion isn't for really realist, cynical people (not to say all atheists are).

Gotcha. I edited to make clear I was replying more to Jocabia than to you.

I'll try this again with different wording:

1. You can know there is no evidence of God.

2. You can know that the existence of most conceptions of God is impossible or contradicts existing evidence.

3. You can logically support the view that belief that something exists in the absence of any evidence of its existence is unreasonable.

4. You can logically support the view that belief in something that is logically impossible and/or contrary to evidence is unreasonable.

5. Thus, you can logically conclude that belief in God is unreasonable.

6. Further, it is reasonable to hold that something does not exist if there is no evidence of its existence.

7. It is also reasonable to hold that something does not exist if its existence is logically impossible and/or contrary to evidence.

8. Thus, it is reasonable to believe that God does not exist.

Any questions?

Oh, I didn't say it was unreasonable to believe. I said it's unreasonable to KNOW. It's an act of faith.

A. Because some people are have religious beliefs, e.g. the Earth is 6000 years old, that are ridiculous and fly in the face of science doesn't mean that all people who believe in a some form of deity are unreasonable.

B. There is no evidence that sentient beings exist on other planets or that they have the capability to travel to our planet. However, I think you find many rational people who admit that possibility. I would regard as equally unrational the person who swears there can be no other sentient life and the person who swears there is. However, if a person actually personally witnessed that sentient life and since is absolutely committed (yeah, I said committed) to the idea that sentient life exists and visits our planet, I would regard them as more reasonable than the person who swears intelligent life exists nowhere but on Earth as one has evidence (even if they can't share it) and one does not.

Writer's note: Again, remember that I actually believe it's impossible to KNOW on either side since most religions involving God rely on FAITH.

As of yet, I may choose not to enter this.
Just a little message though.
Not everything can be solved with mere cold logic and reason. Not everything can be puzzled out or scrutinised.
Look at a beautiful flower. You do not have to think and ponder on what makes it beautiful.
That instant where it is found beautiful comes immediately, not through in depth study of going "It is beautiful because....."
We simpilly know it is beautiful.
What i'm trying to say is that there are things that go beyond and are higher than logic.
This I wrote for both sides. For atheists who feel the universe revolves only on a matemathical way of things( I use that metaphorically) and for religious people who chances are go by that in some way throughout their day to day lives.

There is no logical reasoning that can explain the existence of love, but I'll bet all of you believe in it's existence.

By the same token, much of theoretical physics is based on the belief of things that cannot be proven or disproven. Stephen Hawking's theory of black hole radiation sprang from his belief that black holes should have an entropy greater than zero. He believed in it before there was evidence to prove it.

Theorizing is alot different then believing.

Thanks Bottle, I couldn't have said it better myself.
any time. :)

i'm honestly tired of people bitching at atheists and secularists for making themselves heard on religious threads. this is a public forum, and--as in any public place--there are going to be voices you don't enjoy hearing. if you can't deal with that, you shouldn't come into the forum.

i've had times when i became very exasperated with General Forum, and during those times i take a break from visiting and posting here. if the thread founder (or anybody else) feels so aggravated then i recommend a vacation from this forum. making yet more threads bitching about how other threads don't go the way you like is not only childish and rude, but it's also totally pointless. other people aren't going to do what you want all the time...deal with it and get on with your life.

There is no logical reasoning that can explain the existence of love, but I'll bet all of you believe in it's existence.

um, there is a very clear and logical explanation of what love is, how it probably came to be, and why humans beings experience it. i would encourage you to explore the wonderful field of human neuropsychology...there are more answers than you seem to think.


By the same token, much of theoretical physics is based on the belief of things that cannot be proven or disproven. Stephen Hawking's theory of black hole radiation sprang from his belief that black holes should have an entropy greater than zero. He believed in it before there was evidence to prove it.
incorrect; Stephen Hawking looked at existing evidence and proposed a theory that he thought was a good one. however, he didn't "believe in it" in the way that religious people believe in their myths and gods, because (as a scientist) he couldn't do that. Hawking himself has been one of the most vigorous in attacking his theory, in trying to poke holes in it and show it to be wrong, and that is certainly not the religious form of "belief" exhibited by religious persons toward their myths.

Atheists have no set doctorine so they cant be hypocritical as a whole ... the only was is if they believed in a diety otherwise there is no organization to BE hypocritical
indeed...lumping all atheists together is like lumping together all people who don't believe in Zeus. aside from their shared lack of Zeus-belief, there probably aren't many generalizations that you could make with any degree of accuracy.

Its only hypocrisy if we are condemning christians for thinking they are right. Yes, I try to shove atheism down people's throats, and I am very certain I am right. I realize christians, or other religions, feel the same way. I don't like their ideas being imposed on me, but because I feel I am right, not because Im against spreading one's ideas. Its not really hypocrisy, at least not for me I suppose. Then again, I am a hypocrite and I don't see it as a bad thing, so who knows.

indeed...lumping all atheists together is like lumping together all people who don't believe in Zeus. aside from their shared lack of Zeus-belief, there probably aren't many generalizations that you could make with any degree of accuracy.
yup they have nothing to tie them togeather unlike a religion with a set doctorine

Are you assuming that everyone who makes anti-Christian remarks is an atheist?
that's another thing:

i'm probably one of the more aggressive and loud voices of disent on religious threads around here, and i am NOT an atheist. i'm sick of atheists getting all the attention, dagnabbit!

i swear, we agnostics are the unwanted middle child of the religious spectrum.

that's another thing:

i'm probably one of the more aggressive and loud voices of disent on religious threads around here, and i am NOT an atheist. i'm sick of atheists getting all the attention, dagnabbit!

i swear, we agnostics are the unwanted middle child of the religious spectrum.
Same here hun :fluffle: agnostic as well and you know how I like to argue everything :fluffle:

.

.
nuh uh! you're a stupid religious person and you're a sheep and you shouldn't be so dum dum dum as to believe in all that stupid stuff!

;)

Same here hun :fluffle: agnostic as well and you know how I like to argue everything :fluffle:
well, clearly we aren't being loud enough, since the religious folk are only pissy towards the atheists...we shall have to make a more conspicuous nuisance of ourselves.

well, clearly we aren't being loud enough, since the religious folk are only pissy towards the atheists...we shall have to make a more conspicuous nuisance of ourselves.
Thats the fun of it we can pester both sides :fluffle: both thoes fundie religous folks and the diehard THEREISNOGODYOUCAUSEIKNOWSOYOUIDIOT!!! types!!