Atheism - Discussion thread (2 Viewers)

[shuttle_bus5]

Comingupforair is a fail troll.
No one listen to him.

 

[annabackwards]

I have read his, and I don't buy it, in much the same way as you (probably) don't buy mine.

Can I inquire what this problem is?

There is nothing wrong with disagreement. It is possible to disagree and believe in your cause, without conflict arising.

It is not the disagreement bit, it's the fact that you don't seem to understand the true definition of the term "moral" or how to offer a logical argument that applies to all people (believers and non-believers).

Instead, you maintain that all non-believers are immoral as they do not worship your God.

So you're putting your faith science lol, in corruptable humanity over and above that of the Creator?

You can't say you don't believe in God becuase you don't have faith. You do have faith, just in science rather than God. You rely on faith as much as I do, its just in a different area.

Science is a blunt tool. The scientific method will not have changed in 1000 years. New technologies and developments in thought may unlock new tools to use with which to investigate but, the unanswerable will remain so.

Science = fact + logic ie things that can be proven. Faith = illogical belief in a theory/object/thing/being that cannot be proven to exist/occur. See the difference? There is no faith in science - there only an acceptance of a fact.

But of course i doubt you'd understand the difference...

Funny how the "blunt" instruments you speak of actually inspired and allowed for the technologies which you use as a means of communication and to posit your own view.

Oh and for heavens sake, do realise that athiests would not put their "faith" in God seeing as we maintain that he does not exist!

 

[El_Nino]

feel free to ignore...
I think in many ways religion is becoming less of a necessity. For hundreds of years religion formed the core of a system of protection. The Church, or whatever the state religion was, protected the populace, in a very literal sense. It also came with proclaimed "salvation", and a promise of something after death... To thousands of poor, starving and suffering peasants and serfs, it was something that was worth believing... To the religious leaders it offered up a very stable and secure form of power. It was a binding force that kept the people bound together under a shared belief. Relgion does not always cause wars but it has been used innumberable times for an excuse for one. Leaders saw religion as something that should be harnessed as a national force.
In contemporary western society this raw use of religion is becoming less pronounced. In many parts of the world it is still filling a purpose as a basic need for survival. Sectarian violence will continue to no end in the Middle East and in other religiously torn areas. Religion apart from anything else keeps those that are suffering believing in something. It is an ironic thing that a force that is contributing to soo much pain and suffering can actually help a person endure that pain.
Yet in Western countries that are divorced from such an immediate threat, religion is having to mould itself into a new context. Many people nowadays, in Western culture, dont fear for their basic survival on a daily basis. Most dont see the Church as offering literal protection- the army does. There is in effect a distinct split developing between church and state. Religion and government. (sadly this cant quite be said about america...)

Religion would argue that it has only ever served as a spiritual, moral force. That it is something of which people feel the need to believe in. A desire to "understand" the magnificence of existence, the purpose in being.
Noble sentiments.
Yet without people being driven to religion by necessity, I believe in some places in the world, relgion is no longer needed. Yes we can't understand the complete magnificence of our world but by no means do we need to be frightened into belief. Why can't which just appreciate the world as we see it? Why can't we be excited as we learn more and more? It is as if religion is in many ways trying to cling to its purpose of an old time. Many religious people understand the logic of science, many are the ones in the field of science. Science isnt a belief it is a way of understanding. a way of using our brain in a manner that takes what is out in the world, observing how things operate and then applying that knowledge to change, use, modify, create etc.
As tim minchin says, "Faith is the denial of observation so that belief can be preserved". People aren't naturally obtuse. We are inquisitive. Given the chance we will try to understand something. If we are living in a state where understanding isn't possible, where security, a sense of belonging and fraternity is lacking, people will turn to belief and religion. In the face of modern science, of peace within many western countries, levels of security and well-being that we soo cherish in the west, it is hard not to want to understand rather than believe.
Can the two (understanding and belief) run concurrently? I dont know. Certainly religion can not be what it has been for thousands of years. Religion isn't a problem. I dont have anything against religion. When however religion gets in the way of trying to learn something, trying to understand something, thats a sad thing. Even if believers don't want to understand something themselves, why force others to remain ignorant as well?
sorry for the circumlocutious arguing and the presence of rather glaring generalisations..

 

[lolokay]

The notion that without religion there would be no morals is fucking disgusting.

it depends how you define moral etc etc

Deontological moral laws of "thou shalt not do this or this.." don't make much sense in a non-religious framework
If you defined morals as just those beliefs people hold as to what is permissible or not, then of course these exist - but so what?

On the other hand, you don't need to hold any belief at all to know that pleasure=good, pain=bad, right?

 

[Name_Taken]

It is not the disagreement bit, it's the fact that you don't seem to understand the true definition of the term "moral" or how to offer a logical argument that applies to all people (believers and non-believers).

Instead, you maintain that all non-believers are immoral as they do not worship your God.

Morality is the notion of right and wrong. Charity is right, slander is wrong etc. I believe in absolute morality. Most of the time, people act within the framework of that (for what I would maintain the wrong reasons, but w/e they're still doing good).

They are not immoral because they do not follow God, they are immoral because they substitute their own interpretation of right and wrong over what God said was right and wrong and follow their own agenda of what is right and wrong (which inevitably varies from what is actually right or wrong).

Science = fact + logic ie things that can be proven. Faith = illogical belief in a theory/object/thing/being that cannot be proven to exist/occur. See the difference? There is no faith in science - there only an acceptance of a fact.

But of course i doubt you'd understand the difference...

Funny how the "blunt" instruments you speak of actually inspired and allowed for the technologies which you use as a means of communication and to posit your own view.

Oh and for heavens sake, do realise that athiests would not put their "faith" in God seeing as we maintain that he does not exist!

Lol... Science and mathematics are as blunt an instruments as one could hope for. It doesn't mean they both are useless, but they are what they are. They have a certain purpose, and can't be relied upon to explain everything due to their fundammental limitations. I wouldn't deny advances in medical science or communications have not helped everyone.

Science cannot teach you the difference between right or wrong, it can only attempt to explain what it is you see. Experimentation and observation.

Ok firstly, it is impossible for a human NOT to put faith into something (whether you are aware of it or not).

You have faith that every natural phenomonon in the universe can be explained through a set of finite rules, discoverable through adherance to what we know as science and mathematics. There is no "evidence" that everything in the universe is explainable, or what we would think of as rational, or that it should even obey such a finite set of "set" rules. Much of what we have come across might give you reason to assume it is (since it more or less follows what appears to be rules), but we have come accross so little, you have no evidence, merely speculation and assumption that everything will be so.

Likewise, athiests, do not put their faith in the notion of a God, they put their faith in the notion of their own assertion; that there is not God. They can't prove this, I can describe it as you so eloquently put it: illogical belief in a theory that cannot be proven to exist/occur. (Of course it being proven to occur would equate to there being no God).

Sure, they can raise doubts in the validity of the religons followed by many today; pointing out what they see as flaws or contradictions in the Bible or Quaran, but they have no evidence to support their own assertion that there is no God.

 

[SeCKSiiMiNh]

Rolf. When was the last time you saw a koala or turtle run for president or build a ten tousand seat stadium..?
Humans can do these things because we are different, we are in the presence of God's Grace. The very fact humans exist is proof of a creator, according to Athiests everything should just be an abyss of nothingness, but we are here, we are alive, and none of it just 'poofed' out of nothing.
The holy trinity actually gives an explaination as to why we are here rather than not here, it's the only answer to the question, and as far as I'm concerned you Athiests haven't disproved it at all, you've merely started your own dogmatic church of Charles Darwin.

So get back to me when you've come up with an actual rival theory, or evidence that disproves Gods Grace, because it's only then that you'll be worth listening too.

Right now you merely attack us because we are free and rich and we love liberty.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I have noticed that your view on "god" has changed somewhat.

 

[SeCKSiiMiNh]

The notion that without religion there would be no morals is fucking disgusting.

Religion, and especially religious leaders, do nothing but spread hate nowdays.

(Well the powerful ones).

I agree. Aboriginals had no religion for thousands of years, yet they still knew that it was wrong to rape or murder.

 

[Name_Taken]

I agree. Aboriginals had no religion for thousands of years, yet they still knew that it was wrong to rape or murder.

...They had religion, it was just nothing like that fllowed by Western Civilisation however.

 

[SeCKSiiMiNh]

...They had religion, it was just nothing like that fllowed by Western Civilisation however.

you mean the dreamtime thing? isn't that more "spiritual" than "religious"? Or are they the same thing?

 

[Name_Taken]

you mean the dreamtime thing? isn't that more "spiritual" than "religious"? Or are they the same thing?

IDK exactly, they sorta worshiped spirits and stuff, its comparable, though yeah I suppose it may not be a religion as such.

It was a belief tho.

 

[sam5]

You have faith that every natural phenomonon in the universe can be explained through a set of finite rules, discoverable through adherance to what we know as science and mathematics. There is no "evidence" that everything in the universe is explainable, or what we would think of as rational, or that it should even obey such a finite set of "set" rules. Much of what we have come across might give you reason to assume it is (since it more or less follows what appears to be rules), but we have come accross so little, you have no evidence, merely speculation and assumption that everything will be so.

I beg ur pardon.

The large majority of what we know in the world today has been brought to us by science, experimentation and rationality. Science has not found the absolute solution to the question of existance, but atheists predict that with time, science will uncover more answers (this has been happening for a few hundred years).

Based on this, science seems to be the best logical alternative. At least we can get somewhere with it, unlike religion.

Religion is clouded psychology.

It brings wars

It brings brainwashing

It brings calm to the dickheads who kiss its ass

But it will never bring answers.

Religious people say that we will never prove god to be true or false. Maybe their right. But it does make u think "if something cant be proven to exist, then it mustnt be physical (or existant".

Religion is all in the head.

 

[Name_Taken]

I beg ur pardon.

The large majority of what we know in the world today has been brought to us by science, experimentation and rationality. Science has not found the absolute solution to the question of existance, but atheists predict that with time, science will uncover more answers (this has been happening for a few hundred years).

Based on this, science seems to be the best logical alternative. At least we can get somewhere with it, unlike religion.

Religion is clouded psychology.

It brings wars

It brings brainwashing

It brings calm to the dickheads who kiss its ass

But it will never bring answers.

Religious people say that we will never prove god to be true or false. Maybe their right. But it does make u think "if something cant be proven to exist, then it mustnt be physical (or existant".

Religion is all in the head.

You missed my point entirely.

What makes you so arrogant, feeble human that you can hope to understand everything there is in the universe, merely through a dogmatic obsession with observation and experimentation?

Even if there is no God, why should this universe obey any finite number of definate rules at all? Do such certin rules even exist? And if they do, then why do they exist and how did they come into being? (Don't say its obvious, because it isn't).

And what makes you think, that even IF the universe is in fact subject to certinty in physical laws (which begs the questions, why it is, and then how this came to be) what makes you think, you can even hope to understand them?

You claim science provides answers, start providing.

And asking me to have faith in that some time down the track, some smart guy is going to be able to give them to me isn't evidence you can use to prove your assertions now. I can say your faith in that genius down the track is as misplaced as mine in God because as I am continuously told; faith =/= evidence.

"No it does provide answers, I don't know what they are, and I don't know when they will be discovered, by whom and how, bu they will be, and they will explain everything, have faith in science" - Don't tell me to only trust evidence, because you have as little as I do.

 

[sam5]

You missed my point entirely.

What makes you so arrogant, feeble human that you can hope to understand everything there is in the universe, merely through a dogmatic obsession with observation and experimentation?

Even if there is no God, why should this universe obey any finite number of definate rules at all? Do such certin rules even exist? And if they do, then why do they exist and how did they come into being? (Don't say its obvious, because it isn't).

And what makes you think, that even IF the universe is in fact subject to certinty in physical laws (which begs the questions, why it is, and then how this came to be) what makes you think, you can even hope to understand them?

You claim science provides answers, start providing.

And asking me to have faith in that some time down the track, some smart guy is going to be able to give them to me isn't evidence you can use to prove your assertions now. I can say your faith in that genius down the track is as misplaced as mine in God because as I am continuously told; faith =/= evidence.

"No it does provide answers, I don't know what they are, and I don't know when they will be discovered, by whom and how, bu they will be, and they will explain everything, have faith in science" - Don't tell me to only trust evidence, because you have as little as I do.

its funny how religious pple always accuse atheists of misinterpreting them

I already explained that science will need time to give the answers u dickhead.

And fuck off that science doesnt have as much as evidence as religion. Ur just plain wrong there.

 

[Name_Taken]

its funny how religious pple always accuse atheists of misinterpreting them

Funnier when it's true.

I already explained that science will need time to give the answers u dickhead.

Lol, ok but until then we just have faith that it will amirite?

...Wait didn't someone say something about believing in something because of faith alone is dumb? ... Shhh don't tell anyone.

And fuck off that science doesnt have as much as evidence as religion. Ur just plain wrong there.

Lol gimme gimme gimme.

If you can answer one of the questions in my previous post, with cold hard evidence to support your answer, I'll dontate $1,000 to the Richard Dawkins Foundation.

And cut the aggression, it merely demonstrates your immaturity.

 

[SeCKSiiMiNh]

its funny how religious pple always accuse atheists of misinterpreting them

I already explained that science will need time to give the answers u dickhead.

And fuck off that science doesnt have as much as evidence as religion. Ur just plain wrong there.

Mate, there's a thin line between asserting your views and being total dickhead about it. You, sir, have crossed that line.

 

[Will Shakespear]

Faith is the rejection of evidence.

Rejection of evidence leads to all manner of very real problems - refusal of Afghani parents to allow their kids to be vaccinated for example. Refusal of medical treatment for diabetes because the parents prefer to pray.

Truth - whatever that might be - is a much more noble goal.

This is a concept that many religious people have difficulty with - that humans are not special. We are not. We are not "for" anything and that in turn gives us the greatest freedom of all - to individually select our own purpose. Be it builder, musician, lawyer, layabout.

Faith destroys other faiths much more easily that atheism. You never get atheists waging war in the name of atheism but you do get the religious waging war in the name of their faith.

In particular the 3 Abrahamic faiths require the destruction of all other faiths. Some Muslim countries still execute people for apostacy from Islam. Christianity actually also demands this in the Bible, but using Reason and not faith humanity has decided not to follow that rule - at least in western countries.

Atheism is the removal of mental shackles, it is having "permission" to let the mind go wherever it wants and ask any question and look for answers and readily dispose of any deeply held beliefs that are simply unsupportable.

Faith is being told what to believe and how to believe it.

 

[ComingUpForAir]

Faith is the rejection of evidence.

Rejection of evidence leads to all manner of very real problems - refusal of Afghani parents to allow their kids to be vaccinated for example. Refusal of medical treatment for diabetes because the parents prefer to pray.

Truth - whatever that might be - is a much more noble goal.

This is a concept that many religious people have difficulty with - that humans are not special. We are not. We are not "for" anything and that in turn gives us the greatest freedom of all - to individually select our own purpose. Be it builder, musician, lawyer, layabout.

Faith destroys other faiths much more easily that atheism. You never get atheists waging war in the name of atheism but you do get the religious waging war in the name of their faith.

In particular the 3 Abrahamic faiths require the destruction of all other faiths. Some Muslim countries still execute people for apostacy from Islam. Christianity actually also demands this in the Bible, but using Reason and not faith humanity has decided not to follow that rule - at least in western countries.

Atheism is the removal of mental shackles, it is having "permission" to let the mind go wherever it wants and ask any question and look for answers and readily dispose of any deeply held beliefs that are simply unsupportable.

Faith is being told what to believe and how to believe it.

I'm sorry but can you link the study that shows something can 'poof' out of nothing by chance?
Such a dogma requires far more faith that accepting Gods Grace.

 

[SeCKSiiMiNh]

I'm sorry but can you link the study that shows something can 'poof' out of nothing by chance?
Such a dogma requires far more faith that accepting Gods Grace.

You view of "god" has changed, has it?

 

[philphie]

I'm sorry but can you link the study that shows something can 'poof' out of nothing by chance?
Such a dogma requires far more faith that accepting Gods Grace.

end this racist thread now

 

[Will Shakespear]

Creationists are the only ones who claim scientists ever said things "poof out of nothing by chance"