Atheism for the WIN! YES!!!

[ShawnD1]

The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.

I wish police thought like this. Hmm, I have no physical evidence or witnesses saying lothar killed that pregnant woman, but I'm going to assume it's true until proven otherwise :hmm:

 

[zsdersw]

You didn't ask a question, and you expect an answer? Are you really that dense? You make a blanket assertion that my opinion could not be swayed, and I told you you're full of it.

An assertion that is backed up by every post of yours I've read on religion and religious issues.

Thank goodness for humanity that you won't procreate :thumbsup:

Thank goodness for humanity that you're likely done procreating.

 

[nyker96]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/28/us/28religion.html

Pretty sad when atheists know more about religion then average religious idiot. Sad and Funny all at the same time!

“I have heard many times that atheists know more about religion than religious people,” Mr. Silverman said. “Atheism is an effect of that knowledge, not a lack of knowledge. I gave a Bible to my daughter. That’s how you make atheists.”

LOL!!!

I think when you do know a ton about religion you tend to stay away from it? :]

 

[Vette73]

I wish police thought like this. Hmm, I have no physical evidence or witnesses saying lothar killed that pregnant woman, but I'm going to assume it's true until proven otherwise :hmm:

YOU would think that.

So are you gonna ever give an official response to the rumor that you raped and murdered a girl in 1990?


:hmm:

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Hahaha... so the people that got the questions wrong are not "real" Catholics or whatever their religion is.

Wow and I thought PG was butt hurt.

Actually I was more interested in context and intellectual rigor among honesty. That these are beyond you isn't our fault. It's just how you are.

 

[GroundedSailor]

Here's what many people equally believe caused all existence:
Pastafarianism

More info:
Flying Spaghetti Monster

And may you be touched by his noodly appendage

..

Do you have a counter-argument?

You didn't get it did you?

You said, "I would say that our simple existence is evidence of an act of creation at some point"
and "Everything is caused by something else."

I just gave you an equally plausible, and just as valid, belief in another creator - and even gave you His blessing.

:biggrin:

 

[Modelworks]

blah, nobody cares. Posting stuff like this serves only one purpose, inflating the ego of the OP.

 

[StageLeft]

I also went to a Catholic church for years and sunday school and all that. I assumed it was metaphorical but honestly I never paid much attention and found church disinteresting/irrelevant for the most part. I think many if not most kids do. By the time they are out of the house they've simply had enough of it all because it is boringly force fed to them for years and years. There are kids who keep faith into adulthood but I think in most cases not if they are the result of once-week church and nothing else in their life interesting or apparently meaningful to them about their faith.

Anyway, the study is telling that many don't really know the tenets of what they claim to believe in. It's not surprising, though. The majority of people in the US would say in a quick poll that they are Christian but when push comes to shove I simply don't buy that all of them really believe in it. It's more a habitual thing the result of no critical study of their life or beliefs. I similarly maintain that most atheists have not come to their conclusions through close study but rather apathy and habit also. There is a great middle-mass of un-thinkers who simply go from day to day without giving much thought to anything out of their field of vision.

 

[ShawnD1]

so are you gonna ever give an official response to the rumor that you raped and murdered a girl in 1990?


:hmm:

who told you!?!?!?!?!? D:

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

blah, nobody cares. Posting stuff like this serves only one purpose, inflating the ego of the OP.

You heathen!

It's a form of intellectual masturbation most often carried out by those who display commonplace minds. Perhaps Moonbeams self hate concept applies.

 

[woolfe9999]

This is just a fail survey designed to let atheists pat each other on the back to reassure themselves of their superiority.

Yeah, it does do that.

<---Jewish atheist here.

Perfect score.

We rule.

/thread.



- wolf

 

[ericlp]

blah, nobody cares. Posting stuff like this serves only one purpose, inflating the ego of the OP.

Sorry I just thought it was funny.... If you didn't too bad I guess.

 

[ShawnD1]

I similarly maintain that most atheists have not come to their conclusions through close study but rather apathy and habit also. There is a great middle-mass of un-thinkers who simply go from day to day without giving much thought to anything out of their field of vision.

I wouldn't say apathy is the cause of atheism. I think it would be more reasonable to say atheism or just anti-religion is what happens when people feel that their own intuition is more correct than what others are telling them. For example, the Catholic church says condoms and birth control are wrong. If there is a god, I think he would agree with me before he would agree with the Catholics.

 

[Nemesis 1]

It works three ways . Some people see the bible as the Bible and there is no fantasy involved. These are the dangerious ones. Others see the hidden in plain site fantasy and reject the entire Word Of GOD . Than still there are those who see both the truth, in the fact we must live in a certain way to contiue growing in self . Yet at the same time see that religion has contaminaited the WORD!

 

[ccryder]

You might want to practice a little reading comprehension. Atheist/agnostics did outperform any SINGLE group of religious believers. They did not perform better than believers as a whole.

Are you adding the averages of all the other groups listed to support this? Shouldn't you average the averages? Based on the chart listed in the article. The average # of correct answers for agnostics/atheists is still 20.9, while the average # correct for the "believers" listed is 16.3.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Yeah, it does do that.

<---Jewish atheist here.

Perfect score.

We rule.

/thread.



- wolf

Hater!

 

[BoberFett]

LOL, atheists. What a bunch of crazy religious zealots.

Personally, I'm a Dontgiveafuckatarian.

 

[ccbadd]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/28/us/28religion.html

Pretty sad when atheists know more about religion then average religious idiot. Sad and Funny all at the same time!

“I have heard many times that atheists know more about religion than religious people,” Mr. Silverman said. “Atheism is an effect of that knowledge, not a lack of knowledge. I gave a Bible to my daughter. That’s how you make atheists.”

LOL!!!

I think this is a pretty dumb story but, why do they lump atheists with agnostics? They are really two very different belief structures. For all we know it was 90% agnostics and 10% atheists. Agnostics at least evaluate the possibility of both sides being right but simply admits they do not have any way to know where both the religious and atheists claim to 'KNOW" the truth. Kind of puts both on the same playing field in my book.

 

[zsdersw]

"It's a beige alert!"

"If I don't survive, tell my wife 'hello'"

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

I would say that our simple existence is evidence of an act of creation at some point. We don't observe objects simply coming into being all by themselves, so by inference one can assume that everything is brought into being by some other force.

In actuality, we don't observe things "coming into being" at all. So, it is your contention that we should infer from this total lack of creation all around us that there was a creation a long, long time ago. I also notice a distinct lack of leprechauns everywhere I look, so I suppose I should conclude that there existed a leprechaun a long, long time ago, right?

Is there anything in the universe that accounts for its own existence?

Why should it need an accounting? Should it not exist?

Apparently not, or at least not that we've observed. Everything is caused by something else. From that you can extrapolate that there must've been a first cause, which was not itself caused.

This reasoning is absolutely staggering. Everything we observe has a preceding cause, so we should naturally assume that there exists something without a preceding cause. Really? REALLY??

Whatever it is, it had to exist always, eternally, outside of time. Which is inconceivable to us.

Please do not presume that everything which is inconceivable to you is inconceivable to the rest of us.

I don't see what's so horribly dogmatic and illogical about the first cause argument.

Well, it has absolutely not rational basis, for starters.

 

[Timorous]

I think this is a pretty dumb story but, why do they lump atheists with agnostics? They are really two very different belief structures. For all we know it was 90% agnostics and 10% atheists. Agnostics at least evaluate the possibility of both sides being right but simply admits they do not have any way to know where both the religious and atheists claim to 'KNOW" the truth. Kind of puts both on the same playing field in my book.

I am an atheist but I do not claim to 'KNOW' the truth. Looking at the currently available evidence I come to the conclusion that the probability of a creator is rather slim so I do not even consider it in my daily life.

With regards to this poll I would probably do rather badly on it because I have not read up that much on religious beliefs. When it comes to the atheism is a relgion argument I just refer to this quote. 'Atheism is a relgion like not collecting stamps is a hobby.'

 

[woolfe9999]

I think this is a pretty dumb story but, why do they lump atheists with agnostics? They are really two very different belief structures. For all we know it was 90&#37; agnostics and 10% atheists. Agnostics at least evaluate the possibility of both sides being right but simply admits they do not have any way to know where both the religious and atheists claim to 'KNOW" the truth. Kind of puts both on the same playing field in my book.

There is almost no difference between agnosticism and the standard form of "negative atheism" which holds that there is insufficient proof of God but does not assert that God's non-existence can be proven. Many atheists prefer to call themselves agnostic because it is less of a pejorative. Agnostics are very close to atheists. To theists, not so much.

- wolf

 

[totalnoob]

Speaking from experience, myself + every other atheist I've ever met knows a ton more about Christianity than the average believer. I think once you drop the actual beliefs, the social phenomenon of religion becomes much more interesting. Billions of people sharing a mass delusion is quite fascinating, so it's not surprising that those who see it this way have a great interest in the subject.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

There is almost no difference between agnosticism and the standard form of "negative atheism" which holds that there is insufficient proof of God but does not assert that God's non-existence can be proven. Many atheists prefer to call themselves agnostic because it is less of a pejorative. Agnostics are very close to atheists. To theists, not so much.

- wolf

I'd disagree with you somewhat because of how some practice atheism and I use "Practice" deliberately.

If you were to ask someone about the existence of a deity and they reply that there is insufficient data to draw a conclusion I would say that's qualitatively different than one who categorically states there is no such entity. The latter is defining his belief system, not revealing demonstrable truths. In that sense it's a belief about god, flying spaghetti monsters notwithstanding. It's an intellectual fail which I believe goes beyond intellect to the emotional.

 

[woolfe9999]

I'd disagree with you somewhat because of how some practice atheism and I use "Practice" deliberately.

If you were to ask someone about the existence of a deity and they reply that there is insufficient data to draw a conclusion I would say that's qualitatively different than one who categorically states there is no such entity. The latter is defining his belief system, not revealing demonstrable truths. In that sense it's a belief about god, flying spaghetti monsters notwithstanding. It's an intellectual fail which I believe goes beyond intellect to the emotional.

These distinctions are a common topic of discussion in religion threads. The following is useful as a point of reference.

Agnostic: insufficient evidence to prove either the existence or non-existence of God, therefore I state "I don't know if God exists or not."

Negative atheist: insufficient evidence to prove either the existence or non-existence of God, therefore I state "I do not believe in God."

Note that the reasoning process is identical between the two. Only the framing of the conclusion is different. In my view, the agnostic's conclusion is a copout. The agnostic just doesn't want to be labeled an atheist. The correct conclusion from the standpoint of logic is that if there is insufficient evidence to meet a burden of proof for the existence of a given thing, then the existence of that thing is not proven and there is no reason to believe in it, whether it is God or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Note, however, that the conclusion "I do not believe in God" is not the same thing as "I am certain of God's non-existence."

Negative atheism is by far the most common form.

What you are referring to is positive atheism.

Positive atheist: not only is there insufficient evidence to prove either the existence of God, there is super adequate evidence to prove the negative, i.e. that God does not exist. Therefore, you say "I am certain of God's non-existence."

I think many non-atheists mistake the positive atheist position for mainstream atheism. Go to an atheist discussion forum and you will learn otherwise. Perhaps the reason that atheists get stereotyped that way is because essentially all atheists and agnostics believe that all the actual real world religions are total bunk and their scriptures fantasy-fiction. The professed certainty of that position is often mistaken for positive atheism.

- wolf