Atheism for the WIN! YES!!!

[hal2kilo]

Bullshit. I went to church for 14 years and participated in communion, I was never taught that the bread and wine actually become body and blood of Christ, only that it was a symbol, this may be interpreted differently across different versions of Christianity but this is a bullshit question.

Obviously you weren't raised a Catholic. As far as I know they are the only ones who believe in transsubstatiation.

Otherwise in your case ignorance is bliss I guess

 

[ccbadd]

Incorrect. They are 2 very similar Non-Belief structures.

You are absolutely incorrect. Look here:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/agnostic
and
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/atheist

The atheist believes there is no god, the agnostic may have doubts about the existence of god, but does not profess to know whether there is or is not a god. The religious person absolutely believe or professes to know that there is a god.

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

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.

Jews and Mormons performed slightly lower than atheists.... If you combine them with the others, that only brings their average down, and it ends up being lower than the atheist/agnostic score.

Do they not teach averages in Sunday school?

You're getting closer than the OP.
You're talking about math and I'm talking about faith. By definition, those who believe have 'won' over those who do not.

 

[Throckmorton]

The Catholic belief makes no sense. I remember a lot of us in confirmation class argued about it with the teacher. Clearly the bread and wine is not literally turning into human flesh and blood. It's still bread and it's still wine. By all definitions, that means it's symbolizing the body and blood.

And that is how you create atheists, by insisting that a piece of bread is literally human flesh.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

You are absolutely incorrect. Look here:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/agnostic
and
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/atheist

The atheist believes there is no god, the agnostic may have doubts about the existence of god, but does not profess to know whether there is or is not a god. The religious person absolutely believe or professes to know that there is a god.

Sorry, but you're simply using some outmoded definitions. Strictly speaking, an atheist is anyone that is not a theist, i.e. anyone that does not believe at least one god exists.

Agnostics may believe a god exists, but not hold that belief to be true and justified (i.e. knowledge). For this reason it is coherent to speak of agnostic atheists and agnostic theists.

To put it another way, agnosticism is not an "in between" position from theism and atheism. Theism and atheism form a complete dichotomy. Gnosticism and agnosticism also form a complete, orthogonal dichotomy to theism and atheism. Please, consider this graphic:

 

[Throckmorton]

You are absolutely incorrect. Look here:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/agnostic
and
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/atheist

The atheist believes there is no god, the agnostic may have doubts about the existence of god, but does not profess to know whether there is or is not a god. The religious person absolutely believe or professes to know that there is a god.

As someone already said, a lot of (maybe most) agnostics are really atheists by definition, because they don't *believe in* a god.

 

[GroundedSailor]

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:

So then you are at least not an atheist?

I didn't say whether I was one or not. Stop trying to misdirect.

As far as I am concerned you point has no scientific basis, as neither does FSM or any other God.


..

 

[ShawnD1]

The Catholic belief makes no sense. I remember a lot of us in confirmation class argued about it with the teacher. Clearly the bread and wine is not literally turning into human flesh and blood. It's still bread and it's still wine. By all definitions, that means it's symbolizing the body and blood.

And that is how you create atheists, by insisting that a piece of bread is literally human flesh.

The part that confuses me is why anyone would try to make it literal. Was Jesus literally cutting his wrists at the last supper? I don't think the bible says that anywhere. Jesus speaks in non-stop metaphors but his follower idiots insist on literal interpretations

btw, did you know a fool literally built a house on sand? Jus' sayin.

 

[Atreus21]

I didn't say whether I was one or not. Stop trying to misdirect.

As far as I am concerned you point has no scientific basis, as neither does FSM or any other God.


..

No misdirection intended.

What is illogical or unscientific about the first cause argument?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

No misdirection intended.

What is illogical or unscientific about the first cause argument?

I'm sorry, it doesn't work that way. YOU have the burden of demonstrating that the first cause argument is logically sound. You're being disingnenuous trying to shift the burden of proof.

I can tell you right now that you will not succeed, however. It's premises are unsubstantiated. Feel free to try, though.

I have already posted a response to the first time you introduced this nonsense that you have not addressed.

 

[ModestGamer]

Again, more proof that atheists are more religious then their religious counterparts. That they know more about religion then religious people should show why they are nuts, not that they are knowledgeable. I used to have an atheist roommate in college and he would literally go around with books and start preaching about how God cannot exist on campus. He could not go a day without trying to convert people who were religious.

Belief in the absence of a god is a religion.

you so collosally fucking stupid. Its amazing. I put your Iq at 96.

 

[Atreus21]

I'm sorry, it doesn't work that way. YOU have the burden of demonstrating that the first cause argument is logically sound. You're being disingnenuous trying to shift the burden of proof.

I'm sorry, but if I propose an argument, it doesn't suffice to simply tell me I'm wrong, and command me to prove that I'm right. I stated my argument. Where and why do you disagree?

I can tell you right now that you will not succeed, however. It's premises are unsubstantiated. Feel free to try, though.

It's very simple. Nothing we observe in nature comes into being by itself; something produces it, or causes it. Doesn't this logically imply that something set all this in motion, which could not itself have been caused?

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

I am agnostic and scored 93% on this (14/15).

 

[quikah]

The part that confuses me is why anyone would try to make it literal. Was Jesus literally cutting his wrists at the last supper? I don't think the bible says that anywhere. Jesus speaks in non-stop metaphors but his follower idiots insist on literal interpretations

There is subtlety with the language that doesn't really carry over into modern times too well. Transubstantiation does not mean the wine becomes blood in the sense that we would think it to mean. The substance of the wine is blood, but the appearance is still wine.

read this (incredibly long and detailed): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transubstantiation

This is a much better explanation than anything I was ever taught in Catholic school. I think many teachers of Catholic doctrine don't necessarily understand it that well and just read what they are told. As a result, many people who follow the faith also don't really understand it. I am sure this bit of dogma has caused more than one Catholic to have doubt.

Does it make sense? not really, but neither does the idea that a man can walk on water or raise the dead. Faith is a funny thing sometimes.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

I'm sorry, but if I propose an argument, it doesn't suffice to simply tell me I'm wrong, and command me to prove that I'm right. I stated my argument. Where and why do you disagree?

Please note that the only part of my previous response that you did NOT quote answers precisely the questions you've asked here.

It's very simple. Nothing we observe in nature comes into being by itself; something produces it, or causes it. Doesn't this logically imply that something set all this in motion, which could not itself have been caused?

I have already posted a response to the first time you introduced this nonsense that you have not addressed.

Does that help?

 

[Atreus21]

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?

All I said was that nothing comes into being all by itself. Something produces it. A apple comes from an apple tree, which came from an apple seed, which came from an apple, etc.

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

I don't know whether it should or not account for it's own existence. I'm just saying it doesn't.

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??

Yes, exactly. Because if everything has a preceding cause, then what started this process?

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

I don't see what's so irrational, and you certainly haven't pointed out any glaring illogicalities in the argument.

There, I finally found your previous post.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

All I said was that nothing comes into being all by itself.

And as I said, nothing "comes into being" at all. Everything you see is simply a reconfiguration of matter which already exists.

Something produces it. A apple comes from an apple tree, which came from an apple seed, which came from an apple, etc.

You'd do well to familiarize yourself with the first law of thermodynamics.

I don't know whether it should or not account for it's own existence. I'm just saying it doesn't.

So what?

Yes, exactly. Because if everything has a preceding cause, then what started this process?

Nothing. You just said, "everything has a preceding cause." You don't even comprehend the very words you type, do you?

I don't see what's so irrational, and you certainly haven't pointed out any glaring illogicalities in the argument.

Yes, I did, but apparently I have to beat you about the head with it several times before you realize it.

 

[shira]

And your still not getting it, the "average religious idiot" is composed of all the religious groups. If you combine all the religious groups (which includes Jews and Mormons), they outperformed atheists/agnostics. Nice try though.

What are you smoking? Atheists/agnostics outperformed every other individual group, including Jews and Mormons. How, then, can the combination of all religious groups have a higher average than atheists/agnostics?

 

[Vette73]

I am agnostic and scored 93% on this (14/15).

Yea I got 14 also. Let me guess you missed number 15.

 

[shira]

It makes complete sense that atheists would 'score' better on this survey. The survey asks questions about different religions. Atheists, having no particular religious beliefs themselves, are more likely to at least have a little interest in reading about all the religions out there. People of a particular faith are less likely to know details about faiths other than their own, as they probably have less interest in learning about a faith other than their own.

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

How come the average atheist/agnostic got more questions right about Christianity than the average Christian did, 6.7/12 to 6.2/12?

 

[shira]

Actually, I did read that. The article does not provide information on that breakdown. For example, what percentage of atheists could identify Martin Luther as the man who started protestant reformation? That would tell you whether the atheists or protestants were more informed about that particular religion. Fail article + fail survey + fail OP = all around fail.

Actually, the article does provide this detail:

http://www.pewforum.org/U-S-Religious-Knowledge-Survey-Who-Knows-What-About-Religion.aspx

Look at the table headed "Knowledge of Christianity"

68% of atheists/agnostics knew this compared with only 47% of Protestants.

If anything's a fail, it's you.

 

[ModestGamer]

You are absolutely incorrect. Look here:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/agnostic
and
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/atheist

The atheist believes there is no god, the agnostic may have doubts about the existence of god, but does not profess to know whether there is or is not a god. The religious person absolutely believe or professes to know that there is a god.

a atheist does not suffer from a mental illness.

 

[zinfamous]

Bullshit. I went to church for 14 years and participated in communion, I was never taught that the bread and wine actually become body and blood of Christ, only that it was a symbol, this may be interpreted differently across different versions of Christianity but this is a bullshit question.

That is mostly a Protestant conceit. In Catholicism, the consecration of the priest absolutely turns the wine/bread into blood/flesh.

Are you methodist or baptist, etc?

 

[Darwin333]

Firebot

"Belief in the absence of a god is a religion. "

Maybe for the one nut you refer to, but not for most of us. I couldn't care less if you want to believe in fairy tales. Believing in god is an activity. Not believing requires no action on my part any more than not believing in the Easter Bunny.

I have been arguing the same thing for quite some time now but perhaps we should rethink this position. It just came to me when I read his post, if Atheism is considered a religion then shouldn't we get the same benefits that all other religions enjoy <cough> tax free status <cough>?

Since we require no central church, all of our homes should be considered "places of worship" (hello no property taxes). I am sure we can get much much more creative with this, I have no idea how churches and taxes work except for the fact that they don't pay any.

 

[Darwin333]

It makes complete sense that atheists would 'score' better on this survey. The survey asks questions about different religions. Atheists, having no particular religious beliefs themselves, are more likely to at least have a little interest in reading about all the religions out there. People of a particular faith are less likely to know details about faiths other than their own, as they probably have less interest in learning about a faith other than their own.

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

Almost every single atheist I know used to be a Christian of some sort. I don't know who said it earlier but the best way to "create" more atheists is to encourage people to read the bible cover to cover. It worked for me.

I have only met a handful of Christians that know more about their religion than I do.