dug777
Lifer
- Oct 13, 2004
- 24,778
- 4
- 0
I guess they're easy targets.
*Let's believe in something that nobody can prove exists, persecute people because they don't share these beliefs, and generally be as difficult as possible about something that, for you know, was made up as a scam by a keen student of human nature with a decided lack of scruples*
Talk about an easy target...
*Let's believe in something that nobody can prove exists, persecute people because they don't share these beliefs, and generally be as difficult as possible about something that, for you know, was made up as a scam by a keen student of human nature with a decided lack of scruples*
Talk about an easy target...
yllus
Elite Member & Lifer
- Aug 20, 2000
- 20,577
- 432
- 126
I used to be very aggressively anti-religion. Then I grew up. It also helped that some of the people I respect most for their intelligence believe in God.
Now it seems in P&N I spend more time defending ridiculous allegations against Islam and Christianity than I do pointing out their flaws, which I rather be doing. Is it so much to ask that people concern themselves with real issues and not imagined ones?
Now it seems in P&N I spend more time defending ridiculous allegations against Islam and Christianity than I do pointing out their flaws, which I rather be doing. Is it so much to ask that people concern themselves with real issues and not imagined ones?
thraashman
Lifer
- Apr 10, 2000
- 11,112
- 1,587
- 126
Atheism just like Christianity has its evangelists. Most of these people are pretty angry, some are irritated, in the end they're the same as those they hate, but with different arguments.
As said in the OP there's no way to prove or disprove a supreme being. This is true. But it also holds true that if I wanted I could make some insane claim that can't be disproven, but that there's no logical basis for my claim, and therefore is ridiculous. Most Atheists I know feel this way about belief in God. It comes down to religious teachings feeling like an elaborate fairy tale. And since it tends to be that Atheists prize knowledge and science and the religious prize faith and obedience (to God) that your standard Atheist gets a bit of a big head. Many of us end up feeling smarter than those who don't share our beliefs.
Really it comes down to feelings that are pretty close to that of religious evangelists. Those believing in God want more people to think like them the same as Atheists do. The religious say that they want to save souls, when only a few really want that, most want to feel better about themselves by making more people think like them. Atheists say they want more people with their beliefs to stop religion from holding back progress in science. But even then, if religion never interfered with science again, you'd still have several Ahteists wanting to change people to their way of thought.
I feel it's an arrogance thing. Each side wants to prove they're right. The best way to do that is to make you accept that we're right. And to do that, we have to make you realize you're wrong.
I try not to think this way and I try to be tolerant. I usually can do it and I have several close, very religious friends. But the things that bother me come down to using a poorly constructed argument based on religion to hold back something good for everyone.
Gay marriage would be a step towards equal civil rights, but people are against it and almost exclusively because of their religion. Stem cells can be used to cure many conditions, but research is quashed because of some perception that it destroys lives, when I don't consider and embryo a life and stem cell research uses embryos that would be destroyed anyway.
In the end I let go of my anger a long time ago. While I believe many "Atheists" who are angry are not atheists at all but instead people who are confused about their beliefs and instead angry at god, I realized about 12 years ago I'm an Atheist. For me it wasn't even a decision, I just realized that I never actually believed in God and was just doing what I was told. When I started to think about it, I noticed I thought of it the same as I thought of fairy tales.
I'm not sure if I got my point across .... I'm not even sure what my point was.
As said in the OP there's no way to prove or disprove a supreme being. This is true. But it also holds true that if I wanted I could make some insane claim that can't be disproven, but that there's no logical basis for my claim, and therefore is ridiculous. Most Atheists I know feel this way about belief in God. It comes down to religious teachings feeling like an elaborate fairy tale. And since it tends to be that Atheists prize knowledge and science and the religious prize faith and obedience (to God) that your standard Atheist gets a bit of a big head. Many of us end up feeling smarter than those who don't share our beliefs.
Really it comes down to feelings that are pretty close to that of religious evangelists. Those believing in God want more people to think like them the same as Atheists do. The religious say that they want to save souls, when only a few really want that, most want to feel better about themselves by making more people think like them. Atheists say they want more people with their beliefs to stop religion from holding back progress in science. But even then, if religion never interfered with science again, you'd still have several Ahteists wanting to change people to their way of thought.
I feel it's an arrogance thing. Each side wants to prove they're right. The best way to do that is to make you accept that we're right. And to do that, we have to make you realize you're wrong.
I try not to think this way and I try to be tolerant. I usually can do it and I have several close, very religious friends. But the things that bother me come down to using a poorly constructed argument based on religion to hold back something good for everyone.
Gay marriage would be a step towards equal civil rights, but people are against it and almost exclusively because of their religion. Stem cells can be used to cure many conditions, but research is quashed because of some perception that it destroys lives, when I don't consider and embryo a life and stem cell research uses embryos that would be destroyed anyway.
In the end I let go of my anger a long time ago. While I believe many "Atheists" who are angry are not atheists at all but instead people who are confused about their beliefs and instead angry at god, I realized about 12 years ago I'm an Atheist. For me it wasn't even a decision, I just realized that I never actually believed in God and was just doing what I was told. When I started to think about it, I noticed I thought of it the same as I thought of fairy tales.
I'm not sure if I got my point across .... I'm not even sure what my point was.
SacrosanctFiend
Diamond Member
- Oct 2, 2004
- 4,269
- 0
- 0
If anyone feels like a rational debate (which at this point is unlikely), find flaws with the following:
Ontological Argument - Anselm
1. God exists in our understanding. This means that the concept of God resides as an idea in our minds.
2. God is a possible being, and might exist in reality. He is possible because the concept of God does not bear internal contradictions.
3. If something exists exclusively in our understanding and might have existed in reality then it might have been greater. This simply means that something that exists in reality is perfect (or great). Something that is only a concept in our minds could be greater by actually existing.
4. Suppose (theoretically) that God only exists in our understanding and not in reality.
5. If this were true, then it would be possible for God to be greater then he is (follows from premise #3).
6. This would mean that God is a being in which a greater is possible.
7. This is absurd because God, a being in which none greater is possible, is a being in which a greater is possible. Herein lies the contradiction.
8. Thus it follows that it is false for God to only exist in our understanding.
9. Hence God exists in reality as well as our understanding.
Cosmological Argument - Aquinas (shortened)
1. Every being (that exists or ever did exist) is either a dependent being or a self-existent being.
2. Not every being can be a dependent being.
3. So there exists a self-existent being.
Teleological Argument - Aquinas
"We see that things that lack intelligence, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result. Hence it is plain that not fortuitously, but designedly, do they achieve their end. Now whatever lacks intelligence cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is shot to its mark by the archer. Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God."
Ontological Argument - Anselm
1. God exists in our understanding. This means that the concept of God resides as an idea in our minds.
2. God is a possible being, and might exist in reality. He is possible because the concept of God does not bear internal contradictions.
3. If something exists exclusively in our understanding and might have existed in reality then it might have been greater. This simply means that something that exists in reality is perfect (or great). Something that is only a concept in our minds could be greater by actually existing.
4. Suppose (theoretically) that God only exists in our understanding and not in reality.
5. If this were true, then it would be possible for God to be greater then he is (follows from premise #3).
6. This would mean that God is a being in which a greater is possible.
7. This is absurd because God, a being in which none greater is possible, is a being in which a greater is possible. Herein lies the contradiction.
8. Thus it follows that it is false for God to only exist in our understanding.
9. Hence God exists in reality as well as our understanding.
Cosmological Argument - Aquinas (shortened)
1. Every being (that exists or ever did exist) is either a dependent being or a self-existent being.
2. Not every being can be a dependent being.
3. So there exists a self-existent being.
Teleological Argument - Aquinas
"We see that things that lack intelligence, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result. Hence it is plain that not fortuitously, but designedly, do they achieve their end. Now whatever lacks intelligence cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is shot to its mark by the archer. Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God."
They're all flawed. And this is coming from the guy who is studying for the Catholic Priesthood. If you really want me to post them, PM me and I'll do the research.
thraashman
Lifer
- Apr 10, 2000
- 11,112
- 1,587
- 126
Well, I was gonna say that at least the Cosmological argument is something that could be discussed and argued. The other two arguments are simply ridiculous and complete rubbish.
SacrosanctFiend
Diamond Member
- Oct 2, 2004
- 4,269
- 0
- 0
I know they are all flawed. I was just trying to move to a rational debate on religion, instead of the OMFGWTFZUPBBQ!!!1!1!1RELIGIONSUXORZ!!! type drivel I always read. So, go ahead and post them.
SacrosanctFiend
Diamond Member
- Oct 2, 2004
- 4,269
- 0
- 0
I figured I would get that response, but I was just trying to keep it short.
Cosmological - Elongated
yllus
Elite Member & Lifer
- Aug 20, 2000
- 20,577
- 432
- 126
Nah, you're just getting emotional. The simple fact is it's not possible to reside on the plane of existence we're upon and know for a fact that a creator exists or doesn't exist. You might as well shrug your shoulders and say, "I'll find out when I'm dead." Thus to be either aggressively pro-religion or anti-religion is really the same poor logic.Originally posted by: dug777
So as a blanket generalisation, people who are anti-religion need to 'grow-up'?
Sounds like you've exchanged one form of intolerance for another.
These were the two quotes from Hyperblaze that triggered my reaction.
I am one who is an Athiest. I really just do not care wether someone believes or not.
Just do not try to sell it to me. Then I will get vocal. If you want to calmly discuss it without
trying to sell it, then I would be willing to have that discussion and I will keep it civil.
You do not understand that you were trying to sell it. You stated things that you have no way of proving and asserted them as facts, you even stated it. I am not upset at this, just that it shows you are unintentionally bashing non believers. Your faith is important to you and that is wonderful, but my faith in the universe is important to me.
Pride is where most people start the major arguing from and this leads to anger because people do not to want to be wrong.
Have you noticed that some of the loudest defenders of an agenda are usually ones who are violating the very agenda they are to trying to espouse. (This is not intended to aim solely at religion, but I am including it.)
I have always thought that religion is the worst thing ever instituted by man.
Faith is where it is at, that is what should be important, just not blind faith but thinking faith
that tries to introduce logic into the equation and mediates it with compassion.
I like bashing any and all fools, not the religious in particular. The religious just happen to naturally fit into that category.
I would agree. Unfortunately the most intolerant ones also have the biggest mouths and loudest voices. Which, of course, makes it difficult for some of us to hear the more moderated voices.
I suspect that it is not so much that people bash those who believe in the possibility of a god so much as they attack those who strongly believe in religions that have many inadequacies, contradictions and outright errors within them that those of that faith just seem to skate over and ignore completely (picking and choosing what to believe so that it fits, instead of the religion dictating to them they dictate what the religion is).
While I don't deny a god could exist, I simply cannot accept that people put blind faith and their life ("everything happens for a reason") into the hands of a specific religion which they fail to even question. I have a big problem with people believing in something because they want to. You should never confuse what you want to be true with what is true. That is an extremely dangerous line of thinking, and "sacred ground" such as religion is just as open and subject to my criticism for that. I care because I think that it has very obvious and large implications for our progression and for the overall good of mankind.
While I don't deny a god could exist, I simply cannot accept that people put blind faith and their life ("everything happens for a reason") into the hands of a specific religion which they fail to even question. I have a big problem with people believing in something because they want to. You should never confuse what you want to be true with what is true. That is an extremely dangerous line of thinking, and "sacred ground" such as religion is just as open and subject to my criticism for that. I care because I think that it has very obvious and large implications for our progression and for the overall good of mankind.
I don't insult or make fun of people who believe in a higher power, what I do make fun of is people who have an unwavering belief that they're correct no matter what kind of evidence is presented to them. See: Blind Faith. It's unhealthy, it spawns hatred and intolerance, and leaves no room for growth in sciences/knowledge.
I personally do not like or condone the idea of "faith". It disturbs me, almost. But if it's not intrusive in the lives of other people around you, and causes you no harm... Well, no harm in that. Blind faith is a sickening mental condition, however, and I cannot stand it.
Organized religion is pretty bad, too, IMO.
On a lighter note, my girlfriend is a light christian, and I'm a strong atheist. We never, ever talk to each other about our personal views or "beliefs", we just don't believe in trying to change peoples beliefs. We do make fun of organized religion, though, as we both find it almost disgusting in practice.
I've gone to a church with her before. She asked me to, and I had no problem, really. I was bored out of my mind, though. But then they started singing, and I mean SINGING. That was awesome, honestly.
I also cannot stand overzealous atheists, they piss me off just as much as a televangelist or door-to-door christians.
Lastly, it pisses me off to hear people call atheists assholes. We're not. The group of people who try to push their anti-theistic views on others are a minority. For the most part, atheism isn't even a belief system, we have no gatherings, we have no common beliefs, and we do not normally try to "convert" people. We simply do NOT believe.
I do not make fun of theists.
I personally do not like or condone the idea of "faith". It disturbs me, almost. But if it's not intrusive in the lives of other people around you, and causes you no harm... Well, no harm in that. Blind faith is a sickening mental condition, however, and I cannot stand it.
Organized religion is pretty bad, too, IMO.
On a lighter note, my girlfriend is a light christian, and I'm a strong atheist. We never, ever talk to each other about our personal views or "beliefs", we just don't believe in trying to change peoples beliefs. We do make fun of organized religion, though, as we both find it almost disgusting in practice.
I've gone to a church with her before. She asked me to, and I had no problem, really. I was bored out of my mind, though. But then they started singing, and I mean SINGING. That was awesome, honestly.
I also cannot stand overzealous atheists, they piss me off just as much as a televangelist or door-to-door christians.
Lastly, it pisses me off to hear people call atheists assholes. We're not. The group of people who try to push their anti-theistic views on others are a minority. For the most part, atheism isn't even a belief system, we have no gatherings, we have no common beliefs, and we do not normally try to "convert" people. We simply do NOT believe.
I do not make fun of theists.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 411
Facebook
Twitter