How Can Anyone Be An Atheist?

[Northumberland Rocks]

You do realise that morality isn't confined to the religious, right?

And while the church might be handing out food with one hand they're perpetuating the spread of AIDS with the other by telling people it's a sin to use contraception.

Meanwhile it's the atheists who are furthering our understanding of the physical world, coming up with cures for diseases, solving environmental problems, creating new technologies to improve people's lives, while the religious are busy telling them they're going to burn in hell for believing that science rather than God has the answers.

You talk a lot of sense on other matters mate but honestly do you believe that?

I think you miss my point completely. Im not defending christians and I dont deny there are lot of non beleivers who do a great work for the greater good too. If people want to have a faith and its not hurting anyone whats the problem. Likewise if people dont want a faith and they arent hurting anyone no problem likewise.

I just find evangelical athiests a lot more scary than evangelical christians. Nobody knows everything thats for sure.

Dare I say it you need to lighten up a bt too. live and let live man thats the way.

 

[dangermows]

Imagining spending so much time debating a subject on which you know you are right

 

[Dagzd1973]

I don't believe you'll find many atheists who say definitively that there is no god. What you will usually find is that they'll say "if you want to tell me that a god exists then I want to see proof otherwise I don't believe you".

The same with unicorns. While absence of proof indeed isn't proof of absence, the scientific approach is to say "until you show me proof, I have no reason to believe a unicorn exists".

The burden of proof is with the person making the outlandish claim. If we start with a blank slate that effectively indicates that nothing exists and then write on it "unicorns exist", then from a scientific perspective you must show how you know unicorns exist, otherwise you're being unscientific.

Can't argue with you, or anyone ITT on the matter tbh. The burden of proof is definitely with the person making the claim. And you're right about atheism. The original view of atheists was not "there is no god" but "there is no proof of one, and until there is I'll reserve judgement". It seems that the definition has changed over the years though and anyone claiming to be an atheist nowadays usually hold the definite view that "there is no god".

 

[Northumberland Rocks]

Imagining spending so much time debating a subject on which you know you are right

this

 

[Dagzd1973]

Science flies people to the moon. Religion flies people into buildings.

 

[Daydream Believer]

Can't argue with you, or anyone ITT on the matter tbh. The burden of proof is definitely with the person making the claim. And you're right about atheism. The original view of atheists was not "there is no god" but "there is no proof of one, and until there is I'll reserve judgement". It seems that the definition has changed over the years though and anyone claiming to be an atheist nowadays usually hold the definite view that "there is no god".

I don't know a single atheist who would say that & the only time I actually hear it is from people trying to discredit atheism.

 

[fyl2u]

You talk a lot of sense on other matters mate but honestly do you believe that?

I think you miss my point completely. Im not defending christians and I dont deny there are lot of non beleivers who do a great work for the greater good too. If people want to have a faith and its not hurting anyone whats the problem. Likewise if people dont want a faith and they arent hurting anyone no problem likewise.

I just find evangelical athiests a lot more scary than evangelical christians. Nobody knows everything thats for sure.

Dare I say it you need to lighten up a bt too. live and let live man thats the way.

Well, the problem for me comes with the "if it's not hurting anyone" side of things.

Moderate theists and agnostics in general are probably not hurting anyone until you get to the adage "the only thing that needs to happen for evil to prevail is for good people to do nothing".

Where the "evil" comes in is where you have super-religious parents refusing to allow their child to have surgery or medication to cure an illness or affliction that isnt life-threatening unless it goes untreated, because they believe they can pray it away and if the child dies then that's what God wanted.

Or take a look at the USA where you can't become president unless you're a Christian because so many people in the country believe in God and they'd never elect someone godless into power, so you end up with nutters like George W Bush with their fingers on the global nuclear extinction button just waiting for God to tell them when to push it to rid the world of the evil countries that are predominantly another religion and bring about the End Of Days as foretold in Revelation.

Or the AIDS example from my previous post, where missionaries have convinced huge numbers of people in Africa that God is the only way and He says "no condoms", which has led to the deaths of millions of people worldwide.

I do believe that the vast majority of religious people believe that they are being good moral people with their lifestyles, but unfortunately that means that there is a foundation in place upon which some seriously dangerous ideas can be built when certain sections of the religious community start trying to outdo the rest in the piety stakes, where it is possible for absolute atrocities to be justified in the name of the lead character in your holy book of choice.

 

[PinzaC55]

Can't argue with you, or anyone ITT on the matter tbh. The burden of proof is definitely with the person making the claim. And you're right about atheism. The original view of atheists was not "there is no god" but "there is no proof of one, and until there is I'll reserve judgement". It seems that the definition has changed over the years though and anyone claiming to be an atheist nowadays usually hold the definite view that "there is no god".

There is no god until sufficient is shown. Just like "I haven't won the Lottery jackpot" is true until I can show the winning ticket.

 

[dangermows]

Science flies people to the moon. Religion flies people into buildings.

We didn't go to the moon.

 

[Hooky]

Can't argue with you, or anyone ITT on the matter tbh. The burden of proof is definitely with the person making the claim. And you're right about atheism. The original view of atheists was not "there is no god" but "there is no proof of one, and until there is I'll reserve judgement". It seems that the definition has changed over the years though and anyone claiming to be an atheist nowadays usually hold the definite view that "there is no god".

There is a paradoxical issue with atheists moving from "no god" to "no proof" as the majority of Atheists use science and evidence as their argument, when the argument leaves a gap its hypocritical to say that you believe the gap is no god, because you are then showing the same blind faith as religion.

Although people of here have said that atheists are worse than religious people I have to say my personal experiences are the opposite, if they are asked to debate religion they will give there opinion, and even concede to the "there is a gap for a creator against all evidence argument", but will also support individual religious freedoms as part of a fair society.

 

[fyl2u]

There is a paradoxical issue with atheists moving from "no god" to "no proof" as the majority of Atheists use science and evidence as their argument, when the argument leaves a gap its hypocritical to say that you believe the gap is no god, because you are then showing the same blind faith as religion.

Although people of here have said that atheists are worse than religious people I have to say my personal experiences are the opposite, if they are asked to debate religion they will give there opinion, and even concede to the "there is a gap for a creator against all evidence argument", but will also support individual religious freedoms as part of a fair society.

Exactly, though I would also say that they would concede that the gap could equally be filled by djinn, or superuniversal computer programmers, or aliens, or the matrix, or that the rest of the human race really only exist in the imagination of a lone Phillipino boy.

Just because we don't know the answer doesn't mean the answer is God.

 

[Northumberland Rocks]

Well, the problem for me comes with the "if it's not hurting anyone" side of things.

Moderate theists and agnostics in general are probably not hurting anyone until you get to the adage "the only thing that needs to happen for evil to prevail is for good people to do nothing".

Where the "evil" comes in is where you have super-religious parents refusing to allow their child to have surgery or medication to cure an illness or affliction that isnt life-threatening unless it goes untreated, because they believe they can pray it away and if the child dies then that's what God wanted.

Or take a look at the USA where you can't become president unless you're a Christian because so many people in the country believe in God and they'd never elect someone godless into power, so you end up with nutters like George W Bush with their fingers on the global nuclear extinction button just waiting for God to tell them when to push it to rid the world of the evil countries that are predominantly another religion and bring about the End Of Days as foretold in Revelation.

Or the AIDS example from my previous post, where missionaries have convinced huge numbers of people in Africa that God is the only way and He says "no condoms", which has led to the deaths of millions of people worldwide.

I do believe that the vast majority of religious people believe that they are being good moral people with their lifestyles, but unfortunately that means that there is a foundation in place upon which some seriously dangerous ideas can be built when certain sections of the religious community start trying to outdo the rest in the piety stakes, where it is possible for absolute atrocities to be justified in the name of the lead character in your holy book of choice.

I think in most religions there are good and bad and extremes. I have no issues with athiests highlighting extrmes and the bad as long as if focuses on them all across all religions. However, tarring all with the same brush is a tad unfair. Certainly the christians I know and have seen recently just get on with life, didnt preach, were just trying to do a bit of good without hurting anyone. I agree though that the right wing christians in the USA are mad.

As i have continually said I dont know who is right - I would say organised religion doesnt hold all the answers but I would also say science doesnt know everything either.

In the meantime just chill till we find out one way or the other when we die.

We need to vent our anger at people like Rodwell!!!

 

[AlpineExile]

Science flies people to the moon. Religion flies people into buildings.

Logon or register to see this image

 

[fyl2u]

I think in most religions there are good and bad and extremes.

Absolutely. No argument here. And like I said, I think the vast majority of religious people will be good moral people that just want to do right by their god's word. Unfortunately there are some scarily immoral things in certainly each of the three main monotheistic holy books, that when taken as absolute truths can lead to serious harm to others.

I have no issues with athiests highlighting extrmes and the bad as long as if focuses on them all across all religions.

Absolutely. I do tend to focus mainly on Christianity because that's my own background so it's the religion I know the most about.

For me, the underlying danger of all religions is the tenet of "you must start with the holy book as the answer to all your questions, and deny any evidence that contradicts it in order to maintain your beliefs", as oppose to the scientific approach of "collect evidence through experimentation and adjust your opinion according to the results".

However, tarring all with the same brush is a tad unfair. Certainly the christians I know and have seen recently just get on with life, didnt preach, were just trying to do a bit of good without hurting anyone. I agree though that the right wing christians in the USA are mad.

Well this is the thing isn't it? If we've learned anything from the USA it's that it really doesn't take much for "trying to do good in the name of God without hurting anyone" to take enough of a foothold in society to become a breeding ground for dangerous ideas, denial of potentially catastrophic global perils like climate change, protesters outside abortion clinics shouting "baby killers!" at patients, and people turning up at gay nightclubs with machine guns trying to rid the world of what they perceive as immorality by massacring the patrons because they believe hurricane Katrina was sent by God to punish the US for allowing homosexuals to exist.

As i have continually said I dont know who is right - I would say organised religion doesnt hold all the answers but I would also say science doesnt know everything either.

Indeed. I'm sure pretty much every scientist in the world would agree with you that science doesn't claim to have all the answers. Unfortunately not every religious person would agree with you about their religion not having all the answers.

In the meantime just chill till we find out one way or the other when we die.

...or we don't.

We need to vent our anger at people like Rodwell!!!

That's not a very Christian attitude regarding Rodwell, mind.

As a very clever holy man once said, "anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering".

Or if you prefer 1 John 2:9 "anyone who claims to be in the light but hates a brother or sister is still in the darkness".

 

[dangermows]

Logon or register to see this image

Without science there wouldn't have been any planes ffs

 

[AlpineExile]

Without science there wouldn't have been any planes ffs

Or skyscrapers, or enough people surviving childhood to fill them both.

 

[dangermows]

Or skyscrapers, or enough people surviving childhood to fill them both.

Exactly.

 

[Northumberland Rocks]

Absolutely. No argument here. And like I said, I think the vast majority of religious people will be good moral people that just want to do right by their god's word. Unfortunately there are some scarily immoral things in certainly each of the three main monotheistic holy books, that when taken as absolute truths can lead to serious harm to others.



Absolutely. I do tend to focus mainly on Christianity because that's my own background so it's the religion I know the most about.

For me, the underlying danger of all religions is the tenet of "you must start with the holy book as the answer to all your questions, and deny any evidence that contradicts it in order to maintain your beliefs", as oppose to the scientific approach of "collect evidence through experimentation and adjust your opinion according to the results".



Well this is the thing isn't it? If we've learned anything from the USA it's that it really doesn't take much for "trying to do good in the name of God without hurting anyone" to take enough of a foothold in society to become a breeding ground for dangerous ideas, denial of potentially catastrophic global perils like climate change, protesters outside abortion clinics shouting "baby killers!" at patients, and people turning up at gay nightclubs with machine guns trying to rid the world of what they perceive as immorality by massacring the patrons because they believe hurricane Katrina was sent by God to punish the US for allowing homosexuals to exist.



Indeed. I'm sure pretty much every scientist in the world would agree with you that science doesn't claim to have all the answers. Unfortunately not every religious person would agree with you about their religion not having all the answers.



...or we don't.



That's not a very Christian attitude regarding Rodwell, mind.

As a very clever holy man once said, "anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering".

Or if you prefer 1 John 2:9 "anyone who claims to be in the light but hates a brother or sister is still in the darkness".

Dont disagree with most of that mate.

Apart from Rodwell - he can rot in hell for what he is doing to my football club.

 

[fyl2u]

Dont disagree with most of that mate.

Apart from Rodwell - he can rot in hell for what he is doing to my football club.

Haha, yeah, what does Jesus know eh? It's not like Bethlehem United ever had someone like Rodwell leeching off them so JC really didn't understand our pain.

 

[DaveH]

Ask any physicist "Is there a god?" and 99% will answer "I don't know", which is correct. Ask any physicist "Do you believe in god?" and 99% will answer "No".

They will look at the evidence, see a universe 14 billion years across, evidence of the number of planets in the universe, the number of species of animals, understand the laws of thermodynamics and how matter distributes through the universe. Then think, did a man with a beard do all that just for a selection of the population from one specific species of animal, on one specific planet, at one specific time in the history universe. Nah.

You have just made the leap from the concept of God to organised religion and using one to dismiss the other.

To me, there are 3 potential levels of 'God'.

1) God the creator. How the hell did this amazing universe come from nothing? Science is providing more answers day by day showing how the universe and life on this planet evolved, but how did all this matter come into existence in the first place? It is another one where everyone has to admit 'I don't know' - in much the same way that a relatively short time ago people didn't really know what lay beyond this planet or the scale of the universe. As you go further back to the big bang and what started it, you have to admit that a God or something of great power operating on a level we can barely conceive, could have kick started all this and perhaps the universe we know is something tiny in something much much bigger. Science can not say either way, but I'm pretty certain they did not model each planet, moon, sheep, tree etc by hand. That is stuff that just happened once the universe started. Equally it could have been by chance.

2) The all seeing ever living God. If you admit that something far bigger and more powerful could create the Universe then it is equally possible that they can view the whole Universe and could be older than it is. It might not be the same God as the creator, but it is possible and again we can not prove either way.

Almost all religions are based on the first two existing in some form or other. But then you have....

3) The God of organised religion. This is a God (or Gods) who give your life purpose, who say what you can eat, what you can drink, what you can wear, if you should have a beard or not, what you do on certain days of the week, who you should marry, who you should love, who you should kill. A god that takes a daily interest in your specific life, a god that can view the whole Universe but watches to see how you behave as a person. In some religions this God has a real vanity issue. You might be the kindest, gentlest most generous person who ever lived and be a shining example of all the qualities the religion holds true, but if you don't believe in the God or worship in the right way at the right time then it is eternal damnation for you. This is a god who controls everything and a god who's teaching is often in conflict with what we can see for ourselves through scientific observation.

Gods 1 and 2 do not have to mean anything about any of the gods in 3. If god 2 existed, it is entirely possible they look at earth and think 'what the hell are you doing'?

Personally I think however the Universe happened, it is so mind blowingly amazing that I personally will never understand it. Either a new branch of physics or a god, who knows but when you think about it, either the universe has always been or it came from nothing. Both are amazingly complex concepts that I doubt any human currently alive can get their heads around it. If that is a God, well so be it, it actually makes little difference.

I don't care if god 2 exists or not, if they did then I'm like an amoeba amongst many to them.

God 3 - Is the one most people argue about when they say God. Such religion is not for me.