Home » General Discussions » Heated Discussions and Debates » Questions I would like to pose to athiests
|
|
| Re: Questions I would like to pose to athiests [message #449253 is a reply to message #449209] |
Wed, 29 June 2011 16:43   |
 |
Altzan
Messages: 1586
Registered: September 2008
Location: Tennessee
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| iRANian wrote on Tue, 28 June 2011 13:24 |
just look at the atheists in this thread, you can't deny their jackasses and scum cant you
|
The way I see it is, they stand up for what they believe in (no offense to those who say it isn't a belief, even though I have no idea why calling it a belief is a bad idea) and don't hide their contempt for religion. That expression of their thoughts on religion can easily be seen as jackassery, especially since the term is mostly opinionated.
Spoony and Starbuzz are simply very vocal about the issue. And Spoony has indeed mentioned the defense of free idea and thought.
While being respectful to another concerning their beliefs is nice and commendable, it's by no means necessary.
Just my two cents.
I cannot imagine how the clockwork of the universe can exist without a clockmaker. ~Voltaire
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Questions I would like to pose to athiests [message #449271 is a reply to message #442568] |
Thu, 30 June 2011 04:12 |
 |
Spoony
Messages: 3915
Registered: January 2006
Karma: 0
|
General (3 Stars)
Tactics & Strategies Moderator |
|
|
i have a feeling we won't see a reply to me and starbuzz's rebuttals from muaddib, instead he'll come back in six months and spout the same bullshit lies again about how the big bad atheists want to kill him
seriously, what a lying little twat
Unleash the Renerageâ„¢
Renedrama [ren-i-drah-muh]
- noun
1. the inevitable criticism one receives after doing something awful
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Re: Questions I would like to pose to athiests [message #449517 is a reply to message #449516] |
Fri, 08 July 2011 11:59 |
iRANian
Messages: 4299
Registered: April 2011
Karma: 0
|
General (4 Stars) |
|
|
| Taz wrote on Fri, 08 July 2011 11:48 |
There are only 2 reasons we live.
To live and fornicate.
We may have evolved into thinking beings, but we are still animals. 99% of our behavior is centered around surviving and finding a mating partner.
|
And trolling rebarn
Long time and well respected Renegade community member, programmer, modder and tester.
Scripts 4.0 private beta tester since May 2011.
My Renegade server plugins releases
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Questions I would like to pose to athiests [message #462099 is a reply to message #442568] |
Sun, 29 January 2012 23:44 |
 |
R315r4z0r
Messages: 3836
Registered: March 2005
Location: New York
Karma: 0
|
General (3 Stars) |
|
|
It's been a while since I made some flame bait.
Theists, for the most part, are peacefully misguided people following a simple ideology/concept that has been around since ancient times. Granted, some are less peaceful than others, most tend to stay to themselves.
Atheists, for the most part, are pretty much the same as stated above. Except for the peaceful part and the staying to themselves part. They tend to be the type of person who will cram their beliefs down your throat if you even hint and the idea of a God or deity. Atheists also tend to have a "moocher" layer of people who are merely calling themselves Atheists because they are too lazy and too ignorant to follow a religious belief. IE "God can't exist because I don't feel like reading the Bible."
Neither is proven true (or false) and both are merely religious beliefs. And yes, for your moochers, BOTH are religious beliefs. Atheism is a rejection of a God, not a rejection of religion since the rejection of a God is a religion in and of itself.
That's why the only true belief, for anyone who holds logic above all that they believe, is Agnosticism. The position of understanding that there is no definitive proof for or against the existence of a supreme, mighty deity.
TL;DR version:
Stop debating things that can't be proven.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Questions I would like to pose to athiests [message #462111 is a reply to message #462102] |
Mon, 30 January 2012 13:38 |
|
R315r4z0r
Messages: 3836
Registered: March 2005
Location: New York
Karma: 0
|
General (3 Stars) |
|
|
| liquidv2 wrote on Mon, 30 January 2012 04:34 |
| R315r4z0r wrote on Mon, 30 January 2012 00:44 |
Stop debating things that can't be proven.
|
ah; then how do you explain the bible kind sir? 
|
It's a book. Someone wrote it. It's existence doesn't prove that there is a God. For all anyone knows all of the stories in it could have been simply made up.
| Spoony wrote on Mon, 30 January 2012 11:42 |
you're a fool, r4z0r.
|
Elaborate, please.
Anyone who claims to be a true supporter of science should know there are no such things as absolute truths. And they should also know that science is not an opponent of religion or the belief in a God or deity.
Saying, as fact, that there is no God is the foolish thing. It's just as foolish as saying, as fact, that there is a God.
You don't make assumptions and then try finding things to support your assumption. Doing that narrows your mind and makes you tend to ignore the things that would disprove your assumption. The absence of proof for one side of an argument is not proof for the other side. There is a big difference between making stuff up and forming a hypothesis.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Questions I would like to pose to athiests [message #462116 is a reply to message #462111] |
Mon, 30 January 2012 14:34 |
|
Spoony
Messages: 3915
Registered: January 2006
Karma: 0
|
General (3 Stars)
Tactics & Strategies Moderator |
|
|
| R315r4z0r wrote on Mon, 30 January 2012 13:38 |
Anyone who claims to be a true supporter of science should know there are no such things as absolute truths. And they should also know that science is not an opponent of religion or the belief in a God or deity.
|
unless the religion makes claims about the way stuff is, as they so frequently do.
| Quote: |
Saying, as fact, that there is no God is the foolish thing. It's just as foolish as saying, as fact, that there is a God.
|
may i ask why you used a capital G in 'god'? is it because you're referring to a specific god?
| Quote: |
The absence of proof for one side of an argument is not proof for the other side.
|
depends what you think "the other side" is. despite the ludicrous earlier post, an atheist needn't assert the non-existence of this or that god; an atheist can simply reject religion, and/or say they do not find any of these religions convincing. the complete absence of evidence for this or that religion does support this atheist position.
| Quote: |
Theists, for the most part, are peacefully misguided people following a simple ideology/concept that has been around since ancient times. Granted, some are less peaceful than others, most tend to stay to themselves.
|
it often depends whether they have power or not.
| Quote: |
Atheists, for the most part, are pretty much the same as stated above. Except for the peaceful part and the staying to themselves part. They tend to be the type of person who will cram their beliefs down your throat if you even hint and the idea of a God or deity.
|
when you say "cram their beliefs down my throat", is it possible what you actually mean is "engage in civilised conversation"? cos that's what people who say that usually turn out to mean
| Quote: |
Atheists also tend to have a "moocher" layer of people who are merely calling themselves Atheists because they are too lazy and too ignorant to follow a religious belief. IE "God can't exist because I don't feel like reading the Bible."
|
where did you see anyone say that? is it possible you just made it up?
| Quote: |
Neither is proven true (or false) and both are merely religious beliefs. And yes, for your moochers, BOTH are religious beliefs. Atheism is a rejection of a God, not a rejection of religion since the rejection of a God is a religion in and of itself.
That's why the only true belief, for anyone who holds logic above all that they believe, is Agnosticism.
|
there are at least three words here you seem to have pretty weird definitions for.
| Quote: |
That's why the only true belief, for anyone who holds logic above all that they believe, is Agnosticism. The position of understanding that there is no definitive proof for or against the existence of a supreme, mighty deity.
The position of understanding that there is no definitive proof for or against the existence of a supreme, mighty deity.
|
k, swap the christian god for Zeus. no proof for him, and you can't strictly prove his non-existence either (and that's even after we more or less know how and why thunder and lightning happens). one group of people says zeus is real and spends time praying to him in the expectation that he can hear them, the other group goes about their business as if zeus were fictional.
if you think both of these positions are equally supported by the lack of evidence for zeus, you're a fool.
Unleash the Renerageâ„¢
Renedrama [ren-i-drah-muh]
- noun
1. the inevitable criticism one receives after doing something awful
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Questions I would like to pose to athiests [message #462128 is a reply to message #462116] |
Mon, 30 January 2012 23:52 |
|
R315r4z0r
Messages: 3836
Registered: March 2005
Location: New York
Karma: 0
|
General (3 Stars) |
|
|
| Spoony wrote on Mon, 30 January 2012 16:34 |
unless the religion makes claims about the way stuff is, as they so frequently do.
|
I don't understand. What do their claims have anything to do with the way you or I or anyone else perceives things? They can believe what they want to believe and I can do the same. Just because we may not agree doesn't mean I have to get all pissy and argue with their beliefs.
| Spoony wrote on Mon, 30 January 2012 16:34 |
may i ask why you used a capital G in 'god'? is it because you're referring to a specific god?
|
No, not specifically. That's just how I've always seen the word written, so I just assumed it was correct. To be honest, I'm actually not very good at grammar...
| Spoony wrote on Mon, 30 January 2012 16:34 |
depends what you think "the other side" is. despite the ludicrous earlier post, an atheist needn't assert the non-existence of this or that god; an atheist can simply reject religion, and/or say they do not find any of these religions convincing. the complete absence of evidence for this or that religion does support this atheist position.
|
I'm not sure if you're under the wrong impression of what atheism is or what religion is. Atheism is the rejection of theism (hence the prefix "a"). The broadest definition of theism is merely the belief that at least one 'god' exists. Therefore, the rejection to that would be the idea that not even one 'god' exists. Both are under the even broader term of religion.
But to get back to what you were saying, failing to prove the claims of one religion is not evidence to support the belief in atheism. Thinking so is a fallacy and is just as bad any other religion out there claiming to be right. What reason do you have to hold your beliefs over the beliefs of others? Just because they can't prove their religious beliefs are true doesn't mean you don't have to in return.
If someone on a murder trial cannot produce evidence to prove that they aren't guilty, that doesn't mean that they are guilty. Until one side can display evidence then the point remains neutral.
You can continuously swat down the theories of god(s) that people propose for years on end. But doing so will not progress the final verdict of the debate anywhere. The only thing that doing that proves is the fact that nobody actually knows anything.
| Spoony wrote on Mon, 30 January 2012 16:34 |
it often depends whether they have power or not.
|
I can see why you would say that. And I would actually agree with you. But I also want to point out my original post wasn't speaking in absolutes; it was more of an observational opinion of mine I was sharing. (Also my attempt to troll the thread back to life)
I can see why having someone in power who harbors firm beliefs for something can be a threat against the ideals of those who disagree. But the thing is, however, if we go this route then we wouldn't be talking about the belief in whether or not a supreme being exists anymore. We would be talking about politics and how said person in power is running their country (or town, or group or whatever it is they have power over).
| Spoony wrote on Mon, 30 January 2012 16:34 |
when you say "cram their beliefs down my throat", is it possible what you actually mean is "engage in civilised conversation"? cos that's what people who say that usually turn out to mean
|
No, I did not. A civilized conversation is what I'd assume to be what we are having now. But an instance of cramming one's ideals into someone else would be getting defensive whenever someone mentions something that is disagreeable.
| Spoony wrote on Mon, 30 January 2012 16:34 |
where did you see anyone say that? is it possible you just made it up?
|
Applying the concept of a moocher here is something I made up. But the idea is most certainly not something I made up.
Most people who I see that claim to be atheists are usually students. I once new someone who was so outspoken about their belief in atheism that they didn't even know that Jesus was a real person. He thought that the existence of Jesus was part of the religious belief itself and therefore argued that he never existed.
I find it very rare to find someone my age who is actually informed enough to make an actual decision about the their beliefs. There are people like that, but they are in the minority.
But that is why I said a layer of people who claim to be atheists are moochers. To put it another way, it's very similar to the "TL;DR" concept that you find online. If something is too long, people will just decide to ignore it completely. These people I'm talking about just don't have an interest to learn about other religions and simply turn to atheism by default since they think it is the easiest. If asked to explain why they are atheists, they probably wouldn't be able to provide a convincing position as to why they believe what they believe.
However, don't take that as me saying that all atheists are like that. No, that's why I specifically said a layer of people. Also, I realize that the observations I made are purely from my little slice of the population and obviously is in no way a representation of people as a whole.
| Spoony wrote on Mon, 30 January 2012 16:34 |
| Quote: |
Neither is proven true (or false) and both are merely religious beliefs. And yes, for your moochers, BOTH are religious beliefs. Atheism is a rejection of a God, not a rejection of religion since the rejection of a God is a religion in and of itself.
That's why the only true belief, for anyone who holds logic above all that they believe, is Agnosticism.
|
there are at least three words here you seem to have pretty weird definitions for.
|
Which ones would that be? I'll venture a guess and say atheism, logic and agnosticism?
| Spoony wrote on Mon, 30 January 2012 16:34 |
k, swap the christian god for Zeus. no proof for him, and you can't strictly prove his non-existence either (and that's even after we more or less know how and why thunder and lightning happens). one group of people says zeus is real and spends time praying to him in the expectation that he can hear them, the other group goes about their business as if zeus were fictional.
if you think both of these positions are equally supported by the lack of evidence for zeus, you're a fool.
|
You've lost me. I don't understand your example or why it is any different from any other system of beliefs. Also, I've already said that the lack of evidence is NOT evidence in itself. Meaning if neither belief can prove they are right then neither belief is can be supported.
Saying both sides are supported through the lack of proof to disprove either of them is a fallacy. Without evidence, neither are right nor wrong.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Questions I would like to pose to athiests [message #462139 is a reply to message #462128] |
Tue, 31 January 2012 06:50 |
|
Spoony
Messages: 3915
Registered: January 2006
Karma: 0
|
General (3 Stars)
Tactics & Strategies Moderator |
|
|
| R315r4z0r wrote on Mon, 30 January 2012 23:52 |
I don't understand. What do their claims have anything to do with the way you or I or anyone else perceives things? They can believe what they want to believe and I can do the same. Just because we may not agree doesn't mean I have to get all pissy and argue with their beliefs.
|
I know you don't understand. But now you're moving the goalposts; earlier you were saying science isn't opposed to religion - this is only the case if religions don't make scientific claims, which they do all the time. now you're saying you personally don't care whether they're right or not, which is a huge difference.
| Quote: |
| Spoony wrote on Mon, 30 January 2012 16:34 |
may i ask why you used a capital G in 'god'? is it because you're referring to a specific god?
|
No, not specifically. That's just how I've always seen the word written, so I just assumed it was correct. To be honest, I'm actually not very good at grammar...
|
well, whether the question refers to a specific god (when people say 'God', they invariably have a specific one in mind) or just any god makes it a completely different question, so it's worth drawing a distinction.
| Quote: |
I'm not sure if you're under the wrong impression of what atheism is or what religion is. Atheism is the rejection of theism (hence the prefix "a"). The broadest definition of theism is merely the belief that at least one 'god' exists. Therefore, the rejection to that would be the idea that not even one 'god' exists. Both are under the even broader term of religion.
|
trust me, you're the one who doesn't know what those two words mean. an atheist need not assert the non-existence of any particular god. yes, it is theism that is rejected, and theism is a positive belief in a specific god (or several gods) and specific claims about the nature of that god. someone who is not convinced that these things are true - that's enough to be considered an atheist. one might even reject theism on moral grounds rather than (or as well as) on the basis that they consider it fiction.
as for "religion", no. not thinking there's a god doesn't qualify as a religion.
| Quote: |
But to get back to what you were saying, failing to prove the claims of one religion is not evidence to support the belief in atheism. Thinking so is a fallacy and is just as bad any other religion out there claiming to be right.
|
again, you're just being foolish. the complete lack of evidence for religion X is a good reason to go about your business as if religion X were fiction. it may not conclusively demonstrate that the gods and prophets and commandments held dear by the adherents of religion X are fictional, but it doesn't need to go that far.
| Quote: |
What reason do you have to hold your beliefs over the beliefs of others? Just because they can't prove their religious beliefs are true doesn't mean you don't have to in return.
|
and yet again you're being foolish.
the first sentence, is that even a serious question? i hope not. as for the second, you're just plain wrong. "hi, these guys over here worship a god and make very specific claims about that god and how he wants us to behave. these guys over here don't find this convincing and go about their lives as if it were fictional. both of you have the same amount of proving to do"
listen to how stupid this is when it's played back to you, r4z0r
| Quote: |
If someone on a murder trial cannot produce evidence to prove that they aren't guilty, that doesn't mean that they are guilty. Until one side can display evidence then the point remains neutral.
|
actually, i'm glad you brought up this analogy, because it shows why you're wrong. the neutral position is "not guilty". if there's no evidence that the guy did it, and no evidence that the guy didn't do it, the verdict will be "not guilty".
| Quote: |
You can continuously swat down the theories of god(s) that people propose for years on end.
|
Sure can.
| Quote: |
But doing so will not progress the final verdict of the debate anywhere. The only thing that doing that proves is the fact that nobody actually knows anything.
|
foolish again. but hey, the conclusion that at least one side of the argument (that side being composed of thousands of mutually contradictory factions) plainly doesn't have a good reason to think their claims are true is enough of a conclusion.
| Spoony wrote on Mon, 30 January 2012 16:34 |
I can see why you would say that. And I would actually agree with you. But I also want to point out my original post wasn't speaking in absolutes; it was more of an observational opinion of mine I was sharing.
|
doesn't change the fact you were being stupid
| Quote: |
I can see why having someone in power who harbors firm beliefs for something can be a threat against the ideals of those who disagree. But the thing is, however, if we go this route then we wouldn't be talking about the belief in whether or not a supreme being exists anymore. We would be talking about politics and how said person in power is running their country (or town, or group or whatever it is they have power over).
|
uh? we can talk about politics too. but whether there's a god who really does behave like the god of the bible - that's an important question. it's an enormous relief to me to think there isn't one. finding out there really was such a thing would be the worst news i could possibly imagine, worse than the outbreak of nuclear war. no, this is an important question.
| Spoony wrote on Mon, 30 January 2012 16:34 |
when you say "cram their beliefs down my throat", is it possible what you actually mean is "engage in civilised conversation"? cos that's what people who say that usually turn out to mean
|
No, I did not. A civilized conversation is what I'd assume to be what we are having now. But an instance of cramming one's ideals into someone else would be getting defensive whenever someone mentions something that is disagreeable. [/quote]
well then, there you go. "cram their beliefs down my throat" is one of those phrases where, once you examine it a little, usually doesn't mean a damn thing. it's like "whoring" in renegade. you might as well not have said it.
| Spoony wrote on Mon, 30 January 2012 16:34 |
Most people who I see that claim to be atheists are usually students. I once new someone who was so outspoken about their belief in atheism that they didn't even know that Jesus was a real person. He thought that the existence of Jesus was part of the religious belief itself and therefore argued that he never existed.
|
so?
two things. firstly the evidence for the historical Jesus is not conclusive. secondly asserting that a man called Jesus lived in this time and place doesn't vindicate a single word of the bible or christianity.
| Quote: |
I find it very rare to find someone my age who is actually informed enough to make an actual decision about the their beliefs. There are people like that, but they are in the minority.
|
i'll restrain the urge to just say "that's because you're American", it's too cheap. i'll simply say you're not that well-informed yourself.
| Quote: |
But that is why I said a layer of people who claim to be atheists are moochers. To put it another way, it's very similar to the "TL;DR" concept that you find online. If something is too long, people will just decide to ignore it completely. These people I'm talking about just don't have an interest to learn about other religions and simply turn to atheism by default since they think it is the easiest. If asked to explain why they are atheists, they probably wouldn't be able to provide a convincing position as to why they believe what they believe.
|
why do they have to? why does the person who just wants to go about their life without any of this religious bullshit have any explaining to do?
of course, many religions say that not only will there be questions for this person... there will be suffering for this person.
| Spoony wrote on Mon, 30 January 2012 16:34 |
Which ones would that be? I'll venture a guess and say atheism, logic and agnosticism?
|
atheism, agnosticism and religion.
| Spoony wrote on Mon, 30 January 2012 16:34 |
You've lost me. I don't understand your example or why it is any different from any other system of beliefs. Also, I've already said that the lack of evidence is NOT evidence in itself. Meaning if neither belief can prove they are right then neither belief is can be supported.
|
you've gone back to talking like a damn fool again, i'm afraid.
read the analogy to zeus again. one side behaves as if this god were real and if specific claims about this god and the things he does and the way he wants us to behave are known. the other side behaves as if this were fiction. if there's no evidence for the existence of zeus, this positively supports the way the second group of people are behaving. if however it cannot be conclusively proven that zeus is not real (and it can't), that does not support the way the first group of people are behaving. and you're just an idiot for acting as though the two positions are equivalent and have the same amount of proving to do.
Unleash the Renerageâ„¢
Renedrama [ren-i-drah-muh]
- noun
1. the inevitable criticism one receives after doing something awful
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Questions I would like to pose to athiests [message #462146 is a reply to message #462143] |
Tue, 31 January 2012 10:36 |
|
Spoony
Messages: 3915
Registered: January 2006
Karma: 0
|
General (3 Stars)
Tactics & Strategies Moderator |
|
|
| Jerad Gray wrote on Tue, 31 January 2012 10:02 |
| Spoony wrote on Tue, 31 January 2012 06:50 |
|
So what's your point, to my knowledge all theories on how we came into being have some missing evidence in some way or another.
|
and some don't have a damn thing to support them at all, and don't deserve to share the same conversation as the others.
| Quote: |
Is it safe to conclude that it's best not to believe anything at all as all of it could be proven wrong eventually thus making us look stupid for learning about it in the first place?
|
no, it's best to care about whether the things you believe are true or not, and to welcome your beliefs being challenged where you can be vindicated on the bits you're right about, and be corrected and thereby learn more from the bits you thought you were right about.
Unleash the Renerageâ„¢
Renedrama [ren-i-drah-muh]
- noun
1. the inevitable criticism one receives after doing something awful
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Questions I would like to pose to athiests [message #462152 is a reply to message #462150] |
Tue, 31 January 2012 11:31 |
 |
Jerad2142
Messages: 3805
Registered: July 2006
Location: USA
Karma: 6
|
General (3 Stars) |
|
|
| Spoony wrote on Tue, 31 January 2012 11:27 |
i'm sure you think you're making a good point there
|
I try not to think I am making a good point to anyone on-line; it is hard enough making a point to people you know in real life.
However if you disagree or agree with my statement I am all for hearing why.
[Updated on: Tue, 31 January 2012 11:37] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| Re: Questions I would like to pose to athiests [message #462154 is a reply to message #442568] |
Tue, 31 January 2012 11:41 |
|
Spoony
Messages: 3915
Registered: January 2006
Karma: 0
|
General (3 Stars)
Tactics & Strategies Moderator |
|
|
your post basically said don't try to figure stuff out because we don't already know it all for certain
Unleash the Renerageâ„¢
Renedrama [ren-i-drah-muh]
- noun
1. the inevitable criticism one receives after doing something awful
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Sat May 04 14:06:49 MST 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.01356 seconds
|
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
