athiests...

[T0pwater]

I hope you don't go and get the thread locked for all of us.

[gtpinsc]

I hope you don't go and get the thread locked for all of us.

doubtful.

[GtpKo]

To say that being an atheist doesn't take faith is just wrong. Here's how. To claim that there is no God, you must also claim that you have been to every corner of the universe, every plane of existence, that you are aware of everything, and that there is nothing you don't know and therefore can say that you've checked and there is no God.

But, since you're not omniscient nor omnipresent, to say %100 there is no God takes a leap of faith as well. Just follow the chain of logic.

I had a friend who claimed to be an atheist. Carl Sagan was his hero. I never insulted his beliefs, just shared mine with him. He would insult my beliefs all the time however. Thats always the way it is. Atheists will eventually resort to "you're crazy" or "you're stupid" and think that the scientific method lets them get away with that. A true follower of Christ will eventually, what, share his beliefs maybe?

Want some more logic? Lets take a run-of-the-mill atheist and myself for example. If there is no God and I die, nothing will happen I'll just rot. So will the atheist. Maybe I'll die without fear but thats it. Now, if there is a God and I die, I'll find out what Heaven is like. But for the atheist he'll end up in the "outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth". Now which, logically, would be the better choice? Rot or Afterlife?

Do you have empirical evidence that you'll wake up tomorrow? But you believe that you will.

And about Christ. He healed the sick, forgave people, exposed hypocrites for what they are, fed and cared for the poor, stood for the truth and what did those who didn't believe in him do? Crucifiy Him!

I would suggest, and I'm not "cramming this down your throat", suggest that any of you just start reading the Gospel. The 4 books Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Four eye-witnesses who are each testifying to what they saw and heard.

Wouldn't the testimony of 4 witnesses be convincing in court? Why do you doubt?

[KeithGTP03]

The 4 books Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Four eye-witnesses who are each testifying to what they saw and heard.

Wouldn't the testimony of 4 witnesses be convincing in court? Why do you doubt?

Thousands of people saw David Copperfield make the Statue of Liberty disappear. And Im willing to bet at least 4 of them believed it really happened.

[RareGMFan]

I'll cede to you on both points. I really mulled over how to respond to you all afternoon and I'd say my first 10 possible responses didn't pass the aforementioned filter. I really didn't realize I was getting into debate territory, because that's not where I want to go.

Well...I realize you started the thread out of frustration at a particular situation. I understand that, and don't blame you for being ticked off at your roommate. However....you honestly started a thread targeted at atheists.....WITH a thumbs down icon next to the title....and engage in discussions consisting of typical misconceptions about atheists.....but didn't realize it would spark a debate?

To say that being an atheist doesn't take faith is just wrong. Here's how. To claim that there is no God, you must also claim that you have been to every corner of the universe, every plane of existence, that you are aware of everything, and that there is nothing you don't know and therefore can say that you've checked and there is no God.

But, since you're not omniscient nor omnipresent, to say %100 there is no God takes a leap of faith as well. Just follow the chain of logic.

I'm sorry, but there is no logic to follow here because you're making an argument based on a biased premise that LACKS pure logic. Your argument is based on the false premise that "the belief in a god is the default position we're born into". As I mentioned in my previous post, that is a fallacy. The only reason we don't see this or think of it that way is because humans have believed in deities for so long that it is a part of the fabric of our existence. However, that doesn't make it any more true. Think about it. We are born NEUTRAL, not believers. A blank slate if you will. We have no preconceived notions on ANY subject, not just theological ones. The ideas, theories, perspectives, beliefs, etc that come to shape our existence/who we become are then formed in us in infinite varying ways and degrees throughout our lives. So when the concept of a deity is introduced to us, at whatever age, and which ever one(s) they may be, it is merely just another concept that can shape who we become (taking us away from our original clean slate state of neutrality). However, should I chose not to accept/believe in this concept, I am simply rejecting the claim. I do not need to CLAIM that YOUR claim is not true, much less PROVE it isn't true. Rather, those introducing the claim to me need to prove that the claim is true in order to move me from a state of neutrality on the matter to one where I side with that claim. When you say you must prove god doesn't exist, this is literally what's happening:

Person 1 makes Claim A (the Bible is the truth)
Person 2 says I can't see Claim A being true
Person 1 now says by not believing in my Claim A, you are making a Claim yourself; Claim B (not believing Claim A = claiming Claim A is false)
Person 1 now asks Person 2 to prove his Claim B
Person 2 cannot prove Claim B because it is not actually a claim
Person 1 feels since Person 2 cannot prove Claim B, Claim A must be true
Now just imagine if we threw in a Person 3 into the mix making Claim C; Islamic faith. Since Person 2 can't prove Claim B (a lack of believing Claim A & Claim C), Person 1 states Claim A must be true AND Person 2 states Claim C must be true, making both the Bible and the Koran true.

....do people really not see or understand this, or what's wrong with this "logic"? The person stating s/he does not believe in ANY deity since there is not enough evidence to sway the person one way or the other is merely returning to the natural born state of neutrality. You do not need to "prove" anything to return to a state of neutrality.

I had a friend who claimed to be an atheist. Carl Sagan was his hero. I never insulted his beliefs, just shared mine with him. He would insult my beliefs all the time however. Thats always the way it is. Atheists will eventually resort to "you're crazy" or "you're stupid" and think that the scientific method lets them get away with that. A true follower of Christ will eventually, what, share his beliefs maybe?

Perhaps you don't see how many Christians react to atheists because it's not exactly common to run into one. To theists, it is a sharing of beliefs to discuss the differences in your common theism. But when someone who lacks any belief at all comes along, it's a whole other conversation. For example, I remember finally telling a part-time coworker I was atheist. I can't remember why I finally broke down and told him this. I only remember I did due to a reaction he actually had a few days later. We were having a conversation about something, and while I was talking, I noticed he looked kind of zoned out for a second. Figured I was boring him. Then out of no where while I was still talking, in a louder than usual voice, he says "HOW CAN YOU JUST STAND THERE AND NOT BELIEVE IN GOD?!" Initially, I was shocked and didn't know how to react. When I didn't say anything for a few seconds, he continued. "How can you see everything created around us, and not know god did it?!" After another few seconds, I calmly said I simply don't presume anything, including a creator created everything around us. "So all these saints and apostles died for nothing? They would have died for their belief if it wasn't true?!" I said people die for beliefs all the time, including the belief that they will be transported to the mother ship when they die, or that David Koresh is a prophet, etc. Someones level of devotion to their beliefs has nothing to do with how true or accurate those beliefs are. At this point, I didn't really want to continue the discussion because I could tell by his "logic" that the convo was going to turn ugly. Luckily, he dropped it there. However, he was weird with me for several weeks after that, until things slowly got back to how they were prior to that exchange. Unfortunately, he was laid off a few months later due to cutbacks.

Want some more logic? Lets take a run-of-the-mill atheist and myself for example. If there is no God and I die, nothing will happen I'll just rot. So will the atheist. Maybe I'll die without fear but thats it. Now, if there is a God and I die, I'll find out what Heaven is like. But for the atheist he'll end up in the "outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth". Now which, logically, would be the better choice? Rot or Afterlife?

Again, this is heavily flawed "logic". First of all, the above is what's known in theological circles as Pascal's Wager: The idea that it's better to believe and be wrong, rather than NOT believe and be wrong. The problem with this concept is that it relies on the arrogant assumption that god = YOUR god. Remember, there are a plethora of deities out there, past and present, and you are just as atheist as I am towards all of them save for one. I just happen to take it one deity further than you, so in essence, we have almost the same chance of suffering some kind of eternal punishment. Care to join me in Naraka?

Do you have empirical evidence that you'll wake up tomorrow? But you believe that you will.

That is a really, really poor example. For starters, no one makes the claim "I will wake up tomorrow", let alone "believes" in it. Most people just don't think about it. If you DO stop and think about it, you'd come to the natural realization that you have no control over whether you do or don't.

Secondly, what you're actually talking about is probabilities. We know through empirical evidence that if you are in good health, you stand a very good chance of waking up tomorrow. It would take a freak medical problem, or accident, or foul play, etc. in order not to, which is highly unlikely (unless you live in a really bad neighborhood). This differs greatly from the probability that words written in a book claiming to be about a person's life that was put together 300 years after the fact are factual and accurate.

And about Christ. He healed the sick, forgave people, exposed hypocrites for what they are, fed and cared for the poor, stood for the truth and what did those who didn't believe in him do? Crucifiy Him!

Many (if not all) of the following applied to Osiris, Mithra, Dionysus, etc. long before Jesus' suppose existence:

Born on or near December 25th to a virgin mother.
Promised salvation through belief in him.
Walked on water.
Made food appear from thin air.
Turned water into wine at a wedding.
Gave blind men sight again.
Died for our sins and rose from his grave a few days later.
Promised to return one day.

The 4 books Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Four eye-witnesses who are each testifying to what they saw and heard.

Wouldn't the testimony of 4 witnesses be convincing in court? Why do you doubt?

Because in order not to have doubt, you have to presume a LOT of things to be true, which I will briefly outline. Remember, the Bible was canonized 300 years after Christ's death. That leaves a LOT of leeway in there for doubt and foul play. First of all, you have to presume that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John even existed (if you want, I can go into detail as to why this is doubted). Secondly, you have to presume that Christ existed. Third, you have to presume that each one of these 4 men met him. Fourth, you have to presume that these 4 men accurately recorded their encounters with Christ with no bias, exaggerations, forgetting or leaving out something and with correct recollection of the events and details they have written. Fifth, you have to presume that those exact original records are what the church included in the Bible as the Gospels we know today without ANY kind of alterations when they canonized the Bible. And so on, and so on.

In other words, for all you know, the entire Bible could be a collection of fictitious stories and accounts written by the church under the name of some fictitious authors, and thrown into the Bible as "gospel". Just because the church SAYS these people existed, and that they met a man named Christ, and that this Christ was the son of god, and that these are records of the accounts of interactions with him doesn't make it true. In essence, what you have isn't faith in god. It's faith in the word of men claiming to be speaking/delivering a message on behalf of god 2000 years ago. The problem is, they're in competition with a bunch of other men making a bunch of other similar claims for OTHER gods. They all share the same evidence; word of men, or worse, but more accurate, the word of organizations claiming to be distributing the words of these men that supposedly existed, who are claiming to be speaking for a god they supposedly met.

.....why doubt?

[Nophix]

It isnt limited to Athiests. I'm a Wiccan. I have been for, oh about 20 years. So I know what I believe and why.


We had a couple jahova's Witnesses show up one morning. i answered the door, and they proceeded with their pitch, with my 2 kids standing in the entry way watching them. Ok, fine, no problem. Then they asked if I attended a church, to which I repsonded "Im Wiccan".

She said, and I quote "We're all Wicked sometime. We are all sinners, and need to find him, is that a life you want for your children?"

I'm all for freedom of religion, but NEVER insult my beliefs in front of my family, at my home! I not so politely told her she could shove her false profit and leave anytime she felt up to moving, and not to return, ever.

I'm all for freedom of religion, but dont show up to my house and pull that kind of crap.

[twol8uluz]

It feels better knowing im not the only one out there! I've always felt a bit af shame because of how I've felt about it, but I can't go around faking my feelings and beliefs just to fit in with everyone else. But I feel if ppl can openly talk about god and their beliefs etc. ...so should we, in a polite way of course.

[SlowNA06]

STRONG atheism is not a "belief" or "faith", but rather a LACK of belief or faith due to a lack of empirical evidence.

Fixt. This is the kinda thing I'm talking about - not all atheists are the same kind of atheist.

Secondly, it is not the job of the non-believer to disprove your claims (or those of your faith). The burden of proof is always on the person making the positive claim, as you cannot prove a negative.

The burden of proof can be on either, actually. Frankly, if you're making a point, you've got to bring the proof or you're just a jerk.

most people who claim to be agnostic are also atheist.

I'd love to say this is wrong, but I frankly don't know more than a couple agnostics... most of which are theists.

If you do not have a belief in any particular god as outlined in any scriptures, you are atheist by definition, even if you believe there are other forces or "creators" out there. That just makes you a "weak (not derogatory) atheist", or "agnostic atheist", as opposed to someone who claims to know for a fact that there is no god, which would be a "strong" or "gnostic atheist".

You're confusing your terms somewhat (I could also, perhaps, be a tad pedantic in the case that nobody else thinks the distinctions matter). The belief in a superior force is theist. An agnostic theist would believe that there is a higher power, but it is impossible to know what it is; they are not atheist. Therefore, not all weak atheists are agnostic atheists, either.

[RareGMFan]

Fixt. This is the kinda thing I'm talking about - not all atheists are the same kind of atheist.

Where did I claim all atheists are the same? All I said is that by definition, an a-theist lacks/is without belief in a deity, and that a lack of belief is not a belief in itself. In fact, if anything, the rest of what you quoted got into some detail about how different atheists can be because the term atheism doesn't define them any further than "I do not believe in any particular deity", so I'm not sure what you were getting at here.

The burden of proof can be on either, actually. Frankly, if you're making a point, you've got to bring the proof or you're just a jerk.

So...if I claim the Flying Spaghetti Monster is the one true god, and you deny this, the burden of proof is on YOU to disprove my claim unless you're just a jerk? How does that make sense? Theological topics seem to be the only ones where "disprove my claim" is seen as an acceptable request by the person making the request.

I'd love to say this is wrong, but I frankly don't know more than a couple agnostics... most of which are theists.

.........

You're confusing your terms somewhat (I could also, perhaps, be a tad pedantic in the case that nobody else thinks the distinctions matter). The belief in a superior force is theist. An agnostic theist would believe that there is a higher power, but it is impossible to know what it is; they are not atheist. Therefore, not all weak atheists are agnostic atheists, either.

I'm not confusing the terms at all. It's the mass public that confuses the terms, and the way you defined them above is the stereotypical misconception. Theism is NOT some generic belief in a "superior force". The term was created in the 17th Century to define a believer of at least one specific deity, primarily to take on deism, which was all the rage in the 17th Century (and is what our founding fathers were, NOT Christian, which is another misconception). Whether you are monotheist or polytheist, a theist by definition subscribes to one specific doctrine or another. The lack of belief that ANY deity exists is then atheism. A/theism refers to beliefs, a/gnosticism refers to knowledge. They both address different issues and are not competing labels. Believe me ( ), I've studied, discussed and debated religion for quite a few years now. This isn't just some random topic to discuss that occasionally comes up on a car forum for me, so I have a better grasp on this subject than the average person.

My apologies and laughter but I read this whole paragraph under the voice of Leonard Nemoy The logic part and way you worded the whole thing just made his voice pop into my head.

Great. Now that's stuck in MY head! As soon as I read Leonard Nemoy, I could hear his voice speaking those words, too.



*Edit* How about an FSM reference, Wotgtp?

[LilJoe]

to me i just believe in god i stay away from most religions because they like to say there right but no1 really knows so im not gona pray to any other savior sorry Jesus, like ozzy said "so many religions but only 1 god i dont need another savior" mostly all main relgions do have a god but they just see him in different ways like Christians jews n muslims. but to me i see him as a type of alien who made us and told us how to live are lives peacefully because like nature, there will always be war and everyone will keep having sex.

[gtpinsc]

[Wotgtp]

No FSM or george carlin links yet? Weird.


On a serious note I am an atheist, but I do respect other peoples opinion on religion and beliefs. That's your right as a human being imo. However I do like to bust balls and make jokes about them at times. (ok alot of times, but I do it for the lulz and mean no harm by it)

[DreadMcLaren]

This thread makes me read and think too much lol

[Wotgtp]

haha nice going rareGMfan.

[KeithGTP03]

Not sure why you think anyone attacked you. Weird. Oh and Im not an atheist.

[Big Dave]

It's hard to fight the urge to just type "Well, you know", but I know not to do that because no one would get it... Ignore everything I said, and instead reference this post only... This is this whole thread to me...
OP: an atheist came down on me today...
1/2 of thread: atheists are mean...
Other half: theists are dumb...
Me: Of what I know, atheists are more jerk like than theists...
Rest of thread: you're wrong and also dumb
Me: hypocrites are funny
Rest of thread: That doesn't make sense
Me: I know! I'm so dumb
Rest: Wha, huh???

Do you see what i'm saying now?

[Silver GTP]

Give it a rest guys. Belief in god is like pro-life vs. pro-choice or Red Sox vs. Yankees. You have your side and you will never convince the other side to see it your way. All you do is end up in a pissing contest that neither side can win.

[gpgt04]

give it a rest guys. Belief in god is like pro-life vs. Pro-choice or red sox vs. Yankees. You have your side and you will never convince the other side to see it your way. All you do is end up in a pissing contest that neither side can win.

go sox!

[KeithGTP03]

Well you interpret info different than I do.

[Big Dave]

I eagerly and excitedly await your very own interpretation! I couldn't be more pleased to hear that not only there is a chance for me to be wrong again, but also that I can finally be corrected! Please for the sake of my boredom actually have something to say about this! Oh please oh please drag out a response past a confused sentence that makes no reference to anything...

Oh and Silver? I understand this looks like some kind of religion debate... But read the thread... It isn't... That stopped a little bit ago... I blame me... But as far as I know no one's mad or trying to change a mind at this point... In fact I assure you nothing well thought out or pertinent to any debate will see this hole again... No ones mad or anything... I just honestly can't stop... Wait... I'll go to bed... The whole thing will die... Watch...