Personally, I just don't like folks who try to force their beliefs on other people, whether they are Christian or atheist. There are atheists who are like this, just thankfully not as many as Christians.
As a note, I called an atheists views "beliefs" because just as a Christian cannot prove that there is a god/s, an atheist cannot prove there isn't a god/s.
Again, even trying to equate these two things is completely ridiculous unless you're a pure existentialist.Originally Posted by Cubit
Dawkins just uses his "there is a 99.9% chance that there is no god" line just to appease scientists who have to maintain their discipline and acknowledge that you can't prove the unprovable. But we're all saying the same fucking thing and there's no reason to pussyfoot around it... there is no god,, and we sure as all hell have a million more reasons to disbelieve than to believe.
It's just unfortunate that society now requires us to disprove the ridiculous, whereas we should be forcing THEM to prove the ridiculous. The burden is on the atheist, and that is severely fucking backwards.
What you say doesn't disprove my point. Just as a Christian cannot prove there is a god/s, an atheist cannot prove there isn't a god/s. The views of both groups of people are beliefs drawn from different sources of information.
You believe this because you are an atheist. A Christian would make the exact opposite statement.
Ha, thanks Linoleum. I was looking for that Portland one.
I don't see that it need be either way to be honest. Well at least to a point. when you want your religion to form the basis of state legislation then you need to do better than "because god says it's good/bad" especially when those laws are disciminatory in nature. At its core that is my main problem with religion. It's devisive, especially where you have more than one religion or even branch of the same religion competing for space.It's just unfortunate that society now requires us to disprove the ridiculous, whereas we should be forcing THEM to prove the ridiculous. The burden is on the atheist, and that is severely fucking backwards.
The ID/Creation vs Evolution argument is a case in point, it's not being put forward to further society or education, it's evangelism through the back door. Likewise overturning Gay Marriage, it's founded on no rational objection once you leave "my god says it's an abomination".
Hilariously, a group tried to have those signs on Toronto buses last year. Note that I said tried - there was a news story that ran in the local paper that a group was thinking about maybe putting those signs on a few buses in Toronto.
I live in Kitchener-Waterloo, about a hundred clicks from where these buses would be. The story was about signs on buses in another city.
However, it was enough to cue literally a month's worth of letters to the local paper from religious types loudly crying that their religious rights were being taken away. (How, exactly, a sign promoting atheism translated into a subjugation of their religious rights was never actually articulated by any of the letter writers.)
So, irony all around. You, Linoleum, couldn't have picked a better example of how incredibly one-sided my community is on the topic of religion, and the letter writers couldn't have illustrated better how totally intolerant members of my community are of anything that they even remotely perceive of being critical of religion.
I think that's just a function of numbers -- there are more Christians in Canada than atheists, so there are more crazies to come out of the woodwork.
For comparison, I've never been stopped in the Boston area by a Jewish person asking if I've put on tefillin this morning (a Jewish ritual). I've been asked once or twice in New York City. I've probably been asked 5 times in Israel. I don't think that Jews are so much more evangelical in NY or Israel, but the odds of my running into an evangelical one goes up when I'm in a place with more Jews.
You miss the context that's provided in one of the links there
Personally I'd rather they hadn't have bothered really, but theres a slight difference between "There's probably no god now stop worrying and enjoy life" and the good old "you're all going to burn in hell" line which the atheist "evangelicals" where responding to with what looks to me to be tongue firmly in cheek (but I would say that wouldn't I?).From today's launch, two hundred of the buses will run in London, because the campaign was originally started as a positive counter-response to the Jesus Said ads running on London buses in June 2008. These ads displayed the URL of a website which stated that non-Christians "will be condemned to everlasting separation from God and then you spend all eternity in torment in hell … Jesus spoke about this as a lake of fire prepared for the devil". Our rational slogan will hopefully reassure anyone who has been scared by this kind of evangelism.
I can't prove there's no Santa Clause, Easter Bunny or Tooth Fairy either. Just because something cannot be disproven is not evidence that something exists.
Except that it's actually impossible to prove a negative such as "there is no god." That argument holds exactly as much water for the existence of god as it does for the existence of Superman or Martians or cheese that lets you fly when you eat it.
You can't just throw something out there without evidence and say "until you disprove it, it's just as valid as what you think."
"The burden of proof lies with the affirmative."
I'm not celebrating the Messiah... and to be quite honest even though Denmark is on paper a Christian nation, neither is the majority of people here.
"Yes but Yule is heathen but still religious" is the other argument.
Yes, but the notion started years and years ago when people noticed it got really dark and unpleasant, then it got brighter again. That was cause for celebration.
If they didn't have some God to hang the passing seasons on, wouldn't they have found a reason to celebrate something around that time anyway?
I bet they would, but the question can't really be answered since primitive man has always celebrated Gods.
But unless you want to seriously argue that your God (whichever you believe in) and not the laws of nature is causing the seasons ,then I'll argue that the celebration of Christmas/Yule is older than any specific God and that will probably continue even after religion (as witnessed by secular nations still celebrating the holiday with much gusto).
As I said before, I have no problem with your belief in any deity (or deities). I just have major problems when you think that you should be able to project the rules and consequences of that belief on me or society as a whole.
And then there's just being realistic. Acting like a dick about your atheism doesn't seem very productive. Sure, it's more than likely there's no God but don't expect the red badge of courage because you're willing to take the leap from "Who knows, but it doesn't seem likely" to "You dumb Christians should admit there's no God."
I've used this example before but it reminds me of the old Buddhist koan about the old monk and the young monk who find a girl, by a stream, worried about ruining her robes in the water. The old monk just picks her up and carries her across before continuing on his way. The younger one gasps and asks, "We aren't supposed to touch women much less carry one!" The old monk replies, "It's not I who am still carrying her."
So much of Atheism seems to revolve around countering religion or co-opting aspects of religious services to create alternatives with the one key difference that they don't mention God. If God really doesn't exist why not just get over it entirely and find something better to do with your time than argue about it?
Because moving on and ignoring it means Christian Creationism is taught to kids as science. Sections of society are discriminated against because god says they're evil or shouldn't be allowed to do this and codes of law based on what some bloke wrote a few thousand years ago are drafted into state legislation.If God really doesn't exist why not just get over it entirely and find something better to do with your time than argue about it?
Standard reasons for arguing on the internet aside, I see atheist fuming as a release for the pressure that builds up in my day-to-day life when, for social cohesion, I have to bite my tongue and entertain someone else's faith. When a co-worker thinks it's appropriate to to start a conversation about how God hates fags or Jews or Muslims or Christians or whatever idiocy they're flogging, that's a drag, but it's manageable, because I sort of understand where that kind of ignorance and xenophobia comes from. Worse is when it's someone with good intentions. When someone who's otherwise likeable starts talking earnestly about Christ the saviour, and whether I've made right with God, or whatever it is, what can I do?
I'm not going to patronize someone whom I otherwise respect by misrepresenting my beliefs. What had been a normal conversation becomes a study in noncommittal grunts. It also limits the topics of conversation. I don't talk about religion with the religious, because it's almost pointless. When you're discussing ethics and people use the Bible to unironically support their claims, that branch of the conversation is effectively dead. I'm not going to presume to argue with a coworker's interpretation of the Bible, but I guess this means we're stuck discussing some pretty bland stuff going forward. That said, I've found one way to salvage these conversations is to talk about the altruistic behaviour that's motivated by religion. If I'm talking to a devout Filipino Catholic who volunteers at a hospice, then we can have an interesting conversation about him watching people die, vs. talking past each other about esoteric doctrine.
Nellie: Now political resistance to superstitionism is one thing, and I've contributed quite a few threads and posts right here in P&R about that topic, but spending effort to battle something in the abstract just never made much sense to me. For all the people saying that believing in God is as silly as believing in the Tooth Fairy, I don't see many of them organizing into groups to resist Tooth Fairy indoctrination or whatever.
I perceive two distinct types of atheist. The type you're contrasting with agnostics above is the type that joins atheist rights groups, refuses to say the Pledge of Allegiance because of "under God," etc.
Another type --- still an atheist, not an agnostic --- instead reasons, "If I have to admit that the existence of God is possible, then I have to give equal weight to every other unlikely thing I can't disprove, including the Tooth Fairy, UFOs, that the Simpsons is real, that the world was created yesterday by Hacksaw Jim Duggan and all our memories are false, et cetera, and that's a waste of time."
Also, it's fun to post things like this:
If you find yourself getting angry and having to suppress your anger frequently just because someone mentions their faith in front of you, you've got bigger problems. Learn to cope with the fact that everyone has one or two topics they are idiots about and don't realize they are idiots about. Whether it's religion or finance or personal relationships or politics, accept that dealing with people being idiots is just a part of life and move on.
This argument is aggressively stupid. People on the internet will argue until the end of time in support of propositions such as: the Xbox/Playstation/Wii is better than the other two; your mother is a whore; $8,000 is a reasonable price for a box that sits in front of your hi-fi and does nothing; you are a homosexual. Would you call these people evangelicals? Based on the way you're slinging that term around here, you'd have to. You're welcome to hunt down a definition of the term in the dictionary of your choosing to claim that such a use is proper, but surely you realize that doing so is disingenuous and petty.
I wouldn't say I get angry. I don't hate religious people. I know a lot of people who are smarter and more capable than me who believe in religion. But I do get frustrated when a conversation gets effectively shut down because someone stakes their faith on its outcome. No different than when a conversation gets shut down because someone stakes their pride on the outcome. That should be familiar to anyone with a bad manager.
Possibly because the Latter Day Church of Twinkle Toes isn't campaigning to have dentists outlawed despite rumours to the contrary that they've already suceeded here in the UK.For all the people saying that believing in God is as silly as believing in the Tooth Fairy, I don't see many of them organizing into groups to resist Tooth Fairy indoctrination or whatever.
Well me either to be honest. If you want to spend money on bus posters proclaiming everyone is going to burn in lakes of fire or that there probably isn't a God, go knock yourself out. When we reach a point that atheist groups are earnestly campaigning to outlaw all religion and those arguments are gaining credence then I'll be on the side of religion's right to exist while people want it to. As I'm in imminent danger of godwining my own argument, I think I'll leave it there.but spending effort to battle something in the abstract just never made much sense to me.
Last edited by Nellie; 12-10-2009 at 10:27 AM.
I think there is, to a certain extent, a belief inherent in atheism. That is the belief that what we can confirm through the scientific method and related tools is reality, and that which we cannot confirm through experiment or natural explanations either does not exist or is not valid.
This is a belief in the sense that it is one of many beliefs, and it is a belief in the sense that it requires one to accept a certain set of necessarily incomplete (see Godel) standards.
However, the difference between information gained via the scientific method and information gained via revelation is truly stunning.
That which is gained via the scientific method can be tested and retested at any place on Earth or outside it (given the same variables) and, even more importantly and impressively, at any time. If you run an experiment with the same tools and general design you should get the same answer whether you are in Brooklyn or Budapest, Kabul or Kansas City. It is the same answer regardless of the culture or social structure. And you could do the same experiment 200 years later and get the same result, again regardless of culture or social structure.
Arguments from Revelation consistently fail this test and require constant updates and indeed complete schisms have been caused based solely on culture or location during the same time period, much less in another time.
Understanding this distinction is absolutely key to understanding why science (and hence arguments for atheism) is not simply "another religion" but rather a radically different way of understanding the world around us in a way that seems to trump any previous methods.
Such a simple concept, and dispositive in this context, and yet routinely ignored. So much of our societal woes would be alleviated if we taught citizens basic things like the rules of logic, the burden of proof, basic probability and statistics, and critical thinking / analyzing sources for bias. You could do probably do a basic job of teaching these concepts with say 2 years of logical/statistics in high school. Nothing fancy like higher math, just basic reasoning and thinking in an organized fashion.
And yet, we don't, so we end up with folks on the Internet saying "You can't prove there is no god!".
Indeed! Well said.
Late elementary school, I think. There's a time and a place for appreciating people's individuality, but we've become far too obsessed with making sure everyone is entitled to their opinion on every subject, and it's just as valid as anyone else's even if it's completely uninformed or based on things they read in a book about Narnia.
I don't know what to say to this thinly veiled insult. Whatever.
I just ask that you take what I said at face value, and not start building up and projecting what you thought I was "really" implying. I meant what I said.
I didn't say "an atheist can't prove there isn't a god/s" because I believe in a god. I don't. I'm an agnostic. I'm comfortable in the reality that there are some things I just don't or even can't know. I said "an atheist can't prove there isn't a god/s" because that is a fact, just as it is a fact that a Christian can't prove that a god/s does exist.
Unless some Christian or atheist around here wants to start proving things, then I believe my statement stands as correct.
Have you really never heard the term used for anything other than Christians? Maybe it's just around here, but it's used for things that aren't religious in context too, like technology evangelists or bad mortgage evangelists. Basically anyone that loudly and repeatedly trumpets whatever they're selling to be The Thing and All Other Things Are Wrong/Bad.
As I've said before, 'Proselytizing Atheist' also works.
When you get right down to it, everything requires faith. Day to day interactions in society require faith. I'm sure there will be people who will be all WE WOULD BE BETTER OFF WITHOUT GOVERNMENT TOO! but when I hand over a dollar to the clerk at a store, I have faith that piece of paper is worth something, and so does he. I've never seen the gold that's backing it, but I believe it's there. A government official can tell me 'It is there, I have seen it' but how is that better or worse than a priest that sees Jesus in his grilled cheese when they both have a vested interest in it being so?
Ultimately I think it all comes down to faith. Faith that something out there is keeping you protected, helping, making sure things go right. I don't have this when it comes to religion, but I don't begrudge the people that do. Unless they're getting obnoxious about it. I think that sort of faith has inspired a lot of people to do a lot of things they wouldn't have otherwise--both good and bad. I like to think the good outweighs the bad because it's the bad that will be the biggest and most talked about, much like the most vocal religious/non-religious people are going to be the ones that are the most annoying/offensive. But the good is still there.
One is drawn from a book written 2,000 years ago, and word-of-mouth legends from even before that. The other is drawn from 2,000 years of observational data, human ingenuity, collective knowledge, and experience.
And you're implying that they both hold water, where it's not even nearly equivalent.You believe this because you are an atheist. A Christian would make the exact opposite statement.
Well said. The irony is that Christians publicize that they are under attack while at the same time trying to slip this deceptive shit into society.
You know who else was under attack when they tried to maintain the status quo? Racists. I'm sure calling someone a racist in the 50s and 60s was mean, but now the accuser has a foothold. The same thing will play out with atheists and Christians.
Good advice.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote