Support NeoGAF

[Log4Girlz]

I didn't say we have any evidence, but as a philosophical concept the idea of a first mover is not on the same level as some random "belief" like sea monkeys surfing on the rings of Saturn.

We can make up an infinite number of beliefs like leprechauns in the moon, or flying spaghetti monsters riding around in celestial teacups, or keebler elves riding invisible unicorns. To try and put these random things on the same level as the idea of a first cause is not only intellectually dishonest, it's downright banal.

I would disagree. You are putting one mythological entity on a higher pedestal than another without good reason. Just because one mythological entity is attributed to creating reality, does not make it somehow more likely to be grounded in said reality.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot

"In his books A Devil's Chaplain (2003) and The God Delusion (2006), Richard Dawkins used the teapot as an analogy of an argument against what he termed "agnostic conciliation", a policy of intellectual appeasement that allows for philosophical domains that concern exclusively religious matters.[4] Science has no way of establishing the existence or non-existence of a god. Therefore, according to the agnostic conciliator, because it is a matter of individual taste, belief and disbelief in a supreme being are deserving of equal respect and attention. Dawkins presents the teapot as a reductio ad absurdum of this position: if agnosticism demands giving equal respect to the belief and disbelief in a supreme being, then it must also give equal respect to belief in an orbiting teapot, since the existence of an orbiting teapot is just as plausible scientifically as the existence of a supreme being"

If you disagree, then well we will need to agree to disagree.

 

[Log4Girlz]

This is not true. It assumes things all the time and waits for the time for them to be proven. The things that are impossible to prove (How life got here), they come up with a notion that fits with what they know & what they think they know. It's not even patient about it.

Are you being scientific & analytic in regards to what you know faith is? Faith is not based on assumption. In fact, I'm not even sure how that even fits.

Not all assumptions are based on faith.

 

[Lionheart1337]

No. They don't believe in the existence of god but they don't claim to know with certainty. Agnostic atheism is not a position of cognitive dissonance and in actuality is the most pragmatic and rational position to start from.

Which position is the most rational to end with then?

 

[KHarvey16]

Not because I say so, but because philosophers and physicists and cosmologists and laymen throughout the ages have wrestled with the idea of a causeless universe vs. a first mover.

You really think Aristotle and Einstein dismissed the possibility of a first mover out of hand? That they considered the concept as no different from that of a fucking leprechaun chilling in the moon? You have to be completely daft or impossibly blinded by your own prejudices to believe such a thing.

You might want to review the list of logical fallacies posted a few pages back. Perhaps you will recognize one.

Physicists and cosmologists do not "wrestle" with the supernatural in the context of their scientific endeavors. Einstein did not sit down to write relativity and decide "god did it" wouldn't be making an appearance in his paper.

Without appealing to authority or tradition, explain to me why a first mover is more worthy of consideration than are leprechauns in the moon.

 

[The Technomancer]

Which position is the most rational to end with then?

The answer to that question is continuously evolving as we develop ever more accurate models of reality.

 

[Log4Girlz]

I swear, if I ever become a rich man like Bill Gates, I'm putting a teapot into orbit between earth and mars.

 

[Lionheart1337]

The answer to that question is continuously evolving as we develop ever more accurate models of reality.

I guess I should ask instead, what is currently the best position(?), in his opinion.

If you start of as a "blank slate" agnostic atheist.

 

[Uchip]

I swear, if I ever become a rich man like Bill Gates, I'm putting a teapot into orbit between earth and mars.

im not sure you will get consent to launch your own space debris
chances are it will burn up in the atmosphere and you wont be able to prove it was ever there

 

[Log4Girlz]

im not sure you will get consent to launch your own space debris
chances are it will burn up in the atmosphere and you wont be able to prove it was ever there

If I put it in a low earth orbit, it will do so with time due to friction with the nearly non-existent atmosphere.

Additionally, if I place it in orbit around the sun, between the orbit that earth and mars takes around said body, as long as its at the right speed, it will orbit until it collides with another body...which may be a very long time.

Also, I do not believe you need any sort of special permission to put anything in particular into orbit.

 

[cutmeamango]

I swear, if I ever become a rich man like Bill Gates, I'm putting a teapot into orbit between earth and mars.

Russell will curse you from hell if you do.

 

[Log4Girlz]

Russell will curse you from hell if you do.

I'll give him a hug when I meet him there.

 

[rCIZZLE]

Most atheists I know/hear of are more obsessed with religion than theists. Not really on topic, just an observation.

 

[Zaptruder]

The answer to that question is continuously evolving as we develop ever more accurate models of reality.

I don't think we'll ever be able to eliminate the doubt of an unobservable first mover - it simply lies outside our ability to examine such things.

Through a combination of science and philosophy... we've pretty much pushed religion as far back as can be rationally pushed with argument and evidence.

The rest of it has to be done on the basis of social change... but we're trending in the right direction, so it's really only a matter of time - disastrous outcomes such as societal collapse not withholding.

 

[Uchip]

Also, I do not believe you need any sort of special permission to put anything in particular into orbit.

really? that doesn't sound right

Most atheists I know/hear of are more obsessed with religion than theists. Not really on topic, just an observation.

We might question it when there is an opportunity
they preach it without question as the laws of life, which is by definition more obsessive
and a lot of them do it daily with prayer and recital

 

[Satyamdas]

You might want to review the list of logical fallacies posted a few pages back. Perhaps you will recognize one.

Physicists and cosmologists do not "wrestle" with the supernatural in the context of their scientific endeavors. Einstein did not sit down to write relativity and decide "god did it" wouldn't be making an appearance in his paper.

I'm not saying they struggle with the concept as in trying to fight it off because it is just so obvious to them. I'm saying that they don't dismiss the idea out of hand. It is an ever-present possibility. Einstein repeatedly spoke of desiring to know the mind of god. Not god as in anthropomorphic Judeo-Christian god, but as in higher power, first mover, designer of cosmos.

I want to know how God created this world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know his thoughts. The rest are details.

(The Expanded Quotable Einstein, Princeton University Press, 2000 p.202)

Without appealing to authority or tradition, explain to me why a first mover is more worthy of consideration than are leprechauns in the moon.

Because when we rewind time to the point where the universe began, and we endeavor to understand what brought it into existence, we eventually get to the point where the question becomes, "Is the universe causeless, or did something cause it to exist? Is it eternally existing?" We have experience of causality, but when we push back far enough causality breaks down and where exactly it begins is uncertain. This is where the idea of a first mover enters the picture.

A goddamn leprechaun in the moon is something that must come far after the fact of the creation of the universe, and the fact I have to explain to you how these two things are different is a goddamn embarrassment.

Which position is the most rational to end with then?

How can I proclaim to know that? Everyone has to go with what is reasonable according to their understanding and experiences.

 

[cutmeamango]

I'll give him a hug when I meet him there.

Curious enough, the first satellite launch was in 1957 (just searched!), 5 years after his interview.
Wonder what he thought!

"Well fuck, should have said pirate dinosaurs."

 

[Log4Girlz]

really? that doesn't sound right

Just look at SpaceX. Space isn't under anyone's jurisdiction. The only laws I'm aware of is with weaponry launched into space. I think you only need to prove you can get there safely to begin with. You do not need to get any permission from any bodies to get a particular item into orbit. I could be wrong.

 

[Lionheart1337]

Most atheists I know/hear of are more obsessed with religion than theists. Not really on topic, just an observation.

And the fruition of so-called atheist obsession is what? Heated arguments?

People say the quickest way to become an atheist is to read <religious text>. I`m not surprised if atheists are perceived as more caring and dedicated to the subject than many theists. That's part of what makes an atheist. It's much easier to just follow what you have been taught from birth than to think for yourself.

 

[Log4Girlz]

I'm not saying they struggle with the concept as in trying to fight it off because it is just so obvious to them. I'm saying that they don't dismiss the idea out of hand. It is an ever-present possibility. Einstein repeatedly spoke of desiring to know the mind of god. Not god as in anthropomorphic Judeo-Christian god, but as in higher power, first mover, designer of cosmos.




Because when we rewind time to the point where the universe began, and we endeavor to understand what brought it into existence, we eventually get to the point where the question becomes, "Is the universe causeless, or did something cause it to exist? Is it eternally existing?" We have experience of causality, but when we push back far enough causality breaks down and where exactly it begins is uncertain. This is where the idea of a first mover enters the picture.

A goddamn leprechaun in the moon is something that must come far after the fact of the creation of the universe, and the fact I have to explain to you how these two things are different is a goddamn embarrassment.

So one mythological creature is superior to another because you attribute it the quality of "first mover" universe creator? How do you know this first mover was not a leprechaun, and that they appeared in lore because they are gods? Because they appeared in lore you assume they could not be real and could not be universe creators because they have not been described as such? The only difference between them is the level of respect you have for them.

An infinitely complex creature starting the universe begs the question on what caused the infinitely complex creature. Being such a complex assumption, we simply cut it away and dismiss it, much as you and I dismiss leprechauns.

 

[KHarvey16]

I'm not saying they struggle with the concept as in trying to fight it off because it is just so obvious to them. I'm saying that they don't dismiss the idea out of hand. It is an ever-present possibility. Einstein repeatedly spoke of desiring to know the mind of god. Not god as in anthropomorphic Judeo-Christian god, but as in higher power, first mover, designer of cosmos.

Because when we rewind time to the point where the universe began, and we endeavor to understand what brought it into existence, we eventually get to the point where the question becomes, "Is the universe causeless, or did something cause it to exist? Is it eternally existing?" We have experience of causality, but when we push back far enough causality breaks down and where exactly it begins. This is where the idea of a first mover enters the picture.

A goddamn leprechaun in the moon is something that must come far after the fact of the creation of the universe, and the fact I have to explain to you how these two things are different is a goddamn embarrassment.

He's being metaphorical. Again though, this entire line of reasoning is a logical fallacy. It doesn't matter what Einstein thought. His belief wouldn't endow the idea with some special properties that deflect reasoned criticism.

We rewind time to the beginning and ask what started the big bang. At no point do we arrive at a state where hypotheses lacking evidence become acceptable. What you're attempting to do, knowingly or not, is argue that because we don't know, things without evidence become more likely. The timing is irrelevant; a first mover existing or acting in the first instant of this universe affords it no special privileges over leprechauns that live in the moon today. The fact a higher power and a leprechaun share precisely the same amount of justification is uncomfortable to you.

 

[Lionheart1337]

How can I proclaim to know that? Everyone has to go with what is reasonable according to their understanding and experiences.

That's basically what I was asking. What is most reasonable to you? Where would you place yourself on the spectrum of belief and knowledge about god(s)? I was surprised to see you pimp agnostic atheism in that post, but the wording was very precise. I took you as meaning that agnostic atheism is a good starting point, but in the "end", it's not the best (most reasonable). Why not? Ignore me if you don't feel like answering.

 

[Mario]

Because when we rewind time to the point where the universe began, and we endeavor to understand what brought it into existence, we eventually get to the point where the question becomes, "Is the universe causeless, or did something cause it to exist? Is it eternally existing?" We have experience of causality, but when we push back far enough causality breaks down and where exactly it begins is uncertain. This is where the idea of a first mover enters the picture.

Is this first mover necessarily an intelligent being? That does not appear to be a requirement of your line of thinking.

 

[Log4Girlz]

"The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this.

Letter to philosopher Eric Gutkind, January 3, 1954"

This is a quote from Albert Einstein, he died in 1955. I feel the same way about religion and the word god. I do not judge people if they choose to believe in the spiritual, but I do judge the spiritual beliefs they hold.

 

[Uchip]

Einstein repeatedly spoke of desiring to know the mind of god. Not god as in anthropomorphic Judeo-Christian god, but as in higher power, first mover, designer of cosmos.

yeah, you slipped when you said designer
Einstein used god to mean the forces of nature, not a actual being

 

[Zaptruder]

That's basically what I was asking. What is most reasonable to you? Where would you place yourself on the spectrum of belief and knowledge about god(s)? I was surprised to see you pimp agnostic atheism in that post, but the wording was very precise. I took you as meaning that agnostic atheism is a good starting point, but in the "end", it's not the best (most reasonable). Why not? Ignore me if you don't feel like answering.

As far as I can recall from past interactions, Saty is a agnostic theist himself... so at some point, he's flipped, and despite his claims of agnostic atheism been the rational default position... he argues and takes positions much as you'd expect an agnostic theist would.

 

[Satyamdas]

He's being metaphorical. Again though, this entire line of reasoning is a logical fallacy. It doesn't matter what Einstein thought. His belief wouldn't endow the idea with some special properties that deflect reasoned criticism.

We rewind time to the beginning and ask what started the big bang. At no point do we arrive at a state where hypotheses lacking evidence become acceptable. What you're attempting to do, knowingly or not, is argue that because we don't know, things without evidence become more likely. The timing is irrelevant; a first mover existing or acting in the first instant of this universe affords it no special privileges over leprechauns that live in the moon today. The fact a higher power and a leprechaun share precisely the same amount of justification is uncomfortable to you.

Wrong. I haven't said god is more likely because we don't know. I'm saying the fact that we don't know, should require us to remain open to possibilities (god might have done it) rather than assume we have the answer (god definitely didn't do it).

You are the one who is uncomfortable with allowing a supernatural possibility into the equation. It doesn't bother me at all because I have no idea whether one exists or not and I am not claiming to know whether one exists or not. I'm open to the possibility whereas you are convinced you have the answer already. So how can I be threatened when I am able to still be informed on the subject? You are the one who is threatened because you desperately want your assumptions to be correct. So the result is you try to minimize the idea of a creator into a moon-housed leprechaun. It makes it easier for you to ignore the possibility that you are wrong.

 

[ThoseDeafMutes]

Religious claims call for an infinitely complex life form being responsible for everything.

Once you start encountering level 50 theologians in the wild, you'll run into "The Doctrine of Divine Simplicity", which, in a nutshell, says that God is without any parts or complexity. They would therefore disagree with your assertion that god is infinitely complex.

It's philosophical wank of the highest order of course, but what can you do?

 

[Log4Girlz]

Wrong. I haven't said god is more likely because we don't know. I'm saying the fact that we don't know, should require us to remain open to possibilities (god might have done it) rather than assume we have the answer (god definitely didn't do it).

You are the one who is uncomfortable with allowing a supernatural possibility into the equation. It doesn't bother me at all because I have no idea whether one exists or not and I am not claiming to know whether one exists or not. I'm open to the possibility whereas you are convinced you have the answer already. So how can I be threatened when I am able to still be informed on the subject? You are the one who is threatened because you desperately want your assumptions to be correct. So the result is you try to minimize the idea of a creator into a moon-housed leprechaun. It makes it easier for you to ignore the possibility that you are wrong.

We may all very well be brains in vats

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_in_a_vat

But it doesn't really enter many people's discussions of reality because it is not worthwhile discussing. Hypothetical gods with hypothetical powers is a dismissable concept like my hypothetical leprechauns.

Edit:

Once you start encountering level 50 theologians in the wild, you'll run into "The Doctrine of Divine Simplicity", which, in a nutshell, says that God is without any parts or complexity. They would therefore disagree with your assertion that god is infinitely complex.

It's philosophical wank of the highest order of course, but what can you do?

I'm going to petition for a nerfing and a reduction of the level cap.

 

[Kinitari]

Wrong. I haven't said god is more likely because we don't know. I'm saying the fact that we don't know, should require us to remain open to possibilities (god might have done it) rather than assume we have the answer (god definitely didn't do it).

You are the one who is uncomfortable with allowing a supernatural possibility into the equation. It doesn't bother me at all because I have no idea whether one exists or not and I am not claiming to know whether one exists or not. I'm open to the possibility whereas you are convinced you have the answer already. So how can I be threatened when I am able to still be informed on the subject? You are the one who is threatened because you desperately want your assumptions to be correct. So the result is you try to minimize the idea of a creator into a moon-housed leprechaun. It makes it easier for you to ignore the possibility that you are wrong.

So not knowing with certainty means you should be "open" to any possibility.

... You're smart enough to know why that is ridiculous, right?

 

[KHarvey16]

Wrong. I haven't said god is more likely because we don't know. I'm saying the fact that we don't know, should require us to remain open to possibilities (god might have done it) rather than assume we have the answer (god definitely didn't do it).

I have no problem with this stance.

You are the one who is uncomfortable with allowing a supernatural possibility into the equation.

What? I believe a higher power and leprechauns in the moon are both possibilities. They don't, however, possess any evidence.

It doesn't bother me at all because I have no idea whether one exists or not and I am not claiming to know whether one exists or not. I'm open to the possibility whereas you are convinced you have the answer already. So how can I be threatened when I am able to still be informed on the subject? You are the one who is threatened because you desperately want your assumptions to be correct. So the result is you try to minimize the idea of a creator into a moon-housed leprechaun. It makes it easier for you to ignore the possibility that you are wrong.

I don't know who you're arguing with. My position is that leprechauns in the moon and a higher power both completely lack evidence and, therefore, are equal in their ability to explain things or enter into any discussion about science. You keep telling me how embarrassing it is to consider this because of...something. Something about philosophy or Einstein or whatever. It's silly.

 

[Uchip]

We may all very well be brains in vats

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_in_a_vat

But it doesn't really enter many people's discussions of reality because it is not worthwhile discussing. Hypothetical gods with hypothetical powers is a dismissable concept like my hypothetical leprechauns.

Edit:



I'm going to petition for a nerfing and a reduction of the level cap.

Faith was most definitely directed at organized religion when this thread was created
you know
because there was clear direction for discussion

 

[The Technomancer]

Wrong. I haven't said god is more likely because we don't know. I'm saying the fact that we don't know, should require us to remain open to possibilities (god might have done it) rather than assume we have the answer (god definitely didn't do it).

You are the one who is uncomfortable with allowing a supernatural possibility into the equation. It doesn't bother me at all because I have no idea whether one exists or not and I am not claiming to know whether one exists or not. I'm open to the possibility whereas you are convinced you have the answer already. So how can I be threatened when I am able to still be informed on the subject? You are the one who is threatened because you desperately want your assumptions to be correct. So the result is you try to minimize the idea of a creator into a moon-housed leprechaun. It makes it easier for you to ignore the possibility that you are wrong.

Dude what? Which of us who are engaging in extended dialogue with you have said anything like "God definitely didn't do it"? I'm pretty sure most of us have actually explicitly said "God is possible but not particularly plausible with our current understanding"

 

[Satyamdas]

That's basically what I was asking. What is most reasonable to you? Where would you place yourself on the spectrum of belief and knowledge about god(s)? I was surprised to see you pimp agnostic atheism in that post, but the wording was very precise. I took you as meaning that agnostic atheism is a good starting point, but in the "end", it's not the best (most reasonable). Why not? Ignore me if you don't feel like answering.

I'm in no position to tell anyone what the best "end" position is nor what is most reasonable. That is for everyone to decide for themselves. All I'm saying is that to me agnostic atheism makes the most sense to start from, and I can see the reasoning from both sides after that. My beliefs are irrelevant.

Is this first mover necessarily an intelligent being? That does not appear to be a requirement of your line of thinking.

How would I know? It would seem likely that an entity which created intelligent beings is itself intelligent, but that would be pure speculation on my part.

 

[Log4Girlz]

I'm in no position to tell anyone what the best "end" position is nor what is most reasonable. That is for everyone to decide for themselves. All I'm saying is that to me agnostic atheism makes the most sense to start from, and I can see the reasoning from both sides after that. My beliefs are irrelevant.


How would I know? It would seem likely that an entity which created intelligent beings is itself intelligent, but that would be pure speculation on my part.

When you say an entity created intelligent beings, are you saying that the origination of intelligent beings came from said entity, which itself is an intelligent being? Wouldn't that imply it created itself?

 

[AZ Greg]

 

[cutmeamango]

A deity (using abrahamic god for example) and a leprenchaum are not the same assertion to science at all.
One supposedly isn't identified by eletromagnetic radiation (or at the least visible), the other is.
One has no physical boundaries and may stretch across the entirety of the universe, the other is 3feet tall and is generally found near rainbows.
Even if we consider leprenchauns elusiveness and as being close to or extinct, given ther physical nature, they are closer to producing evidences.

But both have the same fate.
As a being (no book!), God will most likely remain an unproven assertion, since there is nowhere to even begin searching. And leprenchauns have enough to be disproven.

If a tree falls in the forest, but there is no one to hear, does it make a sound? and all that.

 

[Log4Girlz]

That would make a cool exercise machine!

 

[Kinitari]

The last person who fought so hard to push in the splinter of possibility of there being some supernatural being out there, I remember, was doing it because they held to some spiritual beliefs - and it seemed as though they felt those beliefs were valid for as long as there was a possibility of there being a God - but it seems like the only domain left where a god can reside are places we can't really look at - makes you think, doesn't it?

 

[ThoseDeafMutes]

Even if we consider leprenchauns elusiveness and as being close to or extinct, given ther physical nature, they are closer to producing evidences.

Leprechauns are magical creatures, and can hide themselves at will. If you believe in an interventionist god, then his presence should be detectable when he intervenes, and the scientific method could be used to demonstrate his existence if he reliably answered prayers.

 

[The Technomancer]

A deity (using abrahamic god for example) and a leprenchaum are not the same assertion to science at all.
One supposedly isn't identified by eletromagnetic radiation (or at the least visible), the other is.
One has no physical boundaries and may stretch across the entirety of the universe, the other is 3feet tall and is generally found near rainbows.
Even if we consider leprenchauns elusiveness and as being close to or extinct, given ther physical nature, they are closer to producing evidences.

But both have the same fate.
As a being (no book!), God will most likely remain an unproven assertion, since there is nowhere to even begin searching. And leprenchauns have enough to be disproven.

If a tree falls in the forest, but there is no one to hear, does it make a sound? and all that.

You're pretty much correct with all of these points, which is why I usually like something that we really don't know about (my example was a derelict alien spaceship crashed on one of Saturn's moons)

EDIT: Actually...I agree with ThoseDeafMutes

 

[Log4Girlz]

The last person who fought so hard to push in the splinter of possibility of there being some supernatural being out there, I remember, was doing it because they held to some spiritual beliefs - and it seemed as though they felt those beliefs were valid for as long as there was a possibility of there being a God - but it seems like the only domain left where a god can reside are places we can't really look at - makes you think, doesn't it?

The god of the gaps. It exists in crevices everywhere.

 

[Uchip]

A deity (using abrahamic god for example) and a leprenchaum are not the same assertion to science at all.
One supposedly isn't identified by eletromagnetic radiation (or at the least visible), the other is.
One has no physical boundaries and may stretch across the entirety of the universe, the other is 3feet tall and is generally found near rainbows.
Even if we consider leprenchauns elusiveness and as being close to or extinct, given ther physical nature, they are closer to producing evidences.

But both have the same fate.
As a being (no book!), God will most likely remain an unproven assertion, since there is nowhere to even begin searching. And leprenchauns have enough to be disproven.

If a tree falls in the forest, but there is no one to hear, does it make a sound? and all that.

leprichauns are magic, bro
theyre not identifiable in any spectrum
actually, im pretty sure God has been painted more times than leprichauns

 

[Log4Girlz]

A deity (using abrahamic god for example) and a leprenchaum are not the same assertion to science at all.
One supposedly isn't identified by eletromagnetic radiation (or at the least visible), the other is.
One has no physical boundaries and may stretch across the entirety of the universe, the other is 3feet tall and is generally found near rainbows.
Even if we consider leprenchauns elusiveness and as being close to or extinct, given ther physical nature, they are closer to producing evidences.

But both have the same fate.
As a being (no book!), God will most likely remain an unproven assertion, since there is nowhere to even begin searching. And leprenchauns have enough to be disproven.

If a tree falls in the forest, but there is no one to hear, does it make a sound? and all that.

There is no evidence whatsoever of a god, just like there is no evidence whatsoever of leprechauns. There is also no evidence that there is no god, just like there is no evidence that there are no leprechauns.

 

[rCIZZLE]

We might question it when there is an opportunity
they preach it without question as the laws of life, which is by definition more obsessive
and a lot of them do it daily with prayer and recital

A lot of atheists I know will borderline interrogate someone if they hint that they're religious. Not everybody preaches it... in fact it's pretty uncommon. They might make comments referring to their religion but it doesn't mean they're trying to convert anybody and everybody that'll listen.

I see MANY more forum topics about religion started by atheists so, from my perspective, they seem to be more obsessive. I guess I'm technically part of "they" since I don't believe but I don't really identify as part of some atheism movement that seeks to destroy religion.

And the fruition of so-called atheist obsession is what? Heated arguments?

People say the quickest way to become an atheist is to read <religious text>. I`m not surprised if atheists are perceived as more caring and dedicated to the subject than many theists. That's part of what makes an atheist. It's much easier to just follow what you have been taught from birth than to think for yourself.

Why would they be dedicated? It's a non-belief... I thought that's what makes them an atheist. Most outspoken atheists are boring anyways. I can't tell you how many threads on various forums I've seen that was basically just a challenge for religious people to prove their god exists. I'd hardly say that's a thinking mans argument.

 

[rdrr gnr]

There is no evidence whatsoever of a god, just like there is no evidence whatsoever of leprechauns. There is also no evidence that there is no god, just like there is no evidence that there are no leprechauns.

In a removed and purely logical sense, yes.

 

[Log4Girlz]

I can't tell you how many threads on various forums I've seen that was basically just a challenge for religious people to prove their god exists.

I for one enjoy the consequences of said religious people defending their beliefs as being equivalent to scientific claims.

 

[The Technomancer]

A lot of atheists I know will borderline interrogate someone if they hint that they're religious. Not everybody preaches it... in fact it's pretty uncommon. They might make comments referring to their religion but it doesn't mean they're trying to convert anybody and everybody that'll listen.

I see MANY more forum topics about religion started by atheists so, from my perspective, they seem to be more obsessive. I guess I'm technically part of "they" since I don't believe but I don't really identify as part of some atheism movement that seeks to destroy religion.

Why would they be dedicated? It's a non-belief... I thought that's what makes them an atheist. Most outspoken atheists are boring anyways. I can't tell you how many threads on various forums I've seen that was basically just a challenge for religious people to prove their god exists. I'd hardly say that's a thinking mans argument.

Well that's because there are a lot of assholes out there who happen to be atheist (one reason why I'm not one to quickly break out the "Christianity is responsible for all evil behavior in history" argument)

 

[cutmeamango]

Leprechauns are magical creatures, and can hide themselves at will. If you believe in an interventionist god, then his presence should be detectable when he intervenes, and the scientific method could be used to demonstrate his existence if he reliably answered prayers.

Well, if they fled to a different dimension, it changes everything. Yet they protected their gold pots at the end of rainbows and were seen enough times to be described congruently through a period of time.
And the abrahamic writters managed to cover this, because god doesn't intervene anymore. Any chance the scientists had died 2000 years ago.

You're pretty much correct with all of these points, which is why I usually like something that we really don't know about (my example was a derelict alien spaceship crashed on one of Saturn's moons)

EDIT: Actually...I agree with ThoseDeafMutes

Yeah, I find it interesting too!

leprichauns are magic, bro
theyre not identifiable in any spectrum

Well my good friend, I'll tell you that not only they have been seen, but captured.

 

[Uchip]

Well my good friend, I'll tell you that not only they have been seen, but captured.

we're going to need to see some evidence!

A lot of atheists I know will borderline interrogate someone if they hint that they're religious.

that sounds like a gross exaggeration

 

[ThoseDeafMutes]

And the abrahamic writters managed to cover this, because god doesn't intervene anymore. Any chance the scientists had died 2000 years ago.

That Jesus, always bailing out when you need him most. Has no problem wowing the classical-era peasantry, but as soon as he gets one whiff of a lab coat he's back to the throne room partying with his disciples.