The few atheists I do know happen to be very passionate about advancing human understanding, which they feel is impeded by religious thought. They have been immersed in this religious society for so long, it is a relief for them to finally be open about their beliefs and can be overly passionate about their point of view.
Why do so many theists think they can back up their faith?
- Thread starter Bungalow Bob
- Start date
- Status
Those radical atheists. Always been so strident.
Why can't they be more like those nice Westboro types. At least they get out and interact with the community.
It's not. It's even worse online.
I've invited them to my funeral.
Ya because I clearly said only atheists can be jackasses.
So basically they put their effort into something that's as big a waste of time as going to church. I don't get how they can be passionate about... nothing. That's like me being passionate about not watching football.
New concepts must be discussed, and sometimes the discussion is not civil. Each religion had to replace a prior one, often with violent consequences. I have yet to lay a finger on a religious person for any reason. I have known people beaten by parents for questioning faith (though not claiming there is no god, but entertaining conversion to another faith).
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
I'm tentatively with rCIZZLE on this one, at least the internet part.
Many faiths have killed many people over millennia. Modern atheists are annoying on the internet. Oh the humanity.
Lionheart1337
Member
I can't help but wonder just how many atheists you know. Do you need more than two hands to count them? There are people like this on both sides. I ask you though: Which side is more numerous? The internet is not a very reliable reflection. I've never once had an atheist stop me on the street to tell me about god, or constantly knock on my door to hand me a religious pamphlet. I think your perception is quite skewed to be perfectly honest. Just who is David and who is Goliath here?
Atheism =/= Apatheism
You underestimate just how broad the spectrum is. Devotion is not limited to theists.
I agree it's not a thinking man's argument because one side is thinking.
Monocle
Member
Yeah, ever since my taser broke I've made sure to carry handcuffs and a bottle of Gatorade at all times.
This is consistent with my experience.
I'm just hasslin' because you've stated some anecdotal evidence about atheists versus theists again, and how arguing about this stuff only seems to matter to atheists.
I mean, ok, so it's anecdotal evidence - but it's also a specious line of reasoning that we've often seen on GAF (and likely similarly across the internet) about how 'passionate' we are, or how strident, or unfriendly, or all sorts of crap that really amounts of ad-hominen attacks of varying strengths.
And yeah, it's not an impressive or particularly valid line of argumentation... not particularly interesting conversation either (it doesn't elucidate much other than a misguided perception).
There are plenty of places on the internet that are far less critical towards religion, and much more ready to celebrate it.
But a forum like NeoGAF is kinda the ideal demographic for atheists - 18-40 something year old guys, quite nerdy, relatively high degree of education as a population. Plus with a moderation policy that heavily favours rational, open discussion - I don't know why else you'd expect anything else from a place like this if you do a little thinking about it.
cutmeamango
Banned
Unfortunately the irish were terribly unaware of scientific methods til the 20th century.
That's why I find it beautiful. They wrote a god that 'isn't there' (anymore). Just like the trees that fall.
------
And about militant atheists x religious extremists
It's all about placement. On a forum, where it says off-topic discussion, I'd say both are extremely irritating and non-productive at all.
And real life, while extremists commit atrocities that don't even pertain to their religion, I've seen intolerant jerks offending and harassing harmless people that were talking about their own business, but luckily my friend punched one in the mouth. While not on the same level, it is stupid beyond no tomorrow.
If that bottle is full of Lime or Cherry Rain, you might be confused with some kind of good Samaritan of re-hydration and delicious flavor.
Oh Reginald, you so crazy.
its better than bad, its good
Bungalow Bob
Banned
Bungalow Bob said:
This agrees with what happens in nature. Even a substance far denser than a human, such as gold, will levitate very frequently if it's just 1 atom. But as the piece of gold gets bigger and bigger, it levitates less and less frequently, all in accordance with the laws of mechanics. Moreover, the probability of larger pieces levitating can be calculated.
I don't have a problem with ignoramuses in general, but the smug ones are annoying.
Radioactive Xenon is used in certain types of scientific imaging. The radioactive atom has a small chance to decay. How small a chance? To get a guaranteed decay from any given xenon isotope would take an observation on the timescale larger than the entire existence of the universe (over 13 billion years). There is an infinitesimally small chance it can happen with a second of viewing, or within a day, or within a thousand years, but to reliably see it happen, you have to anticipate at least 13 billion years.
But why use such a radioactive element? Because if you have a kilogram of the stuff, you are guaranteed to see decay on a regular basis.
But why use such a radioactive element? Because if you have a kilogram of the stuff, you are guaranteed to see decay on a regular basis.
I believe you were referring to the creation of the Universe, but even if you extending that to the creation of life, in neither case was there intelligence from the outset.
While there are still many unanswered questions regarding the nature of consciousness, we know that intelligence emerged via the process of evolution as an emergent property.
So, if there was no intelligence being created at the time of either the Big Bang or the initial spark of life, need the first mover necessarily be intelligent?
I went to a liberal school in a major city. Trust me, we had plenty of atheists and they weren't too shy about their stance. I know there are people on both sides, never said there wasn't. Internet atheists just seem to be particularly annoying. The amount of religious nutcases isn't very big... I saw the same idiot with big posters on campus and some guys trying to hand out bibles but that's about it. Haven't been running into a lot of people aggressively trying to recruit me. Like it or not, the internet is a pretty important part of social interaction so it's worth bringing into the discussion.
Where do you live that you get harassed by religious people? Before I spent time in the city I grew up in a very conservative small town with more places to pray than eat and I never met anybody who is as aggressive as the atheists I've seen in action. My perception is based off of living in the US in 2012... religion isn't nearly as important to the average believer as it was in the past.
Yes, most political people are obsessed with the other side's actions more than their own.
Quick question. Imagine a phenomenal presidential candidate for either major political party. Amazing integrity, spotless record, intelligent, bright, articulate, funny. Let's further imagine that they start being taken seriously and is doing well in early polling. What are their chances when in a television interview they announce they are atheist and do not believe in a god?
If they were such a perfect candidate then they'd probably do better than you'd expect. Of course they'd lose some votes but I'm sure a worse-candidate-but-atheist would get the atheist swing votes. Why would they say they were atheist in the first place?
You are aware that in some states you are not allowed to run for office if you are an atheist? Or that today, during the Republican primaries all 4 candidates said they planned on repealing Roe v Wade? And that Romney character keeps purposely mis-quoting the Declaration of Independence to push the idea of mono-theism? In fact he said "...you can count on me as president of the United States to pursue a policy that protects the life of the unborn, whether here in this country or overseas."
Atheists will leave theists alone the second theists stop their war on secular politics.
Why does any candidate ever mention god or their religious beliefs? Let's imagine it was a question about whether they were a man or woman of "faith"
Like when some interviewers assume Morgan Freeman is a man of god
Morgan Freeman corrects interviewers
I would disagree with you and say that in today's climate, all chances of winning a presidential election would evaporate immediately.
Edit: Just so you don't need to watch, he corrects them (to their stunned disbelief) and tells them he is not a man of god.
Then why not gather all of the other outspoken atheists to focus their efforts to changing that? "PROVE GOD EXISTS" won't further your cause. Hasn't every republican said they're going to repeal that if they had the chance? It's just one of those prerequisite positions you have to have if you want to be president... a lot like the war on drugs. If it counts for anything, Ron Paul said he wants it to be decided at the state level which he says about almost everything. I'm not even convinced that abortion is solely a religious topic. It's understandable that people can get pretty sensitive over killing what they believe to be a future child.
So what exactly are atheists accomplishing with these type of posts?
Lol I'm not going to play this game any longer. I think they would do well as long as they weren't putting down theists in typical internet-asshole-atheist behavior. I'm sure you believe they wouldn't have a chance in hell even if everybody else was a Palin clone.
I already saw that video and it's not that shocking. Someone is assumed to be something they're not. It happens.
Since you edited, we will have to agree to disagree. The chances of someone in today's political climate of having any sort of chance at the presidency after announcing atheistic beliefs is nearly 0. If you feel that the political climate has changed so much that religion or lack thereof is not entirely that important, then you and I see this country in a very different light.
One that's often mean spirited and a clone of the SAME post we've seen since forums became popular.
Sadly, just like you guys will never convert christians, I can see me pointing out how annoying and unproductive to your cause these posts are won't stop them.
I edited my previous post, but will respond non the less.
What cause? Who am I trying to convert? I'm simply stating my opinion and discussing these matters in a thread on an internet forum.
TheExplodingHead
Banned
The only question I ever have for theists is: Is God subject to physical laws?
Which should be the first important question of the most basic examination of any rational discussion on deities, in my opinion. Obviously very few theists want to answer that question directly.
Which should be the first important question of the most basic examination of any rational discussion on deities, in my opinion. Obviously very few theists want to answer that question directly.
Really? I'd imagine most would flatly respond with a "no".
I've had people tell me that no, god is not subject to physical laws, he created them as he saw fit and stem from him/it. Some will claim he is neither complex (from what I gather from a previous post) or a life-form despite creating us in his image.
I'm not subject to physical laws, so I can't see (female) God being so either
It should be followed up with: Is God subject to logic?
cause you and your holy book apparently are not...:lol
rCIZZLE: You are mistaken if you don't think the culture that bans things like gay marriage, atheists in office, abortion, etc is deeply influenced by Christianity and Abrahamic religions.
As to me trying to convert you - trust me I am not. I don't believe I can convert anyone, I can only hope that at some point they will decide to give logic and rationality a chance, and that if they do not that they are able to insulate their belief from the lives of others that do not share that belief. Unfortunately I don't think many have this ability, and the current state of the World and US can likely be attributed to that.
TheExplodingHead
Banned
Reason why that should be the first question is that, if God is not subject to physical laws...then by definition God does not exist. If Gods are not subject to physical laws, then the concept of Gods is synonymous with non-existence. So once we've positioned the debate out of the arena of "definition", then can focus on the other aspects. But I think it's important in any theism debate to get the definition out of the way to start with.
God is a hypothetical construct created with the specific purpose of explaining any scenario. What else can be said about an infinitely complex life-form capable of doing anything. Simply put, god exists, but does not follow physical laws and is impossible to ever verify. Logical contradictions bounce off as easily bullets bounce off Superman's chest.
Edit: Let's look a common argument
"Log, don't you think it is possible that something above you, like a god could have been responsible for the universe"
My answer to this is:
"Well, you mean a being capable of anything? If such a hypothetical being existed, then shouldn't anything be possible?"
If converting to help change the negative things you feel religion has introduced isn't the goal then what is? What discussion can there be about not believing about something?
This, and other threads like it, are baits for theists just so you can flex your intellectual muscles in their face. Deny all you want, that's what these threads are now and always have been.
Again, these posts don't change that culture at all. They just annoy everybody except others just like them.
Said earlier but I'll repeat: I'm an atheist.
The goal is a discussion on a message board. I do not consider myself an intellectual or above anyone else as far as I can tell in terms of intelligence. What harm does any of this talk do?
Correct. There is a history of polls showing that Americans view atheists less favorably than just about any kind of demographic out there. There's no chance an admitted atheist becomes President of this country in its present state.
More than a few people on this forum have turned to atheism because of discussions here, myself included. I don't think it's an atheists goal to 'convert' Christians, but such discussions can make a religious person question their faith. You also have to consider there are a lot of lurkers and non-registered members that read GAF.
TheExplodingHead
Banned
Absolutely, I mean the case has been clinched on evidence concerning Gods for centuries. But to be honest any Atheist who focuses on just these rational arguments is just going to be banging their head against a wall forever. For thousands of years these rational arguments haven't worked.
The belief in God has nothing to do with any examination of the evidence, it's rooted in indoctrination and social ostracism...which is the reason people continue to peddle this stuff long after they really don't believe it anymore. Very few theists truly and completely cling to their holy books or even upbringing, but social ostracism has a lot more to do with keeping that paradigm alive.
We had a thread not too long ago that showed most americans polled had less trust in atheists than they do rapists. I think an openly atheist candidate will do swell in the polls.
rCIZZLE, your opinion on how well an openly gay candidate would do in a presidential race? If you think they are destined to do poorly, would it have anything to do with people's religious dogmas? Or do you feel America has progressed enough that this would not be an issue?
Each generation seems to produce fewer and fewer religious ideologues in the U.S. and Europe and the fastest growing belief system appears to be atheism if you believe some polls. Its only a matter of time. Logic will not convert the masses, time will.
Yeah, but probably not a skeptic.
Oh I never said this has anything to do with abiogenesis. I just find it hilarious that you claim to bring "critical thinking" and tell people to "read more scientific papers" while you're using scientific terms or concepts in a very, very inaccurate way.
I have yet to meet a religious person who believes in a god and a divine origin to the beginning of reality who also believes that they cease to exist upon death. They have no problem with accepting the concept of non-existence before birth, but non-existence after death is inconceivable. The existence of supernatural forces is crucial to perpetuate their wishes to continue existing forever, since the alternative is terrifying and unacceptable despite all observable evidence implying just such a scenario. I have asked faithful people if they did believe in a god, but ceased to exist upon death and the general response I usually get is "Of course not, what would the point of religion be?"
God was constructed as a belief system to justify eternal existence. God must be real to a great number of people.
God was constructed as a belief system to justify eternal existence. God must be real to a great number of people.
*1 people like this
TheExplodingHead
Banned
This is a large part of why I somewhat disagree with time phasing out "faith". Self preservation is a hellva drug! Accepting the reality of limited time and existence in my view is a multi-generational project, and we have undermine the social ostracism and support that feeds this stuff. But it's also a fear of doubt and we essentially need to have our own consistent moral message that is philosophically valid and build people up as human beings. So the intellectual case is easy, but I would argue the emotional case is very hard.
Lionheart1337
Member
You're really hinging on anecdotes here. My bottom line is that we acknowledge both sides have people like this, and theists outnumber atheists by quite a bit. That results in domination of the majority. Atheists aren't quite the big bad guy you seem to think. Your perception is skewed. And again the internet in this case isn't the best general reflection of reality. I agree that it's important and will likely only become more important to human interaction. I just don't think that at the moment, it's as vital as you make it out to be. There's still plenty of people out there for example, that don't get their information entirely from the internet, if at all from the internet.
You act like religious fervor is some anomaly. Where do YOU live? It's quite common I assure you, and historically it has had and continues to have a much greater impact on the world, though thankfully, it seems to be decreasing.
What are religious people going to be aggressive towards when they're surrounded by each other? I`m guessing people from your town were mostly in the same sect?
You don't remember the mosque controversy in NYC? Religious zeal had nothing to do with that? Abortion rallies? Funeral picketing? This?
I`m not saying the average believer is like that. It just seems that you refuse to see the gargantuan levels of enthusiasm among the religious, instead aiming your crosshairs at atheists, as if you and I are the problem and we just need to stop bullying the faithful.
I mean really, which is more inherently enthusiastic, the guy that believes in no god or the one that believes there is a god who not only created the universe but actively participates in it and is coincidentally on his side.
Our oppression of the faithful on the internet is intolerable, it is they who must have a monopoly on oppressive intolerance.
- Status